09-19-05 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
7 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
1. Formal acceptance of resignations from HRA Commissioners Kristal Stokes (effective
September 8, 2005) and Tom Harms (effective in December 2005)
Notes:
2. Consideration of appointment of HRA Secretary
Notes:
3. Approval of minutes of (1) Regular HRA Meeting of August 15, 2005 and (2) Special
Concurrent HRA/City Council/Planning Commission Worksession of August 31, 2005
Notes:
4. HRA approval of agenda
5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the
HRA in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the
individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further
HRA action is necessary. However, any HRA Commissioner may request that an
item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for
HRA discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are
recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of amending Richfield HRA Administrative Plan for Section 8
Housing Assistance Program S.R. No. 35
B. Consideration of approval of continuing contract with Center for Energy and Environment
to administer Apartment Remodeling Program S:R. No. 36
C. Consideration of approval of resolution requesting City Council to call public hearing on
Modification to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area S.R. No.
37
Notes:
6. Public hearing regarding Richfield HRA annual Public Housing Authority Plan for
Section 8 Housing Assistance Program
Staff Report No. 38
Notes:
7. Consideration of Planning Commission's proposed guiding land use principals for
intersection alignment options at 66th Street and Portland Avenue
-Staff Report No. 39
Notes:
8. Executive Director report
9. Claims and payroll
Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests
must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
AGENDA ITEM # 7
REPORT # 39
~~' STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY. MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ~~- s
~~ a
. ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a report on the study of the intersection of 66th Street and Portland Avenue
and consider a list of uidin rinci als.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Support the Planning Commission's proposed Guiding
Land Use Principals for Intersection Alignment Options at 66th Street
and Portland Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
In October the Transportation Commission and City Council will be acting on a
roadway design and alignment plan for the intersection of 66th Street and Portland
Avenue. Prior to those actions, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is
being asked to review the efforts and information to date and add, if they choose, to
the assembled work.
A moratorium has been in place since December 2004. A visioning session in
March 2005 allowed the City Council, HRA and Planning Commission to discuss
opportunities and constraints to future land uses. Multiple public open houses,
Commission meetings, and recently a public hearing by the Transportation
Commission have helped to frame the decisions that are coming soon.
091505 66th Street Portland Avenue
In August, the Planning Commission approved "Proposed Guiding Land Use
Principals" and recommended a response that retains existing uses where possible
and the best opportunity for new uses in the future. A northern and eastern
alignment is proposed. This impacts some of the commercial uses and single-
family homes. A copy of the principals are attached. For the guiding principals to
be successful, future resources would likely come from the HRA:
• To provide resources that redevelop areas impacted by right-of-way
clearance.
• To provide resources that improve adjacent single family and multi family
housing that remain.
• To contribute resources that assist in blending the public and private
realm.
Included with the staff report are copies of six different land use strategies, four
different intersection design/alignments, a memo from the transportation consultant
WSB, and the city wide question/answer mailing that was distributed.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The HRA plays a leading role in facilitating and advising on the
funding of (and use changes that result from public and private
initiatives.
• The HRA has their role during and following proposed roadway
improvements at 66th Street and Portland Avenue.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Transportation Commission and City Council are finalizing
decisions in October.
C. FINANCIAL
• No commitment of resources are being requested at this time.
However, property impacted by the roadway project and residential
and commercial property that remains would benefit form the
availability of rehabilitation and redevelopment resources.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S)
• The HRA can add to or modify Planning Commission Guiding Principals.
~ V . ATTACHMENTS
• ~uiaing Cana use rrincipais
• Land use concepts A, B, C, D. E. F
• Memo from Tony Heppelman, Intersection Designs; Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5
• Intersection Improvements Q&A
I V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I
Proposed Guiding Land Use Principals for Intersection Alignment Options at
66th Street and Portland Avenue
August 22, 2005
The City Council established a moratorium on major building and land use changes at the
referenced intersection in December 2004. Primarily the Transportation Commission and
Planning Commission have been studying roadway and land use impacts and alternatives.
Community leader visioning, neighborhood and community open houses, and ongoing
comment, feedback and analysis have occurred. The following guiding principals are both a
summation and a framework for roadway and land use decisions throughout the rest of 2005.
Strategic
• Roadway design is scheduled to be reviewed and approved by the City Council in October
2005.
• Final land use considerations and market analysis can follow in response to the approved
design.
• Plan approval secures necessary funding and allows property acquisition to proceed for
impacted property.
• A construction start of spring 2008 is anticipated (date pending).
• Remainder parcels are available to modify land uses and redevelop starting in spring 2009.
Visioning
• The intersection is an identifiable gateway and transportation route.
• The intersection is unsafe, visually unappealing, congested, and devoid of greenery and
.attractive, coordinated pathways and lighting-that have become a community standard at
other gateways.
• The intersection is a focal point and connection to Veteran's Park.
• The intersection is part of a neighborhood of commercial, multi-unit housing and single
family housing uses.
• A community campus is envisioned.
• A complementary and improved mix of commercial multi-unit housing and single family
housing is envisioned:
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning and Land Use Considerations
While the intersection design continues to be evaluated, the roadway alignment of the selected
design is influenced by existing and future land uses. A northern and eastern alignment is
proposed. This offers the best response to retaining .existing uses where possible and the best
opportunities for new .uses in the future where existing uses are impacted. The following
information summarizes that.position, quadrant by a quadrant..
The Northwest Quadrant
• Make the quadrant more park like with a coordinated effort with the existing adjacent
apartment owner. Parking, green space and property access and circulation must be
improved.
• The existing commercial area is not adequate in terms of size, off-street parking space, and
buffering to adjacent multi unit residential after roadway improvements are installed.
• The commercial property Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation at the comer should
be modified to allow for medium density multi residential or mixed use.
• Near term, single family homes along Portland Avenue and north of 66th street should be
rehabilitated; resources need to be identified.
• Long term, higher density single family housing should continue to be designated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Southwest Quadrant
• The commercial property and multi-unit housing has the potential to remain or be converted
to new commercial and medium density housing uses long term.
• The commercial and higher density single family property Comprehensive .Plan and Zoning
designation should continue with a new mixed-use configuration also possible.
• Near term, single family homes along Portland Avenue and south of 66th street should be
rehabilitated; resources need to be identified.
The Southeast Quadrant .
• A north and east alignment affects both the commercial and residential property uses.
• The existing T&T service commercial property is reduced in size and may require adjacent,
commercially zoned property that presently has residential uses to remain viable.
• The printing shop is removed.
• Single family homes between 66th Street and 67th Street are removed.
• The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation allows commercial uses to be retained
and/or reconfigured; including consideration of a mixed-use option.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for higher density single family uses along Portland Avenue.
The roadway project allows the planned uses to be implemented. Redevelopment
resources need to be identified.
The Northeast Quadrant
• The BP commercial property is removed by roadway improvement; the size reduction does
not aAow independent commercial uses.
• As a first step, the remaining parcel at BP introduces a new, sought public realm.
• However, the corner parcel remains disconnected from Veteran's Park as the Funeral
Chapel surrounds the remainder.
• The Funeral Chapel has expressed concern about the viability of their commercial property
with the roadway improvement.
• The Zoning (commerciaO is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan (Public and multi-unit
housing).
• The American Legion and Funeral Chapel need to be redesigned to match roadway
improvements.
• Additional resources need to be identified longterm to expand the desire for a greater
public realm.
Miscellaneous Guiding Principles:
• All changes/removal of existing uses should coincide with the planned addition of properly
design buffering next to adjacent single family property.
• Marketing experts have insufficient information to determine if roundabouts offer viable
commercial locations.
• Streetscape elements (lighting, plantings, pedestrian walkways) need to be introduced
throughout the roadway improvement area. Additiona( resources need to be identified to
fund these improvements.
~'
-- - .e-E
i'
~--- n, ,
~~
r~ Conce t B: Mixed Use & Civic
July 6, 20f
LANDFORM 66TH & PORTLAND LAND USE STUDY Richfield, Minnesota HENO50(
~-----_______._,--~ c~
~~ Concept C: Civic & Community Space
LANDFORM 66TH & PORTLAND LAND USE STUDY July 6, 2005
""""`"°°"~ '"°`"'" Richfield, Minnesota HEN05002
~/
a `.
a - '~: ~~,
,;
~~~~ ~~i ~~ !/,
c
-----,
i
i
i
,_
l
~~
i
~~ Concept D: Civic & Expanded recreation
LANDFORM 66TH & PORTLAND LAND USE STUDY July 6, 2005
m, E oo ,s P oEN,x Richfield, Minnesota HEN05002
-- ___~._
\`,
(~
o-
~l
~i
i!
/.
,!,
r
~~
~~4` i.:~
`~:
~!,
~1
t
\,,
~_. _._~
':-
I i
i
i
'',
i
1.
`•
~t
,~. ~~
~'
(~~_
Conce t E: Minimum Chan c
LANDFORM 6TH & PoRTLaN~ LAND t~sE sTUDy August io, aoos
Richfield, Minnesota HEN05002
~__G!~
.,--"-~ ~., . C"",..
•~
;, ~.~
1
E"--~
~-~_- ~
f ~ ~
`., ~
t~, t
_ / ' ~.
1
i~ _ `~ ~ ~:
~__~--~ . Slpe ma
lye ~`lan yl
S j21Gh
~. ~.~.rrel~e~- _.ri ~~~~ S~UnY
use
® Infrastructure ^ Engineering ^ Planning ^ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
&Associares, Ina Suite #300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 27, 2005
TO: Richfield Transportation Commission
FROM: ~ Anthony Heppelmann, P.E.
RE: 66~ Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Design
The purpose of this memorandum is to present information for evaluation of the alternatives for
the 66~' Street and Portland Avenue Intersection. The memorandum provides information for
each alternative relative to the evaluation criteria identified by the Transportation Commission.
The alternatives used for the evaluation are attached. At the end of the .discussion for, each
criterion is a proposed scoring based on the discussion in the text. The scoring is on a scale of 1
to 5 with 5 being the best and 1 being the worst. The purpose of the proposed scores are to
provide a relative ranking of each alternative relative to the criterion. The proposed scores
represent WSB's assessment of each alternative relative to the criterion. Commission members
may choose to score the alternatives differently. The scoring for each alternative will be
discussed at the meeting and maybe changed.
SAFETY
There are three areas of concern related to safety that have been raised in discussions of the
alternatives:
Vehicle Crashes
Pedestrian Safety
Bicycle Safety
Each of these areas are discussed below.
Vehicle Crashes
The table below summarizes the vehicle crashes that occurred at the 66~ Street and Portland
Avenue Intersection for the three year period between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2002.
The table shows that left-turn crashes account for 62% of the total crashes at the intersection and
83% of the injury crashes. Rear-end crashes is the next
C:\D'ocummts and Settings\kasha\Local Settings\Temporary latcaet Files\OLK236\Evaluatioa of 66th aad Portland Avenue Alt
highest total accounting for 14% of the total crashes and 7% of the injury crashes. All of the
alternatives proposed can be expected to reduce the left-turn and rear end crashes. They should
also reduce the number of right angle crashes.
Crashes by Group at 66th and Portland Avenue Intersection
1/01/2000 to 12/31/2002
Crash Group Injury
Crashes Property
Dama e Total
Rear Ends 2 9 11
Left-Turns 25 24 49
Ri t An les 1 5 6
Sideswi e 1 4 5
1 vehicle 1 0 1
Not Stated 0 3 3
Others 0 3 3
Total 30 48 78
For the signalized intersection alternatives the primary improvement affecting vehicle safety is
the addition of the protected left-turn lane. The table below shows the estimated percentage
reduction in crashes that can be expected at a signalized intersection by adding protected left-turn
lanes. These percentages are from studies conducted by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and a study by the University of Kentucky. These percentages are being used by
the Metropolitan Council to evaluate projects for federal funding.
Estimated Percentage Reduction in Vehicle Crashes by Group
By Adding Protected left-turns to a Signalized Intersection
Crash Group Injury
Crashes Property
Dama e
Rear Ends 30% 30%
Left-Turn 45% 70%
Ri t An les 30% 30%
Sideswi e 50% 30%
1 vehicle 0 0
Not Stated 0 0
Others 0 0
Similar data is not available for roundabout intersections. However, because the roundabout
intersection eliminates all left-turn and right-angle conflicts it is reasonable to assume that it
would eliminate all of these crash types. In addition, many rear-end crashes occur because of
sudden or unexpected slowing or stopping by vehicles at the intersection. At a signalized
intersection this is caused by the lights changing. It may also occur when a vehicle suddenly
stops in a through lane to make alert-turn. That is why adding protected left-turn lane will
reduce rear-end crashes. For a roundabout intersection the rear-end crashes on the approaches
can be expected to be much lower than at a signalized intersection since all vehicles must slow
down to enter the intersection and therefore there should be very few sudden stops on the
approaches. However, within the roundabout, rear-end crashes may occur when vehicles enter
the roundabout without an adequate gap in the traffic in the roundabout. For the purpose of this
evaluation it is assumed that a roundabout would have a similar number ofrear-end crashes as
C:\Docummts and SettingsUcasher\Local Settings\Temporary intemet Files\011C236\Evaluation of 66th and Portland Avenue?
the signalized intersection with left-turn lanes. The roundabout is expected to have a higher
number of sideswipe crashes because this is the primary vehicle conflict that occurs at a
roundabout. For the purpose of this evaluation it was assumed sideswipe crashes for the
roundabout would be 3 times higher than for the signalized intersection alternatives. The tables
below shows the estimated crash reduction for the signalized intersection alternatives versus the
roundabout based on the above discussion and percentages.
Estimated Reduction in 3-Year Vehicle Crashes at 66th and Portland Avenue Intersection
By Adding Left-turn lanes.
Crash Group Injury
Crashes Property
Dama e Total
Chan e
Rear Ends -0.6 -2.7 -3.3
Left-Turn -11.3 -16.8 -28.1
Ri t An les -0.3 -0.5 -0.8
Sideswi e -0.5 -1.2 -1.7
1 vehicle 0 0 0
Not Stated ~ 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0
Total Chan a in Crashes -12.7 -22.2 -34.9
Total Percenta a Reduction -42.3% -46.6% -44.7%
Estimated Reduction in 3-Year Vehicle Crashes at 66th and Portland Avenue Intersection
By Converting to a Roundabout Intersection
Crash Group Injury
Crashes Property
Dama e Total
Chan e
Rear Ends -0.6 -2.7 -3.3
Left-Turn -25 -24 -49
Ri t An les -1 -5 -6
Sideswi a +2 +8 +10
1 vehicle 0 0 0
Not Stated 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0
Total Chan a in Crashes -24.6 -23.7 -48.3
Total Percenta a Reduction -82.0% -49.4% -61.9%
The second table shows that the roundabout would reduce total crashes by approximately 48
vehicles or by 62% and that it would reduce injury crashes by almost 25 vehicles or 82%. When
compared to the signalized intersection with left-turn lanes the roundabout would have
approximately 71 % fewer injury crashes and about 31 % fewer total crashes. These percentages
are consistent with comparison studies between roundabouts and signalized intersections.
The signalized intersection alternatives would all be similar relative to the reduction in vehicle
crashes since they all add left-turn lanes. Adding dual left-turn lanes at some locations is
primarily for capacity reasons and will not have a major impact on traffic safety. A comparison
of the two tables shows that the roundabout design would eliminate almost double the number of
injury crashes compared to a signalized intersection with left-turn lanes. The reduction in
property damage only crashes is only slightly better with the roundabout design.
C:\Docummts and Settings\kasher\Local Settings\Temporary laternet Files\OLK236\Evaluatioa of 66th and Portland Aveave Alt
Pedestrian Safety
The 66~ Street and Portland Avenue intersection is expected to have a relatively high number of
pedestrians because of the transit serving this location and the park and municipal pool that is
located in the northeast corner of the intersection. The impact on pedestrian safety of each
intersection type is discussed below:
Signalized Intersection -Pedestrians have a protected crossing at a signalized intersection and
it is easier for visually impaired pedestrians to cross at signalized intersection because they have
better auditory cues on when and where to cross. The crash data indicates there were no
pedestrian/vehicle crashes during the three year period between January 1, 2000 and December
31, 2002..
Roundabout Intersection - At a roundabout intersection, pedestrians must cross at an
unprotected location and it is more difficult for visually impaired pedestrians to locate the
crossing and know when it is safe to cross. However, at the location they cross, the traffic
speeds have been reduced to about 20 mph. Also, the pedestrian only needs to cross half of the
roadway at a time and they also have fewer lanes to cross. Pedestrians only need to worry about
traffic from one direction when crossing and since the crosswalk is set back from the circle the
drivers focus will be on the road ahead where pedestrians maybe crossing. Vehicles are
required to stop. for pedestrians in the cross-walk, although that has been a problem in the United
States. Studies in the United Kingdom indicate that pedestrian vehicle crashes at a two-lane
roundabout are slightly less than at a signalized intersection.
Bicylce S afety
Signalized Intersection -Bicycles ride with traffic and obey the traffic signal..
Roundabout Intersection -Bikes are encouraged to use a bike path that is separated from the
roadway at the roundabout intersection. There is no specific data available relative to
bicycle/vehicle crashes at a roundabout intersection.
Proposed Scoring
Option 1 - No-build (1)
Option 2 -Signal with Single Left-Turn Lanes (3)
Option 3 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' Street (3)
Option 4 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' and on Portland (3)
Option 5 -Roundabout (5)
C:\Documeats and SettiagsucasherV..ocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLiC236\Evaluation of 66th aad Portland Avenue A
TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT
Level of Service
The table below shows the estimated delay and level of service. for each alternative for the 2030
traffic forecasts.
66`~ Street and Portland Avenue
2030 Forecast Level of Service by Alternative
Alternative Delay
Sec/veh LOS
1- No-Build NA F
2- Si al w/Sin le Left-turn lanes 39 D
3- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 32 C
4- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 and Portland 26 C
5- Roundabout 6 A
Alternative 2 does not have any access capacity to accommodate traffic volumes that maybe
higher than the 2030 forecasts. The attached table shows what would happen to the level of
service for each alternative if the future volumes are higher than the forecast. The roundabout
intersection has the least delay and the best level of service and the greatest ability to handle
traffic volumes that are greater than forecast.
Transit
There are four routes that stop at the 66~ Street and Portland Avenue Intersection. These routes
include:
Route 5 -This route runs north and south on Portland Avenue at 66~ Street. There are four buses
in each direction during the p.m. peak hour.
Route 515 -- This route runs east and west on 66`~ Street at Portland Avenue. There are four
buses in each direction during the p.m. peak hour.
Route 553 -This is an express route that only runs during the peak periods. In the p.m. peak
hour there is one southbound bus on Portland Avenue
Route 111 -This is a University of Minnesota bus. In the pm peak hour there is one bus that is
southbound on Portland Avenue and turns left to go east on 66`~ Street.
In order to facilitate passengers who might want to transfer between the 66~ Street route and the
Portland Avenue route, it is proposed to have the Portland Avenue bus stops on the north side of
66~` Street and the 66~ Street bus stops on the east side of Portland Avenue. This would
minimize the distance that transfers must walk. At the near side stops (southbound on Portland
and westbound on 66~' Street) buses would stop in the through lane or in the right-turn lane if
one is provided. For the far-side stops a bus pull-out would be provided so that buses would not
block traffic leaving the intersection.
This arrangement will work for both the standard signalized intersection as well as for the
roundabout intersection and therefore transit operations should be similar for all alternatives.
C:\Documenis and Settings\kasher\1.oca1 Settings\Tempotary Internet Files\OLK236\Evaluation of 66th and Portland Avenue Alt
The far side bus stop ,for the roundabout intersection would be after the pedestrian crosswalk.
Since there are only 4 stops per hour in the pm peak hour; buses are not expected to have a
noticeable impact on traffic operations for any of the alternatives. Because the roundabout is
expected to have less average vehicle delay than the other alternatives, the roundabout may
provide a slight benefit to transit users.
Proposed Scoring
Option 1 - No-build (1)
Option 2 -.Signal with Single Left-Turn Lanes (3)
Option 3 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' Street (4)
Option 4 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66`~ and on Portland (4)
Option 5 -Roundabout (5)
ACCESS
Signalized Intersection Alternatives
All of the signalized intersection alternatives will have a similar impact. relative to access. On
Portland Avenue access will be limited to right-in and right-out from 67~' Street to approximately
65~' Street, that is about 600 feet north and south of 66~' Street. On 66~ Street access will be
limited to right-in and right-out from approximately 4~ Avenue to Park Avenue, that is about
600 feet east and west of Portland Avenue.
Roundabout Intersection.
The roundabout intersection would allow slightly more access. However, restricting access does
help improve safety of the roadway. Medians or splitter islands would be provided about 300 to
400 feet back from the intersection on both Portland Avenue and 66~' Street. The vehicle queues
at the roundabout intersection are only 2 to 3 vehicles long, or less than 100 feet. Left-turns from
the roadway or left-turns from the side street beyond the 300 to 400 foot distance from the
intersection would be no different than other sections of the roadway where there is no median.
The perception is that the roundabout also facilitates U-turns better than the signalized
intersection.
Proposed Scoring
Option 1- No-build (5)
Option 2 -Signal with Single Left-Turn Lanes (1)
Option 3 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~ Street (1)
Option 4 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' and on Portland (1)
Option 5 -Roundabout (3)
C:\Documents and Settia.gsutasher\l.ocal Settings\Temporary lntetnet Files\OLK236\Evaluation of 66th and Portland Avwue A
LAND USE/RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS
The table below shows the number of parcels impacted by each alternative. The next table
shows the total estimated fair market value of the parcels that are :impacted. It was assumed that
the required widening was to the east on Portland Avenue and to the north on 66~ Street for all
of the alternatives in order to provide an equal comparison of the alternatives.. The total market
value was used for parcels that are identified as total takes or potential total takes as shown on
the figures. For partial takes only a portion of the fair market value was used. The market
values came from Hennepin County Property Services.
Number of Parcels Impacted By Alternative Assuming Widening to the East and North
Alternative Partial Take Total Take Total Parcels.
1- No-Build 0 0 0
2- Si al w/Sin le Left-turn lanes 2 16 18
3- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 2 17 19
4- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 and Portland 2 17 19
5- Roundabout 5 11 16
Market Value of Properties Impacted By Alternative Assuming Widening to the East and
North
Alternative Partial Take Total Take Total Parcels
1- No-Build 0 0 0
2- Si al w/Sin le Left-turn lanes $300,350 $3,868,100 $4,168,450
3- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 $261,500 $5,748,100 $6,009,600
4- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 and Portland $261,500 $5,748,100 $6,009,600
5- Roundabout $349,550 $3,157,100 $3,506,650
The roundabout will impact the fewest parcels with the lowest total market value. Alternative 2
impacts only two more parcels and the market value of impacted parcels is only slightly higher
than for the roundabout. The big jump in market value of going to double-lefts on 66~ Street is
related to the impact on the apartment building in the northwest quadrant of the intersection.
Proposed Scoring
Option 1 - No-build (5)
Option 2 -Signal with Single Left-Turn Lanes (3)
Option 3 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~ Street (1)
Option 4 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~ and on Portland (1)
Option 5 -Roundabout (3)
C:\Documents and SettingsUcasherU..ocal Settings\Temporary lntetnet Files\OI.K236\Evaluation of 66th and Portland Avenue Alt•
COMMUNITY THEMES/AESTHETICS
The Roundabout intersection has the least amount of paved area and the greatest opportunity for
landscaping with the center island in the circle. The signalized intersection with left-turn lanes
adds about 12 feet of width to both roadways and the double lefts adds about 24 feet of width
compared to the roundabout intersection. The added paved areas reduces the aesthetic appeal of
the roadway and reduces the areas that maybe available for aesthetic treatments.
Proposed Scoring
Option 1 - No-build (1)
Option 2 -Signal with Single Left-Turn Lanes (3)
Option 3 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 660i Street (1)
Option 4 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' and on Portland (1)
Option 5 -Roundabout (5)
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Based on comments received at the open houses there are at least three issues that are not
addressed by the other criteria. These include:
^ Vehicle Queues at the intersection that may block people from getting in and out of their
driveways.
^ Pedestrian access to the park at Park Avenue.
^ Familiarity with Roundabout Operations.
Vehicle Queues
The table below shows the longest vehicle queue expected on each approach to the intersection
for each alternative.
660i Street and Portland Avenue Intersection
Vehicle Queue Lengths by Approach (feet) In PM-Peak Hour
Alternative Southbound Northbound Eastbound Westbound
1- No-Build NA NA NA NA
2- Signal w/Single Left-turn
lanes 799 196 348 380
3- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 587 192 307 263
4- Signal w/Dbl Lefts on 66
and Portland 419 158 274 259
5- Roundabout 61 19 45 23
Pedestrian Access to the Park
There is a pedestrian crossing of 66~' Street located at Park Avenue that provides access to the
Richfield pool and to Veterans Park. This pedestrian crossing is proposed to remain with all of
the alternatives. For the signalized intersection alternatives there may be some break in
eastbound traffic when northbound and southbound traffic is going on Portland Avenue. With
C:\Documents and SettingsUcasher\l.ocal Settings\Tempor3cy intemet Files\OLK236\Evaluation of 66th and PoRland Avenve A
the roundabout intersection there will be more of a steady stream of traffic in the eastbound
direction. The westbound traffic at this location would be similar for all alternatives. With the
signalized intersection it would be possible to provide a refuge area in the median between the
eastbound and westbound traffic. This could also be done with the roundabout, but it would
require further restrictions on left-turns.
Familiarity with Roundabout Operations
The roundabout intersection is relatively new for Minnesota and the Twin Cities area. There has
usually been some public opposition to the roundabout intersection when it is first introduced,
but the opposition usually disappears after drivers have a chance to use the intersection. Many
communities quickly add additional roundabout intersections after they see how well they work.
Some driver education will be required in order for the roundabout to operate at its peak
efficiency. Hennepin County is also cautious about implementing a roundabout because of a
lack of operation experience.
Proposed Scoring
Option 1- No-build (1)
.Option 2 -Signal with Single Left-Turn Lanes (3)
Option 3 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' Street (3)
Option 4 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' and on Portland (3)
Option 5 -Roundabout (1).
MAINTENANCE
Some of the differences in maintenance and construction staging between a roundabout
intersection and a signalized intersection are discussed below.
Snow removal - There is some literature that indicates snow removal in a roundabout is a little
more difficult because of the circle. Snow removal on sidewalks should be similar for all
alternatives.
Signal -The signalized intersections have additional cost for maintenance of the traffic signal
Construction Staging - It is more difficult in some cases to maintain traffic during construction
of a roundabout intersection because of the need to construct the circle in the middle of the
intersection. It is very difficult to reconstruct an intersection like 66~' Street and Portland Avenue
under traffic as a signalized intersection. •
Overall there are not major differences among the alternatives relative to maintenance.
Proposed Scoring
Option 1 - No-build (1)
Option 2 -Signal with Single Left-Turn Lanes (3)
Option 3 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~ Street (3)
Option 4 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' and on Portland (3)
Option 5 -Roundabout (2)
C:\Documeats and Settings~kasherLL,ocal Settings\Temporary ffitetnet Files\OLK236\Evaluatioa of 66th and Portland Avenue Alt•
BENEFIT/COST
The estimated construction cost for each of the alternatives is summarized in the following table.
The roundabout intersection has the lowest construction cost.
66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection
Estimated Construction Cost
Alternative Construction
Cost
1- No-Build 0
2- Si al w/Sin le Left-turn lanes $2,890,000
3- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 $3,240,000
4- Si al w/Dbl Lefts on 66 and Portland $3,690,000
5- Roundabout $2,560,000
Proposed Scoring
Option 1- No-build (5)
Option 2 -Signal with Single Left-Turn Lanes (3)
Option 3 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66`h Street (2)
Option 4 -Signal with Dbl Lefts on 66~' and on Portland (1)
Option 5 -Roundabout (4)
C:\Docummts and SettingsVcasher\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK236\Evaluation of 66th and Portland Avenue Alt
City Holds September 15 Open House
on I-494 Corridor Planning Study
Q. What is the I-494 Corridor Planning Study?
~. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is
conducting a planning study to develop a vision for Richfield's
I-494 corridor that will help ensure the community's future vital-
ity and competitiveness. The study will engage
the community, the HRA, the City Council and
the Planning Commission to determine what
types of land uses are preferred and appropriate.
The study will be coordinated by Hoisington
;gler Group, an experienced community plan-
ning consultant. Once developed, the resulting
master plan will be added into the City's com-
prehensive plan and will guide and direct future
development in the corridor.
Q. What are the boundaries of the I-494 corridor study area?
~~ The I-494 corridor study area is bounded by 77th Street on the
north, Cedar Avenue on the east and I-35W on the west. (See map)
Q. Why create a future vision for Richfield's I-494 corridor?
A. The I-494 corridor is a lot different than it was when the freeway
~~
ut
:~.
was first developed. The 1960s-type development that first occurred
along I-494 no longer maximizes the opportunities provided by tt~e
corridor to help keep Richfield competitive. The most important
tool for ensuring the future viability of Richfield is to plan for the
changes that will keep the community vital and competitive in the
metropolitan area.
The I-494 corridor presents a unique opportunity
because it is a regional corridor and one of the
most heavily traveled in the metropolitan area. It
takes people to and from the airport and the Mall of
America and is a visual gateway to Richfield. It
provides an opportunity for Richfield to bolster its
tax base. The I-494 corridor vision will also antici-
pate changes in traffic patterns that will occur with the future
expansion of I-494. The expansion will include removal of portions
of the frontage road and changes in some on and off ramps.
Q. How will the community participate in the
planning study?
A. The HRA has scheduled three open houses during the course of
the planning study to get the community's feedback on a vision for
~ w I-494 0
~
}
J
Z ~
4
a
This Q&A newsletter
addresses questions
about the process .
for the I-494 Corridor
Planning Study.
x
C
a
v
v
The I-494 corridor study area is bounded by 77th Street on the north, Cedar Avenue on the east, and I-35W on the west.
r
the I-494 corridor study area. The City understands that there will
be different and conflicting ideas and is hoping everyone will come
and express them. The purpose of the public participation process
is to generate ideas. We want to encourage everyone to attend the
three open houses, each at different phases of the study, and help
shape the vision for the southern edge of community, along I-494.
Q. What will happen at the first open house on
September 15?
A. The purpose of the first open house is to provide feedback on
the need, the study
process; and the
goals for the I-494
corridor. The open
house will be held
from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.,
at the activities build-
ing of Assumption
Catholic Church, at
305 E. 77th Street.
Those attending may
come and go as they
please, view exhibits,
ask questions, pro-
vide feedback and fill
out a comment form.
A summary of the
open house will be
provided to the HRA,
~~-
_. ~ . ~,
Kensington Park, completed in 2004, brings contemporary housing choices, retail and office space to 76th Street
and Lyndale Avenue.
City Council and Planning Commission. Anyone who cannot attend
and wishes to submit ideas about the I-494 corridor study area may
e-mail their comments to Patrick Smith at psmith@cityofrichfield.org
or drop them off at City Hall.
Q. What are the goals for the I-494 Corridor
Planning Study?
A. The I-494 Corridor Planning Study goals are to expand and
encourage the type of development that will:
• Help ensure the continued investment in and future vitality of
the community.
® Establish an attractive gateway to the community at our Lyndale,
Nicollet and Portland Avenue front doors.
® Support and protect Richfield's predominately residential character.
• Reflect the high quality of the community and Richfield's
competitiveness in the metropolitan area.
• Increase, expand and diversify Richfield's tax base.
• Anticipate, provide for, and take advantage of opportunities that
will make Richfield ready for the future expansion of I-494.
• Provide employment opportunities for people who live in the
community.
Q. Has the City ever developed a vision like this
in the past?
A. Yes. In 1985, the City developed a vision for 76th and Lyndale
and last year the City completed a vision for the Cedar Avenue
Corridor. The biggest difference between this I-494 Corridor
Planning Study and the Cedar Avenue Corridor visioning process
is that there is no redevelopment project currently planned
or pending in the I-494 corridor study area. A vision doesn't
assure development but is a necessary step in encouraging
reinvestment in an area. It is a conceptual blueprint which is
a necessary foundation that guides investment in a community.
Best Buy's campus, completed in 2003 at Penn Avenue and I-494,
brought jobs and investment to Richfield.
What other redevel-
opment projects have
brought new invest-
ment into the
I-494 corridor in
recent years?
A. The Shops at Lyndale
was completed in 1996 and
Kensington Park was com-
pleted in 2004. The Meridian
Crossings office buildings
were completed in 1999
at I-494 and I-35W,
Dick's Sporting Goods
(previously Galyan's) was
constructed in 1997 at I-494
and I-35W, and Best Buy
relocated its corporate
campus to Penn Avenue
and I-494 in 2003.
My business is in the corridor study area. Does this
mean the City is going to
redevelop my business?
Q.
A. No. There are currently no plans
for redevelopment projects in the
study area. However, businesses in
the corridor are encouraged to come
to the open houses, provide feed-
back, and play a role in developing
the vision for the future.
Q. Does the City already have
a vision in mind for the I-494
corridor planning study area?
A. No. In fact, there are many differ-
ent and sometimes conflicting ideas
about what should occur in the corri-
dor study area, and that's a good
thing. A process like this isn't an
easy one but will help sorf out the
differing ideas and provide feedback
to policymakers before they make a
decision.
Q. What does this planning study have to do with the
moratorium that was placed on issuance of certain
types of permits in the I-494 corridor last February?
A. Last February, the Richfield City Council placed a moratorium
on the issuance of certain types of permits in certain areas of the
494 corridor. The moratorium provides the City with the time to
develop a community vision for the corridor, ensuring future
development is not piecemeal but is consistent with a community
plan for the corridor.
Q. How will I be kept informed about the I-494 Corridor
Planning Study?
A. First, attend the open houses and learn more about the project
and help shape the vision for the corridor. Second, updates will be
provided on the City's Web site at www.cityofrichfield.org, and a
project newsletter will go out before each open house. Also, if you
have questions you can contact Patrick Smith at 612-861-9779 or
e-mail him at psmith@cityofrichfield.org.
uVe want everyone to participate and help
shape a vision for the i~494 corridor,.."
Torn Harms, Richfield HRA Chair
1-494 Planning Study
OPEN NOUSE SGHE[~UE
Mark these dates on your calendar and come and give us
feedback throughout this study process.
September 15
NEED, PROCESS, GOALS
October 6
OPTIONS FORA 1-494 CORRIDOR VISION
November 3
SELECTED VISION OPTION
Each open house will be held from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.,
at the activities building of Assumption Catholic Church,
at 305 E. 77th Street.
Dick's Sporting Goods (formerly Gaylan's) brought new investment to the I-494 corridor at I-35W in 1997.
The Shops at Lyndale at
I-494 and Lyndale brought
new retail and restaurants
to the community in 1996.
Early '90s to 2005 - Redevelopment of 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue begins in early 1990s with Shops at Lyndale, and is completed
with Kensington Park in 2005.
1997 - City Council adopts current comprehensive plan which states one of its goals is to "expand regional commercial
areas and increase Richfield's tax base, taking advantage of exposure along I-494."
1999 - Traffic level increases on I-494 make it one of the most heavily traveled regional corridors in the metropolitan area,
linking people to major destinations including the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the Mall of America.
2001 - The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) obtains federal approval of the I-494 Final Environmental
Impact Statement to expand I-494, a project that will remove some of the frontage road along I-494 and send
that traffic onto 77th Street. Later phases of the project, including the expansion of the Richfield portion of the
corridor, are expected to occur in 2011 or later.
1996 to 2003 - I-494 redevelopment projects bring new investment to the corridor, including Meridian Crossings, Dick's Sporting
Goods (formerly Galyan's) and Best Buy's campus.
February 2005 - The City Council places cone-year moratorium on the issuance of certain types of building permits in areas of
the I-494 corridor to give the City time to consider and study a future long-term vision for the corridor.
August 15, 2005 - The HRA begins a planning study for a vision for the I-494 corridor study area. The study's public participation
process includes three open houses, each at a key phase in the project. Planning consultant Hoisington Koegler
Group is hired to assist.
Next September 15 -The HRA holds open
house to receive feedback on the need,
process and goals of the I-494 Corridor
Steps Planning Study.
September 26 -Workshop for City Council, HRA, and
Planning Commission to review options and scenarios for a
vision for the I-494 corridor study area.
October 6 -HRA holds open house for the public to review
and provide feedback on the options for a vision for the I-494
corridor study area.
October 79 -Workshop for the City Council, HRA, and
Planning Commission to review a vision and land use/trans-
portation plan for the I-494 corridor study area.
November 3 -HRA holds open house to receive feedback on
the selected option for a vision for the I-494 corridor study area.
November 16 -Workshop for the City Council, HRA and
Planning Commission to review and consider regulatory
changes necessary for adopting a I-494 corridor vision.
November 28 -Planning Commission begins pub-ic review
and approval process for regulatory changes to include com-
prehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendments.
a3WOlSf1~ ~d1SOd
SSMa~3
~~
OZb55 NW 'pla!duo!d
ggZZ oN riwaad utnog anuany puel~od OOL9
- - -__
OIt1d p(aitu~i~ to ~fi~- e
a6e~sod 'S n
o1S YlfSad
1985 - City Council issues a moratorium on permits in the 76th and Lyndale area to develop a future vision for the area.
City hires planning consultant and plan is adopted.
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~~ STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
LYNNETTE CHAMBERS, LEASED HOUSING
SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
~n
BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME. TITLE
ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding the approval of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's
annual Public Housin Authorit Plan.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority's annual Public Housing
Authority Plan for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program and
authorize the Chair and Executive Director to execute program
documents.
II. BACKGROUND
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA) created by
Congress the requirement to provide Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plans -- a five-
year plan and an annual plan. The five-year PHA Plan describes the mission of the
Agency and the Agency's long range goals and objectives for achieving its mission
over the subsequent five. years. The annual PHA Plan provides details about the
Agency's immediate operations, program participants, and programs and services
and the Agency's strategy for addressing the needs of the community in the
upcoming fiscal year. Staff. has developed a PHA Plan in proper form and content.
091905 PHA Plan
In addition, QHWRA requires the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) to maintain a "Resident Advisory Board" to make comments on the PHA
Plan. Every Section 8 household in Richfield (there are 350) was invited to join the
Advisory Board. Four volunteered to participate. The Advisory Board then met after
each member had an opportunity to review the PHA Plan. The Resident Advisory
Board made no additional comments to the PHA Plan.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The HRA must formally adopt the PHA Plan following a public hearing. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the HRA
Chair and Executive Director to execute documents.
HUD has designated Richfield as a high performer.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Failure to approve the PHA Plan will result in receiving a non-
compliance status with HUD. "Non-compliance" violates the contracts
that the HRA has with HUD and results in a loss of administrative and
rent assistance funds.
C. FINANCIAL
• The HRA has four contracts for administrative and rent assistance
funds with HUD.
• Annually, the HRA receives $1,440,996 for rental assistance
payments and $171,130 for administrative payments. A current PHA
Plan is a requirement of these contracts.
D. LEGAL
• The Housing Assistance Program (HAP) contracts that the HRA has
with HUD have been previously reviewed and approved by legal
counsel.
• Proper notice was published on July 28, 2005 in the Sun Current of
the availability to review the PHA Plan and of the public hearing to be
held concerning PHA Plan approval. The publication schedule is in
compliance with HUD regulations.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not approve the PHA Plan at this time. (The HRA would not be in
compliance with HUD).
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary Update (Attachment A)
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
Attachment A
Summary Update
Richfield HRA Annual Plan, Year 2006
September 19, 2005
The annual Pubic Housing Agency Plan (PHA Plan) is a 16-page document. Known as
HUD Form #50075-SA, this PHA Plan provides a standard way for all PHA Plans and
the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to report that the PHA Plan
complies with all federal regulations.
To summarize:
The mission of the HRA is the same as HUD's: to promote adequate and affordable
housing, economic opportunity and a suitable living environment free from
discrimination.
^ The HRA goals are to:
- Secure more rental vouchers when available.
- Acquire and/or build affordable housing.
- Improve program administration (Richfield is already a high performer.)
- Increase program participation by landlords.
- Promote client self-sufficiency.
- Ensure equal opportunity and fair housing standards are achieved.
The PHA Plan document ends with:
• a drug-free certification form;
• a certificate that no payments have been made to influence federal transactions;
and
• a three page certification form that the HRA does and will comply with all applicable
federal regulations as listed on the certification and signed by the HRA Chair.
The annual PHA Plan in its entirety is always available to the HRA and the public, and
the PHA Plan is available for review at the Community Development Department.
AGENDA ITEM # 5C
REPORT # 37
STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2~U5
REPORT PREPARED BY:
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
` "NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for the City Council to call a public hearing on the Modification to
the Redevelopment. Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and refer the Modified
Plan to the Plannin Commission.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution applying to the City
Council of the City of Richfield to take certain actions with respect to
the Modification of a Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redeveloament Project Area.
II. BACKGROUND
The Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
(Redevelopment Plan) is in need of revision to address various housing program
needs that are funded by tax increments. It is proposed that the boundary of the
existing redevelopment project area be expanded to incorporate unserved areas of
the city for transformation home loan applicants and update other housing program
activities. Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for City Bella, Urban
Village, Gramercy, Richfield Rediscovered A-1 through B-5 and Interchange
091905RegCallPublicHrg
J
West/Lyndale Gateway will also be undertaken to address the revisions necessary
to utilize increment revenue that funds the various programs.
As the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is undertaking these
programs, it is also appropriate for the HRA to request the City Council to call for a
public hearing on the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and refer the same to
the Planning Commission for consideration.
Ehlers and Associates, in conjunction with staff and legal counsel, is in the process
cf preparing the modified plans.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statutes requires that modifications to redevelopment plans
undergo a public hearing.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The modified plan is needed to continue ongoing and newer housing
programs that are funded with tax increments.
• The HRA's consideration of the plan modification is proposed for a
meeting on November 21, 2005.
• The Planning Commission's consideration of the modified plan is
proposed for a meeting on November 28, 2005.
• A public hearing by the City Council is proposed for a regular meeting
on December 13, 2005.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel has reviewed this matter and the attached resolution.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not request the City Council to call a public hearing at this time.
However, housing program continuity could potentially be impeded.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPLYING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE MODIFICATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield (the "Authority") anticipates the undertaking of certain housing program
activities within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with such an undertaking, the Authority is desirous
that the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area be modified
(the "Modified Plan"); and
WHEREAS, as a precondition to the Authority's proceeding with the housing
program activities, certain actions are required to be taken by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for, the City of Richfield as follows:
1. The Executive Director is directed to make application to the City of Richfield
for approval of the Modified Plan for Project Area as it relates to the housing
programs.
2. The Executive Director is directed to request the Richfield Planning
Commission consider the proposed Modified Plan at a meeting of November
28, 2005 and render its opinion to the City.
3. The Executive Director is further directed to request that the City Council hold
a public hearing on the approval of the Modified Plan at a meeting of
December 13, 2005; and that notice of such hearing be made in the manner
provided by law.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 19th day of September, 2005.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~- STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
KELLY BERG, HOUSING COORDINATOR
NAME, TizzE
REPORT PRESENTER:
BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
^~ i
REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION:
Consideration to continue the Apartment Remodeling Program
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the continuation of the contract with the Center
for Energy and Environment to administer the Apartment Remodeling
Program
II. BACKGROUND
Center for Energy and the Environment (CEE) specializes in providing financial
products and services for local units of government, for homeowners, and for rental
property owners. They have efficiently managed the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) loan program, and are familiar with Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency (MHFA) forms and procedures and are an approved MHFA lender. So far,
nine loans have been closed to date totaling about $130,000.
CEE's responsibilities include:
• Receiving and reviewing loan applications.
• Ensuring that work requested also includes any "housing quality standard"
(HQS) improvements.
Apartment Remodeling Program
• Compiling the application package, including information on rents, tenant
income, bids, and information on owner's additional financing and other required
information; all of which is then sent to MHFA for loan commitment.
• After receiving loan commitment from MHFA, closing on loan with owner.
• Ensuring completion of work.
• Preparing loan closeout package and submitting to MHFA.
The HRA is responsible for:
• Conducting HQS inspections, and submitting reports to CEE.
• Verifying tenant income on units to be improved and submitting to CEE.
• Conducting final HQS inspection after completion of improvements.
• Sending out an annual form to owners to verify tenant status. If new tenants are
present, income may be verified.
• Marketing the program.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• One of the HRA's priorities is to improve apartment communities.
• .Primarily built in the 1950's and 1960's, most Richfield apartments are
aging and declining. Improvements will help Richfield rental units
continue to be appealing in a competitive market place.
• Many rental property owners are willing to consider improving their
buildings. This program provides a proven incentive loan to leverage
their own cash and equity investments.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Continuation of this program effort with funds from MHFA is available
to Richfield now.
C. FINANCIAL
• Multiple sources and uses have been blended together to make the
program possible.
• MHFA has committed $250,000 for remodeling incentive loans.
• The cost to administer by CEE is $700 per loan and comes from the
HRA's general fund and is included in the budget.
• Property owners have to match dollar for dollar with any HRA funds
received.
• HRA staff provides administrative, inspection and marketing services
from existing staff as funded by the Section 8 program and the HRA
General Fund.
D. LEGAL
• The original contract and Scope of Services with CEE were reviewed
by legal counsel. The contract extension is attached.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Do not authorize the continuation of the Apartment Remodeling Program
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
• Contract extension
~ VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
LOAN ORIGINATION AGREEMENT
Between
CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
And
HOUSING AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
(Richfield Apartment Remodeling Program)
The Agreement, made the 17th day of May, 2004, by and between the HOUSING AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, with offices at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield,
Minnesota 55423 ("Authority"), and the CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT (a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation), with its offices at 212 3ra Avenue North, Suite 560,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ("CEE") is hereby amended.
Section 5.. Term and Termination of the agreement shall read:
5.1
Unless earlier terminated as provided in the following paragraphs, this Agreement shall
become effective on May 17, 2004 and continue through May 31, 2006.
All other sections of the contract shall remain as written in the original agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunder set their hands as of the date written below:
HOUSING AUTHORITY IN AND FOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Date
By
Chair Person
Executive Director
Date
CENTER FOR ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
Sheldon Strom, Executive Director
Date !~°'~//~~
TAX ID 41-1647799
T:\Admin\CONTRACT\ACTIVE\600 CRR Misc\Richfield Amend l.doc 6/9/05
AGENDA ITEM # SA
REPORT # 35
STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
LYNNETTTE CHAMBERS, LEASED HOUSING
SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, T/TLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION:
Approval to amend the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Administrative Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's
amended Administrative Plan for the Section 8 Housing Assistance
Program.
II. BACKGROUND
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has notified the
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) that its first priority in
helping disaster affected families are to those families who have been displaced
from public housing units or voucher participants affected by Hurricane Katrina.
After these families have been helped, new applicants to the voucher program who
meet the federally declared disaster preference and are income eligible may be
helped if funds are available. HUD has requested that local housing authorities
look at their current voucher funds and estimate the number of available voucher
units they will have. Currently, the HRA has funding available for four Housing
Choice Vouchers. It is proposed that these Richfield HRA vouchers help house
victims from Hurricane Katrina.
091905 Hurricane Victims
By separate memo, staff has communicated to the HRA the forecasted reduction of
funding from HUD. The four vouchers set aside to help families affected by Hurricane
Katrina would-further reduce the vouchers available to families currently on the Section
8 waiting list.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. _ hOLICY
• The HRA establishes an Administrative Plan (Plan) and amends the Plan. The
amendment to the Plan is not considered "significant". Therefore a public
hearing is not required.
• Apart of the Plan explains the waiting list policies.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Plan must be amended in order to issue vouchers to families affected by
this disaster.
• The HRA has an opportunity to assist with disaster response.
C. FINANCIAL
• The HRA has the resources to issue four Housing Choice Vouchers to families
affected by Hurricane Katrina.
• The average Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) is $580 a month.. Therefore,
the amount of funding for four vouchers will cost $27,840 annually.
• The HRA retains "ownership" of the vouchers, they are just being used
elsewhere.
D. LEGAL
• HAP contracts that the HRA has with HUD have been previously reviewed
and approved by legal counsel.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not approve the amended Administrative Plan at this time.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed revision to the Administrative Plan (Attachment A).
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
Attachment A
Amended Portion of Administrative Plan
C. WAITING LIST PREFERENCES [24 CFR 982.207]
Family's of federally declared disasters who are Section 8 voucher holders or public housing
residents in another jurisdiction will receive preference over other waiting list placeholders.
Families of a federally declared disasters and are income eligible will receive preference over
other waiting list placeholders.
091905 Hurricane Victims