Print VersionStay Informed
Minutes/Committee of the Whole
­Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, August 8, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Vice President Hamerlik presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman (teleconference), Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

Vice President Hamerlik announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Vice President Hamerlik commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:
He stated Cats Incredible is this coming weekend, Chamber of Commerce event, and many sponsors and volunteers are involved - fishing tournament, walk/run; and Hugo's Chili Cook-off
and appreciated efforts of volunteers and is Friday, August 12, 13 and 14..

PRESENTATION BY ALERUS COMMISSION

Randy Newman, Commission member and chair of the finance committee, and Bonita Kuntz, business manager, with Alerus Center, were present. Mr. Newman stated he was asked as a commission member to address council and share some of the budgeting philosophy they have used for this year's budget, and a one-page annual comparison had been distributed to the council members and reviewed comparison with the council.

He noted tht they have much more detailed budgets than these and condensed these down into some general topics of revenue and expense. He noted as prepare to budget in the future years and 2006 they see that as one thing they wanted to do was come up with better budgeting philosophy. He stated the philosophy of the Alerus Center Commission is to have a zero based budget where in 2005 they actually predicted a profit which they are beginning to see and will admit that was unrealistic based upon history, but now that have history on their side, can have a more realistic budget and those were goals going in, and have experience on their side and were planning and would like to have the philosophy of zero based budget and which has a more controllable events that they can base on experience is based on some repeatable events, but in working with the event fund, that they would provide with council an accounting form at the end of the year and will be looking at on a quarterly basis when their finance committee meets but would be able to assure council that an underwriting process is involved with the booking of an event, and try to make that a zero base level and would like to make money off the concert events and go toward other capital budgeting items that the Alerus Center will replenish, and overcome some of the deficits at the Alerus Center and that is the philosophy behind the two funds. He stated they think the 2006 budget is more realistic and based on more controlled events, the event fund budget as this is their first year and don't have a lot of experience but in the process of drafting processes which they would manage that event fund.

Ms. Kuntz stated that for 2006 the preliminary budget they presented to the council is their base budget that they feel very comfortable that they can achieve. Mr. Newman stated in taking those two together would have equated to the budgeting philosophy in the past

Vice President Hamerlik thanked Mr. Newman and Ms. Kuntz for their presentation.

2.1 Approval of Pledged Collateral Report
There were no comments.

2.2 Various ordinance amendments adjusting fee and permit amounts.
Council Member Christensen stated he had talked with several council persons and that they would like to move this to the finance committee to review fees in greater detail as some would like more input on the fees, and asked that they consider that on Monday.

Council Member Gershman agreed that fees should go up but be reasonable and to cover our costs, and not out of order with other cities in the region.

Council Member Kerian asked if license information could be presented in tabular form so easier to see what increases are, and available to the public. The city auditor stated they will provide the tabular form which is backup for what they presented.

There was some discussion as to timing and that a date should be set so that this can be implemented by the first of the year. The city auditor stated that they keep in mind that part of these tables are what was presented at work sessions and that they did a calculation of CPI from last time they were increased and try to take about 50% of it so it is certainly going to be higher than the yearly amount of CPI, the budget needs to be approved by the first part of October, but still have time to refer this and to bring it back and move it forward, that the table showed approx. $300,000+ in revenue but part of that was based on increased construction, etc. not just to fee increases and will review that at committee. He stated they set the final approval of the budget for September 6 but official date has to be by October 7. Council Member Brooks stated these fees were used to build the budget and if we were to look at them and increase them, what happens, and if were to come back with a recommendation to cut amount to be generated and if have to find additional monies for the budget. The city auditor stated if council wished to increase the fees and increase budget as long as there is more revenue than what you previously anticipated but if reduction to not cover expenses, would have to look at that area and find somewhere else. Council Member Gershman asked if staff could put together chart of fees charged by other cities, the 3 major cities.

The city auditor noted that the increase in the new license fees amounts to about $113,000 and rest of the increase is from building permits, etc. Council Member Glassheim asked what is total that fees have brought in; and it was reported that the license and permit fees bring in a little over $1 million - increase is approx. 10 to 11% and fees not raised since 1997 and some since 1994.

Council Member Christensen stated they received fee increases in one of the budget sessions and should be reviewed to see whether fees are appropriate, and should be able to get done in 2 weeks. He stated that if we were to subtract any monies from the budget because fee should be lower, to remind the council members that there is $2 million in General Fund and if were to take it down, wouldn't mess with budget.

2.3 Appointment to Grand Forks Regional Airport Authority Board.
Council Member Brooks stated that the staff report says that there are 7 members but Airport manual shows 5 and to his knowledge there are 5 members, other 2 were supposed to be council rep. and county commission rep. but that was never accomplished, and noted that there are people on the board to fill certain slots and to ask the Airport Authority to get us the information of who fills those (one has to be pilot, one has to be lawyer, another practicing for 5 years in field of banking, finance or investments, etc.) and as long as up for appointment and out of compliance, may want to review that.

Council Member Gershman requested that the mayor write a letter to the Airport Authority Board and respectfully request that the council representative be invited to sit at the table when they have their meetings, not in the audience, that is general courtesy, but requests that the mayor write that letter. Vice President Hamerlik asked the city auditor to carry that forward.

Council Member Christensen stated that there is discussion that not enough people get involved and have the reappointment of the same people on these boards and has nothing to do with current person they are appointing and that council persons make suggestions as to names if want to change the status quo and that he plans on asking several individuals if they would consider being appointed, and encourage council members to do same if so inclined.

Howard Swanson, city attorney, stated that the qualifications to serve on the board do not require that an attorney has to be on the board but the Code provides that 3 commissioners must fall in one of these various categories, maybe a lawyer, maybe a banking, financing or investments, or maybe commercial insurance, maybe industry, commerce, engineering, accounting, planning, labor, agriculture - so not a requirement that they have to be in a specific field, is a requirement that one of the commissioners must be a pilot.

Council Member Brooks stated there is our Code but also the Authority is a separate authority and their manual reads a little different and cites a few others, good information for us to get, and other thing that would be good to bring to them next week and in reading their manual, they have items re. conflict of interest, that we have form that we sign here, and not sure if that is done out there, and if they have some way of signing off as board members each year. Vice President Hamerlik suggested that Mr. Johnson get that out to council members before Monday night so we have it ahead of time.

Council Member Christensen raised a question re. Section 20-0206, enabling act for the Airport Authority and that it is a 7-person commission, 3 members residents of city of Grand Forks appointed by the mayor and approved by the council, one member shall be a member of the city council nominated by the president and appointed and confirmed by the council, and that if nominate and appoint a member to the Authority, that person should vote, should be at the table, but would like this clarified.

Mr. Swanson stated that subsections c) and d) in 20-0206 which establishes membership to include one member of the city council and one member of the county commission was never
subsequently approved by the Grand Forks County Commission, and the Commission rejected that because the Airport Authority requires both concurring action by the City and County, so membership stands at 5 and does not include members of the city council or county commission, there is no prohibition from council appointing a member of its own body provided that the membership otherwise met requirements which are in 20-0207.

Council Member Brooks stated that in 2002 he had asked that they should revisit that and should be voting members and reminded that mill levy includes mills for the Airport without any control over what money is spent on; that in 2002 Mayor appointed council members and they talked to the County about it but they weren't ready but may have changed their minds to approve that and would like to see us revisit again.

2.4 Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Project No. 5674, Columbia Road and 24th Avenue South Intersection Reconstruction.____________
Council Member Kerian questioned when going east on 17th Avenue and intersecting
with Columbia - concern is there is a backlog if go straight or turn right. Cindy Voigt, asst. city engineer, reported this project doesn't go that far north. Council Member Kerian asked if that is in any future plans. Ms. Voigt stated there was discussion re. intersection improvements, widening on 17th and not sure whether eastbound or westbound and would review that and send e-mail.

Council Member Brooks noted federal participation is capped at $952,000, that total is $1,176,450, and we are close to federal cap; and asked if any increased costs are covered by the City and who is going to be approving change orders. Ms. Voigt stated in the preliminary budget we have a contingency in the 2169 infrastructure fund to cover any changes above the federal cap; changes have to be approved by the State because it is federal dollars but not a regional project where they can decide additional paving and in this case City picks up the 20% but have control of the project so can control expenditures; and when hit federal match, City picks up additional costs.

Council Member Kreun stated this is a continuation of the existing project they had at 32nd and Columbia coming north and at the request of the business owners that we not do this intersection last year or this year as they wanted a break and blacktop temporary so they can make the connection with 24th and assuming will be handled in the same manner as 32nd and Columbia as far as our control goes. Ms. Voigt stated the 32nd and Columbia project was joint venture because 32nd was regional, and on this specific intersection it is 100% urban, 100% City, same concepts, same major process with the CPR except that we're funding it out of our urban dollars and City funds.

2.5 Utility Relocation Agreement for Project No. 5674, Columbia Road and 24th Avenue South Intersection Reconstruction._____________________________
There were no comments.

2.6 Cost Participation, Construction and Maintenance Agreement for Project No. 5702, Paving 40th Avenue South (South 20th Street to Reummele­ Road)._______________
Council Member Christensen asked if we are above the federal share. Rusten Roteliuk,
project engineer, stated we are the max. amount that federal contribution would be $1.6 million
and now estimated that federal participation will be approx. $1.4 million and have $200,000
contingency and stay in urban account. He also noted that figures are not 80%-20% as there are
some things that are not eligible for federal funding and City is responsible to pick that up; and
currently only method of funding is special assessments.

2.7 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5769, Phase V Landfill Closure and Project No. 5783, Landfill Compost Site Construction._______________________________
There were no comments. A new report had been placed on council members desks..

2.8 Consideration of bids for Project No.5789, Community Greens Irrigation System___
Council Member Brooks stated there was only 1 bid that was turned in, Opp Construction
and bid was higher than the engineer's estimate, and asked if we should rebid. Mr. Walker stated he didn't believe it would be of any benefit to rebid it and no guarantee that get more than 1 bid, and bid could perhaps come in higher. He stated they advertised the project with 2 weeks required by state law and in addition contacted several of the companies that do this type of work, and did contact 3 or 4 of the companies in town that do this type of work to let them know it was coming by 2 weeks in advance of the bid, and still didn't bid the project.

2.9 Application for moving permit to move a dwelling from 1714 12th Ave.N. to 1734 12th Ave.N.____________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.10 Substandard dwelling at 204 Fenton Avenue.
There were no comments.

2.11 Substandard dwelling at 712 7th Avenue South.
There were no comments.

2.12 Substandard dwelling at 1105 North 5th Street.
There were no comments.

2.13 Substandard dwelling at 2677 North 42nd Street.
There were no comments.

2.14 FY2006 Sanitation and Wastewater Enterprise Funds rate changes.
There were no comments.

2.15 Sanitation Department budget amendment.
There were no comments.

2.16 Consideration of bids for Project No. 5691 WWTP Biosolids Management and Capital Improvements Project._________________________________________
Council Member Kreun stated that through process started about a year ago, are about $400,000 less than anticipated

2.17 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Southern Estates LLP for final approval of the Plat of Southern Estates Fifth Addition (loc. west of S. 20th Street between the Southend Drainway and 43rd Avenue S., and to include approval of the plat as a designated affordable housing district. (8/01/05 - tabled to 8/15/05 and to include on C/W agenda)____________________________________________________________
There were no comments. This ties in with Item 2.32.

2.18 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of LPF Properties for final approval of Replat of Lots 1-8, and Lots 13-20, Block 1, North Pines Addn. (loc. at 4718 through 4778 Pines Circle).___________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.19 Request on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, Robert Panther and Jay Potulny for final approval (fast track) of the replat of Lots 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Blk. 16, Sunbeam Addn. (loc. at Gentle Hills Circle and Rolling Hills Circle)._____________
There were no comments.

2.20 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of AG Park LLP for final approval (fast track) of the replat of Lot 1 and Lot C, Blk. 1, Brown Corporation Addn. (loc. at 1160 12th Street NE)._____________________________________________________________
There were no comments.
2.21 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Alerus Financial for final approval (fast track) of the replat of Block 8, Renewal Resubdivision No. 2 (loc. at 516 DeMers Ave.)____
Council Member Christensen asked what is being built at this corner. Dennis Potter, city
planner, stated that Alerus is re-arranging their drive-up facility and when finished, sell the balance of the property to the School Board - parking lot.

2.22 Request from Arthur Greenberg, Jr. and Tom and Olivia Martinez for approval of a petition to vacate right of way and utility easement lying adjacent to Lots B and C, Blk. 1 and Lot 1, Blk. 2, Columbia Park 22nd Addn. (loc between 3450 and 3501 S. 42nd St.)_______________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.23 Request from Deacon's Development, LLP for approval of a petition to vacate a roadway and utility easement lying within Lots 4 and 5, Blk. 1, Kannowski's First Addn. (loc. in 5300 blk. of S. Washington_St.)______________________________
There were no comments.

2.24 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Deacon's Development, LLP for preliminary approval of Zavoral's First Addn., being a Replat of Lot 4, Blk. 1, Kannowski's First Addn. (loc. in 5100 to 5400 blks. of S. Washington_Street)._____________________
Council Member Kreun stated they could work on a concept plan to include a small road that would connect that area to the Middle School area because of the way it is designed have to exit on Washington, and maybe Mr. Grasser could ask them to look at that.

2.25 Request from CPS, Ltd. on behalf of Jed and Jennifer Carlson for approval of the plat of East Lake Addn. (loc. in SE Quarter of NE Quarter of Section 35, T151N, R50W, 5th P.M.)________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.26 Request from Michael J. Brossart for preliminary approval of ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Multiple-Family, High Density) District to B-3 (General Business) District, Lot 10, Blk. 13, Skidmore Addn. (loc. at 1506 N. 6th Street)._____________
There were no comments.

2.27 Request from ICON Architectural Group on behalf of ICON-McEnroe Land Development for preliminary approval of the plat of McEnroe First Addn. (loc. in N Half of SE Quarter of NE Quarter, Section 8, T151N, R50W, 5th P.M.)___________
There were no comments.

2.28 Request from ICON Architectural Group on behalf of ICON-McEnroe Land Development for preliminary approval of an ordinance to amend the zoning map to rezone and exclude from the Garden View Estates Areas 6-1, 7-1 and 7-2 and to include within the McEnroe First PUD (Planned Unit South Development), Concept Development Plan all of McEnroe First Addn. (loc. in S Half of NE Quarter, Section 8, T151N, R50W, 5th P.M.)__________________________________________
Council Member Kreun stated on this issue if could work in a situation to address our
storm sewer out there, and could put that in the plan as there will be some concerns.

2.29 Request from ICON Architectural Group on behalf of ICON-McEnroe Land Development for approval of an ordinance to annex all of McEnroe First Addn. (loc. in N Half of SE Quarter of NE Quarter, Section 8, T151N, R50W, 5 P.M.)_________
There were no comments.

2.30 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Arthur Greenberg, Jr. for preliminary approval of the plat of Columbia Park 32nd Resubdiv. (loc. in 4300 blk. of 36th Avenue S.)__________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.31 Request from University of ND for preliminary approval of ordinance to amend the zoning map to exclude from the West Campus PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, and to include within the West Campus PUD (Planned Unit Development), Concept Development Plan, Amendment No. 1, all of West Campus Resubdiv. (loc. between University Ave. and DeMers Ave. and between N. 42nd St. and I-29)_______________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks asked what the plan is. Kevin Harrison, doctoral student at
UND and champion of this project and the research, stated that in working with director of facilities at UND, he put together a site proposal - the project entails putting up a tower to support a wind turbine, hub height is 116 ft. and blade length is 14 ft., and in addition to tower and wind turbine he is proposing a small research facility which would be at the base of this tower where they would have experimental equipment - shipping container that see stacked on a ship that carries cargo, exterior painted white with a UND logo on it.

Council Member Christensen asked why they have to replat this ground to do that. Mr. Potter stated they are rezoning, changing existing PUD zoning designation on this property to allow this particular use to occur, not replatting.

2.32 Affordable Housing Districts.
Mr. Hoover, Urban Development, stated there was another item on the agenda, Item 2.17, relating to a subdivision asking for designation as the fourth affordable housing district in the city; this came up previously and at that time council directed staff to review with the president of the council and the chairs of the two standby committees the current AHD (affordable housing district) Program, did that and did not issue a report but talked about the history of the affordable housing districts, experience with them and discussed possible changes for the future. He stated there are currently 3 districts operating in the city which were established as pilot programs in 2003 and within these programs developers receive concessions for special assessment and land development requirements for building of at least 75% of their homes at a purchase price of $135,250 and that is exclusive of special assessments.

He stated these districts did help with replenishing the supply of housing lost in 1997 flood and as of May, 2005, of 62 homes that have been sold in the 3 districts, 27% of those have met that sales target price and believe that part of the issue there with meeting that sales price is attributed to 3 things: 1) an unrealistically low target price but no longer seems to be a plausible target price, 2) significant increase in constructions costs, and 3) continuation of the hot real estate market in this community. He stated that 31% of the people who have purchased homes in the 3 affordable housing districts to date are move-up sales, they had a property in Grand Forks and moved from there to a newer property in the housing district and that the house they left was lower value and resold for amount at or less than $132,250.

He stated they currently estimate 275 lots that are still available for construction, estimate, and that one of the affordable housing districts is fully platted at 116 lots, another is not fully platted but plans are for 126 lots when fully developed, and other affordable housing district has a large unplatted area which they are basing their estimate and what they think will come out as far as number of lots, and as of today best estimate is 275 lots - engineering department estimates that of those lots only 100 of them are platted for single-family homes.

The issue for affordable housing remains a major issue for the City, and for the quarter ending in March of 2005, the Federal Deposit Insurance Co. issued a report that indicated that prices in Grand Forks for that quarter increased 11.6% which is near the national average, this compares to 9.1% in Fargo and 6.9% in Bismarck, and it has been suggested that revisions are in order for the program, that these suggestions should focus on developer incentives that are targeted toward creating more lots that would allow the development of smaller, lower cost homes and that home buyer incentives should remain as property tax exemptions for limited number of years, and suggested changes to the current policy are that 1) all lots in the AHD be limited to 65 ft. or less with exceptions for corner lots, 2) eliminate the current AFH policy of providing the City installing infrastructure for the development and return us to the current policy city-wide of requiring the developer to finance 50% of the infrastructure; 3) eliminate the 2-year deferral on special assessment payments; and 4) there be support for a city-wide real estate tax exemption for the first $75,000 of value for all new homes built in the AFH districts and elsewhere within the city of Grand Forks - the City ordinance as set up where you have a home with a structural value of $110,000 that you can get a 2-year deferral on the first $75,000 of that structural value, in the AHD that amount is not capped at $110,000 but at $135,250.

Vice President Hamerlik stated there is a history of the new home exemptions in Grand Forks beginning in 1983 through 2002.

Rusty Wysocki, 1621 Rider Road, owner and president of Wysocki Building Company, stated he was involved when the affordable housing task force was started in 2002 and 2003, and when reviewing what has happened over that period of time, the building cycle in Grand Forks from June to June, and have had short period of time where have had the affordable housing district concept in Grand Forks and would like to see that continuing with some of the revisions that Mr. Hoover talked about; that we tried to develop some land and open it up to whomever wanted to build a house, even homeowner, but need to keep working on it, true affordable housing has to be done by a builder that is very conscientious of doing that, it needs participation of government. He stated he would like to ask to reconvene the task force so they can evaluate the successes or failures out of it and figure out where can go forward, and would support Mr. Hoover's suggestions and ask that you support the fourth affordable housing district. That with Mr. Useldinger developing that, it would open up housing to small builders and would invite competition to keep those houses down or pre-sell them or put spec. houses out there. He noted that they don't have a lot of houses built on a specifulation basis. He stated he thinks they need to sit down as a task force again and re-evaluate that.

Council Member Kreun stated we are short of single family homes, and this affordable district is all single family homes, no twin homes or town homes, which is what they are short of at this time and does create the opening for other move-up and that is why took the limit out, because it is hard to put price or limit on that and it does entice people. He stated that if they can come through and pass this at this time because there are some changes in there but we can reconvene utilizing this particular pilot program because want to put it as a resolution and go back and take winter and do what saying, because be a benefit to all of us.

Council Member Christensen stated we are talking about reducing the lot size from minimum size to 65 ft. and depth 120 feet, and another thing is reducing the right of way widths to 70 ft. and adding 5 ft. easements on each side of the rights of way so there is a place for underground, and idea is to create some smaller lots and with smaller lots have smaller homes on those lots. The issue that might be of some controversy is that we reinstate a tax exemption in the community of first $75,000 on any structure is exempt from taxation, currently in our AHD because of what Mr. Hoover was saying that the number was unrealistically low it didn't seem as though catching too many fish with the $75,000 exemption. He stated what he liked best about the report back is basically shrinking the size of the lots and asked if that was a good thing. Mr. Wysocki stated that was good and that if he were to build affordable housing, he wouldn't have a forced air furnace, air-conditioning, 24x24 ft. attached garage and not have a driveway that is 50 ft. long and 18 ft. wide, and can take the houses they are currently building and can cut $25 to $30,000 out that way, and that gets back to the art of affordable housing, and the area that is doing the best job is Promenade area because they have taken those things into consideration and that Mr. Hansen has studied those things and that is probably going to be the most successful affordable housing district out of the 3.

Council Member Christensen stated they are trying to replace the stock and have probably accomplished that and created an inventory of lots. Mr. Wysocki stated what goes hand in hand with that and along with housing in general there are two other factions they need to take, one is land use and other is annexation policies, but thinks annexation policy needs to be looked at, and way to keep mill levies down is to expand that tax base and if have more $175,000 houses out there that city would be much better off.

Council Member Christensen asked if it would make a big difference if they exempt the first $75,000 of what it cost to build a house, whether it is $150,000 or $300,000. Mr. Wysocki stated it might - boils down to monthly payment and if defer first $75,000 and save 2.2% you wouldn't have to pay on your mortgage and would have more dollars to spend on - better drapes, better appliances, etc. Christensen stated that is $1,665 or 2.2% of $75,000 for 2 years. Mr. Wysocki stated that on an annual basis and that is $100/mo. off mortgage.

He stated he did not like to see that the developer put 50% of the infrastructure in, and as small developer and builder, would be a big incentive to him; and in final drafts that the City would pay for all of the infrastructure. It was noted that the developer would pass that onto the homeowner; and that would put more cost on the buyer of the home - specials financed now and interest.

The city auditor stated that when an exemption comes up like this if he didn't speak against it, that we have gone through the cycle of $75,000 exemptions, $50,000 exemptions and no exemptions and have never been able to find any correlation between large increase in housing of single family detached permits based on that fact - the biggest factor and years with biggest permits is going to be the interest rate at that time and the mortgage rate - new residential areas cause the largest demand of city services and when you exempt those, what you are doing is that everybody else who is currently paying taxes can help carry that share to the new area for 2 years. and those are his standard arguments.

. Mr. Wysocki suggested maybe revisiting what the Housing Authority is doing with Promenade and that would be part of the reason for binging back or re-establishing the task force to study this. He stated he would not like to see the City as a builder but like to see the City buy property and take advantage of the governmental entities to find some incentives that are out there through federal or State governments, Home Programs, etc.

Council Member Glassheim stated that it looks like the changes being proposed are to have affordable housing districts without any affordable housing - and that the infill lots have been very successful and are built by contract with the City, private, small builders and asked how many infill lots have been added and what price is and if any opportunities left or all used up. Mr. Hoover stated they can get the information on the infill program and that has been suspended for this year and next year until get the dike in because if did the lots now would have to raise people out of the floodplain and destroy character of the neighborhood and don't want to do that. Infill program has been very successful and will continue at a later date. He stated that the city assessor's data points out that 31% of the people who bought in the current affordable housing districts have sold homes elsewhere in the community, and there is that move-up.

Mr. Hoover stated it is also an issue of volume, we don't have enough homes that are built to allow people to move out so the 31% on the 17, at some point maybe 31% of 100, and as he went back and looked at what did historically, it started out as an entry level housing task force and that is not where it ended up - and what is affordable housing, that is the key question, what do you consider affordable housing, if look at Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, they will tell you that their HOME Program and if qualify for single-family home ownership under that program they will tell you that affordable housing is a property that is valued at $172,632 and they are saying it is way up here and some looking at $80 to $100,000 and there is major debate here, complex set of issues; and as far as Promenade, there homes are ranging anywhere from $85-86,000 to $140,000, and Mr. Hansen stated that is attributable to $750,000 CDBG that you subsidized that project and if not for that, they would have had to pay special assessments which would have added on average $14,000 to each one of those prices and is an issue, and have decision to decide what you want to do with affordable housing and pertinent issue is whatever you decide you have a developer who has requested affordable housing and that has been at least 3 months in the making for a decision and City owes him a decision next Monday as to where going to continue the affordable housing districts as they currently are and he is going to be designated and change it and he is going to have to abide by these rules or do away with it, and ultimately your choices.

Council Member Glassheim stated he would oppose any $75,000 for exemption for half million dollar home, not sure he approves of any of them, but somewhat justifiable on an affordable home, modest or starter home but for $200,000 homes don't need to be assisting people and having other existing home owners pay their share of property taxes.

Council Member Kreun stated we need housing stock in Grand Forks and need housing stock in all markets, all levels and don’t have it in the lower end and one way to bring out is either build them or have another level built so people move up and opens up lower levels of income and price points. Mr. Wysocki asked to reinstate that task force committee.

Council Member Kerian stated there are a number of parcels in the city that are surrounded by city property and we have not taken the steps to annex them, and time to get those properties on a list that we can have a discussion about and whether the City should take some action because it is supply and demand and have to increase the supply of land available to builders in the community as well. Council Member Kerian stated that the $135,250 to be increased to some number - $172,600. Mr. Wysocki stated that the HUD figures and HOME Program and ND Housing Finance track with those numbers and are through federal statistics and a lot of detailed information for those communities and that is a bona fide number to work with; and the figure is adjusted annually.

Council Member Brooks stated $90,000 home is affordable to a lot of people, can come up with federal terms but wants first time home buyers because those will make their commitment to stay and are the ones to target. Mr. Wysocki stated that a 65 ft. lot would be too large for him for affordable housing.

Council Member Christensen stated when talking about affordable are talking about subsidized housing, the issues becomes for the community at what level and in what manner are we going to subsidize housing , and if want to control those that don't control large blocks of land in this community because we have one of these developers that hasn't brought the property to the forefront by platting it, just holding it but suggested thinking about buying some land and have organization called JDA that allows us to do just about anything and when we re-address this issue and start thinking about maybe we'll have to do that as a community, may have developers or builders who are not in favor of that, but probably have to do that if we have so much of the land being held in back pocket that we can't affect an affordable project in another area of town but want so move forward because wants to continue the concept and the stock, maybe have caveats on this one which says you have to sell to little builders, once know its pre-sold approve it. He stated to have affordable housing for the community and try to get everybody involved maybe should think about those things rather than carte blanc approve this but wants to make sure that Mr. Useldinger has his opportunity for the district; and not sure if have to give Mr. Useldinger an answer on Monday or maybe ponder this project longer - and maybe find that the best project is Promenade and maybe want to emulate that as best we can in the southend - debate should continue before we adopt the policy.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated he had passed out an e-mail as clarification and was working with Big Sioux Café re. smoking ordinance - these places trying to comply and they are trying to build wall but have to work with them but takes while because initial questions on it - when get smoke patrol that calls up and reports someplace, running into a lot of calls

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved by Council Member Kerian and seconded by Council Member Brooks that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,


John M. Schmisek
City Auditor