Usual bitching and moaning

The Rye Township board meeting last week showed some internal divisions between the township residents and the leadership. You've probably read all about it so I won't go into details.

I would emphasize, though, the striking differences on both sides.

Terry Stromsodt, the board chairman, has already accepted that he's not going to win a battle with the city. Rye Township is host to an airport, a landfill and sewage lagoons, which shows you what fighting Grand Forks City Hall has gotten the township. On the other hand, for the first time -- possibly the first time ever -- the township is able to set some ground rules. The city, for example, has no obligation to pay the township any taxes but it's promising to do so.

So, it would seem to make sense to work with City Hall rather than against it.

Of course, there's a very good reason the city's being so nice. I think it probably realizes the fragility of the four-mile extraterritorial zoning authority that it got from the state. The ET zoning took away some of the township's zoning authority and opened the way for the new landfill. There's a movement in the Legislature to reduce the four-mile ET to two miles so the city wouldn't want to look like it's abusing its authority.

The residents -- some of them anyway -- seem to believe that they can take advantage of the ET zoning's fragility. The Grand Forks County Citizens Coalition and its allies are already suing the city. Their case might be stronger if Rye Township joined the cause. It couldn't really hurt, right? Terry fears legal fees of GFC3 loses but I don't imagine a letter of support would lead to any billings.

It could undo the cooperation with the city, though. The lawsuit might not gain any traction. Barring an injuction, it could take years to get a decision. The Legislature won't meet until next summer. And, in the meantime, the city's trying to get a landfill permit by year's end.

I would say that most of the residents are mighty confused. They seem to be upset about a whole lot of other things besides the landfill judging by the probably decades-old grievances some kept bringing up. Some even demanded the board quit talking to the city, which is probably the least productive thing it could do.

That's the masses for you. It can't agree on what it wants but it usually wants something different because, you know, different is guaranteed to be so much better.

By the way, Terry Stromsodt is the father-in-law of one of my bosses, the previously mentioned Kirsten. The other bosses aren't related to anyone having anything to do with the landfill, though, and Kirsten doesn't tell me what to write.

Blast it all, that wasn't so condensed was it? Sometimes, I hate my own thoroughness. Let's try again.

$205,200 for holiday lights

Well, in spite of all the outrage, the Grand Forks City Council did vote for those lights after all. Since I did raise the outrage level by emphasizing the cost of the whole endeavor initially -- no apologies, of course, but I knew what I'd set off when I did it -- I chose to emphasize how those costs relate to the general cost of city government in the follow-up story:

In terms of the city budget, $205,200 is a pittance. The general fund, which is where most of the property taxes go, totals about $27.6 million. The budget for the light display is less than a percent of that.

For the homeowner, $205,200 is about 1.5 mills in property taxes. The mayors proposed 2009 budget calls for 106.86 mills, a slight reduction from this year. The 1.5 mills represent 1.4 percent of that.

On a median home valued at $134,700, a 1.5 mill reduction in the budget would save the homeowner $9.09 a year or 76 cents a month.

Like Council member Terry Bjerke likes to say, "If I had a dime for every time somebody told me it'd only cost me a dime...."

Speaking of whom, Terry claimed that since he was elected in June, the city's done nothing but raise taxes. There's Riverside Pool and the dog park road, both from dike improvement funds yet to be raised. And now the holiday lights. He's technically right on the first two -- though voters did OK the pool knowing it would cost them more -- but he's wrong on the third because, as Council member Curt Kreun pointed out, it's money the city's been saving up.

Frankly, the fact that so many people voted for the pool and the fact that most of the same faces are back on City Council is beginning to convince me that most voters aren't nearly as angry about taxes as everyone seems to think. If that were the case, Mayor Mike Brown wouldn't have won every ward.

It's good to have opposition on the council but I think we'll be seeing that opposition on the losing end for a while.

Also, mea culpa on two matters.

First, as Council President Hal Gershman pointed out, the beautification funds, the source of funding for the lights, comes out of the infrastructure portion of the sales tax. Somehow I'd convinced myself it was the economic development portion. I could've sworn that's what I'd heard a long time ago. So don't blame the editor for the error. It was me.

Second, I failed to note earlier that the $205,200 was saved up over two years so we're talking about $100,000 or so each year, which means half as much for those voters that are angry to be angry about.

Another year for EGF city leaders?

The East Side City Council voted last night to ask voters for another year in office.

Council member Mike Pokrzywinski, the lone dissenter, criticized the decision saying voters shouldn't have to give city leaders an extra year just to save the city some money. Of course, since only one voter showed up to support him, I'm guessing most of the electorate doesn't give a rip or is too lazy to care.

It was interesting though that a lot of them showed up to protest a special assessment that's too fiendishly complicated to explain at this hour.

It is 4:41 a.m. as I'm writing this and I do have an earlier than usual interview tomorrow. Plus my stomach starts to whine at this hour if I stay up.

Show and tell

I'll close with a T-shirt design I came up with while picking up some new graphic design skillz:

P.P.S.

AreaVoices is hiding this last post about being Rev. Tran, which I updated.

We had to do it there because A&K got their marriage licenses in Minnesota and state law says they have to get married over there by a minister registered over there. That would be me, of course. If you're ever in the Polk County administrative building in Crookston, the records office has a copy of my certificate, which I registered last week.

We conducted the ceremony, which involved filling out the paperwork, on the trunk of Kirsten's car, parked in front of Whitey's.

Unfortunately, we needed another witness. So we grabbed some drinks at Whitey's and got the server, Nate, to bear witness. It was beat-the-bartender night and I rolled better dices than Nate, getting all of us a free round of beers.

Man, it was beautiful. The marriage, I mean. The beers were beautiful, too, but I get to drink all the time.

Did I mention that the groom wore a beer T-shirt and baseball cap, the bride wore a Land-o-Lakes cap and I wore trackpants and flipflops and was smoking? It was a pretty classy act.

You can see us in the photo above. I don't think I've ever grinned so widely.

The happy couple went home while Kirsten and I went to Bonzer's to continue celebrating. People knew the reverend was in the bar and there were more free beers. Life was very good.

Tonight, a friend of a friend asked if maybe I was available for his wedding. And, even though he said he wasn't sure any of the bridesmaids were single, I said I'd give him a discount and just settle for beers.

This could be a very exciting side job. Maybe the reverend gets to go to the bachelor's party, too.

The City Beat has been ordained as a minister in the Universal Life Church. Hallelujah! The ULC sent the papers the other day so it's about as official as a church where you can get ordained online gets.

I do agree with the whole live-and-let-live philosophy, though. Nobody gets excommunicated or threatened with death or anything like that. Us Universal Lifers only ask you to "do only that which is right." But, just to cover my bets, I'm also a Buddhist on the side.

There's a reason for this goofiness. A colleague of mine got married but, in Minnesota, that means he needs a minister or judge to sign the paperwork and he didn't want to shell out more than he has to for somebody's signature. Rev. Tran, however, is free though I would accept beer as gratuity.

I can see this as a great opportunity to meet women and/or get free booze. People invite the ol' Rev to the wedding, I do the whole "do you take this schmuck?" routine and, as payment, a dance with a bridesmaid and a couple of bottles of beer or, if it's more than 80 degrees outside, some G&Ts. Rev. Tran will not get drunk disgracefully.

Anybody need to get hitched?

That's how I classify stories that I think will get the taxpayers riled up. If I don't hear about this on talk radio tomorrow, I'll be really surprised!

I'll confess up front that I happen to personally like the idea. But as a professional, I'll probably end up undermining it by writing about it. Taxpayers need to know, right? Still, if it's a good idea, it'll stand up to scrutiny.

Obviously, many people can imagine using the $205,200 for something other than holiday lighting. Property tax relief comes to mind. I think that's what Council members Mike McNamara and Terry Bjerke have in mind. Mac was real vague about it talking about hypotheticals tonight at council and I didn't catch him after the meeting. Terry implied that's where he was headed.

A mill is worth $136,625 so a $205,200 cut from the budget would result in a 1.5-mill cut from the property tax rate. Considering that the mayor was proposing a 4-mill cut -- I was pretty excited to see that! -- 1.5 mills is not insignificant.

Now, let's talk about why spending this money might be a good idea.

The $205,200 would come from beautification funds, which is where some of your sales taxes go. Every year, the council spends that much without any controversy. Last year, it spent about $150,000 on the welcome sign on Gateway Drive. I suspect that holiday lights will prove controversial because it seems more frivolous than the sign, which was meant to spruce up a pretty rundown corridor.

The bulk of city sales taxes, other than the 3/4-percent that goes to the Alerus Center, already go toward tax relief. I don't think many people realize this. For every dollar in sales tax revenue, 49.5 cent goes to property tax relief and 30 cents goes to streets and sewers, which can cut down on the special assessments. That leaves just 20 cents for economic development, which includes beautification.

We could shift even more to property tax relief but that would seem a little churlish considering that a lot of the sales tax revenue come from people in the region. They're already subsidizing our budget -- they're using our roads after all -- and you'll recall the hissy fit they threw when we wanted to raise sales taxes for a water park and further property tax relief. For this reason, I tend to view sales taxes differently than property taxes though I think many of the most angry taxpayers don't see the difference.

At any rate, holiday lighting could be a great tourist attraction. In my story, I quoted Council member Curt Kreun saying something to that effect and, to reflect that possibility, I described the potential results as a "city of light."

I don't know how popular that Christmas in the Park display has been recently but I can remember years when people would rent limos to go watch the lights there and around town. It was really an event. Now, if the city spends $205,200 on lights and encourage people to enter lighting contests -- It would be real smart if the city put together a map for visitors -- we'd multiply the effect of Christmas in the Park by 100. And if we coordinated with East Side and their Christmas light-loving mayor Lynn Stauss, that would be one heck of a collective display.

More visitors mean more sales taxes. People who rent limos aren't going to be going straight home.

One of my friends, an angry taxpayer whose taxes I've used as a horror story here, said the city wouldn't make $205,200 in sales taxes from those lights. Maybe if the city threw all the lights away after one year! We're talking about LEDs here. They'll last for ages.

So, what do you guys think? A 1.5-mill cut or cool lights and more sales taxes?

But, to refresh your memory, here's a post about the effort to revive the NNN.

Another recent effort was to change the one-way streets into two-way streets to slow down traffic, the idea being that people tend to drive slower down narrow streets when there's a possibility of a head-on collision. I've heard that residents there have shied away from the idea a little though one resident I know thinks whatever can be done would be great. Here's a map of the proposed streets to be changed.

Coal, along with hydropower, generate the bulk of the electricity in this country. The kneejerk blame-the-environmentalist mentality is, frankly, stupid and ignorant. The reason coal is dominant is because it so darn cheap and abundant. We're not just the Saudi Arabia of wind. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal, too.

The problem with coal, aside from pollutants such as mercury that must be filtered out, is that the powerplants have to be built on a large scale. Someone correct me here, but pound for pound, coal just doesn't generate as much power as natural gas or oil. This means each coal powerplant is expensive to build but cheap to run.

Natural gas and oil powerplants can be much smaller because you don't need the same kind of economy of scale. This is why natural gas and oil powerplants have supplemented coal. Wind energy looks like it's something in between, somewhat more expensive to build but real cheap to run because fuel is free and abundant.

Let's go abstract for a minute because I don't have time to research the real world numbers. But let's say you need 100 units of electricity today but you need 160 units in 15 years. You can build, say, a 110-unit coal plant today. The 10-unit excess makes sense because you'll probably get there in five years. It doesn't make sense to go to 160 and wait 15 years for demand to catch up. That's a dumb investment because, in the meantime, you've got to pay for the wear and tear without getting any money for that excess 60 units.

So what do you do in six years when you exceed the 110-unit capacity? It's not economical to build a 20-unit coal plant but it is economical to build a 20-unit natural gas plant, so you do that instead. And you build a few more of them when the time comes. You run them until they get older and you've gotten some mileage out of them, then you build another coal plant and decommission four or five natural gas plants.

Wind turbines are interesting because you'd be able to expand by one unit at a time.

If you've ever played SimCity, you'll find that the game replicates this balance pretty well.

If you want the complicated version, follow this link for a great explanation of the economics of power from an industry insider.

Anyway, the bottomline is the Pickens Plan says that if we have wind turbines, we'll free up demand for natural gas, which reduces the price, which then makes it ideal for fueling cars.

Say, what does the Grand Forks bloggosphere think about this Pickens Plan that we keep seeing on TV?

Somehow, I keep feeling like hell has frozen over. First, we got Pat Robertson telling us global warming is a big deal. Now, we've got T. Boone Pickens, the money guy behind the Swift Boat attack ads, trying to be the next Al Gore.

The Pickens Plan calls for more wind energy to replace natural gas as a supplement to coal and hydropower in generating electricity. The extra natural gas could then be used in cars. As a side effect, all this investment in the Great Plains would revive rural America.

I like the part about wind energy. Pickens even talked about upgrading transmission lines, something I wrote about in this story a while back. Of course, I wonder where the $1.2 trillion for wind energy is going to come from!

The part about natural gas is questionable, though. Pickens may own a chain of natural gas fueling stations but that doesn't mean everybody's going to buy natural gas cars. The trend appears to favor hybrid and electric cars and cars with regular engines that are just plain more efficient.

The AP version of the Minot event implied a somewhat serious mishap, with the National Security Agency getting involved. The Washington Post version of the event doesn't seem to think it was that big of a deal. There wasn't even a full-blown story, just a blog entry. I mean, napping on the job is certainly nothing compared to misplacing half a dozen nukes or letting simulated terrorists blow you up while you played on your cell phone.

Personally, I think the Post had it right. The story has been blown way out of proportion. As the AP story mentioned further down, the codes were old and were locked away. The napping missileers were above ground and not anywhere near the "nuclear switch," as CNN implied yesterday afternoon. Those switches are in the launch control capsules below ground.

When I interviewed former missileers Richard Fuller and Grand Forks Mayor Mike Brown for my story, they talked about how carefully they guarded those codes. Whenever they moved the codes between Grand Forks Air Force Base proper and their missile launch facilities, they were always armed. If a police officer were to stop them and sought to confiscate the codes, they were authorized to kill if necessary. It never came to that, but the license-to-kill thing demonstrated how very serious protecting those codes were.

In that context, falling asleep, even with the codes locked away, is intolerable. The only safe place to sleep while in possession of the codes is in the launch control center behind several tons of blast door.

Back in the days of the Cold War, the missile forces were an elite and held themselves to almost pathologically high standards. Mayor Mike Brown, another former missileer, spoke of a friend of his who, receiving a sheet full of error codes, failed to check every single one of those codes to see if any were actually missile codes. He got a letter of reprimand, which meant he would never get promoted. Those promoted had performed faultlessly so any fault made you all but ineligible. "Everyone else above him were 'walking on water,' why would they promote him?"

One thing I tried to get across in my story -- and I'm not sure I succeeded -- was how tense things were in those days. I still remember, as a kid, seeing all kinds of movies and games about Armageddon. Looking back, it scares the bejeezus out of me.

The missileers who stood ready to initiate Armageddon if the Russkies tried to had to be pretty reliable people.

In my research, I read a Time story from 1962, a few years before Grand Forks got its missiles, in which a missile wing commander described his men this way: "We have the highest degree of perfection and morale ever achieved in any military organization."

If you've heard the way Fuller and the mayor talked, you'd have no doubt that this general really believed what he said. (Read the Time story, by the way. It's a fascinating look at the psychology of the time. The writer sounds like a right-winger nowadays.)

Fastfoward to 1992, a year after the Soviet Union collapsed, when Strategic Air Command, the major command in charge of nuclear weapons, was deactivated and U.S. Strategic Command created. The names are similar but SAC was part of the Air Force and USSTRACOM is a Defense Department-wide organization. In 2002, DoD folded Space Command into USSTRACOM, too.

Somewhere in all this shuffling, the missileers were transferred to Air Force Space Command. The people in charge of the satellites got a hold of the missiles and what used to be called "missile wings" were called "space wings." Then the ultimate insult, the missileers lost their missile badge and got this thing instead. A force that saw itself as the elite soon became just another bunch of guys in uniform. In Cold War days, a missileer could expect to go far in his career. In the 1990s and early 2000s, that was no longer the case, which probably meant the missile forces could no longer get the cream of the crop.

The consequence of this were the numerous mishaps since last year. Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained it this way (emphases are mine):

During the course of the investigation, other issues indicating a decline in the Air Force's nuclear mission focus and performance became apparent. Rather than an isolated occurrence, the shipment of the four forward-section assemblies to Taiwan was a symptom of a degradation of the authority, standards of excellence and technical competence within the nation's ICBM force. Similar to the bomber-specific August 2007 Minot-Barksdale nuclear weapons transfer incident, this incident took place within the larger environment of declining Air Force nuclear mission focus and performance.

Specifically, the investigation identified systemic issues associated with this decline. First, the investigation identified commonalities between the August 2007 Minot incident and this event. Both events involved a chain of failures that led to an unacceptable incident. The investigation determined the Air Force does not have a clear, dedicated authority responsible for the nuclear enterprise and who sets and maintains consistent, rigorous standards of operation. The investigation concluded that these shortcomings resulted from an erosion of performance standards within the involved commands and a lack of effective Air Force leadership oversight.

Second, the investigation found that the failures that led to the mis-shipment could have been prevented, had the Air Force's inspection and oversight programs been functioning effectively. The investigation also determined that the lack of a critical self-assessment culture in the Air Force nuclear program, and inspection processes that diminish ownership at the command level, make it unlikely that systemic weaknesses can be discovered and addressed. Overall, the Air Force has not been sufficiently critical of its past performance, and that has led to recurring problems of a similar nature.

Third, the investigation confirmed a declining trend in Air Force nuclear expertise similar to findings in other, earlier reports.

Soon after these scathing remarks, the missile badges came back and the space wings became "missile wings" again. Still, the missiles remain a part of Air Force Space Command. Given the shakeup at the top of the Air Force chain of command, there's probably a shake up in space command, too.

By the way, here's some more interesting links:

• This self-described "nuclear tourist" took a tour of a historic missile facility at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. Ellsworth had Minuteman III missiles like Grand Forks and Minot.
• TechBastard.com has a bunch of detailed info about the missiles and how they launch and ton of other stuff.
• An amusing exhibit of pictures that bored missileers painted on blast doors. I want the Domino's Pizza one on a T-shirt.
• And -- omigosh, omigosh, omigosh -- an interview with the people that brought you WarGames, one of the greatest movies of the 80s.

Here's a few great anecdotes from the movie:

• As we're walking back to the bus that's going to take us to the hotel, James Hartinger [then commander in chief of Norad] walks up between me and Walter and plants a hand on the back of our necks: "I understand you boys are writing a movie about me!" he says. "Let's go to the bar." Walter says: "Well, we have to get on the bus to go back to our hotel." And Hartinger replies: "Are you insane? I've got 50,000 men under my command. You think I can't get you back to your hotel? Plus, I can't drink off the base. So c'mon." He was all for the message in our script. We kind of simplified it to "machines are taking over." He said, "God damn, you're right! I sleep well at night knowing I'm in charge." So we based General Beringer, played by Barry Corbin, on the real commander at Cheyenne Mountain.
• Days after the screening, wrote Washington Post reporter Lou Cannon, Reagan held a closed-door briefing with some moderate members of Congress, wherein he sidetracked discussion of the MX ballistic missile program by bringing up WarGames. Had any of them seen the film? he asked, then launched into an animated account of the plot. "Don't tell the ending," cautioned one of the lawmakers.
• William Lord, Commander, Air Force Cyberspace Command: It was a great movie! A few years later, I was an executive officer with the Air Force Space Command stationed at Norad near Cheyenne Mountain. And I'm wondering, "Gee, where can we get such cool-looking displays [as in the movie]?" It was a good forcing function. It required us to all of a sudden say, "If it really can look like this, why doesn't it?"

Aw man, how great was that?

One of my sources called to criticize the headline, which read "Terminal may need bailout," saying it was biased against the terminal. I'm not sure it was so bad -- I used the word in my led to hook readers in -- but I agree that the issue is a bit more complex than that.

The bailout we're talking about is what might be called a "planned bailout." What it means is the airport authority says it is willing to live within its means but city leaders are nudging it to go beyond that. If the authority can't handle the added financial load, the city will help out.

So, unlike some bailouts where someone has screwed up royally, this one is a bailout that was discussed and planned before hand.

By now, you'll probably have read the story so I won't dwell on it too much. Instead, I'll talk about how well this particular meeting went. I'm always proud of our elected officials when they're able to work out difficult issues without resorting to political posturing.

That certainly could've happened given the controversial nature of the airport terminal. First, a survey back in 2004 found that many airport users didn't think the terminal needed replacing. Second, the price tag is ginormous: $20 million. Even if we're just talking about the local share, it's still $4.1 million and would spend down airport authority reserves significantly.

One thing I failed to mention in my story is that the airport doesn't need to raise property taxes to pay for the new terminal. That's why those reserves are going down. If they drop below a certain level -- perhaps 15 percent as in the city's policy on its reserves -- I imagine the city might step in to help make payments.

All of which is fairly theoretical at the moment because no one knows how much more the terminal would cost. City leaders are suggesting ways the airport authority can reduce the probability of a bailout, namely extending the debt repayment period from 25 years to 30 or 35 years.

The meeting started with a presentation by airport authority chief Steve Johnson, who offered a little context. I think it's fair to say that the Grand Forks airport terminal is the worst terminal among the state's four major airports.

I jotted down this chart:

	Built	Last upgrade	Space (sq ft)
Minot (MOT)	1991	N/A	40,000
Bismarck (BIS)	2005	N/A	80,000
Fargo (FAR)	1986	2008	118,000
Grand Forks (GFK)	1964	1993	25,000

I couldn't believe Grand Forks has a smaller and older terminal than Minot. Sheesh. Minot has such population it doesn't even qualify as a Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Anyway, the far more meaningful info was the list of deficiencies great and small. You can read about them in this post from a year ago. The deficiencies that struck me are the lack of space for another major airline, the constant growth of mold and the terminal blocking the view of pilots, the so-called "line-of-sight" problem. I'd forgotten, too, that a consultant said last year that rehabbing the existing terminal would cost $18.3 million.

Steve then explained what $20 million would get the airport, pointing out features the authority had cut out. He and the airport board approached the council in a way that suggested they expected the council only to agree to the $20 million plan. That is, they only requested the city and county to guarantee a bond issue on the $4.1 million mentioned earlier. Nothing more.

Either there's a script I didn't get or council members must've gotten a very detailed memo. Generally, you can expect a lot of probing from council members when it comes to complicated, expensive budget items. There was none of that.

The first council member to ask anything was Terry Bjerke who wanted to know what the airport authority was doing about heating. Had it considered geothermal? It costs more up front, he said, but the savings are fantastic. He's a big proponent.

Mentally, I fell out of my chair, bonked my head against the hard ground and got up dazed and confused. What happened to my favorite jihadist's "four-part plan: cut, cut, cut, cut"? I was certainly surprised to see this demonstration of ideological flexibility from Terry after the recent show of ideological posturing. Spending more today so you can cut tomorrow.

Council member Doug Christensen, who saunters into the fiscal hawk's camp now and then, said the city ought to study what features the authority could add back into the terminal. The council ought to see what financial risks the airport may expose itself to if those features were added and what help the city and county could provide. In other words, we're talking about a potential bailout.

The Council member Mike McNamara, who form the fiscal hawk block with Bjerke, said he appreciates the airport authority living within its means. But the city ought to tweak the authority's financial models to see what's really possible.

The other council members present were Hal Gershman, Eliot Glassheim and Curt Kreun. Hal didn't try to push the added spending, partly because he's on the airport board and partly because he'd already talked with some other council members before hand. (I certainly hope he didn't talk to more than two others or that'd be a violation of open meeting laws...) Eliot and Curt seemed to have already agreed to support added features.

The key player, I thought, was John Schmisek, the city finance director. The consulting firm Springsted had analyzed airport financials and he'd studied the analysis himself. John is pretty well respected at City Hall for his prowess in money matters so when he says there's nothing to worry about, people believe him.

I had heard that the airport's financial reserves would be severely depleted if this terminal project goes through, so I quizzed John about that. He gave me the spreadsheet:

	Operating revenues	Operating expenses	Earnings/ losses	Tax revenue	Existing longterm debt	New longterm debt	Cash balance (year end)	Cash balance as % of expenses
2008	$2,604,877	$2,517,272	$87,605	$744,670	-$212,513	$0	$4,660,467	185.1%
2009	$2,675,466	$2,616,381	$59,085	$774,457	-$217,499	-$90,453	$4,209,931	160.9%
2010	$2,748,268	$2,720,255	$28,013	$805,435	-$215,000	-$95,247	$1,827,768	67.2%
2011	$2,823,358	$2,829,160	-$5,802	$837,652	$0	-$100,296	$1,217,134	43.0%
2012	$2,900,816	$2,992,402	-$91,586	$871,159	$0	-$105,611	$1,891,573	63.2%
2013	$2,980,724	$3,104,562	-$123,838	$906,005	$0	-$111,209	$2,721,343	87.7%
2014	$3,063,167	$3,221,497	-$158,330	$942,245	$0	-$117,103	$3,594,001	111.6%
2015	$3,148,233	$3,343,423	-$195,190	$979,935	$0	-$123,309	$4,474,848	133.8%
2016	$3,236,014	$3,528,164	-$292,150	$1,019,132	$0	-$129,845	$5,331,266	151.1%
2017	$3,326,605	$3,662,774	-$336,169	$1,059,898	$0	-$136,726	$6,129,307	167.3%
2018	$3,420,105	$3,803,153	-$383,048	$1,102,294	$0	-$143,973	$7,081,185	186.2%

This is an abbreviated version, of course. I don't have all day to type the whole thing up and I doubt most of you are nerd enough to study the whole thing. Note that the part in grey add up. I left out a lot of other numbers so the other parts don't add up. I put them in there to highlight them.

A longtime ago, I took a seminar with a guy who taught people how to read spreadsheets. He said the two most important numbers are the operational earnings/losses, which tell you where an organization is headed, and the cash balance, which tells you how it's doing at any given moment. Of the two, cash balance is more important.

The operational part, you'll notice, does not include property tax revenues. I'm not entirely sure why the airport authority considers taxes non-operating revenues. I suppose that the philosophy is that earnings from business activities -- fuel sales, leases, landing fees -- should be enough to run the airport. They are presently.

The taxes would help pay off debts and pay whatever cost overruns there might be, as we can expect in the next few years due to growing wages and higher utilities. Some council members say we should increase leases and fees.

Debt will grow as the airport pays off the terminal, so no surprises there.

Look at the cash balance now. That's a huge amount of money the airport authority's sitting on at this point. As you can see, the authority expects to end this year with so much cash that, even if it didn't collect any operational revenue, it'd still have $2.1 million to burn next year. Apparently, it's been squirreling away the money for big-ticket expenditures such as the terminal. At the lowest point, at the end of 2011, the authority's cash balance would still be 43 percent of an entire year's expenditure.

To give you a sense of why that's important, the city's policy has long been to keep at least 15 percent of expenditure on hand. It's doing far more than that because, I think, John Schmisek is fiscally paranoid, but 15 percent is the standard. But even with the paranoia, this year's ending cash balance would only be 28.6 percent of total expenditure.

So, given all that, I suppose the memo that I theorized the council got probably didn't need to be that detailed after all.

One last thing. I'm anticipating the argument that a new terminal wouldn't do anything to increase boardings at the Grand Forks airport, which has had fairly low boardings for a while. A friend of mine -- a liberal, surprisingly -- made this argument last night. I said that that's not quite the point. Appearance is important, especially in business matters.

Sure, the current terminal can drag along but do we really want the gateway to the city to drag along? Let's take, say, Happy Harry's Bottle Shop, which Hal Gershman owns. Will Hal sell less booze if the paint were peeling on the sidings or the windows are dirty? If the Herald had potholes in its parking lot and it doesn't fix it, would revenue decline because of it? Will the Fed Ex package get there any faster because the delivery guy has a clean uniform?

No, no and no.

But when your reputation suffers and the psychological momentum of your staff slips, the business will suffer. Everyone knows this instinctively. So, as far as I'm concerned, that's a nonargument.

He mentioned it briefly after his change of command ceremony that the City Beat covered earlier this month but the significance of what he said escaped me. I'd been asking him if he felt kind of funny being the last wing commander of the 319th Air Refueling Wing. He essentially said everything is in flux so he's not sure he's the last. Then he seemingly switched topic to talk about what a great base Grand Forks is.

It turns out the two are connected. First, unlike his predecessor Col. Diane R. Hull, he'll be the commander of a drastically smaller wing.

Col. Hull already had the smallest wing in Air Mobility Command, which I think was because it lost the 911th Air Refueling Squadron last year, an event I also covered. Next year, Col. Michel will lose one squadron in the spring and one in the fall, leaving him the commander of the remaining squadron.

It's like being the guy in charge at a going-out-of-business sale, except, of course, Col. Michel will transfer to some other unit at the end of his term here.

One of these days, I'll have to ask him how he came up with the idea of marketing base real estate to the rest of the federal government and whoever else is qualified to cross the security fence. To me, it sounds like he looked at the situation and figured that he could either just sit around waiting for the phone to ring or start making calls himself.

The first call, Col. Michel said, will be to Air Mobility Command to see what he's allowed to do. He's got a vision of "the most unique wing structure in the Air Force" in mind so he'll need the blessings of his boss Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott III.

The colonel will also be talking with Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and the rest of the Congressional delegation. Since they're just as keen to repopulate the base as he is, I'm sure they'll leap for joy. There's nothing like getting one of nation's most powerful delegation on your side.

So if the colonel is playing real estate agent, who are the customers?

He's already got Predator UAVs from Customs and Border Protection out there and thinks there may be more units from Department of Homeland Security that might be interested. Besides DHS there's probably 20 other agencies that he could talk to, he said. He'll probably talk to the state also.

Besides keeping himself busy, his rationale is getting more people on the base is a good use of tax dollars. The base is going to stay open for the foreseeable future. BRAC 2005 took away the tanker wing but not close it, the intention being to preserve a strategic location for future use. Until that time comes, the base will sit mostly empty and even empty buildings need to be maintained. Col. Michel figures if taxpayers are going to be paying maintenance, they might as well get some use out of the buildings.

Every once in a while, someone comes along with an idea so obvious you wonder why no one has thought of it before. I love moments like that. I hope the colonel gets what he wants.

The City Beat usually really hates when this happens but, as the discussion went on, I thought the way the council arrived at its decision was pretty ideal.

Area residents complained that:

1. The go-kart course and mini-golf course at Adventureland would be way too loud. They moved there for peace and quiet.
2. No one told them this was going on until they read about it in the Herald. (Way to go us.)

On the first complaint, council members quickly gave in to residents. In general, I'd prefer that the council make decisions based on some broad set of rules that apply in many situations rather than react whenever angry people show up. But, in this case, the city had long planned for this area to be residential so homeowners would seem to have some right to expect peace and quiet, as Council member Mike McNamara said.

The NIMBY argument makes a lot of sense here because the potential harm seems to be based on some solid examples not fearful speculation. Residents said they could hear neighbor kids playing four blocks away now. They could hear the car wash at the 32nd Avenue South Valley Dairy and it looks like they're more than a mile away. With so much empty land between them and the proposed Adventureland, it seems pretty reasonable to expect the sound would travel just as far.

The second complaint explains why the council had originally told developers Dave and Lori Miller that it liked Adventureland. Council President Hal Gershman said the council assumed that residents already got notification and, when none showed up to protest, the council thought no one cared. He seemed rather embarrassed that the council looked so clueless, which I suppose it did.

Why didn't residents know about this?

City Planner Brad Gengler said city policy has been to notify only homeowners within 400 feet and there were none within 1,000 feet of the proposed Adventureland site. There's a nursery, a church and farmland but no homes.

While 400 feet is arbitrary, any other number would be arbitrary as well.

"There is a point where notification will have to stop otherwise we'll have to notify everyone in the city," Council member Curt Kreun said.

There are two suggested solutions to this problem since the 400-foot rule appears to have failed here:

1. Curt said the city ought to send notifications not to homeowners within 400 feet but send them to x number of homeowners nearest to the affected area.
2. Council Vice President Eliot Glassheim said the city could emulate what Seattle does, which is post notifications on billboards on the land affected. I used to see those billboards all the time when I lived in the Seattle area. I think it's a practice in effect all over King County, not just Seattle.

To me, this was a classic example of policymaking based on reasoned debate rather than some political or ideological position.

Residents have a right to demand city leaders listen to them but, if city leaders reacted everytime a group of people get angry, then they'd never be able to make any difficult decisions. Sometimes, there are tough decisions that benefit the whole city broadly but causes or is perceived to cause pain to a small group. The benefits to individual residents citywide aren't great enough to mobilize support whereas the harm caused to the small group is easily great enough.

The role of policy in such a situation, to me, is to serve as a shield against the emotions of the mob. Policy looks at the broad interests of the whole city and broad principles that city leaders can apply to various situations, not just the hot button issue of the moment.

In this case, the council weighed the broad interest of the city to have a business friendly reputation and the broad principle of protecting homeowners from arbitrary changes to their neighborhood.

Personally, my theory is that bad news spreads but good news stays put, so it's more important to avoid having a reputation as being business unfriendly. By being able to explain clearly why the council would side with angry homeowners against a business it had previously supported ensures the city doesn't appear business unfriendly.

Here's how I see it: I want to foster discussion about city issues but I want to see thoughtful discussion, not discussion of the Beavis and Butthead variety. "You're stupid!" "No, you're stupid." I don't mind that people go off the handle once in a while. It's when they go off all the time that I have a problem.

My theory is that the loudmouths in the crowd are far more likely to go off the handle. Reasonable people stay quiet. I don't have to encourage the loudmouths but I do have to encourage the quiet people to chip in. When discussion is composed entirely of loudmouths making ridiculous comments then most quiet people will say, "Screw that, I have better things to do."

When I start pruning the over-the-top comments, that's not "censorship," that "moderating." Hey, I own this blog!

The other thing is this blog is a part of the Herald. When it starts to become a repository of crap, that reflects badly on us. That's my pride talking, not management. Many of you may not understand this but I actually like the Herald.

I realize there is some entertainment value to all this craziness, as one reader pointed out:

is there some kind of 'sea of deleted posts' website where a fellow could go to see the zingers that the administrators kick? while i understand the rationale, it's kinda like taking all the killing scenes outa the movies.

Actually, they're mostly not zingers. It's like watching reality TV, especially this one.

So, the deal is this: I'll only kill comments that devolve into juvenile name-calling or satire. This includes comments directed at elected officials. I'm sure most of them don't give a rip but I do for the reasons mentioned above. Yes, I get to define what is "juvenile." If you're clever about your satire, I'll leave your comments.

I'll also kill comments with language that's too vulgar -- No problems, so far. Good job people. -- or those with potentially libelous statements. Yes, that includes accusing elected officials of some criminal or potentially criminal misdeed or some seriously defaming thing. They're public figures so the standards for proving libel is higher, but they still get protection from wrongful accusations.

In other words, if, as some think, council members should cut their terms short by a year, they would then have to run in November of this year. This would really be impossible because the charter change would also have to be voted on at that time. It wouldn't be in effect until it's been certified several days later so, as far as the law is concerned, no one's term is up in 2008. Anyone running would be running for nothing.

Both Marc and Council member Mike Pokrzywinski have said they're not real keen on the term extensions.

Marc said he thinks the council ought to hold another odd-year election in 2009 and reduce the term of office to three just for that cycle. This would affect even wards -- Dick Grassel and Henry Tweten -- and one at-large member -- Greg Leigh.

Those up for office in 2011 would reduce their present term by a year and run in 2010. This would affect odd wards -- Marc, Craig Buckalew and Wayne Gregoire -- and one at-large member -- Mike.

The one issue with the 2009 election is, as an odd-year election, the city would have to bear all the costs. Currently, it costs about $3,000 or so to count by hand. Last year's election cost that much anyway and they counted ballots until 11 p.m. With these counting machines, Marc said, it'll cost $10,000 or so.

If the council extended its terms a year, the city wouldn't have to spend the $10,000. Terms expiring in 2009 would go in 2010. Terms expiring in 2011 would go in 2012.

What do you guys think?

The City Beat chuckled today reading the announcement East Grand Forks City Hall posted the other day.

The city wants to move its election up a year to align with county and federal elections, which would save money because the city could split costs with the county. In past years, the city has paid election judges to manually count paper ballots. With a new law, it can't do that any more.

The part that made me laugh was the part about extending the terms of City Council and the mayor by an extra year as part of the changeover. I'm sure it's for convenience and all but after the name calling around here, I cringe to think what will be said.

If, as Council member Mike Pokrzywinski suggests, you want to say what you want to say in public instead of playing anonymous, you can go to the council meeting at noon, July 29, at City Hall. That's a week from next Tuesday at lunchtime.

While I don't suspect anyone of being sneaky, this proposed change does cause me some discomfortable. Voters voted for people with the understanding that the term of office will be such and such a date. If it's kosher to extend the term of office a year, what's the limit?

The proposed law would change Section 5.01 of the City Charter.

The city allocated just $200,000 this year so this represents a pretty hefty increase.

When the new executive director, Steve Hyman, came on board in January, one of the things he said he would do was to make people excited about the Alerus Center. By this I thought he meant to make them love coming to the center for events. I'm not sure he meant to make them -- some of them anyway -- tear their hair out!

I'm not tearing my hair or anything but I can see how this might upset some.

First, let's talk about the rationale for this spending. Most of it is going to cosmetic improvements such as a new lighted Alerus Center logo and a new graphics package that highlights the UND football team and its place in the Great West Conference.

Cosmetic can be taken both ways. On the one hand, it doesn't change the way the center operates. On the other hand, if it succeeds in improving the center's image, that can only help. Lots of businesses put money into upgrading their buildings.

Commissioner Randy Newman said something that I thought was interesting. The Alerus Center is, in his view, incomplete because, when it was built, the city was running out of money.

That's why you have those big flat walls on the south and west side, the monotony broken up only by those screwy-looking green girders. Go to the Alerus Center Web site if you can't remember what they look like. If it weren't for the cost overruns, the sides would probably have all those protrusions like the east side, which most people think of as the front of the center.

I did an archive search today and came up with a story from Jan. 13, 1998, which said that the cost of building what was then called the Aurora Center had gone from $71 million to $79 million.

I did this because I heard some grousing about budget overruns but the explanation I found was perfectly understandable:

The Aurora has a new look and a new price tag as a result of the Flood of 1997.

Project architects have redesigned the Grand Forks events center, so it could resist damage from a 250-year flood.

Architects Bill Schoen and Lonnie Laffen found ways to cut costs on the new design, but the project's budget still will increase.

April's disaster caused such a distortion in the construction market that it could cost an extra $5.3 million to build the Grand Forks events center.

Let's talk now about where this $620,000 is going to come from. It's going to come from the 3/4-percent sales tax, which voters set aside to pay off the construction debt and improve the facility.

Since the city keeps getting more sales taxes every year because people keep buying more, there's always more money than needed to pay off the debt. The debt as of November of last year, when I last checked, was $64 million.

If you're a fiscal hawk, you'd want to pay off that debt ASAP so you can cut the taxes. I thought the city had decided to accelerate payment but an archive search shows zilch.

If you're an Alerus Center commissioner, you see a need to reinvest in the building so you're probably in no hurry to cut off the main source of money for that. This is especially so because Steve's got more ideas for improvements such as a glass-curtain entrance on the east side where convention goers would enter and video display boards, which it can sell ads on to make more money.

Maybe there's a happy medium in here somewhere. Depending on how much money's available, maybe council members should talk about paying off the Alerus Center debt sooner.

Personally, I'm not super-duper excited about all this because it's sales tax and that means people like Canadians are paying for the city's building. Still, the city does have a pretty heavy debt load right now so reducing that is probably a good idea.

By the way, here's two other things from the Alerus Center commission meeting this morning:

• Steve is working on a Viking-themed winter fair called "Winterfest." He's talking rides and crazy stuff like horned Viking helmets with fake blond hair. Sounds like Hostfest, except delightfully tacky. Someone suggested serving lutefisk and everyone blanched. I, for one, would like to try it at least once. It can't be worse than the raw and slimy herring I had in Holland a few years back.
• The Alerus Center lost $60,317.18 in the first half of the year, though it budgetted earnings of $11,41.44. If this keeps up in the next few months, I would be worried. But, for now, the center is still ahead of last year's performance at this point when it lost $112,594.81. And you'll remember that last year was a break even year.

As mentioned below, the choice was between proven experience and price.

Police love Stuart's, as police Chief Mike Hedlund noted again Tuesday. I don't think he has personal experience since he's new but his officers said they like Stuart's. As a reader Jeanna pointed out, Stuart's is known for quick response, which is probably a good thing when you've got to clear out an accident scene during rush hour. I'm not sure it's such a big deal if you've got to tow someone for refusing to pay his speeding ticket.

Council members Marc DeMers, Wayne Gregoire and Mike Pokrzywinski thought the experience was worth it.

Mike drew on his experience as an owner of a cleaning business. He gets underbid all the time, he said, but the quality of his service is higher. Would the council fire the city attorney to hire a recent law school grad just because the newbie was cheaper?

He acknowledged that the towing business isn't the same as the law business, though the principles are the same.

But let's look at the pricing:

Service	Stuart's	Grand Cities	Difference	Difference (%)
Relocate/Snow removal	$40	$35	$5	-12.5%
Basic towing	$60	$45	$15	-25.0%
Towing using hauler or flatbed	$100	$75	$25	-25.0%
Storage/day (outside)	$20	$10	$10	-50.0%
Storage/day (inside)	$40	N/A	N/A	N/A
After hours retrieval	$20	$25	-$5	25.0%

Marc said he'd only go with a new, untested company if the price difference were substantial. I'm not sure if he did the percentage difference. In dollar terms, it's not much but the percentage difference is more important, in my mind, because the police call towers more frequently than most of us so the savings to taxpayers would be greater.

The other point is that if you happen to get your car towed, it would cost more to get it back with Stuart's than with Grand Cities, even after hours.

Council Vice President Henry Tweten, along with Council President Dick Grassel and Council members Craig Buckalew and Greg Leigh, thought the price difference was more important.

What's even more important to at least two of them, Henry and Craig, was the integrity of the bidding process. This wasn't a formal bid, as I mentioned below, but it is a kind of bid, which is to say the city is asking the two companies what kinds of services they provide and for how much.

Craig seemed to counter Mike's point: "I do have a problem when we go out for a bid and the new company isn't even given a chance to prove themselves." If you're going to ask people to prepare a bid, you have to give them a chance, he said.

I like this argument best. If the city has already stacked the deck in favor of the incumbent by making experience a factor, knowing full well that the incumbent has far more experience, what in heaven's name is the point of a bid but a farce?

By the way, Mike said my parochial argurment below was wrong. It's about response time, East Side towers being able to respond faster in East Side. Maybe that's what he believes but it's not what many council members believed the last few times this discussion came up. Mike wasn't on the council then so I don't suppose he would've heard the debate.

Also, if response time were a factor, why not make that a condition of the bid and seek the best qualifying bidder instead of going through this RFP process? The logic doesn't hold up.

Oh boy, East Grand Forks' favorite towing company, Stuart's Towing, is going before the City Council tonight to see it could stay the city's official towing company. He's competing the a relatively new East Side company, Grand Cities Towing.

Grand Cities Towing has lower rates yet the police say that Stuart's has a good record of reliable service so somehow they're equal. Here's Chief Mike Hedlund's non-recommendation recommendation (It's on page 38 of the PDF.):

Stuart's Towing has a long, and from my understanding, satisfactory history of towing vehicles for the City of East Grand Forks. The confidence factor that is created by this past history is very valuable.

Grand Cities Towing appears to offer rates that are less expensive in almost every area of service. Without the RFP [Request For Proposal] having specified exactly what services should be bid this is somewhat inexact but in comparable areas Grand Cities appears to be the low bidder.

If Grand Cities Towing is awarded the contract I would recommend that the contract be initially awarded on a probationary status for a period of three to six months during which the ability of Grand Cities Towing to meet the requirements could be better evaluated.

Essentially the Council is placed in a position of whether to choose the low bidder or to stay with a company with a proven history of working with the City of East Grand Forks. At this time the EGFPD does not have a preference in this matter and will support the decision of the Council.

This whole thing wouldn't be worth a paragraph if it weren't for the following facts:

• Many residents have complained of being ripped off by Stuart's, not just in East Grand Forks but also in Grand Forks. With the East Side residents, it was police that called Stuart's for them after they got in a wreck.
• Stuart's provides free services to the police. I should say "had" provided. I'll check tonight if it still does.
• The council didn't bid the services out -- that's why it's an RFP not a bid -- so it didn't have to open the competition up to Grand Forks. This is one of the reasons I compare East Grand Forks City Hall poorly with Grand Forks City Hall. We're not nearly as parochial on this side of the river.

I'm told that the police will now avoid residents' complaints by offering them a written list of towing companies to call if they're in a wreck. If any of them have read the paper or know people who have been Stuart's "customers," I imagine they'd call someone else --unless they like paying more, that is.

1. Why are we spending $210,000 for a dog park (That's down from the $230,000 I heard at committee.)? Or, as Council member Terry Bjerke put it, why raise taxes for dogs?

2. Why are we spending money to add parking when there's a perfectly good parking lot a block away? Why can't these dog owners walk? That's what Council member Mike McNamara asked. The dog owners are already kind of going to be walking around anyway when they get to the dog park, as Council member Doug Christensen pointed out.

3. Why are we spending money to add a turnaround area? Why not just make that whole road -- the old Lanark Avenue and Lincoln Drive -- one way like it used to be?

4. Isn't this a park? Terry asked. Shouldn't the Park District pay?

The answers are as follows:

1. Most of the money is going to repaving the road, which was damaged during dike construction and has little to do with the dog park. (Now they say that! I didn't quite hear this in committee though it's possible somebody said it but I didn't hear him or her. Or they put it in one of those ubiquitous packets that they give to the council but failed to make extra copies for anyone else.)

Of course, some of the money is going toward more parking, better lighting and the turnaround area, which are for the dog park.

Why would we do this for dogs? Personally, I think this question is strong in rhetoric but low in logic. The city isn't doing this for the dogs. It's doing this for the dog owners and they vote, too.

Now that I think about it, Terry's outrage over what he perceives to be the expansion of city government is kind of comical. He doesn't seem to realize that just because people say they want minimal government, doesn't mean they really want it.

Voters are hypocrites. Everyone wants spending cuts except when it comes to their pet programs. Sometimes pets are the pet programs.

2. A long time ago, Council member Curt Kreun told me he couldn't understand why people would walk a block or two from the enormous parking lot at SuperTarget but refuse to walk a block or two to shop downtown.

From what I heard tonight, he's learned that it's pointless to ask why. If everybody's going to park along the road, mucking up the wild grass on the side, then the city probably ought to accomodate them if it can. That's just making the dog park more user friendly.

I realize some of you may be tempted to say, well, we should forbid parking on the grass and ticket anyone who violates the law. That's because some of you are closet fascists who think the answer to any kind of problem is a stick rather than a carrot.

3. The answer to this question seems a bit weak. First, city staff said the two way street is needed because most of Lincoln Drive is used for the annual Christmas in the Park holiday light display and the ticket sellers would have a hard time figuring out if someone driving in is going to see lights or walking his dog.

Mac pointed out that the city shouldn't spend more money just to work around a once-a-year event.

The city staff pointed out that it's not going to cost that much money compared to the whole paving project.

I think a better argument would be that it's just more convenient to have a two-way there. With a one-way, you'd have to drive all the way around the park -- it looks like about a mile -- just to get to the dog park. With a two-way, it looks like half that. A mile isn't much in a car but it just seems an awful waste of time and gas.

Again, this is purely about convenience. But so what? Why heat buildings for the sake of convenience? Why drive cars when we can have buses? Sometimes convenience gets the pooh-pooh in a debate. It's a "want" not a "need," as some say. Well, if you really want to talk about minimal government, there's a lot of things we could do without. I hear those cobble roads last forever.

4. This too is a question without a good answer. Some council members said maybe the city ought to ask the Park District to help pay because this is in a park. Terry takes the credit for leading the charge on this one, arguing for a separation of powers.

The flaw in this argument is that the entire Greenway system is a park, yet the city owns and maintains it as part of the dike project. There really isn't any perfect separation of powers and there never can be. I don't think you'd want the Park District being in the flood control business.

I also heard it said tonight by Terry that the city shouldn't be the first place people -- say, the dog park advocates -- go to for money for their pet projects -- as opposed to, say, the Park District. That's pretty funny, the city is the first place people angry about taxes look to run for office even though the other local governments have gotten a virtual free ride for years.

Sorry people, I don't know why I'm going on and on about an issue this small. Must've woke on the wrong side of the bed. This whole nitpicky debate is making me pissy.

Looks like the U.S. Navy will be naming one of its new Virginia-class attack submarines after North Dakota. It's been 85 years since any ship called U.S.S. North Dakota sailed the seas so this is pretty sweet.

Personally, with our missile heritage, the Ohio-class missile subs would be more appropriate but they aren't making those any more.

Anyway, wouldn't it be great to have another U.S.S. Grand Forks? Maybe those littoral combat ships?

It's funny to note that there's been a U.S.S. Fargo, too, but no U.S.S. Bismarck. That one was one of theirs.

]]> Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:31:00 CST http://www.areavoices.com/gfhcitybeat/?blog=30003 http://www.areavoices.com/gfhcitybeat/?blog=30003