02-25-03 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion of proposed Lake-Shore-Drive on-stree# partCing ~ = -~ ---
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL-.CHAMBERS- -- -
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open Forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession on February 11, 2003 and (2)
Regular City Council Meeting on February 11, 2003
PRESENTATION
1. Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Richfield-Bloomington Honda
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
2. Council Discussion
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is
necessary. However,-any Council Member-may request#hat-an~item-#~e-removed from
the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for.Council discussion and
action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing purchase of 6309 Bryant Avenue
and first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing-sale-of property to HRA for single
family new construction S.R. No. 45
B. Consideration of approval of undertaking land registration proceedings for City-
owned Outlets A, B and C at Best Buy Campus S.R. No. 46
C. Consideration of approval of professional services agreement with Peer Engineering,
Inc. for environmental services; Airport Noise Acquisition Program S.R. No. 47
D. Consideration of approval of following 2003 business license renewals:
12th Avenue Phillips 66 -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Airport & Airline Taxi -taxi company
Airport Bowl - on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
• B&D's Convenience Plus -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Davanni's Pizza - on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
EI Jalapeno -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Gada Taxi -taxi company
Hopes Chow Mein - on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Kwik Way Foods -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Lariat Lanes - on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
• Mobil Mart -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Oasis Market -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
• Paul's Rentals & Sales -rental of trailers and trucks
Rainbow Foods -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Sandy's Tavern.- on-sale and off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
• Short Stop Superette -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Suburban Green and White Taxi -taxi company
SuperAmerica #4186 -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
• SuperAmerica #4188 -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
SuperAmerica #4191 -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
SuperAmerica #4615 -off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Vina Restaurant - on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
Yellow Taxi -taxi company
Notes:
5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
6. Public hearing and consideration of resolution authorizing use of funds for 2003 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program
-Staff Report No. 48
Notes:
.RESOLUTIONS
7. Consideration of resolution amending 2002 General Fund budget by authorizing transfer
of appropriations from Public Works Department to Fire Services Department
Staff Report No. 49
Notes:
8. Consideration of resolution approving cooperation agreement with Metropolitan
Council for acquisition and operation of residential properties in conjunction with
Metropolitan Council's Family Affordable Housing Program
Staff Report No. 50
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
9. Consideration of establishing Transportation Advisory Committee to advise Council on
transportation issues
Staff Report No. 51
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
10. City Manager's report
Notes:
~t.r
11. Claims and payrolls
Open Forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
12.Adjourn to Special City Council Closed Executive Session in Executive Conference
Room for purpose of conducting City Manager's annual performance evaluation
13. Reconvene Regular City Council meeting
14. Report regarding City Manager's annual performance evaluation
Notes:
15. Adjournment of Regular City Council meeting
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702.
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 51
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
REPORT PREPARED BY: ENGINEER ,
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
I ~NAM~E, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® _r~ ~~; lOn ~ ,~,~ /~ ~o
_ sc/s IzE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ ,_ _. . D, .
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider establishing a Transportation Committee to advise the Council on transportation
issues.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the creation of a Transportation Advisory ,
Committee to advise the Council on transportation issues.
III. BACKGROUND ~
In the late 1980's the City created an Ad Hoc Traffic Committee to study the
proposed reconstruction of both I-35W and I-494. The committee assisted the
Council in reviewing design alternatives and environmental reports and preparing
recommendations for Council consideration. This process aided the Council in
submitting substantive comments on draft environmental impact statements for both
projects. The group also guided the 77th Street Access Study that produced the
alignment for the 77th Street Reconstruction Project. The Ad Hoc Traffic Committee
was disbanded in the mid-1990's after completion of its work on the two interstate
projects.
Today, many transportation issues have surfaced, some of them are holdovers from
freeway reconstruction that has not been done while others are new issues. In any
022503Transportation Committee
case, the City Council may want to consider reestablishing a transportation
committee to make recommendations on major transportation issues confronting
the Richfield community.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The City's location in the metro area makes transportation a major
concern of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan supports citizen involvement in planning.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• It is important that citizens be given the opportunity to participate in
transportation planning.
C. FINANCIAL
An advisory committee does involve additional staff time and
preparation of materials for committee meetings but the additional
financial cost should be manageable given the importance of the work.
D. LEGAL
Establishing an advisory committee does not involve any legal issues.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
Council may choose not to form a new Transportation Committee. The
Planning Commission or the Community Services Commission could serve in
this capacity.
Council may choose to give the committee a sunset date of, for example, five
years.
Council may choose to establish a committee. Then, after the committee
operates for a period of time, the Council could make it a permanent
commission.
Council can choose to give the committee permanent status as a City
commission.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Draft outline of Transportation Committee membership and duties per
Council direction at January 2003 Goalsetting Worksession.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None anticipated.
DRAFT
Transportation Committee Membership and Duties
Membership: Any citizen who is a resident or owner/manager of a business in
Richfield can serve on the committee. The committee could consist of 7-9 people
having an interest in diverse transportation modes or environmental issues. At
least one member of the Community Services Commission and one member of
the Planning Commission will be asked to serve as members of the committee
and as liaisons to their respective commissions.
If the committee is made permanent, people could be asked to serve for three-
yearterms on a rotating basis. One-third of the members could be replaced each
year so that the members serve for three years. To begin with, the first members
could be asked to serve 2, 3 and 4-year terms to provide continuity on the
committee.
Council could advertise publicly for candidates to serve on the committee and
appoint members from the candidates after holding interviews.
Council may choose to set a sunset date for the committee to cease its
operations, or it can determine after the committee operates for a period of time
to make it a permanent commission.
Committee Responsibilities: The committee will be responsible for making
recommendations to the Council on transportation planning including:
• Encouraging citizen involvement in the committee's work;
• Reviewing policy plans on the state, regional or city level;
• Conducting transportation studies; and,
• Overseeing the planning of transportation projects.
The committee will be charged to recommend transportation capital
improvements and prepare reports to Council on other related topics that the
Council refers to the committee.
Immediate concerns that could be addressed by the committee include:
• Lyndale Avenue/I-494 Interchange
• Changes to local streets at 66th. Street/TH 77(Cedar Ave.) Interchange
• 76th Street Entrance Ramp to I-35W Alternatives.
• 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Study
• 4-lane Roads Converted to 3-lane Roads
• Bikeways
• Transit Planning/Bus Rapid Transit
AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions
AGENDA ITEM # g
REPORT # 50
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
BRUCE NORDQUIST,
REPORT PREPARED BY: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Family Affordable Housing Program in cooperation with the Metropolitan
Council.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the attached resolution approving a
cooperation agreement with the Metropolitan Council for the
acquisition and operation of residential properties in conjunction with
the Metropolitan Council's Family Affordable Housing Program and
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Cooperation
Agreement on behalf of the City. ;..
II. BACKGROUND
• The Metropolitan Council is requesting to administer a scattered site housing
rent assistance program in Richfield called Family Affordable Housing
Program (FAHP).
The program administrator (the Metropolitan Council) would acquire,
remodel, maintain, rent, and manage up to ten single-family homes. (No
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) or City funds would be used
for these activities.)
022503 Metropolitan
A Cooperation Agreement between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan
Council is required.
The program makes a payment in lieu of taxes of ten percent of shelter rent
instead of paying the full property tax. The payment in lieu would be
distributed to all taxing jurisdictions as other property tax payments are.
The program provides affordable housing:
40 percent of the units must be occupied by households with income
which does not exceed 30 percent of the metropolitan area median
income.
The balance of the units must be occupied by households with
incomes, which do not exceed 80 percent of the metropolitan area
median income.
Up to 30 percent of the units can be leased to Richfield residents. The
balance is available to those that were impacted by the Holtman consent
decree on poverty concentration or the Metropolitan Council's waiting list.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The HRA is Richfield's housing authority and therefore, by statute, has
a responsibility to evaluate whether the program should be
administered in Richfield. The HRA acted in support of the program at
its January board meeting.
Richfield is a leader in providing affordable housing: the Section 8
program, single family and multifamily rehabilitation programs, and
affordable housing on scattered sites demonstrate a long record of
these efforts.
• Opportunities for additional cost effective programs are continually
sought.
• Two Richfield citizen committees: Affordable Housing Task Force and
Vision 2020 Housing and Neighborhood Group support this type of
program.
• In 1979, the HRA facilitated a five unit privately owned scattered site
single family rental housing program that has proven successful and
still exists today.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
No program comes without a cost. The federal government and
Metropolitan Council pay for the housing program administration and
capital costs of acquisition/rehabilitation. However, the payment in
lieu of taxes reduces the City's portion of property tax revenue
received to approximately 55 percent of the expected amount.
• Cities contacted by staff that have similar programs have reported
success with" program heuses blending into neighborhoods.
FAHP evaluates potential tenants carefully and are seeking tenants
who will be good neighbors. Professional management has
demonstrated quick and efficient resolution of issues.
According to the Hennepin County Assessor, approximately ten
percent of Richfield's single family homes are rental (1,000 homes).
The number of rental homes created by this program would be a very,
very small increase.
Even if the Metropolitan Council would cease to exist, the obligation
with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would continue and
another agency, such as the Richfield HRA would administrate.
C. FINANCIAL
The Metropolitan Council and HUD provide the resources to acquire,
rehabilitate, and manage the properties.
Per property, the estimated cost (loss) of the city portion of property
tax revenue per year is $492.
For ten properties, the estimated cost (loss) of annual property tax
revenue is $4,920.
The annual property tax distribution is: 42 percent to Hennepin
County, 34 percent to City, 17 percent to school, and 7 percent to
other jurisdictions.
Therefore, other taxing jurisdictions (county, school, other) would
collectively lose $954 per property or $9,549 for ten properties each
year.
The annual amount was based on the 2002 property tax schedule and
a home valued at $180,000 with anon-homestead property tax.
D. LEGAL
• A cooperation agreement is required because the Richfield HRA is the
public agency that administers housing programs in Richfield.
Legal counsel has reviewed the cooperation agreement for
compliance with statute.
Section 8 staff reviewed the tenant lease and found it to be well-
written and strongly worded on tenant obligations.
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~
Do not make a recommendation or recommend against the program.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Cooperation Agreement
• Family Affordable Housing Program fact sheets
Graph of estimated 2003 Richfield Tax Capacity Rates
• Chart of Metropolitan Area Median Household Income (2002)
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Elizabeth Ryan, Metropolitan. Council, Director of Housing and Livable
Communities
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE ACQUISITION AND OPERATION OF
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL'S FAMILY AFF,ORDA~LE HOUSING PRO.~QR~1M. AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE COQPER~4TION AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized by Minnesota Statutes section
473.195 to exercise the functions, rights, duties, privileges, immunities and limitations as
are provided for housing and redevelopment authorities created for municipalities; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the implementation of its Family Affordable Housing
Program ("FAHP") the Metropolitan Council proposes to acquire and administer residential
properties ("FAHP Units") within the boundaries of the City, up to thirty percent of which
units will be made available to a igib.le residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.19.5, subdivision 1 requires the
Metropolitan Council to obtain the approval of the governing body of the City before the
Metropolitan Council may implement .its proposed housing initiative within the boundaries
of the City; and
WHEREAS, federal law requires the Metropolitan Council to enter into a
Cooperation Agreement with the city iri connection with the proposed acquisition and
operation of the FAHP Units.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes section 473.195 the City ;Council gives its prior approval to the
Metropolitan Council's proposal to acquire and administer up to ten (10) FAHP Units within
the boundaries of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the Mayor and the City Manager
are authorized to execute the Cooperation Agreement on behalf of the City.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
February, 2003.
Martin J.'Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
COOPERATION AGREEMENT
Metropolitan Council Family Affordable Housing Program
THIS COOPERATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the
Metropolitan Council (the "Metropolitan Council") and the City Richfield, State of Minnesota
(the "Municipality").
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is a public corporation and political subdivision of the
State of Minnesota and is authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 473.195 to exercise the
functions, rights, duties, privileges, immunities and limitations as are provided for housing and
redevelopment authorities created for municipalities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.195 the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes sections 469.001 to 469.047 and of all other laws relating to housing and redevelopment
authorities apply to the Metropolitan Council when the Metropolitan Council is functioning as an
authority; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the implementation of its Family Affordable Housing Program
("FAHP"), the Metropolitan Council proposes to acquire within the corporate limits of the
Municipality on a scattered-site basis a limited number of residential properties ("FAHP Units")
and will focus its acquisition efforts on housing structures containing four units or less; and
WHEREAS, the governing body of the Municipality has given its prior approval regarding the
Metropolitan Council's proposed housing initiative pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section
473.195, subdivision 1.
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual covenants in this Agreement, the Municipality and the
Metropolitan Council agree as follows:
1. Whenever used in this Agreement:
(a) The term "FAHP Units" shall mean up to ten (10) residential housing units, as defined
in Title 42 United States Code section 1437a(b)(1), developed or acquired by the
Metropolitan Council in connection with its Family Affordable Housing Program with
financial assistance of the United States of America acting through the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development (the "Government") and located on a scattered-site
basis within the corporate limits of the Municipality.
(b) The term "Taxing Body" or "Taxing Bodies" shall mean the State of Minnesota and
any and all political subdivisions or taxing units thereof in which FAHP Units are
situated and which would have authority to assess or levy real or personal property
taxes or to certify such taxes to a taxing body or public officer to be levied for its use
and benefit with respect to the FAHP Units if the units were not exempt from taxation.
(c) The term "Shelter Rent" shall mean the total rentals of a FAHP Unit charged to tenants
during the preceding calendar year, excluding any charges for utilities and special
Page 1 of 4 Pages
services such as heat, water, electricity, gas, sewage disposal or garbage removal, and
excluding all other income of the FAHP Unit.
2. The Metropolitan Council shall endeavor to:
(a) Secure a contract or contracts with the Government for capital grants and annual
contributions for the FAHP Units; and
(b) Acquire or develop and administer the FAHP Units.
3. The Metropolitan Council and the Municipality agree:
(a) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 469.040, and applicable federal laws and
regulations, including Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations section 941.201(d), each
FAHP Unit is exempt from all real and personal property taxes levied or imposed by
any Taxing Body for so long as either: (i) the FAHP Unit is owned by a public body or
governmental agency and is used for housing as defined in Title 42 United States Code
section 1437a(b)(1); (ii) any contract between the Metropolitan Council and the
Government in connection with the FAHP Unit remains in force and effect; or (iii) any
bonds issued in connection with the FAHP Unit or any monies due to the Government
in connection with the FAHP Unit remain unpaid, whichever period is the longest (the
"Exemption Period").
(b) During the Exemption Period, the Municipality, on behalf of all Taxing Bodies, agrees
that it will not levy or impose any real or personal property taxes upon a FAHP Unit or
upon the Metropolitan Council with respect to the FAHP Unit.
(c) During the Exemption Period, the Metropolitan Council shall make, or cause to be
made, payments in lieu of taxes ("Payments in Lieu of Taxes") in payment for the
public services and facilities furnished from time to time without other cost or charge
for or with respect to each FAHP Unit. Each Payment in Lieu of Taxes shall be made
at the time when real property taxes on a FAHP Unit would be paid if the FAHP Unit
were subject to taxation, and shall be in an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the
Shelter Rent charged with respect to the FAHP Unit during the preceding calendar year.
A Payment in Lieu of Taxes for a FAHP Unit may not exceed the amount which would
be payable in taxes if the FAHP Unit were not exempt from real or personal property
taxes.
(d) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 469.040, subdivision 3, the County within
which a FAHP Unit is located shall distribute the Payments in Lieu of Taxes among the
Taxing Bodies in the proportion which the real property taxes which would have been
paid to each Taxing Body for such year if the FAHP Unit were not exempt from
taxation bears to the total real property taxes which would have been paid to all of the
Taxing Bodies for such year if the FAHP Unit were not exempt from taxation;
provided, however, that no payment for any year shall be made to any Taxing Body in
excess of the amount of the real property taxes which would have been paid to such
Taxing Body for such year if the FAHP Unit were not exempt from taxation.
Page 2 of 4 Pages
4. During the Exemption Period, the Municipality, or other appropriate Taxing Body, without
cost or chazge to the Metropolitan Council or the tenants of a FAHP Unit (other than the
Payments in Lieu of Taxes) shall:
(a) Furnish or cause to be furnished to the Metropolitan Council and the tenants of the
FAHP Unit public services and facilities of the same chazacter and to the same extent as
are furnished from time to time without cost or charge to other dwellings and
inhabitants in the Municipality;
(b) Accept grants of easements necessary for the development of FAHP Units; and
(c) Cooperate with the Metropolitan Council by such other lawful action or ways as the
Municipality or other Taxing Body and the Metropolitan Council may find necessary in
connection with the development and administration of the FAHP Units.
5. In respect to the initial development of FAHP Units, the Municipality further agrees, on
behalf of all Taxing Bodies, that within a reasonable time after receipt of a written request
from the Metropolitan Council:
(a) When required by city ordinance, it will accept the dedication of all interior streets,
roads, alleys and adjacent sidewalks within the azea of FAHP Units, together with all
storm and sanitary sewer mains in such dedicated azeas, after the Metropolitan Council,
at its own expense, has completed the grading, improvement, paving and installation
thereof in accordance with specifications acceptable to the Municipality or other Taxing
Body;
(b) When required by city ordinance, it will accept necessary dedications of land for, and
will grade, improve, pave and provide sidewalks for, all streets bounding FAHP Units
or necessary to provide adequate access to the FAHP Units (in consideration for which
the Metropolitan Council shall pay to the Municipality or other Taxing Body such
amount as are or could be assessed against the FAHP Unit sites for such work if such
sites were privately owned); and
(c) It will provide, or cause to be provided, water mains, and storm and sanitary sewer
mains, leading to FAHP Units and serving the streets bounding the FAHP Units (in
consideration for which the Metropolitan Council shall pay to the Municipality or other
Taxing Body such amount as would be assessed against the FAHP Unit sites for such
work if such sites were privately owned).
6. If by reason of the Municipality's or other Taxing Body's failure or refusal to furnish or
cause to be furnished any public services or facilities which it has agreed to furnish or cause
to be furnished to the Metropolitan Council or to the tenants of any FAHP Unit, the
Metropolitan Council incurs any expense to obtain such services or facilities, then the
Metropolitan Council may deduct. the amount of such expense from any Payments in Lieu of
Taxes due or to become due to the Municipality or other Taxing Body in respect to any
FAHP Unit or any other housing units owned or operated by the Metropolitan Council.
7. No Cooperation Agreement previously entered into between the Municipality and the
Metropolitan Council, if any, shall be construed to apply to any FAHP Units covered by this
Agreement.
Page 3 of 4 Pages
8. . No member of the governing body or any other public official of the Municipality or other
Taxing Body who exercises any responsibilities or functions with respect to the any FAHP
Unit during her or his tenure or for one year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in any FAHP Unit or any contracts in connection with any FAHP Unit. If any such
governing body member or such other public official of a Taxing Body involuntarily
acquires or had acquired prior to the beginning of her or his tenure any such interest, she or
he shall immediately disclose such interest to the Metropolitan Council.
9. During the Exemption Period, this Agreement shall not be abrogated, changed or modified
without the consent of the Government. The privileges and obligations of the Municipality
and other Taxing Bodies shall remain in full force and effect with respect to the FAHP Units
so long as the beneficial title to the FAHP Units is held by the Metropolitan Council or by
any other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, authorized by
law to engage in the development or administration of housing as defined in Title 42 United
States Code section 1437a(b)(1). If at any time the beneficial title to, or possession of, a
FAHP Unit is held by such other public body or governmental agency, including the
Government, the provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and may be
enforced by, such other pubic body or governmental agency, including the Government.
10. The obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall apply to each FAHP Unit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the authorized representatives of the Municipality and the
Metropolitan Council have respectively signed this Agreement. This Agreement is effective on
the date when both parties' authorized representatives have signed this. Agreement.
CITY OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By By
Lee Sheehy
Its Regional Administrator
Date _ Date
and
By
Its
Date
This document drafted by:
Office of the General Counsel
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 602-1706
FAHPCOOPFORM
oa„3ro,
Page 4 of 4 Pages
~ Metropolitan Council
Improve regional competitu~eness in a global economy
FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
FACT SHEET
What is the Famity Affordable Housing Program?
The Metropolitan Council's Family Affordable Housing Program (FAHP) is an affordable
family rental housing program. This is one tool municipalities can utilize to help address the
critical and escalating need for more affordable, work force housing units.
Where will the FAHP be implemented?
The Council is partnering with several municipalities throughout Ramsey, Anoka and Hennepin
Counties. Each of the following Hennepin County cities have approved the purchase of up to 20
units: Minnetonka, Edina, Eden Prairie, Golden Valley, and Maple Grove. In Anoka County,
Coon Rapids has agreed to 20; Blaine has agreed to 15. In Ramsey County, Roseville has agreed
to 15; Shoreview and Plymouth have both agreed to 10.
How many units will the Council acquire?
The Council has committed to the goal of completing 150 units.
What tunes of units will the Council acquire?
The Council will focus its acquisition efforts on single family homes, town homes, and
condominiums. (While the Council is focusing its efforts on these structure types, the Council
may elect to buy residential structures containing up to eight units.) Unit sizes will range from
two to five bedrooms.
How will the FAHP be implemented?
In order to avoid the unnecessary displacement of area residents, the Council will focus on the
acquisition of residential properties for sale by their owner-occupants. The Council has engaged
a real estate professional to assist in the identification of potential properties.-
The Council has established unit location criteria to serve as a guide to the Council's acquisition
efforts. In addition, the Council will not buy properties in census tracks that are "impacted" by
race or povertyl.
The Council has and will continue to meet with city staff. We want to coordinate our efforts to
ensure, for example, that properties are not acquired within city-identified redevelopment zones.
Who will own the FAHP units?
Census tracks may not have a poverty population of 12.2% or more, nor may they have minority population greater
that 28.68%. The Council will identify, and subsequently notify municipalities, of any ineligible census tracks.
Family Affordable Housing Program Fact Sheet October 2002
Page 1 of 3
The Council will be responsible for and directly own all FAHP units.
Who will manage the FAHP units?
The Council has retained Cedar Management, a professional property management firm, to
provide day-to-day property management services. Additionally, Council staff will provide
professional asset management to ensure all units are managed and maintained according to
Council standards and are long-term community and neighborhood assets.
What are the Council's property management standards?2
In addition to providing quality affordable rental housing, the Council wants to ensure that it's
housing is a strong asset to communities. It is our goal that neighbors and other community
members cannot ascertain by either the maintenance of the housing, nor by the behavior of
residents, that the home is affordable rental housing. Rather, we will ensure that it is another
spoke in the wheel of quality stable housing that helps provide a quality, stable community. We
will be responsive and responsible to our residents and communities in ensuring that this goal is
continually realized.
Who will live in the FAHP Units?
Up to 30% of all FAHP units in each municipality may be leased based upon local preferences.
To that end the Council will notify families on the waiting lists maintained by the Council for
each respective city. These units are designated "Incentive Units". The Council opened and
closed the FAHP waiting list on July 26, 2001 in order to develop an Incentive Units waiting list.
Over 2,000 families made inquiries that day and over 1,100 have submitted formal pre-
applications.
Since the acquisition and operation of the FAHP units will be funded by federal funds made
available under the Hollman consent decree, 70% of the units will be made available to
Minneapolis families whose rental units were demolished under the consent decree or otherwise
are affected by the consent decree.
What are the Council's resident selection criteria?
It is the Council's goal to provide quality, stable, secure homes for families in the region. To
that end, resident selection criteria will be applied (to both Incentive and Replacement units) that
provides residents with ample opportunities to succeed and be stable, positive members of
residential communities.
Will support services be provided to residents?
The Council is in the process of examining various social service delivery options to determine
the most cost-effective and impactful method of providing services if needed. Our ultimate goal
is to help residents maintain their housing for as long as they desire, by ensuring resident access
to community support services.
z All housing will be operated and maintained according to the Council's Low Rent Public Housing Policies &
Procedures.
Family Affordable Housing Program Fact Sheet October 2002
Page 2 of 3
Will property taxes be raid on Council-owned property?
State law exempts public housing units from all real and personal property taxes of cities,
counties and the state. Rather, the Council is required to pay PILOT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes.
Under State law, PILOT payments generally equal five percent of gross rents charged to a
family. However, as provided for under federal law, Council PILOT payments for FAHP units
will be 10% of gross rents charged to each family. Payments are made annually to the county in
which the property is located. The county is then responsible for distributing that payment to
the various taxing authorities.
Whv should cities participate in the FAHP?
Cities participating in FAHP will realize many benefits:
- Quality improvements will be made to all properties purchased by the Council, thus
improving the quality of the overall housing stock.
- FAHP units will help obtain the affordable rental housing goals detailed in comprehensive
plans.
- At least thirty percent of all FAHP units will be leased to respective city residents.
- Participation in FAHP may help cities gain additional points on transportation funding
applications submitted to the Council for consideration.
- Cities will be provided with long-term, quality, work-force housing for families.
- City residents will not be displaced as the Council's goal is to only purchase vacant units or
units for sale by their owner occupant.
- FAHP units will be rental housing that is professionally managed, with resident screening
that will help ensure residents have a successful rental experience.
- The Council will work with city staff to ensure acquisition efforts do not interfere with
redevelopment plans or opportunities.
Family Affordable Housing Program Fact Sheet October 2UUz
Page 3 of 3
.'.~ Metropolitan Council
Improve regional compefifiveness in a global economy
Family Affordable Housing Program (FAHP)
Unit Location Criteria
Attachment A
Units being acquired by the Metropolitan Council for the FAHP will adhere to the following
location criteria as a general guide for development. These criteria are established to focus
efforts of the Metropolitan Council staff and its agents in placing the FAHP units in participating
communities within Anoka, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties.
1) All units created under the FAHP will be located outside of Minority and Poverty
Concentrated Areas as prescribed in the Hollman Consent Decree, unless specifically agreed
upon by all parties to the Consent Decree.
2) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located within '/4 mile of public transportation
opportunities and/or in communities with local public transportation services. These
opportunities may consist of bus stops or routes, local dial-a-ride programs, transit hubs, LRT
stations, or other public transportation programs as may be provided by the local or regional
jurisdiction.
3) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located near educational opportunities for
children. These opportunities may include public or private elementary, middle or senior
high schools, preschools, or other specialized learning centers that may benefit residents of
the units. When possible, units should be located within walking distance of educational
facilities.
4) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located within walking distance of daycare
facilities, including commercial or licensed home daycare providers.
5) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located in communities experiencing entry-
leveljob growth and to the extent possible near employment opportunities for residents.
6) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located within'/z mile of neighborhood services
such as grocery or convenience stores.
7) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located within two miles of regional shopping
and services, including grocery, banking, medical, dental, clothing and other services.
8) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located near social service centers and job
training centers.
9) To the extent practicable, FAHP units will be located near recreational facilities such as
parks, trail ways, bike paths, ball fields, tennis courts, community centers, playgrounds, ice
rinks; etc.
•,.~ Metropolitan Council
Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy
FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
General Summary of Resident Selection Criteria
Attachment B
Goals
The goals of the resident selection criteria detailed below are as follows:
- provide quality, stable, secure homes for families in the region
- provide an opportunity for families with low-incomes to enhance their positive rental history
- ensure residents of Council-owned housing are stable, positive members of residential communities
- ensure Council-owned property is an asset to all communities by operating such housing in a responsible and
manner.
Criteria
Generally, the history of an applicant's conduct must demonstrate capability of compliance with the terms
of the Council's lease.
A. Rental History
Applicants must have the following to be considered for admission;
- positive rental history of at least 12 consecutive months within the previous two years
- history of timely, full payment of rents
- history of cooperation with management and other residents
- history of abiding by all other lease terms
- history of no property damage
B. Criminal History
Applicants must have no history of the following, subject to the Council's Basis for Admission Denial:
- criminal record ofdrug-related activity
- criminal record related to physical violence to persons or destruction of property
- criminal record that would adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of other residents and/or neighbors
C. Income
- At least 40% of families admitted during the Council's fiscal year must have incomes that do not exceed 30%
of area median income.
- The balance of residents admitted during the Council's fiscal year must have incomes that do not exceed 80%
of median income.
If the Council receives unfavorable information about an applicant, the Council will consider the time,
nature, and extent of the applicant's conduct and factors that might indicate a reasonable probability of
favorable future conduct or financial prospects.
Background Checks
In order to achieve the goals set out above, the Council will:
- Confirm sources of income
- Confirm rental history by contacting previous landlords and obtaining unlawful detainer reports
- Order credit reports to identify other previous addresses and subsequently contacting other identified landlords,
if any
- Order criminal background checks to review criminal history of applicants and/or household members
1ylarcn ~uul
.'•~ Metropolitan Council
Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy
FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
Summary of Basis for Admission Denial
Attachment B
A record of any of the following may be sufficient cause for the Council to deny admission:
1. Failure to pay rightful fmancial obligations, including rent and utilities.
2. Unpaid rent or other amounts owed to the Council or to another PHA in connection with Public
Housing or Section 8 Programs.
3. Inability to comply with the Council's lease without supportive services from Council staff that
would require an alteration in the fundamental nature of the Family Affordable Housing Program;
4. Disturbance of other residents, neighbors, or property management company staff;
5. History, or current violation, of the terms and conditions of any lease or occupancy agreement.
6. Destruction of property, or living or housekeeping habits at prior residences that may adversely
affect the health, safety or welfare of other residents or neighbors;
7. A history of, or current record of, criminal or other activity involving physical violence to persons
or property by the applicant or any member of the applicant's household, or a history of other
criminal acts, conduct or behavior by the applicant or any member of the applicant's household
which would adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of other residents, neighbors, Council
employees, or property management agent employees;
8. A history of, or current record of, drug-related criminal.activity by the applicant, any member of
the applicant's household, or a guest or other person under the applicant's control.
9. A history of, or current conduct by a household member apparently caused by substance abuse of
alcohol or drugs, that would be a violation of the terms of the dwelling lease, and an indication that
such conduct is likely to continue and adversely affect the residential environment.
10. Any conviction for manufacturing or producing methamphetamine (speed) shall be cause for
lifetime denial;
11. Lifetime registration under a state sex offender registration program shall be cause for a lifetime
denial;
12. Any conviction for arson shall be cause for lifetime denial;
FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM Page 1 of 2
Summary of Basis for Admission Denial March 2002
13. Fraud in connection with any Federal housing assistance program;
14. Eviction from housing or termination from residential programs (taking into account the date and
circumstances);
15. Eviction from assisted housing within three years of the time the application is being processed for
any drug related criminal activity;
16. Eviction from assisted housing within five years of the time the application is being processed for
any drug related criminal activity involving the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution or possession
with intent to manufacture, sell, distribute a controlled substance as defined in Section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802;
17. Any misrepresentation relevant to the application process;
18. Failure to cooperate with the Council or its management agent in completing the application
process;
19. Failure to provide written accurate, current, objective and verifiable information regarding rental
history, income, assets, family composition, childcare, drug or alcohol abuse, illegal drug use, or
criminal activity;
20. Threatening, abusive or violent conduct towards a Council employee, management agent
employee, other applicant, resident or neighbor.
FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM Page 2 of 2
Summary of Basis for Admission Denial Mazch 2002
c~
H~
~~
o c~
o~
~~
+~.i ~U
C~ ~
.,~ C~
~ ~
m
W
~~
a~
~~
~~
O
~ ~: :;
t ~
~
;
~_
r
~
pi,,' i r: ,t
~:~ ~
~ ~tiY,.
~
~ P~' ~ s n
t'
~~ ~ 7 .
0
O
O
A ,.~..~
n
J
o-
~_
~;-
N
a°
H
W
a
a
O
O
~D
..
A
W
O
x
z
w
N
O
O
N
w
-` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S 1: O O O O v'1 O tI') ~
-' ~--~ `~t . t ~ 0 00 t w ~ M
~' ` ~0 00 O M d' ~O oo O
`~ '' ~ •-~ N N N N N M
``
O
~
: ~
,
~=~
'
' o o o o o 0 0 0
'
S i c; ~o
i ~ o
d o
tI~ ~
tr') o
~D
~; O 00
~D [~
O n
~ M
oo ;
r-+ et t~ O
~..~ . ~ N M M M d' ~t d' ~
~
-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c N d' O N oo O ~O N
~ , N oo dr O ~O et O I
O N ~D ~+ ~O G; M t~ O
M M '~' d' d' V~ v7 ~O
0
~"~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c~ O O v~ O ~ O ~n O
a .~ ~ o~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~
O M~1 00 M 00 d' 00 M I~ ~
3 M d' ~t ~ ~ ~D ~O I~
°
a
0
~ 0
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
° a a a a a a a a
-~
w ,
~-+ N M d' ~ ~ ~ 00
w
N A
H v~
~ ~
G1 N
.-~ N
b9 64
~ ~
~ O
O ~
o~. N
~ G]..
a~
3 `n
N O
O
~ ~
00
00 ~
b9 ~
~ ~
C O
O `n
~ 4'
~. ~
~ ~
a~
~ ~
O ~'
O
~ ~ N
C ap d~
~ O
,~ b4 M
._ ~ ~
O ~
y O
~s ti' ~
~ ~a
aw
w"
0
~o°
w~~
N
N ~
O ' '
N O O
c= as a,
AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions
AGENDA ITEM # ]
REPORT # 49
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME,
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Approval of a resolution amending the allocation of the 2002 General Fund Budget
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution amending the 2002 General Fund
Budget by authorization of a transfer of appropriations from the
Public Works Department to the Fire De artment.
II. BACKGROUND
• During 2002, the Fire division was short two shift positions throughout the year.
This shortage of shift positions led to an increase in labor costs for 2002.
• In addition, the Fire Department absorbed its share of City dispatching costs in
2002, which had previously been paid by the Public Safety Department.
Therefore, after the compilation of the 2002 Revised Budget, the expenditures of
the Fire Department have exceeded the appropriation contained in the 2002
Revised Budget, resulting in the department's total 2002 expenditures to exceed
appropriations by approximately $110,000.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate
monies for operations of the City on a departmental level basis.
During the course of the year, the City Council amends the operating
budget and it is referred to as the Revised Budget.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The amount exceeding budget for the Fire Department is
approximately $110,000.
• City staff is recommending that the 2002 Revised Budget be allocated
between the following departments and divisions in order to balance
all City departments:
INCREASED BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
Fire
Fire Division 110 000
Total 110 000
DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURRES
Public Works
Street Division $110,000
Total 110 000
Net Change to General Fund Budget ~ 0
D. LEGAL
City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate funds at
the department level of spending.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The transfer does not affect the annual General Fund Budget; instead it
provides that no department end the fiscal year overspent.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Resolution authorizing revision of 2002 budgets of various departments.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2002 BUDGETS OF VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 9130 appropriated funds for personal services, other
services and charges, supplies and capital outlays for each department of the City for the
year 2002; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 9270 authorized revision of the 2002 budget various
departments; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 2002 budget
appropriations in accordance with charter provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, MN as follows:
SUMMARY
INCREASEBUDGETEDEXPENDITURES
Fire:
Fire Division $110,000
Total $110,000
DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
Public Works:
Streets Division $110,000
Total $110,000
Net Change to General Fund Budget -0-
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN. this 25th day of February,
2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
AGENDA ITEM # 6
REPORT # 48
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2UU3
REPORT PREPARED BY:
PAM BOOKHOUT,
REHABILITATION SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
_,
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: L'~" ,; ''~
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of resolution regarding the use of funds from the Community
Develo ment Block Grant allocation for 2003.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the
attached resolution authorizing the use of funds for the 2003 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and
authorizing signature of a subrecipient agreement with Hennepin
County and any required third party agreements.
III. BACKGROUND
• The City Council is to conduct a public hearing on February 25 to authorize
Richfield's use of the 2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
allocation of $237,426, as proposed.
• The allocation figure is the same as last year's, but could change based on
Congress's review of the 2003 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) budget. If
there is a change from last year's figure, the amounts would change.
• As in past years, Richfield proposes the funds go toward public service, home
improvement, and property acquisition/development for first time buyers.
• Richfield supports four public service agencies through the CDBG allocation:
Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.), Greater Minneapolis
0225_CDBG alloc
Day Care Association (GMDCA), Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
(CASH), and HOME Line:
- H.O.M.E. is a homemaker, maintenance and chore services program for
residents who are 60 years old or more, or who have a disability, with the goal
of keeping people in their homes longer to avoid the high costs of nursing
home care. Clients are asked to pay for services based on a sliding fee scale.
- GMDCA provides funds to help cover day care costs of lower income families
who are working, in school, or who are experiencing ashort-term emergency
need. Co-payments are determined on a sliding scale basis.
- CASH provides homebuyer workshops, individual homebuyer counseling,
foreclosure prevention services and counseling, and reverse mortgage
services. Services are available to residents of any income level, but CASH
estimates that two-thirds of the Richfield households served are below 50
percent of the median income.
- HOME Line provides support to renters by offering free call-in or walk-in
service, providing information and advice on tenant/landlord law and on court
procedures. Staff also helps solve problems such as maintenance/repair-
related issues or instances of management abuses. A Renter Education
Program for high school students is a program to present the basics of renting
for young people soon to be entering the rental market for the first time. This
program has been presented at Richfield High School and Academy of Holy
Angels many times.
• Third party agreements with each of these agencies are prepared annually. The
Richfield Community Development Department and Richfield Community Human
Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) work collaboratively to address public
service needs.
• RCHSPC makes recommendations to the City Council regarding public service
funding for CDBG funds. This year's recommendation by RCHSPC is attached.
The recommendation for public service funding with the prescribed count
guideline of a maximum of 15 percent would provide a total allocation of 35,613.
• Richfield programs include rehabilitation of owner-occupied property
(Rehabilitation Deferred Loans) and acquisition of property on scattered. sites
(New Home Program).
• Through the Deferred Loan program, the new CDBG funds will serve
approximately eight low-income households that need home repairs and
improvements during the year 2003. Currently, there are approximately ten
homeowners going through the loan process and twenty homeowners waiting for
funding. A total amount of $101,813 is requested for rehabilitation.
• The New Home Program allocation will remove a substandard property to allow a
new one to be built, or will provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a single
family home for a first time buyer. The project request for 2003 is $100,000 for
acquisition and site preparation.
The chart below summarizes the recommended funding:
Allocation Total
Project Per Project Recommendation
1. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 20,000
b. GMDCA $ 10,613
c. CASH $ 2,500
d. HOME Line $ 2,500 $ 35,613
2. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property: $101,813 $101,813
3. Acquisition of Property $100,000 $100,000
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $237,426
S OF RECOMMENDATION ~
Hennepin County's statement of objectives indicates that communities should
limit the number of projects funded to three. Meeting this objective, the Richfield
proposal is divided into three projects: public service, home rehabilitation, and
acquisition of substandard property.
Public service funding is as recommended by the Richfield Community Human
Services Planning Council.
A. POLICY
• Allocation of CDBG funds is an annual activity.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for February 25,
2003. The deadline for submitting the 2003 CDBG application materials
to Hennepin County is March 7, 2003.
C. FINANCIAL
• The total Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program allocation from the
federal government in 2003 has not yet been approved, due to
congressional delay. Hennepin County has recommended using the
same allocation figures as in 2002 since large deviations from those
figures are not expected.
D. LEGAL
• Notice of public hearing was published February 13, 2003 in the Sun
Current.
TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~
Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still achieves
funding guidelines.
Fund other eligible projects, which have not been identified by staff for funding.
~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~
RCHSPC recommendation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE
2003 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota through execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield developed a proposal for the use of CDBG funds
made available to it, and held a public hearing on February 25, 2003 to obtain the views of
citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs
and priorities for the City's proposed use of $237,426 from the 2003 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant; and
WHEREAS, if the figure changes, based on federal action, the proposed uses of funds
would change.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota
approves the following projects for CDBG and authorizes submittal of the proposal to
Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program.
Project Allocation Total
Per Project Recommendation
1. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 20,000
b. GMDCA $ 10,613
c. CASH $ 2,500
d. HOME Line $ 2,500 $ 35,613
2. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property: $101,813 $101,813
3. Acquisition of Property $100,000 $100,000
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $237,426
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and
direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required
Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2003 CDBG Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
February, 2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES
PLANNING COUNCIL
Memorandum
Date: January 28, 2003
To: Bruce Nordquist
From: John Bjostad, RCHSPC Chair
Subject: 2003/2004 Recommended Allocations for City Public Service CDBG
The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council met on January 27, 2003 to make
recommendations regarding 2003/04 CDBG Public Service allocations. It is the assessment of
the RCHSPC that:
The applicant agencies are providing valuable and effective service to the people of
Richfield and meet the CDBG definition of Public Service.
In a variety of ways these programs support the City's housing goals by maintaining
dwellings and contributing to the stability of the community. .
Due to limited dollars available, it is recommended that the following CDBG allocations be
made for 2003/2004:
A licant Recommendation Percenta e
Senior Communit Services Home Pro ram $20,000 56.2
Greater M Is. Da Care Association $10,613 29.8'
CASH Full-C cle Homeownershi Services $2,500 . 7.0
HOME Line ~ $2,500 7.0
TOTAL $35,613 100
If the funding amount available changes from the above, the stated percentages should be used
to determine allocations. Thank you.
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # LFC
REPORT # LF]
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
JULIE URBAN,
REPORT PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~~
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of approval of a professional services agreement with Peer Engineering, Inc. for
environmental services, Airport Noise Acquisition Program.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the execution of the attached professional
services agreement with Peer Engineering, Inc. for environmental
services, Airport Noise Acquisition Program.
II. BACKGROUND
• Several properties located within the Airport Noise Acquisition Program
(ANAP) area are being purchased with a $10 million grant from the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC).
• Eighteen single family homes, two duplexes and one apartment building
have been purchased to date.
• Environmental testing for asbestos, lead based paint, and hazardous
materials must be completed before the buildings can be moved or
demolished.
• Five environmental firms submitted quotes to conduct the building surveys.
Peer Engineering was selected to perform the work for $25,200.
0225ANAPenv
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Entering into a Professional Services Agreement with project
consultants is standard procedure. Contracts over $25,000 require
City Council approval.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Five environmental firms submitted quotes. Peer Engineering
received the highest score for experience and submitted the lowest
bid.
Peer was also selected to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment for the property. That work, for $4,945, was contracted
for under a separate agreement and has already begun.
• Once testing is completed, bid specifications can be prepared to move
the houses that are vacant.
C. FINANCIAL
The agreement with MAC provides funding for environmental services.
D. LEGAL
• Environmental testing for hazardous materials is required before
buildings can be moved or demolished.
• Peer will perform the work in accordance with applicable Minnesota
Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
requirements.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Reject the proposal and direct staff to seek alternative proposals.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
ASBESTOS, LEAD PAINT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SURVEYS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of
Richfield, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as the City, and Peer
Engineering, Inc. hereinafter referred to as Peer Engineering, Inc.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City wishes to purchase the services of Peer
Engineering, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and
agreements hereinafter set forth, the City and Peer Engineering, Inc. agree as
follows:
1. TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT
Peer Engineering, Inc. agrees to furnish services to the City as indicated
on Exhibit A. The total cost of this Agreement shall not exceed $25,200
for the property identified in Exhibit B. All reports, memos, and other data
produced by Peer Engineering, Inc. become the property of the City.
2. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made
directly to Peer Engineering, Inc. by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient
detail for the City to determine the activity and personnel for which
payment is being made. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt
of an invoice by the City.
3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Peer Engineering, Inc. shall select the means, method, and manner of
performing the services herein in consultation with the City. Nothing is
intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing
the relationship of copartners between Peer Engineering, Inc. and the City
or as constituting Peer Engineering, Inc. as the agent, representative, or
employee of the City for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever Peer
Engineering, Inc. is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with
respect to all services performed under this Agreement. Peer
Engineering, Inc.. represents that it has or will secure at its own expense
all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any
and all personnel of Peer Engineering, Inc. or other persons while
engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this
Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the City, and shall
not be considered employees of the City. Any and all claims that may or
might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers'
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel,
arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without
limitation, claims of discrimination against Peer Engineering, Inc., its
ofFicers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the
responsibility of the City. Peer Engineering, Inc. shall defend, indemnify,
and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any
and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent
tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other
persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights,
or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without
limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation
leave, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, disability,
severance pay, and PERA.
4. NONDISCRIMINATION
No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service
performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the
grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,
public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against
discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. Peer
Engineering, Inc. shall (1) furnish all information and reports which may be
required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it shall comply with
the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with
regard to employment and contracting (See Exhibit B).
5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
Peer Engineering, Inc. agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its
officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims, damages,
costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission (including without
limitation professional errors or omissions) of Peer Engineering, Inc., -its
agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided
by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of Peer
Engineering, Inc. to fully perform in any respect, all obligations under this
contract.
6. DATA PRIVACY
Peer Engineering, Inc. agrees to abide by all applicable State and Federal
laws and regulations concerning the handling and disclosure of private
and confidential information concerning individuals and/or data including
but not limited to information made non-public by such laws or regulations.
Peer Engineering, Inc. shall maintain all reports submitted to him on
behalf of City as confidential until released by counsel for the City.
7. RECORDS -AVAILABILITY
Peer Engineering, Inc. agrees that the City, the State Auditor, or any of
their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business
hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have
access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any
books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the
accounting practices and procedures of Peer Engineering, Inc. and
involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained
for three years from date of final payment with respect to the project.
8. NON-ASSIGNMENT
Peer Engineering, Inc. shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge
this contract and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in
whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the City.
9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the
parties is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral
agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are
incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this
Agreement.
b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have
been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement
signed by the parties hereto.
10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION
a. If Peer Engineering, Inc. fails to perform any of the provisions of
this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger
the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default.
Unless the default is excused, the City, may upon written notice,
immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety.
b. The City's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision
or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed
a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in
writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or
relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement.
c. This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party
upon twenty (20) days written notice.
11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the services of Peer Engineering, Inc. with the
activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract,
Julie Urban shall manage this contract on behalf of the City.
12. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto
under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing.
Notices shall be sent as follows:
City of Richfield
Attn: Julie Urban
Community Development Department
City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Peer Engineering, Inc. having signed this contract and the proper City
officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound
by the provisions herein set forth.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
STATE OF MINNESOTA
PEER ENGINEERING, INC. ASSOCIATES,
INC.
City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2003, by Samantha Orduno, the City Manager, of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the City.
Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment
Notarial Stamp Or Seal (Or Other Title Or Rank)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2003, by Kenneth Larsen, the Vice President of Peer Engineering, Inc.
Associates, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the
corporation.
Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment
Notarial Stamp Or Seal (Or Other Title Or Rank)
H:CdAdmin:Agreeements:Professional Service Agmt -Peer
EXHIBIT A
WORK TO BE PROVIDED BY PEER ENGINEERING, INC.
1) Individual asbestos surveys, lead paint surveys and hazardous
substances inventory at the properties and structures identified in Exhibit
B.
2) Separate written reports for each property identified in Exhibit B
documenting the survey results.
EXHIBIT B
PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
City
Parcel Property Address PID Number
1 6614 18th Ave S 2602824410066
2 6620 18th Ave S 2602824410067
3 6626 18th Ave S 2602824410068
4 6632 18th Ave S 2602824410069
5 6638 18th Ave S 2602824410070
6 6644 18th Ave S 2602824410071
7 6700 18th Ave S 2602824410080
8 6708 18th Ave S 2602824410081
9 6714 18th Ave S 2602824410082
10 6720 18th Ave S 2602824410083
11 6726 18th Ave S 2602824410084
12 6732 18th Ave S 2602824410085
13 6738 18th Ave S 2602824410086
14 6744 18th Ave S 2602824410087
15 6701 18th Ave S 2602824410107
16 6709 18th Ave S 2602824410106
17 6715 18th Ave S 2602824410105
18 6721 18th Ave S 2602824410104
19 6727 18th Ave S 2602824410103
20 6733 18th Ave S 2602824410102
21 6739 18th Ave S 2602824410101
22 6745 18th Ave S 2602824410100
23 6700 Cedar Ave S 2602824410096
1A 6328 Cedar Ave S 2602824110059
2A 6344 Cedar Ave S 2602824110058
3A 6400 Cedar Ave S 2602824140067
4A 6412 Cedar Ave S 2602824140066
5A 6444 Cedar Ave S 2602824140065
6A 6520 Cedar Ave S 2602824140056
7A 6528 Cedar Ave S 2602824140055
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4B
REPORT # 46
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Authorization for undertaking land registration proceedings for City-owned outlots at the Best
Buy Campus.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize staff and the City Attorney to cooperate with
Best Buy in registration proceedings for Outlots A, B, and C, BEST
BUY CAMPUS.
II. BACKGROUND
• The Best Buy campus area consists of more than 80 parcels of land.
• The property is a mix of abstract and torrens property.
• Best Buy has initiated a registration proceeding with Hennepin County to
register all of the abstract properties.
• Outlots A, B, and C, BEST BUY CAMPUS are owned by the City.
• The City has granted a license agreement in favor of Best Buy for the use of
these outlots until I-494 is expanded.
• Best Buy would like to include the City-owned outlots in its registration
proceedings.
• To do this, however, the City must agree to join in the registration proceedings
as a co-applicant with Best Buy.
• Best Buy will handle the registration proceedings and pay all associated costs.
022566Torens
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City must join Best Buy as a co-applicant to the registration
proceedings in order to include Outlots A, B, and C, BEST BUY
CAMPUS.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Best Buy has initiated the registration proceedings and would like City
approval on this matter as soon as possible.
C. FINANCIAL
• Best Buy will pay all costs associated with the registration
proceedings.
D. LEGAL
• Including the City's outlots in the registration proceedings will simplify
title matters for Best Buy and the City.
E. TIMING
• Best Buy has already begun work on the registration proceedings for
the affected properties.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Delay or do not agree to the registration proceedings. There is no reason,
however, in doing so. The City will only benefit. from the registration since title
matters related to the outlots will be simplified and less costly in the future.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
REPORT # 45
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
MICHELLE LEWIS,
REPORT PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICIAN
NAME, TrrcE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
~~
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the acquisition of 6309 Bryant Avenue and first
reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of the property to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority for single family new construction.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the purchase
of real property located at 6309 Bryant Avenue and conduct the first
reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of the property
to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for single family new
construction.
II. BACKGROUND
• The seller has requested to sell the property to the City.
• The house is 522 square feet, has limited remodeling potential, and is in need of
substantial repairs and code updates.
• The purchase price is $120,000, as determined by an independent appraiser
experienced in the Richfield market.
The City would purchase the property by the end of March 2003 and
conveyance to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would occur by
May 2, 2003.
• After conveyance the HRA would demolish the house and garage and establish
a contract with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (TCHFH) to redevelop the site.
• $90,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds together with a
$30,000 contribution from TCHFH be used to purchase the property.
• The construction of a new single family home would meet zoning requirements
and Comprehensive Plan goals.
• The TCHFH house would be sold to an income-qualifying family, as defined by
TCHFH. Typically, a family of four would earn less than $32,000 annually.
• Proceeds of sale would cover construction costs; no City General funds would
be used.
• This is the first reading of a transitory ordinance for the City to purchase 6309
Bryant Avenue South and convey it to HRA for $1.00 to leverage CDBG funds.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• To fully leverage CDBG funds, the City must acquire the property and
convey it to the HRA. To effectuate aCity-owned property sale to the
HRA, a transitory ordinance must be adopted.
• The acquisition and disposition of the property would meet zoning
requirements and Comprehensive Plan goals.
• Using CDBG funds to purchase substandard property and construct a
home with TCHFH has been an effective program.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• TCHFH has built seven other houses in Richfield, and they have been
well received in the neighborhoods where built.
• The house plans would be subject to Richfield's design criteria.
• A vacant and very small house with limited remodeling potential and in
need of substantial improvements would be replaced with a newly
constructed three to four bedroom house for a family to buy.
• Continuing a relationship with TCHFH helps fill a gap created with the
ending of the Hennepin Technical College home construction program.
• TCHFH is contributing 25% of the acquisition costs from Home
Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds they have received.
C. FINANCIAL
• $90,000 in CDBG funds are available and TCHFH would contribute
$30,000 in HOME funds for acquisition of the property, which was
appraised at $1.20,000.
• TCHFH would cover construction costs.
• No City General Funds would be used for redevelopment
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing is required at the second reading of the transitory
ordinance, scheduled for March 25, 2003.
• The HRA approved the acquisition of the property and the construction of
anew single family house at the February HRA meeting.
• The HRA would establish a contract with TCHFH for construction to begin
after the City conveys the property to the HRA.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• The City can choose not to acquire the property.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Transitory Ordinance
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6309 BRYANT AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") has considered the
purchase of 6309 Bryant Avenue South with Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds on behalf of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") for $120,000.00. The property is legally described as:
Lot 11, Block 2, Ray's Lynnhurst 2nd Addition; and
WHEREAS, the City proposes to sell the property to the HRA for $1.00 in
furtherance of HRA housing programs; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, Section 13.04, the City is authorized to
sell its property following a public hearing for which notice was published not less then ten
days before such hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to take those actions necessary to
purchase 6309 Bryant Avenue for $120,000 ($90,000 from Community
Development Block Grant funds and $30,000 from Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity
Federal Home Investment Partnerships Program funds).
2. The City shall hold a public hearing and second reading of the ordinance regarding
the sale of the land to the HRA on Tuesday, March 25, 2003.
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper
of the City and post notice of said hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
February, 2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA (6309 BRYANT AVENUE SOUTH)
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1.
The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of
and conveyed by the City as herein provided:
Lot 11, Block 2, Ray's Lynnhurst 2nd Addition, and having the street address of
6309 Bryant Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota
Section 2.
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to sell,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing
Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all
documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments
connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed this 25th day of March 2003 by the Richfield City Council.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk