Committee Minutes

MINUTES/FINANCE/DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:00 p.m.______________

Members present: Christensen, chair; Glassheim, Hamerlik, Gershman.
Also present were: John Schmisek, Cindy Voigt, Greg Hoover, Keith Lund, Terry Hanson, Rick Duquette, Wayne Lembke.

(Please Note: The Finance/Development Committee has tentatively scheduled meetings of the committee for the first and third Wednesdays of each month until at least June, IF staff thinks there should be a meeting to discuss issues before taking to COW) (Details at end of minutes)

1. Sorlie Bridge lighting.
Chairman Christensen stated issue is whether we want to approach lighting on bridge before World Juniors. Hamerlik asked if we have money or how paid for; and it was noted that in the 2004 budget there is a $300,000 line item, 2163, which were monies set aside from sales tax dollars for the first marketing for Canad Inn and doesn't appear that Canad Inn will be using that money in 2004. Hamerlik stated they won't be waiting for the hotel to be built before they start advertising, and if partially the Alerus, Engelstad Area and City of Grand Forks who make up whole communication marketing link, some of it maybe necessary. Christensen stated they have other issues as a council dealing with what is going to happen on February 9 assuming we are in favor of granting an abatement - that even if there are people who think they have a design on that money aside from the Canad Inn folks, be it the Alerus or Engelstad - there still is a carryover in 2163 - about $1 million. He stated there is pressure that is being placed on the City for the Juniors - security issues, inside security issues where police and fire departments will have to add additional overtime; and if we light the bridge, can it be done between now and December 1, 2004.

Gershman stated he is in favor of lighting the bridge, those type of amenities are interesting and is one of two spanned bridges like that left in the state and historic value to it, and if decide to do it - $230,000 - this is a cost issue and get estimates - and see if we would have the ability to do a thematic thing - have lens so change the color of the bridge - and put forth as an idea for consideration.

Mr. Duquette stated he and Mr. Schmisek looked at different options for the committee to consider- and under budget viable but also look at 2169 which is carryover for infrastruc-ture as well - $2.8 million and would fit definition of infrastructure. The city auditor also suggested betterment money as funding source - there is lighting within the greenway projects and have done other things to beautify the areas and this might quality.

Glassheim asked if they have CIP to compare what spending money on, what foregoing, whether East Grand Forks paying something for it, HUD funds, other sources, Noted not CDBG funds, asked for more detail, process and plan. Need to get estimates re. cost.

Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated they need to make contacts with East Grand Forks, lot easier if East Grand Forks came on board for portion of cost. There was some discussion and question as to cost of engineering estimates - $10-13,000 - have to know costs before doing it. Gershman suggested they contact companies that sell lighting for bridges, and doesn't understand spending $10-13,000 on engineering fees to hang lights on a bridge. Ms. Voigt stated she would stand by the numbers -only going to go up - that she talked to EGF Light Dept. and they have a preliminary estimate on what it would cost to get feed point under their dike - $30,000; and also noted there would have to be approval from federal agencies and that drives engineering up. Gershman stated there is another option, that Grand Forks and East Grand Forks both put up high powered lights and light it from the outside so not need federal approval for that, and get an estimate for that.

Christensen stated they would like study and direct engineering department to work with the City of East Grand Forks, and should get a report back as quick as we can and incorporate Mr. Gershman's idea of not having extensive lighting project that DLG envisioned but work towards a lighting project for the bridge so have it lit for the Juniors.

Ms. Voigt suggested they take it to council to choose consultant as they went through RFP process, make a selection and get an agreement to prepare option, give cost and might spend $10,000 and then have real numbers and formal presentation of all they can do within timelines and bring back to council and go forward after that with final plan - whatever option you pick, is still tight. It was noted that the DLG has a report on this. Gershman stated if they need a council person there, he would volunteer his time for any meetings with East Grand Forks.

Gershman asked if Ms. Voigt and reps. from this committee could meet with DLG and ask if they looked at external lighting and if they would approve that because cost now $230,000, etc. Christensen stated we are running out of time and they don't have any money and have given us idea and report and now see how much of that idea and report we can afford and would like to get staff on it. Gershman stated he would rather have an hour meeting with DLG and let them know realities; communicate with them and start on it. Glassheim suggested asking staff to contact laser people and let us know what could be done with lasers. Christensen also stated may have portable situation and use for several weeks and have available for the Juniors - temporary light - and asked Ms. Voigt for some type of resolution or report in the packet. Ms. Voigt stated she could get informational item.

2. Joint Powers Agreement - City of Grand Forks and Grand Forks Housing Authority.
Greg Hoover, Urban Development, reported that Howard Swanson, city attorney, is reviewing this and expects to be done in next couple weeks. He stated that in working with Mr. Hanson, Director of Housing Authority, have put together this document which is more of an agreement of who does what and who is responsible for and addresses an issue he found perplexing when he first came here - that they share staff, facility, equipment and have City staff who work under contract for the HA and this says how they will be handled with respect to supervisory responsibilities, job performance reviews, etc. and also indicates that they will use the HR Department and recruiting except for the executive director position which is solely in the purview of the HA Board; that it indicates that when it comes to issues specifically related to housing, the HA will be the lead agency in doing those types of projects and in dealing with state legislation, federal legislation re. housing they will continue to interact with those and continue to be a partner in attempting to do housing projects in the community because the resources that come to their office, UD, a number can be used for housing projects and also have some administrative responsibility in tracking on the affordable housing districts and that is what the agreement attempts to do. It formalizes what is already happening.

Joan Johnson, member of the Housing Authority Board, stated Mr. Hoover has worked on this draft and draft is workable document and waiting for Howard's comments.

Christensen asked why a joint powers agreement is needed now when haven't had one for x years.
Terry Hanson, Housing Authority, stated it was recommended a couple years ago when a study was done of the HA and during the study, realized what was going on in the office that they had city employees and city functions and HA employees and HA functions and had City employees during housing functions and vice versa and confusion unless understand the organization - and it was the recommendation of the study that there should be a contract between the two entities on how the office will run. Back in 1984 when John O'Leary was hired as the executive director of Urban Development he came on board at the same time as HA under the roof of the city and brought in Office of Urban Renewal because his position was replacement of Royce LaGrave who passed away. Through the many years that John was here and Ken Donarski was here and the subsequent Housing Director, Joel Manske, there was a relationship built between the department heads that was comfortable relationship so department was able to function without an agreement, what the study pointed out to the HA Board was what if somebody leaves who function so well today and replaced by somebody outside, and what happens then and want to keep the relationship going and want to have UD and HA continue to function as they have and have an agreement of how the offices are going to function and don't duplicate efforts and have the same goals in line - clients are the same - LMI people of the community and community development. He stated that the HA Board agreed to draft a document that works for both and help them work together along with council, etc. and to carry out the same mission as they have the same mission statement. The property - entire block is owned by the Housing Authority and pass on to the City fees for the operation of the building to cover utilities (no taxes) - don't charge rent to the City but do itemize line item and expense costs into the budget for CDBG and for Economic Development that they pass onto the Housing Authority to cover some of the operating costs. Housing Authority was picking up dike assessments as they don't pass that on.

Christensen asked how the City would work together with the Housing Authority assuming we wanted to start another urban renewal project in this community re. LMI housing and Urban Development Office is in charge of developing the urban area, design the areas.
He noted that the agreement states it shall continue in effect until mutual consent of both parties - but when one party chooses to get out of an agreement they should have the right to get out upon certain notice and then it is discontinued. Mr. Hoover stated that was why they sent this to Mr. Swanson.

Mr. Hanson stated re. a new urban renewal by the City, the Housing Authority is actually a housing and redevelopment authority, that he has tried to look through NDCC legislation that authorizes redevelopment authorities but unable to find and that an urban renewal or redevelopment effort would be within their office and that is moving ahead, that they have talked about a redevelopment issue downtown and if that took place that would require a lot of effort from both sides of the hallway. He stated that the NDCC that gives Housing Authority authorization also gives HA the legal authority to do a lot of things that are involved in redevelopment or urban renewal - they can condemn and take property as well.

Christensen stated that inasmuch as they have an independent agency called the Housing Authority and have City of Grand Forks and Urban Development Office, but wondering why need two doing the same and why couldn't consolidate and not sure if a lot of the functions for housing shouldn't be with the Housing Authority and we would get out of housing authority, trying to simplify so work together rather than you meet separately on your projects and we meet separately on ours and they sometimes go across the hall and talk to each other - not formalize what we currently have is what we want to have 5 years from now or what could we do better.

Mr. Hoover stated that based on his experience what he intended to see is where you have truly stand alone organizations like Urban Development or Community Development organization and Housing organization, they tend to go their own ways or a single agency dealing with all of those issues because in community this size he didn't think they would be doing much in the way of urban renewal without some housing function in it and when doing housing you're going to have to do some of the urban things. and putting to rest the notion of doing or operating in isolation, that he and Mr. Hanson get together once a week to talk about projects, issues and coordinate those things and facilitate what the other is doing - the intercity project has involved a significant amount of ground field development and final use would be a housing project.

Joan Johnson stated the model they have been operating under between Housing and Urban Development Office is the model that everyone else in this country is trying to move toward right now, and the relationship and leverage they get by combining both supercedes the independent operation and need to have that in the community to develop LMI housing and other things that go right along with it because there has to be a public/private partnership in the country for that to happen, there is nobody out there doing private development of LMI housing; and rather than destroying what we have, are trying to put an agreement into place to continue this relationship and continue being on the cusp in this country and do the best we can to eliminate the duplicity of services and spending of funds.

Christensen stated when he sees duplication and wonders if duplication is best or simplification and doesn't know what can be simplified but appreciates the agreement, waiting for Mr. Swanson's comments.

Glassheim stated UD gets the HUD money, $600,000, and some of the projects and administered by Urban Development staff and there is all kinds of housing monies, home buyers monies and other project oriented things and how would that change, go automatically to the HA or would they be an outside agency that would apply with everybody else or would UD Department no longer do that and require staff cuts in UD - have had $200,000 to $250,00/year in housing projects through U.S. and HUD money and what happens to that based on this.

Mr. Hanson stated that a year ago they received a grant from HUD to fund a family self-sufficiency home ownership coordinator, that individual today is administering the down-payment closing costs for the City that is going through the UD Office and American Dream Program and is a HA employee - and frees up the other person's time to actually tackle the other cases in her office which include creating a neighborhood revitalization strategy area and other things that are necessary to do plus write grant applications, etc. that are beneficial to the City and to their office, and not sure would eliminate people; that over the last 15 years that he has been with the City, they have all shared these responsibilities in their office.

Mr. Hoover stated whether all housing would come under the purview of the HA, that they will continue to work together because projects aren't going to operate in isolation, will begin to work on Promenade, inner-city projects, etc. and any other large project have to get together and figure out how best to use the resources they have, whether CDBG, HOME or whether HA goes out for bonds will have to have coordinated approach to do that. He stated they did eliminate a number of staff this past budget and would not foresee that happening, and if didn't have cooperative relationship we would likely bring on additional staff in UD or figure out some other way of managing their loan portfolio for JDA projects and economic development loans, now their accounting people are doing that and will transition that to a staff who is currently doing receipts of the monthly payments for the HA rents and taking that function on because of cooperative relationship.
Mr. Duquette stated he was involved in the study that reviewed the organization and essentially these two organizations are sharing resources (staff, equipment, facility) to the betterment of both of those organizations to a cost savings to both organizations and this joint powers agreement establishes what their relationship looks like, and from administrative staff makes sense to have that and hope look favorably on it as it moves towards city council - doesn't see any need to recreate or redo something because they are on the cusp of what the rest of the country is trying to do.

Glassheim stated he understood they used to be on the cusp when both together in one agency and that is what was admired nationally because really amalgamated together in UD and that was admired all over the country rather than this new development… Mr. Hanson and Mr. Duquette stated there is no difference but only putting relationship on paper that has existed. Ms. Johnson stated that it has more to do with the employees because of the shared responsibilities in case there is a personnel problem you have guidelines.

Mr. Hanson stated one of the documents that is required to be put out by the City is the Consolidated Plan and is a 5-year plan of the City for community development, and they are supposed to address not just CDBG funds and not HUD dollars but supposed to address other sources of revenue, city issues such as economic development, dike, infrastructure and addresses all parts of the city; and that document is prepared every 5 years and every year the city council approves an annual plan attached to it and that is what spend the CDBG entitlement money to in the program income funds every year and HUD requires that any activity that is done within the UD Office is included and is outlined in the consolidated plan, and HUD also requires that anything that HA does addresses an issue that is addressed in the same consolidated plan so the two agencies have to have consensus on the development of that consolidated plan and that has happened over the years because of the relationship they have within the department and this is just trying to solidify that because you do get new people in so they understand this is the agreement between the two entities that is going to be looked upon and considered as one entity because they are all in there for the good of the community.

Christensen stated no offense to the HA, but would be curious what we get as a city when we engage in a relationship with the HA that we can't have without it - that because they are asked to ratify that which has gone on in the past for many years just because it has

but would like to know and has asked staff, Mr. Hoover or Mr. Lund, to tell us what we can't do as a City that the HA does for us, but if going to have consolidated effort he would like to know that before ratifying that which already exists if it could be done better rather than having this overlap and who is the boss and who is accountable - would know who is accountable, Mr. Hoover or Mr. Hanson, then have those lines and don't need fuzzy lines that a joint powers agreement gives you - not to say that we won't do this but wants to know what we get that he couldn't have if UD was in charge. He will also check statutes.

3. Update on Renaissance Zone.
Christensen stated they have conversations going on about Grossman Block and also about changing the Renaissance Zone from what staff had proposed to the south rather than going towards the University and in speaking with a staff person it was suggested that the Renaissance Zone should incorporate the area behind the Pepper - that we continually talk about affordable housing and revitalization of this community and the near northend is getting left behind because of how our community is developing to the south and southwest and have to start to think about revitalizing the northend of Grand Forks. He stated he put this before the group here but this is something we have to address and hope that by part of that will get ideas about a northend urban development project or projects but have to focus on that and will be a several year project - 3 to 7 year project and have to know what we can get done, know where get the money, know what we can get developed and knows they have Promenade out there, but wondering what do for the near northend of Grand Forks, affordable housing and help the people here because these are the starter homes and if don't start giving particular attention to this area of the city (down to 13th) we are going to have problems 10 and 15 years out and will be school closing but if keep people here will alleviate some of those problems and have collective problem here, and that is his agenda.

Mr. Hoover stated that Meridith Richards has had primary responsibility for renaissance zone and has been working closely with the Planning staff and also beginning to map out the adj. blocks, not just those initially proposed, but ones along University to the north side, mapping out buildings, ownership, zoning and undertake a windshield survey of the area and will be meeting within next couple weeks to put together a more firm timeline when they will complete these milestones and report back to the committee.

Gershman stated he applauds the idea and maybe 7 or 10 year plan, that having lived on the north end always felt that everything went south, when look at the hotel complex it is there with new retail, and feeling of being left behind and would propose that this initiative really warrants a task force that would focus on it and find out what funds and programs there are and block it out.

Mr. Hanson stated it is an on-going project, not a 10-year project and that is the reason they did propose the inner-city redevelopment because it is time to quit moving the city south, that he had a discussion with the southend developers and they didn't disagree with him, every time you run another mile of infrastructure going south it costs a lot of money, that we already have the infrastructure here, not just streets, sewer and water but schools and other infrastructure that is already up and developed, but under utilized or substandard and its blighted areas and that is why go in and pick a block or half block and start renovating, redeveloping and using it over again; there are programs available through their offices, CDBG funds, HOME funds and other HUD dollars they can use to redevelop these downtown areas, that they can't make a renaissance zone big enough or as big as it should be but can have other programs in that area and already thinks you have a task force and that is HA, the City can have their vision of what needs to be done but the city council can't have every duty or responsibility out there so hand it off to task forces, hands marketing off to the CVB or Chamber of Commerce, hand Alerus Center off to the Alerus Center Commission, economic development to EDC and housing issues and redevelopment issues hand off to the HA or Urban Development Office and if directly housing related hand off to the HA and that is what trying to accomplish here and that they have done that in their office in the last 20 years and to let them continue doing it; but he is very receptive to revitalizing the inner-city, they have a large investment in downtown now and it was needed, and now have to move out and bring people back downtown and do that by redevelopment and revitalizing.
Gershman stated that many of those people who live in those homes would like to upgrade and renovate their homes but don't know what programs we have for them, don't want to move, some will when get affordable housing that will free up some of those homes and new money will come in and do it and maybe just a rejuvenated focus, but these people need to know that there are programs there and there is a new focus in Grand Forks or a renewed focus - but if have targets or an area and timeline looks good.

Christensen stated he would like a little more formal structure because he wants to begin focusing on some of the long range planning issues and would like to do that in 2004, at least until June.

There was some discussion by the committee RELATING TO HOLDING MEETING OF THE FINANCE/DEVELOPMENT STANDBY COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAYS TWICE EACH MONTH UNTIL AT LEAST JUNE - MEETINGS ON FIRST AND THIRD WEDNESDAYS IF STAFF THINKS THERE SHOULD BE A MEETING TO DISCUSS ISSUES BEFORE TAKING TO COW - committee members to hold those dates open.

Glassheim stated he liked the chairman's idea of setting aside that time and having it on the calendar and if nothing to discuss that is fine, but wanted some ways of getting staff and council to be talking about things before they come to the COW because can still get additional information, but the point is not to have four people sit down and do it, even if do it right, but to have the discussion going on so people know what meetings are about.

Hamerlik stated this is departure from the way the two committees were set up and going back to the original purpose of four standing committees, dropping down to two, and really dropping down to one, where all things go before a committee before it goes to council, not disagreeing but has come to the conclusion that maybe 14 was better than 7 and 4 committees better than 2 standby committees because we were only supposed to get what needed to go to a standby committee and now realizing that probably need to have some discussion before it even goes to COW so that is back to the standby committees.

Gershman stated that the COW structure has been working very well but when there are special issues that need to be addressed the standby committees discuss it and thinks the community is more engaged and all council people are more engaged, more aware of everything that is going on than when it was in committees. Glassheim stated he feels he is less engaged and less aware than ever before, that he has no idea of what is going on and involved in no discussions, more stuff is done privately rather than in public discussion, communication between council and staff has been forted and doesn't feel very involved but if everyone else is fine with it, he is one vote and not sure we have to resolve that now, but the proposal here is for selected items that may require some council staff mediation or ideas that are in the formative period.

Rick Duquette stated he would add that this idea be discussed with the other 3 council members as well so they have a sense of direction and to be aware of the idea. Hamerlik stated that the minutes of the other 3 council members be high-lighted and emphasized so they are aware.

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk