okay we’re going to pull that good afternoon ladies gentlemen welcome to the community of the whole meeting for Wednesday May 2nd I would ask you to all silence your cellphone’s as we begin and we have 24 items listed on the agenda today I have been asked by others to pull items 10 11 17 19 21 22 and 24 and what that means is that those items will be discussed individually it’s likely that the rest of the items will be passed on a consent motion with the recommendations that were accompanying them from staff so if anybody’s in the audience and is interested in if you’re here to individually discuss items other than the ones that I’ve pulled namely 10 11 17 19 21 22 and 24 please signal me somehow and we will pull your item so that we can discuss it individually okay seeing no one there emotion from member of the remaining items alright move Olson for consent second buy straight any discussion seeing on call the roll yes Sigma yes straight yes will ski yes Barney yes Jan sir yes that will bring us then to the first item that was pulled which is item number ten it’s a proposal to add two additional school resource officers as their emotion food approval second moved by Olson seconded by sip ma discussion alderman Olson I was just like a little more information I know if there’s someone that can report on it if there’s someone from the school district chief Olson chairman John sir an older man Olson I don’t see anyone from the school district here so I guess I can answer any questions do you have anything to report on related to this item I don’t have anything beyond what’s in the memo certification or I guess I have maybe a question if I may which or do you know which schools these two officers would be focused on or as I order they move from school schooler it was under my understanding was gonna be the two middle schools to middle schools okay okay and if I remember correctly the the costs associated based on the split with the school district would be the equivalent of a quarter of normal officers cost times 2 so 1/2 of a

officer cost to get two people chairman janitor that’s right so we have enough budget savings in the police salaries and benefits this year from our recruiting and retention issues so we have enough budget savings that we would be able to hire officers to backfill for the SRO owes without their having to add any additional money to our budget so once the s are told or the SRO is were deployed to the schools then we would start invoicing the school district for 75% of the costs the annual costs okay that makes sense and then additionally I guess as you stated that it brought up another thought I had which was so the officers that would be assigned to the school resource activity would be more experienced officers and then the the new recruits would be back filling their position you know would be added to the patrol force or whatever part of that is that correct Chairman Joe so that is correct that we wouldn’t put a brand new officer immediately into an SRO position so we would be taking an officer that had established some experience that we would put into that position in the past we have used a senior officer which is an officer that has at least four years of experience we may have to adjust that down a little bit just based on the the number of senior officers that we currently have we might need to take somebody that had less experience than that but certainly we wouldn’t put a new officer in that position okay and then I guess then given the challenges that you alluded to with regard to recruiting what’s your confidence level that that will actually be able to get this done chairman Jasser I we would attempt to recruit and train but but regardless as long as we had that number added to our staffing level so currently we have 81 officers authorized strength as long as we’re going up to 83 as an authorized strength we would we would go ahead with deploying the the senior officers or the yes Cyril regardless of whether the backfill and we would do our best to backfill as best we could okay thanks for clarifying that any other questions or Auvergne will ski I yeah chief from curious what what is our present situational strength I mean are we are we at 77 78 I mean I’m just curious what were sitting so chairman gentleman are Wolski the last report I ran about a week ago we were setting that 90 percent effective strength we have six officers that we’ve that will be starting in about two weeks time and then we have an officer on light duty so once we it’s a six month away from the time we hire them until they’re effective okay so so I expect we’re gonna hang between 90 85 and 90 percent effective for the next six months okay see you manager do you have a comment Thank You mr. president I just want to make a couple of remarks and maybe I’ll do that after I asked the police chief based on some conversations you know I had to also answer or help address a few concerns that we talked about is this a contracted position with the school district so we would have a contract for these SROs that we would have to provide a certain level of servicing to the schools is that correct German Chancellor and city manager Barry it’s under an MoU so not a contract we’re not obligated to fulfill we could we could terminate the MOU that I think within 30 days okay and the reason I bring that up is because you all know this is going to be a very difficult budget year for us and as we look to add to two FTEs although we’re only responsible for paying the equivalent of half of that if we end up in a situation where we have to look at a reduction in force in order to balance the budget because we’ve been given pretty strict marching orders that you know we need to keep property taxes and other increases down significantly we may need to consider that as we as we move forward and I’m not suggesting I don’t support this I have four children in the school system and three in the middle in the in the middle school system or two in the middle school system so I’m absolutely supportive of this but it does have a budget impact and it will be something that maybe has to be addressed during the budget process this year mr. mayor I want to clarify mr. Berry’s statement because I think he misspoke it’s going to be and excuse me half of one

full-time position for two people so it’s actually 25 percent of each position that 50 percent of one position right okay thank you Mary sorry about that okay thank for the question mr Haldeman samaya actually for somebody who had just come in and sat down so I’ll wait and unless somebody else has a question for the chief Alderman straight I think chairman Jones for chief these are just in the middle school these resource officers are just in the middle school I’m a lot mr. Vollmer confirmed that okay for me if I could mr. chairman gesture I just want to add certainly and I did put it in my memo but essentially an IND goes along with what the city manager’s comments are from my perspective I kind of see three different options that the council could entertain and one is to approve it as is today two would be to wait until the budget process plays out and make that decision later or third would be the option of just declining the the offer but what I don’t want to see is any reduction and my staff and still having to maintain these two new positions because it would take away from our staffing on the street if I was in that position which is a higher priority so that I’ll just leave those comments thank you okay we appreciate that mr Vollmer do you have any input on their comments on this item you know I do members of the council first of all my name is Mark Palmer I’m superintendent my in public school district number one minded air force base number 160 as you know we have been following school safety and security procedures throughout the nation despite the the most up-to-date safety and security we put in our buildings we still run the risk of what we are seeing around the nation the school resource officer program is an important program for a variety reasons number one is we have a licensed police officer in our building we have two SROs right now that are shared between each high school building in a middle school building in town this would secure full-time SROs than our two existing positions and the two additional positions in town that would secure then an SRO in each middle school and high school okay and I do want to reiterate the Honorable mayor’s point that yeah we’re looking at 25 percent per position that would be paid and those would essentially be the hours of pay and such that would fall into that summer category and time frame I realize budgets are tight our budget is tight too but a lot of good things happen with these s arose first of all kids build relationships and it helps us to entertain this notion that our police are are there to help and they’re part of our community and they they are support also in past years and those you may know I was principal of Magic City campus for nine years and while the cursor is moving here that’s really bizarre and watching this cursor who I’m sorry about that distracted for a little bit shiny I saw something shiny Thank You mr. mayor you owed me that one but you know when I was principal of Magic City campus we constantly had you know fender benders in the parking lot which resulted in a response from minded PD to come in and site or do accident reports s are always take care of that we do have times where we have to make referrals on students because of behavior issues or whatever the case is before that was a minor PD Street officer taking time away from the street to come into the school and now that is done by the SRO so there’s a lot of advantages to this we see great reports coming from students and parents on the notion idea that if they think something is wrong or something is amiss they’re talking to another adult in the building and it’s a it’s an adult that they trust so it’s an incredible program you know we’re willing to be to do this pick up 75% of the cost if there are over times and things like that during the school year those are picked up by us as well we’re willing to sit and talk about options on how to do this but this is something that we really value I stand for any questions that any of you may have but again I think that of everything I have seen happen in our community in relationships between the school and the city this is one of the

strongest connections we have because it is making a difference for our kids and is making our schools safer places so I stand for any questions you may have okay think straight I think German Chancellor dr. Romer forgive me cuz I don’t have any kids in the school system but it is do we still have Memorial at the airbase yes we do part of the plan and making this work is that we would have a we would have an SRO assigned to Memorial as well however that’s not mine at PD right that would be Ward County Sheriff so and just for the record it doesn’t make a lot of sense for people when we talk about why would we have a deputy on mine at Air Force Base Federal Regulations say that it can’t be military personnel to do that the buildings on the base are owned by minor public schools which means that they are essentially the responsibility of Ward County great thank you sir okay okay all right thank you sir Thank You mr. mayor I just wanted to end with a comment that these are interesting times we live in now and the thought that we would reach a point where this would be needed is unfortunate but necessary and I think that the opportunity to have my nuts finest in the schools at that age like dr. vomer said to establish relationships builds good neighborhoods good relationships and can potentially excuse me potentially be a deterrent to going down the wrong way and I think this is a great program and it also goes with the fact that in Minot we do things as a community I don’t look at the boundaries of jurisdiction we don’t look at the boundaries of of the different types of governance that we have we work together hand-in-hand and I think this is a really good example of it and I think it’s really needed and I hope we all support it thank you all Olson there’s quite a few times that people will mention their careers or their their jobs up here and so I will put on my educator hat for just a minute and say that I do think it’s vital to have SRO in our schools for the students and for the staff safety it’s it’s vital and so as an educator I think that we should certainly support this but I think all of us up here have the responsibility of also ensuring security for our city and so as long as it won’t impact the number of officers I will certainly support it but I think we need to be cognizant of that decision today going forward into the budget syriza’s as the city manager mentioned okay dr. Bowman I was getting the signal there so yeah again thank you for the opportunity but one of the things that when we first did the SRO program and I’ve been in mind it for 16 years and fought for years to get the SRO program back in the day when there was grant money to pay for this and you know there you know with previous Chief of Police we weren’t able to make headway because the belief was we need officers on the street and that’s an opinion and I respect that we have always had the agreement when we talked with chief Olson and thank you to chief Olson for getting this started in our community if they need to be pulled because of a crisis they’re pulled for a crisis you know I mean that that is one thing I think that has been a reciprocal agreement with us in the standing agreement that that would be what the situation would be if there is someplace else they need to be you know we work together on this but it’s about safety and security for all of us thank you Thank You mr. president dr. Vollmer absolutely I really applaud the idea of of crossing the jurisdictional lines here to to take a look at some very important issues just as this long range has the discussion taken a look at even farther down the chain of Education into the earlier grades and just if you have any kind of crystal ball of any potential discussions of further looking at the program deeper councilman said my members council I will say this we do have several of our schools now that have been working with a minor PD and the adopt a cop program and that has worked very very well for many of our elementary schools however that is the majority of the time that is by my understanding mine at PD who volunteered time on days off and things like that to be involved in in supporting those

schools wonderful program where will we go eventually with this you know my basic assumption on this is that we need to break down barriers between the police and our community and in schools where we see this and even in schools with elementary programs you know it is a wonderful thing because kids learn that there is a trust that can be had between the police department I and the citizenry so will we go to full-blown SROs and every school no well we maybe look at additional a sorrows that would be a discussion that we would with a minor PD and with this group because it is a huge budget impact on us to 75% of the cost of this is being paid for you know through school district funds and through minded air force base funds to make this happen because we do have minded Air Force Base students educated in our community so what direction would it go would be discussion of everybody and we realize this is that this is a joint venture you know lion’s share of the time is money public schools a lion’s share of the bill is minded public schools but still you’re on a tight budget cycle we’re in a tight budget cycle but we believe that we put safety first of kits and this is a good thing for our kids thanks sir thank you okay any further discussion seeing none call the roll Olsen yes yes straight yes Walski yes Barney yes Johnson yes motion carried that brings us to item number 11 the clean water srf and drinking water srf is there a motion to approve move I sip my second second by a straight discussion Alderman Sigma thank you mr. president after going through the extensive attachments and paperwork that are associated with this I was hoping maybe mr. Jonassen or or maybe even Lance or a finance director could really nutshell this down here because it is it’s it’s a monster public works director Jonassen mr. chairman alderman Sigma in a nutshell basically these are a couple of srf applications that Finance has worked with us and we’ve applied for to fund part of it’s for the flood protection project some of the utility portion of it which is you know water sewer storm sewer relocation the other one is for improvements out at our aeration ponds to the lagoons our waste water piping upgrades that we’re doing srf for the state has the state revolving on loan which offers two percent interest rate on loans through them for financing up to 40 years so it it’s saving us mister Lakefield can give you the exact numbers but probably one and a half percent interest on these loans so it’s it’s very beneficial for funding for these projects just essentially it’s just a buy down on our current current loans not necessarily new spending mr chairman alderman sit man no this would be new loans for projects that are going on zillions it’s a new loan with through the state instead of bonding for it okay thank you mister Lakefield you don’t tell us how good a deal we’re getting on this mr. president members of the council it is it is very good deal unfortunately only portions of these projects are covered as eligible expenses and I do agree there are a lot of attachments but we wanted to have all the information in front of you because part of this is you have to prove the loan agreements and the bond resolutions that come with it so and those were added as attachments the estimated cost of traditional bond funding for these types of projects is approximately three point five eight percent it’s a two percent rate with srf funding so over the 20-year life of these bonds it would save us just over 3.8 million dollars in the interest costs so everything else being equal that’s three point eight million dollars that we’ll be able to to utilize for other projects and as we start to tackle this flood control project any cost savings that we can get along the way are vitally important to us and part of the srf funding for the hydraulic improvements we had earmarked some

additional funding that entire project was eligible for these costs so we reserve that borrowing capacity for the flood control or those types of things to take full advantage of this and that’s why in one of the applications where the dollar amount changed as well Oldman Walski president John Stehr thanks mr. Lakefield mr Jonassen I I appreciate the hard work that went into this I as I look at the the logistics of trying to split out the the sewer costs from the larger flood protection costs and all the utilities inside of that I’m glad I didn’t have that job but I’m also glad that you guys were able to to do that and and deliver these savings because the 3.8 million dollars is gonna be very important thank you okay famously you know a million here a million there and pretty soon you’re talking real money so nice nice work any further discussion see you now call the roll sit mom yes straight yes Walski yes Bernie yes Jan sir yes yes motion carried we’re now on item number 17 the u.s. – and verdict expressway micro surfacing cost participation and maintenance agreement project their motion move to approve moved by straight second seconded by sip ma will say discussion Alderman’s great Thank You chairman Jones sir I pulled this and I guess I have to ask a question just kind of advance of the fact that might not be here next month so mr. Meyer it doesn’t necessarily pertain to this section of Burdick but I have to ask you about our other Burdick project because you and I had a conversation the other day and I had a neighborhood meeting late last week that you and I had talked about and the neighborhood is kind of antsy to know about lane striping on Burdick outside of our neighborhood and what’s happening with that you would kind of mentioned to me that we have some issues that we have to address and do we have a timeline of when we’re gonna be striping that we can kind of share with residents there aldermen Street members of the council I do have an approximate timeline starting the week of the 15th the killer’s concrete crews will be back in town and there’s some panel replacements that they have to do they have to fill in some areas of stamped and colored concrete between the curve and the sidewalk and some other things once that work is done then they have to bring in a separate crew and they have to grind the entire roadway surface the surface is to smooth that didn’t meet any the specifications so the grinding the entire roadway then come back and they might have to do some touch-up joint sealing then they’ll put down the permanent striping so it’s probably I would say a good three four weeks out okay okay old rules key um that’s to smooth the the wrote the entire Road the entire thing did I mean I so President Johnson excuse me but the the construction engineers that we are to do this is would this be one of their responsibilities to make sure that the entire road gets built to the proper specifications mr. president alderman Wolski correct however the contractor is ultimately responsible for building the road to specs you don’t do the tests on those surfaces until after the concrete’s all completed that’s a DoD requirement so what we’re not testing those sections to make sure as they as they go along on the early ones that you’re doing this right and go ahead and finish the rest of it I I guess there I just look at that and I go we finished the whole thing and we didn’t build it to specs and I now we have to go back and grind and wait and obviously wish we would’ve caught that one earlier I guess okay straight no thanks Lance I I didn’t call you up here to hammer on that aspect of this but uh it’s frustrating and it’s when this comes up again because I’m sure the neighborhood folks are gonna reach out to all of you um these are the projects that give the city a black eye and it frustrates me to beat the band because I was not I was against this project at the beginning not for all of these reasons but the traffic is flying down that area currently and there are no lanes anywhere and so people are all over the place and now we’re moving into ball season kids are crossing for the zoo yeah I appreciate that Lance it’s not your fault but this is an issue with the contractor that we just talked about

last month so city manager Barry it’s on your radar I know it has to get corrected correctly and as quickly as possible because I think it’s a safety problem so thanks Lance president III would echo that – Lance my frustration isn’t it you there’s there’s some they’re just some process here things that I kind of shake my head at is the new guy up here so okay thank you you’re welcome all right any further discussion call roll straight yes bullski yes Barney yes Jan sir yes Olsen yes sit mom yes motion carried item 19 engineering service for the Minot Swift project thirty-one 35.2 A to E I’m sorry second move by Olson seconded by Sigma discussion I’m not sure Wallace Pollard nowasky President Johnson I pulled this and I I got confused on the agenda it was actually a question on item 18 but I thought Dan can answer related to this down the it’s my understanding this is some of the connecting points between the dead loops and storms who are out falls and it would that be a fair characterization of the previous items work item 18 which was the Swift project what are we doing so I we passed this on consent agenda but it’s a swift work related to swift work so this is the RFQ for the swift work and we have to prove this with work on item 18 so it’s all Swift related okay what’s the question the question is related to the the outfalls and the connections between the the dead loops is that to an extent some of the work we’re talking about here mr. chairman alderman Wolski the engineering services for all the future Swift work going forward Houston is doing the prior work also and that that does cover all of the deficiencies you know the East bulk of whether it’s you know we’re looking at the pipes into the dead loops the show what kind of shape they’re in making repairs to them getting them up to the core requirements trying to increase the flow get better flow into these dead loops correcting all of the other storm lines that go through the levee penetrations and out fall into the river along with the additional there’s some bank areas that were sloughing that need to be repaired riprap repairs all of the deficiencies yeah down and you got right to the point that I was trying to get to is with these repairs are we gonna be able to get back a little bit of our original intent in the operation of the dead loops and trying to trying to get a little more water through those things on a regular basis mr. chairman alderman Walski we’re trying to the problem is a lot of the issues with the the dead loops is the way they were originally constructed the water comes out of the dead loop and then it goes down under a concrete structure excuse me and then up as an energy to piss dissipater why I don’t know because there isn’t high enough flow but that’s how the core did it we’re trying to I guess address it as much as we can without I guess spending an excessive amount of money on it getting stuff back to its original working order but we don’t fix the fossa in the original design yep okay we’re trying to address them if we can if there’s some work in that area that we can make improvements to increase the water flow through there but you know basically the concentration is you know if it’s minor work you know I guess by minor ten $20,000 worth of work to replace the pipe I wouldn’t feel comfortable coming to you and saying we should spend two hundred thousand dollars and replace the whole structure sure thank you and President Johnson thank you for indulging that diverging path you can only learn any other discussion on this motion seeing none call the roll yes yes straight yes Wolski yes Barney yes Jan sir yes that brings us to item number 20 which is an informational update on the maple diversion and feasibility study for the mouths River enhanced flood protection plan mr Ackerman is here

good afternoon and take it away good afternoon president Chancellor members of the City Council my name is Ryan Ackerman that served as the administrator for the Souris River Joint Board here today to give you an update on what’s happening with the maple diversion and the Western tie-back that’s being contemplated as a part of the Corps of Engineers feasibility study first wanted to frame a little bit of context here the map that’s on the screens in front of you is the anticipated FEMA regulatory floodplain and of course the black lines that are on the screen now represent the phases that have been completed that or that are currently in construction so that’s the work that is currently undergoing or are on the ground and while that work is being completed and built there’s work happening within the design teams to advance the following phases on the west end of Minot phase wc1 the TRC to Vallejo levee that work is going to be kicked off within the next couple of months by the Souris River Joint Board mi4 the maple diversion that work is currently being designed as a part of the feasibility study and then phase mi 5 the rodeo Road levy how you’re actually going to get an update following this agenda item from mr Bence on the current progress related to that particular phase but basically once these phases are completed the regulatory floodplain is going to go from what you see on the screen to this so essentially those initial phases are gonna remove about 60% of the Minot residents from the regulatory floodplain and it’s also important important to point out that the levees are being designed to the flood of Records so what we experienced in 2011 so I want to talk a little bit about the maple diversion and to do this I’m going to blow this up a little bit one of the things that that we want to point out here is that the realignment of second Avenue is different than what was contemplated in the preliminary engineering report so in the PE our second Avenue passed through a closer structure and ran into the diversion only to meet up with 6th Street in the current design we have pushed the flood control features to the southeast and with that additional right of we were able to basically have ii avid and running on the outside of the levy thereby eliminating the need for a roadway closure structure which is important in the context of managing overall flood risk one of the things i want to point out as well is that the design for these improvements is about 20 percent complete so i can say with certainty that things will change okay so we are not anywhere near final with this in fact this is likely the first look that the public is going to have kind of behind the design curtain so to speak so in in that spirit we do plan to hold some public information meetings likely one or two meetings in June with the Corps of Engineers since this is their study and a part of their process that we are in partnership with them so we’ll be able to get additional public input at that time and then basically go to work to finish up the design of this particular project so as I step through this I’ve got kind of a key map that’s located in the upper right-hand portion of the screen and the circle is going to kind of indicate the area of focus so the first thing I want to talk about today is the upstream River closure structure this is in the area just northwest of the Moose Lodge basically the project starts at the east end of phase three and we are going to cross the river with a a double sheet pile structure with a series of gates on it and that is going to look something like this so the rendering that’s on the screen this would be a rendering looking at the upstream end of that gate structure basically it’s going to be about a 15-foot wide structure it’s going to tie into paths on each end that sit atop the levy and then the diversion structure itself will serve dual purpose it’ll serve as a flood control feature but also an access feature to cross the river for pedestrians and also maintenance vehicles little bit more detail on the river closure structure in terms of how it is designed vertically we have six gates proposed to be on this structure when the gates are open there will be about 5.7 feet or so of clearance between the bottom of the gate and the normal I’m gonna call it the normal water surface elevation of the river which is basically being driven by the low head dam at Oak Park so about five point seven feet so these will this will be adequate for passage of small watercraft canoes kayaks etc at the highest flows prior to the diversion being actuated which is about three thousand CFS there would be clearance of

about three point two feet so it would be tight for a kayaker to get through there but I still think it would be it would be possible there there is a possibility of optimizing this and going and going larger but we also have to balance that with the costs associated with doing so so I want to do to point that out as we march downstream and the diversion the next feature that’s going to be encountered is the weir structure that’ll be located just to the northeast of the Moose Lodge a couple of features associated with that first of all we are going to be embedding a sheet pile we’re within that structure to basically have a solid grade control and then from there the water will cascade down a rock riffle structure that’ll be at about a 10 to 1 grade and just to give you a feel for what a rock riffle looks like this is a photo from one that was constructed in Minnesota this is what it would look like under I would say a low flow condition under a high flow condition this structure would be completely submerged so you wouldn’t see it but under low flow conditions that’s what a rock riffle would look like we are talking about levees on the north side of the diversion only and one of the things that is driving that decision is that the Corps of Engineers has to justify incrementally the features so in other words levees on the north side are cost beneficial in the context of the way of the federal government looks at this levees or flood walls on the south side are not cost beneficial so basically a levee and a flood wall on the south side would benefit the building that we’re in the public library the six-year an underpass pump station potentially the amtrak depot but the costs associated with those is greater than the benefits that would be associated with those so from a federal perspective those improvements are are off the table it doesn’t mean that we can’t advance those locally using state and local dollars but the levy on the north side is going to be about a 15-foot average height and with that it’s going to be about a hundred and ten feet wide from toe to toe we’re also looking at a rail road closure structure across the Canadian Pacific Railroad line some of the drawings from the plan set around the screen there but really to give you a feel for what this is going to look like potentially here are a couple of examples and there are a couple of different ways that these can be designed the photograph and the bottom left is from an installation in Oslo Minnesota from a flood risk management perspective this would be our preference because in this particular instance you place a rubber boot around the rails and you stack aluminum stop logs it’s a fairly nimble installation however the railroads don’t really like that because then it eliminates their ability to adjust the grade on their rails and it also was a hard point a stress point for when their their trains cross that structure so the rail has experience have expressed some concern but that closure types we’re still in dialogue with them to figure this out another option is what you see on the bottom right hand side that’s from East Grand Forks Minnesota basically in this installation when a flood threat comes the section of rail and The Associated ballast is removed exposing a concrete sill plate where your stop logs are basically installed from that sill plate going up so it takes more time to implement that type of closure we’re also looking at 6th Street having a roadway closure structure similar to the the structure that is located on the north end of the water treatment plan so I think you’re all very familiar with how those look the diversion channel itself is going to be excavated to a depth of about 15 feet a couple of things to point out with this on the left-hand side of the screen there we are talking about a 20-foot bench from the toe of the levy to the start of the actual excavation of the channel and that’s being done primarily from a stability standpoint from a technical stability standpoint and then the next the next bench that shall try out this next bench in in this area is primarily for maintenance access and trail access so that would be down on the diversion and if there’s a trail place it would be located on that bench the third bench in this area is an aquatic bench and that is there for safety and the reason why it is there for safety is because under the current design of the diversion this will be a normally wet channel under the current design it’s normally wet because the the water surface elevation for this is being driven by the downstream Weir the low head damn near Roosevelt Park so with that being the case there would be just over four feet of water normally standing in there and that aquatic bench is there such that at the edge of the water you don’t drop off into something deeper if somebody happens to stray into the water there’s about a 10 foot bench to

allow for a safe recovery looking at the other side again it’s a symmetric type design with an aquatic bench but then basically we transition up and tie into the approximate right-of-way line for the BNSF railroad one of the items that were currently still still wrestling with is how to configure sixth Street to keep it open just to illustrate a little bit of the challenge here the roadway elevation at the bottom of sixth Street is about 1542 the elevation of the we’re at Roosevelt Park is 15 41.3 so from the water elevation that’s in the river at low flows we have seven tenths of a foot between the water elevation and the elevation of the roads there isn’t much hydraulic head to work with there so as a result water that backs up into the end of the diversion channel would be on top of sixth Street if we had any type of modest flows going through the river so to combat that the current design has floodwalls proposed on each side that would normally be wet okay so there would be some water along these flood walls just about all the time how these would look you know in again in concept here flood walls located along each side of the roadway you know consider the feeling being something similar to a guardrail on a bridge that is solid and then the blue lines that represent anticipated water surface elevation but this is something that we are trying to optimize and we are considering other options including placing a we’re on the downstream and to keep this normally dry but that does come with some other drawbacks as well but stay tuned on that the engineers are still cranking the numbers on that particular feature one of the one of the big challenges with the diversion is that the railroads so we have not one but two class 1 railroads plus we have Amtrak to deal with here so the design the original design called for placing a bridge along CP Rail along the current alignment of the railroad tracks well we would have to do to accommodate that would be to build a temporary bypass line for CP rail and logistically that becomes a challenge for them so what we are proposing at this point is building a new bridge and realigning the rail to the north of where CP Rail is at so the dashed lines that are that are on the screen in this area for instance those are those are CP rails lines the solid lines up here those are BNSF lines and then the red lines would be the revised alignments for CP rail so we are looking at that right now one of the concerns from Amtrak is that the current diamond or crossing of the railroads is in this location and we are shifting that approximately 200 feet to the east with this proposal in doing so we are decreasing the distance that they have for parking trains adjacent to the depot so we have to work through that concern so like I said we are dealing with 2 class 1 railroads plus Amtrak on this so the downstream closure very similar looking to the upstream closure I won’t belabor this but this is a view from the upstream side of that as well so on the left-hand side of the screen that would be in the vicinity of the Broadway pump station that’s currently under construction in addition we are looking at a western tie back levee as a part of the feasibility study this is different than what is being proposed within the preliminary engineering report and it’s being done again because the core looks at this from an incremental cost justification standpoint so the most efficient way in the federal government size to do this is to basically take off from the west end of phase 2 and head straight north and if we didn’t do anything farther west from here we would put Teresita vallejo on the wet side of the levee until we would construct a separate system around TRC to vallejo talk a little bit about recreational opportunities and I’ll start with start with trails here just to illustrate the connections that are being proposed as a part of the feasibility study the orange line that’s on the screen represents a trail that would be located along the route of the flood protection starting on the west side we tie into the end of the path on Phase three and that trail continues over the top of the diversion structure on top of the levee on the north side of Moose Lodge and once we get toward the inlet structure or the Rock riffle structure we start to transition down into the diversion and that trail will be located on that that second bench that I talked about earlier that trail then passes underneath the CP rail bridge to avoid that conflict there as we get towards sixth Street the trail comes back up to grade goes through the roadway closure structure and then continues to the east on the north or

dry side of that levee as we get closer to 5th Street we transition back up on top of the levee and go across the river closure structure near Broadway the trail then continues underneath Broadway as requested by this council back in August I believe it was and will connect to the shared use path that’s on the river side of the flood wall in phase one on the aquatic side there’s also some opportunities that I think we need to vet with your guidance and also the guidance from the public but one of the things that’s being done on the West End of the project is to facilitate the drainage of the Moose Park dead loop we are excavating and proposing to excavate a channel that would create a hydraulic connection directly to the river so we would anticipate that the the Moose Park ponding area could be a potential watercraft access point for canoes and kayaks additionally like I mentioned earlier the current design of the diversion does call for a wet bottom to the diversion in that ponding area that backwater ponding area could serve some sort of a recreational purpose as well other considerations here I mentioned that the the federal plan will not include anything on the south side to reduce flooding flood risk to City Hall library etc but there are options that can be implemented the depiction that’s on the screen is just a rough configuration of what one concept might look like basically using a combination of flood walls Road raises and levees to protect critical city infrastructure like the library or the six Street pump station but this is currently not being contemplated as a part of the federal project as I mentioned as well the the west tie-back is a change in scope from what was in the preliminary engineering report the map that’s on the screen is from the P er and that thick blue line represents the alignment that’s a part of the feasibility study for the western tie-back as the design for the tiara seat of Vallejo system advances I would say there could be a chance that the western tie-back will be eliminated from the federal project because its utility would basically go away if we have T recede of Vallejo in place talk at a high level of cost here based on what we know today the total project cost for this project West tie-back plus the maple diversion is about eighty-five million dollars to say that this cost is not fully cooked yet it’s still undergoing some qa/qc review but this is what we know as of today so I wanted to give give everybody an indication of where we are at as of today if this project is federally authorized and appropriated up to 65 percent of the cost would come from the federal government so about 55 million and then the balance would be split based on current cost share policy 5050 between the local entities and the state of North Dakota want to say that one of the things that we’ve done recently with regard to our approach to the feasibility studies we’ve advanced the schedule for delivery of the Chiefs report from April 2019 to December of 2018 we are pushing this schedule forward to try and get into the next word a bill that’s going to be considered by Congress so we can check the authorization box at a minimum so that’s our that is our plan okay so one of the things that’s always in everybody’s mind is where are we at globally with regard to budget I’m going to talk a little bit about where we’re at in the context of the commitment that the state of North Dakota made in the last legislative session in House bill 1020 the state made a I guess Illustrated its intent to provide up to 193 million dollars over the next four by enniaa for improvements located within the city limits of Minot that cap does not apply to anything outside of Minot so if we just take that hundred and ninety-three million subtract out the authorizations that the Water Commission has made to date of about 59 million also mr. Bence is going to get up and tell you that the phase mi 5 is gonna cost about 44 million you’re gonna take out the design that’s already authorized and sixty-five percent of that so about 26 million is going to come from the state the city acquisitions team has indicated a need of about 8.2 million dollars of additional state funds to complete acquisitions within the initial milestone the initial footprint of the work in West Minot and then if we look at basically if we assume that there’s no federal money that comes into this project and that the money has to come from the state to build the diversion it would be about fifty five

million dollars from the state meaning that we would still have forty five million dollars in state commitment to start working on portions of the project in East Minot so this is good this is good and this is basically because we have been able to capitalize on cost savings associated with the first three phases there’s a significant cost savings associated with removing protection on the south side now granted it leaves City Hall at risk it does but in terms of priorities that’s where we need some direction from the City Council whether you want us to focus on East Minot or on City Hall additionally the original budgets were based on tiara Sita Vallejo being a part of the city system well literal interpretation of what was passed in House bill 1020 says that they’re out of the city limits so that particular system wouldn’t be counted against the cap so there would be about 45 million dollars remaining state funds through June of 2025 if we don’t get federal money if we do get federal money the full federal appropriation that could be up to eighty five million dollars to do work in East Minot so the next question I’m sure is what’s it going to take to get work done in East Minot so the next likely focus of the the flood protection efforts is going to be in the area around Eastwood Park where we can basically construct a standalone system that ties in high ground to high ground there are three components to that a component in downtown some work through Roosevelt Park and then some work south of Volker Road that’s going to remove an additional about 15 percent of Minot residents from that regulatory floodplain and then casting our gaze beyond that of course then there’s the balance of the work in East Minot North Roosevelt Park north wall corrode and then the 27th Street diversion so in terms of costs of those phases what we’re estimating at this point is the total cost of that next milestone around Eastwood Park to be about 86 million dollars okay that’s the total cost the state share is about 57 million at current cost share and assuming the appropriation is there so in the previous slides when I talked about there being state funds of 45 to 85 million dollars under the commitment that’s currently on the table from the state there’s a chance that we could build all of these to a park depending on if appropriations come through from the federal government okay at a minimum we’re gonna be able to get a long way there toward getting that next phase done maybe not complete within the next before 2025 but I think we’ll be gonna be able to get a long ways there that third milestone is estimated to cost about a hundred and sixty six million so in the event that we do secure federal appropriation for the diversion there is a chance that we could be chewing away at a portion of this particular milestone as well so all in all I think from a monetary and budget perspective I have good news to report to you today with that I’d be happy to take any questions they have lots of questions mr. mayor I have two questions the getting back to the the flood gates for the Maple Street diversion at what CFS do the gates closed mr. chairman mr mayor the intent is to close those at 3,000 CFS which is approximately a one in ten year event okay and then I don’t understand the purpose of the Rock riffle could you explain that briefly yes so basically the diversion channel as it comes off of the river near the Moose Lodge up to about the Moose Lodge itself is relatively shallow and we’re trying to keep it shallow to minimize costs however we have to get underneath the rail road with our conveyance so we have to go deeper through that railroad section and then we want it to basically drain toward the river the other side so we have this Delta this elevation Delta that we have to make up now the there are several ways to do it the rock riffle is basically a it’s a more economical way to cascade that water down than through doing it through hard concrete structures Thank You mr. president Ryan and very happy to hear cost savings and looking at prices much different than what we did even a year ago but one of the questions that I think we often hear especially just on the day-to-day side is the regulatory floodplain and it was mentioned specifically and I just wanted to see if we have heard anything from the last

appeal about the regulatory floodplain kind of different area but same issue here mr. chairman all difference it ma I’m wondering if your city manager would want to give an update on that or if you want me to field this one time you want to take a first stab in there sure sure okay so we’ve been working in tandem with the city and with the county on challenging some underlying assumptions made by FEMA and its contractors with regard to how the maps were developed and you guys have seen that and that was the the premise of the meeting with administrator long within the last week we did have a meeting I was there city manager mr. Jonas and mr. Myer others from city staff crew from the Water Commission people from FEMA the I would say that 80% of what we had provided by we have comments have been addressed with their process so they acknowledge that some of the initial mapping was in not up to the current specifications that they have and we pointed that out to them as a result they’re going back through their process and the message that we got from them is at the earliest that the maps would go effective would be in March of 2020 so at a minimum the time frame is delayed and also there’s a fairly sizable reduction in the floodway that they’re showing on some revised maps but that’s all provisional and preliminary at this point but how’d I do Tom you did great I just wanted to add maybe we’ll have a more specific number either of properties or in percentage to share the city manager’s report at the next council meeting on impacts to those structures and properties that were either removed or added and the net change in regard to the incorporation of the revised guidance that was used in in the mapping which I want to credit mr Rahman and and his colleagues for helping to spearhead so he’s done a very nice job with this yes president yes Thank You Ryan for that and then question if we are taking a look at the maple diversion itself was second Street and putting it outside of or rather on the dry side of the levee system is there any kind of preliminary thought and I know this is somewhat cantankerous to even ask I guess in the sense is our footprint that we’ve done for acquisitions within that area is sufficient from what we’re looking at now mr. chairman alderman Simha the acquisition footprint that was identified as being adhered to at this point so we we don’t feel like any additional acquisitions are going to be necessary to construct the maple diversion there may be some small scale slivers here and there for tracks that we need you know right away to accommodate a sidewalk or a portion of the road but based on what we know today the acquisition footprint is adequate I will say though that there are elements within the process that could change that so I I would be remiss if I said that the footprint is locked in with certainty the the railroad is the major driver of a lot of this the railroad considerations so if we have to reconfigure the way that the railroad tracks cross this diversion and it results in a loss of hydraulic efficiency there’s a chance that the diversion would have to get wider but again that’s we are the the message that we’ve delivered to the designers is basically that the acquisition footprint shall not be expanded that’s right that’s what we’re shooting for all over the street Thank You chairman Jansen Ryan can you go to the the west side of Minot that West tie-back and kind of the question mark there I’m curious about the map and the discussion about the maple diversion if we need it or not in this one yeah and then as it pertains to highway 83 over there Teresita Vallejo I think this one captures it probably better so the the feasibility study option is outlined in the dark blue line and basically the costs associated with that are cheaper than the additional benefits that would be received if we constructed the Teresita Vallejo levy so as a result of that the federal interest will be in the construction of the West high-back

and it’ll be a locally driven initiative to construct Teresita Vallejo okay I guess the reason I bring it up and you can maybe point out with the red cursor where is it Capital RV right down there mr. chairman aldermen straight Capital RV would be off of this map there would be to the south okay off the screen there was a agenda item from planning on Monday and that’s why I just wanted to make sure I’m just for my own food thought and then second what was the value-added engineering cost savings by moving the second Avenue Bridge or Street that Alderman’s didn’t kind of touched on a second ago mr. chairman Halderman straight we have not quantified what the cost savings of that one particular change would have been gotcha it’s probably in the neighborhood of a half a million dollars if I was to take a wild guess at it and I guess it’s finally thanks mr Johnson mr. Bence over the last year I’ve spent some time in Bismarck with you all I’m excited to know for folks in eastwood park and folks moving east that there’s clearly hopefully some money available we’re grateful thank you old Knowlton at what point would you be looking for guidance for protection of this building in the library mr chairman alderman Olsen I I wouldn’t say that there’s a set time frame I guess with regard to what the Joint Board has established for priorities they haven’t taken this particular item up but I it at least begs the question from our standpoint because I mean I recognize the importance of the library of City Hall the 6-3 pump station but I also recognize the importance of the people that live in East Minot so that’s a I think it would be helpful for us to hear from the elected leaders of this city to understand your priorities and then we can make that happen so but no I wouldn’t there’s not a there’s not a set timeframe we aren’t advancing the design of anything on the south side of this time thank you okay old rules president Cheon sir thanks mr. Ackerman you know to offer my perspective on that particular issue is I think back to 2011 we did a pretty good job of protecting City Hall and the library with with temporary flood protection measures you know I don’t know what that cost or how quickly that can be implemented but but certainly it doesn’t look like a wide area we’ve got roads I mean it if that’s a possibility for us into the future in the near term you know I think that’s there’s may be some wisdom and operating with with that mentality in the temporary you know throw them in place quickly clay dikes to protect this area if we if we have to address that I think my larger concern and and the what I think I would like to see moving forward is as soon as we can get their design clarity for the southeast side of town for those residents who are still wondering you know because we’re only at the 10% preliminary injury engineering report you know on the entire plan you know we probably have to get to 30 percent or 60 percent to know exactly which houses we’re gonna need which properties we’re going to need you know I think that’s if I were to imagine myself living over there that’s information I would want to have I would want to know as soon as possible how I’m going to be impacted this by this whether I’m going to be impacted by this because everybody knows it’s coming they just don’t know the details the and the other element of that too is is you know we have we have teased this idea of a substantial amendment using the ndr dollars and and proved to getting better access for acquisition dollars from that program from the federal government in conversations I’ve had with mr. Zeki and he has suggested that in order to be able to ask those access those dollars for that purpose we need to have that design clarity so from from that perspective and from the sake of us as citizens perspective you know my interest would would be in seen getting the the completed design for even that end of town moving as soon as it becomes feasible in the entire scheme of things but but that’s where my priority would sit I guess a further questions for mr Ackerman okay thank you very much excellent report appreciate it well done that brings us to item 21 which is the mi5 alternatives and dan are you there and the reason we pulled this is that there there is a recommendation I believe but it’s a choice that we need to make and so I I

pulled this so that at least that would be clear and that you know in going through the material that was provided you know it kind of led you to a particular conclusion but I think you’re going to take us there so please proceed mr. chairman members committee yes thank you that basically I just wanted to reiterate that hopefully after Jerry Bance with Houston engineering who’s been I guess leading the design for mi5 on this goes through his presentation shows you the different alternatives that have been looked at and kind of the I guess our preferred alternative in this or what we think is a preferred alternative garner some discussion with you to see if you agree or if you think we should go another direction pursue one of the other alternatives to bring forward to the public for for I guess their input on it so with that I will turn it over to mr Bence and let him okay welcome sir thank you thank you members of the council thank you for the opportunity to present tonight I’ll have to get used to the equipment here a little bit so Ryan’s presentation gave a lot of good background so we’re gonna skip a little bit I think at the beginning here but I’ll skip through the overall mouths River plan because you certainly understand that you certainly understand the different features we’ve talked about Eastern Minot and trying to progress there into the future so the specific area that we’re looking at I’m gonna take a shot at drawing unhear Mouse the most were so specific area we’re looking at was was originally called North rodeo road and there’s some reasons that now we call it the Northeast tie back and I think that’ll become evident as we go forward here so level of protection that we’re trying to provide through the majority of the project and I’ll show you this as we get in there we’re trying to achieve the the 2011 flood level plus the three feet of free board there’s a couple places because it becomes a Northeast tie back that that becomes less and I’ll show you that in a second it fits in similar to what mr. Ackerman went through with the other three phases that are currently under construction and then the current alignment is shown here for for the Northeast tie back out in this area so on the next few slides we’re gonna walk through some options that we considered prior to coming to this prefer alignment that you see as the blue line here so again just an overview of the area Westerley site oops scuse me westerly side here being the third Street bridge location the end of one that’s recently started construction here in the last couple of months and then carrying the protection out past Lois Garden Center on the east side so was as we started looking at this area initially our real intent in building this protection was to provide certified protection to tie in and tie off the flood plain that mr. Ackerman showed earlier on the east side so as we first started looking at this we really were looking for the lowest cost option that could provide hundred-year level of protection off to the east and at that time what the early concept was let’s provide that protection through a levee that’s built to the hundred-year level plus free board on the north side of the railroad tracks carrying it off to the east how fast the the facility owned by Boeing tie in to the high ground on the north of the road and that was really the concept of the Northeast high-back so we get that in place earlier but the thing to keep in mind is with the future phases then of the rest of the Maus river plan in order to provide full height protection in the future we would have still had levees that would go off along the river on both the north and south side so essentially we have a tie back very similar to what Ryan showed on the on the Teresita vallejo side with the west tie back but then still having to provide full protection around Teresita Vallejo so as we started off that was the initial concept we call this kind of the eight or the one series concept so option one a was the hundred-year level protection on the north side of the tracks then we kind of switch from that and we went to the two series concepts and there would be a series of maps that all flip through year and the two serious concepts really kind of focused around well if we’re going to build protection on the north side of the tracks and we’re going to build that to a hundred-year level what would happen if we built that full height tied that into high ground on the east side and and how would that help us to eliminate some of the protection that otherwise would sort of be duplicate protection on the south side the river so under the two series concepts really the idea was full-height north of the rail line tie in the high ground eliminate the levee through this segment and instead tie

back the permanent protection in the future off to the east and in the high ground so the railroad would essentially run through an opening and protection and and not require a closure structure at that location so in the two series concepts and I won’t get into a lot of details of the options you know the first idea was you know you have to you have to deal with drainage that’s coming down from the airport so convey that drainage through a box culvert structure through the rail grade the second kind of variation of that and why we call it to be versus two-way was you know maybe there’s ways that we can take in a take advantage of capturing some additional runoff from the outside that would then future in the future reduce the size of any future pump station at Roosevelt Park to see option was just well what can how can we optimize pump station sizing by adding some storage to those different concepts so adding a pond is why you see there between to see and to be the two d option looked at well maybe there’s some different ways that we could deal with conveyance coming from the from the railroad property and instead of angling a new pipe through the railroad we can take advantage of some existing structures that exist that was really the 2 D option the 2 e was continue to add some stuff to it add some ponds to it but really the whole two series was kind of this double protection wrap back to high ground on the East End then we get into the three series options and really the three series options very similar to to really the only difference was we wanted to get an appreciation for well if if instead of building a levee along the north side of the railroad grade what would happen if we switched a flood wall there and you might ask why because flood walls certainly more expensive and what we were trying to do at that point was minimize home acquisition or property acquisition that would happen but have to happen along a railway Avenue here so we came up with a three series option that was flood wall at that location and then sort of our fourth level of conceptual alternatives was well you know maybe we’re looking at this all wrong when we started back at number one and maybe instead of tying a tie back all the way from the end of phase one on the north side of the tracks and into high ground maybe instead what we should do is kind of bite the bullet early build the full height protection as originally proposed across the tracks down across the south side get out past the or about to the feral gas facility and then at that point drop down to a tie back levee that could tie up to the north instead of having the everything on the north side of the tracks be a tie back so that was sort of our fourth series concept it eliminates some of the duplication in levees both on the north side and south side of the track so so again similar to what we did in – you know we looked at different variations of how that could look a for a for a for B option that added some storage a for C option that put that storage in different locations and at the end of the day we really boiled this down to things that we felt were were important the first of those being under the one series versus two versus three versus four what types of acquisitions would come into play if he chose the different options and we circle put a square around the red box around certainly what was the most we think the most important item which was it requires a lot less property acquisition if we do something in that four series suite of options and then secondly we we didn’t cost that all the options we cost it out a few of them because we thought some could become kind of surrogates for the others but when you laid out the different options next to each other it certainly became evident that it was also less expensive to do something in the four series options so so at that point we focused in on alternative for C and we started the big deeper in for C so as engineers we like to keep adding more and more letters to it so our option became four C and then the T one was really just looking at some different traffic configurations on what we would do so the first traffic consideration would would be to allow seventh Street to run the line of protection at a closure structure at that location and then it would go off east towards Lowe’s the second option looked at well maybe instead of having a closure structure there could we go up and over the levy and then the third option which ultimately became the one that we preferred was to run the angle the road through the properties that were scheduled to be acquired down here and run it up on top of the levy off to the east so so we aren’t going up and over and instead we’re coming up on top of the levy going off to the east that also provides some ability for us to use that real estate that’s located north of the levy and utilize some of that real estate for ponding which downsizes our pump station requirements so so we then focused in on option what we called option for ct3 change the name to make it a lot easier called it our preferred mi5 concept and

I’ll just show you a little bit of what that concept looks like and then we have an animation so largely within that concept starting from the West End here at 3rd Street we have a short segment of flood wall on both sides of the railroad a relatively long railroad closure that would have to be installed at that location similar to the railroad or similar to other closure structures that Ryan showed previously or that you’ve seen at the water treatment plant from there we have a relatively long stretch of just earth and levee along the pond segment we would realign 4th or 7th because it’s 4th Avenue should say 7th Street there that becomes 4th Avenue as we head off to the east that becomes realigned install a new stormwater pump station similar mix up for about 1.5 times the capacity of the pump station at the water treatment plan a series of utility relocations under the roadway on the north side of the railroad great so that we can capture all the water to bring it to one one pond one pump station and constructing a pond so I’ll give you just a quick look at what does that look like more on the landscape so this will start from from kind of an elevated view and then just kind of dive in to show you what it looks like in in addition to the features I talked about we’ve accounted for and we were really at about a 60% design at this point assuming that there would be some trail and our improvements along the outside of the protection likely underneath the railroad grade they’re installing a cross or a access point similar to what’s on the west side of the of under the railroad bridge currently so so in the in the view here you can see the the new pump station the pond the road up on top of the levee a gate wall structure that we would pump into and then as we head off to the east this would actually be where the existing Farrell gas facility is and at that point we have a little stubbed out levy there so that we’re set up for future construction as future phases come along and then it’s it’s subtle in in the imagery there but the levy has Eagle Pass Farrell gas then would drop down in elevation and across the tracks and run off to the north so it’ll just circle around from from there to show you a little bit more of it since the time we did the 60% design the feasibility study has continued to progress and with that progression it appears that the federal interest will be in a project that is constructed to full height so tobita 27 4 + 3 feet so as a result our Easton tie back instead of just being built to the hundred-year level we would build that to full height and tie into ground on the north side so again just to give you a sense of the closure structure there you could see it on the railroad and the configuration of the project from there give you a sense a cost mr. Ackerman let you in on on the price here of about 44 million dollars you know we we still think that’s a relatively close estimate there will be some adjustments to what we show it at 60% design due to that additional height being required to meet the federal project requirements of 24 27,000 on the east end so we think there will be some adjustment in cost there but we were a little I think we’re a little high because our estimates that we were used at 60% were the same estimated unit prices that we were using prior to bidding phase 1 2 3 so we felt we probably had some cushion in our numbers at that point so we’re still pretty confident that the 44 million total number is good project constraints kind of pros and cons quickly on and this is the last slide associated with kind of the preferred alignment here is as I mentioned earlier simply that’s truly the pros are lower cost less acquisitions not having to acquire properties along the north side the railroad grade on the con side of it with the railroad closure structure that would exist in the area of the old mill property items that walk to work through there with BNSF and then ultimately the alignment that we show here is a little different than the alignment that was in the environmental impact statement that was completed so we’ll have to go through some more steps there and in amending that E is and and permitting with the Corps of Engineers so with that I’ll stop and certainly stand for any questions alderman straight oh thank you mr. Chan sir Jerry I appreciated it over at the the storage pond on the the cell side of the tracks why is that exactly necessary so members of the council the the storage patents here what we end up doing by

adding the storage on there is basically giving yourself a buffer between water coming into the stormwater conveyance system and water that we have to pump out on the pump with the pump station so by adding the additional storage capacity there we can downsize the pump station save capital cost in the pump station that that saves more than what it would cost to build the pond itself ok so that pond would also be a dry pond it wouldn’t sit wet during normal conditions it would fill up as a result of a rainstorm would would the stormwater coming down then say further issei I’m familiar right across from say Lowe’s there’s a number of areas where the water comes down conveys into a larger culvert that comes down across the road and then goes into the dead loop art is there going to be a chain with some of those stormwater systems that flow out of North L down then so what what this pond would collect would be water that’s coming down from North Hill that currently gets through the railroad we would capture that on the south side of the railroad direct that back West and bring it into the pond so essentially we would be capturing any stormwater that’s north of the line of protection as it runs along here in any storm water that collects from this area to the north would be routed through a series of either ditches or underground pipes to the palm to the pump station pumped into the gate wall then out to the river thank you for the questions Eldon Wolski president Jasper thank you mr. Bence I maybe I misheard or I just want to get some clarity is there federal interest in this aspect of the project so all the room while speed members of the council so this part of the project and maybe the best way to explain this is the drop back quite a few slides so bear with me so the maple diversion that the mr Ackerman was talking about really bridges this gap here and as they bridge that gap the assumption that’s going into their analysis is that what you see on the screen would already be constructed even without them becoming part of the project so what that does is costs that are going into constructing the phases you see on the screen would already be incurred so when they do their benefit cost ratio those costs are not in the cost part of the equation they’re not a partner on phase five then but they are very interested in having us build it they’re very interested in having us build it you know it also it also makes it also makes the project for the maple diversion have a benefit the equation work right sure so a little bit of input here mr. Bence one I appreciate you guys not adding new acquisitions into the equation on the north side of the tracks those are folks who I think from the very beginning this project was not on their radar so I think you know I I’m glad to see that we’re not introducing a new surprise to a large number of residents over there so I appreciate that some comments on the on the area to the south side and and you know I’m gonna refer to these as paths I’m certain will at some point have a conversation about betterments because we’ve already had that conversation but as I look at the design of these paths my my preference or opinion would very predictably be I would like to see those paths along the river you know that is a resource for this community I would like to to make sure that we have access to get close to it to be able to walk along it rollerblade bike ride all those things and obviously I can see on the the on the north side of the collection pond were attaching to that existing stair stair access railroad bridge which is a valuable piece of infrastructure across the the the tracks at first I didn’t quite understand that the purpose of that path but now I’m picking up on it but so so I would just offer that as input at this point like I said I I would assume that’s not something that’s really probably an interest in in flood protection costs but I think we’ll have to take that up as a council in terms of what we want this area to be for for the community I’ll just I’ll just say that the the paths that we show here right now were intentionally pushed up towards the line of protection only because we’re waiting to find out what exactly is going to happen in the open space there so I feel the developments they’re definitely they’re open to adjustment alderman Simha thank you president Qian sir I’m not sure if this one media would be a question for you or for a city manager

or staff at this point as we’ve gone through all of this of course we’re looking ears in advance and and still getting into early design at some point will we get an idea of the Onam costs that are gonna be associated with all of these different structures close and again I understand that putting a date on that is probably quite premature at this point but also figuring in for instance the entire area where our holding pond is and we’re used to be neighborhoods we’re talking about significantly less streets that are gonna have to be fixed repaired snow cleared and all of that figuring into the UM savings but I some point I think that we do need to get an idea long term also what the costs are gonna be associated with that so we can vision plan for that as well I’m straight Thank You mr. Chancellor I guess to piggyback on that mr. Simo Gerry correct me if I’m right so grateful that we’re gonna save on the acquisitions because I know this was a concern I guess two questions one I’m I’m curious the the railroads input into by going with this preferred alternative clearly we’re gonna have the railroad closure we’re gonna have maybe two more closures but we’ve had this discussion obviously about you know the trade off of non acquisitions but we have additional closures right there so we’ll have two closures is that right road closures sure aldermen straight members of the council’s so as as currently set forth we would have one additional rail road closure that would be right here on the east end just as long as we’re talking railroad on the east end we actually would cross under the railroad with the protection so there wouldn’t be a physical closure here the railroad is actually high enough in elevation that we basically would run under it and through the embankment so under the current project we would have one railroad closure right here and then if this path is ultimately collected or connected to the north as we show it we would have another closure structure right east of 3rd Street pedestrian closure sure but on the east side the 7th Street off of Central the 7th Street Road as it crosses over the river right there will have a road closure or uh some type of closure there not on them not on the north side not within this plan so at this point I would actually come up and come on top of the levee thank you okay um you know we did not have emotion as we went into this because I guess I viewed that we should hear the information and have it presented are you looking today for a sort of concurrence with the recommendation of whatever the acronym was for the last preferred t-t-to what went on whatever 483 or yeah whatever whatever it was but so at this if that’s true I’m getting head nods so at this if that’s true then at this point I would maybe ask for a motion alderman sit muster president I would make the motion to approve the design for the mi – five proposal as recommended as recommended thank you second by Olsen okay many discussion alderman Wolski president chance from jerry maybe a couple additional questions here are where we at in the design scale of this process and I guess the the follow-up to that would be has there been intention to to bring this concept forward to the to the public for a public input form or anything like that I mean it just curious about the next steps after after all this sure alderman Wolski members of the council I’ll give you I’ll provides have been putting it up down Onstad do it all i’ll law and add to it so so presently as you see it here what you what has shown has been designed to 60% it largely sat on hold for a while because the alignment that we were showing here was different than what was in the EIS four phases that involve phase 1 2 3 so we wanted to get that through a record of the decision before we made an adjustment that’s happened so as we sit here with 60% our hope was that committee here would recommend approval of the preferred option that we show that it ultimately would go to full council on Monday it also will go to the service or her Joint Board tomorrow afternoon based on what I’m hearing tonight then from there and our next step would go would be to go to a public meeting probably in the early June timeframe do a similar thing we would present to them the options we’ve considered and and how we ended up with this selection and at that point continued up to work our way or progress our way to a nineteen hundred percent design with the hope that dollars to construct this project would come out of the twenty nineteen legislative session okay

any further questions all right we have a motion thank you for your presentation thank you a call the roll symma yes Street yes well ski yes Barney yes Jan sir yes Olson yes motion carried item 22 is the parking ramps budget issue great I move the agenda item move move items moved there a second second alderman Simha seconds discussion all roads straight uh thank you mr Chancellor mr. Barry maybe can provide a little guidance I know that we’re quickly kind of reacting on our feet here as a result of this but consideration of looking at a outside private independent party to possibly take this operation on that I’m looking and thinking ahead to the budget and I appreciated the numbers provided to us but I just wanted to hear because I know you were having discussions with the airport parking folks mm-hmm city manager Thank You mr. president aldermen straight that is true we have put together a budget amendment based upon what we think are anticipated expenses are going to be for the remainder of this year that’s why we’re recommending an amendment to the budget now going forward that will not preclude us from arranging a different type of contract or outsourcing opportunity with another parking facility management company for example we’re going to be evaluating that we don’t have information just yet to be able to provide as to whether or not that makes the best sense in our long term interest but we do because we have taken over the structures want to make sure that we’re aggressive and attentive to the immediate issues that have that have arisen out of the circumstance and that we have budget to do that with so I don’t want to suggest that simply this budget amendment locks us into a path going forward that suggests we’re going to be taking on the management in long turn on when Ammon and all of those responsibilities indefinitely this just gets us through essentially this year to essentially stabilize the structures and evaluate and and put a better plan together on how we want to take a long term view with this thing okay thank you sir no alderman Walski thank you mr berry I just wanted to say to you and your staff I really appreciate the operations and maintenance transition plan and the level of detail that’s gone into everything we have to consider is as we we get control this project and try to get it moving in the right direction so thank you for that thank you okay any further discussion I see none please call the roll straight yes yes Barney yes Jan sir yes yes yes motion carried we’re on item 24 which is the 2019 budget principles and priorities so moved moved by Sigma second second why straight I’m not sure who pull this discussion straight I guess I I just wanted to comment about the priorities themselves I I thought it was very helpful I appreciated the staffs work putting it in in particular I wanted to pull out of the bottom because it’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately which is to reduce the legal liabilities I think that we are all excited to hopefully not find ourselves in some of the circumstances we found ourselves lately but I just wanted to also recall I brought up a point that our retreat about kind of asking staff department heads in particular about efficiencies and what they’re trying to do differently and the the unfortunate side of it kind of came back to it was redirected to me and what how I I guess how I interpreted was how I could do a better job of inner acting with departments but as we think about the the the budget moving forward I still want to hear about that mr berry from department heads what you know I expect and in in share the burden of the morale of city staff and in shoulder my decisions I don’t enter into them lately but I play part but I don’t play the whole part of the morale of the city and city staff department heads how they interact with their staff and and how they direct priorities also plays a part in the morale and I want to hear about that as well moving forward so I just wanted to speak to that but I appreciated the priorities list moving forward into the budget so thank you any further alderman Walski brief comment I think this this is a very good starting point I’m gonna be thinking about it over the weekend the this is probably

the single biggest responsibility of City Council and as alderman and and if there’s anybody out there in the public watching on YouTube if you have thoughts on this list if you think there are other things that we should be considering please take the next few days to get in touch and share those thoughts with us because this is this is shaping the direction of the city for the next really 18 months at this point starting seeing no further discussion no I just appreciate your review of it we wanted to make sure we were as comprehensive and specific as we could be and we look for full endorsement by the City Council meeting next week so that we can begin putting the budgets together with this with this guidance okay thank you very much I think we ready to vote call the roll Zimmy yes Street yes Wolski yes Barney yes dancer yes yes that completes our agenda and therefore we are adjourned you

You Want To Have Your Favorite Car?

We have a big list of modern & classic cars in both used and new categories.