HRA 08/03/2000 - 6324CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
AUGUST 3, 2000, MEETING, 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 13, 2000
CONSENT AGENDA:
Request to Support Additional Lane Project ......................... ............................... 1
Claimsand Expenses ...................................................... ............................... 2
ACTION ITEMS:
Consider Resolution Amending Development Contract with Fridley Main LLC........... 3
Request Authorization to Negotiation with
Real Estate Equities for Gateway East Project ........... ............................... 4
INFORMATION ITEMS:
SalvageYard Update ...................................................... ............................... 5
Joint Task Force Funding Update ...................................... ............................... 6
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
JULY 13, 2000
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice - Chairperson Schnabel called the July 13, 2000, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer, Pat Gabel, Jim McFarland
Members Absent: Larry Commers
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant
Julie Vogel, HRA Accountant
APPROVAL OF THE June 1. 2000, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the June 1, 2000, Housing
and Redevelopment Authority meeting minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. CONSIDER CHANGE TO INTEREST RATE FOR REVOLVING LOAN FUND:
2. APPROVE DEMOLITION CONTRACT FOR GATEWAY EAST PROPERTIES:
3. CLAIMS AND EXPENSES:
MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the consent agenda
with the additional expenses presented by Ms. Vogel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ACTION ITEMS:
4. APPROVE CONTRACT FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS WITH REAL
ESTATE RECYCLING. INC.:
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 2 s
Ms. Dacy stated that the HRH's action tonight would be to approve a resolution
authorizing execution of the contract for exclusive negotiations with Real Estate
Recycling, Inc. The redevelopment project that the HRA and the City is evaluating is to
redevelop certain properties in the northeast part of the City on the north and south
sides of 73rd Avenue. The comprehensive plan discussion suggested elimination of
underutilized types of properties and a combination of those with similar properties,
specifically outdoor intensive uses such as salvage yards or other outdoor types of
uses. The goal is to look at seeing if a redevelopment project could be undertaken such
that a series of new industrial buildings could be constructed. They are hoping for as
much as 245,000 square feet.
Ms. Dacy stated that Paul Hyde is at the meeting to speak and answer questions. Real
Estate Recycling Inc., does specialize in contaminated properties. There is reason to
believe that some of the salvage yards may have some type of contamination. This
developer has a significant track record with State and Federal agencies for funding and
clean -up funding. Mr. Hyde participated in the Murphy Warehouse project south of the
Onan campus. Mr. Hyde would be managing all aspects of the project with the HRA
and City staff. The real estate market is very good and the economy is good. There is
a lot of good industry in Fridley that needs move -up space. There are grant funds
available right now from State and regional sources. There is a favorable environment
in terms of regulation when it comes to cleaning properties. The end result is to create
new jobs and tax base for the community.
Ms. Dacy stated they are still exploring the financial feasibility of this project. The HRA
granted staff the ability to hire an appraiser who would work with staff and the developer
to approach the property owners in this particular area. They intend to use as much
DTED and Metropolitan Council funding as possible. They may have to create a new
TIF district and negotiate the land payments from the developer to the HRA. Based on
current information, they think it is a feasible project but cannot be sure until they start
talking to the owners and doing the environmental testing.
Ms. Dacy stated that Real Estate Recycling Inc., would be responsible for negotiating
acquisition and relocation and conducting the environmental assessments and the geo-
technical analysis. They would prepare the grant applications and prepare a preliminary
site plan. The HRA's responsibilities under the contract would be to work with this
particular developer for one year or until June of 2001. They would cooperate with
grant applications and site plan reviews and would work together on approaching the
property owners. There is a statement in the contract that the HRA and the developer
would negotiate in good faith for a redevelopment contract by the end of the exclusive
negotiation terms. If it is determined that the project cannot proceed, they would come
back to the HRA to review the situation. The agreement cannot be signed over to
another developer. Staff is recommending that the HRA approve the resolution
authorizing execution of the contract. Chairperson Commers has reviewed the changes
in the contract and is in agreement.
Mr. Hyde, Real Estate Recycling Inc., stated that he started his company six years ago
with two partners. They are a developer of industrial projects and buildings focusing on
sites with environmental issues. They are active in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Wisconsin,
e
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 3
and Illinois. Their expertise is that they are used in complex environmental situations.
They are used to negotiating with agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. They are also experienced with obtaining
funding for costs. Many of these sites involve unusual geo- technical issues and
environmental clean -up costs that require funding outside of typical real- estate
transactions. They are experienced in writing those grant applications and obtaining
those funds, including the Murphy Warehouse project with over $1,000,000 in grant
funds. That helps offset the tax increment. They are experienced in real estate
development and the goal is to get the real estate developed and used. The
environmental issues are ongoing with the ground water contamination being
remediated, the tree systems, and so forth. They are good at making lenders
comfortable with the clean -up issues and the liability protection.
Mr. Hyde stated they have developed over 1,000,000 square feet of industrial buildings
to date. They have sold the project to a nationally known real estate investment trust.
This detailed the highest level of scrutiny of the environmental wrap -up. All of the
financing is with a conventional bank and life insurance company that finances without
premiums for environmental issues. Two of the sites developed were listed with the
superfund sites including the Onan site here in Fridley. They never pull out of the deal
and understand dealing with all the complex environmental issues.
Mr. Hyde stated they have created a sum of over $36,000,000 in tax base and over 650
new jobs. The City has identified the scrap yards a site for potential redevelopment and
that is their expertise in developing contaminated sites. They manage the liability
protections, get the funding for the clean -up issues associated with these kinds of
properties, and execute the actual development. They are interested and excited to
work in this City and see if this project is feasible. At this point, it makes sense but they
have to spend the money to complete some assessments for the properties. These
grant funds are unique to Minnesota. They are a powerful tool for communities to
redevelop these sites. It means that you do not have to use as much tax increment. It
is now funded for another biennium and there is demand for sites for rehab. Developers
can now purchase properties innocent of the clean -up liability in exchange for the
promise of the execution of a clean -up on that site.
Ms. Gabel asked that if everybody has liability protection, who is left with the liability?
Mr. Hyde stated that whoever put it there always has the liability. They always look to
the person responsible for the contamination for the clean -up.
Ms. Schnabel stated that Chairperson Commers looked at this and has approved it in
essence. The site is included in the schedule even though there is not a direct
reference to the site listed in the contract. Schedule A includes both the north and
south sides of 73d Avenue.
MOTION by Ms..Gabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve Resolution No. HRA 7-
2000, A Resolution Authorizing Execution and Delivery of a Contract for Exclusive
Negotiations by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Real Estate Recycling, LLC.
i
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JULY 13. 2000 PAGE 4
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH DEMOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.:
Ms. Dacy stated that this is regarding the Joint Task Force between the Cities of Fridley
and Columbia Heights. The HRA's representative is Mr. Meyer. Columbia Heights and
Fridley decided to initiate the task force in the latter part of February this year. The
mission is to develop a plan of action to help both communities respond to the
opportunities presented by Medtronic world headquarters. The task force is comprised
of eleven people, four from each community and one from each of the three school
districts. It is an advisory commission to both Fridley and Columbia Heights City
Councils. There is a Council member, Planning Commission member, HRA member,
and a business representative from each community. The task force is scheduled to
meet the second Thursday of the month. The next meeting is August 10. June 22 was
the first meeting.
Ms. Dacy stated the task force will prepare a report and the Councils are to evaluate the
ideas. They are looking at a defined study area that reaches from 45th Avenue in
Columbia Heights that reaches from the Mississippi River on the west extending to the
city limits on the east. It goes as far north as Mississippi Street to 73rd Avenue in Fridley
between Highway 65 and the City limits.
Ms. Dacy stated that the task force will identify the variety of opportunities that could
result from world headquarters. They will be looking at the strengths and weaknesses
of both cities and identifying the limitations and the communities' goals. Are there
image enhancements that should be pursued jointly and are there infrastructure
improvements between the two cities? Should they be working together more on the
commuter rail project? The staff from both cities is suggesting some consultant help.
They are looking at the two step process for consultant help. They are requesting that
the HRA fund some of the consultant costs.
Ms. Dacy stated the GIS (Geographic Information Systems) draft contract in the packet
is with Demographic Technologies, Inc. They specialize in the socio- economic or the
social data as it applies to every household. GIS is a parcel -based system.
Demographic Technologies Inc., takes that same computer system and gets a data
base from the assessor's office, school districts, state licensing bureau, and takes by
address and codes the information and assigns it to a particular household and group of
households called insight blocks. Then they can describe the population characteristics
such as age, number of people, type of house, etc. This would be more current than
the census because it is based on the database coming from the city, school, or state
records. The census data for the year 2000 will not be prepared for public information
probably until the year 2002.
Ms. Dacy stated "that it would describe the demographics in Columbia Heights and
Fridley. They City can use those demographics as the fuel to forecast what the future
could hold for certain types of markets and land uses. This will provide an
f ,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 5
understanding and a way to play with that information and it will give an understanding
of the impacts. They feel that this is a very important aspect of this analysis. They have
to preserve all the data privacy issues associated with that. The purpose of the land
use and market consultant is to assist the task force and take them through the process.
They will relate the information to the goals and opportunities.
Ms. Dacy stated Demographic Technologies Inc., is the same consultant that the seven -
community task force, including New Brighton, is using this for their 35W task force.
They have been up and running for the last two to three years and are beginning to use
the results in each community. The contract tonight is directly with the HRA. The
contract amount includes the cost applicable to Columbia Heights. Columbia Heights
would send us a check for its share of the cost. The cost is $2.00 per household and a
$.30 per household cost to update the data. The contract is saying that Demographic
Technologies, Inc., will input all the data and assign it to the parcels in Fridley and
Columbia Heights. They will do an update in a year or two and also do some
forecasting depending on what the task force comes up with.
Ms. Dacy stated the total contract amount is approximately $43,900. In August or
September, staff will come back with the land use and market contract. RFPs are now
out for that part of the work. They are estimating $45,000. They are also asking other
jurisdictions to particpate. In addition to the GIS funds, staff will be asking the HRA for
an additional $16,300 to contribute toward the remaining amount of the contract costs.
Staff recommends that the HRA authorize up to $44,500 for the task force consultants,
subject to receipt of the other commitments for payment from the other jurisdictions.
They did something similar to this with the regional remodeling handbook.
Ms. Dacy stated that Columbia Heights will decide on its portion of the GIS contract on
July 5. The GIS part of it could be initiated by the end of next week.
Ms. Schnabel asked Ms. Dacy if the land use portion is the portion that Anoka County or
the school districts might want to participate in.
Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. An approach has been made to the County
Commissioners, and all the school districts are aware of it.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the GIS will include every household in Fridley and also every
household in Columbia Heights.
Ms. Dacy stated that is correct.
Ms. Gabel asked what they would do if they did not get this other funding. Would the
HRA be asked to pay?
Ms. Dacy stated that staff would come back and suggest that.
Mr. Meyer stated this survey is good for the City and is a necessary basic step.
Councilmember Barnette was elected Chairperson of the task force so there is a strong
Fridley presence.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 6
Ms. Schnabel asked if any statistics from New Brighton will be used in any way.
Ms. Dacy stated that New Brighton could be viewed as a competition, or the information
that the consultant is producing could be used to assist us because the task force is
saying that the market goes way beyond the borders of Columbia Heights and Fridley.
They could look at that information and see how it compares to Fridley's. Chairperson
Commers is concerned about the land use and the marketing issues. Because they do
not have a good update on who is contributing, maybe the motion should be limited to
the Demographic Technologies, Inc., contract. Staff could come back in August with a
further update.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the contract with
Demographic Technologies, Inc.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
INFORMATION ITEM:
6. UPDATE ON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR GATEWAY EAST:
Mr. Femelius stated that in May, the City sent an RFP to over 20 developers for the
Gateway East project at the comer of 57th Avenue and University Avenue. The
deadline for those proposals was June 16th. They received two proposals, one from
Real Estate Equities based out of St. Paul and one from Hokanson Development out of
Blaine. At this time, they are not prepared to get into a discussion about the content of
those proposals as they are still in the process of evaluating the submissions. They
have interviews scheduled to ask detailed questions about the financing structure,
experience level, and the actual product to be constructed. Then they will come back
with an update in August and a recommendation for selecting a developer. They would
then start the process of negotiating a redevelopment contract.
Mr. Femelius stated that the other item he wanted to update the HRA on was the TIF
schedule. A proposed chronology was included in the packet, which starts the process
of developing a tax increment district on August 22. There are several steps to go
through to be completed in October with the City Council approving TIF District #17.
This hinges on whether or not they decide to go with a developer. If they decide not to
pursue a proposal, they would probably hold off on establishing a TIF district. Once
they do that, the clock starts ticking and they would be compelled to move on some sort
of project.
Mr. Meyer asked if there was some way to change things and readvertise to encourage
more replies.
Mr. Fernelius stated they talked about that during an in -house staff committee meeting.
They decided that the response level is due to the size of the project. It is small and will
not attract big -scale developers like Rottlund. The quality of the two proposals is
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 13, 2000 PAGE 7
acceptable. They are pleased with the design of one of the proposals. They do have
concerns with the financial issues and will have to explore those.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the proposal from Hokanson shows that its previous projects
in 1993 have not yet sold. One of those two has been cited as an example of what they
have done. Her suggestion would be to ask about that specific issue. The other
developer did not list its sales figures on its projects. It would be interesting to do a
comparison of the two companies.
Mr. Fernelius stated staff would follow up on that.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JULY 13, 2000, MEETING OF THE
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sig, a L. John Mn
Recording Secretary
s �
s .
g L fix" HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
® AUTHORITY
Memorandum
Date: July 28, 2000 �/
To: William W. Bums, Executive Director �
From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Subject: Request to Support TH 65 Additional Lane Project
BACKGROUND
At the June 1, 2000, meeting, the Authority authorized the solicitation of Request For Proposals for the
final design of the TH 65 additional lane /sheet pile wall project. A proposal was sent to six firms, and one
was submitted. The Public Works Director, in his attached memo, believes that the other firms were
either too busy or, because S.E.H. completed the initial feasibility study, decided not to submit a
response. The good news is that the proposal amount is $380,200, well within the $500,000 grant
amount for the State!
As you recall, the Legislature allocated $500,000 to the City of Fridley in the 1999 legislative session for
design and engineering fees for the TH 65 project. The allocation was made by the legislature as a
result of a joint lobbying effort by the City and Medtronic, Inc. To date, the Authority has spent about
$76,000 for preliminary studies on the TH 65 additional lane project. The Authority funded soil boring
analysis, consultant costs to prepare the federal funding application, and a preliminary feasibility study of
the sheet pile wall by Short Elliot and Hendrickson. Staff will see to it that the Authority's funds expended
to date are reimbursed.
PROPOSED REQUEST
Because the proposal amount is below the funding amount from the State, it is not necessary for the
Authority to execute the contract with S.E.H. It is more expeditious that the City Council authorize the
initiation of the project and execute the contract with the consultant. The proposed cost does not include
costs related to conducting informational hearings or exhibits that may be necessary for public meetings.
Staff will negotiate these costs with the consultant for review by the Council.
It is therefore requested that the Authority simply pass a motion supporting the project concept and
recommending the Council move forward with executing the contract with the consultant and completing
the necessary work to complete the final design. If the City undertakes completion of the final design
now, the project will receive higher consideration by MnDOT or Federal agencies for funding because the
project will have been fully designed. It is anticipated that the final plans would be complete by June
2001, and submitted for MnDOT review in July 2001. Their review could take up to four months. In the
meantime, the City will continue to lobby the Legislature for funding, and potentially make another federal
funding application in the fall of 2001.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Authority support the TH 65 additional lane project and recommend that the City
Council move forward with execution of a contract with S.E.H. and completing the final design work.
M -00 -130
1
City of Fridley
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager PW00 -095
FROM: John G. F1oratPublic Works Director
DATE: July 26, 2000
SUBJECT: TH 65 Causeway Design
We submitted a request for proposal to six firms (Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik, BRW, Inc., Howard R.
Green, SEH, SRF Consulting Inc., and TKDA) to submit qualifications, plan and cost to design the TH 65
widening for an additional travel lane in each direction across the causeway of Moore Lake from
Medtronic's Parkway to 6r Avenue.
We received one proposal from SEH. Two funs indicated they were too busy and I expect the other three
firms figured that because of the prior background information that SEH had; i.e., the design of the I -694
Medtronic's Parkway project, the sheet pile retaining study and the soils analysis they would not
compete with SEH.
The bid received from SEH proposes to prepare preliminary design, do the geotechnical, structural and
drainage design, prepare final plans, conduct MnDOT and council meeting for a cost of $380,200. This is
5.4% of a $7 million project.
The proposal addresses the issues we raised to widen the highway without impacting the high water line
of Moore Lake, to collect the surface water drainage on the highway and carry it to the northwest corner,
bypassing the lake into a sedimentation basin prior to disposal into Rice Creek and including a cantilever
bikeway /walkway system as well as a fishing pier on the east side of the highway.
The proposal is to complete the preliminary design by October, 2000, complete staff reviews by
November/December, initiate final plans and complete them by June, 2001, and obtain final MnDOT review
and approval by November, 2001. This would allow the City to submit the final plans for construction and
funding to MnDOT in the 2002 fiscal year.
Based upon our interest to improve the congestion and traffic problem as a result of the Moore Lake
causeway and to promote the expansion of the Medtronic's development, recommend the ERA and City
Council award the design of the Moore Lake causeway improvement project to SEH.
JGF:cz
cc: B. Dacy
July 24, 2000
Mr. John G. Flora
Director of Public Works
City of Fridley
Fridley Municipal Center
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
Dear Mr. Flora:
3535 Vadnais Center Drive, 200 SEH Center, St. Paul, MN 55110 -5108 651.490.2000
architecture engineering environmental
RE: Fridley, Minnesota
TH 65 at Moore Lake
Feasibility Study
SEH No. P- FRIDL0004.00
651.490.2150 FAX
transportation
Thank you for inviting SEH to propose on the project that would add auxiliary lanes on TH 65
across Moore Lake. The construction of the added lanes will provide the community with reduced
congestion on TH 65, provide for a trail connection across the lake and improve water quality in
Moore Lake. The key elements of the project are coordination with Mn/DOT and the technical
design aspects of the wall, cantilevered walkway, fishing pier and drainage. The team at SEH
delivered the concept study on time and with more than 30 % left in the budget. We are intrigued by
the project issues and are very interested in assisting you with the energy and creativity that the
project demands. We would like to see the project implemented.
The benefit to hiring SEH is twofold.
1). SEH is already "up to speed" with project issues and details.
2). We can continue the working relationships with the governmental and regulatory agencies as
they relate to this project area. Starting with design of TH 65 at I -694 and continuing into the
design concept for the Moore Lake causeway.
Background
The City is undertaking the preliminary and final design effort to promote the project schedule and
funding. For the purpose of this proposal, we are assuming the process would be similar to a
Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement project. Special reports that may be required for Federal Aid are
not included. Final plans are to be completed in 2001 for a future construction some time in 2002.
The project is spurred by the development of the City's HRA site located in the NW quadrant of TH
65 and I -694 by Medtronics. After studies have shown that the second phase of development, by
Medtronics, the intersection at TH 65 and CSAH 34 (Old Central)/Lake Pointe Drive begins to
break down due to lack of capacity.
The design currently being considered includes adding a northbound and southbound auxiliary
through lane to TH 65 from Old Central to approximately 61st Avenue. The added width is
proposed to be supported by a sheet pile wall to avoid fill in the lake below the Ordinary High
Water Elevation (OHW) of the lake as determined by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MNDNR). SEH assisted the City in 1999 with a concept study that investigated the
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest Equal Opportunity Employer
We help you plan, design, and achieve.
Mr. John G. Flora
July 24, 2000
Page 2
feasibility of the sheet pile wall construction, conveyance of surface water and also regulatory
agency requirements. The study concluded that the sheet pile wall construction was feasible and
there was an option for conveyance of the surface water off of the roadway. The width of the inside
shoulder as well as surface water conveyance will require more discussion with Mn/DOT.
Scope of Work
The following is a description of the tasks we have included in our scope of work. The work plan
will satisfy Mn/DOT review and approvals as well as Rice Creek Watershed, the PCA and the
DNR. The preliminary design layout and final plans will be prepared to Mn/DOT trunk highway
standards and format. The work completed during the concept phase will be built upon as we move
into preliminary design and obtain a Mn/DOT staff approved layout.
We have divided our approach into six general work tasks that correspond to the key elements of
the project. They are Preliminary Design; Geotechnical Design; Structural Design; Drainage
Design; Final Plan Preparation; and Meetings, and Permitting. A brief summary of the each of the
project elements follows:
Preliminary Design/Layout
The first step in the project is to obtain field surveys and develop the base mapping needed for plan
development. SEH would then be able to develop a preliminary layout of the proposed geometrics,
profile and typical section to submit to Mn/DOT for their review and approval. A preliminary
construction cost estimate will be prepared at the end of this phase.
The most critical design issues that need to be resolved in preliminary design are the typical section,
profile and intersection geometrics at Old Central, and 61 st Avenue.
As identified in the feasibility report, Mn/DOT approval of the typical section on TH 65is critical.
The issue will revolve around the inside shoulder width. A six foot inside shoulder is recommend by
AASHTO, however, four feet appears to be the dimension needed to fit the entire roadway section
within the Ordinary High Water boundary.
The existing profile of the roadway across Moore Lake is essentially flat. With the current rural
design, proper drainage of the lanes is not an issue. The proposed design will require a profile
change to make the water to run along gutter sections. The challenge will be to design a profile that
"rides" well and drains at the same time without creating too much fill.
With the design of the added auxiliary lanes, lane arrangements at the north and south end of the
causeway as well as intersection geometrics at Old Central and 61st Avenue will need to be
reviewed. In June 1999, Benshoof and Associates reviewed the intersection at Old Central and TH
65 and recommended a separate north bound right turn lane to improve the intersection. This work
would require revisions to the signal and the intersection. We are expecting some work will be
necessary to successfully improve the traffic congestion for the area. Alternate designs and
additional traffic study for this intersection would be considered extra services.
r Mr. John G. Flora
July 24, 2000
Page 3
Geotechnical Design
As part of the concept study a geotechnical investigation was carried out to determine the feasibility
of a sheet pile wall design solution for the lane widening on TH 65. SEH analyzed the penetration,
section and tie -back requirements for a sheet pile wall. The report concluded that sheet pile is a
viable option and also identified the need to design a light weight fill to offset the filling of soft soils
under the widened lane section. The soils encountered were quite variable. South bound soil
conditions are more severe than the north bound soil conditions.
The report recommended the need for additional geotechnical investigations before proceeding with
final design. Accurate subsurface information is critical to the proper design of the wall, fishing pier
and widened embankment. Twenty additional soil borings are planned as part of the geotechnical
work for the final design. Ten borings are recommended to be taken along the existing waterline to
better define the stratigraphy for sheet pile wall and pile foundation design. Another ten borings are
recommended to be taken along the existing shoulder to better define the soils for embankment
settlement computations. As the road is widened at each end away from the lake, some of the
embankment will extend into existing ditch areas for which we will need to know what type of soils
are underlying.
For the purpose of this proposal, we have separated the cost of the drilling work that would be
conducted by American Engineering Testing. If so desired this work could be contracted directly by
the City. SEH geotechnical staff will provide input to the design of the sheet pile wall, and the pile
foundation for the fishing pier. They will provide light weight fill embankment design as well as
coordinate the AET drilling work. In addition, they will provide the technical support needed for
Mn/DOT approvals, cost estimating and preparation of specifications.
Structural Design
The structural design will focus on preparing preliminary plans and final plans for the sheet pile
wall, cantilevered walkway and fishing pier components. The design will also include a concrete
cap on the sheet pile wall. We have assumed concrete finishes will be standard. Mn/DOT will
require submittal of a preliminary plan to the bridge design unit for approval. The coordination with
Mn/DOT will be very similar to the bridge plan development process.
Staging of the work is critical to design. We are assuming that closure of TH 65 and detour of the
causeway is the most practical and cost effective approach. This assumption will need to be
identified very early in the process as it will affect most of the design and project costs. The other
assumption/recommendation we expect to make will be to remove the concrete barrier currently in
the middle of the existing roadway. The sheet pile design and profile would be compromised by the
attempt to maintain the barrier.
Drainage
The concept design for drainage assumed a very flat grade and little opportunity for the installation
of a conventional drainage /treatment system. The concept design routed the 2 year flow into a
system for discharge to a linear treatment pond to be designed and located on the north west portion
of the project. The larger storms would overflow directly into Moore Lake. As part of the proposed
Mr. John G. Flora
July 24, 2000
Page 4
concept, design it was concluded that the existing Moore Lake outlet structure would need to be
replaced as well as the equalizing culvert under TH 65.
The concern for the storm water conveyance system design is maintenance of the shallow drain
system and acceptance by Mn/DOT. If the existing concrete barrier is assumed to be removed, there
would be the potential for better design options.
SEH and the City did meet with the DNR, the PCA and Rice Creek Watershed to discuss the project
issues and permits during concept design. The concept design was reviewed and generally accepted
by the staff people present at the meeting.
Final Plan Preparation
Plans will be prepared according to the requirements of Mn/DOT for a trunk highway cooperative
agreement project. Format is expected to be similar to that prepared for the TH 65/1 -694 interchange
plan we prepared for the City of Fridley in 1998. A list of proposed plan sheets is included as an
attachment for your information.
Since funding and bidding procedures have not yet been determined, we have assumed that SEH
will prepare technical portion of the specification. An engineers estimate will also be prepared
SEH will coordinate the plan review submittals to Mn/DOT, Anoka County and the City of Fridley.
Revisions will be made accordingly. Bidding and award services have not been included.
Meetings and Permitting
Much of the critical decisions are necessary early in Preliminary design. We have assumed three
meetings with Mn/DOT, two during preliminary design and one during final design. We have
assumed two meetings with the regulatory agencies during preliminary design and permitting. There
has been no time included for public involvement other than time to attend a Council meeting if
necessary.
A summary of the permits needed for the project is summarized below:
Agency
Permit Required
Comment
Rice Creek Watershed District
RCWD Permit
Staff has reviewed and accepted the
concept design
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
Protected Waters Permit
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NPDES
USCOE
Likely a GP -MN
Mn/DOT
Drainage and Work in the
Rights -of -Way
Preliminary Design Approval
City of Fridley, Minnesota
WCA/Other
Mr. John G. Flora
July 24, 2000
Page 5
It has been assumed that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will not be required for
the project. The concept design did not include impacts that would require a mandatory EAW. The
project is not the type of project (widening an existing roadway through an uninhabited corridor)
that generally produces enough controversy to require the development of a discretionary EAW.
Schedule
We expect to begin as soon as the contract is approved. American Engineering Testing can begin
the subsurface investigation field work and we can begin the field surveys. The first meeting should
be able to be scheduled with Mn/DOT as soon as some of the information has been obtained and
developed. Having the plans ready for bid in 2002 allows for a very flexible schedule. A project
schedule could be as follows: _
Preliminary Design August — October 2000
Staff Review of Approvals November — December 2000
Final Plans January 2001 — June 2001
Mn/DOT Review and Approvals July 2001— November 2001
Project Team
The team assemble for this study includes myself as the Project Manager and coordinator, Ron
Farmer will provide the geotechnical components for the walls, piers and embankment. Jeff Johnson
will assist him with the structural analysis of the sheet pile wall, cantilevered walk way and fishing
pier. Mark Benson will assist the team as a resource in coordinating with Mn/DOT in regard to the
preliminary design. Marty Rye will provide the regulatory knowledge and provide the drainage and
water quality analysis required by the project. All of the team members have working relationships
with Mn/DOT, experience producing Mn/DOT trunk highway plans and related technical
experience as it relates to the designs required by the project. Brief resumes of the team are attached
for your information and review.
Compensation
We proposed to be compensated for the scope of work proposed in this proposal on an hourly basis.
Compensation will be based on the hourly cost of personnel, plus reimbursable expenses including
reproductions, mileage and equipment. Additional services required beyond the task described can
be provided as extra work on an hourly basis. We will not proceed with extra work or beyond our
estimated cost without prior authorization.
Our estimated cost for the work is as follows:
Preliminary Design/Layout, Surveys $31,600
Geotechnical Design $22,700
Structural Design $28,500
Drainage Design $16,000
Final Plan Preparation $246,000
Meetings and Permitting $8,500
Mr. John G. Flora
July 24, 2000
Page 6
Subtotal SEH $353,300
American Engineering Testing Services $26,900
Total Engineering Services $380,200
We look forward to a favorable review. If you have any questions or require any additional
information, please feel free to contact me at 651 -490 -2018.
Sincerely,
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
I pk
i"
TKW-I-
u M. Mason, P.E.
Senior Project Manager/Principal
sll
Enclosures
f:\mui=k icivUZ%submda1,200M6i U0004Uc=.doe
t
Ir 1 EI
�a i
O I Y1 �a I
O I U
00
000
0101
000
I�+r Ob
00
NO N
.a .a
w07
rw ww
00
00
00
wb01
I O I
ww
rn
000
Op0
0i 01
0101
000
b0 b
@ r Ob
0)wwr
00
mm
n101+1
m o01
1-1 .i
0
001 r N
wNwb
00
00
00
mwN
W 1 (} I I
Gi 1
NN
N wo
nlr
01001
NO N
0m M rl
rOr 01
-0-0
%1%
000
m N r
1010
1010
NN
Or o.a
1n 01 O1w
Ifl bb m
bNONI
ww.a 01
If1 U1"0
00
co 01
00
00
r- t,
PI NI
1111(1
NN
w
0100f
PI Om
eel rl
a Ea I
.a
. o m
N m
Ir Ir
ri
Al N
1` 1`
0) W
1 I I
I
NN
Ir lr
I 1
1 1 1
W i 1
O 1 1
u 1 1 1
1 I
1
1 I I
0
O
00
00
O
O
cc
00
coo
000
O
O
00
00
0
O
000
0 0 0
O
O
O
00
I 1\ I
1 l a l
O
N
00
N N
O
00
000
O
09
O
000
coo
0 0 0
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
cc
i
N
N N
N N N
N
N N
N
N N N
N N N
N
N
N
N N
al
r
rr
r
rr
rrr
r
rn
r
rrr
rnn
I 1 1
O
0 0
O
0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
coo
0 0 0
r
0
r
0
r
O
r- L,
co
1
I I
1 1
I 1 1
I
I
0
I la
I 1
w
r .a 14
000
000
�\
F
x
I�UaW
camm
W
1wr
000
00.0
rr
EW 12
UUUFi
14 H0
m
z
i U
�
0 0
o00
000
��
H
W
-1
e°�tN a
104
01
�y
W
w1�
I H 1
o i
0
w
1+110 0
rr11
£
O OO
o
r
uni ]
�
m m
N
Ibn Ln
0
w w
N
N i1
nl Al I+1
w
,2,
w
91 c°17 1
N
w w
I+1
O N
w 01 01
w
W W
t-4 Q w
01
all
M r1
I f-I
\ 1 1 I
10 10
.a
b %0
b w b
a a a
aN'
E
Ir+
r�i uni
tD I
N 1 1 1
\ I
a
° o
H
rX�
1�
a E
zz
F
tw8f�
co
a o
w
W
oo
F014
1010
as
O I I I
01 N I
Q
F
N
'�"
q
W
U
�1
O
O
00
N M
00 m
m m' a
w
.a
w
a
r
y
nl p
w
wwda
r
w0
ww i
F
w
as
rYi N 1
u \ 1 a x
10 W
ra
N
In
Cl
r1 .7
N 'L
woo
ri W
O
O W W
ri it
N it i1 i1
ri (k zz��
07.1
C�
C'I Iz-I
W r l I O
°
N
0) W
�t
a
10 10
N w
N
O1ww
°
rr4
3 3 8
m0
w
w
In.,
F
www
E"
N
W W
�+
��a1
O O E
W
Oi 9
`�
1 1 1
F
- a
— W H
o
WW
Pk D4
fj
as
a
I I I
101010
www
I
$
NH
F
u
Qq
00
0
000
RH
a
°a
°i
a�
a
a
1010
a
o
o
a
aa
ww
waaa
w
u
H
o
a
o
a
F
u
I I
z
(iaj
I I I
1}f
N
y
W
1 I
C7
'A
n
ca
/`•]1
O
Q
71
r
W
F
110-1
a
,�•+1
a
O
4
W
O
4
O
O
I 1 1
www
x
U
a
Ea
F
'
W
Go
a
Q
M
X11 1 1
000
W0
9O°
x 00
w000
m O o o
uo
O
ao0
00
0
a' o
oco
0 0 0
000
O o 0 o
O o
0
o
�o
U 0 0
W I
r a I 1 p.1 1
4�
o
N
fA\
woo
N N
a
Fo
0.' N
00
>. N N
4000
mm"
0
N
00
I S N N
F0
O N
000
F N N N
u000
N N N
wo
N
o
N
N
00
'! N N
w O I nynya I t
C9m
\\
w w w
[jam
\
O 1
aC
W \\
aulb
QOO
\\\
U o °°
!0 PI ml P7
\
O o.I
W M
\\
1
NN
N\
t
01 \ \\
W �.1
\\\
!�r�e�nl
a\
W o
\
01\
ao
\\
a co
aw
\\
Hnr
a\
or
1000
1.1000
wb
•rr
N
3NN N
JG Ii 1-1 ri
FN
PI
W rl
Cl .i r-i
[zaof?
H D E
Olo
0o
Uo
W oo
a000
ao
1 -aoo
Mr
Eo
orrr
coo
�bbb
000
W r
CU7o
r
°
r
z0
rr
woo
Ir I
a l 1 I
a I I
0 q �G W. 1
0 I U
r0
om
moo
010-0
01N
owl
000
Ir°°
Iron°
.i HHH
NO
Ira
0100
. 0?
-00
Ho
w000
.a000
0000
Irwww
010
.rw
00
ro1r
rl0
c•1 .n
Nco OD
NI.1w
1
Iz2
O 1
-0 I
rP1
-0 I I
rt+l 1101
10 1
r1�1
a l l
roo
-0 1 1 1
rw ww
-0 I
10 1 1
1
-0 1 1 1
10 1
1
10 1
-0 1 I
N-0
N 10 10
N-0
N o o
N 10 10-0
rn1
N-0
rr r
N 11 ra
rN
N O
r.i 11110
N 0 0 0
rP AM
N 10 10-0
rMI
N-0
r'. w
N-0
rPI
N 10
01101 A,
N -0-0
a 0 ya 1
N w H I 1
0
0 0
0
r r
0 0 0
0
01 01
0%
01 0f 0,
0 0 0
o
rl
o
0 0
1
\ M W I I yp I
nl
-0
m m
10 10
m
-0
N N
'i ra
N I+1 M
10 10 10
In
N N
14
1-1 N N
m m m
M
M
M
In 1101
O 02. O 1 I
l 1
I w w l l
cc
00
00
000
coo
co
0 0
o 0 0
coo
0000
O O O O
-0
O O
00
N N
11
O o 0
009
N
I
00
O O
N N
1 I I
0000
0000
10-0
1 1 1
O O O O
0 0 0 0
I
O O
00
1
00
00
O O
00
-0-0
1 I
000
coo
'Cc I I
w I W I Q I
N O
\ i
000
N 0 0
\ I I
O O
N O
\ I
000
N O O
\ I I
0 0 0 0
N O O O
\ 1 1 1
co
N O
\ 1
00
N O O
\ I I
co
N O
\ i
0000
N 0 0 0
\ 1 1 1
O O O O
N O O O
\ 1 1 1
co
N O
co
N O
00
N O
coo
N O O
WWW a 1 �(a 1 U 1
a Q I U t
aDw
N w
aDww
N b w
0)O
N O
fOww
N w b
0lmri e�
Cp lr
fpN N
IDN
mNNN
co O OIr
COw
0DN
W O
070710
W N I 1101 1
\-0
\NN
\H
\NN
N b 0 0
\10ww
N O
\w
N w b
\NN
N b
\N
N b w b
\NNN
N 0 0 0
N w
N b
N"
N O
N b 0
aaa 1 1
r
r
n
r
n
n
r
r
r
\1-a.aw
n
\N
\1-{
\ -0w
a a w I I 1
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
0
r
0
t-
0
n
p
N IFI
s
i
o �4 rnrnrmmin 00mmomm000 00 00 00 000 "10W mm 00 00 a
O I V 1 Q 1 Q l m n r r% D r m n 1 O% D N 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 ry� b N N 00 00 v
1 1 rmmmmm Nmv OOrO ei Vl Ulm nrl c; 0 NN aim rr c\ c\ 00 Ol
1 Q
W I u 1 1 m %D -01 m N w r v m m 0 0 Dl m b v v N N m m v VI m .-I m m m m m co N
Ci m. 7 m N m 0 O m H l. 4 r d l r O\ O l m m N N N N r r 0 0 D 1 01 V l
a F 0 a m a .I H v e e N ea ea m M w %D ei H m m a -0 ea
I W N 1-1 1-/ 14 N M m O
a ei In w
i
1
1 '
W 1
O 1
O 1 1
U I �
1
I
1 1 i 00000 00000000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
00000 00000000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
I 1\1 00000 00o00000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
1 I a 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
1 1 a 1 r n r n r r r r r r r r n r r r n n r r
1 1 00000 0000 o o 0000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 ..]
1 4
1 Q
' r F
(�
I Q 1 C7
.a
o w
E E E I-i a '0 0
1 1 ��r z
EUUU uuuuuuuu a a � V co it
W as
94 94 I > a V w E-
r-
0
' U 1 rq rq hhhhhh h W 00 it rl
aa O i Q 0 Zl�y YZy •d .-I .-I H .•I .-I .-I .a a M N o o ••7 m
12 0 1 I 1 I I W rr r r r r r- r- >. Q F 000 H .�
WW 0 1 1 N N W W w m m m m m m m m s F II l $ N N r O
N i 1 .a i 14H aaa a.mrn mrnrn mm a a a a mm m a O
m C-4 1
1
\ 1 y
n1
0 o. NiI h py z o q2 a
W F 1 i UUw W U>I %W CaA A Ial
a o
0 1 1 p O
o i zz pzz �1
00 N I� z O m � U ?yR Fp >1,�
\ 1 1 O O m m rn W W W 4 F W F N F w
w m 1 a 1 naa mm ar .a W 4wFa m a0 .I m v %D m0 m
d4 N I 1 1 N E .I .+ Iti £ a E �q ►I .-I o z o z o 0 0 .I z CIS
W I a 1 O 1 %D z 00 z W2 1-I I I ,.� I ry I.l 000 %o m m m o
E-
0 i ' E i aaamm .i al.�e73 1 ei rIF r+a ea eaW� eia eaF NM
N O a i .ai .ai 1CW�i CfCfW�'[ w� W C9 a rl ► rl O >
\ a 1 1 E E F a a a a a .w7 .w7 .w7 I a a a7 F N 3 m 4
t k i w i m m m W W P �Uwn rat aI aI fin+ m
1 1 q 1 eieiwwm .°+
1 I
I � 1
I 1 a V Iz-1
1 � 1
I 1 1
I I 1 W U a
1 1 1
z >
w a a a s w w a
Q a a m r w F Q
o cc two w a
1 1 1
U00,0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 U1 o 0 0 00 2w o o F o 0 o W o
1 L I 1 coo 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W o O z 0 o W o o 0 C o 0 0
www 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o F o 0 0 0
cc W o a 0 0
,'1• 1 z I W 1 N N N N N 'E N N N N N N N N fA N N U N W N F N N a N N F N
r a 1 1 F 1 W \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ W \ w \ Z \ \ \ CCC \ IQ \
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ei a ei �D SC .i q �o �o pµsq�j m
%a ,7 1 o 1 q 1 g0000o m7 4Ne NN my 4e4 o 00 RI0 O .+000 H.a o In
w1 p 1 ..\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ �Z\ \ x\ m\ a\\ a\ a\ m\
N > 1 Z 1$ 1 a r r r r r r r r r r n r r M r U r 1¢ r a' r W r r W r l I. a %D
W 00000 ...���00000000000 ao go zo ao aoo ao ao x00
a 1
I a 1 I Pl O O m 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 too N O r m m 0 N m m 00 m O N O
O I .Y. w I I N O e-I N N N N PI 1'l f+l 1+1 1+1 1+1 PI 1�1 N e-I N 1-I N t'1 N rl N HI Hf f�l aT PI e1 1+1 PI
O 1 (•1 I dl 1 1 1 1 1 dl I 1 I I 1 I I I dl 1 dl 1 @ I 10 1 V I I dl I d1 1 {} 1
0 1 W i I ro�Drrr rin l+l t+l l+l l+l l+I PI HI rm rm rrl rm rI•l el rn1 rm nr1
N i o V a s N N N a N ill N Q
m0z 1 C1 1 1 mm000 o0 oo0000 m 1.1 0 .� 00 o M o
rymM 1 1 1 m rMMIel mNmNmmIllm n N N m mm M m n
N v v V1 V1 V1 V1 '7 V' Vl O v v Vl Vl Vl V' Q v dl Vl e11
r E rh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
O (7 Q 1 1 1 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 cc 000 O O 00 00
x11 1 1 000000 000000000 00 00 00 00 0000 CO o0 00
1
44 W 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 00 00 000 0 0 0 0 00
?000 N O O O O O O O O N O N O N O N O N O O N O N O N O
1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1
WWW .j I q 1 U 1 mrrN rIN mOON.m @me•1 mn W mN mN mein C, mm m0
a p I I U I N b %D m m m N O O m m m W W O N m N w N 177 N m N O1D N O N m N O
W M 1 14 1 \NNaI V'@
as 1 I 1 r r n r r n r r n n
a s 9 I I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
" at
ra
12
a
F
a
w
a
a
WN
�aa
sra
�a
7
M M
� W
x
N
h1
0
m 0d.3a
0 94
n >
» on�
oo
b
m OayI
C; W
o w
clia 0 >a
7
F
a
a
w
ti
0
a
a
"
O
a
M
Q
�O
u
w
r
z
F
q N
mO
a
M
00
to Q
1 1
0 0
In ei n s m N N O 01 O n O N N 1 N m ! m T i b O i 01 N b m N O O
n r m n O a r N N r N r b O\ O O N ! n O N rt O rl N O " "
N O ! b a m r T m b If a " b N N " n O ! a m N r ri ! !
n " m ! n ID N N N ! I 111 In at m O N N b m n N ! !
N " N 111 O N m b N If ! N N N " a " " N N N N
n N m .i O N N .i r1 N !
N w1 10
F4 FE a w
w w
a a a a s a a a a a a s
o ww
xm , .UkX1. yx N NN' IXN N N NN` yN Ny, yN 01N, N, N N N NN, Vy! x¢N ym, M W H m $
0N
o
o O O O O O O O O o o o o O O o O O o O O O ►i O O o O O O
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o O o o 0 0 o F i14 CE
0 0 o O o o 0 o 0 0 o o• o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! !
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ii O N O O N N PI 111
.-1 N 1 N rl N " N r1 N " N rl N rl N " N rl N " N b O r1 O O "
rl rl rl Ii •rl m r1 rl rl rl rl rl r1 rl " r1 rl rl rl rl rl " N n N r r N N O O
" " " rl " " " " " rl " Ii rl rl " " rl ei r1 rl rl " b N b N N b b m M
RI 111 111 111 111 III 111 111 111 111 fIl PI M PI 111 P1 111 111 M 111 T T rl rl f11 " rl 111 PI ! !
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1
O O O 1 1 1 1 O O 1 1 1 I
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O o O O O O o O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
O O rl " N N b b N N m N ! ! N N n n r1 ei O O •i N O N r N r N r
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ir ! ! ! ! ! ! N N rl " N ! " N N N N N N
A. " .4 " - " " " " " " ,i Ii I., " " .4 •i .l " " " rl O O O O 0 O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
m rl N M m m m N to N 111 2 m m 111 m 111 m 111 111 111 111 M M 111 111 /II r1 111 0 III
" H " r1 rl " " rl rl m " " rl rl li " rl r1 " rl rl rl rl 14 " " rl " " Ii "
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 o O o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
b b w b b b b b b b b b b b b b 10 b b r n r P1 In 1n • 111 w1 P1 111 111 /�
O O O O O O O O O O O \ \ O O \ O
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
r r r n r r r r n n r r n n r n n n n r r r r n r r o r n n n
O o 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0
0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rl N m ! N b n m N " " N rNi r!i .Ni " eni 0. •i N N N N N N N N N N 111 1q
*4 r
A U1
F N
2
5 "
m
°a N
b •+
80
5
( el HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
Memorandum
DATE: July 28, 2000 A%
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA A1°
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Amendment to a Development Contract, Dick Peterson
and Bill Penk, Fridley Main L.L.C.
Background
At the October 1999 meeting, the Authority approved a development contract with Dick
Peterson and Bill Penk (Fridley Main L.L.C.) to provide soil correction assistance up to 2/3rds or
$250,000 of the soil correction cost at the five acre property on the west side of Main Street just
north of A & R Trucking and the Craus Cartage site. Peterson and Penk were proposing to
construct a 50,000 square foot office warehouse project. The assistance to be provided was
placed in escrow until the developer could complete the proposed project. The funds placed in
escrow are considered "gap year" increment from TIF #3.
Proposed Amendment
The developers are requesting a change to the development contract. The request is
summarized in the attached letter dated July 6, 2000. The owners are reporting that even with
the development agreement promising assistance in hand, prospects are reluctant to proceed
because of the size of the correction, and what could be unexpected expenditures. The owners
are requesting the delivery of the assistance prior to completion of the building, as is typically
done, so that they can initiate the correction yet this fall. The plan is to "remove the unknown"
and correct the most usable parts of the site and continue to market the property.
The current contract provides the assistance with a loan and a grant, up to 2/3`d of the cost of
the correction (about $375,000) with a cap of $250,000. The owners are responsible for the
remaining amount of the correction costs, which could total a minimum of $125,000. Up to one
third of the soil correction costs with a cap of $125,000 was to be loaned to the owners at the
time of the issuance of the certificate of completion. A grant of up to another third with a cap of
$125,000 was also to be made at the issuance of the certificate of completion. The loan would
have had an interest rate of 5% and a term of 10 years. The contract requires the developer to
sign an assessment agreement, and the developer would have had to complete the building by
the end of the year 2000.
I personally have worked with several potential buyers of the subject property and can verify the
claims made by the owners in their letter. The owners have kept current with property taxes
despite the fact that it has been a difficult site to market for at least four years (the Authority has
discussed a proposal by Lindstrom Metric and Cintas Company).
The proposed amendment to the contract would be to simply change the delivery of the
assistance, in its entirety (up to $250,000) to a loan, with the understanding that up to $125,000
would be converted to a grant at completion of the building. A personal guarantee would also
be required (as does the current contract) and the assessment agreement would also be kept in
Amendment to a Development Contract
July 28, 2000
Page 2
place. The term of the loan would also remain at 10 years with an interest rate of 5 %. Further
negotiation with the developer needs to be completed in regards to the projected completion
date of the project.
The resolution and agreement language will be distributed at the meeting next Thursday, or
earlier by delivery if available from Krass Monroe.
I have also asked Mr. Peterson to attend Thursday's meeting, and to reimburse the Authority for
the expenses incurred to amend the contract.
Recommendation
While not the Authority's typical approach for TIF assistance, the request is reasonable given
the nature of the soils of this particular site, and if the Authority's assistance and risk is
protected. The personal guarantee and mortgage are the tools already in place and
recommended again. The assistance amount is not changing or increasing. Staff recommends
that the Authority approve a resolution authorizing the Executive Director and the Chairperson
to sign an amended development agreement.
BD:ls
M -00 -131
0 '♦
RICHARD & PETERSON
1584 CHATHAM AVE
ARDEN HII�L% MN 55112
Office Phone and Fax: 651 - 255 -7302
Cellular Phone: 612- 867 -9803
Email: dicLPeterson @meritide com
July 6, 2000
Barbara Dacy, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
l�f�w
�3
Dear Barbara,
We have a continuing dilemma with our property north or 81' on Main Street in
Fridley. Therefore we respectfully request that the city of Fridley work with us to modify
our agreement to allow soil correction on our site prior to the identification of an actual
user.
As you know, the current owners, Bill Penk and Dick Peterson, own this property
in exchange for professional fees, which our mutual client was unable to pay. This chain
of events started in 1986 and we have paid real estate taxes (as high as $14,000 per year)
since that time. We have suffered through economic cycles, which have included
depressed or flat real estate markets in the area.
When the current boom started we discovered, in conjunction with our first
purchaser, that we had a significant soils problem with approximately 50,000 yards of
organic material (peat) that needed to be replaced. That purchaser was scared off by the
unknown cost to correct the problem.
A subsequent purchaser that the city helped us find, and who knew what we knew
about the soils, tied up the property for approximately 9 months before also exercising its
right to back out. We then proactively engaged a landscape contractor to remove peat as
he could use it That has resulted in a reduction of more than 757,000 yards of peat
As you know, we have listed this property with one of the major Real Estate
Companies in the Twin Cites, Colliers Towle, and they have exposed it to many
prospects. While several companies and developers have expressed interest they are
uniformly concerned about the uncertainty of the costs of soil correction. This is true
even with the soil correction funding agreement with the city.
Throughout our ownership of the property we have always been faced with a "cart
before the horse" dilemma in that the engineering for soil correction and the estimation of
k
O�4+o eof cannot be appropriately completed without the use, building and parking
areas being first determined In other words, it does not make sense to correct soil in an
area that will ultimately be used for ponding or green space, and of course, the extent of
correction varies depending on whether the area will be used for parking or for a
building.
We are continuing to work on finding a buyer for the site but also feel that it is in
the best interest of the city, and of the property owners to commence actual soil
correction activities this year even though we don't have a final determination of use.
This will allow both the city and the property owner to have the benefit of the available
funds to bring this property to a developable and productive state.
If the city funds are made available, we will be able to fiord the other 1/3 of the
soil correction cost through either a contractor or financial partner. Based on the existing
soil correction and our experience dealing with prospective users, we will correct the soil
to provide a suitable site for constructing a building on the north side of the property,
with parking to the south and green space and ponds if necessary to be in the south east
and along the south boundary.
The goal of this activity is to remove the unknowns with respect to the most likely
useable areas of the property in order to make it marketable to potential users, and allow
those users to adequately quantify any remaining soils correction.
Therefore we respectfully request the city to modify our agreement to provide that
finding of the grant, and the loan from the city will occur upon completion of the above
described preliminary soils work and the expenditure by the owner (or related parties) of
an amount equal to V2 of the combined amount of the loan and grant requested under the
agreement with the city. All other terms of the agreement would remain the same.
We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Peterson
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR
MODIFICATIONS TO . THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT AND THE ESCROW AGREEMENT, BOTH
RELATING TO LOT 2, BLOCK 1, MAR LEN ADDITION, CITY
OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AMENDMENTS TO SAID
AGREEMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners ") of Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority ") as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority has entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment dated
December 9, 1999 (the "Redevelopment Contract ") with Fridley Main L.L.C. (the
"Redeveloper") in order to facilitate redevelopment of Lot 2, Block 1, Mar Len
Addition, City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Property ").
1.02. In order to facilitate implementation of the Redevelopment Contract, the Authority
has also entered into an Escrow Agreement dated December 23, 1999 (the "Escrow
Agreement') with the Redeveloper and Old Republic Title Insurance Company, as
escrow agent (the "Escrow Agent ").
1.03. The Redevelopment Contract states that the Authority is prepared to assist the
Redeveloper with certain costs of the development of the Property, provided that
certain conditions are met.
1.04. The Redevelopment Contract states that the Redeveloper is entitled to
reimbursement for a portion of specified site preparation costs (the "Site
Improvements "), provided that certain conditions are met. 'One condition is
substantial completion of an office /warehouse /processing facility consisting of
approximately 51,000 square feet and including landscaping, parking and related
facilities (the "Minimum Improvements").
1.05. The Redevelopment Contract provides that any reimbursement for the Site
Improvements shall be (a) in the form of a grant and a loan; (b) shall be issued in
funds currently escrowed with the Escrow Agent; and (c) shall be issued after
completion of the Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper has reported to the
Authority that completion of the Site Improvements without earlier reimbursement
is not economically feasible given the condition of the Property and current market
conditions.
1.06. The Redeveloper has requested that the Redevelopment Contract and the Escrow
Agreement be amended to allow reimbursement of up to two thirds of the costs of
the Site Improvements prior to the substantial completion of the Minimum
Improvements.
- 08/_10/04 .WED 17:13 FAX 812 883 3S @8 �ONRpg
iN 2 - Resolution No.
Se 2. ndin s.
2.04. The Authority hereby finds th at the Redeveloper has made a good faith effort to
locate potential buyers or occupants for the Minimum Improvements in order to
commence the Site Improvements and the Minimum Improvements in a timely
manner.
2.02. The Authority hereby finds that the condition of the Property and the current market
conditions render commencement of the Site Improvements* not economically
feasible at this time unless reimbursement of eligible costs can be completed at an
earlier date than originally contemplated by the Authority and the Redeveloper.
2.03. The Authority hereby finds that redevelopment of the Property would best be
facilitated if the sum of $250,000.00 was released by the Escrow Agent in the form
of a loan to the Redeveloper and to be disbursed in accordance with an amended
Escrow Agreement.
2.04. The Authority hereby finds that redevelopment of the Property would be further
facilitated if up to one half (1/2) of the principal of such loan was forgiven (and the
interest due adjusted accordingly) when the Redeveloper presents proof of
substantial completion of the Minimum Improvements and receives a Certificate of
Completion, all according to the Redevelopment Contract.
Section 3. Authorizations.
3.01. The Chairman and the Executive Director of the Authority (the "Officers") are hereby
authorized to execute and deliver an Amendment to the Contract for
Redevelopment and an Amendment to the Escrow Agreement. ' The Amendments
will substantially conform with the Amendments presented to the Authority as of this
date, with such additions and modifications as those Officers may deem desirable
or necessary as evidenced by the execution thereof,
3.02. Upon execution and delivery of the Amendments, the Officers and employees of the
Authority are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such
actions as may be necessary on behalf of the Authority to implement the
Redevelopment Contract and the Escrow Agreement, as amended, and to further
proceed towards the actions contemplated by these Agreements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN
AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA THIS DAY OF , 2000.
- ,033
LAWRENCE R. COMMERS - CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
WILLIAM W. BURNS - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
QAWP0ATA*VIUDL3Wfi DOCV IRA I IMILLI ION. AMMAfIII) I -MCROW AOMT & DEVELOPw124TAGMT -00C
u
y HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
Memorandum
DATE: July 28, 2000
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Consider Development Proposal for Gateway East Project
In early June we received proposals from two developers to build townhomes for the
Gateway East project. Over the course of the last month, staff has spent a
considerable amount of time evaluating each proposal and interviewing the developers.
The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of the proposals and a
recommendation on how to proceed.
Hokanson Proposal
Hokanson Development of Blaine is proposing a 40 unit project consisting of entry level
townhomes priced in the $99,000 to $128,500 range. The units would be two stories in
height, have a double - loaded design (e.g. back to back) and would be built in four
buildings: one -10 unit building, two -12 unit buildings, and one -6 unit building. The
townhomes would be available in two floor plans ranging in size from 1,409 to 1,725
square feet. The larger units would have two car garages, while the smaller units
would have a one car garage.
Hokanson's proposal maximizes most of the land in the project area and therefore
allows for very little green space and guest parking. Several of the units would have
direct access onto public streets, which may be problematic from a traffic safety
perspective. From a visual perspective most of the buildings are oriented north -south
which can create two issues: 1) a mass of garage doors and 2) a wall of vinyl as you
drive along University Avenue. Although, the buildings are attractive, the design seems
to work better in a typical suburban setting where there is more space. On the
Gateway East site, the buildings appear to be "shoe- horned" into a 2.5 acre area and
don't fit.
HRA MEMO AUG 2000.doc
�1
r 3
Gateway East Memo
July 28, 2000
Page 2
Hokanson indicated that some of their success in developing townhomes is attributed to
bulk pricing on construction materials. They offer fewer options or upgrades to buyers.
The more options that are offered, the more difficult it is for them to achieve cost
savings on construction. This approach works well financially for them and while their
basic materials are good value, staff has concerns that this approach limits the buyer's
flexibility for higher quality items.
Real Estate Equities Proposal
Real Estate Equities of St. Paul is proposing a 28 unit project with a mixture of
townhomes priced in the $126,000 to $142,000 range. The units would be a three -
story design (same as Christenson Crossing) with the garage and storage space at
grade and two levels of living space. The units would be a single loaded design (i.e.
walk through) with all of the homes having a two car garage. The project would be
constructed eight buildings: six -3 unit buildings and two -5 unit buildings.
Real Estate Equities' proposal provides for a fair amount of open space and 14 stalls for
guest parking. All of the buildings are connected to private streets and the front
entrances would be oriented to the public right -of -way creating a traditional "front yard"
to the development. From a visual perspective, the design is more compatible with the
surrounding architecture, as opposed to the Hokanson approach. To some extent this
design is similar to other projects that Real Estate Equities developed in West St. Paul,
Hopkins and the Lake Phalen area of St. Paul.
Review Process
Staff looked at several criteria to evaluate the proposals. The criteria focused on such
things as the developer's perception of the Fridley marketplace, their site plan, building
design, experience level, development team and quality of presentation. The in -house
staff panel was asked to rate each of the criteria, from excellent to poor with an
associated score. For example, an "excellent" rating was worth five points, an "above
average" rating was worth four points and so on. The results were then tabulated to
create an average score for each criteria. Staff then compared the results for each
developer and the results are attached on the matrix titled "RFP Evaluations ".
Staff Analysis
As you can see from the matrix, the review team leaned strongly in the direction of Real
Estate Equities, particularly in the area of site plan design, experience level, strength of
development team, quality of written and visual materials and overall proposal. The
panel felt that both proposals were roughly equal on the remaining criteria. Overall, the
HRA MEMO AUG 2000.doc
.
Gateway East Memo
July 28, 2000
Page 3
panel felt that the Real Estate Equities proposal was simply stronger. Real Estate
Equities appeared to spend a considerable
amount of time and effort on their proposal, including detailed site plans and a
thorough financial analysis.
During the interview process, Real Estate Equities expressed a willingness to work with
the HRA on the exterior materials of the units (e.g. brick banding, additional
landscaping, concrete driveways, etc.) and other upgrades to the units. Hokanson
Development on the other hand was reluctant to offer many changes and did have
some concerns about lowering the density of their project.
In the end, it seemed clear that both developers were capable of developing their
respective products, the real issue seemed to be what type of product would be best
for the city over the long term. If an entry level design is preferred, clearly Hokanson
has the ability to develop a project. On the other hand, if a slightly higher priced unit
with more amenities is desired, then Real Estate Equities would be the choice for this
type of development. Based on our long range housing goals, it seems Real Estate
Equities is in a good position to deliver.
Overall, the panel felt that Real Estate Equities product was the best match to the
requested product in the Request for Proposal. More specifically:
Proposed Product
• The product will provide a different housing option in Fridley for the intended
younger, working professional(s), married or single.
• Real Estate Equities hired Maxfield Research Group to analyze the market place and
provide a basis for their proposed units. When challenged, they completed
additional work to support their proposal.
Site Design
• The density of 28 units matched the requested range of 24 to 32 units or about 11
units /acre.
• The site design place the front of the units to University Avenue thereby creating the
best image for the Gateway East area.
• The site design creates sidewalk connections to existing facilities and connects the
units themselves creating a good neighborhood feel.
HRA MEMO AUG 2000.doc
.
Gateway East Memo
July 28, 2000
Page 4
• There are areas for guest parking and at the same time, nice amounts of separation
between buildings and open areas.
• While the architecture matched the surrounding area better, adjustments should be
made including addition of brick banding and potential modification to the
entry/front door areas of the units.
• The single loaded units, while more expensive to build, create the ability to have off-
street parking areas to avoid a number of driveways on the frontage road.
• Each unit is designed to have its own service and water meter versus a
condominium approach.
• Each unit will be separated by two, one -hour walls.
• The architecture and design of this product is better suited for similar development
on the west side of University Avenue.
• Landscaping plan and budget demonstrates attention to the image and livability of
the project.
• Further negotiation is necessary on the level of quality on the interior improvements
including the mechanical systems, interior doors, trim, floor coverings, and other
items.
Deve %pe, r Expelence
• The proposal listed several examples of in -fill, redevelopment projects in other first
ring suburbs and in St. Paul.
• Real Estate Equities demonstrated a strong understanding of the market and
redevelopment.
• Real Estate Equities did not have any objections to cooperating with the prevailing
wage requirements, and they demonstrated previous experience and knowledge of
these requirements.
Fin a n cia / Imp /i ca ti o ns
• While the Real Estate Equities proposal proposes a larger contribution from the
Authority, further negotiation is warranted to determine if this amount can be
reduced.
HRA MEMO AUG 2000.doc
Gateway East Memo
July 28, 2000
Page 5
• The costs proposed are based on recent bid amounts from other projects, and do
include costs associated with prevailing wage requirements.
• The exact amount of expenses related to the public improvement costs need to be
further explored.
Next Steps
Staff would like to begin negotiations with Real Estate Equities on the terms for a
redevelopment contract. There are a number of issues which need to addressed
including the site improvements, cost estimates, reimbursement process, exterior
materials, upgrade options and the implementation schedule. Our ultimate goal would
be have a draft agreement for the HRA at their September meeting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Authority accept the proposal submitted by Real Estate
Equities and authorize staff to begin negotiations with the develper.
M -00 -133
GF-HRA MEMO AUG 2000.doc
I d
Developer Real Estate Equities Hokanson Development Company
Development Team
Architect
Engineer
Contractor
Market Feasibility
Marketing & Sales
Lender
HKS Associates
HKS Associates
Bisanz Bros.
Maxfield Research
Real Estate Equities
Century Bank/Park Bank
Lampert Architects
WA
Ivy Ridge Home Builders
WA
N/A
Firstar Bank
Density
28 units
40 units
Unit Size
1,882 s.f. (avg.)
18 units (comer units) ® 1,725 s.f. (2 car garage)
Other Townhome Projects
Oaks of Mainstreet (Hopkins - 88 units)
24 units (interior units) ® 1,409 s.f. (1 car garage)
Projected Sales Price
End Units: $127,000 - $142,000
End units: $128,500
Interior Units: $119,000 - $129,000
Interior units: $99,000
Average Sales Price/Unit
Financial Information
$135,038
$111,340
Price for Land
$1
$12,158
Total Project Value
$4,328,404
$4,815,588
Financing Structure:
Delta faucets
Delta faucets: Gerber toilets
Construction Loan
$2,820,000
$800,000
Net Sales Proceeds
$8801000
$3,253,800
City Subsidy
$548,404
$381,988
Developer Equity
$280,000
$400.000
Paint
$4,328,404
$4,815,588
Developer's cost/unit
$154,500
$111,340
Developer fee
$140,000
$534,400
Years of Experience
28 years
10 years
Other Townhome Projects
Oaks of Mainstreet (Hopkins - 88 units)
Wensel Farms (Lino Lakes - 75 units)
Lafayette Oaks (W. St Paul - 39 units)
Marshan Lakes (Lino Lakes - 134 units)
Lake Phalen (St Paul - 29 units)
Redevelopment Experience
Yes
No
Prevailing Wage Experience
Construction
Yes
No
Interior-
Plumbing Fixtures
Delta faucets
Delta faucets: Gerber toilets
Water Heater
A.O. Smith
N/A
Furnace
920/6 furnace
80% efficient
Appliances
Frigidaire
Whirlpool/Maytag
Floor Covering
Shaw and Armstrong
Vinyl
Paint
Sherwin Williams
WA
Kitchen Cabinets
Mid-continent
Oak
Light Fixtures
Progress
Style -Light
Developer
Interior Doors
Millwork
Windows
Roofing Materials
Siding
Exterior Doors
Garage Doors
r.
Real Estate Equities Hokanson Development Company
Doormat Flush oak
Metro Millwork Princeton trim
Cullar
Crestiine
Certain Teed
Certain Teed
Certain Teed
Vinyl
Crawford
Insulated steel entry
Overhead Garage Door Co.
Raised panel steel
KRASS MONROE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
■ .lames R Casserly
Emadjamesc@Jaasunomoe. com
wwwivassmonfoe.com
Wad Dial (612) 8851296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
William Burns, City Manager
From James R. Casserly, Esq.
Greg D. Johnson, CPA
Date: July 28, 2000
Re: Gateway East Pro Forma and Tax Increment Analysis
Our File No. 9571 -30
Enclosed you will find the following analyses based on proposals submitted by Real Estate
Equities and Hokanson. The analyses include a tax increment analysis for each proposal and a
pro forma analysis comparing the two proposals:
The tax increment analysis for Real Estate Equities is on pages two and three. The average
market value of the 28 units in their proposal is $135,036.00 for a total market value of
$3, 781,000. The estimated tax increment is $51,891.00. We have provided a small inflation
factor and have used our customary present value rate of 7.5% to try to express the future tax
increment revenue stream in year 2000 dollars. Page three shows the available tax increment
(columns G and H) and the present value (columns 1 and J). The cumulative present value over
the life of the district is estimated to be $487,339.00.
The Hokanson tax increment analysis is contained in pages four and five. The Hokanson
proposal has 40 units with a lesser value of $111,340./00 per unit. The total estimated market
value is $4,453,600.00. The estimated tax increment upon completion of the project is
$57,984.00. The cumulative present value of the tax increment is $544,001.00 as shown on page
five.
SUITE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER • 1650 WEST 82ND STREET • BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1447
TELEPHONE 612f8W5999 • FACSIMILE 6121885-5969
The pro forma analysis comparing the two proposals is on page one. While the pro forma is
reasonably self - explanatory, a couple of items need explanation. In the Hokanson proposal, the
City subsidies/reimburscments were detailed Those amounts add up to $361,988.00. In the Real
Estate Equities proposal, those amounts are included in the construction contract. One of the
major differences with the itemized expenses is the developer fee. In Hokanson, the contractor
profit and developer fee are not distinguished. In Real Estate Equities, the construction contract
contains a contractor's profit. If the contractor's profit were shown separately, the distinctions
between these two proposals in terms of the various percentages would be rather small. In short,
the difference in total hard costs, as a percentage of the project costs, would be very narrow.
The net public assistance needed in the Real Estate Equities proposal is shown as $545,404.00. If
the present value of the tax increment which is $487,339.00 is subtracted, then the anticipated
total out -of- pocket cost to the Authority would $58,065.00 ($545,404.00 - $487,339.00).
In the Hokanson proposal, the net public assistance needed is $274,868.00. When the tax
increment revenue is added, the Authority would have surplus of $269,133.00.
In summary, the Real Estate Equities proposal generates a negative balance of $58,005.00. The
Hokanson proposal generates a positive balance of $269,133.00. please keep in mind that these
numbers are only estimates. If there are a number of add -ons in either proposal so that the values
are higher, then the negative balance may easily become positive and the positive balance may
easily become greater. Also, the Authority has invested substantial sums in the project which will
not be recovered by either of these proposals. The Authority's goal was to create a housing
project in an area that was originally designed principally for commercial activities. As we know
from our past experiences, new housing generates only a modest amount of tax increment in
which to recover redevelopment and pollution abatement expenses. We cannot recall ever
working on a housing project in a redevelopment area that would be self- supporting, that is, all
redevelopment and pollution abatement expenses are paid from the tax increments generated
within the housing project.
If we can provide any additional information or analysis on this matter, please give us a call.
G.XWPDATA*VRIDLEYM=RQACY FERNEUUS SURNSAOC
• page 2
GATEWAY EAST
pro Forma Analysis
For Sale Units
REAL ESTATE EQUITIES
Total Revenues 28
Hard Costs
GMP Contract (Construction Cost)
Architectural
Survey & Engineering
Land (purchase from City)
Land Costs (taxes, ins, soils, mtg tax, etc.)
Contingency
City Subsidies / Reimbursements
Tree Removal
Site Grading
Public Improvements
Fencing (adjacent to Townhomes)
Fencing (adjacent to Valvoline0
Additional Landscaping/screening
Total Hard Costs
Gross Margin
Expenses
Soft Costs
Financing & Legal
Contingency
Advertising & Marketing
Other carrying costs
Title & pro -rated taxes
Interest expense
Project Overhead
Developer Fee
Brokerage
Total Expenses
Additional Public Assistance Needed
Amount paid for Land from City
Net Public Assistance Needed
Gateway East Pro Forma.xis
$378,000 10.0%
1,161,000 30.7%
822.000 21.7%
1,420.000 37.6%
3,781,000 100.0%
3,164,000 83.7%
130,000 3.4%
36,200 1.0%
0
34.524 0.9%
- 1
HOKANSON
I
UNITS
114,000
Average
Per Unit
0.8%
Units
Per Unit
Revenues - For Sale Units
24
99,900
A
Product A
3
126,000
B
Product B
9
129,000
C
Product C
6
137,000
D
Product D
10
142.000
Total Revenues 28
Hard Costs
GMP Contract (Construction Cost)
Architectural
Survey & Engineering
Land (purchase from City)
Land Costs (taxes, ins, soils, mtg tax, etc.)
Contingency
City Subsidies / Reimbursements
Tree Removal
Site Grading
Public Improvements
Fencing (adjacent to Townhomes)
Fencing (adjacent to Valvoline0
Additional Landscaping/screening
Total Hard Costs
Gross Margin
Expenses
Soft Costs
Financing & Legal
Contingency
Advertising & Marketing
Other carrying costs
Title & pro -rated taxes
Interest expense
Project Overhead
Developer Fee
Brokerage
Total Expenses
Additional Public Assistance Needed
Amount paid for Land from City
Net Public Assistance Needed
Gateway East Pro Forma.xis
$378,000 10.0%
1,161,000 30.7%
822.000 21.7%
1,420.000 37.6%
3,781,000 100.0%
3,164,000 83.7%
130,000 3.4%
36,200 1.0%
0
34.524 0.9%
- 1
HOKANSON
I
Average
114,000
Units
Per Unit
0.8%
I
I 16
128,500
$2,056,000 462%
24
99,900
2,397,600 53.8%
140,000
3.7 %
0.0 %,
7.0 %
961,680
0.0%
l 40
0.4%
4,453,600 100.0%
Design
3,364.724 89.0% I
I
416,276 11.0% I
I
I
I
60,750 1.6% I Financing
58,000
1.5%
114,000
3.0%
31.632
0.8%
33,300
0.9%
119,398
3.2%
140,000
3.7%
140,000
3.7 %
264,600
7.0 %
961,680
25.4%
(545,404) -14.4%
3
0
(545,404)
Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA
2.996,208 67.3%
50,000 1.1%
included
0.0%
87,120
2.0%
included
0.0%
89,072
2.0%
0.0%
10,000
0.2%
70,600
1.6%
190,000
4.3%
62,964
1.4%
16,424
0.4%
12.000
0.3%
3,584,388
80.5%
869,212 19.5%
117,800
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0 °k
0.0%
0.0%
311,752
7.0%
534.432
12.0%
267,216
6.0%
1,231,200
27.6%
(361,988) -8.1
87,120
(274,868)
07/20/2000
CITY OF FKIULtY -
1.00% <= 75,000
1.65% > 76,000
# of townhouse owners 26
GATEWAY EAST - TOWNHOMES
3
Real Estate Equities Proposal
PHASE
ASSUMPTIONS
14
units
Estimated Tax Capacity
Original Market Value
Land -Area
=and
Builcling
IMAI°
PID 9 23- 30- 24-24 -0014
25,974
58,500
117,369
175,869
23- 30- 24-24 -0072
11,240
33,720
24,900
58,620
23-30 -24-24 -0073
. 5.620
16,860
2002
16,860
23 -30 -24-24 -0074
11,240
24,000
24,000
23-30- 24-24 -0075
5,620
21,600
Estimated Tax Capacity
21,600
23- 30 -24 -24 -0076
11,240
24,000
72,952
96,952
23- 30 -24 -24 -0101
16,800
58,800
58,800
87,734 sq. ft.
237,480
215,221
452,701
Original Tax Capacity
4,527
1.00% <= 75,000
1.65% > 76,000
# of townhouse owners 26
3
PHASE
Estimated Market Value
14
units
Estimated Tax Capacity
14
units
1.00% <=
75,000
1.65% >
76,000
Estimated Taxes
14
units
Estimated Tax Increment
Construction
2001
Valuation
2002
Taxes Payable
2003
PHASE II - cumulative
Estimated Market Value
28
units
Estimated Tax Capacity
28
units
1.00% <=
76,000
1.65% >
76,000
Estimated Taxes
Estimated Tax Increment
Construction
Valuation
Taxes Payable
Admin/Program Fees
Pay 2000 Tax Rate
Inflation
P. V. Rate
@ 135,036 /unit =
@ 2,044 /unit -
50%
@ 135,036 /unit =
28 units @ 2,044 /unit
2002 100%
2003
2004
2005 / 2006
06/01/00
1,890,500
24,277
28,613
23,278
3,781.000
48,555
57,226
51,891
10.00%
1.17860
2.00%
7.50%
Gateway East RE Equities.xls Prepared by Krass Monreo, P.A. 07/26/2000
GI I Ur rttwt tr
06/01/00
GATEWAY EAST - TOWNHOMES
4,527
•
0
Real Estate Equities Proposal
0
0
0
0
0
0
CASH FLOW AND PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
4,527
4,527
e ANNUAL
a
4 - -- SEMI - ANNUAL -
---- ----
0
(a) (b) (c)
(d)
(e) (tl (9) (h)
4,527
4,527
Original Estimated
Captured
Estimated Less: Available Cumulative
4- Present Value -�
Tax Tax
Tax
Tax Admin Tax Avail. Tax
Semi Annual
Cumulative
Date Capacity Capacity
Capacity
Increment Fees Increment Increment
Balance
Balance
(see assumptions)
(c) - (b)
(d) x (e) x (e) - (fl Total of (g)
P.V. of (g)
Totai Of (1)
2.0% Inflation
(prey. year)
1.1786 10.00%
7.50%
06/01/00
06/01/00
4,527
4,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12/01/00
4,527
4,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oe101/01
4,527
4,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
12/01/01
4,527
4,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
06/01/02
4,527
24,277
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12/01/02
06/01/03
4.527
4,527
24,277
48,555
0
19,750
0
11,639
0
1,164
0
10.475
10,475
8,399
8,399
12101/03
4,527
48.555
19,750
11,639
1,164
10,475
20,950
8,095
16,494
06/01/04
4,527
48,555
44.027
25,945
2,595
23,351
44,301
17,394
33,888
12101104
4,527
48,565
44,027
25,945
2,595
23,351
67,652
16,765
50,653
06/01105
4.527
49,526
44,027
25,945
2,595
23.351
91,002
16,159
66,813
12/01/O5
4,527
49,526
44,027
25,945
2,595
23,351
114,353
15,575
82,388
06101106
4,527
50,516
44,999
26.518
2,652
23,886
138,219
15,343
97,731
12/01/06
4,527
50,518
441999
26,518
2,652
23,866
162,085
14,789
112,520
06/01/07
4,527
51,526
45,989
27,101
2,710
24.391
186,478
14,568
127,088
12101/07
4,527
51,526
45,989
27,101
2,710
24,391
210,868
14,041
141030
06101108
4,527
52,557
46,999
27,897
2,770
24,927
235,795
13,831
154,961
12/01/08
4,527
52,557
46,999
27,897
2,770
24,927
260,722
13,331
168,292
06/01/09
4,527
53,608
48,030
28,304
2,830
25,474
286,195
13,131
181,423
12/01109
4.527
53,608
48,030
28,304
2,830
25,474
311,669
12,657
194.080
06/01/10
4,527
54,680
49,081
28,923
2,892
28,031
337,700
12,466
205,546
12101/10
4,527
54,680
49,081
28.923
2,892
26,031
363,731
12,016
218,562
06/01/11
4,527
55.774
50,153
29.555
2,956
26,800
390,331
11,834
230,396
12101/11
4,527
55.774
50,153
29,555
2,956
28,600
416,931
11,406
241,802
Oe/01112
4,527
Se,889
51,247
30,200
3,020
27,180
444,111
11,234
253,036
12101112
4,527
56.889
51,247
30,200
3,020
27,180
471,290
10,828
263,864
06/01/13
4,527
58,027
52,362
30,857
3.086
27,771
499,062
10,664
274,528
12/01/13
4,527
58.027
52,362
30,857
3,086
27,771
526.833
10,278
284,806
06/01/14
4,527
59.188
53,500
31,528
3,153
28,375
555,208
10,122
294,928
12/01/14
4,527
59,188
53,500
31,528
3,153
28,375
583,583
9,756
304,684
06/01/15
4,527
60,371
54,661
32,212
3,221
28,990
612,573
9,608
314,292
12/01/15
4,527
60,371
54,661
32,212
3,221
28,990
641,564
9,260
323,552
06/01/16
4,527
61.579
55,844
32.909
3,291
29,618
671,162
9,119
332,671
12/01/16
4,527
61,579
55,844
32,909
3,291
29,618
700,800
8,789
341,460
06/01/17
4,527-
@2,810
57,052
33,621
3.352
30,259
731,059
8,655
350,115
12!01117
4,527
62,810
57,052
33,621
3,382
30,259
761,317
8.342
358,457
Oe/01118
4.527
64,067
58,283
34,346
3,435
30,912
792,229
8,214
366,871
12/01/18
4,527
64,067
58,283
34,348
3,435
30.912
823,141
7,917
374,588
06101/19
4,527
65.348
59,540
35.087
3,509
31,578
854,719
7,795
382,383
12/01/19
4,527
65,348
59,540
35,087
3,509
31,578
886,297
7,514
389,897
06101/20
4,527
66.655
60,821
35,842
3,584
32,258
918,554
7,398
397,294
12101 /2D
4,527
66,655
60,821
35,642
3,584
32,258
950,812
7,130
404,425
06/01/21
4,527
67,988
62,128
36,612
3,661
32,951
983,763
7,020
411,445
12/01/21
4,527
67,988
e2,128
36.612
3,661
32,951
1,016,714
6,767
418.212
06!01/22
4,527 '
69,348
63.481
37,398
3,740
33,658
1,050,371
8,662
424,874
12101/22
4,527
69,348
93,461
37,398
3,740
33,658
1,084,029
6,421
431,295
06!01/23
4,527
70.735
64,821
38,199
3.820
34,379
1,118,408
6,322
437,617
12/01/23
4,527
70,735
64,821
38,199
3,820
34,379
1,152,787
6.093
443,711
06/01/24
4,527
72,149
66.208
39,016
3,902
35,115
1,187,902
5,999
449,709
12101/24
4,527
72,149
86,208
39.016
3,902
35,115
.1,223,016
5,782
455.491
0610125
4,527
73.592
67,622
39,850
3,985
35,865
•1,258,881
5,692
461,183
12101/25
4,527
73,592
67.622
39,850
3.985
35,865
1.294,74e
5,486
466,669
06/01/26
4,527
75,064
69.065
40,700
4,070
36,630
1,331,376
5,401
472,070
12/01/26
4,527
75,064
69,055
40,700
4,070
36,630
1,368,007
5,206
477,276
OeMl /27
4,527
76,566
70,537
41,568
4,157
37,411
1,405,418
5,124
482,400
12101127
4,527
76,566
70,537
41,568
4,157
37,411
1,442.828
4,939
487.339
Gateway East RE Equities.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe. PA. 07/28/2000
CITY OF FRIDLEY
GATEWAY EAST - TOWNHOMES
Hokanson Proposal
ASSUMPTIONS
Original Market Value
LaodAm
Ljilad 1juilding
sq. ft. 237,480 215,221
PID # 23- 30 -24 -24 -0014
25,974
58,500 117,369
175,869
23- 30 -24 -24 -0072
11,240
33,720 24,900
58,620
23-30- 24 - 24-0073
5,620
16,860
16,860
23-30 -24-24 -0074
11,240
24,000
24,000
23- 30- 24- 24-0075
5,620
21,600
21,600
23 -30 -24-24 -0076
11,240
24,000 72,952
96,952
23-30- 24-24 -0101
16,800
58,800
58,800
Estimated Taxes
Estimated Tax Increment
Construction
Valuation
Taxes Payable
Admin/Program Fees
Pay 2000 Tax Rate
Inflation
P. V. Rate
40 units
2002
2003
2004
@ 1,583 /unft =
100%
2005 / 2006
06/01/00
63,320
57,984
10.00%
1.17860
2.00%
7.50%
Gateway East Hokanson.xls Prepared by Krass Monreo, P.A. 07/26/2000
87,734
sq. ft. 237,480 215,221
452,701
Original Tax Capacity
4,527
1.00% <=
76,000
1.65% >
76,000
# of townhouse owners 40
PHASE
Estimated Market Value
20
units
@ 111,340 /unit =
2,226,800
Estimated Tax Capacity
20
units
26,862
1.00% <=
76,000
1.65% >
76,000
Estimated Taxes
20
units
@ 1,583 /unit =
31,660
Estimated Tax Increment
26,324
Construction
2001
50%
Valuation
2002
Taxes Payable
2003
PHASE II - cumulative
Estimated Market Value
40
units
@ 111,340 /unit =
4,453,600
Estimated Tax Capacity
40
units
53,724
1.00 %, <=
76,000-
1.65% >
76,000
Estimated Taxes
Estimated Tax Increment
Construction
Valuation
Taxes Payable
Admin/Program Fees
Pay 2000 Tax Rate
Inflation
P. V. Rate
40 units
2002
2003
2004
@ 1,583 /unft =
100%
2005 / 2006
06/01/00
63,320
57,984
10.00%
1.17860
2.00%
7.50%
Gateway East Hokanson.xls Prepared by Krass Monreo, P.A. 07/26/2000
%.o i r yr rruusc r
� .
GATEWAY EAST - TOWNHOMES
Hokanson Proposal
CASH FLOW AND PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
<
ANNUAL
--
SEMI - ANNUAL ---
>
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(fl
(9)
(h)
0)
G1
Original
Estimated
Captured
Estimated
Less.
Available
Cumulative
R Present
Value --�
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
Admin
Tax
Avail. Tax
Semi Annual
Cumulative
Date
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Increment
Fees
Increment
Increment
Balance
Balance
(see assumptions)
(c) - (b)
(d) x
(e) x
(e) - (f)
Total of (g)
P.V. of (g)
Total of (i)
2.0% Inflation (prey. year )
1.1786
10.00%
7.50%
06101/00
06101100
4,527
4,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12/01/00
4,527
4,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06101/01
4,527
4,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
12101101
4,527
4,527
0
0
0
0
0
0
06/01/02
4,527
26,862
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12/01/02
06101 /03
4,527
4,527
28,862
53.724
0
22,335
0
13.162
0
1.316
11,846
11,846
9,498
9,498
12101103
4,527
53,724
22,335
13,182
1,316
2,899
11,846
26,093
23,692
49,785
9,155
19,436
18,653
38,089
06/01/04
12101104
4,527
4,527
53,724
53,724
49,197
49,197
28,992
28,992
2,899
25.093
75,877
18,734
56,823
06101/06
4,527
54.799
49,197
28,992
2,699
28,093
101,970
18,057
17.404
74,880
92.284
12101/05
4,527
54,799
49,197
50,272
26,992
29,625
2,899
2,963
28,093
26,663
128,083
154,728
17,141
109,426
06/01/06
12101106
4,527
4,527
55,895
55,895
50.272
29,625
2,963
26,663
181,389
18,522
125,947
06/01/07
4.527
57,013
51,368
30,271
3,027
3,027
27,244
27.244
208.632
235,878
16,272
15,6%
142,219
157,903
12/01/07
06/01108
4,527
4,527
57,013
58,153
51,368
52,486
30,271
30,930
3,093
27,837
263,713
15,446
173,349
12/01/06
4,527
58,153
52,486
30,930
3,093
27,837
291,550
14,888
14,661
188,236
202,898
08/01/09
4.527
59,316
53,626
53,626
31,602
31,602
3,160
3,160
28,442
28.442
319,992
348,433
14,131
217,029
12101109
06/01/10
4,527
4,527
59.316
60,502
54,789
32,287
3,229
29,058
377,492
13.918
230,945
12101/10
4,527
60,502
54.789
32,287
3,229
29,058
29,688
406,550
438,238
13,413
13,208
244.358
257.566
06101/11
4,527
4,527
61,712
61,712
55.975
55,975
32.986
32,986
3,299
3.299
29,688
465,926
12,731
270,296
12101111
06101/12
4,527
62,947
57,185
33,899
3.370
30,329
498255
12,536
282,832
12101112
4,527
62,947
57,185
33.699
3.370
30,329
526,565
12,083
11,897
294,915
306,812
08101/13
4,527
64,206
58,420
58,420
34,427
34,427
3,443
3,443
30,984
30,984
557,569
588,553
11,467
318.279
12/01/13
06101/14
4,527
4,527
64,206
65,490
59,679
35,169
3,517
31,652
620,204
11,291
329,570
12101/14
4,527
65,490
59,679
35,169
3,517
3,593
31,652
32,333
651,866
684.189
10,883
10,715
340,453
351,188
06/01/15
4,527
4,527
86,800
66.800
60.963
60.963
35,925
35,925
3,593
32,333
716,522
10.328
361.496
12101115
06101/16
4,527
68,136
62,273
36.697
3,670
33,027
749,549
10,168
371,665
12101/16
4,527
68,136
62,273
36,697
3,670
33,027
782,577
816,313
9,801
9,649
381,465
391,115
_06101/17
4.527
69,498
69.498
53.609
63,609
37,485
37,485
3.748
3,748
33,736
33,736
850,049
9,301
400,415
12/01/17
06/01/18
4.527
4,527
70,888
64,971
38,288
3,829
34,459
884,508
9,156
409,572
12101118
4,527
70,888
64.971
38.288
3,829
34,459
918,966
6,826
8,689
418.397
427,088
06101/19
4,527
72,306
72,306
68,361
86,361
39,107
39,107
3,911
3,911
35,196
35,196
954,162
989,358
8,374
435,460
i 12101119
06/01120
4,527
4,527
73,752
67,779
39,942
3,994
35,948
1,025,306
8244
443.706
' 12101/20
4,527
73,752
67,779
39,942
3,994
35,948
1,061.254
7,946
451,651
06101/21
4,527
75,227
69,225
40,794
4,079
36.715
1,097,969
7,822
459.473
12/01/21
4,527
75227
69,225
40,794
4,079
36,715
1,134,684
7,540
467,013
08/01/22
4,527
76,732
70,700
41,664
4,166
37,497
1,172.181
7.422
474,435
12101122
4,527
76.732
70,700
41,664
4,166
37,497
1209,679
7,154
481.589
06/01/23
4,527
78,266
72,205
42,550
4,255
38,295
1,247,974
7,042
488,831
1210123
4,527
78,266
72,205
42,550
4,255
38,295
1,286,269
6,787
495,418
06!01124
4,527
79.832
73,739
43,455
4.345
39,109
1,325.378
6,681
502.099
12101/24
4,527
79,832
73.739
43,455
4,345
39,109
1.384,487
8,440
508,539
06/01/25
4,527
81,428
75,305
44,377
4,438
39,939
.1,404,426
6,339
514,877
12/01/25
4,527
81,428
75,30S
44,377
4,438
39,939
1,444,366
6,110
520.987
06/01/26
4,527
83,057
76,901
45,318
4,532
40,788
1,485,152
6,014
527,001
12/01/26
4,527
83,057
76,901
45,318
4,532
40,786
1,525,938
5,796
532,797
06/01/27
4,527
84,716
78,530
46,278
4,628
41,650
1,567,588
5,705
538,502
12/01127
4.527
84,718
78,530
46,278
4,628
41,650
1,609,238
5,499
544,001
Gateway East HokansOn.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 07/26/2000
Page 1 of 1
Rem l +v -i'a.k �+i��4%z:,.
L=kc Pk4u...
S
St . p4tjI I MN
file: //K: \COM DEV APPLICATIONS \Grant &Scott\PIC00014.JPG 7/21/00
� 9
t �
j
JLJ
/ � i 1 p''.. y�'�4`",�r * i jx' \h� w"'., Fes, a �l �� � � � +�r-,'�.�.,� _ � �'� "'' g � �a "a ti " 'wi' '� � '� #� ,� Ir�� •: �# � ; I ��
a,�® �� !� �.=;I i. _-�Ffl �. � � �`x f �a ! .�• a yi ��t �aq% �R � �:`:�t
tr��f€„ S )d . ;,layq•,!�r'M .�.�a. y�.. #� F "x�,;�'�a'!. 1-���. �� �t ".'��� ��. ia*9 I >�' �'
���°��
_��i
n
a
�� ! sl
iSA iii` ..., IF 'l'4 r �'.:j IC t ��ms iS� _; _
` -R �p w: -.+"r�
••t' ���`
%
/ � i 1 p''.. y�'�4`",�r * i jx' \h� w"'., Fes, a �l �� � � � +�r-,'�.�.,� _ � �'� "'' g � �a "a ti " 'wi' '� � '� #� ,� Ir�� •: �# � ; I ��
a,�® �� !� �.=;I i. _-�Ffl �. � � �`x f �a ! .�• a yi ��t �aq% �R � �:`:�t
tr��f€„ S )d . ;,layq•,!�r'M .�.�a. y�.. #� F "x�,;�'�a'!. 1-���. �� �t ".'��� ��. ia*9 I >�' �'
���°��
_��i
n
,..cK nq
At
o-�{
nw,. VI p�TiM ne t Y t �
RM
v
M-,-.
Page 1 of 1
IA�� �v4l-=�
Liw. U=c c" , Kt4
file: //K: \COM DEV APPLICATIONS \Grant&Scott\PIC00004.JPG 7/21/00
Page 1 of 1 <
�k cpwvnx � Ow.z1c ert, -
L,�,o (,4,c &A-, i "N
file: //K: \COM DEV APPLICATIONS \Grant &Scott\PIC00003.JPG 7/21/00
Page 1 of 1
file: //K: \COM DEV APPLICATIONS \Grant &Scott\PIC00005.JPG 7/21/00
2000
FRIDLEYHOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS
Jul
v 25, 200
FRIDLEY 5% through July 11, 2000:
HYDE PARK through July 11, 2000
MHFA through July 11, 2000
CDBG through May 2, 2000
LAST RESORT through July 11, 2000:
MHFA CFU thouugh July 11, 2000
CLOSINGS FOR Julv 25.2000
5:00 BERTRAM (Fridley 5%)
7340 Stinson Blvd NE-
5:15 HREHA (Fridley 5 %)
1601 Innsbruck Drive
$261,343.00
$0
$7,950.00
$36,697.00
$8,406.00
$8,000.00
Closed 5% Fridley Home Improvement as of 712512000.
Closed Hyde Park Home Improvement as of 712512000
Closed MHFA Home Energy as of 712512000
Closed CDBG Home Improvement as of 712512000
Closed Last Resort Home Improvement as of 712512000
Closed MHFA Commundy Fix up as of 712512000
$8,195.00
$5,60600
$275,144.00
$0
$7,950.00
$36,697.00
$8,40600
$8,000.00
4
Date: July 28, 2000
To: William W. Burns, Executive Director /5
From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Subject: Salvage Yard Redevelopment Update
Scott Hickok and Paul Hyde have met with two of the three salvage yard owners to date,
the third meeting will occur next week. The two owners have granted permission to
allow environmental testing and to allow the Authority's appraiser to tour the property in
preparing the appraisal. The owners were apparently waiting for the phone call, and
seemed willing to cooperate. A further update will be provided next month.
M -00 -132
5
Date: July 28, 2000
To: William W. Bums, Executive Director
From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Subject: Update on Funding for Joint Community Task Force
BACKGROUND
At the July meeting, the Authority approved the contract with Demographic Technologies Inc. for
the demographic and forecasting work needed for the Joint Community Task Force, subject to
receiving the applicable amount from Columbia Heights for their portion of the work. Columbia
Heights has since authorized its portion. The contract for the land use and marketing consultant
would be a separate contract and would have funding sources from the County, the school
districts, the Cities, and anywhere else funding can be obtained.
I am happy to report that all three school districts have approved their corresponding $2500
share, and the County will consider its $20,000 share on August 22, 2000.
CONSULTANT COSTS AND PROPOSED FUNDING SCENARIO
The costs for the consultants break down as follows:
GIS Phase I socio- economic data (input, one annual update, plus some amount of
forecasting work)
Columbia Heights $18,055
Fridley $25,875
2. Land Use and Market Consultant $45,000
3. GIS mapping of "physical" characteristics $ 3,000
Total: $91,930
The potential funding scenario discussed by the staff and Task Force is as follows:
Anoka County $20,000
School Districts $ 7,500
($2,500 each District)
Fridley $42,208 ($16,333 per acreage cost + 25,875)
Columbia Heights $ 22,206 ($4,151 per acreage cost+ $18,055)
C�3.
Update on Funding for Joint Community Task Force
July 28, 2000
Paae 2
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Since the Authority's discussion in July, a RFP was sent to 12 consulting firms. One proposal was
received. The Technical Advisory Committee to the Task Force will be interviewing the consultant
team on the afternoon of August 3, 2000. The proposal amount was $54,500. A recommendation
would then be prepared for the Task Force to consider on August 10, 2000.
FUTURE ACTION
If accepted by the Task Force, it is proposed that the Fridley HRA would be the contract holder
subject to receiving the contributions from other jurisdictions. The Authority does not need to take
any action at this time, and the action item, if approved by the Task Force, would be presented at
the September meeting. The total amount requested of the Authority was $42,208.
M -00 -133
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 1, 2000
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Change Order to Demolition Project
At the July HRA meeting, Kevitt Excavating was selected as the demolition contractor
for the Gateway East project and two scattered site properties. The original contract
was for $39,417. Due to an oversight, the house at 571 Lafayette Street was not
included in the original scope of work. Staff received a change order from Kevitt for
$7,650 for the additional work. Because Kevitt had already mobilized their crew in the
Riverview Heights neighborhood, staff instructed them to proceed with the demolition.
The HRN's action on Thursday night would approve the change order and increase the
contract to $47,067. All of the work is complete and therefore no other change orders
are contemplated at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the HRA approve Change Order No. 1 for $7,650 to the contract
with Kevitt Excavating.
Transmission Cover Page
Date: July 5th, 2000
To: Mr. Ryan Jendro From: Chris Vieau
Remodeling Advisor :. Kevitt Excavating Inc.
Phone # 763/572- 3515- - -
Fax #
Phone # 612/545 -3557
Fax #: 612/545 -5235
Bid For: Demolition of residence located at 571 Lafayette Street in Fridley
Total Cost:
$ 7,650.00
Bid includes: Same specifications as those dated May 16, 2000 for Demolition Of
Structures At 5807 University Avenue NE; 5755 University Avenue NE;
349 57th Place, 5297 Lincoln Street; and 630 Ely Street.
Payment due upon completion.
Acceptance of Proposal- The above prices, specifications and conditions are
satisfactory and are hereby accepted.&*',You are authorized to do the work as specified.
Qjte of Acceptance;
Signature;
DATE: August 1, 2000
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Change Order to Demolition Project
At the July HRA meeting, Kevitt Excavating was selected as the demolition contractor
for the Gateway East project and two scattered site properties. The original contract
was for $39,417. Due to an oversight, the house at 571 Lafayette Street was not
included in the original scope of work. Staff received a change order from Kevitt for
$7,650 for the additional work. Because Kevitt had already mobilized their crew in the
Riverview Heights neighborhood, staff instructed them to proceed with the demolition.
The HRA's action on Thursday night would approve the change order and increase the
contract to $47,067. All of the work is complete and therefore no other change orders
are contemplated at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the HRA approve Change Order No. 1 for $7,650 to the contract
with Kevitt Excavating.
Transmission Cover Page
Date: July 5th, 2000
To: Mr. Ryan Jendro ,
Remodeling Advisor*
Phone # 763/572 -3515- - Fax #
From: Chris Vieau
Kevitt Excavating Inc.
Phone # 612/545 -3557
Fax #: 612/545 -5235
Bid For: Demolition of residence located at 571 Lafayette Street in Fridley
Total Cost:
$ 7,650.00
Bid includes: Same specifications as those dated May 16, 2000 for Demolition Of
Structures At 5807 University Avenue NE; 5755 University Avenue NE;
349 57th Place, 5297 Lincoln Street; and 630 Ely Street.
Payment due upon completion.
Acceptance of Proposal - The above prices, specifications and conditions are
satisfactory and are hereby accepted.-Yo u are authorized to do the work as specified.
Qpte of Acceptance:
Signature;
City of Fridley
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 14, 2000 * ** SENT BY FAX * *''
TO: Lary Commers, HRA Chair
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Gateway East Developer Recommendation
In advance of Thursday evening's meeting, we thought it would be appropriate to
elaborate on our recommendation for selecting a developer for the Gateway East
project. As you are aware, staff is recommending that we negotiate with Real Estate
Equities. Our goal on Thursday night is to outline the reasons for selecting their
proposal and to identify the issues that will need to be negotiated in a development
contract, which we would bring back at a later date.
Why Real Estate Equities?
Staff believes that Real Estate Equitie's (REE) proposal better matches the overall
vision for the Gateway East project for the following reasons:
1. Market Value
The proposed units are roughly $10,000 to $20,000 higher in value than the units
proposed by Hokanson Development. In addition, because REE is proposing a
mixture of units and sales prices ($126,000 to $142,000) they should appeal to a
larger segment of townhome buyer market. Hokanson' on the other hand is offering
only about 40% of its units at $128,000.
2. Design
REE's proposed units offer a design that is different from the typical suburban
townhome development. The single - loaded design creates a traditional "front"
entrance and shifts the garage location to the back of the unit, away from the public
right -of -way. In addition, each unit has a small entry porch, which allows for some
private space. Hokanson's development is double - loaded and the garage doors
dominate the entries to all of the units.
Memo to Larry Commers
August 14, 2000
Page 2
3. Neighborhood Compatibility
The REE proposal is less dense than the Hokanson Development (28 units vs. 40
units or about 11.2 units /acre vs. 16 units /acre). Although, the higher density is
desirable for financial reasons, it is less compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, which are predominantly single family homes and low density multiple
family units. Obviously, a higher density project will be more difficult to sell to the
neighborhood and elected officials. The REE proposal is also consistent with the
density goals outlined in the RFP (24 to 32 units).
4. Image and Future Development
Although either proposal would be a significant improvement over the previous land
use, in staffs judgement the REE proposal is superior in helping to enhance the
image of the project area. In addition, because of the unit layout (3 and 5 unit
single - loaded clusters vs. 10 and 12 unit double - loaded clusters), the REE proposal
would work much better on the Gateway West (Frank's Used Car site). Preliminary
estimates indicate that up to 22 units could be built on that site using REE's unit
design.
What are We Asking For?
On Thursday evening, we will ask the HRA to authorize staff to enter into negotiations
with Real Estate Equities. Hopefully, by the September meeting we can flesh out a
significant number of the business terms and present a draft agreement for the HRA to
review.
Our strategy in negotiating with REE, will be to accomplish the following:
1. Reduce as much of the "gap" as possible. One approach we have discussed in-
house is a scenario in which the HRA participates in any upside potential due to
higher than expected sale prices. For all practical purposes, we already know
the potential downside, which is the current request of $546,000.
2. Require the developer to include as many of the "value added" upgrades as
possible. The following items are priorities that we will try and include as
standard features within the development:
Entry Landscaping ($400)
Pella Woodframe Windows ($1,750)
Concrete Driveways ($800)
Brick Wainscoat ($1,600 + ?)
Memo to Larry Commers
August 14, 2000
Page 3
We are also evaluating the possibility of requiring the developer to comply with
the State's new energy standards (which do not apply to projects of this type).
At this point we do not have a dollar figure available for the cost. In looking at
their pro forma analysis, we believe there is some room for negotiations on the
upgrades.
3. We also plan to re -apply to the State Department of Trade and Economic
Development (DTED) this fall for additional project funding. Obviously, any
outside funding will help reduce the financial burden to the HRA.
4. Utilize as much the TIF revenue as possible to help with project costs. Our
preliminary estimates show that the REE project will generate about $1,442,800
in tax increment over 25 years. The present value of that revenue stream in
today's dollars is about $487,000. In effect, this amount would come very close
to covering the project gap of $546,000.
As a side note, we evaluated the TIF revenue that could be generated from a 50
unit rental apartment project. The HRA would be in the same position financially.
The tax increment would be approximately the same amount as the townhomes
and would also require a similar amount of construction cost.
Other Options
At this point, the HRA has several options:
Enter into negotiations with Real Estate Equities and proceed with a draft
development contract. This is staffs recommendation.
2. Enter into negotiations with Hokanson Development and proceed with a draft
development contract.
3. Do nothing. This option has cost too, particularly in the sense that we may lose
an important opportunity to capture some of the demand from the Medtronic
project. We also have to be aware that the clock is ticking for TIF purposes and
within three years the HRA must establish a district. There is also no guarantee
that waiting will result in a better project.
We hope this memo summarizes the basis of our recommendation (Option #1).
Attached is a copy of a memo prepared by Jim Casserly on a comparison of the
Hokanson and Real Estate Equities proposals and an analysis of a 50 unit apartment
development. In the meantime, should you have any questions, please feel free to call
either Barbara (763- 572 -3590) or Grant (763- 572 - 3591). We look forward to seeing you
Thursday night.
t18�]1/00 FRI 18:11 PAZ 611 885 sees b H1LlSS 1f[O>
KRASS MONROC-
P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
8 .lames R Cassany
5nWJaMesc@&MM=e.00'M
W- VW*3ssm0n,Me0m
Diked Diar (61,?) 8654296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Alin: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fcmebus, IIousnig Coordinator
From: James R Casserly, Esq.
Greg D. Johnson, CPA
Date: August 11, 2000
Re: Gateway East Revised Pro PomZa Analysis and T.1. analysis for Apartment project
Our File No. 9571 -30
Enclosed you will find the following:
A tax increment analysis for a 50 unit apartment project in which 30% of the
apartments would be at the lower class rate and 70% of the apartments would be at
the market rate. The analysis assumes the construction of these apartments in the
Years 2001 and 2002. T11e assumptions in this analysis are comparable with those
used in the tax increment analysis for the Real Estate Equities and Hokanson
Proposals. Our conclusion is that the net present value of the available tax
increment is $482,775.00. This compares to the Real Estate Equities proposal in
which the net present value is $487,339.00 and the Hokanson proposal in wh
the value is $544,001.00. In short, the 50 unit apartment pro hicject generates
approximately the same amount as the other projects.
2. A revised pro forma analysis for the Real Estate Equities and Hokanson
We have attempted to categorize the amounts so they are more comparable. .We
have also included for each proposal a per unit cost
Let us know if you need any additional information or any revisions to these analyses.
C%WVDAT44*'PIDLEyW1CORDACY FERVWUS 6.000
SUITE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER • 1650 WEST 62ND STREET. BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 59431.1447
TELEPHONE 61M . FACSIMILE 612/8855969
U/11/00 FRI 16:12 --:FAX 612 885 5989
- i
-nom
GATEWAY EAST
Pro Fonma Analysis
For Sale Units
Gateway East Pro Forma 2.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, PA
08/11/2000
REAL ESTATE EQi imce
I
I
HOf(p►NSON
Mrs
1
Average
Revenues - For Sale Units
Units Per Unit
Average
I Units Per Unit
A Product A
8 Product B
3 126,000
' 9 129,000
5378,000
10,0°%
1
( 16 128,500
$2,056,000
°
C Product C
D Product D
6 137,000
1,161,000
30.7 °%
I 24 99,900
2,397,600
46.2 %
53,8%
10 142,000
1,4 0,000
37.6%
I
0.0%
Total Revenues .._.�
-"�
-"
----
J __
0.0%
28 135,036
3,781,000
100.0%
J 0 111,340
~
4,453,600
�~� -'
100.0%
Hard Costa
I
GMP Contract (Construction Cost)
I
Architectural
90,9
4,643
2,547,560
130,000
67.4%
I 74,905
2,996,208
67.3%
Survey & Engineering
1,293
36,200
3. %
J Design 1,250
50,000
1.1 °%
Land (purchase from City)
1.0%
I 0
included
0,0°%
Land Costs (taxes, ins, soils, mtq tax. etc.)
1,233
0
0.0%
I 2,178
87,120
2.0%
Contingency (pub. Imp & landscaping)
2,872
34.524
0.9%
I 0
included
0.0%
City Subsidies / Reimbursements
0
80.405
2.1 %
( 2,227
89,072
2.0% -
Tree Removal
Site Grading
134
3,750
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
J 0
I 250
0.0%
Public Improvements
2,143
11,003
60,000
1 1,765
10,000
70,600
02%
1.6%
Fencing (adj. to Valvoline & Townhomes) 2,979
308,080
83.400
8.10 I
4,750
190,000
4.3°%
Additional Landscaping/screening
2.886
2.1
1,985
79,388
Total Herd Costs
I
300
12,000
0.3%
120,169
3,364,724
°
89.0 /e I
89,610
-""
3,584,388
-'-
80.5%
Gross Margin
I
14,867
416,276
11.0% I
21,730
869,212
19.5%
Expenses
�
I
Soft Costs
I
Financing & Legal
I
Contingency
2,170
60.750
1.6% 1
0
Advertising & Marketing
2,071
58,000
1.5% J
0
0.0%
Other carrying costs
4,071
114,000
3.0% J
0
0.0%
Title & pro -rated taxes
1.130
31,632
0.8% I
0
0.0%
Interest expense
1,189
33,300
0.9°% I
0
0.0 °�
Project Overhead
4,264
5.000
119,398
3.2 °% I
t` Ana 2,945
117,800
0.0°%
2.6°%
Developer Fee
5,000
140,000
140,000
3.7% I
7,794
311,752
7.0°%
Brokerage
9,450
264,600
3.7°% I
7.0%
13,361
534,432
12.0%
Total Expenses
I
I^
6,680
267,216
6.0%
34,346
96!,680
25.4% I
I
30,780
1,231,200
27.6%
Additional Public Assistance Weeded
1
(19.479)
0
(645,404)
°�
-14.4% I
()
(361 Q$$ )
-g.1%
I
p
Amount paid for Land from City
I
0
I
Net Public Assistance Needed
87,120
545,404 4)
(
274,868
Gateway East Pro Forma 2.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, PA
08/11/2000
t_
"K08/11/00 FRI 18:12 FAX -812 885 ' 5888. S O1�iR0i - -°
units
4
r- Q04
..
VF FRIOLEY
/unit =
900,000
25,500
GATEWAY EAST TOWNHOMES -
9,000
-
2,100,000
Apartments - 50 Units
2.00% =
42,000
Original Market Value
ASSUMPTIONS_.: "
@
- -
PID # 23- 30- 24- 24-0014
L�dAt�.g had
X149
23-30 -24-24 -0072
25.974 58,500
11,240
117,369
175,869
23- 30-24- 24 -0073
33,720
5,620
24,900
58,620
23- 30-24- 24-0074
16,860
11.240 24,000
16,860
23 -30- 24-24 -0075
21,600
24,000
23-30-24-24-0076
4-24 -0076
,0
11.24
124 0 24,000
21,600
23- 30- 24-24 -0101
16,800
72,952
96,952
58,800
58,800
- 87,734 sq.237,480
215,221
~ --
452,701
Original Tax Capacity
Apartments - low Income
Apartments - market rate
30% 135,810 0 _
@ 1.00% =
1,358
7,696
70% 316,891 @ 2.00% =
6,338
PHASE
Estimated Market Value
Estimated Tax Capacity
Apartments - low income
Apartments - market rate
Estimated Taxes
Estimated Tax Increment
Construction
Valuation
Taxes Payable
PHASE If - cumulative
Estimated Market Value
Estimated Tax Capacity
Apartments - low income
Apartments - market rate
Estimated Taxes
Estimated Tax Increment
Construction
Valuation
Taxes Payable
Admin/Progr'am Fees
Pay 2000 Tax Rate
Inflation
P. V. Rate
25
units
@ 60,000
/unit = 1,500,000
°
/unit =
900,000
25,500
30% 450,000 @
70% 1,050,000 @
25 units @
2001
2002
2003
1.00% =
4,500
2.00% =
21,000
1,202
/unit =
50%
50
units
@
60,000
/unit =
30%
900,000
@
1.00% =
9,000
70%
2,100,000
@
2.00% =
42,000
50
units
@
1,202
/unit
2002 100%
2003
2004
2005 / 2006
06/01/00
Gateway East Apartments.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A.
30,054
20,984
3,000,000
51,000
60,109
51,038
10.00%
1.17860
2.00%
7.50%
08/09/2000
98/11/00 FRI 18:12 PAZ 812 885
a
"�
(a) (b)
ANNUAL
(c)
Original
Estimated
Tax
Date Capacity
Tax
Capacity
(see assumptions)
08/01/00
12fQ1/00
00101/01
12101/01
06/01/02
12!01/02
06/01/03
12101103
06101/04
12/01/04
06101/05
12/01105
owl/06
12/01/06
08A1/07
12/01/07
0x101108
12/01/08
06101/09
12/01/09
06/01/10
12/01/10
06/01111
12/01/11
06/01/12
12/01/12
06/01/13
12/01/13
06/01/14
12/01/14
06/01/15
12/01/15
06/01/16
12/01/16
06/01/17
12/01/17
06/01/18
12101/18
00101/19
12/01/19
06/01/20
12/0120
06101/21
12/0121
08/01122
12/01/22
08/01/23
12/01/23
06/0124
12/01/24
06/0125
12/01/25
06/01/26
12!01/26
06/0127
12/0127'
7,696
7,698
7,696
7,696
7,896
7,696
7,696
7.698
7,696
7,698
7,696
7,696
7,696
7,696
7,696
7,696
7,896
7,896
7,696
7,696
7,698
7,696
7,698
7,696
7.596
7,696
7,696
7,896
7,696
7,096
7,696
7,696
7,696
7,696
7,696
7.696
7,696
7,896
7,896
7,696
7,696
7,698
7,696
7,698
7,698
7,696
7,696
7,698
7,696
7,696
7,896
7.696
7,696
7,e96
7.696
7.69e
5989 HRASS -
CITY OF MD1.V
OOS u
7,695
GATEWAY EAST - TOWNHOMES
0
APaRments - 90 Units
0
CASH
FLOW AND PRESENT VALUE
7,896
0
ANALYSIS
0 0
7,696
(d)
(e) -SEMI ..
°
0 0
Captured
Tax
Estimated Less: (9)
AvalaWe e
e present
°
Capacity
:ANNUAL
. Tax Admin Tax
Increment Fees In�ement
S emi Annual
Valu
Cumulative
(c) - (b)
(Prev.
(d) x (e) x (e) - M
1.1786 10.00"/.
PTV Balance
(9)
. Balance
10,492
0
1,049
0 0
9,443 9.443
Total of O
43.304
10,492
25,519
7.S07G
nain4inn
7,695
0
7,096
0
0
0 0
7,896
0
°
0 0
7,696
0
°
0 0
25.500
0
0
°
0 0
25,500
0
0
°
0 0
51,000
51,000
17.304
17,804
10,492
0
1,049
0 0
9,443 9.443
51.000
43.304
10,492
25,519
1,049
2,552
9,443 18,888
51,000
52,020
43,304
26,519
2.562
22.967 41,853
22.987 64.820
52,020
43,304
43,304
25,519
25,519
2,562
22,987 87,787
53.060
44,324
26,120
2,552
2612
22,987 110,754
23,508
53,060
54,122
44,324
45,384
26,120
2,612
134,262
23,508 157.771
54,122
45,384
28,733
26,733
2,673
2,673
24,080 181,831
55,204
55,204
46,426
27,359
2,736
24,060 205,890
24,623 230,513
66,308
46,426
47,508
27,359
27.997
2,736
24,623 255,136
56,308
47,508
27.997
2.800
2.800
25,197 260.333
25,197
57,434
57,434
48,812
48.812
28,647
2,865
305,530
25.782 331,312
68,583
49,738
28.647
29,311
2,866
2.931
25.782 357,095
58.583
49,736
29,311
2,931
26,380 383,474
26,380
59,755
59,755
50,887
29.988
2,999
409,854
26,989 436.843
60,950
50,887
52,059
29,088
30,678
2,999
26.989 463,832
60,950
62,169
52,059
30,678
3,088
3,088
27,810 491.443
27,610 619,053
62,169
53.254
53.254
31,382
31,382
3,136
28,244 647,297
63,412
54,473
32.101
3,138
3,210
28,244 575,541
28,891
83,412
84,680
54,473
55,716
32,101
3,210
604,432
28,891 633,323
84.680
55,718
32,834
324
3,283
3,283
29,550
,83
6922,
e5,974
56,984
33.581
3,358
29,550 423
30,223
85.974
07293
07293
56,984
58,278
33,581
3.358
722.848
.923
30 752,889
87
34.343
34,343
3.434
3.434
30.909 783,7!8
88,838
68,en
x•597
35,121
3,512
30,909 814.687
31,809 846.296
70,012
59.597
60,943
35.121
35,914
3,512
31,609 877,904
70,012
60.943
35,914
3,591
31591
32,323 910,227
71,412
62,316
36,723
3.672
32,323 942,549
33,051
71,412
72,841
62,316
63,716
38,723
3,672
33,051 1,008,6500
72,841
63.716
37,548
37,548
3,755
33,793 1,042,444
74,297
65,145
38,390
3.765
3,839
33,793 1.07e.237
74,297
75,783
65,145
66,801
38,390
3.839
34,551 1,110,788
34,551 1,145,339
75,783
56.601
39,248
39,248
3,925
3,925
35,323 1,180,682
77,299
77.299
68,087
40.124
4.012
35,323 1,215.985
36,112 1,252,097
78.848
68,087
69.603
40,124
41,017
4,012
36.112 1.288,206
78,845
69,603
41.017
4,102
4,102
38,915 1,325.124
80,422
71,149
41,928
4,193
36,915 1,362,039
37,735
80,422
71,149 _ _41,928
4,193
1,399,774
37.735 1.437,510
Gateway East Apefter is xfs Prepared
by Krass Monroe. PA
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,571
7,298
17,108
16.490
15.894
15.319
15,113
14,567
14,370
13,851
13,862
13,189
12,989
12,519
12,347
11,901
11,736
11,312
11,155
10,762
10.602
10.219
10,075
9.711
9.574
9.228
9,098
8,769
8,644
8,332
8,213
7,916
7,803
7,521
7,413
7,145
7,042
6,787
8,689
6,447
6,353
6.124
6,034
5.816
5,731
5,524
5.443
5.246
5,169
4,982
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,571
14,N9
31,977
46,467
64,361
79,690
94,793
109,380
123,731
137,581
151,244
164,412
177.401
189.920
202.267
214,168
225.904
237.216
248.371
259,123
269,725
279,944
290,019
299,730
309,305
318,533
327,831
336,400
345,045
353,377
361,590
369,506
377,309
384,830
392,243
399.388
406,429
413,217
419,905
426.353
432,706
438,830
444,864
450,680
456,411
481.935
487,378
472,624
477,793
482,775
081092000
o-
♦� M w
w
Date: August 17, 2000
To: HRA Commission Members
From: Julie H. Vogel, CPA, HRA Accountar
Subject: Additional Expenses For Approval
VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2000
Reliant Energy
Sam's Lock and Key
Ehler's & Associates
City of Fridley
Kevitt Excavating Inc.
Peformance Lawn Care
CEE
Sensible Land Use Coalition
Utilities at 57th Ave
Service at 6175 E River Rd
OSA TIF reporting
2 -00 Bond payment Reim to City
Demolition: HRP & Gateway East
Lawn Care
Loan Fees & Home Program
Land Use Coalition conference
3.04
60.00
343.75
350,594.38
43,785.30
1,967.29
8,223.00
60.00
Total: $ 405,036.76