03-08-99 agendaU-~
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1999
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 22, 1999 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF
MARCH 1, 1999
PRESENTATION
INDIVIDUALS WHO. WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE
RECORD.
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA..
AGENDA APPROVAL
2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. 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 THAT AN ITEM BE 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 AGREEMENT WITH OSM AND
ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTLON ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE ACROSS I-35W
NORTH OF 76TH STREET IN AMOUNT OF $125,000 C.L. 53
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR BID
DIVISIONS 25 AND 26 TO THERMEX CORPORATION FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SECOND ICE SHEET ADDITION TO RICHFIELD ICE ARENA IN AMOUNT
OF $376,686 C.L. 54
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION
IN FEDERAL-AID PRESERVATION PROGRAM C.L. 55
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION GRANTING LAWFUL
GAMBLING LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER"FOR RICHFIELD HOCKEY
ASSOCIATION LOCATED AT LARIAT LANES, 6320 PENN AVENUE C.L. 56
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
PROVIDING FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 57
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
VACATING FREMONT AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN WEST 73RD
STREET AND UNIMPROVED LAKE SHORE DRIVE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 58
6. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY YEAR 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANTALLOCATION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 59
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
7. REVIEW PROPOSALS FROM EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRMS FOR CITY
MANAGER SELECTION
• COUNCIL LETTER NO. 60
AIRPORT BUSINESS
8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF BILL AUTHORIZING
ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES AND TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICTS IN CITIES-0F BLOOMINGTON, MINNEAPOLISAND
RICHFIELD
COUNCIL LETTER N0.61
9. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
10. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
11. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
12. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
13. ADJOURNMENT
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.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 61
Agenda March 8, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution supporting a bill authorizing establishment of airport.
impact zones and tax increment financing districts in the cities of Richfield, Minneapolis
and Bloomington.
Background:
In 1996, the state decided to expand the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(MSP) instead of building a new airport. As a result, a new runway-- the North-South
Runway -- will be constructed at MSP just two blocks from neighborhoods in Richfield.
It has been determined through various Council commissioned studies that the noise
from ground operations on this runway will cause significant vibrations in homes 300 to
400 times per day, 45 seconds per occurrence. Because of these impacts, it is
appropriate to consider converting residential land uses to airport compatible uses.
The total cost of redevelopment to airport compatible uses will be approximately $145
million for acquisition and .relocation. Of that amount, $30 million would come from land
sales to a developer, $25 million would come from normal Tax Increment Finance (TIF)
assistance provided for under the creation of a redevelopment district: in this bill. The
remaining $90 million deficit would be split between. three sources -- MAC, the state and
the federal government.
H.F. 1290/S.F. 1221 was introduced on March 8. The bill serves a multitude of
purposes,
• Creates a special redevelopment district to encompass incompatible land uses in
Richfield;
• Provides for a temporary dedication of a portion of the sales tax revenue at the
airport to help fund Richfield redevelopment. This funding would constitute the
State's contribution to the needed redevelopment; and
• Sets up a process for Minneapolis and Bloomington to receive Metropolitan Council
approval for an airport redevelopment district and funding for redevelopment due to
incompatible land uses near the airport. The procedure would begin when the need
was identified.
Richfield's redevelopment goal is to replace housing units that are displaced due to
airport impacts. This will enable existing families to relocate in Richfield or new families
to locate here. To ensure that state aid to the school district is not reduced because of
temporary declines in student population during the redevelopment timeline, the
legislation also. allows for the number of students residing in the redevelopment district
held to the current level.
~,i
• Richfield is seeking funding through the State Legislature because it was a decision
made by that .body to expand the current airport rather than .build a new airport in open
land in Dakota County. This decision saved the state more than $2 billion. However,
one of the costs of expanding in a fully developed area is ensuring that neighboring
communities can maintain stability. Community .stability requires compatible land uses
despite airport impacts. The cost to the state is small in comparison with the savings of
not building a new airport and the generation of tens millions of dollars in economic
benefits brought forth by an ever expanding and growing airport.
H.F. 1290/S.F. 1221 was created in cooperation and consultation with the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council; and the airport impacted areas of
Minneapolis, Bloomington and Richfield.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution supporting H.F. 1290/S.F 1221 which would authorize the
establishment of airport impact zones.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. As a result of airport impacts, redevelopment needs to take place within several
blocks of east Richfield.
• 2. Tax Increment Financing makes it possible for a fully developed suburb like
:Richfield to compete for development with newer, developing suburbs that have
open land.
3. By converting to airport compatible uses, Richfield can remain a stable community
without deterioration of housing in this area.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the resolution supporting H.F. 1290/S.F. 1221.
2. Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the March 8, 1999 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam .Prosser
City Hager
• JDP:cak
~-a
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.F.1290/S.F.1221
A BILL AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS IN THE CITIES OF RICHFIELD,
MINNEAPOLIS, AND BLOOMINGTON
WHEREAS, the 1996 Minnesota State Legislature mandated the expansion of
Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport to include a new North-South Runway; and
WHEREAS, the decision to expand the current airport, instead of building a new
airport, saved the- State of Minnesota an estimated $2 billion; and
WHEREAS, the new runway will be just blocks away from thousands of homes
in Bloomington, Minneapolis and Richfield and carry 300 to 400 aircraft flights a day;
and
WHEREAS, H,F.1290/S.F.1221 will provide some of the funding and tools
needed to enable the cities of Richfield, Minneapolis, and Bloomington to create buffer
zones, provide school protection and support land use changes necessary to address
airport impacts from a new North-South Runway; and
WHEREAS, a major international airport provides economic benefits to
Minnesota as a whole, it is also within Minnesota's best interest to keep the cities of
Richfield, Minneapolis, and- Bloomington as vital and livable communities; and
• WHEREAS, this legislation was developed by a unique partnership between the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council; and the airport
impacted areas of Richfield, Minneapolis, and Bloomington.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City. of
Richfield,. Minnesota as follows
1) The City of Richfield supports legislation that will provide for the funding.
assistance and tools needed to protect Richfield, Minneapolis and
Bloomington from adverse airport impacts.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8~' day of
March 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 60
Agenda March 8, 1999
Issue Statement:
Review proposals from executive search firms for City Manager selection.
Background:
The current City Manager position will. be vacant effective March 26. The City Council is
responsible for selecting a new City Manager. The City of Richfield has traditionally
used professional executive selection firms to assist with the selection process. At the
Council meeting of February 8, the Council directed staff to solicit proposals from
executive search firms. Those proposals have been received and provided to the City
Council for review.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss .the proposals received from executive search firms. Decide which, if any, firms
should be selected for further interview.
Basis of Recommendation:
Previous Council. discussion.
•
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to delay discussion of this matter to a later date
2. The Council could decide to solicit additional proposals.
3. The Council could decide to utilize an alternative selection process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the March 8 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,.
Ja D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
n
LJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. s9
Agenda March 8, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding .the Urban Hennepin County
Year 1999 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation.
Background:
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a .public hearing on March 8 to determine
Richfield's use of the 1999 urban allocation of $245,449. Requests for $245,449 of
Year 1999 funds have been submitted.
Information concerning Hennepin County's CDBG program objectives, the project
funding requests and the rationale for providing the funds are attached. Total funds
allocated to Richfield in Year 1999 increased $219 from last year. As in past years,
Richfield proposes public service, home improvement and new home program..
components.
Richfield supports three public service agencies through the CDBG allocation -
H.O.M.E., Community Action for Suburban Hennepin .(CASH), and Greater Minneapolis
Daycare Association (GMDCA). The Richfield Community Development Department
and Richfield Community Human .Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) work
.collaboratively to address public service needs. This relationship provides for the
RCHSPC to make 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 County guideline of 15
percent would provide a total allocation of $36,817. The proposed $38,700 budget for
public service funding was increased by $1,883, 16 percent of the total, due to the
anticipated. increase in daycare needs. The County believes their overall 15 percent
budget objective will still- be met, with this higher Richfield request. However, the
County requests an improvement in the efficiency of paying GMDCA daycare services
by using a master contract between Hennepin County and GMDCA for all communities:
that use this provider. Approval of the funding approves this change in payment for
daycare services.
CDBG can also be used on a limited basis for removing architectural barriers in public
areas. A multi-year annual investment of $10,000 is proposed beginning 1999. A
summary of the expected projects is attached.
Richfield `supports two home improvement projects: Rehabilitation of Private. Property
and the Scattered Site/New Home Program. The CDBG Year 1999 funds will serve
approximately 11 households that either need emergency repairs or seek major repairs
during the 1999 spring, summer, and fall repair/construction seasons. Currently, there
are approximately six homeowners that have requested assistance and have been
waiting for funding. A total amount of $116,749 is requested for deferred loan
rehabilitation. The remaining $20,000 of the proposed rehabilitation program budget is
provided to the Cornerstone project at 6600 Oakland Avenue. The CDBG funds would
pay for the demolition of the commercial addition and deteriorated garage. The New
~, i
• Home/Scattered Site .Program allocation will continue to increase the number of single
family housing. units constructed or rehabilitated by one additional unit. The project
request for 1999 is $60,000.
The chart below summarizes previous allocations, requested and recommended
funding:
I~1
LJ
Activity Year 1996 Year 1997 Year 1998 Year 1999
Funded Funded Funded Recommended
Amount Amount Amount
Rehab of Private $135,390 $143,512 $136,445 $136.,749
Property
Scattered Site/New $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 60,000
Home Program
Removal of $ 10,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ 10,000
Architectural Barriers
Public Service: $ 38,363 $ 38,031 $ 36,785 $38,700
H:O.M.E. $ 22,700 $ 22,700. $ 22,700 $ 22,700
GMDCA
Child Daycare $ 11,300 $ 10,331 $ 8,085 $ 10.,000
CA$H $ 4,363 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Total $255,753 $253,543 $245,230 $245,449
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution which identifies the allocation of Year 1999 CDBG funds as
follows:
1. Housing Improvements:
a. Housing rehabilitation $136,749
b. Scattered Site. Housing 60 000
TOTAL $1'96,749
2. Removal of Architectural Barriers: $ 10,000
3. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E: $ 22,700
b. GMDCA Child Daycare $ 10,000
c. CASH 6 000
TOTAL $ 38,700
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The County's statement of objectives indicates that communities should limit the
number of projects funded to three and the minimum project budget to $7,500. The
proposal is divided into three projects, housing improvements, public service, and
architectural barrier removal, which meet the objective stated.
2. Housing improvement funding should be allocated to housing rehabilitation and
scattered site acquisitions under the HRA's New Home Program. The $60,000
allocated for scattered site is the minimum required to complete one scattered site
lf~"
project. The $136,749 would be used for rehabilitation of single family homes
through the Deferred Loan Program project.
3. Funding for architectural barrier removal will be based on a multi-year strategy as
has been outlined.
4. Public service funding is as recommended by the Richfield Community Human
Services Planning Council (attached).
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still achieves
funding guidelines..
2. Fund other eligible projects, which have not been identified by staff for funding.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 8, 1999. The deadline for
submitting the 1999 CDBG application to Hennepin County is no later than March 12,
1999.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams .Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
•
CO ~ `~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1999 URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY 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 Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield developed a proposal for the use of Urban
Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on
March 8, 1.999, 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 $245,449 from the 1999 Urban Hennepin County .Community Development Block
Grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield,
Minnesota approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant program and authorizes submittal of-the proposal
to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 1999 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program.
Pro'ect Per Pro'ect Total
1. Housing Improvements:
a. Rehab of Private Property $ 136,749
b. Scattered Site/New Home Program $ 60,000
$ 196, 749
2. Removal of Architectural Barriers $ 10,000
$ 10,000
3. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 22,700
b. GMDCA or Other Child Daycare $ 10,000
c. CASH $ 6,000
$ 38,700
$ 245,449
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby
authorizes and directs the execution of Subrecipient Agreements and any required Third
Party Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 1999 CDBG Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
March, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
• Thomas P. Ferber Cit Clerk
y
~~
•
•
•
O 1 /08/99
1999 CDBG ALLOCATIONS BY COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY ALLOCATION*
Brooklyn Center 241,308
Brooklyn Park 503,745
Champlin 76 876
Chanhassen 51,320
Crystal 135,610
Eden Prairie 184,712
Edina 182,318
Golden Valley 104,107
Hopkins 149 144
Maple Grove 149,899
Minnetonka 208,681
Mound 64,646
New Hope 163,203
Richfield 245,449
Robbinsdale 83,786
St. Louis Park 279,047
Communing Subtotal: $2,823,851
Consolidated Pool (27 communities) 330,889
Consolidated Pool Subtotal: $330,889
Community Allocation. Total:
Administration (Hennepin County):
County Total:
*Includes recaptured funds of $20,940.
O \DPUPROG\CDBG\CDBGI999\ALLOCATS.DOC
$3,154,740
$348,200
$3,502,940
~_5
1999
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: Housing Rehabilitation (Deferred Loan Program & 6600 Oakland Ave.)
3. Contract Person/Phone No.: Bruce Nordquist. 612/861-9777
B. PROJECT DATA
Funding Request X136,749 ($1.16,749 -- Rehab through Deferred Loans; $20,000 --
Rehab at 6600 Oakland Avenue)
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? X Yes No
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount: 16 380 Source: HRA (rehab through Deferred Loans)
Amount: 60 000 Source: MHFA (rehab at 6600 Oakland Ave.)
(To what extend does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?)
4. Project Location. Address: Various locations for Deferred Loans; rehab on a specific
project is at 6600 Oakland Avenue. City wide: Yes (attach map.)
5. Project Description. (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify
what, if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project.)
See attached description.
6. Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided, identify what priority(ies) the project
will meet. (Note: If a proposed project is a low urban county priority, you must
explains why it has a higher priority in your community.)
High priority: Benefits low income persons and prevents blight. Special
project at 660C Oakland is a one-time special need for an urgently
needed community resource.
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments projects will have. (i.e. number of
persons/households to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be
rehabilitated/built, etc.)
l!j - (D
Fifteen to twenty households are anticipated being served with Deferred Loans.
.which means fifteen to twenty homes will be rehabilitated. At 6600 Oakland
Avenue, one home will be rehabilitated for transitional housing purposes for
families escaping domestic violence.. Families tend to stay in the housing 18
months to two years (the maximum). Given this, over a ten year span, at least
five families will be served.
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act goals.
Richfield already exceeds its benchmark for affordable housing. However,
older housing needs to be rehabilitated to maintain quality livability. The project
at 6600 Oakland Avenue will serve an even lower income bracket with special
needs.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time .period 7-1-98 to 6-30-00, identify the major
project tasks to be performed and when they will occur.)
Task
Month/Date
See attached schedules
n
~'
10. Budget: (specify total project budget by major project component - i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS
Component CDBG
Deferred Loans $105,074
Loan Administration $ 11,675
Demolition at 6600 Oakland $ 20.000
Rehab of 6600 Oakland
Project Budget:
$136,749
Total Project Budget:
$293,929
Other (identify)
$16,380 (HRA)
$60,000 (MHFA)
$76,380
[H:CdAdmin:Housing:Forms:RegFundsj
(~ -1
CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Housing Rehabilitation [Refer to B (5) on Request
for Funding]
The project is comprised of:
(1.) Deferred Loans for repairs and improvements in lower income, owner-occupied
housing ($105,074)
(2.) Deferred Loan Administration ($11,675)
(3.) 6600 Oakland Avenue demolition of commercial space and rehabilitation
($20,000)
(1.) Deferred Loans
Each Deferred Loan provides financial and technical assistance to low-income Richfield
residents to make improvements to their homes. These improvements include code
compliance improvements, weatherization improvements, and accessibility improvements
for the disabled. The financial assistance comes in the form of a Deferred Loan; the
technical assistance is provided by Richfield staff. Working with the homeowner, and
given housing conditions and priorities, staff determines and specifies necessary
improvements for bidding by private contractors.
A majority of Richfield's single family homes are 40 to 50 years old, a transition age that
requires a number of major improvements to the home (e.g., furnace replacement,
electrical update, roof replacement, insulation, siding, and window improvements).
Providing Deferred Loans to low income Richfield residents allows homeowners to
maintain their homes and improve the general condition of Richfield's housing stock.
Assistance to elderly homeowners allows them to continue to live independently in the
community. Assistance to families allows them to maintain their homes while meeting the
family's other basic needs. The continued demand for the Deferred Loan Program reflects
the needs of lower income families, elderly, and single parent households. Approximately
6-10 homeowners are on the waiting list at any given time.
At the end of 1997, all funds had been expended. Funds in 1998 will assist approximately
15 households. Projected income from loans could fund three to five additional
households annually. The "emergency loan" feature of the project continues to be an
important feature to ensure that lower income people can resolve very difficult situations
such. as collapsed sewer lines and failed furnaces during the heating season.
Qualifying income. is determined annually, and is calculated at 50 percent of the Twin City
Area Median income, as determined by HUD. As of January 1999 the following limits
apply:
•
~-~
Household Size Maximum Income
1 $22,250
2 $25,450
3 $28,600
Household Size Household Income
•
(2.) Deferred Loan Administration
4 $31,800
5 $34,350
6 $36,900
Approximately 10% ($11,675) of the program funds requested for the deferred loans is
required to administer the program. Program marketing, determining qualified
households, inspections, general loan processing, oversight, and filing are the general
task areas that administrative funds cover. This is matched with approximately $16,380 in
HRA revenues for general administration.
(3.) 6600 Oakland Avenue
The property at 6600 Oakland Avenue has been a mixed use site for many years: a single
family 1'/z story home occupied by the owner, with an attached retail space occupied by a
hockey store tenant for several years. The owner was unable to sell the property for two
years due to the nearly market-obsolete arrangement.. With the owner's intention to sell
made known, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) saw an
opportunity to solve an unmarketable property problem and purchased 6600 Oakland
Avenue. In 1999, the HRA will be doing a joint project with Cornerstone Advocacy
Service. CDBG funds would be used primarily for the removal of the blighted commercial
space adjacent to the single family house, and removal of a substandard garage on the
property. The property will be sold to Cornerstone for transitional housing purposes.
Rehab work will include:
• Re-side and re-roof house.
• Remodel existing landing/connecting corridor to connect functionally to
existing house (currently connects to commercial space.
• Replace furnace
• Various electrical and plumbing repairs
• Remove asphalt drive on north side of property (previous retail parking
area); install proper landscaping.
• Remove existing, blighted garage.
•
~j - 1
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: [Refer to B(9) on Request for Funding.] All
• activities are on-going.
.DEFERRED LOANS
3rd Quarter 1999 (July -September)
Serve applicants on waiting list, send out applications, review completed applications, verify
income and eligibility, inspect homes, receive bids, approve loans, notify contractors to proceed
with work. Advertise for program applicants, if necessary.
4th Quarter 1999 (October -December)
Inspect completed work, make payments to contractors, file Repayment Agreements, close out
files. Service applicants on waiting list.
1st Quarter 2000 (January -March)
Initiate new loans. Verify income and assets; properly prepare files and wait for homeowners'
bids.
2nd Quarter 2000 (April -June)
Continue to approve loans, notify contractors to proceed with work, monitor and inspect work
being completed, make payments to contractors as necessary.
3rd Quarter 2000 (July -September)
Continue 15t Quarter 2000 activities on-going. Initiate new loans as previously initiated loans near
• completion.
4th Quarter 2000 (October -December)..
Continue 4th Quarter 1999 activities on-going; advertise for program applicants as necessary.
CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY PROJECT
Task Month/Year
Create scope of work for required improvements 3/99
Solicit remodeling bids 4/99 - 5/99
Review bids 6/99
Proceed to work 6/99
Demo of retail and garage 6/99
General remodeling 7/99 - 9/99
Completion of project 12/99
H:cdamin:housing:deferred:Projdata.doc
-/D
• 1999
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: Acquisition of Real Property --Clearance of Building and
Improvements (New Home Pro rn am)
3. Contract Person/Phone No.: Bruce Nordquist, 612/861-9777
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Funding Request 60 000
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? X Yes No
. 3. Leveraged Funds: Amount 5 000 Source HRA
(To what extend does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?)
4. Project Location: Address Various City wide Yes (attach map.)
5. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify
what, if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project.)
See attached description.
6. Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided, identify what priority(ies) the project
will meet. (Note: If a proposed project is a low urban county priority, you must
.explains why it has a higher priority in your community.)
Hiah priority: Benefits moderate income persons, eliminates blight, and
meets an important community need.
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments projects will have. (i.e. number of
persons/households to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be
.rehabilitated/built, etc.)
One new home can be provided in 2000 as a result of 1999 CDBG activities.
•
~-li
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act goals.
Richfield already exceeds its benchmark for affordable housing. However
much of the existing housing needs to either be rehabilitated, or replaced.
Funding under the Scattered Site program allows for the acquisition of a
substandard property which will be replaced with a larger, better quality home to
meet the needs of growing families.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-98 to 6-30-00, identify the major
project tasks to be performed and when they will occur.).
Task
Month/Date
10. Budget: (specify total project budget by major project component - i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
Component
Acquisition
Site preparation
Public Improvements
Demolition
Administration
Relocation
Project Budget:
Total Project Budget
BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS
CDBG
$50,000
$ 3,000.
$ 1,000
$ 4,000.
2 000
$60,000
$65, 000
Other (identify)
$5,000 (HRA)
$5,000
[H:CdAdmin:Housing:Forms:RegFunds]
•
~~~
CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Home Program [Refer to B(5) of Request for
Funding]
For 1999-2000 New Home Program activities, $60,000 is requested. This program for
scattered site projects provides Richfield and its Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) several opportunities:
• to acquire sites containing substandard housing (approximately 150
substandard homes exist) for redevelopment;
• to obtain sites with potentially sound housing (e.g. abandoned housing
through mortgage foreclosures may provide alternative affordable housing
opportunities); and
• to acquire sites with buildings which may be converted to housing, such as
under-utilized parcels.
The greatest need in Richfield is for decent, safe and sanitary housing affordable to low
and moderate income families. The scattered site projects expand affordable housing
opportunities for low and moderate income families. Completed homes, if sold, are
purchased by buyers whose income is at or below 80 percent of the area median
income, as determined by HUD. Renters qualify at 50 percent of median income for
program participation. As of January 1999 those income limits are as follows:
Household Size Income Limit
(80% of Median) (50% of Median)
3 $43,000 $28,600
4 $47,800 $3.1,800
5 $51,600 $34,350
6 $55,450 $36,900
The HRA identifies sites by the spring. Housing in sound condition will be rehabilitated
for continued use. When rehabilitation is not practical, the buildings are cleared to permit
the construction of new housing on the same site. Whether rehabilitated or newly
constructed, all housing units will be made available to qualifying low and moderate
income persons.
HUD regulations for acquisition and relocation are followed. Often, sites are acquired
from owner occupants on a voluntary sale basis. Occasionally, rental units are
purchased. In those instances, tenants are always provided appropriate benefits.
However, owner-occupied or vacant properties are typically purchased.
Between the time of acquisition and the beginning of housing development, certain site
preparation related to housing development may be necessary. Funds are included in
the project budget to cover site clearance, site preparation (soil correction such as
~-~~
grading, filling, compaction), and public improvements (replacement and installation of
public improvements such as walks, curbs, drives, sewer and water connections).
When the HRA retains ownership of acquired property, students from Hennepin
Technical College provide labor for the rehabilitation or new construction. The college
has committed to doing a project in the 1999-2000 school year. After project completion,
the HRA will sell the housing to qualified low or moderate income persons. Components
of a project in cooperation with Hennepin Technical College include: ongoing
administration, property appraisal, negotiations and acquisition, potential relocation, site
clearance, installation of public improvements specifically related to the project, initiation
and completion of improvements, and product marketing.. Specific costs for each
component are not specifically identified. However, the following per site estimates are
based on project experience.
Acquisition $50,000
Site Clearance and Preparation $ 3,000
Public Improvements $ .1,000
On-going Administration $ 4,000
Relocation 2 000
Total $60,000
If the property is sold to a developer, the developer would become responsible for
subsequent sale or rental. The developer, usually anon-profit, would cooperate with the
Richfield HRA in choosing low to moderate income persons, utilizing Section 8 eligibility
guidelines. The 1999 CDBG request is for new activities. There are no other sources of
revenues available to initiate projects, meet project objectives,. and leverage the
additional resources identified in this funding request.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: [Refer to B(9) of Application]
Task Month/Year
Review requests for Voluntary Acquisition of property
3/99 to 5/99
Identify site to acquire, negotiate sale price, acquire
property 5/99 to 7/99
Clear property, initiate construction project 7/99 to 9/99
Construction underway 10/99 to 6/00
Marketing plans initiated 5/00 to 7/00
Completion and sale 7/00 to 10/00
h:cdadmin:housing:cdbg-bn
~_ /~
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Memorandum
DATE: March 2, 1999
TO: Bruce Nordquist, Housing & Redevelopment Manager
fROM: Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator
SUBJECT: Handicapped Accessibility Projects
The following is a list of projects for which the accessibility-specific grant money could
be applied.
1. Automatic doors at Wood Lake Nature Center.
2. Wheelchair accessible gates for tennis courts (at this time, Christian Park is the only
park that has accessible gates).
3. Enclosures and paths to house handicapped accessible portable bathrooms.
4. Eliminate steps to the Babe Ruth concession stand,. and install a handicapped
accessible path.
5. Install handicapped accessible indoor drinking fountains.
6. Install handicapped accessible outdoor drinking fountains.
7. Build handicapped accessible fishing areas at Taft Park.
8. Make handicapped accessible paths to play features at Augsburg and Roosevelt
Parks.
RH:rb
•
~_i~
RICHFIELD CdMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES
PLANNING COUNCIL
DATE: February 22, 1999
'
TO: /i
/ Bruce Nordquist
FROM: Camillo DeSantis
SUBJECT: 1999/2000 CDBG allocation for City Public Service Programs
The RCHSPC and representatives of the Richfield Community Council met on
November 16, 1998, to hear presentations from the applicant agencies. At that time the
CDBG allotment from Hennepin County for 1999/2000 was not known. At the
November 1998 meeting we framed our preliminary recommendation.
Our findings indicated that:
• The three applicant agencies were providing valuable and effective service to
people of Richfield
• They each had evaluation processes in place
• Each is involved in collaboration with other agencies and linked with South
Hennepin FamiLink and the Richfield FamiLink Resource Center
• All three cleazly 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
CDBG ALLOCATION FOR 1999/2000
AGENCY REQUEST RECOMMENDATION
Senior Community Services
Home Program 22,700 22,700
Greater Minneapolis Day Care
Association 15,000 10,000
Community Action for
Suburban Hennepin 6,000 6,000
TOTAL 43,700 38,700
Attached is additional information for the three applicant agencies gleaned from their
written applications and interviews with our reviewing group.
/~
We would welcome the opportunity to present and /or respond to questions when this
recommendation is made to your policy makers.
Copy: James D. Prosser
Dennis Johnson
Grant Review Committee
Richfield Community Council Executive Committee
•
~~~
• GREATER MINNEAPOLIS DAY:CARE ASSOCIATION
Request: 15,000 Recommendation 10,000
It is important to continue to fund GMDCA for the provision of child care cost assistance
for low income Richfield families. While this grant is not large, it enables Richfield
families to receive assistance while their name comes up on the State Sliding Fee
Program.
As of 1/29/99, GMDCA reports for Richfield
Families currently served 2
# Applications pending 6
#Unduplicated families served 7/1/98-1/31/99 7
# on County waiting list 64
The following excerpts from the GMDCA letter of transmittal provide helpful
background information:
The families we serve represent lower income families working toward self-sufficiency.
The need for stable, reliable child care while parents. pursue their goals is vital to the
well-being of families. Helping families to pay for the cost of that care will add to the
strength of your community.
• Much has changed for families seeking assistance in meeting the costs of child care. In
January of 1998 the Sliding Fee Program was fully funded due to the generosity of the
State Legislature. In January of 1999, however, we have over 2,400 families on the
waiting list in Hennepin County alone. In the City of Richfield there are 64 families
waiting for funding.
GMDCA receives CDBG income from several cities totaling about $13,650
annually. Program direct service funds total $4,368,000 from the State and County. This
is a good example of leveraging a small. amount of CDBG funds.
•
~-/~
•
COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN
Request $6,000
Recommendation $6,000
Some highlights of CASH's services:
• CASH is a federal, state, county funded anti-poverty agency.
• Primarily serves low and moderate income families and individuals
• CASH's programs/services include:
1. Tenant hot line
2. Homebuyer education
3. Foreclosure prevention counseling
4. Tenant advocacy
5. Home maintenance, repair and rehab technical assistance
6. Reverse mortgage counseling for Seniors
7. Renter's education program for high school senior and other age groups
8. Administers emergency services funding for VEAP and other South Hennepin
Providers, on behalf of SHeRPA (South Hennepin.Regional Planning Agency)
• CASH works cooperatively with the City of Richfield on the above programs
• CASH has provided training and information sessions to City staff and other
community groups such as RAMA
Some statistical highlights are:
• Richfield homeowners requesting homeowners foreclosure prevention
assistance (1993-1998) 118
• Homes saved from foreclosure 90
• Total financial assistance for Richfield homeowners $23,855
• Pre-purchase home buyer education 27
~ Over the past seven years over 1,876 Richfield renters have contacted
HOME hotline. Counting all family members it is a total of 4,690
• Through HOME Line, tenants received $9,534 for improperly withheld
Security deposits
• Renter refunds for rent rebates for substandard conditions was $3,106
•
~'
•
SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES HOME PROGRAM
Request: $22,700
Recommendation: $22,700
The following excerpts from HOME application clearly describe the program:
SUMMARY PARAGRAPH- The HOME Program is a homemaker, maintenance, and
chore program designed as acost-effective alternative to long term caze for the elderly
currently operating in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield,
Minnetonka, Brooklyn Center and St. Louis Park. Disable persons aze also eligible for
the services. The project maintains a core staff of trained individuals to assure prompt,
quality service and a skills bank component. Clients aze asked to contribute according to
their ability to pay, based on a sliding scale.
TARGET POPULATION- Consumers of HOME services are elderly residents age 60+
or people with disabilities who live independently and need some affordable in-home
services in order to maintain their residence or property. The HOME Program serves
those clients who need assistance but aze not financially capable of paying the full cost of
service as well as frail older adults who require services designed to meet the needs of
vulnerable elderly.
SERVICES- The philosophy of the HOME Program is to maintain independence for
elderly and avoid premature placement in nursing homes by providing homemaker,
i maintenance, and chore services. Clients aze asked to contribute based on a sliding-fee
scale. Homemaker services include housecleaning, food prepazation, grocery shopping,
non-medical personal care, and laundry. Assessments aze made and services provided
according to the specific needs of each client for type of service, time and frequency.
Chore/home maintenance services include snow removal, lawn care, installation of
security features, carpentry, minor plumbing, window washing, painting, weatherization,
minor roof repair and other maintenance jobs needed to enable elderly residents to remain
in their homes, as well as maintaining their homes in an acceptable manner.
The program is for elderly and the disabled and has the goal to assist these groups
maintain their independence as long as possible.
Additional information:
• In 1998, 349 individuals were assisted with 1,966 jobs or tasks for a total of
3,908 hours of services
• A large number of persons served are over 85 years of age
• One of the highest requests is for homemaker service which has a long
waiting list
• Over 50% of people served are low income
• Fees for those who can pay it, are 25% of the cost of the service
• People receiving these services are requiring more than home repairs,
cleaning, etc. They often require assistance with personal and emotional
difficulties, tax filing, social security and medicare matters, to mention some.
~-ao
In these situations HOME works closely with the Senior Outreach Program of Senior
Community Services for case management and coordination of the various services these
persons might need. (The Senior Outreach Program receives City of Richfield Social
Service Funds as well).
n
U
•
U! /~
SENIOR- COMMUNITY SERVICES
10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone 541-1019 Fax 541-0841
BOARD of DIRECTORS
January 26, 1999
Dwight Johnson
President
Laurie Lafontaine Bruce Nordquist,
1st Vice President
Housing and Redevelopment Manager
Dr. c. ~ike~ Njaka Clty Of RlChfleld
2nd Vice President 6700 Portland Ave. South
Francis Hagen
Treasurer Richfield, MN 55423-2599
Mary Henning
Dear Mr. Nordquist:
Secretary
Kevin Krueger
P
t P
id Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Richfield
as
res
ent
allocate $22,700 from it's share of Community Development Block
Peter ccyle
Member-at-Large Grant (CDBG) Year XXV funds to support the HOME Program.
This is the same amount approved for the current year. Enclosed
Aiko Higuchi
Member-at-Large is a Hennepin. County Request for Funding application filled out
for the City to facilitate our request.
Bob Bean
Tim Bergstedt
John Boeder
..Richfield's CDBG funds will still be leveraged from client fees,
arty Guritz funding from the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches
Gloria Johnson (GMCC) and from donations. The HOME Program operates on a
Peggy Kelly
Kathleen Miller
sliding fee scale. On average clients cover approximately one-
senator Gen Olson third Of the Programs' cost. GMCC funding, utilizing Federal Title
Curtis Pearson III monies, helps to subsidize chore services. Friends of HOME,
Neil Peterson
Mary Tambornino
an organization that solicits private donations, helps to fill the
Leonard J. Thiel remaining gap between the City's CDBG funds and the total
Tom ricer, Program expense.
Benjamin F. Withhart
Executive Director a c.E.o.
If there are any questions, or other information needed by either
thG Richfield Coirm~~ ity Human Se vices Ply^nin^y Coo^ci! of the
Community Development Dept. please let me know.
PROCRAnns
' ~°"'""'"it'' Sincerely,
Senior Groups. &
Multi-purpose j
~ r---~- ~-
~
~
Senior Centers ~~
~
(~j•-- ~~
• H.O.M.E. ROn BIOCh
• Senior Outreach Program Administrator
cc: Denny Johnson ,Human Services
~o
A llnikd Uhv
Av.,cncv
~-a~
1999
URBAN HENNEPfN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: HOME (Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderlvl
3. Contact Person/Phone No. Rnn Rlnch/ 541-1019
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Funding Request $22.700
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG Project? X Yes _ No
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ See # 9 Source See # 9
(To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?)
4. Project Location: Address Richfield Citywide Y~
(Attach map)
5. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify what,
if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project)
See Attachment
6. .Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided identify what priority(ies) the project will
meet. (Note: If proposed project is a low Urban County priority you must explain why it has
a higher priority in your community)
Public Service Needs: Senior Services -High Priority
~~~~
•
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments project will have. (ie., number of persons/households
to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabbed/built, eta
In 1997 the project served 166 Richfield residents (142 households). It is anticipated that a
similar number will be served in CDBG Year XXV.
•
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act goals.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-98 to 6-30-00, identify the major
project tasks to be performed and when they will occur)
hsls
~-gQjpg .live of the following services:
Maintenance -Includes minor repairs in the areas of
cam. entry^c~lumbina. cnnrrete= electrical & pain ing.
Also includes lawn mowing and snow removal in season
Homemaking -Includes window washing. floor cleaning
Date
Month/ Date
varuumina. dusting,~p~j~.g. doing wash. etc. _
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component-i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS
Component CDBG Other ' entifvl
Public Services/Eden Prairie $ 10.067 ~ 95.000 Client fees
/Edina ~ 17.400. S 8.600 Edina/EEHF
/Richfield ~ 22.700 ~ 42.552 United Way
/Minnetonka 14 ~ 26.584 GMCC
/Brooklyn Center ~ 9.000 ~ 14.000 Friends of HM
$ 83,754 Hen County
Project Budget ~ 73.76Z $270.490
Total Project Budget X344.257
•
NOTE: A copy of the HOME Program Budget is attached showing all anticipated
expenses and revenues for the Program
Attachment ~ -~
H.O.M.E.
(Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
Program Surrimary
SUMMARY PARAGRAPH -The H.O.M.E. Program is a homemaker, maintenance, and
chore program designed as acost-effective alternative to long term care for the elderly
currently operating in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield,
Minnetonka, Brooklyn Center and St. Louis Park. Disabled persons are also eligible
for the services. The project maintains a core staff of trained individuals to assure
prompt, quality service and a skills bank component. Clients are asked to contribute
according to their ability to pay, based on a sliding scale.
TARGET POPULATION -Consumers of H.O.M.E. services are elderly.. residents age
60+ or people with disabilities who live independently and need some affordable in-
home services in order to maintain their residence or property. The H.O.M.E. Program
serves those clients who need assistance but are not financially capable of paying the
full cost of service as well as frail older ..adults who require services designed to meet
the needs of vulnerable elderly.
SERVICES -The philosophy of the H.O.M.E. Program is to maintain independence for
elderly and avoid premature placement in nursing homes by providing homemaker,
maintenance, and chore services. Clients are asked to contribute based on a sliding-
fee scale. Homemaker services include housecleaning, food preparation, grocery
shopping, non-medical personal care, and laundry. Assessments are made and
services provided according to the specific needs of each client for type of service,
time and frequency. Chore/home maintenance services include snow removal, lawn
care, installation of security features, carpentry, minor plumbing, window washing,
painting, weatherization, minor roof repair'and other maintenance jobs needed to
enable elderly residents to remain in their homes, as well as maintaining their homes
in an acceptable manner.
STAFF -Home maintenance and homemaker services are provided by workers who
are trained in the necessary skill areas and techniques for working with older persons.
Skills Bank Workers are also utilized to provide chore services. All staff report to the
Program Director, who is responsible for the management and supervision of H.O.M.E.
Other staff and volunteers provide administrative and clerical support.
FACILITY -Services are provided in the homes of elderly residents. The office is
located. at Creekside Community Center, 9801 Penn Ave. South, Bloomington 55431,
and a satellite office is located at the Minnetonka Center.
PLACEMENT PROCEDURE -Clients gain access to the program either by a referral
from an area agency or by calling the H.O.M.E. office and requesting service.
FUNDING SOURCES -Revenues are derived from client Fees, Hennepin County, the
Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches (GMCC), municipalities in which the
program operates, the United Way, and contributions from clients and the community
through an associated organization called Friends of HOME.
G'~j
•
•
•
HOME Program 1999 Operating Budget w/ Gov't Revenue ifletall
REVENUE
Contributions
United Way '- 8,500
42,552
Government Revenue
Bloomington (CDBG) 20,000
Bloomington (HRA)
Brooklyn Center 17,500
9,000
Eden Prairie 10,067
Edina 17,400
East Edina Housin Foundation 8,600
Greater Mpls Council of Churches
Hennepin County 26.584
83,754
Minnetonka
Richfiekf
Sub-total Gov't Revenue
Friends of HOME
Client Fees 14,600
22,700
230,205
14,000
95,000
Total 390,257
EXPENSES
Salaries & Wages
Benefits & Taxes 264,620
69,919
Office Rent
E ui ment Repair/Maint.
Tele hone 3,022
_1,249
3,515
Postage 2,443
Printing & Publications
Supplies 4,673
14, i 99
Professional Fees 12,347
Mileage 6,841
Conferences & Meetings
Insurance
Memberships & Subscriptions 2,723
5,864
586
Miscellaneous 551
Depreciation
Allocation of Admin. 13,509
23,272
Total 429,333
Net Excess (Deficit) ($39,076)
~D -~
'• GMDCATH
Child Care Leadership and Services
January 29, 1999
Mr. Denny Johnson
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
Dear Mr. Johnson:
GREATER MINNEAPOLIS
DAY CARE ASSOCIATION
1628 Elliot Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404-1657
Tel. (612) 341-1177
Fax (612) 341-4356
Voice/TDD (612) 341-2066
The Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association appreciates the opportunity to apply for
1999 CDBG funds from the City of Richfield. We are requesting funds for the purpose of
assisting families from yow community with their child care costs.
The families we serve represent lower income. families working toward self-sufficiency.
The need for stable, reliable child care while parents pwsue their goals is vital to the well-
being of families. Helping families to pay for the cost of that care will add to the strength
of your community.
Much has changed for families seeking assistance in meeting the costs of child care. In
January of 1998 the Sliding Fee Program was fully funded due to the generosity of the
State Legislature. In January of 1999, however, we have over 2,400 families on the
waiting list in Hennepin County alone. In the City of Richfield there are 64 families
waiting for funding.
Due to the increase in need, we are requesting that the City of Richfield consider a
$15,000 request for 1999. We have attached a report on the CDBG Child Care funding
as of January 29th, 1999, as well as a completed 1999 Urban Hennepin County CDBG
Program Request for Funding.
Grace Norris of our staff has retired. I have taken over her responsibilities related to
Hennepin County CDBG funding. I look forward to meeting you at yow public hearing.
Should you have any questions before that time, please give me a call at 349-0550.
Sincerely,
Carla Jacobson
Community Liaison
n
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY
REFERRALS CAREGIVER TRAINING • FEE SUBSIDIES
•
~ ~~~
m
~~
rn=
~~
T
~m
Q~ _
~ ~)
O r,{
C *~
O e~
~~
d
~ iO
d~
~~~
a~ao
,0 ~~ O
~Il l`
N
C
O
~a
~c
. :o
Qa
'v
d
d
N N
~~
~~
t~ i
LL ~
~U
O
_~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 3
°o °O_ v° ~ ~° o° ~°n o° ~ V ,
Sri o ~ r~ r~ ui ~f ui o~ 'ti cs ,a
T N r- r- ~~Oa C
~'~ O
~~~ ~
C~~CS
'C.~ ~~
Q ~ ~~ `~
~ ~~ 4i R
O CG C'7 ~t N CO ~t to t'7 d' O ~ w :~ Q ~ pO~
N O T C7 to Lf) 00 r- *- M 1.n ~ ~~ .C
d: O O ~ N ~ d' Cfl r- T N ~ ~ ~ U -~V.~
~-- N I~ N I~ M O N O N ~ 3 ~~ *''
'~ ~
O
^C~~~C ~~
QQ~~ O ~ C
*- O CO I~ cC '~t 00 O O cY I~ C ~
C~ (~ r r ~ M C+7 c+7 CO C~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,,
C p» C 01
"' s. .
~C~CO ~~E~
^+ c~ t4 Q V'~~, OV
O~~a~ ~~
~O.O ~s_
o~~ ~~~ ~ ~
~uAOa0i ~~
~.};Ut~. a ~~
~° ~ -~ °' '~ .a -C
~ ~ +~+ v
4; tq v~ ,~_, y 0)
C v v O
.., C +.,
4~~~0.C O~
CS O •~ ,,, O ~ C
U
~.y ~
T O. V T N r r N N Cfl O ~ V~3 ~ ~•~
3U° ~ ~~ ~~
~.C O C~ Q
~ cG N C'7 Ln O ~ f~ C'7 N r- ~ ~ CS ~ ~~ C
pC~~~ 3s
U~„o~~
v~v ~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~' n°.
.~
c0 O Y N ~ ,D O c~ ~~ py ~~ a 8
> c a C 3 cn .n ~,
a c ~ C~ o o ~ ~ ~ vv~~~.~`~O~ ~`C ~ 8
~ ~ c ~ Y ~ ~ 3 E ~ ~ CCO~O ~3 'a-
U W W C7 2 ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ 0., ~ '~ ~ Q Ct, ~ ~ ~
(~-~~
1999
• URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Community: City of Richfield
2. Project Name: Parent's Child Care Assistance Fund
3. Contact Person/Phone No.: Carla Jacobson, (612) 349-0550
B. PROJECT DATA
Funding Request: $15,000
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? Yes
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount: $4.8 million Source: State of Minnesota
(To what extent does project leverage additional public or private fundslfirm
commitment?)
• This represents GMDCA's portion of Hennepin County's Basic Sliding Fee
Program dollars. This money is committed by the Federal Government, State of
Minnesota and Hennepin County to help low to moderate income families meet
their child care costs.
4. Project Location: Address: 1628 Elliot Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404
Citywide: Countywide - we serve all of Hennepin County
5. .Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify
which, if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project.).
GMDCA is requesting $15,000 to serve families who are eligible for Child
Care Assistance through our Parent's Assistance Fund. The Parent's
Assistance Fund is set up to supplement the State Sliding Fee program also
administered by GMDCA but funded through Hennepin County and State
and Federal dollars.
Due to the inadequacy of the State fund to meet the need, we use the Parent's
Assistance Fund to try to fill the gap in cities where CDBG funds are
allocated. The Parent's Assistance Fund is supported by eleven other
communities: Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley,
Hopkins, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth, and
Robbinsdale.
~-a~
1999 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING Page. Two
The steps involved to receive services are:
1. Parents are referred to GMDCA by child care providers, community
agencies and Hennepin County Children .and Family Services, or by word
of mouth and the yellow pages.
2. Callers are screened for eligibility. They must be working, in school, or
have ashort-term emergency need (such as a medical crisis) and their
income needs to be below Section 8 housing guidelines. ff eligible, their
name is placed on the joint waiting list that we share with Hennepin
County. MFIP families are immediately referred to Hennepin County
because there is a priority to serve aU eligible MFIP families with State
and Federal funds.
3. As city CDBG and/or State Sliding Fee funds become available, parents
on the list are sent an application for services. At this time, they supply
wage and other incomedocumentation to establish eligibility and the level
of subsidy they will.receive.
4. If found eligible, a co-payment is assessed based on family size and
income. The average family has 1.6 children, pays a co-payment of
$86.00 per month and receives a subsidy of $550.00 per month, depending
on type of care and age of children.
5. If a child care provider has not already been chosen, the family chooses
any legally operating provider. We can provide them with a referral
listing to assist them in making a good choice for their family.
6. Once a provider is chosen, the family begins on the program and pays
their family co-payment directly to their provider. The provider bills
G.MDCA for the balance of the monthly costs.
7. A family who receives CDBG funds remains on the county-wide waiting
list.. When their name reaches the top, their funding comes from the
State Sliding Fee fund and the neat family from the Plymouth waiting list
is contacted to apply for services.
6. Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided, identify what priority(ies) the project
will meet. (Note: If a proposed project is a low urban county priority, you must
explain why it has a higher priority in your community.)
In the URBAN HENNEPIIN COUNTY, Five Year Priority Needs Summary Child
Care Services is identified as a ffiGH priority.
~ -~
•
1999 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments projects will have. (i.e., number of
persons/households to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be
rehabilitated/built, etc.)
Page Thrce
Drawing upon past ezperience, we would anticipate that we would be able to
serve four to seven families with $15,000 in funding. This would mean providing
quality child care services for siz to eleven children. It is important to recognize
that the. current waiting list for families throughout Hennepin County has over
2,400 names on it. This means that a family will wait 18 to 24 months to become
eligible. Thus, more funding is needed to help families maintain self-sufficiency
while they wait to become eligible.
8. If applicable, decribe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act goals.
We do not believe this project would be applicable to the goals of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.
•
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-98 to 6-30-00, identify the major
project tasks to be .performed: and when they will occur.)
Please sce the project description for a detailed list of steps in serving families
through the Parent's Child Care Assistance Fund. These steps are ongoing and
implementation for individual families is based on a first-come, first-served basis.
•
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component - i.e.,
administration, planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
Component
Program direct service funds
Administration
Project Budget
Total Project Budget
BUDGET ;
CDB
$13,650.00
$ 1,350.00
$15,000.00
Same
>OURCE OF FUNDS
OTHER (identify)
$4,368,000
432,000
$4,800,000 **
Same
* This figure represents an average administrative fee. Actual amount is based
upon number of units actually used.
** This represents GMDCA's portion of Hennepin County's Basic Sliding Fce
Program dollars. This money is committed by the Federal Government, State of
Minnesota and Hennepin County to help low to moderate income families mcet
their child care costs.
Coc~nr~unit ~i~~~ri - ° I'
(~-3 ~
Community Education
Community Services
Emergency Assistance
Homeless Family Support
Homelessness Prevernion
Volurneer services
Energy Assistance
EIONi~~
~~
Tenant Hotline
Tenant Organizing
Home Buyer Education
Homeowner Counseling
Home Rehab Counseling
33-10th Avenue S.
suite 150
Hopkins, MN 55343
Business (612)933-9639
Tenant Hotline 933-0017
Energy Assist. 930-3541
Fax 933-8016
?DD 935-4011
Investing In People,
Building Community
for Suburban :Hennepin
Memo to: Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council
From: Sharon Johnson, Executive Director
Subject: CDBG funding request overview
Date: 11/12/98
We appreciate the funding we have received from the City of Richfield, and we
plan to ask for $6000 in continuing support.
Reponses to the specific questions in Mr. Nordquist's letter:
Methods to evaluate client progress--
Renters generally call with a specific problem, get information, and are advised on
alternative ways to deal with the problem presented. Approximately two weeks
after their initial calls, tenants are called back to see how things went. These call-
backs often raise new issues to address. If an eviction is avoided or if the tenant
receives a rent abatement (reduction because of uncorrected defects with the unit)
or gets back a security deposit in dispute, we note it in that tenant's file.
Homeowners and would-be homeowners work individually with one of our housing
counselors and establish personalized plans. New homeseekers generally focus on
strategies to overcome financial or credit barriers to homeownership; people facing
foreclooure ususally need plans for coming up with money. Because timelines for
these plans can vary widely (foreclosure may require immediate response; a
homebuyer may take months to build up savings or improve a credit history)
evaluation of client progress varies as well and is measured against the client's
individual plan.
Client outcome based evaluation--
Because CASH receives some funding from federal, state, and county sources, we
report outcomes in a variety of ways. We are very much outcomes-driven, and seek
to learn if our work has really mattered.
Tenant hotline outcomes noted
--has an eviction been avoided
--money returned from withheld security deposit or other awards
EOUK MplSM16
oPPpNIUMTV
(~-3~
Collaborative efforts --
CASH housing activities involve many collaborative activities. The following is a
representative listing:
--frequent tenant staff attendance at rental owners. meetings and trainings
--homebuyer education frequently promoted with Community Education
--homeownership programs frequently work with lenders and specific suburbs on
low cost mortgage (CASA) and other specialized financial products, e.g.,
FirstBank's Home Advantage program
--CASH administers emergency services for VEAP and other south Hennepin
providers, on behalf of SHRPA
--CASH has several joint programs with such agencies as Cornerstone and the St.
Paul Tenants Union
Do we participate in a formal collaborative?
CASH is a Boazd member of Familink, and CASH staff serve on advisory
committees to Familink and the family service collaboratives in many cities.
-'~'1
LJ
•
~i
~ ,3.~
Page Three
CASH's Center for Homeownership
Richfield
Foreclosure Prevention Program
The chart below shows the number of Richfield homeowners requesting foreclosure
prevention assistance.
ear
•
The main reason. for default was unemployment or a reduction in income.
Foreclosure was averted in over 81 % of the cases.
90 homes have been saved.
Results of 113 Closed Files
~ 90 Homes Saved
~ 2 Homes Sotd
p 15 Foreclosures
~ 6 Unknown
A total of $23,858 in financial assistance was been obtained for
Richfield homeowners.
•
Communit Action for Suburban Henne in's ~" ~~
v p
HOME Line Renters' "Hotline"
Information on calls during .the years 1992-1/1-10/31/1998
Richfield Over the past six years and ten months, a total of
Number of calls by year 1,876 Richfield (unduplicated) renters have
_' ~~. contacted HOME Line. This represents service to
4~g~''' approximately 4,690 residents when all family
• 38 ','345 members are counted.
. 287 (projected
• 287 Through the help of HOME Line, Richfield
• 185 ~ ~ ("~~`'t tenants have received $9,534.16 back from
128 149 ~ ~ improperly withheld security deposits and
0 ~ $3,106.00 in rent abatements (refunds for
19921993 19941995 1996 1997 1998 substandard conditions.)
A vast majority (over 95%) of Richfield callers
to HOME Line are low and moderate income. These
income categories are those used by the U.S.
Department of HUD: .
Low =incomes below 50% of the Metro median
income;
.Moderate =incomes between 50 and 80% of the
Metro median;
Higher =incomes above 80% of the Metro median.
Community Renters Education Program
HOME Line's Community Renters Education Program provides education to high school students, .(primarily seniors)
presentations to tenants/staff of area agencies, information booths at community events and trainings to
volunteers/staff from agencies and managers/property owners.
High School Presentations
Number of students (Number of presentations)
Name of School. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Academy Of Holy Angels Q Q Q Q $~ j~ ~,.Q !~
Bloomington Jefferson 73 (3) 0 0 22 (1) 28 (1)
BI t K d 9 0
oommg on enne y (3) 0 30 (1) 24 (2) 55 (3)
Brooklyn Center 46 (2) 38 (2) 44 (2) 0 67 (3)
Champlin Park 40 (2) 0 82 (4) 219 (8) 246 (8)
Coon Rapids 0 0 52 (2) 178 (6) 210 (7)
Crystal 0 0 0 17 (1) 23 (1)
Eden Prairie 46 (2) 48 (2) 76 (2) 86 (3) 83 (4)
Edina 3 8 (2) 0 0 0 0
Excelsior 0 0 0 10 (1) 5 (1)
Hopkins 156 (6) 26 (2) 82 (3) 110 (7) 111 (5)
Mahtomedi 0 0 30 (1) 0 0
Minnetonka 0 47 (2) 0 99 (8) 20 (1) ~
Orono 0 0 0 0 3 0 (1) ~
~ , ~;}-
Osseo 0 6 4 (2) 0 10 (1) ~
0 ~
~ ~
Osseo-Park Center 35 (3) 0 60 (2) 0 ~
/
~
Richfield ¢~ x.2-2 g~ i.21 ~ ;~ §~ l.2.1 - _
i
~~,
7 4 T jib.,! ~ ~
Robbinsdale-Armstrong 62 (2) 0 25 (1) 27 (2) 0
Robbinsdale-Cooper 56 (2) 59 (2) 56 (2) 55 (3) 46 (2)
Rockford 0 0 0 8 (1) 0
St. Anthony 0 0 1 5 (1) 1 8 (1) 0
St. Louis Park 0 1 2 (1) 1 5 (1) 86 (4) 55 (2)
Wayzata 24 (1) 38 (2) 0 0 60 (2)
Westonka 0 0 0 0 50 (2)
TOTAL 726 (30) 379 (17) 625 (24) 1,029 (51) 1,315 (51) 72 (3)
5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 5s
Agenda March 8, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating Fremont Avenue
right-of--way between West 73rd Street and unimproved Lake Shore Drive.
Background:
The. property owners of 1300 West 73rd Street and 1220 West 73rd Street are
petitioning to vacate right-of--way located between their two properties. The property is
platted as Fremont Avenue, but a street was never constructed in this right-of-way. The
constructed Fremont Avenue ends at 73rd Street.
The total area to be vacated is 60 feet by 255 feet. The vacated area would be split
along the street centerline with each half going to the adjacent property owner.
Public Works staff indicates that the City would not have an interest in constructing a
street in the future. Wood Lake Nature Center staff also has no interest in the property
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and hold a second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating
i Fremont Avenue right-of--way located between West 73`~ Street and unimproved Lake
Shore Drive.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The right-of--way is not needed-for street, sidewalk or trail purposes.
2. A street has never been constructed in this right-of--way.
3. The petitioners have maintained the property for several years.
4. .One of the petitioners plans to use the additional land to build an addition onto his
house.
5. Public Works, Public Safety and Wood Lake Nature Center staff find the right-of-
way vacation acceptable.
6. There are no City utilities in the proposed vacated area.
7. Notice of the vacation was sent to the private utility companies. No issues were
identified.
8. The right-of--way is reserved in the plat for street purposes. The City does not hold
title to the right-of--way so cannot sell the land.
5-
9. First reading of the vacation was held on February 8, 1999.
10. Notice of the vacation was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to properties
within 350 feet of the subject properly.
Alternative Recommendation:
4. Deny this vacation.
2. Refer the vacation to the Planning Commission.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, March 8, 1999 in the Council
Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. If any neighbors express
concern about the scenic loss of view at the hearing, .the issue could be referred to
mediation. If both homeowners who receive a portion of the vacated right-of--way were
to build to the zoning maximum, each could be within five feet of the property line
leaving a ten foot open space between structures..
Respe ully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
~~
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
(Fremont Avenue)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for
public right-of--way purposes:.
That part of Fremont Avenue South as platted between Blocks 3 and 4 of
Irwin Shores described as beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 6, Block 3,
Irwin Shores; thence Westerly along the curved Southerly line of said Lot 6
extended Westerly to the Southeast corner of Lot 10, Block 4, Irwin Shores;
thence Northerly along the East line of said. Block 4 a distance of 266.91 feet;
thence Southeasterly to a point on the West line of Block 3, distant 264.90 feet
Northerly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 6; thence Southerly 264.90 feet to
the point of beginning.
(referred to herein as the "Vacated Area")
Sec. 2. The two adjacent property owners have petitioned for vacation of
the Vacated Area.
Sec. 3. The Council finds that there will no longer be a public need for a
right-of--way easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this
Ordinance.
Sec. 4. The easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1
of this ordinance,. is hereby vacated.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
March, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
• Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
~~~
•
•
•
Fremont Avenue
Stree# Vacation
Wood Lake
<eke s
e ~n~e
i
/I
r F~
~~~~
M
Q
0
E
d
lL
^ Right-of-way to be Vacated (unimproved Fremont Ave)
200 0 200 Feet
February 1, 1999
A
5-~l
T~
~ ~
i
,~
i
~_. ~...
~~
WOOD LAKE
PARK AREA
73rd STREET
STREET VACATION
FREIVIONT AVENUE
SITE PLAN
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 40'
DATE: 2-1-99
•
•
CITY OF LICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 57
Agenda March. 8, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain
capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund.
Background:
City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue. Funds used for
capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance
At the December 14, 1998 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $525,000
of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City parks and other City capital
improvements in 1999. In addition, the 1999 Capital Improvement Budget provides for
expenditure for all types of funds contained in the budget document including county
funds, municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants, however,
authorization by ordinance is not required for these expenditures.
While the total 1999 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted-
expenditures of $29,503,000 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the
Special Revenue fund is $525,000 as shown below:
Parking Lots -Lower City Hall, Community Center, Upper
Donaldson Park 35,000
Traffic Calming 10,000
Public Safety Modular Furniture 105,000
Public Safety Building Security 40,000
Playfeatures -Adams Hill. $ 65,000
Tennis Court Improvements 35,000
Park Shelter Improvements. 55,000
Ice Arena 2nd Sheet (repayment) 100,000
Asphalt Park Paths 80,000
A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City
Charter.
First reading of the ordinance was approved February 8, 1999 and a notice of public
hearing was published on February 24,1999.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of the transitory ordinance
providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital
improvements.
N-I
Basis of Recommendation:
1. On December 14, 1998, the City Council approved the 1999 Capital Improvement
Budget, which includes an expenditure of $525,000 of Special Revenue Funds for
improvements to several City parks and other City capital improvements.
2. On February 8,1999 the first reading of the transitory ordinance was approved.
3. Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective
30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. This needs to be
completed promptly so payments can be made for projects authorized.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could postpone the second reading of the transitory ordinance to a
future City Council meeting.
2. The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the
expenditures identified from special revenue in the C1B.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to proceed with transfer of Special Revenue Funds on a timely basis, second
reading approval of this transitory ordinance would be desirable on March 8, 1999.
Respec Ily submitted,
Jams .Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
~~
•
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM
THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to
expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements
listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general
obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such
improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under
Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows:
Playfeatures -Adams Hill $ 65,000
Tennis Court Improvements 35,000
Park Shelter Improvements 55,000
Ice Arena 2nd Sheet (repayment) 100,000
Asphalt Park Paths 80,000
Parking Lots - -Lower City Hall, Community Center, Upper
Donaldson Park 35,000
Traffic Calming 10,000
Public Safety Modular Furniture 105,000
Public Safety Building Security 40,000
Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized. shall be made pursuant to such
contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action.
Passed by the City Council,of the City of Richfield this 8th day of March, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
f~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. s6
Agenda March 8, 1999
Issue Statement:
Application for a lawful gambling license for Richfield Hockey Association, located at
Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue.
Background:
On August 24, 1998, the Richfield Hockey Association submitted an application for
renewal of their lawful gambling license. The application requested renewal for their
pulltab operations:
A Council hearing was held on September 14, 1998 to consider the request for the
renewal of this license. The Richfield Hockey Association at that time did not anticipate
doing raffles.- They have since decided they will be conducting approximately two.
raffles per year.,
The State renewal application does indicate. that they have paid for both pulltabs and
raffles.
The applicant is proposing to conduct raffles, in addition to their pulltab operations, at
Lariat Lanes.
ed the re uired back round investi ation
The Public Safety Department has conduct q g g
and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements..
Finally, the applicant is requesting the $100 investigation fee be waived.
Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the
request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City
Council
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the Council pass a resolution approving the gambling activity
requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, Sub. 6.
Staff further recommends that the Council waive the investigation fee.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the State Statues and City Code pertaining to
lawful gambling.
2. The applicant was previously approved for the pulltab portion of this license on
September 14, 1998.
3. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to
the community.
3D-I
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the renewal request;
however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative
2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigative fee.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council approval of the renewal of Richfield Hockey Association's lawful gambling
application and a request for waiver of the investigative fee is requested at this time.
Respectf ly submitted,
James .Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
~~j~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR
THE RICHFIELD HOCKEY ASSOCIATION
TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING
WHEREAS, the Richfield Hockey Association has submitted an application for
renewal of their lawful gambling license; and
WHEREAS, the application. requests renewal for their pulltab and raffle
operations; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for
review of applications by local authorities; and
WHEREAS, Section 11.00..13 of the Richfield City code provides regulation of
lawful gambling; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has: completed an investigation of
the application and finds the application to be in order.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of
Richfield, :Minnesota, as follows:
1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Richfield Hockey
Association,. located at Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn.Avenue.
2. The investigation fee be waived.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
March, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
r
3G
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 5s
Agenda March 8, 1999
Issue Statement•
Authorization for the City of Richfield to submit an application for participation in the
Federal-Aid Preservation Program.
Background:
Approximately $9 million is available for the new federal program to implement projects
for the purpose. of preserving .transportation systems and operations. City staff is
proposing to purchase traffic signal equipment to replace outdated signal controllers
along Lyndale Avenue and to install emergency vehicle preemption equipment on
arterials throughout the City. Staff is also proposing to replace red signal indications and
pedestrian "don't walk" signal indications with light emitting diodes (LEDs) as an energy
conservation measure.
The cost of these improvements may be approximately $160,000. Cities and .counties
throughout the metropolitan area are encouraged to prepare project applications which
will be reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Applications
are to be submitted before March 12, 1999. The federal/local cost split will be 80/20.
Accepted project participants must furnish their 20% match prior to construction which is
expected to be in the spring of 2000. The City will use its Municipal State Aid street
• funds as its source for local matching funds.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize City staff to prepare and submit an application for the Federal-Aid
Transportation Preservation Program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield places a high priority on preserving existing infrastructure. The
new Federal-Aid Preservation Program is directed toward preservation of
transportation systems and operations.
2. The Capital Budget and Capital Improvement Program for the City includes
emergency vehicle preemption on all traffic signals, which may be eligible for the
Preservation Program if they are located on arterial routes.
3. The replacement of old signal controller equipment qualifies for the Preservation
Program.
4. Light emitting diodes (LEDs) save significant amounts of electricity that reduce the
City's. operating costs for County and City traffic signals.
Alternative Recommendation:
• Do not authorize application to participate in the Federal-Aid Transportation
Preservation Program. However, the funding is limited for work that needs to be
3C ~
• performed in the City. Should City of Richfield projects be eligible and be accepted for
participation in the Preservation Program, work may be performed sooner and/or
current funding sources may be freed to finance other work.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council is requested to take action at the March 8, 1999 Council meeting as
applications for participation in the Federal-Aid Preservation Program are due no later
than March 12, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame .Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
3(~
. CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. s4
Agenda March 8, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of award of bid divisions 25 and 26 for the construction of a second ice
sheet addition to the Richfield Ice Arena.
Back ry ound:
On February 8, 1999 the City Council. approved the bid awards for all bid divisions
associated with the construction of the second. ice sheet with the exception of bid
division eight which was rejected and bid divisions 25 and 26 that were postponed to a
future date.
Bid divisions 25 and 26 are related packages in that bid division 25 refers to the
construction and installation of all the ice arena rink systems and equipment and bid
division 26 pertains to the purchase of a used ice rink refrigeration system. The. bids for
division 26 included one for a used. system from the Wilmar Blue Line Club, at a cost of
$57,000 and. a second from Thermex Corporation for a used ice refrigeration system in
Wilmar, MN with compressors from northern Michigan, at a cost of $50,000. Extra time
was needed to assess whether the bid by Thermex. met bid specifications for bid
division 26. Thermex also bid on bid package 25 with the provision that if the City
awarded both bid packages 25 and 26 to Thermex, both packagescould be discounted
• by a total of $16,500.
Since the February 8 City Council meeting, staff has carefully analyzed the Thermex
proposal. The architect, Del Erickson, had assigned the engineering consulting firm of
Lindquist,: Killian, Potvin and Bender to carefully review the component parts of the
Thermex bid to insure that they comply with the bid specifications. After the review of
the used refrigeration system bid by Thermex was completed, an analysis of the pros
and cons. of accepting the Wilmar bid versus the Thermex bid was also performed by
engineer Len Lindquist.
The Thermex. system has component parts that have hours of usage in excess of what
the City had requested in the .bids. However, Thermex would refit the systems to meet
the usage and. tolerance required by the bid specifications. They will also warrantee the
system for one year. The Wilmar system meets specifications as bid but would require
an additional $5,000 to $10,000 to bring it up to operating condition.
Based on careful consideration of all the facts relating to the used refrigeration
equipment and the cost of the respective bids, it is the recommendation of the project
architect thafthe City proceed with accepting the bid from Thermex for bid packages 25
and 26.
It should be further noted that at least some members of the Wilmar Blue Line Club
• have expressed a concern that the Thermex system does not -meet bid specifications
36
• and may contest the award of the bid to Thermex. However, based on technical and
legal analysis,. staff believes the City i~ well within its right to award the bid to Thermex.
Recommended Motion:
Approve bid divisions 25 and 26 and award contracts to Thermex Corporation including
accepting alternate nine-rink piping for a deduction of $40,000 and a deduction of
$16,500 for accepting a combined bid for a-total contract amount of $376,686.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The. bid packages for bid divisions 25 and 26 as submitted by Thermex are within
the budget. estimates.
2. Thermex is the lowest responsible bidder and is qualified to perform the work.
3. The bidders have indicated they can perform the work within the construction
schedule.
4. The bid for the refrigeration equipment has been carefully analyzed by consulting
engineers and. has been deemed to be equivalent to specification standards
requested by the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could award bid division 25 to the Wilmar Blue Line Club. The
additional net cost would be $2,300, plus $5,000 to $10,000 for required upgrades.
2. The City Council could reject all bids and call for. a re-bid of divisions 25 and 26.
However, this would cause a severe delay in the process and not allow the rink to
be completed on schedule and in-time for the next hockey season.
3. The City Council could delay this bid award to gather additional information.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council approval on March 8 is needed in order to keep this project on schedule so that
the arena addition can open in time for the 1999-2000 hockey season.
Respectf~ily submitted,
James
City M.
JDP:cak
•
vvi vyi va aaa~~ vv. vv a.a.. v..r v~v vvvv
... ...... ..... , ........., z..
3~~~
DELANO £RICKSON ARCHITECTS
7415 WAYZATA BOt1LEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55426
612-5d4-8370
Marcia 3,1999
Mr. Steve Devich
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Richfield Arena Addition
Commission No. 78 t3
Dear Steve:
Based on our erngineer's ztwiew of the two bids for used refrigeration equipment as specified in
Section 13161, we are in the opinion that the Thermex bid is equal or better than the unit
specified. While the Thermex compressor has more hours on it, it is in waridng condition and
wilt be completely overhauled and guazattteed foz one year. Both units ate identical in terms of
performance and capacity.
We recommend the award be made to Thermex for the lower bid.
Sincerely,
DELANO gItICKSON ARCHI'T'ECTS
Del Erickson, ATA
DE/tlt
I'IHK 1~4 " y'~ 11 ~ L~HI'1 KKHUS HIYlltKSVIV
3~-3
March 4, 1999
Mr. Steven Devich
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
I'. 1/1
KRAYTS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
(.:ONTRACT(:)I2S & <`ONSTI7Ut::Tlt)N fvtiANAC.Ei2S
Re: Addition to Richfield Ice Arena
Bid Division No. 26
Used Ice Refrigeration Equipment Supply
Dear Mr. Devich:
Based on the Architect's and Engineer's review of the two bids for the above referenced
bid division as specified in Section 13161, we are in the opinion that the Thermex bid is
equal or better than the unit specified. While the Thermex compressor has more hours on
it, it is in working condition and will be completely overhaulEd and guaranteed for one
year. Both units aze idEntical in terms of performance and capacity.
Therefore, our recommendation is to awazd Bid Division No. 2G-Used Ice Refrigeration
Equipment Supply to Thennax as the low bidder and to also include Bid Division No. 25-
Ice Rink Construction as a combined low bid package.
Xf you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 612-786-7711.
Very truly yours,
ICRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
IVIIDWEST DIVISION
/~-~~
David Kray
Project Manager
DI~:rh
Midwest Division rr,
8625 N.f:. Rendova Strce[, PO- Box 158, Circle Pines, MN 55014 ~ ~~
Phone: (612) 786-7711 FAX: (612) 786-2650 ~
Equal Upporfunity Employer '~,, a~*
3t~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 53
Agenda March 8, 1999
Issue Statement:
Authorization to execute consultant agreement for design and construction engineering.
of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W north of 76th Street.
Background:
The City has been working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
related to extension of the I-35W High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane between I-494
and 42nd Street in Minneapolis. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge spanning I-35W has been
proposed for just north of 76th Street. The bridge is proposed because the existing 76th
Street bridge will not be reconstructed in the I-35W project and it lacks sidewalks wide
enough to accommodate pedestrian or bicycle traffic. During the winter, snow-.and ice
from the bridge force pedestrians and bicyclists to share lanes with motorized vehicles.
The concept design and estimated cost of the project was discussed at the March 1,
1999 Council Study Session. Cost for the bridge would be afforded through Municipal
State Aid (MSA -gas tax). Staff is recommending that the City construct Option No~ 3,
the least expensive of the three options presented. Option three is a seven span
concrete beam and slab bridge with a center pier. It is estimated the City's cost will be
$125,000 for construction engineering and design fees. The total cost of the project is
an estimated $921,000 including contingency and inflation (the construction will extend
into 2000). The budgeted amount is $800,000. The difference will come from the MSA..
account balance. Staff is further recommending that Council authorize an additional
expenditure of approximately $50,000 for ornamental screening, landscaping and
lighting.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize execution of an agreement with OSM and Associates in the amount of
$125,000 for design and construction engineering services related to a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W north of 76th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The ,project is being proposed for construction in the next two years to coincide with
the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT) construction along I-35W,
It is MnDOT's wish to have their contractor construct the center pier of the bridge in
1999 with Richfield's contractor finishing everything else in 2000.
2. The concept design and project costs/funding were discussed at the March 1, 1999
Council Study Session. The project is included in the adopted 1999 Capital Budget
but the total project cost will need to be revised.
3. The proposed bridge is included in Richfield's approved Comprehensive Plan.
3fl-~
4. The cost of the proposed bridge includes 16 lights. Other security issues such as
sight lines, .maximum slopes and an open, friendly appearance have been
incorporated into the preliminary designs and will continue to be part of the final
design.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not proceed with design and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across 1-
35W north of 76th Street.
2. Select another site for apedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W.
3. Delay design and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W.
4. Direct staff to design and construct the more expensive "bow string truss" bridge,
increasing the budget by $230,000.
5. Direct. staff to seek a different consultant for the design and/or construction
engineering of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W north of 76th Street.
Discussion/Decision Mode:.
If there is to be coordina#ion with MnDOT's schedule for extension of the I-35W High
Occupancy Vehicle lane, Council is asked to take action at the March 8, 1999 Council
related to a consultant agreement for design and construction engineering of a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W. If Council authorizes execution of the proposed
agreement, it is anticipated final .design will be available for Council consideration in
June 4999.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. rosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
r