HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2011-014 CDBG Funding RESOLUTION NO. R-2011-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI, STATING INTENT TO SEEK FUNDING
THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO PURSUE ACTIVITIES IN AN ATTEMPT TO SECURE FUNDING
WHEREAS, Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 states as its primary
objective "the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing, suitable living
environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate income";
and
WHEREAS, Title I offers to communities the opportunity of monetary assistance in accomplishing
its stated primary objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Missouri Department of Economic Development is designated to award
Community Development Block Grant funding under Title I; and
WHEREAS, the City has areas of need which may be addressed through the Community
Development Block Grant program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF
RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
THAT the City desires to participate with the Missouri Department of Economic Development in
the improvement of our com munity under the activities authorized pursuant to the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974;
FURTHER THAT the Mayor of Riverside, Missouri hereby is authorized to prepare and submit
documents which are necessary in applying for funding and establishing an administrative organization to
implement activities pursuant to the aforementioned act;
FURTHER THAT the applicant will dedicate at least $1,369,486 of local cash funds and $1,000 of
in-kind materials or labor to be used in this project.
PASSED AND ADO�P by the B ard of Aldermen and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of
Riverside, Missouri, the �c,��' of 011.
` . . ' , ��-lt,l:-G(�LV'v
-� Kathleen L. Rose, Mayor
. .
_ATTE�S�: •
��:�. `� r�
Robin Littre�l, ity Clerk
� Approv sto Form:
�. % �,
,
y T mpso , City Attorney
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROJECT HOOVER UNIVERSAL INC
BOARD OF ALDERMEN CHAMBERS
RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI
Friday, February 18, 2011
2:00 p.m.
The Public Hearing was opened at 2:00 p.m. Those in attendance were City Administrator
David Blackburn, Community Development Director Mike Duffy, Molly McGovern, Darren
Hennen, and City Clerk Robin Littrell.
Name of Project: Project Hoover Universal, Inc.
Purpose of project, project goals & outcomes:
The purpose and need for the project is to accommodate the location of an industrial development
expansion. The manufacturing facility will be used for the assembly of complete car seats for
automotive vehicles (Ford F-150 pickup truck, GM Malibu passenger car) and will result in retention of
75 existing Missouri jobs and creation of 164 newjobs (average salary $50,065).
The company's goal is to construct and equip a 170,000 SF inanufacturing facility on 25 acres at the
northeast corner of Mattox Road and to be constructed 41 Street. Public improvements required to
support the project includes the extension of 41 Street approximately 1300 LF east from Mattox Road
and 41 to Horizon's Parkway and the installation of approximately 5,000 LF of collection sewer
line from Mattox Road and 41 Street to an existing lift station located at Interstate 635 and Highway 9.
The project site is protected by a levee substantially completed in 2006.
Description of all project activities by all funding sources and proposed costs broken down by funding
sources proposed;
Bond Proceeds $20.9 million (includes site development, building construction, architectural
and engineering, Machinery/Equipment, furniture/fixtures)
Other Financing $1 million (includes EDA funding to assist with the cost to extend 41 Street)
Applicant's Funds $2,034,559 (Matching funds for EDA and CDBG Funding)
Requested for federal funds $1.1 million (sewer line construction)
Total cost of project including environmental review preparation and any mitigation/modification
costs: The total cost of the project is estimated to be $25,034,559
,
Timeline of project including environmental review approval, onset of property easements and
acquisition, & construction activities.
Environmental Review Process December 7, 2010—March 28, 2011
Site Grading, completion of site control April 1, 2011
Construction of Buiidings April 1, 2011
Installation of machinery/equipment July 1, 2011
Completion of Project August 1, 2011
Whether acquisition and/or relocation is necessary for the project — outline rights of property owners
under the federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements: The City of Riverside owns the property to be
leased (with an option to purchase) to the company for 10 years. The lease payments collectively will
equal the principal and interest on the Bonds plus the payments in lieu of taxes. Title to the leased
assets is to be automatically transferred to the Lessee at conclusion of the lease. The property is
undeveloped property and no relocation is necessary.
Identify all anticipated environmental impacts project activities could have on natural, human, and
manmade environments: The project is undergoing a NEPA review and it has been determined that the
project activities are not anticipated to have an adverse impact on Historic Properties (State Historic
Preservation or Indian Tribes); Floodplain management, Flood Insurance, Wetlands Protection, Airport
Hazards, Endangered species, Wild & Scenic Rivers, Farmland Protection, Noise Control, Explosive
/Flammable Operations, Water Quality, Air Quality, Coastal Zones, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Lead,
Asbestos, and Radon.
The project anticipates potentiallv beneficial impact regarding Contamination/Toxic Materials,
Environmental Justice, Land Development, Community Facilities & Services, wastewater, storm water
drainage, and energy.
Identify all anticipated environmental impacts to the project by surrounding environments: The
surrounding environment according to the categories listed above were also evaluated. The project
area is surrounded predominately by undeveloped agricultural uses, but is also adjacent to service
commercial, manufacturing and office activities. There are some large lot farm properties nearby as
well. As to trends likely to continue with the project expansion, the city will continue to market the
balance of the property for future industrial expansions.
As a result there will be an increase in truck traffic to the site. Because the property is located between
two highways, truck access to the site will not be disruptive and likely access to adjacent industrial users
will be improved. The site is expected to generate some noise associated with an assembly operation;
however the noise levels are not expected to exceed 65 DNL based on similar operations at other
company locations. The project will conform with the City's approved drainage study and ordinance and
will include above ground swales, closed pipe and detention basin set asides.
All required permitting: The project will require compliance with subdivision and zoning regulations,
and building codes.
. .. . .., ��i�i1W
All mitigation, project modification, and conditians for approval anticipated during the project: NA,
the project wili incorporate appropriate business practices as needed to comply with local city
ordinances and requirements and en�ironmental regulations.
General overview of CDBG environmental review procedures:
1. HISTORIC PRESERVATION: If Current project area or scope of work is changed, a borrow area
(source of fill material) is included in the project, or cultural materials are encountered during
construction, appropriate information must be provided to SHPO for review.
2. FLOOD INSURANCE: If the current project area or scope of work is changed to occur within the
Levee Critical Area, the work must comply with all ACE (Geotechnical Design & Dam Safety
Section) guidelines, rules and criteria for construction on or adjacent to federal levees as well as
other city requirements. The City shall request COE comments & recommendations upon their
engineering review of work within or near the L-385 Levee Project.
3. WETLAND PROTECTION: Compliance with any and all terms and conditions provided in the
Department of Army Permit No. 2007-1625 issued to authorize filling of eight wetland areas in
order to construct the proposed business park within the L-385 Levee and the payment of
Wetland credits in the amount of $178,000 in lieu of the construction and maintenance of a
mitigation area at Horseshoe Lake as modified on 1o/12/2010.
4. MODIFICATION OF DA PERMIT involves the assignment to Independent 3` party for perpetual
oversight and payment of 178,000 for purchase of wetland credits.
5. ENDANGERED SPECIES: General recommendation provide by MO Department of Conservation to
be incorporated into the project activities.
6. CONTAMINATION/TOXIC MATERIALS: Evidence of proper closure of four petroleum producing
above ground storage tanks, and two abandoned water wells.
7. FARMLAND PRoTECTION: Compiiance with city zoning to include approval of preliminary and final
development plan and issuance of building permit. Conformance with Comprehensive Master
Plan, landscaping & Screening and open space requirements.
8. WATER QUALITY: Design of water service to be provided to Missouri American Water.
9. LAND DEVELOPMENT: Site plans shall conform with requirements set forth by City of Riverside
Planning & Zoning for PD zones.
10. STORM WATER DRAINAGE: Storm water systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with the Standards of KCAPWA and by the Rational Method and a copy of design computation
shall be submitted along with construction plans and follow BMP requirements of the City. Storm
water systems will conform to City Storm water Ordinance, Riverside Business Center Storm water
Study 2/17/2003 and Horizon's Project Drainage Swale Location Map & Detention Basins to
effectively store and discharge water.
11. Completion of performance public hearing near the end of the project to receive public comment
about the project.
Individuals or entity preparing the environmental review on behalf of the RE is Molly McGovern, Mid-
America Regional Council of Kansas City, MO.
Confidentiality to the extent feasible about proprietary information, business plans, and privacy of
property owners.
Adequate time for discussion, questions, and answers
Flexibility for any follow-up information or additional public meetings, as deemed necessary
(particularly for controversial projects)
The Public Hearing was closed at 2:04 p.m.
� _�. W_ - - �;.�s