Loading...
12-15-03 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2003 REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order 1. Approval of minutes of (1 Special Concurrent HRA and City Council Worksession and (2) Regular HRA Meeting on November 17, 2003 2. HRA approval of agenda 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the HRA in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further HRA action- is necessary. However, any HRA Commissioner may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for HRA discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of modifications to Transformation Homes Loan program guidelines S.R. No. 62 B. Consideration of approval of agreement with Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation to deliver pilot package of housing programs and services S.R. No. 63 C. Consideration of approval of extension of contract completion date for rehabilitation of property at 6945 Clinton Avenue S.R. No. 64 4. Consideration of survey work results by Anderson, Niebuhr and Associates, Inc., accept report, and pursue programs and partnerships that emphasize building and remodeling of homes, apartments and commercial buildings Staff Report No. 65 Notes: 5. Consideration of transfer of $21,918 to Minneapolis Consortium of Community Developers to provide for continuation of Enterprise Facilitation program in Richfield Staff Report No. 66 Notes: 6. Executive Director report 7. Claims and payroll Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. AGENDA ITEM # rj REPORT ~# 66 STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, T7771 REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMSORG, COrr1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITYE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: o t'P SIGNA7YIRE REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of transfer of $21,918 to the Minneapolis Consortium of Community Developers to rovide for the dontinuation of the Enter rise Facilitation ro ram in Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the transfer of $21,918 to the Minneapolis Consortium of Community Developers to provide for the continuation of the Enterprise Facilitation program in Richfield. _ II. BACKGROUND ~ The Housing and Redevelopment Authonty (HRA} is scheduled to terminate its financial support of the Enterprise Facilitation program December 31, 2003. Our role as fiscal agent will also end. The Enterprise Facilitation Board has been seeking an alternative organization to support the program beginning in January 2004. Since its inception in 1997, the HRA has provided about 45% of the program funding. Other organizations have contributed the remainder of the funds. Hennepin County and the Wells Fargo Foundation have consistently been the two other largest contributors since its inception. The McKnight Foundation has provided significant support more recently. Two organizations have surfaced that would be interested in supporting the continuation of the program. The Minneapolis Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) is proposing to hire Rob Smolund beginning in January. Apart of their strategic plan has been to expand into first ring suburbs. They provide technical assistance and micro loans to small businesses, which are unable to secure financing from traditional sources. Richfield would be their first suburban initiative. They have been providing these services for several years in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Hennepin County also continues to be interested in the program to help support their displaced workers program. The projected year-end balance for Enterprise Facilitation is estimated at $21,918. An allocation analysis of revenue and expenditures indicates that 55°10 of that revenue ($12,055) is from donations from others and 45% of the revenue ($9,863) is from the HRA. No 2003 HRA budgeted funds will be expended this year. The HRA balance is from years prior to 2003. MCCD has requested that they be the recipient of the estimated balance to help offset the start-up. (The annual budget for Enterprise Facilitation has approximated $55,000.) In return for this one time investment, residents and businesses in Richfield will continue to receive the technical advice that has been available from the ofFce of the Facilitator at Wells Fargo Bank on Nicollet Avenue. The enhancement will be the availability of micro loans. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION The HRA initially established Enterprise Facilitation as a way to encourage business development in the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The transfer of the $21,918 to MCCD will permit the Richfield program to continue and expand with the micro loan element. C. FINANCIAL The $12,055 are funds from others specifically designated for Enterprise Facilitation. The $9,863 are HRA dollars from pre-2003. No 2003 HRA dollars will be expended even though authorized by the revised 2003 budget. D. LEGAL N/A TERNATIVE ~ ransfer orny the non-hrw n • Refuse to transfer any funds. ATTACHMENTS • Letter from Marcy Lindstrom, Chair of the Enterprise Facilitation Board Program statistics PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Marcy Lindstrom, Char of the Enterprise Facilitation Board • Jim Roth, Executive Director, MCCD • Rob Smolund Enterprise Facilitator December 8, 2003 Richfield HRA, 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dean Richfield HRA, The Richfield Enterprise Facilitation pmgraxn is grateful to you for your support of our program over the last 5 ~~ years. Our program has sewed over 370 clients, helped start 50 businesses and assisted in the expansion of 28 businesses. Rob Smolund has secured a position with MCCD to continue with the Enterprise Facilitation progrataa. He will still maintain. lams office at the Wells Fargo Bank in Richfield and be available to all Richfield residents for free assistance. Because pf lais continued presence within Richfield we are requesting that you transfer the total remainder of the funds that are in the Enterprise Facilitation account to MCCD. Thank you again fo,r your support. It will be exciting to have this valuable assistance still available to our Richfield citiz~:ns. Thank you, .,. ~~ Marcy Lindstroxxn Chair, Richfeld Enterprise Facilitation .Advisory Board Richfield Enterprise Facilitation Summary 1998-2003 EFIlviPACT2003.XLS AGENDA ITEM # L~ REPORT # 65 ~~ STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~~ REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Reporting results of survey work by Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. and making recommendations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the Executive Director to accept the report, and pursue programs and partnerships that emphasize the building and remodeling of homes, apartments, and commercial buildings. Forward the results of the survey to the City Council and School District for further consideration. III. BACKGROUND I At the end of 2002, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) authorized a survey by Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. (Anderson, Niebuhr). The purpose of the survey was to provide reliable information to assist in planning and development initiatives related to the allocation of housing fund resources that will help Richfield thrive and stay competitive. The HRA is especially concerned with what characteristics would attract and retain families within the Richfield community. To investigate characteristics that are important to residents, five groups were surveyed: 1) current Richfield residents with children, 2) people who moved into Richfield from other areas, 3) people who moved within Richfield, 4) people who 121503Anderson Niebuhr moved from Richfield to developed suburbs, and 5) people who moved out of Richfield to developing suburbs. The HRA hosted a study session with representatives of the City Council and School District. Specifically, the Richfield HRA sought to learn the following from current residents and people who moved into, within, or out of Richfield: • Satisfaction with shopping and recreation in Richfield. • Satisfaction with the Richfield public school system. • Comparisons between Richfield and other areas among people who have moved out of Richfield or moved into Richfield. • Reasons why people have chosen to stay, move into, or move out of Richfield. • Perceptions among residents on how to attract more families in Richfield. • Overall satisfaction with Richfield. • Perceptions regarding the Richfield community. • Residents' perceptions of how Richfield could improve its community. Anderson, Niebuhr was to conduct the research and complete the survey from January to September 2003. The survey was interrupted at the mid-point to secure a larger sample size for the multiple groups. A summary of the findings and recommended actions follows: Findings Overall people are very satisfied with the convenient location and find Richfield to be a friendly, warm community. Actions Reinforce these qualities in marketing and by communication; emphasizing the community qualities identified in the survey. People move in because: - Richfield is a nice location and convenient to everything. - family and friends are nearby - the housing is affordable People move out because: - that want bigger houses (Richfield houses are too old and small) - of airport noise - there is a concern about community safety and quality of schools that seems satisfied after a move out. People are satisfied with the convenience of shopping and recreation. People are satisfied with Richfield Public Sustain these qualities as you manage responses to concerns raised by people moving out and the changing types of people moving in. - build larger single family homes - provide more loans for home improvement/renovation - improve appearance of older apartments. - improve the appearance of commercial buildings - work with the City and School District on a communication plan that emphasize strengths and counter concerns. Continue to emphasize, particularly with new residents, including youth opportunities. Share findings with the School District that Schools people moving out tend to have: - a high satisfaction with facilities - a concern for safety in the schools - are less satisfied with quality of education and staff than their new locale A copy of the full survey will be available for review in the Community Development Department and at Augsburg Library. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The HRA provides projects and programs that attract people to Richfield and retain people. • The HRA should keep funding the projects and programs that it has; expanding efforts as resources allow in housing programs and commercial redevelopment. • The HRA hosted a study session with representatives of the City Council and School District to ensure that questions asked and answers received would be useful. • The survey should be shared with the City and School District and the cooperative role in communicating Richfield's strengths should be discussed collaboratively. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • For all the progress in housing programs and commercial redevelopment being. made, the survey reinforces that the old paradigms still exist: - "move don't improve" - "Richfield doesn't have larger homes" - "we want to be in a newer community" • Richfield community assets are strong but may not satisfy everyone. • Forwarding the survey results to the City and School District is important, as these groups must respond to perceived concerns by those who move out about the airport, safety, and quality of education. • The existing housing stock is what is and the HRA has an integral role in linking housing vitality to a changing marketplace. • Single family homes presently continue to be more likely purchased. by singles, .couples and empty nestors than families with children. • The December HRA agenda includes consideration of program responses to the survey: a revised Transformation Program to encourage larger homes and a partnership with the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation to offer more home improvement advice, loans, and first time buyer opportunities. In January a new apartment remodeling program will be presented to the HRA. C. FINANCIAL • Survey costs have matched the contracted amount. • The HRA authorized Best Buy resources to be used for Richfield Rediscovered, Transformation, and a rent assistance program for households with kids in Richfield schools. The survey results support that prior action. • Resources are limited. D. LEGAL • There are no legal considerations. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Request additional analysis and dedicate more resources to evaluating why people move into, stay and move out. V. ATTACHMENTS • Executive Summary of the 150 page report, which includes: - conclusions and recommendations - what residents think - what move ins think - what move within think - what move outs think - group comparisons - key predictors of satisfaction with living in Richfield. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dr. John Anderson, President, Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. • Dr. Deborah Eddy, Project Manager, Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. City of Roseville- Community Development Roseville Senior Housing Regeneration Program Contact Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) Carolyn Olson (612) 339-8703 Colson@gmmhc.org Purpose The ~ Senior Housing Regeneration Program (SHRP) is specifically for older adults who are considering selling their single-family homes. The Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC), the parent company of the Roseville Housing Resource Center, has been assisting in providing affordable housing and community revitalization for over 30 years. If you are a senior in Roseville looking to sell your home and move to a smaller home, townhome, condominium, retirement community, assisted living facility, or another continuing care facility this program can help by making the transition as hassle-free and easy as possible for you and your family. If you decide this program is right for you and your family, GMHC will make an offer to you based on an independent appraisal, conducted by an appraiser that will be agreed upon by both you and GMHC. After the sale, GMHC will make any necessary repairs and updates to your home, and resell it to a first-time homebuyer. Page 1 of 1 http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/development/housing/housin.../seniorhousingregeneration.ht 12/04/2003 Rehab Incentive Program Roseville Rehab Incentive Program Housing Resource Center Construction and loan consultants are available to advise and answer any questions about the program and your project. (651)486-7401 Program Forms Sworn Construction Statement Application Form Data Privacy Act Statement and Consent Form Contractor Acknowledgment Form Participation Agreement Purpose The Roseville Rehab Incentive Program is designed to assist homeowners in the City of Roseville maintain and improve their current housing in order to foster stabilization and revitalization by providing a rebate to homeowners after an improvement has been completed. Income Limits Gross annual income, from all sources incomes within the following categories: Up to $38,500 15% rebate payment $38,501 - $54,400 12% rebate payment $54,401 - $88,205 10% rebate payment Rebate Payment The rebate payment will be 10%, 12%, or 15% of project cost depending upon household income (see above income limits) with a maximum payment of $3,000 per household. Home improvements done under a deferred loan or grant program will not be eligible for inclusion in the rebate program. Eligible Properties Any single family dwelling (detached), or multi-family dwelling which upon completion will be converted to a single family housing unit within the City of Roseville. Single family includes owner occupied duplexes. Rehab Incentive Funds can be used for townhouses and condominiums for individual interior repairs ONLY. Ineligible Improvements This includes recreational or luxury improvements, projects not permanent in nature, working capital, payment for owner's labor, debt service or refinancing existing debts, and other expenses determined by the Housing Resource Center (HRC). Page 1 of 4 http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/development/housing/housing.../rehabincentiveEXPIRED.ht 12/04/2003 GMHC Highlights. Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation~Twin Cities Home Page, f.. Page 1 of 2 Greater Metropolitan Housing Corpora#ion~Twin Ci#ies Predevelopment Loans • Single Family Homeownership • HousingResaurce CentersT"' The Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation-Twin What's New Cities was formed in 1970 by the Minneapolis business Houses Available community. GMHC's mission is to preserve, improve Mission, Purpose 8~ History and increase affordable housing for low and moderate 3 Main Programs income individuals and families, as well as assist Program Highlights communities with housing revitalization. Board of Directors Our Staff Summary of Recent Resources 8~ Links Frequently Asked Questions GMHC Accomplishments contact us Home I. PREDEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM GMHC provides technical assistance and high risk 0% predevelopment (seed) TM Housing Resource Centers loans to organizations to assist in the development of quality affordable housing. These loans cover expenses such as architectural fees, surveys, Be sure to visit our other Web site environmental and soil testing, land costs, consultants, etc., as well as bridge __ loans. GMHC also administers the funding during the predevelopment phase. yyyyyy.hOUSingreSOUrCecenter.Org. A large variety of housing is funded under this program including multifamily This is the site for our Greater rental, home ownership, co-op housing, elderly housing, transitional housing Metropolitan Housing Resource and housing for special needs (for the disabled, persons with AIDS, chemical Centers --a FREE community dependencies, mental illness, frail elderly, women and family shelters, etc.). We have also provided this funding for the development of charter schools, as service that GMHC provides t0 well as commercial developments that enhance inner-city neighborhoods. hOUSing OWnerS Of greater During 2002: Minneapolis and various suburbs. • 1,003 units of housing for low and moderate income persons went You will find comprehensive one- under construction or renovation, with a total development cost of stop shopping for housing $101,810,365. GMHC provided $3,791,380 in high-risk front-end loans information, tailored to your house to these projects. and your circumstances, serving • GMHC approved $5,453,855 in new loan commitments for the COmmUllltleS In the TWin Cltl@S development of 1,802 units with a development cost of $192,722,546. • Another 3,021 units are in some phase of development with GMHC Metropolitan Area. loan commitments of $8,490,963, with a development cost of $336, 529,198. During the past five years: • GMHC made $16,623,746 in loan commitments to develop 4,261 units of affordable housing, 3,783 which have started construction or renovation. Since inception, GMHC has provided loan commitments of $31,704,138 for the development of 18,315 units of affordable housing with a development cost of over $1,206,821,851. II. SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM GMHC, in cooperation with the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA), builds and/or renovates single family homes in the inner-city of Minneapolis. The majority of homes are sold to persons with incomes at or below 80% of the median income and first time homebuyers. Financing tools are available to make these homes affordable. This program provides among other things: homeownership opportunities for individuals often previously left out of the ownership marketplace, stability and http://www.gmhctc.org/highlights.htm 12/04/2003 GMHC Highlights. Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation~Twin Cities Home Page, f.. Page 2 of 2 increased property values to neighborhoods, additional tax revenue for the city and county, and jobs during construction. During 2002: GMHC had 111 single family homes in process (95 new - 165 rehab) at a development cost of $15,810,000. Forty-five were completed and sold, 24 under construction and 42 either in neighborhood review, plan drawings or out for construction bids. Forty-two percent of the buyers were African American, 21 % Latino, 17% Asian, and 18% Caucasian, 7% other, and 71 % were first- time homebuyers. During the past five years: GMHC completed and sold 219 homes, with 667 in process, for a total of 285 homes, at a development cost of $42,649,000. GMHC builds the homes "on spec" (prior to having a buyer), hires the contractors, provides construction management, finances the construction, as well as the marketing and selling. Over 47% of the buyers were African American, 11 % Asian,l8% Latino, 20% Caucasian, 3% other, and 79% were first-time homebuyers. Since inception, GMHC has constructed or renovated 1,245 homes with a total development cost of over $110,215,893. III. Housing Resource Centers NORTHEASTINORTHWEST/SOUTHSIDE The Housing Resource Center is GMHC's newest program which was created to provide comprehensive free housing services to all residents of Minneapolis, while also improving the community and its housing stock. The Housing Resource Center provides numerous services, including individual, high quality, complete assistance through the purchase, financing, refinancing or construction/renovation process. The first Center was opened in Northeast Minneapolis at 909 Main Street in 1995. Because of its success, Hennepin County asked that we open another center providing services to the communities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale. As a result, we opened the Northwest Center at 44th and Penn Avenues North in Minneapolis. In 1999, in response to requests from Minneapolis city officials, a Southside Center was opened and is now located at 3749 Cedar Avenue South, Minneapolis. Upon request from the City of Roseville, as of April 1, 2000 the Housing Resource Center -Northeast services were available to their residents The North-Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition asked GMHC to open a new office in mid-2001 to serve their communities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville and Shoreview. This service, which began in 2001, also serves Coon Rapids. The Housing Resource Center is a partnership with the Minneapolis business community, state, regional, county and city agencies. All services are provided free to the public. During 2002: • The four Housing Resource Centers provided 11,472 free services to 7,456 clients. • Since opening in July of 1995, GMHC's Housing Resource Centers provided 32,280 services to 23,162 clients. Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation-Twin Cities 15 South 5th Street, Suite 710 Minneapolis, MN 55402 www.gmhctc.org /Phone: 612-339-0601 FAX: 612-339-0608 e-mail: Colson@gmmhc.org copyright 2003 GMHC http://www.gmhctc.org/highlights.htm 12/04/2003 Greater Minneapolis Housing Resource Centers Services -A Free Service and Program of .. Page 1 of 2 ~ Q A Program of The Greater u/~ ~t D p p T~" Metropolitan Housing f1V~\~ ~~~~r~V ~V~~Vr Corporation~Twin Cities ~~ tt -vv++~ vv ,.. ~7~ ~j :r. `.. ~~®~®~ SERVICE AREAS Services If you are a resident of the following partnering cities, The HousingResource CentersT"" provides residents with extensive, you are eligible to high quality and individualized assistance with their home improvement HousingResourceCenter services and financing needs. Arden Hills Call the HousingResource Center nearest you for: Circle Pines Coon Rapids HOUSING INFORMATION Mounds View We provide information on a variety of housing related topics. They include: New Brighton North St. Paul • Home Maintenance and Safety Topics Roseville • Home Improvement Financing Shoreview Columbia Heights . First Time Homebuyer Classes St. Anthony Village • Limited Rental Information Brooklyn Center • Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Programs Crystal • Energy/Assistance Mortgages New Hope • Purchase and Rehabilitation Mortgages Robbinsdale Minneapolis CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT HOME We provide free construction consultations to residents in participating communities. These IMPROVEMENT services include: LOANS Frequently Asked • Information on construction, building codes and permits Questions about Home • Home Improvement Financing Improvement Loans • Site visits with homeowners regarding home improvements • A written scope of work or list of work for contractors to bid from Overview of Home .Assistance in reviewing contractor bids, proposals and estimates Improvement Loan Application Process • Assisting homeowners during the construction process PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION We provide homeowners with available home improvement and home purchase programs including: ~~ y • Approximately 45 different NRP (Neighborhood Revitalization Program) loan programs in Minneapolis • Seven other loan programs including the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Fix Up Loan Program • Assisting homeowners through the loan application and disbursement process • Assisting homeowners in finding the best progrm to fit their needs including collarborating with other agency programs . Assistance in reviewing contractor bids, proposals and estimates http://www.housingresourcecenter.org/services.htm 12/04/2003 Greater Minneapolis Housing Resource Centers Services -A Free Service and Program of . Page 2 of 2 LENDERS Five financial institutions have committed to provide home ownership financing tools to assist aggressive home ownership and home improvement: First Bank, Firstar Bank, Northeast State Bank, Norwest Bank and TCF Bank. Norwest Bank and TCF have all agreed to participate in the HousingResource Centers. In addition to providing loan pool funding for purchase-rehab opportunities, and home impoovement loans to qualified buyers--the lenders are committted to provide additional monies needed to support the operation of the HousingResource Centers. Intro /Services /GMHC /Links /Home / e-mail HOUSING RESOURCE CENTERS Northeast--909 NE Main Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 Phone: 612-378-7985 /FAX: 612-378-7986 Northwest--2140 44th Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55412 Phone: 612-588-3033 /FAX: 612-588-3028 NorthMetro--1170 County Road I, Shoreview, Minnesota 55126 Phone: 651-486-7401 /FAX: 651-486-7424 Southside--3800 Longfellow Ave. S., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407 Phone: 612-722-7141 /FAX: 612-722-6367 e-mail : jbergman@gmmhc.org www. g mhctc. org copyright 2002 GMHC /All rights reserved http://www.housingresourcecenter.org/services.htm 12/04/2003 Success Stories. Greater Minneapolis Housing Resource Centers Home Page A Free Servic.. Page 1 of 5 A Program of The Greater I~` - T~~ Metropolitan H011SItt V~VN'f ~~ ~~~~V+ Cor orat on STwin Cities p `~, ~~ ~VlH~'°` --------- - Home Intro Services GMHC Links '4e-mail SERVICE AREAS Greater Minneapolis Housing Resource Centers If you are a resident of A Free Community Service for Greater Minneapolis Housing the following Owners with Comprehensive One-Stop Shopping for Housing partnering cities or Information, Tailored to Your House and Your Circumstances counties, you are eligible to HOUSING RESOURCE SUCCESS STORIES HousingResource GMHC has found that individual attention to each homeowner is Center services very important and critical for understanding the program requirements and having a successful experience when making Arden Hills investments in their properties. Circle Pines Coon Rapids In addition, we have found that without our services people are not Mounds View willing or likely to take on projects to continue the upkeep of their New Brighton properties. North St. Paul Roseville Shoreview Examples include: Columbia Heights St. Anthony Village Aging homeowners living in a two story home with Brooklyn Center only one bathroom located on the second floor. They Crystal want to stay in their home but due to health issues, Arden Hills they need a bath on the first floor. The center provides New Hope the needed help with the planning, financing, and Robbinsdale construction process. Minneapolis Hennepin County Or a new family enjoys living in their present Ramsey County neighborhood because they are close to good schools, have access to public transportation and they love their location. Their family is expanding and rather HOME than move to another home, they want to add another IMPROVEMENT bedroom. LOANS Frequently Asked Again we can provide the needed help in the construction of the Questions about Home addition. GMHC will assist the very low income individuals and Improvement Loans families with emergency repairs problems. Overview of Home For example, an individual needing a plumber or an elderly Improvement Loan individual needing help with sewer line repairs. We were able to Application Process refer them to the appropriate services to solve their emergency problems. GMHC has also set aside "last resort" funds as grants to CASE HISTORIES assist homeowners repair life and safety issues even though they New Homes do not have the funds. Rehabilitated Homes Following are some stories regarding the high ` quality services GMHC provides: ~~\ Flipping in Action ~ To: Autumn Lubin, Property Flipping Task Force "Home to Stay" program http://www.housingresourcecenter.org/success.stories.html 12/04/2003 Success Stories. Greater Minneapolis Housing Resource Centers Home Page A Free Servic.. Page 2 of 5 Autumn, Had occasion to talk with M.J. yesterday and what a rewarding conversation. Without any input from me, M.J brought up the work that was done to their home and how wonderful it was and what change it made. She went on saying the work was perfect and then describing the various aspects of it, roof, gutter, exterior doors, etc. She was really pleased with the new bathroom, saying she had seen nothing like it. She mentioned that her husband said "now I suppose you'll never want to move." M.J. was also very complimentary of the contractor, Lake States, and construction manager Warren Ditch. What an impact "Home to Stay" has had on this and other families. From, Keith Tuttle, Property Flipping Task Force God Has Answered My Prayer A woman came into the Housing Resource Center in July holding a copy of our brochure, saying "I know God has answered my prayer." We asked her how we could help. She said the Fall before, she purchased a foreclosed VA home and also received a $50,000 rehab loan at the same time. She had hired contractors to do the work but they didn't complete the job, had disappeared and all the money was spent. She said she had six kids and had lived through the winter without heat and no walls in her bathroom, only the studs. She had heated the house with a space heater oven & clothes dryer. They all slept in the same room to keep warm. We inspected the house and found they had taken out the furnace and had not replaced it, as well as left a lot of unfinished work. She was also out of money at this point and couldn't afford to fix the rest of the house. Our staff assisted her and her family by finding a new furnace that we were able to get donated, some of our contractors agreed to finish the bathroom walls, and through an energy assistance program were able to have her windows replaced. This was a free service we provided through the Housing Resource Center. Is There A Plumber in the House??? On February 7, 2001 the resource center received a call from a resident in Robbinsdale concerning a need for a plumber to repair the water line to kitchen sink and faucet. Earlier that day she had gone to Robbinsdale City Hall for some assistance. They had no assistance available and referred her to this office. I went to the home to assess the extent of the need. The water was spraying all over the walls when she would attempt to http://www.housingresourcecenter.org/success.stories.html 12/04/2003 Success Stories. Greater Minneapolis Housing Resource Centers Home Page A Free Servic.. Page 3 of 5 draw water to the kitchen sink. In an attempt to find a solution to the problem and assist in resolving the issue, I began to learn the severity of her condition. She had been a nurse in a Florida hospital when an accident occurred which resulted in hepatitis "C". When this was revealed her husband left her and their 7 year-old daughter. Becoming very ill she returned to Minnesota with her daughter. She entered into a year long chemotherapy program and the hepatitis went into remission. However, recently she found that the hepatitis returned and another year long of chemo-therapy would be necessary. In the mean time, Ernest sought out the possible use of "last resort" funds and was given authorization for its use. On short notice, I was able to secure a company who would make the necessary repairs. One Monday, February 5th making a final inspection she indicated that she had become very ill and went to the doctor who preliminarily indicated that the likelihood of colon cancer was evident. Following is her letter thanking us: Mr. Ditch: "My name is .And recently I had to contact you to receive some help repairing a plumbing problem. You were very helpful and the job was done just two days after I had contacted you. Carolyn Olson was very instrumental in the process. I just wanted you to know how much I appreciated all your help and kindness. I did not take your help and guidance for granted. I am so very grateful for ALL your help. Sincerely, M.R." Special Gift An elderly woman living in Brooklyn Center has little income. The electric service was pulling away from the facia board and could have created a real hazard. Following is her letter thanking us: "Mr. Ditch: Thank you again for all you and the Housing Resource Center did for me. It is people like you and your organization that makes it so possible for me to stay living in my home. You are a special gift from God. Take care 8~ God's Blessings, P.H." Mortgage Foreclosure Assistance In Action A woman with five children came to our office for assistance. She lived with her mother in her mother's home. She had quit work two years earlier to take care of her ill mom, who had now died. The mom left the house to this daughter, one of 10 children. Since she http://www.housingresourcecenter.org/success.stories.html 12/04/2003 Success Stories. Greater Minneapolis Housing Resource Centers Home Page A Free Servic.. Page 4 of 5 was poor and other siblings had good jobs and resources, the siblings agreed to this as well. The woman also brought her attorney along, who really was of no help since this was not his expertise. The problem was that as her mom was seriously ill, the mortgage payments had fallen behind. The lender wanted to foreclose. The daughter was back at work, however her credit wasn't the best. The lender, a credit union, wanted the mortgage paid off. Even if that meant selling the house to someone else, they did not care. In order for her to keep the house, the lender and our staff asked for an appointment with the credit union. The outcome was that we were able to convince them to leave the existing mortgage in place for two years, with the daughter making payments, until her credit was cleared up. At this point, the credit union would give the daughter a new mortgage. Renovation Makes It Safe While in conversation with representatives from three Native American tribes regarding how we could assist some of their elders repair the homes they own, we mentioned our services to Roseville residents. One of the guests mentioned they have an elder who is in her own home, has a bad hip, and the only bathroom is in the basement which had a very unstable handrail. (This must have been a basement home at one time and when the first floor was added they did not add an additional bathroom.) They asked us if we would help her and said they would also make some grant funds available. We will now be able to renovate athree-season porch making it into a bathroom and laundry area. We were able to help her secure additional funds from a Ramsey County program. We are about to begin this renovation that was delayed due to an illness of the owner. Affordable Housing For All The Northeast Center visited with the Ministerial Alliance in northeast Minneapolis to inform various church staff of our Centers and services. One church asked if we could help them. A parishioner willed a duplex, in need of extensive repair, to the church. However an elderly woman in her 90s lived upstairs. They felt it was no longer safe for her to live alone. Because she didn't have any relatives to assist her, they were not sure what they could do. We contacted Catholic Eldercare. They found appropriate housing for her and our Resource Center staff rented a truck and moved her furniture. We then asked the pastor if there was someone in the parish that was having housing issues that may want to purchase the home. They said they had an immigrant http://www.housingresourcecenter.org/success.stories.html 12/04/2003 Success Stories. Greater Minneapolis Housing Resource Centers Home Page A Free Servic.. Page 5 of 5 family with three children all living in atwo-bedroom apartment. We met with this family and both parents were working. They were interested and we were able to assist them with obtaining a 203k rehab/purchase loan and assisted with the repairs. This was a happy ending for everyone involved. Last Resort Other things are really simple. For example, an elderly lady, with very few financial resources, was trying to stay in her home. Her hot water heater broke and needed to be replaced and she couldn't afford it. We gave her a "last resort" grant to purchase a new hot water heater and found a qualified installer to do the installation for free. Intro /Services /GMHC /Links /Home / e-mail HOUSING RESOURCE CENTERS Northeast--909 NE Main Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 Phone: 612-378-7985 -FAX: 612-378-7986 Northwest--2140 44th Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55412 Phone: 612-588-3033 -FAX: 612-588-3028 NorthMetro--1170 County Road I, Shoreview, Minnesota 55126 Phone: 651-486-7401 -FAX: 651-486-7424 Southside--3800 Longfellow Ave. S., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407 Phone: 612-722-7141 -FAX: 612-722-6367 e-mail : jbergman@gmmhc.org www. g mhctc. org copyright 2002 GMHC /All rights reserved http://www.housingresourcecenter.org/success.stories.html 12/04/2003 GMHC Board of Directors. Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation~Twin Cities forme.. Page 1 of 2 ,y i~, ~ ~ , Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation~Twin Cities __ F'redevelopment Loans • Single Fatuity Homeownership • HousingResource Centersrµ The Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation-Twin Cities was formed in 1970 by the Minneapolis business community. GMHC's mission is to preserve, improve and increase affordable housing for low and moderate income individuals and families, as well as assist communities with housing revitalization. Board of Directors & Officers OFFICERS • Chairman: Gary M. Cerny, President and Chief Operating Officer, Reliant Energy/Minnegasco • President: Carolyn E. Olson, GMHC • Vice Chair: James F. Clifford, Senior Vice President, Bremer Financial Corp. • Vice Chair: Susan E. Knight, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, MTS Systems Corp. • Secretaryrfreasurer: Cornell L. Moore, Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP BOARD OF DIRECTORS • Robert K. Lea, Senior Vice President/Credit Administration, TCF National Bank Minnesota • Janice K. Angell, Executive Director, Total Compensation Resource Center, 3M • Peter J. Kiedrowski, Head of Institutional Trust, Wells Fargo • Richard R. Miller, Senior Vice President, Wells Fargo Public Finance • Douglas A. Scovanner, Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Target Corporation • James J. Solem, CITY INNOVATION • Robert P. Walton, Director, Corporate Real Estate & Senior Associate Council, General Mills, Inc. • Laura Waterman Wittstock, President and Executive Producer, MIGIZI Communications, Inc. Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation~Twin Cities 15 South 5th Street, Suite 710 Minneapolis, MN 55402 www.gmhctc.org /Phone: 612-339-0601 FAX:612-339-0608 e-mail: Colson@gmmhc.org What's New Houses Available Mission, Purpose 8 History 3 Main Programs Program Highlights Board of Directors Our Staff Resources 8~ Links Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us Home Housing Resource CentersT"" Be sure to visit our other Web site www.housingresourcecenter.org. This is the site for our Greater Metropolitan Housing Resource Centers --a FREE community service that GMHC provides to housing owners of greater Minneapolis and various suburbs. You will find comprehensive one- stop shopping for housing information, tailored to your house and your circumstances, serving communities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. http://www.gmhctc.org/board.htm 12/04/2003 Conclusions and Recommendations This section of the report provides conclusions and recommendations based on the findings from the surveys conducted for the Richfield HRA. Conclusions from the data are presented first, followed by recommendations (~) pertaining to the conclusions. Top of Mind Perceptions of Richfield • Perceptions of Richfield among all respondents are quite positive. When respondents were asked what comes to mind first when they think of Richfield, the two most common thoughts among all groups of respondents are that Richfield has a central, convenient location and that Richfield has a friendly, warm community. Other top responses among all groups are that Richfield is a nice place to live and that their friends and/or family live there. Only six percent of current residents with children mentioned schools as a problem in this top of mind question. Among those who moved out, airport noise was mentioned quite often; the other groups did not mention this. ~ Because convenient location and the friendly, warm community are the most common thoughts regarding Richfield, we recommend that the City of Richfield promote these positive impressions as a way to help increase the perception of Richfield and bring in new families with children. Satisfaction with Shopping and Recreation in Richfield • When asked about their satisfaction with various aspects of shopping and recreation in Richfield, nearly all respondents expressed a high level of satisfaction with both convenience to parks and lakes in the Twin Cities area and convenience to shopping. Not only is satisfaction high for convenience to shopping, but this attribute is also a key predictor of overall satisfaction with living in Richfield among current residents with children. • Most respondents across all groups are also highly satisfied with both the variety and quality of recreational facilities, such as parks, in Richfield. Both of these factors were key predictors of overall satisfaction of living in Richfield either for respondents who moved into or within Richfield. • Among residents with children, most expressed satisfaction with the opportunities for their children to be involved in youth activities and the quality of these activities. A sizeable number of respondents who moved into, out of, or within don't have children; therefore, many of them said they don't know how to rate youth activities in Richfield. However, respondents who moved into Richfield are least likely to be satisfied with the opportunities available for, and quality of, youth activities. ~ The City of Richfield should consider ways to introduce residents who have moved into Richfield to the variety of activities for youth, especially because current residents with children indicated such a high degree of satisfaction with the various aspects of youth activities. Berson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Satisfaction with Richfield's Public School System • Relatively few respondents who moved out of, or within, Richfield have had children who have attended the public school system in Richfield within the last 15 years; only five percent of those who moved into Richfield have children who have attended Richfield's public schools. This small number may suggest that people who are leaving are not just families who are seeking a different school system. • Among all current residents with children and all other respondents who have children, satisfaction with the appearance and condition of the school district's facilities tends to be high; approximately three-quarters or more expressed satisfaction with these two aspects. • Perceptions of the quality of the staff in Richfield's schools are also fairly high; about two- thirds or slightly more of all respondents with children who have attended public schools are satisfied with the competency of the staff and the staff's commitment to students. However, this means that approximately one-third are only neutral or dissatisfied with the staff. The competency of the staff is also a key predictor of overall satisfaction with Richfield among residents with children. ~ Because competency of staff is a key predictor of overall satisfaction, but satisfaction with competency of staff has room for improvement, it is important that Richfield maintain or improve this area. • In general, satisfaction is not as high for the safety of students in Richfield's schools. For most groups of respondents, about one-quarter of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the safety in Richfield's schools. • The quality of education that student's receive in Richfield's schools is an area where satisfaction could be improved; about one-quarter of current residents with children and those who moved out to a developing suburb are dissatisfied with the quality of education. ~ Satisfaction with the exterior of the school facilities is high, but the satisfaction with the quality of the education and the quality of the staff is not as high. Therefore, the Richfield schools may want to consider taking measures to address these issues to reinforce parents' perceptions that their children are receiving an excellent education. ~ Because safety in the schools is a concern to many parents, Richfield, in partnership with the schools, should take a serious initiative to address these concerns in order to prevent more families with children from moving out of Richfield, and to help attract new families with children to Richfield. Overall Satisfaction and Plans to Continue Living in Richfield • Although almost all current residents with children, and those who moved within, or into, Richfield expressed satisfaction with their overall experience of living in Richfield, those who moved within, or into, Richfield are more "very satisfied." Overall satisfaction is lower among those who moved out; about eight in ten were satisfied with their experiences in Richfield. However, moving out of Richfield is not really due to overall dissatisfaction; only nine percent were dissatisfied overall with living in Richfield. Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. 2 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study • Key predictors of overall satisfaction with living in Richfield varied across the different groups of respondents. However, there are some themes involved in what best drives overall satisfaction. For example, liking living in Richfield, convenience and variety of recreational activities, aspects related to the school system, and the safety and reputation of Richfield are all areas that predict overall satisfaction. • Respondents who moved into Richfield were asked to compare Richfield to their former residence on a variety of characteristics, and those who moved out of Richfield were asked to compare it to their current residence. Among those who moved into Richfield, responses tended to be very positive as they rated Richfield better than their former residence in areas such as the neighborhood they live in, the overall recreational facilities, and the overall quality of housing. In contrast, respondents who moved out tended to say that Richfield is worse in these same areas. The majority of respondents from both groups said they don't know enough to compare cities with regard to school systems or youth activities. • Respondents who moved within Richfield are the most likely to also plan to continue living in Richfield; almost two-thirds plan to do so for ten years or more. Current residents with children and those who moved into Richfield are not planning to live in Richfield as long; about three in ten from each group plan to stay in Richfield for just five years or less. But, it is important to note that nearly half of the residents with children are planning to stay in Richfield for 10 years or more. However, involvement with Richfield activities and age appears to affect how long people plan to continue living in Richfield. That is, the plan to stay for ten years or more tends to be higher among respondents as their age increases and among those who are more involved in Richfield activities. ~ The City of Richfield should be pleased that respondents who move into Richfield tend to find Richfield better in many areas than their former community and that they are very satisfied overall with living in Richfield. However, many of these residents are not planning to stay in Richfield for 10 years or more. We recommend that Richfield encourage involvement in community activities among these relative newcomers, help them recognize the positive value of living in Richfield, and take measures to attract them into staying in the city. Reasons Whv Respondents Made Their Moving Decisions and How Richfield Can Attract More Families with Children • When those who moved into or within Richfield were asked why they chose to move there or remain living there, Richfield's central, converiien"t ~locafion was ~fne most common reason given. Those who moved within Richfield also tend to mention that their friends and family live there, it's a nice place to live, and that it's their home. Affordable housing and their close proximity to work were other reasons offered by those who moved into Richfield. • When respondents who moved out of Richfield to a developed or developing suburb were asked why they made this decision, the most common reason given is that they wanted a bigger home. The next most common reasons for their move include the airport and personal/family reasons. These thoughts are also reflected in their responses when they were asked to rate how influential a variety of aspects were in their decision to move. The two most common reasons given by those who moved to a developed suburb are that their family situation changed and that their house was too small. Among those who moved to a developing suburb, some of the most common responses are that their house was too small and too old, and that they wanted to live in a newer community. &Associates, Inc. 3 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study • In addition to wanting a bigger home and family reasons, a sizeable number of respondents who moved out of Richfield also rated the safety in Richfield, the suitability of Richfield for families, and the school system as reasons that contributed at least some influence on their decision. • Current residents with children were asked what they think Richfield should do to attract more families with children. The most common suggestions given include improving the school system and building larger homes. ~ It appears that airport noise is a large reason why respondents want to move out of Richfield; therefore, continue to work for less airport noise. ~ Because improving the school system appears to be an important factor among residents, Richfield should focus on this. ~ To attract more families with children, work to encourage development of housing that appeals to families with children (e.g., larger houses). ~ Because seeking a larger home is a key reason that families move out of Richfield, try to provide incentives for people to remodel and expand their homes. This will provide large homes as well as offer newer appearing homes. Perceptions Regarding Richfield's Community • Most respondents from all groups have fairly positive perceptions of Richfield community. For example, almost all indicated that they like (liked) living in Richfield; in fact, respondents tended to agree with this sentiment more than any other one. In addition, liking living in Richfield tends to be a key predictor of overall satisfaction of living in Richfield among respondents. • In general, respondents who moved within Richfield tend to have the most positive impressions of Richfield. Respondents who are more involved in Richfield activities also tend to have more positive impressions of Richfield. ~ Develop ways to encourage and increase involvement so people can find opportunities to "connect" with others in the community. • Other statements with which respondents from across all groups tended to agree are that Richfield is a nice community for families with children and that Richfield is a safe place to live. However, respondents who moved out of Richfield are less likely than other groups to agree that Richfield is a safe place and that its nice for families with children. In addition. among those who moved out of Richfield, safety was a key predictor of their overall satisfaction with living there. • Most respondents also think that their neighbors are their friends; however, those who moved into Richfield are less likely to agree with this. &Associates, Inc. 4 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study • With regard to the housing in Richfield, most respondents across all groups think that housing is affordable. However, respondents who moved within or into Richfield are more likely than residents with children and those who moved out of Richfield to like the housing available in Richfield. Those who moved out and residents with children are more likely to not like the available housing as much and to think that most of the houses are too old and too small. • Respondents indicated that they do not particularly like living near the airport; respondents who moved within Richfield are the most favorable toward the airport. Only about one-third of all other respondents said they like living near the airport. Those who moved out are the least likely to have liked living near the airport. Improving Richfield's Community • Among the top initiatives that all groups tend to think Richfield needs to do in order to improve the community are: ~ Strategies to attract more families with children ~ Providing more loans for home improvement and/or renovation of homes • Other areas that all groups tended to rate highly include: ~ Building more single family homes ~ Improving the appearance of older apartment buildings ~ Improving the appearance of its commercial buildings • Improving the school system is also especially important among residents with children. Not only was it rated the most important thing for Richfield to focus on to improve the community, but it was also the top suggestion when they were asked what they would change about Richfield if they had the power to do so. Improving the school system was also mentioned most frequently among respondents who moved within Richfield as the one thing they would like to have changed if they had the power to do so. • Other top suggestions that respondents offered if they had the power to change one thing about Richfield include decreasing the noise from the airport, reduce the crime, and build more single family homes. ~ Because improving the school system and making homes larger are the most important among respondents, Richfield should focus their resources in these areas. ~ Improve the appearance of commercial buildings, which will help make commercial areas look vibrant and "new." Involvement in Richfield Activities • The most common activity that all respondents have been involved in is to participate in, or attend, Richfield community activities such as the 4th of July parade or Cattail Days. In addition, most residents with children have attended public school-related activities, such as athletic events, concerts, and plays, and have involved their children in City of Richfield youth sports, such as hockey, baseball, or basketball. A sizeable number of respondents are involved in a church in Richfield; this percentage is highest among those who moved within Richfield and lowest among those who moved into Richfield. Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. 5 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study The City of Richfield Web Site and Cable Television • Awareness of the Richfield web site is fairly high among residents with children; about three-quarters know of it. About six in ten who know of the web site have visited it. Satisfaction with the web site is fairly high; about two-thirds expressed satisfaction with it, while very few were dissatisfied. • Among the residents with children who have cable television in their home, about half have watched the Daily Information Bulletin and City Council meetings on Government Access Cable TV Channel 16. Fewer respondents have viewed HRA planning meetings on Channel 16. ~ If the City of Richfield wishes to increase the use of its web site, then they should consider different ways of promoting the information available on site. Richfield may also want to consider adding new information onto the web site, to make it more useful and satisfactory to residents. erson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 6 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Summary of Findings - Current Richfield Residents With Children This section of the report presents the findings based on the responses of 303 current Richfield residents who have children under 18 years of age. Results are displayed in figures, followed by bulleted points describing the major findings. FIGURE 1 Q1. What are the first things that come to mind when you think of Richfield? Percent of Respondents who Mentioned Each Thought Regarding Richfield* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents N = 303 Friendly, warm community/Close-knit residential communit 34% Central, convenient location 28% Nice lace to live/I like the area 13% Friends and/or famil live there 10% Good schools 10% It's home 10% Businesses are overtaking the community/Tearing down homes for businesses/Becomin more commercial 9% Peaceful, low-ke communit 8% Safe lace to live 7% Famil -oriented town/Great lace to raise a famil 6% New developments and renovations/Growing and revitalizin 6% Schools stem is declinin 6% Clean, well-ke t, rett cit 6% "Respondents coma otter more tnan one response. ~niy reswnses fIIC11UVIICU uy nv~ percent or more of respondents are included. • Figure 1 shows that when residents with children were asked what comes to mind first when thinking about Richfield, the most commonly mentioned responses are that Richfield is a friendly, warm community (34%) and that it is in a central, convenient location (28%). ,~,~derson, Niebuilr & Associates, Inc. 7 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study In addition, at least one in ten residents with children mentioned the following responses: ~ Nice place to live/I like the area (13%) ~ Friends and/or family live there (10%) ~ Good schools (10%) ~ It's home (10%) Berson, Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. $ 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 2 Q5. What suggestions do you have for Richfield to attract more families with children? Percent of Respondents who Mentioned Suggestions to Attract More Families with Children* Suggestions Percent of Respondents N = 303 Improve the school system -make it safer, put more mone into it, smaller class sizes 26% Build lar er homes 10% New or larger child-friendly community center that offers a varlet of activities 8% Stop focusing on, and building, housing exclusive to seniors 5% Update school facilities/Offer more extra-curricular activities 5% U rade the arks/Put effort into maintainin them 5% None/Nothin 12% Don't know 11 'Respondents could offer more than one response. Only responses mentioned by five percent or more of respondents are included. • Residents with children were asked what suggestions they have for Richfield to attract more families with children (Figure 2). More than one-quarter (26%) said that Richfield should improve their school system by making it safer, putting more money into it, and having smaller class sizes. • An additional ten percent mentioned that Richfield should build larger homes. erson, Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. 9 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 3 Q9. If you had the power to change one thing about the City of Richfield, what would you want to change? Responses Mentioned Regarding Changing the City of Richfield* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents N = 303 Improve the school system -the safety, put more mone toward the schools 23% Build more single family homes/Build larger homes/Bi er lots 8% Decrease the noise from the air ort 7% Make Richfield a safer lace/Reduce the crime 6% Reduce the number of a artments 5% Improve the traffic and transportation conditions -more sto si ns, im rove traffic flow 5% Im rove the attractiveness of the cit /Clean u the cit 5% Improve the city council's responsiveness to the desires of the communit 5% Nothin -its alread rest 6% Don't know 5% "Respondents could offer more than one response. Only responses mentioned by five percent or more of respondents are included. • Figure 3 shows that if residents with children had the power to change one thing about Richfield, the most common change would be to improve the school system (23%). • Eight percent also mentioned that Richfield should build larger single family homes with bigger lots. ~ +derson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 10 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Summary of Findings - People Who Moved Into Richfield This section of the report presents the findings based on the responses of 103 people who moved into Richfield from other areas. Results are displayed in figures, followed by bulleted points describing the major findings. FIGURE 4 Q1. What are the first things that come to mind when you think of Richfield? Percent of Respondents who Mentioned Each Thought Regarding Richfield* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents N=103 Central, convenient location 35% Friendly, warm community/Close-knit residential communit 22% Clean, well-ke t, rett cit 12% Nice lace to live/I like the area 11 Affordable housin /Reasonable ro ert taxes 10% Close roximit to work 9% Friends and famil live there 7% Nice arks and recreation facilities 7% It's home 6% Peaceful, low-ke communit 6% New developments and renovations/Growing and revitalizin 6% Inner-rin suburb 5% Good schools 5% "Respondents could offer more than one response. only responses menrionea oy rive percent or more of respondents are included. • When asked what comes to mind first when thinking about Richfield, more than one-third (35%) of respondents who moved into Richfield mentioned the central, convenient location (Figure 4). More than two in ten (22%) also said that Richfield is a friendly, warm community. • In addition, at least one in ten respondents who moved into Richfield offered the following thoughts: ~ Clean, well-kept, pretty city (12%) ~ Nice place to live/I like the area (11 %) ~ Affordable housing/Reasonable property taxes (10%) ~,~derson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 11 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 5 Q7. What is it about Richfield that made you want to move there? Percent of Respondents who Mentioned Each Response* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents N=103 Central, convenient location 49% Affordable housin /Starter home 34% Close to work 20% Friendl , famil -oriented communit 18% Close to amenities, such as sho in and arks 10% Quiet, mellow cit 9% Liked the home or buildin I moved into 9% Well maintained, ualit homes 8% Friends and/or famil live there 8% Clean cit 5% Familiar with, or lived in, the area 5% `Respondents could offer more than one response. Only responses mentioned by tive percent or more of respondents are shown. • When respondents were asked why they wanted to move into Richfield, the central, convenient location (49%) was mentioned most frequently (Figure 5). Approximately one- third (34%) also mentioned that the affordable housing attracted them to Richfield. • Approximately two in ten respondents said they moved to Richfield for these reasons: ~ Close to work (20%) ~ Friendly, family-oriented community (18%) ,~~derson, Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. 12 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 6 Q12. If you had the power to change one thing about the City of Richfield, what would you want to change? Responses Mentioned Regarding Changing the City of Richfield* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents N=103 Decrease the noise from the air ort 10% Improve the traffic and transportation conditions -more sto si ns, im rove traffic flow 7% Improve the appearance of commercial areas and buildin s 6% Improve the school system -the safety, put more mone toward the schools 5% Make Richfield a safer lace/Reduce the crime 5% Im rove the attractiveness of the cit /Clean u the cit 5% Nothin -its alread rest 7% Don't know 11 "`Respondents could offer more than one response. Only responses mentioned by five percent or more of respondents are included. • Figure 6 shows that if respondents who moved into Richfield had the power to change one thing about Richfield, ten percent would decrease the noise from the airport. • Seven percent would like to see improvements in traffic and transportation conditions. ,~~derson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 13 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Summary of Findings - People Who Moved Within Richfield This section of the report presents the findings based on the responses of 89 people who moved from one residence to another within Richfield. Results are displayed in figures, followed by bulleted points describing the major findings. FIGURE 7 Q1. What are the first things that come to mind when you think of Richfield? Percent of Respondents who Mentioned Each Thought Regarding Richfield'` Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents N=89 Central, convenient location 35% Friendly, warm community/Close-knit residential communit 34% It's home 16% Nice lace to live/I like the area 9% Good schools 9% Friends and famil live there 8% Businesses are overtaking the community/Tearing down homes for businesses/Becoming more commercial 6% Famil -oriented town/Great place to raise a famil 6% Clean, well-ke t, rett cit 6% The cit is declinin /Deterioration 5% "Respondents could offer more than one response. Only responses mentioned by five percent or more of respondents are included. • Figure 7 shows that when asked what first comes to mind when thinking about Richfield, more than one-third of respondents who moved within Richfield mentioned both the central, convenient location (35%) and the friendly, warm nature of the community (34%). • Sixteen percent of respondents said they think of Richfield as home. ~,~derson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 14 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 8 Q6. What is it about Richfield that made you want to stay living there? Percent of Respondents who Mentioned Each Response* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents N=89 Convenient, central location 63% Friends and/or famil live here 16% It's a nice place to live/I like the area and/or my nei hborhood 15% Familiarit /It's home 15% Good quality school system/Didn't want the kids to have to chap a schools 11 Warm communit feel/Small town-atmos here 10% Lar e number of arks and recreation areas 6% Affordable homes 6% Close tom church 6% "Respondents could offer more than one response. Uniy responses mentionea oy rive percent or more of respondents are included. • Figure 8 shows that when asked why they wanted to stay living within Richfield, by far the most frequently mentioned reason was Richfield's convenient, central location (63%). • Sixteen percent also mentioned that they wanted to continue living in Richfield because their friends and/or family live there. Fifteen percent each offered the following two reasons: ~ It's a nice place to live/1 like the area and/or my neighborhood ~ Familiarity/It's home ,derson, Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. 15 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 9 Q10. If you had the power to change one thing about the City of Richfield, what would you want to change? Responses Mentioned Regarding Changing the City of Richfield* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents N=89 Improve the school system -the safety, put more mone toward the schools 10% Improve the city council's responsiveness to the desires of the communit 9% Improve the traffic and transportation conditions -more sto si ns, im rove traffic flow 6% Sto movin out families for businesses 5% Im rove the attractiveness of the cit /Clean u the cit 5% Focus on attracting higher income families/Build more hi her riced homes 5% Nothin -its alread reat 20% Don't know 10% *Respondents could offer more than one response. Only responses mentioned by five percent or more of respondents are included. • Figure 9 shows that if respondents who moved into Richfield had the power to change one thing about Richfield, ten percent would improve the school system. • Nine percent would like to see improvement in the city council's responsiveness to the desires of the community. ~rson, Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. 16 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Summary of Findings - People Who Moved Out Of Richfield This section of the report presents the findings based on the responses of 96 respondents who moved from Richfield into a developed suburb, and 109 respondents who moved from Richfield to a developing suburb. Results for each group are displayed in figures, followed by bulleted points describing the major findings. FIGURE 10 Q1. What are the first things that come to mind when you think of Richfield? Percent of Respondents who Mentioned Each Thought Regarding Richfield* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents Develo ed, N = 96 Percent of Respondents Develo in , N = 109 Central, convenient location 31 % 39% Friendly, warm community/Close-knit residential communit 22% 18% Nice lace to live/I like the area 15% 13% Air ort/Air ort noise 10% 12% Friends and famil live there 10% 7% Businesses are overtaking the community/Tearing down homes for businesses/Becomin more commercial 8% 2% Number of arks and recreation areas 7% 6% It's home 5% 6% New developments and renovations/Growin and revitalizin 5% 6% Clean, well-ke t, rett cit 5% 3% Increase in crime/Lowered sense of safet 5% 5% Too much traffic/More con ested 3% 9% Older, a in communit 3% 8% 'Respondents could offer more than one response. Responses mentioned by five percent or more respondents within either group are included. • When asked what first comes to mind when they think of Richfield, the most common thought mentioned among both respondents who moved to developed (31 %) and developing (39%) suburbs is Richfield's central, convenient location (Figure 10). • Approximately two in ten respondents who moved to developed (22%) and developing (18%) suburbs also mentioned the friendly, warm community that Richfield offers. ~,~derson, Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. 17 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 11 Q7. What is the main reason you decided to move out of Richfield? Percent of Respondents who Mentioned Each Response* Responses Mentioned Percent of Respondents Develo ed, N = 96 Percent of Respondents Develo in , N = 109 Wanted a bi er home 23% 40% Air ort 14% 12% Personal/Famil reasons 12% 13% Found a single level home/No stairs/Found a home that would work better for our senior ears 10% 6% Moved into a condo or townhome 8% 10% Wanted a uiet nei hborhood with less traffic 6% 4% Wanted to be in a better schools stem 6% 6% Wanted to live in a more attractive nei hborhood 5% 3% Didn't feel safe there due to increased crime 5% 6% Wanted a house with bi er lot 5% 4% Wanted to be closer to work 3% ~% Wanted to live in an area with more kids and oun er families 2% 6% Wanted to get out of the city/Moved to the county -- 5% `Respondents could otter more tnan one response. vriiy ~ C~N~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~u ~r ~~~~ r~~ ~~~ ~• ~~ ~ ~ ~~• ~ ~• respondents within either group are included. • When asked why they moved out of Richfield, almost one-quarter (23%) of those who moved to developed suburbs and four in ten (40%) respondents who moved to developing suburbs said they wanted a bigger home (Figure 11). • At least one in ten respondents who moved to a developed suburb also mentioned the following reasons: ~ Airport (14%) ~ Personal/Family reasons (12%) ~ Found a single level home/No stairs/Found a home that would work better for our senior years (10%) • At least one in ten respondents who moved to a developing suburb offered the following reasons for why they moved: ~ Personal/Family reasons (13%) ~ Airport (12%) ~ Moved into a condo or townhome (10%) ~derson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 18 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 12 Q11. If you had the power to change one thing about the City of Richfield, what would you want to change? Responses Mentioned Regarding Changing the City of Richfield* Percent of Percent of Responses Mentioned Respondents Develo ed, N = 96 Respondents Develo in , N = 109 Decrease the noise from the air ort 14% 10% Improve the school system -the safety, put 12% 7% more mone toward the schools Make Richfield a safer place/Reduce the 7% 9% crime Build more single family homes/Build larger 7% 8% homes/Bi er lots Improve the attractiveness of the city/Clean 6% 5% u the cit Improve the city council's responsiveness to 5% 3% the desires of the communit Improve the appearance of commercial 4% 9% areas Improve the traffic and transportation 4% 7% conditions -more stop signs, improve traffic flow Reduce the number of a artments 3% 5% Nothin -it's alread reat 13% 8% Don't know 5% 6% "Respondents could offer more than one response. Uniy responses mentionea oy rive percent or more of respondents within either group are included. • Figure 12 shows that if they had the power to change one thing about Richfield, the most common suggestion offered by both respondents who moved to developed (14%) and developing (10%) suburbs is to decrease the noise from the airport. • Twelve percent of those who moved to a developed suburb also would like to see improvements in the school system. • Among those who moved to developing suburbs, nine percent each mentioned the following two responses: ~ Make Richfield a safer place/Reduce the crime ~ Improve the appearance of commercial buildings ~de~son, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 19 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Summary of Findings - Comparisons Among Groups This section of the report presents significant differences among ratings of current residents with children, people who moved to Richfield from other areas, people who moved within Richfield, and people who moved from Richfield to another suburb. The following significant differences were found: Satisfaction with Shopping and Recreation in Richfield 0 Respondents who moved within Richfield and those who moved into Richfield are more likely than those who moved out of Richfield and current residents with children to be very satisfied with the quality of recreational facilities, such as parks. 0 Residents who moved into Richfield are less likely than all other respondents to be very satisfied with the following aspects: ~ Opportunities for your kids to be involved in youth activities, such as sports ~ Quality of these youth activities 0 Respondents who moved within Richfield are more likely than all other respondents to be very satisfied with family-oriented recreation available in Richfield. Satisfaction with Richfield's Public School System 0 Respondents who moved into Richfield are much more likely than all other respondents to be very satisfied with the quality of education students receive in the Richfield school system. Respondents who moved out of Richfield are least likely to be very satisfied with this aspect. Overall Satisfaction with Experiences Living in Richfield 0 Respondents who moved into or within Richfield are more likely than those who moved out of Richfield and current residents with children to be (have been) very satisfied overall with their experiences living in Richfield. Plans to Continue Living in Richfield 0 Respondents who moved within Richfield are more likely than current residents with children and those who moved into Richfield to plan to continue living there for ten years or more. Those who moved into Richfield are least likely to continue living there for ten years or more. ~~dersor~,N~ebuhr&Associat~s,tnc. 20 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Perceptions Regarding Richfield's Communitv 0 Current residents with children, and those who moved within or out of Richfield are more likely than respondents who moved into Richfield to strongly agree or agree with the following statements: ~ My neighbors are (were) my friends ~ My kids have (had) friends their age in the neighborhood ~ Richfield has too many apartments and/or townhomes ~ The community of Richfield is too diverse 0 Current residents with children and those who moved within or into Richfield are more likely than those who moved out to strongly agree with the following statements: ~ I like (liked) living in Richfield ~ Richfield is a nice community for families with children ~ Richfield is a safe place to live 0 Respondents who moved within or into Richfield are more likely than current residents with children and those who moved out to strongly agree or agree with the following statements: ~ Overall, I like the housing available in Richfield ~ Compared to other suburbs, Richfield has a good reputation in the Twin Cities area 0 Current residents with children and those who moved out of Richfield are more likely than those who moved into or within Richfield to strongly agree or agree with the following statements: ~ Most of the houses in Richfield are too small ~ Most of the houses in Richfield are too old 0 Respondents who moved out of, or into, Richfield are more likely than current residents with children and those who moved within Richfield to strongly agree or agree that housing in Richfield is affordable. 0 Respondents who moved within Richfield are more likely than all other respondents to strongly agree or agree that they like living near the airport. 0 Current residents with children and those who moved within Richfield are more likely than respondents who moved out of, or into, Richfield to strongly agree or agree that they feel (felt) involved with Richfield. Importance of Factors in Improving Richfield's Communitv 0 Current residents with children and those who moved within Richfield are more likely than those who moved into or out of Richfield to think the following initiatives are very important for improving Richfield's community: ~ Strategies to attract more families with children ~ Improving the quality of the school system ~ Improving the appearance of its parks &Associates, tnc. 21 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study 0 Current residents with children and those who moved within or into Richfield are more likely than those who moved out to think the following two things are very important for - improving Richfield: ~ Building more single family homes ~ Providing more loans for home improvement and/or renovation of homes 0 Current residents with children are more likely than all other respondents to think that limiting the amount of housing built exclusively for seniors is very important or important for improving Richfield's community. 0 Respondents who moved into or within Richfield are more likely than current residents with children and those who moved out to think that becoming more physically attractive is very important. 0 Respondents who moved within Richfield are more likely than all others to think that improving the appearance of its commercial buildings is very important for improving Richfield's community. Comparisons between Richfield and other Communities 0 Respondents who moved into Richfield were asked to compare it to their former residence and those who moved out were asked to compare Richfield to their current residence. Those who moved into Richfield are much more likely than those who moved out to think that Richfield is better than their other residence and those who moved out are more likely to say that Richfield is worse, regarding: ~ Overall recreational facilities, such as parks ~ Youth activities, such as sports ~ Overall school system ~ Overall quality of housing ~ The neighborhood they live in Involvement in Richfield Activities 0 Current residents with children are more likely than all other respondents to be (have been) involved in the following two activities: ~ Attend public school-related activities, such as athletic events, concerts, and plays ~ Involving your children in City of Richfield youth sports, such as hockey, baseball, or basketball leagues 0 Respondents who moved within Richfield are more likely than all other respondents to be (have been) involved in a church in Richfield. 0 Current residents with children and those who moved within Richfield are more likely than other respondents to have volunteered within Richfield organizations. 0 Respondents who have moved into Richfield are less likely than all other respondents to have participated and/or attended Richfield community activities, such as the 4th of July parade or Cattail Days. ~~N~buhr&Associates,Inc. 22 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Demographics Children 0 Respondents who moved out or into Richfield are more likely than current residents with children and those who moved within Richfield to have children who are 0-4 years old. 0 Respondents who moved into Richfield are less likely than all others to have children who are 5-9 years old. 0 Current residents with children are more likely than all other respondents to have children who are 10-13 years old. 0 Current residents with children and those who moved within Richfield are more likely than respondents who moved out of, or into, Richfield to have children who are 14-18 years old. Income 0 Respondents who moved out of Richfield are more likely than all other respondents to earn $80, 000 or more per year. Age 0 Respondents who moved within Richfield are much more likely than all other respondents to be 75 years old or older. 0 Current residents with children are more likely than other respondents to be 35-54 years old. 0 Respondents who moved into Richfield are more likely than all other respondents to be younger than 35 years old. Education Leve! 0 Respondents who moved out of, or into, Richfield are more likely than current residents with children and those who moved within Richfield to have a four year degree or higher. ~~'~~derson, N~ebuhr&Associates, Inc. 23 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Regression Analyses -Key Predictors of Satisfaction with Living in Richfield This section of the report presents the findings of the multiple regression analyses used to predict overall satisfaction with experiences living in Richfield. Multiple regression is a statistical technique used to analyze the relationship between a dependent variable (e.g., overall satisfaction with living in Richfield) and a set of independent variables (e.g., satisfaction with the quality of recreational facilities in Richfield, agreement that housing in Richfield is affordable, etc.) that may influence it. By conducting this type of analysis, it is possible to determine which of the independent variables best predict the dependent variable. A Stepwise selection procedure was used for this analysis. This type of regression builds a model for prediction based on which independent variable is most highly correlated with the dependent variable. This most-highly-correlated variable enters into the model in Step 1. The next variable that enters into the equation in Step 2 is the one that explains the most additional variance over and above the amount explained by the variable(s) already entered. These steps continue until no more variance can be significantly explained. The results of these stepwise regression analyses may be found in the following figures. The regression analysis conducted for current residents with children used questions related to satisfaction with shopping and recreation, satisfaction with the Richfield public school system, perceptions of the Richfield community, and ways to improve the community as independent variables that were entered into the equation. For the other groups (moved into, within, and out of Richfield), questions related to shopping and recreation, and questions relating to perceptions of Richfield's community were the independent variables entered into the equation. Questions relating to comparisons between Richfield and other communities were also included in the regressions conducted for those who moved into and out of Richfield. Within each figure, the attributes have been rank ordered by their importance as predictors. This data can be used by the City of Richfield to prioritize where improvements could be made for the greatest impact on overall satisfaction with living in Richfield. ~aeson,N~buhr&asociates,in~ 24 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 13 Key Predictors of Overall Satisfaction of Living in Richfield Among Richfield Residents with Children 1) Opportunities for your kids to be involved in youth activitie 2) Appearance of the hoot district's faciliti~ 3) Competency of the , staff in the schools 4) Convenience to shopping 1) I like living in Richfield 2) I feel involved with ~ Richfield 3) Compared to other suburbs, Richfield has a good reputation in the Twin Cities area 4) Improve the quality of the school system 5) Housing in Richfield is affordable Total Variance Explained = 29% Total Variance Explained = 43% • Figure 13 displays all of the significant predictors of overall satisfaction with experiences living in Richfield among current residents with children. The following attributes related to satisfaction with shopping and recreation and satisfaction with the public school system significantly predict overall satisfaction (attributes are rank-ordered by their strength as predictors): 1. Opportunities for your kids to be involved in youth activities, such as sports 2. The appearance of the school district's facilities 3. Competency of the staff in the schools 4. Convenience to shopping • Significant predictors based on perceptions of Richfield's community and what Richfield should focus on to make it a better place include: 1. I like living in Richfield 2. I feel involved with Richfield 3. Compared to other suburbs, Richfield has a good reputation in the Twin Cities area 4. Improve the quality of the school system 5. Housing is affordable in Richfield ~erson, Niebuhr &Associates, Inc. 25 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 14 Key Predictors of Overall Satisfaction of Living in Richfield Among Respondents who Moved Into Richfield 1) Neighborhood you live in 2) I like living in Richfield 3) Quality of recreational facilities, such as parks in Richfield Total Variance Explained = 45% • Figure 14 displays all of the significant predictors of overall satisfaction with experiences living in Richfield among respondents who moved into Richfield. The following attributes related to satisfaction with shopping and recreation and perceptions of Richfield's community significantly predict overall satisfaction: 1. The neighborhood you live in 2. 1 like living in Richfield 3. Quality of recreational facilities, such as parks in Richfield ~ +derson, Nielxzhr &Associates, Inc. 26 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study FIGURE 15 Key Predictors of Overall Satisfaction of Living in Richfield Among Respondents who Moved Within Richfield 1) Most of the houses in Richfield are too small (-)* 3) I like living near the airport *This item has an inverse relationship with overall satisfaction, which means that the less respondents agree with this statement, the more likely they are to be very satisfied overall with their experiences living in Richfield. • Figure 15 displays all of the significant predictors of overall satisfaction with experiences living in Richfield among respondents who moved within Richfield. The following attributes related to satisfaction with shopping and recreation and perceptions of Richfield's community significantly predict overall satisfaction: 1. Most of the houses in Richfield are too small 2. Convenience to parks and lakes in the Twin Cities area 3. 1 like living near the airport 4. Variety of recreational facilities, such as parks ~~„ de~son, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. 2 7 2003 Richfield HRA Community Study Total Variance Explained = 43% AGENDA ITEM # 3C REPORT # 64 J STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: MICHELLE LEWIS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICIAN NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE' REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ~ _ ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of extending the contract completion date for the rehabilitation at 6945 Clinton .Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the extension of the contract completion date for the rehabilitation of property at 6945 Clinton Avenue. III. BACKGROUND In January 2003 the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved the purchase of property from the City located at 6945 Clinton Avenue for rehabilitation under the New Home Program. The City acquired it using CDBG funds. In February 2003 the HRA authorized the execution of a contract with Project for Pride in Living (PPE) in the amount of $158,950 for the rehabilitation of the property for future sale to a first time buyer. The process of transferring the property from the City to the HRA developing plans, collecting comparable bids, and treating the lead and asbestos on the property delayed the start of construction from May 2003 until October 2003. The contract expired October 31, 2003 and needs to be renewed. At this time PPL estimates project completion by January 30, 2004. The project includes: 121503-6945 Clinton • Interior layout changes to expand kitchen. • Kitchen and bath remodels -new fixtures, cabinets and code repairs. • Wall and ceiling repair, painting and new floor coverings. • Construction of a covered front entry. • New roof; modifying the roofline to improve the match of the house to the south addition. • New siding and trim. • Insulation and exterior doors. • Two basement egress windows and window wells. • Garage repairs and new driveway installation. • Grading, landscaping, and sod. (The cost which will be escrowed until spring for the new buyer.) III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Completion date needs to be updated to match progress of the remodeling work. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Rehab continues despite the contract expiration date of October 31, 2003. Delays were beyond the control of the parties and do not reflect a failure to perform. • During the January 24 Remodeling Fair, staff is planning to have the completed house open for tour. C. FINANCIAL • The rehab estimated cost remains the contracted amount of $158,950. D. LEGAL • The contract has lapsed and the contractor continues to work toward project completion. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve contract extension with PPL. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA ITEM # 3$ REPORT # 63 ~- STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2003 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a collaborative effort between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation to deliver housing programs and services. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into the attached agreement with the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation to deliver a pilot package of housing programs and services. III. BACKGROUND The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has been a leader in housing programs for several years. Our partners have included local lenders, builders and remodelers, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Recently Richfield's Transformation Program, Remodeling Fair, and :Remodeling Advisory services received "best practice" recognition from the State of Minnesota. The Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) has had similar experience as a nonprofit organization. Originally active in Minneapolis neighborhoods, they 121503 GMHC have expanded to suburban communities. GMHC's suburban efforts are primarily in the north and east metro area. GMHC has developed a variety of programs, some of which are similar to Richfield's and some of which meet needs we have not yet addressed. Attached are some program descriptions, a summary of the type of loan activity Richfield might expect based on experiences in other suburbs, and feedback from persons that have benefited from GMHC's efforts. Like Richfield, GMHC was also recognized by the State for demonstrating "best practices" with its Housing Resource Centers. A summary of challenges and opportunities follows: Richfield Housing Challenges Richfield needs more MHFA lenders to again provide financial resources not being offered by local lenders. Resources are insufficient to provide more than one or two first time buyer homes per year on a scattered site basis (for example: Habitat, PPL, HTC). There are gaps in services that can be filled with new partnerships. For example: incentive loans for. small amounts of remodeling and buying a senior's home, as is, when they wish to sell. HRA/GMHC Opportunities • GMHC is an approved MHFA lender and offers construction assistance, a service traditional lenders don't provide. • GMHC has the construction expertise and resources to expand first time buyer opportunities to build both single family homes and townhomes in Richfield. • GMHC has developed new programs and plans to seek additional funding for programs like: Roseville's Senior Housing Regeneration Program and Rehab Incentive Program (see attached). These programs could also be provided in Richfield. • Both the Richfield HRA and GMHC have been recognized for "best practices" by the State of Minnesota. In partnership, homeowners could expect the most comprehensive support in the most cost effective manner. Further, GMHC has demonstrated the ability to manage their resources to serve multiple communities. • Even Richfield's successful Advisor services and one stop shopping for resources and information can be further expanded. Yet, an expansion must occur cost effectively with available resources. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The HRA is a leader in collaborative efforts to provide housing programs and services. • The HRA routinely seeks. to identify more nonprofit housing programs and services especially beneficial to low and moderate income households. • Expanded opportunities that improve the existing housing stock are a priority. • The recent survey work by Anderson/Niebuhr encourages additional home building and rehabilitation efforts. B. CxITICAL ISSUES • Actions to support more remodeling activity and access to good advice and financial capital are needed. • Lender services continue to evolve in the marketplace. At the HRA's request, staff contacted local lenders. While Wells Fargo continues to be an active partner, commercial lending priorities of M&I have changed. M&I offers financing for developers in the HRA's redevelopment projects. Bremer is developing new partnerships with nonprofits like GMHC. GMHC is demonstrating the ability to fill voids left by lenders. • A south suburban "housing resource center" does not exist. If Richfield chooses to participate, GHMC would offer services from their 3749 Cedar Avenue South office location in Minneapolis. In addition, GMHC proposes providing scheduled visits to Richfield residents and if desired, staff at City Hall on a monthly basis. They would also be invited to participate in the 2004 Richfield Remodeling Fair. • Roseville was asked for feedback by Richfield staff regarding their partnership with GMHC. Catherine Bennett, Roseville HRA Executive Director, is a strong advocate. Roseville has worked with GMHC since 2000. Roseville provides approximately $35,000 to $40,000 annually to GMHC for administration of their partnership, a variety of loans, and construction management assistance. Roseville homeowners and city inspectors have been pleased and Roseville staff believes more outside funding is available because of the grant writing services. provided by GMHC. C. FINANCIAL • Seven thousand dollars ($7,000) is proposed to fund a 2004 program start up and pilot initiative. • Section 8 program resources would fund the cost of GMHC. This amount is included in the revised 2003 HRA approved budget. • The attachments to this staff report related to loan activity in other cities demonstrates the types of resources the Richfield payment for services will leverage. More private lending, foundation, and government resources become available to Richfield homeowners with GMHC services. Experiences in other cities indicate a partnership with GMHC demonstrates a much greater return in loan volumes and other housing opportunities. D. LEGAL • GMHC would provide those services authorized by the attached agreement. HRA counsel has reviewed the agreement. • Staff will monitor the program; measuring the number of calls received, assistance provided, loans placed, houses rehabbed, and customer satisfaction. If Richfield's needs are met and funds are available, a proposal for services in 2005 would be presented to the HRA during the last quarter of 2004. If a single family development site were identified, the resources available and project costs would be determined separate from this agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The HRA can choose to modify the scope of service, modify the amount, or not provide the services being proposed V. ATTACI-IMENTS • Agreement - Letter of Understanding. • Program descriptions summary of loan activity in other cities, program feedback. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Carolyn Olson, President of GMHC RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS IS AN AGREEMENT entered into the 15th day of December 2003 by and between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority hereinafter referred to as the HRA, and the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation of the Twin Cities (GMHC), a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the HRA desires to hire the Consultant to render certain technical, professional, and marketing assistance in connection with such undertakings of the HRA. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: I. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide technical rehabilitation advisory services, loan administration and fundraising for the Programs as follows: A. Provide Housing Resource Center services, as directed by the HRA, to residents of the City of Richfield out of its South Minneapolis office with scheduled visits to Richfield properties, including providing staff at City Hall on a monthly basis. These services include the following: 1. Administer home improvement programs including the Rehab Incentive Program, the MHFA Fix Up Fund, the MHFA Rental Rehab program and the MHFA Rehabilitation Loan Program; 2. Provide construction management services including home inspections to homeowners considering rehabilitation, preparing scopes of work, educating homeowners on the construction bid process, evaluating bids and work completed to ensure quality and cost effective renovations and monitoring the construction process; 3. Provide housing information to residents including information on emergency assistance, housing rehabilitation, first time homebuyers and limited rental information; 4. Design and develop the start-up phase and implement the Housing Resource Center program in the City of Richfield; 5. Assist the HRA in developing programs to purchase and rehabilitate homes. II. Term. This Agreement shall be effective from December 15, 2003 and shall continue through December 31, 2004. This Agreement can be terminated by either party with a 30-day notice. III. Compensation. The fee for service by the Consultant will be $7,000. Payment of such fee shall be made by invoice from GMHC. IV. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall obtain and maintain workers compensation, comprehensive general liability, and automobile liability insurance. Comprehensive general liability insurance shall have an aggregate limit of $2,000,000. Upon request by the HRA, the Consultant shall provide a certificate or certificates of insurance relating to the insurance required. V. Indemnification. Each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other party and it's officials, agents, and employees from any loss, claim, liability, and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) arising out of any action of such parties in the performance of this Contract. VI. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned, sublet, or transferred without the written consent of the HRA. VII. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant agrees to immediately alert the Executive Director of possible contractual conflicts of interest in representing the HRA, as well as property owners or developers on the same project. Conflicts of interest may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. THIS AGREEMENT was adopted by the HRA on the 15th day of December 2003. ATTEST: RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Its Chair Its Executive Director THIS AGREEMENT was accepted by on the day of , 2003. WITNESSES: GREATER METROPOLITAN HOUSING CORPORATION of the Twin Cities, a nonprofit Minnesota corporation Its President UGL JU Uo ., r ~., ~.. ... .. .. ... r N ~ 6~ r M . ~ CQ O M O ~ OD Ch {~ V• h- OD 1~ i~ ~ tC) r O A 47 06 OD aD ~ M +. C a0 C7 r O O~ tD I"~ ~ O O 'cJ' n ~ M to ~ ~ ~ O M r t~ ~ to O _ O i.. ~ ~ r CD ~ O &9 to C•] ~ EA ~ ff! K3 EA ~ ~ tJ4 ti} ~ N -~ -- ~ M OOD ~ N O .- R N M O O M th N t~ ~ O ~ ~ O t3 to ~ e- h- r C7 ~ ~- GO M C7 th 1~ C`? O ' tC) N ~ ~ O O O r r 1n N O N M ~ P < ~ tO (V v o n N cr] ti v_ O ~ o N ~ u~ v_ ~ °_ c~ m O ap V• a0 N ap O O a0 ~- O O N GO N to O 01 c~ lA a0 ~ c~ 4~ oD cO ~- ti O ~ th N d M cp N M co O) t0 ~ ffl tO 69 O ch b9 cat aO M• ~ fA ~ fR d3 ~.j 69 fA c- r r ~ ~ 69 bg EF} V} ER ~ ~ O }- a N O CD a0 (fl ~ to ti O cU r N CO t0 t[i O ~ CO 67 ~A M Qf OD O N CO 61 00 ~ 01 ch ._=':~ ~~- 9 .: .. W V G :-'~~ d ~ co 0 of M cfl - ai rn ~-- u~ ri N en •- o oD ti c~ v c~ ~ a> v oD rn v c~i rn ::°~ .. ~.rn ' a ~ +~ C.:.'~ ~ rn O M r V• ~ d ~' 61 CD M r (fl M dl M _ ~{? , . m :: Ol: ~ 69 O O ~ ~ 00 f~ ~ r t+ P m d1 t('j h- O [~- M N O ' ~ .. e~i c .. i O .~~ •- A1. E N (~ N st O6 r d' M 61 O r O N tD N ~- CO M N O r M th r f~ (O CU V3 O st ~:T3 _- 1~ .a.. ~ ~ > m to Q ~ ~ ~ EA r d4 d4 nj fR 4i) EA ER EA ~ r r ~ ~ j ~ a O d ~ ~ O O 2 ~ ~ ~ vt tf3 V ++ N . U ~ C a. .. rn ~ ~ r -- c ~ ~ V ~ M s" ++ C'7 r v' St o> I O t~ O (O 00 1l7 O tb N ~ cp M rt tV G> d: O us h r ~ r ~ ti ~ O m ~ (A ~. ti1 m O (7 ~ r r CV r f~ N N CU op 43 dj ~- N . m ~- -. ti O ~ O d ~ .lQ ~.. ~ C Ch r O 00 to OD a0 01 ~- N ~D M N r c' lt? N O 117 C7 01 t(7 d' 00 O O CO C4 ti ~ ~-: ~ . Q : O ~ ' ~ d_ ~ O O CO ~ M O N d (D O l17 {jy 00 •'^ ~ ~N m~.: m ?. ~+ Q ~ O N ~ N M 61 O OD N N N C7 ~ to O ~ ~ . ~ ~ n - ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ Q fA NcFS EA EA ~ ~ Ef? fA Eft ~ U? 69 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ F' ~ E ~ ~ _ ~ L ~ .H, p ~ U ti O ` m ~_ ;~ T ~ ~ ili ~ UI a CC L G O r N r r r M O~Q d ~ MQ. :.' M A ~ ~ Y Q~ ~:~ ~ N M ti ~ `~~.r . _ LL~ N +' U 14 . ri v O ~ a O O .. r.:...~. r~ .~ O ~ i p. 'p:.`s' ~ ~ v ' H':.: = m ~ a r O c . w °~ ~ o v m o v O O O o O o O O O ti M o O O~ N o O O O o O .fit : . '.1~ d o A O O O N p O O O 1~ O O OD O O O O tCS r O O r 07 O d O O O O ~~ ~_+A d> O ~ ?~ v rn p~ O p O lt> O O O O O N O O co O O 'vt O 4 C O O ~ N Oy -q r .. O r- ti? r O N lt) C'~? ~ tC! !*1 O ~ 1A O en W ~ c w N fR EH cf! t!~ f!} ff} r y ~ C •~ ~ ~ v a ~ c .C a w O U - m ] C h m c ~ N L ~ ~ U ~ C ,~ ~ ~ O ~ N > V a~ ~n T v r? a~ a.. ~ ~ n v m a U = > a Q ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ v C sC . cll - ~ m v1 C m ~ C m = 'C ~ > O c 4 ~ '- N U a ~ n L1 O ~ ' O C O O N O O O t © , L~ Q Cfl _ U U s~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y- s i a a z E E c'n a $i 0 z E U LL UGL 3U uJ u r s cal r+ ~~~~~~~•+ --- --- ---- ~ - - Total Estimated Loan Funds Adminstered by the Greater Metropolitan dousing Corporation September 3, 2003 NE HousingResourae Center Total Amount Beltrami $ 108,267 Bottineau $ 58,590 Holland $ 348,851 Sheridan $ 773,013 St. Anthony East $ 358,005 St. Anthony West $ 901,254 Waite Park $ 417,557 St. Anthony Village Revolving Loan Program $ 80,000 Tptal $ 3,055,537 South HousingResource Center Armatage $ 170,756 CARAG $ 673,040 Bryant $ 346,383 Lowry Hip East $ 411,275 Lynnhurst $ 135,477 Midtown Phillips $ 370,380 Prospect Park $ 75,040 Standish-Ericcson $ 957,671 Ventura Village $ 563,670 Abbott Northwestern EAP $ 318,000 FHLB $ 300,000 Total $ 4,321,892 Northwest HousingResource Center Folwell $ 534,002 Victory $ 355,000 Hawthorne Homestead Program $ 600,000 Crystat Rehab Incentive $ 88,000 EZ Smart Commute Down Payment Program $ 50,000 Bremer Employer Assisted FTHS Program $ 100,000 Total $ _ 1;72'7,002: NorthMetro tiousingResource ~enter• Circle Pines Revolving Loan $ 60,000 Coon Rapids Housing Rehab Loan Program $ 260,550 Ramsey County CDBG Deferred $ 315,000 Mounds View Manufactured Loan $ 100,000 Roseville Revolvi Loan $ 490,000 Total $ 1,225,550 Ail HousingResourCe Centers MHFA Rehab Incentive $ 1,558,595 'MHFA Fix Up Fund (75 Loans To Date) $ 1,037,557 MCDA Loan Programs {Approximate Amount) $ 1,600,000- Tota[ $ 4,196,152 GRAND TQTAL $ '!4,525,933 - "The MHFA Fix Up Fund is an ongoing program with unlimited funds. The $1,037,557 listed is the amount used as of 913!03 AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT ~ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2003 3A 62 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM BOOKHOUT, REHABILITATION SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE NORDQUIST, REPORT PRESENTER: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, T/TLIi DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration to modify the Transformation Homes Loan program guidelines. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached modifications to the Transformation Homes Loan program guidelines. III. BACKGROUND I In 1994, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) authorized the Transformation Home Loan program. The program provides a zero interest deferred incentive loan to homeowners making value added improvements. From program inception in 1994 through 2002, a formula based on project costs determined the loan amount. For projects costing in the $30,000-$50,000 range, a ten percent deferred loan was available ($3,000-$5,000). For projects costing $50,000 or over, a 15 percent deferred loan was available ($7,500-$15,000). In the last five. years of the program, an average of 15 loans per year have been initiated. Since 1994, 101 homeowners have taken advantage of the loan opportunity. Remodeled homes have demonstrated higher average values than even Richfield Rediscovered new homes. Since 2000, half the transformation loans (15 of 30 loans) have supported remodeling in excess of $100,000 in estimated value. 121503 TH Program Guidelines As a result of a bond refunding, $200,000 was made available for transformation loans in 2003. Because of the high demand, limited funds, and the uncertainty of future resources, last February the HRA approved a change to the program with the following elements: • Limited each loan to a maximum of $5,000 instead of $15,000. With the new limit, 40 loans would have been possible rather than 13 loans. We had a mailing list of 50 interested households. • Eliminated the Relocation Support Grant, which had been available to loan recipients who needed to be out of their homes during remodeling due to kitchens or bathrooms being unavailable for use. A maximum of $1,500 was available. • Dropped the provision for a loan when remodeling in the $30,000 to $50,000 range. Very few loans occurred under this program option. It was found more cost effective to administer if there was one level of funding for projects with costs at or above $50,000. ` During 2003, the above elements were in effect. However, only five loans were brought to completion. Staff recommends changing the program back to the formula approach of providing a 15 percent loan for projects costing $50,000 or more and yielding loans in the $7,500 to $15,000 range. From 2000 to 2003, there were 3,295 home remodeling/repair permits issued by the City. Eighty Five (85) of the permits were for remodeling in excess of $50,000; which is approximately 2.6% of the total as summarized below: Year No. of Houses 2000 13 2001 24 2002 26 2003 22 85 Total Above $50,000 Above $50,000 Above. $50,000 Above $50,000 Of these 85 remodeled homes, slightly more than one-third (30 houses) occurred with Transformation Loan funding. Half of the "transformed" homes (15 of 30 houses) initiated more than $100,000 in remodeling. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Transformation Homes Loan has been useful and well regarded. • Program changes are required from time to time to respond to budget realities and market needs. • The Anderson/Niebuhr survey results emphasizes the importance of remodeling and providing larger homes. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Transformation loans are proving to be particularly useful when more than $100,000 in remodeling is planned. • The limited number of loans provided in 2003 indicates the loan is not meeting homeowner's needs/interest. • Survey data suggests that the "move don't improve" paradigm still exist. • A partnership the HRA is evaluating with the. Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation, includes funding for an incentive grant program (called a rebate) which other suburban communities have found useful for smaller scale remodeling (below $50,000). Thus transformation loans could be focused on remodeling above $50,000. • Costs for remodeling continue to exceed value gained, hence the basis for the incentive financing. With every remodeling there is value lost and gained and the transformation deferred loan shares the initial loss with the homeowner, to be repaid at a future time. (See attached bar graph.) C. FINANCIAL • Funds from the bond refunding and from loan repayments are currently available. $25,000 of the $200,000 has been expended to date. • The modified program would be actively marketed starting with the January 2004 Remodeling Fair. D. LEGAL • The modifications to the guidelines do not modify any of the required loan documents. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not modify program guidelines. V. ATTACHMENTS • Language reflecting the proposed guideline changes. • 2002 cost versus value report. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A LANGUAGE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TRANSFORMATION HOMES LOAN PROGRAM GUIDELINES Criteria for Program Eligibility In order for a project to be eligible for a Transformation Loan, certain conditions must be met. 2. Project costs for remodeling improvements must be $50,000 or more. The Transformation Loan will be calculated at 15% of the project cost as determined by the HRA, not to exceed $15, 000. Conditions of the Loan 1. An applicant's project cost must be a minimum of $50,000. All aspects of the project must be completed within a reasonable period of time such that all the work may be considered part of one project. 2002 Cost vs. Value Report "If I invest in my home, what will I get out of it?" Based on national surveys, these figures show, on average, how much of your investment you'll realize monetarily at sale. Keep in mind that most of these projects get done because people want to enjoy them for several years...that is the best way to realize your investment! Cost Recouped, National Average* ~i ' ~ •i'' 94% 94% 91% ~- 88% ~81% 80% 79% 79% 79% 77% 77% I75% 74% *Predictions based on resale value within one year of project completion. Report originally published in REMODELING Magazine, 1 I-20-2002 www.remodeling.hw