The URL can be used to link to this page

02-27-95 agenda • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1995 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PRESENTATIONS OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION HONORING CHARLES LINDBERG, WORLD WAR II HERO AND RICHFIELD RESIDENT • 3. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 5-12,1995 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK 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 CONSENT AND AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR ASSIGNMENT OF PHASE I, EMERSON AVENUE LICENSURE AGREEMENT TO A LENDER C.L. 54 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO PAY ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR TEMPORARY EASEMENTS; 77TH STREET, PHASE II C.L. 55 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LAWFUL GAMBLING ACTIVITY, WAIVER OF 30 DAY WAIT PERIOD FOR LICENSE AND WAIVER OF INVESTIGATION FEE FOR FRIENDS OF WOOD LAKE C.L. 56 • D E F. G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF PERSONAL COMPUTERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT, SOFTWARE AND. SERVICES FOR COMMUNITY CENTER, ICE ARENA, NATURE CENTER AND GOLF COURSE FROM PORTICO COMPUTERS II OF BLOOMINGTON, MN IN AMOUNT OF $30,009.21 AND PURCHASE OF MICROSOFT OFFICE SOFTWARE FROM UNIQUE SOFTWARE OF EAGAN, MN IN AMOUNT OF $7,250.52 C.L. 57 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR CITY'S UNISYS COMPUTER SYSTEM AND PRINTERS FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1995 FROM SCANTRON/FPC OF OMAHA, NE IN AMOUNT OF $7,702.55 C.L. 58 CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR ONE CARBON DIOXIDE FEED SYSTEM FROM GRAYTECH IN AMOUNT OF $9,125 C.L. 59 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL CHANGE ORDER #3 FOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUDIO VISUAL RENOVATION IN AMOUNT OF $3,411.70 C.L. 60 PUBLIC HEARING 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1995 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM COUNCIL LETTER NO. 61 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 7. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS AND FIRST READING . OF ORDINANCE VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY, CSM, PHASE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 62 RESOLUTION 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING RICHFIELD'S COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COUNCIL LETTER NO. 63 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 9. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING WITH BRW, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL WORK PERFORMED IN PHASE I OF 77TH STREET PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 64 10. CONSIDERATION OF STIPULATION AGREEMENT, RICHFIELD- BLOOMINGTON HONDA; 77TH STREET PROJECT 0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 65 • 11. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH CSM INVESTORS, INC. RELATING TO USE OF COLFAX AVENUE BETWEEN 77TH AND 78TH STREETS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 66 AIRPORT BUSINESS 12. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 13. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 14. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 15. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 16. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 17. 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. 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 66 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of an agreement with CSM Investors, Inc. relating to the use of Colfax Avenue between 77th and 78th Streets. Background: CSM Investors, Inc., is now finalizing its financing for Phase I of its redevelopment. CSM's lender, Allstate, is requiring as a precondition to the loan that CSM have an agreement which provides forthe use of Colfax. It is expected that this agreement will be of short term duration and remain in place only until the new entryway to the development can be constructed. The attached agreement has been prepared by the City Attorney. The agreement is similar to the agreement which the Council approved last year covering Emerson Avenue. One significant difference is that this agreement requires that Colfax be kept continuously open to provide access to the property to the south. Recommended Motion: • Approve the agreement and authorize its execution. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The agreement allows CSM to proceed with its financing while at the same time. protects the City and the public in the continued use of Colfax. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: The item is on the February 27, 1995 Council agenda. Action is requested at this time so that CSM may proceed to close on its financing later that week. Respectf submitted, Jams Prosser City Hager JDP:cak 40 FEB 23 "95 15:43 HOLMES & GRAVEN P. 311,10 I I ?? j AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _ day of , 1995 by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") and CSM INVESTORS, INC., a Minnesota corporation ("CSM") . WITNESSETH 1. The City maintains and operates Colfax Avenue South ("Colfax") as part of its public roadway system. 2. A portion of Colfax lying between 77th Street on the north and 75th Street on the south that portion of Colfax (the "Portion") is described in the attached Exhibit A. 3. In furtherance of the CSM development, it has asked the City for permission to utilize the Portion for certain activities and uses which are fully described in this Agreement, Including, without limitation, the • parking of motor vehicles and for ingress and egress . 4. The City council has reviewed the request including the proposed parking layout to be located on the Portion and has received the recommendations of staff. THEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing and upon the mutual undertakings and promises herein ortalned, the parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Use of Portion. Subject to the limitations hereinafter contained, CSM sEall have the right to occupy and use the Portion for certain activities and uses which are fully described in this Agreement, including, without limitation, the parking of motor vehicles and for ingress and egress. 2. Design . The use and occupancy shall be in accordance with the design layout which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. No modification to the design may occur without the prior %t itten consent of the City. 3. Construction. CSM shall be entirely responsible for the cost of construction and reconstruction upon the Portion during the term of • this Agreement. ".SM may proceed with installation of the initial improvements shot' on Exhibit B together with the removal and/or installation of utih 1 within the Portion immediately following approval JM84426 Rd125-7s j FEB 23 '95 15:49 HOLMES & GRAVEN I,)- P. 4110 40 of the plans and specifications for such work by the city engineer. In the event that CSM shall, following completion of the initial construction, determine that it is necessary to carry out construction or reconstruction work within the portion, it shall proceed as follows. a. It shall notify the City of such determination and may, with such notification request that the City undertake the construction or reconstruction as a city project. The notification shall also contain proposed plans and specifications for the construction or reconstruction. b. The City shall, within 10 days following such notice of determination, review the proposed plans and specifications, and, in the event that they are in conformity with the standards for construction or reconstruction of public streets, shall either i) let the contract for bid, or, ii) permit GSM to proceed with the work. C. If CSM is to be permitted to proceed with the work, the City may place such procedural or other requirements on CSM as it deems appropriate for construction work or a public street. d . No construction or reconstruction of the portion may take place whether by CSM or the City until CSM has, in the City's reasonable judgment, paid or secured payment of the entire cost of such construction or reconstruction. • 4. Maintenance and Re air. CSM shall be entirely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Portion during the term of this Agreement. Maintenance and repair shall include without limitation, patching, filling, sealing, coating, stripping, the removal of rubbish, debris, snow and ice. CSM shall provide the City with written notice j at least fire days in advance of maintenance and repair activities which are likely to result in a disruption of the use of the Portion for a period of more than one day; and shall obtain the City's written consent before undertaking any repair or maintenance activity having a cost of $10, 000 or more. 5. Lions and Encumbrances. CSM agrees that during the term of this Agreement it shall not permit or suffer any liens or encumbrances to be placed against the Portion, nor shall it during such term engage in any activity which would cause or result in the placement of any liens or encumbrances against the Portion. a. Insurance. In addition to CSM's obligations under paragraph 7 below, CSM agrees to obtain and keep in place one or more policies of liability insurance, in an amount and form acceptable to the City, which insure against the risk of property damage, personal injury or death occasioned by or arising out of CSM's use and occupancy of the Portion. Said policy or policies of insurance shall, as they relate to the Portion, name the City as an additional insured. • 7. Indemnity. CSM shall indemnify, release, defend and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from all claims, or whatever JBD64426 BC125-T6 FEB SS 1 95 15:49 HOLMES & CRAUEH P.5/10 nature, and including claims for punitive damages, for contractual liability, property damage, personal injury or death occasioned by or arising out of CSM's occupancy and use repair, maintenance, construction and reconstruction of the Portion. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of the liability limits contained in M nnesota Statutes, Chapter 466; nor shall the provisions of this paragraph apply to the extent that any claim for damages is based upon the City's negligence. 8. Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until Terminated by the happening of any of the following: a. CSM is in default of its obligations hereunder or under its contract for private redevelopment with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority dated April 28, 1994 (the "Contract"), and has failed to cure such default under this Agreement within 30 days of written notice by the City or has failed to promptly commence and pursue cure activities in instances in which the cure will take more than 30 days; or has failed to effect a cure in the time required under the Contract for any default thereunder. b. The date on which the new entry way shown in the Final Development Plans has been completed and is open for travel. C. August 1, 1995. • d. Any action by CSM, its officers, agents or employees which interferes with or disrupts the continuous access of the public or the owners, tenants, invitees of the property described on the attached Exhibit C, over and across the Portion. In the event of a termination, the City shall grant CSM an easement to maintain any utilities awned and used by CSM located within the Portion, but only if and to the extent that such grant will not unreasonably interfere with the City's use of the Portion following termination. Nothing in this paragraph 8 shall be deemed as a waiver by the City of its right to seek, as it sees fit, to terminate the interest of CSM in the Portion through the exercise of eminent domain. 9. Taxes. In the event that the Portion should become taxable as a result 3f -Its use and occupancy as provided herein, CSM agrees that it will, promptly when due and before penalty attaches, pay all real estate taxes and installments on special assessments. 10. Utilities. CSM acknowledges that the indemnity contained in paragraph 77 agreement is intended to release the City, its officers, agents and employees from any damage done to the Portion as the result of the City's repair, replacement or maintenance of the City utility services located within the Portion. CSM acknowledges that the reasonable cost of restoring the surface following any such City activities is CSM's responsibility. CSM also agrees that the City and its agents have the • right to enter upon the Portion and do all things reasonably necessary J=84426 RC125-76 3 PE2 23 '95 15:50 HOLMES & GRAVEN F'.6/10 I I -L4 and proper to carry out such activities. The City agrees that it will exercise reasonable care to limit any disruption caused by such work 11. Us We . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary) CSM acknowledges and understands that throughout the term of this Agreement, the Portion shall remain continuously open for ingress and egress to and from the property described on the attached Exhibit C. 12. Assignment. The rights granted to CSM hereunder may be transferred only in connection with a transfer or the Phase I property in accordance with the provisions of Articles VIII or IX of the Contract. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its By Its CSM INVESTORS, INC. By STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) Its The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1995 , by - and , the Mayor and City Manager, respective, on behalf of the City o- Ric field, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation.. Notary Public JW84426 Rc125-76 4 FEB E2 195 15:50 HOLMES & GRAVEN P. 7/10 ?l-tD STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before we this day of -, 1995, by and 11 respecti?rely, of CSM Investors, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. • JBD$6626 RC125-76 5 Notary Public FEE 23 '75 15:51 HOLMES & GRAVEN EXHIBIT A (Legal Description of Colfax Avenue) P.e/io l1-("?' The North 255 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 324 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota and The South 94 feet of the North 345 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 324 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota and The South 99.92 feet of the North 434.82 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota and All that part of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the North 434.92 feet thereof and the parts thereof taken for highway purposes and That part of Colfax Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of STRAND-BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, which lies southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of Lot 11, Block 1, in said plat. nD04426 RC125-76 6 FEB 29 '95 15:51 HOLMES & GRAVEN • EXHIBIT B [CSM must provide a site plan for Colfax] • 3W8a42B RC12$-7a 7 P. 9/10 JO FEB 25 195 15:52 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.10/10 EXHIBIT C (Legal Description of Feldmann/Mitsubishi Property) Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, STRAND-BOWEN SECOND AUDITION, Hennepin County, NVlinnesota and Lots 5 to 11, inclusive, Block 2, STRAND-BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota a0$4426 RC12$-96 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 65 • Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Approval of Stipulation Agreement, Richfield-Bloomington Honda; 77th Street Project. Background: The 77th Street Project made a partial taking from the Honda dealership on the south side of 77th Street east of Harriet Avenue to accommodate the expanded right-of-way. The transaction also included sale of residual property from the taking at 7701 Harriet Avenue to the Honda dealership. The offer from the City was $15,400 and the residual land. The dealership rejected the offer and claimed $450,000 in damages. Condemnation commissioners awarded $26,500 to them. The dealership appealed the award to a district court jury. The jury returned a verdict of $66,500.. The dealership is also entitled to be paid costs and other reasonable expenses incurred to advance their damage claim by the 77th Street Project. These costs are estimated to exceed $50,000. Negotiations have ensued since the jury award and the dealership is agreeable to settle all claims for $88,400 or $57,600 in addition to the $15,400 which was already paid. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached Stipulation with Richfield-Bloomington Honda to settle all claims for a total of $88,400. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The jury award was $66,500. 2. The dealership is entitled to claim costs and reasonable expenses related to presenting their claim of value and these costs have been estimated to exceed $50,000. 3. The dealership is entitled to appeal the verdict of $66,500. 4. The payment is an approved project expense reimbursable under our cost sharing agreement with the US Department of Transportation and MnDOT. Alternative Recommendation: Direct staff to renegotiate. Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision on February 27 would facilitate resolution of this issue. Resr)e,@#u1Vbubmitted, is James 1 City Ma JDP:ds Type: Condemnation ' STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT --------- -`----------- ---------------- -- COURT FILE NO. CD-2289 City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, STIPULATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN Petitioner, CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THOMAS I. WOOD, V. JULIE D. WOOD AND TIW, INC. DBA Thomas I. Wood; et al. , RICHFIELD- BLOOMINGTON HONDA --------- ------------- Respondents. ---------------- -- THIS STIPULATION AGREEMENT is entered into as of the day of , 1995. By and through their counsel, Petitioner City of Richfield ("City"),-Respondents Thomas I. Wood • and Julie D. Wood, ("Woods") and Respondents TIW, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, dba Richfield-Bloomington Honda ("Honda") (collectively, Woods and Honda are sometimes referred to herein as "Respondents"), hereby. stipulate and agree to the complete settlement of the above captioned matter upon the following terms and conditions: I. RECITALS 1.01. On March 29, 1993 City filed its petition in this matter commencing acquisition by eminent domain proceedings of the real estate described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Subject Property") pursuant to Minn. Stat. §117.042 (the Minnesota "Quick Take" Statute). RJL83751 RC145-189 1 R a fc)- 1.02. On June 30, 1993 ("Date. of Taking") City deposited $15,400 ("Quick Take Deposit") as its approved appraisal amount for the Subject Property pursuant to the Quick Take Statute. 1.03. As of the Date of Taking the fee owners of the Subject Property were Woods and the lessee of the Subject Property was Honda. 1.04. On November 3, 1993 the Court herein found that Woods were the only parties having an ownership interest in the Subject Property as of the Date of Taking and therefore determined that Woods were entitled to receive disbursement of the entire amount of the Quick Take Deposit. 1.05. By Award of Commissioners dated December 28, 1993 and filed December 30, 1993, the Court-Appointed Commissioners found damages to be due to the Respondents in the amount of $26,500. 1.06. Following issuance of the Award of Commissioners the Respondents filed an appeal to the District Court, challenging the amount pf the Award of Commissioners. 1.07. On December 5 1994, a Special Verdict in the amount of $66,500 was rendered in favor of Respondents by a jury in the appeal. 1.08. On December 13, 1994, pursuant to the Special Verdict the District Court entered Judgment in favor of Respondents in the amount of $66,500 plus costs and reasonable disbursements. 1.09. As of this date Respondents continue to have a right to appeal the Judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and to make a motion for award of costs and disbursements. RJL83751 RC145-189 2 w ?. ID-3 " 1.10. City and Respondents desire to compromise and settle • any and all claims which Respondents may have or claim to have against City as a result of the taking of the Subject Property in .this proceeding. II. AGREEMENT 2.01. Settlement Amount. City and Respondents agree that, including the Quick Take Deposit, the amount of damages to be paid by City to Respondents, as their interests may appear, is Eighty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($88,400), including but not limited to damages, interest, costs, disbursements, relocation benefits, if any?and reimbursement of appraisal fees. 2.02. Final Payment. Within ten (10) days following approval of this Agreement by the City Council of Petitioner and execution of this Agreement by all parties, whichever occurs last, City shall • deliver its check to Woods and Honda, which shall be made payable to Woods and Honda as their interests may appear, in the amount of $73,000 ("Final Payment"). 2.03. Waiver of Appeal Rights; Costs and Disbursements. Petitioner and Respondents hereby waive their respective rights to appeal the Judgment herein, effective upon the filing of this Agreement with the District Court Administrator. Respondents also hereby waive their rights. to seek any further costs and disbursements herein. WL83751 RC145-189 3 E /04 HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED By , 1995 Robert J. Lindall, #63277 Date of Execution 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER CITY OF RICHFIELD DORSEY & WHITNEY By , 1995 Daniel O'Keefe, #81267 Date of Execution 2200 Pillsbury Center 220 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 340-8751 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS THOMAS I. WOOD, JULIE D. WOOD AND TIW, INC., dba RICHFIELD- BLOOMINGTON.HONDA • i • RJL83751 RC145-189 4 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 64 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of a Supplemental Agreement for Construction Engineering with BRW, Inc. for additional work performed in Phase I of the 77th Street Project. Background: The Council approved a construction agreement with BRW, Inc. for the Phase I construction of 77th Street on May 10, 1993. Since then, additional construction work as part of Phase I has been approved on the order of $1.2 million. However, no commensurate increase in the construction engineering agreement for Phase I has been made to compensate BRW for the inspection work it performs. Recently, BRW informed the City that it had exhausted funds under the current construction engineering agreement for Phase 1. BRW has submitted its estimate of the additional cost to complete the inspection of the Phase I construction. The following factors led to a request for additional funds: • The extra construction work performed by the construction contractor as requested • by the City at a cost of $101,780.12. This work included the Colfax Avenue storm sewer, access to new Orleans Court Apartments, fiber optic communications, additional underground utilities, revised grade for railroad crossing, and redesign of access for Lyndale Avenue businesses. The contractor worked up to fourteen hour days and six days per week in 1994, compared to the consultant's original estimate of ten hour work days and five work days per week (the consultant is required to observe the contractor's work at all times) for an additional cost of $85,204.00. • The City and MnDOT have asked for as-built plans that were not included as part of the original agreement but are a part of most construction engineering agreements. • The consultant performed more surveying on the job than was originally budgeted at a cost of $21,970.50 (this figure includes the cost of preparing as-built plans). For these reasons, BRW has exhausted funds in its approved agreement with the City and is asking for additional funds to complete its inspection work. The original agreement was for $892,808.51. The amount of additional funds needed to complete the inspection work is $208,954.61. The amounts are still being negotiated with MnDOT to determine their eligibility for federal funding. q-? Funds for the additional work will come from federal highway funds (80%); Minnesota State Trunk Highway funds (15%); and, Richfield's Municipal State Aid Streets Funds (5%). Recommended Motion: Approve the supplemental agreement for construction engineering on Phase i of the 77th Street Project. Basis of Recommendation: 1 City staff have reviewed the request for additional funds and found it to be reasonable. 2. The consultant has been performing the inspection work on the 77th Street Project in an acceptable manner. 3. The additional work in Phase I of the 77th Street Project was performed at the request of the City of Richfield. Alternative Recommendation: None. • Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision is needed as soon as possible so the consultant can be reimbursed for the work needed to complete the inspection of Phase I of the 77th Street Project. itted, Jame Prosser City M ager JDP:cak 0 8 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 63 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution approving Richfield's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. Background: At the February 6, 1995 Study Session, the City Council reviewed the Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. The plan is designed to meet the purpose of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management legislation: "(a) reduce to the greatest practical extent the public capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff, (b) improve water quality, (c) prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows, (d) promote ground water recharge, (e) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities, and (f ) secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface water". Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council pass the attached resolution approving Richfield's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Metropolitan Surface Water Management legislation requires cities to prepare surface water plan. 2. Surface water management is controlled and influenced by a large number of federal, state and local agencies. The plan helps to sort out these influences and prepares a unified Richfield response. 3. Many practical day to day decisions are being made on surface water issues when dealing with development, storm water operations, and capital improvements. This plan attempts to provide a consistent, responsible approach to these issues. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may chose to revise portions of the plan or delay taking action at this time However, adopting the plan now provides immediate guidance for development, operations and capital improvements on surface water issues. Discussion/Decision Mode: • State statute allows cities to wait until two years after WMO plans are completed. With Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Plans not yet approved, we have two years for approval of our local plan. submitted, Resftf Jamosser City r JDP:ds 0 • g a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD'S COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Minnesota Surface Water Management Statutes directed cities to prepare surface water management plans once affected Watershed Management Organizations complete their plans; and WHEREAS, the Richfield/Bloomington Watershed Management Organization has an approved WMO plan; and WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has an approved WMO plan;.and WHEREAS, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has completed its WMO plan; and WHEREAS, Richfield has completed appropriate surface water inventories, • studies and analysis's through its staff and consultant and finds that the plan meets the intent of State Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council approves the City of Richfield Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan as presented this 27th day of February 1995. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of February, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 62 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Acceptance of easements and first reading of ordinance vacating right-of-way, CSM, Phase Background: On February 13, 1995 the City Council approved a Stipulation of Settlement for land near Emerson Avenue adjacent to the new 77th Street on the south. The City would sell the land to the HRA and the HRA would sell it to CSM. The conveyance would be made subject to easements. Those three easements are described in the attached easement document. The City utilities which are covered by these easements are a 42" storm sewer, a 9" sanitary sewer and a 12" water main. A portion of this property was occupied by the old 77th Street. As noted in the February 13, 1995 Council Letter, this area was no longer needed for street purposes. Vacation would be appropriate and desirable. Recommended Motion: Adopt a motion which a) accepts.the easements as described, and b) give first reading to the ordinance for vacating this right-of-way. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The land is no longer needed for right-of-way. 2. Easement descriptions have been formulated with staff from the Engineering Division. 3. CSM will utilize the property 4. The second reading and public hearing on the ordinance can be properly advertised and scheduled for March 27, 1995. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the proposals. 2. Delay action. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action by the City Council on February 27, 1995 will facilitate processing. Res c II submitted, Jame Prosser City a ager JDP:ds • DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND RIGHT-OF--WAY EASEMENTS THIS EASEMENT is given this day of 1995, by CSM INVESTORS. INC., a Minnesota 11 corporation, to CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corpora- tion, Grantee. Recitals A. Grantor is the fee owner of certain real estate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described on the attached. Exhibit A and identified therein as "Parcel. 1." A. Grantor is the fee owner of certain real estate in Hennepin County, Minnesota described on the attached Exhibit A and identi- fied therein as "Parcel 2." C. Grantor is the fee owner of certain real estate in Hennepin County, Minnesota described on the attached Exhibit A and identi- fied therein as "Parcel 3." Easement For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowl- edged by Grantor, the Grantor hereby conveys and quitclaims to Grantee the easement; as described below: Drainage and Utility Easement - No. 1 A permanent public drainage and utility easement over, under and across Parcels 1 and 2 as described on the attached Exhibit A. (Revise this easement so that the northerly limit of the easement is a line drawn parallel to and 10 feet northerly of the 42" storm sewer located in Parcel 2.] Drainage and Utility Easement - No. 2 A permanent public drainage and utility easement over, under and across the north 30 feet of Parcel. 3 as described on the attached Exhibit A. Public Street Right-of Way -_No.1 A permanent public street-right-of-way over, under and across that part of Parcels 1 and 3, as described on the attached Exhibit A, described as: Commencing at the northeast corner of the north 255 feet of the west 320 feet of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 r west, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 89 degrees 53 minutes 31 seconds West, assumed bearing, 30.00 feet along the north line thereof to the point of beginning of C M03977 RC125-68 1 1,4)- the right-of-way to be described; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 44 seconds West 30.00 feet; thence South 89, degrees 53 minutes 31 seconds West 189.19 feet; thence northwesterly 190.45 feet on a nontangential curve to the right with a radius of 610.33 feet and a central angle of 17 degrees 52: minutes 44 seconds, and a chord bearing of North 81 degrees 00 minutes 28 seconds West, to a point on the.north line of the north 240 feet of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4'of the South- east 1/4 of section 33; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 31 seconds East 376.58 feet along said north line and the north line of the north 255 feet of the west 320 feet of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 to the point of beginning. Public Street .Rjght-of-Way - No. 2 A permanent public street right-of-wag over, under and across that part of Parcel 2 as described in the attached Exhibit A, said street right-of-way being described as beginning at the most northerly corner of said Parcel 2; thence southeasterly 30.59 feet along the northeasterly line of said Parcel 2 on a curve to the left with a radius of 610.33 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds, and a chord bearing of South 55 degrees 56 minutes 46 seconds East, assumed bearing; thence westerly and southwesterly 31.02 feet on a curve to the left with a radius of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 88 degrees 52 minutes 23 seconds, and a chord bearing of South 78 degrees 10 minutes 53 seconds West; thence southwesterly 62.68 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 282.00 feet and a Central angle of 12 degrees 44 minutes 04 seconds, and a chord bearing of south 40 degrees 06 minutes 43 seconds West to a point on the west line of said Parcel, 2; thence northeasterly 50.77 feet along said west line on a curve to the right with a ,radius of 120.00 feet and a central angle of 24 degrees 14 minutes 30 seconds, and a chord bearing of North 26 degrees 11 minutes 10 seconds East; thence North 38 degrees 18 minutes 25 seconds East 32.47 feet along said west line to the point of beginning. CSM INVESTORS, INC. ay Its CMU977 RC125y -b9 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA .) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) .The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1995 by , the of CsM investors, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY; Holmes & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (512) 337-9300 CAX$3977 RC125-89 3 ?'4 • EXHIBIT A Parcel 1 The North 30 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Parcel 2 That part of the following described land: The South 85 feet of the West Half of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota and Lot 8, NORTHFELT ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota and Vacated or unvacated 77th street West, as dedicated in the plat of NORTHFELT ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota being described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of • the southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south. line of said Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter 86.58 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence northwesterly 187.04 feet along a non--tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 610.33 feet and a central angle of 17 degrees 33 minutes 32 seconds, the chord j of said curve bears North 63 degrees 29 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 38 degrees 06 minutes 35 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, 32.47 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the east having a radius of 120.00 feet to.the south line of said Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds East along said south line to the point of beginning. Parcel 3 the South 1/2 of The North 255 feet of the West 1?4®?? Section n 33 Township the Southeast 114 of the Southeast 28, North Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, except the East 30 teof therSouthn50efeettthereof, HennepintCounty, East 160 fee Minnesota 0 CAW977 RC225-68 A-1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE. VACATING A STREET EASEMEN'T' THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for public street purposes (the "Street Easement"), created by document dated October 19, 1853, filed December 2, 1953 in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 2848415: The North 30 feet of the North 255 feet of the West 320 feet of the South 112 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of section 33, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the 4th Principal meridian, except the East 30 feet thereof and except the West 130 feet of the East 160 feet of the South 50 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota See. 2. The fee owner of the Easement Area, CSM Investors, Inc., has petitioned for the vacation of that part of the Street Easement which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of the north 255 feet of the west 320 feet of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1 /4 of Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 89 degrees 53 minutes 31 seconds West, assumed bearing, 30.00 feet along the north line thereof to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 44 seconds West 30.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 53 minutes 31 seconds West 189.19 feet; thence northwesterly 180.45 feet on a nontangential curve to the right with a radius of 610.33 feet and a central angle of 17 degrees 52 minutes 44 seconds, and a chord bearing of North 81 degrees 00 minutes 28 seconds West, to a point on the north line of the north 240 feet of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 1 /4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, and said described line there terminat- ing. (referred to herein as the "Vacated Area") Sec. 3. CSM Investors, Inc. has agreed to convey to the City a drainage and utility easement over the entire area occupied by the Street Easement. The proposed vacation of the Vacated Area therefore will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other utility to maintain, repair, or replace any utility facilities that may. be located within the area to be vacated. See. 4. The Council finds that, upon recording of the replacement drainage • and utility easement to be conveyed by CSM Investors, Inc. , there will no longer be a public need for a. street easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 2 of this Ordinance. 1 See. 5. The street easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 2 of this Ordinance, is hereby vacated. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST : Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 2 Y - ? R a? s a ? s a s e a , s r xr? ws r r w+ ii A a ? a g ? ' S ?r Hosy?!p • `?"_ - i1 $ i : ! 40 ? 20 , , , , Z f • , 1 , 8 a Y , , { , { .• { { { 3 { i , i 1 . I 60 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 61 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the Urban Hennepin County Year 1995 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation. Background: The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on February 27, 1995 to determine Richfield's use of the 1995 Urban allocation of $276,638. Requests for $281,638 of Year 1995 funds have been submitted. Information concerning Hennepin County's CDBG program objectives, the project funding requests and the rationale for providing the funds is attached. Total funds allocated to Richfield in Year 1995 increased 2%. 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.). H.O.M.E. Program (Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly) indicates that the need in Richfield is great and. continues to increase. This program allows elderly residents to stay in their homes and delay entering nursing home facilities. H.O.M.E. draws down their CDBG annual funding in six months. H.O.M.E. is requesting $22,050. In 1994'HOME served 151 Richfield residents (132 households). 1995 is expected to be at the same level. G.M.D.C.A. funds the Richfield child care sliding fee program. For the families they can help, it is often the difference between keeping a job, going on AFDC or putting their children in less than adequate care developments. Expenditure of 1994 funds was somewhat slow during the year indicating moderation in program activity. There are over 50 Richfield families on the waiting list compared to 120 last year. G.M.D.C.A. is requesting $10,320, the same allocation as 1994. CASH has submitted a request for $5,000 to support a tenant information and advocacy hotline, a tenant community organizer staff position, and a mortgage foreclosure prevention program. Hennepin County has indicated only the mortgage foreclosure prevention program is an eligible CDBG initiative. 1995 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 1995 at an allocation of $12,500. J Richfield supports two home improvement projects: Rehabilitation of Private Property and the Scattered Site/New Home Program. The CDBG Year 1995 funds, when combined with rehabilitation loans presently in progress, will be sufficient to serve all those waiting plus approximately 15-20 additional households which either, need emergency repairs or seek major repairs during the 1995 spring, summer, fall, repair/construction season. A total amount of $150,190 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 another 1-2 units. Project request for 1995 is $81,560. The chart below summarizes previous allocations, requested and recommended funding: Year 1993 Year 1994 Funded Funded Year 1995 Year 1995 Amount Amount Requested Recommended Activity Rehab of Private Property $ 86,424 $145,113 $150,190 $150,190 Scattered Site/ New Home Prog $118,455 $ 78,800 $ 81,560 $ 81,560 Removal of Architectural • Barriers $ -0- $ 12,000 $ 12,518 $ 12,518 H.0.M.E. $ 19,350 $ 21,300 $ 22,050 $ 22,050 G.M.D.C.A. Child Day Care $ 9,377 $ 10,320 $ 10,320 $ 10,320 SKILLS 2000 $ 7,740 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- Cash $ -0- $ -0- $ 15,000 $ -0- Total $241,346 $267,533 $281,638 $276,638 Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution which identifies the allocation of Year 1.995 CDBG funds as follows: 1. Housing Improvements: a. Housing Rehabilitation $150,190 b. Scattered Site Housing $ 81,560 2. Removal of Arch Barriers a. City Hall Improvements $ 12,518 • 3. Public Service a. H.O.M.E. $ 22,050 b. G.M.D.C.A. $ 10,320 (0-01 • 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 objectives stated. 2. Housing improvement funding should be allocated to housing rehabilitation and scattered site acquisitions under the New Home Program. The $81,560 allocated for scattered site is the minimum required to complete one scattered site project. The $150,190 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 would be allocated for the H.O.M.E. program to service approximately 20 households. The child day care subsidy would be used to service approximately five families. The two programs are combined into one project entitled "public services". The proposal by CASH is not included because specific need, direct benefit and alternative means of supply to Richfield are not delineated such • that it would dictate reducing the funding to the other public service providers. 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 27, 1995. The deadline for submitting the 1995 CDBG application to Hennepin County is no later than Friday, March 10, 1995. Res submitted, James Prosser City M ager JDP:ds ?-3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1995 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 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 has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on February.27, 1995, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and the City's proposed use of $276,638 from the 1995 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 1995 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds. Projects Budget 1. Housing Improvements: a. Rehab of Private Property $150,190 b. Scattered Site/New Home Prog $ 81,560 2. Removal of Architectural Barriers: a. City Hall Improvements $ 12,518 3. Public Service: a. H.0.M.E. $ 22,050 b. G.M.D.C.A. $ 10,320 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of February, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ?v 1995 • URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST FOR FUNDING (Use one form per project) A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: Richfield 2. Project Name: Rehabilitation. Loan Program 3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Judy Kunz 861-9760 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Request $ 150.190 2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG funded project? Yes No 3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ 14.681 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. 0 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.) • 15-20 households are anticipated being served, which means 15-20 homes will be rehabilitated. 8. Implementation Schedule: ( For the time period 7-1-95 to 12-31-96 identify the major project tasks to be performed and when they will occur) Date Task Month/ Date See attached schedule • 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) Deferred loans $ 135,171 $ Loan administration $ 15,019 $ 14,681 (HRA) $ $ Project Budget $ 150,190 $ 14,681 Total Project Budget $ 164,871 0 Requfund.frm • 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 ($135,171). (2) Deferred Loan Administration ($15,019). (1) Deferred Loans Each loan provides financial and technical assistance to lowincome 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 20 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 1994, all funds had been expended. 1995 funds will fund approximately 15 households on the waiting list. Projected income from loans repaid could fund three or four 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 unreliable furnaces during the heating season. • The annual qualifying income is 50 percent of the Twin City Area Median income as determined by HUD. As of April 1994 the following limits apply: (,,I u Household Size Maximum Income Household Size Household Income 1 $17,850 4 $25,500 2 $20,400 5 $27,500 3 $22,950 6 $29,600 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 roofing 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% ($15,019) 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 $14,681.in HRA revenues for general administration. 0 6-8 0 Implementation Schedule: Project Data, #8 (continued). All activities are on- going. 3rd Quarter 1995 (July - September) 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. 4th Quarter 1995 (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 1996 (January - March) 1995 2nd Quarter activities ongoing, advertise for program applicants as necessary. 2nd Quarter 1996 (April June) Inspect completed work, make payments to contractors, file Repayment Agreements, close, out files. Serve applicants on waiting list. 3rd Quarter 1996 (July - September) Continue activities of 2nd quarter 1996; advertise as necessary. 4th Quarter 1996 (October - December) Continue activities as during 3rd quarter 1995. [Housing] ProjectD 0 1995 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 861-9760 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Request $ 81,560 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 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.) • One to two homes can be provided in 1996 as a result of 1995 CDBG activities. 8. Implementation Schedule: ( For the time period 7-1-95 .to 12-31-96 identify the major project tasks to be performed and when they will occur) Date Task Month/ Date See attachment • 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) Acquisition, Site Preparation $ 66,904 $ Demolition $ 6,500 $ Administration $ 8,156 $ 14,105 (HRA) Project Budget $ 81,560 $ 14,105 Total Project Budget $ 95',665 Requfund.frm 6,// • Description: New Home Program-Scattered Site Project (Refer to #5 of Application) For 1995/96 New Home Program activities, $81,560 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. LJ ?-ice 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 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 May 1994 those income limits are as follows: Household Size (50% of Median) 3 $22,950 4 $25500 5 $27,550 6 $29,600 Income Limit (80% of Median) $35,900 $39,900 $43,100 $46,300 Components of a project,during implementation of a Technical College type of project, include: ongoing administration, program solicitation, appraisal, (0-13 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 not specifically identified. However, the following per site estimates are based on project experience. Acquisition $57,000 Site Clearance and Preparation $ 6,500 Public Improvements On-going Administration Relocation Total C.? $ 4,000 $ 8,100 6,00 0 $81,600 The 1995 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. r? U G i4 • Implementation Schedule: New Home Program - Scattered Site Project (Refer to #8 of Application) Task - Review requests for Voluntary Acquisition of property. - Identify site to acquire, negotiate sale price, acquire property - Relocate occupants, clear property - Initiate construction project* - Construction underway * Date (Month/Year) 7/95 to 9/95 10/95 to 12/95 1/96 to 3/96 4/96 to 6/96 7/96 to 12/96 - Marketing plans initiated - Completion and sale * 9/96 to 12/96 1/97 to 3/97 * 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 1995 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. Devich 861-9702 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Request $ 12 518 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. South 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) In conducting the City's self-evaluation a number of problem issues were identified. One of these issues is making the restrooms at City facilities (especially City Hall) accessible according to ADA specifications. This project is to address the structural changes necessary to make the restrooms in compliance with the ADA. Sinks, urinals, walls, floor tile, plumbing, and, doorways will need structual modification. A second area of need is for power assisted door openers at a number of City facilities. Funds will be available to provide one set of power assisted doors at one of the City's satellite facilities to be determined by a priority evaluation. 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) Accessibility Needs: Handicapped Services - High priority level. 11 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.) All residents of Richfield could potentially benefit from these mandatory improvements, roughly 36,000 population and 15,000 households. 8. Implementation Schedule: ( For the time period 7-1-95 to 12-31-96 identify the major project tasks to be performed and when they will occur) Date Task Month/ Date Evaluation of changes to be made 7-95 Structural modifications made .10-95 Completion 11-1-95 U 9. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component-i.e., administration, planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.) Component Construction BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS CDBG Other (identify) $ 12, 518 $ - $ Project Budget $12,518 Total Project Budget $12,518 • Requfund.frm N 1 1995 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 Elderly) 3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Ron Bloch/ 541-1019 B. PROJECT DATA ?. Funding Request $ 22 , 050 2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG funded project? X Yes No 3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ 46,880 Source See #9 (To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?) 4. Project Location: Address Richfield 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) Public Service Needs: Senior Services - High Priority CJ I 'c 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 1994 the project served 151 Richfield residents (132 households). It is anticipated that a similar number will be served in CDBG Year XXI. 8. Implementation Schedule: ( For the time period 7-1-95 to 12-31-96 identify the major project tasks to be performed and when they will occur) Task On-going delivery of the following services: Date Month/ Date CDBG Year XXI Maintenance - Includes minor repairs in the areas of carpentry, plumbing, concrete, electrical ? painting. Also includes lawn mowing and snow removal in season. • Homemaking - Includes window washing, floor cleaning vacuuming, dusting, shopping, doing wash, etc. 9. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component-4.e., administration, planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.) BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS Component Public Services CDBG Other (identify) $ 22,050 $ 16,426 Client fees $ 15,997 Hen. County $ 6,674 United Way 5,491 GMCC $ 2,292 Friends of HOME Project Budget $ 22 , 050 $46,880 Total Project Budget $ 68,930 NOTE: A copy of the HOME Program Budget is attached showing all anticipated revenues for the Program from all cities, client fees, Hennepin County, the United Way, etc. 0 RequfundArn Attachment 6-/9 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. bt -- co 1995 -'96 HOME BUDGET XPENSES Salaries 233,239 Benefits/Taxes 59,673 Occupancy 3,347 Equipment 1,134 Telephone 3,095 Postage 1,512 Printing 5,645 Supplies 13,842 Professional Fees 8,692 Travel 5,502 Conferences 4,061 Insurance 6,782 Memberships 207 Miscellaneous 288 Depreciation 2,293 Management Expenses 20,957 TOTAL EXPENSES ----------------------- ---- --------------------------------- 370,269 EVENUES Hennepin County Contract 83,754 Bloomington (CDBG) 20,000 Bloomington HRA 16,500 Richfield (CDBG) ----------------------- ------ 22,050 Edina (CDBG) 24,893 Eden Prairie (CDBG) 10,340 Minnetonka (CDBG) 15,096 Brooklyn Center (CDBG) 9,306 Subtotal CDBG funds through Hennepin County 81,685 St Louis Park (General Funds) 6,000 GMCC - Title IIIB 19,765 GMCC - United Way 8,986 Customer Fees 86,000 United Way 34,941 Friends of HOME contributions 12,000 TOTAL REVENUES 369,631 URPLUS (DEFICIT) -638 mama Community Development COPY- ® ®?. 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 (-04 City Manager Mayor James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch January 26, 1995 Mr. Ron Bloch Program Administrator Senior Community Services 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 111 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Mr. Bloch: ci? We have just received information from Hennepin County for the 1995 -CDBG application process. They have moved up the schedule to over a month earlier than usual and so there is not much time to process this year. The city's allocation of 1995 CDBG monies was increased approximately 3.5% overall. We are therefore proposing to increase H.O.M.E.'s allocation by that much - $22,050. Please forward your request for funding by filling out the enclosed form no later than February 1, 1995. The public hearing will be held on Monday, February 13, 1995 in the. Council Chamber here in City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. I invite you to attend. If you have any questions, please let me know Sincerely, Ibdith L. Kunz. Community Development Assistant J LK:ttf 0 The Urban Hometown Telephone (612) 861-9760 • Fax (612) 861-9749 General City Matters: 861-9700 An Equal Opportunity Employer Council Don Priebe Michael Sandahi Susan Rosenberg Russ Susaa FROM GMDCR 01.31.1995 17:16 P. 1 -ac URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST FOR FUNDING (Use one form per project) A. GE NERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: City of Richfield 2. Project Name: Slidin Fee Program 3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Grace Norris OW 341-1177 B. PROJECT DATA 1, Funding Request $_10.320.00 2, Is this request to fund an existing CDBG funded project? X Yes _No Question does not apply since this program is 3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ N/A - Source totally funded by (To what extent does project leverage additional public or private fundWfirm commitment?) Richfield. 4. Project Location: Address 1628 Elliot Avenue South Citywide (Attach map,) Minneapolis, MN 55404 6. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detalll 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 available 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(les) the project will most. (Note: If proposed project Is a low Urban County priority you must explain why It has a higher priority In your community) Under Public Service Needs ?Child Care Services has a high priority. Post-it " brand fax transmittal memo 7671 x of Papa ? From o. o, ape. one Fax 0 r 15- -7 W. 1* ax `? -+ s FROM GMGC:R 01.31.1995 17:17 P. 2 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,) Between July 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994 three Richfield families have beam served with the Richfield sliding fee prggra%? Two famitLes are currently being served. Applications are out to add a fourth fami;,y to the program. With three families on the program, the balance in your CDBG account will be drawn down more quickly. I am also sending you a statement of the MBG child care funding as of 12/31/94. & implementation Schedule: ( For the time period 7.1.95 to 1241.96 identify the major project tasks to be performed and when they will occur) Task Data Mg Each f mil on, the program a s an "affordable" amount for child care as determined by the state guidelines. *The s iding fee program covers the rest of the cost of care u to a maximum limit. Parents are en- ?ouraged to choose any legal child care arrangement which they fee best suits the needs of their ahild(ren). They can change child care provide?rs any time they wish. Families axe terminated from the ra ram when their income is above the guidelines, they have finished training, lost a jobs move 37, or state funds become available and the are all ibis. **There is a faun year time limit on the program. 9. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project componant-Le,, administration, planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.) BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS 021111122nent 4 2ULL fidentifv) 90% of the Richfield ODBG sliding fee $ $ money goes to help families 10,%..goes to admini tration of the ra ram $, Project Budget $ $ Total Project Budget $ *Attached is fee schedule for family of 3 "We also use significant state money for Richfield residents, as outlined in the answer to #5. Requfund.frm 0 FROM GMUCR 01.31.1995 17:17 F. 3 1994-95 6,04 i 1- AMILY OF THREE Annual Gross Inconlr Monthly Gross ]ncomo Monthly Copaym©nt Annual Gross Income Monthly Gross Income Monthly Copayinont Mihimum lice $12,321 $16,414 $1,027 $1,367 $18 $16,415 $16,805 $1,368 $1,400 $36 16,806 17,196 1,401 1,432 $40 17,197 17,587 1,433 1,465 $44 17,588 17,971 1,466 1,497 $48 17,978 18,368 1,498 1,530 $52 18,369 18,759 1,531 1,562 $56 18,760 19,150 1,563 10595 $61 19,151 39,540 1,596 1,627 $65 19,541 19,736 1,628 1,644 $69 19,737 19,931 1,645 1,660 $73 19,932 20,127 1,661 11676 $77 20,128 20,322 1,677 1,693 $81 6 20,323 20,517 1,694 1,709 $85 20,518 20,713 1,710 1,725 $90 20,714 20,903 1,726 1,741 $94 20,909 21,103 1,742 1,758 $98 21,104 21,299 1,759 1,774 $103 21,300 21,494 1,775 1,790 $107 21,495 21,690 1,791 1,807 $113 21,691 21,885 1,808 1,823 $119 21,886 22,080 1,824 1,839 $124 22,081 22,276 1,840 1,855 $130 22,277 22,471 1,856 1,872 $136 22,472 22,666 1,873 1,888 $142 22,667 22,862 1,889 1,904 $148 22,863 23,057 11905 1,921 $154 23,058 23,253 1,922 1,937 $160 23,254 23,448 1,938 1,953 $166 --- -- ----- --- ----- ----Hennepin County 23,449 23,643 1,954 1,969 172 23,644 23,839 1,970 1,986 179 23,840 24,034 1,987 2,002 185 24,035 24,229 2,003 2,018 192 24,230 24,425 2,019 2,034 198 24,426 24,620 2,035 2,051 205 24,621 24,816 2,052 2,067 213 24,817 25,011 2,068 2,083 221 25,012 25,206 2,084 2,100 229 25,207 25,402 2,101 2,116 237 25,403 25,597 2,117 2,132 245 25,598 25,792 2,133 2,148 254 25,793 25,988 2,149 2,165 262 25,989 26,183 2,166 2,181 271 26,184 26,379 2,182 2,197 279 26,380 26,574 2,198 2,214 288 26,575 26,769 2,215 2,230 297 26,770 26,965 2,231 2,246 306 26,966 27,160 2,247 2,262 315 27,161 27,355 2,263 2,279 324 27,356 27,551 2,280 2,295 333 27,552 27,746 2,296 2,311 342 27,747 27,942 2,312 2,328 352 27,943 28,137 2,329 2,344 361 28,138 28,332 2,345 2,360 371 28,333 28,528 2,361 2,376 380 28,529 28,723 2,377 2,393 390 28,724 28,918 2,394 2,409 400 28,919 29,114 2,410 2,425 410 29,195 29,309 2,426 2,442 420 ------ ----- ---- - - --- StateSUdingFoe ***QN3*** Sall r 0 z ... Z LL LU 0 Q ? Q W b Ili o 0 45 L r4 d i c n 4 0 0 *01 r- ? 01 m LO 1? +r ? M N o w : 0 N 00 N 00 -o Ln N ?!? N C J r CV +.t m N N N ?M Wt CL J4 0 m, W W Z C2 CC ill Q 8I :LI S66 I'I£'I0 a??w? woa? Community Action for Suburban Hennepin Ms. Judith Kunz City of Richfield. . 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 February 13, 1995 Dear Ms. Kunz: This letter is to request funding in the amount of $5,000 from the city's Community Development Block Grant program for 1995-96. Funds will be used to support HOME Line, the housing services program of Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH). During the past year, HOME Line has added a new service, Home Buyer Education and Counseling. It offers a three-session education workshop open to the public (an announcement of up-coming workshops is enclosed) and free individual counseling to income-eligible families. We also have limited funds to help lower income buyers with their downpayment and the cost of a physical inspection of the property. HOME Line continues to operate four other housing programs for low and moderate income homeowners and renters: 1 a tenant "hotline" to assist tenants with rental housing problems; 2) tenant organizing assistance to educate and train low income tenants to work together to solve common problems in a given complex; 3) a mortgage foreclosure prevention program to provide personal, technical, and financial help to homeowners facing foreclosure due to circumstances beyond their control; and 4) free legal help and financial assistance for families with children facing eviction. Another activity of ours is a class for high school students on the basics of being a renter. We have made presentations to high school students at the Academy of the Holy Angles and Richfield High School. All of our programs are described in more detail in the HOME Line Program Description enclosed. 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. Sincerely, Sharon A. Joh n Executive Director is Enclosures as noted 33 1 0th Avenue S., Suite 150, Hopkins, MN 55343 • (612) 933-9639 • Fax 933-8016 Communi Action for Suburban Hertnpcn HOME Co _? r q?Homeownership Programs Home Buyer. Workshops Dreaming of owning your own home, but don't know where to start? The HOME Line Home,Buyers' Program should be your first step. During this three-part workshop, we'll walk you through each step of the home buying process. You'll get important information on: • How much home you can afford • Shopping and qualifying for a mortgage • Finding the perfect home • The real estate transaction • The responsibilities of homeownership PLUS • Loans designed for first time buyers • Loans to help low to moderate income households • increase their borrowing power Purchase/Rehabilitation loans • Down payment and closing cost assistance Purchasing a home is probably!, the biggest investment you'll ever make, so make your first step, the right step by attending this workshop! To Register, please call 933-9685 Home ;Buyer Workshop Schedule Crystal: Crystal Community Center, 4800 Douglas Drive North 3 Saturdays from 10:Q0AM -12:30'PM, February 11= 18, 25, 1995 Bloomington: Creekside Community Center, 9801 Penn Avenue South 3 Tuesdays from 7:00 PM - 9:30 PM, March 7, 14, 21, 1995 St. Louis Park: St. Louis Park junior High School, 2025 Texas Avenue 3 Tuesdays from 7:00 PM 9:30 PM, April 4, 11, 1$,1995 Brooklyn Center: Shingle Creek Regional Library, 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway 3 Thursdays from 7:00 PM - 9:30 PM, May 11, 18, 25, 1995 Hopkins: Hopkins City Hall, 1010 First Street South 3 Thursdays from 7:00, PM - 9:30 PM, June 8, 15, 22, 1995 33 1 0th Avenue S., Suite 150, Hopkins, MN 55343 • (612) 933-9685 • Fax 933-8016 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin HOME Line is the name given to CASH's set of housing services that operate in suburban Hennepin County. HOME Line has_ programs for both renters and homeowners. HOME Line's Programs for Renters Tenant Advocacy (started in January 1992) - We offer a free call-in or walk-in service providing information and advice on Minnesota tenant/landlord laud and on Hennepin County court procedures. The tenant advocacy program operates primarily via a telephone "hotline" staffed by volunteers recruited from area law schools and the suburban community. Detailed records of each call are kept on a computerized database. The tenant advocacy program handles approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cases per year; over 90% are low or moderate income households. Tenant Organizing (May 1992) - Our tenant organizers assist groups of tenants with common problems in a given complex. These problems tend to be maintenance/repair related or instances of management abuses. Organizing situations often come to our attention through hotline calls. The organizing program publishes a quarterly newsletter distributed to • approximately 2,000 suburban Hennepin renters, public officials, and social service agencies. Legal Advocacy (September 1993) HOME Line offers free legal representation to families with children who are facing eviction from rental quarters. Services are provided by an attorney in private practice under contract to CASH. The program is funded by and is a part of Hennepin County's "Family Homelessness Prevention and Assistance Program." Income-eligible families may also receive emergency, one-time loans from CASH's own revolving loan fund. Approximately 150 households are assisted per year, most are residents of Minneapolis's northwest suburbs. Renter Education for Hi h-schoolers '1 'arch 19931 - !Ae have ce? t? elo ^u a lone-session g u ;1, f p., program on the "basics of renting" for young people who will be entering the rental market for the first time on their own. Instruction covers inspection before move-in, getting repairs made, potential problems in roommate situations, and the responsibilities of renters. This class has been presented nearly 40 times in over a dozen schools; well over 1,000 students have participated. HOME Line's Programs for Homeowners Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention (August 1992) - This is a free service designed to assist homeowners facing the loss of their homes due to foreclosure. Assistance includes budget counseling, referrals to social services and financial resources, advocacy with lenders, and help with refinances. Income-eligible homeowners may also get an emergency one-time loan from CASH's own revolving loan fund. These loans are without interest and are due on sale of the home 33 1 0th Avenue S., Suite 150, Hopkins, MN 55343 • (612) 933-9639 • Fax 933-8016 or when it no longer is used as the homeowners residence. HOME Line's Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program is one of eight selected statewide by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to administer its Emergency Mortgage and Rental Assistance Program (EMRAP). Since beginning operations, this program has worked with over 800 homeowners and has tallied a 70% success rate in saving people's homes. A majority, about 60%, of the homeowners served were of low income; another 30% were moderate income. Homeowner Education and Counseling (August 1994) -This is HOME Line's newest program; it is designed to expand homeownership opportunities in suburban Hennepin County, particularly for lower income and minority households. This is accomplished through educational seminars on the home buying process that are open to the public and individualized counseling to lower income buyers who may need help overcoming barriers to homeownership. These barriers might include no credit history--or a bad one, lack of enough money for the downpayment and closing costs, or poor budgeting of personal income. We offer buyers information on every detail of the home buying process. For income-eligible buyers, we also have limited financial assistance to help pay for a qualified inspection of the home and to ease the downpayment burden. The program works closely with area Realtors, lenders, and local governments to assure home buyers get accurate and current information. CASH, standing for Community Action for Suburban Hennepin, is the "anti-poverty agency" serving low income people throughout suburban Hennepin County. CASH is a private, non- profit, tax-exempt corporation; it has been in business since 1985. In addition to its HOME Line housing programs, CASH operates Crisis Intervention and Community Education programs. We are funded primarily with state and federal grants passed through the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (formerly the Department of Jobs and Training). Additional funding is provided by Hennepin County, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), the National Corporation for Community Service, the Fannie Mae Foundation, and several suburban Hennepin municipalities. I N 40 0 HOME Line Operating Budget 1995 Salaries $192,850 Fringe benefits (@ 20% of salaries) 34,771 subtotal PERSONNEL 227,621 Accounting fees 5,200 Audit 4,500 Other professional services 3,000 subtotal PROFFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,700 Mileage/Parking 6,600 Training 6,000 subtotal TRAVEL 12,600 Rent 26,000 Utilities (included in rent) 0 subtotal SPACE 26,000 Postage 5,225 Printing & Copying 6,050 Supplies 5,300 • Publications & subscriptions b E 2,375 su total SUPPLI S 18,950 Equipment & Furnishings 2,300 Maintenance/repairs 75 Software 0 subtotal EQUIPMENT 2,375 Insurance 2,275 Advertising 2,200 Telephone (incl. LD) 7,080 Other dues 2,150 Meeting support 2,500 Volunteer recognition 1,000 subtotal OTHER COSTS 17,205 Entry cost grants 5,250 Inspection fee grants 3,750 subtotal HOME BUYER GRANTS 9,000 PROGRAM TOTAL $317,451 SOURCES of FUNDS CDBG (1994-95)" 29,200 EMRAP/MHFA 12,000 Fannie Mae Foundation 5,000 • Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) 271,300 TOTAL SOURCES $317,500 3D `CDBG Funding (94-95) Champlin - $1,500 Eden Prairie - $3,000 Edina - $2,000 Maple Grove - $1,500 Minnetonka - $2,500 Mound - $2,500 Plymouth - $9,500 Robbinsdale - $1,700 St. Louis Park - $5,000 '5 e CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 60 Agenda February 27, 1995 .Issue Statement: Authorization of Change Order #3 in the total amount of $3,411.70 for City Council Chambers audio visual renovation. Background: At the August 8, 1994 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized the expenditure of $36,925.67 for the audio visual renovations from Alpha Video. Since the beginning of the installation process, two small change orders were necessary to exchange a 13-inch monitor with a 9-inch monitor and for an alternate switcher. The total cost of those two changes was $469. Change Order #3 represents $3,411.70 for the purchase of 2 JVC CCTV zoom lenses for the two new cameras. The lenses JVC originally specified for the camera and included in the contract did not meet the picture quality requirement for the cameras. Therefore, an upgraded lens was necessary for both cameras. Recommended Motion: 1. Approval of Change Order #3 in the total amount of $3,411.70 for the City Council • audio visual renovation project. Basis of Recommendation: 1. In proceeding with the approved bid, a small modification is necessary in the audio visual equipment. 2. Change Order #3 in the amount of $3,411.70 would complete the needed changes for the project. 3. Although the amount is less than $5,000, it is in excess of the original contract amount previously approved. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None, the change was necessary to make the system function appropriately. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for the February 27, 1995 City Council meeting to allow the City to immediately process the change order and pay the contractor. Res submitted, Jam la osser City r JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 59 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for one carbon dioxide feed system. 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. This equipment controls the feeding of the carbon dioxide, which controls the Ph of the finished water that is delivered to the residents of Richfield. The softening process causes the Ph to rise to level of approximately 11.2. The carbon dioxide lowers the level to about 8.7 before the water is delivered to the distribution system. Three vendors were contacted with the following results: Vendor Amount Graytech $ 9,125.00 Feed-Rite Controls 10,885.00 • Vessco, Inc. 22,227.50 Recommended Motion: Approve a 1995 purchase order to Graytech, in the amount of $9,125, to purchase a carbon dioxide feed system. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Graytech submitted the lowest quote. 2. There is $12,000 allocated for this purchase in the 1995 Water Maintenance budget. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes. Discussion/Decision Mode:. Staff requests approval at the February 27, 1995 Council meeting. submitted, JuProsser r JDP:ds 5 11-- • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 58 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase in the amount of $7,702.55 for maintenance of the City's Unisys computer system and assorted printers. Background: The City has been contracting with Scantron/FPC for maintenance of its Unisys computer system for the past six years. They were twice the successful bidder for three year contracts. Their competent service and quick response has minimized the amount of computer downtime experienced by the City and kept our equipment in good working order. The annual cost of this contract has ranged between $30,000 and $35,000 during the past few years. This outlay protected an investment in several hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment and the many critical City functions which depend on this computer system. Our current service agreement with. Scantron/FPC expired on December 31, 1994. Over the past couple of years as the City began converting from the Unisys system to a personal computer network, staff removed equipment which had been replaced by PCs • from the Scantron/FPC contract. Some of the removed equipment was sold to other Unisys installations and some was put in storage. The equipment in storage has little or no resale value. Staff believes that equipment is in good running order in storage to use for parts or as replacements for many of the Unisys computers still in use at the City. Because of this, we are recommending that much of the Unisys equipment still in use be maintained by City staff and no longer be covered by a maintenance contract. Some of the Unisys equipment, however, still requires maintenance from an outside . vendor. This equipment includes Unisys components for which we have no replacements and printers which can be used on the PC network. Staff recommends that these services be.provided by Scantron/FPC. Staff has been negotiating new pricing and terms with Scantron/FPC and is recommending a six month agreement in the amount of $7,702.55. Because Scantron/FPC has been providing maintenance services to the City during these negotiations, the six month period covered would be retroactive to January 1, 1995. Scantron/FPC has reduced most of their prices based on our service record with them and the City's acceptance of a scaled back preventive maintenance program. Scantron/FPC will provide on-site maintenance covering all parts and labor with a four hour maximum response time. Staff compared Scantron/FPC's prices for printer maintenance to those provided in a state contract for similar services and found • Scantron/FPC's prices to be 29% - 32% below those offered the City in the state contract. 5 -, tr-, -, I • Staff is requesting approval for only a six month agreement at this time. We want to reevaluate our maintenance requirements again at the end of the six months based on the amount and types of Unisys equipment still in use at that time and our experiences in providing in-house maintenance for the equipment dropped from the agreement. Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to purchase maintenance services for the City's Unisys computer system and printers in the amount of $7,702.55 for the period January 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995, from Scantron/FPC of Omaha, Nebraska. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Unisys equipment covered by the service agreement is used by many of the City's operations such as accounting, assessing, utility billing and housing inspections. 2. Staff believes that the proposed hybrid of in-house and outside service is a cost effective way to provide quality maintenance of the Unisys computer system. 3. Scantron/FPC has a history of providing excellent service to the City at competitive prices. Alternative Recommendation: The Council could choose to drop all contract maintenance coverage for the Unisys equipment and direct staff to pay for maintenance on a time and materials basis. Staff cautions, however, that response time to this type of service call can be days instead of hours and the cost of repairs are unpredictable. This is a concern because several critical City functions still rely on the Unisys equipment. These issues may be of less concern for some of the equipment in the future as we move more applications to the PC network and is an option staff intends to revisit in six months. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval is requested at the February 27 City Council meeting. Respectfu submitted, James Prosser City M ager JDP:ds 50 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 57 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Purchase in the amount of $39,259.73 for personal computers and peripherals, software and services for the Community Center, Ice Arena, Nature Center and Golf Course. Background: The 1995 approved budget includes funding to convert the City computer system to a personal computer (PC) network. PC equipment and software has already been installed for most computer users at City Hall and is about to begin at the City Garage. The next group of computers scheduled for replacement are located at the Community Center, Ice Arena, Nature Center and Golf Course. Staffs experience has been that the best prices on personal computers, printers and software do not always come from the same vendor. Therefore, two separate procedures were used to obtain quotes for the equipment and software needed. Sealed bids were. requested to obtain quotes on personal computers and operating system software. Written price quotes were requested for the printers and word processing and spreadsheet software. Seven vendors were invited to submit sealed bids for 16 personal computers. Four of these vendors are located in Richfield. Three vendors submitted the following bids, including sales tax: Portico Computers II of Bloomington, MN $32,582.18 Unique Software of Eagan, MN $32,721.06 Blue Star Marketing of Richfield, MN $34,851.06 Portico quoted 486DX2/80MHz computers with 16MB of RAM and 420MB hard drives. The PCs have three different cabinet styles and two different monitor sizes. Each comes with DOS and Windows software and a five year on-site maintenance agreement (one year on monitors). Four CD-ROM drives, tape backup units, and modems were also included in the bid, one set for each building. Staff recommends that the purchase be made from the low bidder, Portico Computers. After reviewing space requirements at one of the buildings, staff wishes to switch the cabinet style and monitor size of three of the PCs to another style included in the bid. This reduces the purchase amount to $30,055.60 for equipment and $1,953.61 for sales tax, for a total of $32,009.21 A request for written quotes for office software for these PCs was sent to 11 vendors, 4 of whom responded. The lowest quote for the Microsoft Office software licenses needed was for a 20 user license pack from Unique Software in the amount of $6,808.00 for product and $442.52 for sales tax for a total of $7,250.52. If Council approves this purchase of PCs and software, staff will purchase laser printers and network equipment for these installations based.on written quotes received in the amount of $4,800.00. These purchases will be made from the Central Services Fund from funds budgeted for the • replacement of out-of-date equipment and upgrading of the City's computer capabilities. This will be the last large purchase of PCs until later in the year when some of our municipal computer applications, such as accounting and assessing, are converted to or purchased for the PC network. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution granting a contract for the purchase of 16 personal computers and related equipment, software and services in the amount of $30,009.21 as specified in the City's request for proposals dated February 6, 1995, to Portico Computers 11 of Bloomington, Minnesota; and authorize the City Manager to purchase Microsoft Office software in the amount of $7,250.52 from Unique Software of Eagan, Minnesota... Basis of Recommendation: 1. The vendors and products proposed meet all of the City's requirements and are the lowest bids received. 2. The City has purchased about 30 PCs from Portico in the past. Their deliveries have been on time and the quality of their products has been good. 3. Although staff has recently had some trouble with lengthy response times to our service calls to Portico, discussions with their management have taken place and we anticipate better service in the future. 4. The prices offered the City by all of the recommended vendors represent a good buy in this highly competitive marketplace. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could direct staff to seek quotes from additional vendors for the printers and software, or reject all bids and change the personal computer specifications and re-bid. 2. The Council could withhold approval of the purchases. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council, action to authorize this purchase is requested at the February 27 meeting. Portico's bid expires on March 18 and Unique Software's on March 21. submitted, ResqDProsser JamCity Manager JDP:ds In--C;L RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL COMPUTERS AND PERIPHERALS WHEREAS, pursuant town advertisement for bids for personal computers and peripherals, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that Portico Computers II, Incorporated of Bloomington, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the proposal dated February 15, 1995, of Portico Computers II, Incorporated is hereby accepted with the revisions specified below; 2. That the City revises the quantities of five items as they appeared in the City's specifications and Portico Computers II's proposal to be 5 "Base PC in Full Tower", 6 "Base PC in Mini Tower", 5 "Base PC in Mini Desktop," 8 "14 inch Monitor" and 8 "17 inch Monitor"; 3. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Portico Computers II, Incorporated of Bloomington, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Richfield in an amount not to exceed $32,009.21 for the personal computers and peripherals included in their proposal; and 4. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder, Portico Computers II, Incorporated of Bloomington, Minnesota, shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of February, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA E Bid Opening February 16, 1995 4:00 P.M. Personal Computers and Peripherals Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Steven L. Devich, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for personal computers and peripherals, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 8, 1995. Present: Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk Sally Morton, Data Processing Manager Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative 0 The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount Unique Software Corp. Eagan 5% cashier's check $ 32,721.06 Portico Inc. Bloomington 5% cashier's check $ 32,582.18 Blue Star Richfield 5% cashier's check $ 34,851.06 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 27, 1995 City Council Meeting. Steven L. Devich Acting City Clerk 11 5c, . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 56 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Application for lawful gambling license for Friends Of Wood Lake (FOWL), 735 Lake Shore Drive. Background: On February 21, 1995 the Friends Of Wood Lake submitted an application for an exemption from lawful gambling license. The applicant is proposing to conduct the raffle on April 28, 1995 at the fifth annual FOWL fund-raiser. The applicant has requested that the $100 investigation fee be waived and that the 30 day wait period be waived. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements. In addition, the FOWL Chair, William James Bullock, has no known criminal record. Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving a license for a lawful gambling activity as requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100. 13, subd. 6, waiving the 30 day waiting period for the license and waiving the investigation fee. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the State Statues and City Code pertaining to lawful gambling. 2. The request for exemption from a lawful gambling license has been submitted 30 days prior to their raffle date. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the request; however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. 0 2. The Council could decide not to waive the investigative fee. . Discussion/Decision Mode: Action is requested at the February 27, 1995 Council meeting in order to provide sufficient time for FOWL to make necessary arrangements for their annual fund raising dinner. Respectfu y submitted, Jam Prosser City nager JDP:ds 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZATION OF LAWFUL GAMBLING ACTIVITY, AND WAIVER OF THE 30 DAY WAIT PERIOD FOR THE LICENSE, WAIVER OF THE INVESTIGATION FEE FOR FRIENDS OF WOOD LAKE (FOWL) WHEREAS, the Friends Of Wood Lake (FOWL) has submitted an application for a gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application request is to hold a raffle; and WHEREAS; Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides for regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Friends of Wood Lake, 735 Lake Shore Drive. 2. That the 30 day wait period for said license be waived. 3. That the investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of February, 1995. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor . n U ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk . February 21, 1995 To whom it may concern: The Friends of Wood Lake (FOWL) is having their 1995 dinner/dance at the VFW on April. 28, 1995. This is a non-profit group. We will be having a raffle and drawing at that time. Please waive the investigation fee. Thank you. William James Bullock 7121 Knox Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Date of Birth December 13, 1960 0 0 . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 55. Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Authorization to pay additional funds for temporary easements; 77th Street, Phase II. Background: From the apartment property at 7700 12th Avenue, the 77th Street Project needs a temporary construction easement. The property has a lessor and lessee. Last year in anticipation of 1994 construction, the City Council authorized the payment of $200 to each party for the construction period. Since construction did not proceed last year, temporary construction easements are needed this year. The interested parties have flatly refused to grant a revised easement without the payment of an additional $400 to each. Recommended Motion: Adopt a motion authorizing the payment of $400 to each of the. lessor and lessee Basis of Recommendation: 1. The easements are needed for the 1995 construction period. 2. The lessor and lessee demand an additional $400 each for the easement rights. 3. Funds are available. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Refuse to approve the request. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval will make it possible for the process to continue in a timely manner. Respectfull submitted, Jam Prosser City ager JDPAS JP • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 54 Agenda February 27, 1995 Issue Statement: Consideration of "Consent and Agreement" providing for assignment of Phase Emerson Avenue Licensure Agreement to a lender. Background: CSM is negotiating permanent financing for Phase I of Shops at Lyndale with Allstate Life Insurance Company in the amount of $12.9 million. The City Council on August 1, 1994 approved a Licensure Agreement with CSM for use of Emerson Avenue between 77th and 78th Streets for parking. To obtain the mortgage loan financing, CSM must assign all of its interest in the project to Allstate in case CSM defaults. In case of default, the lender would need to operate and manage the development to protect its assets. Allstate' is asking for the assignment of CSM's Emerson Avenue interest. That interest would be provided by the "Consent and Agreement" which is attached. The City Council may recall that a similar request was made by the construction loan lender Norwest Bank on November 14, 1994. The "Consent and Agreement" calls for the deletion of paragraph 8(a) of the Licensure Agreement. Since this paragraph deals with construction of the Phase facility, it is not appropriate for inclusion in a post-construction agreement. Recommended Motion: Approve the "Consent and Agreement" which assigns to AIIState Insurance Company the Licensure Agreement if CSM defaults. Basis of Recommendation: 1. CSM and Allstate are requesting approval. 2. Allstate requires site control to properly manage this facility if CSM defaults. 3. All the rights and responsibilities of the developer are assigned to the lender. 4. The City Council approved such a request where the construction lender made the same request. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 0 . 2. Refuse to approve 5?-1 • Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval on February 27, 1995 will facilitate the closing. Re y submitted, Ja . Prosser City anager JDP:ds 0 0 0H • CONSENT AND AGREEMENT This Consent and Agreement is made as of 1995, by and between THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, whose address is 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (the "City"), ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, whose address is Allstate Plaza West M2C,.3100 Sanders Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062 (the "Lender"), and CSM INVESTORS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, whose address is 2561 Territorial Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114-1500 (the "Developer"). WHEREAS, the City and the Developer have entered into an Agreement dated as of August 9, 1994 (the "Agreement") relating to that portion of Emerson Avenue South which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Portion"). WHEREAS, the Lender has agreed to make a loan of $12,900,000 (the "Lender Loan") to the Developer upon the condition, among others, that the Developer grant the Lender a Mortgage, Assignment of Leases, Rents and Contracts, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing (as the same may be amended and supplemented from time to time, the "Lender Mortgage") and an Assignment of Leases and Rents (as the same may be amended and • supplemented from time to time, the "Lender Assignment of Rents"), as security for repayment of such financial accommodations, covering certain real estate, including, without limitation, the real estate legally described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Land") and the City is willing to execute this Agreement to induce the Lender to provide such financing to the Developer. follows: NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as 1. Amendment of Agreement. The Developer and the Lender hereby amend the Agreement to delete paragraph 8(a) thereof in its entirety. 2. No Defaults. To the best of the City's knowledge and to the best of the Developer's knowledge, no default has occurred under paragraph 8 of the Agreement, or event, which with the passage of.time or the giving of notice, or both, would be such a default, has occurred and is continuing under the Agreement as of the date hereof. 3. Assignment of Agreement and'Riahts thereunder to the Lender. The Developer hereby assigns to the Lender, as security for the Lender Loan, all of the Developer's right, title and interest in and to the Agreement, as amended by this Consent and Agreement, and to the rights of the Developer under the Agreement. The City hereby consents to this assignment. 5A-3 • 4. Estoppel Letter. The City acknowledges that (a) that certain estoppel letter dated January 5, 1995, from the City, and (b) that certain opinion letter dated January 6, 1995, from counsel for the City relating to the Agreement, are valid, legal, binding and enforceable obligations, and, as of the date hereof, have not been modified, supplemented, or amended. 5. ' City Support for Vacation of Emerson Avenue and Colfax Avenue.. The City acknowledges that it supports the Developer's request that the Phase II Property (as defined in the Contract for Private Redevelopment dated April 29, 1994 between The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, and CSM Corporation), Emerson Avenue South (between 77th Street West and. Market Drive) and Colfax Avenue South (between 77th Street West and Market Drive) be vacated and that fee simple title thereto be conveyed to the Developer for use in connection with the project currently being constructed by the Developer on the Land. 6. Obligation of City to Make a New Agreement with the Lender. If the Developer's interests under the Agreement or in the Portion shall be terminated as a result of the rejection or disaffirmance of the Agreement pursuant to bankruptcy law or other law affecting creditor's rights or shall be terminated by the City because of a Default or for any other reason other than • the City's providing to the Developer an alternative parcel of real estate for access and parking in lieu of the Portion in accordance with paragraph 8(b) of the Agreement, the City will enter into a new agreement with the Lender, or any party designated by the Lender, not less than 10 nor more than 30 days after the request of the Lender, effective as of the date of such rejection, disaffirmance, or termination, which new agreement shall be upon the same terms and conditions as are presently contained in the Agreement, except that such new agreement shall not include any right by the City to terminate the new agreement under the circumstances set forth in paragraph 8(a) of the Agreement. The provisions of this paragraph 6 shall survive the rejection, disaffirmance or termination of the Agreement or the rights of the Developer thereunder and shall continue in full effect thereafter inasmuch as this Consent and Agreement is a separate and independent contract made by the City and the Lender. From the effective date of such rejection, disaffirmance, or termination of the Agreement to the date of execution and delivery of such new agreement, the Lender may use and enjoy the rights and privileges created by the Agreement without hindrance by the City. 7. Exemption from Assignment Restrictions. The City and the Developer agree that the assignment restrictions contained in paragraph 12 of the Agreement shall not prevent the Lender from further assigning all of its right, title, and 9 -2- interest in and to the Agreement and the rights thereunder or to • any new agreement entered into pursuant to paragraph 6, to any assignee, provided that the Lender is also assigning all of its right, title and interest in and to the Land to such assignee. 8. No Amendment to Agreement. Without the written consent of the Lender, the Agreement shall not be amended by the City or the Developer, and the City shall accept no voluntary termination or surrender of the-Agreement or the Portion by the Developer. 9. ' Option to Purchase. The City will provide written notice to the Lender simultaneously with any written notice provided to the Developer informing the Developer that the Developer may exercise its option to purchase the Portion pursuant to paragraph 8(c) of the Agreement. If for any reason the Developer fails to exercise the option to purchase the Portion, the City agrees that the Lender may exercise the option to purchase the Portion on behalf of the Developer. 10. Remedies Cumulative. The Lender's rights hereunder are cumulative and not exclusive. 11. Termination of this Consent and Agreement. The Lender agrees.that if the Lender Loan is fully paid by the Developer, the Lender will execute and deliver a termination of • this Consent and Agreement simultaneously with the Lender's execution and delivery of a satisfaction with respect to the Lender Mortgage. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor By Its City Manager 40 . . -3- STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF ) ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY By By Its Authorized Signatories CSM INVESTORS, INC. By Its • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1995, by and , respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of The City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public 0 -4- ?- ? STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1995, by and by , the and the of Allstate Life Insurance Company, a corporation; on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1995, by , the of CSM Investors, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: Faegre & Benson (RLR) 2200 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3901 MRRODBAF.WP5 --7 • EXHIBIT A TO CONSENT AND AGREEMENT The'real estate described in the referenced instrument and referred to as the Portion is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and is legally described as follows: That part of the West 30 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies South of the North 240 feet thereof except part taken for highway. and The East 30 feet of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part taken for highway purposes. and The West 30 feet of the North 240 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. MRRODBAF.WPS 0 5/7 EXHIBIT B TO CONSENT AND AGREEMENT The real estate described in the referenced instrument and referred to as the Land is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and is legally described as follows: PARCEL 1: The North 240 feet of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 except the North Thirty (30) feet as described in Book 1957 of Deeds, page 432, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 2: The East 160 feet of the South 50 feet of the North 255 feet of the West 320 feet of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 except the East 30 feet, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 3: The North 255 feet of Southeast 1/4 of the North Range 24, West East 30 feet thereof feet of the South 50 PARCEL 4: the West 320 feet of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, of the 4th Principal Meridian, except the and except the West 130 feet of the East 160 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The South 90 feet of the North 345 feet of West 320 feet of the South One-half (S1/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SW1/4) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Twenty-four (24), West of the 4th Principal Meridian, except the East 30 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 5: All that part of the West 320 feet of the South 1/2 of the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 except the North 345 feet thereof and except the parts thereof taken for highway purposes and except for Colfax Avenue South and Market Drive, according to the United States Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 0 5A-9 9 PARCEL 6: That part of the E1/2 of Section 33, Township 28, 240 feet thereof, except part taken for highway, PARCEL 7: the SE1/4 of the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Range 24, which lies South of the North the West 30 feet thereof and except that Hennepin County, Minnesota. The North 30 feet of the East half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 8: That part of the following described properties: The South 85 feet of the West half of the East half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota and Lot 8, NORTHFELT ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota • and Vacated or unvacated 77th Street West, as dedicated in the plat of NORTHFELT ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Being described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds West, assumed bearing, along.the south line of said Northwest Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter 86.58 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence northwesterly 187.04 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 610.33 feet and a central angle of 17 degrees 33 minutes 32 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 63- degrees 29 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 38 degrees 06 minutes 35 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, 32.47 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the east having a radius of 120.00 feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds East along said south line to the point of beginning. 0 MRRODBAF.WPS -2- ,<-In - D fo.- FINAL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into thisfd day of 1994 by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") and CSM INVESTORS, INC : , a Minnesota corporation ("CSM"). WITNESSETH: 1. The City maintains and operates Emerson Avenue South ("Emerson") as part of its public roadway system. 2. A portion of Emerson lying between 77th Street on the north and 78th Street on the south is within and immediately west of the westerly line of the Phase I property which is to be developed by CSM. That partion of Emerson (the "Portion") is described in the attached Exhibit A. 3. In furtherance of the GSM development, it has asked the City for • permission to utilize the Portion for certain activities and uses which are fully described in this Agreement, including, without limitation, the parking of motor vehicles and for ingress and egress. 4. The City council has reviewed the request including the proposed parking layout to be located on the Portion and has received the recommendations of staff. THEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing and upon the mutual undertakings and promises herein contained, the parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Use of Portion. Subject to the limitations hereinafter contained, CSM shall have the right to occupy and use the Portion for certain activities and uses which are fully described in this Agreement, including, without limitation, the parking of motor vehicles and for ingress and egress. 2. Design. The use and occupancy shall be in accordance with the design layout which is attached hereto as Exhibit B . No modification to the design may occur without the prior written consent of the City. JBD73645 RC12S-68 1 3. Construction. CSM shall be entirely responsible for the cost of construction and reconstruction upon the Portion during the term of this Agreement. CSM may proceed with installation of the initial improvements shown on Exhibit B together with the removal and/or installation of utilities within the Portion immediately following approval of the plans and specifications for such work by the city engineer. In the event that CSM shall, following completion of the initial construction, determine that it is necessary to carry out construction or reconstruction work within the Portion, it shall proceed as follows : a. It shall notify the City of such determination and may, with such, notification request that the City undertake the construction or reconstruction as a city project. The notification shall also contain proposed plans and specifications for the construction or reconstruction. b. The City shall, within 10 days following such notice of determination, review the proposed plans and specifications, and, in the event that they are in conformity with the standards for construction or reconstruction of public streets, shall either i) let the contract for bid, or, ii) permit CSM to proceed with the work. c. If CSM is to be permitted to proceed with the work, the City may place such procedural or other requirements on CSM as it deems • appropriate for construction work or a public street. d. No construction or reconstruction of the portion may take place whether by CSM or the City until CSM has, in the City's reasonable judgment, paid or secured payment of the entire cost of such construction or reconstruction. 4. Maintenance and Repair. CSM shall be entirely responsible for the maintenance and - repair of the Portion during the term of this Agreement. Maintenance and repair shall include without limitation patching, filling, sealing, coating, stripping, the removal of rubbish, debris, snow and ice. CSM shall provide the City with written notice at least five days in advance of maintenance and repair activities which are likely to result in a disruption of the use of the Portion for a period of more than one day; and shall obtain the City's written consent before undertaking any repair or maintenance activity having a cost of $10, 000 or more. 5 . Liens .and Encumbrances. CSM agrees that during the term of this Agreement it shall not permit or suffer any liens or encumbrances to be placed against the Portion, nor shall it during such term engage in any activity which would cause or result in the placement of any liens or circumstances against the Portion. 6. Insurance. In addition to GSM's obligations under paragraph 7 below, CS1V agrees to obtain and keep in place one or more policies of liability insurance, in an amount and form acceptable to the City, which insure against the risk of property damage, personal injury or death occasioned by or arising out of CSM's use and occupancy of the Portion. JBD73645 RC125-68 2 D1-1,9- Said policy or policies of insurance shall, as they relate to th P na th e me ortion, e City as an additional insured. 7. Indem, nits. CSM shall indemnify, release, defend and save harmless the City, its officers a ent , g s and employees from all claims, or whatever nature, and including claims for punitive damages f l , or contractual iability, property damage, personal injury or death occasioned by or arising out of CSrdls occupancy and use repair, . maintenance, construction and reconstruction of the Portion. The provisions of thi ar p s agraph shall not be • deemed to constitute a waiver of the liability limits contained i Mi n nnesota Statutes, Chapter 466; nor shall the provisions of this paragraph apply to the extent that any claim for damages is based upon the Cit 's i y negl gence. 8. Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and affect until terminated by the happening of any of the following: a. CSM is in default of its obligations hereunder or under its contract-for private redevel opment with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority date April 29 1994 " , (the Contract"), and has failed to cure such default under this Agreement within 30 days of writt en notice by the City or has failed to promptly commence and pursue cure activities in instances in which the cure will take more than 30 days; or has failed to effect a cure in the time required under the Contract for any default thereund ? er. - b . The City makes available for purchase an alternative area whi h c can be developed to contain at least the same number of parking spaces; and which is as accessible to the Phase I develo ment i th p as s e Portion. The purchase price shall be an a o n m u t equal to the cost and expenses which the City incurs in acquiring such land. c The City, whether or not being first asked by CSM to do so, vacates Emerson lying within the Portion and offers the Portion for sale to CSM at an amount equal to the City's costs and expense to acquire. In the event the City proceeds under either paragraphs b or a of this Section 8, termination shall be effective 30 days following the date of the offer to sell an alternative area or the offer of sale of the Portion following vocation; provided, however, that if within such period CSM shall accept such offer, then this agreement shall not terminate until the parties have a reasonable time to complete the transactions; and in the event of an 8b transaction such additional time as is reasonably necessary to complete construction on the alternative im rov In the event of a termination, the City shall p ements. gCSfd an easement to maintain any utilities owned and used byCaSMt located within the Portion, but only if and to the extent that such ant will not unreasonable interfere with the City's use of the Poo to n folio rmination. Nothing in this paragraph 8 sluM be deemed as a waiver b f the City of its right to seek, as it sees fit, to terminate the inte CSM in the Portion through the exercise of eminent domain. rest JUD?3645 RC125-68 3 9. Taxes. In the event that the Portion should become taxable as a result its use and occupancy as provided herein, CSM agrees that it will, promptly when due and before penalty attaches, pay all real estate taxes and installments on special assessments. 10. Utilities CSM acknowledges that the indemnity contained in paragraph 7 of this agreement is intended to release the City, its officers, agents and employees from any damage done to the Portion as the result of the .City's repair, replacement or maintenance of the City utility services located within the Portion. CSM acknowledges that the reasonable cost of restoring the surface following any such City activities is CSM's responsibility. CSM also agrees that the City and its agents have the right to enter upon the Portion and do all things reasonably necessary and proper to carry out such activities, The City agrees that it will exercise reasonable care to limit any disruption caused by such work. 11. Usase. The City specifically retains the right to authorize others to use the Portion for parking purposes and ingress and egress thereto but only to the' extent that suitable arrangements are made to provide alternative parking of location and sufficient number of spaces to compensate for the reasonably anticipated impact of such usage on CSM's parking requirements. Such arrangement shall also reasonably address maintenance, repair, cost and liability Issues. 12. Assignment. The rights granted to CSM hereunder may be transferred only in connection with a transfer or the Phase I property in accordance with the provisions of Articles VIII or IX of the Contract. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD By It Its_ . AIQ?11 JID73645 RC125-68 4 5/9-J4 -0 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing inst ent was a owledged before me this Y day of ,qn 11 lam. , 1994 by KZ ,the ) oA "I ) 'PA f C$ investors, Inc., a Minneso corporation, n behalf oft the corporation. Notary Public AMM C ORRIM.; HEINE NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNE$QTA RAMSEY COUN'T'Y my aemmmmn 0 Own 10-046 5 Dri -? • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF , IN The foregoing instrument was acknow 1,994, by . the yor and City Manager, respective, c Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, me this day of -P P-A D. _, e City o Richfield, 'ST PE ?. eL 1 1?A11Y Am MINNESOTA l NENNrAN COUNTY SS. AAy commkw1an oxP?es X10.98 COUNTY OF ) T foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993, by and r ' . an beh"60";;if e corporation. Notary Public JBD73645 RC125-66 5 '--9 EXHIBIT A 5P-I(, That part of the Went 30 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Mange 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies South of the North 240 feet thereof except part taken for highway. and The East 30 feet of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 330 Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part taken for highway purposes. and The West 30 feet of the North 240 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. JED73645 RC1Y5-69 6 Uli 16, 6J 1J:lJ tya Ul.G U4U .? ;!!! I. JJa ?.Uhr Uh:S11 U.\ .?;v?u vir . EXHIBIT B The design layout as shown in the Final Development Plan approved on August 1, 1991 by the Richfield City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Community Development Director for the City of Richfield, is incorporated herein as though fully set forth at this point, • U JM73645 RC125-56 7