City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	Mayor and City Council Work Session January 12, 3005 – 5:00 p.m. A101 Council Members Present: Bob Brooks, Doug Christensen, Gerald Hamerlik (joined meeting in progress), Dorette Kerian, Curt Kreun. Council Members Absent: Hal Gershman, Eliot Glassheim. Others Present: Daryl Hovland, Al Morken, John Packett, Denis Potter, Mel Carsen, Pete O’Neill, Al Grasser, Todd Feland, Brad Gengler, Roxanne Fiala. Mayor Brown called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 1) Speeding up the Platting Process. (Dennis Potter) Brad Gengler distributed a handout to the committee. He stated that the purpose of the discussion was to look at ways to speed up the platting process. He continued that the handout proposes accomplishing this by separating the platting process from the amendment of the Street and Highway Plan ordinance. He explained that this would mean the plat would proceed on a one-month cycle, requiring only one public hearing at Council and the proposal would be to amend the Street and Highway Plan ordinance twice a year, once in June and once in December, as listed in bullet item Number 11. He added that they believe this process will satisfy both city and state law, but will have final review by City attorney to ensure no other code changes are needed to put the shorter process in place. Gengler explained that there are currently two types of subdivisions described in the Land Development Code; Major – which has typically followed a two-month approval cycle; and Minor – which has typically been referred to as the fast track and is done in a one-month approval cycle. He stated that with the new process the plat will need to be submitted in the required form at least 28 days prior to the Commission meeting and that this deadline will be adhered to fairly strictly to make the process work. There are some other administrative changes for staff, and those are detailed in the handout. Gengler stated that the proposed process will reduce the approval cycle for major subdivisions to match that used for minor subdivisions. Kreun inquired whether that was enough time for staff and the commission to fully review the submitted plats. Gengler stated that this should be adequate time if the plat is submitted according to our standards. He added that if there is a question at either the commission of Council level either body could choose to table it. Christensen stated that by approving this change we put in place a process where the professionals have the opportunity to meet the prescribed requirements and decrease the time for getting approval of their development, and consequently puts the burden of having a timely approval on the submitter, not staff. Gengler stated that he has been in contact with many of the areas firms that work up the plats for the developers and they are aware and none have expressed displeasure with the current system, and that they do realize that this means they will need to have all their work done up front before the plat is submitted. Kerian asked if there were anything that could potentially be missed with the new faster process or information that would be available differently due to the delay in the amendment to the Street and Highway Plan ordinance. Gengler replied that most people refer to the plat when looking at new developments and that the only major change would be the recording process at the county would be done semi-annually instead of monthly. Christensen added that the proposed process is the same that is used in the other larger cities throughout North Dakota and seems to work for them. Al Grasser, City Engineer, concurred that most professionals refer to the plat for necessary information rather than looking at the Street and Highway Plan ordinance. Dennis Potter, City Planner, stated that the proposal will be on the agenda for the January 24, 2005 Committee of the Whole Meeting and that information would also be going out to the full Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. 2. Flood Protection Project Funding. Grasser distributed to the group a handout detailing the current cost to date and projected to completion cost. He stated that he has included both Grand Forks and East Grand Forks share, broken down between federal and local share. He pointed out that in the second section the state share that becomes fixed at $52 million at the end of 2006 is the number that they are hoping to get raised up to $56 million and that this may come in two different phases. He continued that the latest estimate of the total federal need is $203 million, and the chart details the amount that we have actually received. He noted that the savings and slippage number has dropped down to about $3.9 million this year, about 11%, and it was about 22% last year. He noted that there is a remaining federal need of $33.5 million and that we will need to budget more than that to net that amount for the project, probably about $40 million. He stated that the bottom section shows the percentage of completion of the various phases of the project and that they are currently pushing hard to get phase IV bid this spring. He stated that to accomplish that they need to wrap up some land acquisition, in particular the Dacotah Hotel and the getting the Corps to identify how much advanced funding will be required in order to bid the project this spring and that he has set a challenge date of bidding in May. Christensen asked how much we were anticipating needing to have available at the local level to be able to bid in May 2005. Grasser stated that $10 million on the state side to reach the state side and there will be about $7-7.5 million by the end of the biennium. Christensen inquired whether there was any bond funds left from the previous bond sales for this project. Grasser stated that he believes this money is mostly spent and that Schmisek is planning to do some short term borrowing to provide funding until the next special assessment and delay that last major assessment until 2006 or later when the project is substantially complete and noted that the final bonds will probably be sold based on an estimate of final cost. Kreun stated that he believes that there are only a couple of million left and we can’t advance more than the city share, as we don’t get reimbursed for advance funding of the state or federal share. Grasser stated that the budgeted amount for this year is $34 million gross, but with deduction of the savings and slippage amount, there will be a net of about $30 million available for the entire project expenses, both Grand Forks and East Grand Forks. Christensen inquired if there is an estimate available of how much more we will need to cover our expenses so that the work for 2005 that is planned can be completed and to cover 2006 until the remaining funding is available. He continued that his concern is that if we do not have enough to cover the costs that contractors may increase their bids to cover their costs for floating the bill until the funding is available. Grasser stated that if bids are let in May 2005, because of paperwork and contracting that needs to happen, contracts probably won’t be signed until July and then with the federal year starting in October, there should not be much float time and that at the time of the bid letting the contractor will know that there is $2 million available to access until October and that the contractor will then make up his schedule to fit the fund availability of funds. Christensen inquired what would happen if all the funding that is planned for does not come through. Grasser stated that the anticipated plan, as we will probably see this spring if the 2005 anticipated cut backs occur. He continued that the Corp. sends a letter to the contractors advising them that they have a certain amount of funding available for their work on the project for the remainder of the year and that they have two options, one being to stop construction once that amount is reached, and two, that they can continue and will be paid once funding is available. Grasser stated that getting our project bid and having contractors owed money can give our projects a higher sense of urgency to receive funding at the project from the federal level, over them giving funding to a proposed project that has not been started yet. Kreun stated that this is what happened with the 3rd Street project. Grasser stated that another reason for getting a start on this work is that a lot of it is winter work and if we do not get a start on it, then we through the project out another two years and if you try to push it quicker whether the contractor can feasibly get the work done in time. Grasser stated that we are covered at the local level for 2005 and depending on exactly which part of the project is completed the amount we need to cover will vary. He added that this is mainly provided for your information only at this time. Kreun added that it also gives us the opportunity to help press for the funding at the federal and state level to ensure that the needed funding is given. 3. Continued Discussion of Storm Sewer Charges. Grasser distributed a handout detailing the effect of the proposed changes in the policy. Grasser stated that some of the pages in the handout had been provided at the last meeting and he was redistributing for the groups reference in discussion today. He continued that included are calculations of the revenue that would be generated should the proposed exemption deletions occur. The numbers presented are all annual revenue numbers. The group discussed the various exemptions, reviewed a listing of what affected properties would be and the potential revenue from each if each of the exemptions were eliminated. Grasser pointed out that some actually affect a relatively small number of properties, due to changes in the Kerian inquired what the total projected annual costs for the greenway are. Todd Feland, Public Works Director, stated that the projected funding needed will be $8-900,000 annually. Feland continued by distributing a handout to the group that detailed the proposed rates for the stormwater utility for the next five years. He continued that the rates listed were not calculated taking into account any revenue from the elimination of the exemptions, but were planned increases for the fund. He added that on page 2 of the handout there is a proposed list of runoff rate changes that they are looking at for the stormwater fund. He continued that there is also a table that shows the proposed rate changes and amount of cash spenddown that would take place if the projection holds. He stated that this would lead to having cash available to cover necessary capital needs at the end of the five years, and would lead to a rate almost double by the end of the five year forecasting time. He stated that this could potentially provide cash, which at the Council’s direction, could be used to fund rehab projects that have typically been special assessed in the past. Feland stated that this type of use has not been included in the study in the past. Christensen inquired what projected rates would be needed to ensure that we had enough to fund the $750,000 in costs left over to fund after the exemption revenue was considered. Feland stated that the rates shown on the bottom table of page 2 of 2 in his handout. The top line in this table is already in the current rate plan. Feland stated that for them to provide the proposed new rates guidance is needed from Council. He stated that they will need to know which of these revenue streams the Council would like any revenue from eliminated exemptions to go to. Then, he continued that they will also need to know which drainage coefficient should be used for each of the eliminated exemption properties. Christensen said to include the square footage in the appropriate category and apply the correct coefficient for that category. Brooks stated that he feels that flood protection may be the most appropriate, since any exemption that is being eliminated is due to drainage changes from the construction of the project. Feland stated that this basically leads to a 15% lower rate increase and can explain due to new annexation and reassessment of properties, with one more area that we can get fees and revenue from, and as such the rates will not need to increase as much as previously planned. Feland stated that this would all be a part of the 2006 budget process that starts this spring. Kerian stated that given the funding problem and that it has been raised it should also be a separate discussion on how and why we are funding this. Feland stated that in regards to the elimination of the pond exemption, he does feel there may be some resistance from property owners, especially those that have recently constructed ponds to receive a reduced rate. Christensen stated that perhaps the Council needs to look at the exemptions and decide if the amount of revenue generated from the elimination of the exemption. Grasser reiterated the opinion that he had voiced at a prior meeting that these property owners may also feel that if they no longer get the exemption that the City should then take over maintenance of the ponds. Feland stated that staff needs a clear direction as to which exemptions we are going to eliminate and in the eliminated exemptions, which coefficient that should be assigned to them, and then staff can proceed with actual calculations. The group discussed the Red River exemption. Grasser stated that these are properties that are mainly located on Shady Ridge and are on the wet side of the levee. He stated that these will mainly have front yards that drain into a ditch and that the only real obligation to the City may be to make sure that the ditch or any culverts are cleaned so the flow goes through to the river. He added that these do not have any flood protection at all, as they are on the wet side of the levee. Kerian stated that in the past it had been stated that some of the cash in this fund would be used to fund any repayment that may be necessary to FEMA once that issue is resolved and inquired whether that would be possible if the cash is being spent down to keep rate increases down. Feland stated that if the money were used to pay any FEMA repayment it would not be available for use to lessen rate hikes or to fund capital items. Feland continued that he believes there has also been some talk about potentially selling a bond to cover a FEMA repayment if one is needed. The group stated that perhaps this could also be paid out over a timeline directly to FEMA so that we would not need all cash up front. Kreun inquired why some appear to have different pond rates that others. Grasser stated that there are a lot of variables in this exemption and that some do not get full credit for the exemption, but rather are given a predeveloped lot rate. The group discussed the pros and cons of keeping this exemption. (Hamerlik and Christensen leave meeting.) Other. Kreun asked whether anyone wanted information on Fargo work. Kreun stated that in next couple of years will need some software commitments and that further on there will be some firmer commitments needed, as they will determine how we build out new water plant. Grasser stated that East Grand Forks will be having a presentation on some similar items soon. Mayor Brown adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sherie Lundmark Admin Spec Sr.