The URL can be used to link to this page

03-09-87 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 88 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of appointment of Byron Wallace as Community Development Director Background: The City Charter of Richfield Section 6.02, subsection 3, provides that the City Manager shall appoint all heads of departments, and that appointments shall be final only upon a majority vote of the council. The position of Community Development Director has been vacant since July, 1986. An nationwide recruitment has been conducted. As a result of that process, Byron Wallace has been determined to be the best candidate for the position of Community Development Director. The recruitment process included advertisement of the position vacancy in professional magazines, local government magazines, local newspapers, and direct recruitment of candidates by references. As a result of that process, approximately 90 applications were received. An assessment committee consisting 40 of the City Manager, Director of Administrative Services, Director of Community Services, and a planning and development professional assisted in the selection process which included assessment of the candidate's education, background, and experience; and review of responses to questions directed at assessing individual's planning and development expertise. Two final candidates were selected for psychological assessment and management style assessment. As a result of the report from the Assessment Committee, the city's psychologist, and the management consultant, one candidate was indicated as the clear choice for the position. Byron Wallace is currently the Executive Director of the Kankakee Regional Planning Commission. He has held that position since 1974. Prior to that, Mr. Wallace was in private law practice from 1966, and previously was an associate with the firm of Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe, Babcock, McDougal and Parsons in Chicago, Illinois, from 1963 to 1966. Mr. Wallace's education includes a BA degree in econo.nics from Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois and a JD degree from Harvard Law School. In addition, he has had training at the University of Illinois in economic development and planning, and at the University of Oklahoma Economic Development•Institute, and the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education. Mr. Wallaces' previous work experience and Management style are well suited to the needs of the Planning and Development Department for the City of Richfield. Managers Recommendation: Approve appointment of Byron Wallace as the Director of Community Development. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Assessment Committee has determined that Mr. Wallace is well suited to the position. 2. Dr. Hobart's psychological analysis indicates Mr. Wallace is well suited for the position. 3. Lyle Sumek's management style assessment indicates that Mr. Wallaces' style will fit the needs of the Community Development Department and the management team very well. Alternative Recommendation: 1. This position has been vacant for 8 months. A timely appointment is necessary. Mr. Wallace is well suited for the position and nothing would be gained by readvertising for this position. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for council action on March 9, 1987. The City Charter requires concurrence by a majority of the City Council of appointments by the City Manager. If the City Council concurs, Mr. Wallace will assume his responsibilities the week of March 30. JDP /eja is Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager iG CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 87 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Corr,ments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Trunk Highway 77/149,4 Improvement Project. Background: The City of Richfield has received copies of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for TH77/I494 Improvement, and copies have been provided to each council member. The city has been invited to comment on the environmental impacts on the city. Richfield's Ad Hoc I35W/I494 Traffic Committee has made some recommendations which are included in this letter along with general comments more of a "housekeeping" nature. The city council may or may not choose to make comments to be presented prior to the deadline. The City of Bloomington will be hosting a formal public hearing on March 12, 1937 in Lehman Auditorium of the Bloomington Education Center, 8900 Portland Avenue South. There will be an Open House from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM with the hearing itself beginning at 7:30 PM. Once Bloomington has received comments from all parties, they will prepare a final EIS. Although comments at this time are directed toward the EIS, the Richfield city council will soon be presented with the actual plans and specifications for the "Stage I" improvements, and asked to make comments and approve the plans and specifications prior to construction starting. These improvements have been funded and generally focus on TH77. The EIS includes not only Stage I improvements, but also what are called "Ultimate" improvements. The draft EIS addresses improvements to TH77, commonly referred to as Cedar Avenue, between approximately 75th Street and 86th Street and improvements to 1494 between approximately 12th Avenue and 24th Avenue. The proposed highway improvements in the document have been determined as necessary to provide for additional traffic demands expected to result from development in the Airport South area of Bloomington including the Mall of America, commonly called the Mega Mall. The EIS examines three alternatives: Alternative 1: This is the "Ultimate" build plan with Alternative lA representing Stage I of the ultimate project. Alternative 2: No Build Alternative 3: Travel Demand Management - this alternative includes no highway improvements but analyzes the impacts of handling increased traffic solely through increased transit, carpooling, staggered work hours and so forth. The Build Alternative 1 includes travel demand management and highway improvements to serve the expected development for the year 2005. These improvements include widening I494, rebuilding the 1494 interchanges with 34th Avenue, 24th Avenue, TH77 and 12th Avenue. The improvements also include adding interchanges to TH77 at approximately 75th Street, at East 81st Street and at Killebrew Drive. The total estimated cost is $189 million. Alternative lA would be sufficient to serve 1995 development. Alternative lA basically includes the TH77 improvements, construction of an urban interchange at 24th Avenue and construction of one directional ramp (northbound TH77 to westbound I494) in the interchange of TH77/I494. The preliminary design does include provisions for ramp metering. The cost of Stage I is estimated to be $82 million. Construction is planned to begin in 1987 with improvements open to traffic mid year or late in 1989. The Ultimate project would not be built before 1995. The Ultimate plan in Alternative 1 includes widening I494 to eliminate the frontage road in Richfield. The draft EIS concludes on page 5 -64 there will be adverse impacts to the residential neighborhood north of 77th Street. On pages 5 -67 to 5 -70, adverse impacts to cornrnercial properties are detailed. No mitigative measures are outlined. • Access from 12th Avenue to eastbound I494 is maintained in Alternative 1. A new interchange at approximately 75th Street and TH77 is introduced in Alternative 1. There is no access provided to the west. Conclusions on noise levels in Section 5.3.2.2 of Alternative 1 are not consistent with Table 5.3.B and Table 5.3.C. Noise to the apartments on I494 is not addressed. With correction of the tables related to noise, it is clarified that noise levels at Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course will increase, but will not exceed federal standards. Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the city staff and Richfield's Ad Hoc I35W/I494 Traffic Committee that the following comments be officially made regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for TH77/I494 Improvement Project: 1. If the 78th Street frontage road is to be eliminated, improvements to 77th Street and buffering of the neighborhood must be included as part of the project. 2. "Old" Cedar Avenue should be retained as it now exists. 3. This plan is inconsistent with Policy 9 of the Transportation Section of the Metropolitan Development Guide, which requires that roadways be designed in a manner to be compatible with is adjacent land use, or in those instances of incompatibility, measures to nitigate conflicts are established. This plan does riot establish a plan to mitigate this incompatibility. • • 4. This plan is incompatible with adjacent .land uses in Richfield because the Phase Ii plan would require additional traffic on 77th Street through Richfield. 5. Any decision regardomg 12th Avenue access should be delayed until completion of the I494 Traffic Corridor Study. 6. Whether or not there should ever be an improvement made, the project design should provide for the possibility of east /west traffic flow across TH77 in the vicinity of or between the new interchange proposed at TH77 and approximately 75th Street and the interchange of TH77/I494. 7. Whether or not there should ever be an improvement made, the project design should provide for the possibility of northbound access to TH77 in the project area north of the TH77/I494 interchange. 8. Noise impact to the apartments in the project area should be addressed. 9. Table 5.3.5 and Table 5.3.0 should be corrected to reflect the conclusions ruche:' on noise levels in Section 5.3.2.2 of Alternative 1. 10. Noise impacts resulting from improvements to TH77 should be mitigated with sound barrier walls, depression of TH77 the length of Richfield or a combination of mitigative measures acceptable to the City of Richfield. 11. The map on Page 2 -18 is incorrect. 12th Avenue, Cedar Avenue and Diagonal Boulevard are classified as collectors. 12. The design should provide for pedestrian and non - motorized traffic across both I494 and TH77. 13. The regional planning for a) TH77 widening to six lanes between I494 and Crosstown 62, b) upgrading of the TH77 /Crosstown 62 intersection and c) widening of Crosstown 62 between TH77 and I35W should begin immediately to accommodate expected traffic increases. 14. The cost of any design changes and /or improvements as outlined in these comments and recommendations should not be borne by the residents or the City of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The city staff and the Ad Hoc I35W/I494 Traffic Committee have spent considerable time meeting with the consultant, reviewing the proposed plans and the draft EIS. Comments and questions of the residents at the March 3, 1987 public informational meeting about the proposed plan were also taken into account. 2. It is in the best interest of the City of Richfield to comment on the draft EIS. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not make any comments indirect comment. However, a "no comment" is an 2. Amend or delete any of the recommendations listed above and /or add new comments or recommendations. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is on the March 9 city council agenda so the City of Richfield may officially be on record regarding the draft EIS. Any delay in action may exceed the deadline for making comment. JDP /eja • u r� Respect lly submitted, James Prosser City anager �I 10E EDO] - - ,\ \\\ 79th St-. E 80th St E U I • F- T.FI.77/ 1 -494 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FIGURE 3.2.13 Stage 1 Improvements Alternative 1A NOTE: Map is for illustration of design concept plan only. Concept plan is subject to revision without notice. i • 100 • L, IJEEEE E ��In000 ]EEO] i Kilebrew Dr! i 86th St E J f` H T.H.77/Im4S4 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ve FIGURE 3.2.A 2005 Design Concept Alternative 1 NOTE: Map is for illustration of design concept plan only. Concept plan is subject to revision without notice. �y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 86 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issu° Statement: Revision of ordinance chapter 4.07, regulating house moving in the city. Background: The Public Safety Department has responded to several complaints recently concerning house movers who have left dwellings they were ,roving on vacant lots or city property without permission. The movers would leave the houses at these sites for weeks, and neighboring residents called to complain about the unsightly nature of the houses and the potential public hazard. The houses were being broken into, and in one case a house was set on fire. The Public Safety Department had difficulty in resolving the problems and is seeking to improve the ordinance by making it easier to enforce. The ordinance was reviewed by all city departments, and language changes to the ordinance have been proposed. One major change prohibits the "parking" of houses without city approval. The changes will make the intent of some it,�;;;s clear, replace vague items with specific language, and replace outdated references with current language. Recommendation: Approve first reading of the amendment to Section 4.07 of the City Ordinance, and schedule second reading and the public hearing for the April 13, 1987 council meeting. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The existing ordinance contains items and terms which are vague. 2. Some items and references in the ordinance are no longer consistent with State statutes and need to be updated. 3. The above items have made the ordinance difficult for the Public Safety Department to enforce it and resolve complaints in a timely manner. Alternative Recommendation: The city council could reject the changes. However, the outdated items and vague language would still make the ordinance difficult to enforce. Decision /Discussion Mode: The revisions to the house moving ordinance have been submitted for first reading at the March 9, 1987 meeting. If first reading is approved, the second reading and public hearing will be held on April 13, 1987. Respect 'lly submitted, i Jame 0. Prosser City `Manager JDP /eja 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.07 OF THE CODE OF CITY ORDINANCES The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 4.07 of the Code of City Ordinances is hereby amended by deleting the strieken material and adding the underlined material as follows: 4.07. MOVING OF BUILDINGS OVER STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this section (tea) "Building" means a structure designed, built or occupied as a shelter or roofed enclosure for persons, animals, or property used for residential, business, mercantile, storage, commercial, industrial, institutional, assembly, educational or recreational purposes. A structure of less than 100 square feet 16 feet by 20 feet shall not be within this definition. . ( -2b) The titles "C-city Mmanager ", "Ddirector of Ecommunity - sservices ", "$director of Ecommunity Ddevelopment" and "Ddirector of -Ppublic -&safety" shall include those persons and their designees. Subd. 2. Permit Required. No persons shall move any building , on or across any highway, street or alley over which the city has jurisdiction and supervision as defined :-- Minneseta , without first obtaining a permit from the _ manager building official. This section applies whatever regardless of the origin or destination of the building or structure. No persons shall,while in the process of moving a building, park the same on any property in the city without the prior approval of the_01ty Manage, building official. Subd. 3. Application. Persons seeking issuance of a permit hereunder shall file an application for such permit with the eirtef $building inspeeter official. Subd. 4. Contents of Application. The application shall be made in writing upon forms provided by the Vie€ $building insgeeter official and shall contain such information as the Ghle€ 2building inspeeter official finds necessary to determine whether a permit should be issued. The following items shall accompany all applications: ( -1a) The owner of the building to be moved shall file with the • application sufficient evidence that all real estate taxes and special assessments against the building and lot from which it is to be removed are paid in full. (3b) The applicant, if other than the owner, shall file with the application sufficient written evidence that he is entitled to remove the building. (3c) The applicant shall file with the application prior to issuance of permit, written evidence of arrangements with all public utility companies whose wires, lamps or poles are required to be removed, for the removal thereof by the company. (d) The applicant shall furnish proof satisfactory to the building official that an approved site is ready for the building to be moved there. (§e) Except for manufactured or modular homes, or a building owned by a farmer who owns it, or any building less than 16 feet wide by 20 feet long, the applicant shall furnish proof satisfactory to the Ehief $building inspeeter official that the building mover is fully licensed under all applicable laws of the `tstate of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes 1981, Section 221.81, and complies with and has satisfied all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. ( -&f) The application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable permit fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code. Subd. -&5. Duties of Director of Public Safety. The director of public safety shall assure ensure inspection of the building and the applieant's equipment by the Chief $building 9official fluspectux to determine whether the standards required in this section for the issuance of a permit have been met. Subd. y6. Standards for Issuance. The Gity Manager building official shall refuse to issue a permit if he or she finds: ( -1a) That the mover is not day licensed by the -&state of Minnesota; ( -2b) That the building is too large to move without endangering persons or property in the city; (3c) That the building is in such a state of deterioration or disrepair or is otherwise so structurally unsafe that it could not be moved without endangering persons and or property in the city; — (4d) That the building is structurally unsafe or unfit for the purpose for which moved, if the location to which the building is to be moved is in the city; � Tha-L the -appli-eant s equ4:pment is unsafe and that persvrrs and groperty would be endangered by ftM7-USL—, ( -6e) That the zoning or building code provisions or any other provisions of this code would be violated by the building in its new location; (yf) That, if the building is being moved from a location within the city, outstanding charges for water and sewer service have not been paid. ($g) That for any other reason persons or property in the city would be endangered by the moving of the building. Subd. 87. Compliance with Building, Structural and Mechanical Regulations. If construction, alteration or repair work on such building or structure will be necessary to make it conform to the building, structural and mechanical regulations, permits for such work shall be obtained before such building or structure is moved into or within this city. The permits shall specify that such work be completed within 90 days after such building or structure is located in the city. The building official may authorize additional time for compliance. Failure to make such building or structure conform to such construction regulations within such 90 day period constitutes a violation of this section. Subd. 88. Compliance with Zoning Regulations. No building or structure shall be moved to a location within this city unless in the opinion of the Gity Manager building official it will conform to the zoning regulations of the city, including, but not limited to, all setback and lot size regulations, and will be a building or structure of the same general character and appearance of those buildings or structures in the vicinity of the proposed location. Upon receipt of the application the finspectax building official shall forward a copy to the director of community development for review. Upon eempletion of sueh • The director of community development shall determine whether such building or structure will conform to the character and appearance of the neighborhood into which it is proposed to be moved, —. he-eshe cany event shatt determine whether ar not such bu±td±iig ox ice$ t - CROSS - REFERENCE: See Chap. III, Part IV, for zoning regulations. Subd. 3789. Designation of Streets for Removal. The Ddirector of Gcommunity -&services shall designate streets over which the building may be moved. The director shall have the list approved by the Ddirector of -Ppublic -&safety and shall reproduce the list upon the permit in writing. In making their determinations, the $director of Ecommunity -&services and the Ddirector of Ppublic Ssafety shall endeavor to insure maximum safety to persons and property in the city and to minimize congestion and traffic hazards on public streets. The $director of Ecommunity -&services may also designate the hours, movement, parking, or speed limit of the building mover. Subd. 3410. Duties of Permittee. Permittees under this section shall: ( +a) Move a building only over streets designated for such use in the written permit. 1 74 (2b) Notify the director in writing of any and all damages done to property belonging to the city er- any public utility or private property, within 24 hours after the damage or injury has occurred. ( -3c) Cause red lights to be displayed during the nighttime on every side of the building while egg on a street at any time from sunset to sunrise and at any other time when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog or other conditions or there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles at a distance of 500 feet,, —_ Warning lights with open flames shall not be used. of the bstru_t (M) and shall at all Limes eErect and maintain barricades across the streets in such manner as to protect the public from damage or injury by reason of the removal of the building. (4e) Remove the building from the city streets after two days of such occupancy, unless an extension is granted by the manager building official. ( §f) Comply with all applicable provisions of this code and other laws upon relocating the building in the city. ( -6g) Pay the expense of a traffic officer ordered by the city to accompany the movement of the building. to preteet the publie ( -7h) Remove all rubbish and materials and fill all excavations to existing grade at the original building site if within the city so that the premises are left in a safe and sanitary condition. ($i) Remove all structural remains such as foundations, footings, stoops, stairways, posts, etc., or any other strue1--M- item which, if left on the property, would constitute a hazard. (4j_) Provide for the displacement of any and all overhead wires and furnish proof to the city in advance of the day upon which moving operations shall be commenced that satisfactory arrangements have been made. (-1-9k) -IEnsure that the sewer line is plugged with a eenerete stopper cut off by a licensed plumber, the water shut cut off by licensed plumber and the motor meter returned to the city, if the original building site is within the city. Permittee shall also notify the gas and electric services companies to remove their services. (441) Ensure that any wells on the site have been sealed by a liscensed well contractor. (3-2m) Complete within 90 days after remeva= removing of building all remodeling, additions or repairs as shown on the plans accompanying the application. Subd. 3-211. Liability of Permittee to City. The permittee shall be liable for any expense, damages or costs in excess of deposited amounts or securities. E -I -A Subd. 3-x12. Revocation. Refusal by the permit holder or any person acting on his behalf to comply with the terms or provisions of this section or to adopt any safety or precautionary device or method imposed upon such moving operation is a violation of this section and is cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Subd. -1413. Appeal. The decision by the requested permit or revok. sustain or overrule the e. decision; and may grant a as it deems appropriate.. applicant or permittee may appeal any �er building official denying the ing an issued permit. The council may ity- building official's permit upon such terms and conditions Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor • • • TYPE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE (4) Plan Review Fee SECTION REQUIRING 3.02 and State Building Code (5) Moving 4.07 Dwellings and Buildings Other Than Dwellings (6) Garage 4.07 Moving (7) Structure 3.02 Demolition (a) Commercial (b) �r C �r TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE FEE 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following: (a) Existing single family dwelling alterations when habitable area is not enlarged. (b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work. (c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required. (d) Residential garages and storage buildings. Pre - inspection Fee: -IN Richfield $30 - OUTSIDE Richfield $63 Moving Permit Fee: - WITHIN Richfield $30 -INTO Richfield $63 Moving Out of City $30 Pre - inspection Fee: (If relocated in City) $19 Moving Permit Fee first stall $13.50 -Plus each adjoining stall $ 7.50 Moving out of City $13.50 Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $19 Dwelling: b.l One or Two story b.2 Multiple First Unit -plus each additional b.3 Residential - Garage and lesser structure (8) Driveway, 4.04 $19 $19 unit $ 8.50 $ 7.50 $19 Sidewalk, Curb Except when survey and grade and Gutter stakes are set by City $63 Construction (9) Sewer 4.03 For each transverse excavation Excavation and each 300 feet or portion thereof longitudinal $10 excavation (9A) Utility Abandonment (a) Sewer 8.03 $10 (b) Water 8.13 $10 (9B) Certifi- 8.12 cation Charge (Delinquent) $20 D.2 �O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 85 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the request for approval of a preliminary plat at 7332 Upton Avenue. Background: Mr. John Lindholm, owner (not resident) of the property at 7332 Upton Avenue, has requested city approval of a preliminary plat to create two new lots. The City Council on August 25, 1986 vacated the unimproved portion of the right -of -way adjacent to his property. The council also stipulated that a utility easement be granted to Minnegasco in order to maintain the gas line and that if necessary the gas line be relocated at the sole expense of the applicant. The vacation of the right -of -way allowed Mr. Lindholm to acquire 4,630 square feet of additional land. The present site with the additional land has a total area of 19,315 square feet. There is a single family dwelling with a detached garage on the site. Mr. Lindholm now wishes to subdivide the property into two new lots. The proposed northerly lot would have an area of 11,566 square feet and accommodate the existing dwelling with the garage. The existing dwelling and garage would continue to meet minimum setback requirements. Mr. Lindholm is proposing to construct a single family dwelling on the southerly lot. The proposed southerly lot would have an area of 7,749 square feet and would not meet minimum lot width requirements. The zoning ordinance indicates that lot width is defined as the distance between the side lot lines measured along the front property line. Because of the adjacent dedicated park land, the proposed southerly lot has only 13 feet of frontage along Upton Avenue and no frontage along 74th Street. The minimum required lot width for a single family lot in 'R' districts is 50 feet, therefore a variance would be required in order to construct a dwelling on this lot. A variance application has not been filed by the property owner as of this date. The proposed subdivision is in a single family residence 'R' district. The newly created lots would meet the lot area and setback requirements. At the time of Planning Commission review of the vacation of right -of -way on June 24, 1986, staff contended that two single family conforming lots could be created on the site if both the right -of -way and park land were vacated. On February 24, 1987 the Planning Commission unanimously (8 -0) recommended that the City Council deny the preliminary plat request at 7332 Upton Avenue because a nonconforming lot would be created. The commission encouraged the property owner to pursue the legal process to vacate the adjacent dedicated park so that a conforming lot could be created. A preliminary plat plan and a simplified proposed site plan is attached. Also attached is an area zoning map and copy of a letter from the city attorney's office. The zoning ordinance requirements applicable to this matter are as follows: 1. Section 3.59, outlines the requirements for approval of the preliminary plat. 2. Section 3.30, subdivision 4(b) and 5(a) outlines the minimum lot width and minimum building setbacks requirements in 'R' district. Staff Recommendation: Deny the preliminary plat as shown for the property located at 7332 Upton Avenue. Basis Of Recommendation: 1. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat against the requirements indicated in the subdivision and zoning ordinances and find that the requirements for the subdivision approval have not been met. As previously indicated the southerly lot would not meet minimum lot width requirements, and therefore would be a nonconforming lot. 2. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission that the city should not grant approval to a subdivision that would create a nonconforming lot. 3. It is also the opinion of the staff that two single family lots could be created on the existing site meeting the lot area, lot depth, width and setback requirements without a variance, if the existing garage was moved to a different location and a different subdivision line were established. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may wish to approve the subdivision request subject to the following stipulations: 1. The property owner obtain a variance for the lot width requirement for the proposed southerly parcel. 2. The property owners have one half of the vacated street added to the legal description in their certificate of title as a part of the final plat approval. 3. The property must be developed-as a single family residential lot. Approving the subdivision as shown would involve the applicant obtaining the variance. It is staff's opinion that the circumstances present in the proposed subdivision would not meet the requirements of the state statutes and city ordinances for granting a variance, however._ Decision Mode: A public hearing has been scheduled before the City Council at 7:00 PM, March 9, 1987, at the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall to consider approval of the preliminary plat. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager • E • am (D 401 ■� O CL i CL CY 150.0 74TH -* STREET U- ci CO) co co U) C6 T Lo 00 cr) V — z 0 CL D NORTH Y cc a. MW co U. ci Cl) 0) 74TH -* STREET U- ci CO) co co U) C6 T Lo 00 cr) V — z 0 CL D NORTH Y cc a. MW co X AML C, rte, LINDHOLM ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN _ i_. �.'•.. `, \ t.•''4a0 .10 / \ i 74'ELM R I w \ R U 1411 A1444 I 0 liUl7� NODS I I w3 TC-� 2 1476 Q o i n 19 MA PIE ILOOR EL =14660 E✓/ I I I «i IB "CAT wwow .. , 3 �4 .1445 mNC I N m T `1d I� \\ \ SIUEWAIK — W— 3 I `v I Y ARAGE\ bb 24"E LM I/ IR! \� \ti _ J421F T0OC. am l` DRN _ W /N I M .f� 14 G44Y iN I I CLOCUST i, �� / 216E n <Z 27 , 31 i - �h `` ��lTB j�f � CX �rL� . 143.9 �AFHON .V J fT0,1 I u 24 i ` I og t '•� .44y r�1`t I Ali J II' I W 12 ASH t 7/� 1 �__ 3D I . MOPOSED = m i i I % 4 <.1' 8 MI LLAV GR1vE� I = W -i_ •--'-'--�`PROXA /IL'A/ //7749 SO. F7/ ■143.9 74 4.436 / 1439 �35 T.0 7 12 APPLE / `r / , ISM GUi IER 0 It 0 `v / \ �L' / /-PROPOSED I I r DRAINAGE r M ^ u Urn In B LL EASE l.IENi I �-•� GAS yINE PROF EO GAS LINE •J 2 1.. It_ I 144 5 EASEMENT 25 px'L� \J A SOUTHEAST Q LINE 9 LOT 6 ELM 30 AATED W 74TH ST.8 UPION NE. m ' I / .1433 n IIENCH MARK' NE FLANGE -- LIGHT POLE IIr1LT EL .14527 'a I GATE HYDRANT—, ^ VALVE -_1050-- . TL� 'r ' 35'� ASH © / � 30 30 L q /ter N7f, O � . i "."•"� TC .� T/L, NA CURB 1436 .H� .TI N V�IY/,1-T ST S 1445 I I . STORM MR. AfPROX >� 7 4� T� I ST.S _____ __ _ STS' —(l 1 _ L I IS -rF 1 E-r I � 49: 1ZI N I Y PROPOSED/1D11`,-AGE 8 UTILITY EASEMENT -----__I / / A 0434 Lp APPROX. AREA �— W f 1443 11,566 SQ. FT. I / 40 X942 _ i_. �.'•.. `, \ t.•''4a0 .10 / \ i 74'ELM R I w \ R U 1411 A1444 I 0 liUl7� NODS I I w3 TC-� 2 1476 Q o i n 19 MA PIE ILOOR EL =14660 E✓/ I I I «i IB "CAT wwow .. , 3 �4 .1445 mNC I N m T `1d I� \\ \ SIUEWAIK — W— 3 I `v I Y ARAGE\ bb 24"E LM I/ IR! \� \ti _ J421F T0OC. am l` DRN _ W /N I M .f� 14 G44Y iN I I CLOCUST i, �� / 216E n <Z 27 , 31 i - �h `` ��lTB j�f � CX �rL� . 143.9 �AFHON .V J fT0,1 I u 24 i ` I og t '•� .44y r�1`t I Ali J II' I W 12 ASH t 7/� 1 �__ 3D I . MOPOSED = m i i I % 4 <.1' 8 MI LLAV GR1vE� I = W -i_ •--'-'--�`PROXA /IL'A/ //7749 SO. F7/ ■143.9 74 4.436 / 1439 �35 T.0 7 12 APPLE / `r / , ISM GUi IER 0 It 0 `v / \ �L' / /-PROPOSED I I r DRAINAGE r M ^ u Urn In B LL EASE l.IENi I �-•� GAS yINE PROF EO GAS LINE •J 2 1.. It_ I 144 5 EASEMENT 25 px'L� \J A SOUTHEAST Q LINE 9 LOT 6 ELM 30 AATED W 74TH ST.8 UPION NE. m ' I .1433 IIENCH MARK' NE FLANGE -- LIGHT POLE IIr1LT EL .14527 'a I GATE HYDRANT—, ^ VALVE . TL� 'r ' 35'� ASH © 14321( 1436 1413 .: jtTIM INV. SIGN \CATpI CATCH BASIN 1430 ■1440 L RMEV1428 �, GUTTER INV EL: 1399 — m y CO TC BASIN 1424 �,1• rS T/L, NA CURB 1436 .H� GUTTER I 143(,.1426 N V�IY/,1-T ST S GUTTER GUTTER . STORM MR. AfPROX >� 7 4� T� I ST.S _____ __ _ STS' —(l 1 _ L RIM FL. -1 INV EL.. -1362 .362 2 IS -rF 1 E-r I � SANI HIM INV. I I STORM MR. RIM EL + 140.5 INV. EL. 134.3 TARY MR. E1 +1438 EL.. 1 34.5 3 F- N Z N ti I I PENN AVE S ( CO. RD NO. 32 ) 3 N O C 'unuec evr c QUEEN AVE S RUSSEL AVE S 3 N 2 t^ Q ti i i i i i i 1 3 S 2 ti i t M E M O R A N D U M TO: John Dean FROM: Corrine Heine 64/� RE: Lindholm Subdivision DATE: February 17, 1987 You asked me to review the proposed Lindholm subdivision for compliance with the City of Richfield subdivision regulations and zoning code. Specifically, you asked three questions: 1. Are the lot widths sufficient under the zoning code? No. Section 3.57 of the code requires a standard width of 75 feet and an area of 8,000 square feet, except when any other standard or width is specified elsewhere in the code. Section 3.30 provides that, for a lot in an "R" zone to be used for a single family dwelling, the minimum lot area is 6,750 square feet and the minimum width is 50 feet. Under the definitions section of the zoning code, lot width'is defined as the distance between the side lot lines, measured along the front lot line of the property. The proposed northerly lot meets the minimum requirements. It has a lot width of 125.5 feet and a lot area of 11,566 square feet. The proposed southerly parcel meets the minimum area requirement, with a total area of 7,749 square feet. The lot width of that parcel, however, is only 13 feet, fronting on•Upton Avenue. Section 3.58 of the code allows the council to grant a variance from the lot width requirements where there are unique circumstances and a substantial hardship would result from strict compliance with the code. The council should consider requiring the applicant to obtain a variance from the lot width requirement as a condition for preliminary plat approval. 2. Is the driveway width on the southerly proposed parcel sufficient under the code? . Yes. Section 4.04, subd. 8 provides that a driveway may not exceed 20 feet in width. The code sets no minimum driveway width. The driveway for the southerly proposed parcel is 13 feet at its narrowest point and 20 feet at its widest point. 3. Who owns the vacated street? The existing parcel, Lot 6, Block 1, Penn Lake Terrace 2nd Addition, is torrens property and is owned by Eric Lindholm and his wife, as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 418142. As a condition of plat approval, the council should require the owners to have one half of the vacated street added to the legal description in their certificate of title through a proceedings subsequent. 0055MEO1.G48 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 84 March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of the a resolution to extend the interim ordinance restricting the issuance of building permits in the ILN Redevelopment area an additional six months. Backaround• A significant amount of investment by the HRA, the ILN Residential Advisory Committee, ILN Committee, neighborhood residents, city staff and the BRW consulting firm, has produced a redevelopment plan for the Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet Area. The development opportunity which the redevelopment plan provides for the area is unique, and must be properly managed to realize its potential and the established goals. In general, the goals of this district include creating a favorable environment to foster the growth of appropriate businesses and minimizing or eliminating the conflicts between the residential and commercial areas. It will take a number of years to accomplish these goals in the area south of 77th Street. This conclusion is based on the market conditions and our experience with the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet area. In the LHN area, the redevelopment plan was approved in 1975. Construction on the first redevelopment parcel was initiated three years later in 1978. Nine years following, in 1987, the last redevelopment project will be initiated on the Graham Avenue site. Most of this development took place in a very growth orientated market. The city is ready for redevelopment in the ILN, but the market for appropriate development is less favorable than at the time the LHN was developed. The market is not currently growth orientated. The challenge then is to protect the redevelopment potential of the ILN area until the market is ready. Maintaining our persistence is important, not only to gain appropriate development in this area, but also to develop a tax base necessary to meet community needs. The strategy being recommended for the ILN; area protects the redevelopment plan which resulted from an extensive public planning effort. Discussions were also held with developers. On February 10th the BRW consulting firm invited developers active in the greater Minneapolis market to a meeting which was also attended by Mayor Hamilton, Chairman Harms and city staff. On March 2, the City Council, Planning Commission and HRA met to discuss the strategy which involves four actions: 1) A new zoning district be defined within the ordinances of the city. Such a district hr identified within the area, bounriPri by I3514, 1.494, the railroad track, 77th Street Elgerson Avenue and 76th Street. The ordinance would require that new development meet minimum standards in terms of lot On March 5th the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the resolution to extend the interim ordinance six additional months. Notice of the hearing was published in the Richfield Sun and a letter was mailed to property owners and tenants announcing the hearing. Approximately 10 people attended. One member of the public spoke on an issue not directly related to the resolution. The Planning Commission approved the resolution (7 -0) except paragraph 1.G was deleted as were the following words from the last two lines of paragraph 2. "...and a developer selection process is complete..." They felt the developer selection process was not well enough for;iulated at this time. The attached resolution reflects these changes. Recommendation: 1 Conduct the public hearing on this matter and approve the attached resolution. extending the interim ordinance an additional six months or until the effective date of the ordinance creating the new zoning district and the developer selection process is complete whichever is sooner. 2) Direct staff to present to the Planning Commission an ordinance amendment which would delete the commercial area adjacent to Lyndale Avenue north of 77th Street from the interim ordinance. Basis for Recommendation: 1. A significant amount of time and investment by the city and various citizen groups has resulted in a redevelopment plan for the iLN area. The development opportunities provided by this plan are unique and must be managed to realize the potential and goals of the plan. Based on general market conditions and our experience in the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet area it will take a number of years to accomplish these goals. size and floor area ratios. Height restrictions to prevent shadows on single - family and two family dwellings would also be included. 2) A request for development proposals be prepared and sent to selected developers. The developer or developers selected - would have exclusive rights to redevelop designated areas south of 77th Street for a period of several years. Performance standards for the developer would be part of a contract. 3) The interim ordinance, which restricts the issuance of building permits, be extended by resolution of the City Council for six additional months or until recommendations 1 and 2 are completed if in less than six months. 4) Staff submit to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the Council an ordinance amendment which would delete from the interim ordinance the commercial area north of 77th Street adjacent to Lyndale Avenue. On March 5th the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the resolution to extend the interim ordinance six additional months. Notice of the hearing was published in the Richfield Sun and a letter was mailed to property owners and tenants announcing the hearing. Approximately 10 people attended. One member of the public spoke on an issue not directly related to the resolution. The Planning Commission approved the resolution (7 -0) except paragraph 1.G was deleted as were the following words from the last two lines of paragraph 2. "...and a developer selection process is complete..." They felt the developer selection process was not well enough for;iulated at this time. The attached resolution reflects these changes. Recommendation: 1 Conduct the public hearing on this matter and approve the attached resolution. extending the interim ordinance an additional six months or until the effective date of the ordinance creating the new zoning district and the developer selection process is complete whichever is sooner. 2) Direct staff to present to the Planning Commission an ordinance amendment which would delete the commercial area adjacent to Lyndale Avenue north of 77th Street from the interim ordinance. Basis for Recommendation: 1. A significant amount of time and investment by the city and various citizen groups has resulted in a redevelopment plan for the iLN area. The development opportunities provided by this plan are unique and must be managed to realize the potential and goals of the plan. Based on general market conditions and our experience in the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet area it will take a number of years to accomplish these goals. 2. The extension of the interim ordinance is necessary to i-Jariiit sufficient time for the city to draft, process, and approve an ordinance amendment to create the new zoning district and to implement a developer selection process. If the permit restrictions lapse development may occur which is not consistent with the goals of the ILN redevelopment plan and make it more difficult and expensive to bring about the type of well planned integrated development called for in the redevelopment plan adopted by the city. 3. The deletion of the area adjacent to Lyndale and north of 77th Street is consistent with the goals because this area is to be renovated. Also, last year, the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street was deleted. Alternative Recommendation: Let the interim ordinance terminate and the basis for issuing permits would return to that which existed prior to the initiation of the planning process. The pursuit of a long range development strategy would then be dropped. Discussion /Decision Mode: The interim ordinance expires March 22, 1987. Thus action must be taken at the March 9, 1987 Council meeting if the ordinance is to be extended. Staff would then pursue the four part strategy. Notice of the council hearing was published in the Richfield Sun newspaper and letters were mailed to property owners and tenants. JDP /eja • Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City anager %''f-- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.18 ENTITLED "AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA ". BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined: A. Many of the conditions which led to the adoption of Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 continue to exist.- B. Substantial progress has been made on planning the future development and /or redevelopment of the Interstate - Lyndale Area, which is the subject of that ordinance. C. Such planning was significantly influenced by a Proposal for the development of the so- called "Cloverleaf Motel property" lying west of and adjacent to Emerson Avenue between 76th and 78th Streets. D. The owner and developer of the Cloverleaf Motel property is currently reexamining its plans and Proposals, in an effort to develop the property in a manner generally acceptable to the owners of neighboring properties. E. The public improvements which can be made in the Interstate - Lyndale Area will depend upon the type of development which occurs on the Cloverleaf Motel property, especially to the extent that tax increment financing is to be used to finance any such improvements. As a consequence, the final plan for the development and /or the redevelopment of the Interstate - Lyndale Area cannot be yet determined. F. There is a need to formulate, consider and adopt regulations which will be applicable to the development and /or redevelopment of the Interstate- Lyndale Area so as to assure a desirable intensity kind and arrangement of development and /or redevelopment. C� G. It appears that a continuation of the planning process, taking into account any revisions in the plans for the development of the Cloverleaf Motel property, will be of benefit to the area and the city at large. H. The continuation of the planning process and the protection of it can hest be accomplished by the extension of the effective day of Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18. 2. The effective period of Ordinance No. 17.18 is hereby extended for a period of six months from the anniversary of its effective date, i.e., the ordinance is continued in effect until September 22, 1987. Passed by the City Council this 9th day of March, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: . Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 83 March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of Year XIII and discretionary Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program applications. Background: The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on March 9, 1987 to determine Richfield's proposed use of its Year XIII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program allocation of $173,940. Requests for $199,207 of Year XIII funds have been submitted. The council will also need to authorize an application for discretionary Community Development Block Grant funds. Attached is information concerning Hennepin County's CDBG program objectives and the projects which have been requested for CDBG funding in Year XIII and for discretionary funds. The following is a summary of the project requests for Year XIII funding, the amount of funds allocated in Year XIII, and the recommended allocation of Year XIII funds. Amount Funded Year XIII Recommended Activity in Year XII Request Allocation 1. Housing Rehab 61,900 $100,000 75,930 2. Energy Grants 5,000 -0- -0- 3. Scattered Site Acquisition 85,000 70,000 70,000 4. Diseased Tree Removal -0- 7,500 -0- 5. Public Service Admin. 900 -0- -0- 6. Sliding Fee Daycare Subsidy 13,400 20,000 20,000 7. H.O.M.E. Program 81010 8,010 8,010 8. Hennepin Economic Resource Organization (HERO) -0- 8,697 -0- TOTAL $174,210 $214,207 $173,940 Two projects totaling $123,200 have been submitted for discretionary funds. The two projects are housing rehabilitation loans ($55,000) and a shared scattered site acquisition program ($68,200). The city must compete with the other communities participating in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG entitlement program. A total of $450,000 is available. The county encourages communities to only submit one project for discretionary funds this year. The city received $42,000 of discretionary funds last year for housing rehabilitation loans. 77� / Recommendation: Approve the allocation of Year XIII CDBG funds in the following manner: 1. Housing Rehabilitation $ 75,930 2. Scattered Site Acquisition $ 70,000 3. Public Services (H.O.M.E.: $ 28,010 $8,010, Daycare: $20,000) TOTAL $173,940 It is further recommended that the City Council authorize the staff to submit an application for discretionary funds for the following projects: 1. Housing Rehabilitation $ 55,000 2. Scattered Site Acquisition $ 68,200 TOTAL .123,200 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The county's statement of objectives indicates that communities should limit the number of projects to three and that a minimum project amount of $7,500 be used. To meet that objective staff is suggesting that the H.O.M.E. and daycare subsidy requests be combined into one project entitled public services and that the diseased tree and the HERO projects not be funded with CDBG funds at this time. 2. Staff is exploring other options for meeting the need to assist low income persons in removing diseased trees. Other options may include removal of the tree by the city and then assessing the cost to the property owner which may be spread out over a number of years or not requiring payment until the property is sold. 3. The HERO project is a new project which seems to potentially meet a county wide need for providing jobs to the disadvantaged, but staff is unclear about how the project would directly benefit Richfield and if the need the project addresses can be better provided through other programs or other funding mechanisms. It is staffs opinion that this project should be referred to the South Hennepin Human Services Council for further study and recommendations. 4. The $70,000 allocated to the scattered site acquisition project is the minimum amount necessary to be able to complete a project through the Vo -Tech program. This amount is necessary to acquire a 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. 5. The amount of funds allocated to the housing rehabilitation loan program is approximately $24,000 less than the request. This is done to bring the total amount requested in line with the total available allocation of $173,940. If the council authorizes submittal of the discretionary application as recommended by staff and if the county approves the application additional funds will be available for housing rehabilitation loans. 6. The basis for the suggested discretionary projects are a continued need for housina rehabilitation loans and for scattered site acquisition. If the county does not have sufficient funds to fund both projects, the city should indicate that the housing rehabilitation project is a higher priority. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Change the amount of funds allocated to 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 9, 1987. The deadline for submitting the Year XIII application to Hennepin County is March 20, 1987. and the deadline for discretionary funding requests is March 13, 1987. Therefore, council action on Marcie 9, 1987 is necessary to meet these deadlines. Respectfully submitted, qa�n s D. Prosser Ci y Manager • STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES • YEAR XIII (1987) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM Community Development B1ock.Grant funds may be used to support and implement a wide range of housing and community development activities. The Statement of Objectives provides a framework for use by Urban Hennepin County participants in developing local community development programs and by the Citizens Advisory Committee in their review of requests for funding. Urban Hennepin County objectives are supportive of national CDBG objectives and are intended to illustrate their application to the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. The national objectives of the CDBG program are: developing viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities principally for low and moderate income persons; aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and meeting other community development needs having a particular urgency. Each activity carried out with CDBG funds must, of course, be eligible and fundable under program regulations (24 CFR 570) as well as meet program objectives. . The Urban Hennepin County CDBG objectives are presented by major program subheadings. They are highlighted under the subheading. ADMINISTRATION The CDBG program requires that Urban Hennepin County maximize the benefit of available funds consistent with the needs of low and moderate income persons and participant communities. In like manner it is a program responsibility to maximize program benefit and effectively administer program funds. • Develop and implement a Housing and Community Development program which to the maximum feasible extent benefits low and moderate income persons while addressing Urban Hennepin County and local needs in a timely and efficient manner. • Contain program administrative costs through the use of program management contracts for similar /identical activities funded by several jurisdictions. • No more than three activities should be undertaken by any participating community with Year XIII funding and each activity should be budgeted with at least $7,500. In cases where the planning allocation,is less than $7,500 only one activity should be programmed. When funds are committed jointly with other participants to carry out a single activity these limits need not apply., • Facilitate cooperation among participants in the development and implementation of multi- community CUBG activities to address common concerns and needs. ``' • • Support the development and implementation of program activities which will generate program income to maintain the level of program funding. • Maintain a structure for citizen participation in the development, implementation and evaluation of the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. • Implement Urban Hennepin County CDBG activities in such a manner as to minimize the direct or indirect displacement of owners or tenants from occupied dwelling units and business locations. HOUSING Urban Hennepin County has established goals which are approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the construction of new housing and the rehabilitation of existing housing which is affordable to and occupied by.lower income owner or renter households. • Facilitate the development of appropriate housing activities consistent with Urban Hennepin County goals and priorities. • Encourage multi - community cooperation in housing development projects. • Facilitate the development of new owner /renter housing affordable to .low and moderate income households. • Support the rehabilitation of existing rental units and single - family dwellings. NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION As an intergovernmental effort, Urban Hennepin County includes a broad range of communities and neighborhoods, some of which, due to the age of their structures, need for infrastructure rehabilitation /installation or other conditions, are in need of assistance. • Maintain and preserve viable neighborhoods and neighborhood service centers through concentrated community development activities. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS Urban Hennepin County communities provide a diversity of public facilities from sewer and water lines to senior citizen centers. The provision and - maintenance of essential public facilities represents a significant cost to the community and the individual user which places a burden on both, but particularly on low and moderate income persons. • Rehabilitate existing public improvements and facilities and assist in the development of new facilities and improvements which benefit low and moderate income..,persons. • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Within the context of the Community Development Block Grant Program economic development must relate to the creation or retention of long -term jobs available to low and moderate income individuals. • Provide financial assistance to for - profit or non - profit business ventures which will provide or retain permanent employment oppor- tunities available to low and moderate income persons, at a ratio of at least one full -time job created or retained for each $5,000 of program funds used. PUBLIC SERVICES The CDBG program asserts that the expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of public services available to low and moderate persons is essential for the development of viable communities. • Provide funding for public services which represent a new service or expanded level of service consistent with CDBG regulations. • HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY The Community Development Block Grant Program is committed to ensure that facilities and programs supported and provided by the public are accessible to handicapped individuals. • Ensure that public facilities constructed, rehabilitated and operated with program funds are handicapped accessible. • Provide support for the development or rehabilitation of housing which is accessible to handicapped persons. tf 1/21/87 ,�Z -'J- REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDING ' Please indicate with an X which funds you are applying for: A. Year XIII CDBG X B. 1987 Discretionary Funds THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY Project Eligibility: citation Hennepin County date ER Status: status Environmental Review Specialist date Project Number: / numo Financial Manager atd e — A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Co,., nuni ty: 2. Project ;lame: 3. Contact Person: 8. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Sources: 2. Is this a multi- Richfield H us-ino R habilitation Rick Jopke 869 -7521 CDBG 51jM_noo Other $ 7.920 year project? (check one) X Yes No a. If yes, please indicate CDBG Year started I , Project Number 556 b. Total CDBG funds programmed /expended since start of project $1,098,129 /5996,096 3. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide X ATTACH MAP 4. Description Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a state- ment 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. (See Attached) *Approximately $40,832 has been committed to specific improvements and $61,201 has been reserved for specific households. This expends all funds presently programmed. The dollar amounts noted in 2b do not include the CDBG Year XI Energy grant amount of $3,000, which has been expended or The CDBG Year XII Energy grant amount of $5,000, which has been committed or reserved for identified households. • C 5. Identify which objectives) of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project will address- Housing Rehabilitation, Energy 6. Implementation Schedule: For CWCBG funds identify the major projected tasks to be performed during each quarter of the 18 -month implementation period. For discretionary funds use a 12 -month implementation schedule. 3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30) (See Attached) 4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31) 1st Quarter (January I to March 31) 2nd Quarter (April 1 to June 30) 3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30) 4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31) 7. Budget Specify project budget for each component of the activity identified in no. 4 above. Commonent Budcet Source of Funds Rph A11 i I i r a t j on _ 875,000 CDBG XIII (Deferred Loans) ROhal,iIitarinn 815,000 CDBG XIII (Housedoctor Grants) Administration 510,000 CDBG XITT Administration (Enerov S 3,400 :°IIQDPS Program General) Auditing S 4,420 NSP Total Project Budget Total CDBG Budget M $100,000 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (refer to item #4 of application: "Description ") The project has two components: (1)- Deferred loans or orants (depending upon the Particular program) for major system repair and improvement in lower income owner occupied housing (2)- Energy grants to "housedoctor" (seal air leaks, bypasses, caulking weatherstripping, heating system evaluation and modification, installation of set -back thermostats) lower income rental and owner occupied housing. 1. Rehabilitation (a discussion of needs, results, and project components follows) This project involves providing 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 or flood grant. A grant is available to low- income homeowners who experienced damage to their homes as a result of a flood. 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 ears old, a transition age that requires a number of major 40 y ears to the home (i.e., furnace replacement, electrical update, roof replacement, improved insulation, and siding and window update). Providing deferred loans /grants 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 /grant 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 /grant improvements. The project was last advertised in the Spring of 1986. There has been a continual request for assistance. In the past, residents have waited one to two years for funding. There is currently a waiting list of 4 persons for Yr. XIII funding. The Year XIII anticipated funding level is $75,000, or enough funds for fourteen loans. A Discretionary Fund allocation of $45,000, if approved, would be utilized to cover Spring home improvement requests and to serve the four households presently waiting for assistance. • CDBG Yr. XIII 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 housing stock, which of course, benefits the occupant and the entire city. These households are unable to assume significant ^�onthly debt payments. The "deferred" nature of the assistance removes the payment problem associated with the loan debt. The ''energy 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 homeowners. 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 403 of loan proceeds directed to major weatherization (furnace replacement, insulation) Approximately 20% of loan proceeds directed to roofing replacement - Approximately 190 of loan proceeds directed to exterior maintenance (painting, siding replacement) - Approximately 11% of loan proceeds directed to building code items (plumbina, electrical problems) There are two components to the project: ongoing administration ($10,000) and direct deferred loans /grants ($75,000). The implementation schedule suggests the manner in which expenditure will occur. (2) Energy (a discussion of needs, results, and project components follows) A primary objective of the Residential Energy Conservation program, funded by the City and managed within the Housing and Redevelopment Division, is to assist lower income people in reducing energy consumption and their fuel costs. Thus, improvements increase affordability of existing housing but do not significantly improve value or provide for the replacement or repair of deficient major elements of the home such as furnaces, roofs, etc. The financing resources for the Energy Program have been provided by the public utilities (Minnegasco and NSP) and the State Department of Energy and Economic Development. For 1987, approximately $27,000 has been allocated from the City's General Fund to continue program administration. Since the program was developed in 1983, $511,000 in energy related improvements have been made to homes. Approximately 140 lower income households have received "housedoctor" types of weatherization services totaling $65,000. these funds were provided by Minnegasco and CDBG. Staff and local banks have arranged for approximately 135 loans totaling $425,000 in energy conservation improvements. These reduced interest rate loans have gone to persons having incomes adequate to support a monthly loan payment. In 1986, the City developed and implemented an enhanced version of the MN Energy Division's ( HNDPS) new audit format, the Home Energy Checkup (HEC). The City's version goes beyond the basic package of inspection, providing sample weatherization materials, and follow -up that is commonly associated with HEC. Richfield includes blower door testing, electrical consumption analysis, and materials installation for each residence. The amount of time spent in the home is approximately four labor hours (2 auditors for 2 hours), and low- income persons are provided an extra two hours of assistance, usually spent on the installation of extra weatherization materials. The intensive nature of this checkup allows the auditors to give detailed specifications on conservation measures such as housedoctoring, and assures that only those structures in need of this work are considered. So the checkup program, funded by NSP, has become a crucial element in the optimal delivery of housedoctoring services. Based on 1956 experience, it appears that Minnegasco support for housedoctoring has diminished to a possitility of minor assistance during a short window of time near the end of each calendar year. The utility has not been ordered by the Public 0 Utilities Commission (PUC) to provide continuous assistance with this program, and has not elected to do so, despite vigorous efforts on the City's part. MNDPS has instead encouraged the City to rely more upon traditional funding sources (such as the CDBG program) for an orderly, continuous delivery of housedoctor services to qualified residents and eligible structures. MNDPS has agreed to assist in this effort by providing funds to assist energy program administration. The general work plan for assuring that housedoctoring in Richfield is indeed "optimal" is: income qualification, performance of HEC audit, housedoctoring, and major weatherization. Since the grant size is so small, the City intends to depend on prequalifying work of other agencies' (e.g., those of Fuel Assistance and AFDC) whenever feasible, in a manner acceptable to the County. In 1987/98, $10,080 of the CDBG Year XIII "energy" portion of this proposal would fund 24 single - family housedoctor jobs at $420 each, the current contracted price. In 1987/88, $4,920 of CD3G Year XIII funds would be allocated to 10 "small multifamily" housedoctoring grants for lower income tenants, at a slightly higher ($490) per unit cost. Richfield is expanding its conservation programs into the multifamily sector with funding from NSP and MNDPS. The City will be performing "small" multifamily (2 -4 unit buildings) audits in the Spring of 1987, and expects to find a reasonable number of both low- income tenants and structures needing housedoctoring. Since the City's audit and housedoctor contractor is experienced in this work, it is a logical extension of current programs. The City hopes to leverage COBG funds with those of the owner to accomplish housedoctoring of all units, not just the low - income grant recipient. For instance, the owner would Ce asked to pay for housedoctoring of the second unit of a duplex, with the grant covering the recipient's unit and common areas. The City views housedoctoring as a necessary element in a logical hierarchy of conservation services starting with the simple, easy and inexpensive (auditing) and ending with more complex, difficult and expensive (major weatherization). The audit will determine the need for housedoctor work and major weatherization. Audit results (essentially work specifications) will Ce provided to the housedoctor crews. Audit work is also useful for analyzing the need of the deferred loan client. Weatherization materials provided or installed in audited homes will concentrate first on the domestic hot water system (heater jackets, low -flow showerheads, temperature adjustment), leaving infiltration reduction to the housedoctor crews. (This allows the housedoctoring to concentrate on reduction in infiltration, the only measuratle yardstick for success in their profession). • is IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Item ;�6 of Application) 3rd Quarter 1987 (July l to September 30) Rehabilitation: Advertise for program applicants, as necessary, distribute applications, review completed applications, verify income and eligibility, inspect homes, receive bids, ,approve loans /grants, notify contractor to proceed with work. Energy: Market audits and housedoctoring, targeting low- income residents, partially through Hennepin County Social Services. Perform audits, qualify program clients. 4th Quarter 1987 ( OCtober 1 to December 31) Rehatilitation: Continue to approve loans /grants, notify contractors to proceed with work, monitor and inspect work being completed, make payments to contractors as necessary.. Energy: Continue marketing and auditing, qualifying, begin housedoctor work. 1st Quarter 1988 (January 1 to March 31) Rehabilitation: Continue to approve loans /grants, notify contractors to proceed with work, monitor and inspect work being completed, make payments to contractors as necessary. Energy: Continue 4th Quarter 187 Activities, follow -up contacts. 2nd Quarter 1988 (April 1 to June 30) Rehatilitation: Inspect completed work, make payment to contractors, file Deferred Loan /Grant Agreements, close out files. Energy: Continue first quarter activities 3rd Quarter 1988 (July 1 to September 30) Rehatilitation: Continue 2nd quarter activities Energy: Continue 2nd quarter activities 4th Quarter 1988 (October 1 to December 31) Rehabilitation: Inspect completed work. Make payment to contractors, file all remaining Deferred Loan /Grant Agreements, close out all files. • Energy: Follow -up contacts with 3rd quarter participants and final project report. -��,l _ 12 REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDING Please indicate with an X which funds you are applying for: A. Year XIII CC3G X B. 1937 Discretionary Funds THIS SECTION 'WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY Project Eligibility: citation Hennepin County date ER Status: / Status Environmental Review S p e c 1 a I list date Project Number: / nu;,,oer rinancIai Manager date A. GENERAL INFOR;a.ATION I. Co,,,unity: Richfield 2' Project .';a ^e: Scattered Site Acouisition 3. Contact Person: Rick JoDke, 869 -7521 B. PROJECT CATA. I. Funding Sources: CC3G 70,000 Other $ — 2. Is this a ,:ulti -year project? (check one) _ Yes No a. If yes, Please indicate CCBG Year started TT Number 270 b. Total CCBG funds procra;r,:ed /expended since start of project $727,_ 591 _/$ 701,591 3. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide X ATTACH ACH ,MAP 4. Description Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a state- ment of (I) comrunity 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. (See Attached) *Approximately $26,000 of CDBG Year XII remains to complete demolition, legal, appraisal, property maintenance, property tax expenses on two recently acquired properties. The CDBG Year XIII request is for new activities. • 5. Identify which objective(s) of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of - Objectives the project will address: Housing 6. Implementation Schedule: For CC3G funds identify the major projected tasks to be per *0rmed during each quarter of the 18 -month implementation period. For discretionary funds use a 12- -month implementation schedule. 3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30) Identify and acquire rehabable structure Advertise for Voluntary Acquisition of property 4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31) Identify site to acquire, negotiate sales price, relocate tenants, if necessary. 1st Quarter (January 1 to March 31) Close on property, clear property 2nd Quarter (April 1 to June 30) Initiate rehabilitation /construction project. 3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30) Rehabilitation /Construction underway 4th Quarter (October I to December 31) Rehabilitaiton /Construction underway Marketing plans initiated 7. Budcet Specify project budcet for each component of the activity identified in no. 4 above. Commonent Budcet Source of Funds Acauic.=_t_o n (aca. , reloc , demolition; prooerty and _ 563.000 CDBG XIII structure) AdminiGrra inn S 7,000 ( N�(; YTTT Total Project Budget $ 70,000 Total CDBG Budget $ 70,000 14 Description Section Narrative Since 1975, thirty units of housing have been constructed or rehac-ilit-=ted. Ten additional units were recently completed and sold. During 1997, one house will be sold and two more units Vi" to started, for sale in 1988. In the process, thirteen "garage" hones have been eliminated, seventeen vacant lots developed, and two units received moderate rehabilitation. Revenues, aoproximating S1.7 million, primarily CD8G 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 to followed. When appropriate, these sites will be acquired on a voluntary sale basis to reduce relocation costs which otherwise must be paid. 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 tefore 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 the standard housing 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 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 such garage 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 1987/38, with CD3G Year XIII 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. The property will be utilized to rehabilitate a relocated structure or initiate new construction on the property. The home 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 imple^gentation include ongoing administration, relocation, acquisition, site clearance, installation of public improvements specifically related to the project, and initiation and completion of improvenents. 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 wit: structures; acquisition costs approximately $4,000 for rehabatle structures; site clearance and preparation costs approximately $5,000 to 305,000; and public improvements cost approximately $5,000. • REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDING Please indicate with an X which funds you are applying for: A. Year XIII CDBG- X B. 1987 Discretionary Funds THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY Project Eligibility: / citation ar tion Hennepin County date ER Status: / status Environmental Review Specialist date Project Number: / number Financial Manager date A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: City of Richfield 2. Project Name: Diseased Tree Removal on Private Property 3. Contact Person: Randy Hughes B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Sources: COB $ 7,500.00 Other $ 2. Is this a multi -year project? (check one) X Yes No a. If yes, please indicate CDBG Year started 1987 , Project Number b. Total.CDBG funds programmed /expended since start of project $ -0- /$ -0- 3. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide XXX ATTACH MAP 4. Description Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a state- ment 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. 1. Each year several hundred diseased trees are marked for removal in accordance with our city tree ordinance. Some of these trees belong to low income residents and payment for the tree removals can, in some instances, present a real hardship. 2. This project would subsidize the cost of removal for qualifying residents, and at the same time, probably speed up our diseased tree sanitation program. 3. The only alternative funding we have used is assessment of the tree removal costs to the homeowner; with the option to defer assessment for qualifying senior citizens and handicapped persons. • • 5. Identify which objective(s) of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project will address: Neighborhood Revitalization 6. Implementation Schedule For CDBG funds identify the major projected tasks to be performed during each quarter of the 18 -month implementation period. For discretionary funds use a 12 -month implementation schedule. 3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30) Diseased tree removal 4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31) Diseased Tree removal 1st Quarter (January 1 to March 31) N/A 2nd Quarter (April 1 to -June 30) N/A 3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30) Diseased tree removal 4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31) Diseased tree removal 7. Budget Specify project budget for each component of the activity identified in no. 4 above. Component Budget Source of Funds Administration $2,500.00 CDBG Tree Removal Costs $5,000.00 CDBG Total Project Budget Total CDBG Budget $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 • Serving Bloomington, -2 Eden Prairie, Richfield and Edina O:.;s -ce I':1a."',enance for t_i.°f :v February 23, 1987 sir. Rick Jopke Citv of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue S Richfield, :N 55423 Dear :sir. Jopke, Enclosed is a formal request for a $8,010 allocation from Richfield's Year XIII CDBG Program. As much as we need additional funding, this request is equal to the grant H.O.M.E. received last year to provide maintenance services to low and moderate income elderly households in Richfield. This decision reflects our effort to maintain a balance between Richfield's limited budget and the continual growth in the demand for in -home services among the elderly. In the past year H.O.M.E. services to Richfield seniors increased significantly. Totals for 1986 show that we provided 2,925 hours of service to 131 households (see attached statistics). Through our small jobs program we provided a variety of ongoing minor maintenance repairs, including roof repair, caulking, toilet and faucet repair, carpentry and the seasonal tasks of lawn mowing and snow removal to an average of 50 homes a months In addition fourteen of the homes received major maintenance assistance, primarily in the form of exterior painting. We also provided general housecleaning on a regular basis to 31 residences. Our active client list (homes served in the past 18 months) currently numbers 175 households and over 200 clients. Our efforts to reach Richfield's low and moderate income households also increased in 1986. We are regularly attending the surplus commodities distribution site to ensure that the elderly who use that program are also aware of H.O.M.E. We find that individuals who use surplus commodities are often in need of additional community services. Our contact with the Energy Assistance Program, another service provider to low income households in Richfield, has also intensified. As a result a majority of the low income elderly who use EAP also use the H.O.M.E. program to maintain their households. South Hennepin Human Services Council Creekside Center 9801 Penn Ave. So. Room 100 Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 888 -5530 l REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDING Please indicate with an X which funds you are applying for: A. Year XIII CDBG X B. 1987 Discretionary Funds THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY • • Project Eligibility: / citation Hennepin County date ER Status: / S ta tus Environmental Review Specialist date Project Number: / numoer Hnancial Manager date A. GUIERAL INFORMATION 1. Co,:„uni ty: . i ch -i el d 2. Project Name: Child Care clidinr Fee ''ronram - c "nCA 3. Contact Person: :li*- Ni chol i e B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Sources: CDBG S 20, "00 Other S 2. Is this a multi -year project? (check one) X Yes No a. If yes, please indicate CDBG Year started I'/, , Project Number b. Total CCIBG funds pro gra;,r ed /expended since start of project $ i 9 .2 /$ r.5 Or � 1 /?' /86 c., 3. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide X ATTACH MAP 4. Description Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a state- ment 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. 5. Identify which objective(s) of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project will address: ��r, ✓i ea r6i1d Care �stistaoce 6. Implementation Schedule: For C^uBS funds identify the major projected tasks to be performed during each quarter of the 18-month i7"ple ^entaticn period. For discretionary funds use a 12 -month implementation schedule. 3rd Quarter (July I to September 30) Child Care Subsidies S3,000 �..�C Services (Verify income and process bills) S2711 4th Quarter (October 1 to Cece -oer 31) C�-ild rare Subsidies SF,OCO ru- r _ .Cr Services S540 Ist Q;;arter (January 1 to Xarch 31)' r; 'd Care Subsidies n•.� A ^ Services S45J 2nd C.,cr_=r („rril 1 to V;, r, e 30) Chi id Care Sibs idies 5�,35C �".JCr. Servi DES 3rd Quarter (vuly 1 to Se;:t=moer 1-0) Use any unsrent -u ^ds tc s,dsld :�e fa--4. Cs Unersnendin- ^curs d-,e t— a�triti^ r,, ^;n "'ne ^^ and !an ti-e in veri -rVir� ea ra^i ie; 4th Quarter (October 1 to Cecem;,er 31) 7. BudcAt Specify prefect budget for each component of the activity identified in no. 4 above. Co— rent Eu.'cet Source of Funds Child Care Fee Subsidy G -L'CA Services 650 CCR'= Total Project Budget 5 2 ^,000 Total CCBG Budget $ 20,000 0 4. 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 Feb, 1987 there are sixteen 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) Implementation - The City of Richfield will contract with Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association (GMDCA), a tax exempt, non - profit organization, to administer the sliding fee child care program. GMDCA also administers such programs for other municipalities and a portion of the State Sliding Fee program for Hennepin County. Parents apply directly to GMDCA. Families must verify their income as well as their work or training status when they begin the program and at least every six months thereafter. Families are helped on a first come first serve basis. GMDCA provides a co-ordinated way to help families needing child care assistance which maximize the use of other potential subsidy programs for families. • • Richfield Sliding Fee Program Report as of Feb. 1987 The following is a profile of families and children served under the Year XI Richfield CDBG child care sliding fee assistance program. The grant amount for Year XI was S20,000 - Number of families served -- 15 - :'Number of children subsidized -- 20 -Work /training Status of Parents -- 9 in work, 1 in training and 5 in both work and training -The number of single parent families was -- 12 - Number of families served by income range -- 0- $10,000 (4); 10- $15,000 (6): 15- 520,000 (4); higher (1) 0 With the Year XII Grant of $13,400 we are serving: - Number of families -- 7 - Number of children -- 12 - Balance after January 1987 Billing is processed -- $11,880 -We are Presently in the process of adding one more family to the program. At this time we have 16 Richfield families on our waiting list for child care assistance. Please note that because Richfield CDBG funds are used as a funding of last resort, and because the amount of subsidy varies for each family, the spending for this program is not flat, but varies over the contract period. is • CHILD CARE SLIDING FEE Helps low to moderate income families stabilize their cost of child care so that they can continue working or complete training programs. Why are CDBG funds needed? Existing programs funded through Hennepin County and the State Sliding Fee Program, have not been funded adequately. Families who qualify for the program must wait four to twelve months in order to receive help. The child care tax credit is not enough to meet the needs of low income single parent families. GM9CA presently has a waiting list of over 200 families outside of the City of Minneapolis who are either not eligible for existing programs or cannot be served because of lack of funds. How do the CDBG programs help? CDBG funds are used as a funding of last resort for families who fall between the cracks of eligibility, or would be on a long waiting list for help from other pro grams. Although each city's program is relatively small, together they make up significant stopgap funding `or many families. How does the program work? In order to be eligible a families income must be under HUD section 8 guidelines and all parents must be working or attending school 20 hours or more per week. The family selects their own child care arrangement. If they need help in finding a program they are referred to the Child Care Information .Network. Families :nay change programs at any time they wish. Families pay a portion of the cost of child care based on the fee schedule developed for the state sliding fee program. The sliding fee program pays the remainder of the cost up to a limit established each year through a State Department of Jobs and Training study of average costs of care. In order to receive child care subsidy a single parent must attempt to collect any child support due them through Hennepin County Child Support and Collections. Eligibility is renewed every six months. Parents are required to provide a signed written statement of income and situation as well as backup documentation from employers, school, etc. to show their income and work /training status. --X' !1' Is there a duplication of effort? Child care funding is a patchwork of programs from various funding sources with different eligibility guidelines. GMDCA works to sort out funding options for parents. Parents call GMDCA or are referred to us by the Child Care Information Network, family day care homes, centers, or other agencies. County and State funding sources are used whenever possible. If a family is not able to get other funding, CDBG funds are used. Names are maintained on a waiting list in the order of their call. This list is updated three times per year. As imoney becomes available families are contacted in order to verify their current situation and eligibility. How much subsidy does each family receive? The subsidy is tailored to each family's situation. Child care costs for a family vary widely according to the number of children, their age, and the number of hours in care. After school care for one child may cost as little as S3 per day while full time care for two children may be over $30 per day. Any flat subsidy amount would be overly generous for some families and not enough to make the difference for others. The amount of subsidy depends on the cost of care needed and the amount a family can pay as determined by the sliding fee scale . What incomes receive subsidy and how does the sliding fee nark? The sliding fee scale is based on the State Median Income (S'II) which is adjusted for family size. SMI is the point at which half of the families in the state with the same family size earn more and half earn less. The amount is updated annually by the federal government. The amount a family must contribute is based on their gross income plus child support. In general, the sliding fee scale requires a minimum payment of about S30 per month from families who are below 60% of the state median income (SMI) for their size family. 60% SMI is needed to cover the basic living needs of a family. As family income increases, the amount the parents must pay for child care in this program rises about 25c for every $1 they are over the 60% S`1I figure. The remaining 75c goes to pay higher taxes and provide an incentive for the family to continue to improve their situation. As a family's income approaches the Section 8 limit they are usually paying nearly all of the cost of their child care. Presently the 600S SMI and Section 8 gross annual income levels are as follows: Family size 60Y. SMI Monthly (Parent Fee) Section 8 Monthly (Parent; ''•tee) Family of 2 $12,560 ($23) $22,000 ($327) Family of 3 Family $15,516 ($28) $24,750 ($279) of 4 $18,471 ($29) $27,500 290 • • 7 41 February, 23, 1987 Rick Jopke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Jopke: Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association requests that the City of Richfield allocate 520,000 of its Year XIII Community Development Block Grant funds to continue the program of sliding fee subsidy of child care for Richfield residents. This amount would continue the program at its present level. Enclosed is a report on Year XI CDBG funding for child care which was completed on December 31, 1986 and a status report on the Year XII grant which -- continues until December 1987. Also included is a description of how the sliding fee subsidy programs work. If you have questions or would like more information please feel free to contact me or Jim Nicholie who coordinates the sliding fee child care subsidy programs for GMDCA. Sincerely, N Grace Norris Suburban Developer 0 tmr 11"inniftapolis Day Carilm Ass= I NU Dale Anderson, Executive Director a Lehmann Center a 1006 West Lake • Minneapolis, Minnesota • 55408 • (612) 823 -7243 Cooperating Fund Drive • • • Rick Jopke Page 2 February 23, 1987 In 1987 almost $60,000 of direct service will go to support Richfield's elderly. The need for H.O.M.E. services is especially apparent in Richfield. The level of income among Richfield's elderly is significantly lower than either Edina or Bloomington. The financial savings made available to these elderly is a big factor in the success of these individuals being able to remain in their homes. We appreciate Richfield's past support of H.O.M.E. We believe alternative care to seniors is an economical and socially sound concept. We will continue to do all we can to see that Richfields's elderly are able to live in their homes as long as thev choose to do so. Sincerely, Don Hauge H.O.M.E. Maintenance Coordinator DH:sa Enclosure • • H.O.M.E. (Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderl 1986 BLOOMINGTON of Customers of Households of Jobs 1 of Hours 906 1,341 EDI NA of Customers _.' of Households of Jobs of Hours RICHFIELD Of Customers r of Households 1 of Jobs of Hours EDEN PRAIRIE T of Customers of Households 2 of Jobs of Hours MPLS. of Customers of Households of Jobs of Hours TOTAL n of Customers of Households T of Jobs n of Hours 16�1 el/ Maintenance Homemaker Total 225 103 327 155 72 227 906 1,341 2,247 2,869 3,176 6,045 119 56 175 90 45 135 622 745 1,367 1,586.5 1,694 3,281 139 36 172 102 31 131 665 436 1,101 1,880 1,045.25 2,925 11 5 16 8 3 11 13 46 59 295.75 136 432 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 23 24 3 65.25 68.25 495 202 697 356 153 355 2,207 2,591 4,798 6,634.25 6,116.5 12,751 iREQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDING Please indicate with an X which funds you are applying for: A. Year XIII CDBG X B. 1987 Discretionary Funds THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY Project Eligibility: / citation Hennepin County ER Status: / status Environmental Review Specialist Project "lumber: / numoer �nanciat Manager date date ate A. GE1lEPAL I;lFOIRMATION I. Ccmnuni ty: Richf ield le 2. Project dame: H.O.M.E. 3. Contact Person: Larry Oppold, Director &* Don Hauge, H.O.M.E. B. PROJECT DATA * =Richfield area only Maintenace oordinatc 1. Funding Sources: CDBG $ $.010* Other $ 52,000* 2. Is this a multi -year project? (check one) X Yes No Not a. If yes, please indicate CDBG Year started yIII, Project Number Aplicabl b. Total CCBG funds programmed /expended since start of project $50,745 /$ 43,448 3. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide City of Richfield ATTACH MAP 4. Description Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a state- ment 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. As elderly homeowners age they often find it increasingly difficult to do the tasks necessary to maintain their homes. For the past 7 years, H.O.M.E. has been assisting Richfield seniors with snow shoveling, lawn mowing, interior /exterior painting, carpentry, other minor repair, and general house- cleaning. In 1986, 131 elderly households received 2,925 hours of in -home services from H.O.M.E. Because of the'in- creasing preference by elderly to remain in their homes, and the decreasing availability of nursina home and senior care (Over) r • • 5. Identify which objective(s) of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of - Objectives the project will address: public service 6. Implementation Schedule: For CCBG funds identify the major projected tasks to be performed during each quarter of the 18 -month implementation period. For discretionary funds use a I2- i-nonth implementation schedule. # of # of # of 3rd Quarter (July I to September 30) Households Jobs Service Hours MAINTENANCE: 45 140 715 HOMEMAKING: 20 105 220 4th Quarter (October 1 to December 31) MAINTENANCE: 45 110 360 HOMEMAKING: 20 105 220 1st Quarter (January 1 to March 31) MAINTENANCE: 40 110 300 HOMEMAKING: 20 105 220 2nd Quarter (r',pril 1 to June 30) MAINTENANCE: 70 175 480 HOMEMAKING: 20 105 220 3rd Quarter (July 1 to September 30) MAINTENANCE: 50 175 440 HOMEMAKING: 23 120 280 4th Quarter (October I to December 31) MAINTENANCE: 50 110 360 HOMEMAKING: 28 120 280 7. Budget Specify project budget for each component of the activity identified in no. 4 above. Ccmiconent Bud--et Source of Funds ?Iaintenance 134,000 Client fees, Greater Mpls. Council of Churches, CDBG, United Wav Homemaking, 86,000 Client fees, Greater Mpls. Council of Churches, United Total Project Budget $220,000 Metropolitan Counci Total CDBG Budget 39,000 (includes CDBG grants from Edina Richfield, Bloomington, and Eden Prairie) Serving Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Richfield and Edina U1 � I A—L-1 I " Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly Listed below is a new suggested customer contribution scale for services provided by H.O.m.E. You will notice a slight increase in hourly rates as well as the addition of a service call charge. We have also included a rate column for snow removal. Although your rates will increase slightly we feel you will continue to find us the most economical solution to all your home related problems. SLIDING CONTRIBUTION SCALE MOIHLY 1"I CO`IE SEASONAL SNOW REMOVAL REPAIR $ 0 - 300 $ -O- $ -0- $ 301 - 400 3.00 4.00 5.00 401 - 500 501 - 600 4.25 5.25 6.25 5.25 6.25 7.25 601 - 800 6.25 7.25 8.25 801 - 900 7.00 8.00 9.00 901 - 1,000 7.50 8.75 10.00 1,001 - 1,200 8.00 9.25 11.50 1,201 - 1,400 8.50 10.50 13.50 1,401 - 1,600 9.50 11.50 15.50 1,600 & Over 10.00 12.00 20.00 * A SERVICE CALL CHARGE equal to the hourly rate (not to exceed $15.00) will be included in the total charge for REPAIR AND SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES. Job time will be measured in 15 minute increments. �* SNOW REMOVAL: When H.O.M.E. provides the snowblower, customers will be charged the snow removal rate. If the snowblower is provided by the customer or if the worker does not use a snowblower, the customer will be charged at the season al.rate. ** Estimates are given for large maintenance jobs such as painting. Revised 10/86 • Hennepin Economic Resource Organization 4150 Multifoods Tower • Minneapolis City Center • Minneapolis, MN 55402 • (612) 227 -0001 February 24, 1987 Richfield Dear Mayor: In response to your community's scheduled March 9, 1987 public hearing on Urban Hennepin County community development needs and proposed uses for your allocation of $173,940 from the Year XIII Urban Hennepin County grant, the Board of Directors of HERO - a non - profit small business accelerator facility - are asking for the inclusion of a request for $8,697, an amount representing 5 percent of your Year XIII allocation, in your local community development program. We have enclosed a copy of the HERO business plan and a list of the initial board of directors for your information. As described in the business plan, the requested CDBG fund will provide the resources necessary to purchase a facility to have a self - sustaining employment generating small business center to provide long -term employment to disadvantaged and dislocated who are residents of suburban Hennepin County. It is the project's goal to serve as a model for the creation of job opportunities through focusing of employment opportunities, job training and education programs and employee -based support services at a single location. The investment of CDBG by yours and other communities within the Urban Hennepin County program will be secured by a lien against the facility, payable to the program should the HERO projects fail. Should you have any questions /concerns regarding HERO or this specific request, please feel free to contact me at 227 -0001. A member of the HERO board of directors will be attending the March 9, 1987 public hearing to make a brief presentation and address any questions you or your staff may have concerning the HERO request. Sing ely ours, Robert S. Arthur Chairman of the Board cc: C.ammunity Development Staff A Non - Profit Corporation HENNEPIN ECONOMIC RESOURCE OBGANIZATIOK: DIRECTCRS AS CP 2/1/87 The corporation has been launched by four individuals, who have committed time and energy over the past f if teen months to developing this initiative, with the anticipation that they will add to their ranks as HERD goes forward. They are listed here in alphabetical order. ROBERT S. ARTEUR., now with American Electronics Association, has worked as an executive for the Gallup Organization, The Psychological Corporation, Computech, Inc., and Control Data Corporation. Since 1958, the focus of his career has been on computerized information services. He has also been extensively involved in the creation of self- supporting non - profit corporations for societal goals. In energy conservation in 1980 he was the founding chairman of the board for the Natural Resource Corporation. He is chairman of the board for the Stillwater Data Processing Systems, Inc., organized in 1975 in the maximum security prison. He has served on the Hennepin Private Industy Council since 1979, both as member and twice as chairman, and also serves as chairman for the advisory committee of'the Minnesota Supported Employment Project. He is chairman of the board for HERO. DANIEL C. FRUMP has served on the Hennepin Private Industry Council as a member since 1984, and will again assume the chair in March, 1987. He has held positions in Human Resource & Manufacturing with the Toro Company, Whirlpool Corporation & Litton. Prior to creating his consulting and Is executive recruiting business, he was director of Human Resources at CTS - Fabri -Tek. His interest in creating work opportunities for the disadvantaged stems f rom his services as Metro director, as a loaned executive, with the National Alliance of Business. ILONA McCAULSY: Her business career has included eight years as manager of the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce. In October, 1986, she became communications director for Health Central, a health care management company. During her career with the Chamber of Commerce, she initiated and organized the development of a hundred and seventy six unit housing project. Initiated and lead a group of northern suburban municipalities in forming a Convention & Tourism Bureau, and assisted in the relocation of businesses to Brooklyn Center. She also has served as a member of Hennepin Private Industry Council, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Executive Board, Anoka- Ramsey Community College Board and initiated and served on the board of the Anoka County Mediation Project. JOYCE D ORBDCH: Self - employed consultant to individuals and small corporations in areas of personal employment issues. Lecturer and teacher on job skills & resume writing. Staff persona and facilitator for Eating Disorders Program at Methodist Hospital. Group leader for Red Cross Child Care Course. Former director & organizer of Golden Valley Youth Employment sorvicon. M=bar of HannepIn Privates Industry Council. Active community volunteer. • • t BUSINESS PLAN: HERO 1 11� �C: :��1;� ; ors p1� ;��•;� ; MI YI►' (HERD) 1/15/87:RSA:05 I• I* • SIN COUNTY PRIVATE _ INDUSTRY COUNCIL. nzCK WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Private Industry Council recognizes the importance of promoting economic development opportunities which result in the creation of suitable jobs for economically disadvantaged persons; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Private Industry Council has participated in the preliminary development of the Hennepin Economic Resources Organization (HERO) for the purpose of promoting a small business incubator /accelerator facility; WHEREAS, further development of HERO is dependent upon the creation of a capital budget and operating fund; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hennepin County Private Industry Council allocate $15,000.00 to a development fund, contingent upon acceptance of.the HERO business plan, to be used to finance fund raising activities; and BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Planning and Evaluation subcommittee review the HERO Business Plan and make a recommendation relative to acceptance for ratification by the Council at the March 1987 meeting. Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA:05 -1- THE NEED & ITS CS The need exists in a rapidly changing society to provide opportunities for those working who are "disadvantaged ", and those who have been "dislocated" by these changes. People within these two groups can be defined quite specifically. "The disadvantaged individual" is a person through a combination of factors such as: low educational attainment, lack of orientation to the work environment, insufficient vocational skills, and physical, mental or emotional disabilities, has difficulty in finding and keeping a job. "The dislocated worker" is an individual who after a period of productive service loses his /her job due to lay -off. This dislocated worker experiences difficulty in finding new employment because of lack of suitable job opportunities, obsolete skills, age and lack of familiarity with job seeking techniques. Because the manufacturing section has been massively impacted by both off -shore resources as well as robotics, the extent of this economic and • industrial transformation has produced the term "rust bucket state." While this term has not been applied to Minnesota, the impact is present and vividly proven in the situation of the taconite industry in northern Minnesota. The restructuring process is also represented in more recent industrial developments, such as computers and telecommunications. This industrial group has a significant role in the state of Minnesota, since the state ranks number six in number of electronics employees among the states. In the last year, the employee roster in electronics in the United States dropped by two percent or fifty thousand jobs. This has been represented in the Train Cities, and in Hennepin County, by significant layoffs and restructuring on the part of Control Data Corporation, Honeywell and Unisys, as well as many small electronics corporations. There is now a sizable body of dislocated workers placed along side those who are "disadvantaged" and who have been struggling to qualify for an opportunity in the market place represented by Hennepin County. The constituency of the disadvantaged is calculated to be about twenty -five thousand persons in 1986; "the dislocated workers" being about five thousand in 1986. • Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA :05 • -2- The very magnitude of the problem at the county level suggests that training and retraining be regarded as only one response to the problem. A second response is to create and sustain more job opportunities focused on labor intensive products and services, where neither robotics nor inexpensive overseas human resources can fulfill the need for specific products and services. • The definition of the need, and an appropriate need response, is complicated by the polarization of opportunity seen in the work place. Professional opportunities requiring many years of education and special experience are growing in the private sector. Opportunities for minimal skills and earnings in various service functions are also growing. But for both "disadvantaged" and "dislocated" workers, the broad spectrum in the middle range is disappearing. This middle range of employment opportunities includes skilled manufacturing and labor trades, supervisory and middle management positions, para - professional and technical jobs. In most cases, there is no way they can hope to enter professional activities, and the alternatives at the other end of the scale provide marginal economic resources for survival. The need is for job opportunities in the middle range, for opportunities requiring human abilities and skills rather than extended specialized training, and for these opportunities to be developed more rapidly in the immediate future here and now in Hennepin County. Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA:05 -3- THE RESPCNSE AND ITS CBJECTIVES Since the fall of 1985, this concept has been examined in the context of a set of specific objectives. As a concept the idea of a Small Business Incubator /Accelerator is not a novelty; there is a large body of information about actual initatives: some successful and some not so successful. However, many of the iniatives have been focused on new start -up companies and oriented to "high technology" Rgr se. In many cases, the work opportunities created have been very remote from the two constituencies of critical need. High technology start -up companies have a critical need for highly educated, highly motivated, young professionals. Their need for the disadvantaged and the dislocated is very limited. In addition, there has been in many of these iniatives a heavy focus on the facility itself and its attendant professional and support services. In many cases, everything is provided from advice on the use of venture capital to word processing capabilities. All of this activity, however, may account for much less than fifteen percent of the budget expenses of • the small business. Consequently, many of these incubator facilities have gotten into serious trouble, both those for - profit and those under no-profit auspices; at least this is true for the record in the Twin Cities. A soft market for commercial and industrial real estate has also impacted initiatives involving this budget item. By comparison, the cost of labor is, always, a large item in any corporate budget; thus the concept here is not focused on facility, per se, and management service, but rather upon access to subsidized human resources, and its training. Moreover by training is meant not only instruction specific and general but on- the -job work experience. HERO is focused on providing human resources important to the corporate goals. This is the first objective. The second objective is to provide preferential opportunity tc corporations with labor intensive products and services, where numbers of persons are needed to create the product or service, and where growth and success of the business results in the demand for even larger numbers of like persons. Examples in the product area are provided by such business enterprises as the processing of food items or the making of costume jewelry. In the service area, illustrations are afforded by telemarketing companies or messenger or courier services. Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA:05 • -4- The third objective is to incubate and accelerate newly established businesses that are labor intensive. The emphasis is on growing more rapidly corporations with a track record and a performance achievement above average. HERO is not oriented to start -up in the first six to eighteen months of corporate existence, for corporations who have yet, so to speak, to win their spurs and establish market share. Thus, HERO is oriented to both for - profit and not - for - profit corporations in the first five years of their existence. The fourth objective is to provide a specific facility, an appropriate building, for new labor intensive businesses to grow more rapidly and increase employment opportunities within Hennepin County, Minnesota. While this facility provides adjunct business services, they are by definition just that - adjunct business services. The whole concept and the related business objectives is focused on providing work opportunities for the "disadvantaged" and the "dislocated" worker. It is focused on the human need and the human resource in a rapidly changing society. Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA:05 -5- SMPLOYMM AND TRAINIWx RE90URCES AND INCENTiVFS HERO is proposed as a method to stimulate economic growth for the purpose of creating jobs for disadvantaged persons and dislocated workers. The establishing of a Small Business Incubator /Accelerator facility, provides a partial incentive for employers who are potential creators of jobs for the targeted populations. The presence of the facility, however, is not in itself the factor which will induce small business owners to create employment opportunities for persons with barriers to successful job performance. Other incentives, such as training programs designed for the specific needs of individual employers, wage subsidies and tax credits, are available through publically funded programs. In Hennepin County, an abundance of effective programming exists which can be used to assist developing employers to create jobs for the disadvantaged and the dislocated worker. . Resources to assist the employer and the prospective employee include: federal job training funds from the Job Training Partnership Act (MA), state wage subsidy monies from the Minnesota Employment and Economic Development (MEED) Act, wage subsidies through AFDC grant diversion, specifically developed training programs through the Hennepin Technical Centers and other training institutions, and pre - screening of potential employees by professional employment and training staff under contract to the County. Although federal and state funds for the above activities are available in lesser amounts than in past years, the County's Employment and Training system continues to develop new funding. sources. Recently programs have been developed through federal and state grants to provide re- employment services to workers dislocated from the Control Data Corporation. Programs for workers who have been dislocated, have recently been implemented in the County. There has been continuous federal support for employment and training efforts for several decades. This support rises and declines in relation to economic conditions and the level of unemployment. These fluctuations in the dollar level of support notwithstanding, initiatives such as described in this plan can gain access to funds which may be used to increase the employability of the disadvantaged and the dislocated worker. 0 BUSINESS PLAN: HERO 1 15 87:RSA:05 • • • IF kv;144 t t' 4•1' NI Y ' «i_WAV-74 i Since the Hennepin County is a geographical entity on the map, with certain demographic characteristics descriptive of the two constituencies "disadvantaged" and "dislocated ", an informed judgmental decision was possible regarding the target area for searching for an appropriate facility. This area is bounded on the north by HWY 694, on the south by HWY 494, on the east by HWY 100 and on the west by HWY 18. More than three dozen buildings have been inspected and rejected for one or more reasons. However, it does not appear that basic criteria are overly stringent, and the situation has developed of having two or more buildings that represent serious fully qualified possibilities. The experience to date strongly suggests that a number of appropriate buildings exist and it is a business decision as to which one should finally be selected for the incubator /accelerator facility. There are three set of criteria that need to be met by the building and its location. The first relates to the corporate tenants, the second to the prospective business employees from the two designated constituencies of need, and third set profiles the characteristics of the facility. CORPORATE TENANT CRITERIA: Since the emphasis is on labor intensive products and services, the business has to identify the facility as providing easy and speedy access to its customers and clients. It has to be well situated in terms of the highway system in the county. It must provide an opportunity for easy handling of shipments in and shipments out, in specific terms such as loading docks. There must be free parking for customers and visitors. The utilities must be inexpensive and appropriate to labor intensive activities involving a variety of different kinds of equipment. There must be security for employees at all hours, as well as products and equipment. Finally, there has to be access to adjunct services, such as bookkeeping and word processing, at campetitive market rates. Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA:05 • • • -7- EMPLOYEE CRITERIA, IN TERMS ESPECIALLY OF THE DISADVANTAGED AND DISLOCATED: It follows that the facility can not be remote from concentrations, for example of the "disadvantaged." The target area designated relates to these concentrations in the county. Not only is distance critical, public transportation has to be accessible and available for the facility. Free parking for employees, with transportation, is also critical. There has to be some viable relationship to fast food and shopping resources, especially for single heads of household. By the same token, child care resources are planned for the facility to be managed on an independent basis. Finally, the facility will house resources oriented to training and counseling those employees with the need. FACILITY PFCFIT IN TERMS C P BASIC CRITERIA. Since the focus of the iniative is on the human resources, corporate tenant criteria and employee criteria have been dealt with first. Nevertheless, certain basic parameters have been developed which relate to the size of the facility, and the level and extent of the activity. These criteria are not absolute, but relative and clearly numbers which represent an order of magnitude. First, it is planned that the facility has at least thirty thousand square feet of net rental space. This means that camion areas are excluded, such as restrooms, corridors, reception area and administrative offices, from the estimated square footage. Second, it is thought that the tenant population will be in the range of fifteen to twenty corporate tenants. Thirdly, an energy efficient building is necessary in the state of Minnesota. Fourth, the plan is presently for a flat rental fee of three dollars per square foot, which includes utilities, taxes, insurance along with management charges. It has to be repeated that the market in Hennepin county for catmiercial and industrial space is highly competitive and likely to become more so in the foreseeable future. Quality space is widely available in the three to four dollar range. The fifth consideration is that the building be available for purchase, or acquisition and /or use on a nominal fee basis. The sixth criteria is that the facility be in an attractive and visible location, and finally it must be as already indicated viable in terms of highly competitive market alternatives. Business Plan: Hero 1 1/15/ 87: PEA: 05 I • • The initiative is unique in its focus on human resources, but it has to be perceived to be so, and seen as truly focused, in practical terms, on the needs of both the disadvantaged and dislocated worker. Subsidized training, education assistance and work experience are the themes which must explain the initiative and produce the appropriate level of funding and support. There are four distinct considerations in terms of funding. First, money has to be found to pursue this iniative. Second, money or support, has to result in the acquisition of an appropriate building or facility. Third, money must be available for building modifications or renovation. Fourth and finally, there has to be an appropriate operating budget which allows the iniative to become self - supporting. MONEY TO PURSUE INIATIVE: At this poin in time, the Private Industry Council for Hennepin county has passed a resolution to provide fifteen thousand dollars seed money if the final plan is approved by committee and the council as a whole. If the council decided not to approve, the option would still exist to seek support in this amount from a private corporate foundation in the Twin Cities. A great deal of work has already been done, but this money would support development activity over an estimated twelve month period. This initial budget has to support over a twelve month period HERO communication (written and telephone), documentation (budget and funding), information (demographic and vocational) presentations (slide and hand -outs) and travel to obtain immediately the funds needed and to create for the immediate future an informed participative and supportive network throughout the cco mity. MONEY TO PURCEAS'E A FACI=: There approximately four hundred and fifty appropriate building. It should other possibilities that provide the terms of options requiring money, not requiring a purchase price. are a number of options to raise the thousands dollars required to buy an )e noted that there are a number of same or a better outcome. First, in ind then, second, in terms of options MONEY OPTION: THE FIRST OF THESE IS REP102El11 . BY C'CKJNI'!'Y DEVEWEPOW BLOCK GRANr FUNDS: This can take the form of a grant, or a no interest loan. By way of illustration, twenty thousand dollars a year from five communities can be sought; involving such communities as St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Edina and New Hope. This involves, of course, getting the support of interested and responsible persons in each of the designated communities. Business Plan: Hero 01/15/87:RSA;05 -9- The second option, which is relevant, is that Hennepin County might provide the immediate purchase price through using the unexpended balance from the discretionary account as related to the Community Develo nt Block Grant Funds. UNFUNDED OPTIONS: These apply only to the acquisition of the building or facility as such. The first of these has already been explored with one corporation; it involves the corporation turning over the building for a nominal sum and taking the tax write -off. A second option is the outright gift of a building by an individual or corporation. A third option is that HERO takes possession of a building for a five year period at nominal cost, with an option to buy in the future. Obviously, an unfunded option has relevance for this iniative since it allows focus on the much more modest budgets related to modification and /or renovation, and critically the operating budget. It is intended to preservere with these options. However, the unfunded options represent, in canbination, only about a ten percent possibility. MONEY TO MODIFY A FACILITY: The first option is that the money will come f rom a start -up grant from the Minnesota Department of Energy and Development. This is difficult to reference except in relationship to a • specific building, but it is estimated not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars. The second option is that this money will come from a grant f rom the Federal Economic Development Administration. This second approach requires the active support of both the Minnesota Department of Energy and Development and the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training. • MONEY TO START -UP THE FACILITY: The first option is to seek start -up monies in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars from again the Minnesota Department of Energy and Development and /or the Federal Economic Development Administration. The attached pro forma budget assumes that almost twenty -five thousand dollars will be lost in the first year of operation, but in subsequent years the operation will show a positive deviation in excess of thirty thousand dollars in 188, 189 and 190 and be self - supporting thereafter. The money sought is therefore seed money only. In terms of start -up monies, it is important that contingencies be covered by the seed money granted to HERO since it is planned as set fourth in the budget pro forma for the initiative to be self - supporting after the second year. Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA:05 t -rl , I;r' t Do$; • 1 HERO exists as a legal entity, as a 501 C 3 Corporation in the state of Minnesota. It was created by two members of the Private Industry Council (PIC) , with the advice and suggestions of several other individual members. If the council as a whole approves the developmental budget of fifteen thousand dollars, a board of directors will be selected and elected. In any case, persons willing to serve will be identified, but a board will not be constituted until an initial grant is approved. In parallel with the process of seeking the approval of the PIC, presentations will be made to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Development as well as the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training to seek their reaction, input and active support for funding of the operating budget. . If this support is forthcoming, an approach will then be made to the Federal Economic Development Administration for a modification and renovation budget related to a specific building. The timing of this approach is contingent upon finding a suitable building. Again in parallel with the PIC activity and the initiative with the state agencies, continued efforts will be made to identify a building which will not require raising funds from the communities to buy the facility. Only if the unfunded alternatives fail completely to produce an appropriate building in an appropriate location will the communities be approached for funds, through the Community Development Block Grant Funds. They will be approached, in any case, however, in terms of explaining the initiative and seeking their active participation and support. In summary then, first a planning and developmental budget will be sought from the Private Industry Council by March 1987. Second, an operating budget will be sought from the two designated state agencies. Third, a building will be obtained, preferably through "an unfunded mechanism." Fourth, the Federal agency will be approached for renovation and modification dollars. Fifth, the active support of the communities will be sought. Finally, it is anticipated and planned that these activities will consume the better part of 1987, to produce a successful outcome. Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA:05 _11- • Three immediate objectives are represented for the HERO facility upon support and funding being completed. These are first to achieve an annual rate of two thousand and fifty thousand qualified man hours or the approximate equivalent of one hundred full -time employees and sixty part -time employees, identified as "disadvantaged" and "dislocated" workers. Second, for the incubation to be fully operational within three months of obtaining possession of the building. Third and lastly to complete the first twelve months of activity and not incur a deficit in excess of twenty -five thousand dollars, and then to move on to a positive deviation in the second year of activity. • Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87:RSA:05 • • • -12- 1ST MONTH: Development final draft of business plan. First presentations to state and federal agencies. 2ND MONTH: Initial grant approved by Hennepin PIC Committee. First presentations to colmT unities and county. 31D MONTH: Initial grant approved by Hennepin PIC. Further presentations to state and federal agencies. 4TH MONTH: HERO board members and officers elected. Network support activities initiated. STE MONK: Final presentations to communities, as well as state and federal agencies. 6TH MONTH: Final selection of appropriate building from short list. 7TH MONTH: Final funding approved by communities, county, state and federal agencies. 8TH MONTH: Solicitation of prospective tenants. Implementation of T.E.A. interface. 9TH MONTH: Final acquisition of appropriate building. Building changes and modification. 10TH MONTH: First tenants move into facility; intensive publicity regarding HERO start -up. 11TH MONTH: Implementation of funded training and work experiment activities: further publicity and marketing. 12TH MONTH: Revision of budgets and projects based on first quarter activities. Business Plan: Hero 1/15/87 :RSA:05 ,. Urban Hennepin County Discretionary Account Funding Project Review Criteria The Funding Request Review Criteria represents the framework to be used by the Citizens Advisory Committee in evaluating to what extent a specific funding request is consistent with the following Discretionary Account funding priorities established by the Citizens Advisory Commit- tee within the responsibilities assigned in the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan. Funding Priorities • The primary national objective of the CDBG program is to enhance/ improve the lives and living situations of low and moderate income persons. • The Discretionary Account represents supplemental project funds which are available to the urban county participants. Applicants are to demonstrate that the proposed activity represents an activity for which alternative funding is unavailable. • The Community Development funds are limited, the Committee encourages and supports those activities which leverage additional public or private funds. • The Committee does not view CDBG as an appropriate long -term funding source for public service programs, it will require that service/ administration requests demonstrate a multi -year financial plan. Review Criteria • Does the proposed project primarily benefit low /moderate income persons? It • Does the proposed project leverage additional public or private funds? • Does the proposed project represent an expansion or continuation of an existing and /or previously funded activity? • For economic development projects, does the proposed project generate at least one job which will be available to low /moderate persons per $5,000.00 of requested funds? Does the proposed project create additional financial requirements which will continue into the future? 4 t Does the proposed project represent a multi - jurisdictional funding request to a common need? Does the funding request represent an extraordinary community activity? • "*-' LB:tf 1/20/87 • REQUEST FOR FUNDING 1987 DISCRETIONARY ACCO'U'NT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY Project Eligibility: / citation Hennepin County date ER Status: / status Environmental Review Specialis-7 date Project ;umber: / numoer Financial Manager date A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Conrunity: C tv of RiohfiPld 2. Project Name: Scattered Site Acquisition 3. Contact Person: Rick Jopke. 869 -7521 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Sources: CDBG $ 68,200 Other 550,000 2. Is this request to fund an existing project? X Yes No a. If yes, please indicate CDBG year started �IZ , Project Number 270 b. Total CDBG funds programmed /expended since start of project: g 777.591 / $ 7111.591 * 3. Is this request to fund a proposed Year XIII project? .X Yes 4. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide x ATTACH MAP 5. Description Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a state- ment 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. (See Attached) *Approximately $26,000 fo CDBG Year XII remains to complete demolition, legal, appraisal, property maintenance, and property tax expenses on • two recently acquired properties. The CDBG Year XIII request of $70,000 is for new activities.The 1987 Discretionary Fund request is for new activities. 112.7 OPD 2/5/87 6. Does the project address one of the three priority objectives? X Yes No If so, indicate: Economic. Development Housing X (clearance of blighted conditions, addition of new housing, moderate Public Facilities and Improvements income benefit) If not, what objective does it address? 7. Implementation Schedule Identify the major project tasks to be performed during the implementation schedule. 2nd Ouarter 1987 (April 1 to June 30) Identify Voluntary Acquisition Properties Identify developer following RFP 3rd Ouarter 1987 (July 1 To September 30) Negotiate development contract Close on properties- transferring ownership to Developer 4th Ouarter 1987 (OCtober 1, to December 31) Initiate construction, monitor development by Developer lst Quarter 1988 (January 1*to March 31) Monitor construction and market-ing 2nd Quarter 1988 (April 1 to June 30) Monitor project completion and sale of housing to moderate income household 8. Budget Specify project budget for each component of the activity identified in No. 4 above. Component Budcet Source of Funds 40,000 CDBG Discretionary Acquisition 50,000 Developer Clearance 10,000 CDBG Discretionary Relocation 12,000 CDBG Discretionary Admini stration 6,200 CDBG Discretinna y Total Project Budget $ 118,200 Total CCBG Budget $ 68_,00 Does implementation include /require Year CDBG Funds? _ Yes No OPD 2/5/87 • • • Attachment, Section 5 of Application Shared Acquisition Project This scattered site project provides Richfield and its Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) the opportunity to acquire substandard housing, initiate clearance for new construction, and market housing to moderate income households. The HRA is experienced in implementing scattered site improvement project. Since 1975, thirty units of housing have been constructed or rehabilitated. Ten additional units were recently completed and sold. During 1987, one house will be sold and two more units will to started, for sale in 1988. CDBG Year XIII funds have been requested to initiate one additional project that would to underway in 1988 for sale in 1989. Through this process, thirteen "garage" homes have been eliminated, seventeen vacant lots developed, and two units received moderate rehabilitation. Revenues, approximately $1.7 million, primarily CDBG funds, have made these activities possible. However, the "Shared Acquisition Project" (SAP) is unique. It requires a significant cash contribution from the developer at the outset. It also requires HUD acceptance of moderate income limits as developed and implemented by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (`AHFA) for their first time homebuyer financing programs. This program would use a maximum income limit of $28,000 regardless of family size. This is 80% of the median income according to MHFA. A sample transaction (two are proposed with the requested discretionary funds) follows: Site Cost Activity 45,000 Acquisition 6,000 Relocation (tenant) 5,000 Clearance 56,000 Source of Funds CDBG, Developer CDBG CDBG The HRA would identify the property, select the developer, relocate the tenant (if applicable), clear the structure, and transfer title to the developer to construct a house and market the completed project to a moderate income purchaser within the specified income limit. • The HRA will have contributed $31,000 in CDBG funds as follows: $20,000 Acquisition (one property) 6,000 Relocation 5,000 Clearance 31,000 The developer will contribute, at closing between the HRA and the original property owner, $25,000 to share in the cost of acquisition. This is equivalent to the value of the land. The developer would recover this contribution when the unit was sold. Although the HRA would not recover any CDBG funds directly as a result of this project, the taxing jurisdictions (city, school, county) would benefit by the increase in tax revenue generated as a result of the project. Over a 25 year period, at $1,200 per year in additional property tax revenue, the $31,000 would be distributed. The $1,200 figure is typical given the HRA experience in the past. The budget represented in the application would include administrative expenses related to staff time, legal fees to • develop closing and development documents, and survey and - appraisal work. 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. Adequate relocation funds are available within the project budget. The greatest need in Richfield is for decent safe and sanitary housing affordable to low and moderate income persons. The project will expand affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income persons. The project makes long term improvements when substandard housing is acquired and cleared since approximately 90 such garage homes exist in Richfield 4 REQUEST FOR FU`dDING 1987 DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THIS SECTION WILL BE CCMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY Project Eligibility: / citation Hennepin County date ER Status: / status Environmental Review Spe ist date Project Number: / numoer Financial Manager date A. GENERAL INFORMATION I. Community: Richfield 2. Project Name: EousinQ Rehabilitation 3. Contact Person: Rick Jooke - 869 -7521 B. PROJECT DATA 10 1. Funding Sources: CDBG 3.55,000 Other $ 1,000 2. Is this request to fund an existing project? X Yes No a. If es, please indicate CDBG year started ` T Project Number 556; b. Total CDBG funds programmed /expended since start of project: $ 1,098,129 / $ 996,096 3. Is this request to fund a proposed Year XIII project? X Yes No (to serve waiting clients and new clients) 4. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide x ATTACH MAP 5. Description Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a state- ment 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. (See attached) * Approximately $40,832 has been committed to specific improvements and $61,201 has been reserved for specific households. This expends all of funds programmed for until CDBG Year XIII become available. The figures noted in 2b do not include the CDBG funds programmed for housedoctoring: CDBG Year XI- $3,000, expended; and CDBG Year XII - $5,000 committed or reserved for specific households. This expends all funds programmed for until CDBG Year XIII become available. I 6. Does the project address one of the three priority objectives? x Yes No If so, indicate: 7. Economic Development Housing Y (Rehabilitation and Energy) Public Facilities and Improvements If not, what objective does it address? Implementation Schedule Identify the major project tasks to be performed during the implementation schedule. (See Attached) 8. Budget Specify project budget for each component of the activity identified in No. 4 above. Component Budget Source of Funds Rehabilitation -(Deferred-Loans) S45,000 Discretionary Rehabilitation (iurnT';Pdnrtnrina) S 5,000 Discretionary Administration (CDBG) S 5,000 Discretionary Administration (Other) S 11000 MN'DPS Total Project Budget $ 56,000 Total CDBG Budget $ 55,000 Does implementation include /require Year CDBG Funds? Yes No OPD 2/5/87 I • Description (Refer to Section #5 of application) The project has two components: (1)- Deferred loans for major system repair and improvement in lower income owner occupied housing ($45,000). (2)- Snergy grants to "housedoctor" (seal air leaks, rypasses, caulking weatherstripping, heating system evaluation and modification,. installation of setback thermostats) lower income rental and owner occupied housing ($5,000). (1) Rehabilitation (a discussion of needs, results, and project components follows) This project involves providing 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. iThe 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 Spring, 1986. There has been a continual request for assistance. In the past, residents have gaited one to two years for funding. CDBG Year XIII funds, which will be available in July, 1987, have already been reserved for four persons on a waiting list that have requested assistance. The Year XIII anticipated funding level is approximately $75,000, or enough funds for fourteen loans. As all Year XII funds have been committed, discretionary funds would be utilized to cover Spring, 1987 home improvement requests and assist applicants waiting for Year XIII funds not available until July, 1987. • • 4 ` 71C/1_J_/ I The Discretionary 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 housing stock, which of course, benefits the occupant and the 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. Approximately eight home improvement deferred loans would be provided with $45,000 in Discretionary 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) - Approxii-mately 20% of loan proceeds directed to roofing replacement - Approximately 199va of loan proceeds directed to exterior maintenance (painting, siding replacement) - Approximately 11% of loan proceeds directed to building code items (plumbing, electrical problems) There are two components to the project: ongoing administration ($5,000) and direct deferred loans ($45,000). The implementation schedule suggests the manner in which expenditure will occur. (2) Energy yousedoctoring, funded by CDBG and utility contributions, is a method of home weatherization developed at Princeton University in the early 170's and piloted for Minnesota utilities by Richfield in 1984 -85. It consists of a thorough examination of the residence for air infiltration, using a device called a blower door. Practitioners test the structure before and after reducing the air leakage, giving an objective measure of their success -- reduction of air changes per hour is similar in concept to increasing the R -value of attic insulation. The City, through its Community Audit Program, continues to discover homes in need of housedoctor work. The audit, funded by NSP, is an intensive analysis of the energy systems of the home, including a blower door test which identifies overall leakage rates and specific leakage sites. The average Richfield home is found to be 50a "leakier" than it needs to be in order to maintain good indoor airquality. Lower- income homes are often worse than the norm, due to deferred maintenance. • The City has recently initiated a new marketing effort for its audit program, and thus will identify households in need of housedoctor services in three ways: A) contacting approximately 50% of the City not reached during a fall, 1986 campaign, (B) target a special effort toward AFDC recipients, often single Parents, identified as one of the groups in greatest need of assistance with this service, and (C) prepare for a much larger multifamily audit /housedoctor program in late 187 and 188 by working wit'i the smaller (2 -4 unit tuildings) multifamily sector in early 187. These efforts will be facilitated by the addition of an additional staff person (essentially doubling the capability of the program) funded by an energy grant in February, 1987, from the MN Energy Division of DPS (MNDPS). Approximately $1,000 from MNDPS will fund the discretionary fund housedoctor component. It is anticipated that the demand for housedoctoring service will far exceed available resources. A similar, but smaller, marketing effort in the fall of 1986 produced so many housedoctor clients that the City expended $10,000 of utility housedoctoring funding in the period Nov. 15 -Dec. 30. Despite vigorous requests for further assistance, the utility has limited its supporting • role to a short period of time late in the year, and has suggested that even this support should not be relied upon. The CDBG. discretionary funds would assist those identified by the late winter audit promotion, ensuring that low income clients do not have to wait until late 1987 for assistance. The City is requesting $5,000 of discretionary CDBG funding to Perform housedoctoring for 10 lower- income Richfield households in single- fanily residences or small multifamily dwelling units. (Note: Further program discussion concerning housedoctor and audit activities is presented in the CDBG Year XIII application for 1987) • IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE _ (Refer to Section #7 of application) 2nd Quarter 1987 (April 1 to June 30) Rehabilitation: Serve applicants on waiting list, advertise for Program applicants, distribute applications, review completed applications, verify income and eligibility, inspect homes, receive bids, approve loans /grants, notify contractor to proceed with work. Energy: Marketing before heating season is over, targeted toward lower- income residents (especially single heads of households), partially through Hennepin County Social Services. Auditing and basic housedoctoring tegin. 3rd Quarter 1987 (July l to September 30) Rehabilitation: Continue to approve loans, notify contractors to proceed with work, monitor and inspect work being completed, make payments to contractors as necessary. • Energy: Auditing and basic housedoctoring continue. 4th Quarter 1987 (October 1 to December 31) Rehabilitation: Inspect completed wor'4, make payment to contractors, file all Deferred Loan Agreements (where applicable), close out all files. Energy: Follow -up contacts with project report. 1st quarter participants. Final 1st Quarter 1988 (January 1 to March 31) No Activity • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 82 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of an ordinance amendment to permit auto detailing uses in C -1 zoning districts. Background: In November of 1986 the City Council denied an appeal of a staff interpretation that auto detailing uses were not permitted in C -1 Limited Business Districts. The appeal related to the property at 7301 Penn Avenue. The Council also directed the City Attorney's office to draft an ordinance amendment which would permit auto detailing uses in C -1 Limited Business districts by special use permit. The ordinances drafted by the city attorney's office are attached. The ordinance amendment provides that auto detailing would be a permitted use in C -1 districts if a license is first obtained from the city. The ordinance revision then sets up conditions and requirements which must be met for obtaining a license to operate an auto detailing business. If this type of use is to be permitted in C -1 zoning districts, staff believes a licensing requirement, rather than a special use permit, would give the city maximum control over this type of use. A license would have to be renewed each year, whereas a special use permit would not. Through this annual renewal process the city could determine if the use continues to meet all the conditions set forth in the ordinance and licensing requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance and unanimously recommended against it. The commission felt that the use is not appropriate in C -1 districts. The commission also indicated that amending an ordinance to permit one particular use on one particular site may set a bad precedent. The commission recommended if the council wishes to pass the ordinance, that the definition of auto detailing establishment should be tightened; criteria strengthened to clearly define and limit auto detailing activities and the ordinance clarified about who the license is issued to and what happens if the business is sold. The commission also questioned the enforceability of the restrictions on outside storage and on- street parking. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the ordinance was amended to add criteria to reduce the potential impact on adjacent uses. The ordinance now provides that the use must be conducted within the building and cannot cause noise, odor, or dust problems to the adjacent neighborhood. The city council gave first reading approval to the attached ordinance on February 9, 1987 and set March 9, 1987 as the date for the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance. Recommendation: 1. Not approve the attached ordinance amendment. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Detailing use, even as defined in the attached ordinance amendment is inappropriate in a C -1 zoning district. The intent of C -1 districts is to primarily serve the adjacent neighborhood. 2. The city's ability to revoke a license is questionable, especially if one had been renewed each year for a long period of time. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Give second reading approval to the attached ordinances. The ordinance does accommodate the direction of council. 2. The ordinance will apply to all existing auto detailing operations. It is not known whether these operations conform with the proposed ordinance. 3. The only C -1 location that would currently qualify for this use under terms of this ordinance is 7301 Penn Avenue. Decision Mode: The attached ordinance amendments are scheduled for second reading consideration by the council on March 9, 1987. A public hearing notice was published in the Richfield Sun Newspaper for the March 9, 1987 city council meeting. Respect lly submitted, James . Prosser City anager • OLD AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI, OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter VI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Business and Trade Regulation and Licensing is amended by adding thereto the following new section: 6.24 Automobile Detailing Establishments. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall the meanings ascribed to them in this section: (1) "Automobile Detailing Establishment" means a business activity where, for a fee, automobiles, including components and parts are cleaned and refurbished. The term does not include the repair or replacement of parts or components, oil changing or lubrication, painting other than minor touch -up, sale of fuel or automobile parts, accessories or products. (2) "Automobile" means a motor vehicle exclusively designed and equipped to transport its driver and passengers. The term includes a van which is so equipped, but does not include trucks, buses or motor homes. Subd. 2. License_Required. No person shall operate an automobile detailing establishment without having first obtained a current and valid license to do so. Except as hereinafter provided, operation without a license is a misdemeanor. Subd. 3. Application. Any person desiring to engage in the business of operating an automobile detailing establishment shall submit an application for license to the City Clerk. The application shall be on a form prepared by the City Clerk and shall contain the following: (1) The applicant's name, age, residence and whether applicant is a registered voter of the city. If the applicant is a partnership, the names of all partners verified by one such partner. If the applicant is a corporation, the names of all the officers verified by one such officer. (4) The site shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties. (5) The licensed activity shall not result in undue congestion on surrounding streets. (6) There shall be adequate parking spaces provided on the site for customers and employees; three offstreet parking spaces for each bay where auto detailing takes place and 1 offstreet parking space for every employee shall be provided; and the licensee shall instruct customers and employees not to parking on surrounding streets. (7) The use must be conducted totally within the confines of the building. (8) There shall be no exterior storage or sales of equipment, materials or products. (9) The use shall not generate, noise, dust, or odors which disturb or annoy occupants of adjacent residential properties. (10) There shall be no more than one curb cut per street. Curb cuts must be located at least 50 feet from any intersection. (11) Exterior lighting shall be designed and directed so as not to case light on adjacent residential property. (12) The establishment shall be open only between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. (13) The premises shall be maintained in a state of good repair at all times; and shall be kept free of litter, trash, debris and weeds. (14) Underground storage tanks shall be removed as.required by the City. (15) Licenses shall be granted only to establishments located in the commercial districts of the city. (16) In addition to other conditions provided for in this subdivision, if the establishment is located in a C -1 district of the city, it must be proposed as a replacement to an existing gasoline service station, service station store or public garage. Subd. 6. Suspension or Revocation. If the City Manager determines that the licensee has violated any of the conditions for licensure contained in subdivision 5 of this section, the 3 manager shall notify the council of the nature of the violation and request that it consider taking action to suspend or revoke the license. A copy of the notice shall be mailed, or otherwise delivered, to the licensee at the licensed premises. The council shall consider the matter at its next regularly scheduled meeting, at least ten days following the date of mailing or delivery of the notice. At the hearing, the licensee or its representative shall have an opportunity to rebut any of the information contained in the manager's notice and to offer evidence in mitigation thereof. Following the hearing, the council shall determine whether the evidence of violation is established and whether the license should be suspended or revoked. In considering suspension of the license, the council may place additional and further conditions upon the licensee, if the council concludes that such additional conditions will assist in the orderly operation of the business. Subd. 7. Relationship to Other Licenses or Permits. Businesses located in C -2 districts of the city which lawfully operate as gasoline service stations, service station stores, public garages or car sale lots may continue to engage in those aspects of an automobile detailing establishment which are permitted as part of their lawful operation without the need to first obtain the license required in this section. Effective Date. This amendment will be effective from and after the later of: (1) 30 days following the date of publication, or (2) the date on which the amendment to Section 3.32, subdivision 1 making automobile detailing establishments a permitted use in C -1 districts is effective. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. • ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk- • 4 John N. Hamilton, Mayor AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV, SECTION 3.32 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.32, Subdivision 1 of the Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following respects: 1. By adding to said subdivision 1 of Section 3.32 the following new paragraph (4): "(4) Automobile Detailina Establishments, meetina the definition contained in section 6.24 of this Code, which have a current and valid license issued under 2. By renumbering the paragraphs in subdivision 1 of section 3.32 accordingly. 0 Passed by the Citl► Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1987. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0055AM06.E14 • John N. Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.81 March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Authoriz,:ti:)n to submit an application for Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funding for improvements to Lyndale Avenue from 77th Street, including a new bridge over I494. Background: Improvements to Lyndale Avenue have been designed to increase efficiency and capacity because of anticipated increased vehicular traffic volume due to the ILN project. It will be necessary to widen and channelize Lyndale Avenue, including the bridge over I494, to accommodate this increase in traffic and the potential future widening of I494. The improvements will provide two thru -lanes of traffic in each direction and a median of sufficient width to provide side -by -side left -turn lanes between the North and South I494 ramps and double left -turn lanes on the South approach to West 77th Street. The estimated cost of these improvements exceeds $2.5 million; FAU funding is anticipated to pay for approximately 750 of the eligible construction costs. The remaining costs will be funded by a combination of ILN Tax Increment Funds and MSA funding. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the- attached resolution, authorizing submittal of a preliminary application for FAU funding for improvements to Lyndale Avenue from 77th Street to 79th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed improvements are consistent with the City's ILN plan and long -range Capital Improvement Program. 2. The proposed improvements to Lyndale Avenue were identified by the public as one of the most important elements of the ILN plan and of the highest priority. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may choose to postpone submittal of the FAU project application for the calendar years 1989 -91 program; however, this funding would pay for a substantial portion of the improvement's construction costs and has been identified as a funding source in the City's Capital Improvement Program. Discussion /Decision ;lode: In order to rieet the March lb, 1987 submittal date for FAU applications, this item has been included on the City Council's consent agenda of March 9, 1987. Res f lly submitted, Jame. D. Prosser City l anager JDP /sae • • • Termini or Intersection 77th Street to 79th Straat unz Hennepin Muniei alit Richfield & Bloomi t n Proim— den and channelize Lyndale Avenue, including bridge over I -494, Des provide two through lanes of traffic in each direction and I (spemedian of sufficient width to provide side -by -side left turn imppes between the I -494 north and south ramps and double left typirn lanes on the south aproach to W. 77th Street. Revise tionisting traffic signals at south I -494 ramps and north I -494 - equmps; provide new signal at IJ. 77th Street and provide traffic a �n erconnec L, on Lynda I e venue roject evelopment inticipate moderate level path; categorical exclusion. ath and FAU inancial 1AU of $2,175,000 to be used in 1991. taging equirements ost n al Year $ R/W $ Desi stimate 1989 8 $ Const. Eng. Construe. Total �(1987 1990 rices) 1991 229 000 ' 2 860 00 3 ource of Local FundsTax Increment Project Total- raffic or intersection projects, list info requested for all le s. urrent AADT17,000 Year 1984 Current Level of Service 11011 esign AADT Year T.I'*+-.Signal Warrants Met 1 & 2 ccident ear JL�FOJ istory of Fatal Accidents 0 I 1985 of PI Accidents 0 0 4 4 8 of PD Accidents 2 2 24 stimated % Reduction of Total Accidents if Improvement is Made. NARRATIVE: 25% Respond directly to gual__ ng and REL2ritj criteria in Enc. B for specific type of project. Provide concise and specific answers to the project descrip- tion and each criterion listed. Identify answer by number and letter of criter- ion. Do not skip any items. Failure to properly address each item may result in disqualification for consideration. Use additional plain, 8 -1/2 x 11 sheet for response on criteria and any additional comments, type single space. Attach 8 -1/2 x 11 black and white reproducible map showing general project location. Application including attachments must be limited to four additional sheets, one or two sides, with non - reduced type. COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ON REVERSE SIDE. Submitted by Agency Phone Date 3 Please Type Enclosure C (Page 1 of 2) 1989 -1991 FEDERAL AID URBAN PROJECT SUBMITTAL FORM roject YPe lease Roadway Construction Capacity p Y Bikeway/Walkway heck (5.5 million or less) X ne Safety Transit R Construction on- staged) 2.5 llion or less ocation treet Name b Road 0_ Lyndale Avenue Project Length .31 mile Termini or Intersection 77th Street to 79th Straat unz Hennepin Muniei alit Richfield & Bloomi t n Proim— den and channelize Lyndale Avenue, including bridge over I -494, Des provide two through lanes of traffic in each direction and I (spemedian of sufficient width to provide side -by -side left turn imppes between the I -494 north and south ramps and double left typirn lanes on the south aproach to W. 77th Street. Revise tionisting traffic signals at south I -494 ramps and north I -494 - equmps; provide new signal at IJ. 77th Street and provide traffic a �n erconnec L, on Lynda I e venue roject evelopment inticipate moderate level path; categorical exclusion. ath and FAU inancial 1AU of $2,175,000 to be used in 1991. taging equirements ost n al Year $ R/W $ Desi stimate 1989 8 $ Const. Eng. Construe. Total �(1987 1990 rices) 1991 229 000 ' 2 860 00 3 ource of Local FundsTax Increment Project Total- raffic or intersection projects, list info requested for all le s. urrent AADT17,000 Year 1984 Current Level of Service 11011 esign AADT Year T.I'*+-.Signal Warrants Met 1 & 2 ccident ear JL�FOJ istory of Fatal Accidents 0 I 1985 of PI Accidents 0 0 4 4 8 of PD Accidents 2 2 24 stimated % Reduction of Total Accidents if Improvement is Made. NARRATIVE: 25% Respond directly to gual__ ng and REL2ritj criteria in Enc. B for specific type of project. Provide concise and specific answers to the project descrip- tion and each criterion listed. Identify answer by number and letter of criter- ion. Do not skip any items. Failure to properly address each item may result in disqualification for consideration. Use additional plain, 8 -1/2 x 11 sheet for response on criteria and any additional comments, type single space. Attach 8 -1/2 x 11 black and white reproducible map showing general project location. Application including attachments must be limited to four additional sheets, one or two sides, with non - reduced type. COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ON REVERSE SIDE. Submitted by Agency Phone Date 3 Page 2 of 2 SUPPORTING DATA FOR PROPOSED F.A.U. PROJECT (To be submitted on Roadway, Safety and Capacity Projects Only.) EXISTING ROADWAY Typical Section Width 52 ft. Year of Latest Construction 1961 Surface TypeBituminous Depth Inches 10" Condition Fair Base Type Class 5 Depth Inches 9--_ Condition Fair Condition: Surface Fair Curb & Gutter Fair Sidewalk Fair Storm Sewer Vair Describe Deficiencies and traffic capaci y PROPOSED ROADWAY Typical Section Width 86 -108 ft Design Speed 35 mph Surface Type Bituminous TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED (Check Appropriate Items) Grading X Bit. Base X Grade Lift Curb & Gutter —x Subgrade Correction Sidewalk - Trail —7_ Subbase Storm Sewer X Stabilized Base Median — Signals x_ Other Work BRIDGE DATA Bridge No. Existing Facility Proposed Facility 9075 Spanning (Name of stream, rail- road, highway) I -494 I -494 Width (Curb to Curb) bZ tt. 86 ft. Length 182 ft. 182 ft n . Disposition (Remove or Remain) a ai Describe Deficiencies LIST OF PROPOSED CONTRACTS FOR ABOVE WORK Is one contract intended to include entire length? Yes X No If not, list each proposed contract separately. Also, list each proposed contract for different types of work. Proposed Year Estimated for Construction Type of Work Length (Miles) Contract Cost 19 19 —_ 19 _ 19 DE125C.PHTRN2 QUALIFYING CRITERIA 1. The project is consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Council's officially adopted Metropolitan Development Guide. 2. The total estimated cost of the project is $3,375,000 and exceeds $100,000. 3. The project has been coordinated with the City of Bloomington and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Part of the project would be under the jurisdiction of the City of Bloomington and the city has indicated they support the proposed improvement of the Lyndale Avenue interchange. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated that they would cooperate with the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington on implementation. 4. A portion of the project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Richfield and a portion of the project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Bloomington. The City of Richfield is the lead agency on this project and the Richfield City Council has authorized the application for FAU funds. The City of Bloomington supports the proposed improvement of Lyndale Avenue and the application for FAU funds. Lyndale Avenue is classified as a minor arterial and is on the FAU system. 5. The 1984 AADT on Lyndale Avenue from Mn /Dot's 1984 traffic flow map is 17,000 vehicles per day north of I -494 and 16,600 south of I -494. The 1986 ADT on the bridge over I -494 was 19,600 based on a 48 hour count taken by the City of Richfield. The level of service as defined in Appendix IV is level of service D. Due to the current spacing of signalized intersec- tions, the high volume of turning movements and the close spacing of adja- cent frontage roads, the actual level of service is much lower than level of service "D 6. All traffic signals included in the project meet warrants as defined in The Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 7. All signals included in the project are less than one -half mile apart. PRIORITY CRITERIA 1. Implementation of: a. Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan Policy 1 Transportation facilities should be planned, designed and operated to promote and serve development that is consistent with the Development Framework chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The Metropolitan Council's Development and Investment Framework policies "supports the maintenance and upgrading of development and service facilities in the fully developed areas of the Metropolitan Urban Ser`v i ce Area". The City of Richfield is in the fully developed area of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and the proposed project is designed to support the proposed redevelopment of the existing commercial area along Lyndale Avenue and adjacent to Interstate Highways 494 an 35W. 0 Policy 4 Citizen and public involvement should be promoted in the formulation of transportation policy and implementation decisions. The ILN redevelopment plan for this portion of the City of Richfield was developed with significant citizen and public involvement and the proposed improvements to Lyndale Avenue were identified by the public as one of the most important elements of that plan and of the highest priority. Policy 9 Transportation facilities should be planned, designed and operated to function in a manner compatible with adjacent land use; in those instances where the function of a facility and adjacent land use have become incompatible, affected agencies and local units of government should establish a program to mitigate this incompatibility. and; Policy 10 Transportation facilities should be planned, designed and operated to minimize the disruption of neighborhoods. The proposed improvements on Lyndale Avenue represent one element of an overall transportation plan for the area designed to eliminate the existing incompatibility between the residential land uses along 76th Street and the arterial function served by 76th Street. The transpor- tation component of the redevelopment plan proposes to develop 77th Street as an arterial to reduce the traffic demand on 76th Street. The development of 77th street as an arterial necessitates some of the proposed improvements on Lyndale Avenue. Policy 33 Metropolitan transportation systems should be planned and managed so that the resulting quality of the air conforms with the national air quality standards. The increased capacity on Lyndale Avenue would reduce congestion and delays and consequently result in an overall improvement in air quality in this area. b. A Capital Improvement Program formally adopted by the submitting governing body (or agency)- -and consistent with the approved local comprehensive plan. The proposed improvements are on the City of Richfield's 1988 -1992 Capital Improvement Program and on the City of Bloomington's extended CIP and is consistent with the approved local comprehensive plans of Richfield and Bloomington. C. Specific recommendation of an applicable study or Transportation System Management Plan. The proposed improvements would be affected by the recommendations of the I -494 Corridor Study. At the present time the I -494 study has not deve- loped specific recommendations. However, all of the build alternatives identified in the I -494 study include an upgraded interchange at Lyndale 0 Avenue. 2. Design provision when warranted of other modes. a. Transit The roadway improvements will provide for transit as defined in "Guidelines for the Design of Transit Related Improvements ". b. Pedestrians The proposed Lyndale Avenue bridge over I -494 would include sidewalks for pedestrians /bikes. The signalized intersections, where warranted, will be provided with pedestrian activated "walk" phases. Ped /Bike ramps will be provided at the sidewalk- street intersections. C. Bicycles The proposed Lyndale Avenue bridge over I -494 would include sidewalks for bicycles /pedestrians. The signalized intersections, where warranted, will be provided with pedestrian activated "walk" phases. Bike /Ped ramps will be provided at the sidewalk- street intersections. 3. Number of people served. a. The 1986 ADT on this segment of Lyndale Avenue was 19,600. . b. A 2010 design volume has not been developed and will depend on recommen- dations in the I -494 study. The projected AADT with the proposed redeve- lopment in the ILN redevelopment District is 22,500. C. The MTC operates two transit routes on this segment of Lyndale Avenue. Route 47 operates all day on weekdays and Saturdays. Route 44B operates during rush hours on weekdays. 4. Functional Criteria a. Will improve access to unique facilities of metropolitan scale, including the Met Center, the MSP airport, and the proposed Mall of America. b. Will mitigate the accident rates on this segment. C. The proposed improvements on Lyndale Avenue represent one element of an overall transportation plan designed to remove commercial traffic from the residential neighborhoods in Richfield. The project will eliminate the existing congestion problem on this segment. Other low cost alternatives have been considered and have been determined to not be effective in elimi- nating the congestion problems. • ir.:' -'ai a U f 3., LYNDALE� � � C w. a o: 5tlih o u m 51. ; o < C o = a 35w 1 1 �� W. _ AVENUE w. w 59 th o Sr. - " r r 59 th S1. z ROS LYN PL. .� 59 %x St. Q W w CHESTER" SN IMPROVEMENT oeP w w. 5? " 2 60th 5r. S Lahze 4,0UPONT AVE. a ° a a - PROJECT Lake W. first ST, ` COL FAX 1 A. S. W. wFN1w0R111 CT. ° r f 690 W. 62nd 6Y 6. E.wENrwoR1H C1.5 ST6 1 LOCATION MAP _ »> FEET � 1- 62 It' 51 W. 62 nd s T. 62 3Sw) W. 63 rd ST. T• " 35W � 52 w. 64 th ST, W. 164 It, a ST. F.. 64 th S1. H24w E. 64 th S1 � IJ 4 w z w. 64 +/x " W. 64 vx ST. Il 11 IdI(:III� IIs[.[� z 'a o Richfield 65 th ° St. IT. 65 th ST, „�, Lake 65 th ST. 11 i; T E• \V \UII 1960 (OP. 37851 3 > vi a. ,A O 1 4 tr .r a d AP 66th'£ O,P 4!•611 St. C 53 E. �° 66th ST. 53 5 O 53 o cq CIR a. E . . j w. 67 th ST. Q ' 41-44 vt w- > < 67th ST. L. 67 11, ST. L .'O \1 `p• B nr't E A. Q 1/i N VI " 14 " " Vi Ih N V. ? 57. � W. 68 th ST. EVER n w, v+ 68 it, St. " E. GB it, _ a 1. !if c> < n _ E. 691h 5 F. 'Q w. 69 th v Sr, v m n E. 69 Ih Wood v +^ £ W Lake i a a i > > W. a 70th ; i ; m 51. TQ 1. 10 Ih ST. g ^ 0 1. LAKE ? SHORE DR. u c w a 4i a - a �FH > O' ¢ > > > > 5 T. J 1 °52'30" w ¢ 2. W. 12Yx ' ui m 11 st ° S1. ' 1- Oq1 ° sT. m •' w. o Sr. 12rd ° Si. E. �S; 12 Id o`er z 2 OAK J " " vi '^ ,ri vi o / 73 Id z ST. W. v T3r0 v o ST. E. F a " N > T W W W W 1 �J Q > z c, /t rt m V a� L - p O o W. " 74 r1, a a a ST. - > 1.. a' m Trail = m w.� a 75 th o COUr 51. of z [.+ 75 Ihl ST. N / 7 > n < yl 41 O W. o 20, m 76 th 4 r a d SI. L. !6 It, ST, TT O z ¢ voi 35w c s W. 11 th m 51. L. 11 f11 2 (5 St. 68000,0 77y2 S1, � FEFT 494 5 w. to sl. 1 1Rn, sT. CLOY LR 0 70th S7, IHIt+ SI. E 494 (5� Ssi E. 'z0 78'17 ST. !. - 79th ST, w W. T91 ST. Both ST. 4 1. r•r 'i:• ', I. F. Both ST. Ih St, soft, St. iT J 80%2 ST. > 'A HIM S1. " C. 80111 SL E. 80th ST. LL a a > W. 81sT _ 81st ST. 14 35w a " " A _ f V N " W. BJ rd 1 n: +ai+ ° Si, E. 82 1x7 " }I. — 82rd Si. U Q 2 9 41' W W W J < < > W " > > W 83 rd u ° ° ST. T. a 83 rd ST. e a E.. NS rd 51. 4i w > > t KILLE I IAEO OR. o a a e m 84111 ST. tt ; a a a E. 84 rh Si. m a arc 5T. a > 84 %2 u 9 vF 4i N. a 85th ST. ° O W. 85 1h ST. !. 85 Ih S1. ` > > > > w € l.i < ~ > n a > > w 24 �• > BSIh St. > a p 4i 3 a ° 86th < ST. E. 86 fh O ST, J 01711 ST. y: " o z W. 8► m st. z �� L f r viler E. elm ST. i w7m ST. Trail er W W W Court F Co ur t v ST. a > e > " W R a L 88 th ST ,.. 0 Z x t- a lJ 8 f�..__ Si. _ -- E. 'a 88th RD. z " z < < ¢ -- -- t 1- w (L ¢ ° ¢ NOf f i 0, 3 o u m a = 4 w F TI 1,C. LA. m " RO• o PAP 4i o �? �. c > > m w.l 89 th sT• IIALSEY LA. ; a E. 89 Ih Sr. -� a '.i c, 4 z 84th ST :>1 O T Q Z W. 90th ST. [. " ..t 11 ST. -• �' (C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 80 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Request for illuminated signs for Union 76 Station at 7744 Penn Avenue and Lightning Printing to be located at 6244 Lyndale Avenue; and Temporary Sign for Amoco, 6545 Portland Avenue Background: City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated and temporary signs. Union 76 - Has requested advertising permits to install a new sign logo on the existing double poles. The sign is over 27' in height, but a 35' high sign was previously approved. The current ordinance would not allow a sign over 27' because property is zoned C -2 and not in redevelopment district. They also request a permit to reface the second existing pedestal sign with the new logo. The height would be 211, (here there is no discrepancy on height). Finally, they request permits for two illuminated wall signs. One is to be 4' X 4' the other 8' X 21. Lightning Printing - Has requested a permit to erect a 6' X 4' illuminated wall sign on the mansard. Amoco Oil - Has requested a permit for a 3' x 4' non - illuminated temporary sign to be used for a period of 30 days. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for these illuminated signs. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have approved the signs. 2. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the permits. However, the city has no alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for these signs. • Discussion /Decision Mode: These signs have been placed on the consent calendar portion of the 3/9/87 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are requesting action to complete their sign placement. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager • • �PPROV -E DENY U : APPROVE I V I DENY u : d6�.�--t.G {, City Manager Inspector Date Date APPROVE ® DENY :j( �67 APPROVE ❑ DENY❑ w L1' P.r.(l' 33 11*4 Planning Ddpartment City Council iC�N rP�%:s�y paQFcJc>) Date L g7 Date Cvc.2 L ?' get%MK� PPcPc�l 1S zC1.i+�.0 G- `'i �Di IN %ies��}, pIS7(2(CT. - oute to above for special approval per code General Sins APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, . Minnesota Date /- Z-5 f 7 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee Address of Sign 77yy lz&'V/U 1411, , S • Proprietor Name 0110A.) 76 Sign Erector 5(J€4Uee,+/V M6- i{7746 Address 6677 ZAAKE 191" 0 AV. R/, Type of Sign DeGian DBA rre�, -U - r. r , -I- If Illuminated 4,- �es No Watts �ectrical Contractor SL�Brl.C'v�{dL' LIGf�% / «G Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone 7d Estimated Cost 'c �C�C. CC Sign Width !Z Height / Z Total Square Feet 113. %C Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached 'hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copv relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises' A! S Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /VO, Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Lumber Date lS l - '- 7 �� j �— %� /�/G sot 1985 y PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face X Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ A n Post ❑ Clear Lexon Constant Fronted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors 010"K116-e/ /sG�l�, WI-117- X If Illuminated 4,- �es No Watts �ectrical Contractor SL�Brl.C'v�{dL' LIGf�% / «G Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone 7d Estimated Cost 'c �C�C. CC Sign Width !Z Height / Z Total Square Feet 113. %C Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached 'hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copv relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises' A! S Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /VO, Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Lumber Date lS l - '- 7 �� j �— %� /�/G sot 1985 y PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 1 APPROVE F NY❑; City :Tanager Date *P PROVE F T)ENY ❑ : D� Plannin Dep lartment Date APPROVE DENY ❑ : Inspecto Datefi�g% APPROVE ❑ DENY ❑ : City Council Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date -Z 5 - ,17 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes V No Fee Address of Sign 774/1 49&W A/ AV 5, Proprietor Name O N101V 76 DBA Sign Erector SZ 6V1e6 ,4rV L16F(7-,1ii16 Address 6077 L4te15 EUL(0 Ai/ 6U, S7ZZV,41E,e Type of Sign Desisn Weather Cover Lighting f Illuminated Ye No Watts Electrical Contractor 50661WOIM_' Z C-Al?V67 Address Phone 7Z/y67 Property Owner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost %CMG'. !�� Simon Width 7 t zirt 7 Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the a, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major defined on page 2. Phone J�-5/ -/670 Total Square Feet y ijacent buildings, d"euia _ffs, or public facilities on signs. Minor signs as Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copv of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the si?n copv relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises'. V & Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over :or safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? IVC Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date hone Number 4/ 791�lt5 Lk-_ logj PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: Post ❑ x Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors CK'�!i 6E, %jLU�, Gt1l/(7'c X 9T7A7 f Illuminated Ye No Watts Electrical Contractor 50661WOIM_' Z C-Al?V67 Address Phone 7Z/y67 Property Owner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost %CMG'. !�� Simon Width 7 t zirt 7 Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the a, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major defined on page 2. Phone J�-5/ -/670 Total Square Feet y ijacent buildings, d"euia _ffs, or public facilities on signs. Minor signs as Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copv of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the si?n copv relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises'. V & Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over :or safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? IVC Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date hone Number 4/ 791�lt5 Lk-_ logj PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 /'ill C� 51G�U • T 5' -ZYz " I i r D!A• APPROVE ❑ DENY ❑ City Manager Date APPROVE T)ENY❑ : V Plannin no rtment okAPPROVE DENY ❑: „Q;r.,e -„`, Inspect D Date APPROVE ❑ DENY :`j�' —� P City Council Date ( Jq7 Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date-/-0.5—Y7 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee Address of Sign 77-11y Proprietor Name 0/ ,/6), % 7� DBA Sign Erector SUlBUIPB �� G Address X1717 X414 X1,1/7! ,le `G414 � Type of Sign Design Woathor f nlror T- ieintinn 40f Illuminated - Y: ' No Watts 1 ectrical Contractor. %J 'jG�,��j1� IICW77,o,',J6 Address /0777 Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone 50 1� 7e Estimated Cost Sign Width fr Height % Total Square Feet f� Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached 'hereto of major signs. Minor, signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? X Wi11 the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm 7 Date �— —Y/ Phone Number - 7� , oict 1985 PLEASE SEE. REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T F-1 A 7 Post ❑ Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors e4L 66 , /,Utj/ 40f Illuminated - Y: ' No Watts 1 ectrical Contractor. %J 'jG�,��j1� IICW77,o,',J6 Address /0777 Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone 50 1� 7e Estimated Cost Sign Width fr Height % Total Square Feet f� Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached 'hereto of major signs. Minor, signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? X Wi11 the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm 7 Date �— —Y/ Phone Number - 7� , oict 1985 PLEASE SEE. REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Cu L 1_1v v 1:. LC.1V 1" : APPROVE k DENYL : '�f�t Clear Lexon oConstant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors�� City Manager r Inspector Date Date_ Z APPROVE R1ENYF : cl� a� APPROVE DENY Plannin Department City Council Date l4 �Z7 Date oute to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date /- Z -e7 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No %< Fee Address of Sign 77�1�1 lfE_A/U AVf S, Proprietor Name 61AI IV 76 DBA Sign Erector L /6174T7A)6 Address 6077 lej4-4! � ST /CCj,Us�l�i� Type of Sign Design TJuntlncr rntncr If Illuminated - Yes ectrical Contractor No Watts Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone 1T(;11--r�7r Estimated Cost J,9 Sign Width Height Total Square Feet /0, Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises'. y:5 Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access // by /persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date- f/ Date � �.� `� / Phone Number -'3 1�7� 1985 PTZASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 1 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: Post 7 Clear Lexon oConstant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors�� 9TF-IA7 If Illuminated - Yes ectrical Contractor No Watts Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone 1T(;11--r�7r Estimated Cost J,9 Sign Width Height Total Square Feet /0, Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises'. y:5 Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access // by /persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date- f/ Date � �.� `� / Phone Number -'3 1�7� 1985 PTZASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 1 w. 77 774 s7J • APPROVE F-1 DENY ❑ City Manager Date APPROVE © 1)ENY ❑ : 4� Plannin c Dpent Date 2 Zo $1 APPROVE F 7X] DENY ❑: --1z-1 Inspecto Date •�� APPROVE 11 DENY ❑ City Council Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date j � I -Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Signl�,��%% L ✓r7 eAt �t(/o S• Proprietor Name l,u j�fn;�, p{' ,17,7,1W DBA IJ Sign Erector ;.1JcP�SP�%�� t /o��T� p Address Type of Sion T) P C l Or1 49 Illuminated - Yes 6 Watts Electrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: A n Post ❑ Phone Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite OthetC,J v) Hw. Other(Explain) Sign Colors &(V�pf -I'S40 -r'al Sign Width Height Total Square Feet ET7 49 Illuminated - Yes 6 Watts Electrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width Height Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises:' Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ppiicant`s Signature and Title th Firm Phone Number + 66•S� 0 Lkt Date 6 rl(_1 �0� 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official'- 866 -5061 GROUND SIGN � WIDTH —� LEGEND WALL SIGN —WIDTH LEGEND • PEDESTAL SIGN WIDTH— LEGEND ROOF SIGN WIDTH ROOF 4 l� PROJECTING SIGN — WIDTH - -:3;.! LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the space below LEGEND Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. 0 on a common board INDICATE NORTH LKT /8/83 APPROVE U DENY" : City Manager Date APPROVE Fi. 7)ENY❑ :} }- -' Planning De artment APPROVE L In3`pector Date 37 APPROVE DENYa �- ��- City Council Date 3 Q % Date 0oute to above for special approval er code P General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date Ae % Zoning c g Sign Erected - Yes ✓ No Fee Address of Sign Proprietor Name / U DBA Sign Erector Address 5.,4wff- e of Si Des Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal >angeable Temporary Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Frame: ✓Portable Trailer " T [] A RPost n S'S' _J Weather Cover Clear Lexon Frosted Lexon Plastic Covered Shaded Neon Other Sign Colors If Illuminated - Yes No Watts leectrical Contractor. Address Property Owner or his Agent Signature / Estimated Cosj��0 Sign Width�_ Height �` in Constant Flashing Revolving Traveling Zip Lite Other(Explain) Phone Phone Ag /- 636 O Total Square Feet' Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? 4W. Will t:e sign, structure, or billboard restrict anv sight distance under, around, or over for safe acce by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? -Ain Applicant' Si a re and Title -16ith Firm Phone Number�� Date 1985 PLEASE SEE REVEERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -:061 _ "41/- 7j CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.79 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Authorization to purchase two 25 horsepower air compressors for sludge dewatering process. Background: In order to i.mpleinent the lime sludge dewatering system, several piers of equipment necessary to perform the dewatering process rust be purchased. Two .air compressors are need to supply air for pumps which pump the lime sludge to the presses for dewatering. Quotations were received as follows: General Repair Service $8,730.00 W. W. Grainger, Inc. 9,173.10 Although W. W. Grainger's quotation is $443.10 higher than the quote received from General Repair Service, staff recommends purchasing the air compressors supplied by W. W. Grainger Inc. Funds for this purchase were appropriated in the 1987 water maintenance capital outlay budget (703- 4836). Recommendation: Approve the purchase of two 25 horsepower air compressors from W. • W. Grainger, Inc. in the amount of $9,173.10. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The model of air compressor provided by Grainger is identical to the two air compressors currently in use at the water plant. Therefore, parts could be interchangeable and less expensive to inventory. 2. Sufficient funding is available for this purchase. 3. The air compressors are necessary to efficiently operate the dewatering process at the water plant. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Accept the lower quotation of General Repair Service. However, parts for these air compressors may be more difficult to obtain because they are not stocked locally. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the March 9, 1987 consent calendar for consideration. Approval at a this time will enable the equipment to be available for installation by the contractor constructing the sludge dewatering building addition. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 78 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Award of contract for removal of diseased trees on private property. Background: The city began a program to assist homeowners in the removal of diseased elm and oak trees on private property in the early 1970's. When a tree on private property is marked for removal, a homeowner has three alternatives: (1) remove the tree himself (2) hire his own contractor to do the work or (3) authorize the city's contractor to do the work and either pay the removal costs immediately or have the cost assessed to the property tax over •a three -year period. Funds are provided in the PIR fund to reimburse the contractor when the property owner elects to have the costs assessed to the property tax. The city's bidding system for removal of private diseased trees provides that a single contractor removes diseased trees in the city. Specifications for 1987 tree removal were sent to 25 tree removal companies. Four bids were received and opened on February 20, 1987, as follows: Amlee Tree Service, Woodbury $371443 Ceres Tree Company, Minneapolis 36,701 Gorecki & Company, Anoka 32,110 Tri State Tree Service, Inc. 23,885 Recommendation: Award the contract for 1987 diseased tree removal on private property to Tri -State Tree Service,Inc. in the amount of $23,885. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Tri -State Tree Service, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder for this work. 2. The company has previously done work for other municipalities including removing diseased boulevard trees last year in the City of Bloomington. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise in an attempt to receive a lower bid. However, this year's per tree prices are quite low and shouldsprovide Richfield property owners with a very reason- able removal cost should they choose to have the city coordinate the removal of their diseased tree. 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 March 9, 1987 city council consent agenda. Respectfully submitted, Jam e Prosser City ager JDP /eja I. U.� �y n • CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening February 20, 1987 11:30 A.M. Removal of Diseased Trees from Private Property. Bid No. 87 -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 removal of diseased trees from private property, bid no. 86 -18, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 4, 1987. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR Ceres Tree Co. Mpls. ' Gorecki & Co. Anoka , Amlee Tree Service Woodbury Tri -State Tree Service, Inc. Farmington The City Clerk announced that the bid* considered at the March 9, 1987 City C BID SECURITY 5% Bond TOTAL ; $36,701 ; , would be tabulated and ouncil Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 5% Bond $32,110 ; Cert. Check $37,443 ; S ; Cashiers $23,885 ; Check ' would be tabulated and ouncil Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • r� • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 77 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of Approval of Purchase Order for Voting Booths Background: At the December 22, 1986 city council meeting the city council approved the purchase of the Optech III -P optical scan voting devices. The new voting system will be implemented for the fall 1987 elections. As demonstrated at the November 24, 1986 city council study session, a voter marks a gaper ballot in a voting booth and proceeds to the optical scan voting device to insert the ballot where it is automatically tabulated and deposited into the ballot box. The city currently has paper ballot voting booths which have been utilized for school board elections. A sufficient number are available to conduct the 1987 municipal election. The Presidential election in 1988 will require a significant number of voting booths to handle the high voter turnout experienced at such elections. Industry standards suggest that for the number of registered voters in Richfield (approximately 25,000), 100 voting booths are necessary capacity for a smooth flow of voters at the polls. Hennepin County is acting as an agent in pooling all orders of municipalities in Hennepin County and Ramsey County for voting booths as was done with the Optech III -P voting devices to obtain quantity discounts on the purchase price. Orders by municipalities must be received no later than March 16, 1987 to qualify for the quantity discount. The discount is $27 per voting booth, which would save the city $2,700. The city can lock in the discounted price by ordering at this time, with delivery and payment to be made in 1988. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize a purchase order in the amount of $16,525 for the 1988 purchase of 91 self - contained blow molded voting booths with lights 5 $163 each and 9 self - contained blow molded handicapped voting booths with lights Ej $138 each from Business Records Corporation. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The city has committed to the purchase of the Optech III -P voting system. 2. The purchase of voting booths is necessary to meet the standard of one voting booth per 250 registered voters. 3. To qualify for a quantity discount, a purchase order must be received by Business Records Corporation by March 16, 1987. 0 Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city council could delay authorization to purchase voting booths until a later date. However, the $27 per booth discount would not be available. Discussion /Decision Mode: City Council authorization is requested for purchase of the voting booths for 1988 at the March 9, 1987 city council meeting so that the city can qualify for the Hennepin County group purchase discount. JDP /sae • • Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City tanager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 76 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Award of contract for leasing of golf carts for rental purposes at Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course in 1987, 1988 and 1989. Background: Golf carts are leased by the city for rental to golfers. On February 26, 1987 bids were opened for a new lease period of 1987 - 1989. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached. The specifications included 20 current year model golf carts for the period of March 15 through November 15 for each of the contract years, and five used golf carts for the period of June 1 through September 1 in each year of the contract. The City is to provide the public liability and property damage insurance coverage, except for accidents resulting from mechanical failure or improper cart maintenance. The vendor is to provide all parts, labor and maintenance including necessary lubricants. Bids were received as follows: is Golf Car Midwest $18,870 /annually Turf Products & RW Golf Cars $17,035 /annually E -Z Go Div. Textron $16,515 /annually The specifications noted that final bid award would be based upon, among other things, the bid price including any discounts specified. RW Golf Cars and Turf Products did offer a discount of $35 per cart if the full annual fee is paid by April 1 of each year. This would reduce the estimated annual cost to $16,335 or $180 less than the bid submitted by E -Z Go. However, the golf course needs a good cash flow early in the season, and this one time payment would limit the ability of the golf course to receive interest on investments. Therefore, staff does not favor the acceptance of the discount offered. E -Z Go was the vendor for the previous three year period. They were a reliable contractor with acceptable carts. In 1984 the 20 new carts were $745 each and the five used carts were $450 each for an annual estimated cost of $17,150. Recommendation: 1. Approve the bid minutes and tabulation. 2. Award a contract to E -Z Go Division of Textron Inc. out of Plymouth, MN for leasing of golf carts in 1987, 1988 and 1989 as detailed in the bid proposal of February 26, 1987 for an 40 estimated annual cost of $16,515. 3. Authorize return of all bid securities upon proper execution of the contract. *,-� y /J/ Basis of Recommendation: 1. E -Z Go Division of Textron Inc. is a reliable vendor meeting specifications. 2. E -Z Go submitted the most economically sound bid for the operation of Richfield' ,s Rich Acres Golf Course. 3. There is sufficient funding in the adopted 1987 operating budget of the golf course for such a lease agreement. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject all bids at this time and readvertise for a lease agreement. It is the opinion of staff that lower bids will not be received and there are no additional vendors wishing to submit bids. Other possible vendors, such as Egeberg Golf Cars and Utility Vehicles, have indicated they do not wish to bid. Another problem would be the timeliness in having carts available for the 1987 season if there were to be a readvertisement. 2. Accept the discount offered by RW Golf Cars and Turf Products and award the contract to this vendor rather than to E -Z Go. Staff is extremely concerned about cash flow should this alternative be selected. There is also some concern about working with a relatively new, reorganized vendor in the market where there is little experience with or knowledge of the bidder in terms of past performance both on the part of the City and others. 3. Reject all bids at this time and readvertise for purchase of golf carts. While it may be advantageous sometime in the future to own golf carts, staff feels there are currently major advantages to leasing including: 1) new carts each year, 2) no storage is required, 3) current compliment of golf course personnel available may not be sufficient to maintain owned fleet, 4) no cash outlay or loss of interest. Discussion /Decision Mode: To assure delivery of carts at the specified date of March 15, 1987, this item has been scheduled for the March 9, 1987 agenda. Delay in award of contract would proportionally delay availability of cart availability at Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course for the 1987 season. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager 0 JDP /eja • • • O B !A (D r1 a' (D I C: r- cr C'1 f--� (D x ---3 C- r C; c rs O r• P N 0 3 O (D O (D O C+ O H' D O II. D4 C c+ fi O" A O' r- a E O O 0. O' (D c+ O r+ c+ N 0. 0. O O O lA r• a. CD )1 0. m C+ c+ Ir (D 3 r1 A x 77 (D A .y co (D r- rr a' (D M O 1 M G N N cD m O O 93 c+ O O DJ CL P. r• O O O y 7q O W (A L• G cr ro 8 (D O c+ „0 �i w N M, 0 ro r1 cr I...- r1 (D i A (D lw w cn '0 (D r1 A so r1 ro (D ri D] (D SD co O O zo0a o (D ?I H+ (+ O (D A P. Sv C] • (D O O r• V C+ r1 O M C 1.4 E M (D c+ 'A — y O (D o ro A p- p ),i H. o O r1 c+ p lc� a.n P O' uoi C+ - E P (D 0. (D b K7 ((D - C CD F�j 'O N ri c0+ r C O (D p O' to (A (D r- a rs f L (D 0. ca -� v' O 0� M r• C+ O r1 ((D 'r7 G H. (DD c+ f-L r• " (D 0. c+ (A (D (D (D Cr - C O Q- r1 O (D y (A O — r• E•- C+ O O h QL (D H- P, — (D n 'C (A r1 0 A r• x 0 N M cD H ((D ((D y+ O' y P) c+ sn r1 E 0 �--. ►7 b(7 ►C H rr1 O .j� �•O 3 O (D co (D ►-• 'y 'z7 O O`� 0 c0+ p G ro O Vt > N (D H tL Dq r1 F, 0 .. (D O r- A O O M A r• Dq H co (D 'J Ps (D 00 'pi c) E C+ C+ (D O .: f-- (AO SD :3 (D PI O cr Dq O 0. 0., c+ r• C+ 0 M C+ CO (D r• c+ (D rr 0 il,'o (D ri 0 fD ?q PI oro a ►� O 0, M (A (D r- O O O r r1 M co (n C+ C+ ~i in (D c�+ co r- � C SD O O 0. A < c+ CA (D r- rr ►1 O c+ A M W hf� aco M CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 75 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Authorization to remove and replace high service pump #1 at the water plant. Background: The water plant has four high service pumps which pump treated water to the distribution system at a rate of approximately 4,000 gallons per minute. These four pumps were installed in 1963, and have received periodic maintenance and repair since that time. The average life expectancy for this type of pump is 20 years. As a preventative maintenance effort, these pumps are planned to be replaced over the next four years. Four quotations to remove and replace pump #1 were received: Keys Well Drilling Co. $19,425 Mark J. Trout Wells, Inc. $12,445 Bergerson- Caswell, Inc. $11,837 E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. $ 9,940 An appropriation of $20,000 was approved in the 1987 water maintenance capital outlay budget (703 -4836) for this work, which includes labor to remove and replace the existing pump and replace the column, shafting, bearings and pump with new equipment. Recommendation: Award a contract to E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $9,940 to remove and replace pump #1 at the water plant as outlined in their February 18, 1987 quotation. Basis for Recommendation: 1. As a preventative maintenance measure, the pump is scheduled for replacement in 1987, and adequate funding is provided in the water maintenance budget. 2. The quotation submitted by E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. meets the requirements and is the lowest quotation submitted. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not replace the pump at this time. However, preventative maintenance procedures should be maintained to prevent downtime of the equipment. 2. Not approve the contract with E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. and direct staff to seek additional quotations in an effort to obtain lower quotations. • Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the March 9, 1987 consent calendar. Action at this time will ensure that the pump is replaced before the heavy demand for water occurs in the late spring and summer months. JDP /eja is Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager -1 71 �/_Z; CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 74 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of a Land Surveyor's Certificate of Correction to Plat. for Donnay Second Addition. Background: In 1952 the city approved the platting of Donnay Second Addition. A land surveyor recently advised the city staff that the legal description describing the area included in the Donnay Second Addition (a one -half block area on the west side between 62nd and 64th Streets) which appears on the plat drawing is incorrect. The east line of the plat is not correctly defined. The drawing that appears on the plat is correct, however. The land surveyor has submitted the Certificate of Correction to Plat to line. The certificate contains the The underlined phrase was omitted on The effect of this omission is that defined on the original plat would b further east then it should be. attached Land Surveyors correctly define the east correct legal description. the original plat drawing. the east line of the plat as e approximately 4 blocks Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve I the certificate of correction to plat and authorize the city clerk to sign the certificate as required. Basis of Recommendation: Basis of recommendation is that the plat is in correct and there could be title problems in that area if the correction is not made. Alternative Recommendation: Not approve the correction. Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for council consideration on March 91 1987. No legal notice is required for this matter. JDP /sae • Respectfully submitted, Jam's D. Prosser City Manager Y • LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO PLAT Name of Plat: DONNAY SECOND ADDITION Pursuant to the provisions of !4. S. A., Section 505.174, John Coulter Peterson, the undersigned, a Registered Land Surveyor in and for the State of Minnesota, declares as follows: 1. That the plat of DONNAY SECOND ADDITION dated October 27, 1952 and filed on June 8, 1953 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, in Kook 127 of Plats, page 14, as per Document No. 2815917, was prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor who is not now available-for the following reasons: He is now retired and not living in the State of Minnesota. 2. That said plat contains errors, omissions, or defects in the following particulars, to -wit: The description of the plat is incorrect because the East line of said plat is not correctly defined. 3. That said plat is hereby corrected in the.following particulars, to -wit: The legal description is revised as per the attached "Exhibit A ". Dated 7Re i tered Land Surveyor No. 13792 State of Minnesota RICIIFIELD, MINNESOTA The above Certificate of Correction to the plat of DONNAY SECOND ADDITION has been approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1987. City Clerk (1) • E EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION DONNAY SECOND ADDITION That part of Government Lot 2, Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying West of the East line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 26 and lying East of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the North line of said Government Lot 2 distant 160.65 feet West of the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 26, as measured along the North line of said Government Lot 2; thence running South to a point in the South line of said Government Lot 2, which point is distant 161.43 feet West of the East line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 26, as measured along the South line of said Government Lot 2 and there terminating. (2) • C7 CITY OF RICHFIELD Council Letter No. 73 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Authorization to purchase conveyor equipment for the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. Background: A conveyor system is needed to transport merchandise to and from the basement area of the store. Although some existing equipment will be taken from the old store and reinstalled at the new location, additional equipment must be purchased. Three quotes for the purchase and installation of conveyor equipment were received: $8,901; $8,222; and $6,120. Recommendation: Approve the purchase and installation of conveyor equipment for - the Cedar Store from Midwest Material and Handling company in the amount of $6,120. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Midwest Material and Handling submitted the lowest quote, and the proposal meets specifications. 2. Sufficient funding is available in the liquor store construction budget. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the purchase. However, the existing equipment cannot be salvaged, and a conveyor system is necessary to move supplies to and from the basement area of the store. Discussion /Decision Mode: The work to be performed needs to be coordinated with other contractors on the construction site. To facilitate this work and ensure timely delivery of the equipment and installation, the item has been placed on the March 9, 1987 consent calendar. JDP /sae Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 72 Agenda March 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation to Honor Investigator /Agent Patricia Kelley upon her retirement after 30 years of law enforcement service. Background: Patricia Rooney) Kelley was the first female Police Officer hired by any suburb in Minnesota when she came to work in Richfield on February 1, 1957. Pat's years of service have been devoted primarily to that of Investigator, specializing as a juvenile officer and in more recent years handling incidents of child abuse and neglect. One of Pat's special assignments was that of Hostage Negotiator on our Emergency Response Team. Patricia Kelley resigned from the city effective February 27, 1987. In Pat's years as an employee of the City of Richfield, she has contributed a great deal to our community, had become a real asset to the Department of Public Safety, and will be greatly missed. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council formally recognize the contribution that Pat Kelley has made to the city in her thirty years of service by presenting her with a plaque of appreciation. Basis of Recommendation: It is appropriate that she be honored after such a notable career. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could choose an alternative method of expressing their appreciation for,Officer Kelley's contribution to the city. Decision /Discussion Mode: A plaque expressing appreciation for Officer Patricia Kelley's thirty years of service is available for presentation by the Mayor and the City Council at their regular meeting of March 9, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Jam s D. Prosser City Manager WJDP /eja -�j