Loading...
PL 01/28/1976 - 30436City of Fridley PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING - JANUARY 28> 1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: � Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Scott, Bergman, Harris, Wahlberg, Langenfeld Members Absent: Peterson Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director Ray Leek, Planning Interne Nancy Reeves, Metropolitan Council Barbara Shea, Vice Chairperson, Human Resources Commission PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED COMPREHENS NE HOUSING PLAN MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, tfiat the Planning Coimnission open the Pub2ic Nearing on the proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, Chairman Xarris opened the Public Xearinq at 7:38 P.M. Mr. Jerrold Boardman, City Planner, gave the following presentation on the Froposed Comprehensive Nousing 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 for housing, there were several things :� thay they were looking for, such as health, security, social relations, status, correnunity faciilites and services, privacy, access and environment. These services are all basic to the quality of life. For this reason, it was impor•tant that we pian for housing. This was the purpose of the Comprehensive Housing Plan. The Compr•ehensive Housing Plan was made up of three areas. The first a:rea was survey and analysis, which was comprised of a survey of existing housing costs, past housing trends, expected fu.ture housing trends, if they • continue like past trends, as well as social-economic conditions in the cominunit�. These, together with the housing goals that have been laid out by the community, are the main thrust in implementing this plan. The implementation process 4vas a very important aspect of the plan. There was no real need for the plan if it couldn't be implemented. To take a closer look at the plan, the first thing that should be discussed was the growth trends in the community. The population gains for Fridley were quite extensive fi�om 195Q to 1960 and up to 1970. We are seeing a leveling off of our population which �•�as similar to what had happened in Columbia Heights where their population peaked out 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 community was maturing. In 1360 the median age in Fridley was 2U.8 and by 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 characteris±ic of a maturing community that toe have #ound was in the eTderly. Although the elderly were increasing at the same rate, this rate �1as 2.1 in 1960 and 2.1 in 1970. We had anticipated a greater rate of growth in the over fi5 age group. �� '—�. Planninq Commission Special Public Hearin�Meeting-Januarv 28, 1476 Page 2 �i� In this Comprehensive Housing Plan there characteristies of Friddey, These map seri.es we are making changes on.the maps to make the shows the percentage of population in block g The largest concentration of the elderly was South of 61st Avenue where about 20% of the pe the elderly were pretty much spread over the are maps showing the social are somewhat confusing , but m more clear. The first map roups 65 years of age or more. � along University Avenue and ople w�re elderly, but actually community in a range of O,to 5%. Another social-economic condition in the community was the poverty lev� . el incomes. We have a map showing where househo9ds below poderty level are located with 0-5% of the population and 5- 10% of the populaiion, tdetro Council has another indication of low and moderate income housinq which " ey use for a lot of their funding review and this was below 50% of the - Metro median i.ncome. There was a:map in this plan showing a breakdown of this giving the areas of 10-2Q% and 20-40Y where incomes were below 50% of the Metro median income levei. 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. �f these 250 households> we on'y have '3 that �,re recei��ing some form er public . assistance. He said this imba7ance could bF becauss some people ��rere nat a�rtare,. ttiat some form of federal assistance was available to them. He said that federal assistance was going to a dispr000rtibnate aribunt of oeople wiih incomes over the poverty level. 250 households abcve the federaily defined poverty level are receiving some form of federal assistance. He said this could include aid to dependent chi7dren 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 25Y of the�ir income for housing. This 25% figure was used for federal funding and by the Metropolitan Counc � and they felt ihat this was the mo"st that s�iould be paid for housing withoui� jeopardizing other needs and wants. When you pay more than 25� of ydur inconie for housing you start cutting down on other essentiai needs of the household. A1so, as far as the incomes below the 50% of the Metropo}itan Area;median incomes, we estimate thai, we have approximately 1,504 households or 16:2% of a71 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 th2 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 broken this down block by block, and this was not by bluck group. We know where our housing units are as far as housing data, whereas our social-economic data was pinpointed in generat 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 possib7y drop. One of the things that affect this was that our family sizes were decreasing. Therefore you need more housiny to maintain the same population level. He said that Chart #4 sho�,+rs our hausing growth from 1975 to 2000 assilming 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 less than the 14,000 housing units t t we shoEV on this chart. Assuning certain development j?ressures and.certain development trends, like whether apartment monies will break loose because o� �� . Planning Commission Special Public Hearing Meeting - January 28, 1976 Page 3 � mor@ monies availabie ar a lotver pe.rcentage 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 approxima�ely 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. This $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 ar�,ur� $20,000. Approximately 1,000 owner-occupied sin�le family units range in a value of less • than $20,000. A high proportion of these are in the �18,000,:$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 dwelling - units currently renting for less than $150 per month. That �vas also ihe bre�k- off range of low and moderate income hous�ing for rental structures. In looking at housing characteristics and housing supp�y, we have four condition levels. � These are new; good, fair and poor. Fair and poor conditions are those housing ; units that need consi�erable work as faN as maintenance arad s��°s��tural damage. � j Poor, the structure aras still habitable, but should be torn down. We have approximately 11 units in the community tha�i were classified as poor. Under . fair we are talking about considerable preferred maintenance or• damage to struc�ture, items b�ginning to show were damaged window frames and sills, floors and th� r�oof �nay be beginning �o sag, and ti�ere has been considerable wear and tear on the str�►cture. On Ghart #5, we have approximately 997 low to moderate ! ati�mer-occupiecl units. Of thpse �ve have approximately 227 units in fair condition iand 11 units in poor condition. This means �there are approximately 759 ur�its in good condition. As far as �the rental struc�ure, we have found some error ��'��- in this. We shoiv i29 lo�v to moderate rentai un9ts, with no units in fair ,�-� -��° condition ar�d no un�ts in paor condition. In ta;king to the City Assessor5 he estimated that about 5% of the rental structures were in fair condition with � nohe in poor condition. This would mean that about 50 rental units dvould be in �ir.condition.and 679 units ir� good cond�tion. We are going to be doing . more checking in to this, but a11 the rec�rds are at Anok� County,'but he- , thought the figure g-iven to them by the assessor should be preti:y accurate. We have a map sho�ti�ing where the highest percentage of residential structures in fair and poor con�ition are located. Ano�her characteris�tic of housing which we have to correlate with the four conditions of housing, n�w, good, fair and poor was the age of the structure. We have maps in�this pian.sho4ring the loca�L�on of structures by age. Most of the I�ousing struc�ures in the�City are 'r.ela�ively new housing. 65% of our housing was in the 0 i:o 2G years old range. About 20% to 40% of our housing was in to 20 to 30 year range. Age charac�eristics of housing has close_ carrelation to fair and poor cond�tions. The nex� classification of housing by agQ was for housing o��er 3U years old. We are talking abo�rt 5°ro io 20% in this area. Another thing we look at when we lool: at present and past characteristics of housing was what was happening in the core City and what was happeni�ng in Columbia Heights, and how all of this r°elates to Fridley. Fr•idley I-�as to 1o�k careful1y at pasi: happenings and trends in Colui��bia Heights and Northeast Minneapolis in order to get an idea of what kind of trends will be affecting r.. ,;�i us. lJe have tak�n a look at Columbia Heiyhts� quite cao�efully and have found �,�"� that Columbia Heights, about 10 years agoy had many of the characteristics that �� " Fridley w�s showing in some of .its areas today. Columbia Heiyhi:s population has leveled off, Lhey have ,tarted to drop in population, the po�ulation has matured ,. ,�,�..� Planning Commission Special Public Heariny Mee�ing�- January 28, 1976:Page 4� at somewhat a faster rate than FridlQy. This started in t�ortheast Minneapolis approximately 15 years ago. This characteristic that started in Northea�,#�;�..,�ti� Minneapolis, happened in:Columbia Heights, and was now starting to happE Y.,_ i� 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 b�sically follow di�'ferent planning theories such as the concentric ring theory, which refers to zonal rings when a certain level of population was reached, and the housing level reaches a certain point, they are compazible 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 a.nd �?utting it together, we can see some areas where this was happening. We call these primary focus areas. We have basically three areas ��here these c�ndi�ions are starting to affect the housing. The first area was what was known as th�e Hyde Parb: Area. We do have some special problems in this aNea because some of the residential areas have been zoned to commercial, and was r��t being develope� as commercial �ss�e. There was quite a mix.tur.e af � housing types in this area, such �s 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 �ti�as in fair condition and there are �trends of deter- ioration. The nexi ��°imary focus area ►aas the Riverview Heights area. There are special problems with this area also because part of it was in the flood � plain..Potential developmen� was being curtail.ed as far as development in the flood plain area. Anather notential area was in the Plymouih area in ihe southern part of Fririley. This was once a nart uf Columbia Neights and the housing in this area �r�r�s characteristic of the housing in Calumbia Heights: T�i� h�using stock was built when �olumbia Heights was developing. .._. _ �' � In looking at the survey �.nd analysis in this plan, we have to say what � does this mean and wi��t �Nas happening. ir!� can come up with certain implications if the City contii7�e� in the tf°end that it was going. The City was maturing. Our population was growing oider. We have seen a decrease in our population between 0 to 18 years and an increase in our populatior� between the ages of � 18 to 65. Presently we are n�t showing an increase in the elderly, 65 years and oldet^. This was probabl,y due to several reasons. We may not be providing enough housing opportunities to make it pos5ible for elderly residents to remain in the community. Another factor� could be a::cessib�iity for the elderly. If services . were not readily avail�ble for the elderly, they generally have to mave to where � the services areo He said there v�ere more elderly moving to Columbia Heights from Fridley than 'chere 4Nere elderly moving from the core City into Columbia Heighis, because Co7umbia Hrights has a pre�ty good program as far as fc�nding for the elderly. We do see an out-migration of residents over 65 years old frorn Fridley. Another imnlication ��ras that there may be a need for some kind of an aid forlow and mo�et°a'ce income �e�p1e that were presently living in Fridley. 1'here were apr�rox�im�tely 1,488 units in the low and moderate income ranges tbat are actually habit�ble units. 759 of these units were owner-occupie� and 729 are�rental units. 226 �f th� aw�er-occupied units are in the primary focus areas that.have beenp�°eviuusle descriued. At iche saire time there were approximaic�ly 1,504 houset-�cl:!s vri th . i nc�n�ES below the 50% of the Metropol i tan mean income. Although the figutpes close as -rar as the �units available and the numb�r of ho�sehc►lds �hat were in need of those types of units, it seems tha �� those househol cis were not � i vi ng i n those �.ani ts . We do Izave a hi gh pe :� ==�, of t{�os� peopl e 4vh�se i nco►ne vras bel ow the 50°o me �r�pol i tan medi an fam�� � y>, �:.,�,.•:: level that were paying more that� 2590 of theit° income for rent�:l units. There-fore, the Metro Council �stimates of close to �00 to 300 subsidized housing units are �,-:�::� -- Planning Commission Special Public Hearinq Meetinq- January 28, 1976 Page 5 fairly accurate as to what the cor�nunity could absorb. Another indicati.on of this was the information we have received on the number of households that �s were actually receiving some type of federal aad. There were only 13 households �� below t��e 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. ^�-��,' °"�`-r - _ _�=� 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 p 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 going, 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 � wi 11 hope ,�al ly be a v � abl e prograr� that coul d be fo11 owed, and � i f i� was -'� � followed would carry out the objective of the hausing 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 formulati�n. The recommendations tha� were made in the plan were made before the Planning Commission� established the �otal goal area, therefore ichere will be some changes in the ; implementation section. There was nothing in the plan to implement the fifth ��objective which was to incorporate �etrozwide housing development framework policies, where possible, so as to fulfill �Ehe Ciiy's role as a Metropolitan neighborhood. No type of implementation for this objeciive was in this pla�. Since the housing stock in our.comm�nity was in relatively good condition, what we were talking about was a low percentage figure as �o fair and poor housing conditions. Therefore, our primary effort was for housing preservation. There were several ways to go as �ar 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 carr be involved. Another thing the City can do was �ublic improvement. This would include updating street lighting, curbing, and just general street maintenance adds to a community. A neighborhood 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 recommendation was to continue the development of the bikeway-walkway system to increase accessibility between residential neighborhoods. This particular recommendation should be expanded to includE other means of accessibility and not limit it to the bikeway-walkway system. There was also a recommendation that the City be the prime mover in developing a resource center on housing maintenance�and rehabilitation. This resource center could probably be hand7ed ihrough the infotmation and referral service. This would provide the r+ames, phone numbers and other '. of information for people who were inte�^es�ed in rehabilitating or remodeling their homes. T,�is was�taluable information that they presently do not have. Another thing that the City could make available were workshops�on home improvements which could be giv�n by our building � inspec�ors. This would allow people to come in and understand what the City codes were and wh�t the building codes were all at�out. These recommendati�ns are all important as far as preservation of housing units. -� .,��.-�-F . t . . . . `'Y Planning Comm�ssion Special Public Hearin9 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 c,f these was Community Development Funds, which was a block grant prograrn. f�losi of the funds that were availat,�� through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that were avi. a�. � three or four years ago have now been grouped into one block grant. The commun. could use this money as leverage money for local lending institutions, which would be the sar��e 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 improvP the City as a whole. Another source of monies available for remodeling and . neighborhood�preservatic,n would be the f�linnesota Housing Finance Agency, which were subsidies ��n bank interest rates. Tk�is would save the applicant 2 to 3% on home improvement loaris... Another area of .funding that would be available would be undei° Section 8 rent subsidy program. This would be direct rental subsidy to �ersons. Before this time, a lot of rental subsidies went to housing units. The total a�ter effect of that type of program was a lot of �� �slum areas, or a concen�tratian of low.income ho�tsi_ng: There was �a lc::t ofi •probler�s. with this. Under the new program they were subsidizing people and this-would make units available throughout the entire community: People with low to moderate • incomes can find places to live throughout the community with these ren� subsidies. i'here are several alternatives for applying for Section 8 funds. One alternative was to do this through our own Housing and Redevelopment Authority, or else contrac� with Metro Cauncil ar�d 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 �vith Metro Council and let them do the accounting procedures, the applicatian prc�cedures and the screening. The_o,,,��,� thing we would do on this v,rould be the inspection of the units, or we coul con�ract wi�h Metro Council f�r makir�g application and handling accauntinq procedures. The City Staff t��ould make �he necessary client contact, p�Qvide � a lay out of housing units available for Section 8 funds and also make the inspections. For code revision and policy formula�ion, the City should re-evaluate their: current land usage in_order to determine if we have an adequate balance between commercial-industrial and residential �a�d use. This was very important. Ano�her 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> Ano�her recommendatio� was��hat the City continually look for new federal, state and local programs the community could use for the preservatiori of housing along with aid programs. Something that cou1d be added to this pian was to determine the social impact of housing on the community. This could be studied as one of the implementation.procedures of the plan as well as taking a look at Metropolitan Council's develc,pment framework policies on housing to see how well these p�licies could-be implemented in our plan. ' Mr. Boardmai� said he would answer any questions anyone had or. this plan. Mr. Sco-�t �aid the Human Resources Cammission was concerned that the�_� � citizens be info rn�ed of the programs ancl policies of this plan and in thi� ''�1 regard they had invited Nancy Reeves o�' the Metro CQUncil Nousing Divis�oi� - to present some fiacts about housing subsidies and statistics her office has -- ,�-,��� �<< :< .�:_._ c �J �v ` Planning Commission Special Pub�ic Hearing Meeting-January 28, 1976 Page 7 gathered concerning these facts. He would like to have her called on to explain ' Yn layman's terms, what some of these subsidy programs are and the results her �-j` office has achieved from them in the Metro area and areas around our community. ` She will also be available to answer questions from the audience. ,''-�,..r•-, - .-�� � r�,�-- . K-�- 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 avaia.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 families or the elderly are�able to live in this building. This buildin� 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 miyht be a bui}ding fot° families, or primarily fo:� 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 b�en tried before, at least not on the scale that it was being done now, and that was what was currently known as Seciion 8. It provides under this program for a scattered side approach for subsidiz�d housing, both for the elderly and for families. FQr 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 housiny unit on its own. It doesn't direc�c them to a single identi�i- able building. It provides for scat�ered sites within a community rather than impaction withir certain neighborhoods of iow income 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 communities to use. Mr. Scott asked Nancy Reeves a couple of questions on subsidized housing. He asked if anyone from Soviet Russia or Communist China had made application for assistance.. Ms. Reeves said not in this area. Mr. Scott sa.id then it was safe to assume that they vlould all be Americans who applied for this assistance. Mr. Scott said tl�at Columbia Heights had Section 8 housing and he wond�red 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 program was going. She said that over all they had 13 communities participating in the program. Overall there h�ve been about 1200 people that have applied for this programs including 76 ap�licants in Columbia Heights and 52 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 from the ir.ner City. Ms. Reeves said tha� Colurnbia Heights had three applications from the center City and Coon Rapids had none. Mr. Scott asked how many people from Fridley applied? 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 apply for Section 8 subsidized housing. Ms. Reeves said we have'had some applications from the center City for the program, but as she mentioned before, there were already 13 communities with Section 8 subsidized housing, and within a few months there wi11 probably be 13 more communities participating in the program. So far, no community has been impacted with center City residents. In fa�i: �he total number � Planning Com mssion Special Public Hearing Meeting-January_ 28, 1976 Pa e�__ 8 e ter-Cit residen�s who have been able to participate in this program � ofcn Y � right now in the suburban areas was about 32. reason he was asking these questions because it had ���- Mr. Scott said the come up in this community that if N!e have subsidized housing,�all the derelicts from the center-Ci.ty were.going to come ou-t ta Fridley when in fact your fiigures ,� � indicate that this was not true. What was resulting was that Fridley residents were leaving Fridley to go to the communities that they could afford to live in. Ms. Reeves said this was happening in other communities that did not have this program. Mr. Boardman said that.h� had received a bulletin from HJD in the recent ; past in which it stated �that the 235 program.�°she bouldaexpbainbthatnpr gramerent � form than in the past. Ne asked Ms. Reeves i g Ms. Reeves said that the 235 program was one she didn't mention because it was � not curren�ly in effect, biat it ��ill be in a somewhat modified form in effect This; i n the near fitture. Thi s wasta m�C �e e� �pl e an Ther�ncomef 1 imhtsewoul drbe� p• �= would b� primarily fo, madera..e P relatively high for 'chis program. It v��ou��d be an �nLerest su6sidy so that:�eopie u buying a home would probably pay a 5%_in�:erest rate and a lower than average c down payment. Mr. Boardman said this ��ould be similar ico the rental subsidy F program only �t would be ir�terest subsidy for home owners. Ms. Reeves said �. that this generally would be administered by hous�eveloeedl�butSforInewlhous�ng �I be able to be used for housing that was already. P � that was about to be put o!� thesma��fice�`�ouldhberharid1ingtthisaprogramve1Shers. Mr. Boardman asked if Ms. Reeve said no, this would be handled through the developers. ��� Mrs. Wahlberg said zhat N�se1nee1�SCaiunbiaeHeigh�s.�fShe gavetthenfigure of applicants for Section 8 hous g . lied? af 3 from the inner-City. How many were from OneUSetaweregof�allatheppeople �; Ms. Reeves said she had two sets o�r f�gures. �ied who were that applied, and the other set was ttiat of those ihat app � currently getting assistance. We onlb have a. 500 unit program and �ee0ale who assist eveyone who applies. For this rea.son we do not �now how many p P � have applied from Fridley -�or these p•rograms in Columbia Heights and Coon Rapids, ; we only know that three peop��e frome�rNhere all the peoplegwerelfromcthat applied � Rapids. She said she couldn t answ � in Columbia�Heights because many o� �he applicat'i�ns were in the various process � stages. She said that cur�rently therelara�e7fpompColumbia�HeightsvinThree1ofance � in Columbia Heights, and of these 17, ( them were from Minneap�lis and of�theusubu�rbs tha�t�wereCparticPpatinghinpthgsam ` does allow them to move to any � program so they do mo�ee around a little. Nancy Reeves said ther� were ger.erally two age groups tha't applied for this program. Either its people who have grown up in a communiiy and suddenly are out on their own and are setting up house�o�`ds�andnfin�d itstpeoplecwhot�areford to live in the community that they have g I fi'inally growing old and their incom� �he 9�4�P d0ved inhallmtheirclives.1oThese afford to live in the commun�ty tha y i� �or assistance under this are the two primary groups who have been a�p�y� 9 program. In many cases, it was thbestladvantages ofutherprogramn�lus�theome `� communities. This was one of the scattered sites, �whic{� doesn't create nroblem are�s of any kind. �-� Planning Commission Special Public Hearing Meeting -January 28, 1976 Pa e 9 Mr. Scott said there have been subsi�ized �ro�rams that have cau�ed 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 of concentrations that caused problems�with other programs. Ms. Reeves said no and especially with the Metro program HRS �n 13 communities and we will be doubling this� program so that no community 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 communities that no one community should have any problem with this program. Mr. Boardman said that Eridley had recently �een 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 priority candidacy by having a good level of services and facilities available. Thi� includes shopping facilities, schools,"churches, and all the other things that make a community a nice place to live in. We feel that subsidized housing should be in communities that have convenient locations because people with . less money probably can't afford to dri✓e as.far,f.or`..the thangs 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 tha�t d�pended on federal funding. Mr. Boardman said that under the allocation plan the number was 248 units. He 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 talkinq about at the moment, but that the �umber 248 was rearesentati�eof the amount,of housing subsidie"s that could be provided in Fridley over a three year period, primarily through Section 8 rent�l subsidies or in terms of a new construction subsidized �""` housing program9 or perhaps a combination of the two. This would not include _ � o other types of programs which were not included in this figure. Mr. Boardman � asked i�F we would be guaranteed that figure if monies were available? Ms., Reeves said the�efigures were all dependent upon �12,000 units worth of housing subsidies coming 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 �re hoping that they will; then that will mean if Fridley has applied for housing in those numbers, that certainly they should receive it. Mr. Boardman asked Nfhat was. the responsibility of the community if those funds were not available. Ms. Reeves said the number 243 was arrived at as a percentage figure.of the total P1e#ro areas share. Mr. Boardman said this number 4vas se� up on the basis of if the funds were available then. Ms. Reeves�said that was correct. Ms. Reeves said that �irst priority communities 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 far programs ror the ageing under Title III. This plan says a 6�i11 propased by the Minnesota Housing 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 legislative session, area agency staff would provide�technical assistance to those who were working on the designs of i:hese 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 ti�is. We have a separate progrm at the Metro Council�called the Ageing Program and r'``---�J_ 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. . �- �¢.-� �- a Planning Commission Special Public Nearing Meeting-January 28, 1976 Page 10 Mr. Bergman asked Nancy P.eeves 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 pi°ogram today, with the exception of Section 8 existin5 housing program, has had an effect on the property tax levy. Section 8 housing remains privately owned and i�emains 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 �he oGVner. 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 co.11ected ;n the bu�lding. This generally amounts to a much smaller amount than what would be collected for the normal tax levy. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the monies a��ailable for Section 8 housing was used for rehabilitation �f existing housing or was it used for new construction? Ms. Reeves said it was used for both. She said i� was used in three different waysy and.�he had discussed �os�ly the use of SECtion 8 funds ffl r rent subsidies ��ich•had nothing to do with th� struct�re9 other than the fact that a structur� used for this subsidy nas �o be in good condition.and was inspected annually. Other than that, this was no�� 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. �rs. Wahlberg said the reason she had ' asked this question was because that eariier in the presentation it had been stated that there were 238 owner occupied units and 50 rental units that were in fair and poor cor�dition. If these were rehabilita�ed, woulu they meet then tfie Me�ropoli�an Council`s aliccaiZ�� p7an i�7r sam�wh�re be�ween 200 to 300 uni4�`'"=�1 were we talking abou� �dditicnal units that the City must bring in to meet tne Metro Counci�°s plan. Mr. Boardman said we were not talking about units per se, . we were talking a�out subsidies for persons. A lot would depend upon the value of ihe structure after it was rehabi1�itaied. Na�cy Reeves said that the Meiro Council had a separate alloca�ion plan for'rehabilitation. They are two separa�e plans wi�h separate numbers, etc. The 248 units that were designa�ed for Fridley ; was for housing subsidies to be provided to people who were currently renting. housing of same kind. Addi�ion�l si�bsidies for rehabilitation would be a completely se�arate activity arith separate goais, etc., and would �ot necessarily be subsidies to t��e renter or to the homeowner to lower his monthly housing costs. They wo�ld improve the housin,y in the community but they wouldn`t neeessarily make it more affordable. That's the basic difference. They were both worthy goals. Mr. Langenfel� asked Ms. Reeves if they had noted any movem�nt of pe•ople back it�to the cer�ter City. Ms. Reeves said there was a definite economic iri�balance in �he center cities. The m�re wealth,y, more affluent residents tend to leave tl�ie center cities and i:he lower income people tend to stay, and qther low income people tend to �nove in.� We have seen so�re indications that this was being reversed a little bit, but i� was not samething that was happening ir� rapid process. . " Mr•. Sobiech asked if community° r�esidents were given priority in the screening process far Secti�n 8 subsidized housing? f�s. Reeves sa.id the latest word from. HUD, which pravides the funds for this �rogram, was that resident preferences was something t�at they wo�ld no longer accept in the rules for cperating a:,�,,� housing authority. The program we ha��� i�ight now has no residency preferer:�,.�, the siroilar progra�ns that wcre opei°ating in Minneaaolis an� St. P3u1 had no residency preference, althou�h other City programs do. This Section 8 program ��..� Planning Commission Special Public Hearing 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 Codn 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 communities. This share ranged from 15 units fo'r Robbinsdale to 81 in Brooklyn Park. The way people are selected for this program was that those who apply in each separate � community are put in a pool for that community. The lowest income people witfiin each of those pools are selected up to the quota that has been established for � that particular community. In this way, we do try to protect the interests of each community that was participating in this plan. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought people i,n the community 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 applicatio�i was approved on June 30, 197�. This was for a 5 year program of providing rent subsidies �or 500 housing units at any one given period ef ' time, over a five year period. The total amount of money�in the contract for ' this five year prograrn was a�out six million dollars. This money does come from the Federal Treasury thro«gh the State office of HUD. Each state has ^� an office and.each state was allocated funds through some magic formula �hat ��" the federal government has. That money was in turn split about 50% to the � Metro area and abcut 5�% to the balance of the State. Within the Metro area, . different housing authorities were invited to apply and the units all�cated- were'based on those who had successful applications for funding. If you are interested in who did get funding last time around, approximately 800 units were funded. Metro Council got 500 of them on behalf of the 13 communities who had participated, 100 units went to the City of St. Pau1; 50 units went to Dakota County and their housing authority, and additional units went to the City of Bloomington, South St. Paul, Mankato and St. Cloud. We intend to , apply to the federal qovernment for additional funds to expand the program and to provide this opportunity in many more suburbs this year. � Mr. Langenfel� said then it would be correct to say that monies are available and that as taxpayers we had contributed our sh�re 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. Langenf�ld sai� that if we didn't apply for these f�ands we g�od lose out on this available monies. Ms. Reeves said that many communi�ies did not have the staff or the expertise needed to get these funds, and although it was not fair, this was the way ihe game was played. Foi° this reason, many communities 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, -i� -they do not apply for certain funds. Nar,cy Reeves said she looked at it the other way in that they were rewarded ir they did apply. � �; - - - �,_;:� Mr. Bergman said he knew this was an awkward question but he asked Ms. Reeves i-f 'co the extent that she knew how the federal system wor.ks, if she would ..�..., � .� . �. �--r-. �� �- Planning Commission Special Public Hearing.Meeting-Jarauary 28, 1976 Page 12 care to give any opinion as ta what extent a Fridley application for Federal housirig assistance, at the pt°esent time, would have any effect on either pres�-n� or future tax requirements? Ms. Reeves said that was a heavy one. Mr. Bergm�. `�--- said if she would like to pass, that wou7d be alriglit. 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 housin� program at a certain level of dollars to be used throughout the country. There have always been more applicatlons than fundsavailable, so there has never been an instance where funds have ��en 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 thai would happen, but on the other hand, Fridley not � applying for Fede�^al funds would not loa�ter the,federal budget �ither, because someone else would get the funds. Mr. Bergman said that in the Metropolitan Council process did it work in such a iashion that unsatisfied requests affect the Metropoiitan 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 fiederal government. Ms. Reeves �said this was true. She said the number of requests �'or ren�t subsid�ies unper.•.the Section 8 progra�i did= show : that there was a need for this type of program�in the Metro area. j Mr. Langenfeld said he thought tha� one of t{�e main points ihat Mr. Boardman madE in his presentatian was the fa�t that our housing could�contir�ue _ to deteriorate. If�the City of Fridle;� did not apply for these funds then we w�uld have �o keep up our o�m community by perhaps drawing out of our own general funds. By doing that, the individual citizen would have additional tax d'ollars used when the money foti° 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 ancl community deve�opment funds that were avaiiaGi�� both at �he federal and state level. There were several pools frrom which money can be obtained and she thought that Fridley would �e niore than eligible to apply for any of �them. Mrs. Wahlberg said that Ms. Reeves had said there were 13 communities � participating in Section 8 housing and'they hoped,tu double that amount. At � the same time �the dollar amoun�t available and the number of applications available would remain constant, or are you going to do.�ble that also. Ms. Reeves said that wauld have to be doubied also. Right now we have 13 communities with 500 units to give out. Those 13 communities were nat goiny to lose any . of those subsidies. We intend to add ap�roximately -tha�t many more communities and to apply to the federal goverment for at least 500 more subsidy units, and � perhaps we may be able to get more. In 1976 we intend to apply for some additional funds to add some much smaller communitics, communities without staff or the � capability and wouldn't be able �o operate a large scale program. I� 4+ould be a di fferen-� type of program e��i.i rely . Fri dl ey woul d be the group ►�hcre vre wet°e talking about an earlier application. Mrs. Wahlberg said that i� thcre arere 76 applicants in Columbia Heights, wouid it be reasonable t� expect thai Fridley v�o�ald be allocated a similar�number. Do we have any idea of how many people we rould help with this type of program. Nancy Reeves said that 75 peoPle did apply for rent �ubsidies in Columb��a Heights9 but the-number of uniis tfiat had been � allocated to Columbia� Heights was only about 35. She said the applicatic�ns had . been running about double as ta the number of rental sut�sidy uni�s .�vai1�bi�. For instance there have �een about 1,200 applications for the 500 uniCs a��r�ilable. She said that loo�ing at Fridley being in a first priority �:rea� ti�ith �a 1,,r��� ' number in the allocation plar�s ca�apled ��rif:h the fact that you have ►�r��ll e�c��-' 2800 rental units in the comn�un�ty, many of them tvithin the rcr�i 'ir.�it currc;�t�y prescribed for the Section 8 existing huusing proc�ram, these factor� �ould -���. [ �"Y �`` Planning Commission Special Pub]ic Hearing Meeting-January 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 commitment, but she thought it would be somewhere in the �� neighborhood of 50 units. Sh� said it was all relative and it would depend upon the other co�nmunities 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 pove.rty level wiio 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 h�low poverty level (2.7%) we have approximately 13 households receiving some form of public assistance. Mr. Harris asked how many households who were above the poverty level were rece�iving assistance. Mr. Boardman said this was approximately 2�0 households. Mr. Leek said poverl:y leve7s were deterrnined 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 imply 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 wa�:that out of 250 households under the poverty level, only 13 were getting some t�pe of public assistance. �'+� Chairman Harris asked if the 25% figure that was used -�or ��he amount o�F �'�a-� 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 community very well. The fact that our elderly populatiori has na� increased possibly indicates that i� 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 tliesesame 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 suitab.le housing. The Human Resources Corr�nission recommends that renovation of problem areas begin as soon as possible, and further; 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 Commission would like to commend the City Staff for its work on this plan. 6Je feel that this plan meets the goals and objectives as outlined by the Human Resource Commission and urge implementation as soon as possible." � Mrs. Shea asked why streets in tt�e problem areas had not been repaired? �""'���_- Mr. Sobiech said they had been repaired under the street repair program, but �`�'`` when they had been originally impraved 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 -.�.-�--r , Planning Commission Special Public Hearing MePting-January 28, 1976 Page 14 and ��e would like to straighten that problem"�u� before going in to makp �,` - improvements. We wouldn't want to put in curb cuts for�driveways for single �- family residences and apar�ments when there was a potential that�par.cels could- be combined into large parcels. This wouldn't fit into the street pattern very well. In the other area, this was scheduled for street improvement in 1976.. � Mrs. Shea asked if there a�ere any houses that should be demolished. Mr. Boardman said they had 11 houses that were classified in poor condition, but 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-c1assified as poor in this.housing plan did not mean that it was no� habitable. Before something �an be demolished, it would have to be declared an unsafe structure and declared a public nuisance. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals Commission had discussed this ComprehensZVe ; Nousing Plan in detail at their las� meeting. She said that several of the questions �hat�had been rais�� at this ;eeting had been raised at th�t.meeting.. . She thought the consensus of ��inion was t�at the question of the elderly was of the utmost co�cern of the Appea1s Commission. It was our feeling that as a community we should take seme positive action towards senior citizen housing. This was the area th«t we see as the first goal. The second concern seemed to be the preservation of our existing housing. We were not saying that one had more priority over the othero We saw thp two going hand in hand and we would like to see both programs addressed �o, 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 Nor�heast hi�n�eapolis last year? Mr. Boardman sa�id he was�'t.- Mrs. Wahlbery s��;� this was a pr�g•ram �1as a community project ir-;�� which senior citizen and iov,� income hous�ng was iden�ified. These were priva�ce�y owned housing units that needed atteniion. She said she couldn'� remember wni�h group sponsored this, but i� was probabiy more �han one group. They went to painters and paint suppliers, electrici�.ris, 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 house9 and for instance, this entire house was painted in one day. Mrs. Wahlberq said she was throwing this idea aut as a community concept for some�th�nn ihat �ould t�e organized within our community. Mr. Boardman said this would go�along wi�h our concept of getting neighborhoods involved in their neighborhbod. He said organ�zation like this wou�d fit into this concept also. � � Mrs. Wahlberg said it alsa bothered the Appeals Commission that when the Plan talked about providinc� 200 ta 300 units of s�absidized housing 7t gave no idea where �hese units were going to go and ihere was a big difference between 200 units and 300 units. Mr. Bo3rdman said they w�re n�t talking about 200 to I, 300 additional units. We are talking about utilizing 20G to 300 either exis�ing 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 figur� that was used in the plan ��vas somewhat based, on Metro Council's allocation figure before they came up with the figure of 248. The Plan was trying to lay out a mei:.hod of aictaining Lhat range. Mrs. Wahlberg said . this 248 figure was based an what? fJr. Leek said it was based on the level of services available in a com�nianity, the number.of jobs the community can provide in relation�to its population, access on a transportation route, the need c�:..--� families who.could use a rent subsidy, and it was also based on the total' population. There were apprai;�imateiy �°':ve factors whic,i go into the formulation of this allocation.,that the Metro Coancil ases. As further clarification, the 200 to 300 unit figure was bascd on th� fact that there were five proposed Planninq Commission Special Public Hearing Meeting - January 28, 1976 Page 15_ allocation plans just prior to the adoption of Section 8 housing. Those figures �- were i� this range depending upon the number of factors that ��ere used in �he ' 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, fo.r 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 program in which we can raise the quality of some of our poor an� fair housing conditions. At the same time. we were iooking at a subsidized program ,rher� �t might be possible that some of these units could be utZlized in that sub�idized program, however, there wei°e other eaisting units within the community that were presently in good condition tha� 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 housir:1� uni�s to fill the n�ed for that program. � Mr. Leek said that in addition, 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, bu� if they were owner-oc�upi.ed, ihen they couldn't. Mr. Boardman said then when we were talking about rehabilitation or r,..� preservation of housing stock, we were talking about other programs. One ��_,�, was to subsidize tr�e interes�� ra�e on home irnprovements, and another program r would give direct grants �to peop7e for this same purpose. , Mrs. Wahlberg asked if in this 248 figure if they were talking about any new constructian. Mr. Boardman said they were talking about any existing construction, any new construction, or any orogram 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. Langenf�ld a�ked how the City could control that the people who needed assistance got it, and the people who could probably help themselves did not get �his assistance? Mr.�Boardman said this was a problem with any program. He said there would be certain income 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 coul.d 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 �� in the eorununity, without discrimination, living environments for al'I persons". He ` � are as follows: housing was "Provide for and maintain a diversity of suitable housing and then read the five objectives which 1. Assure safe and healthful conditions in all housing and encourage �` °� � Planning Con�mission Special Public Nearing Meet�ng - January 28, 1976 Page �1� considera��on of the qualities of �ri_vacy, comfort and other amenities. � �� Mr. Boardman said it had been the concern of the Appeals Commission . on how these objectives were going to be carried out. When this plan was ' adopted, the City wouid establish policies or what would be called program plans. We will take a look a� the abjec�ive for the community and our program plan would be laid ou� along tne lines of what we have in our implementation ' secLion of the plan. These program plans would be initi.�ted by City Administratio � through the Commissions. Under this first objective, we were currently working on a hous�ng maintenance code. This h�using maintenance code t�aill be ready to go wit� the adoption of the Compreher�si��e Housing Plan. We will be able to bring this to �t�e GoRirnission's righi: af�er tI�P adoption of this Plan. 2. Encourage programs to pravide housing at a cost individuals and famili�s can afford 4v�ithou� compromising essential needs. Mr. �oardm��� sai d tha� some of th� �ra��ram pl a•r�s that we were cons.i.d.eri ng at this time was an applica�:i�n for a Community Development 61ock Grant funds. He said the deadline for �chis application was March 15, 1976 and hopefully if this plan was adopted by the Co�mci� before that date, we will h�v� our application in �or Com�iunity Qeveiopment Bloc.k Grant funds. Another possibility �for fund�ing aaould be the Section 8 f�nds. rhe application for ihose funds would Frobably come up i� early March. T-� ihe City Council had adopted thls plan before that time, or g��es any ind�cation that they want us �o apply for these runds, we a.re ready t� go on that applicati�n. 3. Promo{e the preservat;on an� upgra�ing of existing resiciential ho�.�s."`�� Mr. Boar�dr��a� said a program pla�n under• this objective would be finding �eople for � reso«rce cQnter, probably �ander the inforr�ation and referral servi ce. Anoti�er area �ti�as somethi r�g 1 i ke i�rs . Wah7 ber� had men�i oned earl i er , and that v�as a self-help�informational cen�er. �. Promote a suffici��zt var�eiy af housing to allow all people a housing choice. . Mr. Boardman said tl�at u�der this objective we would probably wan� to . consiuer our pr�es�n� land �s� availibi3ities. This type of pr�ogram would take quit� same tir�e, but it wouid eden�ualiy satisfy objective Number 4, 5. Tncorporate P��ira-wide housir�; dev�lopment framework policies,�where possi bl e, so as •co f�ai fi 1 i tt�e Ci iy's role as a Metropol i tan nei ghbor- hood. Mr. Boardman said tha� under �his abjective w� would want ta carefully review what th� fletropol �i tar� C�unc�� 1's rramework po? i ci es 1 ay out and wr�ere �{�r5e polici�es fit into our c�mmuni�ys� and implenient those policies in our implemen�atir;n pr°vgran�. Mr. Baardman said the go�� st�teme;�� and goal obje�ctives had been established ►.�y the Plannina Commissian. � %.._.� M02'ION by Scott, se.ccnded by Lan_qcnfeldi that the Planning Commission � close the Pnblic Hearing on �12e ,nz-oposed Compr•vherisiv� Housing Plan. Upon a voice vote, a11 voi:ing aye, C1��irmarz Iiarris declared the Public Hearing `tia�_- —� " ,_ Planning Commission 5pecial Public Hearing Me�ting - January 28, 1976 Page.11,, closed at 9:35 P.M. Mr. Boardman said that the staff Commission meeting that we would have Plan would be put in order so that the at their.next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: did anticipate that by the next Planning the map changes for this plan, and the Plan►iing Comroission could adopt the Plan ' � MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjornede Upon a voice voL-e, aIl voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning '- Commission Special Public Heariny meeting of �7'anua��.28, 1976 adjourned at 9:40 P.1�1. ;�. . Respectfully submitted, � ��� G�'�� • Doro�hy Eve�son, Secr•etary -.+.r—,_- • i� --- � �.. '�.. . `� � � � � � � ,� • � � � � �_ �- �� L � ° �. � � � /