Working Session
MAYOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - - 5:00 p.m.
A101
Present:
Mayor Brown, Gershman, Glassheim, Kreun, McNamara.
Absent:
Bakken, Brooks, Christensen.
Others: Greg Hover, Meredith Richards, Wally Helland, Al Grasser, Brad Gengler, John Packett, Todd Feland, several community members.
Gershman called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
Matter of Special Purpose Grants.
Richards stated that there are regranting programs that the City has in place: Beautification, Special Events, The Arts, and CDBG, which is broken down between Bricks and Mortar and Public Service. Richards gave a brief history of each of the programs and how the way they are administered has changed from their inception to the present process.
Hoover explained that the model used by the North Valley Arts Council for their regranting of the arts money has worked very well and they would be in favor of using a model similar for the other funding programs, with each being directed to an appropriate outside group for administration. He continued that they would propose using the Chambers Beautification Committee for the Beautification Program, CVB for the Special Events Program, continuing with the United Way administering the CDBG Public Service Program, and the Citizen Advisory Committee for the CDBG Bricks and Mortar Program. He commented that he understands that in some areas Council has expressed a concern over putting some guidelines on the regranting for the groups, such as for the CAC, asking they put a priority on housing or neighborhood redevelopment which are also staff supported priorities. Hoover stated that he also supports Urban Development keeping beginning to retain a 5% administrative fee for those programs that they continue to provide administrative support for, with the fee being used to offset expenses for the program such as office supplies, photocopying, and staff time.
Richards stated that the staff is looking to have each program administered in the most effective, efficient, and evenhanded process possible and believe that the proposed model will accomplish that. Hoover stated that in the past there has been some leeway whereby Council could access some of the funding for particular projects if they so desired, such as when some of the Beautification funds were used to relocate the Flood Memorial that used to be where the Brownstones are now being constructed and the request that this year $30,000 be set aside to use for Holiday Decorations. He stated that there has also been a request from Council for $15,000 to be retained to paint the walls in front of the salvage yards and that then we would just administratively regrant the remaining funds and that control could be lost if we give fully to an outside agency.
Gershman commented that regarding the salvage walls he is in favor of getting that done as soon as possible, since discussions have taken place for the last years, but still nothing is in progress to improve the situation.
Gershman inquired if anyone has expressed concern over the evenhandedness of the processes as they have been done in the past. Hoover said there have, in particular with the Beautification Program. The group discussed that these comments may have come from some other governmental entities that have applied to this process in the past and had their requests denied, but it is the opinion of some Council members that these funds should not be granted to a taxing entity that has access to tax dollars and other funding sources of their own to complete their projects.
Hoover commented that he is sensing that there is no objection to continuing with the current process with NOVAC regranting the arts program and United Way regranting the Public Service CDBG funds, but that Council may want to discuss the process for the other programs. McNamara responded that he feels since the money being granted is public tax dollars that Council should get a report and approve it prior to the funds actually being distributed. Hoover clarified that the NOVAC process has not included this step, so that will be changed to include a report to Council. Gershman cautioned that when the groups involved know that Council is going to approve the allocation they will start lobbying Council if their requests have not been funded at the level they are comfortable with. McNamara stated that as Council it is still their responsibility to receive a report and approve it since public dollars are involved.
Glassheim stated that he didn’t know whether a report from NOVAC would be needed, but could be done if some want it. He inquired whether there was concern with the special events program being given to the CVB to administer and with a representative from The Ralph being on the review panel. He stated that sports have so much support in this community and would hate to see too much emphasis put on that to the extent that other events though possibly smaller but still beneficial to the community could be overlooked and not get funding and maybe need a committee that is not all sports oriented.
The group discussed that perhaps they would like to retain administration of the special events program and also that the beautification could either be retained or given to the Chamber with parameters set such as no taxing entities eligible to apply and also stipulation that the City may choose to restrict the area that funds could be used or retain some of the funds for special projects that the Council has set a priority on and then let the Chamber committee award the rest. Regarding the CDBG bricks and mortar funds, the group discussed that there have only been a couple of times where the Citizen Advisory Committee’s recommendation has been changed by Council and that the Council could tell the Committee in advance if we have a special need and will then retain those funds and then the Committee would allocate the rest.
Mayor Brown inquired whether we could just set the dollar amount at 1 mill instead of the current value so it would grow as the community grows. Gershman stated that currently the amount grows based on sales tax collection increases and that if we change it to be equivalent to a mill then would be based on property tax, which may not be the proper basis. Kreun commented that the money used in fund 2169 and 2163 comes from sales tax, whereas 2199 is CDBG, Home Program, and other grants. Kreun expressed that he has a concern that sometimes the committees allocating the money under both the bricks and mortar program and the public service program may not see the same needs in the community that we see, in particular for the CDBG population. Glassheim responded that with CDBG funds there are some prohibitions and on uses for the funds. Kreun replied that he would like to see the CDBG funds used to pay infrastructure replacement costs in LMI neighborhoods so that they don’t get special assessed and come out of peoples pockets that can’t afford it. Richards responded that this may or may not work, depending on the exact case. Kreun gave the example of curb box replacements and that if they could have been funded from this source, then people would not have had that large out of pocket bill, as we usually found out that they needed to be replaced because the customer was already struggling with not paying the utility bill and now they have this added expense. Kreun continued that this type of project does not come through the allocation committee as a need in the community, but to those affected it can be a major need. Glassheim responded that then the case needs to be strongly made to the committee to justify the need so that they recognize it and fund it. Kreun responded that in the past the answer from the committee is that the City should then just pay for it and they don’t fund it.
Grasser stated that maybe using the wording utility service replacement would help and that perhaps some dollars could just be set aside and then could also be used for when sewer collapse occurs, as that can be the same situation as the curb box repair for most LMI people.
Gershman stated that it appears that the group is in agreement that NOVAC should continue to regrant the arts funds, with the addition of a report to Council, who would approve the awards. In regards to Beautification, Gershman stated that he would be in favor of Council retaining some control of those funds and then if they decide to say take three years worth and use it to finish up the Gateway Drive Corridor then that’s what we do. Hoover clarified that the Council would still want the program to be administered through the Chamber’s beautification committee, including having them solicit applications, rate the responses, and forward recommendations to Council, who would have final approval; or whether the intent is to have Urban Development handle the application process and forward recommendations to Council through the Finance/Development Committee.
Glassheim stated that he struggles with big vs. small projects for beautification and that some smaller projects that could have had a big impact may not get done because Council has taken all the money for one large project that they want done and perhaps it would be more appropriate to find another funding source for the $300,000 for Gateway Drive or some other very large projects and leave the beautification dollars alone. He felt in that scenario that it would be fine to let the Chamber go ahead and allocate to the smaller projects with the Beautification dollars and the City Council would still be handling the large ones that they see a need for. Gershman disagreed and stated that he feels the Gateway Drive project is appropriate to fund from Beautification dollars, as it is a beautification project. Hoover suggested that perhaps through the budget cycle the Council could think about this type of issue and if there is a need for a larger project dedicate that amount to the project and then the remainder would go to the Beautification committee for allocation. Kreun stated that we are charged with looking out for the public good and we know what needs are. Glassheim commented that his only concern is if we designate too much to the Council’s projects the pot becomes too small to be meaningful and devalues the worth of the evaluating committee. He added that the same thing can happen if Council routinely changes the recommendations for any of these committees and that it will become difficult or impossible to find people to serve on the committees because they feel all the time and work they put into evaluating the requests and coming to their recommendations was worthless since Council just changed it anyway. Hal responded that the funds come to the City and the Council is charged with improving things in the city and that they have been talking about making Gateway Drive better for over three years and would like to see something done instead of just talk. He continued that Gateway is a major entryway into the City from the airport and gives a very poor view of our City and need to take action and get it cleaned up.
Kreun expressed that his other concern is that each administrative agency takes a percentage of the funds to cover their admin costs and that means that there is less available to give to the applicants. Hoover stated that even Urban Development would need to retain a small percentage to cover admin costs, as their other sources to cover those costs has dried up over the years. Hoover proposed that possibly the process used by NOVAC would work for the Beautification program, with modifications that you tell them how much they have to work with, the get the applications, evaluate them and make recommendations to Council, with added stipulations that no taxing entities can apply, then give a final report on the use of the funds to Council at the end of the year. Glassheim responded that regardless of the process if you take away 2/3 of the money available pretty soon the agencies will quit wanting to be involved because they don’t see value in doing it. McNamara commented that they should expect that Council will have oversight of the process, as they are working with public funds. Mayor Brown commented that he agrees with Glassheim and sees it as the Council has previously empowered the Committee and by taking control away you are no longer empowering them. Kreun stated that he feels that we have not gotten the most from our grant fund dollars in the past as they have not gone to the areas that the Council feels are the highest priority need in the community and by taking back some control we can change that.
Richards stated that there may be a problem with specifying no taxing entities on the beautification program and gave some examples of projects that have been approved and rejected. Gershman responded that if they were valuable projects then the entity should find money within their own budget to complete the project not take from the City to do it.
Hoover commented that in regards to admin fees, there is a limit as to how much overall can go to admin when dealing with CDBG funds, but that the group administering the funds is going to have costs associated with the funds and is appropriate to charge something for that, as even Urban Development takes about 5%.
Gershman summarized then that consensus seems to be that the Beautification Program could go to the Chamber with them making recommendation back to Council to approve, and other details could be worked out as the process goes along. Hoover added that Urban Development will keep a 5% admin fee on this program, as they will provide the copies, etc. Gershman continued that for the Special Events Program, consensus seems to be to not move this to the CVB, but to retain at Urban with a review Committee making recommendations to City Council for final approval as has been done in the past and Urban Development will retain a 5% admin fee to cover their administrative costs.
The group discussed the CDBG bricks and mortar and public service programs. Kreun commented that when you look at the LMI needs it would beneficial to be able to target those dollars to where Council sees the LMI needs. Glassheim stated that he feels the processes as they are do that, as they are made up of representatives that work with those agencies on a daily basis and should know what the needs of that population are. Kreun responded that the Council has issues that come to them and should be able to have more input and impact with those dollars than we are getting and that Council knows more about the LMI needs in the community than the allocating committees. Glassheim commented that he feels the United Way has a process and is familiar with the needs of the agencies that work with those populations. Kreun responded that unless agencies meet all the requirements of the United Way they do not get any assistance from them and knows that from personal experience from his work with some agencies and feels that a different process might work better to impact the LMI needs of the community.
Hoover asked if he was looking to maybe target the dollars to say improving neighborhoods such as has been done in Sioux City and then allocating dollars to agencies that can assist with those needs in the designated areas. He also gave examples of how past projects including the LaGrave Learning Center have been accomplished by that type of process and the desire to perhaps pursue that type of facility in the near northend LMI neighborhood.
Gershman asked if there was a particular project that Kreun had in mind. Kreun responded that in the past various suggestions have been made, such as the co-location of nonprofits in one building with shared administrative areas that could have helped some of the smaller agencies to cut their costs and thereby increase the amount of funds they have available for clients, but that none of the agencies even wanted to look at it. The group continued discussion on perhaps reserving some program dollars in the public service program. Hoover commented that in regards to co-location, he can say that several of the agencies are fairly ensconced in their own buildings such as CVIC and Red River Valley Community Action and it would not be beneficial to them to move at this time. He continued that while some of the smaller ones could maybe save some costs, with a building the size of say the Civic, it would be hard to say if there would be enough to fill it. Hoover also noted that they are working with a potential tenant for the Civic that will make that location unavailable for nonprofit use. Kreun commented that his concern is the duplication in the nonprofit sector and sited the example that in the last year a food cupboard has closed, and now someone opened up a new one and we’re back to two, but are currently storing all their donations as well as the donations received by St. Vincent de Paul’s food cupboard donations in one space in the Civic as neither has a way to store them individually when they got the donations from the Postal Workers food drive. Kreun stated that his concern is the duplication and administrative fees charged by the agencies are taking away dollars that could go to helping the LMI population and maybe look at a different process that can get the dollars where the need is.
Richards stated that there is a deadline coming up in late summer/early fall that they need to meet in regards to the CDBG dollars, but could continue discussion on this at another work session. Hoover stated that perhaps staff can research some ideas and schedule a work session for after July 4th on this topic.
NOVAC representatives shared the process that they use with the committee and that it seems to work well for them and for their grantees.
Meeting adjourned 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sherie Lundmark
Administrative Specialist Senior