Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance/Development
Standby Committee - Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 4:00 p.m.___
The city council of the city of Grand Forks sitting as the Finance/Development Standby Committee met in the council chambers in City Hall on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. Present t roll call were Council Members Glassheim, Brooks and Gershman. Others present were Greg Hoover, John Schmisek, Mark Aubol, Meredith Richards, Curt Siewert, Terry Hansen.

1. 2007 CDBG, HOME and ADDI Programs.
Greg Hoover, director of urban development, reported that sometime ago the council opened the 30-day comment period for the CDBG programs and they were asked to come back to the committee with this information and move forward from there. Public hearing will be held on November 6 and the council will make final decision on how to allocate the CDBG funds, they have attempted to address all of the requests that were made and Table A shows numbers. He stated that one of the things they were asked to do was to fund the Shelter for the Homeless (Mission) and complete that project, the best estimation of the people at the Shelter, $205,000 should do the project in their 5-year capital plan that was prepared. He stated they have kept everything else the same and that staff indicated that we intended to take the $4700 for CVIC's main entrance renovation and fund out of '06 money and do the same thing with the Grand Forks Housing Authority for their roof, and for Prairie Harvest for continuing to finalize that project that was funded in '06. The other sources will come out of '07 CDBG or HOME as shown in the Table, and only project that continues to be significantly less than requested is St. Vincent de Paul's storage building and earlier committee had reduced that from $90,000 to $45,000 and staff did not change that.

He stated that in reviewing this and as included in the council staff report was an increase of $50,000 for CDBG administration budget, that they had submitted to council and had been approved for '06 at $360,000, but when documents sent to HUD they had an apparent typo and had that marked at $260,000, that with the restructuring had elimination of the deputy director position and did not need that full $360,000, only need $310,000 for '06. Rather than need $100,000 as they had budgeted though council and have to make that change and is an amendment to the '06 along with the other changes to move these projects that now have shown in CDBG '06.

Glassheim asked about the Housing Authority roof replacement and why that would come from CDGG rather than from the Housing Authority. Mr. Hoover stated Housing Auth. has no money and Housing Authority is non- profit, roof leaks.

Tonya Hoidahl, asst, director of St. Vincent de Paul's, thanked them for CDBG dollars which allow them to continue doing the work they do in the community, and addressed the need for the $90,000, they currently are serving people with household items and food, homeless people, and in last year their request was for additional space for storage of food and merchandise and noted number of services they provided with furniture, bedding, etc.; that they get the opportunity to take large donations that include many pieces of furniture, that when motels are having changeovers they will call them to come and get various items and that they need storage space to accommodate that and for food (get calls from area businesses) and current storage doesn't allow. She stated that the ranking by the CAC had 2 organizations below theirs which were fully funded, and if no intention to follow the advise of the CAC ranking, that in the future they would like the opportunity to make the presentation to the people who are making the decisions.

It was noted by Glassheim that rankings are guidance to both staff and council as to what we fund, and occasionally deviate in amounts, that if ranked ahead of someone else almost certain to get some funding but then becomes a judgment call as to whether council believes something lower is a worthy project as well. The council is almost always funded those people who have been ranked highest but not always fully and is a council decision. He stated that is why they have this meeting and have another public meeting as well before council.

Ms. Hoidahl stated they would like their request to be reconsidered and fully fund their project if possible.

Glassheim stated they were asking for 2 expanded garages and whether 1 wouldn't be a good start, and come back again next year for another one, and whether a large truck/van on the property couldn't hold some things as well. Gershman stated he was skeptical and made suggestions in the meeting that they should have temporary storage facilities, etc. but he went over there and they have 2 temporary storage facilities and are doing what committee thought they should do, was very crowded and changed his mind and does support the $90,000 for them, and will continue to support that but difficult because there is so much demand and sometimes can't give everybody what they want. He also questioned project for Housing Authority money and if didn't do that could take care of St. Vincent's. Mr. Hoover stated that Housing Auth. owns the building they are in and CD leases from them, they have spent $11,000 to $12,000 on two sections of the roof and this is to finish that. Terry Hanson stated if not CDBG it would have to come from their operating revenue, and are very tight on resources, that the roof is broken up in 7 or 8 sections and alternative is to take one section at a time as they can afford.

Brooks stated they have a number of agencies (thrift) and at some point have to put some limit on them - on amount of sq. footage and amount of dollars, and in response to the remarks, he sat on the Advisory Committee (CAC) for a number of years and that CAC gives agencies a better chance to state their case and that there were times when the council did make some changes from what committee recommended and that is where responsibility lies. He stated with only two members present that the time to present the arguments for both Housing Auth. and St. Vincent's would be to the city council. Glassheim stated that they would send something to the council with two votes and council can amend if they wish, etc.

Rita Fischer, Board member for St. Vincent's, asked because two organizations ranked lower than theirs were fully funded and if drawing back some of their funding and increase the amount for St. Vincent's.

Mr. Hoover reported that Terry Hansen withdrew his request for the Housing Authority; and he suggested that the $45,000 be added for St. Vincent de Paul, bringing that up to $90,000, which leaves a balance of $1,600.00 that was set aside for Housing Authority and that the additional $1,600.00 go to Shelter for the Homeless, and that would be $206,600.00 and St. Vincent de Paul's storage go from $45,000 to $90,000.

The motion was moved by Brooks and seconded by Glassheim. Motion carried.

2. Holiday decorations.
Mr. Hoover stated they were asking for some options for increasing holiday decorations downtown along thoroughfares, downtown is in urban development's purview and that is anything from Riverside to DeMers overpass, that they have looked at costs to purchase and install seasonal banners on 80 poles and wreaths on top of the poles with total cost of approx. $24,000. That to change out light bulbs that are on the Kittson evergreens and tops of buildings, change those to LED lights which are longer lasting and are lower wattage, for cost of approx. $11,500.00. Mr. Hoover stated they have not picked the banners yet but would be non-secular; timelines, will have to wait and see. Costs include shipping. There was some discussion and concern re. banners because of wind, etc. however, Mr. Aubol stated downtown okay and if not do in outskirts of city.

Mr. Hoover stated re. major thoroughfares that decorations owned by South Forks merchants on S. Washington, 32nd and down Columbia and few on DeMers and that those are fairly old and need replacing. but what Mark has suggested for this year is that we hang up those that are the best and come back next year with a plan including all of Washington Street, some of Gateway and some of DeMers, 32n Avenue S. and Columbia. No cost. The other suggestion is to purchase additional strings of lights for about $2,400 for the tree on the west side of the DeMers Avenue overpass. He noted that tree is starting to fade and not going to be there forever. He stated there had been talk about wrapping lights around the tree rather than going vertically on the tree using fire department and public works buckets, but unable to do that because fire department bucket was busted on response call over the weekend. Total cost $2,400. Total cost for these options is $37,900.

Brooks stated he would like to look at banners and wreaths so perhaps East Grand Forks could also go with the same decorations.

There was some discussion re. funding, and Mr. Hoover stated they have identified two sources after consulting with the finance director, one is Fund 2163, which can be used to enhance tourism and local events, and the other is Fund 2169, Beautification Program, with $100,000 carryover and $100,000 each year.

Meredith Richards, Community Development manager at Urban Development, stated that our 2006 Beautification Program at the end of this year looks like we will have a contingency or unobligated fund of about $59,500; that we stated out this year with a big contingency because they wanted to have a little pot of money available for the Gateway Drive entry feature, but due to DOT problems has been pushed off until next year She stated if looking at taking the whole $37,900.00 out of '06 they would still have a nice carryover for Gateway and then have their entire '07 budget for Beautification.

Mr. Hoover stated there have been some discussions between Mr. Duquette, himself and Dan Schenkein from the Chamber of Commerce re. Beautification money, there are some people on the Beautification Committee who feel that the money is being directed away from community-wide projects, one of the things cited is recommendation last year from Beautification for County Fairgrounds, that this program has been politicized; we are in the process of discussing that issue with Schenkein. He stated his belief is that it hasn't been politicized and if we were to move in any direction in the future, would rather see us pick particular areas and work on those and then move elsewhere as time and money permits, i.e., come up with a beautification plan for downtown and continue our efforts along Gateway and when those are completed, then move to other areas, but that issue is out there and that there will be some members of that committee would say have taken our beautification money and spent it as we wanted.

Glassheim stated that we made a decision rather than from their process, the Gateway Drive set aside was for a whole year. Mr. Hoover stated hearing this from Mr. Schenkein through Ken Polovitz and Curt Siewert where for years and years this committee had the autonomy to say where the money would go and that since he has been here there has been at least one year where that has been tweaked by the council and said not going to do this/that or the other.

Gershman stated that last year had the Park District come in and they have their own funding, had School District come in and they have their own funding, and the question to the council was why are these taxing entities coming to us to use our funding when they are able to tax and do it themselves, and that if that committee doesn't understand that, perhaps should explain that Mr. Hoover stated that we do cooperate very extensively with the Parks as they provide free labor, do the plantings on our urban parks, around City Hall and urban development, etc. so have had good working relationship with them. Ms. Richards stated the history has been that for years that this has been dominated by urban development in both helping to create the project and then working together to insure that they are implemented, and the Chamber committee reviews all of the applications and they have been very able to shepherd a pet project through and there is value to that, they are part of the business community and they speak to that, the issue of why are we supporting other taxing entities, that is political, but if to the community good and thinks our past history with the Park District is that the community has benefited there is that vs. why are we providing city funds to another entity that has their own money.

Brooks stated that a group like that has a particular project that they are interested in but when we take a look at the total project, $100,000 is a lot of money but doesn't go that far when you are looking city-wide, can spatter it around here and there and looks like nothing was done, and that we need to take that and concentrate it an area, get that up and then go to another area, and we think that is the most effective way to do it, hard to put it into the total picture of the perspective of the whole city but that is what we have to look at.

Glassheim asked if they targeted one year's amount at Gateway, wouldn't the Beautification Committee go through that and limit it to Gateway, or did we toss them out of the process. Ms. Richards stated that the application process has always been city-wide and while the council has said they would like to emphasize Gateway Drive and there has been an effort to do that to the extent that there were applications for Gateway Drive but the burden has to be on somebody to come up with a good way to spend the money as well as the debate about whether we focus on a particular area or whether it is open city-wide, so you could allocate the whole $100,000 to Gateway but unless you direct her or the Park District or the Greater Gateway Assn. to come up with a project, then throwing money at something that doesn't fit.

Gershman stated that he would be supportive of plan for Gateway because have wall, etc. and if needed 2 to 3 years of that money to finish it, then that is done, and that they have an area that is blighted, lets go and finish it, not put in smaller amounts for the next x years because won't have impact and take the committee and would be willing to do that because that has to be done, still waiting for estimates. Ms. Richards stated they have had first hand knowledge of how expensive it is to do anything out there, and could easily take two years of the entire budget and still not finish it.

Glassheim stated that Gershman has always preferred larger focus projects and that he likes to see smaller ones with creativity and with willing participants putting up some of their money with some of our money and seeing nice places appear around the city; and it may appear that Gateway is not a beautification project you want to pay for it, maybe it’s a $300,000 bond, is an important gateway to the city and if decide want to spend a lot of money on it, then maybe not distort the beautification project process just because Gateway is so expensive.

Gershman stated he was not opposed but would be great if had in a smaller defined area, had 15 smaller projects so could actually see them, that this doesn't have to be a big deal.

Mr. Hoover asked if the committee goes forward with the $38,000, what further action is required; Mr. Schmisek reported project is over $30,000 and takes council action.

It was moved by Brooks and Glassheim that funding source be Beautification Fund 2169 for items 1 and 2 under Downtown decorations, and items 1, 2 and 3 under major thoroughfares. Motion carried.

3. Rental Rehabilitation Loan policy.
This item was held as Mr. Christensen had prepared information for that.

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.