Committee Minutes

MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Saturday, February 11, 1995 - 3:30 p.m.

Members present: Beach, Hanson.

1. Authorization for mowing bids.
Mr. O'Leary stated that each year they take bids for mowing of riverbank and mini-parks and are requesting authorization to do so. Moved by Hanson and Beach to authorize staff to call for bids as requested. Motion carried. (committee only)

2. Beautification application process.
Mr. O'Leary reported that each year they notify public when applications due on projects funded by the one mill levy for beautification, and that staff is recommending deadline of March 3, with review and hearing on applications by committee on March 11. Moved by Hanson and Beach to establish deadline for receiving applications as March 3. Motion carried.

3. Matter of transferring to the Growth Fund Authority assets
and obligations from the City of Grand Forks.
Mr. O'Leary reported they have two projects where Growth Fund recommended that the City or some entity take equity position in companies, assets are currently being held by the Grand Forks Economic Development Foundation, and staff and Economic Development Foundation are recommending that those assets be turned over to the Jobs Development Authority. He noted that this was referred by the city attorney and his recommendation is to authorize proper City officials to pursue that. He noted that two companies in which we have equity position are Matrix and Red River Crystal.

Moved by Hanson and Beach to instruct the city attorney to start process.

Dick Olson stated that as part of the agreement, he is on the Boards of those two companies, and is willing to give that up; they may want to consider using someone from the Growth Fund.

Motion carried.

4. Matter of EDA grant application.
Mr. O'Leary reported they were contacted by Mr. Grant, EDA rep. for North Dakota, and he suggested that City submit application for economic development project if we have one, and thinks we have two: two projects being considered by staff and Grand Forks Regional Economic Development Foundation are a new building for New Flyer, $3-3.5 Million project, and second project: not at liberty to discuss; and that we have about week to pursue grant application.

Mr. O'Leary reported size of ap. should be around $l-$1.2 Million for either one and need to resolve some bond issues and if resolved, then would be appropriate to pursue an application to

MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
February 11, 1995 - Page 2

EDA for building; that there are some other things going on with New Flyer that Mr. Olson may or may not want to talk about. He stated it is staff's request to ask council authorization to pursue those two projects in order they discussed with the authorization to Mr. Olson that if he sees that the number one priority falls through, that he is authorized to pursue EDA grant application for the other one. He stated that if don't get on council's next agenda, looking at another month before able to submit an application. He reported that the grant requires 50-50 match and under either proposal looking at doing some type of revenue bond to be guaranteed by the Growth Fund to match it, however, there's lien on building for the life building which requires City to maintain ownership and that requires us to build and lease back and at end of 20 years the City will own the building and no debt service on EDA portion.

Dick Olson asked if do second project, City probably wouldn't own building, could we use TIF for match; Mr. O'Leary stated we could. Mr. Olson stated he has had some news re. New Flyer and unlikely would use EDA grant on that; that he was informed Friday night that the building in Crookston New Flyer considering probably will be free and also some help on the bond from State of MN, and our proposal wouldn't be competitive.

Mr. Olson stated he is proposing that they submit proposal Monday to New Flyer, assuming using the EDA grant, but tell them that they would be faced with two levels of payments, and would expect would get prompt response, should know hopefully next week; and that if there is way to authorize them to proceed with the EDA grant on either/or basis and get to council would be appropriate. Mr. O'Leary suggested they should contact Mr. Grant next week and discuss developments and see if can use EDA for second project; and probably looking at special meeting on Tuesday, February 21.
5. Review and approval of the draft of the citizens participa-
tion plan.
Mr. O'Leary distributed copies of Citizen Participation Plan which outlines process that City uses to pursue CDBG money, and explains process of soliciting citizen participation; that Dept. of Housing and Urban Development came out with new guidelines of citizen participation, which have some specific changes; one of which is to have citizens committee, to hold public hearing and notice to the public to solicit suggestions from the public and also requires CDBG plan which ranks housing and community development needs by priority. He stated that this plan is one which is in effect and Sue Redman drafted new plan: and reviewed major changes: 1) new plan requires City to avoid displacement; 2) in the plan all needs of community prioritized as a low, medium or high priority for housing, homeless, battered women, etc. and this plan says that we will not fund a project that has
a lower priority than medium or high; 3) that now don't look at
MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
February 11, 1995 - Page 3

projects less than $10,0000 and removed that, because we've lumped together Community Needs Program and CDBG and under Community Needs Program we look at projects less than that, that originally had included because of administration burden; and staff recommending removal of the $10,000 floor from aps.; and 4) that there are many references in new plan to the consolidated plan and some have to do with public hearing process, citizen's advisory committee, and some with general discussion of the consolidated plan. He reported further that the consolidated plan is a requirement of HUD, that the City looks at all their community development needs in the city and that we prioritize them, that we look at concentrations of where low income people live, where poverty is, where substandard housing, etc.; that the idea is to do only one plan to cover all HUD activities; that we only have two HUD programs - Home Program and this one; only one block grant, CDBG; we do get other funds - Section 8 assistance; and reference to money City passes through to the Mission; that consolidated plan is blueprint of how to deal with all HUD programs) He stated that the committee may want to read over and if meets with their approval, consider at next meeting.

Mr. O'Leary reported that this is only one section of plan (to do with citizen participation) and reason looking at this is that by the middle of March will be starting to meet as citizen participation committee and should have plan in place to govern what going to be doing with that committee.

He reported that they are changing fiscal year and will be going through same process again in the fall and the fiscal year will start January 1 rather than June 1.

Mr. O'Leary also reviewed history of citizens committee (each ward appointed two people, and HUD continued to add to that - reps. of low income, elderly, business, minorities, etc. and as interest group added committee kept growing and at one point 28-30 people on committee; now down to more manageable size of about 15-20; there is at lease one representative from each ward, and it is important to have minority reps., etc.; there's continuity on that committee, they look at projects funded for several years and hold group accountable, there is some advantage of new members.

Hanson asked for list of comm. members; Mr. O'Leary stated that listing of members and policy in book of project applications. Mr. O'Leary stated this is for committee's review.

6. Matter of city flag.
Mr. O'Leary distributed copies of flag design, and that question had been raised as to what date should appear on the flag: 1870 post office established, 1874, 1878 est. as village or 1881 when city incorporated, and that Council Member McCabe's

MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
February 11, 1995 - Page 4

recommendation was to use either the 1870 or 1881 date. There was some discussion re. use of 1870 date with "Grand Forks North Dakota" when this was part of Dakota Territory until 1889 when statehood took place; inclusion of Le Grande Fourches when settlement established by French fur traders rather than Grand Forks, which is angloized version of the name.

Moved by Beach and Hanson that we modify flag design to indicate 1870 as date and delete word "est." Motion carried.

7. Budget transfers.
No transfers.

Meeting adjourned.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 2/11/95.