03-12-79 agendaHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTF~ORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter i~1o . 1 4
Agenda March 12, 1979
Housing ~ai1d -Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Lichfield
Dear Commissioners:
Subject: Annual Housing Report and Rehabilitation
Program Amendments
In 1975, the HRA established and began operating the Richfield
Housing Fund (Rehabilitation Program).. This program was established
with the objective of upgrading and maintaining Richfield's existing
housing stock, through loans and grants to low and moderate income
homeowners. Since its conception, the program has provided rehabil-
itation assistance through either grants or loans to 290 homeowners.
When the Richfield Housing Fund was initiated, there were three
rehabilitation programs. available to Richfield homeowners: The
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency low interest loans; the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency low income grants; and the incentive home
improvement grants.
The MHFA low-interest loans provide rehabilitation loans of up
to $15,000 with a varying interest rate of 1 percent to 8 percent,
based on income. Since 1976, approximately $771,810 has been loaned
to Richfield residents through this program. Originally three Rich-
field lenders, Richfield Bank & Trust, Summit Bank, and First Feder-
al Savings and Loan administered the rehabilitation loans. In the
middle of last year, Richfield Bank & Trust dropped out of the program.
The MHFA grants provide up to $5,000 to low income homeowners,
to be used for energy and code-related repairs. Since 1976, approx-
imately $95,607 has been awarded to 32 homeowners, through this
program.
The incentive home improvement grant program was established as
a supplement to the MHFA low interest loan program. If a homeowner
received a loan, they were eligible to receive an additional grant
of up to $1,000. To date, 31 grants have been awarded through this
program, totaling $17,828.50.
In January, 1978, the HRA implemented an additional rehabilita-
tion program, the YES for rehab program. Funds for this program
were combined from the Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA)
and the Community Development Block Grant, to provide rehabilitation
assistance to low-income homeowners. The goal of the program was
HRA Letter No. 14 -2- March 12, 1979
twofold: to upgrade the housing stock, and to provide valuable
training to eligible youths. The YES for rehab program has provided
rehabilitation assistance to 20 homeowners at a total cost of approx-
imately $150,000.
In March, 1978, the HRA also approved the concept of a Home
Security Program, and certain community development block grant
fun ds were allocated toward the program. Since that time, the
HRA staff has received notice from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development that such a program would not be eligible for
community development block grant funding. However, the allocated
block grant funds would be available for use in alternative rehabil-
itation programs.
Analysis of Housing Programs
Attached to this letter is the annual housing report prepared
by the HRA staff. This annual report is required by the resolution
adopted by the HRA when the Richfield Housing Fund was originally
established.
Based on the information in this report, several observations
may be made. The report indicates a decrease in low interest loan
disbursement during 1977 and 1978. It is the feeling of the staff
that this decrease in participation was due primarily to d~reased
advertising efforts, rather than a diminished need for low interest
rehabilitation loans.. According to a survey conducted last summer
by the HRA, there are approximately 966 moderate income Richfield
homeowners who would be eligible for low interest loans. Yet, since
1976, local lending institutions have made only about 200 such loans.
In late 1978, the HRA authorized the staff to initiate limited
additional advertising. The advertising program for the low interest
loan and grant program is scheduled to be implemented this spring.
In the meantime, the Richfield Bank and Trust did not participate in
this program during the second half of 1978, and both Richfield Bank
and Trust and First Federal Savings and Loan have declined to par-
ticipate in the loan program during 1979. Because the bIHFA low in-
terest loan program is administered by local lenders, the decision
by these two lending institutions to not participate in the program
will have a substantial impact on the future ability for such loans
to be made in Richf field.
The annual housing report also concludes that the HRA incentive
grant program has not been as productive•as originally anticipated.
The incentive grants fluctuate with the low interest loans. Although
the grants increased somewhat during 1978, it is the feeling of the
staff that changes in the incentive program should be studied to
determine if there may be a means of increasing homeowner benefit and
participation through this rehabilitation program. Both of the
direct grant programs, the MHFA grants and the YES for rehab, have
been very successful, and program disbursements have equaled alloca-
tions. Nineteen homeowners are currently on the application waiting
list for these low income grants. The survey undertaken last summer
indicates that there would be an additional 232 Richfield homeowners
who both would qualify for low income grants and have the interest in
HRA Letter No. 14 -3- March 12, 1979
undertaking home improvement programs.
Based on a review of the annual housing report, the ad hoc
housing committee has recommended that the staff undertake a re-
vision of the housing fund program guidelines to address some of
the discrep ancies which appear in the report. The remainder of
this letter will describe the recommendations for administrative
changes which have been developed by the staff and the ad hoc
housing committee.
Recommended Rehabilitation Program-Guideline Amendments
It is recommended that the community development block grant
monies from years III and IV which were allocated to the incentive
grants and ernergenc y grants, be transferred to the low income grant
program. Because all of the current funds for this program have been
allocated and there is a waiting list of 19 homeowners who are seeking
a rehabilitation grant, the reallocation of these monies appears to
be a means of addressing some of the apparent need.
The total remaining funds which were allocated to the incentive
and emergency giant programs equals $92,000. It is the recommendation
of the staff that these funds be appropriated as follows:
Low Income Home Improvement Grants $.52,000
Emergency Low Income Home Improve. Grants 25,000
Incentive Home Improvement Grants 15,000
The housing fund guidelines should be amended to reflect these
changes.
The staff is also recommending HRA approval of two additional
amendments to t.'..~e Richfield housing fund guidelines. The statement
on administrative procedures includes a statement regarding the
responsibilities of each program administrator. This statement was
included after there was some confusion regarding the purpose of the
grant review committee. The proposed amendment would further clarify
the grant process.
The second amendment to the program guidelines would provide for
emergency home improvement rehabilitation grants. This amendment
would provide that the homeowner who is eligible for a grant,
and in a situation of eminent danger, shall receive immediate assist-
ance to repair the one item creating the eminent danger. This
provision will allow the grant review committee to authorize and
allocate emergency repairs in situations where the total necessary
repairs do not receive sufficient points in the ranking system
to warrant a grant for all the needed repairs.
A copy of the proposed guidelines is attached. It is
recommended that the H.R.A. adopt the attached resolution,
adopting the amended Richfield Dousing Fund Guidelines.
cc: Ping. & Redev. Director
Public Works Director
Environemental Health Dir.
Respectfully submitted,
J (JL. Wilde
ting Executive Director
HRA RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has
established the Richfield Housing Fund for rehabilitation of
single family owner-occupied housing in Richfield, and
tiVHEREAS, the Richfield Housing Fund consists of several
rehabilitation programs including MHFA Low-Interest Loan Program,
MHFA Grant Program, Incentive Grant Program, YES for Rehabilita-
tion and Emergency Grant Program, and
WHEREAS, the PIRA has established administrative guidelines
for the disbursement of funds from the various rehabilitation
programs, and
WHEREAS, the HRA has from time to time amended these guide-
lines, and
WHEREAS, the HRA has received the Annual Housing Report and
the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Housing Committee, and
1-VHEREAS, the HRA has identified several necessary changes
in the guidelines and desire to change both the guidelines and
the allocation of funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the HRA:
1) Authorize the Executive Director to make changes to the
Richfield Housing Fund Administrative Guidelines as
amended;
2) Reallocate Year III and Year IV funds from the Incentive
Grant Program to the Low Income Grant Program.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield,
Minnesota this 12th day of March, 1979.
Loren L. Law, Clairman
ATTEST:
Ivan Lu eman, Secretary
M
N
d'
Ln
.~
e
Ct3
L
O
O
SUMf1ARY
AND
EVALUATION
OF THE
~ICNFIELD NOUSI~dG Fl)~;~
THE FIRST FOUR YEARS, AND THE PROORAf~1
PLAN FOR THE FIFTH YEAR
ANNUAL STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 14, 1979
telephone: 869-7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
tam
EnUAI HOUStK
OPPORTUN(77
z
TAELE OF CONTEP~TS
Pane
I. Introduction .l
II. General Summary. .3
III. Projected Needs for Year Five (1979) .4
IV. Recommended Program Changes for Year Five. .5
V. Summary of Program Years One and Two (1975-1976) .6
Table of Years One and Two . 7
VI. Summary of Program Year Three (1977) .8
Table of Year Three .9
VII. Summary of Year Four (1978). 10
i~HFA Loan Program 10
P4HFA Grant Program 10
Incentive Grant Program 10
Emergency Grant Program 10
YES for Rehab 11
Table of Year Four. 12
VIII. Summary Table 13
Introduction
The Richfield Housing Fund Report as follows is beinc! presented
to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners
for their review and comment.
Background
History
Purpose
Programs
The Richfield Housing Fund Annual Report has been presented
during ~-larch of each year since the Fund vas created in
1975. The Report is a summary of the Housing and Redeveloa-
ment Authority's home rehabilitation programs for the pre-
ceeding year. It also states any recommendations to improve
the programs for the upcoming year.
The Richfield Housing Fund was initiated by the Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in 1975.
The purpose of the Richfield Housing Fund is as follo~•as:
1. To increase the attractiveness of neighborhoods through-
out the city.
2. To increase the inventory of sound, habitable dwelling
units.
3. To prevent the spread of blight.
4. To promote homeownership.
5. To discourage abandonment of properties.
6. To stimulate the use of private capital. for such rehab-
ilitation purposes.
Three methods were established to provide rehabilitation
assistance:
P~1HFA 1. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's low-income tyrants,
Grants which are grants of up to $5,000 each awarded to home-
owners ~vith adjusted annual incomes of less than $5,000.
Approximately X32,000 have been allocated from ~1HFA to
Richfield for each Funding Year.
MH FA
Loans 2. The Plinnesota Housing Finance Agency's lotiv-interest
home improvement loans provide loans of up to X15,000
to homeowners who have an adjusted annual income of
less thana16,000. The interest rate of these loans ._
varies from 3 percent to 3 percent. f•1HFA allocates
funds directly to the banks and savings associations
and the loans are processed by the participating banks.
Approximately $365,000 have been allocated from PIHFA
to Richfield residents for each Funding Year.
Incentive 3. The Incentive Grant Program is funded 4•iith the Federal
Grants Community Development Block Grant received by the city.
Homeowners typo have received a ~IHFA home improvement
loan or other type of ,loan may be eligible for up to
;1,000 as a bonus grant. The grant must be used for
code-and-energy-related repairs or to reduce the principal
amount of the loan.
2
Emergency In 1977 and again in 1978 an emergency grant program was
Grants established. Grants of up to X5,000 were made available
to low-and-moderate income homeo~~mers ~•~ho had suffered
structural damare from the flooding in P,ugust of these
years.
The Incentive Grant Program and Emergency Grant Program
have been used to provide approximately 12 grants in each
Funding Year.
YES for A fifth homeowner rehabilitation program t-~~as adopted in
Rehab March, 1978. The YES for Rehab Pro cram (Youth Employed
and Supervised for Rehabilitation) was funded with a
combination of Community Development Block Grant Funds
and a Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) tyrant.
According to CETA regulations, the program could not be
extended beyond one year, so it was discontinued in
January, 1979.
These five programs comprise the Richfield Housing Fund.
Grants are received from both the P•1innesota Housing Finance
Agency and the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development to operate the Richfield Housing Fund.
The annual housing report will show:
1. how the funds have been spent each year
2. how many homeowners have been assisted each year
3. the problems of each year
4. any trends that may have been set for future funding
cycles
3
II. General The Richfield Housing Fund has provided assistance to
Summary 289 homeowners since 1976. A total of $894,177.00 has
been provided by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to
Richfield Residents. Community Development funds have
provided $52,860.50 towards single-family rehabilitation.
Each of the Program Years have been successful. In Year
Two, 49 percent of the total allocation was approved for
disbursement. In Year Three, 55 percent of the total was
approved for disbursement. And during Year Four, 73 percent
of the total funds were approved for grants. and loans.
During 1978, the largest amount of funds were approved
for disbursement.
The three main programs of the Richfield Housing Fund have
had some variations in demand during the program years.
Since 1975, the low-income grant program has had a high
number of applicants. However, the low-interest loan
program and the incentive grant program have been less
stable. It appears that these programs fluctuate accord-
ing to the advertising schedule done by the HRA.
No advertising was done in 1977, and the number of appli-
cations for incentive grants was quite low. There was
some advertising done in the summer of 1978, which is
when the number of applications for incentive grants,
along with applications for loans started to increase.
Another possible reason for the sudden increase would
be the 1978 Housing Rehabilitation Survey. Approximately
458 homeowners were contacted for the survey. Many
homeowners may have learned of these programs thro!!nh
the interviewer. The survey probably served as additional
advertising.
According to the past three years and the housing survey,
the demand for rehabilitation assistance is equally as
high at the present time as it was at the initiation of
the Richfield Housing Fund i-i i975.
4
III. Projected The need for rehabilitation assistance in 1979 has been
Needs for based on both the past history and the results of the
Year Five 1978 Housing Survey. The past history of this program
has not shown any marked decrease in the number of appli-
cations received for loans and grants.
According to the Housing Survey conducted during the summer
of 1978, there are 966 moderate-income homeowners who are
eligible for low-interest rehabilitation loans and are
planning to make repairs on their homes. In addition,
there are 232 Richfield homeowners who are eligible for
either a MHFA or CDBG grants and who would like to make
home improvements. Even though many of these homeowners
may not apply for assistance, there is still a large need
for the Richfield Housing Fund.
In addition to the survey information, there are currently
19 homeowners on the waiting list for low-income grants.
As housing costs continue rising, and the housing stock in
Richfield continues to age, the demand for rehab assistance
will be present.
IV. Recommended 1. Since the number of applications for low income grants
Pro. ram is quite high, staff recommends that the excess Community
Changes for Development funds which were allocated to the Incentive
Year Five Grant Program and Emergency Grant Program for Years Two
and Three be transferred to the low-income grant program.
These funds should be sufficient to assist almost all of
the eligible applicants already on the waiting list.
2. The Incentive Grant was designed to encourage homeowners
to seek a low-interest loan. However, only 13 percent
of the loan recipients also applied for an Incentive
Grant. This proara~n should be studied during the spring
of 1979. These funds could possibly be used more effec-
tively if the program were restructured.
3. To date, there have been no rehab funds used to make
homes accessible for the handicapped. Staff recommends
that some Community Development funds for Year V be
allocated to homeowners who need handicapped accessible
homes.
F
V. Summary of Although the Richfield Housing Fund vas established in
Program Years 1975, the lo~v-income orants and loans were not Generally
One and Two available in Richfield until 1976. During the first prooram
1975 and year, 1975, a few Pichfield residents did receive low-
1976 interest hinnesota Housing Finance Anency loans from banks
outside of Richfield.
During 1976, or Program Year Tiro, the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency allocated $332,500 to Richfield for loans
and grants. Richfield Bank and Trust, Summit State Bank
and First Federal Savina_s and Loan ,Association received
a total of $300,000 for lour-interest loans. Of this
allocation, x231,000 (93.7 percent) were actually disbursed.
Richfield Bank and Trust disbursed 97.4 percent of their
allocation, Summit State Sank loaned 101.3 percent, and
First Federal Savings and Loan Association disbursed 67.2
percent.
~1HFA had also allocated $32,500 to the Richfield HRA for lo~v-
income grants. Thirty-two thousand eight hundred twenty-
t~vo dollars (101 percent) ~•rere disbursed before the Year
Three allocation in September, 1977.
There were also Incentive Grants available in Program Year
Two. Thirteen Incentive Grants were approved for funding.
And t4velve grants, totaling $6,674, were a;varded during J
1976.
7
TABLE OF PROGRAE~1 YEAR T6d0
Dollar amount
Do71ar amount approved for Dollar ar~ount Dollar amount
allocated for disbursement disbursed disbursed number
Program 1976/1977 in 1976/1977 in 1976 in 1977 approved
MH FA
Loan X300,000 $281,000 X281,000 -0- 62
h1H FA
Grant X32,500 X32,822 -0- $32,822 9
Incentive
Grant X25,000 X6,824 X6,674 5150 13
TOTAL X357,800 $320,646 $287,674 $32,972 84
a
VI, Summary of The Richfield liousing Fund provided the same three rehab-
Program Year ilitation programs during 1977, plus the Emergency Grant
Three 1977 Program.
The Richfield lending institutions requested 5450,000 from
the P-1innesota Housing Finance Agency. They disbursed 5302,573
in low-interest loans. Of this amount, 5241,531.00 are re
loaned to Richfield residents. The remaining loans were
made to residents of surrounding communities. At the same
time, it appears that approximately $40,000 were loaned to
Richfield residents by other non-Richfield lending institu-
tions. Therefore, approximately 5281,581.00 arere~received
in ~1HFA loans by Richfield residents.
None of the three Pichfield banks disbursed their total set-
aside during 1976. Richfield Sank ~~ Trust lent 77 percent,
Summit State Bank lent 69 percent, and First Federal Savings
and Loan Association lent 35 percent of their totalMHFA
allocation. It eras felt that this low disbursement rate
could be due to one of several factors, such as a lack of
advertisinn or a lack of actual need. Durinn the past year,
a survey avas conducted to measure the homeowners' awareness
of the Richfield Housing Fund. The results of this survey
are discussed on page 4.
During 1977, the average age of the borrowers aras 30 years,
4vhich is 8 years younger than the average ale in 1976. The
average income for the borrowers in 1976 and 1977 aras 511,500.
The Richfield HRA received an allocation of 531,733 from PiHFA
for low-inooce grants in Funding Year 1977-1978. 0~= Luis amount
538,539 (13 grants) were approved for funding during 1977.
However, the funds were not actually disbursed until 1978.
Therefore, the HRA disbursed $38,539 from the ~~1HFA allocation
they received in 1977, which.is 121 percent of the allocation.
The demand for Incentive Grants during Year Three 4vas much
less than that for Year Two. This decrease is in proportion
to the decrease in log!-interest loans since the Incentive
Grant Program is desiclned to complement the MHFA loan program.
During 1977, four Incentive Grants were approved for a total
of 52,413. However, the majority of these grants were no t_
disbursed until 1978.
The total disbursement for 1977 eras 5342.00, which included
one Year Three grant, plus one Year Taro grant arhi ch aras not
disbursed until 1977.
The Emergency Grant Program was also available in 1977. These
grants are re available to low and moderate-inco!~e homeowners
from the Community Development 31ock Grant. Three grants
totalling 510,918.00 were approved in 1977. Of this amount,
$3,107 aras disbursed during the 1977 Proc!ram Year.
TABLE FOR PROGRAf~1 YEAR THREE (1977)
Dollar amount
Do17ar amount Dollar amount Dollar amount to be Number
allocated for approved in disbursed disbursed approved
Pro ram 1977/1978 1977/1978 in 1977 in 1978 in 1977
h1H FA
Loan $450,000 $241,581 ;241,581 -0- 77
f1HFA
Grant $31,733 $38,539 $32,822* $38,539 13
Incentive
Grant $25,000 52,418 5342* $2,225 4
Emergency
Grant 525,000 $10,918 53,107 57,811 3
TOTAL $531,733 $293,456 5277,852 548,576 97
*also includes disbursements from 1976 allocations
1 `J
VII.
Summary of The Program Plan for Year IV projected that 5450,000
Program would be available through Richfield lending institutions
Year IV for MHFA low-interest loans. During 1978, there was a chance
1978 in participation. Because Richfield Bank & Trust chose not
to participate during the second phase, 5350,000 was avail-
able to low and moderate income Richfield homeowners.
During Program Year Four, approximately the same number of
MHFA loans were awarded as during Years T4V0 and Three. The
lenders disbursed 71.2 percent of their total allocation.
During the first six months of 1978, there Gras a marked
decrease in the number of requests for MHFA loans. The partici-
pating lenders only disbursed 61 percent of their allocation
to homeowners. Loans increased to 35 percent during the
second half of Program Year IV. Two hundred forty-nine thousand
two hundred twenty-nine dollars were loaned by Richfield
banks during 1978, and 61 homeowners were assisted.
The average loan amount was $4,019.83, which compared to an
average of 54,137.42 in 1977 and $4,532.26 in 1976. The
city-wide average income for Frogram Year Four was 510,003.63.
This marks a decrease from the Year Three (1977) amount of
511,500.
The MHFA Grant Program was as successful in Year Four (1978)
as during the preceeding years. Richfield HRA received an
allocation of $31,734 and expects to receive additional bonus
funds in August, 1979, at the end of this funding cycle.
To date ten nrants have been approved by the Grant Revie~a~
Committee totaling 539,952. However, this work has not yet
been completed, so the funds will not be actually disbursed
until 1979. If all of these grants are a4~~arded by Hennepin
County, the HRA will have exceeded its Year Four noal by
126 percent.
The third Richfield Housing Fund Pronram, the Incentive ;rant
Program, increased substantially durinc+ 197S. A total of
13 applications (58,536.50) were approved. Of this amount,
$8,266.50 has already been disbursed. The average amount
of an Incentive Grant in 1978 was 5613.32 as compared to $604.50
in 1977 and 5524.92 in 1976. The amount of the grant is
computed according to the percent of the loan that the home-
owners had spent on energy and code-related items. Since the
loan amounts have decreased over the past three years, but
the Incentive Grant amounts have increased, it would appear that
the homeowners are investing a lamer nercentane of their loan
into code-and energy-related repairs.
The Emergency Grant Program for flood damage was made avail-
able once anain in 1978. Three applications ~~iere approved for
flood damage funding totalinn ;;6,651.00. Of this amount,
51,798.32 was also disbursed in Year Four. Two of the three
applicants were among the three homeoti-~ners ~rdiio received an
Emergency Flood Grant during 1977.
11
During 1978, the fifth P,ichfield Housing Fund Program eras
adopted, YES for Rehab. Under this pronram,201ow-income
homeowners received rehabilitation assistance. Seventeen
thousand four hundred sixty-two dollars were disbursed
from Co-nmunity Development .funds for materials and supplies,
and a X91,000 grant from the Comprehensive Education Training
Act (CETA) was used for labor.
The YES for Rehab Program was terminated in January, 1979,
since the CETA grant Gvas only available for one year.
12
TABLE OF PROGRAM YEAR FOUR {1978)
Dollar amount
Dollar amount Dollar amount Dollar amount to be Number
allocated in approved in disbursed disbursed approved
Program 1978/1979 1978/1979 in 1978 in 1979 in 1978
h1H FA
Loan $350,000 $249,229.00 $249,229.00 -0- 62
,~
~1H FA
Grant $31,734 $39,952.00 $32,538.00* $39,952 10
Incentive
Grant $25,000 $8,586.50 $10,381.50* $431* 14
Emergency
Grant $14,082 $6,651.00 $7,516.00* $6,946 3
YES for
Rehab $17,064 $17,462.00 $17,462.00 -O- 20
TOTAL $437,880 $321,880.50 5317,126.50 x47,329 109
*also includes amounts allocated in 1977 to be disbursed in 1975 or 1979
• • • iili _. . ~_
i ~••:` - i
C
~ a ~-
~ ~ ~
. ( 3~ i
~
D ~
ro
N
W Ol
Q Y 2'
O U
C
N Vl
G i-~
q ' ~ Q i C
~ ~ N rt3
Ol E i
•--~ ~ w U'
i ~ ~ ~
N N
i N d-~ N
lj
i ® D >
.~ (c i
U ~
+> N O.~
i ~ •
Q ~
N I U ro '~
7- ~ i i 1
~C: CD
O i-~
Q C
LL ro
S i
I .~ L
O V~
Q ~
w ro
z o
Q i J
o O O O O O O O o O
C In O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O I.f) O ~ O l.f) O tt) O tf7
t2~ V ~Y' M M N N .-~ ~--~
S,A 2 L L OQ
~ J
C
H
O
Q1 Q F-
L`
ro
H
~
N
T ~ i U C
Z
ro v ~ ro
~ Q W C1 (.5
7
N I~ ~
61. ~ D C i~
'"~ I N N C
i
N i Q ~
~ U'
i ~
t
F- ~ ~
O ~
i ~
ro ~
~ ~ 2 i
} ¢ ~ C7
O N
I Q C
La. ro
O
Q E J
~ J
4
H
O
I Q F-
. N
rr
r O •~
~ i-)
Q1 C
c[ U (Cf
C i
~ ~"^ ~
n
01 •..
~
O ~
a.+
I
~--~ ¢ c
. I ~ ro
2 i
~ d ~c7
O
F-
i o ~
Q C
ro ~ ro
ai = o
Y Q .'- J
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O ~n O ~ O ~n O ~.n O ~7
lP C Q M M N N ti ti
s~pLloO
M
N
'~'
to
R3
0
a~
._
'Z3
co
L
O
0
0
ti
co
RICHFIELD HODS I f~~G
FUND
GUIDELI~dES
telephone: 869-7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
...
...
EQUAI HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
Table of Contents
I. Administrati~~e Prccec~res
A. Re sponsib~l_t~.es c= ~~•~____~t_ :'.ors
l . F:CUS__ any;, _....~ e :°e! _ ..._.. ~ ::~~L: or_
2 . E:~ec~at~ve D~.rec ~•cr o. t::e ~'i
3. Grant Review Com*nittee
4. •Com~unity Develotiment Specialist
B. Re-application ar.d Appeal Prccec;,res
• C. Minutes
II. Organizational C:~art
- III. Eligibility and Priorit;,~ Guidelines
A. Hole Improvement Reabilitati o:: Grant
1. Fu..dinc Sourczs
2 . Eligib i l i •,~ Cr_ ter~~.
3. Priority Guidelir_es
B. Incentive Her1e I: ;pro~.~=`:rent Grunt
1. Eligibility Criteria
2. Priority Guidel~n~s
IV. Amriend:~ents
A. E::~er~;enc' ~ 1000: .,~ ~.n r ?I"C~'~- " ~i;1
1. ~ll~jl:;lll._ l~~_ :~r'
Pace
~'
1
3
3.~
S
S
a
_:)
~.~
,~
~ICfI~ IELn f10!~Sl,''~r F~,fJD
,~D;~fIi~1ISTi=~r,TIVE CUIDELIr;~S
v ~ ~ ~'~C~ bZ{ :L,2 (' N ~ r ,nd ~'~U.~ ,n ~ ,~^•.n0 i'i' 1 ~)7.i.-L.:!
T le.ae Gu,id ZL;.CS, CAS QuD~., ~ „~. i1CLS.C;t~1 CL,. i-Lac-6i,b._,~~ r.u~_L.
a~ R.~cii~.~e~'d f:~;l.lesa~c o;l ?LL~'ci 2- 1?70. ~;ld -'r~"~-':,-' ~„ ~ ~ ~ -
~Ct ~o~`ttil .i;lE' y'-~CC~.SS CL;Zc~ C".C.~C ~%.:'C 'io .. •i.CL t "^' ~ +'^ n ~, ' "~> -
J r- '-C2(CL(,, ~ it;,; ~,iC_`(.i,i.v;LS '~.C `_ ..LC, ~ (_~.
NULLS:L;l; 1-LLrll v-`LC;LtS .
Tt2e QUO Q.a'(~5-l,iilG .tZ/~JC.S U j R.(-C'Z ~ ~(Z-t.C~ ~li;;.LS:C; ~~ ruiiCl `;',i.CGC`'S ^.~` BLS •~Cu'C!:S .
r (J/~~ ;~-.+;
1) rIVi11Q. Ir?l;~ ~G'L'ellleiLt ReZCZu`:{.c'.~t-~,~;.~!;l 'i`L;^;Lt
2) Inee;lti-ve Kame Imr~`coveme~~t G ~w)Lt
Fnom .ti.me -to .tune, the NRA ma:r, bc{ ~esa.~uti,o;~,, d~.SCCrltt sue c.~ ac~c~ ~u;1.~
YJhU~~'LQ11L5 lU,(.tiLLrl .t .12 R:ccll i,L~~ NCLLS,L;2G t-U~Z~ . !~.t .t~iwt :t~i.l;in ~ ~ L -~'Y _
,J a c., :%,ZeS~. .-~c,u.l.L;:.LS-i~`..
~LVe vU.tC{e_;.i.;2C.S LU-(-~i. L2 ~CIrCiCC-?r1~7 .t-. ,, /'J 1! r .~
~~. -lam :Ll. ~-~~~,VC, UiU:SL Cilia' ZG Q.,~S.
I ,~D',rIr,fIS 1 `~~' . T1~~ ~~r.r~n i^~^
r~~ RPSPONSIBILITI~S OP Di°~I~dISTRATOR5
~ -
1. The !!G'u5-{.>2~ atLd Redev~e;_me;zt r~u.t,lo-`L~.tu Cornm.~s.s.~a;tC-`.S a,~':
,• ' ~`L25;JO;;.S•Ca.Le 'i0~`(..t1le e.S,%i:Zb.Y:(.S !,'1e ~ ^Ylc~ C'.~ ;^ ~ / J " ^ „
TiZZ, Ij :S 'mot UGr_h Z.+~Z •t~le -L.;LiCiLt i.'~;iC~t v b {eC.t L!.'CS L' J ~l.;lC ;i'.'.; `.,CL)?tS .
T1lzu ~'r.e ~2S;JC;LS.~6._'~ ~o.~ .t;LC ~c ~ ~ - - ~ ~-r ~ ,
~~L^i 1. "~.VLIL tom:-l.', v ':` ~i),.r l-:
i ~ ~ -
~u,lr~s . TJIe cct-;rt;i..S S-i.u;e ~s (U.;/Z~ CCt.SU ;tea _ J)"`C, .S „':? ~ -
CQ;L%S CS J,~E'_.SlC1Li.C'-Ci L(! :t%i~. C:Ci'.CC(.l,iL'C ~•L`..i~:..~i;'i.. •'
~.
2. Tlii=. txeCU.~;.L'e i~-C.".eC.to-i v~ .talc' l1Rr~ lU.i.t,~' ".Cl'LL?U .LiZi~ ~G;it'iv'u< iii::~
he%~tC;LL'-;l-t •i.;i~U.Y1.>IC(.~LO;i ~C ,t;ZC r(:.~ CCt;1r11(,S.SLC'IIC-`tS. Ham, ;Gl~,' ,~~SU
6.000-CVe (U%~C.itC;l CC]J;JCCI,~S C •,~ +.%!,^ + , ;. .~ .
L. :~~,~~~ (U; I;Lii.L'L. CICt.C.C';Z CS c2 iJlJ•i,:';'i L.L~...
J~. T;le G:LQ;L~ n~L'.L:1U Colnm.t,l,l.i.(_ Ui.L,(- Ue :~('S~~C'{tS (.U.LC ~~(,'.i `CL':LCa`ii.,(
:ti1C C. jJj:~.LL000i.iJiLS. TiiC;_l il'CL^,,~ ~7c';ll~ U~~ CC~J1J.i.C'i'C ~i(i;iC{C;,.i, UC(S":
' l i J '`C .Cv!1'111C11C~;.i,tL'IIS. T,;. ~. ~~ (l,~(. L. 1. ri?l~ LLS!_'l,';:S LL~~. ~. `, C'.`' L1 l_l-~_
L'`LC',tL;LC .uZ~_ i:1LLi/,'~L;t~.S iCS %Ji_". tai' L;'` '`
, >~
Tlle~{ IU.C-LL 1;1Ci_t CCt .f'-C'_CLS~ 1110:Lt%Li(!.
Col)znt/ttee ~•1urlbe~slLtp
Tile Cou~nittee w-`LC colLS:~S t au ~ou~L Ine~rlfJC ~S . Tale-'Le lui~,(', b~
U;le CLiJ~JU~LI'LteC~ h.tCCiytj' r~e~l.aclL lj.`LOf11 C~CCCII U~j t1lC ~JO:t~,Lo(l%,C;1C~ .tlLxee
C1C')JC,(i`Ltrile{7,tSi }~LCb.~..CC LUUYf:S I)CfJCC~'L~YICYLt, f~QCL(;til ~C'`JCLjI.~TIQ_{L~, C"C;IC~
.t(le PCct;1n~.;tg ~epcG~tltle;lt, tJ.lus the Colta)lu)u.tt/ Devc('ol~rle;l,t S~Je-
CLCC.E;LS:t, 6U1'i(1 ii7:L~'~' :SC','`CUC CCS CiICL(i`L~JC',`CSU{i G! j file Coiibll{,ttee.
C(.'iluYC-LttCL' Ri'COi1311C?YlC1C(,t~C;ZS
l;j~ori :7ev~uv a ~ ececlL ~(fJ;~t'.,~eat<,a)l, t;le Co;ratl%ttee iut,:z.~ dete•'ur.G;le
ZUiLCCiZ i(t=~Y~.f'.'-LCCC~tLU:LS S~1d~(- ~(? CL1J~:),`LUV(?~, IL'i1.LC;I CC~J~Jt CCCCt(-U6~1S CLi,C
L? ~cq.~u.C~ but ;1(lt aptJ.~coved, a;tci (L'11%ch a}J~JE%zcct,ti.o;LS CL,`1 ~', dept:~cd
QCCC:'L~~C{lC{ :to t%Ze -%eV~LCIU ~C(,Lt:i(?(,C.;2(?-S CCILC{ C~LtCh~(.CL. T;le CLr?);).t~L-
CCCt~(-UV1S LUrLf-ClZ Cv`LE? C~E'1Z-Ci,t~ 1U.(~C,L, Ji'_ .i)l~U-`U11C',l~ ,Lf1 (lt`L{.ttli~ C~ t~1L
Ci!i)3)7-(~tC'_Q.+S i~~?C{.S-COII.
, -~. C rii_' ~.L'!.';!IiLCiCi..t,(/ ..~:.L'~:i.::~~'.'1('{il. J~~r:. ^' 't' ^' r ~ l
' ~c ~ L~ir~:.,t~ ~~rt« ;_ ~;.,;'c;~s s C.itc ~[~~ ~L;~;~.~~~~C~c.u;' ~ ~ •
G,f;L i[i'_C;'_ss~Z".'! C;I;ji'`..r.`;CG~LI";iL ~J C:":lrl'~~:.~~. :'CiC C"::~C,G.2i.C -i'
- C;t. r
CG-{.f~Z }J i~SLiLL LiLi'_ il':'~Cr_(.Cn.LL.,;LS ~'' ~r ' r:, n•, ~- n
• ~ L UCr_ .%~~r,.{, t?VtZJ' l,G•r`.'1??.(,~~.'C?
t', , ~ ~
C(.',Lt_r~ CL ~CCG'C.'f`iC;~Qwi t_v';C~ C.i{CQ i!,t-(.(_,L ~Ui.:.':!~-ail G'{2 .iiC:? ~i;i:.'Yll. `1-C~ r
Lt~L'
t~CC.~S.C_G'iC.
j'tC CU,C.~i~ .S S L_";: , .; ! i;.%S QCCG'•`,.~(.itCt ~U ~rCC 'i~(, ~~i~(~i.i'.~ S Ci;'_Cr :?n.
-LU -v :.~: l.v'!,'1"iC_;-L~.~ s _CL' ",t jfC ~ ~ "l' ,^ "
~e_-:. t .~'ti(~L _.-.~:•I"h}n r.;,, rid 'JLCs v~.,i' ~S •~:-nom. -
> >i
HC Ct'i.`-~ ,.I,.si, ,_ ~`-.___ ~- ~~,. .C;ir._Li.CL •%;CS-., ~~: - ~ "' -
~ RC i :Cnl :~., r~-~I
F~j~j7E' LCCL{Lib Yr1QL/ ~'L2CCj~)?..c Q:~-i.~`. g(,' ~iQli•S Q{:(< '•1',CCt/ f~. ;, , a : ,.'~
Q;~~ •t~CrTlt. C{L ,L.t2 E7CLS,c.S (.' ~ yiL2:C CtJ-C.L,.r_iLCC. 1~j~j^C `n•.,vs ~ ~G't'7 . ~?_CUrn}';2iC.r'~ ~-
• ti.CUrL5 U~ •tiLC G~CL{2~ Cl%fr}1~L.f ~CCr?7CLS-% ~C -SU~;lil~i~`CCi i~: 1'
' 'C vti`;.CCLL'•t ;LU .'•(.C,C. Ct)-~i..lu•~li .LL ~ t ~;~::
l I .~ . ~Li, ~L„Z, ~ 1.1 ~, •~1,L::-S-C..G~i7'~. `..J .
TftC Cli Fl.irv~s-s-l_Ci';LC'~s S'~CV ~..v •L'~VC L•Lil~i.t. C~Gt~LG'{t V;~ .ti i~l Ct(.i `~'C..
C, ~Ir~u~~~
(v},~[.,~L~l. ~~.; t m C.i :~..i. 1.CS s ; CL~ ' ~' ~
,-i..~ De.. ~ 4' L ' C `C.n..; ~ , l
Cl. .;,L :~ L Ili2i.~L-GrC ^'J ' °
1 - ,Lr~a.
~ ,.,
~'
L'~ar L r
,~ ~'~L'-L
. .,
:
TrtC[I S:Ic,.~-~ .,~ C„r.,..,,.~LC~. [Uti~ri,(.;l
,~._,`` .
~
.
,~ ,
Y11CL~o(.iLJC C~wl.` Cvt~ .S~lC\,;;;' UC s~CG'i.C.'1i. CCi w~L 'iQU,`:. }11~";per "' { - -r,-..L
,
UlLl4l.V ~trlCit Cc~., ~G~'LC'cZ`„C~C':i ~ ,..
.. -C.rC lip ~ ~~' ,,.` .,
~s s.~G'iLC.~s
' i~ieti :: ~mes. ~ O
Housing and
I;rban De~;elor;~~:eni
i
_,
_.._:
!-i_?a Cc~~:i~s~ oi:°rC ' I ~enre:~~n ~o:._.- -
I
' I
-- ~.. '-_.,e Director;
-------------------- r~_~ecu ~ ~ -- I
t ~ I
t !
:, . t I t
I III
Cy.nn~ rye: 'le:t,~ i s
I i
1 I
I
~ ~ I
L I
~ ' I
i Co>T~::unit~; D`~,elonc~enr. I____--
~ ~,~eci~tilist '
i ,
r
i.
i
i
~ TT
~~~ cJ""O~~''la.r~r.. I ~.~t` i
~.
applicant' ~ In~,~~~~:c~, _.
II. ELr';'BT~ I jar tlrm ~njnnTT~~ ~~!i;Fl i~i~~
t
1, ,.
T,'le CL Cu-CbC.i_C,~~( CZi1LI %~~CL•.",(,~_U yCLCd~'~C eS ~2%;_ L;iC~Cli<i'.C~ ,iC' i ,'_CiC;I a ~ .`;t2
e.L'(,S.~.Cil~ F1G'LLS-C;Zg ~LL'Zd P•~L'C~-icZL'1S. Tlie ~:,C:"r.C~.(~,C.~(/ ~{C(,i_(;'~LCil~.$ •+0 ~ C':i'~
V1 .' y n a. 7 1 . / I) (~ 1 r..~ .-/ ~ ~.~ _. v .. 1:, J ~ `~ ~ r 1 7 _. 1- ' J... 1;. ...
~OG:~~J!1 Cv~` .~U U~. CC';LS•C...::~._u. .5~;__,.~.,,,~~ aiid '' e C^;C 1
~C' Y~:~ac(.~CUIIS. r`~VZ(( ~:~al~L Cis?ti_'LC:~_^„~CC;Z '!'•%.~(~. L" .~~.~, '~i!•o '~~n`r~C;iG -L.:
Gi.l.l_c: ~.Ca ~-S.IC ii-C,LS Ii'~~.CL 'C1.~ .i ii'i~ ,t ~'~/.`_CU-;, -C.li (!,'i' , ~'n i
~~~ HO"_ Ii~.to~~~/c?,,~nJT R~~~~i1 1-~T~ ~" r~-iiT
~. f~~'n'.iCi~L, ~ ~~~'`L i1~ ..i,.'i _i_ I '~, •i,nn"C,l•
~ ^ ~ ` .`
..rr~ ., rr~ ... ,
Tilv~e •s %iCL'u' be ail ail;i~~w -s Q.L-C~LS -Ci,t~ a s"5, OV0 -i.i: LrvV '~(,~'; i~.;,• _
be L<.S,~,Q S("I.CPX;1-,.ilU~...."mG.~y2;iCf,g,~CtZ~S._'_....-.-.~,.._....~.w,......~..,.._,_.._.,„....,,..s.,.."w„~
2. AppLLCa;l~s ~U~`C a UC'tae-iill~~`,C''C"le1L~ ~e;ZCLS S•":.Ct:~% 1iCL5.~ r„evf- ~'.,
h,~i.Cj,i.O.(,t~G~l/ gwC ~^~c~.CiZCS .c~. i,S.i 'CCU C~.-~CCC: ` •~,_`.
a. Ocustiens h,Lp
App.ei.earlt~s mu~s~ be an ~.vld~.v~.dua,~ fee aw~.etc ah a Cai'L~ZQC~ {}Oh
deed pwccha~eh o~ the phapet(~y ~a be ~imphoved. 4'c%vu.mum occu-
pavicey o ~ v-,%ne~y (90) days ~joh {gee ownet(,s and ~iue,Q.ve (12) moi~ll.s
fah eavL~trcac~ doh deed purcel'ia~se~ .is hegw%~ced.
b. Phap~y
The app2,i.eawt mws~ be a~. acuvleh aeeupan~ a~ ~Gr.e ~~rc.ue~urce. T6ie
prcope~y ~o be .i.rnphaved ~sha2Q. be cased pfu_man,i.2y {yah he~stideititt:a~.
purc.pU~s Pis .
C. Age U~j Phopeh~y
Phapen t~i.e~s m(LS~ be a-t ~ea~s~ {~,~~y,teevc (1 S) yQ.a1t~S G ~ age Uh ,~Vl need
a~ I~.epa.trc ~a cotvLeet :i..tem~5 ghat arse hazarcdows ~o health atc sa~e.ty.
d. Income avid A~s~se~s
The ~am,i.2y ccd~ws ted gha~5~ ~.iieome mws~ ~.a~ exceed $5, 000 aKiiua,~ey ayld
~t'ce as.s ens o ~ tLie app.P~Leaiat, a th~~. ~;la~i tl2e va,2cce o ~ the Name be~.llg
~.mphoved, mws.t vlo~ exceed $25, 000.
e. Amocu'Lt o ~ Ghawt
Tdle arlloultit o{y ~Gie -ta~ete ghaitit'tnay v>.a.t exceed $5,000 per(. hawsello.~d.
~. Zoluil
Phopeh.~~e's mws.t covi{~v'un ~o app2,%cab.~e zaluilg ahd,~.ilailce oh o.theh ~alld
case gw~d~s. Tlu:s hegw<hemeeL-t may be iva,%ved by -the ~XC.CCL~CVe Dti~ecto'
a 6 the IRA.
n'CS•i_CiLl~.i.:.:.i ~'tC>.i2Z~~;_S t„~i'_ ~l.(,' LiJ -i!!;t_'.i.~"~ e ~ ~U ... ~._~ ~;~ ~..,.":~~~!.-
CIIiCC CC.L~.;C ."CUL(.GL'.t'_C ~iea.c'.~;1, L;.l.~;i,C:iG ~C-`~'_ ^~"~,;?rL'' ;?f ~,,,~
r i. i.
' 1- 11 i _
tl(.t .. ~.S~~./.~ ,~~wL, L:_a~.l .:..; t`.. Lv~~VS Wit; ~~.t.i l~,t•t% ~il•~:~:-, i~.i ut..'~. ~_ ~~'~,. :_.. t.L Sl.l..~il. r.~/t
a~~~_L, :. ~._~.:L~ L:. !i.~C:,S,~_J .,:,i..C. ~., ..~i%~~(.i, a.. a.. .. ~~t~t __.~(_ rC~.':i ~J '!'A:
h. Ine2,ig~.b2e I~em3
Re~~.nancc:ng a~ ex-i~s~.i_ng debts ojr_ max~gage,S, paymevL~s fan dub-ec:c
,un~navemevLt a~5~se~~5ment~5, {~~.nanec:ng a~ 2uxcvcy .items an ~.mpnavemer'tt~S
(d-i~shcua~shens, pati-ass, ~y,ueep2aee~s, ewe.) w.~22 nab be a,2~awed.
~.. ' Securu~y
~~iNFA Gna~~,ts cu.~2~. be ~eecvc.ed by a ae2~-eanee2.2,c:ng men a~ de~etcnuned
by ,bt~.nne~sa~a Haus~.ng Ftina;ieing Agency ~.n ~heitr. eujrtcevLt Pnaeedu~a,~
Gu,%de.P.%ne~. Th-i~s ~se62edu,ee fan ti.e~aymertit ~i~S ass ~ya2~2aw.s:
Pe~r,%ad any dime w~th,in w(~,i.eh ~a2e, .than~S~yeJt,
earlveyance an ee,S~at%~n a{y ne~s~.dency aeewL,s Pe~ceent
~n~m ~,ime ~n ~ceeei.~~ a ~ gtcan~ Repaymen t
Pfc,%a~ ~a end a {y 3G~h ~i u2,e ma rtitl2 10 0 0
A~.te1c end a ~ 3G~h ~Cr2e martitl2 ur2ti~
end a {~ 4~~(ti ~yu.P.e month ~S o
A~y~ea end o~ 48,th ~u.P~ month ur~,t,%Q. end
a{~ GO~h ~u22 man~h. ,Oa
A~y~e~c end any GO.th ~u,22 mav~th un~i..2 end
a~ 72nd ~u.P~ moytith 2~0
A~.ten end a(~ 72nd ~uP~ mc,ttit(t Na ner~ayment
j. Cam}~e~~~%ve B,ida
A~.e wa}c.(~ unden a cif-%nne~o-ta Nous-%ng Finance Ageriey G~'carLt mub~ _
have a m-c:ru.murn a~ ~;ua com~et~tLve b,id~. An exce~tic:an may be
made -ta :~lti~s pa,2~ey ~.~, due ~ta -t(ie nCLtUlte a~ ~lre ne~a,ia., ,c:.t mus ti
be darie ~,mrnedLa~e~y anc~ -t(~etc.e ,%s nv.t ~u~~,te%ertit ,tune ,ta ~seeu~e
~u,~a b-i.cGs. Haeueven, .a~.2'-ttid.iv-%duae tc,er~cr.itea oven $300 must be
accompan-red b y a rn.c:n.i.rnum a ~ .two b.%ds ,
I2. SweCLt EC~CLt~tLf
Pc:~~o:7mar2ce U J he(1ab-(,~(,tCLtCGr'1 wG,`C(Z b(/ an -Lnd.CV-LduLf,~' UwrlUl-UCCU~?arLt,
w(iU ,LS tC(?ce-CV-(,rCg an iNFA G,~arLt, ~5ha,~e be ~~Ch.rli-(,ttCd tJ.~.UV.Ld{_Vig L,r~
aj~p.~~ccuLt care ahacv ab,~e~ty .tct ~eh~c•~trn wa.7(~ .ui cornr~.~iartce tvtit(i ~,.c.e
ap~~.~icccb.ee ccdeS.
.~. .^~}~~~.L Li._::.r L.LS ~~C,'-~ fi _ \ .. _.~rCI.S ._ (~l_~ :ii a~. i:,S ~•i. ~. :~C~ _'G' ..r ~~.~ .. ~:.~: U i~;~ ~. 'J
' ~ L/ / ,
/CLCiit!,i.i_;Ct,S CfL L.L'~ ~L'i ~_'.Ci_i:Ct J ;S. I rL''_ -1.:,' _~i, .._..`:rJ:' .. ~" _.. _r ~_
~i'.CC_l.'._C1 S~L_LC..L~ ..~. CCS_.~ Li: li~•~~..-.._r.~ lr:i~.. .~~`_.r_y~S ,~~;__ _~~
wS•S~ Jiio~~~'... 1_i~.....~5 ~(_ ;!;L=:. ~.~~ ~ __ _r_..... _ .. _.,___v r_i~.._ `__ _ _~~..r;,~... ~ .-
9;) ) '.
r~C11LCSt~'Lti 71iC~':!1'~
. 0 - $999 ;' ;~c.~;~~s
a,. , ~ _ .. .. .~ L ~
-t,:i:v - J7 ~V., i r .. ~.,.~
b . ~:"~ it 0 'n G' CC S
b%. :1 L' ~'~'. 19.7 Y ~..~'-C.i~ LS
19T~ - , 9~~ ., ,. ~,_..S
°~~~ - lug' ~
".,
N~u,LC'~._~,~LS ai~C:..~i'_- ;,1!i~~,i,~ l,'~ . ~ .i.S
_ - C•~ :~'?_.~..`.,S .., _.Li:ri
~i,:.~
.. ~ v ... ..~.
,(Dili L',(,SC.~C~ _i~: ~w....,:i:.l'_ . v_... ;~
~ _- ,
`~ :C~i, ,.ii~~'i. .l~i.i.~
.. .
~.~..:.'.'~
1 (.l'~. ~:i; C;L i S . Tr.'. C' _ .,.'l'~,':I`r.'S i.';. ;( i.ii~., _..; ... .. ._ _~, ,.~ ._
LC!!1( ia''_u. :, V', ~.,i~. ~i'~_C. ,. .~i_r ~ i;_~ir Ji .~~1. ~._... ~ ..~.~._.r
. li C'C/U, ,..iLIC ~i i.'_.. C-ti,~t.r.- ~'.. _.. ~.r... 5~..,~5.
d . ~yL~'cg y-n~ecr~ed ne~u.ilUs
Patil~ w,iX~ be a~s!s~.gvLed ~ {~a.P.,Qocu~s, cceeotcd~.l2y to ~62e amaultit .t~ bel
~ pewt av~ enetcg y-~ee~crted ~ce~a,uL,s w~~>. It'iN~A vuncls
Amauwt
$5, 000 - $3, 500 3 pa~.ltit~s
$1, 500 - $3, 499 2 r~a~.vitS
$-0- - $1, X99 l pa-~~~,t
;Vcs. I5~ i ,~cL,~_
_ ll. UG2'L~N~Z[.'LQ'J-eQ. NCCLSe
r~lt~l ii~'CLS'C Q2C!)?CQ LV C'(.'. CC:L ~c.1~, vvi2:i~C~ .i_;I:;.~ ! S . `.'_',: _~ •u:C
/ to .`
CL'-5-~ C~ ;:2CC~~C ".C`~CL<.`,..5, iti;i2;2 CCl'1;='C.,;.2•~c .L,O ~,:~°. C';,i.S...',:C~
Cii~ ~?,~'%i.L`,.C VCLt:.,.~ C'~ ,iIL .iC'CLS= , .LS ,iC'i j-Lit..,a :....1 _ __.~.~,--
J/?. Ca.i..^ ~C L(C.Vt~,it :.~. ~..../.J vl.l.'-l.'~.L:~ i~t~ .. ,_ ;,L'~L._,.
I
c~';ICL !)?C<Il 0~. L'~C;'vi_~'_C~ CC:;:_ ..C;VCC'_ ~C'%~ ~ ,. ;,i.iiCr.
i
r
~ s.
r1~7;~;_,[.C~ii-~S -`LC~'CC:JS.i~i_ity ^i?!; `'`~-i=~~L~ :C,.L~~. ~L'C'~ ,~~ ". ..
t;~~, ul~ ._r CLL.. C J -~ t,::,~ -i,•~~.i??. G..~ _ ~~S ~' ~~ .i ..:..... .. ...:.L~,_ _....:5..
CC .S-(.L.LCL ;.CU;I c~ .i_71!111!i,'~it (_ l<<CilClwi. !l'l,'::.Ll~ JC: i..:_'' ~~.~..~` ~.~... .,
-~n..CC~~(_il~ `:.i1U ~ ;ICS: ~,`,.~ i;'CCS i:~C'_C~.`i.i.C:.... St/S ~c.i'iS ~ _ .. ,_.~_., _.~..:5 J
{ r
VCL%ilCi~i'.. r1i11_/ :~~~'_'(~,LC-'.:~i:.t_ i.C'_ CCC'_.S %i.i:Ci ~'_!??~ Ui'_!?`!% ,.,~5 .....:,(..;_
ii
,~2CCi.VC SiC~;~.(_CC:'iL~ ijCCi'C~S -~0 'i.C!XCi..`.. ~~Crr. C:.,...~..~. :,~'~.'.':. -~
~, ,
LUULL ~i ,i.,ICit U~, iCS S LC~i;CQ ~:;1•CiL~S iCC~ ~' i.ili,i;.i ~~ ,' i-S ~i.J?.'^wi.,[ i.i:.~ ..., ~..
LL;ICi UC ~;tiiC`Cl ;,'it t;i,? .CCLL~tit;"f ~irS.~. -
IHI Grant 8
~~ INCENTIVE HOME IMPROVEMENT GRANT
1. App2,~.eawts fan an Ineen~i.ve Grant must meet the ~ya2eacu~.ng eQ~g~,b,L,~,ty
c1c,i~telc,~.a
a. Uwnetr~s 6up
App.P.{.cant~s must be an ~nd.tv~.dua.e fee awnetc on a eant~tae~ fan deed
ptutchcLSen a~ .the property to be ~mpnaved. P:(~.wf.mum aeeupancy a
vu:.nety (90) days fan Uee awnens and tcue.eve (12) manth~s /an ecr~taet
{pan deed punehcosetc~s .c:.s nequ,ur.ed.
_.,..~..Y~_-- ,.~ _ ~ b. Ub~a~.wir~g a Loar1
The app.P,~.cant must be an awneh occupant o~ the ~5t~c.uctune and be
abta,%YUng a ,'~f~.nne~ata Haus.Lng J=~.nance Agency (~~~iHJ=A) Name Im,v~.~ove-
ment Laan.
Pnapetrty to be ~.mpnaved ~hae.~ be used p/r.%.man,%,ey gar nes~.de~u%~z%
punpU~S Pis .
C. Age a~j phapPtLty
Pnapent,~.~s must be at .eea~t {y~.{yteen (J5) years any age on ,in need o~
nepuut to ealvicect damage ne~,u,~ti,ng nom a Y2atUlta,e d.{,scLSte't alt tG
ea,~,~.ect titern~5 that one hazcutdaus to hea,2t6z and ~5a~~,,ety.
d. I Hearne and fed eta
The {yam,i2y adjusted gna~s~ ~.neame mc.~ t Hat exceed $16, 000 are-riua~ey ana'
the a~s~et~s o~ the app.P,i.earLt atheh than the Name beting timpnaved, must
Hat exceed $25,000.
~, Amount obi Grant
- The Grant ~sha.~e be on 20 pP~c.ceYtit a~ .tl~e ca-st a~ the e~tg~.6~'e nepa,i.jr~s
up to a mawi.mum a ~ ~ J , 000 petc lcacc,s eho ed.
5. Zan,Lng
PnapelUti.P~ rnwst canUa.~rn to ctpp.~Lcab.Le zgYU.rig andt.naiice an otl2en hand
ceps e gu,c.des . Tltii~S eh~ten~La may be wcu.ved b y the Exeecc,~ti,ve D-%~ec-ton
a ~ tl2e HP,A. --
g. E~2,i.g-%62e Irnpnavemev~ts
~Zes~i.deYti~~ae pnapeFct,~e-s cute to be ~%mpnaved to att~~,Ln cornp.~%arccc wuth
YYIUrtiLCC.pLft hP.CLe-tll, bLl,LedLVLg, ~j~'LC pn(?VCfL~C(71l aYtd halls-Cllg maCn-tCria{lCe
codes and/an. meet env-utarunevvta,2 ~s.taYCda~ds app.~,c~cabee to hacls.ircg.
r=~~ee CUYnp(~Caf1Ce w,(~t11 at'e CUd(?,S GULQ.e ria.t be ,~cegc~%~c.ed pan gnclfLt
e.e~g.tb.tt;~-y, Tlce gnarc.t may be cc-sed orc.ey ,jar add~.t%urca.e cads- euLted
-unp~7.avemen.ts on to be app.C.c:ed .tocua,~c.ds payrnert.t o~ .the eUan.
IHI Grant 9
h. TYIe,P,i_g~.b.2e I,tem~
Re~~.v~avre,zv~g a{~ ex,i~s~%vrg debts an. matctgage~s, a~hetc ~hav~ the ~~:iNFA
.2oai1, paymerlt~s {yatc. pub.~%e timpnavemewt a~s~5e~s~5mevrt~, ~~.vranc%ng any
2uxuny titemb on ,tmptcovement~s (clc~shwCLSIlPJvs, pa~`,%a~s, ~,ucep.~aees, eke. )
w.i~ r1a.t be a.~Cacued.
,c. Secwc,ity
Gnarls w~,~2 be ~ecuned by a ~~.x-years ~se2~-earlee2P.i~r1g .~i,e~.. I! the
haws~.ng u~,it ~i~s ~so.2d o-~ gna,2tee d,L,sea~zt,~.nue~s occupancy w~tll.i.nJt~~.x
yeas ~jnam date a{~ gnavrt, a.22 on pa,~.t any the gnarlt mws~ be nepa~.d
~o the HRA .LY1 aceandaylce w.L,tl1 the ~a,?2a~u%ng:
Petc,t.ad o ~ Tame w,L,thi.~. which
' pna peaty .ins ~ o.2d
3G~h marlth
3G~11 ~a 4811. mar~,th
4 8~h ~o G O.th ma r1,th
G0~61. ~a 72~.d mavtith
72v~d month
~. Campe~tit~i.ve B,%d~s
Pe~ceer~,t Repayrnev~t
1000
750
500
25%
Na Repaymerl~
A22 watch mws-t have a rntirlimeun o ~ diva (2) eamp~t~i~tve b-~cLs .
h. Sweat Fqu,~ty
Pen{~anrnaylee a~ nellab.if'.itati.an wonf~ by art ~,v~d.tv~.duaC pnapehty OGU11PJl.-
occuparlt (",scuea~ equ,i.ty") ~sha,?2 be p~`un.L,tted pnovtidi~r2g the at?j?~LCar'1~
eavr ~sh.aw ab-L~t~ty ,ta pc'c~anm e.vanh ,i.v~ comp.~i.arzce cu%tli a.P.e app.~%eab.ee
cadet .
(Nomeacurle,`cs app~J+rr1g pan a Gtcarrt t,1ra.~C tceeetve ,tlie gnarLt based an
,the ~ec~ ec:s~ a {~ nepai,~ nathe~c ~har1 arL2y rnatetr.i.a~ ec~s,ts . )
2. Tllefc.e evice r1a p~~,i.otriJty ge~i.de.2%ne~s (~a.~..tlus pnag-~.arn. G-`ccutits cvice acea`r.ded
by:
a. Date ar/d dune a ~ cepp~%ea,~~ar1;
b. Scale a~ need ccs de~trred by -i.rrcarne acrd nepa.~.`~s rrec~ssc~y.
Flood Gzant 10
III , L~f~!`1EP~IDMEPJTS TO R I CNF I ELD NODS I NG FUND
n: EMERGENCY GRANT PROGRAM
1. An Emehgeney ~.evad Gtcartit pnagnam may be made avai,eab.ee ~y,~.am ~c'me ~o
~.c:me, by a jc.e~sa.2uti.or2 pa~s~sed by the Nau~s~.{2g and Redeve2.apmewt
Autha-'rity o~ R;iel2~~.e.ed. The ~a-P2ow~.rtig e2,igtib~ty e~utefcia app.~y
~a any app.P.%ea~ia{i ~jatc, an em~~geney ~2aad Gna~,t:
a. Owri~~,slup
. ~w.:,.,... _... . .
App.?.%.ear~s mu~5~ be an ,indiv.idua.e ~yee ownetc on a can~tJcae~ {pan
deed pcuccha~etc. o~ the pnapetuty ~a be .imprcoved. M~.{2%mum accu-
paney a ~ n-ine~y (90) days {pan Uee ocune~ and ~cve.eve (12) mor~,t~zs
ion ca~act ion deed pwccha~s~,~,s ~.~ rcequ.viced.
b. Pncpe~~ty Use
The app.P,t.ear2t mws.t be an awnetc. eooupancy a (y ~Gce ~5~tcuetune.
Pnapenty ~o be ~xnpnoved ~sha.2e be used pnimaruJey {pan ne~s.iden~;%a.e
punpo~5 es .
e. Ineame and A~s~ ens
T(2e ~yam.%ey ad jcus~ed gna~s~ .incame must nab exceed $ l G, 000 anua~ey
and ~1tie asa ems a ~ the ccpp~iear~.t, a~heh ,than ~lie value a ~y .t;te
Name beir2g tinrptc.oved, mu~5 t no-t exceed $25, 000.
d. Amaurtit o ; Gnar~,t
T12e amourtit a/ the ~a.ta2 gna{tit may nab exceed $5,000 petc hausehaed.
e. Zq~u{2~
P}cape~ie~s must egn~o.~rn ,t~ app.~~cab.ee zgru_ng andi_nccrlee on a~t{ce•~.
~eand use guides. Ti.c.s. hec{u,vr.ernent may be eua.~ve,d by,.tlic ~.xeeec.tive
~U,vc.e~tan o ~ the NRA.
~. E.Q,ig.ib2e Imp~'eovemer~s
Re:s~,devr.tia2 ptr.apeh~ies a~.e .ta be .irnpnoved .ta a~tacri eomp.ec.a{ice
wtitlc rnurucipae lcea.Pth, buied~ng, ~,%'c.e pnevcrtitio{c a{cd hau,s.Lng -
mai{c.tertarice cades and/an meet evvcorunerLtae ,s-tarcdct~~ds app.P~icabCe
-to lcacLS~.{ig. Fu.~e camp2ictnce w-nth aee codes w~i~e r~a-t be ~cequi,ted
~/atc. gran-t ee~.g.ib.~it j.
g. Irtet,icr~b~'e Lterns
Re j ~rranci.rrg a j exi~s~tL{rg debits o,7 ma,~.tgages, ~?ar/merr~s ,yon pubE,ic
.irnpn.averne{tt a.sse~-srncrr~s, ~uta{cctirtg a~ ~uxr~~cy ,~tcros a~'~ .imp}r.avcm~rtts
(d~s;uvaslce,`~s, pa~iores, ~.~;~cep.eaccs, etc. J cvt~~,e {ea.t be a.~eowed.
h. Comrx~.t~vc~ ~.~ds
Abe cvon(z rnus-t !rave a {nircirncun a ~ .twa campe,~~tive bids . An excep-
-~LaYi -tU -til,LS pa.~i.ey may be made wGren, due ,ta the rtatune os .the
-'cepa,i,~3, .t;te eti'a-'ch mu6.t be dane -immedictte2y. Hattreveh, ate ~.ndivtidua~
nepa,i,~ ave.z $300 rnus,t have a mirwnurn ofl .twa bids.
Flood Grant I1
.:'~
_~
,. TM.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director~P!
~..~~~~"" "'t" HRA Letter No. 13
~~
~ ~ Agenda March 12, 1979
_ ~ s~x_~ "~ i~ A c-r ~ o,y 3 :
~ ~~~. a..~~-... ~ - ~~e. sd cam, ~..~ oar
Housing and Redevelopment ,,.. 0 ~ _ 01 ~1e, 2~~.~
Authority Commissioners ~~ z _ ~~~~~u~
City of Richfield _ ~d ~_
Dear Commissioners : -.°_"y'-~~'` 3 k"t".t.w ~a "`
Subject: Lyndale/Hub/Nicoll ~ RfO~ ec~e-ve1D p nt Plante ~~
Boundary and Land Use Amendments 1
On November 16, 1978, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
transmitted to the Planning Commission several proposed amendments
to the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment plan. The planning
commission took action in November, recommending to the HRA and
city council a boundary change to include four lots alone Lake
Shore Drive. On December 28, 1979, the city council referred the
land use portion of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redeveloprent plan
amendments and the boundary change back to the planning commission
for additional study. The planning commission held two meetings
in February to receive public testimony, study the proposal, and
for~:lulate a final recommendation to the HRA and city council re -
garding the proposed boundary and land use amendments.
The following plan provisions are recommended to be adopted:
1. Rehabilitation of the existing commercial uses on
the west side of Lyndale Avenue, south of 66th Street,
and development of multi-unit housing to the west of
this rehabilitated commercial area. This recommenda-
tion includes a boundary change to allow such develop-
ment;
2. Public involvement in redevelopment of the area bounded
by 66th and 65th Streets between Lyndale and Graham
Avenues, in which commercial or multi-family resident-
ial uses, or a combination of the two uses, would be
permitted;
3. Rehabilitation and expansion of the Lyndale Garden
Center commercial use at its present location, north
of 65th Street, west of Lyndale Avenue.
The following items are attached to this letter:
.. A. Amendments to the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Commercial
Improvement Program;
HF2A Letter No. 13 -2- March 12, 1979
B.. Resolution Regarding Land Use and Boundary Change
C. Planning Commission Resolution
D. Planning Commission Minutes
E. November 17, 1978 HRA Minutes
F. List of Meetings and Notice of Public Meetings
G. Map of Notice Area
H. Verification Feasibility-Letters from Evenson-Dodge, Inc.
I. Verification Marketability
(a) Market analysis summary
(b) Letter from Huntoon-Paige
(c) Letter from Knutson
(d) Letter from Eberhardt
(e) Letter from P.J. Gaughan, Inc.
J. Relocation Report
K. Memo from Public Safety Department
L. Memo frosnPark and Recreation Department
Pi. Memo from Public Works Department
D1. Memo from BRW Traffic Engineer
O. Soil Boring Summary-North area/southwest area
The HRA's consideration and action on the proposed redevelop-
ment plan amendments is the next to the last step before final ad-
option of the amendments. If the HRA approves the proposed amend-
ments entirely or in part, the amendments with the HRA recommendations
should be transmitted to the city council. The city council will
be requested to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendments
at its regular meeting on March 26, 1979. If the council approves
the proposed amendments or any part of the amendments, the amendments
can be adopted at the close of that public hearing. Only after
the city council has held a public hearing and approved the proposed
amendments, or any part of the proposed amendments, can the HRA
begin implementing the amendments. The action before the HRA on
Diarch 12, 1979 requires that the HRA receive testimony and adopt
resolutions to transmit the proposed amendments or portions of the
proposed amendments to the city council for the public hearing.
These resolutions contain certain findings which are addressed in
the attached plan, and summarized in this letter.
Although both the Residential Impact Neighborhood Group and
Comrercial Improvement Committee had discussed the proposed land
use and boundary changes, the city council specifically requested
that these groups participate in the planning commission delibera-
tions on the proposed amendments. The council also asked that all
residents and businesses in the area affected, and the residents
living within 350 feet of the proposed boundary extension be in-
vited to the planning commission meeting. In addition to the Sun
newspaper articles announcing the February 13 and 27, 1979 planning
commission meetings, the staff also sent letters to members of the
~:esidential Impact Neighborhood Group and Commercial Improvement
Committee, as well as the area residents and businesses, notifying
them of the February 13, 1979 planning conunission meeting. Both
the RING and CIC met on February 5, 1979 to discuss possible
alternative plan amendments, although neither group took final
action concerning the alternatives.
HRA Letter No. 13 -3- March 12, 1979
Summary of Project Goals and Im act
The proposed amendments include: Land use changes which
relate to the city's land use goals and the redevelopment area
goals previously adopted by RING, CIC, planning commission and
the city council. The proposed change is related to the means
of accomplishing the goals, but it must be emphasized that the
goals are essentially the same as those originally approved.
The significant differences between the proposed land use
amendments and the original land use plan provisions are as follows:
A. Acquisition
of 66th Str~
.acquisition
on the west
four single
Shore Drive
of the Lyndale Avenue businesses south
yet is excluded from the plan, and
of the properties north of 66th Street
side of Lyndale Avenue is added. The
family residential properties on Lake
are also added to the acquisition plan.
v. The original plan provided that multi-family uses
would be developed on both sides of north Lyndale
Avenue adjacent to single family areas. The amend-
ment provides that this multi-family development
would instead be located on either side of ti•?cst
66th Street.
C. Rather than business development changes south of
66th Street as provided for in the original plan,
business development changes would occur north of
66th Street. The opportunity for rehabilitation of
existing uses would be increased by this amendment.
D. The project area boundary would be expanded to in-
clude four additional residential lots along Lake
Shore Drive. The specific commercial uses along
Lyndale Avenue, south of 66th Street, are proposed
to be eliminated from the plan and changed to a
general commercial designation.
The redevelopment plan is intended to promote the revitalization
of the Lyndale/I-Iub/Nicollet are a, which represents one-twelfth of the
total area of Richfield. When completed, the project will have the
following positive benefits to the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area and
the city as a whole:
A. The net increase in total retail floor area will be
228,000 square feet;
3. Employment opportunity will increase by 610 new jobs;
C. Retail trade sale will increase from $19,000,000 per year
to $36,000,000 per year;
D. 530 additional middle and upper income families will have
housing opportunities in the area;
HRA Letter No. 13 -4- March 12, 1979
E. Opportunity for existing older residents to retain
Richfield residency will be expanded by addition of
multi-family housing;
F. Decrease in traffic accidents and hazards resulting
from improvements to Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street;
G. Addition of new buildings-and elimination of some old
buildings will reduce fire and health hazards in the
area;
H. The single family neighborhood adjacent to the commer-
cial area will be maintained.
The HRA and City of Richfield have implemented the Lyndale/Hub/
Nicollet redevelopment plan in the following manner:
A. The major department store will start construction in
April, 1979.
B. The Hub/Summit/Penny superblock ~ ea will start con-
struction in the spring, 1979.
C. The first phase of the public improvements will be
completed during summer, 1979.
D. -The Woodlake condominium project is scheduled to start
construction in 1979.
E. Major property purchases have been completed and other
property on West 66th Street dedicated for street im-
provements. The city has entered into a contract with
Hennepin County to participate in the re-construction
of part of West 66th Street.
F. Federal and state funds have been approved for r econ-
struction of Lyndale Avenue.
G. Preliminary engineering plans have been approved and
final plans and specifications will be completed in
March for Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street improvements.
Housing and Redevelo ment Authority Res onsibilities
Minnesota Statutes, section 462 provides that the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority consider the following factors when devel-
oping its recommendation regarding the plan amendments:
A. The project area is deteriorated or deteriorating
within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes 462.421,
subdivision 11 and subdivision 13. Among other
things, findings must be made of excessive lot cov-
erage or deleterious land uses or obsolete layout
HRA Letter No. 13 -5- March 12, 1979
or dilapidation, obsolescence, over-crowding, faulty
arrangement or design or lack of ventilation, light
and sanitary facilities, and other deteriorating in-
fluences. The urban renewal project as the amended
plan provides is necessary to eliminate the spread
of such deterioration.
B. There are conditions in the redevelopment project area
preventing private development,. which make it necessary
for the governmental assistance and financial aid
proposed by the plan.
C. The redevelopment plan affords maximum opportunity
for redevelopment of the project area by private en-
terprise consistend with the needs of Richfield as a
whole.
D. The amendments, when taken in conjunction with the
originally adopted plan, are sufficiently complete to
indicate the relationship to the city's comprehensive
plan, including comprehensive plan objectives.
E. There is a feasible method for the relocation of
families and that there are available, or will be
provided in the project area or other areas, decent,
safe and sanitary dwellings at least equal to the
number of families which may be displaced by implem-
entation of the amended plan.
Staff Findings
The staff findings are based on consultation with city attorney
and staff, Bather-Ringrose-Wolsfeld, Inc. (planning consultants),
Evensen-Dodge, Inc., (bond consultant), Federal-State Relocation
Consulting Services, Eberhardt Real Estate, Huntoon-Paige Associates,
Ltd. (mortgage bankers), P. J. Gaughan, Inc. (developer), and the
Technical Assistance Service (tax increment specialists). The
following discussion on findings relates first to the legal findings
which the HRA must make, and secondly to the financing and marketing
findings.
Summarizing the proposed plan amendments, the staff has reached
the following conclusions which relate to the required HRA findings:
A. Deterioration or deteriorating conditions of the area
have been addressed in the amendments to the redevel-
opment plan. Deterioration in the redevelopment
project area is essentially caused by blighting in-
fluences such as poor soils, over-congestion of public
streets, fragmented land uses, under utilization of land
in some areas, over-utilization of land in other areas,
land use conflicts between multi-family, commercial
and residential properties, and obsolescence. The
proposed amendments to the plan are necessary to prevent
the spread of such deterioration, which is exhibited by
the blighting influences with the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet
redevelopment project area.
HRA Letter No. 13 -6- March 12, 1979
B. The area proposed for HRA site assembly consists of
an area immediately southwest of the 66th Street
Lyndale Avenue intersection and immediately northwest
of the 66th Street-Lyndale Avenue intersection. Both
areas exhibit fragmented land ownership. The north-
west area and garden center area exhibit poor soils.
These conditions make it necessary for governmental
assistance or financial aid to accomplish the goals
of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment project
and the goals of the City of Richfield.
C. The area north of 66th Street is an area of previous
attempts to promote private development without direct
HRA involvement. This area is the most deteriorated
one in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment project
area. It consists of a vacant establishment, industrial
and construction type uses, mixed with retail uses,
cormnercialy converted single family homes, and a
restaurant which has a high turnover histor1~. Because
of the diverse ownership and the cost of needed re-
development, governmental assistance and financial
aid is necessary in this particular area.
D. The plan as a whole affords maximum opportunity for
redevelopment by private enterprise. The Housing and
Redevelopment Authority's role is to acquire selected
parcels of land to resell the property to private
enterprise. This HRA activity will allow private con-
struction of a new 74,000 square foot department store,
a large addition to the Lyndale Garden Center, offices
or commercial and multi-family development at the north-
west site, rehabilitation of existing commercial
activities by the private sector, and development of
multi-family housing at the southwest site. Other
private enterprise commitment to redevelopment is
illustrated by the following possib?lities:
a) Development of an additional 81, 000 square feet
in the Hub/Summit/Penny area;
b) Office space and retail commercial development
in the southeast quadrant of the 66th Street
Lyndale Avenue area;
c) Rehabilitation of existing commercial establishments
north and east of 65th Street along Lyndale Avenue;
d) Remodeling of the area north of 66th Street and east
of Nicollet Avenue, as well as the addition of a
restaurant north of 65th Street and west of Nicollet;
E. If the proposed plan amendments are adopted, it would be
necessary to relocate residents in 12 owner-occupied houses
and 6 renter-occupied houses, as well as 15 businesses.
It is anticipated that any displacements would occur during
1980. The HRA's operating policies and procedures regarding
relocation services are based on applicable state and federal
laws and regulations. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority
has previously adopted the residential relocation manual and
commercial relocaticn manual. These booklets would be distrib-
uted and explained to persons in advance of being relocated.
Relocation of families and businesses from the promotional de-
T-TRA Letter No. 13 -~° :'••iarch 12, 1979
partment store site in the project area has been completed.
Relocation for that site incluc~~d 8 owners and 2 renters of single
family homes and 17 businesses. The relocation study completed
for the HRA indicates that there are sufficient two, three, four,
and more bedroom homes in the housing marke~c area to relocate all
the families which would be affected by the proposed plan amend-
meizts, as well as sufficient alternate sites for all the businesses
included in the proposed acquisition site.
f) The p1.Gnning commission has found that the proposed
ame ~dme_"'.ts conform to the city's comprehensive plan.
The sta~f report to the commission pointed out that
the residential lc~t-s on Lake Shore Drive are described
in the comprehensive plan a5 CAD mixed land use in-
cluding multi-family develop~._enc. The c~arc~eiZ center
area is described as multi-family land use.
In addition to these findings, the staff has worked with
various consultants and city departments to confirm financing
reasibility, marketability and the effects of implementing the
proposed amendment on city services.
The primary method of financing the proposed plan amendmen~s
is tax increment financing. This method is the same as approved ~ ~~
by the HRA when the original plan was adopted. Of course, the
private sector provides all the new development and rehabilitation.
The HRA uses tax increment funds. to assemble the site and relocate
the existing businesses and families.
Marketability and feasibility of a project are two different
things. P~Tarketability assumes than an econo~aic demand exists for
the redevelopment, and that willing buyers, renters and mortgage
investors would be willing to purchase or rent the development.
Feasibility, as used here, assumes the financial ability of the
HRA to assemble the proposed sites without creating a tax burden
on property outside the L/H/N project area.. That is, a new devel-
opment must pay its own way.
Marketability of a site is established by the following:
A. The size of site and its holding capacity. That is,
only certain size developments will fit a particular
site;
B. The minimum real estate value needed to create
feasibility;
C. The general demand in the market area for specified
types of development;
D. Alternatives considered.
Site Holding Capacity
Factors which determine a development site's holding capacity
include zoning ordinance, type of development which would occur
HRA Letter No. 13 -8- March 12, 1979
on the sites, and the goals and policies of the city. For ex-
ample, the northwest site (north of 66th Street) contains 6.3
acres. The site could contain one of the following developments:
A. 75,170 square feet commercial without ramp parking;
B. 144,000 square feet commercial with ramp parking;
C. 268,527 square feet mixed commercial and multi-
family housing without ramp parking.
The southwest site (without the Lake Shore Drive lots) contains
4.27 acres. With the Lake Shore Drive lots, the site contains 5.68
acres. These sites would hold one of the following developments:
A. 75,000 square feet
B. 147,000 square feet
C. 203,090 square feet
D. 238,527 square feet
of commercial without ramp parking;
of commercial with ramp parking;
housing;
mixed commercial and housing.
Warranted Market Demand
The second variable in determining marketability is the gen-
eral demand for various uses in the redevelopment area. Last fall,
the city commissioned Mr. Ronald Bussy., Metro-Economics, Inc. to
update his 1974 market analysis for the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area.
The conclusions of this analysis were used to develop the redevelop-
ment land use plan now being studied.
Mr. Bussy concluded that the area could support the following
increases in land uses:
Business Type
Comparison retail:
Department store
Hub expansion
•Other retail
Convenience shopping
Speciality retail and
entertainment
Off ice space
Multi-family
Feasibility
Warranted Increases
In Square Feet
68,300
72,200
160,000
70,000
50,000
80,000
675,000
Once each site`s holding capacity has been determined and t::c;
potential market demand identified, several development hypotheses
were tested to identify HRA feasibility. The findings of these
hypotheses are as follows:
Northwest Site:
A 75,170 square foot shopping center on this site would
require a cooperative site assembly with a major existing
property owner. A 75,170 square foot shopping center without
the cooperation of the major property owner is not feasible
on this site. Mixed land use development containing 208,527
square feet of housing and office space is feasible.
HRA Letter No. 13 -9-
Southwest Site:
March 12, 1979
147,000 square feet of new commercial space with ramp
parking, without removal of Lyndale Hardware and without
the Lake Shore Drive lots, is not feasible on this site.
Similarly, 60,000 square feet of new commercial and
multi-family space, without the Lake Shore Drive lots and
without removal of Lyndale Hardware is not feasible.
Additional parking provided by the HRA, rehabilitation of
the existing commercial along Lyndale. Avenue and rnulti-
farnily high-rise development without the Lake Sliore Drive
lots is feasible. The RING proposal with limited public
parking and small multi-family development along 5th
Street wherein all other uses remain the same, is not
feasible.
Garden Center Site: ,
Expansion of the existing retail use with a market value
of $ is feasible. Multi-family housing develop-
ment in this area is not feasible unless the existing
.garden center is relocated out of Richfield. This type
of relocation would be catastrophic to the business.
Combinations of the above development hypotheses were also
tested. Each test was found to be unfeasible when one or more of
the non-feasible variables was combined with one or more of the
feasible variables.
Eased on the market analysis, holding capacity and HRA feasi-
bility analysis, the following developments were selected for
further marketability testing:
A. Northwest Site
Mixed land use multi-family/office
Commercial cooperative
n. Southwest Site
Rehabilitation of existing
commercial, multi-family
Lake Shore Drive lots.
Rehabilitation of existing
commercial, multi-family
Lake Shore Drive lots.
Lyndale Avenue
highrise, without
Lyndale Avenue
lowrise, with
The responses received from the development specialists are
attached. In summary, they concluded the following:
Huntoon Paige Associates Limited
This mortgage banking organization felt that the northwest
site could support a well-designed medium income, semi-
luxury multi-family rental housing complex. The southwest
site was perceived to be more desirable than the northwest
site. This site would support an upper middle-income
luxury multi-family development if the Lake Shore Drive
frontage were made available.
HRA Letter No. 13 -10- March 12, 1979
Knutson Mortgage and Finance Corporation
Mr. Robert Liebig, vice president, felt that the south
west site would support a semi-luxury to luxury apart-
ment complex. The rents which could be generated would
be $575 to $600 per month.
Fh~rl-~arr~t
Mr. William Davis, vice president, suggested that mixed
land use, general office and multi-family development
on the northwest site would either not generate enough
tax return or would meet with some market resistance.
However, he felt that special office uses, such as med-
ical or single tenant office, and multi-family develop-
ment affiliated with a fraternal or religious .type organ-
ization would be marketable on the site. The southwest
site with exposure to Lake Shore Drive would be marketable
as a luxury multi-family condominum.
Metro Economics, Inc.
Based on their updated economic analysis, Mr. Bussy
found a short-term need for 33,000 square feet of general
office space, a long-term need of 47,000 square feet of
general office space and a need for 25,000 square feet of
specialized office space. Single tenant space was not
considered. Mr. Bussy felt that the north site location
was appropriate for office space. Multi-family needs are
apparent. He felt that both the northwest site and the
southwest site were appropriate for semi-luxury multi-
family development. The southwest site had the greatest
appeal and marketability.
Marketability Conclusions
Using the market analysis and the marketability reviews supplied
by Hantoon Paige, Knutson, and Eberhardt, it is the conclusion of
the city staff that the following land uses are justified:
Northwest Site: Land use should consist of commercial or
the option for commercial/multi-family land use. Keeping
this option open for a commercial shopping center, or multi-
family/office development provides the most favorable land
marketing position to either the HRA or private landowner.
This proposal assumes an integrated development for the
entire site rather than spot- development of small tracts
in a piecemeal fashion.
Southwest Site: Land use should include new development
consisting of semi-luxury or luxury condominiums. The
Lake Shore Drive lots are necessary to market this site.
The existing conunercial area along Lyndale Avenue south
of 66th Street can be retained and rehabilitated.
Impact of Proposed Amendment on City Services
The primary demand for city services in the project area would
be in public safety and public works. Park and recreation services
~~ ' ` ItF2A Letter No. 13 -1 1 - March 1 2 , 1 979
r~~,.: the school district, Hennepin County, and the city's finance
~-.~.-_:
~`_` department would all also be affected by such development. In-
creased population drawn into the project area and, thus, the
city, has a positive affect on the state aids to the city and school
district, and condominiums would increase homestead credit revenues
to the city. School district population would not be significantly
impacted by the proposed multi-family development, since approxi-
mately one student per four dwelling units could be expected from
the proposed plan amendments. I~ennepin County would not be affect-
ed by this development any more than any development in the county.
Population .growth in southwest Hennepin County has been planned
and county services are being developed to satisfy the existing
and anticipated service demand.
Without the development, the public safety department feels
that fire and crime incidents in the project area might be expected
to increase~_in future years. Development of semi-luxury .apartments
would not significantly increase police service demands, since
occupants of semi-luxury housing are not usually heavy users of
police services. Remodeling of old structures and construction of
new structures which incorporate fire and crime prevention design
will reduce the area's potential fire and crime. hazards.
The roadway design improvements and improved pedestrian
design in the area should offset any corresponding traffic safety
problems associated with increased use of the street system, and
should reduce the probability of motor vehicle and pedestrian.
accidents.
Public works maintenance will increase slightly after the
construction is completed on 66th Street, 65th Street and Lyndale
Avenue. These responsibilities will be associated with maintaining
the landscape areas, pedestrian plazas and additional sidewalk areas.
However, elimination of these improvements would have a detrimental
effect on the redevelopment project, and the safety of people using
the area. New stoplight equipment will reduce short term mainten-
ance costs.
Decreases in public works costs will also _csult, since three
streets presently maintained by the city ~~~il_1 be vacated and main-
tained by private businesses for parking lot c~ ~.c~,~:~.o~;~:`.::nt purposes.
Portions of Pillsbury, Grand and Graham Ave~iues Piave been, or are
proposed to be, vacated.
Projected total traffic volurles with the prof>ose~ pl. an amend-
ments are the same as those in the adopted plan. I-To~~~~wer, the
traffic volumes in the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue ~.rea will
likely be reduced from the original plan if tine proposea amend-
ments are implemented. Besides reductions in traffic volumes,
the proposed amendments provide the opportunity to improve access
to various land uses.
The effects of multi-family development on park and recreation
facilities was a itiajor concern. After reviewing the proposed plan
amendments, it is the conclusion of the staff that multi-family
housing designed to complement rather than detract from the
HRA Letter No. 13 -12- March 12, 1979
Wood Lalce Nature Center, will complement the center. The park
and recreation department feels that the proposed plan amend-
ments would not significantly affect park and recreation facilities,
including the Wood Lake Nature Center.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission has thoroughly studied the proposed
amendments to the redevelopment plan. The commission has trans-
mitted a resolution to the HRA which finds that the proposed amend-
ments to the redevelopment plan conform to the city's comprehensive
plan, are necessary to prevent the spread of existing deterioration,
provide the opportunity for private development, and require govern-
mental assistance. The commission's resolution supporting the plan
amendments provides that the owner-occupied residential lots on
Lake Shore Drive (the area included in the boundary amendrlent) be
acquired only by negotiation.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the HRA adopt the attached resolution
approving the plan amendments, and approving each separate compon-
ent of the land use changes and boundary change.
Respectfully submitted,
o ~ W i 1 d'e~~-~~~
ting Executive Director
JLW/ e j a
cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 12
Agenda March 12, 1979
~,b,~ed, S-d
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Dear Commissioners:
Subject: Resolutions Establishing Just Compensation,
New Home Program
On January 22, 1979, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
reviewed the report and recommendation of the Ad Hoc Housing
Committee. The committee's report encouraged the HRA to initiate
new programs to develop additional housing resources for large,
low income families. The specific program recommended by the
committee is one wherein new housing is constructed and owned by
a private developer, who receives a write-down for land costs
from the HRA and constructs the housing using either Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency monies or direct financing from the fed-
eral government. These homes then provide housing for low income
renters through the Section 8 rental assistance program.
The HRA endorsed the committee's recommendation and on
February 12, 1979 authorized the staff to begin advertising for
development proposals and to identify possible substandard hous-
ing which may be purchased through this program. Once purchased,
these substandard homes will be demolished so that the lots may
be used for the new "scattered site" program construction.
The staff has identified 37 substandard or dilapidated
homes, within the city. These homeowners were contacted to de-
termine if any would be interested in selling to the HRA. From
the initial contact, eight property owners have expressed an in-
terest in considering sale of their property. Appraisals of
these properties have been completed by Janski & Associates;
and the city assessor, Vern Anderson. Copies of these appraisals
are attached.
Before the staff can begin the actual negotiations for pur-
chase of these properties, it is necessary that the HRA establish
just compensation for the properties. Even though the HRA will
be purchasing only five homes for the scattered site program,
it is recommended that just compensation be established for all
eight properties. Once a negotiated purchase is formulated,
the HRA will be asked to purchase the property. HRA authority
to purchase the property will occur at the time a developer is
selected.
HRA Letter No. 12 -2- rZarch 12, 1979
The additional three houses, if agreeable purchase prices
were established, would be sold to developers for new con-
struction and subsequent resale to low and moderate income fam-
ilies under the HRA's on-going New Home Program.
It is recommended that the HRA adopt the resolutions estab-
lishing just compensation and authorizing the commencement of
negotiations for purchase of the following eight properties:
1. 6916 Queen Avenue, owned by H. L. Petrofska: This
property has one bedroom, 600 square feet of living
space, and was built in 1928. Recommended just
compensation is $23,000.
2. 7200 Third Avenue, owned by Donald Butterfass: This
house has two small bedrooms, 684 square feet of
living space, and was built in 1927. The lot size
is 49' x 128'. Recommended just compensation is
$27,000.
3. 7504 Colfax Avenue, owned by Ray Callstrom: This
house has one bedroom, .and 329 square feet of living
space. This house was built in 1941 on a lot sized
50' x 130'. Recommended just compensation is $20,000.
4. 6310 15th Avenue,, owned by Victor Schliess: This
two bedroom house built in 1931, has 732 square
feet of living space. The lot size is 50' x 135'.
Recommended just compensation is $27,000.
5. 11 East 68th Street, owned by Les Boucher: This
house has one bedroom and 535 square feet of living
space. It was built in 1947 on a lot sized 50' x
192'. Recommended just compensation is $26,500.
G. 6744 Blaisdell Avenue, owned by Fred Habegger: This
house has one bedroom and 384 square feet of living
space. It was built in 1929, and the lot size is
47' x 1~8'. Recommended just compensation is $20,000.
7. 6530 Bloomington Avenue, owned by Homer Tanner: This
property has one bedroom and 496 square feet of liv-
ing space. It was built in 1926 on a lot sized 51'
x 134'. Recommended just compensation is $27,500.
8. 7520 Portland Avenue, owned by Alois Litfin: This
one bedroom house was built in 1937, with 430 square
feet of living space. The lot size is 75~ x i3.3'.
Recommended just compensation is $24,500.
Respectfully submitted,
yc L. Wilde
cting Executive Director
JLW/ e j a
Address
6916 Queen Avenue South
7200 Third Avenue South
7504 Colfax Avenue South
6310 15th Avenue South
11 East 68th Street
6744 Blaisdell Avenue South
6530 Bloomington Avenue South
7520 Portland Avenue South
Janski's Appraisal
$23,000
$27,000
$20,000
$27,000
$26,500
$20,000
$27,500
$24,500
Vern~'s Appraisal
$30,000
$28,000
$20,000
$33,600
$25,600
$19,200
$27,800
$25,000
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FAIR MARKET VAULE
AND AUTHORIZING THE COlIn2ENCED--LENT OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURHCASE OF REAL PF~OPERTY
jVHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) desires to purchase certain real properties pursuant to and
in furtherance of the•New Home Program heretofore adopted by the
City of Richfield (the "City") and the HRA; said real property
being described as follows:
6916 Queen Avenue So.; Lot 5, Block 15, "Tingdale Brothers
Lincoln Hills Third Addition", Hennepin Co., MN, Plat 46793,
Parcel 8200
WrIEREAS, the HRA has caused appraisals of the subject property
to be made, has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes
the work of such appraiser was performed in a competent manner and in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized
by D4innesota Statutes Section 462.445 to purchase real property;
NO4V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOP`.IE?~TT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA:
1. That $23,000 is determined to be fair market value for
the subject real property.
2. That the Executive Director and the HRA's attorney are
authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of
the real property described above.
3. That the Executive Director is hereby directed to notify,
in writing, the owner of the subject property, as soon as possible,
that the HRA presently intends to acquire his property provided
negotiations result in the determination of a mutually agreeable
sales price. The Executive Director shall include with such noti-
fication a statement which complies with the requirements o:f regu-
lations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 C.F.R.
X42.135.
4. That upon the completion of the negotiations, the Executive
Director shall report back to •the HRA with a proposal for the purchase
of said real property which is acceptable to the owner(s), and shall
report his recommendation relating to said proposal.
this
Passed by the Ilousin and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield
ATTEST: Loren L. Lan• Chairman
V. L. Luttinger Secretary
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FAIR ~tARF~ET VALTLE
AND AUTHORIZING T?-IE CO.~IIIENCE~tENT OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURHCASE OF REAL PROPERTY
jVHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) desires to purchase certain real properties pursuant to and
in furtherance of the Nesv Home Program heretofore adopted by the
City of Richfield (the "City") and the HRA; said real property
being described as follows:
7200 Third Avenue So., Lot 1, Block 6, Wooddale Second Addition,
Hennepin County, MN; Plat 46931, Parcel 4800
NrIEREAS, the HRA has caused appraisals of the subject property
to be made, has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes
the work of such appraiser vas performed in a competent manner and in
accordance with applicable law; and
tiVHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized
by Rlinnesota Statutes Section 462.445 to purchase real property;
NOtiV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING A_ND REDEVELOP'IE\T
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, ;MINNESOTA:
1. That $27,000 is determined to be fair market value for
the subject real property.
2. That the Executive Director and the HRA's attorney are
authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of
the real property described above.
3. That the Executive Director is hereby directed to notify,
in writing, the owner of the subject property, as soon as possible,
that the HRA presently intends to acquire his property provided
negotiations result in the determination of a mutually agreeable
sales price. The Executive Director shall include with such noti-
fication a statement which complies with the requirements of regu-
lations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 C.F,R,
X42.135.
4. That upon the completion of the ne;~otiations, the Executive
Director shall report bacl: to .the HRA with a proposal for the purchase
of said real property ~.vhich is acceptable to the owner(s), and shall
report his recommendation relatin to said proposal.
Passed by the Housin7 and Redevelopment :luthorit~- of Richfield
this
ATTEST: Loren L. Law C'ltlirman
V. L. Luttinger Secretar~~
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FAIR 2~1ARKET VAULE
AND AUTHORIZING TIIE CO~.I111ENCE1,tENT OF
NEGOTIATIO\TS FOR THE PURHCASE OF REAL PROPERTY
~YHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) desires to purchase certain real properties pursuant to and
in furtherance of the NeGV Home Program heretofore adopted by the
City of Richfield (the "City") and the HRA; said real property
being described as follows:
7504 Colfax Avenue 50., Lot 2, Block 22, Irwin Shores Addition,
Hennepin County, MN; Plat 45605, Parcel 4220
ZYiIEREAS, the HRA has caused appraisals of the subject property
to be made, has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes
the work of such appraiser was performed in a competent manner and in
accordance with applicable law; and
tiYHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized
by Minnesota Statutes Section 462.445 to purchase real property;
NOti4', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOP`.IENT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, i~1INNESOTA:
1. That $20,000 is determined to be fair market value for
the subject real property.
2. That the Executive Director and the HRA's attorney are
authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of
the real property described above.
3. That the Executive Director is hereby directed to notify,
in writing, the owner of the subject property, as soon as possible,
that the HRA presently intends to acquire his property provided
negotiations result in the determination of a mutually agreeable
sales price. The Executive Director shall include with such noti-
fication a statement which complies with the requirements of regu-
lations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 C.F.R.
X42.135.
4. That upon the completion of the negotiations, the Executive
Director shall report back to the HRA with a proposal for the purchase
of said real property which is acceptable to the owner(s), and shall
report his recommendation relating to said proposal.
this
Passed by the Housint; and itiedevelopment :authority of Richfield
ATTEST:
Loren L. Law Chairman
V. L. Luttinger Secretary
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FAIR i+tARKET VAULE
AND AUTHORIZING TIIE C0~.114ENCE~-LENT OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURHCASE OF ;-TEAL PROPERTY
tVHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) desires to purchase certain real properties pursuant to and
in furtherance of the New Home Program heretofore adopted by the
City of Richfield (the "City") and the HRA; said real property
being described as follows:
6310 15th Avenue So., Lot 3, Block 2, Nokomis Gardens Rearrange-
ment of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Girard Parkview, Hennepin Co.,
MN; Plat 45940, Parcel 0950
~VrIEREAS, the HRA has caused appraisals of the subject property
to be made, has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes
the work of such appraiser was performed in a competent manner and in
accordance with applicable la~v; and
tiVHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized
by 11linnesota Statutes Section 462.445 to purchase real property;
N0~1', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOP~.IENT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, i+1INNESOTA:
1. That $27,000 is determined to be fair market value for
the subject real property.
2. That the Executive Director and the HRA's attorney ac•C
authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of
the real property described above.
3. That the Executive Director is hereby directed to notify,
in writing, the owner of the subject property, as soon as possible,
that the HRA presently intends to acquire his property provided
negotiations result in the determination of a mutually agreeable
sales price. Tlie Executive Director shall inclucie with such noti-
fication a statement which complies with the requirements oaf re~u-
lations of the Department of Iiousing and Urban Development, 24 C.F.R.
X42.135.
4. That upon the completion of the negotiations, the Executi~-e
Director shall report back to l;he HRA with a proposal for the purchase
of said real property which is acceptable to the owner(s), and small
report his recommendation relating to said proposal.
this
Passed by the IIousing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield
ATTEST:
Loren L. Lalti' Chairman
V. L. Luttinger Secretary
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FAIR `~t9RKET VAULE
AND AUTHORIZING THE C0~.411ENCE?~dENT OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURHCASE OF REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) desires to purchase certain real properties pursuant to and
in furtherance of the New Home Program heretofore adopted by the
City of Richfield (the "City") and the HRA; said real property
being described as follows:
11 East 68th St., Lots 83 and 84, Western Surety & Adjustment
Company's Addition "The Pines", Hennepin Co., MN; Plat 46905,
Parcel 8350
ZVrIEREAS, the HRA has caused appraisals of the subject property
to be made, has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes
the work of such appraiser was performed in a competent manner and in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized
by D7innesota Statutes Section 462.445 to purchase real property;
NOjt', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOP`.IENT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, %IINNESOTA:
1. That $26,500 is determined to be fair market value for
the subject real property.
2. That the Executive Director and the HRA's attorney ar•c
authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of
the real property described above.
3. That the Executive Director is hereby directed to notify,
in writing, the owner of the subject property, as soon as possible,
that the HRA presently intends to acquire his property provided
negotiations result in the determination of a mutually agreeable
sales price. The Executive Director shall include with such noti-
fication a statement which complies with the requirements of regu-
lations of the Department of housing and Urban Development, 24 C.F.R.
X42.135.
4. That upon the completion of the negotiations, the Executive
Director shall report bacl: to the HP~A with a proposal for the purchase
of said real property which is acceptable to the owner(s), and shall
report his recommendation relating to said proposal.
this
Passed by the housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield
ATTEST:
Loren L. Law Chairman
V. L. Luttinger Secretary
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FAIR MARKET VAULE
AND AUTHORIZING TIIE COI~IAtENCED-LENT OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURHCASE OF REAL PP~OPERTY
~VHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) desires to purchase certain real properties pursuant to and
in furtherance of the New Home Program heretofore adopted by the
City of Richfield (the "City") and the HRA; said real property
being described as follows:
6744 Blaisdell Avenue So., Lot 3, Block 2, Oaklane Addition,
Hennepin Co., MN; Plat 45960, Parcel 4500
ZVrIEREAS, the HR.A has caused appraisals of the subject property
to be made, has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes
the work of such appraiser was performed in a competent manner and in
accordance with applicable law; and
tiVHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized
by 1Sinnesota Statutes Section 462.445 to purchase real property;
NO~V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING P_ND REDEVELOP:.IENT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA:
1. That $20,000 is determined to be fair market value for
the subject real property.
2. That the Executive Director and the HRA's attorney are
authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of
the real property described above.
3. That the Executive Director is hereby directed to notify,
in writing, the owner of the subject property, as soon as possible,
that the HRA presently intends to acquire his property provided
negotiations result in the determination of a mtttttally agreeable
sales price. The Executive Director shall include with such noti-
fication a statement which complies with the requirements of regu-
lations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 C,F,R.
X42.135.
4. That upon the completion of the negotiations, the Executive
Director shall report back to the HI'~A with a proposal for the purchase
of said real property which is acceptable to the owner(s), and shall
report his recommendation relating to said proposal.
this
Passed by the IIousins and Redevelopment Authority of P~ichfield
ATTEST:
Loren L. Law Chairman
V. L. Luttinger Secretary
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FAIR i~tARKET VAULE
AND AUTHORIZING THE CO'In~tENCE1tENT OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURHCASE OF REAL PROPERTY
tVHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) desires to purchase certain real properties pursuant to and
in furtherance of the New Home Program heretofore adopted by the
City of Richfield (the "City") and the HRA; said real property
being described as follows:
6530 Bloomington Avenue So., Lot 6, Block 5, Nokomis Gardens
Rearrangement of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Girard Parkview
Addition, Plat 45940, Parcel 4700
tiVI-IEREAS, the HRA has caused appraisals of the subject property
to be made, has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes
the work of such appraiser was performed in a competent manner and in
accordance with applicable law; and
tiVHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized
by I~4innesota Statutes Section 462.445 to purchase real property;
NOLV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOP%1ENT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, i~iINNESOTA:
1. That $27,500 is determined to be fair market value for
the subject real property.
2. That the Executive Director and the HRA's attorney are
authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of
the real property described above.
3. That the Executive Director is hereby directed to notify,
in writing, the owner of the subject property, as soon as possible,
that the HRA presently intends to acquire his property provided
negotiations result in the determination of a mutually agreeable
sales price. The Executive Director shall include with such noti-
fication a statement which complies with the requirements of regu-
lations of the Department of housing and Urban Development, 24 C.F,R.
X42.135.
4. That upon the completion of the negotiations, the Executive
Director shall report baclc to the HRA with a proposal .For the purchase
of said real property which is acceptable to the owner(s), and shall
report his recommendation relating to said proposal.
this
Passed by the Iiousin and Redevelop~;tent Authority of Richfield
ATTEST:
Loren L. Law Chairman
V. L. Luttinger Secretary
ti
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FAIR ~19RKET VAULE
AND AUTHORIZING THE CO111~tENCE:~tENT OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURHCASE OF REAL PP~OPERTY
WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) desires to purchase certain real properties pursuant to and
in furtherance of the New Home Program heretofore adopted b.y the
City of Richfield (the "City") and the HRA; said real property
being described as follows:
7520 Portland Avenue So., E 165.8' of the S 75' of the N 342.8'
of the E 2 of the SE a of the NE a of the SE 4 exc . rd . Sec . 3 4 ,
T 28, R 24; Plat 44834, Parcel 4520
tiVrIEREAS, the HRA has caused appraisals of the subject property
to be made, has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes
the work of such appraiser was performed in a competent manner and in
accordance with applicable law; and
tiVHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized
by D~innesota Statutes Section 462.445 to purchase real property;
NOLV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOP?IE?~TT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, i~ZINNESOTA:
1. That $24,500 is determined to be fair market value for
the subject real property.
2. That the Executive Director and the HRA's attorney a~•c
authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of
the real property described above.
3. That the Executive Director is hereby directed to notify,
in writing, the owner of the subject property, as soon as possible,
that the HRA presently intends to acquire his property provided
negotiations result in the determination of a mutually agreeable
sales price. The Executive Director shall include with such noti-
fication a statement which complies with the requirements of rePu-
lations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 C,F,^.
X42.135. _
4. That upon the completion o:f the negotiations, the Executi~-e
Director shall report back to the HRA with a proposal .for the purcha:,e
of said real property which is acceptable to the owner(s), and shah
report his recommendation relating to said proposal.
this
Passed by the llousin~; and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield
ATTEST:
Loren L. Law Chairman
V. L. Luttinger Secretary