MINUTES
GREEN BAY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 20, 2010
1424 Admiral Court, Second
Floor Reading Room
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54303
10:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D.
Dolan-Wallace-Chair; D. Slater- Vice-Chair; T. De Wane; H. Genunzio;
W. VandeCastle.
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
None.
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Nikki Aderholdt, Molly Barron, Kail Decker, Tom
Dennee, Robyn Hallet, Noel Halvorsen, Anne Monday, Matt Schampers, Rob Strong.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Approval of the minutes from the March 18, 2010, meeting of
the Housing Authority of the City of Green Bay.
A motion was made by D. Slater, seconded by H. Genunzio, to approve the minutes from the March 18, 2010,
GBHA meeting. Motion carried.
2. Approval of the minutes from the April 8, 2010, special meeting
of the Housing Authority of the City of Green Bay.
A motion was made by D.
Slater, seconded by H. Genunzio, to approve the
minutes from the April 8, 2010, GBHA special meeting. Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
OLD BUSINESS:
3. Update
and possible action on the status of the loan made to NeighborWorks® Green Bay for
the Armory project, with exploration of development alternatives.
For an update and possible action regarding the status
of the loan made to NeighborWorks® Green Bay for the Armory project, pursuant
to 19.85(1)(e), the GBHA may go into closed session
to deliberate or negotiate the purchasing of public properties or the
investing of public funds for competitive or bargaining reasons. The Authority may
thereafter reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats.,
to report the results of the closed session and consider the balance of the
agenda.
N. Halvorsen
and T. Dennee were introduced and welcomed to the meeting. N. Halvorsen gave a
brief history of the Armory project and the exploration of previous
developmental alternatives in respect to the loan provided by the GBHA. N. Halvorsen
indicated that the Armory project began in the late 1990’s with the identification
of the property at 437 S. Jackson Street, the Armory building on Chicago St and
others as a candidates for renovation for adaptive reuse for housing. After
many years and efforts, NeighborWorks Green Bay moved
forward with an acquisition of the property. At that time, the GBHA was asked
to participate in the purchase of the property. N. Halvorsen stated that
shortly thereafter, the acquisition occurred, NeighborWorks
Green Bay took the loan from the Authority, and the project was put out to bid.
Unfortunately, the bids came back approximately $1 million higher than what was
expected. Since that point, NeighborWorks Green Bay
has received a number of negotiable offers, but none of the offers have
successfully closed.
N.
Halvorsen indicated that NeighborWorks Green Bay has repaid
some of the funds; the Authority has abated some of the loans as permanent
deferred loans, but there is still $205,000 of the Authority’s money tied up in
the Armory project. NeighborWorks Green Bay has been
receiving annual extensions for a number of years in regards to repaying this
$205,000 to allow for reworking the property.
N.
Halvorsen stated that T. Dennee and he are present in front of the Authority
today to discuss possible scenarios and alternatives for the Armory project. N.
Halvorsen requested that the meeting go into closed session due to having
direct quotes from bids. R. Strong indicated that the meeting can move forward
without entering into closed session, but recommends that exact quotes not be
mentioned.
N.
Halvorsen indicated that there are five options for the Armory project. The
first option (Option “A”) is demolition of the entire structure. This option
would be less than $100,000 but approaching that number. While this option
would solve the issue of what to do with the Armory project, there is no way to
generate any revenue or sale to repay the loan from the Authority. The second
option (Option “B”) is the demolition of the entire structure and construction
of a new building. This option provides a new building without surprises, and a
mechanism for future earnings. However, not only would NeighborWorks
maintain the cost of reconstructing a new building, but they would suffer the
cost of the demolition as well. The third option (Option “C”) offers the
demolition of 40 percent of the structure. This could be done for well under
$200,000. This option would preserve a significant portion of the building for
redevelopment and would deter further water damage, but it doesn’t address the
interior façade of the building. The fourth option (Option “D”) is the
demolition of 40 percent of the structure and improving the balance of the
building to a ‘white box’ status. This would preserve a significant portion of
the building for redevelopment; it provides space that’s ready to lease.
Unfortunately, the market is not the best for this option right now. The fifth
option (Option “E”) would include no demolition, but making general repairs to
the building such as new windows, new roof, and new doors. This project would
cost approximately half of the previously mentioned options. While this option
makes the building more marketable, it does not improve the interior of the
building.
N.
Halvorsen recommends the fourth option (Option “D”) as the best for long-term
purposes, but doesn’t see it being feasible at this point. D. Dolan-Wallace
suggested utilizing Option “E” and creating the property into storage/rental
units until other options present themselves or are more feasible. N. Halvorsen
stated that if Option “C” were considered and a partial demolition was conducted
and a new roof installed, NeighborWorks could then
offer dry storage. During this time, NeighborWorks
could then gut out the remaining portions of the building which would open the
prospects for other options. N. Halvorsen stated those options were worth
considering and looking into.
D.
Dolan-Wallace stated that another option would be not to think about a new
building, but to think about an addition to the current building. The space
could be utilized by any number of businesses, but you could also take the
building down, turn it into a parking lot, and add on to the NeighborWorks building for additional work space. This
could be a much more financially appealing solution. N. Halvorsen indicated
that this was an option that had not even been thought of. N. Halvorsen stated
that the NeighborWorks building has proven quite
successful, and the demand for the space is high.
R.
Strong questioned whether the options of developing the space into residential
apartments and condos had been looked into. N. Halvorsen stated that the cost
of the penetrations into doing this really made it difficult to consider as a
feasible option. R. Strong indicated that instead of demolishing the building
and reconstructing a new office building, why not reconstruct townhomes or some
sort of residential building. R. Strong indicated that the reason he suggests
this is because the loan came from the Housing Authority, and being such, it
would be nice to see “housing” incorporated into this project. N. Halvorsen and
T. Dennee indicated that this option was never considered. T. Dennee indicated
that the problem with this particular building for residential property is that
the building is set up perfectly for condominiums. However, the riverside is so
built up with condos right now that the market for them does not make this
option appealing.
R.
Strong stated that being a Housing Authority, the GBHA would support any type
of housing facilities, but may be tentative when considering a commercial
project. N. Halvorsen indicated that this was an excellent idea and it would be
further researched. R. Strong also indicated that a combination of offices and
residential should be considered as well. D. Dolan-Wallace affirmed this
suggestion.
N.
Halvorsen indicated that he would add the suggestions to the list, research
them, and return to the Authority with some numbers. D. Dolan-Wallace asked
what the timeline was on the loan. N. Halvorsen responded that it concluded at
the end of June. D. Dolan-Wallace inquired whether NeighborWorks
could provide some sort of report regarding these options prior to June 30. N. Halvorsen
stated that that deadline would prove extremely difficult. R. Strong questioned
whether a short-term extension of the loan would allow enough time for NeighborWorks to conduct its research into these options.
N. Halvorsen indicated that he could be prepared to present something to the
Board at July’s meeting. D. Dolan-Wallace inquired what NeighborWorks
Green Bay’s Board favorite option of the five was. N. Halvorsen indicated that
Option “D” was there preferred choice from an organizational standpoint. W.
VandeCastle indicated that the Authority should look to extend the loan because
obviously this issue will not be resolved within the next month. By extending
the loan, the Authority would recommend that within the next 60 to 90 days, NeighborWorks returns to present some sort of direction for
prospective projects.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by H. Genunzio,
to extend the loan, applying the same terms as previously applied (2% interest,
deferred payment), for one year, and requiring NeighborWorks
Green Bay to return within 60 to 90 days with a report on intentions with
prospective projects. Motion carried.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by T. De Wane, to address item #5 of
the agenda next. Motion carried.
5. Discussion and action regarding
review of Scattered Site tenant files and response to request of Integrated
Community Solutions regarding under and over payments.
For
an update and possible action regarding discussion and action regarding review
of Scattered Site tenant files and response to request of Integrated Community
Solutions regarding under and over payment, the Authority may convene in closed
session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats., for the purpose of
conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral
or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to
litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved. The Authority may thereafter reconvene in
open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to report the results
of the closed session and consider the balance of the agenda.
K.
Decker indicated for the record that the GBHA had received a response letter
from ICS. Based on the response challenging a few items and not simply being
affirmative, the Board has concluded to enter into a closed session to discuss
these items further.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by D. Slater, to enter into closed
session to discuss the challenged items presented in ICS’ response letter.
K.
Decker stated that pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(g),
Wis. Stats., for the purpose of conferring with legal counsel for the
governmental body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy
to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is
likely to become involved. The Authority
may thereafter reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis.
Stats., to report the results of the closed session and consider the balance of
the agenda.
After confirming agreement to enter into
closed session via roll call, the meeting convened in closed session.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by T. De Wane, to go back into open
session. Motion carried.
Kail
provided a summary of what was discussed in closed session, stating that the
GBHA discussed the letter received by ICS in response to the letter that was
sent to them in regards to the Scattered Site program management tenant file
errors.
The
GBHA returned to Item #4.
4. Review and adoption of updated
Utility Allowances for Scattered Sites.
R.
Hallet indicated that the Housing Authority approved and adopted the Utility
Allowances in February 2010. R. Hallet indicated as a reminder that the GBHA
adopts the utility allowance amounts that the Brown County Housing Authority
determines, simply to streamline the process. The BCHA adopted their new
utility allowances last month, so the GBHA should update theirs accordingly. R.
Hallet indicated that all of the amounts increased slightly.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by D. Slater, to approve the
updated utility allowances as presented. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
6. Discussion and approval on revised Chapters 3
(Eligibility), 4 (Applications, Waiting List and Tenant Selection) to the
Admissions & Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP).
R.
Hallet stated that due to time limitations and urgency of other agenda items,
it is recommended that this particular item be postponed either until the end
of the meeting or next month’s meeting.
R.
Strong indicated that the GBHA is in the process of updating their ACOP per Nan
McKay recommendations. R. Strong stated that all Board members should be
receiving a summary of each updated chapter in their packet attached to their
agenda. The reason for the summary is because the chapters tend to be extremely
long. R. Strong indicated that if any Board member would like a copy of the
actual chapter that could be arranged.
T.
De Wane inquired whether these changes are mandated by the state. N. Aderholdt
indicated that the proposed changes and updates are a combination of both what
is required and what the Authority would like adopted. The reason for the
summary is simply to allow for an easier read. N. Aderholdt indicated that the
actual language of some of these chapters is 60 to 70 pages long. The summary,
however, highlights the major changes being incorporated in the new ACOP. The
Authority requested that the full length chapters be emailed to each
commissioner prior to the meeting it’s brought forward.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by H. Genunzio,
to table this item until either the end of the meeting or July’s meeting. Motion
carried.
7. Discussion
and approval to change Chapter 15 (Recertifications) of ACOP to reflect change
of annual recertification dates for new Mason Manor residents to coincide with residents’
anniversary of move-in date.
R.
Hallet stated that at Scattered Sites, annual reviews are conducted based on
the date of when the tenant moved into the unit. At Mason Manor, all tenant’s
annual reviews have always been conducted at the same time of the year.
Unfortunately, this requires the Mason Manor staff to be under a time crunch
during this time of year to complete all of the recertifications.
R. Hallet stated that it is being proposed to change Chapter 15 of the ACOP to
allow Mason Manor to transition to a format that is based on the tenants’
move-in dates.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by H. Genunzio,
to approve the change to Chapter 15 of the ACOP to reflect the change of annual
recertification dates for new Mason Manor residents to coincide with residents’
anniversary of move-in date. Motion carried.
8. Discussion
and preliminary approval of GBHA Budget.
M.
Schampers stated that there are three separate budgets; a Mason Manor budget
(“MM”), a Scattered Site budget (“SS”), and a Central Office Cost Center budget
(“COCC”). Each of these budgets was handed out to the Commissioners and anyone
present at the meeting.
The
Commissioners requested that M. Schampers provide a brief synopsis of any major
changes occurring for each budget. M. Schampers began with the Central Office Cost
Center budget (“COCC”). The first part of the budget indicates the GBHA’s
revenues, which are derived based on allowed billings by HUD. M. Schampers stated
that there were no major changes in this area. The administrative salaries
increased slightly from last year’s budget, which is driven by the
incorporation of a new position. It did not increase dramatically because an
employee who did some work for the GBHA no longer conducts that work, so that
helps to offset the new position. M. Schampers indicated that the biggest
change will occur in ‘Staff Training’. The actuals so
far for 2010 are around $7,000. The 2009 budget allocated $2,500 for this area,
with the actual coming in around $2,900. The 2010 allocations for staff
training in the budget reflect $14,000, which is a very big change. M.
Schampers provided a breakdown of the training sessions in relation to their
cost. Robyn Hallet would be attending capital improvement training. R. Hallet
stated that this training would allow for a better handle on capital
improvement needs, how to properly follow procedures, how to properly identify
needs, and reporting requirements to HUD.
R.
Strong indicated that every federal program has very specific regulations. When
you bring in new staff, you need to have them trained accordingly to allow for
them to be capable of administering the programs.
M.
Schampers indicated that the next training for R. Hallet is supervisory
training. N. Aderholdt would receive public housing specialist training. R.
Hallet indicated that this training provides a lot of background in policies
and procedures required for public housing. This training provides specifics regarding
eligibility, occupancy, rent calculation and other areas which N. Aderholdt
will need in her new position. M. Schampers indicated that R. Strong will be
attending the annual Planning Association conference. The training for A.
Monday was not specified at this time, but it allows for her to attend training
sessions when available or necessary. M. Schampers indicated that his training
would include a training already attended and a session coming up, which is
presented by Casterline, an accounting firm that
consults with HUD. This training would be split with the BCHA, as part of the
training pertains to the HCV program. Mason Manor staff have had training
budgeted for in case sessions present themselves that would be necessary for
them to attend.
M.
Schampers indicated that among the training portion of the budget, there is a
portion budgeted for on-site training, which will occur when HAB, Inc. comes
on-site to provide training on the HAB software program. M. Schampers indicated
that no one in the office currently has extensive training in this program.
M.
Schampers stated that this fall the annual Wisconsin Association of Housing
Authorities conference will take place in Door County. It was budgeted for all
employees to attend because it is a local conference and also because it is in
our district and we are therefore co-hosts of the conference. There are six
individuals budgeted for this conference: four staff and two
commissioners. R Hallet indicated this
conference will be held September 13-16, 2010 and invited the commissioners to
consider if they might like to attend. Also, the budget reflects two individuals
to attend a spring conference.
M.
Schampers concluded that that is the entire training budget for all three
budgets, and is really the only big change to the budget as an entirety. In
reference to the COCC budget, M. Schampers indicated that the GBHA is trending
well below the budgeted amounts, due to a decent size surplus amount being
carried over from the previous budget.
M.
Schampers continued on to the Scattered Site portion of the budget, indicating
a few changes. The first is dwelling rental, which is revenue. For 2009, the
GBHA was budgeted at $96,000. The GBHA retained $91,000 for 2008. For 2010, the
GBHA is budgeted for $135,000. M. Schampers indicated that this number was
deduced from taking the current month’s rent and extrapolate that for the year.
The share being paid by the tenant is much higher than previously, which allows
the GBHA to take in more money. M. Schampers indicated that this is the only
real change for revenue. The administrative expenses show a $200 difference. M.
Schampers indicated that the general expenses increased due to insurance,
payments in lieu of taxes, and things out of the Authority’s control. M.
Schampers stated that the Authority is operating with a lot more revenue than
expenses.
M.
Schampers continued on to the Mason Manor portion of the budget. Mason Manor’s
budget will experience an extreme jump due to “other income”. The actual from
2009 was $91,709; 2010 is anticipating $95,089. The expected “other income”
will come from washer and dryer revenue, late fees, insurance dividends, and the
bulk from cellular phone towers leases. There really is no variance from last
year’s budget; it just appears different because it was not accounted for as
“other income” in 2009. M. Schampers indicated that he did not have an
explanation for that since he was not with the GBHA at that time. The
anticipated surplus for Mason Manor is $102,000, allowing for a very big
cushion.
M.
Schampers indicated that formal approval of this budget will be sought in the
July meeting.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by D. Slater, to preliminarily
approve the proposed budget as presented. Motion carried.
9. Adoption
of Resolution 10-03: ARRA Amendment to Procurement Policy.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by D. Slater, to table item #9.
Motion carried.
10. Discussion
and approval to award bid to lowest responsive and responsible bidder, not to
exceed $14,500, for remodeling of 1408 University Ave.
R.
Hallet indicated that 1408 University is a scattered site unit that needs new
flooring and cabinets, and a new toilet. It is currently out for bid and the
bids are due by May 24. R. Hallet requested that the Board approve the lowest
bid amount even though that amount has not yet been determined.
A
motion was made by T. De Wane, seconded by W. VandeCastle, to approve and award
bid to lowest responsive and responsible bidder, not to exceed $14,500 for
remodeling of 1408 University Ave. Motion carried.
11. Adoption of Resolution No. 10-04 Approving
the Working Conditions, Work Hours, and Compensation for Maintenance Employees
of the City of Green Bay Working for the Housing Authority of the City of Green
Bay.
A motion was made by T. De Wane,
seconded by W. VandeCastle, to discuss and approve items #9 and #11 at the same
time. Motion carried.
R. Hallet indicated that Resolution
10-03 is simply approval of procurement policies required by HUD that coincide
with the ARRA funds. This will allow for streamlining the use of ARRA funds.
R. Strong indicated that Resolution
10-04 is seeking approval of the prevailing wage rates for our maintenance
employees. This resolution notifies HUD of our compliance with the requirement
to pay maintenance staff the prevailing wage.
A motion was made by W. VandeCastle,
seconded by D. Slater, to approve Resolution 10-03 and Resolution 10-04 as
presented. Motion carried.
12. Request for authorization to obtain bids
and use operating expenses to pressure wash exteriors of Scattered Sites.
R. Hallet stated that all the
scattered sites are in much need of exterior pressure washing.
A motion was made by T. De Wane,
seconded by D. Slater, to approve authorization to obtain bids and use
operating expenses to pressure wash exteriors of scattered site units. Motion
carried.
13. Request for authorization for software
provider, HAB, Inc., to come on-site to provide training to staff.
R.
Hallet indicated that the GBHA would like to have HAB, Inc. come on-site to
provide training of their software to the staff. It would cost roughly $1,200
per day, plus travel and out-of-pocket expenses, totaling approximately $4,800.
R. Hallet indicated to have our staff travel to the training would prove more
expensive and invasive to have staff completely out of the office for this time.
R. Hallet indicated that she preferred all staff received the training.
D.
Dolan-Wallace questioned whether this training will strain on the staff office
time. R. Hallet indicated that it is a concern, but as we are in office without
the training currently, it takes longer to determine how to do things with the
software. In the long run, it will prove resourceful.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle, seconded by D. Slater, to approve
authorization for software provider, HAB, Inc., to come on-site to provide
training to staff. Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL:
14. Housing Authority Insurance Group Risk Control Dividend (RCD) Report Draft and GBHA’s response.
R. Hallet recommended tabling item
#14. Item #14 was tabled until the July meeting.
15. Change of effective
date of Flat/Ceiling rents to July 1, 2010.
R. Hallet recommended tabling item
#15. Item #15 was tabled until the July meeting.
FINANCIAL REPORT AND BILLS:
R. Hallet distributed the
financial report and a listing of the bills. M. Schampers indicated that these
are all of the bills to date.
A motion was made by W.
VandeCastle, seconded by H. Genunzio, to approve the
financial report and bills as presented. Motion carried.
STAFF REPORT:
16. Occupancy
reports for Mason Manor and Scattered Sites.
R.
Hallet indicated that the distribution of a hard copy of the report is based on
a suggestion by the Board to accompany the verbal report. R. Hallet indicated
that Mason Manor has one vacancy, which will be filled by June 1, 2010. There
are several vacancies with the scattered site units, several of which will be
filled as of June 1, 2010 as well.
17. Update on creation of
limited term fulltime position to assist Housing Administrator.
R.
Strong indicated that both authorities have agreed to contribute 50 percent
toward funding this position. The process has recently been taken through the
Human Resources Department with the City of Green Bay, who advertised the
position. City Council approved creation of the position, and interviews have
been conducted. R. Strong indicated that by tomorrow afternoon, the Housing
Authority should be prepared to make an offer, assumedly to N. Aderholdt.
18. Inquiry regarding change to agenda
format.
R. Hallet indicated that item #18 can be tabled until the
July meeting.
19. Monthly report from
Barron Rentals of deficiencies found in previous month’s Scattered Site
quarterly inspections.
D. Dolan-Wallace questioned whether
there were any significant deficiencies found. M. Barron indicated that there
are no significant deficiencies.
20. Quarterly Scattered Site newsletter, starting May
1, 2010.
R. Hallet indicated that the Housing Authority is
starting the distribution of a quarterly newsletter to Scattered Site residents,
which has been included in the agenda packet.
21. Update on Mason Manor
Expansion project.
R. Hallet indicated that the project was ahead of
schedule for a while due to cooperating weather. However, a backorder on the
necessary steel has caused a delay, which has set the project back about a week
and a half. Another issue that has presented itself is that construction and
access to the northernmost, east unit on each floor must occur. Each affected apartment
will require three day’s work. R. Hallet indicated a third issue is that the
epoxy flooring that was initially bid for may not be feasible. Other options
are being explored.
R. Hallet explained that
there have been three change orders on this project so far: one was for
builder’s insurance of $784, the second for $16,268 encompassed three changes,
and the third was for $132.
22. Inquiries into connecting Mason Manor fire alarm system to
automatically notify Fire Department.
R. Hallet indicated that the current Mason Manor fire
alarm system does not automatically notify the Fire Department; someone must
make a call reporting a fire. R. Hallet stated that she discussed the
feasibility of making such a connection with a representative of the Green Bay
Fire Department. Aside from the high
cost to update the system, the Authority would also incur charged for false
alarms; currently the Authority has approximately four to five false alarms a
year. After the first free false alarm, the cost would be $100 for the first
charged false alarm, $200 for the second, and $300 for each successive false
alarm. The Fire Department indicated that connecting this option really doesn’t
shorten the response time in comparison to someone making the phone call and
furthermore gives residents a false sense of security, which could result in no
one calling 911 if there is a fire.
23. Inquiry of making a drop off box for old prescription drugs
available at Mason Manor.
R. Hallet indicated that item #23 could be tabled until
the July meeting.
A motion was made by W.
VandeCastle, seconded by D. Slater, to adjourn the meeting at approximately
12:20 PM. Motion carried.
:naa