HRA 06/03/1999 - 6311HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 39 1999
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COPY
(Please return to Community Development Department)
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
JUNE 3,1999, MEETING
AGENDA
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 28, 1999
May 6, 1999
CONSENT AGENDA:
Amend By -Laws to Establish
1' Thursday As Regular Meeting Date ............................... 1
Annual Election of Officers ......... ............................... 2
Claims and Expenses ............. ............................... 3
PUBLIC HEARING:
Public Hearing to Authorize Sale of Land to Medtronic, Inc ................ 4
ACTION ITEMS:
TH 65 Project Update ............. ............................... 5
INFORMATION ITEMS:
Gateway East Update .............. ............................... 6
5r Avenue Redevelopment ......... ............................... 7
BudgetUpdate ................... ............................... 8
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
MAY 20, 1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the May 20, 1999, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Lary Commers, Virginia Schnabel, Pat Gabel, Jim McFarland,
John Meyer
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
Bill Bums, City Manager
Jim Cassedy, Financial Consultant
Julie Vogel, Accountant
Cindy Arndt, Medtronic
APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 1. 1999, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the April 1, 1999,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes as presented.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLRED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. CONSIDER EXTENSIONOF PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR
AFFORDABLE SUBURBAN HOUSING
2. CLAIMS AND EXPENSES
Mr. Commers stated additional claims and expenses as outlined in Ms. Vogel's memo
dated May 20, 1999, are also part of the claims and expenses.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 2
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ACTION ITEMS:
3. CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING TO SELL PORTION OF LAKE POINTE SITE TO
MEDTRONIC, INC.
Ms. Dacy stated the public hearing for this item was advertised to be held during the
regular meeting on May 6. Because that meeting did not occur and staff was not aware
of the date of this meeting, staff was not able to properly advertise the public hearing.
Staff is suggesting that the public hearing be held at the June 3, 1999, meeting in order
to provide time for staff to properly advertise. The HRA could conduct a public hearing
at that time for comments, if any. Assuming the successful conclusion, they would
close on the property on June 4. The HRA, however, can act on the development
agreement.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to table the sale of a portion of the
Lake Pointe site to Medtronic, Inc. pending the public hearing on June 3.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, MEDTRONIC, INC.
Mr. Casserly stated the HRA has received packet of materials containing a resolution to
execute the redevelopment contract, a black line copy of some changes in the
development agreement, and some of the financial analysis that goes into the project.
Ms. Dacy distributed copies of a map of the site. She stated the area to the east and an
area to the north are what would be conveyed to Medtronic as part of Phase 1. Lot 1
and Lot 1A are where Medtronic is proposing to locate their five buildings, the storm
pond, and access drive. Across the north part of the site, Medtronic will construct a new
parkway that will be a public street on the plat. The proposed parkway will be located
on the strip of land along the north side of the project. The HRA will retain ownership of
the west part of the property for Phases 2 and 3, which is described as Outlot A and
Outlot B. Carrie Lane will be reconstructed at the north and east area of the site and at
the southerly portions of Quincy and Jackson Streets. Medtronic has now executed a
purchase agreement with all seven of the property owners. Outlots C and D will be
owned by Medtronic.
Ms. Dacy stated staff will review the tax increment issues, what Medtronic is going to
represent to the HRA in the agreement, what the HRA agrees to do, the concept of the
land holding payments, the parking requirements, issues regarding special
assessments, and the expansion parcels.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 3
Mr. Casserly reviewed the tax increment issues. He stated they made a number of
assumptions in developing these figures. This model represents a three -phase build -
out, the first phase being 450,000 square feet that would start in 1999 and end in 2000.
Phase 1 comes on line for valuation in 2001 for taxes payable in 2002. Phase 2
assumes the construction of 300,000 square feet in the years 2002 and 2003 for
valuation in 2004 and for taxes payable in 2005. The third phase follows sequentially.
All of the taxes for this model would not be on line until 2008. The company genuinely
does not know how soon it will need the additional space. It may, in fact, be in smaller
increments than what this is showing. This represents one potential scenario. The
master plan is currently for 1,050,000 square feet.
Mr. Casserly stated that for the purposes of analysis, they used an average tax rate
over a five -year period and added a small inflation factor effective 2003. There are
some other things they did on how to recover some of the tax increment. He was not
sure what the fair market value of the site will be. The assessor has to make that
determination when the property is transferred from the HRA to Medtronic. They have
been using $4 million, and the number is probably somewhere between $4 and $5
million for the land value. When the property is fully developed and all three phases are
completed, they are assuming the estimated market value will be $118 million for
purposes of this analysis. It is clear from the 1,050,000 square feet that the total
construction costs are anywhere between $200 to $250 million. It is a considerable
investment in the site.
Mr. Casserly stated the reason that the market valuation for tax purposes will be
considerably less is that there is a lot of cost going into the site that does not
necessarily represent value. The parking ramps are an example of that. They are
extremely expensive to build and have a nominal value. The ramps increase the
density on the site.
Mr. Casserly stated the cash flow analysis is based on these assumptions and the
market valuation is assumed to be $100 per square foot. When the property is built out,
it means that they are going to generate an estimated tax increment of almost $112
million from this project. The years from 2012 to 2025 represent $75 million of that tax
increment. There are references to the years 2012 to 2025 because that is the period
of the special law in which the legislature allowed them to extend this district. The
legislation allows extending the district, requires approval of the county and school
district, requires that in the year 2012, 200,000 square feet or about 20% of the value
comes on the tax rolls. This becomes a significant point because over $1 million of
taxes will then be coming available for the other taxing jurisdictions as a result of this
project.
Mr. Casserly stated the present value analysis gets into how the deal works. Column
(b) shows the same $111 million estimated tax increment. The HRA gets 20% of the
increment until it achieves a present value of $3.9 million. After it has achieved that
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 4
number, the HRA then retains 2.5% of the increment. This analysis reflects the terms of
the contract as it now exists.
Mr. Casserly stated that after 2012, a different ratio starts. The HRA retains 30% and
the company gets 70 %. In Column (c), 30% is immediately a fairly substantial amount
and that continues to rise over the years. The totals indicate that under this scenario,
there is almost $29 million of gross tax increment available to the HRA. The company
with this extension is able to receive over $82 million under this scenario. The present
value of that number is $31,500,000.
Mr. Casserly stated the debt coverage for the full development is more for internal use
and shows what happens. Column (b) shows over $28 million they have gotten through
the operation of the contract. This is one model of how you might treat that revenue.
This issue will be revisited. Essentially there is $28+ million. The problem in this district
is that they have debt service payments as shown in Column (f). The allocation to tax
increment district 6 is $10,889,250.
Mr. Commers stated there is a $7 million shortfall that the HRA will have to cover by
2011.
Mr. Casserly stated this is correct. It will probably be $5 million at the most, but with
interest it could rise to up to $10 million.
Mr. Commers asked that in addition to this, is there fiscal disparities that they will have
to pay?
Mr. Casserly stated they have left the fiscal disparities issue out of this. You cannot use
tax increment to fund fiscal disparities. You can use tax increment to fund programs
that the City might have levied for the HRA.
Mr. Commers stated that, in addition, by the year 2011, what is going to be the
additional monies that will be needed to make up the fiscal disparities?
Mr. Casserly stated they did not know. The problem with the calculations is that Fridley
is a net contributor to fiscal disparities. You contribute to fiscal disparities 40% of the
increase of the commercial/industrial tax base after 1972. Medtronic will also be part of
that contribution. The distribution has them receiving revenues from the area -wide pool.
The amount that they contribute is the area -wide tax rate applied and distributed to all
taxing jurisdictions in the metro area using a different formula. Those two formulas
change. The amount contributed is a function of how much increased commercial/
industrial growth that you have had since 1972. The amount you receive depends on
how much growth everybody else has and how you affect the other parts. Fridley's
contribution is now about 30 %. The amount received back is less. Everyone pays in in
tax capacity and get back out in tax dollars. It is the tax capacity along with everyone
else's multiplied by the uniform tax rate that is distributed back to all of the jurisdictions.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 5
Mr. Commers asked if Fridley is a net loser now with this project, will Fridley become a
worse net loser?
Mr. Casserly stated that is a fair assumption.
Mr. Commers stated they know there is going to be a significant increase in
contribution.
Mr. Casserly stated this is correct, because this project will have to contribute to the
pool. They can solve that problem by having the entire contribution come from the
district itself. When they do that, it reduces the amount available. Fridley has never
done that in any of its districts that he is aware of. When it was set up, this district was
not done that way either. The fiscal disparities are going to be contributed, even if
nothing had happened, until the year 2011. On 2012, approximately 20% of the value is
going to come out of the district and that 20% will also be available to contribute to its
own fiscal disparities impact. The actual impact in the years 2012, 2013 and 2014,
while substantial, will not be as substantial as they were in 2009, 2010, and 2011. What
happens to the Fiscal Disparities Act of the next 10 to 15 years and what kind of
development takes place in other jurisdictions will have an effect.
Mr. Commers stated the bottom line of the contributions to fiscal disparities and the
recovery of distributions back will come out of the basic tax base and will not come out
of the tax increment monies.
Mr. Casserly stated that is correct. The basic tax rate may have to increase to make up
for the lack of tax capacity that would have been available if it came from within the
district.
Mr. Commers stated they may have an increase in real estate taxes to make up for this
disparity, and the City may have to reduce their levy in order to keep taxes more stable.
By reducing the levy, they will not have the funds available to do some of their projects.
However, the HRA with the tax increment may have some extra money in order to
assist the city in projects that they otherwise would not be able to fund.
Mr. Casserly stated that is a fair statement. The HRA could assist with projects that
they are authorized to do in order to help the city.
Mr. Commers stated it is true that the HRA will not have funds available until 2011, and
there will not be funds available to pay to the City for their programs. The HRA would
not be able to give the City funds if they reduce their levy until after 2011.
Mr. Casserly stated this was not necessarily correct. There are some other districts
where funds may or may not be locked up. They have two districts, #2 and #3, the
North Area and Moore Lake. In those districts, a ton of work has gone on to see if the
dollars from those districts can be used to pay the debt service on Lake Pointe. The
current tax bill now shuts down those districts on January 1, 2000, except for
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 6
commitments and obligations that are in existence now. The question is whether or not
pledge agreements are going to be valid and enforceable so that the HRA can use up
the revenue from districts 2 and 3 to pay this debt. If they cannot, the revenues in
districts #2 and #3 will be returned to the County. If they can use the tax increment for
the next 7 to 8 years, it will reduce the debt service on District 6 and will free up this
revenue quickly.
Ms. Gabel asked who makes this determination.
Mr. Cassedy stated the bond council feels that the funds are available. The state
auditor feels the funds are not available.
Mr. Commers asked if Mr. Casserly had done any pro formas.
Mr. Casserly stated he had. They need to reach a consensus because it shapes how
they will have to revise the agreement. No matter what happens, they will be better off
than before. Prior to the passage of the special law, the HRA would have $6 or $7
million to pay off $10 million in debt. With the passing of the special law, the HRA will
have $20 million to pay off the debt. This can be adjusted slightly.
Mr. Commers stated the problem with the $20 million is the year 2025. The HRA will
use up $10 million by 2011. Yes, in 25 years they will have it but they won't have it
when. they need it. The HRA is in a position of negative cash until 2011 unless it comes
out of the other districts.
Mr. Bums stated districts #2 and #3 are generating about $1 million per year.
Mr. Commers stated the HRA might be able to get a little money for their programs.
Mr. Casserly stated the legislature has ratified all prior pooling from these districts. Staff
has gone back and reassessed. In previous years, the HRA has been using those
monies anyway as they have come available. The issue is the future increment from
those districts.
Mr. Commers asked why they could not expand the district.
Mr. Casserly stated it is beyond the five -year limit. The HRA has about $8.5 million in
all the accounts. The worst case scenario is that half would have to be reserved. The
best case is that nothing would have to be reserved because you can use districts #2
and #3 and could free up revenue in district #6 for other activities. His position is that
the HRA can achieve that result, but the HRA needs to understand the risk.
Mr. Commers stated the HRA needs to see some pro formas. This interferes with the
budgeting, programs, etc. The HRA has to see what these numbers are. It will be hard
to approve other projects until they know where they stand.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20,1999 PAGE 7
Mr. Casserly agreed. This has been a problem.
Mr. Commers stated they did not need to worry about that right now, but they will need
to move quickly in order to do planning and budgeting. Whatever is within their control,
they should get to the HRA as soon as they can. Has this discussion been held with the
City Council?
Ms. Dacy stated staff had a conference meeting with the City Council where she
reviewed the legislation proposed at the time. Prior to that, they had another discussion
in February.
Mr. Commers stated he thought they needed to discuss with the City Council the fact
that the HRA's resources may be much more limited than what they thought.
Mr. Bums stated the one thing the City Council has not heard is the outcome of the
Medtronic negotiations.
Mr. Commers stated that makes it better but it does not solve the issue. There are
other issues.
Mr. Casserly stated the annual distribution of taxes shows the amount of taxes
Medtronic would be paying over the 25 -year period. The other columns list other taxing
jurisdictions. Beginning 2012, the amounts change dramatically. The figures listed are
semi - annual amounts. This is a big deal. Having 200,000 square feet of valuation
come on line in 2012 is a major contribution.
Mr. Casserly stated columns g and h show the numbers available for the city and for
Medtronic. The last column is Medtronic's share of the total taxes. The share of total
taxes they will be getting increases until 2011 and then in 2012 decreases. In 2012,
200,000 square feet have come off and are available for taxes and the City rate
increases to 20 %, the amount of taxes they are getting back is about 55% and stays in
the middle 50's throughout the remaining years. They are making a substantial
contribution. This schedule is important. People tend to think the company is getting
back the taxes they are paying. They are getting back about 55% on the average. For
the life of the district, it averages out to about 62 %.
Ms. Dacy stated the next issue is the use of the increment. In the extension, the
legislature gave the HRA the authority to use increment for roadway improvements that
are directly related to the site. A question was raised about street improvements on 57th
Avenue. The traffic analysis shows that in the year 2010 there may be a need for a
right turn lane from westbound 57th to go northbound onto University Avenue. That
would be a dedicated right turn lane with an island to separate it from the other traffic.
Mr. Commers asked how the Highway 65 improvements are being done now.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 8
Ms. Dacy stated the AUAR and the mitigation plan were approved based on the fact
that it looked like all of the air quality issues could be met without the Highway 65
improvements and that all of the environmental issues were also adequately addressed
if the lane expansion were not completed. In the City agreement, the City is stating that
it will use its "best efforts" to pursue construction and is now in the process of trying to
obtain Federal funding for that project. This is the extra lane from 1 -694 to just beyond
East Moore Lake Drive and potentially another lane on the southbound side.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the road construction included Bridgewater Drive.
Ms. Dacy stated Medtronic will undertake construction of Bridgewater. The expenses
are part of the eligible expenses for reimbursement.
Ms. Dacy stated the agreement defines minimum improvements as the initial
improvements or Phase 1 and optional improvements that are defined in the agreement
as future development.
Ms. Dacy stated the Phase 1 plan was approved by the HRA as of April 1, and the City
Council approved the master plan on April 26. They are still working on the plat and
vacation issues. Medtronic is committing to build a parkway across the project and
have agreed to maintain the trees and cut the grass on the medians. However, it will be
a public street. The city will do the snow plowing, repair potholes, etc.
Ms. Dacy stated the agreement requires the construction of structured parking. In
Phase 1, they were required to construct a minimum of 75% of their space as parking.
They have exceeded that. They have only 12 spaces on a surface lot. The structured
parking has approximately 1,000 spaces with two levels below grade, one at grade, and
three above grade.
Ms. Dacy stated the Department of Trade and Economic Development requires that
they agree to job and wage goals because of the level of assistance.
Mr. Commers asked that regarding the parking, what is shared parking? In the future,
structured parking cannot be in excess of three parking levels above ground.
Ms. Dacy stated the question was whether the schedule of parking requirements was
what they typically require. The shared parking means that some of the uses inside the
five buildings are going to be used by Medtronic employees. Those uses in and of itself
will be used by the employees on the site and will not be attracting additional traffic.
What they are agreeing to in the parking is to work with their architect to determine what
the net amount of space will drive the parking. In subsequent phases, the definition of
structured parking does not state one way or the other about the underground parking.
It just states it may be on or above grade. There is a stipulation in the Master Plan that
if structured parking exceeds the height of the first phase ramp, they would have to
come back. Medtronic has minimized the height impacts as best as possible.
Mr. Commers asked if it was correct that the height cannot exceed 10 stories.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 9
Ms. Dacy stated this is correct. The agreement does permit up to 10 stories for one of
the buildings. They would like to have that 10 -story flexibility but they are trying to
recapture the campus feel and Phase 1 buildings are shorter than that. The tallest
building proposed is 85 feet but there are only four office floors in that building.
Ms. Dacy stated the HRH's representation stated that the HRA is cooperating with the
City stating the site is suitable for 6.5 million square feet of development.
Mr. Commers asked what they had to support that representation.
Ms. Dacy stated they had the AUAR document analyzed and approved.
Ms. Dacy stated the use of the remaining property in the interim states that the HRA will
not permit any use that is detrimental to the phase 1 development.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the land holding payments, when they decide to
purchase additional land to construct phases 2 and 3, staff came up with a formula to
calculate that amount of payment. There is also a procedure as to when to calculate
and the time frame for the date of closing of the additional phase.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding special assessments, the agreement states there will be
no special assessments for the public or site improvements contemplated for the
project.
Mr. Commers asked who is responsible for the special assessments listed on schedule
f.
Ms. Dacy stated the water and sanitary sewer is available already. On University and
57th Avenue, the City will look at that intersection in the year 2009 to determine if a free .
right turn lane is required. The City and the HRA will cooperate to ensure that the
improvements are available.
Mr. Commers asked if 57th Avenue was an obligation of the City under their agreement.
Ms. Dacy stated there is a statement in the City's agreement and the HRH's agreement
that one will cooperate with the other. There is a statement in the HRA's agreement
that the HRA will ensure that public improvements are available and the same language
appears in the city agreement.
Ms. Dacy stated they had talked about the expansion parcels. Medtronic now has a
signed purchase agreement for all seven parcels.
Ms. Dacy distributed copies of three pages of the agreement that were amended as well
as the resolution for which staff recommends approval.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 10 • .
Mr. Casserly stated the amended pages redefine what the available tax increment is,
and there is new language underlined that says starting in 2012 the HRA will provide
70% of the increment to the company. Assuming the governor signs the tax bill, the
County and school district both approves the special legislation, the HRA approves a
revised budget for district 6, the HRA approves the extension of district 6, the City
Council approves the extension of district 6, then this would go into effect.
Mr. Casserly stated the second page cleans up the various notice of closing
requirements. They changed the notice of closing for the first parcel that is to be given
when signing this agreement. The closing date is set for June 4. There are problems
on the torrens certificate from years ago.
Mr. Casserly stated the last page is the schedule F that clarifies the intersection
improvements. The same language is in the city's agreement.
Mr. Casseriy stated the resolution makes it clearer. Section 3 authorized the chairman
and executive director to execute and deliver the contract when certain conditions are
met.
Mr. Commers asked what provisions were included in the City contract.
Ms. Dacy stated the definitions are the same. The structured parking is the same.
Public improvements are the same. There is a section in the City's representation
regarding the valuation of the project. It states that the City acknowledges that the cost
to construct the parking ramps and buildings does not equate exactly to the market
valuation of the project. There is much cost associated with the ramps in order to
achieve*the density. Much of the valuation will result from the construction of the
buildings.
Ms. Dacy stated there is a section on public streets that acknowledges the demolishing
of existing streets and creating new streets. The company wanted to be assured that
ultimately they are not responsible for maintaining public streets. There is language
regarding the parkway and also the company wanted to insure that it is not responsible
for maintaining the reconstructed Carrie Lane.
Mr. Commers asked if it was correct that Medtronic retains the right to name the streets.
Ms. Dacy stated this was correct.
Ms. Dacy stated there is a section regarding the procedure and process to amend the
master plan. They are insisting that the city take action within 60 days. This may be an
issue for the City Council because current state law does allow for an extension based
on reasonable facts. If the city does reject a master plan amendment, it must not be
arbitrary and capricious.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 11
Ms. Dacy stated she referred earlier to Highway 65 improvements. The city agreement
talks about a proposed right in, right out access to Highway 65. MnDOT will approve
the right -in, right -out but they want the City to agree to close the median on Highway 65
near the Target warehouse. The language in the agreement sates that the City assist
the company in securing those approvals.
Mr. Commers stated he did not understand the purpose of closing that median.
Ms. Dacy stated MnDOT 's goal is to improve the operation and function of Highway 65.
Over the years, they have been closing the crossovers in the medians that detract from
the traffic flow.
Ms. Dacy stated Medtronic would like to have construction vehicles start at 6:30 a.m.
rather than 7:00 a.m. Staff has agreed that they could start vehicles about 500 feet
south of the north lot line or more toward 1 -694 so that the noise will mix in more with the
highway traffic.
Mr. Meyers asked why they would not work the usual construction hours.
Ms. Dacy stated they are talking about construction hours of 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Those are the hours
that are permitted under the ordinance, and it was her understanding that they will be
going full speed ahead.
Ms. Arndt stated that in some cases, some of the work requires they start early in order
to get it done before dark.
Mr. Bums stated the City did get $500,000 from the state for the preliminary design for
the Highway 65 work so that will enable the city to start almost immediately. This is a
very complex project with land use issues, development agreement issues and
legislative issues. There were many people involved. It has taken a lot of time. Neither
side has lost their resolve. Everyone has done a wonderful job. They are all very
pleased with the project.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve a Resolution No. HRA-
8, Authorizing Execution and Delivery of a Contract for Private Redevelopment By and
Between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and Ford the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, and Medtronic, Inc.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
INFORMATION ITEMS:
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 12
5. GATEWAY EAST UPDATE
Mr. Femelius stated Holiday has approached staff with a request to extend the closing
date in order to give the tenant time to find a new spot. Since the memo was written on
May 14, staff found out that Holiday was going to proceed with legal action next week in
order to remove the tenant. He anticipates that the closing on that property would take
place sometime this summer.
Mr. Femelius stated the other issue is the duplex. The issue of replacing the two units
and finding new rental units has been discussed in the past. Staff has had a lot of
trouble identifying a site and identifying a funding source, but he thought they had a
solution. Staff met with ACCAP about a tax forfeit parcel on Starlite Circle that is just
south of the Rottlund development.
Mr. Femelius stated there are two possibilities to fund a project which would be a rental
duplex owned and managed by ACCAP and would provide affordable rental housing
presumably for low and moderate income residents. One possible funding source to
develop that project would come from Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program
(MHOP). As the result of a lawsuit, approximately $100 million of money was set aside
by HUD to help create essentially public housing and disperse it out into suburban
communities. It is an excellent funding source because it would provide virtually all the
money to construct the units. There are some strings attached. The tenants would be
Minneapolis public housing tenants and would have preference on those two units for a
period of 10 years after which time local residents would have an opportunity to lease
those units. The City or the HRA would have little of a financial role. ACCAP believes
the County would likely donate the tax forfeit lot to the project; therefore, there would be
very little commitment the HRA would have to make. There are some political issues
that need to be discussed with the City Council. Staff thinks that would be a desirable
route.
Mr. Femelius stated the other option is to look at a tax credit project which would require
that this project would be part of a larger development. The bottom line is that this
would take time and possibly push it out a few years down the line. He is uncertain
when this could actually place. The goal is to get these units constructed within a
reasonable time frame.
Mr. Femelius stated the third option would be to have the City or the HRA fund the
entire cost of the development. This may not be an appealing option.
Mr. Femelius stated this is an update on staffs research. Staff will continue to work on
it. The goal is get more details on the MHOP program unless the HRA or City Council
gives direction otherwise. He will come back in the future with more information.
OTHER BUSINESS:
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 20, 1999 PAGE 13
Mr. Bums stated they have recently completed the City Council and Commission survey
relative to policy making and goal setting for the year 2000. Many of the issues are also
of interest to the HRA. A copy of the results will be provided to the HRA.
Mr. Bums stated he is working with NSP and Minnegasco, and he has reached an
agreement with franchises with those two utilities. The next step being proposed is a
franchise fee. This cost will be passed on to property owners who will end up paying
approximately $36 per year. The franchise fee will bring in to the city about $716,000 in
new revenues. This is important because the city has a long list of things that have
been funded without any property tax levy increases or offsetting revenues. Since
1994, the city has added six new police officers, the rental housing program, community
center operation costs, Hayes gymnasium operation costs, the commitment to pick up
tree limbs which costs over $20,000 per year, a commitment to mowing and trimming
the corridors, etc. The 1999 budget, in order to absorb all of these things, has a
projected deficit of $1.3 million. He thought they were at a point where they have to do
something to generate some new revenue. This is a major step in that direction. A
public hearing regarding this subject will be held July 12.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 20,1999, MEETING OF THE HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADJOURNED AT 9:47 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
DATE: May 27, 1999
0 1010 Lei V i
1.
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to By -Laws
The HRA's By -Laws need minor amendments to reflect the current operation of the
HRA. The former By -Laws show that the HRA's regular meeting time is the second
Thursday of the month. The proposed amendment changes that reference to the first
Thursday of the month. Also included in the proposed amendment to the By -Laws is
updating the reference of chairman and vice - chairman to chairperson and vice -
chairperson.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the HRA approve the amendments to the By -Laws as
presented.
BD:Is
M -99 -135
1
BY -LAWS OF THE
FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
ARTICLE I: THE AUTHORITY
Section 1: Name of the Authority
The name of the Authority shall be the Fridley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, Fridley, Minnesota.
Section 2: Powers
The Authority shall be a public body corporate and politic and shall
have all the powers necessary or convenient to cant' out the
purpose of Minnesota Statutes 462.415 to 462.711.
Section 3: Membership
The Authority shall consist of five commissioners who shall be
residents of the City of Fridley.
Section 4: Appointment, Approval
The Commissioners ef the AutheAty shall be appointed by the
Mayor with approval by the City Council of Fridley, Minnesota.
Section 5: Term
The Commissioners shall be initially appointed for terms of one,
two, three, four, and five years respectively. Thereafter, all
Commissioners shall be appointed for five -year terms.
Section 6: Vacancv
Each vacancy in an unexpired term shall be filled in the same
manner in which the original appointment was made.
Section 7. Certificate of Appointment
The Commissioners shall hold office until their successors have
been appointed and qualified. A certificate of appointment of each
Commissioner shall be filed with the City Clerk and a certified copy
thereof with the State Housing Commission.
Section 8. Compensation
The Commissioners shall be entitled to receive necessary
expenses, including traveling expenses, in the performance of their
duties. The Commissioners may be compensated at a rate of up to
$25.00 per meeting in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$1,500.00 per year.
ARTICLE II: OFFICERS
Section 1: Officers
The officers of the Authority shall be a tae - Chairperson and a
Vice- 6haoFmafl- Chairperson /Secretary.
Section 2. 6haemnaa- Chairperson
The E'haiMan Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the
Authority at which be-he/she is present.
Section 3. Vice - 6#ai;ma+} Chairperson /Secretary
The Vice - 6gairan Chairperson /Secretary shall perform the duties
of the GhaiFinan Chairperson in Wa -his /her absence or incapacity,
and /or because of resignation or death of the GhaiaaR
Chairperson, until a new GhaiFmaR Chairperson is elected.
Section 4. Terms of Officers
All officers of the Authority shall be elected annually by the
Authority and shall serve for the term of one year or until their
successors are elected and qualified.
Section 5. Vacancies
Should an office become vacant, the Authority shall elect a
successor from its membership at a regular meeting, and such
election shall be for the unexpired term of said office.
ARTICLE III: STAFF SERVICES
Section 1. Executive Director
An Executive Director shall be appointed by the Authority, at such
compensation, for such term and with such duties as the Authority
shall determine by resolution. The Executive Director shall
perform, or have performed, such activities as the Authority shall
from time to time reasonably request, including the responsibility for
the care and custody of all funds of the Authority and for the deposit
thereof in the name of the Authority in such bank or banks as the
Authority from time to time shall designate, for the keeping of
regular books of accounts showing receipts and expenditures, for
budget and budgeting activities, for keeping the records of the
Authority, for the keeping of the seal of the Authority, and to accept
the service of process upon the Authority.
Section 2. Additional Personnel
The Authority may from time to time use such personnel and use
the services of local public bodies as it deems necessary to
exercise its powers, duties, and functions as prescribed by law.
ARTICLE IV: EXECUTION OF INTRUMENTS
Section 1: Execution of Instruments
All deeds, contracts, promissory notes, warrants, and other
instruments, including checks issued by the Authority, shall be
executed by the Executive Director only after authorization of such
transactions by the Authority by resolution or other approved action.
ARTICLE V. MEETINGS
Section 1. Regular Meetings
Regular meetings of the Authority shall be set by the Authority
annually and shall remain for that period of time unless changed by
majority vote of the Authority at a regular scheduled meeting.
Section 2. Special Meetincs
Special meetings of the Authority may be held at any time on at
least a 24 -hour written call of the Obailwaar}Chairperson or any two
members of the Authority. Notice shall be in writing and state the
time, place, and purpose of the meeting. Upon unanimous consent
of all members, any of the provisions of this section may be waived.
Section 3. Annual Meeting
An annual meeting will be held the seeefW -first Thursday of June at
7:30 p.m. for the purpose of electing officers of the Authority. The
date of the annual meeting may be postponed to a date on or
before the seesad -first Thursday of July upon a majority vote of the
Commissioners in office at any time at a regular meeting of the
Authority.
Section 4. Quorum
The powers of the Authority shall be vested in the Commissioners
thereof in office at any one time, a majority of whom shall constitute
a quorum for all purposes, but lessor number may adjourn a
meeting from time to time until a quorum is obtained.
Section 5. Manner of Voting
The GhaiFmaR Chairperson and all Commissioners in attendance at
every meeting of the Authority shall be entitled to vote. All motions
and resolutions shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of the
members of the Authority. A roll call on any question coming
before the Authority must be taken upon the demand of any one or
more of the Commissioners.
Section 6. Parliamentary Procedures
Parliamentary procedures at meetings of the Authority shall be
governed by the last edition of Robert's Rules of Order.
ARTICLE VI: FISCAL YEAR
Section 1. Fiscal Year
The fiscal year of the Authority shall be from January 1 to
December 31 of each year.
Section 2. Annual Report
The Executive Director shall prepare an annual report to the
Authority of Authority activities on or before the last day of February
for the proceeding fiscal year.
Section 3. Budget
The Executive Director shall prepare an annual budget for Authority
approval prior to December 31 for the next fiscal year. This budget
shall lay out anticipated revenue and expenditures of the Authority
for the next fiscal year.
ARTICLE VII: AMENDMENTS
Section 1: Amendments
The By -Laws of the Authority shall be amended only with the
approval of at least a majority of the Commissioners in office at that
time.
6#air -�aa- Chairperson
Vi Vice- Chairperson
DATE: May 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Annual Election of Officers
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority's By -Laws require an annual election of
officers at the annual meeting in June. Unless otherwise determined by the HRA, it is
recommended that the current Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson be recommended for
re- election for the upcoming year until June 1, 2000.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Larry Commers and Virginia Schnabel be elected as
Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson through June 1, 2000.
BD:Is
M -99 -134
Cq
w
U
L
W
}
z
Q
A
O
w
a
Y
U
i
U
ei.
Q
O
0
W
A
G
U
x
z
a
is
P
P
P
h7
0
0
i-
P
P
P
.a
0
z
O
1
z
W
z
°° . o
J
W
rl w
iC
a Q
.y
\JU
100z
C1.4 d7 H
\MtA
auo
2
WEB
u' ¢ w
<C L: J
iii O H
x iL cC
!L CL W
1 F 1 0-W W 000 PA W 0h7It b700W00MIn0CD10-4NM
1 :,Xz 1 •+WMQOO-O WO W vn700 WOO W NOM1-h7Qih
1 w0 I 0mN10 M0 -0 M0 �M•OClJ�MI�P W Od7Q1�1�•OM
12 I MJ°ll�•OOO.iC•JNh PO WPCdPNOWC`JP P•OQ
1 U 1 MMCdP 0 M) 14) hi hi 14) 00 ION OPfl)
i i CJ .a L7 •y N M N P N •O W N N N •+
I 1 ICJ hi
I 1
1 I
i 1
1 1
1 1
I f
I i
I i
I i
1 t
I i
I I
i 1
1 1
l 1
I 1
I
I 1
I i
I I '
I I
I i
i
t
I
t
1
i
1
I
I
� i �.•+ vNOr ,.+.+QMr�QtAP.aMQMMV'�fQQPt'J
1 00.4 fWO .400%4•4NONO.4.4.1.40.40000
w I MO i00NNMM00 +.iNMVP.O
Q
.i .i v4 .4 .i N
w1
> I
I CL z r W 0 LC
1 O z fC • O} CL. .+ A
1 U �- W H O [- �' 0t Ix F- 0 0 z w
I W:3 Ol N HH zUf H=) W
t wiz w =) >> c F-I- Jz Wa
I u C 4 w JH CL zH accEOW w Wf-
t Zi- > ♦• xI- WwJWJP - HH .4> x0
1 a W>-Hww W ww AA w a.co
1 m6wj0bJ -zz sc 4zzJJ JL �[ w
I W W4 AAH6 H >-WHHW OOQ4Q1� WZA
I ZzOHZJ- x UOU)UME00 • •AO w
I H W ac w W OcewOOWSSiLLC Zza
I aC - ILJzzkx W wamordUUJ,.� zF >-0 LL
I W HfL I <UHWNZCLW=HWN cfLZ- I
I LL. -WxXU 1 i -Hawxa t•- w LwaaOY
I H WAzF -H I Wz W Qw LL. ACL Z
W I Ja ciaaaz4a oxcezzitalL zJ }Q
Q I •QWWiWa0HQ a00¢U~W
02I- Qr+
Z 1 00QNtAZaQQ O�GaCN W awwzzZN �IxN
cL 1 IizW WOI- zz22WOXJLCLa.MWHWCLF -W W
O 1 i•- Z3zWi- L)(ni -CLWA W WNWYZ Z >3
A I Ix zcLECLNUJzzx-IP4 QaccaLzNHHa
z I a .HOOHO •¢WW02CC •Zzrgce<rH ¢ZO
W i MHzZUWrLHtY MUUWWHHHxXJZz W :)z
I
x 1 0 .iNMv0 a1�-O.iNMvh'I Or- W P0 .4 NMQ0.0
YW ff . i.• t.4•4-1.ti.4ImNNNCJNNNNNNMMMMMMM
wr-I 9OOOr9OOhF0OhOOh0h0Oh0000
M3 I NCdC~ dCJNCJNf `JNCJNNNNCiCIt`JNNNNNNNN
UZI
t
1
I
1 PPPPPPPPPPII•PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
i P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P OA P P P P P
xwl O•PPPPP CP. PPPOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
U h•' I .r M It .l ..1 rl H .i M,4 A .i .i .i .1 .i .J .1 vi .i vi .i
W ¢ i \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
x A 1 d7 h7 h7 d7 h7 h7 h7 h7 10 -0 10 10 10 •O *0 10 -0 10 •0 10 '0 10 -0 •0
U I NNNNNC- 4NNNNCJNNCJCJNC•JCdNf'1NC1NNCd
1 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
1 0000000000000000000000000
O
.i
.i
P
PJ
C•1
.i
Q
F-
O
f-
w
U
i
w
A
3
DATE: May 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Authorize Sale of Land to Medtronic, Inc.
Minnesota State Statutes require the HRA to conduct a public hearing prior to the sale
of land. The development agreement for Medtronic, Inc., was approved by the HRA on
May 20, 1999. The public hearing for the June 31 HRA meeting has been properly
advertised.
The land area involved in the sale is depicted on the attached drawing. It encompasses
approximately 27.53 acres of land. The closing date has been established for Friday,
June 4, 1999.
The City Council approved its redevelopment agreement with Medtronic, Inc., on May
24, 1999. Medtronic, Inc., has received the appropriate approval from various city and
state agencies to begin work on the property as of June 7, 1999.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the HRA conduct the public hearing and make a motion to
authorize the Chairperson and Executive Director to execute the appropriate
documents for closing on the property in accordance with the approved development
agreement of May 20, 1999.
BD:Is
M -99 -138
L
O
Ll
ti
I I F
n,
Ll
DATE: May 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: TH 65 Project Update
The Legislature, in its recent session, appropriated $500,000 to the City of Fridley for the
purpose of assisting with the design fees associated with the improvements to TH 65. This is
highly unusual and is a real boost to the project. As staff found out on Thursday, May 27, 1999,
from Met Council and MnDOT staff, the competition for federal funding will be fierce. It is now
commonplace to complete the design and engineering work first, and prove the project's
"deliverability", in order to be ready when construction funds become available.
The purpose of the meeting with Met Council and MnDOT was to determine the project's
feasibility given the application requirements for federal funding, and to find out how the City's
application could be strengthened. The proposed project would construct an additional
northbound and southbound lane on TH 65 from 1 -694 to 100 feet north of 63rd Avenue.
It was determined that the project would not survive well in the Congestion Management Air
Quality competition given that most of these funds will be prioritized for transit projects, and the
potential for significant air quality improvements on TH 65 with a "high occupancy vehicle lane"
is minimal. Further, it seemed better to describe the project as a "management" project as
opposed to an "expansion" or "improvement" project. MnDOT is anticipated to produce a TH 65
corridor study in August 1999 which would contain a recommendation to add additional through
lanes in certain areas along the corridor. This project would be consistent with that
recommendation. As a result, the project would be better suited for funding in the Surface
Transportation Program fund. The downside to this alternative is that the competition is greater
and the City has to pull together a lot of information in the next 60 days to put together an
effective application.
To follow is a list of the comments from each agency:
M
TH 65 Project Update
May 27,1999
Page 2
1. MnDOT:
a. Requested a feasibility study of the structural viability of the sheet wall design.
The soil borings that were recently completed were given to MnDOT staff for
review, but now they need more information on the design of the sheet wall in
order to support the project.
b. Requested that the project include improvements to the West/East Moore Lake
Drive intersection to prove that the City is also trying to "manage access" to TH
65. These types of improvements include an additional left turn lane on East
Moore Lake Drive and may include signalization improvements. The reason for
this suggestion is to show consistency with the forthcoming recommendations of
the MnDOT TH 65 corridor study.
2. Met Council:
a. Keep the project under 1 mile in length (the current distance is about 4,500 feet).
b. Review the regional transportation plan and search for policies that show that
this project is consistent with "management" policies.
C. Obtain a letter of support from Met Council for the application.
d. Review the MnDOT transportation plan and show how it is consistent with its
plan.
e. Amend the City's local transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to
identify it as a priority.
f. Obtain a letter of support from MnDOT.
Recommended Action
The Authority has retained Benshoof and Associates already to prepare the federal funding
application. In order to obtain a letter of support from MnDOT, the sheet wall design feasibility
must be obtained. Consultants are now being solicited, but staff is suggesting that the Authority
authorize staff to enter into a contract for up to $20,000 in order to meet the application
deadline. A better estimate will hopefully be available for the Authority on Thursday evening.
The federal funding application deadline will be some time in August (Met Council is still
finalizing application process). If successful, funds would be available for construction in 2003.
The design and engineering could then be accomplished in the intervening period.
In addition, the City will be initiating a plan amendment process immediately to fulfill the local
planning requirement and to encourage Met Council's support.
BD:Is
M -99 -137
DATE: May 26, 1999
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO: William W. Burns, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Update on Holiday Property
At the last HRA meeting on May 20, 1999, staff indicated that the Holiday
Company was going to pursue legal action against Cash N Pawn to remove them
from the site upon expiration of their lease on May 31, 1999.
This week we were notified that Cash N Pawn has initiated legal proceedings on
their own, claiming they have a pre - existing right to purchase the property.
According our legal counsel, the two parties have been negotiating a settlement
to the dispute. The current plan calls for the parties to enter into a lease
extension through the end of October 1999. At that point, the tenant would
have to be out of the property. Obviously, this has implications for the closing
originally scheduled for June and subsequently postponed until mid - summer.
The circumstances surrounding this transaction are quite complicated. The
Authority does not want to acquire the property with the tenant in the building.
Cash N Pawn's current legal action clearly affects the title and our ability to close.
From a practical standpoint, the Authority could either void the purchase
agreement and walk away from the deal or try and cooperate with Holiday on
extending the closing date to avoid a protracted legal proceeding.
Unless otherwise directed, staff plans to cooperate with Holiday on postponing
the closing until later this fall.
gf
M -99 -133
DATE: May 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 571 Avenue Redevelopment — Steve Linn
Steve Linn, the developer of the retail strip center just west of the recently refurbished Good
Year Tire and Auto Center, has advised staff of the difficulties of attracting a major anchor for
the project. Several quality tenants have sent letters of intent but after due diligence have
decided not to pursue leases because of visibility or other issues. Meanwhile, the Tire and Auto
Center is doing well and will be generating about $7,200 of increment this year.
Given the onset of Medtronic's campus construction, plus Holiday Store's construction of a new
station store on 5r across the street from the site, there may be more market interest in the
property. The current development agreement with Linn establishes a construction deadline of
December 31, 1999. In addition, the Authority does not start paying on the revenue note until a
certificate of completion has been issued for the retail center. The authorized amount of
assistance was $175,000 (present value). If Linn initiated the project yet this year, the Authority
would only pay out $155,000 because the project was not initiated in 1997, and the note has a
termination date at the end of 2011 (the district would expire in 2024).
In order to encourage the redeveloper to attract a use consistent with the Authority's
redevelopment goals for this area, staff is suggesting the following concepts for the authority's
consideration that would ultimately be included in an amendment to the original development
agreement:
1. Extend the construction deadline to December 31, 2000.
2. Extend the maturity date of the note to December 31, 2013. This would provide the
original amount of assistance of $175,000.
3. Provide three payments on the note beginning in August of 1999, but stop payments if
the strip center is not constructed by December 31, 2000. This would amount to
$10,759.
4. Amend the agreement to specify the types of uses the Authority would approve as
consistent with redevelopment objectives.
7
5r Avenue Redevelopment
May 27,1999
Page 2
The original intent of this development was to revitalize the commercial area along 5r Avenue
and to create additional diverse retail opportunities for the immediate neighborhood as well as
the community. The recent public improvement project in the corridor has greatly enhanced the
attractiveness of the area. Mr. Linn was an advocate of the improvement project and testified
at the hearing for the assessments.
Staff has reviewed these concepts with the redeveloper and is currently awaiting his response.
An update will be provided to the Authority at Thursday's meeting.
BD:ls
M -99 -136
DATE: May 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Budget Update
The recent legislative amendments regarding TIF districts plus the Medtronic project
has obviously delayed production of the HRA budget for this year. Staff is working not
only on the 1999 budget but also on the year 2000. The expenditure part of the budget
is easy to prepare, but the revenue side has become more complicated given the
recent state law changes. To follow is a list of major issues which staff hopes to
address in the HRA budget preparation:
1. What resources are available for continuation of the Authority's programs,
including, but not limited to:
• Revolving Loan Program
• Housing Replacement/Scattered Site Program
• Special neighborhood programs (i.e. Hyde Park)
• Apartment Rehabilitation
• Economic development assistance
• Redevelopment projects including:
• Salvage Yards
• Gateway East
• Projects as a result if Medtronic Impacts
2. What resources are available to retire existing debt service payments, and how
do they affect the list of programs /projects above?
3. How much time remains in existing TIF districts, especially those affected by
recent State law amendments (TIF #2 and #3)?
N
Budget Update
May 27, 1999
Page 2
4. What types of penalties (financial or otherwise) will the City experience as a
result of state legislation on TIF districts, and what are they by district?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages to the City's tax base as a result of
the Medtronic project (including fiscal disparities)?
6. If resources are limited, which programs in #1 above deserve higher priority than
the others?
If the Authority has other questions, please let staff know. Staff will be conducting
several "budget" meetings in the next week, and we hope to have an update on
progress by Thursday.
The City Council would also like to meet with the HRA regarding the city's
redevelopment priorities. Given their budget cycle requires several meetings in June, a
joint meeting is tentatively being considered post- budget process (we will be contacting
you later regarding dates).
For your information, attached is the memo that was given to the council about the
Community Development Department's goals and objectives for the year 2000. The
Council also asked that the Commissions receive the results of the Commission -
Council survey. The synopsis is included in the packet.
BD:Is
M -99 -139
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
r1
DATE: May 14, 1999
TO: William W. Bums, City Manager
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 2000 Community Development Department Goals and Objectives
Impact of Medtronic Project
The Medtronic project will have the most impact on the City of Fridley's future more than any
other before it. The project will not only change the Fridley 1 -694 corridor but will also affect
development in the north metro area. Three developers have already contacted me in search of
sites for hotel and retail development. Their comments are telling: "The City hit a home run for
the community "; "this will change the City's image "; "the city needs to jump on this opportunity".
The City of New Brighton is redeveloping the parcels in the 1 -35W and 1-694 interchange and is
also exploring hotel opportunities. I would be professionally irresponsible if I did not recommend
to the Council a proactive approach to deal with the multitude of impacts from the Medtronic
project.
The impacts I am speaking of include, but are not limited to:
1) Land use:
• Initially there will be a demand for hotel, restaurant, and retail space.
• Where is the best place to start?
• What will the market support in the future?
• How does the market relate to the community's goals?
• What are the community's goals?
• Does the City want to encourage redevelopment for a Super 8 hotel or a Radisson?
• How does the City want to influence development?
2) Housing:
• Existing housing will need to be demolished to make way for new land uses.
• How will the City replace lost units?
• How will it affect the City's livable community benchmarks?
• What about "move -up" housing to retain or attract households that want higher value
homes?
3) Schools:
• What impact will redevelopment projects have on the school districts?
����
2000 Community Development Department Goals and Objectives
Page 2
May 14, 1999
• Will there be more kids or less kids?
4) Infrastructure:
• TH 65 lane widening project needs to be addressed.
• Sewer line upgrade needs to be completed by Phase II.
• What will the spillover effects of redevelopment require of fire and police services?
• What about transit services including light rail and the Northstar Corridor?
• Will there be more demands on parks and bikeway/walkway impacts
5) Social:
• Will there be more or less demand for cultural activities /amenities?
6) Technology Impacts:
• What should the City be doing, if anything, regarding technological infrastructure
such as fiber optic services?
In short, I recommend that the City be prepared to respond to the multitude of impacts that the
Medtronic project will generate. The Comprehensive Plan will address some of the above
issues in general, but I recommend that a study be completed solely for the purpose of
addressing the impacts from the project. Elements of the study would, at minimum, include a
market analysis, a land use component, and a housing component. The scope and cost of the
study has yet to be determined, but because of the redevelopment implications, the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority may be more appropriate to fund the study. I do recommend
however that the Council endorse this concept, and request that staff initiate the study this
summer.
Council /Commission Survey Topics
The topics in the Council /Commission Survey which affect the Community Development
Department are:
• Impact of the Medtronic project
• Timing of Gateway East project
• Housing Rehabilitation Programs
• Scattered Site Acquisition Programs
• Apartment Rehab Program
• Yard Waste Site
• Campers /trailers/boat storage
• Replacement affordable housing
The department's goals and objectives reflect all of the above activities in the upcoming 16
months. There seemed to be general agreement to push ahead with Gateway East and the
Scattered Site program., and to keep the yard waste site open. There was a general feeling
among the Council to adopt a wait and see approach on studying the impacts of the Medtronic
development, while the Commission members seemed to support moving ahead with a
separate study. There was less agreement on the remaining issues.
2000 Community Development Department Goals and Objectives
Page 3
May 14, 1999
Department Priorities
The top three department priorities are as follows in the order that they appear.
1. Define scope and cost of impact study of Medtronic project, and initiate analysis this year
2. Complete the Comprehensive Plan process
3. Keep pushing ahead with Gateway East project and initiate salvage yard redevelopment
process
The remaining objectives include:
1. Keep pushing ahead with housing rehab and scattered site programs with a careful eye on
the pooling issue
2. Initiate process to analyze the apartment rehab program
3. Initiate zoning text amendments on the following topics:
• Outdoor display (summer of 1999)
• Survey questions regarding camper /trailer/boat issues (fall 1999)
• Initiate text amendment process after survey results
• Relax front yard setbacks for home additions
• Minimum lot area analysis in residential and commercial areas
• Septic system maintenance requirements (1995 Met Council requirement)
4. Continue Systematic Code Enforcement Program
5. Initiate optical imaging of land use files, building plans, and address files.
Budaet Implications
The 2000 budget will contain the required funding to complete the Comprehensive Plan. It is
hoped that the bulk of the plan can be prepared the latter part of 1999, and the Council adopt
the plan in the year 2000.
The Medtronic Development because of its size, will require significant amount of time and
attention by the Building Official, Ron Julkowski. As a result the building division budget will
contain a request for additional funds for contract inspector assistance.
About $10,000 is authorized in the 1999 budget for part-time help to assist the department in
completing optical imaging of land use applications, building plans, building permits and,
inspection slips in the contents of the address files. Because of the problems associated with
the former provider of the optical imaging software, new software is now being evaluated by city
staff. Continuation of this part-time help will be requested in the 1999 budget.
Because of the volume of the permit activity in the last two -three years, staff is now evaluating a
variety of software applications to automate the permit and inspection tracking system, which is
now being used by Mary Hintz. The cost of software in this area has reduced significantly over
the last nine years and staff is hopeful to purchase software which would cost less than
$10,000.
' v
2000 Community Development Department Goals and Objectives
Page 4
May 14, 1999
Finally, the Planning budget will also request a summer intern to assist with the Code
Enforcement program ($10,000). The 1999 Community Development Block Grant application
did include $10,000 to be allocated towards Code Enforcement which would help to retire the
cost for Lori Skotterud. A similar amount is being proposed for the year 2000 budget.
Summary
I look forward to discussing these issues with Council on Monday night.
BD1jt
Attachments
M -99 -121