City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Committee Minutes

MINUTES

FINANCE COMMITTEE
Council Chambers - December 15, 1998 - 12 Noon

Roll Call: All members present

1. Matter of plan for funding of flood protection plan
Mr. Carpenter said a number of weeks ago the Mayor and he presented a framework for funding the $65 million anticipated local share of the dike cost assuming the state would be contributing to the project. He said it was $39 million from special assessments, $7.4 million from current city sales tax, $12.9 million coming from current mill levies and $5.7 million coming from a use tax that would be voted on by the people in an election. He said this was a method providing sources of funds from different locations utilizing special assessments since people would benefit from the project with protection of their properties, using some current funds whether they be sales tax and/or property tax indicating we are looking for ways to cut the cost of government, and the use tax, since we are only one of two cities in North Dakota that does not have a use tax and this would give us the opportunity to implement that which is beneficial to our local businesses as well as providing some revenue for our overall flood protection plan. Mr. Carpenter went on to say that the thought was that this would be presented to the Finance Committee, actually two different meetings, one to talk and discuss, with action taken at a subsequent meeting, and go to full council the first meeting in January. He said that way the Council would have approved the plan prior to legislature going into session, so we can show how are going to fund the local share. The Mayor asked if the figures change, can they fluctuate. Mr. Carpenter said ultimately we will have to pay whatever is not funded by the federal and state government so some or any numbers will change, but he said his guess is that this is pretty close. He said the idea was that a portion come from current revenues and a portion from special assessments. He said the one impacted most by fluctuations would be special assessments. The Mayor said she has not heard any negative comments from the public. She said she talked to Mayor from Beach, and one of the things she (the Beach Mayor) did not know was that the City of Grand Forks has a substantial amount to fund for this project and people need to know that. Mayor Owens thanked Mr. Carpenter for working out figures for this project.

Mr. Hamerlik questioned the discussion at the last Special Assessment Commission meeting. Mr. Grotte said they have looked at what might be a future assessment and tapping area, whether it would be based on square footage, or a combination of square footage, base value, property values, commercial - residential, in the flood plain – out of the flood plain, got wet - didn’t get wet, looking at all the different possibilities. He said they did ask for information from what other cities had done in similar situations, but there were no decisions made – they were just looking at all the options. Ms. Babinchak said Mr. Schmisek told her that the Special Assessment Committee was willing to take the issue and deal with it if we give the parameters. She said her assumption and opinion is that it would be a citywide assessment and if the Commission has the parameters and would come up with several different alternatives and bring those back to Finance and Council. She said they would also get information from other cities like West Fargo and Jamestown as to how they might have done it. Mr. Swanson said the Commission would have the sole authority to determine the manner and how assessed and could call for public hearings in the early stage to gather information. He said they would then come to Council with a recommendation and it is up to the City Council to determine the districts. He said the City Council would also determine areas outside the city limits for tapping fees and future assessment districts. Mr. Hamerlik asked what should we do - what should be the next step. Mr. Carpenter said it may be too early in the process to start the specific special assessment process, that the Council would approve the concept, adopting a resolution with this type of format. Mr. Hamerlik expressed concern that there is not a lot of feedback because people don't have enough information. He said he would like the Special Assessment Commission to talk to us. Mr. Brooks said the burden is on them but we need to give input as council members and we need to move on with that process. Mr. Vein asked the Committee to be aware of one of the items talked about among staff and that is what the total cost is going to be. He said there are a couple things to take into consideration besides the monies laid out by the COE and that is the cost for a potential greenway and there may be some betterment issues along with some administrative cost because this is going to be a multi-year process with some cost involved to the City so as you get to looking at the final number, maybe before the next meeting we can get together with you to put numbers together based on the best information we have at this time. He said they can't define exactly what those costs are, only estimates at this time. He went on to say that in addition to that, some things with the Water Treatment Plant and relocation may want to be incorporated in this, and may not, we will have to take that under consideration also.

Mr. Swanson said we need to identify what we are trying to accomplish. He said he thinks we are farther down the road than we really are and there are a lot of factors you are not going to be able to send to the Commission yet and one would of the reasons you may not want to create a district yet is depending upon what your growth pattern is for the next couple of years before you do any assessments as all to insure you are able to take in as much benefited property as possible within that district. He said the engineer’s report has to be prepared before the districts are finalized so there is a lot of detail moving that point. He said what you are really trying to do is define by concept how your funding program is going to move forward. He said he thinks the Commission is wide open to the ideas on how to assess and yesterday they literally brainstormed by laying out what factors could be considered, and it was the Commission on their initiative that said lets hold public hearings and meetings to see if the public has comments about additional methods. He said they requested information from communities affected by the 1993 Mississippi River flood and West Fargo as well as Minot. He said they are searching and will not be ready by the next Finance Committee meeting to give any more detail than what they have now, and their timeline is substantially longer than what this committee is thinking today. Mr. Swanson said the process of doing a special assessment is primarily laid out in state law, requiring the adoption of an Engineer’s Plan, requires adoption of estimates of costs and then the creation of the district. He said once the district is created then the authority is given to the Commission to begin their actual determination of benefits, but in this case they are going to pre-fire that activity by holding some public hearings and getting some initial thought. Mr. Swanson said the Committee needs to identify their goals because one of the concerns he has is if you are attempting to give estimated cost for property and they change down the road, you have, in effect, given false information and people may not have understood what assumptions went into the calculations. He said at this point it is easy to determine, under the present city limits, the number of parcels and square feet and do calculations, but he thinks there will be more to this. He said if you are inclined to move ahead with a use tax you need to have a charter amendment. He said if the cost of the project increases or decreases the percentage to be assessed is going to be altered, and depending upon what Bismarck does with state aid, the amount of the assessments will alter. He said there is risk involved in making sure your information is reasonably accurate. He said information available to the Commission yesterday was extremely general in terms of dollar amounts that might be assessed. Ms. Babinchak said this is what she thought, was that we go to Bismarck and say Grand Forks is going to be responsible for a majority of the cost and we are not looking for a handout from the state. She said Mr. Schmisek said earlier when he mentioned the $88/year it was very preliminary and she can understand not giving out that false information because that is all people remember and it can change because of certain factors. Mr. Swanson said the timeline for an election to change the Home Rule Charter will require a drafting of the notices and the Home Rule Charter and then scheduling the election and that would likely occur after a point in time when the legislature would have adjourned. Mr. Brooks said he thinks there is a maximum assessment from the standpoint of the pocketbook of the taxpayer. He said he would hate to see a message go the legislature that we have a plan in place and the special assessment amount will depend upon what the legislature gives or does not give us. He said it can’t be raised that much, our citizens can’t take that. Mr. Swanson made the committee aware of other factors: when can you certify special assessments - the earliest for certification is upon substantial completion of the project so you can’t rely on special assessments to generate pre-construction interest – more post-project. Mr. Carpenter said the idea was to have the concept approved to identify sources of revenue to pay for our share of the dike. He said with current tax revenues, that is something we can be addressing almost immediately and can provide some of the initial funds for starting to work with the project and we would have time to implement assessments. He said if a point in time comes that we need additional money for whatever reason, we will have to put more discussion and more emphasis on current revenue sources. He said he assumes when we do the initial special assessment estimate of cost we will put a fairly wide range in there because we will not be special assessing the entire local share so we will want to maintain some flexibility and maybe as time goes on we will find some additional resources we can use. He added that right now this is looking at what residents can currently afford and what local government budgets can currently absorb, trying to put here a honest, upfront look at where we are at, what we can afford to do locally and here is the best way to do it.

Mayor Owens added that what we have projected at the state is that we can't afford this, out people will leave if the assessment is too high. She said if we are to keep our people in North Dakota, we need to have some help from the state and that is why we are asking for the $52 million and our share will be more than that. She said we are doing the best we can to keep our people here and not tax them so they have to leave. Mr. Swanson said an option that Council may have, depending upon the ultimate construction schedule and the phasing, is actually treating it as different assessments at different times rather than one large assessment throughout the district. Mr. Vein said once the Commission comes up with their formula is to then establish how that formula would be defined for each property and then look on a per/million basis, for every million this is what the assessment will be on that property. He said that way you would establish some type of a factor and have it flexible enough, and because of the long time frame of this project, break it up into phases and assess those phases, and we’ve also talked about the potential for how to handle future properties when they come into the city limits as possibly modifying the special assessment district, different that we’ve ever done it in the past and that may involve some changes to the Home Rule Charter, but we would try to do that. Mayor Owens said from being at the legislature and hearing what they are saying and the calls we are getting, she would strongly urge committee to make some type of motion to approve that concept today and if something comes up it can be discussed at Council. Mr. Hamerlik said the legislature doesn’t start until January. Mayor Owens said there is a lot of work being done behind the scenes now so we really need something approved. Carpenter move adoption of a resolution that the local share of the permanent flood protection plan be funded from special assessments, current city sales tax, current mill levy and the implementation of a new use tax and that the dollar amounts be for preliminary advice only as they are based off a $65 million funding goal and be there for advisory allocations. Hamerlik seconded. Motion carried.

2. Matter of request from Grand Forks Economic Development Corp. re: LM Glasfibre building – issuance of MIDA bonds
Pat Downs said he was unclear of why this was on the agenda, they gone through everything needed to do since last July, the project is well underway and the building is under construction. He said the only remaining issue from their side yet to come to closure is lease between JDA and the Development Corporation and we must have that lease in hand prior to Norwest issuing the bonds because they need to review the lease to make sure they have all the coverages they need and that has not happened. Mr. Downs said the bond was to close next Tuesday but that is not going to happen because the lease between the two entities has not happened. Mr. Swanson said there is a pending lease signed between LM Glasfibre and the Economic Development Corporation. He said they have just about completed a draft between the JDA and Economic Development – there is no lease between the City of Grand Forks and anyone – the City of Grand Forks has guaranteed the JDA’s lease payment. Ms. Jerath said Norwest wanted the lease to be between the City and LM Glasfibre because JDA doesn’t have any assets. Mr. Swanson said his discussions with the Norwest legal department have been based upon the City guaranteeing the JDA’s lease payments and it is his understanding that Norwest has approved that. He said the building is owned by the foundation, it is leased from a foundation in a very simple open lease to the JDA, the JDA has entered into a very detailed lease with LM Glasfibre, so the only component left is the lease between the JDA and Economic Development and is very basic and hasn’t been signed yet. He said the City’s action was already taken by the council several weeks ago in guaranteeing the lease payment so unless Norwest has changed their mind and has not communicated that. Ms. Babinchak asked Mr. Swanson to talk to Mr. Schmisek and if need be we will meet on Monday prior to City Council.

3. Matter of sale of former public works garage on Mill Road
Ms. Jerath prepared a report a few weeks ago and this committee asked that she look again at the space needs for the department and also if the department can hold more than one auction a year. She said since that time she has talked to the Police Department and the Civic Auditorium staff and they have said their needs are the same as presented before. She said she has determined that holding two auctions a year is probably not workable and since the last meeting Bobby Owens told her that the area where the bicycles are stored is in bad shape and the roof is leaking. She provided cost estimates to build the existing facility with the space needs given by both the departments and also the demolition cost and cost estimate to refurbish the existing building and cost estimates to reside and re-roof the building (from Dan Mehls at Mortenson). Mr. Hamerlik expressed displeasure that this is taking so long. Ms. Babinchak said we still have to wait and see what the Bus Committee does about a transfer station – there was talk about having the individual interested in the building also being included in the transfer station – there is a study being done that has not been completed and it may be premature to move on this until some decision or closure is made on that. She said she agrees the property should be updated or torn down, it looks terrible and is very unsightly for the neighborhood. She asked Mr. Hamerlik, who is on the Bus Committee, to tell us when the study will be done and said she spoke to Mr. Bakken yesterday and the individual interested in the property was interested now in a transfer station and there is a possibility of using that location. Mr. Hamerlik said he didn’t know the exact date, but they were put back on a retainer a couple of weeks ago. He said the City has $300,000 for a transfer station which is scheduled to be on Kittson Av. He said Mr. Bakken and others have suggested having a major transfer; cabs, Greyhound and Triangle are interested and there is interest in being able to do repairs in the same location. He said he thought it should be held. Mr. Brooks agreed. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Swanson what our obligation is in regards to impounded vehicles and bicycles. Mr. Swanson said once we take an item into our possession, and determine it is truly abandoned and title lost, we don't owe a great deal of care, reasonable care, and those properties that have not run the time period to reach a level of abandonment, we have a higher duty to make sure they are at least reasonably cared for. He said there are also some held for evidence purposes and we have a much higher degree of care required. He said he can remember two instances of damage to a vehicle in the impound lot - we don't need to build a building for these items, but must be in a fenced lot with security and lighting - upgrade in a prudent way. Lt. Johnson reported that there are 13 vehicles parked outside and they are stored inside until they run out of room, then outside. Ms. Jerath said the Police Department reported to her that there are approximately 70 vehicles and 200 bicycles sold each year at the auction. Lt. Johnson clarified that it is not necessary to have a building large enough to hold 30-40 vehicles, but rather a smaller garage with a fenced in area. Mr. Carpenter suggested this item be held until the school district building purchase is resolved.

4. Matter of Convention and Visitors Bureau lease
This item was held until the next meeting.

5. Matter of Salvation Army property
Mr. Carsen said he has been approached by someone who represents the Salvation Army with the possibility of them selling their property on University and N. 4th St. to the City of Grand Forks. He said the Salvation Army owns one building and the Severson building they lease with a two-year lease expiring in June 1999 and with that lease there is an option which they could exercise and buy out the owner. He said if the City is interested, there would probably not be a better time to buy it. In response to Ms. Babinchak’s question, Mr. Carsen said it could be used for possible parking for City Hall. Mr. Carsen said we could negotiate to buy one or both buildings and the total space would be 140 x 100 feet. Mr. Carpenter said he is interested depending on cost of purchase and demolition and cost to prepare as a parking lot. Mr. Hamerlik reviewed the parking in the area and asked how many employees do we have versus the number of spaces open. He said he is always concerned when he sees more permanent parking out in front taking space for someone who has to come in to get a permit and said it is tough to park on a temporary basis. Mr. Carsen said we do own some land in the next block on 4th St. – all except one parcel that is 140 x 200. He said the Salvation Army site will not be cheap and will go up in price as time goes on, but brings it because this person thought if the City is interested, now is when we should be moving on it. Mr. Brooks said he can’t go along with any more parking downtown but prudent to see what they are talking about. Mr. Carsen said he thinks the Salvation Army’s intent is to vacate both buildings before the end of 1999. Mr. Swanson said one lot sits in the middle of the ones we own and it belongs to John French. He went on to say that about a year ago Mr. French indicated some interest in selling and is leasing the adjoining lot for cost of maintenance; that may be another parcel to look at acquiring to have the full expanse of that area on 4th St. He said it doesn't hurt to investigate. He said he knows that in coming here on a regular basis, parking is tight. He said he also knows the two City Hall buildings do not come anywhere close to meeting the code requirements we would impose upon any other private business for parking. Carpenter moved to authorize Mr. Schmisek and Mr. Carsen to investigate both alternatives, acquiring the Salvation Army property and the residence owned by Mr. French and that we look at which might be the most viable and in conjunction we also receive information on the required number of parking spaces and currently owned. Hamerlik seconded. Motion carried.

6. Matter of closing Sr. Citizen’s fund
Ms. Jerath said many years ago the City levied a mill levy for the Senior Citizen’s Center and we were collecting the taxes and paying it to the Senior Citizen’s Center when we had that fund as a trust and agency fund. She said there has been a change in statute and now the County levies those taxes and the County is paying those taxes to the Senior Citizen’s and we are just collecting delin-quent taxes for the Senior Center. She said there is about $2000 plus in that fund and we would like to close and give that money to the Senior Center. Brooks moved approval to give those funds to the Senior Citizen’s Center and close the fund. Carpenter seconded. Motion carried.
7. Budget Amendment
Budget amendments from the Mayor’s Office, Youth Committee and the Planning Department were presented. Carpenter moved approval of all three. Brooks seconded. Motion carried.

8. Matter of retention of Programmers for year 2000
Ms. Fiala said HR, Mayor’s Office, IS and Mr. Schmisek have worked for about a month to come to an agreement of senior programmers approximately $15,000 retention for this year payable 1-1-99 and they would have to stay to 7-1-99 or pay it back with interest if they leave before that date. She said a contract would be drawn up to that effect. She said programmers approximately 15% of their salary also and on 2-1-2000, if they stay through that time period, they would receive an additional 10%. She said some of the main issues are that these positions are in high demand right now across the board. She said we do have offers in the department of $5,000 signing bonuses and $60,000 salary, double salary, and other entities in town also, going forward as a City we believe we need to show good faith on our part that we have at least done something to retain these programmers through the year 2000. In response to Mr. Carpenters question, Ms. Fiala said we have 2 senior programmers and 2 programmers, ($36,000 - $22,000 this year) it affects only those positions in the department, there are other positions, but only the programmers we are talking about. She said monies were set aside this year (1999) for the retention of those positions. In response to Mr. Hamerlik’s question, Ms. Fiala said we are paying them to retain them, we are not restructuring – these are lump sum dollars. In response to Mr. Hamerlik’s question about other critical staff, Mayor Owens responded that it is difficult and one of the concerns with the Y2K is losing these people – if we lose these people we will not be able to retain any others with what is happening with the Y2K. She said they have been meeting extensively with our people, the power companies, etc. and no one wants to push a panic button, but when you sit in on those meetings you realize how important it is to have the appropriate people there to take us through it. She said our Emergency Manager, Jim Campbell has come on board and he is working with the state and the state will be working with the federal. Mayor Owens said at this time she thinks it’s crucial that we don’t lose these people because if we were to goof up and shut down it could be worse than the flood or fire. She emphasized that we really need to retain qualified people in that department at this time almost on an emergency basis. Ms. Babinchak said how do you tell other people no. The Mayor said it’s a tough sell but the $100,000 is not enough for everyone who deserves it. She said they put the money in there for market structure and its another issue how to do it. She said this is one that Mr. Schmisek felt very strongly about. In response to Mr. Hamerlik’s remarks, Mr. Carpenter said the $100,000 is there to address market inequities so if there is a demonstrated significant difference in pay between what we are paying and what someone else will attempt to recruit someone away from us we can address that. He said hopefully we are going to try to address those inequities proactively before somebody is actually being recruited away so we are looking at different salary information to address this on an ongoing basis. He said the intent isn’t to have people threaten to leave, get more money and continue on – that has never been the intent, it is certainly a potential, but HR has to try to address the issue and establish some guidelines. Mr. Carpenter said this is a very important issue and needs to be addressed right now – we would have an extremely difficult time trying to recruit somebody with the ability to solve the problem – we are dealing with a deadline that can’t be moved, whereas other positions that may come up, it may not be comfortable, it may not be easy if somebody leaves, but we can probably deal with the situation, we are not dealing with a timeframe that can’t be moved. He said this is somewhat different even from some of the idea of the $100,000. The Mayor said this one will be an immediate emergency and it is crucial to make sure that we are worked through in a manner that will keep us operating. Mr. Brooks said one of his questions, from a local standpoint, is that we have a tight labor market and locally there are other opportunities available here. He said he likes this plan and what's been done, and agrees with the Mayor that HR has to take a look at these areas, identify them, there is not an easy way to do it, most of our employees will react to this, if not all of them, and some may leave, but it is just something we have to do. Ms. Fiala clarified that this is over and above the salary and would be like a bonus – retention dollars. In response to Mr. Brook's question, Ms. Fiala said there would have to be a determination if we want to split what we are paying over the two years or look for other sources. Mr. Carpenter said the $100,000 in the budget is intended to be ongoing, in this case we are going to use part of it for non-ongoing, but the original intent for the $100,000 was permanent salary adjustments and that would be there every year and is part of the full salary costs. Mr. Brooks said he thought we would need a budget amendment and Ms. Jerath said we would do that. Carpenter moved approval of the IS plan to retain four programmers and find that under code section 60404 that it be reasonable and necessary for us to enter into this program for the retention of programmers for the City of Grand Forks, and that an agreement with the City be signed by the employees. Brooks seconded. Mr. Swanson said the code provision on pay plans is written in such a manner that it does not generally allow bonuses or payments above and beyond the base salary as set forth in the approved pay plan. He said it may require an amendment to the ordinance or you may have to make a factual finding. He said the only provision for something of this nature appears in this language: “however, the City Council may authorize such merit or incentive benefits, educational benefits, cost of living increases, expense reimbursement or such additional compensation as may be determined to be reasonably necessary or beneficial for the City." Mr. Swanson said if you are inclined to use existing code, it appears you would have to make a finding that the retention of programmers is a necessary function or activity for the City. Motion carried.

9. Matter of City Code updates
Mr. Swanson said a couple of weeks ago we received Supplement 8 to the City Code and also quotations for additional hard copies. He said many departments in City Hall and elsewhere and council members who lost their hard copies during the flood. He said he thinks we need to have hard copies of the Code available these departments and council members so we need to build up our inventory. He said we have some law firms and businesses that previously had code copies that have lost theirs and they are wanting to get reprints. He said the quote received was for 50 additional hard copies for roughly $9,500, and also have need for additional Land Development Codes, which is the Planning Code, for approximately $1,800. He said he doesn’t know how long an inventory of 50 would last, a survey of need is out, some departments need additional copies, probably need about 20 to replace those missing and that would give us some extra to carry forward. He said the initial order in 1987 was 125 copies and those were all distributed. Mr. Swanson said the other options we have are the company who publishes our code would put it into an electronic format for $1,250 which allows access on the internet or CD, the code is too large to put on disk, and there are also some additional charges if we want to make it available on internet. He said his office’s recommendation is to ask the committee to authorize up to $15,000 to acquire 50 hard copies, to place the code into electronic format, to obtain CD versions of the code and to place it on the internet. He said the internet can be accessed two ways – a link to the City of Grand Forks home page and a link to Municipal Code Corporation, the publisher and we would also like to acquire the license to utilize folio as the search engine, without Folio, your search capability on line is limited. Mr. Hamerlik said he recalled that $15,000 was already approved. Mr. Swanson said at that time he didn’t have the exact numbers. The Committee told him to go ahead with the plan.

10. Matter of County Parking ramp
Connie Triplett, representing the County Commission, said she, Gary Malm, John O’Leary and John Schmisek have met and contemplated concerns about a two-level parking ramp. She said she will recommend to the County that they guarantee a three-level parking ramp and the County would pick up the difference between the $2 million in CDBG funds the City would put in and plan to bid in two separate ways as alternative bids: 1) the way Schoen and Kobetsky have designed it making it a nice looking ramp that fits into the historical character of the other buildings in the area, and, 2) a second alternative which is a more conservative approach and would look more like the existing ramp and then choose between them to see what we can afford. She emphasized at this point the County would commit to three-level ramp of one version or the other. In response to Mr. Hamerlik’s question, Ms. Triplett said there would be no spaces cut from the design except for space needed for an elevator and stairs so we are looking at about 360 spaces. Mr. Hamerlik then asked about the need for transfer of ownership. Ms. Triplett said there is no legal requirement to own the property but unwise to bond for something in which they have no ownership. She went on to say that this is CDBG money and the County owning property within the City has as much right as any other business or private person to come to the City for money. She went on to say that when the County bonds and asks taxpayers to pay for it over time there is a difference between that and using a grant from the federal government. In response to Mr. Hamerlik’s question, Ms. Triplett said they plan to start very promptly after approval here because they would like to see the ramp completed at the same time as the building. Mr. Mehls from Mortenson spoke off mike saying they would take both designs all the way through to bid and let the money do the talking. Ms. Triplett said the distinction will be the amount of architectural precast and facing, structurally they will be the same building. Mr. Carpenter asked that it be clarified it would be open to the public for parking. Ms. Triplett said it would be managed consistent with other two ramps and that would include allowing some reserved spaces, i.e. fleet vehicles, some staff who come and go on a regular basis, but a fairly small number. Carpenter moved that the City of Grand Forks provide $2 million in CDBG funds to the County for construction of a three-story parking ramp and that this grant is made with the following listed conditions:
1. The County will provide the balance of funding required to complete the project. The county’s contribution will not be less than $1 million. If the entire project costs less than $3 million, the savings will be deducted from the City’s contribution to the project. Any costs exceeding $3 million will be the sole responsibility of the County.
2. Funds will be drawn down on a prorated basis to reflect the amount each party is contributing to the project.
3. The County will procure the project in compliance with Community Development Block Grant requirements.
4. The ownership, operation and maintenance of the facility will be the responsibility of the County. This will be a public facility. The County will contract with the Central Business District Authority for management of the facility.
5. The design of the facility will be submitted for review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission as well as the Downtown Development Commission.
6. The City will contribute the land identified as 120, 124, 126, 128, 132, 210 and 214 South 3rd St., after demolition of the buildings has been completed, and the County agrees to acquire any other land and easements necessary to complete the project. Bruce Av. will be vacated as well.
7. The County will execute the standard CDBG grant agreement with the City.
8. The County agrees not to obligate any funds until the project has received appropriate environmental and historical clearances.
Hamerlik seconded. Motion carried with Brooks voting no.

Meeting adjourned.