Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes/Finance/Development Standby Committee
Monday, November 29, 2004 – 12:00 Noon
The Finance/Development Standby Committee met on Monday, November 29, 2004 at 12:00 Noon in Room A101 in City Hall with Committee Chair Christensen presiding. Present at roll call were: Christensen, Glassheim, Hamerlik.

Chair Christensen called the meeting to order at 12:00 Noon.

1. 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan and 2005 CDBG Program.

Keith Lund, Community Development Manager, stated that he had distributed to the committee a memo detailing the 2005 CDBG fund projections of $1.8 million dollars, broken down as $504,000 from regular CDBG Entitlement money and an estimated $1.3 million in program income generated by previous CDBG projects. He reviewed with the committee the preliminary budget, noting that on November 1 the preliminary budget had been amended to include that the first $100,000 in excess program income above the estimated $1.3 million would be allocated to Nonprofit Bricks and Mortar Projects. He stated that the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) had met to review the Bricks and Mortar requests and to prioritize them. He directed the committee to page 2 of the handout where the priority ranking was listed.

Mr. Lund stated that as a part of their meeting, the CAC had also unanimously approved a resolution encouraging the City Council to allocate additional CDBG funding to the bricks and mortar projects and that he had attached a copy of the memo to the handout.

Mr. Lund continued that based on previous Council action and the CAC priority rankings the staff had compiled a recommended budget for the $1.8 million. The budget is as follows: City of Grand Forks for Program Administration, $360,000; United Way for Public Services Program, $250,000; Grand Forks Housing Authority for Promenade Infrastructure, $365,000; City of Grand Forks Urban Development for American Dream Program, $150,000; City of Grand Forks for Downtown Housing Project, $425,000; Salvation Army for kitchen upgrade, $12,000; Easter Seals for Affordable Housing Projects, $80,000; St. Vincent de Paul for Transitional House Weatherization & Mntc, $45,000; and Community Violence Intervention Center for an addition to the Shelter House; $113,000. Lund again noted that they also recommended that the first $100,000 in excess of the $1.3 million in program income by allocated to the Red River Valley Community Action Agency for Permanent Supportive Housing, and the balance of any excess to go to City Infrastructure Projects.

The group inquired as to what would happen to the recommended allocation should a decision not to pursue a downtown housing project be made. Mr. Lund answered that amount would be allocated back to City Bricks and Mortar and applied to the prioritized list.

Lund continued that this information will be going to the Committee of the Whole for discussion at the December 13, 2004 and January 10, 2005 meetings, with a public hearing being held on December 20, 2004, and a second public hearing on January 17, 2005 at City Council, with final action coming at that meeting on both the Consolidated Plan and the 2005 Annual Action Plan.

Hamerlik inquired as to the item in Bricks and Mortar requests for repair of the Senior Citizens Association roof and heating system. He stated that his main concern is that this building is owned by the City and why we would not prioritize this a little higher, since without CDBG funding any emergency repairs would have to be paid out of the general fund and were not budgeted. Mr. Lund stated that he had visited earlier with Curt Siewert, Urban Development employee in charge of construction projects, and he felt that there was not an emergency need and that there were no current leaks or dangerous conditions with either the roof or the heating system. He continued that both items have passed their useful life and for the last couple of years they have considered adding this as a repair item. Hamerlik added that if it has been in consideration for a couple of years then maybe we should bump it up before it becomes an emergency situation and requires the use of general fund dollars to cover the repair.

Glassheim inquired whether the plan could be altered to include this in the allocation for this year. Lund replied that they could amend the plan, with an approximate timeline of 60 days, allowing for public notice of the amendment. Lund added that he had confirmed with John Schmisek earlier today that this was not in the budget and that the CDBG has been the main source of funds for any capital improvement of this nature. Christensen stated that he feels that it may be time that we start looking at ways that we can cover some of these costs of the city with the CDBG allocation before we allocate it out to others.

Glassheim inquired whether we could add it to the list for utilizing excess program income dollars. Lund replied that is a possibility. Peggy Kurtz, Urban Development added that if we list it as a second tier project then we could fund it without having to amend the plan.

Christensen requested that Lund review with the group the reason for the United Way allocation and how the dollar amount is arrived at. Lund stated that several years ago the Council made a decision to delegate our nonprofit allocation process to the United Way. He continued that the City used to run the same type of application process that the United Way had to allocation funds to agencies for use to fund operations and that there was more preparation for the requesting agencies as they had to fill out two very similar application submissions. Also, there was a concern on the part of the United Way and the City on coming up with a system to ensure that there was not doubledipping by the requesting agencies. He continued that the Council decided to allocate 15% of our annual entitlement to be used in a regranting program to be administered by the United Way. He stated that has helped the requesting agencies in that the funding process is centralized and there is only one application packet that they need to prepare, as well as allowing for oversight so that we know that the agencies are not receiving money from both entities for the same expenses. Greg Hoover, Director of Urban Development, provided a list of the 2004 recipients of the funds allocated by the United Way to the group for their review.

Hamerlik made a motion to recommend approval at the public hearing of the proposed budget as prepared by staff, as well as the approval of the recommended list of items to receive funding from excess program income with the following changes: 1) insertion of the Senior Citizen Association request for $48,000 to be used for roof and heating system repairs, and 2) change the City Infrastructure Project request to be funded with Balance in excess of $148,000. Glassheim Seconded. Aye: All. Motion Carried.

Glassheim inquired whether a specific response to the resolution that was passed by the CAC needed to be drafted. Following discussion, the group consensus was that no specific response would be drafted, but rather the response would be by the approval of the recommended list.

Glassheim stated that he had been asked by several as to why we don’t provide any programs that offer assistance to microenterprise businesses. The group discussed the matter and it was pointed out that this is often a more riskier enterprises and also typically our assistance programs are in the form of low or no interest loans and these type of businesses are usually not in a position to be able to take on any more debt. Christensen suggested that perhaps this was an area that could be brought to the EDC to see if they would be willing to work on some type of program for that type of business. He continued that this would also go in line with the intent of trying to centralize all of this type of program in one spot.

Hamerlik stated that he had a comment on the survey ranking pages that were attached to the handout. In particular, he stated that on the Overall Community Development Needs page, he felt, based on recent discussions and community actions, that the line item “Infrastructure (street, water, sidewalks, etc.)” should be listed as high rather than medium and was wondering what the process would be to make this change. He added that his feeling is that in ranking these at the medium level, some aspects of those projects may have been overlooked by survey respondents due to lack of information on some of the items, and in particular he brought up the potential cost if the city needs to replace all of its curb cuts to be rumble strips in order to be ADA compliant and that we have no designated funding source for this rather large expense. Lund explained that a project can still be funded with CDBG funds even if it does not have a high ranking. Lund continued that if the Council wished to amend the survey results then they could do so at the Committee of the Whole and this would be listed as an appendix to the plan. Hoover stated that if an amendment was desired that in order to be consistent with the change on the front page, a change should also be made on the line items on the Infrastructure/Public Facilities tab that are of the same order (i.e. street improvements, solid waste disposal, water and sewer, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc.) Lund reiterated that the time to make a recommended change in the ranking would be at the public hearing and would not actually alter the survey results, but would rather be an appendix to the plan that is submitted.

The group inquired as to who received the survey to complete and the number of surveys that were returned. Kurtz stated that 117 surveys had been distributed to City Council members, city department heads, chamber of commerce, some UND department heads and a variety of other community leaders. Kurtz continued that there were about 80 surveys returned that were tallied to arrive at the results as they are listed. Christensen asked whether the Council has received a copy of the survey results. Lund replied that the results will be a part of the information distributed with the consolidated plan.

Christensen inquired whether CDBG funds can be used for parks. Lund stated that in order to be eligible for CDBG funding you have to be able to verify that 51% of the project users will be low to moderate income (LMI) households. He added that typically funds can not be used for a broad use community project that draws users from the entire community and maybe beyond just because it is located in an LMI area. Christensen stated that his specific question comes from some conversations and requests that may be forthcoming for funding for some splash parks in a variety of locations throughout the community. Lund stated that if the parks were placed throughout the community then there may be a possibility of using some funding for the ones placed directly in LMI areas, as the justification could be made that other users were being accommodated by the parks that were provided in their neighborhoods.

Hamerlik made a motion to recommend at the appropriate time that those infrastructure related items be changed from a ranking of medium to a ranking of high in our priority list. Glassheim seconded. Aye: All. Motion Carried.

Glassheim pointed out that one area in the Infrastructure/Public Facilities tab, Flood/Drainage Improvements received a high ranking. Based on this, he inquired whether there was any ability to assist LMI households with the payment of special assessments for this project from CDBG money. Lund responded that CDBG funds can not be used for this purpose. He added that in order for CDBG funds to be used, the project must meet very specific and detailed reviews and restrictions of HUD and an in progress project would not qualify.

The group discussed that rental housing had been listed as high in a couple of different places and types. The group commented that perhaps if a downtown housing project does move forward it may address some of those needs.

2. Adjournment.

Meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,



Sherie Lundmark
Admin Spec Sr