HRA 06/08/1989 - 6397City of Fridley
A G E N D A
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. JUNE 8, 1989 7:00 P.M.
Location: Community Education Center
6085 Seventh Street N.E.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 11, 1989
CONSIDERATION OF BOISCLAIR CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FOR SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE /MISSISSIPPI STREET . . . . . . . . . .1
NSIDERATION OF COST - SHARING
POLICY FOR FRIDLEY PLAZA RAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 - 2A
ONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR KITTERMAN /ADVANCE COMPANIES
COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 - 3E
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TAX
INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 9, CENTRAL AVENUE /ONAN . . . . . . .4 - 4B
1FORMATION ON MOORE LAKE COMMONS LANDSCAPING . . . . . . .5
TIMATES:
GREENMASTERS - LAKE POINTE MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . .6 - 6A
CLAIMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
OTHER BUSINESS
TOUR OF FRIDLEY PLAZA RAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 - 8A
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ROUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 11, 1989
rrr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r.�r r rr rr.�.rr rrrr r rr r r r rrr r r r r r r
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the May 11, 1989, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie,
John Meyer
Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen
Others Present: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
Dave Newman, HRA Attorney
Bob Boisclair, Boisclair Corporation
Liv Horneland, Coldwell Banker
Dick Bienapfl, One Appletree Square, Bloomington
APPROVAL OF APRIL 13, 1989, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES•
OTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the April
13, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER TO MOORE LAKE COMMONS
LANDSCAPING CONTRACT:
Mr. Robertson stated the development agreement stipulated that the
KRA contribute $95,000 to the landscaping and irrigation
improvements. Due to a favorable low bid, $79,184.00 is the total
of the scope of the work as bid. In consulting with the developer,
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant /Landscape Specialist found
the developer had also gotten some very favorable bids and, in
fact, had purchased more than the recommended number of trees in
their original landscape plan.
Mr. Robertson stated at the meeting the Commission members had a
substitute recommendation for essentially the same amount of money,
$15,000, but for an additional 10,000 sq. yd. of sod which the
developer does need.
� q
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 11, 1989 - PAGE 2
Mr. Robertson stated staff is recommending the HRA approve Change
Order No. 5 for the addition of 10,009.8 sq. yd. of sod at $1.58
per sq. yd. for a total of $15,815.50.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve Change
Order No. 5 to the Moore Lake Commons Landscaping Contract for the
addition of 10,009.8 sq. yd. of sod at $1.58 per sq. yd. for a
total amount of $15,815.50.
UPON A VOICE VOTE # ALL VOTING AYE # CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. INFORMATION ON BOISCLAIR CORPORATION REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FOR
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND MISSISSIPPI
STREET:
Mr. Robertson stated in the past nine months, staff has been in
contact with Mr. Bob Boisclair of the Boisclair Corporation. Mr.
Boisclair has looked at the site, talked with staff, and has
indicated his interest in the site to Coldwell Banker, the listing
agent. Staff met with Mr. Boisclair and Mr. Bienapfl on April 21
to discuss a proposal for a mixed use development with housing and
retail. Mr. Boisclair's proposal raises some policy issues which
should be discussed at the same time the proposal is reviewed.
Staff is recommending Mr. Boisclair make his presentation at this
time, and then they can discuss some of the policy issues raised
by his proposal.
Mr. Newman stated staff also told Mr. Boisclair that staff is not
prepared to answer any specific questions at this time since their
financial consultant has not been able to do any evaluation yet.
Rather, they wanted this discussion to be more general in nature
and to discuss general policy discussions.
Mr. Boisclair thanked the HRA members for allowing him to present
this mixed use development proposal. He introduced Liv Horneland
of Coldwell Banker and Dick Bienapfl from the Waterford group. He
stated both Ms. Horneland and Mr. Bienapfl have been very
instrumental in bringing this development to the proposal stage.
Mr. Boisclair stated he would also be showing some slides to show
the HRA the architectural concept taken from a working model. The
slides will give the HRA a better perspective and feel for the
project. He stated Mr. Ed Bell, the architect in charge of this
project, could not be at the meeting. Mr. Boisclair stated he
would do his best to present Mr. Bell's architectural concepts and
economic general direction of their proposal.
Mr. Boisclair stated most people know of his involvement with
Riverplace and Galtier Plaza, and it is sufficient to say that all
the adverse publicity about his financial troubles is now behind
HOUSING 8 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MAY il. 1989 - PAGE 3
him. He is now looking forward to new opportunities with expertise
and deeper wisdom based on that experience. Regarding this
proposal, they do have the confidence of outside financial
investors who will put this project on a very favorable sound
basis. They expect to deal with FHA as the primary source of
insurance, and most of the retail will be separately financed by
a conventional lender. However, he needed some direction from the
HRA at this meeting if he is going to be able to proceed.
Mr. Boisclair stated that since they presented their concept, they
have done some refinements to further enhance and hopefully reduce
the cost to the public and enhance the private side of the
opportunity as well. The final concept will range between 260 -350
units, and the retail will be about 80,000- 85,000 sq. ft. Total
development costs will range from $27 -32 million. They expect to
generate a new population base of 500 -600 people into this location
and, along with that, new purchasing power of approximately $10 -13
million. They will create 270 -350 new jobs. So, from a public
perspective, there is a lot at stake, and it is something highly
achievable if they are able to work in a private /public
relationship which they are proposing to do.
Mr. Boisclair stated there are two phases to the entire project
based on the need to pre -lease the retail. They have had strong
interest from Walgreen as being their primary anchor tenant for the
initial retail phase. Walgreen will take approximately 10,000-
12,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Commers asked what the significant difference were between
Alternate I and Alternate II.
Mr. Boisclair stated that the primary difference is in the
subsidized housing. When they went through both runs, it was a
surprise to them that it did not make any difference in terms of
the public /private investment ratio except the occupancy was
different. So, as far as they are concerned from an economic
perspective, it makes no difference either way.
Mr. Meyer asked the price ranges for market rate and subsidized
housing rates. In the subsidized portion, one bedroom rents for
$365 -450 and two bedroom units about $460. In the market rate
portion, the range for one and two bedrooms would be roughly $500-
600.
Mr. Meyer stated that at the last meeting, Ms. Dacy and a
representative from Health Planning and Management Resources gave
a report on the survey done of senior housing needs in the City.
They found seniors, aged 55 and older, can afford to pay from $300
on the low side to mid -$600 on the high side. In seemed the rental
ranges being proposed by this development would capture people in
both groups -- subsidized and market rate.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MAY 11. 1989 - PAGE 4
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Boisclair to describe the quality level of
construction.
Mr. Boisclair stated the. key material they are proposing is
concrete, more likely poured in place, not pre -fab. It would not
be wood frame, but they need to compete with that rental market
that is wood frame housing. In terms of the finished detail, they
expect the quality to be equal, if not superior, to what people are
familiar with.
Mr. Prairie asked about the square footages of the apartments.
Mr. Bienapfl stated the one bedrooms will range between 750 -800 sq.
ft., and the two bedrooms between 950 -1,100 sq. ft.
Mr. Meyer stated the unit costs and square footages seem
appropriate, yet at the same time, they don't want a project in the
city that is second rate. He was familiar with Mr. Boisclair's
other projects, and they were certainly not second rate. He stated
these costs just seemed to be too good. How sure was Mr. Boisclair
of his costs?
Mr. Boisclair stated he has very valid budgetary information for
the construction from a man whose credentials are very long. He
stated he has every confidence in this person's budgetary
information.
Mr. Meyer asked if a market analysis had been done.
Mr. Boisclair stated they have actually "door knocked" on projects
that are of current vintage such as Springbrook Apartments in
Fridley and the new project in Coon Rapids, and then Summit Oaks
and some of the older projects to see what the disparities are.
Both the new projects are wood frame. He stated they have an
inherent cost benefit of at least 15 -20% because their building is
concrete. A wood frame can be built for $38,000 per unit, and the
same unit costs $45,000- 46,000 with concrete. That includes
elevators, underground parking.
Ms. Horneland stated this proposed project provides the densities
with the housing, yet also gives the retail. She stated one
significant aspect of the retail market is that it is demarcated
by the river. The river has virtually cut the retail market in
half. That was the problem for Tanurb in that they just could not
get massive retail, nor could they get a major grocery store. She
stated Mr. Boisclair and Coldwell Banker has had conversations with
grocers, and they just will not come into this location. The scope
of the retail business has to be significantly smaller, so if they
want redevelopment on this site, they have to have the massing with
the housing and the smaller retail.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 11, 1989 - PAGE 5
Mr. Horneland stated that on behalf of the owners of the property,
they have been working with three different parties, and at this
time Mr. Boisclair is in the lead as far as his involvement and the
depth of analyzing the project. The owners want something to
happen. They are pretty well convinced it is not going to be a
Tanurb -type development, and they understand the problem the HRA
has with going outside the district. The owners would like to see
something happen on the site, but if not, they are also willing to
just sit there.
Mr. Boisclair stated the land itself is a big part of the bullet
that is going to be there with or without the proposal. He would
like the HRA to ignore the land acquisition, even though it is a
real dollar, and look at their project, because it really has the
value to create above that land subsidy, which is distinct and very
unique.
Mr. Commers thanked Mr. Boisclair for presenting his proposal.
3. CONSIDERATION OF ASSISTANCE POLICY FOR SOUTHWEST OUADRANT:
Mr. Robertson stated he would now like the HRA to go to the second
part of this project and discuss some of the policy options.
Staff, as well as the developer and the land owners, need some
direction.
Mr. Robertson directed the HRA's attention to Mr. Newman's letter
dated May 3, 1989. Obviously, what they are seeing is a
development proposal that requires several million dollars of aid
beyond the increment that the site itself can generate, and it goes
into pooling. In the history of the HRA, they have not done any
pooling before.
Mr. Robertson stated when the staff reviewed the overall financial
condition of the HRA bonds and projects at the end of the January,
they had a fairly good perspective on the their commitments,
financial depth, reserves and alternatives. At that time, they had
a fairly strong consensus of the HRA and City Council that
resolving the questions about the 100 Twin site was top priority,
and the southwest quadrant of Mississippi /University was second
priority.
Mr. Robertson stated staff prepared a general comparison which
gives the HRA the highs, lows, and the mediums of the HRA's policy
alternatives:
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, KAY 11, 1989 - PAGE 6
Options
#1
#2
#3
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT POLICY OPTIONS
Value of Project Level of Assistance
Multi -Use (like Boisclair)
$25 -30 million
Down scale of Option #1
$12 -15 million
Tanurb type
Approximately $8,000,000
Several $million beyond
project area
Approximately $1,000,000
project area
Full increment generated
by project
#4 Release the property from the redevelopment project
Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Boisclair has raised his sights to Option
#1, and before they commit any more staff time and consultant time
to analyze the project, staff needs some direction from the HRA.
Mr. Commers stated he thought the real issue is whether or not they
want to go out of the district. And, in order to know that, they
have to have a projection of how much they would have to go outside
the district. They have identified their priorities, and this is
their second priority. If it a priority, then they have to face
what it is going to take to develop the site and what they have to
do to get it done. If necessary or if it is appropriate, is the
HRA prepared to go outside the district?
Mr. Newman stated it is his concern that sometimes when they get
a proposal, staff gets too far ahead of the HRA. Staff wants to
know if this is something the HRA wants explored and if they want
the numbers run to see if it makes sense. By the same token, the
developer has to expend a considerable amount of money to further
refine the project. The HRA has to spend money to refine it, and
he did not think any of them want to commit these extra
expenditures if the HRA is not interested. Staff is not looking
for a final decision or a binding decision, but just a sense of
direction that staff is following the HRA's direction.
Mr. Robertson asked if the HRA is willing to commit several million
dollars from other projects to make this second project work.
Mr. Commers stated the HRA cannot make that decision when they do
not know the amount, but they can make the decision on whether or
not they are willing to do funding outside the district.
V'
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 11, 1989 - PAGE 7
Ms. Schnabel stated it is like being invited to a party and being
offered cake and pie, but they can only choose one. They just do
not have enough facts to make that kind of decision.
Mr. Robertson stated he thought the decision making is cyclical.
It is not linear in that they start at the beginning and go all the
way to the end and then make the decision. In fact, they cycle
through it once very rough, and then based on some preliminary
judgments, they cycle through again at a more intense level of
detail and of commitment to some time and money. Right now they
are at that first level.
Mr. Prairie stated it is conceivable that they could agree to
pursuing this priority and then if things started happening on the
100 Twin property, this could get in the way.
Mr. Commers stated they have to look at Item A (Dave Newman's May
2, 1989, letter, page 2), and Item A is dependent a little bit on
their first priority which is the 100 Twin site. They will have
to look at that again and see what the status is. On the other
hand, he did not know why the HRA had to lock themselves into
anything -- saying they can only use money in one area or another.
He thought they should be flexible and be open and be able to do
a project if they like the project.
Mr. Meyer stated he certainly liked the looks of this project, and
it seems to be right for this corner. It seems to be the type of
housing wanted as shown by the senior survey, and the retail
portion would support the housing.
Mr. Robertson stated that because of the commitment the City is
going to take in doing a financial analysis, staff has told Mr.
Boisclair that they need a deposit up front of $5,000. So, that
is another commitment Mr. Boisclair has to make.
Mr. Newman stated the $5,000 evolved from a discussion with Mr.
Robertson, Mr. Burns, and himself. The HRA has not formally
adopted this position, and the HRA may feel uncomfortable with
charging a developer to help defray the City's costs in doing
financial analyses. He stated staff spent a fair amount of money
in evaluating the Tanurb proposal and the proposed development at
57th Place. In the last month staff has been contacted by several
other developers who are interested in the Mississippi /University
site, and he could see more proposals coming where staff will be
spending more and more money to evaluate proposals. He stated
other cities do ask developers for up front money to help defray
these costs, and both Mr. Robertson and Mr. Burns thought it is
something the HRA should be doing.
Mr. Prairie stated he thought it would be easier to justify a
developer sharing in the cost if the answer is "yes" to the
ROUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 11, 1989 - PAGE 8
proposal. If the HRA is saying "maybe ", then the HRA should share
in that cost. But, if that is going to hold up the project, then
maybe they should waive that fee.
Mr. Commers stated staff needs to do the analysis and find out what
the HRA costs are going to be for this proposal so they know what
they are taking about, and he did not know how they can expect the
developer to pay at this point. He stated the HRA is willing to
be open and look at things, and are maybe willing to do some things
to get additional tax increment, but they have to get some sense
and some feeling of what they are talking about so they can make
a judgement about that as it relates to the HRA's #1 priority.
Mr. Newman stated to summarize what he heard the HRA members
saying, they are willing to go outside the immediate project area
for assistance if they feel the project merits it, or it doesn't
jeopardize the HRA's financial capability. Secondly, at this time
the HRA does- not want to require some advance payment from
prospective developers on a site.
Mr. Commers stated he is saying that they should get their
financial consultant to look at this particular project.
Mr. Newman stated that in all fairness to this developer or another
developer, because of the financial commitment Mr. Bob Levy is
attempting to extract from the purchase agreement, the HRA is going
to have to move fairly quickly and fairly extensively so that they
can hopefully have more financial information by the next HRA
meeting.
Ms. Horneland stated Mr. Levy has the concern that because he has
gone through this situation with Tanurb and there are expanding
attorneys' fees and other costs, he wants to know that the
developer is in the deal, that the developer is paying some
analysis money. It isn't a significant amount now, but it does
escalate and it keeps everyone involved honest.
Mr. Commers stated he could understand Mr. Levy's position, but he
did not know how that impacted the HRA.
Mr. Newman stated most developers he has talked to want to move
through the process fairly quickly, because the longer it takes,
the more they will have to pay Mr. Levy.
Mr. Boisclair stated he is certainly ready to negotiate with Mr.
Levy, and he is willing to pay Mr. Levy some earnest money if he
has some sense from the HRA that they like the project. Although
the time frame is important, they will allow the HRA the time
needed.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MAY 11. 1989 - PAGE 9
Mr. Newman stated they have been setting the standard that whatever
developer they talk to in earnest needs to have some kind of site
control. Once the developer has that site control, they are going
to want to act fairly quickly.
Mr. Commers stated this is different than some of the other
projects where the HRA has said they are willing to give some kind
of assistance if the project can be put together. At this point,
the HRA is saying they might be willing to assist in the project,
but they need to see some numbers first, especially because this
is such a big project. This is a potential $25 million project,
and he did not think the HRA should hesitate for the $5, 000 the HRA
has to pay to the financial consultant.
Mr. Prairie and Mr. Meyer agreed with Mr. Commers.
Ms. Schnabel agreed. She stated she is also a little reluctant at
this time to require Mr. Boisclair to put up any money.
Mr. Newman stated another issue he would like to raise is whether
or not the HRA has any problems with Mr. Boisclair's past financial
history. It is staff's position that Mr. Boisclair's past
financial troubles do not cause them any particular difficulties.
Mr. Prairie stated he felt the strength of Mr. Boisclair's
financial statement is the determining factor.
Mr. Commers stated that at this point, staff should see if the
numbers go together; and if they do, then they can look at this in
more detail, but not at this preliminary stage.
Ms. Schnabel agreed.
Mr. Robertson stated the plus side -of Mr. Boisclair's financial
troubles is that Mr. Boisclair is proposing to use the same
architect as his previous projects, and those projects have had a
lot of design success.
Ms. Horneland stated that from a market perspective, Coldwell
Banker has done tremendous work seeking tenants and researching the
marketplace, and they know what works in the marketplace. She
stated one of the reasons Riverplace suffered is because the
developer tried to create the marketplace. This is a totally
different situation in that they already have the marketplace.
They are not creating anything new.
Mr. Commers stated it is the consensus of the HRA that they would
like to look at it. Their financial consultant will look at it and
give his overall viewpoint of the availability of funds, hopefully,
within the next 30 days. The HRA is certainly not opposed to going
outside the district for additional financing.
HOUSING S REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MAY 11, 1989 - PAGE 10
Ms. Schnabel stated she was very impressed with the proposal as
presented.
Mr. Newman stated they need to know that the HRA has established
some kind of formal commitment, some site control, with the
property owner, and then they will proceed.
Mr. Commers stated the HRA want the numbers first so they can make
a decision on what they want to do. They do not need site control
to do that. This is just a preliminary determination right now.
Mr. Newman stated what if another developer comes in with a
proposal for the same site.
Mr. Commers stated then they might have to look at that proposal
also.
4. INFORMATION ON STINSKI DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Mr. Robertson stated this is an information item only. No action
is needed by the HRA.
5. INFORMATION ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR CRABGRASS CONTROL:
Mr. Robertson stated after discussions with MnDOT, Anoka County
personnel and the Fridley Park Foreman, staff recommending that no
spraying for crabgrass should be done because too many bare spots
with no vegetation may cause dust problems and an unsightly
appearance.
Mr. Meyer stated everyone knows that crabgrass is a first rate
nuisance and a third rate cover. Why not just "bite the bullet"
and kill the crabgrass and invest in new sod?
Mr. Robertson stated what the staff is essentially saying that
there is so much crabgrass, if they kill the crabgrass, they would
either have to reseed or resod.
Mr. Robertson stated since the HRA had agreed to do a minimum of
Corridor maintenance for a year, do they still want to kill the
crabgrass or should they wait a year?
Ms. Schnabel agreed they should probably wait a year and then put
the money into the budget for resodding.
Mr. Robertson stated that would be his recommendation.
Mr. Commers stated it is the consensus of the HRA to do nothing as
far as the crabgrass this year.
ROUSING is REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 11, 1989 - PAGE it
6. ESTIMATES: GREENMASTERS - LAKE POINTE MAINTENANCE
NOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to authorize the
payment of $4,644.14 to Greenmasters, Inc., for Estimate #1 for
Lake Pointe maintenance.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONKERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. CLAIMS:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the check
register as presented.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
OTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers
declared the May 11, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority
meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully s witted,
&nt"�
tyi, Saba
Rec rding Secretary
OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2
COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN
DUANE PRARE VIRGINIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: May 31, 1989
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
SUBJECT: Consideration of Cost Sharing Estimates for
Fridley Plaza Ramp
The attached memo from the Public Works Department is a breakdown
of the annual estimated maintenance costs for the ramp at
approximately $6,000 per year. In addition, the Public Works
Director estimates that every four years there should be some
concrete sealing and stall striping for a total cost of $3,500.
Since the City and the tenants of the Fridley Plaza Office building
will be the main users of the ramp, I suggest that the City and the
HRA split both the annual and the periodic maintenance costs. The
HRA could pay its half out of the $800 /month the HRA receives for
rent of the parking lot from the owners of the Fridley Plaza Office
building.
Bill Burns and I will present this suggestion to the City Council
Monday night, June 5th, and I will update you on their thoughts and
recommendation at our June 8th meeting.
JR:ls
C -89 -282
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (612) 571 -3450
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117
Engineering
U Sewer
� Y Water
a�
Q O Parks
O 3 Streets
� U Maintenance
U —
W J
� m
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director PW89 -100
FROM: John G. Flora,IPublic Works Director
DATE: May 2, 1989
SUBJECT: Municipal Ramp Maintenance
The following is an estimate for costs associated with the
Municipal Ramp:
ANNUAL COSTS:
Snow Plowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,000.00
Sweeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000.00
Landscape Maintenance. . . . . . . . . 1,000.00
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 000.00
TOTAL
PERIODIC MAINTENANCE:
Every 4 years -
Concrete Sealing . . . . . . . . . . . $3,000.00
Stall Striping . . . . . . . . . . . . 425.00
TOTAL ,$3,500.00
JGF /MAW /ts
d
OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
3
COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN
DIANE PRARE VIRGWIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: April 6, 1989
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
SUBJECT: Outline of a Development Agreement for Kitterman,
Advance Companies, Commercial Rehabilitation Project
We have previously reviewed this proposed project at the April and
May 1988 HRA meetings. At that time, staff recommended the
standard HRA 15 year second mortgage for $30,000, no payments the
first three years, interest only the next two years, and the
remaining balance, principal, and interest the last ten years.
The HRA directed staff to work on drafting a development agreement
for the members to review at a subsequent meeting. (See attached
minutes from April 14 and May 12, 1988.)
Since the proposed second mortgage amount was insufficient to
complete Mr. Kitterman Is financial package, he subsequently applied
for and received a preliminary commitment of secondary financing
through the SBA 504 loan program for $156,000 (copies included in
the packet).
Mr. Kitterman commenced work on the project late last summer and
was substantially completed by February of this year (see attached
photos). He has already received his certificate of occupancy and
has moved into the building.
Although we had originally discussed the standard HRA 15 year
second mortgage, two modifications are required by the SBA:
1. Since the SBA is taking a second position, the HRA must
take the third position on its $30,000 loan. Dave Newman
and I feel quite comfortable with this in that the
improvements have already been completed. The City
Assessor estimates the property assessed value at
$330,200 which is approximately 95% of the market value
based on current sales ratios. Moreover, Mr. Kitterman
has been able to demonstrate that the total project cost
is $500,000 (see page 2 of the SBA loan form). Since
we used project costs for determining the amount of the
15% mortgage on other HRA projects such as the Shorewood
Restaurant, this loan amount is consistent with past HRA
actions.
E ECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (612) 571-3450
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT.
3 -A
Outline of Development Agreement for Kitterman
April 6, 1989
Page 2
2. The remaining policy decision involves the SBA
requirement that the financing run concurrently with the
SBA 20 year financing duration. Again, since the project
is substantially completed and the mortgagor continues
to pay principal and interest over the additional five
years, staff has concluded that this is not a significant
change. The interest rate would be pegged at a point
below prime at the time of closing.
Staff recommends the HRA approve this concept and direct the staff
to prepare the final development agreement.
JR:ls
Attachments
M -89 -174
Av -
Al,
QIr
lot -,-X.
ta 1111116�j 1111
, 1164101�1
c
3 =C
by the City again as has been cone in the past. 7he HRA has two opt ions : orf
how they wish to reimburse the City for this contract: (1) on a monthly
basis; or (2) in one lump sun.
Mr. Rick Pribyl explained to the HRA that it was much easier-for city staff
if the reimbursement was on a monthly basis. ,
Even though there was some concern on the par"f the ERA, the members
agreed to reimburse the City for the contract,,co a monthly basis.
MOrl by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, to direct the Chairperson
and the Executive Director to ente�nto the development agreement with
Moore Lake Associates.
UPW A VOICE VOTE, ALL VCLM A3E, VICE- aiAIRPERSCN SCENABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION C RRIED UNANIl"Y.
Wri by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to authorize the City Council
to proceed wittf the S1.2 million improvements to Rice Creek Road, ST 1988 1
and 2
UPO" VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AyE, VICE- iAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
,3TICN CARRIED UNANDIOUSLY.
Mr. Robertson stated that at the April 4, 1988, City Council meeting, the
City Council approved a special use permit for this property. In granting
the special use permit, the City Council asked that the HRA seriously
consider providing some assistance to Mr. Kitterman for improving the
outside appearance of the building. The proposal is to oompletely renovate
the eastern and southern elevation, giving it the appearance of a new
building, and substantially contributing to the improved appearance of
Central Avenue in this vicinity.
Mr. Robertson stated that at the time the HRA.agenda was prepared, they did
not have the cost estimates. Be received those f rom Mr. Kitterman that
afternoon. Mr. Robertson distributed them to the BRA members.
Mr. Robertson stated that in his cover letter dated April 14th, Mr.
Kitterman stated he has budgeted approximately $60,000 to renovate the
off ice, repair the roof, paint the exterior of the buildings, and repair the
fencing. The next two pages of the exhibit showed an estimate for
renovating the exterior of approximately $130, 000, and the rest was for the
interior at $97,000.
Mr. Robertson stated staff had just received those cost f igures that day,
but he still needed some direction from the HRA at this meeting. As pointed
out in his memo to the HRA dated April 7th, the HRA has provided assistance
in the past in the farm of a second mortgage. The most conventional thing
would be to do something similar to that cone for the Shorewood Inn.
-6-
4.
3 -D
Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Dan Coplan was at the meeting representing Mr.
Kitterman who could not be at the meeting. He stated the property was
purchased in April for approximately $240,000; and with the exterior
improvements and the interior improvements, the total value of the property
would be approximately $450,000.
Mr. Dan Coplan stated Advance Company was a two division company:
(1) A general contractor - they specialize in insurance reconstruction;
i.e., disaster reconstruction, fire reconstruction for mobile homes,
standard residential hones, commercial property, and their major clients
were in the church and school line. A major client was the Archdiocese of
the metropolitan area.
(2) Advance Carpet and Floors - this division was newly formed in Nov. 1987.
There they direct all their business towards the commercial construction as
a subcontractor in carpeting and floor coverings. One of the reasons for
moving f ram 1800 Central Avenue was for expansion purposes. 7hey need room
for the floor covering division. Since they direct their focus towards
building contractors, they need a showroom for their clients. It will not
be a showroom for the general public. 7hey have to carry a large inventory
of carpeting and floor coverings. Zhe reason for the amount of money being
put into the interior of the building was to project the quality that their
customers expect to see. Along with that, they are redesigning the interior
to go along with the quality of the exterior so they can project a good
image to their clientele.
Mr. Robertson stated that at this time, staff has not discussed any dollar
amount in terms of HRA assistance. The closest analogy was the Shorewood
Inn renovation. 7hat was a total market value of $506,000, with a second
mortgage of $70,000. The proportion for a second mortgage has generally
been around a 10 :1 to 5 :1 ratio.
Ms. Schnabel stated the redevelopment proposed by Mr. Kitterman would
certainly be a major improvement to that site which has long been an
eyesore.
The BRA members were in agreement that the HRA should provide some
redevelcAent assistance to Mr. Kitterman for the Midwest Van Building, and
they directed staff to proceed in putting together some figures on the
amount of assistance with similar terms to what was done for the Shorewood
Inn property. i --
Mr. Robertson state the BRA was aware, when the County has tax forfeit
land, they give first cons ation for the use of the land to the cities.
.7 he City of Fridley is being as o provide the land, an empty lot, to the
(�W for an urban homestead. AC AP to take one of the homes along
East River Road that has to be condemned be of the widening of East
River Road. Their total cost to move that house to undation they will
build on this lot and bring the house and lot up to code w roximately
$25,000. They .would then conduct a lottery for those candidates ies )
Da
3 -E
HWSM be RFM=PMENT AUIM= MM=, MAY 12, 1988
2. C ONSIDERATON OF NSP AGREDOU FOR THE UNDERGROUND ELECTIUMI SYSTEMS FOR
RICE CREEK ROAD:
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms
y,J to approve the NSP Agreement
for the underground electrical systems for Rice Creek Road in the amount of
$67,914.
UPW A VOICE -VOM, ALL VOTIM AYE, CHAIRPERSON CXONDERS DECLARED THE MOTION
C M1RIDD UNANIMOUSLY.
3. UPDATE ON REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR MIDWEST VAN & STORACzE
BUILDIM BY FRANK KITl'ERMAN:
Mr. Robertson stated that be had banded out an amendment to the memo from
Samantha Orduno dated May 5, 1988 (page 2 of HRA agenda) . This memo
indicated the type of assistance the HRA has provided on comparable
Projects. He stated the assistance for Shorewood was 12 %, but the
Percentage for Springbrook Apartments was much higher because those were
loans instead of soil correction and write -down. It was important to make
that distinction.
Mr. Robertson stated staff was recce merx1ing that the HRA direct the staff to
Proceed with the Shorewood model.— Staff wool d recommend -approxima ela—"-.
$30,000 seed mortgage (standard 15 year mortgage that has been done before
_;5t6: ith payments the first 3 years, interest only the next 2
remaining years, and the
g balance, principle, and interest the last 10 years). If the HRA
-and-Yx-.—'N einan wound - draft- - -development agreement along
those lines. He stated they believe the assistance is justified because it
is a redevelopment- type situation which they have ]mown they were going to
face more frequently. It is in the neighborhood of Moore Lake Commons,
across the street from the new fire station, and staff feels it is important
to do it to set the tone for the redevelopment of the whole neighborhood.
Ms. Schnabel stated this project is more a rehabilitation project than many
of the other projects they have participated in. From the information
received at the last meeting from Mr. Caplan, representing Mr. Kitterman,
there were a lot of problems in the building with water, electricity, etc.,
more problems than what the HRA has had to deal with in other projects.
There were a nuaber of construction projects which were new construction
Projects. Shorewood was probably the only one that came close to a
rehabilitation project. She bad been trying to think of ways to define this
Project so they could get a better handle on the dollar amounts they give to
developers; in other wards, the rehabilitation of an existing structure that
is being updated and brought up to code, versus brand new construction. She
was trying to came up with a way to rationalize or justify this type of
assistance.
Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Kitterman was proposing extensive exterior
remodeling work which was not really needed; but if it was not done, it
would look just like an old building that has been repainted. There wre
also a lot of interior improvements that needed to be done.
-4-
3 -F
HWSING & MOnWPMEW AyliioRrl'Sr MEMING, MAY 12, 1988
Mr. Oomners stated the Commission bad to be careful in setting any kind of
Precedent. Zhe first project ever done was Johnson Printing. They tried to
maintain that as a benchrark and obviously they were not overly successful.
Mr. Newman stated there was a significant difference between pure land
write -down and a second mortgage.
Mr. Oamners stated he would agree with that.
Ms. Schnabel stated that at the last meeting, Mr. Coplan had stated the
estimate for the exterior improvements was $130,000 and the estimate for the
interior improvements was $90,000.
The HRA members expressed concern that if they did agree to assist Mr.
Kittennan, there was no guarantee that all these improvements would be done.
Mr. Newman stated one thing they have to do is come up with a development
contract. They can ask the City Assessor to look at the plans and give his
estimate on what value he would put on the improvements and what the
assessments would be.
Mr. Meyer stated that as far as the HRA was concerned, the best thing was to
get rid of the eyesore, particularly the exterior appearance. If the HRA
should agree to assist Mr. Kitterman, he felt it would behoove Mr.
Kitterman, no matter what the amount of assistance is, to be specific on
what be will do on the outside of the building, and then maybe the HRA would
assist him according to the specific improvements that would be done. Maybe
the HRA could also make a shopping list that applied to the inside of the
building.
Mr. NXaman stated that was a good point. They did something similar with
Springbrook Apartments where they had the developer provide a page of
amenities the City wanted him to provide in order to get the quality the
CitY wanted. He felt it was appropriate for city staff to sit down with Mr.
Kitterman and go over his list of improvements item by item, get a
description of what will be done, and incorporate those items in the
agreement.
Mr. Meyer stated he would be comfortable with the level of assistance
Presented by staff ($27,000), because it was certainly going to belp inprove
the area. If they want to talk about j ustif ication, he thought one major
justification would be to create something much more pleasing than what is
there now.
Ms. Schnabel stated she could see spending the money for rehabilitation of
an ' existing property that is rundown or in state of disrepair if it is going
to be a larger percentage than what they have normally done, providing the
end result is accomplished.
It was the concensus of the HRA members that staf f work on drafting a
development amt for tine marbers to review at the next meeting.
-5-
OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
4
COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN
DUANE PRAIRIE VIRGINIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: June 1, 1989
TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
SUBJECT: Onan Redevelopment Tax Increment District
Onan Corporation is currently investigating an option to develop
the southeast 35 acres of its Fridley complex. This development
would include both office and warehouse space to accommodate
consolidation of all off -site operations. At this early stage,
cost estimates indicate that the project will fall in the $20MM to
$25MM range.
In order to preserve future options, the City and HRA notified the
School District and the County by May 26, 1989, and need to publish
a notice by June 15, 1989, if they are going to expand the HRA's
Development Program and establish a Redevelopment Tax Increment
District to assist Onan with its 400,000 sq. ft. expansion.
In order for the City and the HRA to position themselves to take
advantage of all possible alternatives to assist Onan (which
assumes we are willing to assist Onan), it is necessary to have a
redevelopment tax increment district established by June 30, 1989.
The Legislature is proposing to change the definition of a
redevelopment tax increment district established by June 30, 1989.
The Legislature is proposing to change the definition of a
redevelopment tax increment district, and if they succeed, the Onan
site will not qualify as a redevelopment site. If we are to
proceed, the notice to the School District and County must be
delivered 30 days prior to the public hearing called for the
establishment of the district.
Staff recommends:
A. The HRA approve modification of Redevelopment District
No. 1, and approve the modified Redevelopment Plan
relating thereto;
B. The HRA approve modification of TIF Districts 1 -8;
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6-431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (6-12) 571 -3450
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117
r.
Onan Redevelopment Tax Increment District
June 1, 1989
Page 2
C. The HRA approve and adopt the modified TIF plans relating
thereto;
D. The HRA approve creation of TIF District No. 9 and
approve and adopt the proposed TIF plan relating thereto.
E. The HRA should then recommend a public hearing be held
and the district be established at the June 26th Council
meeting.
JR:ls
M -89 -292
RESOLUTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE
FOR AGENDA. IT WILL BE
DELIVERED NEXT NOTDAY .
OUSMG and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
5
LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN
DUANE PRAF E VIRGINIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: June 1, 1989
TO: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant/
Landscape Specialist
SUBJECT: Moore Lake Commons Landscaping Street Improvement
Project No. ST 1988 1 & 2
On May 11, 1989, the HRA approved a change order for the addition
of 48 crabapple trees and 5,225 square yards of sod for a total
amount of $15,015.50.
As of May 31, 1989, 32 of the crabapple trees have been installed
and the remaining 16 trees are being held at Noble Nursery until
the boulevard area in front of the racquetball club and new office
building is finished. The contractor will finish laying the sod
by the second week in June.
MM:ls
M -89 -291
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (6 12) 571 -3450
FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117
!x:,771.1.
AL
y7�
ANY
Or. WIC
!x:,771.1.
AL
y7�
i
J
1
x
MIA
N
Nun
TIMIR A-,
1
3
VIA
JAY
S `
N
JIM
a3
+
f
4
M
y SUMMARY:
6 -A
Original Contract Amount
S34,222.00
Contract Additions
$6.08
Contract Deductions
'
Revised Contract Amount
$0.00
Value Completed To Date
$9,777.14
Amount Retained To Date (5X)
$488.86
Less Amount Paid Previously
$4,644.14
AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE
$4,644.14
1
CERTIFICATE OF THE CONTRACTOR
I hereby certify that the work: performed and the materials supplied to date under the terms of the contract for this
project, and all authorized changes thereto, have an actual value under the contract of the amounts shown on this
estimate (and the final quantities on the final estimate are correct), and that this estimate is just and correct and no
part of the °Amount Due This Estimate' has been received.
By
- - - -- - - - --- _ Date /
Contractor's Authorized�Represen>-t1rive (Title)
CERTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER
I hereby certify that I have prepared or examined this estimate, and that the contractor is entitled to payment of this
estimate under the contract for reference project.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, INSPECTOR
By- - - - - - - -- - ---
Checked By
GMV �V `
/PPRPAGEI -AG
RPAGE2•AGP
RPAGE3'AGPP
Date _ 6-.` ! -�._ `"�
Respectfully Submitted,
Jo F1ora,P.E.
ublic Works Director
7
CLAI MS
SAT NEETING)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jock Robertson, Executive Director - HRA PW89 -119
F'RM: John G. Flora,(Public Works Director
DATE: June 2, 1989
SUMEC.T: Fridley Municipal Center Improvement Project #189
Last week, we bad a meeting with Representatives from Park Construction, CSI,
Gammon Brothers, Dimension 7, Kraus - Anderson and Boarman & Associates regarding
work to be completed in and around the parking ramp.
As a result of the meeting, a number of additional items that were not either
clear in the plans and specifications or bid on by the contractors were
identified that required decision and resolution in order to completed the ramp
and the adjoining facilities by the required completion date of June 14, 1989.
It seems there are a number of items dealing with the construction of the base
foundation and supporting structure for the walkway system on the north side of
the police driveway which connects the bridge to the Target walkway system. It
is anticipated that additional concrete work insulation and waterproofing and
light pole relocations will amount to something less than $10,000.00.
Additional items requiring approval on the bridge over the Police driveway are
the insulation, waterproofing, grouting and reinforcing of the superstructure
am rating to approximately $5,000.00.
The additional width of curbing along the south side of the parking ramp with
the necessary waterproofing of the ramp roof and side wall cormnection plus the
spillway to 5th Street and the 8-618 curbing will amount to approximately
$8,000.00.
Additional drainage is required for the planter above the lower levels, cal
room estimated at approximately $1,500.00.
Boarman and Associates is preparing the appropriate proposal requests to
accomplish these required construction items. Kraus - Anderson and Boarman &
Associates will then review the contracts received to date to insure there is
no duplication of costs and accordingly will prepare change orders to cover this
work on the ramp, the bridge and the associated walkway system.
r F-i i
t7ifflo-
Page Two - PW89 -119
These items have been discussed with the City Manager and have been approved for
construction in order to expedite the completion and availability of the ramp
for use and access to the Municipal Center. It is expected that the change
orders will be submitted to the Council at their June 19 meeting. Accordingly,
it would be appropriate for the HRA to be informed that an additional cost of
approximately of $25,000 will be assigned to the Fridley Plaza Ramp portion of
the project.
JGF /ts
cc: William W. Burns
ro
INI
0
00
ON
�J
trJ
iA
rt�
N
C4
PQ. --
M Z rn
C5
0
N A
INI --�
OD
w ,m
d
(D
�ro
(D 010 N
R Fj
C i-3
ro
H N
0
CD c�
�� ft
o
N• O
rt�
o i
o ro
CD
�o
ay
o
ff~
P.-
m
ri- :-j
o
t-n ~
0
Fj-
IH
to
c
m
m
T
r
m
0
m
a
r
C
m
c
0
x
a
T
0
0
z
m
3
Cn
rn
m.
6
m
OD
Q0
-- - APARTMENT OUIDE CONT.
170 0.25.4311 0256 0111.97 !15616 82010 71.041116
214 0500 0197 owed 4all 4 2 O.OD
mY76ol 41414 WM ®m - -
Dim
53300
�M
alt/NM
%01.mVe
swam
M&MV
BM 7701
Lk ft
fto Ott%
0241
439.68
am
a ge-
USA
all
ANOVA
574
414414 %
493
do a55
10735
rffi-
428710
W-50
124-35
SAM
3 B9ao0m
411
B1o5�
4 %63
22as
to 42
s1771
4190•
49200
4173
Be
21 IB21
W83
80
6%417
ON
ssm
0114 -
Baammm
104
r %{tom mm
2105%
WAS
0411-
45a5ffi
4117
214
a;" WAM
110
214505
645%
$345.410
awto,
0200
ti0�6
N.
0022
b SO comibtM
SOD
GGlen
4112-
0.19
414.041
Sam
no
7 b ftm
3 Beacom,
1!6084
2t
60177°55
Qom
8.7
41"
on
213%
ALSO
2 e m
4135
r 4 =-~
4A%
iSO1m
4117
.21.17
1.47-
3 Beacom
552
M355D
7.14%
635235
4A6AS
Om%
Man
414ffi
/7721
°n
• Beeman
• aeamae
1101
1280
.,sal
0283
s4
W.50
am
421ffi
+
4121
S Sodom
335
912M
1545
416300
1.911
050.90
!7035
Offi
38ea- m
210
Y
1141
4176.35
01115
.2D-
2q
Beacom
H Beacom
an
Sm4m
s
%285
nm%
0136
n2�
a�
tai
t B4Wae
Ott
21°ytB
4072
622
40a0443Bf4
1341
Sam
an
3641 tee°
35
`_MIS
0-00
413130
1.11
Mom
a8
170 0.25.4311 0256 0111.97 !15616 82010 71.041116
214 0500 0197 owed 4all 4 2 O.OD
mY76ol 41414 WM ®m - -
S. 16 128370 aim PaaB 292% 821647 1.Q%
1 Seammm am 41747 15.99 41271 am- 035 2711-
2 Beamo, 736 502.05 1712 61239 a91 52223 a F
3 Beammro 223 _ 19730 _ 4.04 New ON 66321 am
�
121
53300
110%
r
Sim
saw
9.11146
Beacom m
3543
.- 0
0241
439.68
am
a ge-
USA
all
2 B4Mmam
574
rig 03
493
am MO
100
421%
14.4/
3 B9ao0m
04
an
r a mNO�
TAM
/1"
HNSM swft
21 IB21
6342-00
221%
MAID
ton%
417"to
0114 -
Baammm
2M
�0
111.00
WAS
0411-
45a5ffi
4117
214
2 Beacom
5025
um
8
0ID
031-
f46ffi
133
3 BeOrmom,
0022
b SO comibtM
/1151%
�
am
66730
136
CKANHASSEN 4
10
MMm
OA0%
M7710
13146
Om
69
1.i
2 e m
141144
pt.ffiMi.
to s
iSO1m
4117
.21.17
1.47-
3 Beacom
552
Y a ZZ.
Offi%
07M
BAD
176.96
II Beam®
11aesoOm
,t B�.amm
133
542393
4177%
W.50
5.to.%
2412- -
sGOm
0710
41%01
117
2 Beacom
335
40705
555.
621
000
MiAD
006.00
4151-
00500
!7035
Offi
38ea- m
22
47134
1968
2.03
6.73
4176.35
01115
.2D-
2q
Beacom
H Beacom
an
CgOO�m 41.90016
9
535730
1111%
Iwo
00016
am
$341710
4x111
�
fi�
�
41919
51064
affi
532
435.90
00545
1722
��
an
7
35
59000
707
6aBffi
039
�77
a8
3 Bea,mm
1421
b t4 me191uco
u2M
Mm
/�JAALl
a 1.e .'
736- Sao
g,me
3
03/700
Om%
035250
2.9F16
am
4�
2°0°rm
7 &CM
�
51583
80214
5514M
024
611,60
am
Be°
3 Beaoam
22
29D
%417
3333
21117
am
�8
GA S%
WAD
43 6
b 43 Cc -Pkm4
1105%
pa8
aM
66000
4121
mv4 p41Aw46 a9
019000
72M
943410
$a"
w1m
4123•%
010
• 9ae0mm,
1227
6935
1431
Gam
695%
131
0417
64221
6Ct10
1157
7 Beacom
1871
sum
1607
73978
175
72526
its
3 Beacom
26
b50748022
/68.9015%
°6600
74031
136
GO BE PALL
S:.bm 2"
$31300
4588%
$313.70
072-%
%0139
1.73%
on
Bld,
2015
37667
45763
7.56
920
37829
45535
007
0.50
377.11
01.42
1.42
7 Beaom,
3 Beammm
2419
195
08505
6 t3
692.77
291
50915
031
1 st-
2116
bT7,milts
1.311%
°ANN,
Om
4100
slow
�Beacan
�
75 M
001%
4p44T37o
0249
44 M
ion
±[ABA41
171809.
500.11
550
05732
0.1F
1.21
5"
67316
1go
fA9
3 Bemoan
4N
ratM+p...
2`
8'0130
BAD
as"
000
EDRA
01
015174
1875%
43975
1ffiM
044210
471%
1.0
Becroam
100
639.63
SIB
818
54046
418100
Q12-
4107
6952
WAS
1.45
2 a&emm
3 aeocom
1310
067.50
4115%
M7A3
1.12
92271
to
a Beacom
f7199
b 2164700 lme
0.00
TOAD
*AS-
gi80
11
am
200%
sm
Om%
068
DAM
Beacom
10
410.00
429
7
41000
01.00
am
000
20821
�
2 Bmammm
214
r 6478
son
11.0
ones
696%
Sm-
OB-
4"
417.97
aff
g,pm ula 0
0 0.00
O.OD%
IMAD
CAM
$33030
m9FM
4121
Bem+oam
is
41
425.00
490.00
affi
264
Qo90
49600
1.19
1721-
420.$3
47141
38
2 Bearocm
3 Beacom
16
- _ 62600
625
M"
IA7-
41"
so
S. 16 128370 aim PaaB 292% 821647 1.Q%
1 Seammm am 41747 15.99 41271 am- 035 2711-
2 Beamo, 736 502.05 1712 61239 a91 52223 a F
3 Beammro 223 _ 19730 _ 4.04 New ON 66321 am
�
121
53300
110%
IM19
11746
8=72
437%
' Beacom
1274
6MM
1341
4.13
439.68
am
an
*AD-
4"
53700
am .
Ise
2 Beacom
toss
lie
Seen
S"
am
43010
OA7
213.90
421
3 Beacom
21441
in 21 compke
1.42%
/1"
Stump
21 IB21
6342-00
41016
700
$317m
437.71
7!%
t8
03"
4"
4117%
98
1 Bottom
2 Beacom,
In
1024
4829
6141 36
8.51
SUM
0 415
405.71
4117
214
3 Beacom
4107
8
211.97
Om
am
Beacom,
a
o2
r H5111IFF
a
404811
�
am
66730
136
IM emam
82
68213
32M
692113
am%
034
I%M
46201
Iso%
I seamm
2 Beacom
M
4"
0
3$3
462%
Seem
am
am
0.b
an
3 Beacom
v
�.
270
07M
BAD
176.96
II Beam®
11aesoOm
o
124
In 8 lttbpb-
421%
2zF
0.
MMON sm
aim
221%
419/00
0.74%
69290
Q1Ae
!7035
Offi
1 Bottom
2 "4 `
1.41
721
47134
1968
2.03
6.73
4176.35
01115
.2D-
2q
Beacom
H Beacom
an
3 Beacom
go
409.75
0.00
X24
211
am
61641
w
e4S
b 9 mMlrb
um
Y is Go-pkm
4,456
Sam
A
o n%
41654124
12019%
20M
670100
am%
Sao
�77
ago
Boaeso mt
2 Beacom
214
1249
92
4111.1
�-
Mm
/�JAALl
a 1.e .'
736- Sao
3 Beacom
BOOM
1641
a"
aw
416211
fi
r 24-41
1.W
b 21 e maam116
21.11014,
MW
sww
BS ftom
22
29D
R471.4002
am
407755
021
4/3.111
GA S%
WAD
11920
641.57
a44
pa8
aM
66000
4121
seam,
621
5m"
b 0 cu plmes
Om
Im%
am
_
Bea-
4163
441 20' 045
sw
41060
Oi
0118
4aam
!Ob%
ago
28eaoam
421
44322
531
4009
40600
0.017
Om
°7000
B14
9 atamn
1fII1
b 10amo =
°6600
74031
136
�
b 33
0M a 4/00 5re0
2508 83142
72M
6092
1.4316
WaI7
024
&.60
t Beacon
0572
=12
622
0036
1�
AM13
1.97-
3 bmo
s0
Nom
an
GPM
7aj�
am
1 st-
BeB
. Beaman
°ANN,
Om
4100
slow
ffiaF
�
B7M°
r M omplp
I Bosom
So Vowd
11 i4 4%00 am am
A 19M _ M 0MV -92701 Y Come
7A7% /382.62 0444. CMIBe ate-4.
Ba 060011 wo 41992 410 41903 090 4077 112 -
Q Poston 1- won 0°,61 5013 ...2 US-- =17 21°.6
Boom
in
181121
1.7046
$35731
00
MM
200
im
235
431110
MM
as 1ffi7
�
1.m
no
8 Bea e�ntooeee
a°E7OD
712M
ft210
Om
1 BeBaso�om
912„2.9°50
tam
/1"
4111
a��
t1a�
ar�oo
�n
039-%
1,87
Ba�ismate
4107
48
0°.9491
Beacom,
a
f e
0100
1.934%
�
am
66730
136
ee
492 Y N
arm
/
$31700
�°..
0417%
=
am
841410
1 aescco
1015
1019
43563
428.90
f3f
4.N
Cn
a0op
II Beam®
11aesoOm
o
Ianjbrm
-ts.�+
2zF
0.
by
aim
NOUN Me. shoo
M
p21m
aim
am
41°410°-%
41311,17
owes
u
NA
Beacom
H Beacom
�
4197
40M
6401
sal727
0172
am
4"
wffi
211
am
/ araoom
w
e4S
b 9 mMlrb
am
am
fNm
Sam
A
o n%
Maio
G�
6111110
7 Beao4e -
80
WAD
87730
40125
a8
am
92
4111.1
�-
Mm
/�JAALl
a 1.e .'
+ea
Bebm
s./F
fi
r 24-41
416
000%
60.00
BAD%
Bid== -
1441
WAD
11920
0170.00
a44
pa8
tm
II 4%momm
a
Y • enf2m1.e
621
LI M
4118
_
a23°ao
11901
41060
Si"
412%41
Btsom
1716
am
212W
Qlb
671110
8 Beacon
3 Btacae
me
am
367
O
766.91
ON
74031
136
�
b 33
is"
02M
131310
N3D%
Boost)
11g
�.�
410615
140
4,09
&'A
4134,
9m
.41. .0
IS
aBID om=
snm
�-
mom
100
�
r -
�
I Bosom
1.11/02%
�A7
go
40118
5 Q-%
141-
H Beacom
421
:
421.79
21500
BAD
05.00
BAD
as"
000
3 Beamac
sQ
b / 0%11146
41117%
UNIDO
M
1413589
133%
271
Mae?
419.19
039%
aid
/89641
423.19
oM%
ov-
2 Bosom
1a�01
41470
f27b7
439
Mm,
41.9E
0.417
7168
a15-
am
a Beacom
7t9A0
0.00
TOAD
*AS-
Mn
b M mompb bm
112116
Stock)
0
0500
3221%
601301
43.9016
4414165
1.112%
I mcom
I1.
QBr
43521
son
11.0
ones
696%
Sm-
OB-
4"
417.97
aff
2 Beallmml
3 Beam,
M
10 on
707.17
om
2111417
b 2 s
am
.
a�
090%
1192876
�t8,44L%
Beacom
1It00
�.�
AN92
1114%
tam
419.75
am-
am-
194100
26eamn
214
CAD
a"
Om
47110
41/7
a Beattm
A
r 7002Meeee
skoho
UNIDm
N
421
j35710
4M92
5.35%
aft
435730
450.63
000%
am
$375m
40.63
IIM%
1137
m
241eamam
490
57195
am
0648
121
am
6M9S
02100
0.811
621
3 Beacom
' of
b 4412 .Do
do
®m
sm. R 21
/3x500
1134%
MaAD
Bm%
0000
4,11-96
I Beacom
124
40430
775
4am
031
42Am
2 Beattmm
tSO
528„70
son
0.
52410
64tm
o31
4100
a"
/0710
/.17
3 8441414143
011
Y 7M6�
WORN
8
217
15tOm _
40206
DAM
HAT
am"
AIM DD
Ism
032
6000
Mato
5786
278
1 Beamam
211, - 1
w
400.01
1100
421oD
ftlffi
031
OAO
452%
40976
lag
1.941
aBesm4m
421
Y/5ltteb$p4mme
aam%
Shudw BBeacom
/14107
Alms
fa go
11�
aan %
11�
aa-
II BeaOa'c
0053
21170
135
was4
0.11
4T110
131
4 80*8
I
am o
cam
do =
am
217Q7M
0 B
4517
b A anopl a
46/21
BE POLL Nor"
Skdo as
03"
SAM
swill
4104-46
Boom=
8041
NM
a"
441.17
/PD
4.73
=AS
479.90
a4F
am
073
40-41
1120
28
a Beaman
3 Beacom
1
o 4
IL44
WAD
I n
wm
138
..
r
6900
1 Beacae
w
0021
/4158
4"
TAM
1174
830M
431119
BO116
all-
2121®
.135.16
am
tm
a Beacom
Nam
619.14
1 1/8 ,
6!222
0.66-
sm 10
"1
N
!Beams
121
21441
'
1211
06192
1214100
OB
Om
1675%
11.17-
4 vamp
14123
b 211 �
2e%
. Ba�iaeom
t- 9r
aWAD
� Bam �
a�
o
aas
w
aam
D °an
a
2124
/44135°06410
' '• 02AD
Sim
amm
s16aB0.w
ta30o
Beam
. 4121
b5gefb%e
- ALf%
-
62043
21 SMAO
11.11%
sum
LI M
a"
M1710
43700
1.i%
an
I beams
H Bosom
an
sm
:, 435.96
a"
4.7°
am
ond•
.021:
•' 175
aY17
136
a ookwu
41
OOm
0.75
. 11.430
a21
seam
241
2121
Y 21 o m ftm
YI%
BI KM a
w/
NI
Win.
Sum
an
1117
��
Gam
0.45
am
628.71
/211412%
221
8 BBpeea�ccoome
> AD
.
11.941
4 Beacom
4
211
YOOOef4�6
OCm
4111%
X00 ..
1400
MO.00
sm"
°18011
4�
Q4�
a=
12146
Bea am
219°
4441.10
a
513,47
a21
20
aa*41as
mo=
Cum
am
a m
H3F
abm
CAF
m
Y • t1omph-M
421%
Beacom
w
�
17044
fAa
�
430.90
AS.
LOS
0048
=70
1°7x6
u
8 Beacom
a mom,
821
a"
B4 N
4�13p0e
im
b /434
�M1e
�MDy/ee
01.%01
M QA4
% arqe
a de Veto
Ytlb
O8ea
BM vA9
ft. tW
M
seam 44- $361.79 s DOW 0.7043% 048 1.0'12%
I Beacm /4710 7.9100 LL91m 4538 Dam 4II7ffi 13661
2 Beacom imal am 4318 5318 DAM BMW ism a Beacom 430 aim 04314 galas 0.190 83M IAIM
4 neap IS ta750D 414110 101100 s,4a:F 44100 41,3521-
"No b Ides ccmp®e -
H
� M •
co w
F~+� f*
wfD 4+3 �hdp��j � �� Aa
wNO.C. f6 A r�•w
�.rt aamm f� i
val 15
10. rt
$ " -x �oo acne
o m � •yyea ��� M �
A r'TrtfO M t�.�+p1
wI
Ph
fil.
m �.CI 1 �I g ® 10
Oo o C o 8 S °o °o �g �`� s
,. o.
0 0 0 0 0 0 Q o
oQ S s $ s t? °o s
m m
0
o m
O O
O O
O O O s O
O O O O O �O
O O O s
C31
cc
0 0 °o �
° O w
O O O
s � O
J Fr NNp N Npp
O O O s O r 411
Op O O
CD
Ab
•� C
0 0� O ` o
o o 0
�o 0 s C
r
F+ N pN p
db
O O O O
CD
k
CD
s °
s
1-!
N
• t W
O
C2
•
•
•
�O
v
�o
W
8
N
Y
m
a
w
a
t.
s
1