Loading...
HRA 02/05/1998 - 6296y > E HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1998 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC COPY (Please return to Community Development Dept.) CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5,1998,7:30 P.M. AGENDA LOCATION: Council Chambers (upper level), Fridley Municipal Center r z.�a�n • • A u January 8, 1998 •• Consider Appointment of Remodeling Advisor ................. 1 Consider Application for HOME Funds ....................... 2 - 2C Consider Application for MHFA Cities Participation Program .......................... 3-313 Consider Professional Services Agreement with Robert Gerloff Residential Architects ..................... 4-4P Claims and Expenses ..... ............................... 5 - 5B F;1%W613 i� Consider Agreement to Development Contract with MEPC American Properties, Inc ......................... 6-613 Consider Preliminary Plans for Minimum Improvements.......... 7-7F Consider Project Plan and Revised Site/ Master Plan for Lake Pointe Technology Center, MEPC American Properties, Inc ............................ 8-8G 57th Avenue Reconstruction Project ......................... 9-91 Council /Board & Commission Survey (to be distributed at meeting) OTHER BUSINESS 01 CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING $ REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JANUARY 8, 1998 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the January 8, 1998, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Lary Commers, Jim McFarland, John Meyer Members Absent: Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie Others Present: William Bums, Executive Director Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Jim Casserly, Financial Consultant Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator Rick Pribyl, Finance Director Robert Rosholt, Fridley School Board Dan Mehleis, Fridley Schools APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 11 1997 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the December 11, 1997, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. APPROVE 1998 HRA BUDGET 2. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHOR17M. AM.RRR ANn i IRP nl= WPA 3. CLAIMS AND EXPENSES Mr. Pdbyl stated Mr. Ellestad had outlined additional expenses for approval in his memo dated January 8, 1998. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve the Consent Agenda and the additional expenses as outlined in Mr. Ellestad's memo of January 8, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Commers stated page 3A lists a number of entries under 094 called November settlements and asked what those represented. Mr. Pribyl stated those are tax increment revenues coming in and are listed by the district number. - ACTION ITEMS: Ms. Dacy stated the HRA and City Council initiated this policy in 1988 where the HRA has been reimbursing the four school districts within the City some of the tax increment funds as a result of the levies that have been passed since that timeframe. This is a discretionary policy by the City. She stated a spreadsheet listing the payments to the school districts was included in the agenda. Staff recommends that for 1997 the HRA agree to reimburse the school districts #11, #13, #14 and #16 based on the amounts identified on page 4A of the agenda packet. Mr. Pribyl stated this agreement is for taxes payable in 1998. In the past, this item was before the HRA earlier. Mr. Commers stated a listing of the various tax increment projects is attached to the agreement. He asked what changes there had been. For example, it looks as if there are a significant number of projects in school district #16, less active projects in #14, and #13 has been greatly diminished until Lake Point comes on. How were the calculations made to determine the district amounts? Mr. Pribyl stated these are estimates. They are based on the 1997 estimates with some increases that they know to be taking place in some of the districts. The majority of the value is in district #14. District #16 increased approximately 9/10 of a percent. They do not have the tax capacity available at this time. Ms. Dacy stated the Paschke district is very small in TIF district #5 which has since expired. TIF district #10 is not producing any type of increment at this time. While there seems to be more tax increment districts in school district #16, they are smaller. Mr. Pribyl stated the majority of the value of the projects is in school district #14. The school district #16 projects are much smaller in scope although there are more of them. Ms. Dacy stated that in the future, the Industrial Equities and the Minnesota Commercial Railway projects may change that picture to some degree as will Lake Pointe. Mr. Pribyl stated the HRA would not be seeing those dollars passing through there because they are mandated levies which are automatically passed on to the school districts by the County. Recent legislation has caused the referendum levies to be passed directly to the school districts themselves. This is for the new districts. The only discretionary levies the HRA has pertain to older levies and older districts. This probably dates back into the 1985 -86 era. The newer districts are controlled by the newer legislation that forces the County to pass those levies directly to the schools. a, Mr. Commers stated a number of the tax increment districts listed were dated after that date. Mr. Pribyl stated it depends on the date of the bond issue, the date of the levy, and the date of the district itself. There is a section of the statute which outlines three different - criteria that have to be evaluated in and by themselves. These criteria must be evaluated in each and every circumstance. Mr. Commers asked who makes the calculations Mr. Pribyl stated he and Mr. Ellestad make that calculation. The bond counsel goes through and develops which levies are those that they can use to calculate these discretionary levies. It is a combination of the bond counsel and staff going through these. Mr. Cassedy stated they are taking current law and applying it retroactively to determine what could have been paid in those districts if the current laws would apply. Because these are discretionary, staff is coming back to the HRA and saying these can be transferred under the current standards. Mr. Commers stated the HRA has been returning these moneys before the law was changed. Mr. Pribyl stated he thought 1988 was the first year. He thought that was the first year an agreement was developed and then the law came into play. Mr. Cassedy stated that with the changes coming into play, the HRA probably would not want to be including any amounts because the legislature imposed penalties on tax increment resources. At some point, you have to look at class rate reduction impact because you will be receiving less increment. Mr. Commers stated that as he understands it, at this point the HRA is assured there is no offset for the amount of refund of tax increment against any educational credits that the State would otherwise have paid the school district. Mr. Cassedy stated this is correct. Mr. Commers stated he thought at one point he understood that for each dollar returned there was some kind of offset against the credits from the state. Mr. Cassedy stated the legislature was threatening to do that but did not cant' this forward. Mr. Dan Mehleis stated he was the director of administration for school district #14. Mr. Rosholt stated he was a member of the District #14 School Board. At a recent Southern Anoka County Community Consortium meeting, they talked about housing. The School Board went to the community in 1995 asking for a bond referendum. One of the things they said to the community was that, if they pass the referendum, this would '• 6'1l Z Wmnelaia NUENUNIUK i positively affect the housing and community of the Fridley area. His question at this meeting was if they had told them the truth. He received an overwhelming response that the answer was yes. The work that is done at the schools has a significant effect on the area. This is a terrific school district. The partnership developed with the City and other organizations in Fridley has made the schools effective and efficient. People are working together. They are thrilled with the cooperation they have seen with the City and the - HRA. Is the tax increment financing important to them? Yes, it is. The financing is very important. The School Board looks at how they can make the school district something the City and community can be proud of. The School Board appreciates the support. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve the 1998 school referendum levy TIF return agreements. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A Mr. Commers stated a copy of the agreement has been provided. They had talked about, if there is a tax deficiency and the developer falls short, they have the right to reacquire the property or right of reverter. Mr. Casserly stated that would be accurate the way the contract now reads. He received a call on that issue. MEPC has three problems to discuss. Normally, you would not secure a tax deficiency by right of reverter. It allows you to go after the developer as you would go after any kind of debt. The procedure for a deficiency is to notify the developer of the shortfall. If they do not pay it, you would have the right to bring action against them for the shortfall. They have not secured a shortfall with mortgages or any other kind of security. This is secured with the contract itself. Mr. Commers stated that in Mr. Cassedy's memo dated January 2, at the end of the first paragraph where you talk about the right of reverter and non - performance, it seems to talk about the right to protect the redevelopment. Mr. Casserly stated this is correct. One of the issues MEPC called about was the length of time the right of reverter would be effective. Generally, the right of reverter is effective until a certificate of completion is issued. By the time a certificate of completion is issued, the building is constructed and the HRA would not have the right of reverter for the fully improved property. Mr. Casserly stated the provision is supposed to be structured so that after the property has been conveyed to the redeveloper, there is a series of things that allow the HRA to exercise the right of reverter. The reasoning for that provision is that the HRA has conveyed the property and has received consideration for it. The reason for conveying the property is that the HRA wants the property improved, and MEPC has agreed to put up a building of a certain value. If they do not do that, the HRA has the right to go back and recovery the property. Mr. Commers stated that if there are unreasonable delays in performance, the HRA could HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., JANUARY-8-1998 PAGE also stand to lose payments at the time of assessment. Mr. Casserly stated the assessment agreement will have this as one of the conditions for closing. That will be effective January 2 of the year following completion or 1/2/2000 whichever occurs first. MEPC is assuming it will take 9 to 12 months to complete construction. If they start this spring, they hope to have the building completed by the end of the year. It may go into the year 1999. If that is the case, there would not be full valuation until 1/2/2000. There would be some increase for 1999. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Casserly about the tax increment financing he put together, when he started accumulating taxes. He thought it was a year earlier. Mr. Casserly stated this may have been a year earlier. They did these based on a series of scenarios based on different construction assumptions. On that particular one, they may have assumed construction in 1999, assessment valuation in 2000, and taxes payable in 2001. Mr. Commers stated that as it stands now, an assessment agreement of a minimum value of $6 million would go into effect the year following issuance of a certificate of completion which we would anticipate to be 1/1/2000. Mr. Casserly stated that would be the latest. If the building is finished in 1998, they issue the certificate of completion. This would then be effective 1/2/1999. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Casserly to explain the change in the earnest money. Mr. Casserly stated this was the second issue MEPC had called him about. MEPC has used a format on a number of their projects which they wanted the City to follow. He tried to incorporate as many provisions of MEPC's format as he could. One of the provisions in their approach is a series of things that are contingencies. One of their contingencies is approval by their board of directors. When he finished review of MEPC's documents and tried to integrate various documents, he came to the conclusion that on most of these transactions the developer should have a given period of time in which to do their due diligence and MEPC should then agree to buy or not. Because of the mechanics of how MEPC is doing this and because of the structure of their organization, they need to do an extensive due diligence and then bring it to their board of directors to get a final approval. In effect, MEPC's purchase agreement is really nothing more than an option to purchase. He thought they might as well play reasonably straight forward. If it takes another 3 or 4 months to complete the survey, the title, the environmental, the preliminary planning, and whatever else must be done, then tthey should draft it that way. If they do not close by May 1, then they no longer have a deal. Mr. Casserly stated MEPC called him back and asked that for the $15,000 of estimated costs for the various kinds of expenses that the city and HRA may incur, they wanted to know if we would return to them the unused portion of the $15,000. He thought this was reasonable and stated he would bring this up to the HRA. Most of the work has been done previously; however, there will be issues. Mr. Commers asked what costs would be included in the $15,000. Mr. Casserly stated this would include his costs after the execution of the redevelopment n HOUSING & REDEVELOP_ MENLA- UTHORITY MTG.. JANUARY 8.1998 PAGE contract. They have a lot of work to do in anticipation of closing. In other cities, costs that are incurred after the redevelopment contract are costs that are included. They will also need to talk with staff to see if any other expenses will be incurred. Mr. Commers asked why MEPC would wait until May 1. This seems like a long time assuming they must have been doing work up until now. - Ms. Dacy stated the due diligence process means getting approvals. MEPC must go through the plat process by the city, and there are minor applications for special use permits for which they will be applying to the Planning Commission in February and to the City Council in March. That is an aggressive schedule. The closing is actually set for April 1. Mr. Commers stated he thought that the rezoning had already been taken care of. Ms. Dacy stated the master plan was approved in 1996, but the property has not been officially platted. The roads are there; but because the Weir development did not go through, the final plat was not created. The plat process will create a legal description for the 9.18 acres for the tech -flex space. The remainder of the property will be platted as outiots. It will plat the right -of -way for the roads and plat the correct right -of -way for the Lake Point Drive intersection. A boundary survey is completed which the City has transmitted to MEPC. MEPC is incurring expenses to plat the entire property even though they are only developing 9 acres. Mr. Casserly stated the City does not have a lot survey which MEPC must have. That would have to be surveyed. Mr. Commers asked if there are any remaining environmental issues. Ms. Dacy stated, no. The City has completed the required assessment worksheets and has a pending indirect source permit with the MPCA. She did not anticipate any additional expenses. Staff has transmitted everything to MEPC's attorneys office. Mr. Commers asked where the provision was that relates to the HRA's issue regarding the control of materials used in the development. Mr. Casserly stated this is an issue that needs further clarification. They can do this indirectly by the approval of construction plans and preliminary plans, and they can do this more directly by simply including an attachment with the quality and type of materials. They have not had that discussion yet. Mr. Commers stated one thing that bothers him is that they are tying the rest of the development to whatever is done on this property. Therefore, it is crucial that they understand what kind of quality is going to go into the first building if the rest of the buildings will be bound by it. Ms. Dacy stated page 14 of the development contract outlines the process about the preliminary and final construction plans. She understands that this agreement applies to the tech -flex building on the 9 acres. It does not establish standards for the buildings on the remainder of the property. MEPC wanted the HRA to work with them on establishing 0.- OUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG.. JANUARY_ 8.19 minimum standards or restrictive covenants so that additional buildings are at minimum equal to or better than the tech -flex space they propose to construct. The preliminary plans for the building would be before the HRA at their February meeting. Mr. Commers stated this is what bothers him. When they go to the ongoing agreement with them for the marketing of the property, the restated contract contains a provision, - 6.1 E, which would provide that any excluded party shall not be in the business of developing sites for lease or sale unless they conformed to the revised master plan, the architectural standards or controls, and any agreements between the redeveloper and the authority regarding the site development issues. He believed this means that whatever standards are set on this first building, even excluded parties would have to conform to those standards. Ms. Dacy stated at this point there is nothing that is saying that the tech -flex space and how it is designed is the standard. MEPC wants some type of restrictive covenant or document that says these are the standards. The goal is to get a quality, attractive development on the tech -flex space and then on the remainder of the property that is cohesive. If they have a excluded party coming in or if MEPC comes in, this must tie together. Staff would support that request to clearly identify what those standards are, what the expectations are for the remainder of the property, and to do that this year. Mr. Commers stated he agreed theoretically. When he read this, if party B decides to develop 250,000 square feet of space, whose standards are they going to be bound by - MEPC's, the HRA's, or their own? Ms. Dacy stated she thought MEPC wants to coordinate with the HRA such that a document is recorded against the property so that if party B comes in, they have to abide by what is on the title. Mr. Commers asked if they thought they should give up that flexibility. He thought they wanted everything to be conforming and /or somewhat similar, but he was not sure they wanted to give up the flexibility of determining that. Mr. Casserly stated he thought everyone is going in the same direction. They need to design a set of restrictive covenants. From MEPC's perspective, their fear is that, if there is a downturn in the economy, then the HRA would allow a development that is of lesser quality than theirs. They want some kind of commitment that future developments will be of the same or higher quality. They have not sorted out whether they want an architectural control committee or have the HRA review. He has not sorted out what the structure should be. He thought they could arrive at standards that will not be less than a certain level. The HRA will have final approval. MEPC is as worried about it as the City is.. It would be difficult to have standards in place by the time they start construction. They could comment to entering into standards that are acceptable to both parties with the understanding that the standards will not be less than what they are constructing. Mr. Meyer stated the wording states: " ... shall submit to the Authority preliminary plans." The architects and engineers must draw up plans. The typical three phases of drawing preparation are the schematic design, design development, and construction documents. Under these circumstances, it would be ideal to define them as design development drawings where the drawings show some detail but also go into the materials. In the OUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., JANUARY 8.1998 PAGE design development phase, the architects must submit drawings and specifications. That is an ideal time to review the plans. It would be interesting to pin it to the design development element. That would define pretty well what they could expect to see. He would suggest the wording, "design development phase drawings as defined by the America Institute of Architecture (AIA) documents ". Ms. Dacy stated she thought MEPC was very close to that with the drawings that the HRA will see plans at the February meeting. Mr. Casserly stated he will define preliminary plans and make that reference. He also thought they should put in a schedule of what they think will be a part of the minimum improvements. Mr. Commers stated this is important when they will be developing the other two or three pieces of property. The improvements made to the property must meet a minimum standard, but they want the flexibility so they do not have disagreements between this developer and an excluded party that may want to come in and develop a parcel. Mr. Casserly stated he thought that was more than reasonable. That is contemplated in the redevelopment contract. He thought they need to be more explicit in the restated contract. Mr. Commers stated this also raises another issue that this has to conform with the revised master plan. What does that mean? Ms. Dacy stated the original master plan proposed four multi-story buildings. The zoning district requires that they file a site plan prior to construction and to get approval by the HRA, Planning Commission and City Council. They need to revise the master plan to eliminate two of the four multi -story buildings and submit a revised master plan showing the changes. Mr. Commers asked if that means that, once the plan is revised, this is the official plan that needs to be followed unless all parties agree. Ms. Dacy stated, yes. The HRA and City Council have to approve the revised plan prior to initiation of construction. Once that is approved, then it becomes the revised master plan. Mr. Commers asked if they could just approve it with the revision as it relates to the tech - flex building without being specific as to the rest of the property. Ms. Dacy stated that would be fine. If someone else comes in and wants to construct something other than what was approved on the revised master plan, they would have to go through the same process to revise the plans. Mr. Casserly stated he would add a statement in the restated contract that the master plan can be revised if approved by the HRA and the City and that revised master plan must still meet the standards. Mr. Meyer stated that in that agreement, they should be sure to state an "outline of 4- SING & REDEVELOPMENT-AUTHORITY MTG.-JANUARY 8.1998 PAGE specification of materials ". Another thing that he is interested in is that the site was developed with pods in which we improved land in certain areas only. Now MEPC is coming in and developing in a certain area that suits the situation. Do they know that this is the status of the land? Ms. Dacy stated yes. MEPC has received all the information pertaining to the site. They will be doing some additional testing. They feel the pads are in rough conformance with the outline of the building and they feel there are no significant problems but they have to do additional test holes. Mr. Casserly stated the third issue is the assessment agreement. The agreement is clear about what the minimum valuation is to be. This is divided between the land and the building. The land is valued at $2.50 /square foot. On a 100,000 square foot building, it needs approximately 400,000 square feet of land so that is $1 million for the land. The issue comes down to the market value of the building. We put in $50 /square foot plus the land value would give us a $6 million project for tax purposes. Mr. Casserly stated MEPC did some sole searching about what they thought they could guarantee. They know and are willing to warrant that their costs for the building will be in excess of $50 /square foot. Their building in Golden Valley which is similar was completed 18 months ago with a value of $42/square foot. The issue became could they then commit to a minimum value of $50 /square foot on the building only. MEPC is not comfortable with that number. Mr. Casserly stated that last summer when doing the analysis and comparing uses of the property, they spent some time with the folks to figure out a reasonable value to use for comparison. They came up with $60 /square foot for this type of project, $75 /square foot for an operation center of some kind, and $90 /square foot for a multi -level office building. Everyone reviewed this information. When it comes down to a guarantee for this minimum level, it is different from a suggestion of the valuation for the purposes of comparison. MEPC is telling us that the assessor in fact may come in with a value that may be less than $60 /square feet, but that they would not be prudent to guarantee that as a floor. The reason is that if the economy has a down turn, it places them at a serious competitive disadvantage if the taxes for others are less because of minimum market value agreements. This is not unusual. They may have valuations that will drop as they did five years ago. They would prefer to guarantee that they will have construction costs of a certain number. As far as they are concerned, they are looking to a minimum valuation as a way to recovery some of the investment in the property. Mr. Casserly stated MEPC also appreciates that the minimum valuation suggests a very high quality. He suggested to MEPC's legal counsel that this is not a number that the City asked for but were given. He stated he would talk to the HRA and staff. He can understand the HRH's argument. They are depending on this level. He would suggest that for the building portion which they have at $50 /square foot that they go to $45 /square foot. If the assessor goes below that, they have a deficiency portion of the agreement. The developer stated they did not have the authority to commit to that number but they understand the City's position. Mr. Commers stated the issue is that they do not do these projects without a minimum assessment agreement. Isn't it important from the HRH's point of view in terms of any HOUSING & REDEVE_L_O2MENT AUTHORITY MTG JANUARY 8 1998 PAGE kind of refunding or rebonding that whoever is going to take that new debt will look at what they have to support it? If their underlying assessments to support it are not there, he would expect that this will make it very difficult for the HRA to refund or whatever they do down the line, or, at a minimum, cost the HRA more in terms of interest rates. Mr. Casserly stated that under normal circumstances, this is correct. Under this set of- circumstances, they have already issued the debt. Mr. Commers asked if the HRA goes back to refund or if there is a change in debt, will the HRA want to refinance? When that time comes, that is when the security will be looked at. Mr. Casserly stated the HRA is not issuing new debt based on the security provided by this agreement. They have a large margin of error to deal with. A one year delay would have a more significant effect than a $5 /square foot change in valuation. This is hard to answer directly because there are a number of components. Mr. Meyer asked if they are talking about $45 /square foot or $50 /square foot on the shell or the finished structure. Mr. Casserly stated this is on the finished structure. Mr. Meyer stated $45 /square foot on a finished structure will be pretty bare bones inside and out. When a contractor constructs a shell structure, they put in walls, basic plumbing, air conditioning tap -ins, heat, etc. Forty -five dollars /square foot is not bad for a shell. If they have to live with a $45 /square foot finished structure, they will be getting a pretty shabby structure. In order to bring a $45 /square foot shell structure up to standard for someone to rent, one could put in another $20 /square foot. Mr. Casserly stated these costs are not construction costs. This is the market value or the assessor's minimum market value. In any kind of construction arrangement, you will have construction costs, tenant costs, financing costs, etc. He would not be surprised if the total costs per square foot are $55. He would be surprised if the assessor came in at anything over $50 /square foot for the building alone. He did not know of any one level buildings in the City with a $50 /square foot valuation. The total value is a comparison of the sale price of comparable products and the income generated by the tenants. Mr. Commers stated it could cost more to build than what one could sell the building for. Mr. Meyer stated that could happen but it could also sell much higher. It depends on a number of issues. It sounds like the value is not based on a formula but on a nebulous figure. Mr. Commers stated it means something from the point of view of the guarantee. The assessor could put the value higher. Ms. Dacy stated that when she and Mr. Casserly were discussing this and at the joint meeting in July, they videotaped the building in Golden Valley which MEPC constructed. The building is of brick construction, 18 feet tall, with colored glass and amenities and small dock areas in the back. Golden Valley has that building assessed at $42/square i OUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG.. JANUARY 8. %9-9---PAGE 'L1 foot for the building only. Those architectural features were discussed at the joint meeting and that this would attract high quality, high tech tenants. The interior space is to be completed at 50% for office. She thought MEPC was designing this for 75% office so there would be a good portion of interior space completed. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding how the $60 /square foot was established, Mr. Casserly, broke out the land versus the building giving a land cost and adding minimum improvements that would require construction costs of at least $50 /square foot and a valuation at $45 /square foot. In that way, they would get very close to the $6 million mark. That seemed to be a good solution. The assessment time frame for this agreement is running from the year 2002 to 2010. Not knowing what the economy is going to be like in the future, they did not want to set up the project at a competitive disadvantage as opposed to another site. If the economy does turn bad, the developer can pay the taxes and the lease rates remain within reason. They don't want an empty building. Staff is suggesting that they make those changes to the agreement keeping the land per square foot and construction the same. Mr. Meyer stated that is different from the tax assessor's operation. - If they are saying that they have $5 million allocated for a 100,000 square foot building, that is $50 /square foot. Is MEPC obligated to put in a $5 million building? What does a $5 million building mean? Mr. Casserly stated this means MEPC has to spend $5 million. Mr. Meyer stated $50 /square foot is very low for a finished building. This is supposed to be our flag ship. Who is to decide whether they are getting a $5 million building? Ms. Dacy stated MEPC has to document their construction costs which is required by the state auditor. If they would like to require that as part of the minimum improvements, they can have MEPC come in and submit information on what will be constructed for $50 /square feet. Mr. Casserly stated they should provide the HRA with a pro forma. He will find out. Sometime they will include construction costs plus additional soft costs. It can also include planning expenses. Mr. Meyer stated that if money is paid out of that $5 million for expenses such as planning, etc., then the value is less than $5 million. Mr. Casserly stated they will have to isolate this in some fashion. They must determine what the minimum improvements are and the quality of those improvements. They will have preliminary plans for HRA review. They will also have the pro forma. Mr. Meyer asked if they wanted to get a $5 million building on that site or are they satisfied with $4 million? What do they want knowing that $50 /square foot of actual building is minimal? Mr. Commers stated the assessor may value the building at $3.5 million. Mr. Meyer asked if they are fooling themselves by saying they are getting a $5 million building. Five million dollars for a 100,000 square foot building is a barebones minimum HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 12 structure. Mr. Commers stated he thought they were saying the developer would spend $5 million putting up the building of which only $3.5 million actually goes into bricks and mortar. Mr. Casserly stated he thought the building will be $5 million of hard construction costs and additional tenant improvement costs. They get to that goal in several different ways. If they are working on lease rates, they have to put together a preliminary pro forma. He will get that and share that information. MEPC cannot lease something for $10 /square foot if it costs $75 /square foot. There has to be a balance between the total costs and what they can lease for. ; Mr. Commers stated that at the time the City Council suggested going forward with this, was there discussion as to the actual direct construction costs of the building to be developed? Mr. Bums stated he did not recall getting into that level of detail at the joint meeting. Ms. Dacy stated what was seen on the videotape from Golden Valley represented the level of the quality that MEPC would construct on this site. She would be happy to go back to those developments and get additional information on the construction costs, etc. Mr. Commers asked if they could find out the directs costs for the development of those buildings. Mr. Casserly stated he could ask but many developers are very sensitive about disclosure about this. MEPC has an advantage because of its size. Mr. Commers stated that at the meeting, it sounds as though there was a concept to move forward. Now that they are getting closer to putting some specificity to that concept to make sure it is consistent to what people are thinking. He asked staff to get more information in order to make a more informed decision. Mr. Casserly stated they did not get into detail. There was a sense of outward appearance that was very attractive. This agreement is trying to make what they have at a level that is commensurate with what was shown to them, but they also want a minimum level of taxation. While those two are related, they are not exactly the same. Mr. Commers asked where that leaves the HRA with respect to the agreements. Mr. Casserly stated the agreement currently has $50 /square foot. As it relates to the guarantee, they would have a very difficult time with that level of guarantee. He said he would discuss $45/ square foot as a guarantee. Mr. Commers asked if Mr. Casserly thought the HRA should approve the agreement at the $50 level with the understanding that the HRA would reconsider $45 on the guarantee after reviewing the costs. Mr. Meyer asked where the actual costs of the structure come in. If it is important to them at the design development phase and the outlined specifications, hire a construction estimator who will take the drawings and put together a budget price. Then they would b OUSING & REDEVELOPMENT-AUTHOR LLY MTG., JANUARY 8.1998 PAGE 13 know pretty well the costs. Ms. Dacy stated staff will address the concerns. On page 14 under the construction plan requirements, Mr. Meyer wants to have the development design review. The construction plans come in two phases, the preliminary plans being first. They need the development contract first to get the project going. Once the contract is approved, then they get the preliminary plans. If this is approved, then the preliminary plans will be here on February 5. Staff will make sure MEPC would present the plans, have the development design drawing, materials, and costs. Then, MEPC has to submit the final construction plans. MEPC is proposing to initiate construction on May 1, 1998, so that the HRA can see the final plans at the March or April meeting. For a $50 /square foot construction costs, they are suggesting to establish that minimum, and the HRA can review the plans to be sure it meets the HRA's criteria and /or standards for the site. Mr. Meyer asked if they wanted brick and mortar costs or assessors value. If the brick and mortar is important, then they should have an estimator look at the plans at the design phase. Mr. Commers stated he understood that this project would have a value upon completion of $6 million. They have agreed that $1 million of that is going to be land, and $5 million will be on the building. To him, this means on the building. They may have a lot more money into this project because of the architects time, etc. The assessor will be assessing the land and building, not the soft costs. The assessor could come in and say the building is only $3.5 million. They can say then that the taxes will be paid on $5 million, but they want to make sure that that the building is worth $5 million. Mr. Meyer thinks they do not get a quality building at that level. That should probably be considered. What are they going to get for $50 /square foot which should be all hard costs? Mr. Bums stated the HRA has additional quality control through the preliminary plan and construction plan review process. The HRA could veto the entire thing. Mr. Commers stated they are saying they want to make sure that the building has $50 /square foot of hard costs. Mr. Casserly stated, what he typically sees for market valuation is that the costs are greater than the assessor's valuation. He cannot say the last time he saw a one level building valued at $60 /square foot. There are all kinds at $35 /square foot and some at $50. $60 square foot assessor's value is unusual. Construction costs are getting more expensive. He thought that suggests a level of quality that is fairly high. Mr. McFarland stated the contract says they need a minimum of $50 assessment. That is a different subject than what materials are going to be put in the building. The HRA will have a chance to veto it. He does not care what it costs as long as they see the materials and know that is going to be a sound building when it is completed. If MEPC can do it for less, he does not care. Mr. Commers stated he is right in that the HRA does not care if MEPC can get by with constructing the building for $35 /square foot as long as it has an assessed value of $50 /square foot. Mr. McFarland stated they are talking about the assessed value. He can see their point HOUSINGS REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., JANUARY 8 1998 PAGE 14 that if they do have a bad market and the building loses value by 20 %, it will be an economic problem. That does not mean the assessed value will drop. If that happens, the tax increment financing does not work. If they do not generate enough TIF to cover the costs, they are putting the costs back on the HRA. Mr. Casserly stated that is true, except in this instance the HRA does not have a direct' relationship between costs for this project and what we are constructing. The HRA can never recover their overall costs for the project. Mr. Commers stated the HRA can consider the resolution as presented and approve that and indicate that the HRA is willing to negotiate but to get a comfort zone, the HRA would like to know the kind of hard costs that are going into the building. Mr. Meyer asked who would review the plans and specifications as they come in order to know that they are getting the quality that they would like to have. Ms. Dacy stated there would not be any one person to review them. The chief building inspector, public works director, and she can review the plans. They could hire an independent person to review the plans, but staff would need direction to do that. Mr. Meyer stated he is raising the issue because they have gone beyond the hard and soft costs. He is hearing that the HRA has the final right to dictate quality of materials. It takes the expertise of knowledgeable people to know how to judge these things. Mr. Commers asked when the HRA would have plans. Ms. Dacy stated the preliminary plans will hopefully come in February because MEPC is moving through the Planning Commission and City Council process. Once that is concluded in March, MEPC will then go through the construction plan preparation phase with those plans available for review in March or April. Mr. Commers stated that as they go along, they should see what kind of information they are provided, what kind of recommendations the City Council and /or the HRA has, and if there is a problem, then they can look to someone else. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to authorize execution of the redevelopment agreement with MEPC with amendments regarding the characterization of the plans, the schedule, and to add a processing fee to allow a rebate. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF RESTATED Mr. Commers stated the restated contract is a one -year contract between the City of Fridley and MEPC with the clarification as indicated in paragraph 6.1 E relating to excluded parties. MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve a resolution authorizing e, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., JANUARY 8,1998 PAGE 1 execution of restated contract for exclusive negotiations as amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated the plans for the intersection were included in the agenda packet. The improvements include, going southbound on Highway 65, the addition of a right turn lane to turn into Lake Point Drive. Going north, two left turn lanes will be added to provide stacking and capacity for vehicles turning into the Lake Point development. Lake Pointe Drive itself will be realigned. The HRA acquired two homes that were originally located at the immediate vicinity of the intersection. The roadway must be elevated somewhat because it is slightly below the grade of Highway 65 and the road will also have a more sweeping curve on the approach to Highway 65. On the east side of the intersection, the connection from Hackman Avenue will be moved further east. Ms. Dacy stated MnDOT has expanded the project to the south to eliminate some of the weave movements from west bound 1 -694 traffic. The ramp off 1 -694 will form a 'T' and a signal will be installed at the exit. MnDOT will add a high occupancy vehicle lane at the entrance to westbound 1 -694. The cloverleaf loop will be removed from the northwest and southeast parts of the interchange. Another signal will be added at the south side of 1- 694 to match what will be done on the north side. This channels and directs the traffic to a stop or green condition on Highway 65 to provide safe movement back onto the highway. Ms. Dacy stated the original project costs were approximately $1.9 million. Because of the MnDOT additions, the project costs have doubled primarily because of the improvements on Highway 65 and the staging of the project. MnDOT has agreed to pay for the extra costs; however, the city is petitioning that they assume the responsibility for the additional design piece. Ms. Dacy stated the HRA is asked to approve a resolution which states the HRA has reviewed the plans, agree they are consistent with the preliminary plans, and recommend that the City Council move to the next step of approving the final plans and specifications. The City Council will evaluate the final plans on January 26. The city is trying to go for a letting date in May in order to initiate construction in June. Staff anticipate that some of the construction work will spill over into the following year. Mr. Commers asked if the resolution means that the HRA is committed on the match for more than $190,000. Ms. Dacy stated the HRA committed to the original $380,200 back in 1996. There is nothing in the action tonight that would authorize any more expenditures than what has already been agreed to. Mr. Commers asked there would be additional design costs. Ms. Dacy stated, yes. SEH is estimating additional design costs of $300,000. The City has yet to hear from MnDOT on their proposal. If MnDOT does not agree, the City HOUSING & REDEV�LOPMNT AUTHORITY MTG JANUARY 8 1998 P Council and HRA will have to discuss that. MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the final plans for the redevelopment of the Central Avenue/Lake Point Drive intersection. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Femelius stated the owner of 5297 Lincoln Terrace is no longer interested in selling that property. The HRA will only be considering the acquisition of 611 Buffalo Street. Mr. Commers asked what the owner of the Lincoln Terrace property plans to do with the property. Mr. Femelius stated the owner has indicated he wants to move back into the property. Mr. Commers stated there is no occupancy permit for the property. Mr. Femelius stated this is correct. He felt there would not be an occupancy permit without substantial improvements. There are other issues that staff will have to look at on this property in terms of code enforcement. However, the owner is not interested in a voluntary sale. Mr. Meyer stated he was satisfied with the acquisition of the Buffalo Street property. He thought it was a good move. It will give the HRA more opportunity to make a larger lot or to bank it for the future. He thought the price was manageable. Mr. Commers stated the reality of it is, with the mortgage, there is not much else that they can do. Mr. McFarland asked if the owner of the Lincoln Terrace property changed his mind because of the price. Mr. Femelius stated, no, even though the amount was his counter offer. He must have had some second thoughts. The property was appraised at $31,000. He counter offered at $35,000 which staff accepted. MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the acquisition of 611 Buffalo Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INFORMATION ITEMS: 9. PROPOSED CHANGE IN TIF FEE POLICY Mr. Commers stated he did not see a significant difference other than that requests under USING &REDEV- LOPM_E�LLVTAUTH-0BI_TY_ MTG.— J-AN-UARY 81998__ __ PAGE 17 $1.5 million get a break. He asked if something had come up to dictate this change. Ms. Dacy stated that in the last three or four months, staff has gotten requests from previous development contract redevelopers to execute additional contracts and to provide legal documentation. Those costs have not been recovered by the HRA. Other communities are beginning to do this. As expenses continue, the HRAs are changing their policies to retain these fees despite the fact that the project may not proceed. - Mr. Commers asked why they did not charge the cost that it takes to do the work. Mr. Casserly stated that whenever you initiate something like this, it is difficult to, ave someone redevelop and then charge them for doing it. However, when they initiate the request, he suggests they charge a fee and the HRA will keep the fee whether the project proceeds or not. Because of the age of the districts, he finds himself reviewing unusual agreements. This was to facilitate refinancing. Ms. Dacy stated this in an information item. This will be placed on the consent agenda for February or March for approval. 10. UPDATE ON LOAN ORIGINATION PROGRAM Mr. Femelius stated the loan origination report covers loans issued through December 18, 1997. For that time period, 80 loans and grants have been issued with a combined value of $758,410. He will provide a year -end report in February. Mr. Femelius stated the loan service report is a summary from the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) of the installment loans and deferred loans that the HRA has issued. This does not include the non -HRA funding sources. That shows an outstanding principle balance of $1,869,000. The bulk of that is the installment loans which are paid back monthly. Mr. Commers stated the report does not indicate delinquencies. He asked if there are any delinquencies. Mr. Femelius stated CRF does provide a delinquency report. The most recent report shows about 10 delinquencies. The total principle amount of those loans is approximately $110,000. The actual amount owed is approximately $1,000. Most of these are 30 days late. One loan was outstanding for over a year, but that borrower has now started making payments. Mr. Meyer stated that on the loan program, this is evidence that the criteria is too low in terms of eligibility for loans. He thought the income limits should be lower. He thought they should be more restrictive on the purpose for the loans. He knows of one house on the list and he sees others which are on fine residential streets. In no way did the $25,000 loan have anything to do with improving the housing stock in the City of Fridley. This has nothing to do with the stated purpose of the loan. The philosophy is to improve the housing stock. He sees a number of streets with $22,000 to $25,000 loans in good residential areas. In contrast, the loans in Hyde Park are smaller loans in an area which is considered a problem area in terms of housing stock. The program is not reaching those houses. The total loans in Hyde Park are $16,000 to $17,000. Any one of the $25,000 loans is equal to all of the loans in Hyde Park. We have a program that is not OUSING $ REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG.-JANUARY- 8-199& PAGE ZXc] Eel zI:L411:1 :I T, Eel ALWII 1►[H-� !:W .10101 Ms. Dacy stated, on the December agenda, the HRA agreed to pay $5,000 as their share of the planbook and this has been included in the 1998 budget. Ms. Dacy stated at this time she is asking for permission to proceed to have the Fridley HRA act as the contract holder for the architectural firm to produce the contents of the plan book. With 15 communities, it is a logistical nightmare to contemplate 15 joint powers agreements and to execute the documents with the architect. They are suggesting that the City of Fridley HRA send out a letter of understanding to the participating cities stating each city would have to pay the Fridley HRA $5,000, would agree to hold the Fridley HRA harmless, and would have the right to use the planbook. The city would receive the money first and then pay on the contract to the architectural firm. If this is agreeable to the HRA, Ms. Dacy will draft a letter of understanding and get a copy of the contract for the next meeting. The HRA is not obligated to do this. While it is extra work for staff, she thought it is a worthwhile project in which to participate. Mr. Commers stated there was a little risk but he thought they could support the request. He asked Ms. Dacy to get the information prepared and bring it to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JANUARY 8,1998, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:58 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM HOUSING -0 -0 1 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: January 26, 1998 TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA�l� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator SUBJECT: Consider Appointment of Remodeling Advisor We are pleased to inform you that we have identified a finalist for the remodeling advisor position. The finalist, Dave Mayer, was selected from a field of 3 candidates who were interviewed by staff on January 6'. A total of 28 people applied for the position. Mr. Mayer is currently employed by the Sussel Corp. in St. Paul as a sales /design consultant in the new construction division. His primary responsibilities are to assist customers in designing their new home and remodeling plans. He has worked for Sussel for 4 years and plans to continue his employment with the company. He has a flexible schedule at Sussel and can work a combination of morning and evening hours in Fridley, up to 24 hours per week. Prior to working for Sussel, he worked for a wholesale building products supplier, a window and door manufacturer and a truss manufacturer. He has a total of 15 years of experience in the residential construction industry. He also hold a bachelors degree in communication from Concordia College and a technical degree from Dunwoody Institute in construction management. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HRA approve the appointment of Dave Mayer to the position of HRA Remodeling Advisor, effective January 21, 1998. M -98 -20 FEB. 98 HRA ITEMS 01/30/98 MEMORANDUM HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: January 26, 1998 TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA t f FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator SUBJECT: Consider Application for HOME Funds Anoka County has announced that it will receive $470,910 in federal funds through the HOME Investments Partnerships program. The funds are provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program is competitive and both cities, HRA's, and local non - profits may submit applications. Applications are due by February 27, 1998 with a final decision to occur some in March 1998. The funds may be used for acquisition, rehabilitation and construction that provides permanent or transitional owner - occupied or rental housing to serve low income households. Single family rehabilitation must be targeted to specific geographic neighborhoods. A match equal to 25% of the grant amount must be provided by the recipient. The HRA has applied for funding from 1994 to 1996 and received a total of $205,000. The funds were used to provide deferred loans to low- income homeowners in several low income neighborhoods. The HRA did not receive funds in 1997. Staff is proposing to submit an application for $75,000 to support our housing rehabilitation efforts. The funds would be available for use in the Hyde Park, Riverview Heights or Plymouth Addition neighborhoods. To qualify for the program, a homeowner must have an income at or below 50% of median income based on household size; own and occupy the property to be improved, and have less than $25,000 in assets (not including the house). The HRA would have to provide a match of $18,750. Although funds were not included in the 1998 budget specifically for this program, $18,000 was set aside in the budget to cover an anticipated shortfall in the 1998 CDBG program. Recently, we learned that the City will receive it full allocation of funding. As a result, the funds could be used for the HOME program match. FEB. 98 HRA ITEMS 01/30/98 1k, Consider Application for HOME Funds January 26, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HRA authorize staff to prepare an application to Anoka County for $75,000 and matching funds up to $18,750. M -98 -22 FEB. 98 HRA ITEMS Z -A 01130/98 COUNTY OF ANOKA Urban Anoka County Community Development Block Grant GOVERNMENT CENTER 2100 3rd Avenue • Anoka, Minnesota 55303 -2265 • (612) 323 -5709 Mr. Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: 1998 HOME Program Applications Dear Grant: January 16, 1998 Anoka County has $549,683 of HOME funds available for allocation. Of this amount, $78,773 must be used by an eligible CHDO organization. You are invited to submit an application for those funds to complete an eligible housing project. All applications are due by 4:30 p.m. on February 27, 1998. A decision on funding recipients will be made in March. Please keep the following in mind as you consider applying for these funds: Eligible Projects Acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction that provides permanent or transitional owner- occupied or rental housing that serves low income households. Limited tenant assistance is also available. Any single family rehabilitation should target neighborhoods. Any requests for general city -wide housing rehabilitation will have low priority. Income Limits All households served must be low- income families as defined by HUD in the HOME regulations. There are additional targeting requirements described in the regulations. Matching Requirements Any applications must identify the source of a required match of 25 percent of the amount of HOME funds provided for a project. The match funds must be committed to the HOME program for an indeterminate period of time. Match requirements are addressed in detail in the attached regulations. 2=B Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer Page 2. An application package, a brochure describing the program, and the HOME regulations are enclosed. Please use the enclosed application format for the review committee. If necessary, additional detail can be attached to your application. Please call Tonja West at 323 -5708 if you have any questions concerning the application. AAO:sw Enclosures cc: Maureen Gaalaas Sincerely, Alyce A. Osborn Community Development Manager 2 -C MEMORANDUM HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: January 26, 1998 TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator SUBJECT: Consider Application for MHFA Minnesota Cities Participation Program. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) has announced that it will offer the Minnesota Cities Participation Program in 1998. The program provides below- market rate mortgage loans to qualified first -time homebuyers. MHFA issues bonds on behalf of the participating cities to fund the program. In 1998 it is expected that there will be $37 -$45 million available for the program. The money will be allocated to each participating community based on population and the number of cities who apply for the program. The funds don't actually pass through HRA coffers, rather the money is set aside at MHFA and may be reserved by authorized lenders. The HRA participated in the program from 1993 to 1996 and a total of $2,964,403 worth of mortgage loans were made. In 1997, we missed the application deadline and did not participate in the program. We did, however, have access to the Anoka County HRA program. To participate, MHFA charges $20 per $100,000 of allocation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the HRA authorize staff to prepare an application to MHFA for the 1998 Minnesota Cities Participation Program. M -98 -21 3 FEB. 98 HRA ITEMS 01/30/98 The Minnesota City Participation Program (MCPP) PROGRAM GUIDELINES • A population based formula is used to determine the maximum allocation for which each city qualifies. The maximum allocation a city may receive is its percentage of the housing pool as compared to the total population of all applications received. Cities may apply for a specific dollar amount (minimum of $100,000) or may request the "maximum allowable" permitted by the population formula. If the individual allocation as determined by the per capita formula falls below a level that the city cites as "minimum," MHFA will contact the city to verify whether the city would like to cancel its application. • A city must use at least 50% of its 1998 allocation by the date of program expiration in order to be eligible to apply the following two years. • The usage test also applies to self- issuers. With submission of this application, these cities are required to submit loan origination data to MHFA to confirm compliance with this statutory requirement. The 1998 MCPP program term will run for eight months. Cities will have the exclusive use of their individual allotments for a six month period. Following the expiration of the six month period, all remaining individual allotments will be collapsed into a single, statewide pool available to all participating cities for the remaining program term. MCPP mortgages must meet the requirements of standard mortgage insuring and guaranteeing entities, mortgage industry accepted underwriting standards, and state and federal law governing mortgages provided through the issuance of mortgage revenue bonds. • Adjusted borrower income limits may not exceed 80% of area median income as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Adjusted income is calculated by taking a household's gross annual income and subtracting $1,000 per household resident. Cities may place their local program limit at or below these figures. 3 -A Currently, these limits are as follows: County 80% of HUD New Construction Area Median Income 11 County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area $45,840 (Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, $95,000 Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and Wright) Clay County Olmsted $45,680 All other counties $39,120 • Cities have the option of establishing any price limits desired, provided they do not exceed the statutory defined limits listed below. The current statutory purchase price maximums are as follows: If the mortgaged property is located in: Existing Home New Construction 11 County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (Anoka, Carver Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and Wright) $95,000 $95,000 St. Louis County $95,000 $95,000 Clay County $91,168 $95,000 Benton and Steams Counties $78,545 $95,000 Houston County $73,100 $95,000 Balance of State $77,540 $95,000 • MCPP funds may only be used to finance properties located within the jurisdictional limits of the participating city or county. • One of the following conditions must be met if new construction is to be provided in the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area under the MCPP: 1. The new housing must be located in a redevelopment area where at least 25% of the buildings are substandard. 2. The new housing must be replacing a substandard structure. 3. The new housing must be part of a housing affordabili±v initiative, meeting one or more of the criteria listed in Attachment 1. 4. The new housing is located on a parcel purchased by the city or conveyed to the city under Section 282.01, Subdivision 1 (tax4orfeited lands). 3 =B 5. The city must have negotiated affordable and life cycle housing goals with the Metropolitan Council. (For self issuers, please note: If your city is located in the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area, the above new construction restrictions do not apply to loans closed ten months after your program start date). • In the balance of the state, new homes may be financed immediately only if the city includes in its proposal: 1. Steps the city will take to encourage loans for existing housing. 2. An explanation as to why new housing is needed. Statewide, cities may not provide set -aside or commitments for the exclusive use of builders or developers except for housing affordability initiatives as specified in Attachment 1. MHFA offers participating MCPP cities access to MHFA's Homeownership Assistance Fund (HAF), an interest -free, graduated payment second mortgage loan. HAF provides lower income first -time homebuyers with downpayment and closing cost assitance. • Home mortgage loans are to be' originated by participating lenders and bought by MHFA in accordance with the MHFA Mortgage Program Procedural Manual. • If a city will use additional resources or subsidies in conjunction with the MCPP, a layer of guidelines may be added as required by the source of the subsidy. INDIVIDUAL CITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEFINITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THESE ADDED GUIDELINES. • The Minnesota Department of Finance will charge a processing fee of $20 for each $100,000 allotment provided. For cities participating in the MCPP, this is due with the executed MCPP contract returned by each city before the bonds are sold. DO NOT SEND A CHECK BACK WITH YOUR COMPLETED RFP; WE WILL NOTIFY YOU WHEN TO FORWARD YOUR FEE. Once cities have selected and identified participating lenders in the MCPP application, no additional lenders may be added for the balance of the program term. • MHFA will provide marketing support in the form of brochures, press releases and a shared marketing cost program. If preferred, cities can withdraw completely from MHFA's marketing support in order to develop their own marketing program. Cities choosing this option would be responsible for developing, producing, and distributing their own marketing materials and press releases. These cities may still access funds through MHFA's shared marketing program. 3 -C • Following the application deadline, MHFA will review all submitted applications. • MHFA will apply the per capita allocation formula, as specified in statute, to determine the allocation plan. • MHFA will complete a mailing to notify cities of allotment amounts, and will provide a formal request for fees at a later date. (DO NOT SEND A CHECK BACK WITH YOUR COMPLETED RFP). For those cities participating in the MCPP, the mailing will also include two contracts which must be signed and returned. • Cities participating in the MCPP must execute and return the contract along with the processing fee (see part VII. Program Administration) and a 1 % application deposit. The 1 % application deposit will be fully refunded, approximately one month after the closing of the bond sale. ® Please note that upon notification of allotment, self- issuing cities must send all fees directly to the Department of Finance at the following address: Lee B. Mehrkens Minnesota Department of Finance Cash and Debt Management Division 400 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 3 -D. MEMORANDUM HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: January 30, 1998 TO: William W. Bum, Executive Director jI FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approve Professional Services Agreement with Robert Gerioff Residential Architects for Regional Remodeling Planbook At the January 8, 1998 meeting, the Authority agreed to enter into a contract with the architectural firm which has been selected by a number of communities to prepare the content of the regional remodeling handbook. Over fifteen communities have been cooperating over the last several months to produce a remodeling planbook focusing on typical suburban homes in fully developed suburbs. The Authority would be acting on behalf of the other cities in administering the contract. The contract is to produce the content of the planbook on a computer disk for publication. After completion of the proposed contract, publish the planbook for each participating planbook content prepared by the architect, city and its housing programs. PROPOSED CONTRACT: the communities will need to raise funds to city. The intent is for each city to use the and to also add a brief feature about each The contract amount is $60,000. The Authority would not sign the contract until adequate funds are received from participating cities to cover the contract amount. Staff has sent out invoices to the participating cities. Each city is contributing $5,000 (the 1998 budget includes the Authority's allocation). A Letter of Understanding has also been prepared so that the Authority has some type of protection with each city. The architect was selected through after a Request for Qualifications process by the staff of the participating cities. Robert Gerioff was also a co- author of the Longfellow neighborhood Planbook which staff has previously sent to the Authority. It is anticipated. that the planbook content will be completed in six to eight months. Publication is targeted for the Spring of 1999 during the cities' remodeling fairs. 2 Professional Services Agreement January 30, 1998 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Authority authorize the Executive Director and Chairperson sign the professional services agreement with Robert Gerloff Residential Architects subjecf to receiving adequate funds from other participating cities to cover the $60,000 contract amount. M -98 -23 4 -A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING This Letter of Understanding is made between the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (hereby referred to as the "Fridley HRA") and the City of (hereby referred to as the "City ") to outline the common understandings and expectations as related to a remodeling planbook for housing in fully developed and /or inner ring cities of the Twin City Metropolitan Area. The HRA agrees to execute a contract with Robert Gerloff Residential Architects, Kristi Johnson, and. Peter Musty (hereby referred to as the "Architects ") in the amount of $60,000 with the following understanding: 1. The City agrees to pay $5,000 to the Fridley HRA to be held on account to pay for the contractual services as outlined in the contract identified as Exhibit 1 of this document. 2. The City acknowledges that the Fridley HRA is administering the contract on behalf of several cities as identified in Exhibit 2 as an efficient means to producing the content of a planbook. The City acknowledges that the publishing and production of the planbook will be an additional undertaking to be completed in cooperation with the cities identified in Exhibit 2. 3. The City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold Fridley HRA, its officers and employees, harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgements, or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of the Fridley HRA, its officers and employees, in administration of the contract identified in Exhibit 1. 4. The HRA agrees to administer the contract in consultation with the cities as outlined in Exhibit 2 at meetings regularly established by the cities' representatives. This may include, but is not limited to, requesting additional services, reviewing the Architects work performance, and specific direction regarding preparation of the planbook. 5. The Fridley HRA agrees to refund any unused portion of the cities' payments in a manner as mutually agreed to by the cities in Exhibit 2. The HRA agrees that the use of the funds is for the purposes as described in this Letter of Understanding. 6. The HRA acknowledges that the City is entitled to use the content of the planbook as defined in Exhibit 1; however, the City agrees to work in consultation with the cities identified in Exhibit 2 in publishing the planbook. i page 2 Letter of Understanding CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Lawrence R. Commers, Chairperson Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority , William W. Burns, Executive Director Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority CITY OF prepared by City of Fridley HRA 1/22/98 4 -C PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT REGIONAL REMODELING PLAN BOOK THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the HRA and Robert Gerloff Residential Architects, Kristi Johnson, and Peter Musty hereinafter referred to as Architects. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, several cities have initiated a cooperative effort.to produce a remodeling plan book; and WHEREAS, these Cities have requested the HRA to act as the contract holder for professional services on behalf of the Cities; and WHEREAS, the Cities have conducted a request for proposal to provide professional services to produce the content of the plan book; and WHEREAS, the Cities have mutually agreed to hire Architects; and WHEREAS, the HRA agrees to purchase the services of Architects on behalf of several Cities; and WHEREAS, the Cities have agreed to provide the funds to these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the HRA and Architects agree as follows: Architects agree to furnish services to the HRA as indicated on the attached Exhibit A dated January 22, 1998. The total cost of this Agreement shall not exceed $60,000. Work beyond the Scope of Services in Exhibit A shall be approved in writing by the HRA. • M - Z • All reports, memos, and other data produced by Architects become the property of the HRA with the following exceptions: Architects may use any material produced for marketing or promotional purposes; Architects retain ownership of the original watercolors with the HRA having full use of the images provided by Architects through electronic scanning and photography. 1 4 -D 3. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Architects will submit invoices at the same time benchmark tasks are completed and submitted to the HRA according to the benchmark schedule in Exhibit A. However, the first benchmark payment will be made by the HRA when the invoice is presented following agreement signing. The HRA will issue the check within 30 working days of receipt of invoice. 4. PRODUCT Architects will provide the HRA with an iomega zip drive cartridge with the remodeling plan book fully designed in Quark printer ready. Architects will scan in all images. Assuming the product is published, the HRA will provide 25 copies of remodeling plan book free of charge. The HRA makes no representations as to timing. 5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Architects shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein in consultation with the HRA. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the HRA and Architects or as constituting Architects as the agent, representative, or employee of the HRA for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Architects is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. Architects represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of Architects or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the HRA, and shall not be considered employees of the HRA. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Architects, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the HRA. Architects shall defend, indemnify, and hold the HRA, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the HRA, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability, severance pay, and PERA. 2 4 -E • IN 0 0 • L • The HRA operates in accordance with the City of Fridley's policies against discrimination. No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. Architects shall (1) furnish all information and reports which may be required by the HRA's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) comply with the HRA's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting (See Exhibit B). VWX 191011IN Architects agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the HRA, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of Architects, its agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of Architects to fully perform in any respect, all obligations under this contract. •�� Architects agrees that the HRA, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of Architects and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment with respect to the project. Architects shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the HRA. • u MOM;[ C•�i� [C•1►1 a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All 3 4 -F items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 11. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If Architects fail to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fail to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the default is excused, the HRA may, upon written notice, immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety. b. The HRA's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. If the Agreement is canceled, Architects will be paid for percent of work completed to the date of cancellation. 12. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION The HRA is managing the Contract in consultation with several cities as outlined in Exhibit C. From time to time, meetings shall be held between Architects, the HRA, and the cities identified in Exhibit C. If a dispute arises out of or relates to this Agreement, or breaching of the Agreement, and if the dispute cannot be settled through direct discussions, the Architects and the HRA agree to first endeavor to settle the dispute in an amicable manner by mediation administered by the Mediation Center, Minneapolis, before resorting to arbitration. If mediation is unsuccessful, the dispute shall be settled by arbitration administered by the Mediation Center, Minneapolis. Architects and the HRA will each pay one -half the cost of mediation /arbitration. 14. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing. 4 4.G Notices shall be sent as follows: For Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority: 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 For Robert Gerloff Residential Architects: 4007 Sheridan Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY By: Executive Director By: Chairperson ROBERT GERLOFF RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTS a Its CO- SIGNERS Kristi Johnson Peter Musty 5 4 =H gic homes w;rg Cha,'acter and G"%r0 G EXHIBIT A 22 January 1998 Barbara Dacy Community Development Director 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Barb: Enclosed is the most recent revision to our proposal. The Town Planning component is eliminated and the "real price estimates" is listed as an alternate. The only fluid component of the proposal is the schedule will not start until the contract is signed. Hence it now begins in January, though if the contract is not signed until the end of February, that's when the schedule will kick in. If you have any more questions, feel free to call. You can also e-mail me at RobertGerloff@compuserve.com Also if possible I'd like to see a copy of the contract before the signing time. My fax is on a dedicated line 927 -7301. Again, thanks for all your work on this- -every day we get a little bit closer to actually beginning! nieeIy,� Robert Gerloff 4007 SHENIDAN AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55410 VOICE: 6121927.5913 FAX: 612/927.7301 E-MAIL: CALL 4.1 `�5gic Humes w146 0 Character and Cher SUBURBAN PLANBOOK PROPOSAL 1997 STARTUP TASKS: 12/1/97 August di5cu55 lc55on5 of Longfellow plambook w /consortium September prepare & submit qualification5 October attend qualif ication5 interview November prepare & submit propo5al attend p ro o5al meeting negotiate fee and contract 1998 January benchmark #1: Sign contract $10,000.00 February Study housing in the consortium cities meeting #1: define what house ty e5 to Study consortium to Select 5 ecific hou5e5 & owner5 coordinate Software & tool5 internally research the history of po5twar housing in the cities cartoon the book and what information will go into it design p reliminary book format HOUSE TYPE ONE TASKS: March conduct "case Study" interviews w /homeowners April research s ecific house & neighborhood measure existing house & enter into ArchiCAP meeting #2: di5cu55 what de5ign5 to do for the ty e brainstorm multiple design variations meeting #3: informal Schematic design mtg w /con5ultant5 winnow 5chematic5 down to 3 variations + 5ite enter de5ign5 into ArchiCAP create final drawings & 5ketche5 3 watercolors per house ty e PIU5 Plan5,5kctche5, etc. write e55ay that ties it all together design rough draft of paqc5 & write extra text meeting #4: pro5cnt rough draft to consortium administration, billings, payment5 benchmark #2: first design complete $12,500.00 4007 SNENIDAN AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55410 VOICE: 612/927.5913 FAX: 612/927.7301 E -MAIL: CALL 4 -J 4 -K HOUSE TYPE TWO TASKS: May 5ervice5 the Same a5 with other house ty e5 June meeting #5 meeting #6 meeting #7 benchmark #3: second design complete $12,500.00 HOUSE TYPE THREE TASKS: July 5ervice5 the Same a5 with other house ty e5 August meeting #8 meeting #9 meeting #10 benchmark #4: Second design complete $12,500.00 CLOSURE TASKS: September mug #11 with consortium on "yellow ages" content write introduction, acknowledgements and index write "how to use this book" coy edit & proof all text meeting to di5cu55 book design options additional Service: prepare "real' cost estimates refine overall layout & design coordinate production of book meeting #12 turn over final book design to consortium book i5 on a disk ready to rint consortium to have book printed) October? unveil the book at an event coordinated by KriSti benchmark #5: project; completion $12,500.00 CORE CONTRACT TOTAL $60,000.00 4 -K SERVICES ADDITIONAL TO THE CORE CONTRACT: 4 -L one month prepare real cost e5timate5 $3,000.00 rice er hou5e type by Paul Brugger i5 $1,000 total of three hou5e ty e5 one month prepare a marketing plan $2,500.00 how to price, distribute, rc!55 releases, etc. by Kri5ti Johnson two months write and design a marketino brochure $5,000.00 to entice people to purcha5c & use the book by Kri5ti Johnson & Kri5ti Anderson 4 -L EXHIBIT B RE80LUTIC�I NO. 116 - 1988 RESOLQTIC7�T OF ACTION IN EKPMMG TT WRKE'AS, the City of Fridley City Council acknowledges that equal opportunity employment for all persons is a fundamental human value; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley does promote and encourage full realization of human riots within City employment; and - WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, declares that artificial barriers to employment, pursuant to M.S. 363.03, are unfair discriminatory practices; and WHEREAS, under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Section 363.073, businesses or firms which (a) have more than 20 full -time emplcyees in Minnesota at any time during the previous 12 months, and (b) bid on State contract for goods and services in excess of $50,000 .must have a Certificate of C m pliance issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Human Rights. Certificates are issued to businesses or firms that have an Affirmative Action Plan approved by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights for the employment of minorities, women and disabled persons; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley intends to reinforce Federal merit standard principles and concepts by assuring that all segments of society have an opportunity to enter public service on the basis of open competition and advance according to individual ability. NOW, TARE, BE IT PESOLVED that the Fridley City Council reaffirms and declares the Affirmative Action Program of Fridley, dated Deoember 19, 1988, to the extent that such declaration is reasonable and realistic and is not in conflict with applicable laws of State or Federal authorities: DWEARATION OF POLICY OF AFFIRMNELVE ACTION ,The City of Fridley admowledges that equal opportunity for all persons is a fundamental human value. Consequently, it is the policy of the City to provide equal opportunity in employment and personnel management for all persons; to provide access to, admission to, full utilization and benefit of training and promotional opportunities without discrimination because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, public assistance status, veteran status, handicap or disability; and to otherwise promote full realization of human rights within the City to the extent permitted by law. To implement this policy, the City of Fridley requires that every person making application for, currently employed by, or applying for future vacancies in the employ of the City of Fridley will be considered on the basis of individual ability and merit, without discrimination or favor. In furtherance of this policy, the City of Fridley establishes an Affirmative Action Plan, providing for and assuring fair and equitable treatment in all phases of public employment, including selection, compensation, benefits, training opportunities, promotions, transfers, layoffs, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. the concept of this affirmative action policy is consistent and fundamental to the maintenance of effective equal opportunity and shall be implemented as an integral part of the City of Fridley's personnel system. 4 -M Page 2 - Resolution No. 116 - 1988 Employees and applicants are protected from coercion, intimidation, interference, or discrimination for filing a ccuplaint or assisting in an investigation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The City of Fridley authorizes the City Manager to execute and uplement the doc=ent entitled "City of Fridley Affirmative Action Program° the original of which is on file in the office of the Fridley City Meager and is incorporated herein by reference. Zhe City Manager is further authorized to appoint an appropriate enplcyee of the City of Fridley to manage the Equal Employment Opportunity /Affirmative Action Program. Responsibilities will include monitoring all Equal Employment Opportunity activities and reporting the effectiveness of this Affirmative Action Program, as required by Federal, State and local agencies. DECEMBER, 4 -N EXHIBIT C Brooklyn Park Columbia Heights Coon Rapids Crystal Fridley Golden Valley Hopkins Maplewood Mounds View New Brighton New Hope Richfield Robbinsdale Roseville Shoreview South St. Paul St. Louis Park White Bear Lake 4 -0 EXHIBIT 2 Brooklyn Park Columbia Heights Coon Rapids Crystal Fridley Golden Valley Hopkins Maplewood Mounds View New Brighton New Hope Richfield Robbinsdale Roseville Shoreview South St. Paul St. Louis Park White Bear Lake 4 =P � I 0 0 W u Q L CC m W 0� } al A 0 i z M1 Q \I � I a O N O � a I \I N OI Y MI WU \I 2 �I u I E I L O \ X I Q LL L 0 ° I ° > w I O L I AI zl D QI 0• I \ t9 I OJzI MOHi b) co I .yM3 I EOI V S i w X I Cc c i Q L J 1 L U A I w0H1 CL CC CC I O.CLL I 1 I r <z 0 E Q 0 H r L H U N w A Y x uW w as uz E Q z x O z 1 � � ♦ ♦ ♦ i • 1 1 1 1 1 ♦ • � 1 • 1 � 0 1, I- 0 0 0• .+ N o• O O D• o m 0 0 0 O Np "I po. oo"Wo.+,ovmoa�Q67o67h.imOt� Cd .... .. . . .. ... . ooa movivvh�oo;oa:.ior moot o0 � a 00.0N0MOm.401*v i.i0•M+i0.4M h7 M N O Q O M .i O l0 0 0• M 0. N IT 660: MWli O .i F 3 QN W 0• } I� W Y F z H w iL WZaW3¢AX ZZ IL Z J OArJCLwQX0 H H Q UEZZHUWI -CH2d NN w O F \ OHQ 1 CC rr3 WNF > L O .X �i X w W u > H L Q' r UIL UI CLLF WNW HNQN W L1 m E w W Q A L 0 u r N r Z Y W wAZO.EFArww H QH5L r Q 0 1 H.i0 IALZN >rLYE Q It] J z ZQA JtuQ Hzazr A I-Z OEZA zX z owww.iZX • L. HUMZ of aOHN Hm OL10Hr rHL0 -1 -1 7 F zM OLVt -H w Q I w0 1 i 1 f .8L }NH.i %X0LU F iLJCc OJJJJ HiLCLE AIL .4HH Q NOH{y >{y��FpJpJjOJDUXU OAzQUL CCC(C�CL A MV-C ZRLp2aCLCCUSwMRZ��f! t W} Q } } } }0M_jHZZ W 0: C4W CWLCQL0° -- Ja -LlOL ..+wAxnzNwwnwww m 0. O .i N M Q 0 10 o• O N m v 0 *4 ?1 m T 0 0 0 10 14 10 10 10 10 10 °o101olole1010 10* 101010*oaoo 10% a N N N N fi N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W a L Z N O •E z X F JUL)I- -w x x L m En EWWMz > > 7d FL- zzF> W J J L u F °ceF— lz wil.5 A u w cc Z x »z J W Z w zNNWLA} m H3Qt0 LLQZZEOHU U1r LL. N y� WO►LHHW 2w wzomuLr JCL xi - ww CLQ OH Q to ZH }} W WHO. 1 zN0_CL }Xit H Uz N x 0�- W W UU HC WHHFHWAz WW HQA00 EL - auuHJCL QCCZ Uxwwwoox CL r CM0Hwm XWzNuzo x • J A - F L N F M L O Q N O u oa>- QoaaoF =QH> -} X au L) WZ190 •NU)Qv-M LJWW , 213W HEJOQLEWWW F OwJJYNuWW L J •AHU •Z3F- }LZAAQNNZa4 17q U H F H w u z C L Z r w w H H Q Q w z a_ to IL ILizcUX ZZzcwitH.tcULL 1 1 YYmJE Y W A a P a a 01 A A a a a a P a a a a O- 0- 0- P 01 z 0. 0. 0. P P 0. 0� of Q` 0• o• 0� A 0, 0. 0• C. 0� 0. 0- u r ! .i .i .i .i .i .i .i .i .+ .i .i .i .I .i ...i -1 moi 000000000000000000000 U I i .i rl .i .1 .i .i .i .i .i .i .1 .1 .i .1 d .i .i .i .i ./ H . . . . . It . . . . . 5 TO: FRIDLEY KRA FROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY RE: BILLING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING EXPENSES January 1998 ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING: ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD COMPUTER OVERHEAD (For Micro & MW computers) TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING: OPERATING EXPENSES: No expenses for January BENEFITS EXPENSES: Account #'s for HRA's Use 460-0000- 430 -4107 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: CITY OF FRIDLEY - HEALTH INS 262 - 0000 -219 -1001 CITY OF FRIDLEY - DENTAL INS 262- 0000 - 219 -1100 CITY OF FRIDLEY - LIFE INS 262 - 0000 - 219 -1200 TOTAL BENEFITS EXPENSES: TOTAL EXPENDITURES - January 1998 File: \00ATAWRA \7IF198BlLLxls Details 5 -A AccountVsfor CR CIty's Use Code 21,006.58 101 -0000 -341 -1200 H1 292.58 101 -0000- 336 -3000 HA 212.42 101 - 0000 - 336 -3000 21.511.58 HA 0.00 236- 0000 - 336 -3000 HA Qm 0.00 236 - 0000 - 219 -1001 11 0.00 236 -0000- 219 -1100 12 0.00 236 -0000- 219 -1200 13 LE w o O w N N N_ O O O N p� 0 _ P �0 \ \ . \p C2 C, O O \ \ \z O O 000 O 0 0 CDa O O O� W Y- _N O d m �p O O o \ S O 00 O CD Ln o co O W W N 0000... O \ E O 00 O CD C3 M w N M S 1 N N N N N a apo� � apo� appo�. pm. epos �Op� � O• PP P MP O O \ N N S \ 00O O O O 0 N \ O C) 0 0 00 00 0 OM O O O O 5-B 0 O O M a M S c� U F O ,'( ti O O N O O d� OZ 2 , IO Z , u9� P N M O It R ti Ln io ti O 0 O N O. , , F .. , 2 , Ot c It i m L. c 0 � a W ` t- a . W LU OC a 6 , CL 0 L W vi V 2 C , Y Yp , H 1t L 4, C l0 W O O O C . . aC a t z LU i t a O � C_ W C N W , D O J •L O W W _C •L _ A K H 6 , , r m L O R N H C7 F d d mm , H 7 cc u LU i cn CD C3 0 Y S J Q . W D V , W m L a i o , d . H , Ln , , o . 0 99 . O O — O — L , � . u Q N V O O IZ , \ N p0. i ti N , co , Y Q W N .O N �O co N g�tg, , a- M CI�W W , W O• -J-JJ . .d . V M O O W W W. W , 40 , O O Ul O a a O O O O �R mm CM .Z.. OCHCOO , 20 i i 0 t9W4i0 O O O . C i a.- 2V (a OCd . 0 i CL 9L LU fA °, CL 3 Z W9 aag, m , . as aco0: It w o O w N N N_ O O O N p� 0 _ P �0 \ \ . \p C2 C, O O \ \ \z O O 000 O 0 0 CDa O O O� W Y- _N O d m �p O O o \ S O 00 O CD Ln o co O W W N 0000... O \ E O 00 O CD C3 M w N M S 1 N N N N N a apo� � apo� appo�. pm. epos �Op� � O• PP P MP O O \ N N S \ 00O O O O 0 N \ O C) 0 0 00 00 0 OM O O O O 5-B 0 O O M a M S c� U F O ,'( ti O O N O O 7 OZ — 1 IO 19 to u9� P N M O It N ti Ln io ti O C O N O. N .. .. l � Ot c It w o O w N N N_ O O O N p� 0 _ P �0 \ \ . \p C2 C, O O \ \ \z O O 000 O 0 0 CDa O O O� W Y- _N O d m �p O O o \ S O 00 O CD Ln o co O W W N 0000... O \ E O 00 O CD C3 M w N M S 1 N N N N N a apo� � apo� appo�. pm. epos �Op� � O• PP P MP O O \ N N S \ 00O O O O 0 N \ O C) 0 0 00 00 0 OM O O O O 5-B 0 O O M a M S c� U F O n yQy c -c L C C C O O y a .. .. c m L. c 0 4j 4j ` t- a C ... C. Q a 6 a 6 CL 0 L W vi V 2 C C Y Yp Y Y 1t L 4, C l0 O O O O C J V t L t t Y Y C_ C C _ d1 'pQ �p D O 0 •L _C •L _ A a L L N H E d LL LL Q 6 H N S u U CD C3 m C, O O O O O O O O O O o , in . o , Ln . Ln , o . 0 . 0 , 0 0 O — O — r O N O O O IZ N \ N N ti N a- r r N .O N �O � O N a- M M M CD 40 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CL k CL CL C. . . , . �t �t It It It It N .pp sr N N w o O w N N N_ O O O N p� 0 _ P �0 \ \ . \p C2 C, O O \ \ \z O O 000 O 0 0 CDa O O O� W Y- _N O d m �p O O o \ S O 00 O CD Ln o co O W W N 0000... O \ E O 00 O CD C3 M w N M S 1 N N N N N a apo� � apo� appo�. pm. epos �Op� � O• PP P MP O O \ N N S \ 00O O O O 0 N \ O C) 0 0 00 00 0 OM O O O O 5-B 0 O O M a M S c� U F MEMORANDUM HOUSING ..........t.��aii .z AND M r REDEVELOPMENT �x �t AUTHORITY DATE: January 29, 1998 TO: William W. Bums, Executive Director of HRA 014 Q FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Amendment to Section 10.4 of Private Redevelopment Contract, MEPC American Properties, Inc. BACKGROUND: At the January 8, 1998, meeting, the HRA approved the resolution authorizing the development contract with MEPC with miscellaneous amendments. Section 10.4 of the contract required a "Minimum Valuation ", or the floor for taxation, of approximately $6,000,000. The HRA discussed this provision extensively, and approved the contract with the expectation that if the developer objected to the provision, the developer would have to request an amendment. MEPC American Properties is requesting that Section 10.4 be amended to require a $5,000,000 minimum valuation. OTHER MEPC PROJECTS: MEPC has constructed two similar flex space projects in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie. The Golden Valley project is the most comparable in terms of proposed materials and building finish. The Golden Valley development agreement requires a minimum assessment value of $2,700,000. The building size is 91,368 square feet. MEPC has indicated that the originally proposed $6,000,000 is too high to act as the "floor" of taxation, especially if market conditions falter. Their request of $5,000,000 equates to a $46.85 /square foot minimum valuation for taxation or 60% higher than the project in Golden Valley ($29.55 /square foot). This number should not be confused with the project's total valuation which would then drive the amount of increment. The developer would pay taxes on the value of the building as determined by the Assessor, but in no case would the developer pay taxes less than the amount attributable to $5,000,000. The Eden Prairie project was not in a redevelopment area so there is no minmum assessment agreement. Amendment to Section 10.4 of Private Redevelopment Contract January 29, 1998 Page 2 TOTAL VALUATION OF THE PROJECT: Reviewing the building permit records in Golden Valley revealed the following: Permit Value of shell: $2,400,000 or $26 /sqaure foot Permit Value of interior finish permits: $2,090,799 or $23 /square foot Using the same ratios against the Fridley project, which is 106,705 square feet reveals the following: Shell: $2,774,330 Interior. $2,454,215 Total: $5,228,545 This amount does not include the value of the land, an additional $1,000,000. It should also be remembered that the proposed building in Fridley has more exterior wall since the building design is just 40 feet shy of being a doughnut shape as opposed to an L shape in Golden Valley. The Fridley project also has a "saw tooth" comer design feature which is a more expensive feature to construct. The Golden Valley project also does not have the continuous metal panel rooftop screening. Therefore, the Golden Valley project represents a very conservative cost scenario. The City Assessor does not use the permit values as a basis for valuation. The Assessor has reviewed the preliminary plans and has estimated the cost and valuation. The range of valuation for taxation purposes will range between $5,500,000 and $6,000,000. The cost of the project with full tenant improvements may approximate $6,000,000 to $6,100,000. CONCLUSION: The minimum valuation of $5,000,000 guarantees a substantial amount of increment during poor economic times if the valuation of the building should decrease. Staff recommends the Authority agree to the proposed amendment of Section 10.4 of the development contract. 6 -A .01/29/98 THU 13:22 FAX 612 885 5969 BRASS MONROE FRIDLEY CA 002 Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, specifying the Assessor's Minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property for calculation of real estate taxes. The aggregate amount of the Assessor's Minimum Market Value shall be calculated in accordance with Section 10.4 and shall be effective the earlier of January 2nd of the year following the year in which the Certificate of Completion is issued or January 2, 2000, and for each January 2nd thereafter until the Termination Date. The minimum market value set forth in the Assessment Agreement is herein referred to as the "Assessor's Minimum Market Value." Nothing in an Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to assign a market value to the Redevelopment Property in excess of such Assessor's Minimum Market Value nor prohibit the Redeveloper from seeking through the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a reduction in such market value for property tax purposes, provided however, that -the Redeveloper shall not seek a reduction of such market value below the Assessor's Minimum Market Value in any year so long as the Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect The Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect until the Termination Date. Section 10.3. Tax Deficiency Guarantee. The Redeveloper shall be liable for and shall pay to the Authority any tax deficiency (the "Tax Deficiency ") resulting from the Assessor's Minimum Market Value being less than the amount provided for in Section 10.2. The Authority shall provide the Redeveloper with a notice of the Tax Deficiency 30 days prior to the time that real estate taxes are payable. The Authority need only provide a single notice, but the Redeveloper may pay the Tax Deficiency in equal installments at the times provided by law for the payment of real estate taxes. Failure of the Authority to provide notice shall not relieve the Redeveloper of the obligation imposed by this section. The Tax Deficiency for any calendar year (if any) shall be calculated as follows: if the market value for the Project assigned by the county assessor for the real estate taxes payable in such calendar year is less than the Assessor's Minimum Market Value, the Tax Deficiency shall equal the product of the difference times the class rates in effect in such calendar your times the tax rates of all of the tax jurisdictions in which the Project is located in effect for such calendar year. The guarantee imposed by this Section shall remain in effect through the tax payable year for which the Assessment Agreement is effective. Section 10.4. Calculation of Assessor's Minimum Market Value. The land ineWded in ths- Project shall have an Assessor's Minimum Market Valuation of not less than $2.50 -peg of not less 5 000 000.00 or $50.00 per square foot of the Minimum Improvements. whichever is greater. A determination of the Assessor's Minimum Market Value will be made prior to the Date of Closing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and the Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed on or as of the date first above written. 33 M-1 -40 wo HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: January 29, 1998 TO: William W. Bums, Executive Director of HRA FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Preliminary Plans for the Lake Pointe Technology Center, MEPC American Properties, Inc. BACKGROUND: Section 4.2 of the development contract requires the developer to submit "preliminary plans" describing the "minimum improvements ". The purpose of the submission is to insure that the proposed project meets the definition of the minimum improvements and is consistent with the site plan or the development agreement. Preliminary plans are defined as typical sketches of the building's floor plan, and exterior and interior finishes which characterize the proposed improvements. At the January 8, 1998 meeting, the HRA discussed requiring the AIA Plan Design requirements. The developer stated that this type of plan is equivalent to the final construction drawings, and while they will have to be completed, preparation for the February agenda was not possible. Section 4.2(b) of .the agreement also requires submission of "construction plans" which are the final plans, specifications, and other related construction documents. The developer has submitted a narrative of the project, site plan, building elevation plan, floor plan, grading and utility plan, landscaping plan, and plat application. The zoning requests are to be considered by the Planning Commission on February 18 and City Council on March 2. The next item on the agenda pertains to the project plan revised site /master plan review of the project as required by the S -2, Redevelopment District. ANALYSIS: The development agreement defines "minimum improvements" as a 100,000 square foot Class A multi - purpose flexible space building 50% of which will be finished for office usage. The exterior finish must be brick and glass. The proposed building is 106,705 square feet in size to be located on a 10 acre lot at the west end the property. The parking area is designed to accomadate the spaces necessary for 75% office usage and the remaining 25% for productiontwarehouse area. h Approval of Preliminary Plans January 29, 1998 Page 2 The building materials will consist of the following (see narrative dated January 16, 1998): *Concrete masonry construction *Brick fascia in two tones, Sandy Rose and light buff (Belden 4x4x12) - *Painted rock face block at the rear of the building screened by brick wing walls and landscaping *Bronze tone glass, 1' thermal pane, "Low E" glazing *Anodized aluminum framing around glass in "champagne colon' *Continuous metal panel rooftop screen for HVAC units *Building mounted metal tenant sign panels, 32 square feet in area, possibly illuminated *24" high address numbers, "champagne" color Site improvements consist of the following: *Construction of stormwater pond to National Urban Runoff Protection standards with a pond liner *111 trees, and shrubs around building *Retaining wall along front parking area along Lake Pointe Drive *Additional soil borings underway to confirm soil suitability *Developer is evaluating cut and fill ratios and may raise the elevation to reduce fill export costs *30 square foot monument sign on Lake Pointe Drive *2 600 square foot project identifier signs at Highway 65 entrance and in the Outlot on the south side of Lake Pointe Drive The proposed building design is consistent with the definition of minimum improvements. The site layout meets and/or exceeds the typical zoning requirements. The interior finish is anticipated to be similar to other tenants in the Golden Valley and Eden Prairie projects. Interior finishing includes carpeting, typical office improvements, window finishings, lighting, HVAC, restrooms, and 16 foot ceiling finish. Cyber Optics had a fairly large employee lunch/lounge area with facilities for catered events. The Cyber Optic tenant finish permit value was $1,535,499 for 70,368 square feet or $21.82/square foot. This amount excludes plumbing and HVAC permits equalling an additional $220,400 which would increase the cost to $25 /square foot. Staff had previously prepared a video of the interior of Cyber Optics and the exterior of the Golden Valley project, and will be presenting the video again for the Authority on Thursday evening. RECOMMENDATION The preliminary plans submitted by the developer are consistent with the requirements of the development agreement. Staff recommends that the Authority approve the preliminary plans subject to final approval of the construction plans as required by Section 4.2(b) of the development contract. M -98-25 7 -A T EDWARD F) ...... . _ .............. - _. __... 8400 Nonmandale Lake Boulevard Suite 150 Bloomington Minnesota 55437 Tel: 612 831 -6460 Fax: 612 831 -6470 January 16, 1998 Barbara Dacy, AICP, Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Re: Lake Pointe Technology Center at Fridley Executive Center Dear Barbara, On behalf of MEPC American Properties, Inc., we are pleased to submit our applications for Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for the first phase of Fridley Executive Center, the Lake Pointe Technology Center building. The enclosed package contains the following documents: Plans (3) 24 "x36" size and (3) 11 "x17' reductions, dated January 16, 1998: Sheet Al.1 Site Plan (Phase I) Sheet A1.2 Lighting & Signage Plan Sheet A2.1 Floor Plan Sheet A3.1 Exterior Elevations Sheet MP1 Master Site Plan Existing Conditions / Preliminary Plat - East Existing Conditions / Preliminary Plat - West Boundary Survey Sheet C 1 Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan Sheet C2 Utility Plan Sheet L1 Landscape Plan, overall Sheet L2 Landscape Plan, enlarged The Narrative and Drainage Calculations are also enclosed in 8 1/2" x 11" format. We have enjoyed working with you on this project; please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Edward Farr Architects, Inc. 4 Edward Farr, AIA President 74 NARRATIVE FOR , LAKE POINTE TECHNOLOGY CENTER at FRIDLEY EXECUTIVE CENTER SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL January 16,1998 History and Overview In 1996, MEPC American Properties, Inc. and Edward Farr Architects, Inc. submitted a Master Plan proposing a high quality commercial development consisting of low -rise to mid -rise office buildings within the 20.91 net acre western portion of the property, and low -rise supportive commercial, retail, and hospitality uses within the 10.24 net acre eastern portion of the property. This subdivision application creates: one 10.02 acre lot for our Phase I development, multiple outlots for remaining parcels, and right -of -way dedications for roads. Overall land areas reflect adjustments due to MnDOT transfers; our new gross development is 43.65 acres and the net developable area is 36.07 acres. Due to real estate market factors, it has been determined that a single story "office- tech" product makes more sense as a Phase I building to kick off the development. This product type is very popular, because it's flexible leasing options attract a variety of tenants: office /research, office /warehouse, light manufacturing, hi -tech industries like medical, computer, and software companies, and pure office users. Our Master Plan has been updated to show the revised configuration of the development. We still envision multi -story office buildings east of Phase I, as well as the supportive retail on the easternmost 8 acres fronting Central Avenue. Lake Pointe Technology Center The Phase I project, called Lake Pointe Technology Center, is a single story 106,705 square feet office - tech building with 459 surface parking stalls and a storm water retention pond on a 10.02 acre site. The building is being built speculatively, that is, without a specific tenant in place. Therefore, no interior walls or ceilings will be built at this time; only a concrete floor slab, exterior wall construction, and open steel bar joist roof deck. All four sides of the building have face brick and glass storefronts to allow tenant entries at any point around the building. There is a central loading court for shipping and receiving, screened from the perimeter with landscaping and screen walls. Inside, the clear height under the roof framing is 16' high, resulting in a 21' high exterior wall. Site Planning The site has a significant grade change; being some 30' higher on the east side than the low point at the southwest comer where Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive intersect. Vehicular approach to the site is predominantly from Central Avenue on the east, but access is possible from University Avenue on the west as well. Views to the property are quite prominent from westbound I -694 due to the higher interstate elevation coming from the east down to the river valley. The interstate elevation across from the site is approximately the same as the rooftop of the building. Eastbound I -694 views are significantly shielded by the tall concrete divider wall on the highway. An existing low area at the southwest corner now holds some water, and will be improved to city standards for storm water retention in keeping with the original Master Plan. The pond has been designed to hold water to ensure 7 -C a beautiful water feature image all year long instead of "going dry". The building's U -shape achieves a nice "front door image" all around it, avoiding objectionable backside exposures by wrapping itself around the loading court. Consistent with the Master Plan's concept of limiting most delivery traffic to Bridgewater Drive, the entry to the loading court is off the north side. Parking is distributed evenly around the building to offer convenience to all entry locations. The main employee and visitor entry is off Lake Pointe Drive. Due to the relationship to the next phase, a proposed multi -story office building, we are transitioning the grade differential between the parcels with a walk -out lower level concept for the adjacent office building. The future building will act as a retaining wall for the grade change, so in the interim, we will grade onto that adjacent parcel with a smooth slope. The alternative, creating a severe retaining wall all along the Phase I eastern border, would only be a temporary solution, being torn down when the office building was developed. Exterior Building Materials / Rooftop Screening As presented in the Maser Plan Narrative, we are using a blend of two warm -toned face bricks on the facade to present a rich, warm, textured image. The main brick color is called `Sandy Rose', a tan/orange/buff tone; and the accent brick is a light buff color, used in detail bandings and column accents. As a benchmark for the design quality, you may be familiar with a building we designed for MEPC in Golden Valley where similar detailing and colors were used. The glass used is bronze tone, energy efficient, 1" thermal pane, "Low -E" glazing with a low- reflectivity rating to minimize the mirror -image characteristic of reflective glasses. The aluminum framing holding the glass will be "champagne" anodized aluminum finish which has a rich tan/gold sheen, complementing the warm tones in the brickwork. The loading court wall construction, hidden from public view, will be painted tan "rock- face" decorative concrete masonry units for economy and durability in this area. Painted metal stairs, metal man-doors and sectional metal overhead doors will blend with the paint color of the decorative masonry units. Rooftop HVAC units will be screened with a continuous pre - finished light tan colored, metal panel wall system, approx. 6' high and set back approx. 20 from the front building edge. The continuous nature of this element will eliminate the unsightly "dog- house" effect of individual rooftop unit screening devices, and help to maintain the simple horizontal proportions of the facade. Soils Soil correction on this parcel was completed in the 1980's when the previous developer's Master Plan showed a series of multi -story office buildings laid out in a 45 degree angle zigzag pattern. Unsuitable soil was removed from under building pad locations, and replaced with suitable fill. Parking areas were only moderately corrected for the lighter parking loads. Our building footprint extends over both soil profiles, the corrected building pad zone as well as the parking zone. Therefore, new borings are being taken to determine the extent of soil correction we will need to support our entire foundation. Significant cut and fill excavations are required anyway due to the grade differential from east to west. Our soils engineer and structural engineer are both confident in our ability to replace unsuitable soils to a satisfactory level in order to use a conventional spread footing foundation system for this structure. When cut and fill quantities are better defined, we may adjust the grade level of the building to accommodate a better "balanced" earthwork situation to avoid costly import or export of soils. Retaining walls, constructed of modular "Keystone" type decorative concrete masonry units, have been shown where necessary to keep surface slopes to a 3:1 maximum gradient. 7 =D Utilities Underground utilities are being connected per the original Master Plan concept. Domestic water service enters the site from the existing water main in Lake Pointe Drive. We are bringing a 6" water pipe into our property and going around the building with it to provide appropriate fire hydrant locations per city Fire Department regulations. Off that 6" line, we have two separate line taps going to the building, one for fire protection sprinkler service, the second for domestic water. Note that no plumbing fixtures will be provided at this initial shell stage of construction, until further tenant work is defined. However, we will install a fully functional wet fire protection sprinkler system in the roof joists now. Storm sewer pipes are located throughout our parking lots to collect and direct water to our NURP pond along the western edge of the project. The pond has been designed with the proper regulatory design standards, and has an HDPE (High Density PolyEthylene) liner sheet which will hold the water level up even in dry periods to maintain the amenity year round. Surface drainage calculations are enclosed. Sanitary Sewer hookup is also off an existing stub at Lake Pointe Drive where a sanitary main resides. It has also been determined that electrical, telephone, and gas services are all available through each public utility company. Site Lighting During our Master Plan review, two light sources were discussed and evaluated for use on this project: Metal Halide, MH, (white light) and High Pressure Sodium, HPS, (orange tint light). It was determined to use HPS lighting throughout the development for all street lighting and parking lot lighting. Metal Halide will be used for special accent lighting, and where specific color rendition is needed. Therefore, we are proposing that the street lighting along Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive consist of 16' high poles with Type III - asymmetrical 75 degree cutoff shoebox fixtures with 250 watt HPS lamps (orange tint). The height of these poles are shorter than typical street poles, to avoid light spill onto the residential areas. The locations for these street light poles have already been established; their wiring and concrete base foundations are already in place along each roadway. I believe that discussions pertaining to the installation and maintenance of these fixtures, city vs. developer, are in progress now. Parking lot lighting within our site is proposed to be 30' high poles with both Type V - square cutoff and Type III - asymmetrical, 75 degree cutoff shoebox fixtures with 400 watt BPS lamps (orange tint). Despite the taller pole height, the cutoff style fixture is designed to shield distracting glare and eliminate light spill off -site. Accent lighting at each tenant entry door will be MH (white light) down lights installed under the soffits along the perimeter. In the loading court, wall mounted HPS fixtures illuminate the dock areas; these wall -packs are shielded from view by the building itself, so no light spill should be released onto the adjacent residential development. Site Signage Consistent with the Master Plan Signage Concept, we are proposing a ground mounted entry monument sign at the main driveway along Lake Pointe Drive. Design of this sign will set the style for the future entry monument signs at Fridley Executive Center. It will have a brick base below an internally illuminated, two sided, metal cabinet sign, with the text: "501 Lake Pointe Drive ". The square part of the sign cabinet will be colored burgundy, the pie- shaped part colored blue -green, and the lettering will be white translucent plexiglass. 7 -E A post mounted metal directional sign, burgundy color with white lettering, will provide information at the secondary curb cut entry off Bridgewater Drive, where we will direct truck delivery traffic into the loading court. Building address numerals will be wall mounted where indicated, finished in a champagne aluminum tone. Individual tenant signs will be standardized sign panels mounted on the brick wall above their entry door. The sign panels will be prefinished light tan metal with a burgundy pin stripe, approx. 4'h x 8'1; then the tenant will apply their own unique logo & name upon those panels. While these panels are typically not illuminated, we would like to reserve the right to have internally illuminated cabinet signs instead of non - illuminated ones in case strong market feedback suggests playing up to the I -694 visibility. We showed those tenant sign panels at all possible locations, but of course they would only be installed where tenant entry doors are located in the future. Incidental door signage will be 3" high white helvetica painted letters. Other required signage, not shown on the plans, includes handicapped accessible parking signs meeting State of MN requirements, and any fire lane signs the Fire Chief may require along, drive aisles. Other signage around Fridley Executive Center, off of the Phase I site, is contemplated. First, the main Fridley Executive Center monument signs contemplated in our Master Plan, one along I -694 in the outlot, the other near the main entry by Central Avenue. We would like to construct these two large monument signs along with the Phase I project. A separate submittal will be prepared addressing final design, size, colors illumination for approval prior to construction. Second, we believe a temporary directional sign will be required at the eastern intersection of Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive to direct visitors to the Phase I project straight along Lake Pointe Drive and direct truck deliveries to turn right on Bridgewater Drive. This sign will be replaced with more comprehensive directions at that same location when the balance of the development is determined. Landscaping The previous developer's concept (mid 1980's) for the landscape plan organized the site by creating a pleasing boulevard effect along Lake Pointe Drive. Deciduous trees 4" - 6" in size were planted every 50' -60' on center, plus coniferous trees to add green color year round. There were groups of trees planted to break up the large expansive areas. These trees were to be relocated at the original time of development. A 40' buffer was created adjacent to the residential area to provide screening for the residents using evergreens, shade trees and shrub masses. An irrigation system was installed in the areas adjacent to the road between the road and sidewalk and in the 40' buffer strip to the north. In keeping with that previous concept, similar species will be used to enhance the existing plantings, this time in groups of deciduous and coniferous trees along with an understory of flowering trees and shrub masses. Shade trees will be used in and around parking lots providing shade and continuing the boulevard effect into parking areas, groups of conifers will be used for screening and for additional green color through the year; plus groups of understory flowering were used to add spring and winter interest. Berming and arborvitae hedges will be used to screen the parking lot from the roadway as well as a hedge of arborvitae across from our Bridgewater Drive entry to screen our headlights from the residential area. Existing trees that are in good condition, that would be lost during construction operations, will be transplanted on site to fill in areas where they are needed. Care will be taken to protect the existing trees which have now matured to 5" - 7" in size. Note that trees within the 40' buffer strip will not be disturbed. The Phase I site will be regraded and all sodded areas will be irrigated. end of Narrative 7 -F • ° a§ w >q?�a� | !■ ■§ B §$§ f o�z § § §U §U§ %2§ § .§ w ul km�.�2 «e; r, CI =2 � mow !\ B !§ � !■ ■ %�� § §§ §�? § � � � ■ §[■& & 4 ]$ ) DIE . � Q § �f.§) §■�■ ,_ §� 2 ■ LLI 2 ® \ «§ �§ �� � � EH Cq §§ § k� SIM � d� > k § § § §& §§ i"�� ❑V 1�� � r n LELJ Ell ® 11.038 LLxU O �� $ LU 4 4 4 4 .4 4 Q -T- /�� CL ED .0-.0Y .0 -.0Y .0•.0Y .0 -.0Y .B-.Bi .0 -.Bb .0-.0Y .0•.0Y .0-.0i i JIi� JIB JIB jI� JIi� JIB JIB 1,321; > r 1 R, s aE 1 ouz 0 ip � y D WLULU w 1� us NOsmvr � v AONIflD f �b ary 00 �z E 1 1 mn mo vi m vm I 0 Z" �zz - ) L I Sul g�e tv s' ZJ N Xj � • "I H a 'i-- e 14 r \ W 0 s W u Hill H r M D �i rZ r' i t ` , V1 - `��S LO I _ P L1 01 -t1j F.— I 3 a iw /+ g e a. I W X ;; a ZJ N Xj � • "I H a 'i-- e 14 r \ W 0 s W u Hill H r M D �i rZ r' i IF- 14 A n . _ I ? I W e, a i zi i i\ i3 Kam IL c.i \ . gg / I J 0 ' Z W IN is ° \ "ti \ \i i a �— � � / /i• •° N o to ue i t I sf a,,�,y v� °g , a —B ea i 3• .. RI 3.8 XQ.69S 1� n�� ` � i� e., 41 i° i i . ITS i R �er' •�I - 1 rt ED i° � :roi��° -i: 13 rri .osai ._ ':,•�zc�so.aes i� i'H LI °gB i t i d i i i° $ 9;,7 A eee °CJ S A ai•ta�iaw+Bl�.i: N dal R.e.y -16w+e a lae wmmII wm9.5®M_QO IIoamvII SOMMO 2199 w .9•n ,W11 a�n'.Pws ,1 Pm-P3 � 7!B bNll'NNS Ow lam B ®1 ' A m N Roy 1091 t00 PBi00 aml w9t .. -4 N 0 + vm P P 068mw •YI ro PP nvmPP a.vo Plwi .a ro PPepm.B 819 ro imau s ie awu01BPb1. I••u00 Om r99 e 4 tp0 t.m N.m Row yl IM9 -, oo'oL = a .00.00.19 _V 1321 31Y�6 001 a o w hr 3 81.10.199 m b 0o e a ges► . r %%0,94 99N 9�'BII � 49'811 - l Z9'L901 - a zrn_on . v .mo °'�� sA^ _ Grp w�•�P'�j-' Z � 'i ggaw •4 ���`: -may ♦ P �p 9� I / / ° P „yg .,.� "'. / p. •'� .w� •. a bl�.•e � ♦ ae � � Ire � � �, .� .w, 'wl Pw ��'�S q .LI.♦ ���P66• �•� � 1� • ��'1 .e. • y� 00 .s _ �',�•',` 19'9 •• 0 I 4 �.g�i � k ao p p t '1y�4 a�i�•'� BLS91 - 1 lOtliL dI.L%. L - O 99•IOZ = a _zo're1 x,.ss,4b. ez4,fz.es = v tYp 9S»s - Ym9.w7 «P9 awa .wt w .scia -� w vv.0 nmmtr w PI ro w aw w aoi (•L wn Pcrw - wwm PW .Aq .w1Y PPS ro .Pp 91^..9 m W 4N 69 1P. ImmtY M PI ro w 001 ro o+ ('1 •wiwOml4 RPOaw 4Mm. a ¢•816 [ w 1 PPti .�+ (9 mr ,L'01 o re 99 cret» - a t »ro 89'01 a v '99 v s"M mw 161 A 'P6 LBOwYIL - r ro9ro a.'•q• 9Gyppt'•1 a U'S IB�•'1r1 •,mp m Rm w .v1.0 m10LVn ro OOpvw .Rt w epu0 0) L000 -K• 10 TYJ 3M0 31Y15 YM4 d00 VwrOy (T mPm •nwm. h MOP0.0 wwl nG01 -0 YIP mflWC.ma w mnlN rRM W W90aw ON m O.t00 �mw/ Rwo .Iwymd0o me wPw l..ml..sry6n PmOA.rp., m P mp Plm uq{v00Y I2 2mmpumW mmlmw Opg 0 o mlgm 0119 B.R•.uONe Immm 0 ro IBf.9.1 Im.. PmiB ro 100 p P_p ItOm P.P A,wumm. P w.0 1Mn ..TR.. a6VPl ('1 SII89 �Q _ ONIONr 18� \ IV 1+•oovsc - a $ 99'901 = a .IS,z9.s9 -v P.� a�w , w.4 te./m mro) rc pm. � •m•�m°`r �� �I •I mro .vtt9 Y me fia Aa-.a P e.M • .Oem°�p a >r� te.e ,w r.N ""pw��a..lwsm.r.er.o.nns -L o. � wn Cwl Omm T6 .mPY m. P •m PIPe wr Om Pw w m wp. P am.e�.B 2 T .wm �p��� Awl -m •e Pn w,0• n fmo w wm .I ± Na'•m� s e0.1- [ma. 00 Do w<IO CI • m Yn w m t# Pem 9w t0't¢ wW ssm¢•P dmmww.aawW ..m Y.n toTdwm® s4 Opaq .hP e P W w m iwVe mm iwme e e I T P 0.-IBe -Pf m .�.a wM O6A.M-m P•nwaPnm eem • �s9¢ �a•..+9.Y .nm m.m oe mm vP .w m ®P mae Im w Pw. rwa. r wa r wa I P -Y Pn ,+p rce m•Pl Pt-mm �ng9+lmamm¢npM.>w P w wq � m Olo Yp .➢.M w.m.B #'.mm �•w1PRiPP.w'e 'm ai14O �ri-. iu P P �iM- 4ws'4e..V PW mma ®wW w41r s4 PS .n.w Am e 0 .-m tm a T Iw.. yYmY... mmp ,sm p9Pm I M m �y .ey w MmA.O W � nv CS .�.w wbro w.l mm r.s mn .le+mwwPm -mss umw.t.w.P...,.mlwmw . m.m...l...:'aR . e.. APnee .-m to Pn ml . eem ..n=w lm .�RPmwwwmww..,mel.TP��.Pmw ,MAam..w.9,.m • „ w q'.•.mIde ,nm. -. mA w P.e T i=W. .n d.M6 . a P • �e r-w...a./-... e• .- Bm el . . m .. Pw ... •w ..m.9O.men m 1 .. . w ..Ae m . lm .P wwae e fwW .a, ..nn Pm ..w . wP . .P . ..# PP•.n . . - .mtmm. 9T �WiYp Wi�re6 .mq.sypm0MPt11w0.O..Pt1np,0p0p p(� Mmro PT.M.�.PJ.¢..b 4ms -�.m n166sq..ra.m..wtt OPm w 9.9.w 9wmP.Y�a A� o.M..Am�mm -41 ®I ls0.t°a P 4Mew T M +on -w..m sm wn a•rr .I el w.m n �..r mli.am �a1�.gwwm B�+w.m mw.wmP• �'"'P.�'w nn ..t.. m mmo w w61t .. (+m+•. 9 T► M.oim 0m [P� M P41nMIaA �•Y� .O r.qs PM.IwTe � wI �POwo .m.00•w B.PY UmRM M�POpp�WnAw,.W1 oe Ne 69¢1 {4{ mw.. 00 Mm tp �4 b P.P- a P .p• w m w1P. mem e.o0w P W i 9 w'Tm�.>•m0i�'•Bw Id.� d- Y a® �P' ®�l� my A m w'.mTP merle PeI �IIPW94 'immP90ymleA��.mwpm�•°..� tm�•'•.ss TT BnPY.0.1.PT R Pn� �.� P Pm w P6+i a mr.l Oq il'tlt 9 Ot .MIm�10q �t�Mm m0) 00 Qn�my.l 00 m.6o 9�mNw0m '•�" C.n {I P .�m6+00mw.� T • m P -7.-7 •�'It•19 9� em•Ba p°mlte aP:Pe �Mnwe.eA. eem mwsee OwM.. lrw-1P..ma w.na Pi .../m APWPWw�wMWPneT Pnw of olo®. P..P.6P �.ae m r M.v s vw me�•De6 t!t<Yn �Sem saw n n- r .o �oA o w w.¢i t•I�¢I om'� M. a.etlm R .mw p.m m.wemmiwy 2T Paa .P. •e�•Ommos w..n a .mow. .mTw miP 4 mw � m�P me. A CC[ml IIw.B Pl..a m- n PI"' � . P��Pe�0ar as P � w°OPe rl"0x.4'.�a �•�•wm• w•�w' �mm. - Iw�•�'..w �el'�� +•'�'st arP.mt T6iRamr Pn Bll bPw emw Rmsr e. w i m.�Ti•.enap Ole P P.wi'eM V�P• mm. i i w1> 4.1¢i 1.N �a P 4 K w PRrms.e 4,. fame.w.s t- n.r -.I. .m .m T[r �SrwBl�v.�q wi Ta •L ame1l YM�ia I.r. Yt enatwy.ew -area •P•'imPwwww mamsnrn�w.0 1 w Pn.s -J .•e -- 9 Fl r mllPWpp o (c¢wm) am •a9 me Pw m ww� :=40 ld"ld JIVNMl -lB cl 0 fits s I� E u ❑a ��j eU a U 2 `03 4 wR— 8 e[ � I A�6�C$� g8 jig i y QQ b e�' � � � AcacflHuiluAee�fe8 � I A $ z O P U OC Cl) Z O U Ix O LL 1-- O Z Q Z_ J W OC a MEMORANDUM HOUSING AND . , REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: January 29, 1998 TO: William W. Bums, Executive Director of HRA 04A FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Project Plan and Amended Site /Master Plan for the Lake Pointe Technology Center, MEPC American Properties, Inc. REQUEST: The S -2, Redevelopment District requires the Authority to make a recommendation to the City Council on any specific project to be constructed in the S -2 zoning district. The purpose of the S -2 District is to: 1. Allow for a mixed used developments within special redevelopment districts established under State law. 2. Allow for the maximum flexibility in the promotion of difficult redevelopment projects. 3. Allow for development by a plan which is acceptable to, and in the best interest of, the City and the overall district and development plan. The Planning Commission will also be making a recommendation to the City Council on February 18, 1998. The developer has also submitted a revised site /master plan, in accordance with the development contract to show how the proposed one story flex space building will relate to the remaining portion of the office property. The developer is proposing a 106,705 square foot flex space building to be located on a 10 acre lot at the west end of the property. The development contract requires 50% of the building to be finished office space. The site plan is designed to accommodate a 75% office finish. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT: At a joint HRA and City Council meeting in July 1997, it was agreed that a one story flex space building should be pursued at the west end of the Fridley Executive Center site, but the remaining acreage of the central office portion of the site be reserved for at least 250,000 square feet of multi -story office space. The "mixed use" approach was based on e Consider Project Plan and Amended Site /Master Plan January 29, 1998 Page 2 feedback from potential users of the site (primarily the Lawson Software proposal), market conditions, and tax increment considerations. The Lawson Software proposal mixed a one story flex space building for research and - develoment activities in conjunction with multi -story corporate offices. Given the recent growth in technology businesses in the market, it is entirely likely that a user in the one story building may need multi -story office space, or attract other technology related businesses needing corporate office space. It was also determined that the flex space buildings offer a "Class A" office environment which would attract quality businesses with large numbers of employees; issues which were also key factors in the original vision for the property. Finally, based on MEPC's experience marketing the site, moving ahead on a flex space project may be the impetus to stimulate development on the remainder of the site. PROJECT PLAN: sjenerai uverview The proposed site plan meets the typical setback and building requirements for an industrial development. A stormwater pond is proposed in the southwest comer of the lot and has been designed to meet City and Watershed requirements. Given the change from structured parking to surface parking, the developer has submitted an extensive landscape plan for the site. Approximately 111 deciduous, ornamental, and coniferous trees are proposed. A mixture of Marshall Ash, Colorado and Black Hills Spruce, and Redmond Linden and Red Maples are proposed around the perimeter of the site and within the parking areas. Honeysuckle, junipers, and sprite astilbes are proposed immediately adjacent to the building with proposed plantings of hostas and geraniums. The rear entrance to the loading courtyard will be screened by two brick wing walls and additional techny arbovitae hedges on the buffer strip on the north side of Bridgewater Drive. C= 7iTOi21 M, 11 The proposed primary brick color is Sandy Rose, the same color as the Golden Valley project, and is accented with bands of light buff or tan brick. The glass along all sides of the building will be framed with a burgundy color of aluminum. The Golden Valley example is an attractive building, but the Fridley project will have additional enhancements such as the "saw tooth" comer design and additional accent brick banding along the top of the fascia. The first building on the site will set the architectural tone for the project. MEPC believes that their proposal can easily blend with the anticipated multi -story development to the east. The color, materials, and design of the adjacent buildings and parking structure will have to be carefully integrated. Staff has suggested that the developer identify an alternative primary brick color in order for the City to make a comparison and to be entirely satisfied with the proposed project. MEPC is reluctant to suggest another brick color since they are completely confident in the submitted proposal. MEPC is evaluating staffs request. EM t Consider Project Plan and Amended Site/Master Plan January 29, 1998 Page 3 wan signage Staff recommends an alternative tenant signage scheme. A 32 square foot metal wall panel is proposed for each tenant. Individually mounted letters is recommended as has been done on other projects in the City (Hillwind Office building, Center City projects). Rooftop Screening The developer is proposing a continuous metal wall screen to shield the roof top equipment. Staff has asked the developer to complete a cross section analysis of the appearance of the building from the 1-694 /1-lighway 65 intersection. MEPC has agreed to complete this analysis which will be presented to the Planning Commission on February 18. Another issue which will need to be discussed is the appearance of the rooftop from the adjacent multi -story structures. Creating a rooftop "park" or garden may be a creative and attractive amenity for the tenants. Lighting The developer's proposal is consistent with the lighting requirements discussed during the master plan process. Wall packs are proposed over the tenant signage and 30 foot tall parking lot standards are proposed in the parking area except for a light standard in the area along Bridgewater Drive. An issue for future discussion by the HRA is the timing of installation of light standards along Bridgewater Drive and Lake Pointe Drive in the development. Control of Uses in the Building Section 205.22 of the S -2 District states that permitted uses in the district are those uses which are acceptable to the overall redevelopment plan and specific development plans as approved by the City. The ordinance also states that "the City shall determine the specific uses that are permitted within the development". The intent of this project is to attract high technology companies with a high amount finished office space versus those uses which require extensive warehouse or are heavier industrial uses. A stipulation of approval is proposed to insure City review and approval of each use prior to occupancy. REVISED SITEIMASTER PLAN: Approximately 14 acres remains in the office portion of the development immediately east of the flex space lot. The revised site /master plan shows that two 125,000 square foot five story office buildings can be constructed with the required structured parking. With the commercial development on the 8 acre site, a total of 447,018 square feet can be developed on the property (compared with the originally anticpated 672,313 square feet). Consider Project Plan and Amended Site/Master Plan January 29, 1998 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the mixed used development concept previously discussed by the City, and is consistent with the requirements of the development agreement. The revised site /master plan also permits adequate area for the development of multi -story office space. There is no change to the commercial area of the project. Staff recommends the Authority recommend approval of the project plan and the'revised site /master plan to the City Council subject to the following stipulations: 1. The revised site /master plan is required to meet the 1996 Master Plan stipulations previously approved by the City. 2. The project plan and related land use requests shall be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and shall include resolution to the exterior finish, rooftop screening, and other site issues which may affect successful integration with the adjacent multi-story development. 3. Approval of final construction plans as required by the development agreement. 4. City approval of all uses prior to occupancy in the building. M -98 -27 8=C s 4 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE 10 Hardrives, Inc. 14475 Quiram Drive Rogers, MN 55374 -9461 1995 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 - 1 & 2 Estimate No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $81,684.04 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the consent agenda items. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. NEW BUSINESS: 19. APPROVE MASTER PLAN FOR LAKE POINTE OFFICE PARK BY MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the evalua- tion of the Master Plan for Lake Pointe culminates a three -month review process by staff, City commissions, and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Neighborhood meetings were also conduc- ted, and it is recommended that the Master Plan be approved with twelve stipulations. Ms. Dacy presented aerial photos of the 38 -acre site. She stated that R -1 zoning was retained to -provide a buffer for the neighbor- hood to the north. The S -2 zoning comes into play because what is proposed in the Master Plan should be consistent with what the City desires for the site. The proposed plan is for 582,000 square feet of corporate office space consisting of two five -story buildings, one six -story building, and one eight -story building. Serving the office building will be a three -story office deck. Ms. Dacy stated that on the east portion of the site there will be three commercial buildings housing -a restaurant, a four -story hotel, and a bank and office structure. There may be some day care facilities located in the office building to serve employees. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE 11 Ms. Dacy stated that the developer will be required to plat the property as it is developed. The office building exteriors will be brick or pre -cast concrete. There would be standard signage, lighting, and landscaping. A plaza area in the center of the site is proposed, as well as a major entrance. Easements would be retained for the bikeway /walkway. - Ms. Dacy stated that the S -1 zoning district requires a special use permit if other than a nine -foot wide parking stall is contemplated. A lump sum payment is recommended for the park fee, and five additional ponds are proposed. The developer would have to comply with all requirements of the Six Cities and Rice Creek Watershed Districts. Ms. Dacy stated that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority received the indirect source permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for control of the air quality and noise. One of the stipulations is that MEPC has to accept the transfer of this permit once they take ownership of the property. The next step in the process is for MEPC to carry out the marketing plan for the site. Ms. Dacy stated _that staff is continuing to work on the improvement for the Highway 65 intersection. Mr. Dave Jellison, representing MEPC, stated that everything is proceeding well. There is a large user for the site needing 125,000 square feet with another 50,000 square feet over the initial four years. Two other companies are also considering this site. Mr. Jellison stated that they are having some difficulty marketing the service side of the property. Both Hampton Inns and Marriott Corp. like the visibility but feel there needs to be more development before they could proceed. This also holds true for the restaurant to proceed. Mr. Jellison stated that they are planning a large broker outing on July 18 centered around the Master Plan. He hopes to get over 100 real estate brokers at the site to familiarize them with the development. Mr. Ed Farr was present that evening to answer any questions about the architectural design. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if there was any new information on the intersection improvements. Ms. Dacy stated that discussions have been initiated with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and they have been brought up to date on MEPC's plan. It is hoped that construction can began within the next one to two years. MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Master Plan for Lake Pointe Office Park by MEPC American Properties with the following stipulations: (1) appropriate plat applications shall be submitted and approved prior to development of the 8 -E FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE 12 property; (2) all uses in the development shall comply with the following list of permitted uses: office uses typically associated with corporate /Class A office developments; hotel and conference facilities; banks /financial institutions; Class III restaurants as defined in Section 205.03.59 of the zoning code; day care facilities; and other uses as specifically approved by the City. Uses allowed in each individual building after construction will be the same or similar to those uses identified in this application. The City shall review and approve each use prior to occupancy; (3) detailed architectural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The type of materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the City; (4) a comprehensive sign plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of the first building permit based on the plan dated March 29, 1996 and addressing the following issues: (a) wall signs (building identification and tenant signage) shall meet the wall sign requirements of the sign code; (b) no free - standing pylon signs are permitted; (c) height, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified; (d) two free - standing project identifier (D) signs are permitted; the size and height to be approved by the City Council; (e) all free - standing signs shall be set back ten feet from property lines; and (f) the petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation; (5) the petitioner shall work with the City in preparing transportation demand strategies to promote ride - sharing and transit use to the property; (6) twelve to fifteen foot light standards shall be installed along Bridgewater Drive adjacent to the residential area. Sodium high pressure lights shall be used for the parking lot lights and street lights; (7) if the parking decks or parking areas are within the R -1, Single Family Dwelling zone, a special use permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; (8) if nine -foot wide parking spaces are to be proposed within the development, a special use permit as required by the S -2, Redevelopment District, must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; (9) appropriate permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Six Cities Watershed Management Organization, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for storm water management and grading shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. Detailed engineering plans and calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with plat applications and building permit applications for review and approval by the City; (10) when appropriate, MEPC shall accept the transfer of the Indirect Source Permit from the HRA; (11) detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building permit applications. Ten to twelve foot evergreens shall be installed along the north wall of the parking deck. The detailed landscaping shall be based on the concept plan dated March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at time of building permit issuance; and (12) park fees shall be paid prior to the initiation t of construction of the first development on the site. Easements 8-F FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL FETING OF JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE 13 shall be dedicated at the time of plan approval over the existing bikeway /walkway areas. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 20. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT NO. 3, PROJECT NO. 293: Mr. Wilczek, Assistant Public Works Director, stated that four bids were received for this project, and the low bidder was' Richmar Construction at $1,507,485. The engineer's estimate for this project was $1,395,000, so the low bidder is $112,485 over the estimate. However, the project has changed since the original estimates were submitted. The budget for this project was based on an April, 1995 report from Meier Stewart and Associates. Mr. Wilczek stated that the difference in the actual bids and the estimate was probably due to several factors, including marginal soil borings and the cost for the electrical and instrumentation work. Even though the bids are higher than expected, he did not believe the City would receive any better bids. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked about the electrical and instrumentation work. Mr. Tom Roshar, Meier Stewart and Associates, stated that their estimates were not accurate on the costs for electrical and instrumentation work. The estimated cost prepared in May was low and should have been increased. Another likely cause for these higher costs is that the City has a SCADA system supplier that did a lot of work in the City, and the system is now expanding. He felt the bids for the electrical and instrumentation work were not as competitive as they should have been. Because of this vendors' existing equipment and past experience in the City, the other vendors may have been unable to provide competitive prices for the work. In addition, the vendor of the existing equipment may have had less incentive to reduce their prices. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive the bids for the construction of water treatment plant No. 3, Project No. 293: Richmar Construction, Inc., for $1,507,485; Sheehy Construction Company, Inc. for $1,558,141; Newmech Companies, Inc. for $1,566,800; and Stahl Construction Company for $1,934,999. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to award the contract for the construction of Fridley Water Treatment Plant No. 3, Project No. 293 to the low bidder, Richmar Construction, Inc. for $1,507,485. 8 -G MEMORANDUM HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE: January 30, 1998 TO: William W. Bums, Executive Director of HRA d413) FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 57th Avenue Reconstruction Project Preliminary estimates have been received by the consultant regarding the reconstruction of 57th Avenue. Presentation boards illustrating the streetscape improvements and the street design will be presented on Thursday evening. The HRA contribution to the project was budgeted at $86,000. This amount included $50,000 or 50% of a $100,000 landscaping and irrigation budget and $36,000 or 50% of the decorative street lighting cost. The remaining amount was to be assessed to the property owners. The estimate for the landscaping element is approximately $113,260, which would increase the HRA's share to $95,855. The landscaping element includes: 1. 12 -20 foot sections of 3 foot tall decorative fence like the Rottlund project. 2. 4 decorative fences at the intersections. 3. 37 decidous trees and 10 ornamental trees. 4. 16 -18 decorative street lights. 5. 31 to 36 groupings of hedges. Optional elements not to be paid by the Authority includes installation of GFI receptacles on the fence sections for hedge lighting and a 2 foot wide stamped, color concrete maintenance edge along the curbing of 57th Avenue. No action is need by the HRA at this time, but staff would like to review the plans and obtain the Authority's comments. Approvals of the expenditures will be scheduled for a future agenda. M -98 -28 rCJ s DATE: January 22, 1998 MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION TO: William W. Bums, City Manager t/ FROM: Barbara Da cy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator John Flora, Public Works Director Jon Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director SUBJECT: 57 h Avenue Reconstruction The purpose of this memo is to give you a brief update on 57"' Avenue design progress, associated costs, and the anticipated design/approval/ reconstruction schedule. DESIGN Staff has met with Paul Danielson and Thomas Harrington, BRW, several times over the past 30 days. As a result of these meetings, both the hard (curb, drive surface, median) and soft (landscape and street furnishing) feature designs are nearing completion. Color presentation boards will be available for the City Council's review on Monday evening. COST Total costs for this project will be $826,209.65, plus $36,120.00 for 2 foot wide - colored concrete maintenance edge, along the curb on the north and south sides of 57'h Avenue NE. Broken into component costs, the list appears as follows: City of Fridley Original Commitment $100,000.00 8% Construction Engineering Cost $ 44,735.00 Design Fees $ 58,000.00 Home Depot contribution to design costs ( -) $ 25,000.00 9 -A William W. Bums, City Manager January 23, 1998 PAGE 2 CITY TOTAL Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Lighting Fixtures & Installation (50% of cost) Landscaping (50% of cost) TOTAL $177,735.00 $ 39,325.00 $ 56,530.00 $95,855.00 Other Businesses along 5r Storm water, utilities, concrete sidewalk, concrete maint strip, lighting, landscaping ($110.00111 X 2080 I.f.) . $228,800.00 TOTAL $228,800.00 Anoka County Original Commitment $240,000.00 Sign restoration/movement cost $ 7,550.00 Cost above original commitment $112,389.65 TOTAL $359,939.65 GRAND TOTAL $862,329.65 *IMPORTANT NOTE: A $75,000.00 contingency fund has been built into the cost of this project to protect against overages in development cost Staff also anticipates that MSA contributions will be approved to off -set these costs. Actual MSA reimbursement amounts, are yet to be determined. One additional unknown cost, is the cost of acquisition of additional right -of -way, primarily along the south edge of 57th Avenue NE. Staff is meeting with Dave Hoeschen, of Holiday on Monday to discuss this and other matters. SCHEDULE January 26,1998............ Staff/business owner's meetings begin January 30, 1998 ..............Staff to submit plans to state for state aid approval February 3, 1998 .............. Hyde Park, 574' Street Owner's meeting to discuss redesign, continued service during construction etc. William W. Bums, City Manager January 23, 1998 PAGE 3 March 16, 1998 ............... Council Approval of plans, specifications, R.O.W. agreements March 16, 1998 ................Council Approval to advertise contract and set bid opening date for April 10, 1998 March 20, 1998 ................Advertise Project April 10, 1998 .................. Bid Opening April 20, 1998 .................. City Council award bids. June 1, 1998 ................... Commence with reconstruction September 1, 1998........... Anticipated Completion Date If you have questions regarding the improvement project, costs or timetable, please let us know. 9MC JAN -22 -1998 15:33 BRW ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 57th Avenue Fridley, MN 612 370 1378 P.02�07 \ s \\ BRW FILE: 35689-002 o1r1m No. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST AMOUNT Bid Schedule A - Roadway 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1.00 $32,000.00 $32.000.00 2 CLEARING ha 056 $5,000.00 $2,805.00 3 CLEARING TREE 37.00 $250.00 $9.250.00 4 GRUBBING ha 0.56 $s.m.00 $2,805.00 5 GRUBBING TREE 37.00 $250.00 59250.00 6 REMOVE WATER MAIN m 33.70 $20.00 $674.00 7 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) m 91.00 $21.00 $1.911.00 6 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER m 1206.00 $9.00 $10.854.00 9 REMOVEFENCE m 17.00_ $8.00 $136.00 10 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK m2 145,00 $15,00 $? 175.00 11 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT m2 91.00 $20.00 $1.820.00 12 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT m2 8350.00 $1.10 $9,185.00 13 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN m2 250.00 $7.50 $1.875.00 14 REMOVE VALVE & BOX EACH 3.00.00.00 $900.00 15 REMOVE HYDRANT EACH 3.00 $300.00 $900.00 16 REMOVE CATCHBASIN EACH 5.00 $300.00 $1.500.00 17 REMOVE CONCRETE FLUME EACH 1.00 $300.00 $300.00 18 REMOVE SIGN TYPE C EACH 6.00 $15.00 $90.00 19 REMOVE SIGN BASE (LARGE) EACH 1.00 $800.00 $800.00 20 REMOVE SIGN BASE (SMALL) EACH 3.00 S 0.00 5750.00 21 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) m 520.00 54.75 $2,470.00 22 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C EACH 52.00 $30.00 $1.560.00 23 RELOCATE COMMERCIAL SIGN (LARGE) EACH 1.00 $3,000.00 $3000.00 24 RELOCATE COMMERCIAL SIGN (SMALL) EACH 3.00 $1,000.00 $3.000.00 25 RELOCATE SHED EACH 1.00 $1,200.00 $1.200.00 26 RELOCATE BENCH EACH 1.00 $120,00 $120.00 27 REMOVE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER m 94.00 $9.00 $846.00 28 COMMON EXCAVATION m3 4260.00 $4.00 $17,040.00 Pape 1 of 6 9 -D JAN -22 -1998 1533 SRW 612 370 1378 P ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 57th Avenue Fridley, MN Pegs 2 0l 6 9-E 011=98 SAW FILE: 35669.002 No. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST AMOUNT 29 SUSGRADE EXCAVATION m3 2748.00 $3.50 $9.618.00 30 GRANULAR BORROW (LV) m3 2265.00 $5.75 $13.023.75 31 SALVAGED TOPSOIL (LV) m3 561.00 $7.00 $3.927.00 32 STABILIZING AGGREGATE m3 10.00 $20.00 $200.00 33 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 (P) m3 2271.00 $18.00 $40.878.00 34 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE It 1170.00 536.00 $42,120.00 35 TYPE 41 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE t 1005.00 $36.00 $36.180.00 36 TYPE 31 BASE COURSE MIXTURE t 1672.00 $34.00 $56.848.00 37 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT L 4008.00 $0.30 $1202.40 38 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL m2 10.00 $130.00 $1.300.00 39 300 mm RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V m 94.70 570.00 $6.829.00 40 375 mm RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V m 116.00_ $80.00 - $9.290.00 41 450 mm RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V m 184.90 $90.00 - X16,641.00 42 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1.00 5750.00 5750.00 43 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 3.00 $800.00 $1.800.00 44 ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 1.00 $150.00 $150.00 45 150 mm PIPE BEND 45 DEGREE EACH 1.00 5250.00 $250.00 46 HYDRANT EACH 3.00 $1.700.00 $5,100.00 47 150 mm GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 3.00 $450.00 $1.350.00 48 15o mm WATER MAIN - DUCTILE IRON CL 52 m 41.00 $_00 $3,690.00 49 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN F m 30.20 $650.00 $19,630.00 5o CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN H EACH 3.00 $1.200.00 $3.600100 51 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH 4.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 52 100 mm CONCRETE WALK m2 616.00`$36y,_00 $22,176.00 53 CONCRETE MEDIAN m2 x•00 W00 $27.405.00 54 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 8624 m 47.00 $26.00 $1.222.00 55 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 8618 m 1250.00_ $22.00•5�•� so CONCRETE MEDIAN NOSE DESIGN M7109 EACH 3.00 $200.00 $600.00 57 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP (TYPE D) EACH 10.00_ $500.00 $5,000.00 58 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1.00 $4.800.00 $4,800.00 Pegs 2 0l 6 9-E JAN -22 -1998 15:34 BRW 612 370 1378 P. 04-10? el 9 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 57th Avenue Fridley. MN BRW FILE: 35689 -002 Qtigvm No. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST AMOUNT 59 F8J SIGN PANEL TYPE C m2 12.30_ $235.00 $2,890.50 60 PAVEMENT MESSAGE TYPE 1 (LT ARROW) EPDXY EACH 20.00 $110.00 $2,200,00 61 PAVEMENT MESSAGE TYPE 1 (RT ARROW) EPDXY EACH 4.00 $110.00 $44000 62 PAVEMENT MESSAGE TYPE 1 (ONLY) EPDXY EACH 9.00 $11000 $99000 63 INSTALL SIGN TYPE C EACH 50.00 550.00 $2,500,00 64 100 mm SOLID LINE WHITE - EPDXY m 480.00 $1.50 $720.00 65 100 mm BROKEN LINE WHITE - EPDXY m 610.00 $1.50 S916,00 66 600 mm SOLID LINE WHITE - EPDXY m 75.00 Von $750.00 67 100 mm DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPDXY m 66,00 53.00 $196.00 68 100 mm SOLID UNE YELLOW - EPDXY m 285.00 $150 $42750 69 100 mm BROKEN LINE YELLOW - EPDXY m 9500_ $150 $142 so 70 600 mm SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPDXY m 40.00 S10.0o $400,00 71 CROSSWALK MARKING - EPDXY m2 32,00 $36.00, $1 152.00 72 SIGNAL SYSTEM LUMP SUM 1.00 $501000.00 $50,000.00 73 BALE CHECK EACH 112.00 56.00 $672.00 74 SILT FENCE. TYPE HEAVY DUTY m 750.00 $8.00 $6,000.00 75 SODDING. TYPE LAWN m2 3170.00 $1.80 $5,708,00 SUBTOTAL: $.559.189.65 Page 3 of 6 F JAN -22 -1998 1534 EIRW z R ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 57th Avenue Fridley, MN 612 370 1378 P. 05/0? Par* B of 8 9 -G 0112ame BRW FILE: 35689 -M No. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST AMOUNT Bid Schedule 8 - Lighting , 1 REMOVE LIGHT BASE EACH 3.00 5250.00 $750.00 2 SALVAGE LIGHT STANDARD & LUMINAIRE EACH 3.00 $200.00 $600.00 3 INSTALL SALVAGED LIGHTS EACH 3.00 $1.500.00 $4.500.00 4 INSTALL ORNAMENTAL LIGHTS EACH 16.00 $4,300.00 $68.800.00 S INSTALL GFI RECEPTACLES EACH 16.00 $25040 $4,000.00 SUBTOTAL: $78.650.00 Par* B of 8 9 -G JAN -22 -1998 15:34 BRW ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 57th Avenue Fridley, MN 612 3 ?0 1378 P.06/.O? BRW FILE: 35669.002 01" No. ITEM UNIT OUANTITY UNIT COST AMOUNT Bid Schedule C - Landscaping 1 LANDSCAPE EDGER. VINYL m 460.00 $5.75 $2,645.00 2 IRRIGATION SYSTEM, REPAIR $ REPLACE m2 3530.00 $550 $19,415.00 3 BRICK PILASTER 0.6 m SO. 1.2 m HIGH W /PRECAST C EACH 36.00 Siam= $43.200.00 4 ALUMINIUM FENCE 0.9 M HT m 120.00 $115.00 $13.800.00 5 DECIDUOUS TREE 65 mm CAL B&B (OVERSTORY) TREE 37.00 $250.00 $9,250.00 6 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.4 m HT B38 (ORNAMENTAL) TREE 10.00 $175.00 $1,750.00 7 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 460 mm HT CONT SHRUB 400.00 $30.00 $12,000.00 8 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 760 mm HT CONT SHRUB 140.00 $40.00 851600.00 9 PERENNIAL 115 mm CONT PLANT 800.00_57.00 $5.600.00 SUBTOTAL: $113,260.00 Altemative Items 1 100 mm INTEGRALLY COL. CONC. MAINT. EDGE 0.6 m m2 420.00 _ X86.00 $36,120,00 SUBTOTAL: $36.120.00 Pape 5 of 6 9-H JAN -22 -1998 15:34 BRW ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 57th Avenue Fridley. MN 612 370 13 ?8 ?, 7,. -V? BASIS FOR QUANTITIES BITUMINOUS MIXTURES - 62.4 kg PER SQUARE METER PER 25 mm THICKNESS BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT - 0.23 L PER SQUARE METER OF APPLICATION Page 8 of 6 01122W BRW FILE: 35689-002 No. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ;;_!hi LIN T _ 810 SUMMARY Bed Schedule A - Roadway Bid Schedule B - Lighting a ifi0.00 Bid Schedule C - Landscaping $112,260.00 SUBTOTAL: n i'099.65 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL: $826.209.65 Altemative items BASIS FOR QUANTITIES BITUMINOUS MIXTURES - 62.4 kg PER SQUARE METER PER 25 mm THICKNESS BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT - 0.23 L PER SQUARE METER OF APPLICATION Page 8 of 6