Council Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, January 28, 2002 (following special council meeting)

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, January 28, 2001 following the special city council meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Kreun, Martinson - 12; absent: Council Members Lunak, Bakken - 2.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown thanked everyone who organized Dave Barry Day in Grand Forks, the Chambers for channeling all the energy involved, Dave McFarlane, McFarlane Sheet Metal for the sign and enthusiasm, Mike Maidenberg, Mike Jacobs and the Herald, Knight Ridder for twisting Dave’s arm and footing the bill for his trip, and that they put together the dollar cost for the City for this trip - about $50. News stories ran on CNN, CBS Sunday morning, National Public Radio, Minneapolis Star Tribune and many other newspapers across the country and that he was called from his wife’s family in Fresno, CA and Albuquerque, NM congratulating us on this event - good to have fun every now and then.

Mayor Brown congratulated everyone involved in the Frosty Bobber - that this weekend is the Greenway Ski Day at Lincoln Park and encouraged everyone to attend and to check web site for the schedule.

Council Member Gershman reported that today he attended the Open House for the Adolescent Chemical Dependency Treatment Center on South 4th Street, that they presented a certificate of appreciation to the city council of Grand Forks, that the certificate of appreciation honors Grand Forks City Council for their tremendous efforts and team spirit in helping to provide services to the community. He stated in looking at that facility we should be very proud of our assistance with that, there are people in our society and community that have some serious problems - that the nice thing is treating them with respect; and wanted to congratulate everybody and had a nice affair.

Mayor Brown recognized Rick Duquette, city administrator, for his appointment on the State Municipal League to the 2002 Fair Policy Committee that stands for finance administration and intergovernmental relations policy committee.

1.2.1 H.R.Green Traffic Engineers Presentation.
Al Grasser, city engineer, introduced Howard Green who is in town to work with the MPO on traffic issues on University traffic and that while he’s here to give the council a short presentation on some issues re. facts and myths of traffic control.

Mr. Green stated that Dan Jonasson, traffic engineer, asked if he would share some information about traffic engineering, that he has been working fairly regularly in the city for the last 6 or 7 years doing traffic studies, traffic impact study for the Alerus, traffic impact study for Engelstad Arena, corridor study for Columbia and a variety of projects and as a result of those things, that he has some familiarity with traffic issues in the city and as a result of having done traffic engineering in various places in the upper Midwest, and shared stories and lessons learned as it relates to 6 items: 1) traffic signals, 2) flashing beacons, 3) stop and yield signs, 4) turn lanes, 5) access, and 6) driveways and made a brief presentation. He stated he has a publication called the Traffic Safety
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 2

Fundamentals Handbook that was published by the MN Department of Transportation and most of tonight’s handouts are slides from this document; that there is some guidance that is available to help with decisions relative to requests; and will leave several copies with staff.

1.2.2 Convention and Visitors Bureau Update.
John Staley, president of the Board of the Convention & Visitors Bureau, stated that last year the council was realigning and adjusting that agency, it does answer to the council and the council does appoint the boards and sets up the governing authority for that body. He stated that last fall the Board was in transition with the former members and new members coming on, and decided along with the Alerus Commission to hire SimmonsFlint, an advertising agency, to develop a community-wide advertising and marketing plan for our community; that in December the Board hired Compass Facility Management, who is also the contractor to manage the Alerus facility as the administrative agent for the CVB and that is now in place as well, and that Charlie Jeske is the new director. He stated that the new Board convened in January and on January 2 they received their first report from SimmonsFlint of their study on how to start selling Greater Grand Forks throughout the region and increase their economic base. He reported that the Board met with the ND Department of Tourism as an information meeting to hear how the State Department was going to be working with them; with the Fargo-Moorhead CVB; and that SimmonsFlint has been working on the marketing plan, the contract with Compass Facility states that they are to do a business plan as part of their duties and they have been coming together and developing those plans. He stated the Board met today, reviewed the SimmonsFlint recommendation for the marketing plan and presented a copy of the Greater Grand Forks CVB Marketing Plan to the council. He reviewed highlights of the plan which draws a number of ways to draw commerce into our city and today the Board did adopt this plan as a concept, that they need to take it to action plan and have a lot of work to do. He reviewed a summary of the concept and where they would hope to go and would need council’s help.
1) Media strategy - having radio spots in 31 communities in MN, ND, SD and MB, and in some communities have up to 6 stations advertising Grand Forks, all from 150 miles out - 18 publications for print (magazines, newspapers, etc.) targeted for customer they think Grand Forks can lure into our economy. 5 major routes will have billboards along.
2) Focused public relations program - would include news press, special events and special announcements - and use within the 150 miles.
3) Take the CVB from a former one sales person to four full-time sales persons and 3 part-time and 7 working on that - and their job is to go out and sell conventions - need to get groups coming back to Grand Forks of all sizes.
4) Packaging - sales persons will put packages together for golf, entertainment, shopping
5) Employee certification program - train front line staff (people working in motels, behind desks, restaurants) - 5 favorite things within walking of this hotel, 5 favorite things in Grand Forks, and in the region - do incentive. Brochure distribution (for small fee hire agencies, companies to take brochures around) set up racks (dinner guide, entertainment guide, golf guide, etc.) and keep them full. Focused event expansion - target specific things that we’re doing here, only advertise them, continuing education, summer camps, etc
6) Master calendar - go to web site and find out events (sports event, art exhibit, etc.) and more advanced web sites are being designed to do that in today’s market. He stated that at no point do we know who all is doing what in this city - person who would go from different points and gather information about what is happening; and if could have a calendar on the web site as well as hard copy in Grand Forks, the citizens can start to learn where to go to find out what’s coming into the community, etc. and desperately need a master calendar.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 3

He stated this is a summary of a concept plan, many more things recommended and would like to visit more about this - that it benefits everybody.

Mayor Brown stated he was very excited about this, and sees this as a plan to succeed and very encouraged by this - and agrees that we need to provide cohesiveness for all Greater Grand Forks activities and events to that master calendar. He stated on the master calendar that we need to get the word outside as well as to our citizens; and thinks they’ve done a wonderful job and that this is the concept and action is the next step.

Council Member Gershman thanked Mr. Staley for taking on the presidency of that Board, and knows that the Board is very enthusiastic - this started with the thought of a fellow councilman, Council Member Christensen, back in September of 2000, many people involved in this and took long time for this to come together to try to find a more efficient way to do this and get more sales people out and wished them luck and thanked the new Board and Mr. Jeske.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSIONS ITEMS

2.1 -Mayor’s Office of Special Events.
(Recommendation - approve the development of the Office of Special Events to assist organizations in hosting events within the city of Grand Forks, with emphasis on outdoor events)
Mayor Brown stated that this tandems with the Greater Grand Forks Marketing Plan, that the fate of ND cities show that we can’t sit back, have to be pro-active - that he has a vision for Grand Forks and need to communicate and coordinate and partner, need a way to make this work and to look at the idea so that it can go forward, need to look at community as one big venue as becoming a destination city, need to create closer partnership with the CVB, Alerus, Park District, Downtown Leadership Group and UND and others by attending meetings and increasing communication. The money is in this year’s budget, and this is an important idea and need to start communicating and working together.

Council Member Gershman stated he would like to see if the reconstituted CVB could take a look at rolling this position into their existing budget and staff without creating a new position within City Hall, and that the CVB work closely with our Information Department to bring this together using the existing funds that we have - idea warrants further study; need something like this but not an independent position, have streamlined the permits for people - one-stop shop and was something that was done early on - and that is what he would propose rather than creating another position - would like them to look at it and come back with a report.

Council Member Kreun stated that most of this activity will take place 150 miles outside of Grand Forks as far as marketing, there’s got to be somebody that’s going to take those people from outside the area and help guide them through the process that they need as far as if a convention comes to town and perhaps that’s where that complete project would take place inside the CVB but perhaps the housing of that person might be in the City Hall in our Public Info. Center so information will flow back and forth between CVB and the City.

Council Member Bjerke stated in 2001 we downsized the city employees and in 2002 attempting to downsize more and can go a couple more years down the road downsizing from what he has seen in studying the city and the budget - have asked department heads to trim staff and doesn’t think this is the time to add to city bureaucracy by hiring another full time person - if the Park District, UND, CVB and DLG and Chamber, etc. wants to do something like this, they have money; CVB gets
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 4

almost $400,000/year in taxpayers money - let those groups do this and pursue the private sector - and is not something the City should be involved in - and if create this position and make it a government employee, the odds of ever getting rid of this position in the future are slim or none. Mayor Brown stated he must respectfully disagree with his comments, and hopes if the position is created it stays forever because we will need it to help market our city and coordinate our marketing events; that he sees a government with no employees and he (mayor) sees government that’s growing and needing to coordinate its growth into the city we need to be.

Council Member Burke asked for the nature of the need here, what is the problem that they are trying to solve, judging from the memo it is difficult to find among the maize of city offices all the information, permits, rules and regulations that you need to follow to put on an event - how many organizations had difficulty with this in 2001 and how difficulties resolved; and how Fargo, Bismarck or Minot offices of special events operate or if there’s a model there that we should be following. Kevin Dean, Info Center, reported that the mayor asked Public Info. Center to look into this idea and some of the options and that was the report that was written on the Mayor’s behalf to try to answer some of the questions that have been asked so far. He stated that he is not aware of what other communities do - he stated that as an example the class reunion that was held this past summer, came in with great ideas but there were a number of things that they wanted to do that would have been illegal and they didn’t know it until they sat down with some of the staff and set in the right direction to make sure that they had everything done properly and to make sure that it was kosher with the law - and having someone who is helping keep that straight makes sense according to what they have found out - a question as to where this should be located - one of the recommendations is to have this position within the city as you have many different groups that are operating in their own world, but the City has as its constituency the entire community - this puts the City in a position of knowing what is going on, to know what the events are and to give us some additional knowledge - we don’t want to get phone calls in the Public Info. Center or other departments and have people ask about events we aren’t aware of - and the idea of having a position within the city would be able to be working with all of these other entities as well - to keep the coordination with the city because there are a number of ordinances, etc. that have to be coordinated through the city. Mayor Brown stated that when have people come back to UND, have street not torn up by engineering, special Olympics come in and have to know about traffic and what’s available, and have people who want to schedule two events on the same weekend, that it comes up continually that people need to plan ahead, and need a master calendar of what is going on that weekend when they are in town and not conflicting with other. He stated we are part of this master planning calendar and somebody has to take the leadership role - no one has done it and now up to us to take a leadership role in making this plan succeed. Council Member Burke stated that the problem here could be handled with a 3 or 4 page handout that lists the various activities and where permits are needed and if want to schedule an event and want to find out if there is a conflict, check with the CVB who has the master calendar and if want to get on the master calendar to let the CVB know. Mr. Dean stated that entities that have talked to the City and directly to the Mayor’s Office feel that it is much more detailed and entailed than that.

COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINSON EXCUSED

Council Member Glassheim stated that local people concerned about the cost of the Alerus, nobody’s fault because the Alerus has to make money, but is concerned whether local people are going to start being lost in the shuffle and not being as interesting to some of us as major groups from somewhere else, some of the small groups don’t have staff and need some of this help. He stated he has heard the suggestion that the CVB do it, but impression has been that the CVB’s
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 5

funding and mission is to bring people from outside in large groups - and is not the same thing as having small events - that when events come City works details of what they need.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if there is a change in the mayor’s recommendation, emphasize on outdoor events, with new golf course, expanded softball facilities, and if mayor is still thinking to push forward to develop the office and have that as motion for next Monday night or open to Mr. Gershman’s suggestion.

Pete Haga, Info Center, stated he felt the City should compile the master calendar - the suggestion to go with the CVB on first glance, but the CVB has their target audience and focus and City has its focus on residents of the city - that the City would be taking care of all the people, not just certain target but smaller events and making sure information is available through a one-stop shop, and making sure that information about those events are available to our residents - that the City does have a responsibility not just for bringing in people for economic development but to make sure that economic development best serves the residents and can do that by minimizing the problems that occur.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if this has been thought through or to establish an office and then determine what they are going to do. Mayor Brown stated it has been thought through, that the most important word in advertising is new and Grand Forks is only going to be new for a while and need to be pro-active in getting our act together so that we present a good image and that people have successful meetings here or events and want to come back - that we have the facilities to serve them and now need governmental infrastructure to do it, our responsibility to take the lead in this.

Council Member Klave stated that the marketing report that Mr. Staley presented - there are some links between the two, we have the funding for this year and have to take serious looks at next year’s budget as to what we do but if this is a position we can fund this year and CVB in conjunction with mayor’s office look at this and see if there is a possibility of them funding it - doesn’t have problem if this position needs to be housed in City Hall - and can work through funding sources down the road.

Council Member Gershman stated we are coming down to something of a blend and maybe that position is housed partially here but seems like this does fall within the CVB mission because part of their job is to develop sense of community pride and that also happens when you take care of the events that are for the local people also.

Pete Haga stated there are some special events funds and also economic development, $30-35,000 was taken out of economic development to support the Marketplace of Ideas. The deputy city auditor stated that there is $100,000 in economic development and $100,000 for arts grant program and is separate from this - there are two separate allocations. Events money is $100,000 and $160,000 from economic development to help with Alerus, police patrol. Mayor Brown stated the funding source is not written in stone.

Council Member Christensen stated he has a concern about creating a position - wants to make sure there is an actual need for the position rather than a perceived need, thinks the idea is good and as events occur and as scheduling needs arise - thinks a lot of this could be handled with a computer program that has a scheduling function and that would be a simple place to start and all the entities involved could work together with that software package - and his suggestion is to continue the study.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 6

Council Member Hamerlik stated he would caution that the $160,000 that was set aside for safety and special events, even though it has not all been spent, that is probably the minimum that will be needed for those events - and there was a need for more than $160,000 for King’s Walk coming on, Engelstad, Alerus so don’t be too quick to spend that money - may need that and more.

Mayor Brown stated that they will take this back , rework it, look at input they have received tonight and bring something forward again.

Council Member Christensen stated he wanted to point out alternate sources of funding - one he would suggest is if we are successful with our endeavor with community theatre we would free up around $60,000 in the budget that was programmed for expenses, might want to look at that and another $100,000 in the mayor’s budget and some discretion there, which gives you another $160,000 to explore and if they were to follow his logic he was suggesting, probably don’t have to go with the full $45,000.

2.2 Request for CDBG funds for renovation of Griffith’s Building.
Council Member Hamerlik stated a few weeks ago when this was discussed that there wasn’t much that could be done with so little on the outside - and staff report says $73,000 which is going to be matched in the form of a grant, and to do the whole thing it’s a $900,000 deal and that as money becomes available, we are to contribute $450,000. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated since previous meetings he has talked with the owners and asked them to provide a plan on what assistance they want from the City and how they wanted to move forward in renovating the building, the current project they submitted was the renovation of the first floor at an est. of $147,000 and that’s where they came up with a request for $73,000 - since that time they have realized with our input that if they used our funds, they would have to do the main floor storefront historically and they have revised bids for the first floor that are closer to $180,000 or $190,000 and the $73,000 that they are requesting would actually be matched by approx. $120,000 by the owners to renovate the first floor. He stated that they discussed that the entire exterior of that building (two facades facing 3rd Street and DeMers) would cost approx. $900,000 and the owners are presenting in their letter on the back of his staff report, is that they would be willing with the City’s assistance to go ahead with the $900,000 renovation to the exterior of that building if the City were to contribute half of that amount in the form of a grant, and they would be willing to do that over a period of 1, 2 or 3 years - that if the City were not willing to contribute those dollars towards that project they are still requesting that the $73,000 for this year be approved but they will move ahead in future years and do the exterior renovation of that building only as it is financially feasible for them to do so (when they have tenants to put into the space that they have) otherwise they will leave the building (top four floors) as it is today until they have time. We are not proposing that the City make any commitment for any future expenditures on this building other than the $73,000.

Council Member Burke asked if this building will need asbestos abatement and if that has been researched; and what about the interior, and cost of abatement. Mr. Hanson stated that was researched and that in the past it may have been believed that the exterior façade of that building does contain asbestos, which would be a substantial cost to the owners to mitigate; however, they did do a test of that facility and it is his understanding that the exterior does not contain asbestos. He stated they did not investigate the interior and cannot answer that. Dan Sampson stated that the School District was in that building and asbestos wasn’t a problem. Council Member Burke asked if we get involved in using CDBG funds for that on a construction program, will we have to certify the asbestos issue; Mr. Hanson stated we would have to consider whether there was asbestos but in this proposed project that they are presenting this evening it is only for the ground level
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 7

exterior and there is no asbestos. Council Member Burke stated he is looking at the whole question, if it is going to come up at some point, have it come up now and not put money into it. Council Member Klave stated that being the School District owned that, if there was an environmental study done on that building and if there is a report that goes with the building, and it would show all the asbestos in the building, level, etc.; and if the building is registered with the Historic Society. Mr. Sampson stated he does not have a copy of that report, that asbestos only in certain areas and it has been contained.

Council Member Brooks stated looking at $450,000 in next 3 years, and have an additional 40,000 sq.ft. of rental space downtown and have a lot of vacant space downtown and if put another 40,000 is going to lessen the chances of making a success of the downtown and filling those buildings - and is a concern and increasing a critical problem. Mr. Hanson stated what they are proposing is only the $73,000 and if the owners in the future wish to come back and request additional funding for the remainder of the exterior, they will do so at that time, and proposing that we make no commitments for the future whatsoever and if we are willing to match them, they will go ahead and do it as fast as they can, if not, will wait. He stated there was a study done by the assessing department as far as space downtown and there is a considerable amount of retail space that is available (40% of the retail space downtown is vacant, 20% of commercial or office space is vacant, and less than 5% of residential space is vacant) and dependent on what the owners are going to use the property for. Council Member Brooks stated that when looking at other things in the town is that we need to keep a level playing field, we have a lot of vacant space outside of the downtown and the market is the total city, not just the downtown.

Council Member Glassheim asked if the Historical Society require them to do the total face-lift and what is their position on this. Mr. Sampson stated to get federal funds, they would have to meet the historic guidelines on what they are doing. Council Member Glassheim asked if renaissance zone was doing much here and who is in charge of promoting renaissance zone projects, and if this was a project that could use renaissance zone. Dennis Potter, city planner, stated they would have to sit down with Mr. Sampson to determine how they have ownership structured, a new investment group established to take over part of the building because renaissance zone is geared to new investment by new investors and there are ways to do that. Mr. Sampson stated he has met with Mr. Potter and not as easy as it seems. Mr. Sampson stated they are willing to put in $450,000 and if willing to put in that much, that most old buildings have asbestos and its contained; and have to deal with it; and with School District in there the asbestos had to be contained and in any remodeling, will have to deal with it and did on the second floor.

Council Member Gershman stated that we may have to turn around in the future and put more money into this building and asked if it makes sense for the City to offer to buy the building for what you have in it and City would then look at either artist’s lofts there, have artists move in, or to tear it down and put an addition on the Town Square which is starting to overflow - that this building is a difficult problem for the owners and type of building that it is. Mr. Sampson stated that when they did buy it to make it work, spent more money than people realize, have redone the entry, gutted the entire first floor, redone the second floor, redid the elevators, the roof ; and that they don’t do things to resell for what he has into it - and does think that he can make it work and willing to put up their own money and aware of what things rent for in Grand Forks and know vacancy rates, etc.

Council Member Kreun asked what the original intent was for the building, if that changed, what type of businesses, apartments rather than entertainment complex, that with the type of building
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 8

and condition of the building, have to be good neighbors and comply with citizen expectations, not just building codes, etc., that the citizenry is looking at this building and we get comments on it quite frequently - burden is going to be put on owners that if this grant is given to them, that we hope not to have a business in there that’s going to require police calls, extra fire calls, extra work to clean up the facility outside that there’s garbage, etc. which in some indications hasn’t always been done and that if we are going to give money to that particular building, the expectations are going to keep it high to keep in a nice clean, maintained manner.

Mr. Sampson stated the main floor would be used for retail, second floor is rented (Lucky’s Green Room) and good place for underage people to hang out and attracts a good crowd and doesn’t seem to have any problems; and the best use of the top two floors would be apartments but need windows and would have to remove rock and redo the windows which are covered up with rock (sketch of former building); and wants to fix it up and want the downtown to look nice. Mayor Brown stated that the recommended council action is to authorize staff to amend the 2002 annual action plan to fund the referenced project in the amount of $73,188, open a 30-day public comments period, and hold a public hearing on March 18, 2002 to take final action.

2.3 Bid specifications for fire department clothing.
Mayor Brown stated they would like to change this to state - to approve budget amendment in the amount of $107,000 for 2002 clothing fund. under recommended council action. Council Member Brooks stated that the budget amendment is grant dollars but using cash carryover, how cover this next year when drawing out of cash carryover. Chief O’Neill stated that the money they use for cash carryover in 2001 budget was $10,300 and the grant was for $96,300 and there is no match that is necessary in the upcoming years - it was a one-time match of funds - the $107,000 will be the extent of the grant and in the future our clothing budget that is annually budgeted will continue purchasing necessary clothing - there will be no additional need for cash carryover.

2.4 Water Conservation Plan.
No comments.

2.5 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5288, 2002 Sidewalk Repairs.
No comments.

COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE EXCUSED

2.6 Policies and Procedures on financing infrastructure for city growth (connection fees).
Council Member Kreun asked what their recommendation would be and which scenario would fit the needs in the city. Mr. Grasser stated a lot of that is rather subjective, tried to go through some steps and show different examples of how different things can work - that they are recommending on page 35 and 36 where show depreciation curves - that it may make sense that we may want on the tapping areas look to extend the time where basically have zero depreciation, it still makes sense to recognize some sort of depreciation and wearing out of the facility - but when get to the bottom, instead of depreciating it back to zero, there are some good arguments that can be made for a project that there’s some residual value (pavement) - have catch basins in place and a lot of the material there and may have the possibility of recycling of its concrete or asphalt, and have basic grading and lot of stuff done which would correspond to a residual value and that value would be there forever.


COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 9

Council Member Kreun stated that with the 100% for 15 years as a recommendation, and what changes would that make to a developer; Mr. Grasser stated that the developer would pay a non-depreciated rate instead of year 15 under current proposal a $2500 initial tapping fee would go down to about $1261 under the proposed project that would stay at the original $2500 - they hang on with the initial cost even though they recognize the road is aging but would fix that fee for the tapping fee. He stated there has been some discussion of adding some interest onto our carrying costs and that is allowable should we decide to do that, and did some examples of what 5% might do over time, makes good sense from business standpoint but dealing with people involved when hit them with a tapping fee and concerned as to what their reactions are going to be - finding that a lot of people aren’t aware of tapping fees and that is one of the policy issues that the council could look at is the interest rate portion. Council Member Kreun stated that even though they wouldn’t use paving for 15 years, they would still pay the original tapping fee because the project was paid by the City originally and this is a way to recoup the cost for the City, under normal circumstance that would be a special assessment project. Mr. Grasser stated that the council does have the option that the City could require the developer to actually pay that and would pick that fee up for them in arrears, that the City doesn’t necessarily pay the tapping fee but that’s been the majority model that has been used.

Mr. Swanson stated part of this was an historical misunderstanding of what was allowed under State law and there was a perception that it had to be a straight line depreciation from day 1 through whatever an arbitrary life of the project was determined to be - after meetings this fall it became clear that is not required by law - misunderstanding - and that he advised the engineering department to do was to examine the different types of improvements to see what is the relationship of a life cycle of the project compared to a straight line, and engineers comment was that the road doesn’t depreciate very much in first few years of its life, and a pipe depreciates even less over a period of time so that generated the dialogue but original proposals that you have were more reflective of some misinformation on what was required, and in some cases a belief that it had to be tied to the length of a bond issue, which is not true.

Mr. Swanson stated that nationally the method of financing improvements varies community to community depending upon financial condition of developer, of community and combinations - in some cities the city will not finance any improvement - 100% financed by the developer, under our City Code the developer has to have 50% of the improvement value upfront, either in the form of in-kind (pavement, etc.) or surety, or cash payment; some communities require the developer to pay upfront for the entire improvement but will impose tapping charges in the recovery of tapping charges that go back to the developer- some use impact fee, special assessments appear to be somewhat more of a midwestern phenomena than on either coast and something that reflects growth trends as well.

Council Member Christensen asked why they have to make this policy decision until they get the balance of the information that engineering is giving us, what’s the urgency of making this decision until they have all their homework done on what they are going to present to the council. Mr. Grasser stated they have a number of issues - have assessments, future assessments, tapping fees, cash, impact fees, etc. but the tool of tapping fee and wanted to make sure this council was in agreement as to what that tool was, and that the next time they would bring in as an informational item - and next council meeting may want to look at the future assessments where there are some depreciation schedules there and determine what that tool is, talk about how to use them - Council Member Christensen stated he didn’t see an urgency to make this policy decision until they get the balance of the information. He asked if here were some assessment districts that were going to be
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 10

proposed this summer on proposed developments coming in; Mr. Grasser stated yes. Council Member Christensen stated we could have those developers understand that whatever arrangements were made, it will be subject to whatever future decisions council makes, if any, on tapping fees; and it was understood we could. Council Member Christensen stated that the issue for the community is as we grow we have to fund some of this infrastructure - that he is concerned about the interest issue because if the City funds and pays it and interest on the carrying costs, then all of us are paying for that future development, and is trying to get across is a hanging fee - that when person comes to buy a lot and take out a building permit that we could reassess that rather than payment of the fee - that would not preclude or impede the development, and person buying the lot would be paying his or her share of the special assessments so that the City gets it back again. He stated they would have a source of money to use to front infrastructure in the future without taking it from the citizenry; and developing a pool where we could fund these projects. Mr. Swanson stated that the Code provides for that for tapping fees - the City has not utilized the tapping fees a great deal because the City has never had a pool of money that could advance fund the improvement without going out to the market and bonding for it - where they have used tapping fees, and if the total due in any year is more than $1,000 at time of connection, it can be extended for up to 15 years at the discretion of the council, and that method is there available for you, but opportunity hasn’t arisen yet in the last couple years for you to have that opportunity to consider it. Council Member Christensen stated that if the Deacon’s Green project is a success and they need some help, it may be that we would have this opportunity to explore that - and also have some revenues that are coming through the city in the form of repayment of various projects, CDBG funds, EDA monies and have different sources of money that are going to be repaid as a result of this recovery starting in June of this year.

Mr. Grasser stated that is one of the directions they are looking for now - that the last time they brought this to the council they specifically noted that we chose not to finance the tapping fees - that we don’t want to be the banker, if someone wants to borrow the money, they should borrow it through their private financing; and if want to change that, they should know. He stated they do have a list of a half dozen projects, some tapping fees, some future assessment district that they should bring to the city council because the process we go through as they create the paperwork and the funding formula, and then have the city council certify it and when somebody comes in that’s building in that zone, we collect the tapping fee. He stated if brought old calculations, the council would have some concerns with that, and bringing to see how they want to treat it, and will bring in some that need to certify and some that are coming in.

Council Member Christensen stated that a developer that wants to bring in a certain number of lots, have to pay 50% of infrastructure costs are that aren’t already there - and the other 50% special, they pay those specials if sell very fast - developers bringing in small pieces of land because of cost constraints - another situation is what saw on 42nd and most of the land to the west of 42nd is not annexed and subject to tapping fees with a 15-year on that and if bring in the 10th year, they only pay 1/3 of whatever that street is and street won’t be worn out in 10 years and asked how this would apply to two or three different situations, how to use it - that these are some issues he would like to see addressed and rest see address before making policy decision, because of other effects. He stated he needs more information.

Mayor Brown asked for a show of hands - and will pull this from the agenda next week.

Council Member Christensen stated he would E-mail the additional information he would like to see as well as entire council.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 1/28/02 - Page 11

A rep. from Deacon’s Green, developer, and this is an issue that impacts them greatly, that there is a tapping fee at Deacon’s Green for the southend drainway project, drainage plan, and is a surprise to most people when they go to get their building permit, tries to make them aware of that; and if want to support growth, don’t add interest.

2.7 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5322, District No. 583, alley paving (210 North
Washington Street)._(between 2nd and University, 1200 block)_______________________
No comments.

2.8 Engineering services amendment for City Project Nos. 4948.2, 4948.3, 4948.4, 4948.5 and 4948.6 - Interim Residuals Management Plan._____________________________________
No comments.

2.9 Downtown Pedestrian Bridge - Greenway.