Council Minutes

MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

August 26, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, August 26, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

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 also announced various events during the past week and upcoming events:
1) He welcomed UND students back to the city.
2) He updated people on the Dickinson sister-city trip, learned that we have a lot to be proud of in our community and hoped we learned how to be great welcoming hosts because they did a wonderful job of showing us what is good in their community, and fun to see a community with vision and caring and we learned a lot. He thanked Julie Rygg and CVB for all that went into that trip and wanted to thank the sister-city delegates, included Dorette Kerian for helping make this a successful effort, and for giving up their time with their families to be with us on this endeavor.

3.1 Request from Flood Rental Rehab Loan recipients.
Tim Horpedahl presented a petition and stated he represents the concerned Grand Forks property owners who have 1997 rehabilitation loans and are requesting that 40% of the amount borrowed by each rental property owner be designated recovery or improvement grant, while 60% of the amount borrowed be repaid during the second 5 years of the no-interest loan. He stated he has rental properties at 1814 6th Avenue North, 909 North 3rd Street and 403 Oak Street in Grand Forks. He stated the real issue they come forward tonight is a fairness issue, looking for fairness to be treated the same as the businesses that received flood recovery aid after the flood of 1997. He stated the businesses in Grand Forks received funds and they've been granted 40% of those monies; that in East Grand Forks, MN they were granted 100% of the monies they were given up to $25,000 that were used to rehab rental units and asked why they would be asked to repay monies that the federal government gave to our communities to rehab our cities after the flood. He asked how the landlords could anticipate the amount of the special assessments that would be placed upon them to pay for the dike, and places an unfair burden on the rental properties; and asked that they accept the proposal because it's fairness that they are after.

Several other individuals addressed the council relative to their rental rehab. loans:
Carol Kelly, 110 8th Avenue South, owns building at 1110 2nd Avenue North.
Lynn Lindholm, 316 Hamline Street, owns property at 1908 2nd Avenue North.
Lloyd Welsh, 2396 South 36th Street, owns property at 620 and 622 Conklin Avenue and 1710 North 7th Street.
Dave Arnold, 1002 19th Avenue South, owns property in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks (in East Grand Forks loans are forgiven after 5 years of owning the property and have found no other city that received flood rehab loan money that does have a payback.)
Gerald Lichter, 815 Campbell Drive, owner of 22 apartments.
Leila Olson, 814 Stanford Road.

Terry Hanson, Urban Development, stated what the City did was pull a rental rehab. program off the shelf as have had this program in place in the city since 1984, revised the program a little and funded it with a total of $7 million in CDBG Supplemental Funds from the emergency allocation of $171 million, and $1 million of State CDBG Small Cities Program. He stated they put the program
Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 2

on the street and also looked at it as an opportunity to put money out to assist the landlords and to receive the money back at a later date; that in past programs they charged interest rate and for these funds decided not to, which saved the landlords approx. $2.2 million in interest; they gave them a deferral for 5 years of any payments. He stated the city council has a hard decision to make, and would like to respond to two things - that the $3 million was not anticipated that the rest of the dollars would never be collected by the City; that they do not want to over estimate their program income and estimated for the next 5 years they will receive a portion of what an amortization schedule you would receive, and estimated $3 million over 5 years. The balance they still would expect to be collected but take longer and take restructuring on an individual basis with the borrowers to work these loans out if they were running into financial difficulty, but anticipate doing this on an individual basis, not as a group. He stated because of bankruptcies, etc. they anticipate having to charge off some but minor part of the total and would their intention just as it is with their business loans that they would collect the majority of the total outstanding debt.

He also commented on the matter of fairness between the two programs - that when they put the money out for the rental rehab loans and did not offer a grant, it isn't that they wanted to pick the landlords out and being harder to them, that when looking at the other program they are comparing this to, Business Assistance Program, that they had three rounds of loans that they made to the businesses, that the business program was what they wanted to be different to and that it was necessary to give a strong enticement to the local businesses (retail and service establishments) to open up their shops again, to restock their businesses and go back into business and rehire the people, and that is the reason they received the 40% forgiveness - that the first loans that went out were at 25% and had to stay in business for 5 years, and business loans went out with an interest rate attached - at 6% interest and if you closed your business within the first 3 years, you not only owed 100% of the balance but also 6% on the balance, but forgiven at the end of 3 years. They were trying to give the businesses a better incentive when they created that program.

Council Member Kerian stated if individuals were to come and say they can't handle this, what could be done for them. Mr. Hanson stated it hasn't been the intent of the council or the City to force the party or property owner or business owner into bankruptcy or foreclosure on their property and on an individual basis if property owner or business came forth and showed to them that they could not meet the debt service, that they could restructure these loans to meet their cash flow; that he didn't think the City wanted to be in the business of owning more property.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if there were regulations in guideline relative to renegotiating loans. Mr. Hanson stated that the funds when given to the City (whether annual entitlement funds or this supplemental funds, that the City is responsible for determining in what manner they were spent and what programs they were dispersed and to create its own programs within the guidelines of the regulatory statutory requirements of the fund, as long as we meet those guidelines we can put the money out any way we want, if at a later date on the council's decision to forgive a portion of these loans that is not against any regulation.

Council Member Gershman stated that his family does have one of these loans, noted that those in the program are not paying interest on the loans and thinks that is quite fair, that he is listening to the individual stories and that a blanket amnesty of 40% maybe isn't the right thing to do and would guess that all property owners are not in dire straights, vacancy rate is very low and appears that things have stabilized, however, find in individual cases because of the damage that was done have invested large amounts of retirement money, etc. and would ask them to think about the route of individual cases, not everyone needs it.
Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 3

Council Member Kreun stated he has received several phone calls and one asked about those who have already paid their loans; and those who stated if program including forgiveness of portion, would also have participated.

Council Member Christensen stated he had received some of these loans, that on a case by case reason there are many good reasons why some shouldn't be relieved of the ongoing obligation, that he didn't realize those getting business loans were paying interest in addition but asked all of us, that everyone made decisions after the flood based upon the programs that were available, the low interest loans, etc. and chose to go forward to keep and rehab. our property or to walk away from it - maybe if pay x percent going forward, then the balance might be forgiven, better off seeing light at the end of the tunnel before asking friends and neighbors to relieve us from this obligation - different ways of approaching this rather than carte blanc loan forgiveness - that he probably couldn't vote on this issue as he has probably more debt that many of them have as a result of this flood. This will be difficult decision.

Roger Wyman, 2396 27th Avenue South, #110, that he and his wife have a duplex and a four-plex and has attended some of the meetings they've had in this group on the refunding, that he has a different approach - that when he took the loan out he thought the City was giving him the $30,000 and would get a five-year interest free loan, that he figured out how he could handle the loan, and can handle it and no objection to repaying the loan, but after he found out it is federal money became upset because those across the river doesn't have to pay it back - that he will repay the loan but those across the river need to do the same thing - but talking federal dollars that was given in the same way so those in EGF get it free while in Grand Forks don't.

Council Member Hamerlik stated business loan was 15-year loan, no interest, no payment for 5-years and 40% forgiveness; Mr. Hanson stated that when the loans were made, were with a 15-year repayment at 6% and if the business remained in business after 3 years they would get 40% of the principal amount forgiven, all of the interest accrued to date forgiven and the interest rate reported zero. He stated if the business owner went out of business or changed the scope of the business prior to 3 years and were required by the loan document to repay the loan and interest was added to the loan.

Council Member Christensen stated these people have 5 years to pay the loan back, with no interest, and seems to him that maybe some proposals as to a change of this program should be presented by Urban Development as to how they can help these people achieve the repayment of these loans - maybe we recraft this program and give people an automatic loan extension for x number of years; that these people have cash flow problems and maybe not really looking for forgiveness but maybe look to reamortization and extend the term to x number of years and those maybe things we should be thinking about; and perhaps come forward with a motion so don't address this in a week without considering how we can help these people meet their obligations but yet cash flow, etc. Mr. Hanson would agree to that - and indicated to the group of landlords that he would not support the request of forgiveness of 40% but suggested that perhaps they could request to extend the terms from 5 years to 10 year repayment, which in effect lowers their payments; that is something they can take back and meeting with the reps. of this group and try to determine what would best fit their needs.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if there was a contact person(s) of the group; Ms. Lindholm stated there are a number of people they can call on and she could help out with Mr. Hanson, that

Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 4

they will be glad to talk further. She also noted that if on an individual basis, that the City already has their receipts for what they put into their property during the flood recovery period.

Council Member Glassheim asked if a forgiven loan would be considered income for IRS purposes, and saw number of people frowning on potential suggestion to go to 10 years, which is what he thought would be reasonable as a cash flow issue and if not satisfactory, why.

Mr. Swanson stated that he is aware that there are holdings by the IRS that principal forgiveness can be considered income, however, there are also other provisions including IRS rulings that deal with disaster payments, and not a clear determination as to whether their forgiveness would or would not be income, but is a potential for taxable income but not in a position to give you an opinion on it, and he would be rather cautious about trying to render a public opinion as to whether or not an individual loan forgiveness would amount to a taxable event for them, there are a number of circumstances that he may not be aware of or even contemplate, could provide with research but would prefer that he not be put in that position. He stated the best advice is if there are property owners that have issues or concerns that way, they should be consulting with their own tax preparer.

Mrs. Olson stated she has a problem with extending the loan, not sure her life expectancy is that long, and that this was federal money, not City money, and has a problem returning it to the City for them to use in their pet projects, that if turn it back to the federal government for disaster relief elsewhere would be a better idea to pay it all back, that when she signed the loan the person she talked to said that after 5 years if you still owned the property, the City will probably decide to forgive these loans and was under impression that if she held on to the property for 5 years that the loan would be forgiven.

Council Member Gershman stated that rather than taking action next week but as Mr. Hanson and staff start to work through this, that the group of landlords designate some people to meet with them and start to put some of the proposals down (and notify council) so that when it comes to the council there is some consensus among the landlord group and staff before bringing back to the council. Mr. Hanson stated that was agreeable.

3.2 Affordable In-fill Housing Development Proposal.
Mr. Hanson stated that earlier this summer they had a program for in-fill housing and at that time the council authorized staff to negotiate with the developers that were approved, which included CMI, Easter Seals and Andrew Swanson that if they wanted to take on another lot they could make a proposal which would be considered; and have a request from Andrew Swanson to take a lot at 1512 University Avenue and build on it (picture of house in staff report). He stated that Mr. Swanson has asked for a small modification to his application - in the application he asked for $17,500 in HOME funds to help fund the construction of the building, that the $17,500 is only available if the home is sold for an LMI family, and found out that because the $17,500 is greater than $14,999 it encumbers the property for 10 years rather than 5 years (would have to put income requirements on this house for 10 years) and Mr. Swanson has come back with another offer - to buy the lot for $1.00 and he will build the house on this lot and have at a market price of $92,000 if sold to an LMI family and for $77,000 to an LMI family with the $15,000 second mortgage to the City. He recommended approval of the request.

Council Member Kreun stated that before this program was available, history of Mr. Swanson is probably in line, and has been doing these types of things for quite a few years prior to at a little
Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 5

higher price and this fits into our program as far as having entry level homes available for people, that Mr. Swanson is an excellent builder and designer of these types of homes, and urged council to continue with this program.

3.3 RFP for Historic Home/Lot Relocation packages.
Mr. Hanson advised the council of what exceptions would be taken next, the structures need to be moved and they will put the houses up for sale to the highest bidder to be relocated from the current site and when those bids come in or if don't receive a bid on any of these properties, will then demolish the house(s). Council Member Christensen asked if house on 1415 Lewis Blvd. has to be moved (that would not be demolished). No additional comments.

3.4 Budget amendment (CSCC Revenue $3,800.20, 8/13/02), new revenue.
Council Member Gershman asked if it was necessary for amounts this low to come before council; Mr. Swanson stated that could be delegated. Council Member Gershman suggested that if it's not new revenue and doesn't meet the threshold, that Mr. Duquette meet with staff and discuss policy and perhaps not necessary to bring to council. The deputy city auditor stated that sometimes there is an agreement involved (with agency that is giving the money) and has to come to the council. Mr. Swanson stated that the council can delegate and already have by resolution certain authority, council sets the limits and can be approved without coming to council. He stated that if council wishes to include (it is not included specifically now in the resolution that you have adopted for delegation) and if want to delegate authority for grants, that would in effect constitute the amendment of the budget and council has the authority to do that. Council Member Hamerlik stated those items could come in on informational report or included in the packet. Mr. Swanson also noted that they would want to adopt a formal resolution to that effect and would be a matter of identifying what limitations or requirements, level of spending of authority or include it with your present level of authority that's granted to department heads would be appropriate but within their prerogative. Council Member Glassheim asked how they get to that. Mr. Duquette stated $30,000 is their present amount of deligatory power, and subject to approval by the mayor and administrative coordinator with information to the city council. Council Member Hamerlik suggested that they bring copies of proposal to the next committee of the whole meeting. Council Member Christensen stated that in November or December of last year they had a number of budget resolutions, he questioned why the council was doing this but would appreciate a couple things - 1) as City Code is not updated other than annually and would like to have copies of all Code amendments to include as part of the Code for referral; and 2) between now and two committee of the whole meetings from now would appreciate a total resolution as to $30,000 grants, budget changes so they don't have to go through the same drill they went through in December of 2001 with number of routine budget amendments to get budget in compliance - if trying to get department heads to run the ship, get it organized so they can.

3.5 Budget amendment.
Same comments as for 3.4.

3,6 Change Order #1 for City Project No. 5295, 2002 Sanitary and Storm Sewer Repairs.
Council Member Gershman asked if the change order covered all 9 sewers - Mr. Grasser nodded yes. Council Member Kreun noted that this is not the only change order that would come about if other work is found that needs to be done and will come back for an additional amount.
Mr. Grasser again nodded in the affirmative.

3.7 Approve City requested items for the 2003-2004 MPO Work Plan.
Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 6

Council Member Kerian stated in budget meetings there was discussion about GASB and the need to determine depreciation and asked if that will help us value our streets as well so if it has that additional benefit. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, introduced Rusten Roteliuk, project engineer, who will take this item and referred the GASB question to the deputy auditor as it is an accounting question. Mr. Grasser stated that the GASB accounting is going to help put a quantifier on the condition of any City's infrastructure and will be a good tool to have and think people outside the community will see how favorable Grand Forks is going to rate on our infrastructure as they compare to other communities because of the concrete streets and repairs we've done since the flood, etc. and hoping it will be a positive for Grand Forks as he compares to other communities around the region, we stand in good stead; and answer is yes; the deputy auditor agreed. Council Member Gershman stated that one of the things he requested in council comments some time ago that we monitor our streets where there is heavy truck traffic because of dike construction (hauling clay, concrete, etc.) and the damage that is done to those streets and noticing some areas in town that are having some serious damage and doesn't know if this equipment would help us monitor that because he doesn't want to see streets being damaged and doesn't want the City to go back in and special assess those people for damage that wasn't done by ordinary use, and if there is a plan to monitor that. Mr. Rusten stated that item 2) right of way digital imaging - this is taking pictures every so often of the streets (currently have pictures of 1999 so that would give us an indication of the deterioration of the streets - between 1999 and when next pictures are taken. Council Member Brooks stated with GASB 34 requirements and with this information will have better idea of dollars and values on our infrastructure, know the condition of it, how its wearing, isn't wearing and where that will lead us as a council is to the question, will tell us how much we should be budgeting to keep ourselves up to date on our infrastructure and make sure its not deteriorating too fast for us so end up in problem. Mr. Rusten stated that is part of their pavement and asset management plan that they would develop as part of this. Council Member Kreun stated there is no local match with this so it does help us with our budget.

3.8 2004 Transportation Enhancement request to NDDOT.
Council Member Hamerlik stated he would like to find promise to residents that would be done. Scott Zainhofsky, project engineer, stated that was part of the discussion and is in the minutes of the meetings; Council Member Hamerlik stated he would like to see those minutes.

3.9 Plans and specifications for City Project No. 5375, District No. 414, Sanitary Sewer
along North 42nd Street from Gateway to 16th Avenue North and 16th Avenue
North from 42nd Street to the terminus of 16th Avenue North Circle.____________
Jon Jennings, president of North Dakota Concrete Products, and owner of 1925 North 42nd Street, the largest property in this project, that when he initially signed the petition to look at this project he was told it would probably cost the company $15 to 20,000 to hook up to sanitary sewer and were interested in that but after seeing estimates after plans were drawn in the engineer's office and preliminary estimates show their assessment cost would be almost $84,000, the hookup cost approx. $35,000 and at that point still about 700 ft. from their offices to the line and add another $70,000, and cost if project proceeds would be approx. $200,000 and understands these are normal ways projects are assessed for this, that they have made considerable improvements and intention is that property will be a pre-cast plant and have no intentions of sub-dividing and building apartment buildings - they have increased employees at that plant, up to 38. He stated as a business decision that $200,000 assessment for the 3 toilets they have in their offices doesn't make sense for them.
Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 7

He stated their assessment is in the neighborhood of between 25-30% of the entire project cost and asked the commission at this time that they not proceed with this project as they are not interested in spending that amount of money.

Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated those figures were based on their preliminary cost estimates and know are not fixed until the bids are opened and the project complete, and the re-assignment of benefits. Council Member Kreun stated it is not their intention to force you to do anything, and their thought process is that they have a lot of time invested in this and if at least go through the process to bid, still wouldn't mean that they are going to require it to be done, but have some very fixed, hard honest numbers; and that there are other options that the property owners have the option to work this out themselves with the individual contractors and bypass a portion of the special assessments and may want to consider that as well, but that we would like to go through the process of bidding so they have the actual numbers to make that business decision; and nobody's intention to force that to happen on that property.

Mr. Jennings stated his concern is that their percentage of the project, regardless of what the bid comes in at, it is still very significant and they have additional costs on top of that that aren't affected by the bids, and sees that as gone this far and now take it to the next step and then because invested this time and energy and do the project. Council Member Kreun stated the conversation they had prior to this meeting, majority feels they would not force them to do that, even though it's not protestable, that he would like to see actual numbers.

Council Member Christensen questioned why they were presented total sq. footage and see the lines for this proposed project have changed, that project hasn't been bid and if have that information so what - and hopes we don't change the district to preclude this gentleman from protesting it out - that he doesn't want the project and those that own the property could get the road in and the sewer in and those that want it pay for it rather than having this property pay for it - we could easily come up with a tapping fee so that when he wants to pick it up, he will pay his share plus the interest that he would have paid had he not been part of this. That is what he calls a hanging tapping fee, those that want it, will pay and those that don't in this case wouldn't but when hooks up to the sewer, pays for it. He stated he didn't want to see where we get the bids and then it's over, driven out there and doesn't see the need for concrete street in an area that has gone along without a concrete street for many years.

Council Member Kreun stated they asked Ms. Voigt to go to Special Assessment Commission and that's what those numbers are, and this is just going on with the process.

3.10 Job descriptions, Mayor's Office.
Charlie Bunce, HR director, stated they gave the mayor the option of classifying the Community Governmental Relations Officer (Asst. to the Mayor) and his choice was to go contract on that position vs. classification; other positions would be Civil Service. Council Member Glassheim stated on the Govt. Relations Officer was glad to see change from
Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 8

mayor's public relations officer to the City public relations officer - and it does list one of the functions "...as work together with the administrative coordinator to support the goals and objectives of the mayor.." and wonders if that should include the council as well or if this is just the mayor's public relations person or City's public relations person, not sure if that makes a difference. Mayor Brown stated he appreciates the comment. Council Member Gershman stated they could have 8 different policies but City is better if speaks with one voice. Council Member Glassheim stated that if the goals and objectives of the mayor are not in line with the goals and objectives of the council, then have an extra paid staff person going in one direction at the mayor's best and not any input from the council.

3.11 Capital funds for the Alerus Center.
Council Member Christensen stated that Mr. Schmisek indicated that in the Alerus bond fund there is approx. $500,000 that is accumulated and also on an annual basis we accumulate $70,000, and assumes the bond sale was over 6 years ago and would be 6 years at $70,000 which is close to the half million, that the issue about spending the $90,000 for the basketball court - that we received something from the Alerus as to their capital budget and they have a projected need over the next 5 years of $1,715,707 and a bigger issue for the council is to recognize how are they going to fund these needs over the next 5 years if we spend $90,000 for the basketball court and if accumulating $70,000/year, it seems that over5 years dividing by 5 would be $350,000 and as a matter of policy in the budgeting process, we will have to start thinking about how to fund the capital needs for this building, and about how and when the planning process to develop the reserves or cash to meet the ongoing capital expenditures which are going to be required with this facility.

Council Member Brooks stated comments he had heard from a number of people - that we have two facilities that "compliment" each other - Engelstad and the Alerus; the Engelstad has a basketball court and don't want to start competing on every level and that is what hearing from people, some concerns related to this; but that is a management issue and what do we want to use reserve dollars for.

Council Member Gershman stated with the Alerus having a basketball court and the women's season being the same as the men's season, that Grand Forks could become the only city in the state that could have both tournaments at the same time.

Council Member Hamerlik stated it is possible to have both tournaments going on in the same building (Alerus) with two courts which has been discussed, the contract with the University says that basketball in the Alerus - but the Kansas game was played at the Engelstad because of national television that caused a problem for Kansas and they set the date and was moved to the Engelstad and the Foundation bought the basketball court for the Engelstad Arena. He stated the City was in the market for the Class A basketball at one time and moved over to the Engelstad Arena - and we are in competition for several basketball tournaments - and if any specific questions Charlie Jeske is in the audience.

3.12 2003 preliminary budget.

Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 9

Council Member Kerian asked if one or more follow-up meetings could be scheduled to be able to discuss it further, and have public attend if they choose to. Mayor Brown asked that they schedule the meetings - Mr. Duquette will e-mail dates to council, staff and media. Council Member Christensen stated they will have the wage study meeting at noon on Wednesday, September 4, and at that time tell Mr. Duquette when they would like these meetings as September 16 is date for adoption of the budget. It was noted that there is a special COW meeting this Wednesday, August 28. Mr. Duquette stated they would have the first working session this week and would e-mail notices this week.

3.13 Engineering Department's 2003 CDBG applications.
Council Member Christensen stated he had this item placed on the agenda, that they are trying to schedule a meeting of the committee to talk about the excess CDBG monies but occurred to him when he saw the grants coming forward from the City that when he told the people that he asked to sit on the 14-person, didn't explain to them that they would be passing on issues dealing with city projects and wanted that the council would deal with CDBG requests and after they have made their decisions as to what would qualify for the CDBG funds, then the balance would go to the Citizens Advisory group who are dealing with bricks and mortar for the non-profits and just bringing to the council's attention because their group hasn't met yet but thought they should be in control of CDBG money for city projects.

Council Member Glassheim stated that the projects they have in front of them are what he thought they were interested in, thought the point was to take some additional CDBG money and put it into projects that they were going to spend on anyway but use CDBG money and freeing up some additional Highway Users or other funds; that these are all new projects that don't have to be done and won't free up a penny for any other usage - good projects but not required projects, nor emergency projects and don't allow us to replace other city funds with CDBG monies which is what he thought they were trying to do.

Council Member Christensen stated the last time they went through the bricks and mortar some of the applicants were the City and actually funded some of those projects, and now City applications total $3.3 million and that would consume all of the money and the issue was to use the CDBG money to benefit all the citizens as opposed to select groups; that he hasn't reviewed the applications but to alert the council that rather than having the bricks and mortar applicants, 501C3 organizations competing against the city for this money, that we recognize and that the City not be competing the money that the 501C3 are going to request, that we set aside our own set of CDBG monies and if applications qualify, then prioritize the city projects - so citizens are dealing with a block of money and not being asked to take and do council business.

Council Member Kreun stated that was his opinion - that we would set aside an amount of money for the city projects and between the council and engineering department prioritize those in a need basis because some of these are replacements and will be funded one way or the other and would be beneficial and good process to look at.
Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 10

Mr. Grasser stated his department looked at where they could use the CDBG funds and there are things in the list that would be improvements to the LMI areas, areas where can save money in various funds, either Highway Users or watermain funds, etc. and some things that may not qualify for CDBG funding, that they filled out the applications to move them forward so they could be considered in full context of the money available because they don't have the basis to judge whether a certain project should compete against some other health/safety/humanitarian issue and it was to put the information out for consideration and further evaluation and committee can look at it and decide which one to move forward - and they did put dollar amounts in but a point to judge from as to how much work can be done and can adjust the scope of the work to match the dollars, but be careful about doing a bunch of little projects cause administration will eat you up but a lot of flexibility in the dollars and the project.

Council Member Glassheim asked if there are any projects that are being planned over next 1 to 4 years that could make use of this money and thereby free up some other monies for other city-wide needs - Mr. Grasser stated in reviewing their list they have LMI watermain replacement and those are dollars that would otherwise come out of our watermain replacement fund and would free up dollars in the water utility budget that would be used to replace those; University overpass approaches - those are getting old and haven't shown up in CIP but street department has spent a fair amount of money maintaining them and don't know how you would special assess it because ramps coming up to the approach and probably be Highway Users; LMI-wide city mill and overlay would be street improvements; University Avenue storm sewer and that is study portion and have identified some sewer problems in that area with heavy rains we've had and one area within the LMI district and some doubt as to whether fund the study with CDBG funding but construction might be more likely candidate for CDBG dollars; storm sewers are typically special assessed but do raid the storm sewer account and special assessments would go against State property and portions against our storm sewer project, and that gives idea of what they thought the benefits might be to the citizens, the people within the LMI district and city-wide freeing up of funds.

INFORMATION ITEMS

4.1 Biosolids Management Facility Plan status report.
No comments.

ADMINISTRATIE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

Mr. Duquette stated several council members have contacted him about the flood protection greenway dike tour and not being able to make it during the last tours and will try to put something together for city council members.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS


Committee of the Whole - August 26, 2002 - Page 11

1) Council Member Brooks applauded mayor and staff for sister city idea with Dickinson, and along that line would consider in the future to take that out to the surrounding communities and do either a lunch with the mayor or some presentations to the city councils in those surrounding communities that we depend on that come in and shop and open some lines of communication with them.

2) Council Member Brooks thanked the Mayor , that The Moving Wall is coming to town, will be here on Friday and the Mayor has through his budget contributed $500, which put us over the top for the budget needed for that project.

3) Council Member Kerian stated the trip to Williston was well worth it and that the entrepreneurial spirit there is so strong and they talked about ND businesses that have grown from people there.

4) Council Member Christensen stated he wasn't sure if legislative committee had been put together but should get that appointed as quickly as can because legislature meets in January, and suggested the following: administrative coordinator, finance director, department of streets, president of the council and a couple others, also Mr. Glassheim and city attorney and would have cross section of departments and knows there are some issues and areas where law should be changed to facilitate some of the things we're trying to accomplish and he has some ideas on that.

5) Council Member Glassheim asked when standby committee of finance/urban development would meet; Council Member Christensen stated Ms. Kurtz, Urban Development, e-mailed them and waiting for availability of Council Member Hamerlik and thinks it is September 4 or 5.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Kreun and seconded by Council Member Christensen that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Saroj Jerath
Deputy City Auditor

August 27, 2002