Loading...
01-22-79 agenda HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 6 Agenda January 22, 1979 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richfield Dear Commissioners: Subject: Discussion of L/H/N Project Schedule The purpose of this discussion item is to provide HRA comm- issioners with a current status report on redevelopment activities in the L/H/N project area and on public improvements for this area. Mr. Krier and I will present more detailed information at the meet- ing which we hope will be helpful to you in anticipating what reasonably can be expected to occur during 1979/80 in the project area. Respectfully submitted, . /~ ~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff Executive Director WSB/eja cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Office of Executive Director HRA Letter No. 5 Agenda January 22, 1979 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners City of Richf field Dear Commissioners: Subject: Ad Hoc Housing Report In July, 1977, the HRA reestablished the Ad Hoc Housing Committee, for the purpose of making recommendations on housing needs, priorities, and policies in Richfield. Since that time, the committee has been meeting regularly to evaluate the city's housing goals and programs, as described in the Housing Assist- ance Plan, and to identify new programs which might be implemented to help achieve those housing goals. In November, 1978, the HRA authorized the staff to submit a grant application to the Metropolitan Council for $162,500 to be used in connection with projects to provide housing to low income families. The Ad Hoc Housing Committee has developed a report which defines Richfield's alternatives for using these grant monies to provide low to moderate income housing for large families. A copy of the Ad Hoc Housing Committee's report is attached. Members of the committee will be present at the January 22, 1978 HRA meeting to summarize the committee's findings and recommenda- tions as described in this report. Respectfully submitted, ~• ayne S. Burggraaff Executive Director WSB/ej a cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director ~, ~- . . =-k. _ ~j : ,.. THE ~.ECOn?n.4ENDATION OF THE HRA' s AD HOC HOUSING CO!I?~?ITTEE Januar~~ , 1~J79 Ad Hoc Housing Committee Co-Chairpersons D4r. Joseph Ertman, Planning Commission Dos. Connie Hoverson, League of t':'omen Voters Members: D7s. JoAnn Bloomberg, Human Rights Commission P,is. Gertrude Ulrich, Planning Commission Dr. Felton Jenkins, Senior Citizen and Handicapped Commission Reverend Paul Romstad, Richfield i•linisterial Association Mrs. Lee Robinson, ?'Lichfield Towers Resident Mr. George Karnas, Richfield Chamber of Commerce Ms. ~Qary Miller, Housing Assistance Resident ;.4r. Robert Nelson, Richfield Public Schools Tor. Henry Patzke, Summit State Bank ivir. and Dirs. C. R. Garvey, Richfield Apartment Owners ?sir. Leon Brixius Dir. Harold Shebeck Mr. tiUilliam Siemers Dr. Joseph Simonson Technical Assistance t,is. Jeanne Karstens ' ~Yir. Thomas Fitzgibbon, ..iidwest Federal Savings C Loan Dir. Dennis Daniels, Bloomington Non-Profit Housing; Corporation Ms. P;Iary Grace Falnnery, Dietropolitan Council Dlr. Greg Hanson, Greater ?:Iinneapolis 1letropolitan Housin Corporation Dir. Charles Riesenberg, Isberg,.Riesenberg and Chelseth Associates Dir. David Ames, Piper Jaffery and Hopwood ` The Ad Hoc Housing Committee has been meeting regularly since September, 19'78, to study the housing needs in the City of Richfield. At this time, they are making a recommendation ,to the HR9 for the -:' implementation of a housing plan. The housing programs which are included in the H.'lP (Housing Assistance Plan) are designed to assist both low and moderate income renters-and low and moderate income homeowners. There are currently two programs available for Richfield home- owners: 1. The Richfield Housing Fund, an owner-occupied rehabilitation program for single-family homes. The homeowner may receive a grant, low-interest loan, or both to improve the house. 2. The New Home Program, which provides for the demolition of substandard and deteriorated homes and the write-down of that land so that new affordable homes will be built for lo~v-to-moderate income families. The committee members agree that both of these programs are important. The Richfield Housing Fund helps maintain and improE~e the already-existing homes. It is one method for the homeowner to increase the pride in his/her home and in the community. There ' is a need for this program based on the high demand for rehabilita- tion funds. Approximately 25 homeowners are on_ a waiting list for low-income grants. ,'Ie encourage the IIRA to evaluate the Richfield Housing Fund and to look at ways of administering the funds as effectively as possible. There may be additional proyraris that could reach even more applicants. ,,.,: <; ~ ~ ~~, ~_ Y l'~`L The ;`dew Home Program provides new houses for. moderate-income > J ~~_=: ~ ~~ .families. Even though four new units have been constructed and . -}~. s ~~ ~ ~ . ~~~ ~ . x~~'~ sold to families whose adjusted annual income is less than 516,000, ,, . `_ '. the HRA currently has a mailing list with over 40 narles of persons . . ~n:= - '~~~ ~,, interested in buying a lot under the Necv Home Program Tor the construction of a new house. The HAP states that two :~e<<~ units will be provided during Year IV (19x8-79). This Goal is limited b~- the low number of vacant substandard homes which the ?i?A can `; reasonably expect to acquire. The. Ad Hoc Housing Committee supports the New Home Program, since it serves a dual purpose of eliminating , blighting influences and creating homeownership opportunities. k The other housing programs assist Richfield renters. The y f i~..;. _ committee assumes that most families prefer to own their homes, Y~~:= but many families and senior citizens either cannot afford to o~~-n z~~.:~ `~~~'.a:,'~` ~ a house or would simply rather rent a unit . The Section 8 Renial (. 3 . -. ?„ _*~ `~~ 1 _± ,;"~ -' Program is providing 315 households with rental subsidies. T~~•o , . hundred seven households are elderly or handicapped, 102 are sir~ail >~ „ households, and five are large households. `~ The committee members recognize that there is a-need for addi- , . tional housing for the elderly. There currently is a ~t~aiting list of~over 1,000 senior citizens for Richfield 'Towers, 7ith and Chicago. Since there is such a high demand for elderly units, tha HRH shoilld explore ~yays of providing additional units. Large, low and moderate income .families have an e~~en ~:-reater need for rent-assisted housing. There are fe~~~ three-L~edroo.u al?;LI•t- mentS available for Se'e:tl0l1 ~ ~tpplle:alltS. `,lost hU:'les '_'zIlt cony! d~I•- ably higher than the: limits e5tat~li5hed ic~r that pI•o~rl•a::l. E~~eu if :1 family is sel~-ctcci l'c~r r~~ut assistance they cannot fines ;t suitau:~ unit. ~~.r 3 -_,~4} The Housing Assistance plan states that five,: rental units 'Y ,~ will be provided for large low and moderate income families. The ~~ ,, t._ : ,. ~ ;~ : ~~~-~~~ Ad Hoc Housing Committee has been exploring possible programs for ~r ~_ ~~~ :~ ,~ providing the units. , the City Council approved the application for In November , -:. $162,500 in Bonus Community Development funds through the ,letro- politan Council. They will be used to purchase substandard, garage houses which are available for sale. The homeowner would receive just compensation for his property plus a.relocation benefit. The substandard house would be demolished to provide for the new con- struction. The- possible methods would address two goals: t _ ~ , .,~1 1. To provide rental units for large, low-to-moderate income ~~~ ; ~ ~ ~. , " } r families, and ~ ~. 4 :; : 2. To eliminate deteriorated and blighting substandard housing. The members of the Ad Hoc Housing Committee support the concept , of scattered-site single-family housing-units for large families. The committee has been studying several methods for providing -these units. There are two funding sources available for the con- struction of low and moderate income rental housing units; Section S financing, or traditional public housing funds. If the units were constructed with a Section S allocltion, they would be privately-owned and operated. Since they would lie subsidized units, the owner would be eli •ible Por a ~10 percent pro»ert5- t:~~ reduction. There are de~•c~loF~ei•s ~~:ho are interested 'itl the possil~il.it~- of constructing five to ten single-1'a~;iily rental units in ~ich;it~~ct. In order to make the hro;;r.un .'inanciall~~ Yc,tsihle, thee- ;r~~uld u~~~~d - esYl `~ `. rti ., - _ to receive a substantial land write-dorm from the i-~:~A. This ~_ ~~~ ~ write-down could be provided with the bonus Community Develonr_?ent ~~ a .. ; +~Y - funds. ~~ , , <}~;, ~ These units would then be ginned by a general partner. Th., .tenant selection could be the responsibility of the Richfield HRA. .5.•.• - :Preference should be given to current Richfield residents. Tne t4 property could be managed by the HR~l with a cortractur~l a-regiment between the HRA and the developer or they could be Managed by a private management corporation. The A-d Hoc Housing Committee also pursued the feasibility of Y .developing a Section 8 New Construction Prog,°am that ~;~ould pro~-ide ~Y_, - a total of 20 to 25 units in Richfield and the surrounding communi- 4 f~~ ? _ ~~~~ "•" ~ ties. If land is available in the surrounding suburbs, a developer ~~~x~ would have the advantage of a larger development. ~`" ~ The lietropolitan Council has established a "Family Housing Program" for cities like Richfield. The ?:letropolitan HRA has received sufficient funds to construct 50 single-family ho;~~es for large, low-to-moderate income families. Richfield may reduest that -five to ten of these homes be constructed within the Cite. The .homes would be owned by the ?,Ietropolitan HRA which is ~, leaisla- tive branch of the ~.Ietropolitan Council. They would be operated jointly by the Richfield HP:~ and the ".Ietro IER _1. Tenant selection would be made by the Metro EIR9 ~:hich would include a I?rgifergince for current Richfield residents. These units ~~•ould b~~ elem~~t fro;1i property taxes. Thc: ?Metro IIR:1 ~~•uulc! b,' i•c~quired to m:t.:e a I'acr:,ent in Lieu of Taties, which is 10 I~ez•cecit of the tot11 rents cc~llectecl. The City of Ct•ystal aticl ttic~ Citl- ol• Ilc~bbin5d;tle h:l~•e t~iitered in~.~ Cooperation 1~rc,e;nent~ ~G~itl~ thc~ 'Ietr~~I~olit:ui IIn.1 to hr~~~•i.d~~ a total of 10-15 uiiit:~ in their cities. ~.{ ` F V -, ,, ~ ~ _. = - ;~= The Ad Hoc Housing Committee recommends that-five scattered- \ ~,~ site single family homes be constructed as rental units for large, ~y , " -.t 1 £ low-to-moderate income families. y ~~ T` .:5 ~~ ~ ~"f The, committee recommends that the staff pursue tre imnlementa- ~~ tion of one of the three above-stated programs in the follo~z~ing - order of preference: 1. a Section 8 development of five units provided ~:~ith a private developer 4-.,. ~ . 2. a joint Section 8 venture with surrounding communities 3. participation in the .,etropolitan H?~>~ "~amilr Housing" -~.. - _ Program. `,e<.F ~ ~ ~ o _ ~ - 'Is-'t _, r ^~' ~ ~ . l f ~l ~ ~w .: - ' Addendum ' ~ .~ ~~; , ~ ~ ' The Ad Hoc Housing Committee did not do an in-depth study ~ .~ ~,, , { h ~ - .~ ~~~~ of some of the housing programs, since there was not enough time. ' ; ~~~ They are suggesting that the following programs be studied further at the direction of the HP~A. '~~ 1. Tile possibility of additional rent-assisted elderly ~~ housing; 2. The existing and proposed homeowner rehabilitation programs; i '" 3.. The methods of implementation for a rehabilitation program - i of multi.-family units, as proposed in the Housing Assis- tance Plan; ~:'` ~,„ 1- 4.- The existing New Home Program; and, ~'-; 5. The discussion of a mandatory inspection and code update ~ r_ program for property sales, such as the program in St. Louis K~ Park. ~`~~~- The committee could prepare recommendations for these hrogra:ns ,,;, - ~^~ ._a:,~.- and present them to the HRA during the spring of 1979. --- ~: •~:-~~. -