Loading...
HRA 09/08/1983 - 29369CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Comers called the September 8, 1983, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Elmars Prieditis, Carolyn Svendsen, Duane Prairie Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Sid Inman, Finance Director Dave Newman, City Attorney Jim Casserly, O'Connor & Hannan John Marsh, Langer Construction, Burnsville, Mn. Stu Weitzman, Johnson Printing & Packaging, Mpla. William & Judith Von Klug, Von Klug & Assoc. Mark Haggerty, Fridley APPROVAL OF JULY 14, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: "MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE JULY 14, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF JULY 21, 1983, SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. SVENDSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE THE JULY 21, 1983, SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. REQUEST FOR CONTRACT CHANGES BY VON KLUG & ASSOCIATES: Mr. Boardman stated he felt this situation primarily revolves around a mis- understanding of the contract between Von Klug and Associates and the HRA, to the sense that when they started the contract in August 1982, Von Klug & Associates tndtcated there were two ways of going on a relocation contract. One would cost the HRA $9,000 and the other would cost the HRA $14,500. After some discussion on the matter, the HRA made the determination to go 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ;SEPTEMBER 8; 1983 PAGE 2 with the $9,000 contract and carry out the relocation based on that contract. Somewhere down the line, Von Klug & Assoc. did take on the work that was necessary accordthg to what their description -was on that part of the contract that would have 6een'part of the $14,500 contract. Mr. Boardman stated they got some indication of this in March when they got a b_t1ling saying Von Klug & Assoc, had completed $6,000 of the contract and were requesting an additional $3,000. The HRA started the contract by paying Von Klug & Assoc. $3,000 up- front -with a payment due when certain projects were completed. On March 3, 1983, Von Klug & Assoc. did request an additional $3,000; and at that time, they did note there was an agreement that specified different services; however, tFiey also said they were definitely due another payment of services, but that they were currently reviewing the situation. Mr. Boardman stated he had talked to Mr. Von Klug and Mr. Von Klug indicated they were working things out. Mr. Boardman stated he assumed that to mean that Von Klug & Assoc. were going to be able to work it out and still come under, the $9,000 contract, but this was not the case. What they meant was they _would work it out with the HRA for a contract modification. In August 1983, Ion Klug & Assoc. came up with a contract modification. The problem w'tFi the contract modification is that the work had been completed without any opportunity for the HRA to approve or not approve those changes. Mr. Boardman stated he has talked this over with Mr. Newman. They have looked over the records and the contract, and based on the contract, they feel there was some obligation on the part of Von Klug & Assoc. to contact the HRA prior to the time those expenditures were going to be made. Mr. Boardman stated that at this point in time, the HRA has two alternatives: (1) The HRA can say there are no contract modifications; or (2) They can authorize Mr. Newman and Staff to sit down with Von Klug & Assoc. and try to come up with an equitable solution. Mr. Commers stated they have a copy of a breakdown of services performed by Von Klug & Assoc. from August 1982 through June 1983. Were there any real questions as to whether these services.were or were not performed? Mr. Newman stated he did not think there was any dispute that Von Klug & Assoc. performed -those services. In looking at the contract as prepared by N6n K-lug & Assoc. the description of services are described in a general sense and in looking at the services provided, it appears a number of those things could easily have been included under services that were supposed to be pro- vided under the $9,000 contract and not as additions. Mr. Boardman stated Mr. Von Klug did meet with Staff as far as the acquisition of the items in Lennies' Laudromat. Von Klug & Assoc. are claiming that was acquisition work and not part of the relocation. The City did use their ser- vices but were not aware that it was an additional cost to the contract. n U HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 PAGE 3 Ms. Svendsen stated that on page 2 of Mr. Von Klug's Aug. 2, 1983, letter, Mr, 'Yon Klug stated that because two Businesses' relocations were to be funded with CDBG funds, "the fast,track evaluation method cannot be used to that,c ircumstance; hence our contractual reference to a tax increment project, wi'ierein the evaluation -method i' allowed". She asked Mr. Boardman to explait thts-. Mr. Boardman stated that when they started the project, they were not aware they were going to use CDBG monies. That didn't come up until the KRA approved the plaza. He stated one problem he has is that he has only received one kind of report, and that was the report Von Klug & Assoc. said they had used for CDBG -type projects, so Mr. Boardman had not noticed any changes. All the reports were the same reports. Mr. Prieditis stated he had studied the letters from Von Klug & Assoc. and Mr. Boardman's and Mr.Newman's reports. He felt a contract is a fixed -fee contract for a certain amount of money. He believed that the hours were sppent by Von Klug & Assoc., but this was not the contract agreed upon between tree HRA and Von Klug & Assoc. He did not feel the HRA owed Von Klug & Assoc. anything over what was agreed upon in the $9,000 contract. Being professionals, Von Klug & Assoc. should recognize that sometimes projects are easier and some - t *es projects are more di-ff tcult. Lt is just part of the situation. 10 Ms. Judy Von Klug stated there are several factors they, feel enter into this. F1'r t of al l , tfiej did work on acqui�itfon of property, even though their contract was for relocation. They buy permanent real estate and they buy trade fixtures and relocate the rest of the movable property. Their contract stated that they work wi'th- the movable property and the only reference in the services section on the acquisition was that they will make sure there is no duplication of payment. Ms. Von Klug stated their contract started on Sept. 17, 1982, and on Sept. 23 they started with Lennies' Laundromat. The first thing they found was that none of the fixtures had been acquired. This was something they had talked about with Cfty Staff and felt there was an understanding that it was much less expensive to the HRA to acquire fixtures than to move them. At that point, they expended at least 58 hours on seeing that the HRA acquired the fixtures, rather than relocating them. They would not have had to do that; they could have simply taken the inventory and worked with it. At the time they thought Mr. Boardman and City Staff understood what the contract covered and what it did not. When theyltal'ked to Mr. Boardman about the need to hire appraisers and get them on site and get these things taken care of, they mistakenly thought Mr. Boardman understood there was no acquisition within tfie— it contract, that it was only, specifted that they would make sure there was no duplication of payment. Their confusion was that when they talked to Staff about doing the work and were authorized to go ahead and work with the appraisers, they thought Staff understood this was not part of the base contract. go HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT 'AUTHORITY'14EETING,;� SEPTEMBER' 8; ' 1983 PAGE 4 Ms. Von Klug stated that with the introduction of CDBG funds, while it only affects two businesses, it not only affects the amount of documentation in the claim for the payment 5ut also affects the amount of services they are requi)-ed to give on an ongoing 66asis-. That leaves them with the choice of Whether they take those two businesses and give them special services they would not give to the rest of the businesses simply because the two businesses were funded one way and the other 5u sinesses were funded another way. Within their company, they believe very strongly that the Uniform Relocation Act's Main purpose is to achieve uniformity, and that it would not be fair to give Dr. Ryans and the Battery Discount more services than the other businesses. That 1-s wfiy Mr. Boardman did not get two different reports - -one for tax increment and one for CDBG funds and why they continue to work and give more services to the tax increment bustnesses. Again, they thought they had expl ached the two metKods of services, and that the Staff understood the tecfui al aspects, well enough- to see the difference and that Staff would know that when two businesses were funded with CDBG monies, it would trigger extra. work. Mr. Commers asked what extra work was involved with the relocations funded with CDBG funds. Ms. Von Klug stated site search was one example. When they do an evaluation • under tax increment, all they do at the initial time they go in is survey the market for about 2 weeks to determine if it looks like there are some types of vacancies available and make a prognosis as to whether that business will be able to find a site. Under CDBG, they are under an obligati'on to provide constant site search and make constant referrals to the businesses on an ongoing basis. Ms. Von Klug stated that in March 1983, they still hoped to be able to do the work under contract, but they found they couldn't. That is why on the March invoice they noted that there was a discrepancy on what they had provided and what was called for in the contract and that they were trying to evaluate it. The first letter to Mr. Boardman was dated in July 1983, and Mr. Boardman asked for a follow -up letter which was dated August 2, 1983. Ms. Von Klug stated that, if anything, their biggest problem was they did not look-out for themselves. Instead, they tried to look out for their client, the HRA. For example, when they started with Lennies and found the HRA had not acquired the fixtures, they should have stopped.right there and renegotiated tie contract. Instead, they went ahead and did the work under the assumption that Staff knew the limts of the contract and that what they were doing was in excess of that contract. They also honestly felt that with all the savings to the HRA for acquisition versus relocating, it would not be difficult to get paid for the extra hours they put in. Mr. Inman stated that if the HRA chooses,to have Staff and Von Klug & Assoc. get together to negotiate a solution, he had no problem with that. However, • he wanted to point out that in Mr. Newman's letter in reference to Paragraph J • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING; SEPTEMBER:8;'1983 PAGE 5 of the contract, Mr. Newman pointed out that all changes in the contract must be in writing. To Mr. Inman's knowledge, there has been nothing in writing. If 1%s, Von Kldg's contention was true, then it was the situation from the bidding perspective where you hire someone to provide apples and t fey,ore progiding oranges which is something totally outside the contract. Mr. Commers stated it was certainly obvious that there was a lack of communi- cation and understanding between both sides. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Von Klug if they were willing to work with Staff to see if something could be worked out. Mr. Von Klug stated they were. Mr. Prieditis stated that from their previous background and experience, why hadn't Von Klug & Assoc. foreseen that some additional services might be required? Mr. Von Klug stated that in the Twin Cities area, they do not encounter this type of situation very, often, mainly because the bulk of the appraisers who work with municipalities are familier with fixed appraisals. The appraiser Me HRA hired, Mr. Mauser, was obviously not familiar with commercial properties. Ms. Von Klug stated Von Klug & Assoc. has been in business since 1974, and this is the very first time anything like this has happened. They have never had a contract increase. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH VON KLUG & ASSOC. AND BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION TO THE OCTOBER HRA MEETING. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Ms. Von Klug stated that if they got paid for every single thing they did, they would get $15,000. They recognize they did not look out for themselves in that they did not follow the procedure of their contract. Mr. Commers stated there seems to be problems on both sides of the situation in terms of understanding what the contract was, understanding what work was involved, and whether or not there were changes that were made that were within or without the contract. it,seemed to him that there should be some reasonable gray of trying to arrive at a medium ground in resolving it. Mr. Von Klug stated he agreed and that was why he and his wife were at the meeting. "MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECOA'DED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO RESUBMIT THE MOTION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO MEET WITH VON KLUG & ASSOC. IN AN ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE A • REASONABLE SETTLEMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE BRA. 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 PAGE 6 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON'JOHNSON'PRINTING AND'PACKAGING COMPANY - REQUEST FOR I1" SIT CE: MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JOHNSON PRINTING AND PACKAGING COMPANY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:25 P.M. Mr. Inman stated this is the first time the HRA has held a public hearing in this fashion, and there were two reasons for it: (1) When Johnson Printing and Packaging began to discuss coming to Fridley, Staff began to put into motion some of the processes for the types of financing they would need to review. The rationale was that since there is such a long lead time.in the IDB process, they thought it was prudent on their part to get the public hearing on the agenda. To his knowledge, Johnson Printing and Packaging has not yet firmed up their final type of financing and, therefore, the only action for the HRA to take at this meeting is to hear public comment and hear about the project; (2) In some of the discussions and comments made by the HRA, the Staff and the HRA felt it was important to be made aware of all types of development in the City of Fridley, whether the HRA has a direct or a sub- sidiary interest. From that standpoint, Staff felt it was important to allow the HRA to hear testimony and discuss the project. In the future, Staff will probably be recommending similar types of hearings or at least discussions to ensure the HRA is informed of all types of IDB's throughout the City so they are aware of all types of developments, again whether it relates directly to the HRA or not. Mr. Inman stated that at the current time, Johnson Printing and Packaging is negotiating to establish a printing location on the property on Osborne Rd. (the Consolidated Can property). The request on the IDB application is for $4.3 million. There are some discusssions on the actual amount of financing when the final building plans are set up. Johnson Printing and Packaging is estimating that approximately 100 new jobs will be added. The estimated amount of taxes will be based on the final building plans and size. The original proposal was for 100,000 sq. ft., but that has been reduced to 75,000 sq. ft. Mr. Inman stated Jim Casserly from O'Connor & Hannan was at the meeting serving as bond counsel, and there were two representati -es, one from Johnson Printing and Packaging, and one from Langer Construction. Mr. Casserly stated that the reserve financing mechanism evolves that the HRA, in fact, will be issuing the bonds and since the time when Johnson Printing and Packaging came in, they did not know what system would be avail - able, they decided to hold a public hearing before the HRA and the City Council. That is why there was a double notice and a double system in doing this. That may not have to be the case in the future. 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 PAGE 7 Mr. Comers asked if the location where Johnson Printing and Packaging was planning to build was located in the tax increment district. Mr. Inman stated that at the current time, they are not included in the tax increment district. They are included in the modified project area that the HRA approved and sent on to the City Council. The City Council will be acting on the modified project area on Monday, Sept. 12. Mr. Inman stated that at this time, there is no action required by the HRA until Johnson Printing and Packaging has its financing all arranged. If Johnson Printing and Packaging does need assistance, then there is a whole process the HRA can follow to add this area into the tax increment district. Mr. John Marsh, Langer Construction Co., stated this would be a 75,000 sq-. ft. printing plant - -a very clean printing plant. There will be 15,0:00 s-q. ft. of office and 60,000 sq. ft. of manufacturing with the ability to expand another 60,000 sq. ft. Johnson Printing and Packaging prints packaging for different products sold commercially. The building will be primarily, of masonary construction, 16 ft. high and located on about 62 acres. The building will front on 77th St. Mr. Stu Weitzman, Vice President of Johnson Printing and Packaging, stated that right now they are located at 300 - 1st Ave. So. Johnson Printing and Packaging has been in existence since about 1912, at which_ time they, had a location in both downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. Approx. 1920 they merged the two plants and were operating out of a portion of one floor in the building they currently own. It is a lovely, historic, five story building, but, unfortunately, they have outgrown it. They are looking at moving their manufacturing onto one floor which will allow them to have larger format equipment and a tremendous amount of production savings. Mr. Weitzman stated the project is going forward very well. They hope to have all the financing completed by the following week. They would like to move ahead very quickly and would like to begin breaking ground and start building soon. Mr. Commers stated they are looking forward to having Johnson Printing and Packaging in Fridley, and the HRA will do whatever they reasonably can to accommodate them. Mr. Weitzman stated City Staff has been tremendous, and the cooperation with the City Staff is one of the reasons why Johnson Printing and Packaging is very excited about coming to Fridley. Mr. Comers asked if any special meetings were going to be necessary. Mr. Casserly stated that depending on the structure of the financing and the arrangement with the company to provide some assistance, it may require • a very short special meeting for the HRA to authorize whatever arrangements are needed. Johnson Printing and Packaging can start construction after the preliminary resolution is approved, but the kind of assistance the City might provide is going to require further resolutions. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT'AUTHORITY MEETING; SEPTEMBER 8s "1983 PAGE 8 Mr. Commers requested Staff to put together a memo to the HRA defining 1N detatl the nature and the extent of the types of assistance that Johnson Printing and Packaging might be reauesting. He stated he would like that memo mailed to the HRA members prior to the next meeting. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:45 P.M. Mr. Commers stated further consideration on this item would be carried over to the October meeting unless a special meeting was necessary. He thanked Mr. Marsh and Mr. Weitzman for coming and wished them good luck with their project. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A REDRAFT OF RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT WITH ST. PHILIPS HUMAN SERVICES; INC. Aug. 11, 1983, Letter to St. Phillips Human Services, Inc. from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated this was on the July agenda as a possible alternative if St. Phillips was going to the option arrangement. At this time, they have not gone into that option; however, Howard Helgen will be working with Mr. Saliterman over the next couple of weeks. Mr. Boardman stated he gave Howard Helgen a copy of the August 11th letter on this subject to see if Mr. Helgen had any problems with it. Mr. Helgen indicated St. Phillips Human Services, Inc., had no problems with it. Mr. Boardman stated this letter was a rewrite based on the service based on the appraisal the HRA had done. The HRA's appraisal came in at $2.20 /sq. ft. St. Phillips'possible option is $2.36/sq. ft. Mr. Commers stated that in giving assistance and acquiring property directly, they have always required an appraisal and have been required to go basically with their appraisal with respect to the acquisition. Their appraisal in this case is $2.20. If St. Phillips Human Services, Inc., enters into the option Wlth $2.36/sq. ft., the HRA can still give them assistance since the HRA will not 6e acquiring the property; however, their option price is in excess of what the HRA's appraisal would seem to indicate should be paid for the property. Mr. Boardman stated that was correct. Staff is suggesting that the HRA give St. Phillips assistance up to $2.20 /sq. ft. St. Phillips has gotten commit- ments for other assistance from the City .with CDBG funds of $9-0,090 which would cover the balance of the acquisition. There is a possibility the HRA could provide other assistance in ot,ier areas, such as soil correction, but he felt their actual commitment was the $2._20 /sq.._ft. appraisal. Mr. Commers asked if there was any action required of the HRA. Mr. Boardman stated the HRA had previously approved a right of development to St. Phillips Human Services, Inc., which covered their actual acquisition of that property and, if not, it would be a condemnation action. In this situa- tion, because St. Phillips is talking about entering into an option, if they get that option, the HRA needs a different kind of right of development. That is why this letter was written. U 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT'AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8,1983 PAGE 9 Mr. Boardman stated he would like.approval from the HRA of this right of development so they have this on record as the right of development for St. Phillips since they are planning on entering into an option agreement. It was his understanding that St. Phillips was agreeable to this proposal. Legal staff has reviewed the agreement and feels the HRA is protected. Mr. Commers asked if there was any reasonable expectation that additional monies will be requested by St. Phillips Human Services, Inc. 'Mr, Boardman stated there is some reasonable expectation that there is go hg to be some sofl correction on this site which would be in the range of $24,000. He wanted to make it clear that the maximum assistance the HRA would grant in any case is $320,000 or the amount of taxes that would be generated on that project, and that he had stated in the letter that the "total HRA assistance including future commitments, shall not exceed $320,000 or that value of tax increments generated based on the development of 40 units with a building value of $1,360,000, paying an estimated $47,649 in taxes ". Mr. Commers stated it was his concern that it is clear to St. Phillips Human Services, Inc., the type of assistance they are going to be getting so they do not make any commitments beyond what is reasonably expected of the HRA. Mr. Boardman stated he has explained this i.n depth to Howard Helgen, and Mr. Helgen understands the situation. Mr. Boardman stated he had recommended to Mr. Helgen that any option they do go into with Mr. Saliterman be run by the HRA attorney to make sure both the HRA and St. Phillips Human Services, Inc., have some amount of protection. Mr. Helgen indicated they would have to Put up $2,000 as far as an option payment; however, there are stipulations within that option that, if for whatever reason they do not get their funds or the HRA does not come up with funds, St. Phillips will get that $2,000 back. Mr. Commers stated that as he understood it, Mr. Boardman will rewrite this letter with a current date and submit it to St. Phillips for their signature. Mr. Boardman stated that was correct. MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE NEW LETTER .GRANTING ST. PHILLIPS HUMAN SERVICES, INC., A RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT AS �MQWSED IN THE LETTER DATED AUGUST 11, 1983, UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMERS, PRIEDITIS, PRAIRIE VOTING AYE, SVENDSEN ABSTAIN- ING, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. CONSIDERATION OF NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT WITH COMMUNITY CREDIT COMPANY: (Letter from Virgil Herrick) • Mr. Boardman stated that at the HRA's June meeting, they had discussed that Community Credit was looking for leasehold damages. At that time, the HRA authorized Staff to try to negotiate with Community Credit to get those leasehold damages covered. 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 PAGE 10 Mr. Boardman stated Mr. Herrick has been working with Brian Hurd of Community Credit, and they have come up with the solution for settlement as outlined in Mr. Hurd's letter to Mr. Herrick dated August 12, 1983. They agreed to leasehold damages in the amount of $3,750, but the HRA would also cover the appraisal fee of $300. The HRA will note that there is a figure of $12,752 for leasehold fixtures and improvements. Those are fixture pur- chases that would have to be made anyway. There is also another cost they had just received from Von Klug & Assoc. at tonights meeting for relocation costs. Those relocation costs are in the amount of $1,558.54. Relocation costs would also have to be made regardless of any settlement of the leasehold damages. MOTION BY MS. SVENDSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION BADE BY MR. HERRICK, CITY ATTORNEY, WITH RESPECT TO A SETTLEMENT TO COMMUNITY CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,360.54 (WHICH INCLUDES A RELOCATION PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,558.54). UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. DISCUSSION ON HARDWARE BUILDING: Mr. Boardman stated there is no specific proposal from the Lions Club at this M time. The last time they talked to the Lions Club was a couple of months ago, and what the Lions were looking at was a reduced payment initially in the first year. They looked at a 3 -year lease with two 1 -year options which would have extended the lease out five years. If they were to go into the building, they said they would have to put about $50- 55,000 into the building to bring it up to code. Mr. Boardman stated that if the HRA felt comfortable with this kind of arrange- ment with the Lions Club, Staff will work very hard to negotiate with them to put them into the building. He stated the only thing that might possibly come to the hardware building is the Fridley Medical Center, which is looking at an expansion of an additional 60,000 sq. ft, by 1986. If this would be the case, there would be the potential problem with the two 1 -year options which the Lions Club wanted. Mr. Commers asked if there could be exceptions put into those options that the Lions could have those options with the one exception that if a right of development is granted and development does start on that parcel, the HRA could terminate or the Lions would lose their option ability. Mr. Boardman stated this could be discussed with the Lions Club to see if they were in agreement. He stated they would work with the Lions Club to see if some reasonable solution could be worked out that would not tie the hands of the HRA if development did go in on tkis property. Mr. Comers directed Staff to contact the Lions Club and explore this matter • further. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8; 1983 PAGE 11 Mr. Boardman stated that, regarding the hardware building, he has been approached by Kurt Schrupp of the Fridley Jaycees about the possibility of again using the hardware building for their Halloween haunted house. He had told Mr. Schrupp he would bring this request before the HRA at the Sept. meeting. Mr. Commers stated he had no problem with the Jaycees using it for this purpose. He stated he thought it was a great use for the building, and the funds are used for their service efforts. Mr. Commers stated it was the concensus of the HRA members to approve the use of the hardware building by the Jaycees for their annual haunted house activity. 6. CONSIDERATION OF HRA NEWSLETTER: Mr. Boardman handed out copies of a sample newsletter. He stated it would probably be mailed out to the public around Oct. 15. He stated the total cost of the- newsletter is approx. $3,000. He felt it was well worth the expenditure. It is something that should be done, not only this year, but be an annual publication by the HRA. Mr. Boardman stated he was looking for the HRA to authorize the expenditure of the funds needed to put the newsletter together. Mr. Commers stated he thought the members should be allowed time to comment and make suggestions before the newsletter is mailed out. Mr. Boardman stated the members will get the proofs and will get time to comment and make changes before the newsletter is printed and mailed out. 0TION BY-MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO GIVE STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE FRIDLEY HRA NEWSLETTER. Mr. Comers and Mr. Prairie both expressed some concern about the timing of the newsletter coming out just before elections. They did not want it to become a political tool. The newsletter should be a factual brochure and that is all. Mr. Boardman stated the problem they are seeing right now is most people do not understand the tax increment district or the function of the HRA. He felt it was very important at this time for the HRA to explain its role and function and get the facts out to the public. Mr. Newman stated he did not think it was realistic to pretend this newsletter will not be political, no matter how well it is presented and how factual it ts-, People are going to interpret it the way they want to interpret it. 0 6 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 PAGE 12 Mr. Inman stated he has been with the City for five years, and the biggest criticism he has received is that people are not told what is going on or aire. getting misinformation. The City is never criticized for the quarterly neWsletter. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. FINANCIAL REPORT: Mr. Inman stated the first report was the [IRA's Combining Funds as of 9/7/83. He had also included a bill for $30,138 for salaries up until the end of Seppt. There will be forthcoming approx. an additional $4,000 which '] I not 5e salaries. The reason for this is that certain people that bill the City, bill for both City and HRA- related expenses. They are now trying to explain to people that they should bill the City and HRA separately. Mr. Inman stated there was a memo requesting the HRA to approve the payment of $30,138 that will bring the year -to -date total to $35,581 for total staff expenses. "NOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT OF $30,138 FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE CITY FOR HRA PROJECTS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. CHECK REGISTERS: MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER DATED AUG. 8, 1983, TOTALLING $304,804.26. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER DATED SEPT. 1, 1983, TOTALLING $5,207.17. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Additional Services Due InterDesign Mr. Boardman stated that under the contract with InterDesign was a section on additional services. Those are services that are requested specifically by the HRA for design work. InterDesign did the design • ,.work, new design work was added, and because of other modifications, InterDesign was asked to go back and redo some areas. 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 PAGE 13 Mr. Boardman stated he sat down with people from InterDesign and City Engineering staff who have been working on the project and reviewed the seven items listed under additional services by InterDesign. The only one the City felt was inappropriate was #5 (changes to the fountain slab and wall details that were directed by the City and then -had to be readjusted). InterDesign did agree to drop 15. At this time, the City feels the other six additional services are appropriate for InterDesign. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF $1,090 TO INTERDESIGN FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Invoices from Court Appointed Commissioners Mr. Boardman stated they have received three invoices from the three commissioners appointed to the Hearing of Ryan's Auto condemnation. Each invoice was for 8 days at $100 per day, totalling $800. Mr. Comers stated he thought $800 seemed rather expensive. He could understand the fee of $100 /day, but he could not imagine eight days of Mork being necessary. He stated these invoices should be held over until the next meeting and Staff should check into this further. c. Demolition of Structures at 6339 -6389 University Ave. N.E. Mr. Boardman stated the HRA did approve a contract with Renollett Trucking of $12,950 for the demolition of these structures. Previously, the HRA approved the first payment for $8,611.75. The final payment of $4,338.25 is now due to Renollett, and he would recommend the HRA approve that payment. MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE FINAL PAYMENT FO RENOLLETT TRUCKING IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,338.25. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. d. Telephone Quotation Mr. Boardman stated that once the structures at 6339 -6389 University were removed, they wanted to grade that area, put in black dirt and sod. They did get two telephone estimates on the cost. One estimate was for $1,040 and one from Renollett Trucking for $960. He stated they approved the $960 and now need authorization from the HRA to pay that contract. 0 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983 PAGE 14 MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT TO RENOLLETT TRUCKING FOR $960 FOR THE GRADING AND SPREADING OF BLACK DIRT ON THE DR. RYANS' BUILDING SITE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, yneSaa Recording Secretary 0