Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1993 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FEBRUARY 9, 1993 7:00 P.M. CITYHALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. November 10, 1992 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Communications a. Village on Woocllyrm b. Gottages of Maplewood West c. 1992 Gommunity Survey Results 6. Unfinished Business 7. 'New Business a. b. 8. Date of Next Meeting a. March 9, 1993 9. Adjournment Affordable Suburban Housing Partnership (ASHP) - Bill Schatzlein 1992 Annual Report HRAAGEND.MEM o MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOVEMBER 10, 1992 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL HRA Commissioners: City Staff: Ken Roberts 'APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lorraine Fischer, Tom Connelly, Larry Whitcomb, Lori Tauer Gary Pearson present at 7:10 p.m. October 13, 1992 Commissioner Tauer moved approval of the minutes of October 13, 1992 as submitted. Commissioner Whitcomb seconded Ayes--Fischer, Connelly, Whitcomb, Tauer APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Connelly moved approval of the amended agenda, adding item 7 b - Cottages of Maplewood. Commissioner Whitcomb seconded COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS ae Ayes-Fischer, connelly, Whitcomb, Tauer Residential Real Estate Trends in Maplewood - Karen Christofferson, St. Paul Area Board of Realtors Karen Christofferson discussed real estate trends in Maplewood and in the area. The HRA asked Ms. Christofferson several questions about housing in Community Design Review Board Minutes of 11-10-92 -2- Maplewood. This included the number of sales, price trends and the length of time that properties are on the market. Cottages of Maplewood The Commission discussed the request from the Cottages of Maplewood Limited Partnership that the guaranteed annual amount from property taxes on their project be reduced. Ken Roberts informed the Commission that the Director of Finance informed him that the only effect to the City of this project's negative cash flow problems and possible foreclosure proceedings is the delay in its ability to collect property taxes. There would be no other liability to the City. The City would need to levy extra taxes to compensate. The HRA noted the discrepancies between the 1991 projected budget and the 1991 actual budget. Lorraine Fischer moved the HRA recommend the City Council grant the request, but modify the agreement to have the reduction paid back to the City with interest in the future. Because of the short time available, no staff member with a financial or legal background was available to answer questions. With more information, it is possible a different recommendation might have been forthcoming. The unanswered questions included: (1) Was the 60% requirement for low and moderate income people a Maplewood, county, or HUD requirement? Was this part of the originally approved conditions? Should or could the City negotiate this figure? (2) Why are there discrepancies between the 1991 projected budget and the 1991 actual budget? Why are there large differences in expenses? Were there exceptional or unforeseen circumstances? Was depreciation included? (3) Have there been any partnership distributions? If so, when and how much? Commissioner Whitcomb seconded Ayes--Fischer, Connelly, Pearson, Tauer, Whitcomb Ramsey County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Ken Roberts presented the staff report on this request from Ramsey County for the City's comments on the County's expected activities in the 1993 annual plan which will implement their 1992 CHAS. The Commission discussed the housing Community Design Review Board Minutes of 11-10-92 -3- 8. DATE priorities identified in the 1992 CHAS and included in the 1993 draft plan. Commissioner Whitcomb asked Mr. Roberts to request from Ramsey County a copy of the CDBG funding summary detailing the projects funded versus the projects requesting funding. Commissioner Whitcomb moved the HRA authorize staff to send a letter to the County with the Council's six suggestions from 1991. Commissioner Tauer seconded Ayes--Fischer, Connelly, Pearson, Tauer, Whitcomb Affordable Suburban Apartment Parmership (ASAP) Ken Roberts reported he is in the process of working with ASAP and the City of Richfield and will report back to the Commission with more information at the next meeting. OF NEXT MEETING January 12, 1993 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: AGENDA REPORT City Manager Assistant City Manager ~r6~)cr~ ]~ 1992 CO~ SURVEY RESULTS December 7, 1992 AGENDA NO. I -- / Date__ INTRODUCTION In August, the City Council authorized the firm of Decision Resources Ltd. to conduct a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents. The purpose of the survey was to find out how the residents felt about the City--its services, departments, development, type of road design and construction, and specific projects such as the community center, the proposed 1-494 interchange at Lake Road, and White Bear Avenue development. Decision Resources has completed the analysis of the results, and Dr. Bill Morris will make a presentation for the City Council. A copy of the Executive Summary is attached. BACKGROUND The survey was conducted during the first two weeks in September by telephone. 400 randomly selected residents were interviewed. Based on the size of the sample, the resuhs of the survey can be used to describe all City residents' feelings within~5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases. The report describes the City as being most like a mature inner ring suburb that is still changing and growing. In fact, the City has many very different neighborhoods with different aged residents as well as different educational levels and occupations. Highlights of the report are: * Residents were very pleased with the quality of life in Maplewood. Crimes which were cited as being the greatest concern in the community are burglary, juvenile crimes, and vandalism. * 83% of the residents felt that there is enough retail shopping. Senior housing and the preservation of open space were cited by residents as being major development needs. In addition, a majority of the residents favored a $26 increase in their taxes to protect open space. Many residents have visited City Hall for services, and City services were generally rated well. A majority of the residents felt that affected property owners should pay 75% of a road improvement project, and the remaining 25% of the cost should be covered by general taxes. * 90% of the residents reported that they recycled. Residents are in favor of consolidating some services such as parks & recreation, but, in general, it was a split in their attitude about consolidating services County-wide. Mayor, City Council and staff were viewed favorably by a majority of the residents. As reported previously, there was a two-to-one majority in favor of a community center - almost the identical result that was obtained three years ago in the 1989 survey. The readership of MaplewoOd in Motion has increased. In addition, the number of residents who felt that the City had effective communications is well above the national average. As part of the analysis, the results were computed city-wide and according to 13 different planning neighborhoods. Since the City varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, the answers to the questions were analyzed according to location within the City. Dr. Bill Morris, Decision Resources, Ltd. will be present to make a presentation and answer any questions that the City Council may have. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept the 1992 community survey report and ' analysis completed by Decision Resources, Ltd. tn'lc Attachment Decision Resources Ltd. EXECUTIVE This study contains the results of a survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Maplewood. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers between September 2, and September 14, 1992. The average interview of city residents took thirty-one minutes. Random samples such as this one yield results projectable to the entire universe of Maplewood resi- dents within ~ 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. Maplewood can best be described as a quintessential mature inner ring suburban community that has not yet reached stasis. While many of the results found in this study conform to the patterns of older, well-established inner ring suburban communi- ties, there are also some characteristics which suggest a growing community. This growth was occurring predominantly in one por- tion of the city. Further, it has changed the complexion of the city, specifically from a blue collar suburb =o one occupational- ly mixed. The avera? family has lived in Maplewood for 11.2 years; sixteen percent, of the sample reported moving to Maplewood during the past two years, while thirty percent had resided there for over twenty years. This result is indicative of a first-ring suburban community: an average longevity over ten years, yet a steady turnover of approximately one-fifth of the city. Household composition varied across the city. Twenty-three percent of the sample reported seniors in residence, while thirty-eight percent had school-aged children or pre-schoolers. Twenty-two percent rented their current households. The average age of residents was 45 years old; about one-quarter of the.city was under the age of 35; twenty-six percent, 35-44 years old; eighteen percent were in the 45-54 age group; and, the remaining thirty-two percent were over 55 years old. Maplewood still pos- sesses one of the most heterogeneous age distributions in Ramsey County. The workforce in Maplewood also lacked a high degree of homogeneity. Professional-Technical and Owner-Manager households made up thirty-nine percent of the community. Blue Collar house- holds accounted for another twenty-one percent. Retirees were twenty-four percent. Fifty-three percent of the married house- holds reported both spouses working outside of the home. Respondents were dividedinto geographical regions. Plan- ning Neighborhoods 1-3 were classified as Zone One, comprising 3128 Dean Court · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 · (612) 920-0337 · Fax (612) 929-6166 twenty-three percent of the sample. Zone Two, composed of Plan- ning Neighborhoods 4-7, were thirty-eight percent of the communi- ty. Neighborhoods 8-13, thirty-nine percent of the sample, made up Zone Three. Residents were very pleased with the quality of life in Maplewood. Ninety-six percent rated it as either "excellent" or "good," with thirty-three percent rating it as the former. The most popular aspects of the community were its convenient loca- tion in the MetrOpolitan Area, its quiet and safe atmosphere, its friendly people, and its top-notch city services. Three major concerns were mentioned with some frequency: high taxes, inade- quate city services, and city government. A moderate fifteen percent of the sample reported there was "nothing" they disliked about the community. Maplewood ranks in the top third among suburbs in the Metropolitan Area on its residential satisfaction. Maplewood residents generally felt content with their city. Sixty-four percent felt they could have a say in the way the City runs things. Twenty-seven percent labeled the sense of community among Maplewood .residents as "much stronger" or "somewhat strong- er;" fifty-six percent regarded it as "about average." Only eleven percent felt it was weaker than in other nearby suburbs. Ninety-two percent of the sample rated the general appearance of their neighborhoods as "excellent" or "good," with thirty-nine percent in the former category. An issue which has greatly impacted the quality of life in many areas is crime. Maplewood residents tended to feel burglary was the greatest public safety problem facing the community; twenty-three percent chose this problem from a list of six prob- lems. Twenty-seven percent, however, felt none of the six prob- lems was serious. The next highest ranked problem was juvenile crimes and vandalism, cited by sixteen percent. Traffic and pedestrian safety, drugs, gangs, and personal safety from violent crimes troubled far fewer residents. Similarly, future development perspectives have caused turmoil in some communities, to the extent that the entire quali- ty of life in a community is threatened. In general, eighty- three percent of the residents felt Maplewood currently had sufficient retail shopping opportunities. Sixty-four percent. felt there was enough open space in the city, while twenty-eight percent felt there was too little. Fifty-four percent also felt- the number of low and moderate income housing units was adequate, while twenty-three rated them as insufficient. Only on the issue of senior citizen housing did a plurality feel the city currently contained too few units; even so, thirty percent felt there was already enough. Targeted housing, particularly for seniors, and the preservation of open spaces are the major development needs seen by the residents. By a fifty-three percent to thirty-nine percent judgment, Maplewood residents opposed the City using tax money to reduce the cost of new homes for first-time home buyers. But, a fifty- three percent majority supported the City offering tax money to attract new and retain existing industrial and commercial devel- opments. Thirty-seven percent, however, were opposed to this use of tax money. Maplewood citizens are financially "prudent" on matters of taxation. Forty-six percent would support a property tax in- crease to maintain city services at their current levels, while forty-three percent would oppose it. But, there is a high level of misinformation and a lack of information about the city's share of the tax burden. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents were unable to even guess at the amount of the city's share of property tax revenues. Among those with an opinion, the average estimate was 19.2 percent. city services were usually well rated by the citizenry. Ninety percent of the residents rated police protection as either "excellent" or "good," while ninety-one percent rated fire pro- tection similarly. Ninety-three percent rated snow plowing highly, while ninety percent praised park maintenance. Ice con- trol was praised by ninety-one percent. Street sweeping received kudos from eighty-two percent. Animal control, a problem plagu- ing many other suburban communities, was not an issue in Maple- wood: seventy-two percent approved of the service. City street repair and maintenance, a usually much-criticized service, at- tracted an approval score of seventy-four percent. Building and Inspection Services, the Deputy Registrar, Community Planning, and educational programs in the schools attracted approval rat- ings higher than eighty percent among residents able to render j~dgments. Similarly, community planning scored favorably among seventy-seven percent of those familiar with it. Only city street repair and maintenance attracted a moderately high level of disapproval: twenty-five percent rated it as "only fair" or "poor." The Deputy Registrar also posted a moderate level of dissatisfaction, with sixteen percent being critical. Potholes were the basis for the former displeasure; unhelpfulness was the key to dissatisfaction with the latter. In general, citizens are very satisfied with the services provided by Maplewood. When queried specifically about city-maintained streets, most residents expressed satisfaction. Eighty-eight percent said they were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied." Only eleVen percent were "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied." City residents, however, were split on the funding of street, sidewalk, and gutter construction and reconstruction. Forty-two percent felt it should be funded through property taxes on all residents, while forty percent felt they should be paid for through special assessments on adjacent or affected property owners. Cost-sharing between impacted property owners and the rest of the community was considered for the funding of these improvements. A majority of residents would favor twenty-five percent of the cost of these construction and reconstruction projects covered through general tax revenues; seventy-five percent would'be paid by the affected property owner. 3 Fifty-one percent opposed installing curbs and gutters on all city-maintained streets; forty percent supported it. And, a solid sixty-three percent opposed making street improvements if the majority of neighborhood residents are opposed to the pro- posed improvements. Only twenty-nine percent favored mandated changes by the City of Maplewood. Ninety percent of the respondents stated they recycled. Of those who did not recycle, the two principal reasons were its unavailability -- usually in multiple unit buildings -- and lack of interest. When queried about the use of city funds to provide the NEST service, seventy-two percent of the residents supported the expenditure, while fifteen percent opposed it. Both of these services have broad support constituencies. ~ · Residents were asked for their opinions on the construction of an interchange on Interstate 494 at Century Avenue, to be funded by the City of Woodbury. Only twenty-six percent admitted to awareness of the proposal. Nineteen percent of the sample indicated they were "very likely" to use the interchange, while another twenty-four percent were "somewhat likely" to do so. On a related development issue, forty-seven percent of the residents supported the development of commercial properties on Century Avenue in south Maplewood; thirty-one percent were opposed to this type of development. White Bear Avenue was also discussed in some detail. Twen- ty-seven percent of the sample cited the shopping opportunities as what they liked best about White Bear Avenue; fourteen percent mentioned its usefulness as a connector street. Traffic conges- tion was the main complaint about the street, posted by forty- seven percent of the sample; inadequate lights, narrowness, and lack of maintenance were also mentioned by moderate numbers of citizens. Two major suggestions were made about improvements: twenty-three percent would widen the street, while eighteen percent would impose better traffic control on it. Reactions to the current discussions about consolidation of city services across the county were assessed. By a forty-six percent to forty-three percent split, Maplewood residents split on the consolidation of public services across the County. A seventy-five percent to sixteen percent verdict supported consol- idating park and recreation programs offered by the Cities of North Saint Paul and Maplewood; only sixteen percent opposed this approach. As for a broader consolidation of the two cities, fifty-one percent supported the combination while thirtY-six percent opposed it. At least on a limited incremental basis, residents are willing to support service consolidations. Twenty-nine percent of the residents reported participating in a park and recreation program during the past year. Special events, general sports activities, and softball-baseball were the most frequently mentioned. Among participants, a very high ninety-seven percent were satisfied with their experience. 4 Two proposals for the future were assessed: acquisition of large parcels of land for preservation or recreational develop- ment, as well as development of a trail system. On the first issue, by a seventy-eight percent to fifteen percent majority, respondents favored the city taking action to insure future nature areas and recreational opportunities. When asked about increases in their property' taxes to undertake this program, a majority of residents would support an average increase of $26.00 in their taxes. Residents also felt the City was doing "about the right amount" in protecting the environment: sixty-seven percent indicated this response, while eighteen percent felt it was doing "too little." By a sixty-six percent to twenty-nine percent margin, residents also favored the construction of a sidewalk and trail system, connecting city parks and neighbor- hoods for use by pedestrians and bicyclists. City government and city staff were viewed favorably by a majority of residents2 Thirty percent of the residents reported knowing a "great deal" or "a fair. amount" about the work of the Mayor and City Council, a normal level of'knowledge. Fifty-six percent approved of the job of the Mayor; only four percent disapproved. In comparison, fifty-one percent approved of the job of the City Council; nine percent disagreed. The fourteen-to- one and six-to-one ratio of approval-to-disapproval is solidly above the suburban norm. Twenty-six percent of the residents reported having "quite a lot" or "sOme" first-hand contact with Maplewood City Staff. Fifty-three percent, rated their job per- formance as either "excellent" or "good," while"eleven percent rated it.lower. Once again, this is well above the suburban norm. Elected officials and city staff, then., are viewed by a majority of residents in a positive light; both have built siza- ble reservoirs of goodwill. Forty-two percent of the residents reported contacting City Hall during the past twelve months. The major reasons were complaints, information, and building permits.' Police and City Hall operators were most often reported as the first contact about the inquiry~ Of those dealing with the City, seventy-nine percent were satisfied with the'way their inquiry was handled. Dissatisfaction was primarily based upon the result of inquiry, but fifteen percent objected to the slow' response and twelve percent encountered rudeness. Sixty-three percent of the sample reported visiting City Hall during the past year, an unusually high number. At least eighty percent of the visitors approved of the convenience of hours, courtesy of the staff, and efficiency of the staff. The only weak point was waiting time for service: sixty-three per- cent approved, while thirty-six percent disapproved. Given the exceptionally high level of usage of City Hall services, however, waiting times understandably may be a problem. The most extreme service performances'were posted by the Motor Vehicle Department and Registrar. It is noteworthy that Maplewood is the only community in Ramsey County in which more residents visit City Hall than telephone there! Witnessing or experiencing discrimination during the past year in Maplewood was examined. Only ten percent of the sample reported witnessing or experiencing discrimination on race, sex, age, disability, national origin, marital status, or with regard to public assistance. This level of witnessing or experiencing discrimination was at the national norm. Sixty percent of the residents support the construction of a Maplewood Community Center; twenty-seven percent opposed it. Proponents based their position upon city needs, children's needs, and its constructive impact on community identity. Oppo- nents cited no need for the facility and taxes and cost consider- ations. When informed that a property tax increase might be needed to raise six million dollars of the total thirteen million dollars land and building costs for the center, sixty-one percent supported the property tax increase, while thirty-three percent opposed it. There appeared to be an approximately two-to-one majority in favor Of a Maplewood Community Center, a result virtually identical to the survey of three years ago. When examining usage, thirty-seven percent of the residents would never visit the center. Thirty-two percent of the house- holds reported at least one member who would visit on a weekly basis or more often, while fifty percent contained at least one member who would visit on a more occasional basis. There is a clear demand in the community for the facilities and services a community center could supply. On the subject of operating costs, residents favor a pay-as- you go system. Fifty-one percent oppose the city subsidization of operating costs, even if user fees increase; thirty-seven percent favor a city subsidy. Fifty-three percent of the sample would not be impacted by a moderate daily fee; fourteen percent felt it depended on the size of the fee; twenty-three percent felt their Usage would significantly decline. A majority of residents would pay $50.00 yearly for an individual membership to the facility. Twenty-three percent of the sample would pay $200 yearly for a family membership. While these percentages have declined since the last survey, if built, the Community Center will be assured of a high user rate. Residents were asked about their sources of information on city government and its activities. The local newspaper was cited most frequently, by twenty-nine percent. The "Saint Paul Pioneer Press-Dispatch" was used by eighteen percent. "Maplewood in Motion" was mentioned next by twenty-one percent. The "grape- vine" was pointed to by nine percent, a low figure in light of the demographics of the community. And, a remarkably small five percent felt out of the information loop. "Maplewood in Motion" was received by eighty percent of the sample. This is a normal reach for a city periodical. Of those who receive the newsletter, ninety-two percent regularly read it. Interesting style and content, then, is not a problem. Forty- 6 seven percent viewed the publication as "very effective" in keeping them informed of City activities, while forty-five per- cent rated it as "somewhat effective." These significant in- creases in reach and readership contribut'ed to the stunning drops in elected'official and staff disapproval ratings. Only twenty-seven percent of the sample reported awareness of the Mayor's Monthly Forum. Of that number, about ten percent had actually attended a forum meeting; that attendance figure was at the norm for these types of gatherings. Most people had no suggestions for future topics, however, the environment and city planning activities were specified by moderate numbers of resi- dents. In general, residents felt their communications needs and expectations were being met "extremely well" or "very well." Forty-eight percent of the sample fell into these two categories, well above the suburban norms for effective communications. While thirty-seven percent viewed their needs as being "somewhat well" met, only ten percent posted lower scores. Three years ago, citizen discontentment was found to be higher than the suburban norm in a number of areas. Without exception, discontentment has been substantially reduced if not virtually eliminated. Among city services, city street repair and maintenance received marginal ratings; these ratings have improved and now exceed the suburban norm. The reach of "Maple- wood in Motion"was far belong normal expectations; now, more residents receive the publication and are pleased with the con- tent and format. Disapproval ratings of the Mayor and City Council, as well as the City Staff, were somewhat high; these ratings have improved considerably, and are now among the strong- est in the Twin Cities. And, simultaneous with changing these perceptions, no new problems or concerns have emerged. The Community Center proposal, after a long public discus- sion, saw very little change in its support. By about two-to- one, supporters still outnumber opponents. While potential usage figures have slipped as facility offerings have become more specific, a strong household usership level was still in evi- dence. If nothing else, the discussion period tended to solidify positions on the construction of this facility rather than actu- ally change them. Three years ago, the survey concluded: "Very few inner ring suburban areas are in the unique position of Maplewood: the ability to renew itself is not afforded many communities. While this may be challenging, it also provides an opportunity for innovation and creativity. Based upon the past, the citizenry clearly feels the City is well-equipped to meet the future." That basic faith remains unchanged; if anything, its strength and reach has increased. 7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Affordable Suburban Housing Program (ASHP) February 1, 1993 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) asked me to contact the Affordable Suburban Housing Program (ASHP) to see if it might be useful in Maplewood. ASHP is a non-profit housing corporation that works with suburban communities to help improve the condition of the housing stock. Bill Schatzlein, the executive director of ASHP, has agreed to come speak to the HRA on February 9, 1993. I have attached a short summary of what ASHP does. kr/ashp.mem Attachment - Program Summary HOME REMODELING A KEY SUBURBAN STRATEGY FOR THE 9O's By: Bill Schatzlein. Executive Director Affordable Suburban Housing, a nonprofit housing corporation Marly of our suburban communities are faced with the following circumstances. An aging housing stock, with more than 30% of the housing units over30 years old, Less demand for starter homes due to changing demographics. There are fewer people in the age group, 19 to 29 years, typical first time home buyers. These communities are asking themselves several m3portant questions. What can we do to encourage homeowners to remain in the community and remodel their home to meet their needs rather than move to another community? How can we help homeowners with advice and assistance to make the remodeling process more "user friendly"? Policymakers know that in order to maintain a high level of homeownership in suburban neighborhoods it is necessary to find ways to encourage people to reinvest in these neighborhoods. Affordable Suburban Housing has been working with staff, and community leaders, in several suburban communities to design programs that Will encourage homeowners to remodel, and provide them with ideas and advice. In Richfield Minnesota, AFFORDABLE SUBURBAN HOUSING was involved in helping the community with the first annual Remodeling Fair "The Street of Possibilities" held in February 1992, This was a very successful Saturday event with approximately 3500 people in attendance. In addition to the 60 home improvement exhibits, there were workshops on various remodeling topics, food. entertainment, and door prizes, Plans. are now underway for the 1993 "Streets of possibilities,, ( Richfield Remodeling Fair). AS,H. is program coordinator for the 1993 Hopkins Home Show and the Crystal New Hope Remodeling Fair to be held in March 1993 AFFORDABLE SUBURBAN HOUSING was the program coordinator for a series of · remodeling workshops in Richfield entitled" Richfield Remodeling Workshops, Ideas and Advice, A practical, guide to remodeling". This series was offered through the SchoolCommunity Education Department during April and May of 1992. A.S.H worked with a group of professionals in the remodeling field who volunteered to lead the workshops. Since financing is an important aspect of any remodeling project, A.S.H. is designing a loan program for suburban communities. Important aspects of the loan program include: (1) advice for homeowners from A.S.A.P. staff (2) reasonable interest rate, and flexible term (3) no income limits (4) simplified application (5) shortened approval process. Local banks will be involved in making the loans. 4031 Grand Avenus So. Minneapolis, Minn. (612) 824-1628 February 5, 1993 City Council Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORFrY ANNUAL REPORT - MARCH 1992 FEBRUARY 1993 Following is the Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Annual Report for March 1992 through February 1993. The HRA had five meetings in the last year. This is typical for the HRA. A list of the members and their attendance is on page 5. Having regular meetings has cut the length of the meetings. Program Participation Maplewood participated in three programs nm by the Metro HRA and four programs nm by local lenders in the past year. I show these seven programs in Exhibit B. ,~ total of 423 housing units received aid through the rental programs (Exhibit C). Of these, 175 had families and 248 had elderly residents. The number of units receiving Section 8 aid increased from 160 last year to 165 in 1992. This is s;'~ less than the 189 Section 8 households in 1989 and the 168 Section 8 households in 1988. Under the loan programs, 34 Maplewood households received more than $780,000. Housing and Planning Items Considered The HRA considered a variety of housing and planning items in the last year. These included a review of the Truth-in-Housing Ordinance, a discussion of the City's image and a review of residential building trends in Maplewood. We also commented on the Ramsey County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and discussed the Affordable Suburban Housing Parmership. In addition, we reviewed the request for lowering the property taxes for the Village on Woodlynn (Cottages of Maplewood) housing development. The meeting with Saint Paul Area Realtors about the Maplewood housing stock was most informative. Other Areas of Involvement Commissioner Fischer served on the Maplewood Seniors and Others with Special Needs Advisory Committee and on the Home Share Task Force Commission. Commissioner Fischer is also representing Maplewood on the East Metro Senior Information and Referral Advisory Committee. Current and Emerging Concem~ After years of looking at senior housing needs, the HRA continues to believe that support services are a necessary part of housing for seniors. There are a wide variety of services available from an equally wide variety of sources--public, private, quasi private and informal. Information on what is available and how to get it is not always readily available for those in need. Others have put together a comprehensive directory of what services are available throughout the region. However, there are still areas of concern that we could be looking at locally. Having the Maplewood Seniors and Others with Special Living Needs Committee active should be a benefit to the City. A traditional area of concern to an HRA is that of neighborhoods with deteriorating housing. The HRA will review the issue as appropriate and consider possible solutions to lessen the problem. This is because Maplewood has areas of older housing that could deteriorate if owners do not care for them. Maplewood participates in the Share-a-Home program that Lutheran Social Services (LSS) runs. This program had a 1992 budget of $20,954.' For 1993, the Share-a-Home program has a budget of $22,419. This includes $10,812 from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), $8,000 from City and County grants and $4,200 from fees collected. Maplewood's share of the cost in 1992 was $3,000 because the program no longer receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. On January 25, 1993, the Council approved spending $3,000 from the Charitable Gambling Fund to support this program in 1993. LSS has received applications from 30 Maplewood residents since 1986 to be in the Share-a-Home program. In addition, there have been 24 total matches and there are now 12 active matches. 2 1993-94 Work Program Study and make recommendatiolls to the City Coullcil about Maplewood's use of the Affordable Suburban Housing Parmership (ASHP). 2. Continue to review ordinances and polities that may affect housing. Sponsor or review any necessary code or law revisions m deal with problem areas in housing for City residents. 3. Continue to partidpate in Metropolitan Council and MHA programs. e Monitor subsidized housing plans for consistency with the City housing plan and the guidelines for tax-exempt, tax-increment and Community Development Block Grant finan~. Keep informed on happenln~ and changes that will influence the availability of low-to-moderate cost housing. o Use various media to improve public awareness of housing issues and opport~mlties. Media could ~lude Maplewood in Motion, Maplewood Review, St. Paul paper, sewer inserts, local cable-access TV, etc. This should include information about housing programs and developments in the City. The Maplewood in Motion could have items on T-I-H, housing maintenance codes, and one explaining what each commission is and does. Another suggestion is an article on each City commission, possibly iden~g the current commissioners. This is so the City makes residents more aware of the role and opportunity of citizen involvement in the City. e Encourage and aid in the provision of life~'yde housing, indudlng alternative housing for older adults. Strive to develop a strategy for provision of various support services for housing. These enable the elderly to continue to live independently in a suburban city like Maplewood. Determine how Maplewood can maintain an information and referral service to aid older adults in finding services. The East Metro Senior Advisory Committee could help with this. Continue participation in the Older- Adult Home-Share program as an alternative to premature nursing home placement. Recommend necessary code, law or policy revisions that will make the above possible. Have a tour for the HRA, Council and Planning Commi-~sion members of development and housing areas of interest or concern in Maplewood. Have the City Council classify each of the above as high, medium or low priority to work on as time penuits. Working with the Council If we feel additional input or guidance from the Council is desirable, we will make a request for a shirt-sleeve work session. The HRA also could make a presentation under the Wisitor Presentation" item on the Council agenda. Also included with this report, as Exhibit E (page 12), is an item we thought might be of interest to you. This is a summary of rental housing developed with tax-exempt financing. This includes number of units, amount of the bond issue, fees paid, and federal financing restrictions. LORRAINE FISCHER, CHAIRPERSON Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority Attachments kr/hrarpt93.mem 4 EXHIBIT A Name Thomas Connelly 1193 E. County Road B, 55109 Lorraine Fischer 1812 N. Fumess St., 55109 Gary Pearson 1209 Antelope Way, 55119 Lori Tauer 467 Sterling Street S., SSl19 Larry Whitcomb 518 E. County Road B, SS109 HRA COMMISSIONERS Appointed 1/84, 3/85, 7/90 4/75, 3/81, 3/86, 3/91 11/89 3/91 11/89, 3/92 Term Expires 7/95 3/96 3/94 3/93 3/97 A'I-I'ENDANCE Meetin,q Connelly Fischer Pearson Tauer Whitcomb 3-10-92 x x x x x 7-14-92 x x x x x 10-13-92 x x x x 11-10-92 x x x x x 2-9-93 kr/anrepexA, mem 5 EXHIBIT B ACTIVE HOUSING PROGRAMS IN MAPLEWOOD Managed by the Metropolitan Council HRA a. Deferred Loan Program - owner-occupied (funded by MHFA): Two deferred loans: Total of program was $10,718. Maximum loan amount per application: $9,000. Households with an adjusted income of $8,500 or less are eligible for this aid. This program offers deferred payment loans. The loan payment is deferred unless the borrower transfers the property within ten years of the loan date. If this occurs, the loan amount must be repaid to the MHFA, but without interest. The purpose of this loan program is to help eligible applicants repair their homes to correct deficiencies directly affecting safety, habitability, energy use or handicap accessibility. The maximum loan amount per applicant is $9,000. The State's data privacy act protects the locations of the loan recipients. b. Revolving Loan Program - Owner-occupied (funded by MHFA): One revolving loan: Total of program was $9,000. Maximum loan amount per application: $9,000. HoUseholds with an adjusted income of $15,000 or less are eligible for this aid. The program offers low-interest (3%) loans to eligible applicants that are unable to get rehabilitation funding aid from other sources. The purpose of this loan program is to help eligible applicants repair their homes to correct deficiencies directly affecting safety, habitability, energy use and handicap accessibility. The maximum loan amount available per applicant is $9,000. The State's data privacy act protects the locations of the loan recipients. c, Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program (funded by HUD): Eligible tenants pay a maximum of 30% of their gross income toward the monthly rent payment in the certificate program. The difference between the rent that the tenant can 'afford and the total rent is the Section 8 paid to the landlord by HUD. In the voucher program, tenants have greater 6 choice and may pay more or less than 30 percent of their income. In December 1992, 165 Maplewood households (48 senior and 117 family) were receiving rental help. See Exhibit C for more information about this program. e Managed by Local Lenders a. Home Improvement Loan Program (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made three loans for a total of $19,640 in 1991. Households with an adjusted annual income of $27,000 or less may be eligible for home improvement loans of up to $15,000. The MHFA determines the loan interest rates (3- 9 percent) by the borrower's income. b. Home Energy Loan Program (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made 20 loans for a total of $66,302 in 1991. Homeowners may be eligible for loans at 8 7/8 percent interest rate. Under this program, loans of $1,000 to $5,000 are available for energy efficiency related improvements only. There are no income limits. c. MHFA Single Family Mortgage Loan Program (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made 10 loans totall(ug $690,000 in 1991. This program is for first-time home buyers (FTHB). To qualify, an applicant's adjusted gross household income cannot exceed $33,500 to buy an existing dwelling unit in the Twin City metro area. The below- market interest rate mortgage money is available for the purchase of existing single-family units, town homes, condomini~ or duplexes. d. Homeownership Assistance Fund (HAF) (funded by MHFA): The MHFA made 0 HAF loans in 1991. Through this program, qualifying lower-income MHFA home mortgage recipients could receive down payments and help with their monthly payments. Households must have an adjusted annual income of $26,000 or less for this program. kr\anrepexB.mem Ex/sting Un/ts - Section 8 Household Types EXHIBIT C RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Family Elderly Totals One Bedroom 29 11 40 Two Bedroom 70 37 107 Three Bedroom 16 0 16 Four Bedroom 2 0 2 117 48 165 Of these 165 units, 142 are in multiple dwellings, 15 are in double dwellings and 8 are in single dwellings. In addition, these 165 units have 139 certificates and 26 vouchers. Section 8 and Section 236 Family Units Archer Heights(I) Lundgren Maple Knolls Totals One Bedroom 30* - 3 33 Two Bedroom 55** 13 32 100 Three Bedroom 4*** 16 20 26 Handicapped - _: __- 2 89 29 57 175 Elderly Units Archer Heights(l) Concordia Anus Village on Woodlynn(2) Totals One Bedroom 64**** 124 20 208 Two Bedroom 40 40 (1) Archer Heights has 121 Section 8 units, 27 Section 236 units and 20 market rate units. Section 8 and 236 income guidelines are the same. Section 8 and 236 rent guidelines vary. (2) The Village on Woodlynn has 31 lower and moderate income units (including 12 Section 8 Units). *There is also 1 market rote unit. **There are also 8 market rate units. ***There are also 2 market rate units. ****There are also 9 market rate units. Section 8 and 236 Income and Rent C_~']ings Household size (Persons) 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 Maximum Annual Gross Family Income $17,850 $20,400 $22,950 $25,500 $27,550 $29,600 $31,600 $33,650 Maximum Allowable Rent Unit Type One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom (Includes gas and electricity) $535/month $630/month $788/month In the metropolitan area, the Section 8 and 236 programs are available only to the very low income - 50% or less of the median income for the metropolitan area. kr/anrepexc.mem EXHIBIT D HOUSING AND PLANNING PROPOSALS CONSIDERED Meeting Date 3-10-92 Item Election of Officers 1991 - 1992 Annual Report Truth-in-Housing Ordinance City Image Action Taken Elected Officers Ghanged and approved report Recommended keeping truth-in-housing Recommended 4 ideas for improving the City's image 7-14-92 Troth-in-Housing Ordinance Update Annual Report City Corridor Study Discussed Ordinance Received final report Discussed - no action taken 10-13-92 o Housing Stock Age and Issues Residential Building Trends Affordable Suburban Apartment Partnership (ASAP) Discussed - no action taken Discussed - no action taken Discussed - requested more information 10 11-10-92 Residential Real Estate Trends Cottages Of Maplewood Property Tax Reduction Ramsey County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Presentation by Saint Paul Area Realtors - No action Recommended approval with conditions Recommended Six Suggestions for CHAS 2-9-93 e Affordable Suburban Housing Partnership (ASHP) 1992 - 1993 Annual Report kr\anrepexD.mem