Loading...
HRA 03/14/1985 - 293550 CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING .MARCH 1 -4, 1985 - CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the March 14, 1985, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Elmars Prieditis, Carolyn Svendsen, Walter Rasmussen Members Absent: Duane Prairie Others Present: Nasim Qureshi, HRA Director Sid Inman, City Ffnance Director Dave Newman, City Attorney Kent Richey, O'Connor & Hannan Dick Graves, Miller & Schroeder APPROVAL OF'FEBRUARY'14;' 1985 HOUSING ' &'REDEVELOPMENT'AUTHORITY 'MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE THE FEB. 14, 1985, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,.CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO.. HRA 5- 1985•.AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT F' PL NS F R.' .IMP MENT'. ND:'. I .. -I F' T — S Mr. Qureshi stated that since the proposal for the 100 Twin Drive -in proeprty about a year ago, there was some concern that this intersection at West Moore Lake Drive /Highway 55/Old Central was already congested at certain times; and if there was going to be some substantial development on this property, what additional impact would this have on the intersec- tion? At that time, the City Council authorized an initial preliminary study of the intersection and what improvements coul(I possibly be made to alleviate potential future traffic problems. That study was completed, presented to the City Council, the City Council held a public hearing noti- fying the neighborhood for input, and met with the two major property owners, the owner of the 100 Twin Drive -in and Mr. Jerry Johnson,for their input. After the public hearing and meetings, the City Council decided on a plan that the City should be working with Anoka County and the State Highway Dept. to facilitate further development of the plans and the intersection. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT'AUTHORITY 'MEETING;'MARCH- 149'1985'' PAGE 2 Mr. Qureshi stated what was being brought to the HRA was essentially the development plan the City Council has approved in this area in a concep- tual way. After the HRA's approval, the City will go into more detailed plans which would require them to work out plans regarding what kind of right of way was needed, what kind of additional monies are going to be needed to include the intersection, and how the contribution between Anoka County, the State, the HRA, and the City should be divided up. Mr. Qureshi stated that at this time, he was requesting that the HRA authorize the approval of the plans in concept and authorize the City to enter into an agreement with the consultant to draw up the detailed plans. Mr. Commers asked how much money had already been spent on the study. Mr. Qureshi stated the study authorized by the City was $7,000, so the City has already paid $7,000. The proposal before the HRA was for the HRA to pay up to $30,70 for preparing the plans. Mr. Commers asked if there was any reason why the HRA could not negotiate this cost with the City. Mr. Qureshi stated there was no reason why the HRA could not, but the City • has already contributed a certain amount. Now the total impact of the development is creating this potential traffic situation; and, as the HRA knew, this was one of the reasons why the HRA created these districts. They have not used any money up to now from the increments in this area. If the HRA is going to continue to collect increments, they have to start spend- ing money. That might be some justification for the need for this kind of activity; and, if there is a need, the HRA should start spending money so they can justify activity that retains their increment capability. MOTION BY MS. SVENDSEN, SECONDED BY MR. RASMUSSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. HRA 5 -1985, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND CHANNELIZATION OF THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 65 AND WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE /CENTRAL AVENUE INTERSECTION ". Ms. Svendsen stated she would like to again request that the HRA receive the minutes of the City Council when the City Council has a public hearing or discusses an issue that the HRA will be dealing with in the future. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSIDERATI HOUSING ANff 'ACTIONS OF" • Mr. Commers HRA members dated March discussions )N OF RESOLUTION NO, HRA.6 -1- 985.'. PROVIDING .'.PRELIMINARY'APPROVAL a.' E ' E' I stated that, in addition to the information in the agenda, the had received at the meeting a memo from Sid Inman to Mr. Qureshi 13, 1985, which apparently related to some correspondence and with gob Ehlers relative to the appropriateness of -the proposal. HOUSING &'REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 'MEETItIG;'MARCH'14,'1985 PAGE 3 Mr. Inman stated he would continue to recommend that the HRA pass the Resolution because (1) It can be stopped within the next few days by the City Council or Housing and Redevelopment Authority; 'and (2) He still thought it was the appropriate methodology for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Inman stated the information was reviewed partially by Mr. Newman and himself last evening. Mr. Richey of O'Connor & Hannan and Mr. Graves of Miller & Schroeder had worked on it that day. As stated in his cover memo, of three different proposals he has received, there was still a question of the legality of the method in which Mr. Ehlers is asking the City to evaluate. He had not had much opportunity to review the third or major proposal he had received from Mr. Ehlers only that afternoon, but he did know there were some definite mathematical errors in the proposal. Mr. Graves stated there was certainly nothing that couldn't be stopped if the HRA passed the resolution. Mr. Richey stated he could only address the legal issue as he understood it; he could not address the numbers or errors in the numbers.. The legal issue that was raised by Mr. Bob Ehlers was whether or not the tax increments fjom Center City are locked up in the fund to pay off the bonds. It was their position that they would not be willing to agree that you can take those tax increments other than keeping them for existing bonds, which was perceived by the City to be a waste of increments. That opinion was con- curred by Dick Ehlers, who is the son of Bob Ehlers, and was associated with Ehlers & Associates. Dick Ehlers has left the firm and now Bob Ehlers has taken over the HRA's account. Bob Ehlers has now reviewed the matter and has come to a contrary conclusion from his son, Dick Ehlers. Bob Ehlers views the issue as follows: The bond resolution says that tax increments, including excess increments, shall be deposited in sinking fund which pays the bonds. Bob Ehlers somehow believes that that language doesn't say "tax increment ", meaning all increments, but only excess increments, and that if it is excess increments, you can spend them all on something else before they become excess. Mr. Richey stated he found it difficult to follow Mr. Bob Ehlers' argument, but he did disagree with _Mr. Ehlers' conclusion. He stated that was the legal issue being raised by Mr. Ehlers' memo which he had seen about an hour before this meeting. Mr. Richey stated the effect of Resolution No. HRA 6 -1985 was to preliminarily authorize the refunding bonds, authorize staff to work with the bond counsel and underwriter to go forward, and to request the City to authorize staff as well. That did not mean the bonds are sold. The bonds cannot be issued without a final resolution from the HRA. At any time up until that point, legally the HRA can prevent the bonds from being sold. If the HRA went that far, however, and made no conditions on the resolution,.there could be • an awkward situation for the HRA in that the underwriter could offer the bonds HOUSING'& REDEVELOPMENT' AUTHORITY 'MEETING,'MARCH'14;'1985' ''PAGE 4 to the market as indication of interest so that everybody thought the bonds were going to be issued, but when they came back for final resolution, the HRA said they were not going to issue the bonds. However, what the HRA could do was put a condition on the resolution that the bonds cannot even be offered without the consent of the HRA. Mr. Newman stated he also had some real problems with what Mr. Ehlers was trying to do. He stated that proceeding with the resolution would not hurt the HRA. MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. HRA 6 -1985 TO ADD THE STATEMENT THAT THERE WILL BE NO OFFER OF BONDS UNTIL FURTHER APPROVAL BY THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. HRA 6 -1985 AS AMENDED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The HRA agreed to instruct Staff that once Staff has the information from Miller & Schroeder and O'Connor & Hannan that they give Mr. Ehlers three working days to respond. Once the response is received from Mr. Ehlers, the HRA will call a special meeting. If Mr. Ehlers does not respond, the HRA will still move forward. 3. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. HRA 7 -1985 AUTHORIZING THE IMPROVEMENT OF . 5TH S EE ' S Mr. Commers stated he did not understand one statement in Mr. Flora's memo to Mr. Qureshi dated March 7, 1985: "Total cost of this improvement is estimated at $145,300.00 and $27,500.00 is to be assessed to the adjoining property owners." Mr. Qureshi stated they feel the investment originally made by the property owners, if properly protected, can be saved. The proposal is not to tear up the existing street but to build on the existing road, widen it, and provide concrete curbing. They feel this improvement will be beneficial to the total area of the redevelopment. Ms. Svendsen asked how much money would be assessed per property owner. Mr. Qureshi stated the cost per property owner was approximately $750. Ms. Svendsen stated she questioned whether it was necessary to assess the -� property owners at all. HOUSING' &'REDEVELOPMENT' AUTHORITY 'MEETING;'MARCH'14,'1985 'PAGE 5 Mr. Qureshi stated they way they justify the assessment was that the property owners were getting a high level of improvement. The City's standard is now to provide asphalt paving and concrete curbing. This street was improved before that standard was adopted so they would be bringing this street up to that standard. They were merely charging the homeowner the difference of the cost for the curbing alone. He stated the City Council has already approved this assessment. Public hearings were held, and the property owners had accepted this as a reasonable assessment. Mr. Coroners stated he was not sure there should be an assessment to the property owners either. Mr. Prieditis stated he did not quite understand where the need was for this street improvement. Mr. Qureshi stated the existing road is in a shape that if they do some cosmetics and surfacing, they can save the existing base and matte. The homeowners made an investment in their properties and the road. There is a high level of use and activity on this road. It was prudent to save that investment and build on it than to go back later and have to rebuild the whole road. Mr. Commers stated that 5th Street was a state aid road. Were there any state aid funds available to help with this cost? Mr. Qureshi stated they could certainly apply for state aid funds. Mr. Commers stated he had a little bit of a problem in that all of a sudden this comes up, and there has been no input, no decisions, no information given to the HRA as to the priorities of the HRA's funds, where they should be spent, how necessary this was, what the homeowners think, and now the City is asking the HRA to fund it. Mr. Qureshi stated they have talked all along about the improvement on Mississippi St. and 5th St. and better traffic flow. They had a traffic study done. They have gone through public input to make sure the public was reasonable acceptable to bearing some cost. He did not think there was any question as to whether the improvement should be done. If the question was whether the HRA should pay or the City pay, that was negotiable. Mr. Commers stated he was not saying this was not a good thing, and they shouldn't do it; but he was just a little concerned about the manner in which this has come up. He stated they discussed Mississippi St. and 5th St. in front of the Center City development, and the HRA stands ready to do what they have to there, but they have never discussed anything about 5th St. farther down a couple of blocks. Now all of a sudden, the HRA is being asked to pay the bill. • Ms. Svendsen stated she really had some trouble assessing the property owners for this street improvement. A lot of people are not too appre- ciative of the plaza and now they are being told their street is part of the whole area and they have to pay $27,500. HOUSING' &REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING'MARCH'14,'1985 PAGE 6 Mr. Rasmussen stated maybe they could get some other kind of help to pay the $27,500, rather than having the taxpayers pay that assessment. He felt they should take the burden off the taxpayers. Mr. Qureshi stated he did not have a problem with having State Aid pick up that share of the cost. MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. HRA 7 -1985 WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THE BRA WILL PAY $145,300 OF THE 5TH STREET IMPROVEMENT COST, CONTINGENT UPON THE PLAN THAT STATE AID PAY $27,500 SO THERE WILL BE NO ASSESSMENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF AUDITOR FOR YEAR ENDING'DECEMBER'31 ,'1984: It was the concensus of the HRA to approve the auditor, George M. Hansen Co., P.A., for the year ending December 31, 1984. 5. ESTIMATE - RENOLLET'TRUCKING _'- FOR'THE'DEMOLTTION OF'STRUCTURE AT MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT TO RENOLLET TRUCKING IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,104 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE AT MISSISSIPPI ST. AND UNIVERSITY AVE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. CHECK REGISTER: MOTION BY MR. RASMUSSEN, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER DATED MARCH 8, 1985, AS PRESENTED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MAR. 14, 1985, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 1" ." . — y e Saba Recording Secretary