City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	Minutes of Grand Forks City Council Finance/ Development Standby Committee Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 4:00 p.m.________ The Finance/Development Standby Committee met on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in Room A101 in City Hall with Committee Chair Christensen presiding. Present at roll call were Christensen, Glassheim, Hamerlik. Others present included: Mark Walker, Greg Hoover, John Schmisek, Melanie Parvey-Biby, John Staley, Bill Palmiscno, Brad Gengler, Rick Duquette, Mayor Brown, Al Grasser, Pete Haga, Todd Feland plus several citizens. 1. Matter of Riverside Pool. Chairman Christensen asked if there was a report from the Park District re. report they received from the consultant. Mr. Staley reported there was a consultant who addressed this issue, Hunsaker & Associates, when they did a community-wide assessment for aquatics in 2000, they didn't do rehabilitation analysis of Riverside at that time but looked at an overall aquatics assessment of the community, and in 2002-2003 the Park Board assembled a committee including city and park district staff to look at a rehabilitation approach to Riverside and potential of operating it once the 51/52 ft. levee was lowered, at that time it was determined and advised by some of the city council and park board people not to hire a professional consultant but to get figures from staff and local firms. He stated colored page of the handout is alternative of Riverside pool area and was completed in 2003, with mega playground, along with summary of costs of current pool expenses, remodeled option and playground splash park - if remodel pool look at taking filters out of basement and putting up on ground to make it easier to deal with flood impacts, and also suggested heating the water to attract swimmers, and ended up with capital cost of $357,000 and playground/splash park option of $400,000. He stated they looked at attendance records of 8,000, 12,000 and 10,000 and est. yearly losses at current pool of $40,000, remodel option higher because of heating of water of $50,000, and playground splash park of approx. $6,000, and costs of floods with cleanup costs, and est. tax subsidy of $49,518.40 for current pool; $59,950.40 at remodeled option and $6,150 for playground splash park. He noted the handout provided showing attendance records and income expense for Elks and for Riverside. That in September, 2003 show different activities in the park area (baseball, softball, special needs, etc.) and show cost per participant; that Riverside pool is going to get flooded and cleaning, etc. is problem and that in the planning of the greenway in 1998/1999 they did make a request to the Corps of Engineers to keep protection of that pool up to the 51/52 ft. area and they refused that request. The Riverside pool was not open in 2004 or 2005. Mr. Staley stated cleaning the pool does not include replacing partitions on upper floor, and extra cost of replacing those partitions would be additional cost - that to get open would cost approx. $80,000 - but not this summer. Christensen asked to preserve assets until decision is made, what would be recommendation. Mr. Staley stated they have contacted the health department for advise. He also noted that the City owns the property but deed has not been transferred. Hamerlik asked what are City's obligations in the contractual agreement, that he favors pool, that now into June and pool closed for another year - elated to see numbers at University Park and activity there. Christensen stated that the agreement says in consideration of covenants between Park District and the City we were to reimburse the Park District for the acquisition of the land described, the relocation of park district facilities and activities in an amount not to exceed $830,000, and will assume that the City of Grand Forks gets Riverside Park. Mr. Staley stated that he asked their legal counsel on it and his view is that the signing of that agreement in June, 2000 the City did take ownership of the land at that point but the conveyance hasn't taken place because of surveying and title work. Mr. Walker stated that the platting is now underway and will be carving that area into lots but the deed for the property hasn't been transferred to the City of Grand Forks, still in Park District's name. Glassheim stated the agreement re. compensation states that said compensation shall be in the form of reimbursement for the cost of construction of the splash pool upon filing of appropriate receipts, statements and explanations as may be required by the City, and the point of it was to get replacement swimming for the people of the northend as well as other things because the City was also building road, etc. and the park district is doing other things in Riverside area, but that money is unclear to them, it is clear that compensation shall be in form of reimbursement for the splash pool - that a splash pool was built and the City paid for that. Mr. Walker stated he has sheets showing what we paid and what is remaining, $594,000. Glassheim stated he wasn't sure of $830,000 was for purchase of all lands or for the reimbursement of water facility which the Park District has lost to the flood and the greenway. Christensen sated that they also have relocation of park district facilities and activities, what land was this agreement designed to convey and that there is more land than just the Riverside Park, and asked what park district faculties and activities means. Mr. Staley stated at the time of the flood they were managing the Riverside Park, Kannowski's Park, Central Park, Lincoln golf course and Sunbeam - that they manage the new Lincoln Drive area, the central park area was moved into greenway although site they would maintain (Kannowski), and the $830,000 was the number they developed at that point that was the value of Riverside Pool (that they found that by Associated Pools of Bismarck and asked them the value of that pool (building, pool) to build a new pool and at that time $1.1 million and with assets and build another facility in another location and that is where the $830,000 ) came from, and was to supply facility north of DeMers. Christensen stated that we own the structure, land - asked what cost to clean pool area until City decides what we are going to do with an asset located on land we own within Riverside area, that the $830,000 was just for the pool; that we will get that land some day with that pool on it and makes good sense to clean up (mold, etc.) Hamerlik stated that out of this meeting he would recommend that we go to council with recommendation that part of the $830,000 be used to clean it up so that we don't have health issues, however, should need quotes for cleanup. It was noted that some of the electrical work has been done, disconnected electrical, etc. It was noted that the City can spend up to $30,000 without council approval, and if cost were more than that could come back to council. Hamerlik recommended that staff take care of the Riverside Park cleanup to preserve and protect our assets; Glassheim seconded the motion. Motion carried. Glassheim stated that from their history of discussions, that the Board of Pak Commissioners is not interested in maintaining or operating Riverside Park pool, they have done their numbers, etc. and is his understanding of these findings. Mr. Staley stated that the Board is interested in operating the pool. Glassheim stated that either the council decides it wants to fund continued operation of Riverside pool because of historic item and of its importance to a third of the town, or it doesn't. He stated in the next 2-3 or 4 months come to some decision, either the council is willing to do that or not, and in order to come to that decision, the council has to hire its consultant under staff and present to council committee or council, several options (fix pool, cost, operations, rebuild pool or make smaller, put in heat and cost - operating cost) and perhaps even look at cost of new smaller heated pool that is protected by the dike - outside Riverside Park but in Riverside area but on dry side of the dike. - present to council for their decision - and once that decision is made, everything else can proceed - or if decision is made that council does not want to fund it, want splash park or something else, many possibilities if there is no pool - but have to make decision before we can design and start with anything for the Riverside area - now everything in limbo. Hamerlik stated we should move forward quickly but would need to know if the Park District would be willing to run it and if that is a no answer -- Christensen stated that some individuals have priced what it would cost to make this pool operable and survive floods - or get that info. as quick as can. Arch Simonson stated that whether the pool is there or not, the bathhouse is going to remain there and the bathhouse is used for other purposes - whether splash park, etc. and every time the bathhouse is flooded, it is going to have to be cleaned up and there is an on-going liability or expense for the City and unfair that so much expense is being for the pool when the bathhouse is going to remain - and not that much to clean, now restroom facility, etc. Mr. Staley stated that that building would be converted to something like a lodge, basement filled in, mechanical put in ceiling and flood-proofed and more picnic shelter and cost of cleanup would be very minimal. Christensen stated issue is what is it going to cost to fix it up and keep the pool open, that it is our asset and once we decide to do that, then address these other issues - Mr. Walker stated they did discuss at Flood Protection Comm. and were suggesting $10 or $20,000 for consultant. Glassheim moved that we authorize not to exceed $20,000 of the $830,000 fund for a study. Mr. Walker stated there are uncommitted betterment funds or could pull out of the $830,000 - that there is a little over $1 million in uncommitted greenway betterments as well as approx. $1 million in uncommitted flood protection funds. Christensen and Duquette stated not taking it out of the $830,000. Mr. Walker stated they could request proposals and at time bring proposal in and if less than $30,000 wouldn't need to bring to council or take to council and get authorization for use of betterment monies. Al Grasser suggested to forward this to the Flood Protection Committee and then to Comm. of Whole and to council. Mr. Duquette suggested that administration put out RFP's and bring funding issues back to council. No motion needed. Mr. Duquette stated they would get RFP on operations and maintenance of pool and get back to city council in September or October, flood-proofed, redesign with movable partitions; and to get cleanup now. Mr. Simonson asked that they not confuse costs for operation of bathhouse with cleanup of the pool. Christensen stated that will be part of their study. Mr. Staley stated his District has appropriated annual operation dollars for Riverside Park, mow it, cleanup after floods, redo diamonds, etc. and that those dollars have been preserved and that the council would offer them the contract as in Lincoln Drive Park and ready to do that; and that they put in the Capital & Betterment Plan this year to give the City $125,000 for adding onto this building, bathroom, warming house, as did in Lincoln Drive Park, $100,000 for that room and additional $25,000 for utilities, plus they have itemized future capital improvements, etc. and looking to create small soccer area as well as disk golf and wanted to make that clear. Christensen stated it would be good to have a letter or memo to the council on that so that they know. Mr. Staley agreed. A citizen presented concern with roadways, that they do not want extra roadways in the park because of problem they incurred prior to dike construction. It was noted that there is one way in and one way out. Mr. Walker stated proposal to remove roads on wet side of levee 2. Downtown Development (townhouse/apartments on University Avenue across from Augustana Lutheran Church and second phase of Brownstones)._________________ Greg Hoover, urban development, presented a summary of the downtown development; and they should have received e-mail with update re. this issue. In May, 2005 they asked to be authorized to proceed with letters of understanding with Schoen & Associates for Sites 1 (where currently building) and Site 3 would be half block kiddy corner from City Hall, and for authorization to do a similar letter with Dakota Crary for the property referred to as the Dakota Apts. and Site 4 which is the 500 block of University. He stated at that juncture the council on the 16th referred it back to this committee and on the 31st there was a meeting and the major points were that Jim Kobetsky from Schoen & Assoc. preferred at that time not to begin Phase II, had subsequent conversations with him and that is still his desire as he wants to have a better sense of cost of project and it may be that he wants to make sure that people that he has lined up for current one end up buying those as they have letters of intent. He stated that Mr. Christensen had asked that Dakota Crary come back with a revised plan for Site 2 as had issues with parking, etc. Following up that in June came back with specific request to do letters of understanding with Schoen on Sites 1 and 3 as had been recommended by this committee, and also asked for authorization to work with Dakota Crary to revise the University site, and after resolving legal issues perhaps changing the scope of the RFP for Site 2 with Dakota Crary on that site. They did not proceed with the letters of understanding with Schoen because that project was taken off and the letters of understanding and their office and developer didn't think it was necessary for not executing the letter of understanding with Dakota Crary either, esp. because were in deep negotiations with those folks. He stated that last week he sent out an e-mail that Dakota Crary through MetroPlains which is taking over the Dakota Apts. to receive tax credit allocation from the State which was essential to that project, but they haven’t received final allocation so will continue to work with them on the financing as maybe a shortfall there and some other issues that may come up with respect to tax abatement issue, as they were going to take a tax abatement loan and value of that would be used as collateral with the bank and bank would lend them the money and what they saved in that increment they would use to pay back the loan - value of that incremental financing is diminished and have to resolve how that might be there, still dealing with the parking issues but that seems to be on track. He stated on the 20th of June, 2005 the council approved staff working with Schoen & Assoc. on Site 1 and 3 but no official action mentioned in the minutes. On the other two recommendations he is working with Crary. He stated on October 18, 05 Keith Lund reported that Mr. Kobetsky was ready to work on Phase II after legal documents of Phase I were completed which weren't there yet and staff was also working with MetroPlains on Site 2, and some discussion of timelines and deadlines, but nothing official in committee minutes that showed any action, however, following that on November 26 Mr. Lund sent an e-mail to Dakota Crary and MetroPlains that the committee had set down several conditions regarding development of the site awarded to them and asked for final proposals by end of January, 2006 and if we didn't get those the committee would determine that the proposals had been submitted would have expired and that further options would be considered for the sites and could readvertise and then the success for proposal for Site 4 on University would have to include acquisition of the property at 523 University and there were other discussions or points as to financing on-site parking. He stated that we have Phase I of Brownstones going as Mr. Kobetsky of Schoen & Assoc, has indicated the desire to wait a little before going to Phase II, and are continuing negotiations with MetroPlains on finalizing that deal and as he indicated there are some loose ends, and Site 4 on University is left in the air and from the standpoint of Dakota Crary that they want to get this one going before tackling the other one. Christensen stated we have no commitment on Site 4, and that is an issue for the committee; that Mr. Kobetsky told him that he is ready to move forward on Phase II within two to four weeks once he gets his final numbers from Phase I done, and are waiting for him to contact Mr. Hoover and when that contact is made to e-mail council and administration. Christensen asked committee what their wish was on the University avenue site. Committee stated to get on with this, and asked who is going to buy the house across from the KC's; Hamerlik stated that they suggested that in the RFP and that whoever was going to do the building was to negotiate it rather than us. Mr. Hoover stated that if we own the property we would have to advertise for its sale and if not purchased then enter into private negotiations - it was noted that if have legal question should check with city attorney. Mr. Hoover stated he and John (Schmisek) work on the financing to find source for acquisition and will contact the owner to see about acquiring the property. Christensen stated funding source for the acquisition as there is $2 million in reserves in General Fund, couple million in 2163, money in infrastructure budget, and in enterprise funds. Mr. Schmisek stated need city attorney guidance. Christensen stated that when we get the land, will sell to developer for our cost for the house we purchased plus $1; and the people who bid on this should be first ones to contact because maybe ready to go, and if don't want to do it, buy the plans, architect could sell the plans and housing could say this is what they would like built. He stated the other issues - Phase II of the Brownstones is on our land and would like to think longer term and to think about developing that entire block and would like them to think about this - staff and administration - and think about another urban renewal project and if committed to revitalization of our downtown, and appears we are, and that is the next area we should start thinking about - and about expanding the renaissance zone and extend that zone to the north along the river, along dike, and think about a block wide strip parallel to the north of University Avenue - and get some new area for housing, some type of retail and area for parking to take into consideration. He stated he didn't know how go about urban renewal area - lot of location, dislocation, etc. Mr. Hoover stated he would research that and get report in two weeks. Glassheim stated they should be cautious about loss of low cost housing; and the history of urban renewal is not good and the history of high rises as opposed to single family dwellings is not good and less care taken of that kind of property. It was noted that they may end up with more housing and retail along 3rd Street, and if expanded across the street. Mr. Hoover stated that they would want to have that mix The meeting adjourned. Sherie Lundmark (by afontaine)