05-21-84 agendaHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 25
Agenda of May 21, 1984
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Further Analysis of the Rae Drive/66th Street
Project; the Acquisiton of 1016 West 66th Street.
Dear Commissioners:
Since the April 30, 1984, joint meeting of the HRA, City
Council, Planning Commission, and Community Services Advisory
Commission, the staff has directed its efforts to evalutate the
potential for developing 8 additional units of housing for first
time buyers at Rae Drive/66th Street. The appropriate
steps to be taken next include further discussion of the
financial feasibility of the project and consideration of the
acquisition of the balance of property .necessary to proceed
with the project. This letter provides information on both
subjects and requests authorization to acquire 1016 West 66th
Street.
Project Feasibility
Information provided on April 30, 1984 indicated that the
production of 10 units of housing (two units now under
construction and eight additional units) might be feasible using
a portion of MHFA's $4,000,000 in bonding authority allocated to
the Richfield HRA. This authority could be transfered for use
at the Rae Drive/66th Street site provided the percentage of HRA
and City contribution (ie. "non bond proceeds) is the same or
greater than the 29.82 percent level of contribution presented
in the original application for Legion Lake housing. The
sources of that contribution included: tax increment, and land
writedown by the HRA and City; a financial contribution from
the developer. The Rae Drive/66th Street project concept
adequately meets the 29.82 percent contribution, depending upon
how the local contribution is structured. Bond Counsel has
determined that the integrity of the application is retained
even though the housing program location and project size is
modified from the original Legion Lake proposal. However,
revenue bond feasibility is only one aspect of total project
financial feasibility.
Staff has continued to evaluate:
-ways to reduce the costs of bond issuance for this smaller
10 unit project. (The bond issuance costs are included as
part of the bond sale and do not require cash from another
source).
-2-
-methods to reduce interest rates further than the tax
exempt rate of the bonds so that mortgage financing is
affordable to Section 8 qualified moderate income families
having an annual income in the $19,000 to $27,000 range.
-,ways to reduce the cost of the proposed structures but
still retain quality and energy efficiency.
-the developer and HRA contribution to project cost and
the anticipated return to each.
Staff has made the following interim determinations:
-Given the small size
cost less to issue
another government
amount of revenue
bonds alone. The
county, or the MHFA.
joint participation
of our revenue bond issue, it would
revenue bonds in conjunction with
entity that intends to issue a large
bonds than to - attempt to sell our
issuing entity could be another city,
MHFA probably provides the least cost
opportunity for the HRA.
-CDBG funds cannot be used to reduce interest rates on
.mortgages further than the tax exempt rate if the HRA is
responsible .for project development. Housing payment
assistance is not an eligible CDBG activity for the HRA.
-CDBG funds can be used to reduce interest rates on
mortgages below the tax exempt rate if the HRA creates a
local development corporation (LDC) that makes the
development decisions as a small business entity seperate
from the HRA. LDC's can use CDBG funds in ways cities
and HRA's cannot.
-A cash. contribution from the developer and tax increment
revenue from the eight additional units may be the best
source for revenues which could be used to reduce
mortgage interest rates below the tax exempt bond rate.
This assumes the developer would pay a minimal amount of
money for the land and would not have to contribute cash
to the bond issue as originally proposed in our MHFA
application.
-The Metropolitan Council HRA has been developing a "Housing
Fund" patterned after the Minneapolis/St. Paul Housing
Fund. The Mpls./St. Paul fund has successfully reduced
monthly payments so that families with Section 8 income
levels can afford ownership housing. Payment assistance
is provided at a tax exempt rate and additional loans on a
graduated payment plan are provided as necessary to make
housing payments affordable. Project costs are also
reduced since the land is provided at a writedown by the
HRA for the new housing.
-3-
The anticipated sources of revenue for the Metro Council
"Housing Fund" are private foundations and corporations.
If fund raising in 1984 is successful, payment assistance
could come from Metro HRA for this project. This fund
might be available in 1985 when the proposed Rae Drive/66th
Street units are built and could be used in addition to
proposed developer and tax increment contributions.
-Six of the ten units would require mortgage interest
reduction beyond that provided by tax exempt bonds
to ensure affordability to persons having Section 8
eligible incomes. The other four units might require some
assistance but could be sold to families with incomes in
the $25,000 to $35,000 range as originally proposed for the
Legion Lake project. CDBG requirements specify benefit to
Section $ income levels in at least 51 percent of the
project (ie. six units).
-There will be a number of ways to reduce housing costs to
the potential buyers including: reduced construction
cost, reduced interest rate, and/or increased monthly
housing payment assistance. The appropriate balance of
these three elements requires further analysis.
The following information presents very preliminary cost
estimates for the acquisition, construction, end loan financing,
and additional contributions to financing associated with
the Rae Drive/66th Street project:
Acquisition, Relocation, Site Prepartion:
$332,400
This includes the already acquired g10 and 920 West 66th
Street and the proposed acquisition of 1016 West 66th and
901-03 Rae Drive. It also includes the relocation of any
tenants and site prepartation such as removal of buildings.
Year IX and X CDBG funds have already been programmed for
these acquisitions. (Year IX CDBG funds must be expended in
1984 or they will be taken back by Hennepin County and given
to other communities).
Project Development, Construction, Marketing:
_--~'- $574,000 to $614,000
This includes developer costs for developing eight
additional units of housing at a cost of $60,000. to
$65,000. The estimate also includes the Vo-Tech contract
amount of approximately $94,000 which the HRA has already
incurred for the construction of two units. The acquisition
of abandoned, absentee owned, and underutilized residential
property on this site followed by redevelopment has
approximately doubled the value of the property and the
number of housing units available.
- ~,
-~-
End Loan Financing:
$b00,000
The amount covers ten mortgages at approximately $60,000
each.. It is anticipated that the tax exempt mortgage rate
would be approximately 11 percent. Today's market rates
are approximately 1~ percent, but the rates are
rising. The 11 percent rate would be a fixed rate for 30
years. The estimated housing payment - principal, interest,
taxes and insurance (PITI) is approximately $700 per month
at 11 percent. Based on general loan underwriting
standards, it would take a $30,000 income to afford this
payment wihout additional assistance. Because Section 8
eligible families have incomes below $30,000, additional
assistance is needed.
Additional Contribution to Financing: $300 to $2,760
per-year per unit if
below $30,000 income
For families with incomes in the range of$20,000 to
$29,000; annual assistance with mortgage payments would
amount to $2,760 to $300, respectively. Six of the units,
those marketed to Section 8 level incomes, would require
yearly assistance in the $2,700 (for a -two member family
with a $20,000 income) to the $900 range. (For a five
member family with a $26,000 income.) Thus, the larger
families, those with four or five members, need half the
assistance that two and three member families need. [These
families receive less assist_anee as owners than as renters
since the average Richfield Section 8 renter receives $3,100
in assistance each year.] The developer can provide these
funds as cash at closing as a one time payment. In effect .
this reduces the interest rate for the very lowest income
persons (7 percent for a family of three with a $22,000
income.) Tax increment, estimated to be $x,000 to $6,000
each year from the project could provide additional payment
assistance. A Metro Council "housing fund" could make
similar contributions. It is usually anticipated that over
time, incomes for buyers increase thus revenue for mortgage
assistance would decrease.)
This preliminary review of the initial costs, the assistance
to be provided, and the value of property developed,
indicates the challenge faced in selecting the best
courses of action to present to the HRA for future
consideration.. The best course will minimize the subsidy and
provide the greatest return on that subsidy. However, more time
is needed to determine the most effective way the contributions
and payment assistance should be structured both in terms of
intial contribution and the way it is to be returned to the HRA
and developer over time. The Minneapolis/St. Paul Housing Fund
Program, for example recovers the monthly payment assistance as
a single payment, zero interest loan when the family sells the
house. Equity share provisions for the HRA and developer will
also be considered. The greatest challenge is producing at
least six units affordable to the lower Section 8 income
level families.
-5-
Acquiring the Balance of Property
Before the HRA can make final commitments related to a
housing revenue bond issue and selection of a developer, site
control is needed. An opportunity to issue mortgage revenue
bonds may present itself within the next two to three
months. This is contingent on HRA determination to proceed with
the project and favorable Congressional action concerning
revenue bonds. The opportunity to select a developer will
probably occur in early fall following the completion of the
design guide. Input from the residential owner occupants
adjacent to the proposed project will be sought for the guide.
Site control is approximately one third completed. The HRA
presently owns 910 and 920 West 66th Street. The HRA has
authorized negotiations for 910-03 Rae Drive. However, at the
March 19, 1984, HRA meeting, consideration to purchase 101b West
66th was set aside for the time being. At this time, staff
believes that the HRA must act on the acquisition of 1016 West
66th Street or the "voluntary offer" from Mr. Nordstrom,
the owner, to sell the property, will be withdrawn. Mr.
Nordstrom has already started to make improvements that may
increase the value of the property where the house is located.
He is also. considering the sale of the adjacent vacant part of
the property for approximately $28,000. The best opportunity to
buy is now. As noted in HRA letter No. 14, March 19, 1984.,
Mr. Nordstrom has placed a value of $92,500 on his property.
This was and is the amount the HRA is asked to consider. This
is a three-bedroom rental. property located on a large parcel.
The entire parcel is large enough to be subdivided into two
lots (for four units of housing) each with an area of
approximately 11,358 square feet. An independent appraiser
retained by staff, Mr. Brad Bjorklund, appraised the property at
$91,000. The parcel with'the house was valued at $70,000, and
the excess vacant land was valued at $21,000. The parcel would
be purchased under the Voluntary Acquisition Program. Mr.
Nordstrom has agreed to waive his rights to receive relocation
benefits. The tenants would, however, be eligible.
Mr. Nordstrom also owns 901-03 Rae Drive. He is interested
in selling this property as well. This parcel could be combined
with the property at 910 West 66th Street and four units of
housing could be developed on the site. Staff is proceeding
with negotiations for this parcel. The negotiating climate
would be improved if the HRA would respond with a definitive
yes or no to the proposed purchase of 1016 West 66th Street on
May 21.
-6-
Summary
The information contained within this letter further defines
the status of project feasibility and property acquisition. The
HRA .should be aware, as a result, that producing affordable
housing at this location will be challenging and will require
innovation to ensure the project's success, to minimize the
amount of housing payment assistance, and to recover the HRA
subsidy to the greatest extent possible. Projects of this
type have been done on a larger scale in other cities. The HRA
has accomplished this same type of project in the past,
providing housing for Section 8 income level families on a
smaller scale through Vo-Tech home ownership program efforts.
Thus there is a basis for confidence in the feasibility of this
project.
It is recommended that the HRA continue to support a project
at the Rae Drive/66th Street site and authorize the acquisition
of 1016 West 66th Street by adopting the attached resolution.
It is hoped that negotiations for 901-03 Rae Drive will
be finalized in June for consideration by the HRA. Additional
findings -related to project feasibility will also be
presented at that time.
Respectfully submitted
ohn G. C twr ght
Executive Dir ctor
JGC/eja
~ ~~
a ~~ ~ ..:
m ~ ~ ~ " ~.
~ ~ ~ •
x
< t
m
v ~ ,
m ~
< ~ ~,
1"' II
0 ® ~
~ ~ R
m
~ ~ w
~ ~ ~ ~
y Oo Sir
~ A
n ~~ ~ ~
~- n ro ~ ~
C rh N ~ ~ w ~
O I-' N m
N (D F-'•
C n ~
F-'• tt N•
~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~ ~i
to ~C
N..
~~
~~ ~
N• O
N ~ u~
- CZ O
~ (D O
~ ~ fi
~ ~
(D
N•
~q
~'
b
n
i
0
C
,' .~
a~~
t
R
SITE PLA[~
...,~.
-~°
'~y- !
r o
~_
.~
_~
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
~-` Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 24
Agenda May 21, 1984
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Report of Planning Commission Actions to Date on
Market Plaza Project
Dear Commissioners:
Attached please find a copy of the Planning Commission staff
report for the Market Plaza project along with a copy of the
Planning Commission minutes which outline the actions taken by
the commission on the Market Plaza project along with other
project related commentary. Both the city staff and planning
commission reviews were made on the site plan that included
Knutson Construction Company as the co-developer on the condo
component. As you are aware, the Arkell Construction Company
is now a substitute co-developer for Knutson and the Arkell site
plan has some changes that have not been reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
In summary, the commission has expressed its support of the
Market Plaza project. They also approved the Planned Unit
Development and Special Use Permit with the addition of seven
stipulations. These stipulations are found on page two of the
Planning Commission minutes of the May $, 1984 meeting.
The Planning Commission has also recommended to the City
Council that the current PUD Ordinance be changed to accommodate
the type of development which is presently occurring in the LHN
Redevelopment area..
The commission has also forwarded the requested variances
to the City Council without recommendation. This is a result of
the commission being in favor of the project, but finding
problems with the wording of the PUD Ordinance.
The purpose of this report is to keep the HRA informed on
planning commission site plan reviews and to afford an
opportunity to the HRA to comment on the planning commission
recommendations before the recommendations are presented to the
city council.
Respectfully submitted,
ohn G. Ca twr' ht
Executive Director
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 8; 1984
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Ahlquist, Commissioners Hoverson,
Jensen, Kauth, Anderson, Luettinger, Quam
Kritzman, McDermott
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Community Development, Dennis Kraft and
City Planner, Rick Jopke
ITEM ~~1, CASE 84-PUD-1, Request for PUD plan, Special Use Permit, Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat Approval and Variances by Derrick Land Company for 65th -
66th Street and Lyndale to Graham Avenue Project.
City Planner, Rick Jopke, presented the staff report.
Richard Krier, representing Derrick Land Company, 1650 Shelard Tower, appeared
in support of his company's project.
Commissioner Hoverson expressed concern that traffic would flow onto-66th
Street too near Lyndale. She asked that if that became a problem, the planned
median cut be eliminated. Traffic flow on this site, Hoverson said, should be
studied with future redevelopment of other areas on 66th and Lyndale in mind.
Commissioner Quam said the project has no sidewalks on its property on the 65th
Street side, and questioned whether parking should be allowed on 65th Street.
He also said that with the number of units of rental property, there should be
off-street .parking for the loading and unloading of moving vans,. in order to
avoid traffic problems on 65th Street
Mr. Keier pointed out in response to commission inquiry, that it is cost
prohibitive for the company to either allow underground parking in addition to
the spaces already planned, and that .fire and safety codes would make it
extremely difficult to allow parking on the roof of the structures.
Commissioner McDermott said the setback on 65th Street is too close to the
street. In the future, she said, development or widening of 65th Street could
be hampered by this setback. She also stated that there was a very limited
amount of "recreational" space on the site, and that perhaps more could be
provided.
Commissioner Quam stated that he was uncomfortable with the setback and
suggested that the building be moved on the site. In addition, he suggested
that it might be possible to vacate Graham Avenue and provide additional
parking/recreational/building space for the Derrick project.
Commissioner Luettinger stated that the project should include more meeting
rooms for residents, and larger areas inside the building for residents to
gather.
-2-
Commissioner Jensen said that he was not pleased with the northern setback of
the project, though he liked the project in general. He also said that the
current setback and other ordinances need to be examined to help the commission
present a clear view of how it feels on an issue. Many times, although the
commission supports a project in concept., it cannot vote for approval, because
of the limitations set forth by an outdated zoning code.
Commissioner Quam said that granting setback variances on a PUD is not
necessary, according to his reading of the code. He suggested that the
commission not gant the variances, because these variances do not belong in a
PUD hearing. He also said he was concerned because right at the start of the
project we are creating a nonconforming use. The PUD ordinance was written
before Richfield contemplated the building of highrises, therefore, when a
highrise is built., the project becomes nonconforming just based on height
alone.
Chairperson Ahlquist said he agreed that the current PJD ordinances do not
address the issue of height or structures, and in addition, he said that they
were not written to encompass multiple use projects, such as the Derrick
development.
M/MeDermott, S/Quam to approve rezor,
C-2 to .Planned Multiple Residential.
Motion Carried: 9-0
M/Quam, S/Anderson to approve the
following seven (7) conditions:
of the Derrick
site from
ial Use Permit -with the
1. All landscaped areas be irrigated.
2. A 20 foot easement be provided for landscape purposes adjacent to
66th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
3. That a final utility and drainage plan be approved by staff.
4. That afire protection system be approved by the Public Safety
Department.
5. That the possibility of re-orienting the condominiums on the site to
provide more open space and the possibility of vacating Graham Avenue
to accomplish this end be re-submitted for approval.
6. That the proposal include prohibition of parking on the south side of
65th Street.
7. That moving van access off 65th Street be provided.
M/Hoverson, S/Ahlquist to amend the
for elimination of the 0 foot setba
Anderson) to
wilding.
Motion to Amend Carried: 6-3. Voting against: Quam, Jensen, Anderson
Quam-Anderson Motion Carried: 9-0.
..
M/Hoverson, S/McDermott to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with
the possible addition of Graham Avenue to the site plan., should it be vacated.
-3-
Motion Carried: g-0
The Planning-Commission recommends to the City Council that the current
ordinance regarding Planned Unit Developments be changed to accomodate some of
the larger buildings that are now located and may be located in our community.
The Planning Commission also suggests that the City Council change the
ordinances regarding Planned Unit Developments, to eliminate the use of
variances within PUDs. The restrictions of the variance ordinance mean that
many variances included within a PUD, however well they may work into the
project, simply cannot be legally granted.
Commissioner Jensen said it would be hypocritical to grant the PUD and deny
variances. Though he added that the circumstances on the site are too unique
to be germane to the variance process.
M/Jensen, S/Anderson, to grant variances to increase the maximum allowable
floor area from 268,462 square feet to 385,170 square feet, to reduce the
minimum amount of livabilit s ace rovided from-154 863.2 s ware feet to
58 32 s uare feet and to reduce the minimum amount of recreational s ace
provided from 27,101.0 square feet to 16.410 square feet.
Motion Failed: 4-5. Voting against: Quam, McDermott, Hoverson, Ahiquist,
Anderson.
M/Quam, S/Anderson to forward a statemer,
the project in general; however, it is t
that to grant approval,. we would want tc
use intensity standards as "recommended
to go through a formal variance process.
t to the City Council in support of
to li
Motion Caried: 9-0
Motion Jensen, S/Quam to forward the variances to the City Council without
recommendation.
Motion Carried: 5-4. Voting against: Ahlquist, Anderson, Kritzman, Quam.
Maggi McDermott, Secretary
Richfield Planning Commission
C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item ~~
Informational Letter 4~
Agenda of May 22, 198
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Subject: Market Plaza Project Update
Dear Commissioners:
On May 14, 1984 the City Council and HRA approved a
developer's agreement with Derrick Land Company for the Market
Plaza project on the block bounded by b5th Street, 66th Street,
Lyndale Avenue and Graham Avenue. This developer's agreement
differed from the one previously approved by the council, and
HRA, in that a new developer is included for the condominium
development on the west side of the site. The Arkell
Development Corporation will be developing this condominium with
Derrick Land Company rather than Knutson Company as was a part
of the previous deverl-oper's agreement.
Attached for your information are some plans submitted by
Derrick Land Company and Arkell Development Corporation showing
the condominium which will be developed. The proposed Arkell
development varies in a number of ways from that which was
presented to the Planning Commission. The condominium structure
will have 147 units rather than the previously proposed 136
units. There will be an additional story on the structure
also.. Additional open space will be provided and the concept
of vacating Graham Avenue will be explored. At least one
of the variances considered by the Planning Commission will
be eliminated.
Parking provided by the condominium as shown on the drawings
will be somewhat less than was proposed before. However, the
developer will construct an additional level of parking which
will be totally enclosed and heated, if at least 50~ of those
spaces can be sold to people buying units in the condominium.
This would provide approximately 60 additional parking spaces.
As the final details of this proposal are worked out and the
final development plan is completed for the project, the plans
will be brought back to the Planning Commission for its review
and recommendation to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
`'ma"r" ~~
Rick Jopke
City Planner
x--
-
-
.~
,
k ~
i
\~ \. }---i ~ b ~~
~. }
\ J ti` I
I 1 ~
~
v!^~
\
\'
\ ~ i \
\~ ~ 7~- ~ I
~ /(( ~~~ ep
i ~ V
~
;
\ ~ ~
:, , , ~ ,
, ~ . __ .~_ i
,
~ ~ ~
iP~
~ \ ~
~ I` ~ ~
__ ~ ~ 1 ._ i
111 J~
'~
~''~ \'
~
~
~ \
\, /
I
~ \
,
1~ ~
1 \
~
1A \
l ~
I 1
,~ .f~~
' \ ~~\ ~~
` ~ _ ~
I
~
i
~
I ~ ~ \
.
~ ~ ti
a ~
t
\\ _
a
#~
~I
~i
s
a 's
s~
-~~~
_~
.. rt ~? ~ j
. ~°
,~
~~ ~
~~1 ' ; , --
63~ ~G
J~ 4T., ~
---111: ~ 'q3
~~
l,- ~ ~ ~ R
,,_I~ ...~ ~-
+!+ ~ • ~i
i~ P
( I' ~ x
~~ ffi
_ .~'` . -
-~~~; ~
'n
E4 Ey
pn~
pii~
-- ----.,_~. ~n
~~
Z o
Sg°
>~
z
o~
Q~J
Jg~
y
i- k
Q ~~
4 4
~ ~~
Y
~~
~I
a
m
0
~~
Z
U
Sg
Z
~~
Q U
J ~~
~ ~
W ~ q 1
Y ~~
c f
L ~~ ~~ .$
S
. ~
- ,
-------
-: ~-~
_ ~ _-~_ _
- ---
----4
--
.~~. ~ i
I
._.. -t ~~
____ ' _
-~
\\ i
_ X ~
-__- - ~ 6
-- ~
i
i
~.
~I
a
Q
mb
3
o~
C
~ a
~ g~
S}~
o~
Q~
d 4'~
a5~
~°
Y~~
~ a~~
. s~~ ``,~
e
0
m
~~
m
e
1`
F
O }~
O ~~
v,,
N W
~ ~~ R
~ ~o
~~~.~ f
Q~`~ I
a~~ i
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 23
Agenda May 21, 1984
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Opdahl Property Redevelopment Update
Dear Commissioners:
Mr. Mark Ahlquist will present a brief report to the
commission outlining the activities he has undertaken during the
past month on the redevelopment of the Opdahl property located
at the southeast corner of 64th Street and Lyndale Avenue. It
is anticipated that Mr. Ahlquist will present preliminary
drawings and a site plan of the proposed development along with
commentary on the financial aspects of the project.
pectf~'I J~i~~mitted,
John Ca1^twr~ight ~~'
Executive Di .ector/
JGC/eja
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 22
Agenda of May 21,1884
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of 810 West
66th Street
Dear Commissioners:
At the March 19, 1984 HRA meeting, the HRA authorized the
purchase of 910 West 66th Street in an amount not to exceed
$67,500. The recommendation by staff to purchase this site was
approved by a unanimous motion; however, no formal
resolution was adopted. Staff has renegotiated the purchase
price to $67,500 and acquired the property.
The source of funds for the acquisition is the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) appropriation for the New Home
Program. This appropriation appears in the CDBG program as
scattered site acquisition. The current CDBG balance for the
program is $320,694 and an additional $48,294 will be added upon
final approval of Richfield's Year X CDBG budget. Therefore,
there is more th an sufficient funding available for the
acquisition.
It is recommended that the HRA adopt the attached resolution
to ratify the motion made March 1g, 1984, authorizing the
acquisition of 810 West 66th Street for $67,500.
R spect "~~ ~1 submitted ,
John G. Cartw fight
Executive Director
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 21
Agenda May 21,.1984
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation by the Housing Alliance
Organization on Alternative Care Housing
Dear Commissioners:
The writer has extended an invitation to Rosemary Dineen,
Research and Marketing, of the Housing Alliance to: (1) tell us
who is the Housing Alliance; 2) explain the range arrd
availability of appropriate housing and services for older
people; and, 3) report on funding plans to develop four
prototypes of alternative care housing for older people.
Rosemary Dineen and her staff plan to discuss their
involvement in a $5 million program that will construct about
four housing models (number of units could range from four to
150 units) in several Twin City communities. These housing
units for older people will be designed to provide housing that
can help control the cost of providing services for the
elderly. If there is interest shown in the program, Richfield
may be considered for one of the prototype housing projects.
e,~pectfJa`11 ~j~~fitted ,
b
John G . ~Cart~ight
Executive Director,
JCG/eja
Attachments:
1. Leaflet from the Housing Alliance
2. Graph showing projected number of persons by age group
in the Metropolitan Area; graph showing shelter needs
are constant throughout one's life;
3. Chart entitled "Projected Population by Age and Sex,
Development Region II"
4. An article entitled The Living Environment (informa-
tion extracted from: Long Term Care. It is mission
impossible transcripts from a series of public forums
on Long Term Care, January, 1984. Source: R. Dineen.
5. Summary of Metropolitan Council plan to serve older
people.
H
CC
~
~i
1~-~ y
C~ • y
~
i
,,,,~ ~ ~
rr-~~ ~y CA
b y
o
o
~
G~ ~ ^~ Wr_, it ~ ~~y fVy ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~
'
~~ ~bF ,~ ~ ~ ~ o
~
I ;tip ~,;, o
Q~ Q~ ~
~ ~ ~c
..w ~ ~ _" ~ . y - ~y .--~
~
o a~
zd~ ~.,d~
W
7
~
f--'i ~
~+
'
0
~
C.
~~ ~
^~ ~
~I'
~
y G
U
~~7 U ~i
~ *' ~
~ o~~
~~ a
~I ~ 'O
~
~
O .~ ~
Q
-.
~ ~ .~
o ~
W ~~ O
~ Lr
~
o ~~
E-+ ~~
~ ~~ o
rrt 1~H , 1
r~, ~[~ ~.;, I
F~
~~~~'-'
f/
.T=~ `~~.
' ''
l.t '
~'
T ,`~
y ~ ~ -4-~ to
~ Cd RS
y .~
U Q~ Q~ y ~ •~"~ y ~ sr ti ,S."
y°o~`~ ~ ~V oo~
~..~ ~~y~b0 ~~~ ~~p~
O
~ ~+ 3 ~ .~ r.. o z ~ c~ ~ a~ a~ ai
~' ~ °~~~~' ~W3~~Wo°~oox
~ ~ y•'n~l W ~aNa UF+1 ~'y ~
z x o0~~~0 ~~~~~~~~~
~ W C a~w ~'q y oE'"W p~..~ ~^d o
~ xi b ~ m o ~Uw ~Q' V~.~
~--i
H ii~~ ~ ~ .C~,y O .~~' .L~"i ~ ~ d~ vii w L~ s~~.a" U
(~~~yy,`~~/J
.{7 r.•4 Iy'.i
1' ',-;~
-. . s -._~
T.r
O
~ CL.
~ ~
O
O i.
~~
~~
0 ~
O ~
~~
~ ~
H
O ~~
xy
~.
~~
.~
O ~ ~ C
O A~ ~
.C ate-' A '+~~+
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ O
~.
~o ~~,~
..~ ~Tl~.
3~ 3~.°
3 0 o b ~'
~i ~ ~
.. o
~ V ~ y
p ~+ ,~" sue. `,~„'. ~
d boa ~:: ~
~a
~ ~ ~o y ~ cc oo ~ ~ cn ,~. w ~ ~ ~ y
'-'~ Oo'h' rt,d ~ d n `~rO Y n
W CD ~ ~ xy rt ~ ~ y rpyy fD < ~pn' C.. vOi ~• ~ ~. .-r O n ~ wQ ~s ~ y ~
cfl pr ~ ~ 0 ••1 G Ki• A ~. ~q 0 ~l. rt C rt ~' ~' Cam. n•`C ~. ~ ~ O
~ v, < Z ~ ~• rt. rt '•r O „"T'~ ,~.~. (D ~ C+ '•r rr 0Q C O W O p' G~/a
t~ ~ O Z G .C O ~,, ~ ~ ~ ~. a O• ¢, ~ C ~ ~ O rr f~.. cp rr
Ul~~~ ~ ~~0 ~y ~~'h w' ~ ~ y ~,A aj K 0,~•
~•~~ ~O Opi CL ~p ~v, ~CS' ~ p
'~•r ~ (D (A~D• ~ y ~ 'pr tC ~ 'r ¢ ~ ~ y
Vi CD. (~ fD
a+ fD ,may ~ fD ~. M•~ cD (D ~ "C3 "~ CA
CD rt
~S
G A, p ~• O 04 O rr ~ ~ ~. ,.y. (fl
c~ a -*, ~ ;~ a, rt
~ rt
~ Div !"'~'
z~
r-r ~ CD ~
a+ ~ ~ O~ p_
o as ° ~O ~
~~ y ~~ ~ •
oa ~ z~
~~~, ~~
~~
~ ~. ~ O~
~~
~ ~ ~'• ~~
~a o~:n
rt c~z cD
o O
PROJECTED NUMBER OF PERSONS BY AGE GROUP
IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
400- 8-17
•~.....~
375
350
-c
1980
i
..
;'
1990
~ ,....•~
.,
i '' '
:'
.•
'••,
~ ,•
• 38.47
.•
•
•'
••
..
~•
•• •:
~ • 28-37
•
~ ;~
.% ~~,• 8.17
i %"
•' •°
1
c ~. -
N i, • - . .
: I• ~
'0 325 ,
s :1 ~a•z7
F- •, ~
c I ;
._
N ~. ~ ;• :•
300 ••'•. .' ~ .'
E '•
~ ~, .•••
z I •:. ~
275 I ;
'y,~%••
ti~ ~ I ' I
I .~
250 ~
225 ~
200 •-•8-4.7 •.••'.j
••.
'••--.......... i
.•.
.• ~
.••
178 6s+,.....••''•~ ~
,..
..•
150 I ~
1971 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Source: Metropolitan Council, 1979
~ ~
N N O
~ ~ ~
fl)
0
c~
~~
~.
~N
0
~~
~.
a~
w CD
~+
~~
~.
~~
~~
~o
~~
~~
~d w
~~
as
~~
~~
c~
~~ ~
w ~
c~
a~
0 0'
~~
~'~
0
~~
o~
~•
~~
~~
~.
~~~
co
N
X71
.*
c
n
O
t~
m
a
'
<
a
~v
~ O.
c c
N
`°
~
~'
~ ~
~. ~ ~
fl. o ~
~
~ ~ '
N
~' v
~ N
.~
n~ ~ ~ ~ Q
n ~
~
~
~ ~ a
~ a~
_ ~
~ ? ~
c
° ~
m
~
~
c~ _~
o -,
a
N ~,
~ ~ ~ u,
~
~, ~ `° ~
~ Q
,'~ ~ o o ~.
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~.
~~
N~
2
m
r
Z
m
0
m
Z
Z
°'.~
--#
O
C
O
O
z
m
cn
r
m
.Empty
Nester
Step-Up
Buyer
First-Time
Buyer`
Elderly
Frail
COMMUNITY
PROGRAM
Nursing
Home
Hospice
Hospital
Apartment
Rental
`-t_r~'
MARKET ENTRY LEVEL
.Housing Cycle
Balanced Need Within each Community
Roll-over Housing
As People Move Up, Housing Becomes Available, at Starter Level
W t to lb as OO am t7N Na rr. rn Nta rr mN MOr rnr QIQ t0 l[f NQ m.m ID to / o+mm
(~ 1 ~r ID tD rnrn to v ^O mN ate' ~O rnN aC9 mm ~N t7a n8 aCf a$ mrnN 1 IDmr
t-Z 1 1 1 an mr Nm Or- NN m0 wn OO 1•t7 aN Oa ~
V 1 t 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 a r~ N t7 NN ~'r 1 N.~ t
1
- 1
01 mm o0 0l- ~'•N ro ato NO 00 rn0 ~N Nto -0 aN t•)to nom- Oco +-m rnm I mn-
.• 1 pm NN rna o+t7 aom taa Na rna aN eoa rn~- a~ rnm mn Orn rnrn eoN an 1 aarn
O / ma Nrn a0 nn rn rr ~n tD0 lom nn aco mN am aco. nm aor r-- On 1 clan
N / Nrn Nm nN -w nln mot N~ 00 00 ato torn Om taN nN rnm ~N nrn toa 1 nlaa
Ion m1o mlo rla rr aor rr rn mm rnrn rnrn apm lac an N.N NN ~N Ito / O/cr
1 ~~N
. / ~.' N
W t mr nt- too ~O Nta ra Na rraf Nm cam mn rn ma O~ aeo mr nm 1 .-ow
v / lom OO as NN ~N mn Nom- Oco Ina mn ~N as Nm N' eO nw coO na 1 rn•-
t.>a t mm __ rr e7~- t 1 an rn Nm O~- NN loO ra OO 1•Cf .rn ~-a ma 1 ~-~
a= 1 1 1 / ~ r 1/ ....r rr Nt7 N.(`t 1 N~ ~ 1
(„~ t 1 / - 1 / t 1 - 1
1
n1 ,Nm tDM Nt•f a~ Nm Nm ton rco am rr --r mco ~ttf rn ~aOcD rr ar 1 OINK.
O I rna a~ ~'ro lprn ma nm tDm nn nn Na N~ +•m ~'m aOI ~'a m~ NN NN 1 NnOo
p ~ mIn lo- Nlo nm Inr alo ato Ne Oco ~-O com tTm /n to mm rcv NO ON ma / ~mO
N I Nrn. lat7 Mrn nc7 nN Nr' N-- N(V ~rr r'N am ~Ca Nn n-- lan ~-a nm OO I mmn
IOn rata rtD rr rr rr rr COm rnrn rn0 mm rr nn toaNCI Nto ~Nr'C9 1 rnncrl
r / pr•N
- - .. / .-N
W / O~ No tar t4to NO rm NN Ool nN car Nm rn0 ~-rn ~~ rrn tOt'f nr n01 ana
v 1 NN mm 00 Nrn loN aco ar orn an m~• Oco Na Ow rna Nta aon Nm / nnn
t- Z 1 1
V4 1 hn 1. 1 Ib• 1 1 a n. rn N1a O~ ~N torn ma rnrn Nt7 N~ O/N tDN nN 1 ~-. .~
Q=.1 / / ~~. .~.. -1 / ~~ ~w NN N-N I 1 •r.+ .~~ .r.r 1
1
K
W O I t7ln ~l7 ON _O-~ mn am for as rnn nrn Orn Nrn rnN rnm Nr Nth c~~ O~ I nrna
N 1 rn O rn N t7 n a r n N.n N a n n r rn a m m a r N N O- N N r N am. m a N N/-r O m
1 t7m mrn aN Om coO rnm n< Nr In c1 mN •-O' mrn SID c~O mN mO t7m ~n 1 O•-~
O N 1 rco a0 rnn rt7 mm Nom- as rnrn o/a rte- nrn ra,m ~a Nm lom Oro Na rn+0 1 lon-
Z co to nn rr rr mlo rr mm rnrn rnO mrn rr nn as mM NN Nto wN N 1 vaco
~ ~ 1 O .- N
~ _ ~ / r~N
W ~
O. W 1 rnO NM mr- rnO rrn ~-a mn On NO l9N N-o na tnR aco rO taO to l0 rb N.1 OfD P)
aZ C7 1 rnO NN t7O tDN mn Mn Orn NID rN rnN rOt ~~ !aN ~`~ rN N-t7 rnN atp I rnla
O F Z I 1
r .•, V a 1 r a0 i i Cf h 1 i vltf !` r. t4 tp O ~ ~ N M 01 In c7 aD 01 tY •f eV r ~ :~ ~ eW ~ V Cf 1 tV tV H
_m~ aS 1 / 1 ~~' ~~ 1 1 ~~` r'te` CV-N NN 1 / _ ~~ ~~ ~~ t
Z tY 1 -
/-.F tff r ~~- mt7 rnn Oro. rt7 ON rnr Nm -ar as tD0 rnN. at0 Nrn (ON dtN rm -n SD 1 OOO
F- Z rn. ~ rn tD m n r O n O m n a a N N ~ n O n m. n o t0 rn n co rn c~ rn O O..n rn. lc - ~ to 1 aq n n
QW ~.rn l mm N.rn aH Orn, ~-N N-rn to to NO la NN mom' Oa mr rnn. Om f7 Cl. n:O rnID.I.nmN:
Jam' ~ 1 n ~" Ala rnn mn OY.m na NN Nr Oro m ~" rn.~" nr r0 N Q• Ia n rrn ON rt7.1 rnrr
~a r1~ mr rr to la Iola mm o0 0o rnrn rm nm as toa NN NM --N ~N N 1 taNW
ao ~~ ~.. ~ O~~
C J - t ~ N
d W
~ W / loN Nt? mCf tarn. con am Ina Ola tDN rnn ~t7 l7~ -rm to ltf toN to ~" ata nto /NrnO
pW v 1 N[7 nN ra rnm nca loa mm n~ am rna mlo O~ Io0 an Nn am for mm 1 mnr
W O 1^• Z 1 - • 1
F~ ~ UQ 1 1 1• lh.N 1 1 t7.a nn Mr rnO ~N nm aCf rCp an ~ i mrn 'N t0 Olla wf0 mn 1 e'(9N1
(,~. a= 1 ~+ 1 1 ~ ~~ NN NN 1 1 ~ r - ~ ~ 1
W (,~ 1 t 1 1 1 - 1
'~ _ 1
Q
~ O 1 nn ar n Nra om mm mco CIO NID ON corn Nn aco a ml+ mrn ~n ate- 1 rnaco
a of r r0 as _Orn m0 tDta oo ta0 nrn nN Nt7 nrn m~ mn Oa nla m mrn •-a 1 nrnN
rn 1 a~ ate- ~- aco rnm ~O ncs no laa Nrn aN an mn P1N ~~- Oco cf~- rnr l aaW
~ / Nm ~n Or IDIa 00 t7t7 nO NID OO NN 'rrn ~t7 tDN Nrn Nn If1la tAO IDO I "rn0
mr mr re to to aDm OC O~ rnrn mm to to ra at Nr MN rN ~-N N N 1 arnv
• 1r~rN
W 1 rrn ma of 01 aao eve ~~ rco a0 Na tn0 alttl ~rn mt- etlr tON ~O PN P'l0 1 rnm
t-Z i Iaco rv Orn nn NN ao0 rN am nN as mco toa n- rto rn~ ra t7 or ,Nn ~ Omrn
O Q 1 t7 N 1./ a a. _n n a m eD 0 ~ N n m a co r ao f n 1 1 a m O. r to f aoa f b. CO to -I a t7 th
U 1 / 1 1 t 1
- 1
n 1 torn toN rn0 toa ~a aoeo N~ aN N~ oral ttfN mr mm. ~r r•- ON cam NP 1 '~N
m ~ nn as am rn0 aor rnn On ar O- rm m Nn Nm rln as NID 0-- n0 1 O"
rn 1 rco rr ma nrn mm rnt7 Nn Oco car rrn ON Nm mn rnr rm rn am Nrn 1 -~an
~- 1 Nm ~m Or vlr nn tam ma con as rn0 an t7n mN rn rnrn coa tuao for / comma
/nom rIO nm rn rnrn O~ rnrn and lom an as as c~a N'N ~N ~N ~ / lom
~~- 1 -000
1~~N
O 1 telo 00 mm am mrn m~ rnm On rnrn 1-r ~r eon ma Or mar ~n rn~ / ol`tro
~ 1 O.- a>co tom coo ~e @9N nn O~ co0 Nt7 ra lam ~~ v0 loco NO No m~ / aNr
a 1 .mn NO. Nt7 Nn ~a t9N -m Nn mn coo ~rn t7o n0 Nt7 as lac Oro m•- /mom
~' 1 NtT Nrn Nrn aN Qa mom' IOm la la ~N mr lac t7 ta~ rorn nto eb m~ N"H aor nn t t7Nn
r la rla 10-n rnrn VO rnO mm tD la nn as as as Nm NCJ ~-.N ~N - ~' w 1.IaNm-
1 ~
X 1
W 1 ~LL ZLL ~LL ~LL ~LL ~LL ZLL $LL ZLL ZLL ZLL ZLL .fLL ~LL ~LL ZLL Z.LL .. ZLL ~LLJ
_ N 1 Q.
F
t- t1s ~ 01 ~ rn a to a of < 01 ~t d1 a J O
W 1 a rn ~ N N h ty a a n N Io rn r r m + < --
_t'J 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 n - f-
a I O n O n O n O n O Iff ~ 0 n O n O n O m O
~ ~ -N N t7 N a a:. W n ID -ID r n ~ H
_. ~
THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT
1 '2 JERALD NACHISON, AICP
;i Branch Chief of Congregate Housing Services
ca • Housing and Urban Development
ies ~ ,
... As Barbara said, my expertise is in congregate housing. My experience
of "~'` covers the range of living environments, and I've had some exposure to most of
or ;; what we call housing for the elderly, whether it's the independent living unit
palled the single-family hone, on the .one .hand; or the hospital, on the other
hand. But, given my Sob in HUD and what it has been for the last four years,
I'm essentially going to focus on congregate and some other related forms of
s~ housing. But before I get -into that, what. I would like to do is talk a little
id .~: ; Dit about definitions and sane history and things . I "d be willing to bet of
>lde ' the 75 people that are here, there are probably a hundred different definitions
so .'`, of congregate housing out there, and as many different approaches to what it
a ia, why you'd do it, and how to do it. •
n
Nell, the first thing that"s important for everybody to know, is that
congregate housing isn't new. It's very, very old.. In fact, there are
and: ,;~~ references to it in the Bible, except then. it was called the Jewish Home for
ve `'~; the Aged, or we would call it-the Jewish Home for. the Aged• today. But, if you
-cook even in recent history, the County Hane for the Aged of the last. century,
.ns , ~~, poor houses, by definitions .that we would use, are congregate housing.
-~ ''~l4, I have to refer to Marie McGuire, who's probably the mother of moderate
gregate housing in this country, for the basic operational definition, which
very simple: "A congregate facility is some kind of a multifamily :dwelling
some scale which has a central dining facility and may or may not have a
to Lral kitchen." In that facility, then, the management is responsible for
Teti` riding the meals and/or other social services that the .residents need.
to '6ioe I said need, not want. I'll talk more about that later. But that's a
the Y broad definition of congregate and it covers an awful lot of things in the
nt tipuun of care that people don't normally associate with congregate,
• ioularly if you're talking about things like intermediate care facilities,
ciliary care, personal care homes. Most of those are licensed facilities
.~~ states. Those are. all types of congregate housing, or I would argue
they are.
~dat'a unique about congregate? The fight that's going on today is really
to lake it work best. And, there are really two issues--how to make it
r lffieient; and if you're talking about low-income., who .pays for it.
"~- Other discussion is a subsidiary of those two basic questions--who pays,
bow a-n you make it work most efficiently. There's nothing unique about
,jpOlf~1`tgate housing program.. The demonstration that I run is unique only in
WM services, money and the housing are married in one source. The
•anagement -does not have to go looking for county welfare money, United
IAiOMY, Title III-AOA money or any other sources . He or she has the funds
O~q~1.Eh• HUD management system. The way it operates in this demonstration
~!; iYe as it would be in most other congregate programs, but let me put
~fd* for the moment and talk briefly about two concepts- which all of you
~ ~o$ about: When we talk about congregate housing, what model of
tCa ale talking about? Are we talking about care or are we talking
~t~laMprndent living? Are we talking about services support or are we
+i00uG use of the medical model?
26
From the medical model, one frame of reference is what's good for the
institution, or how can we minimize the care necessary .for that person. If
you're talking a services support model, you're thinking conceptually the
com plete opposite--Mrs. Jones was independent and has been independent. She
needs a little bit of help now to stay independent and there~s a progression of
what that little bit of help can become. But, the .focus is the independence of
that person, rather than providing care which definitionally is dependency.
And, so everyone that's dealing -with congregate conceptually and operationally
has to think about the approach that they want to use. Whether you're a for-
. profit owner, nonprofit, .federally-subsidized, state-subsidized or whatever,
the approach is critical to how you market it, where you look for your sources
of funding and how you get them, and probably the types of people that you will
attract.. There are different audiences.
If we talk about housing as a continuum, a living continuum, then you have a
basis for approaching the idea of a marriage between housing and services.
Now most of you probably know the idea of the continuum of living; it's very
simple. At one end you have the totally independent ,person living in a single-
- family dwelling 3ust like we do, or in an apartment house of some kind, and
then there s a progression of dependency--multifamily, multifamily with dining,
group living of various kinds including shared housing,. group homes (at least
if it's federally funded for the nonelderly). Then you get into the different
kinds of licensed facilities, .primarily you divide those into ICFs,
intermediate care and then skilled care, and then you have the hospitals and
-the acute care hospitals, and finally the hos pices on the opposite end of the
s peetrum.
You notice there are a couple of curves here,. This is the shelter need. The
shelter need is constant from age 60 and fully to age 95 and total dependency.
Conceptually, .the shelter need is there without change . You have to have a
minimum shelter. The perception of shelter need changes from the concept that
my home is for me at the independent stage, to the other end where you're
not thinking so much of the shelter but the medical care and other things. that
you need. So, what we see here is an increase in support service needs and the.
perception of those needs, and then with advancing age, the increase to a very
high-level .medical need. This is the continuum of living from full
independence to full support. If you look at congregate housing from the
viewpoint of independent living, this is afully-actualized model. If you look
at it from the care pens pective, you almost have to flip it over, or you could
argue that the model might not be appropriate in terms of practice. So, I give
that to you only to set .some background for some of the things that I'm going
to say.
When we talk about congregate housing, there are some issues which we all need
to fully .understand prior to operations, and they're all very important because.
of the issues of funding and who's going to pay, and is there a savings, or
whatever. If you're talking about congregate housing, you're talking about
those at risk of institutionalization. Those at risk only, that's the ideal.
Now, these are the main arguments that you hear bandied about today--nursing.
_ home costs are going to the sky, ICF costs are growing, huge numbers of people--
40 percent--do not have to be in institutions. What about forms of community-
based care? How do we do those, what are the efficient ways flf doing those?
Those are the things that you're all talking about in some form. But,. if
you've got an elderly population of 25 million, probably at any given time, no
more. than 15 or 20 percent are at risk, at most, and probably less. Of those,
that two and orie-half to five million, are the ones that are candidates for
sane form of congregate housing, provided that they need it. Whether._.it's on a
medical model or an independent model.
27
And then we're talking about cost. If you can make an assumption that as age
increases, you- can lay a normal curve on a grid and somewhere in the eighties
or nineties there's a huge bulge of institutionalization going on in the-
population as a whole, the .laying of congregate housing on that grid, primarily
to prevent the institutionalization of those who no longer need it, would cut
off a portion of that .population from an institution. The savings, if there
are savings in the use. of congregate housing, would be in that little spectrum
of the whole continuum of care involving living and medical costs. For
those that .need care, those costs are still going to be there, no question
about it. And, the cutting down of those costs is totally separate from what Z
would deal with in terms of congregate housing.. That's a mayor issue of the
long-term care system that .has to be dealt with in terms of Medicaid, Medicare,
private and other funding sources. If you're talking about congregate, the
savings are in that portion of the elderly population that is at risk who would
go unnecessarily to sane form of institution., whether it's an ICF, a hospital
or whatever. With congregate housing, you are trying to provide that
alternative so that. that "40 percent" does not have to go to an institutional
form of living, whether it's through a congregate facility or through.
Comm unity-based services or whatever. But it is that narrow piece of the..
spectrum. Congregate is not a savior for the. long-term care. system;. it's a
safety value perhaps, but savior no.
I'll outline the background of congregate housing briefly for those of you who
don"t know how it"s become a goverrnnent activity. It"s really very new, even
at the federal level. Through the sixties, outside of the .life-care
experiments, mostly done under the HUD 231 program, there was very little
congregate housing of any kind. I"m willing to bet that there are still less
than 50 true congregates in all of HUD's public housing with its million and
one-half elderly. The congregates. that have been -built are not in public
housing. They are in 202x, they~re in 206x, the 231s--the forms of housing
that do not involve the rawest of the low-income. Why is that? Same of those
people in the other programs have same money that can be used to pay for
services, and in the H[JD experience, there seems to be more willingness on the
part of community providers to bring services in to sane of those facilities.
Right now we've got a million and one-half elderly in HUD housing. At any
given time, based on 1970s research, I would say that-200 to 40.0 thousand of
those elderly are at risk. And the average age in those buildings is now
approaching 76 and aging a-year every three years. Now of those. 200 to 400
thousand, how many are actually in a congregate facility or are getting some.
form of service? We do not know. We don't keep those kinds of statistics. I
have heard statistics that say perhaps 150 thousand people do live in HUD-
sponsored congregate housing. At this point I cannot verify that.
What"s the main reason why there's a•shortage, particularly for low-income
people? There"s a question of who"s going to pay for the services. Someone
who's got an income of $3,000 cannot afford meals and a personal care aide or a
housekeeper on any regular basis. And as everyone knows here, there. have been
caps on funding for the last several years. Elden before the caps were put
on, the issue of spreading existing resources was a mayor question in the early
and mid seventies--how to best do it.
28
There are sane wonderful examples of congregate housing in public housing.. I
think probably the best example in this part of the country is right up the
road in the Duluth Housing Authority, which has done a magnificient job of not
only coordinating community'services and putting together a wonderful program,
but of taking its particular program, packaging it in several documents,
marketing it around the country, and making a conscious effort to make it
available. But, I would argue that the Duluths, the New York City Housing
Authorities that have done it, and some of the others, are. the exception not
the rule. If they were not the exception, why don"t housing authorities build
more? Well, they think of a couple of the Florida Housing Authorities that
have had congregates approved by the HUD office, on the basis that they worked
out an agreement with Title III and Title 20 three years before occupancy, to
put the services in. And at the time of occupancy, they didn't have the
money. Their funding cycles are not long-term, as everyone knows. There are a
number of cases where housing authorities, who built a facility, made a
conscious effort to keep the meal service going For those elderly and started
putting $60-80-100,.000 of the housing authority's revenues into that project
every year,-and all of a sudden the housing authority was in a wash of red
ink. The building was dragging down the housing authority. There are a good
number of cases of that in the HUD inventory.
Now that's not the ease 'so much in 202s and most of the other subsidized
programs... The incomes are a little higher; a one meal a day mandatory program
which exists in many 202s and some of the insured housing is affordable for
most of the residents; they can pay the $80, $90, $100 a month that that one
meal costs. There are many, many programs of that kind around the country.
So, where do we go from here? We've got a variety of successful programs.
There seems to be general agreement that congregate is successful, and yet
there's a tremendous unmet need. Some of that need is in the market economy.
The range of housing from say just above Section 8 limits, $12-14,000 and up,
what we would call the middle-.income. Tremendous need for housing there, which
is just beginning to be approached.
Now if that's background, let me spend a few minutes on HUD's congregate
,demonstration and give you sane of the evaluation results that are public to
date and some examples of what works, or what appears to work.. Then I'd
like to talk briefly about sane of the issues involved in the questions of
savings. I might go an act or two on common assumptions about savings. Then
I'd like to offer one alternative to the current coordination system.
The HUD demonstration is three years old. It's a marriage of housing and ,
services dollars. There's $24 million in the program.. There are 1,900 people
being served. There are 63 grants--half of them Public Housing--half of them
202s. They all work. What's common among them?. They all serve. two meals a
day, seven days a week. .That is a basic requirement for entry into that
particular program. The person must be assessed as in need of that level of
support to-come in. There's also personal care and housekeeping and
transportation available. How does it work? The issue is targeting. If
you've got a population and you've got only so many resources , you've got to
make sure that those that need it the most get it. .Not those that want it the
most, or think it would be nice to have, but those that need it the most.
29
-..
g. I There are two approaches to looking at needs, and I use a 202 which is now in
~~e our demonstration in Massachusetts as one example of looking at needs. This
not executive director is very forthright about it. Independence is something that
ogr.an~ our residents want. They don't want to be served by others. They have their
independence and they believe in it. We don't build 36-inch doors. We build
t 32-inch doors. A wheel chair can get through those, they dust have to be a
ng little more careful.. However, when in fact they do come to the point where
not they must have some support, not think they want it, but must have it to stay
build in the building, the management has to make it available to that person. They
hat take the approach that the services must be targeted carefully and
worked infrequently. Encourage the independence and push the independence as long as
Y~ to possible.
e are a The other side of that same coin exists in a couple of our grants, one of.which
we've taken to task and changed their pro gram. We had a request for a grant
acted which was budgeted for 15 people,. for a caseworker and a half in addition to
m eet the program coordinator. What was going on in there? We went out and did some
red field visits to the HUD office, investigated. What we had was an independence
. good program; however, independence was. defined by the program manager as effective
casework, and effective casework was-being taken to .literally the absurdity of
a mother hen and lots of little chickens. The whole building was being
~ caseworked to death. Mrs. Jones got a piece of housekeeping one day .and she
>rogram needed a meal maybe once a week because she couldn't get out or didn't feel
for like cooking, and the program which was suppose to be For the frail was being
one doled out in bits and pieces to everybody in the building. There was a
;ry, wonderful casework empire. being built there. Now I m not saying that's wrong.
is. Clearly, I'm saying that's not what the HUD program is about. And at a time of
limited resources, I'm not sure that approach should be taken. in any building,
>t~omy. but that's a different issue.. It's a valid approach which you can argue. It s
id up, not one that. HUD would buy.
', which
That extreme gives you the idea of the problem that you have to deal with when
you're talking about assessing people. The HUD model requires assessment
statutorily. Three people minimum on that assessment group, one of which is a
Lc to medical professional. They are supposed to assess those residents who apply
j for, the program as to their needs, not as to their wants, but as to their
of physical needs for those support services. We recommend OARS, we recommend
Then PULSES and a Few other commonly accepted instruments for assessing activities
of daily living that we have distributed. We don t have a standard. If we
were to become a permanent program, then we would have a standard or .several
zd ~ standards. But, our grants have made their own choices as to what assessment
people they would need. The assessment is the key to the best use of the money.
f them
als a Then there's the related question--who pays? We have had many disagreements
t with AOA on it, some of which have been public. There is the question of fee
scales. Everyone here knows the voluntary system under AOA-Title III, which is
el of
not quite as voluntary as it was eight years ago, but it still is officially a
If volunteer system, a voluntary contribution. The HUD statute requires a fee,
of to and also says in the same breath, no one who can't pay should be denied the
it the services. So, we were asked to give the residents their cake and eat it, too.
t.
~;
30
The way we've dealt with it was to have the projects sst up the fee scales
-based on the particular needs of their project, with the assumption that we
would see 5.0 models over time, -and sane useful models would then be able to be
given out, disseminated. With one caveat, since we are giving these people two
meals a day, we would strongly suggest that everybody have a minimum fee for
the .meals. You may decide for the low-income to fully subsidize the
'housekeeping and personal-care systems, but Mrs. Jones should
even if it's a nickel, toward the cost of that meal; not as a contributiongbut
as a required fee that she agrees to pay upfront. Then we have a whole range
of fee scales ranging from that proverbial nickel to close to full cost. That
depends on the project.
The jury is still out on fee scales. The biggest problem has been the- conflict
with the AOA projects and peoples perception that- you are char
I can go across the street maybe and ~-nS a fee when
difficult learning experience.. grt that free meal. .And that's been a
What has the evaluation taught us to date? Very simply, it's effective. The
targeting that the HUD projects have done, even with some of their
has worked. The population in congregate housing has been eom Problems,
risk population in Massachusetts by the Bureau of Elder Affairs~•red.tThe at-
important part for you all, particularly those of
is that there has been no interference between the service aren't doing it yet,.
management and building operations. The services Programs and housing
with management- at all.. And that in itself is a s8nigrficantsfindingtatfthisd
stage, because it should lay to rest the idea that services are a problem and a
headache for management. If it's planned for, it's not, and we've had no
problems in that area at all. The preliminary evaluation has documented that.
The services work.
But what does the congregate program do at this ~
small, it's a drop in the bucket nationally. Itpfills Remember it's very
system where there are holes, and services are not avail~ablein And existing
any congregate program, state or whatever, that might be the basis upon~whiehn
it"s approached--a gap filler dealing with the issue of 1
locality A, B, C or D. Models we've P egging the holes in
methods of o got, 63 projects and probably 70 different
Aeration. They range from one fully-volunteer system to a good
number of projects that contract out everything--meals, services. The housing
authority or the pro3eet is nothing more than a
with the project because that is the final pass through, and HUD deals
responsible. for. the o Point of authority. They are
Aeration and the expenditure of the money.
We have them all--contracted operations, in-house operations. The onl thin
that's clear is that in-house operations seem to be chea Y g
ones. If -the housing authorit per than contracted..
staff Y puts on .its own housekeeping, and personal care
gets the training from visiting nurses or from whomever and does.
it themselves, it`s cheaper than subcontracting with a community group. You're
not paying for that other agency's overhead and mark up. And that has been our
consistent .experience. Everyone that's in-house is cheaper than all of our
contracted operations. That .should raise a lot of controversy with community
agencies, and we've had trouble with that. But that is the fact that we've
.seen.
31
Fpz~FpA~
l~
f'. i.
Now that's not true with meal services. I can't say that because you're
cooking the meals yourself that it's going to be cheaper than a contracted
operation. That pretty much depends on costs and availability of suppliers and
contractors in a given geographic location. There appears to be at this point
no standard on that one. .They all differ. So, someone who"s looking at
setting up a food service would have to do a very careful costing out of both
alternati ves in their own situation. Should they do it all in-house, should it
be done all out-of-house and brought in? If you've got a kitchen should you
have a contractor cane in and do it in your kitchen? It's. hard to say.'
Clearly from our .experience there is not an answer on that one.
We talk clot about cost savings and. how much money is going to be saved if we
have congregate facilities. In fact, I was reading Commissioner Levine's April
speech on that whole issue, and it's very typical.. It is typical of the
approach of the arguments that were used in Congress when our legislation was-
being passed. And what are sane of the facts that we do have at this point as
far as cost savings? Basically, the answer to that is I'll be able to tell you
when the performance evaluation is turned in next year. I can give you some
allusion to what's happening. For example, in its most recent annual report,
the Philadelphia Housing Authority has carefully documented and tracked 15
individuals and their congregate grant and they have said .that the congre~te
program has kept those people out of an institution for an average of 14
months. In one case it was three months, in one case it was for over
two years. In that time period, the cost of the congregate facility--this is
in Philadelphia--rent subsidy, services and any Title 20 or whatever other
services, was $69,000.. Nursing home costs in greater Philadelphia for those
same people would have been $131,000 for that 14-month average span. So, they
are saying that they have saved sane level of goverranent approximately
$61,000. That may very well. be true. Given-our policy position, it's hard to
say because it's not. olear to me if they. have counted the same things HUD would
count. In fact, the issue of what you count when you're comparing savings is
an issue. Do you count the cost of housing? If it's an existing building, I
might argue no, it's in place anyway--you dust count the services. There's a
counter argument. There's debt service which the public sector's paying for
and that has to be counted, economists would argue that one. There isn"t an
answer for that question. Certainly I don't pretend to have one either.
But, ftmther on costs--same state comparisons. I'll use Illinois, and then
I've got a few figures from a local area here.. We would say that a congregate
program--a full package. would be--two meals a day, four or five hours of
personal care a week, an hour of housekeeping and maybe four units of
transportation, would average $6 to $10 (roughly) a day inmost localities of
the country, or possibly less. Obviously, in urban areas it may be a little
bit more, but we use that as an average cost for the congregate program.
Services only, remember, I'm not talking about rent subsidies and same of the
other things. In Illinois, the average cost of reimbursement on a skilled
nursing facility is about $9,000, $785 a month. When you take out the SSI and
the federal share, it costs the state about $380 a month or $13 a day. So,
using our figure, you could argue that there's a potential savings of $3 to $7
a day for a person in Illinois in a congregate facility versus a nursing home...
It is similar if you're dealing with an ICF. In Illinois, it's $620 and the
state's share of that after deductions is $297, or $10 a day._ The savings
could possibly be zero, and could be as a high $~1 a day per person.
32
I was given sane figures here by the staff last night, and for an SNF' in the
Metropolitan Area, you`re talking about average costs of $21,000, $1,795 a
month, with the state share being $885, or $30 a day. So, that's a fairly high
potential savings there. You're talking maybe $20 or more per day potential
savings. ICFs--you have two levels of care here, I understand, one at $30
and one at $50. The savings under those levels range from roughly $6 to $18,
using the figures that I have here.
Now I'm not saying at this point that it's cost effective. Zt appears to be.
Certainly the indications are that congregate housing is effective. But what
are we comparing, and who are we saving money for? Who's saving the money--is
it the state government, is it the federal government, is it the county
government? They are all involved. Or, let me put out the big question, is
there in reality going to be a savings of a single dime even if you build lots
of congregates? I would argue probably not. I think you could make a good
argument that there will not be in the long-term a one-cent savings. What will
happen is that there will be a lot more people served for the same amount of.
money .
For example, you could make a case that in Minnesota there are 40 percent
inappropriately placed people. They're in institutions. Okay, let's build
congregate housing facilities for those people and move them out of nursing
hares. What's going to happen? Do you have a lot of empty nursing home beds--
no. There are going to be waiting lists that are going to instantly move in,
and there are going to be people who are possibly backed up in acute care
hospitals that are going to move down because they do not need that level of
support. There may be a savings to the state for the support of the state
hospitals, but that savings may not revert to the treasury, but may be recycled
.for more community-based care or other things.. Given -the demographics of the
elderly population, I think it would be safe to argue that .the latter is what':
going to happen over time.- We are not talking about really cutting
expenditures, we're talking about taking those expenditures, slowing the rate
of increase and spreading it over more people. T think that's what we've got
to deal with. I think that's one of the things that OMB in Washington is
struggling with. Because they're looking at that horrendous growth in Medicaic
in the next couple of 'years--$60, $80 to $100 billion a year before this decade
is out.. That will level off sanewhat if there are more community-based
.alternatives, whether they're in congregate housing or services in the home.
But, the savings is not going to be a savings in the ultimate sense of the
taxpayer. More people are going to be served and with that, the taxpayer will
have less burden in the future.
I made an argument this morning when I was talking to the Council staff about
the whole question of how to do it. Should it be coordination? Coordination
of housing and services seems to work fairly well in this area. I would argue
based on HUD's experience, that if housing and services could be married--
thereby being some sort of a pro gram ...that funnels services' dollars directly
to housing management--that there are savings- there that would not be
necessarily matched with the current system. We find the current HUD program
very cheap to run and quite effective-with minimal running around. It works
well. '
33
in the
'95 a
ty high
~.iti al
$30
to $18,
to be
ut what
oney--is
y
on, is
ild lots
good
What will
unt of
ent
build
rsing
me beds--
ove in,
are
vel of
tate
recycled
the
is what's
he rat e
' ve got
is
Medicaid
is decade
i
home .
the
yer will
f about
Lnation
L d argue
:d--
iireetly
There are probably a half dozen states that are experimenting with state
congregate programs right now, with varying. degrees of success. Some are
experiencing problems with statutes , working out and so forth, but the only
real issue in setting up a state program is the targeting. Are you going to
dust substitute your money for something else? That is the issue that must be
dealt with both statutorilyand operationally. Don't-let your money .replace
someone else's if you set up a separate funding stream. But, states can do
it. Why not a funding stream through the state housing structure? It's
ideal. State housing builds buildings, manages. buildings, sets policies for
buildings.. Tie services. funding to the operating subsidy or whatever the
mechanism.is. It can be done that way. :Through the State Office on Aging and
Area Aging system you have a natural funnel-through. It is something that can
be .tied into the Title III network in a way that wouldn't even need additional
administrative costs. It's possible.
If you .want to use the health system, you have the whole Medicaid reimbursement
system which could be piggybacked onto. There are a number of ways of playing
with the idea of a separately-funded congregate program that are not
administratively expensive. The problem is how to prevent duplication and
substitution of one thing for another. Costs aren't really an issue unless
you're dealing with the low-income population who can't pay. Sane body's going
to pay a subsidy--is it the United Way, the county, the state, or the federal
government? That's the question that I can't answer certainly.. That's a
question that's going to be in the political arena for the next couple of
years, probably. the. next 10 years. It's going to go back and forth, and the
arrangements. that are-going to come out of it, whether they're congregate
housing in a form similar to what HUD's doing now, or group haaes, or various
kinds of shared living environments, and .how they're paid for and who's going
to pay For them, is really a political issue as far as I can see. It is not a
technical issue of operations. Operations are tried and true. They dust have
to be put in place and appropriately funded or paid for.
?rogram
works
34
Summery
For many of the Metropolitan Area's quarter of
a million older people, maintaining suitable
housing and obtaining services such as
homemaker and home maintenance help can be
difficult.
The Metropolitan Council's aim in this plan is to
increase the types of housing and range of
services. available to the Area's residents age 60
and older. The Council will be guided by policies
in the plan in making decisions about health,
housing and services that affect older people. The
plan should also serve as a guide to local
governments, public and private agencies and
organizations, and individuals interested in
providing more housing and services for older
people.
In the plan, the Council lists goals of a housing
and service "system" for the Area's older people.
These include: providing more choices for older
people in the type and location of housing
and services; building flexibility into the system
to respond to the changing needs; and supporting
the "informal network" of family, friends, and
neighbors that provides most services to older
people.
The Council recommends that the types of
housing available for the Metropolitan Area's
older residents be increased. While 74 percent of
those people now own their own homes, many
said in a Council survey they would prefer
smaller units if they were available.
The Area needs more small, owned housing units
such as condominiums, cooperatives and
townhouses for people who want to sell their
single-family homes. More rental units should be
built, too.
In addition, the Area's large supply of public
housing for older people with lower incomes
should be maintained, and older people should
continue to be a target group for rent assistance
programs.
Communities and private developers should use
tax-exempt bonds, tax increment financing
and other local funding sources to build more
lower-cost, small housing units. They also
should help older people who want to sell their
homes find suitable housing within the
community.
To make sure that housing built for elderly people
suits their needs, the Council should initiate
an effort to develop a list of key housing criteria
with the help of interested groups. In addition,
federal and state housing agencies should
continue efforts to train peop a who manage
elderly housing and the state should consider
certification for managers.
The Area needs more shared housing for older
people, too. Shared housing includes several
options. An older homeowner may rent space to
other people. Or an older person may live in
someone else's home. Or a small group of people
may live together in a home. Any of these
arrangements may include services, depending
on the older people's needs,
While nursing homes are often necessary for
people who need 24-hour nursing care and
supervision, this Area has one of the highest rates
of institutionalization of older people in the
nation. The Council recommends that many
more "personal care homes" be provided as an
alternative for elderly people with mental and
physical impairments who now live alone. The
homes would provide personal care and
nonmedical supervision.
The "informal network" of families, friends and
neighbors that helps many of the Area's older
people with the tasks of daily living should be
encouraged and supported, the Council says.
Support can include short-term homemaker
service, adult day care, or temporary nursing
home care to give families a break.
In addition, funding sources should support
formal services for older people. Priority. should
go to services in greatest demand, particularly
to homemaker and chore/home maintenance
services. Better coordination among organiza-
tions that provide such services and a better
communications system to let older people
know what services are available are needed, too.
1
The Council recommends that along-range
strategy-for funding housing and services for
the Area's older people be developed that
reexamines the ways in which health services,
housing and other services are currently
provided. To do this, studies should be
conducted of the effects of current tax laws,
the relative cost-effectiveness of various housing
types and the relationship between formal and
informal services. In addition, public discussion
is needed about public and private responsibilities
in paying for housing and services for older
people.
The plan gives estimates of how many elderly
people in each of the seven metropolitan
counties need each type of housing and category
of services. For example, Hennepin County
needs 3,200 more small owned units and 10,400
more small rental units for elderly people. In
addition, the county needs about 2,600 shared
housing opportunities and 2,100 supervised
nonmedical housing opportunities. There is an
oversupply of nursing home beds, however. The
Council also estimates that 25,000 of the
county's elderly residents need chore/home
maintenance help and 15,800 need help in
finding suitable housing.
A map of each county indicating the location of
current planned housing resources for older
people is also included.
Policies and recommendations in the plan are
based upon findings from two surveys conducted
in 1978 and 1979. One involved face-to-face
interviews with 600 randomly selected people
aged 60 or older living in noninstitutional
settings throughout the Metropolitan Area. The
other was a survey of all agencies and organiza-
tions that provide housing and services to older
people.
2
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 20
Agenda May 21, 1984
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Compensation for Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
Dear Commissioners:
The 1984 Minnesota Legislature enacted legislation that
increased the allowable per diem compensation for HRA members
from $25 to $35 per meeting. Although the per diem has been
increased, theannual maximum amount of $2,500 remains
unchanged. This legislation was effective on May 3, 1984..
This item has been placed on the May 21, 1984 HRA Agenda for
informational purposes.
pectfyXly~~y~friitted ,
~vvw -
John G. art right
Executive Dir etor
JCG/eja
LeFevere
Lefler
Kennedy
O'Brien &
Drawz
.~ Processional
:1s ~xiation
2000 First Bank Place West May 1 ~ 19 84
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone 612-333-0543
Clayton L. LeFevere Mr. .John G. Cartwright
Herbert P. Leffler
J. Dennis O'Brien
EX2GUt].Ve Director
John E. Drawz Richfield HRA
David J. Kennedy 6700 Portland Avenue South
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richfield ~ MN 55423
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere Re : Com ensation of Authorit Members
p y
Herbert P. Lefler III
Jeffrey J. Strand
Mary J. Bjorklund Dear Mr. Cartwright
John G. Kressel
Dayle Nolan
Cindy L. Lavorato
I would like to call your attention to the fact that the
Michael a. Nash legislature increased the per diem compensation for Authority
Luke R. Komarek
Joan N. Ericksen members to $35.00 er meetin not to exceed $2 .500 per
p g ~ ~
Beth D. Moran annLlItt.
c, ,~ F. Rice
Lorraine S. Clugg
James J. Thomson, Jr.
The bill will be signed this week and perhaps you might want
to call the attention of the HRA to the increase.
Very truly yours,
Clayton L. LeFevere
CLL:jpf
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 19
Agenda May 21, 1984
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Relating to Commissioner Helmberger
Attending NAHRO Conferences
Dear Commissioners:
HRA Commissioner Joan Helmberger has been elected State Vice
President of the NAHRO Organization. As an officer of this
organization, Commissioner Helmberger should attend several
workshops and conferences. Some of these upcoming NAHRO
conferences are:
1. Combined State and Regional, St. Paul, May 15-18
Registration - $195.
2. National Commission Workshop - Denver, Colorado,
July 27-29, 1984. (Does not anticipate attending
this conference at this time; however, depending
on additional information, this may change).
3• National Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, Fall 1984.
(Helmberger plans to attend)
4. Minnesota Winter Conference - January, 1985
(Helmberger will attend)
5. Legislative Conference, Washington, D.C., February
1985. (Helmberger will probably not attend)
6. Minnesota State Annual Conference - May, 1985.
(Helmberger plans to attend)
Commissioner Helmberger will probably not attend all of these
important meetings and conferences. However, she wanted the
members of the HRA to be aware of her involvement in NAHRO on
behalf of the City of Richfield, and to approve funding for her
attendance at the conferences.
HRA Letter No. 19 -2--
A resolution approving her attendance and providing funding
for these conferences, is placed on the May 21, 1984 HRA agenda
for action by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. A copy of
that resolution is attached to this letter.
1984 HRA TRAVEL
AND SUBSISTENCE BUDGET
Appropriation $12,280
Disbursements as of 4/84 3,090
Unencumbered balance $ 9,190
pectf y mitted,
John G. Ca twright
Execut•ve Di ect~r
JCG/eja