Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.03.20 EDA Packet AGENDA CITY OF HUGO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MONDAY, March 20, 2006 — 8:30 AM HUGO CITY HALL 8:30 am 1. Call to Order 8:31 am 2. Roll Call 8:32 am 3. Approval of Minutes • EDA meeting of February 21,2006 8:35 am 4. Introduction of New Community-Development Intern Rachel Simone 8:40 am 5. Terry and Angela Hancock-5583 147th Street N • Discussion of future library site 8:55 am 6. Rick Burr-Gusset Design • Discussion of proposed expansion of business 9:15 am 7. Report on substandard building inspections for proposed TIF District 9:25 am 8. Downtown Egg Lake Project • Review plans for property from potential developers • Discuss strategy for development of property • Discuss acquisition of remaining parcels 10:10 am 9. Discussion of proposed legislation relating to eminent domain 10:20 am 10. Washington County 2006 CDBG Annual Action Plan 10:30 am 11. Adjournment BACKGROUND MEMO FOR THE EDA MEETING OF March 20, 2006 3. FEBRUARY 21,2006 EDA MEETING MINUTES City staff recommends that the EDA approve the minutes for the February 21, 2006 EDA meeting as presented. 4. TERRY AND ANGELA HANCOCK-5583 147TH STREET N Community Development Director Bryan Bear and Community Development Intern Rachel Simone meet with Terry and Angela Hancock on March 8, 2006,to discuss the city possibly buying their property for the proposed library site. The owners are ready to sell the property and are in the process of moving to the location were Terry works. They came to the city first to buy the property because they are aware of the redevelopment plans of the city. The house as they say inside is in good shape, and is planned to be inspected, so is it possible that it could be rented out by the city until the proposed plans for the library take shape. City staff seeks recommendation from the EDA about whether the city should buy the property and insight on if staff should look at the whole area as a development opportunity and talk to the other property owners in the area. 5. RICK BURR- GUSSET DESIGN INC Rick Burr has sent the City a letter stating that he would like to expand his existing business, Gusset Design Inc. at 15587 Forest Blvd. The property is zoned Commercial but the building use is Industrial. The structure was built before the zoning change to Commercial District so it is allowed to stay. According to the City Municipal Code, it states he is not allowed to expand because the use is nonconforming to the current zoning. Rick would like to meet with the EDA to discuss this issue. The property is surrounded by residential zoning and there is a possibility the area could be redeveloped. There are some recommended solutions in the staff report provided. The City Staff would like the EDA review this matter, and provide direction to Mr. Burr. 6. REPORT ON SUBSTANDARD BUILDING INSPECTIONS FOR PROPOSED TIF DISTRICT The City staff has inspected two city owned properties across from City Hall at 14625 & 14687 Forest Blvd. Rachel sent out TIF District building inspection notices on Friday, March 10, 2006 to the property owners. The letter gives a background on what a TIF District is, why we are doing the inspections, and asked for a return card to inspect the property. City staff and Paul Steinman of Springsted, met on March 9, 2006 to discuss the building inspections for the proposed TIF District. The two City owned properties were discussed and guidelines were set on how each house was going to be inspected so we keep the process consistent. The Staff will present on this to the EDA. 7. DOWNTOWN EGG LAKE PROJECT The City has now assembled a critical amount of property along Egg Lake. The City has received some plans from developers interested in developing along Egg Lake. The Staff will present several of these plans to the EDA. At the last meeting the EDA discussed whether senior housing should be developed in the area. The staff seeks input on the strategy for the development of the property, for instance, should it be mixed development and how much of housing, retail, senior housing, and park area should the development have and to suggest to the potential developers. The staff also recommends that the EDA discuss a plan for acquisition of the remaining parcels. 8. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN There has been recent proposed legislation that will restrict the use of eminent domain by cities. The legislation will ban the use of eminent domain for economic development, and prohibits the use of this tool for redevelopment. The bill does this by making unattainable standards for determining"blighted area" and "environmentally contaminated area" reducing the ability to assemble parcels for redevelopment. The League of MN Cities would like the City to create a resolution on the issue and has sent the City a draft that they would like the City to approve. During the City Council meeting on Monday, March 6, 2006 the Council discussed the proposed legislation relating to eminent domain. The Council in their discussion directed the EDA to provide feedback to the Council about the proposed legislation and the drafted resolution. 9. WASHINGTON COUNTY 2006 CDBG ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The Washington County Board approved the draft of the 2006 Annual Action Plan for public comment. The public comment period is from February 21, 2006 to April 15, 2006. The Annual Action Plan includes information on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME)programs. The plan also describes the resources the county will use and activities to be undertaken in 2006 to address the priority needs for the area. The County has sent the City a draft of the plan for comment. The EDA should review the plan and determine whether the City should send comments on the plan to the County. MINUTES FOR THE EDA MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Phil Klein at 8:30 am. Present: Jan Arcand, Mike Granger, Phil Klein,Tom Denaway, City Administrator Mike Ericson, CD Director Bryan Bear Absent: Fran Miron, Jim Bever, Nick Skarich 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Arcand made motion, Granger seconded to approve the minutes for the January 17, 2006 meeting as presented. All aye. Motion carried 4. REPORT ON OUTCOME FROM JANUARY 18,2006 OPEN HOUSE CD Director Bryan Bear gave an overview of the open house and discussion followed with EDA members. There were over 130 attendees of the open house consisting of a mix of residents,business owners and developers. Maxfield Research was present to discuss the market study, Landform was present to discuss the design guidelines and the downtown plan, and Springsted was present to discuss Tax Increment Financing. Comments received from the public were positive. The staff has sent letters to residents thanking them for participating, and members of the public continue to express interest in receiving information about downtown redevelopment. 5. DISCUSSION OF NEXT STEPS TOWARD IMPLEMENTING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN CD Director Bryan Bear discussed with the EDA the next steps necessary to implement the downtown plan. Bryan also discussed with the EDA methods to secure developers to begin the work on the new downtown. Proposals can be solicited through RFP's, RFQ's, or work with developers who have already expressed interest. Staff will present development plans to the EDA at the next meeting. The EDA discussed whether senior living was an appropriate use of the property next to Egg Lake. The EDA also discussed the type of park amenities that would be appropriate there. The EDA felt that a stronger retail focus would be favorable. 6. REPORT ON FEBRUARY 16 BUILDING INSPECTION MEETING The staff updated the EDA on the process for building inspections to determine qualifications for a Tax Increment Financing District. 7. HUGO KIDZ `N BIZ FEST City Administrator Mike Ericson updated the EDA on the plans for the Kidz `n Biz fest, which is scheduled for April 30, 2006. Granger mentioned that the Public Works Facility would be a good place to hold the event. Granger made motion, Denaway seconded to recommend that the City Council donate $500 to the event. All aye. Motion carried. 8. ADJOURNMENT Granger made motion, Denaway seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 All aye. Motion carried. 1 Terry and Angela Hancock Property JEFFREY A MARIER F7 MARY GERDESMEIER Robert& GRANGER& Frances GRANGER LLP Shields TY OF UGO 147th Street WASHINGTO CITY OF HUGO MICHAEL J QUINNCHARD RRY& GRANGER GLENN DELA &MARIE ^^CK JANSEN MICHAEL JQUINN CP CK D&HEATHER M EBERT RICHARD J GRANGER PETER C&BRENDA L RAINER PETER C&BRENDA L RAINER CITY OF HUGO CITY OF HUGO Agenda Number CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: EDA FROM: Rachel Simone, Community Development Intern SUBJECT: Rick Burr-Gusset Design Inc DATE: March 15, 2006 for the EDA meeting of March 20, 2006 1. OVERVIEW: Rick Burr has sent the City a letter stating that he would like to expand his existing business, Gusset Design Inc. at 15587 Forest Blvd. The property is zoned Commercial but the building use is Industrial. The structure was built before the zoning change to Commercial District so it is allowed to remain. According to the City Municipal Code, it states he is not allowed to expand because the use is nonconforming to the current zoning. Rick would like to meet with the EDA to discuss this issue. The property is surrounded by residential zoning and there is a possibility the area could be redeveloped. 2. ANALYSIS: Mr. Burr's Property is one of a series of properties located along the east side of HWY 61 that are zoned C-2, General Business District. The C-2 District allows retail and office uses,but it does not allow for industrial uses. Since all the properties in this area(including Mr. Burr's) contain industrial uses, the properties are not in conformance with the zoning ordinance. That is important, because non-conforming uses cannot be expanded under the City's zoning ordinance. According to the ordinance, Mr. Burr would only be allowed to expand his business if the property's zoning was changed back to industrial. If the zoning is changed to industrial, and that change led to expansion of industrial uses in the area, it could have a negative impact on existing and future residential uses in the surrounding area. 3. EXAMPLES OF SOLUTIONS: The City Staff has recognized his request and has come up with possible solutions to the issue. 1) The City could revise the zoning ordinance to allow the expansion of nonconforming uses. Page 2 2) Rick Burr could be advised to submit an application to rezone the property to Industrial. This would lead to one parcel in the Commercial area to be Industrial. 3) The City could initiate a rezoning of all of the commercially zoned properties along HWY 61 to industrial. 4) Mr. Burr is encouraged to expand his business in an alternate location with appropriate zoning. 4. CONCLUSION: Since this issue involves an expansion of an existing business, and one of the EDA's goals is to promote business expansion, the Staff has brought this issue to the EDA. The City Staff would like the EDA to review this issue, and provide direction to Mr. Burr 2 R S O<, q4' 0 pp NORTHERLY W PARCEL SOUTHERLY \ FOUND P ��, A�7EA=50,4835Q.Fr PARCEL. '"~�oN LINE.no OR LEACRE5 oMr AREA= 52,881 SQ.FT. CDN OR 1.2 ACRES /. a/u w 1 r Ln ui rn 9 5 °'°' m ; Z v s P �n _ Q OLD PROPER-it LINE 3 O ul ( cD �N n U! 3.6 W)N N , sa, o z u O m LL In Z_ aD IN v M ao - r LLLL o 0 00 13.6 2.1 W 2 Ineq _ _ K� °'• � J Y 3.2 24.3 0 fD 46 -7 ti� 97 21. d � - d �� �zQ40 OMpVT VVAy LiA.. cn co W wf,� eoo O I IIi Gusset Design, .f'M O b 1 J� GOODVIEW s 152ND NO CITY OF HUGO HUGO CITY HALL, 14669 FITZGERALD AVE. N. HUGO, MN 55038 (651) 762-6300 FAX (651)426-2859 March 10, 2006 Dear Hugo property owner: The City of Hugo is considering the establishment of a Tax Increment Finance District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174 to 469.1799 to assist in financing the implementation of the downtown redevelopment plan. You are in receipt of this letter because your property lies within the boundaries of the proposed Tax Increment Finance District. Please note that the establishment of this District is intended to assist private enhancement of property, and does not involve City initiated acquisition of property through eminent domain. Part of the statutory requirements of establishing a Tax Increment Finance District is that a percentage of the buildings within such district are required to meet specific statutory requirements. An interior/exterior inspection of your property will assist the City in meeting these requirements. The purpose of this letter is to request access to your building to complete the interior inspection. Please respond by returning the enclosed card indicating your approval/denial of this request. It is important that we be able to complete the inspection of your property in order to qualify for the proposed Tax Increment Finance District however, you are not required to allow the inspection. If you feel it is in your best interest to increase the potential for redevelopment of your property, then it may be advantageous to allow the internal inspection to provide the City with the most accurate information toward addressing the statutory requirement. Please consider that the inspection will not impact your property taxes and will not result in any requirements for you to make improvements to your property. Should the statutory requirements be met and a Tax Increment Finance District be established, there is still no guarantee that redevelopment will occur on your property, as that depends on your wishes for the property and your willingness to participate. If you are inclined to allow an internal inspection but are concerned about the City conducting such inspection, arrangements may be made to have the inspection completed by a private company. The most accurate approach to meeting the statutory requirements is to complete an internal inspection, however, if such inspection is not allowed, the City will have to make building condition assumptions using any internal records we have in conjunction with comparing your building(s) to other similar buildings in the general area. v We appreciate your cooperation on this matter and look forward to a positive response. Please call 651-762-6230 if you have any questions. Since ely, B an J. ar, Hugo Economic Development Authority Executive Director Cc: Mayor and Council Mike Ericson, City Administrator John Benson, Chief Building Official Message Page 1 of 1 Mike Ericson From: Bryan Bear Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:13 AM To: Intern; Mike Ericson Subject: FW: downtown hugo Rachel—please copy for EDA. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Forchette [mailto:nforchette@sgdi.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:56 AM To: Bryan Bear Subject: RE: downtown hugo Bryan, Thank you for sending me the infonnation on the upcoming re-development of downtown Hugo. I've been interested in being a part of the growth in Hugo, however I'm just not able to get ideas and infonnation together soon enough. Obviously your meeting was Monday and I've barely had time to review the information you sent and I have a ton of questions. If there's still time to get involved to some extent, I would like to. Please let me know when you'd have time to explain the details of what you've given me, if I can still get involved. Thank you again, Nick Forchette Solid Ground Development, LLC 4756 Banning Avenue, Suite 206 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Ph. (651) 407-6018 Fx. (651)407-6019 Cel.(651.) 248-9635 3/15/06 City Owned Property Along Egg Lake ICH GRANGER 8& GARY D&NE E REIL Lt2�H ICHAR ONRANGER LLPDOF DEANNA MART UANE E REIL& UAI„I MRKVICKA KOHLE UGO EG ULhNIR CHAR 8&MANG R OBERT HN 8&KI HERI E JANSE WI LIAM E BARR LLIA LI ORGET ICHAR FFRE)GRANGER IVILSOIS $ RICCI UERTI OF UGO ---, FIREO ENESE NTHON ARSO B NDO CHAREEN GAM NI F DIRK& L UCK D J GRANG R HRISTIN MICHAEL DUBOIS PAUL& ITY OF HUGO ROWLEY AND L RAINER JAMES& F DEB ITY OF HUGO _ - ICHEAL ROSE PATRICIA WISNER MARSHA R BUNG RICHARD& SHEA RAINE HARLES & ONALD MARK BARBARA GINA NOSIE - ----- ODRIGUEZ LENHAR F HUG MARSHABUNGE G Y C HOLMGREN TY OF HUGO CITY OF HUGO ITY OF HUGO W SHINGT CO EG RAIL AUTH CITY OF HUGO IER CITY OF HUGO F MARIE CITY OF HUGO MARIE CITY OF HUGO ATHERINE EANDERSON MARIE ATHERINEEANDERSO ATHERINE E ANDERSO SWANY OF HUGO INC SWANY OF HUGO INC CITY OF HUGO JD GROUP TY OF HUGO OUTHERN AUTO SALES LLC RAN LEV ED PARDEE A RANDKLEV&ED PARDEE M A LE &ED PARDEE RAN K V RANDKLEV 8&ED P RDEE GEORGE H LINDY CA IRSTAR HUGO BAN F a 0 MEMO TO: City of Hugo Economic Development Authority Z Bryan Bear, Executive Director o FROM: Barbara Dacy, Executive Director Rich Malloy,Deputy Executive Director a Z WASHINGTON COUNTY HOUSING< DATE: March 16, 2006 RE: Proposed Concept Plans for Egg Lake Redevelopment The Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority is sincerely interested in pursuing a development within the City of Hugo's "Downtown Redevelopment Plan". The Authority 's mission is: "Through innovation, the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority promotes community and economic development, and provides and maintains affordable, decent and safe housing opportunities in Washington County. " The Authority is very excited about the City's vision to create mixed used developments throughout the downtown and to integrate housing with retail services. The anticipated household growth of 4,600 additional households by 2010 will generate demand for additional affordable housing for seniors,the disabled, and working families, as well as demand for additional commercial development. The Authority is uniquely suited to assist the City in accomplishing its vision and is prepared to work with the City as it sees fit. Proposed Site Three concept plans are proposed for the site on the southeast corner of Highway 61 and 147`h Street abutting Egg Lake. The 5-acre site is large enough to accomplish several objectives: • Integrate additional park and parkway vistas along Highway 61 of Egg Lake • Create a mixed use development that provides: o Sites for multi-tenant commercial space or a single commercial user, like a restaurant o Additional housing options for Hugo residents, including senior/disabled and family housing, and owner occupied townhomes • Consolidate access points on Highway 61 • Creates pedestrian accessibility between housing, commercial areas, and nearby services like the Library Concept Plans Three concept plans are provided to generate discussion and to identify a preferred alternative. Concept A proposes a compact design of multi-story buildings immediately facing Highway 61, separated by a parkway feature that creates a view toward Egg Lake but also provides access to a , fax 651.458.1696 1 tel. 651.458.0936 1 www.wchra.com 1 321 Broadway Avenue 1 St. Paul Park, MN 55071 small park space. The street plan also provides traffic continuity from the proposed development to points south and to the area to the north. About 40,000 square feet of commercial space is proposed, which when coupled with the existing commercial space immediately to the north creates a significant node of commercial activity. Also shown is a potential layout of a 45 unit senior development. Concept B 1 proposes the redevelopment of the existing commercial development at the corner and recreating two buildings that create about 10,000 square feet of commercial space. The remainder of the site is a mixture of owner occupied townhomes and a multi-story senior housing building. A key feature of this concept is the creation of the park feature adjacent to the highway that can draw people to the site. The housing on the site would have full advantage of the view of Egg Lake. Concept B2 takes the park feature of the previous plan adjacent to the highway, and opens up a parkway view to the lake terminating in an `overlook'. The parkway effect is then flanked with housing development on the north of it, and commercial opportunities on the south side. The size of the commercial totals 15,000 square feet and 50 to 72 units of housing can be created on the property. The Authority's Services Here are some of services that the Authority can bring to the City of Hugo: • Significant experience in developing, owning and managing senior and family housing • Assistance with strategies to finance commercial development; possible gap financing opportunities • Ability to use a variety of financing tools including, issuing private and public purpose bonds • Ability to facilitate development deals with private sector developers • Provide a variety of housing programs for affordable home ownership or rental housing • Act as redeveloper for the City • Create specific financing programs for the City As you know, the Authority currently owns Mueller Manor, a 28-unit affordable senior independent living apartment complex, at 14235 Forest Boulevard. The Authority wants to continue to be an active participant in the City's future. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these plans and to participate in the City's discussion of a very exciting vision for the future. Sincerely, Barbara Dacy, AICP Executive Director fax 651.458.1696 1 tel. 651.458.0936 1 www.wchra.com 1 321 Broadway Avenue I St. Paul Park, MN 55071 City of Hugo Senior Housing Concepts ASenior Housing: 30-45 Units Commercial: 40,000 s.f. Parking: 127 + 30 Indoor = 157 Total r U's�, MW ; V c Sl All .a 3 r 4v p Pe 4 � q 111lgr �, r� Prepared for the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 3.16.06 ` City of Hugo Senior Housing Concepts Senior Housing: 45 Units B1 Townhomes: 24 Units Commercial: 10,000 s.f. Parking: 75 + 45 Indoor= 120 Total 14 1AA T . %jk4qj 6f -�► XZ 14L►4/, VA i �" /r Syt1 � r � � d ,� ----- i—�1U�n�tart,�tf.S ��...sr... .._.�..----•-- ni '4, i pvt r IWI4 Aim � MC`nIA� c .1 1 Prepared for the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 3.16.06 ��� City of Hugo Senior Housing Concepts Senior Housing: 50 Units B2Townhomes: 12 Units Commercial/Restaurant: 15,000 s.f. Parking: 70 + 50 Indoor = 120 Total 77 J �I ,CA tSl . 1 t 'S Al t 3 .../ gyp•W `4� T1(fKr/ rid 4 ^ / ��Y1ook xLL i J r �T66 yr v�Jr Late \V �i Prepared for the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 3.16.06 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Gs"pa-walw�°f ;nw � Na.�. Eminent Domain Meeting Thursday—February 28, 2006 7:30 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. Oakdale City Hall—Council Chambers 1584 Hadley Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 Agenda 1. Welcome, introductions. 2. Description of the issues. 3. Report on Legislative meetings to date. 4. Review of the Institute for Justice/MN Automobile Dealers Association Bill. 5. Review of City bill/Amendments. 6. Discussion of alternatives/options/ideas. 7. Distribution and discussion of response materials. Association of Metro Municipalities League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Ave W 145 University Ave W St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 (651) 281-1200 i Responsible Eminent Domain: A Balanced Alternative to the Institute for Justice / Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association Bill A coalition of local government organizations has drafted legislation that would preserve the responsible use of eminent domain and the ability of local governments to balance the rights of individual property owners with the needs of the community. The proposal includes substantive and procedural changes that would address the issues raised in the Kelo v.New London case and would improve Minnesota's eminent domain law for all involved. It is not only a reaction to concerns raised as a result of the Kelo decision, but also would implement improvements to eminent domain law that local officials with real-world experience using eminent domain have suggested. It is a responsible alternative to the proposal developed by the Institute for Justice(IJ) and the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association (MADA), and sponsored by Rep. Jeff Johnson and Sen. Tom Bakk. Scope and Impact of the IJ/MADA Bill • The U/MADA bill would affect acquisitions for traditional public purposes, such as roads, sewers and parks.By requiring a de novo review at the appellate level,payment of property owners' attorney fees,and automatic compensation for the loss of going concern,the IJ/MADA bill would significantly increase the cost of many public projects. • The U/MADA bill bans the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, and effectively prohibits the use of this tool for redevelopment.The proponents of the bill purport that most of the projects residents support that involve redevelopment of blighted and contaminated areas would still be able to occur under their legislation. The reality is that many of the redevelopment projects undertaken through public-private partnerships during the past decade would simply not have been possible if the U/MADA bill had been law. • The U/MADA bill creates virtually unattainable standards for determining what constitutes a "blighted area" and an "environmentally contaminated area," severely compromising the ability to assemble parcels for redevelopment.For example,a severely run-down building could not be considered"blighted"unless it had significant structural building code violations and was nearly unfit for human habitation."Blight"of this nature is extremely rare in Minnesota. Similarly,the definition of "environmentally contaminated area"contains lot coverage and remediation cost requirements that would make many clearly contaminated properties ineligible for public clean-up efforts. • On the whole, the U/MADA bill jeopardizes the viability of critical development projects that businesses and residents have made a priority in their communities. A Balanced, Alternative Proposal The proposal brought forward by the League of Minnesota Cities and other local government groups focuses on changes to current law that would address the concerns property owners have raised in response to the Kelo v. New London decision,and would strengthen accountability by creating a more transparent and predictable eminent domain process. Responsibly addresses concerns raised by the Kelo decision The local government proposal would amend redevelopment and economic development law(Minn. Stat. Chap. 469)to clarify the statutory purposes for which eminent domain may be used. Specifically,the bill: • Prohibits use of eminent domain for economic development, except when the project is funded by the State. The proposed bill would prohibit the use of eminent domain solely for economic development purposes, such as increasing tax base or employment,unless State financial assistance is involved. • Specifies the purposes for which a city or other acquiring authority may exercise eminent domain under State redevelopment and economic development laws. The proposal lists several purposes that would justify the use of eminent domain, including: public ownership or use;removing a public nuisance;remedying or improving an environmentally contaminated area;remedying or improving a blighted area;or building affordable housing. • Provides clearer, more objective, and reasonable criteria for determining "blight." This proposal would improve on current law by providing a more rigorous test for determining the existence of a "blighted area" for the purposes of eminent domain. If the legislature adopted this more objective standard, there would be no rationale for the heightened standard of court review in redevelopment cases included in the IRMADA bill. Strengthens accountability by improving the land acquisition process The local government proposal also makes changes to general eminent domain law(Chapter 117)to provide a more transparent and predictable process for property owners. Specifically,the bill: • Requires uniform appraisal and negotiation requirements for all acquisitions.Under current law, the appraisal and negotiation requirements in 117.036 apply only to acquisitions for transportation purposes. This proposal would extend these requirements to all acquisitions.For example,the bill would require that the acquiring authority obtain an appraisal of the property; allow property owners to obtain an independent appraisal and be reimbursed by the acquiring authority;and require the acquiring authority to share its appraisal with the property owner before initiating condemnation proceedings. • Establishes a definitive timeframe for individuals to appeal the public purpose of any eminent domain acquisition, and allows a court to award attorney fees to a property owner if the court finds that the acquisition is not for a public purpose.The proposal provides that a court order approving the public purpose,necessity,and authority for an eminent domain acquisition is final unless an appeal is brought within 60 days. Establishing a definitive timeframe for appeal of an order creates a more predictable process for all concerned parties. If the court finds that the acquisition is not for a public purpose, then the court may award attorney fees to the property owner. • Requires an acquiring authority to offer to sell the property to the previous owner, if a determination is made that property acquired by eminent domain has not been used and is no longer needed for a public purpose.In rare cases where the acquiring authority determines that publicly owned property acquired by eminent domain is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was originally acquired,the acquiring authority must offer to sell the property to the prior owner. This requirement would not apply if the acquiring authority has an alternative use for the property and it would remain in public ownership. • Enhances public notice and hearing requirements for acquisitions for redevelopment and economic development purposes. The bill would provide greater opportunities for public input on a proposed acquisition through a uniform public notice and hearing process.It would also require adoption of a resolution that responds to comments made at the public hearing and articulates how the acquisition serves one or more identified public purposes. • Better recognizes property owners' costs.The bill would provide additional reimbursement for certain appraisals. It would also require reimbursement for up to$50,000 in re-establishinent expenses for displaced business owners who qualify under the Federal Uniform Relocation Act. This additional reimbursement would provide further help to business owners to successfully re-establish their businesses. t SAMPLE LETTER TO LEGISLATORS Date: The Honorable Minnesota House of Representatives/Minnesota Senate Address City, State, Zip Dear Representative/Senator As you know, eminent domain has been a lively topic since the recent Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court decision upheld local government eminent domain authority to acquire property for a private use. While the Kelo decision did not expand Minnesota's eminent domain authority in any way, several bills will be introduced in the upcoming session to restrict local government eminent domain authority. Although these bills are the result of perceived abuses, cities use eminent domain sparingly and responsibly. Some facts from a League of Minnesota Cities survey: • 535 cities (84% of respondents) did not use eminent domain for any purpose from January 1999 through June 2005. • 100 cities (16% of respondents) used eminent domain in that period. Of those: ➢ 66 used eminent domain exclusively for public retention and use such as roads, utilities, and parks. ➢ 34 used eminent domain for blight or contamination removal or economic development (27 were in the core cities, inner ring suburbs or older metro area, and seven were in Greater Minnesota). The Twin Cities area enjoys a reputation as one of the most livable metro areas in the nation. This is not by accident. Civic and business leaders have devoted significant resources to support the revitalization of our metropolitan area. The beneficiaries are not only people employed in the new businesses and people who live in the new housing. They are neighboring businesses and residents. These individuals and businesses have invested in their properties and trust their municipal government to do what it can to protect that investment. When considering eminent domain legislation, we encourage you to consider the importance of redevelopment to the long-term economic and social viability of our metro area. Serious restrictions of eminent domain will very likely have serious negative consequences for these efforts. Many eminent domain actions are non-controversial and initiated to arrive at an agreeable price or tax break for a seller. It is always used as a last resort. Nevertheless, eminent domain is an important component of a city's redevelopment toolbox. We strongly encourage you to give careful review to all proposed anti-eminent domain bills this session. We would be happy to discuss this important issue with you at your convenience. Sincerely, Name City of Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 AMM: (651)215-4000 LMC: (651)281-1200 CITY OF RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MUNICIPAL EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY Whereas, the Twin Cities Metropolitan area has long been recognized as one of the most livable metro areas in the nation because of its strong urban core, livable neighborhoods and access to cultural activities; Whereas,the Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut Supreme Court decision has been used to fuel anti-eminent domain activity nationally and in Minnesota; Whereas, the Kelo ruling had no effect on Minnesota eminent domain statutes and did not in any way expand municipal eminent domain authority in Minnesota; Whereas,the state of Minnesota has granted local decision making authority to cities; Whereas, Minnesota cities have used eminent domain sparingly and judiciously throughout the state; Whereas, Metro area cities have used eminent domain for redevelopment and revitalization efforts; Whereas, redevelopment and revitalization are critical to the livability and long-term economic viability of the Metro area and the protection and enhancement of private investments in homes and businesses; Whereas, many municipal eminent domain actions are non-controversial and initiated in order to arrive at an agreeable purchase price or to provide the seller with a federal tax break; Whereas, the Johnson-Bakk eminent domain bill severely restricts the use of eminent domain for redevelopment and revitalization efforts,threatens opportunities to reinvest in our urban centers, and increases taxpayer costs. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved that the City Council of the City of strongly opposes the Johnson-Bakk eminent domain bill as unduly restrictive. Be it further resolved that eminent domain must continue to be a viable option for public-private redevelopment and reinvestment projects in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Ave W., St.Paul MN 55103-2044 AMM: 651-215-4000 LMC: 651-281-1200 EMINENT DOMAIN TALKING POINTS A few facts: • The Kelo vs. New London Connecticut case did not expand eminent domain authority in Minnesota • Minnesota Cities use eminent domain sparingly, as a last resort and overwhelmingly for traditional public uses such as roads or utilities • Primary users of eminent domain for subsequent private development are the core cities, inner-ring suburbs and older Metro Area cities • Primary use of eminent domain by these cities is for revitalization activities including blight removal and contamination cleanup • Many eminent domain actions are non-controversial and initiated in order to arrive at an agreeable purchase price or provide the seller with a federal tax break • The Twin Cities Metro Area enjoys a nationally recognized reputation for being very "livable". The reputation is due, in part, to its economically, socially and culturally vital urban core. • Our vital urban core is not an accident. The vitality is the result of on- going public and private efforts to reinvest and revitalize. Imagine our core cities and inner-ring suburbs without Medtronic, U.S. Bank, the Target Center, Xcel Center, Lawson Software and others. (Eminent domain was not used on all of these projects. But all are examples of redevelopment that will be at risk if we effectively eliminate the tool for redevelopment.) • Redevelopment activities address specific problems with specific sites. But redevelopment is also initiated to stabilize neighborhoods and business districts and protect the investments on adjacent and nearby private property Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West,St.Paul,MN 55103-2044 AMM: 651-215-4000 and LMC: 651-281-1200 i Talking points, continued Some opinions: • Supporters of the principal anti-eminent domain bill overstate the eminent domain "problem" in Minnesota in order to overreach with their "solution" • Municipal eminent domain in Minnesota is not "broken" and consequently does not need to be "fixed" • If the Legislature insists on creating a more restrictive eminent domain statute, a reasonable compromise would include: • Improving the public notice and appraisal processes • Eliminating eminent domain for job creation or tax base purposes • Creating a more descriptive definition of blight • Providing additional compensation for some business re- establishments • A sunset date for the new language in order to require a review of the impacts of restrictive language • Many cities do not use eminent domain for redevelopment activities. That is their choice. • Other cities have used eminent domain for redevelopment activities and that is, and should be, their choice. • As elected city officials, we should continue to have the freedom to make those choices because our voters hold us accountable for the decisions that we make. • Most importantly, the legislature should take the time to thoughtfully and fully discuss this critical issue before they vote on any eminent domain bill. • The eminent domain issue should be decided on fact, not fervor. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Ave W., St.Paul,MN 55103-2044 AMM: (651)215-4000 LMC: (651)281-1200 t Background Information on the Johnson/Bakk Bill (Not necessarily intended as talking points) • Municipal eminent domain activity in Minnesota does not warrant the restrictions listed in the Johnson/Bakk bill. • The principal anti-eminent domain bill (Rep Jeff Johnson/Sen Tom Bakk) includes the following: • A condemning authority must "show by clear and convincing evidence to the district court" that an eminent domain action is necessary for blight removal, contamination remediation, abandoned property removal or removal of a public nuisance. This unnecessarily high standard of review will be costly and will put our revitalization decisions in the hands of judges instead city councils and businesses. • Abandoned property is not occupied and the owner can't be identified and contacted • Blighted areas include dilapidated buildings that are "unfit for human use" — basically, buildings that are falling down or about to fall down • Environmentally contaminated area is a parcel where 50% of its surface or subsurface area contains contaminants — a standard that is impossible to determine at the early stages of a project and is not necessarily related to the cost of remediation • For blighted areas and contaminated areas, a condemning authority can only take the blighted or contaminated parcels. No unblighted or uncontaminated parcels may be condemned unless the taking is necessary to remove the blight or contamination • Public purpose for eminent domain do not include tax base increase, job creation or general community economic health • Seller's attorney's fees must be paid by the condemning authority if the final judgement exceeds a city's last written offer by 20% • In addition to value of the real estate, a condemning authority must also pay for a business "loss of going concern" if the business can't reestablish elsewhere. The burden of proof is with the city, not the business • The condemning authority is responsible to provide compensation that "at a minimum must be sufficient for an owner to purchase a similar house or building or equivalent size in the community" The bottom line is that this bill dramatically reduces when and where an eminent domain action may occur and also dramatically increases the cost of eminent domain actions. This bill will make redevelopment projects significantly harder to do, and will certainly contribute to an increase in blighted, deteriorated and contaminated properties in the Metro Area. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West, St.Paul,MN 55103-2044 AMM: 651-215-4000 LMC: 651-281-1200 Case Study Characteristics 2/22/06 • Description of the condition of the subject property • Interior and exterior photographs of the subject property • Police call information • Neighborhood complaints • Existing jobs and/or housing units on site • Documented characteristics of seller— e.g. friendly condemnation, jilted competing developer, holdout, etc • Appraisal/valuation/offer data • Settlement amount • Relocation information on displaced individuals/businesses— e.g. where are they, is their personal situation better? • Description of new uses • Interior and exterior photographs of new development and/or developer's plans • Number of new jobs and/or new housing units • Value of new development relative to values of surrounding area • Amount of private investment in the project • Spin-off development triggered by the project—Description and photos • Neighborhood reaction to new development • Voter reaction at the next election Association of Metro Municipalities and the League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West, St.Paul,MN 55103-2044 AMM: (651)215-4000 LMC: (651)281-1200 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Page 3 of 4 The symbolic gesture is related to the importance that Representative Johnson has ascribed to his reform bill. The practical reality is that the bill will be heard in several committees, so it must move at an accelerated pace in order to meet committee deadlines and pass the Legislature this session. The Johnson bill will likely be the primary "vehicle" for a final bill. The League, AMM and others are drafting a series of amendments intended to modify and moderate the Johnson bill as it proceeds through the committee process. City advocates have been meeting with several legislators, many more than once, to express our reservations about the Johnson bill and the impact it could have on future development and redevelopment activities. Most have expressed an appreciation for the municipal point of view,but almost all expect that an eminent domain reform bill of some type will pass both the House and Senate this year, and almost all have indicated they will support a reform bill. A second reform bill drafted by LMC and AMM staff, city officials and other stakeholders will be introduced later this week. The bill will be authored in the House by Representative Peter Nelson (R-Lindstrom) and in the Senate by Don Betzold (D-Fridley). The bill, HF 2895, focuses on a more open public process, increased compensation for business reestablishment, a more descriptive definition of blight,the elimination of eminent domain for strictly tax base enhancement or job creation, and a sunset date for the restrictions. Previous versions of this bill have been available through AMM News and have been described at two meetings held in St. Louis Park and Oakdale. While we are relatively confident that this bill will receive a hearing in both the House and Senate, we do not expect the bill to pass. Rather, its ultimate value may be as a relatively comprehensive menu of potential amendments to the Johnson/Bakk bills. The print and broadcast media has been covering eminent domain extensively since the Kelo vs. New London Connecticut Supreme Court decision of last summer. There will be plenty of media attention as the issue moves through the legislative process, as well. MNDOT `Roundabout' conference There has been an increased interest in roundabouts as an alternative to signaled intersections,both nationally and by local communities in Minnesota. The MN Department of Transportation (MNDOT) will hold a two-day conference on this subject on April 5-6,2006 at the Earle Brown Heritage Center in Brooklyn Park. The conference agenda and registration details are available at the Center for Transportation Studies' website at http://www.cts.umn.edu/events/roundabouts/ "Immigrants in Minnesota: three perspectives" The Council of Metropolitan Area Leagues of Women Voters (CMAL) is sponsoring a free public forum on the immigration debate that is occurring in both St. Paul and Washington, D.C. The issue may involve cities and our relationship with state and federal public safety and homeland security agencies in a variety of ways. The three panelists will be: 1) David Gaither—Chief of Staff to Governor Pawlenty 2) Bishop Peter Rogness—St. Paul Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America http://www.amm 145.org/Newsletter.htm 2/28/06 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Page 2 of 4 Supply Advisory Committee to address issues of water supply in the Twin Cities Metro area. The advisory committee, coordinated by the Met Council, and chaired by Peter Bell, has held two meetings thus far. The committee plans to meet the last Thursday of each month for the remainder of the year, with plans for a 2007 report to the Legislature. The purpose of the advisory committee will be to address the roles and responsibilities of local, regional and state government,permitting processes, safety and security, long term funding sources for ongoing water planning, and preparation for a Twin Cities Area Water Supply Master Plan. Your concerns,ideas, and suggestions will be vital to the committee's work. AMM President and Advisory Committee member Bev Aplikowski stressed the importance of the municipal perspective to members of the advisory committee at its last meeting. What should the advisory committee know?What are your city's concerns,problems, or suggestions with regard to water supply issues?AMM staff will be monitoring the work of the advisory committee and providing assistance as needed to our municipal members. Please contact Patricia Nauman with your comments and concerns. She can be reached at(651)215-4002 or by email patriciaCamm.145.org MVST constitutional amendment The AMM recently sent to our members a sample resolution supporting the passage of the MVST amendment in its current form as passed by the Legislature last year. Seven cities have passed resolutions of support. We look forward to additional support from local municipalities for this amendment. Currently,there is a broad coalition(222 members)supporting the MVST amendment. Grassroots recruitment kits are available through the Transportation Alliance to help cities provide citizen information and outreach on this important issue. On Monday, March 13th, transportation advocates will be holding a Transportation Day at the Capital. A kick-off rally is planned for 10:00 a.m. in the Capitol Rotunda. The rally will feature a broad range of speakers who will talk about the importance of investing in Minnesota's transportation system as well as support for the constitutional amendment. Eminent Domain will be heard on March 1st As both a symbolic and practical gesture,the first bill to be heard in the House Civil Law Committee will be Representative Jeff Johnson's(R-Plymouth)eminent domain reform bill. Tom Bakk(D-Cook) authors the companion bill in the Senate. The Johnson bill would, in our estimation, seriously curtail the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, eliminate its use for economic development and increase the cost for traditional public purposes. The bill will likely be voted out of committee on Wednesday and referred to the House Public Safety committee, chaired by Representative Steve Smith(R-Mound),where it will be heard on Friday. It is also likely that the bill will be voted out of that committee after one hearing. From there, the bill will likely go to the House Local Government Committee, chaired by Mark Olson(R-Big Lake). http: /www.amml45.org/Newsletter.htm 2/28/06 I LIN, % Mark Ourada (R), former Former senator Dave Terri Bonoff,aformervice Aweek before the special state senator from Kleis (R) made a president at Tonka Toys, election in St. Cloud, the Buffalo, Minnesota, successful run for mayor challenged Plymouth Supreme Court agreed resigned his seat after 11 of St. Cloud and resigned Mayor Judy Johnson with a lower court ruling years in the legislature. his seat in November (R) for the open seat in that Sue Ek (R) had not He is now working in 2005. Dan Ochsner (R), Senate District 43. David been a resident of St. external affairs for the a St. Cloud radio person- Gaither (R) left office Cloud long enough to Center for Energy and ality, challenged DFL after being appointed be on the ballot. Her Economic Development candidate Tarryl Clark. chief of,staff in the office mother, Kay Ek (R), was in Alexandria, Virginia. Clark, who came close of Governor Pawlenty. a write-in candidate, but PAGE The special election to defeating Kleis in the Johnson was considered could not muster enough to fill the vacancy was 2002 election, defeated the favorite in the race, momentum to take on held in November 2005. Ochsner by a margin but Bonoff prevailed in a Larry Haws (DFL), who Without surprise to of nearly 20%. Clark 54-45%victory. ■ won the race with 71% of those monitoring the is a former commis- the vote. Haws replaces race, the Republicans sioner of the Housing Joe Opatz (DFL) in the held on to the seat, and Redevelopment Minnesota House, who electing Amy Koch. Authority of St. Cloud left his seat after 13 years Koch is an Air Force and has been a long-time to head the Central Lakes veteran and long-time activist with the DFL. ■ College in Brainerd. ■ Republican activist. She won in a three-way race with 52% of the vote. ■ EMINENT DOMAIN LECISLATION M Continued From Page I move toward a vision for the future. These groups requested to hear the proposals. These committees argue that minor changes to the eminent domain will have to hear the proposals within the first four procedures will ensure that cities retain the authority weeks, as the first legislative deadline has been to respond to local concerns and priorities, while set for March 28. Achieving reform during the protecting property owners from abusive use of the 2006 legislative session will require cooperation power. on the part of the authors, interest groups and legislative staff. The legislation authored by Representative Johnson and Senator Bakk has a long road ahead of it. In a Stay tuned for more information on the issue of session that is intended to run under 12 weeks, a eminent domain throughout the session. ■ number of committees in the House and Senate have Larkin A, Hoffipan , RNEYS Published by the Government Relations Group SESSION PREVIEW2006 Eminent Domain Legislation EDITOR'S CORNER Out In Front Peter Coyle Julie Perrus Welcome to the 2006 edition of The decision by the U.S. Supreme development purposes. The bill C'apitolWatch! This pre-session Court this summer in Kelo v. City of requires elected officials to make edition kicks off our eleventh year New London solidified the ability of the final decisions regarding the of bringing timely updates on the governmental units to utilize the use of eminent domain during open progress of the Minnesota legislature power of eminent domain, often meetings in order to ensure an to you, our valued clients, friends called a taking, for economic devel- open process and accountability. In and political observers. This year's opment purposes. The Court held addition, it includes a provision legislative session will be different that promoting economic devel- that allows those affected by a from prior years in that it will be opment is a long-accepted taking to recoup attorney's fees in more compressed, commencing government function and that there situations where the government officially on March lsr and ending is no principled way to distinguish has undervalued a home or business it from other public uses that have by more than 20%. on the constitutional adjourn- been recognized by the courts, ment date of May 22, 2006. The including roads, schools and session's compact time frame will utilities. Many argue that the not, however, limit the Fireworks, decision does not herald much due to the fact that in November change for Minnesota, since the The legislation all statewide constitutional offices decision affirms what was already and legislative seats will be facing stated by Minnesota's highest court has a long goad an election. This ongoing experi- in the Walser v. City of Richfield ment with democracy virtually case. Others, however, argue that ensures that some level of partisan while the decisions are similar, the ahead o Zt. . . Kelo case will embolden local brinksmanship will occur, albeit in a authorities to use eminent domain shorter span of time. to take private land and transfer it to other private interests for any This issue of CapitolWatch includes reason. profiles of several issues likely to garner attention by legislators in Representative Jeff Johnson (R, The League of Minnesota Cities, the the coming weeks. Most notable Plymouth) and Senator Tom Bakk Association of Metropolitan among these will be an effort to (DFL, Cook) have agreed to author Municipalities, and other public reign in the government's use of legislation in 2006 that is supported groups are encouraging responsible eminent domain to acquire private by Minnesotans for Eminent Domain changes to the eminent domain property for economic develop- Reform, a coalition of interest statutes in Minnesota. They argue ment purposes. The U.S. Supreme groups that includes the Minnesota that redevelopment and economic Court's decision in Kelo a City of Auto Dealers Association, the development projects are critical to New London ratified Minnesota law Minnesota Farmers Union, the the long-term sustainability of Minneapolis Urban League, former Minnesota cities and that cities use regarding the use of condemnation Congressman Tim Penny and a host eminent domain responsibly. They by governmental bodies, but it has of others. The bill redefines the are concerned that any major limits set off a firestorm in Minnesota terms "public use" and "blight" in on the ability to use eminent domain and across the country. Bipartisan ways that will limit the use of will affect a community's ability to support exists in the state capitol to eminent domain for purely economic a Continued on page 3 __U111 Continued on page 4 ©2006 Larkin Hoffman Daly&Lindgren Ltd. 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 This Document can be made available in alternative formats upon request State of Minnesota HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-FOURTH Q n C SESSION HOUSE Fu.E No. 895 February 16,2006 Authored byNelson.P.; and Lanning The bill was read for the first time and Interim introduction,referred to Civil Law and Elections 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to eminent domain;providing for and regulating the use of eminent 1.3 domain;providing for-notice,hearing,appeal,and other procedural requirements; 1.4 allowing attorney fees under certain conditions;providing for a right of first 1.5 refusal; providing.definitions; making clarifying, conforming, and technical 1.6 changes; amending Minnesota Statutes 2004, sections 117.036; 117.055; 1.7 117.075,by adding subdivisions; 117.085; 117.51; 117.52, subdivision 1,by 1.9 adding a subdivision; 163.12, subdivisions la, lb; 469.012, subdivision 1g; 1.9 proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes;chapters 117; 469. 1.10 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.11 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 117.036,is amended to read: 1.12 117.036 APPRAISAL AND NEGOTIATION REQUIREMENTS 1.13 iNaPPLICABLE TO AC-QTASITION OF PROPERTY FOR TRANSPORTATION 1.14 ;fes' S. 1.15 Subdivision 1. Application. This section applies to the acquisition of property 1.16 for public highways, streets,roads, , or for otl 1.17 under this chapter. 1.18 Subd. 2. Appraisal. (a)Before commencing an eminent domain proceeding under 1.19 this chapter,the acquiring authority must obtain at least one appraisal for the property 1.20 proposed to be acquired. In making the appraisal,the appraiser must confer with one or 1.21 more of the fee owners or contract purchasers of the property,if reasonably possible. 1.22 At least Notwithstanding section 13.44 or any other law to the contrary,the acquiring 1.23 authority must provide the fee owner or contract purchaser with a copy of the appraisal t 1.24 at the time an offer is made,but no later than 20 days before presenting a petition under 1.25 section 117.055, 1.26 appraisal and inform the -wne, of the owner'sfee owner or contract purchaser of the right Section 1. 1 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 2.1 to obtain an appraisal under this section. Upon request,the acquiring authority must make 2.2 available to the fee owner or contract purchaser all appraisals of the property. 23 (b) The fee owner or contract purchaser may obtain an appraisal by a qualified 2.4 appraiser of the property proposed to be acquired. The fee owner or contract purchaser 2.5 is entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable costs of the appraisal from the acquiring 2.6 authority up to a maximum of$1,500 for single family and 2.7 two-family residential property,agricultural property, and minimum damage acquisitions 2.8 and$5,000 for other types of property,provided that the fee owner or contract purchaser 2.9 submits to the acquiring authority the information necessary for reimbursement,provided 2.10 including a copy of the fee owner's or contract purchaser's 2.11 appraisal,within 669 days after the o'Nner mccives receiving the appraisal from the 2.12 authority under paragraph(a)and at least 30 days before a condemnation commissioners' 2.13 hearing. For purposes of this paragraph, a "minimum damage acquisition"means an 2.14 interest in property that a qualified person with appraisal knowledge indicates can be 2.15 acquired for a cost of$10,000 or less. For purposes of this paragraph, "agricultural 2.16 property"has the meaning given in section 583.22,subdivision 2. 2.17 (e)The acquiring authority must pay the reimbursement to the fee owner or contract 2.18 purchaser within 30 days after receiving a copy of the appraisal and the reimbursement 2.19 information. Upon agreement between the acquiring authority and either the fee owner 2.20 or contract purchaser, the acquiring authority may pay the reimbursement directly to 2.21 the appraiser. 2.22 Subd. 3. Negotiation. In addition to the appraisal requirements under subdivision 2, 2.23 before commencing an eminent domain proceeding,the acquiring authority must make a 224 good faith attempt to negotiate personally with the fee owner or contract purchaser of the 2.25 property in order to acquire the property by direct purchase instead of the use of eminent 2.26 domain proceedings. In making this negotiation,the acquiring authority must consider 2.27 the appraisals in its possession,including any appraisal obtained and furnished by the fee 2.28 owner or contract purchaser if available, and other information that may be relevant to a 229 determination of damages under this chapter. 2.30 Subd. 4. Condemnation commissioners' hearing.Notwithstanding section 13.44, .231 an appraisal must not be used or considered in a condemnation commissioners' hearing, 2.32 nor may the appraiser who prepared the appraisal testify,unless a copy of the appraiser's 2.33 written report is provided to the opposing party at least five days before the hearing. 2.34 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 117.055,is amended to read: 2.35 117.055 PETITION AND NOTICE. Sec. 2. 2 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 3.1 Subdivision 1. Petition. In all cases a petition,describing the desired land,stating by 3.2 whom and for what purposes it is proposed to be taken,and giving the names of all persons 3.3 appearing of record or known to the petitioner to be the owners thereof shall be presented 3.4 to the district court of the county in which the land is situated praying for the appointment 3.5 of commissioners to appraise the damages which may be occasioned by such taking. 3.6 Subd. 2. Notice. LaINotice of the objects of the petition and of the time and place of 3.7 presenting the same shall be served at Ieast 20 days before such time of presentation upon 3.8 all persons named in the petition as owners as defined in section 117.025,subdivision 3, 3.9 and upon all occupants of such land in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. 3.10 (b)The notice must state that: (1) a party wishing to challenge the public purpose, 3.11 necessity,or authority for a taking must appear at the court hearing and state the objection; 3.12 (2) failure to appear and object is deemed a waiver of any objection; and(3) a court order 3.13 approving the public purpose,necessity, and authority for the taking is final unless an 3.14 appeal is brought within 60 days after service of the order on the party. 3.15 Li�)_If any such owner be not a resident of the state,or the owner's place of residence 3.16 be unknown to the petitioner, upon the filing of an affidavit of the petitioner or the 3.17 petitioner's agent or attomey, stating that the petitioner believes that such owner is not 3.18 a resident of the state, and that the petitioner has mailed a copy of the notice to the 3.19 owner at the owner's place of residence, or that after diligent inquiry the owner's place 3.20 of residence cannot be ascertained by the affiant, then service may be made upon such 3.21 owner by three weeks' published notice. If the state be an owner, the notice shall be 3.22 served upon the attorney general. Any owner not served as herein provided shall not be 3.23 bound by such proceeding except upon voluntarily appearing therein. Any owner shall 3.24 be furnished a right-of-way map or plat of all that part of land to be taken upon written 3.25 demand,provided that the petitioner shall have ten days from the receipt of the demand 3.26 within which to furnish the same. Any plans or profiles which the petitioner has shall be 3.27 made available to the owner for inspection. 3.28 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 117.075,is amended by adding a subdivision 3.29 to read: 3.30 Subd. la. Appeal of order. A party wishing to challenge the public purpose, 3.31 necessity,or authority for a taking must appear at the court hearing required by subdivision 3.32 1 and state the objection. Failure to appear and object is deemed a waiver of any objection. 3:33 A court order approving the public purpose,necessity,and authority for the taking is final 3.34 unless an appeal is brought within 60 days after service of the order on the party. Sec. 3. 3 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 4.1 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 117.075,is amended by adding a subdivision 4.2 to read: 4.3 Subd. lb. Attorney fees. If the court determines that a taking is not for a public 4.4 purpose or is unlawful,the court may award the owner reasonable attorney fees. 4.5 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 117.085,is amended to read: 4.6 117.085 COMMISSIONERS,POWERS,DUTIES. 4.7 The commissioners,having been duly sworn and qualified according to law, shall 4.8 meet as directed by the order of appointment and hear the allegations and proofs of all 4.9 persons interested touching the matters to them committed. They may adjourn from time 4.10 to time and from place to place within the county,giving oral notice to those present of 4.11 the time and place of their next meeting. All testimony taken by them shall be given 4.12 publicly, under oath, and in their presence. They shall view the premises,and any of 4.13 them may subpoena witnesses,which shall be served as subpoenas in civil actions are 4.14 served, and at the cost of the parties applying therefor. If deemed necessary, they may 4.15 require the petitioner or owner to furnish for their use maps,plats, and other information 4.16 which the petitioner or owner may have showing the nature, character, and extent of the 4.17 proposed undertaking and the situation of lands desired therefor. In proper cases they may 4.18 reserve to the owner a right-of-way or other privilege in or over the land taken, or attach 4.19 reasonable conditions to such taking in addition to the damages given or they may make 4.20 an alternative award,conditioned upon the granting or withholding of the right specified. 4.21 Without unreasonable delay they shall make a separate assessment and award of the 4.22 damages which in their judgment will result to each of the owners of the land by reason 4.23 of such taking and report the same to the court. The commissioners shall not reduce the 4.24 amount of the damages awarded because the land being taken is,at the time of the taking, 4.25 valued under section 273.111,designated as an agricultural preserve under chapter 473H. 4.26 The commissioners,in all such proceedings,may in their discretion allow and show 4.27 separately in addition to the award of damages,reasonable appraisal fees not to exceed a 4.28 total of$566$1,500 for single family and two-family residential property, agricultural 4.29 property, and minimum damage acquisitions and$5,000 for other types of property. Upon 4.30 request of an owner the commissioners shall show in their report the amount of the award 4.31 of damages which is to reimburse the owner and tenant or lessee for the value of the land 4.32 taken, and the amount of the award of damages,if any,which is to reimburse the owner 4.33 and tenant or lessee for damages to the remainder involved,whether or not described in 4.34 the petition. The amounts awarded to each person shall also be shown separately. The 4.35 commissioners shall,if requested by any party,make an express finding of the estimated Sec. 5. 4 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 5.1 cost of removal and remedial actions that will be necessary on the taken property because 5.2 of existing environmental contamination. 5.3 Sec. 6. [117.2261 RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. 5.4 (a)If the governing body of the acquiring authority determines that publicly owned 5.5 property acquired under this chapter has not been used and is no longer needed for the 5.6 purpose for which it was originally acquired;the authority must offer to sell the property 5.7 to the owner from whom it was acquired. If the former owner can be located,the acquiring 5.8 authority must offer to sell the property at the current fair market value of the property. If 5.9 the current fair market value is less than what the acquiring authority paid for the property, 5.10 the acquiring authority must offer to sell the property for the amount that the acquiring 5.11 authority paid when it originally acquired the property. 5.12 (b)The acquiring authority must attempt to locate the former owner by: 5.13 (1) sending notice of the right of first refusal by first class mail to the last known 5.14 address of the former owner, and 5.15 (2)providing two weeks'published notice of the right of first refusal in a newspaper 5.16 of general circulation. 5.17 (c) If the former owner cannot be Iocated or declines to repurchase the property 5.18 within 60 days of providing the notice described in paragraph(b),the acquiring authority 5.19 shall prepare a certificate attesting to the same and record the certificate in the office of the 5.20 county recorder or county registrar of titles, as appropriate,to evidence the termination of 5.21 the right of first refusal. 5.22 (d) This section shall not apply: 5.23 (1) if the acquiring authority has an alternative use for the property and the property 5.24 would remain in public ownership; or 5.25 (2)to acquisitions of property for transportation purposes made by the commissioner 5.26 of transportation. 5.27 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 117.51,.is amended to read: 5.28 117.51 COOPERATION WITH FEDERAL AUTHORITIES. 529 In all acquisitions undertaken by any acquiring authority and in all voluntary 5.30 rehabilitation carried out by a person pursuant to acquisition or as a consequence thereof, 5.31 the acquiring authority shall cooperate to the fullest extent with federal departments and 5.32 agencies, and it shall take all necessary action in order to insure,to the maximum extent 5.33 possible,federal financial participation in any and all phases of acquisition,including the 5.34 provision of relocation assistance,services,payments and benefits to displaced persons. Sec. 7. 5 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 6.1 tip to b f 6.2 6.3 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 117.52,subdivision 1,is amended to read: 6.4 Subdivision.1. Lack of federal funding. In all acquisitions undertaken by any 6.5 acquiring authority and in all voluntary rehabilitation carried out by a person pursuant 6.6 to acquisition or as a consequence thereof,in which, due to the lack of federal financial 6.7 participation,relocation assistance, services,payments and benefits under the Uniform 6.8 Relocation.Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,United States 6.9 Code, title 42, sections 4601 to 4655, as amended by the Surface Transportation and 6.10 Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, Statutes at Large,volume 101,pages 246 6.11 to 256 (1987), are not available,the acquiring authority,as a cost of acquisition, shall 6.1z provide all relocation assistance,services,payments and benefits required by the Uniform 6.13 Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended by 6.14 the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987,and those 6.15 regulations adopted pursuant thereto,and either(1)in effect as 'of d,19&g January 1, 6.16 2006, or(2)becoming effective after ftily-1�January 1,2006, following a public 6.17 hearing and comment. Comments received by an acquiring authority within 30 days after 6.18 the public hearing must be reviewed and a written response provided to the individual or 6.19 organization who initiated the comment. The response and comments may be addressed in 6.20 another public hearing by the acquiring authority before approval. 6.21 Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 117.52,is amended by adding a subdivision to 6.22 read: 6.23 Subd. la. Reestablishment costs limit. For purposes of relocation benefits paid in 6.24 accordance with this section,the limitation in Code of Federal Regulations,title 49,section 6.25 24.304,with respect to reimbursement of reestablishment expenses for nonresidential 6.26 moves, an acquiring authority shall reimburse up to$50,000 for such expenses: 6.27 Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 163.12,subdivision la,is amended to read: 6.28 Subd. la. Petition,notice, and access to information. (a)Upon passage of the 6.29 resolution specified in section 163.1 1, subdivision 2, a petition must be presented to the 6.30 district court of the county in which the land is located. The petition must describe each 6.31 tract of land through which the highway passes, state the purposes for which the land is 6.32 proposed to be taken, and list the names of all persons appearing of record or known to 6.33 the county to be the landowners. Sec. 10. 6 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 7.1 (b)Notice of the objects of the petition and of the time and place of presenting the 7.2 notice must be served,.together with a copy of the resolution,upon each occupant of 7.3 each tract of land through which the highway passes at least 20 days before the hearing 7.4 under subdivision lb. If an owner is not a resident of the state, or the owner's place of 7.5 residence is unknown to the county, service may be made by three weeks' published 7.6 notice following the filing of an affidavit on behalf of the county by the county's agent or 7.7 attorney stating that the county: 7.8 (1)believes that the owner is not a resident of the state; and 7.9 (2)has either mailed a copy of the notice to the ownerat the owner's last known 7.10 residence address or, after diligent inquiry, the owner's place of residence cannot be 7.11 ascertained by the county. 7.12 If the state is an owner,the notice must be served upon the attorney general. An owner 7.13 not served as provided in this subdivision is not bound by the proceeding, except if the 7.14 owner voluntarily appears in the proceeding. 7.15 (c) Within ten days of an owner's demand, the owner must be furnished a 7.16 right-of-way map or plat of all that part of the owner's land to be taken. Any applicable 7.17 plans or profiles that the county possesses must be made available to the owner for 7.18 inspection. 7.19 (d)The notice must state that: (1) a party wishing to challenge the public purpose, 7.20 necessity, or authority for the taking must appear at the court hearing and state the 7.21 objection; (2)failure to appear and object is deemed a waiver of any objection; and(3) a 7.22 court order approving the public purpose,necessity,and authority for the taking is final 7.23 unless an appeal is brought within 60 days after service of the order on the party. 7.24 Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 163.12,subdivision Ib,is amended to read: 7.25 Subd. lb. Finding of necessity. When proof of service of the notice required in 7.26 subdivision 1 a is filed with the court,the court shall,hear all competent evidence offered 7.27 for or against granting the petition at the time and place fixed in the notice or otherwise set 7.28 by the court. On finding that the proposed taking is necessary and authorized by law the 7.29 court shall order the proceedings to commence pursuant to the remaining provisions of 7.30 this section. The court order finding the taking necessary and authorized by law is a final 7.31 order and must be appealed within 60 days from its service on the party. 7.32 Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2004,section 469.012,subdivision Ig,is amended to read: 7.33 Subd. Ig. Get property; eminent domain. (a)An authority may,within its area of 7.34 operation,acquire real or personal property or any interest therein by gifts,grant,purchase, Sec. 12. 7 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 8.1 exchange,lease,transfer,bequest, devise,or otherwise, and by the exercise of the power 8.2 of eminent domain,in the manner provided by chapter 117, acquire real property which it 8.3 may deem necessary for its purposes,after the adoption by it of a resolution declaring that 8.4 the acquisition of the real property. is necessary: 8.5 (1)to eliminate one or more of the conditions found to exist in the resolution adopted 8.6 pursuant to section 469.003 or to provide decent,safe, and sanitary housing for persons 8.7 of low and moderate income; or 8.8 (2)to carry out a redevelopment project. 8.9 (b)Real property needed or convenient for a project may be acquired by the 8.10 authority for the project by condemnation pursuant to this section and section 469.401. 8.11 8.12 , thu governing body of the authotity nrast hold it ptrblie hewing on th 8.13 proposed acquisition afte, published not' of genered efiCt2lation in the 8.14 IMIllicipality,which intistbeinadcat lc=t One time not less thmi tell clays 1101 11101e dian 8.15 816 8.17 cxn6ae of die atithority's powers of erninent domain. Not less fliftit ten day-s before 8.18 licaring,notice of the hearing nitist also be mailed to die owner of each pareel prop 8.19 to be acquirecl,but fail-are to give mailed notice or any defects in the notiec does riot 8.20 , 8.21 in accordance with section 429.03 1, , 8.22 {d}_Lcj Property acquired by condemnation under this section may include any 8.23 property devoted to a public use,whether or not held in trust,notwithstanding that the 8.24 property may have been previously acquired by condemnation or is owned by a public 8.25 utility corporation,because the public use in conformity with the provisions of sections 8.26 469.001 to 469.047 shall be deemed a superior public use. Property devoted to a public 827 use may be so acquired only if the governing body of the municipality has approved 8.28 its acquisition by the authority. 8.29 {cj�An award of compensation shall not be.increased by reason of any increase 8.30 in the value of the real property caused by the assembly, clearance or reconstruction, or 8.31 proposed assembly, clearance or reconstruction for the purposes of sections 469.001 8.32 to 469.047 of the real property in an area. 8.33 Sec. 13. [469.4011 ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN UNDER THIS 8.34 CHAPTER. Sec. 13. 8 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 9.1 Subdivision 1. Application. Sections 469.401 to 469.403 apply to the exercise of 9.2 eminent domain powers by a condemning authority under this chapter if the property 9.3 interest to be acquired by eminent domain is intended to be sold,transferred,or otherwise 9.4 conveyed to a person or nongovernmental entity without the power of eminent domain. 9.5 Subd. 2. Public hearing and notice required. Prior to adoption of a resolution 9.6 authorizing the use of eminent domain, the,governing body of the condemning authority 9.7 must hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition after published notice in a 9.8 newspaper of general circulation in the governing body's jurisdiction and on the governing 9.9 body's Web site,if applicable,which must be made at least one time not less than two mo weeks nor more than 60 days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice must reasonably 9.11 describe the property interest to be acquired, state that the purpose of the hearing is to 9.12 consider acquisition by eminent domain,state that comments may be submitted orally 9.13 at the hearing or in writing prior to or at the hearing, and specify an address to which 9.14 written comments may be mailed.Not less than two weeks before the hearing,notice of 9.15 the hearing must also be mailed to the owner of each parcel proposed to be acquired,but 9.16 defects in the notice do not invalidate the acquisition. For the purpose of giving mailed 9.17 notice,owners are determined as provided by section 429.031, subdivision 1,paragraph 9.18 (a). The resolution authorizing the use of eminent domain must not be adopted at the same 9.19 meeting or on the same day as the public hearing. 9.20 Subd. 3. Resolution. The resolution authorizing the use of eminent domain must: 9.21 (1)identify and describe the public benefits that are known or expected to result 9.22 from the program or project for which the property interest is proposed to be acquired; 9.23 (2)identify and describe the private benefits that are known or expected to result 9.24 from the anticipated conveyance of the property interest proposed to be acquired; 9.25 (3) summarize and respond to any oral comments made at the public hearing or 9.26 written comments received at or prior to the public hearing; and 9.27 (4)address how the acquisition of the property interest serves one or more identified 9.28 public purposes and why the acquisition of the property is reasonably necessary to 9.29 accomplish those purposes. 9.30 Subd_ 4. Summary of findings. The governing body of a condemning authority 9.31 must summarize the findings adopted in the resolution authorizing the use of eminent 9.32 domain in the notice of petition required under section 117.055. 9.33 Sec. 14. f469.4021 DEFINITIONS. 9.34 Subdivision 1. Scope. For purposes of sections 469.401 to 469.403, the following 9.35 terms have the meanings given to them. Sec. 14. 9 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 10.1 Subd. 2. Abandoned. "Abandoned"means that at least 75 percent of a building's 10.2 area has been substantially unoccupied for at least one year prior to the date of inclusion 10.3 in a blighted area. 10.4 Subd. 3. Blighted area. "Blighted area" is an area where the condemning authority 10.5 finds that the conditions provided in clauses(a), (b), and(c) exist: 10.6 (a)the land is or has been in urban use; 10.7 (b) at least one of the following conditions exist: 10.8 (1) 50 percent or more of the buildings in the area are structurally substandard 10.9 or abandoned or a combination thereof; 10.10 (2)30 percent or more of the parcels in the area constitute an environmentally 10.11 contaminated area; or 10.12 (3) (i)20 percent or more of the buildings in the area are structurally substandard 10.13 or abandoned or a combination thereof, and(ii)an additional 30 percent or more of the 10.14 buildings in the area are obsolete as evidenced by lack of investment based on limited 10.15 building permits for repair or improvements in the previous five years; and 10.16 (c)at least one of the following conditions is present: 10.17 (1) diversity of ownership or defective or unusual conditions of title prevent the i0.1s free alienability of land within the area; 10.19 (2) there is inadequate infrastructure in the area; 10.20 (3) the crime rate in the area is higher than in the remainder of the county or 10.21 municipality; 10.22 (4)30 percent of the tax parcels have had delinquent taxes or special assessments for 10.23 a period of two years or more prior to inclusion in the area; or 10.24 (5)negative market conditions exist in the area. 10.25 Subd. 4. Environmentally contaminated area. "Environmentally contaminated 10.26 area" means: 10.27 (1) any parcel that would be eligible for contamination cleanup grants from: (i)the 10.28 Department of Employment and Economic Development's contamination cleanup grant 10.29 account under section 1161552 subdivision 3 or 116J.554,subdivision 2, clause (2); or 10.30 (ii)the Metropolitan Council's tax base revitalization account under section 473.252;or 10.31 (2) an area that qualifies as a soils condition district under section 469.174, 10.32 subdivision 19. 10.33 Subd. 5. Inadequate infrastructure. "Inadequate infrastructure"means any 10.34 publicly owned physical infrastructure including sanitary sewer systems,water systems, 10.35 streets wastewater treatment and pretreatment systems storm water management systems, 10.36 natural gas systems and electric utility systems which are inadequate to serve either Sec. 14. 10 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 11.1 existing or projected users in the blightedarea because the system is undersized does not 11.2 meet current design standards,or is significantly deteriorated. 11.3 Subd. 6. Market area. "Market area" ineans the geographic or locational 11.4 delineation of the market for a specific category of real estate. 11.5 Subd. 7. Negative market conditions. "Negative market conditions"are evidenced 11.6 by one or more of the following factors for similarly classified property: (1)market values 11.7 are lower than in the.remainder of the market area are increasing at rates materially lower 11.8 than in the remainder of the market area,or are decreasing compared to the remainder of 11.9 the market area; (2)vacancy rates are higher than in the remainder of the market area; 11.10 or(3) other comparable evidence of negative market conditions in the blighted area 11.11 compared to the market area as a whole. 11.12 Subd. 8. Public nuisance. "Public nuisance"has the meaning given in section 11.13 609.74. 11.14 Subd. 9. Structurally substandard. "Structurally substandard"means a building 11.15 that contains defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential 11.16 utilities and facilities,light and ventilation and fire protection including adequate egress, 11.17 which significant defects or deficiencies justify substantial renovation or clearance. A 11.18 building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code 11.19 applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of 11.20 less than 20 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage 11.21 and type on the site. The municipality or condemning authority may find that a building is 11.22 not disqualified as structurally substandard under the previous sentence on the basis of 11.23 reasonably available evidence,such as the size,type, and age of the building,the average 11.24 cost of plumbing,electrical, or structural repairs,or other similar reliable evidence. The 11.25 municipality or the condemning authority may not make such a determination without an 11.26 interior inspection of the property,but need not have any independent,expert appraisal 11.27 prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection 11.28 of the property isnot required,if the municipality finds that: (1)the municipality or 11.29 condemning authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to 11.30 obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and(2)the evidence 11.31 otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard. 11.32 Items of evidence that support such a conclusion include recent fire or police inspections, 11.33 on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections,exterior evidence of deterioration, 11.34 or other similar reliable evidence. Written documentation of the findings and reasons why 11.35 an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained. Failure of a building Sec. 14. 11 02/13/06 REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 12.1 to be disqualified under the provisions of this subdivision is a necessary,but not sufficient 12.2 condition by itself,to determine that the building is substandard. 12.3 Sec. 15. (469.4031 LIMITATION ON USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. 12.4 Subdivision 1. Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,no 12.5 condemning authority under this chapter may exercise the power of eminent domain if the 12.6 property interest to be acquired is intended to be sold,transferred,or otherwise conveyed 12.7 to a person or nongovernmental entity without the power of eminent domain,unless the 12.8 condemning authority finds that the use of eminent domain is necessary to accomplish one 12.9 or more of the purposes in subdivision 2. 12.10 Subd. 2. Purposes. For purposes of carrying out the powers and authority provided 12.11 under this chapter, a condemning authority with the power of eminent domain under 12.12 this chapter may exercise that power to acquire land to accomplish one or more of the 12.13 following purposes: 12.14 (a)the possession, occupation, or enjoyment of the land by the general public or 12.15 by public agencies; 12.16 (b)to remedy a public nuisance; 12.17 (c)to carry out a program to remedy or improve an environmentally contaminated 12.18 area, 12.19 (d)to carry out a program to remedy or improve a blighted area; or 12.20 (e)to facilitate development of housing for low or moderate income persons as 12.21 defined under any federal, state, or local program. 12.22 Subd. 3. Economic development. The public benefits of economic development, 12.23 including an increase in tax base tax revenues employment, or general economic health, 12.24 shall not by themselves constitute a public purpose except as provided in subdivision 4. 12.25 Subd. 4. Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a condemning 12.26 authority under this chapter may condemn property if one or more of the following forms 12.27 of financial assistance are present: 12.28 (1)a grant awarded by a state agency for economic development related purposes,if 12.29 a single business receives$200,000 or more of the grant proceeds; 12.30 (2) a grant award to local units of government or development authorities_under 12.31 sections 116J.551, 116J.559, 116J.571,and 116J.8731; 12.32 (3)a loan or the guaranty or purchase of a loan made by a state agency for economic 12.33 development related purposes if a single business receives$500,000 or more of the loan 12.34 proceeds; Sec. 15. 12 02/13/06 . REVISOR JSK/CG 06-5594 13.1 (4) a reduction, credit, or abatement of a tax assessed under chapter 297A or 290 13.2 where the tax reduction,credit, or abatement applies to a geographic area smaller than the 13.3 entire state and was granted for economic development related purposes; or 13.4 (5)an appropriation by the legislature to acquire or better property,in whole or in 13.5 part, with the proceeds of state general obligation bonds authorized to be issued under 13.6 article XI,section 5, clause(a) of the Minnesota Constitution. 13.7 Financial assistance does not include payments by the state of aids and credits under 13.8 chapter 273 or 477A to a political subdivision. 13.9 Subd. 5. Disclosure. All applicants must indicate on applications for financial 13.10 assistance under subdivision 4 whether the use of eminent domain may necessary to 13.11 acquire property for the project. 13.12 Sec. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE. 13.13 Sections 1 to 6 and 10 and 11 are effective for condemnation proceedings that 13.14 are commenced on or after August 1, 2006. Sections 7, 8,and 9 are effective for all 13.15 acquisitions in which the initial notice of eligibility is given on or after August 1, 13.16 2006. Sections 12 to 15 apply to any property that is included in a redevelopment plan 13.17 established on or after August 1,2006. 13.18 Sec. 17. SUNSET. 13.19 Sections 14 and 15 expire January 1, 2009. Sec. 17. 13 SENATE JOBS,HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Chair: Ellen Anderson(D) 296-5537 Use mailing address RM 120 Capitol Vice Chair: Thomas Bakk(D) 296-8881 Use mailing address RM 226 Capitol Michele M.Bachmann(R) 296-4351 sen.michele.bachmann nsenate.mn RM 141 SOB Tarryl Clark(D) 296-6455 Use mailing address RM 303 Capitol D. Scott Dibble(D) 296-4191 sen.scott.dibble(a,,senate.mn RM 111 Capitol Chris Gerlach(R) 296-4120 senxhris. erg lach(i�senate.mn RM 107 SOB Steve Kelley(D) 297-8065 Use mailing address RM 205 Capitol Gary W.Kubly(D) 296-5094 sen.gary.kubly(di senate.mn RM 306 Capitol James P. Metzen (D) 2964370 sen.jim.metzen@senate.mn RM 322 Capitol Sandra L.Pappas (D) 296-1802 Use mailing address RM 120 Capitol Julie A. Rosen 296-5713 sen.julie.rosenasenate.mn RM G-23 SOB Carrie L.Ruud(R) 2964913 sen.carrie.ruud@senate.mn RM 109 SOB Tom Saxhaug(D) 2964136 sen.tom.saxhaug(i senate.mn RM 124 Capitol David H. Senjem(R) 296-3903 sen.david.seniemAsenate.mn RM 145 SOB Dan Sparks(D) 296-9248 sen.daniel.Marks@senate.mn RM G-24 Capitol SENATE TAXES COMMITTEE Chair: Lawrence J.Pogemiller-D 296-7809 sen.larrypogemiller(a)senate.mn RM 235 Capitol Vice Chair: David J.Tomassoni-D296-8017 sen.david.tomassoniAasenate.mn RM 321 Capitol William V.Belanger(R) 296-5975 sen.bill.belanger(-)senate.mn RM 113 SOB Thomas M. Bakk(D) 296-8881 Use mailing address RM 226 Capitol Don Betzold (D) 296-2556 sen.don.betzold(a)senate.mn RM 121 Capitol Debbie J.Johnson(R) 296-3219 sen.debbie.iohnson(a),senate.mn RM 135 SOB Warren Limmer (R) 296-2159 sen.warren.limmerasenate.mn RM 121 SOB John Marty(D) 296-5645 sen.john.marty(d�senate.mn RM 323 Capitol Mike McGinn(R) 297-8073 sen.mike.mcginn a.senate.mn RM G-19 SOB Mee Moua(D) 296-5285 sen.mee.moua(a)senate.mn RM 235 Capitol Julianne E. Ortman(R) 296-4837 sen.iulianne.ortman asenate.mn RM G-21 SOB Rod Skoe(D) 2964196 senxod.skoe(d)senate.mn RM 124 Capitol • All mailing addresses are St Paul,MN 55155 • SOB=State Office Building SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 651 area code Email address: Mailing address Chair: Don Betzold(D) 296-2556 sen.don.betzold(a)senate.mn RM 111 Capitol Vice Chair: Wes Skoglund(D) 296-4274 sen.wes.skoglund@senate.mn RM 124 Capitol Warren Limmer (R) 296-2159 sen.warren.limmerng senate.mn RM 121 SOB Satveer Chaudhary(D) 2964334 sen.satveer.chaudhM(a)senate.mn RM 317 Capitol David Hann(R) 296-1749 sen.david.hann@senate.mn RM G-27 SOB John Marty(D) 296-5645 sen.john.marty(iDsenate.mn RM 323 Capitol Thomas M.Neuville (R) 296-1279 sen.thomas.neuvilleasenate.mn RM 123 SOB Julianne E.Ortman(R) 296-4837 sen.iulianne.ortman(di senate.mn RM G-21 SOB Ann H.Rest(D) 296-2889 Use mailing address RM 205 Capitol SENATE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Chair: Linda Higgins(D) 296-9246 sen.linda.higgins(-)senate.mn RM 328 Capitol Vice Chair: Charles Wiger(D) 296-6820 sen.chuck.wigerAsenate.mn RM 301 Capitol Claire Robling(R) 296-4123 sen.claire.roblingasenate.mn RM 143 SOB Dick Day(R) 296-9457 sen.dick.day(a�senate.mn RM 147 SOB D. Scott Dibble (D) 2964191 sen.scott.dibbleAsenate.mn RM 111 Capitol Michelle L.Fischbach (R) 296-2084 sen.michelle.fischbach cDsenate.mn RM G-15 SOB Debbie J.Johnson(R) 296-3219 sen.debbie.johnsonAsenate.mn RM 135 SOB Gary W.Kubly (D) 296-5094 sen.gary.kubly(a)senate.mn RM 306 Capitol Sharon Marko(D) 297-8060 sen.sharon.markoAsenate.mn RM G-24 Capitol David H. Senjem (R) 296-3903 sen.david.seniem @senate.mn RM 145 SOB Yvonne Prettner Solon(D) 296-4188 sen.vvonne.prettner.solon(a)senate.mn RM303 Cap David J.Tomassoni(D) 296-8017 sen.david.tomassoni(a),senate.mn RM 321 Capitol Jim Vickerman(D) 296-5650 Use mailing address RM 226 Capitol Betsy L. Wergin (R) 296-8075 sen.betsy.wergin ,senate.mn RM 125 SOB SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Chair: Steve Murphy(D) 2964264 Use mailing address RM 306 Capitol Vice Chair: Mee Mou(D) 296-5285 sen.mee.moua(dasenate.mn RM 235 Capitol Terri Bonoff(D) 2964314 sen.terri.bonoff asenate.mn RM 325 Capitol Satveer Chaudhary(D) 2964334 sen.satveer.chaudhary(a-)senate.mn RM 317 Capitol Dick Day(R) 296-9457 sen_dick.day()a,senate.mn RM 147 SOB D. Scott Dibble (D) 296-4191 sen.scott.dibble(a,senate.mn RM 111 Capitol Dean E.Johnson (D) 296-3826 sen.dean.iot hnson(a-)senate.mn RM 208 Capitol Michael J.Jungbauer(R) 296-3733 sen.mike.iun bauer(a)senate.mn RM G-25 SOB Keith Langseth(D) 296-3205 sen.keith.langseth ,senate.mn RM 122 Capitol Sharon Marko(D) 297-8060 sen.sharon.marko(d,senate.mn RM G-24 Capitol Mike McGinn(R) 297-8073 sen.mike.mcginn(a,senate.mn RM G-19 SOB Julianne E. Ortman(R) 296-4837 sen.julianne.ortman()asenate.mn RM G-21 SOB Mady Reiter(R) 296-1253 sen.mady.reiter_senate.mn RM 132D SOB Ann H.Rest (D) 296-2889 Use mailing address RM 205 Capitol Claire A.Robling(R) 296-4123 sen.claire.robling(a senate.mn RM 143 SOB David H. Senjem(R) 296-3903 sen.david.senjem(a-),senate.mn RM 145 SOB Jim Vickerman(D) 296-5650 Use mailing address RM 226 Capitol Charles W. Wiger 296-6820 sen.chuck.wigerOsenate.mn RM 301 Capitol Sandra Peterson (DFL) 296-4176 213 SOB rep.sandra.peterson(a�house.mn Connie Ruth (R) 296-5368 565 SOB rep.connie.ruth(o)house.mn Dan Severson (R) 296-7808 553 SOB rep.dan.severson(a,house.mn Katie Sieben (DFL) 296-4342 215 SOB rep.katie.sieben(a-)house.mn Steve Simon (DFL) 296-9889 313 SOB rep.steve.simon(a)house.mn Judy Soderstrom (R) 296-0518 439 SOB rep.iudy.soderstrom(a,house.mn ex-officio Michael Beard (R) 296-8872 577 SOB rep.mike.beard(d�house.mn HOUSE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (651) E-mail Address area code Chair: Gregory M. Davids(R) 296-9278 477 SOB rep.greg.davids(cDhouse.mn Vice Chair: Greg Blaine(R) 296-4247 545 SOB rep.greg.blaine(a-house.mn Lead-DFL: Ruth Johnson(DFL) 296-8634 389 SOB rep.ruth.iohnson(a)house.mn Brad Finstad (R) 296-9303 379 SOB rep.brad.finstad(cbhouse.mn Rod Hamilton(R) 296-5373 423 SOB rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn Bud Heidgerken(R) 296-4317 507 SOB rep.bud.heidgerkenehouse.mn Al Juhnke(DFL) 296-6206 281 SOB rep.al.iuhnke(a�house.mn Lyle Koenen (DFL) 296-4346 337 SOB rep.lyle.koenen(a)house.mn Doug Magnus(R) 296-5505 515 SOB rep.doug.magnusehouse.mn Frank Moe (DFL) 296-5516 369 SOB rep.frank.moe(cbhouse.mn Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL) 296-3201 247 SOB rep.maryellen.otremba aehouse.mn Maxine Penas(R) 296-9635 579 SOB rep.maxine.penas(@house.mn Dean Urdahl (R) 296-4344 521 SOB rep.dean.urdahl(a)-house.mn Andy Welti (DFL) 296-4378 387 SOB rep.andy.welti(a-)-house.mn ex-officio Dennis Ozment(R) 296-4306 479 SOB rep.dennis.ozmentehouse.mn HOUSE COMMERCE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE (651) E-mail Address area code Chair: Tim Wilkin (R) 296-3533 551 SOB rep.tim.wilkin a(�.house.mn Vice Chair: Paul Gazelka(R) 296-4333 529 SOB rep.paul.gazelka(d,)house.mn Lead-DFL: Joe Mullen/(DFL) 296-4262 367 SOB rep.ioe.mullery(a?house.mn Joe Atkins (DFL) 296-4192 217 SOB rep.ioe.atkins(a)house.mn Karen Clark (DFL) 296-0294 303 SOB rep.karen.clark(a,house.mn Gregory M. Davids (R) 296-9278 477 SOB rep.greq.davids(a)house.mn Patti Fritz (DFL) 296-8237 239 SOB rep.patti.fritz(c-house.mn Barbara Goodwin (DFL) 296-4331 331 SOB rep.barb.goodwin(a_)house.mn Bob Gunther(R) 296-3240 559 SOB rep.bob.gunther c-bhouse.mn Rod Hamilton (R) 296-5373 423 SOB rep.rod.hamilton(a)house.mn Larry Howes (R) 296-2451 451 SOB rep.larry.howes a().house.mn Mike Jaros (DFL) 296-4246 291 SOB rep.mike.iaros(a)-house.mn Paul Kohis (R) 296-4282 421 SOB rep.paul.kohls(a-)house.mn Tina Liebling (DFL) 296-0573 393 SOB rep.tina.liebling@house.mn Diane Loeffler(DFL) 296-4219 307 SOB rep.diane.loeffler(a)house.mn Frank Moe (DFL) 296-5516 369 SOB rep.frank.moep_house.mn Joyce Peppin (R) 296-7806 411 SOB rep.ioyice.peppin(a house.mn Duke Powell (R) 296-4212 407 SOB rep.duke.powell(a)house.mn Tom Rukavina (DFL) 296-0170 279 SOB rep.tom.rukavina(aD_house.mn Brita Sailer(DFL) 296-4265 327 SOB rep.brita.sailer@house.mn Anthony"Tony" Sertich (DFL) 296-0172 273 SOB rep.tony.sertich(ahouse.mn Dan Severson (R) 296-7808 553 SOB rep.dan.severson(c�house.mn Dean Simpson (R) 296-4293 525 SOB rep.dean.simpson(c-bhcuse.mn Judy Soderstrom (R) 296-0518 439 SOB rep.iudy.soderstrom@house.mn Ray Vandeveer(R) 296-4124 583 SOB rep.ray.vandeveer(Dhouse.mn Kurt Zellers (R) 296-5502 557 SOB rep.kurt.zellersCcDhouse.mn HOUSE CIVIL LAW AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE (651) Mailing E-mail Address area code address Chair: Jeff Johnson (R) 296-5511 401 SOB rep.ieff.iohnson(5)house.mn Vice Chair: Chris DeLaForest(R) 296-4231 503 SOB rep.ch ris.delaforest(ab house.mn Lead-DFL: Nora Slawik(DFL) 296-7807 357 SOB rep.nora.slawik(a-),house.mn Laura Brod (R) 296-4229 581 SOB rep.laura.brod(a-)house.mn Matt Dean (R) 296-3018 417 SOB rep.matt.dean(cDhouse.mn Keith Ellison (DFL) 296-8659 229 SOB rep.keith.ellison(a)house.mn Tom Emmer(R) 296-4336 523 SOB rep.tom.emmer(a)house.mn Bill Hil (DFL) 296-4308 207 SOB rep.bill.hilty a.house.mn John Lesch (DFL) 296-4224 223 SOB rep.iohn.lesch(a)-house.mn Peter Nelson (R) 296-5377 433 SOB rep.peter.nelson(a)house.mn Steve Simon (DFL) 296-9889 313 SOB rep.steve.simonCc�house.mn Torrey Westrom (R) 296-4929 533 SOB rep.torrey.westrom(5),house.m n HOUSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE (651) area code Chair: Mark Olson (R) 296-4237 501 SOB rep.mark.olsonOc house.mn Vice Chair: Morrie Lanning (R) 296-5515 593 SOB rep.morrie.lanning(a)house.mn Lead-DFL: Debra Hilstrom(DFL) 296-3709 375 SOB rep.debra.hilstrom(ahouse.mn Bruce Anderson (R) 296-5063 437 SOB rep.bruce.and erson(aa.house.mn Mike Charron (R) 296-4244 571 SOB rep.mike.charro nCcb_house.mn Tony Cornish (R) 296-4240 487 SOB rep.tony.cornisha_house.mn Pat Garofalo (R) 296-1069 429 SOB rep.pat.garofaloa_house.mn Mary Liz Holberg(R) 296-6926 443 SOB rep.marVliz.holberga_house.mn Frank Hornstein (DFL) 296-9281 227 SOB rep.frank.hornsteina_house.mn Larry Hosch (DFL) 296-4373 211 SOB rep.larry.hosch(a)house.mn Ann Lenczewski (DFL) 296-4218 237 SOB rep.ann.lenczewskiahouse.mn Paul Marquart(DFL) 296-6829 345 SOB rep.Paul.marguartaahouse.mn Michael Paymar(DFL) 296-4199 253 SOB rep.michael.paymar(a.house.mn Neil W. Peterson (R) 296-7803 527 SOB rep.neil.petersona-house.mn Jeanne Poppe (DFL) 296-4193 231 SOB rep.ieanne.poppe aahouse.mn Char Samuelson (R) 296-0141 415 SOB rep.char.samuelson(a-)house.mn Bev Scalze (DFL) 296-7153 241 SOB rep.bev.scalze(a-bhouse.mn Cy Thao (DFL) 296-5158 359 SOB rep.cy.thao(a,house.mn Lynn Wardlow(R) 296-4128 491 SOB rep.lynn.ward low a.house.mn HOUSE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (651) E-mail Address area code Chair: Ron Erhardt(R) 296-4363 591 SOB rep.ron.erhardtahouse.mn Vice Chair: Peter Nelson (R) 296-5377 433 SOB rep.peter.nelson(5house.mn Lead-DFL: Dan Larson (DFL) 296-7158 287 SOB rep.dan.larson(a,house.mn Bruce Anderson (R) 296-5063 437 SOB rep.bruce.andersona_house.mn Ray Cox (R) 296-7065 413 SOB rep.ray.cox(cDhouse.mn Lloyd Cybart(R) 296-5506 539 SOB rep.Iloyd.cybart(a,house.mn Denise Dittrich (DFL) 296-5513 371 SOB rep.denise.dittrich aahouse.mn Patti Fritz (DFL) 296-8237 239 SOB rep.patti.fritz(c)house.mn Paul Gazelka (R) 296-4333 529 SOB rep.Paul.gazelka(abhouse.mn Mary Liz Holberq (R) 296-6926 443 SOB rep.maryliz.holberq(c_house.mn Frank Hornstein (DFL) 296-9281 227 SOB rep.frank.hornstein(a�house.mn Melissa Hortman (DFL) 296-4280 377 SOB rep.melissa.hortman a.house.mn Bernard Lieder(DFL) 296-5091 323 SOB rep.bernie.lied erahouse.mn Leon Lillie (DFL) 296-1188 353 SOB rep.leon.lillie(a)house.mn Scott Newman (R) 296-1534 569 SOB rep.scott.newman(a)house.mn Mark Olson (R) 296-4237 501 SOB rep.mark.olson(abhouse.mn Mar 18 Z886 17:53:11 Via Fax -> Administrator Paye 881 Of 885 Lmc -FrlaF x- a A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities March 10, 2006 Page 1 State of the Cities Legislative on acquiring non-dilapidated and uncontaminated Conference property; a higher evidentiary standard— preponderance of the evidence—for takings for Get involved and make your city's voice heard at redevelopment purposes;payment of property the Capitol! owners' attorney fees for a successful public purpose challenge; a modified loss of going Register today for the State of the Cities concern provision;the higher re-establishment Legislative Conference. Make an appointment to cap from SF 2694; and a March 1, 2006 effective meet with your legislator during City Day at the date_ The committee adopted the Betzold delete- Capitol, and join us for the social hour at the all amendment with a couple of technical Kelly Inn, Sweetwater Bar and Grill on March changes. 30, 2006. The committee also adopted an amendment, Register online at www.Inmc.org offered by Sen. Julianne Ortman(R-Chanhassen to allow payment of property owners' attorney fees if the final award is at least 20%greater than Eminent domain restrictions clear the last written offer made by the condemning first Senate committee authority before filing a petition in court. SF 2750 passed as amended and was re-referred to the Yesterday afternoon,the Senate Judiciary Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee considered a sweeping proposal to Committee,which will consider the bill on restrict the use of eminent domain, which is Monday,March 13 at 12:00 p.m.,or one half authored by Sen. Tom Bakk(DFL-Cook)and hour after session, in Room 123 of the State supported by the Institute for Justice and the Capitol. The committee will reconvene at 6:00 Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association(�jFp.m. in Room 123 to vote on amendments to SF 2750). The committee also discussed a more 2750. reasonable alternative supported by the League of Minnesota CitiesSFL 2694). Among those who Local officials are encouraged to contact appeared to offer their support for SF 2750,were: members of this committee prior to the public Mayor Bjorn Skogquist, city of Anoka, Amy hearing to express concerns about SF 2750 and Ihlan, Roseville city councilmember, and Mayor emphasize the need for responsible eminent Herb Bergson, city of Duluth. Those opposed to domain reform that balances the needs of SF 2750 did not have an opportunity to offer individual property owners with the economic testimony to the bill. health and livability of Minnesota cities. Committee members, along with their phone When the committee reconvened Thursday numbers and emails, are listed here for you evening, Sen. Don Betzold(DFL-Fridley')offered convenience: a delete-all amendment to SF 2750. The amendment included several procedural Linda Higgins, Chair, 296-9246, 'f e provisions from SF 2694;the section dealing with sen.linda.hi arns'Cisenate.nrn /�13 definitions from SF 2750, including definitions of Chuck Wiger, 296-6820, e-t1 "abandoned property,""blighted area," sen.chuck.wiger;F"enate.mn LJ � "dilapidated building,"and"environmentally Debbie Johnson, 296-3219, contaminated area";the restrictions in SF 2750 sen.debbie.lohnson' senate.nzn � � For more information on city legislative issues,contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 Mar 16 2886 17:57:26 Via Fax -> Administrator Page HE Of 685 Lmc -Frl - aFax A weekly legislative updatefrom the League ofMinnesota Cities March 10, 2006 Page 2 Dick Day, 296-9457, sen.dick.da -(ci:senat.e.mn Mark Olson, Chair, 296-4237, Scott Dibble, 296-4191, rep.mark.olsonC,51ouse.rnn sen.scott.dibble @!senate.mn Morrie Lanning, 296-5515, Michelle Fischbach, 296-2084, rep.mome.lanning,,house.mn sen.michelle.tischbach;ast:nat.e.mn Debra Hilstrom, 296-3709, Gary Kubly, 296-5094, rep.debra.hilstrom!i�louse.mn sen.gary.kubl)-;c[;senate.mn Bruce Anderson,296-5063, Sharon Marko, 297-8060, rej2.bruee.andersona, ouse.mn sen.sharon.marko;ci,senate.mn Mike Charron, 296-4244, Claire Robling, 296-4123, rep.mike.charron0,, ouse.mn sen.claire.roblingv& enate.mn Tony Cornish, 296-4240, David Senjem, 296-3903, rey.tony.cornish0)house.mn sen.david.seniem(tLsenate_mn Pat Garofalo, 296-1069, Yvonne Prettner Solon,296-4188, re at. arof lloAbouse.nin sen.t'vonne.prettner.solWi&Isenate.mn Mary Liz Holberg, 296-6926, David Tomassom, 296-8017, reg.mv- liz.holber& :house..mn sen.david_tomassoniZAsenate.mn Frank Hornstein, 296-9281, Jim Vickerman, 296-5650, re .frankhomste.irr& ouse.nin Betsy Wergin, 296-8075, Larry Hosch, 296-4373, sen.betsN-.werQin!,iz;senate.mn rep.larrv.hoseh-ahouse_mn Ann Lenczewski, 296-4218, The House Local Government Committee also rep-ann.lenczewski a!house.mn held two listening sessions this week on eminent Paul Marquart, 296-6829, domain in Brooklyn Center and Apple Valley. rep,p„aul.marqugrt�"ahouse.mn Members heard from a number of local officials Michael Paymar, 296-4199, who expressed concerns about HF 2846.the Lo.michael.paymar-i-, ouse.mrl companion bill to SF 2750, authored by Rep. Jeff Neil W. Peterson, 296-7803, Johnson(R-Planouth). The committee will take rep.neil.peterson;c£house.mn additional testimony on HF 2846 on Monday, Jeanne Poppe, 296-4193, March 13 at 4:30 p.m. in Room 10 of the State rep_jetnne.popae;ahouse.mn Office Building. The League expects the Char Samuelson, 296-0141, committee take-up amendments to the bill on rM.char.samtielson.,&house.mn Wednesday, March 15. Bev Scalze, 296-7153,reU.bev.scalze, ;house.nui Cy Thao, 296-5158, rep.cv_thao, house.mn Please contact members of the House Local Lynn Wardlow, 296-4128, Government committee before these hearings rep.ltinn.wardlo�� house.nin next week to urge them to support reasonable amendments to HF 2846 that preserve the Questions?Contact Laura Harris at 651. responsible use of eminent domain. Again, 281.1260 or by email at Iharris@lmnc.org. committee contact information is listed here for you convenience: For more information on city legislative issues,cordact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 Editonalsreprebu... .. _.. IJ/ They are researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom. StarTribune J.KEITH MOYER,President and Publisher ANDERS GYLLENHAAL,Editor SUSAN AI.BRIGHT,Editor,Editorial Pages f SCOTT GILLESPM,Managing Editor JIM BOYD,Deputy Editor,Editorial Pages _t Think before axing •sldu:)sn 'fT1J° gau weminent domain ill ssaJ sa1aaq isnu do jauq aq Plnoil' pagsggndaia Auu ;o.Cliadoid alp- • Curbing governments power would chill urban revival. PUL,slaiia'I-(awc auotld pue uotledn Before swallowing whole the Drawing a sharp line between -It11M D44 apnput I notion that government's power public purpose and private gain is sn oI aetsnpXZ)aq of eminent domain should be se- all but impossible.There's poten- verely restricted, Minnesota leg- tial for private gain in every pub- '6S£V-£L sgod,eauur ny islators should look soberly at the lic action.Critics don't complain re1S'Iuau4ieda potential consequences. about condemning property for IJIO asMua Q Do they really want to dissuade roads and other public projects. •uzoa•� OT TTw-a Aq suot, the revival of older communities; Yet roads spawn enormous pri- to further starve older tax bases vate benefit. Just look at what's -utdoarliiolsaJapie (and school systems); to further built beside them. It's especially uoiledotiiEda concentrate poverty, and to en- ironic that roadside auto dealers ZSMRIA HnC courage urban sprawl and its ex- should complain about govern- pensive byproducts—traffic con- ment's authority to, as a last re gestion, environmental degrada- sort,condemn one private proper- -- — tion,energy waste and higher in- ty for another.No corporate inter frastructure costs? est has gained more from eminent T Hi sgodeauutW,D11HuN3 If not, they should consider domain than the auto industry. Pa cooler, more balanced reforms Some reforms are needed,but olid um; ppioa A than those sought by a nation- proposed changes in the blight ' Iunoum aip tuo.13 1 wide libertarian blitz against last and environmental standards go nes IIp iisu'.Il uo Iu� year's Supreme Court ruling in the too far.The greatest danger isn't dal Cue luunn I,uop iia Connecticut property rights case, that urban development would ate watudolanaf Kelo vs. New London.Yes, some stop entirely,but that a developer sell an lasap Aagl an local governments have bullied who discovers one reluctant sell- to -gond zagio 3o Iso property owners into condemna er would simply decide that busi- na `uollsa2uoo azoul tion proceedings to advance pri- ness is easier on the metro fringe, tic uegmgns wow 1eq vate development projects. But where taxpayers will be left with pr .SAvMg2111 that's rare in Minnesota. The bi- the costs of redundant infrastruc- do g2noo of ams ail partisan bill offered at the behest ture and the consequences of ur- sgmgns Apaaz2 mo' of a Washington-based property- ban neglect. S rights group and Minnesota's auto These arguments may well fail, Sytlgns ai dealers'association uses a sledge- not because they are wrong but be- 0 N I a N fI3 N O I.L hammer to swat a fly. Property cause they are complex.The liber- a owners deserve fairer compen- tarian lobbies have both momen- p' epolauu.W•Q-JVNOQ, sation, and should get it. But re- tum and emotion on their side. si moving local government's last- They use fear to portray proper- e Sri uo puels a uaxe ditch tool for redevelopment goes ty owners as helpless victims of f Aanax wqi pnoid i too far. predatory governments eager to e Bons zap Auap of 1 Are the people of St.Louis Park condemn their homes solely to a better off because of the Excelsior reward rich developers. It's the c Sl IMP I13auaq algiss4 and Grand project?Have people in kind of demagoguery that works -ap ags pue 'Ajiuno: southwest Minneapolis benefited at election time. -oes aleuniln znp apes from 50th and France?Is Richfield If legislators are,however,truly '(SZ•qa3'aunqu I,_wl better off with a Best Buy head- interested in the public good,they Regaq no 2ui1g2g.Ic quarters than a car dealership? will carefully examine the pro •uaS pue zie7 uog•d Has the whole metro region bene- posed changes,consider the con fited?We think it has,even though sequences and find a fair balance �I SaA. these cities used eminent domain between the interests of private ava A14V I (or its leverage)in each case. property and community. n V Mike Ericson t From: Bryan Bear Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:27 AM To: Mike Ericson; Intern Subject: FW: Washington County 2006 Annual Action Plan 2006 Annual Action Plan.doc -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Beck [mailto:Joshua.Beck@co.washington.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:07 PM To: Sheri Schmidt; Bo Bogotty; John Walker; Pauline Huonder; letendre@att.net; Linda O'Donnell; Nancy Jacobson; Bob Andrews; Mike McGuire; Chip Robinson; Doug Borglund; Bryan Bear; Kim Therres; Dan Hartmann; Steve Russell; Barry Johnson; Janelle Schmitz; Marty Jurgensen; Kathleen Miller; Eric Johnson; Daniel Papin; Diane Elias; Geneva Lessard; Jacqueline Boever; Jane Harper; Jodi Hilber; Joshua Beck; Kari Kraft; Mary Farmer-Kubler; Tina Bayonet; Debbie Wallace; Jay Kimble; Joan Heldt; Grey Cloud Township; Sharon Ornquist; Vickie Keating; John Burbank; Elizabeth Martin; meshjp@cpinternet.com; Christy Snow; Andy McMahon; Linda Klein; Sue Meyer; Joclyne Thompson; Joan Countryman; pamv@emwc.org; Trisha Kauffman;ARBA DELLA BECK; mbornong@familymeans.org; debby@flacc.org;jennifer.fariss@gmail.com; Susan Kainz; hbs@hbsconsultingusa.com; kkraft@hired.org; jsavereide@hsicares.org; Jeri Ryan; Anne Justesen; Karen Pirozzoli; Cathy Geier; Chuck Dillerud; mswanson@metesbound.com; John Blahna; Mike Davey(E-mail); Ronald Mazurowski; Bart Fischer; Larry Bodahl; jfeist@phillipsdistilling.com; Pastor Rich Pfeffer; Mark Kristensen; Myra Peterson;julia.althoff@smrls.org; Kathy Weber; darcy.miner@state.mn.us; Jamey Burden; Julie Carr; Yvonne klinnert; Yettert@tapemark.com; Robert Gag; bdriscoll@tubmanfamilyalliance.org; SMasterson@tubmanfamilyalliance.org; Kathryn Paulson; Teresa vanderBent; Kathy_Berg_Hanson@usc.salvationarmy.org; Susan Agrimson; Barbara Bartholdi; Barbara Dacy; Ichaves@wchra.com; rmalloy@wchra.com; Tricia Misgen; Chris Reese Subject: Washington County 2006 Annual Action Plan Hello everyone, this morning the Washington County Board approved the draft of the 2006 Annual Action Plan for public comment. The public comment period is from February 21, 2006 to April 15, 2006. Comments can be submitted to: Joshua Beck Associate Planner Washington County Community Services 14949 62nd Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Joshua.beck@co.washington.mn.us Also a public hearing will be held in conjunction with the HOME consortium on Thursday, March 9, 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Hawthorne Room at the Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota. Copies of the Annual Action Plan will be available at Washington County Government Center, Community Services, Room 200, and at each county library. d�/ Washington County 2006 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs Annual Action Plan for July 2006—June 2007 Draft Approved by the Washington County Board of Commissioners Prepared for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development by Washington County Community Services 1494962 d Street North, PO Box 30 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 1 Table of Contents Annual Action Plan—2006 Introduction 3 Resources and Geographic Distribution 3 Housing Activities 6 Homeless and Non-homeless Special Population Activities 7 Administration 9 2006 Activity Detail-Table 3 15 Attachment A: Comments Received/ Legal Notices 26 Attachment B: Certifications 27 Attachment C: Application for Federal Assistance, SF-424 28 Attachment D: Washington County FirstHOME Program 29 Attachment E: Affidavits and Copies of Legal Notices 40 Attachment F: Outcome and Performance Measurement System Attachment G: Monitoring List of Tables CDBG and HOME Program Income Limits 4 HUD Table 3: Proposed 2006 CDBG and HOME Projects 15 2 Introduction Washington County is eligible to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as an entitlement community, also known as a "participating jurisdiction", from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Washington County also receives Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds through its participation in the Dakota County Consortium (Anoka, Dakota, suburban Ramsey, and Washington counties). HUD requires that each entitlement community prepare a Consolidated Plan and an Annual Action Plan to meet statutory planning and application requirements for the receipt and use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds. The Consolidated Plan includes housing, community development, and public service priorities. The 2006 Annual Action Plan is consistent with the 2006 Funding Priorities of the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. The Annual Action Plan describes the resources the county will use and the activities to be undertaken in 2006 to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. Resources and Geographic Distribution Resources Allocations to be received by Washington County to carry out fiscal year 2006 CDBG and HOME program activities include: FY 2006 CDBG Allocation $822,949 FY 2006 HOME Allocation $287,770 FY 2006 American Dream Downpayment Initiative $ 7,054 Unallocated CDBG funds $113,906 Reprogrammed HOME funds $164,729 Total $1,394,408 Funding Summary The following summarizes the use of CDBG, HOME and ADDI funds: Activity Type CDBG funds HOME funds ADDI Funds Housing/Homebuyer (new construction activities) $300,000 $300,000 (rehabilitation activities) $348,822 $123,722 (First Time Homebuyer Program) $ $ 7,054 Public Facilities $0 Public Services $130,313 Administration $164,589 $28,777 Total $936,855 $452,499 $ 7,054 3 Leveraging With significant demand and limited resources for meeting low-income needs, leveraging becomes a key issue. In most cases, CDBG and HOME funds are not sufficient to fund projects in full, and, as a result, additional sources of funding will be required. CDBG and HOME dollars are used to leverage needed funding from other sources. Local government and non-profit organization contributions of cash or in-kind services and applications to federal, state, and private foundations, bring additional resources to specific CDBG projects. Leveraging for projects proposed by Washington County include the following: • The Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Red Oaks Preserve project will use an additional $1,175,000.00 in Washington County HRA funds and $1,500,000.00 from the City of Oakdale. • Two Rivers Community Land Trust Acquisition Rehabilitation project is receiving $25,000.00 from Charitable Foundations, $100,000.00 from the Metropolitan Council, and $75,000.00 from the Minnesota Finance Agency. • The City of Landfall committed $14,500.00, which represents 30% of the total project cost for the Electrical Hookups project. • Twin City Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) Bailey's Arbor project will use $940,000.00 from Habitat's general fund, $480,000.00 in private donations, and $180,000.00 in Self- help Homeownership Opportunity Program(SHOP) funds. Washington County has accessed funding through the McKinney-Vento SuperNOFA process through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually for the past seven years. This funding has brought in over $1.5 million for services to people experiencing chronic homelessness in Washington County. Washington County will continue to participate in this mandated HUD process to access this funding provided there is an appropriate project that fits the priorities established through the Continuum of Care process developed by the Washington County Housing Collaborative as well as the Consolidated Plan. Completing the Exhibit One Continuum of Care also provides an opportunity for agencies and citizens to apply for other funding through the state, private foundations, and other sources, as well as having a voice in the process of ending long term homelessness and the establishment of affordable housing choices. Match The HOME program requires a 25 percent (25%) non-federal match. The participants in the Dakota County Consortium, which currently has accumulated excess match for HOME funds, meet this collectively. Washington County will contribute to the match requirement by encouraging applicants to bring additional non-federal funds to their HOME projects. For example, the Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Bailey's Arbor project will be granted HOME funds for our 2006 project year. HOME funds are only 12% of the total development budget for the Bailey's Arbor project, with a total $1,540,000.00 coming from non-federal sources. 4 Washington County will meet its match burden of$71,942.00 in the year 2006. While federal regulations do not require a match for CDBG funds, most CDBG-funded projects will need to bring in additional funding in order to complete the proposed activities. Income Limits Participation in CDBG and HOME-funded programs and activities are based on income and household size. Income limits are determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CDBG and HOME income limits in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area for 2006 are in the following table. HUD Income Limits 2005 HUD Income Limits for Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN Metro Area Household Size 2005 Income Limits 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 Persons 7 Persons 8 Persons Very Low Income $16,150 $18,500 $20,800 $23,100 $24,950 $26,800 $28,650 $30,500 (30% ofinedian) Low Income $26,950 $30,800 $34,650 $38,500 $41,600 $44,650 $47,750 $50,800 (50% of me(ian) HOME Income Limit $32,340 $36,960 $41.580 $46,200 $49,920 $53,580 $57,300 $60,960 . ._ .. _.. _ _ _._. ._ �........... ............__ ___ (60% of median) Moderate Income Limit $40,600 $46,400 $52,200 $58,000 $62,650 $67,300 $71,900 $76,550 _..... ......_......._....._... .... ............ (80% of median) Note:2005 Median for a Family of Four:$77,000 Geographic Distribution CDBG and HOME assistance is provided on a countywide basis through the Washington County Housing Rehabilitation program, FirstHOME Buyer Assistance program, and Public Services activities. Washington County residents in any of the CDBG/HOME participating communities may be eligible to apply for assistance through these programs. Dellwood, Denmark Township, Grey Cloud Island Township, and Marine on St. Croix are the only communities that do not participate in the urban county designation, therefore these cities are not eligible for this assistance. Under Housing activities, the acquisition rehabilitation program through Two Rivers Community Land Trust may acquire properties anywhere in Washington County, with the exception of the aforementioned communities that do not participate in the urban county designation. Also, under Housing activities, the City of Landfall and Human Services, Inc. (HSI) will be providing housing rehabilitation in both Landfall and Oak Park Heights. Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity will construct new units for homeownership in Woodbury, along with the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) constructing new homeownership units in Oakdale. 5 Activities Addressing Housing, Homeless, and Non-homeless Special Population Housing Needs Homebuyer Activities Washington County has awarded funds to Washington County HRA and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity to construct new housing for sale to low- and moderate-income (LMI) households. These projects will be located in the cities of Woodbury and Oakdale. Funds were also awarded to the FirstHome Buyer Assistance Program which will provide down-payment assistance to LMI households. These projects help fulfill the following Housing Needs objectives in the 2005- 2009 Consolidated Plan: Goal 2: Increase Housing Variety Strategy: Increase Starter Home Owner Opportunities, Increase Funding for First- time Homeownership Opportunities, and Increase Mixed-Income Developments Rationale: Recent trends indicate that new housing in Washington County has focused on high-end, single-family homes. Providing greater housing variety will assist LMI households in finding housing to meet their needs. The Maxfield Housing Study projects a demand for 15,975 owner- occupied housing units by 2010, of which 6,750 will need to be starter homes. Similarly, there will be a projected demand of 2,110 renter- occupied housing units, of which 975 will be needed to serve LMI households. Objective 4 Continue to fund Washington County's first-time homebuyer assistance program. The program provides down payment assistance to qualified families as a means to lower their monthly mortgage expenses. In addition, Washington County will regularly adjust the housing price limit to better reflect market changes and comply with price limits. Goal S: Increase Capacity to Provide Long-term Affordable Housing Units Strategy: Increase Number of Units Permanently Affordable to LMI Persons Rationale: One of the stated purposes of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 is to expand the capacity of nonprofit community housing development organizations (CHDO) to develop and manage decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. Washington County has two CHDOs: Two Rivers Land Trust and Habitat for Humanity. Objective 13 Continue to fund Community Housing Development Organizations, such as community land trusts and Habitat for Humanity, that are invested in the availability, affordability and sustainability of housing. Objective 14 Increase availability by ensuring new housing units are constructed which 6 are affordable to low-moderate income households. Housing`Rehabilitation Activities Funds have been awarded to Two Rivers Community Land Trust for its acquisition rehabilitation program. The City of Landfall has been awarded funds for the Electrical Hook-ups Rehabilitation program in which electrical service connections will be replaced in the community. Funds were also awarded to the Washington County HRA to replace elevators at Raymie Johnson, a senior housing complex. These projects help fulfill the following Housing Needs objectives in the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan Goal S: Increase Capacity to Provide Long-term Affordable Housing Units Strategy: Increase Number of Units Permanently Affordable to LMI Persons. Rationale: One of the stated purposes of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 is to expand the capacity of nonprofit community housing development organizations (CHDO) to develop and manage decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. Washington County currently has one CHDO: Two Rivers Land Trust. Objective 13 Continue to fund Community Housing Development Organizations, such as community land trusts and Habitat for Humanity, that are invested in the availability, affordability and sustainability of housing. Objective 15 Increase affordability by acquiring and rehabilitating existing units in order to make them affordable to low-moderate income households. Objective 16 Increase sustainability by ensuring existing affordable rental and owner occupied units are rehabilitated. Homeless Needs and Non-homeless Special Population needs Public Services Activities Washington County has awarded CDBG funds for 2006 for activities that address homeless needs and non-homeless special population needs through its allocation of public service dollars. The public services allocation will fund a full-time eligibility technician-housing assistant to provide services to households living in the shelter system; services to those who are homeless and seeking housing; data entry for HMIS compliance and Housing Unit statistics; and assistance to the Housing Coordinator. In addition, public service funds will be used for direct assistance in the form of"wrap-around service" dollars to homeless individuals and families to stabilize their housing situations. Funds will be available for eviction abatement and foreclosure prevention, rental application fees, first month's rent and damage deposits, moving costs or storage fees in crisis situations, and educational programs and materials for tenants and landlords. This program tracks demographic and other data regarding type of population assisted, number of households assisted, etc. Both the Housing Coordinator and the Housing Specialist work out of the Washington County Housing Unit. These housing services will be available to assist the chronically homeless population as defined 7 by HUD. Included in the definition are individuals with special needs such as youth; HIV/Aids; and those with physical, chemical, or mental disabilities who experience episodic homelessness. The funding also includes service provision to "other" homeless who are homeless without the "chronic" definition and follows the State of Minnesota definition of long-term homeless or"at- risk" populations. This includes families who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk or in imminent threat of homelessness and those individuals who have not experienced episodic homelessness without disability. These public services will help to address the following Homeless Needs objectives in the 2005- 2009 Consolidated Plan: Strategy: Support and partner with the Washington County Continuum of Care, Housing Coordinator and Housing Collaborative to meet objectives in the area of prevention, outreach, and support services. Objective 3 Washington County will create prevention strategies to assist with potential housing crisis before homelessness occurs. Objective 6 Washington County programs like the Continuum of Care, and other funding sources like CDBG, will work with greater coordination to fund future housing opportunities for those currently experiencing and those at imminent risk of homelessness. Strategy: Provide funding for transitional housing and permanent supportive housing. Objective 8 Continue to allocate the maximum amount of funds allowed from CDBG to the wraparound services provided by the county's housing coordinator. Objective 9 "Increase affordability of housing by providing CDBG funds for mortgage foreclosure assistance,first month's rent and damage deposit, and rental applications to low and moderate income households." Housing Activities for Other Special Population Needs These housing activities will help to address the following Non-homeless Special Population Needs objective in the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan: Persons with Mental Illness: Staff will continue to connect with the Washington County staff person who is assigned to the Local Mental Health Advisory Council to monitor progress on creating strategies for addressing the housing needs of persons with mental illness so that future funds may be used to help address these needs. The Mental Health Advisory health council priorities for 2006 include: • Housing with support services for youth who are transitioning to adulthood that do not require homelessness. • Temporary safe housing for kids who can't stay at home but do not need acute care or 8 residential treatment. • Develop a housing continuum that does not require an individual to complete each step of the housing process. The continuum would be available to assist in developing a comprehensive housing plan for individuals with mental illness. This activity is provided through "planning and administration" and helps address the following Non-homeless Special Populations Needs objective in the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan: Strategy: Support the Local Mental Health Advisory Council's Strategies Addressing the Housing Needs of Persons with Severe Mental Illness Objective 3 CDBG staff will consult with the Local Mental Health Advisory Council to create strategies for addressing housing needs of persons with severe mental illness. The local Mental Health Advisory Council will be making recommendations to the County Board in of 2005. There are no activities planned to specifically target the priority housing needs of the frail elderly, persons with alcohol or drug addiction, or public housing residents in 2006 using CDBG or HOME funds. These populations are ranked as high priority for funding in the Consolidated Plan and future activities may benefit these populations. Public Housing residents are also served by the Public Housing Authority Plan which is coordinated by the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. For more information, see the Consolidated Plan,page 35. Persons with HIV/ADIS, frail elderly, and developmentally disabled were ranked as low priority due to lack of need or the availability of other resources. There are no activities planned for these populations. Administration Activities Funds have been awarded to Washington County Community Services to administer the CDBG, HOME, and ADDI programs. For the purposes of defining responsibility, these administrative staff shall be referred to as the "PJ" — an acronym for Participating Jurisdiction. The PJ is responsible for providing technical assistance to sub-recipients, managing funds, and ensuring compliance with federal regulations. In 2006, staff will also conduct or participate in the following activities: 1. Fair Housing: The PJ, the Dakota County Consortium, and other Metro Area entitlement jurisdictions prepared a Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) in 2001. This was followed by preparation of the Fair Housing Action Guide in 2002. The Action Guide is the primary instrument for implementing recommended actions from the Al. For each barrier identified the Action Guide identifies a specific action, the action level or entity with primary responsibility to implement the action (Entitlement jurisdictions, Metropolitan Council, and State or Local government), and priority level (High, Medium, or Low). A Fair Housing Implementation Council (FHIC) was formed to carry out the activities identified in the Action Guide. In 2006, the PJ and the Consortium will 9 continue to implement fair housing strategies and goals identified in the Action Guide. The Al found 15 major impediments to fair housing within three categories: public sector, private sector lenders, and private sector rental market. Washington County, in conjunction with the FHIC, will address the following action steps: Impediment #26: The highly segregated residential patterns that exist throughout the Twin Cities region continue to limit or restrict housing choices for protected class members. Action Step: Washington County, working within the FHIC, is currently evaluating the diversity in the housing market in Minneapolis Metro and will attempt to market the rules and regulations of Fair Housing and how it applies to all protected classes. Home ownership programs are currently being developed to market to this particular class of citizens. FHIC will continue to promote housing choices to all citizens of Minnesota through education and marketing. Impediment #25: Many tenants with disabilities and owners are unaware of fair housing laws providing for reasonable accommodations for disabled persons when seeking or renting an apartment. Action Step: Washington County, working within and along side the FHIC/Private Rental Committee, did publish a pamphlet titled "Your Rights & Reasonable Accommodations in Rental Housing", which addresses many different situations that could occur in the rental market. The Q & A covers a wide spectrum of topics and directs both tenants and landlords to the appropriate way in addressing reasonable accommodations, in a legal and fair way. The PJ will also create a Predatory Lending display that will travel throughout Washington County during the month of November. In addition, the county is in the process of developing ideas for a fair housing video that could be broadcast through local cable access. These activities will help address the following Housing Needs objectives in the Consolidated Plan: Goal 2: Increase Housing Variety Strategy: Increase Housing and Homeownership Opportunities for Persons of Color. Rationale: Households of color experience housing problems at a greater rate than other households in Washington County. Objective 6: Washington County will encourage its sub-recipients to affirmatively market their housing programs to persons of color. Strategy: Reasonably Accommodate Persons with Physical Disabilities Rationale: Units dedicated to persons with physical disabilities are lacking, as evidenced by the growing waiting list at Washington County's 10 only housing option for persons with physical disabilities. Objective 8: In accordance with federal and state laws, Washington County will affirmatively market its housing and funding programs to persons with physical disabilities. Because of the identified need gap, funding priority would be given to housing that is dedicated to persons with physical disabilities or for rehabilitation loans to persons with disabilities so that they may be able to pay for necessary accommodations to their units. Funding will be used to fill the gap for these units not covered by the Alternative Care Grant, Elderly Waiver, and Community Alternatives for Disabled Individuals programs. Goal 4: Increase Knowledge of Fair Housing Laws Strategy: Develop a "Traveling" Display to Heighten Awareness and Knowledge of Predatory Lending Practices Rationale: To increase community awareness of Lending Laws. Objective 12 Continue circulating the fair housing laws "traveling" display. The display started at the Washington County Government Center and is working its way around county and city public buildings, such as libraries and city halls. 2. Barriers to Affordable Housing: In 2006, the PJ will use an informational brochure that was created by HUD to distribute to all cities in Washington County. The brochure will focus on the effects of zoning on housing and land prices. This activity will help address the following Housing Needs objectives in the Consolidated Plan: Goal 1: Reduce Regulatory Barriers Strategy: Encourage Communities to Change Zoning Practices and Other Land Use Practices that Create Barriers to Affordable Housing. Rationale: According to HUD, "Unnecessary, excessive, or exclusionary federal, state, and local regulations severely limit housing affordability by increasing costs as much as 35 percent (35%). They also limit the ability of housing providers to build many affordable housing options such as multifamily housing, duplexes, and cost-effective housing rehabilitation. " (FY05 Budget Summary). The lack of personal transportation limits the housing options for LMI persons,particularly the very-low and low-income persons. Objective 1 Washington County will compile information on how communities can reduce regulatory barriers. The policy guideline will focus on the effects of zoning on housing and land prices. Some zoning 11 practices increase the price of single-family, owner units. Reversing these practices will for allow for the development of more starter homes, which will in turn, allow moderate-income households to more readily access and pay for housing in Washington County. 3. Anti-poverty strategy, lead-based paint strategy, and other activities: Washington County provides a wide range of services that aim to help families at risk of falling into poverty, as defined by the Federal Poverty Guidelines, to maintain self-sufficiency and to assist those in poverty to move toward self-sufficiency. These services include the Minnesota Family Investment Program (Minnesota's welfare program under TANF), the Diversionary Work Program which provides short term financial assistance, and services for rapid workforce attachment for those at risk of going on welfare, Child Care Assistance, Medical Assistance(Medicaid), Food Stamps, crisis assistance for certain one time expenses that threaten a family's security and a number of other programs and services. One of Washington County's key strategies is integrate services and form strong collaborations. Washington County has integrated within its Community Services Department all of its financial assistance programs and the employment and training services, as well as, the housing related programs funded by HUD. Partnerships have been established with all major community agencies providing complementary services, many of which are provided on site. Washington County works closely with the Minnesota Department of Human Services in state planning and intervention related to reducing family poverty. Currently, Washington County Community Services has three initiatives underway to enhance our work in this area. One is an anti-racism initiative that is intended to promote diversity in our operations and to improve cultural competency in service delivery. Another is our disparities in outcomes initiative which specifically relates to improving success in helping poor families from racial and ethnic minorities to achieve self- sufficiency. An integrated services project within our Workforce Center seeks to improve services and outcomes by improving communications and strengthening collaboration within the County and the larger service community. A central goal of this project is to reduce housing instability, which is a significant contributing factor to persistent poverty for some families. A unique aspect of the service within this project is its ability to provide assistance to families who do move to other counties, i.e. the service follows families in the new county. The purpose of this is to sustain progress which is often lost in moving and to facilitate rapid establishment of necessary supports in the new county to help families continue and,ultimately, succeed in their efforts toward self-sufficiency. 4. Public Housing Authority(PHA) and Continuum of Care (CoQ activities: The PJ recognizes the importance of coordinating the Consolidated Plan with the Continuum of Care plan. Fortunately, the PJ works in the same department with staff who are responsible for the Continuum of Care plan. Additionally, the PJ has developed a good working relationship with the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment 12 Authority (HRA), which is responsible for preparing the PHA plan. In fact, the PJ's Housing Coordinator is under contract wit the HRA to provide the following services: 1. Connect Washington County residents with existing, affordable housing, and other resources as needed. 2. Maintain a current clearinghouse of housing resources for Washington County. 3. Work with existing service providers to identify available housing and help eliminate barriers to housing. 4. Facilitate the Washington County Housing Collaborative. 5. Provide leadership in order to access resources for programs serving people who are homeless. 6. Participate in developing statistical data collection pertinent to housing issues including the Homelessness Management Information System and tracking clients across programs and services. The Housing Coordinator attends meetings as needed at the HRA and collaborates with a variety of HRA staff in the conduct of the above duties. There is intentional coordination and common planning efforts with the Washington County Housing Collaborative and meetings to discuss consistency between the plans. The PJ, HRA, and CoC staff also participates on the Washington County Housing Collaborative in order to coordinate their efforts. 5. Minority Outreach: The PJ ensures that all agreements with CDBG and HOME sub- recipients contain language regarding non-discrimination ensuring that the sub-recipients shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap or any other basis now or hereafter prohibited by law. The language states the sub-recipient may not deny program benefits to any residents, must prevent discrimination in housing and lending practices in accordance with the fair housing act, must comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act Women and Minority Business Requirements, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Executive Orders and Civil Rights Act of 1964. The contract language also specifies that contractors and suppliers will demonstrate compliance with the aforementioned provisions and Executive Order 11246. In addition, the PJ verbally requests sub-recipients receiving HOME funds submit an affirmative marketing plan and minority women owned business outreach plan. The PJ also requests documentation from the sub-recipient annually regarding the number of minority and women owned businesses that were utilized for each project receiving HOME funds. See also Housing Needs objectives 6 and 7 in the Consolidated Plan. 6. Monitoring. Washington County will monitor CDBG and HOME activities in accordance with federal regulations. A monitoring system was implemented in 2003 after consultation with Freeman and Associates, an agency that provides technical assistance regarding CDBG program compliance. Monitoring priorities are developed based upon a risk assessment. Factors to be considered include performance and capacity, program complexity, and recent problems. 13 Performance and capacity are evaluated based upon efficiency of project implementation, previous experience with the activity, and staff changes or changes in administration of the project. Program complexity factors considered include the amount of CDBG funds involved, number of projects being administered by the sub-recipient, and number of funding sources for the project. Recent problems such as complaints about the contractor or sub-recipient, late or incomplete reports, or failure to comply with the production schedule, are used to determine the level of risk for each sub recipient. Sub-recipients at highest risk for failure to comply with program requirements are selected for monitoring. Monitoring visits include review of project performance, record keeping, financial management, and compliance with applicable federal rules and regulations. Based on these factors, Washington County has selected the following projects to be monitored in 2006: Two Rivers Community Land Trust, HOME & CDBG Warner Nature Center Washington County Public Service Programs For detail on how the CDBG monitoring is conducted, see Attachment F. In addition, the PJ monitors projects that receive HOME funds in accordance with federal guidelines. Washington County has one completed rental project which will be monitored to ensure units are being rented to low- and moderate-income renters in accordance with HOME fair market rents. Washington County has also funded rehabilitation and construction of units sold to buyers through the Two Rivers Community Land Trust and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity. All of these units have restrictions on the property whereby Washington County will be notified if the property is sold. Washington County can then ensure the subsequent purchase will be to a low- and moderate-income household for the terms of affordability in accordance with HOME regulations. In 2006, Washington County staff, with the assistance of the county's Principal Planner, will create a comprehensive monitoring system which will include both CDBG and HOME programs. The system will include checklists which will help staff monitor key aspects of projects from start to finish ensuring compliance with federal regulations. The system will be based on information and checklists provided by the HOME Monitoring training and handbook as well as the CDBG monitoring checklists developed by Nancy Freeman for the county in 2003. 6. Outcome and Performance Measurement: Washington County collects the following key data: new affordable housing units, existing housing units rehabilitated, low-income households purchasing housing with FirstHome Buyer Assistance, persons who are homeless or may become homeless helped to find housing or keep their housing, homeless households receiving housing-related funding and demographic information including income, race, ethnicity. In addition, the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan 14 developed a more sophisticated method of tracking progress toward objectives and outcomes. These tables are detailed in Attachment G. In 2006, Washington County revised Housing Need outcome 13 with regard to language and also added Housing Needs objectives related to availability, affordability, and sustainability to match new outcomes recommended by HUD. In addition, Washington County added Objective 9 to the Homeless Needs objectives to reflect HUD's outcome on affordability. 2006 Activity Detail-Table 3s CDBG and HOME-funded activities for the 2006 program year are described on pages 16 through 23. As is statutorily required for the CDBG and HOME programs, each activity must meet one of the goals set forth in the Consolidated Plan. Project descriptions note the local objective, which references objectives listed in Attachment G. 15 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Priority Need: Housing-High; low- and very low-income renters Project Title: Bailey's Arbor Project Description: Centex Home is constructing an Urban Mixed Residential development on a one hundred fifty acre site north of Oak Grove Boulevard and west of Cottage Grove Drive in the City of Woodbury. As proposed to the city, "Bailey's Arbor" will consist of 845 new homeownership units, of which 30 will be sold to Habitat for Humanity partner families. Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (TCHFH) was approached in the fall of 2004 to contribute 30 units of affordable, owner-occupied townhomes to serve families earning at or below 50% of the area median income. TCHFH is the only builder in the metro area that consistently provides homeownership opportunities to low and very low income families in the Twin Cities. All units at Bailey's Arbor will be built under the same master plan as created by Centex Homes. The architectural style of the townhomes will feature multiple roof lines, brick exteriors up to the bottom of the windows, covered front entries, and privacy screening. Sidewalks will be built to interconnect this development with the rest of the neighborhood. Location: Development site is north of Oak Grove Boulevard and west of Cottage Grove Drive in the City of Woodbury. Funding Sources: Objective Number" Project ID CDBG HUD Matrix Code HOME Citation ESG — 12-Construction 92.205 (a) Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME $135,271.00 Sub-recipient-Nonprofit LMH-low/mod housing Start date (mm/dd/yyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 07/01/2006 06/30/2007 Performance indicator Annual Units Total Formula Housing units(10) 12 Local ID Units upon completion Prior Year Funds 2003 $64,006.00 wXXXXX 12 2004 $71,195.00 2005 $29,528.00 IDIS Performance Measurement Assisted Housing Objective 1: Provide decent affordable housing PHA Outcome 1: Availability Other Funding $2,200,000.00 Total $2,500,000.00 "Housing Needs Objectives 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14 The primary purpose of the project is to help:❑the Homeless❑Persons with HIV/AIDS❑Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 16 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Washington County HRA Priority Need: Housing-Medium and High; low and moderate income renters Project Title: Red Oaks Preserve Project Description: The Washington County HRA is redeveloping a 20 acre manufactured home park that the HRA owns at the corner of 50th Street and Hadley Avenue in the City of Oakdale. The HRA plans on building a diversified housing mix that will include a total of 168 units. The housing mix will include 34 low income rental townhomes, 38 owner occupied units, 36 owner occupied condominiums, and a 60 unit senior cooperative. At least 50 of these units will be affordable to persons below 50% of the area median income. Location: the corner of 50th Street and Hadley Avenue in the City of Oakdale Funding Sources: Objective Number" Project ID CDBG $186,094.00 HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation ESG — 12-Construction 570.202(b) Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME Sub-recipient-Nonprofit LMH-low/mod housing Start date (mmiddiyyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 07/01/06 12/31/07 Performance indicator Annual Units Total Formula Housing units(10) 0 Local ID Units upon completion Prior Year Funds 2005 $113,906.00 wXXXXX 168 IDIS Performance Management Assisted Housing Objective 1: Provide decent affordable housing PHA Outcome l: Availability Other Funding $7,475,000.00 Total $7,775,000.00 "Housing Needs Objectives 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14. The primary purpose of the project is to help:❑the Homeless[)Persons with HIV/AIDS[]Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 17 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Two Rivers Community Land Trust Priority Need: Housing-Medium and High; low and moderate income renters Project Title: Acquisition and Rehabilitation project Project Description: Acquire and rehabilitate homes, then sell to low- to moderate-income qualified buyers whereby Two Rivers Community Land Trust (TRCLT) retains title to the land. The home is sold at a reduced rate, approximately the value of the house without the land. In exchange for this reduction in cost the buyer agrees to take 25% of the increase in value when they choose to sell the house. The homeowner and TRCLT enter into a ground lease which defines the relationship between the two owners. The ground lease records the purchase price, appraised value of the home minus the land, and sets resale percentage of 25%. Approximately half of the homes identified for acquisition will be determined to be substandard and in need of rehabilitation. These projects will require more substantial rehabilitation and will be held by the TRCLT until completion and sale to an owner-occupant. The other half of the projects will be acquired jointly by TRCLT and a qualified homebuyer. These homes will require less rehabilitation; on average it is anticipated to be$15,000. Location: Countywide Funding Sources: Objective Number" Project ID CDBG $202,322.00 HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation ESG — 14A 570.202(b Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME $19,622.00 Sub-recipient-Nonprofit LMH-low/mod housing Start date (mmiddiyyyy) Completion date(mnvddiyyyy) HOPWA 07/01/06 12/31/2007 Performance indicator Annual Units Total Formula Housing units 10) 4 Local ID Units upon completion Prior Year Funds wXXXXX 6 IDIS Performance Management Assisted Housing Objective 1: Provide decent affordable housing PHA Outcome 2: Affordability Other Funding $2,327,967.00 Total $2,549,911.00 "Housing Needs Objectives 7, 8, 11, 13 and 15. The primary purpose of the project is to help:❑the Homeless[]Persons with HIV/AIDS❑Persons with Disabilities[]Public Housing Needs 18 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Washington County HRA Priority Need: Housing High; Renter, elderly, very low& low income Project Title: Raymie Johnson Elevator Rehabilitation project Project Description: The Washington County HRA owns Raymie Johnson Estates a 96-unit project-based senior housing facility located at 14830 58th Street in Oak Park Heights. Raymie Johnson Estates is a five story building 1963. Because of the age of the building the two elevators that currently serve this building are to be replaced. Location: 1483058 th Street, Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Funding Sources: Objective Number** Project ID CDBG $110,000.00 HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation ESG — 14B 570.208(a)(3) HOME Citation 92.205 (a) Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME Sub-recipient-Nonprofit LMH-low/mod housing Start date (mm/da/yyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 07/01/06 12/30/07 Performance indicator Annual Units Total Formula Housing units(10) 96 Local ID Units upon completion Prior Year Funds wXXXXX 96 IDIS Performance Management Assisted Housing Objective 1: Provide decent affordable housing PHA Outcome 3: Sustainabilty Other Funding $208,000.00 Total $318,000.00 ** Housing Needs Objectives 7, 8, 11,13 and 16. Non-homeless Special Populations Objective XX The primary purpose of the project is to help:❑the Homeless❑Persons with HIV/AIDS❑Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 19 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Human Services Inc. Priority Need: Housing-High; Renter, all others, low-income Project Title: HSI Supportive Housing Project Project Description: The parcel of land that HSI Stillwater is located includes a small two bedroom house. This house built in 1915 is in need of extensive rehabilitation. As HSI has been researching potential sites for supportive housing for people in Washington County with mental illness or other impairments, it became clear that this location would be uniquely well suited for supportive housing because it has access to social services, transportation, entry level jobs, and retail stores. With these HOME funds HSI plans to rehab this property to fit the neighborhood design so that HSI may add another supportive housing location to our property list. Location: Countywide Funding Sources: Objective Number Project ID CDBG HUD Matrix Code HOME Citation ESG — 14A 92.205 a) Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME $104,100.00 Sub-recipient-Nonprofit LMH-low/mod housing Start date (mm/dd/yyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 07/01/06 12/31/07 Performance indicator Annual Units Total Formula Housing units(10) 1 Local ID Units upon completion Prior Year Funds WXXXXX 1 IDIS Performance Management Assisted Housing Objective 1: Provide decent affordable housing PHA Outcome 2: Affordability Other Funding $93,900.00 Total $198,000.00 ** Housing Needs Objectives 6, 8 and 10, and 15;Non-homeless Special Population Needs Objective 2. The primary purpose of the project is to help:❑the Homeless OPersons with HN/AIDS®Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 20 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: City of Landfall Priority Need: Housing-High; low income and very low income owners Project Title: Electrical Hook-ups Rehabilitation Project Description: In 1994, the City of Landfall installed cable to convert to underground electric service. The city started providing the upgraded equipment (called pedestals) four years ago. The city paid for this expense and the connections to that point; the homeowners are now being asked to pay for a contractor to make the actual connection to the home. These were phased-in based on location and residents' willingness to convert to underground and ability to pay. Two-thirds of the homes have made the conversion, and 70 homes remain, the money the city receives from the CDBG program will be used to assist the people in this group that are low to moderate income. Location: Cimarron, a manufactured home community at the comer of IOth Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue. Funding Sources: Objective Number" Project ID CDBG $36,500.00 HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation ESG — 14A 570.202(b) Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME $ Sub-recipient-public Low-moderate Housing(LMH) Start date (mm/dd/yyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 07/01/06 12/31/07 Performance indicator Annual Units Total Formula Housing Units 10 70 Local ID Units upon completion Prior Year Funds wXXXXX 70 IDIS Performance Measurement Assisted Housing Objective 1: Provide decent affordable housing PHA Outcome 3: Sustainability Other Funding $14,050.00 Total $50,550.00 "Housing Needs Objectives 14 The primary purpose of the project is to help:[]the Homeless❑Persons with HIV/AIDS❑Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 21 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Washington County Community Services Priority Need: Homeless-High,Non-homeless special populations-High Project Title: Housing Specialist Project Description: The housing specialist provides general homeless services for residents who are homeless or at risk of homelessness throughout the County, including monitoring and case management for families and individuals in emergency housing stays; preparation of ASSURE/EGA applications on individuals referred from financial workers to abate homelessness; eviction and mortgage foreclosure assistance to prevent homelessness; managing housing unit; and general assistance to the housing coordinator. Location: Countywide Funding Sources: Objective Number" Project ID CDBG $48,019.00 HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation ESG — 05 570.201(e) Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME Sub-recipient-public LMC Start date (mm/dd/yyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 07/01/06 06/30/2007 Performance indicator Annual Persons Served Total Formula People(01) 60 Local ID Persons upon completion Prior Year Funds wXXXXX 160 IDIS Performance Measurement Assisted Housing Objective 1. Provide decent affordable housing PHA Outcome 2. Affordability Other Funding $4,500 Total $52,519.00 ** Housing Objective 6 and 8;Non-homeless Special Population Needs Objective 3; Homeless Needs Objectives 3, 6, 8 and 9. The primary purpose of the project is to help:®the Homeless[]Persons with HIV/AIDS❑Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 22 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Washington County Community Services Priority Need: Homeless-High; Non-homeless Special Populations-High Project Title: Wraparound Services Project Description: Wrap-around services are direct financial assistance to individuals and families who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness. Assistance is in the form of application fees to those on limited incomes; first month's rent and damage deposits; eviction and foreclosure prevention; moving costs and storage fees for crisis situations; and educational programs and materials for tenants and landlords. Wrap-around services provides a gap service for families and individuals who may not be eligible for ASSURE/EGA or are no longer eligible for those services. Location: Countywide Funding Sources: Objective Number" Project ID CDBG $75,423.00 HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation ESG — 05 570.201(e Type of Recipient CDBG Nation Objective HOME $ Sub-recipient-public Start date (mm/dd/yyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 7/l/06 6/30/07 Performance indicator Annual Units Total Formula People(01) 50 Local ID Units upon completion Prior Year Funds wXXXXX 150 IDIS Performance Measurement Assisted Housing Objective 1. Provide decent affordable housing PHA Outcome 2. Affordability Other Funding $ Total $75,423.00 ** Housing Needs Objectives 6 and 8; Non-homeless Special Population Needs Objectives 1 and 3; Homeless Needs Objectives 3, 6, 8 and 9. The primary purpose of the project is to help:®the Homeless❑Persons with HIV/AIDS❑Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 23 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Ramsey County Community Development Priority Need: Housing-High and Medium;moderate,low and very low income renters Project Title: FirstHOME Buyer Program Project Description: Assist low-and moderate-income households in Washington County to purchase a home by providing up to$10,000 in deferred,non-interest bearing second mortgages for closing costs or down payments. The County requires repayment of the principal upon the sale,maturity,or other transfer of the property or when the buyer no longer occupies the property as the principal residence. HomeStretch Programs, which target low-income residents, including Public Housing Assistance (PHA) residents, present information regarding the FirstHOME Programs. HomeStretch is marketed on the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority website and PHA residents are mailed first time homebuyer packets. Outreach will be initiated once fiscal year funds have been received and are available to down payment and closing cost assistance - likely July/August 2006. Ramsey County will prepare news releases for general distribution including jurisdiction newsletters, local and minority- owned newspapers, and for direct mailing to mobile home communities. Location: Countywide: Exact locations will be determined by FirstHOME program participants and may be located within the cities of Afton,Bayport,Birchwood,Cottage Grove,Forest Lake,Grant,Hugo, Lake Elmo, Lake St. Croix Beach, Lakeland, Lakeland Shores,Landfall,Mahtomedi,Newport, Oak Park Heights, Oakdale, Pine Springs, St. Mary's Point, St. Paul Park, Stillwater, Willernie, or Woodbury, or the townships of Baytown,May, Scandia, Stillwater or West Lakeland. Eligible properties include single family homes, condominiums, townhouses, land trust property and some manufactured housing. For more information see Attachment E. Funding Sources: Objective Number" Project ID CDBG HUD Matrix Code HOME Citation ESG — Direct Homeownership 92.205 (a) Assistance- 13 Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME Sub-recipient-public Low-moderate Housing(LMH) Start date (mm/dd/yyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 07/01/2006 06/30/2007 Performance indicator Annual Households Total Formula Households(4) 17 Local ID Households upon completion Prior Year Funds wXXXXX 17 Assisted Housing PHA Other Funding American Dream Downpayment Intiative $7,054.00 Total $7,054.00 "Non-homeless Special Population Needs Objective 2; Housing Needs Objectives 4, 6 and 8. The primary purpose of the project is to help:❑the Homeless❑Persons with HIV/AIDS[]Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 24 Table 3 Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects Applicant's Name: Washington County Sub-recipient's Name: Washington County Priority Need: Planning and Administration-High Project Title: Planning and Administration Project Description: Program administration for the CDBG and HOME programs includes,but is not limited to, costs of the following activities: providing information to citizens, staff; and elected officials; budgeting and accounting for all funded activities; developing contracts with sub-recipients for projects and administrative assistance; monitoring program activities for progress and compliance; preparing HUD documents; providing technical assistance to sub- recipients; conducting environmental review for all funded projects; fair housing activities; contingency for unexpected costs and all other administrative expenses needed to manage an effective program. The recommended funding is 20% of the CDBG annual allocation and 10% of the HOME allocation. Any surplus will be reallocated to the Countywide Owner-occupied Rehabilitation Program. Location: County-wide Funding Sources: Objective Number" Project ID CDBG $164,589.00 HUD Matrix Code CDBG Citation ESG — 21A 570.206 Type of Recipient CDBG National Objective HOME (Wash Co)$21,582.00 Sub-recipient-public NA (Dakota County)$7,194.00 Start date (mm/dd/yyyy) Completion date(mm/dd/yyyy) HOPWA 07/01/2006 6/30/2007 Performance indicator Annual Units Total Formula NA NA Local ID Units upon completion Prior Year Funds wXXXXX INA Assisted Housing PHA Other Funding Total $193,363.00 "Non-homeless Special Population Needs Objective 3, Housing Needs Objectives 3, 7, 8, 11 and 12. The primary purpose of the project is to help:❑the Homeless❑Persons with HIV/AIDS❑Persons with Disabilities❑Public Housing Needs 25 Attachment A : Comments Received / Leizal Notices A public comment period was open from February 26th through April 15, 2006. Notice was published February 26, 2006. A Consortium public hearing will be held March 9, 2006. The purpose of the hearing will be to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the housing, community, and economic development needs of communities within the Dakota County Consortium. Legal notices will be published in the Oakdale/Lake Elmo Review. Comments received are summarized below: 26 Attachment B : Certifications (Will be attached at the time of county board final approval) 27 Attachment C : Application for Federal Assistance, SF-424 (Will be attached at the time of county board final approval) 28 ATTACHMENT D-First Homebuyer Assistance Program Policy 29 WASHINGTON COUNTY FirstHOME Program POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE WITH THE USE OF HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDS Program and Policies Adopted: December 2002 And Revised July 1, 2003 30 Washington County FirstHOME Program SECTION I OVERVIEW Washington County is committed to assisting low- and moderate-income families with the purchase of affordable housing in suburban Washington County. The Washington County FirstHOME Program enables the County to provide funds to assist first time homebuyers who will live in Washington County eligible communities with costs associated with the purchase of a home. Funding in an amount up to $10,000 will be provided as a second mortgage and may be used to pay any or all generally accepted closing costs including loan points, origination fees, appraisals, credit and title examinations, and legal and recording fees. Funds may also be used for down payment costs or principal subsidies. SECTION II FUNDING SOURCE The funds for Downpayment Assistance are being provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program). The FirstHOME Downpayment Assistance Program has been approved as an eligible use of HOME funds and is operated within Washington County. Because the FirstHOME Program provides assistance with HOME Investment Partnership Program funding and where possible, may be used in conjunction with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ECHO Program, applicants must meet the eligibility requirements of both programs in order to qualify for both sources of down payment assistance. SECTION III 31 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY To be eligible to participate in the FirstHOME Program, the following requirements must be met: 1. Maximum Income Annual household income cannot exceed the maximum income limitation as determined by Washington County. This limit is based upon 80% of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area median income by household size as determined periodically by HUD. A breakout of these figures is attached as Exhibit F in the lender package. Income is to be arrived at using the IRS 1040 Adjusted Gross income for EACH adult living in the household, even if that adult is not listed on the mortgage. The format for calculating household income using this method is enclosed as Exhibit B and must be forwarded at the time that a reservation of funds is requested. Income should be verified by third parties where earnings are irregular ar or uncertain. In the event that Washington County funds are used in conjunction with Minnesota Housing Finance Agency funding, requirements of both programs must be met. 2. Acquisition Price The purchase price shall be no more than the Section 203(b) maximum HOME Program purchase price limit as determined by HUD for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area (see Exhibit B) or as established by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency if that agency's ECHO down payment assistance program is also being used to assist with the purchase of residential property. The current maximum acquisition price for properties purchased with Washington County FirstHOME Program assistance is identified in the Fact Sheet. 3. First Time Buyer The borrower(s) cannot have owned a principal place of residence within the past three years except that displaced homemakers and/or single parents who may have owned a home with a former spouse may also be eligible. Buyer(s) must demonstrate that they have a minimum of three years of continuous employment history. 4. Homebuyer Training To qualify for participation in the FirstHOME Program, at least one household member must have successfully completed an approved homebuyer education program. Education must be completed prior to closing the loan. Training provided through MHFA sponsored Home Stretch or through the Homeownership Center is acceptable. A list of approved training opportunities is available on the web at www.hocmn.org. Evidence of successful completion of homebuyer training must be provided prior to issuance of the check for FirstHOME down payment assistance. 32 5. Mortgage Qualification The borrower(s) must be able to qualify for a VA, FHA, or Fannie Mae approved conventional mortgage as determined by the participating private lender or must meet the requirements of locally approved initiatives designed to meet affordable housing needs in Washington County. 6. Asset Limitations Borrowers using the Washington County FirstHOME Buyer Assistance Program may have no more than $5,000 in liquid assets after closing the FirstHOME loan. IRAs, 401 Ks and other tax sheltered retirement accounts do not have to be considered in calculating maximum assets. 7. Property Eligibility The property being purchased must located in an eligible Washington County community and must be the principal place of residence of the borrower(s). Eligible communities include: Afton, Bayport, Baytown Township, Birchwood, Cottage Grove, Forest Lake, Grant, Hugo, Lake Elmo, Lake St. Croix Beach, Lakeland, Lakeland Shores, Landfall, Mahtomedi, May Township, New Scandia Township, Newport, Oak Park Heights, Oakdale, Pine Springs, St. Mary's Point, St. Paul Park, Stillwater, Stillwater Township, West Lakeland Township, Willernie, and Woodbury. Ineligible communities include Dellwood, Denmark Township, Grey Island Township, and Marine on St. Croix. Properties must minimally meet Housing Quality Standards (Exhibit G) and must comply with federal lead-based paint and asbestos regulations. Eligible properties include single family homes, condominiums, townhouses, land trust property where there is a 99-year leasehold interest in the property, and manufactured housing if it meets the following criteria: Manufactured housing qualifies only if the unit is situated on a permanent foundation, is connected to permanent utility hook-ups, is located on land that is held in a fee-simple title, land trust, or long-term ground lease with a term at least equal to that of the appropriate affordability period. Properties must meet construction standards that are established under 24 CFR 3280 if produced after June 15, 1976. If the unit was built prior to June 15, 1976, it must comply with applicable State or local codes A multi-unit, owner-occupied property is not an eligible property. Downpayment assistance will not be provided for the purchase of a property that is primarily occupied by tenants. The specifics of the above qualifications will undoubtedly change over time and are regulated by state and federal law. The borrower(s) must abide by those requirements in place at the time he/she chooses to participate in the first time homebuyer program. 33 SECTION IV FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM/ HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ASSISTANCE FirstHOME assistance is available from the HRA on a first come, first served basis to households who meet the income, employment, property, homebuyer education and other criteria established in Section III (qualified borrowers). Washington County will work with any recognized lender; however, preference will be given to lenders who have attended the county-sponsored information program and those who have been designated as participating lenders through MHFA ECHO Program, which provides down payment assistance funds. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE QUALIFICATIONS 1. Income/Property Borrowers must be eligible and the property must meet criteria established under Section III. 2. Housing Quality Standards The property must minimally meet Section 8 Housing Quality Standards. First time homebuyer mortgages that are FHA insured, VA guaranteed, or Fannie Mae approved conventional and meet the property standards for those programs will also be presumed to meet FirstHOME standards. Lenders must provide evidence that the property has been inspected and meets housing quality and lead standards prior to closing. All properties constructed before 1978 must pass a visual inspection for lead hazards conducted by an individual trained in visual assessment. Training is available on-line at www.hud.gov/offices/lead/training/index.cfin. Upon successful completion of the hour-long course, the trainee can print out a completion certificate. A copy of the certificate should accompany the visual assessment forwarded to the FirstHOME Administrator (Ramsey County)prior to closing. 3. Minimum/Maximum Downpayment Assistance The borrower must contribute a minimum equity investment of one (1%) percent of the purchase price of the property or $2,000.00, whichever is greater. Washington County will fund a second mortgage in an amount equal to the difference between the maximum approvable mortgage based on the buyer paying at least 30% of household income and the current maximum purchase price. This amount includes any funds necessary to facilitate participation in the MHFA programs up to the maximum of$10,000. The buyer(s) is expected to pay at least 30% of adjusted income for principal, interest, taxes and insurance. 4. Repayment Agreements 34 The borrower(s) is required to sign a Note and Mortgage (see Exhibits D and E) in order to receive down payment assistance. Down payment assistance will be provided in the form of an interest-free loan secured with a Second Mortgage and payable upon sale or transfer of property. The Second Mortgage is not assumable. Full repayment of the principal is due upon the sale, maturity, or other transfer of the property or when the buyer no longer occupies the property as the principal residence. Washington County will subordinate the second mortgage only when the property is being refinanced to secure a lower rate and/or term and no cash is refunded to borrower(s). FIRST MORTGAGE REQUIREMENTS • The first mortgage will be fixed term, fully amortizing, over a minimum term of twenty (20) years. No rollover, adjustable rate mortgages, or other mortgage loans with principal balloons will be permitted. • The loan to value ratio may be at least 105 percent(105%), including the Washington County FirstHOME Program loan. • The loan must meet industry accepted underwriting standards. • The interest rate in the first mortgage may be no higher than the current market rate in suburban Washington County communities. THIRD MORTGAGE REQUIREMENTS— Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Entry Cost Homeownership Program(ECHO). • Entry cost assistance (for the down payment and closing costs) is available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ECHO Program in an amount up to $3000 for existing homes and $4,000 for new construction. ECHO loans are interest free, third mortgages due upon sale, maturity, or when the buyer no longer occupies the property. • MHFA third mortgages are discounted 26 percent (26%) at loan purchase. Lenders may pay the entire discount or may be reimbursed in part through resources other than from the homebuyer or property seller. • Other eligibility requirements established by the ECHO Program will apply when used in conjunction with the Washington County FirstHOME Program. For example, ECHO participants may not retain more than $5,000 in liquid assets upon closing, not including funds invested in tax sheltered retirement programs. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES 1. Borrowers wishing to participate in the FirstHOME down payment assistance program must express their interest to the participating lender with whom they are working. The FirstHOME Administrator(Ramsey County) will work with participating lenders,not directly with homebuyers. The lender will complete a worksheet (see Exhibit A) to determine the amount of down payment assistance for which the borrower qualifies. The lender will then forward the worksheet to the HRA where it will be reviewed for accuracy and eligibility. An authorized HRA staff member will sign 35 the worksheet to indicate that down payment assistance funds in the amount indicated on the worksheet have been reserved for that borrower, and return the signed worksheet to the lender. The lender must demonstrate or otherwise certify that the borrower is paying at least 30% of income for PITI. The Household Income Worksheet has been provided and must accompany the request to reserve FirstHOME funds. 3. Two weeks prior to the closing date, the lender will send all necessary documentation required by the HOME Program to the FirstHOME Administrator. Upon receipt of the required documents, Washington County will prepare a check in the amount approved on the Downpayment Assistance Request Form. Lenders should note FirstHOME Administrator must receive the completed Claim Form (Exhibit F) in order to initiate the financing process. Lenders should allow at least ten days from receipt of the Claim Form to process a check. 4. The lender shall provide the down payment assistance check at closing and will be responsible for having the borrower(s) sign the Second Mortgage and Note at that time. 5. Following the closing, the lender will be responsible for forwarding one copy of the Second Mortgage and the original Note to the FirstHOME Administrator. The lender is responsible for recording the Second Mortgage with the Washington County Recorder's Office and forwarding the recorded document to the FirstHOME Administrator. SECTION V RESALE OF PROPERTY PURCHASED WITH HOME OR CDBG PROGRAM FUNDS At such time as the borrower(s) wishes to resell the home purchased with Washington County FirstHOME Program funds, it is required that the down payment assistance funds provided to the borrower(s) be repaid in full to the FirstHOME Administrator. 36 SECTION V1 REFINANCING Washington County may subordinate the FirstHOME Buyer Assistance loan if refinancing results in greater housing affordability for the participants. Subordinations may be made on a case-by-case basis; however no cash may be taken out as a result of refinancing. Borrowers may need to document continuing income eligibility for the program. The following documentation should be submitted to the FirstHOME Administrator along with a copy of the lender 1003, appraisal, title report, and estimated closing statement. SECTION V11 CONTINUING AFFORDABILITY The aforementioned guidelines will ensure that all borrowers receiving down payment assistance through the Downpayment Assistance Program meet the applicable HOME Program rules and regulations. The HOME Program has established periods of affordability. Properties purchased with assistance from the Washington County FirstHOME program must remain affordable for a period of no less than five years. Properties with FHA insured, VA guaranteed, or Fannie Mae conventional mortgages must remain affordable for the longer of the length of the mortgage or FirstHOME affordability period. Because the use of HOME Program funds as described in these policies requires that borrowers using FirstHOME down payment assistance repay that assistance upon sale or transfer of the property, all HOME Program funds utilized for FirstHOME down payment assistance will be returned to the FirstHOME Administrator, thereby nullifying the continued affordability requirement. Funds repaid/recaptured during the period of affordability will be used to fund the FirstHOME Program. SECTION VIII RE-USE OF HOME AND CDBG PROGRAM FUNDS Washington County will reinvest returned HOME Program funds for the purpose of assisting other low and moderate-income families to obtain decent and affordable housing within Washington County. 37 SECTION IX AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING Washington County participates in Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnership Programs. Although funding for the FirstHOME program limits the number of participants, marketing efforts will comply with requirements of the Consolidated Plan. Specifically, any entity engaged in marketing Washington County funded programs must not discriminate against households who may be included in protected classes. Furthermore, every effort must be made to engage in inclusionary marketing and to use the HUD fair housing logo whenever feasible. SECTION X FirstHOME PARTNERS The FirstHOME Administrator will work with all suburban lenders to make FirstHOME funding available to eligible buyers. Lenders must agree to comply with requirements of the Washington County FirstHOME Program and make files available for monitoring by the FirstHOME Administrator, Washington County and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development upon request. SECTION XI POLICY MODIFICATIONS The Director, Washington County Community Services shall have the authority to make modifications to this policy as necessary for the continued implementation of the program, including, but not limited to: (1) policy revisions necessary due to a change in design of the FirstHOME Program; and (2) policy changes necessary due to revisions in the rules and regulations of the Home Investment Partnership Program (24 CFR Part 92) Program as administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Director has the right to amend this policy and/or discontinue the HRA homebuyer assistance program at any time. 38 Attachment E : Affidavits and Copies of Le al Notices (Will be attached at the time of county board final approval) 40 Attachments G: Outcome and Performance Measurement System 41 HOMELESS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (Table 1A) I Individuals Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Current Under Unmet Objective Inventory Development Priority Goals Performance Measure �-'V = V= U `� �= �' `� �' `� U = � U V U � U � U = Need/Gap # Q 0 Q 0 Q L) Q 0 Q 0 Q Q Type of Shelter in 2004 in 2004 w a w a w a w a w a w a Emergency Shelter 3 0 5 Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transitional 5 0 5 5 Provide funding for#of Housing High 6 beds over next five years. m Permanent 8 5 14 8 Provide funding for#of Supportive Housing High beds over next five years. Total 16 5 24 Persons in Families With Children Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Current Under _ _ _ _ _ _ Unmet Objective (D (D (D W Inventory Development Priority Goals Performance Measure `� `� `� `� .r `� Need/Gap # Q Q Q Q W W Type of Shelter CL CL in 2004 in 2004 w a w a w a w a w a w a Emergency Shelter 41 0 12 Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transitional 37 9 12 5 Provide funding for#of Housing High 6 beds over next five years. M" Permanent 0 16 18 8 Provide funding for#of Supportive Housing High beds over next five years. Total 108 25 42 42 SPECIAL NEEDS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (Table 1B) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Unmet Objective ( a) iE iE a) F Priority Goals Performance Measure U V v V v v Need # m ., m a) ., a> ., a) — 0 �. X Q X Q X Q X Q X Q X Q Special Needs Population w w w w w w 0 0 N Frail Elderly Low 100 6 3 Provide funding for 6 units 1 1 1 1 2 6 Z Persons w/ Severe Mental Illness High over next five years. m 35 0 3 Developmentally Disabled Low o Provide funding for 10 = 150 10 1 2 2 2 2 2 10 Physically Disabled High units over next five years. 97 6 3 Provide funding for 6 units 1 1 1 1 2 6 Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted High over next five years. 33 0 Persons w/ HIV/AIDS & their families Low 850 10 PH 7 Provide funding for 10 2 2 2 2 2 10 Public Housing Residents** High units over next five years. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Priority Unmet Objective �W � � ' ( a) -RW @ Goals Performance Measure V V 3 V 3 V 3 v 3 V 3 Level Need # a) y a, a)0. y m a) w a) — X Q X Q X Q X Q X Q X Q Special Needs Population w w w w w w 0 0 Z Frail Elderly Low N 0 100 6 3 Provide funding for 6 units 1 1 1 1 2 6 Persons w/ Severe Mental Illness High over next five years. 35 0 Developmentally Disabled Low c. Physically Disabled Low 0 0 49 6 3 Provide funding for 6 units 1 1 1 1 2 6 Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted High over next five years. 33 0 Persons w/ HIV/AIDS & their families Low Public Housing Residents** High 850 0 ** Estimates for Public Housing Residents are given in terms of households. HOMELESS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (Table 1C) cont'd Expected Actual Objective# Specific Objectives Action Performance Measure Date Units Units Homeless Objectives Housing Coordinator will continue to participate in statewide Attend meetings of the Governor's Group on Homelessness Percent of meetings attended for 1 strategies including the Governor's Group on Homelessness and the Regional Working Group on Homelessness. each group. Annually 80% and the Regional Working Group on Homelessness. All Washington County Continuum of Care and Housing Implement through the training and licensing of HMIS to Percent of Housing Collaborative 2 Collaborative housing service provider,who are required to, providers. housing service providers using 8/31/2005 100% will use the HM IS system. HMIS system by date: Washington County will create prevention strategies to The Housing Collaborative will explore strategies. Completed by: 12/31/2005 - 3 assist with potential housing crisis before homelessness The Housing Collaborative will choose strategies. Completed by: 12/31/2007 occurs. Strategies will be Implemented. Completed by: 12/31/2008 Washington County will maintain monthly contacts and Housing Coordinator will conduct monthly Housing Completed by: 4 updates with all stakeholders. Collaborative meetings and disttribute minutes. Monthly 100% Financial assistance workers, mental health workers, or any Provide updated information during quarterly unit meetings Completed by: 5 other county staff or community provider who comes into with other units in Community Services,through the use of Quarterly - contact with a person experiencing chronic or other intranet system.. homelessness will know how and where to access shelter, Yearly survey of effectivness of training. Completed by: Annually 75% Washington County programs, like Continuum of Care Housing Coordinator will attend CDBG CAC meetings. Percentage of CDBG CAC meetings Annually 80% and/or funding sources, like CDBG, will work with greater attended. 6 coordination to fund future housing opportunities for those If homeless projects come in during RFP, they will receive Percent of projects funded that meet currently experiencing or those at an imminent risk of priority. criteria compared to percent of Annually See homelessness. projects that do not meet criteria. Washington County will continue to recruit housing and Perform community outreach activities like speaking Number of new Housing 7 service providers. Finding providers to provide services engagements. Collaborative members. Annually 5 within this continuum remains a goal and a challenge. Continue to allocate the maximum amount of funds allowed Review percent of allocation that should be setaside for Percent of funds to program. Annually 10% 8 from CDBG/HOME funds to the"wrap-a-round"services "wrap-a-round" program. Number of years full percentage provided by the county's housing coordinator. allocated. Annually 5 Washington County Continuum of Care and Housing Conduct annual public hearing during Board Workshop Number of years conducting Board 9 Collaborative will increase community awareness regarding regarding the work done in homelessnes of previous year. Workshop. Annually5 the definition and issues related to chronic homelessness on a global and local scale. Educate public officials on the disparity that exists relating TBD by Housing Collaborative. TBD 10 to how Section 8 Vouchers are dispersed among TBD jurisdictions in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 44 SPECIAL NEEDS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (Table 1C) cont'd Expected Actual Objective# Specific Objectives Action Performance Measure Date Units Units Special Needs Objectives Fund a housing development that will provide specifically for Add physical disability standard to criteria for ranking Number of housing developments, 1 persons with physical disabilities. proposals. and their number of units,for persons with physical disabilities. For those that are able to find housing in a traditional unit, See Housing Objective#8. See Housing Objective#8. the Washington County Rehabilitation Program will provide 2 preference to persons with physical disabilities for housing rehabilitation loans to rehabilitate their units to accommodate their phy CDBG staff will consult with the Local Mental Health Upon completion of MHAC recommendations, CDBG staff To Be Determined. Advisory Council to create strategies for addressing housing will accept strateigies for serving housing needs of persons 3 needs of persons with severe mental illness. The local with mental illness. Mental Health Advisory Council will be making recommendations to the County Board in All chemical dependency treatment providers to address Providers will be expected to follow"Washington County Number and percent of contracts mental illness as a part of their chemical dependency Community Services Substance Abuse Program Standards that require dual treatment 4 treatment program. for Co-occurring Mental Health&Chemical Health procedures be followed. Disorders." These standards will be incorporated into all contracts with chemical dependency tre Provide chemical dependency training for all staff and Any clients that have housing issues referred to the Percent of staff receiving chemical 5 contracted chemical health staff in the area of elderly Community Services Department Housing Unit staff. dependency training. services, adult mental health services and child protection services. 45 HOUSING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Table 2A Vary Low-Income (� 30% MFI) le'e,ar ear ear ear ear ota Priority Unmet Objective y y y y Level NeedGoals a ParTormanos Maas- W Q W Q W Q W Q W Q W Q Provide funding for 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 Elderly High 480 15 5 units over next five years. Provide funding for 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 6 Small Related High 349 15 13 units over next five years. r ov Pride ng fundifor 20 c Large Related High 64 20 9 units over next five years. 4 4 4 4 4 20 Provide funding for 10 2 2 2 2 2 10 All other High 366 10 13 units over next five years. Provide funding for 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 Elderly High 530 15 4, 10, 13 units over next five years. Provide funding for 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 Small Related High 340 1 15 4, 10, 13 units over next five years. 4, 9, 10, Provide funding for 20 4 4 4 4 4 20 3 Large Related High 120 20__r 13 units over next five years. 0 Provide funding for 10 2 2 2 2 2 10 All other High 273 10 4, 1 O, 13 units over next five years. Low-Income (30% c MFI < SO%) ear ear ear ear ear o a Priority Unmet Objective a 0 a ++ a M a Y a V a i' Level Need Goals # Pa rTorm enc• Maas urs Q 0 0 0 0 w Q w Q W a w a w a w a Provide funding for 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 Elderly High 499 15 5 units over next five years. Provide funding for 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 6 Small Related High 367 15 13 units over next five years. Provide funding for 20 4 4 4 4 4 20 Large Related High 85 20 9 units over next five years. Provide funding for 10 2 2 2 2 2 10 All other High 430 10 13 units over next five years. Provide funding for 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 Elderly High 508 15 4, 10, 13 units over next five years. Provide funding for 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 6 Small Related High 770 15 1 4, 10, 13 units over next five years. 0 4, 9, 10, Provide funding for 20 4 4 4 4 4 20 3 Large Related High 223 20 13 junits over next five years. Provide funding for 10 Q A11 other High 362 10 4, 10, 13 1 units over next five years. 2 2 2 2 2 10 Moderate-Income (SO%� MFI � 80%) ear ear ear ear ear o a Priority Unmet Objective m r m 0 m 0. « d 0. « m 0. Level Need Goals # Pa rTorm encs Maas ura WW W W W W Provide funding for 5 units 1 1 1 1 1 5 Elderly Medium 170 5 5 over next five years. Provide funding for 5 units 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 Small Related Medium 237 5 13 over next five years. Provide funding for 5 units 1 1 1 1 1 5 Large Related Medium 95 5 9 over next five years. d Provide funding for 5 units 1 1 1 1 1 5 All other Medium 181 5 13 over next five years. Provide funding for 5 units 1 1 1 1 1 5 Elderly Medium 331 5 4, 10, 13 over next five years. Provide funding for 5 units 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 Small Related Medium 1497 5 4, 10, 13 over next five years- 0 4, 9, 10, Provide funding for 5 units � Large Rd elateMedium 420 5 13 over next five years. 1 1 1 1 1 5 Provide funding for 5 units 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 A11 other Medium 824 5 4, 10, 13 over next five years. 46 HOUSING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (Table 2C) Objective#ISpecific Objectives JActions JPerformance Measure I Date Expected I Actual General Housing Objective Washington County will compile information on how Washington County will compile policy guideline pamphlet Completed by: 12/31/2007 communities can reduce regulatory barriers and a policy about regulatory barriers and their consequences. guideline focusing on the effects of zoning on housing and Housing Collaborative will review and endorse. Completed by: 3/31/2008 land prices. Washington County will distribute to cities. Completed by: 12/31/2008 Survey cities will choose whether to adopt a new policy. Number and percent of cities that 12/31/2009 25% adopt new policy guidelines. Washington County will further encourage its communities Have an RFP for a consultant or have in-house staff to Completed by: to adopt strategic incentives to encourage developers to conduct assessment of current city practices in regards to 12/31/2007 - provide a wider array of housing options. This could include housing incentives. waiving development fees, offering density bonuses and Assess current city practices in regards to housing Completed by: 3/31/2008 2 other zoning incentives, and mixed-income developments for incentives. both owner-and rental-units. Develop recommendations based on assessment results Completed by: 12/31/2008 and distribute to cities. After one year, redo assessment to determine if attitudes Number and percent of cities that 12/31/2009 25% and practices have changed. adopt new practices. Washington County will give priority to funding housing Add 1/2 mile proxtimity standard to criteria for ranking Percent of projects funded that meet In process 3 projects that are located close to public transportation. proposals. criteria compared to percent of Annuall of projects that do not meet criteria. y estimating baseline. Continue to fund Washington County's first-time homebuyer Review first-time homebuyer policy with staff and If adjustment needed,was it 4 assistance program while regularly adjusting its policy to stakeholders. comleted. Annually 100% better reflect market changes and comply with HUD price limits. Washington County encourages current and future Community Services will determine future need of affordable Rich Bachmann to complete by: TBD TBD developments to increase the number of mixed-income units assisted living units via gaps analysis. provided in assisted living facilities to support low-income Community Services will report findings to CDBG CAC. Completed by: TBD TBD 5 seniors. Dependent upon findings,will add assisted living as a priority If needed, Ratio of the number of criterion. projects funded versus the number TBD TBD of proposed projects that are assisted living. Washington County will affirmatively market its housing Housing Collaborative will track demographic data through Completed by: Annually programs to persons of color. the HMIS system. All rehabilitation program marketing materials will have Equal Completed by: 6 Housing Opportunity and/or Fair Housing language and Annually - logos. Compare number and percent of persons of color served Number and percent of persons of versus percent of persons of color within County. color served versus percent of Annually 6.37% persons of color within County. Washington County will encourage its sub-recipients to All subrecepients will receive fair housing information. Percent of subrecepients receiving Upon affirmatively market their housing programs to persons of fair housing information. reciept of 100% color funds. All contracts with subrecepients will contain language Percent of contracts with Upon requiring affirmative marketing and compliance with fair subrecepients containing required reciept of 100% 7 housing law. language. funds. All subrecepients will be required to submit a copy of their Percent of subrecepients that have Upon affirmative marketing policy to be included in county file. a copy of their affirmative marketing reciept of 100% policy in county file funds. Compare number and percent of persons of color served Number and percent of persons of versus percent of persons of color within County. color served versus percent of Annually 6.37% persons of color within County. 47 All contracts with subrecepients will contain language Percent of contracts with Upon requiring affirmative marketing and compliance with fair subrecepients containing required reciept of 100% 7 housing law. language. funds. All subrecepients will be required to submit a copy of their Percent of subrecepients that hake Upon affirmative marketing policy to be included in county file. a copy of their affirmative marketing reciept of 100% policy in county file funds. Compare number and percent of persons of color served Number and percent of persons of versus percent of persons of color within County. color served versus percent of Annually 6.37% persons of color within County. Washington County will affirmatively market its housing and Add physical disability standard to criteria for ranking Completed by: In process funding programs to persons with physical disabilities. proposals. Annually of Funding priority would be given to housing that is dedicated estimating to persons with physical disabilities or for rehabilitation loans baseline. 8 to Rehabilitation policy guidelines will give priority to Completed by: 12/31/2005 - - accessibility improvements. Compare number and percent of physiclaly disabled served Number and percent of physiclaly versus percent of physcially disabled within County. disabled served versus percent of Annually 3.86% physcially disabled within County. Washington County will give funding priority to projects that Add large unit standard to criteria for ranking proposals. Percent of projects funded that meet In process offer larger unit sizes, both owner and renter. criteria compared to percent of of 9 projects that do not meet criteria. Annually estimating baseline. Washington County will continue to allocate funds annually Review percent of allocation that should be setaside for Percent of funds to rehabilitation Annually 25% 10 for its owner-occupied rehabilitation loan program for rehabilitation program. programs. qualified LMI homeowners to make the necessary repairs to Number of years full percentage Annually 5 their housing units. allocated. Washington County will require developers who receive funds Compile desirable design guidelines and distribute to CDBG CAC to complete by: 12/31/2006 - to design their housing developments and housing units to subrecepients. 11 incorporate family-friendly elements, such as wide hallways, Review architecture documents consistency with these Number and percent of projects playground equipment, etc. design guidelines. funded that include design Annually 100% elements. Continue circulating the fair housing laws"traveling"display. Monitor where display has been. Number of locations hosting the The display started at the county Government Center and is display. 12 working its way around county and city public buildings, Annually 7 such as libraries and city halls. Continue to fund ergaaizatieas Community Housing Add Percent of funds to projects that- Development Organizations, such as community land trusts points to application evaluation criteria for organizations who offer long twm aftrdabi lity invested and Habitat for Humanity, that are are invested in affordability and sustainability of housing. in affordability and sustainability of 13term ng up ts that they west housing. Annually 50% invested in availability, affordabiilty and sustainability of housing. Increase availability by ensuring new housing units are TBD TBD 14 constructed which are affordable to low-moderate income TBD TBD TBD households. Increase affordability by acquiring and rehabilitating existing ',TBD TBD 15 units in order to make them affordable to low-moderate TBD TBD TBD income households. Increase sustainability by ensuring existing affordable rental 'TBD TBD and owner occupied units are rehabilitated. 16 TBD TBD TBD Note:All Actions that have"Annually"as Date will be completed by the end of the fiscal year(June 30th). 48 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT (Table 2B) Tote Priority Unmet Objective 6 N Project Type Goals p m Level Need" # t 0 Q ; d a W Infrastructure Parking Facilities Low 9 0 0 Flood Drain Improvements Low 5 0 0 Water/Sewer Improvements Low 5 0 0 Street Improvements Low 6 0 0 Sidewalks Low 8 0 0 Parks and Landscaping Parks Low 15 0 0 Tree Planting Low 0 0 O Public Facilities Solid Waste Disposal Low 1 0 0 Fire Stations/Equipment Low 0 0 0 Neighborhood Centers Senior Centers Low 1 0 0 Handicapped Centers Low 1 0 0 Provide funding for 1 project Youth Centers Medium 5 1 1 over next five years. 1 Provide funding for 1 project Neighborhood Facilities Medium 3 1 2 over next five years. 1 Provide funding for 1 project Recreational Facilities Medium 0 1 3 over next five years. 1 Child Care Centers Low 3 0 O Health Facilities Low 1 0 0 Abused and Neglected Children Facilities Low 0 0 0 Economic Development Commercial/Industrial Rehabilitation Low 1 O O Commercial/Industrial New Construction Low 4 0 0 *"As esimated via City Survey conducted December 2004 49 Attachment F : Monitoring Program and Checklist 50