Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 12-21 HCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING COMI��IISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 21, 2004 ALL AMERICA CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission was called to order by Chairperson Yelich at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Mark Yelich, Commissioners Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Mary Barrus, Jean Schuster and Judy Thorbus. Also present were Council Liaison Diane Niesen, Councilxnember Ka.thleen Carmody, Community Development Director Brad Hoffinan and Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz. Commissioners David Johnson and Stan Leino were absent and excused from the meeting. APPROVAL OFAGENDA There was a motion by Commissioner Barrus and seconded by Commissioner Schuster to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed. APPROYAL OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 A typo was noted on Page 5 of the November minutes in the third from the last paragraph in the first sentence. The sixth word in the sentence should be "conveyed". There was a motion by Commissioner Thorbus and seconded by Commissioner Schuster to approve the minutes of the November 16, 2004 Housing Commission meeting as amended. The motion passed. i CHAIRPERSONS REPORT I Chairperson Yelich noted that the only thing he wanted to report this evening was appreciation for the Housing Commission's work on the senior housing report. He thanked Commission members for their efforts in developing this report. COUNCIL LIAISONREPORT Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to see the Housing Commission communicate with the Planning Commission on the senior housing issue and noted that if the Planning Commission is not awaze of the Housing Commission's efforts in this area, there is a disconnect. The Community Development Director noted that the Planning Commission's agendas are generally project specific and they generally do not look into issues in the same manner as the Housing Commission. Councilmember Niesen stated she thinks the Planning Commission should at least get a copy of the Housing Commission's report. She also encouraged the Housing Commission's interaction with the Planning Commission in the future. -1- SENIOR HOUSING REPORT Chairperson Yelich noted the City Council is interested in receiving the Housing Commission's final S report as soon as possible so that they will be able to use the report to evaluate projects. The Community Development Specialist noted that there were some changes in the Maxfield Demand Analysis Report from the last Housing Commission meeting and noted the changes included reducing the amount of senior units at the View Pointe at Shingle Creek proj ect from 122 to 40 and reducing the number of exclusively senior units at Twin Lake North from 276 to 193. He explained after discussions with Ma�cfield and representatives from each of these housing developments, the revised numbers reflected more accurately the actual count of seniors living in these developments. He noted that revising these numbers also changed the demand estimates for the various housing categories in the report. He distributed a revised copy of the Maxfield Demand Analysis Report. Commission members discussed assisted living units for seniors and the Community Development Specialist explained that the assisted living units noted in the Maxfield report are not affordable or subsidized and that they all are market rate. He explained the State Deparirnent of Health and Human Services has raised the issue of affordable assisted living housing for seniors and has determined that this is not a housing product that is currently being built. Commissioner Barrus noted that the average cost for an assisted living situation for seniors is approximately $3,000 per month nationwide. Chairperson Yelich introduced the latest draft of the Housing Commission's senior housing recommendations and explained that the purpose of the recommendations is to give the City Council some basis for evaluating senior housing projects. The Community Development Specialist noted that he had reviewed the most recent draft of the senior housing recommendations and that he had prepared some alternative language for some of the recommendations so they would more closely follow some of the actual data assembled with regard to the Maxfield study and other data in the body of the report. The Community Development Specialist distributed the staff revisions to the Commission's document for review. The Commission reviewed the revisions starting with Paragraph No. l in the recommendations. The Community Development Director noted that the Commission may not want to actually encourage seniors to remain in their single family homes since this could result in additional costs to the city. I Councilmember Carmody noted that she agreed that the Commission should be cautious in recommending senior citizens to remain in their homes in the interest of affordability. She pointed out that the cost to maintain single family homes and provide services to elderly residents living in those homes can be significant. She discussed the City's past experience with using Community Development Block Grant funds to rehabilitate single family homes and provide additional senior services to residents through various non-profit groups, which the city funds with CDBG funds including the Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly program and programs operated by CEAP. She added the cost of maintauung homes for seniors can be significant and many of them are not able to maintain their housing. Commissioner Thorbus stated she liked the original language not the revision. -2- Councilmember Carmody pointed out that the goal of the pazagraph could be rather than encourage, the city should be prepared to provide services or facilitate the delivery of those services to senior S citizens. After continued discussion by Commission members, it was pointed out that the revisions prepared by staff did not include a goal statement for Paragraph No. 1 and that any revisions should include a statement of the goal of this recommendation. T'he Commission next discussed Paragraph No. 2 of the recommendations. The Community Development Director commented on the references to comments made by facility managers with regard to housing market capacity and vacancy rates of senior housing. He explained that facility managers are generally not the individuals that are the most knowledgeable about industry trends or vacancy rates with regard to the senior housing industry. The Community Development Specialist noted that his recommended changes tied the data from the Maxfield Report to the Commission's recommendations. The Housing Commission continued to discuss Paragraph No. 2 and generally felt the changes were acceptable with the exception that in the second red type paragraph, the market area should be more specifically defined in the text. The Commission next addressed Paragraph No. 6 in the recommendations. Chairperson Yelich stated that with regard to No. 6 he has a concern with property values of projects and how the tax base is affected by senior projects. Councilmember Niesen stated that she believes the tax base is an important issue but with projects that have a payment in lieu of taxes, she does not believe the city will get enough benefit. She added that if the Commission wants the City Council to know that the Commission wants to increase the tax base that should be stated in the recommendations. The Community Development Director stated that the ta�c base is a consideration the Council must make but he did not believe it would be the sole criteria in making a decision about senior housing. Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson commented that the city does have limited land and will the projects the city considers assist the property value base. Councilxnember Carmody questioned whether building up in terms of stories is accurate and on what basis are we able to say that this is necessarily a higher value product. The Community Development Director stated that he believes Recommendation No. 6 goes to the quality of construction of a particular project and the Commission could set up a new nuxnber or recommendation that would consider the project's taa� base value. Commission members continued to discuss No. 6 and generally agreed that a new separate recommendation should be made to address property value and tax base. The Commission next discussed Recommendation No. 7. Chai erson Yelich noted that the recommendation with regard to the range of affordability at 15 percent low, 70 percent middle and -3- 15 percent high came from the Commission's site visits. The Community Development Director stated that he is concemed that the numbers may be too prescriptive and exclude, for example, an all high end building. He suggested that the Commission could substitute language stating that affordable units should not exceed 15 percent. Commissioner Barrus stated that she interpreted this recommendation to mean that all senior buildings city wide would not exceed income percentages of 15 percent low, 70 percent xniddle, and 15 percent high cost units. The Commission continued its discussion and one of the goals mentioned was not to exceed 15 percent affordable units city wide so that you could have a project with all affordable and all high end for example. It was also noted that the not to exceed 15 percent on project basis should include any rental housing conversions to senior housing. Commission members returned to Paragraph No. 3 and generally agreed that the language as revised in No. 3 was acceptable. Commission members next reviewed Recommendation No. 4 and after discussion of the revisions they recommended that the reference to the 30 percent rental and 70 percent owner occupied housing ratio be clarified in this paragraph. Chairperson Yelich inquired of the Commission whether they are able to approve the revisions as discussed this evening or would the Commission like to review the revised document. There was a general consensus that Commission members did not want to review the revisions and were comfortable with having the final document drafted based on the Comrnission's discussion this evening. The Community Development Specialist noted that he would make every effort to prepare a draft that reflected the discussion of the Commission this evening. Chairperson Yelich distributed a resolution to Commission members which would authorize the submission of the Housing Commission's recommendations and senior housing report to the City Council including the recommendation that the Housing Commission encourages the City Council to use the recommendations for evaluating proposed senior housing developments in the city. There was a motion by Commissioner Thorbus and seconded by Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson to adopt a resolution authorizing submission of the senior housing report to the City Council and encouraging the City Council to use the submitted recommendations for purposes of evaluating proposed senior housing developments in the City of Brooklyn Center. The motion passed. 57` AVENUE SENIOR HOUSING PROPOSAL UPDATE Chairperson Yelich noted that at the last Housing Commission meeting there were questions from the Commission regarding the senior housing project proposed for 57�' Avenue North. Councilmember Niesen commented that the Council's consideration of the project to date has focused on the ownership and tax issues and has not focused on the physical part of the project. The Community Development Director explained that one of the options for development of the -4- project involved the ownership of the land by the Volunteers of America with Hennepin County issuing bonds using their bond rating. He explained Hennepin County must own the proj ect for the life of the bonds and then turn the project over to the Volunteers of America. He explained that in the interim the Volunteers of America would have a contract to manage the project. He explained further that the taxes on the area considered for the proj ect are now $13,000 and the payment in lieu of taxes far the proj ect would be approximately $27,000. As an alternative to the option of Hennepin County issuing bonds, owning the proj ect, and making a payment in lieu of taxes, a second option would be that the EDA would acquire the development property, do a 100 percent write down of the cost of the property to a dollar and sell it to the Volunteers of America. Under this development scenario, approximately $97,000 in taxes would be paid by the Volunteers of America but approximately 90 percent of these tax revenues would be used in a"pay as you Tax Increment Financing Project to reduce the cost of rents and would not be included in the City's general ta�c revenue until the "pay as you go" TIF District was retired. The Community Development Director pointed out that the City is required to create affordable housing as part of special TIF legislation passed a number of years ago. Commission members discussed the continuum of care senior housing model and indicated that this model seemed to insure a long term use of projects as senior projects. The Community Development Director commented that the continuum of care model does not absolutely require a physical connection to offer this type of service. Chairperson Yelich cited the exampled of a senior proj ect in the City of Plymouth that has a campus of various types of housing to meet the needs of seniors in transition as they need more assisted 'I living care. Commissioner Thorbus expressed a concern that a project may become non-senior in the future without the amenities such as are found in assisted living projects. OTHER B USINESS There was no other business addressed by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Barrus and seconded by Commissioner Lawrence- Anderson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m. t Chai -5-