PL 01/28/1976 - 6577�
PLANNING
City of Fridley
COhP1IS5I0N SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING - JANUARY 28, 1976 PA6E 1
C�LL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Scott, Bergman, Harris, Wahlberg, Langenfeld
Peterson
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director
Ray Leek, Planning Interne
Nancy Reeves, Metropolitan Council
Barbara Shea, Vice Chairperson, Human Resources Comnission
PllBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
MOTION by Scott, seconded bg Bergman, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan. Upon a voice
vote, alI voting aye, Chairman Harris opened the Pablic Hearing at 7:38 P.M.
Mr. Jerrold Boardman, City Planner, gave the following presentatio� on
the proposed Comprehensiue Housing Plan.
Housing was a basic need to provide good quality life for any human being. --
Housing was one of the largest single investments that any person would probably
make in their lifetime. When people look €or housing, there were several things
thay they were looking for, such as health, security, social relations, status,
comnunity faciilites and services, privacy, access and environment. These services
are all basic to the quality of life. For this reason, it was important that we
plan for housing. This was the purpose of the Canprehensive Housing Plan.
The Compr.ehensive Housing Plan was made up of three areas. The first
area was survey and analysis, which was comprised of a survey of existing
housing costs, pasthousing trends, expected future housing trends; if tfiey_
continue like past trends, as we77 as social-economic conditions in the community.
These, together with the housing goals that have been laid out by the comnunity,
are the main thrust in implementing this plan. The implementation process was
a very important aspect of the plan. There was no real need for the plan if it
couldn't 6e impjemented.
To take a closer look at the plan, the first thing that should be discussed
was the growth trends.in the comnunity. The population gains for Fridley were
quite extensive from 1950 to 1960 and up to 1970. We are seeing a leveling off
of our population which was similar to what had.happened in Columbia Heights
where their population peaked ouf in 1970. We expect fridley's population to
peak out in 1980 to 1990. With this, we willfind our population stablizing and
may even see some reduction of population. He said that an important factor
was that our co�nunity was maturing. In 1960 the median age in Fridley was
20.8 and !ay 1970 it was 22.0. This means that there has been a drop in persons
between 0 to 18 years old and an increase in the number of people between 18 to
65. One thing that was not characteristic of a maturing community that we have
found was in the eT�erly. Although the elderly were increasing at the same
rate, this rate was 2.1 in 1960 and 2.1 in 1970. We had anticipated a greater
rate of growth in the over 65 age group.
Planning Commission Special Public Hearinq Meeting-January 28, 1976 Page 2
In this Comprehensive Housing Plan there are maps showing the social
characteristics of Fridley. These map series are �omewhat confusing , but
we are making changes on,the maps to make them more clear. The first map
shows the percentage of population in block groups 65 years of age or more.
The largest concentration of the elderly was along University Avenue and
South of 61st Avenue where about 20% of the people were elderly, but actually
the elderly were pretty much spread over the co�nunity in a range of 0 to 5%.
Another social-economic condition in the community was the poverty levL .
�� incomes. We have a map showing wheMe househoads below poverty level are
located with 0-5% of the population and 5- 10% of the population. M�tro
Council has another indication of low and moderate income housing which "•ey
use for a lot of their funding review and this was below 50% of the- "
Metro median income. There was a map in this plan showing a breakdown of
this gfving the areas of 10-20% and 20-40% where incomes were below �0% of
the Metro median income level. Some other pertinent information we have in
this plan as to low and moderate income housing was that we have approximately
250 households below the federally defined poverty level income. Of
these 250 households, we only have 13 that are receiving some form of public
assistance. He said this imbaiance could be because some people were not aware
that some form of federal assistance was available to them. He said that
federal assistance was going to a disproportibnate a�ount of people with incomes
over the poverty level. 250 households above the federally defined poverty
level are receiving some form of federal assistance. He said this could include
aid to dependent children and food stamps. Another thing that was quite
apparent was that some of the households below the 50% federally defined
poverty level income were paying more than 25% of their income for housing.
This 25% figure was used for federal funding and by the Metropolitan Council
and ihey feTt that this was the most that should 6e paid for housing.witfiout
jeopardizing ofher needs and wants. When you pay more than 25� of ydur income
for housing you start cutting down on other essential needs of the household.
Also, as far as the incort�s below the 50% of the Metropolitan Area;median
incomes, we estimate that we have approximately 1,504 households or 16:2% of
all households. having an income below the 50� Metropolitan Area median income
level. This was a 1975 estimation. There are 9,400 households in Fridley.
This covers the social-economic data.
Housing Characteristics was the next item in this plan. In this plan
our social=economic data was basically taken from the 1970 census. We have
interpolated that up to 1975 data where we could. The social-economic data
was presented on block group. All of our housing data was 1975 data which has
been taken from our assessing files. We have brcken this down block by block,
and this was not by block group. We know where our housing units are as far
as housing data, whereas our social-economic data was pinpointed in general
areas.
Under our housing data, we are looking at out past development in housing
and estimating our future development in housing. Housing development will
continue to grow while our population was stabilizing and would possibly drop..
One of the things that affect this was that our family sizes were decreasing.
Therefore you need more housing to maintain the same population level. He
said that Chart #4 shows our housing growth_from 1975 to 2000 assuming our
present land use. We only have so much residential land left as we are about
85% developed. Without any rezoning or any change in residential land use,
we would probably end up with something 7ess than the 14,000 housing units that
we show on this chart. Assuming certain development �ressures and certain
development trends, like whether apartment monies will break loose because o�
Planning Comnission Special Public Hearing Meeting - January 28, 1976 Page 3
more monies available or a lower percentage rate for mortages. The dotted line
on this chart show the potential of housing growth. Out of a total of 9,400
housing units, approximately 6,131 are single family owner-occupied units.
There are also approximately 2,881 multiple units and close to 406 mobile homes.
The mean value range for owner-occupied homes was somewhere in the range of
$20,000 to $25,000. In this range we have 39% of all our housing units. 7his
$20,000 to $25,000 was structural value, and does not include land costs. You
can assume that the land costs range anywhere from $8,000 to $15,000. This
will give you some idea of the market value of homes. In looking at our housing
stock, the break-off range for low and moderate housing was aroun $20,000.
Approximately 1,000 owner-occupied single family units range in a value of less
than $20,000. A high proportion of these`dre in the �1II,000, $19,000 to
$20,000 range. A lower proportion are in the range of what we would call low
and moderate income housing. We also have approximately 730 multiple dwe}ling
units currently renting for less than $150 per month. That was also the break-
off range of low and moderate income housing for rental structures. In looking
at housing characteristics and housing supply, we have four condition levels.
These are new, good, fair and poor. Fair and poor conditions are those housing
units that need considerable work as far�as maintenance and struetural damage.
Poor, the structure was still habitable, but should be torn down. We have
approximately 11 units in the comnunity that were classified as poor. Under
fair we are talking about considerable preferred maintenance or damage to
structure, items beginning to show were damaged window frames and sills, floors
and the rnof may be be�inning to sag, and there has been considerable wear and
tear on the structure. On Chart #5, we have approximately 997 low to moderate
owner-occupied units. Of these we have approximately 227 units in fair condition
and 11 units in poor condition. This means there are approximately 759 units
in good condition. As far as the rental structure, we have found some error
in this. We show 729 low to moderate rental units, with no units in fair
condition and no units in poor condition. In talking to the City Assessor,
he estimated that about 5% of the rental structures were in fair condition with
none in poor condition. This would mean that about 50 rental units would be
in Fd�r_condition_and 679 units in good condition. We are going to be doing
more checking in to this, but all the records are at Anoka �ounty,'but he-
thought the figure given to them by the assessor should be pretty accurate.
We have a map showing where the highest percentage of resideritiaT structures
in fair and poor condition are located.
Another characteristic of housing which we have to correlate with the
four conditions of housing, new, good, fair and poor was the age of the structure.
We have maps in this plan showing the location of structures by age. Most of
the housing structures in the City are relatively new housing. 65% of our
housing was in the 0 to 20 years old range. About 20% to 40� of our housin9
was in to 20 to 30'year range. Age characteristics of housing has close
correlation to fair and poor conditions. The next classification of housing
by age was for housing over 30 years old. We are talking about 5% to 20% in
this area.
Another thi�g we look at when we look at present and past characteristics
of housing was what was happening in the core City and what was happening in
Columbia Heights, and how all of this relates to Fridley. Eridley has to look
carefully at past happenings and trends in Colu�6ia Heights and Northeast
Minneapolis in order to get an idea of what kind of trends will be affecting
us. We have taken a look at Columbia Heights quite carefully and have found
that Columbia Heights, about 10 years ago, had many of the characteristics that
Fridley was showing in some of its areas toda�. Columbia Heights population has
leveled off, they have started to drop in population, the population has matured
Planning Commission Special Public Hearing Meeting - January 28, 1976 Page 4
at somewhat a faster rate than Fridley. This started in Northeast Minneapolis
approximately 15 years ago. This characteristic that started in Northeast
Minneapolis, happened in Columbia Heights, and was now starting to happen in
Fridley. Columbia Heights has taken action through different Federal programs
and has turned this around somewhat, because of preservation programs they
have gone into. These trends basically follow different planning theories
such as the concentric ring theory, which r2fsrs to zonal rings when a certain
level of population was reached, and the housing level reaches a certain point,
they are compatible and they move into a ring further out. We can see these
patterns happening in Northeast Minneapolis and Columbia Heights and see it
starting to happen in Fridley.
Taking all this data and putting it together, we can see some areas where
this was heppening. We call these primary focus areas. We have basically three
areas where these conditions are starting to affect the housing. The first
area was what was known as the Hyde Park Area. We do have some special problems
in this area because some of the residential areas have been zoned to commercial,
and was not being developed as commercial use. There was quite a mixture of
housing types in this area, such as apartments and single family homes. There
was a high concentration of the elderly"living in this area. We have a lot of
housing in this area that was in fair condition and there are trends of deter-
ioration. The next primary focus area was the Riverview Heights area. There
are special problems with this area also because part of it was in the flood
plain.,Potential development was being curta'r�ed as far as development in the
flood plain area. Another potential area was in the Plymouth area in the
southern part of Fridley. This was once a part of Columbia Heights and the
housing in this area was characteristic of the housing in Columbia Heights. This
housing stock was built when Columbia Heights was developin9.
In looking at the survey and analysis in this plan, we have to say what
does this mean and what was happening. We can cane up with certain implications
if the City continues in the trend that it was going. The City was maturing.
Our population was growing older. We have seen a decrease in our population
between 0 to 18 years and an increase in our population between the ages of
18 to 65. Presently we are not showing an increase in the elderly, 65 years and
older. This was probably due to several reasons. We may not be providing enough
housing opportunities to make it possible for elderly residents to remain in the
community. Another factor could be accessibility for the elderly. If services
were not readily available for the elderly, they generally have to move to where
the services are, He said there were more elderly moving to Columbia Heigfits
from Fridley than there were elderly moving from the core City into Columbia
Heights, because Columbia Heights has a pretty good program as far as funding
for the elderly. We do see an out-migration of residents over 65 years old
from Fridley. Another implication was that there may be a need for some kind
of an aid for low and moderate income people that were presently living in
Fridley. There were approximately �,488 units in the low and moderate income
ranges t�at are actually habitable units. 759 of these units were owner-occupied
and 729 are rental units. 226 of the owner-occupied units are in the primary
focus areas that;have been previousle described. At the same time there were
approximately 1,504 households with incomes below the 50% of the Metropolitan
mean income. Although'the f9gures close as far as the units available and the
number of households that were in need of those types of units, it seems that
those households were not living in those units. We do have a high percentage
of those people whose income was below the 50% metropolitan median family income
level that were paying more than 25% of their income for r.ent�.units. Therefore,
the Metro Council estimates of close to 200 to 300 subsidized housing units are
Planning Comnission Special Public Hearing Meeting- January 28, 1976 Page 5
fairly accurate as to what the comnunity could absorb. Another indication of
this was the information we have received on the number of households that
were actually receiving some type of federal aid. There were only 13 households
below the pover�y level who were receiving some type of federal aid. It was
evident that there were federal programs that were available that were not being
used.by those households. In contrast to this there are 250 households above
the poverty level who were getting some form of federal assistance. This was
quite a relative difference.
Another thing that should be pointed out in our implications in the survey
and analysis was that the City population in the future would reach a peak and
level off and will most likely decrease until it reaches some type of stabilizing
point, where the population fits the housing or the housing fits the population.
There were three areas in Fridley that if they were allowed to continue as they
were gaing, would continue to deteriorate and affect other areas.
What we found in the survey and analysis has to be related to what the area
housing goals should be. There has to be an implementation program, which
will hopefully be a viable progra� that could be followed, and if it was"
followed would carry out the objective of the housing goal. There were three
areas in the implementation plan.. The first area was housing preservation.
The second area was getting involved in aid programs to help those persons who
need Federal funding or some type of aid for low and moderate income people.
The third area was more of a code revision area and policy formulation. The
recomnendations that were made in the plan were made before the Planning Canmission
established the total goal area, therefore there will be some changes in the
implementation section. There was nothing in the plan to implement the fifth
��objective which was to incorporate �etro�wrdehousing development framework
policies, where possible, so as to fulfill the City's role as a Metropolitan
neighborhood. No type of implementation for this objective was in this plan.
Since the housing stock in our comnunity was in relatively good condition,
what we were talking ahout was a low percentage figure as Co fair and poor
housing conditions. Therefore, our primary effort was for housing preservation.
There were several ways to go as far as developing housing preservation. One
key point was getting people involved in their neighborhood. The City should
direct some of its efforts in defining what the neighborhoods are-and strengthen
their visual, spatial add social cohisiveness, and try to develop programs where
the people cart be invoived. Another thing the City can do was �ublic improvement.
This would include updating street lighting, curbing, and just general street
maintenance adds to a comnunity. A neighborhobd that was starting to deteriorate
gets the feeling;that they are being left out by the City. When the City shows
an interest, it also brings back the interest at the neighborhood level. Another
recomnendation was to continue the development of the bikeway-walkway system
to increase accessibility between residential neighborhoods. This particular
recottanendation should be expanded to include other means of accessibility and
not limit it to the bikeway-walkway system. There was also a recortmendation
that the City be the prime mover in developing a resource center on housing
maintenance and rehabilitation. This resource center could probably be
handled through the information and referral service. This would provide the
names, phone numbers and other '. of information for people who were interested
in rehabilitating or remodeling their homes;: T{iis was valuable information that
they presently do not have. Another thing that the City could make available
were workshops on home improvements which could be given by our building
inspectors. This would allow people to come in and understand what the City
codes were and what the building codes were all about. These recommendations
are all important as far as preservation of housing units.
Planning Comnission Special Public Hearinq Meetinq -Januarv 28, 1976 page 6
Another area the City should be looking at were aid programs. There are
several programs that are available. One of these was Community Development
Funds, which was a block grant program. Most of the funds that were available
through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that were available
three or four years ago have now been grouped into one block.grant. The cor�nunity
could use th.is money as leverage money for local lending institutions, which
would be the same as the City subsidizing low interest rates on housing loans.
It could also be used as direct grants for housing rehabilitation. Another
thing these block grants could be used for would be to improve downtown areas,
and improve accessibility to these areas, and other things related to low to
moderate income people, as well as related to improvements that would improve
the City as a whole. Another source of monies available for remodeling and .
neighborhbod preservation would be the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, which
were subsidies on bank interest rates. T�is would save the applicant 2 to 3%
on home improvement loaris: Another area of funding that would be available
would be under Section 8 rent subsidy program. This would be direct rental
subsidy to persons. Before this time, a lot of rental subsidies went to .
housing units. The total after effect of that type of program was a lot of
slum areas, or a concentration of low income housing. There was a lot of problems
with this. Under the new pro9ram they were subsidizing people and this would
make units available throughout the entire community. People with low to moderate
incomes catt find places to live throughout the community w�th these rent subsidies.
There are several alternatives for applying for Section 8 funds. One alternative
was to do this through our own Housing and Redevelopment Authority, or else
contract with Metro Council and Metro Council will give use same aid as to
application and dispersement of funds. We could let the Metropolitan Council
do it all. We would have a contract with Metro Council and let them do the
accounting procedures, the appTication procedures and the screening. The only
thing we would do on this would be the inspection of the units, or we could
contract with Metro Council for making application and handling accounting
procedures. The City Staff would make the necessary client contact, Peqvide
a lay out of housing units ava9lable for Section 8 funds and also make the
inspections.
For code revision and policy formulation, the City should re-evaluate their�
current land usage in.order to determine if we have an adequate balance between
cortmercial-industrial and residential land use. This was very important.
Another thing that should be looked at was the present Zoning Codes-to determine
if they were a viable means of ensuring human scale in the City's residential
developments. We may �e discriminating in our zoning code against low and moderate
income housing. Another reecommendation was•�hat the City continually look for
new federal, state and local programs the community could use for the preservation
of housing along with aid programs.
Sanething that could be added to this plan was to determine the social
impact of housing on the comnunity. This could be studied as one of the
implementation procedures of the plan as well as taking a look at Metropolitan
Council's development framework policies on housing to see how well these policies
could be implemented in our plan.
Mr. Boardman said he would answer any questions anyone had on this plan.
Mr. Scott said the Human Resources Commission was concerned that the
citizens be informed of the programs and policies of this plan and in this
regard they had invited Nancy Reeves of the Metro Council Housing Division
to present some facts about housing subsidies and statistics her office has
Planning Cort�nfssion Special Pubiic Hearing Meetinq-January 28, 1976 Page 7
gathered concerning these facts. He would like to have her called on to explain
in layman's terms, what some of these subsidy programs are and the results her
office has achieved from them in the Metro area and areas around our community.
She will also be available to answer questions fran the audience.
Mr. Scott said there were many forms of subsidized housing and he asked
Nancy Reeves to explain the different programs.
Ms. Reeves said there had been various types of subsidized housing avai�able
through the years. Among them were 236, 235, Title I, Title II, etc. She
said that rather than talk about numbers, she would just talk about the basic.
types of subsidized housing. One type would be where a building was constructed,
and then famiTies or-the elderly are able to live in this building. This building
could be owned by the City or Housing Authority, or under private ownership under
what was formally called the 236 program. These are areas where you do have an
identifiable building where people can say this was subsidized housing. In
general these building have been for the elderly and have been quite successful.
In other cases, it might be a building for families, or primarily for families,
and in many cases these buildings have been somewhat less desirable, not entirely
successful. Now there was another type of subsidized housing that has not been
tried before, at least not on the scale that it was being done now, and that
was what was currently known as Section 8. It provides under this program for
a scattered side approach for subsidized housing, both for the elderly and for
families. For families it was the best type of housing subsidy that has been
provided by the Federal government, in that it allows the family the opportunity
to select a housing unit on its own. It doesn't direct them to a single identifi-
able building. It provides for scattered sites within a comnunity rather than
impaction within certain neighborhoods of low incane people. for this reason,
this was the program the Metro Council was operating and as far as they could
see it was the most successful program for most comnunities to use.
Mr. Scott asked Nancy Reeves a couple of questions oR subsidized housing.
He asked if anyone from Soviet Russia or Communist China fiad made application
for assistance.. Ms. Reeves said not in this area. P9r. Scott said'then it was
safe to assume that they would all be Americans who applied for this assistance.
Mr. Scott said that Columbia Heights had Section 8 housing and he wondered if
Ms. Reeves knew how many applications they had received. Nancy Reeves said they
had just finished a comprehensive report on this and maybe you would be interested
on how this proqram was going. She said that over all they had 13 comnunities
participating in the program. Overall there have been about 1200 people that
have applied_fot"��is program, including 76 applicants in Columbia Heights and
- 32 in Coon Rapids. These were the two communities in Anoka County who were
participating in the program. Mr. Scott asked how many of the 76 applicants in
Columbia Heights were fran the inner City. Ms. Reeves said that Columbia Heights
had three applications from the center City and Coon Rapids had none. Mr. Scott
asked how many people from Fridley app9ied? Ms.-Reeves said there weren't any
currently in Columbia Heights, but in Coon Rapids there were three former Fridley
residents who were receiving subsidized housing. Mr. Scott said then he could
assume that all the wino's and derelicts and drug addicts were not lined up to
board a bus on the 3rd Avenue bridge to come to Fridley to applq for Section
8 subsidized housing. Ms. Reeves said we have�had some applications from the
center Gity for the program, but as she mentioned before, there were already
13 communities with Section 8 subsidized housing, and within a few months there
will probably be 13 more comnunities participating in the program. So far, no
coirmunity has been impacted with center City residents. In fact the total number
Planning Com m ssion Special Public Hear�ng Meeting-January 28 1976 Page 8
of center-City residents who have been able to partieipate in this program
right now in the suburban areas was about 32.
Mr. Scott said the reason he was asking these questions because it had
come up in this community that i€ �e have subsidized housing, all the derelicts
fran the center-City were going to come out to Fridley when in fact your figures
indicate that this was not true. What was resulting was that Fridley residents
were leaving Fridley to go to the cortmunities that they could afford to live in.
Ms. Reeves said this was happening in other coamunities that did not have this
program,
Mr. Boardman said that he had received a bulletin from HUD in the recent
past in which it stated that the 235 program would be available but in a different
form than in the past. He asked Ms. Reeves if she could explain that program.
Ms. Reeves said that the 235 program was one she didn't mention because it was
not currently in effect, but it will be in a somewhat modified form-in effect
in the near future. This was a mort9ageassi�stan�e program for home_ownership. This
would be primarily for moderate income people. The income limits would be
relatively high for this program. It would be an interest subsidy so that people
buying a home would probably pay a 5% interest rate and a lower than average
down payment. Mr. Boardman said this would be similar to the rental subsidy
program only it would be interest subsidy for home owners. Ms. Reeves said
that this generally would be administered by housing developers. It will not
be able to be used for housing that was already developed, but for new housing
that was about to be put on the market.through primarily the larger developers.
Mr. Boardman asked if Ms. Reeves office would be handling this program. She
said no, this would be handled through the developers.
Mrs. Wahlberg said that Ms. Reeves gave the figure of 76 for the number
of applicants for Section 8 housing in Columbia Heights. She gave the figure
of 3 from the inner-City. How many were from Columbia Heighis that appiied?
Ms. Reeves said she had two sets of figures. One set were of all the people
that applied, and the other set was that of those that applied who were
currently getting assistance. We only have a 500 unit program and we canrtot
assist eveyone who applies. For this reason we do not know how many people who
have app]ied from Fridley for these programs in Columbia Heights and Coon Rapids,
we only know that three people from Fridley are now getting assistance in Coon
Rapids. She said she couldn't answer where a11 the people were from that applied
in CaTum6�a Heights because many of the applications were in the various process -•
stages. She said that currently there are 17 people who are receivi�g assistance
in Columbia Heights, and of these 17, 13 are from Columbia Heights. Three of
them were from Mirt�eapolis and St. Paul and 1 was from Coon Rapids. The program
does allow them to move to any of the suburbs that were participating in this
program so they do move around a little.
Nancy Reeves said there were generally two age groups that applied for this
program. Either its people who have grown up in a carcnunity and suddenly are
out on their own and are setting up households and find that they can't afford
to live in the community that they have grown up in, or its people who are
finali+y growing old and their incane was going down. They maybe can no longer
afford to live in the canmunity that they have lived in all their lives. These
are the two primary groups who have been applying for assistance under this
program. In many cases, it was the only way they could remain in their home
comnunities. This was one of the best advantages of the program p7us the
scattered sites, ��hich doesn't create problem areas of any kind.
Planning Comnission Special Public Hearing Meeting -January 28, 1976 Page 9
Mr. Scott said there have been 'suhs5�izsA �ro�rams that have ca�bed problems
but this Section 8 program doesn't seem to be that type of program. Was there
any evidence that Section 8 was causing any kind oi concentrations that caused
problems with other programs. Ms. Reeves said no and especially with the
Metro program HRS-.�n T3 comnunities and we will be doubling thi5 Program so
that no comnunity have to carrry a large share of the burden. It will be so
spread out that not only will the people in the program have a choice, it
will be spread out over so many comnunities Chat no one community should have
any problem with this program.
Mr. Boardman said that Fridley had recently peen put into a priority I
housing area. How will this affect us as to federal funding for this Section
8 program? Ms. Reeves said that what that means was that Fridley was a first
prio�ity candidacy by having a good level of services and facilities available.
This includes shopping facilities, schools, churches, and all the other things
that make a corrmunity a nice place to live in. We feel that subsidized housing
should be in communities that have convenient locations because people with
less maney probably can't afford to drive as far f:or`.the things that they need. .
Because of this a first priority area was encouraged to provide a good share
of subsidized housing. She said she didn't know what number had been assigned
to Fridley, but that was a relative thing that depended on federal fundin9.
Mr. Boardman said that under the allocatio� plan the number was 248 unTts. Ne
asked how they related to the allocation plan as far as to monies available.
Ms. Reeves said she wasn't sure just what material Mr. Boardman was talkina about
at the moment, but that the number 248 was representativeof the amount.of housing
subsidie"s that could be provided in fridley over a three year period, primarily
through Section 8 rental subsidies or in terms of a new construction subsidized
housing program, or perhaps a combination of the two. This would not include
other types of programs which were not included in this figure. Mr. Boardman
asked if we would be guaranteed that figure if monies were available? Ms.
' Reeves said the$efigures were all dependent upan '12,0�0 units worth of housing
subsidies caning into the Metropolitan area,during 1976 to 1978. This would be
about 4.000 units a year. If that many do come into the Metro area, and we
are hoping that they will, then that will mean if Fridley has applied`for housing
in those numbers, tMat cer�ainly they should receive it. Mr. Boardman asked what
`was: the responsibility of the cort�nunity if those funds were not available.
Ms. Reeves said the number 248 was arri�ed at as a percentage figure.of the
total Metrro areas share. Mr. Boardman said this number was set up on the
basis of if the funds were available then. Ms. Reeves said that was correct.
Ms. Reeves said that first priority.co�nun�ties however, are the most strongly
encouraged to apply for subsidized housing. even in some cases, to apply for
more than your share.
Mr. Scott said he had been looking at the 1976 area plan for programs for
° the ageing under Title III. This plan says a bill proposed by the Minnesota
Ho�sing Finance Agency would set aside $150,000 for the development and marketing
of new housing alternatives for older persons, and if this money was appropriated
during the next leglslative session, area agency staff would provide technical
assistance to those who were working on the designs of these housing alternatives
for older persons. He asked if anyone on the staff of Metro Council had some kind
of a handle on this. Ms. Reeves said she couldn't give a complete answer on this.
We have a separate progrm at the Metro Council called the Agei:ng Program and
that would be the staff that was mentioned. We have taken a number of surveys
on alternate housing for the elderly, but these surveys do not lead to just
one answer, or to one conclusion. She was sure that the City could get assistance
from the Metro Council if thse funds become available for that use.
Planning Comnission Special Public Hearing Meeting-�anuary 28, 1976 Page 10
Mr. Bergman asked Nancy Reeves if when any subsidy funds were applied
to property, if that affected the real estate taxes? Ms. Reeves said that
some subsidized housing programs did have an effect on the tax levy, in fact
every subsidized housing program today, with the exception of Section 8 existing
housing program, has had an effect on the property tax levy. Section 8 housing
remains privately owned and remains on the tax rolls at the full rate, because
the property was not publicly owned in any way and the assistance was assistance
provided to the tenant and not to the owner. In the case of Section 236 multiple
type family subsidized housing, the assessment would be at 50% of the normal
rate. In public housing where the housing was owned by a housing authority
they have what they call a payment in lieu of taxes, which was based on the
rent collected in the building. This generally amounts to a much smaller amount
than what would be collected for the normal tax levy.
Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the monies available for Section 8 housing was used
for rehabilitation of existing housing or was it used for new construction?
Ms. Reeves said it was used for both. She said it was used in three different
ways, and she had discussed mostly the use of Section 8 funds for rent subsidies
KMich had nothing to do with the structure, other than the fact that a structure
used for this subsidy has to be in good condition.and was inspected annually.
Other than that, this was not a new construction program or a rehabilitation
program, however, both of these alternatives are available under a new law. These
have not been used successfully to date, but she understood that they would
continue to try to use these programs. Mrs. Wahlberg said the reason she had
asked this question was because that earlier in the presentation it had been
stated that there were 238 owner occupied uniis and 50 rental units that were
in fair and poor condition. If these were rehabilitated, would they meet then the
Metropolitan Council's allocation plan for somewhere between 200 to 300 units or
were we talking about additional units that the City must bring in to meet the
Metro Council's plan. Mr. Boardman said we were not talking about units per se,
we were talking about subsidies for persons. A lot would depend upon the value
of the structure after it was rehabilitated. Nancy Reeves said that the Metro
Council had a separate allocation plan for'rehab�litation. They are two separate
plans with separate numbers, etc. The 248 units that were designated for Fridley
was for housing subsidies to be provided to people who were currently renting.
housing of some kind. Additional subsidies for rehabilitation would be a
completely separate activity with separate goals, etc., and would not necessarily
be subsidies to the renter or to the haneowner to lower his monthly housing costs.
They would improve the housing in the community but they wouldn't necessarily
make it more affordable. That's the basic difference. They were both worthy goals.
Mr. Langenfeld asked Ms. Reeves if they had noted any movement of people
back into the center City. Ms. Reeves said there was a definite economic imbalance
in the center cities. The more wealthy, more affluent residents tend to leave
the center cities and the lower income people tend to stay, and other low income
people tend to move in. We have seen some indications that this was being
reversed a little bit, but it was not something that was happening in rapid
process.
Mr. Sobiech asked if community residents were given priority in the screening
process for Section 8 subsidized housing? Ms. Reeves said the latest word from
HUD, which provides the funds for this program, was that resident preferences
was something that they would no longer accept in the rules for operating a
housing authority. The program we have right now has no residency preference,
the similar programs that were operating in Minneapolis and St. Paul had no
residency preference, although other City programs do. This Section 8 program
Planning Commission Special Public Hearinq Meeting-January 28, 1976 Page 11
does not, and for that reason we cannot exclude other people from participating
in the program. This was how Fridley people were able to make application in
other cities and why there were three fridley residents in the Coan Rapids
program. However, the way we have been operating our program was to divide
up the 500 units that we have, giving a share to each community, using a formula
which allocates units on the basis of our allocation plan, plus the supply of
rental units available for use under this program, in each of the comnunities.
This share ranged from 15 units foP Robbinsdale to 81 in Brooklyn Park. The way
people are selected for this program was that those who apply in each separate
comnunity are put in a pool for that comnunity. The lowest income people within
each of those pools are selected up to the quota that has been established for
that particular cortmunity. In this way, we do try to protect the interests of
each corrmunity.that was participating in this plan.
Mr. Langenfeld said he thought people in the cortmunity would be interested
in knowing where the funds came from for Section 8 subsidized housing. He said
he knew that it came from the taxpayers, but if this money was available, he
thought the people in Fridley should get their share back to improve their
property.
Nancy Reeves said that as far as where the money came from, it came from
the Federal Treasury. The Metro Council applied to HUD for these funds and
the application was approved on June 30, 1975. This was for a 5 year program
of providing rent subsidies for 500 housing units at any one given period of
time, over a five year period. The total amount of money'in the contract for
this five year program was about six million dollars. This money does come
from the Pederal Treasury through the State office of HUD. Each state has
an office and each state was allocated funds through some magic formula that
the federal government has. That money was in turn split about 50% to the
Metro area and about 50% to the b�lance of the State. Within the Metro area,
different housing authorities were invited to apply and the units allucated
were'based on those who had successful applications for funding. If you are
interested in who did get funding last time around, approximately 8D0 units
were funded. Metro Council got 500 of them on behalf of the 13 communities
who had participated, l00 units went to the City of St. Paul; 50 units went
to Dakota County and their housing authority, and additional units went to
the City of Bfioomington, South St. Paul, Mankato and St. Cloud. We intend to
apply to the federal government for additional funds to expand the program and
to provide this opportunity in many more suburbs this year.
Mr. Langenfeld said then it would be correct to say that monies are
available and that as taxpayers we had contributed our share to these funds and
we should take the opportunity to get this back in the form of rental subsidies.
Nancy Reeves said she couldn't agree more. Mr. Langenfeld said that if we
didn't apply for these funds we good lose out on this available monies. Ms.
Reeves said that many cortmunities did not have the staff or the expertise
needed to get these funds, and although it was not fair, this was the way the
game was played. For this reason, many cormnunities have not had the opportunity
to get their share back. Mr. Langenfeld said that communities can be penalized
on other funding, due to a point system, if they do not apply for certain funds.
Nancy Reeves said she looked at it the other way in that they were rewarded if
they did apply.
Mr. Bergman said he knew this was an awkward question but he asked Ms.
Reeves if to the ex�enf that she knew how the federal system works, �f she would
Planning Comnission Special Public Hearing M�etinq-January 28, 1976 Page 12
care to give any opinion as to what extent a Fridley application for Federal
housirig assistance, at the present time, would have any effect on either present
or future tax requirements? Ms. Reeves said that was a heavy one. Mr. Bergman
said if she would like to pass, that would be alrigfit. Ms. Reeves said she
really didn't feel qualified to answer this question. The only thing she could
say was that appropriations were made by Congress for Section 8 housing program
at a certain level of dollars to be used throughout the country. There have
always been more applications than fundsavailable, so there has never been an
instance where funds have been turned back to the Federal government. If you
were concerned that by Fridley applying for funds would increase the federal
budget, she didn't think that would happen, but on the other hand, Fridley not
applying for ��dexal funds would not lower the federal budget either, because
someone else would get the funds. Mr. Bergman said that in the Metropolitan
Council process did it work in such a fashion that unsatisfied requests affect
the Metropolitan Council's requests for the following year. Mr. Boardman said
he was asking if the demand for funds affects the Metropolitan Council's request
for funds from the federal government. Ms. Reeves said this was true. She said
the number of requests for rent subsidies under the Section 8 program did show
that there was a need for this type of program in the Metro area.
Mr. Langenfeld said he thought that one of the main points that Mr.
Boardman made in his presentation was the fact that our housing could"continue .
to deteriorate. If the City of Fridley did not;apply for these-funds then we
would have to keep up our own comnunity by perhaps drawing out of our own general
funds. By doing that, the individual citizen woul'd have additionat tax d'ollars
used when the money for federal funding programs was already set aside for these
programs. Nancy Reeves said this was not only true in Section 8 housing, but
in terms of rehabilitation and comnunity development funds that were available
both at the federal and state level. There were several pools from which money
can be obtained and she thought that Fridley would be more than eligible to
apply for any of them.
Mrs. Wahlberg said that Ms. Reeves had said there were 13 comnunities
participating in Section 8 housing and they hoped,to double that amount. At
the same time the dollar amount available and the number of applications
available would remain constant, or are you going to double that also. Ms.
Reeves said that would have to be doubled also. Right now we have 13 communities
with 500 units to give out. Those 13 communities were not going to lose any
of those subsidies. We intend to add approximately that many more cortmunities
and to apply to the federal goverment for at least 500 rtare subsidy units, and
perhaps we may be able to get more. In 1976 we intend to apply for s4me_additional
funds to add some much smaller comnunities, communities without staff or the
capability and wouldn't be able to operate a large scale program. It would be
a different type of program entirely. Fridley would be the group where we were
talking about an earlier application. Mrs. Wahlberg said that if there were
76 applicants in Columbia Heights, would it be reasonable to expect that Fridley
Hrould be allocated a similar number. Do we have any idea of how ma�y people we
could help with this type of program. Nancy Reeves said that 76 people did apply
for rent subsidies in Columbia Heights, but the number of units that had been
allocated to Columbia Heights was only about 35. She said the applications had
been running about double as to the number of rental subsidy units available.
For instance there have been about 1,200 applications for the 500 units available:
She said that looking at Fridley being in a first priority area, with a large
number in the allocation plan, coupled with the fact that you have well over
2800 rental units in the comnunity, many of them within the rent l.imfit currently
prescribed for the Section 8 existing housing program, these factors would
Planning Commission Special Public Hearinq Meeting-Januarv 28, 1976 Page 13
lead Ms. Reeves to believe that Fridley would receive a respectable share of
these housing units, if they were participating in this program. She said she
could not make a comnitrt�nt, but she thought it would be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 50 units. She said it was all relative and it would depend
upon the other cokanunities who would be joining this program.
Mr. Scott said he wanted to thank Nancy Reeves for coming to this Public
Hearing on her own time, and he thought she typified the spirit of cooperation
a person can receive when they go to the Metro Council.
Chairman Harris said he had a couple of questions about the survey. He
said that Mr. Boardman said there were 250 households below the poverty level
who were not receiving any public assistance. Mr. Boardman said we had approx-
imately 2.7% of our households who were below poverty level. Of those below
poverty level (2.7%) we have approximately 13 households receiving some �orm of
public assistance. Mr. Harris asked how many households who were above the
poverty level were receiving assistance. Mr. Boardman said this was approximately
2�0 households. Mr. Leek said poverty levels were determined by the size of
the household. Mr. Leek said this public assistance could include aid to
dependent children, so the implications that 240 households were over the poverty
level and receiving some type of public assistance might not impl�y what it
seemed to imply. Mr. Boardman said that all types of public assistance was
included and there were several programs that did not relate to poverty which
were available. He said the point they were trying to make �as that out of
250 households under the poverty level, only 13 were getting some type of public
assistance.
Chairman Harris asked if the 25% figure that was used for the amount of
income that should be spent on rent was gross income or net income. Nancy
Reeves said it was gross income.
Barbara Shea, Vice Chairperson of the Human Resources Commission, said
she would like to state the position of this Commission on the proposed
Comprehensive Housing Plan. "The Fridley Human Resources Commission had reviewed
the Comprehensive Housing Plan. The general feeling is that this plan will
serve the needs of the citizens of this cortanunity very well. The fact that our
elderly population has not increased possibly indicates that it may not be
financially feasible for many of our citizens to remain here while living on a
fixed income. The same criteria would apply to newly marrieds. The cost of
housing units is often not within the reach of many young people, causing them
to go elsewhere. It is the responsibility of the community as a whole to help
these same citizens, some of who helped establish our City and others who would
like to help in building our future, to remain here by providing accessible and
suitable housing. The Human Resources Comnission recommends that renovation of
problem areas begin as soon as possible, and furihery that the City apply for
available funds in order to establish a subsidized housing program. We recommend
that subsidized housing be scattered throughout the City. The Human Resources
Co�nission would like to commend the City Staff for its work on this plan.
We feel that this plan meets the goals and objectives as outlined by the Human
Resource Co�nission and urge implementation as soon as possible."
Mrs. Shea asked why streets in the problem areas had not been repaired?
Mr. Sobiech said they had been repaired under the street repair program, but
when they had been originally improved they were improved to what was known as
a sub-standard section when compared to today's standards of concrete curb and
gutters and blacktop surfacing. In the Hyde Park area, there was a zoning problem
Planning Comnission Special Public Hearinq Meeting-January 28, 1976 Page 14
and we would like to straighten that problem out before going in to makP
improvements. We wouldn't want to put in curb cuts for driveways for single
family residences and apartments when there was a potential that parcels could
be combined into large parcels. This wouldn't fit into the street pattern very
wel�l. In the other area, this was scheduled for street improvement in 1976.
Mrs. Shea asked if there were any houses that should be demolished. Mr.
Boardman said they had 11 houses that were classified in poor condition, 6ut
before we say any of them should be demolished, we would have to take a look
at each house. Mr. Sobiech said there was a difference between habitable and
poor. Just because it was classified as poor in this housing plan did not mean
that it was not habitable. Before something can be demolished, it would have
to be declared an unsafe structure and declared a public nuisance.
Mrs. Wahiberg said the Appeals Commission had discussed this Comprehensive
Housin9 Plan in detail at their last meeting. She said that several of the
questions that had been raised at this meeting had been raised at that meeting.
She thought the consensus of opinion was that the question of the elderly was
of the utmost concern of the Appeals Comnission. It was our feeling that as
a community we should take some positive action towards senior citizen housing.
This was the area that we see as the first goal. The second concern seemed to
be the preservation of our existt�g housing. We were not saying that o�e had
more priority over the other. We saw the two going hand in hand and we would
like to see both programs addressed to, but our main concern was the elderly.
Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Boardman if he was familiar with the Operation Need
Program that took place in Northeast Minneapolis last year? Mr. Boardman said
he wasn't. Mrs. Wahlberg said this was a program was a community project in
which senior citizen and low income housing was identified. These were privately
owned housing units that needed attention. She said she couldn't remember which
group sponsored this, but it was probably more than one group. They went to
painters and paint suppliers, electricians, plumbers, etc., and then they set
aside at least two week ends, and got high school students to participate. They
were taken in car loads to a specific house, and for instance, this entire house
was painted in one day. Mrs. Wahlberg said she was throwing this idea out as
a carmunity concept for something that could be organized within our coimnunity.
Mr. Boardman said this would go along with our concept of getting neighborhoods
involved in their neighborhood. He said organization like this would fit into
this concept also.
Mrs. Wahlberg said it also bothered the Appeals Comnission that when the
Plan talked about providing 200 to 300 units of subsidized housing it gave no
idea where these units were going to go and there was a big difference between
200 units and 300 units. Mr. Boardman said they were not talking about 200 to
300 additional units. We are talking about utiliziny 200 t6 300 either exisiing
units, or as federal funds become available, whether this was 235 programs or
236 programs. We were not necessarily talking about additional units. He said
the 200 to 300 unit figure that was used in the plan was somewhat based on Metro
Council's allocation fi.gure before they came up with the figure of 248. The
Plan was trying to lay out a method of attaining that range. Mrs. Wahlberg said
this 248 figure was based on what? Mr. Leek said it was 6ased on the level of
services available in a comnunity, the num6er of jobs the co�nunity can provide
in relation to its population, access on a transportation route, the need of
families who could use a rent subsidy, and it was also based on the total
population. There were approximately five factors which go into the formulation
of this allocation,that the Metro Council uses. As further clarification, the
200 to 300 dnft figure was based on tBe:fact that there were five proposed
Planning Comnission Special Public Hearing Meeting - January 28, 1976 Page 15
allocation plans just prior to the adoption of Section 8 housing. Those figures
w�re in this range depending upon the number of factors that were used in the
calculations, which was approximately 200 to 300 for the City of Fridley.
Mrs. Wahlberg said that if some of the housing that was rated as fair and
poor was rehabilitated would this go into the 248 figure, if they were rental
units, for instance.
Mr. Boardman said we were looking at two different things that would be
happening, maybe at the same time. We were looking at a preservation Qrogram
in which we can rai'se the quality of some of our poor an� fair housing conditions.
At the same time, we were looking at a subsidized program .�here it might be
possible that some of these units could be utilized in that sub�Tdfized program,
however, there were other e�iSting units within the comnunity that were presently
in good condition that could be used in this subsidized rental program also.
He said that by rehabilitating some of our housing stock, the value could change
from say $18,000 to $25,000 and push it out of the range of the subsidy program.
However, we do have enough other housing units to fill the need for that program.
Mr. Leek said that in additi�on, whether or not a unit can be utilitzed
under the Section 8 program depends upon whether it comes up for rental. If
any of those 200 to 300 units in the City that could be rehabilitated came up
for rental and were in the appropriate range, they could be utilitized, but
if they were owner-oc�upied, �hen they couldn`.t.
Mr. Boardman said then when we were talking about rehabilitation or
preservation of housing stock, we were talking about other programs. One
was to subsidize the Tnterest rate on home improvements, and another program
would give direct grants to people for this same purpose.
Mrs. Wahlberg asked if in this 248 figure if they were talking about
any new construction. Mr. Boardman said they were talking about any existing
construction, any new construction, or any program where we can get subsidies
from the federal goverment. In this case, maybe we were talking about Section
8 funds because Section 8 funds were more readily available. This was an existing
rental program.
Mr. Langenfeld asked how the City could control that the people who needed
assistance got it, and the people who could probably help themselves did not
get this assistance? Mr. Boardman said this was a problem with any program. He
said there would be certain incane limits before they can make application.
He said that information would have to be made readily available so that people
were aware of programs that they could apply for becaase they had such a need.
He said there should be an education program so that people really know what
these programs could do. He said there would be a screening process before the
funds were allocated.
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Boardman to read the goal area and the
objectives for the record.
Mr. Boardman said the goal area for housing was "Provide for and maintain
in the eommunity� without discrimination, a diversity of suitable housing and
living environments for all persons". He then read the five objectives which
are as follows:
1. Assure safe and healthful conditions in all housing and encourage
Planning Carenission Special ?ublic Hearing Meeting - January 28, 1876 Page 16
consideration of the qualities of privacy, comfort and other
amenities.
Mr. Boardman said it had been the concern of the Appeals Comnission
on how these objectives were going to be carried out. When this plan was
adopted, the Ciiy would establish policies or what would be called program
plans. We will take a look at the objective for the co�nunity and our program
plan would be laid out along the lines of what we have in our implementation
section of the plan. These program plans would be initi.ated by City Administration
through the Commissions. Under this first objective, we were currently working
on a housing maintenance code. Tfiis housing maintenance code will be ready to
go with the adoption of the Comprehensive Housing Plan. We will be able to
bring this to the Commission's right after the adoption of this Plan.
2. Encourage programs to provide housing at a cost individuals and
families can afford without compromising essential needs.
Mr. Boardman said that some of the program plans that we were considering
at this time was an application for a Comnunity Development Block Grant-funds.
He said the deadline for this application was March 15, 1976 and hopefully if
this plan was adopted by the Council before that date, we will have our
application in for Cortonunity Development Block Grant funds. Another possibility
for funding would be the Section 8 funds. The application for those funds
would probably come up in early March. If the City Council had adopted this
plan before that time, or gives any indication that they want us to apply for
these funds, we are ready to go on that application.
3. Promote the preservation and upgrading of existing residential housing.
Mr. Boardman said a program plan under this objective wouTd be finding
people for a resource center, probably under the information and referral
service. Another area was something like Mrs. Wahlberg had mentioned earlier,
and that was a self=help-informational center.
4. Promote a sufficient variety of housing to allow all people a housing
choice.
Mr. Boardman said that under this objective we would probably want to
consider our present land use availibilities. This type of program would take
quite some time, but it would eventually satisfy objective Number 4,
5. Incorporate Metro-wide housing development framework policies, where
possible, so as to fulfill the City's role as a Metropolitan neighbor-
hood.
Mr. Boardman said that under this objective we would want to carefully
review what the Metropolitan Council's framework poTicies lay out and where
those policies fit into our community, and implement those policies in our
implementation program.
Mr. Boardman said the goal statement and goal objectives had been
established 6y the Planning Corrmission.
MOTION by Scott, secronded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Corr¢nission
c2ose the Public Hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing
�
P�anning Comnission Special Public Hearing Meetinq - January 28, 1976 Page 17
closed at 9:35 P.M.
Mr. Boardman said that the staff did anticipate that by the next Planning
Commission �eting that we would have the map changes for this plan, and the
Plan would 6e put in order so that the Planning Comnission could adopt the Plan
at their next meeting.
AD30URNMENT:
MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Bergman, that the meetinq be adjorned.
Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the P2anning
Cofineission Special Publia Hearing meeting of:January 28, 1976 adjourned at
9:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�
rothy Ev son, Secretary
,,
� ' /- i.P�7L
-__ _ - -- - - � -�=�2�-?-� ---- -
-----_ _ --_ _ _ _ _ .
- -- - - - _ _ -__ _ _-- --- _-
�� �` _
- -- - - ---_ - ��..,� �`� - -- _ _ - --- --
�_____ . __ __ -- _-- --- __ __ _ ___ _ _ .
- --____��� - - -- - -- - --
--- -- ----------------- ---- - - ___� ---- ----
_-------__. __ _ _ -- - _-----��
__
-_ __ --------- -----
-�'-�-d-� --
------ J --___�
---- - -�...ti
- -- ---��
--- - ----�y�.
.
,9 � �
g
!a-�"�-_
:I'
�-_- -
�-
� v
� r��=-- ---� -- - --- . - -- ----- - - -
-- --- --
-= c w �� -__-C�-..�-�- - -
�?�,.�
G�: -_- -_ __ _, __
� `__ - -__��� -��-��__ - _ �
-
�, C�_ � � as� __��_ ��, _��y- _ _ ,
�- - - --- sss-� ,� �-� �--� _ ��.� t,� -- __ _ �
,��� _ __ _ �°�-��-� ��- _ _ _ __
� ��
��%_ ____ __._�ys�.��_��,�-,�� _ --
_ ---_ ___ .
, �
-�--- __ _ --- - -
,
4
� � �����7�
_ _ � � __
- - . _ _ _ _ - -, ' _ _-- -- -
_����� - - -����'"�"�' _
- -_ _
_ __
-_ __ _
_ _ _. _____
__ - - - �J _- - - - _
__ ___ 1� _ _
�` � � o— a_ ya S.y- ��
- - - - - - -- _ _ -
�� .
- -Z -
_ _ -- - __ S _ Z -- _ __
. _ ---
------- ----- � �� __- -----��-4- �--
_ . _ _ ._ _.
_ __
_ _
__ _ _ _
�