The URL can be used to link to this page

HRA 06/04/2009 - 6219!u June 4, 2009 HRA Meeting Regular Meeting Agenda 7.00 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers Call to order Roll call. Action Items I . Approval of expenditures 2. Approval of May 7, 2008 Meeting Minutes 3. Authorization to initiate process for creation of TIF District #20 (Northstar Transit) 4. Authorization for independent appraisals for proposed Gateway West Residential New Construction Program Informational Items 1. Legislative Update - Housing Replacement Program 2. Update on Potential TIP' District #21 (Col. Arena Redevelopment) 3. Update on Fairview / Columbia Park Sign Lease Agreement 4. Housing Loan Program Update Adjournment C Documents and Settings \bebergj \I.oeal SettingsVI'emporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \VWCEOPO4Uune4 -2009 Agenda Outline.docC Oocumcnts and Settings \bebergj \Local Settings \"Temporary Internet I' iles \Content.Outlook \VWCEOPO4Uune4 -2009 Agenda Outline.doc CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION MAY 7.2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to order at 7:41 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: William Holm Larry Commers Steve Billings John Meyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Pat Gabel OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Jeziorski, Accountant Jim Casserly, Development Consultant Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director ACTION ITEMS: 1. Approval of Expenditures MOTION by Commissioner Holm to approve the expenditures as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Meyer. UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. Approval of March 5, 2009 Meeting Minutes MOTION by Commissioner Holm to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Billings. UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. Approval of Income Limit Increase for Home Loan Program Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said the income cap for the Home Loan Program has not changed since 2004. In 1996 the income limit was $58,000; in 2001 the limit was $60,000; and in 2004 the limit changed to 115% of the median income with a cap of $80,000. Staff is proposing increasing the cap to $96,485, which is consistent with 115% of the median income for a four - person household. HUD annually creates median incomes based on different metropolitan areas. These numbers are updated in March. Using these figures, a single- family household would increase from $61,755 to $67,563, a two person would increase from $70,610 to $77,165, three person from $79,350 to $86,825 and a four person household from $80,000 to $96,485. Mr. Bolin said that staff looked at what neighboring communities are doing and the 115% of median income seems to be fairly consistent. Some of the cities give those with lower income the lower interest rate. Staff recommends moving forward and authorizing staff to utilize the new income limits of 115% of this year's household median income. Staff would like to go two steps further; 1) Take the cap off of $96,000, in order to accommodate larger families. 2) Allow the 115% continue into future years and automatically readjust each March or April, as HUD updates area median income. Commissioner Meyer said that he was not in favor of increasing the limits but doesn't think the loan program is used that much. Commissioner Holm agreed but it may be worthwhile to approve the program and see what happens. The goal is to improve the housing market through home improvements and it would be worth giving it a try. Chairperson Commers asked how many outstanding loans were on the books and the volume of loans. Mr. Bolin said that the total loans are about $1.2M. The default is very minimal, about three loans or $12,000 in past due payments. When people apply for the loans, the check goes directly to contractor. MOTION by Commissioner Holm to approve the Income Limit Increase for Home Loan Program, adopt the motion for the cap to be eliminated and annually adjust limits per HUD household income. Seconded by Commissioner Billings. UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 4. Approval of 2009 Mowing Contract Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said that HRA has contracted with Complete Grounds Maintenance since 2004. City Planning Staff developed a RFP for mowing services and weed abatements. They asked to provide separate quotes for mowing HRA properties. The hourly rates ranged from $32 to $101 /hr. Complete Grounds Maintenance provided lowest hourly rate. Staff Recommends the HRA continue with CGM for 2009. The service has been reliable and rates low Chairperson Commers asked what properties were being mowed. Mr. Bolin answered that there are some properties along University Avenue (both sides), some odd lots in Riverview Heights, and other miscellaneous properties. MOTION by Commissioner Billings to approve the 2009 - mowing contract. Seconded by Commissioner Meyer. UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. Approval of Moore Lake Drive Landscape Improvements Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said that this is a good faith and friendly contribution from the HRA to spruce up the area. The new landscape and planter boxes create a good image for the City. The properties need to be irrigated, weeds pulled and kept in neat order. The recommendation is for HRA to contribute $4,900 for this improvement project. If HRA chooses to support this project, staff would set up the tear out and landscape to begin the week of May 18, 2009. MOTION by Commissioner Holm to approve the Moore Lake Drive Landscape Improvements. Seconded by Commissioner Meyer. UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Columbia Arena TIF Request Paul Bolin, HRA Executive Assistant Director, said that the Planning Commission held hearing last night and approvals unanimously granted. Attorney Casserly met with developer earlier this week. The developer is gathering additional information needed for TIF analysis. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said that this project is a 176 unit senior complex on the north side of the site that will consist of an L -shape four story building and a one level nursing home. The south side will house a 50,000 sq. ft. medical facility offering service on weekdays and Saturday. The facility will have a high -end finish and a nice quality. Mr. Hickok said that they have heard from two industries from the north as it relates to their business. The businesses are concerned that they will be asked to limit their daily activity because of having residential neighbors. The developers assured the industry that they will develop the project to mitigate noise. Chairperson Commers asked what kind of assistance they were looking for. Jim Casserly, Development Consultant, said that in order to have a better understanding more documents would need to be presented. They are in the process of getting the purchase agreements and contracts together. This is a project that the developer has been working on for a couple of years. There are several problems with the site; there is a worthless building that needs to be taken down, there are nominal asbestos issues, soil issues, high water table, and a series of utilities have to be moved and relocated. Sidewalks, trails etc. are being sorted out and staff is trying to understand what the additional costs will be. Staff hopes to have the information in the next week and to bring back a complete report at the June meeting. Chairperson Commers asked how the business would be structured and if there were any non - profit agencies involved. Mr. Casserly said that the nursing home component will be nonexempt (35 units) and the rest will be market rate senior rental housing. The advantage of this project is that there are no relocation costs but lot of demolition costs. There will be a lot of strange costs associated with this project. 2. Fairview / Columbia Park Sign Lease Agreement Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said the City was approached by Fairview clinics and as part of a merger they are re- branding their sign. Currently the clinic leases and is using part of one of the city's parking lots south of city hall. As the clinic was looking for more visibility for a sign on University Avenue, Fairview found out they cannot put up a new sign because we own the property. The City talked about getting rid of the community billboard by fire department because it is not an easy changeable sign. With budget shortfall, the project to replace that sign was put on hold. Staff had a discussion with Fairview and Fairview would like to pay for, maintain and share the sign, which would take care of their needs as well as the city needs. Mr. Bolin said that staff had a good meeting with the administrator, sign contractor and legal team to discuss this idea in more detail. Fridley's legal counsel put together a contract and would like to come back with an agreement and recommendation at the June 4t' meeting. The community billboard would come down and the sign that that says City of Fridley with the logo would also be taken down. Details need to be worked out but discussions have been very positive. 3. Legislative Update — Housing Replacement Program Jim Casserly, Development Consultant, said that a bill was started to help Fridley but by the time it was done, it was a statewide bill. In order for Fridley to have 100 units, it would have to be a statewide bill. As units are completed others will get started so this will be an ongoing program. The focus will be on vacant foreclosed housing. Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said that right now 44 vacant homes could be purchased through this program and 15 of the homes are under $100,000. 4. Housing Loan Program Update Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said that in April one loan was closed so that makes three loans year to date. This past week CE sent out a mailing to try and generate more interest in our programs. As of March 31, 2009 there was one delinquency 60 -90 days late for the amount of $906 and three delinquencies that are more than three months totaling $11,237. The remodel advisor visits were zero in April and total visits are two year to date. NONAGENDA UPDATE: Gateway West - Paul Bolin, I1RA Assistant Executive Director, said that there has been some performance problems with Blueprint Homes. With the overall economy today, Blueprint Homes hasn't been able to deliver on our project as they are out working on other homes. Staff recommends cutting the contract with Blueprint Homes and terminating the agreement. Jim Casserly has a draft letter regarding this issue. Once the city tenninates the agreement staff will come back next month with recommendations on how to move forward. Chairperson Commers asked what the collateral would be in the event of a default. Mr. Bolin said that Blueprint Homes only purchased one lot at a time so there is not a lot of collateral involved. Commissioner Meyer recalled that Blueprint Homes was originally was going to buy all of the lots but came back to buy one at a time. Mr. Bolin said that there is still a home in the area that doesn't have siding on it. That home will now be back in the hands of the lender. In the recent past six months, staff hasn't been able to get any performance out of Blueprint Homes. A citation has been issued for the lack of siding on that home and it is unlikely Blueprint Homes will be coming back to put on the siding. Jim Casserly, Development Consultant, said that the concern is that there is no way to work with Blueprint Homes without revising the agreement. The defaults can't be cured and Blueprint Homes has gone beyond the time they were to provide performance. Staff has put a lot of effort to try and work things out with Blueprint Homes. It wouldn't be a good decision to construct the remaining nine lots with Blueprint Homes. This is a serious matter and staff is looking for the Authority to give direction on this matter. Commissioner Meyer asked what the hurry is to move on this item. Mr. Casserly said that other agreements could not be made before the current agreement was terminated. Anything new would have to be under a new agreement as the current agreement is in default. Blueprint Homes isn't capable of performing so this matter needs to be taken care of before staff can move forward. Commissioner Meyer asked if staff has had any conversation with Blueprint Homes. Mr. Bolin said yes and lately the conversations have been further and further apart. The owner of Blueprint Homes is embarrassed they haven't been able to follow through and meet the terms of our agreement and city codes. For six months Blueprint Homes has promised to put the siding on that home and just recently the lender ended up purchasing the siding. It should have been installed 2 -3 days ago and today the siding is still not on the house. MOTION by Commissioner Billings for staff to execute the letter to Blueprint Homes. Seconded by Commissioner Holm. UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED Sikh Society - Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director. said that the Sikh Society has been having trouble getting the majority of members on any given Sunday to hold the vote needed to purchase and sell properties. They are trying to obtain church property in Blaine but that did not work and now they are looking at the site behind Super Target and it seems they are still planning to sell to HRA but need to do more fund raising to make the project happen. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Holm to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Meyer. UPON UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, ALI, VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Krista Monsrud, Recording Secretary Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Ryff _j MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2009 (1y TO: William W. Bums, Executive Director of HRA 4V FROM: Paul Bolin, Assistant HRA Director SUBJECT: Action — Northstar Transit TIF District Introduction The 2007 legislative session gave the City of Fridley the ability to create a Transit TIF District to pay for public improvements around the Northstar Station Area. The 2008 legislative session gave the City the ability to create multiple districts within the larger NS TIF area, but the timing was not right for creating the district until very recently. Attached to this cover sheet is a memorandum from Krass- Monroe explaining potential development scenarios for the district, a map of the district, and a timeline for the creation of the district. Attorney Casserly will lead a discussion on the development scenarios on Thursday night. Staff recommends the HRA approve a motion authorizing staff to move forward with the statutory requirements for creating the Northstar Transit TIF District. M� ONROE James R. Casserly jeasserly@krassmonroe.com Direct 952.885.1296 Greg D. Johnson gjohnson@krassmonroe.com Direct 952.885.5994 MEMORANDUM To: City of Fridley Attn: Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director Attn: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Attn: William Burns, City Manager, HRA Director From: James R. Casserly, Esq. Greg D. Johnson, CPA, Senior Public Finance An yst Date: May 19, 2009 Re: Tax Increment Potential in the Northstar TIF District Our File No. 9571 -74 Attached is a spreadsheet titled Transit TIF District — TIF Plan: Tax Increment by Area. We designed this analysis to show the relative amount of tax increment from the different phases. At the top of the page we identify seven different Sites. In three of the Sites, B, E and G, we have assumed no redevelopment; in four of them, A, C, D and F, we have assumed the redevelopment and the resulting market value as shown. For purposes of our analysis, we have assumed Site D (the JLT Land) will be Phase 1. Site A (Islands of Peace Apartments) will be Phase 2; Site C (West of Railroad Tracks) will be Phase 3; and Site F (Train Station/Site Land) will be Phase 4. Upon completion of these four Sites, the estimated market value of the entire Northstar TI District will be approximately $239,000,000. The current market value of the District is $84,400,000 which results in a captured tax capacity of $1,950,000 and tax increment upon completion of approximately $1,920,000. The balance of the page reflects the tax increment that is generated by each Phase. These are uninflated numbers. No inflation is captured in any Phase or in the balance of the Ti District. As a practical matter, we will have inflation and most of the remaining 8000 Norman Center Drive, Suite 1000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 -1178 Tee 952.885.5999 Fax 952.885.5969 www.krassmonroe.com parcels in the TI District will, in all likelihood, be included and their inflated value will be captured. The boftom of the page shows the total of the uninflated tax increment for each phase. The JLT land, which is Phase 1, shows potential tax increment in excess of $27,000,000. This Site is approximately 58% of all the tax increment generated in the Northstar District. The other Sites have lesser amounts of increment, with the Train Station.Site, Phase 4, having the least amount at just slightly more than $3,000,000. Some conclusions that may be drawn from this analysis include the following: The JLT Land Site is the dominant site for the generation of tax increment. 2. The AT Site needs the density that allows this amount of increment to be generated. Our assumptions include retail development of 212,000 square feet, office development of 90,000, 125 rental units and 157 owner occupied units for a total market value on this Site of $81,700,000. 3. In all probability, the JLT Site cannot achieve this type of density without parking improvements. It may be advantageous for the HRA to assist with parking improvements to achieve this type of density. 4. The JLT Site will also be instrumental in providing funds to pay for needed infrastructure in the Northstar TI District and to assist with land acquisition in the Islands of Peace and the West of the Railroad Tracks' Sites. In addition, the Train Station Site will need help with parking improvements in order to reduce the footprint of the parking area which will then allow for more intensive development of this Site. With the exception of the JLT Site, all of the redevelopment options in the Northstar TI District appear to be very costly. Without the appropriate development in the JLT Site, it will be extremely difficult to finance other needed infrastructure improvements and redevelopment. JRC /al Enclosures KM: 4826- 2432 -4867, v. 1 Page 2 Page 1 CITY OF FRIDLEY Transit TIF District - TIF Plan TAX INCREMENT BY AREA a (b) (c ) (d) (e ) ( (q I Islands of Peaee Apts Georgetown Apartments West of RR JLT Lend RR Tracks Train Sidon Site Land EofRR Trade - Commer W Phase 2 No Redev -T-d- Phase 3 Phase 1 No Redev Phase 4 No Redev SITE A B C D E F G TOTALS Market Value Retail 1,500,000 26,500,000 500,DOD 28,600,000 Office 11,250,000 11,250,000 Rental 14,400,000 13,200,000 12,6DD.0W 40,100,000 Owner Occupied 20,000,000 37,200,000 31,400,000 16,000,000 104,600,000 Existing Commercial 31,895,000 31,895,000 Existing Rental 22,640,400 22,840400 Estimated Market Value 34,400,000 22,640,400 51,900,000 61,650,000 0 16,500,000 31,895,000 238,985,400 Tax Capacity 1 380,000 283,005 587,000 1,225,250 0 170,000 637,900 3,263,165 Original Market Value 8,621,400 22,640,400 11,079,300 10,850,100 1,320,900 31,895,000 86,407,100 Original Tax Capac 95,236 283,005 121,040 182,818 13,609 637,900 1,313,608 <- Present Value -� Semi Annual Cumulative Captured Tax Ca city 284,764 0 445,960 1,062,432 0 156,391 0 1,949,547 Balance Balance Tax Increment 0.99092 281,162 0 440,320 1,048,995 0 164,413 0 1,924,890 P.V. Of Total of 6.000A 08/01/14 12/01/13 0 1 08/01/14 0 0 524,498. 0 624,498 624,498 524,498 12101/14 0 0 0 524,498 611,705 1,038 203 2 06/01/15 0 0 0 624, 496 499.2241 1,636,4Z7 12/01/15 0 D 0 524 498 487 048 475 3 08/01/16 140,581 0 F624.498 0 6 628 2 626,003 12/01/16 140 581 0 0 587,833 3 212,836 4 06/01/17 140 581 0 0 n8866,2399 573 495 3 786 331 12/01/17 140,581 0 0 559,508 4,345,839 5 06/01/18 140 581 220,160 0 726,567 6,07Z395 12/01/18 140,581 220.160 524 498. 0 W5.239 I 7o8,836 6,781,231 61 08/01/19 f 140,581 220,160 524,498 0 885,239 1 691,5471 6,47Z778 12/01/19 1 140 581 220,160 624,498 0 885,239 674.6801 7,147 458 71 08/01120 1 140,681 220,160 524 498 77,208 9SZ445 716,6321 703,090 121011201 140,581 220,160 524,498 77,206 S 445 SM1771 8,681,267 81 08/01121 1 140,581 220,160 524,498 1 77,206 11 9SZ445 681,1491 9,24Z416 12/01/21 1 14%581 220160 524,498 77 962,445 664,6W 1 9,906,951 91 o8mr221 140,681 220,160 524,498 77= =445 648,327 1 10,655 278 1210122 1 140 ,581 220160 524,498 77,206 11 9M.445 63Z 514 11 187,792 101 06101/23 I 140 ,581 220,160 624,498 77,206 982,445 617,087 11804,879 121011231 140,581 220,160 524,498 77,206 962 445 602,036 12,406,915 11 1 06101/241 140 581 220,160 524,498 77 445 587.352 12,994,267 12101114 1 140,581 220,160 524,498 77,208 962,445 573,027 13,567 294 ' 121 06/01125 1 140581 220 ,160 524,498 77,206 962,445 559050 14,128,344 12/01/25 1 140,581 220,160 524.498 77,206 962,445 545,415 1 14 671,759 131 0610126 1 140.581 220160 524,498 77,208 NZ446 532112 15,203,871 1210128 1 140.581 220,160 624,498 77 982,445 619,134 15,723,006 141 06/0127 1 140,551 220,160 524,498 77,208 962,445 506.472 16 477 1210127 1 140,581 220160 524,498 n,206 982 445 494,119 18,723 596 151 0610128 1 140,681 220160 524,498 77,208 962445 4OZO67 17,205,663 1210128 140.581 220,160 524,498 77,208 98Z445. 470 310 17 776 973 16 0810129 140,581 220160 524.498 77,206 SSZ445 468 839 '18.134.812 1210129 140,581 220,160 524,498 77,208 9SZ445 1 447,647 18582,459 17 DfiIW /30 140, 581 220 ,180 524,498 77,206 SSZ445 436,729 19 019188 12/01/30 140,581- 220,160 524498 77,206 445 428 077 19445 266 18 06/01/31 140,581 220,160 524,498 77,206 962,445 415,4385 19 880 951 12101/31 140,581 220,160 1 524,498 77,206 9n445 406,50 20,266 497 19 06101132' 140581 220,160 524,498 77,206 962,445 395,655 20,662,152 12!01%32 140,581 1 220,160 524,498 77,206 962445 386.005 21,048,1S7 20 08101/33 140,581 220160 524,498 77,206 962,445 376,590 21 424,748 3 12/01/33 140,581 220160 624,498 77,206 0 9M.446 1 1 367,405 21,792163 21 1 081011341 W.581 220,160 524,498 77,206 962,445 1 $W,444 2ZI50,597 12/01/34 140,581 220,160 524.498 77 982445 349,701 22,600 298 22 0610(/35 140,581 220160 524,498 77 445 341 172 841,470 12!01135 140,581 220,180 524,498 77,206 445 851 23,174 321 23 08/01136 140, 581 220 ,160 624.498 77 962,445 324.733 23 499 D54 12101/36 140 581 220,160 524,498 77,206 962,445 316,812 23,815 866 124 06/01/37 140,581 220,160 524,498 77,206 982445 309085 24,124,951 12!01/37 140,581 220,160 524,498 77 206 1 962,445 1 1 301,546 24,425,498 25 06/01/38 140,581 220,160 624,498 77,206 982,445 294,192 24,720,689 12101/38 140,581 220,160 524,498 77,206 W445 287,016 25,007,706 26 06/01/39 140,581 220160 524,498 77,208 gn445 280,016 25 87,722 12/01/39 140.581 220,160 524488 77 08 962445 273.186 25,560,908 8,747,891 0 9,887,041 27,273 874 01 3,088,256 0 46,797,062 26,660,808 25,660,908 - Net Present Value 3,825,604 0 41903,8571 15,549,338 0 1,477,109 - 0 25 580 808 Transit 71F District 2009a - TIF PianAs Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 5/132009 Page 2 CITY OF FRIDLEY Transit TIF District - TIF Plan ASSUMPTIONS REDEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Development Starts Phase 2 No Redev Phase 3 Phase 1 No Redev Phase 4 No Redev Current Islands of Peace Apts Georgetown Apartments West of RR Tracks JLT Land RR Tracks Train Station Site Land E of RR Tracts Commercial Acres 7.3 31.9 18.3 25.7 20.4 10.1 41.9 155.6 Parcels 1 -14 15-24 25-29 30 31 -35 36-38 39-45 Site A B C D E F G TOTAL Units / Sq. Ft Retal( 1 $ 125 12,000 212,000 1 4,000 228,000 Office 1 $ 125 90,D00 90,000 Rental 1 $100,000 1441 132 125 401 Owner Occupied $ 200,000 100 186 157 80 523 Market Value Retall 1 1,500,000 28,500,000 500,000 28,500,000 Omce I 11,250,000 11,250,000 Rental 1 14,400,000 1 13,200,000 12,500,000 1 40,100,000 Owner Occupied 20,000,000 37,200,000 31,400,000 16,DDO,DDD 104,800,000 34,400,000 0 51,900,000 81,850,00D 0 0 16,500,ODD 0 184,450,000 Existing - No Change 22,640,400 0 31,B95,DOD 54,535,400 Total Market Value 34,400,000 22,640,400 1,900,000 81,650,000 0 D 16,500,000 31,895,000 238,985,400 0 Original Market Value 8,621,400 40 22,640,0 11,079,300 10,850,100 0 1,320,900 31,895,000 86,407,100 Increase In Market Value 4.0 4.7 7.5 12.5 New Market Value per acre 4,689,204 2,839,945 3,181,499 1,628,504 Existing Market Value per acre 708,686 0 760,582 Tax Capacity — - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -^ 2016 -------- 2018 - - -- Now - - - - ^— Construction 1 2012 2014 I Market I Full Valuation 2013 2015 2017 2019 Value Taxes Payable 2014 2016 2018 Phase 3 2020 Phase 4 t Starts- 1 Current Phase 1 Phase 2 Commercial / Retail B I 1 C Parcels 25-29 West of RR Tracks Phase 3 11,079 3DO 11,079,300 11,079,300 11500,000 1,500,000 D Parcels 301 JLT Site Phase 1 10,850,100 37,750 000 37,750 000 37 750,000 37,750,000 E Parcels 31 -35 Railroad Tracks I No Redev 1 0 0 0 0 0 F Parcels 36-38 Transit Station Phase 4 1.320,900 1,320,900 1,320 900 1,320,900 500 000 G Parcels 39-45 East o RR Tracks South No Redev 31 895,000 31,895,000 31,895,000 31,895,000 31,895,000 Rental I I I I A Parcels 1 -14 Island Park Area Phase 2 8,621,400 8,621,400 14,400,000 14,400,000 14,400 000 B Parcels 15-24 Georgetown Apt area I No Redev 1 22,640,400 22,640 400 22,640,40D 22,640,400 22,640 400 C Parcels 25-29 West of RR Tracks Phase 3 1 13,200,000 13,200,000 ET Parcels 301 JLT Site Phase 1 j 12,500,000 12,500,000 12,500,000 12,500,000 Owner Occupied 1 •1 A Parcels 1 -14 Island Park Area Phase 2 20,000 000 20,000,000 20,000;000 C Parcels 25-29 West of RR Tracks I Phase 3 It 37,200,000 37 00,000 IT Parcels 301 JLT Site I Phase 1 1 31,400,000 31,400,000 31,400 000 31,400,000 F Parcels 36-38 Transit Station Phase 4 16,000,000 Total Market Values 86,407,100 157,207,000 182,985,600 223,806,300 238,965,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 Original Tax Capacity 1,493,679 1,375,15611 1,309,978 1,204,4041 1,179,820 Transit TIF District 2009a -TIF Plan.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 5/13/2009 R TIF PLAN PROVIDED TO SCHOOL DISTRICT(S) (minimum 30 days prior to public hearing) THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2009 PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (10 - 30 days prior to public hearing) THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2009 HRA MEETING (1) modify Redevelopment Plan (2) modify existing TIF Plans (3) create TIF District No. 20 (4) adopt TIF Plan MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - PUBLIC HEARING (1) modify Redevelopment Plan (2) modify existing TIF Plans (3) create TIF District No. 20 (4) adopt TIF Plan KM: 4815 -5667 -5587, V. 1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PROPOSED CHRONOLOGY :REATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 20 (NORTHSTAR) THUR5UAT, iurvr- 4, 2009 HRA MEETING Overview of Project MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2009 COUNCIL MEETING (1) call for public hearing TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009 NOTICE PROVIDED TO COUNTY COMMISSIONER (minimum 30 days prior to publication) THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009 NOTICE PROVIDED TO COUNTY RE:. ROAD COSTS (minimum 45 days prior to public hearing) THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2009 TIF PLAN PROVIDED TO ANOKA COUNTY (minimum 30 days prior to public hearing) TIF PLAN PROVIDED TO SCHOOL DISTRICT(S) (minimum 30 days prior to public hearing) THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2009 PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (10 - 30 days prior to public hearing) THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2009 HRA MEETING (1) modify Redevelopment Plan (2) modify existing TIF Plans (3) create TIF District No. 20 (4) adopt TIF Plan MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - PUBLIC HEARING (1) modify Redevelopment Plan (2) modify existing TIF Plans (3) create TIF District No. 20 (4) adopt TIF Plan KM: 4815 -5667 -5587, V. 1 L ACTION ITEM HRA MEETING OF JUNE 712007 MY OF FRIDLEY Date: May 29, 2009 To: William Burns, City Manager W0 From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Subject: Gateway West Residential New Construction Program Last month the HRA approved the termination of the exclusive development agreement with Blueprint Homes. The notice of termination was sent to Blueprint and the HRA is now free to move forward with the completion Gateway West. Over the past few months, as it was becoming apparent that Blueprint Homes would not be able to complete the project, staff started to examine different means to move the project towards completion. Staff determined there were really 3 options to move forward. 1) RFP /RFQ to find another exclusive builder. In this market there may not be any single builder able to take on a 9 unit project. 2) Work with a realtor to sell the lots off. This option may take lots out of the HRA's hands, but would not guarantee construction any time soon and would limit ability to ensure new homes match quality and character of existing homes. 3) Create the Gateway West Housing Development program, modeled after the HRA's infill program, as outlined in the attachment. This option keeps the HRA in control of development while offering the properties to a much broader audience. After reviewing these options with legal counsel and Community Development staff, option #3 seemed to make the most sense. There is little risk to the HRA under this scenario, as the lots will not be sold until the home plans have been reviewed and approved. Staff would appreciate receiving your comments on the Gateway Housing Development program on Thursday night and would bring this item back for your approval at your next meeting. Recommended Action On Thursday night, Staff would like authorization to have an independent appraiser review the lots in order to develop sales prices that are fair and able to be financed by the lending institutions. Currently I have ballpark estimates from the City's residential appraiser, Lynne Krachmer. According to Mr. Krachmer, the properties are valued for taxes in the $60,000 range but would likely sell in the $50,000 - $55,000 range based on current market conditions. To ensure potential buyer /builder teams do not run into financing problems, staff recommends having an independent appraiser review the lots. m Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority Gateway West Housing Development Information Guide A Guide to Purchasing Vacant Lots from the HRH's Gateway West Residential New Construction Program ----------------------- --- - -- -DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION---------------------- - - - - -- Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 763- 572 -3591 May 2009 Equal Housing Opportunity Agency Introduction The Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) started acquiring properties for the Gateway West Housing Development in 1996 for the purpose of removing older, substandard homes and buildings and replacing them with new housing. The goals of the development are to: 1. Help eliminate blight. 2. Preserve and expand the City's tax base. 3. Encourage neighborhood revitalization through re- investment. 4. Improve the City's image along the University Avenue corridor. All of the properties acquired by the HRA were purchased on a voluntary basis directly from the owners over a 10 year timeframe. Once acquired, the structures were demolished and the properties were reconfigured into a total of 16 new building lots. To date 7 new homes have been constructed. In order to keep the development moving forward, the HRA has created an exciting opportunity for those seeking to construct a new home in Fridley by offering the remaining lots for sale through the Gateway West Residential New Construction Program. This program allows buyers to partner with the builder of their choice to design and build a custom home in this prime location near shopping and the Fridley Northstar Commuter Rail Station. This guidebook describes what is required to purchase a lot and build a new home. Construction Standards The Gateway West Residential New Construction Program is a new construction program only. New homes must be built by either 1) conventional, stick - built, on -site construction or 2) on -site panelized construction with pre - approval of the Fridley HRA staff. Unacceptable construction includes, but is not limited to, manufactured housing (e.g. mobile homes), modular housing, or existing homes that are moved on site from another location. Home Design Guidelines One of the objectives of the Gateway West Residential New Construction Program is to encourage home designs which are sensitive to the existing neighborhood and match the 7 homes already constructed in style, size, and quality. To assist both buyers and builders in understanding these design requirements, special guidelines have been prepared and are attached as Appendix A. Interested parties are encouraged to follow the guidelines carefully as they prepare their home plans. Owner Occupancy Requirement All homes built under the Gateway West Residential New Construction Program must be owner - occupied. Builder Requirements Only licensed home builders are allowed to purchase an HRA lot and construct a new home. However, to make the program workable, individuals may reserve a lot for a period of time and then find a builder or conversely builders may reserve a lot and then find a buyer. Additional information on this process is described in the next section. How to Reserve a Lot There are two options for reserving an HRA lot: Option 1 A home builder may reserve a site and then find a buyer. Option 2 An individual may reserve a site and then find a builder. To reserve a lot, you need to fill out a Lot Reservation Agreement (attached) and pay a reservation fee of $500.00. Checks should be made payable to the Fridley HRA. The fee is earnest money for the lot and will be credited toward to the purchase price. This fee is non - transferable to other HRA lots and can only be refunded in the event that you cannot qualify for financing. It usually takes one to two weeks to process your agreement. Once you receive the agreement back; you will have 60 days to submit the following information: A signed purchase agreement between the builder and the buyer for the new home to be constructed. This agreement will be subject to contingencies, such as eligibility for financing and HRA approval. 2. A full set of house plans (prepared in accordance with the HRH's design guidelines). 3. Evidence that the builder has construction financing for the new home and the home buyer has qualified for permanent financing. Once these items are in place, the HRA Board of Commissioners will, at their next regularly scheduled meeting, review the project and authorize the sale of the land to the builder. In addition, the HRA will approve a Contract for Private Redevelopment with the builder. This document spells out the obligations of each party and the details of the project. Overview of Development Process Anticipated Step Activity Time Frame Step 1: Submission and processing of lot reservation 7 -14 days Step 2: Builder /Buyer works on preparing plans, Up to 60 days arranging financing and executing a purchase agreement. Must be submitted to HRA within this time frame. Step 3: HRA staff review of plans and related Up to 30 days project documents. Step 4: HRA meeting to review and approve the Up to 30 days project. Builder can submit application and plans to City for building permit. Step 5: Developer and HRA execute development No later than 30 contract. days after HRA approval. Step 6: HRA sells lot to builder and No later than 60 conveys title. days after HRA approval. Step 7: Construction Maximum of 120 days, weather permitting. Available Lots See Appendix B for available lots and a price list. Questions For more information, contact Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Director at 763- 572 -3591. Appendix A — Gateway West Home Design Guidelines Overview The development of all Gateway West home sites shall meet the design guidelines described below. The guidelines have been created to insure that the new homes are built to blend in with and enhance the surrounding neighborhood. Exterior materials, roof, window, door, overall building design, and finished landscape are all important considerations. The HRA shall have the ability to review and approve or deny all site plans, grading and drainage plans, and building plans prior to executing a Contract for Private Development. Design Guidelines 1. Only single - family, detached dwellings may be constructed on these sites. Structures must meet be constructed in compliance with all applicable state and local codes. 2. Three and four bedroom homes are desirable. As an alternative the home may have two bedrooms and sufficient space to provide for a third bedroom. 3. Two full bathrooms are desirable, however a minimum of one full bath and one half bath is also acceptable. 4. A two (2) car garage is required (attached or detached). A covered entrance and service door are desirable. A hard surfaced driveway (asphalt or concrete) must be installed. Attached garages should be constructed so as to minimize the dominance of the garage door. Suggestions to achieve this objective include locating the garage further back in relation to the dwelling unit. 5. Exterior materials shall be of high quality and low maintenance, similar and complementary to the materials used on the 7 homes already constructed. Brickwork, stone, and /or other ornamentation on the dwelling is preferred to add character. 6. The house building lines, roof lines, door and window placement shall be used to minimize blank wall mass, and orientation to the street must present a balanced and pleasing view from all sides. Consideration should be given to blending the appearance of the dwelling with the existing housing in the Gateway West Development. 7. All sites to be fully landscaped upon completion of the project and shall include sod installation and placement of plants and shrubs. Existing trees shall be preserved whenever possible. Care should be taken to preserve existing root systems. 8. Screening fences are not permitted on the properties. The HRA made a large investment in the decorative fencing along University Avenue as part of the Gateway West Development project. Other fences detract from this fence. The HRA encourages landscaping be used for screening. 9. Utility meters shall be screened from street view; locations must be specified on plans. All air conditioning units must be located in the rear yard of the house or as approved by the HRA. 10. The Fridley HRA shall review and approve all building, drainage, and land- scaping plans before the builder can obtain a building permit. The final grade of the property must not have a detrimental impact on storm water drainage patterns in the neighborhood. Reworking the existing site grade to improve neighborhood drainage may be requested of the developer. Specific storm water management requirements may be added as appropriate, including the addition of gutters for specific sites. 11. The builder will be required to purchase the lot from the HRA before home construction begins. 12. All building plans must have been prepared in consultation with an Architect or an Architectural Designer and meet all applicable codes. Existing Gateway West Homes: Plan to insert photos of existing homes......... Appendix B — Available Properties & Sales Price Properties The list of properties is subject to change at any time. HRA Staff will update the City's website with the status of the properties. Please view the website for the most up to date information. www.ci.fridley .mn.us /hra /Gatewayproperties ......will insert a map of properties ... as well as a listing of address and price..... Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority W MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4, 2009 TO: William W. Burns, Executive Director of HRA FROM: Paul Bolin, Assistant HRA Director SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL — Legislative Update — Scattered Site Introduction Despite our best efforts to re- authorize 1995 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 264, Article 5, Sections 44-47 in order to continue the Scattered Site program, our legislation was not approved this legislative session. Although our legislation was approved by both houses in slightly different forms and expanded to a statewide bill it was dropped at the last minute because the Senate author had gone home ill! According to Bonnie Balach, Director of Minnesota Solutions, summarized the travails of our legislative efforts very well in her end of session recap for member cities of MN Solutions (full version attached to this memo). "This was the snafu of the session, in my estimation. Our original proposal did two things. First of all, cities are already allowed to pool 10% from any district within the city's boundaries for affordable housing. We proposed that city's be allowed to use this same, not additional, pooling authority for market rate housing. We also proposed some amendments to the Housing Replacement Program (more cities but not statewide). The House included our proposals in their omnibus tax bill. The Senate partially accepted them. We had the opportunity to provide testimony to the tax conference committee and it was a resounding success. We were even charged with coming up with language to make the Housing Replacement Program statewide. When the decision to quickly move H.F. 1298 out of the tax conference committee was made, the House tax conferees offered the House position, which is what the advocates wanted in the first place, Senator Bakk declined to accept it because the Senate author had gone home sick and wasn't available to give her blessing (although it would certainly have been forthcoming). That was it. We missed our only chance to travel in a viable vehicle. We didn't stop pushing, though. There was a hint of a second tax bill and it really wasn't until the last hour of session that we knew that even if our language had been included, it would have been doomed. The best thing I can say about the way that this turned out is that it should be an easy sell next session. I plan to stay bitter for a few months, though". Page 1 of 4 Bolin, Paul From: Bonnie Balach [bbalach @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:35 PM To: Bruce Nordquist; Patricia Nauman; David Black; Michael Posnick; AI Swintek; James Keinath; Jim Casserly; Branna Lindell; Wendy Underwood; Kevin Walli; Steve Billings; Craig Klausing; Minnesota NAHRO; Hickok, Scott; Mary Beth Davidson; Paula M. Mazzacano; Tammy Omdal; Doug Carlson; Chris Miller, Jim Holmes; AI Madsen; Paul Bums; Ken Stabler; Marc Nevinski; Chris Hettig; Jamie Radel; Walt Fehst; Laura Harris; Dave Kelliher; Tim Cruikshank; Marcus Martin; Lorrie Louder; Bolin, Paul; Robert Schreier; Greg Johnson; Marylou Egan; Tom Cotruvo; John Grossman; Patrick Connoy; Kristen Lukes; Paul Hyde; Jennifer Bergman; Kathy Hahne; Grant Femelius; Guy Peterson; Karl Gill; Barb Nelson; Scott Benson; Debra L. Bahr- Helgen; jcarison @braunintertec.com; Bruce Thielman; Ann Norris; Dean Lotter; Bob Streetar; Mary Frances Skala; Regina Harris; Marcia Glick; pat.gustafson @ncrcnahro.org; Amy R. Geisler; Cathy Sorensen; Hue Nguyen; Nora Jost; Steve Bubul; Bill Barnhart; Meredith Udoibok; Gay Greiter; Mark Vahlsing; Margaret Robare ((MP)); Matt Brown; Michele Merxbauer, Craig Waldron; Karen Skepper; Jim Kerrigan; Kevin Locke; Bob Benke; Thomas Paschke; Jenn O'Rourke; Bret Heitkamp; Debra Detrick; Greg Hunt; Kristin A. Guild; John Karl; Beth Reetz; Bill Malinen; Nikki Newman; Dan Rogness; Ann Higgins; Tom Harmening; Jeffrey .streder @ci.minneapolis.mn.us; Matt Fulton; John Kaul; Bryan Lloyd; Terry Speiker Subject: Legislative Update May 20, 2009 TO: Minnesota Solutions' participants FR: Bonnie Balach RE: Bad end to bad session. It was so much work for so little in the way of results. It fact, it takes a lot of creativity and imagination to find anything worthy of celebration. Most of you know at least some of the details of the 2009 legislative session. The Governor slashed about $200M out of the $925M bonding bill sent to him by the legislature. Included in the vetoes were many transit projects -- investments that are important if our state is going to be positioned to be economically competitive and environmentally healthy. Very shortsighted, I believe. Tax related deliberations were even more frustrating. There wasn't much agreement between the House, Senate and the Governor to begin with and it proved to be too much to iron out in the time allotted. The first tax bill to. be sent to the Governor (H.F. 885) included the legislature's alternative to the Governor's proposal to sell bonds against future tobacco revenues to the tune of about a billion dollars to help plug the state deficit. It was vetoed. As prospects for agreement became more grim, the tax conference committee decided to separate out the public finance and other provisions that could quickly be agreed upon by the tax conference committee and for which the Administration's support was assured. H.F. 1298 was signed into law. I have provided a link to the final language. We remained hopeful that there would be another tax bill. The tax conference committee had H.F. 2323 before it, so there was a vehicle. However, there wasn't any more progress made so in the last hour of the legislative session, the tax conference committee put together another bill that would have solved the entire deficit with a combination of tax increases and shifts. It was an ugly struggle getting it through the House and Senate, which was done in about 15 minutes and only with considerable consternation. There was never any doubt that the Governor would veto that bill. The purpose was to get on the record that the legislature had provided the Governor with a balanced budget. There simply wasn't another chance to work on local development issues. 5/29/2009 Page 2 of 4 There were around 30 tax increment financing proposals introduced, which I believe is a sign of the difficult economic times. There were a lot of requests for district extensions. The House Tax Committee Chair is extremely opposed to district extensions and in the end, only two survived (two districts that is, not two proposals). They were justified for inclusion in H.F. 1298 because they were both renewal and renovation districts that could have qualified as redevelopment districts but weren't because at the time, it seemed he additional revenues would not be required and, as we are all painfully aware, economic times have changed. There were requests for amendments to the five year rule -- enough so that the tax conference committee did address that issue generally. See below for details. Senator Bakk, Chair of the Senate Tax Committee, promoted a proposal that would have allowed for the creation of "compact development districts." Representative Lenczewski proposed that cities be allowed to use excess increments to back fill their budgets for LGA losses. Both were ill fated in spite of such influential backing. There were bills that would allow redevelopment and housing districts to be extended by ten years. Quite a few of the special tax increment financing proposals had a transit oriented development component. One of the most discussed was the Central Corridor TIF proposal for Saint Paul, which didn't ultimately make headway. In the end, in spite of a huge flurry of activity, very little was signed into law. One proposal not signed into law that will not be missed, was Representative Lenczewski's proposal to define Minnesota Development Subsidies and eliminate corporate exemptions. Following is a brief summary of some of the issues we worked on: TIFfor transit oriented development. As you recall, our initial proposal did three things: (1) Added activities in a Transit Improvement Area (TIA) into the public purpose and eligible uses for economic development TIF districts (which essentially created a new kind of transit TIF district). (2) Allowed cities to pool an additional 10% from existing TIF districts anywhere in the city into the TIA for land acquisition, public infrastructure and redevelopment costs. (3) Allowed cities to pool from TIF districts located in a TIA anywhere within the TIA for land acquisition, public infrastructure and redevelopment costs. Neither of the House nor the Senate tax committee chairs liked the pooling or economic development provisions, so we eliminated those. Then concerns were raised about DEED playing a role in designating TIAs, so we came up with alternative language for that provision. Our alternate language would have allowed a city to create a TIA comprised of parcels all, or in part, within 1/4 mile of a transit station, which we defined. Then the House tax committee chair was concerned that Minnesota would be the only state to use TIF for this purpose. We provided evidence to the contrary. Next we countered the contention that we could already use TIF for area wide public infrastructure, etc. Finally, we ran out of time to argue. We did not expect this to end up in the non- controversial bill (H.F. 1298), but we did keep pushing until the very end. Senator Dibble was a wonderful advocate for our position and he did get some encouragement from Rep. Lenczewski that indicated her willingness to understand the issue better. Senator Dibble will get together with her during the interim. The value of the 2009 Legislative Session, at least insofar as this issue is concerned, is that we were able to hone down the objections to what I believe is some manageable and surmountable disagreement. TIF for neighborhood recovery in the wake of the foreclosure crisis: This was the snafu of the session, in my estimation. Our original proposal did two things. First of all, cities are already allowed to pool 10% from any district within the city's boundaries for affordable housing. We proposed that city's be allowed to use this same, not additional, pooling authority for market rate housing. We also proposed some amendments to the Housing Replacement Program (more cities but not statewide). The House included our proposals in their omnibus tax bill. The Senate partially accepted them. We had the opportunity to provide testimony to the tax conference committee and it was a resounding success. We were even charged with coming up with language to make the Housing Replacement 5/29/2009 Page 3 of 4 Program statewide. When the decision to quickly move H.F. 1298 out of the tax conference committee was made, the House tax conferees offered the House position, which is what the advocates wanted in the first place, Senator Bakk declined to accept it because the Senate author had gone home sick and wasn't available to give her blessing (although it would certainly have been forthcoming). That was it. We missed our only chance to travel in a viable vehicle. We didn't stop pushing, though. There was a hint of a second tax bill and it really wasn't until the last hour of session that we knew that even if our language had been included, it would have been doomed. The best thing I can say about the way that this turned out is that it should be an easy sell next session. I plan to stay bitter for a few months, though. Five year rule/four year knockdown provisions: For a redevelopment or a renewal and renovation district certified after June 30, 2003, and before April 20, 2009 the five -year rule is extended to ten years. For districts certified on or after January 1, 2005, and before April 20, 2009, the four year knock down period is increased to six years. Income tax credit: Tax credit proposals did not fair well at all. There were many proposals on the table: Green JobZ, investment/angel tax credit, Minnesota Business Insurance Premiums tax credit, research credit, charitable contribution credit, historic credit, etc. None saw the light of day. Job stimulus proposal (S.F. 2078): In the 11th hour of the legislative session, a coalition of labor groups, architects, cities and others came forward with a proposal to boost construction jobs in our lagging economy. The proposal would have created a temporary loan guarantee program in DEED, provided historic tax credits, low income housing tax credits, a first time homeowners program, qualified green building and sustainable design projects, extension of certain economic development- related permits, tax abatement for newly - constructed residential structures in flood - damaged areas, and some tax increment financing amendments. The price tag was $103M. To my knowledge, the only part that passed was the tax abatement for newly - constructed residential structures in flood - damaged areas. The idea of the loan guarantee program did seem to interest the House Tax Committee chair, so maybe something will be moved along next session. Targeted community development program (former UR,4P): URAP was made statewide, although there was no appropriation. We do hope to focus some revenues in targeted communities in the future. In order to designate a targeted neighborhood, three of the four following criteria must be met (new language is underlined): (a) The area had an unemployment rate that was twice the unemployment rate for the Minneapolis and Saint Paul standard metropolitan statistical area as determined by the most recent federal decennial census. (b) The median household income in the area was no more than bed€ 80 percent of the median household income for the need of substantial rehabilitation. An area qualifies under this paragraph if 25 percent or more of the residential dwelling units are in substandard condition as determined by the city, or if 70 percent or more of the residential dwelling units in the area were built before 4-9491960 as determined by the most recent federal decennial census.(d) The area is characterized by having a disproportionate number of vacant residential buildings and mortgage foreclosures. An area qualifies under this paragraph it has either•(1) a foreclosure rate of at least 1.5 percent in 2008, a foreclosure rate in 2008 in the city or in a zip code area of the city that is at least 50 percent higher than the average foreclosure rate in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2. For purposes of this ..paragraph "foreclosure rate" means the number of foreclosures, as indicated by sheriff sales records divided by number of households in the city in 2007. 5/29/2009 Page 4 of 4 Livable communities fund transfer: The Metropolitan Council may transfer to its transit operating budget in 2009, 2010, and 2011 money that is not committed to grant or loan awards made by the council as follows: (1) up to 50 percent of the revenues and amounts credited, transferred, or distributed to TIBRA; and (2) up to 50 percent of the revenues and amounts credited transferred, or distributed to the LCDA in the same years. In addition, balances in the the metropolitan livable communities fund accounts in 2009, 2010, and 2011 are subject to transfer. This was a hard fought battle on the part of Metro Cities and was much ameliorated from the Council's original proposal as a result. Bonding: Our bonding requests for the Redevelopment Account and Transit Improvement Areas did not progress this session. We did not really expect them too. The litmus test for bonding proposals was that projects be "shovel ready" and that's a hard argument to make for competitive programs like these. We felt it was important to keep highlighting them, though, and they will be pursued with vigor next session. Eminent domain: Our bill did make it to the House Floor where it languished due to inactivity. We considered that to be quite an achievement, though, and will spend time during the interim addressing concerns that were raised. We have a fairly good idea of what the criticisms are and where they will come from. We're hopeful! htt s: / /www.revisor.leg state.mn.us /laws / ?id= 88 &doctXpe= chapter &year - 2009 &type =0 5/29/2009 Fridley Housing and Redevelopment ION Authority HMO MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2009 TO: William W. Burns, Executive Director of HRA v FROM: Paul Bolin, Assistant HRA Director SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL — Columbia Arena TIF Request Introduction As discussed last month, the developer(s) of the Columbia Arena site have indicated a need for TIF assistance to ready the site for the new development. Attorney Casserly has met with the lead developer, and is still awaiting additional information. It appears that due to the number of parties involved, it will take additional time to gather all of the information we need to thoroughly evaluate the request. Attorney Casserly will provide a verbal update at the HRA meeting on Thursday. *Attached to this memorandum are the HRA's "Guidelines" for reviewing TIF projects that Chairman Commers referenced at last month's meeting. You may recall discussing these guidelines when reviewing John Allen's most recent project along Main Street as it related to the maximum amounts of developer subsidy. FROM :City of Fridley FAX NO. :7635711287 Nov. 30 2006 04:09PM P2 07/16/97 TIT$ 10:20 FAX 812 886 6969 BRASS MONROE FRIDLEY W992 Eo— Community Development Department . HOUSMG AND R,Eoxc�oPmw -4T AuTHoRrrY City of Fridley DATE May 7, 1992 .r " To: William Burns, PXeCUtiVa Director of LIRA. rRoxt Barbara bacy, CommuaAty Development Director SUBJECT: Final Version of TIF Policies Attached are the amended TIF policies agreed to by the HRA and City Council, at the joint meeting on April 9, 1992. 'The HRA members may Want to Pile these in an easily retrievable location when TIF applications are submitted for their approval,. BD: la M -92 -311 R Ij FROM :City of Fridley FAX NO. :7635711207 07/15/97 TUB 10:21 FAX 812 895 5989 BRASS MONROE f 1. DEFINITIONS A. cost versus a subsidy Nov. 30 2006 04:10PM P3 444 FRIDLEY 10003 8-A I. Cost is the amount* of money needed to acquire land, prepare the site, or construct public improvements. 2. A subsidy is the amount of assistance to a developer that allows the developer to acquires the site below its fair market value. B. Redevelopuent versus Economic Development 1. B.ede`relopment usually •refers to izaproved and/or blighted properties. 2. Economic development usually refers to unimproved properties. C. "Dut -For Test" 1. Where does it come from? M.S. 469-175, Subd. 3(2) 2. The "But -For Test" is as follows: "That the proposed development or redevelopment irk the opinion of the municipality would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future and therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed -necessary." D. Eligible Expenses I. Land acquisition 2. site worX including demolition /site clearance, grading /' back - filling /compaction of fill, erasion control, and paving; include costs of base construction up to laying of asphalt 3. utxli',y hook -up 4. -Traffic control lights /signs 5. Relocation 6. Landscaping an public right -of- -ways. ' 7. Public riglit -of -way costs including lighting, signage, driveway aprons, curbs, sidewalks, and boulevards 8. Interest cost during construction period of eligible expenses FROM :City of Fridley FAX NO. :7635711287 07/18/97 TUB 10:21 FAX 812 885 5969 KRASS MUNROE DEFINITIONS - PAGE 2 E. Nov. 30 2006 04:10PM P4 4-+-r FRIDLEY ZU04 s. Administrative costs including supervision, contractors fees, inspection fees, and overhead 10. Consultant's fees including architectural /design, engineering, financial coxisulting, and legal /bond counial 11. City assessments, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, streets, and any costs listed above that are assessable 12. Contingency 13. Interest rate buy -down for housing only Project Costs are the cost of land, building, and equipment that are incurred within the first year from the start of project construction. FROM :City of Fridley FAX NO. .:7635711287 07/15/97 TUB 10:21 FAX 612 885 SH9 XRASS MONROE N__, 11. GP3MRAL GUIDELI=S Nov. 30 2006 04 :10PM P5 a44 P'RIDLEY 4005 de A. TIF policies are riot law, but are guidelines only. They are subject to changes based on annual review of redevelopment priorities and projects. The guidelines may have to be exceeded based on the project's contribution toward community needs as determined by the ERA and the City Council. S. Every district should be self- supporting; however, in certain areas the EMA's redevelopment costs may greatly exceed the value og tax increment revenues generated in projects that fulfill redevelopment goals (i.e. housing rehabilitation projects or redevelopment from commercial to residential). Poolinct of TIF revenues is desirable as a means- of accomplishing difficult redevelopment goals (i.e., housing rehab). C. Wherever possible, the ERA vill' consider the econovic impact of pro j ect,s on the city's financial condition. D. Any developer /user must justify the requested assistance ('But -For Test"). Wherever possible, the amount of TXF assistance for a project should be limited through the use of alternative financial incentives e.g. SSA 504 financing, industrial revenue bonds, or economics recovery fund grants. Developers and users should demonstrate the financial feasibility of the project. E. whenever possible, the HRA should recapture its subsidy from the project. F. The captured tax capacity shall not exceed 15$ of the total tax capacity. G. The amount of TIF given to any project must be related to the contribution of the project to •the city i s redevelopment goals including.creation and retention of jobs, enhancing the tax base, preserving the decline of tax values, eliminating blight and deteriorated properties, or meeting affordable housing /other housing objectives. .W FROM :City of Fridley FRX NO. :7635711287 07/18/97 TUB 10:22 FAX 812 885 6989 BRASS MONROB >+ A to b W � O P4 a P4 0 Q a� A • O H 0 1.4 V G2 y V N 0 ij t t6 i N W 41 N 0 a Nov. 30 2006 04:10PM P6 444 FRIDLEY Moos N 4J N -r, 0 P4 y w a� o, rd IBC. QJ U H al W P., Ir. dp cw de O 0 ui in um rg 'pq m a 44 0 � in W gO V ed 3 in Ln Ln C '� LC) tn Ln `CL) 0w a to in Ln a V ri rb Ln LO Ln hi y V N 0 ij t t6 i N W 41 N 0 a Nov. 30 2006 04:10PM P6 444 FRIDLEY Moos N 4J N -r, 0 P4 y w a� o, rd IBC. QJ U H al W P., Ir. Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority MDY% MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2009 TO: William W. Burns, Executive Director of HRA 40 FROM: Paul Bolin, Assistant HRA Director SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL — Fairview Clinic Sign Introduction Community Development Director Hickok met with Fairview representatives last week to review the proposed sign location and discuss operation of the changeable message center. We are currently awaiting additional information from Fairview's sign contractor and comments from Fairview on the draft easement agreement. We are hoping to receive the information prior to your June 4t' meeting. We will provide a verbal update on the progress at Thursday night's meeting. Fridley HRA Housing Program Summary Cover Page June 4, 2009 HM Meeting Report Description Loan Application Summary Loan application activity (e.g. mailed out, in process, closed loans) for April and year -to -date. Loan Origination Report Remodeling Advisor Loan originations for April and year -to- date. Shows the number of field appointments scheduled and completed the Remodeling Advisor Services administered by Center for Energy and Environment. H: \-- Paul's Documents\HRA\HRA Agenda Items\2009\May 7, 2009\Housing Program Cove May.doc N� C R J N C . O R V .Q C. a l v N Q O I� too. L C 'C.: HQ' N C R J I N C O w t4 � .CL m ate, N C� O. CL R V � 10 d .Q za, O O N E O N � CO C G i M m �V 7Iv 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 A L I 0 0"t r O O O O D ti DI H D It IAIn 01 M 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 L C 0 e e 7 U) 0 0 � � � O o o 0 n c O N W C 0 V = .a LL 3 s li rn C LL. ea O 7 X k O C J LL IL U. J m � 0 NJ C.�+'�'O�IR.NC Co 0) -1 "a IL C c d O O as C d E EW-�e wW za d? E E d C +r is 0 -a D U. ' . CU. 0 0 m 9 i = = = = w � =0 �t O r N a' MMEE fi O H G1 3 w w V d s_ E O w C O r R V C. Q R s 0 c 3 O v L m C O CD C. O C. c O O 0 m O r C 0 Y R 0 C N d O v 0 O C m N N R V .Q C. to v-. O 0 m 7 z I r C Fridley HRA Loan Origination Report May 26, 2009 Loan Originations This Previous Month Months Since 11112009 HRA Loans (incl. CFUF I 1 3 4 HRA Deferred Loans Other Loans (non -HRA) - Total 1 3 4 Fundina Sources This Previous Month Months Since 1/112009 Fridley HRA $ 331.49 $ 42,895.00 $ 43,226.49 MHFA FUF /CFUF $ 12,225.00 $ - $ 12,225.00 Met Council $ - $ - $ - CDBG/HOME $ - $ - $ - CEE $ $ - $ " Other $ - $ $ Total $ 12,556.49 $ 42,895.00 $ 55,451.49 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 Since 1/112009 Single Family 1 3 4 Duplex - - Tri-Plex - " 4 to 9 Units - ' 10 to 20 Units - 20+ Units Total 1 3 4 Types of Improvements Interior # of Projects % of Total Bathroom remodel 1 13% Kitchen remodel 1 13% General plumbing - 0% Heating system 1 13% Electrical system 2 25% Basement finish - 0% Insulation - 0% Room addition - 0% Misc. interior projects _ 0% Foundation - 0% Exterior Siding/Fascia/Soffit - 0% Roofing - 0% Windows/Doors 2 25% Garage 0% Driveway /sidewalk - 0% Landscaping 0% Misc. exterior projects 1 13% 0) O O N U) O V U) L U) O E CD 0 0 N 46 N R N c a m m E m .a V a N r+ d d E 73 _ d O r O CO ICS co v om.. Q N a 0) M o o O CD 0 �u �a2� 2 _7L7u: FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY June 4, 2009 LT o=e s p4o 3ir 1. Anoka County HRA We have continued to follow this issue and are currently awaiting an update from Karen Skepper. Staff will provide the most up to date information next Thursday night. 2. Northstar Update Construction I will e-mail the weekly construction update once it becomes available. Ground Lease Agreement Progress continues to move slowly on this item (too many players), but we are setting the date of your August meeting as the date for the HRA to hold the required public hearing on the lease agreement. Having a firm deadline should encourage the other parties to get their comments to our legal counsel in a more timely manner. Northstar TOD Workshop The Northstar Project Office held a Transit Oriented Development Workshop for Staff, Commissioners, and Council members on Wednesday. It was very informative and provided an opportunity to hear from some "experts" on commuter rail development from around the country. The City Planning staff, Mayor Lund, and Councilmembers Bolkcom & Varichak were in attendance at the workshop. Based on what we hear, we seem to be on the right track (investing in infrastructure and thinking long term). Joint HRA / Council Meeting Just another reminder of the joint meeting on THURSDAY, June 4th @ 6PM to discuss the Council/Commission Survey. The regular HRA meeting will follow the special meeting. 3. Gateway Northeast Update There is nothing new to report on potential purchases. There is the potential that staff may add a lease extension for the Alano Society to your action agenda for Thursday night. Two months ago, an Alano Society representative stopped in to state that they might need an extension if their new building wasn't ready by July. I asked that they confirm in writing if they do need an extension. Thus far, I haven't heard anymore from them. Staff did meet with representatives from the Oppidan development group who are currently working with a national senior housing group looking to construct in the Fridley area. Scott, Julie, and I gave them a number of sites to review. They have since called me back indicating some interest in the Gateway Northeast area. If there are any items you would like covered in upcoming issues of the Non - Agenda Update please send me an e -mail. bolinp @ci.fridley.mn.us 11