HRA 01/10/2008 - 6350January 10, 2008
HRA Meeting
Regular Meeting Agenda
7.30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
Call to order
Roll call.
Action Items
1. Approval of expenditures
2. Approval of October 25, 2007, Meeting Minutes
3. Approval of December 6, 2007, Meeting Minutes
4. Approval of Interfund Loan:' General Fund to TIF #19
1
5. Approval of Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of Property needed for
Northstar Commuter Rail
Informational Items
1. Gateway Northeast Acquisition Update
2. Monthly Housing Report
Adjournment
** Please Note: HRA will hold a Special Meeting at 7:00
p.m., on January 10, 2008
1. Executive Session to discuss ongoing litigation with
Main Street Properties, LLC
H:\My Documents\HRA\2007 HRA Agendas \jan 08 Agenda Outline (2).docH:\My Documents\HRA\2007 HRA Agendas \jan 08
Agenda Outline (2).doc
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION
October 25, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at
7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers
Pat Gabel
William Holm
John Meyer
Steve Billings
Others Present: Mike Jeziorski, City Accountant
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant
William Burns, HRA Executive Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Approval of expenditures.
MOTION by Commissioner Holm, seconded by Commissioner Billings, approving the
expenditures.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
2. Approval of Commitment to Fund Portion of Northstar Project.
3. Approval of Resolution to seek reimbursement for Northstar expenditures.
MOTION by Commissioner Billings, seconded by Commissioner Gabel, removing Items 1
and 2 and adding an Informational Item (No. 1 below).
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE -
MOTION CARRIED.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Update on Fridley Northstar Rail Station.
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, stated it is no secret the corridor between
Minneapolis and St. Cloud is one of the fastest growing areas in the State and actually one of the
fastest growing areas in the country. Since about the mid- 1990's when folks started to look at
alternatives to move people through that corridor, Northstar using the existing Burlington
Northern Santa Fe has been viewed as an option. In 1996 the Northstar Corridor Development
Authority was formed. Going back to 2000, where Highway 169 enters Highway 10 the capacity
is 6,600 and, even in 2000, they were over that by almost 2,000 cars. They project by 2025 it
will be about double the capacity that it is meant to handle. Northstar is commuter rail, meaning
that it runs on those existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe lines. It is not like light rail, such as
the Hiawatha line where tracks actually had to be put into place.
Mr. Bolin stated the first phase of this project is going run from Big Lake to downtown
Minneapolis. There are stations that will be constructed in Big Lake, and work has already
started there. Elk River and Anoka have a station. Coon Rapids has one station that will be in
the initial run of construction at Riverdale. Then in Minneapolis there will be a station that will
allow folks to connect onto the Hiawatha line.
Mr. Bolin stated at this point in time the Fridley station is officially deferred in all the planning
documents. It is no longer really a question of whether the Northstar is going to happen. The
$156M of federal funds is going to be released to the State on December 17, and they will see
construction start soon after that on some of those other stations. The station proposed for
Fridley is located at 61St and Main Street. They are also looking at doing a park and ride and
other amenities on the east side of the tracks as well.
Commissioner Holm asked is it correct that Burlington Northern has now deferred and
designated a decision from them until November 13?
Mr. Bolin replied, correct.
Commissioner Holm asked is there any action needed by the County Board in approving any of
this or is it just the Rail Authority?
Mr. Bolin replied, just the Rail Authority.
Commissioner Billings stated, however, in Anoka County the seven commissioners make up the
Rail Authority.
Commissioner Holm asked, in looking at the Memorandum of Understanding, the "Whereas"
referring to the HRA adopting a redeveloping plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, and as
included in the area for Fridley station as Redevelopment Project No. 1, has this already been
done by the HRA?
2
Mr. Bolin replied, correct, that is part of the City's original overall tax increment plan or project
area if you will.
Commissioner Holm asked, so this was done several years ago?
Mr. Bolin replied, yes.
Commissioner Holm asked, finally, we are in effect providing the funding for the acquisition of
property that ACRA would negotiate or take the lead in the event ideally we do not have the
funding in place by the time we need to make that land acquisition?
Mr. Bolin replied ideally we will end up only providing a guarantee of funding.
Mr. Bolin replied, you can tell from the language there is still some discussion about who would
be the best entity to try and acquire that property and there are provisions to work with Anoka
County with the Regional Rail Authority over the next several months if it takes that long to
make that determination.
Commissioner Holm asked why would the Anoka County Rail Authority or whoever is
designated be "unable to acquire the necessary property?" What are the legal or operational
hang -ups in Anoka County Rail Authority acquiring that property?
Mr. Bolin replied that "unable" can have a couple different meanings. "Unwilling" he thinks
might be a better term. Attorney Casserly has done a lot of research on which entity is probably
the best to do the land acquisition, and it looks like the Rail Authority is that body and not the
HRA.
Attorney Casserly stated in an ideal set of circumstances, it would make sense for the Authority
to be involved in the acquisition. We clearly have looked at trying to develop adjacent parcels.
There are a number of plans that have been discussed, and a portion of the property is not needed
for the Rail Authority. It would be that portion of the property we could encourage development
on and, if we had more control over it, we could clearly govern the development of that property.
Those parcels are also part of our special legislation. They are included within special legislation
that is in the tax bill which we hope will be picked up again next session and ultimately passed.
It is that special legislation that allows to recover some of our costs in this development or
potentially all of our costs in this development.
Attorney Casserly stated since we are closer to all of this, the Anoka County Regional Railroad
Authority would prefer to have the HRA take the lead. On the other hand, his reading of the
statute is very clear that they have the ability to acquire it either voluntarily or involuntarily. He
thinks that is abundantly clear in their statute allowing them to function. So nobody is looking to
have an involuntary acquisition. Ideally we would acquire the property on a voluntary basis. If
it is on a voluntary basis, it clearly does not make any difference who does it as a practical
matter. As an authority we clearly have the ability to buy property and develop, that is our
function. They clearly have the ability to buy and acquire the property even through the use of
eminent domain if it is for the purpose of furthering the railroad. That is what we are still sorting
3
out. There is no particularly bad way to go on this. They are trying to figure out which is the
most logical way to proceed and which way would be the easiest to conclude this.
Commissioner Gabel asked if they were going to buy it, and still wanted to have some control
over it, can they buy a portion of it and then we work it out later?
Attorney Casserly replied if it is a voluntary acquisition, it is very clear that really everything is
possible. If it is involuntary then there is a different set of rules that are going to apply. That is
not the way we want to proceed. They have the ability to make this project work. If it means
only acquiring a portion of the property, they have that ability. The problem with acquiring a
portion and, he thinks Chairperson Commers can probably elaborate on this more. Oftentimes
when you try to buy a portion of a substantial parcel, the court will determine as a practical
matter you need to buy the parcel. That may happen in this case in any event. We hate to
speculate on too many of the alternatives or options because they all assume that we are going to
have an absolutely worst -case scenario, and there is no reason to have to assume that. It is really
about money and so the only reason to use a forced acquisition is to try to have a third party in
this judicial branch oversee the acquisition and make sure the price being paid is a fair price.
That is the only reason we would want to be involved in any kind of forced acquisition.
Commissioner Holm asked, will there be any more formal actions completed by the time of our
next meeting on November 1 in terms of finalizing the agreement between the State and Anoka
County Regional Rail? What more information will they have by the next meeting compared to
now?
Mr. Bolin replied they will have the HRA's comments on the MOU. They will be able to sit
down with the staff at the County and get some more feedback from them, and hopefully bring
back to them next Thursday an MOU between the City and the County they feel comfortable
adopting. They will try and get some more specifics on acquisition and some of the different
scenarios under which that might happen.
Attorney Casserly stated they anticipate having an e-mail in the next couple of days verifying
Burlington Northern Santa Fe has extended the date in which to execute some of these
agreements so they should have that prior to our next meeting. They will also specifically ask if
the State has got any issues with the Memorandum of Understanding that the Rail Authority is
entering into with the State. We will want to know about any problems because clearly the Rail
Authority cannot proceed unless the State approves their Memorandum of Understanding as it is
really the Rail Authority that is being designated by the State. If the State does not agree to that,
the Rail Authority cannot proceed. That is a critical piece, and we will ask very specifically if
the State has any reservations, or if they have any issues then we will be aware of that before the
next meeting. We are led to believe this is not going to be a major problem and that this format
has been used by the State with other entities.
Commissioner Meyer stated he now sees they have between $1.3 and $1.6 million, and he
understands the extra difference of the $300,000 is wrapped up in soil conditions. He asked
whether any soil borings have been taken? Why is there a question?
0
Mr. Bolin replied because they have not done soil borings that he is aware of The bids were
private between Burlington Northern and their three contractors of choice. There is always a
possibility that once they get partway beneath those tracks they could hit some poor soils. That
$300,000 is built in there as a contingency.
Commissioner Meyer replied he is absolutely astounded that no soil borings have been taken.
They take soil borings for buildings and structures one - quarter of the cost of that.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the point might be what type of soil
borings have been taken; they are at 90 percent design on the tunnel itself. Soil borings that have
to do with the structural footings and the tunnel itself have been taken. But, as Mr. Bolin said,
the Rail's standard practice is to assume there is going to be some sort of contamination they will
encounter through the course of their project. That being the case, they want to be protected in
case there is some contamination. If he is concerned soil borings have not been taken, understand
the structural part has been done. The contamination piece of it, had their been random borings
to see exactly where contamination is. No, that is the kind of borings that Mr. Bolin is saying that
they have not taken. However, they plan to deal with contamination if they encounter it as they
move ahead on construction.
Commissioner Meyer asked, is there an insurance policy that Burlington Northern is requiring
we take for damage to the tracks or anything like that?
Attorney Casserly replied, no, the insurance issues all have to do mostly with the operation.
Even though we were not involved in the- construction, Burlington Northern Santa Fe is the party
actually doing the tunnel. There could be other issues involved in insurance. He thinks one of
the reasons we were quite comfortable recommending this format is that we are not a party to
any of these other agreements. It is the Rail Authority who will be executing the agreement on
behalf of the State, and the Met Council will be executing other agreements. We do not own the
line, we will not maintain it, and we do not operate it.
Commissioner Meyer asked, for example, if the tunnel is put under the tracks, and we are
paying for it in some way or another, there is no way to come back to us because the tunnel
collapsed?
Attorney Casserly stated we are not responsible for the tunnel. We are not paying for it, we are
not responsible for it, and we do not own it; we are just simply removed from that.
Commissioner Meyer stated bids were taken and he had asked to see those documents way back
before the bids were taken, do we have those documents we could examine? Specifically telling
the bidders what they are bidding upon? In other words the details for the tunnel construction.
Chairperson Commers referred to details provided to them by Kimmerly Horn (sp.) of the
tunnel and their sectional view shows a width of 12 feet.
Mr. Bolin stated as far as the bid packet goes, Burlington Northern is a private corporation doing
business with private contractors and they will not share that information with them. They have
given us a summary of where the two bids came in at with some detailed breakdown but still it is
just a half a page spreadsheet. He cannot get those documents.
Chairperson Commers asked what is this internal memorandum from Paul Danielson to Mark
Bishop dated November 9, 2006? It gives the dimensions of the tunnel and also attaches
drawings of the tunnel.
Mr. Bolin replied those are drawings we were provided and were done by the NCDA.
Kimmerly Horn (sp.) is a contractor for NCDA. They have done a lot of the design work on the
tunnels with Paul Danielson, an engineer who is actually an employee of NCDA through
Kimmerly Horn (sp.).
Chairperson Commers asked are these design items on which the bids were done?
Mr. Bolin replied, yes, those designs have been in place and reviewed at the county, state, and
federal level for almost ten years now.
Mr. Hickok stated even at the HRA level they may recall they'had a work session meeting and
they had a packet of information about 1 '/z- inches thick with a plastic ring binder which showed
pages and pages of detail; and the details Chairperson Commers had are extracts from the
engineer's designs but certainly a 1 '/2 -inch binder is available. They can check it out and review
it.
Mr. Bolin stated the bid packets were put together in conjunction with Paul Danielson, the
engineer for the MCDA. All those specifications in all of those documents are the ones that have
been approved by the Federal Transit Administration. Because of those designs that is how we
have gotten this far in the process. Everything has been reviewed and approved. There have
been no changes done to those. Burlington Northern, like any other private company, can do
what they want with their bids. They do not need to share it. He is sure that folks at the NCDA
maybe saw the entire bid package because he knows Paul Danielson helped them put it together.
Tonight we have been removed from the tunnel. The Anoka County Rail Authority has agreed
to take on the burden if you will of making the commitment in funding the tunnel.
Mr. Hickok stated though we were taken out in the I lal hour of the federal funding package, that
does not mean the design of our tunnel changed because we were taken out of that federal
funding package. The contractor cannot pick and choose what they want out of that packet.
Now the tunnel, the platform, the elevators, and the stairs have been designed to meet FTA
requirements; and that would be what they were bidding on to give a construction value.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the stairs and elevators are in there?
Chairperson Commers stated the stair width is in here.
Chairperson Commers stated it does say, temporary culvert and plugs two in this design. It
says precast box culvert, 18 x 10 x 12 feet wide, 1 -foot granular pad beneath the limits of the
culvert, waterproofing on three sides at 3,500 square feet, and a temporary restraining wall that
2
looks like for construction. He certainly thinks Commissioner Meyer is entitled to look at that
stuff although it looks like to him the materials they were given, if these are what they bid on, do
answer some of these questions.
Commissioner Meyer asked if that has been around for a while, why are they so reluctant to tell
them what the bids are on?
Mr. Hickok stated he is able to look at any and all of the items that go into our station design
platform, elevators, stairways, and box culvert. All that was designed by NCDA folks as part of
the Northstar program and is available to you. He would be glad to have him take a look at that.
That was all designed by Kimmerly Horn (sp.) and their engineers who are the consulting
engineers for this project.
William Burns, HRA Executive Director, stated the details of the tunnel are important to the
HRA, but at this point in terms of the work of this Board, the important decision is, do you want
to accept a guarantee on the acquisition of the land and have the County go ahead and assume the
financial responsibility of the tunnel. If we do not get closer to deciding that, we will have
wasted our time here tonight. It is important to know the details of the tunnel to be sure we are
getting a good product but, if we do not get into the direction of the critical decision, then we are
spinning our wheels.
Commissioner Meyer stated, alright, he personally has a lot of time here to talk about it. He
hopes he is not wasting other peoples' time. He has all the time in the world. It is $1.3 to $1.6
million of public monies.
Dr. Burns stated but we are not being asked to buy that $1.3 to $1.6 million.
Commissioner Meyer stated we are being asked to expedite the creation of a certain entity, and
he thinks it behooves us, and this entity is for the City's good.
Dr. Burns stated we were asked to expedite the tunnel, but the County has come along and has
said we are ready to build the tunnel with our money if you are willing to give the HRA some
sort of a guarantee on the acquisition -on the land. So that really becomes the issue, are we are
going to agree with the County or not?
Commissioner Meyer asked, can we divorce ourselves from the validity of the entity?
Mr. Hickok stated he did not think they are equipped to debate the validity of the installation. In
all due respect if Commissioner Meyer would like to take the time to review the plans in their
entirety and would like to forward his comments to Kimmerly Horn (sp.) for the deficiency in
the design, he is sure they would welcome his input. However, they are not here tonight on an
engineering mission to decide they were adequate in the engineering design of this project.
Dr. Burns stated on the other hand if we disagree with this proposal and we are taking over the
tunnel and insist that is our part of the project, then those details become much more relevant.
7
However, at this point, they are asking do we want to agree with the County in that they take
over the tunnel?
Commissioner Meyer asked Chairperson Commers if that was his understanding of the
situation, that we have no interest in the validity of the installation? It is merely to address the
legalities of things?
Chairperson Commers replied it is his understanding in the way it is being structured, and are
telling them tonight, that rather than the HRA being responsible for the construction of the
tunnel, that the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority is going to take that responsibility over
and build it. What our responsibility is going to be instead of constructing the tunnel and paying
for it is acquiring any land that might be necessary for parking although he is not sure if in the
first stage they are going to have to acquire any land. It may need a temporary construction
easement to build the tunnel which is really not an acquisition of land. However, he does not
disagree with Commissioner Meyer that they should confirm for themselves the tunnel is being
constructed in a manner that it is not going to have some issues with it. He does not know why
Commissioner Meyer could not talk to Kimmerly (sp.) people or to the chief engineer that was
here and try to confirm some of these things and to confum the plan and designs that have been
given to them previously. Somebody out there besides Burlington Northern has to know what is
going on. They cannot expect to keep it a mystery.
Mr. Bolin stated Paul Danielson from NCDA did work with Burlington Northern in putting their
bid packets together. He has seen those, Burlington Northern does not want those, just their bid
packets. All of their designs are designs that we have on hand. He would be more than happy to
call and see if he can get a copy of the actual bid packet from Burlington Northern for
Commissioner Meyer to review.
Chairperson Commers asked Mr. Bolin if he could arrange a conference call with
Commissioner Meyers and Mr. Danielson for a few minutes so he can ask him those questions?
He is our expert in that area and has designed these things for many years and to a certain extent
we want to make sure we are comfortable about this even if we are not buying it. There could be
something that we do not like about it. However, the representations that were made for the
HRA initially in terms of the size, width, and end plugs and the waterproofing they have talked
about because of the O'Bannen (sp.) issue. They want to make sure that they have tested that to
make sure that is going to happen. That it does not need a drain or that the waterproofing they
are suggesting is sufficient. He would think Mr. Bolin could arrange something like that in the
next couple days before their next meeting so Commissioner Meyer could report back to them.
Commissioner Meyer stated he would be glad to swing over to anyone's office. It is no
problem for him to find a little time. He asked attorney Casserly, for example, a year from now
the tunnel is in and there is no station there yet. If water comes in and someone has to pay
$100,000 put in a proper drain. Who would be responsible for that installation?
Attorney Casserly replied if it was not part of the bid project and was not done properly, then it
would either have to be the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority or the Metropolitan Council.
'3
Commissioner Billings stated it would not be the City of Fridley because we are not doing
anything with the tunnel. All we are being asked to do is to guarantee the acquisition of the
parking lot on this side of the tracks. We are not asked to do anything inside of Burlington
Northern's tracks. We are not asked to do anything inside Burlington Northern's right -of -way
other than the possibility of some of our residents using that tunnel in the future to get from one
side of the tracks to the other. It is strictly NCDA, Anoka County, Met Council, and the State of
Minnesota Highway and Transportation Department in conjunction with Burlington Northern
that are doing things inside Burlington Northern's right -of -way. Is that correct?
Chairperson Commers stated that raises one question in his mind. When construction occurs on
that property who is responsible for the inspection? Who checks to make sure it is being
constructed in accordance with the plans, and who finally passes the permit for the construction
on that property? Does the City have responsibility for that?
Mr. Hickok replied, no, all the inspections will now be taken on by the State, whether they have
Kimmerly Horn (sp.) or some other MnDOT inspectors do that, it will not be our responsibility
at the local level. That has already been discussed by the City's inspectors and the State.
Attorney Casserly noted there is a line item in the package for $43,000 for inspections,
engineering and geotechnical inspections.
Chairperson Commers asked Mr. Bolin to follow -up on that and get a little bit more
information and contact Commissioner Meyer so he can get some informed information for the
technical issues.
Commissioner Meyer stated he is reassured that they have no responsibilities but he would
certainly be glad to look over the documents.
Commissioner Billings stated the upsides to this particular proposal are good and downsides are
minimal from the standpoint that we are being asked to either acquire, or on a temporary basis,
guarantee the financing for the acquisition of the parking on the east side of the tracks. If there
should be some surplus this would put the HRA in the driver's seat for being able to do
something with that surplus, particularly if it is an agreeable acquisition with the landowner. If it
does have to go to condemnation, then all of the new laws come into play. He is not sure anyone
is aware of the total implications of those new requirements by the State. He thinks this puts the
HRA in the best possible position that we could be in, in terms of controlling development and
having input on the development of any surplus on the east side. It takes the City out of the
responsibility that is happening inside the Burlington Northern right -of -way.
Mr. Bolin stated they do not have a date for when they come in and ask for more agreements to
commit to that funding. He does not see it happening before the first of the year.
Al Stahlberg , 8065 Riverview Terrace, asked is who is going to pay for the end caps, stairways,
and elevators when it comes time? Also, who is going to pay for the maintenance of those
things, the patrolling and the safety?
E
Attorney Casserly stated right now, in his reading of the documents, the State has designated
the Metropolitan Council to operate this line. They would be responsible.
Mr. Stahlberg asked about the policing?
Commissioner Billings replied it would be the Metropolitan Council Transit Police. There will
be cameras and two -way dialogue capability on the platform.
Ben Venowetz, 1232 Hathaway, stated they are strong proponents of having a station here in
Fridley. In fact they would be willing to put in money as a Fridley resident, and he thinks they
have neighbors that would be willing to do that also. He asked, even if the funding goes through
etc. are they talking four years out when the station will be completed?
Mr. Bolin stated if the funding goes through and the Met Council is able to provide the funds
early next year, if we get some money from the State, theoretically they could be up and running
in 2009 when the other stations open.
Chairperson Commers stated just to understand the four years is the outside by which it must
be built. It is not necessarily the earliest date by which it would be constructed if they were to go
that route.
2. City Comprehensive Plan Update
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated she is in charge overseeing and creating the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. She stated she appreciated everyone taking the time and looking at a
couple of chapters. Staff is very much interested in the HRA's input and everything that staff is
proposing as far as redevelopment in the community in the housing portions of our Plan do
coincide with the policies and the plans they have in mind for Fridley's future as well.
Ms. Jones stated they used a consultant to help them create the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This
time around we did not have the funding to do that it is primarily being done internally with
staff. A lot of it has been extremely cumbersome and difficult to take on such a huge task like
this on top of their normal duties, but she really thinks they are going to have a much superior
product in the end. They have been involving departments and managers of every division of the
City in various committees, and have a committee established for almost every single chapter of
the Plan. The great thing about this is that the very people that are going to need to implement
this plan and make things happen when it is complete are the people that are involved from the
very beginning of looking at the challenges before us, looking at the resources we have, and
figuring out recommendations for how they can improve things.
Ms. Jones stated they have had citizen participation through neighborhood planning meetings
they had this past spring which were well attended. The goals and objective they see in the first
chapter of the plan have come out of those meetings. In addition to that they will incorporate
several questions into the bi- annual citizen survey this fall. In those neighborhood meetings
several things were recommended or discussed, but they wanted a little more feedback from the
entire population of the City.
10
Ms. Jones stated right now they are in the midst of their commission review process where they
have various advisory commissions in the City looking at the various chapter of the Plan that
pertain to their area of expertise. Through the neighborhood meetings and various staff
committees where they have had lots of discussion, it is interesting to see the assets of the
community really come forward and being looked at.
Ms. Jones stated one thing they have realized through this is that we are close to the central City,
and they really see that as an asset to the community economically. We have great road access.
Business owners will often comment to them that is why they want to stay in Fridley or they
want to buy a piece of property in Fridley and move here. We are lucky to have lots of key
facilities in this community. Not all communities can boast they have a hospital and several
clinics. We have more jobs than workers in Fridley. The public fairly sees the Mississippi River
and Rice Creek as wonderful natural amenities, and Medtronic world headquarters facility came
up time and time again in the meetings as something people were proud of.
Ms. Jones stated one of the challenges that came out is the traffic congestion. Only 21 percent
of the people that live in Fridley work in Fridley. We also have a greater aged population than
any other city in Anoka County. Baby boomer generation aging is going to greatly increase and
impact Fridley. We also have aging housing infrastructure and aging businesses. There was a
lot of concern raised in the neighborhood meetings, and they saw that in the redevelopment area
map and in the plan about some of the retail centers really needing some redevelopment. We
have an aged infrastructure. We have done a lot to rebuild our streets and just have one more
year to finish those reconstruction projects. We have aged sewer and water systems. As
everywhere else we have limited financial resources as well.
Ms. Jones stated through all of her conversations with citizens, etc. she has found the City is
really in a pivotal stage of Fridley's history. In history section put together in the
Comprehensive Plan, there are certain times in Fridley's history where Fridley had to make a
decision early what county they were going to become and chose to become part of Anoka
County. She thinks right now there is a strong feeling they need to either embrace the fact we
are a first -string suburb and we can see the towers of Minneapolis or we can fight it and try and
keep it a rural community. The Comprehensive Plan really embraces the fight that we have a lot
of potential of becoming a more urbanized community. There is huge support from the
community to not only bring a rail station here but also to finance it.
Ms. Jones stated they have come up with a plan to connect Medtronic Parkway to 57th Avenue
to East River Road. They also have related to road connection, a redevelopment plan they have
sketched out for there. They are calling it City View. They are focusing heavily to meet
Council's requirements but partly because they see a real opportunity there. They are focusing
on getting more cycle transportation connections in the community and pedestrians connections
to our bus stops and park and ride sites.
Ms. Jones stated they are supporting the safe route to school program to get more kids walking
and biking to school instead of dropped off by their parents. They are looking at how they can
forge a better partnership in regards to improving our roadways. The City has invested a lot in
11
improving through streets, but our county and state roads are looking very tired and in need of
help. They strongly that if we are going to bring quality developers to this community to try and
get things redeveloped, we need to address those roadways.
Ms. Jones showed an aerial view to help visualize what they are talking about in connecting 57th
Avenue. Their concept is to connect Medtronic Parkway to the residential neighborhood, 57`s
Avenue, and then across University further over to the west and on over past the Cub Foods, past
Home Depot, to what was an industrial site owned by JLT. They see a great opportunity to do
this right now because that site that is vacant, it is going to be replatted, and likely to obtain
easements necessary to continue that roadway. This of course involves building a bridge over
the railroad tracks.
Ms. Jones stated this is a rather aggressive concept, but they have many reasons why they feel it
is very important. The main reason that came out early in their staff meetings and land use
committee meetings with the Police and Fire Departments is they really need for public safety
another east -west connection in the community. Obviously 694 is very jammed up during rush
hours. In terms of flooding they cannot get underneath the railroad tracks on Mississippi Street
because it floods. So that leaves them going across Osborne or 85`l' which they have to hope and
pray that there is no train passing at East River Road.
Ms. Jones stated it was kind of surprising to them they heard in the neighborhood meetings there
is rumbling about people wanting to have a walkable downtown in Fridley, such as Arbor Lakes
in Maple Grove or the Silver Lake shopping center area in St. Anthony. Staff asked some more `
questions about that in. the telephone survey and they thought about this, too, in their meetings
because they asked where would a walkable downtown be. However, with this connection from
Medtronic Parkway over East River Road, it seems like a great area and an opportunity for that
because we could create this parkway with bikeways, walkways, new mixed use development
where we could have some retail and housing mix and create that type of environment.
Ms. Jones stated she and Mr. Hickok have had some discussions with some of the retailers in
that area and would create some retail excitement because all of a sudden they see the
opportunity of connecting Fridley's largest employer, Medtronic, with our key and largest
commercial area in the City. Also, it would also connect that area to the Northstar Rail Station
site which would be very close by.
Ms. Jones stated it is also a redevelopment opportunity for some new senior housing which we
have heard loud and clear in our meetings and in the telephone survey that people want and are
going to need in the very near future in Fridley. The projections are about 10 years out when we
are really going to need that housing in a big way in our community. Particularly assisted living
has come out as the key type of housing that people see a need for.
Ms. Jones stated it also offers another recreational connection to the Mississippi River which we
have heard about a lot in our neighborhood communities. She did not know they had so many
bikers in Fridley that are interested in another east -west connection, and they have also been
interested in the tunnel at the Northstar Rail site as another east -west connection for bikers and
pedestrians to get over to the regional trail along the Mississippi River.
12
Ms. Jones stated she thinks the City View plan involves the neighborhood that would be
impacted by bringing through Medtronic Parkway to the west. The architectural student who
worked as an intern for the City last summer put together drawings. It offers a mixed -use
development along the new roadway. One of the panel experts at the Corridor Housing Initiative
meetings talked about the redevelopment area on University Avenue between 61" and 57th, and
there was a real desire to put some senior housing there. However, it was difficult in a small site
without having a larger site in a community of a hub where they could have a lot of those key
services for transportation and the congregate dining etc. for seniors.
Ms. Jones stated they see a real opportunity to have this area as one of those hubs where you
could have different types of senior housing in one continuum of care type area where you can
have separate single - family homes and cottages, apartment, assisted living, and memory care in
separate buildings and all within one area. Of course it addresses that concern about meeting
assisted living care here in Fridley.
Ms. Jones presented a drawing of how the area could look with a tree -lined parkway with the
commercial development on the first floor of those buildings along the new parkway with
outdoor cafe type seating outside and housing up above on the second level. A section of the
street could actually be blocked off for special events that may be a craft fair or farmers market
or something like that and create more interest in the area for people to walk and bike through
the area. The overhead utilities buried and some decorative lighting put in place.
Ms. Jones stated they developed a redevelopment area map as part of the plan based on a lot of
the feedback that they have gotten which includes 11 different redevelopment areas for the
community. A lot of these areas came up of community interest and they are explained in the
economic and redevelopment plan they have before them. That is really what she wants to really
concentrate on. Staff would like to get some feedback and make sure they are in the right
direction on those things.
Ms. Jones stated only a small percentage of workers in Fridley are actually living here. They
would like to ask employees in a survey what their employees are looking for in housing and
amenities. We are obviously supporting the Northstar Rail Station site in that plan and have
figured in there that the HRA or the City would continue to seek what special legislation to help
fund that station site in the redevelopment around it. They want to encourage retail
development. They are not saying in the plan that the City is going to fund retail development,
but try and do everything they can to encourage some of those sites that are on that map.
Ms. Jones stated they think that the City should look into creating this walkable downtown and
put some resources in that direction to create some excitement in our central retail area and
hopefully some of those other areas will develop spurt upon interest around them. They would
like to continue the redevelopment review committee to help keep businesses here. This is a
staff committee that meets every Tuesday morning where they encourage businesses that are
looking to expand or possibly move into a new site to meet with them to try and work with them
early on to help solve some of the difficulties of redevelopment.
13
Ms. Jones stated probably the most unique thing they have in the plan is the idea of putting a
restaurant on the river. They have heard loud and clear in the last Comprehensive Plan that
people want more sit -down restaurants in Fridley. They have heard it very loud and clear again
this time around. One of the ideas they came up with is we have these beautiful park areas in
Fridley, and would it not be wonderful if we could come up with a way to put a restaurant in one
of those park areas in Fridley to kind of create some interest and getting more people to the river
and opening that up.
Ms. Jones stated as far as the housing plans and the action in steps, they are putting in there that
we should consider adoption of a housing maintenance code. Again in the telephone survey
there was public interest in doing that and again funding it as well. Our housing stock is aged
and, although it is in very good condition, they feel that the time to look at that is when things are
still in good condition. Staff feels strongly that the HRA should continue the housing program
that they have in place. It has been very successful and seems to very much still be needed.
Staff feels the City should support any senior townhome or condominium development that
comes our way because again there seems to be strong public desire for that type of housing. It
is also going to be important for the City to support services for seniors to have them stay in their
home. Statistics show that a lot of elderly folks want to stay in their homes absolutely as long as
they can but in order for them to do that, they need in -home medical services, good
transportation services, and yard care services. That would be a challenge in the future with the
change in the dynamics of the age distribution of the population.
Ms. Jones stated they support loans for retrofitting homes to help seniors stay in their homes,
installing ramps, and anything that could create a one -level living situation for them in their
existing homes. Also because they want those homes to turn over to new first time home buyers
and help our school district in getting new families move into the community and also continue
the first -time home buyer program. Staff feels the City should look into promoting private
redevelopment of our aging rental structures. It would be difficult to do using public funds and
would be more of a private venture but, again, she is interested in what they think about that.
The City should recognize there is a need for subsidized housing that has been very difficult to
deal with when those cases have come before the City. However, if you look at the numbers in
the plan, there is definitely a strong need for subsidized housing. They have long waiting lists
for the existing facilities. Staff thinks the City should carefully evaluate the continued
participation in the livable communities program. It is getting to be more and more difficult for
us to meet those requirements.
Ms. Jones stated the staff likes the idea of developing a housing manual for new homeowners
and actually another similar idea is partnering it within the parks and trails chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff would like to be sure that all our rental property is licensed as they
see a potential problem. They have an idea of recognizing the historical significance of some of
the particular architectural styles of ramblers we have in the community, perhaps have some
signs at some homes in certain areas.
Ms. Jones stated they need to look at amending the Hyde Park zoning to allow redevelopment of
our current multi - family properties to new multi - family properties. The current zoning only
allows the property to be redeveloped into single - family homes. They see that as a real problem
14
because how is anyone ever going to be interested in reinvesting if they own a multi - family
property. Knowing at some point when that is building is beyond its useful life, all they can ever
build there are single - family homes. Obviously the economics are not there to have anyone
interested in owning a property like that. Particularly with the Northstar Rail coming through,
people will have a real interest living in that particular neighborhood.
Ms. Jones stated on the Plan before them there will probably be a requirement to put in our Plan
room in the City for another 116 affordable housing units somewhere by the year 2020. Staff
had said this early on in the process, they had confirmed the number, and it is more than feasible
to be able to accommodate those affordable housing units in existing property that is zoned R -2
or R -3 that has single - family homes in it now. She believed 215 properties could be redeveloped
without any change in zoning. They have had property adequately zoned right now to easily
accommodate that in the plan.
Commissioner Gabel asked the 116 more units, is that what they need to meet Met Council's
requirements?
Ms. Jones stated Metropolitan Council knows that there is an affordable housing need in the
metro area. They took a look at the amount of affordable housing they felt each community
needed and divided that up by Cities. They took into account the amount of affordable housing a
city already had, how well they were connected to public transit, and different criteria. There
were several cities in Anoka County that have to provide over 1,000 units. Ours is much less
because we already have a great deal of affordable housing. Over half of our housing right now
is considered affordable. The timing of that is a little bit different because of our Plan being a
2030 plan, those numbers are from 2011 to 2020. Not to necessarily build that housing or
finance that housing but they just want to ensure in the City's plan that we have enough space in
our City and land is properly zoned to accommodate that level of affordable housing in our
community.
Commissioner Gabel commented back in the 70's and 80's, she was on the Planning
Commission and that was one of their goals in the Comprehensive Plan at that time. It seems
like it is so very difficult to do because of how our City is divided with the four school districts
and the major highways. She asked Ms. Jones if the parkway would be a way of trying to
overcome that?
Ms. Jones replied, yes, partially. She thinks a big part of it in talking to folks who were familiar
with the restaurant business, that it is very key in locating a fine dining restaurant. To have solid
nighttime population nearby interested in patronizing that restaurant. However, the daytime
traffic is important for the financial feasibility for such a restaurant. They see the inclusion of
the Medtronic world headquarters here, even though they do have their own cafeteria at their
facility. However, if they want to wine and dine an executive who is coming to town and
visiting for the day, for example, where are they going to go in Fridley? They see an opportunity
with the daytime traffic with the large daytime business community we have here in the City.
She thinks connecting it to the river is a key piece, too, because people do not go out just to eat
anymore, they go out for an experience. She thinks they could provide a very unique experience
15
here in Fridley by having a location right on the river and in the midst of a beautiful park where
people could go out and enjoy the park before and after dinner as well.
Commissioner Gabel stated she does agree with the concept of doing something with those
rental units but they are going to scream bloody murder. It is like climbing a mountain.
Mr. Hickok stated there is some irony in that one of the things they hear from the public through
the housing forums and through the public input sessions is that folks in Hyde Park thought the
City should concentrate on fixing up the apartments. One of the most common answers is, well,
fix up the apartment buildings. However, there is a disincentive to fix up those buildings when
their destiny is to become single - family lots. When you look at the development potential, the
yield they could get, they might have an 11 -unit building on a piece of land that could only yield
2 '/2 single - family lots.
Commissioner Gabel stated she thinks the timing could be right because she has noticed the
houses are going in on Third Street, an apartment building sprucing things up and planting things
and making things look better. There could be some domino effect there.
Commissioner Holm stated as noted the City is facing limited financial resources. When he
sees the nice future of a walkway from Medtronic Parkway all the way across to East River
Road, he sees big dollar signs for that and maybe that should be 2050. In terms of limited
financial resources also, when you talk about services for seniors there should be some
recognition to seniors that has to be on a need basis rather than on an overall provision of
services to seniors. As a senior himself, he does not expect the taxpayer to pay for services to
him that he can afford himself. There has to be care in how they use our financial resources so
that they do not overspend in some areas. He is just using that as an example.
Ms. Jones stated the copies she provided were very early drafts and a lot of things have actually
changed since those were written.
Commissioner Gabel stated she does think they need to do something about senior housing.
The Commissioner member who left last ended up moving to Blaine because she wanted a
single -story townhouse and there was nothing like that in Fridley. She would have stayed in
Fridley if she could have found what she wanted. There are other people in their age bracket that
the same thing has happened to. She thinks there is a huge need for it now.
Ms. Jones replied, yes, she would agree.
Commissioner Gabel stated she was not sure that is going to go either, but she thinks the need is
definitely there.
Commissioner Holm stated a lot of that also is market -based and seeing the difficulty that
private developers have had in developing projects for seniors.
ADJOURNMENT:
"rel
MOTION by Commissioner Gabel, seconded by Commissioner Holm, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOITE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson
Recording Secretary
17
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 6, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers
Pat Gabel
William Holm
John Meyer
Steve Billings
Others Present: Mike Jeziorski, City Accountant
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director
Greg Johnson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Commissioner Gabel to move the Housing Corridor Initiative Information Item to be
discussed after approval of the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Billings.
UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Approval of Expenditures
MOTION by Commissioner Billings to approve the Expenditures as submitted. Seconded by
Commissioner Gabel.
UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
2. Approval of October 25, 2007 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Gabel had several corrections to the minutes.
MOTION by Commissioner Gabel to table the minutes until the January meeting. Seconded by
Commissioner Holm.
UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
3. Approval of November 1, 2007 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Gabel had a few corrections to make to the minutes.
MOTION by Commissioner Meyer to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner
Gabel.
UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
4. Housing Corridor Initiative — Final Report/Recommendations
Gretchen Nicholls, Housing Coordinator Initiative, presented an overview and final report. The Corridor
Housing Initiative was a process that was brought to the City of Fridley as a demonstration to think of
development possibilities for some property that was recently purchased along University Avenue. A
community engagement process was used to experience some of the core values and concerns that the
community had regarding this location and what might be some viable development direction to take to
this area.
Ms. Nicholls said that the Corridor Housing Initiative is based on the basic principles of building the
capacity of communities and think about transit corridors and what development options might involve.
The exercise was to figure out how to energize collaboration, how to work with some of the resources and
partners in the community to try to build ownership, development and strategies, and to move forward
with production towards the implementation of the goals the city is trying to achieve. Communities can
engage most constructively and effectively if they are asked before a development occurs to see what the
values and goals are and try to help guide development. Nothing happens without partnership, people
need to work together to accomplish their goals. Implementation and results are critical for success.
Ms. Nicholls said that the team was composed of herself, Barbara Raye, Katie Thering, Michael Byrd,
Gina Ciganik, Scott Hickok and Paul Bolin. The goals that were defined at the outset of this process was
to provide some ideas for the development of University Avenue and to help strengthen the participation
of the community and get them involved in the goal setting process. These goals can be used as
recommendations for the development and then identify the next steps in which direction the city would
like to go. The committee took an advisory role in this process. It was a process that didn't really define
one development direction because there was a range of development ideas that might fit in this area.
They tried to integrate this process as a complimentary conversation of the updating of the
Comprehensive Plan.
There were three core themes:
1. Strengthen the identity of Fridley and using University Avenue as a gateway into the city.
2. Reiterate the building connections, how do you integrate and connect the areas of the city so that it
looks together and lends value.
3. Create a viable district for University Avenue.
Ms. Nicholls said that in this proactive strategy people brainstormed on what they thought were the
challenges and/or opportunities for this area. Some of these included the state highway that limits the
access, the fence, limitations of the types of developments that can be placed on the site and many
residents desire a city center. We are sensitive on how these changes will impact businesses in the area
and need to understand we need to be supportive and help them relocate if needed.
Ms. Nicholls said there were four different sessions held. The first was a brainstorming and information
session about current policies, design, and concerns. The second was the block exercise that created an
opportunity to explore different development concepts. The third was a panel of developers that involved
sharing ideas on what could be developed in the area. Finally the last session was working with
participants to frame the recommendations that are presented tonight.
Ms. Nicholls said that the panel members from development firms were Alan Arthur, John Mehrker, Bob
Long, and David Newman. They gave us a very rich dialog on how some of the resources may be
obtained. The proximities of the single - family homes behind University Avenue is a factor and needs to
be treated respectfully. The frontage road has some possibilities and could serve as a transition to the
residential areas, the four -story height level could be worked with and as height is permitted, underground
parking could be used. The durability of the building is a value, connectivity with other amenities such as
Medtronic parkway would be an interesting add on to this area and give it more marketability, the many
parks and public amenities people can connect with is a positive impact, and a city center still maintains a
strong interest with a lot of people.
Ms. Nicholls said that the community input was focusing on understanding that there is a significant
financial gap and that the city would need to figure out ways to fill that gap. The city may need to wait
until they can acquire more space and there is a deep appreciation of the complexities of this effort and
the fact that the city is faced with a lot of challenges. The city may want to direct a developer to
incorporate design elements, landscaping and how the area may be treated for best effect of scale, density
and orientation of the buildings. The process supported a number of options from senior housing to office
buildings. There was a lot of good will, support and respect towards the city to move forward with this
area.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said that this was an enlightening process and the
citizens increased their level of knowledge in how development happens. There was excellent discussion
on how development happens, realizing the condition of the property and if we can't do it right now there
is a better understanding on how gaps work. We deal with these types of problems on a regular basis in
the development world. If we brought in citizens at the very early stages of this development they better
understand how this works and have a role in what outcomes there are in what kind of development we
will have. We may have to wait till we have more resources or additional land to make this work. People
came out with a higher level of sophistication on how development works and were appreciative to be
involved in the early stages.
Chairperson Commers said he was not able to attend all the workshops but can see how things can
change. People realize different issues that come with the development of property. The meetings were
managed professionally and the HRA will evaluate the information and see if anything comes of the
informational study.
Ms. Nicholls said it was great to have the ability to do a development and put it on cable television for
residents to view. This is an educational process and people will benefit by understanding -the issues of
what is possible and likely to happen in Fridley.
Commissioner Gabel asked if the attendance at the workshops was what was expected for this type of
study.
Ms. Nicholls said that they have never been in a suburb before. If they were to do another suburb they
may promote more participation because this a genuine opportunity for residents to be involved in this
process.
Commissioner Gabel said she really liked the exercise with the building blocks. It was enlightening to
see how to make it work and many realized how much work is involved in this development process.
Ms. Nicholls said that it is fun for developers to see what interests the city and what they want to see
happen.
Commissioner Holm said he was impressed with how the project moved along. It is a very complicated
and extensive effort to involve the citizens.
Mr. Hickok said that from a staff perspective it was an excellent exercise and it ties in with the
Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commissioner David Kondrick put this in a great perspective by
comparing this experience with selling a house. When people sell a house they may hire a "stager" to
come in and arrange the furniture, get rid of the clutter to maximize space and be appealing to potential
buyers. He said it would be nice to have a "stager" come to Fridley and look at our projects to see their
perspective. This is what Gretchen and her group did for Fridley. This group is both respected and
professional. This gives us fresh prospective and a team of professionals. He would highly recommend
this process and group to other communities. He would like to consider this group for advice and
guidance on future projects.
5. Approval of Final 2008 Budget
Mike Jeziorski, City Accountant, said the budget is the same as the preliminary budget so there were no
changes from the last meeting. HRA reviewed the proposed budget on November 1'. Questions on fund
balances and funding commitments were raised. Answers to those questions were provided in packet.
Finance Staff and Legal Counsel are present to answer any additional questions.
Chairperson Commers asked if the budget format was different that the past.
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, said yes, they did change the format.
Chairperson Commers asked for examples of tax increments to understand the new format and what
each line item is suppose to mean.
Mr. Jeziorski gave a few examples and explained some of the line items.
Mr. Pribyl said that maybe specific questions could be addressed at a separate meeting and to go over
how to understand the new format.
Commissioner Gabel agreed that a workshop meeting would be helpful to go over this in more detail
because it can be confusing.
MOTION by Commissioner Gabel to approve the Final 2008 Budget as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Holm.
UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
6. Authorization to Present Purchase Offer — Sinclair Site, GWNE
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said that Lake State Realty Services completed an
appraisal report for the former Sinclair Station in November and Fair Market Value is $305,000 as the
building itself still has some value. Review of City and Fire Marshall records do not reveal any major
contamination on this site. MPCA and MNDOC offer financial assistance to clean up petroleum
contamination. Wilson Development is reviewing appraisal, existing lease, and meeting with owner on
December 7h to determine relocation costs, but expects them to be minimal.
Mr. Bolin said that the building is currently used sporadically for auto repair and gasoline sales. Staff
recommends that the Authority authorize staff to present an offer to purchase, based on the appraised
value, the former Sinclair property. Staff further recommends that Chairman Commers be authorized to
execute any purchase agreements necessary prior to the HRA's next meeting, provided relocation benefits
are not excessive.
Chairperson Commers asked if there was a willing seller at this time.
Mr. Bolin answered yes. A year ago there was no interest in selling but now the seller has contacted us.
Chairperson Commers asked about the Tae Kwon Do building.
Mr. Bolin said that they had were interested in selling until we made an offer. Dan Wilson did have a
conversation with Mr. Kim, the owner, and will meet with him next week so we may get a response.
Chairperson Commers asked if the city could condemn a parcel if HRA had a development plan
needing that area.
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant, said that HRA has the ability to acquire if there was serious
blight, so serious that it would require demolition or mediation.
Chairperson Commers asked Mr. Casserly to check and see if HRA would have the authority to acquire
or condemn the parcel.
Mr. Casserly said that Economic Development is not considered public purpose for this activity. If the
city was redesigning the road for public purpose or infrastructure the city could probably acquire the
property, but because this is for basic redevelopment he did not think the city could acquire the property.
He would double check and get back to the HRA.
Commissioner Holm said that he understood from the presentation that the owner would listen to the
offer but there is a lease on the property. He wondered if there would be any difficulties because of the
leaseholders rights.
Mr. Bolin said that is why Dan Wilson was meeting with the owner but he did not think anything would
hold up this process.
Commissioner Gabel asked if there were a lot of ongoing issues with this property and stipulations with
SUP. She said it did not sound like things were going too well on this property.
Mr. Hickok said that is correct that there is a Special Use Permit on this property with specific
stipulations that need to be maintained. It is in the cities best interest to keep all properties with Special
Use Permits adhere to the stipulations. There have been problems with this site and staff continues to
monitor the site.
Commissioner Billings said that the appraisal was received at $305,000 and asked if we were under any
obligation to make an offer for the entire amount. The property owner paid $230,000 for the property
three years ago. This person knows this is not the best site for a gas station or any other use. The
property is not worth $305,000. They are approaching us to see if we want to buy the property. Maybe
the property is only worth $200,000. The property is not worth more to us because we are not going to
use the property for a gas station. Maybe offer $250,000 - $275,000 to see if they would accept the offer.
We do not have to have this piece of property. Why should we reward them for being a lousy operator
over the last three years by offering prime amount? We have to make them aware of the appraisal
because it is public record, but the appraisal is so high because it is currently a gas station and that is not
going to be our use.
Mr. Bolin said that the city's practice has always been to offer fair market value. The city of Coon
Rapids had problems 5/6 years ago buying properties and paid the asking price. A few years later the
property owners filed a claim because they didn't pay the fair market value.
Mr. Casserly said that the question is complicated. If we are not going to be involved in any kind of
condemnation there are some different things we can do. We do need to be careful doing appraisals and
then offering less. He will have to get back to HRA on this question.
Commissioner Billings said that if we desperately needed this site then pay fair market value, but in 6 -9
months the fair market value will probably go down so maybe we wait.
Mr. Casserly said that there are really two issues. One is if we think the appraisal is not adequate
because of the market conditions, the second issue is what kind of exposure do we have if we offer
something that is substantially lower than the appraisal we had made for the specific site. Appraisals are
based on comparable sales and value today:
Commissioner Billings said that appraisals are based on historical data and the sales in the past have all
been very high.
Commissioner Gabel said it doesn't hurt to have a discussion with the property owner because we don't
need to jump into this property. She has no problem waiting.
Chairperson Commers .said that at this point there is a willing seller. The properties may go down but
who wants to speculate that, what if it goes up. It is pure guesswork.
Commissioner Billings asked who is leasing the building, relatives of the property owners?
Mr. Hickok said that is correct.
Commissioner Billings said that even the family is having trouble making it in the gasoline sales
business.
Chairperson Commers said that the issue is with the appraisal and how he arrives at this value.
Commissioner Billings said it is based on historical data, what similar properties sold for.
Chairperson Commers asked what comparables were used and what dates were used on the appraisal.
Mr. Bolin said that nine different parcels were used from October of 2005 to January 2007.
Commissioner Billings said that only one property used was less than a year old.
Chairperson Commers asked if a time adjustment was used.
Mr. Hickok answered yes.
Commissioner Holm said that maybe we should hold off or authorize purchase up to a certain amount.
Commissioner Gabel said that there is a saying out there, what something is worth is whatever someone
is willing to pay. She suggested authorizing the conversation but maybe put a cap on the amount or do
some more research and bring this back to the next meeting.
Commissioner Billings said that $30,000 savings is a lot of money but he doesn't want to put the HRA at
risk for a larger amount. He asked what the problem would be for offering a lesser amount than the
appraisal. He would not want the HRA to spend a lot of legal fees but would like an answer as to what
would be the problem if we offered less than the appraisal. If we want to offer less than fair market value,
should we go ahead and do something or wait and see what happens. Either way we need to let the owner
know of the appraisal amount.
Chairperson Commers thinks there is a problem once we get an appraised value. Once we get a report
you get pretty much locked into the amount.
Mr. Hickok said that adjustment for the time is based on .33% per month. So they did adjust the time
frame accordingly. Dan Wilson brings his expertise to this and thinks the value is worth it and incidentals
are factored into the price.
Mr. Bolin said that Dan Wilson is meeting with the owner tomorrow. He is thinking relocation costs
would be minimal and worked that into the value.
Mr. Casserly said that if this number is close to an all inclusive number, one of our obligations is to
inform the seller what relocation act would provide and the owner can waive the benefits. We need to
take into account the other benefits that could be over and above the cost. The land is $13 -$14 per square
foot and everything else will be torn down. He is not sure the value to us is the same as a potential gas
owner would be.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Northstar Update
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said the MOU was approved by HRA last month and this
document spells out responsibilities and future actions. The Anoka County Rail Road Authority approved
the MOU on November 13`h. The tunnel agreement with BNSF has been executed.
Mr. Bolin said there is a HRA meeting with NCDA staff next week to discuss the next steps in greater
detail. The FFFGA is to be signed December 11d'. This allows for more formalized discussions with
ACRRA, NCDA, Met Council and MN DOT. We are currently working on last years legislation.
Mr. Bolin said the NCDA Board met late this afternoon and approved 2008 Budgets. A number of items
in the budget were specific to Fridley's Rail Site. $125,000 in Professional Services, $155,000 in Project
Management (tunnel), $1.6M in tunnel construction costs for a total of $1,880,000. NCDA is committed
to getting the Fridley Station built with rest of system.
Z. Monthly Housing Report
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, reported that there was one RLF loan and two other loans
in November for a total of 17 loans year to date. Operation Insulation visits are just one year to date and
Remodeling Advisor Visits had one in November for a total of 26 year to date. There is a concern with
the high amount of foreclosures happening and how that may affect our loan program. The good thing is
that we have a $35,000 cap on the loans. "Staff will keep an eye on the loans and keep HRA informed.
NON AGENDA ITEMS:
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said that the salvage yard items are making positive
movement. Staff is seeing reinvestment relating to Special Use Permits on two of the sites. Things are
looking good and performing well. Staff is comfortable with the appearance and reinvestment and the
owners are happy as well. Staff will continue to update as things progress.
Chairperson Commers said that Gateway West continues to be moving along.
Mr. Bolin said yes. The housing market did slow down but the builder is still optimistic.
Commissioner Gabel asked if we needed to make any changes to the time tables.
Mr. Bolin said that if they don't sell any homes in the next few months maybe.
Mr. Bolin said that the next meeting is scheduled for January 3, 2008.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Commissioner Gabel to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Meyer.
UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted by,
Krista Monsrud
Recording Secretary
DATE: December 6, 2007
TO: William W. Burns, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Mike Jeziorski, HRA Accountant
Paul Bolin, Assistant Director of HRA
SUBJECT: Approval of Interfund Loan: General Fund to TIF #19
TIF #19 has expended roughly $40,000 on a variety of professional services and has not yet
received any revenue through tax increment. For this reason, TIF #19 is in need of a loan from
the General Fund to keep its cash balance positive. This loan will be paid back as increment is
received. Attached is a resolution for the interfund loan that states the amount, interest rate and
duration.
Staff recommends that the HRA make a motion to approve the Interfund Loan.
CADocuments and Settings\BolinKLocal Settings \Temporary Intemet Files \0LK36UIRA Interfund Loan Memo.doc
HRA RESOLUTION NO. 2008-01
RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERFUND LOAN BETWEEN GENERAL FUND
AND TIF DISTRICT #19
BE 17T RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners ") of Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority ") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority is authorized by Minnesota Statutes 2001 Supplement Section 469.174,
subdivision 3 and Section 469.178, subdivision 7 to approve by resolution any interfund loans
made after July 31, 2001 that are to be repaid with tax increment from any of the Authority's tax
increment financing districts.
1.02. The Authority is authorized to disclose by resolution the terms of the interf ind loan, i.e.
principal amount of loan, interest rate, and length of loan.
1.03. The Authority is authorized to limit the principal amount of the interfund loan to the largest
negative cash balance that existed at any one time in the fund receiving the loan.
Section 2. Findings.
2.01. The Authority hereby finds it necessary to create an interfund loan between its general fund and
the fund for TIF District #19. This loan is for the express purpose of providing financing for TIF
District 19 projects until such time that enough tax increment is generated in the TIF district to
pay back the interfund loan.
Section 3. Adoption of Interfund Loan.
3.01. The following are the terms of the interf ind loan to be approved:
Loan Amount: $40,000
Interest Rate: 5%
Length of Loan: 30 years or until December 31, 2038
3.02. The Authority will create and maintain a loan payment schedule for the interfund loan that will
be approved by this resolution.
3.03 TIF District #19 may pay off the loan early if sufficient tax increment is available.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, THIS 10TH DAY OF JANURARY 2008.
LAWRENCE R. COMMERS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
WILLIAM W. BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
0
ACTION ITEM
HRA MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2008
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
Date: January 4, 2008
To: William Bums, City Manager
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Subject: Northstar Rail Property Acauisition
It has been a very hectic few weeks since the HRA met in early December. Despite the
shortened work weeks and vacation days taken by many of the parties involved in the
Northstar Project, much progress has been made. This memorandum will highlight
what has happened over the past few weeks and what is still needed prior to the HRA
initiating action on the acquisition of the property needed for the rail station.
Staff and legal counsel met with the ACCRA, NCDA, and Northstar Project staff
members on December 12th to further discuss how to best proceed in getting the Fridley
Station constructed with the rest of the system. The highest priority is, of course, to
gain control of the property in order to allow BNSF to install the tunnel. Attorney
Casserly put together a timeline /calendar to chart out what actions need to take place
over the next few weeks and months.
As we had briefly discussed at the last HRA meeting, it is beneficial and necessary for
the City /HRA to take the lead on land acquisition to keep the Fridley Station moving
forward. The original thought was that the HRA could partner with the Anoka County
Regional Rail Authority and take on their authority to acquire for the purpose of
constructing the rail station. As Attorney Casserly and Mary Richardson ( ACRRA
Counsel) started to further work out details of a joint agreement, it became apparent
that the Regional Rail Authorities cannot sign a joint powers agreement with local
HRA's. Regional Rail Authorities only have the ability in statute to sign joint powers
agreements with "higher levels" of government — State, Federal, etc.
Legal Counsel and Mary Richardson have been working to get MNDot involved, through
either a JPA or a MOU to extend MN Dot's authority to the HRA. Additionally, the
Regional Rail Authority will pass a resolution supporting the acquisition of the property
at their January 8th meeting. There are still many things to work out, but we will
continue to move quickly in order to keep the Fridley Station on track.
The MnDOT partnership would provide the HRA additional authority to acquire the
property and further demonstrates that this is not just a Fridley project, it has significant
benefits to the entire system. The thought is that once the property is acquired, MNDot
would turn around and purchase, from the HRA, the acreage needed to make the site
function for Northstar. NCDA officials seemed fairly certain that MnDOT would be
getting the money to purchase the property in the upcoming legislative session. NCDA /
ACRRA are also seeking funding in the bonding bill to pay for the construction of the
Fridley station.
In mid - December, Main Street Properties, LLC, the owner of the property needed for
the Northstar Rail Station filed a lawsuit against the City. The lawsuit alleges the City
has a long history of denying the property owner from developing the property to what
he viewed as it's best use. It is not anticipated that this lawsuit will slow down the
HRA's efforts to get the station built, as the issue is not related to the HRH's endeavors.
Legal Counsel has indicated a need to have a closed "executive-litigation" meeting to
review the suit with the HRA prior to taking any action on the acquisition of the property
needed for Northstar. A number of the items that have been prepared and /or will be
prepared over the next few days are considered "attomey- client" privileged information
and will be sent to you outside of this memorandum.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the HRA Authorize staff and legal counsel to actively pursue the
acquisition of the property needed for the Northstar Commuter Rail station. A
resolution authorizing staff will be provided prior to next weeks meeting.
Draft: 112108
Memorandum Of Understanding
Between The State Of Minnesota and
The Housing And Redevelopment Authority In and For The City Of Fridley, Minnesota
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 174.82 provides that the planning, development,
construction, operations and maintenance of commuter rail track and facilities are
governmental functions, serve a public purpose and are a matter of public necessity; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 174.82 provides that the Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (hereinafter "Mn /DOT ") is responsible for all aspects
of commuter rail in Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 174.82 authorizes the Commissioner to enter into a
memorandum of understanding with a public entity to carry out Mn /DOT's responsibility for
commuter rail; and
WHEREAS, Mn /DOT has entered into the Fridley Master Agreement dated May 31, 2007, that
sets forth the conditions pursuant to which BNSF Railway Company (hereinafter "BNSF ") will
construct a tunnel to serve the Fridley commuter rail station and ultimately construct, operate
and maintain the Fridley Station; and
WHEREAS, Mn /DOT has to entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Anoka
County Regional Railroad Authority (hereinafter "ACRRA ") to act as Mn /DOT's designee and
enter into the Underpass Construction Agreement with BNSF on behalf of Mn /DOT; and
WHEREAS, the ACRRA has executed the Underpass Construction Agreement, and delivered
it to BNSF on November 13, 2007; and
WHEREAS, in order to construct the tunnel and the park and ride facility that will serve the
Fridley Station, it is necessary to acquire certain property described in Attachment 1
(hereinafter "the Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota (hereinafter "the HRA ") is duly constituted housing and redevelopment authority as
defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 469.001 and following and has the powers enumerated
therein including the power to enter into and perform the obligations in this memorandum of
understanding; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has adopted a Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and has included the area for Fridley Station in its Redevelopment Project No. 1; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the State of Minnesota that Fridley tunnel be
constructed and the Property acquired as soon as possible to avoid the costs of delay.
Draft: 112108
THEREFORE pursuant to this memorandum of understanding the HRA will:
1. acquire the Property by purchase or condemnation; and
2.- pay all costs associated with the acquisition of the Property; and
3. provide periodic progress reports to Mn/DOT.
Pursuant to this memorandum of understanding Mn/DOT will:
1. assist the HRA by providing advanced and final plans and other necessary
technical information relating to the Fridley Station; and
2. acknowledge that the financial contribution made by the HRA in the acquisition of
the property will be reimbursed or considered part of the local contribution for the
completion of the Fridley commuter rail station.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this memorandum of understanding to be
duly executed intending to be bound thereby.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
Carol Molnau, Commissioner of Transportation
Dated:
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
0
Dated:
OA
INFORMATION ITEM
HRA MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2008
CRY OF
FREIREY
Date: January 4, 2008
To: William Bums, City Manager
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Subiect: Gateway Northeast Property Acquisition Update
When the HRA met in early December if appeared as if we may be getting close to
acquiring both the Sinclair Station and the Tae - Kwan -Do Center. Since that time Dan
Wilson, the HRH's relocation consultant has been in contact with both parties on
several occasions but has not been able to produce accurate relocation benefit costs.
At this time staff is recommending that no action be taken.
Sinclair Station
Lake States Realty recently conducted an appraisal of the Sinclair property located at
6071 University Avenue, as the owners recently expressed a real interest in having the
HRA purchase their property for inclusion in redevelopment efforts along University
Avenue. You may recall that the appraisal came in at $305,000 and that this is much
higher than the City assessor's value ($246,100), as gas station site comparables tend
to have higher values than other commercial uses.
Dan Wilson, the City's relocation consultant, has reviewed the existing lease, spoken
with the owner on the telephone, but has not yet been able to personally meet with the
property owner to help refine relocation benefit costs. The property owner has
cancelled a number of appointments with Dan and keeps asking about "hypothetical
outcomes" as to how he could avoid passing relocation benefits on to his tenants.
Since we do not work in "hypotheticals" and are bound by Federal law and statutes, we
will not recommend making any offer until Dan Wilson has been able to make a
determination of relocation benefits. Dan has another appointment set up with the
property owner for January 10th .
Tae - Kwan -Do
Dan Wilson met with the Kim's in mid- December to further discuss their interest in
selling to the HRA. He had a lengthy discussion with them over relocation and our
appraisal of their site, but to date the Kim's have made no response to the offer we
presented to them nearly one year ago.
I
Fridley HRA
Housing Program Summary
Cover Page
January 10, 2008 HRA Meeting
Report Description
Loan Application Summary Loan application activity (e.g. mailed
out, in process, closed loans) for
November and year -to -date.
Loan Origination Report
Remodeling Advisor &
Operation Insulation
Loan originations for November and
year -to -date.
Shows the number of field appointments
scheduled and completed the Operation
Insulation and Remodeling Advisor
Services administered by Center for
Energy and Environment.
H:\—Paul's Documents\HRA\HRA Agenda Items\2008\January 10, 2008\Housing Program Cover PageJanuary2008.doc
U! 1
C j
tC �
J �
N
C 1
O I
4. I
10 I
V I
.Q I
CL
Qc
Q
1� v
t
a :.
0 CL
LA
c
R
J I
N
C
O
CM!
- a
.Q O
Q � .
N
L C•
d O:
IOU I
d1 .�
O m L1
Z Z Q I
ti
O
O
N
N
CD
.n
a)
�a
00 r O C) 19T O r r NI
7IA
s
i
LO r O C7 - Orr N
(DOOr0CDO0O'
3
u
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7I
a
n
n
ID
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D
L
C
7 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD
n
w
O V �
a LL m LL
C = 7 = a
t0
LL LL K o m -4 LL
O r- 0 C_ t3' C s cc 0) 0) J a LL .= 0 O� C
>mEc EW LU
E m
>1 0.2 CiiC) Ems m
��aaa=
0
r 'y
.LZ
d
W
W
U
d
s
N 0
O
C
O
m
2
.Q
CL
ca
L
Im
c
10
0
c
ti o
O -o
N
O �y.
C d
C
3
0 0
w
0
i L2
y O
C
O.
O `2 C
0
O
2 v
V
� O
O
CD d
0
N 0 4-.
Mn =
'o
to N
N O
E O
a
1
0 0
0 cn {-
~ 0) N
cm a
�
C _
O
J m
a v
Z Q.
X CL
U- O
w
jr+ O
C d
O0 Z
e
9
Fridley HRA
Loan Origination Report
December 27, 2007
Loan Orloinations
This Previous
Month Months YTD
HRA Loans (incl. CFUF Discount loans)
HRA Deferred Loans
Other Loans (non -HRA) - 5 5
Total - 17 17
Fundina Sources
This
Previous
Month
Months
YTD
Fridley HRA
$
-
$
58,655.74
$ 58,655.74
MHFA
$
-
$
127.875.00
$ 127,875.00
Met Council
$
-
$
-
$ -
CDBG/HOME
$
-
$
$ _
CEE
$
-
$
35,000.00
$ 35,000.00
Other
$
-
$
-
$
Total $
-
$
221,530.74
$ 221,530.74
Types of Units Improved
`some households receive more than
1 loan, so the # of loans may not
equal # of units improved
This
Previous
Month
Months
YTD
Single Family
-
11
11
Duplex
-
Tri-Plex
-
4 to 9 Units
-
2
2
10 to 20 Units
-
1
1
20+ Units
Total
-
14
14
Types of Improvements
Interior
# of Projects
% of Total
Bathroom remodel
3
10%
Kitchen remodel
3
10%
General plumbing
2
7 %,
Heating system
3
10%
Electrical system
1
3%
Basement finish
_
0 %
Insulation
1
3%
Room addition
2
7%
Misc, interior projects
3
10%
Exterior
Siding/Fascia/Soffit
2
7%
Roofing
3
10%
Windows/Doors
3
10%
Garage
-
0%
Driveway /sidewalk
2
7 %
Landscaping
1
3%
Misc. exterior projects
1
3%
A�
W
V
A
L
a
CD
.3
O
E
0
i�
O
� o
0
N
ti
N
= O m
� M V
LM
LL O
N
.r+
C 'C
d d
E m
N CO M O M r O N
c E
CL 0
.Q v
a
d d
E S
C r Cl) LO r r N CO M O CO r O co
.Q
CL 0
N
Q
N
® d
d
C r O O O O O O O O O O O r
.Q :Ei
a
.�i
C V
0 0
E 7
C d r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r
CL 0
Q U)
a
L
L] L
L L
w
cc
Co
N _a
.0 .0
E f
C
C C
O
O d
U
m
�ti2Qm�
0>
- Q0°
z0
N
® d
d
C r O O O O O O O O O O O r
.Q :Ei
a
.�i
C V
0 0
E 7
C d r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r
CL 0
Q U)
a
\°
LLo co C4
O 3 O
� V �
C Q O
d
E°
C_
�O
C.
al
0
N le
!0 lQ !C
O O O
� V �
C Q O
EE at
°
C
O
C.
Q
2
L
Z' m
E
n
E E
C
C m V` �+�
>+� Q0
> U
� IL�Q2��Q (no za
\°
LLo co C4
O 3 O
� V �
C Q O
d
E°
C_
�O
C.
al
0
N le
!0 lQ !C
O O O
� V �
C Q O
EE at
°
C
O
C.
Q
2
vokam
FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
January 10, 2008
I l*eI,II�
1. Target -NOC, Onan- Cummins Building
What was previously known as the Target Northern Operations Center is changing ownership. Dave Cremons,
Mark McCary's attorney (Mark's LLC, 6499 Partners, LLC, acquired this site in 2005) recently informed
Attorney Cerney that 6499 Partners is planning to sell the property in early February to a group called
Gladstone Commercial Limited Property. Attorney Cerney and Dave Cremons have been working on a form of
assignment of the contract and HRA estoppel. We will bring forward any documents that need formal approval
and /or signatures at your February meeting.
2. John Allen Project — 5510 Main Street
Construction is nearly 100% complete and tenants are getting ready to move in. If you haven't had a
chance to drive by and take a look at the site, I would encourage you to do so. It is a very well done site.
3. Gateway West
The slowdown in the housing market continues to slowdown our efforts to get all 16 homes built in the
Gateway West area. Jeff Magdic said he continues to get calls on the properties, but everyone seems
hesitant to buy right now — because they either have an existing home to sell or they think the market is
so poor that Blueprint should be giving homes away.
In out ongoing dialogue with Blueprint, we have discussed the possibility of extending the dates for the
property purchase deadlines. We will also examine the impact of doing so on future TIF revenues and
will bring any suggested changes to you at your February meeting.
If there are any items you would like covered in upcoming issues of the Non - Agenda Update please send
me an e-mail. bohnp @ci.fridley.mn.us
H