Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 05-16 CCP Work Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 16, 1994 7 p.m. Council Work Session CITY HALL COUNCIL CFiAMBFRS:.;..::::.. I. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Single Family Acquisition Program • Two residential properties on June Avenue 4. Willow Lane Redevelopment • Brookdale Motel • Howard Atkins' Property 5. Earle Brown Heritage Center Parking 6. CDBG Funding Policy Review 7. Rehab Grant Programs 8. Brief Report on Local Area Network (LAN) Failure 9. Adjournment MEMORANDUM Date: May 12, 1994 To: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director From: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist Subject: Procedures for Amending CDBG Program At the public hearing for the 1994 (Year XX) CDBG program, several nonprofit agencies requested funding from the City's CDBG program. They included the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP), Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH), and the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association. The City Council approved the 1994 CDBG program as recommended by staff, but left open the option of amending the program to address the requests from these agencies. In researching the 'CDBG program requirements for amending the CDBG program, the regulations require that when we are amending the CDBG program by $10,000 or more or fifty percent 50 % of the activity b whichever is more a public h ftY pe ( ) ty g hearing is P g required. Also, when there is a "significant change" or when ou are creating a new project, a public Y g P J � P hearing must be held. Funding any or all of the requests from the nonprofit agencies would be considered a new project and would require a public hearing. In addition to the public hearing requirements, the City must also consider the limits on funding public service projects. Each of the three requests from the nonprofit agencies would be categorized as public service projects. The City can allocate up to fifteen percent (15%) of its total CDBG budget for public service projects. Additionally, the City's request for funding of public service projects must also meet the total Urban Hennepin County capacity for public service. In other words, the total of all municipal requests for public service projects for the Urban Hennepin County must not exceed fifteen percent (15 %). This means that even though the City is within its capacity for public service funding, it would not be able to fund public service projects if the total Urban Hennepin County were at or over capacity for public service project funding. Date: May 13, 1994 MEMORANDUM To: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director From: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist Subject: Issues Regarding the FDA's Home Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program Over the past few months, numerous issues related to the EDA single - family rehabilitation deferred loan program have been raised by the EDA Board and also by City staff. Also, at the April 24, 1994 EDA meeting, the EDA Board tabled two rehabilitation deferred loan applications. Several issues were raised regarding the program and staff was directed to work with the Housing Commission to prepare a report on the deferred loan program for the EDA by August 1, 1994. The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the issues raised by the EDA and to begin addressing some possible alternatives to our current program. This memo is not intended to provide recommendations on the program changes, but is intended to focus and clarify some of the issues previously raised concerning the deferred loan program. 1. ISSUE• LOWER VALUE HOMES The EDA Board expressed a concern over expending program dollars on lower value homes that need extensive work and that may have little impact on the neighborhood when they are completed. I reviewed this issue with a representative from the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development and he informed me that one of the major goals of the CDBG program at the federal level is to preserve affordable housing for low income homeowners. There is an implicit mission of the CDBG program to preserve affordable housing, and by setting any dollar limits on homes to be improved we may be getting into a conflict with the CDBG regulations. 2. ISSUE: DOES THE EDA HAVE TO MEET SECTION 8 STANDARDS FOR I PROVING PROPERTIES? The program guidelines specify that any homes improved under the program should be brought up to Section 8 standards. Since the program guidelines set out the Section 8 standards as a criteria for rehabilitation of properties, the .EDA would need to have a good reason for not applying Section 8 standards to the rehabilitation. 3. ISSUE• RESIDENCY REQUmEMEN'TS In spealdng with the County representative from the Office of Planning and Development, he noted the fact that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has a six Memorandum to Brad Hoffman May 13, 1994 Page 2 month requirement for residency for its home rehabilitation deferred loan program. There may be some options for some level of residency, but staff does not have enough information to clarify this issue with any certainty at this point. Also, reinstating the equity requirement may address this concern. 4. ISSUE: EXTERIOR VS INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPAC This issue also addresses indirectly the Section 8 requirements, since doing exterior improvements only to a property may neglect some of the major systems in the house that would bring it up to Section 8 standards. A possible option for addressing the situation is to set aside a certain portion of the CDBG funds to do separate loans for exterior improvements only. 5. ISSUE: HOMEOWNER PARTICIPATION IN COST OF HOME IMPROVEMENT Some of the options to address this issue may be to increase the lien for the deferred loan or to make it a true loan program. Beginning July 1, 1994, all deferred loans done by Hennepin County will include a 15 year lien period. The other option of making the program a true loan program would also address the financial participation of the homeowner, but this would also add a cost to the program of servicing the loans. As additional background information, attached to this memorandum is a staff report to the EDA presented in July of 1993. The report contains several recommendations which were subs roved b the EDA d in � y� y Board an are effect now for the program. Staff will be prepared to discuss the items contained in this memorandum in more detail at the May 16, 1994 work session. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date July l2. I993 Agenda Item Number �W REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIP'T'ION: HOUSING COMMISSION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOME REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) At the April 12, 1993 Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting, the Brooklyn Center City Council /EDA directed the City's Housing Commission to review several issues with regard to the City's home rehabilitation deferred loan program. A copy of the staff report and recommendations reviewed by the Housing Commission on these issues is included with this request form. The Housing Commission reviewed the issues at their April, May and June meetings. At their June 30, 1993 meeting, the Housing Commission reviewed the staff report and recommendations. After discussion of the staff report and recommendations, the Housing Commission recommended approval of the staff recommendations, including the recommendations relative to program income limits. The commission also recommended that the recommendations contained in the staff report be forwarded to the Brooklyn Center EDA for their consideration and approval. The Housing Commission also directed staff to return to the Housing Commission with additional information on the deferred loan program regarding the possibility of changing. the'program to a true loan program rather than a deferred loan program and to consider this possibility when Hennepin County has completed its revision of the rehabilitation loan program guidelines. Staff will be present at Monday's. meeting to review the staff report and recommendations and the Housing Commission actions on those recommendations. R . ECOMMENDATION Motion to accept Housing Commission recommendations regarding deferred loan program issues as contained in the staff report dated June 25, 1993. MEMORANDUM Date: June 25, 1993 To: Chairman Nicholas Eoloff and Housing Commission Members From: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist Subject: Staff Report on Home Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program Issues At the April 12, 1993 Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting, the Brooklyn Center City Council/EDA directed the City's Housing Commission to review several issues with regard to the City's home rehabilitation deferred loan program. A summary of the issues follows: 1. The Housing Commission should review the issue of awarding more than one grant to a particular property. Presently, there is no prohibition against awarding a second rant to a roe providing 5 ears has expired between rant award s. As an g property m' P g Y P g example, 8 of the last 36 grant projects awarded by the City have been repeat or second grant projects. 2. The Council is also concerned with the value of the property being improved, and is asking the Housing Commission to consider this factor in the potential award of grants. In other words, the Council is concerned that some grant awards may be going to some properties that are at such a low appraised value that it is not prudent to award additional funds to improve the property. 3. The Council is also asking the commission to address the types of improvements and the priorities given to improvements, such as exterior improvements versus interior improvements, where the exterior improvements may have a greater impact on the neighborhood improvement aspect of the program. These issues were first discussed by the Housing Commission at the April 27, 1993 Housing Commission meeting and at the May 26, 1993 Housing Commission meeting. There was not a quorum at the May meeting, so no minutes were recorded. A copy of the April 27, 1993 minutes is included with the meeting agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ISSUE NO 1 Since Brooklyn Center is part of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, along with 44 other Hennepin County cities, Hennepin County guidelines govern the administration of the CDBG deferred loan program. Cities can request amendments and variances from the guidelines, but the County guidelines regulate the administration of the program for all cities in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. ram. Hennepin County regulations do not prohibit the award of second or even more deferred loans as long as five years has expired between the first and second deferred loan. Of the last 36 deferred loans awarded, which covers the period from 1990 to the present, 8 (22%) of these were second deferred loans and 6 of the 8 recipients of these deferred loans were senior citizens. The majority of work done on the second deferred loan did not include repeat or replacement/maintenance work on the original work items, but consisted of new items. The issue of second deferred loans was discussed in 1989 by the Housing Commission and the Housing Commission recommended second loans not be prohibited. A copy of the 1989 Housing Commission minutes are included with this report in the list of attachments. There are currently 69 applicants on the waiting list for the deferred loan program. Of these 69, 3 (4 %) have previously received deferred loans from the City's program. The majority of people on the waiting list became aware of the program from the October, 1992 issue of the City newsletter and did not know the program was available prior to reading the newsletter article. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ISSUE NO 1 Given the number of applicants on the waiting list, it is recommended that no second deferred loans be awarded until there are no applicants on the waiting list. Exceptions will be made only in extraordinary circumstances related to damage to the property as a result of events beyond the control of the applicant or relating to health and safety concerns, such as failure of plumbing, heating or electrical systems, or as determined by the program administrator. In such circumstances, provided that funding is available, the borrower, if still eligible, can receive assistance limited to correcting the damaged or failed system(s) only. No other eligible work can be carried out except in the extraordinary circumstances outlined above. It is tecommended this policy begin with all new applicants, not including those.already on the waiting list. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ISSUE NO 2 The Hennepin County guidelines for the CDBG program specify that "the structure will have remaining useful life such that the total amount of the repairs required to bring the house up to Section 8 quality standards may be amortized over such life in an economically prudent manner. Generally, the total amount of the required repairs should not exceed 50% of the market value of the property, as indicated on the property tax statement." The table on the following page shows the 1993 property values as determined by the City Assessor's office for the last 36 homes receiving deferred loans. These 36 homes represent projects completed over. the past 3 years. The deferred loan homes are generally somewhat below the median home value of $73,200 in Brooklyn Center; however, when compared to the price of homes purchased under the City's first -time home buyer program shown on page 5 of this report, the values of the -2- HOME REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN GRANT PROGRAM 1993 PROPERTY VALUES PROPERTY NO. 1993 PROPERTY VALUE 1 $61,800 2 63,200 3 47,700 4 71,900 5 66,800 6 51,600 7 62,000 8 54,100 9 56,200 10 70,900 11 68,000 12 54,100 13 66,700 14 70,900 15 77,600 16 45,700 17 75,100 18 49,200 19 62,300 20 64,700 21 65,700 22 61,000 23 62,600 24 73,600 25 : 64,300 26 71,400 27 62,800 28 61,900 29 67,800 30 71,400 31 50,400 32 63,500 33 76,800 34 54,900 35 68,100 36 64,200 is -3- deferred loan homes are not excessively low. It should be noted the average sale price of a home in Brooklyn Center is $78,774.00. Additionally, since one of the goals of the CDBG program, and effectively all federally funded programs, is to maintain affordable housing, setting a minimum value on homes to be improved under the program may be discriminatory in light of these federal goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ISSUE NO, 2 Staff recommends that a minimum value requirement not be established for homes served by the CDBG program. However, on homes valued at $55,000 or less, as determined by the City Assessor's department, staff will prepare a cost repair estimate to determine if the property can be brought up to Section 8 standards with the funds available. Cost repair estimates shall also be made on properties where repairs necessary to bring the property up to Section 8 standards involve major repairs to the majority of the home's systems, including mechanical, plumbing, electrical, windows and doors and exterior, including roof and siding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ISSUE NO. 3 Hennepin County and federal guidelines for the deferred loan program require that the property receiving a deferred loan must be rehabilitated to Section 8 standards. These improvement standards reflect items that create a safe, healthy and sanitary living environment but do not directly address aesthetics or appearance issues. These Section 8 improvement standards are included in the list of attachments at the end of this report under V. Improvement Standards, pages 8, 9 and 10 of the County guidelines. The hierarchy used by inspectors in the deferred loan program is that health and safety repair needs are addressed first, energy savings issues are generally second, and beyond these areas other major repair items are addressed with regard to the importance to the homeowner and J P g P how the repair will affect the long -term maintenance of the house. STAFF RECOMMENDA'T'IONS ON ISSUE NO. 3 The deferred loan program must address the Section 8 standards when determining the repairs /rehabilitation needed in the home. Staff believes the hierarchy of inspections for health and safety and energy improvements is necessary to comply with the intent of the CDBG program. When doing the inspections for the deferred loan rehabilitation work, inspection staff can make an effort to dedicate a portion of the deferred loan to exterior improvements whenever practical. Additionally, the City could consider a separate allocation of EDA /City funds in addition to CDBG funds which would be dedicated to exterior improvements only. ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND DISCUSSION COMBINATION LOAN AND GRANT PROGRAM One of the issues raised by staff and discussed by the Housing Commission was the option of making the deferred loan program a true loan program rather than a deferred loan program. Currently, most deferred loans in the program are completely forgiven since the vast majority of the recipients remain in their homes for the full five year deferral period. -4- 1993 BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA CITY PARTICIPATION PROGRAM (FIRST -TIME HOME BUYER PROGRAM) MORTGAGE STATUS REPORT MORTGAGE L LOAN NO. STATUS OAN i AMOUNT 1057235 purchased $61800.00 1054118 purchased $77901.00 1055733 purchased $62521.00 1058353 reserved $58349.00 1054589 purchased $78331.00 1054363 purchased $61800.00 1055637 purchased $59997.00 ' 1059725 reserved $51706.00 1057045 purchased $70000.00 1059206 reserved $78383.00 1059872 reserved $74200.00 1057175 purchased $50212.00 1058279 reserved $70300.00 1059000 reserved $69700.00 1056832 purchased $71050.00 1053852 purchased $86062.00 1059064 reserved $70658.00 1054219 purchased $73490.00 1059632 reserved $74469.00 55338 purchased $66950.00 54695 purchased $68092.00 1055554 purchased. $79450.00 1053544 purchased $74736.00 1055068 purchased $79258.00 1056826 purchased $70143.00 1057507 purchased ' $67400.00 .1056686 purchased $69937.00 1059269 reserved $78100.00 1054597 hold -mhfa $69834.00 1057176 purchased $67928.00 1054748 purchased $48850.00 1058687 purchased $67800.00 1052996 purchased $79926.00 1060205 reserved $72357.00 , -5- The commission discussed the option of making the program a combination loan and grant (deferred loan) program. The City of Hopkins has this type of program and sets the following criteria to determine if applicants receive a loan or grant: • Under 50% median income, recipients receive a deferred loan (grant). • Between 50-65% 65% of median income half the ro'ect is a deferred p � loan and half is a revolving loan. • From 65-85% of median income, the project becomes a complete loan with monthly payments and an interest rate of 5 %. I would recommend the commission investigate the Hopkins approach, along with other loan or combination loan/grant options. There are a number of issues that would need to be addressed in this type of approach, including the cost of servicing a loan program. Presently, Hennepin County is in the process of revising the CDBG deferred loan program guidelines. I would recommend any decision on changing the City's current program to a loan or loan/grant combination take into account the revised Hennepin County guidelines which should be completed later this year. RECOMMENDATION ON PROGRAM INCOME LIMITS The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually revises the program income limits for the CDBG program. The table in the list of attachments titled "Brooklyn Center Home Rehabilitation- Deferred Loan Program Income Limits" shows the current limits and the proposed limits. I would recommend that the Housing Commission recommend to the Brooklyn Center City Council that the revised income limits be adopted to keep current with HUD income limits. -6- LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO STAFF REPORT ON HOME REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM 1. January 10, 1989 Housing Commission Minutes 2. Improvement Standards (Section 8 Standards From the Hennepin County Guidelines) 3. Current and Proposed Program Income Limits J 1 i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION i OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN �I AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 10, 1989 ` CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center housing commission met in regular session and was called to order by Vice - Chairman Phil Cohen at 7:45 p.m. - ROLL CALL Commissioners Phil Cohen, Reynold Johnson, and Robert Torres. Also present were Councilmember Gene Lhotka and EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman. Chairman Eoloff was excused from the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 There was a motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Torres to approve the minutes of the September 20, 1988, housing commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAM Vice - Chairman Cohen introduced the first discussion item, 'that eing the Brooklyn Center rehabilitation grant program, and requested Hoffman review several points of the program with the commission. The first item of discussion relative to the grant program was the income limits. Hoffman noted the program started in 1978 and at that time income limits were established at the maximum of Section 8 standards. He stated since that time, income limits have not been adjusted and the original income limits are still being used today. He noted we are currently getting fewer grant applications, and the ability of the City to use the money in the City's housing stock is becoming more difficult. He indicated 'to the commission the original intent or philosophy of the program was to put money in the City's housing stock to maintain the City's housing stock as opposed to a social program oriented towards individuals. He. indicated to the commission it was thought by putting money into the City's housing stock it would tend to help maintain neighborhoods and protect a valuable asset of the City as well as its primary source of tax revenue to provide services within the City. - I ' Following the discussion of the income limits Hoffman recommended the commission request the Economic Development Authority to increase the new limits halfway b etween the existing lim its and i f y b g the current ent the new income lima � rr HUD regulations. As propos ed would be as follows.. a one - person household 975 $ , 24 350; person three-per household at , p n household at $21,650; three per $ 0 four - person household at $27,075; five - person household at $28,775; six - person household at $30,450; seven - person household at $32,175; and eight or more in a household at $33,850. I 1 -10 -89 -1- There was a motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded h Commissioner Torres to recommend the new income limits to Economic Development Authority. The motion passed unanimously. The next item discussed by the.housing commission relative to th rehabilitation grant program was a residency requirement f eligibility for a rehabilit t' a ion ran g t. It was noted curre there is no reside nta residency requirement. Hoffman indicated there ha been some discussion and some concern at the council leve relative to the ability of individuals to acquire a home an immediately apply fora rehabilitation grant. A discussion the ensued relative again to the philosophy of the program being on to put money into the City's housing stock as opposed to a socia benefit program. As the discussion ensued, the topic of second grants came up Hoffman indicated second grants were done in very fe circumstances and ,then. only when the health safety items wer involved. Commissioner Torres inquired if the philosophy of th program is to maintain the City's - housing stock and doing thing other than health safety have a positive impact on neighborhoods the question seemed tobew h not do second econd grants. He indicate he felt second grants may be appropriate, but they should t given a lower priority. He felt second grants could be done t the extent there are monies available and other grants had bee satisfied. Following the discussion of residency requirement and second grants, there was a motion by Commissioner Torres an ' seconded by Commissioner Johnson that the housing co.'lmissic ► restates its desire and philosophy that the rehabilitation gran program be used to improve the City's housing stock and it is nc intended as a social program. Therefore, it is th recommendation of the housing commission that there be n residency requirement for rehabilitation grant programs an second grants be considered after a waiting period through eac funding cycle. Hoffman brought up the final subject of discussion, that being a equity y position for rehabilitation grant recipients. He note over the ten-year life of the he program on two occasions two home have been repossessed and the City's.position being second to senior mortgage was vulnerable. He indicated in the tw instances the City lost its rehabilitation grant money to th extent that it was unable to recoup such monies. He indicate losses were approximately $12,000 near the program. He indicate the housing commission might want to consider an equity positic as a term of eligibility for the grant program. He did note th maximum grant being $10,000 would require an equity position i the area of $14,000 to $15,000 in order to protect the entir investment. Again the commission discussed its philosoph relative to the program and indicated the loss of only two grant over a period of ten years was insignificant relative to th intent of the program. It is its recommendation the program sta as is and no equity position be required. 1 -10 -89 -2- V. IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Goals for housing rehabilitation assistance have been established for each city included in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Assistance Plan HA � P �• the property to be counted toward meeting housing rehabilitation goals in t Fo For he HAP, it must be determined to be substandard and upon completion of rehabilitation must meet minimum Section 8 existing housing quality standards pursuant to 24 CFR, as follows: Dwellings improved under this program shall generally meet the Performance Requirements and Acceptability Criteria set forth in this section except for such variations as are proposed by the administering entity and approved by HUD. Local climatic or geological conditions or local codes are examples which may justify such variations. A. Sanitary Facilities 1. Performance Requirement. The dwelling unit shall include its own sanitary facilities which are in proper operating condition, can be used in privacy, and are adequate for personal cleanliness and the disposal of human wa's 2. Acceptability Criteria. A flush toilet in a separate, private room, a fixed basin with hot and cold running water, and a shower or tub with hot and cold running water shall be present in the dwelling unit, all in proper operating condition. These facilities shall utilize an approved public or private disposal system. B. Food Preparation 1. Performance Requirement. The dwelling unit shall contain suitable space and equipment to store, prepare, and serve foods in a sanitary manner. There shall be adequate facilities and services for the sanitary disposal of food wastes and refuse, including facilities for temporary storage where necessary. 2. Acceptability Criteria. The unit shall contain the following equip- ment in proper operating condition: a cooking stove or range and a refrigerator of appropriate size for the unit and a kitchen sink with hot and cold running water. The sink shall drain into an approved public or private system. Adequate space for the storage, preparation and serving of food shall be provided. There shall be adequate facilities and services for the sanitary disposal of food wastes and refuse, including facilities for temporary storage where necessary (e, g arbage rY g• g g cans). C. Space and Security 1. Performance Requirement. The dwelling unit shall afford the borrower adequate q e s ace and secu rity. rit , Y Acceptabilit 2. Acce p y Criteria. A living room, kitchen area and b shall be present: and the dwelling unit shall contain at least . one sleeping or living /sleeping room of appropriate size for each two persons. Exterior doors and windows accessible from the unit shall be lockable. D. Thermal Environment 1. Performance Requirement. The dwelling unit shall have and be capable of maintaining a thermal environment healthy for the human body. 2, Acceptability Criteria. The dwelling unit shall contain safe heating facilities which are in proper operating condition and can provide adequate heat to each room in the dwelling unit to ensure a healthy living environment. Unvented room heaters which burn, oil or kerosene are unacceptable, A E. Illumination and Electricity 1. Performance Requirements. Each room shall have adequate natural or artificial illumination to permit normal indoor activities and to support the health and safety of occupants. Sufficient electrical outlets shall be provided to permit use of essential electrical appliances while assuring safety from fire. 2. Acceptability Criteria. Living and sleeping rooms shall include at least one window. A ceiling or wall type light fixture shall be present and working in the bathroom and kitchen area. At least two electric outlets one shall be esen r t and d o erable in the living ng area, kitchen area, and each bedroom area. F. Structure and Materials 1. Performance Requirement. The dwelling unit shall be structurally sound so as not to pose any threat to the health and safety of the occupants and so as to protect the occupants from the environment. 2. Acceptability Criteria. Ceilings, walls, and floors shall not have any serious defects such as severe bulging or leaning, large holes, loose surface materials, severe buckling or noticeable movement under walking stress, missing parts or other serious damage. The roof structure shall be firm and the roof shall be weatherti ht. The g exterior wall structure and exterior wall surface shall not have any serious defects such as serious leaning, buckling, sagging, cracks or holes, loose siding, or other serious damage. The condition and equipment of interior and exterior stairways, halls, porches, walkways, etc. shall be such as not to present a danger of tripping or falling. In the case of a mobile home, the home shall be securely anchored by a tiedown device which distributes and transfers the loads imposed by the unit to appropriate ground anchors so as to resist wind overturning and sliding. C. Interior Air Ouality 1. Performance Requirement. The dwelling unit shall be free of Pollutants P in the air at v le els which threaten the health of the occupants. 2. Acceptability Criteria. The dwelling unit shall be free from dangerous levels of air pollution from carbon monoxide, sewer gas, fuel gas, dust, and other harmful air pollutants. Air circulation shall be adequate throughout the unit. Bathroom areas shall have at least one openable window or other adequate exhaust ventilation. H. Water SupoI 1. Performance Requirement. The water supply shall be free from contamination. 2. Acceptability Criteria. The unit shall be served by an approved public or private sanitary water supply. I. Lead Based Paint 1. Performance Requirement. The dwelling unit shall be in compliance with HUD Lead Based Paint regulations, 24 CFR. Part 570, issued pursuant to the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. 42 U.S.C. 4801. 2. If the property was constructed prior to 1978, the Family upon occu- pancy shall have been furnished the notice required by HUD Lead Based Paint regulations and procedures regarding the hazards of lead based paint poisoning, the symptoms and treatment of lead poisoning and the precautions to be taken against lead poisoning. Documentation of the applicants receipt of the notice must be included in the file. 3. Acceptability Criteria. Same as Performance Requirement. 9 J. Access j 1. Performance Requirement. The dwelling unit shall be usable and capable of being maintained without unauthorized use of other private properties, and the building shall provide an alternate means of egress in case of fire. 2. Acceptability Criteria. The dwelling unit shall be usable and capable of being maintained without unauthorized use of other private properties. The building shall provide an alternate means of egress in case of fire (such egress through windows). K. Site an T iohborhood 1• Performance Requirement. The site and neighborhood shall be reasonably free from disturbing noises and reverberations and other hazards to the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupants. 2. Acceptability Criteria. The site and neighborhood shall not be sub - Ject to serious adverse environmental conditions, natural or man made, such as dangerous walks, steps, instability, flooding, poor drainage, septic tank back -ups, sewage hazards or mudslides; abnormal air pollution, smoke or dust excessive noise, vibration or vehicular traffic; excessive accumulations of trash; vermin or rodent infestation; or fire hazards. L. Sanitary �._�s ion 1. Performance Requirement. The unit and its equipment shall be in sanitary conditions. 2. Ac ceptability Criteria. The units and it equipment shall be free of vermin and rodent infestation. 10 BROOKLYN CENTER HOME REHABILITATION- DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM INCOME LIMITS PROPOSED LIMITS HOUSEHOLD CURRENT AS PER MAY 5, 1993 SIZE LIMITS HUD INCOME LIMITS 1 $20,700 $20,820 2 23,040 23,820 3 25,920 26,760 4 28,800 29,760 5 31,080 32,160 6 33,420 34,500 7 35,700 36,900 8 38,040 39,300 J HRA CONTRACTORS - BROOKLYN CENTER AREA April 4, 1994 THIS IS A LIST OF CONTRACTORS WHO HAVE BID THE HRA WORK FOR THE BROOKLYN CENTER HOME IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM. YOU ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO USE CONTRACTORS FROM THIS LIST. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ANYONE YOU WOULD PREFER TO BID THE IMPROVEMENT WORK. A.R.T. Peter Barr 2302 Blaisdell Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 -3325 874 -8671 DAVE BRANDVOLD, GENERAL CONTRACTOR Dave Brandvold 5538 Colfax Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 560 -8263 NOAH BRIDGES, CARPENTRY Noah Bridges 6712 Emerson Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 566 -8850 CSC City Skyline Construction David A. Earley 4702 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 561- 8495/750 -0486 (mobile) LEE COOK AND SONS Lee Cook 5341 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 537 -1168 DICK'S WATER & SEWER Attention: Dick 23817 Strehler Road Loretto, MN 55357 623 -2255 GREATER MPLS. DEVELOPMENT CORP. Randy Brinkman 7716 67th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 533 -8250 HRA CONTRACTORS - BROOKLYN CENTER April 4, 1994 J.D. CONSTRUCTION, INC. OF ANOKA Joe Schmit 926 Black Oaks Lane Anoka, MN 55303 Bus. 421- 0164 /Home 427 -2605 KODIAK CONSTRUCTION Robin Mysliwiec 2607 Brighton N.E. Minneapolis, MN 781 -0286 LEVAHN BROS., INC. Loren LeVahn 3200 Penn Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55412 529 -7741 MERCHANTS MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION Bruce Bogie 12020 Radisson Road Blaine, MN 55434 755 -0904 M.J. MOSER CONSTRUCTION Mike Moser 847 19th Avenue North South St. Paul, MN 55075 455 -5888 NIZNIK CONSTRUCTION, INC. David Niznik 203 Main Street N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 379 -1536 PARKLYNN BUILDERS CO., GENERAL CONTRACTORS Bruce Brottlund 2605 Lynn Avenue South St. Louis Park, MN 55416 926 -9662 or 926 -2669 PREFERRED HOME IMPROVEMENT Mark Parnell 6541 Florida Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55428 533 -3683 -2- HRA CONTRACTORS - BROOKLYN CENTER April 4, 1994 PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING Greg Domke 2516 Chicago Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 874 -8511 or 867 -7516 ROGERS AND HAMMER REMODELING Richard Rogers, General Contractor 5823 James Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 561 -2127 H. WREN BUILDERS, INC. Attention: Harold Wren 9218 - 11th Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55420 888 -4952 -3- , MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Charles Hansen, Finance Director DATE: May 5, 1994 SUBJECT: Emergency Purchase of Disk Storage for Local Area Network What failed? Our local area network (LAN) connecting the personal computers PCs in City Ha (PCs) 11 the Community Center, and the e Garage was installed with two 1.2 Gigabyte disk storage modules. These are the main storage of the LAN and held all of our software and the data files of PC users connected to the LAN. The two modules would mirror each other so that if one failed, all the data would still be intact on the other. One of these modules failed. Why did it fail? The LAN, including these disk storage modules, was installed a little over two years ago. We had expected its components to last about four years before needing replacement. However, we added PCs and new software to the LAN at a faster pace than we anticipated. As of last week, we had fifty eight (58) PCs connected to the LAN. Each PC user creates data files which are then stored on the LAN. Examples of new software added are: Hansen Utility, Property Room Database, Prober Chief, Marshall & Swift Commercial Properties, and Rental Property Database. We reached the point where the disk storage was nearly full about six months ago. This meant that we were working it very hard. The disk storage consists of the disk which stored data and a controller which would read data off the disk for a PC to use, and write data back to the disk to be saved. With 58 PCs connected, there were an incredible number of read /write cycles taking place. This caused physical wear on both the controller and the disk. Even so, the failure came earlier than we expected that it should. Was this a crisis which required an emergency replacement? The 58 PCs actually have a larger number of users since some PCs are used by people on different shifts. Most users are full time employees, but many are part time. I looked through the budget and picked 54 persons who I knew used PCs connected to the LAN and added up their total wages and fringe benefits. The total wages and fringe benefits for these 54 people was $2,477,233 for the year 1994. Dividing by the 260 working days in a year, this equals a payroll cost of $9,528 per working day. Now some people make very intensive use of the PC. Others are less intensive. When the LAN is unavailable, they usually can find something else to do for a while. So the entire $9,528 isn't immediately lost. But much of it is and the loss intensifies as the LAN downtime continues. These people also provide support to other staff such as police officers and maintenance workers. This support is reduced when the LAN is down. We view one day of downtime as a crisis because of the lost work while wages and fringe benefits continue to be paid. Since only one module failed, why not just replace it? As I mentioned earlier, we had nearly reached capacity with this disk storage about six months ago. This was limiting our ability to add PCs or software to the network. Our preliminary plan for the 1995 budget was to ask for a replacement disk storage system. It would have been wasteful and poor planning to replace with the identical system now, and then request a larger one in the 1995 budget. Even replacing with the identical module would have been expensive. Those modules cost about $2,000 each plus the computer technicians overtime for installation. Only replacing one would have exposed us to the risk of the other one failing in the near future with the costs of lost employee time and repeating the installation costs. Why are these things so expensive compared to my home PC? An office PC is used far more than the typical home PC. When you connect 58 PCs to a network, the number of read /write cycles is incredible. The network hardware is built to a far higher level of durability which raises its cost. If you think back 10 years or so, you could buy a home typewriter for around $200. An office typewriter would cost $1,000. But if you ut that home typewriter P YP at the desk of a good secretary, she would wear it out in six months. A home PC disc drive would wear out in a month if it were exposed to the number of read /write cycles on our network. That home PC disc drive probably couldn't even be attached to the network. It would be formatted with an operating system called MS DOS. Our network uses a NOVELL operating system. The typical home PC disc drive wouldn't recognize the operating system. What exactly did we buy? The old system which was a controller and disk integrated into one unit. The new disk storage devise consists of modular array in which the controller and disks are separate. There are slots for five storage disks. We g initially bought three disks, each with a capacity of 2 gigabytes. When we need more capacity in the future, we can simply buy more disks to put in the open slots. If a disk fails, we can just slip in a new one. Purchasing the disk is the only cost because we can install it ourselves. This gives us the ability to withstand a disk storage failure without interrupting the user's work, which is a considerable benefit. If the controller fails, it can be replaced without requiring disk replacement. There would be down time and installation costs for a controller failure. All components are designed for more durability even under the strain of a higher volume of read /write cycles. How much did it cost? We don't have the final cost, but think it will be just over $12,000. While this gives us all sticker shock, we feel it is money well spent. The potential lost work of our employees makes it important to minimize down time. Gaining more disk storage capacity will allow the addition of more PCs and software to the network that will be requested in coming years. These both improve productivity which gets the City more work done for each payroll dollar. How are we paying for it? The Data Processing budget for 1994 contained $10,000 for the purchase of a PC based vehicle management system (VMS) to be used at the garage for maintaining the City's vehicle fleet. Because of promised improvements to LOGIS's VMS, we have postponed any decision on purchasing our own VMS. We are continuing to use LOGIS VMS and the Central Garage is paying the monthly charges for it. This makes the $10,000 of capital outlay budget in the Data Processing department available. We will have to find another $2,000 of savings for the balance of the disk storage costs.