Loading...
HRA 04/13/1989 - 29663--� � ti� � CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APRIL 13, 1989 CALL TO ORDER• Vice-Chairperson Schnabel called the April 13, 1989, meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer, Walter Rasmussen Members Absent: Larry Commers, Duane Prairie Others Present: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA Bill Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Julie Burt, Assistant Finance Director David Newman, Attorney Frank Kitterman Roland Stinski Cheryl Stinski Fat Fischer Pat McCullough, Health Planning & Management Resources (HPMR) Joe Commers, The Commers Company APPROVAL OF MARCH 9 1989 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the March 9, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CFiAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CITY USE OF FRIDLEY PLAZA RAMP Mr. Robertson referred to the letter from Mr. Newman dated March 22, 1989, which requests the formalization of the understanding that the City has the right to use the parking facility. That is the purpose of the draft agreement. The second paragraph of the proposed agreement addresses the issue of maintenance. They have discussed the fact that the HRA probably will maintain the structure so they have included the provision. This would mean primarily that the HRA would pay for a snowblower � HOIISING & REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MEETING, APRIL 13� 1989 - PAGE 2 in winter and certain shrubs that will require maintenance around the edge. Mr. Rasmussen stated maintenance is another issue and he wanted to have this item deleted. The projection of expenses is unknown at this time. Mr. Newman agreed, but stated someone must maintain the ramp. If, in fact, the HRA is going to assume responsibility, this provision should occur in this agreement. The paragraph can be struck if the HRA is not inclined to do so. Ms. 5chnabel asked if it is possible to break out the maintenance into a separate paragraph and spell it out more specifically. Has the HRA agreed to perform all maintenance, i.e., if there is a structural defect, changing light bulbs, vandalism, etc.? It would be good to have this spelled out more clearly on what maintenance items the HRA would have responsibility. Mr. Newman stated his intent is that the HRA would cover all those items. This is to get it on the table for discussion. If the HRA wished to do less than that, he needed to know just what the HRA was going to cover. � _ Mr. Rasmussen indicated that the user is the City. Mr. Robertson stated that, in addition to the City's office employees, the ramp is for the public. The Fridley Plaza Office will use it also and the Fridley Plaza Clinic to some extent. Mr. Meyer suggested getting together with the main users and arriving at some formula for maintenance. Maintenance involves more than a snowblower. The snow sometimes needs to be hauled away, the approach road needs to be plowed, the ramp needs to be hosed down in the spring and fall to clean, drains need to be checked, etc. All these things should go on for ramp maintenance. It could amount to thousands of dollars per year. Someone had to plow the original lot before. Negotiate with them for service. The ramp was built for the good of others, and they should see if the others could chip in. Mr. Newman recommended deleting paragraph 2, having staff submit estimates on the cost of maintaining the ramp and having it on a discussion item the next time the City Council and HRA meet. Mr. Meyer asked, if no maintenance agreement is forthcoming, could the issue be resolved before the agreement at hand is signed. Mr. Newman indicated the two bodies need to meet together. ;—� r"� HOIISING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MLETING, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 3 Mr. Meyer recommended getting together with the Plaza Office staff, the City Council, etc. and see what could be done. Mr. Newman felt that would be difficult. Under the office building lease, the HRA is required to provide parking. Neither the clinic nor the office building has responsibility for maintenance. This becomes a question between the City and the HRA. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, and he did not feel this would be resolved at the staff level. Mr. Rasmussen requested Mr. Newman present to the City that they provide maintenance. Mr. Newman stated the City must deed the lot over to the HRA, and the City requested a document in writing which provides that the City can use the ramp. Secondly, they need to indicate to the City Council that it is the HRA's feeling that because the HRA has constructed the ramp and the City will be one of the primary users, that the City should maintain the ramp and forward this to the City Council. It is his opinion that this is somthing that the City Council will not readily accept but will need to discuss. Mr. Meyer asked who maintained the area before. The City did ^ this, and perhaps they should continue to plow the snow while the . HRA provides other maintenance. Mr. Newman indicated they could work out something with the City Council but would prefer not to lose another month to resolve the title because of the maintenance issue. Mr. Rasmussen requested that Mr. Newman mention that this item would be further discussed. Mr. Newman stated he would and would have staff get cost estimates. He requested the HRA approve the agreement after deleting the second paragraph. Mr. Robertson stated that by doing this the HRA would be taking care of the title but letting the City Council know the HRA wishes to have further information regarding maintenance. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, to approve the agreement as written with the deletion of paragraph 2, and further to instruct the Executive Director of the HRA and the HRA attorney to come up with cost figures and a proposal to present to the City Council to share expenses or assume total expenses for maintenance of the parking ramp. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL �� DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ��'1 HOIISIN(� & REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MLETING, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 4 2. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR STINSKI HILLWIND OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Mr. Robertson stated that, after the an agreememnt had been reached on March 20th and after the agenda had been printed, the developer reached the conclusion that rather than the split of the grant and loan, it would be better if they went with a straight 50 grant for land assembly costs. This occurred today. The handout given to the members at the meeting outlines the agreement and indicates that developers, Mr. & Mrs. Stinski, have authorized their attorneys to aqree to the proposal as outlined. Staff's recommendation is the writedown be a grant in the sum of $109,500 and the second mortgage be completely eliminated. Staff's recommendation is that, if acceptable, the HRA direct staff to do the necessary amendment to develop an agreement, proceed with closing and have the chairperson sign it. The grant would not be closed on until there is a certificate of occupancy on the building. Mr. Meyer stated the letter from the attorney talked about eliminating the provision for the developer to provide an environmental audit. ^ Mr. Newman stated the document does, in fact, contain an environmental audit. Mr. Meyer stated the grant must be contingent upon soil correction, etc. Mr. Newman stated this is a combination of land assembly and demolition. In other situations where they have land assembly, then they use a different standard. Mr. Meyer asked, in this particular case, what does this compensate? Mr. Robertson indicated this is for removal of a structure and land assembly costs. Two parcels. were combined. This is a contribution for what the developer would have to pay, and a write down to make essentially a market rate cost of the land. Mr. Newman stated that, with the quality that is proposed, it was felt there must be some assistance to be more competitive when they start out. To define the level of quality, they will reference the drawings or renderings to use as a benchmark to determine quality. Today, the developer submitted plans and specifications for approval by the building officials. The HRA will not pay the grant money until construction is completed. At that time, the HRA can determine if the quality is consistent with /"1 requirements. � �"1 G� HOIISINa & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 5 Mr. Meyer stated the problem is to define quality before they qet the process going. Mr. Newman stated the developers have used pictorial exhibits. Mr. Meyer stated that on the Springbrook project, the HRA received an actual listing of features and amenities before the fact. They need information on the quality of the amenities that bespeak the quality of the development, and this should be part of the understanding before we actually approve. His worry is that they will find out it is not up to standard and then deny funds. Mr. Newman stated the plans and specifications can be reviewed. If they provide sufficient detail, they might well reference those plans and specifications in the agreement. Mr. Meyer did not think it still would answer whether it is high quality but it would set a requirement for the materials that go into the building and give the HRA something to compare when completed for approval. Mr. Robertson stated detailed specifications came in late the afternoon of the meeting. Plans were late and therefore could not be submitted to the HRA. Mr. Stinski stated he and his wife wished to assure the HRA that they are going to do what they stated they would and probably more. This will be one of the best buildinqs the City has seen. They will submit good plans and specifications and will leave the decision up to the HRA. This is a good builder and architect who have done much work in this state and others. Mr. Stinski has no problem with them. He felt the HRA would be very proud of the building, but he also understood the HRA's position. MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve HRA support for $109,500 for the office project and direct staff to consummate the agreement according to those provisions as outlined in a letter of April 13, 1989, to Mr. Newman, with the additional direction that they list specifications, materials and renderings to define the quality, and that the Executive Director and Chairperson of the HRA are authorized to execute a final agreement, subject to the final approval of the Executive Director and HRA attorney. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated she look forward to seeing the completed building and asked if it would be ready for occupancy by September. � HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MELTINa� APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 6 Ms. Stinski stated occupancy will probably be later in the year. The building will have approximately 31,000 square feet plus underground parking and will take about 8-9 months to construct. 3. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONCEPT FOR KITTERMAN ADVANCE COMPAATIES COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION PROJECT Mr. Robertson stated he had included copies of minutes from April 14, 1988 and May 12, 1988 when preliminary plans were reviewed from Mr. Kitterman and staff was previously authorized to work on a development agreement to review for the next meeting. As the HRA knew, Mr. Kitterman received a preliminary commitment for secondary financing through an SBA 504 loan program for $156,000, copies of which were included with the agenda. He commenced work on the project late last summer and it was substantially completed in February of this year. He has received a certificate of occupancy and has moved into the building. Mr. Robertson stated that proposed are two modifications of HRA standard 15-year mortgage second mortgage. First, because the SBA loan must be a second position, the HRA would be in the third position. Secondly, the SBA requires that all other financing run concurrently with their 20-year loan. Staff recommends the same ,-� structure; that is, no payments the first three years, interest only the next two years, and then the remaining principal and interest to last 15 years. Mr. Robertson stated staff has analyzed the proposal and believes this is very low risk modification to accommodate the loan. The building is done. The value of the loan is well within the guidelines and under percentage, they normally put on a loan. Mr. Robertson spoke with Mr. Kitterman in terms of jobs created. In April 1988, he had 15 employees; on January 1, 1989 -23 employees; and he now has 30 employees. He has approximately doubled the number of employees, which is another reason to recommend approval. Ms. Schnabel thought this was very well done and looked very nice. MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the concept as outlined and for staff to consummate and bring back a development agreement. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. CONSIDERATION OF UNIVERSITY AVENiJE CORRIDOR MAINTENANCE ^ Mr. Robertson stated they had discussed with the City Council the option for doing the maintenance work which all agreed should � HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 7 be done this year. The Public Works staff had estimated that the maintenance work, including Moore Lake and East River Road, might total $60,000-$80,000 per year. Staff took the opportunity to explore options available since it was questionable whether the HRA could pay for the maintenance of non-HRA property. The HRA could purchase equipment, however. Bids for maintenance came in on Tuesday. The low bid was $36,700 for the entire scope of the work. Since this is such a good bid, staff recommends that the HRA not take any action at this time and recommends that the City Council take this bid without participation from the HRA. Mr. Meyer asked if this bid was for equipment. Mr. Robertson stated that equipment would be provided by the contractor. Ms. Schnabel was pleased with the bid and the fact that it included not just University Avenue, but East Moore Lake Drive and East River Road. She is interested to see how many people the contractor will have working on the project. Mr. Meyer indicated he saw nothing about weed killer. ,,.� Mr. Burns stated the contract included weed control. Mr. Robertson that there will be spring application on all center medians and boulevards. Mr. Meyer stated he did not see weed control for crab grass, which also need to be treated. He asked if the cost included the cost of a pre-emergent crab grass killer, which must be applied soon to be effective. Mr. Robertson stated he would check into the question. 5. CONSIDERATION OF PARKING RAMP SETTLEMENT Mr. Burns stated that the agreement with Park Construction provides that the City will pay $18,500 toward the reconstruction of the lower level parking garage. This is approximately one-third of the estimated amount for reconstruction. We do feel, however, that this is a pretty good figure in view of the fact that another contractor had quoted $80,000 for the same work. Mr. Rasmussen asked who is responsible for the error. Mr. Burns stated the City accepted one-third of the responsibility. In order to determine responsibility, the City held a meeting with the various persons that were involved. Mr. Burns said that he felt some of the problems lay with the architect and the ^ construction manager. The architectural drawings did not have a great deal of detail and were considered barely acceptable. No ,�1 HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MLETING, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 8 interior elevations were marked and no architect's inspector was present during the critical phases of the project. The other problems were created by the construction manager who became involved in setting elevations for the concrete sub-contractor. Mr. Burns also indicated that he felt the construction company also odaned a major share of the responsibility for the problems that existed on the lower level ramp. It was pointed out that the sub- contractor used a wet screeding process that resulted in improper elevations and a very rough finish. Mr. Burns stated that in addition to the settlement of responsibility for the reconstruction of the lower level ramp, several other issues were negotiated with Park Construction during meetings with Mr. Burns. The second issue was that of delay in the concrete work. For a number of reasons, the work that Park Construction was to perform was forced into the winter weather of 1988. Although the City's contract with Park Construction provided for a December 1, 1988 completion of the concrete work, much of the work was not completed until after the end of the year. In recognition that winter concrete pouring costs more money, the City recognized the additional cost for Park Construction. Mr. Rasmussen asked if the City should have been notified of ^ the additional cost before they started. Mr. Burns indicated the City was notified. Some of the problems had to do with the grading contractors. An electrical line was not moved in a timely manner. Grading in another section of the project prevented the completion of ramp-related grading that was needed to accommodate the concrete subcontractor. According to Mr. Burns, Park Construction initially asked for approximately $13,000 in compensation for delays. The City settled for $10,702. Reductions consisted mainly in overhead charges that were added to the costs for blankets, the heating of concrete, rental of heaters, gas for heaters, and time to put up a plastic sheeting enclosure. Mr. Burns stated the third item was $3,800 for Kevin Kahmann. He stated that the grading had not been done to Kevin's satisfaction. As a result, Kevin came in on Saturday and Sunday and, with his own personnel, brought the grades down to where he thought they should be. He is now asking for reimbursment of $3,800. The City, however, is not accepting responsibility. It will do what it can, however, to bring about an agreement. Mr. Burns stated the fourth item has to do with identical incidental expenses that Kevin Kahmann claimed had been authorized by Mr. Jim Eichman. Mr. Kahmann claimed he was authorized to use an accelerant to speed the concrete cure, remove snow, and fill holes in concrete, etc. Altogether, $2,106 worth of items were authorized. While City staff tended to agree that these items were ^ subject to reimbursement, they insisted that the requests be reviewed by the current project coordinator. ,� HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETINa� APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 9 Mr. Burns stated the concrete was to be taken out and replaced in two weeks. As of last Thursday morning, about half had been removed and the remainder was to be done the next day. This time around Park Construction will supervise the pouring of the concrete more closely. Additionally, Boarman and Associates will be there to inspect the work product. They have, incidentally, indicated they will use a wet screeding process for the repour. Hopefully the supervision that will be present for the repour will serve to eliminate any problems similar to those that occurred with the original pour. Regarding the $3,800 issue, staff is trying to schedule a meeting with Gammon Brothers, Park Construction and Kevin Kahmann to determine whether or not a voluntary agreement can be reached. Mr. Burns also indicated there is also one other issue with Gammon Brothers that he hopes to resolve through this meeting. In regard to the $2,106 in items that are claimed by Kevin Kahmann for reimbursement, City staff has asked Park Construction to have Kevin document all reimbursement items and submit them to the City. Mr. Rasmussen asked if this would be one comprehensive settlement. Mr. Burns stated that the $10,702 payment and the $18,500 payment to Park Construction that was mentioned above, would be included in a single change order that would be considered by the City Council at its first meeting in May. The other items would be considered separately. Mr. Rasmussen did not want to see additional expenses and preferred that the settlement be filed. Mr. Meyer stated there is always the potential that there will be a few thousand dollars in question. Mr. Burns stated there is the potential for $2,106 in additional costs. Other than that, it is a"done deal" and the change order will be awarded in "done deal" language. Mr. Meyer asked if reinforced steel is being used in the concrete. Mr. Burns stated that it was. He did mention, however, that Mr. Flora has talked about increasing the thickness of the concrete from four inches to five inches and also about eliminating the reinforcing steel. Mr. Meyer stated that any reinforcing steel needs to be epoxy coated. He requested that Mr. Flora check the specifications to be sure that the steel is epoxy coated. This should be brought to the attention of the architect and the architect should reply back to the City. Mr. Burns stated that, as part of this settlement, he did talk with Virgil Herrick and ask him to evaluate the chances of the City in arbitration. In view of his conversation with Mr. Herrick, he felt the negotiated settlement was probably better than what the !'� City would have achieved through arbitration. � HOIISING & REDEVELOPMTNT AIITHORITY MEETINC�, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 10 Mr. Burns stated the City met separately with Boarman to review a list of errors and omissions and to hear their explanations. After this.meeting, Boarman agreed to share some of the responsibility, but, as yet, have not responded with any commitment to a definite amount of money. Staff did state that the City was willing to go to arbitration with Boarman to claim half of the $18,500 that the City is obligated to pay for reconstruction of the lower level ramp. Mr. Meyer stated it is difficult to go against the architect and engineer. There is the argument that if elevations are lacking, someone could call and check and these are standard in the industry. Some of these arguments are weak, but if the City can get something from Boarman, they should do so. Mr. Burns stated, if possible, the City would also try to get something from Bossardt-Christenson. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, to approve the settlement between the HRA and Park Construction as outlined on pages 5-5A of the agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON 5CHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ^ 6. INFORMATION ON DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Mr. Robertson stated this was an informational item. At the last meeting, Mr. Burns indicated the City was starting a capital improvement program which will be more detailed and explicit than in the past. The information provided for the HRA's review and comment during the next month is the capital improvements plan from 1986 and 1987, and a summary draft in the more detailed fornaat that Mr. Burns is instituting. Mr. Robertson stated there are seven different categories and a summary of worksheets for the five years in each of those categories. What Mr. Robertson has endeavered to do is include all the projects and their most realistic schedule as previously adopted and then to add other projects out in 1991, 92, 93, 94, as were identified as part of Council's goal setting exercise several months ago. HRA members were asked to review these items in the next few weeks and call him with questions, comments and suggestions. An update will be provided as we proceed. Page 6A is the schedule. There will be public review and conference review before final adoption by the City Council. Mr. Burns indicated that the process is behind schedule. Council review in #4 is now scheduled for April 24, so everything will be moved back about one month. � 7. INFORMATION ON DRAFT HRA OBJECTIVES FOR 1990 � HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 11 Mr. Robertson stated that each department was asked to prepare a statement of objectives for review by the City Council and came up with about 10 objectives which were gleaned from earlier discussions of the HRA. Staff was asked to present what they felt were the top four priorities, which are listed on Page 7. The City Council felt the top priority they want addressed is to resolve the stalled development agreement at Lake Pointe. In the information packet, the HRA received a copy of a letter from Mr. Raymond Haik to Woodbridge which summarizes the discussions to date. Staff is authorized to test the market to confirm Woodbridge's assertion that since 1985 the market has changed and determine realistic alternatives. Mr. Robertson will proceed by talking to some top leasing and development firms in the area. Mr. Meyer asked if there were any legal inferences because the market has changed or is changing. Mr. Robertson did not think so. One thing that did come up during discussions was there are some very lucrative incentives for Woodbridge to proceed under the existing Limited Revenue Note. 8. INFORMATION ON SENIOR HOUSING SURVEY ^ Ms. Dacy invited Ms. Pat McCullough, HPMR, to provide a synopsis of the study and then Ms. Dacy will summarize discussions of the Planning Commission and the Human Resources Commission. They are looking for comments and questions from the HRA which will help in developing recommendations for policy alternatives to finance senior housing projects. Ms. McCullough stated they had done some standard projections looking at the social-demographic characteristics of the seniors in the City of Fridley. A relatively extensive survey was mailed to all households with heads of households 65 and older and asking questions on housing, which was supplemented by focus groups. � City of Fridley had 55% response rate which is excellent. They concluded the study saying there is an immediate demand for 72 units of congregate housing to serve seniors in the City of Fridley. According to the survey response looking both at what they perceived they could afford to pay and at looking at their incomes, it is recommended that 80� of the units be in the low and moderate income range, $300 on the low side to the mid-$600 range on the high side. Ms. McCullough stated the balance of the study was an indication of interest and need for congregate housing for people who are able to pay more and who did not wish to leave the City. In 1993, that demand more than doubled to 155 units of housing, !� applying the same survey response rate to that general housing. Ms. Dacy asked them to look at a 10-year forecast. When they ,� HOIISING & REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MEETINd, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 12 looked at the 55 to 64 year old population that would exist in 1993 who would be moving into the senior population, the demand will double again because there is a high number in those categories. Those who would like options to remain in the City have a strong interest in hoping options could be provided so they would not have to go to a neighboring community. Village Green has five year waiting list. All subsidized housing surveyed was full and a one to two year waiting list is not uncommon. Mr. Rasmussen asked about the building in Robbinsdale across from the First National Bank. Ms. McCullough did not think there was a subsidized building in Robbinsdale. Copperfield Hill has done reasonably well. She will check further. Ms. McCullough stated the Twin City area has market rate housing that is available at the high end of subsidized. Earl Brown Commons is doing poorly. These projects do not fill like a typical apartment building. Financial institutions now require projections for a three to four year fill rate for a moderate sized project. This is because moving is a longer decision making process for seniors and the last decision people will make ,-, regarding housing. Ms. Schnabel asked how may communities have more than one subsidized unit in the city. Ms. McCullough indicated the Met Council has prepared detailed inventories of subsidized housing in the metro area. There is not a lot that would have multiple units unless they were very aggressive in the early periods of development. For example, the HUD 202 program allocated about 100 units for State of Minnesota, and they did not want more than 50 units in any single project. Fridley is not a priority community. Most communities are not considered a priority unless the number of units requested is extremely high. Bloomington is a priority. Unless communities are on the priority list, they do not apply. Ms. Schnabel asked, if there is a need, should or should not the units be subsidized. Ms. McCullough recommended looking at, as you are presented with requests for developing projects, some communities are looking at protecting certain units in the building to be available to qualify for the HUD moderate to low income units. It is a very difficult issue because one is looking at a program the Federal government heavily participated in but now you must look at it closely at the responsibilities involved because they are significant. �'1 � HOIISING & REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MEETIN(3, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 13 Mr. Rasmussen thought some of the market rate housing will become more affordable in terms of rates as time goes on. Ms. McCullough stated she had worked with some financial people and did some projections for a luxury high rise. They have filled about 20� of their units and have been open for a year with marketing for a year or two before opening. Analysts are looking at striking some kind of deal for low income. Dakota County actually passed a mill levy that will be devoted to housing. The HRA is going to participate in development so they don't have to participate in HUD rules. They are looking at options to make housing affordable and available in the community. Mr. Newman referred to page 8D in the agenda and stated the assistance provided by the City for Golden Pond was actually closer to $1 million. Ms. McCullough stated that seniors generally don't want regular apartments for a number of reasons. They have a more itinerant population, greater concerns about security, congregate housing brings in services that link seniors with services that are in the community, and have social space available. These are significant policy issues to think about because there are no ^ immediate expectation that the decline in Federal participation will continue as in the previous administration and no great hope that we will go back to the HUD 202 programs. Fridley is one of the few communities that does not have non-subsidized project that is developed in the community. Mr. Dacy stated that the Planning Commission discussed two points. First, one of the commissioners asked staff to look at the assumption that higher income seniors prefer a different type of housing than lower income seniors. No clear pattern is shown. As a whole, the majority seemed to prefer a one-story town home with outside entrance. Secondly, two projects that have been before the city have been on vacant property. Perhaps should look at existing units to provide amenities over time to encourage rehabilitation into senior housing. She is hoping to take a proactive approach for preferences for locations for senior housing. Ms. Schnabel stated that another feature to consider is facilities that are attached to nursing home facilities. There is a certain point where this becomes a very important feature. There is also a nursing home located by Georgetown. Ms. McCullough stated that Minnesota has a moratorium on the construction of additional nursing home beds enacted in 1984, and at the last legislative session, studies indicate there is no need to lift that moratorium. In 1984, nursing homes were 97% occupied. � That gives them time to get rooms ready. The fastest growing segment of Minnesota's population is 85 and older and this group � HOII8IN�3 6 REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETINa, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 14 uses nursing homes at triple the rate of those under 85. The moratorium was imposed and money was put into alternative care sytem for other services. To date, no nursing homes have been built in the State of Minnesota. The system is now about 920 occupied and feel this will be less in a few years. We are enabling older persons to have a greater number of choices after they can no longer manage a single family home. Assisted living units are the biggest thing right now. Ms. Dacy requested comments from members during the next 30 day period because in order to develop some recommendations for the City Council and HRA to consider. The goal is to complete by June. Ms. Schnabel asked how many developers are waitinq. Ms. Dacy stated they had not heard from EMC regarding the St. Williams project. Mr. Robertson stated he has received inquiries from other developers who have proposed the same type of construction for one story, private entrance housing. 9. INFORMATION ON 1988 ANNUAL REPORT ^ Mr. Robertson stated members have been given new drafts of the 1988 Annual Report. The copy was updated today. Printing of the report was deliberately held off at the end of the year because we had the Tanurb and 57th Place projects under discussion and wanted to make sure they went before going to press. However, it is now April and we have to do the 1988 report. The report is scaled back. If there are comments or suggestions for changes, please present them in the next week. Ms. Schnabel has read the report and made some changes. The report this year will be about the same as last year, but a little less elaborate because we have less to report. Mr. Meyer asked if it was the intent to feature Target, Village Green, etc. Mr. Robertson stated, yes, they would be featured. This is a summary of progress to date and will use the report as a marketing tool. It has been three to four years since we have reminded the readers and developers in this area about our accomplishments. Mr. Meyer felt Springbrook could be included since it is newer than some of the others that are shown. Mr. Robertson said it was featured on the cover last year but !'� thought that it might be one thing they could add. Since the copy � was done, Mr. Robertson had a representative from Minnesota 80II8IN�3 & REDEVELOPMLNT AIIT80RITY MEETINa, APRIL 13, 1989 - PAGE 15 Corporate Report visit and will come back with a suggested marketing strategy for the next five years. That should be available for the ne�rt month's meeting and will be put on the agenda. Because of the number of inembers present, the picture that was taken last month with four members present will be the photo used in the report. 10. CLAIMS 1876-1884 Ms. Burt presented claims 1876-1884. The tax increment payment, Check #1883, has been written and will be going out tomorrow. Mr. Burns indicated that Shakopee is the only city ahead of Fridley providing the tax increment payment to the local school district. MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to accept Check Register Nos. 1876-1884. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � Ms. Burt stated that the shared cost of senior housing study was included on the billing for personal services for March, 1989. Vice-Chairperson Schnabel adjourned the April 13, 1989, meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ���� J Lavonn Cooper �% Recording Secreta i '1