05-20-85 agendaS~ = ~''
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 2?
Agenda May 20, 1985
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Status of Liquor Store Site Redevelopment
Dear Commissioners:
In April, the HRA and City Council met to review the Cedar
Avenue Business Area (CABA) and liquor store site
redevelopment. .Actions were taken by both groups. The City
Council selected Lincoln Companies as the redeveloper and
authorized staff to initiate negotiations. First reading was
also given to an ordinance which, when adopted, would permit the
sale of the property. The ordinance was referred to the
Planning-Commission for their opinion.
Negotiations have-been initiated.. The Planning Commission
provided a favorable opinion. However, negotiations have not
yet resolved the issue of the new location for the liquor
store. There are also several other issues which must be
addressed. ..The .HRA will be kept informed of the progress on
this project.
Respectfu y submitted,
John G. Ca twr ht
Executive Director
JGC/eja
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~,~
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 26
Agenda May 20, 1985
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Acquisition of Vacant Lot at 6941-~5 Penn Ave.
Dear Commissioners:
On February 19, 1985, the HRA considered the proposal for
the HRA to acquire the vacant lot at b9~1-~5 Penn Avenue .and
authorized staff to notify Hennepin County of our interest in
acquisition. The property had been offered by Hennepin County
as the land. was forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-
payment of property taxes. This letter updates the HRA an
what has occurred since February 19th, and requests the HRA to
formally. request conveyance of this property from the State of
Minnesota to the HRA.
On. March 26, 1985, the Planning Commission found the
acquisition and disposition of the property for-multi-unit
housing use to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan..
Previous variance approvals which run with the land allow up to
$ units of multi-unit housing to be constructed on the site. In
addition, as discussed in the February 19th HRA letter, there
were a number of development caneerns that had to be addressed
prior to authorizing acquisition of the property. These
concerns and a commentary follow:
1. Soil conditions = Braun Engineering and Testing has
per ormed soi borings on the site. The tests confirm
that the site will require some soil correction to
properly support a housing structure. The area at some
point in the past, had been filled with 4 feet to 10
feet of poor soils. Removal of the poor soils should
rectify the situation without additional expensive
corrections.
2 Flooding Potential - Although the existing grade of
e site is re atively level, the site is located in
one of the designated "drainage problem areas" of
the city. The City Engineer has investigated the site
in relation to the area and indicates that development
would not contribute to the potential for flooding
provided it is properly graded. The Engineer will
review the final grading plan. (Flooding of the
site is not likely either).
-2-
6-Z
~,. Acceptance by neighborhood -
Previous development proposals for the site from 1971 to
1983, have ranged from ownership townhouses to a three
story, eight unit condominium. Commentary from
neighbors during past Planning Commission and City
Council meetings on variance requests for this site
indicate neighborhood interest in attractive, ownership
units (rather than rental). The poor condition of the
existing vacant lot has become an eyesore-for the
neighbors in recent years. Although staff has not
contacted neighbors recently, the effort will be made
when a more specific development proposal is received
from a developer. At that point, the neighbors will•
have the opportunity to become involved in the final
planning of the project.
4. Determination of housing unit type - Staff evaluated the
site or potential housing an recommends that a housing
development suitable for purchase by singles/young..
couples, or empty nesters would be most appropriate;
a structure containing four or five one or two bedroom
condominiums. Previous potential developers suggest
there is a market for this type of housing on the site.
However,. their development proposals for eight-one
bedroom untts encountered several problems during pre-
marketing that an HRA sponsored project would not
encounter:
-The developers lender required that seven of the eight
units be pre-sold before construction financing was
advanced.
-No models were available for viewing by potential
purchasers. Although the location was seen as
attractive by prospects, not being able to "see"
the units was detrimental.
-The indefinite wait period until the units were built.
It could not be determined in advance how long it
would take to sell the seven units. Thus, a
guaranteed project completion date for the potential
purchasers could not be provided.
-Rising interest rates. The project did not have
permanent mortgage financing. Interest rates would
rise during pre-marketing periods,. therefore dis-
couraging potential purchasers.
-Units with only one bedroom discouraged
many empty nesters from purchase. Although the
.retired person(s) found the location attractive,
they expressed the need for at least two bedrooms.
However, the one bedroom units were popular with
single, professional persons.
- 3.-
G3
-The competition for the same market of purchasers by
other developments. Other developments had the
advantage of models, immediate occupancy, alternative
floor plans, and secured financing. Equally
convenient locations to shopping and the center
cities were available elsewhere.
The reasons these problems wouldn't be significant for the
HRA include:
-access to attractive below market interest rate
financing from MHFA.
-ability to select a developer with adequate
financial resources.
-opportunity to coordinate this development with
housing being developed at 66th Street and Rae
Drive, providing for economies of scale for the
developer.
While staff considered other housing development
alternatives, including. family townhames and elderly
condominiums, the small size of the site anal location close
to Penn Avenue would severely restrict the number of townhome
type units in order to allow adequate open space for children's
play. Condominium type housing is for senior citizens is
already being provided at the Lake Shore Drive condominiums and
at Woodlake Point. Housing, as proposed in this letter, Would
serve a market often over-looked in Richfield.
If acquisition is authorized by the HRA, 6941-45 Penn Avenue
could be acquired at no cost from the State of Minnesota, sold
to a developer for only the casts incurred in acquiring and
analyzing the property (soil borings, title opinions, staff
time estimated at approximately $5,000), and then developed
with one or two bedroom units. As the purchase price paid by
the developer would be minimal, the final development costs and
sale price would be reduced and controllable. The sales prices
would be between $60,000 and $70,000. The HRA would secure low
interest mortgage financing for the sale of up to four units to
first.-time homebuyers (single persons and couples) with an
annual income not exceeding $34,000. This mortgage financing
would come from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as part of
the financing commitment anticipated for the housing at 66th
Street and Rae Drive.
In order to coordinate the development of 6941-45 Penn
Avenue with the townhouse development at 66th Street and Rae
Drive, and the proposed single family development of 7508
Colfax Avenue (as described in another HRA letter for the May
20 meeting), staff is preparing an expanded "Request for
Proposal" (RFP) that incorporates the three sites. This
document would be forwarded to interested developers near the
end of May. Developer selection would occur in July with
construction scheduled before the end of the year. The HRA
will be notified of the developers that receive the RFP.
-4-
~-y
It is recommended that the HRA authorize the conveyance of
the property at 6941-45 Penn Avenue from the State of Minnesota
to the HRA for purposes of developing housing by adopting the
attached resolution and authorizing the execution of the form
"Application by a Governmental Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax
Forfeited Land" by the Chairman and Executive Director.
Respectf ly submitted,
John G. rt ght
City Manager`
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF TAX FORFEITED
LAND AT 6941-45 PENN AVENUE SOUTH.
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield (HRA) has been offered the tax forfeited
land at 6941-45 Penn Avenue South, legally described as:
Lot 10, Block 10 Wood Lake Highland and
Lot 13 in Block 10 of Tingdale Bros. Lincoln Hills
Second Addition
WHEREAS, this property can be conveyed to the, HRA by
Hennepin County for the State of Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, the site nos been found suitable for development of
housing, and '
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that this project can be
coordinated with other housing projects currently being
developed, and
WHEREAS, the HRA will be able to provide land. acquisition
and mortgage financing assistance to improve the
affordability of the project.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:.
1. That the HRA authorize the acquisition of the
property located at 6941-45 Penn Avenue South
from the State of Minnesota for housing purposes.
2. The Executive Director is authorized to prepare
and submit an "Application by a Governmental
Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax Forfeited Land"
to Hennepin County.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield, Minnesota this 20th day of May, 1985•
Thomas E. Harms, Chairman
ATTEST:
Joan Helmberger, Secretary
S-/
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 25
Agenda May 20, 1985
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Authorization to Execute a Contract with
South Hennepin Vocational Technical School
(Vo-Tech) for 1985-86 Project.
Dear Commissioners:
South. Hennepin Vocational Technical Center (Vo-Tech) has
requested that the HRA again participate with them in a housing
project for the school year 1985/86. This would be the seventh
project between the two organizations since 1977. This letter
will describe past actions taken by the HRA concerning this
project, summarize the contract with the Vo-Tech, request
execution of the contract by the HRA and discuss a meeting
between HRA-staff and the adjoining property owners.
On September 17,.1984, the HRA authorized staff to acquire
the property located at 7245 Humboldt Avenue South through the
Voluntary Acquisition Program. The intent of the acquisition
was to use the site for a future Vo-Tech project. The
existing structure on the property was in very poor condition
and rehabilitation was determined to be impractical. Since site
acquisition has ocurred,.the original structure has been
demolished and the site cleared of dead/dying trees.
The Vo-Tech. staff has evaluated the HRA owned structure
located at 1016 West 66th Street for relocation and
rehabilitation to 7245 Humboldt Avenue South. (It is necessary
to remove the house at 1016 West 66th Street to allow for
future townhouse development.) The two bedroom and one bath
structure can easily be modified to aceomodate three bedrooms
and two bathrooms .without major structural changes or
additions. The elevation and site plan of the proposed house
are attached. The house will contain three bedrooms, two
bathrooms, a living room, separate dining room, and kitchen with
eating area. A deck area will be attached adjacent to the
kitchen. The rehabilitaiton work will include:
-new .heating system
-new electrical wiring and service
-new plumbing system and fixtures
-all new sheetrock walls and ceilings
-all new floor coverings
-new oak trim
-new doors and windows
-new siding
-new roof
Unlike the two previous Vo-Tech projects, the rehabilitation
will not be "super-insulated" (using double wall construction).
Instead, the Vo-Tech staff will be~using standard construction
techniques and emphasize "tightness" of construction.
The new furnace will be a high. efficiency type. Monitoring
of this home's heating bills will allow staff to determine if
this type of rehabilitation is more cost efficient then "super
insulation", which adds to the expense of construction.
It is expected that the rehabilitation project will commence
soon after HRA contract approval and be completed in Spring,
1986. The house. will be sold to a family of three to six
members having a moderate income (as determined by Section 8
income limits) of between $20,000 and $29,500. It is
anticipated that the HRA will be able to secure a mortgage
commitment through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. A
9.95 - 30 year fixed rate mortgage would then be available.
The .amount of the Vo-Tech contract for relocation and
rehabilitation of the structure to become a three bedroom, two
bathroom home is not to exceed $54,102.14. This price, for
.the first. time,. includes a storage shed for the yard area. This
storage shed is recommended as a new homeowner often cannot
finance a garage and therefore has no storage space for
bicycles, lawn mowers, and other equipment often used
out-of-doors. The major elements of the contract include:
-A maximum cost of $54,102.14 for all work performed under
the direction of Vo-Tech and the HRA paying Vo-Tech after
the property is sold, or by August 31, 1986;
-A work completion deadline on or before July 1, 1986;
-Supervision of labor and insurance coverage to be the
responsibility of Vo-Tech.
-A provision requiring Vo-Tech to be responsible for a one-
year warranty for defects caused by faulty workmanship or
defective materials, a two-year warranty on installation of
plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling systems, and a
ten-year warranty on structural defects. (This warranty is
required by state law,)
53
-3-
'The contract price of $54,102.14 is approximately $6,000
higher than the 1982 single family project at 6822 Queen
Avenue. Reasons for the higher cost include:
-the 1016 West 66th Street house size requires that
-power lines along the moving route be temporarily removed.
-the original condition of 7245 Humboldt Avenue site
requires the removal of several dead or dying trees.
.Stumps must be removed by Vo- Tech.
-the existing grade of 7245 Humboldt Avenue will require
some extensive corrections to. the landscape to avoid
drainage onto neighboring .properties.
-the asphalt blacktop area for a driveway is much greater in
size than usual because of the longer distance from
street frontage to the house.
-the completed house will be larger than previous projects,
(approximately 1,600 sq. ft. of finished floor area which
does not include an unfinished full basement).
-the size of the lot (more than 10,000 sq. ft.) requires
more landscaping (sod, plants, trees, etc.).
In response to neighborhood interest, HRA staff members
Marcia Hale and Bruce Nordquist met with the property owners who
adjoin 7245 Humboldt. Avenue on April 18, 1985 to better describe
the project to them .and answer any questions or concerns. It
was found that the neighbors had three primary concerns:
1. Whether the completed structure will "fit into the
neighborhood". in regards to value and appearance.
2. How the house will be marketed and who would be eligible
for the low interest financing.
3. How the grading of the site will affect the existing
water drainage problem in the block where the
development is occurring.
The rehabilitated structure has been designed to blend into
the neighborhood. As a standard 1 1/2 story home, the hQUSe is
typical of many Richfield homes. The traditional design also.
encourages a homogeneous appearance. Although the completed
value of the home has not yet been determined by independent
appraisal, staff estimates that a value should be in the
$75,000 to $85,000 range. Such a value would be quite typical
of the surrounding neighborhood homes that have Hennepin County.
Assessor Estimated Market Values ranging between $62,500 and
$102,900, or an average value of $79,800. (This was arrived at
by averaging the EMV of the nine closest neighboring
_~_
s-y
properties). As in previous projects, the initial purchase
price would more closely approximate $60,000 and a second lien
would be used to recover the difference.
The marketing method and eligibility criteria used in
selling the house was explained to the neighbors. The same
methods and criteria have been successfully utilized in our
other Vo-Tech projects. The only limitations on families is
income and size requirements.
Drainage, caused by the existing grade has provided problems
for one neighbor to the north of the property over the years..
Staff is working with. the City Engineer to determine the most
effective solutions. Regardless of the technique implemented,
staff has assured the neighbors that no additional water will be
contributed to their property because of the site development.
Retaining walls, terracing and filling will. be necessary to
minimize this problem.
It is recommended that the HRA adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the execution of the Vo-Tech contract by the Board
Chairman and Executive Director for the project as described.
Respectfull submitted,
John G. Ca wr' t
Executive Dire or
JGC/eja
-HRA RESOLUTION. NO. ~s
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH
SOUTH HENNEPIN VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL CENTER. (VO-TECH)
WHEREAS, the HRA acquired the real property at 7245 Humboldt
Ave. South, legally described as:
Lot 1~ and 11, Block 5 Irwin Shores except that part.
taken for U. S. Interstate 35W
Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the HRA owned structure at 1016 W. 66th Street-has
been found to be practical by Vo-Tech for relocation to the
7245 Humboldt Ave. So. property and rehabilitation to a 3
bedroom, 2 bathroom home; and
WHEREAS, the contract price for the rehabilitation of the
structure. will not exceed $54,102.14; and
WHEREAS,. the method of mortgage financing will continue to
provide homes to moderate income families..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEII by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the HRA Chairman. and Executive Director are
authorized to enter into a contract with Vo-Tech for an
amount not to exceed $54,102..14 far the housing
rehabilitation project to be completed at 7245 Humboldt
Avenue South.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield, Minnesota this 20th day of May, 1985•
Thomas E. Harms, Chairman
Joan. a mberger, ecretary
r~
`\ '
~~_
~~
,~}.
rn `Z~ F
d
_
J
O
~.
O ~~.
•
,
'
`-
~~`~`'
D __
0
Z
i
F Ii.i~~~1C~e•5
;\
'~,~ ,~..
,>
,// l
~f
,~ .~.
!/ ~=.~
7.s.~~
~~-
_ ~ ~ ~.
t~
;; ~ ~ ~,
;~ ;
Z _..._ ,_
T ~ ~~ 1 ~ .J
I~ - ~ ~ _~
(~ ~-
~~~, ~ _
G-
SrEE '~!:f
t i~ hennepin technical center • south campus- I .:~
~~ w+o f -.,ME architectural drafting
~s, 9200 flying cloud drive
J ? eden prairie minnesota 55344 I ~ ~ ~ 'Ii
Fao~v ~cRU~~~~ s:.ASSnc~A-t-~s, ttvc.
' REGISTERED LANG SURVEYORS
7382WASHSNGTdNAVEiVUESO. EDEN PRA1RlE. MINN. 55344 PHONE 812-941-3030
= C~R3'I~~CA'~'~ t~~ S~1F~V~Y'
_- _ _ .
Survey tor- -- - - Job No ~/og 3k 4Z4 Pa 4~
i~~.. ~ P.~eaPOSEp ELEy~1T/aN5
'~ s`' BEST F-~.~F~- ~
4 ~
7~ ~'
.~ ~? ~ ,,"'~~4..' ~ `izz.s ~ . - 29.0 -•- 93 I~- ~~ ~- N
' J~ ~ 3ts~~ ~ ' f , .. ~ 2 3 X 7
.~ ,. "--t:=~"'.- ~..... ~ s 4 OAK
r
' ~ -„-..
k r ~ . 1. X l~2w~.~3 ~ ~ `
~6a~` ~' `p` ' ~ - ~ '
nti„ytY, i~'F I '
~~~ - y ~'
1 . f ~,~ •t
i~ fi,."'~.Y'~s• `ice-: ~ !~L•9 , :` ` `~, ~ t ~ '~Z•8~CA4cS
~w
y'
~`.. i'l ~ ,a' ;--- r \ is"cax HOUSE ~ 4 ~ ~
Y ~ ,
r ~ • ~ /
`~' ,•- _
)r,. ~ t
N ~~
E 1
*s=' i. ~~i ~,r `~ ~ /29.L,~ ~` :~ - ~•~ /0"OAK
4}
;''. _. '' ~ .~~ ( \ (~ ~ ~ L • 8"OAKS N ~
,ti, - , ,
xx ~'~~•§~'~'~~ ': f /29.L~X 1 ` l3C•Z + -.. 3 ~0. 0 __ _- ~ (' 3-8"OAKS .. a _ . O!
tear":4~,h. cr..:.,_ ttl~~~~ \ _. ~ .
~~~~~'r,„~ ~t ~ `' __ . !2"P/HE \ -: - /OGZOQ- - \, `1;-G~•Ca~cS
ti
'` ~ ~ :`~,''•'+~'~ --. ~ 4:1> 1 ~~OAICS l29 (~3 Tc
v . ee.:
' ,~ ` ~ ~ ~f~ ~ yl~` / ., a. I 1~' ~V . /~' r/~,y ``y,."'t;,.a1+'.~' 1./~~s~ ~~rr :~ s.
`,,~rr. ,<. 'rtiJ .,_-Y- ..:. ~. !~..•;. . ~.: w _ v M•~. s ; x ~~~'~i~57~,hf..I~~~
y .~ ~~ •~s~eS~:cert'ify'tti"af'i'!~'isls a true and carreci representation of a survey of the boundaries of ~oT.3 ~e,!%/~ Sloes S~, S,ew~NS/,(~5
v .~ ..~•,~ f~b-t~
~~~ f' ; t~~ ~~GFDT T,r1r9TOA,2T<7~.C.r~Fd,2 US• County. Minnesota
,v z.,~rc~rs+-.1~E 3,,r' Tom!
_ "~ ~? _. PR ~ L 5
~~ Surveyed by me this oa of 8
M.HOTOP-128./3 - __ t9'- -'-- .
RON' KR E 'ER 8~ TES, INC.
STATE REG. NO. 14374
y/
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office. of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 24
Agenda May 20, 1885
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Authorization to Acquire 7508 Colfax Avenue
Dear Commissioners:
On March 18, 1985, the HRA authorized staff to
negotiate a purchase. price to secure one of five possible
scattered site properties. The process has been completed and
the HRA is requested to authorize acquisition of 7508 Colfax
Avenue.
The five identified sites, in the order to be considered,
were: 7517 Humboldt, 7508 Colfax, 7521 Dupont, 6824 13th
Avenue, and 7216 First Avenue. The Planning Commission
determined that acquisition of any of these sites would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the site were utilized
for single family housing purposes. The owner at 7517 Humboldt
Avenue lost interest in selling during the negotiating process.
Thus, staff negotiated and has secured a signed purchase
agreement from the owner of 7508 Colfax, Rodd H. Johnson. The
property has a 400 square foot one bedroom house on a 6,500
square foot lot. Legal counsel has found no problems that would
prevent securing clear. title.
The negotiated purchase price is $41,000. The Hennepin
County Assessors Estimated Market Value in 1985 is $40,000. The
value by independent appraisal (David Peterson from Capital
Appraisals, Inc.) was $43,000. CDBG funds (Program Year X, July
1984 to June 1985) will be utilized to acquire the property.
The house is vacant so that no relocation payments are
anticipated for tenants. The owner has agreed to waive
benefits in accordance with the Voluntary Acquisition Program
guideline. Demolition is anticipated for later in the summer if
the structure cannot be sold and removed. The HRA will be
responsible for maintenance of the property until development
occurs.
Although no development plans have been finalized, three
conditions for development are known at this time:
-2-
y_ z
1) The property will be developed with a single family
home affordable to a first time homebuyer family
having a moderate income.
2) The HRA (or developer) must secure a variance from the
city ordinance concerning lot size since the minimum ..lot
size required is 6,75.0 square feet. This lot at 6,500
square feet is 250 square feet below minimum lot size
(five feet. in depth).
3) Since the lot is smaller, new construction is
preferable to relocation and rehabilitation of an
existing structure. A new. house would be "made to fit".
The existing garage may be retained.
It is recommended that. the HRA adopt the attached resolution
authorizing acquisition of 7508 Colfax Avenue for $41,.000.
Res eetfu submitted,
John G. Car wr' t
Executive Director
JGC/eja
.r..r
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
Resolution Authorizing .the Acquisition of
7508 Colfax Avenue
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in
and for the City of Richfield acquires property,. relocates
occupants and rehabilitates structures for residential purposes;
and
.WHEREAS, the HRA desires to acquire the real property at
7508 Colfax Avenue, legally described as: Lot 3, Block 22, Irwin
Shores Addition, Hennepin County;. and
WHEREAS, the owner of 7508 Colfax Avenue, Rodd H. Johnson
has volunteered to sell his property for $41,000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found the acquisition
of this parcel for single family residential purposes to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;.. and
WHEREAS, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG} funds will
- finance the acquisition of this parcel. '
NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in a•nd for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota:
That the HRA Chairman and Executive Director are authorized
to take necessary actions to purchase the property located at
750$ Colfax Avenue for $41,000.
`Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield this 20th day of May, 1985•
Thomas E. Harms, Chairman
ATTEST:
Joan Helmberger, Secretary.
3-/
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 23
Agenda May 20, 1985
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: LHN Performance Status- Analysis
Dear Commissioners:
In October, 1984, the HRA requested a report on the status
of the LHN.. It is now anticipated that a report will be
available in August. The request was for a report on the
overall status of the tax increment cash flow and its
relationship to debt service needs. A similar analysis of
each individual bond issue will be included in the report too.
Staff recommends that the scope of the report be expanded
to include a performance evaluation of the project from its
beginning in 1975. In addition to reporting on the status of
tax increment cash flows and bond obligations, all expenditures,
income and activity units will be reported in detail. The •
format for the report has been established and is attached. The
most detailed analysis will be on a sub-project basis. The sub-
projects are listed on the first page of the attachment. The
sub-project analysis is the last three pages of the attachment..
The second step will be to consolidate all the sub -projects into
a summary. The third step of the process will be to provide an
analysis of the project on a bond issue by bond issue basis.
That report is the second through fourth pages of the
attachment. The auditing firm of Cummings, Keegan and Co. has
recently been enlisted to assist in compiling the data. They
are the firm which conducts the annual HRA audit.
Staff will be prepared at Monday's meeting to give a more
thorough progress report on the process that has been
established and the intended results from such an analysis.
Respectf ly submitLted,
~'`
John G. C tw ght
Executive Director
JGC/eja
LL UY 11\VV 1:1V1 iJVJ+-+~-arull LW1 Va~J.4:.
DUE: APRIL 24, ~ 985 ~~ ""~ _
"PROJECTIOVS?"
REPORTS:
*LHN SUB-PROJECT SUMMARIES
-CP-705, 7050, 7052, 7053 7054, 7055, 7056, ETC.
SEPARATE SUMMARIES FOR:
-NELSON'S
SUPERAMERICA
-vaTECH DOUBLE
-LIQUOR STORE
-LYNDALE GARDEN CENTER
-WOODLAKE VET/CLEANERS
-MARKED PLAZA (SHOW BOTH FOND ISSUES)
-COACH HOMES
-LAKE SHORE DRIVE
-K-MART
-LYNDALE HARDWARE.
-GRAHAM AVENUE DEVELOPMENT {GAD)
-RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY (.RSA) (INCLUDE KFC)
-PILLSBURY COMMERCIAL CENTER (EXCLUDE KFC)
-HUB (INCLUDE FIRST WESTERN BANK.)
-RICHFIELD SHOPPES (NORTH AND SOUTH)
-AHLQUIST
-OPDAL
*LHN PROJECT SUMMARY (TOTAL OF SUB PROJECT SUMMARIES)
'INDIVIDUAL BOND ISSUE SUMMARY (BY THE LAW)
L-H-N ~~
BOND `ISSUE - SUNI~IARY
PREPARED: ----------------------
BOND ISSUE YEAR: - - - BOND ISSUE AMOUNT: $- .- - .. -
SUB-PROJECTS INCLUDED:- $
- $
O'T'HER REVENUE
LAND SALE PROCEEDS
O'T'HER: (DEFINE)
'T'OTAL OTHER REjIE'NUE;
EXPENDITURES
LINE ITEM DESCRIPTION
•
..~_
AMOUNT
-2-
TOTAL CbST PER SQUARE FOGT .
~ PAR 4QUARE FOOT.
C!1'HER .INCENTIVES
DEVELOPER REVENUES
IDB'S $
OTHER.. (DEFINE)
3-y
i~
TAX INCREMINT ANALYSIS
-- -.. EMV..__.. AV.... +~- ~ CHANGE
1975 BASE YEAR VALUE $ $ $ ~
VALUE YEAR PRIOR TO IMPROVE. $ $ $
VALUE AT COMPLETION $ $ $
c VALUE. AT BOND ISSUE TERM $ $ $ ~
SITE ASSEMBLY DATA
# OF PARCELS # OF RELOCATION
ACQUIRED USE UNITS DISPOSITION OF STRUCTURES
~~
~~
L-~-~ 3 -,~•~-
SUNIl~IARY - OF -. SUB-=PROJECTS
PREPARED: ------~_---- -
SUB-PROJECTS INCLUDID IN THIS SUNtMARY REPORT:
-G-
3-7
AND
BOND ISSUES INCLUDED IN THIS SUMMARY:
TOTAL $
OTHER REVENUE
LAND SALE PROCEEDS $
OTHER: (DEFINE)
TOTAL GTHER.REVENUE: $
C
-3-
EXPENDITURES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
TOTAL OSST PER SQUARE FOOT
$ PER SQUARE FOOT.
3-~
-4-
arxER-INCENTIVES
$
$
TAX INCREMENT ANALYSIS
--- ---~----_- AV--- -----±/-- - --- ~ CHANGE_--
1975 BASE YEAR VALUE $ $ $ ~
VALUE YEAR PRIOR 'IG IMPROVE. $ $ $
VALUE AT COMPLETION $ $ $
VALUE AT BOND ISSUE TERM $ $ $
SITE ASSEMBLY DATA
# OF PARCELS # OF RELOCATION.
ACQUIRED USE UNITS DISPOSITION OF STRUCTURES
3-9
•
L-H'N ~~r
SUB=PROJECT' - SUItiIl~fARY
FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 12/31/84
PREPARED: - ------ .._.. _.
SUB-PROJECT 1VANIE:
BOND REVENUE
BOND ISSUE YEAR:.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE:
SUB-PROJECT' ALLOCATION: $
OTHER REVENUE
LAND SALE PROCEEDS $
OTHER: (DEFINE)
_ $
TOTAL OTHER REVENUE.: $
-'- s-~~ •
EXPE~ti DITURES
LINE ITEM DESCRIP'T'ION AMOUNT
.~ $
~,
TR`I'AL EXPENDITURES
TOTAL CbST PER SQUARE FOOT
$ PER SQUARE FOOT.
•
_3 .~~~~
DEVELOPER REVIIWES
IDB' S $
OTHER: (DEFINE)
TAX .INCREMENT ANALYSIS
EMV AV +/- ~ CHANGE
1975 BASE YEAR VALUE $ $ $ ~
VALUE YEAR PRICR TO IMPROVE. $ $ $
VALUE AT COMPLETION $ $ $
VALUE AT BOND ISSUE TERM $ $ $
SITE ASSEMBLY DATA
# OF PARCELS # OF RELOCATION
ACQUIRED USE UNITS DISPOSITION OF STRUCTURES
a-/
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 22
Agenda May 20, 1985
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield _
Subject: Presentation Regarding Formulation of
Enterprise Development Strategy
Dear Commissioners:
Recently, Richfield was selected to participate in a pilot
program sponsored by the International City Management
Association. A training session. was held which was attended by
staff and members of the Chamber of Commerce.
Attached to this letter is the outline to be used in
formulating a more detailed strategy. Bob Gunderson, past
president of the Chamber, and currently chairperson of the -
Visions 200 subcommittee dealing with commercial development,
participated in the workshop. He will be attending the May 20th
HRA meeting to discuss the formulation of an enterprise strategy
and to seek the support of the HRA.
Respectfully submitted,
i_,
John G. Car wr' t
City Manager
JGC/eja
. ~-
ICMA, the professional association
of appointed administrators
serving cities, counties. regional councils,
and other local governments
1120 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Mr. John G. Cartwright,'
City Manager
City-Hall
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Cartwright:
May 3, 19$5
Thank you far your. participation im ICMA's bocal Enterprise Development
Workshop. We, the staff at LCMA, are excited about the impressive effort
that: you put. into developing your action plan and we hope your community
has reacted very postively'as well..
As promised, enc].oaed is a. typed version. of your community's action
plan.. Please review it carefully and note any revisions directly on a
copy and send it to us.
Also enclosed are the names and addresses of the resource. experts at the
workshop. Please feel free to call. them for information.-
We will be closely monitoring the pregress you have made on your action
plan and will be anxious to hear of your accomplishments. We will be in
touch:. with you. on a periodic basis.
ICMA will serve as a resource for information and assistance on this
project.. We will be working through your office to determine your
specific technical assistanee~needs, but any project participant should
feel free to call us. We will try to keep you informed-about how the
rest of the participants are doing on their action plans.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,.
Diane. Rooney
Assistant Project Director
a-~.
(202)626-4600
DR/md
Enclosure
~-3
xlc~IS,n, HIIdNESOTA
ACTION PLAN
I. Define problem to be addressed by action plan-
1. Redefine "function/image" of Richfield internally and externally. so
that the community is more receptive to change. This needs to be
done particularly in regards to allowing for commercial expansion and
for changing the land use mix .and intensity.
II. Goals of action plan
1. To increase the awareness, understanding and recognition of the need
for:
a. Enhancement of Tax Base - Internal
b. Community Strengths -Internal/External
c. Prospective new "client groups" -External
III. Define objectives to be reached
1. Organize a "fact base" that would explain need for: improved land
use mix and intensity and more new investment.-
. 2. Determine how best to invo ve citizens/business community.
a. This can be accomplished by creating a tax base that is
comprehensible for community.
b. Need to reach an agreement about what areas are suitable for
redevelopment (i.e., Strip 494).
c. Determine potential of redevelopment plan:
- Draft a plan to specify commercial areas -- boundaries for
expansion
- FWY area development plan -- high commercial potential
d. Need to detail planning (e.g. I.L.L) is needed.
IV. Define specific strategies to used in implementing ob'eetives
1. Develop budget, identify dollars and possibly seek external funding.
2. Work with Planning Commission (staff has facts that-are needed).
3. Identify, define,
information about
a. Specifically,
- Who do we
- How to ut;
~~ c
locate,.eoTleet "Pact base" (e.g., demography) and
community "attitudes" (e.g., is there resistance?).
issues to consider regarding community "attitudes":
involve in the process?
Clze existing resources -- get a commitment?
b. We have to build on existing process, focus on identifying
.community. leadership -- broaden the base to include "others,"
e.g,, planning commission..
c. We need interaction, sharing of information and participation --
this. would lessen community resistance.
V.
4. Determine. need for a new study on the potential areas 'for change in
land use.
5. Build on existing process., focus on identifying community leadership.
6. Find case examples of how successful (Laurel, MD), and unsuccessful
community involvement has been carried out.
7. There. is a need for a communication package in lay language to
explain the "HOW To's" of the plan..
8. Need to work with planning commission -= focus on obtaining feedback,
input, interaction and participation.
9. Need information from broader spectrum of the community..
Specify resources that can be used in action plan
7. iCMA - Technical Resources
2. State Demographic Office - Mr. Freedman
3. Designated City Staff; Metro Council Staff;. Humphrey School; People/
volunteers
4. "Vision 2004" participants; identify leaders
5. Other community groups/school district (through parent
organizations)/Chamber
6. Foundation, city, federal or state sources for funding
7. Other community groups (e.g., League of Women Voters)
•
•
•
-2-
as
$. Senior citizens, school districts, others.
9. External Funding. For example, a foundation with similar interests
-- we would have to-send proposal..
11. Administrative mechanism -- how is this going to happen?
12. Get university to do Richfield's Action Plan as a "case study.."
VI. List action steps
Task 1:
~_
Validate problem, define with. key
groups, get blessing -- on agenda of
calendar; Vision 2004; Planning
Commission; Chamber; City Council, HRS.
Task 2:
Establish Administrative/Coordinate
groups - Bob's Committee. Supplement
with others (need legislation.).
Task 3:
Determine/Draft Budget --
Bruce and Dennis
Task 4:
Administrative Group will put together
schedule Action Plan.
Timetable
May 9 (Vision meeting)
By June 1
By 3rd week of May
July 1
_3_
e7-,6 ~
RESOURCE EXPERTS AT WORKSHOP
1. Renee Berger
Partnerships Datanet
1015 18th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C 20036
(202 )293-8280
2. Gene DePrez
Partnerships Datanet
1015 18th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
1202) 293-8280
3. Alan Gregerman
National Council for Urban
Economic Development
1730 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 223-4735
4. The Honorable Robert DiPietro
Mayor
City of Laurel
City Hall
350 Municipal Square
Laurel, MD 20707
(301) 572-2400
(301) 725--8585
5. Jim Smith '
City Manager
City of Concord
City Hall
Concord, NH 03303
(603.) 224-2391
6. Duncan S. McGowan
4 Bicentennial Square
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 224-$500
•
•
-1-
7. Bill Sehweke
Corporation. for Enterprise Development
1725 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1u0t
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 293-7963
8. Paul L. Pryde, Jr.
Pryde, Roberts and Company
1275 K Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 3T1-6688
National Resource Persons:
James D. Vitarello
Industry Specialist
Customer and Industry Affairs Division
Comptroller of the Currency
490 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.
Washington, D.C.. 20219
{202) 287-~t69
James Lowell
Community Affairs Coordinator
Division of Consumer and .Community Affairs
Federal Reserve System
Washington, D.C. 20551
(202) X52-3378
~-7
-2-
a ~,4- i
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 21
Agenda May 20, 1985
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
"A Local Strategy On Aging: Richfield's
Subject: Opportunities", A Humphrey Institute
Graduate Workshop Report
Dear Commissioners:
Early in 1985, Mrs. Barbara Lukermann of the Humphrey
Institute Graduate School faculty approached the city about a
graduate student project. She was interested in having selected
graduate students undertake an analysis of demographics, housing
stock and services and housing policies regarding the elderly in
our community. Following the analysis, eight strategies for
meeting the housing and care needs of the elderly were
identified.
Attached to this letter is a "draft" executive summary and
a list of major study elements. As the academic year at the
University is coming to an end, it would be desirable to have
the students and their facilitator present their findings.
Mrs. Lukermann and the students, which include Planning
Commission Chair Connie Hoverson, have been invited to the May
20th meeting to make a presentation to the HRA and the Senior
Citizen/Handicapped Commission. City Council and Planning
Commission members are being invited to the presentation.
The projections in the report indicate that the elderly
population of our community will increase significantly by the
year 2000. The increase has implications in two areas:. housing
and support services designed to facilitate independent living;
and, how policies and/or programs which fall within the purview
of the responsibilities of the HRA, Planning Commission and
Senior CitizenslHandicapped Commission would be impacted.
_z_ ~t /~._ Z.
City administration recommends that the City Council and
the Planning Commissionis Comprehensive Plan
Subcommittee on housing, the Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Commission and the HRA form a task force to review the report
and make appropriate recommendations to the City Council. A
work program outlining the task forces proposed activities
will be presented to .the City Council. on or before August
12th. The work program will conclude with a set of
recommendations being presented to the City Council in January
1986..
Respectfu y submitted,
John G. Cartwr ht
Executive Director
JGC/eja
x1 /-~: 3
ERECUTIVE SU~L4RY
Richfield.is a city wit~i: an aging population. While the city's total. pop
elation declined by nearly 20% from 1970 ta. 1980,. the number of residents
over 65 years-old; increased. by 53%, composing 10.5% of the 1980 population.
Projections indicate Richfield's elderly population will. increase sgnif-
cantly in the future,. By the year 2000, persons over 65 will total 18.5%
of the population,. and elderly households. will.. comprise 31.6% of ail house-
holds. The. demand a: existing formal. supports services. is;::projected ~-n i~-
cr~..ase by 1S9%, Grith the demand on all. ser~rices - provide3- wry ana
informally - ncrrasing by 95%. The analysis also shows that:
1. The population 65_and-over wi.li increase in numbers and house-
holds- throug~i the year 2000- faster than any other segment of
the population.
2. As age. increases incane declines .
3. The cohort. 75 and.. over is proj~ated to increase 147'/,..: 63% is
projected to be female. Households 75 and over are projected
to .increase. 146%..
4. 'There: will be an increasing rnsnber of single females: 75 and
over with relatively low incomes either as renters or seeking
to becane renters.
5. The 75-84 cohort is-going to place. :rzat stress on the ,size
and financ~ng of-the service system.
6. The inforraa.L netwrork provides over 85% of all services for
the elderly. Policies for housing. asst ~ the informal.
service system in order to constrain costs.
7. Creation of new alderly housing units induces an icrm~.gration
of two elder~oceupants from. outside of Richfield to each
elderly occupant from Richfield.
8. A rnanher of programs exist that. can be*:efit the elderly both
in housing and services, but increased levels- of coordination
will. be recjuired.
The current and projected population characteristics and resulting il~lica-
tions leads to the following issues:
A. Should more new elderly owned or rental units be built given
the problem of an already and projected imralanced older
population, with new owned or rental units attracting an
immigration of elderly without an equal outmigration.
-i-
#i~-y
B.. In light of the fact that elderly households will comprise an
increasingly larger percentage of the housing stock., should
the City promote a "roll-over" program, and/or encourage
"shared housing" to free up units-for younger families?
C. Should the City support. "informal." netwrorlcs of service pro-
vision, either through tiairri.ng or financial incentives?
D. Is 65 and over, and will it coat=nue to be, an accurafe/appro-
priate "benc~unar'~" for; creating elderly housing and services
policy? Would 75 and over:be chore appropriate for city ini:-
bated housing policies?
'IIze following strategies aresuggested:
A. Develop a modified "roll-aver" program to encourage elderly
homeowners to recycle their housing. Place emphas%s on tum-
ing over: the housing to first:time buyers and making more
efficient use of existing housing for.alternatives for the
elderly..
B., Facilitate the develolxnent of "home sharing" programs tr3 better
_ utilize existing housing and promote interdependence by re-
wising the zoning code to allow S unrelated..indivduals as _
opposed to 3 to live together as a household in a single
family home within a R district. _
C.- Actively participate in the. ~3F'A accessory apartment .demon-
straton loan program..
D. Develop an Elderly Impact Assessment evaliation to assess
the iaroact of any erly housing an or se-rvi.ca grogram
havuzg blic f~mds or su~oort in some forn on:
1. the. age distribution of ta4e city.
2. the formal service system.
3. t~~ie intornal cart system (how is it leveraged? supple-
ment~d? supplanted?)
4. the availability of moderate cost rental omits for young
households.
The. purpose of t~ assessment crrould be identification of impacts
allowing proactive planning, not necessarily refusal of the
project because of impacts.
E. Limit. new construction and other options because of potential.
induced elderly i.mmi.gration with a high number of Richfield's
elderly already aging. in place.
-ii-
/A--S
F. Make intentional efforts to maintain the existing housing stock.
through coordination. of existing maintenance services/programs,
G. S~~-then tie ability and role. of the Comnzuzity Center in
coordinating formal. and informal setvicss for groups. and on
a case by case basis-arid in.providing/monitoring/coordinating
community educaticm..
H. Do nothing. 'Ilzs strategy would adwcate a status quo response..
of reactin to proposals on a case by case basis without.the
gui~ a cccnprehensive plan or program for desired city
objectives concerning Richfield's- elderly and its housing and
• servicesystems..
A six :prase contingency plaiming frametaork is detailed to develop a co~upre-
hensive plan for elderly housing and services.
-iii-
/,4- b
A UJCAL STRATEGY:: ON AGING:
RICHFIELD'S OPPORTUNITIES
1.0 A LOGAL STRATEGY CN AGING: RICHFIELD'S OPPORTUNITIES
1.1 PURPOSE .AND SCOPE OF STUDY.
The central. purpose of this analysis is to provide the City of
Richfield. with an understanding of tY~e factors affecting its
aging population and the impact. of that aging. population in local
housing and services, to assess population. trends and implications
over the next 15 years in light of local and regional demographic
shifts,. and. to suggest future strategies. To meet t~ above pur-
pose, the: analysis covers the following elements:
1.2 PAST DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES AMID THE CURRENT DEMCGRAPHIC PROFILE
OF RICHFIELD'S ELDERLY RESIDENTS
1.3 CURRF~Pr ELDERLY HOUSING NEEAS AND OPPORTUNITIES
1.4 CURRENT. ELDERLY SERVICE SYSTEM.
1.5 ISSUES RAISED
1.6 PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
1.7 PROJECTID DEMANDS ON THE SERVICE SYSTE~^~1
1.8 PAUSING OPTIONS
1.9 HOUSING PROGRAMS '
1..10 IMPLICATIONS BUR THE Fti'TURE
1.11 STRATEGIC ISSUES AND POTENTIAL. STRATEGIES
1.12 A POLICY AND PROGRAMMATIC PLANNING rRAP4EWORK
i(~-/
CITY OF RICHFIELD SURVEY
SUMMARY BY TOP I C
FAMILIES AND HOUSING iN RICHFIELD
May 13, 1985.
Few of the people at the ages most affected, only 14~ of the respondents
over age 60, agreed they WOULD coNS1DER SELLING MY HOME IN RICHFIELD AND MOVE INTO
sENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING (t~u~s 4 . About one-fourth of the younger age groups
would consider alternative housing upon approaching retirement.
Respondents were unanimous that city and school officials can best ATTRACT
YOUNGER FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN TO RICHFIELD (QUGS 9) by ptJtting mUCh effort into
MAINTAINING AN EXCELLENT SCHOOL. SYSTEM 921, PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS 791, Whl le
having CHILD DAY CARL: AVAILABLE Was favDf ed by eigtYty percent of the repOndents
Under age 40. ADVERTISING OR DISTRIBUTING PAMPHLETS WaS enCOUraged by Only One
third of the people.
HOW MUCH EFFORT SHOULD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD PUT INTO EACH OF THESE METHODS
IN ORDER TO ATTRACT YOUNG FAMILIES WITH-CHILDREN TO RICHFIELD (Ques 9)
100
90
0
F 80
R
E
S
P
0
N
D
E
N
S
70
60
50
40
30-
20
10
0
^ Oid Not
Respond
~~ 0 No
Effort
0 Little
Effort
Some
Effort
® Much
Effort
About 851 of respondents of all age groups felt that Richfield should
COntlnUe t0 help THE ELDERLY AND THE HANDICAPPED AS RICHFIELD MAKES USE- OF STATE AND
FEDERAL SUBSIDIES (QUeS 10). PEOPLE WITH LOW OR MODERATE INCOMES, and YOUNG FAMILIES
wITHCHILDREN were mentioned by a smallerntlmber, but soil a majority (60~),
of the respondents.
ADVERTISE OR MAINTAIN AN HAVE PARK AND HAVE CHILD
DISTRIt3UTE EXCELLENT RECREAT10N DAY CARE
PAMPHLETS SCHOOL SYSTEM PROGRAMS AVAILABLE
IB-z-
CITY OF RICHFIELD SERVICES
THE RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT' FIRE POLICE AND MEDICAL EMERGENCY EMPLOYEES
OU@S gOt high marks for RESPONDING VERY(~JICKLY TOfMERGENCIES (85~ agreed),
EFFECTIV€LY SOLVING THE PROBLEMS THEY DEAL WITH (77°To), and are FAIR AND HAVE GOOD
RAPPORT WITH THE PUBLIC (78~ agreed).
WHAT CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICES IN
RICHFIELD (Dues 14)
~~~
7'
~ Increase services even if
a higher tax cost -
®Leave the same
Decrease services and
hold taxes down
Did not respond to the
question
64~
On a broad range of
';CHANGES IN TH£ LEVEL OF
sFRV1cES (QU2S 14). 1$~ of
the respondents said to
!INCREASE SERVICES EVEN IF A
I HIGHER TAX COST, while 7~
Sa i d DECREASE SERVICES ANQ
HOLD TAXES DOWN. Sixty'f Our
percent Sal d iEAVE THE
SERVICES THE SAME Whlle
eleven percent did not
respond.
The bar chart below shows-responses to question 14 for specific services.
About 30% of respondents are walling to increase the services far the
elderly and the youth even if a higher tax cost.
WHAT CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICES IN RICHFIELD ((dues 14)
PARK MAINTENANCE
STREET MAINTENANCE
.SNOWPLOWING
SPRING CLEANlJP
LICENSE SERVICE AT CITY HALL
fLDERLY MOMS HEALTH CARE
ELDERLY RECREATION
ADULT PROGRAMS
YOUTH PROGRAMS
CHILD DAY CARE
ELDERLY DAY CARE
0 l0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 too
Decrease
services
and hold
taxes down
® Leave the
same
~ Increase
services
even if a
higher tax
cost
The length of each bar indicates the percentage of respondents selecting Increase, Same or Decrease
Mafly Of the respondents DO NOW OR WOULD RECYCLE WASTE MATERIALS (QueS 21) 1 Ike
NEWSPAPERS (80~ would although only 15~ actually participate in the current
voluntary 2nd Saturday of each month curbside collection program). ALUMINUM
(Soft drink and beer Cans) oR OTHER METALS WOUId be recycled by 64~, GLASS by
47%, and 0!L AND BATTERIES by 51 ~ .
IB-3
Richfield residents by a 4 to 3 majority feel that the c1TY sPENDSITS MONEY
w1sELY (Dues 3). with younger people tending to agree more.
A majority of the respondents SHOP AT THE RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL ~lt;!IIOR STORES (QUBS
beCallSe. it 1S CONVEN-ENTAND ACCESSIBLE (6Q°7o), and THE PROFITS ARE SPENT ON CAPITAL.
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN RICHFIELD (61 °lo). The VARIETY AND SELECTION, and LOWER PRICES AND
DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE Were mentlOned by a Smaller number of respondents.
QUALITY OF LIFE IN RICHFIELD
More than half (56~) RATE THE 't~1ALITY OF LIFE' 1N RICHFIELD (QUeS 1.2) aS better than
other Twin City southwest. area suburbs. Thirty-nine percent said it was the
same while less than 2? said it was worse.
When asked to write WHAroo you LIKE sEST AaouT RICHFIELD (Ques 22). 175.
mentioned the CONVENIENTLOCATtON, 133 Commented On the SENSE OF COMMUNITY, THE
SMALL TOWN ATMOSPHERE, THE FRIENDLY PEOPLE AND THE FAMILY ORIENTATION Of the
Community. One. hundred and twenty people mentioned the SCHOOL SYSTEM In
Richfield. Al'i0ther 67 respOndent5 added that Richfield 1S a NEAT AND CLEAN
COMMUNITY ,WITH PROPERTY AND 5TREETS WELL MAINTAINED.
MOSt Of the respondents think the OVERALL APPEARANCE of THE CITY of RICHFIELD (Qt1eS
17 is attractive.
t THINK THE OVERALL AAPEARANCE. OF THE CITY OF R1CHF1fLD IS:
(Ques 17)
252 23b
The numbers on top of each column ars the
numbers of people rssponding on a five point
t48 _ scale from Very Attractive to Not Attractive
15 b Id
~~
VERY AVERAGE NOT DID NOT
ATTRACTIVE ATTRACTIVE RESPOND
CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING
A sizeable majority of the respondents (84%) agree that RICHFIELD SHOULD
CONTINUE TO GUIDE REDEVELOPMENT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, AS WAS. DONE. IN THE
LYNDALEIHUB/NICOLLET AREA (QuBS 1 ). TWenty-Bight percent Strongly agreed W lth
this statement while 4! strongly disagreed.
~- y
When asked tO identify ~yHICH COMMERCIAL AREASQF THE CITY ARE IN NEED of REDEVELOPMENT
u 1 the respondents selected areas around 66th and Penn (40~ of the
respondents), 7bth and Lyndale (36~), and 66th and Cedar (32~) as the
highest priority. areas.
IF LAND WERE TO BECOME AVAiLABtf WITHIN RICHFIELD THROUGH SohlE REDEVELOPMENT, WHAT
SHOULD HAVE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY tQlleS $). MOSt people {61 aTo) Want t0 See MORE ,
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, Wlth ~°Jo alS4 giving a prlOClty t0 MORE SMALL BUSINESS AND
RETAIL SHOPS. Forty-six percent gave a low priority to more HIGH DENSITY HIXISING.
!F LAND WERE TO BECOME AVAILABLE WITHIN
RICHFIELD THROUGH SOME REDEVELOPMENT, WHAT
SHOULD HAVE THE HIGHEST PR(oRITY? (Quay 8)
304
1bb 15b 1~
112 "~~~~~
K<<~:
<<F
~.~, :.
?;;ti;
238
143152 1.29 143
a,~~;_
h,~Fy~'
r
Y~ `v1c
MORE SMALL
BUSINESS AN0
RETAIL SHOPS
~ High Priority
® Medium High Priority
Medium Law Priority
Low Priority
164
126 ]25131 ;;;~
;:~;~
}:~y
x;A~.
~i
170
91 77
MORE HIGH MORE RETIREMENT MORE PARKS AND MORE SINGLE
DENSITY HOUSING HOUSING OPEN LANG FAMILY HOUSING
The numbers an tap of each column are the number of people responding to each option
A total. Of 2$9 respondents Wrote SllggeStionS Wlth MORE CHILD DAY CARE FACILITIES
the most Often :made Comment {by 36 people) When asked WHAT PROGRAMS DO YOU
THINK ARE MISSING IN RICHFIELD {DUeS l S), W 1 th ELDERLY CARE PROGRAMS and YOUTH
PROGRAMS. the OtherCOmmon themes mentioned neXt most Often.
TW0 hundred and nine people had Suggestions for WHAT DO YOU THINK SHIXJLD BE
DISCONTINUED IN RICHFIELD ~QU2S 16) Wlth n0 large ConCe(1S!!S On any One Item.
Eliminate the emphasis on programs for seniors was mentioned by 15,
eliminate subsidized development by 7, airport noise by S, etc. OUTSIDE
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, SUCH AS GRASS, WEEDS, JUNK CARS (Selected by 47°Jo) and ANIMAL
CONTROL { 36~) `Were AREAS NEEDING MORE ENFORCEMENT (~ueS 13 ). MOSt peop 1 e f e 1 t
HOUSING CODES (6~~), ZONING AND LAND USE (58%) and ANIMAL CONTROL (49~) Should
receive the same level of enforcement
Seventy four percent agreed that THE MAYOR AND CITY CouNCIL ARE RESPONSIVE To cITY
RE5IDENTS {QlleS 6) While 12? disagreed. TWO thirds felt THE WARD SYSTEM OF
REPRESENTATION IS EFFECTIVE t'QUeS 7) With 10 ~ d158greeing.
1 Q=5
MTC BUS TRANSPORTATION
About One-third Of the respondents indicated THEY OR MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILY RIDE
AN MTC. Bus (Ques 18), twelve percent .every day and 21 percent report
occasional use, either to go to work, shopping, or recreation, visiting, etc
(Dues 19). Sixty-five percent said .they feel THEY ~crlow ElaousH ABORT THE Exs1sTING
MTC BllS SERVICE TO RIDE 1T (Que5 2O).
THE SURVEY AND THE RESPONDENTS
.The survey was mailed to 991 Richfield
residents during the winter of 1984-85. A
total of 667 people returned the survey for a
67% return..
Fifty percent, or 324 of the respondents
reported living in Richfield over 20 years
while 15~ had moved into Richfield within
the last five years.
The .age distribution of the respondents was
quite even with 31 % under 40, 36% between
40 .and 60, and 30% over age 60.
One-fourth of the respondents were single,
71% married, with a few not identifying
their status:
Ninety-three percent said they lived in a
single family home or duplex which means
that apartment dwellers were under-
.. represented in the group of respondents.
The people responding to the survey were
almost equally divided between the three
wards of Richfield - 213 east of Portland,
217 between Portland and Interstate 35W
and 214 west of the freeeway.
The survey was conducted for the City of Richfield by Robert D Nelson,
Director of Information Systems and Research of the Richfield Public
Schools, who has conducted. the Richfield School Board Community Survey
since 1972.
of Life' ~
lit B etter Same worse
y
i2. How- would yat~:"•at.e the 'vua
in Richfield as compared to- other Twin. City
'
j 3~~ (25~ ( t f ~ ~' ~
~.'Z..
souths~est. area. suburbs?
C,,, _ . I~• Whiciz areas: need. more- or- Tesa•-enforcement? ~ _ More- Same Less-
. ~ 1~~ (3g`? ~ 3:Qi:: l l'L.Ca
Zoning; and_ ZansF use.
_
flntrc
I~
ni ~2=~ 32to ( lq ~ $3~:
.
.
mal. c
- A
- Outside" property maiaLeaanCe,. sucPr as ~ 1 (~
- - Ftrass~,, needs„ junk cars« ~ -
i
:.
e (g 3 (~q~. 1-1 Ca• ~ - fit. L.
art:
for. cons truct
fldes,. permi ts.
Aousiag --- .,
~
or ramode3aag... -
..
Zy• I t3iink the fo3:2aw•frig changes should` be` made Increase- Decrease' - _
is the IeveL of-. service in: tizese• areas..
~ services services.
_ .-. even if Leave and. hold
_
,
- a< hghe~ then taxes: _
._
- _ tax cost` . same. dawn
= ~~ ~ ( ~..`~ l ~~
Haintezraace of pans.. - - (
_ ( _
~ ~ E~
. - Maizite~zaace~ af:= streets:.. ~,,,
r
_
X4"10• ~~ ~
1 ~
~
- -=Spr.rtg~ Cleanup... ~ (~_
. ,-~, .
_ .:.
~~
~_~
~`~~ ..
~~'~`
Lsceasinga sa-r~cesr at City AaI2.. ~
_ (
j
?
` ( J (
(
y~
or ~he^ elder
Some. Izea2~ programs- r ~ _, .
l
d
e
. ( (~ (
y-
er
the el
programs for
Rezreatiorr
~ 5~ 10 ~'
~~'`~" `~ ~.
Pzngrams for' aduZts.. ( (
(
1
Pzograms far teenagers and young children. ( 2a ~ 1 3 ~~ ~ ~$ ( ~ a••
- Child day' care.. -
--- - _ l~S 3.3t Coo t.a t-
Day' care for. the elderly.. ( ( ( 1
_,~
For. questions. IS_ and.. Ib,. you: may want- to- Look back at your. responses: to Iw.-
15. What. programs. da you think am a+issing is Richfield?-
. ~ 2 $ °s ~ = ~ - 3.'1Fs
-
16. What do• you think should be discontinued in Ri chf i eI d.?
2aq - = - - .. ~sff
~4a
} . '
.
.
h
~\1~`t:~
+
+~
- Z?..
I think the overall appeazance ~_ .. .~
N _
Yery Average Nat
~yR~•. og the: Citg of R~.chfield. is~ ACt+active Attractive . ~~-~
F",
_
~ ,
_
~~ -~.= . ~- . fir z5z~ 23~ ~ .s ~ ~ ~
IB~.. Hoer oftaa: da pcu+or members of . ..-- ~ZZ j Al.~ast: everq• dap.
~ •
'
. .pour famZpr rlde as :~iTC bus?" _ - -
. _ • - ~ - ~`.. ~a_~ About: Dace a vea~C...
• - _ ~ t ~_~ Once or tssc~ a month...
;; - ~ ~~~ Nat at aZ2.. _ L.~..
~.
I9'.. If' poYx ride as H=~' bus,, ham ~eS2 d•oes~ the bus F.xael- Don'c
. spsts~- meet: you+-• aeed~ tar loot Gcod Fair IIse- ~ .
.. ~ ~ ' ~a to wa z3c_. ~ 3 c°. ~toT'I
_
J 4t°
. I ~~_
~ ~ ~
~,~ 3'~
.. s~ sha~~.~g. ' • ~ ' _ ,
,
.. _
,
~ .. _ ~ ~ ~ ~- f -tom 1 ~~ ~ ~~ -r I ._ _ 4
3
.. - _4
. .: gec tsx rersea t~aa~ med~:cat raciStes, (2t ~ S ~ ( B ~ IZ`4` ~
3 ~°`
.
• .• TT
o~ t~ ~.SZ t. P~Qgi .~..r ~
~K
~ ~
~ ',
ZO'. Dc pcn; er members a£ paur.~ ~ari2p~
'f'C" b
b
ti
f
~ k:iow e~ougfr ~~ 1. ~'~~ ~ ~
r v,
"d
i ~
~
a
out: ea
u~
us ss
s
ce~ to r
e:
L
Ya: _
22~ Da• pou. nom•,. Qr vauld pcu. retgcSe aap af' he. ~.:j
- ~ Lc2lo~ria~ »ast, matrri.a?sZ° Yes': uaybe- Ncx.
_ ;~ewspa~ers. _ _ ~ 53:~~ '1~. j 4~ 2
[~~} / 1 rr
~~
`~
_..i•
• - -
~ :~- -
~pCfl~
- •~ PLEASE F':EL FREE TO GIRI2E ADDITZQNAL COMMENTS ~N• ANY OUESTTON. jam,. _
an X along the scale for each questi.on..
Make
.
. -` Leave,'the response- blank. if you• have no- opinion. on~ a. question. ~,
.. The choices. for'. questions I -Tare' SA. A Il SD=
- - Stron~tTy Agree- Disagree- 'Strongly
- _ Agree:.: Disagree-
I.. She City of Richfield should continue: tc= guide SA. .~ D' SDI -
redevelopment in• other areas of the city,:.. as.
b/Ni
Zl
l
/H ~ t$ S~ ~~~$ ~ ~..~ f `L.~ ~ 3'~.~
et area_
co
u
e
vas done: ire the Lynda
2~ The Richfield- Fubli:c Safetg Department. CFsre,.
Poii.c~, and: Medical mergency) emaloyeesr SA A D SIl'.
- respond vary' gvzciclp to emergeaees.- (2.~~13a$, ~o I t ( g.~
arm- abler to- effectively solve the r t5`E~I 358 (2"L. E 2 J
.,._.~. 13 t
` - :. ,. problems` they- dea,3 wi.th.~ _ _ `';
-.; . ,~ ;, {t~~~~5~.(Zc~~ to ~~ ~ ttCc~
are •fazr aad have` good
rap-part wti~ the: public..
_ _
- .: _.
_
;- ,~.
E, Z feel. the Citg~ e£ Richfield spends its money- SA_ . S .~. SD
- loZ. 2ca 1 ~L3 ~.d.
[~. As= L approach: retirement; .age•~ 2 wairld consider ~ : SA: S~ A. SD -
_
s~2liag- sap• ho~e• is Richfield. and:- movza~ into: - S~- °l~~ 1"t-I: 'L1~ .
~ ~~"
senior citizen- hausingr C3i.ker the Lakeshore' Drive: ( ( t ~ (. _.
- Condominiums) ~ - •~{
~z s : c
. ~ - -
.. - - --
5. Why da pou. shcg- at; the'. Kichfield Municipal Liquor Sto.resr . ..•~'
L da not.. ~ - • ~ _~ ~~. SA: A D SD= ' ~ ~ .
Mare convenient- and. accessible.. (~~~ (~~0~ `3 ~ ~ ~ ~~~
Lower' prices,, di.sZaunts.available.. (5~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ 3~0 (. "2.$.rI
~ -
i
S ((02 (25Qi' 3'? ( Cc ( •`3.a3
orr_
eot
... Variety and se
- . ZL~
3
~~
t4~ Z.L'~'Z
The profits are spear an. city impravemeat:s ~
(
j
(
(
wfthin Richfield_ .
6 . The' Maya r and Ci ty Council members in Richfield 5A A D SD
are- responsive to city.: residents_ -
.. - ~ (~_) L}31~ ~q, 12Z~
._..__ ~ ~
-
7. Thee ward. system of representation is. effective, SA A. D :• SIl
.. r'"
Questions 8 -~ :=': , indicate pour response by markf ng an- X' a?'on~ the scale...
. ~ F -~'~~
S. If Iand. vrrs =a become avai~abe within AichfieId ~~ :~~ ~--~,
~ ~ through. scme• redeveYopmerit,. uha t should have High. Low ~'
ru . Lh~ highest priorit~l''" .. Priori ty Priorityr _
.. Hors s+aaZZ bstsAess and: rataiT shops. (~~r3 ~ ~s2~ t2~t (l~'~ j . ~°j
:. _ ;fin r~ high ~ d.easy ty. hcusin~_ ~ j 3 fo ~a7 5 (~ l q J 3 0~ ~ 13.:
.. More' r8tire~aat: ~Sflusia~- • • j ~~'~f tCo~a (I,jLa~ (t~4C}. `~~
- - ~~rr parica~ " aa3 "~opea Iaas~".. ~. - (tZ~c ~ k't.,S ~ 131. (ll~~-~ l"T.. I
.. _ ..
" Mgrs ~strig2e faatily~ housngf ~ ~.~ ~ (t"1 a (g t ~ "1'I ~ ~ C
~J
:;~
9« Ho~• ~ueh'-effort: shouSd the° City- of Rich={ e3d put
- inrc each of thes~• ~ethads zsr order to attract Much. No
.. poua~ families" viL1s- chi2drenr. to Richfi eld'~ Effa'rt Rff'ort
- Adv+cztis~,. ~ ar• ~dzs t+ibute" pama hl a is ... j ~ ~ l 13 Cl J l to 3 ~ t t-tvv('
. :safataig aa• eXC_ISent: SthDOl. S~St2'SC:- ~ ~~~ ~3 J ~~
~.~~
.
• - ~.~ ~ . ~ ....
,~:. Have psrlc~•ane~ r~zreatios pros,~ams~ 323: Zo3~ SS' tc,~
( ( f~ ( j
•- Eavc chSd: day ~car~~•avai2able... , (~ ~' \~1 (lo'Lf '`j~ 1:
~ .^
-
IO As• Zc,~e3d makes. use o~ stag.
aad ~ec~
eraL
subside} WtZZC."L~ ~OtlDSr. O~ Deflp1.E! dII' pCLt Lee? Shoulb S~tou.ld.
. shaulr~ be: ~xe3ped: bg~ t~~Zer ~~ of R3:c~ieSd's - be^ ast: her
pausing pc2:icies2 ~ - . - helaesi heSped
Srie- eSderly" ar:d t:~e• •has:d::caaped... (4e+-~( It~.3 (35 1 l~ (
Peony vita Io*~ or moderate iacomes_ (lg $ ~'Zs~3 (t3 & (~?'~'1
Young ~amr:Zies :~i,~t:• chy.S3raa.. • - . ~L'-{ { 1 C1~ (l S"i.. ~ 48
Y1. Which camsaercial areas. iir the city da you. :ee? ara- za need of
rEdEVeZop~eat?. LC:~er.3c the• areas on the map.) -
~9' 6Z
66th: S.t
76tiz St
1494
~ i~
~ - ~ ~
24. I haye• Lived. ia: Ri chf i e3d : - / -
Less than 5 yearsr (~~ (, S to 20 years (2~Z-i ,
rt over 2Q yearn (33~'~(. ZZ
~:.-_: ~ Hy age is. uncle=' 3~ -IZ , fram ~ ta. 39- (I.32~, fram•: 4Q to 4~ i to~(r
~
~ ' '
` -
•
from. 54~ t~ 5? (~3~' ~.> frame: 5a ta~ 64' ~t~• (,. L(..
70 or over (Cc '
~`}
25~ Please" check-- ALL:.. those` Which describe your. househol:.d stn tus~ •~
. ...: .. _ F , .., .. .
L have:~chiSdre:r.~under. IQ' years: o2d..
(.tyrt (' -_
_ SZ~
Z havex children, fro~~ ~It3.. to-- Z0 years oId~ ~ 41_~ ( ~~g }
/ Mp~ childrerz: are~ naw aduT ts~,. and.. have- moved`. away. (Zg~ ( . ~"1 Z.
I do~ nct;. have nay chiTdren.~ ~ t C'3 ~
r.. 5~~4;
.. .. ..
... ;_
. ..
_ _
. _
- ., _
... \
n
_
^ 2?~ r amr a~ sd~tgi~ female` (4 t ~'.~ ~ , ~a single malef (~ 3 (,.: y
a mari~erl female (~~t ~ ~ ,, a. mar=ied. male
- ~ (3 0~ (~ -: 'T,~ _.
-
__
^
.
_ ZS. L: Isve in aa: apartment:
( ~~ ~.,, ~~ a single: famiSy Name or duple,. (~;~ (~.. ~.Z
~- ~: 29'.~ L Live: (~1~_ast: c~.Fort3and;. ~,venue_ - -
" L(2~: fa: ~e•~~ars~ from. Pcrtlaad ta. I:-sterstate 'SW~ _
- - .~:_ .
~. ~~ west of Ixst~erstat~ 35W.. _
2~..
•
I~~
~~~ ~ - ..
• 1 ~ T • ~ ~
The Demck Companies b50 She and ower Minnec~pol~s, Mh 5542b b12 `54b-227b
13 May .1985
Mx. John Cartwright, Citg Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Subject: Woodlake Point
Dear John:
At a recent-meeting you asked me to outline the differences 3etwesn
Woodlake Point and Lakeshore in specified areas. As you recall, the
lessons learned at Lakeshore assisted us greatly in improving the
design of Woodlake Point. To this end, we made several :codifications
to our Woodlake Point plan which have improved. tha-px~!d3.tct
substantially. The modifications include:
1. A Large community area from 850 s.f. at Lakeshare. ~~a .3.,80C+
s.f. at Woodlake Point. This space will allow ~c1r~ serior•
programming and more: activi-ties on a regular basiti. the hope
it will allow us to have the arLnual i~oaeowner's ~.ssr>.^iat'.on
meeting aC Woodlake Point.
2. We created a larger workshop area. We learned from the
Lakeshore the need. for larger more sophisticated, tGOl-type
activities. We have also provided additional storage in ,~hc
workshop.
3. At Lakeshore the theraputic whirlpool baths are separate.
Because theq are separate, the use is somewrxar_ limited,
After reviewing the situation, we decided that a larger,
eight-person theraputic whirlpool bath was more useable and
more conducive to use by the future homeowners. ~!ur
theraputic whirlpool bath is an eight-person, jaccu2zi type.
bath.
4. We have improved the security management area by separating
the two functions. Security management is out. of one
functional area and management out of a second functional
area. Although this required additional space, it allows a
manager°to work closely with the individual homeowners
without being interrupted to let people in.
5. The security panel system has been improved to provide a
better security arrangement and closer control by the
individual homeowners.
IC- ~-
Mr. John Cartwright
13 May 1985
Page 2
6. As you know, we have garages which are immediately below the.
units and are heated.- This provides for easier access and
shorter walks by the homeowners.
7. The housing. unit heat controls have been placed in such a
way to allow more convenient access by the homeowners..
8. The windows are slider windows with special handles, versus
the full window on Lakeshore. Although a little more
costly, it will allow the senior homeowner easier operation
of the windows. Also, the patio .doors have been improved to
allow better ventilation, even during inclement weather.
9. The door handle system has been modified for easier control
by the senior homeowner.
C
20. After lengthy study, we have decided to use a combination of
central air and individual cooling units, rather-than a
_ total central air conditioning system.- This approach will
_, provide complete cooling of the hallway system and public
areas by central air conditioning, and will allow for
individually controlled cooling systems in each unit. This
is diffe-rent than Lakeshore. They have no air conditioning
of the hallway system. As you know, elderly have different
cooling-and heating. needs. The system we will be using..
allows the individual homeo~w-ner the freedom to select and
control the temperature in their unit. In addition, the
individual cooling units at Woodlake Point will. provide a
more productive, energy saving and ease of operation system
to the individual homeowner.
11. All of the units at Waodlake Point have balconies. There
are a number of units at Lakeshore that do not have
balconies or patios.
As you can see, we are providing a good product which is substantially.
improved, because of the experience at Lakeshore Drive.
We have retained the. services of an excellent housing manager and
sales team and have. most of the problems resolved that are associated
with the normal construction process. We are expecting to have the
building done in January of 1986 with expected occupancy in late fal 1
of 1985. I want to stress how important the early occupancy (late
fall 1985) is and how it will take everyone's effort and good. faith
to accomplish this early occupancy.
•
2
/e- 3
Mx. John Cartwright
13 May 1985
Page 3
Again, I wish to stress the importance of` working together to
accomplish. a strong product. and to assure that: the. marketing effort
proceeds in its current productive fashion. Contrary to some beliefs,
we have a better product, and it is imperative .that all members of the.
team work together to promote this product -in its best light.
Detrimental comments which are unfounded only serve to limit our
marketing effort,. and therefore, reduce successful aspects of this
development.
I hope this helps. clarify some areas. Should you have any questions
and should you or the. Council hear of any negative comments relative
to this product, I would cer ainly appreciate hearing about them
immediately..
n erely,.
Richard C. Brier, AZCP
Vice-President
Derrick Companies
RCR:clb
3
•
,'.
PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
r
WITHOUT NOTICE
WOODLAKE POINT
' 738 West 66th Street 1 ~„~, ~„
Pre-Construction Price /
4--24-$5 *Est. Annual
Homestead **Est. Monthly .
Name and Size Floors Price Taxes Association Fee
Ash (2 Br.) 2-4 $ 94,900 $ 1,400 $ 206.62
Ash (2 Br.) 5-7 97,100 1,467 206..62
Ash (2 Br.} 8-10 99,300 1,533 206.62
Ash (2 Br.) lI 100,400 1,567 206.62
Balsam (1 + Den} 2-4 84,600.: 1,090 184.00
Balsam (1 + Den) 5-7 86,80D 1,156 184.00
Balsam (I + Den) 8-10 $9,000 1,222 184.00
Balsam. (i + Den) 1I 90,100 1,256 184.00
Hawthorn (2 Br.) 2-4 ~ 98,700 1.,517 215..58
Hawthorn (2 Br.) 5-7 100,900 ~ 1,583 215.58
Hawthorn (2 Br.) 8-10 103,100 1,648 215.58
Hawthorn (2 Br.) 11 104,200 1,683 215.58
Hawthorn (2 Br.) I2 105,300 1,717 215.58 '
Juniper (1 Br.} I-4 59,100 489 118.90
Juniper (1 Br.) 5-7 61,300 507 118.90
Juniper (1 Br.) 8-10 63,500 526 118.90
Juniper (I Br.) 11 b4,600 536 118.90
Juniper {1 Br.) 12 65,700 546. 118.90
Linden (1 Br.) 1-4 73,600 761 153.15
Linden (1 Br.) 5-7 75,800 827 153.15
Linden (1 Br.) . 8-10 78,.000 893 153.15
T{nden (1 Br.) 11 79,100 ~ '927 153.15
.rel (1 + Den) 1-4 81,900 1,012 178.35
Laurel {I + Den) 5-7 84,100 1,078 178.35
Laurel (1 + Den) 8-10 86,300 1,144 178.35
Laurel (1 + Den) 11 87,400 1,178 178.35
Tamarack (1 + Den) 2-4 85,600 1,122 192.09
Tamarack (1 + Den) 5-7 87,800 1,188 - 192.09
Tamarack (1 + Den) 8-IO 90,000 1,253 192.09
Tamarack (i + Den.) 11 91,100 1,288 192.09
Tamarack (1 + Den) L2 92,200 1,322 192.09
Spruce (I Br.) 2-4 69,600 b39 144.44
Spruce (1 Br.) 5-7 71,800 705 144.44
Spruce (1 Br.) 8-10 74,000 770 144.44
Spruce (1 Br.) I1 75,500 817 144.44
Cedar (1 + Deri) 1-4 87,400 1,175 190.24
Cedar (1 + Den) 5-7 A9,600 1,241 190.24
Cedar (1 + Den} 8-10 91,800 1.307 190.24
Cedar (1 + Den) 1T 92,900 1,341- 190.24.
Maple (1 Br.) 1-4 75,500. 817 164.32
Maple (1 Br.) 5-7 77,700 883 164.32
Maple (1 Br.) $-10 79,900 949 164.32
Maple .(1 Br.) 11 81,000 984 164.32
Cottonwood (2 + Den) 12 147,200 2,978 290.43
Pine (1 + ben) 12 101,800 1,611 190.26
Poplar (2 + Den) 12 141,900 2,822 279.71
Willow (2 + Den) 12 160,100 3,370 311.87
-ust (1 Br. ) I :-~5g~ 6~Q. 639 144 , 53
_losed Heated Garage .Stall 5,500 45 35.09
* - Estimated Taxes based on 112.402 mill rate
** - Estimated monthly association fee based on estimated annual budget of $383,000
The above price includes: Range, range hood and light, refrigerator, carpeting, vinyl in bath,
kitchen and storage, .wall. air-conditioner(s), garbage disposal.
•
•
D
JOHN CARTWR.LGMT _
'~ ~ CITY, MANAGER
/, =~
'.:SENIOR CITIZEN & HANDICAPPED COMMISSION
AGENDA
_ ~s
.. 1
MAY 9, 1985
I. MINIITES_. _ .
IT. COUNCLLFEBSON:MICHAEL SANDAHL.
III. CHARTER/BY-LAWS
IV. HRA MEETING
V. BROCHIIRE
VI. FOSTAL SITE.- SNYDER'S
PHOTOS-WILL~BE TAREN AT THIS SESSION.
-WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE ARRIVE AT 4:00!
.CONTACT LIL IF YOU CANNOT MARE IT.
.~
SENIOR CITIZEN & HANDICAPPED COMMISSION
APRIL.11, 1985
MINUTES
~ D-=-
MEMBERS PRESENT: CHELL,DQBIS, FLANDERS, GRAVES,. HAMMER, RUSK, TARRAS,
TJORNHQM, CARLSON.~
MEMBERS ABSENT: PRIEBE
STAFF: HIPP -
I. THE MINUTES. WERE APPROVED AS READ.
II. HOUSING
DUE TO NOT BEING ABLE TO .MEET-WITH THE HRA IN~MARCH, THE COMMISSION
IS RESCHEDULED FnR MONDAY, MAY 20, 1985 AT.7:OO P.. M. THE COMMISSION
.WILL BE FIRST ON THE AGENDA.
.MEMBERS EXPRESSED FRUSTRATIQN REGARDING THE RICHFIELD HOUSIN~
SITUATION. THE INFORMATIONAL PROCESS WHICH HAS OCCURED OVER THE
PAST 3 TO 4 MONTHS WAS.REVIEWED. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE
REGARDING BETTER COMMUNICATION/INFORMATIONAL SYSTEMS BEING ESTAB-
~: LISHED BETWEEN.THE COUNCIL, CITY STAFF AND THE COMMISSION..
THEY ARE:
1) REQUESTING COUNCIL AND. STAFF BE CURRENT ON PROVIDING IN-
FORMATION TO THE COMMISSION. INFORMATION ON LEGION LAKE AND
THE HOUSING QUESTION WAS RECEIVED TOO LATE. THE COMMISSION
WAS NEVER INFORMED IN THE CHANGE OF RICHFIELD'S HOUSING
STATUS TO NUMBER 1 PRIORITY FOR SECTION 8 AND SECTION 202.
THEREFORE,. THE COMMISSION. WAS NOT ABLE TO RESPOND REGARDING
THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. ~ .
2) APPOINT COMMISSION MEMBERS TO BE INFORMED ABOUT/M.EET WITH
OTHER COMMISSIONS ON.PERTINENT CONCERNS.
-'; 3) A QUARTERLY OR ANNUAL MEETING TO BE HELD WITH ALL CHAIR
~~`-~~'~ PERSONS OF COMMISSIONS. THE PURPOSE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE COM
MUNICATION AND POTENTIAL COORDINATION OF COMMISSION ACTIONS
AND ACTIVITIES.
~ ~ ~ ~~.~
III. BROCHURE
A BROCHURE IS NEEDED FOR THE. COMMISSION. TARRAS, CARLSON AND HIPP
-.AGREED TO MEET; ON: THURSDAY, APRIL-18th, AT 3:00 TO DESIGN AN INFORM-
ATIONAL.-BROCHURE ABOUT THE. COMMISSION.
IV. CHARTER
-DUE TO THE IMMEDIACY OF HOUSING AT LEGION LAKE AND FOLLOW-UP IN-
FORMATION; THE CHARTER•COMMISSION NEVER MET. A DATE OF TUESDAY,.
APRIL 16 AT'3:40 WAS`SET FOR TARRAS, FLANDERS, HAMMER AND HIPP TO
MEET. '~IT WAS RECOMMENDED .THAfi BY-LAWS ALSO BE DRAWN. UP FOR .THE
COMMISSION. . - _- .
V. FOSTAL_SITE~&-STAMP DISTRIBDTION
CAROLYN DOBIS.REPORTED THAT SHE SPOKE .WITH KINSMORE.DRUG STORE.
THEY HAVE BEEN APPROACHED BEFORE :AND .ARE NOT INTERESTED IN BEING A
POSTAL SI'~iE-DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS. SNi'DER DRUG STORE AT XERXES
& 66th STREET_ARE INVEST2GATING THE POSSIBILITY. THEIR DISTRICT
MANAGER WILL BE CALLING DOBIS-.. ••
HIPP INFORMS'D THE COMMISSION THAT THE POST. OFFICE HAS A SERVICE
( WHEREBY PEOPLE CAN-ORDER STAMPS THROUGH THE MAIL. THE ORDER BLANKS/
ENVELOPES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE FRONT-DESK AT THE. CENTER.
VI. RESCHEDQLING SURVEY •
THE SURVEY OF NEEDS/SERVICES FOR'IND'IVIDUALS OVER THE. AGE OF
" 55 AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IS BEING P05TPONED UNTIL THE
FALL. :. _
.. - .. .
_ :_ .. .
VII. METRO MOBILITY
HIPP INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT METRO MOBILITY IS FACING BUD-
GET CUTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS-FOR RESTRUCTURING THE SERVICE. THIS.
COULD. POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE CITY, DUE TO TWO FACT~RS: ~-•
l) SOCIAL SERVICES FINANCIALLY FUND PART OF THE COST OF EACH
TRIP TO.THEIR FACILITY. THIS COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT.THE
CENTER.
2) THE CENTER IS RECEIVING A 16(b)2 VEHICLE. THERE IS A SMALL
CHANCE THAT THE CITY BE REQUIRED TO UTILIZE THIS VEHICLE OUTSIDE
t""` THE CITY IN PROVIDING GENERAL TRANSPORTATION.
THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THIS INFORMATION BE FORWARDED TO
CITY STAFF.
3.
r -~ .
~.
VIII. VICE CHAIR .~
IN DEVELOPING CONTINUITY AND EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE COMMISSION, A
SITION NEEDS TO BE.:APPOINTED AND FILLED.. THIS. FOSL-
VICE CHAIR PO
TION WOULD WORK WITH THE CURRENT CHAIRPERSON IN UNDERSTANDING THE
FUNCTIONING AND DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION. SHE/HE WOULD .THEN BE
ACTING CHAIR THE FOLLOWING YEAR. MEMBERS NEED TO ADDRESS THE AP-
POINTMENT OF SUCH A PERSON.
IX : OTHER: _
A. LIL BROUGHT FOUR ITEMS TO THE~COMMISSION:
1) THE VOLUNTEER fiEA IS MAY 22nd AT i:00. MEMBERS ARE INVITED
TO COME. HAMMER COMMENTED ON THE EXCELLENT PROGRAM LAST YEAR AND .
ENCOURAGED MEMBERS.TO ATTEND. IT IS~AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COM-
MISSIQN TO BE VISIBLE TO ITS CONSTITUENTS.
2) GERTRUDE~ULRIC~i, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, CANNOT ATTEND A COM-
MISSION MEETING ON OUR SCHEDULED DATES. SPEAKING ON HOUSING,
THE COMMISSION. DESIRES MS tJZRICH TO ATTEND..AND.AGREES TO CHANGE
A MEETING TIME IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE THE,SITUAT,ION. HIPP WILL
ARRANGE_.THIS.
3) THE PANCAKE BREAKFAST IS APRIL 21st. VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED
TO HELP.. FLANDERS.AND.TARRAS OFFERED TO ATTEND. HIPP ENCOURAGED
.EVERYONE TO COME ANI7 EAT .
.. 4) HIPP ANNOUNCED AN EDUCATIONAL-DAY OUT TRIP CALLED "WHERE TO
LIVE?". SCHEDULED. FOR JUNE 8th AT A COST OF $4.OO,,ITS PURPOSE
IS TO INFORM PEOPLE REGARDING DIFFERENCES OF .COSTS/SERVICES OF
COOPERATIVESr CONDOMINIUMS AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES. SHE EN-
COURAGED COMMISSION MEMBERS TO ATTEND.
B. OPEN HOUSE
THE OPEN HOUSE AT CITY HP,LL WILL BE JUNE 23,1985. THE COMMISSION
PARTICIPATED LAST YEAR AND DECIDED TO BE INVOLVED~AGAIN IN 1985.
C, ALTERNATE CARE GRANT
FLANDERS BROUGHT INFORMATION REGARDING THE PRE-ADMISSION SCREEN-
ING FOR NURSING HOMES AND THE ALTERNATIVE CARE GRANT. FUNDING
IS BEING CUT FOR THIS PROGRAM AND THERE IS CONCERN REGARDING
HOME CARE SERVICES BEING-.PROVIDED TO OLDER PEOPLE WHO NEED THE
__.~~ SEE ATTACHED .
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:00 P.M. THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING IS
MAY 9th. MAY 20th IS THE SCHEDULED COMMISSION/HRA MEETING.
Minnesota ~ Metros
7th and Robert Apri 1 25, 19$5 ..~ _...~
Board on Ag~nq sLPaul,M~mesota 55101
6fZ1296-2T10
T0: .Interested. Persons:.
FROM: Leonard F. Ramberg ~
Chair _ ~ ~~...~.#"~`"" `~'"''~ _ _ ... ~:..._
. ff
- ; . .. ~' ~LEGISLATIYE ALERT
Background _ ~ ~ ~: j _ _ _.,..'
The Pre.-admission Screening and Alternative .Grant Prograr~ (PAS/ACG) is
Minnesota's major=home. care program^for.low income. elderly who are at
•.risk of ,nursing home ;,placement. ~ _ _ . ._ , _ ...
_ .L°As a'result of your Whelp following: your. ~l~ast alert~,~ the "180-day .eligible
population" wit continue -to -qualify .for the alternative care grant program.
The Governor's Budget .includes a'funding increase of $20 million for PAS/ACG
program over the~next biennium ($9~mil ion in FYT86 and $11 million in FY'87)
to meet the cost... of screening and a1_ternative care services.
Problem ~. .. -
The House Appropriations Commttee,'Human"Services Division, has cut the
recommended increase'~in half, increasing the program by only $9.8 million.
over the next biennium ($3.9 miITfon n FY'86 and:$5.9 mil ion in FY'87).
_ ..
Impact .
If only half of the Governor's Budgetrequest'is'appropriated, the Depart-
~~ ment of Human Services estimates that approximately 5,000 older person s
will not.be able to get home care services on the ACG ,program.. The. PAS/ACG
. program is targeted_to those `who are "at risk of institutionalization".
We assume that the majority of those not being served by the ACG program
because of reduced appropriations will be placed in nursing homes. It is
estimated hat this will cost the state $S million more than had these
same persons received care on the ACG program.
r-
Some legislators argue that by increasing the money for the PASIACG program
they are supplanting the care families are currently providing.for their
elderly relatives. However,. many studies have shown that families continue
to provide care to their severely impaired members as long as they have the
resources to do so. The PAS/ACG program manages the state's resources to
older persons. and their families through screening and case management
services- while at the same time. maximizing the family's resources to care
for their frail elderly through supportive services such as respite care,
homemaker and.. home health aide,.
/,
1. Attend the House Appropriations Committee meeting which will vote on
the funding level for PASIACG program. This meeting will probably be
on Monday,. April 28 or Tuesday, April 29. For further information _
. contact Representative Forsythe at 296-4363..
- . ~ _ . «:- ,w.. .- -. _.- ~, _j.. -- --
2. Call or write the members before'the~House~Appropriatians Committee
meets encouraging them to increase the-funding 'for -the`-PAS/ACG program
,by the $2O million for the next two years as recommended by the Governor..
j`t~Address your letters o-"Representative - - ~ ~`-State Office Building,
._ .
,.. St. Paul,'MN 55155). - ~ .. :. __; ~..;; ~: .
'Forsythe=R, Chair X296-4363 Jennings,l-D - 296-0518
_
~frerichs-R,'Vice Chair '4378- Johnson-R ~ 1069
Anderson , R-R. ~ ~ :4946 Kahn-0 :. 4257
Battaglia-D 2190 Ka1is-0
-
- 4240
Becklin-R 5364 Metzen-D 4370
Bishop-R 0573 Miller-R~ 5065
Boerboom-R 5374 ~ Munger-D 4282.
Boo-R 2228: ~ Murphy-D- 2676
Carlson, D-R 4348 Piepho-R 3248_
. Carlson, J-R 5515 Poppenhagen-R - 5387
Carlson, L-D 4255 Rice-D 4262 -
Cohen-D 5931 Rose-R
'~ 4342
' Den4uden-R :~~ .. ~~ --4346 ~
Sarr+a-p -4219
. - Ellingson-D = 3709 Schoenfeld-D 8635
' " Erickson-R - ~ ~ - - '4336 - ~~ Seaberg-R .: 3533
Fjoslien-R ~_° ;:_ .; -;`~ - 4317 - _ Stanius-R ~ 5363
Greenfield=Q . ° ~ _,_ - - 0173 -Staten-D. - 8659
Naukoos-R 8216 ` Valan-R 6829
- - Wynia-D 3824
- Zaffke-R 2451
3. Contact your own R epresentative and Senator (call House Information-
296-2146 for information on your legislators). - ,
*Note; Your contacts are effective even if they are after the meeting
of the Appropriatic,ns Committee_ -~
•
,-~
,.,~,~ -
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 20
Agenda May 20, 1985
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Meeting with Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Commission
Dear Commissioners:
~/
The Senior Citizens/Handicapped Commission has been invited
to the HRA meeting scheduled for May 20th. The purpose of the
meeting is to discuss items of mutual concern regarding housing
for citizens with which this group is concerned. Originally
this meeting was scheduled for March, but the press of other
issues did not permit a discussion to take place.
The objectives of this joint meeting include:
1. To improve communications between the two
organizations;
2. To help keep each organization informed on the
activities, studies and projects of mutual
interest;
3. To jointly receive the presentation of "A Local
Strategy on Aging: Richfeld's Opportunities" by
Humphrey Institute graduate students under the
direction of Mrs. Barbara Lukerman;
4. To jointly review the 198/85 community survey
results; and,
5. To consider an annual or semi-annual continuance of
joint meetings between the HRA and the Senior
Citizens/Handicapped Commission.
Attached as a part of your backup, are the minutes from the
April 11, 1985, Senior Citizen/Handicapped Commission meeting
'which reports an the frustrations of. the SCHC not being involved
in the communication/informational housing issues.
Respectf y submitted,
John G. Cartwr ght
City Manager