HRA 12/10/1987 - 6538HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT ADTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987
7:00 P.M.
Nasim Qureshi
Director of HRA
and Official Copy
City of Fridley
AGENDA
HOUSING & REDEVELOFMENT AUTHORITY MTG. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1987 7:00 P.M.
Location: Council Chamber (upper level)
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES•
Housing & Redevelopment Authority Minutes: November 12, 1987
CONS IDERAT ION OF LOU LUNDGRE N' S LETTER OF CREDIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CONS IDERAT ION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF H RA
PROPERTY FOR A SATELLITE FIRE STATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2E
CONSIDERATION OF CRAMPPON REQUEST TO FORGIVE ALL OR PART OF
SEOOND MORTGAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3E
INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL REODVERY OF CHANGE ORDER C•. ti FOR
LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER l
INFORMATION ON RETAINING A MARKETING AGENCY FOR SOUTHWEST
OORNER OF UNIVElZ4 ITY AVENUE AND MISSISSIPPI STREET . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5A
INFORMATION ON PROTECT PROPOSED BY GERALD PASCHKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6E
CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7F
OTHER BfSINESS :
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDmmopI Et T AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV11MER 12, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Acting Chairperson John Meyer called the November 12, 1987, Housing &
Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: John Meyer, Duane Prairie, Walter Rasmussen,
Virginia Schnabel (arr. 7 :40 p.m.)
Members Absent: Larry Commers
Others Present: Jock Robertson, HRA Director
Dave Newman, BRA Attorney
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Julie Burt, Asst. Finance Officer
Louis & June Lundgren, 343 East Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul
Alan T. Rouse, 1786 Hennepin Ave. S., Mpls.
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 8, 1987, HOUSING & REDW=PPENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the Oct. 8, 1987,
Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON MEYER DBMARID THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF LOU ILWGREN' S LETTER OF CREDIT:
Mr. Lundgren stated that at the last meeting, the HRA members had approved
and authorized a telephone call by City Staff to see if they could get the
land control situation worked out with Union Labor Life Insurance Co. That
call was made, and he thought that particular point was resolved. They did
get a letter expressing an interest in the proposition, but the unfortunate
thing was that the amount of money they want to put up was $4,400,000, which
was not enough. He stated this project does not look very promising.
Mr. Lundgren stated he had two other packets which were out, with expected
responses to be in about the end of next week. One, Scudder Real Estate
Advisors, headquartered out of Atlanta, Georgia, an equity lender, puts
together packages primarily for pension funds. He has asked them for debt
funding and the required equity funding for both the first and second phases.
They are a little different from some equity lenders in that they require about
one -third of the positive cash flow for eight years out of the project; in
addition to the return on their debt, etc.
Mr. Lundgren stated the other lender was Monetary Resources in New York.
It was an arrangement with the Mellon Bank, and they would do both phases.
HOUSING & REDWELOPHENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 12, 1987 PAGE 2
Mr. Lundgren stated he was expecting to hear from these two firms by the end
of next week. He was also continuing to pursue other avenues. Both these
lenders were set up to close yet this year, even though he realized that
was only about six weeks away.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Lundgren if he was maybe trying to do too ambitious a
project on this corner in terms of living space. Should he possibly be
looking at a three -story low-rise and lessen the structural costs?
Mr. Lundgren stated he has been told by several people that, yes, he is
trying to put too much on that piece of land. He has found many people
who would finance a three -story building. It was his personal feeling that
this land in this location with the kind of density they were talking about
would support the project as it has been proposed. He has seen situations
where the property was underbuilt or built incorrectly in terms of the
potential, and a community never recovers from that. In other words, he
still had a strong belief in the project the way it has been conceived. It
would be very easy for him to give in and do what was really merchandisable
and financeable, but that is not the kind of building he felt should be
built in this location.
Mr. Meyer stated that before too long, the HRA was going to have to make a
decision regarding Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit.
Mr. Lundgren stated he understood the timing and the date. He was very
appreciative of the HRA's patience and understanding to this point. He was
trying very hard, and he still felt he could get the project done.
No action was taken on Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit, and the item remained
on the table.
FOR-
SUBTERRANEAN:
Mr. Robertson staged that at the October meeting, Staff had hoped to have
the final change orders for work on the Lake Point site. The information
from Subterranean had come in late so it was not approved by the HRA. When
that information did arrive, it was rather confusing, so it took some time,
and the deadline was missed to get this information into the HRA's agenda.
Mr. Robertson stated the final change order amount was $3,516.17. If the
HRA was uncomfortable with acting on this at this meeting, Staff had no
problem with laying it over until the next meeting and giving the
Commissioners a more detailed report before the next meeting.
Mr. Meyer stated that as a generality, they have had quite a few change
orders on the Lake Pointe site. Has the City Engineering Dept. or staff
taken account of the fact that perhaps some of Subterranean's charges might
also reflect the fact that they were working on corrections to some of their
own mistakes or inaccuracies? He was not accusing Subterranean of anything,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ME);TING, NOVEMBER 12, 1987 PAGE 3
but was possibly the City paying for things that should have been paid for
by Subterranean? Maybe the City could approach Subterranean in a tactful
way and ask them to better explain their billings.
Mr. Newman stated he shared with the staff some of the same concerns as those
expressed by Mr. Meyer. He suggested that this item be continued until the next
meeting in order to allow City Staff to talk to both Subterranean and
Sunde Engineering privately in order to make sure that everything was in
order.
Mr. Robertson stated he was comfortable with that request. Staff would
come back to the next meeting with more information regarding these change
orders.
3. CONSIDERATION OF IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES ON:
a. University Avenue Corridor - $1.5 million
b. Public Ramp - $1 million
c. Rice Creek Road Diversion - $0.6 million
d. Moore Lake Water Quality - $0.5 million
e. North Area Ponding - $0.35 million
Mr. Robertson stated these were the items reviewed by the BRA at their
joint meeting with the City Council on Thurs., Nov. 5. These five items
were approved by the HRA for action for projects for 1988.
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, to approve Resolution
No-HRA 7 -1987, "Resolution Authorizing Improvement Expenditures for
Projects within the Tax Increment District for Construction in 1988 ".
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON MEYER DECLARED THE
MO'T'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING S.E.H. TO COMPLETE FINAL PLANS FOR RICE CREEK
ROAD AND SUBMIT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSTRUCTION:
Mr. Robertson stated that on Aug. 13, 1987, the HRA authorized S.E.H. to
prepare the detailed plans and provide for an inspection for a specified
amount of money. %hat was now before the Commission was a procedural matter
where the HRA was directing S.E.H. to work through the City Council as the
BRA's billing administrator, and the BRA was agreeing to Pay back the
City Council in a monthly manner. This was the same type of arrangement
the BRA had with the contractors on the Lake Pointe site.
Mr. Meyer stated that in the resolutioh, in the first ' Wt13EREAS ", it stated:
"..the Housing & Redevelopment Authority authorized the execution of a con-
tract with Short Elliot Hendrickson for the development of the final plans
for the improvement channelization of the Rice Creek Road from T.H. 65 to
Central Avenue ".
Mr. Meyer stated neither the City nor the HRA has seen the final plans, and
then in the next to last paragraph of the resolution, the HRA was resolving
to pay the City on a monthly basis for the cost of the street improvements
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEE'T'ING, NOVEMBER 12, 1987 PAGE 4
to Rice Creek Road based on the final plans. Usually, the
professional will bring to the public body plans which are officially
approved; and then after the approval of the plans, the authorization for
the letting of bids and the worries about expenditures, etc., are made. It
seemed like the "cart before the horse" here. Here they are being asked
to approve monthly payments from some sort of plans that are not done yet
for same kind of road for an underdetermined amount of money.
Mr. Newman stated the City Council acts as the HRA's agent when it comes to
public improvements. In that regard, the City Council goes through each
specific procedure, and, in essence, this resolution was authorizing the
City Council to let the contracts, go through the necessary procedures, and the
HRA was making funds available to the City Council to authorize the payment.
Mr. Newman stated Mr. Meyer's point was well taken, and perhaps same wording
should be added to the resolution to say that the HRA authorizes reimburse-
ment not to exceed the allocated budget amount.
Mr. Newman stated what happens and what has happened in the past was that the
City Council and the Public Works Department work with the consulting
engineer on the final plans. The BRA was authorizing the City Council and
the Public Works Department to take the necessary steps for them, and they
were acting as the HRA's agent.
Mr. Meyer stated it just seemed a little odd to say they are going to pay
the City of Fridley on a monthly basis for the cost of street improvements
to Rice Creek Road. That was what was being said in this resolution, and
he did not think it was good business. The resolution did not say how much
the street improvements were going to be, and it did not say what the
improvements are to Rice Creek Road. But, the improvements, as defined here,
are contained in the documents which are still being drawn and which have
not been seen or approved by the City.
Mr. Newman stated this issue has come up in the past. It goes back to
how much authority the HRA wants to give to the City Council.
Mr. Meyer stated he did not think there was anything wrong with authorizing
the City Council to be the BRA's agent to develop plans and specifications.
And, then, at such time as the plans come before the City Council for final
approval, it seemed to him there could perhaps be a second resolution.
Mr. Prairie stated he felt the BRA could trust the City Council to act on
their behalf. Also, for expediency, it was probably better since the City
Council meets more times a month than the HRA.
Mr. Rasmussen stated he would prefer to let the City Council handle this
Mr. Newman stated if the HRA is going to authorize the City Council to act
on their behalf, the City Council would rather have a broad resolution
because then they have the flexibility to react to different situations as
they arise. If the HRA wants to have a reporting process, that was fine,
but it was scmething Staff would need to know.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPIEIT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 12, 1987 PAGE 5
Mr. Robertson stated he certainly would be willing to keep the HRA informed
and give them reports as things occur.
Mr. Pribyl stated this particular contract with S.E.H. was the HRA's contract.
It was more work to have to deal with it through the City Coun (fil when it is
the HRA's contract. Mether the City authorizes the original agreement or
the HRA, the Public Works Department is still working with that group and
makes recommendations to both the City and the HRA. From the Finance Staff's
perspective mechanically, it works much better if the HRA authorizes the
contract so there is only one step to go through instead of two. He under-
stood the only reason they have been going through the City in the past was
so the payment could be processed sooner, and the HRA meets only once a month.
while the City Council meets twice a month. Usually, though, when consultants
bill on a monthly basis, they bill at the end of the month, so the HRA meets
often enough to be able to accommodate most of those type of payments.
Mr. Robertson stated the problem usually arises (true of more complex
projects) when there are inevitable modifications that came about; and if
they don't hit the monthly cycle, there can be a month's delay. If S.E.H.
could wait a month on billing, they could continue as they are now. The
point was that Staff has assumed the HRA would want this set up the way
things have been set up in the past with the City Council being the HRA's
agent and the HRA reimbursing the City.
Mr. Meyer stated he certainly had no problem with that process. He just
felt it was good business for the City to have seen the final plans and
have agreed that the plans, as drawn, are in accordance with the wishes of
the City and the wishes of the HRA, have approved the plans, and are ready
for letting the bids.
(Ms. Schnabel arrived at 7 :40 p.m.)
Mr. Robertson stated they could add the file number to the resolution and
also the words "reimbursement not to exceed the contract amount ". He would
recommend approval of the resolution with those two additions.
MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve Resolution
No. HRA 8 -1987, Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Fridley
Housing & Redevelopment Authority (1) Requesting that the Fridley City
Council Authorize Construction of the Street Improvements to Rice Creek
Road from T.H. 65 to Central Avenue, pursuant to DPW project No. ST 1988 -2
and (2) Approving and Authorizing the Reimbursement to the City of Fridley
on a Monthly Basis, for the Cost of these Street Improvements in an amount
not to exceed $110,100.00.
UPON A VOICE VO'L'E, ALL VOTING AYE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON MEYER DECTA� THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
HOUSI�ZG S RIDEVELOP=T AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 12, 1987 PAGE 6
5. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT BRA 1987 ANNCIAL REPORT:
Mr. Robertson stated the HRA had received an earlier draft of the HRA
Annual Report at the joint HRA/City Council meeting the previous Thursday.
The HRA approved the wording as recommended for the Lake Pointe, update.
Tonight, the HRA had the rest of the copy that was missing on the back-
ground of the HRA and on Moore Lake Commons. He would like the Commissioners
to review this draft and contact him within the next two days as to any
changes.
6. CONSIDERATION OF 1988 MEETING DATES:
The Ccnmi.ssioners were in agreement with the 1988 meeting dates as submitted.
7. INFORMATION ON PROPOSED ELDERLY HOUSING AT ST. WILLIAMS:
Mr. Robertson stated Staff has been meeting with the Community Development
Corporation (C.D.C.) of the Archdiocese. They are proposing to buy the
parcel of land from St. Williams Church for approx. $150,000 and construct
70 units of elderly housing. They are aiming at a strata in the market
above the subsidized housing at Village Green,but below the market rate
rental. If they proceed, C.D.C. will be coming to the City with an outline
of the proposed development agreement, and Staff will then bring that to
the HRA for review and action.
Mr. Robertson stated Staff was asking the BRA if they wanted to give Staff
any direction for negotiating a draft of the development agreement. The
BRA did earmark $150,000 in the tax increment financing budget a year ago
for this type of project in this area, and then it was reviewed at the HRA/
City Council meeting a week ago. The sense of the BRA at that meeting was
they wanted to keep that item in the budget, and there was certainly an
affirmative response from the City Council, especially Councilperson-at-
Large Nancy Jorgenson. The Commissioners indicated that the staff should meet
with the developers for the purpose of receiving more information about costs
and rental rates before the Commission could give a direction as to how much
assistance the HRA may want to provide.
8. CLAIMS (1671 - 1688)
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the check register
as submitted.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DELCARED THE
MOTION CARRIED 4NANIMOUSLY.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Proposal from Coldwell Banker
Mr. Robertson stated that in the agenda was a copy of an unsolicited
proposal received from Coldwell Banker to assist the HRA in marketig
the southwest corner (the Lou Lundgren project corner). Mr. Newman and
he had reviewed the proposal, and they need to know if the Authority
had any interest in this type of approach.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 12, 1987 PAGE 7
This proposal raises many questions. Two of which were: (1) If the
HRA were to do this, they would have to word the proposal carefully
so it was very.clear that the HRA was not listing.property it does
not own, even though they do own the liquor store and the former Amoco
Station property; (2) He would strongly recommend against_ a one year
agreement as proposed by Coldwell Banker and make it a six month agree-
ment renewable upon performance.
Mr. Robertson stated Coldwell Banker essentially was saying that
because they have a national network, they are in a better position
to find major tenants and find developers than an individual agency.
and there was some logic to that. It was his feeling they should
pursue this. They have certainly been having difficulty in getting
a development for that corner, and that was their top priority.
Mr. Newman stated no action was required by the HRA at this meeting.
If the HRA was interested in this type of concept, the Staff can pursue
it further and try to define it more.
Mr. Rasmussen stated he was certainly interested in pursuing it.
b. Civic Center Renovation Planned - Drafted News Article
Mr. Robertson stated the Commissioners had received a draft of a
news article that would appear in the Fridley Newsletter. The last
paragraph of the article dealt specifically with the proposed funding
for the parking facility that was approved by the HRA earlier in the
meeting. He would appreciate the Commissioners reading at least the
last paragraph and pointing out any problems or making any suggestions.
ee a I:U U1 0IN
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to adjourn the meeting. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice - Chairperson Schnabel declared the Nov. 12, 1987,
Housing & Redevelopnent Authority meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully s' tted,
:rymW
Recording -
I
FA
NEND M:, Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members
MEND FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of BRA
MEND DATE: December 2, 1987
REGARDING: Consideration of Lou Lundgren's Letter of Credit
Today I spoke with Mr. Lundgren inquiring about the status of his search for
financing for his project. He indicated to me that the alternative using the
Carnegie Organization looked very promising and that he expected to have some
word from them by r1hursday, December 3, 1987.
If the news is favorable, he said that he would have a letter for the HRA
agenda by Friday noon.
In any event, he will attend the HRA meeting on December 10, 1987 to give an
oral update.
Nr87 -239
RSSCLUTM NO. BRA - 1987
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO THE
FRIUM CITY AIL FOR USE 16 A SM LL17E FIRE STATION
WHEREAS, the Fridley Fire Department and other City staff have conducted an
extensive study of fire emergency resnonses and response times to various
areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, these studies have shown response times by the Fire Department to
the east and southeast quadrant of the City are not equal to other areas of
the City; and
WHEREAS, studies have shown that the location of a satellite fire station in
the general area of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road can have a favorable
impact towards reducing response times in the eastern and southeastern
quadrant of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Fridley HRA was established in part to improve substandard
conditions including fire protection to attract development in underdeveloped
areas; and
WHEREAS, the property acquired in 1985, by the Fridley HRA property for
$141,000.00 (P.I.N. 13- 30 -24 -42 -0049) , is deemed suitable in size and in the
general area of Rice Creek Road and Central Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Fridley City Council is agreeable to a satellite fire station
location in this general area and is desirous of acquiring property with
P.I.N. 13- 30 -24 -42 -0049 from Fridley HRA;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Fridley HRA that the Executive
Director is authorized to sell property number P.I.N. 13- 30 -24 -42 -0049 for
the sum of $14,000.00 to the Fridley City Council for the purpose of
construction of a satellite fire station.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THIS
DAY OF _____., 1987.
ATTEST:
JOHN L. "JOCK" ROBERrSCN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
3/8/2/9
K
W
MEMD Z0: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members
MEND FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of BRA
MEND DATE: December 3, 1987
REGARDING: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Sale of HRA
Property for a Satellite Fire Station
At the November 23, 1987 meeting, the City Council authorized the City
Manager to negotiate a purchase of BRA property P.I.N. 13- 30 -24 -42 -0049 for
the sum of $14,000 for the purpose of the construction of a satellite fire
station.
It is my recommendation that the HRA Board adopt the resolution authorizing
the sale to be consummated at the time that the City Manager is satisfied
that the property is the best location for the fire station facility.
s •i
M -87 -242
RESOLUTION N0. -1987
RESOLUTION (1) AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A SATELLITE
FIRE STATION; (2) REDUESTING TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM THE
FRIDLEY HRA; AND (3) RETAIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO
PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FIRE STATION �.
WHEREAS, The Fridley Fire Department and other City staff have conducted an
extensive study of fire emergency responses and response times to various
areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, These studies have shown response times by the Fire Department to the
east and south east quadrant of the City are not equal to other areas of the
City; and
WHEREAS, Studies have shown that the location of a satellite fire station in
the general area of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road can have a favorable
impact towards reducing response times in the eastern and south eastern
quadrant of the City; and
WHEREAS, In 1985, the Fridley HRA acquired property for $14,000.00 (P.I.N.
13- 30 -24 -42 -0049) deemed suitable in size and in the general area of Rice
Creek Road and Central Avenue; and
WHEREAS, The Fridley City Council is agreeable to a satellite fire station
location in this .general area and is desirous of acquiring property with
P.I.N. 13- 30 -24 -42 -0049 from Fridley HRA;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley
that the City Manager is authorized to acquire property number P.I.N.
13- 30 -24 -42 -0049 for the sum of $14,000.00 from the Fridley HRA for the
purpose of construction of a satellite fire station;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Manager is authorized to retain
professional services to design and develop plans and specifications for the
fire station.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF
. 1987.
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
ATTEST:
SHIRLEY C. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK
2B
24 W,
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 2, 1987
MEMO 70: Nasim Qureshi, City Manager 87 -7 -2
;j
FROM: Robert D. Aldrich, Fire Chief<<
RE: Satellite Station Location
I have discussed your suggestion relative to the use of the City owned
property on Rice Creek Road as a location for the satellite station with the
officers of the department.
You recall from our previous discussions that I felt a location on Central
Avenue would be the most advantageous to the department. My concern of the
Rice Creek Road property was mainly accessibility to Central Avenue. However,
your suggestion of access onto Central Avenue does have some positive
advantages, chiefly the fact that the distance involved of more than 300 feet
allows sufficient time for the driver to effect good control of the apparatus
prior to entering the Central Avenue arterial. An additional advantage of the
site is the availability of many tall trees than can serve to buffer the
training area and building as well as diminish the noise level of operations
on the site.
There is complete agreement by the officers that the Rice Creek Road location
is very suitable as a location for a satellite station and training ground.
The City already has Boarman and Associates retained for the
upgrade, and I suggest that we use them to design the satellite
training facility.
Please advise me as to what further actions I should be taking.
FWel
City hall
station and
is
• ' s . . 06004 •
9s
• • • 000000800
•
y� L RIC ,GREEK
vi
RAE ,I f
G C I -1 �•
gq �
Ln
••. • H. AV E. N.E.
t r�
66TH A EN
J: cr ••
to/.•
I�t�t�l
lo::
n..=
d r °u`J 6
5 ► 1
E'S--
Y
PURCHASE AGREEMENT GREET KAIl • [lops•
rI.I.O�- 11trl.Cnpypy
sl Il.l hat - UA 1 -IS Co. 111 N K— Ruyer'e Receipt
Jltnncup,lln
............Fzidley .......................Minsk , ........ AP.T11,..10.............. _.. ...
RECEIVED OF .. Fridleq.. .............. ....................
,he ,m of .One Dollar and other.. flood. and. valnal� ]g..cP.RA.1deT�tiaR.($ ... 1. ........ ) DOLLARS
..................
- _ ............................. .............................as earnest money and in part payment for the purchase of property at
(check. cash, m be defrotfteil vision weeptenee, or Note— state which)
6391... Central.. �Vug.. �T9t11Ak@ La.. �S> ldlfr ............ ............................... ......................situated in the
County of ..... Anoka . ............................... .......................... State of Minnesom, and legally described as follows, to-wit:
Lot 16, Block 2, Spring Valley, except the easterly 199 feet thereof
including all garden bulbs, pl ants, shrubs and trm, awaiagtrotiodoty_
shades,-bl ines • wesesieR- l WMme bulbs- plentbills
-fixates,, her waeertardas•anddseating plant- (- witbmT�arners tacks - stokrts�ttd�stlter uipmeas410&iw,eaaaoo 11 {Lcro�
mitt �rerg gabt.wlcaadt - (iErliPprep ef- sixaf- pump�ekwisietreMntaaiseenrv-
stol bailCit>�tisinvdsher- �disprsely evens- eoedrtep eaatditiotsittgegaiptnettt ,- eEetsr;wsed -awd
-lo�ted-atrsdid premasr�cdinekding- efso-dsefed{o�.ttea•pepropercy:
all of which property the undersigned has this day sold to the buyer for the slim of:
Fourteen Thousand Ax/100, ..... ------'-- ---- -- -- -- 4.000.00 DOLLARS,
which the buyer agrees to pay in the following manner:
Earnest [honey herein paid S .......' .............. and S. lA x000.00..., mil, on ..1'?8y.. 31 a.. 1.905........... , the date of closing.
Addendum O1 is attached hereto
The seller shall pay 5/12 of the rAal estate taxes due and payable in 1985
together with all unpaid installmelli pf special assessments.
Subject to performance by the buyer the seller agrees to execute a ebver a Warranty Decd
(to be joined in by spouse, if any) conveying marketable title to said premises subjecAR"411-• following exceptions -
(a) Building and zoning lams, ordinances, State and Federal regulations.
t b) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of premises without effective forfeiture provision.
(c) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the Stare of Minnesma.
(d) Utility and drainage easements which do not Interfere with present improvements.
(ei Rights of tenants as follows: (unless specified, not subject to tenancies)
'�'�!��kKlshr•eaeLactate+trwa. duels,[ heyesr i9--- �t��botid- assessanats.paydalati+stasrith
emk+lstwttoe.+Seller warrants that real estate taxes due in the year 19 0, will be non homestead classification
( full, partial or non homestead —state which)
Neither the seller nor the seller's agent make any representation or warranty whatsoever concerning the amount of real estate taxes
which shall be assessed against the property subsequent to the date of purchase.
Tht seller further agrees to deliver possession not later than May 31, 1985 provided that al: con•litions of chi,
agreement hint, been complied with. Unless otherwise specified this sale shallbe closed on or before 60 days from the date henot.
In the event this property is destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or any other cause before the closing date, this aerc-ement shall
become null and void, at the purchaser's option, and all munies paid hereunder shall be refunded to him.
The buyer and seller alu. martially agree that pro rata adjustments of rents interest. insurance and city water. an,i. in th, case of
income prupert), current operating expenses. shall be made as of May 31, 1485
The seller shall, within a reasonable time after appnival of this agreement, furnish an abstract of title. � e. ur a Recisterito P rtr•t
Abstract certified to date to include proper searches covering bankruptcies, and stare and Federal iodgmvnan and lien, Ths Iub be
all, surd 10 days after receipt [hereof for examination of said title and the making of any objections thereto. vjd ohic"ion, n. 1, made in
writing or deemed to be waived. If any objections are so made the seller shall be allowed 120 days u) make such title markctaHv, pending
c,+rrr,tton nt title the payments hereunder required shall be postponed. but upon correction of tide and within Ili day, after writrrr. notice
m rl•c buyer. the parties shall perform this agreement according to its terms.
If said title is not marketable and is not made so within 120 days from the date of written objections there[•.. as ah, -sac 1'.— Vide,l. rho
aereement shall be null and void, at option of the buyer. and neither principal shall be liable for damacts hereunder r,, the rahe, pnn,,pa!
Al: monec theretuturc paid be thr buyer shall he refunded. If the title to said property be found markrtal,le ,r be- so made r itha, s.,— rrn,-
ana sai.i 1•utrt shall drt.,ult in any of the agreement, and continue in default for a period of In dais. then and in that case :ht •,'4•
tctnunate this contract and on su,h termination all the payments made upon this contract shat be re•amt,: hs mid wilrr and — t aW w. a,
their respe(rine• inreresrs map appear. as liquidated damages• time being of the essence hereof. This provision shall not depricc talc, pin) ,a
the right of enforcing the st,ecihc performance of this contract provided such contract shall not be termmarrd as aforesaid. and rr -,t r.t a, ti..n
n enfone such specinc performance shall be commenced within six months after such right of action shall arise.
It is understood and agreed that this sale is made subjtct to the approval b)• the owner of said premises in writing and dint the un.rer-
sicned anent is in no manner liable or responsible on account of this agreement. except to return or an —unt for the earnest mane paid under
th i• ,onrract.
The delivery or all papers and monies shall be made at the office of: ...... ........... --
_ .Herrick.. .& ..ilevman.e..P..A. .................................. I.. . ........
.....
6279 University Ave. N.E.
._ ............ ... ..
I, the undersigned, owner of the above land, do hereby approve By Agent
the above agreement and the sale thereby made. I hereby agree to purchase the said proppeen) for the price anti
upon the terms above mentioned, and subject to all cnm'.mons
herein expressed.
x .f.r/..L.r..... _: �Y.:.�.. (SEAL)
seller .� .Fridle-y..•EauAng B..Redev�...ApthcritY,SEAL)
a VICKI CO < Buyer
e . swLtb Jt.i�e.- (:+r�`.'.."C...w(SFAL)
- -� .. .......... .... b. .!" ...................... /tom -
an y ..............
Setter .e r— ty x .N
Signed in my presence COU It -Eameut -1ve Dir( r
e x— fs'^'�h n 11•d!
THIS IN A LEGALI Y BINDING CON'TRA .1 . i OT UNDERST(x)D._SEEK (.0%IPF'I LN'1' AI)%- I('li.
Le /'r �t-t� %il)'t •ef f'af�e .1Z 1tlP.. Lo )[111
2E C s
ra
°
t
r n
A,
3
MEND Z0: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members
MEND FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
MEND DATE: December 4, 1987
REGARDING: Consideration of Crampton Request to Forgive All or Part of
Second Mortgage
Although here does not appear to be any limitation imposed by the source of
the grant money on forgiving the second mortgage before the end of the ten
year term, there is still the question raised by David Newman in his letter
of May 6, 1986 regarding the use of public monies for the limited benefit of
certain individuals.
Further, as pointed out in Samantha Orduno's letter to you dated December 3,
1987 it is possible that the final sale price of the property could be
significantly higher than the Century 21 appraisal. At any rate, we will not
know what Mr. Crampton's costs or profits are until the time of sale.
Another alternative may simply be for the HRA to forgive all seven such
mortgages on a straight line factor basis, 10% the first year through 90% in
the ninth year. In this way the original HRA intent will be achieved in
proportion to the time the first home buyers stay with their property.
.�
M-87 -243
3A
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CHAIRMAN COMMERS AND HRA MEMBERS
FROM: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON BRIAN CRAMPTON'S HOME OWNERSHIP
ASSISTANCE
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1987
As per your request for background information regarding the federal program in
which Brain Crampton received funds to assist with his home onwership, I have
prepared the following information regarding original intent of the program,
program guidleines, HRA actual costs, documentation regarding the Crampton's
initial mortgage and the values carried on the property by the City Assesor.
In 1978 HUD, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Council, provided CDBG Bonus
funds to asist communities rehabilitate and renovate areas suffering from urban
decay. In addition to the Rental Unit Rehab. Program, there were programs
created to assist low and moderate income homebuyers. Federal funds were made
available to cities through the Large Family Home Ownership Program (LFHOP)for
aequsistion and demolition of substandard housing units in order to prepare
sites for new housing units. As part of HUD's package, interest -free loans were
offered to qualified low and moderate income first -time home buyers to cover the
initial down payment and closing costs.
The Fridley HRA participated by providing land write -downs for qualified
applicants. The intent of the program was to assist low and moderate income
families with 5 or more family members purchase their first home. Applicants had
to fall within Section 8 income guidelines and also had to qualify for a
mortgage either through a MHFA affordable home lender or a Section 265 lender.
The HRA assisted by using the CDBG Bonus monies to purchase several substandard
housing units which were beyond rehabilitation and prepare the sites for
construction of new single family homes. The land costs to qualified families
was $4,000. At the time of the sale of the land, the HRA placed a second
mortgage on the land for the difference between the actual cost incurred by the
HRA and the cost paid out by the applicant. The interest rate was set a 8 %; if
the family remained in the house for 10 years, the conditions of the second
mortgage were deemed satisfied. There is no documentation as to what reasoning
was used in setting 10 years as the residency requirement. This was not a HUD
requirement. Seven homes were built on lots acquired by the HRA.
In the case of Brian Crampton, the total costs to the HRA for the lot he
purchased and upon which he subsequentially built his home, was $13,900. The
Crampton's paid $4,000 and a second morgage for $9,900 was placed against the
property. It is this second mortgage that Mr. Crampton would like set aside at
the end of 5 years of residency rather than the 10 years agreed upon at the time
of the sale of the lot.
There does not appear to be any serious hardships to the Cramptons which
necessitates a move to another home other than the lack of a garage and the
noise associated with having one's backyard abutting University Avenue.
Evidently, the Cramptons are now financially more secure and would like to move
to a larger home which would better accomodate their growing children. Mr.
Crampton's primary concern is that he not take a severe loss if he sells his
home prior to the 10 year residency requirement.
HRA MEMO /CWTTONS
DECEMBER 3, 1987
PAGE 2
In 1981 when the Crampton's purchased their home, their out -of -the pocket costs
were approximately $3,500. A year later they refinanced for a lower interest
rate and again paid out more money in closing and related costs. Based on a 1986
Century 21 appraisal, Mr. Crampton's property was valued at $64,800. After real
estate fees and related closing costs, Mr. Crampton stated he would have only
$2,800 in equity without taking into consideration the payment of the $9,900
plus interest to the HRA.
The City assesor carries a Minimum Market Value of $67,700 on the Crampton home
and states that most of the homes in the area are listed at 90 -92% of Fair
Market Value. Therefore, it is possible, again based on the condition of the
home, that Mr. Crampton's home could be valued at between $73,116 - $74,470. This
is nearly $10,000 more than the appraisal given by the Century 21 firm. Also,
figured into Mr. Crampton's estimated seller's fees were estimates for 2 1/2
points. This may or may not be the case at the time of the sale.
One of the main considerations of the program was to ensure that there would not
be any undue profits realized on the affected properties. The first refusal
clause was placed in the second mortgages to control premature sale of the
property. This allowed the HRA to purchase the home and resell it to a qualified
low /moderate income, first -time homebuyer and remain within the original intent
of the program.
In much of the initial discussions surrounding the HRA's participation in the
Large Family Home Ownership Program, the main emphasis seems to have been that
the money used to purchase, clear and sell this lots to qualified applicants, be
someday returned to the HRA in the event that the person no longer continued to
live in the home.
Mr. Crampton's request of the HRA is that you consider several alternatives in
this matter. He has presented the following suggestions:
1. Forgive the entire $9,900 second mortgage.
2. Prorate the amount forgiven at the halfway mark.
3. Allow the home to be rented for the remaining 5 years
without penalty.
3B
r-
Brian Crampton September 8, 1987
5849 =rd St. NE
Fridley, MN 554=2
Samantha Orduno
City of Fridley
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Dear Samantha, /
As I mentioned to you during our phone conversation today, I am interested
in selling my house at 5849 'rd St. We would like to move for several
reasons. First, we would like to move to a quieter neighborhood. The
back: of our property abuts University Avenue, and we have a great deal of
traffic noise. Second we do not have a garage and have found the winters
difficult without one, and our lot is too narrow to allow for the addition
of a garage. Third we have a growing family and would like additional
room.
We have a contract with the City of Fridley, HRA, which would cause us to
lose money if we were to sell our house and pay the full principle and
interest of the HRA note. Under the terms of this note we would have to
pay $9,900 plus 8% interest if we rent or sell the house before ten years
after our date of closing (June, 1982). Our primary mortgage is a
conventional V.A. mortgage. We had a market analysis prepared by Century
21. According to that analysis we would come out of our home with only
about $2800 in equity if we paid nothing on the HRA note. That would not
even recover our down payment, closing costs, etc., and would not allow us
to recover anything of the close to $40,000 0 that we have made in payments
on the property in the last 62 months. Again that is without paying
anything on the $7,900 mortgage or the 8% interests for 5 years.
My question for the HRA is whether there is some other option open to us
besides either staying in our current home for an additional 5 years or
It
paying several thousand dollars in penalties just to be able to move.
is my understanding that the HRA program was intended to develop property
and to create opportunities for first time home owners. These objectives
have been accomplished. What will be gained by holding us in this
property for another 5 years? We are ready to move on and there are
undoubtedly many other families that are ready for a house like ours.
We would like to request that the HRA
the 5 year mark: as opposed to the 10
result in any windfall to us, and it
property at the low end of.the market
starter home for someone else.
Very truly,
aiv
Brian (, Cram ton
1
allow us out of our 2nd mortgage at
year mark. This would clearly not
would open up another piece of
which would make an excellent
3C
3D
ViRG,: C HERRICX
O^vio P NEWMAN
JAMES E SCHMECKPEPER
HERRICK & NEWMAN. P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 6, 1986
Myra Gibson
Planning Division
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue, N.E.
Fridley, MW 55432
RE: Brian and Rosemarie Crampton
Dear Ms. Gibson:
6279 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N E
FRIDLEY. 164INNESOTA 55432
571 -3850
Pursuant to your request I have reviewed a letter of April
4, 1986 from Brian and Rosemarie Crampton. My interpretation
of the letter is that they are asking the City to release
its second mortgage against the subject property.
it would be my recommendation that the HRA deny the request.
you will note that in reviewing the mortgage, the HRA has
the first option to acquire the property if
the property within ten years of the date of closing.
However, what the Cramptons are asking is not merely that
the HRA waive its option of first purchase, but that it
release the second mortgage. The mortgage note does not
make any provision for such action. Generally, the holder
of a mortgage always has the right to waive its mortgage
if it so desires. However, in this instance, public funds
were used for the purpose of providingtheUsecond mortgage. Consequently, to now waive the mortgag e
the use o public
Suchmoneys
actionfor
wouldthe
beicontrary benefit
publiccertain
individuals.
policy.
A second reason for my recommendation that this request be
denied is due to the precedent wouldiprobably set.
not be legally
by agreeing to the request y however,
binding yourself to accept similar futur requests, hg, the
since there are several of these mortgages precedent if it were
HRA would always be setting a p olitical
to accept this request.
An additional concern of mine is any limitation which may
have been imposed by the source of this grant money. It is
my understanding that the money for this and other mortgages
s very
was made available through F =amrincludedacertainiconditions
possible that the Federal pro g
as to how the money could be used. I have not seen any
documents pertaining to this program. If the HRA were to
decide that it wanted to agree.to the Crampton's request,
then before communicating such a response to them, the
LA
J
MEND TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members
MEND FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
MEND DATE: December 3, 1987
RF]GARDIM: Information on Potential Recovery of Lake Pointe Change Order
Costs
In response to the Board's request that consultant costs associated with
change orders be reviewed for potential recovery, David Newman, John Flora,
Mark Burch and I have reviewed the various change orders of both the
consultants and contractors connected with the Lake Pointe project to -date
summarized on the attached sheets.
It is our evaluation that the cost over -runs were associated with the delays
in the project due to bad weather in the Fall of 1986, and were also
associated with the responsibilities of Sunde Engineering as the supervising
engineer and Subterranean Engineering as the soil's engineer. The
conclusions are stmimarized as follows:
Change Order No. 1 for $7,500 was the result of additional inspection and
staking which had to be completed during the second construction season when
due to bad weathher, the site grading and some of the road grading, could not
be accomplished in 1986.
The Arbitration cost of $3,202.50 represents the time required by Sunde to
prepare for attend and testify at the three days of the Arbitration hearing.
We have concluded that this is a reasonable charge for the amount of time
spent.
Change Order No. 2 for $19,270 was for the extra work related to the
realignment and redesign of Pad A precipitated by the intersection and road
alignment problens at the northeast corner of the site. There was also in
this change order additional engineering work which was directed as a result
of the arbitration award.
At this time we have no reason to believe that Sunde made errors that
contributed to the arbitration award. Their error that resulted in Change
Order No. 1 to Park Construction was an omission of a cost that would have
had to be borne in any event. The Change Order was in an amount based on the
per unit prices contained in the original bid. There were no extra
engineering charges involved.
4A
Lake Pointe Change Order Recovery
December 3, 1987
Page 2
Enebek Change Order No. 1 for $5,000 was due to a lack of coordination
between Sunde and landscape architect in that Sunde omitted the landscape
architect's berms on the north perimeter of the project in the grading plan.
it is conceivable that this Change Order may not have been necessary if the
berms had been included in the original grading plan.
The bike path mix-up was also due to a lack of coordination between Sunde 's
grading and the landscape architect. Although no change order resulted,
Woodbridge is still unhappy with the ultimate location. ibis may cause
future problems.
Change Order No. 1 is for plan expenses related to the earthwork contracts
being rebid three times. Staff believes it is a reasonable cost.
The Subterranean evaluation for some soft soils on the north access road was
accurate. However, the proposed solution did not work in the field and
resulted in a need for Enebek Change Order No. 2 for $12,000 to correct the
road sub -base. In the opinion of the Public Works Department, Subterranean
took a reasonable risk in proposing that solution.
In the original bid documents, Subterranean specifically and unnecessarily
represented the soil moisture content. 71his representation was unsolicited
by the HRA and by Subterranean's own admission, is not usually included in a
soil report. Unfortunately, the reported soil moisture content was wrong.
During all three phases of the arbitration process, evaluation of Enebek's
claim, preparation for the hearing, and the actual conduct of the hearing for
the first 2 1/2 days, Subterranean asserted that the soil moisture reports
were accurate. Men during lunchtime before the final halt day of hearing,
when they were scheduled to testify, Subterranean changed their position and
admitted that the actual on -site soil moisture was greater than indicated in
his soil report. 9his resulted in part of the adverse ruling of the
arbitration board that resulted in Change Order No. 3 to Enebek for total
additional cost of $1671,113. It should be noted, however, that at least some
award was die to undisclosed soil conditions and this, in our opinion, was a
fair conclusion of the arbitration board.
It should be noted that the entire amount of cost over -runs associated with
these change orders amounts to approximately 10% of the total project cost.
If the HRA decides to pursue cost recovery from Subterranean Engineering,
another law firm will have to be engaged since Herrick and Newman has a
potential conflict. I would strongly advise that in such case, Tan Radio of
the Porham Haik law firm be engaged, in that he was the one who represented
the HRA in the arbitration procedures.
M•i
M-87 -241
4B
Since the initiation of construction on the Woodbridge Lake Pointe site,
the following contracts and costs have been executed:
Sunde Engineering Contract $150,699,00
C/o #1- Inspection & Staking 7,500.00
Arbitration Costs 3,202.50
C/o #2- Inspection, Staking & Misc. Design 19,270.0,Q
$160,671.50
Subterranean Engineering Contract $ 70,707.65
C/o #1 Plan expenses 812.50
Arbitration Costs 1.600.7
$ 73,120.90
Ernst Associates Contract $ 9,225.00
C/o #1 241.01
Expenses -m5-.0
$ 9,751.19
SEH
* Intersection Alignment Change $ 8,340.80
M7AL DESIGN pOSyg $271,884.39
r, W
t
4C
•4. •�
Enebak Construction
Demolition and earthwork contract
$978,000.00
C/O
#1- Omitted berms
51000.00
C/O
#2-Road subbase correction
12,000.00
C/O
#3 Arbitration decision
167,113:00
C/0
#4- Additional Pad A excavation
38,750.00
C/o
#5- Additional Fill Material
22.E
$1,223,498.50
Park Construction
Water and sewer contract $188,100.00
C/O #14-latermain length error 39,900.00
C/O #2 Renobilization costs 5.820,Q4
$233,820.00
Minnesota Valley
Landscaping and irrigation contract $481,413.00
* C/o #1 Licht pole anchor bolts 5,585.47
C/O #2- Sprinkling of Pad C 11,872.00
C%o #3- detention pond redesign (431219. -5Q)
$455,650.97
H & S AsFhalt
Road and storm water contract $368,054.10
C/O #1- Additional drain pipe 17,250.00
C/O # 2- Renobil izati on Cost 2.4.§ No
$387,764.10
mTAL aDNSZRUCrION OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . .$2,300,733.57
4D
ZDTAL DESIGN AND 00NSTRUMON OCST $ 2, 572, 617.96
Based upon the Agreement Amendment of August 151 1986, all reasonable
incidental costs related to design and planning and construction of the
public improvements in excess of $21190,000.00 are to be shamed equally
between the HRA and the redeveloper.
$2,,572,617.96
�ls�SlJllj�yJSI�C.
$ 382,617.96
1/2 Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $191,308.98
* Sole responsibility of Woodbridge
(1/2 additional cost) . . . . . . . . .
Total amount of Woodbridge share $198,272.12
as of October 6, 1987
E
MEMO M: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members
MEMD FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
MEMD DATE: December 4, 1987
REGARDING: Follow -Up on Evaluating Marketing Agencies for the Southwest
Corner of University Avenue and Mississippi Street
As a follow -up to the Board's direction at the November meeting, I am
evaluating Business Development Services, Inc. (BDS) as an alternative to
Coldwell Banker. This firm was recanmended to us by Sid Inman, former HRA
Finance Director.
As you can see fram the enclosed form letter, BDS is a different type of
service organization fram a national real estate brokerage. Zhey are a local
firm whose primary skills are in municipal economies and development
strategies. However, when I interviewed Mr. Pelstring, Vice President of
BES, he indicated that they also have the option of working on a commission
basis much as a real estate broker would. And as we go to press I am
awaiting for a proposed scope of services fran BTS. I will give the Board a
verbal update if it is received before the December 10, 1987 meeting.
JLR/dm
M-87 -244
5A
John Robertson
Community Development Director
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Robertson:
A short time ago I wrote you regarding our firm and the need for
communities to purposefully influence their local economies
through the formulation of a solid economic development strategy.
At that time I provided information on our "Prospects Unlimited"
marketing service and Venture Capital formation, which are useful
tools for attracting new business investment.
Another area of vital importance to the economies of local units
of government in which many of you have indicated an interest is
business retention and expansion. BDS and its staff of spe-
cialists have the experience, creative talent, and expertise to
accomplish these goals. Whether it is innovative financial
packaging, accessing government programs, or organizing community
resources to assist local businesses, BDS can provide the ser-
vices necessary to overcome the deficiencies existing in many
local economic development programs. Our client cities and coun-
ties throughout Minnesota have found that BDS is a cost effective
means of providing needed economic development services to local
businesses that they otherwise could not afford to make available.
Enclosed is a copy of our "private" brochure which outlines many
of the services BDS provides to individual businesses on a direct
basis. Working with BDS, your economic development program would
immediately acquire these same capabilities and be in a position
to meet the needs of local businesses. We look forward to
discussing with you how BDS might be of assistance.
Sincerely,
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC.
Michael J. Mulrooney
President
MJM /mc
Enclosure
7260 UNIVERSITY AVE N.E. • SURE 130 • MINNERPOUS, NN 55432 • PHONE: 612/574 -1492
6
NEND 70: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members
MEND FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
NEND DATE: December 4, 1987
RWARDING: Information on Project Proposed by Gerald Paschke
I have been approached by Mr. Paschke about a possible HRA subsidy for a
proposed office /warehouse development on the northeast corner of Main Street
and 79th Avenue. As you can see from the attached letter from Jim Robinson
there are a number of Code issues that need to be resolved before the project
can proceed. However, since Mr. Paschke will not be in town in January and
February of 1988, he desires some preliminary comments by the HRA Board and
staff at the December 10, 1987 meeting. As we go to press, we have not
received any of the data requested in the November 30, 1987 letter.
If the information does arrive before the December 10, 1987 meeting, I will
attempt to give you as complete evaluation as possible.
JLR/dm
M-87 -245
6A
November 30, 1987
Gerald Paschke
7970 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Paschke:
As a follow -up to our conversation of November 23,
answer the questions about your proposed development on
of Main Street and 79th Avenue. Requirements for both
an HRA subsidy are somewhat inter - related.
1987 I am writing to
the northeast corner
a building permit and
First I will address the building permit requirements of the City Code:
a. In order to obtain a building permit, it will be necessary to
complete a drainage plan for the entire area. 9his drainage
plan should have accumulative data related to all lots draining
into the holding pond on Lot 6 in addition to the data for the
proposed development. Assuming that a drainage plan is
approved, it will be necessary to grant an easement to the City
of Fridley over Lot 6 (the pond parcel) . This easement would
take into account the parking stalls which you have shown on
the site plan over the southerly 14 feet of Lot 6.
b. Parking easements between Lots 6, 7, 8 and the proposed project
parcel would need to be drafted for City review and recorded
prior to building permit being issued.
c. Adjustments to the parking layout on the east side of the
project parcel should be made to incorporate a ten foot green
space between the two rows of parking. This can be
accomplished by reducing the driving aisle to 25 feet and
reducing the parking stall lengths on both rows to 18 feet.
The additional one foot can be obtained by reducing the
building setback from the driveway to six feet.
d. If the building is to be used for any office users not
associated with the principal use of manufacturing or
warehousing, it will be necessary to obtain a special use
permit. This process takes between two to three months and
involves a Planning Commission and City Council project review.
Recently two similar projects which received special use
permits for office in industrial zones were required to use
brick as a major oomponent in the building facade plan. In
addition, a high quality landscape plan was also required.
6B
Gerald Paschke
November 30, 1987
Page 2
e. An additional concern with the proposed layout are the overhead
doors which face onto 79th Avenue. It would be preferrable to
only incorporate these drive -in areas on the north and east
sides of the building. 9be Code requires that all loading
areas be t}horougly screened from the public right of way.
f. In reviewing the site dimensions on the November 3, 1987 plan
which you submitted, I noticed through scaling the north-south
dimension that the lot is drawn at 272 feet in width. The plat
of University Industrial Park indicates that there is 251 feet
of lot depth. Please check the dimension and make any
neoessary corrections.
g. For speculative developments on greater than 1.5 acres, the
Code requires one parking stall for every 500 square feet of
floor area. with a 40,000 square foot bulding, you would be
required to provide 80 parking stalls. Although your plan
provides for 119 stalls, utilizing the parking easement on the
east and north, these stalls have been drawn with nine foot
widths. 9 he Code requires that parking stalls be ten feet in
width. Please make the necessary adjustments to the site plan.
Secondly, you have expressed an interest in being placed on the December 10,
1987 HRA agenda for consideration of development subsidy for the proposed
project. In order for the HRA to provide meaningful feedback as to the
feasibility of subsidizing your project, it would be necessary to provide the
following items:
a. Soil tests which show the extent of soil problems on the site.
b. Cost estimates for the soil correction.
c. Land aoquisition oosts.
d. Anticipated project value upon oompletion.
e. An indication of the quality of the oonstruction.
f. An indication of the quality of landscaping.
The desired level of quality for this type of construction can be observed in
the new construction at the southeast oorner cf 83rd Avenue and Main Street.
This development, which was unsubsidized, was required to have brick as a
major component and also to have a high quality landscape plan.
The HRA agenda is sent out Friday noon December 4, 1987. It would be most
helpful to have as many of the above items included as possible. Should this
present a problem, please let either myself or Jock Robertson, the Community
Development Director, know of this.
6C
Gerald Paschke
November 30, 1987
Page 3
Provided that enough documentation can be provided by December 10, 1987 the
HRA may be able to give you an indication of whether ieodrule a public hearing
appropriate for subsidy. It will be necessary k
for some later HRA meeting in order to approve the development agreement.
I hope this letter helps to clarify the necessary requi rements fora building
permit and subsidy. If I can be of any further help please don't hesitate to
call me at 571 -3450.
S incer ely,
James L. Robinson
Planning Coordinator
JLR/dm
C -87 -586
6D
tjaq °2�5� "W - - -tr-
3
S I N N e °2$ 5 -L _ 3
� e
TI ® o A2�.a'! 11-1. lot
tJ �9 °2� 5-►° W ' o Nl °lz6.38'1.
Z
4 vi.02 I �.
224.gto
tJ gq °2v' S1" W
r► Sq °25'33'• W
t
�1
to
IX
- -- � �' /GV'�H V�f�� tar "; ".•+
L T
6y.
.IuRBAN
NGINEERING I INC.
— Surveyors
-y
�1
41-
rT
6E
7
03- Dec -87 UPDATED
;1�1-
CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
FROM: City of Fridley Engineering Division
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
DATE:
RE: Estimate No.
Period Ending:
FOR: S.E.H.
222 East Little Cana
St. Paul,MN 55117
HIGHWAY 65 IMPROVEMENT AREA
STATEMENT OF WORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
RICE CREEK ROAD
PRELIM. PLANS
APPROVED
CONTRACT
AMOUNT THIS
TOTAL
CONTRACT ITEM
DATE - HRA
PRICE
ESTIMATE
AMOUNT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 TWIN INTERSECTION PLANS
3/14/85
$30,750.00
8/13/87
30,749.84
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
10/8/87
21,362.55
$352,926.60
21,362.55
WEST MOORE LAKE CONSTRUCTION
9111/86
$39,800.00
HIGHWAY 65 PLANS
9111/86
$55,500.00
25,131.61
55,500.00
CHANGE ORDER #1
4/9/87
$89270.00
CHANGE ORDER #2
8113/87
$6,375.00
769.45
769.45
CHANGE ORDER #3
1018/67
$3,769.05
31769.05
HIGHWAY 65 CONSTRUCTION
9/11/86
$59,000.00
RICE CREEK ROAD
PRELIM. PLANS
9/11/86
$7,100.00
7,100.00
DETAIL PLANS
8 /13 /67
$52,500.00
2,828.62 3,542.51
RICE CREEK ROAD CONSTRUCTION
8/13/87
$50,500.00
OLD CENTRAL PRELIM. PLANS
8/13/87
$18,000.00
927.71 927.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
$352,926.60
29,657.39 123,721.11
03- Dec -87 UPDATED
5JMM AR, y.
7A
Original Contract Amount
$313,150.00
Contract Additions - Change Order it
$29,582.55
Contract Additions - Change Order 12
$6,375.00
Contract Additions - Change Order 13
13,769.05
Revised Contract Amount
$352,926.60
Value Completed To Date
$123,721.11
Amount Retained (51)
$0.00
Less Amount Paid Previously
$94,063.72
AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE
$29,657.39
CERTIFICATE OF THE CONTRACTOR
I hereby certify that the Mork performed and the materials supplied to date under the terms of the contract f
project, and all authorized changes thereto, have an actual value under the contract of the amounts shown on
estimate (and the final quantities on the final estimate are correct), and that this estimate is just and Or
part of the 'Amount Due This Estimate' has been received.
By -----------------------------------------------
Date ------------------
Contractor's Authorized Representative (Title)
CERTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER
I hereby certify that I have prepared or examined this estimate, and that the contractor is entitled to payee
estimate under the contract for reference project.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, INSPECTOR
By--------------------------------- - - - - --
Date
Checked By ------------------------- - - - - -- Respectfully Submitted,
--------------------------
aohn 6. Flora, P.E.
Public Works Director
a
iEAKUNEERS■ARCHtMI TS ■PLANNERS
222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD ST PAUL MINNESOTA 55117 612 484.0272
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
ATTN: John Flora
Director of Public Works
INVOICE 7B
November 24, 1987
T.H. 65 /LIGHTING
INVOICE NO. 1074 SEH FILE NO. 84142.02
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: FOR PERIOD THRU OCTOBER 17, 1987
For T.H. 65 street lighting from I -694 to Rice Creek Road.
Project Manager
7.0 hrs @
$55.58/hr =
$389.06
Technician
6.0 hrs @
$26.61 /hr =
159.66
Drafter
4.5 hrs @
$25.05 /hr =
112.73
Computer
108.00 $769.45
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND
PAYABLE THIS
INVOICE . .
. . . . . $769.45
MAXIMUM FEE: $6,375.00
INVOICED TO DATE: $ 769.45
mg
COUNTY OF RAMSEY. CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Donald E. Lund In said County and State. being duty sworn.
on oath says that he is Vice President
of the Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc., that the foregoing account is Iust and true; that the services therein charged were actuaoy rendered.
and Of the value therein charged, that the fees Or amounts charged therefore are Such as are alb Wed by law; and that no part Of such
account has been paid
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
My connuswri expires 19
day of
19
SHORT ELL1077 ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS,
HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
Aar
ENC /NEERS R ARCHMECT5 6 PLANNERS
cr PAJL, ,MINNESOTA 55 E72 4c4-C272
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
ATTN: John Flora,
Director of Public Works-
7C.
INVOICE
November 20, 1987
OLD CENTRAL AVENUE
1NV010E NO. 1035 SEH FILE NO 88069
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: FOR PERIOD THRU OCTOBER 17, 1987
For preliminary study for Old Central Avenue. In accordance with your
confirming letter.
Project Manager
$222.31
Project Engineer
93.15
Design Engineer
535.42
Drafter
20.35
Clerical
40.23
16.25 $927.71
Mileage
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & PAYABLE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . . $927.71
F mtt a iixtu�8aftt, S5
COUNTY OF RAMSEY. CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Donald E. Lund In said County and State, being duty sworn.
Vice President
on oath. says. that he is
of the Shon- Elliott- Herdnckson. Inc . trial the foregoing account is lust and true. that the servtceS therein charged were actually rendered.
and of the value therein charged. that the fees or amounts charged therefore are Such as are allowed by law: and that no pan of Such
account has been pad
Subscnbed and sworn to before me this
My commtssion expires
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENDRICKSON INC
day at t9
19
ST PAUL,
MINNESOTA
WISCONS"'4
ENGINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS 8 PLANNERS
222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55' 17 612 484 -0272
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
ATTN: John Flora
Director of Public Works
7D
INVOICE
November 20, 1987
RICE CREEK ROAD
INVOICE NO. 1056 SEH FILE NO. 88057
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: FOR PERIOD SEPTEMBER 20 THRU OCTOBER 17, 1987
For plans and specifications for reconstruction of Rice Creek Road from
T.H. 65 to Central Avenue. In accordance with your confirming letter.
Project Manager
$ 194.54
Design Engineer
1,747.15
Traffic Engineer
308.10
Survey Crew
506.08
Mileage
72.75 $2,828.62
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & PAYABLE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . . $2,828.62
MAXIMUM FEE: $52,500.00
INVOICED TO DATE: $ 3,542.51
Pate of iffivittsou ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY. CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Donald E. Lund In said County and State. being duly sworn.
on oath, mars that he is Vice President
of the Shon- Elliot- Hendrickson. Inc.. that the foregoing account is lust and true: that the Services therein charged were actually rendered.
and of the value therein Charged, that the fees or amounts Charged therefore are Such as are allowed by law: and that no pan of such
account has been pad
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
My commission expires 19
19
SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL. iSCO NA FAL S
W
HENDRICKSON INC MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
r �� . INVOICE 7E
® ® SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
DATE
September 9, 1987
TO City of Fridley
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
ATTN: John Flora,
Dir. of Public Works RE' T.H. 65 /RICE CREEK RD.
INVOICE NO. 9513 SEH FILE NO. 84142.01
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES: FOR PERIOD OCTOBER 19, 1986 THRU JULY 25, 1987
For design of the reconstruction of T.H. 65 and preliminary
study of Rice Creek Road.. In accordance with our contract.
Attached is a copy of SEH letter dated April 8, 1987 $20,052.15
for your reference =
For modifications to plans, specifications, cost estimate
and Schedule I, to add MN /DOT overhead sign design.
Presentation of design and layout at public hearing.
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . $25,131.61
Atate :of Jainuts
COUNTY of gAMSEY. CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Donald E. Lund in sad coi" a<a State. Wag d°fY 9Me'n. COPY FOR tOROJECT MANAGER
o^ oam san that he b vice President
o+ me Sna1 Enad- tlendnel+aa+. triC- �t me 't is 1,0 w d tha. that the seances tlterem charged were w"a4 rsfxw d This invoice will be mailed on
and of the .awe d,ere,n «+�. that the Ieea or amounU charged e+eretars are *�^ ere arowea �': °"d °'�' "0 �" °' `""' unless the Bookkeeper is advised of a
''vo.nt "a' DeBn pi° correction prior to that date.
S, bgnbed and swam to before me ma dry of
My commDSOn eiP.aa 19
t9
200 r nINGe222 EAST LITTLE CANADA noADe5T. PAUL. MINNESOTA SS1170PHONE (612) 4840272
Project Manager
27.0
hrs
@
$55.58/hr
=
$1,500.66
Traffic Engineer
15.6
hrs
@
75.15/hr
=
1,172.34
Otd
Design Engineer
5.0
hrs
@
36.48/hr
-
182.40
' Q
Technician
9.0
hrs
@
30.59/hr
=
275.31
Drafter
10.5
hrs
@
25.05/hr
=
263.03
Clerical
2.0
hrs
@
22.54/hr
-
45.08
Computer
4.0
hrs
@
18.00 /hr
=
72.00
18.50 3,529.32
Mileage
Land
Surveys:
Old
Project Manager
3.0
hrs
@
$55.58 /hr
=
$ 166.74
Technician
16.0
hrs
@
36.79/hr
=
588.64
45a,,J,,�
Survey Crew
15.5
hrs
@
36.92/hr
=
572.26
222.50 1,550.14
Mileage & Expense
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . $25,131.61
Atate :of Jainuts
COUNTY of gAMSEY. CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Donald E. Lund in sad coi" a<a State. Wag d°fY 9Me'n. COPY FOR tOROJECT MANAGER
o^ oam san that he b vice President
o+ me Sna1 Enad- tlendnel+aa+. triC- �t me 't is 1,0 w d tha. that the seances tlterem charged were w"a4 rsfxw d This invoice will be mailed on
and of the .awe d,ere,n «+�. that the Ieea or amounU charged e+eretars are *�^ ere arowea �': °"d °'�' "0 �" °' `""' unless the Bookkeeper is advised of a
''vo.nt "a' DeBn pi° correction prior to that date.
S, bgnbed and swam to before me ma dry of
My commDSOn eiP.aa 19
t9
200 r nINGe222 EAST LITTLE CANADA noADe5T. PAUL. MINNESOTA SS1170PHONE (612) 4840272
Vh
1689 - 1699