All right, good evening. We'll call the Man and Park District, uh, board meeting to order. Uh, today is September 9, 2024 at 5:30. Um, any additions or deletions to the agenda? None. OK, no.

00:00:26,367	Uh, at this point, we'll move to the public communication, uh, part of our meeting for many visitors, uh, in the, in the crowd.

00:00:38,267	Anyone like to come forward and talk about.

00:00:42,501	And then Park Sreck

00:00:47,467	Yep, come on up. State your name please and.

00:00:54,701	Recognize you from a couple meetings ago, Rick. Great. uh, good afternoon. Uh, my name is Rick Tentis and I have a few questions for the, uh. For the man Da park board. Concerning budgetary and uh other items. Uh, I'm I'm wondering offhand. So, so just, just to be sure, we have a public hearing for our budget, our 2025 budget are your comments on that or? OK, alright, well that'll be the next portion of our meeting. So basically I'm, I'm wondering what the max mills are allowed by the state for the park district. Do you know what they are? We haven't raised our mill in quite some time, so I'm not the max for our general fund is 38

00:01:43,267	special assessments unlimited and then our capital improvement is 5. How many times in the last 10 years have we, have we? That we assessed less than the max. Every year, every year you've assessed less than the max. Every year. Oh, that's great to hear. Great to hear. Uh, I had one other, uh, one other question concerning the, uh, the park district operation. I'm wondering how many times will the park district. Entertain outside.

00:02:17,100	Outside the. Uh, forces like, for instance, the Tennis Association, the gymnastics Association, the hockey Association, the softball Association. How many times will the Park District entertain improvements? Two mannan facilities that are generated by those people. Not at a cost to us. But eventually the cost comes to maintenance and employee staffing, and I'm just kind of wondering how often are we going to continue to do that. It's enlarging the footprint of the district. There's no doubt about it. It has to. Somebody has to take care of these facilities like the tennis facility that was built up here. Who's gonna take care of that? It's certainly not staffed by all the tennis club members, the hockey, the hockey club, they don't staff all those positions. I'm just wondering how many times are we gonna do this? Uh, are we gonna continue to do it every time a citizen group comes forward and says, oh, we need this and man then. So let's get it built and then dump it onto you guys for maintenance and uh employee staffing. Sure, well, I can, I can, I guess I would say we would entertain those, uh, uh, uh, public entities coming forward 100% of the time now will we actually will we actually partner with them and go that route? I, I, I can't say that we would, uh, but you know, being a, being elected official, we need to listen to our public just like we're listening to you and if somebody comes with an idea that we think we can. Uh, that we can build and fund and maintain through either user fees or through leases or whatever we're gonna entertain that all the time now whether we actually do it all the time, um, is, is a whole another question and that's why we're all sitting up here. Well, it's it's pretty much all the time. You probably hear, you probably hear of the ones that we do, but there's been some that we have not so. Yeah, well, I'm, my question is, my question it leads toward, well, when is enough enough? When is enough enough? When is the park district and its facilities enough for the citizens without the constant expansion. That's my question. So, uh, so Rick, a few, uh, a few meetings ago we actually had a study done to make sure that we are able to maintain and, uh, take care of the facilities we have. Uh, the good thing is we, we weren't too far off, uh, we're able to budget and handle more people to take care of the facilities that we have uh some of our entities do make money, some of them do not. Um, if we only had entities that make money here, we would not have very many services for, uh, for the people that go here. The other good news is when we, when we do take money from those that donate, um, or, uh, naming rights and so on, we put in what's called a vision fund, uh, and we have a vision fund where we have money set aside to help, uh, offset the cost of. The maintenance, uh, to some of our turf fields, uh, and some are starting sports complex, uh, so we don't have to raise mills down the road, so we don't have to go back to the taxpayers to say, OK, we built this 20 years ago, uh, now we need to raise mills by 5 because we need to put new turf on there so we have plans in place, um, uh, that, that you know maybe won't cover 100% of the cost, but along with those user groups we think we can fund and we can, um. We can, we can maintain the, the facilities that we have. Well, I think the, uh, a perfect example would be that new uh bike path on the south side. I mean, I don't really know the, the whole story behind it and who pushed it, but the usage of that pass is quite minimal and the cost was quite excessive. And I just kind of wondering who is it built for? For what reason? I ride bike. I know, I know where the bike paths go, which bike path are you the one that leads from uh the Mandan Municipal Golf Course to the south side of Mandan. The 19th Street and the one that's a joint effort between three entities and some federal dollars, uh, that did that. Who you it for? I, I would disagree with you. I drive there every single day. I see kids on there, bikes on there, people walking on there all the time, and I hear a lot of comments for that path. Wow, you should, you should go out there and videotape then because I, I'd personally like to see it because I've driven it many times myself, and I've have yet to see one person walking it, OK. And in fact, uh, the path itself is from a, uh, from an engineering standpoint it's got it certainly has, uh, some, uh, rather interesting, uh, uh, facets, and we've had some of those things, so yeah, I just wanna add with the trails, it will get milled and overlay because of the construction that it was put in. There's a lot of defects associated with it, so that mill and overlay is hopefully gonna start next week. To get it to where we are comfortable with it, but the trail itself definitely has been a benefit to our community. It ties our our our entire city together. Um, I actually saw two kids pushing their pushcart to go play golf there the other day, so I thought that was interesting before school started, but the mill overlay will get done to the defects that were put in the construction. That's great, great. I just had one more thing if you got one more second here. Sure. Uh, I'm just a question. When, when will the park board intend on basic reasonable event guidelines? To regulate excessive tournament play at Prairie West. Just pray, West. There the, excuse me, uh, the, uh, the events that are held at the municipal are, are really not an issue, except for on days, and it occurred 3 times this year where there was an event at both Prairie and an event at Mandan Municipal. That didn't work out too well, but it may have worked out well for the uh for the people that were in the event, but it didn't work out too well for the other 25,000 people that live in Mandan.

00:08:20,367	What, Rick, what would make you say that it didn't work out for the other 25,000 people in, in Man Dan as far as, well, what, what exactly do you think the opportunity for those other 25,000 people to play. Any type of golf. Or any type of golf during that period, it was nonexistent. And it occurs on a, uh, I would, I would venture to say I don't have the list right in front of me, but uh I would say that it applies about 30% of the time during the uh entire golf season. Which I think is substantial.

00:09:01,000	Rick, how many, how many tournaments would you like to see at, at those at, no, I'm not saying, I, I'm not, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you guys what to do. I'm just asking you if you will consider some reasonable uh guidelines. Do you, do you want to hear some guidelines? Let's hear them so we can. The number one guideline would be to have no tournament, no tournament start before a 1 p.m. shotgun. Number one. Can I ask why that is, Rick? Because that would allow at least a portion of the day for. The morning portion of the day for the for uh uh patrons to finish the round without being uh told that they are not allowed.

00:09:46,601	Of course, that would impact the evening rounds though, because those people, if they start at 1, they're not gonna get done till, excuse me, until 55 or 6 o'clock. So the the people that uh uh. We like to play on weekends or after 4:30, 5 o'clock, they'd be impacted by that. Yeah, another, uh, #2 would be absolutely no tournament play on weekends. None. Not for me, but for the people that work 8 to 5, Monday through Friday. They count on working on, on playing on weekends. They can't play on weekends sometimes. Simply because the tournament is scheduled on Saturday. As far as I know, I don't think there was any scheduled on Sunday, but I'm not sure about that. But anyway, I wish that they would, uh, you would consider some sort of guidelines from this. Committee, I think, uh, uh, Comm Scott sits on our, our golf, uh, committee, and I know has worked with Garrett and Brent a little bit. We do have guidelines that is in policy, and I think we adhere to those guidelines. Uh, what it, what is, I think we have in our policy it says 3. President Mesk no more than 3 tournaments a week, um, and I I play every weekend too, and I think there's only been 2 don't disagree.

00:11:05,567	Saturdays that I haven't been able to play all summer. So I'm pretty much there every morning too. I agree that this past week, you know, with the United tribes events taking place, I think we need to do a better job of accommodating that so it's not Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and I think your point about 1 o'clock on a weekend is valid. I don't disagree. I would also agree with that. Uh, I don't agree with the 30% of the time we've had tournaments out there. That's, that's, uh, that would be very excessive. Get the schedule out, look at it. I, I do look at it every single week, um, being the portfolio holder, but what we will do for you, Rick, and, and we can visit at another time, but, um, at the end of every season we do sit down and go through our. How things went for the year kind of uh meeting and we can discuss that and and see if there's another um means for some of those tournaments to continue but not maybe take up the entire day for three days straight. Well, thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Rick. Thank you Rick. Rick, I just want to comment on that too. I thank you for not coming up here and tell us to get rid of all our tournaments because I, I don't, I don't, I could never We bring a lot of people into our community that maybe don't support that.

00:12:22,601	go on the other side of the river to participate in those tournaments and they are spending money in our community. They're bringing tax dollars to our community. They're keeping, uh, they're keeping other programs in our, in our district alive too we like we talked a little bit earlier is, uh, golf is one of our money makers and it we're able to offset the cost of some of the other things that we have going on in our in our park district because of that. Um, if, if, uh, if we didn't have the money makers in our district, we wouldn't have the facilities, and I know you think we probably have too many and, and we continue to expand, but I think we've done a pretty, uh, responsible fiscally, uh, in the years that I've been on here so thank you for at least not asking that, um, and maybe we can find some compromise to to look at that, um, obviously we want to, um. Uh, we want to, uh, uh, cater to our Mandan, uh, citizens, but also, uh, you know, we have, uh, people from out of town that come here too and really enjoy our courses that, um, uh, that help support our economy and our, and our, um, whether it be Mandan Municipal or the Prae West Golf course, so. Um, but I, I, I know, uh, Comm Scott, uh, and I've talked a little bit about this, but you know, back, back to maybe committee if we're right now I don't think that we are probably breaking a policy that was set many years ago, um, and, uh, maybe it's time to look at that policy and and maybe make uh. Uh, take a look at it. What I can't probably guarantee is that you're gonna get your tee time every day at what time you want, but so we have to slow some flexibility maybe on that end. I don't ever get the tea time I want, but I, I, I don't plan that far in advance sometimes. So, probably that's probably it. So, but anyway, I appreciate you coming again, Rick, uh, and, um, thank you for the input. Any other public uh communication from visitors at this time?

00:14:15,767	OK, hearing and seeing none, I'll close that portion of our meeting for public communication. Uh, we'll move on to minutes. Uh, could we look to get approval of our August 12, 2024 regular meeting minutes?

00:14:28,000	I'll make the motion to approve the minutes motion by Comm Mutter.

00:14:35,868	All second my Comm Mehlhoff, any further discussion? All in favor say aye. I oppose same sign. All right, motion curries. All right, moving on to item 1 public hearing of the 2025 budget. So we had our uh preliminary budget and, and now we're looking to approve our budget. Uh, anybody want to come out of. Uh, from the crowd to talk about our 2025 budget and what we proposed.

00:15:08,601	One more time, anybody want to speak of our public, for our public hearing on our 2025 budget?

00:15:18,467	OK, hearing and seeing none, I will close that portion of our meeting. We'll move on to item number two. we're looking for, uh, approval of the final budget reading of Ordinance 1056, making the annual appropriations for the expenditures of the Park District of the city of Manan, North Dakota for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2025 ending December 31st, 2025 and making the annual tax levy for the year 2024.

00:15:51,000	Just, just, yep, we need a motion to approve the budget unless we have some um discussion on the matter. I'll approve the final budget reading of our Ordinance 1056 making the annual appropriations for the expenditures of the Park District in the city of Manan, North Dakota for the fiscal year commencing January 1st, 2025 ending December 31st, 2025 and making the annual tax levy for the year 2024. Motion by Comm Mutter.

00:16:23,200	Second, 2nd by Comm Scott.

00:16:27,467	Any further discussion? OK, all in favor say aye. I oppose same sign. OK, motion carries budget approved. OK, we'll move on to item number 3, presentation from Lower Hart Water Resource District flood mitigation, uh, proposed plan for Manan Municipal Golf Course. Uh, I think we have, do you have something first, Cole, or you're gonna introduce, right, you're gonna introduce OK. President Mesk and Comm is with us today. We have Dennis Reap with HDR represents, uh, the engineering for Lower Hart Water Resource District. We have Bill Robinson who is the chair of the Lower Hart Water Resource District. As you know, they do flood protection for the city of Mandan. Uh, we've had discussions with them over the years about this proposed item here tonight. Um, last time we had some discussion was about 3 years ago, um, impacting levy in regards to lower or you mean Legion Park was going to be impacted at that time, as you know, uh, Mr. Reap came to our meeting in May. Updated us because we were doing our phase two. We got our core permit for our, uh, intake for phase 2 of that water, um, transmission line to irrigate the ball diamonds and the softball fields and potentially Ferris field site, and at that time we were proposed with some potential levy improvements that might impact man and municipal golf course. So in your packet is a lot of information I gave you. I tried to simplify it in a way that made sense for everybody to kind of understand. Um, it's been a quick turnaround. I appreciate Lower Hart inviting me to the last 3 months of meetings to kind of get an update. Um, we had a good meeting last, I think it was 2 weeks ago, maybe, um, their last board meeting, um, asked a lot of questions. I think there's gonna be further questions here tonight from you. Um, so with that, I will let Dennis Reap from HDR kind of present his PowerPoint and then we'll ask questions after that.

00:18:16,467	Resident Commissioners, I'm Bill Robinson with Lower Heart, and I would just like to give you a Brief before uh Dennis Reep talks about the more of the specifics here.

00:18:31,868	I get past the technical difficulties here.

00:18:43,100	Uh, so if you've had a brief introduction, I know it's been a few years, so I'll give you a little bit of background. Uh, Mandan's going, working on a flood protection project. It is a FEMA-driven project, uh, meaning FEMA did a, uh, ran a test I believe about 12 years ago, and not only in Mandan, but a number of communities in the state, uh, so we're not alone in this, um. But, uh, in that study, it uh indicated we're missing about 3 ft of freeboard, short 3-foot of freeboard in an ice jam event. Um, not so much in a free flow state, but in ice jam. Um, So we're working on a project to, to get it up to I jam levels. Um, the levy is vital to the economic and social healthman Dan. There's about 2600 developed residents and businesses that are affected. By, uh, should we be remapped by FEMA, would fall into the 100 year floodplain. Also, there's a lot of city critical infrastructure for the city on the dry side. Uh, a little bit on the background on the Heart River. It does originate in Billings County. Um, total land mass is about 3300 square miles. The levee is supported by two dams along the river system, Dickinson Dam and Hart Beat Dam. Um, and when the ice gets to the city of Manda and it is susceptible to ice jams. Uh, the levee was constructed by the Corps of Engineers back in the late 40s and completed, I believe, just prior to the spring of 1950. Uh, the North unit was completed in 1949. The north unit is the core unit that does protect the protect the city of Manan. Uh, the lower unit and sunny units were completed basically by height in 1959, 10 years later. The lower unit is the trolley bridge area south to the. To the confluence and the sunny unit is everything west of what we would call um. Uh, Brady's and going out west to the bridge, uh, West of Manan. Um, the levee has protected Mandan from numerous major flood events, uh, primarily 5 of them and probably at least another 78 more that were, uh, near those upper vents. Um, like I said, the study was completed in 2012, um. There are also some geotechnical and internal drainage deficiencies that are uh on the dry side of the levee. And we did a brief study on what, what the economic impact would be if, if uh this area does fall in a 100 year floodplain. Estimated flood flood insurance impact is about 10 million annually. This would include premiums and, and that type of thing. Um The unit and that's what you're saying is currently. Yes, that is what if we went into the honey deer floodplain and Uh, federal law requires mortgage holders to, uh, the impact would be about $10 million of annual premium.

00:22:03,100	Um, So with this, we've been designing this thing for probably the last 9 years. Uh, this is the 3rd version of flood protection. Um, each time, each version we've looked at, the cost has come down, uh, physical impact has come down. Um, and, but this one we've been focused on for probably 67 years.

00:22:30,200	Uh, the flood elevation does require a levy raise to meet free board in the municipal golf course area, primarily for discussion hole number 4. Um, we are looking at 3 options to meet this requirement. One would be to install a land side or dry side seepage and stability berm. And I'll have Denniss talk about that in a little bit here. Uh, second option is a seepage cutoff wall. That is a wall that would Get buried under the interior of the levee. And the other would be pressure relief wells that would go along the dry side of the levee. All have certain impacts, all have pros, all have cons and costs attached to them.

00:23:16,767	Um, on this map, we're showing all the areas that that do require, uh, improvements or a setup for improvements. Um, on the left hand side is the reach we're talking about the 6 inch or greater, um, in the municipal area. We are replacing that floodwa that is near the number 2 tee box, uh, with the earthen levee. Uh, along 3rd Street near the trolley area, uh, we're going to, uh, build up what we call now a spur ***, uh, which runs along the bank of the levee that would protect 3rd Street from actually serving as a ***. Uh, and then farther downstream, there's uh levy increases also.

00:24:03,367	And with that, I'll turn it over to Dennis.

00:24:08,000	Thanks, Bill. Um, yeah, my name is Dennis Tree. I work with HDR Engineering. We serve as the engineer for Lower Hart Water Resource District on this project. Um, and, and Cole mentioned that you, we talked to you about 3 years ago, or it's been talked about in the past. This is a relatively newer development on our this cycle. Um, we didn't anticipate having to raise the levy adjacent to the municipal golf course until we went through a FEMA review about a year ago. They identified some processes they want us to look at and as a result of those, we ended up with a free board defic and reach along whole floor. Very minor, uh, deficiency. It's actually, um, on the order of 6 to 9 inches, but it just kicks in some criteria that a lot requires us to redesign to to newer standards and that kicks in, in some of these options that we have to look at. So. Just a little more background there, um, I'll go through three options, um, in order of the most preferred next preferred, and the least preferred. So is that an order of cost too? It happens to be that way, yes it does, I figured so and we did get this, uh, last month. We didn't talk about it at the meeting, but we have seen, you know, that we've seen these options. So just so I mean you should go through it. I think the public needs to see that and hear that too, but very good, um, so yeah, the first one is land site seepage stability berm. Um, it would encompass, um, the almost the entirety of a whole for Fairway, um. It would have, um, some restrictions on it, you know, if it is a chosen option and constructed, um, it does not allow for large trees to be planted on that seepage berm. There's, I think there's some options for shrubbery, but it would have to be shallow shallow rooted type vegetation. So, um, and what we're showing here on this screen, it's tough to read, I know, but we're basically looking at a 5 ft. Um, fill, uh, at the toe of the levee that tapers down to about 2 ft on the east edge of the fairway, um, and that would, and then it tapers off at a 5 to 1 to daylight, but, um, that is the seepage bird, that's what's required for the levee. Um, in order to accommodate a golf hole on there, we've also added another 4 ft of fill on top of that seepage berm that's not needed for the levee but would be conducive to operating in a golf hole on that. Now that's a total of some quite a vertical difference, especially on a flat course like that. So it would be, um, you know, unique, I guess,

00:26:40,868	And and it would require a permanent easement as as North Dakota law allows it's 99 year easement, but essentially permanent as far as we understand it. Um, that's the permanent part. There would be some construction easement. The other part of it is, and I'll go to a map here too, and we can start talking about pros and cons. On the left side you can see it's tough to see. I apologize for that, but there's a kind of an orange juice hash. That would be the permanent eing footprint, as we understand it right now. The purple hatched area would be temporary construction easements. Um, And uh and so when we say temporary construction as it relates to a golf golf course operation, you're probably looking at multiple years of impact, um, undoubtedly you're looking at direct impact of probably a a season. Um, and then there's just the ramifications of re-establishing the golf hole after that that I don't understand as well as the other people in the room here, but the pros of it are, it's a low, it's lower cost, it's the lowest cost of the three options. It's, it's a passive system that does not require flood fighting operations, so it, it sits there and operates without intervention. Um, it can be constructed. The seepage or burn part can be constructed by a normal heavy construction operator, um, and it has relatively minimal impacts to existing utilities. You know, the cons are it requires that that easement agreement with Manden Parks, and it does have some definite impacts to the golf course, um. Depending on where we get to borrow, um, we could have some impacts to the community of just hauling borrowing from a long distance. And we're working through some of those options with, uh, with Cole and, and his consultant, and maybe you'll hear a little bit more about those today. Um, so those are the pros and cons of the seepage stability but. I don't know if there's any questions or I'll just continue going unless you intervene. I, I, I do have a I already have a question, and I think we're all gonna have lots of questions here, but did you say it was only gonna affect us one year? Because I thought I read somewhere it was 2 or 3. Yeah, sorry if I wasn't clear on that. The direct impact, the direct construction would be a a season, but understanding that after you're done constructing, you still have remnant impacts to the golf course as far as being able to operate. You mean you're going to have to re-establish vegetation and, and I think I've heard Garrett and Cole maybe suggest that it's a minimum of 2 years total or possibly 3 years total of impact to that golf hole. Thank you.

00:29:22,467	Option two, OK, uh, seepage cutoff wall, and this then like uh Bill kind of described, it's a cutoff wall that goes directly in the levee system. Um, it, it still would have construction impacts to the, to the, um, Golf course, but it wouldn't have necessarily the longer term impacts as far as becoming operational again. Um, and so this is a proven method, it is more expensive on the capital, uh, the upfront costs. Um, you know, just some pros and cons of that. It, it again allows for, uh, a relatively low cost with low long-term maintenance, um, excuse me, long. Low cost for the maintenance. It is a passive system. Um, it does not have necessarily permanent impacts to the golf course, um, does not require a modified easement. To, uh, to complete. Um, the, the cons are, are the high cost, the installation, um, you would have to uh accommodate the existing municipal golf course intake, um. There's an existing sanitary force main that would impact, um, it does require a specialty construction contractor. Um It does require a large staging area, so there'd be some temporary impacts on the construction side that are a little bit unique. Um, one of the things I do want to point out is that, um, There's a potential that it could restrict groundwater flow underneath the system because it would be 60 ft deep basically under the levee. And so if you have this impermeable impermeable barrier, you could restrict groundwater flow from the east to the west to the Heart River and have some, you know, unknown or perceived impacts upstream into that housing in other parts of the city of Manan. So, um some concern there. Um, it, it would have a schedule impact to the Lower It probably would set us back a good 6 months to a year just heart project.

00:31:22,501	because we'd have to retool and redesign some stuff, so. Um,

00:31:31,701	Any questions on that? Yeah, um, how much of the, how much of the Legion Park are you taking with that one? And the second part of that is, I, did I hear that you guys were gonna do some work in hole number 2, right? Did I hear that right? Um, we don't intend to, I think, I think Bill had mentioned that, yeah, OK, it wouldn't be part of this project. It's separate, correct?

00:32:01,701	OK, so would that, that wouldn't be part of this project, but when would that be, when was that, when are we talking about doing that? It would be part of the project. It would be part of the. It should not have any impact to the park system in. And then on this one with the whole 4. How much of this would affect Hull for. On this option, yeah, so, uh, if you can squint at that map, the purple is a temporary construction easement boundary. There's really no permanent easement boundary. That dark black hatched area is, is what we had anticipate as a staging area for the construction of that slurry wall. So right now it's kind of set up, um, I forget all the infrastructure you have right in, but it would, I think it would impact your, uh, practice, practice green. Practice screen. Sorry, I don't know it that well. Um, as far as Legion Park, that one would have relatively minimal impact.

00:33:01,167	Thank you. Any other questions? OK. All right.

00:33:08,501	Uh, pressure relief wells, this is the least desirable. It's got some, uh, it's, it's not terribly, it, it does require a specialty contractor, but it would be relief wells basically every 100 ft along the West fairway West rough right next to the toe of the levee, um, and so there'd be 22 of them and they'd be sticking up above ground, so they'd be subject to vandalism. Uh, they require, um, ongoing operation and maintenance, uh, activities that are, can be pricey and require some specialty contractors to do that. So, um, again, this is a footprint. You can see all those little red dots represent what a um relief well would, where it would be. Um, again, there's um, Uh, no permanent easement requirements, but it would just have some, um, higher cost and then higher uh O&M cost throughout the life of that part of the of the. Structure, so, um, any questions on that?

00:34:14,467	Um, with all, I'm gonna ask all three of them, is it going to affect, because we're, we're our irrigation system is coming through the heart river, so which of those three would not affect it or would all three affect it? Well, um, I think the seepage burn would have the one of the least impacts to it. Um, I think. Um It still would, I think that, and I don't understand the operation of the current intake system all that well. I think Gerret or Cole said there would still be some impacts even with the seepage berm, if I, if I understood that part correctly. The current setup is that there's a floating intake adjacent to Hole 4 there. It's piped through the um current levee system and into that pond. I would imagine what a concern would be that much construction equipment, you know, messing with the integrity of that pipe. The actual irrigation system itself, the pipe that runs along whole floor, we would have to make some modifications in order to be able to irrigate the rest of the golf course while that area was being affected. Um, the extent of that, um, to be determined based on the area affected. And that feeds the retention pond, correct? So just the intake from the river currently that feeds and then the rest would be the actual operation of the golf course irrigation system that's fed from the pond. Garrett, what would that do you, do you have a just a rough guess what that would cost us? I don't. OK. That's all I have more information. Thank you, Garrett. OK Um, so I'll just go into the conceptual costs and again I know you've seen this again. We can, we can just briefly go through it and, and then you can ask questions. So, um, of the three, you know, we're estimating this is again conceptual costs, and we're estimating about 3.5 million for that seepage stability bom construction by itself.

00:36:07,267	Um, that does include an estimate of golf course mitigation. Um, it, and, and that was, you know, again, they're conceptual, so I don't want anybody to hang their hat on these, but, uh, hopefully we could do an apples to apples comparison through each of these alternatives. Um The cutoff wall, uh, you can see it's about $3.9 million just in the construction, um, greater than the seepage berm. um, we're looking at some, you know, relocations of that water intake that would have to happen, um, with this, with this option as the sanitary sewer, and then we again we'd have some additional design that would have to go into this that would set us back schedule wise but also cost money up front. And then pre pressure relief wells, um, again they're not they're they're actually the second most expensive to construct, but when you add in the long term maintenance over the 50 year expected life of those relief wells, uh, it just adds up to a lot of money and uh and plus they're just kind of an eyesore and and probably subject to. Vandalism and and other issues with that high of a traffic right next to him. So, um.

00:37:25,701	I, I did put together a project funding breakdown, and this is total project as it exists right now. Um, right now, we're looking at about 25 million for the entirety of the project, all the stuff that Bill described, and then, um, They, we are um recipients of a federal uh FMA grant, flood mitigation assistance grant through FEMA. Um, that was applied for in 2023. It was received here, and we're just starting to see actual official, um, approvals of it, but it, it will be coming, but the issue with that is it's capped, um, it's capped at 13.8 million, still a nice chunk of money. Uh, the state of North Dakota Department of Water Resources has been a good partner throughout this all the time, and, and so they cost you at 60%. Um, that leaves the remaining cost share at 40% of the non-federal share, and when I said 60% for the state, it's non-federal mons, they pay 60% of it, including design. So the locals, it falls on 40% of that non-federal share. Um, in 2022, uh, we did go to the city commission and get a citywide assessment, um, approved. Um, it was tiered and so the people that are protected there, you see in that blue shaded area are paying roughly 65% of that local cost share. Um, and then the remaining 35% are paid by the remainder of the city. So that's 3 million to 1.6 million under this cost scenario. Um, just as a, a point of information that equates to for an inundated area, um, residential parcel about $1000 It would be contributed by that parcel towards the cost of this project. Typically those are bonded and they are spread out over 15 to 20 years. Uh, I did not include those numbers, but they're, you know, I guess, relatively small. They're not $1000 each year. I just want to make that clear. Um, commercial, we'd also did, we added another factor of 1.25% on top of that to uh end the breakdown. And so commercial parcels will be paid more. Um, and then for the non inundated areas, it's, uh, you know, $250 total. Again, that would be spread out over multiple years or it could be prepaid, paid off early. Uh, and so that's the numbers essentially for, uh, the entirety of the project as it exists now.

00:40:05,868	So, in just a summary, I mean, in HDR again, advises the lower heart. Our, our recommendation was to pursue the seepage bom from a cost perspective, from a, a long-term maintenance perspective, and at least, um, I guess, mostly the cost and ease of construction is is is the uh reasons behind that.

00:40:31,467	So that's essentially the the presentation, certainly be happy to take any questions uh related to.

00:40:40,000	I'm gonna say something because these guys are gonna say a lot more things about detail stuff, but I'm, I'm gonna be honest, I'm really worried about what our citizens are going to pay for every Every year Rick made a great point is that That place brings in 4 meals for our community. And if I have to close that, that golf course down for 1 year, I got to find 4 meals. So one of the things that I'm concerned about is easement. I I I read about. You guys would like us just to donate the land. I'm concerned about how our citizens are gonna pay for this because it's gonna cost not just the city part, but also the and and park and Rick and like I said, that golf course makes us 4 meals, and I do not want to add 4 meals to Rick or my taxes for the next few years. Thank you.

00:41:44,467	Yeah, kind of piggybacking on that. I see the federal, uh, dollars were capped, so if the bids come in high, that's gonna fall on the locals. So with the, uh, city have right of refusal to back out at the time and not match local or, or where do we go then? Well, I, you know, I, I'm not an expert on the citywide assessment type pro process. It was approved, um, you know, and it's, uh, basically at a as a percentage level of project cost, so I don't know the ability to back out of it, um. I, I, I guess I don't have a great answer for you there, Comm Mahlhoff I could add, so I asked that question before the meeting and discussion was what happens if like normal assessments if it's over 40% of engineers estimate, it can be rejected and then um protested out. Well, this has already been letters been sent out this information's been communicated. The improvement district is closed, so essentially depending on how good or bad the bids potentially could come, this project would still be able to move forward, that it wouldn't be able to be protested out. Now the concern would be what is that dollar amount that the city and Laura Hart are gonna, you know, comfortable with putting back onto the taxpayers in regards to this. We're kind of like the third party of this because we just happen to have land adjacent to it. We're kind of the lesser of two evils, meaning we want to make it economical but also be safe for our community. And so the Park district with Comm Mutter's comments in regard to the 4 mill value, yes, we bring in over $400,000 a year at Manham Municipal. It's equivalent to a rate around 3 to 4 mills. Um, the only caveat would be is, yeah, our revenue will be down during construction, but our expenses will also be less. We still are gonna have to pay staff. We're still gonna have to maintain whatever's available there, whatever, um, expenses associated with the golf course if it's gonna remain open or not, that is to be determined.

00:43:36,467	Dennis, uh, what is the permitting process involve as, as far as a time kind of a time line? So, um, right now, and, and this is part of the equation to this discussion, uh, we need to, you know, kind of finalize our design. We need to resubmit to, um, the US Army Corps of Engineers for a Section 408 permit which is required because they constructed the original levy. We also need to submit to FEMA. Um, for a conditional letter of map or revision, which would, you know, because you're, you're essentially changing your map, floodplain maps. Um, those take um a while and so those typically take 6 months to a year. To, uh, to process once they're submitted. Um, And and I don't know if you're leading into a construction timeline question, but yeah, so they take time and so those are the main two. I mean, there's a, there's other, there's a construction permit from the state of North Dakota that takes some time to, um, and, and other smaller variety type permits, but those are the main ones. So we would most likely be looking at. Uh, later year. 25 before you'd even have approval for the permit. I would say that would be a reasonable um judgment and and Cole's been asking some pretty pointed questions too um about, you know, how is, how would this affect the, you know, how could we time this, you know, if this is the chosen option to have the least impact and so um it's a big project. This is one part of it. I think we can. You know, set up the construction contract to direct certain timelines. They could work on this particular stretch of the project. Um, uh, you know, I heard the end of, uh, I don't know if I heard you correctly, August 1st or, uh, late August is when you could start construction and be out for a year. Yeah, so Comm Scott, just to kind of how we were thinking from staff and our discussions internally here is we got to work it backwards like we have to seed. Probably by July 15th, August 1st, so we at least have 3 to 4 months of obviously quality weather before it goes dormant and then we come back into the spring. So, whatever year that They get approvals for their permits and construction was to proceed, we have to stipulate when they could start so that we can work on the back end. So let's just say if it is approved and it moves forward, let's just say it can't start till August or August 15th or September 1 of 25. They have until August 1st to get their construction done and then we could seet August through the rest of the fall, um, to have something ready to go, but we also know in 26, it's a complete shutdown. No matter what option we go, because the concerns that we've had would be if you just do hole number 4 or you do the cut wall, no one's gonna come play 8 holes. You're gonna lose a lot of tournaments, revenue is gonna be down regardless. We have safety issues of how you get people from 3 green all the way to 5 tee box with people coming down 9 if they have. So there's a lot of variables that we've talked about. And then do we do some renovation opportunities. On top of that, it says we're going to be under construction.

00:46:46,901	So we're looking at a 1 year construction window, but really it's probably more like an 18 to 24 month. Effects of the course. I mean, Garrett can work magic, but I think he can grow grass, but. I don't know if you can get it any sooner. on the construction timeline of reconstructing the golf hole from the minute that it's constructed till playable, um, 20 weeks is pretty standard for growing time and maturity of that turf grass. The other question that Cole brought keeps bringing up to me is that can you guys, is there an idea or a thought process of using the dirt at the, at the golf course and let us redo the whole golf course? Is that a possibility or not a possibility? Yeah, no, I think it's, uh, you know, the, the material required in the seepage berm is not terribly stringent and so, uh, the, the soils on site, we certainly believe could be used. Um, and I think that is a, uh, and I think it's a great idea if it works out. I think it's a somewhat of a win-win situation, given the situation. Um, It's 90,000 cubic yards. Um, and so the question I have that we haven't confirmed yet is can all that come from the golf course site and still work into a, a nice redesign of holes um 3 through 9. Um, that certainly would be, um, a, a, a win situation again, given the conditions. Um, and then that would eliminate some of the trucking through the community to take from a separate borrow area. So it would be a reduced construction cost just from that aspect. And so it's certainly, uh, again, construction of, of the boom, maybe not the golf course. Right, I mean, and so, and I did check with the state, you know, one of the questions I had is, you know, OK, we're talking a golf course mitigation, um, is that, you know, cost charitable from by state rules and, and I was assured that it is. And so, you know, making the golf course, um, restoring it, making it whole, um, is, uh, is what I would view a project cost. And so it's not. Here at Parks and Rec, you pay for this part of it. It's a project cost. I think what you're out and obviously it's been stressed as you're out revenue during that period. So you're, you're proposing 1.5 million for that mitigation for that was real conceptual. I, I'm sorry, I don't, you know, I wouldn't write that any place other than that we don't see mitigation costs on the So I mean, obviously we had to weigh those things, yeah, um. other two options. So there's some residents to the north of our property there. uh, what, what, what do they have to do? I mean, if we go with the Sepi room or am I just seeing this tiny map wrong, what, what, what kind of easement do they need to give, um, or are you doing proposing something else on that north side there? Yeah, doesn't it we're really not getting outside of the property with that option. And so I, my hope, this is, this again, this is kind of initial stage stages is that I hope that this is the extreme extent of the impact. Um, so that part is acceptable as far as the height and everything. It's just that short little reach that's um. Uh, freeboard deficient.

00:50:23,667	If there were houses on whole 4 right against this, what, what would, what would the steps, what steps would you guys take to. I mean, I'm, I'm just trying to, I mean, there's not, and we wanna be good partners with this, and we wanna, I mean we want Mandan to be safe and we want this to, you know, uh, reduce damage down the road if, if so be it. But what, what would you do if there was houses along there? Yeah, that's a great question. I think you know, the approach is, is the same, right? You're looking at impacts, um, what that probably brings in is more of a little more direct. Or, or critical social impact that you might have to deal with and, you know, buying somebody out to, to uh put in that feature. Is maybe a little different than an impacting a golf course. I mean, that's, and the reason I ask that is when I, when I get to easements, and I'm gonna ask Attorney Ruff to maybe talk about, you know, obviously we have a responsibility for the city of Manan. You know, I don't think any of us got on here, you know, thinking we're gonna rebuild uh and do a seepage firm, but our, you know, we're looking after golf course, we're looking after what, what we provide for our community. But you know, attorney Ruff, do you, what, how does that work with other, uh, government agencies working together and. And should we expect, uh, an easement and uh for a fair price to totally redo our golf course or just whole floor? Um. Well, with respect to the easement itself, I don't know for sure whether Lower Hart would have the ability to go through condemnation. That's a question I haven't looked at, uh, if there were houses there to go through condemnation by those properties at fair market value, um. So I'm not sure of that answer to that question. As far as easement is concerned, from what I know to date, and I think that's been confirmed. That there isn't an easement along the *** currently for any construction or any uh permanent changes to the ***, is that correct? Well, so when the corps constructed it theoretically they got, you know, land rights or easements. Um, I think the issue is that the Corps had a not, were notorious for never recording those. And so, um. You know, I believe there's an easement. Is it recorded? No. Well, in, in, in, in my opinion, if there isn't a recorded easement, there isn't an easement, OK? That's my position. Uh, then the question is, is, uh, you know, being good stewards and we wanna be part of this project, it, it appears it's something that is necessary to be completed and, and probably a little overdue in, in completing. Um, but that doesn't mean that we just have to say, here's an easement. We're gonna give this to you, no private landowner would be required to do that. They would be compensated for that easement, and I, I think that we should be in that same position that there should be some arrangements, some compensation that should be worked out, uh, to grant the easement for the lost revenues we're gonna incur the changes to the golf course, um, things of that nature now. What that amount should be and how that affects the project and who ultimately is gonna pay for that, those are all questions that have to be looked at as part of the negotiations for the easement and that's kind of where I was getting at with the easement side, you know, we can say we're gonna this is what the easement's going to cost and we negotiate that, but somebody still has to pay for that. And it's not gonna be lower hard, I don't think. And I don't think it and and I don't know that I want it to just you guys have, I mean, I don't know, depending on how much it is, but it seems like whatever we do it's going to be passed along through a special assessment to to taxpayers. So and and I'm not on the lower hard board, so I, um, but, but right right away right away costs are, are typically project costs and so there's other, as you might imagine, there's other, um, easements that are in the process of being obtained. And they're going through a negotiation process and, and so it is a cost that Lower Hart has been paying again, I'm not on the board, but. Um, So, Comm Mes Metschke, I do have another question with respect to the three options. Now the, the cost estimates have been presented and, and the one that's being considered is the lowest cost estimate. I assume an analysis has been done as to the um efficiency of all three options in terms of flood protection. Are they all sort of equal or is one of the options better than the other, the other two?

00:55:00,601	yeah, no, as far as an economic standpoint, they're in protection standpoint, they're all equivalent. Yeah, I mean, they all have, they have their little warts, um, but essentially they're all effective and, and serve the same purpose. And, and you alluded to eminent domain or uh condemnation. uh Lower Hart is a water resource district. They do have that authority. It's, it, it was, and if you, you probably paid attention a couple sessions ago in the legislature, they severely restricted it and and reduced that ability and so it's uh definitely a last uh last option and not something I don't think they ever would care to pursue, so. We, we don't want that either, but I think in, in good faith we, we need to ask these questions because, you know, not only we're losing part of our golf course and we're the community's losing part of their golf course and, and the revenue that's associated with that. President Mitschke or Cole or I don't care who it is, is there a way that we can see what it's going to cost our taxpayers on, um, for me, I feel more, I would feel more comfortable. I don't want, it's got to be done. I understand that. But I want to make sure that I understand. What it cost our taxpayers before we vote on something because I, I, I don't wanna, I don't want to land on a On a landmine and we should have went the other way type of thing. So that's where I'm at. Thank you. And I, and I think that's all part of the negotiation to and who pays is there are there more federal dollars out there? I mean, we, we can.

00:56:39,367	OK. And we all know when you, when you bring in federal Not today.

00:56:42,467	dollars, you bring in in them into your backyard. I understand, I understand that too, um, you know, and, and to your point, I think you're asking about, you know, the factory in operational losses, um, that, no, the answer is not yet. And um And I think you've kind of started a process to try to identify what some of those capital costs and making the golf course whole again would be. Um, I can, and I can do a I do have that last, um, slide in your handout that shows the difference between the two preferred options or two main options on just the project cost, how that would affect those assessments, um, but beyond that I don't have that. just to add one more comment to that. So present Mes Commissioners, we did have our virtual meeting with a golf course designer who's got experience with flood protection and mitigation work. Um, and you have the proposals in front of you for the hole number 4, and you have another proposal for potentially renovating 3 through 9. And so the real, the big question would be. From a park district standpoint, we're gonna be shut down regardless and we're gonna have less play. So do we use this as an opportunity to potentially redesign holes 3 through 9? The dollar amounts may change slightly plus or minus $500.01 way or another, but from a taxpayer standpoint, if we can minimize 7000 trucks from driving on Third Street, take the fill from the existing site, redistribute it in a way that. The person who comes to the golf course goes, well, they did flood protection and they made an improvement to an asset. Yeah, it's on a golf course. Yes, the park district's benefiting, but some of these improvements that we're gonna have to do, whether it's an irrigation system, expanding the pond, maybe a new intake, all that cost was gonna come at some point, can we package it all into a one item and not necessarily call it a purchase for an easement? We can package it however we want, but here's the result from the consultant. Here's what he's telling us it's gonna cost to redesigned by redistributing the 90,000 cubic yards. We may not have a huge savings from their estimate, but at least we have put the dollars back into it in a way that benefits everybody long term. Lower Hart wins, the park district wins, the citizens wins by the most economical way, and the assessment is somewhat controlled. If we go to the cut wall. We know estimate wise it's already a $5 million increase. We're not gonna be anywhere close to that. I think if we renovate, we're hearing numbers in that $4 Well, if we have 3.5 million today that we're estimating for million range.

00:59:18,701	just whole 4. And we don't have to redistribute the 90,000 yards, and we can stay right around that 4 million, we're still money ahead.

00:59:31,601	Just to piggyback on Cole, we're, we've reached out. I know I think you and Cole did maybe was part of that too, but just to get some design and and again how to redesign hole number 4 or do the whole course. You know, preliminary numbers we don't really wanna go to depth with that, but has this has the city been part of these talks that they're gonna be a, they're gonna be a player in this too, I would assume as far as the assessing and and and things like that. Not, not yet on this particular topic they've been engaged or we, you know, give them updates periodically throughout the project but not on this particular topic, no. I, I guess, you know. Uh, this is actually one of the, you know, been on the board for a few years. This is probably gonna be one of the most difficult decisions that that I think I'll have to, you know, vote on. Um, I, I need more information. I need, I need, um, I mean a lot of questions here. I'd like to, uh, sit down and talk with these guys or have a committee, uh, if we can, if we could have a committee that would get together, obviously, uh, Comm Scott with with the golf portfolio and. I, I know you're, you're itching to get going and you're, you're, you, this is what, 7 years in the making, is that, I think 78 years you've been. I, I was in high school. I'm just kidding.

01:00:43,100	Dennis, um, I mean it, it's, it's gonna be a difficult decision because we're gonna have to balance, we're gonna have to balance a lot of things, so I, I guess I personally would like to get the city involved probably a little bit more on on our on our. Our planning and and what because we want them to support this project and us, you know, going forward to and what we're gonna do it in in man and so that that's just my, my two cents, um, I, I think I have a lot of other questions here but I, I think those would be better handled either through a committee member or in a subcommittee, um, to maybe get those things as an FYI, um, Mayor Frelick was at the last Lower Hart Water board meeting and listened to some of the same discussion and so. Um, of course, I don't speak for him, but he, um, was he was supportive, I guess in general of, of the path we were tentatively laying out. And I think we are too if we can iron out a lot of big details probably so maybe not but yeah I mean we know that again we want to be good stewards to to our community and if it needs to get done we wanna we want flood protection and. Right. Without it, people would not be able to get flood insurance if nothing is done, is that correct, Dennis? Right. Well, you would, you would, they would be put into a flood plain and so they would be subject to flood insurance and so they could get flood insurance, could get it, but they might be in a position where they are forced to have it rather than having the mortgage would be forced to have it which is another cost to look at if they're paying special, you know, specials or are they paying for flood insurance, $1000 over 15 or 20 years compared to what they might. Cost them for flood insurance is money well spent, but you still have a lot of questions on the table, um, like Comm Mutters uh. I, I don't wanna have it cost the taxpayers more than than anybody else, uh, because we are taxpayers too, so we don't make decisions just to charge everybody else we're making them for ourselves as well but um what is what is the bare minimum that we need to do tonight, Cole? So Comm Scott, one of the things in that proposal that we received from Norby Golf Design is that it's a 14 week turnaround and so I understand we don't have any direction or or what option, but we know something's going to happen at Minan Municipal Golf Course. We just don't know all the details as far as the assessments and the costs. I'd hate to push off 23 weeks of a decision when we would lose that with a design from a from a rendering standpoint. So that's where he'll put together some costs. He'll put together a master plan as far as what those renderings could look like. Now we have something to see like what it's gonna look like when a finished product and some cost estimates associated with that. Now if the board wants those cost estimates before they approve that, that's something that can happen, but I don't want to lose 2 to 4 weeks on renderings and cost estimates. At this time, so I'd like to have the first step would be at least get. If the board can decide if you want whole number 4 only or if you would like the whole course renderings, I would recommend the whole course renderings for the 19,500 that the park district would pay. We can get that started and not lose weeks and then hopefully have something back in 14 weeks of what potentially that would look like. So it's 14 weeks from the date we sign these if we, if we'd go, what are your thoughts on that? I mean, is that? I agree with Cole's assessment on that, that lines up with my thought process. I know there are some other. I wouldn't say crazy ideas, but there are some other ideas on how that that course could look, um, uh, knowing that we have land and other places around there that we could make it, uh, uh, look a little different. My personal opinion, I think the draw to man Da municipal course is that it's a, it's a flat course and it can be easily walked and it, and we get people I think with the study that we did the one year 60% of our. Our golfers that came out there came from outside the 58554 zip code. And I think they come there because of the ease of play, bringing beginners, bringing kids there to learn. So for me, that conceptual design. Uh, it is important that it, it somewhat maintains that, you know, not a lot of water hazards and we're not hitting, you know, in between a lot of trees, things like that. I think that's what draws, uh, people to that, and I could be wrong, but we do bring a lot of people out of town into there so. Can I have one more quick question? So, whole 4 would be in that whole golf course thing. So we really wouldn't need the other one, correct? It would be included. Hole number 4 would be included in the total golf course renovation, but if you'd only want, if you don't want to spend the 195, then we'd have to go back to the 12,0001. That would only be hole number 4, but whole 4 might not be there if the whole, I mean, whole four might be somewhere else or it could be two par 3s there. I mean it just depending on what they, what they come up with in the direction they give. So that could be hole 6 and 7. I mean, it depending on how they look at it. That's how Chair Chair Meschke. I've reviewed the proposed contracts with Norby Golf Course Designs and um Cole indicated they kind of were rushed out and there's a few things that would have to be negotiated and changed in particular, um, if there were any disputes in court proceedings there in Hennepin County, Minnesota, uh, we will not agree to that. And secondly, the agreement is to be governed by Minnesota law. We will not agree to that. So unless we can get him to change that to. Um, Morin County, North Dakota, and under North Dakota law that this contract will not be entered into by the park district. And say we don't agree to that, do we have a backup option in the state of North Dakota?

01:06:46,200	You, Garrett To my knowledge, there's no other actively participating golf course architects or any architects that specialize in

01:06:57,200	in North Korea, OK.

01:07:00,267	So If we choose to move forward with that, you're saying Ireland we should, we should have those stipulations put into the not just to sign these but to put those in there. And then President Mesk Commissioners just in that proposal about owners responsibilities. I don't know what's been done with HDR in this area, but obviously we are, as the owner are required to provide the survey, the topo topographic survey, soil data, testing, wetlands, all the things that potentially would be an additional cost over and above the design. So we don't have that information in front of us. We'd have to hire either that's what Norby's asking for, yeah, correct. So that's an additional cost that we don't know what that would be to get this, this information to construct it and and design it. Renderings Yeah, I my I get one.

01:07:58,167	If I might just add to that point, and I, I saw that too, um, as part of our environmental analysis, we're already doing, um, environmental and we've set, we basically decided we would like to do the um entire golf course for that part of it. And so, um, you know, the wetland delineation, I think would be relatively easy to get to within our current activities. Um, the survey, I have a question. I don't know if they need, you know, topo survey and what the frequency is, that would be a little bit of a, uh, effort, um, to expand on what we've already done, or if if LIDAR works for them. I don't know. I probably not, I'm guessing. I would assume that LIDAR would work. That's uh becoming more and more prevalent in golf course construction. So LIDAR is available, and I think it's a, you know, quality level such as as fine as you can get into today's tech. So maybe that already solves some of those issues. I forget what the other ones were.

01:08:59,100	The big ones.

01:09:02,467	So what's our next step with Dennis and Bill?

01:09:08,667	I guess if you want to give direction. To them that you are supportive of the seepage berm option. That allows them. I know that was one of the key components in our meetings that they could at least know that we are supportive of the seepage berm to eliminate the other two options, allows them to start their permit application, doesn't tie the park district to giving them access and nailing down what's gonna actually happen, but I know you guys are under a timeline. We are, I mean, but we've been that way for a long time, but yeah, I know, any type of. I didn't hear it, you know, absolutely not. I mean, I, I, I think I didn't hear that. Um, you know, uh, obviously we're not gonna walk out of here with a, uh, actual vote saying we absolutely support the steepage erm, but, um,

01:09:57,367	And we have other parts of the project that we can continue to work on, but it will be a schedule hit, you know, the more we wait, we'll just have to um be a little bit later in our submittal to the core and to FEMA. Think for me I need to see the cost estimates, you know, for the, you know, is it how, how do we balance that out and to to to totally resign that are we, are we close to that second option, you know, as far as I don't think we will be. I think we'll be well under that, but, um, where it's, you know, minimal impact to our. I just add one more thing that was discussed earlier about the cost of an easement, um. Right away costs from a state perspective are not eligible for cost share. So when they get an easement from somebody, they do not get covered by the uh state of North Dakota. Um, mitigation project costs, moving dirt does. So it depends on what we call it. It depends on what it is. Yeah, so if there's a, if there's a check written to and and Parks. OK, for right, for right away, my understanding that that that's not eligible. If there's a check written to Martin and Parks to. You know, construct a seepage berm and using borrowed material from the golf course. I think that's a different story. Just uh something to consider as you go forward. President Mitski, can I make a motion for a subcommittee of you guys, I don't care who's on it, but a subcommittee to, to look at this and make sure what we, what we do is right. Yeah, I think I can just appoint one, can't I? Or do we want, you want a more? You can, but Comm Scott has the golf portfolio, so the question would be, would you like to appoint additional person to that? And I think if you wanted to, I think Comm Mhlhhoff with his engineering background and contracts would be a good recommendation to help us through that process. And we any meetings would then have notice because two of you are there, but would you two agree to be on that? Subcommittee of course so we'll do that and then I think we as much as we can get, I know you know Comm Frelick is is in support and I mean there's just a lot of moving parts here that I think we have questions too and you know um so I don't know if other people from the city should be involved as as well but um I guess maybe Cole if you wanna reach out to them and see if they want some. Some of their engineers may be on it or I don't know how much background they have with this, but it would, it would be helpful. Just had preliminary discussions with city administrator Neubauer, and I think we all have the same questions and I think that's where we just got to get all entities together they're gonna be impacted in making this decision what's best for the community. OK, so we'll do that and then I guess uh we would need a motion if we want Cole to, um. Approach Norby uh golf design. Um, golf course design incorporated to uh in an agreement with them to give us some. So cost estimates and renderings of what each um option would look like. Uh, so we get the ball rolling on that.

01:13:07,100	I would make the motion for Cole to make contact with Norby, um, and then bring back a contract that would make this changes to Morton County and North Dakota law, not Hanneback County and Minnesota state law. I go ahead motion by Comm Scott.

01:13:34,000	Did you, uh, second by Comm Mhlhoff. Any further discussion? So just to clarify, so we've already contacted Norby Designs. So are we getting direction to enter. In which one I'm assuming it's the renovation of the entire, I, I understood that that way. I just wanna make sure it's clarified verbally.

01:13:54,801	So yours just for the full renovation option or both options for the full renovation because whole floor would be in there or any. Changes to hole number 4 would be included in that. So I think that's the best use of our money. How many renderings do they give us for that? I think we'll have probably 3 or 4 drafts and then probably finalize 1 and then that will be the final one that we submit and then any revisions after that have an additional cost, but. I think we'll be able to have a lot of input and staff in the park district, as far as the golf course staff will be involved. OK. Turn rough, anything else you saw on there, do we, I mean, if we get that taken care of, where you felt we're good with the contract, I think I think with that I'd be fine with the contract. Cole mentioned the other items, uh, the deliverables that we It sounds like those would all be available or readily have to get.

01:14:51,267	available, so I, I would be fine with those things. Mr. I just, I happened to notice one thing. I see it said Man Dan Parks is located in Fargo too, just another little OK. Oh really. And again, to his defense, we met with him at 6 a.m. his time in California. He was on a project and we needed something by Friday, so he was definitely met our timeline, and we knew there was some typos in there that we'll get addressed. We wanted a dollar amount more than that but we're not gonna pay for any of that. Fargo's not gonna pay for any of this. Hey, it's worth asking, right? All right, so we have a motion in a second to call that clarifies the motion. OK, um, and that that cost will be.

01:15:39,868	$19,500 is that correct? OK, so, um. You want to amend your motion to include that cost because we'll have to pay. Uh, amend the motion to include $19,500. A motion in a second. OK, well, any further discussion? OK, we'll vote on this one. OK, Commission. Mutter, Mr. Mehlhoff, Mr. Scott. Yes, for me as well. Sorry guys, we don't maybe have the answer that you want yet, but I think we'll get to that. So thank you very much for your time and certainly reach out with any questions and you work through this, thank you.

01:16:21,767	OK, moving on to item 4, construction project updates, uh, Ferrisfield youth baseball Com complex, boat ramp and golf operations building Col is that all you? Yep, President of Mexican missions, I'll be really brief. appreciate you guys' time here tonight, but Ferris field project is complete, just some minor things on some irrigation that has to be completed, but seatings down, water's running. Um, we had our walk through Friday afternoon. Looks good. Um, hopefully we'll be playing in it, you know, a year from now when the weather cooperates, but, um, yeah, we're pretty excited to have that going. As you know, um, the project was approved. Um, we spent right around estimate construction cost was $863,000. We're at around $880,000 is what total funding, so we're gonna be right around that $15,000 under budget. Um, there is some improvements that we'd like to use that 150 for, and that is the sidewalks that lead there. If you the sidewalks run north south along Ferris field are the original sidewalks that led into the football field, and there's a lot of movement and heaving and so we've spent a nice chunk of dollars renovating those diamonds. We want the public to have sidewalks that one are safe that aren't heaved and cracked from over the time and then construction did damage them so we'd like to um to take that 15 that's remaining and utilize that and we would just work from the south and and work all the way far north as that would cover. And then there are some portions on the north end of that sidewalk where the future potential synthetic turf will go, um, the sidewalk's not in good condition either, but we would have to plan for that in the future, but it's not in a playable, accessible area at this time. OK, and then just moving on to the youth baseball complex, um, as you know, 100% paid by the man in baseball club and their gaming, um, dirt work is rough grading is pretty much done. storm water and, um, drainage tiles are going in as we speak. Footage have been poured for the grandstands in the backstop. Um, poles along all four diamonds have been in, um, cemented in now, um, so they're curing, hoping to see fabric go up on the fences on diamonds 11 and 12, probably in the next two weeks. Um, 11, 9 and 10 are your main competition fields that that fencing won't go in probably for another month. Um, we're waiting on synthetic turf. Stone should be getting delivered next week, and that's what goes on the base of the synthetic turf for drainage. So really we're gonna see a lot happen here in the next 2 to 3 weeks in those synthetic fields. Boat ramp, as we know, um, we received that $800,000 grant along with shares from the city, county, and parks. They were digging the ramp out this morning and I drove by before I came here. You can actually kind of see the ramp and the access to the river. It's kind of neat to see. Um, right around 2000 cubic yards are getting taken out of there and hopefully going to be redistributed to the youth baseball complex at a $10 per yard savings to our construction project. Um, it's going through testing right now. Hopefully, the soils in there are minimal clays, which will help, um. The drainage for what we need underneath the synthetic turf. But yeah, the boat ramp, um, we're still on schedule to potentially have that done by the end of October. Um, but if you have a chance, all the stumps removed, rough grading again, they'll work from the water side and then work their way out. Um, we met with MDU on Friday also. They're gonna bore new transmission line from. So the south side of I-94 bore underneath the interstate, underneath car bodies, and then loop in that housing development to the north. So this project kind of kicked that off to to address our electrical needs because the power lines that run through there today are too high powered for the minimal needs that we need for two security lights. So they're gonna loop that in. That project will hopefully start in the next two weeks too. And then Golf operations building, um, just had our pre-designed meeting here with some engineers on Friday morning. And things are working well on that as far as opportunities and designs. We don't have anything to show for you at this point, um, but we met all of our needs along with Garrett and I, and so hopefully we'll have a better timeline next month. And that's all I have to add as far as construction updates for tonight. Questions for calling any of the projects.

01:20:22,767	Move on to item number 5, approval of monthly bills. I'll make a motion to pay our monthly bills. Motion by Comm Mhlhoff. Second, seconded by Comm Scott. Any further discussion? OK, all in favor say aye. I oppose same sign. OK, motion carries. Uh, future meeting days for Park board commissioners. Our next regular the scheduled meeting will be October 14th, 2024 right here at 5:30. And can we go to motion to Adjourn? motion by Comm Mhlhoff. Second, seconded by Comm Mutter. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye, aye, meeting Adjourned.