HRA 12/12/1985 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1985 7 :00 P.M.
City of Fridley
AGENDA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1985 7 :00 P.M.
Location: Council Chamber (upper level )
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes : November 14, 1985
Special Housing & Redevelopment Authority Minutes : November 25, 1985
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE 100 TWIN
DRIVE-IN SITE
AND
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH WOODBRIDGE
PROPERTIES 1 - 1S
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF $5.7 MULLION TAX INCREMENT LIMITED
REVENUE NOTE 2 - 2A
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REQESTING CITY COUNCIL TO
AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF TAX INCREMENT BONDS FOR THE EXISTING AND
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 1 3 - 3D
CONSIDERATION OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LOU LUNDGREN 4
CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING FOR LEAGUE OF CITIES LOBBYING FOR TAX
INCREMENT LEGISLATION 5 - 5E
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING THE PROPOSED MINIMUM ASSESSED VALUE
FOR COLUMBIA PARK PROPERTIES 6 - 6J
CLAIMS 7
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 1985
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Conmers called the November 14, 1985, Housing & Redevelor)ment Authority
meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Comers, Elmars Prieditis, Duane Prairte,
Virginia Schnabel
Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen
Others Present: Nasim ()ureshi, HRA Di 'ector
Samantha Orduno,
Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Rick Pribyl , Acting City Finance Director
Dave Newman, City Attorney
Jim O'Meara, Miller & Schroeder
Jim Casserly, Hiller & Schroeder
Bob Barnette, City Councilman-at-Large
Ed Fitznatrick, City Councilman
Louis Lundgren, 1140 Minn. Bldg., , St. Paul 55101
Roland Jacots, BWBR Architects
Sid Inman, Holmes & Graven
Dave Weir, 10201 Wayzata Blvd. , Minnetonka
Barbara Hughes, CATV Advisory Commission
Keith Hennek, Storer Cable
(See attached list)
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 10, 1985, HOUSING; & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to approve the Oct. 10, 1985,
Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written.
Unon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers declared the motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1INUTES, MCTO ER—89, 1985:
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to approve the Oct. 29, 1985,
o{oUs ng & Redevelonment Authority minutes as written.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Corners declared the motion
carried unanimously.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 2
1 . PUBLIC HEARING ON THE -SALE BY THE OUSIN!I`& REDEVELOPMENT AU HORITY OF
LOT 2, -BLOCK'2, PID1 ANA CENTER:
MOTION by Mr. Prieditis, seconded by Ms. Schnabel , to open the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Coroners declared the public
hearing open at 7:07 p.n.
Mr. Qureshi showed where the property was located. He stated that in 1982
when the HRA entered into an agreement with the Columbia Park Properties, they
gave an option to the Columbia Park Properties to buy this property for their
expansion. That option runs until Jan. 2, 1986, but Columbia Park Properties
has already submitted their option money and is desirous to build an expansion
to their existing clinic. He stated the proposed addition was about 17,000
sq. ft. Columbia Park Properties would also be adding a parking facility,
surface level with one level below the surface level , providing a total of
380 parking spaces. He stated the property in question that the NRA would be
selling was basically where the parking facility would be built. He stated a
representative from BWBR Architects who was renresentinq Columbia Park Properties
was at the meeting to explain any details.
Mr. Corners stated the HRA has been concerned about the distance between
University Ave. and the narking spaces and how the nroject will look from
University Ave.
Mr. Roland Jacobs, BWBR Architects, stated the narking ramp would have only
one level on grade and the second level would be 100% below grade. Facing
University Ave. would be a 4 ft. high brick wall to keep peonle from walking
from the sidewalk into the parking lot. The wall would match the exterior
brick on the clinic building. He stated it would have a very low profile,
and they will continue the same planting scheme surrounding the pronertv lines
on the spiral streets and Univ. Ave. He stated there will be about 6-8 ft.
of green space between the brick wall and the sidewalk on Univ. Ave.
Ms.Schnabel asked what would be housed in the proposed 17,000 sq. ft. addition.
Mr. Jacobs stated the addition would house physical therapy, expanded labora-
tory facilities, and occupational health, not additional examining rooms, but
additional support services for the existing clinic.
Ms. Schnabel asked what additional traffic this new addition would create.
Mr. Jacobs stated it would increase the traffic flow somewhat. The outpatient
services, physical therapy and occupational health, would be at odd hours--
Saturdays, evenings, as they are expanding their time frame. They are not
increasing the need for parking proportionate to the square footage of the
existing building as they were not adding any more doctors or more examining
rooms. He stated he still felt there was a need for additional parking, perhans
on the east side of the clinic.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, -NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 3
There was no one in the audience who wished to address the HRA or the staff
regarding this proposal .
Mr. Qureshi stated the proposed addition was supposed to be $4.36 million in
value so it would be a sizeable addition to the Fridley Plaza Clinic.
MOTION by T1s. Schnabel , seconded by Mr. Prairie, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Comers declared the public
hearing closed at 7:19 p.m.
2. RESOLUTION NO. HRA 15-1985 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH COLUMBIA PARK PROPERTIES:
MOTION by Mr. Prieditis, seconded by Ms. Schnabel , to approve a resolution
approving oving and authorizing the execution of a contract for private development
with Columbia Park Properties.
Mr. Jim O'Meara reviewed the development agreement with the HRA members.
Mr. Corners asked what the agreed-upon assessed value for tax purposes was
upon completion of the expansion and parking facility.
Mr. O'Meara stated at the present time, he believed the value for the present
clinic building was $2,300,000.There was no figure in this agreement for the
minimum market value for the entire project, upon comnletion of the building
and the construction of the parking facilities.
Mr. Comers stated it was the usual procedure of the HRA to have an agreed-upon
assessed value in the development agreement before approving the agreement.
Mr. Qureshi stated they would have a value agreed upon before the execution of
the agreement. It was a matter of having the City Assessor valuate a proner
market value once they have the plans and then insert that figure into the
agreement. He stated that if it was the desire of the HRA to have an agreed-
upon assessed value figure before approving the agreement, they could table
approval until the next meeting at which time the Staff would have that figure.
Mr. O'Meara stated this development agreement would supercede the option
agreement, but the option agreement was still in effect through Jan. 2, 1986.
This agreement would suspend the option agreement and in the event they con-
veyed the pronerty under the development agreement, of course the option agree-
ment would no longer be in effect. He would think Columbia Park Properties
could close on the bond issue prior to the HRA approving the development agree-
ment because one way or the other, they would have control over the land.
Ms. Schnabel stated that if legal counsel could assure the HRA that not
approving the development agreement at this time would not affect the bonding
process; and if it would not have an effect, in essence, on the City Council 's
action, then she thought they could either approve the resolution with the con-
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1935 PAGE 4
tingency that the figure be set before the City Council meeting so the City
Council is aware of it, or they could table the approval of the resolution
until their Dec. 12th meeting.
MOTION TO AMEND by Mr. Prieditis, seconded by Ms. Schnabel , to approve
Resolution No. HRA 15 - 1985, A Resolution Approving and Authorizing the
Execution of a Contract for Private Development with Columbia Park Properties
with the stipulation that an agreed-upon assessment value be placed in the
development agreement to be presented to the City Council prior to their
Dec. 2, 1935, meeting.
Mr. Coroners stated this would expedite the developnent agreement and the HRA
could adopt and ratify the assessed value at their Dec. 12th meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PURCHASE AND RESALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE HOUSING
& REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF LIT 1 , BLOCK 1 , SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 6 AND LOT 1 ,
BLOCK 1 , SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 7, FIRLDYE MINNES TA:
MOTION by Mr. Prieditis, seconded by Ms. Schnabel ,to open the public hearing.
Unon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairnerson Coroners declared the public
hearinn onen at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Qureshistated the public hearing was basically on Phase 1 , which was the
234 unit rental project. He stated this public hearing was published in the
paner and the City Staff provided notices to people within 500 feet.
of the property.
Mr. Lundgren showed a model of the rental building. He stated they have two
more phases of commercial and an elderly housing project for the future. He
stated they are still trying to achieve a total project that will be cohesive
and upscale in terms of quality which hopefull will be one that will create
a sense of space and a sense of unity that will synergize the various com-
ponents of it. He stated the City parking requirements are being met in the
various phases. He showed pictures of the apartment building looking from the
south and from the north.
Mr. Prairie asked Mr. Lundgren if there was some kind of timetable for
the phases.
Mr. Lundgren stated he did not have control over a lot of things which would
influence the timetable. This rental building would be started in 1986 and
finished in 1987. It was hoped that by summer or fall of 1986, they would be
able to start the first commercial building. Of course, this depended on the
working relationships with a number of parties involved.
HOl1SING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1935 PAGE 5
F1r. Lundgren stated his partnership intended to talk to every tenant and land
owner on a one-to-one basis in the next 90 days to find out whether any of
them are interested in becoming part of this project, either as a tenant or
in ownership, what their needs and wants are, and what their objections are.
F1r. Lundgren stated that possibly in early 1987, the second commercial project
or the elderly housing would be the next phase. As they develon the nlans,
the timetables might change, but they are looking at the total project being
started in 1988 and finished in 1989.
Mr. Qureshi stated the proposal , if approved, was to acquire the property and
build two level underground parking and then lease both back to the partnership
over a 15-year period where at the 15th year, there would be a balloon payment
so the NRA would receive all the money with interest back from the development.
Essentially, what the HRA was providing was come financing and all the money
would come back eventually through a lease. He stated the property •
to be acquired for Phase 1 , the 234 unit rental buildina,was a little over
two and a half acres.
Mr. Corners asked about the estimated costs or projections as to the overall
cost to the HRA at this time.
Mr. 'lureshi stated it was estimated to be in the neighborhood of $2 million
for the land and the parking facility.
Mr. Conners asked about the total parking spaces provided.
Mr. Robinson stated there would be 300 parking stalls inside for a total of
425 stalls including surface parking.
"1r. Comers asked if there was anyone in theaudience who would like to
make comments regarding this proposed project.
Mr. Larry Kuechler, 202 Mercury Drive, stated he would recommend the
HRA not approve the development agreement at this time. There still seemed
to be too many things that were not known about this project. For example,
how will the project affect traffic flow? There have been no studies or
proposals done. His major concern was they simply do not know what this
Project is going to do to the neighborhood, and the HRA was being asked to
make a decision to approve or not approve without adequate information.
Mr. Conners asked F1r. Qureshi to address the traffic questions.
Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA was aware that the City had Plans to upgrade
Mississippi St. The City intends to work with Anoka County to add two addi-
tional lanes on the west side of Mississippi all the way from where the develon-
ment starts to the intersection and to add one additional lane on the east side.
He stated the Proposed project provided for a "no right turn" sign for traffic
coming out of the development so all the traffic would be directed to the
slip-off going south on University. The Plan also provided access from the
development directly onto Mississippi in at least three locations. These plans
will also include the upgrading of the signal at the University/Miss, intersection.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 6
Ms. Schnabel asked when it was anticipated that the County and City would
begin the expansion on Mississippi.
Mr. Qureshi stated their hope was plans would be completed in 1986 and at
least a portion of the project started in 1987
Ms. Schnabel asked if there were any projections as to the number of cars
that would be generated by the whole development once it was comnleted.
Mr. Robinson stated that by code the additional 120,000 sq. ft. of commercial
office would require 500-800 additional parking spaces, dppendinn how much
was commercial and how much office. The elderly housing would require 1/2
stall per unit. So, in addition to the 425 parking stalls for the rental ,
they would be looking at somewhere between 500-800 parking spaces per code.
Ms. Schnabel asked if there were any figures available on the amount of traffic
currently on the University/Mississippi intersection since the Target building
was built.
Mr. Qureshi stated that presently there was in the neighborhood of 9-10,000
cars per day on Mississippi and over 30,000 cars per day on University.
Mr. Robinson stated one other issue that was to their advantage was
that a good deal of the retail would not be adding to the rush hour traffic.
Mr. Ron Schoneman, 246 Mississippi, stated he would ask the HRA to take their
time and look at the site. He was not sure if the HRA was aware of the
traffic that was cutting across the field behind Rice Plaza because
people who live in Sylvan Hills cannot get onto Mississippi from the service
road by the old Standard Station. It was almost impossible to get out of
there at any time of the day.
Mr. Schoneman stated that when this development all started several years
ago, this was supposed to be "downtown Fridley"--commercial , not necessarily
residential . Now, all of a sudden, they are going to have a 12-story apart-
ment building in something that was going to be "downtown Fridley".
Mr. Schoneman stated he knew the area needed something, but the business people,
who are there now are really going to be in trouble because they will be
turned out, and there was no place for them to go. If a developer could come
in with some plans to build something that the business people could move
into without turning them out, that would be fine. He stated he has been
in Rice Plaza for 22 years and almost everyone in the center has been there
that long.
Mr. Prairie asked if it would be possible to move the placement of the commer-
cial building so it would be possible to house the businesses that are in the
plaza now.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 7
Mr. Lundgren stated the second phase does require the taking of the plaza.
He stated he does intend to speak to every tenant and landowner, and he
would very much like to find a way of including them in the nroject. He
stated they are willing to look at anything that was reasonable.
Mr. Don Fitch, 280 Mississippi, stated his family has been involved in the
Dairy Queen for the past 23 years in Fridley on that corner. The project
when it was completed would allow no space for a Dairy Queen. That was a
big concern of his because he was a franchise establishment, and his franchise
limited the area he could be in in Fridley. By not having a part of that
corner, there night never be a Dairy Queen in Fridley.
Mr. Fitch stated he agreed that serious studies needed to be made on the
traffic flow and traffic pattern on that corner. He stated the traffic flow
now is a disaster without adding another 900 parking stalls to the situation.
Mr. Kuechler stated the nroblem was not just the traffic on Mississippi St.
The problem was really the 1 ,000 or more cars that would be comina out of the
shopping center trying to get onto Mississippi.
Mr. Qureshi stated they had the same situation with the service road on the
north side of Mississippi. They moved the service road further to the west
so there is more stacking room. A similar thing was proposed for the south
side. The service road was presently about 200 ft. from the intersection, and
it would be moved west to about 300 ft. from the intersection.
Ms. Debbie Larson, 255 Mercury Drive, stated she was representing her parents,
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Larson, 255 Mercury Drive, who could not be at the meeting.
She conveyed the following comments: "My understanding is that this building
will be 12 stories high and 140 ft. in length. I thought there was a height
restriction which is a maximum of 6 stories or 65 ft. I do not annreciate the
idea of seeing a 144 ft. brick wall outside by back door. This building will
not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Do we really need a small IDS
tower in Fridley? Where will the extra traffic go in the morning and evening
rush hours? Mississippi and University already are overcrowded at this time.
I feel the extra traffic will exit the south drive the complex, thereby
coming through the residential neighborhood. This would, in my estimation,
include a minimum of 240-500 cars per day through my neighborhood. What does
the City plan to do with the excess storm water run-off with all the concrete
and blacktop in this complex? Will it overtax the present storm sewer? What
will happen to the service drive that runs north and south between Burger King
and Ryan's Auto? If this is closed, emergency protection which includes police,
fire, and ambulance will have to enter the Sylvan Hills area at 61st only.
This will cause a delay in equipment and emergency vehicles to service this
area. I also feel this great wall of China may lower thy pronerty value and
raise my taxes to support added services needed for this complex. Will this
apartment complex add any taxes to the City's general fund? It is my under-
standing the bonds will be financed by the taxes this building will generate
for 20 years, thereby none of these taxes will go into the City's general fund. "
Mr. Comers asked Mr. Qureshi about the height question of 12 stories.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT ,AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 8
Mr. fureshi stated this development will require two special use permits--
one for the height beyond six stories and one for the mixed use. It was his
understanding the building as proposed included 234 housing units and 7-8,000
sq. ft. of retail space in the first level which was essentially geared to
service the residents but was open to the public also. Both special use
bpermits will reouire notification to the neighborhood with a public hearing
efore Planning Commission and action by the City Council ..
Ms. Schnabel asked about the question of storm sewer run-off. Was the present
storm sewer adequate?
Mr. Qureshi stated they have adopted standards where they try to retard the
flow of water with retention. When the Target building and parking lot were
constructed, a green area was provided where water can be retained before
flowing into the storm sewer system. A similar thing would be done with this
project also. No detailed plans have been made at this time, but he felt the
present storm sewer would be adequate because they would use the retention
approach.
Mr. Mervin Herrman, 278 Mercury Drive, suggested that for traffic flow, it be
one way going east from where Mercury Drive comes into Satellite. This would
not allow the traffic to come back into the neighborhood, and he felt it was
very important to keep the traffic out of the residential area.
Mr. Hermann stated he felt the height of 12 stories was excessive. He thought
6-3 stories would be more feasible. As far as the business neonle. who have been
in the plaza for 20+ years, there should be some definite program so they can
stay in their building until construction is completed and they can move into
one of the commercial buildings. The one thing he would be concerned about
there was that the higher rents would force them out. He stated he was not '
totally opposed to the development, but he was opposed to a building 12 stories
high.
Mr. Rod Trocke, 248 Mississippi , stated his business was next door to Ron's
Barber Shop, and he lived on 2nd St. He stated one consideration he had not
heard mentioned at this meeting was the pedestrian traffic. Crossing University
at Mississippi is very dangerous. He did not see where widening Mississippi
would solve anything. They have to consider the traffic already going un and
down University and East River Road.
Mr. Trocke stated he did not know how the City figured an apartment building
could fit into the "downtown" concept. He felt "downtown" meant theatres,
businesses, entertainment, etc. , not a 12-story apartment building. If the
project does go ahead, he would like the City to consider an underground tunnel
under Mississippi to handle the pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Trocke stated Mr. Qureshi had outlined a traffic pattern that included
a "no right turn" sign that would direct traffic out to the slip-off onto
Mississippi . He stated people will make illegal turns to get out first during
peak traffic times. Right now there is a 3-7 minute wait to get across the
intersection, and more congestion is only going to make it worse. He was also
concerned about emergency vehicles trying to get through.
HOUSINJG & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 9
Mr. Conmers stated this area has been studied for a long time. Some of the
earlier proposals were to build a total retail type of project, but over a
period of time, it has been obvious that a number of developers who have come
in with nlans have not been able to do anything of that nature. It is going
to take some type of mixed retail and residential in order to develop this
area.
One resident stated that regarding the storm sewer, in periods of heavy rain,
Sylvan Park becomes a lake. The streets are flooded and the water comes un
in the yards and on the corners. If more open land is covered up, there is going
to be even more run-off.
Mr. Richard Peterson, 255 Mercury Drive, stated his main objection was the
apartment building, especially 12 stories high. He stated it is a commercial
zone and an apartment building is just, going to increase the traffic and the
traffic on Satellite Lane that they do not need. A commercial development will
cone along eventually,and he did not see any reason for more apartments in
this area.
Mr. Ed Bialick stated he owned the apartment building at 221 Satellite Lane
directly behind Burger King. He thought the access problem into the residential
area right now was much worse than had been voiced at this meeting. Adding
more apartments was not going to cure the problem.
Mr. Peterson stated there should not be any traffic coming from either the
proposed apartments or commercial center into the residential area. All the
traffic should be directed to Mississippi or straight east from the apartment
building onto the service road and not come out at all on Satellite Lane.
Mr. Prairie stated he thought this was an option that should be studied.
Ms. Schnabel asked if any thought had been given to the possibility of nutting
the 12 story apartment building on the west side of this develonment where
the elderly housing was proposed, running it north and south at that point.
She was looking at this possibility from two points of view: C1 ) The visual
impact from the residential area would be minimized because the building
would be turned. (2) There was the possibility then of keeping the traffic
more toward Mississippi and perhaps even blocking any street into Satellite
Lane because the building itself which would have the highest density would
be closer to Mississipni .
Mr. Lundgren stated he had no problem with looking at that idea and investi-
gating it. He could not agree with any suggestions until he had a chance to
give them some consideration. He stated he felt the suggestion made by a
resident of running the road straight across from the anartment building to the
service road with no access to Satellite Lane had some merit, and he would
check into that with City Staff.
Mr. Prieditis stated that as they study this project further, they should
give some high priority to seeing if the present businesses can remain, possibly
through the phasing of the development.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT -AUTHOORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 10
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers declared the public
hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
4. RESOLUTION NO. HRA 16-1985 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION of A
I , .i- $ • • f ' 1 VE I' 4.1 . 0 I . , ], , SI S 1i
PARTNERSHIP (LOUIS -UNDGREN):
Mr. nureshi stated the HRA was being asked to approve the resolution entering
into an agreement with the developer to provide housing in this area for
234 units. The development agreement did leave some flexibility for location
but did not leave any flexibility with regard to the number of units. He wanted
the HRA to be aware that if they did approve the develonment agreement, they
would be committing to 234 units plus retail . The development agreement would
provide that they lease the land and build the underground narking and that
both land and the housing structure be leased to the developer for a period of
time and then the developer will buy these after 15 years .
Mr. Qureshi stated the developer has asked for $13,000,000 worth of housing revenue
bonds. The developer is estimating the total cost of the plan to run
$16-17 million. If that was the right number, then there would be enough
increment generated to pay for the land and the underground parking.
Mr. Casserly handed out a print-out of the numbers on the project. In summary,
he stated there was approximately $5 million in debt service costs and approxi-
mately $8 million in tax increment and approximately $5 million in lease and
purchase income which was over a 15 year period. Assuming the project was
built according to what has been described, the project itself provided very
adequate increment revenues in addition to the lease revenues. He stated the
lease revenues were not shown because that was a separate issue.
Mr. Newman stated if the HRA elected to approve the develonment agreement, he
would recommend there be some additional language addressing the special use
permits to make it very clear that by entering into the agreement, the City
Council still reserved its right to put the anplication process through the
entire hearing process and reduce the scope if deemed necessary; however, he
would caution the HRA that in the special use permit application process, the
City does not have the same flexibility in denying that application as they do
in a variance or zoning request, and it was important not to confuse the two.
F1r. Qureshi stated one problem was that there was a Housing Program that had
to be approved and submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Association
(MHFA) before approval of the bond. The MHFA has 30 days to review the program
and approve or reject it. If the HRA did not approve the Housing Program which
commits to 234 units, then they cannot submit the package to the MHFA. If
the HRA were to delay this to their Dec. 12th meeting, it put the whole program
into 1986, and it was possible with new legislation that the housing revenue
bonds might not be available or severly restricted.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGF 11
Mr. Commers stated the process seemed kind of backward as he felt the Planning
Commission and City Council were the most appropriate bodies to decide the
appropriate size of the units and the building. That was not the HRA's
expertise, and the HRA did not want to be in the position where they night
lock the City into this number of units when they aren't the appropriate body
to decide that.
Mr. Prieditis stated that from hearing the neighbors' comments at this meeting,
it seemed to be the general agreement that 12 stories was too high. Maybe
it would be smarter to make some kind of compromise and maybe 8 stories was
more annropriate. He did not think he was willing to enter into this kind of
agreement with a fixed number of units.
Is. Schnabel stated she felt very uncomfortable with this whole situation.
She stated she has served on the Appeals Commission and Planning Commission
since 1971 and she knew from all her years of experience that nothing was cast
in stone. They have always been able to be flexible and have always been able
to work out agreements with people who come in with proposals. That was what
made her uncomfortable with saying there had to be a certain number of units
and this size building without having the benefit of having the public hearings
where members of the community are able to come in and express themselves
regarding density, variances to the city ordinance, special use permits, etc.
She felt the ordinance was the protection the City had to help them in dealino
with developments.
Ms. Schnabel stated she did not think they should go ahead and approve the
development agreement unless there was the understanding that it can be done
for a lesser amount without any recrimination towards the City. The fact was
that with a special use permit, the burden of proof lies on the city, not on
the petitioner, and that was a whole different ball game than a variance where
the burden was on the netitioner and not on the city.
Ms. Schnabel stated she did think a development of this type would probably
be very beneficial to the "downtown" area of Fridley, but she thought there
were enough concerns expressed by the business people and their displacement
and enough concern expressed by the neighbors about the impact on the neighbor-
hood that the HRA had to consider those concerns. Hopefully, some kind of
compromise can be worked out with the developer so the project still could proceed.
Mr. Commers stated it was his understanding that for Mr. Lundgren to get
MHFA bonds, he had to have a set number of units that could not be varied.
If that was not true and if there was some flexibility and the" could nut a
contingency in the agreement that said the number of units would be the number
set by the Planning Commission and City Council after public hearings, the
HRA might have different feelings about this. What they are trying to find out
at this meeting was whether there had to be a definite set number of units in
the agreement.
!Ir. Lundgren stated the development agreement tries to do certain things
for the city. If the city changes the number of units, they automatically
change the cost or value, so if they nut a range in one place, they have to put
HODUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AiITHORITY'c1EETI'NG;`NOVE1BER 14, 1985 PAnE 12
a range in another place, and then they have to change the promise of how much
money the developer is willing to commit to. If they want to leave all the
things open, they have an agreement that is really not an agreement at all .
He stated his lawyers have been working with the city's lawyers and he thought
everything had been worked out satisfactorily.
Mr. Corners declared a 15-minute recess at 9:50 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 10:05 p.m.
Mr. O'Meara stated it was the HRA's legal counsel 's suggestion that they leave
the development agreement in place in terms of the size of the project, cost of
the project, and minimum market value of the project, but add a provision that
very explicitly recognizes the need for special use permits and to provide that
not only are the HRA's obligations under the agreement contingent upon obtain-
ing those special use permits, but, if for some reason, those permits should
not be granted, the developer would have the option to cancel or renegotiate.
That left both parties with no liability until the permits came through.
Mr. Corners stated the only problem was that if the units are substantially
lower, the HRA might want to void the development agreement from an increment
point of view. It should not just be the option of the developer to void the
agreement.
Mr. Newman stated they could say that either the developer or the HRA could
void or renegotiate the development agreement.
Mr. Corners stated it was his understanding there would be further negotiations
regarding location, drainage concerns, traffic concerns, etc.
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to approve Resolution No.
HRA 16 - 1935, "Resolution Aonroving and Authorizing the Execution of a
Contract for Private Development with the Fridley Plaza Associates Limited
Partnership, with the following provision: Recognizing the need for snecial
use permits, not only are the HRA's obligations under the agreement contingent
upon the approvalof the special use permits, but if for some reason the special
use permits are not granted, at that time, either the develoner or the HRA
can void or renegotiate the development agreement.
Pts. Schnabel stated she still had some concerns regarding the traffic and
the storm sewer water run-off, and the effect of the development on the
adjacent neighborhood. She did like the language suggested by Mr. O'Meara as
it helped in terms of the snecial use permit.
Mr. Lundgren stated he had no problem with the suggestion made by the city's
attorney. He stated they do nlan to go through the normal nublic hearing
process and they are open to suggestions or comments that make good sense and
are logical .
Mr. Commers stated he was in favor of the project, but he honed the Cite
Council and those familiar with the actual zoning and special use permit
requirements would take a good look at these things.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT'AUTHORITY YSETINf,,NNOVEMER'T4, 185 PAGE 13
Mr. Commers stated that regarding the traffic concerns, maybe they should con-
sider spending some money to have a traffic study done as they have done in
other areas. This should be discussed on a future agenda.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Conners thanked all those in the audience for coming to the meeting and
for giving their input. He stated the HRA certainly did understand sone of
their concerns. He stated there was still a long way to go on this project,
and he hoped they would continue to exercise their right to be heard before
the appropriate bodies who will be making the final decisions on the size and
shane of the project.
5. RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE CITY OF FRIDLEY-LS-`HOUt�NW�`PRMAI4 FOVT E-fRIDLEY
SQUARE ASSOCIATES -LIMITED PARTUERSI IP 12E-NTALAD IN PP,AJECT'i1fiiiI -PUTHN.JtST
QUADRANT OF MISSISSIPPI STREET ANO1J IVL STTI 'AVENUE: -
Mr. flureshi stated the City was required to submit the Housing Program for
this site. If the HRA was in concurrence with the program of develnpinn
housing in this area, then the HRA's action would be to approve and pass it
on to the City Council . He stated that, legally, only the City Council needed
to approve the Housing Program, so if the HRA was uncomfortable with the
program, they might wish to just receive it and forward it on to the City Council .
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel , seconded by Mr. Prairie, to receive the Cite of
Fridlev's Housing Program for the Fridley Snuare Associates Limited Partnershin
RentalHousingProject in the Southwest 'Quadrant of Mississippi Street and
University Avenue, and to forward it on to the City Council .
Mr. Commers stated he recognized that the financing was going to dictate the
market rentals. He felt the rents were a little high and he would hope thew
can make those rents as realistic as possible.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. CONTINUATION OF A REM EST FROM STORER CABLE TELEVISION:
Ms. Hughes stated she was a member of the CATV Advisory Commission. One of
the reasons she wanted to come to the neeting was because of a matter that
was brought to the Cable Commission's attention by Storer personnel about
2,3 months ago. That was with regard to charges they paid in terms of
_burying cable that had already been strung overhead.
Ms. Hughes stated the CATV Advisory Commission's role was to regulate the
cable company and assure compliance with the franchise the City grants to
the cable company, but they also promoted the use of cable to the community
as a resource and as a communication system. She stated one thing the
Commission tries to do is represent the City's interests in cable TV.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY '1EETTNr, 'NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PARE 14
Ms. Hughes stated it came to the Commission's attention that Storer was asked
to bury their service underground in the Center City projects, and had
protested that because the other utilities, NSP and Northwestern Bell , had not
been asked to pay for the Project in the same way. She stated the discussion
revolved around the question of what was fair and equitable in terms of how
Storer was approached and handled regardless of what the franchise agreements
say or don't say about those kinds of charges and what is appropriate for the
City to do. In light of that discussion, the Commission passed a motion saying
they thought it was an unfair charge to the cable company, and they would like to
urge the HRA to treat them the same as HRA treated NSP and Northwestern Bell
when these kinds of things happen in the future.
Ms. Hughes stated she understood the same kind of request was gong to be made
in relationshin to the west side of University. Some of the services that are
currently overhead will be buried along Mississippi Street and along University •
Ave. The Commission would hope the HRA would take the Commission's recommenda-
tion and treat the cable comnany the sane as the other two utilities. The
Commission sees the matter as simply one of fairness.
Ms. Hughes stated she understood the company was going to drop the first
request for repayment of monies for burying the cable underground on the east
side, and that this request was for the west side of Univeristy.
Mr. Corners stated there was a difference between Storer and the other two
utilities in that the HRA does not have a contractual agreement with the other
utilities whereby they specifically agree to bear these costs.
Ir. Keith Hennek, Storer Plant Manager, stated their main concern at this time
was that for future projects, they be treated equally with the other utilities.
Mr. Qureshi stated it was clear that legally the HRA did not have to nay any
part of it. The issue coming down was that the cost would eventually affect
the citizens of Fridley, and there might be some issue to that. If the HRA
did want to reconsider this request, Staff would suggest they be very specific
that it would be for this Particular relocation of line west of University and
that there be some sharing of cost, possibly a 50/50 participation.
Ms. Hughes stated the section of the cable franchise the City was referring to
that the comnany will bury the cable and are obliged to do so when requested
really applied to the initial stringing of the wiring, not where there was a
nerfectly serviceable operation and the City was asking the cable comnany to
change it for other reasons. She stated that was the history of why this
wording was written into the franchise. She stated it could be interpreted
all kinds of ways and say it was a contractual obligation. One of the things
that was different about cable versus the other utilities was the other utili-
ties do have a monopoly in town. They do nass ever" household and everyone has
electricity. That was not true in terms of cable. It did have a competitor
in terms of "the over the air" cable service and there are many people who
will be affected by this.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 15
Ir. Newman stated his recollection of Section 4.05.06, subparagraph 2 of the
franchise was it did not have a preamble which explained the underlying under-
standing at the time it was adonted, but in just straight-forward language,
it made reference to removal or replacement. He would stand by his recommenda-
tion that the HRA was under no obligation to nay for any placement of cable
underground.
ls. Hughes stated it was probably perfectly legal to use the language at face
value, but she still thought the isse was what was equitable among the
utilities.
Ms. Hughes stated the franchise was coming up for reauthorization, and they
will be dealing with this issue in the new franchise.
Mr. Prairie stated he felt if the HRA mere to appropriate sone money only for
this project, it would set no precedent.
Mr. Prieditis stated he would agree to making an excention for this project.
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to make a contribution of un
to $5,000 as a one-time compensation to Storer Cable for the relocation o`
cable underground on the west side of University Avenue, with the understanding
that no Precedent was being set and this did not waive any rights under the
contract.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMERS, PRAIRIE AND PRIEDITIS VOTING AYE,SCHNABEL ABSTAINIT1r,
CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ENLARGEMENT BY THE HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 1 , THE AMENDMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATIVE TO TAX INNCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICTS 2 THROUGH 5 TO REFLECT INCREASED PROJECT COSTS WITHIN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 , THE ESTABLISHMENT BF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DfSTRICT NO. 6 LOCATED 1IITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 110. T, AND ADOPTION AND
APPROVAL BY THE CI`rY OF FRIDLEY OF THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN( AND ADOPTION
OF THE PROPOSED TAX ICREf1ENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCRE'IENT FINANCING
DISTRICT 1W0. 6:
Mr. Qureshi stated this resolution basically provided for the enlarging of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 which would add the nronerty known as the 100 Twin
Drive-in property, and the establishment of Tax Increment District No. 6.
He stated the actual public hearing would be before the City Council on
November 18, 1985.
Mr. Robinson state d this proposal was presented to the Planning Commission
meeting on Wednesday, November 6, and the Planning Comm. found the proposal to be
consistent with the City's Comnrenensive Plan.
Mr. Oureshi stated the President of Woodbridge Pronerties, David Weir, and
Sid Inman from Holmes & Graven, were in the audience.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING,NOV£MBER 14, 1985 PAGE 16
MOTION by Mr. Prieditis, seconded by Ms. Schnabel , to approve Resolution No.
HRA 17 -1985, "Resolution Relating to the Enlargement by the Housing &
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley of Redevelopment
Project No. 1 , the Amendment of Tax Increment Financing Plan Relative to Tax
Increment Financing Districts 2 through 5 to Reflect Increased Project Costs
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 , the Establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 6 Located within Redevelopment Project No. 1 , and
Adoption and Approval by the City of Fridley of the Modified Redevelopment
Plan and Adoption of the Proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 6.
'1r. Conmers stated he thought there might be a problem in finding that the
property qualified for a redevelopment district, and he thought this was going
to be looked into.
Mr. Innan stated that based on some recommendations from their legal counsel ,
it was their understanding this property qualified. They would bring whatever
documentation was necessary to the City Council on November 18, 1985.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. CONSIDERATION OF SETTING DECEMBER 12, 1985, AS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SALE
AND RESALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED Ill AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION- NO. 155, LOTS 3, 4, AND -5; AND TN DONNAY'S LAKEVIEW MANOR ADDITION,
LOT 22, BLOCK 10, AND LOT 5, BLOCK 5, IN FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, RELATING TO A
NRUPUSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY W00DBRIDGE PROPERTIES:
Mr. Qureshi stated if the developer was going to be able to utilize the tools
available this year which might not be available next year, then the require-
ment would be for the HRA to set a public hearing for the sale and resale or
other disposition of property on Dec. 12. This would in turn allow the HRA
to enter into a development agreement with the Property owner.
Mr. Commers asked if there was a development agreement.
Mr. Inman stated it was their opinion to take it a sten a+ a time and they
will have the development agreement before the December 12, 1985 meeting. They do
have a general understanding of the outline of the agreement, and he thought
that had been submitted to the HRA.
Mr. Conmers stated the whole problem was that the HRA has tried to set up a
procedure in order to get some up-front good faith commitment so the HRA knows
the development is worthwhile before having a public hearing.
Mr. Qureshi stated the whole issue was timing. He also felt uncomfortable
because of the time restraint the potential legislative changes were imposing
on then. This was not the normal procedure. He stated that if the HRA desired
to take more time and take chances on the law, then they could proceed on that
basis also.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYMEETING, NOVEMBER-14, 1985 PAGE 17
Mr. Inman stated one of the issues that had to do with timing that had nothing
to do with the laws was what happened with FMC and the fact that the developer
was in the position he is in now some time ago, and that they jointly and
collectively went off in that direction at Staff's request. Then that proposal
fell through. That was what really created the problem with the timing as
they had to redraw plans, cone up with different ideas and concepts, etc.
Mr. Prieditis stated he would be willing to go ahead with the Dec. 12th public
hearing.
MOTION by Mr. Prieditis, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to set Dec. 12, 1985, as a
Public Hearing for the Sale and Resale or Other Disposition of Property
Generally Located in Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, Lots 3, 4, and 5; and in
Donnay's Lakeview Manor Addition, Lot 22, Block 5, in Fridley, Minnesota,
relating to a Proposed Redevelopment Project to be Constructed by Woodbridge
Properties.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Even though it was not required to send individual notices for this public
hearing, the HRA members agreed to have notices sent to all residents within
350 ft. of the property lines and that these notices be sent and received in
ample time before the public hearing.
Por. Comers stated HRA's concern was that this was a major project, and they
need time to review it. He would like to get as many of the factors as possible
resolved before the public hearing.
9. CHECK REGISTER:
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to approve the check register
dated Nov. 14, 1985, totalling $3,889.80.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1Q. OTHER BUSINESS:
a, Acquisition/Relocation: 5747 Central Avenue N.E.
Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA members had a copy of a letter from the
property owner of this property stating he was now willing
for a period of 30 days, to sell his property to the HRA for $71 ,000.
Mr. Qureshi stated Staff was asking the HRA to authorize them to go ahead
and purchase the property for $71 ,000 and also authorize the other costs
for relocation totalling $86,423:
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 PAGE 18
Purchase of Property $71 ,000.00
Relocation to Owner 4,323.50
Relocation to Tenants 6,750.00
Update of Abstract 150.00
Relocation Consultant Services 2,400.00
1986 Non-Homestead Taxes - 480O.00
$86,423.50
The HRA members questioned the relocation cost to the tenants.
Ms. Schnabel stated that if the tenants are on a month-to-month lease,
she did not know why they were entitled to relocation costs.
-Mr. Corners stated he would agree to the $71 ,000, but maybe the consultant
should come and tell the HRA how he arrived at the rest of the figures.
MOTION by Ils. Schnabel , seconded by Mr. Prieditis, to approve the nurchase
or ecl of the property and all other costs, except the relocation to tenants.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Commers stated they should get an explanation of how the consultant
arrived at the relocation cost to the tenants.
b. Resignation of Carolyn Svendsen
Mr. Commers stated he had a letter of resignation from Carolyn Svendsen
who has had to resign because of the relocation of her family to
Northfield, Mn. He stated Ms. Svendsen had made a valuable contribution
to the HRA. They really appreciated all the time and effort she out in
over the past ten years. He stated he felt the City should recognize her
efforts in some way.
Mr. Qureshi stated something would be done to show the City's appreciation.
Mr. Commers welcomed Ms. Schnabel to the HRA. He stated she would be a
valuable asset to the HRA.
ADJOURNMENT:
"@TION by Mr. Prieditis, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a
V75-"Vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers declared the Nov. 14, 1985, HRA
meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,�
7t---7t-t-- >11*-4 >
Lynne'Saba
Recording Secretary
ill , r)ce.6 ,,,,c,"
>fte-ri.
xt5
4 -4+, /l c Z4(-0(
6/la,/ e• z.0 2- 41 erv-Lxili -4-f 7, -
4k4r---)- g 50 4415s/5s1,Pi gi.
(1_ .Lruit e) c)c)
�,.
1/6-t:\ 1° I ( ,Ali A TA gLvD -MA "
r � (o , g.e)/ trj--
J/AA ' (2/.16,_ 7Z/ i . -t-1.,
-T) L1313 g- 11?— TEc-,37.5
5. it)_
/ 7 /i_.--
wtto:i OtiulAto c5 5 ralkAcc,cuj
CITY OF FRIDLEY
SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 25, 1985
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the November 25, 1985 Special Housing &
Redevelopment Authority meeting -to order at 8: 18 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers, Duane Prairie, Walter Rasmussen,
Virginia Schnabel
Members Absent: Elmars Prieditis
1 . DEVELOPMENT AT THE 100 TWIN DRIVE-IN PROPERTY
Mr. Qureshi, the Housing & Redevelopment Authority Director, explained the
background and development prepared by Woodbridge Properties, Inc. for a
nine- unit commercial development on the 100 Twin Drive-In Proper4 to the
Housing & Redevelopment Authority and City Council members present. He also
defined the redevelopment district criteria associated with the proposal.
It was the concensus of the members to support a redevelopment district with
an increment period of 18 years in order to allow for the orderly planned
construction of this proposal.
Support for the plan was predicated upon the ability to obtain the
intersection improvements at Highway 65 and Old Central, also the interior
road construction and Moore Lake park expansion and improvement within the
first phase increment. Subsequent development would be accomplished at no
financial cost to the City and will result in a specific quality of
development, special exterior treatments, a campus environment, structured
parking with increased landscaping space, amenities to the development and
Moore Lake park system and protection of the adjoining neighborhoods.
Mr. Rasmussen requested a financial statement of the Woodbridge Properties.
Ms. Susan J. Nurstrom-Waldon, treasurer of Woodbridge Properties, stated she
would meet with Mr. Rasmussen and review the statement with him.
It was suggested that a summary notice be sent out to the adjoining neighbors
indicating the sequence of events associated with the 100 Twin Drive-In
Property development and any dates so that they could determine which
meetings they would be inte. ested in attending. The neighborhood was
determined to include all residents south of 58th Avenue, between 6th Street
and Moore Lake north of I-694.
The redevelopment agreement for the Woodbridge Properties proposal would be
prepared and submitted to the Housing & Redevelopment Authority for
consideration at their December 12, 1985 meeting.
t• ► • i .01 • r _� *�i110 v_ 1 1 � DIV" i :M
2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRIDLEY PLAZA APARTMENT COMPLEX
Mr. Qureshi explained to the members that he had received notice that Mr. Lou
Lundgc•en, the developer for the Fridley Plaza Apartments on the southwest
corner of University Avenue and Mississippi Street, had decided to reduce the
height of the apartment complex from 12 to 6 stories with 119 units and one
level of underground parking.
Chairman Commers requested that the development proposal be resubmitted to
the members at the next meeting to review the financial program due to this
change.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairperson Commers adjourned the November 25, 1985 Special Housing &
Redevelopment Authority meeting at 11:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John Flora
Acting Secretary
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIM
FRIILEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PIYIHORITY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "HRA") ,
will hold a public hearing at its regular meeting to be held on Thursday, -
Decanber 12, 1985, at the Fridley City Hall, 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley,
Minnesota, commencing at 7:00 p.m., CT, on the proposed sale, lease or other
disposition by the HRA of real property generally located in Auditor ' s
Subdivision No. 155, Lots 3, 4, and 5; and, in I)onnays Lakeview Manor Addition,
Lot 22, Block 10 and Lot 5, Block 5, bordering Highway 694 on the South, Highway
65 on the East, 7th Street NE on the West, and a portion of Carrie Lane on the
North, in Fridley, Minnesota, Cbtr ty of Anoka.
The subject property is located within the HRA's Redevelopment Project Area No.
1, and the proposed disposition thereof is being considered in connection with a
redevelopment project for the property. The HRA will consider the execution of a
Development Agreement regarding the proposed development of the subject
property.
All persons appearing at the public hearing will be given an opportunity to
present their oral or written comments on the proposal.
LARRY CONA£RS, CEIAIRPAN
FRIILEY HGUSING AND REDEVELOPMDIT AUTHORITY
Publication dates: Minneapolis Star and Tribune, November 28, 1985
Fridley Focus, December 2, 1985
lA
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES
FOR 100 TWIN DRIVE-IN SITE - NOVEMBER 20, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Mr. David Weir, President of Woodbridge Properties, introduced himself and
thanked those in the audience for coming. He stated Woodbridge Pronerties
hoped to be their neighbor, and before proceeding with their proposed develop-
ment, they wanted to get input from the neighborhood.
Mr. Weir stated the property in question was that known as the 100 Twin Drive-in
site. He stated there was also a piece of pronerty owned by the Johnson family
that they did not own. They are having discussions with !lr. Johnson, but he did
not know where those discussions would lead.
Mr. Weir stated Woodbridge Properties' first concern was traffic. That was a
concern quickly reconfirmed when they approached the City. The City and the
neighbors have experienced traffic problems and congestion in this area for some
time. He stated they learned a traffic study had been prepared for the City about
a year ago. Because of their concern that the traffic study was adequate, they
also retained a traffic consultant to review the plan and to look at their proposed
concept to make sure they totally eliminate any problems that exist today and not
create any more problems from their development. He stated traffic was as important
to then in running a business park or business campus as it was to anyone living
in the area. People will lease space, but they will not renew that lease if there
are traffic or parking problems.
Mr. Weir stated he would like to ask for input regarding traffic problems that
exist today.
The residents made the following statements regarding traffic:
* There is a lot of traffic coming off West Moore Lake Drive onto
Highway 65 in the morning (6:30 - 8:00 a.m. ), and it is very difficult
to get out onto Highway 65. Traffic coming down Highways 65 from the
north actually block them off from entering Highway 65 because of
cars waiting to get onto the entrance ramp to 694.
* Difficulty coming off 694 exit ramp from the east and trying to cross
Highway 65 traffic going north to make a left turn at Highway 65/Old
Central intersection.
* Have some of the congestion problems been caused by the metering of
the light onto 694 entrance ramp?
* Do you think fixing the 694 bridge over the river is going to help the
build-up on this particular ramp? Even when the traffic is moving at
a good rate, it still builds up because of traffic coming down Highway 65
from the north.
* The alternating metering lights on the entrance ramp to 694 is what causes
traffic to build up.
1B
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES FOR
100 TWIN DRIVE-IN SITE - NOVEMBER 20, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. PAGE 2
* We have a yield sign coming from West Moore Lake Drive onto Highway 65.
We never have the right-of-way, and oncoming traffic has two lanes.
If the light at intersection was changed so we had a "right turn only"
light, that would alleviate the problem.
* That intersection would almost need to be an "eight phase" intersection
so each movement of traffic has its own light.
* One solution would be a bridge under the freeway so we can get south to
alleviate some traffic to the south out of that area.
* When traffic gets backed up on Central , people will cut through on 57th
Ave. from 7th St. There are a lot of children in this area. It is
a speedway now.
* Don't want to see any more traffic pushed onto 57th Ave. and 7th St.
Maybe there should be "no truck traffic" during certain times of the day.
* Looking at the approach to the site, suspect a fairly major flow of
traffic coming from the east on 694 are going to find out it is a lot
easier to enter the site by bypassing Highway 65, going to University,
and coming up 57th and driving down on 7th St. Concerned there would be
quite a bit of truck traffic coming in this way. Can access be restricted
on that side and keep all truck traffic coming in from Highway 65?
Mr. Weir stated he would like to talk about the zoning and use for the property.
He stated the property has between 2,800 and 2,900 linear feet of interstate
freeway frontage. He stated they have had numerous requests from discount
retailers, Budgetels, off-price types of discounting operations--all of which
would be permitted under .the current zoning which is C-3. When they initially
approached the Cite, they expressed the concern about the traffic which the Cite
was also concerned about. The City wants to have the traffic problems of today
resolved, but they want to make sure there is no burden placed on the nronertv
taxpayers in this neighborhood. The City has devised a way through a tax incre-
ment plan to be able to use the increased taxes from taxing the proposed develop-
ment to pay for the cost of the interchange improvement.
Mr. Weir stated Woodbridge Properties has chosen to have a very high quality
development, rather than have a discount operation--to have a very high quality
master plan business campus with a lot of landscaping, green area, public areas
the entire community can enjoy, jogging trails going around the property, a plaza
area with fountains, something that will really set off the site as being very,
very lush, first class, and a good place for people to work. He stated the City has
been very eager to encourage them in this regard.
Mr. Weir stated he would like to ask the feeling of those in the audience as
to what their preference was related to the master elan business campus type of
approach or the more traditional commercial type of development.
1C
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES FOR
100 TWIN DRIVE-IN SITE - NOVEMBER 20, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. PAGE 3
Most of the people in the audience indicated they would definitely prefer the
high quality office park, rather than a commercial development.
One resident stated he liked the idea of having office buildings; however, he was
concerned about the buffer zone between the development and the residential
properties.
Mr. Weir stated he would briefly describe some of the details of the development.
He stated the Johnson property has been excluded at this time. They do show a
site plan where they could accommodate a two-story building in this north entry
area. It would require realigning the roadway pattern, but they have shown it with ,
the building pulled away from the neighbors.
Mr. Weir stated the project would be built in phases. It totals 745,000-746,000
sq. ft. of proposed space. They intend to start the first office building in the
spring of 1986, with the understanding that the City will be undertaking plans
in 1986-37 to make sure the interchange is improved at the same tine 694 is widened.
Mr. Weir stated they plan to build a business class hotel that would cater to the
business traveler and larger employers in the area, with a ring route around the
property for circulation. They have pulled the buildings well away from the
residential areas. Parking structures have been suppressed 1/2 story under ground/
1/2 story above ground and close to the buildings.
Mr. Weir stated one thing they feel is extremely important when they start a
project is to come in, execute the master plan, put in the landscaping around the
entire area, put in the jogging trails, lighting, signage, and convey to the public
that this is the Lake Pointe Corporate Center, which is a high quality place for
people to work. Even though the buildings will be phased, the property will not
be phased as they go along, causing a lot of disruption in the area as things are
built.
Mr. Weir stated there will be primary means of ingress and egress on 7th St.
It was his understanding there would be two means of ultimately dispersing traffic
on the west side of the site. One would be on 7th St. to 57th Ave. ,which has been
widened already to accommodate additional traffic, and the other would be to cone
around the sound barrier wall to tie in with 57th to University Ave.
Mr. Weir stated there will definitely be a berm to provide a buffer from the
residential ; however, he did not have the final design.
One resident stated he would like to see the buffer extended. Twenty feet was
not adequate.
One resident asked about the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Weir stated that, including the parking structures, there was a total of
2,500 parking spaces.
A resident asked what types of tenants would typically occupy the office space.
1D
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES FOR
100 TWIN DRIVE-IN SITE - NOVEMBER 20, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. PAGE 4
Mr. Weir stated a nearby project they have done which was suite a bit smaller
than this one was across from McGuires in Arden Hills. Some of the tenants in
that development were H. B. Fuller Co. , Central Federal Mortgage Co. , Universal
Title, Bank of America, Commercial Finance, etc. Their whole approach is to
design and own and manage very high quality office and business park environments.
The types of tenants they attract are eager to be in their properties; tenants
expect a lot of services, and they treat their facilities as an employee amenity.
He stated it is a resource for them to attract and maintain top caliber people.
The only service retail type of business they contemplate would be a travel or
laundry service related to the office use.
A resident asked how long it would take before the development was finished.
Mr. Weir stated they have developed a conservative staging plan that goes over
a period of 8-9 years. Because they are investment builders, they build buildings
without having tenants in advance.
A resident asked what kind of site lighting would be used, esnecially at night.
Mr. Weir stated they tend to use a box-type downlighting fixture. That type of
lighting was not only to protect the residents, but it also created a different
kind of environment and better atmosphere. It was a subtle way of conveying the
quality they have in a business park.
Mr. Weir introduced Mr. Jim Benshoof, President of Benshoof & Associates, and a
Registered Transportation Engineer, who could give the residents an update on
what the City had proposed as far as traffic and answer any questions.
Mr. Jim Benshoof stated they began their work by reviewing a study conducted for
the City of Fridley about a year ago of what roadway improvements were possibly
needed. They then forecasted the traffic associated with this specific proposal
that would have two points of entry and exit--to the east and to the west. They
Projected how much traffic the development would add to the streets in the area,
Highway 65 and University Ave. , and then analyzed the particular roadways that
would be most affected by the development traffic. He had a drawing that repre-
sented their preliminary recommendations for upgrading the Highway 65 intersection.
Mr. Benshoof stated what they found in analyzing the Highway 65 intersection was
that it was at its capacity, if not over capacity, so they concurred with the
concerns expressed about the current difficulties at this intersection. Further,
they learned from MnDOT that MnDOT expects continued growth in the volumes on
Highway 65. They are hopeful the 610 bridge crossing the Mississippi River to
the west will provide some relief. At the same time, they are projecting continued
growth in Blaine and other communities in that area that would have further traffic
on Highway 65. The net result would be that even if there is no development on
thlt property, conditibns would get worse causing the need for more improvements.
That was also a conclusion of the traffic engineer's report done for the City about
a Year ago,
lE
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELO"MENT BY WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES FOR
100 TWIN DRIVE-IN SITE - NOVEMBER 20, 1935 - 7:30 P.M. PAGE 5
Mr. Benshoof stated that with future proposed improvements, the intersection
will accommodate the future traffic growth associated with this development and
oto growth until the year 2000 and will accommodate the total traffic at a level
5e4' t e essentially the same as now provided.
Mr. Benshoof outlined the following improvements:
- Their concept would involve upgrading the east leg of the intersection
identically to the way the City engineering consultant had recommended,
and that was slight widening to provide two lanes for left turn from the
east to go south, one lane to continue to the west, and the right turn
weuld have an island to the north, separate the frontage road to allow
for clear stacking distance in that area. Further feature relating to
the east leg and also the west was that the signal phasing be changed to
have a separate phase for the east leg and a separate phase for the west
leg so traffic coming from the west to Highway 65 would not be interfered
with by traffic from the east.
- The need for a second left turn lane from the south to accommodate the
traffic coming into the site from the south. That could be accomplished
with slight widening to the west side of 65.
• From the north, the need for a third through lane to provide the additional
capacity needed. It would then be accommodated by utilizing the existing
right turn lane for preferred traffic and widening 5-12 ft. to the west to
provide for new right turn lane from the north to go to the west.
• The west side would be reconfigured in a manner that would seek to accommo-
date trips to and from the site, but at the same time discourage inappronriate
use of West Moore Lake Drive to the north and west. So, the major orienta-
tion would be to and from the new roadway through the site with West Moore
Lake Drive coming to a T-intersection with that roadway, so the natural
orientation of the new development traffic would be clearly oriented on
that roadway. From the west, this roadway would provide three lanes
approaching 65. This leg would have an exclusive phase of the signal 'to
allow traffic to clear out without interference from any other traffic.
One resident stated they still had the problem of traffic from the north blocking
access to 63 from West Moore Lake Drive in the morning because of stacking to get
onto 694.
Mr. Benshoof stated he believed the upgrading of 694 would increase its capacity;
thereby reducing the meter timing and significantly relieving the stacking situation.
Mr. Benshoof stated he would try to answer the particular points raised by the
residents earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Benshoof stated a point raised was that in the evening peak period, it was
difficult to make a left turn coming from the east and crossing_ and then turning
left at West Moore Lake Drive. That was caused by the limited distance between
the rano and the intersection and there really was nothing that could be done to
improve that.
1F
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY WOODBRIDGE PROPERTIES FOR
100 DRIVE-IN SITE - NOVEMBER 20, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. PAGE 6
A resident stated that on the exit ramp from the east, couldn't they exit onto
the frontage road that runs narallel to 65?
MO. Benshoof stated that was a concept that could certainly be investigated.
To work well , it would require some separation between the highway and the frontage
road in order to allow snace to bring the opposing direction of flow on the
frontage road to the intersection, and there was not much space to work with.
Mr. Benshoof stated someone had mentioned the signal Phasing, and he concurred
with_ that observation.
:fir. Benshoof stated a comment was made about a need for a bridge under the freeway.
He stated that, of course, 7th St. was available, and they anticipate it will be v
used significantly.
Mr. Benshoof stated there were questions about 57th Ave. and its notential use
by development traffic. He stated they have carefully considered the directions
people will want to travel from the development and the routes available to them.
Based on that, they really do not expect to see much development traffic, aside
from people who live in the neighborhood, using this segment of 57th.
Mr. Benshoof stated a concern about truck traffic was expressed. He stated it
was lard to restrict trucks to narticular routes since 57th and 7th were adequate
roadways. The City would have to regulate what roadways trucks can use. One
Paint of tnportance was there were several choices available to traffic entering
and leaving the development.
A resident asked if there were any plans for the intersection at University and
57th. It was better than the intersection at Central , but he did not think it
was going to be able to handle any increased traffic Pattern that will occur as a
result of this development.
Mr. Benshoof stated they have addressed University Ave. as well as Highway 65 and
found it is operating at a better level than Highway 65. In the future, the City's
consultant assigned additional traffic through the intersection for the development
considered at that time and found that with some minor renhasing of the traffic
'signal , the intersection would accommodate the traffic they projected.
Mr. Benshoof stated their findings were quite consistent with that of the City's
consultant's projections with some minor adjustments to intersection signal timing
that should meet traffic needs.
One resident stated that regarding 57th and 7th St. , had any consideration been
given to a 4-way stop for the people coming down 57th going westbound and trying to
cross 7th St.? It was a problem now during rush hour.
Mr. Benshoof stated they have addressed the adequacy of that existing traffic
control whether there should be any changes, and the results indicate there would
be a high likelihood, prior to full development of the nronosal , of
sone justification for a 4-way stop control at the 57th/7th intersection.
1G
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY W00DBRIDGE PROPERTIES FOR
100 TI/PA DRIVE-IN SITE - NOVEMBER 20, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. PAGE 7
Onr_ resident living on Hest Moore Lake Drive stated he was at the meetinn not so
-ouch for the drive-in property as he was for the Johnson property. He had no
problem with the development as pronosed for the drive-in pronerty, but he would
not lite to see, for example, a drugstore on the Johnson property. He asked how
seriously Woodbridge Properties was negotiating with Mr. Johnson to include that
property in the development.
Mr. Crauch, attorney for Mr. Johnson, stated there have been some negotiations
and these negotiations are ongoing at this time.
One resident stated this was the best looking project so far that has been
Proposed for the drive-in property.
Mr. Weir stated that on behalf of Woodbridge Properties and the City, he wanted to
thank the residents for coming and for sharing their concerns and providing some
input.
Informal Public hearing adjourned at 9:00 D.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynne Saba
Jo V L v' --
W0OO 8/Z/O66 P61/64a P/WYT
N ie goo taxi rec.& /v v
t5C4 6 1 b , n-, (Ir ,/: (/,) (% 2) ,`'1 C1,l176-e )-/ZA--_, S 2 / ` Li' S -1
ErZ zc /tIt5Sc T tom' P I T`N - /LI c c
›..,:,,,, i ,.\---,.,\, •-t---\:\ i'S,3,--fv.1.\,,i, AN4Arr. ()471-9 _, '73-- M
-f-A.,--e- ,(494- -/e,. "-f 4... 74,-‘.. 5f7- YK-t ----'
14tiZ Fdizz:(__ .mac y C4 k_ /4,14_ 5?2 - c,J ,,//
`�' ► 74 �) �J.;,,/:•l Z7/2„"irl-) ..:).--/0 ' S7,44. a,,, /J j f I/?, - ' cj'J
11
/9,ps--
/ , --)-x_.e._ /
‘ -fici-44-‘ 4,:jr,t\fdit."-1:eL /5.27 6(4,iiric.,2A.e, &,;,. , 4c1-
67s?-5- ,
_
Cii/ C/frItc,- Ac3-- /x c.c..- _s-7/ .75-isv
Ti-rwwn.
_,_,._,...' , 5
•
Li // -,,-.' --'•,-'
,. 8.f)-)L.--,
. 1 /10-C / )E- .c--7 'C,,0 t----
7 / -..) /17 '''
_77&7 --&"---2. : :-e-el-t '2 i< k:-- _ 57/
2 7- 4,27" ' ( . ---7/—c)3 c, .S---
4- -t.., ,_54-76-) - 5-.777 -r/till-
71 5'7/ _____
'' ')‘.'• ?- ,--7,---Z/ 7:5"—.57f IP /4-,/ //6-- 57/ ---37 8 7
? S- / c/ (/
' I 2
57/ - ,297
(
1J
,7
.41/_, i-- -).
-
19?C-
cci /710,id/ .s- s- 6oe3 /10 e Al E.
.g,, /, Ini,,,-,
r A 4 1!
q/pmpi ,0 k 7, --
- L -a - 5-,2 6 _ 5z.)t-4 4: .:i_„ , .,
-
/ /6.-/ /2),,,)/. ' /(,-, 6 7
r //
I ( 1-- )1 I a-*1
j. 2 L --4--, ,-- 7---c '-- ___,-,,, ,5-•- ,..57,--7, th.,' C / C...._
Aril' ', c-• Ail e 1 'clic t ('6, 4//1,-- / /
7,
/' ji.'it!,,j. 7s---7/
L-e/45/ e, (1141/5 7 /o // 11h- CX / L3 CC
Olt/124 telet/cit-c-- t)---c-D-c--.7)' 19`/-vMge P1-pe
-- --‘, 7S- ..T/7cie..94 ' 57-,
/d
->2 L.
_-- r.7.. c 4-; ---a--- --7
..-
/V1--_
,,,. - 4.,z, 76 .5-7 ,-L , q. (.
1K
*Rw? HOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COMMISSION MEMBERS
itiiiiii CHAIRPERSON Lawrence Canners
II
Virginia Schnabel Eimer Prieditis
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY Walter Rasmussen Duane Prairie
mom
December 2, 1985
Subject: Proposed development of the 100 Turin Drive-in site area
Dear Fridley Citizen;
The Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority has prepared this informational letter to
inform you of a proposed developnent project. This letter summarizes the actions to be
taken in regard to a proposed development project to be located on the 100 Twin Drive-in
site, and cordially extends to you an invitation to attend any and all future meetings of
the Fridley Housing and Redevelopnent Authority, and the City Council in which the action
on the project is scheduled.
PAST ACTION
On Novenber 20, 1985 an informational meeting was conducted at the Fridley City Hall by the
developer, Woodbridge Properties, for persons who live near the 100 Twin Drive-in site.
The meeting provided Woodbridge Properties an opportunity to explain their proposed
development scheme, its effect cn the surrounding area, and obtain information from the
neighborhood. The response of many of the community members attending the meeting was
quite favorable.
FUTURE ACTION
For your convenience please review the schedule of the meeting times and the actions to be
taken. The members of the Fridley Housing and Redevelopnent Authority encourage you to
attend any future meetings.
Both the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority would like the opportunity to
have input from the neighborhood and the community, and address any concerns or
informational reeds you may have regarding this project.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call City Hall at 571-3450 anytime
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. , Monday through Friday.
SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS REGARDING 100 TWIN REDEVELOPMENT
MEETING AATE/`rIME ACTION 70 BE TAImV
Housing & Redevelopnent
Authority Dec. 12, 1985, 7:30 pn Public Hearing on Project,
approval of Developnent Agreenent
City Council Dec. 16, 1985, 7:00 pn Preliminary approval of
Tax Increment Bond sale
Planning Conriission *Jan./Feb. , 1986 Public hearings for special
use permits, new plat.
Planning Commission *Feb./March, 1986 Public meeting for presentation
and review of Environmental
Assessment Worksheet**
•
City Council *March, 1986 City Council reviews Planning
Commission recommendations,
and takes formal action.
*The City will provide informational updates to the public when meeting dates for next year
have been finalized.
**The Environmental Assessment Worksheet is prepared by the developer, Woodbridge
Properties, and addresses the capacity of current water, sewer and storm sewer services to
meet the increased needs created by the oroiect_
III Director of HRA 1111 Nasim Oureshi 6431 university Ave NE. 18121571-3450 ■
Fridley, MN 55432 Ext. 150 „....
IL-
W1LINE OF AGREEMENT WITH WCOLBRIDGE (LAKE POINT INVESTMENT) AND FRIDLEY
HOUSING AND REIEVELOPMENT AUZHORITY
1. Woodbridge Properties (Lake Point Investment Company) to provide 5.5
million cash out of revenue note and 1.0 million cash to Housin an
Redevelopment Authority.
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority will use cash from note to acquire
the 100 7Win Property and any excess be used to the improvenent of the T.H.
#65 and West Moore Lake Drive intersection.
3. Land for first building approximately 120,000 square feet will be sold
to Woodridge Properties for actual cost of Housing and Redevelopment
Authority out of 1.0 Millsion cash from Woodbridge Properties.
4. Housing and Redevelopment Authority will provide a purchase agreement to
Woodbridge Properties to buy rest of the land for the amount left out of
1.0 million after purchase of the land for first building.
5. Housing and Redevelopment Authority to request City to sell G.O.
increment bonds for making 2.5 million cash available for site and publ i c
improvements including but not limited to.
Demolition
Earthwork
Trunk Utilities
Trunk Roads
Retension Fond
Landscaping
Jogging Trail
Site Monumentati on
Civil & Survey
Intersections of T.H. #65 and West Moore Lake Drive.
6. Housing and Redevelopment Authority to approve in concept the overall
development for over 700 ,000 feet office and commercial quality
devel opnent.
7. Housing and Redevelopment Authority to proceed to acquire land owned by
Jerry Johnson for road access and development.
8. If for some reason the City did not approve the zoning, special use or
other land use permits etc. then Woodbridge Properties has the right to get
control of all the land.
NMJss
3/21
=--"'t i
MI VACANT COMMERCIAL REFERENCE /AI
J AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES # 0
■ " o
• •• • •••$ C '
•
I c �� . a Cs ,+
•
..".1;: '
7
- MOOR
C� f �c . _
/1
• „ i a• -
0 n 4.4(.0 (4% . er. C 61 . I,. • -
' ' s / M a1
CI .••111.!...1• r \• • I J p„,
• • %
9 L; tiv , LIT • , JIDI
•• N e �• IP - . G �� /
•� l 2. i ^ a4 • , •k+ , ;�1�, W SlIA l oLD TEFAO E 1'97
1 •
e . • , . , •►)1.;� a rw .,'4 ••19 . , /
.4 6 461 1 P.M la irr343 . ._.,
- ra
a-a . i , 1 1 •- •. " ' el, . • •
M t '
t
ME •'r ' - L '
il
.:,.4..• • • W P at /M
.
... p.,
.7,•* 47 ga a' - ga
• , / • •• •• • •• lif
•• vii +uM ; O
• ciit i e,alii:
•
•
. • • • • • •.•. ••.• •.. .. •••• .ell..0
•.
• •. • •
• • M•❖••ii40 i• .• • ,
••♦ •• • •• ••• •• ••• • • •.•
•
•
• • •
i.E6..f •••••••-••-•.40.•.• •.•.40. .m.•.i.41. .i.•. . .•••••• •• ••
1p 11/ III ,I, III •••• ••••• _••••_ •
••••••••••••••• •• •••••• ••••• •
•• • ••• •
•••••••• •�� ••••1• � _
• )E. -••••••••••••••••••••••••••f•®••••••••••••••••1••••••••••••,. 4
,,
• • •••• •••• ••••••• •••••••••• ••••• v /
•• • •••••••• •• ••••••••••••••••••••••o•••.o•o•, Z,,, 4 ,,,�
.
.•••••••••••
•••••=❖:❖:❖:❖:❖•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I;G ' '�
TERSTATE lMIGrIWAY A
II .":.'
' . ' - -NO 4114
vJR0iX • 1. . , • • "1 "
� d� awE ••••.•i
T • • z . •
•
:
1 • . •40 40 40 40 41 41 40 40•• ••••••io� � _ro•
t
• • • 4• • •ii••••• •
• • t • - 114:P� 1�+ •••••••••••••••••••••••t••••• Et C 0
• . 4 • , 1 ' • ••• ••••••• •• • • ~
. • •••• •••••••• •• � •
• . 1 ••• ••••• ••• ••• G ���
�• '-�' - • ••••••••••• •••••••*••• p ••• / •
•• • • t�R�ACE .. - • ••••• •••• • •_•.
• F. :E 1 pig 17 4.711�7 ••••••••••••• •••••••1•,� .•••• � •
•••
ow
iN
CITY of FRIDLEY, n: Sank
$2,500,000 WEIR PROJECT
ESTIP'IATID MAR= VALUES
1989 $ 2,500,000
1990 5,200,000
1991 5,900,000
1992 6,800,000
1993 7,600,000
1994 8,300,000
1995 8,300,000
1996 10,200,000
1997 10,800,000
1998 13,700,000
1999 13,700,000
2000 13,700,000
2001 13,700,000
2002 13,700,000
2003 13,700,000
• . • I - • ..",":7--.."*T I*. 4,• J 10
• • ,
, I'';........11.46 ,_ , • .14,* ... .,.., , ,
I t.. ,s, 7 ,•
...t';'y•,, .4\ce
- ...--
,—--. ,, i, ar -,, •
• % - 0.• ' "
...-, - ',..-. ,.I',•i.•..• .`.1*‘-,,..—,,,_'••-•;:jr.'/:_ f—1I /1•./, -•: . -'--...--i-:.1-s0.+.'s:.f--"-_-
-,-`..i
1,
, r .
4'-
.•
. .. .
. ''14 Or . , - - -lob' ' . 1 f,,'• 1
• ‘1 - ....No t :-.• , - ,
....,
. „ , . 1,•• ;"~. , '`.. 0 , / ,,. ..; •
• .7- • ". .% i •i. 'c'• f '
I
Mill
. .- • ,s
, . s.i
. . - . • . •
t.
. •r
,, . \ ' , ! 1 . • .,,
,
•
'.' . ' -4 or • . Oro" , . - ' eir. . •• v.
••.t... • • -00,-0-- ..
- • • • V /
•- _
•. ' ILI , 4 , „ i., 1 .1r . ‘ , I 111
.,0,1 I •••••--64r4". ::--2'4111k•—
. .
. .. , f ; ., . •••••
• ; ;
.•-•- 1 i ' .• ' '
' . ='•••• •• 1 111'- i • . --
••• - - - ._.. - .
, , - *.,' .- ' .. -4‘4'',• ;_ oh, Ft' .4, 1
- ..,...•-•*: .. ., . .- ,a,......
...... .,
f y.4,, . ...3-
. _•, ••• ,
- . - .- - •;144-- i - # , ,1 -
41010,r.001.4 , -.
......
. . . .
i I
I . ,
It • , ; ' 4' - ' )° f
; , ,. , illt . 14.40:• :_4' ".. ,$ , 'l
„Ar....7-.0
-. A . ; •, 0 a
/
• - „ w . •
Ir ri
S . ..‘, I a; : . • •
•1.1.-
. . Ad t. . : . • , • . .• ...
•• riliP ' , :--* I:.6 _.I_ -• r7 :-.1,. ' 7•i, - , c 1
: •
•.,
-, ,•• •-•-•• .. . , , .. , se ,,..:0, • - - .'1 ' i *a • I
4
•,_., • ' -- I. . -3 - -ovi
- • .ts . , i . .. .
.-- -,-, -
4.0ir: ,„,,,,. • -.- .. -
'4". . t; • .
.4..,it•!-•.?:., Fir.,t.p-o-il
-.,
.., 4.-k• ,-..,-. .....-:-...-1._i,10,t4-• 4
. •
• . 1 °' -.T . i
,. t- •-• •••--' ,t, - it r •'.,. -
•..•
•,
ILL Ilk III IT'.' ..., ..'••••".... ;4,,,,.: .-t.., ,ii•-• -.:, 44
I-! •.. •-
•,,, • ..,, - ,..- 0 •-• ' ?"- 1 - .- •..-' " -.... --- - '""i ''''' .$ s i A
-, -
. . , • 'T
,..)1. , . • VOI-t ''S• •.
. .
• r.$r ' 1$. . f. . ,_ •Iliw •
' '-';*. ' ' ....'of •- ' , ....
iy.., iii• . • ••• *"" . :';:. t 'r'Ili
0'4' •. '44.$ MP ' '•. ' 1, { y i ' ' $- ' 1
. . :i$ i •j; , . fp , 4..
s -. . • • , „ I ' .$ ,
I „...1 • , )1 fat O.
..1
4; . ' $ ' ' `. t 1 • • • ---- .. 04‘. ,* ' -•
1, P r • $
•
. '....•
l' ,re' 4, :* '
1 ,
it.
. . ,
..0 ... ,.... ,
: .!.: I . i i . ffbl'. .A.,4-. ,j',..•-, ,"'-'.
•1, , . li.. ' • ,-,,„.
. • ,.''', 1 t -_-ji-'
-/ , t 4• .4..•.1 __L__ .11r.. ,...
... .
ido ilk, _ . _ .'"'"' ‘ , , / ,. t • . f .:
=,
wig
.. p._ - )iiri,- ._ :4 ` .,,,,.. i, . •.0 ,i , . .,,,,,,.,,
• $ '• •• P.- ,,..
. .
..., .,,,T, •,. • • I-
.., •.,...„ , • *. .
r .0 • 1 : .
•• pr:A ..• , •••
''''‘ '`. . ..:r- All •• A le . ; - .,, • - —. , f . '
! I . ..I?
r
t., I - ,
* : ,10 ‘"• 1.- ' . • . .
. -, 4 .• . .. ,, . - , , ' -
—. .... '‘._ • '.- 'f,, . elif r . ,
„ , , , • 41 •
e• i. •••• _ f -. . .,
, .
' '
, ,___ „._. •_._ • ,...1
l'' ''‘ ' ' ••• .t-' ' . 1' I t i,,. i . - .
. ; ' , 4 p 1. • •• . ... •
1 I
.1.1(111./Pv.
:pi
44
-riiitkai
...lit./1114 141 • A t : _ 1 Ike ..0 - :v.'ill.k.' '.4
_.^
•iv,..-.r.. 'f,
• -, ',",1 I , , :it,.
, 4
• -.0 i
• 4 . * ,
— . •
_-i ..16..iiii.6. f• '• •.: . itsiL 4,....ma' ' r .;:...-' • a! ". -
•I-1 Lt
- - • '4..
1P
Alit !l
•
�� 7 .,
/ ' _ :3i 41
C3‘ ' I s' .iiiii ''. i ( , if,
. el NI 1 ,\' a /4 •Z
C ,J
FE
I I.. , i s lipr?, . ' '‘ .
,,.
"/Pilir, s••• .. •'
/I,
•
• •,., .,g
`' . - -•.
-,• .•••'s• j. ._
0 cf,
. cr_
z
�-It
. <
S _
i '1 „. .., ..;ire , •
0 i
t_ '.a'' -reg>' ,• ,_
r 8 :I,111111 . 16:4.11 1 i .-�
- •
t W
,
, U
4 cc
alit CC •
O• z
_--.-� 1334,S H1N3A35 0,SCJ
11111 .
Fri 0
az
W 0
Y UJ
4.11-i
10
r s } p ' '
t 7
t � �•" t dam_
,,,,.rt . - /. ,
t k
401 A ► ' L
r_t '
„, r. ,
- ,
Y w w
'' ) '- t 1Pit110'.0
t ��
a
'
ct . hi
!ri, 1.1°
-5a t.
.- w
. . i� [ • (}
...
..
_ .
...t. _ -
. i . lapo
1R
RESOLUTION NO. HRA -1985
A REECLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE E?EQJTION OF A
CDNTIRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH WOOLBRII E
PROPERTIES
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the 'Board") of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota
(the "Authority") , as follows:
1. Recitals.
A. The Authority has all the powers of a housing and redevelopment
authority under the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 462.411 to 461.716 , inclusive, as amended (the
"Act")
B. In furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the Authority has
undertaken a program to acquire, or otherwise promote development of,
open or undeveloped land and open or undeveloped land and in this
connection is engaged in carrying out the redevelopment project known
as the Authority's Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment
Project") in an area (the "Project Area") located in the City.
C. There has been prepared and approved by the Authority and the City
Council of the City, pursuant to the Act, a Modified Redevelopment
Plan for the Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan") .
D. The acquisition and subsequent sale or lease of the potential
development property to private developers for commerical development
are stated objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
E. In order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and
particularly to make the land in the Project Area available for
development by private enterprise in conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan, the Authority has determined to provide
substantial aid and assistance in connection with the Redevelopment
Plan through the financing of certain of the. public costs of
development in the Project Area.
F. Woodbridge Properties has presented the Authority with a proposal for
the construction within the Project Area of axruerical facilities and
a certain Contract for Private Development between the Authority and
Woodbridge Properties (the "Development Contract") , stating the terms
and conditions of such development and the Authority ' s
responsibilities respecting the assistance thereof, has been presented
to the Board for its consideration.
G. The Development Contract provides for the sale to Woodbridge
Properties by the Authority of the property on which the Woodbridge
Properties project is proposed to be constructed, and in compliance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.525, Subdivision 2, following
published notice thereof, the Board of the Authority held a public
hearing on such reconveyance at its regular meeting on December 12,
1985.
1S
Page 2—Resolution No. -1985
2. The Board hereby approve the Contract for Private Development and hereby
authorize the Chai nnan and Director to execute the same on behalf of the
Authority, with such additions and modifications as those officers may
dean necessary.
3. Upon execution and delivery of the Contract for Private Development, the
- officers and employees of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed
to take cr ®use to be taken such actions as may be necessary on behalf of
the Authority to implement such Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE NOUS = AND RII .VIIAPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY THIS _ DAY OF DECEMBER, 1985.
LARRY ODMMERS, CHAIRMAN
HCU SING AND REDEVELOPMENT VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ATTEST:
NAS IM M. QURESH I, DIRECTOR
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2
City of Fridley, Minnesota
CAB Schedule for $5,700,000 Bond Issue
Tax CAB Present Present Increase
Date Increment Rate Value Factor Value in Coupon
2/ 1/86
8/ 1/86
2/ 1/87
8/ 1/87-
2/ 1/88
8/ 1/88
2/ 1/89
8/ 1/89
2/ 1/90
8/ 1/90
2/ 1/91 375, 000.00 9.500 . 61907 232 , 152 . 27 1.250
8/ 1/91 375, 000.00 9.500 .59100 221, 625.08 1.250
2/ 1/92 375, 000. 00 9.750 . 55596 208,486. 01 1.250
8/ 1/92 375,000.00 9.750 .53012 198,794 .77 1.250
2/ 1/93 375, 000. 00 10.000 .49692 186, 345. 10 1. 250
8/ 1/93 375,000. 00 10.000 .47326 177,471. 53 1. 250
2/ 1/94 575, 000. 00 10. 350 .43863 252,210. 60 1.350
8/ 1/94 575, 000.00 10.350 .41705 239, 800.91 1. 350
2/ 1/95 575, 000. 00 10.750 . 38295 220, 197 . 34 1. 500
8/ 1/95 575, 000. 00 10.750 .36342 208, 965.45 1. 500
2/ 1/96 575, 000. 00 11.000 . 33667 193, 583 .27 1. 500
8/ 1/96 575, 000. 00 11.000 . 31912 183 ,491. 26 1.500
2/ 1/97 575, 000.00 11.050 .30088 173, 007 .44 1. 500
8/ 1/97 575, 000. 00 11. 050 .28513 163 , 949.25 1. 500
2/ 1/98 850, 000.00 11. 100 .26865 228, 350.42 1. 500
8/ 1/98 850, 000. 00 11. 100 .25452 216, 343 . 36 1.500
2/ 1/99 850, 000.00 11.150 .23964 203 , 693 . 37 1.500
8/ 1/99 850, 000.00 11. 150 .22698 192,937 . 12 1.500
2/ 1/00 1, 475, 000. 00 11.250 .21213 312 , 897. 12 1.500
8/ 1/00 1,475, 000.00 11.250 .20084 296, 233 .96 1. 500
2/ 1/01 1,475, 000. 00 11.625 . 18018 265,768 . 66 1. 500
8/ 1/01 1,475, 000.00 11.625 . 17028 251, 169 .44 1.500
2/ 1/02 1, 475, 000.00 11.625 . 16093 237, 372. 18 1. 500
8/ 1/02 1,475,000.00 11.625 .15209 224, 332 . 83 1. 500
2/ 1/03 1,475,000.00 11.625 . 14374 212, 009.76 1. 500
8/ 1/03 1,475, 000.00 11.625 . 13584 200, 363 . 63 1. 500
22, 050,000.00 5,701, 552 . 12
Prepared by Miller & Schroeder Financial: 12/ 4/1985
3
City of Fridley, Minnesota
Combined Issues
Sources:
1985 G.O. T.I. Bonds of 1985 11,550,000
Total Sources: 11,550, 000
Uses:
Construction 7, 060, 000
Capitalized Interest 2, 313 , 101
Discount/Issuance Cost 236, 600 " °� '`
Debt Service Reserve 1,732, 500
Contingency 147,799
Credit/Insurance/Liquidity 60, 000
Total Uses: 11, 550, 000
SA
• O O 1
.4 O O
03 LA C)
... O 0
V
o
tn
(3 n
M 000 A r 10 O 100 O n o A.-1 A n
CO O O O CO 41.in 0100.4 ao P A P 10 .-1
r •o1g0.10C)e4m;gro1-;Pi.0 o I
4) O r n O 10.-1 0 0 0.1 0 0 N 0 10
P •U 411 10011'nUlO1O V)10Ch nnn.1 n
`� 4 C nAA0Oel0 CO o-1 r ON 10.1 r
• 0 V NNn n n n r r r n 111 VD 1n
4).-4 In
42
in
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
10 OO 1n 0O 1n U10000nOU1U1 O I
b • • . • . • • • • • • • • • .
•• •1 0 o P 0 0 P P In o 1r1 C1 P O N N O 11
4414.1 00nOU1CDnP1nN0100010.4 O 1
WII4J in r-r,r.el ul co P.on en 4r V/P. 00 01 r1
1Oy7-1a W OO innP0N 01.1 O. An ON Cl
`-V k OnANA10mOrAn10A0n N 1
0 14 4.41 1n P 10 10 1n 1n in r r n n N.-4.4 1n I
0. 0 H
'0
C
WC CO 1
N (0-.-.1
O CV 000000000000000 0 1
0 WOO -q4 •
000000000000000 O 1 '
C CN'*-. • 0. •000O000000000 O
C O C O ..441 4J-4 0000000000000 0
.-4 W 0 0! 1r n WJa U 0000000000000 0
T7 CO. . 0641 . . .
W • • "r a-C+ 1n o 0 1I In 0 0 0 0 1n 0 ICI In O
- 0441 14 CO V 14 00.-1NNOA0rino nCo 0
5.1-4M07 < C4 N4P4r4r10PPPAONnA .4
• C4 C.a1
~� ~ 1. x.4.1 0
Clf X 7 ^4
11
4.fig• A H el U 1n 141 1n el a n In n n 02 0)CC 0 o O
C
,w -,0 4 •-.4 Wa rnr•.+O0r.110On01n1n 1n
.0 W 7 4-.• 14 0 coma)10 0 0 n n P4.11.%0 NM Ni
O u
> 441 C x441 • • 1010IOr..I nNI0NrNr0O CO P CA
2. U CCA
441 "My Z N N NV N V 010nn N n O N N 1 .4
u -0 M,0 0 nnn.1OOAA0P10in4N 10 n
)4 III CD 41
0. N 0 a N N
P.
.-c .-1
000000000O0000 .4
14 Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •
M14 00000000000000
M • O 0 0 1n 1n 1n O Y1 1n 1n 1n 1n O O 1n C
C
`" M4
• InInNNNMNNNNNOON
C
Cx 040410AP10NP4001.4n04P .4
nnnorraonlnrCDrMIr p.
P Pr r n C4,4 O A CO P n n.1
.4.i.i.i.i..1.i.i CO •
,o O
•JJ Nr Ar li _
N 0 n O A n � N
-4 • In AC
.414 Nrrn U
N 4 • On el m) ,.4 N
434) .4.4n r ,.1
-4 C . . . . N '0
O.N 01NnO
C n A n A
r4 •
Neel •
el
N
• .1
N .4
.4 X
0
O O 1n NAA 0 n O r r n r•r n 0 10 A
O N 1n n.4N r r CO A A A A A A o C
U • • • . . • • • . • • • • • • • O 'p
CZ OIOO 10 CO 0 N n 0.-
P.10101.410 .4 C0 •
M C OO P 0NAOOIOPO.4.-4 r.-1 n
CD r I .. 4
.4 •
-- X >
4 • in...4 Ann lnn Nl0O nn 0 ON 0 1 N •
H QC r 'O.WI N O N in O co.4 I n n r H O4
r 1 O.1 N N n n l n n r m n o r
r.4.4 1
In 10 P.000100.4 N n r n 10 P o m o I
• 0 0 0 CO 0 A A A A A A A A A A 0
4) A A A A A A A a A A A A A A A o
a
3B
s 88e838ssusti88A % I
i '4YRBFtE ? t
J 's ii it N •iii�'i or f
: ss � x . ICA
fe & EME UFNg I
1 y .
u ..
ti6iF5iG� Nki
•
r s88ssssssssuss
r 1111 1 11 $ 111111
NN ppO ^ NAp4
■ ,N N - N O O
1 8 8
1 t St
5u 8888YJt838 ' Vt' trS r. Q
a Q _ . y g y
• ai� s) $� �etnMoeeaJGS+ ONe � rap d++i i3'
E • _� •1 r ty N 5 /1 n i ♦ J + M N O N
i
. 882882288882822 8 !
_ €
t 1 : S ,. 888888888888888 8i
_ r. •) as ea o♦ yt i yN� _
' Y v G s L N ♦ ♦N + N .. ep /� /1 yyN�� ♦+ �ry�y N
V 4 • i i /1 i S i O O O w �• N ♦ A i
CCH N
6 r
p p p p p p p p p p p
r
U8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
.A1 ♦ N ? O P i A a ii
v 04 M 3 N M
I - n p � I
OStO t
ii` M
t' 8R : "43. 2. 8 x g I
., o ilEiliimOz " j s
“N N N
3C
co orOoi V1 OtmmaN N
• O oa Or O m r N ri rl CO CO O N N
•
+4 • Or/NmaininN,I0Warlma a
v v O.4 W W W r+r a O m a a m In in in
.•4 0 000NOWW NmnNr.4Pm m
.4 .-4 1110NmNN0.40r410rNr1r
v m WON0m.lOm.4WOinOON N
rMMr1.0rWMVIWOrn0) m
•
r►
10144 PrlamnMmrNar4m
rl • O rrnNNNNNN rI N 40
r-4 M ii r-4.4 r♦r4.4 e4 r4 rl r4 r-4 r-1 r4 _
.r • U
0a
u
rhn el m rl O Ul MI In P P N I
Orl'OM.4aVOaommaa N
_ .4 0
•
• M O CA M N O P ri r o r4'Oc N
rN.4 OmNNGO%Oo M1
O 'O.(4y rONNMNrr4minlnm a •
l4 PONMVINNOlONam m
C
Or1ONNOi OONOa 0
N Nrf m r1 r1 el rlNNr/m N I
* 4
00000000000000
00000000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
..4
00000000000000
b • 00000000000000
Cb
4IC 00140160001400000
O 0 In Y1ram.4mmaMNNrm
•1i as mma0m.4In4210ror,a I
.4r4aa4440PPIOMrAN
r4 r4
4
City of Fridley, Minnesota
Combined Issue 3D
Variable Rate Bonds
Projected Tax Increment Cash Flow
Annual Surplus Projections
Total Total
Date Revenue Debt Coverage
1985
1986
1987
1988 -
1989 1, 535, 115.07 1, 075,300.00 143%
1990 1,437, 376. 32 1,007,350.00 143%
1991 1,445,807.17 1,043, 587.50 139%
1992 1,479, 103.03 1, 157,837.50 128%
1993 1,515,082. 18 1, 189,775. 00 127%
1994 1,533, 630.93 1,231,350.00 125%
1995 1,502,802. 60 1, 170, 325.00 128%
1996 1,574,548.85 1,274,425.00 124%
1997 1,621,485.35 1, 324, 587.50 122%
1998 1,751,208.85 1,473,700.00 119%
1999 1,772, 624.47 1,463,062.50 121%
2000 1,768, 069.47 1, 017, 012.50 174%
18,936,854.25 14, 428, 312.50
epared by Miller & Schroeder Financial: 12/ 3/1985
Li
CITY OF FRULEY
MEMORANDUM
ZO: QQiAnulAN AND MEMBERS OP THE HCUSIM AND
REDE'VFI,OFMEntT AUTHCk2IT'Y
Fes: NASIM M. QURESHI, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: REVISED IE'V LOptENT AGREEMENT WITH LW LUNCGR N
• Di1T$: DECEMBER 6,1985
At the December 2, 1985 meeting of the City Council, Mr. Louis Lundgren modified
his proposal for the development cn the southwest quadrant of Mississippi Street
and University Avenue. The housing portion of the project was reduced from a 12
story, 234 wit building with a 2 level underground parking facility to a 6
story, 119 unit building with a one level underground parking facility. The
amount of the proposed bond sale was reduced from $13,000,000 to $7,000,000.
The value of the Minimum Improvements will now be set at $11,000,000.
Due to these changes, it will be necessary for the HRA to approve the revised
Development Agreement. Mr. Jim O'Meara is in the process of making those
revisions. The revised Development Agreement will be available at Thursday's HM
meeting.
5
c rry' of FRMIEY
MEMORANDUM
TO: NASIM M. QURESHI, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RIOT PRIBYL, AC.TIlG FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF MIN!'ESOTA CITIES' INVOICE
FOR LGBBYING COM
LATE: DECEMBER 2, 1985
We have received a letter from the League of Minnesota Cities
informing us of their lobbying effort for the Tax Increment
Financing Project. They are asking for $1,288.41 from the City of
Fridley which is based on an overall factor that they have assigned
to all the metropolitan cities. The attached schedule will show you
the factor by city and the collar amount that they have asked for
from each individual city. I have checked with our auditor and have
confirmed that this expenditure is legitimate for this type of a
situation. It might be beneficial at this tine for you to run this
by the City Council so they are aware of the charges.
RDP:sh
Attachment
3/0/2/14
5A
TIF TIF MV Total
Code City Factor Acsessaent Factor Assessor's! Assessment
Anoka County
It 1013W 0.2018% 111.71 0.5707% 305.35 1 417.06
14 LAIIE UTI 0.2143% 152.08 1.1173% 597.76 : 749.14
17 Cd.tl011A 1810475 1.5096% 107.61 0.6446% 344.84 I 1,152.46
18 CCA MAIDS 0.2449% 131.00 1.3802% 738.40 : 169.40
10 FPIOLEY 0.9211% 492.77 1.4872% 795.64 : 1,288.41 ,
21 1814 LAKE 0.0617% 33.02 0.2618% 140.06 : 173.11
26 SPRI16 LK PK (.7T) 0.1539% 12.32 0.2105% 112.60 ; 194.93
Carver County
52 CHAr4t t UTl 1.70411 912.04 0.3583% 191.69 : 1,103.73
53 MEM 0.0560% 29.96 0.3458% 185.02 ; 214.98
60 11ACDi IA 0.3019% 161.52 0.1050% 56.15 1 217.67
61 YciTERTLIIi 0.06721 35.97 0.0552% 29.54 1 65.51
Dakota County
13 lPP.E may 0.1852% 99.07 1.0016% 535.84 ; 634.90
14 I RNSVILIE 0.0457% 24.47 2.3164% 1,239.29 1 1,26376
87 FARKI16T1Di 0.1791% 95.84 0.1664% 19.01 1 114.86
19 WISTIN6S 1371 0.2662% 142.41 0.4649% 248.73 : 391.14
90 INVER GENE 1175 1.1859% 634.44 0.7353% 393.39 1 1,027.13
91 LAKEVILLE 0.3496% 187.03' 0.6684% 357.56 : 544.60
91 IENDOIR HEI6FUT5 0.4450% 238.09 0.5330% 235.17 : 523.26
98 ROSDO.Ir 0.27821 148.14 0.3192% 170.79 : 319.63
99 SIXTH ST PALL 1.5869% 148.99 0.7579% 405.45 1 1,254.44
102 %EST ST PAIL 0.0080% 4.27 0.8672% 463.95 : 46d 22
lknneain County
114 LODtI'ETIN 0.92 071 492.55 5.2813% 2,125.48 1 3,318.02
115 BRS_YA LINTER 0.1168% 62.50 1.3395% 716.65 : 779.14
116 IRILYN PARK 1.5000% 102.52 1.7436% 132.15 : 1,735.37
120 CRYSTAL 0.1818% 97.24 0.1413% 450.12 : 547.36
122 DEEPHAVEN 0.1078% 57.67 0.2702% 144.53 1 202.21
123 EDD% PRAIRIE 4.1051% 2,196.24 1.6168% 164.99 : 3,061.23
124 EDlial 2.0911% 1,118.71 4.1108% 2,199.29 1 3,318.01
126 60.0E>, VALLEY L 3748% 1,270.54 1.6473% 881.32 1 2,151.16
130 HOAKI* 1.1658% 623.71 0.1628% 461.58 1 1,085.29
132 LOPE L0 0.1186% 63.45 0.0893% 47.76 : 111.21
134 KA'.E GROVE 0.2253% 120.53 1.1030% 590.10 : 710.63
135 NAPLF PLAIN 0.0426% 22.78 0.0625% 33.45 1 56.23
138 KIN€ADQIS 39.7185% 21,249.39 16.6815% 1,924.62 1 30,174.02
140 KIMETENiA 0.89761 480.21 3.0523% 1,633.00 : 2,113.20
142 CPC 0.0003% 0.15 0.3840% 205.45 1 205.60
143 Id HOPE 1.1261% 602.45 0.98951 529.40 1 1,131.E
146 PLhQITH 0.1978% 105.14 L 2772% 1,211.30 : 4,324.14
1471IDF1ELD 1.4062% 752.32 1.4.171 792.68 1 1,545.00
148 R®8I16012.E 0.1740% 467.60 0.5205% 278 44 1 746.04
Al ST 11/1110I'Y CITU 0.0231% 12.34 0.4013% 214.71 : 127.05
1555 ST !LUIS 11110{ 2.0502% 1,096.14 L 5945% 1,388.05 1 2,414.89
157 W1YZATA 0.3949% 211.29 0.3938% 210.68 : 421.11
Panner County
In FALC% MENE5 0.053:% 28.39 0.1965% 105.11 : 133.50
183 KEU BR104TDi 0.1628% 97.78 0.9933% 531.39 ; 629.17
MI5 !ORM ST PALL 0.1409% 75.38 0.3976% 112.73 : 288.11
186 ROSEVILLE 0.2027% 106.46 2.17001 1,160.94 : 1,269.40
190 ST PALL 11.3318% 6,062.52 10.5712% 5,655.58 : 11,718.10
f52 WITS EAR ME 0.0891% 47.65 0.8386% 448.65 : 496.30
-[-
5B
TIF TIF WAV WAV Total
Code City Factor Assessment Factor Assessment
Assessment
Acott County
217 10RDAN 0.04631 24.16 0.0832% 44.52 1 69.38
421 BAVAff loan 276.89 0.2323% 134.99 1 413.18
222 9p(D0EE 1.3587% 726.93 0.5305% 310.55 1 1,037.41
Wshington Canty
245 FOAE3T LASE O.0340% 18.18 0.2145% 114.76 1 132.94
252 AANTOEDI 0.0578% 30.91 0.1779% 99.18 1 126.08
Denton Canty
446 MET 0.0218% 15.42 0.0337% 18.01 : 35.00
451 SAY MAIDS 0.2219% 118.70 0.1375% 73.57 1 192.28
Blue Earth County
511 603D THJDER 0.0010% 0.56 0.0089% 4.74 1 33.00
512 UK CRYSTAL 0.0331% 17.72 0.0391% 20.90 : 3862
514119(ATO (,IT) 1.6091% 160.87 0.8667% 463.67 : 1,324.53
515 NIR.ETON 0.0063% 340 0.0272% 14.36 : 3500
barn County
547 511E°Y EYE man 15.08 0.0724% 31.73 : 51.81
548 SDRIN3FIELD 0.0316% 16.93 0.0438% 23.41 1 40.34
Carlton County
574 1114 0.0028% 1.48 0.0061% 325 : 35.00
576 =ET 0.0265% 14.18 0.3105% 166.11 : 180.30
579 COM LASE 0.0023 1.19 0.0246% 13.16 : 33.00
Cass County
655 16NR 0.0002% 0.10 0.0065% 3.46 : 35.00
Chipoeua County
683 )OdTEVIDED 0.1016% 54.34 0.1233% 8397 1 120.31
CAnisago County
707 Rl&I CITY 0.1223% 65.44 0.0441% 23.61 1 19.05
Clay County
757 IOWA 0.8631% 461.77 0.6751% 361.15 : 822.93
Cot tomcod County
830 Aour''AIN LASE 0.0181% 9 81 0.0360% 19.25 1 36.00
133 WINDOM 0.0473% 15.29 0.1002% 53.62 1 7892
lodge County
910 DOME CEWTER 0.0415% 8.13 0.0426% 22.79 1 48.71
Douglas County
941 ALEXANDRIA 0.0014% 0.75 0.2856% 152.80 : 153.55
951 MAKS UT) 0.0029% 1.54 0.0260% 1391 1 36.00
Far ibau1t County
978 RSE EARN 0.0122% 6.50 0.0952% 50.912 1 57.42
187 iE115 0.0475% 2544 0.0572% 30.60 1 36.04
988 YIMEDAABO 0.0031% 1.65 0.0362% 19.38 1 35.00
Fillmore County •
1020 DAATFIE.D (JT) 0.0008% 0.43 0.0474% 25.37 1 35.00
1027 I NESIO( 0.0015% 0.111 0.0263% 14.09 1 35.00
1026 %MORD CITY 0.0921% 49.27 0.0304% 16.29 1 65.56
Freebon Canty
1059 ALBERT LEA 0.0426% 22.79 0.5182% 277.21 1 300.00
1069 ICLUDC41 0.0024% 1.28 0.0106% 5.67 : 3300
soodhue County
1102 CMON F415 0.0427% 22.86 0.09531 50.97 1 73.83
1105 )SENYOx 0.0047% 2.51 0.0372% 19.91 : 35.00
1107 PK I1. U1) 0.0233% 12.48 0.0551% 29.48 1 41.96
1101 ED WI* 0.6563% 351.10' 1.1554% 611.12 : 969.22
TIF TIF Aqv Total 5C
Co* City Factor Assessment Factor Assessment Assessment
1110 ILIO ;TA 0.0866% 4L 32 0.0693%
*Alston County ?7.09 1 13.4!
1170 LA CRESLa i 0. % 14.06 0.0870% 46.37 1 60.63
Isant i County
1230 MAINE 0.1657% 16.66 0.1092% 9.42 1 147.09
Itasca Canty
1281 BDVEV O.0017% 4.68 O.0094% 5.02 : 33.00
1286 MID FAPIDS 0.0012% 0.65 0.1931% 156.79 1 157.44
Jackson County
1313SEXSIII 0.0805 42.97 0.0696% 37.22 1 16.19
Kanabsc County
1350 MILVIE Locus 1.21 0.0052% 380 : 800
KanEiyoAi County
1386 1Eu UPON 0.0352% 18.84 0.0167% 8.91 1 35.00
1393 V!LLW 0.3659% 195.75 0.4569% 244.45 1 440.10
Kittsot County
1431 WILCO( 0.0017% 0.92 0.0245% 13.10 : 16.00
1434 KARSTAD 0.0308% 16.46 0.0162% 1.68 1 100
lac 9ui Purls County
1452 LIALSON 0.0816% 43.65 0.0525% EL Io 1 71.75
1464 101DI9% 0.0016% 0.15 0.0441% 23.59 1 100
Le Sauer County
1536 LE CENTER 0.0068% 3.62 0.0404% 21.64 1 15.00
1537 LE 9111R 0.1930% 103.25 0.1098% 91.76 1 162.01
1539 ILEI PAgaE (JT) 0.1333% 71.31 0.0951% 50.90 1 122.11
Lyon County
1394_1711NOM 0.06561 35.08 0.0213% 11.38 1 46.46
1599 11AR9j1 1.1618% 546.14 0.3572% 191.12 1 737.76
:kind County
1627 6LDLXE 0.1505% 80.49 0.1283% 64.62 : 149.12
1628 11.17)411230i 0.6178% 330.55 0.3215% 171.98 1 502.53
1633 VINSTED 0.0277% 14.81 0.0430% :2.99 1 37.80
Martin County
1752 FAI0O( 0.0120% 6.39 0.3489% 186.64 1 193.04
1757 TRIM T 0.0197% 10.33 0.0160% 8.57 : 100
1758 TVA* 0.04435 23.68 0.0265% 14.20 1 37.87
Nreker County
1790 LITDf IE.D 0.0139% 7.43 0.1153% 88.41 : 93.85
1791 181TKI15 0.0279% 14.90 0.0151% 8.08 : 35,00
Ni11e Lars County
1818 NILA131 0.0429% l2.V 0.0189% 16.14 1 49.11
1821 PRINETDi LTD 0.4688% 250.61 0.0877% 46.92 : 87.73
* County
1904 AUSTIN 0.0163% 8.71 0.5852% 313.11 : 321.82
Micelle% County
1974 MICOLLET 0.0052% 1.78 0.0160% 8.57 : Z.00
197510 MATO 0.0686% 36.70 0.2675% 143.09 1 179.79
lbbles County
8003 1101111111 0.0151% 608 0.0185% 9.91 1 15.00
1013 iDRTMIM6TD4 0.0673% 30.67 0.2722% 145.63 : 176.31
Ibnyn County
8045 1811 0.0874% 14.68 0.0320% 17.10 1 15.00
Ol.sted County
2077 WEN 0.0038% 1.06 0.0162% 24.70 1 33.00
-4-
11
TIF TIF MN N1V Total
k City Factor Assesseent Factor Assessment kinsmen:
2082 11:0€57EI1 1.3901% 743.72 2.6524% 1,419.05 : 2,162.77
2083 STEWARTVILLE 0.0519% 27.74 0.0951% 51.5 : 79.00
trial' County
2160 FERGUS FILLS 0.2402% 132.00 0.3921% 109.75 : 342.55
re County
2254 800267112 0.01511% 0.43 0.0253% 13.53 : 33.00
pistons Canty
2280 PIPERS( 0.021a 11.23 0.0156% 45.12 : 57.05
nik County
2351 CRCO(ST PJ 0.1166% 62.39 0.1561% 83.51 1 145.90
nt Lake Canty
2422 RED LAKE FALLS . 0.0432% 23.10 0.0244% 13.03 : 36.13
Rd«ooC County
2463 REDIC0D FALLS 0.0368% 19.67 0.1420% 75.96 : 93.63
2469 WALNUT 6110VE 0.0017% 0.88 0.0149% 7.% : 35.00
swills County
2304 Et ISL A* 0.0299% 16.00 0.0233% ' 12.47 : 39.00
2511 (LIVIA 0.0197% 10.55 0.0630% 33.72 : 44.Z7
lice County
2335 FARIBAIIT 0.3439% 113.99 0.4034% 215.84 : 399.12
2537 RORRISTOW 0.0017% 0.19 0.0119% 6.39 : 35.00
2539 )ORTif IELD (JT) 0.0958% 51.24 0.2919% 159.90 : 211.14
lock County
2364 LUVEVE 0.1831% 17.93 0.1072% 57.36 : 155.30
St. Louis County
2690 AURORA 0.0277% 14.80 0.0336% 17.95 : 35.00
2697 OLLUTH 2.2303% 1,193.21 1.7644% 943.94 : 2,137.15
2699 EYELETH 0.0769% 41.17 0.0846% 45.25 : 06.41
2704 1088916 0.1650% 01.26 0.4112% 220.00 : 301.25
1711 RICAN IRON 0.0030% 1.60 0.0870% 46.52 : 41.12
2713 PROCTOR 0.0017% 0.90 0.0552% 29.52 : 35.00
2715 VISINIA 0.3631% 194.24 0.2301% 123.10 : 317.34
Merin:me Canty
2739 1EDE1 0.0296% 15.82 0.4720% 252.53 1 168.33
•2740 116 LAKE 0.0311% 17.02 0.0624% 33.37 : 50.39
Sibley County
2770 MEM 0.0597% 31.96 0.0310% 20.32 1 52.21
Stearns County
2122 IIROOTEII 0.0005% 0.29 0.0109% 5.82 : 35.00
2123 COLD SPRI% 0.0012% 0.65 0.0614% 32.16 1 35.00
2839 SARTE.L (31) 0.1097% 511.70 0.1138% 91.33 : 157.03
2143 ST G.3UD UT) 0.5130% 311.91 1.4103% 754.501 1,066.41
Steele Canty
2061 IL 3NIc6 PRAIRIE 0.0023% 1.23 0.0412% 22.06 1 35.00
2171 Dii11O1n11A 0.2582% 131.13 0.4995% 267.22 : 405.34
Stevens County
2695 Dan 0.0012% 0.63 0.0072% 3.13 1 35.00
2191 %ORRIS 0.0392% 20.95 0.0944% 50.52 1 71.47
Stift County
2926 APPLETON 0.0951% 50.90 0.0216% 15.31 1 66.21
2927 5EGON 0.1705% 91.23 0.0529% 26.29 1 119.51
Traverse County
3000 WOKS VALLEY 0.0115% 9.87 0.0096% 5.16 : 35.00
Waseca County
nF TIF w)v Irw 1'1111
Code City Factor Attestant Factor Acsssor+t assessment 5E
3046 1611101F 0.0017% 0.91 0.0056% 3.00 i 33.00
3047 INASED1 0.04431 23.61 0.2264% 121.11 t 144.79
*town County
3110 IgDr1Ill 0.03654 30.24 0.0125% 12.75 1 02.99
Yilkin County
3142 OREIXENRINE 0.0347% 11.54 0.0590% 31.00 1 00.12
Vinona County
3115 57 CZAR U 0.0008% 0.44 0.0619% 27.77 S 33.00
3188 VADA 021177% 153.94 0.5964% 319.07 1 473.01
*i9At Cooney
3117 Ir.ERNILLE Leen 8.67 0.0213% 11.42 1 33.00
3218 10101 141 • 01426% 97.71 0.0421% 22.54 1 120.25
3219 MILO 0.3975% 212.66 0.1342% 71.78 1 004.44
3221 CDOTO 0.0679% 36.32 0.0467% 24.99 1 61.31
3223 DELC1143 0.0878% 46.98 0.0626% 33.47 1 00.44
3227 C 11D 0.0105% 5.63 0.4625% 247.44 1 253.07
3229 WOG (J7) 0.0001% 0.07 0.0380% 20.32 1 00.00
Yellow McCicioe County
3262 CiA/WIE1D 0.0230 12.51 0.0165% MO 1 33.00
3261 6RFINITE FALLS UT/ 0.1394% 74.60 0.0822% 43.96 1 11156
100.0000% 53,500.00 100.0000% 53,500.00 107,674.73
6
CITY OF FRIILEY
MEMORANDUM
7D: ODMMISSD'JNERS OF THE FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REMVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FROM: NASIM M. WRFSHI, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: MINIMUMASSESSED VALUES FOR THE CDLUMBIA FARK PROPERTIES ERQJECT
DATE: DECEMBER 6 , 1985
At the November 14, 1985 meeting of the .HRA Resolution No. HRA 15-1985
authorizing the execution of a contract for private development with Columbia
Park Properties was approved with the stipulation that an agreed-upon assessment
value be placed in the development agreement and presented to the City Council
at the December 2, 1985 meeting.
The City Assessor has reviewed the proposed development plans and determined a
minimum assessed value of $4,910,000 for the completed building and the ramp.
This figure was presented to Columbia Park Properties. However, I did not
receive a response from them in time for the Development Agreement with the
assessed value to be presented to the Council at the December 2, 1985 meeting.
I have since been informed that the $4,910,000 assessed value is acceptable to
Columbia Park Properties. Therefore, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority may
wish to consider adopting this value at the December 12, 1985 meeting. The
Development Agreement may then be presented to the City Council on December 16 ,
1985.
Please find attached the summary from the City Assessor's Office.
6A
CITY OF FRIDLEY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nasim Qureshi , City Manager
FROM: Leon Madsen, City Assessor
SUBJECT: Current value of Columbia Plaza Clinic and estimated values
of proposed addition and parking ramp.
DATE: November 19, 1985
The current 1985 pay 1986 value of Columbia Park properties
parcel number 14 30 24 31 0097 is:
Land---$270,300 Building---$2,049,500 = Total---$2,319,800
The minimum "assessment agreement" value = !2,300 ,000
Estimated value of proposed clinic addition of 14,700 sq. ft. = $970,000.
Estimated total clinic property with addition = $3.290.000.
Estimated value of parking ramp = $1 ,500,000 plus land of $120,000.
Estimated grand total value of clinic property and parking facility =
$4,910,000.
These estimates are based on very rough and preliminary sketches, dated
October 7, 1935, on file in Planning Department.
6B
BND/columbia2 EXHIBIT C
Second Draft
November 13, 1985
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
and
ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION
By and between
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN
AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
and
COLUMBIA PARK PROPERTIES
This document drafted by:
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
3800 IDS Tower
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612 ) 341-3800
C - 1
6C
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of this day of
1985, by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a municipal cor-
poration and political subdivision organized and existing
under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota
( the "Authority" ) , and Columbia Park Properties, a Minnesota
general partnership (the "Developer" ) ;
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer entered into a
Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated April 15, 1982
( the "Prior Redevelopment Agreement" ) , regarding certain
real property (the "Redevelopment Property" ) located in the
City and the construction thereon by the Developer of cer-
tain clinic facilities ( the "Prior Minimum Improvements" ) ;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Prior Redevelopment Agreement ,
the Authority and the Developer entered into a certain
Assessment Agreement, also dated April 15, 1982 ( the "Prior
Assessment Agreement" ) , which was duly filed in the offices
of the Anoka County Recorder and which established a minimum
market value for the Redevelopment Property and the Prior
Minimum Improvements of $2,300,000;
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer have entered
into a subsequent agreement, namely, a Contract for Private
Development , dated as of , 1985 ( the "Development
Agreement" ) , pursuant to which the Authority is to transfer
to the Developer certain real property ( the "Development
Property" ) which it owns, and the Developer is to construct
thereon and on a portion of the Redevelopment Property
additional medical and clinic facilities and certain parking
facilities ( the "Additional Minimum Improvements" ) .
WHEREAS, for purposes of this Assessment Agreement , the
term "Assessed Property" shall mean the Development Property
and the Redevelopment Property, which Assessed Property is
legally described in Attachment A to this Assessment
Agreement ;
WHEREAS, the Prior Minimum Improvements, which have
already been constructed pursuant to the Prior Redevelopment
Agreement by the Developer , and the Additional Minimum Im-
provements , which are to be constructed by the Developer
pursuant to the Development Agreement, are and will be
located on the Assessed Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer desire to
establish minimum market values for the Assessed Property
( together with the Prior Minimum Improvements and the Addi-
tional Minimum Improvements , as the same may exist from time
C - 2
6D
to time) for the calculation of real property taxes , or
taxes in lieu thereof pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Sec-
tion 272. 01, or any successor statute, all pursuant to the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273 .76 , Subdivi-
sion 8 :
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in con-
sideration of the promises, covenants and agreements made by
each to the other , do hereby agree as follows:
1 . The minimum market value which shall be established
for the Assessed Property as of January 2, 1986, shall be
not less than $ 2,370,000 , and the minimum market value which
shall be established for the Assessed Property as of
January 2 , 1987, and thereafter shall be not less than
$ 4,910,000 .
2 . This Assessment Agreement shall supercede the Prior
Assessment Agreement , except that if the Authority does not
convey the Development Property to the Developer , and if the
Authority or the Developer terminates the Development Agree-
ment , this Agreement shall be null and void, and in such
event the Prior Assessment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect and shall be deemed to have been continu-
ously in full force and effect to the same extent as if this
Assessment Agreement had never existed.
3 . The minimum market values herein established shall
be of no further force and effect and this Agreement shall
terminate on December 31 , 19 , to the effect that the
payable property taxes shall be the last taxes subject
to this Agreement .
4 . Nothing in this Assessment Agreement (a ) shall
limit the discretion of the Assessor for Anoka County to
assign market values to the Assessed Property in excess of
the minimum market value set out in paragraph 1 of this
Agreement or (b) prohibit the Developer from seeking through
the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a red•icticn
in such market value for property tax purposes ; provided,
however , that the Developer shall not seek a reduction of
the market value of the Assessed Property below the respec-
tive minimum market values set out in paragraph 1 of this
Agreement so long as this Agreement shall remain in effect .
5 . Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agree-
ment are intended to, nor shall they be construed as , modi-
fying the terms of the Development Agreement between the
Authority and the Developer .
C - 3
bE
6 . This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties .
HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY,
MINNESOTA
By
Chairman
By
Executive Director
C - 4
6F
COLUMBIA PARK PROPERTIES
By
Its General Partner
C - 5
6G
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1985, by Lawrence Commers and Nasim
Qureshi , the Chairman and Executive Director, respectively,
of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Fridley, Minnesota, on behalf of said Authority.
Notary Public
C - 6
6H
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1985 , by , a
general partner of Columbia Park Properties, a Minnesota
general partnership, on behalf of said partnership.
Notary Public
C - 7
6I
ATTACHMENT A TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
[Assessed Property]
The Assessed Property is located in the City of Fridley,
County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, and is legally de-
scribed as follows :
Development Property and Redevelopment Property
LOTS 1 AND 2,BLOCK 2, FRIDLEY PLAZA CENTER, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, COUNTY
OF ANOKA, STATE OF MINNESOTA
A - 1
6J
CERTIFICATION BY ANOKA COUNTY ASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed a certain Assessment
Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in
and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Columbia Park
Properties, a Minnesota general partnership ( the "Assessment
Agreement" ) , and being of the opinion that the minimum
market values contained in the Assessment Agreement appear
reasonable, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned
Assessor , being legally responsible for the assessment of
the above described property, hereby certifies that the
market value assigned to such land and facilities to be
operated thereon shall , as of January 2, 1986 , be not less
than $ and as of January 2, 1987, and thereafter
(until such time as the Assessment Agreement shall by its
terms terminate) be not less than $
Assessor for Anoka County,
Minnesota
C - 8
CLAIMS
1438 - 1444