Committee Minutes

Minutes of the Grand Forks City Council/Finance-Development
Committee - Monday, October 11, 2010 - 5:30 p.m. _______________

The Finance/Development Committee met on Monday, October 11, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Council Member Christensen presiding. Present at roll call: Christensen, Glassheim, Gershman (ex officio).

Also present were. Meredith Richards, Greg Hoover, Saroj Jerath, Maureen Storstad, Todd Feland, Don Shields, Chief O'Neill, Bev Collings, Roxanne Fiala, Chief Packett, Council Member Bjerke.

1. Resolution - 2011 Fee Schedule.
Saroj Jerath, city auditor, reported that copy of the study that was done in 1994, but before that study was done, there was survey of other cities and what they were charging and time/cost study of staff people, that did not include the liquor license fees but all the other pertinent license fees were studied. She also had copies of fee increases since that time, and since some increments quite large were increased over several years and by 2000 it was completed. She also reported on previous staff reports done in 1998, 2006 and from the 2006 staff report, the city council approved increases to license and permit fees, many of these fees have been adjusted for approx. 7 years and in the city work session for 2006 budget discussion was held and consensus was reached that we should keep these items on a more consistent basis, and consensus was echoed in 2007 budget work session, staff was to meet and make recommendations for change and license and permit fees should be adjusted annually based on CPI. She stated that every year after that it was adjusted according to CPI, rounding up and down. She stated in the new schedule showing 3 options: first column is 2010 fees, second is 3% increase with dollar and cents, next one is rounded to nearest dollar and last column the fee staff proposed. She noted that if there is any deviation from the 3% increase, the deviation is explained in the highlighted portion of the report.

There was some discussion relative to the building permit fees - commercial construction based on valuation, and residential construction based on valuation. It was noted that previously was done by city ordinance but last year started doing this by resolution. Christensen asked for the source of your commercial fee structure to see if it tracks the wage and hour study, that we have a chance to recapture some of the costs for people doing the inspections.

Collings stated she didn't think there was a direct accounting that they do every year for that - single family homes are figured on a sq.ft. basis on proposal, and that she and Mel Carsen , city assessor, meet and look at sq.ft. cost of building structure and what it would be assessed and this would be the proposed increase, and that is why they didn't change the table. It was noted that staff is still going in and spending the same amount of time- that if the cost of the house doesn't go up staff is still spending time to do inspection. Gershman stated that is why he brought this up in trying to get some consistency and if go back to 2006, had a base line that came from the 1994 study and updated - that they went through line by line of every item and adjusted at that time because adjustments hadn't been made, and said attach CPI to that and be done with it.

Collings stated what was handed out was only for single family homes, duplexes and new garages, rest of the fees when they come in, estimate the value of construction and so do the commercial, and that should go out with the market with the price of materials and labor. She also noted that the sign fee did not go up, and that she thinks that fee is very high. She stated that mechanical fees weren't raised because they raised the issuance fee, went from $25 to $30 issuance fee.

Gershman stated that the animal license didn't go up and that was a policy decision, that if it gets too high nobody will do it.

Don Shields reported they had done comparison study of fees with other cities in the state, that grocery stores can include bakeries, butcher shop and food service fees all with basic fees and fees that go with the size of the facility. Gershman stated their question is what covers their costs - Shields stated they make at least two inspections per year for butcher shops and also inspect every food operation twice a year, etc. Christensen asked if the issue is trying to recapture the costs we have for staff doing the inspection, cost analysis and base fee and have a flat fee with increase based upon increase in salaries and benefits - do cost accounting. Jerath stated that when the study was done it was done on a cost analysis basis - each license inspection by staff, time, etc.

Motion by Glassheim that we accept staff recommendation along with utility rates and explanation matter and request that time/cost study be done for next year. Christensen seconded the motion. Carried.

2. Election Officials (Inspectors) for the November 2, 2010 General Election.
Motion by Glassheim and Christensen to recommend council approval of the list. Motion carried.

3. Renaissance Zone Expansion - Island Options.
Katie Brockpahler, urban development, reported that prior to 2009 they were unable to move the renaissance blocks anywhere that wasn't contiguous to the renaissance zone, after 2009 are now able to move up to 3 block islands anywhere within the city, and in July the committee asked them to bring options back to the committee, and that they are bringing 6 options that their office put together for the committee to discuss possible 3 block islands.

There was some discussion relative to the various options. Stars on the option pages show buildings that could be redeveloped. On Grand Cities Option there is Hollywood Video. Christensen stated that he had done a little work on the Grand City Mall area and more than one block that you've chosen to designate as a block island, and that they would have to work with the State to see what they would qualify as a block, would have to show them our maps. Glassheim stated that on those drawing have red marks on those potential blocks. Gershman stated that commercial blocks can be different than residential blocks, if you take a residential block nothing is going to happen; that the State is interested in development, City could look at it and maybe can make a decision there.

Glassheim asked if Leevers is not the site for the library, that might be a nice thing to have investment in to have it redeveloped, problem is the other two blocks next to it and those have to be contiguous. - street doesn't stop it from being contiguous - Leevers site itself is big site and just sitting there.
Glassheim asked if they want to whittle some down so you can focus, and rather than giving you one only that we want to do, that Leevers and Grand Cities Mall are high on our list - Grand Cities 1 and Leevers 2. Christensen stated that Leevers is a non-starter because you need 3 blocks and only have 1 and not two other blocks and waste that - Richards stated that potential not great because lot of redevelopment has already taken place, BNN is new , KFC is redone, Cenex and parking for Paradiso are fairly new - could have one block island and don't use those blocks and could still be contiguous to our Downtown - are allowed to expand and can have a 3 block island and then have 6 to expand contiguous to Downtown or have 1 block island - have a big island but don't lose the ability to have 9 blocks. Christensen stated that his preference is Grand Cities Mall.

Greg Hoover, director of Urban Development, stated that first step is to find out from the State what of that area they would qualify as 3 blocks and then when get that, go and begin to talk to people to see what their interest is as far as any future development, because it is true and that's part of the reason our existing Ren Zone has been that we have had a lot of development and will go ahead and do that.

Christensen asked what they would recommend any 3 as to what we could do with Downtown if we were to take another 4 there, any recommendations. Hoover stated there really are 3 questions here with the Ren Zone, first was the island because they will determine how many we have available to do the rest of the Ren Zone, then will come back with the Ren Zone expansion with some opportunities for consideration - probably south, the Near South Neighborhood is one, also along University to the west. He stated the areas they are looking at is south 8, 10 and 11 and is on the way to the water treatment plant - also looking to the north of University along lines of the Near North, also looking west along University Avenue as there's been some things there and some thought had been this might be nice jumping off point for reconnecting the University and the Downtown - those are the 3 primary areas they are giving consideration to right now. He stated the other thing they should know is that there can be some blocks that have already been developed taken out of the Ren Zone and can get additional blocks- may recall the civic auditorium area and that is already being developed and don't need those blocks and that would free up 2 more blocks. He stated whatever blocks we do have to be contiguous to the original Ren Zone. Christensen stated he would also be interested in that and also in area No. 3 and No. 9 and moving it towards north.

Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk