HRA 07/19/1988 - 6521HOUSING & E VEL , NE�YT AUTHORITY
I�JG
7:00 P. P9,
JULY 19, 1988
Rick Pribyl
Finance Director
City of Fridley
AGENDA
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORiTy MG. THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1988 7400 F.M.
Location: Community Education Center ` PLEASE NOTE NEW LOCATION
6085 - 7th Street N.E.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUI'E~S :
Housing & Redevelcpnent Authority Minutes: June 9, 1988
I/ q
OONSIDERATION OF LOU LUNDC4MN PROPOSAL . . . . . . • • . . . l i/
CONSIDERATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 57TH & UNIVERSITY
AVENUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2E
OONSIDERATION OF PLAZA RAMP CDNSMCPION AND CONSIDERATION
OF SPECIAL BRA MEETIl� . . O v,-). . . . . . f
CONSIDERATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FROM CHERYL STINSKI . . . . . . 4
CONSIDERATION OF S.E.H. CHANGE ORDER FOR RICE CREEK ROAD
IIvaDROVF24Ez�ITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5D
CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER #5 FOR LANDSCAPING,
IRRIGATION, AM LIGHTING PROJECT' #168 AT LAKE POINTS . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6B
ESTMTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7C
CLAIMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
OTHER BUSINESS:
ELIP'lleligglom
;�44`�•�5��i�i��1'a
H0USIt G & REEEVEC,OPM U AUTHORITY N[NUTE'9, JUNE 9, 1988
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Comers called the June 9, 1988, Housing & Redevelopment
Authority meeting to order at 7 :12 p.m.
RCLLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Cmuers, Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie
John Meyer
Members Absent: Walter Rasnussen
Others Present: Nasim Qureshi, Director of HRA
Rick Pribyl, City Finance Director
Julie Burt, Asst. Finance Officer
Dave Newnan, HRA Attorney
Lou & June Lundgren, 343 Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul
William Fogerty, 12340 Radisson Rd., Blaine
Tom & Marge Brickner, 1441 Rice Creek Road
Bruce & Candace Lundgren, 3420 Bavaria Rd., Chaska
Richard Mochinski
APPROVAL OF MAY 12, 1988, FUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINCiTFaS:
MMON by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the May 12, 1988,
Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written.
UPCN A VOICE • i • CHAIRPEFMN CDMMZS DECLARED • - •
CARRIED TT0f-,X-T10-011,JSLY.
Mr. Neman handed out a copy of a letter from Centennial Mortgage that Mr.
Lundgren had forwarded to staff that afternoon. He also handed out a
reduction of the plan Mr. Lundgren would be showing the HRA at the meeting.
Mr. Newman stated that on Tuesday, June 7, a meeting was held attended by
Mr. Lundgren, Mr. Lundgren's attorney, Mr. Jacobsen, Mr. C asserly, Mr.
Robertson, and himself. They reviewed the status of the development. They
bad the opportunity to discuss with Mr. Lundgren some of the rnunbers the HRA
saw two weeks ago at their special meeting and to get Mr. Lundgren's input.
They did make some changes to the numbers based on the information received
from Mr. Lundgren.
Mr. Newnan stated everyone recognizes that time is of the essence, and as
the conversation evolved, they were not in the position to act on the
numbers they were changing, i ng, because staff bad not bad time to evaluate the
numbers. At the end of the discussion, the proposal on the table was that
Mr. Lundgren would try to proceed without the need from the HRA to construct
the parking rang- that he would handle all that himself. The HRA would
-1-
HOUSING & RECEVELOPM O AUMX= WrING, JUNE 9, 1988
provide to the developer the site fully prepared. Mr. Lundgren would
acquire it at a cost of $2 /sq. ft., and that payment would be deferred over
a period of time. Mr. Lundgren also emphasized that his commitment and
interest was in doing the total phase development, and he spent some time
discussing how those phases would occur and the requirements that have to be
met before subsequent phases could begin.
Mr. Newnan stated he felt they reached a general concensus on the type of
standard they were looking at. At this time, he would like to give Mr.
Lundgren the opportunity to present to the HRA the discussions he has had
with Centennial Mortgage and advise the HRA on what he has done since the
last HRA meeting, show drawings of his plan, etc. Af ter that, Mr. Newman
would like Mr. Jim Casserly to review the latest numbers that have been run
as a result of the discussions on June 7.
Mr. Lundgren stated that in the material which he sent with his letter was a
bar graph which illustrated the time factors that they would like to base
their phases on. Since they first started meeting on this project, a number
of changes have been made and yet there are some things that are exactly the
same. The things that are to be put in this project have not changed.
Fran the beginning, they started to put the first phase in the spot where
there are no buildings. That had several advantages in the sense that
nothing had to be torn down in order to start construction. The process of
the HRA providing the land for this building, from a practical point of
view, meant that the HRA was acquiring land for this building and a good
portion of the land for Phase III. The land under Phase II was already in
the hands of the HRA
Mr. Lundgren stated that in this particular plan, the office portion of the
building did not occupy the Burger King site. 'There were several advantages
to leaving the Burger King building there. It was an independent operation,
it could stand on its own, plus the fact that it was costly to acquire.
Mr. Lundgren stated that in the communication from Centennial Mortage,
Centennial did not tell him how much the mortgage will be, and they did not
give the exact day when he will get the conanitment. They said a firm
commitment should be issued on or about june 24. They said they would
continue to pursue the potential participation in offering a below market
interest rate to improve the project economics for potential mortgage.
Mr. Lundgren stated in the staff meeting, they discussed the previous
request that has been before the HRA where the HRA gave consideration to
providing the structure of the ramp. That could be done; however, it was
his opinion that it was still complex and something that should be avoided
if they can.
Mr. Lundgren stated he assumed they would be meeting again the following
week with city staff to firm up some of the other things. Things are
getting a little behind, and they need about 2 -3 such meetings to arrive at
a concensus. He thought the June 7th meeting had been very productive.
They looked at a lot of different alternatives, and he felt they were on the
path to getting somewhere.
-2-
;�' � DID) � • 131 � ��z.� : 4� �,1313/y�1� jU�l
Mr. Lundgren stated he thought the letter from Terry Chuvala was sincere,
and he thought they would get their firm commitment, that it will be large
enough to make this project go and that they will be able to close at this
approximate time. Within the next couple of weeks, he expected to get a
firm commitment prepared for Phases II, III, and IV based on the feasibility
study. Each funder has a different kind of lender. He felt he could pursue
each phase simultaneously and still keep on schedule. They expect they are
going to have a lot of problems, but he thought it was all workable.
Mr. Campers stated that at the last HRA meeting, staff had shared some
concerns from the financial viewpoint of the project.
Mr. Lundgren stated one of the dif ferences of opinion was that they are
using some numbers that were pulled out of the air insofar as what they were
proposing. They are using the numbers that have always been proposed. He
stated he very much appreciated Mr. Casserly putting this financial
information together. The information was helpful, and it made the meeting
more fruitful than it would have been if they bad not had those numbers.
Mr. Commmers asked if Mr. Terry Chuvala was still talking about a problem
with the tax per unit.
Mr. Lundgren stated there was a problem there, and it was a fundamental, and
very real problem.
Mr. Newnan stated Mr. Casserly has some revisions and sane more inf ormation
at the meeting prepared as a result of the modifications Mr. Lundgren has
requested. These mr bers also reflected taxes at $900 /unit.
Mr. Casserly stated that after the June 7th meeting, staff asked Mr.
Lundgren and his people to provide staff with any data they thought was
realistic in terns of what they could do. Mr. Lundgren and his people did
take issue with same of staff's assumptions, which was good. The only real
significant changes in the assumptions show up on the page entitled "Market
Valuation" (attached to his mew to the HRA dated June 9, 1988). The $900
per unit was presented to staff as being far more realistic in terms of what
the competition might be charging. That would put them more in the
marketplace. Staff has been using $1,350 per unit.
Mr. coani rs asked how the $900 per unit compared to staff's camparables.
Mr. Casserly stated that at staff's request, the Maxfield Study was also
reviewed as to the amount of taxes, and those were thought to be somewhat
comparable to the project Mr. Lundgren is proposing. The taxes and those
canparables were pretty mooch in the $900 per unit range. 17ie $900 obviously
has the impact of reducing the amount of tax increment.
Mr. Casserly stated Mr. Lundgren and his group pointed out that they do not
think the City will be financing the cost of the ramp which was a very
expensive proposition for the City. If they pull out that $850,000 expense,
they can see what happens.
-3-
DOUSING & RENMDRWU Air MRI't'Y m=G, JUNE 9, 1988
NW. Casserly stated that for Phase II, it was also suggested that taxes be
set at $900 per unit. They bad put in 100 units, but Mr. Lundgren said his
proposal has always been discussed with 120 units or in that range. Mr.
Lundgren told staff to put in 119 units, and the taxes they were using for
Phase II were roughly the same. The City bad $110, 000 down before, and now
they have $107,000.
Mr. Casserly stated that on Phase III, the City had considered having 35,000
sq. ft. of coomexcial, and Mr. Lundgren indicated his proposal has always
included 60,000 sq. ft. of leasable space, and that the City's tax rate per
square foot would be a little high. He suggested staff do it at $2.15 per
square foot for 60,000 sq. ft. That was how staff arrived at $129,000.
Their projections before were $85,000 so there was a considerable increase
here.
W. C�Lsserly stated that on Phase IV, again they used 35,000 sq. ft. Mr.
Lundgren said the proposal has always been 60,000 sq. ft. and at taxes pf
$2.50 per sq. ft., it would generate $150,000 in taxes as opposed to
something just under $100,000 which they bad projected previously.
Yx. Casserly stated there was a considerable tax increase for Phases III and
IV. Phase II was about the same, and Phase I was something less. The other
mmbers were generated mechanically.
Mr. Casserly stated Phase III was, in fact, contemplated to be a one -story
commercial center with underground parking, and the office building was
contemplated to be a six -story office building. He stated W. Lundgren had
Pointed out that when he cut off the district at the year 2002 and Phase IV
doesn't start until four years from now, what is happening is they are
really compressing the amount of increment that is available for the entire
project. Mr. Lundgren's people thought that if the HRA was willing to
caYmit itself to 11 full years of increment in Phase I, they ought to pursue
that for each phase. Nz. Casserly had told them the HRA has not had any
discussion on this, so what was contained in his information was that each
Phase was self- contained but uses 11 full years of increment.
Mr. Casserly reviewed the numbers on the page entitled "Lundgren
Assumptions, Summary - Phases I through IV" (page 6 attached to Mr.
Casserly's memo to the HRA dated June 9, 1988).
Mr. Casserly stated that there were two big unknowns they were dealing with:
(1) They are dealing with a band rate which was not terribly realistic at
7.2- 7.3 %. That is a very aggressive rate based on the fact that the City
has some bonds, but that is absolutely no guarantee they are going to be
able to have that kind of rate when they go out finance some of those
acquisitions. In the assumptions he had also used 10% bond rate just to
show the HRA the difference. (2) Whether the site can be developed with the
density tht is being suggested, because the tax increment is a direct
function of that. T1ne costs are going to be fixed, but their revenues can
vary on the amount of value put on the property.
Mr. Casserly stated he had put in an inflation factor from the beginning
-4-
HOUSING & REDE'VELOMMV AUDERITY MorING, JUNE 9, 1988
using 3%. Mr. Lundgren and his people have dome that in their pro formas,
so this corresponds with the pro fc ma.s they have prepared. He was mt sure
that was entirely accurate on eomercial property. Part of the problem was
they do mt have a nice even 3% inflation.
Mr. Newman stated staff wanted to bring these latest numbers before the
Camunission. As discussed earlier, when doing redevelopment, true
redevelopment such as this is, property is much more expensive. As a
result, the investment by the HRA is going to be greater. They have had
sane discussions about the assumptions Mr. Lundgren was making and staff
wanted to take the opportunity to present those to the HRA to see if those
assumptions were correct. If the HRA was comfortable enough with these
xwbers and wanted staff to continue, he thought they would need to see the
cammitment Mr. Lundgren intends to obtain from Centennial Mortgage. Staff
has indicated an absolute deadline of June 28. In all honesty, there are a
lot of issues that need to be resolved and a considerable amount of work
that has to be done, plus the fact that Centennial will not have their
commitment to Mr. Lundgren until on or about June 28. It was going to be
physically impossible to put together this transaction to the degree staff
will be comfortable with.
Mr. Newman stated if the HRA continues to be comfortable with this, they
should authorize staff to grant Mr. Lundgren an additional 60 day extension
on his letter of credit, providing that by the end of the business day on
June 27, a written formal commitment ent is received fran Centennial or anyone
else, plus some reasonable assurance that they have the range of financing
for 100% of the project. If the HRA was comfortable to that extension,
staff would immdi.ately begin preparing the development contract and hammer
out the details so that at the July 14th HRA meetng, staff can come back
with some agreed -upon specifics and proceed from there.
Mr. Cammexs asked what staf f' s recomoenda.tion was.
Mr. Qureshi stated that, as the MA remembered, about 1 1/2 years ago staff
had reomuended the BRA draw on the letter of credit. At that time, the HRA
chose to give Mr. Lundgren more time. If Mr. Newman and Mr. Casserly have
the feeling the project can be closed and are recaanending an extension of
60 days, since the HRA has gone his far, it might be reasonable to grant the
60-day extension, contingent upon staff receiving information of viable
financing by June 27. If that does not happen, it would be his
reeoamendatim to draw on the letter of credit.
Mr. Cotmers asked that on the basis of the revised nzanbers, did Mr. Newman
and Mr. Casserly think the HRA should be comfortable enough to grant the
60 -day extension?
Mr. Casserly stated the numbers were only as good as the data. If Mr.
Laren can build 12 0, 000 sq. ft. of commercial /office space, the taxes
that are being suggested were not out of line. He had used the average mill
rate over the last six years which was about 9 or 10 mills less than the
current mill rate. He bad phased in same of the phases over a number of
years. If, in fact, any of them could be done sooner, it, of course,
-5-
R S 3 & REDEVELORE TP AVIMRITY DEMM G, JUNE 9, 1988
increases the amount of revenue coming in. The kind of guarantees they
would have to get in the development agreement to continue each subsequent
phase would be part of the negotiation that would have to go on. There
really has been no discussion on that. Having 11 years of increments on a
redevelopment project was not at all unusual. They would not have to be
uncomfortable in that respect.
Mr. Casserly stated his questions were: What is the size of the mortgage
and is the ramp in or out? If the mortgage is what is shown on the pro
formas that were given to them the beginning of the week for approximately
$6 1/2 million, the City's construction costs being $8 million, that was $1
1/2 million that was going to have to be accounted for, and he was assuming
the way this was supposed to work was it was supposed to be a $10 million
project with an $8 million mortgage. There were a lot of major things that
have to go on, and they have to happen pretty quickly. He stated he was not
so uncomfortable with the numbers if these are the kinds of projects that
can really go in on this site.
Mr. Newman stated he felt camfcrtable if there was a market for the project.
He was fairly confident they can put the numbers together so it can work.
As he had stated before, the HRA was going to have to make a greater
cmuLitment on this project than they have in the past. He did think it was
very realistic to assume that a projection of 7.22% on the bonds was going
to be hard. He stated his greatest concern, of course, was with the first
phase.
Ms. Schnabel stated that since they have came this far, they probably should
grant the 60-day extension on the letter of credit, provided the documents
that are necessary are received by staff before the letter of credit was
due. She stated she did not have a great level of comfort on the figures
the HRA has been given. She did not sense a lot of enthusiasm from Mr.
Casserly that the figures were workable. She stated she was very nervous
about the dollar amount the HRA would be out in the beginning, and she was
worried about the rental market in this area. She had a lot of adverse
feelings about this project right now, but she did not think she wanted to
"Pull the rug" if there was something to work with by the end Of the month.
Mr. Meyer stated he felt much the same way as Ms. Schnabel . They still do
not have anything specific for this site at this time; yet Mr. Lundgren's
project was the only project going at this time and he could not see where
it would do any harm to give him another 60 days to see what happens.
Mr. Newman stated there are other developers interested in developing this
site. They have been receiving inquiries; however, right now they are
focusing all their energies on Mr. Lundgren's project and are not talking to
other people.
Mr. Prairie stated what bothered him was that the HRA has given Mr. Lundgren
extension after extension, and it still does not seem like they are getting
any closer. After 60 days, they will be out of the construction season for
this year.
-6-
HOUSING & REDEVbLOPMENr AUTECRny ba= G. JUNE 9. 1988
Mr. Newman stated he suspected that with Mr. Lundgren or any other
developer, they are already into the 1989 construction season.
Mr. Oauers stated it seemed to be the concensus of the HRA that they would
grant the 60 day extension; but the question was whether or not they should
make it contingent upon Mr. Lundgren providing the Centennial Mortgage or
some other mortgage company commitment by June 27.
Mr. Meyer stated that in the last month or so they have seemed to come a
great deal nearer to some sort of financing even though it is still poles
apart from where they were raping to be at this time.
Mr. Newman stated that if the HRA was thinking about the likelihood of
another developer coming in, it might be better to reduce the extension to
30 days rather than 60 days. Staff could then update the HRA at their July
14th meeting, and the HRA could proceed from there. Historically, there has
always been a flurxy of activity as deadlines approach and that is why he
liked the deadline of June 27 for the c', itment, but it might well be
something over which Mr. Lundgren has no control.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to extend Mr. Lundgren's
letter of credit for 30 days until July 26, and ask staff to give the HRA an
update on the status of Mr. Lundgren's project at the July 14th HRA meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VCY= AYE, CRAIRPERSON '00M S DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMWSLY.
Mr. Lundgren he stated he did appreciate the HRA Is extension. He stated
they are about 98% close right now, and he felt they were very close to
being able to cane to some agreement with staff. He was assuming the HRA
was not including in the time extension the very obvious thing of closing,
because there are things the HRA has to do that he would have no control
over.
Mr. Cxamers stated that was correct.
Mr. Casserly stated the mortgage company was going to want to know if the
City is going to work with the $900 /unit figure. The reason that will
become important is because it has to do with the amount of coverage and the
size of the mortgage which can be secured. That is the number they should
probably work with because at this point it would not be advantageous not
to. That is the naunber that is going to have to be used to be competitive
in the marketplace.
Mr. Cmuers stated the HRA did not control that number.
Mr. Casserly agreed they did not, but what they will be doing is setting a
minimums level of which that will be the floor. So, whatever number that
ends up being, they are going to want to at least have an agreement that it
will not be less than a taxes generated of $900. He knew that was going to
be part of the discussions and just wanted to alert the BRA.
-7-
HOUSI1G & REGIEVMDPTENr AU HDRITY MEEETING, JUNE 9, 1988
Mr. ors stated that, as he understood it, the revised projections, using
the $900 per unit figure, were close to working for the overll development
based on the assumptions discussed by Mr. Casserly at this meeting.
Mr. Casserly stated that was correct.
OONSIDERATION OF MOCHINSKI REQUEST FOR SITE IMPROVEMMUS LOAN:
Mr. Qureshi stated this was a piece of property northeast of the
intersection at Central Avenue /Rice Creek Road, just south of the new
satellite fire station. He stated Mr. Mochinski was requesting assistance
in soil correction and sane drainage work in the amount of $145,000. Mr.
Robertson bad written a memo dated June 3 (agenda page 2) advising the HRA
that if they desire to assist in this development, they could use the same
criteria they used for Springbrook Apartments where the HRA provided about
9% of the total project value as a 15 year loan.
Mr. Claimers stated they usually get some kind of estimate or indication from
the soil correction people that, in fact, that type of assistance is
necessary.
Mr. Qureshi stated the BRA could make that a condition if they wished to do
SO. Staff knew this was an area that bad been filed and that the soil- was
in pretty poor shape.
Mr. Qureshi stated that staff was looking for a recommendation that the HRA
was comfortable with this general concept. Then staff would done back with
a formal agreement for the BRA's consideration.
Mr. Meyer asked if there mas poor soil under the satellite fire station.
Mr. Qureshi stated there was quite a bit of poor soil under the fire
station. The City spent about $8,000 -9,000 to correct the soil for the fire
station. It was his understanding that Mr. Mochinski Is two lots had worse
soil than the soil under the fire station.
Mr. Camiers stated he would like to see a presentation of some kind on this
proposed development.
Ms. Schnabel stated she was not quite comfortable about saying 9 %. She
would certainly be willing to offer assistance of same kind, but first they
should have the developer bring in a proposal they can review.
Mr. Meyer stated the BRA obviously wants someone to be able to develop that
site; and if the soil is really that poor, wouldn't they be smart to give a
little more substantiation of bow much they would be willing to consider?
Mr. Ccauiexs stated he felt it was the HRA' s concensus that the BRA would be
willing to give some assistance, but staff should work with the developer
and came back with a more f imn proposal .
Mr. Mochinski arrived at the meeting. He thanked the HRA for inviting him
- . -8-
,�� � • 57) 31 IT • 15 :• *' 'Diwyl i
to the meeting. He stated that since he had made the request to be on the
agenda, the scope of the project bad changed considerably. He would like to
request that the HRA table this item until a later date when he will come
back with more information.
Mr. Oamters agreed to table this item until a future meeting.
CONSIDERATION pF STINSKI STATEMM OF HARDSHIP CONNECTED TO REQUEST FOR
ASSISTANCE FOR AN OFFICE DEVECDPKMU:
Mr. Qureshi stated this item was similar to the Mochinski request in that
M. Stinski was also requesting assistance. This property was a little
different in that it required a rezoning, variances were needed, and there
was more need to justify why the developer needed assistance. Again, the
BRA could agree with the concept and instruct staff to continue to work with
the developer.
Mr. Oatmers stated that with this property, he was not so sure there were
any soil problems. The biggest problem has been trying to get the old
burned out building taken down.
Mr. Cmmners stated that the HRA should just receive this information at this
time.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FOR REDEVECORmu OF 57TH PLACE:
Mr. Qureshi stated the City and BRA bad indicated some interest to see how
they could work with some developers to improve the corner of 57th and
University. They have been approached by a number of developers, and one
developer, Winfield Development, has submitted a proposal. They are also
waiting for proposals from other developers. He stated a representative
fron Winfield Development was in the audience and maybe he could explain
what he desired and what kind of assistance, if any, he was desiring from
the HRA.
Mr. Bill Fogerty, Winfield Development, stated they have been told by staff
to get a major acquisition of property in the increment di -strict, which they
have done. They have not pursued any other properties because they really
do not have anything to stand on to do it. The site was approximately
114,000 sq. ft. There would be about 19,300 sq. ft. building on the site.
Mr. Fogerty stated he was also explicity info=Led by Mr. Robertson and Mr.
Robinson that with the University Avenue Corridor improvements, the City
wanted to have something nice on that corner. He stated he thought Winfield
had done an admirable job with the looks of their proposed development.
Mr. Fogerty stated they are ready to go with the development right now. If
they received the o.k. from the HRA, they would start trying to acquire
other properties, bring than to the Mn, and then buy the properties back.
They are asking for some assistance, depending on whether the ERA wants a
second mortgage or not on the price of the land. They are off erig $3 /sq.
ft. with no assistance, other than the write -'down and the utilities being on
-9-
HOUSIM & REDEVEMPMENr ADTHDRITY NEE=, JUNE 91 1988
the site. They would pay $4 /sq. ft. with a $100,000 second mortgage or a
loan of smie sort.
Mr. Fogerty stated the building would be a combination building facing
University Avenue. They hope to have a bank and then complimentary
businesses with a combination retail /professional (possibly real
estate /insurance). They have enough tenants right now to build the building.
Mr. Fogerty stated he was looking for authorization from the HRA to proceed
because they have acquired one piece of property and they are incurring
architectural fees. He stated it was not their intention to drive the
prices up. They would help the City acquire properties. They feel the
write -down was a $300,000 write -com.
Mr. Om mers asked the ultimate price of the project.
Mr. Fogerty stated it was a $1 -2 million project.
Mr. Qureshi stated that if the HRA liked the project, staff could start
working on the numbers. There are other people who have shown an interest
in this property. He was sure it was the HRA's desire to get the best
possible development with the least amount of assistance. Until staff runs
the numbers, it would be bard for staff to give a recommendation on which
was the better project from the HRA's point of view. Staff would be glad to
work with Winfield on some numbers and have a kind of pro forma prepared for
the HRA to review at their next meeting.
Mr. Comers stated he saw no reason why the HRA shouldn't have staff go
ahead and work on the numbers with Winfield Development for the HRA to
review.
Mr. Bruce Lundgren, Security Development, stated they were also looking at
the Project in conjunction with another developer. They have worked with
both Mr. Robertson and Mr. Robinson. He stated they have requested to be
on the next HRA agenda with a fcm l proposal and complete submission. They
have drawings in process and they are working on the numbers. Site
acquisitions have gone ahead based on what they have discussed with Mr.
Robertson and Mr. Robinson. They would like the opportunity to cane back at
the next meeting to make their presentation.
Mr. Cmulers stated, again, he could see no reason why the HRA shouldn't get
some preliminary numbers from this developer also.
Mr. Qureshi stated staff would work on a pro fornma and get back to the HRA
at the next meeting. If any other developer wants to make a proposal, they
will do the same for that developer so the HRA has a comparable analysis in
order to make a decision on what was the best development for the camsrn pity.
Mr• Fogerty stated if this is back on the July 14th agenda, could the HRA
make a decisim at that meeting? He would like to start building, but he
did not want to get into a bidding war and throw the numbers off.
-10-
Ms. Schnabel stated the ERA did not want that either. She thought they
should try to make a decision at the next meeting.
Mr. Meyer stated he did not know how they could make a decision at the next
meeting. If another proposal comes in, then they will need another meeting
after that to make a decision.
Mr. Newman stated that within the next 30 days, staff will be in contact
with the parties interested in the development, will get additional
information from each one, and will do an analysis on each one, the level of
assistance the HRA would be expected to provide and the value to the City.
He would assume the HRA could indicate some direction to staff and staff
could start negotiating the terns of the development.
Mr. Meyer stated that because of the interest in this property, should the
City proceed in making this property a tax increment district?
Mr. Qureshi stated staff could start working on the documentation and
timetable if that was the HRA's desire.
Mr. cmuexs stated that would be agreeable to the HRA.
OONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING $10,000 FOR TEMPORARY ASPHALT PARKING AREA
WWILE FRIDLEY PLAZA RAMP IS BEING ODNSTRUCTED:
Mr. Qureshi stated that with the initiation of work to construct the Fridley
Plaza parking ramp, there is a need for temporary parking for the Fridley
Plaza Office Building and City Hall. The lease for the parking lot with the
Fridley Plaza Clinic along the University Avenue East Service Drive has
expired, and it was not staff's intention to renew the lease during the ramp
construction. This lot could be temporariy converted for the City's use.
The total parking spaces that could be made were 100 spaces, presently 50
are paved, and the City would pave the remaining 50 spaces at a cost not to
exceed $10,000. Once the need for parking for the City Hall and office
building was over, then it was the City's approach to lease the parcel back
to the Clinic on some kind of accelerating rate depending on when they will
actually build on the land.
Mr. Qureshi stated staff would keep the HRA informed as each official step
is taken.
WrION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to authorize the expenditure
of $10,000 for a temporary asphalt parking area during the Fridley Piza Ramp
construction.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIlW- AYE, cooRPF:RscN amERS DECLARED THE MOTION
(MU= UNANIMOUSLY.
(Mr. Prairie left the meeting at 9:20 p.m.)
MORMATI ; ON "THE OMMkGFS" A PROPOSED T(7WNHOUSE PONEC.T FOR THE ELDERLY:
-11-
HWSD G & R=VEWR4 I' L1YliO.Ll i , JUNE , 3.988
Mr. Qureshi stated the proposed developer, the Arkell Development
Corporation, has built some of this housing in Stillwater. A City Council
member visited the development and was reasonably impressed. He stated
representatives from the Arkell Development Corporation were in the audience
to review the project with the HRA. The developer does require housing
revenue bonds and an interest rate reduction program in order to provide the
project at the required level.
Mr. Qureshi stated the developer was looking at three potential sites in
Fridley:
(1) the site just east of Springbrook Apartments
(2) the Mochinski property (Rice Creek Road/Central Ave.)
(3) three lots owned by the City along Rice Creek Road.
Mr. John Arkell of the Arkell Develognent Corporation stated presently The
Cottages exist in 4 -5 different locations: Madison, Wisconsin; two phases
in Stillwater; one breaking ground next month in Maplewood; and Chisago
City. The Cottages were a tried concept. It was senior housing at
$385 /month, and it has worked very well. He stated they were at the meeting
to ask the HRA's blessing for housing revenue bonds and interest rate
reduction. Obviously, no developer can build housing and rent it at
$385 /month without some housing assistance. They also qualify for rent
credits.
Mr. Arkell stated finding three sites in the City of Fridley has been a
difficult chore. They have not yet built in an "inner -ring" suburb, and the
cost of land in Fridley is very high. Staff has got pro formas that show
the costs both with and without the interest rate reduction, and it doesn't
even came close to working without the interest rate reduction.
Mr. Arkell stated currently they were trying to find some land on three
different sites within the City and build 30 units on each site for a total
of 80-90 units.
Mr. Arkell stated they usually have a piece of land tied up before they go
before the HRA; but in this case, they have letters of intent on 18 acres.
Mr. Ooamers asked if garages were included.
Mr. Arekll stated the majority of their projects do include garages. The
garage was an additional cost of $30 /month. He stated the $385 /month also
included the mai penance fee.
Mr. Meyer asked about the type of construction.
Mr. Arkell stated they were woodframe buildings with some brick. The name
is "The Cottages" so they try to go with the white
with the cottage theme. It is a 720 Picket fence and stay
door and its own yard. sq. ft. apartment with its own front
Mr. Cmmars stated he felt it was the concensus of the HRA to have staff
-12-
HOUSIM & RECtE'VE R4P MV A nM= MERM G, JUNE 9, 1988
continue to work with the developer, Arkell Develcpment Corporation, on the
numbers. They realize there is a market and need for this type of housing
in Fridley, so he could see no reason for not proceeding with this.
Ms. Sabnabell stated she thought this was a very interesting project. It
certainly provided an alternative to senior housing.
Mr. Arkell thanked the HRA members. He stated he would continue to work
with staff. He stated they were mainly looking for HRA approval before
proceeding any further.
Mr. Pribly stated this was a new agenda item that would be included in
future agendas. It will be for estimates for contracts already approved by
the BRA. The estimates will be reviewed and approved before the checks are
written.
Mr. Pribyl stated included under "Estimates" was an estimate S.E.H. was
submitting for approval. The HRA has aleady approved the contract, and the
BRA was not approving the initial contract but was approving partial payment
of that contract.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve a payment to
S.E.H. in the amount of $37,069.02.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIlu AYE, CjAU ARSON ODmmS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANINDUSLY.
CLAIM (1751 -1764) :
NOTION by Ms. Schnabel , seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the check register
as presented.
UPCN A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, aM RpMLqCT aD*IE S DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMUSLY.
OTHER BUSIlZSS:
a. Maintenance Funds for Public Improvements
(Mam fit Mr. Qureshi to HRA and City Council dated 6/3/88)
Mr. Garmers stated the HRA has raver really discussed the subject of
ongong maintenance costs and the increase that is going to mean with
all these projects.
Mr. Qureshi stated before maintenance was something the City and HRA
can Mdertake an y large projects, maintenance ntena_nce was going to have to
be discussed. They all feel it is good to enhance the environment
by making nice improvements. He has noticed in different parts of
the metro area where nice developments were put, and then those
developments were not maintained. Not having a nice development
-13-
HOUS32 G & PNENT AUHJM TY MIMTD G. JUNE 9, 1988
would be better than having a development with little or no
maintenance.
W. Qureshi stated if it was the desire of the HRA and the City
Council to put in nice developments, there should be heavy
consideration given to how those developments would be maintained,
and there should be a sizeable element of maintenance.
Mr. Qureshi stated staff was recommending that both the City Council
and the HRA establish a policy of reserving funds for adequate
maintenance whenever a major environmental improvement project is
approved. He was suggesting that the minimum level of maintenance
be 50% of the construction costs or one -third of the entire project
cost. If the construction cost of the University Avenue Corridor
Demonstration Project was estimated to be $1.5 million, at least
$750,000 should be set aside in a maintenance trust fund so the
total project cost would be $2.25 million.
Ms. Schnabel stated the HRA has had the concern about the
maintenance costs from the beginning —how much the City was going to
be needing and how much should be set aside; but she did not think
that at any time had they talked about this kind of dollar amount
for maintenance.
Ms. Schnabel stated she did not necessarily agree that the HRA
should Provide the maintenance for these projects. Why doesn' t the
City Provide the maintenance out of the City's budget?
Mr. Qureshi stated the City itself cannot provide the funds for
maintenance. The City has to provide the services -- police, fire,
Public works, etc. There is the opportunity through the HRA to
enhance the City and maintain it.
Mr. Meyer stated he thought there should be a philosophical
discussion between the HRA and City Council about maintenance and
they should reach a mutual agreement as to who is going to pay for
these things.
Mr. Oammers asked wbo was going to be responsible, for example, to
maintain the ramp next to City Hall in future years, the HRA or the
City? This was something that needed to be discussed fairly
quickly.
Mr. Qureshi stated the ramp was not just for City Hall; it was open
to the public so it was a facility more like a road and the City
could maintain it. On University Avenue, they already have the
basic facilities, but they want to enhance the Corridor; and if it
was the HRA's desire to enhance the Corridor, then it should be
built and maintained by HRA.
Mr. ors stated he could foresee many other projects where this
same Problem is going to arise, and they have to resolve this issue
-14-
HMSING & RIDE'VE[UPNU AUTHORITY MEETn G, J= 91 1988
as soon as possible.
Ms. Schnabel stated that regarding the University Avenue Corridor,
this was a situation where the City came to the HRA because the City
bad been approached by stubs business people who were unhappy with
the looks of University Avenue. The BRA did take a look at it and
decided to provide these improvements for the City. But, somewhere
along the line, the City has to realize there are going to be
maintenance costs. She remembered very clearly a conversation where
the HRA members said to the City: "There is going to be maintenance
involved. Are you prepared to accept the maintenance? What are you
going to do about the maintenance.°
Mr. Qureshi stated that if the HRA feels the University Avenue
improvements are needed and maintained, the HRA cannot expect the
City to maintain then. He was asking the HRA to set money aside (a
trust fund, for example) to cover the maintenance.
Ms. Schnabel asked how the money from the trust fund will actually
be used.
Mr. Qureshi stated the monies could be defined and reviewed by the
HRA.
Mr. Canners stated this was a serious issue and one that should be
discussed with the City Council.
Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA could be put on the agenda to discuss
this with the City Council at their conference meeting on June 27.
Mr. Meyer stated it would be good to have a list of projects where
ongoing maintenance would be needed.
Mr. Newman stated that at the last meeting, Ms. Orduno had provided
the HRA with a memo outlining all the projects for which the HRA has
provided assistance.
ADJOURNMM:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers
declared the Jae 9, 1988, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting
adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynne Saba
Recording Secretary
1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CHAIRMAN COMMERS AND HRA MEMBERS
FROM: JOCK ROBERTSON, HRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: LOU LUNDGREN'S PROPOSAL
DATE: JULY 89 1988
On June 9, 1988, the HRA voted to extend Mr. Lundgren's Letter of Credit for 30
days, until July 26, 1988. At that time, Mr. Lundgren assured the HRA that
Centennial Mortgage Company would provide the HRA with an informal financial
committment no later than June 27, 1988 and a firm committment by July 4, 1988.
Although Mr. Lundgren promised that the committments will be fortheomming, we
have not received ,information from Mr. Lundgren regarding the status of the
financial eommittments from Centennial or any other commercial lending
institution.
Mr. Lundgren has informed staff that he will be in attendance at the July 14,
1988 HRA meeting.
SO/16/17
2
Casserly Law Office, P.A.
215 South 11th Street, Suite 200 • Minneapolis -Minnesota 55403
Office (612) 339 -0221 . Home (612) 897 -3569
MEMORANDUM
TO: Fridley H.R.A.
FROM: James R. Casserly
/ F
RE: 57th Place Development
DATE: July 7,1988
Two developers are examining the potential of developing the site
known as 57th Place. One is Winfield Developments Inc. (referred to in this
memo as "Winfield ") and the other is Security Development Company Inc.
and the Commers Company (referred to in this memo as "J.L.P.).
Both developers are offering similar proposals. Each would erect a
building of approximately 19,350 square feet on a site of approximately
108,775 square feet. A major difference appears to be in the tenants they
wish to attract. The proposed usage can be amplified in their presentations.
One of the major policy questions confronting the H.R.A. is how to pay
for the projected deficiencies which the project generates. The H.R.A. is
confronted with a classic redevelopment problem. How do you assemble
parcels with existing structures so that a much better use, but not enough to
pay for the public costs, can be made of the property.
Staff of the H.R.A. and City and myself have estimated the public costs
for each developer as follows:
,r
JLP-- Ninfleld
Infrastructure Relocation:
Water, S.S., Street 154,000 154,000
Demolition 23,000 23,000
Costs of Issuance, Discount
and Fees 18,000 18,000
Acquisition and Relocation 705,00_0_ X4.000
Total 900,000 925,000
The difference in the acquisition and relocation costs results from
J.L.P. having the major parcels under option with prices already negotiated.
This difference could be greater which affects the conclusions. While all the
numbers are very rough, they do allow us to make comparisons and do
projections.
Each developer is suggesting different values for the completed
project and the amount it is willing to pay for the land. These differences
are reflected in the attached spreadsheets.
The spreadsheets contain the following information which is the same
on each unless noted:
Column 1 - Base Assessed Valuation:
The site contains eight (8) parcels with a total estimated market Value
of 374,100 and an Assessed Valuation of 122,430. This is the base of
the tag increment district.
2 -A,
2B
Column 2 - New Assessed Valuation:
J.L.P. is willing to pay 2.75 /square foot in property taxes which
generates a new Assessed Valuation of 487,454. Winfield will pay
2.82 /square foot which provides a New Assessed Valuation of
499,862: The valuation is available on January 1, 1990 for taxes
payable in 1991.
Column 3 - Captured Assessed Valuation:
This results from subtracting Column 1 from Column 2.
Column 4 - Average Mill Rate:
This is the City's six (6) year average mill rate. The current mill rate
is nine (9) mills higher. The 1988 Amendments to the Tax Increment
Act would make the City's current mill rate the ceiling for that district.
Column 5 - Tax Increment:
This results from multiplying Column 3 by Column 4.
Column 6 - 5% Administration Fee:
This reflects the City's policy of using 5% of the tax increments from
each district to help maintain its programs.
Column 7 - Available Tax Increment:
This reflects the deduction of Column 6 from Column 5.
Column 8 - Developer Payment:
J.L.P. is willing to pay 3.22 /square foot or 350,000 at closing. Winfield
is offering to pay 4.00 /square foot with 335,100 cash at closing and
100,000 balance payable interest only for four (4) years with the
balance of principal and interest payable in the fifth year.
Column 9 - Available Revenue:
This is the sum of Columns 7 and 8.
Column 10 - Additional Revenue Needed:
L -C
This column tells us how much additional revenue must be
contributed to the tax increment district to pay for the public costs. It
is different for each developer because of the difference in coats,
valuations and payments. This column graphically demonstrates the
problem for the H.R.A.
Column 11 - Total Available Revenues:
This is the sum of Columns 9 and 10.
Column 12 - % Present Value:
This assumes that part of the bond issue is taxable (acquisition,
demolition and relocation) and part of it is tax exempt (infrastructure
relocation). The present value factor is different for each developer
because their costs and hence the bond sizes are different. The total
at the bottom of this column shows what is available to the H.R.A. for
project expenses. We have slightly different project expenses which
accounts for the differences in the totals.
Being cognizant of all the assumptions, a reasonable conclusion is that
the Winfield proposal needs approximately 500,000 of additional revenue
and the J.L.P. proposal needs approximately 700,000 of additional revenue.
If the developer were to contribute part of the needed revenue, it obviously
reduces the H.R.A.'s required contribution. This possibility has been
discussed very briefly with each developer.
Finally it is apparent that without some additional H.R.A. input, the
project cannot proceed using the present proposals.
a-
OO
D
I-.
m
LL.
m.. V O O O m - =- 01 - w -- M Oa O N 1 M 11
ILa Q LI 0 0 0 N 10 ^ O �' "I:
N In Io N W IL'! O i d ii
O ILL m M! f0 !! N N N N 1 O 11
O d ."► O ! a-• 01 ! N ^- ^ N M!! M O 1 O 11
! N N m ILI M N N -1 ILL W N 1 O 11
^• � « 1 11
« O O_ 11
« ILL y.L Ma T ! �P ! M M M M M a-') 1 Oa II
IL1 O N m 0 1 m 11
O b O ti m 0 m F M O1 O t0 a! N O1 1 s0 iI
±� J
t0 N cm
11
pd d Q O O O ICf m N m ti •"' ! N ILa O1 M /
a� •-. d O ^ •� N! N l+ W N 00 N Oa ti W 1 Oa 11
+� O •.•+ 7 O O1 Os O N IO 10 W N W 10 m N 1 C 11
� aes N P W m m O1 O1 0 0�� N N 1 t0 t l
M ^ I-•I ^- ^ 1 Of
1 ^ 11
O O O C`- O ?+ M O1 0/ M T ws ILL
sp y y 0 0 0 U! �► W N ssa "! ^ m m N IO M N I 01 11
C 7 "Cl
O Q C d O O O O C7 10 IA PD m- O1 - N! - - 1 M 11
d d 10 !.O 10 O' N m ip m V' \! •� I Q! 11
O o .--. a". s0 ^ b M .•-. •-� N Ie'a Oa
cv m
,o « .�• ! ! ! v Ies ILL In ILa to v so N i � i i
d
..+ 10 ^ N O O O O -..'I v '12'
d O O b ^^ -- m - C-- m 41: W 0a C,:
1 t 1
t 1/
a 0 I M u
O O O
.... O W m m M 01 ILL 0-'L N N 1 " 11
ed N w w _ _ _ _ _ w w .• 7
S m O N N P T O N! 4'L sT.•� M ILL 1 C'L 11
ILL !' ! �7 tlJ Is'L 1 01 11
i D 1 11
1 11
y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 11
��oe00000c ac c:! 0 a �� 7 F
o d o 4 =.cn, 000 00000000
m a
N el. O
z. Ims
d D. O 1 Ica n
M _`J
O 1 N 11
C O O O .••. .--� tp In- f0 W P m Qp m Oa N ; � ;;
_ d • • • ^ M N 01 s0 •e- 1LL O "'^ O 1 M 1 / J
O O O O ILL aea aeL ll
N m d Ild IL'L ILa N M! 0a O IO N! ^O e 1 O 11
..., +• [- w mm Wa- LOaILL....ovaovMNN � ''°''_ ji l
d •�4 I.Q.1 � � N Of O N ! I!L N• 0a ^ G-a Isf 1 Pa 11 5
e•a M e".. a+a ./• v .r e ! ! ILa ILL ILL i aWL+ i i ( , t �
p, a/ o 0 0 ..-I •a- t� W Ira cc' ^ 1 N 11
Q O O
O
a . O -
6o e O O O N N N INS
�. x ly Os 01 O+ N
Os Oa Os o •••. N L-1 v - b N m oa I
1 M 11 !
sA
si. ^
y O O O co m m m ! I t do
..� G O O O m n a ea N -•. '�' 11 •-+
d
Ity fs d 0 0 0 N N L`•• 6"a m "'_ CO N m
M 1— N ara m 1 v II
N tom• 1:-- ! to e 1 ^ 11
m m m! a N m M ^ 0 0 0 -•- 1 N t l R
Q Oa sT. Oa .•+ .+l !
4,13, m O N �' ^� W 1 ! 11 a/ N O C
H. M M M ! 4 ! a1• �!• ILa 1L ILL ILa 1 �-- II
wa Ir 01 IC O
1 a0 11 Id d1
I 11 ., -"'I O m
m
R ^
y v!! v v! v e!! sr ! a v v! 8. . m /ID
m-. d mapmm vso�maeacoeocoemcom/o
as y mo o / o
O 7C m Oa 0a 0� sT Oa OD A O Oa O1 Oa 01 T 01 Oa V9 •.-+ O O 1 O
p O O O O O O O C O O O O O O C O /.I y _ 1 _
i N •.•I .-+ w.. •--r .... •r r1 ...I ^ r. .-. r r+ ..-. .-� d W
k W 1
O O O O N Iero ILL P m N b' v ^^ 1 ! 11 m A 2
d d O O O O
H m •�
M W O O O! st- ! N sf1 +O' M N I!i CO N co N 1 ?+ 1/ O •-•I
N N N! O N O f0 -^. C m m s0 1 N 1/ d :. O
-..r m m 7 O O O Ep N N N f0 s0 O O .IL'L s0 1 tLi 11 F.I d W
cis to U '�. s0 IL9 at9 IlJ O1 V- 6 tp N Oa N ILL C7 N 1 sp 11 O tq
-.a 60 60 s0 N N / 1 ••-1 �! O
M M M t+9 M b' ! ! �M r' •e• ILi Iii 1 m 11 G In b
1 IL, 11 O d w
1 m -3,
+� as a
b C O O O O O O N I L L I!'a N m ! v' •--I ^ 1 �' 1 1 O d Q
N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 41! B
O O O ! ! ! 0a ! P' N 1t9 f0 N 10 N 1 Of 11 id Q V
N 2 d m a-9 a-9 M ILJ N ILl 4 - a+J I!i a^L c" •T O sia ..r 0a 1 O 11 •J •.-I
�� m •9 ! ! .s1• ! �!' e O ^ IO 10 O O Is'a '! O O 1 •T 11 d
« m .-r w _ _ _ w _ _ w .. _ _ _ _ _ w -• 1 _ 11 -Yy m .IJ
d O N N N N co cc N N N m ILL N T c+ Co aLa 1 tla 11 d .11 1W
? N N N m m m d^ c.-a +/• CO m Ot .-I e-L ILL 1 m t1 m R �.
wr e•_ .-+ @ ! 4' IlD IL' ILL IsL ILD 4fJ tL f0 •.O a0 1 ILL to m d
1 - 11 d D
1 N is
m m -
m a v.
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 t O 1/
d O 0 0 0 0
C=! m m b
W
m .... . . • . • . • 1 • 11 N 61
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M M 1/ C-0 M M 1 W 11 CJ m 7 m C
m m 7 ! �!- 4 ! ! ! ! ! 4 'V' -d- +0` Q AT ! ! 1 m d
i O 6V N N 6V N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 W / 1 6 6 m
T N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 Ia'a 11
1 ^ 11 «
d m 01 O w-I N M! ILL IC c- cc cn
.,a m m 01 0a Oa 0a Oa 01 01 Oa Oa O O O O O
O O O d O O O O O O O O O O O O
\ \ \
m m m W m W m m m m R m m W OO m
W
CIO
4.0
O
_v
b�
O
U
Low
Lrr
Cp
an
d
m
1/a
sA
R
U
IA•
.o
d
Ca
d
d
O..
2 -D
OO
J
G
m
a!
w
O
a
0
V
0.
O
Z
O
0�
ao
C
O! N N N OD C C! b 0 0 1 d 11
N
® � p O O► ti! O b b M N d CID b! b N b / O f1�
O W d O P•i b b d C -+ O O �+ N Ifs ps M 00 ! / P 11
y -•. /A b N OO C - - 1 11
-.+ Os C Ifs M r+ Os f0 ^O 0 1 0 11
M Ifp 1 Oa 11
y O O O C! M O ICJ ! N O -- W' h cm
b ss N• O O M m b / M 11
1 t1
'•� JD 7 O
Cm,
b 10 M
b 4 Q ! d•9 0! C t0 .�• ! 1 T II
O O Os G 0.. - a N at b Ifs b Os M I Os II
Ifs ICJ 0 - - - • 1 11
F a m If9 t0 QI M t0 O r' m N C 1 10 11
maoaao� e o I o 11
of
M
/
... .fa el
� d y O P O M 00 �• O N 01\ m N N C �1' Oss � I 11
C 7 •O Cc Cc 11
O Q 4/ 0 0 0 r, a's N C Os O! CO b! M OD C ,YLi I M t1
y y p 11
yU. Z 11
y 1>D Os O N ! Ifi C os .r a�a Ics c RP 1 ap 11
't7 m 11
'O I 1
i
c•'s to M Os N C O M�1 11'
•� y O O O OD ® OO O m m N• O! N N 01 O 11
pd p O O O .•'+ �•"' ^'s C OD 00 d m r.I OD O O O 1 OD 11
O O �!• ! ! P Os "II' �1' Of O If9 C
.Or afs Ifs b b b \p N Os b M N 0 Os Os
y Ifs O O O o, T O N
pp
.� ap r•I .� ! ! .l.1 ! 4 �' ! �• r' Ifs Ifs
1 .-•I 1
y p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O 11
y y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O 11
a
0 0
>
0000 1 to n
If9 /sa Ifa b Ifs 1 11
Cd
C Ias ^ / ICJ 11
e.s
y yi 0 0 0 0 t71 pI .r ICs f q 0I M Os N C O c�J 1 N 11
O O CID OD m 0 m C a! N N m tvs O
OD OD 00 m• Z CO O
M y 4 !' ! O> OJ '•O' '�Y' P O
O C:: C .d• C t 47 / I
T Os Of ; If' 11
•It! V ps Qs T O N M Ifs C Q �+ N e t0 1 N 11
Q C7 P7 M e' ! ! .� 4 !• IfJ ICJ I[9 ICJ 1 O 11
i I.•I / b 11
J.J
;o v c a Iea v ao v c ro cv
1 of 11
' a' °
0+ av o IfJ ry Ifa N oa to v
1 Ia'J 11
•� O
o 0 0
b
b ® G 4'i
0 0 0 0 0 ^`
0 OD a0 m O. O
1 11
1/
��
O O O N M! 4 If' IO N GC• 07
1 C
G�
t0
M
r• 4• b•
ti
`/' ! d' �• ! �' Ifa 0 0 If) ICJ
1 11
J.J
O O O of c" Os Cs = N N ® C O Z '— =
m b O m IfJ m Ia'a !
1 ;. 11
1 C 11
Q
O O O Cr! Os @s C i '-�
1 11
y
^ m 0 '-I O �+ O ICs m N OD
1 11
11
I='= �
O O O ...I ^•
O O O M N t0 Ifs O O! M M O
'm 0
—
/ C
1 N /1
O
y
NN N m Ira N P 00 C C C
1 11
G�
t0
M
r• 4• b•
ti
`/' ! d' �• ! �' Ifa 0 0 If) ICJ
1 M 11
n
w �-
C
!
1 b
1 u
CLI
N
N—
N NN N.I N- n 1
I!Y 11
1 O
�
N O
O Os tT Os Os c" c" Oli Os 0I
1 Ie's
In. y %A:,
s
IT! O T Os O Os
1
1
M
w w
w Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i p 0 C O O C^J N N Ifs ti
1 M I i
yy O
M w •I-I
0 0
cs w aJ
" GJ /C
O O O fN•7 fNr'J N N 00 b '� M R•7 00 C •NV'
00 C --I O a• M C
1 b 11
0. w
IO w
f!!!
- - - -
C C N C M O C d• N O Os T
1 11
1 O 11
U 6 o
C
N C C O\ O N 4 1[b N Os .•r N 'r•
1 .•-I 11
�
f' J C•9 M M 'V' •d' �I• .Y" V• a ICJ 1[D 16'i
; /1
1 I6J 11
y OO C f O N M -W ICs tO C m Os
..J m 00 QJ Os Os On Os OI t71 OR OI O O O O O
45 r.I ....
O O O O O_ O O O_ O O O
OD OD OD
0000 00 00 m 00 COW m DO W m 00
1 1
1
2-E
Y
<, J
0 OD b C ^"' a•7 CJ M
ao t0 C O O crJ N N Ic s C
1 C It
M
y O
= w
0 0 0 0 0 0
N N C f J N•I — C .-I C O f0 N
11
1 �• t 1
y w y
N 2 y Ia
O O O N
e•a c"i C•J sa b b b O DI ti 10
00 GD a� J N aCi �I' m C N N C
41 O
v w 7
�V' <• `�O' m OD
Ds 07 O ! O t0 N 42. 16 v i•'s N r.
11
\ Os 11
i cd
N N N
cr, ass ICs Is's IBJ ICs b t0 t0 t0
•
1 t� 11
1 .. 11
1 C It
y OO C f O N M -W ICs tO C m Os
..J m 00 QJ Os Os On Os OI t71 OR OI O O O O O
45 r.I ....
O O O O O_ O O O_ O O O
OD OD OD
0000 00 00 m 00 COW m DO W m 00
1 1
1
2-E
Y
<, J
O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
O It
zy Q
O O O
O O O
O O O O cc: O O O O O O O 6 ;
O
41 O
O O O O O O O O G O 0 0 1
O 11
w w Y
O O O
M M
O
M M M i••9 P'f P'S M M M ah M 4h c•f 1
OD I t
y Icis
..� m w "y
M
r• 4• b•
V• -r ! r• 4 �1• �• �T 4 ti' 4 Y v ;
OD \1
w �-
C
N N N N N— N N N N N 1
OD 11
i GO
N
N—
N NN N.I N- n 1
I!Y 11
1 O
�
.N.. .N-. -•N.. -I �N..I
IL b O
1 Ie's
In. y %A:,
s
1
y OO C f O N M -W ICs tO C m Os
..J m 00 QJ Os Os On Os OI t71 OR OI O O O O O
45 r.I ....
O O O O O_ O O O_ O O O
OD OD OD
0000 00 00 m 00 COW m DO W m 00
1 1
1
2-E
Y
<, J
T
q �
m
K >K
♦s N O O
A. a b O
r! o ao
w �-
C
y d0 0 0
1 O
a N o 0
1 O
-
IL b O
1 Ie's
In. y %A:,
s
>K w
1
M
w w
w Z
.
4r 41 O
w 11•s
O �
4r 4 r
0
O >K m
0 ae7t 'O
as +1
JJ c0 7
m w 06
w a
V O
eb Q v
d y cd
w H
y
w w
w M
w at]
cd d 0.
w w •v
y y y
w w y
w w
i i m
M Y MI
f
I'
6
CID
o_
ti
O
PPJ
U_
h:.
fs.
O
6
J
a
m
00
O
V
it
y
.5
sm.
O..
�I
i
k
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CHAIRMAN COMMERS AND HRA MEMBERS
FROM: JOCK ROBERTSON, HRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: - ADMINISTRATION OF PLAZA RAMP CONTRACTS
DATE: JULY T, 1988 1 '1
On July 25, 1988, the City Council is scheduled to take action on awarding all
Civic Center contracts. The HRA may want to consider a special meeting at the
same time to review and approve the plans for the construction of the Plaza
Ramp.
The construction of the Civic Center and the Plaza Ramp are so closely linked in
terms of construction time and costs that the HRA may wish to consider options
regarding the administration of the contracts. Staff proposes the following
,.approaches:
{1.s; The HRA could delegate all authority for contract administration to the City
A�ICounoil. I realize that this scenario was previously considered and
•regected.. However, we now have additional information with which to consider
the possibilities of this option. I present this option again only for
t consideration against the following alternatives,_ _ - - - - -- — - - -_\
a HIfA could use the City as an agent to administer the contracts for the
architect and construction manager. Under this scenario, the HRA would have
ri
to approve all change orders. Similar to the administrative operations the
HRA had with the Lake Pointe project, this option provides the HRA with
control over matters that could affect delays and cost overruns.
3;. As another alternative, the HRA could administer all contracts -- the
construction manager and the architect. This option would, however,
necessitate more frequent HRA meetings to address the timely resolution of
contract matters and could also result in the replication of activities with
the City contracts.
If the HRA does not wish to call a special meeting for July 25, 1988 to examine
the process by which you wish to administer the ramp contracts, the matter can
be discussed at the regular meeting on August 14, 1988. However, dealying until
the August meeting may hinder the speed with which the construction may begin.
JR /SO /mr
16/3
41, e
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: JOCK ROBERTSON, HRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FROM: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
SUBJECT: STINSKI DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
DATE: JULY 7, 1988
Cheryl Stinski phoned today and asked that her redevelopment proposal be placed
on the agenda for the July 14, 1988 HRA meeting. She is out of town all of this
week and is unable to furnish the HRA with a formal letter outlining the
specifics of her proposal until Monday of next week.
She will deliver her proposal to you on Monday and will be in attendance at
Thursday HRA meeting to explain in greater detail the specifics of her
redevelopment proposal.
3
Engineering
Sewer
Water
Parks
Streets
Mainlenan1:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jock Robertson, HRA Rwmtive Director EW88 -182
FROM: Jobn G. Flora fftblic Works Director
DATE: June 9, 1988
SUBJECT: Rice Creek Road Design
5
Fier the amt between the HRA and SEH, the detail design costs for Rice
Creek Road between Central and Highway 65 was $52,500.
By previous invoices, we paid SEH $10,546.37. The attached invoice is for
$37,069.03 for a total amount of $47,615.39.
Attached is a letter from ME requesting the HRA increase the Rice Creek Road
Design Authorization of $52,500 by $3,000.00. The increase is to cover the
street lighting, sanitary and storm sewer cbanges that have been added to the
project in the recent months.
Recommend the HRA approve the additional $3,000.00 change corder.
The contract for Rice Creek Road bas been advertised. We are awaiting MnDOT
plan approval so that the bids can be submitted for award. The figures
appear to be below our original estimates.
Chace the project is awarded, I will expect a final billing for SEH below the
$55,500.00 amount.
JF /g
Enclosure
3/6/2/13
AW
ri
Dt�If
FN
I
A AM VA
s
BWAVMU 8 ARCF nWM R PLAW41JMS
222 EASTUTTLE 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
s-n
1 NVOI CE
May 23, 1988
RICE CREEK ROAD
INVOICE NO. 2009 SEH FILE NO. 88057
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. FOR PERIOD NOVEMBER 15, 1987 THRU APRIL 16, 1988
For plans and specifications for reconstruction of Rice Creek Road
from T.H. 65 to Central Avenue. In accordance with our contract
dated October 8, 1987.
Project Engineer
$ 428.33
Design Engineer
23,758.41
Technician
2,343.10
Dzafter
3,247.14
Survey Crew
317.65
Clerical
373.07
Mileage and Expense
1,141.23
Robert A. Eller Associates, Inc.
Twin City Testing
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . .
MAXIMUM FEE: $52,500.00
INVOICED TO DATE: $47,615.39
04tRIT if , ss
COUNTY OF pAMSEy. CITY OF SAWT PAUL
Donald E. Lund in no County and sus.. b" duly OMm.
an am. st". VW ho a Vice President
d tea Shon•Eadn•wu+d^, Yie , dW tl+a bmgo.q aoear�t s Iw+ and true. ehq ehe aeKV¢aa sense+ eharysd were aexuawy rendered.
and of the "W VWW charged. dW ft teen or a dwipd owafta am oxh u am arorad by law: and mat no pan of WCh
aware has been oed
60306W and awn b bakre no to day of 19
my oo roman emm 19
$31,608.93
2,420.00
3,040.09
$37,069.02
ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS,
SHOW' ELLIOTT MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
MENDRICKSON INC
IAE.Vqm
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS f• PLANNERS
May 26, 1988
222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612 484 -0272
Mr. John Flora
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Flora:
Since the City of Fridley
/Project and other proposed
appreciate a copy of the bid
RE: FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
RICE CREEK ROAD
SEH FILE NO: 88057
has combined the Rice Creek Road
work into one bid package, we would
package for our records.
The special provisions written for Rice Creek Road were intended
to be used with the General Conditions and other parts of the
Rice Creek Road specifications. Care should be taken in adapting
those special provisions to other specifications and to other
proposed work. We will review your bid package and discuss areas
of concern with the City.
We assume that the City will make the bid tabulations with state -
aid and non - participating breakdowns and submit them to Mn /DOT.
W6rk has been done outside of the original scope of work for this
project for street lighting, sanitary sewer reconstruction, and
drainage (covering the existing ditch). We feel that the maximum
compensation for design of this project should be increased by
$3,000 as outlined below:
5H!1DT ELLIOTT ST. PAUL, WISCONSIN
WA FALLS,
I = LNOPICKSON INC
MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
5-C
Mr. John Flora
May 26, 1988
Page #2
Lighting
See attached invoice from
4 Hours @ $60
240.00
R. Eller & Associates
$
440.00
Drafting of Lighting Additions
8 Hours @ $25
1 Hour @ $60
200.00
Quality Control Check City
Hour @'$25
25.00
Landscape plan vs. Lighting Plan
Engineer 4 Hours @ $60
240.00
Drafter 2 Hours @ $25
50.00
Subtotal
$
930.00
Sanitary Sewer
Gather Information
2 Hours @ $60
$
120.00
Design Revisions
Engineer 2 Hours @ $60
120.00
Drafter 4 Hours @ $25
100.00
Q.C. Check
Engineer 1 Hour @ $60
60.00
Drafter 1 Hours @ $25
25.00
Subtotal
$
425.00
Drainage - Cover Existing Ditch
Survey Crew 3 Hours @ $80
$
240.00
Gather Information
Engineer 2 Hours @ $60
120.00
Design
Engineer
4 Hours @ $60
240.00
Drafter 8
Hours @ $25
200.00
Quantities
Engineer
1 Hour @ $60
60.00
Drafter 1
Hour @'$25
25.00
Mr. John Flora
May 26, 1988
Page #3
Q.C. Check
Engineer 1 Hour @ $60
Drafter 1 Hour @ $25
Discussions with Nelson & Assoc.
Engineer 2 Hours @ $60
Revisions for Development
Engineer 1 Hour @ $60
Drafter 2 Hours @ $25
Subtotal
KOW ?
use
60.00
25.00
120.00
60.00
50.00
$1,200.00
$2,555.00 -Z:5 -
$3,000.00
Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Sinc ly,
r ,
Marlin D. Larson
MDL /cin
5 -D
Engineering
Sewer
Water
Parks
Streets
Maintenance
MEMORANDUM
TO: John G. Flora, Public Works Director FK88 -231
FROM: Mark Burch, Assistant Public Works Director
DATE: July 7, 1988
SUBJECT: Change Order Number 5 for Landscaping, Irrigation and Lighting
Proj ect #16 8
Due to inadequate coverage by the irrigation system along the residential
area on the east side of the Lake Pointe site and along West Moore Lake
Drive, it is necessary to add 35 sprinkler heads and related lines and
wiring. In addition to these changes, it will also be necessary to do some
minor grading to prepare for the final sod placement.
We have negotiated a price of $7,285.20 with Minnesota Valley Landscaping,
Inc., for these changes and reccimend that the City Council approve Change
Order #5 at their July 11, 1988, meeting.
MB /g (�
1' •
Attachment
3/6/2/24
.4
f
i cnYOF
FFJDLLY
41
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN. 55432
July 111 1988
Minnesota Valley landscaping, Inc.
9700 Bush Lake Road
Minneapolis, NN 55438
Re: Change Order 151 Landscaping, Irrigation, and Lighting Project 1168
Gentlemen:
You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract
for landscaping, Irrigation and Lighting Project 1168.
ADQITION:
Item Approx. Unit Amount
Quantity Price
Additional Grading 100% Lump Sum $7,285.20
and Irrigation Heads
Necessary
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER:
Original Contract {mount
Contract Additions - Change Order No. 1
Change Order No. 2
Change Order No. 3
Change Order No. 4
Change Order No. 5
Revised Contract Amount
$461,413.00
5,565.47
11,812.00
143,219.501
880.00
7,285.20
$4;3,816.11
Submitted and approved by John 6. Flora, Public Works Director, on the 11th day
of July, 1988.
Prepared by _____
Checked by
,r
n G. Flora, P.E.
Director of Public Works
e it
x
Y
PAIR SO A
r
E -S- T -1 - -M A TE* S
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: JUNE 20, 1488
LANE POINTE DEVELOPMENT MAINTENANCE PROJECT 4181
STATEMENT OF WORE;
ESTIMATED
CONTRACT ITEM QUANTITY
------------------------------------------------------
- ,aintenance Services 1.00
------------------------------------------------------
-OTAL
7 -A
RE: Estimate No. 2
Period Ending: 6-15 -8 $
FOR: TALBER6 LAWN & LANDSC
100 WILSHIRE DRIVE
MINNETONKA, MN 55343
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT QUANTITY THIS TOTAL
PRICE UNIT ESTIMATE TOTAL AMOUNT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
33.750.00 LUMP SUM 0.143 0.286 4,B21.43
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$7,642.86
slue Completed To Date $9,642.86
mount Retained (5%) $482.14
ess Amount Paid Previously $4,584.36
MOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE $4,584.36
:RTIFICATE OF THE CONTRACTOR
hereby certify that the work performed and the materials supplied to date under the terms of the contract for this
roject, and all authorized changes thereto, have an actual value under the contract of the amounts shown on this
stimate (and the final quantities on the final estimate are correct), and that this estimate is just and correct and no
ar urrl T Est'mate° has been received. /
Date
-_ - - ---- - -- --------------- ---
Canty ar's uthorii Representative (Title)
RTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER
hereby certify that I have prepared or examined this estimate, and that the contractor is entitled to payment of this
a timate under the contract for reference project.
JY OF FRIDLEY. INSPECTOR
PRPAGEI "AG
A6E2'AGP
AGES "ASPP
T
Date
Respectfully Submitted,
9 h G. Flora,P.E.4
' �ublic Works Director
7 -B
UMMARY:
?riainal Contract Amount
$33,750.04
,ontract Additions
$0.00
;ontract Deductions
$0.00
evised Contract Amount
833,750.04
slue Completed To Date $9,642.86
mount Retained (5%) $482.14
ess Amount Paid Previously $4,584.36
MOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE $4,584.36
:RTIFICATE OF THE CONTRACTOR
hereby certify that the work performed and the materials supplied to date under the terms of the contract for this
roject, and all authorized changes thereto, have an actual value under the contract of the amounts shown on this
stimate (and the final quantities on the final estimate are correct), and that this estimate is just and correct and no
ar urrl T Est'mate° has been received. /
Date
-_ - - ---- - -- --------------- ---
Canty ar's uthorii Representative (Title)
RTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER
hereby certify that I have prepared or examined this estimate, and that the contractor is entitled to payment of this
a timate under the contract for reference project.
JY OF FRIDLEY. INSPECTOR
PRPAGEI "AG
A6E2'AGP
AGES "ASPP
T
Date
Respectfully Submitted,
9 h G. Flora,P.E.4
' �ublic Works Director
AM 7FT
jESEH
ENGINEERS / ARCHMM /PLANNERS
222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612 484.0272
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
ATTN: John Flora
Director of Public Works
June 27, 1988
7 -C
INVOICE
9
OLD CENTRAL AVENUE
INVOICE NO. 2234 SEH FILE NO. 88069 ,
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. FOR PERIOD NOVEMBER 15, 1987 THRU MAY 14, 1988
For preliminary study for Old Central Avenue. In accordance with
your confirming letter.
Project Manager $ 961.25
Design Engineer 1,802.10
Landscape Architect 38.04
Mileage 43.00 $2,844.39
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . $2,844.39
it -tat? of AiattrovN SS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY, CITY OF SAINT PAUL 1
Duane W. Elliott J In said County and State. being duty swom.
on 03h, says, that he is President
of the Short - Elliott- Hendrickson. Inc., that the foregoing mount is jula and tru ; that th rvicea therein charged were actually rendered.
and of the value therein cne7. that the fees or amounts char �rAfo� ere auQias areglkwe� by law; and that no pert of such
account has been paid, // / ` /J // irL A
Subscribed and sworn to beftl[e me this
My oommesan expires
19
19
w BETTY J. ERSKINE ■
NOTARY PUBLIC— MINNESOTA
RANISEY CuJ1t T'i
IVY COIAh EXFiRES I,:AY 27.1992
• WVVWWWVVV�N1/JWNvWWWWVJ / ■
SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS,
HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN
CLAI MS
1765 - 1775
�q