Loading...
02-10-86 agenda .~j~ _ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 76 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Republic Airlines Credit Union Project Council Members: At the city council meeting of .January 27, 1986, the city council requested the cit mana er to contact Re bl' g u is Airlines Y P Credit Un` ion re ardin the status of their build' g g ing project at the Cedar Avenue liquor store site because of the announcement that Northwest Airlines and Republic Airlines were going to merge. On Monday, February 3, 1886, Bob Hall of Republic Airlines Credit Union contacted the cit mana er and advised that the Y g credit union wished to put their project on hold until April 1, 1986. A copy of the communication from Republic Airlines Credit Union is attached hereto for your information. The ' credit union is seeking city council approval to postpone action on the project until April 1~so that an assessment on the long- long-term plans for the credit union can be made. i The city staff does not believe that such a delay would be a negative factor in developing the site. It is to the city's interest also to obtain the best possible development for this site. It is the writer's understanding that the facilities for the Northwest Airlines Credit Union may also be lacking in adequate facilities. If .there is a possibility that the two credit unions could merge and build a larger facility at the Cedar Avenue site, this would certainly benefit the intensity of development which we are seeking for the Cedar Avenue site. Of ~ course,. there is also the possibility that if the two credit unions are to merge, they might seek some other site which could be outside of Richfield. City staff does not .recommend going ahead at this time with just the liquor store and some additional retail space to be built by Henning. This type of piecemeal development may preclude the most favorable type of development for the site. There is already an excess of strip commercial development on East 66th Street. The city still has the ~ I J options of going with a building for Republic Airlines Credit Union, or-a building serving a merged Republic Airlines and Northwest Airlines Credit Union or to go back to the Lincoln Companies for an office service center building. Also, staff believes it is important to coordinate the design of the liquor store building with the major project building that is to be built on this site. Therefore, city staff would recommend to the city council that we advise the Republic Airlines Credit Union officials that it is our intention to wait until April 1, 1986, but it is also city staff's recommendation that the city not make this a formal commitment for an extension. In this way, the city retains complete control over its site and maintains our ability to take whatever actions are in the .best interests of the city. Respectf y bmitted, ohn G. Car Wright City Manager JGC/eja ~I REPUBLIC AIRLINES EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION ATL SFO SEA MSP DTW MEM February 3, 1986 Mr. John Cart~~~right City Manager City of Pichfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Cartwright: The Board of Directors of the Republic Airlines Employees Federal Credit Union met in .special session January 30 to evaluate how the pending acquisition of Republic Airlines by Northwest Airlines will affect our credit union. The Board concluded that insufficient information was available at this time, and asked that negotiations with the City of Richfield on the development agreement for the 66th and Cedar site be postponed until April 1, 1986. The Board feels that the intervening time should be adequate to gather further information, assess alternatives and make a decision that is in the best interests of the city and the credit union. We will appreciate your favorable consideration of this request, and we regret any inconvenience this unexpected development may have caused for the City of Richfield. Please give us your decision in writing so I may share it with the Board. Since ly, i Robert L. Hall - Vice President Marketing and New Services Copies Mayor Hamilton Council Members Peter Orlins Board of Directors 6 1 2 8 5 4- 2 1 1 3 T W O A P P L E T R E E S O U A R E- S U I T E 2 0 0 B L O O M I N G T O N M I N N E S O T A 5 5 4 2 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City. Manager Council Letter No. 75 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Cityof Richfield Subject: Self Insurance .Umbrella. Account Progress Report Council Members: On January 2, 1986,-the City Council was presented with a staff report concerning the renewal premium for the city's property and casualty insurance package for 1986 (Council Letter No. g). Pursuant to City Council direction, the staff secured liability and property insurance coverage up to a limit of $600,000 through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust and $500,000 of liquor liability insurance through the Minnesota Assigned Risk Plan (this was the maximum .amount of liquor liability insurance available to the city). In addition, . the council approved city staff's recommendation to establish a self-insurance Umbrella Liability Account. The purpose of this City Council letter is to report to the Council on the progress of establishing the self-insurance Umbrella Account. Action Required to Establish a Self-Insurance Account The writer has directed the City Attorney to review the statutory an d, city. charter provisions applicable to the establishment of a self-insured general liability and property insurance account. A resolution providing authority to establish and. maintain this self-insurance account has been prepared and will be presented to the City Council at the second meeting in March. It was recommended by the City Attorney's office that the account be established as a Tort Liability Account so that payments for any liability or property cost not covered by insurance could be made from the account. This would include payments for any deductible amounts of our insurance coverages, as well as an award that exceeded our insurance coverage. A Large Funding Balance Is Needed It is desirable to begin the new self-insured Tort Liability Account with as large a fund balance as is possible for these reasons: 1. In the event of a large loss which exceeded the City's current insurance coverages and/or its' statutory liability ($600,000 for most liability exposures); • 2. The city has selected a $5,000 deductible limit on general liability coverage and $10,000 on property insurance. Thus, losses under those limits could be paid from this Account; and, 3. A large opening balance would provide the fund with an investment sum which could generate interest earnings to help offset payments from the Account. Fund Balance Analysis Perhaps the key consideration in preparing a recommendation for fundin the self-insured Tort Liabili g ty Account is to first determine the proper level of fund balance of the existing Self-Insurance Fund (Workers' Compensation /Unemplo went Com ensation and Dental covera es and next to Y P ~ g ) determine .what the fund balance for the .new Tort Liability Account should be. The city currently has an estimated fund balance of $700,000 in the Workers' Compensation/Unemployment .Compensation Account. This account was established in 1979 with an initial appropriation of $170,000. Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, the City's Auditor, has been engaged by the writer to evaluate the past experience of the Workers' Compensation/Unemployment Compensation. and Dental Accounts and to recommend the appropriate fund balances based upon industry standards, past reserves, and current risk exposure. An .actuarial analysis of the existing self-insurance fund is not necessary because the city has the required data. The auditors will, of course, need to review the exposures. The cost of this component will not exceed $4,900 and will be paid from the Self-Insurance Fund. In addition, the auditors need to determine what the fund balance for the Tort Liability Account should be. The auditors recommend undertaking an actuarial review of the city's deducti- _ ble, dram shop, umbrella risks and claim reserves in order to determine the appropriate fund balance. The city staff is unable to financiall ro ose a .articular fund balan e c until Y P P P th e cit is better aware of the risk ex o r Y p su e that the city may be facing. Deloitte, Haskins and Sells has proposed to perform such an analysis, including an actuarial review for a fee not to exceed $10,800. This fee could also be paid from the Self-Insurance Fund. It is the writer's recommendation that the i, auditor be engaged to prepare the actuarial analysis of the new ~ I Tort Liabilit Account so that the cit ma lan for self- . Y Y Y A insurance funding on a sound fiscal basis. ~3 Financing Alternatives Once a fund balance analysis has been completed for the various accounts of the Self-Insurance Fund (Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, Dental), the auditors and the city staff can then determine if a portion of the fund balance can be transferred to the Tort Liability Account to help establish this new self-insurance account. The following alter- natives have been identified as potential sources of revenue: 1. 1985 Year-end Surplus Funds Assuming that the. final year-end financial data reflects a-1985. budget surplus, a portion of these surplus funds could be transferred to the Tort Liability Account ~I of the Self-Insurance Fund instead of remaining in the General Fund balance. If there is sufficient 1985 year- end General Fund balance after setting aside $125,000 .for the computer purchase, it would be desirable to set aside an additional $125,000 or more for the Tort Liability .Account. 2. Budgeted 1986 Insurance Premiums The 1986 budget provides $435,000 to cover the cost of insurance premiums. This amount was arrived at by adding to the 1985 premium of $385,000 an additional $50,000 from the General Fund budget for potential premium increases. The cost of insurance for II the City in 1986, including $78,200 quoted for umbrella liability insurance, was approximately $430,000. After paying premiums for the 1986 primary property/casualty package and liquor liability insurance ($378,500), roughly $51,000 General Fund money remains available to transfer to the Tort Liability Self-Insurance Account without increasing 1986 budgeted insurance costs. This could be augmented with proportional additional assessments from the other funds to equal the $78,000 premium. It is the writers opinion that this funding source of $78,000 cannot be seen as a bare minimum funding level for the Tort Liability Account. An amount between $200,000 and $250,000 is the writer's preliminary objective. 3. 1986 Liquor Fund Budgeted Allocation The 1986 Liquor Fund budget provides $71,000 for liquor liability insurance. However, the 1986 liquor liability insurance premium amounted to $56,000. Thus, $15,000 for liquor liability insurance remains in the Liquor Fund. This money could be transferred to the new self-insurance account, since the Tort Liability Account of the Self-Insurance Fund would provide excess coverage for liquor liability claims. Liquor Fund Permanent Assessment In the 1986 and subsequent budgets, a set amount for annual assessment for Umbrella Liability Insurance could be initiated. Since the City is unable to purchase any type of Umbrella or Excess Liability coverage for the liquor operation, the risk must be sustained by the Tort Liability Account of the Self-Insurance Fund. One might also surmise that the risk exposure is significant, since no insurance company is offering to assume the risk for a price. Therefore, the Liquor Fund should be made to pay an annual assessment to obtain coverage from the Self-Insurance Fund. This assessment would portray a more accurate summary of the true costs. of operating the liquor stores. Perhaps an annual assessment would run as much as $25,000 or $35,000. 5. Transfer of A Portion Current Workers' Compensation Self- Insurance Fund Balance The balance of the Workers' Compensation portion (including Unemployment Insurance) of the Self-Insurance Fund is approximately $700,000. This fund balance is a result of seven years of operating the Fund while. the City contributed an average of $16,000 from the General Fund to the Self-Insurance Fund for each of the seven years. Originally, the Self-Insurance Fund was to achieve and maintain a balance of $500,000. However, since then the fund balance goal of the fund has been increased to $650,000 to achieve a greater degree of safety in the event of multiple claims in one year, and to provide interest income to the fund so that future General Fund contributions .could remain stable. Thus, the Fund does seem to be in a relatively good fund balance position at year-end 1985. The report to be .completed by the City auditing firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells will present the City with a more definitive recommendation of funding for this Account. 6. .Using A Portion of The 1986 Budgeted Workers' Compensation City Contribution for the Umbrella Self- Insuranee Fund Instead Each year the City contributes an amount of funding to the Self-Insurance Fund as a workers' compensation assessment. Initially, the annual contribution was $170,000. This figure was based on the City's proposed 1979 Workers' Compensation Insurance premium. The $170,000 level of funding was continued for three years, when the contribution to the fund was reduced to roughly $120,000. The 1985 and 1986 budgeted contributions have been established at $125,000. With the City's past experience and level of contribution, the Workers' Compensation Account of the Self-Insurance Fund balance has grown each year, to the December 31, 1985, level of approximately $700,000. One option for 1986 may be to allocate the funds budgeted for the Self-Insurance Fund Workers' Compensation Account and transfer them to the Tort Liability Account instead. Such an action would depend upon the auditor's recommendation for the Workers' Compensation Account fund balance. By not designating the budgeted $125,000 toward the Workers' Compensation account, the fund balance of that account would most likely be reduced by at least $75,000 due to expected claims. Another option might be to use a portion of the 1986 allocation for the Workers' Compensation Account and the remainder for the Tort Liability Account. 7. Annual Assessments to Enterprise. General and Internal Service Funds Once the initial fund balance has been established, a method for ongoing funding of the Tort Liability Account must be determined. A logical approach to such funding would be to make annual assessments to all City General, Enterprise and Internal Service Funds. The ongoing level of funding, commencing with the 1987 budget, should be no less than $75,000 annually. However, a more realistic annual funding level might be $100,000 or $125,000 to attempt to build up the fund balance while paying the normal claims that will occur in the deductible level each year. A better idea of how large a fund balance is needed or how much of an annual assessment is necessary can be determined after the auditor has completed an actuarial analysis of the fund. Summary In conclusion, this progress report has addressed the creation of a Tort Liability Account which would cover payment of claims within the deductible level and/or over any primary limits of insurance coverage the City now carries. The following issues were considered: - Deloitte, Haskins and Sells (the City's auditor) has been engaged to review the City's current. self-insured programs (workers' compensation, unemployment compensa- tion and dental) and recommend a fund balance (reserves) for those accounts. The cost of this service is not to exceed $~4 , 900 . - Upon City Council coneurranee, the City Manager will . engage Deloitte Haskins and Sells to do an actuarial analysis of the ..proposed Tort Liability Account to recommend both an initial start-up amount and the ultimate fund balance goal. The additional fee is $10,800. - Several funding sources to establish an initial fund balance for 1986 and on-going funding for the Tort Liability Account have been identified. A specific 'i recommendation will be made after the auditors complete a fund balance analysis for all self-insurance accounts. - The writer will present a complete program for all self- insurance accounts, including a resolution creating the proposed Tort Liability Account to the City Council during the second City Council meeting in March. I - All auditor fees will be paid from the Self-Insurance ~ Fund. Respectfully submitted, John G. Ca tw ght _ City Manager 'I JGC/eja ce: Administrative Services Director _ Finance Manager ~ Personnel Manager Department Directors I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ',I Council Letter No. 74 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appointments to Advisory Boards and Commissions Council Members: This council letter lists the appointments to be made to each commission or advisory board; notes those who wish to be considered for reappointment; and, lists the names of persons seeking to be appointed for the first time to an advisory board or commission. Some applicants have expressed an interest in more than one commission. Their order of preference of appointment is listed next to their names. Advisory Board of Health There are seven appointments to be made to this board. Three persons whose terms expire in January, 1986, wish to be considered for reappointment, and there are six new applicants. One third of the members of the ,Advisory Board of Health are to be licensed health providers; .one-third shall be consumers selected to represent consumer organizations within the ' community, and one-third shall represent the community at large. Applicants Jeannette Loftstrom-served two terms, seeks reappointment- consumer Jane C. Myre-served one term, seeks reappointment-consumer Joan Pelfrey-served two terms, seeks reappointment-consumer Margaret DaWald-provider ~I Jacquelyn Lockman-provider Holli Rietmulder-provider Susan Rosenberg-consumer Ramona Rusinak-provider Robert Servold-provider ~ Appointments to be Made Term Expires 1. January 31, 1988 2. January 31, 1988 3. January 31, 1988 ~ January 31, 1988 5. January 31, 1988 6. January 31, 1988 7. January 31, 1987 Civil Service Commission There is one appointment to be made. The incumbent wishes to be considered for reappointment, and four other persons are interested in being appointed to this commission. Applicants Dominic Zappia-served two terms, seeks reappointment Timothy Erlander-third choice, Planning Commission first choice; and, Community Services Commission, second choice Gordon Herrboldt-fourth choice, Community Services first choice; Planning Commission second choice; ,and ::-iuman Services, third choice Frances Jorgensen-first choice. Human Rights second choice. Joanne Wilmes-third choice. Planning Commission first choice, Community Services second choice. Appointment to be Made Term Expires 1. January 31, 1989 Community Services Commission There are'four appointments to be made to this commission. Three incumbents wish to be considered for reappointment, and there are nine new applicants. Applicants Rodell Kopesky-served two terms, seeks reappointment Don Anderson-served one term, seeks reappointment Theresa Kassa-served one term, seeks reappointment Dave Dunham Timothy Erlander-second choice. Planning Commission, first choice, Civil Service third choice. Gordon Herrboldt-first choice. Planning Commission second choice, Human Services third choice, and, Civil Service fourth choice. Thomas Kegley /~,3 Robert Meyer-second choice. Planning Commission first choice Peter Schlemmer-second choice. Planning Commission first choice and Human Rights third choice. Karen Skwira Daniel Thurber-second choice. Planning Commission first choice. Joanne Wilmes-second choice. Planning Commission first choice, Civil Service third choice. Appointments to be Made: Term Expires 1. January 31, 1989 2. January 31, 1989 3• January 31, 1989 January 31, 1988 Energy Awareness Commission There are four appointments to be made to this commission. One of the incumbents wishes to be reappointed, and there is one new applicant. Applicants Sid Sanford-served one term, seeks reappointment. Donald Buck Appointments to be Made Term Expires 1. January 31, 1989 . 2. January 31, 1989 3• January 31, 1989 January 31, 1988 Human Rights Commission There are four adult appointments to be made. All three of the incumbents wish to be reappointed. Two of the incumbents, Carole Rud, and Bill Svejda, were appointed to fill unexpired terms in late 1985, and-would like an opportunity to serve a complete term. The other incumbent, Al Moore, has served one term and would like to be considered for reappointment. Applications have also been received from five new applicants. /1/ ~ Applicants Al Moore-served one term, seeks reappointment Carole Rud-appointed August, 1985, seeks reappointment Bill Svejda-appointed August, 1985, seeks reappointment ` David Aslakson Frances Jorgensen (second choice, Civil Service, first choice Darold Luze Peter Schlemmer-third choice. Planning Commission first choice, Community Services second choice. Sharon Traxler Appointments to be Made _ Term Expires 1• January 31, 1989 2• January 31, 1989 3• January 31, 1989 January 31, 1988 Human Services Commission (Serving the Seniors and Disabled) There are three appointments to be made to this commission. One of the incumbents, Marla Carlson, who was appointed in 1985. • to fill an unexpired term, wishes to be considered for reappointment. There are three other applicants for this commission. Applicants Marla Carlson-appointed late 1985, seeks reappointment Mark Erspamer Gordon Herrboldt-third choice. Community Services first choice, Planning Commission second choice, and, Civil Service, fourth choice. Patrica Marble 5 ~~poi~.r~rrients to be Made Term Expires 1. January 31, 1989 2. January 31, 1989 3. January 31, 1989 Planning Commission There are five appointments to be made. .The three incumbents wish to be considered for reappointment. There are also nine new .applicants interested in this commission. Applicant Barbara Kritzman-served two terms, seeks reappointment Charles Kauth-served two terms, seeks reappointment Robert Jensen-served one term, seeks reappointment Joel Ahlstrom Jan Bray Timothy Erlander-first choice. Community Services second choice, Civil Service third choice. Gordon Herrboldt-second choice. Community Services first choice, Human Services third choice, and Civil Service, fourth choice. Robert Meyer-first choice. Community Services second choice. John Praetorius Peter Schlemmer-first choice. Community Services second choice, Human Rights third choice. Daniel Thurber-first choice. Community Services second choice. Joanne Wilmes-first choice. Community Services second choice, Civil Service, third choice Appointments to be Made Term Expires 1. January 31, 1989 2. January 31, 1989 3. January 31, 1889 January 31, 1988 5. January 31, 1988 Sister City International Committee There are three appointments to be made to this committee. Abdelhak Barbouche wishes to be considered for reappointment. Three other persons have also applied for appointment. Applicants Abdelhak Barbouehe-served one term, seeks reappointment Rudi Martingnaeco Doris Ruenstein Susan Nagel Appointments to Be Made Term Expires 1. ~ January 31, 1989 2. January 31, 1989 3. January 31, 19$9 These appointments have been scheduled for the February 10, 1986 city council meeting. Re ectfu~y r~itted, L-~~' ~ J hn G. Cdrtw fight; ity Manager ~ JGC/eja 7 Richfield, ~ -innesot~: Febru..ry 4, 1 op c. The Honorable f~~ayor :end f9embers of the City Council and Connie Hovers on, Ch^irperson of the Flenninn Commission. Dear f•~ayor, City Council f~er~^ers ~:nd Connie Hoverscn: ~s of Danuary C1, 1°?_, I refired frc~ vccatcn at ''C~.. Yore:. In order fOr me tC aCC2pt tTa~JB11nC O":~OrtUnitlES 2^d t0 ~1Ve rcre ~'_!"E LC O:.'r stores in f•adison, +aisconsin, I find it advisable to resi~^n frog the ~lanninc Commission. I will continue to serve ~~t vour pleasure er until si~ch tir:e as another appointment is made. • I have enjoyed this o;_;~ortunity to serve with you, Connie, and other me-",bErs of the Commission, I wish you all continued success. I • Thank you aoain for the .:rivileoe to have served in this cap~:city, f".y hope is to continue to serve Richfield in the other areas of res~cnsi`ilities that I have accEpted. ~ ~incerel~~, l Vern L. Luet~in^er Cony liven to Connie. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 73 • Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and _ _ Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Alternative Resolutions Concerning the Referendum Petitions Proposing the Repeal of an Ordinance to 'Rezone the Site of the Former Cloverleaf. Motel at the Northeast Quadrant of 135W and I~9~ Interchange from C-2 General Commercial to PC-2 Planned General Commercial for the Proposed CDR Development, Bill 1985-27 Council Members: On January 27, 1986, Mr. Ernest Lindstrom filed a referendum petition with the City Clerk. The petition (Attachment A) proposed the "repeal of an ordinace to rezone the site of the former Cloverleaf. motel at the Northwest quadrant of 135W and I49~ interchange from C-2 general commercial to PC-2 planned general commercial for the proposed CDR development, Bill 1985-27." The petition incorrectly describes the property as the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of 135W and I494. It should read northeast quadrant. The Richfield City Charter, Section 5.11, provides as follows: "The referendum. If prior to the date when an ordinance takes effect a petition signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to ten per cent of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election is filed with the city clerk requesting that any such ordinance. be repealed or submitted to a vote of the registered voters, the ordinance .shall thereby be prevented from going into operation. The council shall thereupon reconsider the ordinance at its next regular meeting, and by majority vote either repeal or affirm the ordinance as passed. If the ordinance is affirmed, the council shall immediately order a special election to be held thereon, or .submit the ordinance at the next regular municipal election, pending which the ordinance shall remain suspended. If a . majority of the voters voting on the ordinance is opposed to the ordinance, it shall not become effective; but if a majority of the voters favor the ordinance, it shall go into effect immediately or on the date therein specified." The petition has been examined by the City Clerk and was found to contain the signatures of 2,554 qualified Richfield registered voters. This number is sufficient to meet the required 10% (2,440) of the number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election. The Charter provision indicates that the Council must reconsider the ordinance at its next regular meeting, which in this case is February 10, 1986. At that time the Council's options are either (a) to repeal the ordinance or (b) to affirm the ordinance as originally passed. In addition to the challenge to the ordinance which arises from the referendum petition, the validity of the ordinance has been challenged in a District Court proceeding in the case of Sorum et al. v. City of Richfield. The lawsuit claims, among other things, that proper notices were not given prior to the adoption of the ordinance on October 28, 1985. The Hennepin County District Court has issued an Order granting a temporary injunction restraining the publication of the ordinance and from taking certain other actions with regard to the CDR project, until new notices are given and new hearings are held in compliance with city ordinances and state law. If the validity of the city's actions leading to the adoption of the ordinance must be litigated, the litigation would no doubt involve delay and expense. The status of redevelopment in the_Interstate- Lyndale area would be in doubt for an extended period of time. The Council could undertake to eliminate the questions involving the notices. and hearings in adopting the ordinance by rescinding their previous action so that the procedures can be started fresh - assuming that the developer determines to proceed with a project in some form. The ordinance has not been published and therefore it is not now in effect. Further, the City Attorney has indicated in an attached memorandum concerning referendum petition that the petition I, assumes the process of adopting the ordinance has progressed to a point where it can be the proper subject of the petition and that the rezoning ordinance is a proper subject for referendum under the City charter. In a Minnesota Supreme Court case, it ~ was decided that a rezoning ordinance was subject to a refer- endum under the Duluth Charter. If the City Council decides to rescind its action of October 28, 1.985, and to repeal the disputed ordinance, any potential legal questions involving the timing of the petition or preemption of the City Charter by the State Law should be considered moot. If the Council wishes to rescind its action and repeal the ordinance (Bill. 1885-27), a resolution providing the form for such action is attached. If the City Council determines to affirm the ordinance and call a special election, an alternative resolution providing for such action is also attached. In order to fulfill all of the necessary legal requirements, recruit election judges, print ballots, and, arrange for polling places, the earliest a special election could be scheduled is March 25, 1986. However, this _ date falls during Easter week and could create a potential conflict with scheduled religious activities in some of the polling places. Therefore, April 1, 1986, may be the earliest possible date for the election. The cost of a special eleet•ion is estimated between $5,000 to $8,000. It should be noted that the City Council could postpone any such election until as late as the Fall of 1986 general election. However, such an option would not be timely to the resolution of this matter. CDR, through its attorney, has advised the City Attorney and the City Manager that they will ask the City Council to repeal the zoning ordinance passed by the City Council. CDR also requests that the action to repeal be without prejudice to its right to pursue its rezoning petition at a later time after efforts to gain general acceptance of its revised project. City staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution to rescind and repeal the zoning ordinance. R eetf ly witted, ohn G. a~twright City Manage JGC/eja /1--~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter-Office Memorandum DATE January 31, 1986 To John Cartwright, City Manager FROM Thomas Ferber, City Clerk/'`~~ SUBJECT Referendum Petition Verification of the signatures on the referendum petition has been completed by the city clerk division. As a result, it has been determined that 2554 of the 3159 signatures on the petition are qualified registered voters. Section 5.11 of the city charter states;"The Referendum. If prior to the date when an ordinance takes effect a petition signed by qualified registered voters of the city equal in number to ten percent of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election is filed with the city clerk requesting that any such ordinance be repealed or submitted to a vote of the registered voters, the ordinance shall thereby be prevented from going into operation. The council shall thereupon re- consider the ordinance at its next regular meeting, and by majority vote either repeal or affirm the ordinance as passed.---If -the ordinance is - _ affirmed, the council shall immediately order a special election to be held thereon,or submit the ordinance at the next regular municipal election ~ pending which the ordinance shall remain suspended. If a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance is opposed to the ordinance, it shall not become effective; but if a majority of the voters favor the ordinance, it shall ~o into effect immediately or on the date therein specified. The total number of registered voters at the PJovember 5, 1985 election was 24,399. Ten percent of this figure is 2439. Therefore, the number of petitioners is in excess of ten percent and is sufficient in meeting the requirements of Section 5.11. cc: Steve Devich ` ~ REFSRENDOM PETITION Proposing the repeal of an ordinance to rezone the site of the former cloverleaf motel at the Northwest quadrant of I35W and I494 Interchange from C-2 general commercial to PC-2 planned general commercial for the proposed CDR development, Bill 1985-27, a copy of which ordinance is hereto attached. .The proposed repeal is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: Name Address 1, Diane Olson 7532 Fremont Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 2, John J. Halloran' 7513 Fremont Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 3, Diane Meyer 7545 Emerson.Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 4, Thomas F. Linder 7609 Emerson Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 5. I. O. Sorum ?537 Fremont Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 . 6, Allan R. Aase 7617 Emerson Avenue South .Richfield, Minnesota 55423 7,. Dale Schwie 7514 Girard Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 The undersigned qualified registered voters, understanding the. nature of the ordinance hereto attached and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the council for its submission to a vote of the voters for their approval or disapproval. . Name Address n MEMORANDUM CONCERNING • ~ REFERENDUM PETITION The Richfield City Charter, in Section 5.11, provides as follows: "The referendum. If prior to the date when an ordinance takes effect a petition signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to ten per cent of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election is filed with the city clerk requesting that any such ordinance be repealed or submitted to a vote of the registered voters, the ordinance shall thereby be prevented from going into operation. The council shall thereupon reconsider the ordinance at its next regular meeting., and by majority vote either repeal or affirm the ordinance as passed. If the ordinance is affirmed, the council shall immediately order a special election to be held thereon, or submit the ordinance at the next regular municipal election, pending which the ordinance shall remain suspended. If a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance. is opposed to the ordinance, it shall not become effective; but if a majority of the voters favor the ordinance, it shall go into effect immediately or on the date therein specified." A referendum petition has been filed re uestin the re eal q 9 P of the ordinance rezoning the site of the Cloverleaf Motel from C-2 general commercial to PC-2 planned general commercial, to enable a planned unit development permit to be granted for developments such as the proposed CDR project. The peti- tion incorrectly states that the property involved is in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of I35W and I494. The petition has been examined by the city clerk and has been found to contain the required ten percent of the number of registered voters in the city at the time of the last regular election. The charter provision indicates that the council must re- consider the ordinance at its next regular meeting, which in this case is February 10, 1986. At that time the council's options are either (a) to repeal the ordinance or (b) to affirm the ordinance as originally passed. In addition to the challenge to the ordinance which arises from the referendum petition, the validity of the ordinance has been challenged in a District Court proceeding in the case of Sorum et al. v. City of Richfield. The lawsuit claims, among other things, that proper notices were not given prior to the adoption of the ordinance on October 28, 1985. The Hennepin County District Court has issued. an Order granting a temporary injunction restraining the publication of the ordinance and from taking certain other /l- 7 actions with regard to the CDR project, until new notices are given and new hearings are held in compliance with city ordinances and state law. If the validity of the city's actions leading to the adoption of the ordinance must be litigated, the litigation would no doubt involve delay and expense. The status of redevelopment in the Interstate- Lyndale area would be in doubt for an extended period of time. The council could undertake to eliminate the ques- tions involving the notices and hearings in adopting the ordinance by rescinding their previous action so that the procedures can be started fresh -assuming that the devel- oper determines to proceed with a project in some form. The ordinance has not been published and therefore it is not now in effect. The referendum petition assumes that the process of adopting the ordinance has progressed to a point where it can be the proper subject of the petition. It also assumes that the rezoning ordinance is a proper subject of referendum under the city charter. In the Minnesota Supreme Court case of Denney v. City of Duluth (1972) 202 N.W.2d 892, it was decided that a rezoning ordinance was legislative in nature and therefore was subject to a referendum under the Duluth Charter.. In a footnote to its opinion in-that decision, the Supreme Court stated: "Defendant, for. the first time, raises in its appeal to this court the issue of whether Minn.St. 462.351 to 462.364 preempts the field of zoning regulation and thereby invalidates the referendum provisions of the Duluth charter. See footnote 5, supra. We have held on numerous occasions that an unlitigated issue may not be asserted for the first time on appeal, and accordingly we do not attempt to resolve either this preemption issue or the issue attended to in footnote 6 at this time. Radke v. Brenon, 271 Minn.. 35, 134 N.W.2d 887 (1965); Strupp v. Canniff, 276 Minn. 558, 150 N.W.2d 574 (.1967); American Surety Co. of New York v. Greenwald,. 223 Minn. 37, 25 N.W.2d 681 (1946); Allen v. Central Motors, Inc., 204 Minn. 295, 283 N.W.490 (1939)." If the city council decides to rescind its action of October 28, 1985 and to repeal .the disputed ordinance, any potential legal questions involving the timing of the petition or preemption of the city charter by the state law would be rendered moot. If the council wishes to .rescind its action and repeal the ordinance, a suggested form of resolution is attached. If the council determines to affirm the .ordinance and call a special election, an alternative resolution providing for such action is attached. ~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RESCINDING AND REPEALING "AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD" ADOPTED OCTOBER 28, 1985._ WHEREAS, on October 28, 1985, the city council of the City of Richfield adopted an ordinance bearing the designation "Bill No. 1985-27" and entitled "Amendment to Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield" (the "Ordi- nance"), and , WHEREAS, the publication of the Ordinance was withheld by action of the .city council pending completion of environ- mental procedures relating to a development proposed by CDR Investments of Minnesota, Inc. ("CDR") on the property which was the subject of the Ordinance, and WHEREAS, an action has been instituted against the City of Richfield in the case of Sorum v. City of Richfield in District. Court of Hennepin County challenging the validity of the Ordinance because of procedures followed by the city in the adoption of the, Ordinance, and .WHEREAS, such litigation has resulted in a temporary injunc- tion restraining the city from proceeding to publish the Ordinance and from certain other actions until new notices have been given and new hearings have been held, and WHEREAS, the Ordinance has also been challenged by the filing of a referendum petition under the provisions of City Charter Section 5.11, requesting that the Ordinance be repealed or submitted to a referendum of the voters of the city, and WHEREAS, CDR has requested that the Ordinance be repealed, without prejudice to its right to pursue its rezoning peti- tion at a later time, to permit CDR to work with residents of the city in an effort to develop its project in a way which will receive general acceptance within the community, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The action of the city council taken on October 28, 1985, adopting the Ordinance, is hereby rescinded. 2. The following Ordinance is hereby adopted: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING "AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD" ADOPTED OCTOBER 28, 1985. WHEREAS, on October 28, 1985, the city council of the City of Richfield adopted an ordinance designated as "Bill No. 1985-27" entitled "Amendment" to Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield" (the "Ordinance"), and WHEREAS, ,the Ordinance has never been published, and WHEREAS, the validity of the Ordinance is being chal- lenged through litigation, and WHEREAS, the Ordinance has been challenged through the filing of a referendum petition calling for its repeal, NOW, THEREFORE, , CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The Ordinance, to whatever extent it may have legal force and validity, is hereby repealed. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this day of 1986. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk City Manager . ~ t RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER ORDINANCE NO. SHALL BE AFFIRMED OR REPEALED. WHEREAS, on October 28, 1985, .the city council adopted an ordinance designated as "Bill No. 1985-27" and entitled "Amendment to Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield" providing for the rezoning of the former Cloverleaf Motel site at the northeast quadrant of I35W and I494 interchange from C-2`general commercial to PC-2 planned general commercial (the "Ordinance"), and WHEREAS, a petition has been filed pursuant to Richfield City Charter Section 5.11 requesting that such Ordinance be repealed or submitted to a vote of the registered voters of the city, and WHEREAS, the city clerk has determined that such petition has been signed by qualified registered voters of the city equal in number to ten percent of the total number of regis- tered voters at the time of the last regular election of the city, and I WHEREAS, the city council, upon the filing of such petition, is required to reconsider the Ordinance and to either repeal or affirm it, and WHEREAS, the city council deems it to be in the best interests of the city to affirm the Ordinance and to order a special election to be held on the question of whether the Ordinance shall be affirmed or repealed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield as follows:. 1. The Ordinance is hereby affirmed. I 2. In order to submit the Ordinance to the voters of the city,. a special election is hereby called to be held in the City of Richfield on Tuesday, the day of , 1986, between the hours of A.M. and P.M. The election shall be held and conducted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the city charter I' relating to special municipal elections. \ 1/-l~ 3. The city clerk shall cause a notice of election • to be posted and published as required by law as follows: (a) The notice of election shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city at least two weeks prior to the election; (b) The notice of election and a sample ballot shall be posted at each of the polling places at least ten days prior to the election; (c) The notice of election and a sample ballot shall be posted in the office of the city clerk at least four days prior to the elec- tion; and (d) The sample ballot shall be published in the official newspaper at least one week prior to the election. 4. The polling places and the respective judges for the election shall be those established by the city for the 1985 municipal election. 5. The city clerk is authorized and directed to pre- pare separate ballots for the election to be printed on blue paper in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION CITY OF RICHFIELD _ 1986 The city council of the City of Richfield has adopted an Ordinance rezoning the site of the former Cloverleaf Motel at the northeast quadrant of I35W and I494 interchange from C-2 general commercial to PC-2 planned general commercial. The Ordinance would have the effect of permitting the city to grant a special use permit for a planned unit development such as the proposed CDR development, on that property. The Ordinance, prior to its adoption, was designated as "Bill No. 1985-27" and is entitled "Amendment to Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield". SHALLa~HE ABOVE-DESCRIBED ORDINANCE BE APPROVED? ~ ~ YES NO INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: Voters desiring to vote in favor of the Ordinance shall make a cross mark (x) in the square opposite the word YES. Voters desiring to vote against the Ordinance shall place a cross mark (X) opposite the word N0. 6. The city. council shall meet in the city hall on the day ,of 1986, at o'clock P.M., C.T. to canvass the results of the election and to declare the results thereof. ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 72 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $2,525,000 General Obligation Revenue Bonds of 1986 For Storm Sewer Improvements Council Members: City Administration recommends approval of a resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $2,525,000 General Obligation Revenue Bond of 1986. The proceeds of this bond sale will be used to finance a series of storm drainage utility improvements. The financing of the storm drainage utility improvements through the sale of General Obligation Revenue bonds was a part of the storm sewer utility program adopted by the city council in 1985. City staff has worked with Evenson- Dodge, Inc., the city's financial consultant, and the city attorney to make the arrangements for this bond sale. A pre-sale analysis of the $2,525,000 bond sale has been prepared by Wayne Burggraaff of Evenson-Dodge, Inc. and he will be present at the February 10, 1986, city council meeting to review the pre-sale analysis. Purpose of the Sale The bond sale will be used to finance the following storm drainage utility projects: Project Amount 69th Street/Logan Avenue to 35W $ X7,300 76th Street and Washburn Avenue X440,000 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue 189,000 j Norby's Pond 1,204,000 Wilson's Pond 535,000 Legion Lake 155,000 Pond Dredging Projects (Christian, Milner, Wilson) 29,700 TOTAL $2,600,000 . Less: 1985 and 1986 Storm Drainage Utility - 300,000 Capital Improvements Revenue $2,300,000 Capitalized Interest 155,000 Underwriters Discount X5,000 Issuance & Administrative Costs 25,000 TOTAL BOND ISSUE $2,525,000 The $2.6 million estimated storm sewer project cost includes a built-in 18.6°b contingency to provide for engineering, legal, administrative and other contingency costs. Pending federal legislation would no longer permit a municipality to earn a greater amount of interest on .investment of bond proceeds than the net yield of the bonds if all bond proceeds are not spent within six months of the date of the bond sale. Further, all bond proceeds must be spent within. three. years of the bond sale or the bonds could lose tax exempt status. Thus, in order to meet these restrictive requirements, Pond Dredging Projects for dredging of Christian, Milner and Wilson ponds in the amount of $29,700 has been added to the list of projects to be funded by the bond sale.. This is a contingency project to be done only if monies are available from the bond issue after completion of all other storm sewer projects. A contract has previously been awarded for the dredging of Norby's Pond. Work is underway at this time. Retirement of Debt The retirement of the debt for the $2,525,000 General Obligation Revenue. Bonds is pledged from the revenues generated from the city's utility accounts. While it is anticipated that the bonds will be retired entirely from revenues generated by the storm drainage utility, the city may strengthen the bond issue by pledging revenues from the city's other two utility accounts (water and sanitary sewer) to cover the annual debt retirement of the bonds. This-can be achieved without formally combining the utility accounts. Instead, such a covenant to pledge funds may be established by resolution. City staff recommends that the city council take this action too.. To provide for the retirement of the bond issue, a series of annual increases to the storm drainage utility quarterly fees will probably be necessary commencing January 1, 1987. Assuming an annualpayment of $255,000 for the retirement of the bonds, and a annual increase in the cost of operation and maintenance of the storm drainage utility, a 6% annual increase in the storm drainage utility charges would make the fund self supporting with respect to repayment of the $2,525,000 bond issue by 1991 (see Attachment. A). Prior to that date, funds /~;3 - from the Sanitary Sewer and Water Funds would be needed to assist in the debt retirement of the bonds. The assumed repayment schedule also assumes no additional storm drainage utility improvements until after 1991. Of course, the funds available for bond retirement and/or capitalimprovements could be modified based upon varying the annual percentage increases to the storm drainage utility charges. For example, the proposed CDR redevelopment project in the northeast quadrant of 135W and I49~+ will require a storm water runoff relief sewer to Wood Lake. Conclusion The bond sale has been scheduled for March 10, 1986, so that work may. commence during the coming spring construction season. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $2,525,000 General Obligation Revenue Bonds. R ectfu s witted, ~ / /~ohn G. Cart 'ght City Manager JGC:sb FINANCIAL PLAN TO MEET DEBT SERVICE IN EARLY YEARS OF ATTACHMENT A $2,525,000 G.O. REVENLIE BONDS APPROXIMATE OPERATIONS & CAPITAL ANNUAL BORROWID FROM TOTAL OWED ~ STORM SEWER MAINTENANCE IMPROVEf~NT BOND DEBT OR (REPAID) TO SANITARY SEWER UTILITY REVENUE COSTS & DEBT RETIREMENT SANITARY FUND INCLUDING. YEAR (6~ ANNUAL INC.) (4% ANNUAL INC.) RETIREMENT PAYMENT SEWER FUNB 9;ti ANNUAL IMI'EREST ~ ~ 1986 , $400,000 , $190,000 i Paid from ; $255,000 i $ - i $ - ~ ; ; capitalized interest from bond sale ~ ' i i i i 1987 , $424,000 , $198,000 , $226,000 i $255,000 , $ 29,000 , $31,6'10 ~ i 1988 , $449,000 i $206,000 i $243,000 i $255,000 i $ 12,000 , $47,535 ~ ~ 1989 , $476.,000 , $214,000 i $262,000 , $255,000 i $ (7,000) i $44,.183 ~ , i i i ~ 1990 ; $505,000 , $222,000 , $283,000 , $255,000 , $(28,000) i $17,639 ~ ~ ~ 1991 , $535,000 ~ , $231,000 i $304,000 , $255,000 , $(49,000) , Repaid + $31,361 ' ~ surplus 1992 , $567,000 i $240,000 i $327,000 , $255,000 i ~ ~ i i i ~ Attachment A explains where sufficient funds will be obtained to meet debt service in the first seven years of the bond issue. For example, in the year 1987, $226,000 from storm sewer quarterly fees will be combined with a loan of $29,000 from the sanitary sewer fund to meet the $255,000 annual debt service payment. i ~ s Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due~call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, February 10, 1986, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The following written resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent. RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,525,000 GENEP.AL OBLIGATION STORM SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1986A BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (City) as follows: 1. It is hereby determined: (a) The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 (Act) to issue and sell its general obligation (Bonds) to finance all or a portion of the cost of the construction, enlargement and other improvements to its storm sewer system including mains, holding areas and ponds, and other appurtenances and related facilities ~ for the collection and disposal of storm water (Facil- ities). (b) The Bonds may be general obligations of the City if the City Council in the resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds covenants that it will impose rates and charges for the use of the Facilities at the times and in the amounts required to produce, together with any other revenues pledged for payment of the Bonds, net revenues (as defined by the Act) adequate to pay all principal and interest when due on the Bonds. {c) The City has duly adopted Bill No. 1985-5, (Section 8 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances) providing for a system of rates and charges for the use of the Facil- ities. (d) The Director of Community Services has informed this Council that contracts for the construction and related costs of construction and improvements to the Faci1- ities (Project) have been or will be incurred as follows: Project Item* Cost Legion Lake $ 155,000 69th Street 47,300 76th & Washburn Ave. 440,000 66th & Xerxes Ave. 189,000 n'orby's Pond 1,204,000 Wilson Pond 535,000 Miscellaneous Projects 29,700 Subtotal $2,6Q0,000 Less City Contribution (300,000) Balance $2,300,000 Capitalized Interest 155,000 Issuance costs 25,000 Discount bonds 45,000 Grand Total $2,525,000 *includes engineering, administration and 27, contingency costs. (e) It is determined that it is necessary and desirable for the sound financial management of the City and the Facilities that the City issue and sell its General Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1986A pursuant to the Act to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project. 2. In order to provide financing for the Project, the City shall therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $2,480,000. In order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $45,000. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $2,480,000 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose 'of paying interest first coming due on such i additional Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued and sold in accordance i with the terms of the following Official Notice of Sale: ~ OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE i $2,525,000 General Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1986A City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, will receive and open sealed bids for the pur- chase of $2,525,000 general obligation storm sewer revenue bonds of ' the City .until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, March 10, 1986 in the office of the City Manager, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield Minnesota at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated for presentation to the City Council at a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the same day. Purpose and Security .The purpose of the bonds is to provide. funds for the finan- cing of various improvements to the storm sewer system of the City. The bonds will be general obligations of the issuer, for which its f ull faith credit an d taxing powers are pledged together with net revenues of the storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water system of the City. Date and Maturities / The bonds will be issued in fully registered form, will be dated March 1, ].986, will be in integral multiples of $5,000 each and will mature on February 1 in the following years and amounts: Year Amount Year Amount 1988 $60,000 199.8 $120,000 1989 65,000 1999_ 125,000 1990 70,000 2000 135,000 1991 75,000 2001 150,000 1992 80 000 2002 160,000 1993 85,000 2003 170,000 1994 90,000 2004 185,000 1995 95,000 2005 200,000 1996 100,000 2006 215,000 1997 110,000 2007 235,000 Redemption The bonds are subject to redemption and prepayment, ir. whole or in part, at the election of the City, on February 1, 1992 and any interest payment date thereafter at their principal amount and accrued interest to date of redemption plus a premium expressed as a percent- age of the principal amount to be redeemed for the various redemption dates as follows: ~ Redemption Date Premium February 1, 1992 and August 1, 1992 27 February 1, 1993 and August 1, 1993 1.57 February 1, 1994 and August 1, 1994 17 February 1, 1995 and August 1, 1995 .57 February 1, 1996 and thereafter none If redemption is in part those bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only a part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. Interest Interest on the bonds will be payable on February 1, 19S?, and semiannually thereafter on each August 1 and February 1. All bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 1/8 or 1/ZO of 17, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate of interest permitted by law on the day of sale. Paying Agent The City will, prior to the sale, name the .Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. Principal will be payable at the principal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The City will pay the reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. Delivery Within 40 days after the sale, the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its cption, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver. to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pend- ing. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser, but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds in funds available for expenditure /~-/l~ by the City on the day of payment. Delivery is expected to be made on or about April 15, 1986. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Associa- tion of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed or. the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion. will. ~ state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the C it and that the Cit is obli a y~ y g ted and required to levy taxes for the rinci al and interest thereon as the r r sz~e Uec~te 1ue without limit as to rate or amount. Type of Bid - Amount Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time of said meeting. Each bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of X50,500, payable to the City Finance Coordinator, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the proposal is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The check will be deposited by the City and deducted from the purchase rice at th p e time of delivery of the Bonds. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $2,525,000 offered for principal) will be deemed .the most favorable. No oral bid and na bid of less than $2,480,000 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered, and the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any infor- mality in any bids. i BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL I /s/ Thomas Ferber City Clerk Dated: February 10, 1986. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing Official Notice of Sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published in the manner required by law. The City Council shall meet on Monday, March 10, 1986, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of considering bids on the Bonds and taking any other appropriate action. 4. In the resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds the City will make the covenants regarding payment of the Bonds required by the Act. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. is-~~ . EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF BOND SALE $2,525,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STORM SEWEP. REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1986A CITX OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY Sealed bids for the above bonds will be received until 2:00 p.m. C.T. on Monday, March 10, 1986 in the office of the City Manager at city hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, at which tine the bids will be tabulated for presentation to the City Council at a regular meeting at 7:00 P.M. on that date. The Bonds will be dated March 1, 1986, will bear interest payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1 to maturity, commencing February 1, 1987, and will mature on February 1 in the amounts and years as follows: Year Amount Year .Amount 1988 $60,000 1998 $120,000 1989 65,000 1999 125,000 1990 70,000 2000 135,000 1991 75,000. 2001 150,000 1992 80,000 2002 160,000 1993 85,000 2003 170,000 1994 90,000 2004 185,000 1995 95,000 2005 200,000 1996 100,000 2006 215,000 1997 110,000 2007 .235,000 Bonds maturing after February 1, 1992 will be subject to redemption and prepayment on that date and on any interest payment date there- after at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemp- tion, plus a premium ranging from 2Z in 1992 to 07 in 1996. No rate of interest nor the net effective rate of the issue nay exceed the maximum rate permitted by law. Proposals must specify a price of not less than $2,480,000 plus accrued interest. A legal opinion on the Bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, Minneapolis, r~innesota. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance the costs of various storm sewer improvement projects in the City. Prospective purchasers should be aware that the Official Notice of Sale for the Bonds to be contained in the Official Statement for the offering may contain additional provisions relating to the Bonds and conditions regarding their sale. The Official Notice of Sale will control the terms and conditions of the sale of the Bonds. ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 71 Agenda: February 10,1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Related To Snow Storage Council Members: - During the council discussion on January 27th of the issues related to snow removal, city staff reported that a problem exists with some private property owners in plowing snow onto city sidewalks or roadway areas. The problem is an inadequate ordinance to en force snow storage regulations. This practice b Y some private-property owners results. in the deposit of snow on sidewalks and roadways which have been plowed by the city. The result is that some sidewalks and roadway areas continue to be obstructed with snow following city snow removal efforts. The City Attorney's office has prepared an ordinance to prohibit the placement of snow on public sidewalks. It is recommended that the city council give favorable first reading consideration to the attached ordinance amendment. R pectfu'1'h witted, L ' John G. Car Wright City Manager JGC/eja %D~-~ AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.01 QF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IV, Section 4.01 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, entitled: "Regulation of Littering", is hereby amended in the following respects: I. By adding thereto the following new subdivisions: Subd. 21. Snow and Ice. No owner or person in 'control of private property shall shovel, plow or cast or permit or allow to be shoveled, plowed or cast any snow or ice from such private property onto any public street, sidewalk or public parking lot. ' II. By renumbering the remaining subdivision of said Section 4.01 accordingly. Passed by the City .Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 70 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improvements. First Reading. Council Members: In October, 1985, the city council adopted the 1986 budget document. Included in that budget was the 1986 Capital Improvement budget, which includes a number of projects to be funded from the Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). The following projects in the 1986 Capital budget include financing from this source: Special General Revenue Revenue A Fund Sharing Projects Alloe. Alloc. Totals Energy Improvements' $ - $ 10,000 $ 10,000 City Hall Improvements 20,000 20,000 Legion Lake Park 225,000 225,000 Forestry 25,000 25,000 Park Land Acquisition 15,000 15,000 Parking Lots/Drives*~ 15,000 15,000 Nature Center Improvements 15.,00015,000 City Hall Cooling Tower 10,000 10,000 Fire Vehicle Reserve 30,000 30,000 Public Safety , Communications Reserve 15,000 15,00.0 30,000 Total $315,000 $ 80,000 $395,000 * Install double doors at Fire Station ~~2 Tower; install exterior arena lights; replace paint stall .furnace at garage. Lincoln Field and Donaldson Park While the attached ordinance gives authority. to transfer funds-from the Special Revenue Fund to the projects identified, no cash transfers are made until work on the project has ~ commenced and charges for payment have been incurred. To that end, city staff may delay work on certain projects until after more information concerning the state cutbacks to local governments for 1986 are known. The total 1986 Special Revenue expenditures for capital improvement purposes is $315,000. Because these projects are scheduled to be implemented in 1986, it is recommended that the city council give first reading consideration to the attached transitory ordinance, appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund for these projects, at the February 10, 1986, city council meeting. Respectfu bmitted, F - ohn G. ar Wright City Manager JGC/eja i i i 9-3 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAhN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: I Section 1: It is~found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section 2 ~i hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of I, expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Sub. 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Nature Center Improvements $ 15,000 City Hall Improvements 20,000 Legion lake Park 225,000 Forestry 25,000 Public Safety Communications Reserve 15,000 Parking Lots/Drives at Lincoln Field and Donaldson Park 15,000 Total $315,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. 'i Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1986. I John Hamilton Mayor ~I ~I ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 69 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: HRA Request for 1986 CDBG Discretionary Funds For Housing Programs City Council Members: Hennepin County has recently notified Richfield that $200,000 in unexpended CDBG funds (known as "discretionary funds") are available for distribution on a county-wide competitive basis. Richfield has been successful in each of the last three years in applying for discretionary funds. In 1983, the city received $20,000 of CDBG discretionary funds to undertake a ~ comprehensive study of senior citizen needs for services to help determine the long term facility 'requirements at the Community Center. In 1984, Richfield. competed for and secured approximately $60,000 to assist the acquisition of property for the Rae Drive/66th Street townhomes now under construction. In 1985, Richfield was awarded approximately $100,000 to assist in the acquisition of a site for Fraser-Whitbeck Schools' Section 202/Section 8 housing project for the handicapped. This letter requests that the City Council authorize an application to compete for $52,000 for housing rehabilitation activities. From this amount, $42,000 would be committed to Rehabilitation Deferred Loans; and $10,000 would be committed as rrenergy grants" within a new element of the rehabilitation program targeted specifically to low-cost energy conservation needs of lower income persons. The rational for this request is closely related to the funding level for Year XII. The Year XII requests are presented in a companion agenda item concerning entitlement CDBG funds (Agenda Item No. 7). The $52,000 request in Discretionary Funds, if provided, would augment Year XII program funding and provide a level of funding more consistent with need. A $52,000 Discretionary Fund award would provide for approximately seven home improvement deferred loans and thirty-six homes could be "housedoetored" through energy conservation grants. This would be combined with i the Year XII projections of 10 loans and 18 grants which would utilize $68,000 of the $138,582 allocation. The following paragraph, discusses the Rehabilitation Program, and explains why it is important to provide approximately $100,000 per year. Since 1975, the Rehabilitation Program has been a very efficient way to expend CDBG funds. Presently deferred loans which are recovered at a future time may be used for additional CDBG eligible activities. Based upon a recent Hennepin County decision,. deferred loan payments are no longer returned to the city which made the initial loan. Loan re- payments are now placed in a Discretionary Fund for distribution on a county-wide competitive basis. Since 1976 there have been approximately 210 households assisted with $751,000 in CDBG funds A closer analysis of three program years, all of CDBG Year IX, X, and the first half of XI, (7/83 to 12/85) indicates the following: -The average household income for loan recipients $10,230 -The average loan $5,200 -Approximately 30% of loan proceeds directed to major weatherization (furnace replacement, insulation) -Approximately 20% of loan proceeds directed to roofing replacement -Approximately 19~ of loan proceeds directed to exterior maintenance (painting, siding replacement) -Approximately 11~ of loan proceeds directed to building code items (plumbing, electrical problems) These aforementioned improvements are consistent with the needs of the 25 to ~+5 year age of the housing in Richfield. The City Building Official has observed that roof and heating plant. replacement will continue to be priorities in the next few years. The demand for the deferred loan program reflects the needs of lower income elderly and single parent households. There are, over 1,800 lower income owner occupied households which may be able to benefit from deferred loan improvements. The program was last advertised in spring, 198. There has been a continual request for assistance. In the past residents have waited one to two years for funding. As with the Year XII request, the Discretionary Funds would be targeted to both 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 program-is the only way for lower income persons to make major repairs which help maintain the housing stock, which, of course, benefits the occupant as well as the entire city. They are unable to assume significant. monthly debt payments. The "emergency loan" feature of the program continues • i 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. A primary objective of the Residential Energy Conservation Program, funded by the City and managed within the Housing and Redevelopment Division of the Department of Community Development, 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 -1886, approximately $23,000 has been received from the City's General Fund to continue program administration. Since the program was developed in 1983, $475,000 in energy .related improvements have been made to homes. Approximately 100 lower income households have received "housedoetor" types of .weatherization services totaling $50,000. These funds were, provided by Minnegasco. 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. Staff has also programmed educational workshops and audits that assist residents in identifying and prioritizing needed improvements. For the 1986-87 energy program, the public utilities are less likely to fund "housedoctoring" efforts than in the .past. Thus, the most cost effective delivery of weatherization services requires that various program elements be combined. A new pilot program, the "Home Energy Check", combines an audit, education, and home improvements. On January 27, 1986, the Council authorized the establishment of an audit program with two levels of service. In the first tier of the program, Northern States Power would pay $50 and the homeowner $10 for a Home Energy Cheek Audit. The auditor would examine the structure, evaluate heating system efficiency and discuss and educate the homeowner concerning beneficial improvements. Based on the funds provided by each audit, a second tier of service may occur with every third audit - basic "house- . doctoring". Basic housedoctoring would include services such as hot water tank insulation, living area caulking and weatherstripping. These needs are determined by a blower door test. An evaluation of the need for a setback thermostat, sealing of attic bypasses, and heating system improvements is also undertaken. A third tier of service, possible because of the availability of CDBG funds, would .seal attic bypasses, insulate duct work. and exposed hot water pipes, install setback thermostats and flue dampers if a benefit can be determined. The third tier improvements would cost an estimated $250 per household. Lower income persons could benefit from this third tier weatherization and heating equipment retrofit program. The $15,000 in CDBG funds ($10,000 Discretionary Funds, $5,000 CDBG Year XII) would be distributed as grants to approximately 5~ lower income households that would not otherwise be able to pursue these improvements. Funding an established program such as Rehabilitation Loans from competitive, discretionary funds is not normally a desired course of action. However, in this instance it would make up for funding short falls, return deferred loan funds generated by the City to the City, and maintain administrative efficiency in the delivery of the Rehabilitation program. Additionally, it would expand the commitment to lower income homeowners through the New Home Energy Cheek Pilot Program. The application for Discretionary Funds .should provide the best balance to meet Rehabilitation needs essential to maintaining the-value and appearance of the housing stock and initiate new initiatives in energy conservation that improve housing affordability in Richfield. It is recommended that the City Council authorize an application of $52,000 in Discretionary Funds to Hennepin County. Respeetfu~y) witted, ohn G. ars~wright City Manager' JGC/eja ~J / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 68 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject:. Year XII Community Development Block Grant Program Public Hearing Council Members: Purpose of Public Hearing A public hearing has been scheduled for the February 10, 1986, city council meeting for the following purposes: 1. To provide citizens with information about the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; 2. To obtain views of citizens on local housing and community development needs; 3. To provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban Hennepin County (UHC) Statement of Objectives for 1986; and, 4. To provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the City of Richfield's proposed use of $138,582 of the Year XIS Urban Hennepin County (UHC) Community Development Block Grant funds. A summary of the CDBG fund requests and the staff recommendation for levels of funding is attached to this council letter as Attachment A. The Community Development Act The 1981 amendments to the Housing and Community Development Aet of 1974 made significant changes to the CDBG program. The amended act eliminated the requirement for a formal application and considerably eased HUD's responsibility for review and approval of the application replacement - a statement of local objective, a projected use of funds, and certification assuring proper administration and implementation. A Statement of i oC Objectives has been developed to provide the guidance necessary for planning and implementing the Year XII Urban Hennepin County CDBG program in a manner which meets the National Objectives. These changes. place almost the entire responsibility on the Urban County for ensuring that-each activity to be carried out with CDBG funds is clearly eligible, and meets the National Objective of the Housing and Community Development Act, as amended. The National Objectives remain unchanged: developing viable urban communities; providing decent housing; providing a suitable living environment and expanded eneonomic opportunities (principally for low and moderate income persons); aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or, meeting other community development needs which have~a particular urgency. The Statement of Objectives has been divided into CDBG program sub-hearings. The following is a summary of the Statement of Objectives for Hennepin County. Program Planning and Administration. Develop and implement a Housing and Community Development Program which addresses Urban County community development objectives, and meets local needs and priorities in a timely and efficient manner. Maximize benefits resulting from each activity, provide a balanced program primarily benefiting low and moderate income persons. Assure citizen involvement in the program. Neighborhood Revitalization Maintain and preserve viable neighborhoods and neighborhood service centers through a program of concentrated community development activities. Housing Direct housing resources to sectors of the housing market providing the greatest benefit to lower income persons. Explore all potential resources for the financing of assisted housing. Housing: New Construction Facilitate the development of new housing, including, but not limited to, site acquisition, public improvements,. assistance with front-end costs and multi-community projects. Housing: Existing Rental Maximize utilization of available rental rehabilitation and tenant assistance programs. Housing Rehabilitation Provide housing rehabilitation ,assistance to eligible households. Public Facilities and Improvements Rehabilitate existing public improvements and facilities, and assist in the development of new facilities and improvements. Emphasize activities which directly benefit low and moderate income ersons. Coordinate the develo went of P P senior centers in locations suitable to the provision of other services to the .elderly. Handicaped Improvements En sure that program supported facilities and housing units are accessible to handicapped persons. Each accessibiltiy improvement should meet a particular need, remove a specific barrier and represent a defined priority in the community. Economic Development Undertake activities to stimulate economic development consistent with local enconomic development strategies which provide permanent private se,etor jobs and job training opportunities to low and moderate income persons. Energy Develop the urban county CDBG program in a manner sensitive to energy conservation issues. Provide assistance to low and moderate income homeowners for energy improvements. Public Services Provide funding for public services which are consistent with CDBG. regulations and the program needs of Hennepin County and the participating communities. CDBG funding for public services should directly benefit low and moderate income persons. Displacement Implement the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program and Housing Assistance Plan in such a manner as to minimize the direct or indirect displacement of owners or tenants from occupied dwelling units, and business locations. Expected Funding Level Last year (Year XI) Richfield received a $206,839 . allocation. The CDBG funds for this year (Year XII) may be reduced by as much as 33%, which would reduce Richfield's allocation to approximately $138,582. Attached in the backup is a document entitled "Urban Hennepin County Program Background and Directions" which provides a history of the program and explains the reasons for the proposed funding cuts. Requests have been received for funds for the following activities with Year XII Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting July 1, 1986. 1. Housing Rehabilitation Loans $100,000 2. Scattered Site Acquisition for 65,000 Assisted Housing 3• Grants to lower income households 15,000 for energy improvements Public services including H.O.M.E. Not to exceed 15~ program and child care subsidies to (15~ of $138,582 low and moderate income families. $20,78.7) of total grant amount 5. Handicapped Accessibility Projects Unspecified amount including curb cuts 6. Long range planning to address needs Unspecified amount of aging population including community center expansion and improvement 7. Provides services to elderly and Unspecified amount 'i handicapped including information,. referral home chore services, transportation, and integrative programs for disabled 8. General Administration 10,000 Representatives from South Hennepin Human Services Council and the Greater Minneapolis Day Care. Association will be present at the February 10,-1986, meeting to request a specific dollar amount to continue funding the Household and Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) program and the child care subsidy program. This letter recommends that the Council allocate $138,582 (100% of the anticipated allocation) of Year XII CDBG funds to the HRA for housing related activities for the period July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1987. Staff recommends this request as a result of HRA action taken in January, 1986. On January 21, 1986, the Richfield HRA reviewed staff recommendations for proposed. Year XII CDBG activities. If the funding level approximated that of last year, $180,000 would have been requested, and if available, be distributed as follows: Rehabilitation ($100,000), New Home ($65,000), and Energy ($15,000). If funding was less, alternative direction was also provided to staff. The $180,000 request was based on information available at the time that suggested that up to 7S $206,0.00 may be available. The Year XI allocation was $206,000. However, at the end of January, Hennepin County indicated there would be-a 33 percent decrease from the Year XI funding level. Thus, only $138,582_ will be available to Richfield. There are several reasons for devoting all of the available funds to housing; namely: need; .importance of maintaining the value and appearance of the housing stock; desire to improve energy efficiency and affordability of housing; and, administrative efficiency within the Housing and Redevelopment Division. These items are discussed further in the letter. On the 10th of February, the City Council .will be soliciting comments from the public and other groups regarding the use of Year XIL CDBG funds. For Year XI (July, 1985-June, 1986), the HRA received 75~ of the total allocation or $156,124 for . housing programs. The HRA expended CDBG funds under two programs: New Home .($75,000) and Rehabilitation ($81,120 . Twelve homes will be rehabilitated and expenditures include $73,012 for loans and $8,112 for administrative expenses. Within the New Home Program, approximately $34,800 is being utilized. at Rae Drive, approximately $1,300 at the Humboldt Avenue Vo-Tech site and about $400 at 6820-12th Avenue. A structure must be acquired for the 1986 Vo-Tech project on 12th Avenue and a vacant parcel will be purchased for approximately $31,000. The balance of $7,500 is for administration. The $138,582 available from the CDBG Year XII would provide full funding which is needed for the New Home program activities, provide funds to initiate a pilot Energy Program initiative, and provide a satisfactory allbeit reduced level of funds for rehabilitation. Staff devised the following Year XII distribution to balance the interests of the HRA's essential programs (New Home, Rehabilitation) with new initiatives of the City of a more elective nature (Energy): $70,000 - New Home program for acquisition, tenant relocation, and demolition to obtain a 1987 Vo-Tech project site. $ 5,000 - Energy Conservation Grants ("housedoctoring"- sealing air leaks, caulking., weatherstripping, heating system evaluation, and set back thermostats; all as identified by an energy audit) for approximately 18 lower income households. $63,582 - Rehabilitation Deferred Loans (repairs related to building code, major weatherization, roof, exterior .maintenance, etc.) for approximately 10 lower income households. 7--~ The $52,000 request in Discretionary Funds, if provided, would return program funding to a level more consistent with • need. The following section discusses the three recommended i programs in more detail. New Home Program i The New Home program has been in existence since 1975. Thirty units of housing have been constructed or rehabilitated. Ten units are under development. In the process, eleven "garage homes" have been eliminated, seventeen vacant lots developed, and two units received moderate rehabilitation. Revenues ~ approximating $1,600,000,. primarily CDBG funds, have made this possible. i The benefits which accrue to the city because of the New ~I Home program are many. Approximately $35,000 per year in increased revenues are being provided to various taxing jurisdictions. Additional families and their children are being attracted to the community because of the affordability of new housing. Substandard blighted structures are being eliminated as well as vacant lots, thus improving the attractiveness of the community. The requested $70,000 provides the acquisition, tenant relocation and demolition funds needed to obtain another Vo-Tech site for 1987. A portion, $11,500, will be utilized for program administration. However, there are not enough CDBG funds n i available exec t b s ecial reall " ( p y p ocation competition for Discretionary Funds with other Hennepin County communities) to proceed with major development projects for housing low and moderate income persons. A special allocation of $100,000 was secured in 1`985 to assist the Fraser Section 8/Section 202 development. for the handicapped. Energy Program 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. Improvements may increase affordability of the existing housing but do not significantly improve value or provide for the replacement 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 (Minnegaseo and NSP) and the State Department of Energy and Economic Development. For 1986, approximately $23,000 has been received from the City's General- Fund to continue program administration. Since the program was developed in 1983, $75,000 in energy related improvements have been made to homes. Approximately 100 lower income households have received "housedoctor" types of i, 77 weatherization services totaling $50,.000. These funds were provided by Minnegasco. 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. Staff has also programmed educational workshops and audits that assist residents in identifying and prioritizing needed improvements. For the 1986 and 1987 energy program, the public utilities are less likely to fund "housedoetoring" efforts as in the past. Thus, the most cost effective delivery of weatherization services requires that various program elements be combined. A new pilot program, the "Home Energy Check", combines an audit, education, and home improvements together. On January 27, 1986, the Council authorized the establishment of an audit program with two levels of service. In the. first tier of the program, Northern States Power would pay $50 and the homeowner $10 for a Home Energy Cheek Audit. The auditor examines the structure, evaluates the heating system efficiency, and discusses and educates the homeowner concerning beneficial improvements. Based on the funds provided by each audit, a second tier of service may occur with every third audit-basic "h ousedoctoring". Basic housedoetoring would include services such as hot water tank insulation and living area caulking and S weatherstripping. These needs are determined by a blower door test. An evaluation of the need for a setback thermostat, sealing of attic bypasses, and heating system improvements is also undertaken. A third tier of service, possible because of the availability of CDBG funds, would seal the attic bypasses, insulate duct work and exposed hot water pipes, and install thermostats and flue dampers if a benefit can be determined. The third tier improvements would cost an estimated $250 per household. Lower income persons could benefit from this third tier weatherization and heating equipment retrofit program. The $15,000 in CDBG funds ($10,000 Discretionary Funds, $5,000 CDBG Year XII) would be distributed as grants to approximately 54 lower income households that would not otherwise be able to pursue these improvements. Rehabilitation Program Since 1975, the Rehabilitation Program has been a very efficient way to expend CDBG funds. Presently, a deferred loan is recovered at a future time and may be used for additional CDBG eligible activities. However, based on a County decision, deferred loan repayments are not returned to the city which made the initial expenditure. Rather they have been placed in the Discretionary Fund for distribution on a county-wide ~i~ _ - - 7- ~ competitive .basis. Since 1976, and through June, 1985, there have been approximately 210 households assisted with $751,000 in CDBG funds.. A closer analysis of three program years, all of CDBG Year IX, X, and the first half of XI (July, 1983 to December, 1985, and 5~ loans) indicates the following: -the average household income for loan recipients = $10,230 -the average loan = $5,200 -approximately 30~ of loan proceeds directed to major weatherization (furnace replacement, insulation) -approximately 20% of loan proceeds directed to roofing replacement -approximately 19~ of loan proceeds directed to exterior maintenance (painting, siding replacement) and, -approximately 11~ of loan proceeds directed to building code items (plumbing, electrical problems) These type of improvements are consistent with the 25 to ~+5 years of age of the housing in Richfield. The City Building Official, based on field conditions, observes that roof and heating plant replacement will continue to be priorities in the next few years. 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 occu ied p households which may be able to benefit from deferred loan improvements. The .program was last advertised in Spring, 198+. There has been a continual request for assistance. In the past residents have waited one to two years for funding. The Year XII request 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 program 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 also the entire city. They are unable to assume additional significant monthly debt payments. The "emergency loan" feature of the program continues to be useful to ensure that lower income people can resolve what seems like impossible situations for them: collapsed sewer lines, deteriorated roof during the spring rains, and unreliable furnaces during the heating season. Relationship to 1986 CDBG Discretionary Funds The HRA adopted a motion directing the Executive Director to propose to the City Council that CDBG funds in the amount of $180,000 for the Rehabilitation, New Home, and Energy Programs be allocated to the HRA Adjustments were to be made in this request if the CDBG funds made available to the City were insufficient to fund the total request. The request can be funded, $138,582 from Year XII and $52,000-from "Discretionary 7- ~ Funds". The County has notified Richfield that $200,000 in unexpended CDBG funds are available for distribution on a county- wide competitive basis. Of this, $~42,OOb would be committed to Rehabilitation Deferred Loans; $10,000 would be committed as "energy grants" within a new element of the rehabilitation program targeted specifically to low-cost energy conservation needs of lower income persons. The recommended funding provides the best balance to meet New Home and Rehabilitation Program needs essential to maintaining the value and appearance of the housing stock and initiate new initiatives in energy conservation that improve affordability of existing housing. This recommendation does not provide any funding to South Hennepin Human Services Commission for the HOME Program, nor to the Minneapolis day care subsidy program for calendar year 1887. Year XI CDBG funds do .provide funding to HOME and day care for 1986. If the City Council desires to fund HOME and day care activities for 1987,-then it is proposed that the amount allocated be taken from the housing rehabilitatin program. It is recommended that the City Council authorize an allocation of $138,582 in CDBG Year XII funds to the HRA for housing activities. Re eetf 1 s witted, ~ti Jg~hn G. Cart right qty Manager JGC/eja ~ ~o r APPROVED ; ; RECOMMENDED YEAR XI , YEAR XII , YEAR XII PROJECT ; PROJECT ; REQUESTS ; PROJECTS ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ i 1. HOUSING REHAB , 81,124 , 100,000 , 63,582. 2. ACQUISITION i 75,000 i b5,000 , 70,000 3. ENERGY GRANTS , 0 i 15,000 , 5,000 4. PUBLIC SERVICE ;HOME: 7,923; ; 0 DAYCARE: 20,000; UNSPECIFIED ADMIN: 2,792; MAX: 20,787 ;TOTAL: 30,715; 5. GEN. ADMINISTRATION ; 10,000 ; 10,000 ; 0 6. RECYCLING ; 10,000 ; 0 ; 0 7. HANDICAPPED ACCESS ; 0 ; UNSPECIFIED ; 0*~* i ~ ~ ~ 8. LONG RANGE PLANNING ; 0 ; UNSPECIFIED , O~~ FOR AGII~IG POPULATION , , ~ ~ ~ ~ 9. SERVICES ~ ELDERLY ; 0 ; UNSPECIFIED ; 0~~ AND DISABILED TOTAL , 20b,839 i 210,787 , 138,582 * RECYCLING PROJECT' RULED INELIGIBLE FUNDS MUST BE REPROGRAMMED 15% OF 138,852 = 20,787, AS ALLOWED BY CDBG REGULATIONS **~THERE IS A STUDY UNDERWAY Tb ASSESS THE SERVICES, NEEDS AND HOUSING STRATEGIES FbR THE ELDERLY. FUNDING LEVELS AND REQUESTS ARE AT LEAST A YEAR AWAY. 7-/~ URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND DIRECTIONS Hennepin County has been an entitlement recipient of Community Develop- ment Block Grant funds from the effective date of the program estab- lished in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Hennepin became an entitlement recipient pursuant to the provision for Urban Counties in the Act. In order to qualify as an Urban County; Hennepin had to demonstrate that it possessed sufficient housing and community development authority to be an effective participant in the. program. _ -This was accomplished through the execution of a joint powers agreement with other units of local government within the County. Early in 1975; a Joint Cooperation Agreement was drafted; approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and executed with twenty-two municipalities whose aggregate population exceeded the qualifying. threshold of 200;000 people. This initiated the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the first program year beginning with Fiscal Year 1975 and provided the basis for participation in the program every year since. As shown in Figure 1.; the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program began in 1975 with a total of 23 participants (Hennepin and 22 municipalities) receiving an entitlement of $738;000. Currently there are 44 partici- pants with a total population of 502;000 who shared $3;101;000 in FY 1985 (Program Year XI). Figure 2. shows that the preponderance of activities programmed for Year XI are under $10;000 each. This con- . figuration is typical of the total number of activities undertaken annually and their individual budgets. Program. dollars peaked in FY 1980 at $4;379;000 when Urban Hennepin County consisted of 42 participants. In total; the Urban Hennepin County program has been allocated $34;975;000 from regular CDBG appro- priations plus $1;051;000 in a special appropriation from the Jobs Bill ' of 1983. Table 1. lists the total number of participants in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program by year; the total amount received and the allocation provided to each participant for use in the development of the Urban Hennepin County program. Opportunity was provided through. the Act for communities to join the Urban County program each year through 1977. Beginning in 1978 partici- pation was on a three year basis; locking communities in or out for that period. Currently; all eligible communities participate in the program except Long Lake; who dropped out in 1981 to accept a one-time discre- tionary CDBG from HUD. Minneapolis and Bloomington do not participate because they are entitlements onto themselves by virtue of their status as metropolitan cities (cities with over 50;000 inhabitants and located in a SMSA). . ~ ~i~ i, Through 1985; $31;538;344 has been spent; representing 88 percent of . total dollars allocated. Figure 3. summarizes the type of activities funded with the CDBG through calendar 1985; including funds from the special appropriation to the program from the Jobs Bi11 of 1983. Initially; the CDBG was viewed as a community development "revenue sharing" measure end used as a public facility/improvement program targeted to low and moderate income neighborhoods. It began as a means to implement a national change in urban policy which in the mid 70's moved away from an array of categorical grant programs sought on a competitive basis to block grants made directly to qualifying units of local government to use as they believed would best meet their needs. The list of eligible activities was extensive and their selection guided by a rather broad range of national and locally established objectives. Since its enactment in 1974; the Housing and Community Development Act has been amended four times: 1977; 1981; 1983 and 1984. With each of the first three amendments to the Act; the Community Development Block Grant program was reauthorized for three year periods. With each authorization of the CDBG have come changes in program emphasis. The 1977 amendments shifted the direction to activities which benefitted low and moderate income persons; and made it increasingly difficult to undertake projects within developing communities; or projects aimed at addressing the commercial revitalization needs of older communities. It was during this period that housing rehabilitation grants and the acquisition of land for assisted housing development became program activities; and the regulations governing the use of .CDBG funds for public (human) services began to be relaxed. It was the 1977 amendments that also required a three year commitment on the part of all participants. The eligibility of split places; those communities located in two or more counties; was expanded which provided for inclusion of all of Chanhassen; Hanover; Rockford and St. Anthony as eligible program areas. In addition; it became necessary to establish a formal citizen participation plan. In 1982; HUO began using 1980 Census data in determining the entitlement allocation of funds to jurisdictions. This was the principal reason for a 14~ decrease in the Hennepin County entitlement. In 1983; through the Urban Rural Recovery Act; the 1974 Act was again amended: The CDBG program regulations resulting from these amendments expanded the eligibility of such program activities as public services and economic development. This expansion of program eligibility was due partly to offset Federal budget reductions in other domestic programs; although another reduction in the CDBG appropriation was made; con- ti ming a trend begun in 1981. The 1984 amendments continued the funding flexibility for public services, further limited the eligibility of activities designed to prevent or eliminate slums and blight; required that all economic • 2 7 /.3 development activities result in the generation of jobs for low and moderate income persons; and increased pressure on the program through further funding reductions. Allocations from the 1986 appropriation to the CDBG Program have yet to be made; although a substantial reduction will occur due to the following .factors: (1) ten percent reduction in the Federal appropriation; (2) several new Urban Counties {including Ramsey) have been designated; (3) the Gramm-Rudman Bill will probably impact. the CDBG appropriation by about five percent; and (4) a Presidential deferral of funds earmarked for the program as a technique to reduce the 1986 deficit without making a like reduction in Defense spending is expected to amount to $500;000;000; resulting in another reduction in the program of 16 percent. In total; a 33~ decrease is projected in the 1986 Urban Hennepin County allocation over 1985.($2;078;000 compared to $3;101;000).. Our best current information suggests that the administration's intent is to extend the program through 1991 at approximately the 1986 funding level. The program must be reauthorized in 1987; however, and several. program changes are being discussed which could have major additional consequences for Urban Hennepin County. These potential changes include (1) a restructuring of the allocation formula to target recipients in greatest need; and (2) splitting the funding set aside far entitlements and small cities. discretionary recipients (State-s) 65-35 rather than the current 70-30. Both of these program changes; if enacted; would further reduce the Urban Hennepin County entitlement. Introduction of the needs formula would be hard-hitting for urban counties and under the worse scenario could .result in Hennepin's allocation being reduced to zero. Figure 1 shows the "worst case" (and most probable) funding projection for 1986 and the probable range for 1987 and beyond. Table 2 shows how the projected 1986 entitlement would be distributed among participating communities pursuant to the Cooperation. Agreement and how these amounts would compare with 1985 allocations. Reductions of this magnitude suggest that a restructuring of the Hennepin planning allocation to each cooperating unit for individual use may be appropriate. In essence; with drastically reduced. funding and a rather large number of low budget activities; it is increasingly difficult to program dollars in an effective manner and is no less demanding in an administrative sense. Although the present Joint Cooperation Agreement with each cooperating unit assures a proportionate allocation to use in program development; it may well be possible to effect a distribution system and/or program development process to better meet the challenges being faced. There are a variety of program development alternatives which have potential for achieving the necessary consensus among participating communities. Some of these include: - Using the existing formula with no changes. 3 . - Using the existing formula with the understanding that the Citizens Advisory Committee may recommend that some activities not be funded based upon their small grant amount; individual projects or types of project. - Voluntary agreement among some cooperating units that their planning allocations be pooled to allow for a limited discretionary account competitive process. Only those cities releasing their planning allocation would compete for the available pool of funds. Approval of requests for funding would follow the established process for funding activities from the discretionary account. A minimum project budget threshold would be established. - All participant communities voluntarily forgo their Year XII planning allocation in favor of a total discretionary program. The funding recommendation would be the responsibility of the CAC (perhaps with greater municipal participation in the program development process). There are undoubtedly other possible approaches that should also be considered by Urban Hennepin County participants in an effort to derive maximum benefit from declining COBG revenues, ensure their equitable distribution and .minimize the costs of administration. ml g OPD 1=15-86 4 . . . OUNT BY PROG~M YEAR Plgure 1• GRANT AM N1BER OF PAR"f I ~OUNTYS ~ BG PROGRAM NU ' URBAN NENNEPIN ~ ~ ~ u- a ~ ~ _ QO' ' ~ r 5 ' ~`r ~ ~ / 2 ~,i~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ,~~~i ~0 / ~i c."3 ~ (4 . ~ ` .7 ~~f t a = 3.5 ~ ~ t / y``N~N~~i 3.0 ~`l 20 i r~ ~ i 2.5 ij t 2.0 = ~ 10 ~ ~ ~ c°~ 1' S 4- 0 ~ 1.O 0 •r" 86 XIII aria 5 8 ~ 83 84 XI XII beY°nd ~ 8 X y 78 79 VOI V$ I VIII IX 175 7 77 IV V II III FISCAL YEAR I PROGRAM `TEAR / - /CO 100 t ~ ~ 95-100 ~ ~ 8o-s5 ~ Z 75-8o I 7O -75 Z 65-70 ~ I H 60-65 1 s. r- 0 0 0 4s-5o ~ 6 N 4o-4s ~ 1 N 35- to ~ 6 30-35 ~ ZS-3Q ~ ZO-25 ~ ~ _ 15-24 ~ 11 m io-15 ~ q 5-td ~ 35 O-5 ~ 3Z Number of Activities 127 Figure 2. Number of Activities by Budget Year XI Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program ~ s of pollars ~ x t1i11 ion ~ -o w c ~ J1 ~ ~ 12 Q tD ~ ~ m -v rn i,and Acquisition ~ . 0 Rehab ~ ~ Housing o ~ d, facilities -o ~ public o Removal ' d Tree 3 Disease itectural Barrier Arc Removal . Economic peVe~opment Human Services Focal planning istration ~ ~ Adman 1~41M 1. UI~C COMMUNITY DEVEIOPNENT BIOCK GRANT FUYOING . BY LOOPENAi1N6 UYIT AND PADGRAM YEAR. UNit 111915 1111974 111/1971 IV/1418 Vf1474 V1/1980 VII/1981 Y111/1962 T3f14B3 3/1481 11/1985 111/1984 TOteri 6k00?"lYN CENTER 325163 316029 319115 182354 3325)5 211542 210110 2097120 6kuUklYN PANK 71807 151952 155108 241181 119884 297531 309863 210619 3453]1 352118 351345 3UOe510 CHnMFLIN 71360 54192 59660 61133 68182 7099D 41032 11411 17165 361)1 539W1 CNi,NHASSEN 13418 38D49 11632 38300 38532 1Lildl CONCGknN IU096 20854 I1511 31110 34700 34011 37199 33531 39131 31145 11489 304698 CRiSii~l 65531 177171 192]18 188911 309513 324082 303826 258212 202906 112159 110736 2531561 GA11GN 15612 25)92 25810 2N33 29165 1]554 2615] 13340 29130 30020 114096 DEEPhNVEN 10096 2GBSb 3/291 33860 36330 39011 I7I91 30851 11418 190!7 19014 3DSo85 EGEN PFAIk1E !9210 39919 45571 46890 11418 .76158 ]8000 93225 85455 69418 72750 138231 EGINA 72561 151205 119397 21)304 268391 285334 219383 231732 211014 !49517 161005 233]911 EICELSlDR 6U 3 11211 18535 28589 30169 32112 31159 24142 20558 Ib871 14641 258134 bOIGEM VAIIEY 12206 81823 01841 139315 N9167 159211 UN33 124088 115104 Bb511 85314 1263735 GkEENFIElO ISS/I 15910 14911 16811 15040 11116 4371 9313 111110 6kEENY00D 1512 3046 5213 1994 5541 5912 5715 5030 3331 3150 7)11 11424 NHM6VER 3569 IBBb 3101 3911 7204 4111 1121 ~ 6446 6315 19178 NASSAN 15345 II48B 14311 17311 18600 14096. 16149 0143 11257 1435Y0 IIGPKiNS !13293 113293 IhGEPENDENCE 28589 70398 71718 32135 28141 14144 U41S I1BS4 20357) IGMG LAY.E 8230 8019 8526 9065 136)0 lOkEiiO 1052 2118 7569 3884 3101 3911 3993 3353 3411 1815 1931 33102 MnFIE 6ROUE IB5T9 38/53 63371 44411 11517 16061 89005 83161 106661 95619 99961 849050 MAPIE PLAIN 11523 11780 11121 11821 1]431 11137 !1179 83D3, 8091 49391 MEGICINE LAKE IIB43 12411 11684 10060 3337 18)5 1825 53258 MEGINA 14157 27142 16416 18515 30117 70790 26151 10894 140]0 I6I50 138520 NiNNET6NKA 16210 158018 16119/ 241181 281349 299!30 295938 278264 196140 115974 116113 2360512 M1611E1DNKA 6EACN 7111 7217 7785 8211 8549 1711 IbIB 1011 1011 50101 MlNNE1RJSTA 19389 32098 31412 31105 76159 31180 30181 11021 21838 23851 290570 MDUND 26151 5I149 891/5 84929 91124 !03157 105)55 B920U 92822 74870 74581 944905 NEY HOPE 52162 108190 178881 115913 188321 200208 190183 160963 187994 131470 II651) 1113121 DkGNO 33891 55498 5{102 58413 4266/ 41152 5197A 37112 28123 1)891 /12'!81 OSSEB 21115 39783 34111 12432 15323 43G12 31558 18325 12164 11286 315211 PLYMOUTH 32111 48107 112189 121016 129748 131939 115066 125117 110814 H2159 118055 1321143 RICNf1E1D 48855 106!1/ 718812 3280]4 351171 771105._ 351450 294323 288001 209150 204839 3057029 kD661N50A1E 39121 81 U1 133890 129313 139387 117192 139615 119714 1014)8 19013 77917 !191911 kOCKFDkO 13925 12113 19208 22744 21826 91{68 RU6EkS 9407 4131 !0300 11034 10225 8719 6111 8035 8081 82232 ST. NNTNONY 25155 11914 12189 15211 /8081 61171 52313 14540 31819 N061 131753 Si. 60NIfACIUS 1725 7681 .7141 8156 8472 8271 4701 7721 8303 8347 16139 Si. LOU15 FiiRK 382913 107114 383288 321024 321133 253411 251661 2321809 SHGkEYD00 13181 21110 H991 11131 17151 50111 18300 11253 29416 13302 23380 341126 ' SPRING PARK 1838 10193 Ib/bI 17209 IB535 19106. 17821 I6U46 13805 11517 l1/30 157913 TONtiA 6AY 5399 11217 18383 18011 19648 20868 18400 15141 8102 6160 6200 118725 YAY2ATA 8317 17211 28535 28589 31 NO 33104 31622 26157 25286 20154 10081 211592 YOOGLAND 1418 1730 1382 3189 5015 1285 1066 30125 0 NEMNEPiN CTY I4900 122774 211350 308100 111900 131900 1328UD 3726G0 375200 301400 310100 3]82184 GkidlD TOTAL 738000 1152000 3015000 3081000 1119000 1379000 1328006 3116000 3752000 2981000 3101000 319)Su00 l/B4 1 _ 7 ~f i 1 ~ ! J Table 2. Projected Entitle~ent and Allocation to ~perating Units, 1986 an Hennepin County CDB6 Progra~ Unite '85 Ailoc Less 33X BROOKLYN CENTER 240240 ~ 160961 . BROOKLYN PARK 354365 237425 CHAMPLIN 38177 25579 _ CHANHASSEN 38532 25816 CDRCDRAN 37689 25252 CRYSTAL U073b 94293 - DAYTON 30020 20113 DEEPHAVEN 19019 12143 EOEN PRAIRIE 12344 48414 EDINA 167005 111893 EXCELSIOR 16664 11165 GOLDEN VALLEY 85314 57204 6REENFIELD 9314 6240 6REENYODD 3747 2514 HANOVER 6375 4211 HASSAN 14257 4552 HOPKINS 113293 75906 _ INDEPENDENCE 11856 11964 LDRETTO 1934 1296 MAPLE GROVE 94961 66414 LE PLAIN 8092 5422 CINE LAKE 1825 1223 I'~ INA 16150 10821 MINNETONKA 146713 9$248 MINNETONKA BEACH 1017 681 MINNETRISTA 23851 15980 MOUND 76581 51304 NEY HOPE 136577 91507 DRDNO 21894 18689 DSSED 22286 14432 - PLYMOUTH 148055 99197 RICHFIELD 206839 138582 ROBBINSDALE 77911 52204 RDCKFDRD 22826 15293 RD6ER5 8083 5416 SHOREWDOD 23384 15665 SPRING PARK 11430 7658 ICI 5T. ANTHONY 34061 22821 ST. BDNIFACIUS 8347 5626 ail ST. LOUIS PARK 251661 168613. - ii TDNKA BAY 6240 4154 WAYIATA 20081 13458 MDDDLAND 4066 2724 SUBTOTAL 2190900 1864903 EPIN COUNTY 310100 207767 AL 3141000 2471670 o?D M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 18, 1985 Iii ~I T0: Rick Jopke City Planner I FROM: Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. I,, Director of Public Safety SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT i On behalf of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health, I would like to respond to your December 10th memo regarding suggested projects for the coming year's Community Development Block Grant Program. In 1983., the city council authorized the use of 10~ of CDBG money for community social programming. Since that time HUD informed the city that several of the originally suggested projects were disqualified since they did not meet the criteria I~ of providing programs directed in principal to economically disadvantaged, or elderly citizens. Two Richfield programs, however, have received CDBG money over the past three years. These are the HOME Program (household and outside maintenance II far the elderly), administered by the South Hennepin Human Services Council, and the Sliding Fee Child Care Subsidy Program administered by the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association. I, The Advisory Board of Health has not had an opportunity to re- I evaluate the city~s original needs assessment study upon which they based program recommendations for CDBG financial assistance, and the relationship of current needs to existing ~I programs. I suspect that this will be one of the activities that the Advisory Board of Health will become involved in during the coming year. Therefore, the Advisory Board of Health would I, support continued financial assistance to the HOME Program and to the Sliding Fee Child Care Subsidy Program currently supported, in part, with Richfield CDBG funds. ~ Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions a you develop the year XII Community Development Block Grant Program for our city. ~i cc: John Cartwright I'~ Lia Ozols i I I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter-Office Memorandum 7 p7/ DATE: January 13, 1986 TO: John Cartwright, City Manager FROM: Lillian Hipp, Community Center Manager SUBJECT: Commission Response to C.D.B.G. Funding The Human Services Commission serving Seniors & Disabled, discussed the potential usage of C.D.B.G. funds and proposes the following recommendations: I. Accessibility l) All curb cuts in Richfield are made accessible. II. Planning 1) Develop an overall City policy addressing-the aging popula- tion of Richfield, This would include areas of housing, adult day care,. and services provided. 2) Develop a long range plan on the physical expansion of the Community Center and parking facilities. 3) Construction: - Install an elevator at City Hall. - Funding provided to the older home owner for maintaining the private housing stock. - Investigate expansion of Richfield Towers for Section 202 funding or other funding services. III. Services 1) Fund information and xeferral service. 2) Support Home Chore Services (housecleaning, yard work,. . snow shoveling, errands). 3) Fund Transportation projects which expand mobility of clients unable to use the bus. 4) Professionally print Commission. Brochure. 5) Integrative programs for disabled is encouraged. /1d cc: Dave Skrien, Don Fondrick (Otttclal Publicstiss) ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ' CONCEANiNG YEAR Xtl COMMUNITY DEVELOPIl~ENT BLOCK GRANT - PROGRAM Notice b hereby given that Hennepin County and the City of Richfield, : „ cc Minaeaota purauaat to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, are sponsoring a public hearingg on Monday, February !0, 1988, at 7 P.M., in the Council Chambers of Rich[teld C[ty Hall, ` : _ 8700 Portland Avenue South to obtain the views of citizens on focal and Urban - County housing and community development needs and to provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban Hennepin County Statement of • Objectives)1886 and the City of Richfield's prop. sad use of its Year XI[ Urban Hennepin County Communityy Development Block Grant planning allocation. Last year (Year XU Richfield received 1208,839 allocation. The CDBG funds for this year (Year Xll) stay be reduced byy as much as 3oq which would ` reduce Richfield's allocation to approximately 1138,000. The City of Richfield is proposing to fund some of the following activities with Year X11 Urban HeaAeppin County CDBG funds starting July 1,1918. - i. Housing Rehabilitation Loans j100,000 2., Scattered Slte Acquisition for Assisted • , Housing 183,000 ' 3. Grants to lower lacome households for energy - improvements 116,000 - l,,, Public services Including H.O.M.E. program - ' and child care subsidies to bw and moderate income !amities. ~ Not to exeed 1590 of _ total groat amount W . 1.. Handicapped Acceaibility Projects iaciudla5 8. LongcRangge Planning to address needs o[ Uaspecitfed Amauat aging population Including community seater expansion and improvement Unspecified Amount 7.. Provides services to elder)y and handicapped including information, referral home chore services, transportation, and integrative pro- grams for disabled. Unspecified Amount . - Fnr additional Information on proposed activities, level of funding and program objectives, contact the Clty of Richfield, Community Development Department, 6700 Portland Avenue uth,B89.7521. The public hearing is being held in accord with the Urban Heaaepin Couaty JOiat Cooperation ASreemeat pursues! to M.S., 471.59, . (Jaa.29, 1986)-RICH - - - - ~a~ • February 7,1986 ICI Mr. John Hamilton,Mayor I~, City of Richfield j 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, P•linnesota -55423 I Dear P~ayor Hamilton: For the past few years the Richfield City Council has allocated a portion of its Community Development Block Grant funding for .child care subsidies for low income parents. Your city has demonstrated very positive leader- ship in suburban Hennepin County in hearing and responding to the needs of low income working parents and their children. Following your example, several other suburban municipalities are now also providing similar fund- . ing. I was therefore obviousl disa ointed to learn that the Cit ff ' y pp y sta is not recommendin the continuation of that fundin I reco nize that the 9 9 9 total CDBG allocation for Richfield will probably be significantly reduced in the coming year but I would urge that you continue some funding for these child care subsidies. [Je obviously would like to receive a similar allocation as this year($20,000) but we are fully aware that, if funding is received, it would probably need to be cut in proportion to the total- . CDBG reduction. I am sure you recall that the 'targeted population for these funds are Richfield residents with young children, whose gross income falls between 60% of the State Pledian Income and the Section VIII HUD icome eligibility .cut-off guidelines by family size. Applicants must be working or in train- ing, or a combination, for a minimum of twenty hours. This targeted popu- lation consists of those parents whose income is just too high for them to be eligible for total child care subsidy under Hennepin County, but far too low for them to be able to afford the full cost of licensed child care(an average of $4,500 for and infant and 3,450 for a child under 30 months per year). At the present time, there are eight families being served on the program. There are also an additional eight families on the waiting list. As you are probably aware, these funds often enable families to move off of public assistance and become economically self sufficient. :A~1981.:State of Ftinnesota study of the child care subsidy program revealed that the average parent on the program received $146. per month in subsidies but paid $214 in taxes. ~^Je do understand that the majority of CDBG funds are designated for the physical improvement of a city, however, by allowing up to 15% for Human Services, HUD seems to recognize that the physical improvements are partially • • . . Greater Minneapolis Day Care As~soC~at~on Dale Anderson, Executive Director • Lehmann Center • 1006 West Lake • Minneapolis, Minnesota .612-823-7243 Cooperating Fund Drive LL~~ Member Organization ~v wasted if there are not present and ongoing opportunities for families to work, live in and contribute to that city. !fie believe that the Sliding Fee enhances those opportunities for Richfield citizens. It is my understanding that. the City P•1anager has described where the funding fvr..~~this program would come if the Council chose to continue it. ~~le certainly hope that you would exercise that option and continue this vital program for .the low income working parents of Richfield. I thank you again for your past support. Sincerely, Dale Anderson, Executive Director. P.S. tJe are presently spending about $1200 per month in this fund CC- Richfield City Council Members John Cartwright, City h1anager I - / - Serving Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Richfield and Edina - ~ ~ ~ ~ ouseho{d & outside Maintenance for Elderly 1985 RECORD OF H. O. M. E. SERVICES FOR RICHFIELD tINCLUDES MAINTENANCE/SEASONAL/HOMEMAKER SERVICES) NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS SERVED BY H. 0. M. E. 116 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH PERSONS LIVING ALONE 89 _ NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED BY MAINTENANCE/SEASONAL 103 NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED BY HOMEMAKERS - TOTAL NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED BY H. O. M. E. 143 NUMBER OF DIRECT SERVICE HOURS PRDVIDED BY MAINTENANCE/SEASONAL 5,249 NUMBER OF DIRECT SERVICES HOURS PROVIDED BY HOMEMAKERS __978 TOTAL NUMBER OF SERVICE HOURS PROVIDED BY H. O. M. E. 3, 557 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL t~437 ONE PERSON/11587 TWO PERSON HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY INCOME) it NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS BETWEEN POVERTY LEVEL AND HENNEPIN COUNTY GUIDELINE t~584 ONE PER50N/*859 TWO PERSON HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY INCOME - 135X OF POVERTY) 31 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND SURPLUS FOOD COMMODITY GUIDELINE t~8G9 ONE PERSON/~1G87 TWO RERSON HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY INCOME - 185X OF POVERTY) 37 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS BETWEEN SURPLUS FOOD COMMODITY AND CDBG GUIDELINE t~1475 ONE PERSON/~ib83 TWO PER50N HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY INCOME) _41 TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS BELOW CDBG GUIDELINES i5G South Hennepin Human Services Council Creekside Center 9801 Penn Ave. So. Room 100 Bloomington, MN 55431 (fi12) 888-5530 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 67 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing, 1986 Alley Paving Project City Project 822 Council Members: The city council established a policy for the paving of alleys in 1980. This policy provides that a petition signed by property owners representing more than 50% of the abutting footage is necessary for an alley to be paved. The projects are initiated on a yearly basis. In the first five years of this policy, 65 of the city's 96 graded alleys have been paved as a result of the petition process. Pursuant to this policy, on January 13, 1986, the city council accepted the preliminary report on the two proposed alley projects and ordered a public hearing to be held on February 10, 1986. The following alleyshave been proposed for paving: - Alley Between From To Second & Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Nicollet & First Avenue 71st Street 357' North - The estimated 1986 assessment rate-for residential abutting property is $22.50 per foot. A typical estimated assessment for a fifty-foot residential lot, therefore, would be $1,125. The assessment can be prepaid in full or payment may be spread over a twenty-year period in equal installments with interest. Partial prepayment may be made with the unpaid balance spread over a twenty-year period. A deferment may be granted to persons over 65 years of age or persons permanently and totally disabled provided that certain conditions are met. The staff recommends that, at the close of the public hearing, the city council adopt the resolution ordering the project and the preparation of plans and specifications. peetfyrl]~ ~mitted, i' ~i i ~ - ~l_ r John G. Ca twright City Manage RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF ALLEYS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR CITY PROJECT N0. 822 WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 13th day of January, 1986, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of the following alleys: Alley between From To Second and Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Nicollet and First Avenue 71st Street 357' north AND, WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing and two weekly publications of the required notice was given as required by law, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of February, 1986, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: . 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 13th day of January, 1986. 2. Michael J. Eastling, City Engineer, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of February, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~ City of Richfield (Oltlcial Publication) LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ALLEY IMPROYEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 822 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the council of tfie City of Richfield wit{ meet in the council chambers of the City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, at 7 p.m. on the 10th day of February, 1988, to consider the reconstruction and concrete paving of the following alleys in Richfield, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 128.011 l0 429.111: Alley Between From To Second and Third Avenue South 66th Street 87th Street Nicollet and First Avenue South 7tat Street 357' North The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is property abutting on such alley. The estimated cost of the improvement is i~3,209. The estimated assessment for a residential property is 122.60 per assessable toot. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement are notified to be present and they will 4e heard. THOMAS P. FERBER City Clerk , (Jan. 29 & Feb. 5, 1986)-RICH . / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 66 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Second Reading and Public Hearing On the Rezoning of the Hampton Inn Planned Unit Development Project (To be Continued to February 24, 1986) Council Members: On January 13, 1986, the City Council scheduled a public hearing and second reading on the rezoning of the planned unit development ordinance for the proposed Hampton Inn Motel which is located in the northeast quadrant of Lyndale Avenue and Interstate 4g4. City staff failed to publish the required notice for this public hearing and second reading on this matter and it will have to be rescheduled to February 24, 1986. When the project was orginally submitted, it was assumed that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDot) would relinquish the right-of-way it controlled for the I494 Frontage Road. It was subsequently learned that MNDOT would not relinquish this right-of-way at this time because of the proposed Interstate 494 corridor study which is to be conducted this year. The developers have since redesigned the project. They have also dropped plans to construct a restaurant on a part of the site. The planning commission reviewed the revised project plans on February 4th, and found that the project is still in substantial compliance with the plan that they approved earlier, provided that the developer agrees to maintain the same ratio of off-street parking spaces to total building floor area. Because of the changes in the value and design of the proposal (the dropping of the restaurant and the change in the number of motel units) the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) must approve an amendment to the development agreement with PALSCO, the proposed developers for the Hampton Inn project. At the present time the Community Development Department staff is analyzing the new financial information which has been provided by PALSCO. This item is scheduled to be put on the HRA agenda for the February 18, 1986 meeting. (Monday is an official holiday). PALSCO has asked the city to make its best efforts to have MNDot close the frontage road and provide PALSCO with a temporary use permit on the frontage road right-of-way. The temporary use permit is for a limited two year period. The temporary use permit can be renewed for additional two year periods. MNDot will not give up its easement rights to the frontage _ road because it is involved in an I~?g~+ corridor study for the possible widening of I~94. If I4g4 is to be widened, the ' frontage easement may be necessary to accomplish the widening. However, PALSCO wishes to utilize the frontage road at this time for the curb cut for an entrance road to the motel. The remainder of the frontage road right-of-way will be used for open space (green) and overflow parking, if necessary. i In the future, if MNDot made a determination that it did not need the frontage road right-of-way for any purpose and would be willing to vacate its easement, PALSCO would then consider further development, such as constructing a restaurant. The city council has before it at the February 10, 1986, city council meeting the requested action to rezone the site in question from C-2 general commercial to PC-2 planed general commercial (this is a type of planned unit development). When the ordinance is adopted, its publication will be delayed until the moratorium ordinance either expires or is amended to extend the moratorium. None of the issues discussed in this council letter considering the revised changes to the project have any effect on the matter of rezoning. Rezoning of the site including the frontage road area adjacent to the Hampton Inn Site is the only action to be considered at this time. It is recommended that the City Council hear anyone who desires to comment on this project and then continue the public hearing to the regular council meeting of February 2~4, 198.6. R ectful s witted, ohn G. artwright City Manage r JGC/eja ~y4-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 65 Agenda: February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request For Permit To Sell Non-intoxicating Malt Liquor At Spaghetti Dinner Assumption Church Council Members: On January 31, 1986, the city received an application for a permit to sell non-intoxicating malt liquor from Mr. Michael V, Dols, Parish Administrator for Assumption Church. This request is in accordance with Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.02 Subd. 2, which allows the council to issue a fee waived license to churches to sell non-intoxicating malt liquor not more than three times a year. Assumption Church is requesting this permit as a part of a spaghetti dinner that will be served on Sunday, February 23, 1986, from 11:00 a.m. to x:00 p.m. The dinner is sponsored by the Assumption Home and School Association as a fund raising activity for the Assumption School. The applicant has the required liquor liability insurance coverage. A copy of the certificate of insurance will be sent to the city. Mr. Dols has no criminal record. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council give favorable consideration to granting a fee waived license to the Assumption- . Church to sell non-intoxicating malt liquor on the date requested. Res ectfu~`y~ witted, ~ _ ohn G. Car right City Manager JGC/eja / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager . .Council Letter No. 6~ Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Sign Permit Applications: Illuminated Sign at Richfield/Bloomington Honda; Illuminated Signs at First Minnesota; and, Temporary Oversize Sign at the Community Center Council Members: Richfield/Bloomington Honda Nordquist Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to install a single-faced wall sign measuring 18' x 6' at Richfield/Bloomington Honda, X00 West 78th Street. The sign will read "HONDA Used Cars". First Minnesota Nordquist Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to install four single-faced wall signs measuring 108 square. feet each at First Minnesota, 98 West 66th Street. The signs will read "First Minnesota" and will be placed on all four sides of the building. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve the permits for all illuminated signs. The signs comply with all applicable city ordinances and it is recommended that the city council approve the permits for their installation. Lions Club Temporary Sign The Lions Club has requested approval to erect a temporary advertising sign at the Richfield Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue. The sign will advertise the Lion's Club pancake breakfast to be held on Sunday, April 6, 1986. The sign will be oversize (8' x ~4' 32 square feet). City ordinances limit temporary signs to 12 square feet. The Lion's Club seeks approval for the sign from March 1, 1986, thorugh April 6, 1986. It is city policy to approve the portable Naegele sign used for promoting civic fund raising projects. Recommendation The City Manager recommends approval of each sign .permit application. Re ectf s witted, ohn G. artw 'ght City Manager JGC/eja PROVE ~ ( DENYU : APPROVE ~ I DEA'Y~: ,(~~t.-~ Gity MaiiaKer lnspect~~ / ~ L Date Late .f(~- r1PPROVE EI ~ ~EIVl' APPFOCE DE:~•~'I ~ Planninb Lepartment City Guuncil Date J ( - ~E, Date R ~ to above for special approval nee code General Sims APPLIC:~:IO?: FOR AD~'EF.TISIi~G PER*:IT City of 'r.ichfield, ainnesota Date /'3 Zoning Sign Erected - des ho t~ Fee ~ii!-=>!fi/~C~ Con~iyl • C'r& i~ TE ~J Address of Sign FOOD 7~Cc.c•te= r Proprietor ;game .~(~pi7~ C<.~.C3 DBA ~A~~:-E. Si n Erector ~ g c~c - ~~n:~ r+-1 ~uK Vc«.~~ Address '72 %CV •?'7~' Type of Sicn Design i:eather Cover Licrtinc _ Wall Single Face ~ Clear Lexon ~ ! Constant Projecting Double :ace Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground Multi-Faced Plastic Covered ~ Revolving koof Aerial/.Blimp Shaded _ Traveling Pedestal ~ Searchlight Neon ~ Zip Lite Changeable I Banner/Pennants _ Other Other{Explain) Temporary ? Portable Frame: ~ Sign Colors Trailer ~ T ~ A~ Post ~ ~q,-~CA,C~ ,C-S,QF,gt~t=G%,5•T 3 - / - ~?Co - -5/ / fo / cPCo If Illuminated - Yes No k'atts El~ical Contractor Address Phone lroperty Okner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost Sirn tiidth''y ~ Height ~ ~ Total Square Feet .3~ Position o: the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utilit~• lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on draking Mich significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. *:inor signs as defined on pa€e 2. ''_tiao blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening. details and a cop}• of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. hoes the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Fill the sicn, structure, or billboard restrict any sicht distance under, around, or over for sale access by persons destine:: for or passins the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Title kitn Firm Date /-3/-~(p Phone Number ~/a 9' Oc~~/ 7 . , z. - 8 ' • PLEAS£ SE£ REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGR LOCATION' SKETCH • • • ~ " • ' ~ - • " 5ivert.Hendrickson/Building•Official - 866-5061 ~si`•'•r;:p ;0.]1! ~-v1•i.r....: :fs ~.~:,1. w11 47 "i ~ .•T... ~ • _ ~ r. ~s~.l ,y;.::•" 1.. ''~j+,:a:4'.?•f +.~n..•. Yy y,,y... ..i.•;,n•.h•' f.:•... ..tf. :L7. .^f' . yc-~ 1-27-86 .City Clerk of Richfield Richfield, Mi nneso,ta The Richfield Lion's Club is now planning to have a pancake break- fast as a fund raiser on Sunday, April 6th. The location is at the Community Center located at 70th and Nicollet. We are scheduled to begin serving. at 7:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. on that day. I have a request 'to ask of you. We would like to place a sign on the South West corner adjacent to-the Community Center. I understood ' we will require permission to do this. -Our sign would be 4 feet by 8 feet and be in place from around March 1st until April 6th. The sign would just advertise the event. The sign would be back, close to the °corner of the building. ti The second request is to allow parking on the South side of 70th • ~~Ystreet adjacent to the Center. This-would be to allow handicapped ~ ,people the opportunity to be dropped off close to the door. We are L requesting this .for only Sunday,. April 6th from 7:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. This project is a joint venture with the Richfield Lioness Club and with the support of the Senior Citizen's Group. Your help-would greatly be appreciated. G~~~t~=G¢~GQ Conrad Myrvold President, Richfield Lions 7211 16th Ave. So. Richfield 55423 869-0047 w ~N c7~`'! ~ _ ~ Y . . 1~ r . ~ usE r___r-- __T-- . ~ r~ S,~,n' L r- ~ _ ~ APPROVE I ~ DENY APPROVE ~ DENYI City Manager lnspector ~f/~ Date Uate ~ 1. ~lp APPROVE ~ ~E1'Y ~ : ~ t~~-~~-+ ~ APPROVE ~ ~ DE~T+ Planninb Lepartment City Guuncil Date 1- ~ ~ Date III Route to above f s e or p cial approval per code General Sicns APP:,ICa; IO:: FOR AD~'ERTISII~G FER.'IZT Cit~• of Richfield, :Iinnesota Date ~ Zoning Sign Erected -Yes Igo Fee Address of 'Sign `i Q ~ 7b~ Sfi, Proprietor Name t`jChfield~ FjlCbt~11(~~ati U?~C( ~ i Sign Erector ~,~,(s~- S)~t1 ~i'k_. Address 3~~ Ca,~e ~ Tvpe of Sien `'Jesien i:eather Cover LiEhtine >C kall X Single Face Clear Lexon ~ Constant Projecting Double Face ~ Frosted Lexon .Flashing. Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered I ~ Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp I Shaded ( Traveling Pedestal Searchlight ~ Neon Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants Other ~ Other(F.~cplain) Temporary Portable Frame: ~ Sign Colors Trailer T ~ a ~ Post If Iliuninated - es No k'atts El~ical Contractor Address 1,~ ne i roperty Ok-ner or his Agent Signature ~,~,~f ~C~C~ Ij~()Q~.1~ ftQ~(( Brie Estiirated Cost 2,~)CC~ Sian kidth Heicht~ ~ Total Squaze : eet I~$ Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sideualks~ curbs, roadwa~•s, overhead utilitti• lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on Braking ~:ith significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. *:inor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, cr outdooz advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or faste^ing 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 pre:ises? L1~5 " . . ~ tr~ sicn, structure, or billboard restrict am sicht distance under, arour.?, or over f~r afe ~ ~s y persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ?'~d , ~ Applicant s Sign,tur and'7TiUtle kztn Firm ~Z~- lZ t I Date ~ Z7~g6 Phone :iur.:ber ~ lk ~ _ ~ - PLEASE SEE RE~'.r•.'RSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION` SKETCH"' Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 1.{. wC4 M~ I: •R r~ Y f• ? iL:• "!.'1Ai%S -S?i« r, L~' _ '4~~'~~. i' 1?y.'~'..:. - . `r ~4~ ~.~r.. = ri w s,.... T. APPROVE ~ ~ DE:?YI ~ : APPROVE DEFYI ~~~~-t--L.~~• " Cit~• :tanager inspector~~j~;~b Date Date A.pPROVE ~/I DE;dY ~L,,%-L% ~~--+rj_.~.~ APPROVE ~ ~ DE:;Y~ Plannin~.Lepartment City Council Date ;~-r''~I2u~ Date 1 I Route to above for special approval per code C,er.eral Sicns " A.T'PLI C.-.TIO.; FOR AD~'ERTISIT~:. PER.`AT City of Richfield, r:innesota Fee ~3~ Yi Date ~ ~ ~ir Zoning ~L Sign Erected - Tes ::o address of Sign ~ Va"~OZ'YL 7T• Proprietor tame ~ t~{~ ~ ~~'A Sign Erector S 1~, Address 3 ~T"? Tvpe of Sign De ~n r t+eather Cover LiEhtin_ ~ kall ~ Single Face ,r Clear Lexon ~ Constant Projecting Double Face _ Froste? Lexen Flashing Ground aulti-Faced Plastic Covered ~ Revoivin£ _ Roof aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling _ Pedestal ~ Searchlight ,r Keon _ Zip Lite _ Changeable _ Banner/Pennants Other J Other(Explain) _ Tewporary Portable Frame: ~ Sign Colors i Trailer ~ T ~ y ~ Post Zf Illut:inated Yes Ko karts ~ . Phone `J~d 1 E~rical Contractor_~?/~~l~ J~~','~ ~ ~ . ' dress ~,i~. ~.t~ 7~. I '1 t ~ f lroparty Oo.-rer or his Ager.t Signature. Phone Estimated Cost ~Gl+~r_ Sign Nidth Height 3 ~ ~ total Square Fee_ 020 X .S7 ~ •:3 Position of t're advertisement structure in relationship to the aa~acent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, zoadwa~s, overhead utility lines, vehicle aoverient lines, o: public facilities an e'ras:ing ~:ith significant dit:ensions and attached hereto of zajo_ signs. *:inor signs as defined on page Z. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, er outdoor advertisin= s:r;:ature constructior. plans: including specifications, list o: ::at__~als, and e:;piicit arc::c::^g or fastening details and a cop~• o.` the stress sheets, caicui~tions, color o: site s~racture. Does the sign cony relate solel~• to the business. instituticr., c- actin:ity conducted on . the premises:' u~, mil: he sip,, structure, or b~llboazd restrict any sight dista::ce under, around. or over for :cc~: by persons destined fcr or gassing the suhiect re^ises'.' ~~3• App icant's S 'nature acid Z'itie ~.ith First ~ t Date ~ ~ Phone *;umber ~fi"~ ~ / 1 ~ l ~ 1 ~ sets d~ lu. I t~1~~5~'~ ~ E 4~2~C„ 8/b^'"" FLEaSF SF.E F.F.~'ERSE SIDE FOR SIG": LC:..;;C'; S~F.;CH A js R~.tn~~. Sivert Hendrickson/Buildins Of:itial - 866-5061 ~ _ ~ ~F~T ~'~~~5 ~r , . n~,,; ~N r. _ 'll5 :~n~ "F'Y`~t/~-f~-a.~' ~-i`S~:%'sl Iti i'~:1 -;~i'..1'.3 _ ~ ,nI , . ~?O,1vN'J~"1r,c.'.Y=7 X''/1.i•~f' ~ ~ fit, t"~l • I.YT ~11:11t~tT1 -`~'iiif •v~•+ I ~•~j . b~` ~ ~ > s'' i 71 T~ ~1 ~.Y'! i~i41f1T11 11~ 1 . Se,'q f ~ _ - •ear+Ilwro d,.av.L aav~ a.u4.r.n .w'J.w 'p,_y~r.Q~y u ~C) ? 1 - i ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ t 1 ~ 1 i 1 , JL I ~ s se. t _ - ~ \ J J ~ t• N • y i ; a 1 1 1 1 .w I or t a• V,.. I .a. to • ;dr '?'9} 1 'Si ~ / ~ p _.yill ~I 1 / ~ t ' ~ ' •bt~l0'tV+~~~ 1 1 C)AY 11I1t1fd0~ `7Tat1stx3 ~ 1 1 1 J 1 1 r-.._- ~ 1 3 ~I a N 3~~~ a z n~t N ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ . ~ n ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~L/B-~ Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 63 . Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the'City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization To Demolish The City Owned Service Station Facility at 1825 East 66th Street Dear Council Members: At the City Council meeting of January 13, 1986, a decision was made to locate and construct a new liquor store at the. southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Cedar Avenue. The site has been owned by the city since 1981 and is occupied by a former service station facility which is vacant. It would be appropriate at this time to demolish the service. station structure, remove the five underground storage tanks and the pavement. The visual image of the area would be improved, the cost of removal is less during this time of year, and, it would facilitate the timetable for the construction of the new liquor store in the spring. An additional reason for pursuing demolition now is the need to determine the extent to which the soil surrounding the underground tanks may be contaminated. Staff has received four proposals for the site clearance work: Herbst & Sons Construction Co. $16,500 Minnesota Lumber & Wrecking Corp. $15,800 Carl Bolander & Sons Co. $13,400 Bill Henning & Company $11,500 Under state law and the city charter, this type of construction work with a cost of less than $15,000 but more than $10,000 may be authorized by the City Council on the basis of proposals rather than through the formal bidding process. The cost of this activity would be charged to the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store operating fund. It is recommended that the Cit Council authorize the Y dew 1 o ition of the former service station facility at 1825 East. 66th Street by Bill Henning and Company. Respectfu s witted, ~ /john G. Car wrigh V`. City Manager JGC/eja ~y~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 62 Agenda February 10, 1986 The Honorable. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 Council Members: The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, the authority to purchase will be submitted to the city council for consideration.' There are five such items on the February 10th agenda. Water Plant Laboratory Furnishings The adopted 1986 budget includes $9,500 for purchase of furnishings for the state certified laboratory at the Richfield Water Plant. Two quotations were received for a variety of ~'1 furnishings ranging from cabinets to sinks. VWR Scientific, a ~ division of Univar, quoted $8,317.78, and Curtin Matheson ' Scientific, Inc. quoted $7,20.11. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of laboratory furnishings from Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc. in the amount of $7,204.11. Turf Truckster The adopted 1986 budget includes $7,500 for the replacement of Unit ~~227, a Cushman truckster, which was fully depreciated in 1984. Two quotations were received for a 1986 Cushman 4-wheel 22 H.P. Turf Truckster with flatbed and sides and other related specifications. Horst Distributing, Inc. quoted $7,7+7 less a trade-in value of $1,052 for Unit ~~227 for a net purchase price of $6,695. Cushman Motor Company, Inc., quoted $7,452 for the new unit less a trade-in allowance of $1,372, for a net purchase price of $6,080. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of a turf truckster from Cushman Motor Company, Inc., at a net purchase price of $6,080. y~-~ Trash Pick-up Quotations have been received for monthly and extra trash pick-ups at Wood Lake Nature Center, the Community Center, Fire Station ~~2, the central garage, city hall, the Ice Arena and the golf course. Five quotations were received with the average monthly cost to be shared by the divisions, computed as follows: Expert Disposal, Inc. $ 752.83 Metro Refuse, Inc. ~ $ 753.00 Buckingham Disposal, Inc. $ 798.00 Waste Management-Savage $ 836.00 Browning-Ferris Industries of MN, Inca $1,020.60 The monthly cost for trash pickup in 1985 was $572.50. It is recommended that the city council authorize a Master Purchase Order for 1986 with Expert Disposal, Inc. which was also the vendor used in 1985. Testing And Engineering Services Future phases of construction at Legion Lake Community Park include provision of an amphitheater. Functionally, the amphitheater will be used to view activities on the stage and other locations. Seating facilities are proposed to range from sitting on grass to chairs and benches on concrete patios. Because of soil conditions and swamp deposits, it is important that investigation, including testing and engineering services,. take place in the proposed amphitheater area with recommendations to be developed for design and construction parameters in terms of procedures, materials and scheduling. Geotechnical Engineering Corporation has done similar work at the Legion Lake site and is familiar with the site and data available. Their staff is available to do the field work this winter while the swamp is frozen. It is anticipated a written report would be ready by the end of April, 1986. It is recommended the city council authorize testing and engineering services, including test borings, field vane shear tests, laboratory tests, settlement and slope stability analyses, and general engineering and report preparation to be performed by Geotechnical Engineering Corp. for an amount not to exceed $13,000. Air Warning Siren Conversion As council members may recall, Richfield is participating in a County wide effort to convert existing air-warning sirens from land-line (telephone) activation control to radio activation control. Competitive bids for this project have been received by Hennepin County on behalf of the municipalities participating in the conversion project. Based upon the competitive bid, y~~ Richfield costs for the conversion of the existing 15 sirens is $27,090. We anticipate federal and state reimbursements to be 75~ of the city's cost of the project. The funds for the project are in the FY 1986 Public Safety Department budget. It is recom mended that the city council accept the County bid and authorize the city to participate in this conversion project. • Respectf ~ ~bmit~ d, ~ ; C~~Gt2 v j ohn G .:'Ca twri h g City Manage JGC/eja ^ / CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 61 A enda Februar 10 1 86 9 g Y The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Students Against Drunk Drivers (SADD) .Week Proclamation Council Members: Students of the Richfield High School will be present at the February 10, 1986, city council meeting to receive a proclamation designating February 10-17, 1986 as "Students Against Drunk Drivers" (SADD) Week. As part of the week's activities, a rally for SADD will be held at the high school on February 10, 1986, and Mayor Hamilton will be 'arrested' and held in jail the evening of February. 13th. The arrest will take place at the Richfield girls basketball game that evening. Mayor Hamilton has raised approximately $1,000 for this organization. Re ectful fitted, /l ~ 1' ' J ohn G. Cart~jright City Manager JGC/eja PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 10-17,, 1986 STUDENTS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVERS WEEK ''Y WHEREAS, the students at the Richfield High School have begun a campaign against persons driving a motor vehicle while drunk, and WHEREAS, this student group is known as S.A.D.D. ".Students Against Drunk Drivers", and. WHEREAS, members of S.A.D.D. have been raising funds to support this campaign which will officially kick-off on February 10, 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton, Mayor of the City of Richfield, do hereby proclaim February 10-17, 1986, as S.A.D.D. WEEK in the City of Richfield and do urge all citizens and organizations to support this very worthwhile program. DONE at the City of Richfield this 10th day of February, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor l~