Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Administrator Ulrich stated that this could be one where you could draw a <br />conclusion of public safety - it could be a health and safety issue. As of January 1,2010, <br />these will no longer be allowed. If we see them from the curb, we will notify them. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that he could be swayed if no more could be put up but the <br />existing ones would have to come into compliance within a year. Put that in the Resident <br />- that they are not in compliance regardless of whether or not a complaint is received. <br /> <br />Consensus was to table this discussion for now and go back to Topic Report #1. <br /> <br />1) Neighborhood Stabilization Program <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated that Anoka County has received funds as <br />part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. These funds will be treated as <br />CDBGfunds requiring many of the same guidelines to be met as regular CDBG funding. <br />Their allocation is approximately $2.3 million. Anoka County will use these Federal <br />Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds (NSP) to create permanent housing <br />opportunities while meeting NSP requirements and household income guidelines within <br />the identified areas of greatest need. These areas have been determined by Federal <br />Census TractIBlock groups. At the same time Anoka County received this allocation, the <br />State of Minnesota also received about $38 million in funds. Ms. Miller presented some <br />of the income guidelines as well as an outline of the program itself and a map showing <br />the identified areas of need. She then introduced Kate Thunstrom from Anoka County. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that one of the problems we found was that there are pockets <br />of area in the City. He added that he is not interested in bailing out any of the companies <br />that delved into any predatory lending concepts and hoped there was a way of filtering <br />those out. <br /> <br />Ms. Thunstrom presented a background of the program, the regulations, allocations, local <br />distributions, ineligible use of NSP funding, NSP income targeting, purchasing homes <br />with NSP, rehabilitation standards, sale of NSP homes, program income, audit, and <br />talked more about the areas of greatest need. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that it was mentioned that the County is required to make an <br />offer of 5 to 15% lower than the appraisal - that would impact neighborhood values. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGlone inquired if the City is required to participate in this program. <br /> <br />Ms. Miller stated that the house has to be foreclosed on and vacant and that the City is <br />not required to participate in this program. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wise stated that you are given $2.5 million to rehabilitate these homes <br />but the burden is put on the County to do all the tracking. Therefore, the true cost is by <br />far greater than the $2.5 million. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session - May 5, 2009 <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />