Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance-Development
Committee - Monday, January 10, 2011 - 5:30 p.m. _______________

The Finance/Development Committee met on Monday, January 10, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Chairman Christensen presiding. Present at roll call: Christensen, Glassheim (teleconf.), Sande, Gershman (ex officio).

Also present were: Pete Haga, Mel Carsen, Greg Hoover, Saroj Jerath, Earl Haugen, Katie Brochpahler.

1. Legislative Committee update.
Pete Haga, mayor's office, reviewed legislative procedure, that draft had been provided
several weeks ago and that there were minor changes to the copies and is asking that they go
through the general list of city priorities in regards to the legislative session - that they establish a legislative committee that is comprised of city staff, one delegate from the city council, Council Member Grandstrand; that they meet every Friday 2:00 p.m.; also have teleconference with the ND League of Cities and representatives from other cities meet every Friday at 3:00 p.m. by phone - have legislative issues coming up and whether or not there are some bills that we want to provide some input and sometimes take positions of supporting or opposing and often take positions of being neutral, those that we support or oppose strongly will formulate testimony both oral and written testimony to provide at community hearings for the upcoming weeks.
In order to effectively communicate what they are doing with this legislative committee to council as well as to the general public is to make sure they know what is going on or what we are tracking in Bismarck and positions that we are taking as a city - on a weekly basis provide a legislative report on the issues that they are talking about and potential issues that they will be recommending action as far as testimony. The report will be provided to council sometime between the Friday meeting at noon and your Monday meetings and that he will be available for any further comments and to provide any background information or further information that has been developed since then, and will provide that report every Monday at a city council meeting and would be available at other times as well.
He stated they are asking the city council to adopt a general list of priority positions (attached to staff report) and these will help communicate what we believe as some of the legislative priorities going into this session, some of the types of bills they will be tracking and positions that will want to take on those. By adopting these general positions you will allow the legislative committee the flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to legislation that falls under these categories - and allows them the ability to communicate effectively with our local legislators and let them know what our general positions are, and hope that will help as they are debating the bills and they can call on us for further information. This information will be on-line soon - what they have implemented this year is have an internal legislative tracking system that will simultaneously go to our website - all of the bills that we are tracking as a city will be available for everyone to see, general public and all through the city's website, will be able to see the bill, the City's position and will be able to see any testimony that we create for that bill before their next meeting.

Christensen stated the issue for council is if they want to weigh in on a bill, should have the opportunity to do so prior to your taking a position on Friday, so when you have your meeting on Friday if there is some controversy concerning the bill, should come to the city council asking for their position, unless the executive wants to take the position other than the council and that the executive can do that. Mr. Haga stated he would agree with that, and that is one of the reasons why they have the general areas and adopting those by the city council, there isn't anything too controversial here by adopting those, and gives them the flexibility to support them as a city and not just the executive, because council has taken action and if you support these and any bills that deal with these would be able to support those. If there is a concern about a particular bill, that is why the legislative report is provided prior to the Monday meeting so if there is a concern about a specific bill and about the position the legislative committee is considering or any sort of testimony they may be considering that is where the Monday update does give you the ability to weigh in - the only thing that leaves a gap is any committee hearings that may happen on Monday. He stated he will try to get that information to you by Friday, because of the committee structure and timelines they are limited to knowing when the committees are meeting on Friday afternoon and being able to respond or react to those committee hearings if they are scheduled for the next week so there are some times in front of committee hearing Friday afternoon and that committee hearing is 9:00 o'clock Monday morning.

Christensen stated he wasn't saying you don't have discretion, wants to make sure that if there are members of the council that want to state their position contrary to what you feel would be the position have the opportunity to do so - you have the discretion to act if we adopt the legislative priority position and would do that on Monday night. Mr. Haga stated he would encourage that the state legislators in Bismarck would highly encourage that, whether contrary or in support of what decision they take, and having the council members themselves respond to bills and provide some background or provide their sense there and requesting a full city council opinion so that they can go in with a full force of the city of Grand Forks and would be highly encouraged.

Mr. Haga stated that the list is not a priority list, but if the council wishes to change something and make a prioritized list, could do that. Gershman suggested that when these papers go online is to number them, so easier to reference back - include page numbers.

Sande recommended approval and to move the priorities forward to council and Mr.
Haga's narrative concerning the same; Glassheim seconded the motion. Motion carried.

2. Application for abatement for 2009 taxes by Richard and Joanne Anderson, 918 Walnut Street.________________________________________________________
Mel Carsen, city assessor, reported the application is for abatement of prior year's taxes
that have been paid, Mr. Anderson is a disabled veteran with 100% service connected disability, which grants him an exemption of 100% of the first $120,000 of building value; in this case is an exemption of $99,300 and forgiveness of tax, refund in this case of about $1,700; and his recommendation is to approve. Motion by Sande/ Glassheim to approve recommendation and move to city council. Motion carried.

3. Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential buildings at various locations.________________________________________________________
Mr. Carsen reported that he had received 8 applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential buildings, that applications meet the criteria set by the city council, and recommended granting of the 5-year exemption, which is allowed b State law. He noted that he has included the total dollar amount of the exemptions. It was noted that after the improvements are made the city assessor will be re-assessing the homes based upon the improvements; and Mr. Carsen stated they keep track of the amount of exemption on an on-going basis each year and value the house with the improvements done each year, then exempt that portion, and after 5 years the exemption comes off and the value goes to the actual value. Motion by Sande/Glassheim to approve recommendation and move to city council. Motion carried.

4. Appointment to MPO Executive Policy Board.
Christensen stated the issue is to either move the appointment of himself or to suggest
someone else as council representative on the MPO Executive Policy Board, that he cannot vote
on this. Motion by Glassheim/Sande to approve recommendation and move to council.
Motion carried.

5. Matter of comment on RFP for Downtown Grand Forks Parking Study being conducted by GF-EGF MPO._________________________________________
Earl Haugen, MPO, reported that the City asked the MPO to engage a consultant to assist
with the downtown parking assessment but before they can get it out to the consultants wanted to make sure that they were including what the City was asking them to do, the RFP was written primarily by city staff and provides their template of the RFP that they have to follow and hoping it follows what the expectations are - that it is to look at the assessment process and part of that is based on parking standards so will look at whether the parking standards should be updated as well, the last page highlights the area that they will be looking at - 3 boundaries highlighted and a different boundary for the capital costs to build ramps vs. the boundary for the O & M costs of the system and suggested increase vs. potential areas to bring in to the financial picture on downtown parking. The last thing highlighted is the participation process and are asking the Steering Comm. to guide them.
The Comm. would have 2 people representing downtown interests, one from this committee, one from Planning & Zoning Commission and one from Public School System. The committee would meet at least 3 times with the consultant and in addition would have two public input meetings held to engage the public and towards the end of the project when making final recommendations to have a presentation before this committee and one before council. Timeline is per your requirement to get it done as soon as possible and have tight timeline for the consultants to get something back. Est. timeline and schedule is approval January 19, have proposals back at end of February, consultants hired first week of March with the draft April 15 and final May 15 - 45 days from start to a draft. Budget proposed in the RFP of $37,000. He asked for any comments, etc.

Glassheim stated he has two comments: 1) would like to see in the RFP a statement that they gather information as to how much the general public has already paid to assist downtown parking; and 2) has to do with the makeup of the steering committee and that thee are already two reps. of the 5 from downtown businesses and would be sensible to have Mr. Sande be the council/finance rep. to provide more objectivity on the steering committee. Christensen stated that between Mr. Sande and himself they could attend the meetings because Sande may not be here sometimes and he may not be here sometimes, seems like the meetings are going to be in March but feels somewhat important that someone who is more familiar with the issue attend some of the meetings and that he's lived this issue for about 10 years and doesn't plan on voting but just asking for direction and that he does intend on attending the meetings.

Sande stated that he would be happy to serve on that committee and vote on the issues and appreciates that nomination. Glassheim stated it is a steering committee of a limited number and that someone has to be designated from the finance committee, and that Mr. Christensen has knowledge and would be there and that is not a problem.

Christensen stated the ordinance that is in question isn't really relevant and any matter as to how people should be assessed because they happen to have a business downtown to contribute towards the parking, the issue is free parking vs. non-free parking because you do have parking provided in front of your businesses that people use - problem is that it is not always available because there seems to be a lack of enforcement as far as parking tickets - easy for people to park if have two-hour parking requirement and that is something that should be addressed. Another thing is having some type of assessment for people that are in a building that they are leasing or building owner is renting them space and the building owner is being assessed for parking - not sure that assessment goes to repair the ramp or not - there are financial issues and they should be addressed in this report so people have understanding of what we gather the revenue to provide for the public parking downtown in the parking ramps - do other cities charge people for parking in front of their building that people are leasing. There is a Senate bill ordinance being proposed to amend the Home Rule Charter so that cities over 10,000 people can have a special assessment process against downtown property owners to give them additional revenue to clean up the downtowns so different issues are being addressed - this is an issue that needs a solution - not so much what assessing people in front of their buildings but where going to find the revenue to repair the parking ramp downtown (half of ramp going to be leased to School Dist. in perpetuity until they build their own) - have lot of issues that have to be addressed, parking ramps being taken care of and lot of the space being leased, the County has decided to lease their spaces for $30/mo. - have to have coordination of what is going on with the downtown parking - this will be typed up and presented to the committee when they meet because it is his opinion obviously and would be his direction at the committee to look at these issues.

Motion by Sande to move approve subject to Glassheim's concerns; Glassheim seconded.
Christensen stated his comments would be attached to the committee minutes. Motion
carried.

6. Renaissance Zone.
Katie Brockpahler, urban development, stated at the last meeting they had presented
maps showing potential expansion option and the committee asked staff to come back with their recommendation of adding 11 blocks to the Ren.Zone and provided map showing their recommendation - that they are recommending extending 6 blocks to the west and 5 blocks to the south - western block would promote the University downtown connection and the southern blocks would include several vacant city-owned lots that will be up for sale in the future - that is the direction that they are recommending.

Gershman stated that pursuant to the meeting they had the idea of moving to the south with the
vacant lots because those people would be building relatively significant homes and take advantage of the State tax benefit which is another incentive to develop those lots. Sande stated as well as the University annex corridor - which they are interested in. Brockpahler stated there was a little bit of a mix - but mostly residential - there is State income tax exemption available for the purchase of property - if looking at purchasing a home for your personal primary residence would be eligible for a State personal income tax exemption up to $10,000 for 5 years and also local property tax exemptions available.

If a home purchased on University Avenue (in area where Red Pepper is) and paid $100,000 for it would they get a break because bought in a Ren Zone. Brockpahler stated they would have to go through the process of applying for the project and then if the committee and council and State approve the project they would be eligible for those incentives. She stated they are looking for approval of their recommendation or if rather have them look elsewhere, can do that as well.

Christensen stated he doesn't see any benefit to the City for redevelopment if put your Ren.Zone in that area if only going to give a tax break for the purchase of a home. Brockpahler stated the purchase and improvements if they want to do some rehabilitation or remodeling or if purchasing a vacant lot and building new. Christensen noted that the committee just finished giving breaks for redevelopment of a home that was over 25 years old - and every home except for new ones are over 25 years old which means don't get any benefit because they get the tax breaks anyway - just make application for the improvements and get breaks as shown by Mr. Carsen - only for 5 years but still a tax break for all the improvements; that doesn't see why would give any tax credits or an income tax credit against their income taxes for purchasing the home - doesn't comport with the spirit of why the RenZone was put in place and why it was designed so that you could take and rehab. depressed areas - that he asked that they look at urban development but apparently that is too complicated at this juncture. That he doesn't see any reason to extend it to the west at all, if there are vacant lots to the south that is a different story and if have to deal with extending it to the south for the vacant lots again, but if just to give improvements to rehab. homes located in the southern portion again, comments are the same as for the west - doesn't even fit within the idea of the Ren.Zone - can't support this but that isn't to say that some of you will.

Mr. Carsen stated that the Ren.Zone gives some benefits and most of those benefits are State income tax benefits, and a person buying a home there if a qualifying project they qualify for an State income tax credit of up to $10,000 on personal income for 5 year period - dollar for dollar credit. Christensen stated that purchaser gets a State income tax credit for 5 years - all you are doing is setting up an incentive to buy in that limited area and how many homes have been on the market that haven't sold within x number of months. - no one knew.

Sande stated that if incentive, people purchase homes in these areas, the savings they would see both in their personal income tax savings as well as the potential to save on any renovations would be incentive to make improvements in those homes and help fix up some of the homes that are in those areas; that is what was discussed the last time they talked about this, specifically around the University Avenue area, about how some the homes in that area could use a sprucing up and he thought it would be good incentive for younger people to purchase homes in that area and put some sweat equity in, make some improvements and make the homes nicer in that area. Christensen stated that he agrees but how long do you want to try this experiment - Sande stated as long as the State lets us, we should continue to try it, and sees significant benefits and if the State is willing to kick in some money, anything we can do to help people get into these homes and make improvements to them is a big benefit to all the citizens of Grand Forks.

Glassheim asked if we put a requirement that not only are homes purchased but that they are renovated and put a requirement on that as part of getting Ren Zone credit - can we require an owner/occupant to make improvements in the homes as part of getting a Ren.Zone credit. Katie Brockpahler stated the council can require whatever they want contingent on approval - that once they get past this hurdle will be coming back to look at the incentives they currently provide in our goals and revisioning to see if we want to change or add anything or any kind of stipulation. Christensen stated that if we approve this, only means that you approved the district and get the State to approve that and then come back for our rules. Brockpahler stated if they approve this area and before they go to the State, will come back to this committee to look at our current incentives and current goals to see if that fits for Ren.Zone.

Gershman stated it would be interesting to see a compilation of all of the incentives that we have, because have different programs and what could be used so people could see that can lever even more than just the Ren.Zone if they qualify.

Christensen stated one of the things that occurs to him on the tax credit - following up with committee comments to the extent that we would approve someone's purchase and that you get a State income tax credit and give us a plan of how you are going to use that credit based upon your current income to make renovations so that we see it being captured - get the property bought and improved so that we can enhance the value and can actually show that we are doing something for the benefit of all the citizens in the city of Grand Forks, finding additional taxes from otherwise depressed area. Brochpahler asked if they are suggesting that we approve projects only in which the owners are going to invest their exemption back into the property? Christensen stated not saying they would do that but should consider it and that it requires a vote of staff and council.

Christensen stated they need to move this forward as far as the area and then determine how dispense the credits. Motion by Glassheim/Sande to approve recommendation re. area and move to city council. Carried.

Glassheim stated that he won't be at the next council meeting and that Mr. Christensen will have to chair the council meeting on Tuesday.

The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk