HRA 10/12/1995 CANCL - 6292HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY] OCTOBER 121 1995
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COPY
Al% p i�ji
n(lKX -v-
JAO N u�
r `
CITY OF FRIDLEY
A G E N D A
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1995 7:30 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, Fridley Municipal Center
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 14, 1995
CONSENT AGENDA:
HYDE PARK HOUSING PROGRAM UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
HOUSING PROGRAM UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2A
HOUSING REPLACEMENT PLAN AND SCATTERED -SITE . . . . . . . 3
PROGRAM UPDATE
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT BUDGET UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
REVENUEAND EXPENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5B
ACTION ITEMS:
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SALE OF. . . . . . . . . 6 - 6D
PORTION OF 533 JANESVILLE STREET NE, AND
APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE
THEREOF
CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT FOR . . . . . . . 7
EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MEPC
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 81
PREPARATION OF TRAFFIC, NOISE, AND AIR
STUDY, AND PREPARATION OF INDIRECT SOURCE
PERMIT APPLICATION
INFORMATION ITEMS:
CONSIDER POTENTIAL LOAN PROGRAM FOR HORIZON . . . . . . . 9 - 9A
DRIVE RESIDENTS
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
SECOND TEMPORARY BOND ISSUE FOR THE LAKE. . . . . . . . .11
POINTE SITE
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT
V,
I _
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: October 6, 1995 A
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA #4
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Update on Hyde Park Housing Programs
On September 19th and 21st informational meetings were held with
the Hyde Park landlords and homeowners. The meetings were
jointly conducted by the Center for-Energy and Environment (CEE)
staff'and HRA staff.
12 homeowners and 8 landlords attended the meetings and 10 more
people have called-to make appointments with.CEE. The response
to the programs was quite favorable from those in attendance.
Many people indicated a willingness to "spread the word" about
the programs to other neighbors.
CEE has done some follow -up calls with those people who did not
attend the meetings or responded to the mailings. In addition to
regular office hours; CEE began evening office hours last week
for walk -in appointments.
So far, more than 25 building analysis have been completed and
many people are now collecting bids. Once the owners select
their contractors, CEE will meet with each owner individually to
develop a financing package. One owner has been approved and
closed on a $20,000 rehab loan.
GF/
M -95 -523
1�
1
m
b+
O
ao n
ol
-0 a o
� 43 0
1n
$4
a in E
vl
m
O
as
C2
4i
r
b
m
°
m b
H
b
0
m
%0
r. V
V c
144 144 r-I
m
M
W
t
in
L'f
C" I
.r1 W bP
}.�
b 0
Uk
m
r4 iJ
f>a W
. 4
d U
G $4
H
4
O
b+
r-I U
'.�
`'' Lry
N'
u
O O
✓
m
QW
° O
�•
�.
mA
b+ 3
b
o m
b
$4
yr
M
m o �
w
H
.-I
Ln
Q
q -► C
r
� g
4&
90 C-4
m
AA
olj�
43
O b
R 0
too
9
m
-ri
-r l
N
td cd b
.d
,..i
.-°-I 0
�
A Id 0 0
m
�
m
a
OP b4
a
cd
1 • -rl O
(d
coo N
pp
C7
tr -�
b
�7
.N
m ?� 0 -tp
m
O
A
W
O m
a
4)
«-I
0 W a
$4
$4
p,
4J
Id °
- r°♦
V
b
-- m
A+
,1 4 s~
V
m
HH
$4 r- A
U
O
•c
H
w°
r-4
O
N
Id
0 qn- d x
�
v
A
$$4
w
°
$4
N O D A
�,
A 44.Q
r. 0
N
14
0
H - i
t`
b
00
-
)
1
aD
O
,
E1
M
`' V
P4
N
A
0
P4
a
2'
a
2A
�r
N
W
K
sO
C7
w
T
V 0
V+
b
43
cd
FA w
0�
qo m
N O -H
a�
Nin-
.row
V
� $4
w
m
>4 0
-r4
V-4 • U
H04 (dIm
b+ ed di
$4
m
I,
P4
O
63
$4 cd
N
-A
M
04
°04 0
-r
m w
�
-�
43
o
m 0404 °+
w
n
to Cdd
"40
�
�
�,xw M
Cd
�
m�
10
:3
b-HU
r
ao
Pa
(dx
`d
�
o
m
m 04
4
oa
v
m '
Q rl
...
r.
O
.0 N 00
O
.0
-H OD
0
a
G
b
o
0 0
-.-�
m a&-1
f--+
aq
O
v
° tn
-riw bA
-H 4
w °
a
rd to
o Cd
W
O m
c l
.t"+
4
- r4 rd rd
•O
:
.O m
��
r1
UA
�
�
td
,�
w
m
bXO�
W 41tT
�tr&1
0
0 —
O
�
i.O
�
m
�31
� m
Cd
U V
O
tp
D
0
0
a
�
2A
�r
N
W
K
sO
C7
w
T
a° 0
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: October b, 1995
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA,44 A
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Update on Housing Replacement and Scattered
Site Programs
Housing ReRlacement Program
As you know, on October 2nd the City Council conducted a public
hearing to consider the adoption and approval of the HRA's
Housing Replacement Program. The public hearing went well and
the Council will consider formal approval of the program on
October 23rd. Once the program is formally approved we can then
ask the County to certify the first phase which includes 8
parcels.
Lot Sales
Six new home sites are currently for sale. All bids are due by
November 2, 1995. The HRA will consider the bids at its November
9th meeting. More than 25 bid packages have been sent out so
far. The mailing we sent to the Twin Cities Builders Association
produced interest from at least a half a dozen builders. Once
the bids are awarded, the HRA and buyer will enter into a
development contract. We anticipate that the HRA will approve
the house designs this winter and that construction will begin
next spring.
Whitney Homes
Whitney Homes has completed three
build and the remaining two homes
importantly, all of the homes have
price is $107,000.
GF/
M -95 -524
of the.five homes it agreed to
are under construction. More
buyers and the average selling
3
I
co
W
N
z
W
1L
x
W
F-
z
w
0
a
co
W
y
0
r
0
08
W N I N M A I a a
�o
r
40
Him 0
0
m
O
z
O
O
m
a
�I
c
7
c
m
LL
a
N
N
n�
m
v_
co
go co
r
N 1n0_
N t0
n�pp
N N
O
n pt
to co
N
to �
V
O IA
w
R
R is
�o
19
8-2
Him 0
N w
O O
N
N 100
40 X4&4
N
z
0
<
r
w m
w 40
W c
z g 1
all 22
all
R
N cq a OURNSIM—�W �M
co Nr 0 Ofr OCD rr 4044 fA 40 rN W r irN E� I I
40 4040 4s 49
m
O
l a
!46
I
1
1
I
1 4040
1
1
1
I
1 N
I
1
I
oo I D
w w r n j
r N A
1 r
m N
N 0) < CD 1 r
r w r r 1 8
r N I
I40
CD
40
t
co w I w
c� to 0 1 N
Nr r 1
tor (
I
� I
w r
r
m w I O
o a maw co I N
N co O 03 1
1
t N
t
so � i 3'
t0 r ; cci
a
10 ctr3 vi � two i Go
N N r go rz 1_C4
1
to 1 Q
w I
40
ttpp I
N N
co I
N to N Of I n
c7 N aD i
I
9jtCpUUMUCt8p�paHH�E Igloo,
ci
�NN401, 4440 NtAfA�rN40 1
w a
° Go tH
g o �i ���ci���,i
.,
4.
C
c
8
.s
N
n
� N
p, U
m
f �
m�
Q
a�
n
a�
.1
TO: FRIDLEY H.R.A
FROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY
RE: BILLING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING EXPENSES
SEPTEMBER 1995
ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING:
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD
COMPUTER OVERHEAD
(For Micro & Mild computers)
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING
OPERATING EXPENSES:
I
Account Ws for
HRA's Use
Account #'s for
City's Use
14,96725 101 - 0000 -341 -1200
267.83 101-0000-336-3000
194.42 101-0000-336-3000
460--0000 -430-4107 15,429.50
POSTAGE BY PHONE
262-0000-430-4332
25.31
236-0000-336-3000
POSTAGE BY PHONE
460-0000-430-4332
36.72
236-0000-336-3000
US WEST — TELEPHONE SERVICE
460-0000-430-4332
13.60
236-0000-336-3000
DEDEN TREE SERVICE — STUMP REMOVAL
455-0000-430-4340
105.45
236-0000-336-3000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
BENEFITS EXPENSES:
CITY OF FRIDLEY — HEALTH INS 262-0000-219-1001 182.40 236-0000-219-1001
CITY OF FRIDLEY — DENTAL INS 262-0000-219-1100 20.53 236 -0000- 219 -1 100
CITY OF FRIDLEY — LIFE INS 262--0=-219-1200 3.50 236--0000-219-1200
TOTAL BENEFITS EXPENSES: 206.43
TOTAL EXPENDITURES — SEPTEMBER 1995
FW:%12WATA%HWnF0LLJNG.wkl Details
C I
P
+
+
U1 Im
i
+
ca
2
r
'
+
W
2
+
+
'
�
+
+
pOp
O
O
O
O
O
r +
M
N
W +
+
V +
+
�
W
OC +
+
i
+
+
I.- +
+
�
LU
W �
+
O +
+
Iw
�
d +
W
in
d
an
W
+
J
o-Vi
W
r
N
tu
=
a
UA
r
i
i
rr
o
Q
'
P
2
N
V
O
W
W
N
W
i
i
2
an
OC
2
'
OC
ZM
r
d
O
O
H
H
6K
W
M W Fy•j
+
OG +
J
Z
r
N W
V
UA
�
i
D
CL
H
2
Z
H
2
tu
i
W i
O
IOA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
09
N
in
O
O
Ny1
O}}
W
i
2 i
N
O
M
�O
O
r
A
0
+
NMf
+
+
i
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
x
O
O
O
O
M
O
2
W
i
O
+
N
+
N
N
+
PO
+
PPo
+
%
+
O
m
z
+
N
N
A
A
N
(�
W
r
+
+
+
Y '
LLS
�
z �
CA
I(1
'
O \
V
N_
N
00
;
OC i
N
�
gn
i
11fl
Y01N
O
O
O
O
r
�8N
'
+
y
W
W
P
J
OCJ
+
W +7
W
J
tn
C W
i
<
OG
gad
�aW
g
O
P
p
P
m2oe
rd:
r
H
W �
an
n
GOGt
h ,
C
p
O
O
O
IL IL
n
r
J ~ M
6
F
CL an
M
C2
rr
5A
n
e
O Z
LU
O �
93 i
d
pW �
O �
U �
Y �
a �
Q �
m .
. Z
I O
I
r
I d
I
I V
W
. p
I
I
M M
W P p. I
I
p •O
a O I
Q \�
o I
O / U W
OC I.- I W m
a U% : v
a
In i N
N
Y N .
U \
W P .
S I
U I
IL
\ ne I
Q I.. I
2 I
LU
a. Z
M OJ 0
a
W
N p I
W 4
N OC I
2
�p Q
O O r
\ N N
r9R
aWW
J
sw OCO:
SL d d
u�
LU 4c
21,
U p
NMO.0Of�(1P ��1'•NO 0jM O1�O�WtONOMMoOOI�A .NO IHN
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PIAtiU, OI• f0y� .O�t=4 LMn=Ny�RM•OOr- C� OP
P�MIMA O�PPI�N• -N•-O Ncorw= Nf0O�Oti
O fO.O NM r �P M N
N
r r N >
NN S-J U IS W .OW 0
aa U N
A YO« r NWO> )~J NO Q
O 01(a V aWM 1-Q &U Go I-
00 L JW NW OS O2 . O
r SC, .OQm fD mr L. N_O •y a- w HN ~
x e 01.0 \ Q F V �. tV J Ooe Z W
41 •- O O E 01 r W O a d' W 'p W 47
H f0 •r �N 01 -• r OC 1--M C7 IL IL CpaJ Z
Z 7U�fD rW L cX d.+dW •NW.EJ Q
L IDS . C 01 fp I t0 L. d N J W OC
C 01 > ►. rr m = LHQ W 0 Z.Tdole W9
W O N O f0r Nr U a p H Ge N WI-N W
. •- �t . $ CC C I d W ZW WEP 1a.Z w F
Jr0 fAJ 7-i =Ol JppS.�COWJQq&n LU—aZ Q
J fO 01M JL JON 0IY QQW R'E C9QQ 12 R11C p
O OY O'r•OOd O O W I x7 r- WQm u �r
MM L-W QM 1p C dr L 010 f7F-W I-W 11 -O W Z
>-L CE Y O-'o 0 al O>.�oC -O QYdJ_gN dF9YM•+
d .... 010 -0 d w ccQ��a JaCLZ.Cmww -j WgzQNCa –J1MAd
tititititiLnLnLMMI.i.LnLnLn LnLnLnLngn'IngnU%UNInU%%Ln
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U
U Z U
Z W «+ Z
-H W 2 p -I.-
U0m i tO7 J O O7
Z ..nM ~ OZ W 2 Y W U6 OC ~O
W F H 2 E M Q W Z • I- I.- .-. U
W MC9N me I- W.. efIW MZFM
M W_ a a Lug N N- > Y N W a W
QW •-•03E ul0 OCLLJHNZI.- LLOE
Z MHU Lu I- WMOaN w=a 0 UW. -.C7
Ja U4 CMQF>- AM N ON W Q MMZf7
YOC OC •+(�
LOU HQ -0 FOZ HW •- •>-FI --
I
aQ0 HOZ FW J OF
I- W me fn M W N gguj c dN I Z NUN M W Z
mQ J op !N QOOC Q Q Ud O d N or MM.+
Z fn 8e, QI- U6iNa000' » W e!I K
Y' Q QF O U HZ }J«+Z1~ QH�d
W aa p ca Q S N pµ!a M J W F Q
JY af7 C4 UWd0W >SQJQS W W N..J N$ 8SF
2ww2w Ofo2 •I.- 6]�Gc ZUNZ pm OH•-•
HIL ix UZWZ0; - 20u*wwm MUZfl•
MM WM W •Z•+• -� SZO�Z QOQW m •Z�
IL Q M t9 S«+ r J Mad OE Q CO fn fn tSW U. 1ES r.-• OOOCCC
l-/-l- P{-l- l- l- Pl- •- l- P.- l- l- Pl- l- r�- rrrr� -r
NNNNN\NNNNNNNNN� \p� \p�\p ,`p .\p . \p. \p. \p. \p��\pp..\pp..\pp •O
NNNNN NNNNNNNNNOOCS •O .O .O .O .O.O OCyOO
O\• O\• O\• aa0\• O\• O \IO\•O\•O\•O\IO\•P0000000000OOO
Prl- rl- ctrl -rPr�
4
E::7 Community Development Department
Frn=l HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: October 6, 1995 `/�,_
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding Sale of a Poo e n of Lot
at 533 Janesville Street NE, and App
Resolution Authorizing the Sale Thereof
As you recall, at the September HRA meeting sstaff presented
djoining a
proposal to convey a portion this property to
homeowners. The conveyance will return the lot boundaries to the
original plat lines and still maintain enough land for a
buildable site.
The HRA approved the sale of approximately 11375 square feet,
subject to approval of a lot split. The lot split will be
considered by the Planning Commission on October 18th and by the
City Council on November 13th.
The public hearing is required by state law before the HRA can
convey the site. The adjoining property owners have agreed to
pay $875 for the land.($.60 per s.f.) plus reimburse the HRA for
all legal and and survey resolution costs
i are olved in the A copy
of the survey d
We have provided an outline for the HRA to use when conducting
the hearing.
Hearing Outline
1.
HRA Chair to
request
motion to open public hearing.
2.
Staff presentation.
3.
HRA Chair to
ask for
comments from HRA Commissioners.
4.
HRA Chair to
ask for
comments from general public.
4.
HRA Chair to
request
motion to close public hearing.
A
Sale of Portion of
533 Janesville Street NE
October 6, 1995
Page 2
Recommendation
If there are no adverse comments during the public hearing, staff
recommends that the HRA approve the attached resolution.
GF/
M -95 -522
RA I
f
K
BRA RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SALE OF A PORTION
OF LAND LOCATED AT 533 JANESVILLE STREET NE
WHEREAS, The Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the
"HRA") is the owner of a vacant parcel of land legally described
as Lots 15, 16, 17, the southeasterly 20 feet of Lots 52 and 53,
and the southerly 15 feet of Lot 54, All in Block E, RIVERVIEW
HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota (the "Property "); and
WHEREAS, the HRA has determined that it no longer needs a portion
of the Property for redevelopment purposes; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has been contacted by John Koehler, 528 Kimball
Street NE and John Olson, 538 Kimball Street NE (the "Buyers "),
both of whom have expressed interest in purchasing a portion of
Property to combine with their lots.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the Fridley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority as follows:
1. The Chair and Executive Director are authorized to execute
documents for the sale of Tract D and E as described in
Exhibit A -2 to the Buyers.
2. The price of the land shall be $600 for Tract D and $225
for Tract E to be paid in cash at time of closing.
3. The Buyers also agree to reimburse the HRA for any legal and
survey costs involved in the sale of Tracts D and*E, also to
be paid in cash at time of closing.
4. The sale of Tracts D and E are contingent upon City Council
approval of a lot spilt request which is currently pending.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN
AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1995.
ATTEST:
WILLIAM W. BURNS
AR
LAWRENCE R. COMMERS
Exhibit A -1
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SATE I:?f
`I;I DLI:.y �. �' .�. 9 - IRON M
BEARINGS Ak
CERTIFY T",%T TN$$ SURVEY. FLAB ac $EMT KURTH SURVEYING. INC. ASSUMED OAT
uREG RY WE GR UNDER MY DIRECT SUMVYSIOR 4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E.
I AM I _ FOIST awREtoR uoEa THE 21 768 -A HEIGHTS. 61 55421 _�
iff T� {4 GFI,A,QIewE �. (6121 76S -9789 FAX !UN. 788 -7602 �. ---r —= c�+4 �•+ �-`
T 1 4 009 pttw
SOTA REGISTRATION NO.207,?0
,
J
yal: bP�r.
I.
T
d
5`C
PRoPOhG -17 VA%t 1ov- `��►BT7��(ISlo�t Qt-I.:
L.oTS IS-1-1'r i1 -5(oI PJLQCFC I y R \vC -�VTCw �16�C -IH�S�
C1Ty or-
,be
G SLICE % 2 OF Z 511 ET5 Fob
LGt_ L UG�c ti 5 `hAc- T\ of
1 1
Exhibit A -2
CERTIFICATE OF
SURVEY
KURTH SURVEYING,
ST.
INC.
N.E.
I HEREBY CER71FY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT
IAS PREPARED BY MY OR UDDER MY DIRECT SURVERVISION
KIN OR
4001 JEFFERSON
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.' MN.
33411
WD J S SAM A D1J YEREGIS��® LAW SURVEYOR UNDER
�7A
`�U 1� IS 1 O
(8111 788-9700 FAX 1813)
Ck -ZO -9 S
788 -7009
DATE
SCAL 1 • -
I NNESO A REGISTRATION NO .W Z-la
o - I RON MONUMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TRACT A (Existing
John Olson Property) - Lot Area = 7230 Sa. Ft.
Lot 51 and that part of Lots 52 and 53, lying northwesterly of the southeasterly 20.00 feet thereof.
All in Block E, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TRACT B (Existing John Koehler Property) - Lot Area = 7875 Sp. Ft.
Lots 55 and 56 and that part of Lot 54, lying northerly of the southerly 15.00 feet thereof.
All in Block E, RIVERVIEW-HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TRACT C (Existing H.R.A. Property) - Lot Area = 9625 So. Ft.
L.ots.15, 16, 17, the southeasterly 20 fect of Lots 52 and 53, and the southerly 15.00 feet of Lot 54.
All in Block E, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TRACT D (To be added to Tract A - Olson Property) - Lot Area = 1000 Sq. Ft.
The southeasterly 20 feet of Lots 52 and 53, Block E, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
.LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TRACT E (To be added to Tract B - Koehler Property) - Lot Area = 375 Sg Ft.
The southeasterly 15 feet of Lot 54, Block E, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED TRACT A (Tract A & D combined) - Lot Area = 8250 Sg. Ft.
Lots 51, 52 and 53, Block E, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED TRACT B (Tract B & E combined) - Lot Area = 8250 Sa. Ft.
Lots 54, 55 and 56, Block E, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED TRACT C (Remaining parcel after splits) - Lot Area = 8250 Sg. Ft.
Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block E, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka. County, Minnesota.
I
r _
i
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: October 6, 1995
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA 4
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution to Approve Contract for Exclusive
Negotiations with MEPC
At the time of agenda preparation, MEPC was still reviewing the
most recent draft of the agreement that was distributed at the
September meeting. An update will be provided at Thursday's
meeting. Chairperson Commers was also to be contacted to review
any issues of concern. A resolution is required to approve the
contract. A copy of the resolution and the contract will be
mailed on Monday if all of the issues are resolved.
BD /dw
M -95 -525
7�
C% Community Development Department
D HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: October 6, 1995 cl
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of the HRA X
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Contract for Preparation of Traffic,
Noise, and Air Study, and Preparation of Indirect
Source Permit Application
Background
The HRA at its September 14, 1995 meeting authorized Linda Fisher
from Larkin Hoffman to initiate Phase I of a process to complete
the necessary environmental studies and permits in order to
construct the Highway 65 roadway improvements. Since the HRA
approval, Linda and I have met on two occasions and determined
the following:
1. A new environmental assessment worksheet does not need to be
completed; however, staff will need to prepare a significant
record for City Council approval that will show that there
is no significant changes in environmental impact since
1985.
2. A new indirect source permit application, however, will need
to be filed with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Although Fisher attempted to obtain a modified or renewed
permit, she stated that the HRA did not have a sound basis
to have the original permit renewed or modified.
Proposed Contract with Benshoof and Associates
In order to complete a new indirect source permit application,
traffic, air, and noise analyses must be completed. Benshoof and
Associates had previously completed the traffic analysis for
Woodbridge in 1985. Because of their familiarity with Lake
Pointe, Benshoof was asked to submit a proposed contract to
complete this task. Benshoof and Associates will complete the
traffic portion of the analysis and David Braslau and Associates,
Inc. will be completing the air and noise analysis.
81
s>
t
Preparation of Traffic, Noise, Air Study
and Preparation of Indirect Source Permit
October 6, 1995
Page 2
The analysis will be completed in two steps. Step 1 will focus
primarily on traffic and transportation issues. The previous
permit issued in 1985 permitted construction up to 200,000 square
feet without improvement to Highway 65. Part of Step 1 will be
to test this assumption once again. It needs to be tested again
because we need to determine the increase in traffic over ten
years and determine if a first phase construction could be
completed without significant highway improvements.
If Step 1 indicates that a first phase development can be•
adequately accommodated without upgrading Highway 65, then Step 2
will address air and noise issues after completion of the Phase I
development, and also, after full completion of the development.
If a first phase development cannot be completed, then air and
noise analysis will be conducted just for after the full
development scenario.
Proposed Cost
Page 18 of the proposal outlines the costs of the two step
process. The contract would be cheaper if the air and noise
analyses is just completed for the entire development ($21,500);
however, staff recommends that the higher contract amount be
authorized so that if MEPC can bring in a first phase
development, we would want the traffic, air, and noise data
prepared for the MPCA to confirm that we do not need to do the
Highway 65 improvements ($25,400).
Next Steps
Fisher and I will continue to prepare the documentation to
document why a new environmental assessment worksheet is needed,
and also investigate any other required environmental permits.
In the meantime, Ron Peterson has inspected the site for any
potential wetlands under the recent Wetland Conservation Act, and
his report will be forthcoming.
Linda Fisher will be preparing a report on her work to -date, and
I hope to have that to the HRA by Thursday's meeting. Fisher
will submit another estimate of legal services to complete the
task of obtaining the indirect source permit and other required
approvals.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the HRA approve the attached proposal dated
October 5, 1995, at a cost not to exceed $25,400.
BD /dw
M -95 -521
612 832 9564
BENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No. 612 832 9564 Oct 05,95 13 =49 P.02
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC -
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
7301 OHMS LANE, SUITE 5001 EDINA, MN 554391 (812) 832 -9m / FAX (812) 832 -9584
October 50 1995 REFER TO FILE
Ms. Barbara Dacy
Community Development Director
City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.B.
Fridley, MN 55432
RE: Proposal to Assist in Addres=9 Traffic Needs and Obtaining New Indirect
Source Permit for Lake Pointe Development
ry
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT NMMS
As a follow-up to our recent discussions and meeting, this to pr y our
proposal to assist the City regardingg the Take Pointe deed Wm SPA
role will be to resolve pertinent ttac questions and to assist is obtaining anew
Indirect Source permit for the project. We understand that the City would like to
accomplish these steps now in order to expedite the development process.
We are excited about this opportunity to build upon the work we performed on this
project almost 10 years ago in order to help the City fulfill its current development
objectives for this property.
The remainder of our proposal is presented in the following sections:
• Project Team and Qualifications
• Approach
Work TWO
Work Schedule and Cost
Conclusions
PROJECT TEAM AND QUALVICATIONS
95 -51
We propose to accomplish this project through an integrated team consisting of our
firm and the firm of David Btaslau Associates, Inc. Our team has performed numerous
projects together during the last 12 years, including joint efforts to obtain Indirect
Source Permits for 10 other projects. We have completed related projects for several
other major office developnnmts, including: Sc�Med Company headg in Maple
Grove, office/retail development on the Sears property in Minneapolis, Mounds View
Business Park in Mounds View, and Eagan Heights Commercial Park in Eagan.
612 832 9564
BENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC
Ms. Barbara Dacy
TEL No. 612 832 9564 Oct 05,95 13:49 P.03
-2-
October 5, 1995
Our firm is very familiar with the traffic related issues and needs for the Lake Pointe
Corporate Center because we performed the traffic forecasts and analyses in
conjunction with the prior development plan and Indirect Source permit for this
pro ect. For further background purposes, our firm has been in business since 1982
anT has focused on providing traffic engineering and umisportation planning services
for numerous public and private organizations. We have provided ongoing services for
several municipalities, including Eden Prairie, Hopkias, and Minnetonka. We have
effective worlang relationships with MPCA staff as evidenced by our assistance in
obtaining multiple amendments for the indirect Source Permit for the Eagan Heights
Commercial Park.
David Braslau Associates, Inc. (DBA) has been working in the area of transportation
air duality and noise analysis since 1971, soon after passage of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The firm worked cloudy with the newly formed Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency in the adoption of State noise standards and the development
of the Indirect Source Permit Rule. The firm also prepared the initial State
Implementation Plan and Transportation Control Plans for maintenance of air quali ty in
the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. That study involved extensive evaluation of CO
monitoring data and related traffic flows in downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis. DBA
has worked closely with MPCA staff is the review of ISP Applications and has
minimized the need for additional work and delay in the I AW=t Source Review
F
process.
Two other items that demonstrate RBA's dspecia> qualifications to participate in
completing this project for the City of Ridley are:
The firm has assisted in the traffic and air quality studies and preparation of
buhrect Source ot u��m downtown
Minneapolis and throughout the Twin Cities Area
DBA has a uired the CALQVIEW software developed for the state of Florida,
Which provi es an improved interface for intersection air quality analysis as well
as graphical depictions of the intersection.
APPROACH
Three principal objectives for -our work are: 1) effectively address all traffic questions
regarding the planned development, 2) Vve tn issuance of the Indirect Source Permit
and 3) minimize the cost of our work. ems t hat we will stress in order to
effectively accomplish the preceding objectives are:
Gain a sound understanding regarding the issues and needs regarding a
new Indirect Source Permit for this project. We already have accomplished
a substantial portion of this effort through recent discussions with Barb Dacy
and Linda Fisher and also through Bea►shoof s work in 1985/86 to obtain the
earlier Indirect Source permit for ibis project.
Take a conservative postare in terms of identifying prospective
development on the property. in this context, it is important to preserve
flexibility for the City -either to have a complete office development (as in the
prior permit) or to have primarily office with some commercial development.
To preserve such flexxibility, the scenario with both office and commercial uses
will be used for analysis purposes because that smario would generate more
traffic. A P l
612 832 9564
BENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No.
Ms. Barbara Dacy
612 832 9564 Oct 05.95 13 =50 P.04
-3-
October S, 1995
Make full use of prior related studies and available data in order to
expedite completion of our work and to save costs. To this end, we will
make maximum use of our work on the prior Indirect Source Permit and also
will utilize other Xap prlate r esources, including: traffic volume data collected
by the City and volumes and analyses developed on University Ave. for
the Home Depot project.
Coordinate closely with City staff and Unda Fisher in completion of our
work. Just as Benshoof and Braslau staff will work closely together, we, place
major importance on being part of a broader City te8rin. We will communicate
closely with all other participants to ensure that our work is effectively
integrated with overall City efforts for the Lake Pointe project.
. Address the relevant issues in a careful and thorough manner. To expedite
issuance of a permit by the NWCA, we have learned that it is highly important
to provide close attention to detail and to prepare the Indirect Source Permit
Application in a complete and concise manner.
Another 1m)► aspect of our a roach is that we will complete our work in two steps.
Step one will focus on and will have the specific purpose of determining whether
a first phase of development can be adequately accommodated by the existing roadway
system, without any roadway improvements being implemented. The second step will
involve completion of the air and noise analyses, preparation of the Indirect Source
Permit Application, and follow - through with the MPCA to obtain an Indirect Source
Permit for the project. If step one indicates that a first phase of development can be
adequately accommodated without any new roadway improvements, then step two will
address air and noise implications for two scenarios: 1) after completion of the phase
one development and 2) after full completion of all development. If step one indicates
that roadway improvements are needed to accommodate even the first phase of
development, then step two will address air and noise implications only for the
condition upon full development of the Lake Pointe property.
WORK TASKS
A comprehensive two-step workprag�am has been developed to effectively accomplish
the City's objectives, including timely iissuance of a new Induct Source Permit for this
project.
Step I - Conom PmJeet Work Plait acrd Complete Initial Dggk Studies
1.1 Initial team meeting
A meeting will be held with Barb Dacy and Linda Fisher to confirm the work plan and
schedule and to confirm the specific characteristics of the project. One key item to be
established is the expected year of completion for the development.
1.2 Site visit/receptor site identification
Items acconTlished under this task include: a review of the development concept plan,
visit to the site, evaluation of the intersections to be analyzed, and selection of air
quality and noise receptor sites.
sn
i
• 612 832 9564
BENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No. 612 832 9564 Oct 05.95 13:51 P.05
Ms. Barbara Dacy -4- October 5, 1995
1.3 Review previous studies
In addition to our prior work regarding earlier plans for the Lake Pointe Corporate
Center, we will carefully consider all other related studies, including
analyses on University Ave. associated with the proposed Home Depot development.
1.4 Meeting, with MPCA staff
A meeting with MPCA air quality and noise staff is deemed essential for establishing
the final eters of the study and to agree on the issues and level of detail to be
addr for the Indirect Source Permit Applicadm
1.5 Refine work scope as needed
Based on the preceding tasks, including meetings and reviews, the work scxlpe will be
refined as needed.
2. 1.. Collect pertinent background information
Items obtained will include:
- existing traffic volumes from the City, County, and Mn/DOT
- codes of related traffic studies and forecasts
- layout and traffic cane designations for intersections to be analyzed
existing traffic signal timing parameters.
any additional development or roadway Improvements anticipated to be
completed by the year after completion of the Lake Pointe development
2.2 Collect additional data
Based on our understanding of the project needs and of data presently available, we
anticipate that we will need to collect the following traffic data:
Traffic turning movement counts during the a.m. and P.M. peak periods at the
intersection of T.H. 65 and West Moore Lake Dr.
Survey during the a.m. and p.m• peak periods of northbound traffic on T.H. 65
between 1-694 and West Moore Lake Dr. to record weaving movements
involving westbound traffic on 1-694 that turns to the north on T.H. 65 and then
turns to the west on Moore Lake Dr. The survey will record the extent to
which such weaving movements presently occur and the extent of any current
difficulties.
2.3 Analyze existing traffic Conditions
The purpose of this task is twofold: 1) to determine the existing quality of traffic
service provided on roadways near the site and 2) to determine whether the existing
roadway system, without any new innprovetnents, has available capacity to such an
accommodate a first phase of development on the Lake Pointe property.
opportunity is available, we will quaatify the approximate size of a first phase
development that could be atx�mmodatod by the existing r�dway system. The
preliminary results from this task will Lga; wed with Barb Dacy and Linda Fisher.
QC
612 832 9564
RENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No.
Ms. Barbara Dacy
612 832 9564 Oct 05,95 13 =51 P.06
-5-
2.4 Prepare brief memorandum to document the results of step one
October 5, 1995
The principal purposes of this memorandum are to aPOW staff and the City Council of
progress to date and to confirm the plan for completing our work. A particularly
important item is to obtain a decision from the City whether to proceed with a phase
one development under the existing roadway system or whether to anticipate that
roadway improvements will be needed before the first portion of the development is
completed.
Step 2 - Complete Traftie, Air, and Nolae Aa*Ses, Prepare Indirect Source Permit
Application, and Obtain Indirect Souse Permit
For the p se of all the analyses under this task, it is important to note that the work
will be performed according to one of the following two scenarios, depending on the
outcome from step one:
a) Analyses for loth a phase one development condition and full development.
This will apply if the outcome of step one is to pursue a phase one development
without improvements to the roadway system.
I
) Analyses for just the full development condition. This will apply if the outcome
of step one is that roadway improvemenf are needed in order to adequately
accommodate even the first portion of development.
3.1 Prepare traffic forecasts
A.M. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts will be developed for the appropriate
development condition(s). These forecasts will address all key intersections and
roadway segments, including the weaving situation on northbound T.H. 65 between
I-694 and West Moore Lake Dr. Traffic forecasts pre)ared for previous traffic studies
in the area will be utilized to the extent that they pertain to this project and that they
will save time and cost.
3.2 Complete traffic analyses
Capacity analyses wilt be performed for all key intersections for the a.m. and P.m.
peak hours. Also, an analysis will be performed regarding the weaving condition on
northbound T.H. 65 between 1-694 and West Moore Lake Dr. If any difficulties are
identified, candidate mitigation measures will be developed and discussed with Barb
Dacy and Linda Fisher. To the extent neoessary, such candidate improvements also
will be discussed with Mn/DOT and County staff. The outcome of this task will be the
planned roadway system which will be utilized for subsequent air quality and noise
analyses.
$- . •. i!
4.1 CO background determination
Available CO background dam will be reviewed for the purpose of establishing
background levels for this project. We • - "" __ with MPCA staff to seek their
concurrence in using available data or 6 Q C ues. For budget purposes, we have
612 832 9564
BENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No.
Ms. Barbara Dacy
612 832 9564 Oct 05 , 95 13:52 P . 07
n
4.2 Emission and dispersion modeling assumptions
October 5, 1995
Assumptions as to vehicle parameters and vehicle mix, Veedst cold starts, and
meteorological meters will be developed for this task.
4.3 CO modeling and impact determination
CO emissions and dispersion modeling will be performed using the US EPA MOBILE
5A emissions model and CAL3QHC dispersion model. Co background will be added
and the overall concentrations compared with ambient air quality standards to determine
whether any mitigation measures may be needed.
4.4 Evaluation of mitigation measures
Should needs be idenfflled for air quality measures, such needs will be reviewed with
Barb Dacy and Linda Fisher, and subsequent CO modeling will be performed following
development of potential mitigation measures. It is assumed far budget purposes that
no extensive roadway modifications or supplemeotary analyses will be needed.
5.1 Determination of EAs ft Noise Levels
Existing noise levels will be estimated using the STAMINA highway noise model.
Based on these exiling noise levels and the project characteristics# appropriate receptor
locations will be established for subsequent .analysis purpvses.. In order to realistically
evaluate the potential for noise impacts, limited noise monitoring will be performed at a
pie of sites. This will establish existing levels# as well as provide a basis for
confirming predictions of the highway noise model.
5.2 Future noise levels
Noise levels will be projected at" sensitive receptors identified in Task 5.1 for the
appropriate development condition(s).
5.3 Compare with previous studies
Predicted noise levels will be compared with State noise standards and any appropriate
City standards to determine whether any noise mitigation is newt. For budget
purposes, it is assumed that no extensive additional noise mitigation or analysis will be
necessary.
!1 1 . i
6.1 Existing and future land use
Existing and future land uses in the project area will be identified for inclusion in the
Indirect Source Permit Application.
6.2 Zoning and comprehansive plans
Zoning and com rebensive curreie t►me of 51P adoptidn) in the .
P i� 4 .. _• RG �'T.,a:�.,... o....�..e parm:t Annlimkf nn.
612 832 9564
BENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No.
Ms. Aarbara Dacy
6.3 Transit senlices
612 832 9564 Oct 05 , 95 13:53 P-08
-7-
Available transit services in the project area will W described.
6.4 State Implementation Plan/Conformity Issues
October 5, 1995
The relationship of the project with the State Implementation Plan and air quality
conformity issues will be addressed in this task.
. .�. rm.n,
7.1 Draft Indirect Source Permit APPlication
A draft Application will be prepared with appropriate text, graphics, and supporting
material.
7.2 Review with cliadmake revisionslsubmissian to MPCA
The draft Application will be reviewed with Barb Dacy and Linda Fisher to determine
wbat charges or additions, if any, will be needed. The Application will be revised as
needed and then submitted to the 1v�i for their review.
7.3 Liaison with MPCA in review process
The Application will be reviewed with MPCA staff to expedite their review. Answers
to questions related to the Application will be provided or directed ro staff
parties for response. Supplementary information will be provided to MP as
needed to complete their review.
7.4 Preparation of Draft Fact Sheet and Permit
i£ desired to expedite MPCA review
A draft Fact Sheet and Draft Permit be prepares .
and issuance of the Permit. A review of the draft Indirect Source Permit will be made
to ensure consistency with the proposed project.
WORK SCHEDULE AND COSTS
From a scheduling standpoint, we are committed to comppleting this work in an
hedulin objectives. Specific
reduit:fsor manner aad d�tvvo Rnll be i4ed in conjunction with Barb Duey and
sc steps one an of each
Linda Fisher at the beginning step'
From the standpoint of cost, our principal objectives are 1) to fully meet the City's
expectations regarding the traffic study and Indirect Source Permit and 2) to accomplish
this work at minimal cost. In order to estimate the overall project cost, projections
have been made regarding person hours by category needed to complete each task.
Standard hourly rates then were applied to estimate labor costs.
RH
612 832 9564
BENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No.
Ms_ Barbara Dacy
612 832 9564 Oct 05,95 13:53 P.09
-8-
The resultant estimated total costs by work step are as follows:
Step 1
Step 2
PL) if analyses arc performed
for both phase one and
full development conditions
ba if analyses are performed
just for full development
condition
Total estimated
project cost
CONCLUSIONS
$6,700.00
$18,700.00
L^ �
$14,800.00
October 5, 1995
$21,500.00 - 25,400.00
We are pleased to bear about the renewed development intcst in your Lake Paintc
project and are excited about the opportunity to assist in meeting your development
objectives. We have applied c01M arable effort to prepare a proposal that will fulfill
i
the city's nterests. We look forward to hearing, your comments and to establishiag
arrangements for our joint efforts to complete thus Protect-
Sincerely,
BENSH F & ASSOCIATES, INC.
.Ties A. Benshoof
4
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Bac=ound
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
October 6, 1995 �/
William Burns, Executive Director of HRA.4
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Potential Loan Program for Horizon Drive Residents
In 1988, approximately 14 homes in the area southwest of I -694
and University Avenue experienced foundation cracking The City at
settling problems as a result of drought conditions.
that time completed a general analysis of the soils in the area
and conducted a neighborhood meeting to provide the residents
with the recommendation as to how to proceed with repairs to
their foundations. Some homeowners have been able to repair
foundations; also varies not
depending on any
the locatio intensity
of the problems n
Potential Recruest
The owner at 148 Horizon Circle NE has contacted the City Council
requesting the HRA acquire his property because he believes that
his foundation wall cannot be repaired. Mr. Rafferty, the owner,
has submitted a building permit application to repair cracks in
the north side of the foundation wall. The building code
requires submission of a plan, signed by a structural engineer,
to identify the repairs to the wall and to certify as to its
compliance with applicable codes. Unfortunately, the engineer
that Mr. Rafferty contacted is unwilling to provide such data
because of his concern about the nature of the damage. The
Building Inspection division and other City staff are working
with Mr. Rafferty to determine other options in order to issue a
permit to Mr. Rafferty. An initial cost to repair the foundation
has been identified at $30,000.
In the meantime, the question was raised about the ability of the
HRA to provide some type of assistance to the owner through its
existing housing programs or possibly to develop a specific
package sthe or Fernelius has sent a letter
to the owneroutlin the requirements of our existing programs
G
•
Loan Program for Horizon Drive Residents
October 6, 1995
Page 2
and asked Mr. Rafferty to contact us with specific information
about his financial issues. Once we have that information, it
will be easier for us to determine some options for HRA
consideration.
Potential Issues
If it is determined that Mr. Rafferty can receive a building
permit, and if it is determined that our housing programs cannot
meet his needs, the HRA may need to consider providing a specific
package for Mr. Rafferty. Because other homes in the area are at
a varying degree of severity for rehabilitation, it is difficult
for staff to predict if another request is likely to be made to
the HRA.
We are bringing this issue to your attention to obtain initial
feedback acknowledging that we don't have much specific
information to present. The house is in good condition and does
not warrant acquisition under our housing replacement program.
Conclusion
No action is necessary at this time, but any type of feedback is
welcome.
BD /dw
M -95 -527
r� �
l
Community Development Department
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: October 6, 1995 k
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA j�
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Southwest Quadrant Update
Vice- Chairperson Schnabel attended the City Council work session
on Monday, October 2, 1995 to discuss the costs associated with
the construction of the condominiums for the Southwest Quadrant.
After a long discussion, the City Council tabled further
consideration on the item until their conference meeting on
October 16, 1995.
In the meantime, we have learned that the commissioners have made
a determination on one of the three apartment properties. The
HRA did settle with Tennenbaum and Bialik, and now the Keefe
property is resolved. The award on the Keefe property was
$272,620, which is approximately halfway between the HRA's offer
and the owner's demand. The HRA offer was $250,000, and the
owner's demand was $310,000.
Prior to Thursday's meeting,
of the acquisition costs and
for the Southwest Quadrant.
presented to the City Council
BD /dw
M -95 -526
I will provide an updated analysis
how that relates to the total budget
This information will also be
at its October 16, 1995 meeting.
10
TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER 4 4p--
BARBARA DACY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SECOND TEMPORARY BOND ISSUE FOR THE LAKE POINTE
SITE
DATE: September 28, 1995
As you recall, three years ago the City of Fridley issued the following bonds: $4,030,000
General Obligation Temporary Tax Increment Bonds. These bonds were issued to provide
funds for the transitional ownership by the HRA to acquire the Lake Pointe property, in
order to stimulate development.
The bonds will mature on December 1, 1995. Staff has been working with Springsted Inc.
to set up the final three year issue that is allowed. The terms of this issue are the same as
the one it is replacing. The Bonds are being structured as a temporary issue with early call
provisions. The earliest call date on these bonds will be May 1, 1996.
Staff has provided to the City Council a Resolution that will set the sale of these bonds for
October 23, 1995.
RDP /me
11
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1995
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the September 14, 1995, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, Jim
McFarland, John Meyer, Duane Prairie (8:30
P.M.)
Members Absent: None
Others Present: William Burns, Executive Director
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Jim Casserly, Financial Consultant
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
Craig Ellestad, Accountant
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 10 1995 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING•
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve the
August 10, 1995, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes as
written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY-
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO SOUTHWEST OUADRANT DEMOLITION
PROJECT NO. 281
2. ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 12 1995 TO CONSIDER
DISPOSITION OF VARIOUS HRA LOTS AND TO AUTHORIZE RFP FOR
SALE OF HRA LOTS
3. CONSIDER ACQUISITION OF 530 HUGO STREET N.E.
4. CONSIDER EXTENSION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR WHITNEY HOMES
5. SOUTHWEST QUADRANT BUDGET UPDATE
6. MONTHLY HOUSING REPORT
NIP
c
e °
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 2
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the
consent agenda as presented.
Mr. Commers stated the check register indicates a payment of over
$15,000 for soil testing for 540 Hugo Street. He asked what that
expenditure was for.
Mr. Ellestad stated check #25674 includes four expenses. This
expenditure consists of approximately $5,500 appraisal work for
the Suh property, $1,000 appraisal for the Suh property fixtures,
$338 for soil testing, $257 on the process, $3,000 for the
demolition of the Suh property, and the remainder for remediation
at the fast food and gas station site. The computer system
prints only the first line of the description for the summary
report due to the limited space. The computer breaks this down
into the proper items.
Mr. Commers asked why they do not have the balance of the.$12,000
additional expenses in the Southwest Quadrant budget for
September.
Mr. Ellestad stated the budget shows figures through July. This
is due to the time that information must be submitted for the
agenda packet. Those expenses will be included in the report for
next month.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ACTION ITEMS:
8. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICT REFERENDUM TIF RETURNS
Mr. Commers stated this is something the HRA has been doing for
several years. He thought everyone was familiar with the
background. The amounts were provided in the agenda packet.
Mr. Ellestad stated the funds are payable in 1996. The City
receives the money the first part of July and makes the first
payment to the schools in August. This is for taxes payable in
1996.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the HRA would be paying the same amount in
1996 as is 1995.
Mr. Ellestad stated yes, there have been no changes.
Mr. Commers stated the issue is that this is voluntary versus the
needs of the school districts. The HRA tries to maintain a
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 3
relationship between the City and the school districts.
Mr. Meyer asked if other districts in the state also returned
funds to the school.
Mr. Casserly stated there are approximately six communities that
return funds to the schools.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the
School Referendum Levy disbursements as presented.
Mr. Commers stated he is beginning to feel uncomfortable from a
financial point of view. With all the expenses that the HRA is
incurring from all of the projects in which the HRA is.involved,
he is concerned. Personally, he thinks it is a good thing and
they should try to continue, but he cannot support it this year.
Mr. Meyer stated, if next year others share the same view,
perhaps we should warn the school district that we are seriously
contemplating not continuing this.
Mr. Commers stated he felt Mr. Burns kept the school district
informed.
Mr. Meyer stated, several years ago, there was discussion where
the superintendent made a strong appeal that we continue because
of their budget.
Mr. Commers stated our approval is very important versus the way
they budget. It has a significant effect. What we are voting in
the fall of 1995 affects their 1996 school year.
Mr. Casserly stated the legislature has been looking at ways of
not giving the school districts credit for what it is that you
advance to them. If you are going to do this, do it this year.
This is something to watch carefully. If the school districts
are not getting credit and this is being deducted from their
state aid, then nothing is to be gained. This is not in effect
at this time.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. SCHNABEL, MR. MEYER, MR. MCFARLAND,
AND MR. PRAIRIE VOTING AYE AND MR. COMMERS VOTING NAY,
CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE.
9. CONSIDER RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION OF HOUSING
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND HOUSING REPLACEMENT DISTRICT
Mr. Fernelius stated staff has been working on this for some
time. During the past legislative session, the legislature
passed a special law which authorized the cities of Fridley,
Crystal, Minneapolis and St. Paul to create housing replacement
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 4
districts which allows each city to recoup a portion of the costs
involved in acquiring and demolishing vacant and substandard
housing with the intent of replacing that housing with market
rate single family housing.
Mr. Fernelius stated some of the provisions are such that the HRA
can designate up to a maximum of 50 parcels or homes over a 10-
year period; however, no more than 10 homes can be designated in
a year. The new taxes generated by that home can be captured for
15 years. In order to designate the parcel as substandard, there
is a test which must be met. There is specific language in the
tax increment statutes.
Mr. Fernelius stated some of the benefits are that this helps to
address the substandard housing problem in the City and allows a
means to recapture some of the costs besides land sale income.
Another benefit is that it is less cumbersome to administer than
the tax increment financing program and the City is not penalized
through local government aid.
Mr. Fernelius stated staff is asking the HRA to adopt the Housing
Replacement District Plan and to create Housing Replacement
District No. 1. Assuming the HRA concurs, the City Council would
hold a public hearing on October 2 and consider final adoption on
October 16. The program could then begin in 1996.
Mr. Commers asked what the funding is now of this program.
Mr. Fernelius stated a parcel would be designated. The new taxes
generated are what would be captured over 15 years. The amount
of money is not significant, but it does allow the HRA to recover
some of the costs involved and continue to make future
acquisitions. In that respect it is similar to tax increment in
that we collect taxes over a period of time.
Mr. Commers asked if this were included in the current budget.
Ms. Dacy stated the budget has scattered site acquisitions. As
parcels are identified for the program and new lots are sold,
then the increment starts coming back.
Mr. Commers asked if this was then formalizing the scattered site
program.
Mr. Casserly stated this is in effect trying to recover some of
the investment in the scattered site housing program. The tax
increment act was very cumbersome. A tax increment district
needed to be created for each parcel. This program also
eliminates the local government aid issue and establishes a way
to do rehab and to capture the entire value of the structure.
There are some other options than'3a tax increment financing.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14 1995 PAGE 5
MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the
Resolution Approving Adoption of a Housing Replacement District
Plan and Creation of Housing Replacement District No. 1.
UPON A VOICE VOTEp ALL VOTING AYE,, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY OUTLINE OF AGREEMENT FOR
LAKE POINTE PROPERTY
Mr. Casserly distributed copies of a Contract for Exclusive
Negotiations with MEPC.
Mr. Burns stated the issues as outlined in his memo dated
September 8, 1995, have not been resolved. MEPC did provide a
mission statement with which they are satisfied. The original
proposal did not say what MEPC's objective was in developing the
site. We know their primary interest is in being an owner and
manager of buildings, but what about the situation where someone
wants to a build -to -suit project or wants to. purchase land to
develop. It occurred to him that MEPC needed to clarify their
main objective in a mission statement which they provided.
MEPC's main objective is to build and manage /lease buildings, and
they indicated they were willing to build -to -suit and to sell
parcels to third parties.
Mr. Commers asked if they would be in control as to whether or
not they would.decide whether to sell or build -to -suit.
Mr. Burns stated they did not get that far to say how that would
be resolved. This is a preliminary development agreement.
Another issue was parking. Their language seemed to imply there
would be surface parking and perhaps structured parking as
necessary. He would like to turn that around and draft language
to recognize that we want the primary parking to be tiered or
structured parking, but during the early stages of development we
would allow surface parking until the density requires structured
parking.
Mr. Burns stated two major issues were the length of time of the
contract and the price of the land. We wanted to shorten the
term of the contract so that it would end on July 31, 1997,
rather than December 31, 1997, and that there be an interim check .
point in July, 1996. The checkpoint would not be used to hold
them to developing a number of square feet or to start
construction, but to examine the things MEPC said they would do
in marketing and planning for the site, the functions of
development, and determine whether or not they would do that. In
July, 1997, we would evaluate the actual amount of development
that has occurred and decide whether or not to give MEPC
additional years for development.
d
F �
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 6
Mr. Burns stated the last issue is.the cost for the property.
They came in with some general language which would have us give
them the property. There is a 25 -acre primary parcel and an 8-
acre parcel. MEPC's original proposal would have us give them
the 25 -acre parcel and provide them with the second parcel at a
50% markdown from market value. Mr. Casserly and he thought we
should finesse the market price issue and get a preliminary
agreement that allows time to resolve this. We have not had a
lot of time to work with MEPC. Mr. Casserly was in contact with
Mr. Jellison today.
Mr. Casserly stated he had asked MEPC to send what they thought
they would like to see in an agreement. In reviewing, we thought
we did not know enough to be so definite on such things as the
purchase price and other issues. We are suggesting to MEPC what
is in the Contract for Exclusive Negotiations. In this contract,
we are saying we will not negotiate with anyone else. As long as
they perform, we will continue to work with them to put together
a development agreement and try to sort out these issues.
Mr. Casserly stated there are two fundamental issues. The first
is what can go on the site. We know what we want, but they have
suggested a process where they will come back with what they
think the market will bear. They will develop a master plan
around that. This is good and needs to be done, but to do design
releases and a purchase price based on a master plan that does
not exist is difficult. We have worked on several formulas and
concluded that we will put in language that we will negotiate in
good faith, include criteria that the purchase price will be a
function of the density and use, build -to -suit, and sale of lots.
We will make a statement that, as the density increases, we will
reduce the purchase price because of the parking needed.
Mr. Casserly stated, if you go out and try to market, do the
analysis, and it turns out that what you can develop is a 350,000
square foot, single story facility, you will not need parking.
You could sell the land for $3 or $4 million for that use and
have no costs for parking. If there is 600,000 to 700,000 square
feet of office space, we will need millions of dollars for
parking, and our underlying assumption has always been that we
will adjust the sale price of the land so the developer can
afford to build the parking. We need to.know if that is
possible. In their agreement, they had a purchase price, the
term, and a renewal option. This is a contract laying out a
number of circumstances, and we have tried to shift the emphasis.
He did not know how MEPC will respond.
Mr. Casserly stated Mr. Jellison said they would be meeting with
the managers from around the country next week, and he will be
highlighting this project in order to develop some national
interest. A copy has been sent to their attorney and to MEPC,
HOUSING S REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 7
and we are now waiting for a response.
Mr. Casserly stated we are taking the HRA and City Council's
direction to work with MEPC to get what we want, but there must
be some master plan in the process in response to market demands.
MEPC must start a process to which we interact.
Mr. Commers requested staff to continue working with them until
they come up with something with which Mr. Casserly and Mr. Burns
are comfortable. Then the HRA will look at it.
Mr. Burns stated the objective is to bring back an agreement for
the October 12 HRA meeting for formal action. HRA members were
asked to contact Mr. Burns if there was anything in the proposed
contract on which they wished to comment.
Ms. Schnabel stated, on page 5 of the proposed contract, the last
statement, states, "Recommend changes to City ordinances to
facilitate development consistent with the Master Plan."
Mr. Gasserly stated he tried in the draft to incorporate MEPC's
suggestions. If MEPC comes back with a master plan that does not
conform, then we could recommend the City change some of those
things to conform with the master plan. They had the City and
HRA signing off. The City is not a part of this and will not
agree by ordinance to changes.
Mr. Commers asked if the master plan was similar to a planned
unit development.
Mr. Casserly stated this was his basic understanding.
Mr. Commers asked if there was a problem with a planned unit
development.
Ms. Dacy stated, in terms of the zoning or a master plan, it is
the same thing. The property is zoned S -2 which essentially
permits a waiver.
Mr. Meyer asked how this contract compared to the one established
with the previous developer for the property.
Mr. Casserly stated there is no relationship. We are in a
different position with being the owners of the property. That
is what is making this relationship different. They have no
holding costs or investment in the site. All of this is really
operating in good faith. We want to get interest as soon as
possible and want to maintain control. They had said we would be
responsible for any environmental costs but we cannot accept
that. On the other hand, we have stated we would accommodate any
public improvements. These need to be part of the master plan.
f C
HOUBING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 8
Ms. Dacy distributed copies of a letter dated September 14, 1995,
from Linda Fisher, for Larking, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.,
regarding Lake Pointe.
Mr. Commers stated he thought the MEPC proposal stated they would
obtain all the necessary permits and approvals for the project.
Mr. Casserly stated this is something that needs to be done
jointly.
Ms. Dacy stated, regarding the Lake Pointe intersection, she
wanted to provide an outline of what it would take to get an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), obtain an indirect
source permit approval, and other issues needed to be done in
order to accomplish those permits. In the future, there will be
more costs than what Ms. Fisher is proposing.
Ms. Dacy stated the first is the environmental requirements. In
order to get the development served appropriately, we need an
intersection. In order to have an intersection, we need to know
what-is going on in the development. There are a number of
environmental requirements. We must have an EAW, an indirect
source permit from the MCPA to look at the air and noise
pollution as a result of the development, and miscellaneous
permits.
Ms. Dacy met with Ms. Fisher to discuss the best strategy to
obtain these approvals. Ms. Fisher is proposing a two -phase
process. The first phase would focus on a strategy to get the
EAW and the indirect source permit process outlined. Her
estimate of costs is $5,000. In order to update those analyses,
there will probably have to be a traffic study. A traffic
consultant did a study ten years ago. With the changes over
time, we will need to get some better estimates. We will have to
hire a specialist to do the air and noise analysis. Also, the
state has a wetland conservation act so we will need to review
the site for any wetland issues. She felt that would cost less
than $1,000. Ms. Fisher stated the MPCA has a fast track
process. MEPC has a list of contract consultants who will review
the application in order to speed up the process. The cost for
this is approximately $5,000.
Ms. Dacy stated the second phase is to implement what they have
come up with. We would review what they want submitted first.
Then Ms. Fisher would give us another estimate to act on our
behalf.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is asking the HRA to authorize Ms. Fisher's
proposal for $5,000. She will come back in October with a better
estimate on the traffic analysis and the air /noise analysis, and
a better estimate on the fast track costs. We need a lot of
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 9
information to see how long this will take. If we start now, we
can come back in October with more information. There may be an
opportunity to share some of these costs with MEPC.
Mr. Casserly asked at what point in the process do we have to
conclude that we have to complete the intersection. How does
that interact with the indirect source permit?
Ms. Dacy stated the original permit stated that, she believed, up
to 300,000 square feet could be completed without the permit.
Ms. Fisher thought we could propose a similar approach.
Mr. Casserly asked when we need the interaction of MEPC in the
process.
Mr. Commers asked if they should get approvals before going
forward with MEPC.
Ms. Dacy stated that may be a possibility. The east side of the
intersection is very congested at peak hours. The City Council
is receiving pressure from the public in that area to evaluate
doing something. There is some amount of concern from the
neighborhood on that issue. MnDOT is proposing to do
signalization improvements at the intersection. That raises a
cost efficiency issue. Should we tell MnDOT to hold off until we
can get the development going, but in the meantime the traffic on
the east side gets worse?
Mr. Commers asked if the study would include the east side of
Central.
Ms. Dacy stated the intersection design did include the east and
west sides and provided turn lanes on Highway 65.
Mr. Burns stated the general thinking has been that we expect
there may be a very long review process associated with this
project. Regardless of when the development initiates on the
site, it would be wise to start the review process so that, when
the first deal comes through, that prospective user does not have
to wait for another review process.
Mr. Commers asked how much do we spend prior to knowing when
there will be development. We can put a significant amount of
development on the site without altering the intersection. We do
have years before we need to actually alter the intersection.
Mr. Burns stated that may be true. The City Council seems to be
divided as to when the intersection should be done. All agree in
suggesting that we move forward to get through the permit
process.
T
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 10
Ms. Schnabel asked, if we are going to require MEPC to have a
building underway by a certain date, are we not obligated to at
least get our analysis of the intersection done so that we can
proceed.
Mr. Burns stated yes. This would be fitting with their
expectations.
Ms. Schnabel stated, if MEPC consents to the proposal, we are
saying by July, 1997, we want to see something. That is 1.5
years. If it takes one year to get approval, that gives us 6
months to implement it. We would have to stay on a good
timetable to move this along and be prepared to provide an
intersection in 1997 or 1998 depending on the size building
constructed.
Mr. Commers stated he is not suggesting that we not go along with
the analysis, but he is raising the issue of the next phase.
Mr. Burns stated no one knows what MEPC's plan will look like.
Based on what they have said, it appears that they are going to
give strong consideration to the existing plan. In going back
and asking for the permits, we have some assurances that the
plans will look something like the one we had in the past.
Ms. Schnabel stated, as she recalled from the intersection plans
to the development, there are new lanes that must be constructed.
There would be a major construction at that intersection and it
would take a number of months to accomplish what must be done.
Yet she also is concerned about how current the data will be by
the time we get to that point.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve the
first phase as proposed in the letter of September 14, 1995, from
Ms. Linda Fisher.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONNERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
INFORMATION ITEMS:
11. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR TIF ASSISTANCE-FOR ARK DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Dacy distributed copies of a letter dated September 14, 1995,
from Mr. Gary Bidne, Executive Director, Noah's Ark Affordable
Housing Inc. She also received a site plan. Mr. Bidne provided
an estimate of costs. In the sources of funds, Mr. Bidne
included the equity of the owner but did not include the
requested amount of TIF and tax exempt bonds.
a
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 11
Ms. Dacy stated the project is similar to what they did in Spring
Lake Park. This project however is not constructed. Ms. Dacy
assumed Mr. Bidne would be requesting a similar amount of money.
The total project costs were approximately $8 million. They got
$1.1 million in TIF pay -as- you -go assistance or $75,000 to $85,00
per year for 15 years. The bond issue was from $5 -$7 million.
They combined their own non - profit sources, tax exempt bonds and
TIF.
Ms. Dacy stated the proposed site is at 83rd Avenue and
University to the west of University next to Springbrook
Apartments. They are proposing a 4 -story rental senior building
with 104 units - half one - bedroom units and half two bedroom
units. The rents would be $550 to $650 per month. They would
hire a management company to manage the buildings that
specializes in senior rentals and in health care to provide
assistance to residents. This is an independent living facility
with assistance available. There will be a common area to
provide space for catered functions. Ark has received approval
from Spring Lake Park and New Brighton.
Ms. Dacy stated, in terms of TIF, she did not have specific
numbers. Staff is asking if the HRA is interested in this
project so that staff can meet with Mr. Bidne to bring back a
more detailed proposal. Senior housing is a permitted use in
this area. There are no planning issues at this point. Having
just received the site plans, she did not know if any variances
were needed. There is a wetland in this area.
Mr. Commers asked how this ties in with Rottlund. The argument
is whether to spend additional money for 30 to 40 units. If we
spent the extra money for 30 to 40 units at the Southwest
Quadrant and this project is 110 units, it seems that we would
get a bigger result for the money.
Ms. Dacy stated one issue is that their TIF request in Spring
Lake Park was very similar if not the same to what Spring Lake
Park provided. In terms of financing, this is a real proposal in
the market. $1.1 million out of $8 million is 12.5% of the
project.
Ms. Dacy stated she did not think there was a market competition.
Their age target is much different. Both would be good for the
community. However, the Southwest Quadrant has a cost issue.
Ms. Dacy stated, in her memo regarding the Southwest Quadrant,
she outlined three options which the City Council evaluated. The
City Council recommends the HRA proceed with the condominium
units.
r -
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 12
Mr. Casserly stated staff is looking for direction as to whether
to continue to explore the concept. It takes between 6 and 24
months to put something like this together. These are tough
projects to do. The proposed project is rental apartments as
opposed to condominiums in the Southwest Quadrant.
Ms. Schnabel asked if New Brighton was rental units and are these
fully rented.
Mr. Casserly stated yes, the units are rental and are fully
rented.
Mr. McFarland stated New Brighton has a waiting list. The price
range is relatively the same.
Ms. Schnabel stated, if the units are for those aged 70 and above
with rental fees of $550 to $650, she thought that was high for
those individuals.
Ms. Dacy stated a certain number of units must be identified for
lower income.. The two bedroom will be higher. There will be low
to moderate rents.
Ms. Schnabel stated the statement was made that this would not
complete with Rottlund. What is the basis for that?
Ms. Dacy stated the developer said that he felt these were two
different types of developments with perhaps a 5% or less market
overlap. She has no data to support that, and it was from the
developer's information.
Mr. Casserly stated these are two different concepts. This is
rental with assisted living. We need to know more. There are
several projects in the northern suburbs that are campus -type
projects. He thought this worth additional discussion. There
are issues to resolve. Mr. Bidne is trying to identify their
package and then bring it to a larger group. There may be others
trying to do other projects. The trend is toward senior campuses
with different components. He did not think there was
competition between this and the Rottlund project.
Ms. Dacy stated she had asked Mr. Bidne if he would be competing
with his own projects in New Brighton and Spring Lake Park. He
felt the demographics show this will work.
Ms. Schnabel stated on the other side, if this was a successful
project, would it leave Rottlund off the hook in doing a senior
component. Would we want to change our thinking regarding a
senior section in the Southwest Quadrant?
a.
4
HOUSING 5 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 14
12. UPDATE ON SOUTHWEST OUADRANT PROJECT
Ms. Dacy stated she has several issues to discuss. The first is
the City Council recommendation on the options for the senior
component. The second is the meeting with Mr. Prairie,
Councilmember Billings, Ms. Dacy and Mr. Stutz where they went
over the proposal Mr. Stutz outlined in his letter of August 10.
Mr. Stutz also submitted detailed information about the 25% gross
margin issue. Since that meeting, Mr. Casserly has also done
additional analysis. She said Mr. Stutz would not reduce the 25%
margin and this was their final offer. The issue comes down to
whether the City and the HRA wants to proceed with the
condominium construction. This is the first option and staff
would recommend that, with this option,.we go for the equity
participation agreement for the project. The second option is to
eliminate the senior components and extend the 8 -unit townhome
buildings. The third option is to terminate the contract for
exclusive negotiations.
Mr. Casserly stated he thought what Rottlund was saying was
reasonably accurate. Another project developer gave costs they
were using and the construction costs they were using was
$76,000. Rottlund was at $80,000 for which they say they must
sell for $110,000 to $115,000.
Mr. Prairie stated they talked about the 255 gross profit. They
had some things included that he thought would be indirect. They
had included 6% for marketing and 3.5% for other indirect
construction costs. This brought the percentage down to about
155 minus GNA, which gives a percentage that is in the ballpark.
They did provide financial statements.
Mr. Casserly stated he also thought they were comparable. He
thought the problem was that Mr. Stutz had used the wrong terms.
There are not gross profits but rather gross margins. In terms
of percentages, the gross margin is after the direct costs. From
gross margins are subtracted the rest of the.expenses.. That
figure is then the gross profit. They were not clear in their
statements.
Mr. Prairie stated, when they did not get a hard number of the
condominiums when they first presented their proposal, they
thought this was not a "hard number" deal. They were just giving
us a concept.
Mr. Casserly stated we must assume that generally people act in
good faith and make mistakes. They came in and said they would
build this many units and pay a certain sum. We were not asking
for that. We took them at their word. There is a way to finesse
a bid. They suggested that we agree on a gross profit margin,
gross profit or net income for the entire project and split 50/50
any amount in excess of that margin. They would pay $200,000,
1/2 of the park dedication fee and 50% of anything in excess of
the margin.
Mr. Prairie stated he did think the HRA could expect a great
deal.
Mr. Casserly stated it was hard to expect much. If what Mr.
Stutz provided was legitimate, their margins are very
If you pick something that is 6.5% or 7 %, that is nt income consistent
operations. That is what they have been showing consistently.
Mr. Prairie stated this is a $16 million project. 1% is
$160,000. He thought they would be more willing to negotiate,
but this was not the case.
Mr. McFarland stated he thought they were successful and knew
what they must have.
Mr. Prairie stated, on the other hand, he hated to see a deal
like'this slip away. There is usually something there.
Mr. Prairie asked if Rottlund had come back with anything else.
Ms. Dacy stated they had not.
Mr. Commers stated we could make a counter proposal.
Mr. Prairie stated, if we go to a second developer, that is 6 to
12 months off of the schedule.
Ms. Dacy stated there is a chance we could find someone during
the winter for spring construction.
Mr. Commers stated we have talked about a different developer
doing the senior condominiums.
Ms. Dacy stated Rottlund is fine with the three other housing
types. They are happy to go with those.
Mr. Prairie stated they were flexible with the changes on those.
Mr. Commers stated, if we do not do it, what do we know about the
remarks that there are other projects that might come on board
that would fill the senior need.
Ms. Dacy stated that comes down to the issue of having owner -
occupied or rental units. She is hearing that the City Council
would prefer owner - occupied units on that property. They have
made a recommendation for approval on the first option.
HRA does not agree, staff will go bacl� to the Council. If the
o
HOUSING S REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 16
Mr. Burns stated part of the information missing at the time of
the Council's discussion was the award of the Suh condemnation
which was higher than what we thought. They also settled with
the tenants which was also higher than expected. Hopefully there
will be a settlement before the end of the year on the Cherrywood
Apartments. It is not clear whether we will be on budget for
this either. The costs for condemnation must be considered. He
did not know if the City Council would make the same
recommendation based on the latest figures.
Mr. Commers stated he could not support the school referendum
issue because of these same issues and these cost overruns.
There are also other projects. He is concerned about the HRA's
abilities.
Mr. Burns stated he also has another project for the Frank's Used
Car site to discuss which he felt was worth considering.
Mr. Commers stated no matter what happens we can see that Lake
Pointe is going to.cost more money now. With all of these
projects, we may have our hands tied.
Mr. Burns stated they had expected to spend money for the
intersection. This has been put into the cash flow analysis, but
it may not be enough.
Mr. Prairie asked if staff had run numbers of all of these
scenarios.
Mr. Burns stated they had not done that. He thought it might be
premature to do that because there are still so many unknowns.
Mr. Prairie asked if there was discussion about the appraiser
that handled the Suh property.
Mr. Burns stated he did not think it was the appraiser's problem.
The condemnation commissioners factored in what we paid for the
Levy property. The appraiser was looking at the value of the
apartment buildings based on the various methods of appraisal.
He was not factoring in damages for condemnation blight.
Mr. Commers stated he had never heard of-condemnation blight as a
legal concept. He asked what Mr. Herrick thought of that term.
Mr. Burns stated he had asked Mr. Herrick to go back to the head
condemnation commissioner and ask how much of the award was for
damages and how much is blight. He did not know if this
commissioner would accommodate the request but Mr. Herrick will
try to do that.
Mr. Commers stated it is proper to do that.
l
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 17
Mr. Burns stated it seems likely that the condemnation
commissioners felt that the numbers offered by the opponents were
more believable. It seemed the thing for the decision against us
was the price paid for the Levy property. They also noted the
taxes were higher on the Suh property.
Mr. Burns stated we also lost on the fixture appraisal. The
commissioners seemed to give more credibility to the opponent's
fixture appraisal.
Mr. Commers asked staff to get an analysis and figure out what to
do. This is more than what we expected. In addition, there is
the apartments.
Mr. Burns stated the figure for the Cherrywood Apartments is
$1.365 million. They have always wanted $1.8 million. We
budgeted $2.1 million for all of the apartments so we will be
over budget for that. They are asking over $2 million for
condemnation. Our appraisal is at $1.224 million. We went up as
high as $1.367 million which gave some recognition for lost rents
and other concessions.
Mr. Commers asked if Mr. Burns thought it would be well taken to
run this by the City Council before the HRA considers this item.
Mr. Burns stated the problem is, if we wait until all the numbers
are in, it will be the end of the year before we decide to do
anything with Rottlund. The issue with the Cherrywood apartments
will not be decided until mid - December. We could use the worst
case numbers. The appraiser was carefully evaluated. He was
used in New Brighton, Richfield, and Bloomington. He came with
high recommendations. There was no reason to suspect we had a
less than highly qualified appraiser.
Mr. Prairie asked if this happens a lot.
Mr. Commers stated, if the appraisals vary by more than 10 %, they
are supposed to be turned into their professional organization.
Mr. Burns stated staff will go back to the City Council to
discuss the HRA's concerns and the concern about the overall
budget. When they discussed, he was not sure they were aware the
budget was in excess of $3 million.
Mr. Burns stated he felt the City Council wants to see a quality
development, they are shy about putting more rental on this site,
and they feel there is a market for upscale senior owner- occupied
condominiums.
Mr. Commers stated the need is limited. There is no need unless
it is subsidized for $800,000. There is not such a need that
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 199S-PAGE 18
people will pay $100,000 for those units.
Ms. Schnabel questioned whether people would want to be on that
intersection. She would not want to be in that high traffic
area.
Mr. Burns stated they would take this back to the City Council
asking the Council to revisit the issue based on the new numbers
on the condemnation.
Mr. Meyer asked what the purpose was in going to the City
Council. They may ask what our recommendation is. Should not we
have some firm view of our own before we go to the Council to
change their ideas? It seems that is what we should formulate.
Mr. Prairie thought with the numbers going up there was a
concern. We are concerned but there are other projects also.
Councilmember Billings sees the HRA as the CFO and the Council as
the CEO. If we tell them we think it will work, he thought they
would go along.
Mr. Meyer stated he thought they should recommend staying with
Rottlund. If there is room for negotiations, that is fine. We
should see what their mix does and see if we can live with it.
Then go with that to the Council.
Ms. Dacy stated, if the HRA does not want to pay the additional
funds, we can extend the townhomes into that corner but there was
less density.
Mr. Casserly stated there would be 122 units rather than 146.
Ms. Schnabel asked what the basis was for including a specific
senior housing on that corner.
Ms. Dacy stated density was part of it, but the majority of the
demand is for.seniors and empty nesters.
Mr. Meyer stated we wanted a focal point for the development
which the senior highrise would provide. It gives a sense of
identity to the project.
Ms. Dacy stated we did not want just another townhouse
development.
Ms. Schnabel stated they could still build that type of structure
but not necessarily limited to seniors. There could be a
building there for rental units.
Ms. Dacy stated the Council does not want rental units.
e
HOUSING S REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 19
Mr. Prairie stated, if you look at a senior buying at $90,000,
the average townhome is $100,000.
Mr. Commers stated perhaps we should look at a subsidy program to
help buy the condominium if the person is below a certain income
level.
Mr. Casserly stated we are getting into a subsidized program for
$100,000 units. We talked about this with Rottlund to provide a
subsidy to the user and then having some arrangement to share in
that subsidy when the unit is sold. Rottlund thought this would
make it difficult to market the units. Buyers purchase property
in order to get the appreciation in value.
Mr. Prairie stated, if townhouses are built and buyers have to
pay $10,000 more, maybe that is an option.
Ms. Dacy stated Rottlund says seniors will not buy the attached
townhomes because they are three -story units. There are too many
stairs for seniors. The option is a.one -story unit which is
$130,000 to $160,000. The other detached townhomes in the
project are two -story homes.
Ms. Dacy asked, if the HRA is uncomfortable with the cost of one
and goes with the City Council's desire of no rental, do you like
the all townhome proposal. If we narrow it down, it is either
all townhome or start over.
Mr. Prairie stated he thought the City Council wants the 48 -unit
condominiums, except there are new figures.
Ms. Dacy stated they can go back to the Council and say that, in
light of the additional costs, the HRA would like the Council to
re- evaluate their decision on the condominiums but the HRA is
reluctantly prefers the all townhome proposal. That would
continue the three-story design up to the corner, then two- story,
and the one - story. There would still be a change in elevations.
Mr. Meyer stated he liked the idea of having a senior presence.
With the townhome situation, there is no designated senior area.
What is the scenario to stay with the 48 -unit condominiums?
Mr. Prairie stated this will end up being $1.2 million over the
original budget.
Mr. Commers stated, at one time, we were trying to negotiate with
Rottlund something in the $400,000 to $500,000 range for 48
units. If we could get the price in that area, we could do it.
We never reached a conclusion.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 20
Mr. McFarland asked if they would recover the difference between
option 1 and 2 because of the increase in density.
Ms. Dacy stated there would not be a cost with option 2.
Mr. Meyer stated we seem to be getting in deeper and deeper. We
acquired the apartments because we wanted a first class
development and to insure success. Now we are here again with
another $1+ million with the same objective of a first class
development. Do we now change the plans or go along and see if
it is possible?
Mr. Commers thought this could be a first class development, but
should it include seniors.
Mr. Prairie thought the second option could be first class.
Mr. Schnabel stated the density would not be as great with this
option. Therefore, visually, it would be enhanced somewhat.
Mr. Meyer stated density would not be as great but it is still
land covered by townhomes. Density is greater with the senior
buildings but with a more identifying symbol of the area. There
is a definition between the commercial and residential. The fact
that townhomes come up to the edge of the street makes it appear
as if houses were put in a commercial setting.
Ms. Schnabel thought the landscaping would have a lot to do with
that.
Mr. Prairie stated the HRA was close to going with $600,000 but
now the ante is raised. It makes this a much tougher decision.
Mr. Burns asked if the HRA was saying they did not want the 48-
unit buildings.
Mr. Commers stated, at $1.2 million, he is getting very
concerned. At that rate, he is more inclined to do 122 units.
He would like to do senior housing because he thought it would
add a lot, but he was not sure they can justify what is
happening. Overall, will this be $5 million by the time we get
done? It is getting to be unbelievable. If it is a question of
another $1 million or $800,000 just to add the elderly, where do
you draw the line? It is very difficult. There is no
compromise.
Mr. Prairie stated he felt the same. He would like to see the
48- units. He wants to see a first class project whether these
units are included or not. If there are more items to come in,
the costs are apt to go up and not down. It could end up to be
another $1.2 or $1.3 million.
s
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14P 1995 PAGE 21
Mr. Meyer stated he thought this is a very important piece of the
City's real estate and felt they should make every effort to do
what he thought would be best for it, and that is the senior
housing in the corner and the rest as planned. He would go for
it and not put something there that might be second rate. If we
do not do it right, it is forever.
Mr. McFarland stated this was not economically viable in the
beginning. We under estimated the costs of the property and the
buildings. We can go with option 2 and have a lesser project and
find other ways to fund. This comes from the surplus of other
projects. We go back to the first day when we projected out the
project, if we knew then what we know now, would we have the same
plan on the board. Would we have gone ahead if we knew we could
not fund it through tax increment?
Mr. Burns stated he could not answer that, but felt they would
have had a much more difficult time deciding to do the project.
Mr. Prairie asked, if they figured $1.2 million is as a
percentage, what is the total number?
Ms. Dacy stated $4,285,000 is the original budget amount. This
included all the new expenses and acquisitions. This did not
include the fast food site, Dairy Queen, or the Levy property.
Mr. Prairie stated the total is about $6 million. If we are off
by $1.2 million, that is 20%. If we took their figure of $16
million, it is a lower number. What is a reasonable percent to
be off?
Mr. Commers stated the bottom line is that, when we are talking
$5 to $6 million for the kind of development we are putting on
that property, it is a heavily expensive deal.
Mr. Casserly stated these are redevelopment costs. You are
talking about whether to subsidize Rottlund on the condominiums
or sell the land. It is hard to go back and try to calculate the
costs.
Mr. Schnabel asked, if you have $6 million into it and put up 146
units, what is the cost of those units.
Mr. Casserly stated they will decide on the housing later. This
was planned to be a mixed use, multi - purpose development.
Putting up various types of commercial and other kinds of uses is
putting up a lot of value on this site. With the way we tax
homestead, it is not generating revenues.
Ms. Schn4*1 stated she felt as if they were on a runaway train.
Where (Joprq, It stop? If we are going to be responsible, at some
n -
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 22
point we have to say that perhaps we need to stop.
Mr. Casserly stated redevelopment never breaks even.
Ms. Schnabel stated, while the intent to do the senior housing is
important, that is not the only piece of property in the City
where one can build senior housing. While we want to provide
senior housing, we have other responsibilities. We must be
fiscally responsible as well. If this was the last piece of land
left, that would be one thing. But there is more land left.
Perhaps this is something we have to give up.
Mr. Commers asked the number of acres at the Frank's Used Car
site.
Mr. Burns stated, assuming the acquisition of two properties next
to that property, there would be approximately 2 acres in that
area.
Ms. Dacy stated they should perhaps then pursue the Ark
development.
Mr. Meyer stated, of the places in the City, this is where the
amenities are within walking distance for the seniors. That is
important. If we put this somewhere else, we can still have
overruns in costs. This way, it serves the purpose of giving
seniors a facility and is an identifying landmark which he
thought would benefit the development.
13. UPDATE ON HYDE PARK PROGRAMS
Mr. Fernelius stated the information meetings will be held next
Tuesday and Thursday. CEE will put on a presentation about the
programs, have staff available to answer questions and have loan
applications available. We has not heard what the turnout will
be. He is optimistic that a significant number of property
owners will be there. He will have more information at the
October meeting. CEE put together the materials at their own
cost and mailed it out to the home owners.
OTHER BUSINESS:
14. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSES
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the
additional expenses totalling $26,159.16 as submitted.
UPON A VOICE VOTED ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONNERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 23
15. CONSIDER OFFER TO PURCHASE A PORTION OF 533 JANESVILLE
STREET
Mr. Fernelius stated staff is proposing a lot split. The parcel
at 533 Janesville actually includes a portion of the lots behind
it. Some of that is due to the age of the property which
predated the plat. The house has been demolished. The neighbors
at 538 and 528 Kimball have approached the City about purchasing
that portion of land which, so to speak, encroaches on their
lots. The area consisted of a 20 foot x 50 foot area, or
approximately 1,000 square feet, on Lots 52 and 53, and a 15 foot
x 25 foot area on Lot 54. This would create a non - conforming lot
under the City code at 533 Janesville. The reason for the
request is that the other owners wish to square off their lots.
Right now, the backyard fence is about 10 to 12 feet from the
house. It does make sense to sell that part of the property; but
it does present a problem for us with a resulting non - conforming
lot at 533 Janesville. The two owners have proposed to pay 60
cents per square foot which is consistent for what we have been
paid.on average through the scattered site program. The owners
have also agreed to cover all other costs involved in the lot
split. Staff recommends the HRA approve the sale of the land,
subject to the following:
1. The buyers agree to cover all costs incurred by the HRA
involved in the transaction.
2. A public hearing concerning the sale to be held by the HRA
on October 12, 1995.
3. Approval by the City Council of a lot split and a lot area
variance.
Mr. Commers asked if reducing the size of the lot at 633
Janesville would be a problem.
Mr. Fernelius stated the lot is now considered non - buildable.
This would create a larger parcel for the adjacent owners. The
property could be sold for construction of a new home with a
variance. This could solve some issues dealing with the backyard
lot lines.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to move forward
with the proposal as outlined.
UPON A VOICE VOTEF ALL VOTING AYE# CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. NORTHCO
Mr. Casserly is talking about a 100,000 square foot building off
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 24_
University and Osborne. The problem is dealing with site
correction. They have had estimates for $1.5 million in site
correction and to relocate a storm sewer. He would like to know
if the HRA is interested in assisting with the site corrections.
He has talked to them about the approach we had taken with Agro -R
in which we provided a grant of 5% of the project cost and a loan
of 5% of the project costs. If the concept is worth discussing
further, we would be talking about $350,000 in assistance - one -
half a grant and one -half a loan. This would assume the HRA
would establish a tax increment district that would be
appropriate. This will generate some revenues for the City and
for the program. All the expenses are eligible expenses. Tax
increment generated in a districts with a 100,000 square foot
building would be almost $700,000. The HRA could pull out the
costs for administration. The HRA would have ample funds in the
district to make the loan and grant and would also get back
approximately one -half of the assistance package and the loan.
This is the kind of project, if it makes sense, where there is no
net loss but rather a net gain. He asked if the HRA wanted to
provide this kind of assistance.
Mr. Commers asked what kind of building was proposed. 01 °
Mr. Casserly stated the building would have to be a
manufacturing, warehouse, or distribution type of building. The
HRA can only create a economic development district for that type
of a project.
The consensus of the HRA was to continue to discuss the project.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to adjourn the
meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONNERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1995, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary