Loading...
11/17/1997 CONF MTG - 4801� � ClTY OF FRIDLEIf CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING November 17, 1997 - 7:00 P.M. Conference Room A (Upper Level) 1, Discussion Regarding the Human Resources Commission, 2, Preliminary Plans for the Lower Level of the Fridley Community Center, and Update on Donations and Expenditures, 3. Stipulations in Rezoning Actions by the City. 4. Update on the 1998 CDBG Allocation Process and Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program. 5. Other Business. Adjourn. . MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION DATE: November 13, 1997 TO: William Burns, City Manager � � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Human Resources Commission Discussion It is our understanding that the City Council wants to discuss potential projects for the Human Resources Commission (HRC). To assist the Council, we reviewed Chapter 6 of the City Code, identified issues staff sees as possible work areas and identified an immediate course of action for the Commission. The general purpose of the HRC as defined in City Code 6.06 (see attached) is to: 1. Promote the communication of just and equitable human rights; 2. Promote racial and cultural harmony; 3. Promote understanding and equal opportunity in employment, housing, public accommodations, and public, cultural and educational services, and full participation in the affairs of the City of Fridley. In reviewing and interpreting the general purpose of the HRC, staff brainstormed a list of issues and/or areas of possible consideration: 1. Homelessness 2. Job training; connecting job training or "people" needs in the rehab and target neighborhood programs 3. Review of ordinances that are not within the jurisdiction of others (example: curfew, cigarette) 4. Serve as a volunteer service program resource 5. Senior and youth program review 6. Develop a closer relationship with the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions 7. Review City policies, social issues (example: street corner begging) 8. Child care 9. Domestic violence w 10. Neighborhood disputes 11. Review projects or requests from other jurisdictions (school board or County) 12. Review grant applications The Commission could serve as a citizen review board "funnel" for programs, projects, or policies involving human-related interests. Current projects involving the police department's neighborhood programs, after-school opportunities, or Values 1 st efforts could benefit from the Commission's involvement. Various grant applications may also benefit from the Commission's human interest perspective. Requests or projects from the School Board or County could also be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission would review the items and make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff has introduced these issues as a starting point for discussion. Please provide specific direction on the programs, projects, or policies for the HRC to review should the Council choose to pursue this matter. KJS:Is M-97-481 6.06 HUMA.*I RESOURCES COMMISSION Purpose. The purpose of the Human Resources Commission is to promote intensified communication and protection of just and equitable rights among all residents of the community; to promote harmonious relationships among people of all races, religions, ethnic groups, social/economic status, ages, gender, physical, mental and emotional disabilities and diverse life styles; to promote understanding and equal opportunity in employment, housing, public accommodations, and public, cultural and educational services; and full participation in the affairs of the City of Fridley. 2. Scope. A. The Human Resources Commission shall act as an advisory commission to the Planning Commission for continuous community planning and development of the comprehensive City goals and policies. Any change in related community planning and comprehensive City goals and policies must be reviewed by the Planning Commission who will then make recommendations to the City Council. B. The Human Resources Commission shall advise the City Council, after a policy review by the Planning Commission, in the development of programs to give increased effectiveness and direction in implementing established City goals and policies and recommend actions as needed to provide equal opportunity in the community. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION City of Fridley Recreation and Natural Resource Department emo November 13, 1997 TO: William W. Burns �� City Manager � FR: Jack Kirk ��`' Director RE: CONFERENCE MEETING ITEMS FOR MONDAY. NOVEMBER 17TH As we have discussed, John Litchy and I are planning on being in attendance at the City Council Conference Meeting this coming Monday, November 17"' to look at the preliminary lower level plans for the Fridley Community Center. We would like to gain input from the Council on the direction we are heading with the design. Information received from the focus groups is being incorporated as much as possible into this preliminary design, but we would also like to see if there are any additional considerations that council or yourself would like to see in the plan. I also will be giving an update on the Fridley Community Center donations and expenditures for the furnishings. With recent contributions of $500 from Fridley VFW, $200 from H.B. Fuller and a pledge of $25,000 from Norwest Bank we have gone over the top and exceeded our goal. Our total of donations and pledges to-date is $248,285 or 108% of our original goal of $229,000. Bill, if there would happen to be any extra time, I would like to briefly look at some ideas for a recognition plaque and get some input. I'll have some examples at the meeting with some projected costs, and some feedback that we've had from the Fundraising Committee. I would like to proceed with a recognition plaque as soon as that can be arranged. If you have any questions on any of these items or need any additional information prior to Monday's meeting, please let me know. JK:sj s MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: November 13, 1997 � TO: William Burns, City Manager� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Legal Opinion Regarding Stipulations as Part of Rezoning Cases The City Council requested an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the City's practice of establishing stipulations as part of a rezoning approval. The City Attorney advises that this approach could be subject to legal challenge (see attached opinion). He suggests an alternative method of approving a rezoning by approving a development agreement in conjunction with the ordinance rezoning the property. The City Attorney is preparing a model development agreement which, beginning in 1998, staff will use for rezoning cases. The City Council should expect to see the development agreement on the same agenda when the City Council approves second and final reading of an ordinance rezoning the property. BD/dw M-97-480 HOLSTAD AND LARSON, P.L.C. Attorneys at Law Wayne B. Holstad 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, Suite 130 Russeil L.C. Larson St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 John L. Lindell Telephone: (612) 490-9078 Karen Hill Fjeld � Facsimile: (612) 490-1580 �' Rea1 Property Law Specialist October 9, 1997 Ms. Barbara Dacy Director of Planning and Community Development City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN. 554�2 Of Counsel Frederic W. Knaak* * Also Licensedin Wisconsin & Colorado BY FACSIMILE AT 571-1287 8� U.S. MAIL RE: Opinion Request: Stipulations in Rezoning Actions by the City Dear Ms. Dacy: Some time ago, you wrote me a memo in which you outlined an occasional practice by the City by which the City Council enforced stipulations on developers and landowners seeking to rezone parcels of land in the City. Specifically, the practice involved the inclusion of language in any ordinance modifying or establishing new zoning classifications for affected parcels that referenced "stipulations adopted in the minutes". These stipulations would include the site-specific requirements the City Council wanted to impose on the site for the proposed development on that site that had triggered the rezoning request. You indicated this practice had received the approval of legal counsel at the time. One of two specific rezoning requests that triggered your more recent request for an opinion from me involved a developer seeking to develop the City's old liquor store site. Over the recommended approval by the Planning Commission, the Council turned down the request, at least in part, because of the lack of any specific development proposal by the developer. The develop wanted to rezone the parcel involved so that it could market the site to several types of commercial users and not commit the site to any one particular use. The Council, however, is understandably concerned about the type of development that changing the zoning would encourage and create and wants to exercise some control over the specific kinds of development that would occur on the site. What the Council was interested in knowing, and has now asked me through you, is whether specific stipulations can be attached to concept plans presented to the City in support of rezoning applications that can subsequently be enforced against developers or related parties. More specifically, they are interested in knowing whether their practice of attaching stipulations to the enacting ordinance can be extended to provide for alternative types of development that would be conditions of the rezoning. � , j w Ms. Barbara Dacy October 9, 1997 Page Two ANAL YS/S Under Minnesota law, the act of zoning is legislative in character, meaning that the action of zoning itself is intended, through legislation, to be general in nature. Because of that fundamental status, courts grant exceptionally broad deference to the actions taken by cities, and city councils in particular, in making rezoning decisions. The fact the zoning decisions are general and legislative in character does not mean that site-specific provisions cannot be included. It does mean, though, that site- specific Q;-ov�sions �re m�r.e �ef�r.sibls if they are in a forrn �n �Nhich gen�ral rules are being applied to a specific site. There is a strong line of cases that suggests that in instances where cities use rezoning decisions as a defacto means of dealing with specific development proposals, the rezoning decision will, for purposes of judicial review, lose its legislative character and the usual deference and protections afforded to cities in these decisions by the Courts. Courts would, rather, view the decision as quasi judicial in character and apply the same standards of review as they would a variance or other site-specific proposal. A decision by the City to rezone a particular parcel is, of course, the kind of legislative enactment affecting a specific parcel that is fully defensible and accorded broad deference. It is my opinion, however, that any /egis/ative action taken by the City to impose additional, specific conditions as part of the enacting ordinance for the rezoning of a specific parcel falls outside the purview of those protections and runs a significant risk of a successful challenge of those conditions by a developer on equal protection grounds, as well as the more usual "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review imposed by the Courts. It is not at all difficult to imagine, for example, a situation in which conditions are imposed in the enacting resolution that would not be codified. Years pass without development and, finally, another purchaser and developer buy the site and seek to build under the "new" rezoning. Conditions contained in the minutes and enacting ordinances would not be the sort of matters normally found in the title record or the official City Code and such a developer could properly argue that he had no legal knowledge of the conditions and the City should be estopped (equitably prevented) from enforcing them. Such an argument would have a fair likelihood of success. It is in view of precisely these kinds of issues that the accepted practice has developed in this State of conditioning passage of a rezoning ordinance on the execution between the developer and the City of a complete and recordable Development Agreement. The express terms of the agreement are not part of the legislative act of rezoning, but are, nevertheless enforceable covenants against the owners and whomever would be subsequent owners. The consideration for such an agreement has been upheld judicially as the act of rezoning of the parcel by the City. _ . � Ms. Barbara Dacy October 9, 1997 Page Three There is no reason that multiple potential uses could not be outlined in such an agreement. A Development Agreement has the specific benefit in these cases of being a recognized and enforceable document of record that would be in the usual and ordinary chain of title and established public record for real estate. It's existence in all such cases would effectively insulate the City from subsequent challenges to conditions imposed in presumptively arms-length negotiations with developers and prior owners. CONCLUSION Based on my analysis, I have concluded that the City's practice, as outlined by you, of providing conditions for development in the same enactment as a rezoning ordinance does not represent the best practice for the City and could leave the City's actions in such cases open to legal challenge. It is my opinion and recommendation that in all cases in which the Council has reason to limit specific types of development in an area proposed for rezoning, the best practice is to enter a Development Agreement with the owner or developer prior to the enactment of the rezoning ordinance. The Agreement should be fully recordable and specifically provide for a continuing covenant against fhe parcel enforceable against all transferees and subsequent owners and interested persons. All conditions should be reduced to writing and openly agreed to by the signatories. I am aware that the City already follows this practice in many, if not most cases. Following this practice in cases of multiple proposed uses is also, in my opinion, the best and most defensible alternative. As always, I appreciate being of service to the City. If you should have any questions concerning this opinion, or believe it needs clarification or expansion on any point, do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sin�hely; f�r�deric U' Fridley City Attorney c;c: W. Surns ..� MEMOR.ANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: November 13, 1997 � TO: William Burns, City Manager � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator SUBJECT: Update on the 1998 CDBG Allocation Process and Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program ..; �: • . . - . Since September, staff has attended several meetings held by the Anoka County HRA Technical Advisory Committee concerning changes to the 1998 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The purpose of this memo is to outline the issues that have been discussed and what can be expected for the CDBG allocation process. :_ • � • According to County staff, HUD officials have complained for a number of years about how the CDBG program is administered. HUD has cited a number of concerns, but focused attention in finro areas: Too many small projects. The County's practice of passing through CDBG dollars to cities rather than requiring open competition is inefficient. Some cities have struggled to spend their funds (but continue to receive funds each year), while others use their money very quickly. This year, HUD increased the pressure on the County HRA to make changes for the 1998 funding cycle. County staff have spent this summer working on a 4 � CDBG / MHOP Memo November 13, 1997 Page 2 number of different proposals to meet both the needs of HUD and participating cities. On November 12, 1997 the County distributed its latest funding allocation proposal which attempts to strike a balance befinreen the old system and wholesale change. Old Allocation Svstem Under the old system, the County received the funds directly, deducted a certain portion for county-wide rehab, economic development, and administration, and then allocated the remaining funds to the cities. Each city received an allocation of funds based on their population, percentage of low income residents, and several other criteria. The attached chart shows the funding levels since 1995 and the amount of funds received by the County and the portion allocated to Fridley. For the most part, the funding levels have been fairly constant. New Allocation �.ystem The process of moving to a new allocation system will begin slowly. In 1998, County staff is proposing to create a new Priority Project Fund equal to 10% ($186,800) of the net budget after the County's portion is deducted. The balance of the funds would continue to be awarded to the cities on a pass-through basis. The Priority Project Fund would be available on a competitive basis to fund priority activities (housing rehab, senior housing, and MHOP). Each year the fund would grow by 5°/a (e.g. 15°/a in 1999, 20% in 2000, etc.) and eventually comprise the entire CDBG allocation. At that point, cities would no longer receive a regular allocation of CDBG funds, but would have to compete for the dollars. County staff have also prepared general guidelines for both the Priority Project Fund and the regular allocation. A copy of the guidelines are attached. Net Impact on Fridlev Under the latest proposal, Fridley will receive $128,177 in 1998 which is $18,671 or 13% less than we received in 1997. Over time this amount will continue to decrease as the funds are shifted into the Priority Project Fund. We can still allocate funds for housing rehab and public service activities, although there is some question on the minimum threshold for individual public service awards. CDBG / MHOP Memo November 13, 1997 Page 3 The other important issue to mention is that cities will no longer be able to reallocate unused CDBG funds. In the past, CDBG dollars (typically public service projects) could be reallocated for another CDBG-eligible activity. The City would simply adopt a resolution authorizing the change. Under the new system, those funds would revert to the Priority Project Fund. �[���:7 The Anoka County HRA Intergovernmental Committee will review the new proposal on November 19, 1997. After that meeting, the County HRA's Management Committee will discuss the proposal in early December. The full HRA board will likely act on the proposal at their December 9, 1997 meeting. Applications for the regular allocation of funds will be due by February 13, 1998. We do not know when the Priority Project Fund applications will be due. Additional information on the 1998 CDBG program should be available by mid- December. Although the 1998 impact is not significant, the City will need to start evaluating other sources of funding for the housing rehab grant program. This issue will be discussed with the HRA during its 1998 budget process. 2. Metropolitan Housing O�portunities Program The Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program was created as a result of the Hollman Consent Decree that was ordered in 1995. The case involved a lawsuit between the City of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, the Met Council and HUD and a group of individuals who had claimed that the defendants had historically discriminated against lower income people by locating public housing in certain areas of Minneapolis and creating concentrations of poverty. As part of the out-of:court settlement HUD committed $100 million to both demolish existing public housing in the inner city and help construct replacement units on a scattered site basis (no more than 10 units in one location) throughout the metro area. Approximately 780 units will be demolished, 80 of which must be built in Minneapolis, and 690 in suburban locations. The purpose of the program is to provide lower-income families with greater housing choice and access to jobs in the suburbs. CDBG / MHOP Memo November 13, 1997 Page 4 In terms of how the program is implemented, the program is strictly voluntary at this point. Funds are provided for both the construction or rehabilitation of existing housing and on-going operating subsidies. Once constructed, at least 70% of the units must be available to Minneapolis residents who are on the waiting list. The remaining units can be made available for local families. The replacement units must be maintained as rental property for up to 40 years. To be eligible for a unit, a family's income must fall within the income guidelines (generally 50% of inedian income) and meet the tenant screening requirements established by the local HRA. The tenant would then pay rent equal to 30% of their monthly income, with the remaining portion to be paid through the MHOP. There are a number of ownership formats that are allowed under the program including a local HRA, a county HRA or even private developers. At a minimum, however, a local HRA must be involved in the project to ensure that it is properly managed and to distribute the operating sub-sidies. The local HRA would enter into an agreement with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for both the construction/rehab dollars and the operating subsidies. Attached is a fact sheet on the MHOP program. The County has indicated that MHOP will be a priority in 1998. As out-lined earlier in this memo some of the CDBG funds will be set aside for this program. The City, as it develops its policies on apartment rehab projects, may want to evaluate cooperating with the County on a project or completing one in conjunction with a private developer. There are already several suburban communities which have agreed to develop MHOP units and all of the units must be completed by 2002. Common Bond Communities, a St. Paul non-profit which developed the Norwood Square senior housing project here in Fridley and has worked on MHOP projects in Plymouth and Minnetonka, has expressed interest to work on a project in Fridley. Unless otherwise directed staff plans to continue to research the MHOP program. We will also visit with some of the other cities to learn more about their MHOP projects and report back to the Council and HRA in February or March 1998. GF/ M-97-482 Year 1995 1996 1997 1998* Community Development Block Grant Program Funding Summary Total County's Allocation Portion $1,933,000 $463,819 $1,886,000 $416,819 $1,868,000 $464,000 $1,868,000 $464,000 Fridley's Portion $155,210 $155,223 $146,848 $128,177 % of Total 8% 8.2% 7.8% 6.8% Notes: * Projections for 1998. County used 1997 figures as baseline. % Change N/A NIL -6% -13% 1998 REVISED DISTRIBUTION OF CDBG FUNDING (Based on 1997 funding amounts) Grant Amount Priority Project Fund 10% of grant County portion (Admin, Rehab, Economic Development) Cities Area I Blaine Columbia Hts. Fridley Anoka Coon Rapids Area II East Bethel Lino Lakes Spring Lake Park Andover Ham Lake Area III Ramsey Oak Grove Linwood Circle Pines Burns Columbus Are N Hilltop Lexington Bethel S� Francis Centerville $1,868,000 186,800 In 1998, priorities are housing rehab, senior housing, MHOP(Hollman) related activities. 464,000 156,353 196,809 128,177 143,123 243,440 37,661 31,878 25,781 47,178 35,137 28,713 25,277 15,741 8,817 9,153 17,019 11,140 17,930 7,088 24,271 6,498 Rules for Priori Project Fund 1. Each year the Anoka County HRA will determine the priorities. 2. Applications must be for at least $50,000. 3. An application form will be developed by the Anoka County HRA to save time for cities. 4. Applicants not funded will be looked upon favorably the next year. 5. Starting with the second year, the priority project fund will increase each year by 5% of the grant amount after the deduction of 10% and the County portion. 6. Remaining or unallocated city funds go into the next year fund. Rules for city allocations of grant 1. Public service funding will remain the same as before. Public services can be 15% of the total County grant amount. 2. Each project done must be at least 25% of the allocation and at least $10,000. 3. Program income generated by the cities will be returned to the city for their use. 4. No reallocations will be allowed. All remaining funds will go into the Priority Project Fund. The Metropolitan Housing Oppo�tunities Program ousing developments in th� works: Evergreen Pointe, in Savage, is ready for occupancy. Five public housing units are part of a 48 unit townhome development on McColl Drive. The pubiic housing units were developed on a iurnkey basis by Evergreen Development for the Scott County HRA. Four homes are leased by families from the Minneapolis priority list, and one from Scott County's waiting list. . Minnetonka Mills, a 30 unit townhome development by the Comerstone Group, has three public housino units and will be ready for occupancy in October. Crown Ridge, part of a large, exciting mixed-income residential and commercial development in Minnetonka is expected to be completed in December. Developed by CSM Corporation, the 64 apartments at Crown Ridge will inclucJe 6 public housing � September, 1997 dwellings. The Economic Development Authority of Minnetonka is the local s�c;���� �i th� Nub��c ��u��� �y ai b�i i Crow� Ridge and Minnetonka Mills.' _ r � ' A fourth suburban multifamily development, East Creek Carriage Homes in Chaska, started construction in June. This project by Duffy Devslopment, with the Carver County HRA, will have five public housin� units in the mix with homes financed through tax credits. East Creek Carriage Homes, in Chaska, borders on a City park near Chaska Creek. n the proposal stage: At Silver Lake Commons, in Mounds View, by MSP Real Estate; up to 10 MHOP units will be part of the rehab of an older 40-unit building and 16 new townhomes. (Continued on page Z) (Connnued from page /� Developments in Eden Prairie and Plymouth are scheduled to begin construction by November 30. In Eden Prairie, 5 two- and three-bedroom MHOP homes will be among 32 new townhomes. The Plymouth develop- ment includes 6 MHOP homes among 64 new units. �, n the scattered-site front: The Washington County HRA has been approved for 60 scattered-site MHOP units. Development on these homes is anticipated to begin later this autumn. The Carver County HRA is preparing to begin development of 50 scattered site MHOP dwellings, the County having approved this project in June. Anoka County is considering a commitment to develop 80 MHOP units on a scattered- site basis, and is considering a partnership with Anoka County Community Action Program to develop or operate the homes. ��There is a Iot af room here for my ch�ldren . to play and graw �_ � --New resicient of ar� MHOF ` � ` home. I �I n other news related-to MHOP r . . . .The Metropolitan Council's Community Development Committee has asked the- Metro HRA Advisory Committee to draft the specifics of a recommendation for the Metropolitan Council to take an administra- tive role in implementing MHOP. The Met Council would fulfll this role on behalf of lo- cal governments that do not have public housing management capacity but would like to participate in MHOP. These recommenda- tions will go back to the CD Committee later this year, after which they may be recommended to the full Met Council. ;. :� he Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Program (MHOP) is a fina�cing program for development of new public housing in communities all around the metropolitan area. MHOP was created in response to the Hollman Con- sent Decree, the purpose of which was to provide low-income Mi�neapolis families with greater housing choice and economic opportunity. For more infortnation about MHOP, please contact Dave E�gstrom, at the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority; (612) 342.1478. 2 June, 1997 Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program MHOP FACT SHEET What is MHOP? N�-IOP is a rental housing prog-am that was created as a result of a legal settlement, the h=o['i�nan Conser.t i3ecree. As }�e of the detendants in the iawsuit, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPi:t,� a�eed t� expand afifordaoie housing opportunities for lower income residents in azeas where there has traditionally not been a supply of public housing, in both the City of Minneapolis and in suburban lacations. The MPHA will develop and operate the Hollman replacement units in the City, but a new kind of agpro�ch was need�d for the I�:-r•A to p. �v��de � Iollmar� ��n� ior the devetopment oi public housing in the suburbs. MHOP is this tooL Who can live in MHOP housing? Families (a household comprised of two or more people) whose income when they move in does not exceed 50 percent of the metropolitan area median income. Allowable income limits range from $21,850 for a two person family to $36,050 for eight or more family members. How are families se/ected for MHOP? For 30% of the units, families can be selected from a local waiting list without respect to Hollman priorities. For the remaining 70%, the consent decree requires that prospective residents are invited to apply in the following order: 1. Those displaced by demolition of public housing. 2. Families on the MPHA waiting list who live in minority or poverty concentrated areas. 3. Any other famities on the MPH.A waiting list. Are there standards for selecting families� Only eligible and suitable families will be selected for NII-iOP housing, regardless of whether they are on a Hollman priority list. Stringent admission and eligibility standards will be applied to all applicants. For example, families in which any member has a criminal or drug use history can be.rejected for admission. Selection standards for MHOP MHOP Fact Sheet page 2 housing will be the same as those used by private companies: credit histories, landlord history, criminal and drug background, and any other relevant data will be checked. T'he local housing agency will determine the screening criteria and manage the seleGtion process. How do suburban families get on the Minneapolis public housing waiting list? The MPHA will automatically place all families who appty from suburbs whn are participating in ivII-(pt' on its waiting list, thus making Minneapolis and sub�rban residents equally eligible for the third priority listed above. As of this writing, the 11�cIr•,'s waiting list includes over 220 suburban families. - r How much rent will families pay? Thirty percent of their income or $25.00, whichever is greater. Who pays the rest of the �enf? The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HLJD will provide operating subsidies for MHOP units for forty years, subject to Congressional appropriation. The subsidy is the difference between operating costs and rent. Do families have to move if their income goes up? No, but they must continue to pay 30% of their income. Where can MHOP deve%pments take place? MHOP-funded new construction homes can be built anywhere outside Minneapolis and Saint Paul, but within the MIISA (metropolitan services) line. Rehabilitation of existing homes with 11�-IOP can be done anywhere in the seven-county area, outside of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Sites will be selected which meet public housing site and neighborhood standards, and the MPHA wil] strongly encourage the development of MHOP units in places that aze accessible to jobs, transportation, and other amenities important to families with children. What kind of homes wil! be built? MHOP housing can be single family homes, duplexes, townhouses, smaller rental MHOP Fact Sheet page 3 buildings, or buildings which aze constructed as part of a larger mixed income development. 1fie housing can be newly constructed or existing houses can be acquired and rehabilitated. All developments must comply with (ocal building standards. When will they be built? Anytime between now and April l, 2002. Who will own the units? The units can be owne� 1 by a private developer, the suburb or its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, or the MPHA and the suburb agreeing to own the property jointly. > Who wiil maintain the units? A management company will be hired to manage and maintain the property. This company can be a private property management firm; a non-profit housing management organization; or a local public housing authority, l�ce a Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Why did the Hollman consent decree encourage creating public housing in the suburbs? To create more choice in affordable housing across the metro azea, particularly where jobs aze being created. Lower income families who already live in the suburb will have an opportunity to apply for at least 30% of the MHOP units being developed. Studies twelve years after the Gautreaux decision in Chicago find that families who moved to the suburbs have had much greater economic and educational success, both for parents and the children. More questions about MHOP? Please contact Dave Engstrom, Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, at 342-1478. fsmhop September, 1997 Who's Moving? A Profile of Families Who Wil1 Have Housing Choice Under the Hollman Consent Decree As a resul: of the :�fo.!„-�ay1 �o;�s��t decrez, �eve:al hur,d.re�' ucli�s ai pablic housing on the Neaz North Side of Minneapolis will be demolished and will be replaced with new aud rehabiiitated public housing units in other locations in Minneapolis and the suburbs. �he families who had been living in the North Side public housing that is being demolished will have first priority to move to these new homes throughout the Twin Cities area. • � profiie oi tne famiiies who will be moving: • 519 families, including 1297 children and 42 full-time college students. • Average family size is four people, with an average income of $11,118. • Southeast Asian families make up 56%, African-American families 38%, and white families 5%. Less than 1% of the families are Native American, and less than 1% also identified themselves as Hispanic. • Of the 259 families who have already moved, 33 have bought homes in Minneapolis and the suburbs. Many of these famiiies took advantage of first-time homebuyer counseling offered through the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority. • IV'ot all these families will choose to Iook for a home in the suburbs, but those who have decided to do so most often explain that their reason is to have a great place to raise their children. In selecting a specific location, families often look for places that are close to other friends, extended family members, their workplace, or a church or community organization where they already have relationships. These families will be tooking for good neighborhoods, where there is a spirit of welcome and a commitment to a hi g h quality of life for the children. The Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, 1001 North Washington Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401; (612) 342-1478 June, 1997 The Hollman Decision and Housing Choice in the Twin Cities region: What Difference Does It Make? In three words, the most important difference: the childrens' future. A follow-up study was done in the Chicago area of children in families who had moved to both city and suburban communities as a result of the Gautreaux decision. (The 1976 Gautreau.r decision provided low-income, mostly black families &om Chicago with housing vouchers that they could use to move out of traditionally low-income areas of Chicago. The purpose of the lawsuit was similar to that of the 1995 Hollman decree in Minneapolis.) � The study, thirteen years after the lawsuit, compared the experience of children whose f�nilies had moved to suburban communities as opposed to those who had used their vouchers to �nove to Chicago neighborhoods. The findings tell the story about the personal and economic value of housing choice: .�,'inety-five per cent of suburban youth completed high school, compazed with an 80% rate for city children. . After the move, 40% of the youth who had moved to suburban schools were in a"college track" in their high school, compared with only 24% among the youth who had remained in the city. . Twice as many suburban youth attended college, compared with their counterparts in the city, and six times as many attended four-yeaz colleges. . Of the suburban youth who did not attend college, 75% were employed full-time, compazed with only 41% of the young people who had remained in the city. . Four times as many suburban youth were earning over $6.50 per hour. Nearly half the young people working in the city were earning less than $3.50 per hour, compared to only 9% of the suburban youth. Twice as many of the suburban youth (55%) had jobs with benefits. Housing choice resulted in economic improvement for adults as well: a significantly higher percentage of the parents who moved to suburban communities and who had been unemployed before their move became employed, compared to their counterparts who remained in the city. Chicago's experience is not unique. Similar results are being observed in other metro regions where housing mobility efforts are in place, including Tucson and Seattle. The Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, 1001 North Washington Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401; (612) 342-1478