Loading...
HRA 06/03/2004 - 6233cor CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING Thursday, June 3, 2004, 7:30 P.M. AGENDA LOCATION: Council Chambers (upper level) CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 6, 2004 CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Claims & Expenses ........................................................... ..............................1 ACTION: Conduct Annual Meeting and Elect HRA Officers ................................. ..............................2 INFORMATION ITEMS: Ashton Avenue Bid Summary ......................................................... ............................... 3 GatewayWest Update .................................................................... ..............................4 Update on Settlement of Tax Valuation for Medtronic Headquarters ......... ..............................5 MonthlyHousing Report .................................................................. ..............................6 ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MAY 6, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the May 6, 2004 Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Pesent: John Meyer Virginia Schnabel Lary Commers Pat Gabel William Holm. Others Present: Grant Fernelius, Assistant HRA Director Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Eisenmenger, HRA Accountant Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 1, 2004 MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Holm, to approve the April 1St minutes. Ms. Gabel requested a correction on Page 5 under "City Council and Commission Conference Session ", the third paragraph, add the word "guidelines" so the statement refers to "Met Council guidelines." UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION TO THE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA — No items. ACTION: Claims and Expenses MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the claims and expenses as presented. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — MAY 6, 2004 Page 2 of 7 I UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CLAIMS AND EXPENSES CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Consider Gateway West Options Grant Femelius stated the purpose of tonight's discussion is to provide the members with an update of the activities that staff have been working on since the last meeting and to review two redevelopment scenarios. Once that's been done, he would like consensus from the HRA members on which option is more desirable and then authorize staff to proceed. Mr. Fernelius explained that since the last meeting, a fourth attempt was made to negotiate with the two property owners at 5931 Third Street, a single family home, and 5955 Third Street, a four unit apartment building. Neither of these owners responded to staffs offer to negotiate. Consequently, staff has reached a point where a decision needs to be made on whether to pursue non - voluntary acquisitions. Mr. Fernelius explained that the Gateway West project consists of two non- contiguous parcels in the Hyde Park neighborhood. The first is the old Frank's Used Car property (5700 block of Third Street on the East side) and then one block north the old Warner's Furniture site (5900 block of Third Street). The HRA now controls enough land to accommodate the development of eleven single - family lots. Last year, the HRA and City Council agreed to pursue a single - family development as opposed to town homes. So this is considerably smaller than previous proposals. The additional land we are looking at in the 5900 block would add two additional lots for a total of 13 single family lots. Essentially, the decision this evening is to consider whether or not to acquire those additional sites. Mr. Fernelius stated the redevelopment options are to continue to pursue the additional sites at 5931 and 5955 Third Street through condemnation. The second option is to move ahead with redevelopment of the area the HRA currently controls. • Option 1 would provide for up to 13 single - family lots. Looking at it from a redevelopment perspective, we would be acquiring a total of 8 housing units, building 13 units with a net gain of 5 housing units. As far as costs, Option 1 would have a price tag of $1,952.045 with project revenues of $1,159,277 for net redevelopment costs of $792,768. • Option 2 would provide for up to 11 units, with a net gain of 8 units. Project costs would be $1,110,890 (most of which is already paid for), project revenues of $1,003,022 with a net cost of $218,957. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — MAY 6, 2004 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Femelius stated there is room to the south for an optional sixth lot, but we are suggesting that be left as open space for the development. Once we go about clearing this site, there will be no vegetation, no landscaping to create any kind of a buffer. Looking at the other part of the development on the Warner's site, there will be five single - family lots. Mr. Fernelius further explained that both of the scenarios would involve vacating the short, stub streets — 59th and 58th Avenue. Both of those have utilities, which creates a challenge when laying out the new lots. We think we can accommodate the lot configuration we have presented this evening without having to do any utility relocation. Mr. Fernelius stated this is a project we have been working on since the mid 1990's. We have discussed a number of different proposals for this project. The proposal for single - family homes is consistent with the comments we've heard from the neighborhood over the last several years. From a redevelopment perspective, a single - family development is probably the most expensive as it does not generate as much revenue as a higher density development. One of the realities is that you have fewer units to spread the costs, so a lower density results in higher costs. In conclusion, Mr. Fernelius stated the central issue is what will the additional investment of acquiring the single family home and four unit building to the north achieve. From the staff perspective, given the resource constraints we have, it is difficult to recommend a project that has such a high price tag. As a result, we are working in the direction of Option #2 which is a substantially less per unit redevelopment cost. Mr. Holm asked the size of the sixth lot on the Frank's Used Car site and could it be developed at a later time. Mr. Femelius replied that lot is 60 feet wide by 140 feet deep with the 140 feet along University Avenue. It does meet the zoning standards in Hyde Park and could be developed at another time. He questioned how marketable or attractive that site would be which is a part of the reason for keeping this undeveloped. Mr. Holm questioned how the vacation of 59th Avenue would affect the property, which has a driveway at the back of the lot for access. Mr. Fernelius stated they would be vacating the entire section of 59th and as part of the project they would offer to provide a blacktop driveway access to Third Street for that lot. What we would accomplish by vacating 59th and the alley behind those properties is closing that off and redeveloping that entire area. Those stub streets are also a problem for public works that have to plow and maintain them. He added that staff has not talked to that homeowner whose drive would be replaced, but will do so. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — MAY 6, 2004 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Holm commented that 5931 Third Street lot is only 40 feet wide. He recommended that the property in this proposal be laid out so that there will be a 20 foot strip available to make that 40 foot wide lot buildable in the future. Mr. Fernelius stated that is something we can look it, but it may be difficult to do. It may require that the apartment building site be purchased as well. The home itself at 5931 Third Street has suffered from deferred maintenance and its condition is marginal. All members were in agreement that there should be an effort to ensure that the lot at 5931 Third Street would be a buildable lot. Ms. Schnabel asked if there is anything going on in the state legislature at this time that would affect the board's ability to proceed with this development. Mr. Femelius stated included in tonight's packet is a legislative update. There are some issues related to tax increment, but Mr. Fernelius said that legislation deals with much larger projects. Mr. Commers asked if the HRA is under any time constraints for this project. Mr. Femelius responded there is no consequence from a funding prospective. We've already received the block grant funds and no tax increment has been created. The motive in recommending action this evening is to start moving ahead, but if the members want to wait a little longer we can do that. He added that he spoke with a relative of the property owner at the corner of 57th and Third Street and he indicated that owner may be interested in selling to the HRA as a part of an arrangement where she could buy one of the new properties or do some type of land swap. He added that he had not spoken to the Tallies who own the home in the middle next to the home on the comer of 57th and Third Street. Mr. Commers asked if those two lots were added, how much property would be added. Mr. Fernelius did not have the exact lot measurements but believed there may be enough land area to add two or three lots. He stated he would happy to evaluate this and report back to the HRA. Mr. Commers stated if the HRA is not under any time constraint, it might be worth it to try and obtain more information and possibly end up with a better development. Mr. Fernelius commented that from a planning standpoint we can fix some problems we've had since University Avenue was expanded and 57th was cut off. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — MAY 6, 2004 Page 5 of 7 MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to continue this matter to the next meeting. Ms. Gabel commented that she'd like to see some kind of reconfiguration to deal with the 40 -foot wide lot to the north. Mr. Holm asked if the HRA members have a position on the 40 -foot lot. Ms. Gabel stated she is not willing to go into condemnation. Mr. Holm asked if the members are interested in providing an option where we could acquire that lot at a later date. The members all responded yes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION TO TABLE THIS MATTER TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Consider Bids for Ashton / Ely Street Lot Mr. Fernelius stated the staff did not receive any bids. They did receive some calls and two individuals are fairly serious bidders, but they could not get their proposals put together in time. He suggested the bid deadline be extended to June 1St MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to extend the bid deadline to June 1St Mr. Meyer asked if there were any comments about the minimum acceptable bid for this proposal. Mr. Fernelius stated there were no comments and he added that this price is substantially less than the lot to the north. Mr. Holm encouraged the staff to readvertise this bid with the new deadline. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE BID DEADLINE TO JUNE 1sT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council Commission Review Session — May 17, 2004 — 7:00 p.m. Ms. Gabel expressed her concern that inviting so many commissions and boards may make it difficult to get anything done. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — MAY 6, 2004 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Hickok stated the City Manager's focus at these meetings is to hear from everybody and he tries to keep the agenda tailored to address specific questions. At last meeting, they did have a mix of the Appeals Commission, Plan Commission and the City Council. The agenda for the May 17th meeting will contain only three items; redevelopment priorities, University Avenue fence, and a discussion about capital improvements in our parks. He added that there are usually three meetings, but this year there are only two scheduled. Ms. Gabel stated she strongly disagrees. Mr. Commers commented that it seems like the logic is a bit stretched. He added there are items being discussed which the HRA has no ability to do anything. Legislative Update — Week of April 19, 2004 Chairperson Commers asked if there is anything still moving through the legislature that would directly affect the HRA. Mr. Fernelius stated the tax increment bill is under Item # 16. He explained that this is the bill Senator Betzold is carrying forward on behalf of Minnesota Solutions. The City staff had an opportunity to meet with him and encouraged his support of this bill. This is a bill that could potentially have some positive impact if the City chooses to do other redevelopment projects in the future. It's what is known as an urban renewal area, which relates to tax increment financing. An urban renewal area is a larger tax increment district, renewal area that would include a number of different tax increment districts, which would allow the city to pool resources from the individual districts. Right now, the City cannot do that. Also it eliminates the local tax rate, which is used as part of the calculation for tax increment, which creates more tax increment. Chairperson Commers suggested the third bullet point be reduced to $25,000 rather than $50,000. Ms. Schnabel asked what a $50.00 housing penalty is that is mentioned in item IV. Mr. Femelius stated this relates to the housing assistance programs, like Section 8. Individuals who are on that program who also receive public assistance and do not work, there is a penalty to their housing assistance in the amount of $50.00. Fridley operates a Section 8 program through the Met Council. This does not affect our HRA because we do not operate the Section 8 program. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — MAY 6, 2004 Page 7 of 7 Monthly Housing Report Mr. Femelius stated there is no change in our loan originations. This is an issue he has raised with CEE and he is meeting with them next week. He is disappointed in the level of loan activity and believes we should be doing more marketing. Ms. Schnabel stated she was not at the last meeting and there was an item concerning the Medtronic appraisal invoice. The minutes stated that Paul Baaken's company would be performing the appraisal. Ms. Schnabel asked if this Baaken is related to the founder of Medtronic, Earl Baaken, to ensure there is no conflict of interest. Mr. Femelius stated he would look into this and get back to the HRA. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION TO ADJOURN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary low F, DATE: May 28, 2004 Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Burns, HRA Executive Director FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Assistant HRA Director SUBJECT: Conduct Annual Meeting and Election of Officers Article V, Section 3 of the Authority's by -laws requires the Board of Commissioners to hold an annual meeting on the first Thursday of June. The purpose of the meeting is to elect a Chair and Vice Chair to one -year terms. Below is a list of the commissioners and the length of their current appointments. Commissioner End of Term Virginia Schnabel June 2005 John Meyer June 2006 Bill Holm June 2007 Pat Gabel June 2008 Larry Commers June 2009 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Authority conduct its annual meeting and elect a Chair and Vice Chair as required by the Authority's by -laws. DATE: May 28, 2004 Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Burns, HRA Executive Director FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Assistant HRA Director SUBJECT: Summary of Bids for Ashton Avenue Lots As you recall, we did not receive any bids for the Ashton Avenue lot by the May 4 t deadline. As a result, at the Authority extended the deadline to June 1St. A list of the bids will be presented on Thursday night. As of the date of this memo we have received one bid. Bidders are required to submit a $500 earnest money deposit, a signed bid form (indicating the price for the lot and estimated value of new home), and elevation drawings of the home. The minimum bid for the lot is $57,500 and the combined value of the home and lot must be at least $225,000. Assuming there is an acceptable bid, staff will recommend that the Authority accept the bid subject to the following conditions: A public hearing to be held at the next regular HRA meeting. 2. Compliance with all terms and conditions of the Housing Replacement Program. 3. Execution of the appropriate contract documents, which will be presented for HRA consideration at the next regular HRA meeting. On Thursday night, staff will have a list of the bids and a recommendation for Authority action. u� l V DATE: May 28, 2004 Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Burns, HRA Executive Director FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Assistant HRA Director SUBJECT: Gateway West Update Over the course of the last three weeks a number of significant developments have taken place on the Gateway West project. To follow is a summary of what has transpired. Property Negotiations Staff is currently in the process of negotiating with the property owners at the following addresses: 5931 3'd Street Single Family Home Family representatives of Aileen Pawluk contacted staff after the last meeting and indicated that the owner was interested in selling. An appraisal has been completed on the property and staff has a meeting scheduled with the family for June 1st to discuss the offer and relocation package. A report will be provided on Thursday night. 271 57th Place Single Family Home Staff has made initial contacts with the owner, Kathleen Harvet, and hopes to have an appraisal in process within the next two weeks. Staff has scheduled a meeting with the owner's son, Dave Harvet, for June 2nd to outline the steps in the process and obtain permission to do an appraisal. Gateway West Update May 28, 2004 Page 2 Property Negotiations (cont.) 28157' Place Single Family Home Staff met with Bill and Ora Talley on May 26th and confirmed that they are interested in selling their home. An appraisal is in process and should be completed in the next few weeks. Our goal is to begin negotiations with the Talley's in June and have a package ready for consideration at the July meeting. 5955 3'd Street Four Unit Apartment No additional progress has been made with the apartment owner. Staff solicited the assistance of Wilson Development to serve as a third party intermediary, but the owner did not return the phone messages that were left. At this point, we believe we have exhausted our efforts to seek a voluntary acquisition of the property. It is quite possible that the owner is seeking condemnation by the Authority for monetary reasons. On Thursday night staff will seek direction from the Authority on whether to pursue Gateway West Update May 28, 2004 Page 3 condemnation of the property. Additional information on the property will be presented at the meeting. Site Analvsis As you recall, at the last HRA meeting there was considerable discussion about the proposed site plans and whether provisions should be made regarding future land acquisitions and additional lots (5931 and 5955 3rd Street). Given the current status of property negotiations, it appears that this issue may resolve itself. If the Authority successfully acquires 5931 3rd Street, there will be enough land for 6 lots in the 5900 block. Acquiring the 4 -unit apartment building would create enough land for a 7tt' lot. In the 5700 block, the homes at 271 and 281 57t' Place would add enough land for 2 more lots or a total of 7 lots. A spreadsheet is attached showing the estimated costs to acquire the four sites under consideration. The bottom line, however, is that no more than 14 lots could be developed under the largest acquisition scenario. From a planning perspective, acquiring the homes along 57th Place would correct a poor site plan design and re- orient the new lots to face 3rd Street. Gateway West Update May 28, 2004 Page 4 Next Steps Staff will update the Authority on the status of negotiations next week. We do not anticipate that the Authority will need to take any action on Thursday night, with the exception of providing direction on whether to pursue condemnation of the vacant four plex. Pre - Development Site survey $ Gateway West Title costs $ 3,500 Legal costs (e.g. Development Agreement) $ 5,000 Utility work / relocation Expenditures 30,000 Street demolition/patch $ 20,000 Relocation consultant $ 15,000 Other Costs $ 15,000 $ 96,000 Estimated Expenses Actual Expended 5931 & 5955 271 & 281 Site Assembly To Date 3rd St. 57th PI. < Land acquisition $ 782,000 $ 513,605 $ 438,885 $ 5 Relocation $ 111,477 $ 60,000 $ 50,000 $ 7 Closing costs $ 9,733 $ 6,716 $ 4,389 $ T Legal costs $ 3,580 $ 10,272 $ 8,778 $ Environmental costs $ 4,500 $ 7,500 $ 3,000 $ 0 Demolition costs $ 59,000 $ 21,500 $ 15,000 $' 0 Other Costs $ 3,250 $ 2,568 $ 2,194 $ 973,540 $ 622,161 $ 522,246 Pre - Development Site survey $ 7,500 Title costs $ 3,500 Legal costs (e.g. Development Agreement) $ 5,000 Utility work / relocation $ 30,000 Street demolition/patch $ 20,000 Relocation consultant $ 15,000 Other Costs $ 15,000 $ 96,000 Site Development Costs Land Write Down $ _ Other Development Assistance $ _ Decorative Fence $ 60,000 $ 60,000 1,651,786 MEMORANDUM FINANCE DEPARTMENT CITY OF FRIDLEY RICHARD D. PRIBYL FINANCEDIRECTOR TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HRA GRANT FORNELEIUS, ASSISTANT HRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM. RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR MARYSMITH, CITYASSESSOR SUBJECT: Settlement of the Medtronic Valuation Issue. Date: May 27, 2004 On Tuesday April 27, 2004 we met at the offices of Parsinen, Kaplan, Rosberg & Gotlieb to mediate the issue of market value with Medtronic. We were working with Kathleen Doar who, in her past life was a Minnesota Tax Court Judge. We worked on the issue of value until 5:30 pm that day and the attached data is what the agreement was based on. One of the main issues that came out of the discussions was in regard to what the taxable square footage should be. Over the course of probably 2 previous meetings, it was argued that beyond the first year, the court looks at the net rentable area (NRA) and not gross building area (GBA). Through this entire process I was surprised to find out that in the tax court one sees commercial and industrial buildings from a resale perspective. One of the products that Paul Bakken provided to us was a complete set of comparable resale data. We found that in just about all of the cases, NRA was used due to the economic ability of the building to generate future revenues. This income stream was then based on the rentable square footage a building contained. When viewing the Medtronic complex, since this is probably the most ornate building structure in the metro, we were always forced to compare to building qualities and facades that were of lesser visual impact. We learned that over the past year or two the commercial and industrial buildings have been at an economic low. We learned that there have been a number of commercial and industrial buildings that have been on the market for some time, which tends to force values down across the metro. We also found that when using comparables, real estate on the north metro does not tend to carry the same price on real estate as the south metro. The opposing argument centered on the ability for Medtronic to resell its building in the market that was in place during each of the valuation years. It seemed that the Tax Court looks at cost in the first year, but then after that, the market forces tend to take over and valuation is held hostage to what evolves from the resale characteristics of comparable buildings. We argued that this building and complex was probably one of the nicest upper class buildings in the metro. We then heard that this building was on the north side of the metro and that if Medtronic were forced to sell, no other corporate purchaser would probably not be able to use the building as is and it would need to be broken down in smaller rentable areas and thus the basis of net rentable area. Those building areas that tend to be common do not fall into a net rental area due to the common nature of the space. We saw that over the past two years, a number of large commercial buildings sat vacant and thus the market value was reduced due to obsolesce that was assigned to it whether perceived or real. In this process we learned how the market forces tend to impact these types of properties more so than other types of real estate. It appeared that in the end, if we were to enter tax court with this case, the net rentable issue would very likely be upheld. The other major factor in negotiating valuation was the price associated with the value per square foot. The bulk of our time spent in this mediation was spent arguing this issue. They were always well below $100.00 /sq. ft. and we were above that mark. In at least two of the meetings we ended the negotiations due to the fact they had not come to the table with the ability to negotiate this value above $100.00 /sq. ft. In the end we felt that if we could come out of the process in the area of $110.00 /sq. ft. on the average, we would be in the area of what should have been value from the onset. .,, 5 C PAS S �� I \ 4 � � � � � � � � � � � �A � � $ 3 � @ \- ► } » $ / l � 4 . � � � $ � a 0 a � ¢ \ § § k� k �& A ~ co R C . � § k § ] � ¥ n � ©� R w § 9 § k� � Ik , § c® n �c k �co @§ ) ■ q § n k 2 m / 2 # 2 m C § � § 7 § f 14 No A n ■ § n lu ° o 2 , _ § § § ■ a ■ ■ $ $ k a U. 7 7 . § @ § ca o © � k § ca w 4 2 \ k ® § 2 2 ® B § to c C A ®k C 2 § 10 2 2 ! 2 a 0 ■ « ■ z ■ n § � � � � � � � �A � � $ 3 � @ \- ► } » $ / l � 4 . � � � Fridley HRA Housing Program Summary Cover Page June 3, 2004 HRA Meeting Report Description Loan Application Summary * Loan application activity (e.g. mailed out, in process, closed loans) for May 2004 and year -to -date. Loan Origination Report Loan Servicing Report Remodeling Advisor & Operation Insulation * New report format. Loan originations for May 2004 and year -to -date. Loan servicing by Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) for the month of April 2004. Note, that the loan servicing reports are usually available 10 days after month end. Shows the number of field appointments scheduled and completed the Operation Insulation and Remodeling Advisor Services administered by Center for Energy and Environment. 0z0w>C C K>KmC- 3 moomc Co-oomm o I m m 0— E CD _ � c cr 3 O N N m °O °O °o 0 i CD S O �D CL A. CL 0 0 0 0 N O O O O i 0-0 010 3 o CD 3 C m N w A —• CL O O O O to O O O O O O rF CL ^ W .p O Q. to Q O /'1 V+ m N a M 3 O i CD O. rt i C N s O CD 00 .p -I O) O. m 0 0 0 0 N C) O O O O °O °O °o 0 i CD S O �D CL A. CL 0 0 0 0 N O O O O i 0-0 010 3 o CD 3 C m N w A —• CL O O O O to O O O O O O rF CL ^ W .p O Q. to Q O /'1 V+ m N ' M M V D O � 0-0 h rt 0 3 3 o c CD ; v rt D CD rt iii co i -4 O CD CD CL p� pOj 1 0000 N 00 O O O O i � i C C CD i su ril- v� N C37 OJ O Oo O O O. O O O O O M 6 mo0ma_`_`W -0 O— `G " a N m a CD — m 3v42 7 3 a'crCD r' N CD m 42 °O °O °o 0 i CD S O �D CL A. CL 0 0 0 0 N O O O O i 0-0 010 3 o CD 3 C m N w A —• CL O O O O to O O O O O O rF CL ^ W .p O Q. to Q O /'1 V+ m N M O e � h D O 0 c 0 O O °O °O °o 0 i CD S O �D CL A. CL 0 0 0 0 N O O O O i 0-0 010 3 o CD 3 C m N w A —• CL O O O O to O O O O O O rF CL ^ W .p O Q. to Q O /'1 V+ m N Monthly Servicing Resort Principal Paid Interest Paid Total Payments Rec'd Ending Principal Balance Loans in Portfolio Monthly Servicing Fees NET FUNDS RECEIVED Delinquency Report Time Frame 1 to 30 days Late 31 to 60 Days Late Over 60 Days Late Fridley HRA Loan Servicing Report Apr -04 Pool Pool Pool Deferred Installment Installment Loans Loans Loans - 2,201.19 3,360.00 - 677.41 1,905.89 - 2,878.60 5,265.89 31,500.66 206,343.52 464,718.02 Total Delinquent Loans 1.00 $ 3.00 $ 4.00 $ Delinquent Payments 278.03 $ 4,697.70 $ 4,975.73 $ Pool 3 Deferred Loans 13,355.92 Delinquent Principal 6,112.52 21,448.21 27,560.73 Total 5,561.19 2,583.30 8,144.49 715,918.12 $ 464.00 $ 7,680.49 % of Delinquent Principal 0.09% 0.00% 2.99% 3.08% Fridley HRA Loan Origination Summary May 2004 Loan / Grant Originations This Previous Month Months YTD Loans Issued 5 5 Grants Issued Total - 5 5 Funding Sources This Previous Month Months YTD Fridley HRA $ $ 54,561 $ 54,561 MHFA $ - $ 49,250 $ 49,250 Met Council $ $ _ $ _ CDBG /HOME $ _ $ $ _ CEE $ _ $ _ $ _ Other $ _ $ _ $ _ Total $ - $ 103,811 $ 103,811 Types of Units Improved This Previous Month Months YTD Single Family Duplex Tri-Plex 4 to 9 Units 10 to 20 Units 20+ Units Total Types of Improvements Interior Bathroom remodel Kitchen remodel General plumbing Heating system Electrical system Basement finish Insulation Room addition Misc. interior projects Exterior Siding/Fascia/Soffit Roofing Windows /Doors Garage Driveway /sidewalk Landscaping Misc. exterior projects 5 5 5 5 # of Projects % of Total 0% 1 13% - 0% 1 13% - 0% - 0% - 0% 2 25% - 0% 0% 0% 1 13% 0% 1 13% 1 13% 1 13% r 0 CA O CL cn P9 lot, Zid 0 im -41� CD CD a CD CD y CD � � • CD C o � 0' c ch ~ . r37' C-+ CD o CD cn n � CD � o o o c� O y CD c� CD o 0 CD cr CD CD cD CD CD � CL CD CD CL CD � CD o � � o 0 Im 0 r 0 ■ 0 0 � y � CD o � 0 CD O 0 0 0 �. o � 0 a� 00 00 CD o � CD CD c � 0 0 o cn CD 0 p 0 0 CD c� cs' 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 c� 0 O (D w, 0 cn �74 o' 0 rot.9 0 r 0 CD n O CD O �-h n O 0 A� CL CD cr r-r- O O CD OW 0 O� ■ m N V1 CD n O CD d�q CD O Cl� r37' CD D O CD O cD CD CD c0 n CD cn CD CL ap • y C� CD �7' p cn CD O o y CD N �► w O O O CD O O CD CD CD CD N N -L O CD n CD i cn 0 r 0 CL O n N r-r ■ 0 0 CD F� • n O n O O UR PO N (7 CD CD O r to I P'r rr CD 9 CL CD ulq 9 CD CD Fes•+ • V Fes•+ CD Fes+, • 0 V CD CD L � O O CD O 0 CD F� • n O n O O UR PO N (7 CD CD O r to I P'r rr CD 9 CL CD ulq 9 CD CD Fes•+ • V Fes•+ CD Fes+, • 0 V CD CD L � O O 0 CD CD . CD cD CD CD CD CD O r p, CD � �. CD CD o � CD `C CD CL o CD CD CD o �• CD cD lm� CD C �ocD �- � � CD ~ • CD � CD �=4 �-► O � CD �- CD CD CD F--1 N ■ 0 m r`0 PD " p7a o CD 'C� CA CD C CD c� c� CD o' CD 5 a 2 Cn CD CD 0 c� n O c� L 1NM • CA NON c� RA 0 c� o � CD � CD CD CL �1 CD C CD CD c CD C �=. CD CD o CL CD CD CD c� �1 CD C CD 0 ■ CD ch CD CD n CD P CD CD CD CD cD CD � o � • CL �, CD CD �--► • r.L r.,r CD d O � � CD O CD CD v� � �, CD O 0 o Co 41 c--r CD vs e-r CD o o � CCD CD C • cD �'- c CD CD r� CD 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 c� CD CD O CD O cu CD CD boo p. p 0 0 CD y 0 CL 5 CD 0 CD CD CD cri t4- t•] CD C O c � CD �- CD CL �v CD O R" CD CD O N v 0 41 c--r CD r-r- CD O � n CD � � O � O W ~ CD W O � r � O � r-r- O �- CD O D � CD � � O �1 e--I- v CD • CD CD qq CD � O C CD CD CD �. CD CD 0 � CD O CID CD CD CD' O p CD CD CD- CD CD � y CD CD �C CD � Cl1 CD CD � � N CD CD N 00 �- A Mme+• e-+ 0 O c� CD cP CL MTMMA 1 m m 0 0 V 1 M..r • cn CD CD F� V r•�( 1-h O (D �'M (D �4 cn cr Mme+ • CD F� • (D cn �G (D 0 CD cn C+ CLC+ CD O 8D CD vlCD r-L CD w^ V1 CD CD 0 �1 CD C CD r--r- CD