Council Minutes

MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, June 11, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, June 11, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Klave, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 12; absent: Council Members Lunak, Martinson - 2.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised.

Mayor Brown recognized the City Water Laboratory, employees Craig Lacher, Andy Job and Steve Kolar of the City’s Water Treatment Lab., that for years they have been making sure our city has been complying with all environmental standards, that they work regularly with groups all around the region promoting teamwork and attracting outside research money; that in the last two years the lab has worked with community partners to secure over $200,000 in grant funding for projects relating to water treatment. In addition they recently provided technical assistance to a post flood Altru Health System Water Safety Study that was published in a national medical journal and praised by the journal’s editor. They also received a certificate of appreciation from 136th Quartermaster Battalion Water Supply North Dakota Army National Guard for the work they did during and after the flood of 1997. He thanked them for their dedication to the community’s safety and their on-going partnering efforts that result in team building and creative solutions.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Devils Lake update presentation by Joe Belford.
Joe Belford, chairman of the Ramsey County Commission and Downstream Acceptance for the Devils Lake flood, presented an overview of the flooding of Devils Lake and problems they are having; map showing the elevations of the lake in 1941 and at present; that the lake has risen 25 feet and tripled itself in area - from 40,000 acres to approx. 122,000 acres, He reported that the water has started flowing into Stump Lake this spring at elevation of 1446.5 and starting to fill Stump Lake (moving at slow pace of 16 cfs/minute); and they are working very hard on a process of getting an outlet out of Devils Lake. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is underway by the Corps of Engineers with completion by September 2002; and hopefully design completed at the same time along with authorization and funding to proceed with the outlet; EIS will answer all the questions and concerns of friends and neighbors downstream - 40% of State’s population is downstream from Devils Lake. He stated they do not want to get to the 1460 elevation where it would flow out of Stump Lake on its own and down through Tolna Coulee and into the Sheyenne River because that would create another major catastrophe downstream; that the project the Corps is designing now is at the west end where the water quality is the best, taking it down the Peterson Coulee and into the Sheyenne River which is a 13 mile connection and flowing out at somewhere between 3 and 480 cfs/minute. He stated water quality is very important for the municipal drinking water and that’s why the west end where water quality is better - less parts of salt and sulftates.

He stated they are currently putting up two new bridges (federal and State) and a major grade raise near Churches Ferry at approx. $8 million; and presented an overview of the flooding and affect on towns of Churches Ferry and Minnewauken, as well as on highways, bridges and RR.; and expressed concerns on the Amtrak, which is is a state-wide concern. He stated that on Thursday Senator Conrad met with the president of Burlington Northern/Santa Fe - that the RR is proposing when the lake gets within 4 ft. of the top of the rail they want to close the track at Churches Ferry, they can pull the commodities back to Grand Forks and back to Minot but have a greater concern that Amtrak affords about 17-18,000 passengers with the heaviest load being in Grand Forks - what they propose is that they can use the south line which
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 2

would travel through Hannaford, New Rockford and on to Minot, and this is totally unacceptable and that we have to fight to maintain a transportation network to keep the northern tier of our state intact to continue to have this line run as currently - and in the conversation with the president on Thursday, he felt that they weren't obligated to put any money into the track, that he talked to their people in Fort Worth and actual estimate or short term fix is $2.4 million , but feels that the Railroad needs to be part of this because the land was granted to them when tracks were installed, and need to forge ahead and keep system running. He stated they will have another conference call fairly soon and appreciates the support that the City has shown and that they have had great support all the way from Fargo to Minot.

Mr. Belford stated in conference call they wanted to move ahead with the short term fix, a long term fix is if have to raise the track to 1463 for 8 miles and about $16 million - short term would bring track up to 1456, which would give them some time and perhaps have outlet in or relief of some sort, and that’s the one they support.

Mr. Belford thanked the council for listening to his presentation, and that if they want to come up as a unit for tour, would put one together for them; and thanked council for their support and will be back again in the future hoping that City will continue to support them. Mayor Brown thanked him for keeping us informed as we are in this together.

2.2 Committee of the Whole procedures.
Council Member Burke stated they had discussed whether or not they wanted to treat committee of the whole like standing committees and vote on items before us and make recommendation to the council, the idea doing that would give the public an opportunity to know where the council stood, knows some people prefer to use this meeting to discuss and hear and make a decision later on - would hope that we consider that change. Council Member Brooks stated he likes the committee of the whole with hearing presentations without vote, works well and public gets a chance to give us their input before we have to commit one way or the other; and didn’t think we should make a recommendation to ourselves, here to gather information and hear from the public.

Mr. Brooks asked if council members would like to vote at committee of the whole. Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated the Code and the State law does require a vote, either affirmative or negative, but as Home Rule City, if City chose to provide an option to reserve a vote or withhold a vote they have the authority to adopt an ordinance in that regard. Mr. Hamerlik stated when we had committees, the motion and second if from a council member would be laid on the table for the full council and people as well as council would be able to read the motion before the council. Mr. Swanson stated there are very few committees remaining that would be in that position or capacity but if had another body making recommendation to council, it would come with that motion and second.

Council Member Gershman stated the original idea was for us to gather information, look at an issue and request more information from staff and the public, before making decision; that he is comfortable with what we have now, that agendas are published and if people listen carefully which is their responsibility, they can get a sense of the council without having to take a vote.

Council Member Glassheim stated his concern is by not knowing what we are voting on and not having motions, when discuss something at committee of the whole, there’s no focus or clear motion, and the more difficult the issue is, the less we know the detail of what we’re actually going to vote on when come back a week from then - and then get an impromptu motion in detail at the council meeting. That there are two kinds of issues at committee of the whole and should distinguish them: 1) deal with fairly traditional or ordinary matters where we could easily after discussion vote on a motion to approve and if
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 3

something new comes up in between we could change our vote; but there are other matters that are more
policy-oriented or more abstract - and that his proposal is that on most items, make a recommendation, and on some items where no clarity yet, defer to another committee of the whole until somebody will make a clear motion that we can discuss. Council Member Burke stated that we often deal with issues that are not simply a matter of deciding yes or no on an issue that’s before us, but requires some kind of solution that needs to be put in the form of a motion; that sometimes we have not made a motion just so we could crystallize a concept to have before us the next time.

Mayor Brown stated he agreed with Council Member Gershman because committee of the whole is a work in progress, need to make it so it works for us and if we do vote on things we’re going to subject ourselves to intense lobbying and public hearings do not equal public opinion; and also staff summaries do recommend a council action, and council can amend the recommendation to serve the policy that you direct the City to follow.

Council Member Glassheim stated that from discussion staff couldn’t make a motion for us to vote on, that he would like a motion that we will vote on things that have clarity and postpone for two weeks things not ready to vote on.

Council Member Hamerlik suggested taking a straw vote by raise of hands as to whether leave it as is or want it the other way. Mr. Swanson stated straw vote has no official standing. Council Member Hamerlik stated his intent was if the majority of the council members want to change or majority do not want to change, do a straw vote. 8 council members voted to keep committee of the whole to remain as a discussion format; and 3 council members voted for change.

2.3 City Council executive committee.
Council Member Brooks stated he has heard from a number of people that maybe we need to fine tune the system, and that when came up with the changes in the council format was to start it and come up with changes/adjustments as go along; and looking for input from people - some items brought up were what committee duties would be - if had an executive committee or framework committee maybe that’s where to send items that are going to task forces; they could handle housekeeping items for the council, could be a group to allow staff to bounce ideas of, it could be a resource group for the mayor, one of accountability, that he has heard comments that the concerns prior to the election was that our council wasn’t open, that a number of decisions were made before the council even met, that since the election with the new council that’s even more so and probably set ourselves up by eliminating the committees (good idea to get away from those committees) but need that group in place where there is some accountability, open meeting laws, etc. and these are some ideas he jotted down - and looking for input.

Council Member Gershman stated concern about executive committee is it may have opposite effect for which intended, now we form a task force and are able to choose people from the council that have expertise in certain areas, that could be precluded to some degree if you had an executive committee; and another concern is that one year from now we’re going to be 7 members and have more concentration in fewer people on a percentage basis than now when have everybody on the council participating and going to the mayor with various issues and going to department heads, and feels it’s more open government, and his concern is that it would formalize a structure that would preclude other members of the council from being as involved as they are now.

Council Member Klave stated now if task force formed the mayor has luxury of being able to choose those that have knowledge in that area and if an executive committee is formed, will be loosing a lot of what have right now, expertise to be drawn from.

Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 4

Council Member Kerian stated this would have potential to make for less open government as there is a small group who gets used to working together and may cause decisions to get in motion before there is broader discussion. Council Member Kreun stated if we were to form a committee of this nature, we have several questions - what is the authority, but first, what is this group going to do, and if haven’t defined what the need is, do we actually need it. Council Member Hamerlik stated size is important, would have to be 3 or less.

2.4 Task force on population decline.
Council Member Glassheim presented information (news clippings) showing decline in the population in Grand Forks County in the last decade - lost over 5,000 people ages 20 to 34 and this loss was 22% of that age category which is higher than ND’s average of 16% of loss of that age category and almost everywhere in ND is losing population and for us to be losing significant population in child-bearing years, that in the age 0-17 lost 14%, higher than ND’s average of 8% and we’re losing significantly more in the 0-5 year range which makes sense because if lose 20-34 year old range, not going to have more children -- this has impact on our school system and our entire future and was concerned and wanted to create a task force of several council people and a variety of people to spend a limited amount of time (perhaps 2 months) making a public document, and have discussion to see if there are things we can do - his point is to have a task force so that a lot of people can talk about what we might do to get people in this targeted age range to remain here and/or to come here. He stated he called the state demographer who put out the statistics to see if he could help, if he knew of any other places that were taking any similar action - that Fargo under commission with the Economic Development Commission, just completed a labor survey for them in 60-mile radius and had 9 focus groups of younger people about what they would do, whether wanted to stay and what it would take for them to stay - the briefing point is the summary on the web (www.fedc.com); that we spend over $1 million/year on economic development, whether we want to put some of that into things that will keep people here - not hopeless but need to take some action and would like to see task force with limited charge and time period to come back, hold public discussions, get public input and make some recommendations.

Council Member Gershman stated there are a few things happening may begin to answer some of this and E-mailed council members a synopsis of the Knight Foundation report that was held last week - the Knight Foundation has made a commitment to Grand Forks, which is one of the 26 Knight cities (where they have Knight Rider papers) and they have some nationally renowned economists that they are funding to come to Grand Forks (have been here for 2 meetings), interviewed over 40 people including Park District, School District, that they are going to be spending up to $1 million over the next 5 years in working with us on leadership development in the public and private sector, development for entrepreneurs, how do you get young people to start their business, to want to remain here, and will be looking at all of these things. The Economic Development Corp. last year commissioned a study on employment which addresses a lot of this and is an interesting report - and if the council wishes to form a task force to look at this, that’s good, but only criticism of it would be that we are already doing it in another form with nationally renowned professionals that know how to do this - this is Knight Foundation’s new initiate to raise the standard of living of the Knight communities and that is in higher wages and retention of people, etc. and they are committed to do that - that he is concerned that 1) we would be duplicating some of what they would do; 2) we would be gathering some information they’ve already gathered; and 3) the time factor, that one of the things that one of the economists stated was that the leadership in Grand Forks is burning out because we have too many committees, too many commitments and not enough people to do everything we’re trying to do - have a focus now which is an incredible opportunity for this city through Knight Foundation and should marshal our resources and go behind that one. Mayor Brown agreed.
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 5

Council Member Glassheim stated there are two things that are important in retention of young people and one is change in attitude among leadership to say that they care about this and the second is a hearing by young people in that age group is that leadership cares about them - doesn’t see this as conflict; that they’ve told us 23 things we need to do to make it easier for them to stay here - useful education for the city council and would be useful for people in that age group to be talking to somebody.

Mayor Brown stated that the Knight Foundation was initially seeking to evaluate our commitment to their program, was to evaluate our interest in our commitment and thinks it is growing and expect all of us to be invited and be involved.

2.5 Request from the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Department for final approval of a resolution and to adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City Code of 1987, as amended, amending Article 8, Comprehensive Plan, Section 18-0802, pertaining to the grand Forks-East Grand Forks, 2022 Transportation Plan Update, (2000 Bikeway and 1999 Pedestrian Elements, 2000 Transit Element, Year 2000 Street and Highway Element, and 2000 Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Comprehensive Plan Element), together with all maps, information and data contained therein. This item was deferred to the June 18, 2001 city council meeting._______________________________________________________________________
It was noted this item will be on the June 18 council agenda, and at that time you will be asked to continue your public hearing to the July 16 meeting and to include on the committee of the whole meeting for July 9 as there may be possibility of some changes in that item.

2.6 Mayor appointments to Board of Adjustments.
No comments.

2.7 Mayor appointments to Board of Appeals.
No comments.

2.8 Consideration of bids for City Project No. 5252, asbestos abatement and hazardous materials removal from the former Almonte Nursing Home.__________________________________
No comments.

2.9 Moving permit application to move the home from 4609 Loamy Hills Drive to 2401 South 36th
Street._______________________________________________________________________
2.10 Moving permit application to move the home from 97 Grassy Hills to 3597 28th Avenue South.
2.11 Moving permit application to move home from 4619 Loamy Hills Drive to 2449 S. 38th Street.
2.12 Moving permit application to move the home from 1515 10th Avenue N. to 1315 7th Avenue N.
Council Member Hamerlik asked if Inspections had notified neighbors within the required distance and if houses fit into those neighborhoods. Bev Collings reported applications had been submitted by Wally Rodgers to move houses from 4609 Loamy Hills Drive, 97 Grassy Hills and 4619 Loamy Hills Drive; however, she was informed that he did not receive the houses in bid (bids opened this afternoon at 2:00 p.m.) but that he did not contact her to pull those items and felt that we should proceed with the applications, as it does not mean that the houses could not go to those locations. She also stated that these houses fit well within the new neighborhoods. Council Member Hamerlik stated he didn’t feel comfortable to proceed if applicant did not receive the houses. Council Member Christensen stated this is an application for a moving permit and this is a public hearing, the applicant does not own the houses, and items should be pulled. Keith Lund, Urban Development, reported the first two houses, 4609 Loamy Hills and 97 Grassy Hills, are houses to be relocated from their existing location for flood control structure and bid opening was this afternoon; that bid for the house at 4619 Loamy Hills Place has not
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 6

occurred; and he believes it is Mr. Rodgers’ intention to determine whether the move on these structures is feasible and the neighbors will allow this to occur; and that the first two properties did go to other individuals. Mr. Swanson stated the application could be presented by the home owner, by the owner of the lot seeking to solicit homes to be relocated, or submitted by the actual entity or person that going to do the moving - three possible bases for the application. Mayor Brown stated they could clarify this within the week. It was noted that non-refundable fees are paid in advance.

Ms. Collings stated that item 2.12 is to move house from 1515 10th Avenue North to 1315 7th Avenue North, that this is a smaller house that was donated to Habitat for Humanity by a private individual, and is to be moved to a smaller lot and her concern is the size of the house but it meets Building Codes and well kept house.

Mayor Brown called for the public hearing on the applications for moving permits. There were no comments and the public hearings were closed.

2.13 RFP for sale/rehab of historic homes.
No comments

2.14 Special assessment district for City Project No. 5256, Dist. No. 88, Street Improvements for
24th Avenue North.__________________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman reported he distributed a letter from Jim Senske requesting the proposed improvements. Mr. Senske stated he has developed the property (60 acres and developed lots, platted and constructed road), that in 1995-96 installed water system and land owners participated in cost of the project. He also noted that when he started developing the property it was in the County and agreed to be annexed to the city because of fire protection, that he sold lots to various businesses but have terrible streets - that he received a letter last week from Mr. Grasser, city engineer, stating they would like to repair the streets in a manner he feels is a temporary repair - had wet fall and spring - have heavy truck traffic, and want concrete streets and are part of the city that does not have city sewers (septic tanks) and City Code says you cannot have septic tanks - that he has lost accounts because they needed a way to get rid of their wastewater and septic tanks don’t work very well because of high ground water. He stated they can’t get rid of high ground water because don’t have storm sewers (ditches that don’t drain). He stated he has talked with majority of landowners in the area and they are in favor of these improvements.

Mr. Grasser stated they looked at this area extensively and what it would take to develop infrastructure - sanitary sewer, storm and water throughout that subdivision, and the dollar numbers to do were very high - that they looked at bringing a sanitary sewer from a lift station over by Conte Luna, since then because of the flows that go into that lift station from Simplot, revised that and most cost effective way of serving the sewers in the Oscarville area is to put in a new sanitary lift station, which is not special assessed and paid through the sewer rates and is not on the CIP at this point in time. He stated that the whole area drains into a 12” storm sewer pipe which drains into a pump station and are lacking a storm sewer pump station - those have been special assessed. He stated they also looked at long term planning but leaving ditching system in there to act as holding pond so wouldn’t have to go with large storm sewer pipes and upgrading the lift station - the water is in the alleys and that’s also the place for the sanitary sewer. In addition, the street is extremely wet and silty - based on past history it appears without some sort of federal monies (EDA grant) that can help subsidize the project, it becomes very cost prohibitive on a special assessment basis, plus the City would have to budget a lift station - and with those considerations in mind they thought to help resolve the immediate problem of truck traffic not getting through, that 24th Avenue is main link and to bring that up to standards that could maintain traffic (installing fabric and 24” aggregate base) - and agrees that is not the permanent fix but buy some time - but seemed to be a
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 7

reasonable compromise to solving an immediate problem and yet not putting undue burden on there and hoping some sort of federal program will be able to be developed which could help.

Council Member Burke asked why these projects weren’t on the CIP and not put on there after annexation, and that those are the services that we provide. Council Member Kreun stated that the wishes of the property owners was to develop that very slowly because costs were so high and that was one of the reasons that wasn’t put in there - part of the problem is the septic system that keeps draining out and keeps ground water level so high and in order to prevent that will have to put in the sanitary sewer so the septic systems can be taken out and ground dried out, and then process the rest of the infrastructure before putting the street in. He also noted that property owners know there will be special assessments and extra cost to this even though we would try to find some other source of funding, and it will be a part of the responsibility of the landowners along with the City to accomplish this.

There was some discussion as to requirements for an EDA grant. Terry Hanson, Urban Development, reported that the streets have to belong to the City in order to put them in but in cases like the High Tech Park which is owned by the Aerospace Foundation, the streets belong to the City and were put in with EDA funds, same with Industrial Park. Council Member Gershman stated he would like to see us get a process moving that would begin to look for an EDA grant, ways to put all that infrastructure in there before putting a street in. Mr. Grasser noted that street improvements are protestable, and suggested that we create the district and would like to be able to offer that choice and have process where property owners can look at it, evaluate it, and determine if want it or not.

2.15 Request from the Building Inspections Department for preliminary approval and first reading of an
ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development Code, Chapter XIX of the Grand Forks City
Code Section 19-0101 related to the adoption of the Uniform Building Code adopted by reference;
adopted specifically related to changing permit fees._____________________________________
Ms. Collings, Inspections, reported information re. costs other cities are charging was 2 years old, and with our current rates, we’re 38% low (looked at Minot, Bismarck, Fargo, Jamestown, St. Cloud, East Grand Forks, Sioux Falls). She noted that there is an inspection associated with a permit; that found other communities have one fee schedule for commercial and residential combined which is almost equal to our commercial schedule, our residential schedule is about half of what our commercial schedule is. Additional revenue with increase in fees would be approx. $50-60,000/year and go into General Fund.

Council Member Bjerke stated that he disagrees with the City inspecting houses, that’s a private sector job. Council Member Christensen agreed, that for the City to engage in inspection of a home that’s going to be put up for sale for $90 and when does our responsibility as a government end - we’re inspecting it and may or may not have liability.

2.16 2-Year property tax exemption for new homes.
2.17 Affordable Housing Programs.
Council Member Kreun stated he and Mr. Hanson had the opportunity to bring this information to the School Board today because if this should happen to be approved, they are a large player in the taxes - abatements, programs.

Mr. Hanson presented programs they have in place and those proposing, proposed alternate funding sources that could contribute to these funding programs:
Bricks & Mortar Programs:
Infill Housing Program - utilizing the lots that the City owns as result of acquisition for flood protection purposes as well as other City-owned lots that City has acquired as result of delinquent
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 8

taxes from County. - Would propose to encourage affordable housing development by putting out an RFP to developers to include non-profit agencies and assist them if recipient of these homes is to be a low and moderate income family (LMI) with HOME or CDBG dollars and if owner is to be non-LMI would assist them through contribution of the lot or reduce price in the lot.
Single-Family Housing Rehab Programs - these programs operated through their office and operated one in last couple years utilizing HOME Funds with the Red River Valley Community Action Agency and they rehabed approx. 40-50 homes each year - have various programs suggested under this.
Owner Occupied Rehab Program) where assist current owners of housing that needs rehabilitation and that program is available to families of LMI people (LMI is 80% of the median income for that family size).
Acquisition program: many people can afford home payments but can’t afford to upgrade them or provide them with safe and decent sanitary housing or if any part of the home fails over the next few years, don’t have the money to repair, and propose a program in conjunction with an acquisition program where will help individual family buy the home and if house needs a new roof installed also provide them with the funding for that.
Emergency repair program: has been in the past a program provided for LMI families to repair on emergency needs (furnace, leaking roofs, or major component of the house, etc.)
Rental Rehab Program - which is a low interest loan to landlords and based on size of unit and most or all of it is required to be repaid.
LMI Rental Unit Creation - Proposing this program which City utilizes its resources in CDBG funds or HOME funds and becomes a facilitator with a developer that could use LMI tax credits or other funding sources as well as commercial lending to go back into older areas of town and redevelop portions of town and reducing need to expand infrastructure and have special assessments on the property.
Home Ownership Assistance Program - which includes a down payment and closing cost assistance and is funded with CDBG dollars and city council recently increased the assistance through this program from $2,500 to $5,000, and is eligible to LMI families. and are proposing a new program utilizing HOME dollars where assist families that are LMI, assist up to $15,000 in addition to the down payment closing cost assistance in second mortgage or buying down the principal amount of the first mortgage and making the homes more affordable to them, and have program authorized by HUD but not established in many communities yet - Section 8 Home Ownership Program where Section 8 voucher program can actually be used by those recipients of that assistance to buy a home rather than rent a home for up to the first 15 years and have to be a first time home buyer program, and can be used in conjunction with the State first time home buyer loan.
Tax Abatement on New Residential Construction - program being proposed up to the first $75,000 of the property value of a house for two years, and maybe expand on that and have for consideration of this body it not only abates taxes for the first $75,000 but have the City commit to funding a program for acquisition out of the remaining dollars that are received from those taxes on that property. He stated they would be trying to assist families in the 80% to 120% of the area median income. The CDBG and HOME dollars and other federal dollars can be used to assist families 80% and below but no program that can be funded with federal dollars that assists families with the purchase of their first home; and encouraging City to fund a program from tax dollars to assist those families that fall within 80% to 120% of the median income to buy their first home - to commit the tax revenue of all dollars from the new construction of homes towards this program. Another source of funding would be the revenue of the sale of any lots that the City now owns.
Tax Exemption on Rehabilitation - Some applications have come before council in the past few weeks and have to do with type of ownership, whether people with disabilities, but a program that allows a family that is rehabilitating their home an exemption for the first three years taxes if the improvements are at least $5,000 or 10% of the value and house has to be at least 25 years old, and are proposing that

Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 9

program be encouraged with all people coming in for a building permit and through other housing programs that the City now operates.
Proposal to develop an affordable housing development district - This came out of the study done in 1995-96 and presented to city council in April, 1997 - to develop an affordable housing development district, one or two, within the city and would allow for smaller lots, reduced R/W, alleys allowing for garages in the back of the house, property tax exemptions, blacktop streets rather than concrete curbs; that was adopted by the city council but ordinances were never changed to implement that program.
Funding Sources - for any program the council wishes to undertake are mainly for benefit of LMI are
CDBG Entitlement Funds; CDBG Program Income; HOME funds; Section 108 Loan Program which is a HUD program; issuance of City bonds; property tax exemption, property tax earmark, Low income housing tax credits, historic tax credits, renaissance zone, federal housing choice vouchers, City-owned lots; redevelopment for reutilization of existing infrastructure, FNMA (Fannie Mae) may have some programs and other commercial lenders have programs, and Federal Home Loan Bank has programs for the assistance of affordable housing to LMI families.

Mr. Hanson stated they are asking for an initial discussion of providing a well-rounded affordable housing program for the City of Grand Forks residents, and expect some input back and will develop any pro-grams that the city council directs them to develop but would like the input from the council on what to do.

Council Member Kreun stated that Grand Forks is running 47 to 50% homeownership, that the State of ND and region and nation running about 67%, that Grand Forks is in a competitive market and have tried to put together a package that covers spectrum of people in Grand Forks so something for just about everybody and want to be competitive in the market so can attract people into Grand Forks with jobs, businesses and with home ownership and help them want to live in Grand Forks, along with arts, greenway, etc. and put into package so that council can look at it, disect it and bring it back.

Council Member Gershman suggested this asks for a task force to sort out these programs and come back with recommendation and more of a structure.

Council Member Hamerlik asked if there was anyone who had updated information on number of units for sale in Grand Forks now, and asked for number of new construction starts in the city - Ms. Collings stated there are over 30 and going up every day.

Council Member Bakken stated they are talking about retaining our young people and growing our community, but scenario west of here is disturbing, lot of farms abandoned, small communities turning into elderly communities and their residents slowly disappearing, eventually the amount of people that we have to draw into this area is becoming less all the time, and trend hasn’t stopped yet, and will continue for the next few years; need to do everything we can now to retain as many as can before there’s nobody out there to retain.

Council Member Klave stated he was out east for builders conference, and every builder he talked with from all areas are looking at programs like this, that in ND building starts are down, and are working with the local governments as to how are we going to keep the people, what programs do we need to put in place, and seriously look to see if we can keep them in our community. He also noted that material costs since January of this year have increased 70% to build a house, there are 6 suppliers.

Council Member Kreun stated that normal starts in a year are 140 to 150 and are down somewhat, and would be willing to sit on that particular task force committee if they would desire and that if they look at
Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 10

the packages they put together tried to hit all the economic spectrums of the citizens so that everybody has something to benefit them in order to move to Grand Forks or to build a new home in Grand Forks or to move up so more existing homes for sale. He stated that the 80 to 120% median, that’s the ones they have to develop funding sources through our existing sale of lots or tax structure, etc. and that’s the one they want to direct a lot of attention to because those are the people that will buy existing homes in Grand Forks, and that opens up the lower affordable housing so that some of these other program can put into place as well.

Council Member Christensen stated that this body should establish policy and if this body is inclined to devote resources and staff time towards affordable housing, then staff should give us a definition of what is affordable housing, general guide lines of CDBG, various sources of funding available so we can focus on affordable housing - that we’re looking to council persons to do work when this knowledge is peculiar to Urban Development Department, and should give this department some broad guidelines as to what we would like to have accomplished and suggest having this by specific date, Urban Development should give us our options if committed to affordable housing and do that rather than voting on this on Monday.
Mayor Brown stated they will name that task force this week and to bring back by August 1.

2.18 Policy on rental of dry-side City-owned homes.
Council Member Kreun stated at this time we have requests for people that need houses for temporary period of time and would want to accommodate those people. Council Member Gershman stated that people who thought they were going to move a year from now, will have to move sooner, and some will make more than one move, and if we have anything in place to mitigate the cost of the two moves since we made a decision to accelerate the project. Mr. Hanson stated they will be reimbursed through the Uniform Relocation Act for one move, the second move will be up to them - 6 or 8 homes where pushing time - have had 5 owners in this situation contact their office asking for some kind of relief; they have 8 homes that are partial takes so not ready to be sold to the public as yet and homes are going to remain intact and the property will be subdivided and then sold; and would like to have council authorize them to lease them to the Phase II dike project homeowners, and would like council to give them authorization to, if needed, pull houses they currently have listed with the realtors off the market to make them available to these families that are affected by the increased timeline, and then pull the homes off the market as feel they are needed. He also stated they could forego a certain portion of the lease to cover the first relocation, and the rental rate is determined by the cost of the structure and amortized over 40 years at 4%. He noted that all notifications for any phase after this should be given ample time and we would provide these homes to the affected homeowners through December 31, 2002. Mr. Swanson stated their office is in charge of the acquisition program and some of the most difficult conversations are with those property owners that have been described in Phase II because they were anticipating an additional year, some still looking to relocate or acquire lots, to build, they are in a unique position from those in Phase I who were notified well in advance; stated he can identify 4 property owners that have had discussions with that are not in a position to move in the time frame that is being requested, and each of those are starting construction or have started or in negotiations of either moving houses or acquisition of lots - about 4 or 5 and maybe others they haven’t heard from yet.

Mayor Brown stated that the intent is to take care of these families and the homes that aren’t needed will be sold. Mr. Swanson stated the council needs to be aware that included in this proposed policy is the manner of tie breaker - which property owner has priority over another property owner - we do have 2 or 3 property owners where we have not yet received the appraisal back on, and those are farther behind in acquisition, and policy as presented has an inverse time relationship, the last person that we project getting offers will have the first opportunity for selecting a home if there are multiple people vying for the

Committee of the Whole/June 11, 2001/Page 11