Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
3.5 Comm Dev Blck Grant Allocations
1 r CITYOF ____... I CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 04 tw.. L; C-y Aanimst-?tc• IIMEMORANDUM S •1 ,— TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager IIFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director .:,__O7110_—T1 ,___ DATE: June 5, 1991 ISUBJ: Update Memo - Request for Reallocation for Year XVI Block Grant Funds to Undertake Senior Housing and Senior Center 1 Feasibility Studies and Reallocation of Previously Approved Year XVII Funds At the May 20th City Council meeting, staff made a presentation I regarding our Year XVI and Year XVII Block Grant funding applications. The request was broken down into two distinct areas. The first was a request from Larry Blackstad, who is the Planner at 1 Hennepin County who administers our program. He has requested that we juggle $3, 000 in funds which will have no real bearing on our program allocations but rather facilitate his ability to keep the I program within federal guidelines. The City Council previously approved the allocation of $3, 000 of Year XVII Block Grant funds for the Sojourn Senior Day Care Center. The Hennepin County request would have this coming out of the $23, 000 reserved for I senior programs in the Year XVI funds. This would then make up $3, 000 available in Year XVII funds for senior programming. This is essentially a wash that does not affect city programs for I seniors in any way. In fact, there is a benefit in that funds will be available for Sojourn Senior Center immediately rather than waiting until funds are normally disbursed in July or August. I Staff is recommending that the City Council take action to approve this transfer of funds. The minutes of the May 20, 1991, meeting indicate that all action pertaining to CDBG requests were tabled. I The second issue concerns the request of reallocation of funds to undertake senior housing and senior center feasibility studies. Members of the Council indicated concerns with continuing to I undertake studies rather than actual construction and raised the fact that some of this data may already be available elsewhere. I regret that I was unable to attend the City Council meeting to explain these requests more fully. We should summarize that the I funding requests have been approved by and recommended for approval by the Senior Citizen Commission. They view these studies as the start of work on a long road that may lead us to construction of I I 11 1 CDBG Funds June 5, 1991 Page 2 these facilities, if a need is demonstrated and enough community support can be garnered. We also note that at the present time we have no competing requests for these funds for either senior ' activities or anything else that may be eligible for block grant funding. Comments were made that the Metropolitan Council has already studied this question. It is true, the Metro Council is a valuable source of information and if these feasibility studies are ' proceeded with we would have every intention of using all data sources available, including but not limited to the Metro Council. The Metro Council did undertake a study "Housing Market for Older People in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area" and I have attached the executive summary of the rather lengthy report to this memo for your review. It must be stressed that this information is regional in nature and not specific to Chanhassen, nor even to the ' southwestern suburban area. In addition, the data used in this study is 1980 census data which is as we know significantly outdated relative to our community. In short while this information is of interest, it is far from conclusive as to whether or not these facilities are desirable or feasible in Chanhassen. Likewise, the small scale senior needs study that the city completed last year is inadequate as an aid in making these decisions. This was a very low cost study whose effort was designed to gain an understanding and overview of the range of issues affecting seniors. Of these issues, two of them were identified as the need for a senior community center and senior housing options in the community. However, this information is of general interest only in terms of directing further work efforts. It is not the reliable data that should be available when a community is looking to appropriate the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars that these facilities would require. Basically, most of this data was gathered from a mail survey of ' senior households. Asking the household to check a box is a lot different question than asking them if they would move into senior housing and if so, where should it be located, what type of apartments should be available, what is the rent structure, what are the needed related facilities and programs and services, etc. The same type of information is to be gathered for the senior center. Based upon what we know today, it appears that there is demand and potentially the feasibility needed to support these facilities. ' However, I cannot in good conscience come before you and conclusively state that this is the case or that we know exactly how to tailor these facilities to the specific needs of our senior residents. This is the information we are seeking to develop with these feasibility studies. If the Council desires to point staff and the Senior Citizen Commission in the direction of attempting to program these facilities in advance of undertaking these studies, I CDBG Funds I June 5, 1991 Page 3 we will of course do so, but we must tell you that we think there I are increased risks in pursuing this course of action. The whole point of doing feasibility studies is not to enrich consultants but rather to minimize risk. We are therefore continuing to request that the Council consider allocation of funds for undertaking the feasibility studies. However, we understand and agree with the Council 's belief that if an amount of money is dangled in front of consultants they will tailor their work effort to use every penny. We would like to get the most bang for the buck and if we can get these studies done in a competent manner for less than the amount available, we would certainly do so and ask you to approve reprogramming of remaining funds for other purposes. It is my opinion, that the $26, 112 that we have available is probably going to be close to the cost for the studies but we acknowledge that we could be wrong. Therefore, the Council may want to consider directing staff to send out requests for proposals to undertake these studies. Copies of the RFPs are attached as back up to this report and were attached to the May 15th memo. We could then bring - the proposals back to you for your review and consideration. These proposals would be sent out without a cost ceiling or minimum, only the work program would be sent out. Hopefully, this could result in some savings to the city. We are also firmly convinced that bidding the two studies together will result in further cash savings to the city as well the potential of using city staff to support the selected consultant, as appropriate. I wish that I could tell you that we could complete these studies in-house. I do not believe that we have the professional expertise to do a competent job in this area and are therefore recommending that we get the outside assistance that we believe is necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the reallocation of Years XVI and XVII Block Grant Funds to transfer $3, 000 from Year XVII funds to Year XVI for the Sojourn Senior Day Care Center, $3,000 to Year XVII and $23, 112 of Year XVI funds to undertake senior programming. , B. The City Council direct staff to send our Requests for Proposals to complete senior housing and senior center feasibility studies for the City. These RFPs are not to contain any city estimates of cost or availability of funds. ATTACHMENTS I 1. City Council minutes dated May 20, 1991. 2 . Staff report dated May 15, 1991. 1 11 City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 free money. 1 Councilman Mason: I'll second that . Resolution #91-51: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to ' approve a Resolution regarding the DNR Shoreland Ordinance Grant. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: REALLOCATE YEAR XVI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO ' UNDERTAKE SENIOR HOUSING/SENIOR CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY. Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. ' Jo Ann Olsen: Essentially what 's happening is Paul's been working with Larry Blackstad and he's requested us to take some of the funds from one year and put it into another year so that he meets his allocation. Essentially we're getting ' all the same money. It 's still going to the same things you voted on before. Nothing's changed. It's just different years. Mayor Chmiel: I was with Paul the day that we had this discussion and yeah, I ' know what he's saying. Although I do have some just a couple concerns here. Again we'll be looking for requests for proposals and having someone do the research for this to go through some of the proposals that we're looking at in ' some of those discussions. I'm wondering if we are checking with other cities to find out what they have done. What some of the thoughts are. Acquire some of their information and take it from there rather than getting another ' consultant come on board starting to look at it and coming up with some of our own ideas before we hire that particular consultant . Or if we do hire. I guess I just don't want us to run too fast with this. I want to really stand there and know exactly what we're looking for those senior housing needs and to come up with a feasibility study for this. But I want us to be a little cautious in doing this. Walk but don't run. This is what I'm saying. Ursula? ' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have some of the same concerns and I just wanted to make sure, and I think you've already said it but I want to make sure that what we're doing here is we're not taking any money away from Sojourn or from the other projects or programs that we already. allocated money to. Jo Ann Olsen: Everything remains the same. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Everything remains the same? But we're talking about $26,000.00 plus dollars that are being allocated to a study. Is that correct? Jo Ann Olsen: Right . That 's correct. Councilwoman Dimler: Is this coming out of year XVI or XVII? Jo Ann Olsen: I think it's coming out of both. The $23,000.00 is coming from one of the years and then $3,000.00 is coming fr::m. r 12 I City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, as you're looking here on page 2 Jo Ann, it says that senior housing feasibility study would be funding $23,112.00 of the Year XVI plus an additional $3,000.00 out of the year XVII. Jo Ann Olsen: So it 's kind of split now with the two. Councilwoman Dimler: Out of XVII though, I don't understand how we're not taking any away from what we've already allocated then. Jo Ann Olsen: Actually what's happening is that we're being able to use some of the money sooner . It will be available this June. The XVI money rather than waiting for the year XVII. So what you're doing is taking some from the Year XVII and giving it to Year XVI. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would also like to express my concern about allocating $26,000.00 plus dollars for a study when the Met Council has already done a study that is available to us and a lot of the information is in there. Also, again I have this concern about paying consultants Usually if we allocate $26,000.00, they will use up $26,000.00. So if we need a consultant, I would like to put a lid on that, say maybe $10,000.00 or put out bids for a study. I just can't see arbitrarily saying $26,000.00 for a study. Because I'd like to see some of that money go to programs and I understand that it can be used for that purpose. Is that correct? Jo Ann Olsen: I think what's happening here is that we have said that it will go to the feasibility study. Now whether or not we can use $10,000.00 towards the feasibility study and $13,000.00 towards something else, I don't know if that is possible. Councilwoman Dimler: Would you check into that? I Councilman Wing: I guess I was just questioning where did this dollar amount come from for the feasibility study? Why was that amount chosen? ' Councilwoman Dimler: That's what I wanted to know. Councilman Wing: I agree with Ursula. If that 's the amount available, that could easily be spent . On the other hand, it might be $6,000.00, $14,000.00. It 's an arbitrary number. Why have we put that number out as an amount that will be spent , could be spent or won't be spent? Jo Ann Olsen: I believe that was the money that was available to us. Councilman Wing: Total? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. And there's only a certain amount that we can put towards capital expenditures so we had like the $26,000.00 left over that we had to put towards something else and that's what we chose to spend it on that. I think it's kind of meets the requirements. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and that 's the kind of public spending that I absolutely abhor when we say we have to spend it on this. I mean we're talking about trying to save tax dollars and stuff and then we have to spend it on a I 13 ' City Ccurcil Meetir,7 -- May 20, 1991 11 feasibility study. It just doesn't make any sense when the feasibility study IIcould very well only cost you $10,000.00 or less. Councilman Wing: Especially when this Council supports the Seniors, the Senior- Center, the Senior Housing. What do we want to accomplish and how did we do II it? That 's the feasibility study. I can't put a dollar on that . III Councilwoman Dimler: Well I certainly support the study but I think, like III said the Met Council study can certainly be used for a lot of your data. And Paul also mentioned something in the Minutes that I saw that he thought that maybe the HRH; would get involved with their funds. I'm not sure as a Council IIthat we can make that recommendation. For more for the study. You know I mean we're asking for more for the study. I thought that was kind of unusual. Councilman Wing: Ursula, this is grant money. If we don't spend it , someone II else will. Councilwoman Dimler: That 's the kind of reasoning that got us into trouble. ICouncilman Wing: Thank you. I wanted that clarified. Mayor Chmiel: Continuation if dollars that are provided to the City and that 's I true. If we don't use it , someone else will. But I just don't feel taking grant dollars just because you can get it and do something, whether you do something with it or not . 11 Councilwoman Dimler: That 's why I said I'd love to see the rest go towards expanding the programs for the seniors. IIJo Ann Olsen: I don't know if that 's possible. I'll have Paul check. III Councilwoman Dimler: Or maybe we could put some money down for purchasing the II land where we're going to put the building you know instead of just wasting it on a study. I Mayor Chmiel: Before I continue on down the road, I apologize. I should have asked if there's anyone within the audience who'd like to possibly address this as well. Seeing none, I'll move back to Tom. IICouncilman Workman: We're all kind of in a cranky mood and boy there's a lot of planners and consultants in the audience that are saying, man it 's open season on us. We're trying to undermine their livelihood. We talked about this, or I II talked about it a little bit at our goal setting session about let 's- go. Let's find out about this and certainly maybe this kind of a thing takes a study and spending some money but when it starts to get bigger like that, $26,000.00 in IIthat traffic study we did downtown went just like that. What I fear is that we're not , and that 's what I want to find out. It's a nuance. Are we, and maybe we can't find this out without a study. Are we anywhere near ready I capital wise to build something like this? And if we're not and we can figure out rather inexpensively whether or not we're really going to go or should go ahead with this, then I see this $26,000.00 study getting old and then in 3 years a new Council or whoever will have to do it again based on new II III II 14 II City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 demographics and everything else. I don't know if the Met Council, I think I have a copy of that . Maybe that 's old but who knows? Councilwoman Dimler: No, it was September, 1990 study. So it 's not that old. Less than a year. Councilman Workman: So my biggest fear is that the report will get old and then . we still won't know if we want to build it or not but do we not spend 'free - money? Councilwoman Dimler: It 's not free. Councilman Workman: But then I'm not being helpful by not having a suggestion except other than watering it down a bit. Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I think Ursula's right in saying what's there. We can charge a lot of time to this. Basically there's a lot of things that we have to take into consideration. Number one, location. Where should it be? Number two, how many residents within our community are willing to, if we go into housing, willing to move into this kind of facility? Does it even warrant it? Do they want to move out of their own homes? There's a whole bunch of kinds of questions that have to be asked. Councilman Workman: Make it big. Make is accessible. Make it low cost with a lot of amenities and people will come to it like flies to honey. Bees to honey. I mean we know that . We know put it in a central location. There, give me 10 grand. Councilman Wing: Does that include operating in the black? Councilman Workman: Well I don't know if a study can do that either. ' Councilwoman Dimler: A study can check with other existing facilities I suppose. Councilman Workman: I don't know. I suspect we're going to approve this anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? , Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, let me try it. I would move approval of the reallocation of the funds from the years, whatever way you want to work that out . XVI and XVII but if possible, and if this is allowed, I would allocate ' $10,000.00 to the study and the remainder to the expansion of programs for the seniors or whichever way it would most benefit them. Councilman Workman: Could we, because I'm not sure Ursula where the $10,000.00 ' is. 1 15 1 ,City Council Meeting - May 20, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: It 's a number I picked out of the air. 1 Councilman Workman: Why don't I second your motion so we can talk about it . That 's what I'm worried about . ' Councilwoman Dimler: 26 was picked out of the air too. Councilman Workman: Can't we approve the $26,000.00 and say. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Have it? ' Councilman Workman: Because we don't know or how or what and we don't have enough details. Maybe we need to table until we know. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I would prefer to get bids on the study and then make our decision from that but that's assuming that we can use the remainder on something else, and we don't know that at this point do we? ' Jo Ann Olsen: We don't. I would think the answer's no because I think we've gone through this before. I think the answer's been found out to be no but we can check into that . I don't know that there's a deadline on this that has to ' be approved tonight . Do you remember Don? Don Ashworth: I'm not sure. ' • Mayor Chmiel: I would think that there isn't any real hurry presently if we can get some of the clarifications that have been brought up right now. And I think that 's true and we should before we even decide to move on it. If you would twithdraw your motion. Councilwoman Dimler: I will withdraw my motion. Mayor Chmiel: Will the second remove that motion? Councilman Workman: Yes. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Then I will move to table. ' Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the reallocation of Year XVI Community Development Block Grant Funds for more clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously- !' PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 39,885 SQ. FT. PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WHICH WILL REQUIRE A LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE (LAKESHORE WIDTH), 6541 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KEN LUND AND DANA JOHNSON, WASHTA BAY COURT ADDITION. IJo Ann Olsen: The applicants are proposing to subdivide one existing single family lot into two single family lots. It is a shoreland lot so it gets into the Shoreland regulations. You have to have 20,000 square foot for each lot and ' 75 foot width at the lake. The ordinary high water mark. The Planning ' 16 I _.r .'''' 4-f.-4, -, It 4(14e/t- 4' 0 gde,re Pe/°P 1 , ill.Iiii /"r(co, , I (if - • .,_ . AIjII1lIItiJ �, _ tivei l Z7 1� r . fi4e,trof)0 . ,„„, .,, , 9,00s,,,,, ' 'i-711----_,_.1._:-7 Silt;: '-IT i, ..._-‘,7, ,1 ,. ed. 7.1 , . ..„,,,,,,,r„,:....3 ,_ lit --,lir ,-4-4. ' .f« x 0e� 1 >' •� - '''^� -r,.". -•rte.. • . - 4 r,��0 _lam = f, -K -z. - * , • "BOA ..w"g1�4 3 ,,,,to r r l-_. ?f ■ V._ anY.._YS, ocfiit. -.-- `.3 = 1 ' _ 1 — .z. 4 .b z �E .. ' a4 e-,ilt J - }! oaf % tr. is €`x.- -__ F `. .re-,Ef. -=.^`.0—,,, re - 'g-3' r'fmf ee -iritlninllnt r t,''-r.'4.-- ,-,_,,"<- ., .� llt7 m-,.: ,rs„� /1 Eliln is - - .s ` F°�>P"= `: �? $ r 4 IC€0En feet€ i nttpits «iit --III k. ,�,-,,,M- .sia_?•Y�i RK .3 3 1 �� •. .�yS^df^65�r...1 ,".R j. -.. l" ._i4,-.,.:;," ^•'Z y. --,y."..;-.1*.:... . `.. - 0,'01 _. �� 4� ' i• to <- aa�7r� -` tr' " 3 ' t:-.0p3 ° 1V z?. a I vor - t �- . _ _. a t �.: �f� ��y it s ��l[ niit� ss r tliL_ ,di:e ,3a. . : e, ea ate.i '. s rte•, -f-- - z — nnn�tE phiTA > ta � tI1 �tnii� � a! lilt"� �a �� ititinn sn r' .4 .z. , . � a-1_ etnnnt -4, mnt t. ..• �, ; sl. Lk 1 f IF R�� n ilFT # t X ` `' lam r�y_e� "s .R....-.."4,4& M0 '- 4 ' ` {. ice We 'F`+.�yc� .�: trr.x R ` Z3ygx�y " l�y f t = _-r ' = ttj is .. fir 'tea' � t�` ) �jtil f¢ F - ' .,.. ._:- 3.t,ors 1 ,,,E.::...,/t ¢x''--�.�..,t` .,; .. - , - _ - r s~. - -' , s 1111E y a{Mi` - - , 0 - e0 _ a . -ummar ..,„ . . . is �'� te�t1 1990—, . _ _ _ i_., . . , , . , . ,„ . _ .. a - _ r_ .. ::rr,. .ss.;-w...a,.T:....-.t�.i..tzt-+a.,e• '.sr< .. . 1 , ■ THE HOUSING MARKET FOR OLDER PEOPLE IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • I I 1 September 1990 • 1 by ' Janet L. Pershing ' METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 Publication No. 450-90-117 1 1 1 - 1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBERS I Steve Keefe, Chair Liz Anderson, District 1 Ken Kunzman, District 9 Mike McLaughlin, District 2 John Evans, District 10 James W. (Jim) Senden, District 3 Dottie Rietow, District 11 John Pacheco, Jr., District 4 Gertrude Ulrich, District 12 David F. Fisher, District 5 Dirk deVries, District 13 Alfred Babington-Johnson, District 6 Marcy J. Waritz, District 14 • Mary Hauser, District 7 Margaret Schreiner, District 15 Donald E. Stein, District 8 Patrick J. (Pat) Scully, District 16 ' The Metropolitan Council coordinates the planning and development of the seven-county Metropolitan Area. The Council is authorized by state and federal laws to plan for highways and transit, sewers, parks and open space, airports, land use, air and water quality, waste management, health, housing, aging and arts. ABOUT THIS REPORT Over the next two decades, older people will come to make up a larger portion of the Twin Cities population. Because people's ability to live independently changes as they age, their housing needs and their needs for services also change. A market has already developed to try to provide for the needs of older people as they age and as their needs for services and different types of housing increase. This report examines the preferences older people have for their living environments, the demographic makeup of the older population, and the types of housing and services currently available to serve them. It goes on to examine the implications of those preferences and the available housing and services to assess the role public policy can play in providing housing and services for older people. ' Research assistance was provided by Metropolitan Council intern Jane Cunningham. Sections of this report were reviewed at various points by Council staff members, the Council's Minority Issues Advisory Committee, and several people in the area office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Special thanks are due to those who ' took the time to read drafts and provide their comments and in particular to Rodney Johnson for his insightful and thorough critique. 1 SUMMARY OVERVIEW • ' Recent publicity about the aging of the baby-boom generation and the long-term impact this will have on the housing market has left misconceptions about the short-term housing market for ' older people. A recent survey' asked builders, "Which development products have the greatest potential...three years from now in Minnesota?" Nearly half of the builders responded that retirement housing fit this description. Yet a variety of information, including the timing of ' anticipated demographic changes, older people's preferences, the broader housing market and the cost of housing and services compared with older people's financial situations, suggest that the demand for housing for older people is not likely to rise substantially for a number of years. The leading edge of the baby-boom generation, born in 1946, will not reach age 55 until 2001 or age 65 until 2011, fully two decades from now. It will be yet another decade before they reach their mid-70s, the average age of residents who enter housing for older adults. In fact, between ' now and.then, the number of people in some older age groups will actually shrink. The full impact of the aging of the baby-boom generation will not be felt for half a century, when the last of the baby-boom generation, born in 1964, reaches age 75 in 2039. Housing and service ' providers will need to meet this demand as it occurs over the next several decades, not in the next - few years. - • Changing demographics in the Metropolitan Area will have significant effects on the broader housing market, not just on the housing for older people. As those in the smaller baby-bust generation become apartment renters and first-time home-buyers, the modest-priced market is ' expected to soften, depressing prices and increasing vacancy rates. Adding additional multifamily units for older people and encouraging them to move out of their current homes may aggravate this situation. National surveys have shown that most older people would prefer to remain in their current homes for the rest of their lives. Many older people do need assistance with daily living activities, ' but that does not have to mean they must leave their current homes. Alternatives that provide services to allow them to remain independent in their current homes, rather than projects that require them to move to new housing, can meet their needs for assistance without forcing them to ' leave their homes. This desire to stay in their current homes coincides well with other occurrences in the broader housing market. In particular, as the smaller baby-bust generation comes to apartment-rental and home-buying age, the demand for apartments and single-family starter homes is expected to decline, depressing these markets and leaving vacancies. Adding additional units for older people and encouraging them to leave their single-family homes and current apartments would put increased pressure on an already-softening market. 'Brian J. Smith and • nd Richard Perrine. "The 1990 Minnesota Real Estate Survey. Minnesota Real Estate Journal. January 8, 1990. p. 14. 1 • 1 The bulk of the housing and service options currently available for older people is either subsidized or fairly high-cost units, with very little in the low-cost, unsubsidized range. Yet many older households that do not qualify for subsidies or have not received them have relatively low incomes, and high-cost units are beyond their means. It is generally quite expensive to provide decent housing with quality services, and providers have found it very difficult to fill the niche for low-cost options. On the other hand, many older people with low incomes have a large amount of wealth in the form of home equity. With good financial advice and the help of some new financing tools available to older people who own their homes, many of those with low incomes , could better afford the services and housing that they need. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES ' In 1990, approximately 400,000 people 55 and over lived in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.' In the next two decades, that figure is expected to rise nearly 60 percent, to around 620,000, an increase of 230,000.3 But while this represents a substantial change in the number of the area's older residents, the bulk of this change will not occur for a number of years. (See Figure 1.) In the next five years, the number of people 55 and over is expected to increase by only about 25,000, or seven percent. This accounts for only about 11 percent of the increase in the number of people 55 and over expected in the next two decades. Dramatic increases will not begin until after the year 2000. ' • 1 . 1 2 Statistics about the population of older people do not consistently use the same age groups. Some begin with those age 55, others age 60, still others age 65. This report includes information from a number of sources and thus contains statistics reflecting a variety of age spans. 3 Data in this report regarding the number of people or households in the Metropolitan Area is taken from projections made by the State Demographer's Office in 1983. The 1990 census results will provide a more accurate count of people and households, and projections will need to be updated based on that new information. State Demographer information was used in this report because it is available on a county level. Thus,the figures provided here will differ from those based on Metropolitan Council projections. Both State Demographer and Metropolitan Council projections show the same general trends, however, despite discrepancies in the exact timing and magnitude of those changes. ' 2 1 Figure 1 - 1 NUMBER OF PEOPLE 55 AND OVER, BY AGE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1990 TO 2010 IThousands - 700 I 600 - ' 500 - N • 400 - d \ ' 300 I 200 - . .- -• E, __ _,___.. 100 - � � � . . .. .. 1 - ,_ /7 ' 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 I85+ WA 75-84 65-74 \\\\\` 55-64 Source: State Demographer projections. ISimply looking at the number of people 5 S p p 55 and over does not provide a thorough picture of the older population, however. Older people are far from being a homogeneous group, yet those Iwho are 60 are often thought of together with those who are 85 and older as "older people," even though 25 years separate these groups. In contrast, very few people think of those who are 15 and 40 as belonging to a single homogeneous group. Thus, it is important that the needs of Iolder people at various stages of the life cycle be considered separately and that a discussion of the housing market for older people recognize these distinctions. IThe diversity found in people 55 and over depends on more than age. Such factors as health and life-style preferences have great impacts on people's choices, as do people's incomes. But age is closely correlated with these factors, so age is used here to roughly segment people within the Igeneric category of"older people." Much of the growth anticipated in the older population in the next few years will be in the I younger age groups. While the percentage increase in the number of those between 75 and 84- and those 85 and over will be high, the numeric increases will be relatively small. In contrast, the numeric increase in those 55.to 64 will be substantial. (See Figure 2.) Because the average age I3 I I at which older people move to housing for older people is the mid-70s, it will only be when the baby-boom generation begins to reach age 75 in 2021 that it will have a substantial effect on the market for housing for older people. - Figure 2 I GROWTH IN THE POPULATION 55 AND OVER TWIN C1'i'ii S METROPOLITAN AREA, 1990 TO 2010 Thou-ands I 700 --r 600 - I 500 - - - 1 400 - 300 N 200 - • goo j AllIWAIMIllr .s, I 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ 65+ I + M 1990 1. . 2000 . 2010 1 Source: State Demographer projections. More than 80 percent of those 60 and over owned their own homes in 1989. This rate was higher I than for the population as a whole but varied widely among older age groups. Of those between 60 and 75, over 85 percent owned their homes. That rate dropped off sharply after age 75, falling I to 79 percent for those 75 to 79 and to 56 percent for those 80 and over. (See Figure 3.) Older people choose to remain in their single-family homes for a variety of reasons. One is I simply preferring to stay in familiar and comfortable surroundings. Another is a financial incentive. For those who own their homes outright--and 82 percent of homeowners 60 and over did in 1989-- the cost of taxes and insurance can be far below the cost of renting an apartment in I a market-rate facility. - I 4 I I• I 1 Figure 3 I OWNERSHIP RATES BY AGE FOR THOSE 60 AND OVER TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1989 Percent I 100 - i I 60 - ' 40 - I r20 - - 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-80 80+ • I I Own ® Rent ME Other Source: Minnesota Senior Study. About three-quarters q of the people 55 and over in the area lived in Hennepin or Ramsey Counties in 1990. However, the growth in the older population over the next two decades will be I much less pronounced in these two counties than in the other parts of the Metropolitan Area. (See Figure 4.) By 2010, only about 61 percent of those 55 and over will live in those two counties. This suggests that Hennepin and Ramsey Counties will have less to do in adapting to . I changes in the older population and responding to their service needs than the other counties will. I I I . 5 I f Figure 4 PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION 55 AND OVER, BY COUNTY TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1990 TO 2010 Percent Change ' 180 160 \ ' 140 120 \ ' 100 411•11/ 80 \ ' 40 Amor \ \ \ 1 20 0 .X .\\\\\■ 411\ Ar Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total Source: State Demographer projections. People of racial and ethnic minority backgrounds made up only about two percent of those 55 and over in 1980.' However, over the coming decades, the percentage of minority people in the Metropolitan Area is expected to rise substantially, as will the percentage of minority elders. Minority people more often had lower incomes than nonminority people in the same age group and thus had fewer choices for meeting their housing and service needs. (See Figure 5.) 1 All information about race and ethnicity in this report comes from the 1980 census. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of this data,and it is thought to underrepresent people of color and Hispanics. In addition, the population of minority people grew substantially between 1980 and 1990. Until 1990 Census information is ready, however, 1980 census data is still the best information available, and so it is included here. 6 I To the extent that minority people have disproportionately low incomes throughout their wage- II earning years, they are less likely to be able to pay for the housing and services they would prefer to have as they age and more likely to require subsidies to meet these needs. Thus, planning for housing and services for older minority people in the future is very much affected by the current I education, employment and incomes of young minority people. • Figure 5 II INCOME BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUP TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 Percent 1 100 -1 a' L . 80 - \ „,i) 1 _ A iiiiiil I 40 IL I 20 e- 0 ✓-- , 7.__- ✓---- 7 /--- 7.___7✓■ I I White Black Indian Asian Hispanic © $0-8,461 M 86,462-11,289 3BE 811,290-16,128 I1M 816,129-40,322 NE $40,323. Source; 1980 census. Women made up a substantial portion of the older population and by age 85 accounted for three- quarters quarters of the population. Women had disproportionately low incomes compared with men, although many older women have wealth in the form of home equity. (See Figure 6.) As with minority people, to the extent that women have disproportionately low incomes Ithroughout their wage-earning years, they are less likely to be able to pay for the housing and services they would prefer to have as they age and more likely to require subsidies to meet these needs. Thus, planning for housing and services for older women in the future is very much Iaffected by the current education, employment and incomes of young women. I 1 1 I I - _ __ . . 1 Figure 6 INCOME BY GENDER 1 TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 Percent 1 100 80 - 40 - 20 - �� 1 o • Male Female • \\\� $0-9,614 77 $9,615-24 037 $24,038+ Source: 1980 census. - 1 PREFERENCES _ 1 The vast majority of older people--86 percent in 1989--preferred to remain in their current homes, instead of moving to housing for older people. Unfortunately, physical decline and an accompanying inability to accomplish the tasks necessary to live independently sometimes make remaining in that home without assistance impossible. There are two basic options for those who can no longer live independently in their current units without assistance: they can receive in- home assistance that allows them to age in place, or they can move to a new housing unit where assistance is provided. Many older people do not receive the kind of in-home assistance that would help them live independently at home,while at the same time, in-home services are not used to their full capacity in most parts of the Metropolitan Area. In fact, many in-home service delivery programs could easily'expand their capacity to meet a great deal more need, but it has proven difficult to inform older people about the services that might be of use to them and to connect them with the services they may want or need. Paying for the services may also be a barrier to getting assistance for households that need them. 8 1 1 . 1 Some services are free to people who are income-qualified, but for those who have incomes that are too high to qualify, but still relatively low, the cost of purchasing the services may be prohibitive. Other older households may have enough money to cover the costs of services but may be reluctant to purchase them because of the "sticker shock" that can come with realizing what today's prices for services are, or because of a fear of spending money now when they may "really" need it later. BROADER HOUSING MARKET Increased demand for housing units originates with the addition of new households. These new households can be young people leaving their parents' homes to form new households or households that migrate into the area from elsewhere. With the exception of the relatively small 1 number of older households that migrate to this area, changes in the number of older households will not introduce a demand for additional units to the housing market, because they do not represent new households but rather existing households changing from one age group to ' another. Nearly all of these people have housing units now, and any effect on the housing market will reflect changes due to preference and life-style changes, not a demand for additional units. ' The changing demographic makeup of the region is expected to have a variety of effects on the overall housing market. In particular, as the small group of those in the baby-bust generation ' moves into its apartment-renting and home-buying years, the demand for apartments and first homes will drop, depressing prices and pushing up vacancy rates. Thus, the construction of new multifamily housing units for older people will add to an expected excess supply of multifamily housing, and if older people choose to move out of their current housing units into those units, they will add their old homes to the anticipated oversupply of single-family homes. This points • out that the market for housing for older people is not an isolated one but integrally related to ' the broader housing market. SURPLUS AND SHORTAGE In 1990, the Metropolitan Area as a whole had a surplus of market-rate units reserved for older people but a shortage of subsidies to accommodate all of the older people who would have been eligible for them. Market-Rate Units Market-rate units that were open in 1988 and thus were past their initial occupancy phase when the 1990 survey was done had an overall vacancy rate of about 14 percent, over twice the six- percent rate generally considered healthy for multifamily housing. (See Table 1 and Figure 7.) This differed substantially from county to county, however,with vacancy rates ranging from a high of nearly 23 percent in Dakota County to a low of zero percent in Scott County. 1 I 1 9 r I Table 1- VACANCIES IN MARKET-RATE HOUSING FOR OLDER PEOPLE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1990 Occupied Total Vacant Vacancy 1 Units Units Units Rate Anoka 168 175 7 4.0 % 1 Carver 95 111 16 14.4 Dakota 260 336 76 22.6 I Hennepin 2,273 2,706 433 16.0 Minneapolis 654 794 140 17.6 Suburbs 1,619 1,912 293 15.3 I Ramsey 525 545 20 3.7 St. Paul 455 470 15 3.2 Suburbs 70 75 5 6.7 I Scott 45 45 0 0.0 Washington 236 250 14 5.6 Metro Area <> 3,602 4,168 566 13.6 % I _ Source:4990 Survey of Building Managers. I• I I I I I I 1 I 10 1 I 4 Figure 7 VACANCY RATE FOR MARKET-RATE HOUSING FOR OLDER PEOPLE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1990 Vacancy Rate 25-/ ' \f 20- 15- 10- 5- 4111Mi I. 4\ AIN \\\ ..\\\ Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total • Source:1990 Survey of Building Managers. • - Subsidized Housing There were virtually no vacancies in privately owned subsidized housing for older people, and certificates and vouchers were used as soon as they were made available. There were also long ' waiting lists for both of these subsidized options, and many whose incomes qualified them for assistance had not yet received any. In a few instances, there were vacancies in publicly owned high-rise buildings for older people, but these were generally in inner-city neighborhoods or in buildings with a high proportion of people with handicaps. RATIOS OF PEOPLE TO UNITS ' Another way to consider how well the supply of units meets the demand is to examine how many units there are for older people in a given community relative to the number of older people in that community. While this information does not reveal whether or not additional units are needed in any given area, it does give an indication of the breadth of the choices for housing for older people available in each area. (See Figure 8.) I 11 1 1 • - Figure 8 ' RATIO OF 65+ HOUSEHOLDS TO UNITS FOR OLDER PEOPLE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Ratio 0.25 1 0.2 - • 0.15 - /NNW" AIMMIV 417 0.05 - \ AAM\.&411\ .■& 0 Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total Sources: Metro Council and 1980 census. The number of units alone is not enough to determine the adequacy of the supply of units for older people. Factors such as the geographic location, services available and cost may mean that units that are vacant will not meet the needs of those interested in housing for older adults. Communities, developers and consultants have all found that despite the overall surplus, there are specific types of housing and service needs in particular communities that are not currently being met. However, even in communities with unmet housing and service needs for older people, additional , • units should be added with caution. Over the next 20 years, about 61,500 households with a head 65 and over will be added to the existing number. In 1989, about six percent of all older households lived in housing for older adults. If this percentage were to hold true into the future, this would indicate a demand for about 3,690 new units for older people in the next two decades, or an average of only about 185 units each year in the Metropolitan Area. • Much of this growth will be in the youngest age ranges, however, so the percentage of households interested in housing for older people is likely to be lower than six percent. In addition, the current surplus of units can meet some of the demand created by a growing older population. Thus, the overall demand for new units can be expected to be substantially less than 185 each year in the next few years. Growth in the older population will also not be spread evenly over time. Because population growth will be greater in later years, units will not be needed 185 at a 12 i 1 time. Rather, fewer will be needed now and more in later years. In addition, the few additional units that may be needed will be for people in all income ranges, from those who need subsidized ' units to those who can afford modest- to high-cost units. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ' New methods of financing can help more peop le afford ford needed housing and services. Increasing the availability of such financing tools as reverse mortgages and increasing the amount of reliable financial advice available to older people may allow them to help pay for in-home services without having to sell their homes to get access to the money they have tied up in equity. ' While there is an overall excess of units for older people, units affordable to those in the lowest income ranges are in short supply. Affordable options can be added without increasing the oversupply of actual units, however. Additional rental assistance subsidies to households with ' qualifying incomes or subsidies to rehabilitate existing units or to provide needed services can assist older households without having a negative impact on an already-softening housing market. ' LOCAL PERSPECTIVES Local policies for providing for the changing needs of older residents will need to balance ' people's preferences for staying in their own homes with other factors. For example, many local governments are considering ways to enhance their tax bases and view attracting young families to • - their cities as a viable way of achieving that end. One way to attract such families is assumed to ' be moving older people into senior housing projects, thus freeing up single-family hones for young families to purchase. This idea needs to be balanced against the projected slump in the first-time home buyer market. If the local area does in fact see a softening of the modest-priced ' single-family home market in the next decade, it may not be wise housing policy to encourage older people to leave their single-family homes. In addition, older people's expressed preference for remaining in their own homes could be met through additional or more accessible in-home services. Providing only needed services may be less expensive than adding new housing units with those services. • 1 _ - 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • SURPLUSES AND SHORTAGES There is a region-wide surplus of market-rate units for older people in the Metropolitan Area, as the 14-percent vacancy rate suggests, while subsidized units are in high demand in most areas. The fact that there is an adequate number of market-rate units does not indicate that the supply is necessarily appropriate to meet the needs and preferences of the area's older residents. The units currently vacant may not match older people's preferences in terms of location, price, amenities, services, or "feel." • Because there is already a surplus of housing for older people, any additional units for older people to be added in the Metropolitan Area should be carefully targeted to meet older people's needs and preferences. In particular, the locations, prices, amenities, services and "feel" should meet the needs of local residents. • Given the anticipated changes in the overall housing market as a result of demographic shifts, consideration should be given to finding ways to recycle existing units through rehabilitation or re-orienting services to meet the needs of older people, rather than through constructing additional units. • More housing subsidies for older people are in demand. This demand may be best met through certificate- and voucher-type programs,which allow older households to receive financial assistance without adding to the oversupply of units. However, this demand should be balanced against the need for additional assistance for other age groups, since a disproportionately high share of subsidized housing in the region is already reserved for older people. ' EXPECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES While the older population is growing, most of the expected growth will not occur for a number ' P P 8r of years. In two decades, this population will grow by 60 percent, or 230,000 people. But in the next five years, it will grow by only seven percent, adding 25,000 people. Thus, only 11 percent of the change expected over the next two decades will occur in the next five years. • Decisions about adding units for older people should be based on the actual timing of coming demographic changes, not just the overall trends. The trends give good information for long-range planning, but project costs must be met in the short-run, and long-range projections will not fill units and pay mortgage financing costs. In light of current excesses in the supply of housing for older people, in the short term, only a small number of carefully targeted units is likely to be needed. I1 I 14 1 . Older people are concentrated in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, with about three-quarters of the area's older people living there. Over the next two decades, most of the growth in the older population will take place in the other counties, so by 2010, only about 61 percent of the older people in the area will live in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. • Hennepin and Ramsey Counties should plan for only minimal growth in their older populations over the next two decades. These counties in particular are oversupplied with certain types of age-specific housing. However, as the older people currently in these ' units age, they will need more and more services to allow them to continue to live independently in those units. • The other counties should plan for substantial percentage increases in the number of older people. However, this does not necessarily mean they should plan for additional units. Instead, this growth may signal a need for more financial assistance, such as ' certificates and vouchers, or more services to allow people to remain in their current homes. I . WOMEN AND RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITY PEOPLE Older people are disproportionately women. By age 85, 75 percent of the older population is made up of women. To the extent that women have disproportionately lower incomes than men do, they are less able to provide for their preferred housing and service needs without assistance as they age. ' The percent of people of color and Hispanics in the older pop ulation is much smaller than in the population as a whole. Thus, in 1980, about two percent of the older population was made up of ' racial and ethnic minority people, compared with about six percent of the population as a whole. But the percent of younger people of color and Hispanics in the area is growing. As these people age, the minority elder population will grow. To the extent that minority people have ' disproportionately low incomes, they will be less able to provide for their own housing and service preferences as they age. ' • Long-range programs to address the needs of older people in the future should recognize the connection between today's younger population and tomorrow's older population. Education and economic conditions for the younger population will have a ' long-term effect on tomorrow's older adults. This will be especially true for minority people and women, for whom the effects of lower incomes are disproportionately high. ' • An increasing percentage of older people in disproportionately poor groups will put added stress on already-inadequate housing and services resources. ' LITTLE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS The growth in the number of older households will not create a demand for additional housing ' units. These households already live in housing units, and while they may choose to move to-, different settings, leaving their former units behind as they move to a new age group, they will not add to the total number of units demanded in the market as a whole. Housing for older people is ' 15 only a very small part of the broader market. It will be affected by the overall demographic shifts expected in the coming decades. The predicted shortage of first-time home buyers may make it difficult for older households to sell their units and may leave them with limited resources for funding other housing and services options. • Decisions about housing for older people should be made with the entire housing I market in mind. Given the expected oversupply of units in the next decade, the• concentration should not be on producing new units for older people, but on making better use oi existing units and service programs to meet their needs. ' Subsidized units and high-cost units have proven to be the easiest housing and services to provide for older people. Affordable housing and services can be extremely difficult to provide for those with limited incomes that are not low enough to qualify for subsidies. • Available funding sources should be focused on developing low-cost housing for people with incomes that are too high to qualify for federal subsidy programs but too low to afford most market-rate units and services. • At the same time, however, the needs of the older population should be carefully ' balanced with the needs of the rest of the population. There will be 61,500 more households in older age groups the Metropolitan Area by 2010. If six - percent of the older population continues to live in housing for older people, 3,690 additional units will be needed by 2010, or only about 185 units annually. Much of this demand can be met through existing vacant units or by future turnover in units currently occupied by older people. • The production of new units and the adaptation of existing units for use by older people should not exceed the modest demand for units likely to be made by-people aging into the oldest age groups. IN-HOME SERVICES ' Most older people would prefer to continue living independently in their current homes, making use of in-home services if necessary. But while in-home services exist in ample supply around the area, older people do not access them as well as they could, either because they are not aware of the services or because they are unable or unwilling to pay for them. • Options for providing affordable housing and services for people at older stages of the life cycle should continue to be expanded. Given that older people generally prefer to age in place in their current homes, efforts should be concentrated on connecting those ' who would prefer in-home services with appropriate programs and ways to pay for them. 16 ' 1 1 • 1 FINANCING • New or expanded financing tools can provide more options for paying for housing and services for older people. Some innovative options, such as reverse mortgages, are available in relatively few Iareas across the country and are not well known. • Innovative financial resources should be developed and publicized to allow older people Iwho are house-rich but cash-poor to pay for needed housing and services. SUCCESSFUL MODELS INaturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs) have been very successful ways to house older people, with three times as many older people living in them than in planned retirement I communities. Providing access to in-home services in these communities could allow people to remain in these naturally supportive environments as they age, and as their needs for services grow. IChurch-sponsored projects have had fairly good success, partly because they are marketed to people who are already a part of the community and feel a trust in the church organization and I partly because they are often set up in a campus style that allows people to move from independent to supported living without uprooting or having to arrange for an alternative situation. + I The cottage model has been extremely successful in some places, in part because it provides a manageable living option with few services and very reasonable costs. I • Future efforts to provide for older people's housing and service needs should look at and learn from NORCs, church-based projects, campus-style arrangements, cottages and other successful models to learn what aspects of those projects might provide valuable Iinsights. While it may not be possible or desirable to replicate these products in many cases, the aspects of them that work well can be mimicked. In addition, the successful communities that do exist can be supported with in-home services to allow people to Iremain in them, living independently, for as long as possible. MARKET ANALYSES • IIn surveys about interest in housing for older people, older people often express a willingness to I consider a variety of housing types, but in the end, they opt to remain in their current homes. Thus, studies can easily overestimate demand. • If a specific need in a precise geographic location is identified, a market study should be I conducted focusing not only on the number of people and the number of units proposed in a given community but also on such issues as incomes and costs, potential residents' preferences for services and amenities, the specific geographic boundaries from which I residents can be expected to be drawn, the site itself and the competition existing in that. area. ; I17 I • Even so, surveys that assess older people's interest in various housing options should be treated conservatively. A housing arrangement that sounds good to an older adult in the abstract often does not seem so viable when the time comes to make a life change. A positive response to an idea is far removed from a willingness to move. LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ' Local governments have focused on housing for older people with multiple goals in mind. By providing housing for older people, they provide for the housing and service needs of older people, as well as free up the older people's current housing units for young families to enter the city. This does not take into account the preference older people have to remain in their own homes, making use of in-home services if necessary. It also ignores the changing demographic •• and housing picture for the population as a whole, where a drop in the number of first-time home-buyers is expected to cause a softening market,with multifamily units and moderately priced single-family homes going vacant and experiencing depressed prices. • Marketing and public education efforts should be improved to let older people know about the availability of in-home services that can allow them to remain in their homes and of financing mechanisms that can allow them to pay for such services. Some publicity should focus on the message that costs may seem high but are reasonable in today's market and can be worthwhile if they allow an older person to remain independent. • It may not be feasible for each community to provide for the housing and service needs of its older population in isolation. Cooperation between communities, especially small communities, could improve services and lower costs. • Local governments interested in freeing up homes of elderly residents to bring in young ' families should be aware of the expected softening of the multifamily and moderately priced single-family markets. They should avoid the construction of new units for older people if the needs of that population can be met through the rehabilitation or adaptation of existing multifamily units, through additional services or through added subsidies. 1 1 1 18 , I I CITYOF I 111111r CHANHASSEN 0 ' I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I MEMORANDUM ..>. ° i S- 1 S-% / TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager I FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director _.,._,.._. _.- ;r ' 4' DATE: May 15, 1991 _ --` x�-_`�__f.._.. ISUBJ: Request for the Reallocation of Year XVI Block Grant Funds to Undertake Senior Housing and Senior Center I Feasibility Studies and Reallocation of Previously Approved Year XVII Funds I The potential of eventually developing senior housing and senior center facilities in the City of Chanhassen has been discussed frequently over the past year. Needs for these facilities were I touched on in last year's Senior Needs Study and have been frequent topics of consideration by the Senior Citizen Commission. In each instance that these facilities were discussed, several ground rules I were recognized. The first is that development of either facility is, at best, a long term goal. Before they can be effectively created, there needs to be a coalition developed to support, encourage and be involved in the process and there must be long- I term financing strategies that are cost effective and reasonable. The second factor is that while there is evidence that these facilities are desired by a number of people, it is not yet clear I that they are actually feasible from financial and use standpoints. This lack of certainty is due to the fact that the question of whether or not it is feasible to construct these facilities at some Ipoint in the future has never been sufficiently researched. Before the city embarks on any long term strategies to develop these facilities, we believe the basic feasibility of each needs to I be thoroughly researched and determined. Therefore, on April 19th of this year, the Senior Citizen Commission recommended the City Council reallocate Year XVI CDBG funds to undertake individual I feasibility studies for senior housing and a senior center. The Council may recall when Year XVI funds were appropriated, $26, 112 . 00 was set aside in a category called "Senior Center I Facility" but which was in reality a holding category for senior related programs. We are proposing that these dollars be allocated towards undertaking both studies. We believe that this amount of money should be sufficient to develop the type of information we 1 Senior Housing/Center May 15, 1991 Page 2 • believe is required. At their April meeting, the Senior Citizen Commission recommended that the Council approve the reallocation of Year XVI funds for this purpose. Copies of the draft request for proposals for consultant assistance to undertake these studies are attached to this report. In discussions with the Hennepin County Block Grant Office, they have indicated that there is no problem in funding the feasibility studies that we have requested. However, they did request that we reorganize our request for Year XVI and Year XVII. The federal government has a cap on the amount of funding that can be allocated for programs versus capital improvements. Therefore, Larry Blackstad at Hennepin County has requested that we reallocate the $3, 000 for Sojourn Senior Day Care Center already approved by the City Council in Year XVII funding, into Year XVI. This has the advantage of making these funds available immediately for Sojourn. Under Year XVII funding, they would not be available until mid- summer. Since we would still have a need for the $26, 112 .00 for the Senior Center and Senior Housing feasibility studies, we would be funding $23, 112.00 out of Year XVI funds and an additional $3, 000 of Year XVII funds. We will include this funding in our previously approved category entitled "Senior Plan" which was used to partially subsidize the cost of developing a senior services brochure from Year XVII funds. , Describing this juggling of funds is somewhat difficult, but the ultimate result is that projects approved for funding by the Council, as well as the project requested for funding at this time, will be able to proceed without delay or hinderance. In this manner, we are also able to resolve a problem that exists for our overall block grant allocation and for Hennepin County's administration of the block grant program in general. STAFF RECOMMENDATION , Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution approving the reallocation of Year XVI and Year XVII Community Development Block Grant Funds as follows: 1. Year XVI Funds $23, 112 .000 - Undertake Senior Housing and Senior Center Feasibility Studies 2 . Year XVI Funds $3,000 - Sojourn Senior Day Care Center for the acquisition of equipment related to the program. 3. Year XVII Funds Deletion of funding request of $3,000 for Sojourn Senior Day Care Center and $3,000 be added to the 1 ' Senior Housing/Center May 15, 1991 Page 3 ' Senior Plan category which will be used to complete senior housing and ' senior center feasibility studies. ATTACHMENTS ' 1. Staff report and minutes from April 19, 1991, Senior Commission meeting. 2 . Resolution approving Year XVII CDBG. ' 3 . Request for proposals. 1 1 1 I . . . CITY OF 1 111111011111r II 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 II MEMORANDUM II TO: Senior Commission ' FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director-- 1 DATE: April 15, 1991 1 SUBJ: Draft Request for Proposals for Senior Housing and Senior Center Feasibility Studies „. 1As the Commission is aware, staff has been requested to prepare .requests for feasibility studies to undertake an analysis of the potential of building senior housing and a senior center, within II Chanhassen. It is envisioned that this work will be funded out of Year XVI CDBG funds which have been set aside for this purpose. We have approximately $26,000 reserved for these studies at this time. Preliminary discussions with Judy Marshek, who conducted the Senior II Needs Study, would seem to indicate that this funding should roughly be sufficient to undertake both studies. There is also a potential that the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority I would partially subsidize the housing investigations. It is envisioned that these studies will answer the basic questions II as to whether or not there is sufficient demand to construct these facilities and, if so, where should they be located and how should they be structured. If decisions are made to proceed with either or both of these facilities, it is hoped that the studies will 1 serve as the starting point on a long road that will hopefully culminate in their development. We strongly believe that for these items to be pursued effectively, the Senior Commission needs to 1 broaden community support. Therefore, we are recommending that a senior facility task force be established to work on these studies. We believe the senior facility task force should include several II interested City Council members, as well as members from local churches having an interest in senior affairs, the Chanhassen Seniors Group and members of charitable organizations such as Rotary and Lions Clubs that could potentially prove to be a source 1 of funds. The draft Request for Proposals are submitted for your review and 1 comment. Staff is recommending that you make any changes you wish to in the proposals and that they be forwarded onto the City Council for action. i II 11 Request for Proposals Senior Housing/Center • April 15, 1991 1 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends that the Senior Commission approve the Request for Proposals for Senior Housing and a Senior Center. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the reallocation of Year XVI Community Development Block Grant Funds to finance these efforts. 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 11 Senior Commission Meeting April 19 , 1991 - Page 21 rent 's not budgeted . There 's organizations that have money who might be willing to , you know civic organizations in town , who might be willing to put up a month 's rent as a donation . I know the Athletic probably , twist the Board of Directors of the Chanhassen Athletic Association to put up a month 's rent . We can afford it . I 'm the treasurer so I know we can afford it . Montgomery: That 's the kind of people we like to have around . Jay Johnson : Right now , when I took over as treasurer 4 years ago , we were $600 .00 in the hole . I borrowed money from the City . Now we 're about $4 ,000 .00 to $5 ,000 .00 in the good which is less than a quarter of our II annual operating budget . We have an operating budget of around $20 ,000 .00 for the kids . So I mean I would assume that a month 's rent is only about a couple hundred dollars . Heinlein: How about the Lion 's Club or something like that? Jay Johnson: Right . I 'm saying if you hit the Lion 's Club , the American I Legion for a month 's rent , you hit the Chamber of Commerce for a month 's rent . • Montgomery: Jay , don 't you think that this group we 're trying to get 1 together would be in a good position to try to solicit? Jay Johnson: Exactly . That 's how I put the two together . If every year II these organizations . We find 12 organizations that want to donate one month of your rent . Montgomery: It 'd be great . So we need to find out from Sharmin what the cost would be and then we need to get the Council to appoint the group and bring it before us and then we 'll get going. Howard : Does the Legion serve lunches every day? Marion Stultz: Except weekends . I mean Sundays . Howard: So there 's no possibility there? I know they have breakfast but they also have lunch? Marion Stultz: Yes . Montgomery: Sharmin , are you okay now with what we 're doing here? Okay . B. MEETING WITH JUDY MARSHEK. Al-Jaff: Paul and I met with Judy Marshek . Judy is the person that , she 's the person who did the senior 's need assessment study for the city of Chanhassen . Some members here are familiar with her . I don 't believe Sherol or Bernice know her . Montgomery: Very nice , efficient person . 11 I Senior Commission Meeting April 19 , 1991 - Page 22 Al-Jaff : The Senior Commission had requested that we draft a request for proposals for senior housing and senior center . We met with Judy . We discussed what the City 's intentions are . What the Senior Commission 's intentions are and we came up with a rough draft proposal for the Senior ' Commission to app•-ove . We can go through the draft if you want to . Montgomery : Would you like to do that? IAl-Jaff : The study will decide whether there is a need for a senior center and senior housing in Chanhassen . There will be two studies basically but • related . Should the senior center be located next to a senior housing ' complex or where should it be located in the city . Do we need a physical building and a structure in Chanhassen or is South Shore doing the job for the City? What type of services should there be in the center? These are ' all things that will be requested from whoever is going to do the research for the city . Size of space they will be doing . They would have to prepare a step by step time table for the city as to how to go about ' forming the group . Edu,ating the public . Bringing in the support for building the center . There will be a senior center needs analysis . What type of needs do seniors have and how can we accommodate all those needs into the center . For instance there 's some people that want to play cards . I So we have to have that space in the center . There are some people who want to do craft 's work and so on and so forth . Market analysis . That would be another thing that the consultant would have to work on . IMontgomery : Meaning who would come right? To the center? Al-Jaff : Who would come to the center but what is the market of their , I it 's like if we for instance for the housing . How much rent should be? What can people afford? What type of housing should be built? We want finances for the senior center . How are we going to go about financing it? I When it 's in operation , where are we going to get those funds from? Are we going to get to a point where we say . . .center anymore? All of this will have to be . There will be utilities to pay . The City will end up owning I the center but those will be the requirements from the person that will be doing the research for the city . Housing . Through the study that Judy Marshek did for the City we discovered that there is a need for senior housing but we don 't know to know to what extent . This study will tell us exactly what type of housing is needed , if housing is needed in Chanhassen . How many stories? What should the facility look like? Is it apartments 2-3 stories high? Where should it be located in the City? How much rent Ido we charge? How do we finance it? So on and so forth . Montgomery: I thought that it was very comprehensive . IHeinlein: I noticed that St . Hubert 's has given up the idea temporarily of putting up senior housing . I Al-Jeff: Correct . We want to find out where there is a need for the senior housing or not . What staff is recommending is that the senior commission recommend that the Council authorize allocation of community I involvement . Block grant funds to finance those studies . We had requested $26 ,000 .00 to serve this study . Senior Commission Meeting April 19 , 1991 - Page 23 Montgomery: I had a couple of questions . I wondered about the time involved . Whether this is going to be sufficient for the extensive information requested . Did she seem to think that that was a 'possibility? Al-Jaff: She thought a 6 month starting in September . If she gets it . , Montgomery: If she gets it? Al-Jaff : Yeah , if she does it . ' Montgomery : She thought she could do it in 6 months . Would she have extra help? Does she do this alone or will she have a staff working with her? Did she say? Al-Jaff : She didn 't say anything about that but Judy is capable of doing II things like that . I know that she does have her own research group but she 's a representative . She 's the one who always attends all our meetings . Montgomery: But she does have other people? ' Kubitz : Did I hear right that she wouldn 't start until September? Al-Jaff : By the time we get approval . By the time we set . We have to send out the requests for proposal for bids . We have to get some input . Well not input but when we receive the bids , the different bids then . All II this takes time so I don 't believe we 'd be able to start until September . Howard: I thought we already had amended this? Approved? Al-Jaff: No . It 's the allocation of the money that we had to recommend for approval and we had to approve the , these are the drafts of what are we looking for . I Montgomery: The request for proposals . Al-Jaff : Exactly . Requests for proposal . What are we looking for that research person to do for us . Montgomery: I was thinking too of the responsibility of going ahead and doing all of these things based on that report . It has to be a very responsible person that 's preparing that report . Heinlein: Well she proved to be quite responsible with working with us 1 last year . Montgomery: Yes she did . , Heinlein: But $26 ,000 .00 . Al-Jaff : It 's not just going to be for these studies . There will be mailings that will have to go out . If we need to take trips to go look at other senior centers . We need to rent buses . There are a lot of side expenses that we have to account for in advance . I believe that that will Senior Commission mission Meeting April 19 , 1991 - Page 24 be used up all that money . But it 's always good to have that . IMontgomery: Can it be then switched into some other activity if we find' it doesn 't take all of that or is that a possibility? IAl-Jaff : I 'd rather have Paul answer that . Montgomery : We hadn 't actually allocated the funds . What we had done was to suggest that they . • Al-Jaff : That 's what we 're recommending right now . IMontgomery : But now it 's to okay that expenditure . Howard : I thought the City had spent that . IAl-Jaff : No , we haven 't spent it yet but the City Council . What you will be doing . IHoward: It 's this allocation? ' Montgomery: Yes . Howard: They just . . .money didn 't they? IMontgomery: Yes . Al-Jaff : No , no . It hasn 't been spent . It has been allocated . This will I re-allocate or allocation to community development block grant funds to finance these efforts . To finance those studies . ' Montgomery : First they get the funds and then they have to show what exactly they 're going to spend it on . Is that the idea? Then they have to account for everything that is spent according to that request right? IAl-Jaff: Now we get into the details of the proposal and this will be going for senior housing and senior center and that 's what we will be going to the Council with . IMontgomery: Now let 's see how do we work that? Do we recommend that the funds be allocated or spent or how do you want that worded? IAl-Jaff: To be allocated . Montgomery: Allocated , alright . To the feasibility study regarding the I senior center and senior housing right? Does that cover it? Okay. We need a motion to recommend to the Council that $26 ,000 .00 be allocated to the feasibility study regarding the senior center and senior housing . IBellison: I so move . Kubitz : Alright , and I 'll second it . Senior Commission Meeting April 19 , 1991 - Page 25 Bellison moved, Kubitz seconded that the Senior Commission recommend to the I City Council that $26,000.00 be allocated to the feasibility study regarding the senior center and senior housing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . ' Al-Jaff : Okay , and then the second thing is , are there any changes you would like to see in the request for proposal? Are you okay with that to go in front of Council? ' Howard: This is Resolution #91-26 we 're not discussing? Al-Jaff : No . No . We 're still on . Howard: Has this been allocated or is this just a suggestion? Al-Jaff : This has been allocated. Howard : Okay . Now that's money spent . ' Benison: It 's allocated to be spent . Howard: I mean but to our way of thinking it 's gone? We don 't have , anything more to do with that money? Al-Jaff : Yeah . ' Howard: So now tell me what money are we now talking about allocating? Al-Jaff : We said that there will be a study . This is going into the details of the study . Howard: I realize all that . I 'm .confused about where this money is? There 's $37 ,000 .00 we had . Montgomery: Yeah , is part of that . But it 's not , I mean that was our suggested spending . Howard: And they 've spent it . The total allocation of $32 ,000.00 . The motion carried . So $32 ,000 .00 is gone? Montgomery: Thank you so very much for coming . Marion Stultz: You know you 're talking about housing . Is there any possibility they can get HUD building here? That 's what we live in Jonathan and I 'd come back here in a minute if we had one here . ' Kubitz : That 's what we 're going to look at . Montgomery: That 's what we 're working on . We have to find out all the possible funding . 1 I ' City of Chanhassen Carver and Hennepin Counties, -Minnesota ' DATE: April 8, 1991 RESOLUTION NO: 91-30 MOTION BY: Dimler SECONDED BY: Workman A RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ' FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen, through execution of a Joint ' Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and ' WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, following a public hearing on March 25, 1991 to obtain the views of ' citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and the City's following proposed use of $37, 543 from the Year XVII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds: Projects Budget _ ' South Shore Senior Center $ 7,573. ' Complete Development of the Handicapped $20, 000. Accessible Tot Lot in City Center Park Make Old Village Hall Handicapped Accessible $ 5,000. Sojourn Senior Daycare Center for Acquisition $ 3, 000. of 2 wheelchairs, a dishwasher and to allow ' them to construct a partition to separate the center from the main church building to reduce conflicts between the different uses in ' the building Staff time associated with the development of $ 1,970 Senior Services Brochure for Chanhassen ' Residents Total Allocation $37,543 . BE IT RESOLVED LVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen ' approves the proposed use of Year XVII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Funds and program related income and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the Year XVII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Statement of Objectives 1 and Projected Use of Funds. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 8th day of April, 1991. ATTEST: /0 7 Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. . 'el, Mayor YES NO ABSENT Chmiel None None Workman Dimler Mason Wing 1 1 1 The City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal Senior Center Feasibility Study ' April, 1991 SENIOR CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 1 APRIL, 1991 BACKGROUND: The City of Chanhassen is a rapidly growing suburban community experiencing a massive ' in-migration of both families and businesses. However, it is a community that predates the current growth and, as a result, there is a mix of long time and recent residents. ' In 1989, the City used Community Development Block Grant funds to investigate the needs of senior adults over the age of 55. The study encompassed a wide range and found needs in many areas including improved transportation, information on support ' programs and support to allow seniors to remain in their homes. Investigation of the potential for developing a senior center and senior housing were also identified. At the present time, Chanhassen residents utilize these facilities and must find them in ' neighboring communities. Finally, the study found that Chanhassen's senior population is significantly larger than had been believed and there is good reason to expect further increases in the senior population. ' As a result of the Senior Needs Study, the City Council has established a Senior Advisory Commission. The City is currently sending out Request for Proposals to analyze the ' potential of developing a senior center and/or senior housing within the community. If these facilities are determined to be feasible, their development will be pursued as a long term goal. The studies are to be used to focus the City's efforts in these areas. The Senior Center Feasibility t Study should respond to the following questions: • Should a physical plant for a senior center either be constructed or leased to house a core set of services for senior adults? Is there a sufficient ' market or should the City focus its efforts on supporting existing or new programs in conjunction with other communities and/or agencies? ' • What services are appropriate to locate in such a center? • What are the preferred locations for the Center within Chanhassen, ' considering the current service locations and the city's projected growth over the next two decades? ' • What are appropriate space requirements for preliminary design purposes? I • What sort of staffing and management models are appropriate? I The City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal I Senior Center Feasibility Study April, 1991 SCOPE OF WORK: There are four aspects to the work which is being requested. These are briefly outlined I below: • Community Involvement and Education: The consultant should outline I the processes which they will use to involve the following groups in this study: Senior Facility Task Force appointed by the City Council I ' tY PP Y tY • The City Council • The Senior Commission I • Other City Task Forces involved in related issues • Senior centers in adjacent communities • Local experts on various topics related to the study • Senior service providers in Chanhassen and adjacent communities • City staff • Chanhassen and adjacent city senior adults • Senior Center Needs Analysis: The consultant should indicate which of I the following activities would be included in their needs analysis for the Center and the importance they attach to each activity. Suggest other analysis as appropriate. I • Demographic analysis of the area. • Analysis of area services, especially of services provided through I senior centers in nearby communities. • Analysis of important area trends which could impact on the success of the senior center which is being considered. I • Surveys or interviews of area seniors permitting primary data to be gathered on various issues pertaining to the center. • Focus groups of area seniors permitting dialogue to occur about I various aspects of the center which is under consideration. 1 I 2 I The City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal Senior Center Feasibility Study • April, 1991 ' • Market Analysis and Planning: The consultant should indicate how they would use the information from various sources to construct ' recommendations and a plan including but not limited to: • Target audiences for the Center: Which groups within the entire ' marketplace labeled senior adults should the Center target? • Service strategies for the Center: Which services are the most ' important to initiate first, and what types of service packages will the Center have to offer to meet market needs? ' Recommendations for action: What are the next steps recommended to the City Council for action on the issue of a Senior Center? How do these fit into a long range development strategy? ' • Feasibility Issues Study and Discussion: The consultant should explain how they will supply information to the Senior Center Task Force regarding ' the following aspects of the center: • Center Management and Staffing: Whether center services should ' be offered by the City or subcontracted from other agencies should be explored. The advantages and disadvantages of several models ' of center management and staffing should be detailed and discussed. ' Center Financing (Initial and Ongoing): Possible sources of financing for a center should be located. The potential for initial and ongoing funding for the center should be detailed and some initial ' budgets drawn up, based on several models of design and service. • Center Design and Development: Actual physical layouts for a ' senior center should be sought from various sources, and several options offered to the City for its consideration. This should be coordinated with any community center development efforts. 3 1 The City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal Senior Center Feasibility Study April, 1991 REVIEW PROCESS: The City has established a two step review process: ' 1) Recommended proposals will be reviewed by the Senior Commission, which may request a presentation by the companies responding to the RFP by , 1991. 2) A final recommendation for subcontractor will be made to the City Council ' by , 1991. • The following criteria will be used to review the proposals: , • How well the response to the RFP meets City objectives for the study. • • The proposed activities and whether they appear to be appropriate for the study which the City would like conducted. • The qualifications of the consultant and their demonstrated ability to complete the study which is requested. ' • The cost of the study. COST PARAMETERS: , The City would like the respondents to suggest a cost estimate which would be needed , to accomplish the scope of work suggested within this RFP. The City of Chanhassen has issued a separate RFP for a study of senior housing needs. If the consultant is responding to both proposals, some explanation of cost efficiencies which could be afforded by awarding both contracts to the same consultant would be appreciated. ' 4 I IThe City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal I Senior Center Feasibility Study • April, 1991 IDUE DATE: IThe response to the RFP is requested by: , 1991 Please send twenty (20) copies of the response to: ' IMr. Paul Krauss, Planning Director City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I (612) 937-1900 I I I . I I I I I I 5 I • The City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal Senior Housing Feasibility Study April, 1991 ' SENIOR HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS APRIL, 1991 BACKGROUND: The City of Chanhassen is a rapidly growing suburban community experiencing a massive in-migration of both families and businesses. However, it is a community that predates the current growth and, as a result, there is a mix of long time and recent residents. In 1989, the City used Community Development Block Grant funds to investigate the needs of senior adults over the age of 55. The study encompassed a wide range and found needs in many areas including improved transportation, information on support programs and support to allow seniors to remain in their homes. Investigation of the potential for developing a senior center and senior housing were also identified. At the present time, Chanhassen residents utilize these facilities and must find them in neighboring communities. Finally, the study found that Chanhassen's senior population is significantly larger than had been believed and there is good reason to expect further increases in the senior population. As a result of the Senior Needs Study, the City Council has established a Senior Advisory Commission. The City is currently sending out Request for Proposals to analyze the potential of developing a senior center and/or senior housing within the community. If these facilities are determined to be feasible, their development will be pursued as a long term goal. The studies are to be used to focus the City's efforts in these areas. The Senior Housing Feasibility Study should respond to the following questions: ' • Are senior housing options needed for Chanhassen, and, if so, what types of housing are needed? • What types of services will seniors who live in this housing need and want? If senior housing was to be built how could it be developed, managed n • g oped, anaged a d financed? • • What are the preferred locations for the housing options within Chanhassen, considering the current locations of other needed services which are used by seniors and the proposed growth of the mature adult population over the next two decades? 1 1 I The City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal Senior Housing Feasibility Study April, 1991 ' • Whit other issues are likely to impact on the need and demand for senior housing over the next twenty years? ' SCOPE OF WORK: There are four aspects to the work which is being requested. These are briefly outlined below: • Community Involvement and Education: The consultant should outline the processes which they will use to involve the following groups in this study: • Senior Facility Task Force appointed by the City Council • The City Council • The Senior Commission • Other City Task Forces involved in related issues • Senior centers in adjacent communities • Local experts on various topics related to the study • Senior service providers in Chanhassen and adjacent communities • City staff • Senior adults who reside in Chanhassen and adjacent cities • Senior Center Needs Analysis: The consultant should indicate which of the following activities would be included in their needs analysis for senior housing and the importance they attach to each activity. Suggest other analysis as appropriate. • Demographic analysis of the area. • Analysis of other area housing options, including those which are not ' targeted to seniors but end up serving large numbers of mature adults anyhow. • Analysis of important area trends which could impact on the success I • of the types of senior housing which are being considered. Surveys or interviews of area seniors permitting primary data to be gathered on various issues pertaining to the need for housing. • Focus groups of area seniors permitting dialogue to occur about various aspects of the senior housing which is under consideration. 1 2 r The City of Chanhassen I Request for Proposal Senior Housing Feasibility Study April, 1991 I • Market Analysis and Planning: The consultant should indicate how they would use the information from various sources to construct recommendations and a plan including but not limited to: • Target Markets for the senior housing: Which groups within the entire marketplace labeled senior adults should the housing target? ' • Housing and Service Packages: What type of housing accompanied by which types of services, is the most important to initiate first. • Recommendations for Action: What are the next steps I recommended to the City Council for action on the issue of senior housing? How do these fit into a long range development strategy? • Feasibility Issues Study and Discussion: The consultant should explain how they will supply information to the Senior Facility Task Force regarding the following aspects of the housing development: I • Housing Management: The advantages and disadvantages of several models of housing management and staffing should be detailed and discussed. • Housing Development and Financing: Possible sources of financing for housing should be explored and profiled. The potential for funding for various types of housing should be detailed. An RFP soliciting proposals from various developers and financing sources should be written. • Housing Design and Layout: Actual physical layouts for various ' types of housing should be sought from appropriate sources, and several options offered to the City for its consideration. This should be coordinated with any other community housing development issues and groups. 1 I 3 1 • 1 The City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal Senior Housing Feasibility Study April, 1991 REVIEW PROCESS: The City has established a two step review process: ' 1) Recommended proposals will be reviewed by the Senior Commission,which • may request a presentation by the companies responding to the RFP by ' , 1991. 2) A final recommendation for subcontractor will be made to the City Council ' by , 1991. The following criteria will be used to review the proposals: ' • How well the response to the RFP meets City objectives for the study. Y • The proposed activities and whether they appear to be appropriate for the study which the City would like conducted. • The qualifications of the consultant and their demonstrated ability to complete the study which is requested. The cost of the study. COST PARAMETERS: The City would like the respondents to suggest a cost estimate which would be needed to accomplish the scope of work suggested within this RFP. The City of Chanhassen has issued a separate RFP for a study of senior housing needs. ' If the consultant is responding to both proposals, some explanation of cost efficiencies which could be afforded by awarding both contracts to the same consultant would be appreciated. 1 4 1 • f The City of Chanhassen I Request for Proposal Senior Housing Feasibility Study April, 1991 DUE DATE: The response to the RFP is requested by: , 1991 ' Please send twenty (20) copies of the response to: Mr. Paul Krauss, Planning Director ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 5 1