Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 04-25 HCMor Call to Order Roll Call Home Improvement Grant Program Priority Ranking MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 25, 1978 CITY HALL The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Phyllis Plummer at 7:37 p.m. Chairman Phyllis Plummer, Commissioners Delores Hastings, Ray Haroldson, Ronald Turner and Clifford Williams. Also present were Councilman Bill Fignar, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere, Inspec- tion Aide Laurie Thompson and Administrative Assistant Ronald Warren. Chairman Plummer reported that Commissioner Beikler had informed her that he would be unable to attend this evening's meeting and was, therefore, excused. She also reported that Commissioner Weitzel had informed her that she would be late to this evening's meeting. Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Haroldson and seconded By 3/14/78 Commissioner Turner to approve the minutes of the March 14, 1978 Housing Commission meeting as sub- mitted. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Plummer introduced the first item of -business on the agenda that of a review of Home Improvement Grant Program applications and a recommended priority ranking system. The Secretary reported that it is intended that this evening's review be a preliminary review and that a final review be done by the Commission at its May meeting. He explained that not all information on each of the grants is available to make a final recom- mendation regarding the grant program. He further explained that he has been informed that there are some questions yet unanswered about some of the applications and that further clarification is needed prior to the Housing Commission making a recommendation regarding the awarding of grants to the City Council. Commissioner Karen Duenow arrived at 7:42 p.m. The Secretary further repotted that the Commission had received with its agenda a list of Home Improvement -1- 4-25-78 Grant Program applications which indicated the location of the property making the request and also containing brief information as to the type of work requested. He noted that the information previously given to the Housing Commission did not indicate any ranking of the applications. He pointed out that a preliminary ranking has been distri- buted to the Commission which shows the tentative ranking of each of the applications utilizing the priority ranking system previously approved. Chairman Plummer then recognized Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Inspection, who commented on the staff's ranking of the eleven eligible grant applications. He reported that during the past week each of the properties listed on the ranking sheet were inspected to determine the need for, and the eligibility of, the work requested. He stated that at this time it seems that the request for grant funds will exceed the City's approximate $18,200 grant allocation and that a ranking of the applications will indeed be necessary. He pointed out that, as the Secretary had earlier indicated, this is a preliminary ranking and that a hard dollar figure for the various improvements will be available at the Commission's May meeting once firm bids have been obtained by the grant applicants. He reported that each applicant is expected to obtain two firm bids for the requested work. He added that eleven applicants have been determined to be eligible for the program. He referred to the preliminary ranking distributed to the Housing Commission and stated that the applicants living at 5650 Logan Avenue and 5947 Bryant Avenue had tied based on the number of priority points given and that this tie was broken by awarding the applicant at 5650 Logan Avenue a higher ranking because of a lower income. He pointed out that this criteria had been used last year to break any ties and was again applied this year. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that most of the work requested by eligible grant applicants was internal type work and might not have been noted by Commissioners if they had the opportunity to conduct a windshield survey of the requests. He pointed out that there is some question about the requested work for the number one ranked property at 810 53rd Avenue North. He stated that this might be a case in point where an expenditure of public funds may either not help the situation or should not be made because of possible future actions by the City Council. He explained that the program is designed to rehabilitate property to the extent it is able and is not intended to attempt to rehabilitate property that is beyond the means of the program or is not worth rehabilitating. He noted that it may well be likely that the City Council, acting as an HRA, might target in the future this area for extensive rehabilitation or possibly redesignate this area of the City for different types of development rather than strictly single family residential. He explained that there is a seven year 4-25-78 -2- repayment agreement and these grants must be repaid if a recipient should sell or transfer ownership of the property within this period. He.further reported that this area very well could be an area subject to redevelopment in the future and, therefore, a determination should be made.as to whether or not an expenditure of public funds would be worthwhile for this property. He reported that there will be closer scrutiny of this application and a recommendation will be made in conjunction with the final consideration these grant application requests. Commissioner Haroldson inquired as to how long the present owner of the property at 810 53rd Avenue North has owned the property. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that the applicant purchased the property within the last year. Commissioner Hamldson commented that it seems that this property is not, in many cases, up to code. Heexpressed concern for the need of a program which would require that a home be up to code prior to its sale. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that presently the City does not regulate the sale of homes and that in 1975, when the City's Housing Maintenance and Occupancy.Ordinance was adopted, the City Council had established a policy that enforcement of the ordinance be directed primarily at rental dwellings and rental dwelling licenses. He pointed out that the City Council was aware at that time of a certification of occupancy program that has been in existence in some other communities and that they felt the time would come when such a program would bp needed in Brooklyn Center. He noted that such a program would require additional manpower and a commitment on the part of both the Housing Commission and the City Council to such a program. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to a certificate of occupancy program and the possible effect of such. a program on housing in the City. The Director of Planning and. Inspection stated that if there was a certificate of occupancy program in Brooklyn Center a buyer of a home, such as the one at 810 53rd Avenue North, would have known the extent of the deficiencies prior to purchasing the property. He pointed out that it was his understanding that the person that had purchased this property had done so with the intention of fixing it up. Commissioner Haroldson further inquired if the property in question could be brought up to code and made habitable with an expenditure of funds under the Home Improvement Grant Program. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that it might be possible to do so, but pointed out that the maximum amount of any one grant cannot -3- 4-25-78 exceed $5,000. He added that it might be questionable as to whether or not this would be an adequate amount of funding for such a rehabilitation. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded to review in more detail the application submitted by the property owner at 810 53rd Avenue North which ranked number one on the preliminary priority ranking based upon twenty priority points. He stated that the applicant Was requesting attic insulation and ventilation, wail insulation, reroofing and replacement of fascia, replacement of window frames, weatherstripping, improvements to the plumbing system which would bring it up to code and the repair of a porch. He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 3 points for income; 12 points for type of work which includes energy related improvements, habitability improvements, and imminent health and safety considerations; 0 points for age of applicant; 4 points for age of house; and 1 point for neighborhood impact based on a significant impact in a declined neighborhood. PUrther discussion ensued relative to this application and variou planning concerns for the southeast neigh- borhood of the City. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 6730 Perry Avenue North which ranked number two on the pre- liminary priority ranking based on nineteen priority points. He explained that the applicant was requesting attic insulation and ventilation, reroofing, repair of fascia, new steps, new furnace, weatherstripping and calking, and plumbing corrections. He pointed out that there is no question that this property needs a-new furnace and that the building official feels this is a safety problem. He reported that priority points were awarded on the follow- ing basis: 3 points for income; 12 for the type of work which included energy related improvements, habitability improvements, and imminent health and safety considera- tions; 0 points for age of the applicant; 2 points for age of house; and 2 points for neighborhood impact based on a significant impact in a declining neighborhood. A brief discussion ensued relative to this application with the Director of Planning and Inspection responding to various questions by the Commission regarding the appli- cation. 4-2 -4- 810 53rd Avenue 6730 Perry Avenue North 3913 58th Avenue North 3901 52nd Avenue North The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 3913 58th Avenue North which ranked number three on the preliminary priority ranking based on seventeen priority points. He stated that the applicant is requesting attic insulation and ventilation, storm windows, plumbing repairs and corrections, and possibly the connection to City water. He reported that priority points were awarded on the fol- lowing basis: 4 points for income; 11 points for type of work; 0 points for age of the applicant; 2 points for age of house; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application with the Director of Planning and Inspection responding to various questions relating to the application. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 3901 52nd Avenue North which ranked number four on the preliminary priority ranking based on fifteen priority points. He explained that the applicant is requesting attic insulation and ventilation and various electrical corrections. He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 4 points for income; 8 points for type of work which included energy related, improvements and imminent health and safety considera- tions; 0 points for age of applicant; 3 points for age of, house; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to this application with the Director of Planning and Inspection explaining that the electrical work requested involves an imminent health and safety consideration and should be corrected. 5815 Humboldt Avenue North The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5815 Humboldt Avenue North which ranked number five on the preliminary priority ranking based on fourteen priority points. He reported that the applicant was re- questing reroofing, windows, storm doors, and various plumbing repairs. He noted that this application might be dropped because this person has not yet fully complied with the income reporting requirements of the application. He added that if this portion of the application is not completed in time the request will not be considered further and the applicant will be notified of the decision. He pointed out that the applicant could again apply for future grant funding. -5- 4-25-78 He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 3 points for income; 5 points for type of work; 1 point for age of applicant; 2 points for age of house; and 3 points for neighborhood impact based on a significant impact in an improving neighborhood. A brief discussion ensued relative to this application with the Director of Planning and Inspection responding to questions by the Commission. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5650 Logan Avenue North which ranked number six on the preliminary priority ranking based on twelve priority points. He noted that this applicant and the applicant owning the property at 5947 Bryant Avenue North had tied for sixth place but that the tie was broken based on income. He noted that the applicant at 5650 Logan had a lower income than the other applicant. He stated that the applicant was requesting attic insulation, windows, storm doors, weatherstripping, calking and a handrail. He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 5 points for income; 5 points for type of work which included energy related improvements; 0 points for age of the applicant; 2 points for age of the •house; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to this application with the Director of Planning and Inspection stating that no points for neighborhood impact were applied to this applica- tion. He pointed out that although this could be considered a declining neighborhood the improvements requested by the applicant would have no impact on the neighborhood and therefore, no points were awarded. The Director of Planning and Inspectibn next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5947 Bryant Avenue North which ranked number seven on the preliminary priority ranking based on twelve priority points. He stated that the applicant was requesting attic insulation and ventilation, the replacement of window frames, a new storm door, reroofing, the repair of steps, and also connection to City water. He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 1 point for income; 5 points for type of work; 1 point for age of the applicant; 2 points for age of house; and 3 points for neighborhood impact based on a significant impact in an improving neighborhood. 4-25-78 -6- 5650 Logan Avenue North 5947 Bryant Avenue North. 5900 June Avenue North 4207 63rd Avenue North A brief discussion ensued relative to the application with the Director of Planning and Inspection responding to various questions from members of the Commission. The Director of Planning. and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5900 June Avenue North which ranked number eight on the preliminary priority ranking based on eleven priority points. He stated that the applicant was requesting attic insulation and ventilation, reroofing, repair of windows, replacement of doors, weatherstripping, plumbing repairs, repair of a garage door, and possibly some drainage problem corrections. He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 3 points for income; 6 points for .type of work; 0.. points for age of applicant; 2 points-for-age of house; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the application" particularly with respect to the request for drainage problem corrections. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that this house is a home without gutters and that it is in need of grading around the home. He pointed out that presently when 4t rains, water will run toward the house because of the slope and that this water in turn seeps into the basement. He added that it is his feeling that grading work and possibly the installa- tion of gutters could solve the problem. Councilman Fignar commented that he felt the need for dirt and possible grading was really something that grant funds should not be used for. The Director of Planning and Inspection agreed and stated that it is difficult to justify this type of request under this-program. It was the concensus of the Commission that the correction of the-.; drainage problem not be included in the grant request. In response to an inquiry by Chairman Plummer, the Director of Planning and Inspection sta that no points for neighborhood impact were given because,- although this is a stable, nonblighted neighborhood, the improve- ments requested would have no significant impact on the neighborhood. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 4207 63rd Avenue North which ranked number nine on the preliminary priority ranking based on eight priority points. He stated that the applicant was requesting attic insula- tion and ventilation, electrical corrections, storm windows and possible drainage problem corrections. He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 3 points for income; 5 points for type of work which included energy related improvements; 0 points for age -7- 4 -25 -78 of applicant; 0 points for age of house; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion relative to this application with the Director of Planning and Inspection stating that the drainage problem correction requested was similar to that requested by the property owner at 5900 June Avenue North. He explained that this request would be treated in the same manner as the other request for drainage corrections. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 6430 Toledo Avenue North which ranked number ten on the preliminary priority ranking based on six priority points. He reported that the applicant was requesting attic insulation, roof repairs, and weatherstripping. He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 1 point for income; 4 points for type of work; 0 points for age of appli- cant; 1 point for age of house; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application with the Director of Planning and Inspection responding to various questions by members of the Commission. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 6812 Toledo Avenue North which ranked number eleven on the preliminary priority ranking based on five priority points. He stated that the applicant was requesting attic insulation and ventilation, calking and weatherstripping. He reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 1 point for income, 3 points for type of work; 0 points for age of applicant; 1 point for age of House; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to,this application with the Director of Planning and Inspection responding to various questions by the Commission. The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission recessed at 9 :07 p. and resumed at 9:34 p.m. Chairman Plummer reported that it is anticipated that the final ranking will be before the Housing Commission on its May 9, 1978 Housing Commission meeting. She pointed out that because of the requirement for obtaining bids it may not be possible that all the information will be available by May 9. She stated that because of this fact; it may be nec- essary to schedule the next Housing Commission meeting on May, 16, 1978. A discussion ensued relative to the Director of Planning and Inspection's review of theHome Improvement Grant Program. 4 -25 -78 -8- 6430 Toledo Avenue North 6812 Toledo Avenue North Recess Discussion of Home Improvement Grant Program Continued eOR.a.ECT D COPY Commissioner Haroldson commented that there are only about two senior citizens tha t have requested home improvement grant funds. He inquired if there was any requirement for more senior citizens than what we pre- sently have. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that age is no longer a criteria of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Program. He explained that during the last grant funding period, age was a require- ment. He pointed out that age is used as a ranking criteria by local discretion, but that the program does not direct this. Also in a response to an inquiry by Commissioner Haroldson, Laurie Thompson explained that the City stopped taking applications for the grant program in March of this year. She pointed out that the deadline, for completion of the improvements and payment for these improvements is August of this year. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Haroldson, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that state law requires smoke detectors to be installed in homes receiving grant funds. Commissioner Haroldson commented that he would like to see the feasibility of requiring smoke detectors in all homes in Brooklyn Center pursued. He stated that it was his opinion that most people would welcome such a requirement and would willingly install such devices if they were required and if the City could make them available at a reduced cost. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the results of last years home improvement grant program and stated that he felt it was very successful. He added that he was convinced that there are people that are eligible for the program but do not approach the City to make application for these funds and to take advantage of the program. Further discussion ensued relative to the Home Improve- ment Grant Program with the Secretary commenting on the possibility that extra funds might be available this year if other communities do not utilize their full allocations. Se pointed out that it is expected that the City, will, in all likelihood, receive similar funding for the grant program in the upcoming year based upon its performance this year. Other Business In other business, the Commission briefly discussed the Metro HRA Large Family Housing Program. Commissioner Turner supplied a copy of an article relating to home inspection ordinances that had appeared in a recent edition of the Minneapolis Realtor. He stated that the reason for supplying this information was to update the Commission on three truth in housing type ordinances in the metropolitan area. He pointed out that one is the Minneapolis truth in housing ordinance; another is the St. Louis Park certificate of health and safety compliance; and the third is the New Hope dwelling maintenance and occupancy code. Councilman Fignar commented that the Commission has often discussed the need for a certification of occupancy program in conjunction with the City's Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance.' He suggested that the Commis- sion discuss- this possibility at a future Commission meeting. 11 was suggested that a representative of St. Louis Park be invited to an upcoming Commission meeting. Chairman Plummer suggested the possibility of developing information regarding such a program which could be for warded to the local press. She also suggested that the Com- mission attempt to have a guest speaker from St. Louis Park on their certificate of health and safety compliance program at the June meeting. The Chairman also directed the Secretary to develop a rough draft informational document relating to an occupancy permit program for the June Commission meeting. Chairman Plummer also directed the Secretary to contact former Mayor Philip Cohen regarding his availability to discuss housing programs and concerns at the May Commis- sion meeting. Motion by Commissioner Hastings and seconded by Commis- sioner Turner to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Chairman 4- •25 -78 -10- Adjournment