City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 13, 1994 - 4:00 p.m. Members present: Beach, Hanson. 1. Matter of ordinance creating River Forks Commission. Council Member Carpenter and EGF Council Member Beauchamp were present and reviewed the proposed ordinance with the committee. It was noted that City of Grand Forks will adopt ordinance, after which the joint powers agreement will be drafted; and East Grand Forks will adopt by resolution. After reviewing the proposed ordinance the committee suggested the following changes in the ordinance: 1) definition of accounting period - calendar year; 2) make provision for audit and bonding; 3) specify expiration of members terms as December 31; 4) election of officers during January; 5) members serve until successor appointed. There was some discussion re. funding - budgeted through surplus sales tax each year; if City wouldn't allocate funding, no money to operate. It was also noted that they cannot designate how East Grand Forks would fund it's portion. It was noted there would have to be staff for this Commission. The committee referred the proposed ordinance back to the city attorney with comments and for him to redraft. Held until next regular meeting (Tuesday, September 27 at 4:00 p.m.) 2. Report on Flood Relief Program. Sue Redmann, Community Development, reported their office had received 430 applications from 4-county area, about 1/4 from outside city of Grand Forks, and when did preliminary assessment of the applications, 60% of applicants had to replace sump pumps and 5-10% had damage to other electrical systems because of seepage; 25-30 % had structural damage, etc., 25-30% had concern re. health problems; and home owners estimates of damage ranged from $250 to $20,000 and it appeared that aps. from rural and smaller communities with most costly damage. She reported they are still waiting for grant agreement so haven't received any funding. She stated they are going to be starting to schedule inspections, start with emergency situations, those with health problems and low income families; will have to fund low and mod. income families first; and they are also working with priority rating system. She reported they have done some emergency inspections because of physical problems involved, etc. She also noted that Walsh County was included in the program, and they have received 10 aps. from them, and expect more. She noted that some aps. referred to other programs, etc. some of which provide assistance to tenants for relocation, etc. Information only. 3. Discussion re. consolidating of Human Needs and CDBG funding cycles. John O'Leary submitted summary of three years funding MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE September 13, 1994 - Page 2 through CDBG and Community Needs funds. He reported they have two programs providing funding for various non-profits; one is Community Development Block Grant program, with cap of 15% to go to non-profit community type projects (public service), i.e., Mission, Adult Abuse, Listen Center; the other funding is out of City's general fund, Human Needs Program, and that they receive applications from same groups for both programs. He reported that the red tape under CDBG program is monumental, re. monitoring of projects to make sure they comply with regulations, written verification of low and mod. income, etc.; that organizations receiving $3/4,5,000 in CDBG funds would be subjugating themselves to tens of thousands of dollars in other administrative and capital improvement costs. He stated that the two programs operate under two separate fiscal years, and staff is suggesting that committee take some action on this; that they have been in contact with HUD to make sure what they are suggesting is appropriate. Mr. O'Leary reviewed summary of programs funded through CDBG and Community Needs funds, and that there are 3 programs routinely receiving funding from both programs: Adult Abuse, Listen Center and the Mission; that under current CDBG funding the most they could give to these kinds of organizations is $90,000; that Adult Abuse receiving about $55-60,000; Listen, $20-30,000 and the Shelter for the Homeless $20-45/50,000 each year. He stated that the policy that may help them and also agencies involved, is to make a blanket statement to the public and to the non-profits involved that CDBG funds will be used in priority way to fund those three agencies, and other non-profit agencies apply to Community Needs program. He stated that not only would this save them a lot of hassle but would direct the non-profits to the appropriate funding sources. He reported that they send 40-50 packets to prospective applications for each funding program, notices, etc. and by consolidating make process simpler for everyone involved. He reported they had discussed with HUD and if council wishes to do that to prioritize funding plans, would be appropriate to do it contingent upon CDBG hearings and other regulations. He stated they don't have time to get involved in consolidating plan until early in next calendar year because of the flood program. He stated that it was their recommendation that committee look at focusing CDBG on the three agencies involved, and that in coming weeks staff will write policy statement. He stated that you couldn't prohibit those three agencies from applying for both programs, but could do in reverse and focus money on those 3 and if can fund two of them from CDBG, and third out of Community Needs. The committee reviewed summary and it was noted that riverbank MINUTES/URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE September 13, 1994 - Page 3 and other Community Development project funding, etc. not out of public service funds (which is limited to 15% of CDBG funds). There was some discussion as to how process would be handled; it was noted that Community Needs budget determined by council and CBDB by council after hearings by Citizens Advisory Committee. It was also noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee is not a requirement. Mr. O'Leary suggested they could instruct Citizens Advisory Committee that those 3 programs would be subject to the public hearing process, but not run the public service programs through Citizens Advisory Committee but have that handled by committee. Terry Hanson stated that HUD doesn't require that 15% be expended but that only up to 15% can be spent. The committee noted that non-profit agencies do not like to be in competition for funding with Urban Development projects. Mr. O'Leary reported that Community Development will still apply for Community Needs funds. The committee also noted that there are several organizations applying for funding with overlapping services - paying lot of salaries for overlapping services. After further discussion Mr. O'Leary asked committee to make general policy to prioritize those three as projects that will be funded under CDBG and ask other non-profits to apply through Community Needs Program. He stated that at the next committee meeting they will talk about logistics or review process, whether want to use an advisory committee or solicit public input through hearings, etc. Chairman Beach expressed some concern that funding for the 3 groups would be almost like a guarantee, that 2 of the 3 agencies have had major personnel changes, that leadership very important. Moved by Hanson and Beach to establish policy giving priority for CDBG funding to the three agencies indicated: Adult Abuse, Listen, Inc., and the Grand Forks Mission, with the understanding that the City has the ability to alter that at some future time, and subject to the satisfaction of HUD regulations. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Alice Fontaine City Clerk Dated: 9/15/94