Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, April 12, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 12, 2004 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, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 6; absent: Council Member Glassheim - 1.

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 commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:
He thanked everyone who organized, volunteered and attended the First Annual Easter Egg Hunt at the Alerus, the Alerus staff, the Firefighters Local 1099 and the Fraternal Order of Police and over 60 different businesses who worked to stage this free community event. He stated nearly 10,000 people attended and was fun opportunity for children and nice way to invite the public and Alerus for free event.
He stated this week is Community Development Week, a good way to recognize contributions of Community Development Block Grant and the programs they fund, that we are celebrating 30 years of CDBG and Fannie Mae support and read a proclamation dedicating this week as Community Development Week.
He stated this week is Volunteer Week and recognized all the people who volunteer around the community from helping regional flood victims, chaperoning school events, being board members for local agencies and even the Easter Egg Hunt last weekend. Volunteers are a critical part of any community and most certainly critical part of our community.

2.1 Application for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential buildings at various locations._______________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman stated he was pleased to see so many people come forward
and if people were considering doing some remodeling or expansion of their homes to please
come forward and apply for this tax benefit for 3 years. Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated this is
3-year remodeling exemption for homes or commercial properties where building is at least 25
years old, have to increase the value of the building by way of remodeling by 10% and at least
$5,000, and can apply for a remodeling exemption for a 3-year period; have to apply within 12
months or 60 days after getting a notice from his office. He stated they have been contacting a
lot of people to get them to apply for these exemptions and have two more coming this year. He
also noted this is allowed by State law and city council has adopted that with some restrictions.

2.2 License agreement with the Park District for a disc (Frisbee) golf course in the old
Lincoln Drive neighborhood area of the greenway.___________________________
There were no comments.

2.3 Public hearings on resolutions of necessity and determination of protest and consid-
eration of bids for the following projects:_____________________________________
a) Street Lighting dist. No. 148, Project No. 5479, in Cornerstone Estates Addn.
b) Street Lighting dist. No. 140, Project No. 5511, on Pembrook Dr., on Haleigh Dr. and on Mulberry Dr.
c) Street Lighting Dist. No. 141, Project No. 5618, on Cherry St. from Southend Drainway to 55th Ave. S.
d) Street Lighting Dist. No. 142, Project No. 5619, on 36th Ave.S. and on S. 20th St.
e) Street Lighting Dist. No. 143, Project No. 5620, on Curran Ct. and on 48th Ave.S.
f) Street Lighting Dist. No. 144, Project No. 5621, on Reummele Rd. from S. 34th St. to 40th Ave.S.
g) Street Lighting Dist. No. 145, Project No. 5622, on S. 34th St. from 36th Ave.S. to Reummele Road.
h) Street Lighting Dist. No. 146, Project No. 5623, on Pines Circle and on 49th Ave.S.
i) Street Lighting Dist. No. 147, Project No. 5624, on Augusta Dr. north of 62nd Ave.S. and east of Columbia Road.

Council Member Brooks stated on a) Project 5479 the recommendation states that the
requirement for pre-payment of the upgrade from City's standard pole and fixture be waived, and
questioned why. Rusten Roteliuk, project engineer, stated that because developer up-front cash
should be waived is that they have already put a lot of up-front cash into that development,
normally a 50% upfront requirement and do either the utilities or the paving and special assess the
other; that in this case they actually upfronted all of the paving and the utilities and with that
much money upfronted could special assess the total cost of the street lighting even with an
upgrade.

Dee Phaneuf, marketing director for Deacon's Development, LLP, which owns property around
King's Golf Course, stated that re. i) the special assessments for street lights in Deacon's Gardens,
which is Phase II on 62nd Avenue South, and they have put in storm sewer, sanitary sewer,
private lift station improvements in their development in preparation for the townhomes that are
going in, and have also picked upgraded street lights similar to the ones mentioned where
developer differential between basic street lights and the fancy street lights and asking
developers to put cash upfront and they have been asked to do so and they would like to special
assess the entire amount, considering that they have put in underground a private lift station and
will be grading for a bikepath with several improvements done now, and asking for the same
consideration.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated with this case not sure what improvements have been
installed but by Code for purposes of determining whether the developer has invested 50% or
more, the only thing you look at is watermain or sewer. Cost of land not considered

Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated that typically they haven't been following Code for some
time because they have always considered the paving as the city half of the assessment of
the other half and thinks that Mr. Crary has submitted substantial costs above what Deacons
Gardens Development has because they had a trunk 66" storm sewer pipe bid to put in at their own cost, hundreds of thousand of dollars for that one item and want to be fair to both and just not do it and that would be their recommendation; and just be consistent with every-body regardless of how much money their development may cost, every development different, to be fair want to get that extra cash and keep the assessments and taxes low and do that for everybody.

Al Grasser, city engineer, that when the questions came up in one development the only special assessment would be lighting, in the other development assessments would be lighting and the street paving, that in a situation where the only special assessment was lighting that it maybe would be acceptable to allow the entire cost of that lighting to be special assessed, that is the basis of their recommendation and if choose not to waive that requirement, fine with them too.

Mr. Swanson stated the Code has been this way since the early 1980's following the hundreds of lots that came back to the City following default primarily in that area east of the hospital, the Code is fairly straight forward, there is a manner in which council could have the ability to waive this, but only if the developer entered into an agreement with the City and then provided either a bond, letter of credit or surety or other security to back it up, if the council wishes to have greater flexibility in the determination as to when you can waive upfront monies for special assessments, then his advise is to amend the Code and in light of the Code doesn't think they have the ability to adopt a policy by resolution but there is nothing that prevents you from amending the Code if you deem that appropriate but doesn't know anything about either of these projects as to what monies are invested with respect to sanitary mains or watermains but the only other way is to enter an agreement with security backing it up. Code Section is 18-0908.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that either we follow Code or change it; and maybe refigure by Monday night so that we know for sure and follow Code or change it.

Council Member Kreun stated this policy doesn't have anything to do with the 50% margin on street lights, policy approved in May, 2000, indicated that if you want special street lighting over and above the normal street lights that we have in our community we would bid the normal street lighting and put it on the project for special assessments, anything over and above that was to be paid by the developer and also wanted one or two replacement street lights on hand as well - not an issue of whether they paid 50% or not but issue of a policy that was put in place whether we want to have the developer pay for the additional amount of the street lights and special assess the regular amount. He stated that since then haven't waived any until requested for Mr. Crary's development on Cornerstone Estates and the reason they waived it was because there weren't any other special assessments - is a policy that previous council put into effect and if want to follow that policy or not.

Mr. Swanson stated he would suggest meeting with the engineering department this week and bring him up to speed on what the issues are as far as special assessments on these projects or any related projects.

Mr. Grasser stated they could do that and their recommendation would also be to recommend award on the base project with the developer picking up the extra money, but wanted to point out that they did have a situation they have never run into before where the developer has put in 100% of the infrastructure and question was if that should bear some consideration. He stated the original policy development is that the CIP didn't contemplate that happening and if that should be a consideration, and no problem going back either developer and telling them that they will have to come up with the difference in the funds. Mr. Swanson stated that if the developer had paid 100% of all the utilities installed then the 50% isn't an issue. Mr. Grasser stated that the Crary subdivision put in all the underground and the paving, only special assessment in those lots would be for the lights.

Council Member Christensen stated that the statute Mr. Swanson is referring to, 18-0908, deals with City obligations and read the section, "…that if the developer should desire any of these improvements sooner, then the City would be able to furnish them and the cost of the following improvements shall be paid for by the developer: street lighting, excluding ornamental lighting, shall be provided by the City preferably after curb and gutter has been installed.." and that leaves him to believe that anything above the normal street lighting would be paid for, ornamental, would be paid for by the developer, and would like to see the resolution that was referred to because it is not in the Code, and is something the engineering department is using as a basis for exercising its discretion.
Mr. Grasser stated he has a copy of the May 8, 2000 committee recommendation which was accepted by city council on June 5, 2000, which says "..Committee No. 3 recommends to create a policy that any upgrades on street lighting and/or pavement and/or utilities, the additional cost above and beyond standard practices of the City of Grand Forks, the additional cost would be paid 100% by the developer with exception to the policy and special assess 100% of the street lighting cost of the project."; but was a policy issue and went through CIP's adoptions a couple years ago and that is why not finding that in the actual City Code.\

Council Member Christensen stated we have a Land Development Code that has certain rules and regulations that developers look to or those that help them do the developing look to see what the rules are, but wants to make sure that everyone is aware of that, and if something that should be enacted in our Code, should do that.

Council Member Kreun stated that the two are not tied together and not contingent upon any portion of the infrastructures being paid up front. Mr. Swanson stated he has not had chance to review action previously taken by the council and not in position to say but will report on Monday.

Ms. Phaneuf stated that in Deacon's Greens the entire street lighting was special assessed in that project, that they provided the underground utilities, and paving and street lights fully assessed, and now in Deacons Gardens they were told they would have to pay the difference, and would like to propose that whatever you do for any other developer you extend them the same courtesy.

Mr. Swanson stated he will meet with staff and make recommendation for Monday's meeting.

2.4 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5532, baling facility upgrade.
Council Member Kerian questioned the single bidder for general construction. Todd
Feland, director of public works, reported bid was advertised, that Molstad a very good contractor
and have most expertise in doing work. It was also noted that a number of contractors picked up
plans and specs. but didn't bid it.
2.5 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5580, 2004 Watermain Replacement.
There were no comments.

2.6 Consideration of bids for Paving Project No. 5493, Dist. 595, Deacon's Gardens.
There were no comments.

2.7 Request for advertising for engineering services for Federal Aid Projects: Point Bridge Rehab, 55th Ave.S., N. 20th St., and Columbia Road and 24th Ave.S. intersection.__________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Request by Wal-Mart for signal and access at 32nd Ave.S. and S. 24th St.
Council Member Kerian asked for summary of findings of the study for this light. Dan
Jonasson, traffic engineer, stated that Wal-Mart's traffic engineers recommend moving the access
currently at 25th St. or Taco Bell's on the south side 300 ft. to the east and put a full signalized
intersection there, and this would also put a 3/4's access in where the current Taco Bell access is
and nothing going into Wal-Mart that would be closed off completely but there would still be
ability for traffic going eastbound to turn north onto 25th and also out of.

Council Member Kerian asked for impacts along the 32nd corridor and other lights and traffic.
Mr. Jonasson stated installation of a signal where they are proposing at 24th St. and 32nd Ave.
does immediately decrease the 32nd arterial or level of service slightly by 2 to 3 miles an hour
and is typical with signal installation and affects level of service. If this intersection were
constructed as 3/4 access or no signal there, it could tend to push congestion over to 20th Street
from 32nd and affect level of service there or over to Columbia Road and 32nd and affect the
level of service there. The other intersections where there is 3/4 access or right-in right-out
access is virtually unaffected because they would still have fairly free movement at those
locations. Council Member Kerian stated they are estimating sufficient traffic with Wall-Mart to
validate putting a light there. Mr. Jonasson stated that part of the additional analysis they did that
is included in the back of the summary we asked them to do warrant analysis to insure that the
signal is warranted there and with their findings with 2005 traffic and the build out from the
Super Wal-Mart it meets 5 warrants for a signal.

Council Member Kreun congratulated TAC committee and Mr. Jonasson for working with
these individuals, they have widened the drive-through area in front of the building, widened their
service road to accommodate more traffic and worked well with the community in moving that
stop light down which makes it a safer intersection and more traffic, and only thing he would
still ask and came out of the TAC committee as well is if they could widen that second row of
parking so it is easier access for alternate traffic to get to that service road out front, otherwise
done nice job in moving things around under your recommendations, and ask to do that and put in
a motion next week.

2.9 Amendment to Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for
Project No. 5287, Johnson's Linear Park Bikepath.__________________________
There were no comments.

2.10 Create special assessment districts for the following projects:
a) Project No. 5605, Dist. 430, storm sewer on 36th Ave.S.
b) Project No. 5606, Dist. 599, paving S. 42nd Street.
c) Project No. 5661, Dist. 600, paving 36th Ave.S.
d) Project No. 5628, Dist. 597, alley paving between Almonte Ave. and Lanark Ave.
from 10th Ave.S. to 11th Ave.S.
e) Project No. 5666, Dist. 432, sanitary sewer for Southbrook First Addn.
f) Project No. 5667, Dist. 282, watermain for Southbrook First Addn.
g) Project No. 5668, Dist. 433, storm sewer for Southbrook First Addn.
h) Project No. 5650, Dist. 428, sanitary sewer in Columbia Park 29th Addn.
i) Project No. 5651, Dist. 280, watermain in Columbia Park 29th Addn.
j) Project No. 5652, Dist. 429, storm sewer in Columbia Park 29th Addn.
k) Project No. 5319, Dist. 89, street improvements for Sunbeam Addn., west of
Belmont Road.
Council Member Gershman stated on item e) there are a number of projects on affordable
housing districts, and his understanding was that affordable housing districts got a reduction in
the special assessment mark-up from 27% to 15% to hold the lots down and that it states 27%
here and asked for clarification. Keith Lund, urban development, the council's action was to have
those projects that did not meet the target price of $135,250 not to receive the special assessment
mark-up and made a staff decision to approach it differently, where the mark-up will be 27%
initially and for those properties that do meet the $135,250 will create a credit or rebate and go
back and retroactively do that, felt more palatable to give credit than a penalty. He stated for
those projects that that met 2.5 times the median income at the time was $135,250 the City would
reduce the special assessment mark-up from 27% to 15%, 12% reduction. and that equates to a
9.5% reduction off the top of the special assessments that are levied on the property.

d) Council Member Hamerlik stated that when they have paved alleys it has been
only after the property owners requested it, and in this case the lots have not been sold, the special
assessment will go towards the lots which will drive up the price of the lot, why other than a
request would the alley be paved by Lanark and Almonte. Mr. Lund stated that is the site of the
former Almonte Nursing Home and has been planned for some time and felt that would further
encourage people to use the alley for garage access and that has been included in the request for
proposal documents that have been submitted to the public for the redevelopment of that site,
fully disclosed what those assessments are anticipated to be.

Council Member Christensen asked how they will administer this as the special assessments will
go in for number of lots but all the homes won't be sold so the developer will be paying the 127%
on the specials. Mr. Lund stated they will be tracking this very closely and that there is a two-year
deferral of special assessment payments for these projects and have two-year window to
determine the eligibility of the properties, and for those properties where that determination has
not been made or in question, will go on the books at 27% and if determined at some time they
comply a rebate will be provided and will go retroactively to property owner. The city auditor
stated that in conversation with the developers we have large inventory of lots but they are
bringing those lots in slowly and they are requesting the special assessments only for those lots
that they expect to develop and build out and given time line. Council Member Christensen
stated they will wait to see how administered.

Mr. Lund stated he wanted to report to the council that they have 89% compliance with
their price point that they are seeking at this point, 36 building permits have been taken out and only 4 properties appear that they will not meet the $135,250 price point they are seeking.

2.11 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5604, Dist. 281, watermain on S. 42nd St.
and 36th Ave.S.________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.12 Final certification of infrastructure connection fees (tapping) for the following
projects:___________________________________________________________
a) Project No. 4916, watermain on N. 48th Street from Gateway Dr. to approx.
800 ft. north.
b) Project No. 5136, watermain on N. 69th St. from U.S. Hwy. 2 to Burlington
Northern Railroad.
c) Project No. 4915, sanitary sewer on 17th Ave. from N. 48th St. to N. 52nd St.
There were no comments.

2.13 Request for proposals for sale/relocation of 1508 Lewis Blvd.
Council Member Gershman stated he had received phone call re. bids and asked why they did not take the high bid. Greg Hoover, urban development, reported there was a committee of 3 who reviewed the proposals and had a number of criteria: bid amount, financial capacity of the potential buyer, long term preservation of the home, restoration tax base, quality and completeness of the work write-up and relocation strategy, site plan clarity and completeness and aesthetics of the plan, enhancement of the neighborhood and overall quality of the proposal, that the proposer they are recommending, the Riley's, was unanimous among the 3, the high bid was the lowest rated of the proposals. He stated they took all the criteria into consideration and tried to do a rating and ranking and intended to focus on the completeness of the proposal, how the proposer was going to enhance the property and how much money they were going to put into the property as opposed to purchase price as indication of the increase in tax base. He stated they would rather see more money put into the property than into the coffers of the City because improvement of the property was to make sure that it was going to be a good addition to the neighborhood. He noted there were no personal appearances but all on paper.

Matthew McHugh, 314 N. 8th Street, stated he was the highest bid on the property and that he contacted Urban Development when he found out that he did not receive the bid and the reason why, and was getting a lot of different answers from them, that he was told before the bid was submitted that they would summarize the bids, later told they wouldn't do that and wasn't told where his bid was until today. He also noted that the landscaping that the Riley's did wasn't required by the bid and the packet he received stated that the valuation would be based on: a review of the relocation/rehabilitation strategy from compatibility, completeness, timeliness, and proposer's understanding of the scope of the project; 2) financial capacity, and 3) the amount of the bid and didn't include any of the other items he noted they would be evaluating the bid on. He was concerned that he submitted his bid at $108,000 and also had another $30,000 that if needed would go into the house. He brought several other issues to their attention: that those submitting proposals must include a dimensional site plan drawn to scale showing relocation setbacks of all structures, that the site plan submitted by Riley's was turned down by the city inspection office but submitted to urban development and they approved it, apparently he went back and changed the site map and urban development didn't have a problem with their changing the site map this past Friday. He asked if they would evaluate his bid before making decision next week, and for anybody to contact him.

Peg O'Leary, Grand Forks Historic Preservation Commission, stated that this really isn't a bid process, really a request for proposals on what to do with a historic house that is going to be put on one specific plat of land on Lewis Blvd.; understands how there can be confusion when price is part of the mix, that as staff person is not directly involved in the review of those proposals, they identified the things they need to do and RFP she saw did talk about a number of other things that would come into play as well as the 3 primary conditions that would be considered., and her impression of the process was that it was fair and straight forward and believes that reasonable proposal was decided upon.

Wayne and Maureen Riley stated they were chosen for the proposal and on the site plan, that they acquired a site plan from potential neighbors they will have, and decided to change their site plan because they thought the site plan they submitted would show two garages next to each other with long driveways, and thought it would look better if moved garage to other side of the property and move the house and thought that would look better than having two long driveways next to each other, and better for overall preservation of the property. He noted that the landscape plan wasn't part of it but he has a landscape and irrigation business and their intentions were to beautify the outside of the home as well and factor they included. Mrs. Riley stated that her husband as well as having a landscaping and irrigation experience has extensive carpentry and remodeling experience and monetarily did not go into the bid that will be placed into it as far as the value of the home and the total package that they placed into it is going to be exceeded extensively by the amount of work they can do on their own. Mr. Riley stated the landscape and irrigation is not included in the cost, and money was not the only criteria for this.

Mr. Hoover stated he assigned point values to the criteria and Riley's came out on top and other evaluators came up with same decision and validates decision they made.

2.14 Downtown Study Group.
There were no comments.

2.15 Request from Sue Christopherson and Jan Ress on behalf of Scott Reierson for
approval of a conditional use permit to allow a dog daycare and boarding facility in the B-3 (General Business) District, as required by Section 18-0216(3)(L) of the Grand Forks Land Development Code for Lots 160-164, Block E, Willmar Addition (loc. at 1515 DeMers Ave.)_________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.16 Petition from Jon Larson and Van Larson on behalf of Sure Foot Corp. for approval to vacate part of the westerly 20 ft. of North 14th Street from Dyke Avenue south to the BNSF R/W and all of N. 15th St. from Dyke Avenue south to the BNSF R/W adjacent to Lots 1 - 12, Block 16, Budge & Eshelman's 3rd Addn. (loc. east and west of 1401 Dyke Ave.)_______________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.17 Request on behalf of the Hampton Corporation to vacate all of Pine Circle R/W and adjacent utility easements thereto in Lots 26-33, Block 2, Perkins Fourth Addn. (loc. in 3000 block of 40th Ave.S.)________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.18 Request from Jerry Pribula on behalf of Grand Forks County for preliminary approval of Fairgrounds Third Resubdivision, being a replat of Lots 1, Block 4 of Fairgrounds Subdivision. (loc. at US Highway 81, N. Columbia Road and Gateway Drive.)_________________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Request from Jon Ramsey on behalf of Lavonne K. Adams for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from Shady Ridge PUD (Planned Unit Development) Concept Development Plan and include in the Shady Ridge PUD (Concept Development Plan), Amendment No. 1 all of Shady Ridge Fifth Resub.___________________________________________________________
Jon Ramsey stated he was here to answer any questions, they are working with city staff
in terms of the development they are proposing for that site and working to address any issues
that might be out there. Council Member Kreun stated this request through Planning & Zoning
brought up larger issue that they have been dealing with for some time, that they have a standby
committee meeting tomorrow night and would like to address that issue with Mr. Potter and
safety/service committee, and people in that ward, Council Member Christensen, to get some
information and set policy and bring back to the council for Monday night so these people if it is
in favor of their development, that they don't lose another 30 days, and what could do is overturn
the P & Z recommendation and give preliminary introduction next week so keep moving, it
wasn't their intent to kill it, intent was to get the standby committee involved again and make the
recommendation to council.

2.20 Public hearing on 2003 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER).__________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Portfolio Management/Summary report.
There were no comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
1) Council Member Brooks asked for report from assessing re. dollar figures on the increase for property tax revenues for 2005. Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated that report will be available tomorrow evening at the Board of Equalization and has some preliminary numbers, and looks like the total increase will be slightly over 8% over last year.

2) Council Member Hamerlik stated there may be some people not here tomorrow night and report will be available to them on e-mail or hard copy so they get the same information. Mr. Carsen stated he would send out hard copy to those not attending tomorrow night's meeting.

3) Council Member Kerian stated there has been some activity in the coulee area between 17th and 24th Avenues South, some traffic into coulee area, and any action planned? Mr. Grasser reported they had intentions to clean that section of coulee from 17th to 24th, that contractor trying to get some equipment down there but frost went out and concerned that would have damage to the bikepath and to the adjacent landscaping so are holding on construction activities, the bid has been awarded and as soon as conditions are right this fall with some frost in the ground, will go back in and finish that work.

4) Council Member Kerian reported there is a program on meth. in the County Office Building, a program parents might want to pay some attention to and tells us about the scary use of meth in our community - Thursday, April 15, in Grand Forks County Office Building - 6th floor conference room, sponsored by the Health Department, speakers are Barb Whalen, Pembina County states attorney and Judy Stellan, mother of a meth addict.

5) Council Member Kreun stated that the long range planning for our future water needs are being addressed, had second official meeting of the Lake Agassiz Water Authority which is working with the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District - a lot of information will be brought forward and will try to keep council updated on that.

6) Council Member Gershman stated that several months ago he asked to see if we could check to see why the City did not finish planting trees on South 3rd Street in downtown area that doesn't have any trees. Mr. Lund reported that the Park District submitted a beautification application and Beautification Committee recommended it for funding and will see that at later committee of the whole.

Council Member Gershman stated that May 15, 7:30 p.m., Bo Diddly will be at Empire Theatre Arts Center, celebrating his 75th birthday and traveling around the U.S. and they are having a fund raiser and profits go to the Empire Arts Center.

There was some discussion as to whether there would be a quorum at the Board of Equalization meeting on Tuesday night, and Mr. Swanson advised that if not a quorum, they take names and addresses of protesters, but not take official action until later date.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Brooks and seconded by Council Member Kreun that we adjourn. Carried 6 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,


John M. Schmisek, City Auditor