Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2-26-96 agenda
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1996 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 12, 1996 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA PRESENTATIONS 2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO CITIZENS WHO ASSISTED PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT IN TAKING "A BITE OUT OF CRIME" 3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING TO FINANCE MANAGER CHRIS REGIS ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 55 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 CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF LARRY EMOND AND GLENN ERICKSON TO 1996 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION C.L. 56 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTE TABULATION AND REJECTION OF BID OF CERES'`ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. IN AMOUNT OF $92,134.80 AND AUTHORIZATION TO READVERTISE FOR CONTRACT C.L. 57 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR ARTICULATED SIDEWALK PLOW FROM MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $48,716 C.L. 58 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR POOL HEATER AT RICHFIELD OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL FROM COMMERCIAL POOL & SPA IN AMOUNT OF $7,877 C.L. 59 E. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION STORM SEWER AND SEDIMENT BASIN CONSTRUCTION FOR RICHFIELD LAKE OUTLET; BARBAROSAAND SONS, INC.; $219,164.00 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 13.02 REGARDING OATH OF OFFICE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 60 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHANGING CITY CHARTER TO REFLECT CURRENT STATE LAW REGARDING CONTRACT BID LAW AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN CITY OF RICHFIELD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6847 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 61 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1996 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS 0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 62 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 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. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 62 Agenda February 26, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the Urban Hennepin County Year 1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation. Background: The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on February 26, 1996 to determine Richfield's use of the 1996 Urban allocation of $255,753. Requests for $255,753 of Year 1996 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 1996 decreased 7% from last year. As in past years, Richfield proposes Public Service, Removal of Architectural Barriers, 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.). During 1995, the Richfield Community Development Department and Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) began working 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 is within the prescribed County guideline o 15 percent of the total allocation - $38,363. 1996 proposes to continue bringing City Hall into compliance with accessibility standards required by the American Disabilities Act. City Hall rest rooms are targeted for structural modification in 1996 at an allocation of $10,000. f Richfield supports two home improvement projects: Rehabilitation of Private Property and the Scattered Site/New Home Program. The CDBG Year 1996 funds, when combined with rehabilitation loans presently in progress, will serve approximately 15 additional households which either need emergency repairs or seek major repairs during the 1996 spring, summer, fall, repair/construction season. Currently, there are approximately 30 homeowners that have requested assistance and are waiting. A total amount of $135,390 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 1996 is $72,000. The chart below summarizes previous allocations, requested and recommended funding: Year 1993 Year 1994 Year 1995 Funded Funded Funded Year1996 Activity Amoun Amount Amon Recommended Rehab of Private Property $ 86,424 $145,113 $150,190 $135,390 Scattered/Site/ New Home Program $118,455 $ 78,800 $ 81,560 $ 72,000 Removal of Architectural Barriers $ -0- $ 12,000 $ 12,518 $ 10,000 Public Service: H.0.M.E. $ 19,350 $ 21,300 $ 22,050 $ 22,700 G.M.D.C.A. Child Day Care $ 9,377 $ 10,320 $ 10,320 $ 11,300 CASH $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ 4,363 SKILLS 2000 $ 7,740 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- Total $241,346 $267,533 $276,638 $255,753 Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution which identifies the allocation of Year 1996 CDBG funds as follows: 1. Housing Improvements: a. Housing Rehabilitation $135,390 b. Scattered Site Housing $ 72,000 2. Removal of Arch Barriers a. City Hall Improvements $ 10,000 3. Public Service: a. H.0.M.E. $ 22,700 b. G.M.D.C.A. Child Day Care $ 11,300 c. CAS H $ 4,363 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The County's statement of objectives indicates that communities should limit the number of projects funded to three and the minimum project budget to $7,500. The proposal is divided into three projects, Housing Improvements, Removal of Architectural Barriers, and Public Service, which meet the objective stated. 2. Housing improvement funding should be allocated to housing rehabilitation and scattered site acquisitions under the New Home Program. The $72,000 allocated for scattered site is the minimum required to complete one scattered site project. The $135,390 would be used for rehabilitation of single family homes through the Deferred Loan program. 3. Removal of Architectural Barriers would continue to bring City Hall facilities into compliance with ADA accessibility requirements. 4. Public service funding as recommended by the Richfield Community Human Y_a Services Planning Council (attached). 5. Public service accounts may not be increased beyond the percent of total level of funding as proposed. This will allow the County to stay within the 15 percent guideline for commitment to public service funding. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Change the amount of funds allocated to each project. 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 26, 1996. The deadline for submitting the 1996 CDBG application to Hennepin County is no later than Wednesday, March 6, 1996. Respectfull submitted, James . rosser City Ma ger JDP:cak 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1996 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 8-3 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 26, 1996, 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 $255,753 from the 1996 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 Henenpin County Community Development Block Grant program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 1996 Urban Henenpin County Community Development Block Grant Program. Pr ' c s 1. Housing Improvement: a. Rehab of Private Property b. Scattered Site/New Home Prog 2. Removal of Architectural Barriers: a. City Hall Improvements 3. Public Service: a. H.0.M.E.: b. G.M.D.C.A. Child Day Care c. CAS H Budget $135,390 $ 72,000 $ 10,000 $ 22,700 $ 11,300 $ 4,363 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor E ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 9-4 1996 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. Judy Kunz - 861-9760 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Request $_.135 , 390 2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG funded project X Yes No 3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ 16,800 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 proposed project is a low Urban County priority you must explain why it has a higher priority in your community) High priority. to 0 Description: Project Data, #5 (continued). 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 ($121,851) (2) Deferred Loan Administration ($13,539) (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. 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 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 30 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 1995, all funds had been expended. 1996 funds will fund approximately 15 households on the waiting list. Projected income from 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 what seems like impossible situations for them such as collapsed sewer lines and failed furnaces during the heating season. 10 s-,-7 The annual qualifying income is 50 percent of the Twin City Area Median income as determined by HUD. As of January 1996 the following limits apply: Household Size Maximum Income Household Size Household Income 1 $19,100 4 $27,300 2 $21,850 5 $29,500 3 $24,550 6 $31,650 An evaluation of last year's CDBG project delivery suggests: The average loan is $10,600 Approximately 30% of loan proceeds are directed towards major weatherization (furnace, windows, insulation); Approximately 15% of loan proceeds are directed towards roof replacement; Approximately 20% of loan proceeds are directed towards exterior maintenance (gutters, steps, siding replacement) and - Approximately 20% of loan proceeds repair building code items (plumbing, electrical problems). The 15% balance, not specifically categorized above, is applied toward a variety of miscellaneous problem areas. (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. 0 3-K 0 Implementation Schedule: Project Data, #8 (continued). All activities are on-going. 3rd Quarter 1996 (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 1996 (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 1997 (January - March) 1996 2nd Quarter activities ongoing, advertise for program applicants as necessary. 2nd Quarter 1997 (April - Jung) Inspect completed work, make payments to contractors, file Repayment Agreements, close out files. Service applicants on waiting list. 3rd Quarter 1997 (July - September) Continue activities of 2nd quarter 1997; advertise as necessary. 4th Quarter 1997 (October - December) Continue activities as during 3rd quarter 1996. Kcdamin:housingAeferred: Projdata.doc is Y-9 1996 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. Judy Kunz 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 $ 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 proposed project is a low Urban County priority you must explain why it has a higher priority in your community) Medium priority. 40 3-11 Description: New Home Program-Scattered Site Project (Refer to #5 of Application) For 1996/97 New Home Program activities, $72,000 is requested. Since 1975, over 50 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 develop vacant land; - to acquire sites containing substandard housing (approximately 165 substandard homes exist); to obtain sites with sound housing: abandoned housing such as 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 would be rehabilitated or, when rehabilitation is not practical, cleared to permit the construction of housing. The vacant land would be developed with housing. Substandard nonresident structures would be evaluated for conversion to residential use. If rehabilitation and conversion were not feasible, the structure would be removed and housing would be developed on the site. Housing in sound condition would be maintained for continued use. The housing units made available by this project would be utilized for rental of ownership to qualifying low and moderate income persons. HUD regulations for acquisition and relocation would be followed. When appropriate, these 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. In some instances, an acquired structure may be rented temporarily to the owner-occupant after acquisition but before vacating. Between the time of acquisition and the beginning of housing development, certain site preparation related to housing development may be necessary. $- la- 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 or greater in size and available again to qualifying low income persons. Housing will always be produced and the property will not be converted to another use. After project completion the HRA will rent or sell the housing to qualifying low or moderate income persons. If rehabilitation or new construction is to occur, the HRA would retain ownership or sell the property to a private or nonprofit 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. Another use of these funds is for the acquisition of single or two family dwellings for rehabilitation and sale to low and moderate income persons. This is done in conjunction with South Hennepin Technical College. Students provide labor for this project, reducing the cost of the improvements. The greatest need in Richfield is for decent, safe and sanitary housing affordable to low income families. The project expends 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 1996 those income limits are as follows: Household Size Income Limit (50% of Median) (80% of Median) 3 $24,550 $37,450 4 $27,300 $41,600 5 $29,500 $44,950 6 $31,650 $48,250 Components of a project, during implementation of a Technical College type of project, include: ongoing administration, program solicitation, appraisal, negotiations, acquisition, 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 8-i3 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 1996 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 these projects, meet project objectives, and leverage the additional resources identified in this funding request. 4) ?- 14 Implementation Schedule: New Home Program - Scattered Site Project (Refer to #8 of Application) Date Task (MonthNear) - Review requests for Voluntary Acquisition of property. 7/96 to 9/96 - Identify site to acquire, negotiate sale price, acquire property 10/96 to 12/96 - Relocate occupants, clear property 1/97 to 3/97 - Initiate construction project * 4/97 to 6/97 - Construction underway * 7/97 to 12/97 - Marketing plans initiated * 9/97 to 12/97 - Completion and sale * 1/98 to 3/98 * 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. [Housing]CDBG-BN 0 S-15 1996 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST FOR FUNDING (Use one form per project) A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: City of Richfield 2. Project Name: ADA Improvements - City of Richfield 3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Steven L. D evi ch 861-9702 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Request $ 10 , 0 0 0 2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? Yes X No 3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ Source (To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?) 4. Project Location: Address 6700 Portland Ave. So. Citywide (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) The City ADA self-evaluation identified several problem areas to be corrected. The most significant problems to be resolved is the modification of restroom facilities, water fountains and some door openers. The funding for 1995 and 1996 will be used to completely redo the restroom facilities at City Hall, including sinks, urinals, walls, floor tile, plumbing, door openers and miscellaneous- finishing. Any remaining funds will be used for water fountains and door openers. 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.) Handicapped Services - High priority level. (5,0 CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: February 21, 1996 TO: Richfield City Council FROM: Camillo DeSantis, Chair RCHSPC SUBJECT: Recommendations for 1996 CDBG Funding--Public Service ISSUE STATEMENT Public hearing on Urban Hennepin County Year 1996 (July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997) 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 $38,363, is the amount available for Public Service Funding for 1996 (July 1, 1996-June 30, 1997). 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 Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program. The program reviews with these agencies was held the evening of February 20, 1996 at Richfield City Hall. HISTORY OF CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING 1993 1994 1995 1996* 1996** GMDCA $9,377 $10,320 $10,320 $12,000 $11,300 Senior Community Services $19,350 $21,300 $22,050 $22,700 $22,700 CASH $-0- -0- -0- $5,000 $4,363 TOTAL $28,727 $31,620 $32,370 $39,700 $38,363 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, 1996 through June 30, 1997 as follows. 1) Greater Minneapolis Dare Care Association $11,300 2) Senior Community Services Home Program $22,700 3) Community Action for Suburban Hennepin $4,363 g-18 This is a total CDBG Public Service allocation of $38,363. 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 Mortage Foreclosure Prevention 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) Currently serving two families 3) Served five families during 7/1/95 through 1/31/96 4) Waiting list of eighty families in Richfield 5) With available funds serve low income families based on a sliding fee scale who are either in school and/or working 6) Most working family wages are too low to pay for child care Senior Community Services HOME Program 1) Users are usually elderly persons 2) Costs are based on a sliding fee scale or ability to pay 3) 151 Richfield residents (129 households) served in 1995 and similar numbers anticipated in 1996 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 Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program 1) Users are approximately 93% low income home owners q-1 g 10 9 2) Close working relationship with banks, lenders, realtors, HUD, MHFA etc. IS 3) During 1993-1995 served 54 households 4) Minor children resided in 69% of the Richfield homes 5) Main reasons for default are unemployment and health issues 6) 41 files were closed between 1993 and 1995 7) 37 home were saved from 1993 through 1995 8) $16,913 was obtained from various sources for Richfield homeowners 9) Foreclosure prevention uses a variety of approaches such as refinancing, budgeting assistance, dealing with family difficulties, or selling the home and purchasing a home at a more affordable cost * Requested **Recommended CD:dfj • C7 J-0-0 1996 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST FOR FUNDING (Use one form per project) A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: City of Richfield 2. Project Name: Sliding Fee Program 3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Grace Norris (612) 341-1177 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Request $ 12,000 2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? X Yes No 3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ N/,4 Source (To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?) 4. Project Location: Address 1628 Elliot Ave So Minneapolis, Citywide (Attach map.) 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 first-come, first-served basis. Families applying for assistance are first evaluated to see if county or state funded child care assistance is avialable to them. This assures that the city funding will provide additional help to its residents rather than replace county or state money. Richfield families whose income are below Section 8 guidelines and who could not get county or state funding receive help on a sliding fee basis. 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.) 40 Under Public Service Needs, Child Care Services has a high priority. FROM GM6CA 02.01.1996 16:13 P. 1 a? GRECAPP. ATER MINNEAPOLIS GMDCA- 1628 Elliot Avenue South ryC? ilq re Leadership and Services Minneapolis, MN 55404-1657 Tel. (612) 341-1177 Judy Kuntz Fax (612) 341.4356 City of Richfield Voice/TDD (512) 344-2066 6700 Port;and Ave.S. Richfield,MN 55¢23 Dear Judy, On behalf of the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association (GMDCA), I am requesting that the Richfield City Council consider using $12,000. of their Year XXII Community Development Block Grant (CDDG) money for the child care sliding fee program. I understand that Child Care Services are a high priority for the 1996 CD13G funding. With $12,000.1 the two Richfield families now being served could continue to recieve help. Applications been sent to the top two families on your waiting list. Hopefully one of these will be served soon. The enclosed CDBG report as of 1-31-96 indicates that five families were served in the last half of 1995. There are 80 eligible Richfield families currently on your waiting list. When a family calls and is proven eligible, their name goes on to the county waiting list, as well as the waiting list for their city, if tha city has a subsidy program. Thirteen suburban cities currently use some of their CDBG funds for a child care subsidy program. At this time, families have to wait over one year for subsidy help through the county. If a city has a subsidy program, that waiting list moves more quickly, as it includes only eligible residents of that city. Once the name of a family on a city program comes up on the county list, that family is moved to county funding. so the city money can be used to help another resident family. This system maximizes the use of City money, but the paperwork and time moving families from one program to another causes ups and downs. in the use of city funds. Thank you for your past involvement in this program. Many Richfield families have been able to move toward self- sufficiency with your help. Please call if I can got any other information for you.. I will try to attend your public hearing for the CDBG:fands. Sincerely, • ?. ? P061•It'" Fare Note 7671 Vale pa ebb Grace Norris To From Community Outreach p$gtre ?'°' t. oo. REFERRALS • CARisC;1VEI2 Phone M Phone k Fex a Fex N . 71 u zL < 6 J QOM GMDCG 02.01.1996 16:13 ?J ?a V ?Mk W A cif ? Cat 00 V1 W ?. 0o W i!? d 0! W r o 0`10 co ?' ? ? w ? ono ? • 1k W v ©° 41 Oo ,p Q O O a N d N O C C V w M air O O r!1 d Cif O co ` N N oS N 00 P. 2 u 0 z 0 v w F 4 0 m 2 z d 0 gin w W 8-a! SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone 541-1019 Fax 541-0841 BOARD of DIRECTORS Bob Zagaros February 15, 1996 President Kevin Krueger istVicePresident Denny Johnson Marty Guritz Human Services Planner 2nd Vice President City of Richfield John Nelson 6700 Portland Ave. South seaetary Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Dwight Johnson Treasurer Dear Mr. Johnson: Tom Ticen Past President Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Richfield William H. Gray allocate $22,700 for the 1996-'97 fiscal year from it's share of Member-at-Large Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Year XXII (July 1, Aiko Higuchl 1996 - June 30, 1997) funds to support the HOME Program. This Member-at-Large would amount to an increase of 3%. Enclosed is a Hennepin Mary Anderson County Request for Funding application filled out for the City to Nelson Berg facilitate our request. John Boeder Lucille Crow Hobert DeGhetto 1w Richfield's CDBG funds will still be leveraged from client fees ry Henning , funding from the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches Tad Jude John Keefe (GMCC) and from donations. The HOME Program operates on a Harvey Kendall sliding fee scale. On average clients cover approximately one- Dr. Chinyere (Ike) Njaka third of the Programs' cost. GMCC funding, utilizing Federal Title Senator Gen Olson Ryan Schroeder III monies, helps to subsidize chore services. Friends of HOME, an organization that solicits private donations, helps to fill the Benjamin F. Withhart remaining gap between the City's CDBG funds and the total Executive Director & C.E.O. Program expense. PROGRAMS We have received the invitation to attend the Planning council • Community meeting on 2/20 and plan to have a representative present to Senior Groups & Multi-purpose respond to the questions. If anything else is needed please Senior Centers contact me. • H.O.M.E. Sincerely, • Senior Outreach • Seniors Serving Business Ron Bloch Program Administrator • ?i I A united way Agcy 8-as 0 1996 40 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 Ym (Attach map) 5. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify what, if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project) See Attachment 6. Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided identify what priority(ies) the project will meet. (Note: If proposed project is a low Urban County priority you must explain why it has a higher priority in your community) Public Service Needs: Senior Services - High Priority • 7. Anticipated results/accomplishments project will have. (ie., number of persons/households • to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabbed/built, etc. In 1995 the project served 151 Richfield residents (129 households). It is anticipated that a similar number will be served in CDBG Year XXII. 8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan Livable Communities Act goals. 9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-96 to 12-31-97, identify the major project tasks to be performed and when they will occur) Date Task Month/ Date • 9. 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 $ 10.650 $ 90.000 Client fees /Edina $ 25.640 $ 83.754 Hen County /Richfield $ 22.700 $ 36.050 United Way /Minnetonka $15.000 2 7 1 GMCC /Brooks Center $ 9.306 $ 12.000 Friends of HM Project Budget 983,296 $250,555 Total Project Budget $333.851 NOTE: A copy of the HOME Program Budget is attached showing all anticipated • expenses and revenues for the Program Attachment H.O.M.E. • (Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly) Program 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 affordah!e 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- 40 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. 8-32 1996 -'97 HOME BUDGET EXPENSES Salaries 243,008 Benefitsfraxes 63,544 Occupancy 3,450 Equipment 1,087 Telephone Postage 4,455 2,286 Printing 4,836 Supplies 14,230 Professional Fees 6,528 Travel 6,134 Conferences 3,104 Insurance 6,500 Memberships 669 Miscellaneous 621 Depreciation 6,831 Management Expenses 15,926 TOTAL EXPENSES 383,209 REVENUES Hennepin County Contract 83,754 Bloomington (CDBG) 21,840 Bloomington HRA 17,000 Richfield (CDBG) 22,700 Edina (CDBG) 25,640 Eden Prairie (CDBG) I 10,650 Minnetonka (CDBG) 15,000 Brooklyn Center (CDBG) 9,306 Subtotal CDBG funds through Hennepin County 83,296 GMCC - Title IIIB 19,765 GMCC - United Way 8,986 Customer Fees 90,000 United Way 36,050 Friends of HOME contributions 12,000 TOTAL REVENUES 372,691 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) -10,518 9338016 COMMUNITY ACTION 131 P02 FEB 21 '96 17:11 1996 URBAN ? E IN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST FOR FUNDING ' t (Use one form per project) A. GENERAL INFORMATION E 1. Community. Richfield 2. FrojectName: Community Action for Suburban Hennepin - HOME Line 3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Charlie Warner - 933-9639 X221 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Request $ 4,363.04 2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED Project? Yes X No 3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ 0 Source (To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitusent?) 4. Project Location: Address Citywide X (Attach map.) 5. Project Description: (Desen'be the project in as much detail as possible and identify what, if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project) Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention (Post-purchase counseling) - The program assists lower income homeowners who are facing foreclosure and the possible loss of their homes due to circumstances beyond their control. After intensive individual financial counseling with the homeowner and prompt, knowledgeable negotiations with lenders, the foreclosure prevention staff assist homeowners gain access to public and private financial resources to help solve a delinquency. Where appropriate, a last resort loan will.be made to the homeowner to bring the loan current. The loan is.-non-interest bearing and comes due on sale of the property or when it is no longer-owner-occupied. The program's Emergency Loan Fund is capitalized with funds from CASH; additional loan funds are available to the program through the MHFA's Foreclosure Prevention and Rental Assistance Program (FPRAP). b. Urban County Priorities: Using the- list provided, idernifY 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.) Other public service needs. 46, 9338016 COMMUNITY ACTION 131 P03 FEB 21 196 17:12 3-30 7. Anticipated results/accomplishments projects will have. 0e; number of persons/households to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabilitaxed/built; etc.) r Based on previous experience, an approximately 25 to 30 Richfield families will be served. 8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan Livable Communities Act goals. NA 9. implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-96 to 12-31-97, identify the major project tasks to be performed and when they will occur.) Date Moyth/Date Tak This is an on-going program; intake and assistance will-proceed throughout the year. l? J 10. Budget= (Specify total project budget by major project component- i.e., administration, planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.) BUDGETISOURCE OF FUNDS C_ mD = CY}BG they (identify) Public Service $ 4,363.00 S Project Budget $-_ $ Total Project Budget S t 9-3) Community Action 0 for Suburban Hennepin Ms. Judith Kunz City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 February 7,1996 Dear Ms. Kunz: This letter is to request funding in the amount of $5,000 from the city's Community Development Block Grant program. This funding will be used to support HOME Line, the housing services of Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH). I am enclosing materials that describe all of our programs and, for our tenant hotline and foreclosure prevention programs, data showing use of these programs by residents of Richfield. As you can see, we are mostly serving low and moderate income people in your community. This year, we will be giving special attention to our educational program for high school students. We believe that giving information on the basics of being a renter to young people about to graduate will help them to avoid some of the problems we encounter time and again on our renters hotline. We have made six presentations to students at Richfield High School since starting this program in 1993. In addition, we plan to expand our homeownership programs by adding services to existing homeowners, particularly those of lower incomes, to help them maintain their property and stretch their budgets. These will include information, technical assistance, and instruction on home maintenance and repair. And, we will assist homeowners to get repairs done: developing specifications, selecting contractors, assuring quality work. A loan fund to help homeowners finance small repair jobs will be established in conjunction with these repair services. We appreciate your willingness to consider our request for support. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Charlie Warner, our Housing Programs Director, at 933-9639, extension 221. Sincerely, Vol --1JJ /atull Sharon A. Joh n x ''?' Executive Dir ctor VP Enclosures: Financial statement & Proposed budget HOME Line program descriptions Data sheets on renters hotline, foreclosure prevention, and home buyer programs List of supporting cities 33 1 0th Auenue S., Suite 150, Hopkins, MN 55343 - (612) 933-9639 - Fax 933-8016 r. Community .Action • for Suburban Hennepin HOME Line's Foreclosure Prevention Program Information of Richfield Homeowners Served From 1993 -1995 The next two charts show the increase in the number of Richfield homeowners requesting foreclosure prevention assistance. Year Richfield Households Served 1993 14 1994 13 1995 27 Total 54 0 Increase in Households Served 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1993 1994 1995 Approximately 93% of the Richfield homeowners were low to moderate income households. 7% 22% Household Income ¦ Low - Below 50% of Median Income ¦ Moderate - 50% to 80% of Median Income 1 % O Upper - Over 80% of Median Income • 33 1 0th Avenue S., Suite 150, Hopkins, MN 55343 • (612) 933-9639 • Fax 933-8016 9-3a y. t 3?) Page Two Richfield There were minor children in 69% of these Richfield homes. Type of Household 25 20 15 ' - - -- 10 5 0' Familes Single Adults Seniors with Parent Only Children Families The main reason for mortgage default was health or health care cost. Main Reasons for Default • ¦ Unemployment ¦ Health O Divorce/Separation Money Mismanagement ¦ Not Affordable Other Foreclosure was averted in over 90% of the cases. 37 Richfield homes have been saved. A total of $16,913 in financial assistance was obtained for Richfield homeowners. Results of 41 Closed Files ¦ 37 Homes Saved ¦ 4 Foreclosures 46 1 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 61 Agenda February 26, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to change the City Charter to reflect current state law with respect to the Contract Bid Law. Background: For several years the City Charter followed the State Statutes regarding the Contract Bid Law. During that period of time, both the City Charter and the State Statutes required that a formal sealed bidding process be used for all municipal contracts in excess of $15,000. The statutory sealed bidding threshold has been periodically increased to reflect inflation. The City Charter has also been changed periodically to match increases in the state law. However, the Charter. provisions pertaining to the sealed bidding threshold have not been amended since 1983 and have fallen far below the current statutory threshold for competitive sealed bids. While the Charter still requires sealed bidding at the $15,000 threshold, the statutory threshold was increased to $25,000 in the early 1990s. In order to amend the Charter, the City Council must first review a proposed ordinance to amend the Charter, then forward it to the Charter Commission with a request that they make a recommendation on the matter. The Charter Commission then reviews the proposed ordinance and sends it back to the City Council with their recommendation. The City Council then gives the ordinance a first reading and sets a public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance. At the second reading, the proposed ordinance must pass by unanimous vote of the entire City Council in order to accomplish the change in the City Charter. In addition, the present language provides that the City Manager may make or let contracts or sales for under $10,000 and may make contracts and/or sales for in excess of $10,000 but less than $15,000 provided the City Manager first secures City Council approval. Further complicating this issue is Resolution 6847 from December 1983 which states that all purchases in excess of $5,000 but below $10,000 shall be made only after the City Manager notifies the City Council on a City Council agenda. In practice, this becomes another level of approval as a consent calendar item. At the November 27, 1995 City Council meeting, the City Council first considered this issue and forwarded the following to the Charter Commission for their review: q-1 1. A proposed charter amendment which would adopt Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345, Subd. 3 by reference. This statute provision sets forth the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law. The Charter Commission has completed its review of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Charter and has forwarded a letter to the City Council recommending that the ordinance change be implemented. A copy of the letter is attached to this Council Letter. The affect of the Charter amendment, as proposed, would establish the State Statute as a basis for making contract purchases and remove the Charter requirement for pre- approval authority of the City Council for amounts between $10,000 and $15,000. However, the City Council could establish any pre-approval process or dollar threshold desired through a resolution relating to purchasing practices. A draft resolution also accompanies the Charter amendment. The draft resolution would not reinstate pre-approval authority, but would instead establish a formal notification process for purchases between $10,000 and $25,000. Action on the resolution is recommended at this time. However, the resolution would not become effective until after the Charter amendment takes effect. Recommended Motion: 1. Conduct a public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment. 2. Adopt the proposed ordinance amendment to change the City Charter regarding competitive bidding. 3. Adopt the resolution relating to purchasing practices. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The State Statutes were amended to increase the threshold for sealed competitive bidding of municipal contracts from $15,000 to $25,000. Prior to that increase the City Charter had mirrored the State Statutes with respect to the sealed bidding threshold. 2. Both the City Attorney and the City's auditors, Deloitte & Touche, have recommended that the City change the current City Charter provision to increase the competitive sealed bidding threshold from $15,000 to $25,000 to match the statute. 3. Preparing specifications and bidding contracts is a time consuming and costly process. Contracts under $25,000 would be more efficiently handled through a process of obtaining competitive quotations as is now the case for City projects under $15,000. "7- 4. For ease of administration and clarity, it is desirable to have a competitive sealed bidding threshold which is equal to that of the State Statute. To that end, both the current Charter provision and related resolution should be reviewed. 5. The City Charter Commission has reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Charter and has recommended its adoption. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council may decide not to further consider this proposed change to the City Charter. 2. The City Council may decide to consider increasing the sealed bidding threshold to an amount different than the one suggested in the proposed ordinance. Discussion/Decision Mode: Discussion of this item is suggested at the City Council meeting of February 26. The process to change the City Charter would require several months to complete. The ordinance becomes effective 90 days after publication. Respectful) submitted, James rosser City Man ger JDP:cak Copy: Shirley Johnson, Charter Commission President 0 --7-3 BILL NO. 1996-4 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT: AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background: findings: authority. 1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by a 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 Chapter 6 of the charter and recommended to the City Council that the Amendment be adopted by the 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 February 26, 1996 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 Commission is adopted. 2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows: Chapter 6 of the City Charter is amended in the following respects: 1) by amending Section 6.05 to read: 7-I Every contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the alteration thereof, or for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property, where the amount involved is more than $15,900 the dollar amount contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345. Subd. 3. shall be let only by the City Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to the lower responsible bidder, unless the GeURG01 shall etheFwise pFevide by legal newspapeF of . The Council may, however, reject any and all bids. Subject to the provisions of the Charter, and other applicable law, the Council may by ordinance or by resolution adopt further regulations for making of bids and letting of contracts. All n-t-hp-r n-entFaGtro shal! be let by the . 2) By repealing Section 6.06 thereof in its entirety. 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 , 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 7-5 a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6847 WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Richfield has purchasing authority pursuant to the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to be made aware of certain purchases in addition to inclusion in the Claims and Payroll process; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: • All purchases of the City of Richfield which are in excess of $10,000 but below $25,000 shall be forwarded to the City Council in a memorandum to be included with City Council agenda materials. • The resolution shall become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 1996-4. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 7-40 RESOLUTION NO. 6847 RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. All purchases of the City of Richfield which are in excess of $5,000, but below $10,000, shall be made only after the city manager notifies the city council by inclusion on a city council agenda. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of December, 1983. ATTEST: y a K. Bergh Cit Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 60 Agenda February 26, 1996 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amending the Richfield City Charter. Background: The Charter Commission has recommended an amendment to the City Charter. The amendment would provide the following changes in the City Charter: Section 13.02. Oath of Office. Every officer of the City shall, before entering upon the duties of Ws office, take and subscribe an oath of office in substantially the following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of4hi&RAate the State of Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Richfield and to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (Mayor, Council Member, City Manager, etc.) of the City of Richfield to the best of my judgment and ability." Recommended Motion: Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amending Section 13.02 of the Richfield City Charter. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Charter Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to amend the Charter. 2. The adoption of the ordinance amendment requires the affirmative vote of all the Council in order to pass. 3. First reading was held on January 8, 1996 and the public hearing and second reading were scheduled for February 26, 1996. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to request that the Charter amendment be submitted to voters for approval. 2. The Council may decide to recommend modifications to the Charter and send the question back to the Charter Commission. Discussion/Decision Mode: Conduct the public hearing and second reading on February 26, 1996. Respectfully submitted, Jam . Prosser City anager SLD:cak Copy: Shirley Johnson, Charter Commission President BILL NO. 1996-3 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT: AMENDING SECTION 13.02 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER 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). 6? 1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an amendment (Amendment) to Chapter 13 of the charter and recommended to the City Council that the Amendment be adopted by the 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 February 26, 1996 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 Commission is adopted. 2.02. The text of the proposed amendment is as follows: Section 13.02 of the City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 13.02. Oath of Office. Every officer of the City shall, before entering upon the duties of Ws office, take and subscribe an oath of office in substantially the following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution an laws of the United States and oft;;°e the State of Minnesota and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Richfield and to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (Mayor, Council Member, City Manager, 'etc.) of the City of Richfield to the best of my judgment and ability." 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 1996. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk r-7 ?_J • 5D CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 59 Agenda February 26, 1996 Issue Statement: Award of bid for the purchase pool heater at the outdoor pool. Background: The Richfield outdoor pool operates with two 1.25 million BTU heaters for heating the pool water. The heaters are now 12 years old and parts are no longer available to repair the units. In August 1995, one of the two heaters became inoperable and was eliminated from use. Because it was the end of the 1995 season, no action was taken to replace the heater at that time. Instead, a replacement of the heater was built into the 1996 budget. Staff has now obtained two quotes for the purchase of a replacement heater so it may be available and installed well in advance of the opening of the pool for the 1996 season. The two quotes that were obtained are: 1. Commercial Pool & Spa $7,877.00 7905 Beech Street NE Fridley, MN 55432-1762 2. Recreonics, Inc. $7,972.96 Schmitt Avenue Louisville, Kentucky 40213 Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of a pool heater from Commercial Pool & Spa for $7,877.00. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Two heaters are necessary to bring the water temperature of the pool to a comfortable range for patrons to use the pool when temperatures are below eighty degrees. 2. The Lochinvar heater which is being provided by Commercial Pool & Spa is similar to the existing heaters which are no longer manufactured. 3. Commercial Pool & Spa was the low bidder. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Award bid to Recreonics Inc. 0 2. Direct staff to seek additional bids 5 p0 Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled on the consent calendar for the Council meeting of February 26, 1996. Action is requested at this time to be assured that the heater can be installed prior to pool opening. Respectfully submitted, Jam . Prosser City anager JDP:cak • 0 6?? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 58 Agenda February 26, 1996 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for an articulated sidewalk plow. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Several brands of sidewalk tractors have been tried over the past several years. The City currently has four units used for sidewalk snow removal: two Prime Movers and two MT's (brand names). This year, Unit #275, a 1984 Prime Mover, is fully depreciated and due to be replaced. On February 16, 1996, bids were opened for one new articulated sidewalk plow, with a trade-in of the 1984 Prime Mover and three mowing attachments. Two bids were received as follows: Bas Bid Trade-In Net Bid* MacQueen Equipment, Inc. $55,743.00 ($10,000.00) $48,716.30 RDO Equipment Company $58,400.00 ($19,000.00) $41,961.00 *Net bid includes sales tax. The unit, a Holder (brand name) bid by RDO Equipment Company did not meet the specifications as written. The Holder does not have a 100 horsepower engine. Staff experience with these machines has proven that 100 h.p. engines are necessary to operate attachments effectively. The MacQueen Equipment, Inc. bid was for a trackless MT, which did meet all specifications. The budget shows only $35,000 for replacing the Prime Mover. However, staff experience with the more powerful (and obviously more expensive) MT's has convinced staff that the additional cost is justified by the increased performance of the machine. If approved, the 1996 Garage Motor Pool budget will be revised to cover the additional expense. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minute tabulation and approve the purchase of a new sidewalk plow with trade-in of the Prime Mover sidewalk plow and mowing attachments from MacQueen Equipment, Inc. for the net bid price of $48,716. ?C-- I Basis of Recommendation: 1. The bid from MacQueen Equipment, Inc. was the low bid for a machine that met specifications. 2. The City presently owns two other MT's, and they have proven to be our most efficient and reliable sidewalk plows. Alternative Recommendation: Council could decide to reject both of the bids; however, staff believes the prices received are the lowest available to obtain the equipment desired. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the February 26, 1996 Council meeting. Respec ully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • to • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening February 16, 1996 11:00 a.m. Purchase of One New Articulated Sidewalk Plow Bid No. 96-2 5& a Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for purchase of one new articulated sidewalk plow, Bid No. 96-2, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 31, 1996. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR Bid Security Base Bid Options RDO Equipment Co. 5% Bid Bond $58,400.00 less trade-in $41,961.00 Burnsville MacQueen Equipment, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $55,743.00 less trade-in $48,716.30 St. Paul The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 26, 1996 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber . City Clerk is 5?8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 57 Agenda February 26, 1996 Issue Statement: Consideration of rejection of bid for removal of diseased trees from private property. Background: Each year, the Forestry Division prepares specifications for diseased tree removal from private property. This year, specifications were requested by four tree removal companies in the metropolitan area. On February 14, 1996, bids were opened for the 1996 contract. At the February 14, 1996 bid opening, only one qualified bid was submitted, from Ceres Environmental Services, Inc. for a total cost of $92,134.80. This bid reflects a 20% increase per tree over last year's prices. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minute tabulation and reject the bid of Ceres Environmental Services Inc. in the amount of $92,134.80 as detailed in the bid proposal of February 14, 1996, and authorize staff to readvertise for the contract. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Only one bid was submitted in compliance with the bid specification. 2. The single bid is a significant increase in price over the 1995 bid. 3. The City has the legal right to reject any and all bids and readvertise pursuant to bid specification documents. Alternative Recommendation: Accept the bid submitted. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the February 26, 1996 City Council agenda so that immediate action can be taken to readvertise for bid opening at the earliest date possible. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager 0 JDP:cak 561 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening February 14, 1996 11:00 a.m. Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property East District and/or West District Bid No. 96-1 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property, bid no. 96-1, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 24, 1996. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator Ray Wroblewski, Sr. Clerk Typist 0 The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Bid Amount EAST Bid Amount WEST Ceres, Brooklyn Park 5% Bid Bond $43,532.40 $48,602.40 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 26, 1996 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 11 5A- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 56 Agenda March February 26, 1996 Issue Statement: Appointment to the 1996 Board of Equalization (Board of Review). Background: City Charter provides that the Local Board of Equalization shall consist of all of the City Council Members and two Richfield residents experienced in real estate matters. The purpose of the Board is to hear appeals from the property owners concerning their property values. Mr. Larry Emond, 6325 Russell Avenue, has once again indicated his willingness to serve as a residential representative to the Board. He has been an independent property appraiser for over 25 years and has served on the Richfield Board of Review since 1983. Mr. Emond holds a Federal Appraisers License and is working primarily in conducting property appraisals for financial institutions. He is also experienced in building construction and held a real estate license. Mr. Emond has been a Richfield resident for over 30 years and is very knowledgeable of the City. His previous input on the Richfield Board of Equalization has been extremely valuable as determinations and appeals presented by Richfield citizens were considered. The second Richfield resident under consideration for appointment for the 1996 Board of Equalization is Glenn Erickson, 7240 Bryant Avenue. Mr. Erickson has been a resident of Richfield since 1950 and has been in the property appraisal business since 1951. He first served on the Richfield Board of Equalization in 1991. His business has predominately included appraisal of single family residential, duplex and fourplex properties. The appraisals have included those for a mortgage loan business and a number of appraisal audits. Mr. Erickson currently holds both an appraisers and real estate brokers license. Like Mr. Emond, Mr. Erickson's previous service on the Richfield Board of Equalization has been very valuable. It is recommended that the compensation for resident members be set at $44.50 per session or $17.75 per hour per session, whichever is greater. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution confirming the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson to the 1996 Board of Equalization, at the proposed level of compensation stated herein. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson are very knowledgeable and experienced in the Is areas of real estate appraisals. They are also both licensed appraisers. SA 2. Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson have served on the Richfield Board of Equalization in 0 the past and have done a very good job in that capacity. 3. It is required by City Charter that there be two resident representatives on the Board of Equalization who are knowledgeable in real estate matters. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select other qualified individuals as expert resident representatives on the Board of Equalization, in place of either Mr. Emond or Mr. Erickson or both. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is requested that the City Council set the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson at the City Council meeting of February 26. The Board of Equalization will meet at 7:00 p.m. Monday, May 6, 1996. The appointment at the City Council meeting of February 26 ensures that City staff has adequate time to establish appointments to the Board. Respec Ily submitted, . JamIsProsser City Manager JDP:cak 0 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION • BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota hereby approves the City Manager's appointment of Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. Glenn Erickson as 1996 resident members of the Board of Equalization as provided in Chapter 7 of the City Charter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that compensation for the two resident members of the Board of Equalization be set at a minimum of $44.50 per session of the Board or $17.75 per hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 1996 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 40 3 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 55 Agenda February 26, 1996 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, 1994 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a 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 finance community in 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 has been presented to Bridget Walstrom, the City's former Finance Manager. Chris Regis, Richfield's current Finance Manager, will be present to accept the award on behalf of the entire Finance Division. This is the eleventh 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 of Recommendation: 1. The City has been notified by the GFOA that the certificate has been attained and that 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 a City Council meeting. ?-I Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could accept the award and make no mention of it at the Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item is suggested for February 26, 1996. Respectful) submitted, James . rosser City Man ger JDP:cak • •