03-09-98 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 23, 1998 AND (2) CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF MARCH 2, 1998
PRESENTATIONS
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO RICHFIELD HIGH
SCHOOL BAND AS GOODWILL AMBASSADORS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
DURING THEIR TRIP TO LONDON, ENGLAND
i 2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN
FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARDED BY GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 45
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT
THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD.
3. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
5. 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 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
AGREEMENT WITH FORTIS INSURANCE COMPANY FOR LONG-TERM
DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
C. L. 46
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL
INVESTMENT DEPOSITORIES FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR 1998 C.L. 47
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN CITY AND L.E.L.S. LOCAL 225 (911 DISPATCHERS) CREATING
LEAD DISPATCHER ASSIGNMENT C.L. 48
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF TRAILER FROM ST.
JOSEPH EQUIPMENT IN AMOUNT OF $11,875 AND PURCHASE ORDER FOR
$11,000 TO ZIEGLER, INC. TO REPAIR 1988 BARCO MILLING MACHINE C.L.
49
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
PROVIDING FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM SPECIAL
REVENUE FUND
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 50
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY YEAR 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
ALLOCATION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 51
8. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DENYING APPEAL TO
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF DECISION MADE BY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT
ALLOWABLE USES IN MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 52
9. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AT 1100 EAST 66TH STREET TO ALLOW DAYCARE FACILITY FOR
UP TO 90 CHILDREN
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 53
RESOLUTION
10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION AND QUICK
TAKE FOR 6915 AND 6937 PENN AVENUE FOR PENN AVENUE STORMWATER
PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 54
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
11. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 3 AND 8 OF RICHFIELD
CITY CHARTER
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 55
12. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE, AMENDMENT REZONING PROPERTY ALONG
INTERSTATE 494 THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 56
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
13. CONSIDERATION OF RECEIPT OF UNAUDITED 1997 FINANCIAL REPORT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 57
14. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING CONNECTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES TO
ASSIST COMMUNITY ORGANIZING PUBLIC INPUT FOR AIRPORT MITIGATION
STRATEGY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 58
15. CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE ORDER TO MIKKELSON-WULFF FOR
REMODELING WORK AT CITY HALL TO ACCOMMODATE ENGINEERING DIVISION
IN AMOUNT OF $17,624
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 59
16. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SITE SELECTION PROCESS FOR NEW CITY
MAINTENANCE FACILITY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 60
AIRPORT BUSINESS
17. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
18. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
19. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
20. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
21. 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
861-9702.
40
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 60
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Proposed.site selection process for new City maintenance facility.
Background:
Council has discussed forming a Task Force to review the space needs for a
maintenance facility and to select a site for a new maintenance facility. The Task Force
is proposed to include two members each from the Planning Commission and the
Community Services Commission as well as members from the community at large.
Edward Sorenson, 7515 Thomas Avenue, and Nancy Stiller, 6414-11th Avenue, have
volunteered to serve on the Task Force
The tentative site selection timetable is:
• Assemble Site Selection Task Force March 1998
• Task Force reviews sites and holds Open House(s) on May-June 1998
possible sites
• Task Force recommendation to the City Council (Public July-August 1998
Hearing)
A draft Work Plan for the Richfield Public Works Maintenance Facility Site Selection
Task Force is attached for Council consideration.
Recommended Motion:
1. Direct the Chair of the Planning Commission to name two members to the Richfield
Public Works Maintenance Facility Site Selection Task Force; direct the Chair of the
Community Services Commission to name two members to the Task Force; name
one or more representatives of the community at large as members to the Task
Force (Edward Sorenson and Nancy Stiller have volunteered for this Task Force);
and direct the Public Works Director to provide City staff support for the Task Force.
2. Select a Council Member to be liaison to the Task Force.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Council has determined the need for a new maintenance facility.
2. Council has discussed options for a site selection process and determined that a
Task Force best serves the interests of the community.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council may reconsider pursuing a new maintenance facility.
0
l(o -1
2. . Council may reconsider using a Task Force and use some other means to
investigate and recommend a site for Richfield's Public Works Maintenance Facility.
3. Council may elect to adjust the membership, resources, schedule or format
proposed for the Task Force.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council is asked to take action at the March 9, 1998 meeting, but no later than the
March 23, 1998 Council meeting, related to Task Force membership if the Planning
Commission and Community Services Commission Chairs are to make Task Force
appointments so that the proposed time table may be met.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams . Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
Attachment
•
0
•
•
WORK PLAN f ?p''pL
RICHFIELD PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY
SITE SELECTION TASK FORCE
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Task Force is to investigate and recommend a site for Richfield's
Public Works Maintenance Facility to the Community Services Commission and
Planning Commission for their consideration. The Task Force will the carry the
recommendation and Commission comments to the City Council.
MEMBERSHIP
• Two members of the Community Services Commission
• Two members of the Planning Commission
• One or two community representatives
RESOURCES
• Facilitator - Nancy Schultz, SEH (Short-Elliot-Hendrickson)
• Private sector Public Works expert - Lloyd Pauly, SEH
• Public sector Public Works expert - selected by the Task Force
• City staff
• Programming and design documents prepared to date by SEH
• Others as determined by the Task Force
SCHEDULE
The Task Force will set its own meeting and time schedule but it is likely that it will need
to meet four to six times over the next three to six months.
FORMAT
3. Inventory possible sites
4. Determine criteria for ranking sites
The following format is suggested (final format to be determined by the Task Force):
1. Introduction to Public Works
2. Inventory Public Works functions
5. Rank sites
6. Hold Open House(s)
7. Select recommended site
PRODUCT
A preferred site for the facility and an optional alternative site with the rationale for the
selection.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 59
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Remodel City Hall to accommodate the Engineering Division.
Background:
The Lampert Lumber site currently holds offices and equipment space for the Utilities
Divisions, Government Buildings and Engineering staff. The sale of the Lampert site
and relocation of the staff in the facility necessitates some remodeling at City Hall to
accommodate the Engineering staff. Utilities Division staff are relocating to the Water
Plant, and Government Buildings offices will be relocated to the Central Garage site.
The proposed work will include removing several partitions in the former Community
Services area and repairing or replacing walls, ceiling and electrical systems. Two
contractors offered quotations for this work as follows:
Mikkelson-Wulff Construction, Inc. $17,624
C.M. Construction $20,930
The quotations above do not include painting, furniture and equipment moving, and
some limited modular furniture for a total additional amount of $8,000. The carpeting is
estimated at about $3,000, and will be provided by a separate contractor. The
recommended funding source for this work is the 1997 year end budget surplus, which
is approximately $380,000.
To accommodate this move of the Engineering staff to City Hall, three Recreation
Services staff have moved to the Community Center. This will require installing one
temporary wall and door and moving another door at a cost of $3,215. Modular
furniture and one new partitioned office space will be installed for under $6,000. Three
new phone extensions will be added to the building.
Grouping the majority of Recreation Services staff in one building will consolidate some
functions, reducing some costs. The entire project at the Community Center will be no
more than $10,000 and will be funded from the 1997 year end surplus. No Council
action is necessary on the Community Center expenses.
The total estimated expenditure for remodeling, modular furniture and related cost is
$40,000.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to Mikkelson-Wulff in the amount of $17,624 to perform the
i remodeling work at City Hall to accommodate the Engineering Division.
IS-I
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Lampert Lumber site must be vacated by March 31, 1998.
2. Mikkelson-Wulff submitted the low quote.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could choose to reject the quotes and leave the former Community Services
Administrative offices as they are.
2. Council could authorize less extensive remodeling.
3. The Council could direct staff to delay remodeling activity to a later time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the March 9, 1998 Council meeting in order to get this
work completed before the Lampert vacation date of March 31.
Respectful submitted,
James rosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 58
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration to authorize Connections for Communities to assist community
organizing public input for airport mitigation strategy.
Background:
The City of Richfield is developing a mitigation reaction strategy for the proposed north-
south runway at MSP airport. The reaction strategy is being prepared in order to
demonstrate to MAC what the impact of low frequency noise will be upon Richfield and
the extent of the potential required mitigation if the runway is constructed. While
preparation of a mitigation plan should be the responsibility of the governmental unit
preparing the environmental impact statement, MAC has previously stated that they will
not be preparing such a plan. City attorneys have advised staff that City preparation of
such a strategy would be extremely beneficial. However, the strategy should be
completed and sent to MAC prior to the completion of the final EIS for the north-south
runway.
The Planning Commission is currently preparing the strategy. Public input is critically
important in the strategy development. Given the short timeframe, it would be
beneficial to obtain assistance in gaining public input.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize Connections for Communities to assist the City in organizing community input
for the mitigation strategy at a cost of $5,500 for the initial phase and $8,800 for the two
month follow-up phase.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is important to gain the input of the public for the airport mitigation reaction
strategy.
2. The Planning Commission has requested assistance in gaining public input in a
short timeframe for the mitigation reaction strategy.
3. Connections for Communities has previous experience in assisting communities in
organizing public response for airport impacted neighborhoods.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to authorize the Connections for Communities to
assist the City in organizing community input.
2. The Council could direct staff to undertake community organizing.
I q-/
0 3. The Council could direct that staff review other alternatives for community
organizing assistance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Council meeting of March 9, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
•
•
02/22/1998 20:28
9P
Connections for '
Commun?fies
February 20, 1998
am
"Loa
cad
James Prosser W
City Manager
man
City of Richfield ?
6700 Portland Avenue -... uo. or.
Richfield, MN 55423 CIA _,t0. sd*
Carom. Alf. Human Serv
_
Dear Jim: -
HRA
We are pleased to submit this proposal for Connections for Communities to provide the city of
Richfield with community organizing services related to its Airport mitigation strategy,
Consultants for these special services will be Vivian Hart and Julianne Manship.
It is our understanding: that we will be working as citizen advocates, bringing City staff,
councilmembers and planning commission members questions, concerns, ideas and general
feedback from the community about low frequency aircraft ground noise resulting from the
Airport's proposed new north-south runway.
At this time, we are proposing two short-term phases for this community organizing work:
Initial Phase--March 1998
We will develop and implement processes for organizing and inform-
ing citizens to gather from them meaningful feedback for use in com-
pleting Richfield's Airport Noise Mitigation Plan. Total consultants'
cost for the above services is 55500 plus direct expenses to include
(with prior approval) mileage, long distance phone, faxing, postage,
office supplies, copying and printing. (Estimated consulting time: 80
hours.)
On-going Phase--April, May 1998
We will continue to inform and involve the community about potential
low frequency noise impacts and mitigation actions, building
on a network of communication between citizens, staff and elected
officials begun in the initial phase. Cost for this two-month phase is
$8800 plus direct expenses outlined above. (Estimated consulting
time- 128 hours.)
Should you have interest in contracting with us to continue our organizing work with the
Richfield community after the above phases are completed, we would be happy to discuss that
possibility with you.
383 E. Bernard Street • W. St. Paul, MN 55118-1625
Phone: (612) 491-6153 • Fax: (612) 457-6120 • e-mail: conncomm(Djuno.com
02/22/1998 20:28 6124576120 HART AIU PAGE 03
f LI3
If any of the assutaptions of this proposal are incorrect, we would c ' consider revising '
to better meet Y them
your. requirements.
We would appreciate this opportunity to work with you to involve the Richfield community in this
effort to maintain a strong community.
Sincerel
Vivian G. Had
Partner
Enclosures
0
02/22/1998 20:28 6124576120 HART H1V PAGE 04
r
Bio of Vivian Hart
lq-q
As both a citizen volunteer and professional, Vivian has over 17 years of experience
working in local government. During this' Eme, she has, among other activities,
lobbied during Minnesota legislative sessions, organized a 3-state environmental
coalition and served as president of the St. Paul Downtown Airport Advisory
Council. Vivian worked on the organizing committee that formed neighborhood
organizations in West St. Paul and was chair of the first--the Lilly Lake
Neighborhood Association. She also served as a charter member of the City's
Neighborhood Development Advisory Board.
Previously, Vivian was employed as a communications specialist for a school
district, community organizer for the City of St. Paul and editor of several
publications, including Minnesota Monthly magazine. Most recently, she was a
program specialist for Government Training Service, an organization that provides
continuing education and training geared toward Minnesota government.
Currently, Vivian is a member of Neighborhoods USA, the International Association
to of Facilitators, Society of Government Meeting Professionals, a 'board member of
Northern Dakota County Community Television, a citizen representative on W. St.
Paul's Community Liveability Team and chair of Make a Difference Committee--a
community-wide effort to raise awareness about domestic violence in northern
Dakota County. Vivian is a recent participant in the Violence Prevention Initiative
of the Dakota County Partnership for Healthy Communities, in Dakota County's
Asset-Building Initiative for Youth and a member of the League of Minnesota Cities
Improving Community Life Committee.
Participatory government has been the main topic of presentations given recently by
Vivian at the Neighborhoods USA Conference in Albany, N.Y., League of
Minnesota Cities Annual Conference and .the Minnesota Community Policing
Symposium
Vivian is a partner in Connections for Communities, a consulting firm which
specializes in information and presentations about community building, partnerships
and neighborhood involvement. .
0
02/22/1998 20:28 6124576120 HART A/V
Iq-J5
References for Vivian Hart
Laurel Hanke, former President, Municipal Clerks and Finance Officers
Association of Minnesota; City Clerk, City of Fisher
218-891-4455
r'?aut e5
i
4
Don Harens, Vice Chair, West St. Paul Neighborhood Development Advisory
Board; Tax Specialist, MN Department of Revenue
612-297-2160
Bob Lockyear, Director of Planning and Public Affairs, Washington County
612430-6004
•
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 57
4 Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Council receipt of the unaudited 1997 Financial Report.
Background:
The annual Financial Report for the period ended December 31, 1997 has been
completed by the Administrative Services Department. The audited financial report is
not available at this time. As Council Members may be aware, the City receives a
reduced audit fee by allowing the Auditors to delay their audit work until April. The audit
is scheduled to begin April 6, 1998.
The Richfield City Charter requires the financial report to be submitted to the City
Council for fiscal year-end information by April 10 of each year. The report is submitted
for official receipt at the March 9, 1998 City Council meeting.
The attached summary report reflects the performance of the General Fund, Municipal
Liquor Fund, Utility Funds, Recreation Fund and Street Light Fund.
Recommended Motion:
Receive the unaudited 1997 Financial Report of the City.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. City Charter provides that the Financial Report of the City to be submitted to the
City Council by April 10 of each year.
2. Audited financial reports for 1997 will not be available for several weeks.
3. The Administrative Services Department has just completed their financial
reporting for 1997.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could request the staff to make a more detailed presentation of the
unaudited 1997 Financial Report at this time or at a future Council Study Session.
However, a detailed presentation of the audited report will be presented in the
month of June 1998.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The financial report be formally accepted at the March 9, 1998 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
• Jame l. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
w
•
0
13-1
• FINANCIAL REPORT SUMMARY
FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
The following is a summary of fund highlights for the General Fund, Municipal Liquor Fund, Water and
Sanitary Sewer Fund, Storm Sewer Utility Fund, and the Recreation Fund. A more detailed, audited
report will be presented to the City Council after the audit has been completed in June 1998.
General Fund
Revenues
1997 Actual
$ 14,019,107
13,338,379
(289,537)
391,191
1997 Budget
1996 Actual
Expenditures
Net Transfers
Increase to Fund Balance
Fund Balance, 12/31/97
$ 13,473,760
13,542,560
68,800
$ 3,963,860 $ 3,562,305
$ 13,244,695
12,813,727
88,500
519,468
$ 3,572,669
As of December 31, 1997, the City General Fund has a fund balance of $3,963,860, an increase
of $391,191 from December 31, 1996 The year-end fund balance is designated for working capital
and is necessary to meet expenditures until property taxes are collected in July 1998.
In 1997, General Fund revenue exceeded budget by approximately $545,000. This was primarily due
to revenues exceeding budget in most General Fund revenue catagories. In addition expenditures in
General Fund before transfers were under budget by approximately $204,000. This can be attributed to
departments generally keeping spending within budget levels.
In 1997, the General Fund transferred $836,640. Of this amount $129,140 was to pay for the City's
Street Lighting Reconstruction Project, $200,000 to purchase property to expand the City Hall parking lot,
$250,000 to Central Services for buy down of data processing system depreciation, $131,000 for
Fire SCBA equipment and Public Safety remodeling projects and $25,000 for City remodeling.
Municipal Liquor Stores
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income (Loss)
Retained Earnings, 12/31/97
1997 Actual
$ 8,040,770
7,401,882
(421,040)
217,848
$ 2,594,108
1997 Budget
$ 8,889,300
8,182,050
(671,040)
36,210
$ 2,442,132
1996 Actual
$ 7,426,187
6,721,154
(545,670)
159,363
$ 2,376,260
In 1997, the fourth Richfield Liquor Store opened. The four stores generated $8,006,965 in gross sales
an increase of $662,465 in comparison to 1996. Operating expenses in 1997 increased over 1996
by $216,000. This increase can be attributed to the opening of the fourth liquor store.
Transfers in 1997 include $250,000 to the Special Revenue Fund for park capital improvements, and
$171,040 to the General Fund for administrative costs, public safety services, and payments in lieu
of taxes.
13- a-
Water & Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income
Retained Earnings, 12/31/97
1997 Actual
$ 4,117,185
4,333,741
25,390
(191,166)
$ 7,328,605
1997 Budget
$ 4,279,630
4,189,210
90,420
$ 7,610,408
1996 Actual
$ 4,028,406
4,236,420
70,476
(137,538)
$ 7,519,771
In 1997, the Water Utility portion of operating revenues decreased by $51,000 from 1996. The decrease
in revenues was casued by heavier than normal rainfall during 1997. Operating expenses increased
$182,500 in 1997 over 1996, with increased personnel services and depreciation costs as the largest
parts of the increase. A $0.05 rate increase per thousand gallons is planned for 1998.
The Sanitary Sewer Utility portion of operating revenues in 1997 increased approximately $148,000.
A sewer rate increase in 1997 can be attributed to this increase and accordingly a $0.20 increase per
thousand gallons is planned for 1998. However, as was the case in prior years, gains in revenues for
1997 were outgained in operating expenses, primarily Metropolitan Council-Wastewater service
charges. The planned rate increase for 1998 will hopefully reverse this trend.
Storm Sewer Utility Fund
1997 Actual
1997 Budget 1996 Actual
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income
Retained Earnings, 12/31/97
767,350
592,247
$ 854,000 $ 1,170,704
598,160 515,228
175,103 255,840 655,476 .
$ 2,559,183 $ 2,639,920 $ 2,384,080
Revenues for the Storm Sewer Utility Fund decreased $375,700 in 1997 over 1996. The large difference
from 1996 to 1997 is due to reimbursement received from the State of Minnesota for a storm sewer
project in the Richfield Lake outlet area in 1996. Operating revenue for 1997 decreased slighty as
compared to 1996. This can be attributed to rates remaining the same in 1997 as 1996 and a spend
down of cash for the Columbus Avenue project resulting in lower interest earnings. Operating expenses
increased $77,000 over 1996. This can be attributed to increased cost in professional services.
Recreation Fund
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income
Retained Earnings, 12/31/97
The Recreation Fund includes the golf course, ice arena, swimming pool, and special facilities
(miniature golf, concessions, farmers market) operations. An increase in operating revenues from 1996
to 1997 was due to the golf course operations, which ended the year with income before transfers
of $490,470, an increase of approximately $159,620 over 1996. The ice arena, swimming pool, and
special facilities operations all ended the year with losses of $69,710, $7,214 and $749 respectively.
Despite the operating losses the swimming pool and special facilities operations each made transfers
out of $25,000 to repay prior year loans from the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund.
1997 Actual
$ 2,244,588
1,831,783
(25,950)
386,855
$ 1,751,842
1997 Budget
$ 2,099,440
1,918,660
(25,950)
154,830
$ 1,466,817
1996 Actual
$ 2,151,207
1,776,347
(151,330)
223,530
$ 1,364,987
0
/3-3
C?
J
•
Street Light Fund
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income (Loss)
Retained Earnings, 12/31/97
1997 Actual 1997 Budget
$ 79,880 $ 73,500
(78,400) (78,400)
1,480 (4,900)
$ 9,720 $ 3,340
1996 Actual
$ 79,473
(72,000)
7,473
$ 8,240
This fund was established in 1995 to account for Street Light fee revenues collected from residents as
part of the Street Light reconstruction project. 1997 was the third year of a scheduled four year project
The fund is performing as expected, and is able to tranfser out the budgeted funds for the project.
Summary
This financial summary includes the highlights of the overall financial results for the City of Richfield
for the year ended December 31, 1997. Financial reports for each fund are attached to this letter.
A comprehensive review of the 1997 financial operations will be presented to the City Council
after the completion of the annual audit by the City's independent auditors.
In 1997, the General Fund had a very strong year due to actual revenues exceeding budget and
the efforts of departments to closely monitor expenditures. This resulted in a net increase to fund
balance of $391,191. The Municipal Liquor and Golf Course Funds continued to perform well.
The Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility showed a net operating loss of $191,166. This can be
attributed to higher operating costs from the Metropolitan Council - Wastewater Services and the
relatively wet summer. A rate increase of $0.05 for water and $0.20 for sewer to offset the increased
Metroplitan Concil-Wastewater Services cost was implemented for 1998. The Street Light Fund
performed as expected with the fund transferring out funds to cover reconstruciton costs. The ice arena,
swimming pool and special facilities operations will continue to be carefully monitored in 1998 to
market the facilities and control costs.
n
I?
0
E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1997 and 1996
ASSETS
Cash and investments
Receivables:
Taxes
Special assessments
Accounts
Prepaid items
Due from component unit
Due from other governments
Total Assets
1997
$ 5,113,027
61,061
6,704
87,723
42,934
121,747
$ 5,433,196
/3-Y
FORM F
1996
$ 4,647,774
56,796
2,262
116,827
1,754
85,846
64,504
$ 4,975,763
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable
Due to other governments
Due to other funds
Deferred revenue
$ 128,061
1,250,361
1,082
28,771
61,061
$ 145,376
1,200,845
41
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance -
Unreserved:
Designated for state aid reductions
Designated for working capital
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
56,832
1,469,336- 1,403,094
320,328
3,643,532
3,963,860
$ 5,433,196
304,351
3,268,318
3,572,669
$ 4,975,763
n
U
13-5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERALFUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1996
Revenues:
Taxes
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental revenue
Charges for services
Fines and forfeits
Miscellaneous revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
General government
Administrative services
Public safety
Community Development
Public Works
Recreation Service
FORM F -1
1997
Over
Final (Under) 1996
Budget Actual Budget Actual
$ 5,819,620 $ 5,933,151 $ 113,531 $ 5,836,618
546,000 626,048 80,048 540,570
6,114,340 6,236,377 122,037 5,790,234
743,110 812,772 69,662 804,407
131,000 196,679 65,679 150,635
119,690 214,080 94,390 122,231
13,473,760 14,019,107 545,347 13,244,695
674,470 614,208 (60,262) 591,303
935,490 880,151 (55,339) 937,125
7,277,330 7,275,648 (1,682) 6,866,165
228,860 224,792 (4,068) 225,121
3,064,610 2,991,437 (73,173) 2,960,950
1,361,800 1,352,143 (9,657) 1,233,063
Total Expenditures 13,542,560 13,338,379 (204,181) 12,813,727
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures (68,800) 680,728 749,528 430,968
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Operating transfers in:
Special Revenue Funds
Debt Service Fund
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Operating Transfers Out:
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Project Funds
Internal Service Funds
Component Unit
Net Other Financing
Sources (Uses)
Excess of Revenues and Other
Financing Sources over
Expenditures and Other
Financing Uses
Fund Balance - January 1
Fund Balance - December 31
12,000 12,663 663
203,000 203,000 - 202,500
249,440 249,440 - 217,670
82,000 82,000 -
(73,500) (73,500) -
(154,140) (485,140) (331,000)
(250,000) (250,000) -
- (28,000) (28,000) (331,670)
68,800
(289,537) 359,000 88,500
391,191 391,191 519,468
3,572,669 3,572,669 - 3,053,201
$ 3,572,669 $ 3,963,860 $ 391,191 $ 3,572,669
•
•
•
9
•
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
0
??I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-2
' GENERAL FUND •
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES COMPARED TO BUDGET
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1996
1997
Over
Final (Under) 1996
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Taxes:
Current ad valorem $ 4,678,940 $ 4,772,474 $ 93,534 $ 4,744,338
Fiscal disparities 1,140,680 1,160,677 19,997 1,092,280
Total Taxes 5,819,620 5,933,151 113,531 5,836,618
Licenses and Permits:
Business licenses 173,000 158,264 (14,736) 182,289
Nonbusiness licenses and permits 373,000 467,784 94,784 358,281
Total Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental Revenues:
Federal :
Civil defense reimburseme-nt
COPS FAST
State:
Local government aid
Local Performance Aid
Fire State Aid
Grants - other
Homestead credit
Police State Aid
Law officer training
State-aid street maintenance
County -
Community health services
Total Intergovernmental
Revenue
Charges for Services:
General Government
Deputy Registrar
Public Safety
Park and Recreation
Nature Center
Community Center
Total Charges for Services
546,000 626,048 80,048 540,570
5,000 4,500 (500) 5,000
35,000 40,800 5,800 25,000
3,357,370 3,357,375 5 3,271,731
39,730 39,731 1
90,000 180,684 90,684
20,000 - (20,000)
1,848,700 1,849,674 974 1,812,457
270,000 292,604 22,604 295,484
13,540 11,448 (2,092) 13,542
310,000 326,369 16,369 243,199
125,000 133,192 8,192 123,821
6,114,340 6,236,377 122,037 5,790,234
62,700 115,254 52,554 90,797
280,000 307,780 27,780 296,539
126,870 139,507 12,637 139,773
70,500 57,280 (13,220) 138,442
162,040 157,795 (4,245) 41,050
41,000 35,156 (5,844) 97,806
$ 743,110 $ 812,772 $ 69,662 $ 804,407
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL.FUND
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES COMPARED TO BUDGET
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1996
1997
Fines and Forfeits:
Municipal court fines
Forfeited bail
Highway patrol fines
Total Fines and Forfeits
•
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Interest
Rent
Contributions
Recovery - damage to City property
Other
/3-S
FORM F-2
Over
Final (Under) 1996
Budget Actual Budget Actual
$ 125,000 $ 186,286 $ 61,286 $ 139,839
4,000 5,438 1,438 6,879
2,000 4,955 2,955 3,917
131,000 196,679 65,679 150,635
70,000 129,162 59,162 80,030
11,500 15,705 4,205 16,283
800 120 (680) 727
13,000 22,912 9,912 9,738
24,390 46,181 21,791 15,453
Total Miscellaneous Revenues 119,690 214,080 94,390 122,231
Total Revenues $ 13,473,760 $ 14,019,107 $ 545,347 $ 13,244,695
r?
- r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1996
1997
GENERAL GOVERNMENT:
Mayor - Council:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Total
Other Agencies:
Share a Home
Senior Outreach Services
Cornerstone Advocacy
Storefront/Youth Action
Youth Net
Shared Transportation
South Hennepin Regional
Total
Human Services:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Total
City Manager:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Total
Legal:
Other services and charges
Total
Total General Government
Final
Budget Actual
FORM F-3
0
Over
(Under) 1996
Budget Actual
$ 35,070 $ 35,192 $ 122 $ 35,370
72,240 59,861 (12,379) 62,006
107,310 95,053 (12,257) 97,376
1,200 1,200 - 1,000
7,880 7,880 - 7,000
12,500 12,500 - 12,390
61,000 61,000 - 60,570
1,000 1,000 - 800
4,000 4,000 - 4,000
18,400 18,400 - 18,240
105,980 105,980 - 104,000
49,240 51,548 2,308 48,078
8,680 9,021 341 7,677
57,920 60,569 2,649 55,755
118,180 124,047 5,867 115,654
34,190 31,126 (3,064) 30,660
152,370 155,173 2,803 146,314
250,890 197,433 (53,457) 187,858
250,890 197,433 (53,457) 187,858
$ 674,470 $ 614,208 $ (60,262) $ 591,303
L
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-3
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1996
1997
Over
Final (Under) 1996
Budget Actual Budget Actual
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
Administration:
Personal services $ 87,000 $ 92,028 $ 5,028 $ 86,645
Other services and charges 47,130 49,549 2,419 45,948
Total 134,130 141,577 7,447 132,593
Human Resources:
Personal services 49,400 30,856 (18,544) 136,120
Other services and charges 40,190 24,032 (16,158) 50,268
Total 89,590 54,888 (34,702) 186,388
Finance:
Personal services 141,830 145,179 3,349 41,624
Other services and charges 54,230 55,265 1,035 21,978
Capital outlay 5,000 4,178 (822)
Total 201,060 204,622 3,562 63,602
Youth Employment - Counseling:
Personal services
Other services and charges 334
Total - - - 334
City Clerk:
Personal services 214,630 199,991 (14,639) 206,908
Other services and charges 36,290 27,794 (8,496) 30,116
Capital outlay 8,300 2,269 (6,031)
Total 259,220 230,054 (29,166) 237,024
Election:
Personal services 65,744
Other services and charges 11,985
Total 77,729
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIN NESOTA FORM F-3
SCHEDULE OF GENERALFUND
EXPENDITURES COM
PARE D TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Ye ar Ended December 31, 1996
1997
Over
Final (Under) 1996
Budget Actual Budget Actual
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:(Continued)
Assessing:
Personal services $ 53,990 $ 59,162 $ 5,172 $ 52,142
Other services and charges 189,000 182,605 (6,395) 187,313
Capital outlay 8,500 7,243 (1,257)
Total 251,490 249,010 (2,480) 239,455
Total Administrative Services $ 935,490 $ 880,151 $ (55,339) $ 937,125
PUBLIC SAFETY:
Administrative Support Services:
Personal services 267,740 284,139 16,399 260,495
Other services and charges 297,750 298,051 301 283,958
Capital outlay 500 (500)
Total 565,990 582,190 16,200 544,453
Police Protection:
Personal services 2,532,200 2,591,989 59,789 2,455,544
Other services and charges 467,380 419,282 (48,098) 413,793
Capital outlay 34,770 52,139 17,369 12,500
Total 3,034,350 3,063,410 29,060 2,881,837
Fire Protection:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Police Ancillary Services:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
1,686,520
146,930
5,600
1,839,050
855,700
514,100
115,500
1,485,300
1,700,878
154,258
6,625
1,861,761
804,497
493,782
116,302
1,414,581
14,358
7,328
1,025
22,711
(51,203)
(20,318)
802
(70,719)
1,745,706
124,505
4,739
1,874,950
820,945
396,152
13,172
1,230,269
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-3
DULE OF GENERALFUND
T
RE
SCHE EXPENDI
U
S COMPARE D TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1996
1997
Over
Final (Under) 1996
Budget Actual Budget Actual
PUBLIC SAFETY: (Continued)
Inspection:
Personal services $ 282,320 $ 288,046 $ 5,726 $ 288,901
Other services and charges 24,750 24,307 (443) 11,346
Capital outlay 2,400 (2,400) 1,093
Total 309,470 312,353 2,883 301,340
Emergency Services:
Personal services 12,900 12,563 (337) 10,993
Other services and charges 27,770 28,790 1,020 22,323
Capital outlay 2,500 (2,500)
Total 43,170 41,353 (1,817) 33,316
Total Public Safety $ 7,277,330 $ 7,275,648 $ (1,682) $ 6,866,165
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Administration:
Personal services 147,330 154,759 7,429 100,613
Other services and charges 75,890 68,044 (7,846) 120,587
Capital outlay 5,640 1,989 (3,651) 3,921
.Total 228,860 224,792 (4,068) 225,121
Total Community Development $ 228,860 $ 224,792 $ (4,068) $ 225,121
PUBLIC WORKS:
Administration:
Personal services $ 105,610 $ 158,570 $ 52,960 $ 139,677
Other services and charges 22,390 36,288 13,898 19,269
Capital outlay - 4,584
Total 128,000 194,858 66,858 163,530
Engineering:
Personal services 57,520 45,679 (11,841) 64,175
Other services and charges 88,730 71,428 (17,302) 59,144
Capital outlay 5,200 5,942 742
Total 151,450 123,049 (28,401) 123,319
r-+ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-3
GENERALFUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1996
1997
Over
Final (Under) 1996
Budget Actual Budget Actual
PUBLIC WORKS (continued)
Streets:
Personal services 415,210 379,808 (35,402) 404,543
Other services and charges 1,127,960 1,060,398 (67,562) 1,045,208
Capital outlay - 23,015
Total 1,543,170 1,440,206 (102,964) 1,472,766
Government Buildings:
Personal services 202,440 204,226 1,786 210,104
Other services and charges 20,510 21,613 1,103 39,312
Total 222,950 225,839 2,889 249,416
Park Maintenance:
Personal services 457,320 422,473 (34,847) 418,621
Other services and charges 307,970 308,752 782 306,8090
Capital outlay 4,476
Total 765,290 735,701 (29,589) 725,430
Lynda le/Nicollet Maintenance:
Personal services 600 (600) (1,620)
Other services and charges 3,790 3,701 (89) 4,532
Total 4,390 3,701 (689) 2,912
Forestry:
Personal services 125,070 135,352 10,282 108,676
Other services and charges 114,290 124,868 10,578 105,725
Capital outlay 10,000 7,863 (2,137) 9,176
Total 249,360 268,083 18,723 223,577
Total Public Works $ 3,064,610 $ 2,991,437 $ (73,173) $ 2,960,950
L
13-14-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM Ft3
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Concluded)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1996
RECREATION SERVICES:
Wood Lake Nature Center:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital Outlay
Total
1997
Over
Final (Under) 1996
Budget Actual Budget Actual
252,870 254,677 1,807
67,060 59,904 (7,156)
319,930 314,581 (5,349)
243,462
63,890
2,900
310,252
Recreation:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Total
Community Center:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
206,060 216,483 10,423 326,991
105,610 133,585 27,975 157,726
311,670 350,068 38,398 484,717
491,660 498,634 6,974 317,115
216,540 167,726 (48,814) 120,979
22,000 21,134 (866)
730,200 687,494 (42,706) 438,094
Total Recreation Services $ 1,361,800 $ 1,352,143 $ (9,657) $ 1,233,063
Total Expenditures $ 13,542,560 $ 13,338,379 $ (204,181) $ 12,813,727
13-is
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
•
0
f
m
x
W
•
W
a'
O to
N O7
} r
CO
C
U) C
W to
to A
Z O
W
a _
H W M
O
w `m
Z LL Q E
O W m
m m
O
O W m
lL J W C
m Q a' W
CL LL a
V O
LL 2 J
O }
0
W
U V LL
N
> m
• Q EE
CL `
2a
O
v
m to
O
w o
J N
r
t0
p C
O A t0
N r Ip.
N
N
A
OD
Of p
m r O
.° N
H
C
m N
c, A
40
O
N
N
to
n
A
00j v
m ? tD
O N
N N
W 0
9 M
m N
V A tri
O! p
t0
N
N
tp N
A 03
m ? N
_O
H N
m
t0
V N
c p
T tD
J A V
Of
O N
? N
N
ao
M
O
co
O.
Of M
A
a
m N
O
N to
co
Q at
A 0
O O
O O
r ao
N
a
m
N
' A A
? n
ap O A
CD m
r m A
r r
C4 0, A O A
f K N
ep- 0
r N to
r r
t0 tD
A M O
O. N H
A N th
A
O N
N N
p - 0)
Go co w
OD tD N
(D (D m
O H
C, N
N N
O P.
A
A M O
M f:
N Of N
A O
Of r'
N
t
O
A p
N
co cm Go
cm C%l
r Of O
N
M A O
M
iN0 CD O
00
M tD O
N to
0 m r-
f` O aD
A
OM N
M Cl) I
tD co
m
A
N
m
m
Q
m
a
A ?
? C
C O
to u
a ?
• o a
'm $ 0
m v 0
a _ a
0
U
x
0
0
A N 0
O A p
m ' N
A O
A W aODp O
t0 ' C4 N
? m V
r
O to W M
T
? 0 a N
h ?
p m A a
tD t0 M N
tD to to N
? O N
N
Q t0 e
to O M M
tD W M
co 0 0 N
O N
N
0 to M i
A N ao tD
Ili O. A
C-i
tff tD N
co
N r -
al to
N to to 0
ao O M
< M N
M O
01 co
V co N i
O1 M O O
A w O M
to a0 N
tp•1 0 c
0 r
tl ?l
co ao
04 O
fp0 0 N
N act
to
O .... to A
do N
O O: M POj
.rp.. N N
N
t0 A O yA
CO 00 a act A Yp
0 H r
W p r n
N r ?
M N M
40 to
N
t0 P>
.-
M
fn r '
N 0 N O)
M O pN
PNf N 0 go 1,
N N
M N N
O) N N O
O N r
N aD A
O. p CA a
N
M O Of
N M A N
O. p to N
d co tD
M N ' N
N Q N_ O.
Olt V Q O
N A p tD
M N N
m m N
tD M M O
N P 't to ap co
tD N to tD
Of A tD
A A O
tD A t0
V O O
tff M tD tff
t0 a0 A O
tD tD
C
0
N
N lift p ^
V M A
p o ac v,
N N V
N
tD O O
O N r Ol M
N Of r < tol r 0
O! N M p .N.. A N
NtD Of
.N.-. r w
N
M 0! M r M 0
ado in • = v GGo to
N < N CD
CO)
N
A
0
1
N
a
0
r M V
O. t0 tl! N ? A O
A O tV v N M
N to
N
N
m M O O N N
N tD N I tD I A
ao q ' ?- v
.
. A a0
..
N r th A
tD
N
N
to A tD 0 M N
N M M t0 ? A
W 0 M r tl7 M
? tH N to .... W N
N
N
N N O N b N
ao co
`? v Pf V
N fo Of O
A
N
N
Pmt M N R w aao
A tD N N aD t0 tD
N N A .ar.. to cn
A
N
tOAI ?i mu
M A ' .r.. O tD at
N N cq 0
to
N
m m N
A
y 0
m m
C
c
M
0
.
?
G
m
E a
m G x
W
a : c m m a
m
G
to as
° x
W m
o O
c c m
i E
m m
CO
?
.. % c m > c
C O m Y
> m
H C
° m
A
c?
a -a e °
m a p A r o
o m A O a? E ? v r
a a
a t) a a ° «m' O l0 t0
0 z`vTmv
0 a a -
, o?
y a
m
m
m r -
CL to
x
v
a
? C
m ?
COL
W. O
a
C w
? m
m
CL m
c o c
O
2 c
0 ?
? z
13--1(v
' )r
////// 1
/ CD co
1!? O 0
r co O
1M
O V
tC co
O M
1o O
r O
M O
M co
co m
w M
N ~
e0 O
CO) M
t0
,,,••• ,,,•••
r
OO oo
ap
O
r
1I7
N
N
r
O
V
?
?
Of
?
N
M
tD
It9
co r
1tf t0 tD to O O 'eh O tp itf ti M O 1!f f` Qf tC N O
t7f QI t. r O r O O M tD A t- M m O W r
Q 01 tD N d? N N in O tD CO Go N r r r
LL r th r 1t; r- to O N CD
r M r r N
y y
l0
?r
H
et
r
N
/?
le
a
O
CO)
Ip
M
O
t10
to
N
O
O
O
O
OD
d OO
1 w O
(D LH
I V-
tH N
tD N r
L!? N
r ?
w O
o ao
CO IV
w O
w
' O
of N
O a
M OD
co
N CV) r co r O tq O N M O W O
r CO In Of
O N
co ?
N N N V) M O OMf C4 N 0 M M
N o a t0 9 N N 0 I
r M r r N
y y
L N O
O
Of
J 1 - N t
C Os ti O
m O
m LL
w
N
y
tq
m Of tD M ti O M N N 0 tD O co Cl)
O n O ' ti a
0 M cn r OO In O Cf O O CO)
w r N 1- M Ut r N le O
_
O C N t0 N M Cf 4 O
r r
w- C
W) tC M N th
ym, LL tD t- N 1? N T- ? 'et r
v N N tO t'/ N M
F-
0 w y
O7 W
Z Q N m 'O M 0 M M O V- N CO) N r M
? = V C)
Os 3 ' V.-
M to
'a f` O Go Go
co V-
CO) CV)
O 0
O 1- O CV)
LL Z N LL tOD to r tD t; 00 IA M N C;
G LL Q e 7 E r A
r N t09 in O IV 01`O
J
W N J
Q `
y
O .
LL d m .0 v, sR
s E
U W Z u
Q' H Z to >? 01 to to r 1` N to O N M M O r O tD M
LL Z D O S 0 M O M O ? co N 0 0 0 N 0 O N N co
_ OO r N O I %i r O M M et 41 It to U IA
}
O C r f• M r et O IIY OD M in r, O 0 -e 0
U w 7 Of M P- O N a0 co 0 0 N M in
U t0 3 U. M c l; r; 1: 1` O M
m r r r
N w
y
to
ti
? 00
r O M
O le m CO r t- r
d II '
Q- Olt ' I
C M O M N ? V
•V U.
U. r
ti N
M M
O r
r CO
Co 01 07 -
tD
r O 0
0 r r O Qf
C
O
to
CD ? ? O O V- r-
O r M N N
J to y
w
C
m
m V
c =
O
N E 3
C
m •Z O
U C H •
> °'
> m
N
N
h w
C °'
E m
` m
` E
O
U)
=
m
V
m
d
y
t7f
d d
m C9 Q N
o
Z E O
•
m O m
C O
c
m &-
m c to C 0 d d .,
C Q
m CL w
ilf
FA
L A w N m 'D R m w N tT £ 'O m = m C
m
w m N r
v 0 E 3 U)
0 C > y m m IL CL M >
2- C O R H
N
y m w E
a- m U Q a
m Q V
an
d 3 >%
r Q
c 3 m o ?a m E E 3 Lr R
1' C r Of V m C 1- v m N .O. w N C C m '?••
0 V G
1-
W to U) m a m
w 7
G ? m « > w
U ? m R m c. ? u ? s O L
U m C a m 0 0 J m 0 0 0 m
Q U J a J Z
0
I*
•
0 of
IL T
L
J
Q
H
O
ti
0
0
T-
t
O
N
It? OOi Cl
0 N O
? IO
M co T7
M ?t 0
N T v
N r N
It-
41k
co r M
M r ti
h r Of
to r 0
to to r
r
1 .0 00 r-
Io ti N
r ? tD
M N M
N r O
r
t/I•
a
J ?
« C
m
m U-
N
C
O
R ?
CD c
3
V LL
m
L
C
3 ?
y 3
N U.
• E r
L
O
N ?
T
C
L ? C
« m U.
?
N
IT O I`
Ln M ti
M N N
r
1- 10 1 le
Lo CC O.
In ti
t0 C
a-
•V LL
C O
7 7
2 H
J
E
O
u).
gn r IO
CO r M
N N
er O ?
to to
M I LO
co m
N r
r r
r ?
N
44
N
to
cl
N
r
VI,
Go
r;
r
to
QMf Q1 'at
O tO t0
M to tD
m N M
N
N co r-
co
M N M
w co CO
r
w m N
?
m
_ ,Q H «
w d
m J
m to w ` .'
.. m m j m
.
I
2
Q
_ m ` C O
M
0 to 7
(D
• 0-
in
L U
-o
0. -0
W tD to N
.
Q C y N m m
'
j
t
:p
J
« 7 O
, .
.
a m 0) O o
O
m m
0 F
a o
m L L
V
c ?
m
E
Q ? O Q
U 3
J U
Q
J U p
m O M co O M O C> co O O e M f 9
f
1lY O N N M CO O ee ti Cl M r 10 ?_
ID O tD CO C CO O M CO O M C %i /
mto IV v rN.O er N OM to O
M N w t- r M N M M N CO r
r r M I w r M M M Of r
r r M 1? M C t}
r N N
4901
u> O to I. to M O to 0 O w v 0
an O In N M CO O I I%- O M M CO
to O tO a 10 Cf O Iq O Olqt M O
CD O W to r? O N N O M w co
m M w O r O N M CO) r ti 0)
r r N co w M M Of In M
N ti M V eF
r N N
41
O O O
N N ff
01 0 0)
CV)
co C-4 w
t a
lcO
I
Ol
I
C
n r
tb O M W) l
m P? CD 'r.
r r M M
to
W CD in LO 0 In Go Go m
to O to w O tb r r O
w O o> O C O Cf of O
M M t0 r O T- Ul) to t-
r r ti co M M to a
r N N N of
w
co co C14 W) Pl- m
e le %- 0 %- Cc
Ip IG M IO a II9
ID co r N Of co
N N O M M to
tO t? ? ?
I I I
co m N O O O M
M r M O l a a>
w co m w m t?-
r r M N M t
NI NIN
tq
h
«
c
m
E
0 w
w N >
O 7
m
E
? 10
,, .a
m
w C
m
d C
CL J N
m
w
N H
m
N w y «
C _
p. O V >+
U) d L C m V` o -p O C
Q
C
U
> m
M J
Mm m m R
W J
-a a m m >+ m
3 Z
m
m o
« *0
v 0
to 0 0 'O R a O
CL U) c m m O O
(A
V O 4,
O m? c
p
3 m Q m m o p cr
U p j m w
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and 1996
Operating Revenues:
Sales
Less cost of sales
Net Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
Sewer service charges
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest
Net gain (loss) on sale of assets
Other revenues
Interest and fiscal charges
Net Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)
Income (Loss) Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers In (Out):
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Projects Funds
Internal Service Funds
Transfers from Component Unit
Net Operating Transfers In (Out)
Net Income
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
Municipal Water & Sewer
Liquor Fund Utility Fund
$ 8,006,966 $ 4,031,366
(6,168,338)
1,838,628 4,031,366
813,430
342,037
78,077
1,233,544
605,084
1,707,264
1,021,475
1,107,589
497,413
4,333,741
(302,375)
0
11,316 82,060
22,488 3,759
33,804 85,819
638,888 (216,556)
(171,040)
(250,000)
(421,040)
217,848
2,376,260
$ 2,594,108
25,390
25,390
(191,166)
7,519,771
$ 7,328,605
-76-
•
•
Storm Sewer
Utility Fund
$ 757,693
757,693
154,830
228,151
116,699
499,680
258,013
5,457
4,200
(92,567)
(82,910)
175,103
175,103
Recreation
Fund
$ 2,133,738
(109,542)
2,024,196
970,787
590,965
160,489
1,722,241
301,955
75,489
35,361.00
110,850.00
412,805
24,050
(50,000)
(25,950)
386,855
2,384,080 1,364,987
$ 2,559,183 1,751,842
Street
Light Fund
$ 78,064
78,064
78,064
1,816
1,816
79,880
(78,400)
(78,400)
1,480
8,240
$ 9,720
/3-ao
FORM J-1
TOTAL
1997 1996
$ 15,007,827
(6,277,880)
8,729,947
$ 14,122,316
(5,771,425)
8,350,891
1,862,094
3,033,843
2,157,290
1,235,659
7,789,206
940,741
176,138
4,200
61,608
(92,567)
149,379
1,090,120
(249,440)
(225,950)
25,390
(50,000)
(500,000)
590,120
13,653,338
$ 14,243,458
1,811,616
2,763,353
2,050,651
741,222
7,366,842
984,049
252,077
32,060
434,458
(95,816)
622,779
1,606,828
(217,670)
(501,330)
70,476
(50,000)
(698,524)
908,304
12,745,034
$ 13,653,338
-77-
«? l CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1997 and 1996
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable
Inventory
Prepaid Items
Total Current Assets
Property and Equipment:
Land
Buildings
Office equipment
Machinery and equipment
Other improvements
Construction in Progress
Less accumulated depreciation
Net Property and Equipment
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable
Due to other governments
Deferred Revenue
Total Current Liabilities
Equity -
Retained earnings:
Reserved for capital improvements
Unreserved
Total Retained Earnings
FORM J-4
1997 1996
$ 71,166
32,706
553,541
11,441
668,854
$ 997,839
1,860
391,795
10,401
1,401,895
499,188
1,979,480
16,963
470,184
96,083
3,061,898
951,221
2,110,677
273,188
1,058,396
17,629
318,040
86,581
837,795
2,591,629
873,810
1,717,819
$ 2,779,531 $ 3,119,714
$ 17,815
83,224
82,748
1,636
185,423
$ 592,588
77,424
71,806
1,636
743,454
330,000 330,000
2,264,108 2,046,260
2,594,108 2,376,260
•
•
Total Liabilities and Equity $ 2,779,531 $ 3,119,714 0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1997 and 1996
Operating Revenues:
Sales
Less cost of sales
Net Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest
Other revenues
Other expenses
Net Nonoperating Revenues
Income Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers Out:
General Fund
Contributions - Liquor Fund
Total Operating Transfers Out
Net Income (Loss)
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
1997
$ 8,006,966
(6,168,338)
1,838,628
813,430
342,037
78,077
1,233,544
605,084
11,316
24,700
(2,212)
33,804
638,888
(171,040)
(250,000)
(421,040)
217,848
159,363
2,376,260 2,216,897
$ 2,594,108
$ 2,376,260
l3-C?:&- -
FORM J-5
1996
$ 7,344,538
(5,686,188)
1,658,350
677,919
283,350
58,631
1,019,900
638,450
53,778
27,871
(15,066)
66,583
705,033
(145,670)
(400,000)
(545,670)
0
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Receivables:
Service charges:
Billed
Unbilled services
Due from other governments
Inventory
Total Current Assets
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1997 and 1996
1997
$ 1,918,859
374,136
734,589
4,091
10,207
3,041,882
FORM J-6
1996
1,839,229
466,947
710,640
2,504
7,170
3,026,490
Long-Term Assets -
Due from other governments -
Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services:
Operating cost adjustment (1996 and 1995) (164,012)
Interceptor acquisition contract 205,125 369,198
Total Long-Term Assets 205,125 205,186
Property and Equipment:
0
Land 53,550 53,550
Buildings 3,886,307 3,886,307
Office equipment
Machinery and equipment 34,303
5,657,423 28,187
5,602,078
Other improvements 7,977,898 7,907,335
17,609,481 17,477,457
Less accumulated depreciation 7,259,925 6,782,882
Net Property and Equipment 10,349,556 10,694,575
Total Assets 13,596,563 _
13,926,251
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 112,862 $ 190,310
Contracts payable 60,310
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable 93,893 94,212
Due to other governments:
Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services:
Interceptor acquisition - current (113,725)
Operating cost adjustment (1995 and 1994) 113,784
Reserve Capacity
Other 29,891 30,277
Total Current Liabilities 236,646 375,168
Equity:
Contributed capital:
Property owners 533,584 533,584
Special assessments 3,196,500 3,196,500
City aid for construction 2,271,228 2,271,228
Federal grant 30,000 30,000
Total Contributed Capital 6,031,312 6,031,312
Retained earnings -
Unreserved 7,328,605 7,657,309 40
Total Equity 13,359,917 13,551,083
Total Liabilities and Equity 13,596,563 13,926,251
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-7
WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1997 and 1996
•
Operating Revenues:
Sales and user fees
Water availability charges
Reserve capacity charges
Certification fees
Customer service charges
Sales of materials and supplies
Penalty charges
Total Operating Revenues
1997 1996
3,808,107
683
9,800
134,491
15,357
62,928
4,031,366
$ 3,685,313
1,074
9,000
13,626
129,988
6,077
65,707
3,910,785
1,811,616
990,818
1,021,780
412,206
4,236,420
(325,635)
Operating Expenses:
Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services -
Sewer service charges
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Loss
Nonoperating Revenues -
Interest:
Deferred current value credit
Other Revenue
Interest
Total Nonoperating Revenues
Income (Loss) Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers In (Out) -
Capital Projects Funds
Transfers from Component Unit
Net Operating Transfers In (Out)
Net Income
1,707,264
1,021,475
1,107,589
497,413
4,333,741
(302,375)
3,759
82,060
85,819
23,691
4,189
89,741
117,621
(216,556) (208,014)
25,390
25,390
70,476
70,476
(191,166) (137,538)
0 Retained Earnings - January 1 7,519,771 7,657,309
Retained Earnings - December 31
$ 7,328,605
$ 7,519,771
i 3 as
ASSETS
s.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-8
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1997 and 1996
1997 1996
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Receivables -
Service charges -
Due from other governments
Unbilled services
Total Current Assets
Restricted Assets -
Cash and cash equivalents for debt service
Property and Equipment:
Office equipment
Machinery and equipment
Other improvements
Less accumulated depreciation
Net Property and Equipment
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
52,756
9,466
113,557
175,779
$ 335,918
8,695
116,785
461,398
211,513 216,612
6,840
100,681
5,398,312
5,505,833
1,023,092
4,482,741
6,840
77,630
4,440,964
4,525,434
906,394
3,619,040
$ 4,870,033
Current Liabilities (Payable from Current Assets):
Accounts payable $ 64,485
Due to other governments 11,263
Loan Payable 458,211
Contracts payable 7,236
Total Current Liabilities (Payable from Current Assets) 541,195
Current Liabilities (Payable from Restricted Assets):
Accrued interest payable
Bonds payable
Total Current Liabilities
(Payable from Restricted Assets)
Deferred Revenue
Bonds payable
Total Liabilities
Equity -
Retained earnings -
Unreserved
Total Liabilities and Equity
39,655
130,000
169,655
$ 4,297,050
$ 8,704
11,263
19,967
39,655
125,000
164,655
1,600,000 1,730,000
2,310,850 1,914,622
2,559,183 2,384,080
$ 4,870,033 $ 4,298,702
0
0
13-a ?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-9
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1997 and 1996
Operating Revenues:
Charges for services
Customer service charges
Penalty charges
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest income
Sale of assets
Other Revenue
Interest and fiscal charges
Net Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)
Income Before Operating Transfers
Net Income
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
1997 1996
$ 732,295
16,816
8,582
757,693
$ 736,935
16,387
8,960
762,282
154,830
228,151
116,699
499,680
258,013
5,457
4,200
(92,567)
(82,910)
175,103
175,103
2,384,080
$ 2,559,183
150,319
154,409
114,684
419,412
342,870
28,654
379,768
(95,816)
312,606
655,476
655,476
1,728,604
$ 2,384,080
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN ASSETS RESTRICTED
FOR REVENUE BOND DEBT SERVICE
For the Years Ended December 31, 1997 and 1996
FORM J-10
1997 1996
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year $ 218,264 $ 216,612
Cash receipts -
Transfer from operating cash 210,816 212,468
Cash disbursements:
Principal payments 125,000 115,000
Interest payments 92,567 95,816
Total cash disbursements 217,567 210,816
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 211,513 $ 218,264
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RECREATION FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1997 and 1996
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable
Due from other governments
Inventory
Prepaid items
Total Current Assets
Property and Equipment:
Land
Buildings
Office equipment
Machinery and equipment
Other improvements
Less accumulated depreciation
Net Property and equipment
Total Assets
L--Jl
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Loan payable
Contracts payable
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable
Due to other governments
Total Current Liabilities
Loan payable
Equity:
Contributed capital -
City
Retained earnings -
Unreserved
Total Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
1997
$ 622,739
50,939
56,766
183
730,627
179,135
2,964,213
10,782
711,557
2,250,509
6,116,196
3,703,790
2,412,406
$ 3,143,033
$ 3,574
2,900
12,737
54,577
856
74,644
14,983
1,301,564
1,751,842
3,053,406
$ 3,143,033
13-- c18
FORM J-11
1996
$ 469,922
4,996
50,000
71,149
185
596,252
179,135
2,592,713
10,782
680,991
2,241,804
5,705,425
3,543,301
2,162,124
$ 2,758,376
$ 17,900
2,900
51,758
662
73,220
17,885
1,301,564
1,364,987
2,666,551
$ 2,757,656
13aq
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-12
RECREATION FUND ,
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1997 and 1996
Operating Revenues:
User fees
Sales of merchandise and concessions
Less cost of sales
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest income
Other
Total Nonoperating Revenues
Income Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers In (Out):
Special Revenue - Cable Television Fund
Internal Service -
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
Net Operating Transfers In (Out)
Net Income
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
1997 1996
$ 2,036,926
96,812
(109,542)
2,024,196
$ 1,822,729
204,066
(85,237)
1,941,558
970,787
590,965
160,489
1,722,241
301,955
75,489
35,361
110,850
412,805
24,050
944,298
591,112
155,700
1,691,110
250,448
54,656
69,756
124,412
374,860
(101,330)
(50,000) (50,000)
(25,950) (151,330)
386,855 223,530
1,364,987 1,141,457
$ 1,751,842
$ 1,364,987
0
l3-30
C7
•
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
to
s? ( CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
1 _ . RECREATION FUND
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and 1996
Operating Revenues:
User Fees
Sales of merchandise and concession
Less cost of sales
Net Operating Revenues
Ice Arena
$ 289,901
23,085
(12,843)
300,143
202,630
152,977
27,713
$ 176,487
25,063
(13,257)
188,293
Operating Expenses:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest income
Loss on sale of assets
Other Revenues (Expenses)
Net Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)
Income (Loss) Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers In (Out):
Special Revenue
Internal Service - Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund
Net Operating Transfers In (Out)
Net Income (Loss)
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
383,320
(83,177)
13,467
13,467
(69,710)
131,907
56,966
6,835
195,708
(7,415)
201
201
(7,214)
120,500
120,500
(25,000)
(25,000)
50,790
Swimming
Pool
(32,214)
(178,991) (209,403)
$ (128,201) $ (241,617)
40
E
0
FORM J-13
is
•
Municipal Special
Golf Course Facilities
$ 1,514,168 $ 56,370
34,324 14,340
(76,615) (6,827)
1,471,877 63,883
600,543 35.,707
354,108 26,914
107,254 18,687
1,061,905 81,308
409,972 (17,425)
75,489
5,017 16,676
80,506 16,676
490,478 (749)
(96,450)
(25,000)
(96,450) (25,000)
394,028 (25,749)
1,823,923 (70,542)
$ 2,217,951 $ (96,291)
Total
1997
1996
$ 2,036,926 $ 1,822,729
$ 96,812 204,066
(109,542) (85,237)
2,024,196 1,941,558
970,787 944,298
590,965 591,112
160,489 155,700
1,722,241 1,691,110
301,955 250,448
75,489 54,656
35,361 69,756
110,850 124,412
412,805 374,860
24,050 (101,330)
(50,000) (50,000)
(25,950) (151,330)
386,855 223,530
1,364,987 1,141,457
$ 1,751,842 $ 1,364,987
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STREET LIGHTING FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1997 and 1996
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Equity -
Retained earnings -
Unreserved
Total Liabilities and Equity
1997
$ 9,720
$ 9,720
$ 9,720
$ 9,720
1996
$ 8,240
$ 8,240
$ 8,240
$ 8,240
FORM J-14
to
•
0
•
•
13--3Ll
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-15
STREET LIGHTING FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1997and 1996
Operating Revenues:
Charges for services
Nonoperating Revenues:
Interest income
Income Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers (Out):
General Fund
Net Income
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
1997 1996
$ 78,064 $ 77,916
1,816
79,880
1,557
79,473
(78,400)
1,480
8,240
$ 9,720
(72,000)
7,473
767
$ 8,240
•
0
/C')'-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 56
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning property along Interstate 494 that is
inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Background:
On September 22, 1997 the City Council adopted a resolution establishing a
moratorium on development along 1-494, between Pleasant and Cedar Avenues. Much
of the property along 1-494 is zoned industrial, which permits uses that would be
inconsistent with the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan encourages more intensely developed, higher quality regional commercial and
office uses along the City's freeways.
Thirty-six properties in the study area have zoning that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Of these properties, the Planning Commission recommends that
33 be rezoned to a zoning district similar to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the
property.
• The Commission recommends that one property not be rezoned at this time. The
property, 7744-Commission12th Avenue, recommends that currently two has a other gas properties station , on 84- it but 78th is Street guided West by the
7727
Wentworth Avenue, be rezoned to the C-2 zoning classification. These properties are
guided by the Comprehensive Plan to be high density multiple housing. The owners of
these two properties expressed concern to the Commission about the potential effect of
the rezoning their properties to MR-3 (high density multiple housing). The Commission
agreed to recommend rezoning the properties to C-2 instead of MR-3. The C-2 district
allows multiple housing as a conditional use, so the rezoning would not be inconsistent
with the Plan.
Comprehensive Plan for high density multiple housing. The Commission determined
that it would be appropriate and still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and goals to
maintain some neighborhood commercial uses in the area.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning the properties identified in
Attachment A that are located along 1-494 and are inconsistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission has reviewed the zoning and Comprehensive Plan
designations of property in the study area and determined that it is appropriate to
rezone the inconsistent properties.
/C?t-1
2. On February 24, 1998 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend rezoning the properties.
3. The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for the City to guide future land use
decisions. When redevelopment occurs, it should be consistent with the goals
and objectives found in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
4. The City's zoning does not adequately address the development of property along
1-494 in a manner consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The Planning Commission hosted an open house from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. on
February 24 for owners of property to be rezoned. The Commission received
feedback and answered questions about the rezoning.
6. Owners of property to be rezoned will be provided with a comparison of the
different zoning districts before the City Council public hearing.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the rezonings with changes.
2. Deny the rezonings at first reading.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading of the ordinance amendment is set for March 9,
public hearing and second reading will be scheduled on April
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
1998. If approved, a
13, 1998.
0
r to -c;L
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix 1, which describes the boundaries of various zoning districts of the
City, is hereby amended in the following respect:
A. Section 1, Paragraph (6), is amended to read as follows:
(6) M 46 That aFea hying between the eenter "Res ef'_7.7_fh aRd 78th
StFeets aRd hettyeeR the ee"teF lute of Ceeen`'dA\yenl to and the west right of
t
. (Repealed, Bill No. I
B. Section 1, Paragraph (10), is amended to read as follows:
. (10) MA 4 C. (6 side of 77th, VV of Pe nd) That area hying hettyeen the
t
Avenue evtend-eyd ar;yd the ea t lute of RaRft' Additiw:. (Repealed, Bill No.
C. Section 3, Paragraph (27), is amended to read as follows:
(27) M 46 That area hying hetweeR the G9nter "Res of 6eGA_Rd_ Aventto
and GlinteR Ayent 1e evtenrl erl and hetWeen the eerier liner. of 77th and 78th
t
meets. (Repealed, Bill No. I
D. Section 3, Paragraph (48), is amended to read as follows:
(48) M-16, 18 (S of 77th, Nicollet to Park) near oer+la d That area lying
between the original center lines of 77th aRd 78th and the center line of
78th Street, and between the east lines of lots 4, 5, and 6. Block 7, R.C. Soen's
Addition and the center line of ParkGWsage Avenue extended.;
ect
nept the cee a deSvrerihC erd ae.fellet? s- he R9Fth 13-2.6; feet t of vr the Set tht?y
? rTC--cr? aZrv crcn a ? cvz
2xv
t
Tewnc.hin 29, Range 74t eveent the west 261.97 feet thereof (Amended, Bill No.
0 E. Section 3, Paragraph (62), is amended to read as follows:
la-3
(62)
(Repealed. Bill No.
).
F. Section 3, Paragraph (68), is added to read as follows:
(68) M-16 That area lying between the original centerline of 77th Street and the
centerline 78th Street and between the center line of Wentworth Avenue and the West
right-of-way line of the Soo Line Railway.
G. Section 3, Paragraph (69), is added to read as follows:
(69) M-16 (NE corner of 78th and Wentworth) Lot 4, Block 6, R.C. Soen's
Addition.
H. Section 13, Paragraph (7), is amended to read as follows:
(7) M-18 (S of 77th Street, Chicago to 12thcV?F,R8r 77+h aRd 1244)
That area lying between the ^e^ter'tMe° of 77th and 78th Streets and between
the e+e RteF line of 11th twee 1e a xte,Rded park Avenue extended-and th°i,-rcvacae
line 9 12th Avenue except the east 185 feet of the south 135 feet thereof.
1. Section 13, Paragraph (9), is amended to read as follows:
(9)
Ctreet amd'~terstate Highway 494, aRd hetwee" Ghmeage AyeRu°_a_nd-the GeRte
'i"e of elliet n.,e.,,,e eAeR&d (Repealed, Bill No. ).
J. Section 13, Paragraph (10), is amended to read as follows:
(10)
See ' , TeWRGhip , RaRge , e*ee t the west 264.07 feet theretef R-Rd-
. 4993 (Repealed, Bill No. ).
K. Section 13, Paragraph (17), is added to read as follows:
(17) M-16 (SE corner of 77th and Wentworth) That area lying between
77th and 78th Streets, and between Wentworth Avenue and the east lines of
Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 7, R.C. Soen's Addition, and excluding Lot 4, Block 6,
R.C. Soen's Addition.
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 7701
4th Avenue, 7715 4th Avenue, 7720-40 4th Avenue, 7731 4th Avenue, 7701 5th
Avenue, 7708 5th Avenue, 7714 5th Avenue, 7744 5th Avenue, 345 77th Street
East, 415 77th Street East, 631 77th Street East, 701-735 77th Street East, 901-
1001 77th Street East, 710-734 78th Street East, 900-1000 77th Street East,
140 78th Street East, the east 70 feet of 330 East 78th Street, 500 78th Street
East, 45-99 77th Street West, 30-80 and 90 78th Street West, 84 78th Street
West, 100 78th Street West, 200 78th Street West, 7700 Nicollet Avenue, 7701
Nicollet Avenue, 7717 Nicollet Avenue, 7720 Nicollet Avenue, 7700 Pillsbury
Avenue, 7701 Pillsbury Avenue, 7709 Pillsbury Avenue, 7715 Pillsbury Avenue,
7717 Pillsbury Avenue, 7721 Pillsbury Avenue, 7700 Wentworth Avenue, 7720
Wentworth Avenue, 7727 Wentworth Avenue
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
lJ
Attachment A 4-9
Proposed Rezonings --1-494 Properties
# Property Address Business/Apartment Name Existing New Comp Plan Current Proposed
Land Use Designation Zoning Zoning
1 7701 4th Ave S Premier Properties APT C-R/O I C-2
2 7715 4th Ave S Single Family Residential RES C-R/O I C-2
3 7720-7740 4th Ave S Crestwood Apts APT C-R/O I C-2
4 7731 4th Ave S Blaylock Plumbing Company IND C-R/O I C-2
5 7701 5th Ave S Parking Lot COM C-R/O I C-2
6 7708 5th Ave S Parking Lot COM C-R/O I C-2
7 7714 5th Ave S Bon Auto Works COM C-R/O I C-2
8 7744 5th Ave S Arby's COM C-R/O I C-2
9 345 77th St E Richfield-Bloom. Credit Union COM C-R/O I C-2
10 415 77th St E Richfield Wheel Alignment COM C-R/O I C-2
11 631 77th St E Boyum Properties APT C-R/O MR-3 C-2
12 701-735 77th St E Hampton Place Apts APT RMH C-2 MR-3
14 710-734 78th St E Hampton Place Apartments APT RMH C-2 MR-3
13 901-1001 77th St E Heritage Square Apts APT RMH C-2 MR-3
15 900-1000 77th St E Heritage Square Apts APT RMH C-2 MR-3
16 140 78th St E Burger King COM C-R/O I C-2
17 330 78th St E Assumption Catholic Church* CHURCH QUASI-PUBLIC I C-2
18 500 78th St E Khan's Mongolian Restaurant COM C-R/O I C-2
19 45-99 77th St W New Orleans Court Apts APT RMH I MR-3
20 30-80 and 90 78th St W New Orleans Court Apts APT RMH I MR-3
21 84 78th St W Sherwin-Williams COM RMH I C-2
22 100 78th St W Viking Paints IND C-R/O I C-2
23 200 78th St W Minnesota Mini-Storage COM C-R/O I C-2
24 7700 Nicollet Ave S Embers COM C-R/O I C-2
25 7701 Nicollet Ave S Chi Chi's COM C-R/O I C-2
26 7717 Nicollet Ave S Menards COM C-R/O I C-2
27 7720 Nicollet Ave S Super America COM C-R/O I C-2
28 7700 Pillsbury Ave S City Garage PUB C-R/O I C-2
29 7701 Pillsbury Ave S Carlson Construction IND C-R/O I C-2
Universal Power Conversion
McCann and Associates
Cool Stuff Brokerage
Press Parts
30 7709 Pillsbury Ave S Anchor Fence Co. of Minnesota IND C-R/O I C-2
31 7715 Pillsbury Ave S Williams Drywall IND C-R/O I C-2
32 7717 Pillsbury Ave S George Printing IND C-R/O I C-2
33 7721 Pillsbury Ave S Direct Line IND C-R/O I C-2
34 7700 Wentworth Ave S Hollenbeck and Nelson IND C-R/O I C-2
35 7720 Wentworth Ave S Hoveco Janitorial Supplies IND C-R/O I C-2
36 7727 Wentworth Ave S Multiple Family Residential APT RMH I C-2
* Rezoning 70 foot strip of land on east side of church property. Main portion of church property is zoned C-2.
LAND USE KEY COMP PLAN KEY ZONING KEY
COM = commercial RMH = high density multiple housing C-2 = general commercial
APT = apartment C-R/O = regional commercial/office I = industrial
IND = industrial MR-3 = high density multiple housing
RES = residential
?!
44
rO
V
•
O
N
O
O
y?
• Vol
O
O
O
a
U
vim- •-`
O ?
U L
U N L N
L ? O Q.
E U
e U - E
O •O B i>,
U O .-
o 9-
c E "as a
O O co -a
CM.0 O
6
c??U=
ca z d-
QUUfy12
E
00110
C ;
a
m:
M
c
m
s
L
a
cc
•U
L
n C
E
& V CU
•U 7 N
L
„>, c
L
U •N Y7 •A
Co =?? C E
LN co LM y--
_- c N
S ? ?
to ... 'a , N •
y
C
i5 C?
cm L) CL Ix
G -
N ®o
Y'
Lim
r ? x 2 $xY
x
'1xL .? 'f?.t ^?tl
Cf
c
'c
O
N
v
d
0
G.
O
CL
Hip
101
co
rn
rn
C
ca
ii
AW
W
0
0L^
0
O
O
Lo
anwny TI Z
anwntl P
.a
Q. 3
? a
o ?
Y
o (j
a
Q
L
O -
U
N
?Q
C
a`)Eo
V E N
E 0
8 c ?w
O a)
N 2? co
N of
U
ME
Y
o
m
a
c
'v
m
E
V-
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 55
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance amending Chapters 3 and 8 of the Richfield
City Charter.
Background:
The Richfield City Charter Commission has recommended that the City Council amend
the Richfield City Charter by ordinance. The proposed ordinance would amend Section
3.05 of the Charter and would amend Chapter 8 of the Charter by adding two new
sections.
Under the amendment to Section 3.05, the required time period between first and
second reading of any ordinance would be increased from seven to fourteen days. This
change would not affect the City's current practice, which typically has a two to four
week time lapse between first and second reading.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 8 would add Sections 8.04 and 8.05. Section
8.04 would require that any capital improvement on City owned property that has an
. estimated cost in excess of $500,000, or any such improvement with estimated design
or engineering costs in excess of $75,000, must be approved by ordinance after a
public hearing. The City Attorney has indicated that this section would not affect road
improvement projects in City rights-of-way but would affect capital improvement
projects on properties owned by the City in fee. However, the City Attorney has
suggested that the Council may wish to confirm that that was the Charter Commission's
intent.
Section 8.05 would require that notice of public hearing be published at least twice in
the official newspaper within 14 days prior to the public hearing, and would permit the
City Council to give additional notice as it deems advisable. The notice must contain
the estimated costs of the capital improvement. The City Attorney has recommended a
minor change to Section 8.05, changing the phrase "required by this chapter" to
"required by Section 8.04". The change is for purposes of clarification and would not
change the substantive effect of the charter amendment.
To be effective, the charter amendment will require unanimous approval of the City
Council after the public hearing and second reading. The first reading may be
approved upon a majority vote.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve first reading of an ordinance relating to City government; amending Section
3.05 and Chapter 8 of the Richfield City Charter; modifying procedures for the
adoption of ordinances; and requiring public hearing and ordinance for certain
I/-/
capital improvements, and set a public hearing and second reading for April 13,
1998.
2. Direct staff to obtain the Charter Commission's response to the City Attorney's
proposed change to Section 8.05.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A public hearing will provide the Council the opportunity to obtain public comment
on the proposed charter amendment.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance
amending the Charter, but adoption by ordinance is the only means of enacting
charter amendments without an election.
2. The Council may choose another date for the public hearing and second reading if
there are any scheduled absences for the April 13 meeting. Approval of a charter
amendment requires unanimous Council approval.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approve first reading of an ordinance amending Section 3.05 and Chapter 8 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Respectf y submitted,
James Prosser
City M ger
JDP:cak
Copy: Shirley Johnson, Charter Commission President
•
0 BILL NO. //-C-
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT;
AMENDING SECTION 3.05 AND CHAPTER 8 OF THE
RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER; MODIFYING PROCEDURES
FOR THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES; REQUIRING
PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE FOR
CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
•
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background: findings; authority.
1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by home rule charter adopted pursuant to
the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act).
1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an
amendment (Amendment) to Chapters 2 and 8 of the charter and recommended to the
City Council that the Amendment be adopted by City Council ordinance in the manner
prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is
set out in Section 2.02.
1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on by the City
Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as
required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description. of the nature and scope of
the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment
were heard at the public hearing.
1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted.
Sec. 2 Adoption; effective date; filing.
2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Charter Commission is adopted.
2.02. The text of the Amendment is as follows:
a. Section 3.05 of the City Charter is amended to read as follows:
•
Section 3.05. Procedure on Ordinances. The enacting clause of all
ordinances shall be in the words "City of Richfield does ordain." Every
ordinance shall be presented in writing. No ordinance except an
emergency ordinance shall be passed at the meeting at which it is
introduced and at least seven fourteen P 14) days shall elapse
between its introduction and its final passage.
11
II,3
b. Chapter 8 of the City Charter is amended by adding two new sections
as follows:
Section 8.04. Approval by Ordinance. Any capital improvement on
City owned property which has an estimated cost exceeding
$500,000.00 or expenditures for design or engineering costs
exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a public
hearing.
Section 8.05. Notice of Public Hearings. Notice of public hearings
required by this chapter shall be published at least twice in the official
newspaper within fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing.
Additional notice of such public hearings may be given in such manner
as the Council may determine. This notice must contain the estimated
costs of the capital improvement.
•
2.03. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except that if
within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this
ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is
filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the
voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council
for that purpose.
2.04. On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of
Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the
certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
470 Pillsbury Center
OAF 200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
c H A R T E R E e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
CORRINE H. THOMSON
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9217
e-mail: cthomson@kennedy-graven.com
March 5, 1998
Jim Prosser
City of Richfield BY FAX AND MAIL
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Proposed Charter Amendment
Dear Jim:
Enclosed is a. proposed ordinance for consideration by the city council on March 9. The
ordinance repeats the changes proposed by the city charter commission, although I have corrected
spelling errors, as well as the omission of the word "the" before "council" in Section 8.05. The
changes that I have made are not substantive and merely correct clerical errors.
The proposed amendment to section 3.05 would extend the time period between first and second
reading from seven to fourteen days. This is consistent with current practice.
Section 8.04 would add a requirement that capital improvements constructed on "City owned
property" and in excess of certain specified amounts must be approved by ordinance after a
public hearing. i T would strictly lr interpret . ??y "C'it . vr`meal" property to ii'1Cll.1de , i,. r. _ only propery owned
y interpret v'ii? u ertj o
in fee by the City and not easement interests. In other words, this section would not apply to
road projects in excess of $500,000.00. If it was the charter commission's intent to include all
capital improvements of any kind, the language should be modified by deleting "on City owned
property" or by substituting "on property in which the City has an ownership interest." The
council may want to ask the charter commission to clarify its intention prior to second reading
of the ordinance.
Section 8.05 establishes special publication requirements for hearings "required by this chapter."
I am uncomfortable with that phrase, because I believe it raises the potential for some confusion.
The only public hearing specifically required by Chapter 8 is the hearing required under the
proposed Section 8.04. However, Section 8.01 refers to levying of special assessments pursuant
to law, and Section 8.02 authorizes the City to provide by ordinance for assessing the costs of
CAH139301
RC160-1
Jim Prosser
March 5, 1998
Page 2
certain services. Both of those procedures -- adoption of special assessments and adoption of an
ordinance -- require a public hearing.
The use of the phrase "required by this chapter" creates at least the potential for confusion as to
whether the notice and hearing requirements in Section 8.05 are intended to apply to assessment
procedures authorized in Sections 8.01 and 8.02. This is not a critical issue, however, since
Minn. Stat. § 429.021, subd. 3 gives the city council the right to elect to follow the procedural
provisions of Minn. Stat. ch. 429 regarding special assessments or to follow the procedural
provisions of the city charter. Therefore, the proposed charter language would not prevent the
City from continuing its practice of following the notice requirements of Minn. Stat. ch. 429.
The city council may want to ask the charter commission to accept "required by Section 8.04"
as alternate language, but the proposed language is also acceptable.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Corrine H. Thomson
Enclosure
•
CAH139301
RC160-1
!#EI rCU 1) i9
•
*M *E*M *O*R*A*N*D*U*M*
To: Jim Prosser, City Manager
From: Charter Commission
Re: Addendum to Section 3.05 and the Addition of Sections 8.04 and 8.05 to the Richfield City Charter
On Tuesday, February 17th, 1998, the Richfield Charter Commission met to discuss proposed changes to
the City's Charter. As a result of this discussion, the Charter Commission recommends the City Council
adopt the following changes and additions to the Richfield City Charter. Exhibit A is enclosed showing the
proposed amendment to Section 3.05 and the additional Sections of 8.04 and 8.05.
Respectfully
L
Shirley Johnson, President of Richfield Charter Commission
x y
MW Adm. Svz
,ouncU _ Comm. Dev
Atty. _
CM Rec. Serv.
Public
Norks Liq. Dir _
Clerk X Pub. Safety
COMM. Asst. Human Serv
.
HRA
0
• EXHIBIT "A
• Section 3.05. Procedure on Ordinances:. The enacting clause of all ordinances
shall be in the words "City of Richfield does ordain". Every ordinance shall be pre-
sented in writing. No ordinance except an emergency ordinance shall be passed at the
meeting at which it is introduced and,at least fourteen (14) days shall elapse between
its introduction and its final passage
Section 8.04. Approval by Ordinance. Any capital improvement on City
owned property w is as an es ima a cos exceeding or expen i ures
or design or engineering costs exceeding must be approved by or in nce
a er a public hearing.
Section 8.05. Notice
by this chap er Shall be PO MS
fourteen days prior o e
pu is hearings may be given in
must contain the es ima a cos
0
Public Hearings. Notice of public hearings
a eas twice in e o icia newspaper wi
e o the hearing. Additional notice o suc
manner as council may determine. 1111S
no
e
ired
e
E
Richfield Charter Commission Minutes
• February 17, 1998
Present:
Gordon Anderson, Jan Anderson, Ron,Glaub, Gloria Gordon, Jane Hendrickson, Gordon Herboldt,
Shirley Johnson, Amy Krauss, Annette Margarit, and Joe Novak
Excused:
Dorothy Holstrom, Russell Kennedy, Mike Reinhardt, Ed Thom, and Winthrop Zocher
Also Present:
Dorothy Hoffman, Jack Swan, and Sid Zocher
President Shirley Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. President Johnson opened discussion by
presenting the Committee's proposed changes and additions to the Richfield City Charter.
Gordon Anderson moved to accept the addition of Section 8.04 to the City Charter. This addition stated
"Any capital improvement to city owned property which has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000 or
expenditures for design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000 must be approved by ordinance after a
public hearing." Annette Margarit seconded the motion. After some discussion, President Johnson made a
roll call vote. The motion was passed unanimously.
Discussion then began regarding the amendment to Section 3.05 of the City Charter. Ron Glaub presented
this amendment indicating that it only changes the number of days prior to a hearing the City Council must
give public notice. Annette Margarite suggested an amendment also be made to section 8.04 in order to
identify notice to be given for capital improvements. Ron Glaub suggested that instead an additional
section be added to Chapter 8 and to model it after Section 11.06, Notice of Public Hearings.
Discussion then centered around the appropriate wording of an addition to Chapter 8. The result of these
discussions resulted in a proposed addition of Section 8.05 stating:
"Notice of public hearings required by this chapter shall be published at least twice in the
official newspaper within 14 days prior to the date of the hearing . This notice must
contain project estimated costs of the capital improvement. Additional notice of such
public hearings may be given in such manner as Council may determine."
Ron Glaub moved to accept the addition of Section 8.05 to the City Charter. Jan Anderson seconded the
motion. President Johnson made a roll call vote. The motion was passed unanimously.
Ron Glaub then moved to accept the amendment to Section 3.05 of the City Charter changing the number of
days prior to a public hearing notice be given from 7 days to 14 days. Joe Novak seconded the motion.
President Johnson made a roll call vote. The motion was passed unanimously.
President Johnson adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:45 PM.
espectfully Submitted,
r
r ?
?J
IO
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 54
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Adoption of attached resolution authorizing condemnation and quick take for 6915 and
6937 Penn Avenue for the Penn Avenue stormwater project.
Background:
The City Council requested staff to present for their consideration a condemnation
resolution for the above identified property. This request was the result of the City
Council Study Session of March 2, 1998.
The condemnation of these two properties is necessitated by the need to construct a
stormwater collection pond to better control runoff during thunderstorms. Initially, there
were seven homes in this area; some flooded periodically.
At the request of some of the former homeowners, the City initiated a voluntary
purchase program in 1994. Under this program, five of the seven properties have been
purchased. Staff has had contact with the remaining owners. One of them has refused
to discuss the possible sale of their home, and the other homeowner has not made their
• intentions clear, even after an agreement was worked out regarding a purchase
process. Staff has estimated that the total cost of all expenses including legal fees
related to this process could approximate $300,000. With the adoption of the attache
resolution, staff will begin seeking developers for the site's reuse. The reuses option
discussed at the March 2, 1998 City Council Study Session included four to eight
townhomes, additional off-street parking for the dental office and a stormwater
collection pond. Installation of the pond could cost approximately $100,000.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached condemnation and quick take resolution for 6915 and 6937 Penn
Avenue.
d
s
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A letter was sent to the seven property owners occupying this site in 1994
announcing the City's readiness to purchase property voluntarily from interested
owners. Five of the seven properties have been purchased.
2. The two remaining homeowners have been approached several times about selling
their homes to the City.
3. A flooding problem at 69th Street and Russell Avenue cannot be remedied until
• after a stormwater pond is constructed.
4. The City has the authority to condemn this property.
10-1
• 5. The CIP has anticipated this project, although not the expense of condemnation.
6. With townhouses, the net loss of housing units could be minimized.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay consideration of the resolution.
2. Direct staff to continue to negotiate a willing seller transaction.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Condemnation would require 90 days for processing; related items could take an
additional ten days. Up to 45 days would be needed for removal of the two structures.
This site could be available about September 1, 1998 for construction. If negotiations
produced a purchase agreement with one or both properties, they could be dropped
from the condemnation action.
Respectfully submitted,
Jameisrosser
City Manager
• JDP:ds
0
/ o-a
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE
69TH AND PENN AVENUE AREA
BY PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT DOMAIN
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City") wishes to implement a public project
to control drainage of surface water and prevent flooding within the portion of the City in
which the real estate described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Subject Property") is
located; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously considered acquisition of the Subject
Property (or other properties required for said flood control and storm water management
project) and/or implementation of said project on July 11, 1994 (pursuant to Council Letter
No. 199), on September 12, 1994 (pursuantto Council Letter No. 264), on September 26,
1994 (pursuant to Council Letter No. 269), on February 10, 1995 (pursuant to Council
Memorandum No. 17), on March 6, 1995 (pursuant to Study Session Letter No. 6), on
June 2, 1997 (pursuant to Study Session Letter No. 23), and on July 14, 1997 (pursuant
to Council discussion); and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public from
flooding and to protect public and private property from flooding and control drainage of
surface water, it is necessary for the City to acquire the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council needs to acquire title and possession of the Subject
Property before the date by which the commissioners to be appointed by the court herein
are likely to determine the damages caused by the taking of the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, acquisition of the Subject Property for flood control and storm water
management purposes is necessary and is for a public purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota hereby authorizes the City's staff and city attorney, Kennedy &
Graven, Chartered, to take all necessary actions to acquire the Subject Property through
eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 117 and through the
use of the "quick take" procedure described in Minnesota Statute. § 117.042, and to
determine the approved appraisal value of each of said properties for the purpose of said
§ 117.042.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
ro-3
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Subject Property.
Legal description of property located 6937 Penn Avenue South, Richfield (PID No. 28-
028-24-33-0063).
Lot 14, Block 10, Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills Addition, according to
the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Legal description of property located 6915 Penn Avenue South, Richfield (PID No. 28-
028-24-33-0068).
Lot 19, Block 10, Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills Addition, according to the
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder
in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 53
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Continuation of a public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit at
1100 East 66th Street to allow a day care for up to 90 children.
Background:
Bernie's Montessori School has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to
allow construction of a day care facility for 90 children at 1100 East 66th Street. The
Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its meeting on February 25, 1998.
Several questions were raised about the proposal, so the Planning Commission voted
to continue discussion of the item until March 24, 1998.
Recommended Motion:
Cancel the public hearing and direct staff to republish notice of the public hearing after
the Planning Commission has made a recommendation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A notice of a City Council public hearing was published in the Sun Current. It is
appropriate to announce at the Council meeting that the public hearing will not be
held on March 9, 1998.
2. Mailed notices regarding the Council public hearing were not sent to adjacent
property owners because Planning Commission review was continued.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue,
on March 9, 1998 in the Council Chambers,
has been continued.
Respectfully submitted,
James . rosser
City Man ger
JDP:ds
E
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 52
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of an appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
of a decision made by the Community Development Director that religious institutions
are not allowable uses in the MR-2 (medium density multiple residential) district.
Background:
Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc., or the Plymouth Brethren IV, has purchased the
property at 609 West 74th Street and are seeking permission to construct a small
church building on the property. The Brethren require such a building to conduct their
religious practices. This property is zoned MR-2 (medium density multiple housing).
The Zoning Ordinance does not list religious institutions as either permitted or
conditional uses in the MR-2 district. The purpose of the MR-2 district is to preserve
areas of the City for multiple family housing. It is an intentionally specific district. There
are a limited number of these districts and it is appropriate to preserve their use for
housing.
The Brethren believe this is an appropriate location for the proposed church and are
appealing the determination that religious institutions are not allowable in the MR-2
district. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals has the power to hear and decide
appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any determination made by the
• Community Development Director in the interpretation of the Zoning Code.
If the City Council determines that the Community Development Director's decision is
correct, Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc. could apply to rezone the property. The
Comprehensive Plan and the Lyndale Avenue Redevelopment Plan designate this
property for a residential use, such as townhomes or other multiple family housing, and
would not appear to support a rezoning. The City Council could also direct the
Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and allow
religious institutions as permitted or conditional uses in the MR-2 district.
To determine that the Community Development Director's decision is incorrect, the City
Council would be required to find that religious institutions are similar to other permitted
or conditional uses in the MR-2 district. The Council would then have to determine
what standards would be applied to religious institutions in the MR-2 district. An
attachment lists the permitted and conditional uses in the MR-2 district. A second
attachment lists the standards applied to religious institutions in the R, C-2 and I
districts.
Staff have encouraged the Brethren to explore other options but have been told that
there are no other properties that meet their search criteria. Because Richfield is a fully
developed community, it is not uncommon for people to have difficulty finding
appropriate locations for proposed uses.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the request for an appeal of the Community Development Director's decision that
• religious institutions are not allowable in the MR-2 district and adopt a resolution
approving findings of fact related to the denial.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The MR-2 district does not list religious institutions as either permitted or conditional
uses. There are no uses similar to the proposed religious institution permitted or
conditional in the MR-2 district.
2. The City has a limited amount of multiple family zoning districts. These districts are
appropriately reserved for multiple family housing. One of the purposes of the MR-
2 district is to reserve appropriately located areas for multi-family dwellings.
3. The City's Comprehensive Plan refers to the Lyndale Avenue Redevelopment
Study to determine the appropriate land uses for the area. The Lyndale Avenue
Redevelopment Study recommends residential development, such as townhomes
or other multiple family housing, for this area. There is a need for this type of
housing in the community.
4. The Zoning Ordinance allows for religious institutions in the R, C-2 and I districts.
These districts apply standards to non-residential and institutional uses in these
districts. These standards are based on land use rationale and do not attempt to
regulate religious beliefs or religious-based conduct.
5. The City Attorney has confirmed that the City has the legal right to preserve its
multiple family districts for residential uses.
• 6. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Deny the request for an appeal and direct the Planning Commission to consider an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow religious institutions as either
permitted or conditional uses in the MR-2 district.
2. Approve the request for an appeal and reverse the decision of the Community
p Development Director with a finding that religious institutions are similar to other
conditional uses in the MR-2 district. Make a determination as to what standards
should be applied to these uses in the MR-2 district.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 9, 1998. The hearing will
be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. A
determination must be made on the appeal by March 30, 1998 or a letter of extension
provided to the applicant.
submitted,
James
City M.
is JDP:ds
5-,;L
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
APPEALS OF A DECISION MADE BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals hereby makes the following findings of
fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City of Richfield (the "City") regulates, by ordinance, the location of land uses.
2. The primary source of such regulations is contained in Appendix B of the Richfield
City Code which establishes zoning regulations for uses such as religious
institutions.
3. On or about September 9, 1998 the City received a verbal request from Minneapolis
Meeting Rooms, Inc. to consider a proposal to construct a building for religious
activities at 609 West 74th Street.
4. The property at 609 West 74th Street is zoned MR-2 (medium density multiple
residence). The primary source of regulations for the MR-2 district is in subsection
521 of the Zoning Ordinance. Religious institutions are not listed as permitted or
conditional uses in the MR-2 district. There are no uses similar to the proposed
religious institution that are permitted or conditional in the MR-2 district.
5. On or about September 19, 1997 the City Zoning Administrator, a representative of
the Community Development Director, informed Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc.,
in writing, that a religious institution is not an allowable use in the MR-2 district. The
Zoning Administrator informed Mike Oberg of the options available to the
organization, one of which would be to appeal the decision of staff to the City
Council, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, regarding the
determination that religious institutions are not allowable uses in the MR-2 district.
6. January 29, 1998 the City received a written request (the "Appeal") that the City
Council consider allowing a religious institution in the MR-2 (medium density multiple
residence) zoning district from Mike Oberg, Alex Blair, Tom Chellberg and Fred
McNiece, representatives for Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc. (the "Applicant").
7. Subsection 546.03 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that the City Council, acting as
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall hear and decide appeals where it is
alleged that there is an error in any decision made by the Community Development
Director in the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. The Appeal came before the City Council for review and action at its March 9, 1998
meeting. Following a public hearing, the City Council voted to deny the Appeal.
II. The City Council hereby makes the following conclusions:
0 S_3
CONCLUSIONS
1. The determination of the Community Development Director, that a religious
institution is not allowable in the MR-2 zoning district, is correct because religious
institutions are not listed as either permitted or conditional uses in the MR-2 district
nor are they similar to any of the uses listed.
2. One of the purposes of the MR-2 district is to reserve appropriately located areas for
multi-family dwellings; it is appropriate to limit non-residential uses in the MR-2
district.
III. Based upon the foregoing, each of which serves as an independently
adequate basis, the Council hereby makes the following decision:
DECISION
The appeal of the determination by the Community Development Director that a
religious institution is not an allowable use in the MR-2 district is hereby in all respects
DENIED.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
• March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
APPEALS OF A DECISION MADE BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals hereby makes the following findings of
fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
0
•
1. The City of Richfield (the "City") regulates, by ordinance, the location of land uses.
2. The primary source of such regulations is contained in Appendix B of the Richfield
City Code which establishes zoning regulations for uses such as religious
institutions.
3. On or about September 9, 1998 the City received a verbal request from Minneapolis
Meeting Rooms, Inc. to consider a proposal to construct a building for religious
activities at 609 West 74th Street.
4. The property at 609 West 74th Street is zoned MR-2 (medium density multiple
residence). The primary source of regulations for the MR-2 district is in subsection
521 of the Zoning Ordinance. Religious institutions are not listed as permitted or
conditional uses in the MR-2 district. There are no uses similar to the proposed
religious institution that are permitted or conditional in the MR-2 district.
5. On or about September 19, 1997 the City Zoning Administrator, a representative of
the Community Development Director, informed Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc.,
in writing, that a religious institution is not an allowable use in the MR-2 district.
The Zoning Administrator informed Mike Oberg of the options available to the
organization, one of which would be to appeal the decision of staff to the City
Council, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, regarding the
determination that religious institutions are not allowable uses in the MR-2 district.
6. January 29, 1998 the City received a written request (the "Appeal") that the City
Council consider allowing a religious institution in the MR-2 (medium density
multiple residence) zoning district from Mike Oberg, Alex Blair, Tom Chellberg and
Fred McNiece, representatives for Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc. (the
"Applicant").
7. Subsection 546.03 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that the City Council, acting as
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall hear and decide appeals where it is
alleged that there is an error in any decision made by the Community Development
Director in the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. The Appeal came before the City Council for review and action at its March 9, 1998
meeting. Following a public hearing, the City Council voted to deny the Appeal.
0 II. The City Council hereby makes the following conclusions:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The determination of the Community Development Director, that a religious
institution is not allowable in the MR-2 zoning district, is correct because religious
institutions are not listed as either permitted or conditional uses in the MR-2 district
nor are they similar to any of the uses listed.
2. One of the purposes of the MR-2 district is to reserve appropriately located areas
for multi-family dwellings; it is appropriate to limit non-residential uses in the MR-2
district.
III. Based upon the foregoing, each of which serves as an independently
adequate basis, the Council hereby makes the following decision:
DECISION
The appeal of the determination by the Community Development Director that a
religious institution is not an allowable use in the MR-2 district is hereby in all respects
DENIED.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
g-?
0 Attachment A
Permitted and Conditional Uses in the MR-2 District
521.61 Permitted Uses.
Multi-family dwellings with eight or fewer units
Licensed residential care facilities with eight or fewer units
Minor public utilities
521.65 Conditional Uses.
Multi-family dwellings with nine to 25 units
Cluster home developments
Licensed residential care facilities with nine to 25 units
Accessory day care facilities serving more than three persons or group family day care facilities
serving more than six persons
Accessory foster family homes
Accessory roof-mounted antennas taller than 10 feet
Major public utilities
0
s-?
Attachment B
Zoning Standards for Religious Institutions
R C-2 I 609 W. 74th St.
conditional use (permitted use (permitted use
Non-res. uses All uses All uses Proposed devel.
Minimum lot size
................................................................. 40,000 sq. ft.
. 9,000 sq: ft.
sq. ft.
10?.........000.. ....
20,790 sq. ft.
Lot width
................................................................. 150 ft.
............................................ 75 ft.
............................................ 75 ft.
......................................... 154 ft.
.........................
...
.
.
..Lot dePth ....................................
...........................??.ft:...
.........................100.ft:...
.......................100.ft... ..
.
.
............
............................135. ...
Front setback
..... 40 ft.
... 35 ft.
........................................... 40 ft.
......................................... 30 ft.
..........................................
...
..Rear setback.....
.......................
........................
....30..ft :... ............................??.ft:... .........................25.ft... .
...............................52 .ft:..
Side interior setback
................................................................. 30 ft.
............................................ 20 ft.
............................................ 25ft.
.........................
............... 6 ft.; 62 ft.
..................
.........
....
..
.
.
Side streetside setback
.................................................................
30 ft.
............................................
25 ft.
.......
..........
. .
30 ft. .
.
...
.
....
.
NA
Maximum height
42 ft. .
.
........................
40 ft. .........................................
50 ft. ............................. ...........
approx. 14 ft.
•
0
Surrounding Land Use
609 West 74th Street
Zoning
C-1
C-2
C-3
0 R
® MR-1
® MR-2
MR-3
® PC-2
LAND USE
Neighborhood Business
General Commercial
High Density Comm'I.
Single Family Residential
Two Family Residential
Multi Res - Med. Density
Multi Res. - High Density
Planned Gen. Comm'I.
Q?
74th Street
J
609
74thiMMM
th S,
Zoo 1-11
76th St
77th St
M
200 0 200 400 Feet
Q
N
February 9, 1998
S=8
ZONING
m
3
C
d
a
200 0 200 400 Feet
Current Land Use
Commercial
Multiple Family
Duplex
Residential
Park
-? Comprehensive Plan
Lyndale Avenue Redevelopment Plan
609 West 74th Street
Comp Plan
Regional Comm'L.
® Reg'I. Comm'I./Office
Single Family Res.
® S. F. Res.- High Dens.
Multi Res.- Med. Dens
® Park
Plan Study
77th St
q a F/m/m/l/m,
200 0 200 400 Feet
Q
N
February 9, 1998
MINNEAPOLIS MEETING ROOMS, INC.
9 806 W. 62nd Street
Minneapolis, MN 55419
MR. BRUCE PALMBORG
Community Development Director
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Palmborg,
January 29, 1998
We are requesting permission to build a small meeting room, about
30' by 45', on our property located at 609 West 74th. street. This
property is currently zoned MR-2.
As Christians, currently living in the City of Richfield, we would use
this building exclusively for the worship of God with no
extracurricular activities.
The building design and landscape will complement the neighborhood
and provide a buffer to the existing residents. More than adequate
off-street parking will be provided.
In our consideration of the neighborhood, we have presented this to
the residents who have found our intended use acceptable.
I We are therefore asking for the City Council's favor in granting this
permitted or conditional use, and/or variance.
Sincerely,
Alex Blair Xt-'e; 11-z14_,?.
Tom Chellberg ?J/11141
v?
Fred McNiece?'
Mike Oberg
l
9_/D
cc: Julie Urban
cc: John Melin
ry
1
v
I '
t
5-11
• 8-I a-
•
UJ
W
F-
LO
i-
r
a
W
E
Gr
is
7
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. sl
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding the Urban Hennepin County
Year 1998 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation.
Background:
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on March 9, 1998 to
determine Richfield's use of the 1998 urban allocation of $245,230. Requests for
$245,230 of Year 1998 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 1998 decreased three percent ($8,313) from last year. As
in past years, Richfield proposes public service and home improvement 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 within the prescribed County guideline of 15
percent of the total allocation is $36,785. The proposed $37,700 budget for public
service funding was reduced by $915 to stay within the 15 percent allocation. The $915
was added to Rehabilitation of Private Property.
Richfield supports two home improvement projects: Rehabilitation of Private Property
and the Scattered Site/New Home Program. The CDBG Year 1998 funds will serve
approximately 11 households which either need emergency repairs or seek major
repairs during the 1998 spring, summer, fall, repair/construction season. Currently,
there are approximately 10 homeowners that have requested assistance and have
been waiting over a year. A total amount of $136,445 is requested for rehabilitation.
The New Home/Scattered Site Program allocation will continue to increase the number
of single family units housing constructed or rehabilitated by one additional unit. The
project request for 1998 is $72,000.
The chart below summarizes previous allocations, requested and recommended
funding:
7-I
U
•
Activity
Rehab of Private
Property
Scattered Site/New
Home Program
Removal of
Architectural
Barriers
Public Service:
H.O.M.E.
GMDCA
Child Daycare
Other Daycare
CASH
Total
Year 1995
Funded
Amount
$150,190
$ 81,560
$ 12,518
$ 22,050
$ 10,320
$ -0-
$ -0-
$276,638
Year 1996 Year 1997
Funded Funded
Amount Amount
$135,390 $143,512
$ 72,000 $ 72,000
$ 10,000 $ -0-
$ 22,700
$ 11,300
$ -0-
$4, 363
$255,753
$ 22,700
$ 10,331
$ -0-
$-5.,000
$253,543
Year 1998
Recommended
$136,445
$ 72,000
$ -0-
$ 22,700
$ 5,000
$ 3,085
$ 6.000
$245,230
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution which identifies the allocation of Year 1998 CDBG funds as
follows:
1. Housing Improvements:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $136,445
b. Scattered Site Housing $_ 72.000
TOTAL $208,445
2. Pu blic Service: $
a. H.O.M.E. $ 22,700
b. GMDCA Child Daycare $ 5,000
c. Other Daycare $ 3,085
d. CASH $ 6,000
TOTAL $ 36,785
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 two projects, housing improvements and public service,
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 $72,000
• allocated for scattered site is the minimum required to complete one scattered site
project. The $136,445 would be used for rehabilitation of single family homes
through the Deferred Loan program.
?a
S project. The $136,445 would be used for rehabilitation of single family homes
through the Deferred Loan program.
3. Funding for architectural barrier removal will be considered for next year.
4. Public service funding as recommended by the Richfield Community Human
Services Planning Council (attached). In the past, GMDCA has received
approximately $10,000. Needs can be presently met with a direct commitment of
funds to GMDCA of $5,000. However, $3,085 is reserved to serve a daycare need
to be identified by the Human Services Council in 1998 to serve GMDCA if the
needs increase due to housing issues related to Welfare to Work. It could be
reprogrammed to housing rehabilitation in March 1999 if a daycare need does not
materialize. Taking the action allows the $3,085 to be committed to an eligible
daycare activity without another public hearing.
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 9, 1998. The deadline
for submitting the 1998 CDBG application to Hennepin County is no later than March
13, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
E
7-3
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1998 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
9, 1998, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing
and community development needs and priorities the City's proposed use of $245,230
from the 1998 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 1998 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program.
Projects Budget
1. Housing Improvements:
a. Rehab of Private Property $ 136,445
b. Scattered Site/New Home Program $ 72,000
2. Public Service:
a. H.0.M.E. $ 22,700
b. GMDCA or Other Child Daycare $ 8,085
c. CASH $ 6,000
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 1998 CDBG Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
is
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
1998 CDBG ALLOCATIONS BY COMMUNITY
CON EWUNITY ALLOCATION*
Brooklyn Center 240,809
Brooklyn Park 501,130
Champlin 76,094
Crystal 135,361
Eden Prairie 182,404
Edina 181,842
Golden Valley 103,744
Hopkins 148,989
Maple Grove 148,012
Minnetonka 208,601
Mound 64,454
New Hope 162,931
Richfield 245,230
Robbinsdale 83,642
St. Louis Park 278,491
Subtotal: $2,761,734
Consolidated Pool (28 communities) $ 378,300
Community Allocation Total: $3,140,034
Administration (Hennepin County): $ 346.200
County Total: $3,486,234
*Includes recaptured funds of $24,234
UACDBG 1998\ALLOCAT$
1/1/98
7-5-
0 CDBG ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES
Federal statutes and regulations determine what activities are eligible under the CDBG Program. Generally,
three steps are involved in determining if CDBG funds may be used to assist a proposed activity.
Determine if the proposed activity meets one of the following national objectives of the program:
Benefiting low and moderate (L/M) income persons,
Prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or
Meeting a particularly urgent community development need.
2. Determine if the activity is included within the listing of eligible activities in the CDBG regulations,
as modified by statutory amendments. A general list of eligible activity categories follows:
Acquisition of Real Property
Disposition of Real Property
Public Facilities and Improvements
Privately Owned Utilities
Clearance of Buildings and Improvements
Relocation
Public Services
Interim Assistance - Urgent Need
Removal of Architectural Barriers
Housing Rehabilitation
Homeownership Assistance
Code Enforcement
Historic Preservation
Commercial or Industrial Rehabilitation
Economic Development Activities
Special Activities by Subrecipients
Planning and Capacity Building
Determine if the proposed activity falls within a category of explicitly ineligible activities listed
below:
Buildings for the General Conduct of Government
General Government Expenses
Political Activities
Purchase of Equipment (generally)
Furnishings and Personal Property (generally)
Operating and Maintenance Expenses
New Housing Construction
Income Payments
NOTE: The current CDBG Program regulations are contained in 24 CFR Part 570, published September 6,
1988 as amended. Contact your CDBG representative if you would like a copy.
U:1Cdbgl998\form eligible activity.doc
•
0 C. Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association--This Association provides day care
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES
PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING 'MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 1998
Present: Schreyer, DeSantis, Helmberger, Johnson
Absent: Hall, Werner, Wasko, Gault, Scaglia, McDonald
Excused: Boyle, Rosenberg, Massey, DePrekel
'2-6
Minutes: Motion Helmberger/second Schreyer to approve minutes of October and
November 1997. Motion carried
AGENDA ITEMS
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Council members reviewed the 1998 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Request.
For Funding from three agencies--CASH Home Line Program, Senior Community
Services Home Program and Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association Child Care
Subsidy Program.
A. CASH Home Line Program--This program provides a number of services such as
Tenant Advocacy (the tenant "hotline") to help renters with a variety of issues such as
security deposits, etc. Also, homebuyer education and counseling services especially
for lower income homebuyers. Foreclosure prevention counseling is also provided as
well as assistance with home maintenance and repair. Finally, renter education for
highschoolers is provided especially for those in their senior year.
CASH also participated in a number of collaborative efforts and is a designated partner
in the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative. CASH is requesting $6,000.
B. Senior Community Services Home Program--This program is targeted for residents
age 60+ or people with disabilities who live independently and need some affordable in-
home services to maintain their residence or property. Clients are those who are not
financially able to pay the full cost of service.
The services provided include minor repairs in the areas of carpentry, plumbing,
concrete, electrical and painting. Also, lawn mowing, snow removal, window washing,
floor cleaning, vacuuming, dusting, shopping, etc. is provided. Senior Community
Services is requesting $22,700.
subsidies for Richfield residents. Currently there is no waiting list for the child care
subsidy in Hennepin County. Since there is no waiting list, no Richfield citizens have
needed subsidies in the last four months. It is expected, however, that by this summer,
when families involved in welfare-to-work (MFIP) come off of MFIP child care and move
to the regular day care subsidy program, other families eligible for the subsidy program
will have to go onto a waiting list. The $5,000 requested is for families that GMDCA
expects to be on the waiting list.
The total amount of CDBG funds available for the above services is $37,700. The total
amount requested is $33,700.
Motion Helmberger/second Schreyer to allocate $6,000 to CASH Home Line Program;
$22,700 to Senior Community Services Home Program; $5,000 to Greater Minneapolis
Day Care Association for child care subsidies and $4,000 held in reserve for other day
care issues. Motion carried.
SENIOR ISSUES--A brief discussion was held on this topic. It was suggested that after
we have defined our senior issues more clearly, we may want to meet with Senior
Community Services to discuss options. In general, Council members felt that various
housing options should be reviewed.
NEXT MEETING: The next meeting of the RCHSPC is scheduled for Monday, March
• 23, 1998 at at 5:00 PM in the Executive Conference Room of Richfield City Hall.
Meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM
Recording Secretary,
Dennis Johnson
0
?-y
OHM SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone 541-1019 Fax 541-0841
BOARD of DIRECTORS
John Nelson January 28, 1998
President
Dwight Johnson
1st Vice President
Bruce Nordquist,
Peggy Kelly
2nd Vice President
Housing and Redevelopment Manager
City of Richfield
Laurie Lafontaine
Treasurer 6700 Portland Ave. South
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
Francis Hagen
Secretary
Dear Mr. Nordquist:
Kevin Krueger
Past President
Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Richfield
Mary Henning
Member-at-Large allocate $22,700 from it's share of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Year XXIV funds to support the HOME Program.
Dr. (Ike) e
Membbeer-at-Large
This is the same amount approved for the current year. Enclosed
is a Hennepin County Request for Funding application filled out
John Boeder for the City to facilitate our request.
Peter Coyle
Peter
DeGhetto
Marty Guritz Richfield's CDBG funds will still be leveraged from client fees,
Aiko Higuchi funding from the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches
Gloria Johnson
Kathleen Miller (GMCC) and from donations. The HOME Program operates on a
Senator Gen Olson sliding fee scale. On average clients cover approximately one-
Curtis Pearson third of the Programs' cost. GMCC funding, utilizing Federal Title
Neil Peterson III monies, helps to subsidize chore services. Friends of HOME,
Dan Ryerson
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 Ticen Program expense.
Benjamin F. Withhart
Executive Director &c.E.O. If there are any questions, or other information needed by either
the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council of the
PROGRAMS Community Development Dept. please let me know.
• Community
Senior Groups & Sincerely
Multipurpose ,
Senior Centers '
• H.O.M.E. Ron Bloch
• Senior Outreach Program Administrator
• 0 cc:_ Denny Johnson , Human Services
A Linked Way
Agcncy '
1998
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: ME (Household & Outside Maintenance for Elder
3. Contact Person/Phone No. Ron Bloch/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_M
(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)
0 Public Service Needs: Senior Services - High Priority
?_IC)
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments project will have. (ie., number of persons/households
to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabbed/built, etc.
In 1996 the project served 166 Richfield residents (142 households). It is anticipated that a
similar number will be served in CDBG Year XXIV.
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)
Date
iash Month/ Date
On-going delive of the following services: CDBG Year XXIV
• Maintenance - Includes minor repairs in the areas of
carpentry. plumbing. concrete, electrical & painting.
Also includes lawn mowing and snow removal in season
Homemaking - Includes window washing, floor cleaning
vacuuming. dusting. shopping. 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 DB Other(identify)
Public Services/Eden Prairie $10,067 $95.000 Client fees
/Edina $ 18.000 $ 8.000 Edina/EEHF
/Richfield $22,700 41 United Way
/Minnetonka 14 600 26,084 GMCC
/Brooklyn Center $ 9.000 $ 14.000 Friends of HM
$ 83,754 Hen County
Project Budget $74,367 $268.161
Total Project Budget $342.528
NOTE: A copy of the HOME Program Budget is attached showing all anticipated
expenses and revenues for the Program
Attachment f
H.O.M.E.
(Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderty)
Program Summary
SUMMARY PARAGRAPH - The H.O.M.E. Program is a homemaker, maintenance, and
chore program designed as a cost-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.
40 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.
`7-49--
•
0
0
HOME Program 1998 Operating Budget w/ Gov't Revenue Detail
-- - -------------------------
REVENUE
-- - ---------- --------------------- ---------
Contributions
United Way ------
8,500
41,313
Government Revenue
Bloomin on (CDBG)
Bioomi ton (HRA)
Brooklyn Center 20,000
17,500
9,000
Eden Prairie 10,340
Edina 26,000
Greater Mpls Council of Churches
Hennepin County
Minnetonka
Richfield
Sub-total Gov't Revenue
Friends of HOME
Client Fees 26,084
83,754
14,600 1
22,700
29,978
14,000
95,000
Total 388,791
EXPENSES
Salaries & Wages
Benefits & Taxes
Office Rent
Equipment Repair/Maint.
Telephone
Postage
Printing & Publications 248,724
66,117
3,066
892
3,536
2,478
4,678
Supplies 14,230
Professional Fees
Mileage
3 13,402
5,699
Conferences & Meetings 2,759
Insurance 5,947
Memberships & Subscriptions 595
Miscellaneous
Depreciation
Allocation of Admin. 607
6,938
18,598
Total 398,266
Net Excess (Deficit) ($9,475)
/'l3
zsss
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENER41_ INFORMA T ION
1. Comnnuuty: Richfield
2. Project Name: Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH)/HOME Line
3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Charlie Warner - 933-9639 extension 221
B. PROJECT DATA
Funding Request $ 6, 000
? Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FU1_\0ED project? X Yes
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount S 558,120 Source Listed Below
(To what extent does project leverage additional public or private fuads/F= conunitment?)
CASH receives funding for its HOME Line Programs from: HUD Housing Counseling
Program; MHEA's Foreclosure Prevention Program; Hennepin County's Family Homeless
Prevention Program; First Bank Foundation; the McKnicPub Foundation; Urban Hennepin
County CDBG Program; Community Service Block Grant; Mtv Economic Opportunity Grant
4. Project Location: Address Cirytiilde ?(Atach 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)
Renter services: Tenant hotline; eviction Prevention; high school presentations on
tenant's rights &,responsibilities.
Homeownership services: first-time home buyer education and counseling; home rehab
maintenance and improvement;•foreclosure prevention;
reverse equity loan counseling.
This request is for funding to supplement that which we receive front.the
sources listed under #3, above.
6. Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided, identify what Frio; iry(ies) tale Project will r:eet
(Note: If a proposed project is a low Urban Cvmty priority, you must explain why it has a higher
priority in your community.)
Tenant/landlord services; homeownership services.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7.1-9E to 6.30-00, identify the major project tasks
to be performed and when they M]l occur.)
Task Mon ate
Tenant/landlord services on-going
HcYneown r services on-going-
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component-i.e; administration, planning,
construction, acquisition, direct grants; public service.)
BUDGBTISOURCE Of FUNDS
Component C_ ?13Cr Other ?,iftkft)
Salaries for direct services S 6,000 $ 337,300
to rentt-rs (landlord & haneowners $ $____`
Fri nqe and ather di mctI indirect $ 0 $ 220,820
5 $
Project Budget S 6,000 $
Total Protect Budget $ _6, 000 $558,120
U-ACdbga975xfbm zpplicz4ondoc
•
0
Communitv Action,
or Suburban Hennepin
• f
Community Education
Community Services
Emergency Assistance MEMO TO: Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council
Homeless Family Support (=ROM: Charlie Warner, Housing Programs Director
Homelessness Prevention SUBJECT: 1998 CDBG funding request overview
volunteer Services DATE: 11/12/97
Energy Assistance
We appreciate the funding we have received during the past two years from the,
HOME City of Richfield; we plan to request continuing support in the amount of $6,000
r"'
, from the city's 1998 CDBG allocation.
5
® ct What follows are responses to the questions included in Bruce Nordquist's
October 8 letter. I am also attaching materials describing CASH's HOME Line
Tenant Hotline housing services; Richfield residents. especially those of low and moderate
Tenant Organizing income, are benefitting from HOME Line's work.
• Home Buyer Education
'
In response to Mr. Nordquist
s questicns:
Homeowner Counseling
Home Rehab Counseling 1) Methods to measure and evaluate client progress.
Methods vary from program to program. Generally, contacts with individual
homeowner clients tend to be more intensive and longer-term than those with
renter clients.
Renters generally call with a specific problem, get information (referrals to the
city inspector are frequently called for), and are advised on alternative ways to
deal with the problem. Approximately two weeKs after their initial call, 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
33-10th Avenue S. deposit it; dispute, we note it ;n that te'nant's file.
Suite 150
Hopkins. MN 55343 Homeowners and would-be homeowners working individually with one of our
Business (612)933-9639 housing counselors establish personalized plans: new homeseekers generally
Tenant Hotline 933-0017
Energy Assist. 930-3541 focus on strategies to overcome financial or credit barriers to homeownership;
Fax 933.8016 people facing foreclosure usually need plans for coming up with money. Because
TDD 935-4011 timelines for these plans can vary widely--foreclosures sometimes require
immediate response; a homebuyer may take months or even years to build up
Invesring:nPoople. savings or credit history--evaluation of client progress varies as well and is
•
Building Community measured against the client's individual plan; about half of our client contact is in
person, the rest is by phone.
E0. •.CUr'..G
"? -l(0
• 2) Client outcome based evaluation
Memo to Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council
November 12, 1997
Page 2.
As you will note from what follows, CASH is very much an outcome-driven agency. We endeavor
to look beyond the mere number of people served to determine whether our work has mattered to
them. We are pleased to learn from our follow-up that, indeed, what we are doing does matter.
For each of our housing programs we have established outcome measurements to gauge our
effectiveness. They are as follows:
Tenant advocacy (the tenant "hotline")
• Whether an eviction has been avoided
• Money returned from a withheld security deposit, also penalties if the matter went to
court
• Money awarded by court as rent abatement (partial refund for uncorrected repairs)
• Follow up with sample to see whether housing is stabilized six months following service
Homebuyer education and counseling
• Number of people who purchase homes, location
• Amount of public and private resources used to purchase in addition to first mortgage
(for lower income homebuyers)
• Amount of "entry cost" assistance (downpayment, closing costs, etc.) the homebuyer
received
• Amount of monthly payment assistance the homebuyer received
• Foreclosure prevention counseling
• Final disposition of the home (saved, sold to avoid foreclosure, foreclosed)
• Amount of funds raised from CASH and other public and private sources on behalf of
client
• Results (monetary benefit to homeowner) from using lender workout and loss mitigation
programs
• Follow up with sample to see whether housing is stabilized six months following service
Home maintenance & repair (criteria under development for this new program)
• Amount of funds raised from CASH and other public and private sources on behalf of client
3) Client satisfaction surveys
Tenant advocacy (the tenant "hotline"}.
• Feedback from our follow-up calls to clients
(For two years, 1992 & 93, we mailed our surveys to random samples of clients but
response was so poor [many addressees had moved] and the cost so high [first class mail
both ways] that this was discontinued)
Renter education for highschoolers
• Performance evaluation sheets given to class teachers; occasionally the teacher will also
have their students fill out and return the forms
•
Memo to Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council
November 12, 1997
Page 3. /
• Homebuyer education and counseling
• People attending classes fill out and return evaluation forms at the end of the three-class
course
4) Collaborative efforts with other agencies or organizations
• Specially arranged homebuyer education course for tenants of a subsidized apartment
complex
• Joint venture between CASH and the St. Paul Tenants Union for a project to help tenants
who have adverse tenant screening reports secure housing
• A four-part series of classes on tenant/landlord rights and responsibilities for residents
of a transitional housing community
• CASH administers emergency services and payments for VEAP and other emergency
assistance providers
• Homeownership programs collaborate with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, area
lenders, and several suburbs to develop low cost mortgage programs ("CASA" program)
• Homeownership programs collaborate with private lenders to provide specialized home
finance products (Marquette Outreach Mortgages ["MOM"]; FirstBank's "Home Advantage"
purchase/rehab financing program; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac first-time homebuyer
programs)
• Homebuyer education is frequently conducted in area schools; promotion in some areas is
coordinated with Community Education programs
• Tenant hotline coordinator and tenant advocate frequently attend local rental owners &
managers committees, for example RAMA in Richfield
• CASH's Community Services division is collaborating with Cornerstone to operate a HUD-
funded transitional housing program for approximately 30 women working to get off
welfare
• CASH staff and a board representative have participated over several years in the
planning process to establish the South Hennepin Family Service Collaboratives
5) Is your agency participating in a formal collaborative?
Yes, CASH, as the local community action program, is a designated participant in all
Family Service Collaboratives involving school districts in suburban Hennepin County.
CASH's board of directors is expected to approve signing the joint powers agreement of the
Collaborative at its December meeting.
0
• HOME Line's
Center for Homeownership
CDBG Report for the City of Richfield
February 2, 1998
HOME Line now provides a complete spectrum of services to home buyers and
homeowners in suburban Hennepin County. The housing industry refers to this
as "full cycle homeownership services". The services include:
? Pre-Purchase Home Buyer Education & Counseling. (Started August, 1994)
? Home Maintenance, Repair and Rehab Programs. (Started October, 1996)
? Foreclosure Prevention Counseling. (Started August, 1992)
? Reverse Mortgage Counseling for Seniors. (Started July, 1997)
Approximately 89% of the homeowners and home buyers served by
HOME Line's Center for Homeownership were low to moderate
income households.
•
•
Household Incomes
11%
Low - Below 50% of Median Income
27% = g Moderate - 50% to 80% of Median Income
62%
p Upper - Over 80% of Median Income
Pre-Purchase Home Buyer Education and Counseling
HOME Line's Center for Homeownership has provided pre-purchase home buyer
education and counseling for 21 Richfield households.
Our three-part Home Stretch home buyers' workshops are offered monthly. The
workshops provide information on each step of the home buying process. The
curriculum meets or exceeds FHA, MHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
guidelines.
We also offer individual home buyer counseling to assist potential home buyers
in developing an action plan to overcome barriers to homeownership. The most
Page Two
HOME Line's Center for Homeownership
Richfield
common barriers are lack of down payment and closing costs, credit problems,
and insufficient income. 78.6% of the households that purchased homes
received below market rate mortgages.
Home Maintenance, Repair and Rehab
HOME Line's Home Rehab Program assists suburban Hennepin County
homeowners who have home maintenance, repair or rehab needs. Our staff can
provide technical assistance in identifying needed repairs, writing specifications,
finding qualified contractors, evaluating bids, and working with contractors until
job completion. We also provide information on numerous loan and grant
programs that will finance the cost of home repairs and rehab.
Another component of the program is a series of workshops for homeowners.
These workshops include topics such as Weatherization, Dream House or
• Money Pit? - How To Know The Difference, small plumbing repairs and basic
home repairs.
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin often works with lenders to design
special mortgage programs. The most recent pilot program is designed to the
include the cost of home improvement in the total mortgage amount. It can be
used for either a home purchase or refinance. The mortgage program features
flexible underwriting guidelines, down payment assistance, and "gap financing"
Richfield is one of the thirteen cities in suburban Hennepin County that have
been included in this pilot program.
Foreclosure Prevention Program
The chart below shows the number of Richfield homeowners requesting
foreclosure prevention assistance.
•
Year Richfield Households Served
1993 14
1994 13
1995 27
1996 27
1997 26
Total 107
17-9D
Page Three
HOME Line's Center for Homeownership
Richfield
The main reason for default was unemployment or a reduction in
income.
Main Reasons for Default
•
1
¦ Unemployment or Reduction in Income
¦ Health or Health Care Costs
O Divorce/Separation
Money Mismanagement
¦ Unexpected Expense
13 Not Affordable
¦ Other
Foreclosure was averted in approximately 84% of the cases.
80 Richfield homes have been saved.
A total of $19,125 in financial assistance has been obtained
for Richfield homeowners.
0
Results of 98 Closed Files
80 Homes Saved
2 Homes Sold
p 11 Foreclosures
5 Unknown
Community Action for Suburban HenneNin's?
HOME Line Renters' "Hotline"
Information on calls during the years 1992-1997
Richfield Over the past six years, a total of 1,592
Number of calls by year Richfield (unduplicated) renters have contacted
HOME Line. This represents service to
448 approximately 3,980 residents when all family
383
299 members are counted.
Through the help of HOME Line, Richfield
149 185 tenants have received $7,978.16 back from
128 improperly withheld security deposits and
0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 $2,681.00 in rent abatements (refunds for
substandard conditions.)
Richfield A vast majority (over 95%) of Richfield callers
Callers' Incomes to HOME Line are low and moderate income. These
(1992-1997) income categories are those used by the U.S.
Department of HUD:
® Low 71.2% Low = incomes below 50% of the Metro median
income;
Moderate 26.3% Moderate = incomes between 50 and 80% of the
Metro median;
Higher 2.6% 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
Academy Of Holy Angels 0 0 0 0 85(31
Bloomington Jefferson 73 (3) 0 0 22 (1) 28 (1)
Bloomington Kennedy 90 (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 38 (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 30 (1)
Osseo 0 64 (2) 0 10 (1) 0
Osseo-Park Center 35 (3) 0 60 (2) 0 0
Richfield 6_Q LU 47 5 8 LU LO W 141 L5 •)
Robb insdale-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 15 (1) 18 (1) 0
St. Louis Park 0 12 (1) 15 (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)
/)-op a Other Educational Activities
Presentations Community Events Trainings
Association for Rental Crystal Frolics American Indian Housing Pillsbury Neighborhood
Management of Brooklyn Corporation, Services/Waite House,
Center Mall of America, Minneapolis Minneapolis
Bloomington Managers and WCCO Booth Bill Kelly House, Property-owners,
Owners Coalition
Bandana Square, Minneapolis Bloomington, Minneapolis
St. Paul
Bristol Place, and Minnetonka
Business and Professional Minneapolis Property Managers,
Women League of St. Louis Richfield Cattail Days Community Action Bloomington,
Park Council, Apple Valley Brooklyn Center, Edina,
St. Louis Park Minneapolis, Plymouth,
Center for Asians, Knollwood Mall Community Case St. Louis Park, and
Minneapolis "Community Bazaar" Corporation, St. Paul
Minneapolis
Community Resource Center,
St. Louis Park
Eden Women's Program, Richfield HRA, Richfield
Brooklyn Park Party in the Park Minneapolis Salvation Army, Project
Breakthrough, Minneapolis
Creekside Community Hamline Coalition, St.
Paul
Scott/Carver/Dakota
Center, Bloomington Community Action,
Heartland Community Shakopee
Crisis Connection, Action, Wilmar
Minneapolis
Hope Allianz Simpson Housing,
, Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Crystal Managers Coalition Sojourner Women's
Itasca County Tenant Shelter, Hopkins
Edina Community Center Assistance Program,
Grand Rapids South Eastern MN Housing
Hennepin County Home
Kooch-Itasca Action Network, Rochester
School, Bloomington, Council, Inc., Grand South West Minnesota
Crystal, Excelsior, Rapids Housing Partnership,
Minnetonka Slayton
Maryland Park Tenants
Minnesota Multihousing Association, St. Paul Southern Minnesota
Annual Convention
Metropolitan Center for Regional Legal Services,
St. Paul
Independent Living,
New Hope, Robbinsdale, Minnetonka St. Anne's Shelter,
Crystal Managers Coalition Minneapolis
Minnesota Multihousing St. Paul Public Housing
Perspectives Transitional Minnesota Fair Housing St
Paul Tenants Union
Housing, St. Louis Park Center, Minneapolis .
NW Community Support St. Stephen's Shelter,
Richfield Apartment
'
Program, Crystal Minneapolis
Managers
Association, Thorson Family Resource
Richfield Overcoming Poverty Room, Crystal
Together, Mankato
Senior Linkage, Person to Person
, Vail Place, Hopkins
Robbinsdale Minneapolis Vail Place, Minneap
Thorson Family Resource Perspectives YWCA of St. Paul
Room, Crystal Transitional Housing, St.
Louis Park
Womens Resource Network, Pillsbury House,
Minneapolis Minneapolis
Feb 12 98 01:38p GMDCA - Referral
0
• GMDCA:,,
Child Care Lcader'?hip arul SO"!' cs
February 12,1998.
Bruce Norquist
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave.S.
Richfield,'_ N 55423
612-349-0508
7-? 3
GREATFR MINNEAPOLIS
DAYCARE ASSOCIATION
I I El;iot,-kvznue South
inneapolis, %IN 5;40d- 1657
Tel. (612) 341-1?77
Fax (612).;41-43S6
VoicelTDD 1612) 341-2066
])ear hlr. Norcluist,
On behalf of the Gre arer 'Minneapolis Day Care Association;, 1 am requesting 55000. for the
child care subside program from the Community Development Block Grant funds for year 1998-99.
You can see from tilt enclosed chart that some of the money your City Council put into the subsidy
xoaram for vean XI1. has not been spent. Currently there is no waiting ' the child care
cil, ' r,e needed your
subsidy in Hennepin County. Since there is no waiting list; no Richfield
funding in the past tour montha. However, we expect that by summer, receiving
public assistance (N F'IP) cone off the transition year of child care; and move to ilie regular subsidy
• program. other families eligible. for subsidy 'will have to go onto a waiting list.
So I am askms4 for subsidy mcmel: for families that we expect to be on the «aitiny last. No one
kno,vs vet hov. fa-,t famllies %,% III move from %velfare to vvork, but vl-e knn-,A that tb.e need for funding
for child care tivili -1-o- tinue.
Thane.' you for your mast support of the s.?',sidy progran_. li_ ,a?; helped many R:,'nfield families.
i,aurie Po5SIr1 will attend sour '\la.rch 9t meeting to anv questions.
in .rely,
c
Grace 'Morris
Community Liaison
, .%j,,? L,,,,,!- - subr:9-?.doc
p.2
t't;RLW MUCATION AND ADVOCACY
RFFFRR:?i,ti C:1REC;t1I:RTRAINING • FEES BSIDIES
1998
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDIRG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use on-, form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community; r; 4 g €- R i Eb:F f e I d
2. Project Name: --(-b i 1ri r-a ra c i -, d , zq e-program
3, Contact Person/ Phone No. ramie-.' r} s 349 994;
B. PROJECT DATA
Funding Request S r, n n a n n
2. Is this request to fluid an esistin, CDBG-FUNDED prcject? Yes 'IN, 0
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount_ Source
(To what extent does project leverage additional public or private finds/firm comnutment?)
4. Project Location: Address IF 2 F, + ,.. r.,? s Gity-widc Cour?tas.)
Mpis.,MN 55404
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)
The program is set up to help families become self-sufficient.It
helps families pay for child care when they are in transition,in
training and in low paying jobs. It is tailored to the income
and child care needs of each family. Families are served on a
fiist-come-first served basis. Families who apply for assistance
are evaluated to see if county or state funded child care assistance
is available to them. This assures that the city funding will
provide additional help to its residents,rather than replace county
or state money. If the program is funded,Richfield families whose
immne? are below Sea iqn 8 'delines and -whg d Q e (over)
6. Urban ounty Pnonucs: Lswg a ist prove , iaznti#y t? t and t s) ?hg oJec i rye
(Mote: If a proposed project is a low Urban County priority, you must explain why it has a higher
prionry in your community.)
This project meets the high priority for.child care services.
40
0
? -C2
P hOM
7. Anticipated results/acconiplishmcats projects will have. (ic, ntzntber of persons,`nousenoids to be
assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabilitated/built, etc.)
P
It will help families move toward self-sufficiency. If parents
have help paying for child care,they can afford to go-to work.
Between 7-1-97 and 1-31-98 8 unduplicated families have been
served in Richfield.
If applicable, describe how project will assist corrunumry in achicving Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act goals.
not applicable.
0
Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-93 to 6-30-00. identify the major protect tasks
to be performed and when they will occur.)
Task Assumes there is a waiting list. Month/Date
t -Pre; ee manager -viii: -fiq f
----fa-md--ies an the eity y agram.- Then figure
nu_t hr%w mnnlH Mongy 18 ,-*a i l abl efer--ne3&t
_ z1JQJb1P fami1i4Ma nn_f-b WaitJQg ljre
2-Mail application to top eligible families
on the waiting list. (over)
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component-i.c; adrninistration, planning,
construction_ acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
•
CQm onent
n' '-° at serviee 4e €ami 1-ie4e?n
--R-i-ah € i o l d
Project Budget
Total Project Budget
BUDGET/SOURCE OF FLtNDS
CDBCr Other (idenlit&- State and
$_44_ $-59156..---County money
S S administered
$ by GMDCA
$ $ for sliding fee
$ 5Sp, $ asst, r? -programs
$-5-- S ti??n?tia _
U:iCdbg199Worin application.doc
0 EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION IN RICHFIELD
Richfield has 1,097 children ages 0 to 5 years and 2,678 children ages 6 to 12 years. 274
children ages 0 to 5 receive AFDC. 70 percent of children ages 0 to 5 have parents that
work.
Supply o_, f Early Childhood Care and Education:
Capacity of Licensed Child Care Programs
L
t y < Nuriiber bf;Spaces
TyTe:of Program ,,, `:No. of Sites Infant Toddler Preschool-, ; School 'Age Total ;
Centers , ?, ?. , 8 75 118 341 40 574
Fariiily Child Care 73 73 146 219 219 657
3 0 0 400 0 400
SchooLAge Programs* : 4 0 0 0 820 820
Tofah : " - x. , , ,; ` 88 148 264 960 1079 2451
* Includes public school-sponsored programs which do not require a license.
Need for Early Childhood Care and Education
u f:: t b v =- ' s,w 'Current Need _ . "Erojectgd X d`for 1998a _
d to Need Licensed ::
Children AQes
0 S,Estimate
5 896 1087
_
.
,
, ? ?.? Ste' { J„? A fry 4 ?
ChiId'Care
Licensed;:SpacesAvailable for Chldreniges.0 5 5; 972 972 .
Deficit:or.:Siirplus of Licensed ClrildC?are +76 -115
Cost of Early Childhood Care and Education:
Average Rates for Licensed Child Care
Note: No rates were calculated where fewer than three providers responded for a particular rate and age group.
_:y - Cen ters Faniily`ChiKCare Homes
Age Group Weekly Ffourly, .^ ?Veeklyj, Hourly
Infank r $186 $6.72 $116 $3.39
,Toddlei $151 $5.17 $106 $3.20
Preschool ? $127 $4.60 $99 $3.16
'SchooLge.Sumiriei ;= $127 $4.59 $93 $3.14
SchooLAge -'' SchoolaYearia $79 $4.59 $58 $3.02
Quality of Early Childhood Care and Education: Accredited Programs
Accrediting:`OzganI "A"' r, >- ' ' '- .; ' . _ - Nuinber of programs,,, %"of P.rograms.in' City",
'National Aisocfhtion forthe Education.of Young: 0 0%
Children :
National Association foeFanuly Child Care' :. 1 1%
Prepared by: Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, 1997.
Sources: Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, 1997; Hennepin County Planning
Department, 1995 and 1996; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990.
m
r-- O
O O O O O
O CD C7 LO co ?? N t >, t!) ?
-a
O O O N O d' O
O N LO LO o (l)
?y ;? v
LO
-
> ?
0 O O O I- O (fl O
Lr) N C Ld C5 N L C5 O N U
)
Q?
0 -0
L6 tQ ( C6 m O M
r NM
>
O
Lr-
(D
F
rn 0
--
la
--
EC: o
? C
co co N O M O M
0 0 It C,CC4JU?C
M O Ca O G >
co
co co
Lo co LO co co N 2 U v.
r LL M (D LO O N O (? C a)
a)+E
Z3 C6 N 4-
(D C A' 0) C L
y O O
(n O
a)
=
-
_ CDC) O O O O O )
O O o O Q) o0
O
M-70-c TO) (n
O O C+ U-T- N
0
C .
S .-
CL M t
(n N--
E
? O Q
_
.
0 _0 C:
?
)
0
?
^^?? O O
-0 E
W
0 E=-w
co
U)OCOME (n
0Wt- a)(na)a)inOCa)
.a=ti C ?- (n U) *- C C
o? a) v4- (n
ET- v cn M CO M N O co N `O TAU U Oys
(D c:
CLLR V N mm
C C
N
U) a)
0) 6-
CE U
Q) 0 Q)
O
a a)
y
C co
CO O
ELL X.?
p
_ C
« 0'.4.2 a) -a (n
M C (n z - ? C c m
2 a)
C' 0
QQ
O O O
O O O ?-
X O t? O U
OUP L O O? C"O
as C:
? (nC]3o>O?C?
E ?o
N T- O O O O ?- O N O ?- to U
d
Q
4-4- O
(n
_
r? C O
-0 U)
N
= C tn<n=`UV?C
004) _
L1 L E V C C O C V (0
V
3
a) (? . . N .C
'a
mmv(n
a o D)o
r-
< a) -0 th
o? C?
N
)
a) `
00 M-
c -0
7 -
° N
o
a cn C? o -
. U
° Q
ai cA
cn c a .
C
c
o o m
3 E
c? O
o
a) ?
V U W W _ t?/
/ /
Z Li cy 0 D O U).? 3 Q.E 3 N
a'd 80S0-6b6-?T9 Tejjajaa - u3aws d8T:ZO 86 61 qa-A
OILT
O y o o o o o
c ? da)
'
•- LO
O
M
O
4 co
N
CO LO
O
rn
T-
N
co
It
L6
N
0
r
O - •- •- •-
E
cc
U"
ca
Q_
Co c p
U
G CO
N
V} r-
(fl
t/Y .--
a)
tl} I-
In
!-
th M
Ic
N
tn• LO
CO
M M
O
LO
E
7
E
X
m
r-
O
00
O
d'
yr
?-
O co
o
80-
o
10-0
o
o
80,
M
--o 0
r-
d;
r- NO
M
LO
N
6
V-
M
00
00
co
LO
n
ui
CN
O
n
0
O r- r- r-
T
co
LL co
-c CL
+r
c '
O O
U N
N co
LO to
O
r- n
co
r- n
N a) M
co
co
O
yr yr yr yr {n x
ca
M
r _
N
d'
M
-+-
O U)
o
100-
0
0
0
0
N O
- C4
M O
00 M
O O
N O
O N
O
?- M I? r CO I?
O r- r- ?-
co
.?
O
cl- rr-
- r-
Ln Cf)
N
N
CO
c U
O
?
v}
v} V-
v> N
v} M
<&
E
E
X
cc
z
L
n
N
to a)
cn E
O O
C7 c
O
O
U
r-
O
O
00
r-
O
O
r-
N
O
O
d
N
O
O
n
N
O
O
O
M
O
O
M
M
O
O
O
M
O
O
M O
v
U)
co
°,p
c rn
C
Q U- r-
? 7-a9
i.
0
A,
c?
w
C
a?
V
0
'C
c
c?
0
a?
cl
"C
0
• V
vj
0 &-.4
N ?
O u
O ^ co
w W w On
en ow al
a ¢ •Sit 1.,t?htKey
V.
U 0,5r, p-4ai1ablel
E a ?G °r
v
?
PP
o ?
0 ty
r v
? O
r 0
?w 0
h
Q!
V ?
? L
0 ai 0
v0 r
V 0 0
? v J
?a
1Y
s
Iv.
0
n
7
s
Q
r
y
0
u
• N
Lr
O
L N 0
y
7;
N N
° xa °>
.
cz
u
4.4
O o
U
o
w
40. O
O
cC 0.
O ?
U ?
O
W 3
b m
C's >
CL
O O
> O
O
(L)
Q U
O -d
c?
.b U
N cz
O O
z0.
U
0
O
L ..
u
O O _
O ? y °
i '" u u u
° U
L v
A -
r
.7 'in r.+
? .? C
C U •V7
V N ,
,? U
Cl
U
.
.
U
L U w
_
xu„ u
.,?? C> G=.
c
s
U U °
Q
L
u
eS
aS
?a
A?
Sa4a,, a Aa;"'69auni
d
r H
0 3-•
O ^' c
O +'
vt ce
n cJ V
i+ CD .-r
•? Q V
C.? U U
J ?
A
c. r
r ?
Cr C CS
v ? w
r ? o
cf)
C) ,r
' o -
y
z A
7 9
r
1998
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
')-30
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program
3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Bruce Nordquist, 861-9777
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Funding Request $
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? X Yes No
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ 16,373 Source HRA
(To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?)
Twelve percent.
0
Citywide 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.
4. Project Location: Address Various
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 communit%'.)
High priority.
all
I
?-31
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments projects will have. (ie; number of persons/households to be
assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabilitated/built, etc.)
Fifteen to twenty households are anticpated being served, which
means fifteen to twenty homes will be rehabilitated.
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act goals.
Richfield alread exceeds its benchmark for affordable housing.
However, older housing needs to be rehabilitated to maintain
quality livability.
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 schedule.
10. Budget: (Specifi total project budget by major project component-i.e; administration, planning,
construction. acquisition. direct grants, public service.)
Component
Deferred Loans
Loan ministration
Project Budget
Total Project Budget
UACdbg1998\fotm application.doc
BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS
CDBG Other (identify)
$ 121,436 $
$ 15,009 $ 16,373 (HRA)
$ 136,445 $
$ 152,818 $
1
7r3V_'
0 REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM
Project Description: 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 ($120,622)
(2) Deferred Loan Administration ($14,908)
(1) Deferred Loans
Each 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
handicapped or 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 for these improvements.
Approximately 10 homeowners have requested assistance and are presently waiting.
Due to continual additions to the waiting list, the program was last advertised in the fall
of 1993.
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 what seems
like impossible situations for them such as collapsed sewer lines and failed furnaces
during the heating season.
The annual qualifying income is 50 percent of the Twin City Area Median income as
determined by HUD. As of January 1998 the following limits apply:
I-),?>3
Household Size Maximum Income Household Size Household Income
1 $21,300 4 $30,400
2 $24,300 5 $32,850
3 $27,350 6 $35,250
(2) Deferred Loan Administration
Approximately 10% ($13,539) 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 $16,800
in HRA revenues for general administration.
Implementation Schedule: Refer to #8 on Request for Funding. All activities are on-
going.
3rd Quarter 1997 (July - September)
Serve applicants on waiting list, distribute applications, review completed applications,
verify income and eligibility, inspect home, receive bids, approve loans, notify
contractors to proceed with work. Advertise for program applicants, if necessary.
4th Quarter 1997 (October - December)
Continue to approve loans, notify contractors to proceed with work, monitor and inspect
work being completed, make payments to contractors. as necessary.
1st Quarter 1998 (January - March)
1996 2nd Quarter activities ongoing, advertise for program applicants as necessary.
2nd Quarter 1998 (April - June)
Inspect completed work, make payments to contractors, file Repayment Agreements,
close out files. Service applicants on waiting list.
3rd Quarter 1998 (July - September)
Continue activities of 2nd quarter 1998; advertise as necessary.
4th Quarter 1998 (October- December)
Continue activities as during 3rd quarter 1998.
H:cdamin: housing:deferred: Projdata.doc
e
-3 ?
1998
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: New Home/Scattered Site
3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Bruce Nordquist, 861-9777
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Funding Request $ 72,000
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? X Yes No
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ 5,618 Source HRA
(To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?)
•
4. Project Location: Address Various Citywide 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 explain why it has a higher
priority in your community.)
High priority
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments projects will have. (ie; number of persons/households to be
assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabilitatedibuilt, etc.)
One new home can be provided in 1999 as a result of 1998 CDBG activities.
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act goals.
Richfield already exceeds its benchamrk for affordable housing. However, that
needs to either be-rehdbilitated or,replaced with larger, better quality
housing to meet the needs of growing families.
s
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 schedule.
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component-i.e; administration, planning,
construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
Component
[?rnni Yi nn, ci to i rai aratj nn
Demolition
Administration
Project Budget
Total Project Budget
BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS
CDBG Other (identify)
$60,000 _ $
$ S,000 $ 5.618 (BRA)
$ 7.000 $
$72,000 $ 5,618
$77,618 $
UACdbg1998\form application.doc
0 SCATTERED SITE PROGRAM ?-,3
Project Description: New Home Program. (Refer to B(#5) of Request for Funding
For 1998/99 New Home Program activities, $72,000 is requested.
Since 1975, over 40 single family units of housing have been constructed or
rehabilitated in Richfield utilizing CDBG monies. Additionally, 30 units of rental housing
for the developmentally disabled have been added. In the process, 20 substandard or
"garage" type homes have been eliminated, and 20 vacant lots developed.
The scattered site project provides Richfield and its Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) the opportunity:
• to acquire sites containing substandard housing (approximately 150
substandard homes exist) for redevelopment;
• to obtain sites with 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 underutilized parcels.
Substandard housing is rehabilitated or, when rehabilitation is not practical, cleared to
permit the construction of housing. The vacant land is developed for new housing
opportunities. Housing in sound condition is maintained for continued use. The
housing units made available by this project are utilized for rental or ownership
opportunities to qualifying low and moderate income persons.
HUD regulations for acquisition and relocation are followed. When appropriate, sites
will be acquired on a voluntary sale basis to reduce relocation costs which otherwise
must be paid. Tenants are always provided benefits when a voluntary sale occurs.
Typically, however, owner occupied or vacant properties are 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 (removal of items such as structures,
driveways, walks, foundations, trees), 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).
The project may acquire substandard dwellings which are occupied or occupiable by
low and moderate income persons. However, one for one replacement is an important
consideration. Thus, when the substandard dwelling is demolished, the replacement
°7-3)
0
•
to income-qualifying persons. Housing will always be produced and the property will
not be converted to another use.
If the HRA retains ownership, students from Hennepin Technical College provide labor
for the rehabilitation or new construction. The HRA will sell the housing to qualifying
low or moderate income persons. If the property is sold to a developer, the developer
would become responsible for subsequent sale or rental. The developer would
cooperate with the Richfield HRA in choosing low to moderate income persons, utilizing
Section 8 eligibility guidelines.
The greatest need in Richfield is for decent, safe and sanitary housing affordable to low
and moderate income families. The project expands affordable housing opportunities
and/or maintains the existing housing stock for low and moderate income families.
Completed homes, if sold, use income standards of 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 1998 those income limits are as follows:
Household Size Income Limit
(80% of Median) (50% of Median)
3 $40,750 $27,350
4 $45,300 $30,400
5 $48,900 $32,850
6 $52,550 $35,250
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 $55,000
Site Clearance and Preparation $ 4,500
Public Improvements $ 2,500
On-going Administration $ 7,000
Relocation 3,000
Total $72,000
C7
The 1998 CDBG request is for new activities. All previously authorized funds have
been expended or committed to projects underway. There are no other sources of
revenues available to initiate projects, meet project objectives, and leverage the
additional resources identified in this funding request.
2
• Implementation Schedule: New Home Program - Scattered Site Project
(Refer to #9 of Application)
Date
Task (MonthNear)
• Review requests for Voluntary
Acquisition of property. 3/98 to 6/98
• Identify site to acquire, negotiate sale
price, acquire property 6/98 to 8/98
• Relocate occupants, clear property 7/98 to 9/98
• Initiate construction project* 9/98
• Construction underway* 11/98 to 6/99
-7-33
• Marketing plans initiated* 5/99 to 7/99
• Completion and sale* 6/99 to 9/99
* The time frame for these tasks may vary slightly depending on whether the specific project is
constructed by Hennepin Technical College or a non-profit developer, or whether the project is
new construction or rehabilitation.
cdadmin\housing\cdbg-bn
•
3
6
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 50
Agenda March 9, 1998
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 8, 1997 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $500,000 of
Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City parks and other City capital
improvements in 1998. In addition, the 1998 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 1998 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted
expenditures of $31,193,000 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the
Special Revenue fund is $500,000 as shown below:
Playfeatures - Fairwood/Monroe Parks $148,500
Tennis Court Improvements 40,000
Wood Lake Furnace/Air Conditioning 30,000
Ice Arena Lockerrooms (repayment) 159,500
Ice Arena Pitch Gravel Roof 20,000
City Hall Remodel - Inspection Lobby 50,000
Traffic Calming 15,000
Retaining Wall Replacement 37,000
A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City
Charter.
First reading of the ordinance was approved February 9, 1998 and a notice of public
hearing was published on March 4, 1998
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.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. On December 8, 1997, the City Council approved the 1998 Capital Improvement
Budget, which includes an expenditure of $500,000 of Special Revenue Funds for
improvements to several City parks.
2. On February 9, 1998 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 CIB.
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 9, 1998.
Respec ully submitted,
Jam. 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 - Fairwood/Monroe Parks $148,500
Tennis Court Improvements 40,000
Wood Lake Furnace/Air Conditioning 30,000
Ice Arena Lockerrooms (repayment) 159,500
Ice Arena Pitch Gravel Roof 20,000
City Hall Remodel - Inspection Lobby 50,000
Traffic Calming 15,000
Retaining Wall Replacement 37,000
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 9th day of March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
i?n
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 49
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Repairing a 1988 Barco milling machine and purchase of a trailer to haul the unit.
Background:
Unit #328, a fully depreciated 1988 Barco milling machine, is used to grind out asphalt
pot holes and cracks. It is the critical piece of equipment in the City's street
maintenance program. This unit was scheduled to be replaced in 1997, and $100,000
was budgeted for that purpose. Street maintenance staff evaluated and tested the new
machines available in 1997, and were not satisfied with their performance. All of the
machines tested were larger than the '88 Barco, and much less maneuverable. Since
most of the crack repairs in Richfield are horizontal (gutter to gutter), maneuverability is
critical.
Because of the lack of availability of a new machine which would serve the Street
Maintenance Division's purposes, no replacement machine was purchased in 1997.
Staff believes that at this point in time, the best course of action is to repair the existing
machine at an estimated cost of $11,000, and buy a trailer to haul it for approximately
$11,875. The reason for the trailer is because a large portion of the maintenance costs
on the 1988 Barco, in particular broken axles, has been due to the road time put on the
machine driving from worksite to worksite. A milling machine has no spring suspension,
and is very heavy, creating a rough ride. By implementing these suggestions, staff
believes another three years' use out of the machine is possible, at which time staff
could reevaluate it for replacement again. Some of the funds banked to replace this
unit would be used to repair the machine and purchase the trailer. The funds would be
paid back through rental charges on the equipment for its extended life.
Ziegler, Inc. from Bloomington, Minnesota is the only local vendor of the Barco brand
milling machine. An estimate of $11,000 was given to repair the current unit. Staff also
contacted several manufacturers of the trailer required, and St. Joseph Equipment
came in with a low quote of $11,875 for a trailer.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of a trailer from St. Joseph Equipment in the amount of $11,875;
and authorize a purchase order for $11,000 to Ziegler, Inc. to repair the 1988 Barco
milling machine.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The funds to repair this unit are not in the Motor Pool budget, and would have to be
revised into the 1998 budget to repair this machine and buy a trailer.
-1
2. The milling machine is a critical piece of equipment in the Cou nci kapproved five-year
accelerated street maintenance program, and staff cannot afford the possibility of a
major breakdown during the construction season.
3. Vendors have told staff that they intend to begin manufacturing a smaller, more
appropriate machine for crack repair in the next few years.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could reject the idea of repairing the milling machine, and buying a trailer to
haul it on. Milling work could be purchased from an outside vendor at an estimated
cost of $38,000 annually. However, there would be a loss of flexibility related to
weather and other asphalt repairs.
2. Council could delay a decision on this issue; however, staff would like to have the
machine and trailer for the upcoming road construction season.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the March 9, 1998 Council meeting in order to facilitate
timely repair of this machine before the road construction season begins.
Respectfully submitted,
JaJsProsser
Citer
JDP:cak
0
5C,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 48
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and L.E.L.S. Local 225
(911 Dispatchers) creating a lead dispatcher assignment.
Background:
Authorization for a lead dispatcher position is included in the 1998 budget. Lead
dispatcher is not an additional position; it is an assignment that gives additional duties
and compensation to one of the current dispatch employees. Since the current labor
contract between the City and L.E.L.S. Local 225 does not provide for a lead dispatcher
pay scale, a Memorandum of Understanding must be approved before a lead
dispatcher assignment is made. The memorandum would establish the procedure and
compensation related to making the assignment.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and L.E.L.S. Local 225
creating a lead dispatcher assignment.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A lead dispatcher assignment is necessary to sustain the operations of the 911
Communications Center.
2. Funds have been approved in the 1998 budget for a lead dispatch assignment.
3. The Union has reviewed the attached memorandum and has agreed to the terms
pending City Council approval.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
tY 9
• JDP:ds
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Any agreement that amends or modifies a labor contract requires Council approval.
This Memorandum of Understanding must be approved before Public Safety can make
the lead dispatcher assignment.
Respec submitted,
Jame Prosser
Ci na er
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND
• LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.
FOR L.E.L.S. LOCAL 225
The following agreement is made between the City of Richfield, hereinafter called "Employer"
and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., hereinafter called "Union."
This memorandum of understanding shall be in effect as of February 1, 1998 and shall continue
in effect consistent with the duration of the 1998-1999 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
SECTION 1 - Definitions
LEAD DISPATCHER is a 911-Dispatch employee assigned by the Employer as a lead
worker. The Lead Dispatcher is responsible for non-supervisory support duties related to
communications center operations.
SECTION 2 - Lead Dispatcher Compensation
An employee assigned by the Employer to serve as Lead Dispatcher shall be
compensated an additional five (5) percent above his/her current salary step on the 911
Dispatcher pay scale. If the Employer elects to eliminate the Lead Dispatch assignment or
elects to remove the employee from the Lead Dispatch assignment, the 5% differential shall be
discontinued and the employee will be compensated at the base salary rate for his/her current
salary step as a 911 Dispatcher.
SECTION 3 - Lead Dispatcher Assignment
The sole authority for designating or revoking the assignment of the Lead Dispatcher is
the Employer. A Lead Dispatcher assignment may be made or revoked at any time at the sole
discretion of the Employer. Once the Lead Dispatcher position is revoked, that employee will
return to his/her previous status.
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
City Manager Date
Administrative Services Director Date
FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC., LOCAL 225
-1q-,:? 6
Uni esident - , '\ Date
L.E.L.S. Businessf Acaent / / Date
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. Council Letter No. 47
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Resolution designating official investment depositories for the City of Richfield for 1998.
Background:
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 118A.01 - 118A.06, the City of Richfield
must designate financial institutions annually. The City Council previously adopted
resolutions designating official depositories including approving collateral.
Accordingly, it is also necessary to adopt a resolution which designates certain additional
financial institutions as depositories for the investment of City funds for 1998. These
institutions, such as investment brokerage firms offer government securities in the manner
required by law. These financial institutions include Dain Raushcer, Inc.; Norwest
Investment Services; Piper Jaffray, Inc.; Juran and Moody, Inc.; Miller and Schroeder
Financial, Inc.; and Dean Witter Reynolds.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution designating financial
institutions for the investment of City funds.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City is required by Minnesota Statutes Section 118A.01 - 118A.06 to designate
depositories of its funds for investment.
2. The City has worked with the institutions recommended in the past and has found to
have a good working relationship with these institutions.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could solicit other financial institutions for official depositories, but past
relationships with the depositories recommended have proven satisfactory for the City.
Discussions/Decision Mode:
Action of the City Council is desirable at March 9, 1998, City Council meeting so that the
City may invest funds in the approved financial institutions for the year 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE INVESTMENT OF
CITY OF RICHFIELD FUNDS IN 1998
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has money which is available for investment, and
WHEREAS, different financial institutions offer different rates of return on investments,
and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield shall purchase U. S. Treasury Bills, U. S. Treasury
Notes and other such government securities in the manner required by law from the
institution offering the highest rate to the City of Richfield providing greater flexibility in the
investment program and maximize interest income thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. It is hereby found and determined that it is in the best interest of the proper
management of City of Richfield funds that certain financial institutions be
designated as additional depositories for City of Richfield funds for 1998.
2. The following financial institutions designated as depositories for the City of
Richfield funds:
Dain Rauscher, Inc.
Norwest Investment Services
Piper, Jaffrey, Inc.
Juran & Moody, Inc.
Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
3. The Treasurer and Finance Manager are hereby authorized to deposit the City
of Richfield funds in any or all of the depositories herein designated. Such
deposits may be made and withdrawn from time to time by the Treasurer or
Finance Manager's judgment and as the interest of the City of Richfield dictates.
4. The investment of funds and the reporting thereof pursuant to this resolution
shall be conducted in accordance with established. policies regarding the
investment of these funds.
Passed by the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
5p
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 46
Agenda March 9, 1998
Issue Statement:
Selection of a long-term disability insurance carrier to continue the LTD benefit for
certain full-time employees.
Background:
Since 1982, the City has offered a long-term disability (LTD) insurance benefit to certain
full-time employees. The City currently offers this benefit to all Management, General
Services, Local 49 Labor and Trades, Police Officers and Agents, Dispatchers and
Police Supervisory employees. Schools Insurance Fund has been the City's provider
since the City initiated this benefit. The current contract expires at the end of March
1998. The City's current premium cost is $.42 per $100 of covered payroll for all
groups except Police Officers and Agents and $.64 per $100 of covered payroll salary
for that group. The Police Officer group was added in 1997.
Minnesota Statutes provide that group insurance contracts for LTD must be let out for
bid at least every five years. Therefore, the City requested long-term disability
insurance proposals to be submitted by February 19, 1998. Eight providers submitted
proposals for the City coverage including the City's current provider. The proposals
were summarized along with an in-depth analysis of coverage by the City's insurance
agent, J & H Marsh & McLennan. The bid analysis was presented to the City by J & H
Marsh & McLennan on March 2.
BID ANALYSIS
Benefit Level/Plan Design
The benefit level included in the specification mirrors the coverage the City currently
provides to eligible employees. Moreover, this benefit level and plan design was
one that was implemented and fitted into the City of Richfield's unique Personal
Leave/Short-term Disability/LTD benefit program. All bidders provided coverage
that met the requirements of the specifications. Some carriers provided benefit
levels that were slightly better than the current proposal.
• Premium Rate
The premium rates submitted by the various providers are listed as follows:
School's Insurance Fund: $.356 per $110 of covered payroll
CIGNA $.44 per $100 of covered payroll
CNA $.36 per $100 of covered payroll
Fortis $.24 per $100 of covered payroll
Guarantee Life $.26 per $100 of covered payroll
Reliance Standard $.42 per $100 of covered payroll
Standard Insurance $.34 per $100 of covered payroll
UNUM $.34 per $100 of covered payroll
The City's relatively favorable experience with LTD claims as well as the current market
conditions were both important factors for the rates the City received. The
specifications called for a two year rate guarantee. However, several companies
provided rate guarantees in excess of the two years.
Based upon the proposal submitted by the various insurance providers and the
premium rates quoted, it is the recommendation of City staff and of J & H Marsh &
McLennan that the City accept the bid proposal from Fortis. Fortis has an LTD claims
office in Minneapolis as well as a sales and service office in Minneapolis. In addition,
Fortis has agreed to provide the City with a three-year rate guarantee. With respect to
benefits, while all the bidders were substantially equal, the benefits outlined in the Fortis
proposal slightly exceeded some the benefit level provided by the City's current
provider, Schools Insurance Fund.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement
with Fortis for a long-term disability insurance contract for a three year period beginning
April 1, 1998.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City complied with the State Statute requiring bids for long-term disability
coverage and Fortis provided the City with the most favorable bid as a result of that
process.
2. The Fortis rate of $.24 per $100 of salary for all employee groups will realize a
savings of nearly $18,000 annually over current premiums paid by the City for the
same coverage.
3. Fortis is a very reputable company providing benefits such as long-term disability
coverage for a number of cities in the metro area.
4. The three-year rate guarantee is also very favorable and means that for at least
three years the City will not have to seek additional proposals for this coverage and
can enjoy the substantial savings in LTD rates.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could authorize the City Manager to request other proposals from
other insurance carriers. However, the current process is a valid one and has
yielded excellent results
2. The City Council could award the bid to another provider that submitted a proposal
to the City. However, staff does not recommend that action.
Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is suggested that action on this item be taken at the March 9, 1998 City Council
meeting so that the insurance coverage may be switched and all necessary paperwork
can be completed by March 31, 1998 when the current coverage expires.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam 3D
,j 1-7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
FORTIS INSURANCE COMPANY FOR
LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
WHEREAS, the City is required by Minnesota statutes to request proposals
for group insurance coverage at least once every five years; and
WHEREAS, the City requested proposals for long-term disability insurance
coverage for benefit years beginning in 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City made benefit and cost comparisons evaluating all the
proposals, using written criteria; and
WHEREAS, Fortis provided the lowest premium cost and met all of the City's
criteria; and
• WHEREAS, the proposed premium rate will be a substantial annual savings
for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Manager is authorized to
execute an agreement with Fortis Insurance Company for long-term disability insurance
benefits for the three-year period beginning April 1, 1998.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
to
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 45
Agenda March 9, 1998 a
Issue Statement:
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting awarded by the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
Background:
The City was recently notified that its comprehensive annual financial report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest from of
recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment
represents a significant accomplishment by the government and its management.
The GFOA, which is responsible for presenting the certification, is a nonprofit,
professional association serving 9,500 government finance professionals. The
association provides a variety of technical publications in various fields of government
finance and represents the public community of Washington, D.C. The specific
comprehensive annual financial report was judged by an impartial panel to meet the
high standards of the program established by GFOA, including demonstrating a
constructive spirit of full disclosure effort to clearly communicate its financial story and
motivate potential persons and users to read the financial report.
When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial
Reporting Achievement is also given to the individual designated as primarily
responsible for having earned the certificate. This Award of Financial Reporting
Achievement will be presented to Chris Regis, 'Richfield's Finance Manager, on behalf
is of the entire Finance Division.
This is the twelfth consecutive year that Richfield has earned the award.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council present the Certificate of Achievement for
Financial Reporting to Finance Manager Chris Regis on behalf of the Government
Finance Officers Association.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City has been notified by GFOA that the certificate has been attained and that
the presentation to the Finance Manager would be appropriate.
2. The City Council wishes to take such opportunities to recognize achievement of
City staff, especially at a public forum, such as City Council meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could accept the award and make no mention of it at the City
Council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this item is suggested for March 9,1998.
Respe submitted,
fe James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak