2-24-97 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1997
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 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY
10, 1997
PRESENTATIONS
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT
THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD.
OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING THE ASSOCIATION OF
MARKETING STUDENTS (DECA)
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND
PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH ROI PROPERTIES
FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT 6758 PORTLAND AVENUE
C.L. 56
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT FOR ANTENNA
SPACE WITH AIRTOUCH CELLULAR FOR PENN AVENUE WATER TOWER
C.L. 57 .
P.UBLIC.HEARING
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY YEAR 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
ALLOCATION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 58
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM
SETTLEMENT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 59
7. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON APPROPRIATE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AS COMPONENT OF
GOVERNMENT FACILITY
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 60
8. CONSIDERATION OF TERMS OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HAT TRICK HOCKEY
FOR ICE ARENAADDITION AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED FOR
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 61
AIRPORT BUSINESS
9. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
10. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
11. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
12. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
• 13. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must
be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702.
g
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 61
Agenda February 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of approval of terms of lease arrangement with Hat Trick Hockey for ice
arena addition and authorization to proceed for advertisement for bids.
Background:
Several months ago the City was approached by the owner of Hat Trick Hockey, 609
East 66th Street, about the possibility of moving his retail skating apparel business into
a space attached to the ice arena. Tom Sachs, the proprietor of Hat Trick Hockey,
hired an architect to prepare plans for a proposed 2,000 square foot addition to the
southeast side of the ice arena near the main entrance.
The proposal calls for the City to finance the construction of the addition to the ice
arena and modify the main entrance area. The space would then be leased to Hat
Trick Hockey at rate that would recapture the cost of construction on a long term basis,
as well as provide a modest return on investment.
At the February 10, 1997 meeting, the City Council considered several important public
policy and technical issues pertaining to this matter. At the conclusion of that
consideration, the City Council voted to proceed with preparing terms of a lease
arrangement with Mr. Sachs for the new facility. The significant terms of the lease have
been tentatively approved by both Mr. Sachs and the City and 'are now pending City
Council consideration: The major terms of the lease are as follows:
1. Term of Lease. The term of the lease would be one six-year lease with an option for
Hat Trick Hockey to match any offer from a competitor to take over the facility for the
next lease period, if the City chooses to continue to lease the facility.
2. Repayment Schedule. The annual payments according to the lease agreement
would be as follows:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Rate of Return 7.00% 7.50% 8.10% 9.00% 10.20% 12.00%
Base Monthly Payment $1,700 $1,755 $1,830 $1,940 $2,080 $2,300
Loss of Revenue $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 300
Maintenance 25 25 25 30 35 40
Monthly Payment to City $2,025 $2,080 $2,155 $2,270 $2,415 $2,640
The payment plan was structured on a formula that begins with a 7% rate of return
for the first year and climbs to 12% in the final year.
8
In addition to the payment structure above, the City would also receive 7.5% of
gross sales over a specified amount of sales each year. The gross sales threshold
would not include sales tax proceeds, institutional sales and mail order sales.
Currently the mail order and institutional sales portion of Mr. Sach's business is
about 7%. The gross sales sharing would be subject to an annual City aggregate
payment cap of an average of $36,000.
3. Reimbursement for a Portion of Architectural Fees. Mr. Sachs will have invested
between $15,000 and $20,000 for architectural services leading to the preparation
of plans and specifications for the project. If the City removes Hat Trick Hockey
from the building after the completion of the six year lease term the City would
reimburse Mr. Sachs a portion of his architectural costs. His total fees would be
depreciated by 11-2/3% per year. Thus, if he spent $20,000 in total fees and the
City decided not to renew the lease with Mr. Sachs, he would be reimbursed $6,000.
4. Utilities and Insurance. Hat Trick Hockey would be responsible for all utilities and
insurance required to operate their facility.
5. Taxes. Hat Trick Hockey is responsible for the payment of property taxes for their
leased space directly to Hennepin County as would any other private enterprise.
The action requested of the Council is to consider the major terms of the lease
agreement for approval and to proceed with the construction bid documents. The City
Council would have to act to consider award of bids for the construction project once
the bids are received.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the terms of a lease agreement based on the
terms stated herein and authorize the advertisement for bids for the construction of the
ice arena addition after completion of the lease agreement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Tom Sachs, the owner of Hat Trick Hockey, has approached the City of Richfield
with a proposal to have the City construct an addition to the ice arena and lease it
to him for a new Hat Trick Hockey facility.
2. Mr. Sachs is currently at a decision point in his existing facility. He must make a
decision whether to continue to lease that site or seek a new site, and must have
an answer to his question in the very near future.
3. Staff has reviewed the issue carefully and has determined the issues to be
considered and what steps must be taken to proceed with this concept.
• 4. Mr. Sachs has engaged an architect to prepare preliminary plans for the proposed
ice arena addition for the Hat Trick Hockey facility.
9-a
5. The proposal presents an opportunity for consideration which could benefit both
Mr. Sachs and the City.
6. Pursuant to Council direction, staff has negotiated the major provisions of a
potential lease agreement with Hat Trick Hockey.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could postpone consideration of this item and ask for additional
information.
2. The City Council could reject this proposal and seek better lease terms.
3. The City Council could terminate consideration of this matter and reject the
concept.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City Council decides to proceed with this proposal, the decision to approve the
terms of a lease agreement and direct Mr. Sachs to have his architect prepare plans
and specifications to go out to bid is critical in the timeframe to achieve a targeted
October 1, 1997 completion date.
Respectfull submitted,
James rosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 60
Agenda February 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Request for a determination on the appropriate zoning classification for a commercial
business as a component of a government facility.
Background:
Hat Trick Hockey is proposing to relocate the skating-related retail store to a space
adjacent to the City's. ice arena. A 2,000 square foot addition would be constructed on
the southeast side of the arena near the main entrance, and Hat Trick Hockey would
lease the space.
The ice arena is a permitted use in the R (single family residential district). A
commercial business, as a principal use, is not permitted. The proposed retail business
could, however, be considered incidental to the principal use of the building as an ice
arena. Consistent with an accessory use, the business would take up a small portion of
the total ice arena and would provide a service complementary to the function of the
arena.
On January 28, 1997 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed request and
voted unanimously to recommend in favor of the determination that Hat Trick Hockey
be considered a use accessory to the principal recreational use of the ice arena.
The Planning Commission raised the issue of signage and recommended that any
signage allowed for the hockey business be consistent with that allowed for recreational
facilities in a residential district. Signage for institutional and recreational uses is
regulated by the sign ordinance, and the requirements for these uses are stricter than
those for commercial businesses.
Recommended Motion:
Determine that the proposed skating-related commercial business be classified as a
permitted accessory use to the ice arena.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed use would occupy a small portion of the total ice arena.
2. The primary function of the ice arena would still be as a recreational facility.
3. The retail sales would be limited to skating-related goods.
4. As the landlord, the City has significant control over how this commercial business
operates and can ensure its operation is consistent with the principal use of the
property.
9-/
5. Signage for Hat Trick Hockey would be required to meet the ordinance
requirements for a recreational sign.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could determine that the proposed use should be classified as a
prohibited accessory use in a residential district.
2. The City Council could determine that the proposed use should be classified as a
conditional accessory use in the R district and subject to a conditional use permit.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled for the February 24, 1997 City Council meeting.
No publication or notification was required.
Respectfully submitted,
f
James `rosser
City Man ger
JDP:ds
0
0
•
j
? fl
'r
M ;
9a
N.
a `
0
Q
r ? I
7
> m
?m II
QNa
0
0
0
W
?I
U
6 ?F$ IRA
i
0
Z
i
X
U
_jIS
UW
log
2a??
0
s
•
73
I ! Ir
W
? o
?a
a
W
? o
z
i
?t
SW,t
?a
Q7' .
L Y
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 59
Agenda February 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of approval of workers' compensation claim settlement.
Background:
In 1991, a Richfield Police Investigator Agent claimed a back and shoulder injury while
performing duties as a City employee. The employee was also employed as a part-
time instructor for Normandale Community College. As a result of the effects of the
injuries, the employee had surgery, was unable to perform the duties and
responsibilities of the position and began receiving temporary total disability benefits.
The employee's employment as a police officer was subsequently terminated because
of work restrictions which did not permit the employee to function in a sworn law
enforcement position. The termination was consistent with Civil Service rules.
The employee then was returned to work at the City in a part-time position as a civilian
employee within the employee's capacity. After a period of time, the employee was
unable to work the number of hours required for the part-time position and the
individual's employment was terminated by the City.
• Since that time the employee has been seeking part-time employment for which the
employee was qualified and has continued to receive disability benefits. The employee
has asserted entitlement to temporary partial disability, rehabilitation expense, medical
expenses, economic recovery compensation and legal fees and expenses.
The Stipulation for Settlement reflects the desire of both parties to settle their
differences and waive their right to a hearing. The Stipulation provides for a $143,000
lump sum payment to the employee and the employee's attorney costs of $1,942.72.
The Stipulation also outlines the full, final and complete settlement of all claims related
to the low back and shoulder injuries, except for specified medical treatment expense.
Of the total settlement, the City will pay $122,500 to the employee and Normandale will
pay $20,500. Normandale and the City will each reimburse one-half (an additional
$971.36) of a portion of attorney's costs. Technically the City will pay these amounts
and be reimbursed by Normandale.
Although the City will pay the aggregate amount, the Workers' Compensation
Reinsurance Association (WCRA) will reimburse the City about $75,000. This amount
represents the amount which exceeds the City's 1991 self-retention limit.
• The WCRA will also reimburse the City for all future eligible medical treatments of the
low back. Normandale will be responsible for all future eligible medical treatment
P
• expenses to the shoulder. However the City must annually reimburse Normandale for
20% of those costs.
Settlement breakout:
Amount paid to the employee $143,000.00
Reimbursement of employee attorney costs 1,942.72
Total $144,942.72
Payment Liability:
Normandale College $20,500.00
971.36
21,471.36
City of Richfield $122,500.00
971.36
$123,471.36*
$144,942.72
*$75,000 to be reimbursed to the City from WCRA, for a net City cost of
$48,471.36.
While the terms of the agreement have been finalized, the actual language of the
• Stipulation must be reviewed and approved by the attorneys of all the agencies
involved and the claimant before the claim can be concluded.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the Stipulation for Settlement subject to final approval of the stipulation
language by all parties involved.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. City staff and legal counsel consider this settlement to be reasonable and
recommend accepting it.
2. This settlement fairly represents the interests of both the former employee and the
City.
3. The WCRA and Normandale Community College are paying a significant portion
of this total claim settlement.
4. The settlement avoids the additional time and expense of pursuing litigation.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could disapprove this settlement package. However, it is doubtful that
either the former employee's or the City's best interest would be bettered by protracting
• negotiations further or pursuing litigation.
Discussion/Decision Mode: (O-l
This item has been scheduled for February 24, 1997 so that this claim may be
concluded as soon as is practical.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 58
Agenda February 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding the Urban Hennepin County
Year 1997 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation.
Background:
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on February 24, 1997 to
determine Richfield's use of the 1997 urban allocation of $253,543. Requests for
$253,543 of Year 1997 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 1997 decreased two percent ($2,210) from last year. As
in past years, Richfield proposes public service and home improvement program
components.
Richfield has supported two public service agencies through the CDBG allocation -
H.O.M.E. and Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association (G.M.D.C.A.). The Richfield
Community Development Department and Richfield Community Human Services
• Planning Council (RCHSPC) work collaboratively to address public service needs. This
Property
and the Scattered Site/New Home Program. The CDBG Year 1997 funds will serve
approximately 14 households which either need emergency repairs or seek major
repairs during the 1997 spring, summer, fall, repair/construction season. Currently,
there are approximately 14 homeowners that have requested assistance and have
been waiting over a year. A total amount of $143,512 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. This
project request for 1997 is $72,000.
regarding public service funding for CDBG funds. This year's Private recommendation by
RCHSPC is attached. The recommendation for public service funding is within the
relationship Richfield supports provides two for the home RCHSPC to improvement projects: make ects: recommendations Rehabilitation to of the City Council
prescribed County guideline of 15 percent of the total allocation - $38,031.
The chart below summarizes previous allocations, requested and recommended
funding:
0
5'I
•
•
Activity
Rehab of Private Property
Scattered Site/
New Home Program
Removal of Architectural
Barriers
Public Service:
H.0.M.E.
G.M.D.C.A.
Child Day Care
CASH
Total
Year 1994 Year 1995 Year 1996
Funded Funded Funded Year1997
Amount Amount Amount Recommended
$145,113 $150,190 $135,390 $143,152
$ 78,800 $ 81,560 $ 72,000 $ 72,000
$ 12,000 $ 12,518 $ 10,000 $ -0-
$ 21,300 $ 22,050 $ 22,700 $ 22,700
$ 10,320 $ 10,320 $ 11,300 $ 10,331
$ -0- $ -0- 4,363 5,000
$267,533 $276,638 $255,753 $253,543
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution which identifies the allocation of Year 1997 CDBG funds as
follows:
1. Housing Improvements:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $143,152
b. Scattered Site Housing . $ 72,000
2. Public Service:
a. H.0.M.E. $ 22,700
b. G.M.D.C.A. Child Day Care $ 10,331
c. CASH $ 5,000
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 $143,152 would be used for rehabilitation of single family homes
through the Deferred Loan program.
0
5--a
3. Architectural barrier removal was considered and additional funding is not needed
at this time.
4. Public service funding as recommended by the Richfield Community Human
Services Planning Council (attached).
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still achieves
funding guidelines.
•
2. Fund other eligible projects which have not been identified by staff for funding.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for February 24, 1997. The
deadline for submitting the 1997 CDBG application to Hennepin County is no later than
Friday, March 7, 1997.
Respectfully submitted,
1
James Trosser
City Ma ger
JDP:cak
0
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 5-3
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1997 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
February 24, 1997, 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
$253,543 from the 1997 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 1997 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program.
Projects Budget
1. Housing Improvement:
a. Rehab of Private Property $143,152
b. Scattered Site/New Home Prog. $ 72,000
2. Public Service:
a. H.0.M.E. $ 22,700
b. G.M.D.C.A. Child Day Care $ 10,331
c. CASH $ 5,000
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 1997 CDBG Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
February 1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
is
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
1997 CDBG ALLOCATIONS BY COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY ALLOCATION*
Brooklyn Center 247,856
Brooklyn Park 515,070
Champlin " 79,985
Chanhassen 50,729
Crystal 139,149
Eden Prairie 189,472
Edina 188,011
Golden Valley 107,212
Hopkins 152,852
Maple Grove 156,096
Minnetonka 216,558
Mound 67,178
New Hope 167,862
Richfield 253,543
Robbinsdale 86,441
St. Louis Park 286,343
Subtotal: $2,904,356
Consolidated Pool (27 communities) 337,800
Subtotal: $337,800
Community Allocation Total: $3,242,155
Administration (Hennepin County): $359,300
County Total: $3,601,455
*Includes recaptured funds of $8,455. 1/21/97
is
U : \CDBG 1997\ 1997CDBG. ALL
5-
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 listing 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.
5-(
1997
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program
3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Bruce Nordquist, 861-9777
B. PROJECT DATA
I . Funding Request $ 143,512
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? _ _Yes 'No
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ 17 , 221 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.
0
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.)
15-20 households are anticipated being served, which means
15-20 homes will be rehabilitated.
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act goals.
Richfield already exceeds its benchmark for affordable housing.
However, older housing needs to be rehabilitated to maintain
quality livability.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-97 to 12-31-97, identify the major
project tasks to be performed and when they will occur.)
Task
See attached schedule
•
Date
Month/Date
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component--i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
Component
Deferred loans
Loan Administration
BUDGET/S
CDBG
$ 1276
$___15,786
DURCE OF FUNDS
Other (identify)
_ $ 17,221 (HRA
Project Budget $_143_,51L_ $ 17 , 221
Total Project Budget $ 160,733
0 Requfund.frm
5-9.
Project Description (refer to #5 on application). A discussion of project components,
needs and results follows:
The project is comprised of:
1. Deferred Loans for repairs and improvements in lower income, owner-occupied
housing ($127,726).
2. Deferred Loan Administration ($15,786)
(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,
weatherization, and accessibility improvements. 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
families' 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 14 homeowners have requested assistance and are presently waiting.
Due to continual additions to the waiting list, the program was last advertised in 1995.
At the end of 1996, all 1995 funds had been expended. 1996 funds are all committed.
1997 funds will fund all 14 households on the waiting list. Projected income from repaid
loans could fund three to five additional households annually.
The "emergency loan" feature of the project continues to be useful to ensure that lower
income people can resolve imperative situations such as collapsed sewer lines and
failed furnaces during the heating season.
0
59
Implementation Schedule (refer to #9 on application) All activities are on-going.
March-June 1997
Serve applicants on waiting list, distribute applications, review completed applications,
verify income and eligibility, inspect homes, receive bids, approve loans, notify
contractors to proceed with work. Advertise for program applicants, if necessary.
Jul-September 1997
Inspect completed work, make payments to contractors, file Repayment Agreements,
close out files. Service applicants on waiting list.
October-December 1997
Continue to approve loans, notify contractors to proceed with work, monitor and inspect
work being completed, make payments to contractors as necessary.
cdadmin:housing: projdata
0
1997 °URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
I . Community: u; chf; P 1 a
2. Project Name: New Home/Scattered Site
3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Bruce NordQuist, 861-9777
B. PROJECT DATA
I. Funding Request $ 72.ooo
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 Scattered Sites 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 attachment.
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.)
Medium priority.
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.)
One new home can be provided in 1998 as a result of 1997
CDBG activities.
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act goals.
Richfield already exceeds its benchmark for affordable housing.
However, that housing needs to either be rehabilitated or replaced
with larger, better quality housing to meet the needs of growing
families.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-97 to 12-31-97, identify the major
project tasks to be performed and when they will occur.)
Date
Task Month/Date
See attachment.
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component--i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
Component
BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS
CDBG Other (identifvl
Acquisition, Site Preparation $ 60,000 $
Demolition
Administration
$ 5,000 $
$ 7,000 $ 5,618 (HRA)
$ $
Project Budget $ 72.000 $ 5 , 618
Total Project Budget $ 77.618
Requfund.frm
Project Description: New Home Program-Scattered Site Project
(Refer to #5 of Application)
For 1997/98 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 often acquires 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
dwelling is equal to or greater in size than the substandard dwelling and available again
5-13
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 1997 those income limits are as follows:
Household Size Income Limit
(50% of Median) (80% of Median)
3 $39,150 $25,800
4 $43,500 $28,650
5 $47,000 $30,950
6 $50,450 $33,250
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 $50,500
Site Clearance and Preparation $ 5,000
Public Improvements $ 3,500
On-going Administration $ 7,000
Relocation 6,000
Total $72,000
The 1997 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 (Month/Year.)
- Review requests for Voluntary
Acquisition of property. 3/97 to 6/97
- Identify site to acquire, negotiate sale
price, acquire property 6/97 to 8/97
- Relocate occupants, clear property 7/97 to.9/97
- Initiate construction project* 9/97
- Construction underway* 11/97 to 6/98
- Marketing plans initiated* 5/98 to 7/98
- Completion and sale* 6/98 to 9/98
* 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.
is
cdadmin\housing\cd bg-bn
•
3
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Memorandum
DATE: February 18, 1997
TO: Richfield City Council
FROM: Camillo DeSantis, Chair RCHSPC
SUBJECT: Recommendations for 1997 CDBG Funding--Public Service
ISSUE STATEMENT
Public hearing on Urban Hennepin County Year 1997 (July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998)
Community Development Block Grant--Public Service Funding.
BACKGROUND
This material pertains to the Public Service Funding portion of the Hennepin County CDBG
grant. Fifteen percent of the total, or $38,031, is the amount available for Public Service
Funding for 1997 (July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998).
The Richfield Community Human Service Planning Council met with the three agencies
which applied for these funds. They are Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, Senior
Community Services HOME program, and Community Action for Suburban Hennepin HOME
LINE Program.
The program reviews with these agencies was held the evening of November 25, 1996 at
Richfield City Hall.
HISTORY OF CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997* 1997**
GMDCA $ 9,377 $10,320 $10,320 $11,300 $10,000 $10,331
Senior Community Services $19,350 $21,300 $22,050 $22,700 $22,700 $22,700
CASH $ _0- $ -0- $ -0- 4,363 5,000 5,000
TOTAL $28,727 $31,620 $32,370 $38,363 $37,700 $38,031
*Request
**Recommend
0
February 18, 1997 5-1 to
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council recommends that the City
Council allocate Community development Block Grant Public Service Funds for the fiscal
year July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 as follows.
1) Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association $10,331
2) Senior Community Services Home Program $22,700
3) Community Action for Suburban Hennepin $5,000
This is a total CDBG Public Service allocation of $38,031.
RATIONALE
All three programs address the issues of assisting families, children and the elderly to
maintain and work towards self-sufficiency and independence. They contribute to the quality
of life of Richfield residents and also to the maintenance of quality housing. Finally, these
programs leverage City allocated funds with funds from other sources such as the United
Way, Foundations, Corporations, County, State, etc.
BENEFITS
GMDCA--Assists Richfield low income families to access quality child care, usually in
Richfield, through the use of CDBG funds and other County, State and private funds as well.
HOME Program--enables elderly persons to remain in their homes as long as possible
sometimes delaying entry into nursing care facilities by helping to maintain homes in good
repair. This program works closely with the Agency's Senior Outreach Program to
coordinate home chores with other needed social services.
CASH/HOME LINE Program--Assists Richfield homeowners, usually low income, to prevent
foreclosure on their homes during periods of hardship. CASH also offers educational
programs for first time home buyers and students to enter the rental market. CASH operates
a Tenant's Hotline Service and provides consultation to apartment owners and managers.
COLLABORATION AND EVALUATION
1) All three programs have ways of evaluating their programs.
2) All three programs engage in collaborative efforts with others to provide more effective
service.
SELECTED PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association:
1) Only Richfield families are eligible for Richfield CDBG funds.
2) Set up to help families become self-sufficient.
3) With available funds, serve low income families based on a sliding fee scale.
4) It helps families pay for child care when they are in transition, in training and in low-paying
jobs.
February 18, 1997
Page 3
Senior Community Services HOME Program:
1) Program is provided as a cost-effective alternative to long term care for the elderly.
2) Costs are based on a sliding fee scale or ability to pay.
3) Services include chore/home maintenance, show removal, lawn care, carpentry, window
washing, etc.
4) Service is provided by a combination of paid skilled workers and volunteers.
5) Program is closely coordinated with the agency's Senior Outreach Program.
CASH/HOME LINE:
1) Provides services for low and moderate income renters and homeowners.
2) Secure other funding from HUD, MHFA, Hennepin County, First Bank and TCF
Foundations and McKnight Foundation.
3) Program offers pre-purchase education and counseling, home maintenance and repair
and post-purchase counseling.
CD:je
i
1997
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: HOME (Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderlvl
3. Contact Person/Phone No. 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 fundstfirm commitment?)
4. Project Location: Address Richfield Citywide yp&
(Attach map)
5. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify what,
if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project)
See Attachment
6. Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided identify what priority(ies) the project will
meet. (Note: If proposed project is a low Urban County priority you must explain why it has
a higher priority in your community)
Public Service Needs: Senior Services - High Priority
U
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 177 Richfield residents (150 households). It is anticipated that a
similar number will be served in CDBG Year XXIII.
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act goals.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-97 to 12-31-98, identify the major
project tasks to be performed and when they will occur)
ibak
Maintenance - Includes minor repairs in the areas of
Date
Month/ Date
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 CDBG Other(identify)
Public Services/Eden Prairie $ 10.067 $ 90.000 Client fees
/Edina $18.000 $ 8.000 Edina/EEHF
/Richfield $ 22.700 $ 39.362 United Way
/Minnetonka $14, 00, $27,085 GMCC
/Brooklyn Center $ 9.000 $ 14.000 Friends of HM
$ 83,754 Hen County
Project Budget $ 74.E $262.201
Total Project Budget $336.568
NOTE: A copy of the HOME Program Budget is attached showing all anticipated
expenses and revenues for the Program
Attachment
5,dD
H.O.M.E.
(Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
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.
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.
5-0.1
i
•
HOME Program 1997 - 1998 Operating Budget
REVENUE
Contributions 14,500
United Way 39,362
Government Revenue
Bloomington (CDBG) 20,000
Bloomington (HRA) 17,000
Brooklyn Center (CDBG) 9,000
Eden Prairie (CDBG) 10,067
Edina (CDBG) 18,000
Edina (EEHF) 8,000
Greater Mpls Council of Churches 27,085
Hennepin County 83,754
Minnetonka (CDBG) 14,600
Richfield (CDBG) 22,700
Sub-total CDBG funds/Hennepin County 74,367
Friends of HOME 14,000
Client Fees 90,000
Total 388,068
EXPENSES
Salaries & Wages 243,405
Benefits & Taxes 69,463
Occupancy 3,426
Equipment Repair/Maint. 1,080
Telephone 4,944
Postage 2,271
Printing & Publications 5,408
Supplies 14,215
Professional Fees
. 7,643
Mileage 6,092
Conferences & Meetings 3,083
Insurance 6,923
Memberships & Subscriptions 665
Miscellaneous 606
Depreciation 4,154
Management Expenses 17,746
Total 391,124
Net Excess (Deficit) ($3,056)
•
•
j
I
1997
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FU 6*1
(Use one form per projdot)
IC ENERAL INFORMATION
:1, Community: Rich$eld
2.' Project Name: Ch; d _Carc SlWi nh Fig Prom= -
9 , Contact !person/ Phone No. Ow.N arris 9.0142 -
PILOrECT DATA
-
1, Funding Request S110,090-0
x. Is this request to fund an existing CDBO-FUNDED project? _,.,_Yes No
3.14vemgcd Funds: Amount $ Source
4. Project Location: Address 1628 Elliott SO h2L3. MN 55404 County Wide
4, project Description: (Describe the project n as much detail as possible and identify
what if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project)
They program is set up to help families become solf-sufficient. It help families pay
for the 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 fhmily. Families are served
on a first-come-first-served basis. Families who apply for assistance are evaluated
to see if county or state funded child dare assistance is available to them. This
assures that the city funding will provide additional help to its residents, rather
then replace county or state money, If the program wee to be funded, Richfield
families whose incomes are below Section 8 guidelines and who could not get
county or state funding would receive help on a sliding ft basis.
6, Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided, identify what priority(ies) the project
vAll meet. (Note: If a proposed project is a low Urban County priority, you must explain
4' it has a'high.r priority in your community)
This project will meet the high priority for child care.
1
l
3
0
•
0
w Anticipated results/ accomplishments projects will have. (i.e.; number of
persorvAouseholds to be assistodlserved, number of housing units to be
built, etc.)
It will help families move toward self-sufficiency. If parents have help paying for
child care, then they can go to work.
K. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan
Livable comtr?unities Act goals.
Hot applicable
9, Implementation Schedule, (For the time period (7.1.97 to 12.31-97, identify the
major projW tasks to be performed and when they will occur.)
Date
blm=
a Prod t WOOL win flam not the 091t for ?,,??»;?li... OL.M
y??ilable fhr n? el Qible fa* Wics On the waiting list.
i
L Mail abn i tidn to ton elis ible &mlli on he WW W tilt.
io. Budget; (Specify total project budget by major project oompOnent-iAt administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
BUI)Q?BTISOURC$ OF FUNDS
State Cowry numy
admini . by QMDCA
++ Service to families in iehfiieid
d DCA"Servicos
Total Project Budget
SOe inclosed slwet with CDBG allocations to other suburban communities
•
1 + Ii
.*,EN1)**-
w +s]hi3tm.r
N
OD N .-? N C'? ?-
? ? ? r N w O ? OD OO ?? ?- r a'
t
I t
p O O C1 O ? ? ?"
q:r
N C-4 to
i
N N e~- Iii N CD O O
C rN"' r' ? Ri in O ?D r ? t1 ? 1" C? ?T
a
Q ? ?q N P7 Gi ? try ti' ?D 1`+ r' N O
O ? to ? N N N N cD O O 4 ? N
LL
uj
/I
199 7? 15:09
,•,.:?...r• or av• r
04
6129338016 V4 uoi _
a rn?.'+;f ova or?a '.•tli-K3VtttILLU -- -
• 54 .
UP-a" VVIENNMIN COUN ff CDBG -PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FMI NG
(use one ftm pet pmjax)
A. GM4T_%d%L W0RMAITON
1. Commuasty: Richfield
2 projecsNamr_ CommuniLy Action for Suburban Hennepin/HOME line
3. Con= ParmwPhone NO. Sharon Johnson, Ex. Dir., 933-9639, x-203
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Funding Request $ S..QQQ
:. is this request w fmad m snug CDBG-MIDPD projece -!-Yes No
6
3. Leveraged Fund= Ama" S Sow=
(To wW cm= does pmj= leveret addiiioul pubim or p m aw f=dV&m =mmitmenn
4. Project Dina: Addm s Citywide X
(Att uh map-)
Pmjea DesQi}wiat: ()esc U the projem m as much ditn as possible and id=d& wL14 if
my. slte mmive funding togas Dave been considen d for Ods HOME Line provides services for low and modeproie income renters and homeowner .
Renter services include a tenant advocacy hotline and assistance to tenant
groups to become organized to address commoo problems in a given complex. We
also conduct presentations to high school students on the "realities" of goinq
out into the rental housing market. For homeowners, HOME L-ine's Center for
Homeownership offers full-cycle services: pre-purchase education and counse:-
ing, home maintenance and repair, and post-purchase counseling--mostly fore-
closure prevention assistance.
CD$G•funding from Richfield and other cii:ies provides-anlXA sma711 part of
total HOME Line budget. We get funding from HUD, the MN Housing Finance Agen..y,
Hennepin County, First--Bank and TCF Foundations, any the _.JtKnight Foundation '.1
Urba4 County Frtodd= Using tta Jilt FwAded, idea* wbat ptiority(,es) the project WM ? i
meet. 'Mote if s pmpmed project is s Iow Utz County p'iorit , you must cP12in w k
has a wow primtw is your oomtauaity.)
Tenant and Homeowner Education
9o0lrtN Prot Moos 7671 v.a ?
TO A LAS .Ply
es}S ea
?°".. 1400 61 ~ 7 S
s's
7. AaticcpaNd arts psojecL e-M hVe. (ie;.number of petwoskouatholdt t
to be eesistWserved, mnmbei of bcufmg emits w be rebabWt wVbu"•eoc_)
Based_,prt qy ..e?cperisr?ce working with Richfial.d_•homeowtters and renters w
• e
anticipate-'serving appproximately 350-400 renter rou5eholds.(about 800-1,000
people when all f-Amily members are counted; over 95t of these will be low or
moderate income households. Our homeownership'
omeownership services should assist another'
25-30 oymer.households (some 70-80 people) primarily with foreclosure pre-
ention•help'. 1In•the past; 95% of homeowners we have served in Richfield have!
b
8. If ippii loo, rde iiE * UbwePc?vnje ,RV i a?i id" ?+te &?rs is about ' 90
ComumWdea Act goals.
Not applicable
9. Implematsadou Stbe+3t W (Fair the time period 7-1-97 to 12-31-97. idw* the major
prgea tasks to be yerfbamed and when theY wM Oc= )
97.
DM
-MaRdIMM
Homeowner
•
10. Hodges: (Spa* tool project budVt by moor pmj= component i.e, admasistrs ort,
VIMMkg. aoas>rvetioa, asgs>ititi 3n. erect 8P8193, public Sgr%=:)
BUDGETraMCE OF FUNDS
de s fvl
Publ it nrvice $ s.$91?r599 (QSBG, MEOG, HUD,
FHPAP, FPRAP)
S
•Proj= Budget S-S
Toms Prnjoct Budget Sgt., nnn
Q"
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 57
Agenda February 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration to authorize a lease agreement for antenna space with Airtouch Cellular
for the Penn Avenue water tower.
Background:
As Council Members are aware, the mobile telephone industry is growing and
competition has entered the Twin Cities marketplace. Up to six firms may have
authorization to establish telecommunications towers and operations in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul area. As such, those firms are generally approaching cities and
schools in order to negotiate lease arrangement for the use of some of their respective
facilities for antenna space. Lighting towers and water towers are two such facilities
that provide an excellent base for antenna space.
The City previously approved a lease agreement with American Mobile Telephone
(APT) at the Logan Avenue water tower. Since that time, the City has entered into
other negotiations for sites to be leased for antenna space. The City has been in
negotiations for several months with Airtouch Celllular for the lease of antenna space
on the water tower located on Penn Avenue at Fire Station #2. After considerable
• discussion, Airtouch and the City have come to a tentative approval of a lease
agreement including plans for the ground building structure required to support the
antenna facilities. The major terms of the lease, which follow quite closely a model
lease developed by the League of Minnesota Cities, are as follows:
The lease is to begin in 1997, pending final approval of other agencies such as the
FCC and will end December 31, 2002. The term of the lease may be extended for
two additional five-year periods at the sole discretion of the lessor. Thereafter, the
lease may be extended for two additional five-year periods provided both the lessor
and the lessee agree to such extension.
• The lease for the tower antenna space shall be $13,500 for the initial year and be
increased annually by five percent over the previous year's annualized rent.
The building which would be needed by Airtouch to provide support service to the
antenna mounted on the tower would be incorporated into the existing wall on the
front southwest corner of the fire station. The building would have its own air
conditioning and fire suppression sprinkling systems. The materials for the building
would match the fire station so that it would blend in to the current structure.
Recommended Motion:
. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a lease on behalf of the City
regarding space on the Penn Avenue water tower to Airtouch Communications for
antenna space.
g8-i
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The antenna on the water tower will not cause any problems with the production
of water for the City of Richfield.
2. The amount contained in the lease is a fair amount and is commensurate with
what other cities are getting for similar antenna facilities in the metro area.
3. The lease, in its entirety, provides for many favorable provisions and protections
for the City of Richfield and in most respects either equals or exceeds the
standards set forth in the League of Minnesota Cities' model lease.
4. Airtouch has agreed to the terms of the lease agreement.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could determine that the lease provisions are not favorable enough for
the City of Richfield and renegotiate the entire lease or portions of the lease.
2. The City could postpone this item to a future meeting in order to gain more
information regarding any aspect of this lease agreement.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the February 24 Council meeting so that Airtouch may
begin activity in conjunction with establishing this antenna space and the support
• structures that must accompany it.
Respectfully submitted,
James D rosser
City Ma ger
JDP:ds
0
MIN CROSSPENN
EXHIBIT B
4vs.iG I=lv6.
? , ?tF?s7aTcnw
(l? £)L\5T . WAITP- ft \ - - - -- v
' O trYls? p??T io
? ? `jj s? to`x34'
? d??E4u?pM es?T
??Ptu` Ca W M?/4EG - /
l ?1% 4-0.
I
l
J
1
. ST S LsvwT l ow
qlq
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 56
Agenda February 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of approval of an agreement with ROI Properties, Inc. for property
management services at 6758 Portland Avenue.
Background:
The property at 6758 Portland Avenue was acquired by the City for future expansion of
the City Hall parking lot. In the interim the location and condition of the house make it a
good rental unit. The property has been inspected for any housing code violations and
repairs have been completed. A rental license was applied for and has been granted.
Two property management companies were interviewed and one was selected based
on the services they can provide. ROI Properties, Inc. has over 30 years experience in
property management. Representatives have shown a willingness to provide services
to the City and future tenants with the highest level of integrity.
ROI Properties, Inc. will provide all management services including tenant screening,
advertising, rent collection, and maintenance. For these services ROI Properties collect
an initial fee of $195. Thereafter, 7% plus $15 per month of the rent collected is
assessed as a management fee.
After evaluating the property, ROI representatives have suggested an initial rent
amount between $895 and $950.
A City employee with a family has expressed an interest in renting the house. Based
on an evaluation of the employee's finances, a rent of $880 would be affordable (the
suggestion by ROI of a rental range between $895 and $950 was untested in that the
City employee expressed the desire to reside in the house before advertising was
initiated).
Recommended Motion:
Approve the agreement with ROI Properties, Inc. for property management services.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Hiring a professional management company would provide a high level of service
to the tenant and neighboring residents.
2. ROI Properties, Inc. has been highly recommended by others who have used their
services.
0
q?-l
3. ROI rates are competitive and were lower than those of RP Management, the
second company interviewed.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not approve agreement.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The property is ready to rent.
Respectfully submitted,
i
i
Jam s Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
r?1
1_. J
0