HRA 04/02/1998 - 6298-4-
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1998
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COPY
(Please return to Community Development Department)
La
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 2,1998,7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
LOCATION: Council Chambers (upper level), Fridley Municipal Center
March 5, 1998
Claims and Expenses ... ............................... 1-113
Consider Acquisition of 611 Lafayette Street ................ 2-213
Consider Acquisition of 5297 Lincoln Street
and 1015 Mississippi Street .............................. 3 - 3B
Update on Lake Pointe Technology Center ................. 4 - 4A
Commission and Council Survey Results ................... 5
1999 Community Development Department
Goals and Objectives .... ............................... 6-6K
Home Remodeling Fair Update ........................... 7
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
MARCH 5,1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the March 5, 1998, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer
Members Absent: Jim McFarland, Duane Prairie
Others Present: William Bums, Executive Director
Barbara Dacy, Community Development, Director
Jim Casserly, Financial Consultant
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Craig Ellestad, Accountant
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 19 1998 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY MEETING:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the February 19, 1998,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Doom WOURVITni
Mr. Commers noted that Mr. Ellestad had distributed copies of his memo dated March 5,
1998, listing additional expenses for approval.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the Consent Agenda
including the additional expenses as outlined in Mr. Ellestad's memo dated March 5,
1998.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ACTION ITEMS:
2. CONSIDER ACQUISITION OF 611 LAFAYETTE STREET
Ms. Dacy stated staff. is proposing to acquire 611 Lafayette Street. The proposed
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAR. 5, 1998 PAGE 2
acquisition price is $3,000, and staff is also proposing to assume the demolition costs
estimated to be between $4,000 and $5,000. In order to assist the owners, staff has
suggested selling one of the HRA lots to the owner on a deferred loan proposal which has
not been done before. Staff reviewed the proposal with the owner's attorney. At this
time, they have not accepted or rejected the proposal. The policy has been that, when
given an acquisition, staff only presents it when the owner consents. Given the fact that
there is not an agreement, staff suggests postponing consideration until the April meeting.
Mr. Commers stated the owner had a rehab loan and asked if he was correct that this
loan was not from the City.
Ms. Dacy stated that was correct. The owner is petitioning MHFA to have that loan
forgiven entirely.
Mr. Meyer asked what the status was regarding the owner's fire insurance.
Ms. Dacy stated the amount of the insurance does not cover entirely the amount of the
mortgage. With the proceeds of the acquisition, the owner would be able to fill that gap.
The insurance company has made a determination.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to table consideration of the
acquisition of 611 Lafayette Street until staff brings it back before the HRA.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
T11 F9
Ms. Dacy stated the City Council on Monday evening approved all of the planning items
related to this development.. Regarding the suggested stipulation of the rooftop garden/
vegetation, the City Council agreed with the HRA's approach.
Ms. Dacy stated that on February 27, the developer heard first hand from MnDOT the
timing issues and construction schedule for the intersection. As a part of that discussion,
the major concern of the developer was how to bring potential tenants into the site during
the construction timeframe. After evaluating a broader map of how to get to the site, it
was suggested that the tenants could be routed to the site by coming off 1 -694 south on
Highway 65 to 53rd Avenue, and then over to 7th Street to access the southwest comer
of the site. This would be on a temporary basis, and they are not anticipating intensive
traffic.
Ms. Dacy stated the current schedule is to open bids at the end of May, award the project
in June, and initiate construction in July. They would start with such things as the
underground utility relocation, excavating a portion of Moore Lake for the right turn lane
on Highway 65, etc. An up -to -date draft of the contract was received late Wednesday
afternoon. Mr. Casserly has put together a summary of the key issues pertaining to the
development.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAR. 5, 1998 PAGE 3
Ms. Dacy stated the first issue is the minimum assessment agreement which has been
resolved. The issue regarding the date of closing is being proposed to be based on the
date of initiation of the intersection construction. The draft now says the closing will occur
within one month of initiation of construction, and construction of the MEPC project would
begin within 60 days of the initiation of the intersection improvements. They are trying to
meet with the developer to resolve the language around that particular issue. She will
provide an update when that occurs.
Mr. Casserly stated that at the last meeting, the chairperson asked for a draft with the
changes underlined. This has been provided. When the agreement comes to you and
there is consensus on the business terms, there are then a number of small issues that
will come up that are considered minor or technical issues. In this instance, there have
been several issues that have arisen that are not minor or technical. One of them was
the valuation which was discussed at the last meeting. Another issue is when the closing
has to take place and the construction commence because of the intersection
improvements. They have operated under the assumption that even during the
construction period there would be access into the site. They have been informed this is
not accurate, and there will have to be an alternative way to reach the site. In sorting this
out, we need to keep clarifying what it is that MnDOT is actually going to initiate. When
will the contract be let? It appears that MnDOT will be opening the bids at the end of
May, awarding the contract in June, and typically work would commence 30 to 45 days
after that. They need to get the timing pinned down better if we can.
Mr. Casserly stated that as they get closer to the construction, they start finding issues
that are peculiar to the project itself. They have had a couple of issues in the past
regarding stormwater ponding and drainage. When they do transfer, who maintains it?
What happens if there is more than one developer on the site? These are all ancillary
issues and only arise when it looks like you are going to do the project. It makes sense to
address them now rather than trying to do it after the agreement is executed and it gets
closer to the closing. The time invested in these issues is not wasted. These are issues
that need to be addressed.
Mr. Casserly stated he hoped to have a final version of the development contract at the
next meeting. They should quit negotiating the contract soon and resolve the remaining
issues.. He thought they were coming to the end.
Mr. Commers stated he hoped they would be able to move forward and get something
going this spring or early summer.
4. UPDATE ON SHORTY'S TOWING SITE
Ms. Dacy stated the HRA evaluated the acquisition of the J. R.'s Automotive site in
November 1995. The HRA authorized staff to contact the owner and request a
completed Phase I audit. After that contact, staff did not hear back until last month. She
asked the owner that, prior to evaluating an acquisition, they requested an environmental
analysis of the property. The owner did complete the Phase I audit. There is an old
underground gas tank that has not been used for some time. State law requires that the
tank be removed. There is also an empty above - ground tank as well. The owner was not
sure what contents were in that tank. Prior to J. R. owning the property, the site was an
automotive operation. There may be the potential for some type of contamination.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAR. 5, 1998 PAGE 4
During the audit, they did not see any visible means of spillage or contamination.
Ms. Dacy stated that in terms of the land use of this particular site, the site is one of four
parcels that the HRA has evaluated over the last 8 to 10 years. This site is part of the
Winfield redevelopment project which at that time was for a strip mall and bank. Since
that time, Rapid Oil Company has developed its facility. If the HRA decides to buy the
property, they would have to maintain it as is until they can get a redevelopment plan
approved. The site would qualify as part of a tax increment district. The parcel could tie
in with the Frank's Used Car site. If the HRA did not acquire the site, more than likely
another auto use would occupy the building. If the HRA does not acquire the property,
the owner will take steps to rehab the building.
Ms. Dacy stated that now that a lot of other issues are coming to completion including the
southwest quadrant, 57th Avenue, Lake Pointe, etc., there is now time to go back to the
Frank's site and re- evaluate a redevelopment plan. They need to do this. in the next two
to three months.
Ms. Dacy stated staff would like to keep discussing the issue with the owner. Staff talked
with the owner and advised the owner that since he has to remove the underground tank
anyway, it may be wise for him to do a Phase II audit. There are state funds to reimburse
the costs. In the meantime, staff could contact an appraiser to get an analysis on the
property in terms of market value. Once these items are finished, staff would come back
with a request to approve or deny the potential acquisition.
Ms. Dacy stated the site is located on the service road in. the northeast comer of.
University and 57th Avenue just north of the Rapid Oil site. The site consists of
approximately 16,000 square feet. The site is prominent in terms of an entrance into the
community. Coupled with the Frank's Used Car site, it could change and improve the
gateway into the city.
Ms. Dacy stated no action is needed. If there is no objection, staff will proceed to contract
an appraiser.
Mr. Commers stated he was not sure this was still on the HRA's agenda. This was
considered in 1995 and nothing occurred. He thought the HRA was starting over in
determining where they are. It is not a priority in the budget either, so they would have to
start from scratch. That does not mean, however, that if the opportunity is there, that they
not do anything.
Mr. Commers stated at one time they had talked about putting in housing and had
discussed the need to acquire a duplex. In 1995, the attorney advised the HRA to be
careful in taking those properties. The attorney was pretty observant of what the
requirements might be if taking the property. He stated they could continue negotiations
and see where it leads. In terms of inputting a lot of land and inventory and banking it
without a plan, they needed to be careful.
Ms. Schnabel asked if they should have an appraisal done.
Ms. Dacy stated she thought it would be worthwhile to pursue an appraisal and get that
information back. They did not have an appraisal before. They wanted to have the
Phase I done first, and that was just completed last month.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAR. 5, 1998 PAGE 5
Mr. Commers stated he thought the Phase I affects the appraisal. The Phase 11 is not
complete. They ran into problems on the Rapid Oil site.
Ms. Dacy stated that is why she told the owner he would be responsible for the Phase I I
and the clean up costs.
Mr. Meyer stated he thought they should get an appraisal in order to have a baseline.
This can be updated as the need arises.
Ms. Schnabel agreed.
Ms. Commers stated the consensus of the HRA was to have staff proceed to get an
appraisal of the site.
5. REMODELING FAIR UPDATE
Ms. Dacy stated the remodeling fair will be held April 18 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Fifty -two out of 66 booths have been filled, and Mr. Femelius has received more
applications since the memo was written. Seminars are planned. The Home Remodeling
Advisor will have a booth. Employees from Community Development and building
officials will be there to answer code questions.
Mr. Commers stated he would encourage residents to take advantage of this event.
6. MONTHLY HOUSING PROGRAM SUMMARY
Mr. Commers stated this is a monthly report indicating where they stand on the various
loan activities. He asked if the Finance Department had any oversight of this report.
Mr. Pribyl stated the information comes from CEE. Mr. Femelius works with the Finance
Department to put the report together for the HRA.
Ms. Schnabel stated she had a question on the delinquent loans. What action is taken to
encourage payments to be brought up to date?
Mr. Dacy stated the contract with Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) stated they are
to do the servicing, and they use the typical procedures to contact recipients regarding
payments. Mr. Femelius is kept apprised on that. The CRF staff contacts homeowners.
Ms. Schnabel asked what method are they using.
Ms. Dacy stated she would check. Her impression is that they contact the homeowner by
mail. She is not aware of direct phone contact.
Ms. Schnabel asked if there were penalty charges for delinquencies.
Ms. Dacy stated she would find out.
OTHER BUSINESS:
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAR. 5, 1998 PAGE 6
7. SURVEYS
Mr. Bums stated they did a citizens' survey and then followed with a Council/Commission
survey. Altogether, 26 out of 47 surveys were returned. Those results have been
compiled with some interesting comparisons with the opinions of the Council and the
opinions of the Commissions. He thought it makes some interesting reading. He will
make copies available and will discuss the surveys if the HRA wishes to do so.
Mr. Commers asked what they would be doing with the information.
Mr. Bums stated the information is used in the goals and objectives setting process. If
they see a substantial amount of agreement on issues, those will be reflected in the
program proposals for 1999 and in the budget. In areas where there is disagreement,
those areas will be brought back to the Council and the boards for further discussiori.
The survey will be used in the Council budget sessions. Oftentimes, he will take items
into the budget sessions that have not been funded just to make sure they are not
skipping things that should be addressed.
Mr. Commers stated he thought it would be useful for the HRA to look at it to see if there
are any references regarding the areas for which the HRA has responsibility. After
looking at it, they can decide if they want further discussion.
Mr. Bums stated he would mail a copy of the surveys out to the HRA members.
8. UPDATE ON SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
Mr. Meyer asked for an update on the southwest quadrant.
Ms. Dacy stated that 45 out of 64 three -story townhomes have been sold. Of the 54 one
and two -story homes, 31 have been sold. Councilmember Barnette had recently asked
for an analysis of the age of the buyers of the one and two -story homes. More than 50%
were in the empty nester range.
Mr. Meyer asked if families with children were moving in there.
Ms. Dacy stated she thought there were two or three young families that purchased a
two -story home. She did not know if they had children.
Mr. Commers stated it would be interesting to know how many people are from within
Fridley.
Ms. Dacy it seemed that the majority of owners are from Fridley, Columbia Heights, New
Brighton, or the north metro area.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAR. 5, 1998 PAGE 7
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 5,1998, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:07 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
L vonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
. x
s
v
.'O: FRIDLEY H.R.A
'ROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY
tE: BILLING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING EXPENSES
MARCH 1998
Account Vs for
HRA's Use
ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING:
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD
COMPUTER OVERHEAD
(For Mfc m & Nni computers)
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING: 460 - 0000 - 430 -4107
OPERATING EXPENSES:
USPS - POSTAGE
USPS - POSTAGE
US WEST - TELEPHONE
PETTY CASH
BENEFITS EXPENSES:
262 -0000 - 430 -4332
460 - 0000 - 430 -4332
460 - 0000 - 430 -4332
460 -0000- 430 -4340
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 - MARCH 1998
File :1EXDATAWRA\TIF%98BILLjds Details
1
Account #'s for
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
77.35
236 - 0000 -336 -3000
HA
14.61
236 -0000 -336 -3000
HA
23.62
236 -0000- 336 -3000
HA
17.54
133.12
236 - 0000 - 336 -3000
HA
185.59
236-0000- 219 -1001 11
22.53
236-0000 -219 -1100 12
3.50
211.62
236 - 0000 - 219 -1200 13
P M
r
IA
M
N
N
r
O
O
O
O
r
1
O
n
M
P
1
O
O
O O
O O
r
N
...
US
i
O
d �
1
O
z
�
pp,.
V1
O O
O N
a
M
i
M
O
d
r
CNO
W
Ge
r
r
O
O
I
000 M
U1
r
K
U
O
I
in
P
OC
U
O
1
O
O
I
F
N
C cc
O O
I 1
O
N •O
I
I
I
Z
OC
U
O
1
IA
P
I
OD
01
OO
O
1
O
N
I
�
m
M
O
O
O
O
I
d
4
M
O
P
M
M M
O I 0
O O
O O
O O
LLI
cii
N
m
O
O
O
O
I
W
s
I
1
I
I
dw
1
N
�t
It
I
1
1
N
•O
N
Al
10
N
N
I
O
.D
N
1 1
N N
•O •O
N N
1
N
•O
N
I
W
I
O
�O
N
I
1
Q
1
IX
d
H
I
Z
I
LU
r
I
r
> .y
i
W J
r
W W
OC I.
I
I
P
O
O
r
Z
O
Q
cC
a
Z
W
I
V
'N
0
Y x
1
J G
N I
W
o C7
a
z
W
2
a i
OIC r
t
L I
I
(�% 1
6
/
P i
1
L
z
Z
ma
q4�
N W 94 M
'L
�O
N P W W W r
O \JJJ r
OM..JJJ r
W
U
O O W W W
K
N
r
1
r
r
W r
1W-
P
Cd9 !-Y
ON
\
w m00 r
N Z
in
OrF -0 00
ZO
en
m
O ••
ZUMM°d :
oum
4
ne
4
d
d d d i
O ui
LLI
cc Ge ce
aN
OZ
CL IL
a ca C5
O 00
O M
O
P
IA
M
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
n
M
P
N
P
O
O
O O
O O
O O7
N
...
Q
�?
O
O
Ln
O
OM•
M
pp,.
V1
O O
O N
a
M
M
M
O
COD
CNO
O
A
O
O
tin
000 M
U1
a
4
O
1
IA
P
K
U
O
I
in
P
OC
U
O
1
O
O
M
IL
O
1
O
N
N
C cc
O O
I 1
O
N •O
K
U
O
I
M
1f
OC
U
O
I
O
O
OC
U
O
1
IA
P
zr
O
1
P
.O
OD
01
OO
O
1
O
N
N I�
M r
I O O
O O
O O
O O
N
M
O I
O
O
O
m
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
m
O
O
O
4
M
O
P
M
M M
O I 0
O O
O O
O O
O
1
O
O
O
N
m
O
O
O
O
s
N
M
O
O
O
s
N
O I
O
O
O,
1
2
N N N N N M M M �r IA V% M .O •L •O 1�
P P P P P P P P P 1 P P
N N N N N N N N
N N N N N M N N
P P P P P P P P P a P P P P V P P
00 O OD 00 -a+ O •go 00 00 O 00
P •r P P P P P� P P P •• P P P P �. P P
M\ \ \ N \ L N \ N 0 O \ O - O O N \
\ \ \OC \ \ \cc \ a
ow o 0 0 0 ow o g ov- $ � a g o
O O O a
N ). N N N N N A N N N >. N N N N O N N
N M N N N N N •+ N N N H N L N N
O O O O O O •U O O CD O O O O O cm
U O O U � O O O O O O O O O O O O O
1 -A
Q Ul%�O
0 M
O
CL
H
_P
De •-
0
99
s a
U
n
N
V
Y C
O d
N
...
CI
Z
CC
CI
2
yCy
�L
O
OC
a
W
fA
W Y
Or
L O
_C
O
•1
N
C
d
N
CO
0
.-•
C
O
u�u
S
w
a.
N
Cyr
OC
L
c0
Z
O1
c
cc
L
W
CL V
N
L
C Y
ppEa Y
V
L
Y
E
M
7
E
41
7
Q
d
C
•ppEa
C
OL
W d
C C
paEa a
C
t�ppp
J
wa
.a.
U
X01
U
U.
Ep
L
N
O
L
7
C
E
ppEa
a Cd9
CIC 4
O O.
1 1
P O
•O O
a
4
O
1
IA
P
K
U
O
I
in
P
OC
U
O
1
O
O
01
OC
O
I
P
•O
IL
O
1
O
N
N
C cc
O O
I 1
O
N •O
K
U
O
I
M
1f
OC
U
O
I
O
O
OC
U
O
1
IA
P
zr
O
1
P
.O
d
O
1
O
N
01
OO
O
1
O
N
N I�
M r
I O O
O O
O O
O O
N
M
O I
O
O
O
m
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
m
O
O
O
4
M
O
P
M
M M
O I 0
O O
O O
O O
O
1
O
O
O
N
m
O
O
O
O
N
a
o
O
O
O
N
M
O
O
O
N
M
O 1
O
P
M
1
N
O I
O
O
O,
1
I 1
N N
•O M
N �t
1
N
�t
It
I
N
N
N
1
N
•O
N
Al
10
N
N
I
O
.D
N
1 1
N N
•O •O
N N
1
N
•O
N
I
N
•O
N
I
N
•O
N
I
O
�O
N
O
•O
N
N
•O
N
2
N N N N N M M M �r IA V% M .O •L •O 1�
P P P P P P P P P 1 P P
N N N N N N N N
N N N N N M N N
P P P P P P P P P a P P P P V P P
00 O OD 00 -a+ O •go 00 00 O 00
P •r P P P P P� P P P •• P P P P �. P P
M\ \ \ N \ L N \ N 0 O \ O - O O N \
\ \ \OC \ \ \cc \ a
ow o 0 0 0 ow o g ov- $ � a g o
O O O a
N ). N N N N N A N N N >. N N N N O N N
N M N N N N N •+ N N N H N L N N
O O O O O O •U O O CD O O O O O cm
U O O U � O O O O O O O O O O O O O
1 -A
Q Ul%�O
0 M
O
CL
H
_P
De •-
0
99
s a
U
n
.H I F 1 ..W000ON.+Qrov000 M
.00 1 Z I OI�MOOOMta f�01�000 M
. . . . . . . . . . .
i 1 OOMOOOOVO*-OOVC ~,o0 °ti n
w I Q 1 14) J°JN0V)ciWN0J1•M it to
CJ O Q N p
1
I (
I 1
I
I
O 1
U I i!j
0 1 F
I 1 wcccS> W 4C 6
1 1 OZCUQIt Z Y !pNN-pp W(H� F-
I 1 AQ a04 HIM H <<W i0-
1 1 rwc ~Q. •QF -al JQZ, O •SW L3
( 1 xwt- %00000.-, CL aJ-z z
I Z I WI- I Hwzaa w In Q
LL I amtwm xJ ZXxHa DOOC w
1 w I !I �J j►t- QaMOJQOH i i
(
1-11 J �WZF1 FWWI+.1l .1 A
a 1 aO iLcxoic°xz -ltd oa
f I
I
cc W
w 0.
\ 1
a �1
M I
O I Y(L I MQVJ100,0-1NMR47.OI-W0,
" O I U W( N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M
i1 I- I w 0 1 � �0 •Q �0 •0 �0 10 10 10 l0 %0 *0 10 •0 %0
W I 2 i I *0 �0 `uu *a D 0 %0 '0 G I I '0 '0 0 0
fi Q I UZ I NNNNNNCJNNNNNNNN
m .fit I 1
U \
M f (
C.1 I I
Z 1 1
\ fOG 1 I
Q 1L.1
1 I ~ W ~ r w
1 1 �3 ¢H L) U F
1 t ~WWY(�(OWW a Cie ZUF}-
I 1 z� ---Ix¢ W •W ~.6:3
t I WLLQ a$4 fec>- O
I I xomz Uw F F'UU
I I W itOJ00 F- aJ UZ
1 I XI - LLWHW w C>Zz'QmQ
1 I F- wxcxcF- MWLXC Qo
F- I W I WAZJ H 00 aW >.Ti
Q JAUJuCtYWERJQ
w 1 Q I , mm•acz Q ZF-000
Z I Z 1 •I- He -k- OQU Xz
fi I 1 QOFAttt - MI�EF- Ewa:
O I tL I WWQ W WaJ1 W F- W
.i J I O ! YWwF- W(+fJQOW iOL X
O w l A l z3WT ACJJ(�W w �QH
r >w i w i U►Z1oos i~1WW[QCaW�iA}Lf=OA
YJ W 1 > 1 M>EZ2 LiUUYJ2
�. fe I I
A I 1
N 01-1 1 I
M M 7 I I
EO_ I 1 mWMCpD.WWWOWW Wp.WCpO.W W
AU 1 Yw aPap.Paaa0,0- 0. ��a
Ix W I W Q I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
QiC -i x A NI�f-1�Nr-
a O A I U I N N N N N CJ N N N N N N N N N
WO►. I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
�
ccw1 i MMJMMMMMMMMMMMMM
1 -B
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: March 27, 1998 P
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA ##
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider Acquisition of 611 Lafayette Street
Staff is still negotiating with the property owners of 611 Lafayette Street. Prior to
publishing this agenda, I was unable to contact the property owners' attorney since he
is out of town until Monday, March 30, 1998. Prior to Thursday's meeting, I will contact
the attorney and attempt to negotiate an agreement regarding the final acquisition
amount. I have attached the memorandum from the March agenda. The attorney has
indicated that his clients have declined the offer regarding purchasing one of the HRA's
scattered site lots on a deferred loan basis.
Subject to a successful conclusion of the negotiations nearly next week, staff will
recommend approval of the acquisition.
BD:ls
M -98-66
DATE: February 26, 1998
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Acquisition of 611 Lafayette Street
Background
In September 1997, the site addressed as 611 Lafayette Street was identified as a
potential scattered site acquisition, and a letter was sent to the current owners, Barbara
and Gary Saxe. The owners did not want to sell the property at that time because a
second mortgage with MHFA was still pending, and the owners did not want to pay on
that loan. The MHFA loan was for minor rehab work in 1989 and will be entirely
forgiven in April 1999.
On December 23, 1997, a fire significantly damaged the home at 611 Lafayette Street.
The lot is 5,500 square feet in size and is, therefore, nonconforming to the minimum lot
size requirement of the R -1, Single Family District. The structure is also nonconforming
since it is smaller than the minimum size in the code. Because over 50% of the
structure's value was damaged, the structure cannot be repaired, nor can a new
structure be built on the lot.
Selling the lot in the private market will also be difficult since it is not buildable. The
property to the east of the site is conforming and would not need the additional land
area. The lot to the west of the site is nonconforming and has a similar nonconforming
structure. The ultimate goal would be to tie both lots together for a buildable lot and
new construction.
Proposal
Staff is recommending that the HRA acquire the lot at 611 Lafayette Street for $3,000 in
the "as is" condition, demolish the structure, and maintain the property until it can be
2 -A
Acquisition of 611 Lafayette Street
February 26, 1998
Page 2
assembled with the parcel to the west. The value of the property was determined by an
independent appraisal conducted earlier this month. It may be some time before the
two parcels can be tied together as the HRA has done in other parts of the Riverview
Heights neighborhood, but the property owners have few options available to them
given the restrictions on repair or rebuilding.
It is also proposed that the HRA sell one of the five available scattered site lots to the
property owners and defer the payment on the land mortgage until the home is sold at
some point in the future. This is typically not done with new construction, but it is a
means to assist the property owners to build a new house and stay in Fridley. The
purpose of deferring the land sale payment would be to help the owners.qualify for a
mortgage to build a new home.
The HRA is under no obligation to approve this recommendation. The property owners,
however, are very upset with the City's position regarding repair or building a new
structure. Staff has been working with the owners and has met with them several
times. The owners would prefer to stay in their current home, but the damage is too
great.
The acquisition price and the demolition costs are within typical HRA purchases. The
deferred mortgage is a good idea to not only assist this family in an emergency, but
also to encourage new housing and to assist the owners to stay in Fridley. The HRA
would not be giving the lot away, rather it would defer payment. The new home would
also be in the Housing Replacement District and would be producing tax increment
revenue to the HRA.
The owners have retained legal counsel, and legal counsel has reviewed this proposal.
As of the writing of this memo, legal counsel was discussing the proposal with his
clients. An update will be provided at the meeting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the.HRA authorize staff to enter into a purchase agreement to
acquire the property at 611 Lafayette Street, demolish the structure, and draft a
deferred mortgage for the sale of one of the HRA's available lots. The agreements are
subject to the property owners retiring the first mortgage at 611 Lafayette Street and
transferring the MHFA loan to the new lot.
BD:Is
M -98-43
2 -B
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: March 27, 1998
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA 441y
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Acquisition of 5297 Lincoln Street and 1015 Mississippi St.
Seller: Ralph Porter
Sales Price: $35,000
This item was originally placed on the January 1998 HRA agenda; however, the
seller backed out of the negotiations. Since that time, the seller has re-
considered the issue and is now willing to sell for the original price.
The subject property is a one story, slab on grade, single family home located at
the comer of Lincoln Street and 53'd Avenue. The home was built in 1950 and
has been completely gutted. In fact, the house has been without sewer, water -or
electrical service since 1988. A two car detached garage was built in 1968;
however, the exterior siding has never been installed. Due to the condition of
the property, the appraiser determined that the structures had little or no
significant value and essentially appraised the site as if it were a vacant parcel.
The lot is 84' x 126' or 10,584 square feet in size which is considered buildable
under current code. The lot is located in a very stable neighborhood where the
average home value (for tax purposes) is $101,400. The site would be very
attractive to a home builder.
The property has somewhat of a complicated history. In 1992, the property was
declared tax forfeit for non - payment of real estate taxes. However, the owner at
the time, Marie Puchtel, Mr. Porter's ex -wife, was allowed to sell the property on
her own to make up the back taxes. In July of 1996 after attempts to sell the
property failed, Ralph Porter came forward and purchased the property from his
3
Acquisition Memo
March 27, 1998
Page 2
ex -wife for $30,000 in cash. It was unclear what his motivation was for
purchasing the property because he lives in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Since the
1996 sale, Marie Puchtel Porter has essentially acted as a property squatter
living in a small trailer on the site.
Prior to initiating discussions with Mr. Porter, staff made it very clear that this was
a voluntary sale and that acquisition could only occur if the property was vacant.
Mr. Porter has taken the necessary legal steps to vacate the property, which was
finalized on December 3, 1997. Ms. Puchtel now resides off -site with relatives.
The property is assessed for tax purposes at $63,400 for taxes payable .in 1998
($38,700 for land, $24,700 for buildings). The City Assessor, however, inspected
the property on September 17, 1997, and has since reduced the base value
because the home is not habitable. On September 10, 1997, our contract
appraiser valued the property at $31,130 which included only the land value. A
review appraisal was not obtained.
Staff initially offered $31,000 for the property; however, the owner requested
more than $60,000 for the property and terminated negotiations. He later
contacted staff and offered $35,000. Staffs offer was made contingent upon
HRA approval and execution of a relocation waiver by the seller.
KITIPWA= ..
Sellers: George and Carol Hatcher
Sales Price: $68,000
The subject property is a one story, single family home located on Mississippi
Street approximately % block west of Highway 65. The home was built in 1949
and has 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, a kitchen /dining area, and a living room. Total
habitable floor area is 906 square feet. There is also a two car attached garage.
The house has been maintained in good condition, but was built without proper
footings. Over time the house has experienced some settlement. In 1997, the
owners planned a major rehabilitation project to lift the house off the ground and
install footings, plus a full basement. In addition, the house would be re- framed
to improve the interior floor plan. In essence, the owners wanted to build a new
house on the existing footprint and add some floor space.
The owners scuttled their plans because the project was cost- prohibitive and the
lender was not willing to cooperate to finance the project. The owners then
applied for rehab money through the HRA program, but were turned down
because the scope of the project went beyond the program guidelines.
3 -A
Acquisition Memo
Mar h 27, 1998
Page 3
Since then the owners have decided to try and sell the home, but are concerned
about the lack of footings and the fact that a new mortgage lender may require
this to be corrected. They approached staff about the scattered site program in
late February. Staff completed an interior inspection of the property and
obtained an independent appraisal of the property. The property meets the
criteria of the program.
The property is assessed for tax purposes at $70,365 for taxes payable in 1998
($30,375 for land, $39,990 for the structure). Our independent appraiser
determined the value at $64,000 (a $10,000 adjustment was made for the
footings). The appraiser used the sales comparison approach which looks at
similar properties that have sold within the last 6 months. Using this approach,
the appraiser does not assign a separate value for land and buildings. A review
appraisal was not obtained.
Staff and the owners negotiated a sale price of $68,000 which is within the HRA
guidelines. The owner bought the property in 1993 for $57,000 and has total
debts of $72,000 against the property. The owner will have to cover the cost
differential to payoff the loan and provide clear title. If acquired, the site would
be cleared and added to the HRA's inventory of vacant lots (currently 6 sites).
Staffs offer was made contingent upon HRA approval and execution of a
relocation waiver by the seller.
• y- •_ •
Staff recommends- that the HRA approve the purchase of 5297 Lincoln Street for
$35,000 and 1015 Mississippi St. for $68,000 and further authorize staff to
prepare the necessary documents to close the transactions.
M -98 -63
3 -B
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
AND
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: March 27, 1998
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA A
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Update on Lake Pointe Technology Center
P- - .•u- •
MEPC is reviewing the final changes to the development contract, and we expect to
resolve remaining issues early next week. The contract will require MEPC to receive
their board approval by July 1, 1998. Further, if MnDOT has not initiated construction
on the intersection by November 1, 1998, the contract will terminate. This preserves
the HRA option to negotiate a new contract with MEPC or determine a different course
of action. Finally, the contract will require MEPC to pay 50% of the installation of the
street light costs along Bridgewater Drive and Lake Pointe Drive. A verbal update will
be provided at Thursday's meeting regarding these issues.
The title commitment for the property has been completed and staff is working with the
surveyor to finalize the changes to the plat so that the HRA's requirement to deliver an
accurate survey prior to closing is accomplished.
State statute requires that,prior to the HRA selling property, it must conduct a pubic
hearing. A public hearing regarding the sale of the property will be scheduled for the
May meeting.
•_
MIRA
There is a strip of land between TH 65 and the 8 acre portion of the site which was
turned back to the City of Fridley in the early 1980s. All the tumback property from
MnDOT was vacated in 1987 from MnDOT. About half of the property was to be
r
Update on Lake Pointe Technology Center
March 27, 1998
Page 2
conveyed to Woodbridge Properties at that time to provide additional land area for
development of the site.
The City Council will be adopting an ordinance at its April 6, 1998, meeting to declare
this portion as "excess" and will convey this portion of the tumback property to the HRA
so that it can be combined into the developable area. The remaining half of the
tumback property will be rededicated on the plat as public right -of -way.
The HRA approved the contract with SEH to prepare the final plans and specifications
last year. The total contract amount was $200,000. Because of the changes that
MnDOT has made to the project, additional final engineering fees were incurred. Staff
has not been processing the invoices from SEH until MnDOT provides a guarantee that
they will reimburse the HRA for expenses above the original contract amount. A letter
from MnDOT is anticipated. We wanted to point this out to the HRA at this time since
there may be a future agenda item to authorize another contract with SEH in payment
of expenses under the condition that it is reimbursed from MnDOT.
No action is required by the HRA at this point in time. Signature pages for the
development contract with MEPC are now being prepared and, hopefully, a contract
can be signed by the Chairperson and Executive Director after the meeting.
BD:Is
M -98-69
4 -A
PRESENTATION
SURVEYRESULTS
I. The Sample:
A. All five members of the City Council —by number
rather than initials. I can identify names that go with
the members if you wish.
B. Surveys were received from 26 of 47 commission
members.
II. Use of Results:
A. Results have been made available to department
managers for consideration in preparing their 1999
goals and objectives.
B. Survey results will also be used as background
information for budget work sessions in June and for
Council conference sessions on specific issues.
C. Results will also be made available ' to commission
members for consideration in their discussions.
5
III. The Results - -Areas of Greatest Agreement:
A. I have identified those areas where 4 or more Council
members (80 %) or where 21 of the 26 (80 %)
respondents from the commissions agreed on survey
choices.
B. Council: Four or more Council members agreed on
responses seven times. These areas . of agreement
were for questions 8, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 32.
1. In response to question 8, four of you agreed that
you were very comfortable with continued joint
fire operations planning with Columbia Heights.
2. In response to question 19, four of you agreed
that we should continue our honor system
regarding proof of eligibility for recreation
program fee waivers. You also indicated that
you would restrict fee waivers to Fridley
residents.
3. On question 20, four or you agreed that we
should upgrade streets by geographic area.
Among the four, two of you also mentioned other
choices as equally desirable.
2
4. In response to question 23, four of you said that
we should change our snowbird policy to prohibit
parking on City streets when two or more inches
of snow are expected or have accumulated on
City streets. Two of you did qualify your
answers.
5. In response to question 24, four of you opted to
maintain our existing street lighting policy.
6. However, in response to question 25, all of you
favored a mix of funding mechanisms to support
additional street lighting should we head in that
direction.
7. Finally on question 32, all of you feel that we
should carefully assess commercial/industrial
redevelopment needs as well as the impacts of
our housing redevelopment programs before
redirecting our redevelopment money toward
commercial/industrial property. Four of you
were equally satisfied with other choices,
however, and did qualify your responses.
3
C. Commissions: Twenty -one of the 26 commission
members agreed on the same response 6 times. Their
greatest agreement was for questions 5, 7, 8, 9, 16 and
19.
1. Only on question 8 did Council and the
commission members agree strongly on the same
thing. In this case 24 of the 26 commission
respondents felt comfortable with the Fire
Department's joint operations planning with
Columbia Heights.
2. In response to question 5, twenty -one
commission members were comfortable with
expanding facilities at the fire training center if
these improvements could be paid for with
outside funding sources.
3. Commission response to question 7 indicated
strong support (24 of 26 respondents) for a fire
cadet program.
4. In response to question 9, twenty -four
commission members agreed that we should be
planning future Fire Department facilities with
neighboring communities.
4
5. Responses to question 16 revealed that 21
commission respondents felt that we should
continue to dedicate the "Dunes" area as a
natural, sand dunes park. This response also
indicated a preference for replacing the aging
board walk that meanders through the "Dunes."
6. In response to question 19, twenty -two
commission respondents . felt that we should
continue to restrict Recreation activity fee
waivers to Fridley residents only.
IV. Areas of Majority Agreement:
A. This area is defined as those survey questions where
three Council members and 14 of the 26 commission
members agreed on the same response.
B. Council: This happened 14 times with respect to
Council (questions 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 19, 29, 31, 35, 36,
and 41).
1. In response to question 2, three of you agreed
that we should seek support of other cities and
use local funding to replace about one -half of our
anticipated grant funding reduction for Project
Safety Net.
5
2. In response to question 3, three of you felt that
we should fund the hiring of two additional
police officers in 1999. Only 11 of the 26
commission respondents opted for this choice.
3. In response to question 6, three agreed that we
should stick with a long -term fire equipment
replacement plan that is needed to maintain our
Class 3 fire rating.
4. In response to question 9, three favored planning
future fire facilities with neighboring
communities.
5. With respect to question 10, a majority of
Council members indicated satisfaction with
current Fire Department response times. ,
6. In response to question 19, a majority favored
expanding the fee waiver for recreational
activities to all activities offered by the
department. Three also favored moving from no
annual limit on recreational fee waivers to
establishing a limit on activities or dollars.
7. Your answers to question 29 indicated that a
majority would not begin a monthly brush pick-
up program, but would restrict our brush and tree
limb pickup to those occasions when we have
heavy storm damage.
2
8. On question 31, three of you indicated that you
would rather spend $7,000 to keep the yard waste
site open than divert the same amount of money
to monthly brush pickup.
9. In response to question 35, three said that you
were ambivalent regarding the size of refuse
containers.
10. Three of you also indicated that you would allow
curbside placement of refuse containers in
response to question 36.
11. Finally, a majority indicated in response to
question 41 a willingness to spend another two
months and another $10,000 analyzing our
telecommunications options.
C. Commissions: In contrast to the to the 12 areas of
majority agreement among Council members, there
were 9 areas of majority agreement among the 26
commission respondents. For the most part, these
areas (with the exception of question ,33) were the
same areas on which Council reached agreement.
1. Like Council, a 'majority of the commission
.members who responded (14) would seek support
of other cities and use local funds to replace
about one -half of our expected reduction in
Project Safety net grant funding.
2. In contrast to Council's majority answer on
question 6, however, a majority of commission
respondents (16 of 26) would try to preserve our
Class 3 fire rating, but would upgrade equipment
on a year -to -year basis rather than in accordance
with a multi -year fire equipment replacement
plan.
3. Also in contrast, a majority of commission
members say that we should make an effort to
improve our Fire Department response times.
4. On question 19, a majority (19 of 26) of
commission respondents would continue to limit
our recreational fee waiver program to selected
activities. Like Council, they would set a
maximum limit on the number of activities or
dollars allowed under recreational fee waiver
program.
5: Also like Council, a majority ( 18 of 26) would
upgrade City streets by geographic area,
attempting to work on the lowest scored areas
first.
6. In response to question 24, 14 of 26 respondents
would also maintain our existing street lighting
policy.
8
7. In contrast to Council's response to question 33,
a majority of commission members (17 of 26)
say that the cost of the complaint tracking
software, including the cost of staff resources, is
high relative to the benefits received.
V. Areas of Majority Agreement:
A. While most of the survey questions required a choice
among various alternatives, 10 of the 42 questions
asked the respondent to rank the choices using a scale
of 1 to 5. The final question asked for a ranking of 13
proposed "new" expenditures for 1999. This sections
described the results of the ranking in each of those
areas.
B. Question 11 - Park Service Areas: This question
asked each respondent to rank various alternatives for
dealing with areas of Fridley that are underserved in
terms of access to parks.
1. City Council members gave their highest score
(4.3) to alternative B (Improve bikeways and
walkways to provide better access ...). They
gave their lowest cumulative score (2.3) to
alternative D (Tolerate the existing problem ...).
2. Commission respondents also gave their highest
score (4.16) to alternative B. Their lowest score
(1.75), however, went to alternative A (Buy
property in underserved areas ...).
C. Question 12 - Parks and Recreation Improve-
ments: This question asked respondents to prioritize
various parks capital improvements strategies.
1. Council members like alternative_ A (Upgrade
and redevelop our existing park facilities ...).
They gave this option a rating of 4. Council's
least favored option (2.6) was alternative D (Use
our financial resources toward building
additional improvements to the Community
Center ...).
2. Commission respondents also gave their highest
score :(4.0) to alternative A. They gave their
lowest score (2.56) to alternative B (Purchase
additional land to expand our parks and open
space areas ...).
D. Question 13 - Community Center Facilities: This
question asked respondents to prioritize potential
improvements to the Fridley Community Center.
io
1. Council members did not give a very high score
to any of the alternatives. Their highest,
lukewarm support went to alternatives A and B.
Under A, we would complete the lower level of
the Fridley Community Center, but do not more.
Under alternative B, we would add a double
gymnasium.
2. Council's scores for these two priorities were 3.0
and 2.8 respectively. The scores of commission
respondents were a little higher than those of
Council members, but still probably indicate only
mild, as opposed to enthusiastic support, for
further improvements to the Fridley Community
Center.
3. Like Council, commission respondents gave their
highest score (3.28) to alternative A, the "do
nothing more" alternative. The next highest
scores were ranked 2.96 and 2.92 and supported
alternatives D and C, respectively. Under these
alternatives, we would add a therapeutic
swimming pool and a family- oriented swimming
facility to the Fridley Community Center.
ii
E. Question 14- Springbrook Nature Center Programs
and Services: This question asked respondents to
prioritize a long list of Springbrook Nature Center
programs and services.
1. Council members gave their highest scores to
alternatives A (4.6), J (4.4) and H (4.2). They
gave their lowest level of support to alternatives I
(2.0), D (2.4) and F (2.6). .
2. The high scoring alternatives state a preference
for maintenance of existing trails and facilities
(A), provision of materials that will allow self -
guided tours (J) and the hosting of special events,
such as the Halloween Special and the Spring
Celebration (IT). Council was least attracted to
having Nature Center staff serving as
leaders /speakers to scout groups, clubs, etc. (I).
3. Council also gave relatively low scores to having
Nature Center staff serving as an information
resource on various nature- related topics (D).
4. Additionally, Council ranked the coordination of
environmental study projects by Nature Center
staff relatively low (F).
12
5. One might interpret from these results that
Council members are most supportive of
maintaining the facility and conducting programs
that have broad community appeal. At the same
time, ,however, you are least supportive of more
labor- intensive, staff centered projects that
benefit particular organizations and groups.:
6. Commission respondents generally supported
most of the suggested programs and services.
They gave their highest scores to alternatives A,
C and B, respectively. Like Council, their
highest priority is the maintenance of existing
facilities (A), followed by coordination of youth
and adult volunteers (C), and management of the
animal and plant population at the Nature Center
(B).
7. The only score by commission respondents that
fell below 3.0 was H (2.71). That alternative
related to conducting special events and was one
of Council's top priorities.
13
F. Question 15 - Skateboard/In -Line Skating Facility:
This question asked respondents to rate various
alternatives for responding to community requests for
skateboarding and in -line skating facilities.
1. Council members and commission respondents
both agreed that we should continue to prohibit
these activities on public property (alternative A).
2. While Council's score on this question was 3.8,
the commission respondents registered a 4.04.
G. Question 18 - Provision of Recreational Programs
for Older Youth: This question was asked as a result
of a drop in levels of satisfaction with the City's
recreation programs.
1. Our 1997 citizen survey discovered that most of
this dissatisfaction was registered by parents of
older youth. The survey asked what the
respondents thought should be done about the
drop in satisfaction levels.
2. Council members gave their strongest support to
alternative A. Under this option, we would
conduct focus group meetings and do additional
surveying to determine the reason for
dissatisfaction, as well as the best ways to
address the dissatisfaction. While the score for
Council was 4.8, the commission respondents
gave the option a 3.96.
14
3. Their strongest score (4.24) was for alternative C.
Under this option, we would offer more
opportunities for drop -in activities at the Fridley
Community Center and plan additional organized
activities for older youth at the Fridley
Community Center.
H. Question 30 - Recycling Center: This question
asked for a rating on the future operation of the City's
recycling center.
1. While Council members generally supported
alternative C with a score of 3.0, their support
for all of the options listed was relatively low.
Commission respondents on the other hand were
generally enthusiastic (4.11) with' alternative A.
They also gave strong support (3.38) to
alternative C.
2. Under alternative A, we would maintain existing
levels of service as long as those levels can be
provided without significantly increasing our
operating deficit. Under option C, we would
maintain our existing levels of service only if the
County is willing to reimburse us for a significant
portion of our deficit.
15
I. Question 39 - Revenue to Support Services: This is
a repeat question from last year's survey. The
objective of the question is to measure levels of
support for various revenue raising alternatives.
1. Council's responses generally indicate very
lukewarm support for any of the alternatives.
Their highest scores were for alternatives B and
E (both were scored '2.6).
2. Under alternative B, we would impose utility
franchise fees, if they can be imposed in
collaboration with other cities.
3. Under alternative E, we would seek State funding
from our housing rehabilitation programs.
4. There was virtually no support (score of 1.2) for
alternative D. Under this option, we would raise
property taxes to cover the cost of additional
services.
5. In contrast to Council, support for the suggested
revenue options was generally higher for
commission respondents.
6. Their highest score (3.75) was for alternative E.
They also indicated strong support for
alternatives A, B, and F.
16
7. These options would have us raising revenues by
selling our services to other cities, imposing
utility franchise fees, and improving the profit of
our liquor operation. Their support for raising
property taxes (score of 2.52) was considerably
higher than Council's.
J. Question 40 - Fund Balances: This question, also a
repeat question from last year's survey, asked for an
evaluation of various philosophies toward the use of
our fund balances.
1. Council's support for any of the four options
offered was generally weak. Scores ranged
between 1.4 and 2.2.
2. None of the options could be regarded as a
ringing endorsement of any policy option.
3. Commission respondents' choices, however,
were more decisive. They selected alternative B
as their preferred option, with a. score of 3.95.
Under this option, the City should avoid drawing
down fund balance principal, but be willing to
use interest growth in excess of the rate of
inflation to help support the General Fund.
K. Question 42 - Overall Priorities: This question
recognized all of the new expenditure proposals that
were presented in all of the previous questions.
17
Respondents were asked to rate new expenditure
priorities by using a scale of 1 to 5.
1. Council members selected alternative G as their
top new priority with a score of 4.0. Under this
option, the City would purchase and implement
complaint tracking software.
2. The second priority of Council was alternative J
with a score of 3.6. Under this option, the City
would hire two new police officers.
3. Council support was also high for alternatives I
and K with identical scores of 3.4. Under these
options, the City would resume mowing of the
University Avenue corridor and find a
replacement for grant funding for Project Safety
Net.
4. Items of least Council support with scores of 1.0
and 1.8 were alternative E (construction of a
skateboard/in -line skating facility) and H
(establishment of a monthly brush pickup
program).
is
5. In contrast to Council's responses, the
commission respondents selected alternatives A
and J as their top two priorities with score of 3.84
and 3.48. Under alternative A, we would be
replacing a fire engine in 1999. Option J, once
again, was the addition of two new police
officers.
6. The commission respondents also liked
alternative C (street lighting improvements)
(score of 3.32). Alternative G, the purchase of
complaint tracking software was the least favored
commission option with a score of 1.72. They
also gave a low score (1.92) to the hiring of two
additional Public Works employees (alternative
D).
VI. Areas of Least Agreement:
A. Community Oriented Policing (Question 1k:
1. Two Council members like alternative A
(officers spend 1/4 of their time in COP) and two
chose alternative B (officers spend %2 of their
time in COP).
2. Thirteen of the commission respondents liked
alternative D (do what we can do to create more
COP time, but do not hire additional police
officers).
19
B. Rental Propedy Inspection (Question Q:
1. Two Council members chose alternative A
(gradually raise our rental licensing fees to cover
costs) and two chose B (maintain existing fees).
2. Eleven commission members liked alternative A.
C. ,Additional Senior Program Hours (Question 17):
1. Two Council members chose alternative B
(continue current hours unless additional hours
can be supported by fees).
2. Two Council members liked alternative D
(respond to hours of operation to meet interest
levels).
3. Twelve commission respondents liked option B.
D. Road Signs Question 1W.
1. Two Council members liked alternative B
(Council approves criteria for sign installation;
staff installs signs according to policy.)
2. Two Council members, however, chose
alternative E (continue current policy).
20
3. Eighteen of the commission respondents opted
for alternative E.
E. Municipal Garage (Question M.
1. Two Council members liked alternative A
(address code - related items only).
2. Two chose alternative B (address code - related
items and other improvements that will provide
more space for working on larger vehicles).
F. Ice Control (Question 27):
1. Two Council members liked alternative C
(discontinue using pure salt; revert to using a
sand/salt mixture.
2. Twelve commission respondents also liked
alternative C.
G. Public Works Maintenance Personnel (Question 28):
1. Two Council members chose alternative D
(maintain the statics quo).
2. Eight of the commission respondents chose
alternative A (hire additional maintenance help
on an as- needed basis through contract services).
21
H. Complaint Tracking - Question 33):
1. Two Council members chose alternative A
(accomplish complaint tracking this year).
2. One Council member chose alternative C
(evaluate it as part of this year.'s budgeting
process).
3. One Council member chose alternative D (wants
complaint tracking, but feels the question was
biased.
4. One Council member chose alternative C
(questions cost vs. Benefits of complaint
tracking).
5. Seventeen commission respondents chose
alternative C.
I. Commemorative Memorial:
1. Two Council members felt we should abandon
the commemorative memorial project in view of
citizen survey results.
2. One Council member felt we should continue the
project.
3. Two Council members appear to be indecisive.
22
4. Twenty commission respondents told us to
abandon the project.
J. Image Enhancements (Question 38):
1. Two Council members liked alternative B (return
to mowing of University Avenue corridor and
hire a consultant to prepare a beautification plan
for all of our north/south corridors).
2. Eleven of the commission respondents liked
alternative D (we should fast track planning and
implementation of a beautification plan for all
three north/south corridors).
K. Revenue to Support Services (Question 39):
1. All of the scores for these alternatives were 2.6
or below.
L. Use of Fund Balance (Question 40.
RSC3l03/99
1. Scores for the options listed did not exceed 2.2.
23
e
Quesuon
1
A
E
B
A
2
B
B
C
D
3
B
C
A..
A•
4
B
A
A
D
5
Other
Yes
6
A
D
C
A
7
Yes
Other
8
No
Yes•
No
No
9
Yes
Yes
Yes'
10
A
B
B
A•
11A .
3•
5
11B
5
4
11C
2
2
X
X
11D
4
1
11E
12A
5
5
3
4
12B
3
4
3
5
12C
2
4
3
3
120
4
4
3
1'
13A
5
0
5
5`
13B
5
5
3
13C
4
0
3
13D
1
0
3
13E
1
2
3
13F o
1
0
3
13G
X
14A
3
5
5
5
14B
2
5
5
3
14C
3
5
5
4
14D
2`
2
6
3
14E
2'
4
4
4
14F
2
4
5
2
14G
3•
4
4
3
14H
3 •
4
4
5
141
3
3
3
1
14J
3
4
5
4
14K
3•
4
5
3'
14L
26•
4
3
15A
5
4
5
5
168
1
0
3
0
15C
1
0
1
3
16
B
C'
A
C•
17
B
A•
B
D'
18A
5
4
5
5
18B
3
4
4
18C
4
4
5
4
18D
4
4
5
1
18E
x
19 SA
Be
A•
A
B
19 AWL
A
Be
B
19 POE
Be
Be
A•
B
19 RR
A'
A•
A
B
20
A/B
Be
B
BDF
21
A/E'
E`
A
Be
22
B/C
ABCD'
A
A
23
C
BCD'
B
B'
24
C•
C•
A
C
26
D
D`
D
D
26
B
A•
D•
B/E
27
C
D•
Be
E
28
C•
D•
A
E
29
D
D'
C
E
30A
3
5
X
0
30B
5
2
4
30C
4
2
4
30D
2
1
5
30E
1
2
5
30F
COUNCIL SURVEY RESULTS
B
A
B
Maybe
A•
Yes
No
No
B
1
4
5
2
3
3
4
5
1
1
5'
2
4
3
5
4
3
A
3
5
3
4'
4
4
5
A'
D•
5
4
3
1
B
B
Be
A
E•
B
Be
B
C'
D'
A•
C•
D•
D•
4
1
5
3
5
pane 1
Question
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39A
390
39C
39D
39E
39F
39G
40A
40B
40C
40D
40E
41
42A
42B
42C
42D
42E
42F
42G
42H
421
42J
42K
42L
42M
B/C
Cro•
C
B/C
C
D
A
B
C
ABC*
D
E
B•
C•
C
C
Yes*
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Other
Other
No
D'
A'
E
B
X
5
3
5
X
5
5
4
4
1
X
5
X
3
X
5
X
3
2
X 1
3
5
C/D' B /C'
4 3
4 3
2 3
3 2
1 0
4 2
2 5
2 0
3 2
3 1
4 0
5 0
5
X
D
3
3
3
1
3
5
5
5
5
5
1/2
4
1
5
3
2
C
3
0
1
0
0
3
3
2
4
5
4
2
COUNCIL SURVEY RESULTS
B /C'
A'
B•
No
Yes
B'
4
3
3
1
5
4
X
4
5
2
1
B.
3
4
1
1
3
5
5
1
3
4
4
3
rl,-- .,
COMMISSION SURVEY RESULTS
Quenuon
1
D
D
A
D•
A
A
?
D
D ;;
B
D
A
A
2
A
A
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
8
8
B
A
3
D
C
A
A
E
E
?
C
A
A
B
B
A
4
C
B
?
AM
A
A
A
7
A
A
C
B
B
5
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
6
C
C
C
A
A
D
C
C
A
A/D
C
C
C
7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
8
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
9
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
11A
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2•
3
1
1
118
2
5
4
5
5
5
2
3
5
5
4
4
5
11C
1
4
2.5
4
4
2
4
3
1
4
5
5
4
11D
5
1
2
2
2
3
2
5
5
3
2
2
3
11E
4
3
12A
3
5
5
1
5
2
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
12B
1
3
1
1
4
1
3
1
1
2
3
5
4
12C
2
3
3
1
5
1
4
3
4
5
3
3
3
12D
1
1
3
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
2
2
2
13A
1
5
5
3
3
2
3
5
4
4
5
138
1
1
5
1
2
1
2
1
3
5
3
2
2
13C
1
5
3
2
1
2
5
1
1
5
2
13D
1
3
3
1
5
1
4
4
3
2
5
3
4
13E
1
5
1
4
3
2
5
3
5
4
3
1
4
13F
1
4
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
5
2
5
1
13G
5
5
4
14A
4
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
14B
4
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
3
2
14C
4
5
5
5
3
3
5
4
5
5
4
5
14D
2
5
5
2
3
2
4
3
4
2
3
1
14E
4
5
5
4
3
5
4
3
4
4
3
2
14F
2
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
5
2
5
2
14G
2
5
5
3
4
5
5
3
3
5
2
2
14H
2
5
4
1
3
3
5
4
2
1
2
2
141
3
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
5
3
14J
1
4
5
3
2
2
1
4
4
5
2
5
14K
1
5
5
4
3
4
5
3
3
5
4
2
14L
4
2
5
1
3
4
4
4
5
4
4
2
15A
4
2
1
5
5
1
5
5
1
5
4
5
158
1
5
5
1
5
5
1
3
5
3
1
1
15C
4
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
5
1
16
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AIC
B
A
A
A
A
17
B
B
C
D
D
B
B
D
8
A
D
B
D
18A
1
3
5
3
5
1
1
4
5
5
5
3
3
18B
1
3
1
1
4
4
4
1
3
4
5
2
1
18C
3
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
5
3
5
5
5
18D
3
5
3
4
?
3
4
2
4
2
5
4
5
18E
4
19 SA
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
19 AWL
B
B
B
?
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
19 POE
A
B
A
?
A
A
A
A
8
A
B
B
A
19 RR
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
20
B
D
B
E
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
21
E
E.
E
E
EIF
E
A
B
E
E
B
B
B
22
D
C
?
A
D
F
B
A
D
?
A
A
B
23
C
B
C
7
B
C
A
BID
C
C
C
B
B
24
A
A
C
C
A
C
A
A
C
D
C
C/D
C
26
B
C
B
C
D
B
D
D
B
A
?
D
D
26
A
D
B
B
D
B
A
D
D
B
A
B
C
27
B
D
C
C
E
B
E
D
CID
C
C
CID
C
28
D
A
A
D
C'
E•
B
C/E
B
C/E
A ..
B/E
A
29
D
B
E
0
D/E
E'
C
D
D/E
D.
B
D
C
30A
5
3
5
5
5
1
5
2
30B
5
1
1
4
4
3
2
1
1
30C
3
1
5
3
4
3
3
3
5
30D
5
1
4
1
3
4
1
5
30E
1
1
2
4
5
1
4
30F
X
X
P30,,Pi 1
COMMISSION SURVEY RESULTS MOMINUED
OuesUen
Survey
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
31
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
32
A
B
D
B
C'
A
D
B
A"
C
C
B.
33
C
C
C
C
C'
C/D
C
C
C
C
8
C
C
34
D
D
C
D
C
D/E
C
D
NE
A
C
B
C
35
A
A
C•
B
B•
B
C
A
B
B
B
A
36
Yes
Yes
No*
No
Und
No
Und
No
No*
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
37
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No'
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
38
A
A
A
D
C/D
D
C
D
B•
D
A
C
C
39A
2
5
1
5
5
3
5
3
3
5
4
5
39B
1
5
2
2
2
2
1
4
3
3
4
39C .
1
4
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
4
390
3
1
2'
3
3
1
5
4
1
2
3
39E
1
2
5
X
4
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
39F
1
2
5
X
4
4
5
5
4
3
2
1
39G
x
40A
4
1
5
3
3
1
3
2
5
1
40B
2
3
5
4
3
5
5
5
5
3
40C
5
5
4
4
2
4
1
2
3
4
400
3
4
3
1
4
1
3
1
5
40E
x
41
D
D
D
B
B ?/C
B
B
D
B
B
CID
B
42A
2
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
3
428
3
3
2
3
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
42C
4
5
3
3
5
2
3
1
3
4
2
3
3
42D
1
1
5
3
4
4
4
1
5
5
3
4
2
42E
1
4
2
3
3
1
4
2
1
4
2
1
1
42F
2
5
1
4
5
1
3
2
1
1
4
2
4
42G
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
42H
1
5
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
3
2
5
421
1
3
3
2
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
42J
1
3
5
3
4
4
2
4
4
5
4
4
4
42K
2
3
1
5
3
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
5
42L
1
1
1
4
3
5
1
4
2
4
1
3
3
42M
0
5
5
M
t
COMMISSION SURVEY RESULTS
QuesUon lNumber
1
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
E
M:
A
A
A
2
C
A
C
D
8
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
B
3
B
D
D
A
D
B
A
A
B
C
A
A
A
4
C
A
B
D
D
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
6
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
C
A
7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
8
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10
A
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
11A
5
1
2
1
3
3
1
4
1
1
2
11B
2
5
5
2
4
4
6
5
1
5
5
5
11C
5
2
4
5
4
5
4
3
1
2
4
110
1
3
1
4
2•
2
3
1
5
5
3
3
11E
4
12A
2
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
1
5
4
4
12B
5
2
2
3
4
3
1
5
1
1
2
5
12C
1
3
1
1
3
2
3
5
1
3
3
1
12D
3
3
3
1
4
1
1
5
3
3
3
3
13A
4
2
5
5
4
3
5
1
1
5
1
3
3
13B
5
3
2
1
5
4
1
1
1
1
2
13C
5
2
1
1
3
S.
4
5
5
1
5
2
3
13D
2
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
5
3
5
13E
2
4
1
1
3
1
3
5
4
1
5
3
2
13F
3
3
4
1
4
1
3
5
4
1
5
1
4
13G
X
X
14A
1
5
3
5
2
5
5
5
4
5
3
5
14B
1
5
3
5
2
2
5
5
1
5
3
4
14C
1
5
4
4
2
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
14D
1
5
1
4
2
2
5
5
5
5
2
5
14E
1
5
1
4
2
2
5
5
4
5
3
4
14F
1
5
1
4
2
1
5
5
1
5
2
5
14G
1
5
1
4
2
3
5
3
2
1
1
3
14H
1
5
1
3
2
1
5
3
1
5
2
2
141
1
5
2
3
2
2
5
5
2
5
3
3
14J
1
5
2
3
2
1
5
5
1
5
1
4
14K
1
5
1
4
2
3
5
5
1
5
3
5
14L
1
5
1
5
2
1
5
5
2
5
3
4
15A
5
5
5
4
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
15B
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
4
15C
2
1
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
1
16
A
A/B
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
17
D
D
D
B
B
B
C
B
D
C
B
B
D
18A
4
5
5
3
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
18B
4
3
1
2
3
5
5
2
5
1
2
4
18C
5
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
1
5
2
3
18D
5
5
2
1
4
2
4
5
5
3
5
1
2
18E
19SA
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
19 AWL
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
19 POE
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
B
19 RR
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
20
B
B
B
A
B
D
B.
D
B
B
B
B
B
21
B
E
E
E
E
BIE
E
C
E
E
E
B
E
22
D
D
C
F
A
D
D
C
A/D
A
B
C
D
23
C
C
A
C
B
B
B
B
A
A
C
B
C
24
A
C
C
C
C
B
B
A
C
C
A
C
A
25
D
B
A
D
D
A/C
D
D
C
B
B
D
C
26
D
A
B
B
A
D
D
A/B
A
B
A/B
B
A
27
D
C
C/D
E
D
D
D
B
C
C
A
C
WE
28
D
C
D
E
A
C
A
B
C
D
B.
A
A
29
B
D
C
D
B
D/E
C
B
B
D
B
B
D
30A
5
3
5
2
4
4
5
5
5
5
30B
4
1
4
3
2
2
1
30C
5
1
4
5
3
2
4
30D
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
30E
1
2
2
2
5
2
1
30F
4
5
Page 1
COMMISSION SURVEY RESULTS (CONTINUED
Question
Survey
Number
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
31
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
32
E
A
D
A
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
D
33
CID
B
C
D
B
D
A
C
C
B
C
D
34
A
C
A
E
B
C
CID
C
A
D
A
A
C
35
A
B
B
C
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
B
35
Yes
Yes
Und
No
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
37
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
38
D
A
D
B
D
C
D
DIE
C
C
D
B
D
39A
1
4
5
3
3
5
5
5
1
5
5
2
39B
4
4
1
4
5
4
5
1
5
5
4
39C
4
5
1
4
3
3
5
1
5
1
1
39D
5
1
3
3
1
2
5
1
1
1
2
5
39E
1
5
1
4
3
5
5
5
4
5
4
39F
1
4
2
4
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
39G
4
40A
5
4
5
1
2
5
3
1
1
1
2
408
4
4
4
4
2
5
2
5
5
4
4
40C
1
4
1
4
4
4
1
2'
5
1
40D
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
1
5
1
40E
5
B
5
5
41
D
B
C
A
4
BIC
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
42A
1
4
4
2
4
3
5
4
5
1
4
5
428
3
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
42C
4
2
4
2
3
5
5
5
1
5
3
3
42D
4
2
2
1
3
3
2
5
5
5
1
3
42E
5
1
1
.1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
42F
2
4
2
3
1
1
5
5
3
1
3
42G
5
1
2
1
4
2
2
3
1
4
1
2
42H
1
1
5
1
3
3
4
4
3
4
2
1
421
5
2
4
1
4
3
4
1
1
3
3
42J
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
3
4
4
3
42K
2
2
5
2
4
3
3
5
1
5
4
4
42L
2
1
1
2
5
3
3
5
1
1
3
4
42M
5
5
5
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: March 27, 1998 q,
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA 444
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 1999 Goals and Objectives
The City Council has requested that all advisory commissions review the pertinent
goals and objectives from the City departments. Attached is the memo which was sent
to the City Council for its March 30, 1998, conference discussion for 1999 goals and
objectives. The objectives which affect the HRA include the Housing Division
objectives ( #1 and #2) and the Planning Division objectives ( #1, #2, #3, and #5).
The Housing Division objectives pertain to improving housing and living conditions in
the Hyde Park neighborhood and to identify an apartment rehab policy and implement
an apartment rehabilitation project. The Planning Division objectives pertain to
adoption of the state - mandated comprehensive plan, redevelopment of the salvage
yards, and completing the redevelopment projects at the Fridley Executive Center and
Christenson Crossing.
In the next 18 months, staff will be identifying a detailed work plan for Hyde Park, the
salvage yards, and the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the objective to improve
conditions in Hyde Park is to address the tensions that occur between multiple family
and single family property owners, to identify a plan for what the neighborhood wants,
and to identify an agreed -upon redevelopment plan for the Frank's Used Car property.
Redevelopment of the salvage yards has long been an objective of the City. It is now
appropriate to begin gathering information on these properties and to identify options
for redeveloping the sites. Staff will be contacting the City of Andover that has recently
completed a number of salvage yard acquisitions. Staff is also aware of monitoring
ownership changes and enforcement problems at the salvage yards on 73Y2 Avenue.
6
1999 Goals and Objectives
March 27, 1998
Page 2
The comprehensive plan process will also be Important to the HRA since a number of
its redevelopment projects and priorities will be discussed during the planning process.
The City will be hiring a consultant to assist staff with completing the comprehensive
plan. More on this process and issue will be presented on future agendas.
No action is needed on this item; however, if any of the Commissioners have questions
or comments, please feel free to contact me.
BD:ls
M -98-68
6 -A
City of Fridley
State of Minnesota
BUDGET 1999
Goals and Objectives
OBJECTIVE #1:
To initiate optical imaging Imaging to be New
of building plans and completed by Money
address files. Records
Assistant and
temporary
employee;
$10,000
540 plan sets
1a. Image commercial and December, 1999
industrial plans.
1,675 plan sets
1b. Image residential December, 1999
plans.
22,600 slips
1c. Image inspection slips December 1999
for years 1992 to 1997.
2,200 files out of
1d. Image 20% of address 11,000
files. December 1999
1,800 files
1e. Image land use files. December, 1999
To achieve a high level of
customer satisfaction with
inspection services.
6-
ACTIVITIES:
2a. Conduct customer
January, 1999
None
Absorbed
service surveys.
2b. Evaluate hiring
March, 1999
Contract
New
contract plumbing inspector
employee to be
Money
to complete deduct meter,
reimbursed by
water and sewer
user fees
inspections, swimming
pool, and other plumbing -
related inspections
2c. Evaluate computer
December, 1999
None
Propose
software to speed permit
recomme
processing.
ndation in
5-year
computer
plan
6-
3
6 -D
•.svv,3E
,way ,v_,
•. -•+��
• ��� � ,�' r ��
�l..,i ♦�f�'.1.���` f,
�.�
�� if i� .' �.
S ���Zy��.
i
k 777
spa
® y
S� L�;��•
OBJECTIVE #1-:
To adopt a year 1
Comprehensive
ACTIVITIES-
of
Planning Area meetings
1b. Hire consultant
May, 1998
• be
New
determined
Money
1 c. Draft plan.
' • 1
To be
New
• •
determined
Money
1 d. Approve Plan 1
1999
•
• •
submit to Metropolitan
Council.
OBJECTIVE #2
To complete pending
redevelopment projects.
6 -D
ACTIVITIES:
2a. Southwest Quadrant:
1) Monitor progress on
June,1998
None
Absorbed
phasing plan.
June,1999
None
Absorbed
2) Insure compliance with
land use and agreement
stipulations.
2b. Fridley Executive
Center.
July, 1998
None
Absorbed
1) Evaluate MEPC
progress.
October, 1998
None
Absorbed
2) Evaluate whether
Contract for Exclusive
Negotiation should be
extended or reassigned
to another developer.
July, 1998
HRA Budget
To be
3) Evaluate producing a
determin
video about the
ad
economic advantages of
locating in Fridley.
OBJECTIVE #3
Acquire salvage
To create developable
yards in Onan TIF
industrial sites and job
District
opportunities by removing
salvage /automobile
recycling yards.
ACTIVITIES
July, 1998
None
Absorbed
3a. Compile
redevelopment information,
including acquisition,
6 -E
relocation, and demolition
costs.
July, 1998
None
Absorbed
3b. Analyze financial
impact and evaluate it
against other
redevelopment priorities.
July, 1998
Apply to DTED
To be
3c. Determine need for
for funding or
determin
soil/groundwater
Petro Board
ad
remediation
April, 1999
HRA Budget
To be
3d. Complete planning,
determin
acquisition, relocation, and
ed
RFP process.
May 1999
Developer
None
3e. Construction begins
OBJECTIVE #4
initiates
To achieve a high level of
customer satisfaction from
internal and external
customers.
ACTIVITIES
January, 1998
None
Absorbed
4a. Continue customer
service surveys to external
customers.
Image 1,800 files
See Building
New
4b. Prepare historical land
by December,
Division
Money
use files for optical
1999
objective
scanning systems.
125 housing loan
$1,000 hire
New
4c. Input building permit,
cases; 500 code
temporary to
Money
code enforcement, and
enforcement
input data
housing data into GIS
cases; 1,000
system to build historical
permits
data base.
4d. Use GIS system to
analyze changes in
neighborhoods from 1994
6 -F
to 1998.
July, 1998
None
Absorbed
1) Identify data types to
be tracked by
neighborhood
July 1998
None
Absorbed
2) Divide City into planning
areas for data tracking.
January to March,
$2,000
New
3) Print maps by data type.
1998
Money
4) Incorporate maps into
To be
New
Comprehensive Plan or
determined
Money
other City publications
4e. Survey commission
December, 1998
None
Absorbed
members regarding staff
December, 1999
performance and goals and
objectives.
OBJECTIVE # 5
To improve the appearance
ti
of residential and
commercialtindustrial
properties.
ACTIVITIES:
5a. Evaluate 1998
November, 1998
None
Absorbed
systematic code
enforcement program.
5b. Evaluate code tracking
April, 1998
To be
New
software and determine
determined
Money
need for new software.
5c. Share intem with
January-
$7000 to be
New
Housing Division to assist
September, 1999
shared with
Money
with inspection and data
HRA
entry.
5d. Inspect uncompleted
districts.
I May to November,
None
6 -G
6 -H
1999
Absorbed
5e. Prepare educational
materials about code
issues for residents and
businesses.
1) Analyze code issues for
None
past two years.
January, 1999
Absorbed
2) Map code violations by
GIS
type.
February, 1999
To be
determin
ad
3) Prepare Newsletter
None
articles and videos to
Two articles in two
Absorbed
explain intent of code
issues of .
and how to comply with
Newsletter
the ordinance.
5f. Monitor state's
None
progress on Property
Ongoing
Absorbed
Maintenance Code
adoption.
5g. Evaluate Ordinance
amendments:
1) Size and location of
$500 Legal Ads
residential garbage
December, 1998
Absorbed
cans
2) Dumpster enclosure
$500 Legal Ads
requirements for multi-
December, 1998
Absorbed
family, commercial, and
industrial properties
6 -H
OBJECTIVE #1: • Number of
rehab loans.
To improve the housing • Number of
and neighborhood building
conditions in Hyde Park permits.
Dollar
valuation of
permits.
• Property
valuation
changes.
• Code
enforcement
cases.
ACTIVITIES:
1a. Define neighborhood April, 1998
process.
1 b. Consider hiring
May, 1998
consultant to assist staff
with neighborhood planning
process.
1 c. Complete process.
September, 1998
1d. Continue housing
December, 1999
programs.
1e. Initiate redevelopment
February- March,
projects:
1999
• Scattered site
acquisitions
• Frank's Used Cars
6 -1
None I Absorbed I
To be New
determined Money
None Absorbed
None Absorbed
HRA Budget I New
Money
n
• Revisit Wemees
Furniture
• Northeast comer of 5r
and University Ave.
1f. Evaluate effectiveness
of the target neighborhood
approach; begin to
formulate plan for
Riverview Heights
neighborhood.
November, 1999
HRA Budget
Absorbed
OBJECTIVE #2
To rehabilitate the most
severely deteriorated multi-
family buildings.
ACTIVITIES
2a. Identify properties in
October, 1998
None
Absorbed
need of significant
rehabilitation.
2b. Identify owners and
November, 1998
None
Absorbed
solicit their participation in
rehab programs.
2c. Identify improvements
November, 1999
HRA Budget
Absorbed
to be completed on the
structures, including code
related items, and exterior
design/appearance and
size of the units (i.e.,
number of bedrooms).
2d. Evaluate the level of
April, 1999
HRA Budget
Absorbed
financial involvement and
the method of providing the
assistance.
2e. Identify other potential
June, 1999
HRA Budget
New
sources for funding
I
I Money
64
rehabilitation work and
$250,000
submit appropriate
applications.
2f. Implement project
August, 1999
HRA Budget
Absorbed
6 -K
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: March 27, 1998
TO: William W. Bums, Executive Director of HRA i0ii
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: and Annual Home Remodeling Fair
Preparations are nearly complete for the Home Remodeling and Garden Fair
that will be held on Saturday, April 18, 1998, at the Fridley High School from
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The fair will feature more than 60 vendors displaying home improvement
products and services ranging from plumbing and electrical to roofing, siding,
windows, doors, asphalt paving, and landscaping. In addition, seminars have
been scheduled on such topics as "Problems to Look for When Buying a Home ",
"Landscaping Ideas ", "How to Finance Your Home Improvement through the
HRA Loan Program ", "Sick House Syndrome" and a special presentation of the
new Fridley Remodeling Handbook.
In previous years the fair has drawn between 1,200 to 1,500 residents from
Fridley and nearby communities. We would like to extend an invitation to the
HRA members to stop by during the day.
M -98 -62
7