Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance-Development
Committee - Monday, February 14, 2011 - 5:30 p.m. _______________

The Finance/Development Committee met on Monday, February 14, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Chairman Christensen presiding. Present at roll call: Christensen, Gershman (ex officio). Being that Chairman Christensen was only voting member of the committee present, items will go to city council without recommendation.

Also present were: Greg Hoover, Meredith Richards, Katie Brochpahler, Saroj Jerath, Howard Swanson, Wendy Wendt, John Herz, Candi Stjern, Council Members Bjerke and Grandstrand, Todd Feland.

1. Purchasing Policy.
Held in committee until other members of the committee were present.

2. Application for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential or commercial buildings at various locations.
3. Application for abatement for 2010 taxes by Scott Ross and Barbara Zavala, 511 28th Ave.S.
There were no public comments on these items, and Mr. Herz, asst. city assessor, had no comments other than the staff recommendation. Chairman Christensen stated these items would go to council with staff recommendation.

4. Appointments to various committees:
a) Emergency Management Board - Joe Simon and Council Member Kreun
b) Grand Forks Events Center - Council Member Kreun
c) Grand Forks Historic Preservation Committee - Douglas C. Munski_____
Chairman Christensen stated this was one appointment and reappointments, and there were no comments - will go to council with staff recommendation.

5. Acquisition of single-family home at 406 N. 8th Street
Meredith Richards, urban development, reported that their staff was approached last fall by the owner of the property in question and that household had experienced some financial difficulties and came to the City looking for a quick sale to avoid foreclosure, normally the City doesn't get involved with situations like that but in this case the City does hold a substantial second mortgage through our HomeCents Housing Rehab Program and in conjunction with United Valley Bank who holds the first mortgage - staff proposes that using unrestricted funds the City would buy out the United Valley Bank's first position and then put approx. $10,000 into cosmetic repairs and put that house back on the market. In terms of Mayor's Urban Neighborhood Initiative and efforts to increase home ownership in that neighborhood distressed property sales often go to investors as a rental property and more likely this home would maintain its viability as an owner/occupied residence - and would like the authorization to proceed with the sale of this property as described.

Chairman Christensen stated that the staff report is clear and that Mr. Swanson has approved it and that the City has chance of recovering the money put under the HomeCents loan, can discuss later if do any repairs to the property, list it and see where we go - that he doesn't have any questions or comments.

Gershman asked if it did go to foreclosure, what would happen to the HomeCents loan. Richards stated that in second position, likelihood of us recouping all of it is zero, depending on what sort of terms the Bank negotiates, could get something, but their effort ends with recouping their investment. Christensen stated that if it went to foreclosure we would lose our position, and would be in the same position that we are now and would have to buy the mortgage out. Richards noted that by avoiding foreclosure is good for everyone involved.

6. Resolution in support of the Community Development Block Grant Program.
Christensen stated there is a request by the Mayor's Office to issue a resolution in support of the Community Development Block Grant Program.

Greg Hoover, director of urban development, stated that CDBG has played significant role in our community, esp. after the flood, $1,700,000+ in assistance, and info in the packet shows how many people were assisted last year, that we were able to do almost $2 million of public improvements, including streets, sidewalks and facilities for special needs populations and approx. $877,000 benefited people with special needs, including abused and neglected children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities - that this concerns the CDBG Program and the President's budget that came out today and reported earlier is that he is proposing a 7.5% cut in the CDBG Program which would be a reduction of about $34,000 from what we currently have. That received information today that the US House of Representatives has introduced legislation HR1, to reduce CDBG by 62%, and that would take us below $200,000 which is about the amount we do in public services each year - and would be pretty much folding up the program; and they are asking council to approve sending the Resolution included in the packet. Christensen stated they would forward this to the council without a recommendation and council will make their decision.

Gershman stated that we have to address a lot of issues in our country and perhaps it is time for us to support the efforts to reduce the debt and the deficit - can't hide from it anymore and if we are going to be a city wants everything that we had before, we are never going to get out of this - that he doesn't think that 7.5% is a lot, and doesn't think that 60% will happen - but perhaps it is time for us as a city to participate and send a message that we have to come to grips with the issues that are out there.

Hoover stated that wouldn't get any disagreement from them, including staff, and that the 60% probably wouldn't pass but that it is important that we send a message that you indicated, and are willing to share in some of the pain but the pain that is being proposed in HR1 is a little more than he thinks we should be able to take at this point. Gershman stated he is saying that we need to have discussion to take position that we support the President's 7.5% reduction and it might be a message. Hoover stated they would prepare for Monday night a subsequent alternative resolution. Gershman stated that is his opinion and that it should come before council before preparing another resolution.

Christensen stated he agrees with Mr. Gershman but not suggest to support the President's proposed budget, but feels the time has come for every city, including ours, to recognize the situation the country finds itself in and understand that it can no longer be business as usual - find that the entitlements have to be cut and that he would support that and if going to get action out of Congress has to start at the grass roots - should send a message that we support changes. This matter will be presented to council on Tuesday.

7. 2011 Arts Regranting Program.
Marie Strinden, NOVAC executive director, thanked council for opportunity to
administer the regrant program this year, had 18 applications and found all of them to be quite worthy and thanked reps. that came to support the Arts Regranting funds. There were no comments and Christensen stated he thinks they have done a great job and will move this forward to city council.

8. Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project GF-42.
Katie Brochpahler, urban development, reported that Ren.Zone Project GF-42 that was approved in 2004 and again in 2007 for the rehab of the old YWCA building - that in 2004 the project involved converting the upper floors on N. 5th Street into about 8 residential units and in 2007 with new ownership the scope of the project changed to convert two floors into 25 residential rental units and that project was approved contingent on the reserving of 36 parking space in the Central Ramp. The project sat there for the last 3 years and now ownership has changed again to Bob Cowger and Milt Gowan in 2008 and now going forward with their plans - there was no change in the scope and would still like to reserve the parking spaces in the Central Ramp - wanted to have them reapply and bring it back to council because so much time has passed since the last approval.

Christensen asked why staff is bringing this forward where 36 spaces were to be leased and if release these spaces you would have no public parking in the downtown ramp, that the City has leased half of it to School District along with some leases to Social Services and to FCI. Mr. Hoover stated they don't have the authority to deny the application as it complies with all the requirements in the plan for the RenZone; the developers have an alternative if doing the project without the RenZone, go ahead with the project and could pay a fee into the Municipal Parking system, that they are not suggesting that they lease any or all of those spaces but looking for guidance from the council on this because if we lease all the spaces that they requested, and would have no parking for the casual customer who would be a patron of the businesses downtown. There would be on-street parking but none in the central ramp for anyone other than people who are reserving spaces, and that is direction they would be looking to committee if you move this forward whether you would recommend that we lease some or none of the spaces and that if they go forward then they would pay into the special assessment parking system.

Christensen stated that there is study being done for downtown parking, funded by MPO, doesn't know why he would move this forward to council until we find out what our recommendations are for downtown parking from the study - that if those that are going to develop they have to have parking, and have conversation about recreating our downtown but have to address the parking issue - have to accommodate the developers and figure a strategy. Mr. Hoover stated they wanted to get a sense of committee on how you wanted to proceed and are willing to work on that and take it forward to the council.

Gershman stated that now there is an assessment on businesses downtown for the ramp and if we privatize the ramp because have School District and businesses and now the developer and you contract out all the spaces, but part of the selling that we do with the assessment is that customers can park in there but if we lease it all out that is going to be the end of it - that he agrees with Mr. Christensen, that the report is going to be out in May, and would be good if started to look around for some surface lots and landscape them,, because going to have 53 apartments here and Mr. Hoover stated another 40 (across from civic)and hope to close on April 1. Have to start solving problem or people quit coming downtown.

Christensen stated he was not against the project - project good but thinks should get together and figure this out - need more parking downtown, Central High School here to stay and lease with Central in ramp (waiting for legal) - know that they want to rent some space, and how long lease it to them and going to have to figure this out. Hoover stated he would continue discussion with the principal and Mr. Hutchison and administration on some alternatives, and one of them is as they go forward with their construction they are going to need to use their lot at the Alerus for staging and trying to work out a solution for that for the next school year, 2011-12 - and that they will work with the developer to try to find some alternatives on the parking. Christensen stated there are more developers coming because you are familiar with some of the conversations with others - bigger problem and have to have a solution to this in the next two to three years and please work with the developer and keep him fully informed of the MPO study and let them know what is being proposed for the ramp they want to rent - and he will be following up with the developers in a week or 10 days to make sure that they have the information.

Milt Gowan, developer, stated without parking they can't go ahead with the project, and asked if offered the building up to City for parking or demo it, or what want them to do. Christensen stated he doesn't have an answer - that Central School adm. issues with parking and proposed leasing of parking to them and that having a study and not going to take your building. Mr. Gowan stated that without parking might as well demo it because no value to them without parking for the apartments. Christensen stated he wasn't sure what he is going to do about parking, but that there are places you can buy and have parking - Gowan stated they were here looking for help and if the City has some spots they could buy they would gladly buy them also and that is why they are offering a 15-year lease at $10,500/year for the spots in the ramp - just asking for City's help, and that if they want to discuss it and get with them at a different time that would be good.

Christensen stated that isn't the issue - the issue is that its a public ramp - but people that are in the public sector going to have to make some decisions as to what they are going to do to facilitate parking for their constituents, students, administrators, teachers. That development occurring in the downtown and now problem have to solve - that the School and the City have to get together to figure out how going to solve it - and if public meetings about that developer will be given notice. There were no additional comments.

9. Matter of ballot issues re. public library.
Council Member Bjerke stated he had several questions regarding policy procedures and not expecting decision tonight but trying to understand the process of how things happen - went back for some time and came up with at least city public votes and that all 8 had to do with raising taxes, and that the comments made in the last several weeks by council members about going to hear from the people and not saying endorsing the tax but let the people decide on an issue - then let the people decide. The County Home Rule Charter in 2008 on a scientific survey was going to pass with 66% and it scored 16%; the Library on a scientific survey is going to get 70% of the vote and we will find out about that; and for these 2 votes he is hoping that we are going to have a little more skepticism on our scientific surveys and that is the reason why we are putting stuff on the ballot based on scientific surveys, and his feeling is that going to have two off by wide margins.

That it seems to him and a fair amount of people that certain people can get things on the ballot while others cannot, what for example, if cause at 60% majority they increase the sales tax, what would be the procedure based on what have seen in the past, that if people want something they get it on the ballot, and that is why he asks the question how many people does he need to bring, just give him a number and have that many show up and then see if can get something on the ballot and that is why he is looking at, in general, what is the City looking because you could say it is tilted one way right now, and if one wanted to do something different and know they can do petitions but it seems the other side doesn't have to do petitions, what would the City look for and is basing that on what he has seen happen in the past.

Christensen stated they can move this forward and do it when the committee gets back, that in the matter of the library it was an initiative that the Library Board undertook starting sometime in late summer of 2009, but had their first study in November 2009 and they briefed us a couple times and the question would be how do you pay for a library - only 3 ways to do it - enterprise funds (that is not going to happen), property tax increase and sales tax increase - idea of a sales tax increase was something that the Library Board picked up on based upon what happened in Fargo, that we don't have any rules that would change our Home Rule Charter to say that this can only be amended by x percent rather than 51% but at some point if someone chose to make that an initiated measure at the city level, then is something that the citizens could decide if they wanted to impose that on future councils as far as changing what would be required as far as modifying the Home Rule Charter for various reasons.

Bjerke stated that tax increases don't require petitions, they go on the ballot, not discussing tax cuts but talking about attempting to control spending and that if want to hear from the people and let them decide, a lot of them asking for a special election, could put one up and see what happens. That if attempt to raise taxes and make it harder to raise taxes, put that on the general city election so no additional cost to taxpayers and thinks a lot of people and finds interesting that he understand the petition process and maybe that is what will have to do, but why does it have to come to that when other things for spending money don't have to come to that - if want to hear what the people say and let the people decide.

Christensen stated to clarify what the council can do is that we can pass an ordinance, passing an ordinance takes 6 to 12 weeks depending upon how controversial it is, that if this council were to decide that in order to get something put on the ballot to amend the Home Rule Charter requires that with 7 people on the council, have to have 5 votes super majority and if the council didn't like it going forward they could change it, and could have amendment and this ordinance could only be changed if you have x number of votes. When thinking about changing the Home Rule Charter, Mr. Swanson gave us advice that our Home Rule Charter is our constitution and told us not to amend the Charter to add the location of a building on the sale tax.
He stated it has come to his attention that there are certain proponents of the library that think that the city council if vote did pass that the city council would then have the power to locate the library somewhere else, i.e., on the Leever's site and there is conversation about in the community if can trust the council - but if you want the library, vote in favor of the ballot, that they went with a 1% rather than 3/4% in order to get it paid for and be done - the citizens that participated in the process came up with best recommendation, but if don't want it, vote against it.
He suggested to Mr. Bjerke if want to put an ordinance up and have the vote, roll it out, and if want to get the citizens to amend the Home Rule Charter, then will have to vote on that - people decide these issues.

Bjerke stated not concerned about the library - but wants procedures about how get these things on the ballot.

Gershman stated he would pose a question to the citizens of Grand Forks - how are we doing - has faith in the public and thinks that the city of Grand Forks financially is in very good shape and that the amenities we have in Grand Forks, starting with arts, etc., the Alerus Center, and thinks those are good things and thinks the city is in good shape and that with the 51% majority have done pretty good in this town. He stated that Mr. Bjerke claims taxes are too high, and that is his position, that he opposed the decorative floodwalls in the city (wanted straight concrete), opposed pump stations and lift stations that are architecturally compatible to the neighborhoods, opposed to the greenway (Bjerke stated over development), opposed to Riverside pool (Bjerke stated he was against taxes paying for it), bikepaths, Alerus Center (and not have Canad Inns), and people willing to tax themselves and invest in their community to have a better community where people want to live. He noted that the City has cut since 2000 30 mills or about $.25 million per year in operating expenses for the city, and have still maintained the services and supported the arts and economic development, special events and thinks that Grand Forks is one of the best small cities in the country because of what we have done, and under your scenario there might be a few people that like taxes to be slightly lower but those are the things that we would not have if we followed your philosophy.

Bjerke stated he thinks he has his answer, it will be in campaigning in 2012 - that whoever runs for mayor and council can put forth whether they are opposed or not to raise taxes.- it’s a personal opportunity between people who like to spend other people's money and people who want to run the government - and if can't properly maintain things because street department is unable to do it because you've given them more work than they can do - the purpose of the Park District was supposed to be recreation and because they can't fund what they want to do, and we become junior park board and opposed to that - city council shouldn't be doing pools, bikepaths, dog parks and should disband the park district and put it under the city and then maybe support one of those but not when it’s the city - you raise taxes and that's first item for debate.

Christensen stated the election is on May 3 and you'll have reasons for supporting it or not - you get to ratify the decision or not - either to accept or reject it..

Chairman Christensen adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk