City of Grand Forks, North Dakota

Employment - City Directory - Contact Us


	MAYOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - - 4:00 p.m. A101 Present: Gershman, Glassheim, McNamara, Christensen (joined meeting in progress). Absent: Bakken, Kreun, Mayor Brown. Gershman called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Gershman stated that the agenda would be amended to allow for discussion of the last item first. Matter of Appointment to Vacant City Council Position. John Schmisek informed the Council of the options for filling the seat on the Council they are: 1) The electorate have 15 days to call for an election. This would require 11 signatures on a petition. 2) If no call for an election is made, the Council can make an appointment to fill the seat. That individual would serve until the June election. 3) If the electorate did not feel the individual appointed was a satisfactory candidate, they would again have 15 days after the appointment to again gather 11 signatures on a petition to call for an election. He continued that if the Council or electorate called for an election, the timeline considerations would be that petitions must be filed 60 days before the election date, and some time prior to that would need to be set aside to allow for circulation of petitions, usually at least a couple of weeks. Keeping those needs in mind, that would lead to the earliest date for an election being late April and with the General Election scheduled right away in June, the interim person would only serve at most about 6-8 weeks. The group discussed establishing a process that would allow anyone interested in filling the seat on an interim basis until the June election to contact the Mayor’s office. All those applicants would then be reviewed by the Council and an appointment made. A deadline for applicants of January 20 at 5:00 p.m. was discussed, with Council making an appointment the following week. The group discussed that the Council’s preference would be to fill the interim seat with someone not interested in running in June, thereby eliminating the incumbent advantage the a candidate planning to run in June would get from an appointment, but agreed that they could not mandate someone could not run in June if appointed. The main consideration will be trying to select a person that will effectively represent Ward 1 until the election. The group stipulated that the other main requirement would be that interested applicants must be residents of Ward 1. Further discussion of this topic occurred at the end of the meeting. Matter of Homeless Plan. Meredith Richards and Peggy Kurtz of Urban Development introduced Jessica Thomasson, consultant, who gave a presentation of the draft 10 year plan to end chronic homelessness in the community. She stated that the report was compiled through meetings and work conducted with over 30 stakeholder agencies as well as staff assistance. She continued by providing the definition of chronic homelessness that was used in the study as well as statistics on the problem. (Christensen arrives.) Thomasson’s presentation included reasons for chronic homelessness, risk factors, and benefits to the community from proceeding with a plan to end homelessness. She stated that the plan includes steps that would be taken each year for the next 10 years addressing both prevention and intervention, with some parts being completed through City departments, but a lot being completed by various stakeholder agencies. The group discussed that the next step would be for the City to decide whether they do want to pass the plan, including passing a resolution that would state that ending chronic homelessness is a priority for our community. The group discussed that the City passing this would allow the agencies to set a preference for assistance for those individuals suffering from chronic homelessness, as well as giving the agencies the ability to list on grant applications that they may submit that the projects to be funded meet this community priority of ending chronic homelessness. The Council expressed a desire for more information prior to looking at passing moving ahead with anything. Some of the requested information would be financial needs for moving ahead with the plan and a stipulation that any part involving the City would not lead to a future request for additional staff to work on this item. Thomasson stated that there are not fiscal notes attached to this plan at this time, but that they could work to include some and that would normally be a part of Phase II of the plan. She noted that if a step was being done by an agency, they would provide the funding for that, and many times that funding would come from outside grant sources that they could obtain to satisfy the need. Gershman suggested that if this is deemed to be a priority in the community then perhaps the amount that is available for CDBG should be designated to that cause which would mean the effort would not come on the backs of taxpayers, but cautioned that would mean those funds would not be available to meet other agency needs then. Richards stated that at this time there is not request for funding or increased funding, only asking Council to determine whether this is a priority for the City to focus on and if it is to approve moving forward with the plan. Glassheim suggested that perhaps instead of looking at approving the full 10 year plan it would be more palatable to bring forward in phases or steps for approval, then would get more details as to what is involved with proceeding with that area. He commented that there are some very good suggestions in the plan and he is in favor of seeing them move forward, in particular the SRO’s, but that it may be easier for all to do a little at a time. Kurtz added that if the actions and timelines are reviewed it shows that all the costs and actions are spread to a number of agencies and rather than one having to cover the full risk or cost, it leads to a coordinated community effort, which includes the City, to work toward the goal of ending chronic homelessness. The group discussed the time commitment for City staff if the proposal is approved and the concern that there are a number of other issues that staff is currently involved with and not wanting to add new staff or see work on other projects cease in order for this to move forward. Richards responded that staff realizes this would be additional and that no new positions could be created and will continue to prioritize work as directed to get all done in a timely manner. The group discussed that the affected population for this initiative is a small population and that there is a concern that a lot of time and funds could go to that small number, and some agencies might rather see just as big a need in their client population and perhaps need to get public comments before making one group a priority over another. Dave Sena, Director of the Mission, stated that the numbers reported from the general demographics in the study seem to be low and he would estimate that they deal with 80-90 people per year and that there are people with substance abuse issues that could benefit from a detox center being developed, which is part of the plan, but that having the Council make this issue a priority leverages the agencies with the power to take advantage of some grants as they come along to help the chronically homeless population. The group discussed a desire to see data that shows that when services go up the number of people in the target group does not increase as some from other areas move here to take advantage of the services we have. Thomasson replied that Fargo-Moorhead has hired the Wilder Fund to conduct a survey every three years to gather more data on this population, and that so far the data gathered shows that the population being helped is not transient to the community, but long term residents. Gershman stated that he is not in favor of scattering small dollars to a number of different small projects, but prefers making a bigger impact by focusing more towards a larger project and completing it. He suggested that perhaps the stakeholder agencies should meet one more time and discuss whether among all the populations that they deal with, if this is an area that they see as a priority that would make an impact for their clients and if they can concur that it is, then bring that recommendation back to the Council with more specifics as to what they need from the City to address the need and then consider it. Christensen stipulated that this should include that the final item does not become an additional entity that the City ends up owning and running, as that is too much on our staff. Richards stated that the overall intent of the study is to see private agencies or businesses come forward to take on steps in the plan. McNamara added that the information should also include financial needs. He continued that he does not want Council to pass something and then have it come back later that, by the way, you were in favor of looking into this, so now you have to do this step. He preferred looking at approvals of intermediate steps and bringing specifics that require City participation forward to Council for passage. Christensen stated he would also like to see more Grand Forks specific data gathered, something that would be more than a one night collection, and suggested that perhaps bullet points like that that would require some funding be brought forth to the Finance Development Committee, but that they should be tax neutral proposals and not involve the addition of staff. He suggested perhaps getting public comment on the plan, maybe for 6 weeks to 2 months and then bringing those comments to Council to consider in their deliberation. Gershman suggested perhaps prioritizing the top five items that the group would like to see done now and bringing those forward. Glassheim stated that if the City adopts the plan it is not saying they are going to do it all or fund it all, just that they agree with the National and State efforts and that we agree that this is an important issue. Gershman stated that the City then needs to determine, do we feel this is the biggest issue for our community and one we want to say is our first priority or is there something more important? Terry Hanson, Director of the Housing Authority, commented that the Urban Development employed the consultant and started this working on this plan at the direction of the Mayor, the City brought the issue to the agencies and asked them to contribute how much of an issue it was for their agencies and what they would need for their agency to work towards ending the problem, and now the agencies have done that and are looking to the City to see if that is what the City wants them to make a priority in their programs. He continued that the agencies can give a preference to any group, but if the City designates this particular group as the biggest priority for the community, then the agencies will go with that and otherwise they all have other groups asking to be made a priority and can go with one of them. Duquette suggested that perhaps the agencies should collaborate more on this issue, look at the strategies, maybe don’t need to adopt all now, and look at what needs to keep going at this time. Christensen pointed out that recently there was an event sponsored by Bremer Foundation on other community issues and they may be just as great as this and may also be some other groups out there that feels they should be the community’s priority and not at a point where can just choose one over others without more information and input from the community. Hanson pointed out that the National Conference of Mayor’s did adopt this as a priority, as did some other groups, and agencies are just looking for direction as to if the City’s feels this is the priority for us. McNamara agreed that this is a problem but also expressed that Council may need more input before being able to say it’s the most important priority that we have. Kate Kenna, Northeast Human Service Center, stated that there is a community need and that agencies do work with this population and that while they are a small number they often take up a lot of agency time and dollars. She reaffirmed that the designation would allow some agencies to secure funding to tackle some of the steps in the plan and that the City would not be the one solely responsible for completion of the plan. Meredith suggested bringing the plan to a COW with a shortened presentation and then opening a 30 day comment period to get community reaction. The group consensus was that this is a problem and one that is shared in all communities nationwide, but that the Council needs more information before proceeding. One concern was also whether those in the community see this as an area where the City should be participating or if it should be left to the agencies as that is their focus and the need to make sure people know that any participation should not involve tax dollars. Hanson responded that having the city designate this as a priority can help agencies secure grants to fund their own programs, even if no City dollars are involved. He continued that without the City designation agencies don’t know if this is something they should target or not. Christensen stated that it is a god report, some good ideas to address a problem, now need to let the Council decide whether as City fathers, they want to tackle this chronic issue, but need to think about it and gather more information before making any decision. Glassheim stated that he would be in favor of getting the report out and establishing a 30 day comment period and would prefer to see a limited plan with a narrow goal as the next step over the full plan adoption, and that the steps should be measurable so that the result can be seen over time, and he does see one drawback being the small population that this effort targets. Duquette stated that this item will then be schedule for an upcoming committee of the whole meeting with a shorter presentation, maybe 20 minutes, then establish a 30 or 60 day comment period, then take those and identify some priorities to bring back to the Committee. Motion by Glassheim, Second by McNamara, to schedule this item for a COW meeting, perhaps in 2 weeks, to be followed by a 30 day comment period, with return to report results at a COW meeting. Aye: All. McNamara stated that he would also like to see included in the new information that is gathered something from the agencies that describes where the homeless issue is in the agencies priorities, is it in the top 5, etc. Christensen added that he would also like to see how this would affect the core mission of the City and how we address the concern from the public that there are agencies working on this already and the City should let them handle it. Matter of City Council Vacancy Appointment (con’t). Christensen requested that more discussion be done on this item, as he was not present for the earlier discussion. He is in favor of having interested persons call and express their interest, but feels that there should be more time and perhaps extend for at least a couple of weeks and then get the list of interested persons for the COW meeting on February 11 and could call a special meeting to do the appointment that evening if needed. Following more discussion, the consensus was to adjust the timeline for interested applicants with a deadline of contacting the Mayor’s Office by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 6. This item will be on the Committee of the Whole agenda for the meeting on February 11, with applicants encouraged to attend that evening. If needed, a work session will be called for February 13, at which the Council members could meet with the applicants. Appointment would take place at the Council meeting on February 18. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sherie Lundmark Administrative Specialist Senior