Loading...
HRA 03/01/2001 - 00009095CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MARCH 1, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the March 1, 2001, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Pat Gabel, John Meyer, Jay Bajwa Members Absent: Virginia Schnabel Others Present: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator Paul Eisenmenger, HRA Accountant Jim Casserly, Development Consultant Paul Hyde, RER APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2001, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Bajwa, to approve the February 1, 2001, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA: CLAIMS AND EXPENSES: Mr. Commers stated that he would like this item removed for discussion. 2. REVIEW AND ADOPT PROPOSED CHRONOLOGY TO MODIFY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: Mr. Commers stated that he would like this item removed for discussion. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Bajwa, to approve the consent agenda as amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION ITEMS: 3. UPDATE ON GATEWAY EAST PROJECT: Mr. Fernelius stated that the developer is moving forward on the project. Progress has been made on environmental testing, land use approvals, and negotiations with Valvoline. HRA action is required on the Valvoline issues. The developer has completed all of the environmental testing on that site with soil analysis and confirmed earlier reports of contaminated soil below the tanks and the pump islands on the former Holiday site. They determined that no remediation is required. They are in the process of seeking MPCA approval. The developer has submitted the zoning, plat, and street vacation applications. Mr. Fernelius stated the Planning Commission approved all three on February 14. The City Council approved the plat but tabled the rezoning of the street vacation until March 5. The plat was tabled due to an error in the legal description that will be corrected and brought back on March 5. The street vacation was due to pending negotiations with Valvoline involving the acquisition of the right-of-way involving 57th Place with Valvoline. Under state law, once a right- of-way has been vacated, the underlying land is divided equally between the adjoining property owners on either side. The area in question is 57th Place from the intersection of 4th Street over to University Avenue right-of-way. The total right-of-way to be vacated is approximately 60 feet by 160 feet in size. One-half of that area adjoins the Valvoline property to the south. That land will become theirs once the street vacation goes through. We do need to acquire that piece as part of the project that has always been included in our site plans for the Gateway East Project. Mr. Fernelius stated that the issue of the vacated right-of-way was a recent development. They have negotiated with Valvoline for that property. They are dealing with three issues with Valvoline which includes acquisition of the right-of-way, closure of access to 57th Place and the service drive, and the final value or determination by the condemnation commission regarding the parcel at the corner of 57th and 4th Street condemned in December of 1999. Valvoline has agreed to sell the right-of-way property for $5,000 which equates to $1 per square foot. That land area is necessary to complete the project, or site revisions would have to be made causing delays. The closure of the 57th Place access is part of the project and will close this spring when the developer begins the site work. Valvoline will have to reroute its internal traffic. Mr. Fernelius stated staff has met with Vavoline's engineering staff and worked out different options to allow them to continue to operate on that site. They have negotiated an agreement to contribute up to $20,000 towards that cost. This avoids negative impact on their operation and will make a good working relationship with Valvoline. Staff believes that the cost can be controlled. The developer's contractor will be out on site at the same time the work will be done reducing any delays. Mr. Fernelius stated the condemnation in December 1999 was necessary to acquire the corner parcel. They were unable to reach an agreement on a voluntary acquisition. A quick-take action awarded the HRA the title to the property in January 2000. They offered $35,000 for the property and Valvoline countered at $60,000. The assessed value for tax purposes is $58,800. Condemnation commissioners still have not met to determine the value. Both attorneys have pressed to establish a hearing date, but no progress has been made on that issue. Mr. Fernelius stated that resolution of this issue is important to moving forward. They reopened negotiations with Valvoline on the valuation for the project. They agreed to settle on the assessed valuation of $58,800. Resolving all three issues is important to avoid possible HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 3 litigation with Valvoline and move forward on the project. Total additional costs of all three items equates to $48,800. There is a high probability during the commissioners' hearing that they would pay the assessed value at minimum. Staff has always anticipated making a contribution towards the site closure costs which are identified around $15,000. The new cost involved is the acquisition of the vacated right-of-way. A payment of $58,800 for the condemned parcel, up to $20,000 for the site work, and $5,000 towards the vacated right-of-way add up to a total payment of $83,800. They have already deposited $35,000 with the court towards the purchase of that condemned parcel. The net cost to the HRA would be $48,800. Staff's recommendation is for the HRA to approve that financial package for $58,800 for the condemned parcel and a contribution up to $20,000 towards the site reconfiguration. An additional $5,000 is needed for the vacated right-of-way. Mr. Commers asked how they missed on the site plan the fact that half of the vacated street goes to Valvoline and they included that in their development. Mr. Fernelius stated that the Planning staff in their review identified that. That issue was something that was overlooked prior to that. Mr. Commers asked who looked at the site plan for the HRA's benefit. Mr. Fenelius stated that it includes Planning staff, himself, as well as the developer. Mr. Commers asked what the City's appraiser says in justification for the $35,000 appraisal and what is the date of their assessed value? Mr. Fernelius stated that the assessed value date was January 1, 2001. Mr. Commers stated that the valuation date goes back to when they started the condemnation. Mr. Fernelius stated that was correct and the assessed value at that time was $58,800. The appraisal was based on residential use. The City Assessor states that despite the fact that it is zoned as a residential parcel, it is valued under a commercial scenario because it is attached to the Valvoline site. Mr. Commers stated that they will use it as residential, but the Valvoline site is commercial. They are going to use it as residential so the appraisal was based on the residential value. Mr. Fernelius stated that is correct. Ms. Gabel asked if one of those hearings would change that situation. Mr. Fernelius stated that the City Attorney felt it would be difficult to persuade the Commissioner's that the value is less than what the assessor has placed on the site. Mr. Commers stated that it is valued at the best use of how it will be used. It will be used as a residential property. If it was assessed as commercial, he would be surprised that it would be admissible. Mr. Casserly stated that somewhere in the beginning of this, was there an issue that since this parcel was attached to the Valvoline lot, would the property be eligible for a lot split? The only thing they would use it for was commercial. It was a strange hybrid issue. He does not think HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 4 that the parcel could be separated. It can be continued to be attached to the Valvoline piece. It is not large enough to stand by itself and therefore not eligible for a lot split. Dual zoning just does not follow real life. This cannot stand by itself as an eligible piece either. There is a lot of room to have a real honest discussion of value on this one. Mr. Commers stated that this has not been brought to their attention, and they do not understand an issue of this nature. When they obtained their appraisal, in terms of looking at this project overall, they based our observation on the part of the appraisal. They had some real issues with their own appraisal. They asked her to go back and redo it so they could get a handle on it. It is not something they should learn about at the last minute. Ms. Gabel asked who or what determines that they do not have to do any remediation. Mr. Fernelius stated that it is a small amount of contaminated soil and located deep enough to develop over it. The remediation plan is required in the event that the developer does come into contact with it. Ms. Gabel asked who the condemnation commissioners are. Mr. Fernelius stated they are a three-member panel appointed by the court who meet and review appraisals presented by both sides and come up with a value. They make the recommendation to the court. Mr. Bajwa asked if it was possible to arbitrate on the value of the property. Mr. Fernelius stated that they tried to negotiate voluntarily with them, and the arbitration would have been settled with the Commissioners. Mr. Burns stated the issue over the right-of-way has just arisen recently. Mr. Commers stated that he does not recall it being an issue. They are committed on this project and it seems that if the attorneys are having trouble getting the Commissioners to meet that should be brought to our attention. There are ways of making sure that happens and he is surprised that it is taking this long and they have not met. Those people appointed should not appointed to serve again if they are not prepared to perform theirjob in a timely manner. Over a year is not acceptable to not have had a meeting. Mr. Burns stated he agrees. The condemnation process is for the need to take the parcel quickly through a quick-take process. This gives the title of the property up front before the issue of price is settled. They have to enter into a condemnation process that precludes any other options for setting the value of the property. The Commissioners typically favor the property owner more than the City, and there is not incentive for the property owner to work outside that condemnation process for determination of value. Mr. Fernelius has done a good job on direct negotiations. Mr. Meyer stated that they have a history of arbitration or going to the condemnation proceedings. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the settlement agreement for the Gateway East Project. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 5 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. SALVAGE YARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Mr. Hickok stated that on June 6, 2000, staff inet with the HRA to discuss the potential of the redevelopment of the salvage yards. The HRA asked Staff to proceed with very specific aspects of the project and then to report back. The HRA asked that staff and the developer approach the owners regarding the concept of the redevelopment of the property. The HRA also asked staff to hire an appraiser and prepare an analysis of the overall development costs. There were funds approved by the HRA for this appraiser and to hire a relocation expert to help determine the numbers of the project. The HRA also asked staff to complete a Phase 1 environmental analysis on the salvage yards. All three salvage yard owners agreed to meet with staff, and two of the three agreed to allow appraisals, relocation analysis, and Phase 1 environmental analysis. The third of those owners asked for a purchase agreement prior to his allowing further investigation. Mr. Hickok stated staff hired Shenehon Appraisal Services and Conworth Inc., to complete the appraisal and relocation work on the salvage yards. They also hired Peer Environmental and Engineering Resources through the developer to complete a Phase 1 environmental analysis. The Phase 1 environmental analysis revealed no real surprises. Some soil and ground water contamination had likely occurred due to the use of the land. Staff and the developer were able to make educated values on a non-salvage yard building and redevelopment area as well as the salvage area. Some of the original land area discussed is now too expensive to consider as part of the redevelopment area. The total acquisition for the reduced number of buildings is $7,311,000. With demolition, relocation, professional clean-up, cost of financing, the project may reach $11,448,990. This represents a worse case scenario. In the worse case scenario, they would be looking at a deficit of $3,404,466. Mr. Commers asked what he meant by deficit. Mr. Hickok stated that looking at the sources and uses, what has been identified up front are acquisition costs of the buildings themselves in that value of $7,311,000. The additional costs are clean-up costs. Those costs reach $11,448,990. The offsetting costs are the dollars received back in grant funding for clean-up, the dollars received back for the sale of the land to the developer, etc. They would still be looking at a difference of $3,406,466. A possible revenue source in the neighborhood is Tax Increment District No. 9. The Onan-Murphy project put land back on the tax rolls in a very nice industrial warehouse building out in the market place. That project could likely generate $3,000,000 - 3,500,000 depending on the tax rate. This is one potential revenue source for the HRA. Mr. Hickok stated that they determined the best way to maximize the financing opportunities would be to create a new tax increment finance district around the project. The redevelopment project would allow new industrial development for potentially office warehouse space or manufacturing. New industrial modern development with landscaping, adequate parking, would eliminate the outdoor storage and some unsightly elements that may be visible in the existing state of the area. They would see this redeveloped area in currently an outdoor storage yard for an existing industry. Mr. Commers asked what this revised plan is and what properties are going to be redeveloped and which ones will not be redeveloped? HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 6 Mr. Hickok stated that the property not being considered at this time is the Gustafson building. This development plan will work around that building. There is also the Provinsky building at the intersection of 73�d and Central Avenue that has been eliminated for consideration. The Miller building was also eliminated for consideration. A suitable development could occur without including those expensive properties. Mr. Commers asked if this includes all of the salvage yards. Mr. Hickok stated, yes, the properties north of 73�d would include the three salvage yards and other properties north of 73�d including the Waldoch property, Limpro, Jewel properties and the Larry Falk building. Mr. Commers asked if that goes right up to the Highway 65 frontage road. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. Mr. Commers asked what about south of 73�a� Mr. Hickok stated that south of 73�d currently being considered is the outdoor storage portion of the testing area for the Determan Browning operation included in this proposal. Mr. Bajwa asked if they had the environmental report back yet. Mr. Hickok stated they had the Sam's Auto salvage yard and also the Fridley Auto Parts report back. The visual assessment indicated that there has been surface contamination and likely we would see some ground water contamination. This is the type found historically in salvage yard developments. There were no real surprises. Petroleum-based contaminants made the soils darker and muddier. With the approval of the HRA, staff would proceed with negotiations on these properties. They are looking at spring and summer negotiations to get the environmental due diligence completed and grant funding and RAP approval to have funding to support those revenues we are counting on to make this project work. They will come back to the HRA in the summer and fall for authorizations to purchase. If HRA authorization happened, they would look at acquisition, closing, and relocation of tenants in the fall and winter. Then, during the winter they would look at land assembly and the street vacation necessary to assemble the parcels on the north side to have the land area for the building described. In spring 2002, they would pursue environmental clean-up and meet the terms of grant funding. In the summer 2002, the soil work would be completed and commencement of construction could occur. Mr. Hickok stated that with the HRA's endorsement, staff would be ready to proceed with negotiations. Mr. Commers asked for a breakdown of what they are paying for the land, remediation, relocation, and are they paying anything for the businesses? Mr. Casserly stated that the sources and uses listed do not get into some of the specifics because they still need to be discussed. There has been an analysis done all of the items just mentioned and are in the addendum. The relocation is included in the acquisition which is lumped together for parcels north of 73�d and south of 73�a Mr. Commers stated that he would like to see that, if possible, with more detailed specifics. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 7 Mr. Hickok stated they have not negotiated individually with the property owners. It is difficult to identify costs. They had appraisals done with good strong numbers coming back on two of the three salvage yards. They have educated numbers on the other buildings that are not the salvage yards. The appraisals can be made available. Right now to discuss the costs on a site by site basis would be a bit premature for us. They have a very high level of confidence and feel we have the strength to go out and negotiate reasonable outcomes. Mr. Commers asked what the appraiser's approach was. Mr. Hickok stated that the Strachota analysis was very polite and blunt about the cost of purchasing the salvage yards. Relocation potential is there, but relocation costs need to be figured in. It is likely that the land, buildings, and business, would be considered in the purchase of the salvage yards. The Andover experience and the St. Paul experience tells them that it is difficult to move folks. Their analysis was based on their experience. Mr. Commers asked if there is any allocation or remediation to the existing property owners. Mr. Hickok stated there is not. Mr. Commers asked what the program was for the deficit. Mr. Casserly stated that this is the major concern with this development. They have known from the inception that this project was never cash flow or would generate enough revenues to cover the costs. They have known that there are state programs that assist with those gaps and shortfalls. There is also the program that helps with redevelopment expenses. They have assumed they would be covered in the remediation costs through grants. Even with that, they still have a shortfall. Because of the development on the Onan site, this is the first year that it is paying full taxes. They have revenues in that district and have done some analysis of what that revenue would generate through the life of the district. There would be present value dollars available at $3,000,000 -$3,500,000. The tax increment generated at the Onan site would be assessed at $6,000,000. These parcels currently happen to be within that district. Mr. Commers asked if that was the entry under sources of tax increment present value of $2,500,000. Mr. Casserly stated that is the tax increment generated from this specific development on this district. It represents about 175,000 square feet of new development. Mr. Commers asked where the Onan money was listed as the source? Mr. Casserly stated that it is not in here. The analysis only relates to the specific development we are talking about. It just describes what the deficit is from the development that is being projected. Mr. Commers asked if DTED referred to what is expected to be obtained for assistance in the clean-up? Mr. Casserly stated that is correct. Ms. Gabel asked how reliable that expectation is? HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 8 Mr. Casserly stated that they have done very well with that program so far. Mr. Hyde has worked with that program for some time. It is the City that makes the application and the developer helps with the preparation of that. Mr. Commers asked what the purpose was in suggesting a new development district. Mr. Casserly stated that the existing Onan district, which was established in 1989, has only 14 or so years remaining. They need to capture the increment for a longer period of time. If they decertify the parcels that would go into the area, they would establish a district. Mr. Commers asked if they still could move the Onan money from District 9 to the school district? Mr. Casserly stated that they could, provided the legislature does not adopt current legislation. Mr. Commers stated that is part of the reason to go forward quickly on this to preserve the ability within the district to use those funds. Mr. Casserly stated that is correct. Mr. Hickok stated they are confident that the DTED money would be successful; they cannot always count on this source. There are two funding cycles coming up in May and November. With the draft in place they look to the November funding cycle to put those details in place and get back to DTED on the funding. They really need to know if the project is moving forward, and this will take a lot more hours to put those funds together. It is incumbent to say yes or no to move forward to devote those hours. Right now is critical, and they could delay that until next year. The salvage yards get more and more expensive as they disappear. The land values become more important to the owners and values continue to go up. Mr. Commers asked what if they are unable to get their full share of State funds? Mr. Hickok stated that is one of the contingencies they need to build into this. They need to come back with a package that works and structure our negotiations in the field based on success with DTED. Mr. Hyde stated they have had good success with these grant programs. They have worked on the Onan Murphy development and have a good track record. They first get the properties under contract to come to an agreement on price with two contingencies. The first is to get the clean-up plan approved, and the second is to get the funding in place to pay for it all. They can then have the protections and the money to pay for the clean-up. Starting from the November 1 grant application deadline, DTED and Metropolitan Council can back up from negotiating those properties, getting them under contract, doing the investigations and looking at the results, and submitting a clean-up plan for their approval. That is the process that works through. He stated he has high confidence that this project will be well received. The tough part of this one is the acquisition fees. There is funding through some of the grant programs. It is a judgment call how much acquisition we put into those applications and balance the clean-up. They can make different applications as well for different sides of the street. Mr. Commers asked if he was proposing that the DTED funds of $3,000,000 or so would go to the clean-up and not to the acquisition costs. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 9 Mr. Hyde stated that in conjunction with the Metropolitan Council funding which acts as a match to the DTED funding, there are about $300,000 out of there. That could be the worse case scenario. Mr. Commers asked how they fund and carry the tax increment? Mr. Casserly stated that this is going to require more discussion because given the amount of funding involved it would appear that we would be issuing some debt to fund this. They have done that before, but this project will require that. They would be involved in doing bonding and determine the cost. They put in 2 1/2 % for issuance of cost for all of that. Mr. Commers stated that it comes down to how to finance this. Mr. Casserly stated they can prepare a finance plan for bonding and when you would need it, etc. Mr. Burns asked if it would make sense to proceed with the negotiations with the understanding knowing full well that they would not end negotiations by the April HRA meeting. They would come to the HRA in an executive session with these documents and the people that have prepared these documents. Mr. Commers stated that would be possible, but they are a long way away from signing the purchase agreement. That would have to have a number of contingencies in it and there is an issue as to whether we want to go about doing this deficit kind of financing and decide our selves. The Council should also look at what that means. If staff feels they need to start talking to these people, there is nothing wrong with that. Mr. Casserly stated they could provide the purchase agreement form that would be used for each one of the acquisitions. Would it be helpful to share that with the Commissioners? Mr. Commers stated that he thought that the agreement entered into would have Mr. Hyde doing the negotiations. Mr. Hyde stated that is correct. Mr. Meyer stated the acquisition costs are in so they might as well go ahead and authorize continued movement. Ms. Gabel stated that she is not sure that she agrees with that. Mr. Meyer stated that he does not hear any hope that they will get a better handle on this. Mr. Burns stated they are in a position to break down the cost, but they do not want to do it in a public meeting to jeopardize our negotiating posture. Even after they break down the cost, the big number is still due to variables beyond our control. They do not know when DTED or Metropolitan Council will give us the money. Mr. Hyde stated that with the November 1 application, they would know their timeline the second week of December. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 10 Mr. Burns stated that is a huge part of it. The other part is relocation costs, and they do not know that until they start negotiating and tying down the costs of the property. Mr. Hyde stated they need to get the properties to actually do the drilling investigation work. None of the property owners are allowing them on the sites. A purchase agreement would give access to that. Then we know how bad it is to get the clean-up plan approved. Mr. Burns stated that the information missing seems to be prepared sequentially; one thing seems to hinge on the other. Mr. Hyde stated the first thing is the purchase price to get the property under contract to get on the site to do the investigation. Then, they can prepare relocation estimates. Ms. Gabel asked if he needs a purchase agreement to do this. Mr. Hyde stated, yes. Mr. Commers stated they have statutory right to do this. They can compel the property owners to allow an investigation without the purchase agreement. Is it possible to meet with the Council? Mr. Burns stated that the next meeting is March 26. The HRA meets April 5, and it may be worthwhile to have an opportunity for a joint meeting then. In the meantime, it would be desirable for staff to initiate the negotiations with the property owners. Mr. Commers stated they first need to know if the HRA is prepared to go ahead with the project. He is not sure they can make the commitment on the basis of this information. Mr. Burns stated that they will not have more firm information until the end of the year. Mr. Commers stated that the project should be next year then. Mr. Burns stated that the information falls sequentially. Mr. Commers stated that is accurate. What is the issue faced with? Why does the HRA have to make a decision tonight? Mr. Burns stated that staff has have the Council and HRA concur based on the available information now. They will not have more complete information on April 5 or May 5. Mr. Commers stated the HRA will have to assess the risk at that time and make a determination. Mr. Burns stated they could hold this off until some point when the Council and HRA can get together. The negotiation process is complicated.. The Gateway East process took eight or nine months. The sooner they get started, the sooner the project will go toward construction. Mr. Meyer stated the only immediate variable they can eliminate is the attitude of the City Council. Mr. Commers stated they would have a better plan as to how to finance the deficit. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 11 Mr. Casserly stated they have to issue debt to do this. There just is not enough resources available. The Council has to understand what they are going to be committing to when they do this. They can find a way to cover the shortfall if there is a political will to proceed. This is not right or wrong, it just makes sense. Mr. Commers stated that in order to make some sense out of it, they need to look at it more and how it is handled. Mr. Meyer asked if they could instigate some better understanding of the clean-up costs. Mr. Commers stated that he cannot imagine the salvage yards objecting to them coming onto the properties as long as no damage is done to the property. They might find the contamination is less than expected. Mr. Casserly stated it is not the contamination that is causing the problems. Mr. Commers stated that he thought that Mr. Hyde stated that if the contamination problem is less than thought, they may be able to shift that grant to the land purchase. Mr. Casserly stated it does offer more opportunities to cover the costs. Mr. Meyer stated that one way to go ahead is to get some soil borings and begin to whittle down on the unknowns. Mr. Commers asked if the property owners would object to that. Mr. Hickok stated that he believed the property owners would object. It is an extremely tight community up there. There is no question that they could do that statutorily, but then they take the negotiations to an entirely different level when we do that. Attorneys on both side have been working well together so far. He would urge the City not to take a confrontational approach to soil borings. They can cover the contamination cost with grant funding. They know that the HRA and Council have talked about this enough for us to stand up there for negotiations. They are very far away from a"no", and extending this will bring us farther away from a real project. Mr. Commers stated that he thought they were talking about a working relationship with them, and they would voluntarily allow the City to come on there and do the soil borings. Mr. Hickok stated that the amount of contamination does not affect the purchase price. The difference is made up on the grant end of it. If they find it deeper and messier than anticipated, the funds can become available. It is the Federal government's interest to get these sites cleaned up, and their chances for funding are okay. He did not believe they will get through the door if they do not get past the point of what they are going to pay for land per square foot and the terms to come to in order to make the deal work. They are not going to define the numbers any better in a month's time. Mr. Commers stated that he agrees as far as the contamination is concerned. The cost and acquisition and plan to fund the deficit is the issue. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 12 Mr. Meyer stated that putting borings down will rupture any relationships, but he does not hear any hope of improving these figures. Mr. Bajwa stated that he would like more information. They have no knowledge of what the numbers are. They only saw these numbers for the first time, and they do not know what kind of numbers they have seen. This project is worthy of deliberation; but he does not know if he is in a position to give any kind of commitment. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Bajwa, to proceed as recommended by staff negotiate on the salvage yard redevelopment project. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONERS MEYER AND BAJWA VOTING AYE, COMMISSIONER GABEL AND CHAIRPERSON COMMERS VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED 2-2. 5. RESIGNATION OF RYAN JENDRO, REMODELING ADVISOR: Mr. Fernelius stated that the Center for Energy and Environment is taking Mr. Jendro's place. The restructuring of the position into a full-time position will be considered. Expanding responsibilities may be an option. Staff will have a recommendation at the April meeting. Mr. Meyer asked if this position is well utilized. Are the citizens getting any value of it? Mr. Fernelius stated that since the position was created in 1996, they assisted more than 400 homeowners. On an average basis, they are probably helping 60 homeowners per year. This position is extremely valuable. Mr. Burns stated that on one of the cable television shows, Mr. Jendro stated that he sees about 3-5 homes per week. Mr. Fernelius stated that is during the busy months. Mr. Burns stated that all the people who have filled this position have been very good, and Mr. Jendro will be missed. 6. CLAIMS AND EXPENSES: Mr. Commers stated that the item he is not familiar with is the payment to Anoka County for administering the TIF districts. Mr. Casserly stated that he believes they have paid that before. This is a policy they adopted because of the complexity of this. He will get back to the HRA about this. Mr. Meyer stated that the $25,000 demolition charge for the year 2000 was quite high. Mr. Fernelius stated that includes the Werner's Furniture property which was a commercial building. Mr. Meyer asked how much the house cost. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MARCH 1. 2001 PAGE 13 Mr. Fernelius stated that he does not have an exact breakdown on that, but he will get that information. It was torn down in December. MOTION by Ms. Gabel to approve the Claims and Expenses. Seconded by Mr. Bajwa. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. REVIEW AND ADOPT PROPOSED CHRONOLOGY TO MODIFY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: Mr. Commers stated this would be modified at this point. Mr. Casserly stated that it is a matter of keeping options open. This should be done annually. Mr. Commers stated that they need to include in the budget certain redevelopment issues by April 30. Do they have to set up a new tax increment on this? Mr. Casserly stated they do not. This is identifying potential project costs. Other expenses will be brought to you. They need to modify the budgets, not the tax increment districts. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Bajwa, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 1, 2001, MEETING OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary