Loading...
11-28-83 agenda~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager and Office of HRA Executive Director Council Letter No. HRA Letter No. 38 November 28, 1983 395 Agenda The Honorable Mayor Housing and Redevelopment and Authority Commissioners Members of the City Council City of Richfield City of -Richfield Dear Council Members and HRA Commissioners: Subject: Public Hearing on Housing Plan and Program, Multi-Family Program bonds be utilized. As part of their Market Plaza concept for development of the "Godfather Block" in the L/H/N, Derrick Land Company is proposing the construction of 150 rental apartment units. To help assure the feasibility of this project, it is proposed that housing revenue A housing program is a strategy for achieving needs and goals • as identified in the housing plan. The letter summarizing the hous- ing plan contains a list of seven possible programs which could meet the stated needs. (Council Letter No. 380, pages 4-6, November 28, 1983) . Statement number six in that letter indicates that there is a n eed for multi-unit rental housing within redevelopment projects. The attached multi-f amily housing program proposes to meet that need. The multi-family program indicates the unit mix, size and pro- ject rent. (Attached - Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bond Program) It also states that 20°s (or 30~ of the small one-bedroom units) will have rents affordable to families and individuals (elderly and non- elderly) with incomes which would qualify them for participation in the Federal Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. It is important to note that ten ants need not be participating in the Section 8 pro- gram, but that 20°~ of the units would be affordable to persons with incomes which fall within .the program limits. At the present time, the Section 8 program income limits are $17,700 for one person and $20,200 for two persons. Incomes may be less than the amount stated, but c annot exceed them. Fifty-five percent or 83 of the units will be available to tenants with incomes of approximately $34,960 to $36,960. The re- maining 37 units will be rented without regard to income limitations. This program will help assure the availability of housing to moderate income families or individu als. At this time, the availability of the affordable units for moderate income ten ants is required by fed- eral law and regulations for approximately ten years after 50°s of ___ _ Council Letter No. 395 HRA Letter No. 38 November 28, 1983 -2- • the units have been occupied. The bond issue for this project would approximate six million dollars. However, unlike the single family program proposed for the Portland Avenue area and Lincoln Hills, multi-family rental projects are not funded on a competitive basis from the bonding authority pool of $27.5 million. A municipality may issue tax exempt multi-family housing bonds provided it has an approved housing plan and an approved multi-family rental program based on the plan. The plan and program must be approved locally, reviewed by the Metropolitan Council an d approved by MHFA. It would be appropriate to approve the multi-f amily program now. It can be combined with the housing plan and single family pro- gram and processed by the Metropolitan Council and MHFA simultaneously. Secondly, Congress adjourned November 18, without rescinding the law which "sunset" housing revenue bonds. Thus, after December 31 , 1983, there will be no legal basis for the issu ance of these bonds. However, the concensus is that early in 1984 Congress will enact .legislation which again provides tax exempt financing for housing. It is likely, however, that restrictions will be imposed. To protect access to this financing for Market Plaza, it is the opinion of the city's bond counsel that the City Council and the HRA should act on this program element now so that there is a record of the city's intent which may, in turn, grandfather city actions that Congress may attempt to re- strict in 1984. It is recommended that the City Council and HRA attached program by a motion directing the city clerk "Resolution Approving a Housing Plan and Program Under Statutes, Chapter 462C" for the plan and single family to also include the multi-family rentalprogram. s bmitr ed , Sohn G. ~~'r Wright ~ City Man ger d HRA Executive Dir to JGC/ej a approve the to amend Minnesota program, • i4LTLTI FAMILY HOUSIlti'G REVENUE BOND PROGRAM The City is authorized to issue Housing Revenue Bonds for Multi-family Rental Housing. In issuing the revenue bonds, the City wi11 carry out the housing policies and the LNH redevelopment plan. To issue the bonds, the City finds that such action fu1fi11s part of the Housing Plan. The City Council and HRA are presently considering development of the block surrounded by 66th Street, 65th Street, Lyndale Avenue and Graham AveAUe. This proposal conforms to the City Housing Policies and the Metropolitan Council Housing Guide Chapter. itilULTI -FAMILY i The Program The HRA intends to develop a parcel of Land within the Lyndale HUB Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area with 1~lulti-family Rental housing. This site, located at 66th and Lyndale Ave. South, is programmed for the 150 units of multi-family rental housing units. The housing units wi11 probably have the following rents: 24% 1 bedroom 300 1 bedroom 30% Z bedroom/ den 160 2 bedroom 660 sq. ft. 720 sq. ft. 850 sq. ft. 950 sq. ft. $396.00/mo. 455.00/mo. 495.00/mo. 541.00/mo. * A11 rents in 1983 dollars At least 20% of the units wi11 be for moderate income families. Assumed Bond Issue The City wi11 provide the means for Housing Revenue Bond for this rental development as follows: Bond Proceeds: Cost of Issuance, discount The Bonds wi11 be unsecured with Federal Housing Administration 22Zd4 and MBIA. The bonds are insured to 93% of value. i~ Bond Proceeds The Bond Proceeds wiZ1 be used for permanent financing on the 150 unit rental apartments. The developer wi11 provide 27~ equity ($2,187,000) for the $7,999,000 project. Bond proceeds wi11 be used for the mortgage ($5,920,000). The debt service margin wiZ1 be 1.1:1 and wi11 be paid back in 20 years. Bond discount and issue cost wi11 be 2q-3~. • Council Letter D1o. 394 Agenda November 28 , 1 98 3 17 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Council Members: Subject: Receive and File Notice from Hennepin County of Hearing Regarding Selection and Purchase of Site for Solid Waste Rescource Recovery Facility Hennepin County has been studying various plans and sites for a resou rce recovery plant. The County Board has now approved the concept of constructing a 2,000 ton-per-day resource recovery facility at a site on the West Riverbank in north Minneapolis. A pu blic hearing regarding this project will be held at 7:00 p.m. Monday, November 28, 1983, in the Board Room of the Hennepin County Government Center. The purpose of this council letter is to have the city council receive the Notice of Public Hearing and place it on file in the City Clerk's office. JGC/ej a pectf~ ~- ~ti o hn G . C City Mangy ly " bmitted/, r Wright er '~ • HENNEPIN The Public Service Committee of the Hennepin County Beard of Cor~missioners will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 28, 1983 in the Board Room of the Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Nlinneapolis, Minnesota, on the above-referenced subject. The West Riverbank site, which is approximately 17 acres in size, is located on the west bank of the Mississippi River between 33rd Avenue North and 36th Avenue North. November 14, 1983 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REK'3ARDING THE SELECTION AND P[3RC~E OF THE WEST RI~i'ER&ANK SITE FOR A SOLID WASTE RESOURCE REQ~VERY FACILITY The County Board has approved, as a concept, the construction of an up to 2000 ton-per-day resource recovery facility, utilizing the West Riverbank site. A task force, consisting. of County Board members and Minneapolis City Council members, after analyzing various sites for a resource recovery plant and considering criteria such as access, cost, pollution control, emissions, envirorunental factors, soil suitability and proximity to energy markets, recommended the use of the West Riverbank site. Enclosed with this mailing is a copy of the press release, dated November 10th, and a copy of the resolution adopted by the Public Service Committee on November 10th establishing the public hearing. For information on the conduct of the public hearing or to ask to be put on a list to testify, please call 'rlar-y Ellen Hudson at 34°-318. For information or. technical issues relating to the selection and purchase of the site and resource recovery, please call Warren Porter at 935-3381. Sincerely, • DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY 2 ~P;" `°-2 320 Washington Av. South =~'t 1'N t 5`~ Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 ~~~--~~ 935-338 T~iY-935-6433 ~ ~~M; Luther D. Nelson, P.E. Director LDN/mvr Encl. 2 HENNEPIN C®UNTY an equal oppo;tun,ity employer jt/9~ • ;~~,,1 ~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 393 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Setting Date of Hearing for Renewal of On- Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses The municipal code requires that the city council set the date for a hearing on applications for renewal of on-sale liquor licenses. Notice of any hearing dates must be published in the official newspaper at least ten days in advance of such a hear- in g . It is recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for • the December 12, 1983 city council meeting to consider the re- newal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for the Fred Babcock VFW Post and the Richf field American Legion . Respectful s mitted, C, G ~ - i i ' -~ ohn/G. Cart fight I City ManagE-r - J c JGC/ej a • a~~D CITY OF RI CHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 392 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,650 By council resolution, the city council approves the pur- chase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $2,650. There are two such items on the city council agenda for November 28 , 1 98 3 . Crosswalk Marking Tape The city began an experimental program about a year ago to use tape rather than paint to identify crosswalks. The tape has proven to be very satisfactory, lasting longer than paint and often making the crosswalks more visible. Several vendors were contacted for quotations for an addition- al supply of this tape. The vendors all indicated to the city staff that they were unable to compete with 3M prices for this tape. The quotation received from 3M Traffic Control Products, is $15.50 per gallon for adhesive and $120.60/roll of 6°x30 yards white tape. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of 15 gallons primer adhesive and 50 rolls of tape from 3M for a total purchase price of $6 , 267. Street Nameplates For a number of reasons, including vandalism, theft, damage resulting from accidents, or acts of nature, street nameplates frequently need to be replaced. It is desirable to have a minimum inventory for such replacement purposes. Two quotations were obtained for 279 - 6" white letter on green background aluminum, reflectorized, street nameplates (72 different names) and for 100 - 9", street nameplates (30 different names) of the same specification. Two quotes were received for these materials. Gopher Sign quoted $4,561.85, and Earl F. Andersen Council Letter No. 392 -2- November 28, 1983 and Associates, Inc. quoted an amount of $3,514.49. It is recommended the city council authorize this purchase from Earl F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. in the amount of X3,514.59. Respectful y ubmitted, ~` 1 - / ( 1 V ~ b l~~L l~ John G. Cart fight ~ City Manager JGC/ej a LJ ~~ G CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 391 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Minutes, Bid Tabulations and Award of Contracts for Water Treatment Chemicals On November 16, 1983 bids were opened for various water treatment chemicals. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review. Quick Lime Three bids were submitted for quick lime, a water softening chemical. The lowest responsible bid was $70.35/ton, submitted • by Cutler-Magner Co. The cost per ton in 1983 was $71.35, in 1982 it was $68.95, in 1981 $66.90, and in 1980 it was $63.08 per ton. It is estimated that the city will use 1,400 tons of this chemical in 1984 at a cost of $98,490. Liquid Aluminum Sulfate The only bid submitted for this water softening chemical was by Hawkins Chemical in the amount of $148.50/ton. The 1983 cost was $133, 1982 cost $133, and 1981 cost $121. The estimated total expenditure in 1984 for an estimated 100 tons is $14,850. Liquid Anhydrous Ammonia Three bids were submitted for this water softening chemical. The lowest responsible bidder was Jones Chemical at $540/ton, or $.27/pound. The 1982 and 1983 cost was $.2895/pound, $.29 in 1981 and $.30 in 1980. The total estimated cost in 1984 for one and one-half tons usage will be $810. Hydrofluorsilic Acid Two bids were submitted, with the low responsible bid submitted by Jones Chemical in the amount of $.80/gallon. The 1983 price was $.88/gallon. The estimated total 1984 cost is $4,800 for 6,000 gallons. • Council Letter No. 391 -2- November 28, 1983 Sodium Tripoly Phosphate • Four bids were submitted for this chemical which is used as a conditioner of water and of the sand filters in water treatment. The lowest responsible bid was submitted by Jones Chemical at a cost of $.44/pound. The 1983 cost was $.449/pound and the 1982 cost was $1.089/pound. The total estimated 1984 cost will be $5,280 based on 12,000 pounds usage. ('hl nrinA Three bids were received, with the lowest responsible bid submitted by Van Waters and Rogers in the amount of $.1383/pound. The 1983 cost was $.109/pound. The estimated 1984 expenditure for 16,000 pounds is $2,212.90. Summary Funds for these purchases are included in the 1984 budget of the Water Fund. It is recommended the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations on the water treat- ment chemicals; 2. Accept the bids and award contracts as follows: . A. Quick Lime - $70.35/ton - Cutler Magner Company B. Liquid Aluminum Sulfate-$148.50/ton- Hawkins Chemical C. Liquid Anhydrous Ammonia - $ .27/pound - Jones Chemical D. Hydrofloursilic Acid - $.80/gallon - Jones Chemical E. Sodium Tripoly Phosphate - $.44/pound - Jones Chemical F. Chlorine - $.1383/pound - Van Waters and Rogers ~spectf lly bmitted, / f, I~ ~ ~~ ., , ,~ - , ~._ ~. CG C C ~~ ~,~.~ ~, ~,~~~ ~ ~ jJohn G. Cax right City Manager ,, JGC/ej a ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING November 16, 1983 -'Chemicals for Water Treatment Plant Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Chemicals for Water Treatment Plant, as advertised in the official newspaper on October 26, 1983. Present: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director John Thom, Water Department Superintendant Eileen Anderson, Administrative Aide Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR AND LIQ. ALUM. LIQ. ANZIY. HYDROF. SODIUM TRI. BID SECURITY QUICKLIME SULFATE AMMONIA ACID POLY PHOSP. CHLORINE Steel Bros $111.27/Unit B.B. 5% $155,778 Jones Chemicals Inc. $540/Ton .80/G .441/Lb. .15/Lb. B.B. 5% $810 $4,800 $5,280 $2,400 $30/CWT $48,69/CWT $13.83/CWT Tan Waters & Rogers $4S/Cyl 20 bag min, $276.60iTon B.B. S% $900 $5,842.80 $2,212.80 Hawkins Chemical $148.50/Ton (Cy1. deposit $400) $15.75/CWT B.B. 5% 514,850 $2,520 Cutler-Magner $70.35/Ton B.B. 5% $98,490 $90/Lb. Nalco Chemical 1 ton min. Check 5720 $14,400 Feed-Rite Controls $31/CWT .84/Gal. $50.75/CWT B.B. 5% 5930 $5,040 $6,090 Western Lime & Cement Co. $76.80/Ton B.B. S% $107,520 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 28, 1983 city council meeting. • Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: ~~~~ Council Letter No. 390 Agenda November 28, 1983 Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Maternity Leave, First Reading. There is an item on the November 28, 1983 city council agenda for city council consideration of an ordinance amendment providing for a city policy governing maternity leave. A copy of the prop- osed ordinance amendment is attached to this letter. The ordinance amendment provides for periods of time off from work for maternity and child care-related absences. While maternity leave is differentiated from child care leave in the ordinance, the ordinance makes no differentiation between biologi- cal and adoptive mothers, pursuant to recent state legislation. Lastly, the ordinance establishes that specific details regarding any of the qualifying leaves covered by this amendment be guided by specific policies to be established by the City Manager. In arriving at the proposed amendment, the Personnel Division worked closely with the city attorney's office to ensure that an y ordinance mod if ication would comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity law and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Aspects of the most recent modifications to both acts were an alyzed prior to drafting the proposed ordinance. The final product of establishing this ordinance along with. the forthcoming policy, is the implementation of a procedure, in writing, which ensures equal treatment of all affected individuals. Policies which will complement the ordinance are presently being formulated by the city attorney's office and the Personnel Division and will be finalized within the next few caeeks. It is recommended that the city council give first reading consideration to this ordinance amendment, and schedule second reading and the public hearing for December 12, 1983. ~spectfull j~ubmitted, ~ i " ~ ~ _~.~ = J / ohn G. Ca twright , F City Manage J cc: Personnel Manager • ___~:~',~_~:F'~T TO Sli='_DIVISIOw 6 OF S CTIG`J 2.33 CF `ir'_E Oi{DI'1:~~CE CGDE CF 1HE CITY OF F.ICIiFIELD CI~iY GF R ~.t.=ir'I~ LD DOES GR.D1?IN: Subdivi sicn G of Section 2.33 of the Or(i-nc.ncE3 Cor'.e of the City of nichfield relating to c(~~tain lc~v~~s of city E~:~~p1oyE;es is hE~7-eby _.:~.~~ndE=d ~ n the rol_) c~.~ ing rt_.s` eels . 1. A neW S~iby arac~r~ ~ }1 (3) i S ~.~ ~c'd ~.~ter sip}~i~arac7r3yh (2) ',_~'I-eof , Providing as `011~~-;JS '~ (3 )__ '''aternit~Le~.ve_-- F';~_toyee s may b~ Gr~_n ~~d - - - --. rep=.(-,?~~, 1 "~j rocs of t~_r-~_e of_f_ frc,m WoT_k _~or ~~r~rnty_=nc,~ _ zb e ,.mar --`--- t_ni 1d c.re leaves of absE=nee. ~faternity_1~ =~•,_es fir '~),~_1s~c7i~,31 -- - -- - or ~~,dout-ive r,<<~thE~rs will be treated as a :rt~c3ical d~ ~~i1~~~ _ __ _ - - - lc ve and c~o~.~c_r_ned_ by ord~nlnce and ,~~li_c_'.t's-_~e1 ~t_~~c Q - -- _ - -- a, .~bi lily lc'a~;es. Cha 1_d care and r~1 ~_t~d lc-_<'°.;F~s -.:~ ~_l___~e i_ ~ t:~Ytf?d ~.S a 1 C`:1-: f d? cal ~ E'aVe a,nd C~C'~_E'~ nG'd }~V C~ r ~ i ~ 'iCC _ c?~.CI `011C1(?S 1_E~13~J.?1G t0 ^C1.-~,cdlcal 1naVt3S. ~t~~_1C`__(?S_ LOr • - __ ~ _- - - _ __- t-- - ~ t1 ~~ 11L~n a `D] 1C.a~LC~r1S ~ Or ~ e'- VeS Of czb ~c iCe ha~_1 I~~ a _ _.._ _ _ 1 -__ e_:t_~=.b11 ..hed ~_-?d T.~~!:~t .~ iie d~;y t?~e C.~ t _,anaC Pr. - - --- y -----=- 2 . Existing SE,bparaGr<<L~hs (3) , (4) and (5) thereof are r~nu_nbe_red as Subparagraphs (4) , (S) and (6) res~;ectively. Passed by the City Council of the City of Zichfield, ~~±inr.esota, this day of 1983. . favor ::`1`'EST . City Cicr'~c i 7A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 389 Agenda November ~8, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Demotions. First Reading. There is an item on the November 28, 1983 city council agenda providing for city council consideration of an ordinance relating to the demotion provision of the personnel ordin ance. Under the current ordinance, the language is restrictive in that demotion may be construed to be limited only to cases of physical or mental incapacity. If an employee is unable to per- form the duties of their respective position for reasons other than physical or mental inc apacity, demotion may not be an alter- native allowed under the current ordinance language. The proposed amendment adds the words "or for other reasons", and elimin ates any potential restrictions. It should be noted that the demotion provision of the ordin- ance seldom is used. However, the ordin ance should be amended to • enable the city to deal with such a situation if it were to arise in the future. The proposed ordin ance has been reviewed with the city attorney's office as to proper form and legality. It is recommended that the city council give first reading to this ordinance amendment and schedule the second reading and public hearing for the December 12, 1983 city council meeting. pectf~Al~ submitted, ohn G. `Car Wright {-City Manage JGC/ej a ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.31, SUBD. 2, CLAUSE (3}, OF THE ORDINAI~ICE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 2.31, Subd. 2, Clause (3), of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to circumstances under which the city manager may demote an employee is hereby amended to read as follows: "(3) Demotion. The city manager may demote an employee who becomes physically or mentally incapacitated a~e~ or for other reasons cannot perform the duties and responsibilities of the position he currently occupies, or who wishes to be demoted for other personal reasons. The demotion may be to a position in a lower class if the employee is qualified to perform the duties of such posi- tion." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1983. John E. Hamilton, P~ayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • ~/5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 388 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Providing for City Contribution for Employee Group Insurance Premiums i There is an item on the November 28, 1983 city council agenda providing for city council approval of city contributions for em- ployee group insurance premiums. At the present time, the city contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of insurance available to city employees. The first type of insurance is a $5,000 term life insurance policy for employees. The city pays the full premium for this insurance, which is $1.10 per month per employee in 1983. The rates will re- main the same for 1984. The second type of insurance provided to employees is a self- funded group dental insurance. Currently, the city contributes $11.85 per month for the total cost of employee (not dependent) cov- erage. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional premium. Rates for 1984 will remain the same as in 1983. A third type of insurance coverage is group health coverage, of which there are three optional plans available through Hennepin County Joint Purchasing. The city pays the full individual employee premium and contributes an additional amount up to a specified max- imum for dependent coverage. The 1983 and 1984 monthly premium costs of these plans are as follows: 1983 1984 a Mo. Rate Mo. Rate Increase Group Health Plan Individual $ 54.52 $ 58.88 8.Oo Family 159.04 160.76 1.1o Medcer.ters Health Plan Individual 56.50 62.75 11.10 Family 152.80 168.35 10.2% C~uncii Letter `~~. 388 Physicians Health Plan Individual Family Blue Cross/Blue Shield Nicoilet/Eitel -2- November 28, 1983 1983 1984 Mo. Rate Mo. Rate Inc. $ 85.24 $ 93.76 10.0% 181.77 194.95 7.3% Discontinued Merged with i~iedcenter Health Plan to form Medcenters riealth Plan In 1983 the city contributed up to a maximum of $116 per month for employee and dependent coverage for eligible general services and management employees. It is recommended that this amount be increased to a maximum of $122 per month. This represents a five percent increase, as provided for in the 1984 budget. By increasing the city contribution for health insurance to a maximum of $122 per month, the city would be able to offset a significant portion of the increases charged by the participating providers and prevent sizable increases to be passed on to the employees. The fourth type of insurance provided to general services and management employees is disabilit insurance. Short-term disa- -. bility insurance is self-insure an~~`rX un~e~' ouof the current oper- ating budget, similar to the manner by which sick leave costs are covered Long-term disabil,ty insurance is arovided through,,, a* groin„_LTD po i~`c~ec~` ~~ t'h~ ~''~~":`exmcurrentA premium rate of ~~~per'"`$`°1"`"b'o'~"`'sa`~`ary remainsMin~~~effect through 1984. The average monthly premium cost projected for 1984 is $8.44 for general ser- vice employees and $14.77 for management employees. Summary Because the cost of individual employee health coverage, which is fully paid by the city, went up by more than five percent, the total increase in city cost for general services and man agement employees is approximately six percent. The difference between the six percent total increase and the five percent budget amount is approximately $1,400. It is expected that this relatively small amount can be accomodated in the 1984 departmental budgets. The total 1984 insurance contributions proposed to be paid by the city for general services and management employees caill be comparable with the rates paid for most of the city's organized employees. (See Exhibit "A"). In summary, it is recommended that the city council adopt Council Letter No. 388 -3- November 28, 1983 the attached resolution establishing 1984 maximum insurance con- tributions for general services and management employees. ~es~ectL~7;1y bmitted, II , l - ~ ~ -- -John G. Ca twright City Manage JGC/ej a ' C7 ~~Ct-l/~~ , i ~/ ~~ ~ ,.?. ! i i I~o. -~ . i ~~~ ~~ !,; ~~ ~ --f ~~.Q ~~ ~-fiD ~ ~ ~% ~~~~ ~~ MJ, ~ ~r~ S~ 7of~ o @ c ~. .SaW. L 1(~. -~ ~- ~ Fs #~ZB. ~~~ ~g ~ i~6. s~ ~~~ N ,o 1s _11:.~ l3~~u~ Q ~. L.U, rn~" /~,~' ~l~ 1 , ° ~la- .~ ~ ~ 9~ . ~® /y9. '~ ~ie~` 1 ~ 8 ~s e / 41 1_.__ ~------ u J i31. '~ J31. ~o j~ J2 . !a le ~( ~s_ ----- ~/yl. s ~~( ~o • ~~ '. ~~ '® l~ a ~~ n ~ ~ 509 i~ ~, .~ i. .< <a ,/ ', r ,j3 `~ /[i1 f ~ n r i ~ n r~ / t /"~ ~~ ~~ t; i, ~' 93 ,® le .~ $ lo`~~`° .~ 10 ~ r~ N~~ N~/1 ~&_ ~~ r~ ,, rc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATI~?G CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSUR- ANCE PREMIUM FOR GENERAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, a hospital-medical; surgical group health insurance plan is available from the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Organization for city employees and their families, and WHEREAS, a term life and accident death and dismemberment insurance plan is available from the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Organization for city employees, and WHEREAS, a self-funded group dental insurance plan is avail- able to city employees and their families, and WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to city management and general services employees, and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resol- ution the city's contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that commencing January 1, 1984, the city shall contribute a maximum of $122.00 per month toward an employee health insurance premium for all eligible non-unionized employees; in any event said contribution shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. The city shall also pay the $11.85 monthly premium for the employee dental insurance plan and the $1.10 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan for city employees for a total possible maximum insurance premium contribution of $134.95 per month. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1 , 1 984 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city shall contribute the full cost of long-term disability insurance for the general services and management employees coverage. Such. contribution shall be based upon a premium rate of 55~ per $100 of monthly coverage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the city's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption. of the appropriate resolutions con- cerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of November, 1983. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 387 November 28, 1983 Agenda The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Designation of Auditor to Conduct Audit of 1983 City Financial Records The city has received a proposal from the firm of Cummings, Keegan and Co. for auditing services for the 1983 financial records. This company has served as Richfield's auditor for the past three years. The proposed cost of the 1983 audit is $19,000. The cost of the 1982 audit was $17,370, and the cost of the 1981 audit was $15,800. The 1984 budget includes an appropriation of $20,600 for this service. The City Charter, Section 2.08, provides that "the council shall provide for an audit of the city`s accounts at least once a year by the state department ir. charge cf such work or by a cer- tified public accountant." Ire 1980, when the council authorized retention of Cummings, Keegan and Co. , an interest was expressed in retaining this firm for several years, to provide continuity in the audit and to permit the auditor to develop a familiarity with Richfield's financial procedures in order. to direct the audit to the city's overall fin ancial management practices as well as the accounting records. This relationship has worked out positively. It is recommended that the city similarly solicit proposals from auditing firms during 1984 to again establish a longer-term relationship for this service, whether with Cummings, Keegan and Co . , or some other firm. During the first half of 1 984 , staf f will take steps toward the implementation of a longer-term (5-7 years) relationship with an auditing firm, including the follow- in g 1. Prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) describing the scope of work to be performed; 2. Send RFP's to all regional firms known to be exper- ienced in governmental auditing; 3. Establish criteria to evaluate proposals from audit- ing firms; ~ - _ Council Letter No. 387 -2- November 28, 1983 4. Council/staff committee interviews of selected firms; 5. Recommendation to the council for selection of an auditing firm. It is recommended that the city council take action on the proposed contract with Cummings, Keegan and Co., at the November 28 , ~ 98 3 city council meeting . /~e-~pectf~lly~ omitted, '~ -- c. ~,, ~ i,~'~ , ~~~(,~_ ~~ ~L,. ~C ~ ~ John G . Cad right ' ~ City Manager JGC/ej a • _-a__. -.-RICt :a =CGc Nr_~RV ~, =a ,v CCNa~_D C'~.vM!vGS CPA '.TRED Cummings, Keegan 8c Co. . Certified Public Accountants 6800 France Ave. So. • Suite 465 • Minneapolis, ~1:~i 55435 Phone ;612) 922.362`? October 28, 1983 City of Richfield Clty COl1nC11 c/o Ronald Rankin Administrative Services Director b700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, ~ 55423 Dear Council Members: MEMBERS OF o PRIVATE CGMPaNIES PRAC"ICE SECTION CF AMERICAN IN ST!TU TE CF CERTIF',ED PUBLIC aCCCUNTANTS o MINNESOTA SOCIETY CF cRTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS This letter is to confirm the arrangements for our examination of the financial statements of City of Richfield for the year ending December 31, 1983. We will examine the financial statements of the various funds and accounting groups of The City of Richfield, Minnesota, The City of Richfield Police Relief Association and The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority, for the year to end December 31, 1983. Our examination will be in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and will include such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances, While the objective of our examina° tion is the expression of an unqualified opinion on the aforementioned financial statements, an opinion may have to be qualified or denied as the facts and circumstances dictate. The ordinary examination leading to the expression of an opinion on financial statements is not designed to disclose defalcations and other irregularities, nor can it be relied on for this purpose. However, if such irregularities come to our attention during the examination, we will discuss them with you to determine what course of action to take. Your accounting department personnel will be available to assist in preparing certain audit schedules and data, locating various supporting documents in the files and typing confirmations and the final audit report. Fees for these services are at our standard hourly rates and will be billed to you, plus cut-of-poc'~cet costs, monthly. These invoices are payable on presentation. A service charge of 1 1/2% per month is made on accounts over thirty days old. Accounttng Firms Assccicte~i inc. ~f~3 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 386 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: 1982 Audit and Auditor's Management Letter Each year Richfield's auditor issues a statement concerning the annual financial report of the city, and a management letter which highlights the auditor's recommendations for improvements to the city's financial management. The 1982 annual financial report and the statement of the auditor, Cummings, Keegan & Co., were submitted to the council in July, 1983. Recently, the auditor reviewed the management letter with city staff. This matter has been scheduled for the council agenda to provide an opportunity for the city council to discuss the finan- cial report and the management letter with the auditor. Mr. John Frees of Cummings, Keegan & Co., will make a brief presenta- tion and answer questions from the city council. Attached is a copy of the management letter, which makes four recommendations for enhancements to Richfield's financial man agement system. Staff has reviewed and discussed these recommendations as outlined below, for each subject area: 1. Imprest Payroll Checking Account The aud~~on hay neeammev~ded a ~epana~e payno~.~ checfz~,ng aceouv~~ ~to ptcov~de bevice~~~~s oU add~.~t~.ona2 covc~ho~2~s avers d~~bun~semen~~s, an add~~~.ona~ aeccun~~.v~g checf~, be~t~ten - ca~h {y~ow managemej2~, and ~~.me ~sav~ing~ ~.n aeccun~ necanc~.~.~a~t~.avc . Staff agrees that such steps are likely to provide the benefits described. As a result, an imprest payroll checking account will be set up, on an interest-bear- ing 'oasis, beginning with the first payroll in 1984. 2. Data Processing Application for B ank Reconciliation The aud~~o~t ha~5 ~teeommended .td2a~ con-ta~.n bav~F~ heeov~- e~..~~.a~t~.o~. ~uv~e~~vn~ now done o~ a ma~ua~' ba~~.~ be au~tama~ed ~o ~5ave ~t~.me ~n the neconc~.~tia~t~.on {yu~e~t-~o~i. _._ _ __ Council Letter No. 386 -2- November 28, 1983 The Data Processing Division will develop an additional feature for the check disbursement listing by January 1, 1984, to provide for automated bank reconciliation as recommended. This development is expected to save from one-third to two-thirds of the time this process takes when done on a manual basis, or as much as one and one-half days' time of the account clerk. 3. Timeliness of Reporting The and-~~ton hay, no~.n~ted out ~tha~t cen~ta~.n a~spee~t~, a{~ the man~h~y nepon~t~ng pnoce~s~5 enea~te de~ay~s ~.n the hepan~- ~.ng o{~ man~th~y {~~.nanc~.a~ ~.nUanma~~.an. I~t ~.~ recommended ~ha.t .the c-~zy de~exm~.ne the ~~ec~.{~~.c~ a~ ba~~~enee~Z~ ~.n the pnace~~ and deve~a~ eo~xec~~.ve ae~t~.on~ . The city staff involved in the monthly financial report- ing functions have met with the City Manager and dis- cussed this recommendation. As an initial step toward improving the timeliness of monthly financial reporting, a schedule of deadlines for various reporting procedures has been developed to assist staff in determining where and why delays may occur. Also, steps will be taken to address reporting functions which cause a bottleneck to be performed on a daily or weekly basis, thereby reducing the time required at month-end to assemble the final report. 4. Automated Property and Equipment Program (Fixed Assets Program) Th~~s neeammenda~-ion way a~~a ~nc~uded ~n the aud~.~on'~ management .~e~t~ten o{y 2a~5~ yeax . I~t hay been recommended ~tha~ the c~~y deve~2ap a numbex~.ng ~5y~5~em and con~na.~ .~ed- gen {pan a~.~ equ~pmen~t and ~no~en~y owned by the e~~y and the ~taFz~.ng a{y pGcy~s~.ca~ ~nven~an~.e~ a{y pno~en~y and equ~~- men~. Since the time this recommendation was made last year, the fin ance and data processing divisions have worked together on the development of an automated fixed assets reporting program. The computer program has been designed and is operational. The finance division has begun the data entry of equipment and property inventories into the program. The program was developed in a manner such that it could be expanded to provide operating departments with useful management information concerning equipment depreciation costs, replacement costs, historical main- ten ance costs, and other information which will allow a better management and monitoring of the city's fixed assets. All new equipment and property purchases will • be added to this program beginning January 1 , 1 °84 . By December 31, 1983, all equipment and property owned by enterprise funds and internal service funds will be placed on the program. Council Letter No. 386 -3- November 28, 1983 The staff believes the steps outlined above properly add- ress the recommendations of the auditors and provide certain benefits to the city's financial management system. We are pleased that the overall findings of the auditor showed the city to be using excellent financial management systems, with only minor enhancements necessary. • As noted above, the city staff and the auditor will welcome any questions the council may have concerning the 1982 annual fin ancial report or the management letter prepared by the auditor. At the conclusion of council discussion, it is recommended that the city council take action to receive and file the report of the city's auditor, Cummings, Keegan & Co., concerning the 1982 annual financial report and management letter. It is also noted that the management letter was received. by the city late in 1983. In 1984, it is expected that both the annual financial report and the management letter will be reviewed with the city council prior to the commencement of the city budget re- view process. ~, pectf 17.y~bmitted , t .~ ~ ~ ` - ~ L L,~~ ~ ~I `~ ti..Z ~ .'' ohn G. Cdr Wright City Manager cc: Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator JGC/ej a :.rnES , ~cF_3AN CPA ~O :ic S/,'a!+E°R~ CPA ,. _C~tiA~J C_ M`syNGS CPA i CK&Co. Cummings, Deegan 8c ~o. Certified Public accountants 6800 France :we. So. • Suite 466 • Minneapolis, :SIN 56436 Phone (612) 922-3622 October 28, 1983 Mr. Ronald S. Rankin, Administrative Services Director and the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Couneil City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, `~LN 55423 MEMBERS OF • PRI`/ATE COMPANIES PRACT~Cc' SECT,ON CF AMERICAN iN STiT'JTE GF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS • MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTAN i S We have examined the combined financial statements of the City of Richfield for the year ended December 31, 1982 and have issued our report thereon dated June 16, 1983. As part of our examination, we made a study and evaluation of the City's system of internal accounting control to the extent we considered necessary to evaluate the system as required by generally accepted auditing standards. The purpose of our study and evaluation was to determine the nature, timing, and extent of the auditing procedures necessary for expressing an opinion on the City's combined financial statements. Our study and evaluation was more limited than would be necessary to express an i opinion on the system of internal. accounting control taken as a whole. The management of the Cit of Richfield is responsible for establishing and maintainin a s stem of interna „~~n, _ . ro n tu1fi11ing tkiis responsibility, estimates an~ ~u gments by manageiner.E are required to assess the exeected benefits and related costs of control procedures. The objectives of a system are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance with manage- ment's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of finan- cial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inherent limitations in any system of internal accounting control, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the system to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in condi- tions or that the degree of compliance with the procedures may deteriorate. Accounting Firms Associate inc. City of Richfield Page 2 Our examination of the combined financial statements made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, including the study and evaluation of the City's system of internal accounting control for the year ended December 31, 1982, that was made for the purposes set forth in the first paragraph above, would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system because it was based on select ~ve tests of accounting r~cords a~t,~~,e1~a~e~d ,ti;s a~ ~ ua wr.~,a~~rw +~e;_<}~ „4wN~:z,•.r .a.xoYrc.:,, .. ..~- . - _.,~.a data. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on Ene system of internal c ounting control of the City of Richfield taken as a whole. We have noted the following conditions and opportunities within your system of internal accounting control and believe it could be impro d by `,,~ implementation of the following suggestions. ~~'~~..a~A~,3~.1~~-~,lo~lClv~ss~~ Imprest Payroll Checking Account We suggest the City imprest checking account would be maintained at a account would be one che~ period for the total net period, look into the feasibility of establishing a separate for the payment of payroll. This checking account nominal constant amount. The only deposits to the ,k drawn on the regular checking account each pay amount of all payroll checks to be issued that pay Benefits from having this type of account include: 1. Additional controls over the payroll disbursement process. 2. An accounting check between the payroll clerk and general ledger accountant that all payroll transactions have been recorded. 3. Cash flow management. 4. And the time saving aspect in decreasing the work involved in reconciling the general chec'~cing account after removal of the payroll activity. Data Processing Applicatimn After reviewing the bank reconciliation functions and the time consumed in doing it monthly, we suggest that•a portion of this process be automated. A computerized program could be developed to eliminate some ot" the more tedious aspects of this chore and greatly reduce the time spent each month in sorting checks, matching return paid checks and preparing month end outstanding check lists. Should the City wish to pursue this concept further, we would be happy to meet with the appropriate people and explain the system in more depth. ~~~ ~~ Citv of Richfield Page 3 Timely Reporting During discussions with finance department personnel, we became aware of certain areas that caused a delay in processing/preparing overall City financial reports. The finance department has already identified certain areas which it feels could improve the timeliness of reporting/processing. The labor and equipment service division needs to submit its information to data processing earlier. Daily time cards and fuel and inventory usage reports should be processed weekly rather than waiting until month end. Another area is within the golf cauree operation. Daily cash reports should be prepared at the same time the bank deposit is prepared. Because these t.ao procedures are so interrelated and important, there shouldn9t be any delays in doing this. Proven procedures already in usage at the liquor stores and finance department should be adopted within the golf course fund. Because of the necessity of having timely available management and financial information in order that administrative personnel and council members can make informed and timely decisions, we recommend that the City staff continue to determine the "where°s and why's" of bottleneck areas and develop corrective actions. Corrections may necessitate the establishment of due dates for information processing and require priorities to be established within departments to eliminate bottleneck situations. Automated ?roperty and Equipment Svstem Since the property and equipment records haven't been automated yet, we are repeating our comments and suggestions from last year's management letter. A property numbering system should be developed incorporating a unique number that would provide such information as to the department purchasing or using the asset, year purchased, asset category, location, etc. The numbering system should allow the City flexability to transfer assets between depart- ments, funds, etc. without reassigning the whole number. A property control ledger should be established to provide overall con- trol and record of all equipment and property owned by the City. This ledger should include such information as: equipment description, date purchased, purchase cost, brand name, serial number, model number, special features, property number assigned, current location, etc. A tag showing City ownership and the asset number should be attached to each piece of equipment owned. Responsibility for equipment within a department or area should be assigned to one particular individual. Periodical physical inventories should be taken by departments and checked against control lists of property. Also surprise spot checks from outside the department should be considered. __ _ - City of Richfield Page 4 Procedures should be developed for recording and accounting for equipment transfers between departments. We recommend that this control system over property and equipment be automated so that depreciation computations, sorting for various orders of equipment listings and other similar tasks can be done by computer at high speed and accuracy. In addition to these comments, we suggest that the City make a survey of potential users of the system for additional input regarding desirable information to be maintained, procedures for updating the system, types of reports to be generated, expanded uses, etc. Possible future uses could include; 1. Maintenance of operating data on vehicles and equipment to be used in setting and evaluating the adequacy of intra°departmental user charges by the central garage and equipment department. 2. Product evaluation and monitoring of costs on often replaced assets such as patrol cars. These comments are intended soley for the use of management and should not be used for any other purpose. We are available to answer any questions concerning our comments and to assist you with implementation of any recommended changes. ~1e wish to thank your staff for their cooperation and assistance during our examination. Sincerely, C'~7I~IINGS , KEEG?~v & CO . Certified Public Accountants J~'!sq ~~1 ~J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~~ • Office of City Manager ,, Council Letter Nod`. 385 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Industrial Development Revenue Bond Policies and Procedures In October of 1980, the city council adopted guidelines for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds (IDB's) by the city. In reviewing these guidelin es and the administrative procedures, staff has identified some problem areas. First of all, the $500 fee has not been collected. This results in staff administrative costs of reviewing IDB applications not being reimbursed. The $500 fee is also no longer adequ ate to cover city costs. For example, publication costs alone for a recent issue amounted to over $30(J, leaving less than $200 to cover the costs of legal and administra- tive staff time. Another problem area identified is the lack of central con- trol and internal staff procedures to coordinate the review process and ensure that applications are processed correctly and efficiently. In September of this year, this matter was brought to the council's attention in conjunction with the Metro Sales IDB applica- tion. The council indicated that it would review the matter further ~r~hen the Metro Sales IDB application again came before them. City staff has reviewed the city's guidelines and procedures and recommends that the council adopt two changes in the guidelines. First, the application fee should be collected before any action is taken by the city concerning the application. The fee should also be increased from $500 to $2,500 to ensure that the city's administrative costs are covered. Another change which is recommended is that the Department of Community Development be designated as the appropriate staff to receive applications and fees, and to coordinate the applica- tion process. This will provide central control over the applica- tion process and ensure that the process flows smoothly. • It is staff's cpinion that the remainder of the IDB guide- lines continue to be valid and provide the city with the flexibility to review each case individually and decide if the issuance of --- __ __- -- Council Letter No. 385 -2- November 28, 1983 • IDB's would be appropriate. To improve upon the administrative coordination of proposed IDRB projects, an application checklist has been prepared so that the status of each application can at any time be determined. Also, it will help ensure that each review step has been accomplisred. In addition, an application form has been prepared for each applicant to submit. This ten page application will provide the required information to aid council and staff in evaluating the IDRB requ ests . A copy of the city's guidelin es for the issuance of IDB's as amended to include the suggested changes outlined above, and a copy of the IDB application package, which oultines the review process, are attached for the council's information. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached guidelines for the issu an ce of Industrial Revenue Bonds. Respectf~y omitted, John Gl~ Ca twright " City Manager ~ JGC/ej a GUIDELINES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA The Municipal. Industrial Development Act (Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, 1980, as amended) authorized the City of Richfield to issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDR bonds). In the past, the city has received periodic .requests to issue Municipal Industrial Revenue Bonds, and it is anticipated that ad- ditional requests will be made in the future. This type of bond can be issued by the City of Richfield as a means of encouraging the development of economically sound industry -and commerce within the community, and as a means of maintaining and promoting economic and industrial vitality. The following guidelines will be utilized to help both the city council and-the staff to fairly and consistently evaluate IDR-bond requests.. 1. Projects for which IDR financing is sought shall be either of an industrial, e~ commercial or public purpose nature, and shall be compatible with the overall deve opment plans and objectives of the city. The project shall also be evaluated in terms of its compatability and consistency with the. zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, housing plan, and -other similar ordinances and plans of the City of .Richfield. 2. The applicant shall have the responsibility to reimburse the city for all expenses incurred in reviewing the application, preparing legal documents, and for other administrative activities and related additional expenses. As a part of this application procedure, the applicant will be required to submit eke-~e~~~e~-~egeg~~-a€-~~89-bak~ei~-eka~~-~e-eee- ~e~~~elab~e a non-refundable fee of $2,500. 3. .The decision by the city council to issue these bonds shall not constitute an endorsement or favorable finding by the council as to the financial feasibility of the project or of its likely success. 4. The city will generally not consider the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds having an aggregate principal amount of less than $300,000. This limit may be waived under appropriate circumstances such as the expansion of an existing business or. industry or for the financing of a highly sought industry or business. 5. In considering the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, the city council will evaluate whether a proposed project provides additional employment opportunities; incentives for future development; and likely increases in the city's tax revenues. -2- 6. The city council shall have the right to review and not issue municipal revenue bonds at any time prior to the actual time of issuance of the bonds,. if it determines that it is in the best interests of the city not to issue these bonds. The city may also withdraw from participation should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. A decision of the city council with respect to withdrawing from the process shall be noncontestible. 7. ~~e-a€~~ee-o~-tie-e~~~-a~~ee~e~-e~-tke-E~~~-ef-R~e~~~e~~-w~~~ be-eesge~s~$~e-fee-the-geeeess~eg-aid-eee~~~aa~~ae-e~-apg~~ea- ~~e~s-fee-~e~~s~~~a~-Re~ea~e-Be~~-~~~a~e~a~. The Department of Community Development of the City of Richfield shall be responsib3e for the coordination of the processin of app ications for In ustria an Commercial Development Revenue Boni financing. 8. Tax exempt mortgage financing will be allowed as an alternative to bond financing but will be subject to the same policies, rules, and regulations as bond financing. 9. The applicant shall be required to furnish seven copies of all materials required by the city. The applicant shall select qualified financial consultants and/or underwriters to prepay all the necessary documents and materials as required by the Richfield City Attorney's office. 10. All applications submitted for consideration by the city council shall be furnished on forms provided by the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce Securities Division, for approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bonds. The city council may, at its discretion, require the applicant to provide additional materials under certain circumstances. 11. Projects of a unique nature may result in .the city council requesting that the applicant provide additional financial or economic information so that the city council may fairly evaluate the desirability and feasibility of the project. s • To Applicants for IDB Financing: Enclosed please find a copy of the resolution which adopts policies concerning. the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDB's) by the City of Richfield. Also enclosed are the required application materials and a description of the IDB review process and required dead- lines. When you have completed the required materials, please return the original and two copies of the entire packet to the Community Development Department. The City of Richfield requires that the Richfield City Attorney's office act as bond counsel for alL IDB's issued by the city. The contact person at .the City Attorney's office is: Mr. David J. Kennedy Lefevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz A Professional Association. 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. (612) 333-0543 The. individual identified on the application as the Borrower's Contact. Person will receive all correspondence from the city and be responsible for distributing the materials to other interested parties, except Bond counsel. The city will not take any action concerning the issuance of IDB`s until complete application materials and the required fee is received. .Further, the city will not schedule a public hearing concerning the issuance of IDB's until a complete and accurate preliminary applica- tion package including drafts of a resolution calling for a public hearing, public hearing notice, preliminary. resolution, and application to Minnesota Energy & Economic Authority and necessary exhibits have been received. .Please pay close attention to the applicable deadlines on the attached sheet, as they are of utmost importance. Also, please bear in mind that there are certain delays while we await signatures of documents by the appropriate city officials.- • C] Page Two If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 869-7521 (612). Sincerely, Rick Jopke City Planner Community Development Department Attachments • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND FINANCING Please type or print I. Applicant (a) Business Name: (b) Business Address: ~ (c) Telephone: (d) Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.) and date of formation: (e) State of Incorporation or organization: (f) Authorized Representative (provide mailing address and telephone number{s): (g) Principal Officers, Directors, Major Stockholders or Principals '(state name, address and relationship: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) -1- (h) Describe nature of Applicant's business. generally and within State of Minnesota, and locations of principal offices or facilities outside the State of Minnesota: (i) Describe Applicant's business facilities currently located in City of Richfield, Twin City Metropolitan area, and State of Minnesota: (j) Number of individuals employed by Applicant and current annual payrolls in City of Richfield, Twin City Metropolitan area and State of Minnesota: • (k) Approximate annual revenues of Applicant as of last fiscal year: (1) Name, address and telephone number of Applicant's counsel and accountant: • -2- II. Project (a) Location (state below or attach the legal description of Project site): (b) Intended use of Project: (c) Description of Project (If Project is a building or addition to building, specify number of stories, square footage, related parking facilities, etc. If Project includes equipment, describe equipment.): (d) Present ownership of.Project site. If Project site is not currently owned by Applicant, describe arrangements by which Applicant intends to acquire or use site: (e) Zoning: (1) What is zoning status of Project site? (2) Will .rezoning, special use permit, or zoning variance be sought in connection with Project? Describe. (f) Estimated Project. related costs: (1) Land acquisition and site development: • (2} Construction contracts: -3- (3) Architectural and engineering fees: (4) Legal fees: (5) Bond discount, fees to underwriter and brokerage fees: (6) Interest during construction: (7) Initial bond revenue or sinking fund: (8) Contingencies: (9) Other (please specity): • Total (g) What portion of .Project costs are to be financed by City revenue bonds? (h) Will Project be owned by Applicant after completion? If not, state name of transferee and transfer arrangements: (i) Will Project be occupied by Applicant? What portion? If others will lease all or a portion of Project, identify lessees, portion of Project which they will lease, proposed lease arrangements and status of lease .commitments: • _n_ (j) Estimated number of new jobs that will be created within next 3 years as a result. of Project. Please break down the number of new jobs to be created by job category (by clerical, professional, managerial, production, etc.): (1) Applicant: (2) Tenants: (k) Anticipated increase in payrolls resulting from new jobs in paragraph (j) above.. Please specify payrolls by job categories: (1) Applicant: (2) Tenants: (1) Names and address of architect, engineer and general contractor for Project:. (m) Current real estate taxes assessed on Project site, and estimated real estate taxes on Project site upon completion of Project: (n) When will Applicant be prepared to commence construction of Project? How long thereafter will construction of the Project be completed? • -5- (o) Please state herein or in a letter to the Mayor and City Council those facts and circumstances- which Applicant believes make ,its Project one which the City should actively encourage through the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds: III. Bond Issuance (a) Amount of proposed bond issue: (b) Type of bonds (term, serial, other):_ (c) Proposed date of issuance, term of bonds and interest rate: (d) Manner in which bonds will be sold: (1) Private placement (specify whether to institutional, investors, individuals or other and identify proposed purchaser(s)). If a lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving the Project, submit a letter from proposed lender that it has an interest in the offering or a letter from an underwriter verifying the financial feasibility of Project and the marketability of the Bonds. (2) Public offering. (3) Other (specify). • -&- (e) Proposed sinking fund or redemption procedure: f Please describe the securit which will be used to secure ( ) Y the repayment of the bonds: (1) Loan Agreement and Mortgage relating to Project.. (2) Assignment of leases. (3) Mortgage on other property. (4) Pledge of revenues from other sources. Specify. (5) Personal guarantys. Name proposed guarantors. (6) Other. (Specify). (g) Address of proposed trustee, if any: (h) Underwriter or financial advisor: (1) Name and address: (2) Contact person: (3) Telephone number: • '- (i) Has conventional financing been sought for Project? If so, specify financial institution, officer contacted and proposed interest rates. IV. Miscellaneous (a) List the name (s) and location (s) of development project(s) in which the owner or a "substantial user" of the "related person".within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code: (1) Within City: (2) Elsewhere: other industrial Applicant is the s facilities or a of Section 103(b) (6) ~, (b) Detail the status of any previous or current requests which Applicant, its principals or affiliates have made to the City or to other municipalities for Industrial Revenue Bond Financing: (c) If Applicant has been denied industrial development revenue financing in any other city (either on preliminary application or final approval), specify the reason(s) for-the denial and the name(s) of the appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction: (d) Will any public official of the City, either directly or indirectly, benefit by the issuance of the City's industrial development revenue bonds for this Project within the meaning. of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.87? If so, specify. • • -8- (e) The following items must be submitted to the City along with this Application: (1) .Letter of Request to consider .application. (2) Letter of Agreement with City in form of Exhibit "C" hereto. (3) Financial Statements of Applicant for the previous 3 years and Applicant's latest interim financial statements. Audited financial statement should be submitted if such statements are available. (4) Financial statements of general partners if Applicant is a partnership." (5) Financial statements of persons who intend to guarantee all or a portion--a~-~h~--bonded indebtedness. (6) A Pro-forma statement regarding operation of Project and revenues which will be used to repay principal and interest on bonds. (7) A~nonrefundable application fee of $2,500.00. (8) Application to riinnesota Enerq_y & Economic Authority, along with required Exhibits. (9.) Please list-individually any other documents which are being submitted to the City in connection with this application.. ff) If Applicant is unable to obtain Industrial Revenue Bond financing from the City of Richfield, will conventional financing by sought in order to construct the project in the City of Richfield? (g) If Applicant is successful in obtaining Industrial Revenue Bond financing for its project will the lower financing costs be used to reduce rents for the project or will the differential inure to Applicant? Explain. • -9- Applicant understands and agrees that the information contained in this Application and the. information contained in items E(3)(4)(5) above is intended for use by the City of Richfield, its officers, employees, and agents in connection with the City's consideration of possible Industrial Development Revenue Bond financing for Applicant's Project; however., the City gives no assurances that this information may not be disclosed, in whole or in part, to persons other than City`s officials, employees . and agents. The Undersigned, (a) (the) of Applicant, hereby represents and warrants to the City that (he) (she) has carefully reviewed this Application, and that the statements and information contained herein and submitted herewith are accurate and complete to the best of the Undersigned's ;cnowledge and belief Dated: Applicant By Its -10- EXHIBIT C The Mayor of .the City of Richfield and Members of the City Council 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Application of for Industrial Deve opment Revenue Bond Financing by the City of Richfield This letter of agreement is given by a under the laws of Minnesota {"Applicant") as require y the City of Richfield in connection with its consideration of our application for Industrial Development~Revenue Bond financing for the project which we are proposing. Applicant hereby covenants, warrants and agrees as follows: 1. Applicant agrees to pay or reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses which the City may incur in connection with. its consideration of the project and the granting of industrial development revenue bond financing therefor, whether or not the project is approved by the Commissioner of Securities, whether or not industrial development revenue bond financing is finally approved by the City, whether or not-the bonds are issued and sold, and whether or. not the project is carried to completion. 2. Applicant agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its officers, employees and agents harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses or liabilities, including attorneys fees incurred in their defense, to which the City,. its officers, employees and agents may become subject in connection the City's consideration, issuance or sale of the bonds for Applicant's project and the carrying out of~the transactions contemplated by this agreement and any resolutions adopted, or agreements execu~ ted by the City in connection with the issuance of its bonds for this project. 3. Additionally, Applicant hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claims, causes of action, losses, damages, or liabilities which it may have against the City, its officers, agents, and employees or which`it may incur in connection with the City's consideration of the application for industrial development revenue bond financing for Applicant's project; the failure of the City, in its discretion, to issue industrial development revenue bonds for Applicant's project; the issuance and sale of the bonds; the construction of the project; or any other matter or thing of .any type or nature whatsoever which may arise in connection with the foregoing. 4. Applicant agrees to enter into a fee agreement with Counsel the City, (if city attorney is not acting as bond counsel) prior to the City Council's consideration of a resolution preliminarily approving the issuance of industrial development revenue bond financing for Applicant's project. Very truly .yours, App scant by its • • RICHFIELD IDRB REVIEW PROCESS ATE & INITIAL 1. Application materials distributed. 2. Application and fee returned to Community Development Department. 3. Community Development Department submits copy of ' application to City Attorney, City Clerk and Public Safety Department. 4. City Attorney reviews application and submits pre- liminary approval package including resolution calling for public hearing, public hearing notice, preliminary resolution and application to Commissioner of Securities to Community Development Department. 5. Community Development Department drafts city council letter. 6. City Manager reviews and approves council letter. 7. City Council passes resolution calling for public hearing. . 8. Community Development Department gives public hearing notice to Administrative Services Department. 9. Administrative Services Department sends public hearing notice to Sun and Star & Tribune. Copy of correspondence sent to Community Development Department. Z0. Community Development Department drafts council letter. 11. City Manager reviews and approves council letter. 12. City Council conducts public hearing and passes preliminary resolution. 13. Administrative Services Department submits a certified copy of preliminary resolution to Community Development Department, abstract of minutes, and copy of affidavit of publication. 14. Community Development Department sends certified copy of preliminary resolution, abstract of minutes; a copy of affidavit of publication to City Attorney, and other required documents as listEd on gage two of the application to the tiinnesota Energy and Economic Authority. DATE & INITIAL 15. City Attorney submits documents to Minnesota Energy - and Economic Authority. 16. City receives approval from Minnesota Energy and Economic Authority. 17. City Attorney submits final approval package to Community Development Department. 18. Community Development Department drafts council letter. 19. City Manager reviews and .approves council letter. 20. City Council passes final resolution. 21. Administrative Services Department transmits certified copy of final resolution and abstract of minutes to Community Development Department. 22. Community Development Department sends certified copy of final resolution and abstract of minutes to City Attorney. 23. City Attorney transmits documents for city signatures to Community Development Department. 24. Community Development Department transmits documents to Administrative Services Department. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Documents signed. Administrative Services Department transmits signed documents to Community Development Department. Community Development Department transmits signed documents to City Attorney. City Attorney files documents as appropriate. Bond Closing.. -2- • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~/ Office of City Manager .~~~ • Council Letter No .~ 38 ~~ Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Stipulations Relating to the Hauser/Snyder Addition, Hub Shopping Center Mr. Robert Levine, owner of the property occupied by Hauser Foods an d Snyder Drug Stores has requested that the city reconsider its stipulation that the north and south loading dock areas be totally enclosed in the same manner as the K-Mart loading area at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Mr. Levine has indicated that the two enclosures would cost $120,000 to construct and that they cannot afford an additional expense of that magnitude. Mr. Levine is prop- osing to construct six foot high by 50 feet long architecturally • designed redwood privacy fences along the sides of both loading areas, as an alternative measure. It is staff's opinion that, while it is important to screen loading areas, the expense to the property owner of totally enclosing the existing loading area may be unreasonable. It is staff's opinion that adequate screening can be provided by a screen wall or fence of sufficient height to screen the total height of trucks using the loading area. The six foot high fence proposed by Mr. Levine would not totally screen a truck using the loading dock. No council action is recommended concerning the two other items noted in Mr. Lev fine's letter. He has agreed to brick facing on all building sides, as earlier stipulated by the city. The city has also required that a replacement schedule be submitted for the existing parking lot light fixtures, and it is recommended that this stipulation not be changed. Mr. Levine may paint the fixtures prior to their eventual scheduled replacement if he so desires. It is recommended that the city council elimin ate the require- ment that the loading areas be totally enclosed an d approve the following stipulations: 1. That the truck unloading area located on the west side of the proposed addition (on the north side of the existing building) be screened from public view by the construction of a 50-foot long screen wall or fence of sufficient height to obscure the total height of the trucks using the loading area, to be constructed of ,r1 n ~~~~'` Nf+ ~~ ~ N N ~ -- - - _ -__ Council Letter No. 384 -2- November 28, 1983 materials consistent with the L/H/N Design Guidelines. 2. That the truck unloading area located on the south side of the building adjacent to Hawser's Foods be screened in the manner outlined in the above stipu- lation. Respectf ly submitted, / ~ ~ 3i j ~~~G~ ~ r1/1.L~- ~~John G . Cartwr~/ght City Manager JGC/ej a • '7 NOV 18 1983 LAW OFFICES ~~°°'' {{ RR STERN, LEVINE, SCHWARTZ, LIFSCN, CREIGHT®N &B}~Jt~1f~I~c~fie~t~ A PFOFESSiO NAL A550 C:A 7!ON 5005 SOUTH CEDAR LAKE ROAD MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55416 16.21 377-8620 SAMUEL L. STERN ROBERT M LEVINE MICHAEL D. SCHWARTZ SCOTT A. LIFSON THOMAS D. CREIGHTON RICHARD D. BUNIN JOHN F. WAGNER BRIAN F COREY '~Ir. Rick Jopke City of Richfield 5700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, NON 55423 Dear Rick: ^Iovenber 15 , 1983 Several requirements have been added to the Snyder/Hub expansion oy the City of Richfield since its transition from aone-story to a two-story building. We do not ,~derstand the reasons for these new req~~irements and are izaving problems with their financial urtpact. This is a limited scope, privately financed pro- ject and we estimate the additional costs to be: _ 1. Brick at railroad side of building 850 S.F. at $10/s. f. $8500.00. 2. Perking lot light replace*nent - 14 pole mounted fixtures at 52000.00 each = S28,000.00. 3. 'Itao totally enclosed loading doc'~cs at 40 feet X 50 feet each. 4000 s.f. enclosed space at $30.00/s.f. _ $120,000.00. Total additional, costs to the project are $156,500.00 which adds 18.5% to our S850,000.00 construction budget. We cannot afford additional expenses of this magnitude. ?Je are developing a high quality shopping center in a progressive city. It is in our best interest, as it is Richfield's, to arovide an attractive coaanercial environment. ?Je think this can be done with reasonable, well designed site i?~rovements that improve the visual character of the HUB center. Yve would like to recommend for implementation the following: 1. Brick at all sides of building. 2. Painting existing parking lot light fixtures to match the new Ric':zfield standard and provide building-mounted fixtures at side and rear of building. This ~ai11 significantly improve tine parking lot appearance. NIr. Rick Jopke November 16, 1983 Page '~ao 3. Provide 6 foot high X 50 foot long architecturally designed redwood privacy fences along the side of both loading areas. 'I~-iis fence would be constructed to harnonize with the brick building and combined with plantings, would enhance the building appearance and would provide more visual interest than a blank brick raa11. Please review our concerns and recoffinendations. It is our goal to provide a high quality co~nereial envirorunent. Sincerely, Robert M. Levine, Legal Counsel for HUB li'`IVES22~iIT COMPANY R~hI../~n~n • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: ~'/0 Council Letter No. 383 Agenda November 28, 1983 Subject: Appointment to Human Rights Commission There is a vacancy for a student appointment on the Rich- field Human Rights Commission. Four students have applied for this vacancy, and copies of their applications are attached to this council letter. The council expressed a desire to talk briefly with each applicant before making this appointment, and interviewed two of the applicants on November 14, The remaining two are sched- uled for interviews beginning at 6:45 p.m. on Monday evening. This item has been placed on the November 28, 1983 city council agenda for council consideration. ~.. ,Re~sp~ctfull~ s j , L ~~V ~~~J / ohn G. Card r r ~ity Manager JGC/ej a fitted , __ ~~ ,_~ ; ,- fight ` ~' • • • .ate ~ ~ _;CmC . ?LS SSE CCIL~LS'='~ ~~~. 3L_C =Vii OR m`j?s,v: I ~E a?PLiG-"+~IGN SCR C~~': Cr rcIC F~~D ADVISOR`' CCM~~tI"T'=" CR C~''~r.t'viISSICN AP°CI'~t'r'tiTS" Last :iCM: ADDRESS Scree; No. ^irrt Cis r ~; tiTAILI:~G ,~DDRrSS (i. different from hcme address ~ ~~ 7~~ Zip C^.:e SCreet No. "LCy Z'p Cie /`' ~ PHONE: Tome ~C ~ C. ~~ ~~~ _) Business ~'~ ~~ - ~~- ~ ,~,~ ~,PPCINiM:cNT PRErcRE~1CE: Planning Commission unman Rights Commission. Community Services Commission _ Civil Service Cormcssior: Senior Citizen & Hardic3pced Advisory Board of :ieaith Aciviscry Commission Other ':r"-'° ?T `": S:. C0:`pr ~"^: ~~T ~C~TT_ON _:I ~_':'t::..~ 3,~.,~,C~ I:~;.: GR ','v~~;+1~iTS~. ~J r ~+ . JL . JL . iia J Briefly discuss aspects of your e:cperienc2 ~:~hich you believe qualify you for *_his municipal commission/commit*_ee and why you are .n*_erested in ~e.^~~^g: L.1ITC, PRCFLSJlONAL ryiiD CC:~'~'.VTL'~~~~nC.IVh%J: qq -. -L .ace I (J~.~~~si `;G'?' ?T_LiSc. CC~LpL''_'S ZN EL?C~ .Vi: CR ^`_'P rtiRT:.r i t APPLiC~i?Gi4' cCR C.'.": CF :SIC: ~ ~LJ t1 DV?SORY CCM'v11 '~"-' CR CC*.1~~t'SJiON APPO??~(T~1E'' ~~//~ j /~ `'~ iVA1/LE L./~U~ ~~/77 ~/~IC~ L35t 1rSi. .al:L:::le HCME ADDRESS ~~~~ ~~~~:^n ~~ '~,^~;~/~ ~!~ ~~ !.~~- ~ Street No. City ~ Zip Code MAILING ADDRESS (if different ~rn~,.:,;,e address ~ Street No. Ci:;' Z:p Ccce PHCNE: acme ,C..LiCCi _ ~~i5 Susir.ess APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission I~iuman Ric;hts Comrr.ission~o Community Services Commission ~__.. Ci~~il Service Cormrssior: Senior Citizen ~ Fardicapped ~ Auvisory Board of I-:eaith Ac3viscry Commission Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience t:'hich you Believe gualify you cor this municipal commission/commit*_ee anc why you are :r~terested in semi^.g: ~~l n., ,a ~f , }'" ~::1--/~ :, (L. I'll if ~/3u ~ ,~~",1,L4:. ~rCF: (,i ..t6.~i' - ~+ /.r _ /~' `. ,J-e~- ~~ ; ~7~e.. ~ n ~ «h~~ : n ,~r~lt.~l C'"h ~~ r'-iti- !~z<~r'Yt.~~~-J _ f2,~ ~ rt (r ~'_ i ~~ Yt[. ~~ ~h.C~~a...:-~~- r ~ ~ J ~L~~~~, J _ C^IIC, P?~CFLSSICNAL AND CCM:UtL~PITY ACTIVL_~S: _ / ~1 ~' i ^' ~~~ (1 ~~ ~~% ~ ~Y~' ~~r1~ ' • :~G^_ ?T ~'~_Sc. CC:_~LEmE ?~= L~C~~ ~G" "`i .rZ':~zi :R L~.C`.j. =N~ CR ~_'Y?~~,vR='T'.R. JL. ~ + ~~ ~`4~1~~ n ~~~. / ,, ~ •a if lj'~ , c..~ I J ~C , ~ ,1 ~~ 1~~n1 ~, ~ f , i 'i r- Gate !~~ , ,--„ ~ `~ Y -t 1 ~ ~~Ci`?'.Tr ?T i~SL C :~IP~L`?' 1tl'~ DLC1C.'~ _~r ~t~'. m`+t,PE:tiRZ _'~ APPLICAiIGN 'CR Ci""= C: nIC:~r'z'L::~ ADViSCRv CC'vi~.~?~TE CR CGr:~~1ISSICN APpCI:~IT~iS" ~'A~fE I ~ (C Last first ..i:CGi? ~o~E ADDRESS 6 ~ ~~ ~~~''~I~a~1 ~ ~ ;~ V~`iF ~~'l 5~ ~/~~ Street No. ~-~ City Zip Cc~e ~tAILItiG ADDRESS (ii different from home addressl Street ~,To. ~° ~,Lty Zip ~.oce PHO~iE: F:ome _ ~( l `"~~~~~] Business ~-~'~iP (~ ~' APPCINTMEN'i PRErERENCE: Planning Commission Piuman Rights Corrmissian community Services Commission Civil Service Commission: Senior Citizen & Hand~cappe,d Advisory Board o. ;ieaith~ Advisory Commission. Cther Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~~~hich you believe quality you for this R1UnlClpal Commission/oommittee and '.11}'ly l'Gi,: are LntereSteC In 52r'!t,^.('~. o I ! ~' i t~ • ~ i i i '~ Ci~IIC , PRCFESSiCNAi, AND CC.":I:~/1L'r1ITY A~:,TIVi~'~,°S; ~c nE _:C^_~ . ?~L?~5~., CC:_Pr.,. ~ ~ :~~PL=C ~ i0rv I`1 ...~T'I:CR Br AC:~ ~i~ri GR ~YPCP7~~T~R . • ate ~'l./~. ~ 1 7S1 `iG:E . ?LErsSE CC~1pLE.':'° Z~. 3L~C { Z_~i: OR _`~?~:v SITE APPLIC~ i iGN r CR Ci"~ Ct' RIC:?F:':~D ADVISORY CCM~~1I.,...y_ CR CC?'.1~~t:SSiCy ~;P°OI:~1?°~tE':"' ' ~ ~ ~ { ~e3eiviE ~/, ~~ n ~~~ ~;CC.!'el!I ~ i /`.// i N: r`Cz - a ''~ _3st J _ it ~ .. .~M~.~::i° OME ADDRESS JCS Street No. Cite ~ .. Zip Ccy° L1Ai~I~iG ADDRESS ;if Jiff=_rent from home addrzss~ Scree: Vo. Ciey Zip C~<e PHOtiE: ome ~~ ~ "Ci'.3 ~ 3 Business APPCIIviA.~tENT PRE: ~RENCE: Planning Commission human Rights Commission V Co*~riunity Services Commissior, Civil Service Ccmmrssior: i/ Senior Citizen & Eardicapoed Advisory Board of ~iealth Advisory Commission Other 9riefly r1SCL'SS aspeots OT your experience ~Alh1CI7 you belie Ve CL'allfy you t^r *.h1S municipal commissicn/commit*_ee and ryhy lycu ace ir,terest2c in s2fvt.^.g: ~i /~, ~ , ,,., ~: ~ r n.f~r i0 ~ .h ~3? :~' 1'vyt ~ v~ a ~ i1't _~( ~1-t.t r~ r ivy.. u CX O ~J C:~1?C, PRCFESSiC:~PA L AND CC*~I~IL'~'IT `! AC'~nie"~S: .~ ;~ ~C.~c~ ,:~,~1~--~ `~ = ~ ~--(. ;fi~~~,/ tee _ ~ ~J ~ d ~~ ~q +--/~ _7 ~ /~ ,J J J ~ ~' , ~ ~ f~ /~-~.~~~ O .~~i~~. ~T~i:~s,_, ~~::~T^~~ t~PDT `r'~~~Ci :' '~\~ ;..~~t: ~..~ 3:~_C~ .~~:{ VR ~ Vim.:+V~l`~T'..~. ~,~, a..i ~; , J 1 ~.. ~ 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~n ~tl Office of City Manager o1~~~.t.A~',~t.~> ~~,.~~~'~~ i ,~,-; Council Letter No. 382 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Administrative Appeal Concerning the Issuance Of a Building Permit to the Property at 729 West 65th Street • • Mr. David Wohl, representing Coit Carpet and Drapery Cleaners, has submitted an appeal of administrative determination made by city staff that a building permit could not be issued for the proposed expansion of the building occupied by Coit Carpet and Drapery Cleaners at 729 West 65th Street. This appeal has been scheduled for city council consideration on November 28, 1983. The city council will be considering this matter in its role as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. It is city staf f ' s opinion that a bu ilding permit for the proposed expansion cannot be issued for two reasons. First, it is staff's opinion that the Coit Carpet and Drapery Cleaners business is a non-conforming use at this particular location. The zoning ordinance indicates that carpet and rug cleaning uses are only permitted in the "I" industrial zoning district. The above mentioned property is located in a "C-2" general commercial district. Coit Carpet and Drapery Cleaners offers in-the-home carpet cleaning service, and the facilities on the site involve gen eral office use, drapery cleaning and storage of chemicals, trucks and equipment used for carpet cleaning. While no carpet cleaning occurs on the site, it is staff's opinion that because of the storage of carpet cleaning chemicals and equipment, and a substantial number of vehicles on the site, this particular type of use is more appro- priate in an industrial district than in any General commercial district. This is substantiated by the "I" zone regulations. The storage of chemicals and trucks are characteristic of the type of use which would be allowed in an industrial zone. The zoning ordinance does not allow this type of storage in the C-2 zone. Therefore, it is staff's determination that the particular use at this location is a non-conforming use. The city ordinances indicate non-conforming uses cannot be expanded to occupy a greater portion of the site. Council Letter No. 382 -2- November 28, 1983 The zoning ordinance provides that "laundries, bag, carpet and rug cleaning; provided necessary equipment is installed and op- erated to effectively precipitate or recover dust", is a permitted land use in an Industrial zoning district. (Page 69 of zoning ordin- ance, Chapter III). This is the only zoning district which refers to carpet and rug cleaning. The ordinance provision does say that no building or land shall be used except for one of the following and there follows a list of 17 permitted uses including carpet and rug cleaning. One may argue that if the carpet and rug business is conducted on the customer's property that the rug and carpet business is not being conducted at the rug and carpet home office. However, it is staff's opinion that the storing of chemicals and equipment plus vehicles is significant. The C-2 General Commercial zoning district permits "self-service laundries This is a retail business provided for individuals who do not have home washing machines or dryers. (Page 67, Chapter 3). It is obviously not a commercial customer type business use. Zoning district C-1, Neighborhood Business, permits a "clothes cleaning and dry goods pickup station" (page 65-66, Chapter III) . The text adds that business uses "......intended for the supplying of a limited variety of commodities or services primarily- for the benefit of residents of the immediate neighborhood." Coit Cle aners advertises in the yellow pages of the phone book as "world's largest carpet and drapery cleaners". The company pro- vides this service on a metropolitan basis. Clearly, the Coit Carpet and Drapery Cleaners is a business that best describes the use permitted in the Industrial Zoning District. The second reason why city staff believes that a building permit cannot be issued is that the proposed use in not consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Project Plan. City ordinance (Section 3.06x) re- quires that before any building permit can be issued, it must be determined that the proposed construction will be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and any applicable redevelop- ment plan or urban design guidelines. The city's comprehensive plan indicates that the site should be developed as a high dens- ity general business district which would include office and re- tail commercial, multi-family and eating and entertainment estab- lishments. As previously indicated, it is staff's opinion that this use is an industrial-type use and, therefore, would not be consistent with the types of land uses indicated by the compre- 'r~en s ive plan . • Council Letter No. 382 -3- November 28, 1983 The city's Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Plan indicates that the block iln which it is located should be developed as a high- density commercial and residential mixed land use area. It is staff's cpinion that the proposed use is not consistent with the uses called for in the redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan also indicates that the block on which this site is located should be developed in a planned and unified manner. It is staff's opinion taht the expansion of one building on the site does not meet this intent and may actually hinder the development of the whole block as contemplated by the redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan also indicates that the total black, including this site, is to be acquired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to sell to a developer for development in a unified manner. The proposed expan- sion would make this task more difficult to accomplish. • Consistent with Chapter 3.06A, subdivision 3, this application was reviewed by the Community Development Department and was found to be inconsistent with the redevelopment plan for the reasons aforementioned in this letter. It is also the opinion of the Commun- ity Development Department that the granting of this building per- mit would likely jeopardize the orderly planning and development of the block upon which the permit is being sought. The city manager agrees with the findings of the velopment Department. Inasmuch as the applicant does the administrative decision of the city manager, this being brought to the city council as an appeal of the by the city manager. Community De- not agree with matter is decision made It is recommended that the city council hold the public hear- ing concerning this appeal and render a decision upholding or denying the appeal within 30 days of the close of the hearing. JGC/ej a ~espectf~ l i ~ ~' ,, L ~. ~ / ~Jo hn G . ~a ~~~City Manag y ~u omitted , f '/~' wr fight r • RESOLUTION DENYING ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR COIT CLEANERS (729 WEST 65TH STREET) WHEREAS, on August 28, 1983 an application for a building permit was received by the City of Richfield to permit the expansion of the business premises operated by Coit Cleaners "applicant" at 729 West 65th Street; and WHEREAS, on or about October 14, 1983 applicant was notified by mail of the action of the City Manager denying the issuance of such permit; and WHEREAS, the applicant did by letter dated October 21, 1983 request that the matter be appealed to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals; and WHEREAS, by letter dated November 10, 1983 the City Manager did schedule a public hearing on the matter for November 28, 1983 and did indicate further reasons for the denial to be considered at such a hearing; and WHEREAS, the matter was heard by the City Council, acting as the Boa~d of ~d~ustment and A peals, at its November 28, 1983 meetirig;wherea tie applican~~and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council having heard such testimony and having reviewed the report of the City Manager makes the following findings: 1. The uses proposed to be conducted at the premises, including the warehousing of materials and drapery cleaning, are permitted in the industrial zones of the City. 2. No request for a rezoning of the property has been made by the applicant. 3. The parcel which is the subject of the requested building permit is lcoated in a general commercial district of the City. The activity occurring at that location is not a permitted use under such zone. 4. The expansion of the existing use is not permitted unless it is brought into full compliance with the zoning ordinance of the City. 5. The issuance of a building permit to permit expansion of the existing use would not be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the Lyndale-Hub-~licollet Redevelop- ment Plan by allowing the establishment of uses within the area different than the uses contemplated in such plans. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the applicant's request for a building permit is denied for the reasons indicated above and contained in the City Manager's letters to the applicant; each basis forms an independent ground for the denial. R R '~ ,, - _ \'. _~- - - ~ ~~ ~rzn ~. ~ ~. . ~~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ \ R t• \ ~ ~ --- ~ ~-" ~~ -~ r i ~ - - ~I i I f I ~ I -- ~I J -~ ii ; __ _- ~ o j• N ~ ~ ~ ~ O I Q ~__, ~I ~ I; i j I~ I ~ i ~, ~ ~- ,I - ...~. - ~ ~, P, _ -- ~ i 1 I f I, -_ _ _ ~ ;~ ', }~, f ~ -- - .-,moo \ ••~~ ,~~ ~~ ~A ~~ ~~~ ,~ ~~~'~ \ ~~--- ~ ^_ \~ ~ 7---_ -~- R ~~ ~. ~a_ ..e ~ .tl ~ f---a -~ ~ ~„ ~ °~ ~~ o tee, , • ~R ® ~ '~ ~ `~ ~ i..~ • ~® __~ ~ ~~ ~_ z a a Asx ~. ~=1~ 3~ W y ~ Q; ~. ~~ ~~e~ ~ ~e w~~$ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ YQU `c _ ~% g J ~ ~"r ~ f r ~ Ii {i ~J ~ - - a ~ ~ J-. ~fnN ~~~ ~~ ~ y ~ Y~;~~' ~! i `> ~ ~yo1`/~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~% ~ a ~ ~ ~~ l ~~, ~ f ~~ ~' 'i ~° ~~ ~ ,~~ ~, %j~ .~ ~,. ~ ~ x /~~~._ ~ / ~ u j~ o ~~~ ~ r- W ,,M: ~ ~~~ ~-- _- -~. ~ O~r ri - >~ `~-z ~' ; // / ~~ w r wW QU Jw 0~ ~+Z / yJ arc ~ ai ~ -- __ ~g I / / ~~~ 3 ,. ~~- : ~ - L-J __ _ _ -T ~ _ - ~- ~ J J w .w !.. ra >M wnl..a! !.• wu sw + n v .w ~ i }• ry M .0+~1iw0` J G G G [r~~ ~-~-~ fn Y. ~n r^ r [M •~ii 1 ~ ~~~~ -~ yn ... ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~.• •a J • .~~ ~C 1 J aS~W,rr. y'~ •' 5 • ` ~ s~t4 v' ~ . ~. • Y .~• ?q ;. ~SJ7 ti+ .,y . IRf13ifRitf Sff3 SfSJiSffTSiAfll ~[..c W « 'y. sawD ..~ ~- - bl• M( i ~.,~ _ ~~~ ~m ~ ....,,,m. ,.. t,,...,, {~ ~S'ii1 i 7~ [. ... y...... ~~~~(~u .~.~.. }~ ~am ....a.ew ~ "t[ ~ :~ ~~ s.....ea ~~ e aw .a.rn t.• a.awtr. >". ~., ~...~... ~ `'~:is:~.~l ~ -- ~. [~• w .nre. T~ L_ ' '~' ~ ''t . : u ~. a....a. om . _ . ~ .- ~: ~~' lM MRM1M ,„ t,.a., l...a..~ ~~ _ >+ YIYM•. IL s+• n..l. : kv. rq t J ~ _ ~~ ..~~ D U ~ ~ ~ Gi. } E.. ~. G G G 'i G2ttk1} ' ~}fE~111f}~ 1~ uRilltGL 1I31:i2Ii1H Iltl3ttttlt tLi3lRtttC .~fSAlftitiE{A1Rf 83{illtRi'rtm!~~~ ":•~ ~;. ' ~~~~~~ i ~~. ~ i--r-- ;'~r-S `` - »~,rn»n--: 3 __ ~` ~ sip - ~~ ^~ ~,~, . ~ ~_~_ . ''r'S~`...... _ > ~ ~2-...as„aassY lip 1 ~1 ~ pfti}1!t!f! r::~ti~t YU;sttutstts3: c. ~:• r:~ - ®71fS: c.- __lfl7STi~n'. i3AH»1Y7 _ _. •`-?ie X49- .. ~.__ ~ r~~~~ 1 ~~L ^~ ~~ ~ I '- - ~H ~ I~ r~ :rsssi`saaas i~ee-r~ss--w'~`~' _~s~sasr__ ~. t t [ [ [ S r 3 ! r 7 2 ! [ ! [ 6i ! ,.... v..[: ~[. «wwu [[• wiz ~[[• .~e O a: .m O ar ra E )II. ~OM!/wY~ 0 M. wata ~ 0 s..w O ]y uU v ra [M ilN•~OOM E '[[• w{i V ~ [[• .~•i t[..... l O' y/ Yil Q [w _... W w .a V ~'~~n .~. w wwea >+-~ w w•+.o ~[...s ' 1w ~r. w w+a ~ h[ ~ yw wt [Mf0114! ,... T " ..++.. ~~ y...... Z ~-~,~ ~-~a r. ,.a[! a....[aa ~.....e W s. ~nwr~ ~- ~ a ~.." C ~~W ,...~. ~ ~--~W M• wlD~ Q ,. "'"" W a+ a. ~.. nt~e W Y. ~~[[M T ~. ~. ~ tM ~~. c. ,~ ..»~. g fM MwiM/w O ~ vv uo[.: V -_~~ ,"_ ~ ~ ui ~~~I~ ~ ~~~~ U w ~ ~ ui w~a ~~ ~ ~r~I ~ Ur~''I C~ ~ ~ .~i W ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~0 ~ w to w+~~1 o rts~ N'~n ~ ~' ~, ~w~ cn J ~ a ~; ~; . ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ W Z Sx , .~ NN NN NN ~.y'N t'7 Ri O N ~u ~~ ~u a~ ~ a J `~:.: W D - ~ ~ W o x ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ z W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ W O ~ ~ ~' ~ o ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ V ~II!~ r r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~~ Council Letter No. 381 Agenda November 28 , 1 98 3 The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing for the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bond Financing in the Amount of $925,000 far Metro Sales, 1620 East 78th Street The city council has set a public hearing for November 28, 1983 to elicit public comment on the issuance of Industrial De- velopment Revenue Bonds for tre proposed Metro Sales project, to be located at 1620 East 78th Street in Richfield. The total amount of the bond issue is .proposed to be approximately $925,000. This includes an amount of $660,000 to acquire the property, an additional $290,000 for the construction of a 10,000 square foot addition to the building, $1 5 , 000 for various architectural and engineering, legal an c: administrative fees, and an additional $10,000 in contingency fees. The applicant's equity, or share of the above amounts to $50,000. Metro Sales, which is located at 4575 West 77th Street in Edina, is involved in the distribution of bulk copying machines and word processing equipment. It is estimated that the construction of the project will begin on or about April 1, 1984 and will be completed by August 1 , 1 984. If approved, the expansion is ex- pected to result in the creation of twelve new jobs and an annual payroll of approximately $180,000, based upon current prevailing wage rates. At the present time, Metro Sales :nas 77 employees and it is anticipated that all of these employees will be moved from the Edina location to the Richfield location . Staff has reviewed the project and finds it to be generally consistent with the Industrial Development Revenue Bond guidelines previously adopted by the city council. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and then adopt the resoluticr, approving the issuance of $ 925 , 000 in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Jerry ~lathwig, dba Metro Sales , Inc . ~ ~ espectf1,~Y~,~ ubmitted,~ .i' ~ ~~ ~~ ~'Zc- %L ~,/ ~~,~ l.. ~ / John G. Car ~rrright ~ City Manager ~ EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CIT`~ COUNCIL Or THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, HEN~vrEPIN COUNTY, ~IIiWESOTA 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, ~+ovember 28, 1983, com- mencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: _~.o_ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO ~. PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT; REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO- THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL; A.'1D AUTHORIZING EMECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEi1ENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows: 1.1 The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires active promo- tion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergency of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemploy- ment, and the state has encouraged local government units to act to prevent such economic deterioration. J 1.2 Jerry Mathwig, an individual residing in Scott County (Com- pant'), has advised this Council of its desire to acquire and improve land and to construct and equip thereon an approximately 10,000 square foot addition to an existing office building for lease to Metro Sales, Inc. (Project). 1.3 The existence of the Project within the City would signifi- cantly increase the tax base of the City, County and school district in which the City is located, and would provide opportunities for employment for residents of the City and surrounding area. 1.4 The City has been advised by the Company that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is avail- able only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be signifi- cantly reduced, but that with the aid of munieipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing cost, the Project is economically more feas- ible. 1.5 This Council has been advised by Norwest Bank Bloomington, N.A., Bloomington, Minnesota, that on the basis of information sub- mitted to them and the discussions with representatives of the Company. that bonds or notes to finance all or part of the cost of the Project can be successfully sold, and that it will purchase such bonds or notes. 1.6 The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds or other obligations (Bonds) to finance capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connec- tion with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the Company, and the issuance of such Bonds by the City would be a substantial inducement to the Company to construct the Project within the City. 2. On the basis of information given the City to date, it presently appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue Bonds under the provisions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the Company at a cost presently estimated to be approximately $925,000. ' 3. The Council declares that it is its present intent to issue the Bonds, and the Project above referred to is hereby given prelim- inary approval by the City and the issuance of Bonds for such purpose and in sueh amount approved, subjeet to approval of the Project by the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority (Authority) of the State of Minnesota and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Company and the initial purchasers of the bonds as to the details of the bond issue and provisions for its payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the Project, and each Bond, when, as and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and prop- erly pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, charter or statutory limitation thereon. 4. The form of Memorandum of Agreement rela*_ing to the issuance of the Bonds to finance the cost of the Project is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Memorandum of Agreement in behalf of the City. 5. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.Q1, Subdivision 7a, the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Authority for approval. The Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees, and agents of the City and LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, 0°Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, as bond counsel, are hereby authorized to provide the Authority with any preliminary information needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in . the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by the Authority. 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 motiono and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • ~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIN~NE5OTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 380A Agenda November 28 , 198 3 The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing on Housing Plan and Program On Monday evening the HRA and the City Council are meeting concurrently to conduct a public hearing and consider the adoption of a housing plan and program for the community. Derrick Land Company as a part of their Market Plaza Devel- opment for the "Godfather Block" is proposing the construction of 150 rental apartment units in a single multi-story structure. By utilizing tax exempt housing revenue bonds, the cost of financing the building will be less and, thus, the rents will be more afford- able. At the hearing on Monday, the HRA and City Council will be presented with the program document. Providing this type of financing would be in keeping with previous actions of the City Council in that the use of IDRB's for the commercial portion of the development was previously authorized. Providing for the financing was going to be considered at a later date. However, Congress adjourned November 18 without re- scinding the law which "sunset" housing revenue bonds as of December 31, 1983. It is expected that in early 1984, Congress will enact legislation which again provides tax exempt financing for housing. However, restrictions will likely be imposed. To protect the access to this type of financing, it is the opinion of the city's bond counsel that the City Council and HRA should act on this additional program element November 28, 1983. Rs~spe~rtf~l submitted, ~~ ~~, ~ John G. Cart ght City Manager JGC/ej a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 380 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing on Housing Plan and Programs On November 28, 1983 the city council has scheduled a public hearing to adopt a housing plan and housing programs. In prepar- ation for this public hearing, staff has completed "the plan", a general statement of housing conditions, goals, and needs; and "housing programs", a document containing specific programs which propose to utilize housing mortgage revenue bonds to finance. housing for first time homebuyers. The HRA will participate in the public hearing, as the council recently adopted an ordinance con- ferring upon the HRA the authority to issue housing mortgage revenue bonds. This letter summarizes the attached plan and programs. Upon reviewing and approving the plan and programs on November 28 , 1 983 , the HRA will submit an application before the end of 1983 to the Minnesota Housing Fin ance Agency (MHFA) for authority to sell tax exempt bonds. Bond proceeds would provide funds for fin ancing the sale of newly constructed owner-occupied housing for moderate in - come first time homebuyer families at the Portland Avenue Devel- opment Area (PADA) site and possibly at the eastern portion of Lincoln Hills elementary school site. The details of both programs are discussed within this letter. As the introduction notes, "this plan provides data and analy- sis of existing housing conditions and population characteristics within Richfield; sets forth the housing goals, objectives and policies which guide the local decision making process regarding housing; and identifies programs Richfield will pursue to conserve, preserve, enhance, and expand the residential environment in Rich- field." The "data summary and analysis" section provides census data and data from the Metropolitan Council and Richfield Community Development Department ar.d discusses population, housing stock, and land use. The "housing policies" and "numerical housing goals and objectives" section present the local housing policies, goals and objectives that are already part of the Comprehensive Plan. The "existing housing programs" section discusses programs and financial devices that presently exist to assist housing production and housing maintenance. This section also mentions controls such Council Letter No. 380 -2- November 28, 1983 as agencies, laws, or policies which affect the city's ability to provide needed housing assistance. The final section, entitled "housing revenue bond programs," suggests methods for utilizing housing mortgage revenue bonds to meet housing needs. Bonds could finance seven different programs in the next decade given Richfield's housing needs and potential resources. PADA and Lincoln Hills for instance, are two specific housing pro- grams that can respond to needs and effectively utilize resources. Thus, these two programs are described in the greatest detail in the final section of this plan/program document. Richfield housing data and population demographics indicate, in summary, that: -The population and household size is smaller, but stabilizing. The 1980 population was 37,851, a 20 percent drop since 1970. How- ever, this decrease in population has not provided increasing hous- ing unit availability. The household size declined from 3.19 per- sons per household to 2.43 persons by 1980. This is similar to what other cities are experiencing, and for Richfield it means children have grown and moved away to create new households. "Empty nester" types of households occupy the existing housing. -The population and housing stock is continuing to age. With Richfield continuing to be a desirable and affordable place to live, . the empty nester-type of older household will continue to exist. To stimulate the size and alter the age of the population and housing stock, additional new housing should be introduced. -Household incomes and household costs are moderate. The 1980 census indicates that median household income is $20,424 and median family (two or more person household) income is $24,941. This median income is slightly lower than median incomes for the County and Metropolitan Area. According to the Minneapolis Board of Realtors, the average sale price of Richfield homes was $71,273 in 1982. Thus, Richfield is an affordable place to live as discovered by many homeowners with moderate income. The development of new units should be directed at a similar income and sales price market. -There are few vacancies within the existing housing _stock which consists of mainly one or two bedroom apartments and single family detached dwellings. Of the 5,158 rental units, 213 were vacant in 1982 (a 4.7 percent vacancy rate). Of the 10,000 single family homes, 33 were vacant in 1982 (a 0.3o vacancy rate). These rates are lower than the county and metropolitan area averages. These rates indicate there is a large demand for affordable owner occupied housing opportunities. -There are limited affordable alternative housing types such as town homes for first time ho mebu ing families. The 98 total town- house units in the city (of which 92 are within the Coach Homes development) have been purchased primarily by young professional or empty nester type households. This project was not designed Council Letter No. 380 -3- specifically to be an environment for families with children and the $81,300 market value for the three bedroom units is not afford- . able to the moderate income families we want to reach with our programs. -There is continued demand for housing alternatives for the elderly rather than families. The Section 8 program rent-assisted Richfield Towers has a long waiting list for its 149 units. The recently completed Lake Shore Drive Condominium already has a waiting list for its 178 units. Once additional moderate priced family housing is provided, there will likely be a more easily qu an t- ified demand for additional affordable family housing as well. -The age of the housing stock warrants continued utilization of programs that finance improvements related to energy and build- ing codes. Home improvement, rehabilitation, and energy loan pro- grams are presently readily available to assist homeOwriers. Program availability helps man y persons to stay in their existing housing. -Being a fully developed community limits housing development opportunities and often requires redevelopment and higher housing unit densities when development occurs. The removal of ten single family homes and three other structures near 66th Street and Lake Shore Drive resulted in the construction of 178 condominium units. It is proposed that up to 48 units could be constructed at PADA and 90 to 100 units could be constructed at Lincoln Hi11s by re- movin g existing structures at these sites and developing affordable . housing for first time homeowner families. -There is continued demand for owner occupied housing opportun- ities , and rental housing does not presently appear financially feasible. While market conditions might permit very expensive hous- ing to be built having significant ownership or rental expense, de- mand for housing affordable to moderate income families is greatest. Richfield housing policies and objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan and reiterated in the Housing Plan indicate, in summary, that: -a diversified housing supply providing ownership, cooperative and rental type of tenure is needed; -rehabilitation programs are needed; -additional alternative housing options for the elderly (coop- eratives, condominiums, apartments) free up existing housing and provide needed housing opportunities within the existing moderate cost housing supply; -an increase in higher density housing development provides Richfield the variety of housing values, housing size and housing types recognized as meetin g certain housing needs; -housing mortgage revenue bonds and tax increment financing are appropriate financial devices to consider for assisting housing projects. Council Letter No. 380 -4- Existing housing assistance programs in Richfield will con- tinue to be helpful, but additional programs are needed: -the new construction programs, when available, have been utilized to provide 1~4 units of rental housing for low and moderate income persons. These are affordable rental opportunities primarily for the elderly. Family ownership housing production also needs attention, however. -an additional 240 low and moderate income households receive rental assistance in units scattered throughout the city. This assists families already living in Richfield and does not add affordable units to the housing stock; -the new construction/vo-tech rehabilitation projects have provided 12 ownership opportunities for larger low an d moder- ate income families in four bedroom housing units. This pro- gram provided affordable ownership housing to six to eight member families. New housing opportunities are not available for three to six member families which require two an d three bedroom housing. Given the data, data an alysis, goals, objectives, policies and program performance discussed in the plan, the housing program section introduces possible solutions that could be available within the next decade to meet particular projected housing needs. These pro- grams would be facilitated through an opportunity to issue housing mortgage revenue bonds: 1. A program to develop multi-unit attached forms of ownership lousing affordable to younger families. The high demand for the 'few existing housing units that are for sale each year presents many families from purchasing the afordable housing that already exists. 2. A program to develo multi-unit attached forms of ownership and rental housing for the elderly which in. turn increases the availability of existing housing for larger family households. This program is referred to in the housing plan as roll over" housing. Although the city has produced a number of housing units which have been occupied by the elderly, the demand for these new units indicates there are not enough lower maintenance, higher density housing alternatives for the elderly. In some circu mstances, additional elderly housing provides vacancies in existing housing that permit opportunities for family households. Council Letter No. 380 -5- 3, A program to develop single and multi-unit forms of ownership housing on a scattered site basis that is affordable to younger families. There is a limited supply of vacant parcels, parcels with structures that should be demolished or relocated, and parcels with housing that needs significant rehabili- tation to better utilize the existing land resource. Although this type of program is limited in scope, de- velopment, or clearance and redevelopment, or substantial rehabilitation, provides new affordable ownership housing, or, as zoning permits, higher density attached forms of ownership housing. 4. A program to finance the sale of affordable existing housing to younger families. The size of the existing affordable housing supply in Richf field and the rate. of sales of that housing indicate there is a large demand for mortgage bond financing to facilitate family ownership. A majority of the existing single family homes have an estimated market value below $75,000 (a requirement for "existing" housing sales by MHFA programs). 5. A program to develop multi-unit attached forms of owner- ship and rental housing for families and elderly within existing vacated structures such as schools or on cleared land where schools were located. The declining population and household size has also brought a decline in school enrollment, The consolidation of school facilities has resulted in vacated school build- ings within residential areas. Unique circumstances may permit the cost effective conversion of these structures to housing opportunities. Large school sites, having large open spaces, permit new development to occur in addition to structure conversion. Also, the financial success of a development may require the removal of the vacated structure in some instances to permit new construction. 6. A program to develop multi-unit rental and ownership housing alternatives for elderly and families within or outside established redevelopment districts. The existing and proposed commercial redevelopment districts within the city also provide opportunities for housing. There may be unique opportunities outside these districts. Attached forms of ownership housing alternatives are in short supply in Richfield. The comprehensive plan allows the development of mixed commercial and residential uses in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment area and future development areas to provide higher density housing types that are conveniently located to commercial services and facilities. Council Letter No. 380 -6- 7. A program to finance rehabilitation and energy conser- vation improvements for Richfield Housing. The existing housing stock is aging. Programs available within the city appear to have kept pace with the main- tenance needs of the property owners. However, this assistance usually depends on the availability of pro- grams provided by other agencies. Since the housing stock will continue to need attention, the city and HRA need access to alternative financial resources, such as mortgage revenue bond financing if available programs are discontinued. The city has secured special state legislation, for instance, to ensure that mortgage revenue bonds can be issued to finance energy conserva- tion improvements. As already mentioned, these seven programs are not all-inclusive. However, they indicate the types of opportunities the city council and HRA may have in the next decade . Given the land and fin ancial resources available to the HRA in 1984, it is most appropriate to pursue housing program No. 1: multi-unit attached forms of owner- ship housing affordable to young families. It is proposed that this housing would possibly be located at PADA and Lincoln Hi11s. The last pages of the program section discuss the details of producing town house developments at these two sites. The details are discussed further in the final part of this letter. It is proposed that the HRA submit an application to MHFA that requests authority to issue up to $10 million in housing mortgage revenue bonds. Bond proceeds would finance up to 138 mortgages averaging $68,400 to purchase moderate cost town homes for first time home bu yers. The schedule of events previously presented is attached to this letter for reference, adding the Lincoln Hills project. The application would be submitted to MHFA, as required, before December 31, 1983, after review by the Metropolitan Council in December. The application (and the contents of the proposed housing program) propose that approximately one-third of the bond proceeds ($3 million) would be utilized for financing housing at PADA. Approximately two-thirds of the bond proceeds ($6 million) would be utilized for financing housing at Lincoln Hills. It is estimated that, subject to economic conditions, developer negotiations, an d cost of property acquisition, the two and three bedroom owner- ship units could sell for approximately $72,000. At an estimated 11 percent mortgage interest rate, moderate income families having an income in the $25,000 to $35,000 range could afford to purchase a unit. The monthly housing expense (principal, interest, taxes and insurance) is projected to be $750 per month. If in evaluating the application, MHFA finds it has received requests for more than the $27.5 million in bonding authority avail- able exclusively to cities and counties, then the applications are ranked based on three criteria: Council Letter No. 380 -7- 1. The proportion of the proposed issue reserved for at least a six month period for households with incomes below 80 percent of the metropolitan area median in- come limit; 2. The proportion reserved for families below 90% of the median income; 3. The percentage of the proposed bond program that repre- sents non-bond proceeds; i.e., a cash contribution. All applicants tend to use the same proportions for the first two criteria. The program for PADA and Lincoln Hills also does. As a result, the third criteria, that of the cash contribution, usually becomes the basis for the final ranking. The program description indicates that a minimum of a 5 percent or $500,000, contribution is needed to make the project fin ancially feasible. However, MHFA in effect enters into a "bidding" process and awards the bonding authority to the applicant providing the largest percentage of contribution to the issue as "non bond proceeds" A total contribution (cash and other non-bond proceeds) of as much as 10 percent ($1 million on a $10 million issue) might be needed to be competitive with other cities. The following sources of non-bond proceeds are suggested by the bond underwriter: -cash contribution from an interested project developer; -cash contribution from a lender interested in originating loans and being a program administrator; -contributions for the cost of land the HRA acquires or contribution based on the difference in value between what a developer pays for the land and what the actual land value might be (if there is some "writedown" to make the prof ect feasible) ; -contribution from revenues created by a tax increment dis- trict at each development site; -other sources, yet to be determined. Staff, with assistance from the bond underwriter, will combine those resources needed to help ensure that Richfield's application is competitive. The use of tax increment financing is valuable not only as a source of non-bond proceeds, but also because it will likely be needed as a source of financing for site acquisition. This, in turn, affects the affordability of the housing to be pro- duced by keeping the unit prices in an affordable range. By January 26, 1984, MHFA will have selected proposals to be funded . Assuming favorable con siderat ion , Richf field would be au thorized by MHFA to sell housing revenue bonds in 1984. The HRA will likely continue to receive assistance from its underwriter, DBsworth. If Richfield is selected for bonding authority, it is un i~kely that another application from Richfield would be successful within the next two years. Thus, it is important to Council Letter No. 380 -8- include both of these sites in this application, so that Richfield could be assured of having affordable housing financing for famil- ies at both PADA and Lincoln Hills. As with Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, having the authority to issue these bonds does not put the HRA or the city at risk since the bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer. The bondholders and mortgage issuers assume the risks of default. If authorized, staff is prepared to proceed in completing the application and su bmit the plan and program to the Metropolitan Council and MHFA. There is a possibility that the Metropolitan Council will recommend certain changes to the application and that these changes should be reviewed by the HRA. In that event, a spec- ial meeting of the HRA will be schedu led for December 28 , 1 98 3. This will still allow all required tasks to occur in a timely manner. It is recommended that the City Council and the HRA, adopt the housing plan and housing programs as presented. Both a council and HRA resolution are attached to this letter. The resolution also authorizes the Executive Director to proceed with submitting the finalized plan and program to the Metropolitan Council and to MHFA for bonding authority. The resolution also indicates that the HRA will continue working with Dain-Bosworth, Inc. as the bond under writer. One final note, staff understands that the city council and HRA members share little enthusiasm for the Lincoln Hills School site if the development of housing is going to be at $72-75,000 sale prices. Lincoln Hills site has been included in this housing program to keep the possibility alive that a project might be de- veloped in cooperation with the School District which would provide housing at a price, say $55,000 - $65,000, that low income families could afford. Respectfully submitted, ~~ - ,. , ~ ohn G. Ca~twr~t City Manager JGC/ej a ~~rlvw~ o~ e,~~~_ ~k wtio ~~ar~ ~,~lep~lt,~R, Na CA~4 l.owel~ l~~soN • SG.~DII:c. ?0R P.~r~ FOUS iG DE'v~:.,GP'_`^~ ~'=' Lincoln Hills Housing Development Cctcber 17 a~~ board ;..eeti..c, °tT31l.:aticr_ o' bc:.d plan/ D''CC:3~ concert, rnvvllrlae:.~..Gl._Cs.: ~.C Cr..s, Cou.-icr~_ to scZecule public hea~i :g a^c :_,st rzacir.~ ^^~e.r-~ C '.1DOr. :?~.~ t_ne ::c•~rers od of ardiZa2.c~ c....~ _ ~ _ _ 4620. Ccyo:.er ~~ it it _c, o._s_____ cr_ au.~ or~:.e public ::e~°-ing, :i_st «=aciac c~ c_c_nazee. Oc:C :er 25 Pc:b:._c ~e=r~nc zotdc` p'~:.lished. 30 c:ay rotica rEL^11=eL~. C n ~la.*1, 1:, Cd~T :.OtiC:: Or. prccrau. Nove.~.ber 7 prelia.n3r~ pla /grc~r~ submitted tc tr-~e Metrc~alitz.-~ Ccur_cil gar re~:ired 45 day revie*~r. Changes made at rncuest o City Cou:.cil, L.A, :ietropolitan Council. November 14 City Ccu+:c~l aeet~..g, second _aad~.:g ci ordyza..c~. Nove^.~er ? 6 Ordina_zce publisre~. Hover :e: ~9 Jo~.:.t fiR~, 3eard a.Zd City Cau:.ci? ~aset:rc, sc:.ecu:ed _.. public hearing and raview a. band p1~r./p-^g:a:^i. Dec°•~.er 3 :ietropalit.=.n Cou.*lcil Co~tu.'lity Levelcpmant Cc:~:.tt=_e re~Tie`~r od bcnd pla~1/prccrz~. DeCe.`-.Cer ~ E Cr ""3.*.C° erdec~Ve. Dece~.^er 22 u~trDpolitan Cou.^Ci1 =eTT'_e`.~ Od :.Cr~c pla.*~/_ r:.gr=.r,. DeCembe"' 23 1DDlicaticn r~Ct:G~S t:~.C S.:a=e O« ~.^.Cidi.iC aL't C==t~T 3214 bcnd ~ 13:1/prCClr ~~:. SL'buti t t°G t0 :'~''~ .O~ ~ C d,=.V rev_ew rericd. .s''c~'1L'z'^7 LS,.?98~ :'~.~ Oar: «''cv>E`r!S i.C:'~ .'•C;rc~^.. ?.^.d G~S'C_..^.L't35 ;-G'11e~«C alii.: rr.t~7 ~..~~ - «i:+~ ~ ~.^.~° L:~~~~:.°^- G~__~ C ~7 ~v'i . ecr.:a_ r 1 ~ ~-'?~, ~cevie`.~ Cc~piQtac ebr::a=y-J~ne Developer Solicitat'_c a.: d Selec tioa ~LCUSt 3ord Sale ,._ .7c re«.=er C;~n s''-"c -'_cr. 5 tart r^all, '985 Constr::ct_c: Cor~'et'_o: a_^.d Ua~t Gcc~caT~: . - - RESOLUTZON Ivo. RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRr~~1 UNDER :~1INNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 4620. BE IT R.ESOL'v'ED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, I:ennepin County, Minnesota, (City) as follows : 1. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (Act) authorizes the City to develop and administer programs of :,raking or purchasing mortgage loans to finance tre acquisition and construction of single family housing and multi-family housing within its boundaries for occupancy primarily by persons of low and moderate income as defined by the Act. 2. In accordance with the Act the City has prepared a iiousing Plan and Program (Plan) which has been reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City (HRA) and such advisory bodies of the City as deemed advisable by this Council. 3. As permitted by the Act the City has duly adopted an ordinance (Ordinance) which authorizes the HRA to exercise on behalf of the City the powers granted by Sections 4620.01 to 4620.08 of the Act, The Ordinance will become effective on December 16, 1983. 4. A public hearing, properly noticed in accordance with the Act was duly held before the City Council and the HRA on this date at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to express their views concerning the Plan. 5. This Council has investigated the facts underlying the Plan, reviewed the contents of the Plan, duly considered the comments of persons at the public hearing and the opinions expressed by members of the HRA concerning the Plar,, and finds and determines: 1) That there is a need for affordable housing in the City for persons of low and moderate income as described in the Plan; 2) That many persons of low and mcderate income are unable to sec~.:re affordable housing because of hi~_h mortgage interest rates and unavailability of mortgage f1P.anCing; ~ . 3) That the goals and Ob]eCt1T7eS OZ the Plan and t;~e methods outlined in the Plan will have the effect of providing affordable housing to persons of low and moderate income; and 4) .That the carrying out of the Pian will be in the best interests c~ ail of they citizens of^the City, carry out the City's housing goals, and Fulfill the policy and p urpo~e of the Ac~. 6. The Plan is approved. 7. T~.e Mayor and City '-tanager and ot:~er appropriate officers of the City are authorized and directed to transmit the Plan to the appropriate state and regional agencies for review and approval. The City :Manager is designated the municipal officer resconsible for e:~ecuting any and all documents necessary to e;~pediate and complete ali necessary reviews and approvals. The City .'tanager is also authorized to solicit tre continued assistance of Dain Bosworth, Incorporated, 2Minneapolis, Minnesota, in prccessing the Plan throuaY°. the review process. 8. It is recognized that upon the effective date of the Ordinance the responsibility for the implementation of the Plan will c'evolve upon the IiR~. The City Council respectfully requests tine H:~A pursue the prompt submission of the Plan for review and that it authorize and direct its Chairman and Executive Director to carry out the purpose of this resolution, it being the intent of this Council that the cortiruity of the Plan review and implementation process be unaffected by the transition of authority contemplated by the Ordinance. Passed by the City Council of the City of ~ichield, Minnesota, . this 28th day of iVovember, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTESTED: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk • HRA RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION RELATING TO A HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM'! UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES , C:-iAPTER 4 6 2C BE IT RESOLVED By the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (Authority), as follows: 1. This Authority has reviewed the Housing Play. and Program (Plan) prepared by the City of Richfield (City) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4620 (Act), and has requested the City Council to adopt an ordinance (Ordinance) authorizing the HRA to exercise on behalf of the City the powers confered by Sections 4620.01 to 4620.08. - 2. This Authority has met this day to be present at the public hearing on the Plan conducted by the City Council. The Authority has reviewed the Plan, approves it, and concurs in the findings regarding it embodied in Council Resolution No. adopted this day. 3. This Authority hereby declares that it is its intent to carry out the Plan forthwith upon t:~e effective date of the Ordinance and thereafter. The Authority hereby authorizes and directs its Chairman and Executive Director to execute all documents necessary to facilitate prompt review and approval of the Plan; and the Executive Director is designated the Authority representative for the execution of all documents necessary to facilitate such review. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of November, 1983. Thomas E. ;farms, Chairman ATTEST: Joan Helmberger, Secretary • CITY OF RICHFIELD HOUSING PLAN • NOVEMBER, 1883 • TABLE OF CONTENTS • PAG E Introduction Data Summary and Analysis 2 Demographics 2 Housing 6 Land Use and Availability ~ 17 Hcusing Policies 20 Numerical Housing Goals and Objectives 23 Existing Housing Assistance Programs 26 Proposed Housing Program Direction 28 Housing Rehabilitation Programs 32 Financial Devices 35 Official Controls 37 Housing Revenue Bond Programs 44 Single Family Housing Mortgage Revenue Bond Program ~8 ~1 L_~ • INTRODUCTION Richfield is predominately a residential community of single family ownership and multi-unit rental housing. The high demand for housing indicates that the City has a reputation as a good place to live and a good place to buy an affordable home. This demand for housing in Richfield in addition to housing policies and programs of the city, encourages the continuing upkeep and reinvestment that keeps the housing in good condition. To ensure the future of Richfield as a desirable community, housing maintenance must continue and a greater variety of housing opportunities will have to be available. Having variety, for example, means continued access to family and multi unit housing that provide attractive, affordable residential environments for families and elderly persons. It also means that additional housing having a higher density and a variety of tenure (ownership, cooperative, rental) is appropriate and desirable. Richfield recognizes the value of a diversified population and is committed to promoting housing opportunities for all segments of the population. This plan provides data and data analysis of existing housing conditions and population characteristics within Richfield; sets forth the housing goals, objectives and policies which guide the local decision making process regarding housing; and identifies programs and efforts Richfield will pursue to conserve, preserve, enhance, and expand the residential environment within Richfield. • • DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHICS Population, Households, and Employment As revealed in Table 1, the City's population peaked in 1970. Though the population has since declined by approximately 20 per cent, its number of households has continued to increase significantly over the past 20 years. Table 1 Population and Households 1960 1970 1980 Population 42,523 47,231 37,851 Households 10,893 14,797 15,258 Source: U. S. Census Projections for 1990 and 2000 for Richfield's population, number of households, average household size, and number of jobs are given in Table 2. Though the City's population is expected to decline slightly over the next two decades, household numbers are projected to increase slowly but steadily at a rate of about 300 every decade. This household projection is based on current and predicted trends, housing developments in progress, plans for redevelopment and the need for affordable housing. From time to time unique opportunities to develop housing on underutilized land or in redevelopment areas will increase the projected growth rate. For example, two unique opportunities, the Coach Homes townhomes and Lake Shore Drive condominiums have already added 270 households by 1983. Additional opportunities being considered in 1983 could result in 350 more households by 1985. Although the number of households is expected to continue to grow in Richfield over the remainder of the century, the absolute population will decline, as noted above, due to the fact that the average number of persons per household is forecast to decline from the 1970 statistic of 3.19 persons per household to 2.30 persons per household in the year 2000. As of 1980, the number of persons per household has already decreased to 2.43 persons. This phenomenon of shrinking household size is being experienced by nearly every community in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and reflects national trends in fertility rates, delayed childbearing, and divorce. Metropolitan Council predictions project slowly rising employment opportunities in the City over the next decade. • Table 2 1970 1980 1985 1990 Population 47,231 37,851 37,500 36,800 Employment 10,328 10,500 10,700 11,000 Households 14,797 15,258 15,500 15,650 Household Size 3.19 2.43 2.42 2.35 Source: Metropolitan Council Development Framework, Richfield Planning Department, and U. S, Census. Population Aye Structure Population, Households and Employment 2000 36,550 12,000 15,900 2.30 Table 3 presents population data by age and gender, comparing it with adjacent communities (Minneapolis, Bloomington, Edina) and with Hennepin County. Over 28 per cent of Richfield's population is in the household formation years by being part of the age group of 20-24 and 25-34. This is very similar to neighboring cities though it f ells short of the Hennepin County and City of Minneapolis figures which exceed 30 and 35 per cent respectively. The 35-61 and 62 and over age groups also make up a significant portion of Richfield's population at 45.8 per cent of the total. These older age groups are a smaller portion of the total population for Richfield's neighbors, Minneapolis and Bloomington, as well as Hennepin County, where they are less than 42 per cent of the population. Richfield's other neighbor, Edina, has a significantly higher 55.8 per cent of the population in the 35+ age group. Table 3 Population by Age and Gender Richfield • A~ Female Per Cent Male Per Cent Total 9.8p 1,905 10.8 3,870 14.3 2,958 i6.7~ 5,846 11.2 2,021 11.4 4,274 17.0 3,113 17.6 6,543 32.2 5,585 31.5 12,063 15.5 2,137 12.1 5,255 Per Cent of City Total 10.2A 15.4 11.3 17.3 31.9p 13.9 0-9 1,965 10-19 2,88$ 20-24 2,253 25-34 3,430 35-51 6,478 62 and over 3,118 Total 20,132 17,719 37,851 100.0 3 Bloomington Per Cent of Age Female Per Cent Male Per Cent Total City Total 0-9 4,782 11.5 4,998 12.4 9,780 12.0 10-19 7,918 19.0 8,265 20.5% 1b,183 19.8 20-24 4,071 9.8~ 3,968 9.9~ 8,039 9.8~ 25-34 7,086 17.0 6,550 16.3 13,636 16.6 35-b1 14,327 34.4% 13,847 34.5 28,174 34.4% 62/over 3,467 8.3~ 2,552 6.4~ 6,019 7.4% Total 41,651 40,180 81,831 100.0 Edina Per Cent of Age Female Per Cent Male Per Cent Total City Total 0-9 1,992 8.2°,b 2,102 9.6~ 4,094 8.9% 10-19 3,962 16.3 4,166 19.1 8,128 17.6 20-24 1,390 5.7~ 1,406 6.5~ 2,796 6.1~ 25-34 2,824 11.6 2,542 11.7 5,366 11.6 35-61 9,132 37.6 8,323 38.2 17,455 37.9% 62/over 4,986 20.5 3,248 14.9 8,234 17.9 Total 24,286 21,787 46,073 100.0 Minneapolis Per Cent of Age Female Per Cent Male Per Cent Total City Total 0-9 20,171 10.3 20,825 11.9% 40,996 11.1 10-19 23,922 12.2 23,516 13.5 47,438 12.8% 20-24 25,711 13.1% 24,481 14.0 50,192 13.5% 25-34 40,189 20.5 41,503 23.8% 81,692 22.0 35-61 43,508 22.1 40,172 23.1 83,680 22.6 62/over 43,008 21.9 23,945 i3.7~ 66,953 18.0% Total 196,509 174,442 370,951 100.0 Hennepin County Per Cent of Age Female Per Cent Male Per Cent Total City Total 0-9 57,772 49.0 60,044 51.0 177,816 12.5 10-19 74,374 49.4go 76,114 50.6 150,488 16.0% 20-24 52,377 51.2 49,951 48.8 102,328 10.9 25-34 93,093 50.6% 90,864 49.4 183,957 19.5 35-61 134,638 51.3 127,979 48.7p 262,b17 27.9 62/over 76,730 61.8% 47,475 38.2p 124,205 13.2 Total 488,984 452,427 941,411 Source: 1980 Census 4 Income Census data provides information on the median household and family income. The median household income is the median income of all households. The median family income is the median income of households having two or more persons. According to the 1980 Census data presented in Table 4, the median household income in Richfield of $20,424 was nearly identical to that of both Hennepin County and the Region. The median family income of $24,941, however, was slightly lower than the median figures for the County and the Region. The City has a much smaller portion of its residents, total persons and families, that are below the poverty status level than do the County and the Region. Table 5 shows that half of the City's households had an income below $20,000, and half had an income above $20,000. Nearly 20 per cent of the City's households had incomes of less than $10,000. Table 4 1979 Income Hennepin Richfield County Region Median Household Income $20,424 $20,077 $20,654 Median Family Income $24,941 $25,133 $27,931 Persons Below Poverty Level 1,407 68,573 130,906 Per Cent of Total (3.7p) (7.3~) (6.8~) Families Below Poverty Level 253 11,772 24,199 Per Cent of Total (2.4%) (5.0~) (4.8~) Source: 1980 Census Table 5 Richfield's Household Income - 1979 Income Households Per Cent Less than $5,000 912 6.0~ $ 5,000 - $ 9,999 2,076 13.6 $10,000 - $19,999 4,457 29.2 $20,000 - $29,999 4,017 26.3 $30,000 - $39,999 2,200 14.4 $40,000+ 1,590 10.4 Source: 1980 Census 5 HOUSING Housing Distribution Richfield is a fully developed city with a limited variety of housing types. As shown in Table 6, the predominant and most desirable type of housing for many is single-f amily detached housing which accounts for over 70 per cent of all dwelling units in Richfield. This is above the average for fully developed communities such as Richfield's neighbors Edina (66.3%), Bloomington (67.5%), Minneapolis (45.7%) as well as Hennepin County (59.4%), and the Region (61%). As of 1980, less than one per cent of the units in the City were townhouses, condominiums or mobile homes. However, as previously mentioned, nearly 270 townhouse or condominium units have been constructed between 1980 and 1982. A limited number of these townhomes or condominiums may have been marketed to first-time home buyers in their household formation years. As a result, affordable attached forms of housing, townhouses for ownership tenure, are not readily available as a housing alternative in Richfield. Multiple family dwellings (including duplexes) make up 28.9 per cent of the total dwelling units in Richfield. Table 6 • Housing Units by Type - 1980 Occupied Total Single Town- Multi- Mobile Units Family house family Home Area No./% No./% No./% No./% No./% Richfield 15,261 10,789 6 4,404 62 (100%) (70.7%) (0.04%) (28.9%) (0.4%) Bloomington 29,654 20,015 1,020 8,260 359 (100%) (67.5%) (3.4%) (27.9%) (1.2%) Edina 18,496 12,269 279 5,948 0 (100%) (66.3%) (1.5%) (32.2%) (0%) Minneapolis 166,561 76,111 1,099 89,351 0 (100%) (45.7%) (0.6%) (53.6%) (0%) Hennepin County 375,428 223,061 7,047 143,970 1,350 (100%) (59.4%) (1.9%) (38.3%) (0.4%) Region 748,417 456,195 22,385 257,887 11,950 (100%) (61.0%) (3.0%) (34.5%) (1.6%) Source: Metropolitan Council estimates • 6 Condominium Housing The addition of new condominiums since 19$0, makes this type of unit just over one per cent of the City's housing stock. However, as Table 7 census data indicates, Richfield did not have any units identified and Richfield's neighbors still have significantly more condominium housing, a majority of which are owner-occupied. Table 7 Condominiums, Occupancy and Vacancy Owner Renter Vacant .All Other Total Occupied Occupied For Sale Vacant Richfield 0 0 0 0 0 Bloomington 1,210 955 126 101 28 (78.9 0 (10.4%) (8.3~) (2.3~) Edina 2,275 1,783 343 79 70 (78.4%) C15.1~) (3.5%) (3.1~) Minneapolis 2,668 1,681 396 458 133 Cb3.0~) (14.80 (17.20 (5.0~) Hennepin County 10,570 7,649 1,510 975 436 (72.4%) (14.30 (9.2%) (4.1~) Region 17,735 12,737 2,389 1,675 634 (71.80 (15.20 (9.4~) (3.6%) Source: 1980 Census Rental Housing Although there are a number of one bedroom rental units in Richfield, rental opportunities for larger families are in short supply. Table 8 demonstrates that according to a survey of 80 per cent of the apartments in Richfield, only two per cent of the rental units in the City have three bedrooms. This is lower than other communities in the south suburban area. The five rental single family homes developed with assistance from the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority increased the number of three and four bedroom units available. This housing program was completed after the 1980 Census data was collected. • Table 8 C ompari son of Richfield Rented Housing Inventory With Surrounding Communities Burnsville Total South Richfie ld & Eagan*# Edina** Bloomington~~~ Suburban Units ~ Units ~ Units ~ Units ~ Units ~ Efficiency 27 1~ 99 2% 181 5~ 334 6~ 614 3~ 1-Bedroom 2,729 69~ 2,215 41~ 1,937 48°6 3,295 54~ 9,294 51% 2-Bedroom 1,141 29~ 2,369 44~ 1,537 3890 2,320 38% 6,901 38% 3-Bedroom 78 2~ 754 14~ 393 10~ 119 2~ 1,327 7p TOTAL UNITS3,975 100Po 5,437 100% 4,048 100 6,068 100 18,136 100% Sources: Apartment Survey, 1979, Richfield Planning Department (Response rate: 80~) **Apartment Outlook Report, November 1977 *~*City of Bloomington, Minnesota, Apartment Licenses, 1978 Housing Development • From 1970 to 1981, 135 new single-family and 482 multi-family units, were built in Richfield. This includes 149 rental assistance units for persons 62 years of age or older; 92 townhouse units marketed primarily to middle income persons having significant equity capital; and 17$ condominium units for persons 55 years of age or older. As shown in Table 9, only 17 new single-family homes were built between 1979 and 1981. Thus, 94 per cent of new units built in these years were attached forms of housing occupied primarily by elderly, or persons that we in a financial position to pay more than the average $71,000 price for their housing. In terms of new units built in the community since 1970, Richfield has added virtually the same per cent of single-family homes (22.30 as have all of the fully developed communities in the metropolitan area. However, the pressures to more intensely develop land which is still available in Richfield and other inner ring suburbs is partly why over 60 per cent of new units developed in the '70's were multi-family units. As Table 10 indicates, the percentage of multi-unit development as a ratio to total housing development in Richfield is almost twice that of the region. Future single f amily housing development, unlike the growth observed in the region, will be slower and limited to a very few sites found appropriate only for single unit development. Scattered site "in fill" housing development will continue to provide a method of utilizing single parcels that are vacant or have grossly substandard housing that warrants demolition. • 8 Table 9 Unit Counts Resulting From Buildin g Permits - 1970-1981 Single Town Multi- Mobile Year Total Family House Duplex family Homes 1970 -~2 - 17 0 - 45 - 1971 11 11 0 - - - 1972 18 14 4 - - - 1973 16 9 0 4 3 1974 3 9 0 - - - 1975 11 11 0 - - -6 1976 171 17 0 4 150 - 1977 13 13 0 - - - 1978 13 17 0 - - -4 1979 8 9 0 - - -1 1980 99 6 92 - - 1 1981 181 2 0 2 178 -1 Total 606 135 96 10 376 -11 Source: Review of Metropolitan Council Annual Survey of Building Permits Table 10 • • Richfield Fully Developed Area Region Total Building Permits Issued: 1970-1981 Single Town Multi- Total Family House Duplex family 606 135 96 10 376 (22.30 (15.80 (1.7~) (62.00 Mobile Homes (~) -11 (-1.8~) 62,301 14,520 6,219 2,224 39,422 -84 C23.3~) C1o.o~) (3.5~) (63.30 (-0.1~) 201,781 99,829 20,299 6,379 68,196 7,078 (49.50 (10.10 (3.2~) (33.8%) (3.5~) Source: Metropolitan Cou ncil Annual Survey of Building Permits Although fully developed, Richfield has opportunities to develop additional single and multi-unit housing, through efforts of the City and Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The direction a program takes is dependent on the availability of land and financing. 'The conversion of existing structures, vacant buildings such as schools, is a resource that presents new opportunities. 9 Housing Tenure and Vacanc Table 11 reveals that the owner/renter composition by unit in Richfield is nearly identical to that of the entire Region, 66.2 per cent owners, 33.8 per cent renters. Approximately half of Richfield's owner-occupied housing (49.50 is occupied by one or two person households and its median number of persons per unit is only 2.18. This suggests that many single-f amily residences in the community are potentially being underutilized and could better serve younger, growing households if there were acceptable residential alternatives for the current owners. Where current owners are elderly, alternative housing for the elderly would free up residences for f amily ownership, where elderly are satisfied with their present housing, alternative family ownership housing serves grcwing households that desire Richfield residency. Table 11 Occupied Housing Units By Number of Persons and Tenure Richfield Total Owner Renter Persons Occupied Per Cent Occupied Per Cent Occupied Per Cent 1 4,015 26.3 1,252 12.4 2,763 53.6p 2 5,334 35.0 3,751 37.1 1,583 30.7 3 2,604 17.1 2,084 20.6 520 10.1 4 1,999 13.1 1,807 17.9 192 3.7 5 889 5.8 822 8.1 67 1.3 6+ 417 2.7 384 3.8 33 0.6 TOTAL 15,258 100.Oq 10,100 5,158 (66.2%) (33.80 Median: 2.18 persons/occupied housing unit Hennepin County Total Owner Renter Persons Occupied Per Cent Occupied Per Cent Occupied Per Cent 1 102,136 27.9 34,170 15.0 67,966 49.2 2 118,460 32.4 75,118 33.0 43,342 31.4 3 58,105 15.9 42,915 18.9 15,190 11.0 4 50,939 13.9 43,726 19.2 7,213 5.2 5 23,039 6.3 20,416 9.0 2,623 1.9 6+ 12,857 3.5 10,942 4.8 1,915 1.4 TOTAL 365,536 100.0% 227,287 138,249 (62.20 ( 37.80 Median: 2.8 persons/occupied housing unit 10 Region L` Total Owner Persons Occupied Per Cent Occupied Per Cent 1 176,977 24.5 64,217 13.4 2 220,487 30.5 144,205 30.1 3 118,835 16.4 89,731 18.7 4 114,607 15.8 99,799 20.8 5 56,777 7.8 51,103 10.6 6+ 33,761 4.6 29,676 6.1 TOTAL 721,444 100.0 478,731 (66.40 Renter Occupied 112,760 76,282 29 ,104 14,808 5,674 4,085 242,713 (33.60 Per Cent 46.4 31.4 11.99 6.1 2.3 1.6 Median: 2.78 persons/occupied housing unit Source: 1980 Census • According to Metropolitan Council data found in Table 12, Richfield had a .3 per cent vacancy rate for single-family homes, a 4.7 per cent vacancy rate for multi-family units and a composite rate of 1.6 percent for the fourth quarter of 19$2. These vacancy rates are lower than both the County and Regional averages. A "rule of thumb" for vacancy rates has generally called for rates of three per cent overall, one per cent for single-family and six per cent for multi-family to allow for "normal market choice". Even though the rates increased in Richfield in 1982, they still indicate a potential shortage of ownership and rental units within the Richfield housing market. Table 12 Housing Vacancy Rates Total Housing Vacancy Hennepin Fourth Richfield County Quarter Units Rate Rate 1976 147 1.0 2.4 1977 176 1.2 2.5 1978 207 1.4 2.7 1979 152 1.0 2.4 1980 190 1.3 2.1 1981 169 1.1 2.2 1982 246 1.6 2.5 Region Rate 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.2 • 11 Single Family Housing Vacancy Hennepin • Fourth Richfield County Region Quarter Units Rate Rate Rate 1976 35 .3 .8 .8 1977 35 .3 .9 .8 1978 47 .4 1.0 .8 1979 42 .4 .8 .7 1980 43 .4 .7 .6 1981 31 .3 .6 .5 1982 33 .3 .7 .6 Multi-Family Housing Vacancy C Hennepin Fourth Richfield County Region Quarter Units Rate Rate Rate 1976 112 2.6 5.7 5.2 1977 141 3.3 6.0 5.3 1978 160 3.7 6.4 5.5 1979 110 2.6 5.8 5.0 1980 147 3.4 5.3 4.6 1981 138 3.2 5.6 5.0 1982 213 4.7 6.5 5.9 Source: Metropolitan Council Data-Logs, Housing Vacancy and Turnover in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Housing Costs - Ownership Richfield's property values have increased rapidly since 1970. Table 13 shows that the average value of a Richfield home in the first half of 1980 was $64,624. This was below the average value of all homes in the greater Minneapolis area ($71,947) and similiar to housing values in other fully developed communities with high percentages of post-war tract housing. '~ihile the dwellings in Richfield are generally small and are aging, their value has continued to increase because of the community's central location, good accessibility, local amenities and general inflation in real estate values. According to 1980 census data (Table 14), Richfield had a significantly greater proportion of its housing valued at less than $80,000, 92.4 per cent, than did either Hennepin County or the Region as a whole. As can be seen in Figure 1, Richfield does have housing with a range of values and that low value dwellings are located throughout the community and are not concentrated in any one area of the City. 12 ~/; - ---------- `~ f~~ W v. 3 Q'~; ~ ~ £ ~~ • • • M. . u ~~`\\\ .~...www..'. ...^+• w`i ~. s- G G 7" ~ an. 'waaw.~s v.. w xz ~~^ a ., ,. ~-. Z ..~ u...oi ~:.i ... _~ V ~....o. a , ,.,., i _ ~4, t5 -__ ~ A sn..,a. ~ __ - _- -._ --, ~, i Its - r..., U Q _ _~~. n,0 .~. oe. ,inn ~ ZpZp3W ~ s ~ I ,^ -.- w•w.~.~f~p _ - ~.-, ~. ~ ~ _~ - - ~-- -~ - - .M ,..,..d i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ _ -.„ - ~~ _-__- .....,. ~ - ... so.n: _ _ .~~.t _ _ .~. s,~.,: .~. „~ , 1_=fir--- f-.~:"'"'"''~~..r..---,_mm ~...,~.~,. ^- 4.N~ i .:. ~::.'.'.'.'.'. __ . .:.:..:~::.: o r..-- i .................... J ~ f ,~' ~, ~ ~ ~ : ~ Amin v'a i. y Q _ -- an. anoerc is ~ _ -___ p i ~_ -._.~_~ ~.-~,._. ~-~. anr`wc... ~A ws.tr3 ~ \ ~ - 8 ~ ~ ~~ ~ .o.~ 3L e_ _ ui 3• ~ - ----- --- _._. „. , T~ ~ ~~ 3... ».o.3.s ~. ~...,..~..~s _ ~ I ~.. ..a .n.s ~L - ..~ r9[ ~, w" -- -~- --.. .. `- -~!, :: :~:: __ _- ~ ~ _ .` _ "", 9 j - ~ _ _ _- -- T .-._,_ ... _ ~ ~- n. v,.,. ~ - -`- s . sn.n N . s s , Table 13 Average Residential Unit Value - 1870-1980 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Richfield 24,201 25,732 27,304 29,506 30,377 35,272 38,296 Greater Mpls Area 25,903 27,776 29,510 31,536 34,555 38,095 41,883 1977 1978 1979 1980 ~ Richfield 44,406 53,132 60,051 64,624 Greater Mpls Area 47,943 57,178 66,417 71,947 Source: Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors Represents increase for half year. Table 1 ~4 Housing Value Distribution - Non-Condominium Units Richfield Hennepin County Region Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent $ 0- 49,999 1,572 16.7 45,024 22.8 99,027 24.4 $ 50,000- 79,999 7,108 75.7 102,454 52.0 214,257 52.9 $ 80,000- 99,999 601 6.4 24,180 13.3 49,027 12.1 $100,000-149,999 101 1.2 17,947 9.1 31,577 7.8 $150,000-199,999 6 0.06 4,602 2.3 7,210 1.8 $200,000+ 3 0.03 2,963 1.5 4,175 1.0 Total 9,391 197,170 405,273 Median $63,200 $65,700 $b4,714 Source: 1980 Census Housing Costs - Rental Rental housing costs in Richfield are similar to those throughout the County and the Region. However, surveys have shown Richfield's rents to be less than those in other south suburban communities, most likely because of the age of the units. Over 75 per cent of the City's rental units rented for less than $300 per month in 1980 as indicated in Table 15. Metropolitan Council estimates in 1979 (Table 16) indicated that Richfield has significant numbers of households, both elderly and families, that are eligible and could benefit from housing assistance efforts. These households have less than 80 per cent of the Metropolitan area's median income and fit into one or more of the following categories: pay more than 25 per cent of their income for housing; live in a unit which lacks some or all plumbing f acilities; or live in overcrowded housing conditions. Since 1979 the City and the HRA have been able to provide housing assistance to only a fraction of those households eligible for assistance. A majority of the assistance has been targeted to 13 rental housing since the financial assistance and housing units had been readily available. Ownership assistance efforts have been constrained by lack of suitable financial assistance and unit availability to eligible families. Table 15 Housing Rent Distribution Richfield Hennepin County Region Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent $ 0 - 199 1,039 20.3% 42,837 31.4% 76,085 31.9 $200 - 299 2,824 55.1 57,339 42.0 103,971 43.5 $300 - 399 955 18.6 25,032 18.3 40,713 17.1 $400 - 499 191 3.7 6,342 4.6 9,430 4.0 $500+ 29 0.6 2,746 2.0 3,683 1.5 No Cash Rent 83 1.6 2,307 1.7 4,b81 2.0 Total 5,121 136,603 238,563 Median $249 $239 $238 Source: 1880 Census Table 16 Low Income Household's Eligible For Housing Assistance Large Total Elderly Family Family Total 1,027 278 653 96 Renter 919 232 611 69 Owner 115 46 42 27 Source: Metropolitan Council's Estimated Housing Assistance Needs of Lower-Income Households, August, 1979 Housing Aye and Condition Table 17 reveals that nearly 70 per cent of Richfield's homes are at least 20 years old and 26 per cent are 30 years old. Figure 2 indicates that four areas of the City have more than 20 per cent and one had between 15 and 20 per cent of its houses built before 1939. The three areas in the northeast contain about 24 per cent and all five together contain almost 40 per cent of this pre- 1939 housing in Richfield. 14 - - - i ~ _ _ _ _ .~ ~_ _ k. +:~%~.%::: - ..~c 4. b'.'wu G{ h V-~M .. . , r ~~ ~.:~ ~r _ _ ...o ..~ ... r ~ ~'~ :. ~T71 cvu wt -' --'.'p v_'~,.,.,'~ t .~ f'w, l~'f~ ~ m '^+Sfti` i .w.. ..c .V raK. µ.R ~ ~ - _ ~.,,~~~''~ any' ~ ,~X ~ ° ~:.` G race .,< war M = _ .._ _ ~ ~~~~ ` ~ ~ ~ YMt. rc ~; . ...~„ ... ~ I = a : _ - ~ 1 ..ALL .~ -.~ ~~ it ~( c.w.a Yf: v.~ ; 4 ._.._.._.~~ ......~ =~ = e..- .~'~~-f ~ ~~111 ~ cw ~ M. ~- east .w ~ ~--. _~ ~ 7f - - .-_ _._~ ~~.~~ , wwpTev[ T as ..t .~-~ =r=-__ - S -`J•^---~''' Ej ~ ~-~+^^c,ti ~C .~ ~.... ~ tip 1 _ ~~...a .: _ A ~ _ _.. .....-u.~.., y _ _~ ~~s _ ~x...s rao...sm...s ___ a' ~ orw - ~~ - ~'a-:2. .G~. `..m.~...o..K .t .rte„- :::'S~ ~. fi..... ~4 .v t ~.._ {~+w.++. i ~ __ s! __.~ pry~ s A .n O uw ra ~ . - -- - - - __ ~ --'-- -_ __ 'n~ti~ IS h~~'1~~'~''~~','',2''~,.'~,'~'~~~'~'t.\.'rrX :>`; ;•`,. O e.. +.r _ _ _ :eo....r 9 a 3 S ~ ~ . ; F: T,`~;$4:."tip=.>S. .r.rM(..a fis .Vl ~ v'S <ji/,` ,>:~h~ is .trOOx wt ~ ^!~ a ! a 7 -{~i{'rtrki?$,.oi_2' ~ xar w[ [f ~ M ~ yTi 1t'~b~'~ ~~\ a D ~ / i `,1 Table 17 Age of the Housing Stock Per Cent Year Built Number Of Total 1939 or earlier 752 4og% 1940 - 1949 3,303 21.4 1950 - 1959 6,714 43.5 1960 - 1969 3,988 25.8 1970 - 1974 407 2.6~ 1975 - 1978 249 1.6~ 1979-March 1980 21 0.1~ TOTAL 15,434 100.0 Source: 1980 Census A windshield survey of housing was conducted during the summer of 1978. Houses were identified if they fit into the three following classifications: 1) Neglected: Houses with deferred maintenance such as severely peeling paint, deteriorating roof, crumbling steps, broken windows, or a combination of several conditions. 2) Deteriorating: Structurally sound houses needing substantial repair and renovation - such as rotting boards and window sills, crumbling chum eys, unsound roofs and other conditions that if not alleviated could lead to substantial decay and potential structural damage. 3) Dilapidated: Houses with structural defects such as sagging roofs and crumbling foundations so that the building is an inadequate or unsafe shelter. The location of deteriorating and dilapidated housing is shown in Figure 3. Some minor concentrations of housing in deteriorating or dilapidated conditions can be discerned. On even the worst blocks, the ma jori ty of the houses are in sound condition with no more than three rouses in deteriorating or dilapidated condition. While problem housing is scattered through the City, some minor concentration of poor housing is apparent from the recent survey shown in Figure 4. The rehabilitation or removal of a limited number of houses could significantly change the map. 15 • • • L_ 4yWJ w + ~ G 2 ~~ ,~ Z •_ -- 3w. wog __~,~~ _. ,y~ ~-~ -- i i ~-- ~~ ! ___ ~. ~ -ill 'i ~, ~' _-a _._ _ ' S x W \ ®~ J ' ~ ~~ -- -- -- -s- - ~~~ 2 ... r..3 .. _ ~ ~ ^~-_ -_--_.--~_-~ ..- - - _ s~ Y __; ~~ ~'~. v. ~e_ n.. a ~ ~.. ..w m ~.. •~ •. C ..r soi >.oao~ p O T ~..~,, E ~...~...,.~„ c ,..... ~.... ~. ;..., . ~ Nv v~o~ l.. 10 ~l y 3.. 3....ra T ;.. an+mr. C v. ,srw, ~ a ~.. ~,~~,... U ;...~ pr ro 3n. ar0a'n ~ Q _ m ;'.• ~ Z W ,...o.. , }~ O .~ r,; - O ;,.. s..a«. Z W tp d ,...~.~~zOo ;.. ,r,~,, = v~ ~ ~, • e LL -, ' '~~ ~o ~. F G G 2 y ~ z~_$\ ~ U f ,...., \ ~ .~ -~ I -rte ° c "' ~ .,. mix: -~'~.. y =~ } Z - -- - z 1 ~ ¢. )n.c ~ iw __~__ _ / _ i '. J _ ~~ 3ro ws A'l ~ Mg+~=_ ~~ Y \~. ~ ~^ ~ rte-- ,.. s~... _ _ ..~~ 3 - - - - _ _ _ ~' $•i i; g ~....~ ,N .,o= w . .o.~iae,o C ,..... a ~,.. , s ~.. s U 3n. w..v~woo~. ..r ... O gyn. r. i N ~.. .a,.~ ? e o s.. o..o~.~ X v w0 < ~ to ~» ... 9 3 ~.. ow, 42 Ja ~ d ~~. a,.,..o. ~_°_ ° ° m J Y y ~ 3~ "''' ~... Q1 G7 (n> 3W _ ~...,.oz °O~ ,...~..,„ w0 •c NQ .- u...x4 O~ 3.. s.x.~.s WLL p~ C~- ~n. ~.~ JH L"i nn. imoaw ~ Z ~ A ~ U~ ~_`o~ ,,. „~.~„ a a w ~ w 3.. ..w.».~~ Zp0 p ~i ~.....w:, .. Z LL ~ vi ~v ~.,..,.OLL T ac a0 aca 3~^~ ~p 3~. n lC~ ~ ,... ~,en i =Tp ,,... ~, Z ,....~. O ....,,. -- - - ~ ~ -- 3...~. - .. -n~~. -- - -- - ~,. ~ .~ ...... : = = vl v..w.~~.s '• ~ ~ - ~ r ~~ - _ .~~_ ,- ~, ---------~s3-' T As shown in Table 18, approximately four per cent of the single-family and duplex houses in Richfield are in need of rehabilitation. An estimated eleven houses are dilapidated to the point that rehabilitation may no longer be economically viable. It is estimated that nine other houses needing major rehabilitation cannot be rehabilitated for a variety of reasons. The estimate of about 400 buildings needing rehabilitation compares well with the 1970 Table 18 census figure of 401 structures suitable for rehabilitation and an estimate in 1975 of 555 structures from a survey prepared by the Economic Research Corporation for the Metropolitan Council. These figures indicate that rehabilitation in Richfield is apparently keeping pace with the deterioration of housing. No past data is available on the number of houses needing substantial rehabilitation which would be more indicative of trends of the effectiveness of rehabilitation. Housing Conditions - 1978 Single Family & Duplex Conditions Number Per Cent Sound 10,065 96.0% Neglected 348 3.3 Deteriorating 58 0.6 Dilapidated 11 0.1 TOTAL 10,482 100.0 Source: Richfield Housing Survey, 1978 From 1970 through 1978 approximately 4,100 building permits were issued for residential alterations. An additional 900+ permits were issued for room additions. Assuming most of the structures had only one permit, almost half of the residences in Richfield have undergone some alterations. Undoubtedly the permit figures do not reflect the total amount of renovation, especially where do-it-yourself ers are involved. The number of residential alteration permits applied for each year has increased substantially since 1970. This increase is evidence of a growing housing rehabilitation trend. While no clear trend is apparent in the number of permits issued for room additions, the average value of each home expansion has increased substantially. These two trends are indicative of an increase in reinvestment in residential property. Substandard housing can be rehabilitated or demolished. Demolition of substandard housing enables land to be recycled for construction of moderate and low cost housing. One HRA program stimulates the voluntary sale of substandard homes or condemnation of vacant structures that do not meet minimum housing standards. Removal of "garage homes" has been emphasized because most are both substandard in construction and location on the lot, and do not conform to the building codes. Available information indicates that an estimated three houses in Richfield are substandard because of the lack of complete plumbing facilities. 16 ~_.J • • --- - ~ ~ C'. t ¢ c e ~~', a 3`~'~@~ i y z ~ ~ ~ _ ,....~. ~, i ~'-'~~~ ' ' ' ~ s u. ~~.... ~ ~ ~ ~, ! i d O a ~. w, ~ fir- _--- --=_ d = ~a_ .a __- 3 ^ ~ _ ~- _- -,itfi - -_-_ - ^ M W - ,,. wa~ _ ~ -_~ ~e - - - - ~; ~•sA.~tr: ~ Q ~ ~ ~ .. -- ~- L-~ ICJ ~_ _~ ~ -- ,M ~..,. ~- ~ - - _ - ~~- ( _ _. - --- ~,_` _ of a i /\~~ ~\ ~ _l J ~~~ -~- F o i N~ .ww3~a _ iT\.\ 8 i T`om' y _ w ~ .~ _ ~.. .3~,. _- -__ ~ ___ -___.. __- ___ LL ,.. =,..3. ----- r---=-- ~.. ~« ., ...Ma. ~. _., m ,.... , c ,~..., ~,. ,~.3...a `. ~.... • c ,..., „ o 3,.., a, t ~.. ,a,,, )MMNNnrtbJ ~ 3/~ sll~~ O lnI Onl»J N ,,.... ,...~.,~ Co lnt S~1~3i5 ~~ .• ...a.•.~. N..~.,,. \ ~,. ~,,,,..e r ~..~~,. T\~ ]n ]nv`~ ~YV ! ~nr .y~~ o ~ ~~e .9 lr.~ ~~>.'. ~` .,. ~~uw. ~ ffi 3 rF.n~u.O J 9 I '3• •3> ' ~ sa U ~m ~.. , -~ „ _ r ~ r ~ _ Figure 5 shows the location of 100 buildings that were identified in the housing survey as not in compliance with the setback requirements in the zoning ordinance. Many are right on the back lot line. In addition, 44 houses are shown in Figure 5 that are out of alignment and in many ways fit with this category of houses, but apparently do not violate setback requirements. Several of these houses are original farm houses that pre-date the street and subdivision patterns. Energy Efficiency of Housing During August, 1983, the City evaluated the energy efficiency of Richfield housing by conducting a questionnaire survey of housing conditions and homeowner interest in improving the energy efficiency of their housing. The information received was applied to the approximate 10,100 single family owner r occupied households. Some of the summary conclusions are: -47 per cent (approximately 4,747 households) indicate more can be done to improve the energy efficiency of their housing. -The more likely improvements include adding ceiling insulation, wall insulation, foundation insulation, a new, more efficient furnace, weatherstripping and replacing windows. -Residents want to pay for some improvements out-of -pocket, and finance some through loans if rates are attractive. -More than 85 per cent (over approximately 8,585 households) believe energy improvements are justified by the savings on utility bills and the increase in value of the house structure. -A majority of Richfield homeowners want more information about energy improvements through a variety of sources. LAND USE AND AVAILABILITY Richfield is a fully developed community with less than one per cent of its land undeveloped. This is considerably less vacant land as a per cent of the total than is the case for all of the inner suburbs combined (Table 19). Though nearly one-half of Richfield's land is used for residential purposes, a considerably larger portion than the inner suburbs as a whole, almost one-third of the City's land is used for streets. Table 20 shows that there are only 24.9 acres of developable vacant land available in the community. Of this total, 10.3 acres are suitable for residential development. An additional 37.3 acres of land is considered underutilized, 16.8 acres of which could potentially be used for residential development. Future new housing development will be limited and will be dependent on people selling off excess residential land, the development of excess or unneeded institutional property and on redevelopment of existing land at higher densities. Vacant land when available is very expensive. 17 Table 19 Land Use Data (1980) Inner Ring Hennepin Richfield Suburbs County Region Land Use Acres Acres Acres Acres Residential 2,256 40,715 75,862 182,864 (48.8%) (35.60 (19.30 (9.6~) Commercial 189 4,032 7,848 15,410 (4.1%) (3.5~) (2.0~) (0.8%) Industrial 36 9,779 16,485 44,166 (0.8%) (8.6~) (4.2%) (2.3~) Public and/or Recreational 676 19,422 42,125 148,749 (14.60 (17.00 (10.70 ( 7.8~) Streets 1,368 20,225 38,090 116,150 (29.60 (17.70 ( 9.7%) ( 6.1 %) Water 76 3,898 29,763 86,916 (1.6~) (3.4~) C7.6%) (5.1%) Vacant and/or Agricultural 26 16,231 183,b23 1,305,912 (0.6~) (14.20 (46.60 (6$.4~) TOTAL 4,627 114,302 393,796 1,910,167 Source: Regional Land Use Trends 1970-80, Metropolitan Council, Oct ober, 1982 Average density in single family residential areas is five units per acre. Over 70 per cent of the single family residential areas have densities between four and six units per acre. Average density for multiple family development is about 26 units pe r acre. Overall density is 6.7 dwelling units per acre. Richfield has an average single family lot size of 8,600 square feet. Minimum lot size required for single family residential construction is 6,750 square feet. The Richfield zoning ordiance permits progressively higher densities per acre for duplex, multi-unit, and planned unit developments. 18 -_ The older platted areas in the City have smaller lots. All of the significant concentrations of lots below 7,000 square feet shown in Figure 6 were platted before World War II. Less than three per cent of the single family residential lots are less than 6,000 square feet. • Table 20 Single Commercial & Family Multi-Family Industrial Total Acres D.U. Acres D.U. Acres Acres D.U. Vacant Developable 7.7 43 2.6 40 14.6 24.9 83 Undevelopable 6.3 8 1.0 2 0.1 7.3 10 (MAC land) (3.8) TOTAL 14.0 51 3.6 42 14.6 32.2 93 Underutilized *14.2 78 2.6 36 20.5 37.3 114 Projected Development L/H/N -3.0 -12 5.3 435 10.5 Future Projects N/A 175 TOTAL -12 610 Possible Conversions ~~ -130 376 Projected Development Timing 19~ - 1990 40 435 1990 - 2000 11 253 Includes vacant part of oversized residential lots, obsolete commercial developments including old motels and car washes. ~*Estimates removal of all single-f amily homes in areas zoned for other uses and construction of replacement structures, mostly multi-family u nits. 19 • • • d'. C c. G ~ ~li 3 t~_£-i ; l,...n .. \\ - ,1~--. l.. f. N. ~o"3}Jw~+ ~~ ~~a ln... c r..d.. pkt.^^~' x -.. ~ l+t ~," _ :. zx l~.., ~ -+ ,, k .... R Mea ~~a.~i. ..:•:~ ? nr laid ~ ~ ~ ~ -njr,-.;i..~.~,. l.. ,... ~ . ~ xi; vw ar+uo. 'y~ xw~ •. y~ Sa L.. nl rim / t"'~7' 4 ~ e ;-,~§' ~.J E ~y ~ ~" y la ni ~AY.F d..!. ,, : 3 ~M ll+wrr _ - - .. yw ~ilov.v ~.~ ~. BBB~~~~~,J~~ ~, ~ w .,.w..l. x, -~- - .. l...,~,,. ~. - .: a--.~ lm .....1,. - -T ~ =- lM .1~ _ ~ J =_ d Arg .. ~. a.~ ... :: ~ __ o~~~,_ W a ~ - ln. ..~b. S J + W Y a.. i~wnn. ~ u. t /. ~~ ~ ~ / `~ " l,_.3,~ l~ ~ - _~" .. l,=. - ----- ~- ~ .; i4i~ ~ 1....M.~.. ' '~ - C7 ~ - ~ r l.. ,,,.1. '.~.~.~'~' L . _ J ~ C ~ n z ~ i ~- z 7 ~~ ~' ~~ u..z. ° l~. ~ ~i O lnr Y+~a n. •Tll».Ji ~ m 7 l....., E 1...~.~«..a„ ~ ,....: m L _ 1.. .~e W ~. ~.>,.~ lM N.~„ol ~.. ~walwn la.~.lti / ln. tMwna lnv ~'wl ~ ~,. ~~. J 1 ~ 1..~~..,: ~ ~ ,,...o.. = w J N ~ l., .l.b O o ` 0 l.. ,ll W ~ H m o ~ l,. l~s~. N ~ o 0 l.. ,.a .l,l ~ >.. ~..~. y O m ...~..s.. O :: HOUSING POLICIES Richfield is a fully developed suburb with an established land use pattern. The policy decisions which the community makes are targeted toward maintaining the existing housing and providing a variety of housing opportunities. General Housing Policies Will Be: 1. To require high standards of residential development. 2. To see a diversified housing supply with a balance between higher and lower value homes with the reservation that lower value housing shall not become so extensive as to place an undue financial burden on the local tax base. 3. To permit all types of housing, provided each is properly located in accordance with the Comprerensive Plan, and the site plans and structural quality are in accord with health and building standards as well as urban design standards and promote a safe, secure energy efficient residential environment. ~4. To maintain programs which will sustain the existing housing supply in a safe, sound condition and be developed and administered in a manner consistent with the housing goals of the community. 5. To actively pursue alternative housing options for the elderly including cooperatives, condominiums and apartments to free up existing housing units for younger larger families. 6. To reaffirm the role of the community as a source of middle income housing opportunities and to continue to strive to make use of any programs available to meet the housing needs of that segment of population. Assisted Housing Policies Will Be: 1. Richfield will work towards meeting the "fair share" low and moderate income housing goals as outlined by the Metropolitan Council in the Metropolitan Housing Guide. c. Richfield will continue to pursue funding from all available sources and administer housing asssistance programs for all segments of the low and moderate income population including family, large family, elderly, renters, and homeowners. 3. Richfield will continue its acquisition of substandard residential properties and will continue its use of land write-down techniques as incentive for development of low and moderate income housing. 4. Richfield will loans to assist homes, C7 continue to provide housing rehabilitation grants and low and moderate income persons in maintaining their 20 5. To ensure that a variety of new ownership and rental housing opportunities are provided, the City should consider participation in housing development projects through housing revenue bond financing and the use of other financial techniques such as tax-increment financing, recognizing that it must also assess the potential financial impact of such activities on other affected public agencies and services. 6. The City should encourage the use of programs and resources available through the federal government and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as well as powers granted it through enabling legislation to expand local opportunities for both homeownership and rental housing. 7. Housing opportunities provided in the city through federal, state or local efforts should be affirmatively marketed and available to all housing producers and consumers and, in particular, minorities, low- income households, families with children, the handicapped and households displaced by public or private action. Market Rate Housing Policies Will Be: 1. Richfield will continue to maintain and administer a zoning ordinance which protects the health, safety and welfare of the community but which does not contain standards which exclude any economic group in the city. 2. Richfield will work towards a revision of the residential zoning regulations to promote the conservation of the existing housing base while utilizing residential districts with varying lot size and density requirments to allow varying housing values, size, type and environment. 3. Richfield will require that City-owned land that is sold for private housing development be developed with affordable units compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Maintenance, Rehabilitation, Energy Conservation and Redevelopment Policies Will Be: 1. Richfield will develop neighborhood conservation programs and housing rehabilitation programs which will encourage residents to maintain their property. 2. Richfield will develop a systematic housing code enforcement program which will require residents to maintain their property. 3. Richfield will preserve the integrity and value of existing residential areas by prohibiting intrusion of incompatible land uses through active enforcement of the City's zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Richfield will require the rerm val of vacant or abandoned structures which are deemed a hazard to citizen health or safety if such structures cannot be brought up to acceptable standards within a reasonable period of time or if rehabilitation is not economically feasible. 21 5. Richfield will actively encourage the replacement of back of the lot "garage houses" and other buildings of substandard construction. 6. Richfield will allow the development of mixed commercial and residential uses in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment area and future redevelopment areas to provide higher density alternate housing types convenient to commercial services and facilities. 7. Richfield will allow the development of higher density housing opportunities along arterial streets to provide buffers to adjacent uses. $. Richfield will promote the installation of energy related improvements to conserve energy use in the community through an energy conservation program that: -provides citizens with information on programs and assistance available for energy reduction improvements; -prepares to implement special authority from the state legislature to finance energy improvements if private finance sources are not available at rates similar to loans provided through tax exempt financing; -helps property owners assess the cost effectiveness and appropriate types of improvements to be made. Richfield will also promote energy conservation through housing rehabilitation and code enforcement programs. • 22 NUMERICAL HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The preceding sections of the housing plan described and analyzed the existing housing base of the City. This section identifies factors which inf luence the housing base over the next decade and suggests numerical housing goals and objectives that have been established to meet the community's housing needs. Factors and Assumptions The factors and assumptions which will influence Richfield's housing needs in the future are: 1. The demand for housing in Richfield will remain high because of the City's amenities, its close proximity to ~ major employment, commercial, and entertainment centers, and because of its affordable housing opportunities. This strong demand will increase sales prices and rents however. 2. The current trend towards homeownership will continue. This trend is perpetuated by an increased demand due to a large portion of the population entering the late 20's and 30's age group, by the tax advantages of homeownership over rental housing, because homeownership is considered a hedge against inflation due to the fast appreciation in home values, because of the increased household incomes due to two income families and because of innovative housing designs such as cooperatives, condominiums, townhouses, quads and no-frills single-family housing which keep the cost of housing down. 3. Because of the high rents necessary to make financially feasible the construction of new market rate rental housing, rental units that may be developed will have to be evaluated to determine whether or not the project should be publicly assisted in some fashion. Since assistance for rental housing is limited, new multi-family construction may therefore be ownership options such as condominiums and cooperatives. 4. Market demand for ownership-types of housing and increased housing maintenance costs will also act as incentives for conversion of existing rental units into condominiums. 5. The lack of available land for new construction will Iimit the amount of new housing units available in the future. Because of this, development of single family housing in Richfield, while appropriate, may not be able to satisfy the demand. 6. The lack of suitable existing units, the lack of land to construct new units, and potential site restrictions due to aircraft noise limit the amount of new low- and moderate-income housing the City can supply. Most apartment units are one or two bedroom units which are not suitable for large, low or moderate income families. Low vacancy rates and high rents also make it difficult to find qualified units for low or moderate income families or the elderly. . 23 7. New construction of federally subsidized housing for the elderly will be difficult to realize given the significantly reduced levels of federal rent subsidies available for elderly housing. 8. Family size will continue to decrease and the percentage cf older i population will continue to increase age until 1990. 9. By providing alternative housing to the elderly, existing under- utilized housing will be made available to younger and larger families. 10, The demand for existing single family homes will be strong and the demand for privately and publicly financed rehabilitation will also be strong. 11. As housing costs rise, the middle income population will come under increasing stress, because higher proportions of their incomes will be taken for housing. Government assistance programs are not available to help this segment of the population. 1990 Projected Total Units Data would suggest that the increase in total dwelling units will be small to 1990 due to the lack of readily available land for new development. There will be an average yearly increase of approximately 50 dwelling units unless additional unique development opportunities are presented. It is estimated that the total housing base in 1990 will increase beyond Metropolitan Council projections of 15,650. The majority of this increase in dwelling units will bemulti-unit development. '~Iumericai Objectives ;;r Future Hc~asing 1. Low and Moderate Income Housing The Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 requires communities in the Region to plan for the provision of low- and moderate-income housing opportunities. In analyzing the current and anticipated housing need in the Region, in order to equitably distribute the fair share responsibility for providing these opportunities through 1990, the Metropolitan Council looked at three factors. For each community it looked at the expected household growth, the current number of multi- family units and the number of pre-1940 multi-family units. These factors produced for each community a ten-year fair share goal expressed as a numerical range of the number of Iow- and moderate- income housing opportunities each city should provide. The goal for Richfield is 320 to 800 such opportunities during this decade. The City's ability to achieve this goal will, of course, be greatly affected by the availability of federal, state, and local programs to provide housing assistance. 24 2. Market Rate Housing Goals It is estimated that 80 per cent (375 units) of the new units constructed in Richfield by 1990 will be market rate housing units. Twenty per cent of the market rate units (75 units) will be modest cost units while 80 per cent (300 units) will be middle or upper income housing units. It is anticipated that this housing will be multiple family housing including cooperatives, condominiums, townhouses and apartments. 3. Housing Unit Type Table 21 indicates the projected distribution of housing types in 1990 and shows that the major increase will be in the number of multi-family units. Given unique opportunities, a land and financing resource, this net change could be greater. Table 21 Housing Ty pes 1978-1990 Net Change Unit Type 1978 1978-1990 1990 Single Family 10,279 45 10,319 Multi-Family 4,826 X30 5,256 Mobile Home 71 0 71 Totals 15,176 X75 15,651 Source: 1979, Richfield Planning Department 4. Rehabilitation, Demolition and Redevelopment Goals It is the goal of the City of Richfield to continue to utilize federal and state funding sources to provide 100 rehabilitation loans or grants each year until 1990. It is anticipated that an additional 30 substandard units will be demolished and replaced with new modest cost housing by 1990. Twenty-four additional units were demolished in the City's Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area to make sites available for new commercial and/or multi-family housing development. • 25 EXISTING HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The City of Richfield, through the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), has initiated and administered a number of housing assistance programs since its formation in 1974. The purpose of the programs has been to: -improve the attractiveness of neighborhoods throughout the City; -increase the supply of affordable, habitable dwelling units; -prevent the spread of urban blight; -promote home ownership; -discourage abandonment of properties; and -stimulate the use of private capital for housing improvement. The housing assistance programs operated by the HRA assist both family and elderly low- and moderate-income renters and homeowners. Since 1975, the amount of subsidized rental housing has increased to 394 units through participation in the federal Section 8 Rent Assistance Program. Under the Section 8 program, direct rent subsidies are provided to the owners of rental property on the behalf of low- and moderate-income families and individuals. The program includes new construction, existing units, and moderate rehabilitation. In Richfield, 154 units of new construction rental housing have been developed through the Section 8 Program. This includes the scattered site single-family development of five, large-family rental units. The Richfield HRA also provides housing assistance to low- and moderate-income homeowners. Assistance to homeowners involves either the provision of rehabilitation loans and grants, the sale of land for construction of new housing, or rehabilitation of housing and sale for ownership purposes upon completion. The homes that the HRA sells for ownership utilize end loan financing provided through HUD's FHA Section 235 Program or MHFA's Single Family Mortgage Loan Program. The HRA often reduces the initial price of a house by securing a second lien on the property. The homeowner then repays this lien when the property is sold at some future time. Housing rehabilitation loans and grants are provided through the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and through programs of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). CDBG funds are received from HUD by Hennepin County through an Urban County Entitlement Grant application. In recent years, approximately 25 per cent of the CDBG funds received by Richfield have been allocated by the City Council to the HRA for housing rehabilitation programs. As of 1981 the City of Richfield, through the HRA, has assisted a total of 958 households with either rent or rehabilitation assistance. Table 22 summarizes the number and type of assistance which the City has provided. • 26 Table 22 Housing Assistance Efforts By Program RENTAL ASSISTANCE Pro ram Family Elderly Total Section 8 New Construction 5 149 154 Section 8 Existing 144 96 240* 394 OWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE Program Total Section 235/MHFA Homeownership 12 I~-iFA Rehabilitation Grants/Deferred Loans 55 NQ-iFA Home Improvement Loans 307 CDBG Rehabilitation Grants 172 546 TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS ASSISTED 958* This number does not reflect the total number of households that have received assistance through the Section $ Existing Program. 240 units is the annual average. Households routinely drop or join the program. 27 Proposed Housing Program Direction The following is a description of programs, techniques and official controls which may be utilized by the City of Richfield and the Richfield HRA to form a comprehensive approach to achieving its numerical housing objectives and pursuing its housing policies. It should be emphasized that the housing programs the HRA utilize are flexible and capable of evolving within unique circumstances as they arise. During the 1980's the metropolitan area housing market will be affected by economic conditions and changes in government housing programs which can be used to encourage construction of housing and provide housing maintenance. Thus, new directions must be flexible to take maximum advantage of changes in laws, housing assistance programs, and the economy. Much of this program direction may be irrelevant or obsolete by the end of the decade, but for now it provides a current, immediate course as to those programs and activities the City may employ to stimulate and assist the development or rehabilitation of housing. This program direction includes a variety of programs and tools within the following four general topics: o Existing Housing Assistance and Production Programs o Existing Housing Rehabilitation Programs o Financial Devices o Official Controls EXISTING HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND PRODUCTION PROGRAMS A number of housing assistance and mortgage insurance programs exist at the federal and state levels to both stimulate the production of housing and assist persons and families of lower income to obtain affordable housing. Many of these programs involve little or no administrative involvement by the City. However, some of the programs to assist low- and moderate-income households require the City to grant permission for such assistance efforts to take place within its jurisdiction. FEDERAL - RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP Section 8 - Housing Assistance Payments Program for Lower Income Families The Seetion 8 rent assistance progra<-n, as it is commonly called, aids lower- income families and the elderly in obtaining decent, safe and sanitary housing in privately owned existing, newly constructed or moderately rehabilitated rental housing at rents they can afford. Families and individuals that are elderly, disabled handicapped or displaced and are of low- and moderate-income (80 per cent of the median income for the metropolitan area adjusted for family size) are eligible to benefit from the program. Participants are required to pay no more than 30 per cent of their adjusted income toward rent. 28 For the "existing housing" portion of the program, eligible applicants obtain a Certificate from the Richfield HRA through the Metropolitan Council HRA (Metro HRA). Participants must then find suitable rental housing of their choice meeting minimum property standards and established rent limit guidelines. The applicant signs a one-year lease with the property owner. The Metro HRA enters into a one-year contract with the property owner for which the Metro HRA pays the difference between the approved rent due the owner and the Tenant's contribution. For the new construction and moderate rehabilitation portions of the program a developer wishing to construct new rental housing or an owner wishing to rehabilitate existing rental hcusing may apply for a "set aside" of Section 8 units which guarantees their occupancy once tre development or rehabilitation is completed. The property owner then rents the Section 8 units to eligible low- and moderate-income tenants at monthly rents predetermined by HUD and .the owner with HUD paying the difference between the rent limit and the tenant's portion. Moderate rehabilitation program payments may continue for 15 years while new construction units may be subsidized for 20 years. The Richfield HRA authorizes the Metro HRA to administer the moderate rehabilitation program within Richfield. Section 8 set-aside for new construction f amily housing is no longer available. Section 202 - Housing For The Elderly Or Handicapped The program provides direct loans at below market interest rates for the construction or rehabilitation and permanent financing of rental housing for the elderly, handicapped or developmentally disabled by private non-profit corporations and consumer cooperatives. All of the units in such developments have Section 8 rent assistance subsidies and, therefore, all tenants must be of low- and moderate-income. Loan funds and Section 8 set-asides are available on a very limited basis. Section 231 - Mortgage Insurance - Rental Housing For The Elderly This program provides mortgage insurance for mortgages made by lenders to investors, builder developers, public bodies and non-profit sponsors of new construction or rehabilitated rental housing for the elderly or handicapped. Insured mortgages may be used to finance nearly all forms of rental housing consisting of eight or more units. The unit mortgage limits differ by type of building and unit size; the mortgage term is 40 years. Secticn 221{d)(3) - Mortgage Insurance Rental And Cooperative Housing For Low- And Moderate-Income Families, Market Interest Rate This program provides mortgage insurance for mortgages made by lenders to public, non-profit, cooperative, builder-seller, investor-sponsor, limited distribution mortgagors and general mortgagors to finance the construction cr rehabilitation of rental or cooperative housing. Such housing must have five or more units and have rental rates which permit occupancy by moderate-income families. Unit mortgage limits are higher for elevator structures and non- profit sponsors; the mortgage term is 40 years. • 29 Section 221(d)(4) - Mortgage Insurance Rental Housing For ~IQderate Income Families This program provides mortgage insurance for mortgages made by lenders t~ profit motivated sponsors, limited distribution and non-profit sponsors and others who meet FHA requirements for mortgagors to finance the construction or rehabilitation of rental housing. Such housing must have five or more units and have rental rates which permit occupancy by croderate-income f amilies. Unit mortgage limits are higher for elevator structures and non-profit sponsors; the mortgage term is 40 years. Section 213 Mortgage Insurance - Development of Sales-Type Cooperative Projects; Mortgage Insurance - Investor Sponsored Cooperative Housing Mortgage Insurance - Management Type Cooperative Projects; Mortgage Insurance - Purchase of Sales-Type Cooperative Housing Units. These four programs provide mortgage insurance for mortgages made by lenders to members of a non-profit cooperative, ownership housing corporations or trusts which may either sponsor directly or purchase from investor-sponsors, a newly constructed, existing or rehabilitated cooperative structure, or finance the purchase of a unit in a non-profit cooperative. A variety of housing types of five or more units are elgible. HUD determines the maximum interest rate as well as the mortgage limits which vary by unit size and type of structure. The maximum mortgage term is ~0 years. Section 23~(c) - Mortgage Insurance - Purchase Of Units In Condominiums The program provides mortgage insurance for mortgages made by lenders to families for the purchase of individual units in proposed or existing condominium projects containing four or more units. The maxicr~um insurable loan amount is determined by HUD and the mortgage term may be 30 or 35 years. If the condominium project contains more than 11 units, the project mortgage must be or have been insured under an FHA multi-family housing program before a unit is acceptable under Section 23~+(c). A unit in an existing, conventionally financed condominium is eligible under Section 23~(c), provided the project has been completed for over one year. Section d) - Mortgage Insurance - Construction or Substantial s The program provides mortgage insurance for mortgages made by lenders to investors, builders, developers, and public bodies to finance the construction or rehabilitation of multi-family housing structures by a sponsor intending to sell individual units as condominiums which would be eligible for mortgage insurance under Section 234(c). The unit mortgage limits and interest rate are determined by HUD and the maximum mortgage term is ~t0 years. • 30 Section 245 - Graduated Payment Mortga e Program This program provides mortgage insurance to persons who have not owned a home in the last three years or who are ineligible for other HUD mortgage insurance to purchase proposed, under construction or existing single-family housing. The program allows homeowners to make smaller monthly payments initially and to increase their size gradually over time. The maximum insurable mortgage amounts and the interest rates are determined by HUD. The term of mortgage is limited to 30 years. STATE/MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY - RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP Single Family Mortgage Loan Program This program makes mortgage loans available at a below market interest rate to provide homeownership opportunities to moderate income households who have not owned a home within the past three years. Loans may be made for new or existing single-family residences including townhouses, condominiums and duplexes. Loan funds are provided through the sale of tax exempt revenue bonds and are subject to a number of restrictions. Medium Density Homeownership Program This program provides end loan mortgage financing commitment at a below market interest rate to developers for all or a portion of the units in townhouse, condominium and quadraminium developments. The maximum price of the units in 1983 is $70,000, and mortgagors must be moderate income, first-time homebuyers. Applications are not being taken at this time. Rollover Housing Demonstration Program This program provides mortgage loan commitments to eligible sellers of under- occupied housing to be used by eligible first-time homebuyers who wish to purchase the home. Eligible sellers are defined as a household of not more than two persons where at least one of the persons is over the age of 45. In addition, developers who have constructed, or are constructing projects designed to provide housing opportunities for the eligible sellers may seek a set aside for as many as 12 mortgage loans to assist in marketing units in such projects so that potential purchasers or renters of units have favorable terms under which to sell their present homes. MHFA determines the maximum price of a seller's home and the maximum eligible income of the first-time homebuyers. Moderate Income Elderly Housing Program - Non-Profit This program provides 30-year fixed rate permanent financing at a below market interest rate and construction financing for housing proposals for elderly persons capable of independent living. Sponsors must be non-profit corporations who are exempt from federal income taxation and have the financial capability and experience to develop and manage a housing development. The apartment units must contain full kitchen facilities and the provision of 37 social, health and nutrition services are encouraged, provided they are not a condition of occupancy. MHFA determined income limits must be met by 75 per cent of the tenants. Moderate Income Market Rate Housing Program This program provides below market interest rate end loan and construction financing for market rate rental housing proposals from limited dividend and non-profit developers. MHFA assists the developer in arranging financing and then sells tax exempt revenue bonds. Section 8 set-asides are no longer available. Vietnam Era Veterans Downpayment Assistance Program This program provides eligible Vietnam era veterans or their unremarried spouses with an interest-free loan of 10 per cent of the purchase price of a new or existing home up to a maximum of $4,000. Loans are made in conjunction with VA first mortgages, certain mortgage assumptions and contracts-for-deed. LOCAL/CITY-HRA RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP New Home Program The HRA's New Home Program provides land at a write down for the construction of new homes. This program was established in 1974 to eliminate deteriorated structures and provide new houses for low- and moderate-income families. The program is financed through the New Home Revolving Fund. This fund was established in 1975 with monies from CDBG ($51,305) and the proceeds from the sale of fourteen city-owned lots in New Ford Town ($50,000). Additional CDBG and other HRA funds keep funding adequate to achieve housing objectives. Through the New Home Program the HRA secures its land resource by accquiring substandard homes, homes in good condition on underutilized land, and vacant land that is voluntarily offered for sale. The properties can then be resold to a developer who agrees to meet certain criteria or can be retained and developed by the HRA. The new housing opportunity that is created must be affordable to moderate income families. 32 • Community Development Block Grant Programs • CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Loans - Thirty year deferred loans homeowners for repairs and energy. The adjusted annual payment is required prior to is forgiven. Repairs mo defective furnaces, with updating electric wiring, weatherstripping. Flood Grants - of up to $8,250 are available to low income improvements relating to building code and incomes of applicants cannot exceed $7,500. No sale of the home and after 30 years the loan st frequently needed include replacing old, more efficient types, replacing old roofs, and plumbing, insulating, caulking and Grants are provided to low income homeowners affected by storm water run- off. Grants of up to $$,250 are available to homeowners with an adjusted annual inncome of less than $7,500 whose homes have suffered structural damage from flooding. For 1983, $15,000 in CDBG funds is programmed for these grants. Unexpended flood grant funds are made available for regular housing rehabilitation loans if no storm flooding occurs in any given year. Section 8 - Moderate Rehabilitation Program Through the Metro HRA's Section $ Moderate Rehabilitation Program privately owned rental units that are substandard or require major building component repairs or replacements may be rehabilitated. Units are then offered to low- and moderate-income families and elderly, handicapped and disabled persons.As the administering agency of the program, Metro HRA provides rehabilitation technical assistance to property owners by working with them in determining the amount and type of rehabilitation, preparing the feasibility analysis, cost estimates and detailed work write-ups, locating a contractor, and securing financing. The HRA authorized the Metro HRA to administer the program in Richfield. The program is directed toward buildings constructed prior to 1965. Eligible buildings must contain units requiring improvements at a minimum expense of $1,000 per unit, but all units need not be included in the rehabilitation project. If major building components require the improvements, the costs are pro-rated to individual units. Improvements required to make a unit accessible to a handicapped person may be included in the $1,000 per unit minimum. • 33 Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program This program offers below market interest rate loans to owners of residential buildings rented primarily by low- and moderate-income tenants. MHFA provides the financing through the sale of tax exempt revenue bonds. However, no Section 8 set-aside is available. There are no income limits for the borrowers but they must own the property individually, not as a corportion, partnership, association or other entity. The total amount of the loan may not exceed $7,500 per unit or $37,500 per building, whichever is less. Loans for single- family rental units may not exceed $15,000. The program administered by the Metro HRA, as authorized by the Richfield HRA, emphasizes bringing buildings into compliance with state energy conservation standards. Housing Maintenance Code The City of Richfield, Fire and Inspection Divisions, regularly inspect all multiple-family residential structures for Building Code violations and request corrections and improvements when appropriate. The City is still considering the value of routine inspection of single family residences at convenient times, such as when a sale occurs. MHFA Rehabilitation Loan Program This program provides two types of home rehabilitation loans, flexible and deferred, to help low-income homeowners correct deficiencies in building systems energy efficiency, or in addition, accessibility for a handicapped occupant. A maximum of $6,000 is available to homeowners with adjusted annual incomes of not more than $b,000. A flexible loan has 3 per cent interest and • small monthly payments. Deferred loans have no interest or monthly payments but must be repaid upon sale or transfer of the property if that sale or transfer occurs within 10 years of the loan date. The Richfield HRA administers the limited (approximately $25,000 annually) funds. MHFA Home Improvement Loan Program This program offers loans of up to $15,000 at below market interest rates to low- and moderate-income homeowners. The interest rate on a loan is based upon the borrower's income; ranging from 3 per cent for an income of $7,000 to 10- 1/2 per cent for an income of $24,000. Eligible improvements should increase the home's livability, market value, and energy efficiency. The loans can also make the home more accessible to a handicapped occupant or bring the home into compliance with local and state building codes. The term of the loan is 15 years. Richfield Bank & Trust and Summit State Bank administer the program in Richfield. 34 Richfield Energy Conservation Program This program, authorized by the Richfield City Council in October, 1983, has five elements: a mechanism for financing energy improvements (special energy loans from MHFA at $-1/2 per cent interest rate for five years); a home energy audit to determine cost-effective energy improvements; education and information distribution; a marketing element to encourage homeowner participation; and on-going administration. Richfield Bank & Trust, Summit State Bank, and First Federal Savings and Loan of Richfield administers the loan element. There are no income limits to be eligible for the energy loan. Minnegasco, Richfield's primary heating fuel utility, performs the audit at a cost of $10. FINANCIAL DEVICES The market in which subsidized and lower-cost market rate housing is produced is changing. The rapid decrease in federal housing subsidies and programs to produce affordable housing means that state and local government must recognize an expanded role in stimulating the development of affordable housing. Already cities are called upon to employ a variety of financial initiatives and housing production tools permitted by state and federal law to achieve their lower-cost housing objectives. Richfield, both the City and HRA, will likely use one or more of these often complex approaches to stimulate new residential development during this decade. Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds Federal and state laws permit cities and HRA's to issue tax-exempt housing mortgage revenue bonds to generate a pool of capital to be used to make below market interest rate home loans to eligible program participants. The total dollar volume of bonds, as well as income and purchase price limits are established by state law. Bond proceeds can be used to finance a variety of programs including new construction home sales to first time homebuyers, existing home sales to first time homebuyers, sales of homes owned by elderly to first time hoomebuyers, and house rehabilitation (energy and general improvements). Minnesota law, 1983 Chapter 197, permits the city to develop and implement an energy conservation program and sell revenue bonds as one alternative to finance energy improvements. Apartment Development/Industrial Revenue Bonds Federal and state laws permit cities and HRA's to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds to finance the development of rental housing if at least 20 per cent of the units will be occupied by households of low- and moderate-income. Proceeds from a bond issue can be made available directly to the developer who uses the rental income to retire the bonds over a prescribed period of time. Another type of apartment development program called "loan-to-lenders" uses bond proceeds to make collateralized loans to lending institutions which, in turn, make construction and permanent mortgage loans for the construction or rehabilitation of multi-family rental housing. 35 _ _. T- _ _ I Tax Increment Financina~ State law enables cities, port authorities and HRA's to administer development, redevelopment, or rehabilitation activities that are financed by the increase in property taxes generated by the activity. This tool can be used to redevelop blighted areas, construct low- and moderate-income housing, promote economic development and employment, pay debt service on bonds issued to finance a development within a tax increment district, pay costs incurred in obtaining credit or reduce rental payments. To implement a tax increment district, a city or authority must first prepare a redevelopment plan and a tax increment financing plan which demonstrate the need for the activity and its financing structure. The city sells bonds to provide revenues to finance property acquisition, relocation, demolition or site preparation. The new development generates new, higher taxes because the assessed value of the property increases. This new value is called the "captured assessed value". It yields the tax increments that-are used to repay the bond indebtedness realized by the city when it bought or prepared the site for redevelopment. Community Development Block Grants Through this program, HUD provides funds to Hennepin County, who by agreement, distributes the funds to local governments such as Richfield to undertake a wide range of activities directed toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development and the provision of improved community facilities and services. Specific activities that can be carried out with block grant funds include acquisition of real property, relocation and demolition, rehabitation of residential and non-residential structures, and provision of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, streets and neighborhood centers. In addition, block grant funds are available to pay for certain public services necessary or appropriate to support other block grant activities. Communities are restricted from underwriting the cost of building new housing, or making housing allowance type payments or other income maintenance payments. However, neighborhood-based, non-profit organizations, local development corporations or small business investment companies may act as subgrantees to carry out neighborhood revitalization or community economic development projects to support block grant objectives. Cities have the discretion to design programs and establish priorities for the use of funds, so long as programs conform to the statutory standards and program regulations. One requirement is that housing produced as a result of CDBG assistance provide a 51 per cent benefit to low and moderate income (Section 8 income) persons as defined by HUD. What this usually means is that a majority of the housing units must be occupied by Section 8 eligible persons. Without Section 8 subsidies it is very difficult to produce affordable rental housing. Because of economic conditions, it is equally difficult to find .eligible families having a Section 8 income for ownership housing. i 36 OFFICIAL CONTROLS Housing opportunities that the City and HRA create are affected by certain "controls" on a national, state, metropolitan area and local level. National housing problems, such as high construction costs and high interest rates indirectly control housing opportunities in Richfield. Congressional action limiting authority to issue housing mortgage revenue bonds affects the ability to finance housing and housing improvements. The State of Minnesota also controls the issuance of revenue bonds. Legislation controls the amount that can be sold and who may benefit from the bond proceeds. Also, this housing plan and any included housing bond programs are subject to review by MHFA. The Metropolitan Council also has a review responsibility for the housing plan and housing programs. Additionally, the Metropolitan Council has policies which affect-the distribution of housing and recommendations relating to controlling housing costs. Local control of housing development also has an affect on costs and the ability to develop housing. Local regulations and requirements control land use through zoning and subdivision ordinances. Local standards and design specifications for the installation of public improvements such as streets, curbs, and sewers, as well as the overall local approval process for residential development are examples of local control. Controls are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds - Federal Control • Tax exempt bonds have been issued for housing purposes since just after World War II, but not until the early 1970's were they issued in any great quantity. In the 70's, many state housing finance agencies began to issue tax-exempt bonds for mortgages on apartment buildings and owner-occupied 'nouses. In 1978, local governments began to issue bonds for mortgages on owner-occupied houses, The authority for their issuance was based on Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB) enabling legislation. Federal law and regulation imposed few restrictions on these bonds, provided that they were issued under the auspices of a state or local government. However, in 1979, Congress became concerned about the large federal revenue losses associated with the growing band volume and the possibility that the volume of housing bonds would push up interest rates on tax-exempt bonds issued for more traditional public purposes. Congress also felt that the subsidy provided by these bonds should be available to homebuyers of more modest incomes. Some states and cities were providing the benefits of these bonds to people who purchased very expensive housing. In response to these concerns, Congress enacted the Mortgage Subsidy Bond Tax Act 1f 19$0. This is also known as the Ullman legislation. This act sharply limited tax exempt bonds for owner occupied housing. 37 • Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds - State Control In 1981, state legislative action pursued by the League of Minnesota Cities, allocated a portion of the Minnesota approximate limit of $200 million to cities. MHFA utilizes the balance to finance housing development throughout the state. In 1983, the amount of bond authority for cities is expected to be approximately $27.5 million. The request for mortgage revenue bonds, included in all programs of any applying city cannot exceed $10 million. The request is sent to MHFA as an application for bonding authority. When MHFA receives proposals for more than the amount of bonding authority available, the programs are ranked based on three tie-breaking criteria. The first factor used is the proportion of the proposed issue reserved for at least a six-month period for households with incomes below 80 per cent of the metropolitan area median income limit, or. A second factor is the proportion reserved for families below 90 per cent of the median income. The final factor is the percentage of the proposed bond program that represents non-bond proceeds, i.e., a cash contribution. In undeveloped communities, or when land is available in fully developed communities, developers and lenders typically will provide cash to the city or HRA for the right to utilize the tax-exempt financing for the development. In a program designed for financing the sale of existing homes, or if a home improvement program is desired, the City or HRA usually provides a significant portion of the cash contribution. In addition to the Ullman restrictions, rrb rtgage revenue bonds are issued in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Chapter ~62C (1980), as amended. The legislation requires an adopted general housing plan and a financing program considered at a public hearing. The documents [a housing plan and a housing program(s)] set forth: A. The housing needs of the city and the data demonstrating those needs; B. The plan of the city to meet identified housing needs, and the specific methods to be used to carry out the plan; C. Target areas, if any, of the city for each methcd; D. The financing program or programs to be included in the plan; E. The number and qualifications of lenders eligible to participate in such programs; F. The estimated amount of mortgage loans or rehabilitation loans to be made or purchased in each program and the estimated amounts and timing of the sale of revenue bonds required to finance such loans, fund appropriate reserves, and pay costs of issuance; G. Methods for monitoring the implementation by participants to insure that the programs will be consistent with the plan and its objectives; 38 H. The administrative capacity of the city to monitor and supervise housing finance programs; I. The cost to the city, including administrative costs; and • J. An analysis of how the programs will meet the needs of low and moderate income families in the city. Other State Controls Housing programs to be financed with mortgage revenue bonds must consider state- wide housing policy: A. Availability of housing to all persons, and equal employment opportunity by all contractors and sub-contractors engaged in the construction of such housing to all persons, without discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, and status with regard to public assistance or disability. B. Assurance of decent, safe, and sanitary housing through compliance with the state building code. C. Provision of affordable housing options, and where possible, relocation assistance, to displaced persons in the same developments and neighborhoods, in order to minimize the effects of potential displacement due to housing programs. D. The participation and assistance of private industry in providing housing and rental housing at affordable prices and rentals to persons and families of low and moderate income, to the elderly, and the handicapped. E. The development of alternative energy systems and the greatest possible use of techniques for energy conservation in the construction or rehabilitation of residential housing, even where such techniques may exceed the applicable federal, state, or local conservation standards. F. The use of new designs, materials, techniques, and methods in residential construction. G. The full utilization of the existing housing stock by reclaiming, restoring, and improving units through rehabilitation. H. Innovative methods of financing residential housing for persons and families of low and moderate income. I. Increased construction of rental housing for large families of low and moderate income; 39 J. An increase in housing choices available to low income minority families. K. Location of middle income households in the older urban areas. L. Economic integration in residential housing in all communities. M. The participation and assistance of local government and other related public bodies in the development of programs to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to persons and families of low and moderate income. N. The full utilization of all available federal housing assistance programs. Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds - Metropolitan Council Controls State legislation requires the Metropolitan Council to review the housing plan and housing program proposals for utilizing mortgage revenue bonds to finance housing programs. The Council must determine that: -the plan furthers local and regional housing policies; -the housing plan is compatible with the housing portion of the city's comprehensive plan; -the housing program meets the housing needs set forth in the housing plan; and -the housing program will promote a variety of housing types The Council has adopted procedures and guidelines for this review. Other Metropolitan Council Controls Public Service Standards A buyer of a new home is paying for more than just a house. Included in the price of anew house are streets, sidewalks, curb and gutter, sanitary sewer and water hookups, storm sewer, and sometimes streetlights and trees. These costs account for an average of 10 per cent of the sales price of a new house. These costs are paid by the housing developer who then passes them on to the buyers plus interest, overhead and profit as a normal cost of doing business. X40 Though these costs are a small portion of the total cost of a home, they are a large portion of these costs which local government can have influence upon. The Metropolitar: Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, in their report, The Cost of Public Services for Housing , set forth a number of recommendations which local governments should consider when designing public improvement standards and reviewing housing proposals. Richfield will examine and implement where and if appropriate the following recommendations: J 1. Communities should re-examine their design requirements for public improvements in light of the cost of housing. 2. Communities should design public improvements for function. Requirements should be determined on an individual basis, not a blanket basis for the entire city. 3. Communities should consider the importance and cost effects of density as a way to reduce public-improvement costs. Density is the one factor that affects the cost of all public services. ~4. Communities should consider the importance of site planning in reducing housing costs. 5. Communities should consider the cost-effectiveness of decisions affecting site planning and the installation of public improvements. In cases where there is no specific requirement dictated by health, safety or function, or there is some leeway, cost factors should be an important consideration. 6. Communities should balance the initial cost of public services against maintenance cost. 7. Communities should assess costs equitably to proper-ty owners. Airport/Land Development Issues The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport impacts Richfield residential neighborhoods because of the noise levels it generates. Thus, this will affect residential development and redevelopment and the related costs in areas adjacent to the airport. To respond to the problem of noise levels incompatible for residential areas, the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and communities surrounding the airport are considering ways for protecting present and future residents. The type of controls or regulations that will be placed on residential development are still being considered. Housing developed by the City and HRA near the airport should consider insulating design and construction techniques that reduce the noise impact. ~1 Local Controls The Comprehensive Plan • Any housing development proposed by the HRA will be affected by the city's established 'Housing goals and land use policy. The housing section of the city's Comprehensive Plan has goals for housing production and rehabilitation. Many of the specific numerical goals have already been discussed in this plan. These housing unit and rehabilitation goals are based on the availability of funds and the land resource. It is necessary to create new resources and programs to continue performance according to these goals. The land use section of the Comprehensive Plan establishes specific policies which affect new development. The purpose is to describe the land use pattern which has developed and indicate how the city will attempt to refine that pattern to correct or minimize existing problems and meet future needs. Zoning and Subdivision Control Land use development in Richfield is more specifically regulated through the City's zoning ordinances which were enacted to promote the "health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare by regulating the location, size, use and height of buildings, the arrangement of buildings and lots and the density of population within the City". . Richfield's zoning regulations and procedures have worked well in minimizing land use conflicts and encouraging the development of a community reflecting quality planning. The zoning regulations are not static rules to be enforced, but guidelines promoting development compatible with existing land uses and city plans and policies for future land use. As city policies and implementation of the land use plan evolves, it becomes necessary to occasionally revise the guidelines to keep them comprehensive and compatible with current ideas, programs, and policies. The residential regulations of the zoning ordinance, largely unchanged since 1954, were recently revised to increase the number of zoning classifications, clarify accessory building location standards, reduce sideyard setbacks for corner lots, relax restrictions on duplex locations, and reduce the minimum lot size. One new zoning classification is a special residential protection district (R-1) with a lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum frontage of 75 feet. Less than two per cent of the City's single family units qualify for inclusion in this district. The existing multi-family district (MR) has been divided into three districts of increasing building size and density. Multi-unit development with crbre than 17 units will be classified as a planned unit development (PUD). 42 Duplexes are allowed on any lot greater than 9,000 square feet in the single family district (R) with a special use permit provided they are on collector or arterial streets. Minimum lot size for a single family home has been reduced from 8,000 square feet to 6,750 square feet with a 50- foot frontage. While this reduction brings the zoning ordinance into closer compliance with existing residential conditions and goals to facilitate construction of modest cost housing, its impact on future development is less clear unless unique opportunities are presented for single family housing development. The Approval Process For Housing Programs The City, HRA, and Planning Commiussion have a role in controlling the course of housing development within Richfield. The HRA clearly has a lead role in directing development. HRA authorization to proceed with a project has been preceded by careful planning. Planning includes evaluating site characteristics, considering design and function of the development, and monitoring the project to completion. The HRA's role is often more participatory by assuming responsibility for site acquisition, developer .selection, plan review, and project financing. The City Council can have a similar role in development. However, this role is often assigned to the HRA because state legislation permits the HRA more flexibility in pursuing the administration of housing programs. The City Council also makes decisions on development relating to land use and the zoning ordinance. The City Council decisions on land use and zoning requirements are guided by recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Commission reviews projects for compliance with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and makes a recommendation for the Council to consider during Council deliberation. Residency Preference The housing programs the HRA participates in are for the most part financed by HUD, MHFA and the Metropolitan Council. There is a responsibility for providing the housing units that result to eligible participants living within and outside the city. This housing is available to all persons, without discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, and status with regard to public assistance or disability. In certain instances, the HRA may implement a suitable residency preference policy and apply a resident preference selection process to eligible participants. However, all participants within and outside of Richfield are given the opportunity to apply and be eligible for the particular housing program. • ~3 ~- - - - - MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAMS S The preceding sections of the Housing Plan have provided data and data analysis of existing housing conditions and population characteristics within Richfield. The Plan has presented goals, objectives, policies, and controls which guide the local decision making process concerning housing. The following sections discuss a variety of housing programs that could meet specific needs interpreted from data and policy considerations. These programs provide directions that can be pursued if housing mortgage revenue bonds were issued as a housing program financial device. From time to time during the next decade, the City and HRA will have unique opportunities to finance housing programs utilizing revenue bond proceeds. As these programs are developed, they will be reviewed by the City and HRA and incorporated into this housing plan as "housing program" sections. Richfield housing data and population demographics indicate, in summary, that: -the population and household size is smaller but stabilizing; -the population and housing stock is continuing to age; -there are few vacancies within the existing housing stock which consist mainly of one and two bedroom apartments and single family detached dwellings; -there are limited affordable alternative housing types such as townhomes for first time homebuying families; -there is continued demand for elderly housing alternatives even with much of the new housing built since 1970 being marketed to elderly; -the age of the housing stock warrants continued access to programs that finance improvements related to energy and building codes; -being a fully developed community limits housing development opportunities and often requires redevelopment and higher housing unit densities when development occurs; -there is continued demand for ownership types of housing opportunities - rental housing can occur if appropriate economic conditions exist. Richfield housing policies and objectives indicate, in summary, that: -a diversified housing supply providing ownership, cooperative and rental type of tenure is needed; -rehabilitation programs are needed; -additional alternative housing options for the elderly (cooperatives, condominiums, apartments) free up existing housing and provide needed housing opportunities within the existing moderate cost housing supply; 44 -an increase in higher density housing development provides Richfield the variety of housing values, housing size and housing types recognized as meeting certain housing needs. -housing mortgage revenue bonds and tax increment financing are appropriate financial devices to consider for assisting housing projects. The following housing programs are suggested and supported by information contained within the housing plan. Securing authority to issue mortgage revenue bonds from Nff-IFA permits these programs to provide affordable housing opportunities and housing maintenance assistance for low and moderate income persons within Richfield. 1. A Program to develop multi-unit attached forms of ownership housing affordable to younger families. The city lacks a diversity of attached form of housing for affordable family ownership. In particular, a program is needed that provides first time homebuyers in their household formation years, an affordable housing opportunity. The low vacancy rates for the existing housing stock prevent families from purchasing the affordable housing that already exists. Local policies promote this housing development if the land and financial resource such as mortgage revenue bonds, is available. 2. A Program to develop multi-unit attached forms of ownership and rents housing for the elderly which in turn increases the availability o existing Housing t~or larger rami.ly nousenolas. This program is referred to in the housing plan as "rollover" housing. Although the city has produced a number of housing units which have been occupied by the elderly, the demand for these new units indicates there are not enough lower maintenance, higher density housing alternatives for the elderly. In some circumstances additional elderly housing opens vacancies in existing housing and permits opportunities for family households. Local policies promote this housing development housing opportunity program if the land and financial resource is available for elderly housing production. The financial resources, such as mortgage revenue bonds are also needed to permit the affordable sale of existing housing to families. 3. A Program to develop single and multi-unit forms of ownership housing on a scattered site basis that is affordable to younger families. There is a limited supply of vacant single family parcels, parcels with structures that should be demolished or relocated, and parcels with housing that needs significant rehabilitation to better utilize the existing land resource. Although this type of program is limited in scope, development, or clearance and development, or substantial rehabilitation, provides new affordable ownership housing or, as zoning permits, higher density attached forms of ownership housing. Additional affordable ownership opportunities are in demand. Local policies promote this housing development if the land and financial resource such as mortgage revenue bonds, is available. 45 u. A Program to finance the sale of affordable existing housing to younger families. The size of the affordable existing housing supply in Richfield and the rate of sales of that housing indicate there is an adequate housing market for this type of bond program to facilitate family ownership. A majority of the existing single family homes have an estimated market value below $75,000 (a requirement for existing housing sales by NI~iFA programs). Local policies promote ownership and family housing opportunities if the financial resource such as mortgage revenue bonds is available. 5. A Program to develop multi-unit attached forms of ownership and rental housing for families and elderly within existing vacated structures such as schools or on cleared Land where schools were located. The declining population and household size has also brought a decline in School enrollment. The consolidation of school facilities has resulted in vacated school buildings located in residential areas. Unique circumstances may permit the cost effective conversion of these structures to housing opportunities. Large school sites, having large open spaces, permit new development to occur in addition to structure conversion. Also, the financial success of a development may warrant the removal of the vacated structure in some instances to permit all new construction. Local policies promote utilizing available land and structure resources for affordable attached forms of housing alternatives provided the financial resource such as mortgage revenue bonds, is available. 6. A Program to develop multi-unit rental and ownership housing alternatives for elderly and families within or outside established redevelopment districts. The existing and proposed commercial redevelopment districts within the city provide opportunities for housing. There may also be unique opportunities outside these districts. Attached forms of ownership housing alternatives are in short supply in Richfield. Local policies allow the development of mixed commercial and residential uses in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment area and future redevelopment areas to provide higher density housing types that are convenient to commercial services and facilities provided the financial resource, such as mortgage revenue bonds is available. 7. A Program to finance rehabilitation and energy conservation improvements for Richfield housing. The existing housing stock is ag the City appear to keep pace owners. However, this program a provided by others. Since the attention, the City and HRA need such as mortgage revenue bond discontinued. The City has instance, to ensure that mortgag energy conservation improvements. ing. Existing programs available within with the maintenance needs of property ssistance depends on program availability housing stock will continue to need access to alternative financing sources, financing should available programs be secured special state legislation, for e revenue bonds can be issued to finance Local policies promote rehabilitation 46 The seven programs listed are not all inclusive. They are mentioned here as examples of the types of housing programs projected to be useful in providing housing assistance during the next decade based on present experiences, interpretation of need, and the availability of appropriate resources. The following attached "Housing Programs" are part of the Housing Plan. Each program provides specific financial details for programs that would be financed, in part, with housing mortgage revenue bonds. 47 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM • Housing Opportunities at Legion Lake and Lincoln Hills The City, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), is authorized to develop and administer single family housing programs which may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. In issuing revenue bonds and carrying out single family housing finance programs, the City is authorized to exercise, within its boundaries, any of the powers that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) is authorized to exercise. In addition, the Act permits the City to confer these powers to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in and for the City of Richfield. To issue bonds it must be determined that such action will enable the City to fulfill the housing objectives and policies set forth in this Housing Plan. Thus, before issuing bonds in accordance with the Act, the City and/or HRA as issuer must prepare and, after conducting a public hearing, adopt a housing plan and housing program. The plan and program are then subject to review and comment by the Metropolitan Council. Following Metropolitan Council action, the program must be submitted to MHFA for approval. The state agency has promulgated regulations regarding the scope of their review. At the regular City Council meeting of November 14, 1983, an ordinance was passed which authorizes the Richfield HRA to exercise, on behalf of the City of Richfield, the powers conferred by Minnesota Statutes, Section 46X.01 to 46X.08 of the Act, The ordinance becomes effective on December 16, 1983. At a joint meeting of the City Council and HRA on November 28, 1983, a public hearing will be held concerning the Housing Plan and Housing Program(s). At a regular meeting of the Metropolitan Council on December 22, 1983, the Richfield Housing Plan and Hausing Program(s) for issuing housing mortgage revenue bonds will be reviewed as to compliance with the Act. The Richfield HRA would issue not more than $10,000,000 in single family rm rtgage revenue bonds, if an application were approved by MHFA in 1984. The bonds would finance mortgage loans for low to moderate income persons to purchase new construction townhouse or condominium type units. It is anticipated that a public offering would occur. These tax exempt revenue bonds would be collateralized by a pledge of mortgage payments and an assignment of a security interest in the mortgage loans. It should be noted that developer selection will begin during the first quarter of 1984 and that participating lenders will not make commitments to originate mortgage loans under this program until just prior to bond sale. Therefore, the actual issue size may vary slightly from the estimate. It should also be noted that if bonding authority cannot be provided by MHFA for a $10,000,000 issue, that a lessor amount of authority be considered by MHFA for pursuing the Legion Lake (PADA) portion of the program. 48 The Program The HRA intends to develop two parcels of Land within the City of Richfield with townhouse/condominium types of housing for first-time homebuying families. The first parcel is located adjacent to Legion Lake at approximately 64th Street and Portland Avenue South. The site is titled the "Portland Avenue Development Area," acronym PADA. The site is approximately four acres in in size, is owned by the City of Richfield and the Richfield HRA, and is is targeted to an objective of developing up to 48 units of f amily housing during 1984. The second parcel is located at the vacated Lincoln Hills Elementary School at approximately 75th Street and Penn Avenue South. The site is approximately four acres in size, is owned by Richfield School District No. 280, and is targeted to an objective of developing up to 90 to 100 units of family housing during 1984. A map showing site locations is attached (note figure 7) following the program description. Both projects would provide a mix of two and three bedroom units. Assumed Bond Issue Approximately one third of the bond proceeds would be utililized for financing housing at PADA. Approximately two-thirds of the bond proceeds would be utilized for financing housing at Lincoln Hills. Maximum Amount: $10,000,000 Estimated Loan Pool: $9,300,000 . Cost of Issuance, Discount, Reserves: $700,000 Number of Mortgages: 136 Maximum Loan The maximum loan amount is 95 per cent of the sales price or the maximum permitted by FHA or VA for an insured or guaranteed mortgage respectively. Each loan must be federally insured or guaranteed by the Veterans Administration or insured by a private mortgage insurance company if the loan to value ratio exceeds 80 per cent. A privately insured loan is generally insured in an amount sufficient to reduce the uninsured portion of the loan to 72 per cent of the purchase price of the property or the appraised value, whichever is less. As an alternative, all loans may be insured by a private mortgage insurance company to 100 percent of their value. Sales Price Limit According to Internal Revenue Code, Section 103A, and State Statute, the purchase price limit for newly constructed homes is $103,070 and for existing homes, $81,460. However, the HRA intends to market these homes at a maximum sales price wll below these amounts. (Note the "Suggested Program Parameters" section). For new construction housing, economic conditions that are difficult to predict; such as inflation, project design requirement, and land costs; ultimately affect the housing sales price. 49 Maximum Income Limit Generally, the maximum adjusted gross income limit set for the program is 110 per cent of the median family income as estimated by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) or 100 per cent of the income limit established by MHFA, whichever is greater. One-hundred and ten per cent of the median family income is $3,760. One-hundred per cent of the income limit established by MHFA is $35,000. Thus, the greater MHFA figure would be utilized. During the final six months of the program, 100 per cent of the bond proceeds will be set aside for mortgage loans for persons with adjusted gross incomes below 80 per cent of the applicable income limit, or $28,000. Eligible Participants Aside from income requirements, purchasers of units financed under this program must be first time home buyers or have not awned their principal residence during the period beginning three years before the purchase date and ending on the purchase date. Eligible Property Those newly constructed units for sale which are located within the Portland Avenue and Lincoln Hills development areas as defined by the HRA. The units must be the principal place of residence or be a unit in a cooperatively-owned group of dwelling units which are occupied as a principal residence. Targeting of Mortgage Funds The HRA has established no target area pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 462C. Insurance Mortgage insurance will, at a minimum, be required on that portion of the loan which exceed 80 per cent of the original sale price of the unit. Private mortgage insurance will be acceptable and the HRA may secure mortgage pool and special hazard insurance. Lender Participation/Qualifications Any lender which is an approved mortgagee for FHA and is either a FNMA or FHLMC approved seller and who originates mortgage loans within the City limits of Richfield will have the opportunity to originate mortgage loans under this program. However, it is the intent of the HRA to request bids to determine which lender(s) will provide the .highest level of service for the lowest cost. Following preliminary discussion and indication of the level of participation, the HRA will request a firm commitment from lenders, those that wish to participate. The HRA will establish maximum commitments to be issued to lenders and request each lender to deliver a commitment fee refundable in whole or part upon purchase of the mortgage by the trustee. • 50 __ --- - Developer Participation The HRA is responsible for soliciting development proposals, selecting a developer(s), and entering into agreements that initiate the project. Developer's proposals will be based on development criteria of the HRA that is sensitive to each site, its adjacent uses, housing costs and affordability, and MHFA energy standards for single family homes. Program Administrator The HRA will be contracting for the daily administration of the program with a qualified company capable of handling the monitoring and administration responsibilities and providing periodic review and recommendation. The Program Administrator's responsibilities are expected to include: -Review of Mortgage Loan documents for compliance with the terms and conditions of the Program Administration Agreement and the Purchase Agreements prior to purchase by the Trustee; -Collection of information and submission of reports pertaining to the Program and all transactions of all monies remitted to the Trustee by the Servicers; -Periodic review of the performance of each Originator and Servicer to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements; -Review of and recommendation as to delinquence and foreclosure procedures; -Assumption of the responsibility of servicing Mortgage Loans of any Servicer that is terminated for failure to properly service Mortgage Loans under the terms and conditions of the Servicing agreement; and -File claims under the Special Hazard and the Mortgage Pool Insurance Policy and to consult with the City, the HRA and the Trustee concerning the Program. -Monitoring program implementation to ensure program consistency with the plan and its objectives. The HRA will periodically monitor the project through reports provided by the Administrator, site visits, and a survey to be performed at completion of occupancy. The survey will collect data concerning income, family composition, and previous residence location. The survey will also be utilized to demonstrate that plan and program objectives are being met. General Administration The staff of the HRA, under the direction of the Executive Director, John Cartwright, will be responsible for implementation of the HRA program. The HRA does not have extensive experience in making, servicing, or administrating single family mortgage loans, and does not wish to add staff or hire new personnel with lending experience. If the HRA were to undertake single 51 family mortgage revenue bond programs, it would instead anticipate making and • executing contracts with lending institutions for the origination of mortgage Loans and the sale of such loans to the HRA. The HRA .wouud also expect to select and contract with a bond trustee experienced in trust matters. The trustee would maintain the various funds and accounts created by program documents and make bond payments to bondriolders from program generated revenues as they become due. Proceeds from the sale of bonds shall be placed in trust with the trustee, who will, under the terms of a trust indenture, deposit into separate accounts funds which will be used for the purpose of acquiring mortgage loans, funding 'any necessary bond reserve funds, and paying bond issuance expenses. Mortgage loans purchased by a trustee acting on behalf of the HRA will carry interest rates and amortization terms that shall be agreed upon in writing between the mortgage lenders and the HRA prior to the purchase by the trustee, of such mortgage laps. The difference between the interest rate on the mortgage loans and the interest rate on revenue bonds sold to finance the program will provide for the costs of insurance premiums which may be required on the mortgage loans, amortized expense of issuing and maintain the revenue bonds, the HRA's ongoing costs for administrating the mortgage loans, and trustee and agent fees. The underwriter, presently Dain Bosworth, Inc., will demonstrate that bond issuance costs are reasonable. The underwriter will commit to the HRA that the under<ariters' discount for this financing will not exceed state law. As finance consultant,. Evenson-Dodge, Inc., will be available to verify the underwriter's projected cash flow statements as well as review and report to the HRA its findings on the ongoing administration of the program and the status of the cash flow. Costs to the HRA The HRA staff and Board will have spent a considerable amount of time during the structuring, sale, and origination period of this program and will have incurred certain expenses associated with bond issuance as well as a limited amount of out-of-pocket expenses. As is the general case in revenue bond issues of this type, the HRA will be reimbursed for these necessary expenses from bond proceeds. The HRA will be contracting with bond underwriters, legal counsel, program administrators, originating mortgage lenders and a trustee, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond proceeds and revenues generated by the HRA program. Thus, it is anticipated that administrative costs will not be paid from the HRA budget or the 1/3 mill levy permitted by state law. In order to provide the lowest mortgage rate to home purchasers and to maintan the economic feasibility of the bond program, the HRA intends to secure contributions as non-bond proceeds. The minimum amount of contribution would be five per cent of the total amount of the issue. If such amounts of outside funds are found to be unnecessary, the amount of such outside funds will be reduced. 52 -- - • • • Distribution of Program Proceeds Given the eligibility requirements to receive mortgage financing under this program, and the special lower income set asides, the HRA expects the recipients of this money to generally be young families that have previously rented in the City or surrounding area. The HRA anticipates that the purchasers will have a moderate income slightly higher than the incomes thaat would qualify in the City of Section 8 assistance. This is because the cost of purchasing requires a higher income which is high enough to support the monthly expense of ownership. Suggested Program Parameters Definition of Single Family Housing: Real property, and improvements there on, which is to be owned and occupied by one person or family as a principal residence. Projected Purchaser Income Range: $25,000 to $35,000 Expected Maximum Sales Price: $72,000 Maximum Mortgage Amount: $b8,400 (5 per cent down payment) Anticipated Maximum Interest Rate: 11 per cent (estimate based on the rate achieved by similar programs recently) Estimated Principal/Interest Per Month: $650/month Property Taxes and Insurance $100/month Anticipated PITI: $750/month Note that 100 per cent of the bond proceeds will be set aside for mortgage Loans for persons with adjusted gross incomes below 80 per cent of the applicable income, or $20,000. The housing would also be affordable using HUD's income limits. Eighty per cent of the median income for the area is $25,250. An income as low as $25,280 would support the following monthly housing payment. Maximum Maximum Family Size Purchase Price Loan Amount Monthly PITI 2 adult $70,298 @ 5% down $66,784 $736/month 2 adult/1 child $71,850 $68,254 $751/month 2 adult, 2 children $73,394 $69,724 $764/month Thus, the housing should be affordable to a wide range of moderate income purchasers. 53 Effect of Bond Issue on Public Agencies Prior to the issuance of any bonds for the financing of residential development, the HRA, in consultation with its advisors, will consider the potentital impact of the bond program upon public agencies and service systems. Market Strategy The housing assistance opportunities provided by this housing bond program shall be affirmatively marketed to all housing producers and consumers and will not be restricted only to current residents of the city. Consistency with State-Wide Housing Policy The housing program for PADA and Lincoln Hills meets state-wide housing policies. Summary of How This Program Meets Housing Needs of Low and Moderate Income Fam~.lles The majority of housing assistance currently being offered within the City of Richfield is rental assistance programs that meet the needs of lower income persons. These are persons who need decent housing and cannot afford an ownership opportunity. The HRA also administers programs that offer lower income homeowners the means of keeping their housing in decent condition. With many existing programs meeting some of the lower income need, the City and HRA desires to provide additional attached forms of ownership housing affordable to more moderate income families. These ownership opportunities presently exist only in limited numbers within the City. An affordable housing new construction program will increase the size of the population, increase the student resource in Richfield schools, provide more energy efficient housing, improve the tax base, utilize our scarce land resource effectively, and provide more ownership investment housing within the City. This moderate income housing opportunity is needed. Summary and Conclusion The housing plan, with this single family housing mortgage revenue bond program attached, represents a solution to a significant problem. Richfield has not' been able to provide new affordable housing opportunities for young families. Housing at PADA and Lincoln Hills provides affordable alternatives for families that have been excluded from the housing market because of inflated prices, high interest rates, lack of available mortgage money, and high down payment requirements. This program not only provides affordable opportunities but introduces a broader range of housing choice within the Richfield housing market, 54 • ~ m ~~ ~ ~ D -~ -1 H XER%ES AVE. c -- ----- WASHBURN `~o ~' -. ~ - I ,- VINCENT UPTON Irk-.' ~~ rHOMas I_- --' _ r---' SNERIDAN II RU SS EIL ~I~ ~~ QUEEN II'!~~ PENN 4VE r~r -- OLIVER ~;%~ NEWTON 1~ MORGAN IIr-~L~~ IOGAN 41~ I~- ~~-' KNOX !r1 ~ ~i J4MES ;L~- ~ l / C IRVING '~-, HUMBOLD7 L- ~ L- GIRARO j%I FIiEMDNT i ~ L EMERSON ~Ir-- ~ DUPONT I COLFAX I.~.~C-~C_ BRYANT Ii~ 1a L-~L- ALDRICH r ~'~~ LYN DALE AVE. ~1~~~~ il~~ J~ GAR FIE LD HARRIET II ~ J~_ GRAND PLEASANT I ---~`~ I~--T- PILLSBURY jll~- ~~~ WENTWORTH y~~L-~~ ' I ~~ C BLAIS DELI 1~ I'~-~~ NICOILET AVE. ~~\ `-~C I~ Isl (~ ~C~C_ I li -,I~ STEVENS zne u~J~ 3rd I LJL- ~__~_ ~ OLIN TON I~ ~~ 4th -u ~~~ PORTLAND AVE I-_`"~~~~ I' I I~ OAKLAND II ~- PARK I I~ ~'~ JI- I I ~~ COLUMBUS I'I ~~ CHICAGO ~i'iLJ _U I^ I I I,~^~ L~ L_ ELLIOT III ii IC 10 ih ~ i~ i~~-~~ II ih _ 12 ih ~L~'~t-- 13 to ~4 I~~ ~_~L- la In ~~ I~-~ 15 t h p ~,I ~ (`- BLOOMINGTON tl 161n ~ -_ 17 t n 1u ~` ~ l - 18th R CEDAR AVE. ' _ ~-_ _~_ _~_ _ - LONGFELLOW -----'---~ = om - s m ' Zz .. m .~ zn~ x~ ~ ~ TI ~ ~~° <r "s ~~ z x a 0 VI w _ ~ A N - - O O iA m ~ ~ N > m N F ~ i c o » - s > i z ~ B > a o z tiyV 1 -1 H H 1 ti -1 y F -_- .. -_ _ __ --~ - ~. .-_ ~ -- _ ~ %ERXES AVE (f4"/,1 ~- . ~.i WASHBURN - 2r,i - _ r -~ ~ _'~ - 'I - VINCENT r ji r ~ ... .~. ~ 4,- r f _, ,- ~ UPTON L~`--- -~Z ~' l --C9s,.~~y~~`:_J~J ~ THOMAS J~r, - I ~- y SNERIDAN _J L ___ 1 ~ I`- --- ~r n -~~_ ~, RUSSELL - ~~~_..:__ ~~~~~a"~~i ~~. 4 QUEEN .l-~~!~.- ~ L_Ji~--I~__ ~---~.- ~-~I PENN AVE. ~L_. - ~ ~ L '_~ ~L~~ ~I~. NEWTON i ~' ~ I_~ i -; ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ r-- ~--, r--~ III ~I ~~ ~r_~~J~J ~~-~.,. il~j~~~-_'Ij MORGAN ~~ ~ ~ ~ -I j ~ `_- IiI-~~ ~ ~ -J _~ t_ r--~ I I K N O X I~ JAMES 'rr----~~I ~~ r-~cw -I-3~- LGNE, ~4MOrtEI ~_I~-„~ -tr~1 ~~J~~~ru-~~-'il~ IRVING ~..~ .-.L-~ ~~ L ~ -~t~.~r`~~il GIRARD J~I \~ ~V~ f ~ \%~g,~~~ ~~ ~~~ FREMONT ~~i I-\~~\~ / > p \ ~X,~1.~~-~ i ~ ~~V~ ~ EMERSON ~_1 ~c o I ~ m o \\~~ - ~-, \ i. DUPONT ~~~~ } ~ \ \ \ ~~~~ ~~~~ Ili COIFAX LJ~ ~ n 3311~~_ ~~ vo \ \~\~C `I, ~ Ii~~ I~ BRVANT w'. -~r/ m ~~~ ALDRICM ® i I 71 '+'P~ ~ ~ ~ LYNDA LE AVE. fin' ~ ~ C~ - .~, \ /i' ~ r ;~'~~~~ ~ ~~ / II~L~ GAR FIELD l-~ ~ ~ ,0-,^~,~j ~ / C~1 '.III HARRIET ~'J1 ~ I GRAND 1. _JI ~~r~-~ _ _ u ICI ~'_ I~. I~ ~~ J..C~'_I PLEASANT ~~ j ~ PILLSBURY ~~I = !~~ ~C_It_'~_ ~~~~~~I' WENTWORTH ~~C~ I~C~~ I '~~I~il ~~~~~~~~,I II~~Lji BLAISDELL I-1 u ~~~~~~r ~~,~,~~,I ~-i ~'~~,~ NICOLLET AVE. "_1 I~1 (-'~ I r-r- 1 ~ I sr ~L -j~~~l ~ I'~~~~ ILJ~I~I STEVENS ~~~~~r I~~~~~~~~~ are ~} ~~ ~ J~~ CUNTON ~ ~ I ~,., J, ~ ~ ~ ii~ 5 1 n r- L~ - ~ PORTLAND AVE. _~~J~_~L~'C-~L~~~C~r. _a '~ - I 'i~~ll OAKLAND A J PARK ~~r--- r~ ~~~ D r m 'ilk COLUMBUS --~i--~~~~~ CHICAGO r~~r~' r- ~ I' ELL10T __C:~J ~'~' ~_ '. II I II th I ~J \' `_ ~ `~ `~ ,1 13 r h ~~~- -~ ~ ~-, r--~ ~-,. ,-~, I I a r n I~ i~ ~I RLDO M i N GTON L t -~ ~~ ~_ _~ ~. i ,I~ - __ _ _ ______-__-- --~----~ ~~.,~~~ CEDAR AVE. __________________ _____ -_ ____ _~___ _TA ]7=____, LONGFEILOW U._C._- --~~ 194n - rrj '~ r ,~_ o o - s _. j~_ Jr- -' -'I 201n -~ ~ . ~ ~_ ~~ ~~ __ ~~ 21 st I`a _ aL~i zzne r---. ~~ C=,, I sraND+sH I ~! ~ -~-- - za rd --,~- m- -~ m ~ m n m a ~- - z s ~ o ti H II ~ ~' -i ~ H ~ C m d CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter v o. :~79 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Presentation to Retired Member of Richfield Emergency Services Division Rescue Unit Mr. Leonard McNiece, 7539 Upton Avenue, recently retired as a member of the Richfield Police Reserve Unit, after serving for 18 years. Mr. McNiece volunteered thousands of hours of his time to be prepared and trained to help the citizens of this community in time of need. His major interest has been in first aid, but he has also spent many hours doing other jobs when asked to in- crease the effectiveness of the Richfield Police Reserve Unit. A special plaque has been prepared for Mr. McNiece, and the presentation to him has been scheduled for the November 28, 1983 city council meeting. j~pectf~ly s, mitted, ..- ohn G. Cart fight ;~ City Manager jgc/jea • ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 378 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Proclamation Designating Human Rights Day The United Nations has designated December 10, 1983 as In- ternational Human Rights Day, an d Governor Perpich has also design ated that day as Minnesota Human Rights Day. The Richfield Human Rights Commission has requested that December 10, 1983 also be proclaimed as Human Rights Day in Richfield, and a proclamation has been prepared for presenta- tion at the November 28, 1983 city council meeting. Mr. Robert Houlton, a member of the Richfield Human Rights Commission will be present at this council meeting to accept the proclamation, a copy of which is attached to this council letter. Respectfu y su fitted, /? 7 L ,,~~' ~ ohn G. Carew fight City Manager ~ JGC/ej a • • • d I ~ ~ M d ZS ~? ' ~ C3 uo TS V d ~! TS C3 ~' rn d ~.' '~ t3 ~ v? O ~ ^ °? +~ O C3 Ct ' "Q v a ~ ~ ti mo v +.' c3 o C ^ ZS ci d ~ • ~ O ~ fi' ~ ZS O ~+ U d '4.2 ~o ^~ d ' -~+ O v ZS dv O~ 'Q ~°~ ~'~~ 3 0 • °~ v sY ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~+-~ ~ d ®s •~•~ dQC~ ~ v ~ `4 ~ ^ U ~ 4~ U ~ ° °~ ° ~ O ~ ~° SL ~ d Q ~ °4 ~ °CT +? ~ d ~ v t3 S ~ O ~ ~ .a d a ~ +~ ~ '}~ •~ °'c' °~' Q7 ~ ~ C$ ~ ~ d C3 '~' ~ °+~ ~ ~ ~ d p O -~ C3 CS] ~ ~ ~ c3 ~ • ~ o v fi' n +.~ Zs ci ~ ~ o ~~s o.s~ d o ~ •~ ~ ~s ~ v•~~ v~ti ~~+d ~3~~ ~ ~ ei o d ~ ~ ~ •+~ o ~ o ~. •'C~ ' °~ °C~ 3 ~' '~ d cs~ ~ c3 V O V '~ ~' ~ '~ C3 d ~ `°~ ~ O ~L' f ~~. V 1.re ~ V V V ~ ~ V V •i Q ~ ~..ee V ~ ~ /~ Q d ~ ~ ti7 ~ CG J ~ C$ al ~ i ~ '^ -.7 O ~' O' ~ G] ~ `J .~. ~ tY ~ • •? 'ie~ ' `2 ti '~ ~ a' `~ ' <' ~ R. ~ ~ T~ `~ ti '4 CY • ~ •a ~l d ~ ~ ~ CSC C$ ~2 ~ C3 Z ~ d d ~ ~ ~ d ~ c d e3 ~ •+-~ ~ 1- ~ ~' -~ +~ ~ ~`+~ ~ ~ ~ d d cA•~' ~ ~ ~ 3 s c3 ~ v +~' • •~ ~ w d a~ o ' v ~ e3 U 'ts • e~ ~ ~ • ~ o • ~ d ce ~ o ~ o r3 ~ ~ c3 w °~ v •ie~ ° ~ `~ C3 QC U ~ ~ d d ~ d d ~ d d ~ , n rJ ' ~ ~ Gi ~? d a d d v O U i O uo LL iY O~ r' ~ c3 ~ d ~ crl c3 ~ • •~ 'C3 0 • ~+ w o v w o w o ~-- ~+el ~ d o w w~ +.~ w +~% ~ 3 v U~ +,, 3 fi' o a d d 3~ -o Z d •~ U d ~ ~ •4 +.a V a~ ~ ~ O d O d ~ d ~•~ •4 J d ~S' d d O z w O a c3 uo N •~ 1~ T d •,1 u .,~ a `J V d w Z O M ~o O a ti 0 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~~ Council Letter No. 377 Agenda November 2$ , 1 98 3 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Presentation of Awards to Management Team of Richf field Municipal Liquor Stores ~J As council members are aware, the Richfield Municipal Liquor Stores led all municipal liquor stores in the State of Minnesota in profitability in 1982. Bill Fillmore, Director of Liquor Operations, and the three store managers, worked very hard to achieve this distinction, and are to be commended for their efforts. Therefore, awards have been prepared for each of these persons to be presented at the November 28, 1983 city council meeting. Bill Fillmore, and the store managers Wayne Kilgren, of the Cedar Store; Scott Swanson, manager of the Penn Avenue store; and Brian Wetternach, manager of the Lyndale store will be present at the November 28, 1983 city council meeting to accept their awards. ~pectfu ~_ ~~ ~ ~~ ,.Uohn G. Carte j/City Managef JGC/ej a emitted , ~' ~ .fight ~t ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIN NESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 376 Agenda November 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Presentations to the 1983/84 Nation al Merit Scholarship Semifinalists and Commended Students The Richfield School District has advised the city that 13 Richfield High School students qualified as Commended Students in the National Merit Scholarship competition, and four students qu alified as Semi_Finalists. These students have been invited to attend the November 28, 1983 city council meeting in order to give the city council an opportunity to pu blicly recognize them for their outstanding achievement. The Commended Students are as follows: Martha Aagard Becky DaWald Edward Fairbairn Christopher Goebel Debra Goulet Michael Halsne Kristin Kline Andrew Lee Christopher Miller Kevin Peterson Douglas Roberts Teresa Thom Sean Thornton The Semi-Finalists are: Susan Everson Mark Henderson Charles Kilbride Karen Lundqu ist Certificates to honor these students have been prepared for presentation by the city council at the November 28, 1983 city council meeting. R~spectfull'y bmitted, /~ ~ r - ~ f - ~ - /John G. Ca twright City ~Iana~e JGC/ej a