8-2-93 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1993
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
I. 7:00-7:15 P.M. DISCUSSION WITH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY REGARDING CONCURRENT USE OF
SOUTH PART OF CLOVERLEAF SITE FOR
CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AND ROAD MATERIAL
STORAGE AND RECYCLING AREA FOR THE 77TH
STREET PROJECT
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 19
II. 7:15-7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED BY
THE CITY FOR HOUSING PROGRAMS
III. 7:30-8:00 P.M.
IV. 8:00-8:30 P.M.
V. 8:30-9:00 P.M.
VI. 9:00-9:15 P.M.
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 20
PRELIMINARY BUDGET DISCUSSION FOR 1994
FISCAL YEAR
STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 21
DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 22
DISCUSSION OF I-35W TRAFFIC CORRIDOR STUDY
AND RELATED ITEMS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 23
DISCUSSION OF SIDEWALK SNOW REMOVAL AND
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 24
9:15 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE
UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN
ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 24
Agenda August 2, 1993
Issue Statement:
Discussion of sidewalk snow removal and maintenance
responsibilities.
Background:
The City owns about 49 miles of sidewalk, 31 miles of which are
curbside sidewalk on our main streets and about 18 miles of which
are non-curbside sidewalk on more residential type streets. The
Community Services Commission has recently been discussing
financial, legal and other implications of sidewalk snow removal
and maintenance.
The Commission originally discussed this item at the November 10,
1992 meeting. At that time Commission members began to consider:
a) sidewalks where there are no longer schools or sidewalks that
"lead to nowhere in particular becoming the responsibility of the
adjacent homeowner in terms of„snow removal or the sidewalks could
be removed, b) the City and schools working together to clear
school sidewalks based on schedules and timing.
To remove 3-5 inches of snow will, on the average, take 8-12 hours.
Because of the "shoe" on the equipment typically used, snow removal
operations do not get to bare pavement. Atypical sidewalk plow,
which may do double duty depending on the specific equipment, will
cost about $150,000.
Community Services Director Don Fondrick and members of the
Community Services Advisory Commission will be available to discuss
this item with the City Council.
Recommended Motion:
None required as this is a discussion item.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council is updated periodically on items of interest
and concern.
2. The Community Services Commission has requested the opportunity
to discuss this item with the City Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council will meet Monday, August 2, 1993.
fully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 23
Agenda August 2, 1993
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the I-35W traffic corridor study and related items.
Background•
I-35W has a number of traffic/transportation issues, interests
and concerns. Don Fondrick, Community Services Director, will be
available to go into more detail on the various studies and
aspects of the project including, among other things, the
proposed interim third lane and possible alternatives for the I-
35W/TH62 Commons area.
Recommended Motion:
None required as this is a discussion item.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City Council is updated periodically on items of interest and
concern.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council will meet Monday, August 2, 1993.
tf~y submitted,
James Prosser
City ger
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 22
Agenda August 2, 1993
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments. regarding the airport include the following:
• New Ford Town-Rich Acres Acquisition
The FAA approved the environmental assessment for buyout of the
New Ford Town-Rich Acres neighborhoods. This approval means that
the preparation of a more detailed environmental impact statement
is not necessary and the preapplication paperwork has been sent
on for approval by-the regional and national FAA offices.
Richfield's congressional representatives and state legislators
support the buyout project and have voiced their commitment to
identifying federal funding sources. The local FAA office has
also given support to the buyout and will try to identify funding
sources to begin the project in 1993.
City officials and members of the New Ford Town-Rich Acres
Neighbors Advisory Committee will continue to meet with FAA
officials, MAC staff and Congressional representatives to keep
the buyout process moving forward.
e MAC Part 150 Acquisition/Relocation Program
The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) submitted
a proposal to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to
provide acquisition and relocation services for the Part 150
Acquisition/Relocation Program. The program includes management
of all acquisition and relocation projects in the cities of
Richfield, Bloomington and Mendota Heights.
On July 26, Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director,
contacted staff concerning the City's proposal to provide
acquisition and relocation services for the program. Mr. Finney
asked the City to withdraw its proposal because the MAC was
concerned that the proposal would preclude the Commission from
requiring the successful contractor, if other than Richfield,
from cooperating and coordinating their acquisition efforts in
Richfield with the City.
In response, the City sent a letter to Nigel Finney on July 28
stating that it will not withdraw its proposal. Attached is a
copy of the letter stating the City's commitment to the project
and the reasons for not withdrawing the proposal.
On July 28, the City received a letter from the MAC stating that
the Richfield HRA was not selected to be interviewed by the
Commission's Planning and Environment Committee for the project.
The three firms selected to be interviewed by MAC Committee on
August 3 include: W.D. Schock Company; O.R. Colan Associates;
and, Moreland, Altobelli Associates. A copy of the letter is
attached.
• MAC Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program, 1993
The first phase of the 1993 residential sound insulation program
was completed at the end of July with 28 Richfield homes
soundproofed.
The City's Planning Division staff kept in regular contact with
the program participants with surveys to evaluate the success of
the soundproofing program and to suggest program implementation
changes to the Center for Energy and the Urban Environment. The
returned surveys indicate that most of the residents are pleased
with the quality of work and project results.
This fall, 27 Richfield single-family homes and duplexes are
scheduled for soundproofing projects. Most of the properties
being insulated during this second phase of the 1993 sound
insulation program are located along 17th and 18th Avenues, with
a few on Bloomington and 16th Avenues.
Workshops for homeowners participating in the second phase of the
1993 project have been held at the MAC's Sound Insulation
Demonstration House located in Richfield. The two-hour workshops
describe the program and allow residents to view typical
soundproofing modifications.
• MAC Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program, 1994
In June, the MAC approved a funding allocation plan for the 1994
Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program based on a revised
noise contour map. The revised noise contour map does not
include the proposed Runway 4-22 extension project.
Listed below are the components of the new Part 150 Program
funding allocation plan.
1) Each eligible city will receive a base allocation of five
percent plus funding based on the following population
percentages:.
Minneapolis 71.9%
Richfield 20.2%
Bloomington 3.1%
Eagan 2.1%
Mendota Heights 2.7%
While the new funding plan does not decrease Richfield's
allocation of funds for home insulation projects in 1994, it does
reduce the City's population eligible for sound insulation
funding from 5,955 to 4,496.
2) Sound insulation of homes in southeast Richfield and northeast
Bloomington impacted by the Runway 4-22 extension project will be
included in the runway project .costs as a mitigative measure
instead of the Part 150 program.
This measure will provide assurances to Bloomington and Richfield
that their impacted homes will be insulated if Runway 4-22 is
extended. The runway extension project will impact approximately
1~1 homes in southeast Richfield and 1,174 homes in northeast
B oomington.
The Runway 4-22 extension project noise mitigation package is
expected to cost about $22.5 million and would receive 75 percent
federal funding.
• MAC Representation
During the 1993 Legislative session, a new law passed which
redraws the MAC's eight metropolitan districts and opens all
eight board seats. The new MAC districts are combinations of 16
Met Council districts.
Richfield now lies in District C which includes Richfield,
Bloomington Savage, Shakopee, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Fort
Snelling and a portion of Minneapolis..
All the current MAC Commissioners have reapplied for appointment
to their positions by the Governor. Because of the changes in
the district boundaries, Commissioners John Himle and Jack
Mogelson are now in contention for the District C board position.
George Karnas, Richfield's MASAC representative, applied to
represent District C. The Governor is expected to make MAC
appointments in August.
• Governor's Task Force on Dual Track Planning Process
Governor Arne Carlson created a special task force to review the
dual track airport planning process. The task force has met
eight times since May 26 and is examining three issues:
• Whether the process could be shortened so that a final report
would be given to the Legislature by January 1, 1994 or January
1, 1995, instead of July 1, 1996.
• If the process was shortened, whether it would still result in
a technically sound report.
• Whether forecasts of future air traffic properly incorporate
the effects of changes in the airline industry and at Northwest
Airlines.
The task force meetings have included presentations on the
forecasts and airport capacity by the MAC, testimony on the state
environmental process by the Environmental Quality Board,
testimony by Northwest Airlines and public testimony.
The City of Richfield submitted comments supporting the current
timeframe of the dual track process and calling for greater
emphasis on addressing creative and aggressive mitigation
measures. Richfield recommended a clearer framework in future
dual track studies to include economic benefits and costs; delay,
demand and capacity; noise impacts, and financial impacts.
The task force submitted a preliminary report to the Governor on
July 1 stating that the dual track planning process. cannot be
shortened to January 1, 1994, but it has not yet determined
whether the process could be completed by January 1, 1995,
instead of July 1, 1996.
At a task force meeting held on July 15, Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy
Executive Director of Planning and Environment, discussed the
implications of completing the dual track process by January 1995
instead of July 1, 1996. He concluded by stating that the
process could be shortened to meet the January 1995 completion
date, however, he did not recommend it. The MAC has serious
concerns that the environmental documentation completed at this
earlier .date will not be adequate and legally defensible.
The eight-member task force chaired by Richard Braun, Director of
the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of
Minnesota, is expected to submit a final report to the Governor
by the end of August. The final report will include a list of
issues that must be considered in future analyses compiled from
public testimony, letters submitted to the task force and
concerns of~task force members.
• NOISE Conference
The National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled
Environment (NOISE) held its annual conference July 14-17 in
Dallas, Texas. NOISE is a national association consisting
largely of local government elected officials whose communities
are affected by noise. The group also includes airport
operators, airline officials and citizens. The group is
committed to noise abatement advocacy that seeks collaborative
solutions involving airport operators and airlines as well as
local interests.
Council Member Mike Sandahl attended the conference on behalf of
the. City and will provide a summary report at the Council Study
Session scheduled on August 2.
Recommended Motion:
With this background information, the following recommendations
are provided to address these issues:
• New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition
Staff will keep the Council updated on the status of the buyout
project .
• MAC Part 150 Acquisition/Relocation Program
The MAC is expected to select a consulting firm to manage the
Part 150 Acquisition/Relocation Program. on August 16. Staff will
inform the Council of the MAC's decision.
• MAC Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program, 1993 & 1994
Staff will continue to update the Council on the status of the
Sound Insulation Program.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
August 2, 1993 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the August 2, 1993 Study
Session,
Respec ally submitted,
Jame Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
J
6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser ~ .Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahl
Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag
July 28, 1993
Mr. Nigel Finney
Deputy Executive Director-Planning and Environmental
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040-28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Nigel:
This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of yesterday. At that time you
asked that the City of Richfield to consider withdrawing its proposal to provide
acquisition and relocation services for the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
The acquisition and relocation was for approximately 400 properties in Richfield, 6 in
Bloomington and 1 in Mendota Heights. As I understand, your basic concern-was that
having the proposal on the table with MAC would preclude the Metropolitan Airports
Commission from requiring the successful contractor, if other than Richfield, from
cooperating and coordinating-their acquisition efforts in Richfield~with the City.
As you know, Nigel, the City of Richfield values our close working relationship with the
Metropolitan Airports Commission. In fact, one of the primary reasons we submitted a
proposal to provide these services was our belief that we were uniquely qualified to
provide the care and attention necessary to our residents as well as to continue our
cooperative working relationship with the MAC.
It is our firm belief that no for-profit private contractor can bring to this process the
special qualifications and community support which the City has to offer. For example,
Richfield is uniquely qualified to provide acquisition and relocation services. Our
extensive experience in acquiring property as part of the 77th Street Project,
Richfield Rediscovered, new home programs, LHN, redevelopment and park
acquisitions have clearly demonstrated our ability to comply with federal acquisition
guidelines and address the needs of our residents.
• The acquisition and relocation team that was assembled includes individuals with
extensive experience with FAA acquisition guidelines.
• We have been advised that FAA guidelines provide that airport authorities can
permit cities to provide these services. In fact, it is our understanding airport
authorities are not required to accept proposals from private contractors if local
governments are willing to provide acquisition services.
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (612) 861-9700
Fax 861-9749
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Nigel Finney
July 28, 1993. •
Page 2
• The New Ford Town and Rich Acres residents have communicated a clear desire
that Richfield be responsible for providing the acquisition and relocation services.
• It is unclear how withdrawing our proposal at this time would change our ability or
willingness to work cooperatively with MAC and. its contractors in the acquisition
and relocation process.
We are certain that MAC recognizes the special and indeed unique assets which
Richfield brings to this process. We appreciate your concern that private contractors
might feel threatened by having to bid against the City. As you are aware, the City is
not submitting a bid as part of a for profit business; but is instead motivated solely by
the interests of completing as smoothly as possible this cooperative venture between
MAC and the City.
Following our discussion, this matter was raised with the City Council at its meeting last
evening. The Council reaffirmed its commitment to a strong working relationship with
MAC. It also expressed the belief that the selection of Richfield as the contractor in this
acquisition process would be consistent with this goal.
Still, to address the concerns which private contractors. may have, the Council directed
me to assure you, so that you can carry that message to any concerned bidders that
Richfield intends to be fully cooperative with all parties in this process. We also trust
that the bidding parties have sufficient experience and professionalism not to worry
unjustifiably about the City's attitude.
Based upon this assurance, the City believes that withdrawal of our proposal is
unnecessary. Also the Council is concerned that the appearance of private for-profit
contractors forcing a public body to withdraw from a matter in which it has a real,
publicly supported interest would send a very disturbing message.
Nigel, thank you for bringing this matter to my .attention. I would like. to sit down with
you and discuss the City's proposal and any questions you might have at your earliest
convenience.
Jar}'ies D. Prosser
~fy Manager
JDP:ds
~~~Ira~~~ JUL ~ 8 i993 '?~" _..
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
July 26, 1993
Minneapolis.-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-L799
Phone (612) 726-8700 Fax (61'L) 726-5'L96
Mr. James Prosser
City of Richfield HRA
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2599.
Dear Mr. Prosser;
We regret to inform you that your firm has not been selected for an interview with the
Metropolitan Airports Commission's Planning & Environment Committee.
Eight responses were received and reviewed by a committee composed of Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) staff )Part 150, environment, planning and affirmative action
departments) and a representative from MnDOT Acquisition/Relocation Department. This
committee reviewed each RFQ submittal and focused on such issues as:
General appearance/presentation of RFQ
Familiarity with MAC Part 150 Program
Experience with Part 150 at other U.S. airports
Relevant acquisition/relocation experience
Knowledge of Federal, State and FAA guidelines
Strengths of proposed consultant team
Experience with multiple jurisdictions
DBE participation plan
The three firms that were ludeect~ Do Schock Companye 0 RmColan Assoc ates a d
Environment Committee me
Moreland, Altobelli Associates.
Although your firm was not selected, the MAC appreciates the time and effort you made
preparing the submittal.
Sincere) ,
Steve Vecchi
Manager Part 150 Programs
SJV/jd
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an a1'firmatiee action emplo~~cr.
Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COl1N'I'1'/}3LAINL • CRYS'1'Al; • FLYING CLOt ~ll • LAKI: I;1.M0 • SAIN'P PAUL DO\VNTOWN
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 21
Agenda August 2, 1993
Issue Statement:
Preliminary budget discussion for 1994 fiscal year.
Background:
City staff is preparing the 1994 budget. The preparations are
primarily based upon direction provided to City staff from
Council goal setting, periodic feedback throughout the year and
prior years' budget discussions and initiatives indicated by the
City Council. It is also helpful for staff to hear from the
Council any special issues which should be addressed during the
budget preparation. This Study Session provides an opportunity.
for that discussion.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a general budget discussion regarding the 1994 fiscal
year budget.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This discussion is helpful in staff preparation of a budget
for Council consideration.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide to defer this matter to a later date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for discussion on August 2, 1993.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame's Prosser
City` anager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 2G
Agenda August 2, 1993
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the allocation of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds received by the City of Richfield for housing
programs.
Background•
Annually, the federal government through the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) distributes funds to
qualifying jurisdictions throughout the nation. The funds are
distributed by a formula based on the census which gives
recognition to total population, number of people living in
poverty and number of over crowded housing units.. This program
distribution was first initiated in 1975 as a result of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. HUD distributes
the bulk of the funds to cities and urban counties. States and
other political entities such as Native American organizations
receive the balance.
Overall program objectives established in the Housing and
Community Act of 1974 include:
_ A, Develop and maintain viable urban communities by providing
decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded
economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate
income persons. (Household incomes may not exceed 80~ of the
median income for the area.)
B. Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight.
C. Meet other community development needs having a particular
urgency affecting public health and safety.
While the objectives for Urban Hennepin County are the same as
those for the nation, the County has narrowed the focus by
providing the following objectives:
A. No more than three projects should be funded during a year
but programs may be grouped into a single project.
B. The minimum project budget should be $7,500.
C. No more than 15$ of the funds may be used to support social
services (public services).
To satisfy these objectives, the Urban Hennepin County CDBG
Program is directed toward the use of funds for housing
rehabilitation, public facilities, neighborhood revitalization,
assisted housing, removal of architectural barriers, and public
services.
For Year XIX which began July 1, 1993, HUD distributed $3
billion. Urban Hennepin County received approximately $3.3
million and distributed approximately $3 million to 43 cities and
approximately 140 programs. (The County utilizes 10$ for
administration.)
Richfield's allocation was about $240,000. It was based on a
population of 35,710; 1,969 persons living in poverty; and, 255
over crowded housing units. In comparing these factors with the
County as a whole, Richfield had 6.74% of the population; 8.52
of the persons in poverty; and 8.93 of the over crowding. Since
its inception, Richfield through Year XVIII/1992 has received
$4,300,000 (see attached chart).
For the Year XVII (1991) through XIX (1993) the allocation of
Richfield funds has been as follows:
Year-XVII Year XVIII Year XIX
Funded Funded Funded
Activity Amount Amount Amount
G.M.D.C.A. -
Child Day Care S 20,110 $ 7,269 S 9,377
H.O.M.E. $ 14,622 S 15,000 $ 19,350
Skills 2000 0 $ 6,000 $ 7,740
Housing Rehab S 75,865 S 86,620 S 86,424
Scattered Site-
Housing S 72,210 S 72,210 $118,455
Total $182,807 $187,099 $241,346
The public service projects have included daycare, H.O.M.E. and
Skills 2000. Housing Rehabilitation and Assisted Housing (New
Home) both administered by the HRA have utilized the remaining
funds.
Rehabilitation Loans
Only owner-occupants are eligible recipients. The maximum loan
is $10,000 for code related work. Most of the loans are near or
at the maximum. While the HUD/County objectives call for
qualifying home owners to have an income not to exceed 80$ of
median income for a family of four, the HRA has set the maximum
income at 50~ of median income. (The median income for a family
of four is 549,600. Thus at the 50$ level, the maximum income
for a single person is $17,350 and for a family of four is
524,800). The majority of users are widows and single head of
households.
No advertising has been done for about 1~ years. Through word of
mouth, the waiting list is usually about 12 households. (Note
the attached rationale for funding the rehabilitation loan
program.)
Scattered Site
This program funds the New Home Program. It provides a moderate
cost housing opportunity for first time homebuyers and has been
the only dependable revenue source which can provide moderate
cost affordable housing to young families. (Note the attached
rationale for funding the scattered site program.)
HRA Position
At their July meeting, the HRA discussed the importance of the
application of CDBG funds to eliminating substandard housing
conditions and providing affordable housing opportunities to
first time buyers with income in the $30,000 to $40,000 range.
Lower income households will also be able to find housing
opportunities with some of the new initiatives such as Habitat
for Humanity. (The letter which served as a basis for that
discussion is attached.)
The HRA discussion indicated that CDBG should continue to be
split between rehabilitation and elimination of substandard
hou-sing conditions. Rehabilitation provides for the restoration
and renewal of the housing stock. New construction, in addition
to providing a housing opportunity for low and moderate income
families, also has a leveraging effect on the neighborhood. The
visual impact of anew house results in adjoining property owners
investing in improvements to their property. The impact is much
greater than that of a rehabilitation loan.
The HRA has been invited to the Council Study Session to
participate in the discussion of this item.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss this report with the HRA Commissioners.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is appropriate to discuss the allocation of CDBG funds for
housing programs.
2. It is appropriate to work with the HRA to establish funding
priorities.
3. The Year XIX program has been approved and is being
implemented. The Year XX program will be initiated in
February 1994 and go through the public hearing process for
the program year that starts July 1, 1994.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council may defer this item to another time.
2. The City Council may request more information.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council requested this as a discussion item at a
previous meeting.
Respectf lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY:
Hennepin County -Richfield
1975 ~ $ 98,855 1980 $ 374,405. 1985 $ 206,839 1990 $ 162,829
1976 206,1'14 1981 354,950 1.986 174,300 1991 182,807
1977 338,842. 1982 299,323 1987 174,894 1992 187,099
1978 328,076 .1983 288,001 1988 165,274
1979 352,174 1984 209,450 1989 171,909 Total: $ 4,276,141
Housing Rehabilit
36.9°k
Planning/Admini
3.9%
.d Housing
4.9%
Handicap Access
2.2%
Neighborhood
Revitalization
1.6%n
Facilities
L.6%
Funded Activities:
• Housing rehabilitation for low-income homeowners.
~ Public Service provides social service support to eligible
persons. .
• Public Facilities improvements.
• Neighborhood Revitalization includes infrastructure
improvements and assistance in redevelopment areas.
• Handicap Accessibility to remove barriers at public facilities
and private housing..
• Assisted housing by removing substandard housing and build new
housing affordable to low-income families.
Public Service
7.0%
New housing opportunities ere provided for low end
moderate income first time homebuying families, while
RR homes have above average values end will be sold at
market rates.
- CDHG funds enable the HR1~- to provide a housing program
continuum that meets modest cost houainp needs ai M~11 as
housing needs for middle income peroons.
- CDBG funds provide a mechanism to ensure a Continued
affordable housing construction relationship with Vo-Tech.
RR~would use private developers, not Vo-Tech.
- The CDBG funds, es a write down subsidy that does not
require repayment, allow the HRA to also work with non
profits such es Habitat for Humanity.
<Scattered/NewHome>
~tATIONALE FOR FUNDING REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOATi PROJECT
Richfield's Rehabilitation Deferred Loen Program provides a means
.for low income homeowners to make needed repairs to maintain
their homes, end improves the general condition of Richfield's
housing stock.. Improvements include code compliance, general
improvements, accessibility for the handicapped, and
weatherization.
In 1993:
- 586,424 in CDBG Year XIV assistance is requested.
- 14 households have already applied for assistance..
- The high demand months, the spring/summer/fall
construction season when new requests for assistance
most often xcur, are •approaching.
- The deferred loan program is the only rehabilitation
program which serves the low income homeowner clientele.
- There ere insufficient funds in this request to oast
waiting applicants end anticipated demand.
The 1993 HRA, and Housing Division goals are t0 assist AOOeowners
in caking repairs and s~aintaining the ssisting housing stock.
In 1992, 18 low income Richfield homeowners were assisted with
approximately 5129,000 in deferred loans. The higher loan total
reflects activity from two years to deferred loan funding which
overlap during every calendar year. Sis of these were emergency
loans which financed furnace replacement and plumbing repairs
where failure occurred. Emergency funds also help low income.
homeowners to resolve other seemingly impossible situations:
leaking roofs, unexpected electrical problems, and storm flooding
not covered by insurance programs.
The continued demand for deferred loans reflects the increasing
financial commitment required for households to maintain a home.
1ssistance to elderly homeowners allows them to continue to live
independently in the community. assistance to families, often
single parent households, provides a measure of household
stability.
RATIONALE~FOR FUNDING 6CATTERED SITE PROJECT
The New Home Scattered Site program provides the HRA the
opportunity to expand affordable housing opportunities and
maintain the existing housing stock for lower income persons.
The project makes long term improvements when: ~~
- substandard housing is cleared •.
- vacant lend suitable for development is acquired
- buildings are acquired and Tehabilitated to create
additional housing
- new housing is developed that increases the affordable
housing stock.
The New Home Program is the most active scattered site
acquisition end clearance program occurring in Richfield. During
the last 10 years, on many occasions, the Richfield HRA produced
the only new affordable housing .opportunities for young families
in the city.
Funding this project:.
1. allows further ras,oval of approsisiately 200 ,substandard bosses
that currently exist.
Those properties are difficult to sell in the market place.
The HRA continually receives offers throughout the year from
owners interested in selling. During 1992, 46 property
owners indicated interest in selling in 1992. y~
2. ]111oWS blighted housing conditions or abandoned housing
problems to be resolved.
Foreclosures are occurring more often. Housing conditions
ere such that HRA involvement through acquisition and
rehabilitation is appropriate. The housing stock,
particularly the garage homes end older cottages, 45 to 50
years old, are approaching replacement age.
3. Ensures reutilisation_ of Richfield house structures within
the City.
The HRA has reused seven .Richfield house structures by
relocating and remodeling them on scattered sites throughout
the city. Structures were acquired from properties purchased
for park expansion and commercial and residential
developments..
4. Provides affordable first tine home buying opportunities.
Larger family households with the Richfield average income of
530,000 have difficulty finding 3 and 4~bedroom homes in .
good repair which sell for the Richfield average sale price
of 583,000. With cost reductions by Vo-Tech, MHFA mortgages. ,
sand HRA second mortgages, purchasing families range in size
from 3 to 6 members with incomes between 529,000 end 535,000.
The New Home program has provided a stable tenancy. Since
the Vo-Tech program started in 1978, the fourteen properties
developed, have continued with the original owner. .
5. Continues a cost'effeetive construction relationship with the
Vo-Tech 6chool.
Working with the Vo-Tech School,
cost of approximately 565,000 t
sell for 583,000 on the average.
construction by, contractors has
new homes can be built at n
0 575,000 while existing homes
Recent private new
cost in excess of 5100,000.
6. Increase property tax revenue.
The increase in tax revenues from properties redeveloped by
the HRA approximates 51,000 per property annually.
7. Continues housing distribution on scattared sites.
Hlighted~ housing conditions and HRA solutions occur on
scattered sites throughout the city~as properties become
available. This achieves uniform upgrading of neighborhoods
throughout the city without concentrating assistance in one
location.
8. provides housing stability in neighborhoods where blight has
continued for~~lengthy periods of tiee.
Most acquisitions are encouraged by surrounding neighbors
who-seek a solution to a substandard house, which ezperiences
frequent changes in ownership and progressive deterioration..
9. Continues a process where one scattered site purchase each
year ensures that Vo-Tech will exclusively provide.aew homes
in a timely s+anner for sale to low and sioderate first tine
buyers.
CDBG funds expended in 1993, p=ovide a completed home in
at 6634 Fourth Ave. So. CDBG funds in 1993 also
provide the opportunity for completed homes in 1994 on
sites to be determined . Approximately two homes are built
each year if yearly CDBG allocations continue.
10. Complements new program~iaitiatives by enabling the ~R71 to
address a variety of housing needs.
Staff utilizes the Richfield Rediscovered (RR) Program to
increase the rate at which substandard structures are
removed end new single family homes ere built. Given this
new program, a question might be raised es to the continued
role of CDBG funds for acquisition of one or two properties
each year. CDBG funds are important in enabling the HRA to
meet specific needs:.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 29
Agenda July 19, 1993
Issue Statemen ~.
Review of HRA/Vo-Tech New Home Program partnership.
Back round:
The HRA last discussed and continued the ongoing working
relationship with Vo-Tech in May 1992. Since that time, staff has
initiated four projects .and completed three projects. Vo-Tech
projects achieve the following objectives:
• Voluntarily remove substandard/blighted/economically obsolete
housing with CDBG funds.
• Provide well constructed, new, three and four bedroom single
family homes at a more modest cost than private builders.
• Sell these homes to first time buyers with incomes at 60 to 80
percent of the Metropolitan Area median income, thereby
fulfilling CDBG requirements to benefit lower income persons.
Two recent projects were unique and did not utilize CDBG funds.
Vo-Tech rehabilitated 6318 Nicollet to resolve the problem of a
deteriorating house and transient occupancy. A market rate home
will soon be finished by Vo-Tech on a Richfield Rediscovered vacant
lot at 6538 Bloomington Avenue which was not actively sought by
builders/buyers.
HUD regulations now dictate that the City purchase the project
sites that are CDBG funded and sell them to the HRA for
development. As each project has been considered and approved by
the HRA and City Council in the last year, members of both policy
boards have discussed the merits of the HRA/Vo-Tech partnership.
On an ongoing basis, staff has been developing programs that
complement and may modify this 15 year partnership the HRA_has with
Vo-Tech.
Attached is a staff housing program planning document entitled
"Housing Program Continuum." This spreadsheet summarizes housing
program responses at various house values. The objective is to
design programs which provide a diverse housing stock in good
repair.
Vo-Tech has traditionally filled a market niche of removing
substandard housing and providing modest cost, three to four
bedroom homes valued in the $70,000 to 5100,000 range. New
construction has been the primary emphasis in recent years. The
HRA's new construction partnership with Vo-Tech has provided the
program foundation for the successful Richfield Rediscovered
program, Habitat (6225-14th Avenue, 6310-15th Avenue) and nonprofit
(Affordable Suburban Housing, 7021~Nicollet Avenue) projects being
developed. It is likely that Vo-Tech's new construction initiative
may diminish over time as these other new construction initiatives
successfully proceed..
A greater community need is apparent to make value added
investments and "transform" some of~the approximately 2,000-one,
two, and three bedroom existing single family homes valued at
560,.000 to 580,000. QSA is developing a transformation concept
at 6500 James Avenue. However, it appears QSA will want to limit
their services. to specific neighborhoods and properties that
support a completion value in excess of $140,000. As
demonstrated by the recently completed 6318 Nicollet Avenue
renovation, Vo-Tech has the potential for providing a unique
service: modest cost transformation. Homes valued at 560,000
could become larger 585,000 to 590,000 homes, complement the
neighborhood, and continue to be affordable to moderate income
first time home buying families. This concept will be refined
through the remainder of 1993 by staff and Vo-Tech. As always,
Vo-Tech would also be available to respond to a unique
rehabilitation or new construction project of the HRA as the need
arises. It is envisioned that Vo-Tech transformations would be
used on an ongoing basis as examples to homeowners of good
design., value added investments, and construction/remodeling
technique.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize staff to continue development of a continuum of housing
programs that promote a diverse housing stock and utilize Vo-Tech
in programmatic ways which meet HRA identified housing needs.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Many of the 23 Vo-Tech projects completed or underway have
solved unique housing problems for the community; removed
substandard homes and developed larger family housing,
relocated and rehabilitated homes from property acquired for
park land purposes, built new homes that the market place
determined were located on less desirable sites near
commercial areas and busy streets, and rehabilitated
troublesome and abandoned homes.
2. Projects developed by Vo-Tech are cost effective and provide
a high 12ve1 of quality.
3. With projects underway and planned, additional Vo-Tech
services are not needed until 1994 when new HRA programs
presently being developed will have become further refined.
4. An evaluation of community needs would suggest a greater
emphasis being placed in housing rehabilitation, remodeling,
and transformation. The Vo-Tech role in new construction.
would diminish as present projects are completed.
5. The HRA has developed at least three (Richfield Rediscovered,
Habitat, non profit) new construction program alternatives so
that the HRA's role with Vo-Tech can be adjusted to meet
these other community needs.
6. Vo-Tech provides an exclusive construction service to
Richfield that is admired and sought by other Communities. A
quality, cost saving partnership with a vocational school is
a respected program initiative. Vo-Tech's availability
remains a program asset to the HRA:
Alternative Recommendation:
Notify Vo-Tech that the partnership with the HRA will cease after
the completion of the new construction pto~ect at 7112 First
Avenue.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Further discussion by the City Council is anticipated at a City
Council meeting scheduled for July 26~, 1993.
Resp ully submitted,
Ja 'D. Prosser,
Ex utive Director
JDP:ds
~ T
o~
p - - -
« ~ cE
g
~ ~+ o
ol
~
m .
Q
`
~ Y I
a
H
'~ q
l
a
d V
f
/I
Q 0
..
p
.N.
M ~
O ~ ~
w~ ~
N,LL f>
O
V
m
C `
I
~ f
O u
~ Q
~i o
a pig e
~ Z iI Ei x i
~ d S E LL d a
C
+r o.
o
C ~ _ -
- --
---
-
---- --- ---
G °o - _ ~
V ~
~ ~
r
M
N LL
~ ~ B
,~ ~ u
Y ~ r'
_
~~ ~ 9 C N i
t
~
O
F- a
~ d
~
Q ~'
a
7. O ~ O O x
t C i
/y
ii ` Z Z r .
O N LL i R
a ¢Q
°' o --- - ---- --- ---
.N a
.,
E
~
0 ~ °
N
O
N
° ~
2 ~
O L ~
{j, W
J A
L E
i n
O H ~ ~ Q
O t' ~
g o
C - - - - c ~
E
., i
~ ~ OI~'I N
J M
~ i
~ i
{T` Qlm
~'
~I ~ o
al
L
> : _
v
> s L
~ ~i ~~ a
LI
O j ~ u
' p ~ ~ O j
~
O - ---
p -- - --- --- - --- ---
O
Q
M
V
C
O ~
w E
v
O
Y 9
~
p
V
m W y
~ ~ ~
~ O
m
~ E
0
U,
w a Y
u V
~
O ~ Y D
w w r
> w
c ~
N ~u v e c ~ ~ C ~- E
c
~ ? ~ S ° ~
w ~ ~
7 a N s
c v v = ~ ~ r O
i
u
~ O ec 2 D S oc of a
~ ~
E ~ i v
d
A ~
z ~
~ ?
~ rn
A o
~ a`
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 19
Agenda August 2, 1993
Issue Statement:
Discussion with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority regarding
concurrent use of south part of Cloverleaf site for concrete
batch plant and road material storage and recycling area for 77th
Street Project.
Background:
On April 19, the HRA and City Council met concurrently. After
discussion, the HRA approved the use of the Cloverleaf site by
the 77th Street contractor for a concrete batch plant.
Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. has been selected as the 77th Street
contractor. The attached letter from Shafer relates a method of
operation which would stockpile concrete and asphalt to be ground
up for recycling as the new road base. In similar fashion, top
soil would be stockpiled for later utilization along 77th Street.
Based on the discussions at the April 19 meeting, the major
points of an agreement with Shafer are:
• permission to utilize the site for a batch plant and if
acceptable to the HRA the recycling of top soil asphalt and
concrete only as it relates to the 77th Street Project;
• before the batch plant may become operational, a portion of
the screenwall adjacent to the apartments on Emerson Avenue
must be constructed;
• if the batch plant won't be used for any 15 day consecutive
period, it must be removed;
• all operations on the Cloverleaf site must conform with the
noise ordinance;
• site taken "as is";
• HRA held harmless if there is a discharge of any hazardous
waste and contractor must remove;
• site to be restored to prior condition, $50,000 performance
bond to be provided;
• insurance in the minimum amount of $1 million for public
liability and a like amount for property damage;
• HRA indemnified and held harmless from any claims resulting
from use of site;
• operation must be conducted safely, liens against property
not permitted;
s agreement is for-one year and may be extended, in writing,
for additional period and it may also be terminated
immediately for any significant breach of the agreement or by
90 day written notice for any. other reason.
Recommended Motion:
None required as this is for discussion only.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Recycling helps to minimize costs.
2. The temporary storage of recyclable material can help to
reduce noise transmitted to adjoining property.
3. Storage at other locations would be more disruptive to the
neighbors and benefits of noise reduction lost.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve use of site for recycling.
2. Delay action.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A very early activity will be the removal of asphalt and
concrete. A site must be identified now as construction will
begin in days.
ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
s - ~. , ~~.
~~~
SHAPER, MINNESOTA 55074
July 23, 1993
Mr. Gary Orlich
BRW, Inc.
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Re: S.P. 157-108-10
City of Richfield - 77th Street
Dear Mr. Orlich:
We are set to begin construction on this project. Among the first operations
will be salvaging topsoil for reuse in the final construction stages and the
removal of existing curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement which we will salvage
and recycle for use as aggregate base.
We need to stockpile these materials, and we have several choices. One would
be to utilize the project right-of-way. The disadvantages of this are that
it will, to some extent, be in the way for construction, and also it will be
in close proximity to businesses and houses, and the recycling would affect
the residents more than the use of a more remote location.
I would propose that a better site for this stockpiling/recycling would be
the HRA property known as the Cloverleaf site. It is more removed from City
residents, and the closest property is the apartment complex which is some
distance away. We would arrange the stockpiles such that they would form a
noise mound barrier which will further minimize the effect of this construc-
tion activity. The cement batch plant would also be located on the property
during the fall concrete paving. During the concrete work, we would also use
material stockpiling to act as noise mounds.
Our operations will be in accordance with all City codes and regulations, as
well as the guidelines of the various State and Federal agencies on noise and
pollution.
We will control dust by the use of water trucks. We will leave the site in as
good or better condition than exists today. This includes respreading of top=
soil, seeding and mulching. We would propose to furnish a surety bond in the
amount of $50,000 to guarantee our restoration, of the site.
Mr. Gary Orlich
Page .2
July 23, 1993
The use of the Cloverleaf property will allow this needed construction to proceed
with minimal inconvenience to the residents and businesses along the 77th Street
Corridor. It's the best choice for a recycling site, and I would appreciate an
early consideration of this proposal so that construction may proceed.
Yours very truly,
SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC.
By : .., .
George W. Mattson
GWM:so