Committee Minutes

MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, November 27, 1996 - 4:00 p.m.

Members present: Beach, Polovitz.

1. Matter of River Forks Commission application to Minnesota Design Team for consideration of a MDT visit in the fall of
1997 for generating ideas and an overall vision for down-
town and riverfront areas.
Gary Christianson, Riverforks Commission, was present. It was stated they are looking for letter supporting visit of this team, with expenses out of the Riverforks budget. Mr. O'Leary reported that the mayor had expressed support and hope that committee would concur with the request. Moved by Polovitz and Beach that the City draft a letter of support adopting Minnesota Design Team concept. Motion carried.

2. 1997 Beautification Program schedule.
Curt Siewert reviewed schedule for annual beautification funding, that notice will be published, applications are sent to all past recipients of the funds or anyone who has contacted their office, and that he will visit with Beautification Com- mittee of the Chamber of Commerce. He stated they will submit applications to the committee for review. Moved by Polovitz and Beach to adopt the 1997 Beautification schedule as presented. Motion carried.

3. Review of 1997 promotion applications (public hearing to be
held on Wednesday, December 11, 1996)
Mr. O'Leary submitted copies of preliminary staff recom- mendations, that they have $70,000 to distribute and have received applications totaling $191,647.00; that this program becoming more popular in the city, some applications in the opinion of staff didn't meet criteria of the promotional program, that the staff recommendation that went out to the committee was based on the $70,000 as well as a recommendation that committee may want to consider on limiting the amount given to any single applicant at $7,000 (that this is different than what done in the past where some applicants have received as much as $13-15,000), reason set $7,000 is that it's 10% of the total promotional budget, by limiting would be able to promote wider variety of projects and use as seed money rather than sole source of funds for particular program, or continue program as in past and pick best out of the applications. He reported that some of these projects do not address what promotional program about but is another source of income for non-profits, ie., NVAC stabiliza- tion program, which is administrative money, and shouldn't get in position where funding day-to-day administrative costs to some of these organizations. He noted that this is only recommendation from staff and committee to think about.

Chairman Beach noted that the $70,000 is a line-item in the city budget, purpose of the program included in the information sent to committee and asked if strictly applied criteria, would some

MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
November 27, 1996 - Page 2

applications be excluded. (Criteria: 1) promote the city of Grand Forks as a trade, service, recreation, tourism, or manufacturing center; 2) expand the cultural opportunities of the city; 3) promote the health and safety of the citizens; and 4) promote the development or preservation of the city's natural, historical or physical resources.) Mr. O'Leary stated he thought it would perhaps affect Ap. #'s 3 (NVAC stabilization support), 4 (Listen Center festival of trees), #5 (Nina Kulikov KOSMOS - Teen Cafe) and #19 GF Youth Committee (U-Design It); that these pro- jects worthwhile efforts but better fall under Human Needs Pro- gram rather than Promotional Program. Committee also mentioned that might also apply to Winship School crossing guard, Crime- stoppers, GF Substance Abuse and Traffic Safety Council's com- munity traffic safety program ; and probably recommend that this go to different program. Mr. Beach stated they perhaps should pay attention to what council does with loan request by GF Varmints (#9 request for prepaid ticket promotion); and that some of these programs hit us from different directions. Mr. O'Leary stated that after this process, committee may want to take another look at criteria for promotional program, how define promotion and type of project and measure results.

After further discussion and review of the applications, the committee set time of the public hearing on Wednesday, December 11, at 3:00 p.m. Committee stated they felt uncomfortable establishing cap at this time with one committee member absent. It was noted that allocation of funds would be made the day of the public hearing.

4. Budget amendments/transfers.
Terry Hanson reviewed budget amendments/transfers:
a) Urban Development - $92,477.00
Mr. Hanson reviewed amendment to increase budget for rental rehab. funds received from HUD, funds carried over to 1996 and this sets up that budget, funds obligated.

(It was noted that only budget amendments are required to have committee/council approval - transfers handled administratively)

Transfers:
b) Urban Development (Economic Development fund) - $$3,029
Transferring funds between line items to cover expenses to year's end.
c) Urban Development (Housing Authority Admin.) - $25,112
Transferring funds to cover costs for transfer of temporary employees to full-time employees - job-share position)
d) Urban Development - $1,450
Transferring funds in CDBG projects account, fund that pays all but administration, to cover additional expenses (salaries charged to CDBG project).
e) Urban Development - $20,298

MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
November 27, 1996 - Page 3

Mr. Hanson reported that CDBG Admin. is authorized to expend 20% of annual grant allocation towards administration; covers transfer from temporary to permanent wages, to adjust items within budget, under-estimated).
f) Urban Development - $47,282
Transfer funds to reflect department through which projects were funded (riverbank, flood emergency project) It was noted that they have not been reimbursed by FEMA and if are not reimbursed by FEMA, come to City for funds)

Moved by Polovitz and Beach to approve the budget amendment. Motion carried.

5. Change order on Cirrus building project.
Mr. Siewert reviewed change order in the amount of $3,624.00, change in electrical contract to get off peak heating and changing some lighting fixtures at front entry walkway from parking lot, deducts for fire pump wiring, etc.; architect has signed off on the change order, does not know if work done. Committee asked that architect provide break-out of change order costs in the future. Moved by Polovitz and Beach to approve the change order. Motion carried.

6. Matter of funding for remodeling Nodak building.
Mr. O'Leary reported they are in the process of remodeling the Nodak building (Nodak behind in their building schedule by about month so former Nodak building won't be available for Urban Development until middle of March). He reported that they will be changing front entry of building to make more convenient to parking area for elderly clients, employees, and avoid street parking in residential area, etc.; that they received bids today. He reported that they had estimated cost of remodeling (incl. painting, carpeting, etc.) at $50,000; but because of changes they found out later that they need to make, est. cost of improvements at $85,000 ($61,500 general contractor, $17,000 for floor covering, $5,000 moving expense and $1,500 computer wiring). It was noted that this is a 12,000 sq.ft. building and renovation costs approx. $7.00 sq.ft.) He reported that there will be some areas of building where they will not re-carpet because of bids received and have eliminated number of things at est. cost of $10,000; that Housing Authority can come up with $10,000, which leaves $20,000, that he believes they are justified in taking from CDBG for handicapped accessibility (also widening hallways, etc.) and they are requesting an additional $20,000 out of CDBG Program to make changes. He noted that funding sources for the project would be as follows: Housing Authority, $30,000, Community Development, $10,000, CDBG Accessibility, $15,000 which have already been approved, and proposed funding as follows: Housing Authority, $10,000 and CDBG Accessibility, $20,000. He noted that in agreement between Housing Authority and City, Housing Auth. will maintain building, MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
November 27, 1996 - Page 4

snow removal, utilities, etc. Mr. O'Leary reported that funds available in account because didn't use all admin. money (shortened fiscal year - 5 mo. admin. monies not used), that they are asking for $20,000 of those monies, $25,000 would still go to projects. He also noted that if Housing Authority should ever go out of business, building would belong to the City.

Moved by Polovitz that we authorize an additional $20,000 from CDBG Contingencies to the Nodak Accessibility Project; seconded by Beach. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated 11/29/96.