City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Council Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES

DECEMBER 10, 2001
7:00 PM

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, December 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers in City Hall with President Gershman presiding in the absence of Mayor Brown. Present at roll call were Council Members Gershman, Council Member Glassheim, Council Member Burke, Council Member Hamerlik, Council Member Bjerke, Council Member Brooks, Council Member Kreun, Council Member Kerian, Council Member Klave and Council Member Christensen (10). Absent: Council Members Stevens, Martinson, Council Member Bakken and Council Member Lunak. (4).

President Gershman called the meeting to order in the absence of Mayor Brown.

Council Member Hamerlik moved to suspend the agenda and convene as the City Council. Seconded by Council Member Burke. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Hamerlik moved to act on the resolution before us honoring the University of North Dakota football team and coaches on a highly successful season and winning the National Division II Championship. Seconded by Council Member Burke. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Bakken reported present.

President Gershman reconvened the Committee of the Whole. He said this was quite a weekend in Grand Forks – we had not only national exposure with the winning football team, but we had national exposure with Garrison Keillor on Prairie Home Companion and the first time we have had national exposure on two different medium in the country that was not about a windstorm or flood. He added that someone told him over the weekend that Grand Forks is fun. He went on to say that the Council has a lot of loyal listeners at Parkwood Place.

1.1 Release of 2001 UND Seed Money (Carried over from 1999 – Excess Sales Tax Dollars.)
In response to Council Member Burke’s question, Mr. Schmisek said this uses up all the funds and that we need to do a budget amendment to use the excess sales tax dollars.

1.2 Application for Class 7 – Golf Course Alcoholic Beverage License by L R & R, Inc. d.b.a. Eagles Crest Grill, 5301 S. Columbia Rd.
No comments.

1.3 Application for Transfer of Class 2 (Off Sale Alcoholic Beverage) License at 1950 32nd Av. S. to 2 Dogs, Inc. d.b.a. Columbia Liquors.
No comments.

1.4 Redistricting of the City of Grand Forks.
Mr. Hickok said redistricting is done every ten years after the census. The city has lost population on the north and east and gained on the south and west. He noted that Ward 4 is smallest now after being the largest in 1990 and that the major requirement for redistricting is that all wards be kept within a margin of 10% or about 6,700 to 7,400. He said this is an unwritten rule but would be foolish to violate. He added that we need to design precincts and the only absolute requirement for precincts is that they be part of only one ward and one legislative district. Mr. Hickok said as a practical matter, it is the desire to keep precincts as small as possible – about 2,500 – the major cost of an election is based on the number of precincts – each precinct costs the city about $5,000 over the life of the ten years - suitable polling places must be established for each precinct and it is becoming more and more difficult to recruit poll workers.

Mr. Hickok presented four alternatives and added another at the request of the committee. He explained how he arrived at the five alternatives. He said a southern area now has only 130 people, but by the end of the decade this area (Deacon’s Greens area) can be expected to be the largest precinct in the city. He said alternatives one, two and four were developed without attention to where the incumbents live. Mr. Hickok said one alternative would have a maximum of two present members in each proposed ward.

Mr. Hickok said alternative four was an attempt to plan for future growth – to divide the area south of 32nd Av. among three precincts - this is10 years ahead of its time – it’s a good idea to divide growth areas between wards, but it causes too many problems presently. He said the fifth alternative is a minor modification of alternative one made at the request of the committee - creates an undesirably small precinct of 405, but it only has only one Council Member that would be moved from one ward to another (Council Member Martinson). This alternative keeps all the members of the Council that have not announced publicly that they do not intend to run for Council in their own wards. Mr. Hickok said there will be critics who will say that this was done as a favor of some members of the Council, but said he would say if this were not done there would also be critics that would say that someone was trying to get someone off the Council – the classic dirty trick of redistricting is to draw the line in such a way that you put two members of the opposition into the same district, thus effectively eliminating one of them. He said the purpose if redistricting is not to keep all the incumbents in office, but also not to needlessly force people off the body. He said when the plan was adopted in 1990, there was a major corner of the city that had never had any representation and the plan that was adopted, to the credit of the Council at that time, did force a fair amount of turnover on the Council - legitimate given the distribution of members at that time. He added that the current Council is very well distributed. Council Member Brooks said he appreciates the alternatives that Mr. Hickok and the committee came up with and we need to develop our priorities and look at them before next Monday night.

Council Member Kreun thanked Mr. Hickok and said when the legislative branch met in Bismarck to determine the legislative districts, he already had some scenarios put together. He said the recommendation from the committee is #1 and #5 because it met all the legislative and judicial requirements - did not increase the number of precincts and the configuration stays relatively the same for the continuity to the citizenry – important so people know where their boundaries are and which wards they are in so we do not create some misunderstanding and confusion during voting – both fall well within the deviation guideline - either alternative works well but alternative #5 works a little better because it does equal out all of our incumbent Council Members.

Council Member Glassheim asked if there are any legislative districts that have more than two wards in them. Mr. Hickok responded that District 42 and 43 are entirely within the city – they come the nearest to permitting exactly two. He said in the previous plan there were two wards in District 42 but they tended to be on the low side of the permissible – in this plan Ward 2 extends beyond District 42 (1,135 people). He said District 43 was much simpler in the 1990 redistricting because it was everything between the railroad, 32nd Av. and west of Washington – this time they took in an area over to S. 20th St. and north of 20th Av. S. and put it into District 18 - complicated it to a certain extent. He added that in 1990 the wards were a little neater and the map looked a little cleaner. District 43 had a simpler design then.

Council Member Burke pointed out one other feature of the committee’s recommendation that does not have to do with lines, but rather with the numbering of wards. As we know the measure that creates a seven-member council also specifies that odd-numbered wards will start with a two-year term and even-numbered wards will have a four-year term after the next election. So as to not favor any particular set of wards, the committee’s recommendation is that we draw from a hat the letters of the wards for whatever plan we approve – in that the first four letters drawn be numbered with odd numbers and the remaining three are even numbered so it is random what ward has a four-year or two-year term.

Council Member Bjerke said it seems that doing that is for the convenience of the council members – should leave the wards where they are – if that is the case will be voting no. He said the measure that was passed specifically provides that the odd numbered wards have two-year terms and even numbered wards have four-year terms. Council Member Christensen said he wasn’t at the meeting that made that recommendation but probably would align his vote with Mr. Bjerke. Council Member Klave initiated discussion on whether after the drawing the ward numbers would change. Council Member Burke said they could be numbered very similar to the way they are. Council Member Klave said he thinks there will be confusion down the road. Council Member Burke said it matters to the committee because of the sense of elegance in the way it looks – if you ask ten people what ward they live in, 8 or 9 of them couldn’t tell you what ward number they are, let alone who their Council Members are. Council Member Klave replied that he disputes that. Council Member Brooks said he agrees that we are set on ward numbers and we stick with them – eight out of ten may not know what ward they are in. Council Member Hamerlik said he was at one of the meetings and made the statement that we want to keep it simple and not confuse people and said he has faith in people that they do know their ward numbers – would be in favor of Mr. Bjerke’s suggestion.

1.5 Budget Amendment – Department of Finance and Administrative Services.
In response to Council Member Brooks’ question, Mr. Schmisek said the lease and maintenance agreements ended up being higher than anticipated under the contracts.

1.6 $16,551 Budget Amendment for Insurance Proceeds for City Hall Watermain Break.
In response to Council Member Brooks’ question, Mr. Schmisek said staff would check on how wages entered into the insurance settlement.

1.7 Sidewalk Warrant Bids.
No comments.

1.8 Budget Amendment Request.
No comments.

1.9 Budget Amendment Request.
In response to Council Member Kreun’s question, Chief Packett explained that these are existing grants already approved by the City Council and the reimbursement dollars will be coming in by year end.

1.10 Budget Amendment Request.
In response to Council Member Brooks’ question, Mr. Schmisek said these are additional grant dollars that are not in our budget. Chief Packett said these are dollars that pass through the Police Department.

1.11 Budget Amendment Request.
No comments.

1.12 Budget Amendment Request.
Council Member Christensen asked if there is some way we could amend how we do business so we wouldn’t have to have budget amendments brought before us if it’s pass-through or projected grant money coming in – we are trying to give the department heads more authority and as long as we are not spending over budget or increasing salary, is it necessary that this come before us – maybe we should rethink our policy - should not have to come to us for things that are routine. Mr. Schmisek said we did make some changes in the area of grant amendments in that if it is a continuing grant and need to amend the dollars, we are allowed to do that using our Home Rule Charter – these are amendments based on new grants – you wouldn’t see it if it were a continuation – also talked about the fact that all of these amendments that come through at the end of the year and are working with Mr. Swanson to see if there is a way of extending some Home Rule authority to allow us to approve these amendments with notification to Council. He added that some Council members want to see these things and be aware of them, but we will work towards that goal. Council Member Christensen said we should see them and not give up oversight but if we are trying to get more efficient and reduce the load of those who sit here when there are seven, we should be doing this to make it easier – these are the issues we have time now to address and should be doing that so we make it easier. He suggested requesting an Attorney General’s opinion as to what issues we have to look to as part of the state law that deals with increases in the budget and to the extent that we don’t have to pass on some of these things, it might help Mr. Swanson in rendering his opinion in moving forward – we are doing something based on an opinion 15-18 years ago. Mr. Swanson said he is of the opinion that if the Council wishes to approve a different procedure and delegate that authority you have the ability to do that as a Home Rule City. Council Member Brooks requested a summary sheet in terms of what the impact is on the budget.

1.13 Budget Amendment Request.
No comments.

1.14 Public Works Director Budget Amendment ($9,768.00)
In response to Council Member Burke’s question, Mr. Feland said the original Asst. Dir. of Public Works position was budgeted at $59,000, the position was eliminated and split - before that the Public Works Director was in the City Engineer’s budget so this is to change that. Council Member Burke asked if there is a corresponding overage in the Engineering Budget. Mr. Schmisek said staff will have to look at that – there are overages but they have many vacant positions. Council Member Burke said if we gave up a position in one department and gained in another department, after the budget we would make a transfer from one department to the other rather than taking the money out of carryover and creating an additional carryover someplace else – rather see the money swapped between departments than out of carryover.

1.15 Street Department Budget Amendment ($109,176.00)
Council Member Bjerke said he wished on all of the budget amendments that we would see “this is what we had, this is what we are spending and this is what we have left.” Mr. Feland said there is nothing left in cash carryover in this instance. In response to Council Member Burke’s question, Mr. Feland explained that they have an internal service fund called Central Garage - switched to a vehicle maintenance program through the financial system (New World) and what occurred is that the program put all monies into the Central Garage but didn’t bill the appropriate department for the vehicle attached to that department so that was over and this is to reimburse the Central Garage for those expenses. He further explained that anything that goes over goes into the cash carryover because these are expenses at the end of 2000 and now we are correcting it in 2001.

1.16 Sanitation Department Budget Amendment ($847,967.00)
In response to President Gershman’s question, Mr. Feland said our deductible is $500.

1.17 Inert Landfill Application for the City of Grand Forks.
In response to Council Member Bjerke’s question, Mr. Feland said we will continue to run the inert landfill until it is full.

1.18 Budget Amendment Request.
In response to Council Member Brooks’ question, Mr. Schmisek said this is just a budget transfer and should not have come here. This item will be pulled for next week. Council Member Christensen initiated discussion on the cost difference of using a consultant versus filling the position. Ms. Voigt said the consultant is Ray LeClerc, who is on an hourly basis under contract – use him for plat reviews - he is doing a portion of the position. She said last year $12,000 was spent on this consultant and the estimate for 2002 is $17,000. Council Member Christensen suggested that we eliminate the position and continue with a consultant. Mr. Voigt responded that staff has tried to fill the position for quite some time with no qualified applicants – is budgeted for $50,000. Council Member Hamerlik asked if a consultant would be considered an employee of the city – a few years ago the Council was concerned about former employees being hired back on after retirement. Mr. Swanson said for pension purposes they are not, for certain liability purposes, they may. He added that there is a statutory limit on the number of hours a retired person can work as an employee, but not as a consultant.

Mr. Grasser clarified that Mr. LeClerc is working on a consultant basis – they have been unsuccessful in filling the position - no land surveying credentials - will try advertising again – there are a number of items that this person does not do and some are showing up as hidden cost and project cost because consultants are having to address issues that we used to address internally as staff it drives up project costs. He clarified also that we do not carry over within the department and line items from wages and salaries go back into the general fund. Council Member Christensen said he is asking questions, not criticizing the operation. If the job is getting done with a consultant of Mr. LeClerc’s qualifications, it would be appropriate that we do that – if the work is getting done with $12,000 rather than $50,000 with benefits, he will vote for that any time. Mr. Grasser said as an example of some of the problems they run into is, as a consultant, this person also does his own surveying on the side - getting into an uncomfortable situation - have to shuffle and find people to do the review - working on the outside and acting on our behalf. Council Member Kreun said this topic came up in the Public Service Committee and we discussed whether it is better to continue as consultant or hire as an individual – there are pros and cons to both sides. This individual does not want to be in a full-time capacity and would like to phase out of some of this responsibility and we have been looking for an individual and it has been on the plate for several months. Council Member Klave asked if staff could track cost overruns in the projects - what type of dollars are we having to pay in cost overruns on projects associated with that and if we are still ahead by having a consultant, that is what we need to know.

1.19 Project Concept Report for City Project No. 5245 – University Avenue Overlay.
Dale Bergum, WFW reviewed the scope of the project, saying they were selected to do the design engineering for this project - under DOT procedures - from N. 42nd to N. 21st St. since that is where the last overlay project stopped. He said it will be broken down into three different areas: 1) 42nd to State - that section is a bid alternate - concrete patching and diamond surface grinding to improve the surface ride of that section; 2) State to Princeton - existing concrete section, curb and gutter both sides and some milling at the curb line and a new 2-inch overlay; and, 3) Princeton to 21st. – it is concrete with an asphalt overlay now – asphalt in tough shape – will mill off two inches and put down a two-inch overlay. Mr. Bergum said the project will include updating existing signs and updating the traffic signals, painting mast arms, new LED green and red lights and new video detection at the intersection. He went on to say that there are no planned geometric changes, existing street parking from Columbia Rd. to 21st. – existing bike lane will be maintained with new markings from 42nd St. to Columbia Rd. – currently working with the MPO and will try to incorporate some of the recommendations of their Traffic Calming Study. He said their report is planned to be completed after the WFW plans are due so we are limited on how much of theirs can be included. Mr. Bergum said with regard to the construction timeline, they are asking the DOT to allow to put restrictions in the plan to not start until after May 15 and be done by August 1 to avoid high student traffic situations.

Ms. Voigt said on the staff report they will add a sentence that approval of plans is contingent on the City Engineer’s approval of the concept report – waiting on the DOT comments. She reviewed the costs saying that the estimated construction cost with the diamond grinding alternate is $520,000, 10% contingency, so the total estimated cost is 572,000. WFW is under contract for the concept report, plans and specifications and bidding for $44,400 – approved in July. She said construction engineering at 15% or $78,000 may be on the high side - total estimated engineering is $122,000 for a total project cost of $694,400. She said the state participation is an 80/20 split, utilizing the urban allotment of $526,000 – what the state intends to pay for – have been making some calls and may get more than the $400,000 limit in federal funding - city match of $123,955 and our city participation of 100% on the concept report and design – estimated $15,000 in CDBG funds and a total of $153,355 from Highway Users, depending upon how the bids come in. She said the CDBG funds go toward the city match.

Council Member Hamerlik initiated discussion on whether changes should be made to accommodate traffic flow from the Alerus and the Engelstad. Mr. Bergum said it will remain the existing two lanes both ways and added that UND has asked us to shift traffic away - four lanes would increase traffic. Council Member Hamerlik said that most of the use at both places occurs when school isn’t in session and students aren’t going across University Avenue – why not divert the traffic from those two buildings? Mr. Bergum said it is in the challenge of how do you take it from single lane to two lanes and eliminate a bike path at certain times of the day – it just doesn’t work. Council Member Burke questioned why we would complete this project prior to receiving the recommendations from the MPO.

Council Member Christensen asked Mr. Bergum’s opinion on whether the Traffic Calming Study should be continued. Mr. Bergum said what WFW is doing will not affect their recommendations greatly - will not be major changes – they are looking at the number of crosswalks and where located and bump outs at intersections. Council Member Christensen said now we have a consultant and said he wants to work toward consolidation of the study. Council Member Bjerke said there is a group of people who want to take care of a small amount of pedestrians versus all the cars and that is why the downtown traffic is so backed up, because the downtown is not built for traffic – this has the potential of happening at UND – where ever you do this you will have backed up traffic. He reminded that he will be making a motion to spend all the CDBG money on this project and take the Highway Users money to use somewhere else so we get two projects done for the price of one. Ms. Voigt clarified that the Traffic Calming Study was not initiated by the city – it is MPO funded. Mr. Grasser said he agrees personally and professionally on traffic calming – but not all engineers do the same kind of work – MPO hired H.R. Green – they are traffic engineers - WFW designs how we build it - neither has the expertise to do what the other firm does. If you did combine the two, one would probably sub it out - some techniques can be added after the fact. Council Member Bakken reminded that this was brought to us by UND and Council approved it and sent it on to the MPO for study – it is two separate issues.

1.20 Consideration of Bids for Construction of City Project No. 5242 – Washington St. Overlay (Hammerling to 8th Ave. N.)
No comments.

1.21 Engineering Services Agreement for City Project #5315 – Viking Elevated Tower Reconditioning.
No comments.

1.22 Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad Easement for City Project Nos. 4648.3 and 4948.2 – Transmission Pipelines and Residuals Force Main – Phase 2 – South 34th Street to WTP.
President Gershman commented that staff did a good job of negotiating the fee down.

1.23 Budget Amendment Request.
No comments.

1.24 Budget Amendment Request.
No comments.

1.25 Budget Amendment Request.
No comments.

1.26 Budget Amendment Request.
No comments.

1.27 Budget Amendment Request.
Council Member Christensen said it appears we have $250,000 in additional program income - inasmuch as we have some issues facing the city regarding paying for additional expenses for the dike, is there some way we can use some of these excess revenues for paying for the dike. He said we should be working toward using all additional money from the federal government toward the dike. Mr. Hanson responded that he does not know if this can be used for the actual dike construction - if the Council wants to consider using CDBG for any projects, including the Greenway – the entire riverbank improvement that has been done to date has been done with CDBG funds. He said in the future we could continue to make improve-ments in that area provided it remains a LMI district or any LMI area. Council Member Christensen said it is important that if we anticipate a shortfall or overages to the extent that we can find money from program income or these sources of funds, we need to begin exploring it - if we run into roadblocks in the regulations or the rules, that we go with the congressional delegation to start addressing these issues now to see if we can get some amendments or get the delegation to assist us to get clarification - explore it so we have some options available to us – hope we can do that as part of a policy-making body.

In response to Council Member Glassheim’s question, Mr. Hanson said any program income received, beyond anticipated, has to go back and be allocated 70% LMI – which can be economic development if they benefit LMI. He said in the past the city has not used program income for economic development – use the same rules - 15% for public service. Council Member Bakken said he is aware of federal laws regarding the use of federal funds for federal funds – maybe there are ways to use the money indirectly for other programs and use some of out local money to assist in the project. Mr. Hanson said these funds come in under the old entitlement regulations – no waivers are allowed on these funds. Council Member Christensen said it is not prudent to go back to the federal government, to the extent we find some cash that we can use or make application and get some waivers and plead our case - begin that process to find $3-5 million. He added that he is not giving the citizens hope that it will be there – only suggesting that we start exploring this. Council Member Brooks said we have to start looking at anything that comes along to earmark to help with the shortfall - citizens won’t and they shouldn’t have to - look at areas to re-direct dollars. In response to Council Member Burke’s question, Mr. Hanson said we will likely have a new Slum and Blight map the second quarter of next year and will have to consider it in 2003. He added that some of the $250,000 is being moved down to the second tier of funding.

1.28 Request from Steve Adams, on Behalf of Art Greenberg, for Approval of an Resolution to Annex all of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2Columbia Park 26th Addition and Adjacent Rights-Of-Way, Except That Portion Previously Annexed.
In response to Council Member Bjerke’s question, Mr. Potter said the property owner knows he has the right to protest – Council will be getting this next week to set a public hearing and then the property owner will get an official notification that he can protest. Mr. Potter said on the assumption that we were to do something while he is still farming the property, it would allow for a special assessment – if he were to convert the farmland to some other use before we assess it, it would be assessed as developed property. In response to other questions by Council Member Bjerke, Mr. Swanson said if the annexation occurs and the property meets the same criteria as other property owners already in the city (i.e. owners of agricultural property), this owner would have to be treated in the same fashion. He further explained that whether it’s paving, sanitary or storm sewer or flood protection, if they are within the annexed territory and within the improvement district and receive benefit, they are eligible to be assessed. He went on to say that the law in North Dakota is not based on present use for the purpose of special assessments - if the Commission found that it did not benefit at all they could give a zero benefit. He reminded that Council had a similar debate when you approved the flood control special assessments – there was some accommodation made by this Council but not to the point of determining zero benefit. Mr. Schmisek added that it goes project by project – does not remember anywhere there was found zero benefit. Council Member Klave said this has been discussed in Planning and Zoning and there is a standard of 140’ and there is some benefit - if you own a piece of property with a road right next to it, someone may be interested in buying it because they have immediate access available and the property value goes up with that. Mr. Swanson said that in the course of acquiring real estate (English Coulee Diversion Project), any land that had any conceivable development potential, the property owners have not been bashful at identifying their price as reflecting development opportunity. Council Member Christensen said we have policy, but that doesn’t mean it is the policy that should be continuously followed in light of the harm we can cause the people because we will levy special assessments for a dike in the next several years. He said this property owner will be hit with the dike assessment - is there a need for us to put him in that situation if we can avoid it - why couldn’t we just accommodate this person rather than follow the policy. Council Member Kreun said at this point we are premature - he asked for information but did not say he would protest - he was told he would get a dike assessment. President Gershman said he did not think we can discriminate between one or the other – if we set a policy for agricultural land that may be developed in the future, then this should follow in the same thing.

Mr. Grasser said city policy of annexing that 140 feet is to give the City Council the ability to spread those costs to the adjacent properties – policy now would be to special assess most, if not all, the cost of the street – problem is that it is rare that one property owner will develop and need a certain infrastructure at the same time as the neighbor – what will happen is that as the area develops, 20th St. will make sense to put in for accessibility and alternate routing - annexation provides the city the opportunity to spread the costs out - if you decide not to annex, the time to come to build the facility, your choice of what will happen are a number of things – either you tell the property owner to the west (Greenberg) that you get to pay 100% of the cost, or what has happened on occasion, the city has carried the costs as tapping fees - what is fair to one group may not be fair to another - on 20th the best thing to do is not annex, wait until the improvements are in at which time the city does not have the ability to go back and recoup costs for it, and then develop – that could be part of the waiting game strategy. He said the only way the city could then charge the individual for some of that infrastructure is through a tapping fee where the city fronts the charges and carries the balance. Council Member Christensen said that is why he has been asking that we re-examine the policy on tapping fees – what harm do we do – let’s try to not do harm when we make the rules – we should have a session devoted to that. He said another option for the property owner to the west is to buy it so he controls it – we should look at other options before we annex.

Council Member Kreun said we have looked at this continuously in Planning and Zoning. With regard to harming an individual, he said that if you do not follow some type of procedure that requires someone to pay for the benefits that they get, what you do is transfer the cost to the remaining people in the community and there is no way to recoup those costs so that individual gets it for free - have to look at from both sides. He said this property owner realizes that it does benefit him down the road – it may not be perfect and maybe we can tweak it but may not want to revamp the whole system for a couple times that we have run into the problem – most of the time it works fairly well. Council Member Christensen said the opportunity presents itself and eventually it has to be resolved – we struggled with the assessments for the South End Drainway – it’s time we address this issue as a matter of policy.

Council Member Klave said when we get into tapping zones, if we are going to seriously look at it we need to know what kind of dollars the city would have to carry and how long - after “x” number of years passes we can’t go back and collect it. Mr. Schmisek said he has spoken to Council in the last several years about the number of tapping areas, the extent and dollar amount and how that is increasing – the simple fact is that when you do that we carry them through the utility funds and it gets passed to all the other utility customers who have already paid for their infrastructure – we pay for it and try to carry it in city share or Highway User’s Funds, thus not allowing us to use those funds for other projects and having to tax others who have already paid. He said you are accumulating significant dollar amounts in those areas – it may be valid to have a discussion about it but it is a concern when you are reaching the extents of the community and developing – the simple fact is someone has to pay the bill and you have to establish a policy. He added that when you have these properties that develop on one side of the street, the other benefits equally - they will get the value of the development and infrastructure upon selling.

Mr. Grasser said this is a perfect example of what we are talking about because this particular tract of land on 20th St., the city put in the water, sanitary and storm for free because we chose to allocate CDBG dol-lars – this does away with the need for tapping and annexation - if we are borrowing money/bonding for it there is a carrying cost – the benefit of the CDBG money was that it was cash we had. As a policy for this instance, the only real special that is left is the paving – a good incentive for development – likes the poli-cy if we can fund it – would like to do away special assessments. Council Member Christensen said it isn’t so much that the adjacent landowner will benefit – it gets down to that you don’t have to have a tap-ping policy where at the end of 15 years it goes away. If we have some money, when it comes in it’s like a hanging mortgage – a choice of paying now or later – you never escape it - not a good idea to hold on for 15 years and not pay - the future council has to deal with how do we fund the balance of the dike.

Council Member Burke said we need to find a way to allow people the use of their land until it becomes advantageous for them to develop it but provide for a way that we don’t force them into getting five years behind on their taxes and specials in which case we are still stuck paying for it or carrying it for five years – makes sense to come up with a policy that deals with the reality of it. He said there was discussion last year about whether or not we want to continue the special assessments program related to streets and other issues - in other places there is not such a strong reliance on special assessments – we might want to think about weaning ourselves from special assessments - perhaps we can get into a session or special meetings or study group or task force to examine special assessment policies and whether we want to look at policies. Mr. Grasser said staff has roughed out some policies of eliminating and reducing special assessments - will come back in the next couple of months.

1.29 Petition from Tim Crary, on behalf of Crary Development Inc., for Approval to Vacate the “sidewalk” designation of a 2-foot wide “Sidewalk and Utility Easement” Lying 10 feet on each side of the Lot Line Common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, South Pines Addition to the City of Grand Forks, North Dakota, Connecting South Pines Addition, to the City of Grand Forks, North Dakota, connecting South Pines Court with 49th Avenue South.
Mr. Potter said next week staff will ask to add additional conditions to this vacation, which is that the adjacent landowners be responsible for removing the sidewalk.

1.30 Sales Tax Collections.
Mr. Schmisek said Council has received various pieces of information with regard to sales tax collections over the last four-year period – had previously given out information through November – called the state this afternoon for the December collection figures - for 2001 it will put us at about 11.02% increase over last year, or about $1.1 million. He said we need to keep in mind that a good portion of this is Use Tax (based on state numbers have allocated about $500,000 of that as far as Use Tax goes), but we also need to remember that the Use Tax went into effect in July of 2000 – we can assume that part of that dollar amount was also the Use Tax during the last half of 2000. He said this is very good news in that the Use Tax is in the line of 2-3% so you are talking 8-9% of General Sales Tax increase - when doing the 2002 budget we anticipated a 10% increase for 2001 and tacked on 4% for 2002, hoping we would continue to grow. In response to Council Member Burke’s question, Mr. Schmisek said by the bond covenant for the Alerus, we are required out of all of our sales tax dollars to set aside one-fourth of the semi-annual debt service that is due on that bond issue – each of the first four months of a semi-annual period, so depending on actual collections, the primary use of those funds the first four months of each semi-annual period is to go to the debt of the Alerus and then we have to adjust down all the other dollar amounts that get allocated to the General Fund, to economic development, to infrastructure to the quarter percent. The fact is when you do that in a given month where collections are down, it could end up being that the quarter percent is only going to generate an actual of 2000. Overall for the year it works out in the wash, because when you get through those first four months and that debt service is collected, then the last two months the other areas start getting larger shares of the sales tax. He said the Alerus will be made whole - the operating amount to go into the Alerus will be $268,000 (budgeted $250,000) when we receive the December collection. There followed some discussion on the Alerus budgeting adjustments - we are anticipating more revenue than they are anticipating. Council Member Hamerlik said the issue came up and the Alerus Commission has repeatedly talked about it – to try to determine how the best budget should be prepared because this Council has asked for monthly or quarterly reports so it will fluctuate – this will be helpful to them in their way of budgeting as they go forth by the month. President Gershman said this is very good news for the city.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS
Mr. Duquette said he had the opportunity to attend the National League of Cities with Mayor Brown, Council Member Lunak, Council Member Hamerlik and Mr. Schmisek. He said some of the items focussed on were strategic planning, regional governments and leadership. He presented dates for back-to-back, four-hour planning sessions as follows, with one set of dates to be used: 16-17 January, 23-24 January or 30-31 January. He said it would be 4 –8 p.m. or 5-9 p.m. one day after the other. He asked Council to let him know if there are any problems with those dates.

Mr. Grasser said they still haven’t gotten the revised numbers back from the COE – information was sent out in the Flood Protection newsletter. He added that a reporter came in and wanted to go through their working document – Council has not seen the document – wanted to notify that there will likely be an article in the paper – a complicated document and hard to follow – offered to sit down with Council members after the meeting to go over the document with them.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
Council Member Glassheim:
He said it came to his attention that we have a wonderful thing on the internet where citizens can pull up all the documents we have before us – it takes a long time to download 120 pages - is there any other way to do it so it doesn’t have to print the entire document - wonderful for open government.

Council Member Burke:
He asked if the topic of Committee of the Whole meeting dates could be placed on the next Committee of the Whole agenda.

Council Member Hamerlik
He said at the League of Cities they give a top award for Humanitarian and Leadership - 3-4 years ago Mayor Owens received the award. They broke precedence this year and awarded that honor to the New York Fire Department.