03-14-88 agenda?//
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. &1
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of appointments to the Human Rights Commission and
the Sister City International Committee.
Background:
Vacancies currently exist on the Human Rights Commission and the
Sister City International Committee, due to recent resignations.
The city council interviewed applicants for these commissions on
March 7, 1988, and copies of their applications are attached.
Recommended Motion:
Appoint a member to the Human Rights Commission to complete the
three year term which expires January 31, 1989; appoint one
member to the Sister City International Committee for a term
which will expire January 31, 1989; and one member to the Sister
City International Committee for a term which will expire January
31, 1991.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The commission vacancies should be filled to ensure quorums
at commission meetings.
2. The applicants have indicated a desire to be appointed.
3. The City Council has had an opportunity to interview the
applicants.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer appointments to one or both of the commission and
request that the vacancies be readvertised.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the March 14, 1988 city council
agenda for council consideration.
Respe fully submitted,
D. Prosser
Ja
lm/'
City anager
Manager
JDP/eja
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 80
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Concept of
Minneapolis-St. Paul Hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics
Background'
The Secretary General of the United States Olympic Committee has
initiated an inquiry to determine whether the cities of
Minneapolis-St. Paul would be interested in hosting the 1996
Summer Olympics.
Hosting of the 1996 Summer Olympics would bring significant
revenues to the metropolitan area, as well as international
recognition.
The Mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul have requested that
metropolitan suburban communities adopt a resolution expressing
support for the concept of hosting the Summer Olympic Games in
1996.
A resolution supporting this concept has been prepared and is
attached.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the resolution supporting the concept of Minneapolis-St.
Paul hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield supports the concept of Minneapolis -
St. Paul hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not support the concept.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Resolutions in support of this concept must be forwarded by March
23. Therefore, this item is placed on the March 14, 1988 city
council agenda for council consideration.
Respect lly submitted,
Jam Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT OF MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL HOSTING
THE 1996 SUMMER OLYMPICS
WHEREAS, the Secretary General of the United States Olympic
Committee has initiated an inquiry to determine whether the
cities of Minneapolis-Saint Paul are interested in hosting the
1996 Summer Olympics; and
WHEREAS, the mayors of Minneapolis-St. Paul have asked area
municipalities for their general support to the concept of
hosting the 1996 Summer Olympic Games; and
WHEREAS, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area enjoys a
temperate summer climate well suited to international athletic
competitions and now possesses numerous excellent athletic
facilities suitable as Olympic venues, and
WHEREAS, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area has the
capacity to provide the necessary accommodations to support
visiting athletes and spectators; and
WHEREAS, the 1996 Summer Olympic Games would bring
significant revenues to the Minneapolis-St. Paul. Metro Area as
well as extensive international recognition, without expending
taxpayer funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, hereby express to the Mayors of Minneapolis and St.
Paul its firm support for the concept of hosting the Summer
Olympic Games in 1996.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 14th day of March, 1988 .
Steven J. Ouam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
0
CITY OF.RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 79
March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a Resolution to Schedule a Public Hearing for the
Purpose of Specially Assessing the Costs of Current Services
Provided Within the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet Project Area.
Background:
Based upon the direction given staff at the March 7, 1988 Council
Study Session, staff is requesting council set a public hearing
date.
The extensive landscaping in the ILN East Side area calls for
planting trees, shrubs and sod; installation of an irrigation
system and sidewalk installation. Once the contractor's
responsibility ends, the city becomes responsible for the
maintenance of this improvement.
The use of special assessments for maintenance has been reported
and discussed on many occasions over the last several years.
From the initial investigations of financing options available,
through the planning and implementation documentation, special
assessments for maintenance have been included as part of the
funding package.
The Public hearing will provide an opportunity to discuss the
boundaries of the proposed assessment area, and the level of
service to be provided.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution setting a public hearing on this
matter for April 11, 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A pubic hearing is required by State law for special
assessments.
2. The hearing will provide an opportunity for affected
residents to speak.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
A decision regarding the establishment of a special assessment
can be delayed, but a hearing should be scheduled at this time in
order to meet legal notification requirements.
Resp ully submitted
Jam D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP/eja
•
41
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS
FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN
THE INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NICOLLET PROJECT AREA
AND TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield as follows:
1. That portion of the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet East
Side Improvement Project Area (the "District") east of Lyndale
and south of 77th Street is hereby established as a special
assessment district for the purposes of assessing for current
services provided by the city.
2. The following current services of the city are hereby
proposed to be undertaken by the city in the District with the
cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited
property within the District;
The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of
unsound trees from any street;
The repair of sidewalks;
The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public
amenities on or adjacent to street rights-of-way;
Trash and litter removal.
3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such
current services consists of each and every commercial and
multiple residential lot and parcel of land within the District.
It is proposed that the special assessments on the commercial
property be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of
assessable commercial property within the District assessed an
equal amount.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
publish notice of a hearing by this council at which the council
will consider the undertaking of such current services and the
levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such
notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least
once, at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. Such
hearing shall be held on Monday, April 11, 1988, commencing at
7:00 o'clock p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be
reached on the agenda.
5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the
aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 1988
through December 31, 1988. The estimated cost of providing all
is of the aforementioned current services during that period is
$7,000.00.
*- ?'j
• Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of March, 1988.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
7,7-f
•
PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
(Assuming $7,000 Maintenance Cost)
P.I.N. #
A 34-028-24-33-0001
A 34-028-24-33-0002
B 34-028-24-33-0003
C 34-028-24-33-0004
D 34-028-24-33-0005
E 34-028-24-33-0006
F 34-028-24-33-0007
G 34-02'8-24-33-0013
G 34-028-24-33-0079
H 34-028-24-33-0080
I 34-028-24-33-0073
PROPERTY
A Hampton Inn
B Miller Beauty Supply
CDE LaMettry's Body Shop
F' Brown Surveying/Ins. Bldg.
G Lampert Lumber
H Honda Dealership
I Vickers Station
Area
8,625
94,358
62,355
33,583
5,911
21,002
10,069
127,626
35,290
148,655
18.290
565,764
sq. feet
Cost @ .01237
1273.90
771.33
415.42
73.12
259.79
124.55
2,015.28
1,838.86
226.25
$6,998.50
PROPOSED
$1,273.90
771.33
748.33
124.55
2,015.28
1,838.86
226.25
.?edp,
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 78
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the Urban Hennepin County Year XIV Community
Development Block Grant Allocation.
Background:
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on
March 14, 1988 to determine Richfield's proposed use of its Year
XIV Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program allocation of $165,274. Requests for $186,780 of Year
XIV funds have been submitted.
Attached is information concerning Hennepin County's CDBG program
objectives and the projects which have been requested for CDBG
funding in Year XIV.
There is a 5.5% decrease in total funds allocated in Year XIV
from last year. The chart below indicates Year XIII allocation,
5.5% across the board cut, the re quested funds and re commended
allocation.
Amount Funded 5.5% Yea r XIV Recommended
• Activity. In Year XIII Reduction Req uested Allocation
1. Housing Rehab $ 73,940 $ 69,874 $ 68,000 $ 59,174
2. Scattered Site $ 70,000 $ 66,150 $ 65,000 $ 65,000
Acquisition
3. Energy 0 N/A $ 10,000 0
Improvement
4. Sliding Fee $ 20,000 $ 18,900 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Day Care
5. H.O.M.E. Program $ 10,000 $ 9,450 $ 13,780 $ 11,100
6. Redevelopment N/A $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Planning
$173,940 $165,274 $186,780 $165,274
Recommendation:
Approve the allocation of Year XIV CDBG funds in the following
manner:
1. Housing:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 59,174
b. Scattered Site Acquisition $ 65,000
2. Public Service: $ 41,100
a. H.O.M.E. $11,100
b. Day Care $20,000
i 3. Economic Development: $ 10,000
a. Redevelopment Planning
$165,274
•
The County's statement of objectives indicates that communities
should limit the number of projects to three and that a project
amount of $7,500 be used. To meet that objective staff
recommends the following:
1. The H.O.M.E. program and day care subsidy be combined into
one project entitled public services.
-The allocation of $11,100 to H.O.M.E. would be equivalent to
the amount Richfield allocated in Year XIII CDBG funds
($10,000) and 1987 social services funds ($1,100). The
amount would allow the H.O.M.E. program to serve
approximately 136 households. Even though there has been an
increase in funding for H.O.M.E. in Year XIII and Year XII,
the total number of households served in Richfield remained
pretty much the same.
-The day care subsidy of $20,000 has served 6 to 8 families
and a total number of 9 to 14 children per year. Currently,
there are approximately 26 Richfield families on GMDCA's
waiting list for child care assistance who cannot be assisted
because of the lack of funds.
2. The housing rehabilitation and scattered site acquisition be
combined into one project entitled housing improvement.
-The $65,000 allocated should be the minimum required to
complete a site through the Vo-Tech program. This amount is
necessary to acquire a blighted property, relocate owners
and/or tenants, clear the site, acquire a dwelling to move on
to the site for renovation by Vo-Tech students and for
administrative costs.
-The $59,174 allocation for housing rehabilitation would allow
10 homes to be rehabilitated at an average loan of $5,200 and
the remaining amount would be used for administrative costs.
-The housing rehabilitation project has received preliminary
approval of $65,000 from the 1988 CDBG discretionary account
which included a $10,000 fund for the energy program. This
allocation is in addition to the regular Year XIII CDBG
allocation. (Each year the municipalities compete for
discretion funding allocation.). As a result staff is
recommending a substantial reduction in the housing
rehabilitation allocation from CDBG Year XIV funds and, also,
that the energy program not be included.
Thirty-eight households will be assisted by the housing
rehabilitation program with the discretionary funds in 1988
including energy improvements.
i 3. Redevelopment planning be entitled as economic development
project.
-71Y-', _
• -The allocation of $10,000 for redevelopment planning would be
used for Penn/66th redevelopment planning activities.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Change the amount of funds allocated into each project.
2. Fund other eligible projects which have not been identified
by staff.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 14,
1988. The deadline for submitting the Year XIV application to
Hennepin County is March 18, 1988. Therefore council action on
March 14, 1988 is necessary to meet this deadline.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Ci Manager
0
40
•
•
'T Fit FUNDING YEAR YIV
DfW HE'rII SPIN OOOKrY CMG PROGRAM
THIS SwrION KILL RB ouff m BY SPIN COUNrY
Project 8ligibility:
citation bon M in C =ty Date
Ent Status :
Status Environmental Review Specialist Date
Project Number:
Number
A. GENERAL INFOMATICH
1. Community:
2. Project Name:
Financial lJsnager
Richfield
Date
Housing Rehabilitation
3. Contact Person: Towhid Kati, 869-7521
2. FPO= DATA
1. Year ZIV Grant Aaquest S 68,820
2. Is this request to fund an existing V=Ject? =Yea/&9Wet $142.820 _rio
a. If res. please indicate CM year started =, Project Number 556
b. Total CMG funds programed/ailed since start of project:
?-? *Note, balance of funds already committed
51.162.059 / ; 1.078.065* to specific households.
HUD Loans/
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount S 74.000 $outbe HRA Local Revenues
(To what eocterd does project leverage sdditional public or private fUnda/firm
commitwa nt )
4. Location: Address Citywi& X
(Attach am. Committee May be making site visits).-
S. Description (See Attached Narrative)
Describe the project In as axh detail as possible. Provide a statement of
(1) oommunity need for project; (2) how project will address the need and
the anticipated results; and (3) what. if any, alternative funding saArces
have been considered for the V=Ject. (Attach additional shoots).
¢f- Y
6. Identify What national objective the project is addressing:
Needs of Low/Moderate Inoome
Elimination of Slum and Slut
Urgent amity used (asst be a do=ted public health/safety need)
7. Implementation
Identity the major project tasks to be performed during Imleaentation and
their timing:
Date
Teak rte ? n? ? r?
(See Attached Project Component Sheet)
8. 8«dget
Specify total project budget by major project oowamt (i.e., administration,
planning, omstnrtican. acquisition. direct grants. public service).
I Zze T 800V eR Cr Jam
? ? the= car; hrr? /C?-?±•r r ? ti_??
Rehabilitation-
-Deferred Loans _$53.938 - CDBG XIV
Section 312
Incentive Grants S 4.000 60.000 CDBG XIV/312 Loans
Administration-312
Snrpntivp Crantm L_4,nnn? 4.000 CDBG XIV/HRA
Administration-
nafPrrPA ,.nan ? 6_RR?? ,n0 CDBG XIV/HRA
Protect Sudget $ 68.820 t_74,004._
Total s 14?_R n
f
(ED 1/14M
hi
Project Component
Implementation Schedule
(Refer to Section 7 of Application)
3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30)
(1) Deferred Loan: Serve applicants on waiting list, advertise
for program applicants, as necessary, distribute
applications, review completed applications, verify income
and eligibility, inspect homes, receive bids, approve loans/
grants, notify contractors to proceed with work.
(2) Section 312 Incentive Grant: Initiate marketing, identify
households, identify required improvements, process grants
and loans, approve grants and loans, notify contractors
to proceed.
(3) Administration: Ongoing
4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31)
(1) Deferred Loan: Continue to approve loans/grants, notify
contractors to proceed with work, monitor and inspect
work being completed, make payments to contractors as
necessary.
(2) Section 312 Incentive Grant: Continue to identify
households, identify required improvements, process grants
and loans, approve grants and loans, notify contractors to
proceed.
(3) Administration: Ongoing
1st Quarter (January 1 to March 31)
(1), (2), (3) Ongoing
2nd Quarter (April 1 to June 30)
1. Deferred Loan: Inspect completed work, make payments to
contractors, file Deferred Loan/Grant Agreements, close
out files
(2) Section 312 Incentive Grant: Inspect completed work, close
out files.
(3) Administration: Ongoing
3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30)
(1), (2), (3) Ongoing
0
• 4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31)
(1) Deferred Loans: Inspect completed work, make payments to
contractors, file all remaining Deferred Loan/Grant
Agreements, close out all files.
(2) Section 312 Incentive Grants: Complete approval of all
grants and loans, notify contractors to proceed with work,
inspect completed work, close out all files
(3) Administration: Ongoing
•
0
Description (Refer to Section #5 of application; a discussion of
needs, results, and project components follows)
• The project has three components:
(1)-Deferred Loans for major system repair and improvement in
lower income owner occupied housing ($53,938).
(2)-Incentive grants that are combined with Section 312
Rehabilitation loan funds secured by lower income
households ($4,000 grants, $4,000 loan processing)
(3)-Deferred Loan/Incentive Grant Administration ($6,882)
(1) Deferred Loans
This component provides financial and technical assistance to low
income Richfield residents to make improvements to their homes.
These improvements include code compliance improvements,
accessibility improvements for the handicapped, and
weatherization improvements. The financial assistance comes in
the form of a deferred loan. The technical assistance is
provided by Richfield staff. Staff determines and defines
necessary improvements for bidding purposes by private
contractors.
The average age of the Richfield housing stock is 30 to 40 years
old, a transition age that requires a number of major
improvements to the home (i.e., furnace replacement, electrical
. update, roof replacement, improved insulation, and siding and
window update). Providing deferred loans to low income Richfield
residents allows homeowners to maintain their homes and improve
the general condition of Richfield's housing stock. Assistance
to elderly homeowners allows them to continue to live
independently in the community.
The demand for the deferred loan program reflects the needs of
lower income elderly and single parent households for these
improvements. There are over 1,800 lower income owner occupied
households which may be able to benefit from deferred loan
improvements. The project was last advertised in December, 1987
There has been a continual request for assistance. In the past,
residents have waited one to two years for funding. Nearly all
;•? (except for $3,036) Year XIII funds have been reserved or
committed. Discretionary CDBG funds are presently being sought
to cover Spring, 1988 home improvement requests and assist
applicants waiting for Year XIV funds not available until July,
1988. Advertising for Spring activities will start in February,
1988.
CDBG Yr. XIV funds would be targeted to lower income elderly and
families. The families are often single parent heads of
household, with children. The elderly are usually on fixed
incomes. The deferred loan project is the only way for lower
income persons to make major repairs and, thus, help maintain the
is housing stock, which of course, benefits the occupant and the
;&0"P
entire city. These households are unable to assume significant
monthly debt payments. The "deferred" nature of the assistance
removes the payment problem associated with the loan debt. The
"emergency loan" feature of the project continues to be useful to
ensure that lower income people can resolve what seems like
impossible situations for them: collapsed sewer lines,
deteriorated roofs during the spring rains, and unreliable
furnaces during the heating season. The "flood grant" feature
allows repairs to be made quickly to flood damaged homes so that
these are reoccupied quickly by the homeowner.
In early 1988, Hennepin County is (and the Richfield HRA is
anticipated to follow) increasing CDBG income limits to reflect
50% of area median income as determined by HUD.
In 1988, 50% of median income, according to HUD, is as follows:
Household Size
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Income Limit
$14,250
$16,300
$18,300
$20,350
$22,000
$23,600
$25,250
$26,850
It is anticipated that this increase in income limit requirements
will substantially increase the number of eligible applicants for
Deferred 'Loans.
Approximately ten home improvement deferred loans would be
provided with $53,938 in Yr. XIV CDBG Funds. An evaluation of
the last three years of CDBG project delivery suggests:
-The average household income for loan recipients=$10,230
-The average loan = $5,200
-Approximately 30% of loan proceeds directed to major
weatherization (furnace replacement, insulation)
-Approximately 20% of loan proceeds directed to roofing
?• replacement
-Approximately 19% of loan proceeds directed to exterior
maintenance (painting, siding replacement)
-Approximately 11% of loan proceeds directed to building
code items (plumbing, electrical problems)
The balance of rehabilitation funds improve a variety of problem
areas not as easily catagorized above.
1&10 (2) Incentive Grants
This component assists the Richfield HRA in implementing a HUD
Section 312 Rehabilitation program during 1988. In 1978, the
Richfield HRA utilized an "incentive grant" to promote
rehabilitation. At that time, eligible homeowners that provided
their own revenues for home improvements, could receive a CDBG
grant to complete additional improvements. The concept becomes
useful again in 1988 for the following reasons:
-HUD has Section 312 funds available to finance major home
improvements for moderate income households at reduced
interest rates. Total code compliance is required.
-The Richfield HRA has reserved $4,000 in CDBG Year XIII
funds to pay for loan processing administration (the loan
originating and closing process). An independent contractor,
at a cost of approximately $1,000 per loan, would provide
this service. HRA staff would market the program, inspect
dwellings, prepare scopes of work, assist homeowners in
securing bids and qualifying for the Section 312 loan.
-HUD has a targeting requirement that Richfield must meet
before initiating the program: Section 312 funds may be
used when CDBG funds for improvements are also being spent.
The HRA has requested $4,000 in CDBG discretionary funds to
• provide $1,000 grants during 1988 for four households that
qualify for the 312 program. As a result, additional home
improvement work would occur. Because HUD targeting requirements
were met, the Richfield HRA could participate in the Section 312
program. Section 312 funds must.be committed by September, 1988.
$4,000 in Yr. XIV CDBG Funds would be utilized to provide
incentive grants to facilitate 4 additional 312 loans in 1989,
prior to September, 1989. The budget also includes $4,000 of
CDBG XIV funds to cover loan processing/administration costs of
the independent contractor during 1989.
Those households with incomes less than 80% of the Twin City area
wide median, according to HUD, would be eligible for Section 312
improvement loans with an annual interest rate of 3%. These
households would also be eligible to receive the incentive grant.
The present income limits, according to HUD are:
HOUSEHOLD SIZE INCOME LIMIT
1 $22,700
2 $25,900
3 $29,150
4 $32,400
5 $34,450
6 $36,450
7 $38,500
8 $40,500
4jr- 1,4
The needs for home improvements are as discussed in the "deferred
loan" section. Additionally, with data available from Hennepin
County, Richfield staff has been able to identify census blocks
where more than 50% of the homeowners have incomes less than 80%
of the median income. Although Richfield does not have lower
income census tracts, there appears to be approximately 75 lower
income single family census blocks within these tracts.
Final approval for initiating the Section 312 program is pending
with the HUD Area Office. Utilizing incentive CDBG funds to
assist households will help to secure final authorization to
proceed. If HUD does not authorize the Section 312 program for
Richfield, the HRA would use the $8,000 ($4,000 grant, $4,000
loan administration) for deferred loans.
(3) Deferred Loan/Incentive Grant Administration
Approximately 10% ($6,882) of the program funds requested for
loans and grants ($68,820) is required to administer these
programs. Program marketing, determining qualified households,
inspections, and loan and grant processing, are the general task
areas that $6,882 in Yr. XIV CDBG funds covers. (This is matched
with approximately $10,000 in HRA revenues for general
administration). The HRA staff is in the process of reviewing
procedures and documents that will be utilized for the 312 and
Multifamily Incentive grant program. During 1988, in addition to
providing home improvement loans to homeowners, the deferred loan
• procedural guide will be reviewed and updated.
0
0
MES? FM FUNDING YEAR XrV
VFW HDOWIN COMM CMG PROGRAM
THIS SEMON WILL W OMffWM BY IEt4WIN COMM
Project Eligibility: _._. /
Citation liennrpin C LMty Date
ER Status: /
Status Bnvirmantal Review Specialist Date
Project Amber:
Amber Financial Manager Date
A. GENERAL IIPORMATION
1. COWL city: Richfield
• 2. Project Name. Scattered Site Acquisition
3. Contact Person: Towhid Kazi, 869-7521
B. PFD= DATA
1. Year ZIV Grant Request S 65.000
2. Is this request to Az d an WAsting project? _g.TW/Budaet 8148-000 -1b
a. It sea, please indicate CMG year started 7=, Project lumber 270
b. Total CM3 funds propramred/awwAed since start of project:
*Note, $10,000 balance has been committed to
...? = 797.591 / S 7R7_SS9 programs in progress
83,000* MHFA (;60,000, reduced interest mortgages)
3. lavetaged Fuids: Amount S SQir+0i0 HRA MR.000 dPfPrrPrJ ,nnrrga2.=admin.)
(To what extend does project leverage additicrAl public or private tlmds/firm
*per unit camitment)
4. Lxatian: Address citywide x
(Attach sap. C=ittee may be stating site visits). -
S. Description (See Attached Narrative)
Describe the project In as such detail as possible. Provide a statement of
(1) community need for project; (2) how project will address the need and
the anticipated results; and (3) what, if any, alternative 1lsdine sources
have been considered for the project. (Attach additional sheets).
n
•
.t•
6. Identify what national objective the project is addressing:
-_ Nesda of Low/Moderate Income
X Elimination of Slums and Blight
- UnMt ccmmaiity Need (ant be a doecsemted public health/safety need)
7. Implementation Schedule
Identity the major project tasks to be performed during inlemmtatim and
their timing:
Date
TaBk jManth/Y s.r)
-Identify and acquire rehabable structure
Advertise for Voluntary Acquisition of property, as necessary 7/88 to 9/88
-Identify site to acquire, negotiate sales price, acquire property 10/88 to 12/88
-Relocate tenants, clear property
-Initiate rehabilitation/construction project
-Rehabilitation/Construction underway
-Rehabilitation/Construction underway
Marketing plans initiated
a. Budget
1/89 to 3/89
4/89 to 6/89
7/89 to 9/89
10/89 to 12/89
SPecifY total project budget by major project component (i.e., administration,
planning. oonstructicn, acquisition. direct grants. public service).
IMr:RT 800Nz Ctr 12W
rawaeat ='
Acquisition and Site
nrenaratinn (Arn rol tSQ_SM
?.....------- - - ..?_oc??, ?_? rnnr_ von,- YTp
tion, demolition)
Administration
?6,500 X5_000 CDBG Year XIV/HRA Local revenues
construction/Sale --- 78,000 Proceeds of Sale/HRA-MHFA
•
Project Budget
Total
Mortgages
s 65,000 $_83
0
LO_
S 148.000
... CIPD 1/14/68
• #4 Description Section Narrative
Since 1975, when the Richfield HRA's New Home Program was
initiated, 41 single family units of housing have been
constructed or substantially rehabilitated. Additionally, 30
units.of housing for the developmentally disabled has recently
been developed. During 1988, two homes will be completed and
sold and two more units will be started, for sale in 1989. In
the process, fourteen "garage" or substandard homes have been
eliminated, seventeen vacant lots developed, and two units
received moderate rehabilitation. Revenues, approximating $1.8
million, primarily CDBG funds, have made these activities
possible.
The scattered site project provides Richfield and its Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) the opportunity to acquire vacant
land, sites containing substandard housing, sites with sound
housing, and sites with buildings which may be converted to
housing. The vacant land would be developed with housing.
Substandard housing would be rehabilitated or, when
rehabilitation is not practical, cleared to permit the
construction of housing. Substandard nonresidence structures
would be evaluated for conversion to residential use. If
rehabilitation and conversion were not feasible, the structure
would be removed and housing would be developed on the site.
Housing in sound condition would be maintained for continued use.
• The housing units made available by this project would be
utilized for rental or ownership to qualifying low and moderate
income persons.
HUD regulations for acquisition and relocation would be followed.
When appropriate, these sites will be acquired on a voluntary
sale basis to reduce relocation costs which otherwise must be
paid. Tenants are always provided benefits when a voluntary sale
occurs. Adequate relocation funds are available within the
project budget. Some instances require that an acquired
structure be rented temporarily to the owner occupant or tenant
occupant after acquisition but before vacating.
Between the time acquisition and relocation occurs and housing
development begins, funds are included in the project budget to
cover site clearance (removal of items such as structures,
driveways, walks, foundations, trees), site preparation (soil
correction such as grading, filling, compaction), and public
improvements (replacement and installation of public improvements
such as walks, curbs, drives, sewer and water connections) that
are related to the housing development.
After project completion, the HRA would rent or sell the housing
to qualifying low/moderate income persons. If rehabilitation or
new construction is to occur, the HRA could retain ownership or
• sell the property to a private or nonprofit developer. The
developer would become responsible for subsequent sale or rental.
The developer would cooperate with the Richfield HRA in choosing
low to moderate income persons utilizing Section 8 eligibility
• guidelines.
Another use of these funds is for the acquisition of single or
two family dwellings for rehabilitation and sale to low and
moderate income persons. This is done in conjunction with the
South Hennepin Vocational Technical Institute. Vo-Tech students
provide labor for this project, reducing the costs of the
improvements.
The greatest need in Richfield is for decent safe and sanitary
housing affordable to low and moderate income persons. The
average family with an income of $30,000 can't afford the average
Richfield ($78,000) home. Completed homes are sold using income
standards, as determined by HUD, of 80 percent of the area median
income. During 1988, those income limits are as follows:
Household Size Income Limit
3 $29,150
4 $32,400
5 $34,450
6 $36,450
The project will expand affordable housing opportunities and/or
maintain the existing housing stock for low and moderate income
. persons. The project makes long term improvements when
substandard housing is acquired and cleared (approximately 90-
"garage" type homes exist in Richfield), when vacant land
suitable for development is acquired, when buildings are acquired
and rehabilitated to create additional housing, and when new
housing is developed that increases the affordable stock of
housing in Richfield.
In 1988/89, with CDBG Year XIV funds, a scattered site project
will address the needs for acquiring one substandard home,
relocating the tenant if the house is occupied, and clearing the
property. An opportunity to develop more than one housing unit
from a single acquisition may also present itself. The property
acquired will be utilized to rehabilitate a relocated structure
or initiate new construction on the property. The home(s) will
be sold to a moderate income family. The cost to acquire a
rehable structure is also included in the budget.
Components of the project in the order they will occur during
implementation include ongoing administration, marketing,
appraisal, negotiations, acquisition, relocation, site clearance,
installation of public improvements specifically related to the
project, and initiation and completion of improvements. Specific
costs for each component are not specifically identified.
However, relocation activities often cost $5,000 to $6,000 when
the Voluntary Acquisition project is utilized (and only tenants
are reimbursed); acquisition costs approximately $40,000 to
. $45,000 for property with structures; acquisition costs
k, f- /J-
approximately $2,000 for rehabable structures; site clearance and
preparation costs approximately $5,000 to $6,000; and, public
improvements cost approximately $2,000. If scattered site
initiatives do not require all funds budgeted; the balance would
be transferred to the Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program.
The CDBG Year XIV request is for new activities. All previously
authorized funds, through CDBG Year XIII have been expended or
committed to projects underway. There are no other sources of
revenues available to initiate these projects and leverage the
additional resources identified in this funding request.
0
A" f /?
r
•
THIS SECTION WILL BB CCIE'LVED BY HMOWIN COM? Y
ROQUESP FOR MWING YEAR XIV
URBAN HDOWIN OOONTY CM3 PROGRAM
Project Eligibility: /
Citation Hennepin County Date
ER Status: /
Status
Date
Environmental Review Specialist
Project Number: /
Number Financial Manager Date
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Comity: Richfield
2. Project Name: Energy Improvement Grants
3. Contact Person: Towhid Kazi, 869-7521
B. PRa3= DATA
1. Year ZIV Grant Request $ 10.000
2. Is this request to fund an existing project? _Z.Yee/Budget : 65.000 _NO
a. If yes, please indicate CLOG year started x11 , Project Number 951
b. Total CDHG funds pits, - ed/exuded since start of project:
*Note, balance of funds presently being
= 15.000 / $ 5.000* committed to specific households
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount E 55,000 Sooroe MN DPS, NSP
(To what extend does project leverage additional public or private fonds/firm
commitment)
4. Location: Address Citywide
(Attach map. Committee may be mating site visits).'
5. Description (See Attached Narrative)
Describe the project in as such detail as possible. Provide a statement of
(1) community need for project; (2) how project will address the need and
the anticipated results; and (3) what, if any, alternative funding sources
have been considered for the project. (Attach additional sheets).
•
S. Identify what national obJective the protect is addressing:
Needs of Low/hoderate Income
Elimination of Slums and Bli ht
Urgent Community Need (mat be a docuaanted public health/safety need)
7. hlemetation Schedule
Identify the armor project tasks to be performed during Saplementation and
their ti.mim:
Date
Task ?,*?, nr.?.-?
Ongoing identification of clients, client qualifying
Completion of 24 house doctor services, and
inspection of completed work. 10/88 to 11/89
Project Close Out
12/89
a. Budget
Specify total project budget by wjor project o=Wment (i.e., administration,
planning, oonstncticn, acquisition, direct grants, public service).
11ML7RT sovtm or FMCS
?oe?L tai 00%^r CMM (yr)inter ti?tisw?
Housedoctor Grants $10,000 --- CDBG Year XIV
Marketing (Audit Service) --- 40,000 NSP
Energy Program Admin. --- 15,000 MN DPS
PtoJeat Budget
Total
•
$ 10.000 s 5
= 65,000
CED 1/14/88
0 House Doctor Grants
Since 1984, Richfield has delivered House Doctor weatherization
grants to low-income households. Housedoctoring is a low-cost,
short-payback method of weatherization which was developed at
Princeton University in the late 1970's and implemented by
Richfield as a pilot project for Minnegasco in 1984 and 1985.
Housedoctoring is based upon measuring buildings for air leakage,
using pressure gauges and a device known as a blower door. These
instruments also enable housedoctors to identify sources of
household air leakage and to seal these leaks. The objective of
housedoctoring is to make the houses airtight (measured in air
changes per hour, or Ach) yet within nationally-recognized safe
ventilation standards.
Richfield's House Doctor Program is only one component of a
comprehensive city energy program which uses funds from the
Minnesota Department of Public Service ($30,000 in 1988, $15,000
for 1989), Northern States Power (approximately $40,000 per
year), Minnegasco (labor and materials contributions through the
Minneapolis Energy Office), Community Development Block Grant
funds ($15,000 to date), and City funds ($25,600 in 1988).
Networking between the City of Richfield and other organizations,
including the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Natural Resources
Corporation, and South Hennepin Human Services, enables.Richfield
• residents to benefit from a complete range of energy assistance
services. These strategies provide Richfield residents with an
energy program that is both comprehensive and tailored to meet
the community's specific needs.
The foundation of the Richfield HRA's Energy Program is the
energy audit service. This features an enhanced version of the
Minnesota Department of Public. Service's Home Energy Checkup
(HEC). This audit, which includes instrumented tests of heating
system efficiency and household air leakage, allows City staff to
accurately determine the energy and weatherization needs of its
residents. (In 1987, Richfield's HEC audit received both national
and state recognition for its innovativeness, effectiveness, and
reusability.) The Energy Program's marketing, client outreach,
and intake systems enable staff to efficiently identify low-
income households that are in need of housedoctoring.
After completing more than 650 Home Energy Checkups,'City staff
have concluded that most Richfield houses possess air leakage
ratings above 10 air changes per hour (Ach). This is twice the
nationally-recognized standard for safe household ventilation (5
Ach). Field experience indicates that many Richfield houses are
one-and-one-half story bungalows with expansion attics. These
types of homes are notorious among weatherization experts for
possessing complicated air leakage problems. Houses with serious
• air leakage problems tend to waste energy and are cold, drafty,
and even unhealthy to the occupants. Furthermore, the leakage of
warm, moist air into attics can render insulation ineffective and
cause more serious problems, such as roof damage.
L
Richfield's Energy Program completes an average of 48 HEC audits
per month, during an eight-month (September to April) season.
Considering that at least one-half of these households possess
serious air leakage problems, and that one-half of these
households tend to be low-income (based on Energy Program data),
this translates to 96 newly-identified low-income households per
year that need housedoctoring. Richfield's House Doctor Project
would use an income standard, as determined by HUD, of-50 percent
of the area median for qualifying. During 1988, those income
limits are as follows:
Household Size
Income Limit
1
3
4
5
7
8
is
$14,250
$16,300
$18,300
$20,350
$22,000
$23,600
$25,250
$26,850
Further, the City is currently implementing a citywide infrared
photography project, which reveals the presence and location of
attic bypasses and other sources of household air leakage. City
staff participating in this project report that approximately
half the homes surveyed appear to posses serious bypass problems.
The continuation of the infrared project through 1988 and 1989
will produce more requests from households seeking assistance in
solving these problems.
The House Doctor Program is the only home improvement program
available to Richfield residents which directly addresses and
solves these air leakage problems. Program standards used in the
Richfield House Doctor Program include a 30% air change reduction
and an associated 15% annual fuel savings. Results like these,
and the low costs of the program ($420 per household, in
Richfield) are winning House Doctor programs growing support
among energy experts as perhaps the most reliable and cost-
effective means of decreasing home energy consumption and
increasing household comfort.
The Richfield House Doctor Program was originally funded by
Minnegasco, and 140 House Doctor visits were completed with
Minnegasco funding in 1984, 1985, and 1986. However, in 1987
Minnegasco decided to distribute its funding to communities that
have not received this benefit yet. The Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission, which oversees energy conservation
expenditures by public utilities in the state, approved this
approach and recommended that cities such as Richfield.rely
instead upon more traditional sources, such as CDBG funds, to
continue their programs.
In CDBG Year XII, Richfield administered 13 House Doctor ,jobs.
Approximately 24 House Doctor jobs will be completed with CDBG
Year XIII funds by September, 1988. For CDBG Year XIV,
F_0
•
k4k
Richfield proposes to administer 24 House Doctor
qualifying low income single-family residences.
efficient, and effective Richfield Energy Program
serve these households, pending approval of this
Grants to
A well-designed,
is prepared to
application.
0
-'F-, z /
J
THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY
Project Eligibility: /
Citation Hennepin County Date
RHQMT FOR FUNDING YEAR XIV
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CMG PROGRAM
ER Status: /
Status Environmental Review Specialist Date
Project Number: /
Number
Date
Financial Manager
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly
3. Contact Fersan: Don Hauae
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Year XIV Grant Request $130760
2. Is this request to fund an existing project? -?LYes/Budget $2ZL nn -140
a. If yes, please indicaite CMG year started VI . Project Number
b. Total CDBG funds programmed/expended since start of project:
$ 69,205 52,205
Council of Churches, Client fees,
3. Levefaged Funds: Amount *_2241000 Source Hennepin County, Private. Donations
(To what extend does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm
commitment)
4. Location: Address Richfield Citywide
(Attach map. Committee may be making site visits).'
5. Description
Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a atatemant of
(1) oommunity need for project; (2) how project will address the need and
the anticipated results; and (3) what, if any, alternative funding sources
have been considered for the project. (Attach additional sheets).
See Attachments A,B,C, & D
•
6. Identify what national objective the project is addressing:
X Needs of Low/Moderate Income
Elimination of Slums and Blight
Urgent Community Need (must be a documented public health/safety need)
7. Implementation Schedule
Identify the major project tasks to be performed during implementation and
their timing:
Date
•
Tgsk
On-going delivery of the following services:
Maintenance - includes minor repairs in the
areas of carpentry, plumbing, concrete,
electrical and painting; lawn mowing &
snow removal
Homemaking - includes window washing, floor
and kitchen cleaning, dusting, vacuuming.
8. Budget
110 Households July 1, 1988 to June 30,1989
35 Households July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989
Specify total project budget by major project oomponent (i.e., administration,
planning, constructiaa, acquisition, direct grants, public service).
BUDGET SOURCE OF FUNDS
rdamomt
Public Service
Project Budget
Total
60,000 Year XIII. Year XIV
24.000 Hennepin County
32,,000 Cminni 1 of rhiirrhac
200000 State of Minnesota
100,000 Program revenue
40.000 Annual fee/donations
$ 60.000 $2160000
276,000
CFD 1/14/88
Serving Bloomington,
Eden Prairie, Richfield
and Edina
ousehold & Uutside Maintenance for Elderly
February 12, 1988
Mr. Towhid Kazi
Acting City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Kazi:
H.O.M.E. formally requests a grant of $13,780 from Richfield's Year XIV
CDBG program to provide homemaking, seasonal and maintenance services to
approximately 140 low income senior households beginning July 1, 1988.
H.O.M.E. is a non-profit in-home service for seniors and disabled indi-
viduals living in Richfield, Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Edina. A wide
variety of basic household maintenance services are delivered by a skilled
• staff of carefully screened individuals. The cost of the service is based
on ability to pay. In 1987 H.O.M.E. provided service to 524 households in
the South Hennepin area.
A $13,780 allocation will enable H.O.M.E. to achieve the following goals
in Richfield in 1988: 1)continue provision of homemaking services following
a $25,000 funding loss from the Metropolitan Council, 2)provide for an
anticipated 10 percent increase in demand for H.O.M.E. service over 1987,
3) replace $1,100 of revenue formerly allocated to H.O.M.E. through
Richfield's Social Services Committee. A detailed analysis justifying
H.O.M.E.'s funding request is included in the proposal.
CDBG dollars have been very important in helping Richfield seniors live
independently and maintain their homes. The low income elderly, in par-
ticular, do not have the financial resources needed to hire the work done
they were once able to do themselves. On the other hand, many of these
homeowners prefer to stay in their homes. With affordable maintenance
assistance many of these elderly have the opportunity to remain in their
homes. Richfield's support of H.O.M.E. through CDBG funding is the major
support for keeping this housing alternative open to these low income
seniors.
0
VOW /z?
South Hennepin Human Services Council Creekside Center
9801 Penn Ave. So. Room 100 Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 888-5530
?7--1?v
Mr. Towhid Kazi
February 12, 1982
Page 2
0
The CDBG program has been effective in stimulating other private and
public funds to support this service to the community. The recipients
of the service, the community, the County and Title III funding are
helping to support the project. In 1987, less than 20% of the funding
needed to support H.O.M.E. came from CDBG funds.
We appreciate Richfield's past support of H.O.M.E. We will do all we
can to ensure that H.O.M.E. remains a vital service for Richfield's
senior population. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Don Hauge
H.O.M.E. Maintenance Coordinator
is
. A-%
0
Attachment A
Rationale for Funding
H.O.M.E.'s request for $13,780 in 1988 is unusually large. It is nearly
a 40% ($3,780) increase above our 1987 request. Three factors contribute
to this need for increased funds. They are the loss of a funding source,
a change in funding pattern and program growth.
The loss of the Metropolitan Council grant is the chief factor related
to H.O.M.E.'s need for additional funding. As of January 1, 1988 our
homemaking service will no longer receive a $25,000 grant from the
Metropolitan Council. (The Metropolitan Council revised its funding
priority in 1986, and as a result, no longer has funding allocated for
homemaking services.)
H.O.M.E. plans to make up for approximately two-thirds ($17,000) of this
loss through generating new funding sources. An annual fund was begun by
H.O.M.E. in the fall of 1987 to raise money from the community. (As of
January 1, 1988, $13,000 had been contributed.) In addition, H.O.M.E. is
applying for United Way and Discretionary CDBG funding. The success of
• these proposals is not known at this time.
H.O.M.E. is asking the four participating cities to increase their CDBG
allocation to raise the additional $8,000 ($25,000 minus $17,000) needed
to continue provision of homemaking services in 1988. Richfield's pro-
portionate share of this amount is 21% (the amount of homemaker services
received by Richfield in 1987) or $1,680.
We hope that by 1989 funds will be in place to fully replace the $25,000
6-.. Metropolitan Council grant loss and that this $1,680 will be a one-time
request.
Two additional factors contribute to H.O.M.E.'s request for an increase
in funding. In 1986 H.O.M.E. submitted a request for funding from the
Richfield Social Services Committee and was awarded a $1,100 grant.
Because of the great demand upon those funds by other community organi-
Rationale for Funding
Page 2
zations, it was suggested that H.O.M.E. limit its funding request to
Richfield's CDBG program. $1,100 of our requested increase is due to
this change in funding pattern.
The final factor bearing on the amount of our funding request is the
steady increase in demand for services from the elderly community.
Service levels in Richfield for 1987 by H.O.M.E. were 9% above the previous
year. We expect the demand for service to increase again in 1988. Not
only is the percentage of elderly as part of the total population in-
creasing, but H.O.M.E. continues to gain credibility among seniors as an
acceptable form of assistance. In January of 1988, for example, we had
18 new requests for homemaker services.
4"eO
If we are to meet this challenge and respond to the need for services,
H.O.M.E. needs additional financial support. To accommodate an expected
10% service increase in 1988, H.O.M.E. needs a proportionate increase in
CDBG funding. Based on 1987's allocation of $10,000 H.O.M.E. requests
an additional $1,000 of CDBG support for expansion of services to Richfield.
To summarize, H.O.M.E.'s $3,780 requested increase constitutes $1,680 to
alleviate the loss of the Metropolitan Council grant, $1,100 to compen-
sate for the Richfield Social Service Committee grant, and $1,000 to
expand services to Richfield by 10% in 1988.
We believe Richfield's investment of CDBG funds in H.O.M.E. has been a
,,,-t good investment. In 1987 Richfield provided $2.66 of CDBG support for
each unit of service delivered by H.O.M.E. H.O.M.E.'s cost to provide
a unit of direct service was $17.26. These figures show that CDBG dollars
have been very effective in leveraging other private and public funds to
pay for the project. In 1988 H.O.M.E. is asking for $3.42 of CDBG sup-
port per unit of service. We hope you will still consider this to be a
good investment of CDBG money. Thank you.
C]
Attachment B _?T_'Z 7
H. O. M. E.
(Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
• SUMMARY PARAGRAPH - The H.O.M.E. Program is a homemaker, maintenance
• , and
chore program designed as a cost effective alternative to long term care
for the elderly in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina and
Richfield. Disabled persons are also eligible for the services. The
project maintains a core staff of trained individuals *o assure prompt,
quality service. A skills bank component is also utilized. Clients are
asked to contribute according to their ability, bayed on a sliding scale.
TARGET POPULATION - Consumers of H. O. M.E. services are elderly residents,
age 60+, who live independently and who need some affordable in-home
services in order, to maintain their residence or property. The H. O. M. E.
Program serves those customers who need assistance but are not financially
capable of paying the full cost of service as well as those elderly
residents who are frail, vulnerable adults and not capable of contracting
with a private vendor.
SERVICES - The philosophy of the H. O. M. E. Program is to provide homemaker-,
maintenance, and. chore services in order to maximize indepencence for
elderly and avoid premature placement in nursing homes. Customers are
asked to contribute according to their ability, based on a sliding scale.
Homemaker services include: House cleaning, food: preparation, grocery
shopping, non-medical personal care, and laundry. Assessments are made
and services provided according to the specific needs of the customers for
type of service, time and frequency. Chore/home maintenance services
. include: snow removal, lawn care, installation of security features,
carpentry, minor plumbing, window washing, painting, weatherization, minor,
roof repair and other maintenance fobs needed to enable elderly residents
to remain in their own homes, as well as maintain their homes in an
acceptable manner.
STAFF - Home maintenance and homemaker services are provided by 7.5
(full-time equivalent) workers who are trained in the necessary skill
areas and techniques for working with older persons. Skills Bank Workers
(1.6 full-time equivalent) are also utilized to provide chore services.
All staff report to the Maintenance and Homemaker/Chore Coordinators,
respectively, who are responsible for the management and supervision of
H.O.M.E. Other staff and volunteers provide administrative and clerical
support.
FACILITY - Services are provided in the homes-of elderly residents of
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, and Richfield. The office for H. O.M. E.
is located at Creekside Community Center, 9301 Penn Avenue South, Roorn
#104 b 106, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55431.
PLACEMENT PROCEDURE - Clients gain access to the program either by a
referral from an area agency or by calling the H. 0. M. E. office and
requesting service.
FUNDING SOURCES - Hennepin County; Greater Minneapolis Council of
Churches; the four Municipalities; State of Minnesota/Federal Government;
in-kind services from South Hennepin Human Services Council and
contributions from customers. A request for funding has been submitted to
United Way, but we have not yet received notification of grant decision.
Attachment C
H.O.M.E. (Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
• 1986
Maintenance Homeiraker Total
BLOOMINGTON
# of Customers 225 103 328
# of Households 155 72 227
of Jobs 906 1,341 2,247
# of Hours 2,869 3,176 6,045
EDINA
# of Customers 119 56 175
# of Households 90 ;5 135
1 of Jobs 622 745 1,367
of Hours 1,586.5 1,634 3,280.5
RICHFIELD
# of Customers 139 36 175
of Households 102• 31, 133 ?/?
-
of Jobs 665 436 1,101'
• # of Hours 1,880 1,045.25 2,925.25
EDEN PRAIRIE
of Customers 11
5
16
of Households 8 3 11
of Jobs 13 46 59
of Hours 295.75 136 431.75
MPLS.
of Customers 1 2 3
# of Households 1 2 3
# of Jobs 1 23 24 -
of Hours 3 65.25 68.25
.TOTAL
of Customers 495 202 697
# of Households 356 153 504
r`.' Of Jobs 2,207 2,591 4,798
# of Hours 61634.25 61116.5 12,750.75
•
Attac
H.O.M.E. (Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
1987
Maintenance Homemaker Total
BLOOMINGTON
of Customers 187 116 303
of Households 146 88 234
of Jobs 687 1,565 2,252
of Hours 2,346 3,702 6,048
EDINA
of Customers 106 61 167
of Households 85 52 137
of Jobs 568 857 1,425
= of Hours 1,844 1,902 3,746
RICHFIELD
of Customers 127 39 166
of Households 104 32 136
of Jobs 536 586 1,122
of Hours 2,162 1,596 3,758
EDEN PRAIRIE
of Customers 18 8 26
of Households 10 6 16
of Jobs 18 71 89
of Hours 97 197 294
MPLS.
of Customers 0 1 1
of Households 0 1 1
of Jobs 0 33 33
of Hours 0 91 91
TOTAL
of Customers 438 225 663
of Households 345 179 524
of Jobs 1,809 3,112 4,921
r of Hours 6,449 7,488 _13,937
ENERGY REPAIR HOURS: 11079 TOTAL HOURS: 15,016
i
Ln
W
U
CY
O
O
N
W_
Z
W
W
W
O
S
0
a?
a?
.r,
O
S .-
ca.
-- C) 0 C) C) O O O O O C) 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 O O o 0 o O O O C) L.0
0 O LC^ LC) LC^ C C Lfw o C C O C U)
oc)
I
G1 M co M N LD N O Rd, O d LC)
- N N N a- N O to t\
N
64 b4
O O O O O O O O O O O O t\ d
O O O C O O O O O O O O M N
O Lt) O Ln L7 O L17 a- O In L.C) r Cl LO
(
00
O ? l
m M - O M m m m N N P, r r M
N N N M n M
N
Ea4 H4
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) O
O Ln to to O O O O O O o, ? LO
O
m M t\ M C) CO N M M tD I? N
a- N N N r t\ O !-
N
64 69
O O O O O O O O O O O O r- LC)
O O O O O O O O O O O O CO LO
L
s L' LC) O O L' O (:: n O C co n eh
) I
o
a) N r,- %D C) O m N LC) N N
N N N .- C) r
b4 ?
N
O
.C
U '
? N
.? E C
U co O
•r
4- O +? N
O O O U
? ? .O •r
r •r d •r 7
r U
C O •r C Ln N
r
41 O U N C C1 U w 4-
U ) 0
r
C r- O
O C • 4-) 'O d 4J
.C
U tl7 }? C7 r to > N O N O
•r +? •r C N $- >, N E \ +3 0
r to •r r •r •r a O CY O N r O
C O 3 r to E 4- CU s- +-) C C O
•'- CL O n o s c a a) E H O x x
CL td '0 CL •r O L) •r O C t0 O •r
O N O O L) r •r 'p 'p W U +-) J r r
C C +-) S- •r m d' W W O to Q to td
C C •r F? C CL O C F- +-) i-)
O r C O O Q $- O O O O
S O W d C F- F- F-
U
REQUEST FOR FUNDING YEAR XIV
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CMG PROGRAM
THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY
Project Eligibility: /
Citation Hennepin County Date
/
ER Status: 11
Status Environmental Review Specialist Date
Project Number: /
Number
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Financial Manager
Date
1. Cammftity: Richfield
2. Project Nam: Child Care Sliding Fee Program - GMDCA
3. Contact Person: Grace Norris or Jim Nicholie
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Year XIV Grant Request $ 20,000
2. Is this request to fund an existing project? X Yes/Bx)get $ _lio
a. If yes, please indicate CMG year-started82-84 YR IXProJect Number
b. Total CDBG funds programmed/expended since start of project:
?` $ 93.014 79.575 - As of December 1, 1987
3. Leveraged Funds : Amount $ 0 Source
(To what extend does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm
commitment)
4.
5.
Location: Address
(Attach map. Committee may be making site visits).'
care providers is enclosed.
Description
_ Citywide
List of Richfield care
Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a statement of
(1) community need for project; (2) how project will address the need and
the anticipated results; and (3) what, if any, alternative funding sources
have been considered for the project. (Attach additional sheets).
(See Enclosure 1)
5. Description
1) Need - Many low and moderate income families are single parent
families or have two parents who are working or in school. When
these families have young children the cost of child care may
create a disincentive to continue to work or pursue training.
According to 1980 census data 57% of all Richfield women with
children under six were in the labor force. 54% of these are
single parents. In 1980 the median income for female headed
single parent families was $6,901.
In order to work or pursue training families need dependable
child care at a cost they can afford. Many low and moderate
income families cannot receive help from existing child care
subsidy programs because they do not meet specific program
eligibility requirements, or because there are waiting lists
due to insufficient funding. As of February, 1988 there are
26 Richfield families on GMDCA's waiting list for child care
assistance who cannot be helped because of lack of funds.
2) Project - The child care sliding fee program subsidizes child
care costs for low and moderate income families when parents
are working or in school. The amount of subsidy varies on a
sliding fee according to family size and income. Parents .
using the program choose their own child care arrangement.
Such a program stabilizes the cost of child care at an
affordable level for families while making maximum use of
subsidy dollars. The program allows parents to continue
to work or participate in training programs.
3) We continue to pursue county state and federal funding to meet
this need. The increased money the state allocated in the
last legislative session for child care subsidy was designated
for AFDC recipients so is not available for low and moderate
income families working or in school.
•
6. Identify what national objective the project is addressing:
X Needs of Low/Moderate Income
f j
Elimination of Slums and Blight
Urgent Ccmmuaity Need (must be a documented public health/safety need)
7. Implementation Schedule
Identify the major project tanks to be performed siring implementation and
their timing:
0
Date
'jam (Month/Year)
3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30)
Child Care Subsidies $3,000
GMDCA Serv ices (Verify income and process bills) $270
4th Quarter (January 1 to March 31) 2nd Quarter (April 1 to June 30)
Child Care Subsidies $6,000 Child Care Subsidies $4,350
GMDCA Serv ices $540 GMDCA Services $390
1st Quarter (January 1 to March 31) 3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30)
Child Care Subsidies $5,000 Use any unspent funds to subsidize
GMDCA Serv ices $450 families. Undersgending occurs due
to attrition from the program and
lag time in verifying new families.
8. Budget 4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31)
Spscify.total project budget by major project component (i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service).
SOURCE OF FUNDS
A-k
rl-Ame-ioent
Child Care Fee Subsidy
GMDCA Services
S rvr? rather (identify)
$18,350 CDBG
1,650 CDBG
0
Project Budget
Total
20,000 $
20,000
CPD 1/14/88
•
RICHIFIELD CHILD CARE SLIDING FEE PROGRAM
Year 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88
--------------
----------
----------
-----------
----------- (to date)
----------------------
Allocation $20,000 $17,800 $20,000 $13,400 $20,000
Families 15 12 15 8 8
Children 17 12 20 14 13
• Single Parents 12 10 12 6
Work/training
status
Working 10 7 9 4
Training 3 3 1 2
Both 2 2 5 1
Income levels
0-$10,000 2 4 4 2
10-$15,000 10 6 6 0
15-$20,000 3 2 4 2
20-$25,000 3 2 4 2
.,? Waiting list
at end of
period 22 32 27 28 35 (present)
•
Towhid Kazi
City of Richfield
Richfield, MN
Dear Mr. Kazi:
I apologize for taking so long to respond to your phone call requesting
additional information about the sliding fee programs funded through the
state, county and City of Richfield. i am enclosing a summary of the
Richfield program since 1983 when it was first funded.
After some checking at the county I have determined that the information you
requested is not accessible without extensive research time. The county and
state have different fiscal years. The child care priorities and guidelines
have changed several times since Richfield first began to provide some
supplementary funds. In short it is not possible for me to provide data to
tell whether or not the provision of funds by Richfield has made a difference
in the percentage of need for child care subsidy which continues to be unmet.
0
Even the measures of child care need are imprecise. We can tell you at any
time how many families from Richfield we have on our waiting list. However,
these waiting lists are very fluid, since the lives of many of the families
who are served by the program are in a state of flux. In addition, there are
many more families eligible for the program who do not bother to get on the
lists because the wait is so long.
Our approach to the situation is to structure our policies so that we use the
Richfield money as a funding of last resort. We do this by:
1) Requiring that families register with support and collections in
order to make every effort to collect court ordered child support.
2) Requiring that families get on waiting lists for County and State
funded programs.
3) Reverifying the above every six months when income reverification
is done.
The need for child care subsidy is so large that $20,000 per year will not
``~ make a large statistical difference. However, it will mean the difference
between work and welfare, or hope and hopelessness for the 10 to 15 families
served each year by the Richfield money.
Sincerely,
Jim Nicholie
Project Coordinator
Greater Minneapolis Day Cane Association
Dale Anderson, Executive Director • Lehmann Center • 1006 West Lake • Minneapolis, Minnesota • 55408 • (612) 823-7243
?Coopeating Fund Drive
Member Omenizetion
R®QUIM FOR FUNDING YEAR XIV
URBAN HENNEPIN COUN`fY CMG PROGRAM
THIS SDCrION WILL BE COMPLETO BY HENNEPIN COUtR'fY
Project Eligibility: /
Citation Hennepin County Date
ER Status: /
Status Environmental Review Specialist Date
Project Number: /
Number Financial Manager Date
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Cam amity City of Richfield
2. Project Name. Penn Avenue/66th Street Redevelopment Plannincy
3. Contact Person: Towhid Kazi
B. PROD= DATA
1. Year BIV Grant Paquwt a 10,000.00
2. Is this request to fund an existing project? Yes/Budget $88.350.00 & _.No
a. If yes, please indicate CM year started , Project Number N/A
b. Total CMW funds proarammed/expended since start of project:
$ 10,000.00 / -o- Development Impact Fees and
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
3. Levef sed Funds: Amount $ 78,350 Sot,roe Capital Revolvine Fund
(To what eutend does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm
commitment)
4. Locaticn: Address See Attached Maps Citywide
(Attach map. Committee may be making site visits).'
5. Description
Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a statement of
• (1) community need for project; (2) how project will address the need and
the anticipated results; and (3) what, if any, alternative funding sources
have been considered for the project. (Attach additional sheets)..
Staff would provide technical assistance in gathering community data,
maps, aerials and graphics to the consultant.
L?
6. Identity what national objective the project is add:essir?g:
Needs of Low/Moderate Income
X Elimination of Slums and Blight
Urgent Community Need (must be a d=z nted public health/safety need)
7. Implementation Schedule
Identify the major project tasks to be performed during implementation and
their timing :
Tuk
-Selection of Consultant.
-Identification of land use issues and analysis.of the
-Identification of the existing function of the area.
-Identification of the future function of the area.
-Citizen input to the planning framework
-Solicitation of development proposals for the area.
-Implementation of the plan.
8. Budget
( Date
Mnn h/Y ar)
April 1988
area. May '88 - July 1 88
July '88 - Aug. '88
Sept . '88 - Oct. 188
Nov. '88 - Jan. '89
Feb. '89 - May ' 89
May '89 -- --
Specify total project budget by manor project co wment (i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition. direct grants, public service).
SOURCE OF FUNDS
E
GamQOeaL ?i (W-war ? (vr)/Dth?r [idmtiiv)
1988 CDBG Yr XIV and HRA
Personal Services $10,000.00 4 050.00 Capital Revolving Fund
Other Services/Legal
Counsel Relocation E acpenses) S 8.000.00 19RR NRA r 4+. uo.-ligi„m Fund
6,000 $2,000) 1988 HRA Capital Revolving
Land Use/Desien Coniggulta nt $5nnnn_no Fund & DevPlnnmPn t Tmnart F ees
Business Analysis $ 8,000.00 1988 HRA Capital Revolving Fund
Marketing Cnn u1 nt $ q-nnn nn Lq2 U Capp I Re*a - ing Fund
Appraisal Cons ltant
P
S 3,000.00 1988 HRA Capital Revolving Fund
ostage &
upplies 300.00 1988 HRA Capital Revolving Fund
Project Budget = 1 000.00 $ 78.350.00
Total S 88.350.00
CVD 1/14/88
Area:
The Penn Avenue/66th Street commercial area is generally bounded
by the Crosstown Highway (62) to the North, 68th Street to the
South, portion of Oliver Avenue to the East, and Queen Avenue to
the West.
Backaround And Description Of The Proiect:
In Fall of 1987, Hennepin County in cooperation with the City of
Richfield completed roadway improvements in the Penn/66th Street
area by adding medians, left turn lanes in all directions and
sidewalk improvements. In order to facilitate the above
mentioned infrastructure improvements, acquisitions of land have
taken place. The acquisition of properties has reduced the
usable area of already existing small parcels of land.
The commercial area is aging, and is suffering from lack of
proper planning. Parking is often inadequate, some structures
remain vacant for long periods of time; visually, many locations
in the area appear to be chaotic and unattractive.
The strengths of the area includes that some businesses have been
able to serve not only West Richfield but also attracted
customers from nearby South Minneapolis and even a few from Edina
and Bloomington. Also, the public improvements to Penn
• Avenue/66th Street area have reduced traffic congestion.
On April 16th and May 21, 1986, as part of the Richfield
Comprehensive Plan review/updating process, the Planning
Commission held neighborhood meetings in the area. Citizenry
from the area raised the following land use and aesthetic issues
at the Planning Commission meeting.
1. Blight in the Penn Commercial District.
2. Penn Shopping Center is an aging facility, poorly maintained,
and needs upgrading.
3. Commercial area on Penn Avenue is too extended.
4-` 4. Too many fast food shops on Penn Avenue.
5. Property deteriorating on Penn Avenue.
6. Aesthetic non-pleasing signs around 66th Street and Penn
Avenue should be eliminated.
7. Consolidate the commercial area on Penn Avenue and not extend
further than 68th Street.
8. Not enough boulevard trees.
-A(f,Jf
There are commercial property
interest in redeveloping their
formulate a redevelopment plan
owners who have indicated an
property but want the city to
for improvements.
The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has
recently set aside some funds to allow staff to work in the area.
During the Spring of 1988, the Community Development staff will
begin its planning activities. To carry out the redevelopment
planning activities for the area, the city intends to hire a
planning consultant to formulate a redevelopment plan that
identifies and analyzes land use issues, marketing feasibility to
determine the function of the area, compatibility with the
surrounding residential neighborhood and outlining a citizen
participation process for any economic redevelopment activities
in the area.
The city is currently in the process of selecting a planning
consultant firm with the assumption that sufficient funds would
be available to carry out the planning activities for the area.
Staff would provide technical assistance to the Planning
Consultant in gathering community data, maps, aerials, and
graphics. It is toward this end the city would use the requested
Year XIV CDBG fund in the amount of $10,000.Richfield is a fully
developed community with limited tax base. It is crucial that
the city promote economic development activities which would be
• compatible with the preservation of the residential character of
the community. The redevelopment planning for any commercial
area must be cohesive, well thought out and include of citizen
input.
•
•
l?
u
k_
f > ? - V
?• i s ? ? s s s s s • o ?
1? H N ? ? H y w r y ?" 1 N N ti ti y N N
y y
XERXES AVE a+rr.++.+?e,rs::i- sv?.s-..-.-._ ..,.?._?-F-?._...??• ----?+t xERxES AVE.
WASH WASHBURN
VINCENT Irk^?-..??r_ _. ? .. •L__`'_: u.?? _? ?I
UPTOM VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
3odER10AN _ _?L.? ? L - .? fMOWS
RUSSELL ?I SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
QUEEN
PENN AVE. -----`- ?' QUEEN
PC food AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON L[ = II t t. OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN
YORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX LOGAN
I i. u
JAMES ?.-?.-?,. JAMES
.^f ---_ ?t[ rv[ II IRVIMG
HUMBOLDT -___ - -' - .-? --• !I' HUMBOLDT
GIRARD I; 'E
FMWOW
' i1ELU011T
EMERSON
•_?,?????.;? r E ,?+?_ _
EMERSON
p
DUPONT 1 O
COLFAX'?-+!???I?'??-??Q ?' oI = DUPONT
ALDRICN I I ?'°`T ^ ° {II pRTANT
ALDRICH
LrNDAIE AVE.
[ trNDALE AVE.
GARftEID? -? ?L---- • •t ?? L?? '--1iI?I GARFIELD
t--rte IC_-?? \ GJ 1,
HARRIET HARRIET
GRAND •' Lam- ?- :.-J?u Y?
?•._-
1?? ii.w...+.a?I v? III 1r?--1r- ?--•! II GRAND
PLEASANT
PLEASANT
?ILLSpURT II`` .-?--r1 -, r : - - rli PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH ;' I I ?„/ O U?,111
WENTWORTN
BLAISDELL
I.\ Ir^l^.? =?.?.• ?? O?' I I BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
NICOLLET AVE.
ESTEVENS Iot
CU?CJI STEVENS
CLINTON Sod
r J?I 'G_?I I ^ i? ?? CLINTON
AtA
sob
PORTLAND AVE. sib
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND •' L ?I'-- ?L-???=?COO? OAKLAND
j uuL !
PARK L_J _ PARK
COLUMBUS f- l ?I COLUMBUS
CHICAGO I CHICAGO
LLUOT C
_
[liar
Iou
j 1111,
look ?',I ID
1216 ?,..,•-, C?{`?_??iL ?' ! ^;,, 11 IA
1311, 12 111,
1i
1416
1S t.
??j?
BLOOMINGTON •`+?F-O=_9 E?d G IA ON
Moth
• ITtlll. r=?=--•--y?C? ono°?o
88th IT/R
CEDAR AVE.
. Ego CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
?s i C s i ?? j r , ?]??C? loth
m
N N i r T
H ? y,-. ?M H
z ?Ar-
A= ? ,?? COCA, :2 R.
PANDISH
_m o 23rd
?r '? -• 1? V • V N
yyII yNI y
.7' ~ ~ ! ~ !i y y M
1.
M
m
m
m
0
Z
r
Z
?Z
a
r?
0
0
m
z
C
m
S
LAND USE
(DT
jw:
tol
4.1
y _ .. f ? .O
'OP, . n(17?NO-
H
(_ ) . t•b') I.•: y bf ?M? s Z- ?eef J=,' t??*,
r
00
'c GQ .(? y,.. tt(O'(s?:. ?a,'P ,c• (d 4 r:.. .A„ ,? t 41 :•N? ?` ??
*9 Op
Gi{y t3 yZi y?
,u` = 6'./ _? •°, -p r/l'n•. p,'» .sM\ 1?'++y ? 1 rc?1a Mn'f'? ,ea6'? i
pp ..).. ',,? ?• a l+A•M1 a t. at !• ns j`. .? ?`A r r' -4f W "' : aM ?? :. W
00 .(.9 (b? ?. i i,r1. =•T
F
a
r?+ - /? U"3 r?e?YT r - t ?;yp
10,
Ll I.-
WEST
P' MM STREET _ t
loo:
0.0
`.1, C? Q i•1? * (Ip _ wy (Ml- ?' ?l •^ XA3R'?., i ?, .}711.--
jgl
X MA
Q 01 . l+h W --y -yi _ - i "' ? ?•r,'f'>4?! ?.._ . s' ta. .:.'.P
,?, , L:.y, Ott r? ?' r ?i „1; . • ?19?•?..??r 1 ',?? ?.r x +? .3.?,.,+, ? i::t'. ? •{+a i !° i
WEST
- - -
,, ' f Z C"4 , '! .'iwt ?? (?, , l r I?? .i-• • ' K?TC?Y?9 i ? ?& JJ ;p ? V * .
tea . ` ?.•. ? ,. -, a .,,? ? _ _ _ asrJ:: ? ? „• ? w
9: 0j
`f[: ? ,t" 'Yat, •t• iL , ?,, , • s ' = Ctrl} - '!' ye._.?w
01 _Ae
e - a c-?- I, •?. 2r NG .y' - o? 'i :sly (? ,?S! ?' ,
i 4ftis ,.,.?( )?•- s,?rl• ?,1?¦ v?+l.:,j >,___ --?•'
W
b . -+ ? a'• I s . gi N {?. __- - ?_ ~ •U,', 0? 1 fi -a ?rc..a F..? a?[w 'K'y Z (a`' '?? ? (?) '??•„(,w,
WEST 88TH STREET
• m.n',y', q+lf?it `: _" ? i ,#. .•', ??1R/ • " `. ti /tl.: .f. ) a .,., .? -- -'
.a `.. ?. ? •r???? >,(Ib ,,?-?' •t'?fY•?fl'}fl• rD?+?p??S4t 7'L'.'.,, Z ???-_? :?,_'. v'
4) bi3 ). r•• t•• a! ?u,+ ?{ ] 't ?9•._•R• tl 2' _+'• 3 C 2y?t', f W
p+ r ?' tr IIg011 Z 19 12
I';' ? il¢. 171 j,?.] •' . N }r_- F t '., Ma
I p-,- ?_ ,Q (9I : N
°•? : MT. • C-? y n '!M)e n•^/ o. t„l•" of
i ao(IU - •j„hn • 2o• ,d?fi • • me ??-
. a
1 ) •(,4 w » 5a M7?• aM? •,!'?,•?o _ afd?le e - ,,,1 .?'. , S - .f? / . ?
.. •fa7 e.,, •:?i! .ff) • l• A •
to.
'+•'. •1' Sy1 r ,. T `,..?" ,+6• :R)i1vt r.?
aa., - '_ _CiP• ., y,' :. t • o(+t1 (Jra a Qi .iAi •,rrQ PT. ,(,.+_]-?-? __ - ._ t ?:?
"., '•-?'7-1 FOI
..f?
t S7M • •. STREET a WEST
a , nla ?b? l`T!. 1? : ?I' a .? r: z .^'i' y? y) .: _ a -.? _ ' <Ya• a_ 4'A !{: r y j? -Irv .f
7 1,t} ) I t. ) a)l y a t f - a r{7- jai _ a.. W (•/?
t a(A. r)t, i °,Vl 9s11' l?t?j : ,(,•i t too f0 1 - y(psT !P') nstR1 (?1`1, i :nC{ -
i ,, • =ri _ >a p (IN?e !?e >o ?; _ .t_Syv? >n? «o`? atl? ,n >v? -'° ?- . p?' ..!? j?l .
-. 3•', .i.?r-M _, -_ •??t,•n• 5??°?,j1.r?_• - _ .o. •v i:- :K;,,, •,`?' , - ,I Ste; ,.
?, • ,?t) _.• _ s- o+EtS.. i_ .tc•/{ 1y1) •(+,)
i y,, 'fit' • ,l?\ :? ' yi '_- •__ •1? -l'?' AKA borti _ .,p¢ (.d1• - +( tS .., _ -`-`2 W :
,,.,,Ny s(d d'1? •d?•i (io+• •„41' ! ,4 .? J ; ? ?.JO'S ? • •ee c4,n? _,ehss 4`s. _ ?,S' , ?l• :
j D? yT ?'+? < j 1 1i ?°.) , KA+1'4?o IN ;, a `,sJj1' Nit • su?l?"?e 1Y 16 Fora IL Kid Tr,? , Y a '
• e 5 ??1`• 4Q ;T. g :•..? Lt •`?.Nd? Aa 1 : ;4? 6"tl i - }i7 1o,? ( td?..{j•t .h?' ' . , ?,a•? b''• • ,
WEST
1y? "Y yr' _ r ,_ r, i . }+5 ' ?_a t ' i•?'?:: ,b .:5- 1< T•, •7
4107
147 *"! IpT =i11+> .: f S a l i
•? •'. ?ttlt tr?.(ill, rgpx, (•5a tt? ?, ny7. Ml• u(?p I?j7, ?„? ...,, ., i \.--' tN C?,? r ..
:{N 4 _h(rD {Ia d ( t AO7• a,ry`?•`(.41• n;1f? -B
gfA' ! i ••; , .'r) ++ ?
)d S i ,+ . ,• 3.' ts+T,. _ u(M?' tQ, =dta '(:,t s » ?N7+ ' -,?? • .. wl+,T lr, _ . ;=.<A 7 .. • J5 t ,
7!
??'.. y??R1T?' on ' INl (y) • (ni ?) • - a(71i M•,• :. pA. `," a,'µ •? y
•aw• .s a If?nw 00 ?lt
r". -0 e w'- a COMMERCIAL iatR a f 1 ,ti ??1 i u1ti?.?:
a* t
WEST APARTMENTS n
r+. ??r-•?P r _-_ - - -- DUPLEX ?,?-f 3.5' •4sK"."
'?/{ ,•'- Q '(„A '?,n-= •!+ •--
I
SCHOOL
6,p,n PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
; ;?.? y., • • h •S,N •?•Ayt?•^q{ M ?5?-r . = - • ' i "Mt ) - _
,T r :` Jt ..sa+u?f+. ''' •?!„? a Or ?Q z j _, 4.? ,.yrl•Q _ a WEST STREET ... --_ . • -- - --
?ff 71
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 77
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Transitory Ordinance
Providing Funding for Certain Capital Improvements from the
Special Revenue Fund.
Background:
On September 23, 1987, the City Council approved the 1988 Capital
Improvement Budget (CIB) and also adopted the 1988 budget for all
funds as outlined in the budget document. The various approved
appropriations for 1988 for the capital projects are defined as
outlined below:
Veteran's Memorial Park $210,000
Optech III Voting System 60,000
Park Land Acquisition 30,000
$300,000
The City Charter requires approval of a transitory ordinance
authorizing these appropriations. Charter Section 7.12,
Subdivision 2 allows expenditures for capital improvements from
the Special Revenue Fund only by ordinance. The City Council
gave first reading to the Transitory Ordinance and scheduled
• second reading and the public hearing for March 14, 1988.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing
and approve the attached transitory ordinance providing for the
expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain
capital improvements.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. On September 23, 1987, the City Council adopted the 1988
Capital Improvement Budget.
2. Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory
ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication
of the second hearing notice. The hearing process must
be completed in 1988 so the capital projects can be
completed as approved and the funds expended.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could allocate the funds to a totally new
project or projects, but a public hearing for a budget
revision would be necessary.
2. The City Council could decide not to authorize the
expenditure of Special Revenue Funds. However, that would
be contrary to the previously adopted Capital Improvement
Budget.
0
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this item is requested at the March 14 meeting of the
City Council to allow sufficient time for publication of the
ordinance to become effective so that the capital improvements
can be ordered as budgeted.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame fib. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
0
0
Bill No. 1988
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM
THE SPECIAL REVENUE FOR
CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and
expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue
Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2
hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general
obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures
for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the
Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the
City Charter, are as follows:
Veteran's Memorial Park $210,000
Optech III Voting System 60,000
Park Land Acquisition 30,000
$300,000
0
Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made
pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time
by council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of March, 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
1]
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 76
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance
amendment to the city sign regulations.
Background:
In August of 1987, the City Council ap,
new sign regulations for the city. At
that the city would continue to review
with sign installers to further refine
jeopardizing the legislative intent of
the City Council has approved a number
ordinance.
proved an ordinance setting
that time staff indicated
the ordinance and work
the ordinance without
the ordinance. Since then
of amendments to the sign
At the February 8, 1988 City Council meeting, the council
directed staff to prepare an amendment to ordinance section
416.07 (d) i.e., under General Commercial and Industrial District
regulating, (7) Banners, Wind Devices, Promotional Display
Devices and Fixed Temporary Ground Signs to allow four permits
per year.
Recommended Motion:
Approve second reading of an amendment to Section 416.07 (d) (7)
• of the ordinance code.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council gave first reading consideration to the
ordinance amendment on February 22, 1988.
2. The proposed amendment would allow business to use Banners,
Wind Devices, Promotional Display devices and Fixed Temporary
Ground Signs four times a year instead of 3 times a year.
This would allow business to use the above mentioned signs
for a total of 28 days instead of 21 days.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to not pass the attached
ordinance and continue the sign regulations in its present form.
Decision Mode:
This matter is scheduled for second reading consideration on
March 14, 1988. Staff has provided legal notice of the public
hearing and also has sent written notice of the hearing to the
Chamber of Commerce and to licensed sign installers in the city.
Respectfully submitted,
I
Jam s/ D. Prosser
• Cit Manager
JDP/dkh
AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 416.07 (d) (7) OF THE
• RICHFIELD CITY CODE
(7) Banne rs, Wind Devices, Promotional Display Devices and
Fixed Temporary Ground Signs subject to the following standards:
(i) Fixed temporary ground signs, banners, wind
devices attached to any structure, vehicle,
equipment or inventory and constructed of canvas,
plastic material, cloth, rubber or other
combustible materials with or without framework;
shall be strongly constructed and shall be
securely attached to their supports. They shall
be removed (including all framework and supports)
as soon as damaged or torn.
(ii) There shall not be more than one fixed temporary
ground sign on any building frontage.
(iii) No fixed temporary ground sign, banner, wind
device, or promotional display device shall
project over public property or right-of-way.
(iv) No fixed temporary ground sign, banner, wind
device or promotional display device shall be
located in the city without first obtaining a
permit therefore from the building official. The
• building official may impose conditions upon the
granting of such permit including the size of such
sign or devices. It shall be unlawful to locate
or maintain any such sign, banner or device for a
longer period or in a different manner than that
specified in the permit. No such permit shall be
for a period of more than 7 days. No more than -3o
4 permits shall be issued to any business
organization or institution within any calendar
year. No such permit shall be granted where such
fixed temporary sign, banner, or device is
prohibited by other provisions of this code.
Permits required by this subdivision are subject
to the minimum fee contained in Appendix D. The
fee required under Subsection 416.03, subdivision
4 for the sign construction permit may be waived
by the City Council if the sign, banner, or device
is to be erected by nonprofit civic or religious
institutions or by public bodies.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 14th day of March, 1988.
• Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
;2!??
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 75
Agenda March 14, 1988
. Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the granting of a conditional use permit at
6645 Penn Avenue South.
Background:
Mr. Paul Oberstar, property owner, is requesting a conditional
use permit from the city to allow the construction of a 6 bay
auto repair facility (Car-X Muffler and Brakes) at 6645 Penn
Avenue South. The existing gasoline service station building
would be replaced by a new 3,646 square foot building.
The 17,337.3 square foot property is zoned C-2 general commercial
district. The proposed use is permitted in the C-2 general
commercial district with a conditional use permit.
The property owners at 6701 Oliver Avenue South and 6648 Oliver
Avenue South have expressed opposition to the proposal on the
grounds that this type of auto related business is not
aesthetically pleasing and is not maintained well.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 520.19, sets the standards regulating public garages.
2. Section 540.09, subdivision 5, outlines the conditions
governing conditional use permits.
• Recommendation:
Approve the conditional use permit for a six bay auto repair
(Car-X Muffler and Brakes) facility with the following
stipulations:
1. The new plantings in the landscaped area be approved by
staff.
2. An irrigation system be provided in the landscaped area.
3. The proposed structure meet building and fire codes.
4. The screening of the subject property from the abutting
residential property to the east and maintenance of the
buffer be the responsibility of the property owner.
Replacement of the existing screening when necessary be
reviewed and approved by staff.
5. The stipulations be met before the issuance of an occupancy
permit.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council
approval of the conditional use permit at 6645 Penn Avenue
South with the stipulations recommended by staff.
• 2. City parking guidelines for a six bay auto repair facility
with four employees suggest twenty-two parking spaces. The
plan indicates seventeen parking spaces on the property which
would be five spaces short. The nature of the business
involves low volume traffic, therefore, the total number of
spaces provided would be adequate for the proposed use.
3. There are two existing curb cuts on the property: one on 67th
Street at the southeast corner of the property and the other
on Penn Avenue at the northwest corner of the property. The
• curb cut on 67th Street would be closed and only the Penn
Avenue curb cut would provide access to and from the site.
This implies that the cars from the site can only exit north
on Penn Avenue due to the newly installed median and, also,
that the traffic from the site could not exit to the
residential neighborhood on the east side of Penn Avenue.
Perimeter curbing is provided in the parking area. The
drainage plan is also adequate for the site.
4. The site abuts commercial uses except to the east where the
uses are single family residential. East of the subject
property is heavily screened by a wooden fence and shrubs.
There are three existing locust trees on the 67th Street
boulevard. The plan indicates 12 additional locust on 67th
Street boulevard and on Penn Avenue. Staff recommends the
new plantings be 2 1/2" linden or sugar maple. The property
owner would have to install an irrigation system in the
landscaped area in order to maintain the area.
The additional landscaping provided on the site would improve
the appearance of the site.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may wish to deny the conditional use permit.
• The basis for the denial would be on the basis that the proposal
does not meet the suggested city parking requirements.
Also, the City Council would have to find that the proposal would
adversely impact the health and safety of the residents working
or residing in the surrounding neighborhood.
Decision Mode:
The item is scheduled for City Council consideration at their
regular meeting at 7:00 PM on March 14, 1988. Legal notice of
the public hearing was published in the newspaper. Mailed
notices were sent out to the property owners within 350 feet of
the subject property.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam DProsser
Cit ager
0
ADDENDUM
1. The existing building would be demolished. ,The new building
would be constructed with earthtone brick and would meet all
the setback requirements.
2. The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates mixed land use
designation for the site. The proposed auto repair shop
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
l
3. The use complies with city zoning ordinance requirements.
•
0
0
Z?
a r w u
?r ? y y y ?
XERXES Ave
f-+?++-?-? of---+: aw?
WASHBURN
VINCENT I \`?'•J ?-- - ? - -
UPTON
THOMAS
RUSSELL
Outfit I II PENN AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN ?J?•????
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES ?C
IRVINO •?" ?? I?
GIRARD
?? yon
EMERSON
DUPONT COLFAX .RrANT L
ALDRtCN i?
LYNDALL AVE.
GARFIELD
I I
,
HARRIET
GRAND r-
1 I
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY u
WENTWOBTH I
BLAISDELL
NICOLL[T AVE. cl) -7
lot ST[VINS
2M 1
:to CLINTON N
AlA ?
31?
PORTLAND AVt_ .•
OAKLAND ?; ?I (O
PARK r1
COLUMBUS
I?
CHICAGO ' -J-
I:
[LLIOT ' I I
to to
IItA ?1t?'1i I? _
is.
13 to
1s 111
15 10 BLOOMINGTON
1$111;
IT to
ccoAR we.
-•-? _
LONGFELLOW --?=-===D?1t?--==--=-
_ i i i
?1 1?1
='1 N 1 •
I
I
?= s
<r
=v
T.
0
N
3N
N -- O O i O w p V ? V N=
Z D? J s - s 's -s D i ? j
+r
??+ •^*= + ....- ..-+......`++.,??; XERXES AVE.
- ?_ - - -- WASHBURN
•- ?. .? _-.-- =.,! VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
=- RUSSELL
QUEEN
PENN AVt
OLIVER
-??1?? y•'• _J?_?? MERTON
--?- 1??, ?• 1 ?^ MORGAM
KNOX
i _?J? ..`:.• ??Ji J
AMES
,?_`? :J.L --•??^l???I, IRVINE
771
•' :e•: 't:•t::. ? .'::. a ? I• DUPONT
COLFAX
;.. .II.
BRYANT
:• ?, LrNOALE AVE.
• L~?'S 1:1 GARFIELD
HARRIET
• 1 I?? ...:..' +.11.. GRAND
i PLEASANT
II PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
III BLAISDELL
NICOIILT AVE.
PENN AVE S
let
STEVENS
ST2M
?? 3N
1 CLINTON
A„
SIR
? PORTLAND AVL
LIVER AVE S -' -i '"'J I OAKLAND
l_J
_. II PARK
?I r .I COLUMBIA
r ?
'?I O I) CHICAGO
s ELLIOT
II 10 to
Fl, ??J???1j?J?^???JI I. 111
Is to
??@^' ^^?-''?J L.LJ?? 2100MINGTON
'Gib
CtDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
IF 1! 1916
i _ = Q? IFFJ?iC] 20th
9 j IC 2161
226A
,.?1r-1,-Jr sTANOISN
23..23.E
"I I
_.??.?._ w 1?1 w w w w
i i = 3 iMM iNN : i
r ? r ^ 1 y y
ul
wa
rn
z
Z
rn
0
r
O
n
O
Z
w
PENN AVE S CO RD 32
i
0
0
m
m
! r. I
x A m
m -4 T
Z?
-24 T
4 y
? r
m
O
ou
0
V)
m
v
Cl)
m
r-
cD
CD
.p
al
'U
m
z
z
n
m
cn
ZONING
65 1/2 ST. W.
I?
7L
Z
W
W
D
Q
6645 PENN AVE S
67TH ST W
N
9*0
FOREST
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENCE (R•1)
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR-1)
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR-2)
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
66TH ST W
68TH ST W
LAND USE 6645 PENN AVE S
65 1 /2 ST. W.
W
W
Q
Z
W
W
C3
67TH ST W
FOREST
DUPLEX
APARTMENT
PARK
COMMERCIAL
66TH ST W
68TH ST W
-COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLA
65112 51• W. 6645 PENN AVE S
66TH ST W
TL
W
Q
J
W
(n
:rli
W
W
Q
67TH ST W
...... .......
. . ...... .......
...... ...... .......
. . . .. . . . . ... . .
N ...... ...... .......
...... ...... .......
FOREST
•:•:: ; ; ;•; MIXED LAND USE
*,? P
..
;, 1 ? ARKS AND OPEN SPACE
MEDIUM DENSITY / BUFFER
N,,-
68TH ST W
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 74
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the conditional use permit for operation of a
day care facility at 7001 Elliot Avenue South.
Background:
Susan Dunkley, President of Building Block Child Care, has
submitted a request to the city for a conditional use permit to
allow the operation of a day care facility. The facility would
serve 102 children, ages 6 weeks to 5 years, (20 infants, 42
toddlers and 40 preschoolers, not to exceed 15 latch key) at the
old Elliot Elementary School site.
The operation will be at the same location where the Southdale Y
day care was formerly located. Southdale Y was licensed for 66
children only (16 infants, 21 toddlers, and 20 preschoolers).
In August, 1987, the City Council also approved the expansion of
the Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center (Fun Club) program to
accommodate 80 children (kindergarten to 6th grade). The Fun
Club program would continue, thereby increasing the total number
of children from 146 to 182.
The property is zoned single family residential 'R' district.
. Day care facilities are permitted with a conditional use permit
in an R district.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 515.07, subdivision 2, indicates that day care
facilities for more than 12 persons licensed by the
appropriate governmental authorities are permitted in an R
district with a conditional use permit.
2. Section 545.09, subdivision 5, outlines the conditions for
granting conditional use permits.
Staff Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the conditional
use permit to allow the Building Block Child Care program for 102
children at the Elliot Elementary School site with the
stipulation that the operation meet all building and fire codes.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. On February 16, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the conditional use permit.
2. The City has previously approved Southdale Y to operate their
child care center for 66 children. This program would
provide services to a larger number of children in the same
space.
3. The proposed expanded day care center (under new management)
• should not have any adverse impact on the surrounding
residential neighborhood. Adequate parking and drop off
space exists on the site to handle the proposed increase in
use. Parking lots are located within close proximity of the
center.
4. The proposed expanded program would serve the needs of the
community and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Development Plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may deny the conditional use permit to allow
Building Block Day Care program at Elliot Elementary School site.
Adequate findings of fact must determine that the approval of the
conditional use permit would have an adverse impact on the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council on Monday,
March 14, 1988. The hearing will be held in the Council
Chambers, Richfield City Hall. Written notice of the hearing was
provided to the property owners within 350 feet. Legal notice of
the hearing was published in the newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager
JDP/dkh _
•
0
e(Rstf w( sra.++.r_?_-,s -.?.?- - ...?. Li-?'?i- -r •.ti.. .?_ -tales •vc
WASHBURN t=
_?j
wasllsuRN
VINCENT
UPTON
UPTON
THOMAS TMOras
f«(RIOaR -?_ - ?? -•.. _.( SOIEaIOa«
RUSSELL RUSSELL
Oulcm
QUEEN
PENN &WE PENN AVE
OLIVER
OLIVER
«t°ror i((t =^ _??-:????? 'i L?= ??_ _1 MEY TOM
WORGAII
L- MORGAN
Knott-_. 1RMO!
JAMES IaYCS
IRVIN• •?V ??'? 1?=1L??L?.iO??t•?_T__?!?fQ???-. MG
/NlrtOtOt - ?w-IC- - _ ??IRYI C'11q «uYROtOT
WR•RO ?? `;? '-'f.-?-•?? _ r??L?:?_fJi clean*
no.orrt
fftumT
Ertafor 1. o --?- `\ EMERSON
DUPONT
DUPONT
t IC ?? ' o ?/, • ` `,
CoLr•s 1 If
? coLra:
.RtaMT I1 ?r?
somamir
C== ALDRICH
ALO* I'
.r
ome ^? 1w/n-fi C LTROALE AVE
"I .WE.
•??`?--? I 11 \ ?.i? 11;j G•RFIELD
EJ?
-.-:v. L:II «•RRICT
I? ^? ^ GRaNO
I~ f I I ?_+TT•_+.I ._.-.r:-:zu'?}'?+?-`??rw.?w_ .? ?1tI PLEASANT
PR.LSRURT
:?• aK ?i rL..??s./?-Ct?? ( ?f-11,1
.rent YORT«
11
I OC CO''I el•IfQELL
I
NICOLLET Ave
let
STEVENS
2.4
.? 191 L-:1._;?+o? f..
gym. ?T1 •...• .t: ?? ?---? CLINTON $to
PORTLAND AVE.
C7O?U ?j uut
Cot 1 .:.?r-•...•_•,1t''^,.I(•,:: •..;::•:i: r? COLUr.uf
CHICAGO 4'11 .'':: ?-.'..'•_•..•...•i? ::::::.: ::: ::': .:: :.:,;: ???L.,? p
Il CHICAGO
(LL10T 6' ? •.:.•.f.,..p ;1:i:.: .-. ?? ^ = I ELLIOT
tool, loll,
1116 IN ?.11
; 0;0=??QiJ??C?C?'O?C
y?CGI?:? CGaCQO?O??CtO? I.Il,
15 16 KODMINGTON
SLOOMIlIGTOII
IG.. 1616
----??O?GD?DOQO
Q? ?Ct00000 I....
...:-
CEDAR AVE c(oAR Ave
LONGFELLOW
y . 70; U
At - I- 2O:A
z 21
In
nA '? U_Jl?? 2Za1
n + < ?- STANDISH
°c o tf.•
41,
1 M ? M. M ,? •i y
li.
0
r
Q
m
_r)
ELLIOT AVE.
t-
co
w
w
w
F-
co
0
ti
tC
w
z
w
H
0
J
J
w
r
O
ti
m
J
U
Z
m
U.
0
Z
0
w
W
CA
0
IL
0
a
W Z
U 55
Z
W m
?
I
o
! O
HlZI
'OS ? LL T
p i
OC O
- w
Z
p
;J
FLU ! I
i
i0 i
I
M:OI
i
I
I
I
C?N?IHO
w
cc
Cl)
0
ti
i w
I:U
I.Z
O
.Q
.U
D
0
W
}
i~
.Z
1O
U
i
(I
'and
'3AV
I-
w
Cl)
Cl)
ti
w
CO
I--
01^
Si1?w?10?'and
'OS
•
J• ? J .? ?
J J •
J J J•
? J J J J
•
J
J
JJ J
J J
J
J ? J J
J J• J
J J
J J J
JJ
J
J ?
JJJJJ •
J ?
J
J
• J
?
JJ
.
J
I ? f
?d
I i
i
HiZ I
I a !
,Hill
Q
tQ > i
a
O
J ?
W
T i
O i
O
M:OI
'3nd
'OS
1-
w
w
cc
r-
H
wF
cc
CA
CO
VT
i
i
'OS
OOVD I HO ' 3nd ?-
i ?
w
S?1?VVii l0, 3'
3n?
F a
0 w
3AV' H1r,- I
HiZ I
HiI I
d. W
W
> Q
F
O
«aa?
W W HIOI
CL
.2
O T
0
?
1
I
F
MW
cl:
YI
S
O
cc
W
m
F
?5 J
i z Q
W 0
'Os
W v/
'Os
'and
00d0IH0
i
• snAwn?o?
I W;
J
i
LLJ
'and F
I
nd
101113
r u?lding
Mock
CHILD CARE
a non-profit educational organization
January 14,1988
Towhid Kazi
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Kazi:
Building Block Child Care Centers, now managed by New Horizon
Child Care Centers, would like to be granted a
Conditional Use Permit for our new child care facility located
at 7001 Elliot Ave. formerly the YMCA.
I'm enclosing the necessary square footage information as
well as a drawing of the floor plan for your review.
We would like to raise the license capacity of this center
to 20 Infants, 42 Toddlers and 40 Preschoolers (not to 014ceed
15 Latchkey). The square footage is more than
enough to accommodate these numbers as Yvonne Dovick our
Licensing Consultant with the State of Minnesota has already
approved the above break down of numbers.
Please present this request to the Planning Committee at
the next meeting on February 9, 1988.
If you feel any additional information is necessary to complete
the request please contact me.
Sincerely,
Sue Dunkley
President
(612) 557-1111
3650 Annapolis Lane North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
New Horizon Child Care has been serving the Twin Cities metropolitan
area since 1971. It was founded by local residents William and Susan
Dunkley.
New Horizon provides a full spectrum of child care programs from
the 6 week old infant through the school age child.
Our licensed facilities offer a special curriculum for each age group.
Our curriculum provides both intellectual and emotional challenges
presented in a manner that is fun for the child. A child is left
with a feeling of pride in his or her accomplishments, which results
in a joyous learning experience for the child.
Our centers are open from 6:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through
Friday. We are closed the six legal holidays. Children can enroll
in 1 to 5 day weekly programs, or by the hour if preferred.
Our tuition is paid weekly in advance before the week of service.
Weekly tuition includes hot nutritious meals (breakfast and lunch)
and snacks prepared on site.
Children are broken into their age groups in separate areas of the
building in caregiver to child ratios of:
1:4 Infants
1:7 Toddlers
1:10 Preschoolers
1:15 Latchkey
A director of each center functions much as a Principal of a small
elementary school.
All of our centers except New Hope and St. Louis Park offer infant
care (6 weeks to 16 months). We have a very special infant program
where not only the physical needs of the infants are taken care of
but we spend hours holding, rocking and nurturing each infant in our
care. We have a special curriculum designed just for babies pub-
lished by Johnson & Johnson. This curriculum is full of activities
that help a baby develop hand-eye coordination and small muscle
coordination. Each day the activity card for the child is posted
where the parent can check to see what activity their child is
working on and at what level their child is performing at. We try
to maintain open lines of communication between our infant room
staff and our parents through our Infant Daily History forms. These
forms give both caregiver and parent valuable information daily
regarding the health and well being of the infant.
(612) 557-1111
3650 Annapolis Lane North
Plymouth. Minnesota 55441
New Horizon Enterprises. Inc.
. ......:...:... .
• Our Toddler program enrolls children 16 months to 31 months of
age.' We have a specially designed curriculum specifically for
toddlers. For example, since a toddler's attention span is so short,
all the songs, stories and finger plays all coordinate around a
central theme for the day. This keeps the children from feeling lost
and frustrated because they don't know what is going on. The
children are quick to contribute and truly enjoy learning.
Our preschool group is for ages 31 months to school age. Not only
do we have a stimulating curriculum for this group, but New Horizon
offers numerous educational field trips throughout the year that
complement the curriculum. We offer a wide variety of enrichment
programs as well, such as Music, Dance, Karate, Piano, Computer
and Foreign Languages. Our specially trained staff observe each
child in our care to determine at which curriculum level the child
will feel comfortable yet challenged.
The curriculum is designed to increase school readiness and develop
acceptable socialization skills.
All of our centers offer a Latchkey program for school age children
6 years to 12 years old. We offer before and after school care and
in addition, our facilities offer full day care for holidays and
summer vacation. Because our Latchkey children are already involved
in an educational program in their primary school, our Latchkey
curriculum is geared to offer a wide variety of arts and crafts
projects. The Latchkey children are also able to participate in a
number of field trips on school release days and a wide variety of
?. enrichment programs offered weekly in our centers.
As in our Infant program, communication between parents and caregivers
is very important to us. We have a daily report for parents of
children in each age group, i.e.: Infants--Infant Daily History,
Toddlers--Toddler Talk, Preschoolers & Latchkey--Preschool Press.
These reports give parents a brief description of the daily activities
each child participated in as well as any other pertinent information.
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 73
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
......................... _.....................................................................
Award of Contract for 1988 Removal of Diseased Trees on Private
Property.
Background:
in the early 1970'x, the City of Richfield began a shade tree
disease program to assist homeowners in the removal of diseased
elm and oak trees on private property.
When the city's tree inspector marks a diseased tree on private
property for removal, the homeowner has three alternatives:
-Removal of the tree by homeowner.
-Homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work.
--Homeowner authorize the city's contractor to perform the
work.
If the city contractor performs this work, the homeowner has the
option to pay the removal costs immediately or the cost will be
assessed to the property taxes over a three-year period.
• The city's bidding system for removal of private diseased trees
was revised and streamlined in 1985. A single contractor is
hired to remove the trees rather than bidding out each tree
individually.
Specifications for this work were sent to 23 tree removal
companies in the metropolitan area. The companies were asked to
bid a per-inoh cost based on an estimated number of trees ranging
from 1" to 36+" in diameter.
Two bids received and were opened on Thursday, February 18, 1988:
-Ceres Tree Company submitted a bid with an estimated total
of $37,222.
--Tri-State Tree Service, Inc. of Farmington, Minnesota
submitted a bid in the total estimated amount of $30,940.
Recommended Motion:
. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Award the 1988 contract for removal of diseased trees on private
property to Tri-State Tree Service, Inc. in the total estimated
amount of $30,940.00 based on the unit prices of their bid opened
February 18, 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Tri-State Tree Service, Inc. was the lowest responsible
• bidder for this work,
2. This company has previously performed work for nine other
municipalities in the metro area, including last year's
•
removal of diseased trees on private property for the City of
Richfield; and proved to be an excellent contractor.
Alternative Recommendation:
..... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The council may choose to reject all bids received and direct
staff to readvertise in an attempt to receive a lower bid. This
year's per--tree prices, however, are low enough to provide
Richfield property owners with a very reasonable removal cast
should they choose to have the city coordinate the removal of
their diseased tree(s).
Discussion/Decision Mode:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................
To assure sufficient time to process the necessary paperwork
before the first trees are marked for removal, this item is
scheduled for the city council agenda of March 14, 1988.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
•
JDP/eja
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
February 18, 1988
11:00 A.M.
1988 Removal of Diseased Trees on Private Property
Bid No. 88-1
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for 1988 removal of diseased trees on
private property, bid no. 88-1, as advertised in the official
newspaper on February 3, 1988.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Randy Hughes, Facilities/Project Coordinator
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
John Erskine, Public Safety Director
0
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
TriState Tree Service Inc.
Farmington
Ceres Tree Co.
Minneapolis
BID
SECURITY
Cashiers
Check
Bid Bond
TOTAL
$30,940.00
$37,222.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the March 14, 1988 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
1,?-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 72
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Resolution Approving an Addendum to Joint Powers Agreement -
South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board.
Background:
The Richfield, Bloomington, Edina and Eden Prairie are entering
into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement. The agreement
establishes the South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board. The
Board's purpose is to provide adaptive recreation programs and
services to disabled persons.
The Richfield City Council has already approved the Agreement.
Bloomington is seeking approval of the attached addendum, which
requires an annual review of the policy objectives. The
Richfield city attorney and city staff have reviewed the proposed
addendum.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the resolution approving an addendum to the Joint Powers
Agreement - South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board and
authorize execution of the addendum by the Mayor and City
Manager.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Joint and Cooperative Agreement has already been approved
by the Richfield City Council.
2. The city staff and attorney do not have any objection to the
proposed addendum.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not approve the addendum.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for the consent calendar on the
March 14 agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
City anager
JDP/eja
Attachment
0
RESOLUTION NO.
•
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
ADDENDUM TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT -
SOUTH SUBURBAN ADAPTIVE RECREATION BOARD
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has previously
authorized the City's participation in the South Suburban Adaptive Recreation
Board, and by such action further authorized the execution of a joint powers
agreement; and
WHEREAS, it now appears to the satisfaction of the City Council that it
is necessary and appropriate that such joint powers agreement be modified in
the manner and to the extent contained in the attached Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The modification of the Joint Powers Agreement contained in the attached
Addendum is hereby approved.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized on behalf of the City of
Richfield to execute the attached Addendum and to take such other and
further acts, contemplated by the Addendum, to facilitate its
effectuation.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of
1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
• Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Res1:0055RE1O.E14
ADDENDUM TO JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
AMONG CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON, EDINA, EDEN PRAIRIE
AND RICHFIELD ESTABLISHING SOUTH SUBURBAN
ADAPTIVE RECREATION BOARD
WHEREAS, on , 1988, the City of Bloomington, City of Edina,
City of Eden Prairie and City of Richfield entered into a Joint and
Cooperative Agreement establishing the South Suburban Adaptive Recreation
Board for the purpose of providing adaptive recreation programs and services
to disabled persons; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend Article 4, Section 2 of said
Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
•
1. Article 4, Section 2 of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement be amended by
adding the following language:
"The Adaptive Recreation Programs shall not be implemented until approved
on an annual basis by the City Councils of each Party. The Board may not
make any substantial change in policy affecting the development,
coordination or conduct of Adaptive Recreation Programs without first
obtaining the approval of the City Managers of each Party."
2. This Addendum is effective on the date on which a fully executed copy of
this Addendum, together with a certified copy of a City Council
resolution of each of the Parties authorizing its execution, is filed
with the City Clerk of the City of Richfield. This Addendum may be
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which may be considered
an original copy.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Parties have caused this Addendum to
be signed by their duly authorized officers as of the date duly indicated
opposite their signatures.
. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
Date: By
Its
By
Its City Manager
CITY OF EDINA
Date: By
Its
By
is
Date:
Date:
is R7:0055ADO1.E14
Its City Manager
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Its
By
Its City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Its
By
Its City Manager
1.1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 71
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Payment in excess of $5000.00 for repair of fire engine.
Background:
The engines in the fire division are used for 15-20 years, and
periodically require body maintenance.
Engine 84, which was purchased in 1981, was scheduled for major
maintenance this year.-
The Fire Division accepted an estimate in the amount of $3,200
for the repair work. When the body shop disassembled the engine,
extensive rusting in the inner body and supporting members was
discovered. These parts were not accessible before disassembly.
Captain Iverson personally inspected the damaged areas to confirm
that the work was required. Chief Coughlin authorized the
additional work, which increased the repair cost to $6,163.05.
• The engine has been returned to service.
The total is approximately $700.00 over the amount budgeted for
repairs in 1988. This amount can be made up without requiring an
overall budget increase when it is revised.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the payment of $6,163.05 for repair work to Engine 84
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The repair work was scheduled for 1988.
2. The repair work performed will keep the engine in service
for another 5-10 years.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could direct
additional estimates for
cost was reasonable. The
for other engine repair,
provided a superior job
vendors.
the
the
fir
and
at a
fire division to request
added work to verify that the
division has used this vendor
in each instance this vendor has
lower cost than competing
Based upon the prior experience and the fact that a fire
division officer verified the need for the work, we would not
support this alternative.
0
u
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The purchase order for payment of the repairs to fire engine 84
has been prepared for approval by the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Vanager
JDP/eja
•
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
.Council Letter No. 70
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of fireworks for Fourth of July Celebration.
Background:
Two firms in the metropolitan area sell fireworks and provide the
staff to do the display.
One of the firms, Americana Fireworks Display Company, provides a
better show in the opinion of the city staff and the Fourth of
July Committee. This firm has been used for the Richfield Fourth
of July Celebration fireworks for the past six years.
In 1982 and 1983, the cost was $5,000. In 1984 and 1985, the
cost was $5,400. In 1986, the cost was $5,970 and the display
was about a 30% reduction in time and content compared to the
1985 display. In the 1987, an approximation of the 1985 display
was provided for $8,900.
Americana has submitted a contract in the amount of $9,400 to
provide fireworks for the Celebration in 1988. Americana will
provide public liability and property damage insurance in the
amount of $300,000. The agreement cannot be cancelled for
inclement weather, but the display would be scheduled for another
date before October 15, 1988. City staff recommends adding a
condition to the contract which require the employees of
Americana Fireworks Display Company to clean up the shooting
area, after the display, of any potentially dangerous material.
The city's budgeted cost share of the 1988 Celebration is $15,000
for fireworks, additional insurance coverage and other items such
as entertainment, performance stages, lighting and sound systems.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the city manager to execute a contract, as amended, and
payment in the amount of $9,400 to Americana Fireworks Display
Company for fireworks and staff to do the display for the 1988
Richfield Fourth of July Celebration.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield supports the Richfield Fourth of July
Celebration including, in part, the financial cost of the
Company has submitted a contract
3. There is $15,000 in the adopted 1988 budget for the
recreation division of the Community Services Department for
the Celebration.
fireworks display.
2. Americana Fireworks Display
in the amount of $9,400.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The city council could decide to eliminate its financial
support of the community Fourth of July Celebration.
2. The size of the display could be reduced thereby reducing the
cost to the community.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for the consent calendar on the
March 14 agenda. Action need not be taken at this time but
sufficient time should be provided to confirm the fireworks
display and allow proper organization and budgeting for the 1988
Richfield Fourth of July Celebration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame /. Prosser
Cit anager
JDP/eja
0
'f_-Z
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 69
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of Lime Conveyor in Excess of $5,000.00
Background:
The approved 1988 Water Maintenance budget contains $13,000 for
the purchase of a lime transfer system to replace the current
system at the Water Plant. The current system is 24 years old.
The equipment moves lime from a bulk storage tank to a bin
(called a "day hopper") above the slakers which turn solids to
liquids.
The new system will allow dump trucks to unload lime directly
onto the conveyor, possibly resulting in a lower per-ton price of
the lime.
Two quotes were received:
Conveyors Incorporated
Vessco, Inc.
$10,304.00
$19,610.00
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the purchase of a new lime conveyor from Conveyors
Incorporated in the amount of $10,304.00.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Conveyors Incorporated met all staff specifications and
submitted the low quote.
2. There is sufficient funding available for this equipment.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all quotations and direct staff to
obtain new quotations; however, staff does not believe we could
obtain this equipment for a better price.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the
meeting.
March 14, 1988 city council
Res ully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 68
Agenda March 14, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of a Brush Chipper in Excess of $5,000.00.
Background:
The approved 1988 Central Garage Budget includes $14,000 to
replace a brush chipper which was purchased in 1980.
It was the first unit of its type purchased by the city and has
proven to be excellent. Heavy use, however, has meant the
machine is worn out before the end of its ten year depreciation
schedule.
The replacement unit is to have a slightly larger motor than the
existing piece of equipment which is offered as a trade in item.
Specifications were sent to three suppliers and bids were opened
in a formal bidding process on Thursday, February 18, 1988. One
bid was received as follows:
LaHass Manufacturing & Sales, Inc. $14,898.00
Less Trade In of one Morbard
Eeger Beever Chipper -1,200.00
TOTAL $13,698.00
• Recommended Motion:,
Approve the purchase of one Eeger Beever brush chipper from
LaHass Manufacturing and Sales, Inc. for $14,898 less the $1,200
trade in for the net sum purchase price of $13,698.00.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The brush chipper bid by LaHass Manufacturing and Sales, Inc.
met staff-written specifications.
2. There is sufficient funding available for this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject the bid and instruct staff to obtain
new quotes; however, since the bid received met all
specifications, staff does not believe we could obtain a better
price for this piece of equipment.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the March 14, 1988 regular city
council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
is Ja s D. Prosser
Ci -y Manager
JDP/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
February 18, 1988
11:30 A.M.
Purchase of Brush Chipper
Bid No. 88-2
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for purchase of brush chipper, bid no.
88-2, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 10,
1988.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Randy Hughes, Facilities/Project Coordinator
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
John Erskine, Public Safety Director
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BID
SECURITY
TOTAL ;
VENDOR
0
LaHass Manufacturing
& Sales, Inc.
St. Paul
Certified
Check
$14,898.00- '
less trade;
$1,200 = ;
$13,698.00 ;
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the March 14, 1988 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
0