Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 05-10 HCMCall to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes March 8, 1977 Comments by Councilman Britts Home Renovation Workshop MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA -1- 5 -10 -77 REGULAR SESSION MAY 10, 1977 CITY HALL The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission met in regular session and wall called to order by Vice- Chairman Hastings at 7:37 p.m. Vice- Chairman Hastings, Commissioners Beikler, Haroldson Weitzel, Plummer and Duenow. Also present were Council- man Maurice Britts, Director of Planning and. Inspection Blair Tremere, Inspection Aide Laurie Thompson and Admin- istrative Assistant Ronald Warren. Vice Chairman Hastings reported that Chairman Howard would be unable to attend this evening's meeting and was excused. Motion by Commissioner Haroldson and seconded by Commissioner Plummer to approve the minutes of the March 8,1977 Housing Commission meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Vice- Chairman Hastings recommended that consideration of the April 21, 1977 Housing Commission minutes be deferred until later in the meeting to give Commissioners the opportunity to review those minutes. Vice- Chairman Hastings recognized Councilman Britts who had requested an opportunity to address the Housing Commission. Councilman Britts proceeded to compliment the Housing Commission on their efforts regarding various housing programs for Brooklyn Center and commented on the need for and importance of developing a previously recommended local rent assistance program for low income and elderly residents of Brooklyn Center. Commissioner Magnuson arrived at 7 :46 p.m. Following Councilman Britts' comments there was a brief discussion relative to a local rent assistance program. Vice- Chairman Hastings reported that Chairman Howard had intended to briefly review the results of the recently completed Home Renovation Workshop. She explained that comment sheets filled out by participants at the workshop have not yet been tabulated for a final report on the work- shop. She recommended that this matter be held over until the Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting in September at which time Chairman Howard would have the needed information. A brief discussion ensued relative to the success of the Home Renovation Workshop. The Secretary commented that he had received a phone call from Mary Jane Roerning who had complimented the Housing Commission on its efforts in presenting the workshop and who had also suggested that the Commission, if it again sponsors another workshop, should consider lengthening it from four weeks to six or seven weeks and have fewer topics each evening so that persons attending could be exposed to more of the topics presented. He explained that Ms. Roerning had stated that she often would have liked to attend two or possibly three of the sessions but could not because they were being run concurrently. The Secretary also reported that Judy Labon, who had coordinated the program with NSP, had complimented the Housing Commission on their efforts in putting on the workshop. He further reported that Ms. Labon had stated that the work done by the Housing Com- mission had made her job much easier. The Secretary introduced the next item of business on the agenda, that of a recommended priority ranking for eligible applications under the Home Improvement Grant Program. He explained that the staff had applied points to eligible applications utilizing the priority ranking system recommended by the Housing Commission on April 21, 1977 and approved by the City Council on April 25, 1977. He further explained that the Housing Commission would have the opportunity to review and comment on how the staff had awarded the various points and arrived at the ranking system. He stated that the Director of Planning and Inspection was in attendance at this evening's meeting to review each application and to show various slides depicting the property proposed to be improved under the Home Improvement Grant Program. The Secretary next referred to a list containing the priority rankings for each application, the ranking of the application, the priority points awarded, the address of the property to be improved and the improvements requested by the applicants. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded to review in more detail the priority system utilized .for ranking grant applications. He explained that the maximum number of points allowable for income, age and proposed energy related improvements were based on information obtained from the applications. He stated that the awarding of a maximum of 10 points for imminent health and safety considerations was based on inspections by the Building Official and that four 5 -10 -77 -2- Home Improvement Grant Program applicants were awarded some points based on this criteria. He reported that the awarding of points for neighborhood impact applied in only two instances. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the files for each application will be distributed for the Com- mission's review as each application is presented. He reported that State regulations for the Home Improvement Grant Program require that 50% of all money disbursed for grants must go to senior citizens. He explained that based on rough estimates, not firm bids, it is anticipated that $14,150.00 of the $15,236.00 of Brooklyn Center's allocation will be utilized with approximately $7,750.00 of the $14,150.00 being designated for senior citizens. He added that five of the eligible nine applicants are over 62 years of age. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out that within the next few weeks bids for the improvements will be accepted which will firmly establish the amount of the entire allocation to be expended. He stated that it is imperative that the total amount of grants does not exceed the $15,236.00 total allocation and that no one grant ex- ceed $5,000.00. He explained that this ranking system will become more important if, after receiving bids, it is determined that the total allocation will be exceeded and a decision then has to be made regarding which applicants will receive a grant. Commissioner Haroldson inquired if the City would get bids for grant applicants. The Director of Planning and Inspectio responded that the applicants are responsible for securing two bids for their requested improvements, but the City will assist as much as possible. Commissioner Haroldson inquired further as to provisions to insure that bids are not padded. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the City has several 'sources of information, including property inspections and also estimates that were submitted by the applicants, which can be used to authenticate bids. He added that the lowest bid, in most cases, would be the one that is accepted. Commissioner Magnuson inquired if the City would require performance bonds from successful bidders to guarantee the work. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that performance bonds have been considered, but at this time no determination has been made as to whether or not they should be required. He added that a meeting with the successful bidders is also being con- templated to inform contractors as to the various requirement of the program. 5447 Emerson Avenue North The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded to review -3- 5 -10 -77 the application submitted by the property owner at 5447 Emerson Avenue North which ranked number 1 on the priority ranking list based upon thirteen priority points. He reviewed various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant was requesting insulation and structural repairs at an estimated cost of approximately $900.00. The Secretary reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 2 points for income; 0 points for age; 3 points for energy related improvements; 6 points for imminent health and safety considerations; and 2 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application and the requested improvements. The applicant's file was distributed for the Commission's review. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the 6 points awarded for imminent health and safety considerations was based on a determination made by the Building Official that the structural repairs were of that nature. He added that points applied for neighborhood impact were based on a slightly less than significant impact on a declining neigh- borhood. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5600 Judy Lane which ranked number 2 on the priority ranking list based on 10 priority points. He reviewed various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant was requesting attic and side wall insulation, replacement or repair of various doors and windows, the replacement of siding and roof repairs at an estimated cost of approximately $5,000.00 A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the application with the Director of Planning and Inspection reviewing each of the re- pairs to be made. He stated that there is little attic insulation and no side wall insulation in this home and that much of the home is subject to dry rot conditions. Commissioner Plummer left the table at 9 :04 p.m. and returned at 9 :06 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection further stated that the improvements requested would constitute a significant impact on a stable non blighted neighborhood and, therefore, was awarded five points. Commissioner Weitzel left the meeting at 9:13 p.m. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Plummer the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the slate siding on the home is cracked and is not well bonded to the sheathing. He added that in many areas the sheathing is subject to dry rot, thus, the requested siding, sheathing and insulation of the property are all inter- twined and that it would be difficult to address only one of these problems without also correcting the rest. 5600 Judy Lane 2219 55th Avenue North Further discussion ensued relative to the estimated cost for this improvement grant. The Secretary stated that it is possible that when bids come in for this project they may well exceed the $5,000 maximum allowable for a grant. He explained that if this is the case a close review of the improvements requested would have to be made to determine if the property could adequately be improved using a maxi- mum of $5,000. He stated that if this determination could not be made in all probability this grant could not be recommended for approval under the Home Improvement Grant Program. The Secretary then reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 2 points on income; 0 points on age; 3 points on energy related improvements; 0 points on imminent health and safety considerations; and 5 points on neighborhood impact. Further discussion ensued relative to the application and the requested im- provements. The applicant's file was distrubuted for the Commission's review. Recess The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission recessed at 9:35 p.m. and resumed at 9 :45 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 2219 55th Avenue North which ranked number 3 on the priority ranking list based on 9 priority points. He reviewed various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant was requesting attic and side wall insulation, reroofing, soffit vents, firewall and the replacement of two broken' windows at an estimated cost of approximately $3,050.00. He explained that the estimated amount of this improvement is subject to change because of the possibility that there is no need for side wall insulation. He added that the applicant will have to show proof that there is need for side wall insulation which will require the drilling of a hole to inspect the property. He further stated that the Building Official has determined that the need for a firewall between the garage and the attached breezeway constitutes an imminent health and safety consideration and that 3 points were awarded on that determination. The Secretary reported the priority points were awarded on the following basis: 2 points for income; 1 point for age; 3, points for energy related improvements; 3 points for imminent health and safety considerations; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application and the requested improvements. The applicant's file was distributed for the Commission's review. -.5- 5 -10 -77 The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5834 Camden Avenue North which ranked number 4 on the priority ranking list based on 8 priority points. He reviewed various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant was requesting electrical repairs and reroofing at an estimated cost of approximately $1,800.00. He stated that the Building Official had determined that the electrical repairs needed, constituted an imminent health and safety consideration and that 5 points were awarded on that basis. The Secretary reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 2 points for income; 1 point for age; 0 points for energy related improvements; 5 points for imminent health and safety considerations; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued re- lative to the application and the requested improvements. The applicant's file was distributed for the Commission's review. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that the applications ranked number 5, 6, 7, and 8 all had accumu- lated 5 priority points but to eliminate any ties it was recommended that they be further ranked on the basis of income. He proceeded to review the application submitted by the property owner at 5520 James Avenue North which ranked number 5 on the priority ranking list based on 5 priority points and the lowest income of the applicants with 5 priority points. He reviewed various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant was requesting repairs to doors and windows, weatherstripping and possible side wall insulation at an estimated cost of approximately $500.00. He stated that in this case, too, the applicant would have to show proof that there is a need for side wall insulation. He further stated that the applicant had also requested attic insulation but upon inspection of the property it was deter- mined that no more attic insulation could be installed in the house because of lack of space. The Secretary reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 2 points for income; 1 point for age; 2 points for energy related improvements; 0 points for imminent health and safety considerations; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application and the requested improvements. The applicant's file was distributed for the Commission's review. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5743 Fremont Avenue North which ranked number 6 on the priority ranking list based on 5 priority points. He reviewed various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant was 5834 Camden Avenue North 5520 James Avenue North 5743 Fremont Avenue N$rth 5409 Penn Avenue North requesting reroofing, attic insulation and additional roof vents at an estimated cost of approximately $1,400.00. The Secretary reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 1 point for income; 1 point for age; 3 points for energy related improvements; 0 points for imminent health and safety considerations; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued re- lative to the application and the requested improvements. The applicant's file was distributed for the Commission's review. 5835 Emerson Avenue North The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5835 Emerson Avenue North which ranked number 7 on the priority ranking list based on 5 priority points. He re- viewed various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant was requesting the replacement of various windows and doors and also the repair or re- placement of a chimney at an estimated cost of approx- imately $1,000.00 The Secretary reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 1 point for income; 1 point for age; 3 points for energy related improvements; 0 points for imminent health and safety considerations; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application and the requested improvements. The applicant's file was distributed for the Commission's review. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 5409 Penn Avenue North which ranked number 8 an the priority ranking list based on 5 priority points. He reviewed various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant was requesting attic insulation and a fire door in the garage at an estimated cost of approximately $500 -.00. He reported that the applicant had originally also requested other various repairs including a new furnace, a new roof, siding, soffit vents, and facia board which have already been installed. He stated that the applicant hoped that he could be reimbursed for these various improvements under the Home Improvement Grant Program. The Director of Planning and Inspection ex- plained that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has informed the City that reimbursement can be made for improvements to an applicant's property but a determination must be made that there was a genuine need for the im- provements. He further reported that upon inspection it was determined that there is a need for attic insulation and also a fire door but at this time it can not be recom- mended that the other improvements be included in the grant application because there is no way of determing the need for such improvements as the replacement of the furnace, the need for a new roof, and the need for siding, soffit and facia boards. The Secretary reported that priority points were awarded on the following basis: 1 point for income; 0 points for age; 3 points for energy related improvements; 1 point for imrninent health and safety considerations due to the need for a fire door between the house and the breezeway; and 0 points for neighborhood impact. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application and the requested im- provements. The applicant's file was distributed for the Commission's review. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed the application submitted by the property owner at 6931 Dallas Road. He stated that although the applicant meets the income requirements for the Home Improvement Grant Program it is not recommended that this application be considered eligible for a home improvement grant because the work requested is not eligible. He explained that the application should be reviewed by the Housing Commission for concurrence in the matter. He then proceeded to review various slides depicting the property and stated that the applicant had requested the replacement of basement sheet rock walls damaged by water, the replacement of carpeting on the basement floor damaged by water, and the installation of an electrical outlet for a sump pump. He briefly re- viewed the history of the property and noted that the home was built in 1972, and at that time had experienced a number of water problems. He stated that the applicant basically wants to utilize the grant funds to restore the lower level of the home to a condition equivalent to that prior to the water problem. He added that there is no question what- soever that the applicant's requests do not represent rehab- ilitation but merely remodeling. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that he and the Building Official have inspected the property and that there is no structural damage to the basement and that the sheet rock which is now dried out is in good condition. He further explained that the Building Official has determined that the house is reasonably energy efficient and that requested im- provements do not qualify as imminent health and safety considerations. The Secretary reported that the only priority points that could be awarded to this application were the 2 points given for income. He explained that because the improvements re- quested are not eligible for grants this application should not be considered in the ranking system. Following the review of each of the applications a lengthy 6931 Dallas Road Action Recommending a Priority Ranking for Home Improvement Grant Applications Summer Schedule Approval of Minutes April 21, 1977 discussion ensued relative to the Home Improvement Grant Program and the priority ranking list presented to the Housing Commission for their review and comment. Commissioner Duenow inquired regarding the advertise- ment done to notify" persons of the availability of home improvement grants. The Secretary responded that the first announcement to the public came in the City Manager': Newsletter of November of 1976 and that announcements were also made in the preceding newsletters of February and April of 1977. He added that a number of articles in the Brooklyn Center Post had given citizens information on how to apply for the grant program and also on the types of improvements that were eligible for grants. He further stated that he had also appeared at a senior citizens meeting in the Community Center Social Hall to announce the program and to encourage eligible senior citizens to apply. He further explained that anyone contacting the City Hall regarding the program that felt they were eligible for a grant were sent application forms and in- formation on how to fill out the grant forms. Further discussion ensued with the Director of Planning and Inspection explaining that a number of grant applicants were requesting maintenance free type of improvements to their homes such as windows and doors. He stated that the Building Official, in all good conscience, could not recommend that these requests be installed because repair to these items, rather than the installation of new items, would make them energy efficient at a lesser cost. Following further discussion there was a motion by Com- missioner Magnuson and seconded by Commissioner Plummer to recommend approval to the City Council of the following priority ranking for home improvement grant applications: 1. 5447 Emerson Avenue North; 2. 5600 Judy Lane; 3. 2219 55th Avenue North: 4. 5834 Camden Avenue North; 5. 5520 James Avenue North; 6. 5743 Fremont Avenue North; 7. 5835 Emerson Avenue North; 8. 5409 Penn Avenue North. The motion passed un- animously. The Secretary reported that the Housing Commission was not scheduled to meet during the summer months and would resume with its regularly scheduled meeting in September of 1977. Motion by Commissioner Haroldson and seconded by Com- missioner Magnuson to approve the minutes of the April 21, 1977 Special Housing Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Vice Chairman Hastings, Commissioners Beikler, Haroldson, Magnuson and Duenow. Voting -9- 5 -10 -77 against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Plummer abstained as she had not had time to review the minutes of that meeting. Motion by Commissioner D.uenow and seconded by Commis- sioner Haroldson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Housing Commis- sion adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Chairman 5 -10 -77 -10- Adjournment