Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Untitled
Please .nnt or •e ^ rns E.;'" »�`" `@"s ,»' '`'€ • ��4 ` � y'�'•+ � ;Le' §V- �.,�� �h�5 "" ,� � t�a �p °�� g*�°,�" a 4r :.r 4 'r _ :.�' a �'?` >f!' ', �ad�� '_X11:,:+',� *......':.isr'; �.°&t�C�e..,.��. m..s, ",ea��`"i.'&x"Lrc...,W.,6`x ,.A..."„5",a ..._... �4:.i3P:'N�o..,,,» �Y+e.+..� o-.'A 1���a' COMMUNITY NAME City of Oak Park Heights PRIMARY PERSON Julie Hultman COMPLETING Planning & Code Enforcment Officer THE SURVEY TELEPHONE FILE ( 651 ) 351 .661 COPY FAX ( 651 ) 439-0574 fYYICLil.ci) E-MAIL ADDRESS jhultman@cityofoakparkheights.com (o a1-CI�Z 1. Criterion#3 If applicable,please identify the number of detached housing units in the community that have been developed through 2004 using a zero lot line or other atypical detached housing site plan approach to increase development density. (Do not include manufactured housing units in manufactured home parks.) There was no development, in 2004, as described above. 2. Part of Criterion #4 During 2004,were any existing subsidized housing units in the municipality"preserved"as affordable for low- and moderate-income households because of public and/or private reinvestment in that housing? For example, a Section 8 or 236 building with an expiring contract with HUD that was"preserved"through reinvestment and an extension of rent subsidies for a definitive period of years. Name(s)of the housing: Raymie Johnson Estates Number of units"preserved" in each property. 96 Hi-Rise Units 24 Townhome Units 120 Units Total 3. Part of Criterion#4 Production of New Rental Housing Units in 2004 Please indicate the number of rental units for which building permits were issued during 2004.Rental costs listed are the total costs for rent andtili 'e u h s paid by tenants. _ i ; ; �� K�`.> �, x, mss:= s�.a " K Efficiency and One Bedroom Two Bedrooms Three Bedrooms SRO* and larger Affordable $671 $719 $862 $996 Rents** or less 0 or less 0 or less 0 or less 0 All other new Above Above Above Above rental units $671 0 $719 10 $862 110 $996 39 *Single-room occupancy **Affordable to households earning no more than 50%of the regional median income, adjusted for household size ($38,350 in 2004 for a family of fbur). 4. Part of Criterion#4 Production of New Owner Housing Units in 2004 Please indicate the number of owner-occupied units for which building permits were issued during 2004. 1 1y� F Y t '���,,�8�. , ,�,., 4 j a t K �``sl #c ..... ;;(1.: 41, �';.�a:..,w.�,s,' z�v.. s ,xd.3 Y�$s.,�3 n r x Single-Family,Detached Units Multi-Family,Attached Units Selling Price $193,700 or less* 1 0 Over$193,700 0 8 *Affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the regional median income ($61,360 in 2004 for a family of four). i._:;WORF)stufTfor kathy\tca stuff:2004 i.C:,l survcv\2004!w survey.din 2 5. Removal of Housing Units Due to City Initiatives - None A. How many housing units were removed from the housing stock in 2004 due to city initiatives? Single-family,detached Multifamily Units Mobile Homes B. How many of the units were replaced? C. How many were replaced by owner-occupied single-family, detached units priced at $193,700 or less? D. How many were replaced by owner-occupied multifamily units priced at$193,700 or less? E. How many were replaced by rental units priced at the affordable rental thresholds stated in question 3? 6. Criterion#6 Please identify no more than five local fiscal tools or initiatives that assisted the development or preservation of affordable or life-cycle housing that are,by local policy, available from or through the city to assist/facilitate the development or preservation of affordable or life-cycle housing. The identification of state and/or federal dollars is only applicable if the community could have used the dollars for activities other than affordable housing development or preservation. (See criterion 6 for examples of fiscal tools.) a. Tax Increment Financing b• Local Property Tax Levy c• General Obligation Bonds d• Community Development Block Grant e. 501 (c) (3) Bonds 11:‘WORD‘stuff for Lathy\Ica stuff`2004 LCA survey 2004 Ica survey.doc 3 4 • 7. Criterion#7 • Please identify/describe up to five instances/examples during 2003 and 2004'in which the municipality reduced, adjusted, eliminated,waived, or in some fashion was flexible in the implementation of a local official control, or development or building requirement; OR for which it is the municipality's policy and practice to reduce, adjust or eliminate such requirement,when requested to do so, to reduce development costs for the development of affordable or life-cycle housing. No more than two examples of the application may be identified for any single housing project. a. Use of Variances, Conditional Use Permits &Other b. Building Permit Plan Review Fee Waived or Reduced on' occasion of developments with mirrored or very same construction design/plan c. Reduction (when deemed appropriate) of roadway width and /or parking space requirement d. Private roadways versus public roadways (when deemed appropriate) e. Design Guideline & Zone Review with modification where and when needed 8. Criterion #8 • Please list up to five housing preservation/maintenance activities or efforts the • municipality is currently engaged in or programs it uses and promotes to maintain or improve its existing housing stock and were used in 2003 or 2004. For example, a housing eme am a e a i ' o t - mamtenance code and enforc nt progr , or hom reh b htati n loan program. Coun y administered programs are applicable(see criterion 8 for examples). a. Local Ordinance and Zoning Code enforcement b. Building Permit requirement and inspections enforcement C. Affordable flat rate permits for residential maintenance/improvement projects (eg. windows, roof and siding replacement) d. Neighborhood Quality Programs: trees, parks, trails and annual clean up for collection of household waste and items. e• Ongoing communication to residents (& potential residents) of resources available on a variety of things (eg. County tax deferral for certain types of improvements to aged homes) . 1.1:\WORD\stuff for kathy\lca stuffU2004 LCA survey\2004 Ica survey.doc 4 9. Criterion#9 - Not Applicable Note: If your community has participated in the annual Plat Monitoring Program in 2003 and 2004,please disregard this question.If your community would like more information regarding the annual Plat Monitoring Program,please check the box. a. Sewered Communities Please indicate the overall average net-density* and number of new sewered residential units for which a building permit was issued or all fmal necessary local approvals were granted in 2003 and 2004. Please provide the density to the nearest one-tenth of an acre. *a' iJ._.._. 8.. 1.,�. .d�.r.;�...� ......... ..a.. „.o,� _. ..�. .,. i' G..,... °i_, ..,.. 1 s ed,' . .. Detached Units Attached Units Total Units b. Unsewered Communities Please indicate the overall average net-density* of new residential units for which a building permit was issued or all necessary local approvals were granted in 2003 and 2004. Please provide the density to the nearest one-tenth of an acre. ..�,,o�e� 0 4' 4'-;. Total New Residential Units *Net density is a calculation based upon the number of approved units and the adjusted area of plat guided for residential development. The formula for calculating net residential density is as follows: Net Residential Density=Total Units_(Total Area—Total Area Adjustments) Total Area Adjustments mean the exclusion of: • Major Highways (those with right-of-way 200 ft. or greater) • Wetlands identified in National Wetlands Inventory • Major Parks and Open Spaces •. Steep slopes greater than 18% Local streets, alleys, and sidewalks, as well as private parks,pools and tennis courts are NOT excluded from the total area. l i;\WORD\stuff far lcathy;lca stuff 2OO4 LCA surve 2004 1.ra survey.tloc 5 10. Criterion#10 In 2003 or 2004, did the municipality acquire land to be held specifically for the development of new affordable family housing or any senior housing(exclusively 55+)but for which no housing units have been or are currently under construction? Yes No X Describe the land acquisition and the intended development for such land. In 2003 or 2004, did the municipality approve the development or reuse of existing housing for use as affordable family housing or any senior housing(55+) or approve municipal involvement in the preservation and reinvestment in existing affordable family housing or senior housing for a development(s)that has not as yet been undertaken or completed for reasons beyond the municipality's control? If so,name the development(s)or project(s) 11. ALHOA—Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount During the 2004 legislative session,the basis upon which the ALHOA for each community is calculated was changed retroactive to calendar year 2003. However, eligible ALHOA expenditures and contributions were not changed, They continue to include such items as a local tax levy to support a local or county housing authority, local dollars contributing to housing assistance, development or rehabilitation programs or activities, or to fund a local housing inspections and maintenance program. Funds granted or loaned to the community by another non-local source, public or private, and spent in 2004 may be applicable as an ALHOA expenditure if the funds could have been used for various purposes, but were, in fact,used to assist housing efforts or activities. During calendar year 2004, did your community expend or contribute through property taxes at least 85%of the ALHOA indicated on the enclosed spreadsheet? Yes X No If no,please explain why ALHOA expenditures or contributions were not made U:}\VORIAstuff for kathy.Ica stu 62004 I.CA survey\2004 Ica'urvey.doc 6 T al hlh 1 '"'Z 0' d C _ 0 N L' N m t1 0 'C I = v N o tQ O Q —i ji -43 O ct I c 41 01) 4 Z I x 0 MO CI O Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance January 2003 • Inside Front Cover Metropolitan Council Members Peter Bell, Chair Saundra Spigner, District 1 Natalie Haas Steffen, District 9 Todd Paulson, District 2 Jim Nelson, District 10 Mary Hill Smith, District 3 Roger Williams, District 11 Julius C. Smith, District 4 Marc Hugunin, District 12 Phil Riveness, District 5 Daniel Galles, District 13 Vacant, District 6 Lee Pao Xiong, District 14 George Garnett, District 7 Tom Egan, District 15 Carol A. Kummer, District 8 John Conzemius, District 16 The mission of the Metropolitan Council is to improve regional competitiveness in the global economy so the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan region is one of the best places to live, work,raise a family and do business. The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning organization for the seven-county Twin Cities area. The Council advocates Smart Growth for vital communities and a competitive region. It runs the regional bus system, collects and treats wastewater, manages regional water resources, plans regional parks and administers funds that provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. The Council is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Minnesota Governor. The graphic preparation and printing of this publication cost $162.00 for a total of 300 copies. Publication#78-03-006 Printed on recycled paper with at least 20%post-consumer waste. On request,this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Call the Metropolitan Council Data Center at 651 602-1140 or TTY 651 291-0904. General phone 651 602-1000 Regional Data Center 651 602-1140 TTY 651 291-0904 Metro Info Line 651 602-1888 E-mail data.center@metc.state.mn.us Internet site www.metrocouncil.org 2 Introduction The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint includes policy that supports,encourages and promotes the broadened opportunity for affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the region. As one of the actions it will take to support such housing opportunities,the Blueprint says the Council will "give priority for regional infrastructure investments or expenditures of public dollars to communities that have implemented plans to provide their share of the region's low- and moderate-income and life-cycle housing opportunities." The following criteria and their relative weight will be used to annually determine a score—0 to 100 points—and rank for cities and counties in the region to be used in the evaluation and prioritization of applications for funding by the Council. County scores will be used in the evaluation of county applications for funding; city scores will be used for city applications. Joint applications for discretionary funding will be weighted pursuant to the applicable combination of counties, cities,or both counties and cities. Examples of current funding decisions that will be affected include but not be limited to those for community development—the LCA Fund and Smart Growth initiatives,transportation—TEA-21,the environment—MetroEnvironment Partnership grants, and other investments and programs such as those for parks and open space. The amount of emphasis or weight given to the housing performance score or rank in the evaluation of applications for various funding programs will be at the discretion of the Metropolitan Council at the time it solicits applications for any of these discretionary funding activities. Any changes to the performance criteria themselves will be made only after the Council follows its adopted policy and practices for changing policy documents. 3 sa �� � 4 4 K \Z *t•Iv sem' fir.., N,. .> .,,.�.an..z �xaaw.,,,.. -�s�,w�.� ,,,; Aa��,„�., ,.,.,.,,,,., ., w-s-*� y >,x ,,t�K,,..�,,, as .�,c Use of resources, authority,programs and initiativ:s for affordable workforce and life- cycle housing 1. The county or its housing agenc or authority owns and is responsible for the management of affordable housing units. 0 or 5 points a. which are public housing units ded under the Office of Public and Indian Housing at the U.S. Dep. ent of HUD 0 or 5 points b. and/or housing units not includes in(a). 0 to 70 points 2. The county, its housing agency •i authority, the Metro HRA or a non- public agent of the county(whic o may include a designated non-profit), administers programs and/or resurces to address affordable housing assistance, development and pre•ervation needs in the county for cities and townships that do not manage their own such programs or resources to address these housing needs. Examples of programs or resour'es to address these needs include,but are not limited to,the following: • Tenant-based rental assistance(Section 8 existing housing programs— vouchers or certificates administ-redby the county or its agent) • Development of county hou4 ng TIF district to assist affordable housing development or preserv.tion • The use of housing revenue o onds to support affordable housing production,homebuyer assistant-, or housing preservation efforts • Land acquisition assistance •rogram for affordable housing providers (e.g. Habitat for Humanity) And/or locally-administered acti ities such as: • First-time homebuyer mortg ge assistance program • Down payment and/or closi g cost assistance program • Homeowner rehabilitation o home improvement grants or loan program • Rental property rehabilitatio or renovation program • Funding for new affordable 'Ownership or rental housing construction (e.g. federal low-income housin;, tax credits,HOME dollars etc.) • Low-income housing rehabi itation loan or grant program funded by use of federal CDBG or HOME nds • Housing counseling service(e.g. renter or first-time homebuyer education efforts) And/or other innovative efforts or initiatives such as: • A county-funded program t• aid affordable housing development or preservation through the provisi in of gap financing assistance. • Activities undertaken by the county or its authorized agent(s)that require county involvement,p. nership, support, or resources and address 4 the housing needs of low- and moderate-income individuals and households, or those with special housing needs in the county,or advance the production or preservation of such housing. • Initiatives by the county to create/expand non-profit capacity or foster local intergovernmental collaborations to create and preserve affordable housing for low and moderate-income persons. Each policy, activity,program,resource or other initiative is worth 5 points,not to exceed 70 points. 0 to 10 points 3. The total per capita expenditure of funds by the county or its authorized agent(s) on homelessness as identified in the previous year's budget will be assigned points based upon the following: 10 points—$6 or more per capita 8 points—$4.00 to $5.99 per capita 6 points—$2.00 to $3.99 per capita 4 points—$1.00 to $1.99 per capita 2 points—less than$1.00 per capita 0 to 10 points 4. The total per capita commitment(i.e. per capita for only those communities with a tax levy to fund the county housing authorities, and/or a participation agreement with the county) of county-originated funds (taxes,reserve funds, fees, land sales, etc.,not funds passed through from other levels of governments)to affordable housing development or preservation and/or tenant based rental assistance, as identified in the county's previous fiscal year's budget will be assigned points based upon the following: 10 points - $ 10.00 or more 8 points - $ 8.00 to $9.99 6 points- $ 6.00 to $7.99 4 points - $ 4.00 to $5.99 2 points - $ 2.00 to $3.99 1 point -less than$1.99 0 points- $ 0 5 fTLVititi67 1' 14. AST:' Waktge#01421 Affordability and Diversification 0 to 8 points 1. Municipalities are ranked accord ng to the percent of their owner-occupied housing(homesteads)with an as essed valuation equal to or lower than an amount affordable to households at 80 percent of area median income, and their total number of mobile ho es. 0 to 8 points 2. Municipalities are ranked accord ng to the percent of their total housing , stock that is comprised of rental nits affordable to households of low- and moderate-income(50 percent of area median income or less). This includes all federally subsidized rental units—public housing, Section 8 housing,units subsidized by the .S. Department of Agriculture,units developed with the use of low-i come housing tax credits,units developed with the assistance of MHFA, e LCA Fund or the assistance of a local fiscal tool or housing finance i tiative. 0 to 8 points 3. Municipalities are ranked accor.ing to the percent of their housing stock that is comprised of units that . e not single family detached units developed in the typical detach;d housing site plan approach. These units may include twinhomes, quads, apartments,townhomes, condominiums, detached townhomes,mobile h,mes, and units developed with a zero-lot line. Q to 10 points 4. Municipalities are ranked acco ding to the percent of net units added to their housingstock that are aff►rdable—both ownershipand rental since the Council began monitoring 1996. These"new"units may include units that have been"preserve."as affordable for a definitive period of time because of public or priv.to re-investment to retain their affordability. ("Net units"means that afford ble habitable units, not including units on land with a property tax classi kation of 4C,removed as the result of a city initiative will be subtracted from the total new affordable units.) 0 to 3 points 5. Housing for special needs Municipalities are awarded u• to three points for the following types of special housing within their j risdiction: • Housing for which federa , state, county or local funds or those of a non-profit organization have ►een used to purchase and operate residential units or provide licensed how ing that is not for the purposes of incarceration,but as a transit'•nal placement of adult offenders or adjudicated delinquents • A publicly subsidized or on-profit group home licensed by the Department of Health or De•artment of Human Services which provides temporary or permanent how ing for the physically handicapped,mentally ill, developmentally disable. or chemically dependent • A shelter which is publicly subsidized and/or operated by a non-profit group to provide temporary housing for homeless persons and families, battered women or those not otherwise able to secure private housing • Housing for individuals and families who are homeless,but with a transitional stay of six to 24 months, and the assistance of advocates,can work towards housing stability and self-sufficiency to obtain permanent housing. Each instance of such housing is worth 1 point. Local Initiatives to Facilitate Affordable Workforce Housing',Development or Preservation 0 to 15 points 6. Fiscal Tools and Initiatives The munici•ality has in •lace ado•ted local •olic in its comprehensive plan or local housing plan that allows and encourages the use of a local fiscal tool or initiative and has used such a local fiscal tool to assist affordable workforce or life-cycle housing development or preservation. Examples of such fiscal tools include but are not limited to the following: Tax increment financing '• Housing revenue bonds ltc 7- �= Geuelral obligation bonds • A local property tax levy — 7'7, �r , • Local tax abatement ✓� • Local fee waivers or reductions • Credit enhancements • Taxable revenue bonds • •Land write-down or sale • Collaboration and participation with a community land trust or other non-profit organization to preserve long-term affordability The use of federal or state dollars is only applicable if such dollars maybe used for activities other than the development or preservation of affordab and life-cycle housing but the municipality has chosen b olcy to use them for affordable housing development or preservatio . (i.e., CDBG dollars used for housing development or preservation) Each local fiscal tool or initiative is worth 3 points. 0 to 15 points 7. Initiatives regarding local regulation and development requirements The municipality has in the previous two calendar years allowed the reduction, adjustment or elimination of a local official control, or development or local code requirement as a cost avoidance or reduction measure in order to facilitate the development or preservation of affordable workforce or life-cycle housing, OR has in place in its policies and official controls a commitment to make such reductions, adjustments or eliminations of requirements when they are requested by a developer in order to facilitate the development or preservation of affordable or life- 7 cycle housing, or since 1996,has t.ken the initiative to revise its land use regulation and official controls to - ch a degree that these revisions can be a -• - . -.. shown to be .errruttm. k and more frequent opportunity for reduced development costs than e ,isted before 1996. Examples of these initiatives in th, use of official controls include but are not limited to the following: • The use of a density bonus sy-tem,inclusionary housing requirements or some other innovative zoning . .proach • The use of variances,rezonin:,, special use or conditional permits or similar variations from the stand. ds set forth in the community's zoning ordinance for the purpose of facil tating a specific affordable housing development. • A local initiative undertaken o revise local design requirements for public improvement that may re ce the cost of public services to residential properties. • Modifications in public servi es standards or requirements that might include streets,curbs, gutter, se er and water hookups, street lighting and other required public improvem:i is in order to reduce development costs to increase affordability in a ne residential development. • A reduction of such standar• as the required street right-of-way, or surfacing width or depth design or residential street, or the size of sewer or water service lines to new housi g. Each local initiative is worth 3 •oints. No more than 6 points may be applicable to any one affordabl. or life-cycle housing development or preservation activity aided by t ese local regulative measures. 0 to 15 points 8. Initiatives regarding housing p -servation and rehabilitation The municipality has in place a d has in the previous two calendar years used and promoted locally-init'.ted or administered(city or county) housing preservation,home im s rovement and/or rehabilitation programs, or other tools available to its r:.idents to keep their housing stock in sound condition. Examples of these initiatives i q clude but are not limited to the following: • A housing maintenance cote and enforcement program for rental housing • A housing maintenance c de and enforcement program for owner- occupied housing • A housing rehabilitation 1 9 an or grant program for rental housing • A housing rehabilitation 1•an or grant program for owner-occupied housing • A home improvement lo. or grant program • A home improvement res.urce center • A local tool-sharing cent.r or program Each local initiative is worth 3 points. 9. Density of residential development The average net density of new(or re-use) sewered housing for which a building permit was issued in the municipality in the two previous calendar years multiplied by the total number of such units in those two years are among comparedall communities. Sewered communities are ranked p highest to lowest,unsewered communities are ranked lowest to highest. Points will only be given to sewered communities with an overall density of three units per acre or greater and only to unsewered communities for which the 1998 local comprehensive plan update has been put into effect. Sewered Communities 1 to 6 points a. The average net density for attached housing units, i.e., units per acre multiplied by the number of such units permitted in the last two calendar years. 1 to 6 points b. The average net density for detached housing units(including detached townhomes and manufactured homes), i.e., units per acre multiplied by the number of such units permitted in the last two calendar years. Unsewered Communities 1 to 12 points The average net density of residential development multiplied by the number of all units permitted in the last two calendar years 0 or 6 points 10. In the previous two calendar years, the municipality has acquired land to be held specifically for the development of affordable or senior housing (exclusively 55+), or has approved(permits may be drawn at any time) the development or local financial participation in a proposed development of new affordable or senior(exclusively 55+)housing, or the involvement of the municipality in the preservation and reinvestment in such housing— ownership or rental—which has not as yet been undertaken for reasons beyond the municipality's control. Points will be awarded according to the number of units involved in the proposal as follows: 2 points—less than 20 units or land acquisition for future housing 4 points—20 to 39 units 6 points—40 or more units 9 Metropolitan Council June 8th, 2005 Dear Local Official: The Livable Communities Act of 1995 (LCA) requires that the Metropolitan Council report to the Legislature every year on the progress being made by metro area communities toward providing life-cycle and affordable housing for their residents. This legislative report requires information on the production and affordability of new housing in each community. Even though not all communities participate in Livable Communities, we must report on housing activity in every community in the region. In order to implement the Council's Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance(copy enclosed), communities are encouraged to complete the annual LCA Survey. This can be especially critical if your community is contemplating applying for any funding through the LCA's three funding accounts over the next 12 months. Your responses are essential to us as an important part of our compliance with the Livable Communities Act and to determine local housing performance scores. In order to determine a score and share it with the communities this summer, we must receive your survey responses no later than July 1St, 2005. If you have questions regarding questions 3, 4, and 5 of the survey, please call me at (651) 602-1634. All other questions can be directed to Guy Peterson at (651) 602-1418 or at guy.peterson(a)metc.state.mn.us . The survey can be downloaded at www.metrosurvev.org and can be e-mailed to Joel Nyhus at ioel.nyhus@metc.state.mn.us . If this electronic format is not available to you, hand written responses are acceptable and can be returned with the enclosed envelope. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, g04 Joel Nyhus Community Development Division www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street • St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1626 • (651)602-1000 • Fax 602-1550 • TTY 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer r Metropolitan Council L.--= Improve regional competitiveness in a global economy • •• June 25, 2001 Dear Local Official: On May 29, 2001 we mailed the enclosed surveys—Part A and Part B—to you in our effort to implement the reporting requirements of the Livable Communities Act, and in order to gather information from which housing performance scores can be determined to implement the Council's Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance. We had asked that the surveys be completed and returned by June 22nd. To date,we have not received your surveys,nor have we spoken with you about your efforts to complete the surveys. We remind you that the information is important in aiding the Council in preparing its annual LCA report for the legislature,and it will be imperative if your community will be applying for any discretionary funding from the Council during 2001, including this summer's TEA-21 transportation funding solicitation. If you have questions on Part A,please call Kathy Johnson at 651.602.1332. If you have questions about Part B,please call Guy Peterson at 651.602.1418. Please return these surveys no later than Friday, July 6`11. If we do not have a survey from you by that date,we will proceed to determine a score for your community using the information we have,which may mean your community will receive zero points for criteria 6 through Since OP 0I( "airG D. P:to'son Kathy Jo •:n Livable Communities Division Research Division www.metrocoun Metro Info Line 602-1888 L�ARY�COMMUNDVIPETFRSON120011FitgPertCri[aiab6250ISurvayRemindu.doc , 230 East Fifth Street • St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1626 • (651)602-1000 ' 'ax 602-1550 • TTY 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Livable Communities Survey- Part A January - December 2000 (Please print or type) Community Name: 1 Ty 0c- op-e_ 14 T� Primary person completing the survey: 2 l ' NI1/4//EL SUN/ Title: (jL) —t t. U/V I TV Telephone:(57) 7/c_q4' 4144 Fax:( 1157) 739 CJS 7'c/ E-mail address: kola..vr e tc„n/e . Others involved in completing the survey: U /� Name: SCO Jokc1 o•J Telephone:((951 ) 4/-3/- 4y31 E-mail address: Jc V1n/ 564 (� C t aF oCoy-+�` Section(s):17 - A 13 J' C. Name: Telephone:( ) E-mail address: Section(s): Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Your responses are essential to us as an important part of our compliance with the Livable Communities Act of 1995. We need to receive your completed form by June 15, 2001. Hand written responses are acceptable, and feel free to add to the space provided for responses. If you have questions about Part A, please contact Kathy Johnson at (651) 602-1332. Questions on Part B or on the ALHOA program should be directed to Guy Peterson (651) 602-1418. Once again, thank you for your assistance. Survey Contents: A. Comprehensive Planning and Development Incentives page 2 B. Production of New Housing Units page 3 C. Removal of Housing Units page 3 D. ALHOA page 4 Part A Page 1 of 4 If your community has changed or introduced any initiatives toward the production or preservation of affordable and life-cycle housing during the last year, please complete the following section. A. Comprehensive Planning and Development Incentives 1. Briefly describe in what ways your community supports the development of affordable and life-cycle housing through comprehensive planning and zoning. Examples of these activities are, zoning that a:locates higher densities near employment and transit centers, zoning that promotes choices for affordable and life-cycle housing, etc; If you have responded to this question in previous surveys your need only describe new initiatives in 2000. Zorn I n2n %t)E+ b 1 ry 1A/1-n4- LMrl'ST,P -13-11/74rVY.LA," rA./&; 2. Did your community add any to the following incentives for the development of affordable and life-cycle housing last year? Density bonuses Yes ONO Fee waivers of reductions Yes No Assessment abatements Yes ►•_ Acquisition or write-down of land costs Yes No 3. How many new manufactured homes were added outside of mobile home parks in 2000? (The Metro Council annually surveys all mobile home parks for unit counts). AIO 4. During 2000, did you re-examine, waive or permanently change any official controls to facilitate the development of affordable and life-cycle housing? If so, please describe. (Examples of local requirements include: minimum lot sizes, garage and off-street pig, set-back requirements etc.) i Pr8LIs1� J ,� IC0A, Q;U4L t'v S W1T�1- 5. Has your community established task forces, commissions or committees to address affordable and life-cycle housing issues in the past year? If so, please describe. Part A Page 2 of 4 B. Production of New Housing Units in 2000 1. Please list the rental units for which building permits were issued during 2000. Housing costs listed are the total costs for rent and utilities paid by tenants. Monthly Rent Affordability Levels for Rental Housing (1) Efficiency and Three + Income Groups SRO* One Bedroom Two Bedroom Bedrooms Units affordable by Under Under 0 UnderUnder 56 households $575 $616 $738 $854 All other new Above 0 Above Above Above 0 rental units $575 $616 CO $738 $854 *single-room occupancy (1) Affordable to households earning less than 50% of the regional median income, adjusted for household size. ($34,300 in 2000) 2. New units for owner occupancy (for which permits were issued in 2000). New Owner-Occupied Housing Units Single-Family, Duplex, Quads and Condominiums Affordability Level Detached Townhouses Less than $134,250 (1) 8 (75 $134,250 and over (1)Affordable to households earning less than 80% of the regional median income. ($54,880 in 2000). 3. How many owner-occupied units were constructed during 2000 that would be affordable to households earning 50% of thejetro area median household income of $34,300 (units costing $82,400 or less?) C. Removal of Housing Units 1. How many housing units wee removed from the housing tock in 2000? Single-family, detached multifamily units mobile homes 51 2. How many of these units were occupied unit demolition? 2-- 3. -3. How many units burned or were destroyed by natural disaster? 0 4. How many units were demolished because of deterioration (physical or structural)? 0 5. How many of the units were replaced? 0 6. Of these, how many were replaced by single-family, detached units priced at $134,250 or less? How many of e replacement multifamily units met the affordability standards shown above? Part A Page 3 of 4 E. ALHOA During 2000, did your city expend at least 85% of its required Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Amount (ALHOA) toward meeting its negotiated LCA affordable and life-cycle housing goals? (See enclosed ALHOA applicable for 2000). These expenditures may include such efforts as local tax levy revenues such as those that support the local or county HRA, any local dollars contributed to housing assistance, development or hou,ig rehabilitation programs, or toward housing inspections and maintenance programs. Yes No If no, please explain Part A Page 4 of 4 Survey - Part B (Please print or type.) Community Name: (r}l d-4 tcre___, et-T S Primary person completing the survey: k(2 /( E L Cc/\/ Telephone: ((O0) L/3 C1 r /4239 Fax: (40S7) 2/39-66-7247 E-mail address: I / i _, 4 .101 ,00)4 / " / 1. During the period of 1996 through 2000, have any existing subsidized housing units in the municipality been "preserved" as affordable for low-and moderate-income households for a future definitive time period because of public and/or private reinvestment? For example, a Section 8 or 236 building with an expiring contract with HUD that is"preserved"through reinvestment and extension of rent subsidies for a definitive period of years. Name(s) of the housing: PI r(M JO+4-14 )l%./ Number of units "preserved" in each development: 2. Please identify no more than five local fiscal tools or initiatives to assist the development or preservation of affordable or life-cycle housing that are by local policy available from or through the city to assist/facilitate the development or preservation of affordable or life-cycle housing. If such fiscal tools have been used by the municipality to assist such development or preservation of affordable or life-cycle housing, please indicate no more than five such tools or initiatives and the name(s) of the housing assisted by the fiscal tool(s) (see criterion 6 for examples of fiscal tools). a. 77 c b. L.PP�"C/ _ tAsses-S' Mev7S c. d. e. N.,\LIBRARY\COMMUNDV\PETERSON\2001\042001LCASurveyQs.doc 3. Please identify/describe up to five instances/examples during 1999 and 2000 in which the municipality reduced, adjusted, eliminated, waived, or in some fashion was flexible in the implementation of a local official control, or development or building requirement in order to reduce the cost of development or preservation of affordable or life-cycle housing; or identify up to five such local regulative requirements or measures for which it is the municipality's policy and practice to reduce, adjust or eliminate when requested to do so to reduce development costs for the development of affordable or life-cycle housing (see criterion 7 of the performance criteria). Please also provide the name(s) of the housing development(s) for which this local regulative accommodation or flexibility in application was made. No more than two examples of the application of such flexibility may be named for any single housing project. a. LM I2I ',Q /Cbc ie V _FtyvGZ/Ai 26,0e-VezaPMCA(77: b. Z ,\7 ,012 PcZ7- re) ‘be-V d. e. 4. Please list up to six ongoing housing preservation/maintenance activities or efforts the municipality is currently engaged in or programs it uses to maintain or improve its existing housing stock. For example, a housing maintenance code and enforcement program, or a home rehabilitation loan program. County-administered programs are applicable (see criterion 8 for examples). a. b. &4/7-453-e.7- 77/ ( cM V/v c. £v/7 f 1. ( Z/9-170&/ /cam= V O c.e S . - d. e. V UBRARY\COMMUNDV\PETERSON\2001\04?001 LCASurveyQs.doc 5. Municipalities with sewers please answer A. Unsewered communities please answer B. A. Please indicate the overall average net-density*of new sewered residential units for which a building permit was issued or all final necessary local approvals were granted in the combined years of 1999 and 2000. Please provide the density to the nearest one-tenth of an acre. Detached units - 7d /acre ( 4pø ) Attached units- / acre 6...4-0 P ec Yi B. Please indicate the overall average net-density*of new residential units for which a building permit was issued or all necessary local approvals were granted in the combined years of 1999 and 2000. Please provide the density to the nearest one-tenth of an acre. All residential units- IC) /acre t` p1e Q 1) • *Net density is a calculation based upon the number of approved units and the adjusted area of plat guided for residential development. The formula for calculating net residential density is as follows: Net Residential Density =Total Units _ (Total Area—Total Area Adjustments) Total area Adjustments mean the exclusion of: • Major Highways,those with right-of-way 200 ft.or greater • Wetlands, NURP ponds, lakes • Parks • Lands protected by local ordinance, i.e.trees,slopes,',floodplains • LOCAL STREETS AND ALLEYS ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL AREA. 6. Does the municipality's current zoning ordinance allow densities for residential development consistent with densities set forth in the local comprehensive plan revised pursuant to the 1995 Land Planning Act amendments, meaning that at a minimum, the residential densities identified in the comprehensive plan for the various residential land use categories are achievable in proposed residential development when proposed pursuant to the zoning ordinance? Yes ❑ No V\LIBRARY\COMMLIND\IPETERSON\2001\04200 I LCASurvevQs.doc I 7. In 1999 and 2000 did the municipality approve the development of new affordable housingor P Y pP P the addition of affordable units using existing housing stock, or municipal involvement in the preservation and reinvestment in existing affordable housing—ownership or rental—that has not as yet been undertaken or completed for reasons beyond the municipality's control (see criterion 11)? If so, name the development(s) or project(s) and total housing units involved in each. 6s a E •••••••=..• n2 7 LA-PprcJvPrt V\LIBRARY\COMMUNDV\PETERSON\2001\04200 I LCASurveyQs doc 4.0 04. DB A2 ■ ■ / 1 E 0 d , . t = � t22 © � . �k0a 60 ■ 1Ii ,t 0z = jam ° 7 ■ ■ T //.. / . § $ ? C /fIrs ff 'I / . . 0 ° 22 % B | R ZiA0 _ 2af) } , e . fx � og �23 ". 2af § } } G ° 2 § 4 � -a 7 w . a � Q 9 § g } s..a f ° . . § - - @ - . . / � § z § % k / � \ / \ � � k Z . \ -. � i \ } f 722 \ £ 2 ■ _ Z ) K ■ — \ ON V- � 0 \ Q - - fife . . E. 2az ; Eg44 o § � 0 k § k a \ • } _ $ 2 O ? i r - • • rfo Li j! )r Metropolitan Council t!,; JUN JUN 2 3 1998 , Working for the Region, Planning for the Future l\t___ June 22, 1998 Mr. Mike Robertson Adminstratior City of Oak Park Hts 14168 N. 57th St. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Dear Mr. Robertson: Re: Survey on life cycle and affordable housing In early April, the Metropolitan Council sent a survey to the region's cities and townships with a requested return date of June 5, 1998. Responses to the survey will give us information to assist us in reporting on the region's progress in providing life cycle and affordable housing. We are required by the 1995 Livable Communities Act (LCA) to submit this annual report to the MN legislature. Even if your community is not a participant in the LCA program or had no housing program activities in 1997,we need your survey information to complete the regional picture. We have not yet received a survey response from you. Information for your community will be included in this year's report if we receive your survey by July 10, 1998. This will be the only reminder sent. Please contact Kathy Johnson (602-1332) or Guy Peterson (602-1418) if you have questions about the survey. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Craig R. Rapp Director, Community Development 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer • • Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future April 13, 1998 1-"\ ECIAlh.li Mr. Mike Robertson IJ Adminstratior APR 1 58 ` j City of Oak Park Hts 14168 N. 57th St. 1.1 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Dear Mr. Robertson: The Livable Communities Act of 1995 (LCA) requires the Metropolitan Council to report annually to the Legislature on the progress made by metro area communities toward providing life-cycle and affordable housing to their residents. The Livable Communities Act created the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which provides money to clean up polluted sites, expand affordable housing opportunities in the region and demonstrate compact, mixed use development. The report to the Legislature must include data on all communities in the metro area, regardless of their participation in the LCA. This year the report will include information on the production and cost of housing in each community and updates to last year's summary of local policies, official controls and programs designed to achieve LCA goals. Information from the report will be used to assist in making a broad range of regional policy and investment decisions. We appreciate the efforts each of you made to complete our survey last year and thank you for your assistance. Once again, we ask that you complete the enclosed survey to help us comply with the progress reporting requirement of the law. A copy of the Council's 1997 report card, including summaries of last year's survey responses, is enclosed. To assist in completing the housing program section of the survey, we have included 1997 program funding information provided to us from MHFA and HUD for communities in the metro area. These are intended to supplement your community records. Our goal is to use a comprehensive and objective reporting method that will not pose an excessive burden on local staff. To ensure that information for your community is included in the 1998 report card, we need to receive your response no later than Friday,June 5, 1998. If you have any questions about the survey please call Kathy Johnson (602-1332) of the Office of Research and Policy Analysis or Guy Peterson (602-1418) of the Office of Local Assistance. Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely, O Craig R. Rapp Director, Community Development 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 Art Equal Opportunity Employer ihI z . § � § � ■ la o « a � ( . 1S1 i § § - . • Viz = 0 • . j .: . , « ! 1 § fEJ u ± $ 07% 22 . Z. 0 | , ":& ° • f I 6. B Ise . Jia . (... ' (o . e - § ` ■ . § E % � ' § § k ° ! u0 * ) / V § ° q kr4 [ Is Igf | Uo. c,...aEll , | � ( g \ � � . CO CA 7I } | �. 2 | • E . $ § � ! ` z | § 88 � | « | 42o | ! IJi1 -I . ! � 2 1| t P. 0 0! I � I ` Aft Livable Com unities Survey January - December 1997 Community Name: 1 O ()frg- PNK Primary person completing the survey: p t..46 (L 1k ?.) Title: !lVI5PVC, Telephone: (p2e1 *1 4 Fax: 4 O 1-! E-mail address: .. Others involved incompleting the survey: Name: -r:7h'1 r1 E tewk Telephone: Ur0-14C/11 E-mail address: Section(s): v11fla, Name: Telephone: E-mail address: Section(s): Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Your responses are essential to us as an important part of our compliance with the Livable Communities Act of 1905. We need to receive your completed form by June 5, 1998. Hand written responses are acceptable, and feel free to add to the space provided for responses. If you have questions about the form, please feel free to contact Kathy Johnson (602-1332) of the Research and Policy Analysis staff, or Guy Peterson (602-1418) of the Local Assistance staff. Again, thank you for your assistance. Survey Contents: A. Comprehensive Planning & Development Incentives page 2 B. Production of New Affordable Housing page 3 C. Removal of Housing Units page 3 D. Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Programs page 4 E. ALHOA page 5 Page 1 LCA Survey, 1997 A. Comprehensive PI n & Development Incentives 9 p • 1. Last year's survey asked in what ways your community supports the development of affordable and life-cycle housing through comprehensive planning and zoning. Please describe new initiatives, if any,that were used in 1997. 2. Did your community add any of the following incentives for the development of affordable and life- cycle housing last year? density bonuses Yes Q` fee waivers or reductions Yes N assessment abatements Co No acquisition or write-down Yes of the cost of land 3. How many new manufactured homes were added outside of mobile home parks in 1997? (The Metro Council annually surveys all mobile home parks for unit counts.) 4. During 1997, did you re-examine, waive or permanently change any official controls and approvals to facilitate the development of affordable or life-cycle housing? If so, please describe. (Examples of local requirements include• urn lot sizes; minimum floor area, garage and off-s eet pa '.., - -.: k require - _ - - , _su•.•• • 'on •evelopment, sidewal • non otorized pathw•y •. •• - • - i•, s eet fig cif"., tree landscaping costs, •ui ding - - - s, accessory ap- - , • - '- •pmen - - •r o -site pu•lic improvements, environmental regulations regarding wetland preservation, and the length and complexity of the local approvals process.) 5. Did your community establish task forces, commissions or committees to address affordable or life- cycle housing issues last year? If so, please describe. 0 ,,4-4) . � 6. Briefly describe any working relationships formed by your community in 1997 with non-profit or for- profit develop rs of low-and moderate-cost housing. ( cwt, — � S � 7. For the 1998 legislative report we would like to highlight several projects that have contributed toward meeting the need for affordable housing in communities. If your community completed a project in 1997 that could be included in this section, please describe. Page 2 LCA Survey, 1997 } ■ B. Production of Ne ffordable Housing Units in 1997 1. New affordable rental units for which building permits were issued in 1997. Housing costs listed are for rent and utilities paid for by the tenant. Monthly Rent Affordability Levels for New Rental Housing (1) Efficiency One Two Three+ Income Groups and SRO* Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Units Affordable by Under Under Under Under Households (1) $501 $572 $716 $773 All other New Rental Above Above Above Above Units $501 $572 $716 $773 * Single room occupancy units (1) Affordable to households earning less than 50% of the regional median income, adjusted for households size ($28,650). 2. New affordable units for owner occupancy (for which permits were issued in 1997). New Owner Occupied Housing Units Single-family Duplex, Quads & Affordability Level Detached Townhomes Condominiums Less than $120,000 (1) I l Sl $120,000 and over (1) Affordable to households earning less than 80% of the regional median income ($45,840). 3. How many owner-occupied units were constructed in 1997 that would be affordable to households earning 50% of the metro area median household income of$28,650 (units costing $76,000 or less)? 4. Were any owner-occupied or rental units added to the housing stock in 1997 that would be affordable to households earning 30% of median household income of$17,190 (units costing $40,000 or less)? C. Removal of Housing Units 1. How many housing units were removed from the housing stock during 1997? single-family, detached units C7 multifamily units \(Q mobile homes 2. How many of these units were occupied until demolition? L' 3. How many were in substandard condition at the time of demolition? Reasons for substandard condition, e.g. fire or natural disaster: -- -- — 4. How many of the single-family replacements were priced at$120,000 or less? How many multifamily units met affordability standards shown above? Page 3 LCA Survey, 1997 . 0 - 0 6 �* 0) a) 0) �� 0) U w m in O y - __ _ Q C y -ti J MI a d a tt° 0 cola Q m m V (v 0) 2 y 0 O o O H O N , c l0 4 re 0) In a I , _ _ c c z .y m r c 8 O v• ► c 3 E2 m � O c U a' E Q c 9 as o ._ coE8 ; -a .; f= ccc .5 u E n- a 25 co tat , , _ _ , EP c 71 v m as e arny w Zc ma •a al cn > c • a (0 :0 C 0 c H Cl)i as O O m . _ . _ a)O C atf , c c c 0 of ..Z O Ce .G N H a) N m a••- L cc Q Co 0. -. . E •Co . CO O -6 O Ea' Zoe 9 u 0 CL co . 0) L. N O)- A • 0 6 _ c a' m N y •h QO .• , Q c . a) 0 N tp � d 1. U d 7 C _ •0 (C a ..... w _, L.L. crII a> O c in ~ > N 0 o7 w C.) � � e v 0 l'. • 3 E a� a N co >., 5 13 `- Y Q N ° cw (U 0 O O � LQcc N _ !U y NO df LL L . w = c my 0 ., c= ..- V mN C to ▪ +- Z 8 o c d c d tu, rn a Z []. m LL O 0 0 c d � m Eon c m p U c) c O N c °' ' 0 co p m (0 N C 'N N N 2 X 7 -` .N 1 C .0 v E c Il j 0 V '.C. p t Uf c L F- 8 0 co 0 d > ,_ aas Ey � a� � wa, C 0) c � ... E � CQ O To w .a aa) c m c., '� t °> L o o e co R c w N 'IO N c C o 0 V 0 +- o m 2 2 c c �,, •• X O as = .6 d = - E m .... o LL u. u. m U a`) ° W y Q W = N 0 N _ io o cxo o co •T 2 2 2 0 0 v 4.a « Q —, ^ t Z � mF- U W z222JC1lii.. CD1O 02 Z d . • • E. ALHOA For 1997 the Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Amount(ALHOA)for the community is the amount indicated on the enclosed ALHOA notification. The LCA requires participating communities to expend at least 85% of their ALHOA toward meeting its negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals. How much of your 1997 ALHOA was expended in 1997? $ What were the sources of your community's ALHOA for 1997-local tax levy revenues such as those ' that support a local or county HRA; other local discretionary contributions to housing assistance, development or rehabilitation programs, or to housing inspections and maintenance efforts? Please describe and indicate the amount of such expenditures to meet your affordable and life-cycle housing goals. Page 5 LCA Survey, 1997 • r----- • , . .„:,...,4,:se ptimi 040 N +., N N N 0116f in O 0 . 4400 O O o M 0 �, ui O h N %— 3 N O ptoul N Q v} . . fR a) Q Q itikvi s LL = I 41441.4 .0 2 kaggiti -o a)a)V a) c OC N as� ma �Q C E l) a " o RI co,- Cl) co 0 C • O) w = c a 0) PinotaC co3 tsogo O I 0 O y NOWA N C_ lvm C r Z Z O a d a) m it4 Nl)"0 N 4, N OJ co "d .0 Q ^ — _co Cl) Wiibila 13C Ovitial 3 LL AA 01000.4 Wilitli iiitiiiCi E 4) y 010.4 m itilev Z w ++ c C y - c E L O. *if,W O e Alm as m > E p s ItMetropolitali Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future 40 .......... _, ,--, -,,, , r7-1 7 7, 7 --- --' s February 23, 1998 11))! FEB 2 5 )�a> J Dear Local Official: Attached is the proposed 1998 distribution plan for the Livable Communities Fund. The plan includes the proposed schedules and process for distributing the money in the fund, and the amounts available, totaling$10.9 million,in the three accounts that make up the fund: • Tax Base Revitalization Account(TBRA) • Livable Communities Demonstration Account(LCDA) • Local Housing Incentives Account(LHIA) The packet also includes application and selection criteria for the three programs. A number of policy and administrative changes have been made in criteria and application forms to facilitate project reviews, as indicated in the documents. The changes do not reflect major changes from the ways these funding programs have operated for the past two years. You may direct questions or comments about the distribution plan by March 10 to one of the account managers: • Tax Base Revitalization Account: Wayne Nelson,PH 602-1406, FAX 602-1442, e mail wayne nelson.@metc.state.mn.us • Livable Communities Demonstration Account: Joanne Barron, PH 602-1385, FAX 602-1404, e-mail joanne.barron.@metc.state.mn.us • Local Housing Incentives Account: Linda Milashius, PH 602-1541,FAX 602-1442, e mail linda milashius.@metc.state.mn.us You may also comment on the proposed distribution plan to the Metropolitan Council's Community Development Committee at its meeting of Monday,March 16, at noon, in the Council Chambers,Mears Park Centre,230 East Fifth St., St. Paul.The committee will take action on the distribution plan at that meeting. We look forward to working with you again this year in our continuing partnership to administer the Livable Communities Fund. Sincerely, Thomas C. McElveen Deputy Director of Housing, Development and Implementation enclosures 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer 1(9)(9)8 ANNTLIAL ]D)1[STRI[BU[T][(0)N PLAN 1L][VA]Bi]LE C(0)MMUU[N][T1[ES ]F[ANYb • • Contents Funding Cycle Schedules and Process • Tax Base Revitalization Account • Livable Communities Demonstration Account • Local Housing Incentives Account Application and Selection Criteria • Tax Base Revitalization Account • Livable Communities Demonstration Account • Local Housing Incentives Account PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD on the material in this packet is FEBRUARY 17 to MARCH 16, 1998. Comments preferred by March 10. Comments received by this date will be summarized and presented to the Council's Community Development Committee onl March 16. The Community Development Committee will adopt the final distribution plan at its March 16 meeting. (You can also comment at that meeting). Fax your comments to Nancy Kruger at 602-1442,or mail them to her or one of the grant managers(listed below)at the Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre,230 East Fifth St., St. Paul,MN 55101.Or contact the grant managers with comments or questions about a particular funding account at the same fax number or: • Tax Base Revitalization Account: Wayne Nelson, PH 602-1406, e-mail wayne nelson.©metc.state.mn.us • Livable Communities Demonstration Account: Joanne Barron, PH 602-1385, e-mail joanne.barron.@metc.state.mn.us • Local Housing Incentives Account: Linda Milashius, PH 291-6541, e-mail linda milashius.@metc.state.mn.us • FUNDING CYCLE SCHEDULES AND PROCESS Tax Base Revitalization Account Livable Communities Demonstration Account Local Housing Incentives Account • • Tax Base Revita ization Account Proposed 1998 Fun s ing Cycle Schedule Available Fundi g: $5.3 Million Cycle I(Spring).Available Funding:$2,650,000 Date Activity Public Participation March 16 Issue Request for Proposals March 17 Grant Applicant Workshop(Hel•jointly with Public Workshop public cleanup funding agencies and the MPCA) at the Woodbury City Council Si ambers March 18 Grant Applicant Workshop(Hel•jointly with Public Workshop public cleanup funding agencies and the MPCA) at the Golden Valley City Coun•it Chambers May 1 -June 13 Application Review-Coordinat evaluation and funding recommendations with 'TED,Petrofund, ACRRA and the MPCA June 18 Community Development Co 'tree Public Meeting recommends project awards June 25 Metropolitan Council selects pr•'ects for grant Public Meeting awards Cycle II(Fail).Available Funding:$2,650,000 Date Activity Public Participation August 17 Issue Request for Proposals September 8-18 Grant Applicant Workshops Public Workshop November 2- Application Review-Coordinat• evaluation and December 4 funding recommendations with i,TED,Petrofund, ACRRA and the MPCA December 7 Community Development Co 'ttee Public Meeting recommends project awards December 17 Metropolitan Council selects pr•'ects for grant Public Meeting awards tbrasch8 • • Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund Proposed 1998 Funding Cycle Schedule Available Funding: $4.1 million in one funding cycle Date Activity Public Participation March 16 Issue Request for Proposals April Applicant workshop (offered twice; applicants Mandatory choose most convenient date, location). for applicants Discussion of application of livable communities principles to projects;presenters and applicants discuss development of demonstrations and issues related to their proposals. May 15 Project Summaries Due (tentative) Week of Project Summaries Reviewed, Comments Sent May 26 to Applicants (tentative) July 15 Applications due Staff review of applications--identify relevant regional issues,policies, growth strategy objectives. Sept.-Oct. Advisory Committee review and evaluation Applicants and other - applicant presentations (dates to be interested persons announced) may attend Advisory Committee meetings Week of Advisory Committee completes project evaluations Oct. 19 and funding recommendations Nov. 2 Council's Community Development Committee acts Public meeting on Advisory Committee recommendations Nov. 12 Metropolitan Council action on awards Public meeting • • LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVE ACCOUNT Funding Availability and Timeline - 1998 First Funding Cycle-Multifamily Amount of Funds Available: $500,000 Application mailed January 1 Applications due February 6 Applications reviewed April 29 Selection Meeting Week of May 11 Recommendations to Funding Boards Week of June 1 First Funding Cycle-Homeownership Amount of Funds Available: $500,000 Mail Applications Tentatively March/April Applications Due Tentatively June Applications Reviewed Tentatively August Selection Meeting Tentatively September Recommendations Tentatively October Second Funding Cycle -Multifamily Amount of Funds Available: $500,000 Mail applications June Applications Due August Applications Reviewed September Selection Meeting October Recommendations November • METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT GRANT APPLICATION GUIDE Section 1: Background/Purpose 1 Section 2: Eligible Applicants 1 Section 3: Eligible Use of Funds 1 Section 4: Awarding Grants/Competitive Process 1 Section 5: Local Support 2 Section 6: Reporting Requirements 2 Section 7: Procedures 2 Section 8: Application Format 3 Section 9: EXAMPLES Clean-up budget ' 8 Municipal resolution 9 rn 9 w Metropolitan Council TBRA Administrator-Wayne Nelson(602-1406 or wayne.nelson@metc.state.mn.u$ • • Section 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(MN Statutes Chapter 473.252)creates three incentive "accounts" to promote regional goals. One of these, the Tax Base Revitalization Account provides funds to clean up contaminated land in areas that have lost commercial/industrial activity to make it available for economic redevelopment,job retention and job growth. Between$5 and$7 million will be available annually with applications accepted twice each year(May 1 and November 1 or the next following business day when these fall on a weekend or holiday).This program is coordinated with complementary programs at the MN Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)and MN Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED). Section 2: ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS The following are eligible to apply: statutory or horr_e rule charter cities or towns that are participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Housing Incentives Program;metropolitan counties and development authorities(e.g.,Housing and Redevelopment Authority,Economic Development Authority or Port Authority). Section 3:ELIGIBLE USE OF FUNDS Eligible expenditures under this program include costs to conduct Phase I and Phase II investigations and prepare and implement an approved Response Action Plan(RAP)developed in conjunction with the MPCA for hazardous waste,or an abatement program that meets the requirements for the V-PIC/LUST program at MPCA(for petroleum),or AHERA standards(for asbestos)--for projects in participating communities (defined above). -•- --•- - •• - : _... . - : . - - : : _ •• - - •- - -- _ _ ,. _ . - _ • •. _ _ -_ . . : -_. _: . _ . -:Costs for investigating the extent and/or nature of contamination are only eligible if incurre._within 180 days of the grant application and costs not related to clean-up are not eligible expenditures under this program. These funds may be used to provide a portion of the local match required for a grant from DTED's Contamination Cleanup Grant Program. Section 4: AWARDING GRANTS/COMPETITIVE PROCESS The Metropolitan Council is required to consider certain factors in order to ensure the highest return in public benefits for the public costs incurred. In order to evaluate applications,the following criteria will be assigned point values to rank each applicant's proposal against the others in the grant cycle to systematically and fairly compare the applications. Applications may be submitted for more money than is expected to be available in a grant cycle. Such applications will be.considered for their maximum eligibility in successive grant cycles based on the cumulative amount of funding awarded or recommended and provided there is a commitment for each applicable grant cycle to complete the clean-up and proceed with redevelopment. Such commitment&to proceed must not be contingent on subsequent awards of clean-up funding, Applications will be ranked according to the extent that they address the following: G increase the tax base of the recipient municipality--20 points(TIF designation does not disqualify a site,however a non-TIF district site earns 5 bonus points); o result in a net gain in long-term jobs/industry for the region-20 points; o reflect demonstrated market demand for commercial/industrial land in the proposed site area--15 points(a contract with an end-stage developer earns 5 bonus points); o preserve and/or increase living wage jobs--10 points; O promote compact and efficient development--10 points; O increase the number of livable wage jobs in/near areas of concentrated poverty and demonstrate sensitivity to linkages with local residents--or linkage to Hollman units in suburban municipalities-- 10 points; o represent innovative partnerships among government,private for-profit and non-profit sectors--10 points; 14 • • o make more efficient use of currently underutilized public service capacity(e.g.,roads and highways,transit,wastewater,utilities,telecommunications infrastructure, etc.)--5 points; o are not eligible for clean-up funding from other public sources; o will not require extensive new(regional)infrastructure beyond that which is already planned (extensive subsequent infrastructure disqualifies an applicant); and O are consistent with the redevelopment component of the municipality's comprehensive plan(in re: Minn. Stat. section 473.859, subd. 5). If applications for grants exceed the available funds for an application cycle,no more than one-half of the funds may be granted to projects in a single city,and no more than three-quarters of the funds may be granted to projects located in St.Paul/Minneapolis. Section 5: LOCAL SUPPORT Any proposal for funds under this program must include a resolution of support from the local unit of government within which the project is proposed. [See attached example,page 9.] Section 6:REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Recipients of Tax Base Revitalization grants must submit a report to the Metropolitan Council at the termination of the grant period and for five years annually thereafter, stating(1)the redevelopment activities completed on the site the previous calendar year, (2)the net tax capacity for the current year and the total property taxes paid on this parcel(land and buildings) for the preceding year,and(3)the part-time and full- time jobs on the site at the end of the previous year and the percentage that are new jobs in the following hourly rate categories: less than$8.49/hr.,between$8.50 and$10.49/hr.,between$10.50 and$12.49/hr.,and greater than$12.50/hr. Section 7: PROCEDURES Applicants may write or call to request application packets from the Metropolitan Council,230 East Fifth Street, St.Paul,MN 55101-1634. Any questions should be directed to Wayne Nelson at 602-1406. This Notice of Funding Availability is subject to applicable federal, state,and municipal laws,rules and regulations. The Metropolitan Council reserves the right to modify or withdraw this RFP at any time and will not reimburse any applicant for costs incurred in the preparation or submittal of applications. Section 8: APPLICATION FORMAT An original and two copies of the attached application information must be submitted by the grant application deadline. Section 9: MODEL EXAMPLES A sample clean-up budget showing eligible expenditures and a sample resolution authorizing submission of the grant application are provided after the application form. These examples may be modified to fit applicant needs and interest. 24 • • APPLICATION FORMAT-Tax Base Revitalization Account GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant: Contact Person: Street Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone: ( ) - FAX: ( ) Authorized official(s)(Names and titles for contract execution): SITE INFORMATION 2. Site Address: City: ✓0 City is participating in Housing Incentives Program 3. Legal description of site: 4. Total acres of site: 5. Current Property Owner: Street Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone: ( ) - FAX: ( ) 6. Year current owner assumed possession of this site: 7. The current net tax capacity for this parcel is (tax year ). 2} • HISTORY 8. Attach a brief narrative history of this site, such as previous uses, owners,activities, facilities, attempts at redevelopment--i.e.,how this site became a brownfield(limit: 3 pages). CONTAMINATION INFORMATION 9. Type/s and extent of contamination 0 Hazardous wastes: a)attach a map from the RAP report showing location of prominent and relevant site features such as buildings,retaining walls,etc.; b)attach a portion of RAP that shows the extent to which the site is contaminated(including an acceptable clean-up number if available); and c)attach a copy of the approval letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the Response Action Plan(RAP) for this site. O Petroleum: a)attach a site development plan from the LUST or VPIC report including site sketch;e.g.,property boundaries, structures,current or former petroleum storage areas,retaining walls,utility lines, excavated areas,etc.; iso-concentration map/s showing sample locations and the extent and magnitude of contamination;proposed excavation and construction; and proposed location of "controlled fill" (contaminated soil to be used on-site)and mitigating measures necessary(if applicable); b)attach a description of the corrective action/s proposed,including a site grading plan and a description of the proposed management of contaminated materials,soil excavation volume estimates,dewatering volume estimates,proposed soil management plan(include flow diagram), and proposed groundwater management(include copy of discharge permits); and c)attach a copy of the site development plan approval letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency VPIC program. ❑Asbestos: a)attach map showing parcel and/or buildings(with floorplan)with location and extent of contamination; b)attach an inspection report which meets MN Department of Health requirements for identifying asbestos-containing material; and c)attach documentation to demonstrate that the proposed remediation procedures meet MN Department of Health requirements for abatement or in-place management of asbestos containing- material. 44 • • 10. For all properties,attach excerpts from the RAP--or,in the case of petroleum or asbestos, other appropriate documents--that indicate: a)the long-term effects of the proposed clean-up(permanence of the removal and treatment of contaminants); b)technical means for the clean-up/remediation; and c)documentation of eligibility/ineligibility for any other public clean-up/mitigation funds for this site. PROJECT GOALS 11. What are the development plans for the site after clean-up and/or mitigation? Please attach a narrative description.Include rationale for anticipated market demand for this site(limit: 3 pages). 12. Is there a commitment at this time from a third party for end-stage development on this site? ❑ No ❑ Yes:Please attach commitment letters,capital improvement plans,city council resolutions,etc. 13. Attach a brief description of the infrastructure requirements for this site(both existing capacity and new capacity needed). Include roads and/or highways,transit,wastewater,utilities,telecommunications infrastructure,or other infrastructure as appropriate(limit: 3 pages). 14. What is the expected future net tax capacity for this parcel after development is complete and cash flows have stabilized? projected net tax capacity,in tax year 19 • How was this figure determined,and who determined it? 15. How many total jobs are expected to be located on this parcel when this project is complete? Number of expected jobs on this parcel when project fully complete. How many new jobs will be created directly as a result of the redevelopment of this parcel? Number net new jobs in the region resulting from this project. What percentage of expected new jobs are in the following hourly rate categories(attach any supporting information): %less than$8.49/hr. % $10.50 - 12.49/hr. $8.50- 10.49/hr. % greater than$12.50/hr. i S 16. What mechanisms/programs are in place to ensure that local residents' will have appropriate access to new jobs created? • Does this community have a commitment to develop Hollman unitsAt this time? ❑No(not applicable) ❑Yes.Please attach appropriate documentation. 17. Attach the section of the municipality's Comprehensive Plan that addresses this site. Additional narrative and/or maps may be necessary to describe the following: a)map showing local zoning for this parcel and the parcels surrounding it; b)the municipality's comprehensive plan map showing long-term intended land use for this site and adjacent parcels; c)the municipality's overall strategy for dealing with brownfield sites(may be an Redevelopment and Reinvestment component of the Comprehensive Plan). PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET 18. Attach a detailed,line-item clean-up/remediation budget(corresponding to the Remediation Action Plan or Corrective Action Design agreement with MPCA; or AHERA standard procedures). Include all sources of revenue/funding for this purpose,both public and private. (See example,p. 8.J ✓0 This application is made in conjunction with an application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development(DTED)for a Conta ination Cleanup Grant. ✓ Percent other public funding sources committed to this entire development/redevelopment project. Source/s and purpose/s Amount/s ✓ Percent private funding committed to this entire redevelopment/redevelopment project. Jobs created within 1/4 mile of census tracts with poverty rates above 15%(i.e.,approximately two highest deciles in region);narrative describing proposed connections between new jobs and target workforce. • • Sources and purposes Amount/s Note-It is important to include the entire budget fotcieanup and redevelopment. The Metropolitan Council award may compensate for unanticipated reductions from initial projections for assistance from other public funding sources the Council subsequently verifies will nct be*proved. Budg_et information willbe shared with officials of the Departments of Agriculture_Commerce and Trade and Economic Development as well as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to verify the cost effectiveness of proposed strategies and assure that no multiple reimbursements are possible for any activity. 19. Is there a cost-recovery plan in place to recover costs from responsible parties? ❑ Yes. Attach a brief description of the plan(note role of Attorney General if applicable, or application to Petrofund if applicable). ❑ No. Explain. . . PAYMENT INFORMATION 20. Mailing Address: Contact Person/ Title Telephone# ( ) - FAX# ( ) - MN ID number Fed Emp ID# • i SAMPLE BUDGET-Tax Base Revitalization Account PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET FOR BLOCK"Z" SITE APPLEBURG,MN I. CLEAN-UP BUDGET A. SITE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1.Phase I $2,000 2.Phase II $50,000 3. Preparation of RAP $68,000 Total Site Investigation and RAP $120,000 B.IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN: CLEAN-UP COSTS 1. Soil excavation $60,000 Back-fill of hole $50,000 2. Remove underground petroleum storm $6,000 Clean soils affected by_petroleum contamination(i.e.100 yds.@$7/yd.) $2Q4 2.Monitoring wells $2,500 Closing out wells $1,000 3.Contract for on-site testing during clean-up $15,000 4. Soil treatment costs transportation to treatment site $30,000 treatment of contaminated soil $260,000 landfill costs of soil below threshold $150,000 5. Contamination monitoring(air sampling)contract $30,000 • • ;, _ • _. • • . ..• '. _ +985008$604.700 ]'BRA and DTED Eligible Cleanup budget $724.000 Total Clean-Up Budget 1-748,000$724.700 II. DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT BUDGET A. Relocation costs(eligible DTED project cost) $215,000 B. Demolition of dilapidated building(eligible DTED project cost) $100,000 BC. Site preparation and landscaping $315,000 G . Construction: 52,000 ft2 office showroom $2,600,000 DE. Infrastructure: road resurface and utilities $890,000 Total Development/Redevelopment Budget $4,8120,000 DIED Eligible Project Budget $1.039.000 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET f•-41;385000S4.844.700 • • IS PROPOSED COST ALLOCATION FROM PUBLIC SOURCES 1. DTED(75%of eligible DTED project budget).,....-- $77.9.250 2.Appleburg(12 % of DTED eligible clean-up budget).......... .-....$86.880 ...............$86.880 3.TBRA* (25 % of eligible DTED project budt mmipus local match) ,..................$172.870 4.Petrofund (corrective action costs resulting from a leaking tank), $700 Total Public Funding $1,039.700 *Note-If DTED funding is not available_the DTED eligible Clean-up budzet of$724.909 be considered for the TBRA award. 110 • SAMPLE RESOLUTION-Tax Base Revitalization Account RESOLUTION NO.959280 CITY OF APPLEBURG,MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT WHEREAS the City of Appleburg in a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 1996 as determined by the Metropolitan Council,and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account; and WHEREAS the City has identified a clean-up project within the City that meets the Tax Base Revitalization account's purpose/s and criteria;and WHEREAS the City has the institutional,managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and [WHEREAS the City Council of Appleburg,Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization grant application submitted on May 16, 1996--IF CITY IS APPLICANT]; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Appleburg and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Mayor Clerk GRNTF97.DOC 1Q4 • Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund 1998 FundingApplication Guide • Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund Program Guidelines and Criteria 1998 WHAT IS A LIVABLE COMMUNITY? Livable communities are oriented toward a transit- and pedestrian-friendly environment in neighborhoods with a mix of uses essential to daily life of the residents including housing, workplaces, shops,parks and civic uses. In accomplishing these things, livable communities foster a sense of place and community,where interaction and participation in the community can occur. Livable communities provide a variety of housing types and costs to accommodate peoples' life- cycle changes and to suit their changing circums-ances. They incorporate higher-density housing that pays attention to building form and scale. In a livable community, land uses are compact and connected, encouraging walking and transit use. Such areas accommodate both the car and tr a pedestrian; for example recognizing that people will drive to a destination,but once they are there, they can walk or take transit. PROGRAM PURPOSE AND QUALIFYING CRITERIA The Livable Communities Act specifies that demonstration projects must do one or more of the following: • Provide access to a variety of transportation systems: transit,bicycles,pedestrian,auto; • Link affordable housing with employment growth; • Intensify new and existing land use; • Provide mixed-income housing; • Encourage public infrastructure that -connects urban and suburban communities, -attracts private sector investment,or -provides employment opportunities to residents. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee encpurageslroposals that will accomplish significant economic integration in the housing Provided, and will provide housing affordable to families with incomes at 50 percent or less of median income. • • PRIORITIES Priority will be given to projects that: • Contain innovative and creative design,policy or regulatory elements that set them apart from typical development practices; • Are replicable in the region,entirely or in part. Replicable elements can be models or processes; • Use innovative partnerships among government,private for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, including private leverage; • Implement the Regional Blueprint's Regional Growth Strategy. EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS TO FIT THE PROGRAM'S PRIORITIES Examples of innovative and creative project components: • A mix(rather than in separated areas)of single-family and,townhouses and other attached and multifamily housing,affordable to a wide range of families and individuals. • A combination of uses that provide a mix of jobs, services and housing with transit access. • Application of design concepts(e.g.orientation of buildings to the street and to each other, attention to building form,placement of garages,etc.)that results in developments that use land more efficiently. • A variety of small shops and restaurants on lower levels of buildings with offices or apartments above. • Ways to successfully emphasize pedestrian circulation while also accommodating the auto (e.g.shared parking arrangements,structured parking,pedestrian walkways,etc.) • Redevelopment or infill projects that are linked to their surroundings through similar or compatible scale,architectural features,or other means. • Developments that successfully incorporate or re-introduce public spaces(parks,public squares,plazas)and pedestrian access and circulation. • Incorporation of neighborhood-scale retail uses along established transit routes,enabling transit riders to conduct daily business at the beginning or end of their trip. • Intensification of land uses in nodes along transit corridors, combining employment locations, workplaces,retail and entertainment options. The above examples are also examples of components that could be replicated in the region. Other examples of replicable projects: • Projects that address regulatory barriers in ways that can be used in other cities. �,3 • • • Developments that address circumstances found commonly in the region. Examples of innovative partnerships: Projects that involve local businesses,comm ity institutions and area residents in planning and implementing projects. Projects that involve financial contributions om local for-profit and non-profit businesses and organizations. IMPLEMENTING THE REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY The goals of the Livable Communities Demonstratio Account and the projects as described above are consistent with objectives of the Regional Blueprint'. Regional Growth Strategy. In addition,projects that help to implement the following goals of the reg onal growth strategy will receive funding priority, including those that: • Increase housing densities in the Urban Area,esp cialIy along transit lines. • Increase job creation and economic development nodes along corridors from I-494/1-694 Beltway into the region's core. • Enhance existing neighborhoods and activity cen ers. • Reduce dependence on the automobile by enco ging direct links among housing,jobs and transportation. • Use regional transportation investments to increa.e transit use and mixed use development. Below are goals related to land use for different poli y areas(refer to Growth Strategy Map attached to these guidelines).Many of these goals repeat the go.is of the Livable Communities Demonstration Account. In the Urban Area... • Use land with urban services wisely 0 Increase the density and intensity of de lopment 0 Foster efficient,connected land use patt- s 0 Allow mixed use developments • Support job creation and economic development 'n nodes along corridors within and near the I-494/I- 694 beltway,especially in concentrations servic-,ble by transit • Link transit investments and service enhancem is to developments that are pedestrian and transit friendly • Coordinate redevelopment with regional infras• cture investments • Provide a diversity of housing types,prices and •cations • Incorporate environmental preservation into the .evelopment process In the Urban Core... • Revitalize and stabilize neighborhoods through physical renewal,job creation,new housing construction and rehabilitation of existing hous. g 0 Accommodate diversity of income gro ps • Support and increase job and tax base: target p blic investments to maintain and enhance the vitality of job centers and nodes within the Urban Core • Improve access and mobility ity 0 Give priority for regional investments t• neighborhoods adjacent to the downtowns 0 Increase access to jobs centers and nodes outside the Urban Core to core area residents In areas split by the MUSA... • Accommodate at least 2/3 the majority of forecasted growth within the existing 2000 MUSA Boundary 0 Use as little land as possible by emphasizing infill &intensification 0 Conserve land through more efficient land use patterns and higher density 0 Use available facility&service capacities as much as possible 4- Expand the 2000 MUSA less than 80.000 acres for the balance of forecasted growths ' 0 Plan 2020 MUSA consistent with revised Blueprint and systems plans • Focus job growth in concentrations at or inside the I694-I494 beltway and along corridors serviceable by transit • Protect natural resources consistent with state and regional standards In Rural Growth Centers... • Focus growth in rural cities with central sewer service rather than on scattered sites in permanently agricultural or rural areas 0 Grow contiguously,in stages 0 Function self-sufficiently with a balance of jobs,housing,and shopping 0 Pay for services locally as growth occurs(schools,sewers,roads,water, stormwater drainage,...) To implement the regional growth strategy, a goal of the demonstration program is to fund projects that further the regional strategy goals,during funding years 1998 through 1999,as follows: Urban Core One or more proposals Urban Area One or more proposals in developing locations. One or more proposals in redevelopment or infill locations. Rural Centers One or more proposals that demonstrate contiguous development that contributes to community self-sufficiency. CATEGORIES AND SELECTION GUIDELINES Project Categories are: • Projects Located Within the Urban Core • Projects located in a developing location(previously undeveloped land)in the Urban Area. • Projects located on a infill site or a redevelopment area(previously developed with some type of urban land use)in the Urban Area. • Projects located in Rural Centers. • more projectsin The Metropolitan Council may make awards in all of the above categories, or to one or some of the categories. ' • • -• •• • • • • • • • • '= • - -•=- It is the prerogative of the Livable Communities Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan Council to determine the number and amount of awards.The Advisory Committee and Council may award less than the total available amount of$4.1 million. ELIGIBLE USES OF LOAN AM)GRANT FUNDS Two objectives of the Demonstration Program are: 1. To fund project components that directly contribute to completion of a built or finished project. 2. To fund project components or linkages that reflect the goals and principles of the program and set the project apart from typical development in the region. Funds may be used for project and site planning costs,design and construction costs.Grant funds are intended to be used for"hard costs"rather than"soft costs."such as: Ineligible uses include administrative overhead;activities prior to the start of the grant project;travel expenses; legal fees; permits,licenses or authorization fees; costs associated with preparing other grant proposals; operating expenses;comprehensive planning costs; and prorated lease and salary costs. Project planning costs and predevelopment activities may be eligible if they are necessary to the implementation of a project.Maximum grant amount for such projects is$150.000.In considering whether planning or other costs will be funded,the Livable Communities Advisory Committee will evaluate projects on a case-by-case basis,taking into account the viability of the project, and its confidence that the project will be completed.Higher priority for grants in such cases will be given to proposals that will accomplish significant economicintegration in the housing provided. and will provide housing affordable to families with incomes at 50 percent or less of median income: or involve two or more communities working together. Other proposals may receive loans.- PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA The Metropolitan Council will use the following criteria to determine whether an applicant will be selected to receive an award under the program: Qualifying Criteria 1. The proposal must meet one or more purposes of the Demonstration Account(see page 1). 2. The proposal must be consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint and Regional Growth Strategy. 3. The project must demonstrate an endorsement from the applicant city; or from the city in which the project is located, if the applicant is a county. 4. The proposal must be consistent with the cajnprehensive plan of the city in which the project is located, • • Evaluation Criteria(85 possible total points) Note:The information in italics in this section(on pages 6 and 7) is intended as guidelines,not as specific criteria to be met. INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY(0-25 points) a. The extent to which the project provides a compact and connected development pattern. Principle: Make Development Compact • Connect rather than separate uses,to allow for functional relationships between them. • Build mid-to high-density,with attention to the design and relationships of structures to each other. Projects should attempt to achieve overall housing densities of at least 7 units per acre.Applicants:Include the number of existing and planned housing units and jobswithin 1/4 mile of the project, and the number of housing units and jobs per acre. b. The extent to which the project will provide a mix of,and/or integrate different land uses and systems--housing,transit, employment, commercial and other systems. Principle: Mix Uses • Include shops,workplaces,schools,civic facilities,parks and other public spaces,and a variety of housing types and costs. • Connect uses to transit,providing people with a way to get around other than driving alone. Projects should attempt to achieve a mix of different types of development clustered within 1/4 mile walk or within 40 to 160 acre neighborhoods;housing and neighborhood-scale businesses that are oriented to transit and the pedestrian;a minimum offive types of neighborhood-scale uses plus housing. c. The extent to which the project incorporates pedestrian-oriented design. Principle: Design for People • Locate shops and other uses within walking distance of each other,and within walking distance of transit. • Design streets for pedestrians,no just cars. Orient businesses and other structures to the street for pedestrian accessibi ity,and provideconvenient parking.This creates safe,pleasant walking environm- ts. • Provide places for people to gath a r--parks and other public open spaces,a central place or neighborhood center tha, provides a focus for activities. • Use design to make places safer, reate amenities and improve livability. Projects should consider pedestrian 'nfrastructure connecting all land uses, with short, direct walking routes tha are weather protected and well-lit. In parking lots, consider pedestrian rossings. Projects should consider including •adway infrastructure that emhasizes walking, transit and bicycle travel ile accommodating cars. Desirable features include blocks scaled to pe,estrian travel;streets that are easy to cross on foot;or, if streets are wide,pede Irian crossings are accommodated through safe, direct pedestrian routes to the ransit stop and to major destinations, with center islands. Projects should attempt to achieve s to and building design where building setbacks are short,favoring pedetri,n use;and where shared parking is located beside or behind buildings. Projects should consider including • eral of the following elements:Public gathering places,parks and open sp,ce,pedestrian-scale lighting, canopies with outdoor retail or cafes, transit benc es or waiting areas, natural and historic features incorporated into the devel,'pment. Proposals are not expected to demo state having met all of the principles. d. Whether and to what extent the pro•osal has identified regulatory barriers and successfully negotiat d workable and innovative solutions. e. The extent to which the project is i ovative and creative in ways not addressed elsewhere in the above 'teria. 2. REPLICABILITY (0-20 points) To what extent the proposal has key project haracteristics that can provide a model for replication in other communities. 3. INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS,CO I TY PARTICIPATION(0-20 points) a. Whether and to what extent the pro•osal will draw in partnerships among government,private,for-profit a'd non-profit sectors,and will involve local units of government working coop ratively to implement community development and revitalization stra -gies(such as a cluster agreement or other ' cooperative arrangement). • • b. To what extent the proposal will leverage private sources of funds. c. To what extent the proposal will leverage other public sources of funds. d. To what extent the proposal demonstrates a planning process(implemented or proposed)that will help to ensure successful implementation of the project, according to the following principles. Principles: • Use an open process involving residents,property owners,developers, businesspersons,and others with an interest in the future of the subject area. • Employ visual models of planning proposals and alternatives. • Address design issues,and uses design professionals in the process. • Develop specific zoning and planning tools,and mechanisms to ensure plan implementation. 4. BLUEPRINT AND REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION (0-20 points) a. The extent which the proposal supports implementation of the priorities of the Regional Blueprint and Regional Growth Strategy. (See goals listed by policy area on pages 3 and 4). b. To what extent public housing units are provided to implement the settlement agreement in Hollman v.Cisneros(Civil No.4-92-712). LOCAL SUPPORT Applications must include a resolution of support from the local unit of government in which the project is located. See example attached to application format. v:\library\commundv\daccri98.doc • S Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund 'BUILDING MODELS FOR LIFECYCLE cOMMLINITIES" PROJECT SUMMARY FORM (1998) Completing this project summary form is the first step in the application process for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Project summaries will be reviewed by the Livable Communities Advisory Committee, staff of the Design Center for American Urban Landscape and Council staff.Comments will be provided to applicants on their projects to assist them with preparing applications. Note:Applicants must be cities that are participating in the Local Housing Incentives Program established by the Livable Communities Act,or metropolitan counties for projects in eligible cities. Summaries are due by 5PM on May 15,1998(tentative) at the Metropolitan Council offices,230 East 5th Street, St.Paul,MN 55101.You may fax them to Joanne Barron's attention at 602-1404.Summaries will be reviewed during the week of May 26(tentative).Comments will be provided to applicants. Project summaries must be limited to no more than two pages in length and in the format below.Longer summaries cannot be considered 1. Project Name 2. Project Location.Attach location and site map. 4. Project Description.250 words or less. 5. Special Features.List up to five unique or innovative features,and describe each in fifteen words or less. 6. Status of Proposal(e.g.stage of planning or implementation,approvals granted or requested,financing,other funding received N requested).25 words or less 7. Contact Person Address Phone Fax pjsumitm.doc • o Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund APPLICATION FORMAT 1998 Please compile application and attachments in order listed. Do not staple or bind the application package. The application should total 15-18 pages,plus maps and supporting documents(see Sec.20). Applications that do not follow the specified format and length limitations may be returned for revision. 1. PROJECT NAME 2. AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUEST 3. APPLICANT AND CITY Applicant City(ies)located in 4. PROJECT CONTACT PERSON Name Address City State Zip Code Phone FAX 5. SITE LOCATION Describe the location and size of the project area. Include maps (as attachments; see Sec. 19)identifying the location and the adjacent land uses and development. Include relevant excerpts from the city's comprehensive plan for the subject area. • • 6. CATEGORY(Refer to Growth Strategy Map attached to Guidelines and Criteria). The proposal is: located in the Urban Core a redevelopment or infill project located in the Urban Area located in a developing portion of the Urban Area. located in a Rural Growth Center. 7. HISTORY (1-2 pages) Describe the history and background of the project area, such as previous land uses and activities, development or redevelopment history. 8. PROJECT SUMMARY In 100 words or less,summarize the project you are proposing. 9. PROJECT ELEMENTS (3-5 pages) Describe project goals, concept, scope. Specify the types, quantities, locations and timing or phasing of proposed uses. List types, quantities and cost of housing in Attachment A. List number,type and tenure(owner or renter)of housing units affordable at 50 percent or less of median income ($30,400, $760 or less rent)and up to 80 percent of median ($48,640, up to$128,000 sales price). Include information on mechanisms to ensure continued affordability of housing. Describe how the project will provide a mix of or integrate housing,transportation, employment, commercial and other uses. Specify the effects of any public infrastructure investment that is a part of the project. 10. SPECIAL FEATURES List up to five innovative, creative or distinguishing features. Describe each in twenty words or less. 11. LINKAGES WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT,TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS(1-2 pages) a. Describe the land use, pedestrian and transit connections within the development or project area. b. Describe the area surrounding the project area,through use of land use data, demographic data or other means. Briefly describe any redevelopment activities in surrounding neighborhoods during the last five years. Include pertinent information on relations lips between the area of proposed development and adjacent neighborhoods. • 12. RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY(1 page or less) a. Describe how the proposal implements the Regional Growth Strategy. b. Describe the connections with respect to employment and transportation between the project area and the subregion or region. 13. PLANNING PROCESS (1 page or less) Describe the planning process for developing the proposal, including the process to date, and future planning. 14. PROJECT TEAM (1 page or less) Identify the participants on the development and management team, including owner/developer, manager, architect, consultants. Describe the experience of principal participants. 15. PARTNERSHIPS (1 page or less) Describe the type and nature of partnerships in the project among government, private,for-profit and non- profit sectors. 16. USE(S) OF DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDS (1 -2 pages) a. What specific project components are you proposing to fund with a Demonstration Account award? b. Describe the benefits or value to the project that Demonstration Account funds will provide. 17. FINANCIAL SUMMARIES Please complete Attachments B and C. 18. PROJECT SCHEDULE Please complete Attachment D. Include any important benchmarks, local government approvals, other financing mechanisms applied for,applicable timelines, etc. 19. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT Attach a local resolution of support. See example,Attachment E. 20. ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS • • a. Location and other appropriate maps, e.g. land us= maps,concept drawings, site plans. b. Supporting documentation—planning studies,lett;rs of support Icdaapp98.doc • Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy gY Policy Areas - ir� rti' - Urban Core �L 1i' .; y Ff ,.� as' ,, ..,a-. N w,f^ t , . z •z milia�� Urban Area �ykk � F n2 l y f, J�����1 i� 3-4- 4 C h`h�� i fir' s3 --^ ' Y N� - Illustrative 2020 MUSA* {4� f` ��� —...„,..c.,a.� v °a;'7` 3c 3:�r a av;C n Urban Reserve 7r ° � rte( ur.tllautia. �-a r'8 ¢L e '.�-rh��r-a'r 17`, os e F 1 ` ar3, ■ �� Rural Growth Centers ; �� ,',`,,:-,',; -`,"*.14,4e-64'''', ��� �w ,„�� {` v `c . � v 'T�,�s\ � "t` 'Y"r '.` Permanent Agricultural Area fC i, `l� a;,, i .4 k r.Z 2r,yck`r..- .-i.'1. --''4T1''.',= '}L[-'2;',",:t-,,,•,,,,%'- '4:-;.,: rc '-''r . pec `-r a.., J '': ., - . tea'-Y• r,...^O t ^-,,t °: 1. 7 , +�- ' "�r �4,, :a.v.,�o. zs`� `,�• � "3'' 2 d `'" n"'tr4'`-' °�y_ m� � Permanent Rural Area '''':::L'-''.,':,_ "', >,, e �. `"s` Cat C r sS ff,, 3 111111 N 2000 MUSAa '� 'a , s�� 3 F � , +"n"�'a.7(es Of 1995) � ^ ,t4F „u. ,Cr °S s{. �x } r iii 2040 Urban Reserve r RO�.'�.+SM.y �"'•''-"" Sb, �4�►;s` ��� ^%.. " \:::---:,N'r'.I in`,,_,Sk . , ;' ti, '.. a'eek_r0 .-F�2ti ,�». .,r 1..,-;/:,:.;.,.' r* ..: rcr o r g:' S ll /\/ Municipal Boundary T {may "` �P ®��}}1�T�`�S_..,,,,,iI Y n C l? v �' G `-''- V ,^ � '3��`,,* may, , �.➢' . .-,mo i. / �/ Major iv county BotmdarY "1A?��. C �k "''✓..y}tc`' ' rf�A•���.�'w�'i!. A'y:9�"� .s ,�a' `f, t y ZIM •The el5iw12020 MUSH - r`� °i y ::::=-1,7,''a-,'„,� .'3`l `�'� p la bedek�medby local y , ,,. c ,� a • �/YaDm�and the 98.^. �. �, e;Al 1 k v 't --„,..--4, ..,.5.... ;--,t.-,SW f�' Y"`�-ss �,e•a ., s ..- 1 of peR of the 1497A8 r `µ G-4-'74... ,,,` :Jia'c r e ee .Y r �y,..,�.�,�Naming �^ °t ,� Lf } > 1 w..,w..or�vPlaounSt‘''' C� ht dawk4 -t �;a.,,s,Z{p/---," n 4 .. n '� '1 wG,. a a� ;1y %,-.. , i,1^- x4'-*s um„,, 411..,7T-i;.,>7::-: T S Y -' •c 1. � � rt is ,. 1 r�S -M�p t-Xl.`.• 0.7Y+e�v 8- "_,. aa2r^r- ,s:: ,rw.�'.�1 tom” .� �,. i d �-,,,,„-,,T,.„, ' R'°q q',"� • --;-17,-.-7:::,:,7,,,-,7;`, ,z, r 1 r 'C,ti..,e a. ry i e t �i �+�� '!.,, Fj <:::ie ,,.�crsr.'} `m}.'"' cw' '-'1.Z.`;"y a;7'1 vra �`? ,.°"'$,%,.",- .:,,A .> r -•=1 ,--''...-,,,- \:-'.:;77-- -;'5,-..---',,, � h -;-.2-',";;,,,,,,-.4g t✓ ,.7_7,:.t E --1. "k' 5,.""`a�Y r1�„✓Qi''",,,, .�- ' , . , 1 .,. T}''''4'", as ";: ;... 4., ma �r`", , ,-fir` c5;t )', S, r s a d ,..-_'.. -Z-',.',:..' t `� # ti :!:,-1 �,,N ,41;.0 a i �,yY .,`'u':If' ' t ai 't'`h 'y :s.0.5 ( ,a: - V .r in :or._ { ro M ,Mnc tics, r a .0 R 'w kMr °`d� t . `, �y , i°o' .w'.4+„9� a+cx.�`w ''-Z.5-t-'4'' s ,i� ,i, °''”'4'1":-..,--";.",,,,- .i ri� ,t r' -1,-"e7.;', -,Ls."-", r ',. ,,'','.k‘ .. _ a . n .4.- Xl',Z-1,'V t , +v Y �."�+t'5L{s� ':.'4,44:4i.:-..,,- .rJ*.n1,..1.e,- -,:::,,.,',%•%5" vz 4 4004- �6.1."....1.--.:- Iw+M `- s. .er e = ::,.L�,,.,1w4 k '''4•.r r,p 9uc�4,,i y� 4:„ . R _ mks% :, -` ,' � r*,1 �e57 � 4 . , .per, ,_..- L....,,s,,, ,—0. ;pet. ...it,.. ,,s,sl.,4,--A.,,:,,,,t,-.,w". ...- ,-,.E.,-.. .T., .. "111AIN ' i ' u, iir �y e' „.mss / "-*- "�i,. .r �- {yam _. F �� to 7 .x t, x<�f}.. y 4s!�.�c.',,::-,-'-•• 171 N It Metropolitan Council 5 0 5 10 Systems is lees • InformationDecember 19, 1996 HOUSE SUMMARY TABLE (ATTAINMENT A) Type 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR or more Total No. New Single # Ownership Family cost Townhouse # cost Condo # cost Other cost. . :: New Rental Single # Family cost Townhouse # cost Condo # cost Other # cost .Rehab;_;.'.. Single Ownership Family cost Townhouse-: #•. ._. cost. Condo. ,. '.cost ., , . - - Other , :cost Rehab Single # Rental Family cost e Townhouse # cost Condo # cost Other # cost :Units.-to be ., , s Single . ..., # . . Removed` Family cost Townhouse. -# cost Condo - #. cost --- Other ,, . . cost Net Units Single # Added Family cost Townhouse # cost Condo # cost Other # cost v:\library\commundv\lcadist\attcha.doc • o Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Application ATTACHMENT B SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION Public Private LCDA Amount Requested 1. Total Project Cost Total Soft Cost Total Hard Cost 2. Are you requesting a loan? or grant? 3. What is the status of financial commitments for this project? 4. When will you need Demonstration Account funds? v:llibrary\conunundv\Icadist\attchb.doc • 0 tim N N a, a)Q C a, 22 m a) V co a, G a 3 0 E ca ca .° o 0 < ;8 -.E. U co C.) . O- `O J m a d.. E C 2 U o a) a, C.) L C.) Oo C Q >" co C C ,V+ IX E .O� Q U acov C H2 a) co :, Z > C a) v •- W � a` u- a C1) a, r = J � v c Q Q . JLL co < I— Z U w Qw Z U C Cu; C L— 2 O 32 0 O co a3 E a o _cc!, U H .0 ca a U. y CO O RI a co U .> @ L N o. V U 0 C «+ 0 U VL U +o ..5 1— 'V ) 15. a L y = Nom. CO 'p y 0 w p O C j C L 7 O O O d 'O E a y 3 U V cd N .O en 'a • a > • • ATTACHMENT D PROJECT SCHEDULE TASKS 199 199_ 200_ AMJ JAS • NDJFMAMJJ £ SONDJ FMAMJJASOND v:uibrary\commundv\lcadist\attchd.doc 11 IP ATTACHMENT E RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF ,MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM WHEREAS the City of is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 1998 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible tomake application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purpose/s and criteria; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional,managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and WHEREAS the City Council of ,Minnesota grees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Demonstration Account application submitted on , 1998; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Mayor Clerk v:uibrary\commundvucadist\attche.doc METROPOrAN HOUSING IMPLEMENTION FUND MULTIFAMILY FUNDING APPLICATION GUIDE January 1998 Section 1: Background/Purpose 1 Section 2: Source of Funds 1 Section 3: Eligible Applicants 2 Section 4: Grant Terms and Conditions 2 Section 5: Project Selection Criteria 2 Section 6: Procedures 3 Note: Some of the criteria have been revised from their 1997 version. • MULTIFAMILY • SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The 1995 Minnesota Legislature adopted two significant pieces of legislation related to affordable housing:the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(Minn. Stat.473.25 -473.254) and the Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative(1995 Laws, Chapter 224, Section 6). The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act created a fund available to participating communities to provide a full range of housing opportunities and to preserve and rehab affordable housing. The Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing initiative targets appropriations to supporting and complementing regional economic development and redevelopment efforts. Also in 1995,the Family Housing Fund was awarded a McKnight Foundation Grant,a portion of which is earmarked to support the creation of low-income housing opportunities in the suburban metropolitan area. And the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority settled the Hollman v. Cisneros lawsuit;pursuant to the settlement,substantial funds are available for affordable rental housing in the metro area. Both the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative directed the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to confer with the Metropolitan Council to identify priorities for using the Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative funds in the metro area. One of the grantmaking objectives of the Family Housing Fund is to encourage collaboration among a number of units of government. In an effort to coordinate affordable housing resources available for the metro area,MHFA,the Metropolitan Council,and the Family Housing Fund convened the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group(MHIG). In addition to representatives from these three entities,MHIG is composed of representatives from the Corporation for Supportive Housing,Greater Minneapolis Metro Housing Corporation(GMMHC),Local Initiatives Support Corporation(LISC), FNMA,Minnesota housing Partnership(MHP),Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and HUD. MHIG has developed joint selection criteria to ensure that consistent policies are used by members of MHIG to inform funding decisions on housing projects in the metro area, It is MHIG intent to use a coordinated and comprehensive funding process. The selection criteria are a tool to implement the policies articulated in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint, as well as the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative. Delivery of a combination of resources from members esf the MHIG will be streamlined through a single application process and joint review process. Members of MHIG may have other criteria in addition to the joint selection criteria which limit the types of projects that may be funded from a member's resources. SECTION 2: SOURCE OF FUNDS Funds are available for affordable housing projects in the seven-county metropolitan area through the MHIG joint application process. The sources of these funds are: Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group Resources The Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account The Family Housing Fund The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Other Resources The Minneapolis Public Housing Authority's Hollman settlement SECTION 3: ELIGIBLE AlkICANTS • Any municipality in the seven-county metro area, •r any affordable housing project or development in a municipality in the seven-county metro area,pro •ed that the threshold criteria of Section 5 have been met. SECTION 4: AWARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS No maximum or minimum award amounts. Additional terms and conditions may apply depen•ing on the ultimate source of funds awarded for a particular project. SECTION 5: PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA OR RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS The Metropolitan Housing Implementation Grou• will take the following criteria into consideration when determining whether an application and ap• icant will be selected for participation under the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Fund. Threshold Criteria- Must be met to be consid•red for funding: Rental housing units receiving MHIG ding must be affordable to households with incomes at or below 50%of the area median,adjust=d for family size. The adjustments for 1998 will be as follows: 50%of Area Median: $60,800 Family Size: 1 person $21,300 • person $32,850 2 person $24,300 • person $35,250 3 person $27,350 person $37,700 4 person $30,400 :+person $40,150 Proposed project must be consistent wi the housing element of the municipality's comprehensive plan,or with the applica'le HUD Continuum of Care plan. Competitive Criteria: - The proposed development promotes ec Inomic integration within the development and within the community. The proposed project promotes linkages among public facilities and sources of employment, services,and transportation with afford. •le housing. Private funds,and/or local government ervices,have been leveraged for the proposed project. - The proposed project utilizes : = partnerships between government,private for-profit, and non-profit sectors. The project is being carried out as part I,f a"cluster"* action plan. Two or more adjacent municipalities that have entered int agreements to cooperatively provide affordable and lifecycle housing. The proposed project serves the lowest income residents in the region. • - The proposed project serves larger families with children(i.e.,those needing 3 or more bedrooms)and/or persons with special needs,and is not restricted to certain age groups. The proposed project maintains rent affordability on a long-term basis. The proposed rental development is located in a community which has negotiated housing goals with the Metropolitan Council. Location Specific Competitive Criteria: In developing areas,priority will be given to rental housing for low income households and to projects for persons with special needs in order to decrease concentrations of poverty and provide housing choice to lower income and special needs households throughout the metropolitan area. In the fully developed areas,priority will be given to the preservation of the existing stock of low and moderate income rental housing. In the center cities,priority will be given to projects for the rehabilitation of rental properties which are consistent with a comprehensive and long-term plan to revitalize a neighborhood or community. Individual Fender's Criteria: In addition to the joint selection criteria,members of MHIG may have additional criteria which must be applied to funds provided by that member. MHFA should be contacted for specific MHFA program criteria. See Attachment A for a summary of the additional Metropolitan Council criteria for funds from the Local Housing Incentives Account. SECTION 6: PROCEDURES Applications will be solicited through a Request for Proposals(RFP). Applications must be complete and submitted by the application deadline date. An analysis of the application will be completed by the MHFA underwriting staff. This analysis will include a general review of market,program, fmancial feasibility, cost appropriateness and capacity of developer. Applications will also be reviewed and evaluated based on the MHIG joint selection criteria. Applications will be selected for funding by the deferred loan selection committee. The committee will be composed of representatives from each of the funding agencies. Applications that best meet the proposed purpose and the selection criteria of the MHIG will be presented to the appropriate decision-making body for fmal approval(i.e.,Metropolitan Council,MHFA, Family Housing Fund). Disbursement to and monitoring of selected applications will be the responsibility of the individual funders. • ATTACHMENT A LOCAL HOUSING INCENT ACCOUNT CRITERIA Funds from this account are awarded as grants that must b matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the municipality receiving the funds. These grant funds may •e used for costs associated with projects that help municipalities meet their negotiated housing goals,includ. g,but not limited to acquisition,rehabilitation and construction of permanent affordable and life-cycle hous. g. Threshold Criteria: To be eligible,a municipality must have: I)elect-s to participate in the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program by the November 15 deadline each year;2)negotiated housing goals adopted by the Metropolitan Council; and 3)iden;Red to the Council the actions it plans to take to meet the established housing goals. Municipality must be actively involved in pursu. various ways to meet their negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals. Municipality must match requested funds on a d.1 lar-for-dollar basis. Competitive Criteria: Municipality has a net fiscal disparities contribu 1 • of$200 or more per household. Municipality does not use its Affordable and Lif=-cycle Housing Opportunity Amount(ALHOA) expenditure as the source for its matching funds. Metropolita. Council • Working for the Region, Planning for the Future EimimmimmiNimmimlimmD February 19, 1997 FEB 2 4 I9'97 Dear Local Official: - Attached is the proposed 1997 annual distribution plan for the Livable Communities Fund. The plan includes the proposed schedules and process for distributing the money in the fund, and the amounts available, totaling $11.1 million, in the three accounts that make up the fund: • Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) • Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) • Local Housing Incentives Account(LHIA) The packet also includes application and selection criteria for the TBRA and the LHIA. Only minor changes from the 1996 TBRA guidelines and procedures are proposed, and no changes are proposed in LHIA criteria or procedures. Application and selection criteria for the LCDA will be available in about a month, and you will have an opportunity to review and comment on those criteria at that time. Please review the draft plan and direct questions or comments by March 12 to one of the account managers: • Tax Base Revitalization Account: Wayne Nelson, PH 291-6406, FAX 291-6404, e-mail wayne.nelson@metc.state.mn.us • Livable Communities Demonstration Account: Joanne Barron, PH 291-6385, FAX 291-6404, e-mail joanne.barron@metc.state.mn.us • Local Housing Incentives Account: Linda Milashius, PH 291-6541, FAX 291-6442, e-mail linda.milashius@metc.state.mn.us If you would like you may also comment on the proposed distribution plan at the Metropolitan Council's Community Development Committee meeting on Monday, March 17, at noon, in Room 1A, Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth St., St. Paul. The committee is expected to take action on the proposed guidelines at that meeting. We look forward to working with you again this year in our continuing partnership to administer the Livable Communities Fund. Sincere Thomas C. McElveen Deputy Director of Housing, Development and Implementation enclosures 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer • 4r Metropolitan Council 1997AAworidng for the Region, Planning f r the Future ANNUAL DISTRIBUirlION P]LAN ]L][VABLE C IFTU[NID) -)A,cda oi. • Contents Funding Cycle Schedules and Process • Tax Base Revitalization Account • Livable Communities Demonstration Account • Local Housing Incentives Account Application and Selection Criteria • Tax Base Revitalization Account • Local Housing Incentives Account Note:Application and selection criteria for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account will be available for public comment at a later date. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD on the material in this packet is FEBRUARY 18 to MARCH 17, 1997. Comments preferred by March 12. Comments received by this date will be summarized and presented to the Council's Community Development Committee on March 17. The Community Development Committee will adopt the final distribution plan at its March 17 meeting. (You can also comment at that meeting). Fax your comments to Nancy Kruger at 291-6442,or mail them to her or one of the grant managers(listed below)at the Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre,230 East Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101. Or contact the grant managers with comments or questions about a particular funding account-- • Tax Base Revitalization Account: Wayne Nelson, PH 291-6406, FAX 291-6404, e mail wayne.nelson@metc.state.mn.us • Livable Communities Demonstration Account: Joanne Barron, PH 291-6385, FAX 291- 6404, e-mail joanne.barron@metc.state.mn.us • Local Housing Incentives Account: Linda Milashius, PH 291-6541, FAX 291-6442, e mail linda.milashius@metc.state.mn.us • FUNDING CYCLE SCHEDULES N I PROCESS Tax Base Revitalization Acco n Livable Communities Demon tr-tion Account Local Housing Incentives Ac ou t • • Tax Base Revitalization Account Proposed 1997 Funding Cycle Schedule Available Funding: $6.5 Million Cycle I (Spring). Available Funding: $3,250,000 Date Activity Public Participation March 18 Issue Request for Proposals March 19 Grant Applicant Workshop(Held jointly with Public Workshop DTED and MPCA)at Woodbury City Council Chambers March 20 Grant Applicant Workshop,jointly with DTED and Public Workshop MPCA. Golden Valley Council Chamber May 15 Applications Due May 15-June 13 Application Review Coordinate review with DTED, MPCA&MN Health Dept.,visit sites, negotiate partial funding limits June 16 Community Development Committee Public Meeting recommends projects for funding June 26 Metropolitan Council selects projects to receive Public Meeting grant awards Cycle II(Fall). Available Funding:$3,250,000 Date Activity Public Participation August 8 Issue Request for Proposals September 8-12 Grant Applicant Workshops Public workshops November 3 Application Deadline November 3-26 Application Review Coordinate review with DTED, MPCA&MN Health Dept.,visit sites, negotiate partial funding limits December 1 Community Development Committee Public meeting recommends projects for Council funding December 18 Metropolitan Council selects projects to receive Public meeting grant awards • i Livable Communities Demonstration Account Proposed 1997 Funding Cycle Schedule Available Funding: $4.1 million in one funding cycle Date Activity Public Participation March Livable Communities Advisory Public comment period Committee recommends, Metropolitan Council (to be anounced) approves criteria for public comment April Metropolitan Council adopts guidelines and Public meeting • criteria April Metropolitan Council solicits funding proposals May Half-day workshop:presentations on application Workshop for of livable communities principles to projects; staff prospective applicants and prospective applicants discuss development of demonstrations (models),types of projects sought. July 7 Applications due Staff review of applications—identify relevant regional issues, policies,Growth Strategy objectives. Advisory Committee review and evaluation Applicants and other -applicant presentations interested persons may -committee site visits attend advisory committee meetings Nov 5 Advisory Committee completes project evaluations and funding recommendations Nov. 17 Council's Community Development Committee acts Public meeting on Advisory Committee recommendations Dec. 11 Metropolitan Council selects projects to receive Public meeting grant awards Local Housing Incentives Account Proposed 1997 Funding Cycle Schedule Available Funding: up to $500,000 in one multifamily funding cycle* Date Activity January 6 Metropolitan Council solicits funding proposals(through a"Super RFP" coordinated with other housing resource funding cycles). February 20 Applications due March The Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group(MHIG) a consortium of housing resource providers, reviews applications. Early April MHIG makes funding recommendations Late April Metropolitan Council and other funding boards(Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Minneapolis/St. Paul Family Housing Fund, Minneapolis Public Housing Authority)act on funding recommendations *Note: The Metropolitan Council is recommending only one funding cycle in 1997 due to a decrease in funds from$1 million in 1996 to$500,000 in 1997.The Council proposes to target these funds to multifamily development,where there is the greatest need for housing units and resources. APPLICATION AND SELECT! a N RITERIA Tax Base Revitalization A c, ount Local Housing Incentiv=s ccount Application and Selection Criteria for e ivable Communities Demonstration Account will ' - available for public comment at a later date. I i • 411 METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES FUND TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT SPRING -- 1997 GRANT APPLICATION GUIDE Section 1: Background/Purpose 1 Section 2: Eligible Applicants 1 Section 3: Eligible Use of Funds 1 Section 4: Awarding Grants/Competitive Process 1 Section 5: Local Support 2 Section 6: Reporting Requirements 2 Section 7: Procedures 2 Section 8: Application Format 3 Section 9: EXAMPLES Clean-up budget 8 Municipal resolution 9 Note: Minor changes from the 1996 guidelines and application format are: Guidelines • Clarify the"Reporting Requirements"section(page 2)to reflect the information on redevelopment,tax capacity and employment the Council requires in its award contracts. • Require submittal of two copies with the original application. Application Format • List the authorized official to execute the grant contract. • Clarify MN.Dept. of Health requirements that must be documented for asbestos cleanup. • 4 METROPOLITAN LIVABL: COMMUNITIES FUND TAX BASE REVITAL ATION ACCOUNT SPRING 1997 GRANT APPLIC TION GUIDE Section 1: Background/Purpose 1 Section 2: Eligible Applicants 1 Section 3: Eligible Use of Funds 1 Section 4: Awarding Grants/Competitive Process 1 Section 5: Local Support 2 Section 6: Reporting Requirements 2 Section 7: Procedures 2 Section 8: Application Format 3 Section 9: EXAMPLES Clean-up budget 8 Municipal resolution 9 Minor changes from the 1996 guidelines and applicatio format are: Guidelines • Clarify the"Reporting Requiremen ."section(page 2)to reflect the information on redevelopment,tax capacity and em.loyment the Council requires in its award contracts. • Require submittal of two copies wi the original application. Application Format • List the authorized official to execu'- the grant contract. • Clarify MN.Dept.of Health requir ents that must be documented for asbestos cleanup. • • Section 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(MN Statutes Chapter 473.252)creates three incentive"accounts" to promote regional goals. One of these,the Tax Base Revitalization Account provides funds to clean up contaminated land in areas that have lost commercial/industrial activity to make it available for economic redevelopment,job retention and job growth. Approximately$6.5 million in funds will be available for grants annually;applications will be accepted twice each year(May and November). This program is coordinated with complementary programs at the MN Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)and MN Department of Trade and Economic Development(DTED). Section 2: ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS The following are eligible to apply: statutory or home rule charter cities or towns that are participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Housing Incentives Program;metropolitan counties and development authorities(e.g.,Housing and Redevelopment Authority,Economic Development Authority or Port Authority). Section 3: ELIGIBLE USE OF FUNDS Eligible expenditures under this program include costs to implement an approved Response Action Plan(RAP) developed in conjunction with the MPCA for hazardous waste,or an abatement program that meets the requirements for the V-PIC/LUST program at MPCA(for petroleum),or AHERA standards(for asbestos) — for projects in participating communities(defined above). Costs incurred in the preparation of the clean-up or abatement plan(e.g.,investigating the extent and/or nature of contamination)or for project costs unrelated to clean-up are not eligible expenditures under this program. These funds may be used to provide a portion of the local match required for a grant from DTED's Contamination Cleanup Grant Program. Section 4:AWARDING GRANTS/COMPETITIVE PROCESS The Metropolitan Council is required to consider certain factors in order to ensure the highest return in public benefits for the public costs incurred. In order to evaluate and rank applications,the following criteria will be assigned point values to rank each applicant's proposal against the others in the grant cycle to systematically and fairly compare the applications. Applications will be ranked according to the extent that they address the following: a increase the tax base of the recipient municipality-20 points(TIF designation does not disqualify a site,however a non-TIF district site earns 5 bonus points); n result in a net gain in long-term jobs/industry for the region-20 points; G reflect demonstrated market demand for commercial/industrial land in the proposed site area-15 points (a contract with an end-stage developer earns 5 bonus points); G preserve and/or increase living wage jobs-10 points; O promote compact and efficient development-10 points; a increase the number of livable wage jobs in/near areas of concentrated poverty and demonstrate sensitivity to linkages with local residents—or linkage to Hollman'units in suburban municipalities--10 points; o represent innovative partnerships among government,private forprofit and non-profit sectors-10 points; a make more efficient use of currently underutilized public service capacity(e.g.,roads and highways, transit,wastewater,utilities,telecommunications infrastructure,etc.)-5 points; O are not eligible for clean-up funding from other public sources; G will not require extensive new(regional)infrastructure beyond that which is already planned (extensive subsequent infrastructure disqualifies an applicant);and O are consistent with the redevelopment component of the municipality's comprehensive plan(in re: Minn. Stat. section 473.859,subd. 5). 1 • • If applications for grants exceed the available funds for an application cycle,no more than one-half of the funds may be granted to projects in a single city,and n. more than three-quarters of the funds may be granted to projects located in St. Paul/Minneapolis. Section 5: LOCAL SUPPORT Any proposal for funds under this program must includ a resolution of support from the local unit of government within which the project is proposed. [See :ttached example,page 9.] Section 6: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Recipients of Tax Base Revitalization grants must sub t a report to the Metropolitan Council at the termination of the grant period and annually thereafter u til 2003, stating(1)the redevelopment activities completed on the site the previous calendar year,(2)th-net tax capacity for the current year and the total property taxes paid on this parcel(land and buildings) r the preceding year, and(3)the part-time and full- time jobs on the site at the end of the previous year and •e percentage that are new jobs in the following hourly rate categories: less than$8.49/hr.,between$8.50 and 10.49/hr.,between$10.50 and$12.49/hr.,and greater than$12.50/hr. Section 7: PROCEDURES Applicants may write or call to request application p. :ets from the Metropolitan Council,230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul,MN 55101-1634. Any questions sho d be directed to Wayne Nelson at 291-6406. This Notice of Funding Availability is subject to appli .ble federal, state,and municipal laws, rules and regulations. The Metropolitan Council reserves the ri_i t to modify or withdraw this RFP at any time and will not reimburse any applicant for costs incurred in the pr:•aration or submittal of applications. Section 8:APPLICATION FORMAT An original and two copies of the attached application'i ormation must be submitted by the grant application deadline. Section 9: MODEL EXAMPLES A sample clean-up budget showing eligible expenditur- and a sample resolution authorizing submission of the grant application are provided after the application fo . . These examples may be modified to fit applicant needs and interest. 2 • APPLICATION FORMAT-Tax Base Revitalization Account GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant:_ Contact Person: Street Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone: ( ) - FAX: ( ) Authorized official(s)(Names and titles for contract execution): SITE INFORMATION 2. Site Address: City: ✓0 City is participating in Housing Incentives Program 3. Legal description of site: 4. Total acres of site: 5. Current Property Owner: Street Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone: ( ) - FAX: ( ) 6. Year current owner assumed possession of this site: 7. The current net tax capacity for this parcel is (tax year ). 3 HISTORY 8. Attach a brief narrative history of this site,such as previous uses,owners,activities,facilities, attempts at redevelopment--i.e.,how this site became a brownfield(limit: 3 pages). CONTAMINATION INFORMATION 9. Type/s and extent of contamination 0 Hazardous wastes: a)attach a map from the RAP report showing location of prominent and relevant site features such as buildings,retaining walls,etc.; b)attach a portion of RAP that shows the extent to which the site is contaminated(including an acceptable clean-up number if available);and c)attach a copy of the approval letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the Response Action Plan(RAP)for this site. ❑Petroleum: a)attach a site development plan from the LUST or VPIC report including site sketch;e.g.,property boundaries, structures, current or former petroleum storage areas,retaining walls,utility lines, excavated areas,etc.;iso-concentration map/s showing sample locations and the extent and magnitude of contamination;proposed excavation and construction; and proposed location of"controlled fill" (contaminated soil to be used on-site)and mitigating measures necessary(if applicable); b)attach a description of the corrective action/s proposed,including a site grading plan and a description of the proposed management of contaminated materials, soil excavation volume estimates, dewatering volume estimates,proposed soil management plan(include flow diagram),and proposed groundwater management(include copy of discharge permits);and c)attach a copy of the site development plan approval letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency VPIC program. 0 Asbestos: a)attach map showing parcel and/or buildings(with floorplan)with location and extent of contamination; b)attach an inspection report which meets MN Department of Health requirements for identifying asbestos-containing material;and c)attach documentation to demonstrate that time proposed remediation procedures meet MN Department of Health requirements for abatement or in-place management of asbestos containing- material. 4 • 10. For all properties,attach excerpts from the RAP—or,in the case of petroleum or asbestos,other appropriate documents—that indicate: a)the long-term effects of the proposed clean-up(permanence of the removal and treatment of contaminants); b)technical means for the clean-up/remediation;and c)documentation of eligibility/ineligibility for any other public clean-up/mitigation funds for this site. PROJECT GOALS 11. What are the development plans for the site after clean-up and/or mitigation? Please attach a narrative description.Include rationale for anticipated market demand for this site(limit: 3 pages). 12. Is there a commitment at this time from a third party for end-stage development on this site? ❑ No 0 Yes: Please attach commitment letters,capital improvement plans,city council resolutions,etc. 13. Attach a brief description of the infrastructure requirements for this site(both existing capacity and new capacity needed). Include roads and/or highways,transit,wastewater,utilities,telecommunications infrastructure,or other infrastructure as appropriate(limit: 3 pages). 14. What is the expected future net tax capacity for this parcel after development is complete and cash flows have stabilized? projected net tax capacity,in tax year 19 : How was this figure determined,and who determined it? 15. How many total jobs are expected to be located on this parcel when this project is complete? Number of expected jobs on this parcel when project fully complete. How many new jobs will be created directly as a result of the redevelopment of this parcel? Number net new jobs in the region resulting from this project. What percentage of expected new jobs are in the following hourly rate categories(attach any supporting information): less than$8.49/hr. %$10.50- 12.49/hr. $8.50- 10.49/hr. %greater than$12.50/hr. 5 • • 16. What mechanisms/programs are in place to ensure that local residents' will have appropriate access to new jobs created? Does this community have a commitment to develop Hallman units at this time? ❑No(not applicable) ❑Yes. Please attach appropriate documentation. 17. Attach the section of the municipality's Comprehensive Plan that addresses this site. Additional narrative and/or maps may be necessary to describe the following: a)map showing local zoning for this parcel and the parcels surrounding it; b)the municipality's comprehensive plan map showing long-term intended land use for this site and adjacent parcels; c)the municipality's overall strategy for dealing with brownfield sites (may be an Redevelopment and Reinvestment component of the Comprehensive Plan). PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET 18. Attach a detailed,line-item clean-up/remediation budget(corresponding to the Remediation Action Plan or Corrective Action Design agreement with MPCA;or AHERA standard procedures). Include all sources of revenue/funding for this purpose,both public and private. [See example,p. 8.] ✓0 This application is made in conjunction with an application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development(DTED)for a Contamination Cleanup Grant. ✓ Percent other public funding sources committed to this entire development/redevelopment proiect. Source/s and purpose/s Amount/s Jobs created within 1/4 mile of census tracts with?overty rates above 15%(i.e.,approximately two highest deciles in region);narrative describing proposed connections between new jobs and target workforce. 6 • • ✓ Percent private funding committed to this entire redevelopment/redevelopment project. Source/s and purpose/s Amount/s 19. Is there a cost-recovery plan in place to recover costs from responsible parties? ❑ Yes. Attach a brief description of the plan(note role of Attorney General if applicable,or application to Petrofund if applicable). ❑ No. Explain. . . PAYMENT INFORMATION 20. Mailing Address: Contact Person/ Title Telephone# ( ) - FAX# ( ) - MN ID number Fed Emp ID# 7 • S SAMPLE BUDGET-Tax Base Revitalization Account PROPOSED PROJECT BUD CET FOR BLOCK"Z" SITE APPLEB i'G,MN I. CLEAN-UP BUDGET A. SITE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION 'LAN DEVELOPMENT 1. Phase I $2,000 2. Phase II $50,000 3. Preparation of RAP $68,000 Total Site Investigation and RAP $120,000 B. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN: CLEAN-UP COS S 1. Soil excavation $60,000 Back-fill of hole $50,000 2. Monitoring wells $2,500 Closing out wells $1,000 3. Contract for on-site testing during clean-up $15,000 4. Soil treatment costs transportation to treatment site $30,000 treatment of contaminated soil $260,000 landfill costs of soil below threshold $150,000 5. Contamination monitoring(air sampling)con. • $30,000 * E gible for Tax Base Revitalization Grant $598,000 Total Clean-Up Budget $718,000 II. DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT BUDGE I A. Relocation costs $215,000 B. Site preparation and landscaping $315,000 C. Construction: 52,000 ft2 office showroom $2,600,000 D. Infrastructure: road resurface and utilities $890,000 Tot= Development/Redevelopment Budget $4,020,000 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $4,738,000 8 • SAMPLE RESOLUTION-Tax Base Revitalization Account RESOLUTION NO. 959280 CITY OF APPLEBURG,MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT WHEREAS the City of Appleburg in a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 1996 as determined by the Metropolitan Council,and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account;and WHEREAS the City has identified a clean-up project within the City that meets the Tax Base Revitalization account's purpose/s and criteria; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional,managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements;and [WHEREAS the City Council of Appleburg,Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization grant application submitted on May 16, 1996—IF CITY IS APPLICANT]; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funcling on behalf of the City of Appleburg and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Mayor Clerk GRN1796.DOC 9 • METROPOLITAN HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION FUND MULTIFAMILY FUNDING APPLICATION GUIDE January 1997 Section 1: Background/Purpose 1 Section 2: Source of Funds 1 Section 3: Eligible Applicants 2 Section 4: Grant Terms and Conditions 2 Section 5: Project Selection Criteria 2 Section 6: Procedures 4 Note: These guidelines and criteria have not been revised from the 1996 version. • MULTIFAMILY SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The 1995 Minnesota Legislature adopted two significant pieces of legislation related to affordable housing:the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(Minn. Stat.473.25 -473.254)and the Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative(1995 Laws, Chapter 224,Section 6). The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act created a fund available to participating communities to provide a full range of housing opportunities and to preserve and rehab affordable housing. The Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing initiative targets appropriations to supporting and complementing regional economic development and redevelopment efforts. Also in 1995,the Family Housing Fund was awarded a McKnight Foundation Grant,a portion of which is earmarked to support the creation of low-income housing opportunities in the suburban metropolitan area. And the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority settled the Hollman v. Cisneros lawsuit;pursuant to the settlement,substantial funds are available for affordable rental housing in the metro area. Both the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative directed the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to confer with the Metropolitan Council to identify priorities for using the Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative funds in the metro area. One of the grantmaldng objectives of the Family Housing Fund is to encourage collaboration among a number of units of government. In an effort to coordinate affordable housing resources available for the metro area,MHFA,the Metropolitan Council,and the Family Housing Fund convened the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group(MHIG). In addition to representatives from these three entities,MHIG is composed of representatives from the Corporation for Supportive Housing,Greater Minneapolis Metro Housing Corporation,LISC,FNMA and HUD. MHIG has developed joint selection criteria to ensure that consistent policies are used by members of MHIG to inform funding decisions on housing projects in the metro area. It is MHIG intent to use a coordinated and comprehensive funding process. The selection criteria are a tool to implement the policies articulated in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint,as well as the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative. Delivery of a combination of resources from members of the MHIG will be streamlined through a single application process and joint review process. Members of MIG may have other criteria in addition to the joint selection criteria which limit the types of projects that may be funded from a member's resources. SECTION2: SOURCE OURCE OF FUNDS Funds are available for affordable housing projects in the seven-county metropolitan area through the MHIG joint application process. The sources of these funds are: Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group Resources The Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account The Family Housing Fund The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Other Resources The Minneapolis Public Housing Authority's Hollman settlement 1 SECTION 3: ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS 4110 Any municipality in the seven-county metro area, any affordable housing project or development in a municipality in the seven-county metro area,provi.ed that the threshold criteria of Section 5 have been met. SECTION 4: AWARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS No maximum or minimum award amounts. Additional terms and conditions may apply depen.ing on the ultimate source of funds awarded for a particular project. SECTION 5: PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA F o R RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS The Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group 11 take the following criteria into consideration when determining whether an application and appl cant will be selected for participation under the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Fund. Threshold Criteria- Must be met to be conside ed for funding: Rental housing units receiving MHIG fun.• g must be affordable to households with incomes at or below 50%of the area median,adjuste. for family size. Proposed project must be consistent with e housing element of the municipality's comprehensive plan,or with the applicabl: HUD Continuum of Care plan. Competitive Criteria: The proposed development promotes ec• •mic integration within the development and within the community. The proposed project promotes linkages • ong public facilities and sources of employment, services,and transportation with affordabl- housing Private funds,local government and/or s- •ces,other than funds from participating Metropolitan Housing Implementation Gr up members,have been leveraged for the proposed project The proposed project utilizes innovative p: • erships between government,private for-profit, and non-profit sectors The project is being carried out as part of "cluster"* action plan * Two or more adjacent municipalities that have entered into a:i eements to cooperatively provide affordable and lifecycle housing. The municipality engaged in good faith negotiations with tl inneapolis Public Housing Authority to accept replacement and incentive public housing units available under the Holtman settlement. Proposed project serves larger families with children(i.e.,those needing 3 or more bedrooms) and/or persons with special needs and are not restricted to certain age groups. Proposed rental developments are located in communities which have negotiated housing goals with the Metropolitan Council. Location Specific Competitive Criteria: In developing suburbs,priority will be given to rental housing for low income households and to projects for persons with special needs in order to decrease concentrations of poverty in the metro area and provide housing choice to lower income and special needs households throughout the metropolitan area. In the fully developed areas and the freestanding growth centers,priority will be given to the preservation of the existing stock of low and moderate income rental housing. - In the center cities,priority will be given to projects for the rehabilitation of rental properties which are consistent with a comprehensive and long-term plan to revitalize a neighborhood or community. Individual Fender's Criteria: In addition to the joint selection criteria,members of MHIG may have additional criteria which must be applied to funds provided by that member. MHFA should be contacted for specific MHFA program criteria. See Attachment A for a summary of the additional Metropolitan Council criteria for funds from the Local Housing Incentives Account. SECTION 6: PROCEDURES Applications will be solicited through a Request for Proposals(RFP). Applications must be complete and submitted by the application deadline date. An analysis of the application will be completed by the MHFA underwriting staff. This analysis will include a general review of market,program,financial feasibility,cost appropriateness and capacity of developer. Applications will also be reviewed and evaluated based on the MHIG joint selection criteria. Applications will be selected for funding by the deferred loan selection committee. The committee will be composed of representatives from each of the funding agencies. Applications that best meet the proposed purpose and the selection criteria of the MHIG will be presented to the appropriate decision-making body for final approval(i.e.,Metropolitan Council,MHFA, Family Housing Fund). Disbursement to and monitoring of selected applications will be the responsibility of the individual funders. ATTACHMENT A LOCAL HOUSING INCE I ACCOUNT CRITERIA Funds from this account are awarded as grants that m • be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the municipality receiving the funds. These grant funds m.y be used for costs associated with projects that help municipalities meet their negotiated housing goal , including,but not limited to acquisition, rehabilitation and construction of permanent affordabl=and life-cycle housing. Threshold Criteria: - To be eligible, a municipality must have: 1) ele ted to participate in the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program by the ovember 15 deadline each year; 2)had negotiated housing goals adopted by the Metro olitan Council; and 3)identified to the Council the actions it plans to take to meet the establish-a housing goals. - Municipality must be actively involved in purs 'a g various ways to meet their negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals. - Municipality must match requested funds on a +ollar-for-dollar basis. CompetitiveCriteria: • - Municipality has a net fiscal disparities contri• tion of$200 or more per household. - Municipality does not use its Affordable and c fe-cycle Housing Opportunity Amount(ALHOA) expenditure as the source for its matching fun. . sakt • 0 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA WASHINGTON COUNTY LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACTION PLAN 1996 1 PREPARED BY: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. r r • 1411 INTRODUCTION The City of Oak Park Heights, with a population of 3,486 people, is located on the St. Croix River, south of Stillwater. The City's housing is a diverse mix of old and new single family homes, medium density townhomes and high density multiple family apartments. The location of the community near Stillwater, the St. Croix River and the Twin Cities has encouraged both commercial and residential development in recent years. This trend is expected to continue, in particular with the construction of the new bridge over the St. Croix into Wisconsin. The City of Oak Park Heights has elected to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Program which encourages the development and maintenance of affordable and life-cycle housing in the Twin Cities. The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act was enacted in June 1995 and will be administered by the Metropolitan Council. The act establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is available to participating communities to help pay for various housing related activities in the community. Implementation of this Housing Plan must take into full consideration the range of available programs and resources based upon market and economic factors. This document is intended to be utilized by the City of Oak Park Heights in organizing the pursuit of programs, initiatives and actions most applicable to the goals and needs of housing in the community. As such, it should be updated periodically as new programs and funding sources become available and existing resources terminate, and as existing housing issues are resolved and new issues arise. It must be stressed however, that it is the intention of the City to take a reactive role in housing matters. LIVABLE COMMUNITIES BENCHMARKS AND GOALS The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires participating communities to negotiate goals for affordable and life-cycle housing based upon current indexes and regional benchmark goals. For reference, housing is considered "affordable" if it costs not more than 30% of a family's income. For owner-occupied housing this income amount is approximately 80 percent of median, or in 1994 dollars, a home costing approximately $115,000. For rental housing, this expense equals approximately $500 per month. Life- cycle housing is housing available to accommodate the changing needs and housing preferences people throughout their lives. The City of Oak Park Heights has established future housing goals for affordable and life- cycle housing through negotiations with Metropolitan Council Staff. However, it should be mentioned that the Housing Goals Agreement must be revised to reflect the loss of housing as a result of the construction of the new St. Croix Bridge. The majority, if not all of the housing lost by the construction of the bridge would be classified as affordable. 1 • r • The City's current Metropolitan Council indexes, regional benchmarks and negotiated housing goals are provided below for reference: TABLE 1 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AFFORDABLE/LIFE-CYCLE INDEXES, BENCHMARKS& NEGOTIATED HOUSING GOALS CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL AFFORDABILITY Ownership 90% 74-85% 75-80% Rental 55% 52-68% 55% LIFE-CYCLE Type (Non-single family 50% 29-36% 50% detached) Owner/renter mix 56/44% (68-77)%/ (68-77)%/ (23-32)% (23-32)% DENSITY Single Family Detached 2.3/acre 2.2-2.5/acre 2.3/acre Multifamily 15/acre 13-14 acre 15/acre SOURCE: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL As illustrated by the above table, Oak Park Heights' indexes are currently within or exceed all of the Metropolitan Council's regional benchmarks for affordable and life-cycle housing. Currently 90% of the City's owner-occupied housing is considered affordable, and 55% of its rental housing is considered affordable. The City's future housing goals are to maintain the current benchmarks for affordable and life-cycle housing. The City's indexes for the measures of life-cycle housing are also illustrated above. Currently 50% of the City's life-cycle housing is non-single family detached housing. The benchmark for this type of housing is 29-36%. In terms of owner/renter life-cycle housing, 56% of the life-cycle housing stock is owner occupied, which is below the benchmark. Conversely, 44% of the City's life-cycle housing is renter occupied, which exceeds the benchmark of 23-32%. These figures are explained by the large number of multiple family structures within the City. The City should work, as market factors and resources allow, to improve the ratio of owner occupied versus renter occupied life-cycle housing in the City. The best means of accomplishing this goal is to promote increased availability of single family detached, medium density townhouse units, and condominiums. In regard to housing densities, the City of Oak Park Heights is within or exceeds the Metropolitan Councils regional benchmark. The density of single family homes in the community is currently 2.3 units per acre, which is within the benchmark range established 2 • I by the Metropolitan Council. The density of multiple family housing is 15 units per acre, which the established benchmark is 13-14 units per acre. The following table (table 2) shows a breakdown of all single family, low density, medium density, high density housing within the City of Oak Park Heights (per the 1990 Census). TABLE 2 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 1990 HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE OF UNIT TYPE NUMBER PERCENT SINGLE FAMILY(DETACHED) 622 46.1 SINGLE FAMILY(ATTACHED) 84 6.2 Low DENSITY(2 UNITS) 70 5.2 MEDIUM DENSITY(3-9 UNITS) 171 12.7 HIGH DENSITY(10+UNITS) 401 29.7 MOBILE HOME/OTHER 2 .1 TOTAL 1,350 100.00 SOURCE: 1990 U.S.CENSUS TABLE 3 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HOUSEHOLD AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS OAK PARK HEIGHTS 1990 2000 2010 2020 HOUSEHOLDS 1,322 1,700 2,000 2,300 POPULATION 3,486 4,000 4,700 5,350 SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 3 TABLE 4 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ADDITIONAL/NEW UNIT ESTIMATES BASED ON NEGOTIATED LCA GOALS City HOUSEHOLDS FORECASTED ADDITIONAL(AFFORDABLE) ADDITIONAL 1980 HOUSEHOLDS RENTAL UNITS (AFFORDABLE) 2010 1990-2010 OWNER UNITS 1995-2010 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 1,322 2,000 0 150 SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Based upon household projections developed by the Metropolitan Council for the year 2010, the City will need to maintain its existing renter and owner occupied housing supply and as a goal, will work to provide an additional 150 owner-occupied housing units which are considered affordable, in order to maintain the established housing goals. The City has determined that the increase of 10 additional affordable owner units per year is reasonable, considering the supply of appropriate developable land. Despite the fact that no additional (affordable) rental units are required, based on the negotiated LCA goals, the City Council has determined that they would look favorably at the addition of affordable rental units in the community. The City Council shall make a determination on a case by case basis. The above information is based upon the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint Document which predicts that the number of households in Oak Park Heights will increase by 678 households from 1990 to 2010 (see Table 3 above). RESIDENTIAL LAND USE INVENTORY The City of Oak Park Heights is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, however, the following information has been taken from a draft of the inventory from the Comprehensive Plan (this data is to be expanded): • Residential land use occupies 18% of the City's total developed land area. Low density residential land use represents 15% of that total, medium density 1% and high density 2%. • Seventy percent (70%) of Oak Park Heights's housing stock was constructed prior to 1980. The remaining thirty percent (30%) has been constructed since 1980. • Seventy (70) homes are being razed as a result of the construction of the new bridge over the St. Croix River. The majority of these homes are older and considered to be affordable housing. 4 • � • In 1991 the City annexed 392 acres into the City. A large portion of this area is to be developed with single family residential and multiple family residential. HOUSING ISSUES Housing Condition: Observations made during the land use inventory in the Spring of 1996, as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update, suggested that the majority of the single family homes in Oak Park Heights were in good to excellent condition. Of the homes that were in poor condition, most were located within the St. Croix River Bridge expansion area and will be torn down. The land use inventory also revealed that most of the City's multiple family structures were in good condition and well maintained. Housing Maintenance: Oak Park Heights existing housing stock represents a valuable resource and investment that must be preserved. The preservation and maintenance of existing residential housing improves the living environment, maintains the City's supply of affordable housing, and enhances the character of the City. Programs and incentives for continuing privately initiated maintenance, improvements for energy conservation, and redevelopment of existing residential areas will be created and implemented. When possible, the City may provide assistance undertaking development and redevelopment efforts. HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES As mentioned, the City of Oak Park Heights is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, therefore, specific housing goals and policies shall be revised and updated. The housing goals and policies listed below, are from the existing Comprehensive Plan, adopted in December of 1979, and additional goals and policies that will be incorporated within the Comprehensive Plan update. These goals and policies shall be used as a guide by City decision makers to identify the needs to evaluate housing related applications. Goals: • Maintain the current City of Oak Park Heights benchmarks for affordable life cycle housing. • Provide sufficient housing and sufficient housing sizes, types and styles to meet the needs of all segments of the population, notedly groups with specialized housing needs, such as the elderly. • Provide housing in cost ranges affordable to low and moderate income households (as regionally defined). 5 0 i • Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environment which offer a broad and full choice of housing types. es. Policies: 1. Maintain the existing renter and owner occupied housing supply, except for the units to be purchased and removed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the St. Croix Bridge. 2. Promote the development of an additional 150 owner occupied affordable housing units by the year 2010 to maintain the established housing goals. 3. Allow, on a case by case basis, the addition of affordable rental units within the City. 4. Ensure that all new housing, including rental housing and housing for persons of low and moderate income, adheres to the highest possible standards of planning, design and construction. 5. Concentrate higher density, apartment-type housing in proximity to areas which offer a wide range of existing supportive service, commercial and recreational facilities. 6. Plan and develop residential neighborhoods according to determined planning/development district boundaries. 7. Protect residential neighborhoods from penetration by through traffic. 8. Provide for access to major streets on the periphery of residential neighborhoods. 9. Provide high density development with reasonable, but not necessarily direct, access to major thoroughfares. 10. Preserve and maintain the existing density character of residential neighborhoods. 11. Achieve and maintain a high quality residential environment through rehabilitation or where necessary, redevelopment, of substandard units. Undertake such actions through private means or if necessary, public action. 12. Protect low density residential neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible higher use types and by adequate buffering and separation from other residential as well as non-residential use categories. 13. Provide sufficient housing options to meet the needs of all segments of the population, including the elderly and those of low and moderate income. 6 • i 14. Encourage and promote adequate living space and fully utilized housing through the provision of a range of choice among housing types and options. 15. Existing undeveloped single family residential lands shall be developed in a manner responsive to determined needs and compatible with surrounding development. 16. Ensure that all new housing, including housing affordable to low and moderate income families and individuals, adheres to the highest community design, planning and construction standards. 17. Encourage design and planning innovations in both housing units and land development. 18. Encourage innovation in subdivision design and housing development through the use of devices such as the cluster and planned unit development concepts. 19. Encourage the development of patio homes, townhouses, quadraminiums and condominiums to supplement conventional single family homes and apartments, giving due consideration to local market demands. 20. From a cost per unit perspective, planned unit development shall be promoted in order to: (a) reduce unit land costs, (b) lessen the amount of new dedicated streets (thereby reducing on-going repair and snow removal costs), (c) lower utility costs (through reduced footage and hence lower maintenance costs), and (d) reduce additional run-off resulting from development. 21. From a revenue per unit perspective, planned unit development shall be promoted based upon the higher revenue contribution to the City in comparison with conventional comparable density subdivision. 22. Density incentives shall be offered for the development of mid-density owner-type units, such as townhouses, quadraminiums, patio homes and cluster housing. 23. Mid-density development shall be encouraged on a planned unit basis and shall specifically include provisions for traffic circulation that would mitigate any adverse affects on existing single family residential neighborhoods. 24. Prohibit residential development on wetlands, floodplains and other natural features that perform important protection functions in their natural state. 25. Locate multiple family housing in areas not inferior to those generally used for conventional single family housing. 7 r • . ADMINISTRATION The housing market shall be the primary driving force behind what types of housing is constructed, rehabilitated and redeveloped within the City. The Oak Park Heights City Administrator will be the primary City Official responsible for the monitoring and overseeing the implementation of the actions and programs outlined within this document, through the completion of grant and program applications, the reporting of housing related information and acting as a resource contact for community residents, property owners and potential developers. The City Administrator shall also actively consult with the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Pursuit of housing programs and actions will be based upon pending applications or the request of private parties. If these requests are found by the City to be consistent with established community goals and policies, the City will grant its support and assistance to the private sector efforts. TIME FRAME As the City of Oak Park Heights is incompliance with regional housing benchmarks and the focus of housing programs and related City actions in the community being reactive to housing needs rather than proactive, no formal numerical goals for assisted housing, housing programs, etc. will be established. In order for this plan to be effective, it is anticipated that this document will need to be examined and updated from time to time. Therefore, as part of any future Comprehensive Planning process, this plan should also be reexamined. It is anticipated that this document, when updated as part of the Comprehensive Plahning process, will serve as a housing element implementation plan of the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Oak Park Heights shall annually participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act by passing a resolution to do so by November 15th of each year. PROGRAMS, INITIATIVES AND ACTIONS The following programs, initiatives and actions are available and may be used in the City of Oak Park Heights as housing issues present themselves and City resources allow, to increase the levels of affordable and life cycle housing in the community within established regional benchmarks, provide new housing options, and promote the maintenance, rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing residential properties. In this regard, the following list serves as a reference for continued review and consideration as a means of addressing the City's current and future housing needs. The City shall actively work with the Washington County HRA to promote ownership of single family housing options, in particular with down payment assistance. 8 • Ii New programs which become available and are applicable in Oak Park Heights should be added to the list just as programs which are no longer available or applicable should be removed. Inclusion of these programs in this plan does not commit the City to participate in them, rather the City's housing efforts will be stimulated cooperatively with private sector applications. Housing Assistance Programs Federal Government Programs • Section 8 vouchers and certificates programs • Shelter Plus Care (S+C) Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Programs • Minnesota Mortgage Program • Home ownership Assistance Fund • Urban Indian Housing Program/Tribal Indian Housing Program • Purchase Plus Program • Minnesota Urban and Rural Homesteading Program • Partnership for Affordable Housing • Minnesota City Participation Program • Entry Cost Home ownership Program (ECHO) • MHFA Rental Assistance for Family Stabilization (RATS) Housing Development Programs Federal Government Programs • Public Units(Hollman Units) • Supportive Housing Demonstration Program - Transitional Housing Component • Federal Home Loan Bank - Affordable Housing Program • Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) • Section 202 - elderly • Section 811 - handicapped Minnesota Housing Finance Agency • Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program • New Construction Tax Credit Mortgage Builders Loans • Low and Moderate Income Rental Program • Affordable Rental Investment Fund 9 1 • • Metropolitan Council • Local Housing Incentives Account • Livable Communities Demonstration Account Local Government • Tax Increment Financing • Revenue Bonds Other • Share -Washington County HRA • Family Housing Fund • Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Housing maintenance, Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Programs Federal Government • Federal Home Loan Bank -Affordable Housing Program • Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) • HOPE III Minnesota Housing Finance Agency • Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program • Low and Moderate Income Rental Program • Home Rental Rehabilitation Program • Rental Rehab Loan Program • Innovative Housing Loan Program • Community Rehabilitation Fund • Deferred Loan Program • Revolving Loan Program • The Great Minnesota Fix-up Fund • Affordable Rental Investment Fund • Blighted Properties Community Rehabilitation • Community Rehabilitation Fund • Mod Rehab Metropolitan Council • Livable Communities Demonstration Account 10 • • Other • Family Housing Fund • Habitat for Humanity Cities Local Government • Community Clean-up Days • Tax Increment Financing Local Initiatives • Community education programs • Community Clean-up Days 11 Page 4 - City Council Minutes 11/12/96 Garbage Committee - Councilmember Swenson reviewed a flyer from United Waste Systems that will be distributed to all residents of Oak Park Heights regarding collection of old appliances . United Waste is now requesting that residents of Oak Park Heights contact them on Wednesday before 3 : 00 p.m. to arrange collection of any old appliances . Appliances will continue to be collected every Thursday, and there is no additional charge for appliance collection. Councilmember Swenson noted that the appliances are being recycled instead of being placed in a landfill . Consent Agenda: 1 . Approve Bills and Investments 2 . Approve Council Meeting Minutes - October 22 , 1996 3 . Resolution 96-11-30 - A Resolution Approving Continued Support for the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for Calendar Year 1997 . 4 . Approval of Annual Auditing and Financial Services Agreement - Tautges, Redpath, & Co. 5 . Budget Transfer - $4, 265 from General Fund-Contingency to Police Department-Other Contractual Services for Civil Defense Siren Repair 6 . Request for Payment - Autumn Ridge 1st Addition - Arcon Construction - $15, 931 .30 7 . Approval of Tractor Bid - M.J. Raleigh - $8, 500 . 00 Mayor Schaaf requested that Item 4 be pulled from the Consent Agenda and tabled until the next City Council meeting scheduled Tuesday, November 26 , 1996 . City Administrator Robertson requested that Item 7 be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Kern, moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items 4 and 7 . Carried 5-0 . Robertson noted that the high bid of $8, 500 . 00, was approximately $1, 600 . 00 higher than the City had been offered for the tractor as a trade-in. Councilmember Kern, seconded by Robert, moved to approve the bid of M.J. Raleigh of $8, 500 . 00 for the tractor. Carried 5-0 . Unfinished Business Street Reconstruction Area D - Estimated Stdy - City Engineer Anderlik reported that the estimated cost in obtaining soils and pavement condition information for street reconstruction in Area D and the preparation for a formal engineering report would be $17, 850 . Anderlik reported the project could move forward this fall, subject to frost conditions . Councilmember Robert, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve the expenditure of $17, 850 for the testing and report . Carried 5-0 . Ili Metrop olitLM Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future immimmommimimmnsimi DATE: Fall 1996 TO: APPLICANT LIST: Tax Base Revitalization Account FROM: Wayne Nelson(291-6406) AUG SUBJECT: Grant Application Guide I J' ( _ Enclosed is a grant application guide for the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Tax Base Revitalization Account. This account provides funds to clean up contaminated land to support economic redevelopment,job retention and job growth. Approximately $2.5 million will be available from this fund for the fall grant cycle. Workshops have been scheduled to explain both this program and the Department of Trade and Economic Development's complementary Contaminated Site Cleanup grant program. The workshops will be held on: Tuesday, September 17, 1996 9:00 a.m. to noon Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers 7800 Golden Valley Rd. Golden Valley, MN Wednesday, September 18, 1996 9:00 a.m. to noon Woodbury City Hall Council Chambers 8301 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, MN The deadline for applications in this grant cycle is 5:00 p.m., November 15, 1996 (at the Mears Park office of the Metropolitan Council). If you have any questions about the grant program or guidelines, please give me a call at 291- 6406. ORNTMF96 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES FUND TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT FALL --1996 GRANT APPLICATION GUIDE Section 1: Background/Purpose 1 Section 2: Eligible Applicants 1 Section 3: Eligible Use of Funds 1 Section 4: Awarding Grants/Competitive Process 1 Section 5: Local Support 2 Section 6: Reporting Requirements 2 Section 7: Procedures 2 Section 8: Application Format 3 Section 9: EXAMPLES Clean-up budget 7 Municipal resolution 8 Section 1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (MN Statutes Chapter 473.252) creates three incentive "accounts" to promote regional goals. One of these, the Tax Base Revitalization Account provides funds to clean up contaminated land in areas that have lost commercial/industrial activity to make it available for economic redevelopment, job retention and job growth. Approximately $6.5 million in funds will be available for grants annually; applications will be accepted twice each year (May and November). This program is coordinated with complementary programs at the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and MN Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED). Section 2: ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS The following are eligible to apply: statutory or home rule charter cities or towns that are participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Housing Incentives Program; metropolitan counties and development authorities (e.g., Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Economic Development Authority or Port Athority). Section 3: ELIGIBLE USE OF FUNDS Eligible expenditures under this program include costs to implement an approved Response Action Plan (RAP) developed in conjunction with the MPCA for hazardous waste, or an abatement program that meets the requirements for the V-PIC/LUST program at MPCA (for petroleum), or AHERA standards (for asbestos) -- for projects in participating communities (defined above). Costs incurred in the preparation of the clean-up or abatement plan (e.g., investigating the extent and/or nature of contamination) or for project costs unrelated to clean-up are not eligible expenditures under this program. These funds may be used to provide a portion of the local match required for a grant from DTED's Contamination Cleanup Grant Program. Section 4: AWARDING GRANTS/COMPETITIVE PROCESS The Metropolitan Council is required to consider certain factors in order to ensure the highest return in public benefits for the public costs incurred. In order to evaluate and rank applications, the following criteria will be assigned point values in order to systematically and fairly compare the applications. Applications will be ranked according to the extent that they address the following: o increase the tax base of the recipient municipality--20 points (TIF designation does not disqualify a site, however a non-TIF district earns 5 bonus points); o result in a net gain in long-term jobs/industry for the region--20 points; o reflect demonstrated market demand for commercial/industrial land in the proposed site area--15 points (a contract with an end-stage developer earns 5 bonus points); o preserve and/or increase living wage'jobs--10 points; o promote compact and efficient development--10 points; D increase the number of livable wage jobs in/near areas of concentrated poverty and demonstrate sensitivity to linkages with local residents--or linkage to Hollman units in suburban municipalities--10 points; o represent innovative partnerships among government, private for-profit and non-profit sectors--10 points; o make more efficient use of currently underutilized public service capacity (e.g., roads and highways, transit, wastewater, utilities, telecommunications infrastructure, etc.)--5 points; D are not eligible for clean-up funding from other public sources; For the purposes of this grant, each applicant's proposal will be ranked against all other applicants in that grant cycle in regards to proposed number of jobs and wage-scale of those jobs. Higher rankings will be given to applicants developing higher wage jobs. 1 • I• a will not require extensive new (regional) infrastructure beyond that which is already planned (extensive subsequent infrastructure disqualifies an applicant); and a are consistent with the redevelopment component of the municipality's comprehensive plan (in re: Minn. Stat. section 473.859, subd. 5). If applications for grants exceed the available funds for an application cycle, no more than one-half of the funds may be granted to projects in a single city, and no more than three-quarters of the funds may be granted to projects located in St. Paul/Minneapolis. • Section 5: LOCAL SUPPORT Any proposal for loan funds under this program must include a resolution of support from the local unit of government within which the project is proposed. [See attached example, page 8.] Section 6: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Recipients of Tax Base Revitalization grants must submit a report to the Metropolitan Council at the termination of the grant period and annually thereafter until 2002, stating (1) the total number of persons employed at the site on the anniversary date of grant completion, (2) the salary ranges and numbers of employees within each range, and (3) total property taxes paid on this parcel (land and buildings) for the preceding year. Section 7: PROCEDURES Applicants may write or call to request application packets from the Metropolitan Council, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634. Any questions should be directed to Wayne Nelson at 291- 6406. This Notice of Funding Availability is subject to applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, rules and regulations. The Metropolitan Council reserves the right to modify or withdraw this RFP at any time and will not reimburse any applicant for costs incurred in the preparation or submittal of applications. 2 • • Section 8: APPLICATION FORMAT GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant: Contact Person: Street Address: City: _ State: Zip Code: • Phone: ( ) - FAX: ( ) - Sill, INFORMATION 2. Site Address: City: ✓ 0 City is participating in Housing Incentives Program 3. Legal description of site: 4. Total acres of site: 5. Current Property Owner: Street Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone: ( ) - FAX: ( ) j- 6. Year current owner assumed possession of this site: 7. The current net tax capacity for this parcel is (tax year ). HISTORY 8. Attach a brief narrative history of this site, such as previous uses, owners, activities, facilities, attempts at redevelopment--i.e., how this site became a brownf eld (limit: 3 pages). Ili 3 • • CONTAMINATION INFORMATION 9. Type/s and extent of contamination ❑ Hazardous wastes: a) attach map from the RAP report showing location of prominent and relevant site features such as buildings, retaining walls, etc.; b) attach portion of RAP that shows the extent to which the site is contaminated (including an acceptable clean-up number if available); and c) attach a copy of the approval letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the Response Action Plan (RAP) for this site. ❑ Petroleum: a) attach site development plan from LUST or VPIC report including site sketch; e.g., property boundaries, structures, current or former petrolem storage areas, retaining walls, utility lines, excavated areas, etc.; isoconcentration map/s showing sample locations and the extent and magnitude of contamination; proposed excavation and construction; and proposed location of"controlled fill" (contaminated soil to be used on-site) and mitigating measures necessary (if applicable). b) attach a description of the corrective action/s proposed, including a site grading plan and a description of the proposed management of contaminated materials, soil excavation volume estimates, dewatering volume estimates, proposed soil management plan (include flow diagram), and proposed groundwater management (include copy of discharge permits). c) attach copy of the site development plan approval letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency VPIC program. ❑ Asbestos: a) attach map showing parcel and/or buildings (with floorplan) with location and extent of contamination; and b) attach documentation to demonstrate that the proposedclean-up procedures meet MN Department of Health requirements to re-occupy and use this building and/or parcel. 10. For all properties, attach excerpts from the RAP--or, in the case of petroleum or asbestos, other appropriate documents--that indicate: a) the long-term effects of the proposed clean-up (permanence of the removal and treatment of contaminants); b) technical means for the clean-up/remediation; and c) documentation of eligibility/ineligibility for any other public clean-up/mitigation funds for this site. PROJECT GOALS 11. What are the development plans for the site after clean-up and/or mitigation? Please attach a narrative description. Include rationale for anticipated market demand for this site (limit: 3 pages). 4 • • ' 12. Is there a commitment at this time from a third party for end-stage development on this site? ❑ No ❑ Yes: Please attach commitment letters, capital improvement plans, city council resolutions, etc. 13. Attach a brief description of the infrastructure requirements for this site (both existing capacity and new capacity needed). Include roads and/or highways, transit, wastewater, utilities, telecommunications infrastructure, or other infrastructure as appropriate (limit: 3 pages). 14. What is the expected future net tax capacity for this parcel after development is complete and cash flows have stabilized? projected net tax capacity, in tax year 19 How was this figure determined, and who determined it? 15. How many total jobs are expected to be located on this parcel when this project is complete? Number of expected jobs on this parcel when project fully complete. How many new jobs will be created directly as a result of the redevelopment of this parcel? Number net new jobs in the region resulting from this project. What percentage of expected new jobs are in the following hourly rate categories (attach any supporting information): % less than $8.49/hr. % $10.50 12.49/h r. % $8.50 - 10.49/hr. % greater than $12.50/hr. 16. What mechanisms/programs are in place to ensure that local residents'will have appropriate access to new jobs created? 2 Jobs created within 1/4 mile of census tracts with poverty rates above 15% (i.e., approximately two highest deciles in region); narrative describing proposed connections between new jobs and target workforce. 5 • Does this community have a commitment to develop Hollman units at this time? ❑ No (not applicable) ❑ Yes. Please attach appropriate documentation. 17. Attach the section of the municipality's Comprehensive Plan that addresses this site. Additional narrative and/or maps may be necessary to describe the following: a) map showing local zoning for this parcel and the parcels surrounding it; b) the municipality's comprehensive plan map showing long-term intended land use for this site and adjacent parcels; c) the municipality's overall strategy for dealing with brownfield sites (may be an Redevelopment and Reinvestment component of the Comprehensive Plan). PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET 18. Attach a detailed, line-item clean-up/remediation budget (corresponding to the Remediation Action Plan or Corrective Action Design agreement with MPCA; or AHERA standard procedures). Include all sources of revenue/funding for this purpose, both public and private. [See example, p. 8.] ✓ 0 This application is made in conjunction with an application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED)for a Contamination Cleanup Grant. ✓ Percent other public funding sources committed to this entire development/redevelopment project. Source/s and purpose/s Amount/s ✓ Percent private funding committed to this entire redevelopment/redevelopment project. Source/s and purpose/s Amount/s 19. Is there a cost-recovery plan in place to recover costs from responsible parties? ❑ Yes. Attach a brief description of the plan (note role of Attorney General if applicable, or application to Petrofund if applicable). ❑ No. Explain. . . 6 • PAYMENT INFORMATION 20. Mailing Address: Contact Person/ Title Telephone # ( ) - FAX # ( ) - MN ID number Fed Emp ID # II 7 • • PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET FOR BLOCK "Z" SITE APPLEBURG, MN I. CLEAN-UP BUDGET A. Sri'b INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1. Phase I $2,000 2. Phase II $50,000 3. Preparation of RAP $68,000 Total Site Investigation and RAP $120,000 B. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN: CLEAN-UP COSTS 1. Soil excavation $60,000 Back-fill of hole $50,000 2. Monitoring wells $2,500 Closing out wells $1,000 3. Contract for on-site testing during clean-up $15,000 4. Soil treatment costs transportation to treatment site $30,000 treatment of contaminated soil $260,000 landfill costs of soil below threshold $150,000 5. Contamination monitoring (air sampling) contract $30,000 *Eligible for Tax Base Revitalization Grant $598,000 Total Clean-Up Budget $718,000 II. DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT BUDGET A. Relocation costs $215,000 B. Site preparation and landscaping $315,000 C. Construction: 52,000 ft2 office showroom $2,600,000 D. Infrastructure: road resurface and utilities $890,000 Total Development/Redevelopment Budget $4,020,000 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $ 4,738,000 8 • RESOLUTION NO. 959280 CITY OF APPLEBURG, MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT WHEREAS the City of Appleburg in a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 1996 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account; and WHEREAS the City has identified a clean-up project within the City that meets the Tax Base Revitalization account's purposels and criteria; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and [WHEREAS the City Council of Appleburg, Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization grant application submitted on May 16, 1996--IF cITY IS APPLICANT]; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Appleburg and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Mayor Clerk GRNTF96.DOC 9 Page 6 - Minutes 04/96 Pu lic Hearing - Resolution 9 -06-18 - Proposed Vacat ' on of. Drainage and Utility Easem nts in Lots 1 Through 8 . Block 1, Valley View Estates 2nd Addition - Mayor O'Neal opened the Public Hearing at 8 :40 p.m. Phyllis Glampse, 14853 North 57th Street and Mary Jones, 14875 North 57th Street were present to find out how the proposed Resolution would affect them. City Attorney Vierling stated that since Valley View 2nd Addition had been recently replatted, the City needed to take official action to remove the old drainage and utility easements . Councilmember Kern, seconded by Swenson, moved to close the Public Hearing at 8 :45 p.m. Carried 5-0 . Councilmember Robert requested that City Attorney Vierling provide the Council with a copy of the new plat . Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Kern, moved to adopt Resolution 96-06-18 a Resolution Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements in Lots 1 Through 8 , Block 1, Valley View Estates 2nd Addition. Carried 5-0 . New Business: Adoption of Livable Communities Ac ion Plan City Planner Richard presented a draft of the Livable Communities Action Plan. Richards reported that the City of Oak Park Heights is well within the benchmarks set by the Metropolitan Council for affordable housing. Richards recommended that the City adopt the plan along with the changes he was recommending. Richards stated that the Housing Goals and Policy will be built into the Comprehensive Plan which he is currently updating. Robertson noted that Metropolitan Council has not yet changed their benchmarks to reflect the loss of homes in Oak Park Heights due to the bridge construction. Mayor O'Nealrequested that Robertson draft a letter to the Metropolitan Council requesting that they change the benchmarks to reflect this loss . Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Robert, moved to adopt the Livable Communities Action Plan for 1997 with the changes recommended by City Planner Richards . Carried 5-0 . St . C oix Valley Sports Facility - Mayor O'Neal reviewed a letter received from David Magnuson representing the proposed St . Croix Valley Sports Facility. Mr. Magnuson is proposing that the City enter into a Joint Powers Agreement . The letter requests that a representative be selected from Oak Park Heights to serve on the St . Croix Valley Sports Facility Board. Mayor O'Neal requested tabling this issue until the next meeting, and invited anyone interested in serving as a representative for the City to apply. Page 6 - Minutes 11/95 • Ordinanc 5-207-05 - An Ordinance Establishing a Four Year Term for the Office of Mayor within the City of ak Park Heights, effective January 1 , 1997 - Mayor O'Neal opened the Pubic hearing at 9 :23 p.m. In attendance was Mary Sharbono of 14630 57th Street North. Sharbono said she was opposed to establishing a four year term for the office of Mayor. She said the two year term had worked just fine in the past . Hearing no further comment, Councilmember Schaaf, Swenson second, moved to close the public hearing at 9 : 25 p.m. Carried 5-0 . Councilmember Swenson asked if there could be a citizen referendum on this issue. City Attorney Vierling said that per Minnesota State Attorney General ' s opinion this is not a referendum issue Councilmember Kern, seconded by Robert, moved to adopt resolution 95-207-05, An Ordinance Establishing a Four Year Term for the Office of Mayor within the City of Oak Park Heights . Carried 3- 2, Councilmembers Schaaf and Swenson opposed. New Business: Resolution 95-12-54 - Adopting Goals to Implement the Livable Communities Act - City Planner Richards reported that the city meets the affordable and life cycle requirements as set by the Metropolitan Council . Mayor O'Neal said the City would develop a plan by June 30, 1996 indicating the actions it will take to implement the Livable Communities goals . Councilmember Kern, seconded by Schaaf, moved to adopt Resolution 95-12-54, A Resolution Adopting Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Housing Goals for Affordable and Life Cycle Housing. ' Carried 5-0 . Junker Sanitation - Request to Change Garbage Pickup Day for Oak Park Heights to Thursdays - Jeff Glewwe, General Manager for Junker Sanitation, was present to answer questions . He explained that the request was due to a desire to consolidate all their routes within the City limits to one day' s pickup. He also noted that residents could bring their plastics to the Mahtomedi site for recycling. He said they are currently buying new trucks for plastics recycling and hope to start curb side plastics pickup sometime next year. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Schaaf, moved to approve changing garbage pickup day for Oak Park Heights from Friday to Thursday, effective January 11th, 1996 . Carried 5-0 . Councilmember Schaaf left the meeting at 9 : 59 p.m. Request for Payment - Novak Avenue Improvement - Danner, Inc . - 52 , 076 . 91 - Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Kern, moved to approve the request for payment of $52, 076 . 91 to Danner, Inc. Carried 4-0 . )2- II-95 • • Page 3 - Minutes 10/23/95 Up ate on Design Review Committee - City Planner Richards noted that he would be getting copies of the minutes of the Design Review Committee meeting to the Council . Councilmember Robert noted that there would be several design review issues discussed at the City Council Workshop on the bridge , and highway reconstruction set for Monday, November 6, ; 1995 at 7 :30 p.m. Minnesota Mayor' s Conference - Mayor O'Neal discussed her presentation at the Minnesota Mayor' s Conference on working with MNDOT and surrounding communities during the discussions of the new St . Croix River Bridge. Review Minutes - October 10, 1995 : Councilmember Kern, seconded by Schaaf, moved to approve the minutes as presented. Carried 5- 0 . Public Hearings: Applebee ' s International , Inc. - Request Fox' Liquor & Cigarette Licenses - Mayor O'Neal opened the public hearing at 7 :35 p.m. City Attorney Vierling noted that Applebee ' s had submitted all the necessary forms and that they met all requirements for the licenses . Councilmember Kern, seconded by Robert, moved to close the public hearing at 7 : 37 p.m. Carried 5-0 . Councilmember Kern, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve liquor and cigarette licenses for Applebee ' s International, Inc. Carried 5-0 . New Business: Comprehensive Plan Update - Estimated Cost - City Planner Richards discussed his estimate of $23 , 000 to update the City Comprehensive Plan. Robertson noted that the update was required under Metropolitan Council mandate and the City Council had established this as one of its top priority' s during the strategic planning process . Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Robert, moved to direct Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc . to prepare an update of the City' s Comprehensive Plan with said update not to exceed $23 , 000 . Carried 5-0 . Metropolitan Livable Communities Act - Robertson updated the Council on a meeting that he and City Planner Richards had held with representatives of the Metropolitan Council on the Livable Communities Act . He noted that Oak Park Heights already met all of the Metropolitan Council ' s bench marks for providing affordable housing within the City limits . He further noted that Metropolitan Council had agreed to modify those bench marks in Oak Park Heights ' favor to take into account the affordable housing which would be lost during bridge and highway reconstruction. Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Kern, moved to approve Resolution 95-10-45, a resolution electing to participate in the local housing incentives accounts program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act . Carried 5-0 . CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS RESOLUTION 95-10-45 A Resolution Electing to Participate In The Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Calender Year 1996 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (1995 Minnesota Laws Chapter 225) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facingthe metropolitan area defined byMinnesota Statutes P 473 . 121; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, Livable Communities Demonstration Account, and the Local Housing Incentives Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and, WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or is not eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes 473 . 254 ; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and, WHEREAS, by June 30, 1996 each community must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council must adopt, by resolution after a public hearing, the negotiated affordable and life cycle housing goals for each municipality by January 15, 1996 ; and, WIIEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and, • • WHEREAS, for calender year 1996, a m=tropolitan area municipality can participate under Minnesota Stat 'tes section 473 . 254 only if : (a) the municipality elects to parti• ipate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by Novemb;•r 15, 1995; (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municip.:lity successfully negotiate affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality; and by January 15 , 1996 the Metropolit:n Council adopts by resolution the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each municipality. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT he City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota hereby elects to particip•te in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during calender year 1996, with the following condition; 1) The City of Oak Park Heights Goals shall be revised per agreement with Metropolitan Co •ncil staff to reflect the City' s loss of affordable hous ng caused by the State of Minnesota initiated New St . Croix River Bridge . Passed by the City Council of Oak P:rk Heights this 24th day of October, 1995 . de 1Od Attest : ity Adm: istrator Enclosure 9A ��--;; S • IIJNAC Northwest Associated Consultants , Inc . COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Robertson OCT 1995 FROM: Scott Richards 17 DATE: 16 October 1995 RE: Oak Park Heights - Metropolitan Livable Communities Act FILE NO: 798.02 - 95.18 As a follow up to our meeting with Donna Mattson and Linda Milashius of the Metropolitan Council regarding Metropolitan Livable Communities, I have summarized the process to comply with the act for City Council review and action. Livable Communities was enacted in June 1995 by the Legislature as a way of addressing the affordable housing issues in the Metropolitan Area. Metro communities are not required to participate in the programs, but the act provides incentives and funding for those municipalities that do participate. Of primary interest to Oak Park Heights is that participation in Livable Communities will be required to apply for Met Council grants for clean up of polluted sites or affordable housing, as well as DIED and ISTEA funds. The Met Council defines "affordable housing" as a $115,000 home in 1994 and $500 per month rent in 1990. These numbers represent housing values and rental rates that are metro wide, not just for Oak Park Heights. In terms of affordability, life cycle and density, the City meets or exceeds all of the parameters set by the Met Council. The Draft Housing Goals Agreement, as attached, outlines the City indexes and the benchmarks. The Metropolitan Council staff was informed that the City will lose 75 to 80 affordable housing units as a part of the St. Croix bridge project. Metro staff indicated that because the project is state-initiated, and that the City indexes substantially exceed the benchmarks for affordability, the City will not be adversely affected for Livable Communities purposes. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 • • In order to participate in Livable Communities, the City will need to adopt a resolution (see attached example) by 15 November 1995, stating their desire to participate in the program in 1996. There will be no financial commitment in 1996, but in 1997, the Met Council will require an investment of at least $163 for affordable and life cycle programs. As a second step in the process, the Met Council will require adoption of affordable and life cycle goals by 14 December 1995. The goals would be similar to what the community already has in place in the Comprehensive Plan for addressing housing issues. An action plan is required as the third step which is due by 30 June 1996. The goals and plans would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and would serve as the new housing section of an updated Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the resolution, I have attached other information about Livable Communities that may help answer any questions the City Council will have on the program. I suggest the Council review this information for possible action at their 23 October meeting. pc: Mayor and City Council 2 DRAFT HOG GOALS AGREEMEOP METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES The city of Oak Park Heights supports: 1. A balanced housing supply,with housing available for people at all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. 4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. and The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, a d the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. GOALS To carry out the above housing principles,the City of Oak Park Heights agrees to use benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as affordable and life-cycle-housing goals for the period 1996 to 2010, and to make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to maintain an index within the benchmark ranges for affordability, life-cycle and density. CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL Affordaliili " Ownership 90% 74-85% Rental 55% 52-68% Life Cycle Type(Non-single family 50% 29-36% detached) Owner/renter Mix 56/44% (68-77) / (23-32)% Density Single-Family Detached 2.3/acre 2.2-2.5/acre Multifamily 15/acre 13-14/acre To achieve the above goals,the City of Oak Park Heights elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. CERTIFICATION Mayor Date I Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount For Oak Park Heights Your ALHOA Amount for: Oak Park Heights 1996 $0 Not required 1997 (Estimate) $163 • 0 _Eit,57,/)4 IA pi" '." ■ ■ ■ ... ii.• -- Next Steps • Contact with Council team • August forums with AMM • September staff forums • Resolution by November 15, 1995 • Adopt goals by December 14, 1995 • Council adopts goals by January 15, 1996 • Action plan by June 30, 1996 • • �ZZLGz�I G� ••• ••• ••• 7;.• • • ■ ■ ■ ••• LIVABLE COMMUNITIES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. What is the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act? The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act("Act") was enacted in June 1995 and is the Legislature's attempt to address various issues facing the seven-county metropolitan area. The Act establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which consists of three accounts: the Tax Base Revitalization Account; the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and the Local Housing Incentives Account. Metropolitan municipalities are not required to participate in the programs under the Act, but the Act provides incentives and funding to those municipalities that do participate. 2. What is the incentive to participate? The benefits are clear. Cities, towns and, in some cases, counties have access to resources that will improve their communities and neighborhoods. In addition, the legislation puts local units of govern- ment in the driver's seat. Communities can not only choose whether to participate; they also have flexibility in determining how they're going to use the resources available. 3. What is the incentive to provide lower-cost housing in our community? Affordable housing is an investment in communities and their residents. It fulfills a commitment to young families, single people and older residents that they can find a honze they can afford in the com- munity of their choice. 4. What are`affordable"housing and"life-cycle"housing? Housing is "affordable" if it costs no more than 30 percent of a family's income. For ownership hous- ing this income amount is 80 percent of median, an amount that in 1994 could afford a home costing • approximately$115,000. For rental housing this income is 50 percent of median. In 1990 this was approximately$500 per month. "Life-cycle" housing refers to housing available for people at all stages of their lives, offering a choice and variety of housing types and cost to accommodate people's changing needs and preferences as their incomes and circumstances change. 5. What are the affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities amount? The Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount("ALHOA amount") is an amount, established by formula in the Act, that a participating municipality must spend to create affordable and life-cycle housing or to maintain existing affordable and life- cycle housing. A participating municipality's ALHOA amount is established each year. 6. Does the ALHOA amount have to be a property tax levy? No. The ALHOA amount can be derived from a levy, or it can be derived from fundsfrom another source. Regardless of the source of funds for the municipality's ALHOA amount, a participating munici- pality that did not meet its negotiated affordable and life- cycle housing goals, and did not spend 85 percent of its ALHOA amount to create affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities in the previous year, must distribute the entire ALHOA amount to a local housing and redevelopment authority to create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities in the municipality, or to the Metropolitan Council for distribution through the Local Housing Incentives Program. 7. If my municipality elects by November 15, 1995, to participate in the Local Housing Incen- tives Account Program,must the municipality spend an ALHOA amount in calendar year 1996? No. Because of various timing provisions in the Act, the ALHOA amount requirement does not apply until your municipality's election to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program made by November 15, 1996,for calendar year 1997. 8. If my municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995,but is unable to agree on housing goals with the Metropolitan Council, must the municipality participate in the program? No. A municipality is not participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program unless two conditions have been met: a. The municipality has elected to participate in the program; and b. The Metropolitan Council and the municipality have negotiated and agreed on affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. If the municipality and the Metropolitan Council do not successfully negotiate housing goals, your municipality may not participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 9. Must my municipality participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program? No. Participation in the program is voluntary, but a municipality that does not participate may at some later time elect to participate in the program. However, a municipality which later elects to participate must establish that it has spent or agrees to spend on affordable and life-cycle housing an amount equivalent to what it would have spent on affordable and life-cycle housing had goals been established for the period in which the municipality was not participating. 10. If my municipality has met its housing goals in the previous calendar year,may my munici- pality participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program? Yes. However, your municipality will not be eligible to receive grants from the Local Housing Incentives Account Program if it met its affordable and life-cycle housing goals. Your municipality still will be eligible for grants and loans under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account programs. 11. What if my municipality chooses not to participate in the Local Housing incentives Ac- count Program? Municipalities that elect not to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program are not eligible to participate in the Tax Base Revitalization Account and Livable Communities Demonstration Account programs under the Act. The Metropolitan Council is required by the Act to take into account your municipality's participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program when making discretionary funding decisions. In addition, your municipality will not be eligible to apply for funds under the Department of Trade and Economic Development's polluted sites clean-up program if your • I municipality is not participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 12. If my municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program, but does not have the capacity to create additional affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities,can my municipality give its ALHOA amounts to other municipalities to meet negotiated housing goals? Yes. A municipality that has negotiated housing goals,but might not have adequate resources to create or maintain affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities still could be considered a participating mu- nicipality. However,the municipality would be required to distribute its ALHOA amount to the Metro- politan Council for distribution to other participating municipalities or distribute its ALHOA amount to a local housing and redevelopment authority for creating affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities within the municipality.The Act permits municipalities to enter into agreements with adjacent municipali- ties to cooperatively provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The Metropolitan Council will work with municipalities to help municipalities create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities and avail themselves of the incentives and funding available under the Act and from other sources. 13. If my municipality is using local resources to make payments on a mortgage for an afford- able or life-cycle housing opportunity created prior to the Act,can these resources count toward expenditures of the municipality's ALHOA amount? Yes. As long as the use of the funds is directly related to your municipality's efforts to meet its afford- able and life-cycle housing goals, these local resources can be considered an expenditure of ALHOA amounts. 14. Are the goals for affordable and life-cycle housing,as proposed by the Metropolitan Coun- cil,achievable? The goals proposed by the Metropolitan Council are intended to be "long-term" goals. Your munici- pality will establish an action plan that identifies the steps your municipality intends to take to move toward its long-range goals. Beginning in 1998, your municipality's annual progress in meeting its negotiated affordable and life-cyclehousing goals will be measured against the annual goals your municipality sets forth its action plan. Progress toward the goals will depend on private marketplace efforts, the availability of affordable and life-cycle housing resources and the use of local controls to create an environment to meet goals. • 15. Do the Metropolitan Council and a municipality negotiate and set housing goals annually? No. The Act envisions negotiated housing goals as a one-time process. That is why the goals are long term in nature. The Metropolitan Council will propose affordable and life-cycle housing goals that encourage your municipality to address key housing benchmarks. 16. After the Metropolitan Council and a municipality negotiate and set affordable and life- cycle housing goals for the municipality,what happens next? The municipality must prepare an action plan that describes how it intends to meet its negotiated goals. The municipality has until June 30, 1996, to submit the action plan to the Metropolitan Council. 17. Does the Metropolitan Council have to approve the action plan? The Act does not require the Metropolitan Council to approve a municipality's action plan. However, the Metropolitan Council will comment on the plan's content in relation to the negotiated goals that have been established, and it will attempt to identify potential resources available to the municipality to help the municipality meet its negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals. 18. What should the action plan look like? The suggested format will be modeled after the one used for the housing element of your comprehensive plan. • IA gi Resources to communities for: . Affordable and life-cycle housing . Clean up of polluted sites for business and jobs . New development linking housing, jobs and transportation r �riva�le Eii iA Local Housing Incentives Account • $1 million available in 1996 to create affordable and life-cycle housing • By 1998, $1.5 million annually for affordable and life-cycle housing �,rium��e 1 A 61 Tax Base Revitalization Account • $6.5 million available annually to clean up polluted sites • Increased economic development and jobs for residents • 4 _Etz,5rAle Tit. : : : IA gm : :: i • --4 Livable Communities Demonstration Account • $4.6 million to revitalize neighborhoods in 1996 • $4.1 million annually beginning in 1997 • Compact, efficient development close to transit with housing variety and jobs 411 • Page 6 - City Council Minutes 12/09/97 3 . The lights under the awning will be reinstalled further up into the trusses to reduce the current glare . If that does not solve the problem, Menard' s said that they would find a different fixture to install ; 4 . After-hours lighting will be reduced to 30% of open hours lighting for security purposes . Richards also said that Menard' s is in violation of the sign permits that were issued with the developer' s agreement . Mayor Schaaf said that considering that Menard' s has been cooperative, he was willing to revisit the sign issue at a later date . Richards said that no loudspeakers will be used in the outside yards; beepers and walkie-talkies will be used for communication. Rainbow/Oppidan Lighting Issues - Richards said that he has spoken with Alan Kretman of HKS, the engineering firm for this development, about the violations . City staff will be meeting with Kretman this week to discuss some of the issues . Richards said that Kretman agreed to shield or cover the lights that are offensive, but Richards has not received the lighting plan. Richards also said that he is waiting for the landscaping plans from Oppidan. New Business: Resolution 97-12-41 - Approving the 1998 General Fund Levy - Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Robert, moved to approve the 1998 General Fund Levy in the amount of $1, 440, 637 . 00, the Street Reconstruction Bonds in the amount of $58, 410 . 00, and the Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District No. 1 in the amount of $25, 000 . 00 . Roll call vote was taken. Carried 4-0 . Resolution 97-12-42 - Approving the 1998 Budget - Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Beaudet, moved to approve the 1998 Budget in the amount of $2, 052, 778 . 00 . Roll call vote was taken. Carried 4-0 . 1998 Part-Time Police Officer Salary Increase - Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Robert, moved to approve the salary increase of part-time officer David Kisch from $9 . 00/hour to $12 . 50/hour effective January 1, 1998 . Carried 4-0 . Approval of Manning Avenue No-Build Option Joint Resolution with Baytown and Lake Elmo - Baytown has already approved the resolution and Lake Elmo will be visiting the issue at its January 6, 1998 meeting. Councilmember Beaudet, seconded by Robert, moved to approve the joint resolution with Baytown and Lake Elmo. Roll call vote was taken. Carried 4-0 . December 17 Council Meeting - Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Robert, moved to set a Council meeting on Wednesday, December 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. Carried 4-0 . Page 4 - City Count Minutes 11/12/97 of herself, Ms . Vadnais, Police Chief Swanson, and an Oak Park Heights resident to define the procedure where it may be appropriate for the City to intervene in a particular case . Interim Administrator Holst said that the $520 that was quoted by M. Vadnais for this process could come out of the General Management Contractual Services Fund. Councilmember Swenson said that andthis he felt the City' s job is to act as policy setters, may go beyond this charge . Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Robert, moved to approve the establishment of a committee to formulate the criteria for a mediation committee at a cost not to exceed $520 . Carried 5-0 . New Business: Manning Avenue Improvements - Councilmember Beaudet said there are currently three options being explored for Manning Avenue . A route through Lake Elmo to the west; A route through Baytown/Kern Center; No-build option Beaudet recommended that Oak Park Heights advocate the no-build option with no acquisition of right-of-way due to the fact that the traffic flow and projected traffic counts do not support a build option. Beaudet also said that Lake Elmo and Baytown have both taken this position and he suggested that the three cities cooperate and draft a joint resolution advocating the no-build option. Council directed Attorney Vierling to draft a resolution indicating this position by November 17 . Cooperation Meeting with Bayport - Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Robert, moved to set a cooperation meeting with Bayport for Thursday, January 22, 1998 at 7 : 00 P.M. at Bayport City Hall . Carried 5-0 . Annexation Meeting with Baytown - Mayor Schaaf said that Oak Park Heights would like to meet with Lake Elmo and Baytown to discuss the possibility of an orderly annexation. Councilmember Robert, seconded by Beaudet, moved to meet with the two cities on Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. at Lake Elmo City Hall to discuss this issue. Carried 5-0 . Closed Session: Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Turnquist, moved to adjourn the meeting to a closed session to discuss union negotiations and pending litigation at 8 :30 P.M. Carried 5-0 . Adjournment: Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to adjourn at 9 : 55 P.M. Carried 5-0 . Respectfully submitted, J' AidUtAIL Melanie Mesko Administrative Intern 110 Page 5 - City Council Minutes 08/12/97 Resolution 97-08-30 - A Resolution Receiving Preliminary Report and Calling for a Public Hearing on Brackey West/Stillwater Ford Utility Improvements of 1997 - CouncilmemberHTurnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve Resolution 97-08-30, setting a public hearing for Tuesday, September 9, 1997 at 7 : 30 at City Hall . Carried 5-0 . Joint Powers greement - Coalition of Utility Cities - Councilmember Turnquist said that he, Mayor Schaaf, and Administrator Robertson have been attending meetings with NSP to try to reach some sort of agreement about the property tax issue . He stated that he did not know if an agreement could be reached with NSP. Councilmember Turnquist urged approval of the Joint Powers Agreement because utility communities will have to work together at the State Legislature in 1998 to prevent loss of the personal property tax. Robertson said that the payment breakdown for this agreement is organized in such a way, that those cities with the most to lose will contribute the most, with details to be established by an executive committee. Robertson also noted that Oak Park Heights ' share is $4, 192 . Councilmember Robert, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve the Joint Powers Agreement. Carried 5-0 . Proposed Ordinance 97-1204-02 - An Ordinance Repealing Section 1204 . 07, Subdivision 3 of Chapter 1204 - o Remove the Minimum Distance Requirement for a Wine icense - City Attorney Vierling said that this ordinance requirement only addresses wine, not beer or hard liquor, and that it does not seem to make much sense to differentiate among the three . Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Beaudet, moved to repeal the proposed ordinance . Carried 5-0 . Community Volunteer Service Grant Request - Councilmember Robert, seconded by Beaudet, moved to approve the $1, 000 grant . Carried 5-0 . Discussion of Washington County Manning Avenue Corridor Study - There was discussion about which plan would best serve Oak Park Heights and those that use Manning Avenue . Councilmember Robert, seconded by Turnquist, moved to direct staff to draft a letter to the County Board advocating the following positions : 1) No-Build option for Manning because other county roads should have higher priority; 2) Move the linear park on Manning Avenue to Highway 5 between State Highways 36 & 5; 3) Preserve the right-of-way for a future intersection of Manning, 40th Street, and State Highway 5 . Carried 5-0 . i JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES OP OAK PARK HEIGHTS, LAKE ELMO, AND TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN SUPPORTING A NO BUILD OPTION FOR FUTURE PLANNING ON MANNING AVENUE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF7RUNK HIGHWAY 36 WHEREAS, the Washington County Department of Public Works has had meetings with the Manning Avenue Connection Study Task Force outlining various options and alternatives to determine impacts of a proposed Manning Avenue connection located south of Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS, each of the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown have participated in that task force and have reviewed the materials prepared thereby; and, WHEREAS, all three communities have determined that it is not feasible nor prudent to consider Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 as proposed by the Washington County Highway Department and favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection; and, WHEREAS, all three communities are of the opinion that the cost of connection of Manning Avenue with its detrimental impact on adjoining lands, excessive cost, and minimal traffic use is not supported by the benefit that is perceived to occur by such connection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown Township that all three communities favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection and recommend that no right-of-way acquisition or preservation occur. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all three communities will jointly execute this resolution and forward a copy thereof to the Washington County Board of Commissioners as well as the Washington County Highway Department . Passed this 9th day of December , 1997 . CITY O OAK PA K HEIGH' ' By: Mayor By: /j74/46 2.T In im t y Administrator Passed this day of '-{.07/6(-al , 199 f. CITY OFKE, • I EL .._ • By: rt'' M • By: Ci y AL ator Passed this / day of , 199 . BAYTOWN 1WNSHIP / By: ta ` / / ' L.-/L.L4411 t Chairman, Boil of Supervisors By: i i�l,.� ' Town Clerk 2 0 JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, LAKE ELMO, AND TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN SUPPORTING A NO BUILD OPTION FOR FUTURE PLANNING ON MANNING AVENUE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 WHEREAS, the Washington County Department of Public Works has had meetings with the Manning Avenue Connection Study Task Force outlining various options and alternatives to determine impacts of a proposed Manning Avenue connection located south of Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS, each of the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown have participated in that task force and have reviewed the materials prepared thereby; and, WHEREAS, all three communities have determined that it is not feasible nor prudent to consider Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 as proposed by the Washington County Highway Department and favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection; and, WHEREAS, all three communities are of the opinion that the cost of connection of Manning Avenue with its detrimental impact on adjoining lands, excessive cost, and minimal traffic use is not supported by the benefit that is perc0iived to occur by such connection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown Township that all three communities favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection and recommend that no right-of-way acquisition or preservation occur. • III 1114 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all three communities will jointly execute this resolution and forward a copy thereof to the Washington County Board of Commissioners as well as the Washington County Highway Department . Passed this 9th day of December , 1997 . CITY OF K PARK HEI S dig By: Mayor By: OjG4'✓ � Int 2�ty Administrator Passed this P'" day of ( f at.42/ 19912 . • ,x CITY LAKE E '.:` - A , \ ''. By: , . Mayor By: V//a/ tU City Administrator Passed this / day of kt . , 199 . BAYTOW► OWNSHIP 11 .4.2:-. By: II 4h r Lft ; 'hairman, :cd of Supervisors By: j, MI , '41t# , A ,, _ . Town Clerk 2 • JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, LAKE ELMO, AND TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN SUPPORTING A NO BUILD OPTION FOR FUTURE PLANNING ON MANNING AVENUE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 WHEREAS, the Washington County Department of Public Works has had meetings with the Manning Avenue Connection Study Task Force outlining various options and alternatives to determine impacts of a proposed Manning Avenue connection located south of Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS, each of the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown have participated in that task force and have reviewed the materials prepared thereby; and, WHEREAS, all three communities have determined that it is not feasible nor prudent to consider Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 as proposed by the Washington County Highway Department and favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection; and, WHEREAS, all three communities are of the opinion that the cost of connection of Manning Avenue with its detrimental impact on adjoining lands, excessive cost, and minimal traffic use is not supported by the benefit that is perceived to occur by such connection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown Township that all three communities favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection and recommend that no right-of-way acquisition or preservation occur. f► i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all three communities will jointly execute this resolution and forward a copy thereof to the Washington County Board of Commissioners as well as the Washington County Highway Department . Passed this day of November, 1997 . CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By: Mayor By: Interim City Administrator CITY OF LAKE ELMO : BY' Mayor By: City Administrator BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors By: Town Clerk 2 w . . JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, LAKE ELMO, AND TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN SUPPORTING A NO BUILD OPTION FOR FUTURE PLANNING ON MANNING AVENUE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 WHEREAS, the Washington County Department of Public Works has had meetings with the Manning Avenue Connection Study Task Force outlining various options and alternatives to determine impacts of a proposed Manning Avenue connection located south of Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS, each of the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown have participated in that task force and have reviewed the materials prepared thereby; and, WHEREAS, all three communities have determined that it is not feasible nor prudent to consider Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 as proposed by the Washington County Highway Department and favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection; and, WHEREAS, all three communities are of the opinion that the cost of connection of Manning Avenue with its detrimental impact on adjoining lands, excessive cost, and minimal traffic use is not supported by the benefit that is perceived to occur by such connection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown Township that all three communities favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection and recommend that no right-of-way acquisition or preservation occur. 4 • • • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all three communities will jointly execute this resolution and forward a copy thereof to the Washington County Board of Commissioners as well as the Washington County Highway Department . Passed this day of November, 1997 . CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By: Mayor By: Interim City Administrator CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Mayor By: .� City Administrator BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors By: Town Clerk 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES OP OAK PARK HEIGHTS, LAKE ELMO, AND TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN SUPPORTING A NO BUILD OPTION FOR FUTURE PLANNING ON MANNING AVENUE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 WHEREAS, the Washington County Department of Public Works has had meetings with the Manning Avenue Connection Study Task Force outlining various options and alternatives to determine impacts of a proposed ManningAvenue connection located south of P P P Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS, each of the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown have participated in that task force and have reviewed the materials prepared thereby; and, WHEREAS, all three communities have determined that it is not feasible nor prudent to consider Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 as proposed by the Washington County Highway Department and favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection; and, WHEREAS, all three communities are of the opinion that the cost of connection of Manning Avenue with its detrimental impact on adjoining lands, excessive cost, and minimal traffic use is not supported by the benefit that is perceived to occur by such connection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown Township that all three communities favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection and recommend that no right-of-way acquisition or preservation occur. S BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all three communities will jointly execute this resolution and forward a copy thereof to the Washington CountyBoard of Commissioners as well as the Washington 9 9 County Highway Department . Passed this day of November, 1997 . CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By: Mayor By: Interim City Administrator CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Mayor By: City Administrator BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors By: Town Clerk 2 1 • • JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES OP OAK PARK HEIGHTS, LAKE ELMO, AND TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN SUPPORTING A NO BUILD OPTION FOR FUTURE PLANNING ON MANNING AVENUE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 WHEREAS, the Washington County Department of Public Works has had meetings with the Manning Avenue Connection Study Task Force outlining various options and alternatives to determine impacts of a proposed Manning Avenue connection located south of Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS, each of the communities of Oak Park Heights, • Lake Elmo, and Baytown have participated in that task force and have reviewed the materials prepared thereby; and, WHEREAS, all three communities have determined that it is not feasible nor prudent to consider Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 as proposed by the Washington County Highway Department and favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection; and, WHEREAS, all three communities are of the opinion that the cost of connection of Manning Avenue with its detrimental impact on adjoining lands, excessive cost, and minimal traffic use is not supported by the benefit that is perceived to occur by such connection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the communities of Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, and Baytown Township that all three communities favor a no build option as it affects the proposed Manning Avenue connection and recommend that no right-of-way acquisition or preservation occur. • • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all three communities will jointly execute this resolution and forward a copy thereof to the Washington County Board of Commissioners as well as the Washington County Highway Department . Passed this day of November, 1997 . CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By: • Mayor By: Interim City Administrator CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Mayor By: City Administrator BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors By: Town Clerk 2 r CITY O OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439•FAX 439-0574 November 21, 1997 Ron Fredkove, Baytown Township Supervisor, Chairman 4220 Osgood Avenue North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Mr. Fredkove and Township Supervisors : The Oak Park Heights City Council has reviewed the Manning Avenue Connection Study Task Force options and supports the no-build option for Manning Avenue . We understand that Lake Elmo has taken a similar opinion regarding Manning Avenue . In order to assert this position, Oak Park Heights believes that a joint resolution by Lake Elmo, Baytown, and Oak Park Heights would be appropriate to present to the County. I am including a draft resolution and would appreciate any feedback and comments that Lake Elmo would have. Please feel free to call if you have . any questions. Thank you for your consideration on this issue. Very truly yours, i dy /olst Interim City Administrator cc: Mary Kueffner, Lake Elmo City AdministrOttor Wyn John, Lake Elmo Mayor Pat St . Claire, Baytown Clerk Tree City U.S.A. • CITY O011 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 P�•`J November 21, 1997 Mayor Wyn John and Lake Elmo City Council Lake Elmo City Hall 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Mayor John and Councilmembers : The Oak Park Heights City Council has reviewed the Manning Avenue Connection Study Task Force options and supports the no-build option for Manning Avenue. We understand that Lake Elmo has taken a similar opinion regarding Manning Avenue. In order to assert this position, Oak Park Heights believes that a joint resolution by Lake Elmo, Baytown, and Oak Park Heights would be appropriate to present to the County., I am including a draft resolution and would appreciate any feedback and comments that Lake Elmo would have. Please feel free to call if you have any questions . Thank you for your consideration on this issue . Very truly yours, /4‘14.1 udy Hoist Interim City Administrator cc : Mary Kueffner, Lake Elmo City Administrator Ron Fredkove, Baytown Township Supervisors,visors, Chairman Pat St. Claire, Baytown Clerk Tree City U.S.A.