MINUTES

GREEN BAY HOUSING AUTHORITY

Thursday, September 17, 2009

1424 Admiral Court, Second Floor Reading Room

Green Bay, Wisconsin 54303

10:30 a.m.

MEMBERS: D. Dolan-Wallace-Chair, D. Piton, H. Genunzio, and D. Slater.

MEMBERS EXCUSED: W. VandeCastle-Vice-Chair

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

OTHERS PRESENT: R. Strong, R. Hallet, A. Monday, A. Steffel, M. Barron, K. Pamperin, K. Franz.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Approval of the minutes from the August 27, 2009, meeting of the Housing Authority of the City of Green Bay.

A motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by D. Slater to approve the minutes from the August 27, 2009, meeting of the Housing Authority of the City of Green Bay. Motion carried.

COMMUNICATIONS:

None.

OLD BUSINESS:

None.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Discussion and action on the request of University Village Housing Incorporated (UVHI) to adopt Resolution No. 09-06, a preliminary resolution relating to a proposed student housing project of the Housing Authority of the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, in the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay campus area, the financing thereof and other details relating thereto.

R. Strong stated that he had received a call from K. Pamperin and the UVHI is interested in doing another building on campus for student housing. The GBHA has funded a number for the campus over the years. If the Authority does choose to go ahead with this, it would be the preliminary resolution at this time and once everything has been finalized it would come back before the Authority for a final resolution.

A motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to suspend the rules to hear from interested parties. Motion carried.

K. Pamperin stated he serves on the UVHI Board. He stated that when the campus was first developed back in the late 1960s, the campus was prohibited from having state funded student housing. The reason for this is that it was a challenge to get the state to approve a new campus in the City of Green Bay when there were vacant dormitories on other campuses around the state. One of the conditions of approving a campus in Green Bay was that there would be no state funded housing. Chancellor Ed Weidner set aside some property on campus and titled it to the University League, which later transferred the property to the UVHI. UVHI had to figure out how to develop housing in the most affordable manner. The Housing Authority has the ability to issue double tax exempt housing mortgage revenue bonds. The Housing Authority issues the bonds but there is no financial or legal liability to the Housing Authority. The developer, UVHI, will then pay the Housing Authority an annual fee, which is equal to 1/10 of 1% of the bonds issued for the life of the bond. The issuance of the bond requires a bond counsel. The Housing Authority has used Michael Regenfuss for this in the past and it is recommended that he is used for this one also. UVHI is proposing eight million dollars to finance one building at this time. In the future, they may be coming back to the Authority to construct a second building for student housing. The building that they are currently proposing will have approximately 125 beds. UVHI does not own the land this housing would be constructed on so they are proposing a land lease that will go before the Building Commission on October 23, 2009, for approval. He stated that the final resolution for the bond would need to go to the Common Council for approval.

R. Strong stated that there has been a concern in the past with a limit of borrowing for maintaining bank qualified status through the City of Green Bay at ten million dollars. He spoke with the Dawn Foeller and the City is allowed to borrow up to thirty million dollars this year.

K. Franz, UWGB, stated that because of the federal stimulus package, there is a thirty million dollar cap per non-profit for two years.

R. Strong stated that this is a new housing building and is not replacing the building that had the fire.

D. Piton asked what the financial impact would be for the Housing Authority.

K. Pamperin stated that the Authority would receive approximately $8,000.00 per year for the life of the bond. The developer pays for all of the costs associated with the issuance of the bond.

K. Pamperin stated that the location and layout of the housing building as well as the site plan will require approval of the Plan Commission.

R. Strong stated that Bill Lockery, the Principal Planner, was not clear why this would need Plan Commission approval.

K. Pamperin stated that it is a statutory requirement for the bonds. The purpose is to ensure the Authority is not blindly proposing to issue bonds to create more affordable housing in the community. Also, this informs the community that housing is being proposed for a specific location and looks at what impact it might have on the community.

R. Strong stated that he signs numerous statements for various bonds indicating that the zoning is in place and everything is ready to go, but he has never had to run it through the Plan Commission. There is no problem sending this to the Plan Commission but wondered if this was a step that was unnecessary.

K. Pamperin stated that there is a mechanism in place that in the event that the Plan Commission would not be meeting for some reason or the timing was not workable that there is a process in place where either R. Strong or the Mayor could sign off. Typically though these have gone to the Plan Commission.

A motion was made by D. Slater and seconded by D. Piton to adopt preliminary Resolution 09-06 relating to a proposed student housing project of the Housing Authority of the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, in the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay campus area, the financing thereof and other details relating thereto. Motion carried.

A motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by D. Slater to return to the regular order of business. Motion carried.

2. Update and possible action on the Mason Manor expansion.

R. Hallet stated that herself, Ray Kurth, Reed Lewis, and Dave Johnson the architect, all met yesterday and reviewed some of the questions that were discussed at the last meeting of the Authority.

There was concern about no curb by the sidewalk in front of the addition and after much discussion the plan would stay as is. This sidewalk is sloped away from the building sufficiently enough to drain the water and will not be difficult for plowing.

There was concern with tenants driving up and parking over the sidewalks and there are several options available such as installing bollards so they could not pull up too far. It was also discussed if part of this area should be a loading/unloading zone and it was decided to not paint the lines in this area right away but to use temporary tape to make it a loading/unloading zone at first. If this is not being utilized for loading/unloading then it could be changed into parking.

In regards to the elevator, there are two companies that would be able to perform service on it. The main concern that was brought up at the last meeting was if there was only one company who could service it, would that be a problem. D. Johnson is going to talk with both companies to ensure that we have a one year warranty along with a monthly service agreement.

The architect is aware that we would like to have a window on the door that goes into the storage room and that would be done. There was an area from the stairway into the lobby area by the elevator that he initially planned to have a side window to allow light in but due to code restrictions there needs to be a firewall put in so he will do that and then put in a door with glass.

There was lengthy discussion on what type of heat should be used and D. Johnson is going to talk to the heating engineer about the possibility of adding a separate boiler for the addition. D. Johnson will report back on that once he has spoken with the engineer.

D. Dolan-Wallace stated that he believes one hour or two hour firewalls around storage rooms are no longer required as long as there is a sprinkler system around that area. The fire glass is very expensive and if we are able to put regular glass in the storage room doors instead of fire glass, it would be a big savings. He would like that to be checked into. He is not sure if there is a different requirement once you get above four floors.

R. Hallet stated that along with the heating issue was the question that if we didn’t use electric heat, would an electric box still be needed for a new addition. D. Johnson did confirm that the separate electric box is just for the new addition but it would be large enough to tap into it for other parts of the building if needed.

The windows are no longer slide windows but would be double hung and the frames for the windows would be aluminum. Windows are being put in the storage rooms so that light is able to come in and electricity won’t be needed as much to light the storage area.

The tenants will use their apartment keys to get into the storage area. The door will automatically lock so that if someone else wants to get into the storage area while a tenant is in there, they would have to use their apartment key. The door is always unlocked from the inside so that people are able to get out. The lights in the storage area will be motion/noise sensored so that if someone is sitting in their storage area and looking at things, as long as there is noise being made the lights will remain on. There will be epoxy flooring in the storage area.

D. Johnson will verify that the sump pump is protected from back up.

R. Hallet stated that they talked about creating a walkway on the new roof for when work needs to be done and that has been added to the plans.

R. Strong stated there is a backup diesel generator that could be used but we had talked about this maybe being an opportunity of getting rid of that one and putting in a natural gas generator. This could be put in as an alternative if money is available.

R. Hallet stated that she is in touch with the cell phone tower companies to ensure that if there is any special equipment that they need, it could be installed on the front end and that they are not going in and installing things later that could potentially damage the roof or the rubber on the roof.

R. Strong stated that there will be an alternate bid to do the tuck pointing on the building.

The Authority has instructed R. Hallet to check with the architect to see if a lightening rod should be added to the roof or has this been taken care of already in the plans.

D. Dolan-Wallace suggested checking with the architect if it would be cheaper to hold off through the winter months on building the addition.

A motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to receive and place on file, the update on the Mason Manor expansion. Motion carried.

3. Review of bids and awarding of contract for GBHA MM 09-01: MASON MANOR RAMP REPAIR to the lowest qualify bidder, Central Restoration LLC.

A motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to approve the award of the contract for GBHA MM 09-01: MASON MANOR RAMP REPAIR to the lowest qualify bidder, Central Restoration LLC. Motion carried.

INFORMATIONAL:

None.

FINANCIAL REPORT AND BILLS:

A motion was made by D. Slater and seconded by D. Piton to accept the financial report and bills as presented. Motion carried.

STAFF REPORT:

R. Strong informed the Authority that Anne May Steffel had accepted a job with HUD in Milwaukee and thanked her for all she has done.

R. Strong inquired about moving the meeting date for the October meeting back a week since October 1^st falls on a Thursday, the meeting in October comes early and would be on the 15^th. If we moved it back, there would also be a better chance of having the addition bids to present to the Authority.

The Authority decided to move the October 15, 2009 meeting to October 22, 2009.

R. Strong stated that there are four or five people who are authorized to sign checks for the Housing Authority. It used to be that he would sign as the secretary and Keith Pamperin would sign as the Housing Administrator. After Keith left the Chair and Vice-Chair would sign the checks. He asked if the Authority would want to continue that or go back to him signing as the secretary and now have Robyn Hallet signing as the Housing Administrator.

The Authority decided to allow R. Hallet and R. Strong to sign, but the Chair and Vice Chair would remain as alternate signers as needed.

R. Strong stated that the Authority had asked that Purchasing check to see if there would be a savings if the City purchased the paint for the Painting Contract. Purchasing stated that the savings is minimal and it would cost more to manage the paperwork then it would be to have the contractor purchase the paint. The contractor that was awarded the bid did understand the full scope of the contract.

The Authority voiced some concern because the contractor that was awarded the bid came in at half the cost of everyone else. Because the contractor is aware that the scope of the project does include the cost of paint, it was questioned if there is a certain brand needed to be bought. The quality of the paint needs to be good.

R. Strong stated that he would check on that.

R. Strong stated that normally we would be seeking quotes for an audit at this time because we have an audit every two years. With A. Steffel leaving he is going to extend the contract with the current auditor for one more year.

A motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by D. Slater to adjourn the meeting at 11:36 a.m. Motion carried.

:dmr