Jill Schramm/MDN
Ryan Ackerman, administrator for the Souris River Joint Board, speaks to the Minot City Council Monday about a runoff diversion plan related to the flood protection project. Council member Mike Blessum is shown.
The purchase of a piece of property next to the Public Works facility narrowly gained Minot City Council approval Monday after reconsideration of a previous meeting’s tied vote.
The council’s newest three members continued to oppose the deal after voicing discomfort with the sudden change in purpose and funding source behind the purchase. City council members took another look at the proposed $920,000 purchase of the 7.5 acres after learning the acquisition could be largely reimbursed by the state and could save $44.3 million in the cost of the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project.
In May, engineers working on the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project identified a potential alternative for the proposed $80 million Livingston Coulee pump station that involves using a culvert or ditch to divert storm water around the levees during a flood event. One suggested diversion route runs on the Kemper property the council considered purchasing for Public Works expansion on July 1.
The council was not informed of the potential flood protection use during the July 1 meeting. That information came up after the council rejected the purchase on a 3-3 vote, with council member Paul Pitner absent.
“The first word that came to my mind was shady,” said council member Mike Blessum, who had voted against the purchase. “It felt like, after the first meeting with a new council that something was being brought back because the result wasn’t what was hoped for or expected.”
He raised questions about the likelihood the Kemper property will prove to be the best option.
“If it is,” Blessum said, “it’s very nearly a no-brainer. I don’t know that we’ll have many that will be this straightforward. You spend $920,000. You get reimbursed 75% of that, and then down the road, you save $40 million, and that’s before inflation.”
Blessum still opposed the purchase.
“At this point, I’ll just be honest, I’m not all that comfortable – I’m more comfortable than I was – because we’re still in the same spot. We’re taking a property off the market,” he said.
Scott Samuelson and Rob Fuller, the other two new council members who had voted against the purchase initially, cited concerns about the appearance of the deal.
“The optics of this to the community and, I think, the council are pretty bad, at least in my opinion,” Fuller said. He added there is another bidder for the property, which would keep the property on the tax rolls and potentially generate economic development, depending on its use.
“If we can buy the property, get reimbursed and save $40 million, absolutely that’s fantastic. But at this point, with the way it’s come to us, the way it’s been presented one way and now presented another way, I think there’s a lot of people in the community that are going to have questions about this and want to have some input on it,” Fuller said. He moved to table the purchase vote for 30 days, which gained support from the three new council members but failed on a 3-4 vote.
Council member Lisa Olson said if the council passes on the purchase, another buyer will acquire the property and options for flood control will be gone.
“If we do purchase it tonight, and plans change – and sometimes plans do change. We realize that – we own a piece of property that we can sell,” she said.
The motion to approve the purchase came on a 4-3 vote.
Utilities Director Jason Sorenson, who serves on the SRJB, said he was aware the 2012 preliminary engineering for the flood project was being reevaluated but was not involved in the internal discussions so wasn’t aware of potential alternatives involving Livingston Coulee. He mentioned at a meeting with engineers on June 20 that the city was interested in the Kemper property, to which the SRJB administrator responded the property was being evaluated in relation to the flood project.
“At that time, I didn’t know about this internal effort and what they had going on. So when I brought this on July 1, it was a future opportunity for the Public Works complex and making sure we had the ability to kind of expand our operation a little bit, give us a little more room where we’re pretty constrained with a lot of buildings that we moved onto that property,” Sorenson said.
Livingston Coulee is a large drainage area encompassing about 40 square miles, or 25,000 acres of developed and undeveloped land, including Minot International Airport and land extending to near Minot Air Force Base. It discharges into the Souris River just west of the city’s Public Works facility.
As proposed in the flood project, runoff from Livingston Coulee would flow through gates in the levee. During a flood, runoff must be conveyed to the river in another fashion, which led to the proposal for an $80 million, 500,000-gallon-per-minute pump station.
Using a box culvert or ditch to divert runoff across the Kemper land would reduce the need from 500,000 gallons to a 14,000-gallon-per-minute pump station, reducing the cost to $4.2 million.
Using the land diversion option comes with costs in addition to a small pump station, such as land acquisition, ditch or culvert construction and control structure. The most cost-effective solution is the ditch, which has a total estimated price of $35.7 million. Operational cost savings with a smaller pump station also weren’t considered but engineers say they would be significant.
If used for diversion, the land would carry deed restrictions that would prohibit permanent structures on the property. The Public Works Department has proposed to use the property for materials storage.
Ryan Ackerman, administrator for the SRJB, said analysis of the alternative has been preliminary so far. Although there’s no certainty at this point that diversion across the Kemper land will be the solution, there is 90% confidence it is the best way to address the problem, he said.
“From the joint board perspective, we’re looking to deliver the most cost-effective project,” Ackerman said.
