04-15-85 agenda HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 19
Council Letter No. 134
Agenda April 15, 1985
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
Richfield City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Fraser School Preliminary
Proposal for a 202 Housing Project
Dear Council Members and Commissioners:
During the past four weeks, two meetings have been held with
Bab Kowalchek of Fraser Schools to consider the construction of
20 to 30 units of housing for graduates (adults) of Fraser
School.
The site identified is a 1 and 1/4 acre parcel on West 66th.
Street, west of Per.n Avenue. This site is near Fraser School.
There are families who have purchased homes in this section of
• the city because of their association with Fraser School.
If such a project were to be considered further, a number of
actions may be necessary, such as:
(a) rezoning property from single family to MRP (multi-
family) PUD;
(b) amend the comprehensive plan;
(c) apply for CDBG reversionary f'ands; and/or, utilize TIF
financing to aid in a write down of land acquisition
costs; and,
(d) hold one or more neighborhood informational meetings.
The developer, Fraser School, must apply by May 15, 1985,
for 202 subsidized housing funds. It is staff's understanding
that Section 8 funds would be applied for rental assistance.
The project would contribute some in lieu of property tax
payments.
-2- ~
This item is presented for consideratior. and direction as to
what further steps, if any, the staff should take concerning
this housing proposal.
R pectf 1 bmitted,
John G. Ca wri .
Executive Direc o
JGC/eja
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 133
Agenda April 15, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Financing Sprinkler Systems for School District
Property
Council Members:
Lowell Larson, School Superintendent, has expressed an
interest in considering the state law of financing sprinkler
systems in buildings by special assessments. As a result of
this interest, the City Attorney was asked to provide an opinion
on whether the state law would apply to the school district as
well as private business. The answer is yes.
In December, 1984, Lowell Larson presented the board with a
report prepared by Hammel Green and Abrahamson, evaluating
Richfield school's life safety code compliance deficiencies.
The report outlines the least expensive way for the district to
come into compliance and would cost just over $800,000. The
report does not address installing sprinkler systems in all
buildings and does not include Lincoln Hills where a sprinkler.
system has been installed. However, with the use of Chapter
429, the cost of installing sprinkler systems by special
assessment may make it financially feasible for the School
District to proceed with a sprinkler system.
Attached to this council letter is a copy of the City
Attorney's opinion dated March 21, 1985• This communication
will be discussed at the joint City Council/School Board meeting
on Monday, April 15.
~pectfu ~ bmitted ,
~ ~ _
Lu'/
ohn VG~ C~t fight
City Manager
JGC/eja
LeFevere ~
Lefler
~iennedy
O'Brien
Drawn
a Professional
.association
2000 First Bank Place West March 21, 19 8 5
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Telecopier(612) 333-0540
Mr. John Cartwright
Clayton L. LeFevere
Herbert P. Lefler City Manager
J. Dennis0'Brien C1ty Of Richfield
John E. Drawn 6700 Portland Avenue
David J. Kennedy Richfield, NiN 55423
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J.Schieffer Dear P~Ir. Cartwright:
Charles L. LeFevere
Herbert P. Lefler III
JefireyJ. strand In your letter of March 4 , 1985 , you raise the question of
Mary J. Bjorklund whether a sprinkler system could be installed in public
John G. Kressel
DayleNOlan schools within the city, with the costs of doing so financed
Cindy L. Lavorato by the city and repaid through special assessments against
Michael A. Nash the school properties involved. Yes, this can be done.
Rice
e S. Clugg
Ja es J. Thomson, Jr. LvZlnneSOta Statutes , Chapter 429 , commonly referred to as the
James M. Strommen state "Improvement Code" , provides for the making of city
Mary C. Nielsen
Terry L. Hall improvements, financing them by issuing improvement bonds
Ronald H. Batty and assessing the costs against benefited properties .
Section 429.011, Subd. 14, in the definition section of the
Improvement Code, includes the following:
"Fire protection system" means pipes, standpipes,
sprinklers, control systems and other devices and
equipment installed in or outside a building for
the primary purpose of eliminating or reducing
the spread of fire in the building or providing
for safe evacuation of the building, whether
the devices and equipment are publicly or
privately owned."
Section 429.021, Subd. 1 (15) authorizes a municipality
"To construct, reconstruct, alter, extend,
operate, maintain and promote fire protection
systems in existing buildings, but only upon
a petition pursuant to section 429.031, sub-
division 3."
~ 3
Mr. John Cartwright
March 21, 1985
Page 2
Thus, a fire protection system improvement can be made by a
municipality under the Improvement Code.
Section 429.031, Subd. 3, contains the following language as
part of the subdivision:
In the case of a petition [presumably
by the school district] for the installation
of a fire protection system, the peti-
tion must contain or be accompanied by an
undertaking satisfactory to the city by the
petitioner that the petitioner will grant the
municipality the necessary property interest
in the building to permit the city to enter
upon the property and the building to construct,
maintain, and operate the fire protection .
system. In the case. of a petition for the
installation of a fire protection system
which will be privately owned, the petition shall
also contain the plans and specifications for
the improvement, the estimated cost of the
improvement and a statement indicating whether
the city or the owner will contract for the
construction of the improvement. If the owner
is contracting for the construction of the
improvement, the city shall not approve the
petition until it has reviewed and approved
the plans, specifications, and cost estimates
contained in the petition. The construction
cost financed under section 429.091 shall not
exceed the amount of the cost estimate con-
tained in the petition. In the case of a
petition for the installation of a fire pro-
tection system, the petitioner may re-
quest abandonment of the improvement at any
time after it has been ordered pursuant to
subdivision 1 and before contracts have been
awarded for the construction of the improve-
ment under section 429.041, subdivision 2.
If such a request is received, the city council
shall abandon the proceedings but in such case
the petitioner shall reimburse the city for any
and all expenses incurred by the city in con-
. nection with the improvement."
H
i,2r. John Cartwright
March 21, 1985
Page 3
You will note that the foregoing language refers to a system
which will be "privately" owned. Is this language applicable
to the school district? Given the context of the provision
we believe that a system installed on school district property
would fall within the provisions relating to "privately"
owned property. The system would not be located on city
property nor would the city be likely to retain ownership of
the system. (The law would permit the city to own, maintain,
operate the system and assess all the costs against the
district.) In all events we see no disadvantage to either
the city or the district in applying the statute in such a
way as to treat the system as "privately" owned.
The statute also refers to a statement indicating "whether
the city or the owner will contract for the construction on
the improvement." This implies authority by the owner to
do the contracting. If the contract were to be awarded by
the district, it would be necessary for the district to
comply with applicable bidding laws. In addition to the
Uniform Tdunicipal Contracting Law, which specifies the
method to be used by cities, school districts and other
political subdivisions in awarding contracts, the district
should also comply with any additional requirements contained
in Section 429.041, Subd. 2, inasmuch as the above-quoted
language refers to contracts awarded "under section 429.041,
subdivision 2."
Section 429.061 provides the procedure for making assessments
which can be levied at any time after the total expense of a
project can be determined. No hearing is required. The
number of installments and the interest rate are determined
by the city council. The city ordinarily charges slightly
more than its own bond interest rate. It is likely that the
assessments (and bonds) would be in the 10 to 15-year range.
An assessment is a lien against the private and public
property included in the assessment roll. However, the lien
is not enforceable against public property, such as school
district property, while it is owned by the public. As to
such property the special assessment, if unpaid when due,
may be collected under the provisions of P~linnesota Statutes,
Section 435.19 which authorizes a civil action by the city
against the governmental unit which has failed to pay its
special assessment.
/ V
AIr. John Cartwright
March 21, 1985
Page 4
The Improvement Code, in Section 429.091, provides for the
issuance of bonds to finance improvements made under the
Code. No election is required for the issuance of such
bonds if the cost of the improvement is assessed against
benefited property.
The municipality's full faith is ordinarily pledged (although
she law doesn t require it) because it results in a lower
interest rate on the bonds. In all likelihood bonds for a
fire prevention system improvement would be sold with bonds
for other city improvements as a single bond issue.
The provisions in the law relating to fire prevention systems
are quite recent and have not been subjected to court review.
We believe them to be sustainable, however, and are prepared
to issue approving bond opinions on bonds issued to finance
such systems.
. Very truly yours,
Clayton L. LeFevere
CLL:jpf
RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTY
Residential
Location Equivalency Cost*
Senior High School/Central 75.745 $ 1,317.96
School
Football yield 112.763 1,962.08
Lyndale Field 47.847 832.54
Sheridan School 46.899 816.04
Lincoln Hills 55.844 971.69
Junior High School 131.840 2,294.02
Portland School 28.618 497.95
Centennial School 35.246 613.28
Intermediate School/Elliot 101.103 1,759.19
Elementary
TOTALS 635.905 X11,064.75
* Cost was determined by multiplying the residential equivalency by 317.40
s ~
s
6 ~ z
z 8
a9 ~ ,
~ o
~ GET THE FACTS ON
What Major Problems _ ~ ; ~
Will 1985 and 1986 I Want More N STO R M
Construction Pro ects ~ ~
~ Information! a
Address?
The Richfield City Council plans to hold a D ~
Storm water flooding problems have been public hearing on the Storm Drainage
an issue in Richfield since the rain storm Utility on Monday, April 8,1985 at 7 p.m.
event of August 30,1977, during which at City Hall. You are invited to attend.
over seven Inches of rainfall occurred. Also, further Information can be obtained I U T ~ L t TY
by calling the Engineering Division at ;
Although some engineering studies were 869-7521.
prepared and some Identified problem ~ ~ j
areas were corrected, no major \
improvement program was undertaken. ~ I
However, in 1983-84 the Mayor and City ~ I
Council made storm water relief a high ~
priority goal. r
1
A 1984 study of the Richfield drainage ` i ~ t `'r=
system was completed using computer
simulation of drainage flow. The analysis
shows that the drainage system works
well, but not without problems. The
problems occur when rainfall Intensity is 4
greater than design flow capacity or
when rainfall volume Is more than the
holding capacities of ponds and lakes.
u
The highest prlorlty projects are those ~ /
where buildings are threatened or
flooded. The facilities Identified to _ ~ ~ 1
improve drainage system performance .Wilson Pond area Q4th Street,l4th _..-.r-~
are estimated at $2 million, consisting of: to 15th Avenue), pond improvements '
• from 66th to 70th Street, Penn and relief sewers at $600,000; -
Avenue to Wood Lake, relief sewer .66th Street, Xerxes to Upton Avenue, _ RlChti@Id propos@S to use a
at $100,000; reuer sewers at $200,000. ~ ~ Z y c "new" technique to pay for the
• 76th and Washburn Avenue to ~ ~ v x costs of managing storm water runoff
Adam's Hill Pond, relief sewer at Once these first prlorlty concerns are { z ~ -a Storm Drainage Utility.
$200,000; resolved, the City will consider other ~ ? a1; m
• Norby's Pond area (69th to 70th problem areas that Include city park land, N„ ~ This leaflet Is prepared to introduce
Street, S?evens to Third Avenue), individual fot problems, and street z ~ ypu to th{S n@w ut{{{ty and
pond Improvements and relief flooding to relatively minor depths and i
sewers at $900,000; for reasonably short durations. anSw@r your qu@St{OnB.
i
I
3 ` ~ `l~
Money
2 ow W ill My
, Be p Sedgy
W hat is a Storm H
re of
Drainage polity? What is N?y Sha wel, as the
service for the future ~ichfleid. A storm
e utility is a , sewer the Co$tS? Planning octant to developed
A storm dsalnag d sanitary to present is imp will ba tne:
wafer an Sewer utility fees in 1985 drainage master plan daterm
similar to the oust of acted quarterly shown date to es fePafrs
utilities- Like the sanitary stem• The ex0 ernes are and kept up•ta chan9
e Manage tee, the fee is based oedhnto he sY es of Prof when will be Headed.
1$t W various tyP ~ vfhere and
7 a arking lot creates more below: and future facilftlas rotect the
wafer that is dlscharg same g1Z8' so f1 Homes ~ 4.35t1ot
drainage • For instance, rass area the le Fam Y , . hat should be done to P
lfarly, alarge Sln9 • 5.441acre W
runoff than her rata. Sim small and Duplexes ' ' • ~ • . • qualrty of water to our fakes an
Riehiield, the it Pays a hlg ore runoff thaamount. • ' ' , $16.3if acre ponds.
le settled In sandy i her Cemeteries . • • • • • ' ' erate and maintain
a at the land w ahd treas. parcel creates m a s a h 9 parks & $27.191acre
parcel, so It toe P Y Railroads • • • • • ' ' ' is Headed to op stem• A
rass water Institutional • • • • • ' Money drarna9e sY a tee
red with 9 In this way, the crtlze e ooRstoYtnld wll Schools & resent storm draina9
fad, the water soaked Into the anagen` ount of wafer they pAultlple Family $65.25facre the P
to the rivers pay for the m to the am f their Churches. • ~ • • largo portion of the storm
lowed naturall,e came to in Pf°p°hion iha value o pwatUn9s & . _ $t08.75f acre used to: facilities so
is. When peop Stores, arcial Quill be storm
built homes, , ? "contribute', not on Comm erly for a longer
[hey aved the land proPartY• drainage fee will be included ~ Maintain exre a
e prop
and P and driveW ays• er bill You they will oP
,arches, tots Your storm a water and sew our fee can period of trme• storm
;ts, parking on the sam aorta,. Also, Y clean
aptly, the ground canal ate b ups demonstrate that .Enhance wetlands to
and more receive eachfq ou can retard flows.
r as easily, , Why is a polity be reduceedy has onsite facilities which water and storm facilities
A rains. your prop uality or reduce its
develoPed~ It imPrpVe water q . Replace existing a unusable over
Needed which could become natural
and in Richf;a iarrpas ulres outtlow rale• ears, due to ih
octant to control the Y rocess.
~ increasl storm dralnagened and Islatfon now regilier each homeowner paidtor a (eaves,
-m water. malntaf nt State leg In ig84, 00 quarterly deterioration P and Pickup
be built, er to: Race reefer and co fn our roximately $2- afntenance .Sweep streets not enter the
js had to Rlchfretd to take 9 uality app water m aterial dons
~d to control runoff in ord rotect water q These so this m
actions to p than ever before. water minimal storm
~OTECT PEOPI-E community program. calls for system. d r S d Y
OPERN will include forming new 1985 utility Plan se b
ROTECT PR ANGE RISKS acifons anizations and ro osed million wilt be a d e
INSUR ant or9 tans to The P P gowner's ppa}or problems .
,EDUCE OPERT~{ V A~uEB managem regional and locale
chronic afntenance a The hom ro acts.
VE PR s Also, b new greater m cam. construction p I
NHANCETHEE~VIRONMENT develoPlnroblem . som constructtonP435quaderly-
OR SAFE ~ identify p roblems will be relieved Y share will be ~
PROV IpE F flooding P develop aced
TRAFFIC FLOW construction. biped with Other more inten slurps an fncre
when com storm reefer
costs, oin9 ProPedies will as Also, an
and receive sts due to the 9
waters These new S ant for ong ear, create. wiH
control storm is a cost- TWell the money P Today, share of these c
se benefits, f aeainage utility drainage maintenance end tare. share of runoff teary nt of total c 6stfes,
,posed storm a or exp for using additional ten Ptax exempt Prof
costs to those who represents a m l Sewer fees. now be paid by arty tares.
read these water runoff. most storm water costs are paid a no prof
arty taxes and sa w aY
to meet these who usually P Y
~ntribute to the storm prop , ust find uitabte
Richfr costs in a fair and additional
rising without adding
manner to the property tax rolls.
burden