Loading...
HRA 07/01/2004 - 00027877CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J U LY 1, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the July 1, 2004 Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Pesent: John Meyer Virginia Schnabel Pat Gabel William Holm Members Absent: Larry Commers Others Present: Grant Fernelius, Assistant HRA Director Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary Chris Gilmore, Petitioner APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 3, 2004 MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Holm, to approve the minutes of the June 3rd meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA: ➢ Resolution approving purchase of 5931-3rd Street NE. APPROVED RESOLUTION HRA 2004-1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH AILEEN M. PAWLUK FOR THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5931 3RD STREET, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 2 of 14 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley (the "Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 Aileen M. Pawluk, a single person (the "Owner") is the fee owner of the real property located at 5931 3rd St. NE (the "Property") and legally described Lot 24, Block 12, Hyde Park, Anoka County, Minnesota. 1.02 At their June 3, 2004 meeting, the Authority approved an offer to voluntarily acquire the property from the owner in the amount of $92,000, plus provide additional financial assistance as required under the federal Uniform Relocation Act. Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The Authority hereby finds that acquisition of the property and execution of a purchase agreement (the "Agreement") with the owner furthers the goals and objectives of the Authority's Redevelopment Plan. Section 3. Authorization for Execution and Delivery. The Chair and the Executive Director of the Authority are hereby authorized to execute and deliver the agreement to the owner. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2004. LAWRENCE R. COMMERS, CHAIR ➢ Consider 2005 Membership in Minnesota Solutions APPROVED ➢ Consider claims and expenses APPROVED MOTION by Mr. Holm, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the consent agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ACTION: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 3 of 14 ➢ Public hearing regarding sale of Ashton Avenue property. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Holm, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:34 PM. Grant Fernelius explained that under state law (M.S. 469.029, Subd. 2) the HRA is required to hold a public hearing before it can sell, lease or otherwise convey real property to another party. Mr. Fernelius stated tonight's public hearing concerns the sale of a vacant lot on the corner of Ashton Avenue and Ely Street. The lot was originally owned by the city as a tax forfeit parcel and the city then deeded the property to the HRA so it could be included in the housing replacement program. The HRA advertised the sale of this lot in May and June of this year and we received one bid from Gilmore Construction of St. Francis for $60,000. Gilmore Construction plans to build a single-family home on this site. He then reviewed the housing plans stating it is a modified two-story home with 1,188 square feet. The proposed sale price for the property would be $225,000 upon completion. Mr. Fernelius stated this plan does comply with the design guidelines established for our housing program, but there is one concern. City ordinance limits the distance the garage can extend beyond the front of the home to five feet. The plan for this home has the garage extending 12 feet beyond the front of the house. One of the things we have suggested is that he construct a pergola in the front entrance area that would count as the front of the house and the garage wouldn't have to be changed. The pergola is a nice architectural feature that would enhance the front of the home and comply with code requirements. The builder is concerned about the additional expense involved in adding the pergola, so staff is recommending the sale price be reduced to the original price of $57,500. The builder's bid was $60,000 and we're suggesting dropping that price to the original sale price of $57,500. Mr. Fernelius stated this design issue still needs to be finalized with the builder, but staff is recommending approval of the plan presented with that modification. Ms. Gabel asked if the cost of the pergola could just be added to the price of the house. Mr. Fernelius responded the cost of the house is approaching the high-end ceiling for this particular house. Also, this is something the builder did not anticipate. We see the cost of the pergola as one the builder would not ordinarily have to incur. Also, we have done this on other HRA properties. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 4 of 14 Mr. Meyer questioned the setback of this house and wanted to be sure that the garage extending in front of the house would not "jut out" in comparison to surrounding properties. Mr. Hickok stated the garage would be 25 feet from the front property line, which meets setback requirements. The houses to the south face the east/west street, Ely Street. Mr. Fernelius responded that this is a corner lot and the lot immediately north is vacant. Both of these properties will have to comply with the same setback requirement. He also pointed out that the same contractor Gilmore Construction would build on the vacant lot to the north. Mr. Meyer wanted to be sure when the house is built on the lot to the north, that the setback is the same on both properties. He added that putting in an artificial device, such as a pergola, to appease the letter of the law, bothers him. Especially when the pergola has no real use or architectural advantage. Mr. Hickok commented that the pergola is a front porch and the City encourages homebuilders to create a front living space, which makes the home interact more with the street. In fact, front yard setbacks have recently been modified from 35 feet to 10 feet to encourage residents to do front yard modifications to their home. Also, the pergola is a suggestion, and the builder could choose to build a porch instead. Mr. Meyer asked if there would be a concrete floor or wood deck constructed as a part of the pergola. Mr. Hickok responded it would have one or the other. Chris Gilmore, Gilmore Construction, was present and commented that if a pergola is built; the windows above the front door will have to be eliminated to allow for the roof lines to work out. He did state that he is willing to work with City staff to address any concerns. Mr. Hickok stated the staff believes there is a design solution that would allow the builder to keep the windows above the front door. There will be further design discussion required with the builder. He encouraged the HRA members to recognize that the staff will be working with the builder to reach a solution and if they stray far from the illustrations presented, they will come back before the HRA. Mr. Meyer stated he just wants to be sure that the solutions the staff has in mind can be done within the cost parameters. Ms. Schnabel stated the best way for the builder to proceed would be to work with the staff, or another option would be to request a variance from the Appeals Commission. Mr. Holm asked if there have been any concerns raised about this matter. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Mr. Fernelius stated there have been no comments. Page 5 of 14 MOTION by Mr. Holm, seconded by Mr. Meyer to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:59 PM. ➢ Resolution to Construction redevelopment. approve the sale of Ashton Avenue property to Gilmore and authorize execution of contract for private Mr. Fernelius stated this resolution would approve the sale of this land to Gilmore Construction and approve the development agreement between the two parties. The development agreement is a legal contract between the HRA and the builder and governs the sale and development of the property. It ensures the home is built according the plan approved by the HRA within a reasonable timeframe. It also establishes the date for closing, when construction will start, and when the project will be completed. It also defines the events of default and remedies in case there is non- performance. Under the terms of the agreement, the HRA would sell the lot for cash; in this case the sales price will be adjusted to $57,500. The closing would take place by August 1. The builder would need to break ground by August 15. (That date may change if through the course of design discussions, it becomes necessary to come back before the HRA.) And the completion date is December 15. There is one title issue yet to be resolved concerning the property we did the land swap with so we can't close until that is resolved, but it is expected to be addressed in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Holm stated the document currently identifies a price of $60,000 but we're considering this at the revised price of $57,500. Mr. Fernelius stated that is correct. Mr. Meyer questioned what building materials and other specifications there are for this home. Mr. Fernelius responded that Mr. Gilmore did provide a detailed list, but not in time to be included in the members' packets. This list will be included as a part of the agreement. MOTION by Mr. Holm, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the sale and authorize the staff to execute a contract for private redevelopment with Gilmore Construction. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION HRA 2004-2 CARRIED ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 RESOLUTION HRA 2004-2 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA AND GILMORE CONSTRUCTION, INC. Page 6 of 14 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows: Secton 1. Recitals 1.01 It has been proposed that the Authority enter into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Contract") with Gilmore Construction, Inc. (the "Redeveloper"). Section 2. Findings. 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 The Authority hereby finds that it has approved and adopted a development program known as the Modified Redevelopment Plan for its Redevelopment Project No. 1(the "Redevelopment Program") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 et seq. The Authority hereby finds that it has approved and adopted a Housing Replacement District Plan (the "Plan") and created Housing Replacement District No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with Laws of Minnesota 1995, Chapter 264, Article 5, Sections 44 through 47, inclusive, as amended and supplemented from time to time. The Authority hereby finds that it has performed all actions required by the applicable Minnesota Statutes and has approved the sale of property that is subject to the terms of the Contract. The Authority hereby finds that the Contract promotes the objectives as outlined in its Redevelopment Program and the Plan. Section 3. Authorization for Execution and Delivery of the Contract 3.01 The Chairman and the Executive Director of the Authority (the "Officers") are hereby authorized to execute and deliver the Contract with such additions and modifications as the Officers may deem desirable or necessary as evidenced by their execution. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA THIS 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2004. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 7 of 14 LAWRENCE R. COMMERS, CHAIRMAN ➢ Resolution approving Phase IV of the Housing Replacement Program Mr. Fernelius stated this is a resolution to modify our housing replacement program. The housing replacement program is a form of a tax increment-financing program. When the special legislation was adopted in 1995, the City had the ability to add up to 50 parcels over a ten-year span. This is the last year we can add parcels to the district and so far to date we have had three phases adding a total of 21 properties. What we would be doing by passing this resolution this evening is to add the property we just discussed into the program. This must be done before a building permit can be issued, which is why this matter was added to tonight's agenda. This is the same resolution the HRA has approved in the past. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve Resolution 2004-3. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESOLUTION HRA 2004-3 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE HOUSING REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN FOR HOUSING REPLACEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 TO INCLUDE PHASE IV BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Fridley (the "Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 It has been proposed that the Authority amend the Housing Replacement District Plan (the "Plan") for Housing Replacement District No. 1(the "District") to include Phase Iv, pursuant to and in accordance with Laws of Minnesota 1995, Chapter 264, Article 5, Sections 44 through 47, inclusive as amended and supplemented from time to time. 1.02 The Authority has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the approval and adoption of an amended Plan. 1.03 The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City and the Authority at this time to amend the Plan for the District to include Phase IV in order to further achieve the Authority's and City's goal of acquiring blighted, undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels for redevelopment or rehabilitation, and for resale as market rate housing. Section 2. Findings. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 8 of 14 2.01 The Authority hereby finds that the adoption and implementation of the amended Plan is necessary to assure the development and redevelopment of market rate housing within the City. 2.02 The Authority hereby finds that the amended Plan conforms to the comprehensive plan of the City for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. 2.03 The Authority hereby finds that the amended Plan affords maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for development and redevelopment within the District by private enterprise. 2.04 The Authority hereby finds that the approval and adoption of the amended Plan is intended and, in the judgment of this Authority, its effect will be to promote the public purposes and objectives specified in the Plan. Section 3. Approval and Adoption of the Amended Plan 3.01 The amended Housing Replacement District Plan for Housing Replacement District No. 1 to include Phase IV is hereby approved and adopted by the Commissioners of the Authority. Section 4. Filing of Plan. 4.01 Upon approval and adoption of the amended Plan, the Authority shall cause said amended Plan to be filed with the Minnesota Department of Revenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2004. LAWRENCE R. COMMERS, CHAIR INFORMATION ITEMS: ➢ Joint meeting with City Council on June 28 Mr. Fernelius stated recapped the discussion at the joint meeting between the HRA and City Council. He explained no action was taken at this meeting; it was simply an opportunity to hold a discussion on the Gateway West project. As a result of that meeting, we have spent time talking about site plan configurations. There was some concern about how the project will be impacted by the purchase of additional properties on 57tn Mr. Hickok stated the discussion at the joint meeting centered on the purchase of two properties and the configuration of the land at the sound end of the properties north of the Burger King. He stated it was clear there were Council members who are interested in having some sense of whether or not the existing house on the property can be reused and some kind of creative solutions to create a fourth lot. He reviewed several HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 9 of 14 different site plan options being considered. The options start with lot number 5, as it is very clear that there will be four single-family lots north of the additional property. Mr. Hickok reviewed the proposed options as follows: The first option allows for three fairly large lots (5, 6 and 7) along Third Street with a possible easement to allow for a sign along University Avenue and would allow for improved fencing along University. This yields the same number of lots but with a better configuration. All of the lots would be accessed from Third Street. Another configuration allows for a fourth lot. A 60-foot wide lot could be created using some of the land from the corner lot and some of the land from the purchase of the existing house. That still means that access would take place on the south end on 57t" Place. Lot 5 would be 11,410 square feet; lot 6 would be 10,638 square feet; lot 7 would be 8,964 square feet and Lot 8 would be 8700 square feet. The minimum standard in Hyde Park is 7500 square feet so all of the lots exceed the minimum standard. Again, with this configuration, there would be an opportunity for an easement for a sign, the improved fence along University Avenue, and snow storage at the end of 57t" Place. Another possibility is the creation of a cul-de-sac with 4 lots. This option would require taking some of the property from the four northern lots, but would still allow lots 1 through 4 to meet the minimum of 60 feet width. Staff worked on the possibility of including the existing house and considering architectural tricks, which would allow the house to remain on the site. Mr. Meyer asked if on the cul-de-sac plan the lots to the north be reworked. Mr. Hickok stated nothing was done to lots 1 through 4 for the cul-de-sac plan. His earlier illustrations had about 40 feet of play between the lots created and lots 1 through 4, so lots 2, 3 and 4 could actually be made wider. For the cul-de-sac plan, he took advantage of those 40 feet and took the lot line of lot 5 all the way up to lot 4. He added that all 4 lots in the cul-de-sac configuration do meet the minimum standard of 7500 square feet. Ms. Gabel stated she is concerned about snow plowing in the cul-de-sac and the snow storage on the second proposal. Mr. Hickok stated the 4 lot configuration has its disadvantages with somewhat of an odd configuration and requires a dead-end street; it doesn't enhance nor decrease the ability to snow plow but basically leaves it the same. The cul-de-sac configuration is a trade- off as a lesser of two evils by eliminating the dead end street. This is a standard cul-de- sac design with the same right-of-way dimension as in other cul-de-sacs and enough frontages has been provided along each lot to allow for a standard size driveway and still allow for boulevard snow storage. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Meyer stated at the joint meeting many people were interested in saving the existing house. He thought the staff's attention would be directed to that. Mr. Hickok stated in each configuration they've allowed for the house to be saved. The house could stay on lot 7 without change on the first option. The three-lot configuration may also allow an opportunity to leave the house on a long deep lot, but may be oddly positioned. He also stated that builders look at existing homes as liabilities and they would need to consider what they could do architecturally to make that house similar to the new homes. Mr. Meyer, Ms. Schnabel and Ms. Gabel expressed concern about the how the effort to create four lots out of the additional three lots results in minimal lot sizes with a very cramped style of construction. Ms. Schnabel stated she much prefers the cul-de-sac design if we choose to have four lots. She asked if the builder would make the call on whether or not to keep the existing house. Mr. Hickok stated if the members like the cul-de-sac layout, the staff would go back to the drawing table to see how they could make it work to keep the existing house. At any point, the members could decide it isn't advisable financially to keep the existing house. Mr. Meyer questioned which lot is the smallest in the cul-de-sac configuration. Mr. Hickok replied that lot 8 is the smallest and it is in excess of 8,000 square feet. Ms. Gabel stated she is concerned about the cost to make the existing house compatible and felt it may be better to simply remove it. She also stated she would rather go back to the original three lots rather than squeezing in four. Ms. Schnabel stated if the one house is left, it would be so totally different from the rest of the houses because it won't be of the same era. The entire exterior would have to be replaced and that would be cost prohibitive to any developer. In the long run, she stated she would me more in favor of going with the three lots across and leaving the one way down out of the way, or sacrificing that house and starting over with all of them. Mr. Hickok stated the cul-de-sac option has very typical Fridley size lots, not Hyde Park size lots. The three-lot configuration takes advantage of the right of way to the south and assumes that right of way can be added to lot 7. Lot 6 encompasses the house and it is centered in the lot. The garage could have a new exterior and could actually be turned. This would be a more simplistic solution. He is optimistic that with the right architect the house could be acceptable and very nice. Part of the criteria could be to require a similar setback for the new houses. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 11 of 14 Ms. Gabel stated if we did the cul-de-sac, we would have income from the sale of the extra lot. She liked the look of the cul-de-sac, but she's not comfortable with all the efforts to save the house. Mr. Meyer stated he hopes that we don't inflict super small lots on Hyde Park to, in a sense, perpetuate the issues we have now. Also, saving the existing house seems like a poor option. Mr. Hickok stated they did get an expert opinion on lifting the house and moving it and they advised that because it is a multi-level structure, it is not a good candidate for moving even on its own site. Mr. Holm questioned the timeline. Mr. Fernelius replied that staff is not requesting any action this evening as they are still in the process of negotiating with property owners. Staff will have an update at the next HRA meeting. He also state staff will share with the Council the discussions at tonight's meeting and the information. If the Council feels strongly that they want to meet again with the HRA, we will consider that. But he believes the Council supports what staff is doing. Ms. Schnabel stated several of the Council members wanted to see staff reconfigure property lines and the development, which staff has done. Our next step should be to see how negotiations proceed with the homeowners and what other options may be available. She suggested the HRA wait until the August meeting for any decision- making. Mr. Meyer stated he hopes that the staff will make every effort to maintain the existing house as is. Mr. Fernelius stated they will do that but a lot will depend on whether we can even buy the property in the first place. If they can, then it's a matter of talking to a builder to determine if it's practical to save the house. The staff will take this matter a step at a time and share their findings with the Council. ➢ Update on Target Office Building Mr. Fernelius reported that staff has had several conversations with a real estate broker that represents a potential buyer who, for now, wishes to remain anonymous. This buyer is a financial services company that is looking to relocate from Golden Valley to Fridley. They would bring about 100 employees to the former Target building. One of the concerns they have is the parking lot lease. The HRA owns the parking lot and leases it to Target under a lease arrangement through 2014. As a part of that agreement, there is a provision, which allows the City to build a parking ramp on a portion of the site. This provision is problematic for the new buyer as they have long- HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 12 of 14 term plans and do not like the uncertainty of this provision. This uncertainty is a deal- breaker and they are asking if the HRA and the City would be willing to extinguish that option in the agreement. Staff has looked at this and has talked about the fact that there aren't any plans to build a parking ramp on that site. Since the use will not be as intensive on that site, staff doesn't see a need for structured parking on that site. He added that there are times when the municipal ramp is full and the Target lot is used for overflow parking, so it has been suggested that as a trade off for giving up the ramp provision, that we retain the right to utilize a portion of the Target lot. The buyer's reaction to this suggestion was favorable and they're open to discussing it. At this meeting, Mr. Fernelius stated he is just sharing information without any action required. Mr. Meyer questioned the buyer's objection to the parking ramp option. Mr. Fernelius stated at some point in the future, the buyer would want to purchase the parking lot to incorporate into their facility. He added that he believes this to be a compatible use of the property. He also stated he doesn't believe the HRA is in a position to build a parking ramp in the next ten years. He believed that we would be better off in the long run to give up that option and have someone occupying the building. Mr. Holm stated he believes the HRA is obligated under our present contract with Target that we will sell this parcel to them at a specific price in 2014. He then asked if the HRA would be opposed to selling the parking lot early, if the buyer were interested. Mr. Fernelius stated there is no provision for an early buy-out of the lot, so essentially we'd be doing a new agreement. If the property were sold, the lease payments would go away; we would lose $15,000 a year for 10 years, which are $150,000 and the land sale income of $300,000. So there probably isn't an economic incentive for the HRA to sell the property early. But the buyers are not interested in purchasing the parking lot property at this time. They would just as soon not have to worry about the possibility that at some point in the next ten years, the City could decide to build a parking ramp on the lot. Mr. Holm stated he couldn't imagine the HRA or City wanting to construct a ramp on that site, so it shouldn't be a major concern, if that can provide the buyer with some comfort. ➢ Follow-up on Medtronic Discussion Mr. Fernelius stated they are working on updating the cash flow analysis, which will factor in some of the effects of the Medtronic valuation. He added the HRA should plan for a more in depth discussion at the August meeting. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JCTLY 1, 2004 Page 13 of 14 ➢ Monthly Housing Report Mr. Fernelius reviewed the new report format; the Application Summary showing new applications sent out this month and year-to-date; Summary of Loan Originations; Summary of Loan Servicing Report; Delinquencies; and the Summary of Remodeling Advisor and Operation Insulation services. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:05 PM. Respectfully Submitted By, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING — JULY 1, 2004 Page 14 of 14