HRA 04/05/2012 •
April 5,2012
HRA Meeting
Regular Meeting Agenda
7:00 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
Call to order
Roll call
Action Items
1. Approval of expenditures
2. Approval of March 1, 2012 Meeting Minutes
3. Approval of Resolution creating TIF District#20 and Hazardous Substance
Subdistrict#20A
4. Approval of Driveway Easement - 561 Hugo Street
5. Approval to Hire Appraiser - Medtronic WHQ Property Value
Informational Items
1. Potential Sale of Vacant Lot- 6000 2nd Street
2. Potential Sale of 551 Hugo Street NE - Scattered Site
3. Housing Loan Program Update
Adjournment
■'■
K:\COMMISSION AGENDAS\2012 HRA Commission Agendas\12 04 05.docxK:\COMMISSION AGENDAS\2012 HRA
Commission Agendas\12 04 05.docx
March 20 / Fridley H' )ecking Acco )ayable
Acct#OUL,., 17036 Chet... esgister
Date Check# Vendor Invoice# Description Code Amount
2/29/2012 29380 Passau Landcare 4945 Snow Plowing,4757 2nd St NE 265-0000-430-4340 65.00
65.00
2/27/2012 29372 Advantage Signs&Graphics,Inc 17505 Banner-Home&Garden Show 265-0000-430-4335 220.70
220.70
2/27/2012 29383 CenterPoint Energy 8784216-7 Final Bill-4757 2nd St NE 265-0000-430-4338 43.23
43.23
2/29/2012 29381 Star Tribune 1009264598 Advertising-Home&Garden Show 265-0000-430-4334 768.00
1009266265 Advertising-Home&Garden Show 265-0000-430-4334 348.00
1,116.00
3/6/2012 29379 NSC/Schwan's Super Rink 4054-1 Final Bill for 2012 H&G Show 265-0000-430-4341 526.34
526.34
3/14/2012 29386 CastleVisions 031412-1 Final Bill for 2012 H&G Show 265-0000-430-4330 1,496.92
1,496.92
3/8/2012 29389 Wilson Development 22724 Relocation Analysis-BAE/RER 100-0000-430-4330,4606 176.00
(RER to fully reimburse) 176.00
3/13/2012 29387 Monroe Moxness Berg 128951 Adminsitration Fees 100-0000-430-4330 195.00
100-0000-430-4330-4606 16,917.05
17,112.05
3/21/2012 29385 APA-MN Administrators Workshop-Paul Bolin 5/17 100-0000-430-4337 80.00
80.00
3/26/2012 29384 Anoka County Property Taxes-22-30-24-11-0023-NS 100-0000-430-4350 388.83
Property Taxes-22-30-24-11-0022-NS 100-0000-430-4350 388.83
Property Taxes-14-30-24-31-0088-C HALL 100-0000-430-4350 545.16
Property Taxes-14-30-24-31-0089-C HALL 100-0000-430-4350 53.23
Property Taxes-14-30-24-31-0095-C HALL 100-0000-430-4350 172.86
Property Taxes-23-30-24-21-0111-GWNE 474-0000-430-4350 53.23
Property Taxes-23-30-24-21-0123-GWNE 474-0000-430-4350 53.23
Property Taxes-23-30-24-24-0022-GWNE 474-0000-430-4350 53.23
Property Taxes-23-30-24-21-0135-GWNE 474-0000-430-4350 439.35
Property Taxes-03-30-24-23-0088-HRP 501-0000-430-4350 53.23
Property Taxes-03-30-24-31-0077-HRP 501-0000-430-4350 53.23
March 2012 Fridley HRA Checking Accounts Payable
Acct#0000117036 Check Resgister
Date Check# Vendor Invoice# Description Code Amount
Property Taxes-23-30-24-23-0152-HRP 501-0000-430-4350 53.23
Property Taxes-03-30-24-24-0001-HRP 501-0000-430-4350 82.47
Property Taxes-26-30-24-32-0091-HRP 501-0000-430-4350 53.23
Property Taxes-14-30-24-24-0002-HRP 501-0000-430-4350 2,501.02
Property Taxes-03-30-24-23-0046-HRP 501-0000-430-4350 1,637.96
6,582.32
3/22/2012 29388 Sun Newspapers 16468 Public Hearing Notice-BAE/RER 100-0000-430-4335,4606 178.20
178.20
March Invoice Total $ 27,596.76
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION
March 1, 2012
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Pro Tem Gabel called the HRA Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Holm
John Meyer
Pat Gabel
Stephen Eggert
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Commers
NONMEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Bolin, BRA Assistant Executive Director
Becky Kiernan, Accountant
William Burns, City Manager
Darin Nelson, Finance Director/Treasurer
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant
Greg Johnson, Financial Analyst
Paul Hyde, Real Estate Recycling
ACTION ITEMS
1. Approval of Expenditures
MOTION by Commissioner Holm to approve the expenditures as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Eggert.
UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON PRO TEM GABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. Approval of February 2, 2012 Meeting Minutes
MOTION by Commissioner Holm to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Meyer.
UPON VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON PRO TEM GABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1. 4800 East River Road Real Estate Recycling Update
Paul Bolin,HRA Assistant Executive Director, said that the City Council set the Public Hearing
date and Real Estate Recycling has met with Planning Staff. Notices have been sent to Anoka
City of Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Meeting of February 2,2012 2
County as well. The schedule is for the Authority to consider approval on April 5th and the City
Council to hold the Public Hearing on April 9th
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant, said that the HRA entered into an interim agreement to
set the time tables back in November of 2011. As part of this agreement there were certain
things that needed to be accomplished and all of those things have been performed.
Mr. Casserly said that the establishment of a Tax Increment District and a Hazardous Substance
Sub-District and a term sheet to be incorporated into a development contract would be reviewed
in April. After that recommendation is reviewed, staff would present the information to the City
Council. We will continue to work to refine development plans because of the phasing that is
involved and the continuing issues raised by environmental clean up. We will also be working
with the redeveloper and the City to pursue grant opportunities at different levels. Once all of
these things occur and we are satisfied, we will enter a contract for redevelopment prior to
November 1, 2012.
Mr. Casserly said that most of the time we do not have this type of interim agreement for our
projects. Because of the complexity of this project, it will evolve and be a project that the
Authority and developer will be working on for the next 5-10 years. We have to be organized
and the developer has to be clear on how he will proceed. This will involve a lot of ongoing
discussion. We have to have an understanding of the costs, type of remediation, what it will take
to clean things up and timetables associated with this project.
Paul Hyde, Real Estate Recycling, said there are three components associated with this project;
environmental, existing tenants and the redevelopment plan. The environmental component
involves the MPCA and US-EPA approving a cleanup plan. As discussed previously, the
cleanup will not all happen at once,but over the course of the project development. The plan is
to start on the south end, then the north and the last area is where the existing building is located.
This will break down the environmental cleanup costs and the public infrastructure costs into
four segments. It also allows the existing tenants to stay through the rest of their lease.
Mr. Hyde said that he met with the City Planning group and they have started looking at the
process of rezoning and what it may look like including site plan approvals, public works issues
and have also hired the civil engineer to start working on the project.
Mr. Hyde has met with representatives from the Navy to discuss how this would affect their
cleanup. The Navy site has a ground water extraction system that keeps ground water on site.
This was used to cleanup metals in the manufacturing process. The Navy has been operating this
for a number of years and parts of it work well and others do not.
Mr. Hyde said that BAE is primarily focused on the area th we are not buyid that is
where the most contaminated soil is located. That area also has a ground water system keeping
water from going into the river. After meeting with the Navy they were excited to work on this
project and that we could bring some efficiency to their cleanup efforts. The Navy is also happy
that we would be giving them some sort of resolution to wrapping up this site. We will start
working on an agreement to create a cooperative framework to redevelop the property overtime.
Mr. Hyde said that BAE has an old paint booth that needs to be addressed. Our redevelopment
team will help them address that issue. We will help them with a cleanup plan that will be
City of Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Meeting of February 2,2012 3
executed in phases. Hopefully phase one will happen this spring/summer to take advantage of a
n fall grant application with Met Council and DEED and maybe create a TIF district.
Mr. Hyde said that the last piece is talking to the tenants. There are five tenants and they all are
using the space for cheap cold storage and auxiliary office use. The anchor tenant is BAE and all
leases go until 2015. BAE is moving the majority of their site to Kentucky. Mr. Hyde will get
some detail on what they need in a new building so a design can be created to possibly keep
them on site and then as their lease expires we would put them in one of the new buildings.
Commissioner Meyer asked for clarification that BAE would come back to the site in a few
years as a new entity in phase one.
Mr. Hyde said that is yet to be resolved. BAE has a lease through December 2015 and they do
not know what they will do when the lease expires. They can leave the site or renew for the
exact square footage they have now. BAE will retain an engineering presence here but it is
unclear if it will be on the current site or somewhere else. They will tell us what they want and
we will try to keep them on site.
William Burns, City Manager, asked where the new building would be for BAE on the map.
Mr. Hyde answered either on the south or north side.
Commissioner Meyer asked what would happen if someone came in and wanted to build
n something on phase two and three together and how that would affect the plan.
Mr. Hyde said that they would not get to the other phases until the lease expires in December of
2015. The first demolition contractor will take nine months to tear down the building plus
another six months of construction which gives us some sense as to when phase three would
happen. Phase one and two could be five years of construction; but if someone wanted to build
on phases two and three that would be great.
Commissioner Holm asked for clarification regarding the hazardous substance sub-district and
what part of the district is in the phase one area.
Mr. Hyde answered that the polluted parts of the land would be considered the hazardous
substance sub-district and both sites are on the federal and state super fund list. The area was
scored on what pollution is there and how it will affect the environment. Any new things that are
discovered as we start to tear things up is on us but we plan to ask them to help with the costs.
Commissioner Holm asked if the entire site would be in the hazardous substance sub-district.
Mr. Hyde answered yes, the entire site is contaminated. A sub-district cannot be certified until
the MPCA has approved a cleanup plan and the costs associated with the first phase are
identified. When an agreement is made we can go ahead and send a plan to the County which
then the County can collect taxes and send to the Authority. It works differently than the tax
district itself where you only get tax increment from increased value. In a sub-district existing
taxes and all of the other provisions of the tax increment act apply, that is why they use the same
terminology. A base is created artificially and in this instance we take the base down to zero.
City of Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Meeting of February 2,2012 4 r
Chairperson Pro Tem Gabel asked if that included everything except for the referendum and
money designated to the state.
Mr. Hyde answered that is correct
Chairperson Pro Tem Gabel asked if the grants would be asked for all upfront or in phases.
Mr. Hyde replied that there aren't enough funds available to ask for it all at once. Two grant
funds are available through the Met Council and the State. They each have funds available every
six months. Those applications are scored and driven by tax base creation; redevelopment
potential,job growth and how much you are cleaning up the environment. We will score a lot of
points with this site. The only way we can make this successful is to apply for the grants -
overtime which is why the phases will work well in this case.
Chairperson Pro Tem Gabel asked if there was any federal money available.
Mr. Hyde replied that there are loans available at the federal level; all you have to do is apply.
You get a low interest loan at 1-2% interest so we wouldn't need to burn tax increment funds
paying interest. Because of the tax restrictions these funds cannot be used on Superfund sites,
however, the site could be cleaned up and taken off the list and then we could apply for these
federal funds. The EPA gives money to the State of Minnesota, like $3.0M, on revolving loans
for clean up. We can borrow money for phase one to pay contractors and pay back the tax
increment over 15 years. Once this is paid back the State doesn't have to give the money back to
the Feds, they can reinvest the money to someone else.
Chairperson Pro Tem Gabel was concerned about taking potential money from the schools.
She asked if those funds could be paid back early.
Mr. Casserly replied that these are concerns that everyone raises when we look at sub-districts.
Schools are generally minimally impacted by this program and the school districts get 8%which
is a small piece of the pie. Medtronic, for example, has a substantial amount of market valuation
that will go into the base of the school district and so will other tax jurisdictions. The amount of
valuation from the other projects is roughly equivalent to what we are talking about here. There
would be minimal, if any, impact on the schools.
Dr. Burns asked about the funds BAE and the Navy have set aside for cleanup, like $4.0M, and
if those funds would be available for the RER cleanup.
Mr. Hyde said that when the Navy and BAE settled, as part of the settlement BAE made
payments to the Navy for $4.0M and now BAE has no further liability on the Navy portion of the
site. We couldn't go after BAE as they paid the Navy and that isn't enough money to clean up
the site. The Navy spent millions more than that and is still looking for more. We will save the
Navy future money in terms of operating the groundwater system, investigation that needs to be
done, and if there are other hot spots that need to be addressed.
Dr. Burns asked if the Navy would help fund this cleanup.
Mr. Hyde said they are still working on that agreement. We are just starting the negotiation
process. We will know more later and the next step is to meet with the Navy Project Manager,
the Attorney and GSA to create a Memorandum of Understanding.
City of Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Meeting of February 2,2012 5
Dr. Burns asked about the terms that would be included in a development agreement that will
come forward on April 9th
Mr. Casserly said that these are terms that would be in the term sheet and we want to capture all
the business part of the agreement. These are all terms that will show up in the development
contract and we are hoping to have that ready in July.
Dr. Burns said that there is a certain amount of good faith happening right now.
Mr. Casserly answered yes there is. Mr. Hyde has a large financial commitment invested before
he even has a redevelopment contract. He won't proceed with the closing unless they know we
can create the TIF Districts. There is a certain amount of trust and we will all continue to operate
in really good faith.
Mr. Hyde said that they are driven by the purchase agreement and the amount of time the seller
is giving them to figure this out. We don't want to own this in the current state; we want to
redevelop the property but there are a lot of steps involved. We are trying to see if this is a
viable redevelopment project and if it isn't,we won't buy it.
Dr. Burns asked what percent of completion would be known on April 9th
Mr. Casserly said that his level of comfort of phase one is very high and that they need to keep
thinking in phases and not entire project.
Dr. Burns asked if the terms would be known in phase one before the TIF districts were
approved.
Mr. Casserly answered that is the plan. That doesn't mean the project can't be revised but the
goal is to have as much in place as possible. When we come back in July or August they will
have a better handle on the grants and development contract. We will get smarter as we proceed.
Chairperson Pro Tem Gabel asked if any kind of financial numbers would be available for
next month's meeting regarding phase one.
Mr. Casserly answered yes. Some of this will be exciting because as they tear out concrete
there will be some amazing surprises. We will try to see if we can lay the groundwork for
anticipating the numbers.
Commissioner Eggert said that we all want to have a certain guarantee about this development
and that is not likely to happen for this project. We have to think of this project as a journey and
in a journey we need to have a good partnership. Right now we are creating the best map that
can be given with what we know and we have land that needs to be redeveloped. Opportunities
are coming together now with grants, leases etc. The timing is good and we have to remember
that this is a journey and we have to work together.
Mr. Hyde added that ultimately someone will have to deal with this property and the time is
right to do it now.
Dr. Burns asked what the prospects were as to HRA coming up with cash for this project.
City of Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Meeting of February 2,2012 6
Mr. Casserly answered that they do think that e HRA would be looking at advancing some
money, probably on a match basis, with the eloper to match the remediation expenses. We
are trying to sort out portions, how secure i c. Some amount will be necessary upfront and
timing depends on when the remediation work would actually start.
Mr. Hyde added that the grants are a great leverage, are very competitive and available only
every six months. What we are trying to avoid is a way not to be held up in the beginning by
grant fund timing. It would be great if money were available to match funds, that way we would
have a safety net rolling forward and wouldn't get held up with the grant cycle. The timing is to
get the clean up started this summer and go into grant funding in November 2012 and start
building next spring.
Chairperson Pro Tern Gabel asked how the HRA would fund this request.
Mr. Casserly answered that the Authority has many viable options; it could be an internal
request or go to outside funding sources.
Dr. Burns asked about the fiscal disparities in the pie chart with the loss to the HSS District.
The City is required to pay to fiscal disparities.
Mr. Casserly said that there will be additional amounts coming from other properties so there
will only be a small impact.
Dr. Burns thought that any lost property tax revenue would go into fiscal disparities; $120,000
is a lot of money for us to lose.
Mr. Casserly said he is measuring the impact of the fiscal disparities configuration that is being
made, but the commercial property in the tax jurisdiction is being allocated over the entire city so
you're not losing that amount.
Greg Johnson added that the city would lose the base for the properties in the hazardous
substance sub-district.
Dr. Burns said that in the revenue sharing program the City would be forced to replace the
revenue that would go to other tax jurisdictions.
Mr. Johnson said that the taxes are spread on a smaller base so the tax rate goes up for
commercial properties.
Mr. Casserly said that the City would not lose that amount of revenue; it's the size of the pool
you can levy that will be diminished by taking that out.
Dr. Burns said that frequently you hear about the federal budget deficit and grants being cut
back; this doesn't feel real positive that we would be able to count on grants and loans.
Mr. Hyde said typically that would be an accurate analysis but what we see so far this year is
more than what we have seen in the past. The Governor's budget has new grant money put into
DEED for redevelopment for projects that clean up the environment, create jobs etc.
A
City of Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Meeting of February 2,2012 7
2. Housing Loan Program Update
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said that from January 15 through February 15
one RLF loan was closed making a total of one year to date. There were no remodeling advisor
visits.
Mr. Bolin said that over 1,000 people came to the Home Show at the Schwan's Center in Blaine.
About 200 Fridley residents attended. There was a lot of interest in the new recycling bins, the
vacant land on University and the lots HRA has for sale. We received very good feedback from
all the vendors this year.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Commissioner Eggert to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Holm.
UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON PRO TEM GABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40
P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
K4kft
144
,•••■ Krista Monsrud
Recording Secretary
rr ACTION ITEM
CITY OF HRA MEETING - APRIL 5, 2012
FRIDLEY
Date: March 27, 2012
To: William Burns, Executive Director 4
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Subject: Resolution Creating TIF DISTRICT #20 & HS Subdistrict#20A
Real Estate Recycling (RER), a redevelopment group led by Paul Hyde and specializing
in heavily polluted sites, has a purchase agreement for the 136 acres located at 4800
East River Road. Mr. Hyde had originally approached the Authority last fall to begin
discussing the potential for assistance with the clean up and future redevelopment of
the BAE site. At that time the Authority entered into an interim agreement with RER to
explore the potential for redevelopment of the site.
The interim agreement allowed RER and the Authority to explore all of the potential
costs and benefits to doing a redevelopment project on this site. The agreement stated
that as RER works to secure the property, develop concept plans, and complete due
diligence; the Authority would not allow other developers to take RER's work products
and ask for assistance on the same site.
This truly is the most complex redevelopment project in the City's history. The size of
the site, the size and age of the existing building, the desire to retain a portion of B,\E's
employment, and the amount of contamination found on the site have required an
extremely cautious approach to redevelopment. The sheer size of the project has
required a number of small steps to get to the point that Staff is comfortable in
recommending the creation of the TIF District. There are still many pieces of the puzzle
that need to come together to make this redevelopment project move forward.
In order to potentially provide any TIF assistance, the HRA and City Council must first
adopt a resolution modifying the redevelopment plan for the City and the tax increment
financing plans for the existing TIF districts. These modifications reflect the projected
increased project costs and the increased bonding authority within the City's
redevelopment area, creates TIF District#20 /#20A and adopts the TIF plan relating
thereto. Approval of the attached resolution will allow the creation of the district to
move forward.
The creation of the district does not obligate the Authority to provide any assistance.
This complex redevelopment will continue to fit the pieces of the puzzle together over
the next few months. The next steps for the Authority will include developing and
negotiating the level of assistance that will be provided, first in a Terms sheet and
ultimately in a development agreement with RER.
Staff has not received comments on the creation of the district from either Anoka
County or the Columbia Heights School District. The City Council will hold a public
hearing for the District's creation on April Stn
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Authority adopt the attached resolution, modifying the City's
TIF plans, and creating TIF District#20 and Hazardous Substance Subdistrict #20A.
The resolution simply allows the Authority to continue working with RER on the site.
Approving the district does not require the Authority to provide any assistance, rather, it
provides options for dealing with this complex redevelopment project.
•••N
HRA RESOLUTION NO. 2012-03
A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 6-7, 9, 11-13 AND 16-19
TO REFLECT INCREASED PROJECT COSTS AND INCREASED BONDING
AUTHORITY WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, CREATING TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 20 AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO AND CREATING HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE SUBDISTRICT NO. 20A AND THE ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THERETO.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners") of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley,Minnesota(the"Authority"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed that the Authority approve and adopt the proposed modifications to its
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area") reflecting increased
project costs and increased bonding authority, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended and supplemented from time to time.
1.02. It has been further proposed that the Authority approve and adopt the proposed modifications
to the Tax Increment Financing Plans (the "Existing Plans") for Tax Increment Financing Districts
Nos. 6-7, 9, 11-13 and 16-19 (the "Existing Districts") reflecting increased project costs and
increased bonding authority within the Project Area, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174 through 469.1799,inclusive, as amended and supplemented from time to time.
1.03. It has been further proposed that the Authority approve the creation of proposed Tax
Increment Financing District No. 20 and Hazardous Substance Subdistrict No. 20A(the"Proposed
Districts") within the Project Area and approve and adopt the proposed Tax Increment Financing
Plans (the "Proposed Plans") relating thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799,inclusive,as amended and supplemented from time to time.
1.04. The Authority has investigated the facts and has caused to be prepared with respect thereto, a
modified Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area and modified Existing Plans for the Existing
Districts reflecting increased project costs and increased bonding authority within the Project Area
and Proposed Plans for the Proposed Districts, defining more precisely the property to be included
the public costs to be incurred,and other matters relating thereto.
1.05. The Authority has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the approval
and adoption of the modifications to the Redevelopment Plan and Existing Plans and the approval
and adoption of the Proposed Plans.
1.06. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City and
the Authority at this time to approve and adopt the modifications to the Redevelopment Plan and
Existing Plans, to create the Proposed Districts and to approve and adopt the Proposed Plans
relating thereto.
HRA Resolution No. 2012-03
Section 2. Findings.
2.01. The Authority hereby finds, determines and declares that the assistance to be provided
through the adoption and implementation of the modified Redevelopment Plan,modified Plans and
Proposed Plans (collectively, the "Plans") is necessary to assure the development and
redevelopment of the Project Area.
2.02. The Authority hereby finds, determines and declares that the Plans conform to the general
plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole in that they are consistent with
the City's comprehensive plan.
2.03. The Authority finds, determines and declares that the Plans afford maximum opportunity
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development and redevelopment of
the Project Area by private enterprise and it is contemplated that the development and
redevelopment thereof will be carried out pursuant to redevelopment contracts with private
developers.
Section 3. Approvals and Adoptions.
3.01. The modifications to the Redevelopment Plan reflecting increased project costs and increased
bonding authority within the Project Area are hereby approved and adopted by the Commissioners
of the Authority and are forwarded to the Fridley City Council for public hearing, review and
approval.
3.02. The modifications to the Existing Plans reflecting increased project costs and increased
bonding authority within the Project Area are hereby approved and adopted by the Commissioners
of the Authority and are forwarded to the Fridley City Council for public hearing, review and
approval.
3.03. The creation of the Proposed Districts within the Project Area and the adoption of the
Proposed Plans relating thereto are hereby approved and adopted by the Commissioners of the
Authority and are forwarded to the Fridley City Council for public hearing,review and approval.
Section 4. Filing of Plans.
4.01. Upon approval and adoption of the Plans, the Authority shall cause said Plans to be filed
with the Minnesota Department of Revenue,the Office of the State Auditor and Anoka County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 5th DAY OF APRIL,2012.
LAWRENCE R. COMMERS -CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
WILLIAM W. BURNS -EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
2
HRA Resolution No. 2012-03
CERTIFICATION
I, William W. Bums, Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Fridley, Minnesota, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. 2012-03 adopted by the Authority on the 5th day of April,2012.
WILLIAM W. BURNS -EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MMB:4833-1 68 7-1439,v. 1
2
SECTION XXI
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 20
(RER PROJECT)
Subsection 21.1. Statement of Objectives. See Section I, Subsection 1.5,
Statement of Objectives.
Subsection 21.2. Modified Redevelopment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1.2
through 1.15.
Subsection 21.3. Parcels to be Included. The boundaries of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 20 (the "TIF District") are described on the attached Exhibit XXI-A
and illustrated on Exhibit XXI-B.
Subsection 21.4. Parcels in Acquisition. The Authority may write down or
acquire and reconvey real property, or interests therein, within this TIF District or
elsewhere within the Project Area, at the time or times as the Authority may determine
to be necessary or desirable to assist or implement development or redevelopment
within the Project Area or the TIF District. The Authority may acquire any of the parcels
described on Exhibit I-A and illustrated on Exhibit I-B by gift, dedication, condemnation
or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of the
Redevelopment Plan or the TIF Plan.
Subsection 21.5. Development Activity for which Contracts have been Signed.
As of the date of adoption of the TIF Plan, the Authority intends to enter into a
Redevelopment Contract with Real Estate Recycling LLC, a limited liability company for
the activities discussed below.
Subsection 21.6. Specific Development Expected to Occur. At this time it is
anticipated that the current parcels will be redeveloped including demolition and
removal of blighted and substandard structures and contamination remediation and the
construction of:
Phase I: Approximately 65,000 square feet of office showroom, 100,000 of
office/warehouse and 200,000 of bulk warehouse space to be constructed
in 2012-2013;
Phase II: Approximately 65,000 square feet of office showroom, 100,000 of
office/warehouse and 200,000 of bulk warehouse space to be constructed
in 2013-2015; and
Phase III: Approximately 125,000 square feet of office showroom, 200,000 of
office/warehouse and 400,000 of bulk warehouse space to be constructed
in subsequent years.
21-1
Upon completion of the redevelopment, an aggregate of 1,454,960 square feet of office
showroom, office/warehouse and bulk warehouse will be constructed with an estimated
market value of approximately $72.7 M.
Subsection 21.7. Prior Planned Improvements.. After due and diligent search,
the Authority has determined that no building permits have been issued during the
eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the Authority.
Subsection 21.8. Fiscal Disparities. The Council hereby elects the method of
tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177,
Subdivision 3, clause (a) if and when commercial/industrial development occurs within
the TIF District.
Subsection 21.9. Estimated Public Improvement Costs. The estimated public
improvement costs, including interest thereon to be incurred for the benefit of and within
the TIF District and the Project Area are set forth on Exhibit I-C.
Subsection 21.10. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated
that approximately $20.1 M of bonded indebtedness may be incurred with respect to
this portion of the Project Area.
Subsection 21.11. Sources of Revenue. Anticipated revenue sources to assist
in the financing of the public improvement costs, pursuant to Subsection 21.9. above,
include (1) general obligation and/or revenue tax increment obligations with interest; (2)
the direct use of tax increments; (3) the borrowing of available funds, including without
limitation interest-bearing City short-term or long-term loans; (4) interfund loans or
advances; (5) interfund transfers, both in and out; (6) land sale or lease proceeds; (7)
levies; (8) grants from any public or private source; (9) developer payments; (10) loan
repayments or other advances originally made with tax increments as permitted by
Minnesota Statutes; and (11) any other revenue source derived from the City's or
Authority's activities within the Project Area as required to finance the costs as set forth
in Exhibit I-C. All revenues are available for tax increment eligible expenses within the
Project Are as allowed by Minnesota Statutes.
Subsection 21.12. Estimated Original and Captured Tax Capacities. The tax
capacity of all taxable property in the TIF District, as most recently certified by the
Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota on January 2, 2012, is estimated
to be $301,468.
The captured tax capacity of the TIF District upon completion of the proposed
improvements on January 2, 2014 is estimated to be $1,153,212. The Authority intends
to utilize 100% of the captured tax capacity for the duration of the TIF District for
purposes of determining tax increment revenues.
Subsection 21.13. Tax Increment., Annual tax increment generated from the TIF
District has been calculated at approximately $1,300,420 upon the initial completion of
21-2
the improvements. This estimate is provided on the attached Exhibit XXI-C. Revenue
has also been projected for the duration of the TIF District and is shown on Exhibit I-C-
15.
Subsection 21.14. Local Tax Rate. The estimated pay 2012 local tax rate is
1.12765.
Subsection 21.15. Type of TIF District. The TIF District is a redevelopment
district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10.
Subsection 21.16. Duration of TIF District, The duration of the TIF District is
expected to be twenty five (25) years from receipt of the first tax increment. The date of
receipt of the first tax increment is estimated to be July, 2015. Thus, it is estimated that
the TIF District, including any modifications for subsequent phases or other changes,
would terminate in the year 2040.
Subsection 21.17. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. The
estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have
occurred without the creation of the TIF District. If the construction is a result of tax
increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the
fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the financing
would not have occurred without the assistance of the Authority, the attached Exhibit
XXI-E reflects (1) the estimated impact of the TIF District if the "but for" test was not
met; (ii) the estimated amount of tax increment generated annually and over the
duration of the TIF District; and, (iii) the estimated amount of tax increment attributable
to the County, School District and other taxing districts.
At this time the Authority anticipates there will be no impact on City services due
to the creation of the TIF District. Additionally, since the City has no current plan to
issue general obligation debt for project costs, it further anticipates that there will be no
impact on its borrowing costs due to the creation of the TIF District. Please refer to
Exhibit XXI-D for the narrative "but for" analysis.
Subsection 21.18. M odification of the T1F District and/or the TIF Plan., As of April
9, 2012, no modifications to the TIF District or the TIF Plan have been made, said date
being the date of initial approval and adoption thereof by the City Council.
21-3
EXHIBIT XXI—A
PARCELS TO BE INCLUDED
27-30-24-13-0002, 27-30-24-42-0002, 27-30-24-43-0002
and all easements, rights-of-way and adjacent roads and streets
XXI-A-1
EXHIBIT XXI-B
,...',,:f.: \ [ • .ill FRIDLEY
.
ill
Redevelopment Project Area and '
Tax Increment Financing Districts
c\\ 1
*4:it,,s1:7:-.-.T:t. i)n v.-Ipli MT: lialta,' swill fa ;TIM!
-",;,-"v.r•ii:iii 'L ._1 1,,,T11.-',•-•;;;'...;;;,..`•.,',...4( 5.ii.E, •,. .,,_ r„:::gya.. 11:i...F.4
rig., a il,_ it7m111:-.,--i,olit,N 01 a. in i ■
4:42 1„..9:::44,11 r. „,,,,,,,,,",,,MP alka... _ftillii..--___---,1
0: ':...:,:,,,t4.,•::,,,'1,_13-A...,._.,_ NIV.V.7:111V,•41.11 i....::: „..„IirAIE: 7:.i:.,1:1,iF7"1.1,111,111131'''..;21_ 11:.1.',:fi
"1111111111,,' N ,._. 11`.Pig'-,..filtr.t.:=14:.;;117, 1.1 ii I.',: 1,41-11.11,-quI,E:tidilniiiii..
.•••■•C rill 1:„..i1). ,,„_._..1,:::E.Illsii.,:1:41,1.11,1Lr,..1_,_:,r r!,
.: 1::iiiiiiiiri , ii..,..1,1,,, . ,t4,...5,,,.....
1 r-
--„,„„. indrilly.,:,,,,1 - ----
/~�
in'efliptit.ut
, all!!Mi ''.!'5.14 - .71 .'Ili i:Airi7i:i'.1 74,
. immew , .;-0.-Irti;:ii ri-Ist-J I-
Ait- 01 ,i ::-.‘-:s t.Illa:i!'.-afvv- -.41:rat 1 7., .
Ili:ali I MI!",,tz.i i!,.;i inginz,.,,,,,„.,,,,-,,,,,, ,,,,,tf.k.t.fie,1,1%\17,1
;ii,2 ;F:11,
Ir. LEGEND
C3 Redevelopment Project Area in
x� � �h�hbaxinoremer� n�aybeopen�
»=.�, NI [7' Proposed hF District#20 and proposed 1
hazardous substance subdistrict#20A,
in which tax inoren`entmay be generated
,. *°�
I D 0.26 0.5 1
i wmo � ,..'"••\~ m 00
t-
_ _
XXI-B-1 l
EXHIBIT XX1-B
f"-■ .
- _
I \... ,-......_, „____________....-) J
" HIIIMMENIONNINIABID 01141191101011WPMMINKININO - \
i"''• E.F:.: 1;i:2.vi , .: 71 ;.:siitrizifi..,_;21 ,
anlislulimiND ...7,1. 17-7-277:77-7; 1I
t. 1 ----- . -,,,,,ar.;:i- :'4,-iFta.=4;1147-114,11. 4]•:LI ',.1,,'. 'airf.!;',..tf1t-. .:0.,1117kli1t.04 \
o."
'$ /
\
. Ili ___—. ogi te,MMKD •
\) . °_,._. .
0
.
AL-)1
t ,, --Jam,:._._-1 :-,:,.--',75.Tr.yal!tr:^`:275."-.7.;,•;',:,-:.:::,1 i',.:.:.,:-:,',',1,..::.::,i(e...;,;,,,.:;;:_ty.‘,..t .;12.,,,gr.,:.--.7,-!g7+.;;;V4,.. ..-....w?i
.."''''`'''.''`'..---4'1WiS::: -.6',:i3;4-137.-Zr,74:g4:'-'t 1.;fi,,::•-:':: :...,":'...'.;:•::,:::.:.-,',--'`,.. ..:•;4;:i.-..tc.,•;`,:,,s,;.„4ti-s,:::?t:::
\
\ 'i: 1"glggq2itit:Z.5%745-.5I;:id
--1 *-1,',LE,...-,...- --A-..--.----..,
.4 r
i leemminsommointo ":::.1- nmanrown
\ - l''',', ''','''''.';';"''i 1,' 'i'.11111111111111110111111111011ND OSSONIMINI,NSINIIIMINIMUS-
\ ,..„----.,--- • I Os
% .
f5.7"-----iS iliF.1.:47 ..:
;:.'. .',..':1., .i.- -.._ = ';*.c.f,i.• :.,-.,VI: 1 * 12 1
\1, . ti - 1.--FT ri,Ae.:1'' l■ L' ":.: t:::..:74:0;:i, a A
. 111 :-:•. - 4 ..;. ...-_-•.i::: - ..,-.'.
\ :.:,) : 41 :.•-•'.i 1...,. . _ . . h ,:._.::
t• .-',1(. .- • ,. ,- . .f, ..!,,,Jei:o...,..i:.1
1 Z
... ....-,...,,,
\ 4,44. .
.. .... .... .
CLIZ...::.... ..-7.i.:21 -7 , ....,,,.......-,;1,17,..,-;
.1
\c__ \ it.:274.mtio
____,..........______*:_...,,..mair'-'' i
ill r7
7445
\ '. I 1 I. 111111 1,.11.111., ..\MaNNOMMINTC„;„vinirman . .
- CIEWRIMEN61116110 OMMINIMONIENIIIMMEMIND
QmsersdisogiND 1111111 *
- - 9
'Fli:,.., 7737:711Y.',,i7r4.±7'.771 1,;',.,:!5=1.:';',,T,::6,itiOV:.::jJ:':J;:.-:-lc'..1
•-t:':iiitre-00.00' '-I A-::)1:4441)1.4*,:::-..,:!. B
:111
111
'131 it \ -
\ lf :
• g
\ ,'.:. I::."'. 1711:-I.:1::,'..:':::"}:::01.'fj. ..:■-::...!.'.i.''7:',', ::Y:1'.2f..7'2' A ' .*
■..- 4
1;
' ?.;::::: :',114.44U(:::'4"Ct..;7 7:11111:7.:701S:-q";..i.„:74Ear*:..,47..kg 6-74'5:,!-- .:'...:'1 144
.,''"!::.;!::::::•,-!..';'.4:; i-FT:;. :;■."..7 7.7:;:.'."7:;' .;.1
.•,......-...
\\\': ,.....intimainummumenumnimmot ma r 1._.....u ..aumummlinlievamio. '.'771:t '..'''.' .''
-.1
\ 1414
I 'ft)
Er-.. i •
4 •I \
. ..... . .. ...
1 f 11111 111' • :Ifin pr I IiIiit II I I go I
1 i 1
Xxi-g.2
EXHIBIT XXI-C
1I 1 1
ASSUMPTIONS •
--
Area of Parcel 2011 Assessed Value(Pay 2012) •
Original Market Values PIN# !Owner (Acres) (Sq.Feet) Land Building Total
4800 E River Rd NE 27-30-24-13-0002 LELT Minneapolis LLC 80.40 3,502,224 4,444,900 6,109,800 10,554 700
4800 E River Rd NE 27-30-24-42-0002(ELT Minnea s LLC 41.69 1,816,016 2,128,600 2,351,000 4,4791600
E River Rd NE 27-30-24-43-0002 BAE systems Land 8 Armaments I. 13.71 597,208 39,100 _ _ _ 39,100
_ .T r .__ .�_ 135.80 5,915,448 $ 8,612,600 $ 8,460,800 $ 15,073,400
Totals I __
0 1.12 2.55
1 Land .ft. Total per s•ft I
Oh.trial Tax Ca•aci r 11- ',
Commercial/Retail 100.0% 15,073,400 G; 2.00% 301,468
• Bevelo•ment Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years •
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 E Phase 8
Costs Incurred 2012 ? 2013 2014
E_Construction 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 2018 2019 2020
Valuation 2014 1 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Tax Increment 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
•
Annual
• New Commercial Building Sq.Ft. 207,811 1 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 0
Value per Sq.Ft, $ 50 I$ 50 $ 5D $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 i
- Estimated Market Value 510,390,571 I$10,390,571 $10,390,571 $10,390,571 $10,390,571 $10,390,571 ,$10,390,571 $0
Estimated Tax Capacity 207,811 1 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 0
Estimated Taxes 380,379 380,379 380,379 380,379 380,379 3.80,379 380,379 0
Cumulative 1/2 Building Torn Down -..
Existing Building '$ 8,460,800 1 5 4,230,400 Remaining Building Torn Down
Undeve••-•Land $ 5,667,943 $ 4,723,286 $ 3,778,629 $ 2,833,971 $ 1,689,314 ,$ 944,657 $
• I
- 2 New Commercial Building Sq.Ft. 207,811 415,623 623,434 831,246 1,039,057 1,248,869 I 1,454,680 1,454,680
_Value per Sq.Ft. $ 50 .$ 50,$ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 -
Estimated Market Value $10,390,571 ' 20,781,143 31,171,714 41.562,286 51,952,857 62,343,429 72,734,000 $72,734,000
Total Estimated Market Value _ $ 24,519,314 1 29,734,829 34,950,343 44,396,257 53,842,171 63,288,086 72,734,000 $72,734,000
Estimated Tax Capacity 490,386 i 594,697 699,007 587,925 1,076,843 1,265,762 1,454,680 1,454,680 _
Estimated Taxes 897,806 I 1,088,536 1,279,486 1,625,263 1,971,060 2,316,857 2,662,654 , 2,662,654
• Tax Increment-Annual 213,034 330,659 448,285 661,318 874,352 1,087,386 1,300,420 1,300,420 .
HSS Tax Increment-Annual 339,950 339,950 339,950 339,950 339,950 339,950 339,950 339,950
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-.
Tax Rates
Local Tax Rate-Pa 2012 TNT ISD Market Value Referendum 128,012 4.5%
1 I State Tax Rate-Pay 2012 _4_ 0.51100 State General Taxes______743,341 27.9%;on local tax rate for taxes at F.D. s r Fiscal Dis•' 150,931 5.7%
I .Only Admin Fees 164,037 6.2%
•used for tax increment calculations Hazardous Substance Subdistri, 305,955 11.5% '
• • •_ -vallable Tax Increment 1,170,378 44.0% •
Assumptions Total Property Taxes 2,662,654 - 100.0•
Market Value Referendum Taxes 0.17800%Pay 2012 TNT __ 0 •
Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate _.i_._.._1.41945 Pay 2012 TNT -_. __ -.__. _
Fiscal Disparities Ratio 35.5570%Pay 2012 TNT
Admin Fees 1 1 10.00%
State Auditor Fes 0.000% _
Inflation 5.00%
Present Value Rate 1211/2012; 6.00%,_, -,
..__..._..__.�_..._ .. . . .. . .. .. .. ... .
.0-•
BAE Site 2012c-TIF Plan.xlsx XXI-C-1
EXHIBIT XXI-C
r'N _____t____- CASH FLOW AND PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS-TIF#20
I
<----- ANNUAL --> <--_----_--------- SEMI-ANNUAL---- -----.-->
(a) (b) (c) (dl (a) (1) (9) ih) (I) 0)
Original Estimated Captured Est.T.I. Less: Available Cumulative '<-Present Value*>
Tax Tax Tax (d)x Admin/Prog Tax Avail,Tax Semi Annual Cumulative
Date Capacity Capacity Capacity 1,12765 Fees Increment Increment Balance Balance
(see assumptions) (c)-(b) -St.Aud.Fee fie)x (e)-(1) Total of(g) P.V.of(g) Total of(i)
5.0%Inflation (prey.year) 0.000% 10.00% 6.00% 12/01112
06/01/12 301,468 301,468 0 0 0 ^_ 0
• 12/01/12 301,468 301,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06/01/13 301,468 301,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 f
12/01/13 301,468 301,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
06/01/14 301,468 490,386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `
12/01/14 301,468 490,386 0 0 0 0 0 0 01
1 06/01/15 301,468 594,697 ' 188,918 106,517 10,652 95,865 95,865 82,694 82,694 1
12/01/15 301,468 594,697 188,918 108,517 10,652 95,865 191,730 80,286 162,980 !
2 06/01/16 301,468 699,007 293,229 165,330 16,533 148,797 340,527 120,985 283,965
_12/01/16 301,468 699,007 293,229 165,330 16,533 148,797 489,324 117,461 401,426
3 06/01/17 301,468 • 887,925 397,539 224,142 22,414 201,728 691,052 154,608 556,034
12/01/17 301,468 ' 887,925 397,539 224,142 22,414 201,728 1 892,760 150,105 706,139
4 06/01/18 301,468 ' 1,076,843 586,457 , 330,659 33,066 297,593, 1,190,373 214,988 921,127
12/01/18 , 301,468 1,076,843 588,457 330,659 33,066 297,593 1,487,966 208,726 1,129,853 ;
5 06/01/19 301,468 1,265,762 775,375 437,176 43,718 393,458 1,881,425 267,926 1,397,779
12/01/19 301,468 1,265,762 775,375 437,176 43,718 393,458 2,274,883 260,122 1,657,9011
6 06/01/20 301,468 1,454,680 964,294 543,693 54,369 489,324 2,764,207 314,078 1,971,979
12/01/20 301,468 1,454,680 964294 543,693 54,369 489,324 3,253,531 304,930 2,276,909
7 06/01/21 301,468 1454,680 1,153,212 650,210 65,021 585,189 3,838,719 354,049 2,630,9581
12/01/21 301,468 1,454,680 1,153,212 650,210 65,021 585,189 4,423,908 343,737 2,974,695 I
■ 8 06/01/22 301,468 1,527,414 1,153,212 650,210 65,021 585,189 5,009,097 333,725 3,308,420 j
`- 12/01/22 301,468 1,527,414 1,153,212 650,210 65,021 585,189 5,594,286 324,005 3,632,425'
9 06/01/23 301,468 1,603,785 1,225,946 691,219 69,122 622,097 6,216,383 334,408 3,966,833
-. 12/01/23 301,468 1,603,785 1,225,946 691,219 69,122 622,097 6,838,480 324,668 4,291,501 .
10 06/01/24 301 468 1,683,974 1,302,317 734,279 73,428 660,851 7,499,331 334,848 4,626,348
12/01/24 301,468 , 1,683,974 1,302,317 734,279 73,428 660,851 6,160,182 325,095 4,951,443
11 06/01/25 301,468 , 1,768,173 1,382,506 779,491 77,949 701,542 8,861,724 335,060 5,286,504 i
12/01/25 301,4681 1,768,173 1282,506 779,491 77,949 701,542 9563,266 325,301 5,611,805
12 06/01/26 301,468 1 1,856,581 1 466,705 __826,965 82,696 744,268 10,307,534 335,061 5,946,866
12/01/26 301,468 ' 1,856,581 1,466,705 826,965 82,696 744,268 11,051,803 325,302 6,272,169
13 06/01/27 301,468 ' 1,949,410 1,555,113 876,812 87,681 789,131 11,840,933 334,865 6,607,033!
12/01/27 301,468 1,949,410 1,555,113 876,812 87,651 789,131 12,630,064 ' 325,111 6,932,145 :
14 _06/01/28 301,468 2,046,881 1,647,942 929,151 92,915 836,236 13,466,300 334,484 7,266,628
-_ 12/01/28 301,468 2,046,881 _1,647,942 929,151 92,915 836,236 14,302,536 324 7 41 7,591,370
15 06/01/29 301,468 2,149,225 1,745,413 984,107 98,411 865,697 15,188,232 333,931 7,925,301 I
12/01/29 301,468 2,149225 1,745,413 984,107 98,411 885,697 16,073,929 324,205 8,249,505 i.
16 06/01/30 301,468 ' 2,256,686 1,847,757 1,041,812 104,181 937,630 17,011,559 333,218 8,582,724
12/01/30 301 4, 68 2,258,686 1,847,757 1,041,812 104,181 937,630 17,949,190 323,513 i 8,906,237 ;
17 06/01/31 301,468 2,369,520 1,955,218 1,102,401 110,240 992,161 18,941,350 332,357 9,238,5941
12/01/31 301,468 2,369,520 1,955,218 1,102,401 110240 992,161 19,933,511 322,677 9,561,270
18 06/01/32 301,468 2,487,996 2,068,052 1,166,020 116,602 1,049,418 20,982229 331,357 9,892,628
- 12/01/32 301,468 2,487,996 2,068,052 1,186,020 116,602 1,049,418 22,032,347 321,706 10,214,334
19 06/01/33 301,468 2,612,396 2,186,528 1,232,819 123,282 1,109,537 23,141,884 330,229 10,544,563
12/01/33 301,468 2,612,396 2,186,528 1,232,819 123,282 1,109,537 24,251,422 320,611 10,865,174
20 06/01/34 301,468 2,743,016 2,310,928 1,302,959 130,296 1,172,663 25,424,085 ' 328,982 11,194,157
12/01/34 301,468 2,743,016 2,310,928 1,302,959 130,296 1,172,663 26,596,748 319,400 11,513,557
21 06/01/35 301,468 2,880,167 2,441,548 1,376,606 137,661 1,238,945 27,835,693 327,625 11,841,182
12/01/35 301,488 2,880,167 2,441,548 1,376,606 137,661 1,238,945 29,074,639 318,083 12,159,264
22 06/01/36 301,468 1 3,024,175 2,578,699 1,453,935 145,393 1,308,541 30,383,180 326,165 12,485,430'
12/01/36 301,468 3,024 1 76 2,578,699 1,453,935 145,393 1,308,541 31,691,721 316,665 12,802,095 -
23 06/01/37 301,468 3,175,384 2,722707 1,535,130 153,513 1,381,617 33,073,339 324,611 13 126,707
12/01/37 301,468 3,175,384 2,722,707 1,535,130 153,513 1,381,617 34,454,956 315,157 13,441,863
24 06/01/38 301,468 3,334,153 2,873,916 1,620386 162,039 1,458,347 35,913,303 322,970 13,764,834 :
12/01/38 301,468 3,334,153 2,873,916 1,620,386 162,039 1,458,347 37371,650 313,563 14,078397
25 06/01(39 301,468 3,500,861 3,032,685 1,709,904 170,990 1,538,913 38,910,564 321249 14,399,646 i
12/01/39 301,468 3,500,861 3,032,685 1,709,904 170,990 1,538,913 40,449,477 311,892 14,711,537
26 05/01/40 301,468 3,675,904 3,199,393 1,803,898 180,390 1,623,508 42,072,985 319,453 15,030,990
/"--\/"--\ _ 12/01/40 301,468 3,675,904 3,199,393 1,803,898 180,390 1,623,508 43,698,493 310,149 15,341,139
48,551,659 4,855,166 43,696,493 43,696,493 15,341,139 15,341,139
BAE Site 20120-TIF Plan.xlsx XXI-C-2 .
EXHIBIT XXI—D �^
"BUT FOR"ANALYSIS
The Site is approximately 136 acres and contains a building that is 2,000,000 square
feet, The Site is best known as the FMC Corp. Site. From 1941-1964, a naval
ordinance manufacturing complex operated the Site, from 1945-1969, a southern
portion of the Site was used for burning and disposing of waste; in 1981, an
investigation revealed contamination and a history of waste disposal; in 1983, a cleanup
of the Site began. The southern portion was listed on the National Priorities List.
Attached is the cover page and the Executive Summary of the Fourth Five-Year Review
Report dated September 30, 2009.
The building is substandard as shown by the Code/Condition Deficiency Report
prepared by LHB, Inc. dated January 31, 2012.
In addition, the building has limited uses and is obsolete by current warehouse
standards.
Real Estate Recycling is proposing to demolish the building, remediate the Site and
construct approximately 1,500,000 square feet of office, showroom, warehouse and
bulk warehouse facilities in approximately 12 buildings.
Because of the very substantial demolition and remediation costs, it is not possible to
redevelop the Site without the use of tax increment.
MMB:4836-3509-1982,v. 1
XXI-D-1
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY REPORT
January 31,2012
Property Address: 4850 East River Road,Fridley,MN
PIN: 27-30-24-13-0002&27-30-24-42-0002
Inspection Date(s)&Time(s): December 2,2011-8:00 a.m.
Inspection Type: Interior&Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because:
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15%of replacement cost.
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $ 179,468,500
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 40,475,000
Percentage of Replacement Cost: 23%
Description of Condition Deficiencies
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if it
contains"defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light
and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance."
A.Defects in Structural EIements
1. Roof structure inadequate to support reroofing with correct amount of slope and insulation.
2. Roof structure under-sized to support snow drift loads.
3. Columns and roof structure are not fire-rated.
B.Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. The HVAC system is piece-meal and of different ages,some elements dating from the 40s. Many of
the older units appear to be aged and in need of replacement or repair.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Many light fixtures use T12 lamps,scheduled to be phased out by DOE mandate.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Two stairs are too steep and have inadequate handrails.
b. Three stairs have inadequate handrails.
c. Unlawful mechanical/electrical penetration at one stair enclosure.
d. At least three stair enclosures exit into the factory space,instead of into an acceptable exit passage.
e. Mechanical rooms appear to be inadequately separated from rest of construction.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Interior finishes have been damaged by water leaking from roof in some locations.
b. Office building wing badly damaged from mold infestation.
c. Office wing finishes completely gutted, lighting removed and HVAC distribution system partially
removed.
XXI-D-2
5. Exterior Construction
a. Roofing appears cracked and worn.
b. Roof slope inadequate,resulting in ponding and leaking.
c. Office building wing badly damaged from mold infestation.
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. Steel structure is exposed and unprotected. In order to meet allowable area requirements in the code,
exposed steel columns and roof structure must be have at least 1-hour fire resistance.
2. Approximately 40%of the building is without required sprinkler system.
3. Stair guardrails at five locations do not meet code. Guardrail picket spacing is greater than 4".
4. Stair handrails are too low in five locations and lack extensions.
5. Stair risers in two locations exceed the maximum allowable 7" and treads are less than the minimum
allowable 11"
6. There are unprotected penetrations in required fire-rated walls and ceilings (stair enclosure and
mechanical room).
7. Roof slopes do not meet code for adequate drainage.
8. According to a roof survey conducted in the mid-80s,most of the roof is overstressed, meaning it would
be unable to support the tapered insulation necessary to correct roof slopes.Although changes in the code
have lessened roof design loads since the survey was conducted,a requirement to accommodate snow drift
loads has been added. The result,in a building such as this with many clerestory areas that would cause
drifting on lower roofs, is a greater design load in affected areas. It is estimated that 75% of the roof is
structurally inadequate due to snow drift loading.
9. One of the elevators is without accessible controls.
10. Travel distance from building interior to public way exceeds allowable maximum.
Energy Code
In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above,the existing building does not comply with the current
energy code. These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not
considered in determining whether or not the building is substandard:
- Building's wall insulation does not meet current code requirements.
- Building's heating and cooling is not as efficient as current energy code would require.
- Building's lighting in majority of office areas not energy efficient.
M:111Projl1 1 062 114 00 Design406 Reports\T1P\Substandard Building Report BAE 111228.docx
XXI-D-3
l ■ EPA Region S R''ecor�ds Ctr.
1111111 ui irn i
542766
Five-Year Review Report
Fourth Five-Year Review Report
For
FMC Corporation (Fridley Plant)
Fridley
Anoka County,Minnesota
September,2009
PREPARED BY:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
St.Paul,Minnesota
As Modified by
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Chicago, Illinois
Approved by: Date:
9/36M
--�''Richard C. Karl
Director
Superfund Division
XXI-D-4
Executive Summary
On behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)has completed a five-year review of the remedial action (RA)
implemented at the FMC Site(Site) located in Fridley,Minnesota. This is the fourth five-year
review for the Site which evaluates the effectiveness of the RA to date.
Historically,industrial and hazardous waste generated from naval ordnance manufacturing
including plating wastes, paint,paint sludges,oils, bottom ash and chlorinated and non-
chlorinated solvents was disposed of at the Site. Initial remedial actions included construction of
an on-site containment and treatment facility(CTF)to treat and contain soils contaminated with
volatile organic compounds(VOCs) in 1983. Groundwater contamination was addressed
through a groundwater extraction system, installed in 1987,and a monitoring well network, The
groundwater extraction system continues to operate and VOCs remain in the groundwater at and
down gradient of the Site.
Protectiveness Statement(s):
The protectiveness of the current remedy as concluded by this five-year review is as follows:
Groundwater
The remedy selected to address groundwater contamination is currently protective of human
health and the environment in the short term". In order for the remedy to be protective in the
long-term the following actions need to be completed:
• The monitoring well network must be expanded and the groundwater
plume must be fully defined;
• MCLs or health based cleanup values are to be achieved at the Site
boundary;
• Updates to the Site monitoring plan need to be completed;
• The capture of the groundwater extraction system must be further
evaluated;
• A complete risk assessment is to be conducted with regard to the seep;
• Effective institutional controls are in place at and near the site that are
protective in the short term and apply to all activities that may lead to
potential exposure; In order to assure long term protectiveness,additional
institutional controls on BAE property and nearby property will be
evaluated.
• Remedial action addressing exposure at the seep must be completed(if
° See Appendix A for MPCA's position on the short term protectiveness.
10
XX I-D-5
determined to be necessary by the risk assessment);
• Further evaluation needs to be conducted for additional remedial action
utilizing data collected from additional investigations;
• Improvements to data evaluation and presentation within Annual
Monitoring Report to be made.
Soil
Soil removal actions were conducted prior to implementation of the ROD and decision
documents for the Site. The US EPA and MPCA have found soil removal actions to be
protective of human health and the environment. Continued monitoring of CTF monitoring
wells and data evaluation is required to assure continued long term protectiveness. In addition
institutional controls may need to be implemented to assure the CTF remains protective in the
long-term, A review of ICs will be conducted in an IC plan to determine what additional ICs are
needed.
Site Wide
The selected remedy to address groundwater contamination at the site is protective of human
health and the environment in the short term. In order for the groundwater remedy to be
protective in the long-term,actions identified in the protectiveness statement in the groundwater
and recommendations section of this five-year review must be implemented. The soil removal
actions and CTF have been identified by the MPCA and US EPA as protective, although
institutional controls are may be needed to assure long-term protectiveness.
11
XXI-D-6
EXHIBIT XXI -E
ESTIMATED IMPACT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 20
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
ORIGINAL ESTIMATED CAPTURED DISTRICT
TAX TAX TAX TAX AS
ENTITY BASE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY OF TOTAL
City of Fridley 31,795,494 301,468 1,454,680 1,153,212 3.627%
County of Anoka 315,214,077 301,468 1,454,680 1,153,212 0.366%
ISD#13 20,892,516 301,468 1,454,680 1,153,212 5.520%
IMPACT ON TAX RATE
TAX % OF TAX TAX RATE
ENTITY RATE TOTAL INCREMENT INCREASE
City of Fridley 0.39478 35.01% 455,265 1.486%
County of Anoka 0.41056 36.41% 473,463 0,151%
ISD#13 0.24355 21,60% 280,865 1.423%
Other 0.07876 6.98% 90,827
1.12765 100.00% 1,300,420
*Assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of a Tax Increment Financing
District, If construction is a result of Tax Increment Financing, the impact is$0.
XXI - E - 1
EXHIBIT I-C
BUDGET
/
TIF#20 TIF#20A
HSS
Cumulative Cumulative
Modified Modified
TIF Plan TIF Plan
Budget Budget TOTAL
ESTIMATED TAX I '• REMENT REVENUES
(from tax increment g ,erated by the district)
Tax increment revenues di ibuted from the county $ 48,500,000/ 8,800,000 57,300,000
Interest and investment earns !s 485,000' 88,000 573,000
Sales/lease proceeds / -
Market value homestead credit -
f
Total Estimated Tax Increment Re =Hues $ /8,985,000 $ 8,888,000 $ 57,873,000
7
ESTIMATED PROJECTIFINANCING COSTS
(to be paid or financed with tax increment)
Project Costs
Land/building acquisition $ 500,000 $ - 500,000
Site Improvements/preparation costs 3,608,000 3,608,000
r, Utilities 15,275,000 15,275,000
Other qualifying improvements -
Construction of affordable housing -
Small city authorized costs,if not already included above -
Administrative costs /' _ 4,1.0,000 880,000 5,730,000
Estimated Tax Increment Project'Costs $ 20,625,8i 1 $ 4,488,000 $ 25,113,000
Estimated Financing Costs
Interest expense 28,360,000 4,4i 8,000 32,760,000
Total Estimated Project/Financing Costs to be Paid From TI $ 48,985,000 $ 8,888,1g` $ 57,873,000
0 0 0
ESTIMATED'FINANCING
Total ang6unt of bonds to be issued 20,100,000 4,400,000 24,58 8,000
r,
/'\
TIF Budget-20&20A.xlsx I-C-15
SECTION XXII
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUBDISTRICT NO. 20A
(RER PROJECT)
Subsection 22.1. Statement of Objectives. See Section I, Subsection 1.5,
Statement of Objectives.
Subsection 22.2. Modified Redevelopment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1.2
through 1.15.
Subsection 22.3. Parcels to be Included. The boundaries of Hazardous
Substance Subdistrict No. 20A (the "Subdistrict") are described on the attached Exhibit
XXII-A and illustrated on Exhibit XXII-B.
Subsection 22.4. Parcels in Acquisition. The Authority may write down or
acquire and reconvey real property, or interests therein, within this Subdistrict or
elsewhere within the Project Area, at the time or times as the Authority may determine
to be necessary or desirable to assist or implement development or redevelopment
within the Project Area or the Subdistrict. The Authority may acquire any of the parcels
described on Exhibit I-A and illustrated on Exhibit I-B by gift, dedication, condemnation
or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of the
Redevelopment Plan or the TIF Plan.
Subsection 22.5. Development Activity for which Contracts have been Signed.
As of the date of adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan"), the
Authority intends to enter into a Redevelopment Contract with Real Estate Recycling
LLC, a limited liability company for the activities discussed below.
Subsection 22.6. Specific Development Expected to Occur. At this time it is
anticipated that the current parcels will be redeveloped including demolition and
removal of blighted and substandard structures and contamination remediation and the
construction of:
Phase I: Approximately 65,000 square feet of office showroom, 100,000 of
office/warehouse and 200,000 of bulk warehouse space to be constructed
in 2012-2013;
Phase II: Approximately 65,000 square feet of office showroom, 100,000 of
office/warehouse and 200,000 of bulk warehouse space to be constructed
in 2013-2015; and
Phase III: Approximately 125,000 square feet of office showroom, 200,000 of
office/warehouse and 400,000 of bulk warehouse space to be constructed •
in subsequent years.
22-1
Upon completion of the redevelopment, an aggregate of 1,454,960 square feet of office
showroom, office/warehouse and bulk warehouse will be constructed with an estimated
market value of approximately $72.7 M.
Subsection 22.7. Prior Planned Improvements. After due and diligent search,
the Authority has determined that no building permits have been issued during the
eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the Authority.
Subsection 22.8. Fiscal Disparities, The Council hereby elects the method of
tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177,
Subdivision 3, clause (a).
Subsection 22.9. Estimated Public Improvement Costs. The estimated public
improvement costs, including interest thereon to be incurred for the benefit of and within
the Subdistrict and the Project Area are set forth on Exhibit I-C.
Subsection 22.10. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated
that approximately $4.4 M of bonded indebtedness may be incurred with respect to this
portion of the Project Area.
Subsection 22.11. Sources of Revenue. Anticipated revenue sources to assist
in the financing of the public improvement costs, pursuant to Subsection 21.9. above,
include (1) general obligation and/or revenue tax increment obligations with interest; (2)
the direct use of tax increments; (3) the borrowing of available funds, including without
limitation interest-bearing City short-term or long-term loans; (4) interfund loans or
advances; (5) interfund transfers, both in and out; (6) land sale or lease proceeds; (7)
levies; (8) grants from any public or private source; (9) developer payments; (10) loan
repayments or other advances originally made with tax increments as permitted by
Minnesota Statutes; and (11) any other revenue source derived from the City's or
Authority's activities within the Project Area as required to finance the costs as set forth
in Exhibit I-C. All revenues are available for tax increment eligible expenses within the
Project Are as allowed by Minnesota Statutes.
Subsection 22.12. Estimated Original and Captured Tax Capacities. The tax
capacity of all taxable property in the Subdistrict, as most recently certified by the
Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota on January 2, 2012, is estimated
to be $301,468.
The captured tax capacity of the Subdistrict is estimated to be $301,468. The
Authority intends to utilize 100% of the captured tax capacity for the duration of the
Subdistrict for purposes of determining tax increment revenues.
Subsection 22.13. Tax Increment. Annual tax increment generated from the
Subdistrict has been calculated at approximately $339,950. This estimate is provided
on the attached Exhibit XX1I-C. Revenue has also been projected for the duration of
,..� the Subdistrict and is shown on Exhibit I-C-15.
22-2
Subsection 22.14. Local Tax Rate. The estimated pay 2012 local tax rate is
1.12765.
Subsection 22.15. Subdistrict. The Subdistrict is, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 23, a hazardous substance subdistrict.
Subsection 22.16. Duration of TIF District. The duration of the Subdistrict is
expected to be twenty five (25) years from receipt of the first tax increment or the period
necessary to recover the costs of removal actions or remedial actions as specified in
the development respond action plan. The date of receipt of the first tax increment is
estimated to be July, 2013. Thus, it is estimated that the Subdistrict, including any
modifications for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate in the year
2038.
Subsection 22.17. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. The
estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions is reflected on Exhibit XXII-E.
At this time the Authority anticipates there will be no impact on City services due
to the creation of the Subdistrict. Additionally, since the City has no current plan to
issue general obligation debt for project costs, it further anticipates that there will be no
impact on its borrowing costs due to the creation of the TIF District. Please refer to
Exhibit XXII-D for the narrative "but for" analysis.
Subsection 22.18. Modification of the Hazardous Substance Subdistrict and/or
Tax Increment Financing Plan. As of April 9, 2012, no modifications to the Subdistrict
or the TIF Plan have been made, said date being the date of initial approval and
adoption thereof by the City Council.
22-3
EXHIBIT XXII A
PARCELS TO BE INCLUDED
27-30-24-13-0002, 27-30-24-42-0002, 27-30-24-43-0002
and all easements, rights-of-way and adjacent roads and streets
XXI I-A-1
EXH|@[TXX|I-B
•
i ,
Redevelopment Project Area and 1
Tax Increment Financing Di—stricts .
g.
*--:7,i4::-..., - 111 „ tii.ii rc,v., I. A':,-r. rim=';';?T'il:,:laiii 4iii i:i,..41,
is
)1--Iiiii,,It- _B jl.f:i'i.e,,,,,syl...1*;'..w.ii ..- 'IL ..r,„,,,..,-21.:_,117.,:.
0,11,,Irl.\ _ ...:4: 'tgliSl'il=h-if.,`" ii l'=.,:'. It r""a gint”;::1!„1%,
, gill 1..L.. Nei.Fr„, .t14:i..71,;.L4.?,..r.jill ow, ,,,,..) II . ,,..r. '
.... .44..;!2...1'-j--€.1! 11111';1.4.TA ;:'iirlf,,‘Z`13r;I'd WiT.,::7::;;;, M11111311 1114:!"174.1 II iii111:111,1".
\4, ,„,,-,it ,4,1,41.,,,V4.5,b....!,...,..7.',..,, 1 4.0 SITlifs.1.•:.1 E.:Iii;:Et.VO.- 1111i. ig iiir...,•4111,,,,,,,-0,1:1,7.-". .i..f
' \ AO Mt, IIP:VillP 1 lir 1 r''''''''P'''' '''''"['n,“.'lliTt1r.' '1 Ei,:it,■-,:ix '!iiii-: 1:,...",:i:,:i
^~.�
.
A j2141111:111111.41111f. 7:::=Ii 10.;,:= 11:11:::3:‘ $.;;;;;Til:'' in. lifiAik'.11:
.1,..C,_L r,,,...,:..-E.iw....-vrnqiir, ..0,-;:.1,-,,,16;111:',\- nh.j•Mill
Ali li".....11*.:Z1. 22'21111."'..,"7"'•'4•Mr• ' ...T4-1,21-.144-2;;;:i--;?: i_r-.4. .-1
/Airs* 1 iN,I;;;--.A,::::17. /.,5:rilEirmINO.:11,:il . 1111 III!.117:f1,11,121,41.4....,
IF Am ii:!. ..2„...;,... LEGEND
AI 11101 gi 1111 Existing TIF Districts 1
a
111:111 111111 �~� Project
(vaw which' --'----'''-` ---,—`
�v'^" ��
���� �
hazardous substance subdistrict#20A,
toe'., in which tax "^==`"'a' be generated
( �� t�� ./ ~n° '
.-.- —^~'_ ____' wawirmassomozanticangazgl
_ XXU-B-1
' ' '
EXHIBIT XXII-B
�� MVVV_g. ... .Y�Sr. e .a CeJS.-a .......*I.MO�^ZN M-t MW.
i
ilrlin fpINImENI'ii �,,�I 4 RIMIMBIIINNINNitiniliteni
' i ' NNNiOMOMININIIIIiND r.. -� -�
, ,
„ . 1.
N
tl
': I `'
1 1��i� wrs,�1s_ of
1,-..tr..--rry.1.70.5.r.477:37;:.:...771.71 F,777177-'-''---,..:.i.::ii::.;:-.11.07. "--.:;-7.,:ii:.7;ii::;:l I
( NINNNNI�NNNINNNND 'r..._; _,. :w,:- F: _ _ _:..x:_,: 1„ ,,„„ ,.• ______
vs %\\ i� /J :fir.'+..`.! r°
: 1 xt. 7�
,"'N -' 1 -0 [1.---; 141 :...:;k;-•:”. :' .- - ''''':',"-.13.144.;.-.1t2.-;!;.:
\ namngmnnnm:.:
GINIIIENINNHIMNID ONNII01MIANNNINNNINNiMND b
V311111111161ggglq1I110
_
q S' atiq!
8§ \ :���glm~hy�I�W ! �` .Mh7n Vass 7a' a
::. i
1 it
&i11 U iOE101 RI t4 41gKKti i
gllgqq _
% \ QNINIIIiINIMIRMI 1�u 'Imuwuauuuw) W
. . N
4
ar
I II 11 0 _titog' !i'til' 1 I i 1 _l kl [g 1 q g �a 14 111.1
„,
11 ),
-� t. I;�t Grw
1
. ,,.. ,
XXII-B_2
EXHIBIT XXII-C
II -II I 1 I 1 I 1
ASSUMPTIONS
- - i -I--
Area of Parcel 2011 Assessed Value(Pay 2012)
_Original Market Values PIN# !Owner (Acres) (Sq,Feet) Land Building Total •
_ 4800 E River Rd NE 27-30-24-13-0002 ELT Minneapolis LLC 80.40 3,502,224 _ 4,444,900 6,109,800 10 554,700
4800 E River Rd NE 27-30-24-42-0002 ELT Minneapolis LLC 41.69 1$16,016 2,128,600 2,351,000 4,479,600
E River Rd NE 27-30-24-43-0002 SAE Systems Land&Ameements L 13.71 697,208 39,100 39,100
Totals 135.80 5,915,448 $ 6,612,600 $ 8,460,800 $ 15,073,400
_ 0 1.12^ 2.55
Land per sq.ft. Total per sq ft
Original Tax Capacity i %of new ETC gia Rate 301,468
• Commercial/Retail I 100.0% 15,073,400 @ 2.00% 301,468 .
I i
Development Years Years Years Years Years Years Years Years
__ I hail Phase 2 _phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 8 Phase 7 Phase 8
Costs Incurred 2012 I 2013 2014
Construction 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Valuation 2014 i 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
• Tax Increment 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
_Annual
New Commercial Building Sq.Ft. 207,811 ; 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 0
Value per Sq.FL $ 50 i_$ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
' Estimated Market Value $10,390,571 $10,390,571 $10,390,571 $10,390,571 $10,390,571 $10,390,571 $10,390,571 $0
Estimated Tax Capacity 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 207,811 0 .
Estimated Taxes 380,379 380,379 380,379 380,379 380,379 380,379 380,379 0
� I
Cumulative 1/2 Building Tom Down
Existing Building $ 8,460,800 $ 4,230,400 Remaining Building Tom Dow n
Undevelo Land $ 5,667,943 $ 4,723,286 $ 3,778,629 $ 2,833,971 $ 1,889,314 $ 944,657 $ -
I _I ,
■
• New Commercial Building Sq.FL 207,811 415,623 623,434 831,246 1,039,057 1,246,869 1,454,680 1,454,680 -
Value per Sq.Ft. $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
Estimated Market Value $10,390,571 20,781,143 31,171,714 41,562,286 61,952,857 62,343,429 72,734,000 $72,734,000
II I _
Total Estimated Market Value $ 24,519,314 ! 29,734,829 34,950,343 44,396,267 53,842,171 63,288,088 72,734,000 $72,734,000 I
Estimated Tax Capacity 490,386 I 594,697 699,007 887,925 1,076,843 1,265,762 1,454,680 1,454,680
Estimated Taxes 897,606 ' 1,088,536 1,279,466 1,625,263 1,971,060 2,316,857 2,662,654 2,662,654
_Tax Increment-Annual 213,034 + 330,659 448,285 661,318 874,352 1,087,386 1,300,420 1,300,420 _
HSS Tax Increment-Annual 339,950 " 3.39,960 339,950 339,950 339,950 339,950 339,950 339,950 •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•
Tax Rates
Local Tax Rate-Pay 2012 TNT ISD#13;6 Cities 1.12765 • Market Value Referendum 128,012 4.8%
• State Tax Rate-Pay 2012 I 0.51100 SCtl only)- 'State General Taxes 743,341 27.9%
Eff.Incr.on local tax rate for taxes at F.D.rate 0.10376 Fiscal Disparity 150,931 5.7% •
Combined Tax Rate-CA Property Only 1.74241 Admin Fees 164,037 _ 6.2%
*used for tax increment calculations Hazardous Substance Subdistri 305,955 11.5%. i
Available Tax Increment 1,170,378 44.0%
^Assumptlons Total Property Taxes 2,662,654 100.0%
Market Value Referendum Taxes 0.17600%2R 2012 TNT 0 _
Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate 1.41945 Pa 2012 TNT
_ Fiscal Disparities Rata- 35.5570% Pay 2012 TNT _
Admin Fees I _ 10.00% _ '�
State Auditor Fee _ _ 0.000%
Inflation I I_ - 5.00% - _ -•°
Present Value Rate 12/1120121 6.00% _•
aI..... ..a_..._._ ._._.__..�...__.. ._ . L.... .__... __. _. _ ..... .,..... _.
r...,
BAE Site 2012c-TIF Plan.xlsx XXII-C-1
EXHIBIT XXII-C ;
r■ CASH FLOW AND PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS-HSS#20A
i
c------ ANNUAL --._-.�..--> <-----___----....--_____--- SEMIANNUAL- --- - -- > i
(a) (b) (c) (d) ■ (e) (0 (g) (h) (I) (i)
Original Estimated Captured Est.T.I. Less: Available Cumulative <---Present Value--->i
Tax Tax Tax (d)x Admin/Prog Tax Avail.Tax Semi Annual Cumulative
Date Capacity Capacity Capacity 1.12765 Fees Increment Increment Balance Balance
• (see assumptions) (c)-(6) -St.Aud.Fee (e)x (e)-(t) Total of(g) P.V.of(g) Total of(i)
0.0%Inflation (prey.year) 0.000% 10.00% 6.00%12/01/12
06/01/12 0 0 0 0 _., 0 0 _
12/01/12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06/01/13 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0
12/01/13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,
06/01/14 0 301,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-
12/01/14 0 301,468 0 0 0 0 0 ,_ 0 0 1 '
1 06/01/15 0 301,488 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 152,978 131,960 131,960 i
12/01/15 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 305,955 128,116 260,076
2 06/01/16 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 458,933 124,385 384,461 E
12/01/16 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 611,911 120,762 505,223
3 06/01/17 ' 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 764,888 117,245 622,468
12/01/17 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 '152,978 917,886 113,830 736,298
4 06/01/18 0 301,468 301,468 ' 169,975 16,998 152,978 1,070,844 110,514 846,812
12/01/18 0 301,468 301,4681 169,975 16,998 152,978 1,223,821 107,295 954,107
5 06/01/19 0 ' 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 ' 1,376,799 104,170 1,058,278 .
- 12/01/19 0 301,468 ' 301,468 169,975 , 16,998 152,978 1,529,777 101,136 1,159,414 :
6 06/01/20 0 301,468 301,468 169,975+ 16,998 152,978 1,682,754 98,191 1,257,604 •
12/01/20 0 301,468 301,468 , 169,975 16,998 152,978 1,835,732 95,331 1,352,935
7 06/01/21 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 1,988,710 92,554 1,445,489
12/01/21 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 2,141,687 89,858 1,535,347
8 06/01/22 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 , 152,978 2,294,665 87,241 1,622,588
12/01/22 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 2,447,643 84,700 1,707,288
9 , 06/01/23 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 ' 152,978 2,600,620 82,233 1,789,521
12/01/23 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 2,753,598 79,838 1,869,359
/'1 10 06/01/24 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 2,906,576 77,513 1,946,872 '
12/01/24 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 3,059,554 75,255 2,022,127
11 06/01/25 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 3,212,531 73,063 2,095,1901
12/01/25 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 3,365,509 70,935 2,166,125
12 06/01/26 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 3,518,487 68,869 2,234,994
12/01/26 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 3,671,464 66,863 2,301,857 :
13 06/01/27 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 3,824,442 64,916 2,366,772
_ 12/01/27 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 3,977,420 63,025 2,429,797 '
14 06/01/28 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 4,130,397 61,189 2,490,986 '
12/01/28 0 301,468 301,468 189,975 16,998 152,978 4,283,375 59,407 2,550,393
' 15 06/01/29 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 4,436,353 57,677 2,608,069
12/01/29 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 4,589,330 55,997 2,664,066
16 06/01/30 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 4,742,308 54,366 2,718,432
12/01/30 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 4,895,286 52,782 2,771,214 •
17 06/01/31 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 i 5,048,263 _ 51,245 2,822,459
12/01/31 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 5,201,241 49,752 2,872,211
•18 06/01/32 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 5,354,219 48,303 2,920,515 ,
12/01/32 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 ' 16,998 152,978 5,507,196 46,898 2,967,411
19 06/01/33 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 , 16,998 152,978 ' 5,660,174 45,530 3,012,941
12/01/33 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 5,813,152 44,204 3,057,146 •
20 06/01/34 01 301,488 _ 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 5,966,129 42,917 3,100,063
12/01/34 0 ; 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 6,119,107 41,667 3,141,729 1
21 ' 06/01/35 ' 01 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 6,272,085 _ 40,453 3,182,183
T 12/01/35 0 i 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 6,425,062 39,275 3,221,458
22 06/01/36 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 6,578,040 38,131 3,259,589
12/01/36 0 301,468 301,468 1698 75 16,998 152,978 6,731,018 37,020 3,296,609
23 06/01/37 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 6,883,995 35,942 3,332,551
12/01/37 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 7,036 973 34,895 3,367,446
24 06/01/38 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 7,189,951 33,879 3,401,325
12/01/38 ' 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 7,342,928 32,892 3,434,217
•25 06/01/39 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 7,495,906 31,934 3,466,152
12/01/39 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 7,648,884 31,004 3,497,156
26 06/01/40 0 301,468 ' 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 7,801,861 30,101 3,527,257
,'"\ 12/01/40 0 301,468 301,468 169,975 16,998 152,978 7,954,839 29,224 3,556,481
8,838,710 883,871 7,954,839 7,954,839 3,556,481 3,556,481
BAE Site 2012c-TIF Plan.xlsx XXII-C-2
EXHIBIT XXII—D
"BUT FOR"ANALYSIS
The Site is approximately 136 acres and contains a building that is 2,000,000 square
feet. The Site is best known as the FMC Corp. Site. From 1941-1964, a naval
ordinance manufacturing complex operated the Site, from 1945-1969, a southern
portion of the Site was used for burning and disposing of waste; in 1981, an
investigation revealed contamination and a history of waste disposal;in 1983, a cleanup
of the Site began. The southern portion was listed on the National Priorities List.
Attached is the cover page and the Executive Summary of the Fourth Five-Year Review
Report dated September 30, 2009.
The building is substandard as shown by the Code/Condition Deficiency Report
prepared by LHB, Inc. dated January 31, 2012.
In addition, the building has limited uses and is obsolete by current warehouse
standards.
Real Estate Recycling is proposing to demolish the building, remediate the Site and
construct approximately 1,500,000 square feet of office, showroom, warehouse and
bulk warehouse facilities in approximately 12 buildings.
Because of the very substantial demolition and remediation costs, it is not possible to
redevelop the Site without the use of tax increment.
•
MMB:4840-4816-5646,v. 1
XXII-D-1
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY REPORT
January 31,2012
Property Address: 4850 East River Road,Fridley,MN
PIN: 27-30-24-13-0002&27-30-24-42-0002
Inspection Date(s)&Time(s): December 2,2011-8:00 a.m.
Inspection Type: Interior&Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because:
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15%of replacement cost.
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $ 179,468,500
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 40,475,000
Percentage of Replacement Cost: 23%
Description of Condition Deficiencies
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if it
contains"defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light
and ventilation,fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance."
/"\ A.Defects in Structural Elements
1. Roof structure inadequate to support reroofing with correct amount of slope and insulation.
2. Roof structure under-sized to support snow drift loads.
3. Columns and roof structure are not fire-rated.
B.Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. The HVAC system is piece-meal and of different ages,some elements dating from the 40s. Many of
the older units appear to be aged and in need of replacement or repair.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Many light fixtures use T12 lamps,scheduled to be phased out by DOE mandate.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Two stairs are too steep and have inadequate handrails.
b. Three stairs have inadequate handrails.
c. Unlawful mechanical/electrical penetration at one stair enclosure.
d. At least three stair enclosures exit into the factory space,instead of into an acceptable exit passage.
e. Mechanical rooms appear to be inadequately separated from rest of construction.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Interior finishes have been damaged by water leaking from roof in some locations.
b. Office building wing badly damaged from mold infestation.
c. Office wing finishes completely gutted, lighting removed and HVAC distribution system partially
removed.
XXI I-D-2
5. Exterior Construction
a, Roofing appears cracked and worn.
b. Roof slope inadequate,resulting in ponding and leaking.
c. Office building wing badly damaged from mold infestation.
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. Steel structure is exposed and unprotected. In order to meet allowable area requirements in the code,
exposed steel columns and roof structure must be have at least 1-hour fire resistance.
2. Approximately 40%of the building is without required sprinkler system.
3. Stair guardrails at five locations do not meet code. Guardrail picket spacing is greater than 4".
4. Stair handrails are too low in five locations and lack extensions.
5. Stair risers in two locations exceed the maximum allowable 7" and treads are less than the minimum
allowable 11"
6. There are unprotected penetrations in required fire-rated walls and ceilings (stair enclosure and
mechanical room).
7. Roof slopes do not meet code for adequate drainage.
8. According to a roof survey conducted in the mid-80s, most of the roof is overstressed, meaning it would
be unable to support the tapered insulation necessary to correct roof slopes.Although changes in the code
have lessened roof design loads since the survey was conducted,a requirement to accommodate snow drift
loads has been added. The result, in a building such as this with many clerestory areas that would cause
drifting on lower roofs, is a greater design load in affected areas. It is estimated that 75% of the roof is
structurally inadequate due to snow drift loading.
9. One of the elevators is without accessible controls.
10. Travel distance from building interior to public way exceeds allowable maximum.
Enerev Code
In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above,the existing building does not comply with the current
energy code. These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not
considered in determining whether or not the building is substandard:
- Building's wall insulation does not meet current code requirements.
- Building's heating and cooling is not as efficient as current energy code would require.
- Building's lighting in majority of office areas not energy efficient.
M:111Proj11106211400 Design1406 Reports\TIF\Substandard Building Report BAE I I1228.docx
XXI I-D-3
t-N EPA Region 6 Records Ctr.
IIIIf11�I 1111111
34276$
Five-Year Review Report
Fourth Five-Year Review Report
For
FMC Corporation (Fridley Plant)
Fridley
Anoka County,Minnesota
September,2009
PREPARED BY:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
St.Paul,Minnesota
As Modified by
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Chicago,Illinois
Approved by: Date:
a 4, _401! /sr '7/35/4
_..- Richard C.Karl
Director
Superfund Division
n
)0(11-D-4
Executive Summary
On behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)has completed a five-year review of the remedial action(RA)
implemented at the FMC Site(Site) located in Fridley,Minnesota. This is the fourth five-year
review for the Site which evaluates the effectiveness of the RA to date.
Historically,industrial and hazardous waste generated from naval ordnance manufacturing
including plating wastes, paint,paint sludges,oils,bottom ash and chlorinated and non-
chlorinated solvents was disposed of at the Site. Initial remedial actions included construction of
an on-site containment and treatment facility(CTF)to treat and contain soils contaminated with
volatile organic compounds(VOCs) in 1983. Groundwater contamination was addressed
through a groundwater extraction system, installed in 1987,and a monitoring well network. The
groundwater extraction system continues to operate and VOCs remain in the groundwater at and
down gradient of the Site.
Protectiveness Statement(s):
The protectiveness of the current remedy as concluded by this five-year review is as follows:
Groundwater
The remedy selected to address groundwater contamination is currently protective of human
health and the environment in the short term'. In order for the remedy to be protective in the
long-term the following actions need to be completed:
• The monitoring well network must be expanded and the groundwater
plume must be fully defined;
• MCLs or health based cleanup values are to be achieved at the Site
boundary;
• Updates to the Site monitoring plan need to be completed;
• The capture of the groundwater extraction system must be further
evaluated;
• A complete risk assessment is to be conducted with regard to the seep;
• Effective institutional controls are in place at and near the site that are
protective in the short term and apply to all activities that may lead to
potential exposure;In order to assure long term protectiveness,additional
institutional controls on BAE property and nearby property will be
evaluated.
• Remedial action addressing exposure at the seep must be completed(if
See Appendix A for MPCA's position on the short term protectiveness.
10
XXII-D-5
determined to be necessary by the risk assessment);
• Further evaluation needs to be conducted for additional remedial action
utilizing data collected from additional investigations;
• Improvements to data evaluation and presentation within Annual
Monitoring Report to be made.
Soil
Soil removal actions were conducted prior to implementation of the ROD and decision
documents for the Site. The US EPA and MPCA have found soil removal actions to be
protective of human health and the environment. Continued monitoring of CTF monitoring
wells and data evaluation is required to assure continued long term protectiveness. In addition
institutional controls may need to be implemented to assure the CTF remains protective in the
long-term. A review of ICs will be conducted in an IC plan to determine what additional ICs are
needed.
Site Wide
The selected remedy to address groundwater contamination at the site is protective of human
health and the environment in the short term. In order for the groundwater remedy to be
protective in the long-term, actions identified in the protectiveness statement in the groundwater
n and recommendations section of this five-year review must be implemented. The soil removal
actions and CTF have been identified by the MPCA and US EPA as protective,although
institutional controls are may be needed to assure long-term protectiveness.
11
XXll-D-F
EXHIBIT XXII - E
ESTIMATED IMPACT OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUBDISTRICT NO. 20A
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
ORIGINAL ESTIMATED CAPTURED DISTRICT
TAX TAX• TAX TAX AS %
ENTITY BASE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY OF TOTAL
City of Fridley - 31,795,494 0 301,468 301,468 0.948%
County of Anoka 315,214,077 0 301,468 301,468 0.096%
ISD#13 20,892,516 0 301,468 301,468 1.443%
IMPACT ON TAX RATE *
TAX % OF TAX TAX RATE
ENTITY RATE TOTAL INCREMENT INCREASE
City of Fridley 0.39478 35.01% 119,014 0.378%
County of Anoka 0.41056 36.41% 123,771 0.039%
ISD #13 0.24355 21.60% 73,423 0.357%
Other 0.07876 6.98% 23,744
1.12765 100.00% 339,950
*Assumes market value will not decline.
XXII - E - 1
EXHIBIT I-C
BUDGET
TIF#20 TIF#20A
HSS
Cumulative Cumulative
Modified Modified
TIF Plan TIF Plan
Budget Budget TOTAL
ESTIMATED TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
(from tax increment generated by the district)
Tax increment revenues distributed from the county $ 48,500,000 $ 8,800,000 57,300,000
Interest and Investment earnings 485,000 88,000 573,000
Sales/lease proceeds -
Market value homestead credit -
Total Estimated Tax increment Revenues $ 48,985,000 $ 8,888,000 $ 57,873,000
ESTIMATED PROJECT/FINANCING COSTS
(to be paid or financed with tax increment)
Project Costs
Land/building acquisition $ 500,000 $ - 500,000
Site improvements/preparation costs 3,608,000 3,608,000
Utilities 15,275,000 15,275,000
Other qualifying improvements -
Construction of affordable housing -
Small city authorized costs,if not already included above -
Administrative costs 4,850,000 880,000 5,730,000
Estimated Tax increment Project Costs $ 20,625,000 $ 4,488,000 $ 25,113,000
Estimated Financing Costs
Interest expense 28,360,000 4,400,000 32,760,000
Total Estimated Project/Financing Costs to be Paid From Ti $ 48,985,000 $ 8,888,000 $ 57,873,000
0 0 0
ESTIMATED FINANCING
Total amount of bonds to be issued 20,100,000 4,400,000 24,500,000
TIF Budget-20&20A.xlsx I-C-15
Kiernan, Becky
`From: Bolin, Paul
.,ent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:52 AM
To: Nelson, Darin; Kiernan, Becky
Subject: RER Update Questions for Use at 4-9-12 Council Meeting
Attachments: Questions for Use at 4-9-12 Council Meeting.pdf
Darin/Becky:
Attached are a list of questions Bill had put together for Jim to answer. Bill is hoping this list
cuts down on questions at the Authority and Council meetings. On a separate but somewhat
parallel track, Larry Commers has called me a few times as well as emailed a few questions
to me this week. The following are my responses to Larry's questions....
When would the district actually "start" running?
In regards to the timing of the district creation: The district does not start until we ask Anoka
County to certify the district. We won't/can't ask the County to certify until we have our
development agreement in place. The HSS Certification requires that the developer have a
MPCA approved Remediation Action Plan (RAP) place. It is likely that the RAP will not be fully
developed and approved until sometime late this fall or early next year. We will wait to certify
,oth the Redevelopment District#20 and the HSS Subdistrict#20A until the MPCA approves the
plan.
If we were to Certify the district and the project went nowhere, we can have the district
decertified, without any problem or penalty. The day after decertification, we could start over
with a new project/district.
On the HSS cash flows , what happens in between the time the existing building is demolished
and the new is in place? Does the HSS continue to generate cash flow? 2015-2017.
Yes, the HSS will continue to generate cash flow until the eligible expenses have all been
reimbursed (the $4M) or the district expires in 25 years. We have projected that the HSS will
pay back the $4M within 17 years.
What is the actual interest we can earn under state law? I did not think it was 4%.
Jim is checking on this. I will let you know when I hear back from him.
Reducing our administrative fee for 17 or more years I am not sure makes sense since we are
in reality merely using our own Ad fee reduction to pay ourselves back.
,-J'ou are right on target. This is simply one way we could do it. After some further review and
Jiscussions, we most likely do not need or want to do this.
What is meant by the statement that HSS advances "could" total $4 million "plus" repayments
of third party advances ?
maul Hyde is hoping that when we provide funding for actual remediation or investigation, that
ne may get money from one of the other sources (Met Council, Navy, etc.)for that amount, but
would like us to then keep our HSS money available and revolving for subsequent phases.
Under any scenario, we will not have more than $4M in total from the HSS invested in the
project. In the unlikely event that there were excess funding from other sources, we would
then use that money to reduce the Authorities $4M contribution.
We also need a cash flow analysis for the HRA if we are to loan $3.0 million to the HSS. I don't
have our last year end cash flow with me but my recollection was we only had $2-$3 million of
free cash flow available. Please check this out.
Using the numbers from late last fall, we have roughly$8M in cash balances. You are correct
in that not all of it is available for use. We have nearly$1.6M in poolable TIF funds, $2.8M in
the Housing Loan Program, and$2.7M in the general fund. We would anticipate using some
funds from each of these sources.The good thing is that we don't need to come up with all$4M
upfront....the loans will be phased like the project. It is anticipated that the money will be
made available in the following amounts and timeframes: Fall 2012 - $750,000;June 2014 -
$750,000; December 2015- $1.25; December 2016- $1.25M. Because we would begin
collecting increment in 2013, we will have already recovered$285,000 prior to making the
-cecond transfer.
Sincerely,
Pad
Paul Bolin,AICP
Assistant Executive Director
City of Fridley Housing& Redevelopment Authority
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Direct-763-572-3591
Fax-763-571-1287
From: James Casserly [mailto:jcasserly @mmblavfirm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:12 AM
To: Burns, Bill
Cc: Bolin, Paul; Hickok, Scott; 'paul @realestaterecycling.com'
r,Subject: FW: Questions for Use at 4-9-12 Council Meeting
Bill and all, attached are the latest draft of answers for Council consideration. Please let us know if
you need anything further. Thanks, Jim
2
James R. Casserly
' 1oNROE MOXNESS BERG PA
.,000 Norman Center Drive, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55437
T 952.885.5999
D 952.885.1296
F 952.885.5969
•
www.MMBLawFirm.com
Confidentiality Notice:
The information contained in this email message,and any accompanying attachment,is confidential and privileged.It is intended only for the use of each recipient.
If you are not an intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to an intended recipient,please notify us immediately by
telephone.
Circular 230 Notice:
Any tax advice contained in this electronic or written communication(including any attachment)is not intended by our firm to be used,and cannot be used,by any
person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.No written advice from
our firm may be used in promoting,marketing or recommending any partnership.entity,investment plan or arrangement to any taxpayer without our express
consent.This notice is provided pursuant to United States Treasury Department Circular 230.
/*■
3
EXHIBIT I-C
BUDGET
1\4-,
TIF#20 TIF#20A
HSS
Cumulative Cumulative
Modified Modified
TIE Plan TIF Plan
Budget Budget TOTAL.
ESTIMATED TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
(from tax increment generated by the district)
/IN
Tax increment revenues distributed from the county �7 c/..e, $ 48,500,000 $ 8,350,000 56,850,000
Interest and investment earnings 485,000 83,500 t q n 568,500
Sales/lease proceeds -
Market value homestead credit -
Total Estimated Tax Increment Revenues $ 48,985,000 $ 8,433,500 $ 57,418,500
ESTIMATED PROJECT/FINANCING COSTS
(to be paid or financed with tax increment)
Project Costs
Land/building acquisition $ 500,000 $ - 500,000
Site Improvements/preparation costs 4,998,500 4,998,500
\ Utilities 15,275,000 15,275,000
Other qualifying improvements -
Construction of affordable housing -
Small city authorized costs, if not already Included above -
Administrative costs 4,850,000 835,000 5,685,000
Estimated Tax Increment Project Costs $ 20,625,000 $ 5,833,500 $ 26,458,500
Estimated Financing Costs
Interest expense 28,360,000 2,600,000 30,960,000
Total Estimated Project/Financing Costs to be Paid From TI $ 48,985,000 $ 8,433,500 $ 57,418,500
0 0 0
ESTIMATED FINANCING
Total amount of bonds to be issued 20,100,000 5,800,000 25,900,000
n
TIF Budget-20&20A.xlsx I C-15
r,
ACTION ITEM
HRA MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2012
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
Date: March 29, 2012
To: William Burns, Executive Director
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Subject: Housing Replacement Program — Driveway Easement - Hugo Street
The survey done to split the lot located at 551/561 Hugo Street, revealed that a tiny
portion of the neighbor's driveway (565 Hugo) is located on property owned by the
HRA. The attached survey drawing indicates that along the length of the neighboring
driveway, it encroaches on the HRA property by up to .4ft (4.8"). There is no record of
when the encroaching driveway was installed, but it was likely more than 60 years ago,
and not due to any actions of the current owner.
The City of Fridley's zoning code requires that all driveways be set back 3' from the
n neighboring property line, except as agreed to in writing by adjacent owners and filed with
the City. In no case can a driveway encroach onto neighboring property without a formal
access easement, to be filed with Anoka County. In order for the HRA property to be
saleable, the encroachment must be corrected.
The encroachment may be corrected by removal or by formal recognition through an
access easement. Removal of the encroachment would entail the neighbor hiring a
contractor to remove the portions of driveway that are located on the HRA property. Staff
has discussed a formal access agreement with, Stephanie Ykema - the neighbor, that
would require her to pay the HRA$1 for the granting of the easement and pay the filing fees
for recording the easement with Anoka County. Ms. Ykema would prefer an easement over
removal of her driveway.
Recommendation:
The encroachment has minimal impact to the Authorities property, but most be noted
and recorded in order to sell the newly created lot at 561 Hugo Street. Staff
recommends the Authority grant the driveway easement to Ms. Ykema for the minor
driveway encroachment.
Fridley H.R.A. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY DATE: November 30, 2011
FOR y (MEASUREMENTS SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS OF A FOOT)
F I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT KURTH SURVEYING, INC. 0 20 O = IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION 4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E. • =IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND
AND THAT I AM DULY LI NS LAND SURVEYOR UNDER I
THE aF T sTAi F ESOTA. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421 =SPIKE SET
�' PHOW(763)788-9769 FAX(763)788-7607
E-MAIL:ksiOkurthsurrrymglnc.com. SCALE IN FEET =WOOD FENCE
Randy L. Kurth, L.L.S. No. 20270 =CHAIN LINK FENCE ��—Y = CONCRETE SURFACE
Russell J. Kurth, L.L.S. No. 16113 : .....
'S) •-_
- t ' ‘-'4-75.0-- ,--75 0—
r corner I•-s on edge of block oll I N■
PP•II'' ,. corner dls on block wall-..\ /
•
lee fi-to i �� - -conc. block .all on ne---- / • PP
I
DO c/
CO eo
L
/ DO .
/
I 1
1_ 0 I 0 1
T 1
C
Lf� PARCEL "B" PARCEL "A "
I LL\U) - 5250 sq.ft. 0 5250 sq.ft. o
I
\ E
`1'4 1 E ._. �) r
N
n
\ 90..,— I /
\ /09, / /
/ / /
• curb cuI 75.0 -- 75.0 curb cui
L 1 ...__J 741 -oe•=
Y
^ O
HUGO STREET N•E• (40' R/w)
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PIN*03-30-24-23-0046
Lots 19 thru 24, Block G, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED PARCEL "A"
Lots 19, 20 and 21, Block G, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED PARCEL "B"
Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block G, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, Anoka County, Minnesota. /.....,
r1M-mlac\10-19-G-RIV.gxd
A
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
This easement ("Easement") made this j FW day of Markcln , 201:'
between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic
("Grantor"), 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN 55432 and Stephanie Ykema
("Grantee"), 565 Hugo Street NE, Fridley,MN 55432.
Recitals
1. Grantor is the Owner of the property described as:
•'■
Lot 24, Block G, Riverview Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota ("Grantor
Parcel").
2. Grantee is the Owner of the property described as:
Lot 25, Block G, Riverview Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota ("Grantee
Parcel").
3. Grantor Parcel and Grantee Parcel (collectively "Parcels") lie adjacent to each
other and share a common boundary line.
4. The driveway located upon the Grantee Parcel encroaches across the common
boundary line between the Parcels and encroaches upon the Grantor Parcel by
approximately five (5) inches.
5. The Grantor and Grantee desire that Grantor grant to Grantee an easement for
driveway purposes over and across that portion of the Grantor Parcel upon which the
driveway on the Grantee Parcel encroaches.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of One and No/100 Dollar
($1.00) paid by Grantee to Grantor, receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Grantor and Grantee agree as follows:
Page 1
A. All of the foregoing Recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
B. Grantor hereby grants in favor of the Grantee, and binds itself and any future
owner or owners of the Grantor Parcel, including their successors and assigns, a driveway
easement over that portion of the Grantor Parcel described below ("Driveway Easement
Parcel"), for so long as i) the driveway exists in its current location upon the Grantee
Parcel and the Driveway Easement Parcel and ii) the driveway is used specifically for
driveway purposes as are normal and reasonably required for the use of the Grantee
Parcel for a single family residence:
West One (1) foot of Lot 24, Block G, Riverview Heights,Anoka County, Minnesota.
C. Grantee shall retain responsibility for maintenance of the driveway, including
those portions of the driveway located upon the Driveway Easement Parcel, including
maintenance of the driveway in compliance with all existing and future federal, state, and
local requirements. Grantee assumes all liability arid responsibility whatsoever for any
and all losses or damages, including repairs to the improvements on the Driveway
Easement Parcel.
D. This Easement runs with the land and is binding upon the Grantee, their
successors and assigns, for as long as the Driveway Easement Parcel is used as a
driveway for a single family residence.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor and Grantee hereto have executed this Easement
as of the day and year first above written.
GRANTOR: GRANTEE:
Housing and Redevelopment Authority Ski.•
in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Stephanie Ykema •
a Minnesota public body corporate
and politic
By:
Lawrence R. Commers
Its: Chairperson
By:
William W. Burns
Its: Executive Director
Page 2
/'"N
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2012, by Lawrence R. Commers, the Chairperson of the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a Minnesota
public body corporate and politic, on behalf of such public body.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2012, by William W. Bums, the Executive Director of the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a Minnesota
public body corporate and politic, on behalf of such public body.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2012, by Stephanie Ykema, an individual, as Grantee.
Notary Public
Page 3
AGENDA ITEM
HRA MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2012
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
•
To: William W. Burns, City Manager 401
Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive Director
From: Darin R. Nelson,Finance Director
Mary Smith, City Assessor
Date: March 29, 2012
Re: Request approval to obtain appraisal in regards to Medtronic, Inc. tax valuation
petitions
Background
Medtronic has unsettled tax valuation petitions for taxes payable 2009, 2010 and 2011. Mary
Smith, City Assessor has been in regular negotiations with Medtronic over the past year trying to
resolve the market valuation differences between the City and Medtronic. The valuation differences
range from $5.9 million for taxes payable 2009 to $9.9 million dollars for taxes payable 2011. The
headquarters and surrounding vacant parcels are valued at approximately$42.9 million for taxes
payable 2011. Medtronic is proposing a valuation of$33 million for the same tax year. As you can
imagine the tax consequences between these valuations is quite significant. Just for taxes payable
2011,the difference amounts to approximately$360,000.
The Medtronic headquarters and the surrounding parcels are included within TIF District#6.
Currently, any tax increment collected minus the HRA's allowable ten percent administrative fees
are returned to Medtronic. Medtronic then subsequently issues a check to the HRA for 11.1 percent
of those proceeds for repayment of the original land purchase. The 11.1 percent is scheduled to
increase to 22.2 percent this fall. Between the administrative fees and the land payments, the HRA
will be receiving just over 30 percent of the eligible tax increment collected on this district. 30
percent equates to about $280,000 annually.
If the valuation of this property was reduced to Medtronic's proposed valuation, the HRA's
reduction would amount to $70,000.
I met with Tom Haluska, Assistant Anoka County Attorney and Mary Smith on Tuesday, March 27.
They had just finished another negotiation session with the attorney representing Medtronic. After
not making much, if any headway,Mr. Haluska suggested that it may be time to have an appraisal
done on this property. Both parties appear to be at an impasse. The City Assessor stands behind
1
her values and cannot unjustifiably lower values just for the sake of lowering values, and the
petitioning attorney is holding firm to his significantly lower values.
An independent appraisal aids tremendously in negotiating. First, the appraisal provides a value
independent of the City Assessor. No matter how accurate or in-depth the City Assessor is with her
valuation, the petitioning party is reluctant or refuses to rely upon the City's valuation. Second, if
the case ends up in court, the City would be required to have an appraisal done, either an in-house
appraisal or one done by an independent appraiser. Due to our limited staff size, it is not feasible to
conduct in-house appraisals for these types of properties.
Also, the HRA previously had an appraisal done on this property back in 2004, which did aid in
resolving prior years' petitions along with establishing an agreed upon amount for a few of the
subsequent years. The HRA paid $11,000 for that appraisal.
Staff Recommendation
Staff received a quote from Paul Bakken, the same person that did the appraisal back in 2004. His
quote is for$8,000, which is for the appraisal only. If by chance this petition ends up in court, his
hourly fee is $325 per hour.
Understanding that the HRA has a vested interest in maintaining an accurate and substantiated value
on this property, it is the recommendation of staff that the HRA hire Paul Bakken to provide an
appraisal of the Medtronic Headquarters. The appraisal will be used to aid in negotiations between
the City and Medtronic, and as a last resort, be used to defend the City's value in court.
2
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
HRA MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2012
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
Date: March 27, 2012
To: William Burns, Executive Director le
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Subiect: 6000 2nd Street/ACCAP Redevelopment
In late January, the Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP) approached
Authority & Planning staff to discuss the potential for redeveloping the 4 unit building
they currently own at 6008 2nd Street. ACCAP is preparing an application for Federal
HOME funding (administered through Anoka County) to demolish and redevelop their
property to accommodate 12 workforce rental housing units.
ACCAP would like the Authority to donate or otherwise transfer ownership of their 40'
lot adjacent to ACCAP's (6000 2nd Street). Combining the Authority's non-buildable 40'
wide corner lot with ACCAP's lot provides the land area necessary to complete the
redevelopment ACCAP is seeking to build. ACCAP is proposing a 12 unit, 3 story
building that will have 3-bedroom units on the main floor, 2-bedroom units on the 2nd
floor, and 1-bedroom units on the 3rd floor. The building would be equipped with an
elevator. Upon completion the building would have a value in excess of$2M.
ACCAP has now designed the potential project and plans to hold a neighborhood
meeting on April 4th. ACCAP wants to receive comments from neighbors prior to
making any formal land use application to the City or the Authority formally considering
disposition of the property. It will most likely be May or June before the Authority would
be asked to take any formal action on the project.
n
ACCAP ANOKAeCOUNTY�COMMUNITY7ACTION PROGRAM, INC.NE•Suite 345 E-mail:accap @accap.org
•
A United Way
Agency
March 23, 2012
Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP) is inviting the residents of the
Hyde Park neighborhood to hear a presentation of ACCAP's plan to redevelop its
property at 6008 2nd St NE, Fridley.
The property currently consists of a 4 unit rental property. ACCAP is planning to
redevelop the property consistent with the City of Fridley's Transit Overlay District
zoning into a 12 unit rental property.
Attached are renderings of the proposed redevelopment along with a picture of the
existing 4 unit building.
n
ACCAP will continue to own and manage the property.
The meeting will be on Wednesday April 4th from 7-8 pm at 6085 Seventh Street
NE Room 109.
N � a ,
i4y.l ? r7i.�.
1 - - rz �'
iYi 3,.. a-3 i
;�
'7, X. fpi ', a
:4:' ,:.
k:
p
,
i
,
r i •
( s a J:�.Rdw
53 Y
[;,
4 y:
:
yy
.tom
r s
tA3A4
I A
I ^rti !,.....2,..,..,:::i.1
1
{
t
z y a * r
"w dam
.
f
;fit ,'h .� A�'
mo" .iPi! r
' t
- m ,
`ate ,, ''..
,r a
4 Xg.
Ilismummil•ENENNI r, l''.
f,.
ifs f. ,
f' F
F r
C,
I
,
■l °s
Is-
■
I
■
I
1
I
i
I a
•• ■
I
H'3W ONOV3S
„:„., -„:.:...„,:::::„;.,:: r - :., „. .....„..--._.,_ .,..,......„. „,...,.. ...4:„:„.„.s..........„:::: „Is ,
.,
y ,
iifflie
BSc t@>.,3§. f: S -. 11� A
�)}' , 9m§
t ,+t.{�, u
its.
9
nz
,iX bC 4.Lai. 44,..*..mr LC!am
F. s. N Ng!t{ t• .1>7 . Es
•
tyll
� z
Pf
Y` Z..
.4
....,1
' tot,,,v VA A
}
„44000104Ni
t' I
•
Y00'�
0
A
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
HRA MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2012
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
Date: March 28, 2012
To: William Burns, Executive Director fA�
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Subject: Potential Sale of 551 Hugo Street NE - HRP
Staff was recently approached by Dale Anderson, representing Novak-Fleck Builders
(NFB), seeking an opportunity to build and sell a new home on one of the vacant
scattered site lots. NFB looked at the scattered site lots currently available and have
selected the lot at 551 Hugo Street. They have made an offer of$30,000 for the lot, a
price justified by comparable sales and the City Assessor.
As the housing market is slowly improving, or at least not worsening as quickly as it had
been, NFB has had success building and selling on infill lots in the Cities of Coon
Rapids and Robbinsdale. NFB is currently making some minor modifications to the
house plan attached to this memorandum. Modifications include removal of the front
railing and some changes to the interior of the home.
Because of the timing of the offer, and the requirement that a public hearing be held,
staff will bring this forward for approval on May 3rd.
I.
3
I
I
t -4/
it ,IIII,I ,i l 1 1 5 3
-
1,,,d,0,,I,,,,
IHllhIIIllhIIII-a. L
1 11111 ait�=
MI5 VI
_—.❑ '
'
a == 1 III I
I
, •
l'ArY1Y, 4r
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII= (I I' I l�
• I,,,,, iiiiiiIiiiii (; 1! 111111
d
-- � 1 I
�Itlllllllll ',1 111111 ' 1 1
h' VI
�1 N I - M
I III
%I
1111111111111111111111L i;I I �I / ss
111 11111 ' ': X11 3
'11111111) II _
I CD
l;lil,l;l�;li - I
Il 1111 I.
__ i� -• N
111 It II i- a. I 1 I i IN
Ili �' i� _ � I
if t
X -
seN
Its 1 P
� ��— -
IA ■ ■ _:-
�!��� i
;„,„!,.,,„, „„,1111• ,:„i,,,,,,,„: 1
1 ,,„,,,;,„„, ill!' r - 1 , 1 k
x
r
. kili Pilill
$ 1 '
✓areaal....OlROCA10 R!U TAv.
AOO mOr AYVpr
OCAS CONIMV.7!NM=PILL
4s1lw.IINL00.o�ax
-AAL e.a.oAA e.AOnAOi!A1V.r.o..oA.lA!NMI
.A..GT m ASV vallCOAea IMPS eMrAAS AANf a1 A.at.NC
,ML"II.fi____.a.woo AwArnaawa.AOIWLr__
PILL OE valswaAD Sf 111 aJIMINI M1 lR CMS IIaMIIIM A•
a.L IMAM RAIOOAO.AAA ON ORUaS AR NOT 1111~1.®
1 i _qi
-16• 4.N[.MASA ALL 00lO.R OINI.O.
., .....,_ .._..,,., ... . .. ... . .. . .._ _ . . .. , . • .,.,.,..... „, ... ....: ..7,,,.,,,,,„....„..,,,:,,,,,,„..-:.„-:::„.„..: :i F.:'' .4'''''n . -'''''...'.; ' ''''''':"":"'". -:':-":: '".''';.f.4
•
I104* 1 24•11114.2.11141P 264• .4.
< i
•
( 1 alidimItint
; 1 '•I. 1 i z .6 „lc, 4. i ;
0
A i 4
e g i
i
r '
- .1 ier IV-or
I‘ W'
- -- --
.. :... we
,1 .. • .
•••.• -
,-- :.: dk_ ki . ,
, iiiiiili lk.- „„,„.
....
. -,_ ....-- I; Z
- ::. ..., • min : —
; 11 ..... _ ..., ,:.......:- - _...._.
.:_,_
.... _. - iiiid 111
1
1
1
1
} .1 1
i:::".ii■:.:::i' 11_3
j
/ 1 r I k i
_ oi. :::-....:.•,:ir
t z
,. ). /
..:.: .
,,,,,..., - , , i
.:.: 4,
.:. war MIMS IP
...--... t
_ . mmoilmat _____,e-, ii-milimmi. a „-- ,..... 1
• . j,...."
i„,...
/ .7.1 lis z
1 t 1 . 1 ,1 •
1 _i7•7 1 l
I 3t ;, 1001- 1
/ -4 I •
i sgs r 4,--1. , m
/ 11
/
4 1
, A
ig 1 1 r • ,•
I
1 , 1 , ,
/ Z
1 al, a I
I 11 .1
I
P __ohlt
!
,
N 1 4,0"mr"
10,40.
, 1
1 v 1
•
1
1
1
%
1
. 1
4 ...
4,1 2F-0.
1
i i V
t I • al Ma 4 •
Rt5 ili I MI A
....,..
E I'll I I 1
1 gal —
i lissg DE - ri' llai KC
a • I
4511011 Min — Me
i
111111 4 liwl 0 1
h El II . MI
..... ..
1 Nam cm 1
__):,, ii llIl
ir
_ WPM
Alm io Numpasea earmeransi swim PIM.
MAUI 00111110110.‘111 MINI PILL NM MIX 04/20/080
110 1111101114•1111110111111111119111111P.
,PLL 01141•11112111 0111101111111111 PIO SPINFICA11011111111110
... , ,:mic.mmor.44.111111,A1:imangeo:mosemlIPruip:IlnaseVEINGATIVALsomminrmaimiHneemaimicvammerneus.1101.1tampv01111111111Apppomampet Gaist4::ffinumnaimISZIMMignminew.
441=PM POOMINID IVO PIMP IMAMS IR OW 111/04110111111W
1
..-
. .-..:-.• " , - .,',- ,. -,. - ,'.:' ,„..:.,.'"" ' -- . :I:,,%-.'.:;,t1.■•_:-.:'..:.' 1::-11,•:':•%,7,..::1.4',..
,oar
stir =r
"Mr ar w- IMF W.O.
'TT-1 r 1
VM •r .%//. .//.'#4//.'54/1
Z 111
rte IX i D :j
ill 1 iii I: al z
I.
R . -
Sf i f 444.• I
rsV' MO 1 /1 r i �% t I.
iar 3ii V i ,; I I t
s 4 !5!!!!! _ r" 4
1.
.
—I 1-(—:.?P---U , # r•er H
r
jF
•) ifglik 1 li I,
j11 will 1 r z
tii ,
1 ? ,
— fig ;'
s 3 #r
P ii ^
•
- IF
„
$i Z
ui/J
L
Mgr 74' LTA'
17-4' 21,447
WI 1 41111,110aIIIIIP01161lMRMIYKNOT
1p r/l{iO_RY. NM=�T/�OOOINr
Vp 11111101411•1111111111111•1171L
4LL 0•411111014k 00111X11171111 Ms�INOMOr MN
rum TO'MP VAC 11aL p!atM�NW is IL1�Up.
...ILL EM0111164‘I a i6 .1..LL..a«M.MFlI7NM1.AOYK FLAMINI, 1111
Itil.ME 11110101111W K 71!ILICIAOPM f11111 GOM IRi
411 tlY/!IOOIM1111111 M!!!OI RIME wrier■1►NMI®
-MAIM NMI OItfO111114711IMLLl.frAMINKOW MO
•GMLK•MAIN ML M®fit CIMR
.. -._.... .. 4444. . _ - - - ...
�.
^ Fridley HRA
Housing Program Summary
Cover Page
April 5, 2012 HRA Meeting
Report Description
Loan Application Summary Loan application activity (e.g. mailed
out, in process, closed loans)for past
month and year-to-date.
Loan Origination Report Loan originations for past month and
year-to-date.
Remodeling Advisor Shows the number of field appointments
scheduled and completed for the
Remodeling Advisor Services
administered by Center for Energy and
Environment.
n '
H:\—Paul's Documents\HRA\HRA Agenda Items\2012\April 5,2012\Housing Program CoverPageApri112.docx
Fridley HRA
March 15, 2012
Application Summary
2/15-3/15 Year-To-Date
New Applications Total
Applications Rec'd/ Loans Applications Applications Loans
Program Sent Out* in Process Closed Mailed Processed Closed
HRA Revolving Loan Fund 1 1 0 2 2 1
HRA- Fridley Last 0 0 0 0 0 0
MHFA Deferred Loan 0 0 0 0 0 0
MHFA Fix-Up Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0
MHFA Community Fix-Up Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0
MHFA Community Fix-Up w/ Discount 0 0 0 0 0 0
CEE Home Energy Loan 1 0 0 1 0 0
Private Bank Loan (through CEE) 0 0 0 0 0 0
MHFA Rental Rehab Loan Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOC Rental Energy Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals: 2 1 0 3 2 1
*Number of applications sent out does not take into account property owners downloading their application from the CEE website
)
)
Fridley HRA
Remodeling Advisor Service - 2012
March 15, 2012
Remodeling Advisor
Appointments Appointments
Month Scheduled Completed
Jan-12 0 0
Feb-12 2 2
Mar-12 1 1
Apr-12 0 0
May-12 0 0
Jun-12 0 0
Jul-12 0 0
Aug-12 0 0
Sep-12 0 0
Oct-12 0 0
Nov-12 0 0
Dec-12 0 0
Total 3 3
*Remodeling Advisor monthly amounts may change as paperwork from a visit may not come in until the next month for the previous month.
Fridley HRA
3/15/2012
Loan Originations
Programs This Month Previous Month Since 1/1/2012
HRA Loans(incl.CFUF Discount loans) $ - $ - $ 9,540.00
Leveraged Loans $ - $ - $ -
Total $ - $ - $ 9,540.00
Funding Sources This Month Previous Month Since 1/1/2012
Fridley HRA inc Revolving&FRIDLAST $ - $ - $ 9,540.00
MHFA FUF/CFUF $ - $ - $ -
Fridley Discount portion for CFUF $ - $ - $ -
Met Council $ - $ - $ -
CDBG/HOME $ - $ - $ -
CEE Energy $ - $ - $ -
Other $ - $ - $ -
Total $ - $ - $ 9,540.00
Types of Units Improved*
most HH do more than one improvement so the total#will be equal or greater to the number of loans originated
This Month Previous Month Since 1/1/2012
Single Family - - 1
Duplex - - -
Tri-Plex - - -
4 to 9 Units - - -
10 to 20 Units - - -
20+Units - - -
Total - - 1
Types of Improvements
Interior #of Projects %of Total
Bathroom remodel - 0%
Kitchen remodel - 0%
General plumbing - 0%
Heating system - 0%
Electrical system - 0%
Basement finish - 0%
Insulation - 0%
Room addition - 0%
Misc.interior projects - 0%
Foundation - 0%
Exterior
Siding/Fascia/Soffit - 0%
Roofing - 0%
Windows/Doors 1 100%
Garage
0%
Driveway/sidewalk - 0%
Landscaping - 0% ��
Misc.exterior projects - 0%