Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HRA 03/10/1983
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1983 7:30 P.M. City of Fridley AGENDA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1983 7:30 P.M. Location: Council Chamber (upper level) CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: FEBRUARY 17, 1983 I. DISCUSSION ON 1) FISLIC PROGRAM 2) BOND RESERVE FUND (info Received at February 17, 1983 meeting) 1 . Mark Haggerty & Piper, Jaffrey& Hopwood will be present to present program and answer questions). [have invited the City Council to attend]. II. CENTER CITY DISTRICT 1. Copy of Landscape Architect Contract as requested by HRA on February 17, 1983 - For information and discussion at the meeting. 2. Information on problem developing with Hardware Lease. (further copprespondence will be sent - as per discussion with Virgil Herrick on 3/3/83 - at meeting). 3. Letter from NSP concerning underground distribution line (See previous letter dated August 20, 1982 - further discussion needed at meeting. III.MOORE LAKE DISTRICT 1. Letter from Menton C. "Duke" Addicks, Jr. dated March 1 , 1983 concerning removal of residential west of Old Central from Moore Lake Redevelopment Area. (for further discussion on HRA direction) . 2. St. Phillips Request (Memo from Executive Director) IV. FINANCIAL 1. Check Register 2. Financial Report V. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 1983 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Coroners called the February 17, 1983, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Coroners, Elmars Prieditis, Carolyn Svendsen Members Absent: Duane Prairie, Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Ed Hamernik, Councilman Craig Ekberg Mrs. Erland Ekberg, Jr. , 2140 Squire Trail , Golden Valley (See attached list) APPROVAL OF JANUARY 13, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE JAN. 13, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. I. MOORE LAKE DISTRICT A. Condo Project (Hearing for HRA Consideration) (Memo #83-11 from Executive Director) Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boardman to give a brief update of what has taken place since the public hearing on Dec. 9, 1982. He would also like Mr. Boardman to give a brief summary of the project itself. Mr. Boardman indicated the tax increment district on the map. He stated several things were looked at in the establishment of a tax increment district. First of all , there are extreme traffic problems at the inter- section of Old Central and Highway 65, plus a great deal of traffic that is being generated along Old Central due to the connection with Highway 65 and the industries north of this area. With the tax increment district, the City is looking at the possibility of trying to divert Old Central traffic to Highway 65 which would call for some intersection modifications. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated another thing that would have to bedone in conjunc- tion with the development of the drive-in property would be the inter- section modification at Old Central and Highway 65 to create an easier flow of traffic up Old Central. Another reason for the establishment of the tax increment district is the drainage and clean-up of Moore Lake. The clean-up is very expensive. EPA monies have been put into it, but there also has to be some matching city monies. The reasoning behind a tax increment district is the development will pay for the tax improve- ments within the district. Mr. Boardman stated Mr. Erland Ekberg, who is the developer, made a proposal at the Dec. 9, 1982, HRA meeting, to put in two 12-story condo- minium towers, four units per floor, approx. 1 ,500 sq. ft. per unit. The towers, in conjunction with the overall project, would be an approx. $15 million project. The proposed site Mr. Ekberg had selected was the site which included seven property owners, a vacant property, and part of a commercial property to the north. Mr. Boardman stated there was a lot of discussion at the Dec. 9 meeting. The suggestion was made at the meeting that a neighborhood committee be formed to sit down with the HRA and the developer to see if any com- promises could be made. Mr. Boardman stated that at the first meeting on Jan. 4 with the neighbor- hood, approximately 12-13 people were in attendance. At the meeting, the people indicated that if the project was moved north of the property owners, at least the acquisition of the property would be feasible. How- ever, there were still questions about access and height of the towers. Mr. Boardman stated Mr. Ekberg did take a look at the recommendations the neighborhood committee suggested, looked at the soil problems that would be entailed in moving the project to the north, and came back with a proposal that suggested leaving three houses, but still taking the Dan Nelson property and one other property to the north. Since this was not the suggested change made at the Jan. 4th meeting, it was necessary to go back to the neighborhood committee with this proposed change. That was done on Feb. 9. At that meeting, the committee was unwilling to look at the developer's change as a compromise and stated there was no com- promise if the project could not be moved north. Mr. Boardman stated he had a conversation with Mr. Ekberg that day, and Mr. Ekberg stated that with some assistance from the HRA for soil correc- tion and some slight modifications in the direction of the buildings, he felt he probably could move the project to the north. It would be north of the line the neighborhood committee suggested on Feb. 9, which is north of the Nelson's property; however, it would still take the vacant property and the property owned by Scott Kohanek. Mr. Ekberg still feels it is imperative to the project to have access onto Old Central . As far as assistance from the HRA, that has not been discussed. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 3 V Mr. Scott Kohanek stated he is the property owner most affected, and he has not been notified about any meetings, other than 'the public hearing on Dec. 9. Mr. Boardman stated that because of an emergency, Mr. Ekberg could not be at the meeting; however, his wife and son were representing the project. Mr. Craig Ekberg stated he had met that day with his father who briefly went over the project. He stated it is basically as Mr. Boardman has outlined--moving the towers to the north and shifting the direction of the towers approx. 15° to the south to get a view over the lake. Mr. Boardman stated there would have to be some further exploration of the soil in that area. They do have some soil borings in there, and he thought there would have to be some soil correction. He did not feel the soil correction would jeopardize the project or take all the tax incre- ment generated from the project. Mr. Commers stated it might be premature to decide on a right of develop- ment at this time, because they do not know all the facts with respect to assistance and soil correction. Was it possible the project might not be feasible? Mr. Boardman stated it was possible, but he would doubt it with this kind of project. It is a $15 million project and will generate consider- able amount of tax increment. If the HRA does give a right of develop- ment, it should be a conditional right of development until these things could be brought back for approval by the HRA. Considerable work is going to have to be done before the HRA can give a formal right of development. Mr. Commers stated they would open the hearing up for comments from the audience. He stated he would like someone who was present at the Feb. 9 neighborhood meeting to present his/her understanding of what transpired with the developer. Ms. Jackie Lentz, 6053 Central Ave. , stated Mr. Boardman had outlined the meeting very well . Besides the question of the properties being razed, there was still a lot of concern about the height of the buildings and the access onto Old Central . One thing that was mentioned to Mr. Boardman at one of the meetings was that, if indeed the proposal was moved to the north, then those people who would be subsequently affected should be notified. She did not know if that was done. Mr. Boardman stated the primary person who would be affected from the proposal being moved to the north was Max Saliterman and he has been contacted. The property to the east is Tom Brickner's property, and Mr. Brickner has indicated his support of the project. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 4 Ms. Lentz stated that, to her knowledge, Mr. Kohanek was not at either neighborhood meeting. How that had happened, she did not know. Mr. Dan Nelson stated he was the property owner of the site in question. He stated they have been discussing the pros and cons of this project since the Dec. 9th meeting. He stated City Staff keeps reviewing the tax structure, the dollars, etc. , however, the citizens are not only looking at the tax structure, but what the pride of ownership, aesthetics, etc. , mean to them. In order to get a handle on the tax dollar, he had taken it upon himself to get some facts and figures from City Hall . He would like to present these figures at this time. Mr.Nelson stated Fridley has a population of 30,000 people. In the 1983 city budget, it is going to cost $6,307,659 to run the city, and the cost to run the city per person is $210. The average number of persons per family in Fridley is 2.8 persons. Taking the population of 30,000 and dividing it by 2.8 persons per family, he came up with 10,714 taxable units. Mr. Nelson stated he was now going to talk about the $150,000 valuation which was the average cost of each condo unit. The homestead tax on $150,000 valuation is $3,000. Ninety-six units X $3,000 brings in a gross tax increase of $288,000. By having 96 units and 2.8 persons per unit, the population in Fridley will be increased by 268.8 persons. Taking that number and multiplying the cost per person of $210, it is going to cost the City $56,448 to govern the additional people living in the condominiums. Taking the gross tax and subtracting the cost of governing the people, he got an adjusted gain in the tax of only $231 ,552. Mr. Nelson stated approximately 10 acres of land is involved in this project. Using 3 homes per acre = 30 homes. In keeping with the $150,000 valuation, 30 X $3,000 (homestead tax) brings about a tax increase at that point of $90,000. By having homes in there, it would increase the population by only 84, which is less than 1/3 of the pop- ulation the condos would bring. The cost of governing the 84 people would be $17,640. Taking the gross of $90,000 and subtracting the cost of governing the people of $17,640 equals a net gain in taxes of $72,360. Going back to the adjusted tax on the condo of $231 ,552 minus the net gain of $72,360 comes up with $159,192 in increased taxes from the condo. That amounts to only 1/4 of 1% of the city budget. Taking that increase and dividing it by the number of units in the City of Fridley, it comes out to $14.85. Out of that $14.85, the City has to pay the cost of acquiring the properties which could be very expensive,and they have to spend money on redirecting the traffic. So, they are looking at selling their most valuable birthright, home ownership, for less money that it costs to take a spouse out to dinner, $14.85, and he did not think it was worth it: HOUSING b REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 5 Mr. Coroners stated that with the $159,192 in increased taxes mentioned by Mr. Nelson, they also had to take into consideration that that money would be available each year thereafter if the project went through. Mr. Coroners asked Mr. Nelson what his feelings were in regard to the proposal to move the project north of his property. Mr. Nelson stated when he bought his property and built his house, he was aware the property north of him was commercial . In building, he allowed a barrier of trees and a 6 ft. cyclone fence. He realized he would have no control over what went in north of him because of the commercial zoning. He stated he would rather not see big towers there; he would rather see private enterprise take over and put in office buildings or whatever. Mr. Boardman stated he has done some analysis as far as the generation of taxes. They must understand that in tax increment, they do get the captured value over and above the existing tax. The captured value means the amount of tax that is generated,the amount of tax returned from the State for homestead. If this project went in, that taxes that would be generated per year would be approx. $394,080. That would be the total tax based on the mill rate in this area. Based on this, they could sell a little over $3 million worth of bond. They look at the tax that is generated and base that over the life of that bond which is generally a 15-yr. bond. That is where they get the money and revenue that is generated to do the acquisition. Ms. Barb Reiland, 6068 Woody Lane, asked if the City has looked at the traffic impact. The proposed driveway for the condo is right across from Woody Lane, which means it is at the top of a hill and on a curve. She stated they live just below that. They have had two cars go through their yard already, and she could not imagine increasing traffic on Old Central . Mr. Boardman stated they are looking at trying to eliminate a lot of the through traffic on Old Central . Right now there are approx. 10-12,000 cars per day on Old Central . The remodeling of the intersection to the north would divert a lot of that traffic over to Highway 65. He stated that in looking at any kind of driveway entrance, it is best to have that entrance across from a regular street intersection so there is a cross-type intersection. In this location, this was probably the best intersection for that entrance to be located. If the project is moved to the north, the best intersection may be further north. Ms. Reiland asked why they didn't redirect the traffic and make the inter- section modifications first and then decide what kind of project should go in. Mr. Boardman stated then the question is: who pays? They can do the intersection modification, but if there is no money to pay for the inter- section, then it has to be assessed against the property owners. One of HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 6 the purposes of setting up a tax increment district is because there are problems. With development in the area, they are going to try to take care of some of these problems. The tax increment district is set up as a possibility for some public improvements due to development. With this type of development, they could start doing some of the things that need to be done, but they cannot do anything initially until they have some development. Mr. Bailer Tiller, 1535 Gardena Ave. , stated there should be no development unless it has all been planned out ahead of time. The people who live in this area are the most important of all . They are the people who have to put up with this development, and they should have the say as to whether it goes in or not. Mr. Charles Ross, 5895 Central Ave. , stated as he listened to this project proposal , he heard about people being moved out of their homes and the need to develop profitable revenue. When the City talks about diverting traffic, aren't they going to have to have another hearing process like they are having now? Whose yard are they going to go through? First, they create the monster and then, because there is a traffic problem because of it, they find they have to divert traffic. If the City is going to have to divert traffic when they have already acknowledged an existing traffic problem on Old Central , why not divert the traffic first and then build something that fits within the existing community? Mr. Ross stated this is a very large project. He felt it was unfortunate that Mr. Ekberg did not have the courtesy to show up and speak for himself. Mr. Commers stated they do recognize there is a traffic problem already in existence on Old Central . In order to do something about it, they need some monies to start making those modifications. Ms. Lois Adolphson, 6131 Woody Lane, stated she works for Bermel Smaby Realtors. She is in the new home and condominium division of Bermel Smaby. She has done some successful projects, so she has expertise in this area. She had the following questions: Has there been a feasibility study done on the marketability of this project? How many taxpayers in Fridley now have an assessed home value of over $150,000? How many successful projects has Mr. Ekberg accomplished or completed? Does the contractor have either building financing or end financing established on this project? What happens if the HRA approves the project, the homes are taken, the traffic diverted, and then the project doesn't work? What will go in on that property? Mr. Boardman stated no homes will be taken or traffic diverted until there are firm financial commitments on the development of those units and firm end loan financing. That would be mandatory, and the HRA would not take any action unless that happened. Mr. Ekbert has met with real estate people and he apparently feels there is a lot of interest in the sale of these units. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 7 Ms. Adolphson stated she did not feel there was a market for $150,000 units at this location in Fridley. She was against the project. It would ruin her view, and there was already a traffic problem. Mr. "Duke" Addicks, Jr. , of Pepin, Dayton, Herman, Graham, & Getts, Attorneys at Law, stated he was hired by Mr. & Mrs. Dan Nelson to look into what is going on. He stated his firm represents both developers and residents on various proposals. He stated the people are objecting to giving Mr. Ekberg the right of development without additional informa- tion. The HRA is a public body and represents not only the present residents, but also the future residents of Fridley and the future develop- ment of Fridley. This is a touch decision to make. He would urge the HRA to think about some of the questions concerning this proposed develop- ment. Mr. Addicks stated that, historically, HRA's were created to provide for low and moderate income housing and to assist in the redevelopment of blighted areas. The power has been expanded over the last few years. He wondered if it was appropriate for the HRA to promote expensive luxury condominiums. He wondered if it was even unlawful to do so. He stated there will certainly be tax increment resulting from this development or whatever development eventually goes in this area, and some of it can be used to clean up the lake and improve traffic flow. But the principle purpose of the HRA is to assist in the development and not to worry about clean-up or traffic problems. Mr. Addicks stated there is probably a rezoning involved, modification of existing districts, and an environmental assessment process because of the proximity to the lake. In other words, there are quite a few hurdles the developer will have to handle even if the HRA gives him the right of development. For these reasons, Mr. Nelson is asking for a delay in the decision to give a right of development and has asked that City Staff be instructed to find out more about what the developer really intends, his ability to follow through on a project, and how serious he really is with this proposal . Mr. Addicks stated he felt the HRA should not make a decision without more information. Mr. Ray McAfee, 1360 Hillcrest Dr., stated that since the Dec. 9th meeting, all the developer has done is move this monster further north. He felt that 95% and perhaps 100% of the people in the audience would like to see this thing go back to Golden Valley. He did not think a condominium like this fit into the City of Fridley, because of the height. The buildings would be higher than the Fridley water tower. Mr. Scott Kohanek, 6116 Central Ave., stated he has owned his property since 1976. He likes his home and would like to keep it. He was really upset about the City's communication system. It seems there were a couple of neighborhood meetings he was never notified of; conse- quently, the project was moved further north to include his home and his property. He stated that did not make him very happy. He stated HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 8 Mr. Nelson's lawyer had mentioned there were a lot of hurdles ahead for the developer. Mr. Kohanek stated he was going to be the toughest and biggest hurdle of them all . Mr. Yoava Klucsar, 1337 Hillcrest Dr., stated this property would need rezoning. When people buy a house, it is the biggest investment they make in a lifetime. All these neighbors do not want this project, so why is the City wasting their time. Mr. Mel Nelson, 980 Hackmann Circle, stated Mr. Boardman had talked about homestead tax returns. If he had been listening to the legislature that is now in session, he would know that the people may not end up with any homestead credits. Mr. Boardman shouldn't use that point in bringing out any possibility of returns to the tax structure. Mr. Jeff Hagen, 5980 Gardena Lane, asked if there were any alternatives to this project. Mr. Boardman stated there are always alternatives. The Shorewood shop- ping center has been earmarked as a neighborhood center. In develop- ing an area that is going to support a neighborhood center, the City is trying to encourage a residential type of development in this area. An elderly development, sponsored by St. Phillips Church, has been proposed for the corner of Rice Creek Road and Old Central . Ms. Elaine Gray, 6062 Central Ave. , stated their private homes were included in the tax increment district so the HRA can come through and buy and build wherever they choose. She stated she would like to see their properties removed from the tax increment district as it would save the HRA alot of headaches. They have invested a lot of money into their properties. They like the area and the beautiful view. She felt they have the right to enjoy it more than people in a condominium as they were there first. She found it hard to believe that Fridley couldn't survive without this area being developed any more than it is now. The City can develop in the north area where no one is living. Mr. Commers closed the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. Mr. Commers asked Staff's opinion about some of the questions raised concerning a feasibility study, whether or not there needs to be an environmental assessment, and the marketability of these condo units in this area. Mr. Boardman stated all these areas need to be addressed. He wished Mr. Ekberg had been at the meeting to answer some of these questions. He stated they do not have the Shoreline Management Act in Fridley where these units would be located. Where Mr. Ekberg is proposing the project is out of the flood plain; therefore, the setbacks really don't come into effect. The size of the project does not require a mandatory environmental assessment. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 9 Mr. Commers asked about the question of soil correction and HRA assistance. What has to be done to make that determination and can it be done on a preliminary basis? Mr. Boardman stated before any soil correction can be done, Mr. Ekberg has to have access to the property. Mr. Prieditis stated it is obvious that a large portion of the neighbor- ing property owners are totally opposed to this project. He felt maybe they were just wasting their time in discussing the site problems and feasibility studies when there is such strong opposition to the develop- ment, no matter where it is located. Mr. Commers declared a 15-minute recess at 9:15 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boardman what the requirements would be to alter the tax increment district, to either subtract or add properties. Mr. Boardman stated the HRA would have to go through the same process they went through in establishing the district. The HRA would have to make a recommendation to be approved by the City Council . He would have to check to see if it would require a public hearing. MOTION BY MS. SVENDSEN, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO GRANT TO EKBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., A ONE-YEAR RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MOORE LAKE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. Mr. Prieditis stated he thought any project, whether the City or the HRA is involved, should theoretically do something good for either the City itself or the people. Seeing such unanimous opposition to this project, he did not see how this project in its present form could succeed, and he would like to see this particular request for right of development dropped. Ms. Svendsen stated she agreed with Mr. Prieditis. Even though there were only three HRA members present, she felt it was important for them to vote as the homeowners have been waiting a long time for this decision. Mr. Commers stated he was impressed by some of the arguments and questions raised by the people.at this meeting and previous meetings. If this project is turned down, there might be something else that would go in on that site that might make the people even more unhappy than this project. That property has been slow in developing because it is not prime property. Unless some assistance is given to a future developer, it is probably not going to be developed and will stay off the tax roles. To that extent, it hurts the whole City of Fridley and not just the people who live in the immediate area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMERS, SVENDSEN, PRIEDITIS, VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED AND THE RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GRANTED TO EKBERG & ASSOCIATES AT THIS TIME. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 10 Mr. Commers thanked everyone for coming. He urged them to continue to be aware of the different things that are going on in Fridley. He apologized for the lack of communication; they attempted to give the best notice they could tandthe t people. Hstated the lace people � have a duty to stay informed B. St. Phillips Project (Memo #83-12 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated St. Phillips is interested in again applying for 202 funds on the property at Rice Creek Road and Old Central . In order for St. Phillips to submit an application for 202 funding, they will have to prove to HUD that the land and soil is compactible and is developable. St. Phillips is concerned that the fill that has been brought in on the site could create difficulties in their application to HUD. They feel the fill was the initial reason they were turned down for 202 funding last year. The fill was placed on the property by the property owner. The property owner met all the permit requirements; therefore, the City had to issue the hauling permit. Mr. Boardman stated that if HUD feels it is necessary, St. Phillips would like some assurance that the HRA would do some soil compaction tests. He thought the cost would be approx. $2,000. If the soil is not compactible or if the fill was put over bad soil , it could decrease the value of the property. He needed some indication from the HRA prior to St. Phillips' application for 202 funds. He stated he has a meeting with St. Phillips Human Services, Inc., on Mar. 3. Mr. Commers stated that was difficult when they really do not know what the cost will be. Mr. Boardman stated he would do some further investigation on the costs of soil testing and would also discuss this with St. Phillips. He felt they should know what the soil is like as it could be helpful in acquiring the property if the project goes through. MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. COMMERS, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON THE ST. PHILLIPS PROJECT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND TO INSTRUCT STAFF TO GET SOME ESTIMATES ON SOIL TESTING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMERS AND PRIEDITIS VOTING AYE, SVENDSEN ABSTAINING, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. C. Letter - Vernon Beck & Associates, Inc. (Drive-in Site) Mr. Boardman stated he has been working with Vernon Beck & Assoc. and Northwestern Life Insurance Co. They have shown an interest in being the developer for the entire drive-in site. Mr. Boardman stated one of the first things he wanted to know was whether that site was a prime 9 to for a hotel development. They are looking at a hotel development and also peripheral development in the way of an office development. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 11 Mr. Boardman stated that at his request, Vernon Beck & A*soc. did an in-house market feasibility study to see if the hotel development would support a high price development. They found that in this northeast area, it would support $55/night at this time. That does not preclude this area from getting a high class facility. At this time, most of the hotel developers have their primary emphasis on the south and southwest. Once that emphasis is fulfilled, they will look at the northeast area. Mr. Boardman stated Vernon Beck & Associates' recommendation to the HRA would be to try to develop a strong base (office, office-warehouse development) on the drive-in site and save a parcel on the corner for a hotel development. They feel it will happen; it is just a matter of timing. Mr. Prieditis stated his main concern would be the traffic and the difficulties of getting in and out of this site. Mr. Commers asked if there was any way of doing a traffic feasibility study in this area. Mr. Boardman stated the HRA can order a study to be done and pay for it. It has been recommended to the City Council that some of the 1983 CDBG monies be used to do a traffic study in the Moore Lake area. The City Council will be considering that recommendation at their Feb. 28 meeting. Mr. Coroners declared the letter from Eugene H. Hefter, Vernon Beck & Assoc. dated Jan. 24, 1983, received into the record. II. CENTER CITY DISTRICT A. Consideration of Resolution HRA 6-1983 (Petitioning the Cityof Fridley for Plaza Improvements for Center City Phase II Development) Mr. Boardman stated that at the last HRA meeting, they had a petition on the parking lot but forgot to put in a petition for the assessments. Before the City Council can approve the project and plans for assessments, this resolution has to be passed by the HRA. MOTION BY MS. SVENDSEN, SECONDED BY ! • PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. HRA 6-1983, RESOLUTION PETITIONING THE CITY OF FRIDLEY FOR PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS FOR CENTER CITY PHASE II DEVELOPMENT. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Information 1 . City Council Resolution 11-1983 2. City Council Resolution 12-1983 3. Anoka County Correspondence on CDBG Mr. Boardman stated this was all support information for the previous resolution. No action was needed by the HRA. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 12 III. FINANCIAL A. Financial Report Mr. Boardman stated there is no financial report at this time. They are just getting their year-end reports in so these should be available at the March meeting. B. Check Register MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER DATED FEB. 16, 1983, IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,206.42. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. C. Contract Summary dated Feb. 17, 1983, from InterDesign, Inc. Mr. Commers stated the HRA should have a summary of what their agree- ment is on payment with InterDesign. Mr. Boardman stated it is based on the total value of about $356,000. That cost includes the plaza area and includes the area around the office building (that will be assessed to the office building). It will also include the area along 5th St. The breakdown on all that is going to be assessed differently. As far as any costs or breakdowns of architect's fees, it goes with the development of that portion of the project. Forty per cent of 8% of the overall budget is the archi- tect's fee. Of that, 90% is construction documents and 10% is bidding negotiations. The architect is not involved at all in the inspection process. The City Engineering staff will be doing all the inspection work on the plaza. Mr. Commers stated he would like a memo on exactly how the performance is taking place under their contract with InterDesign. MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT SUMMARY DATED FEB. 17, 1983, FROM INTERDESIGN,INC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. V. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Report from Von Klug & Assoc. Mr. Boardman stated the House of Dragon in the Fridley Center will be moving at the end of February. The HRA received a report from Bill Von Klug on the payment. The House of Dragon is accepting a payment in lieu of relocation. The payment in lieu of relocation is $2,500. Attached to the report was a list of the fixture appraisals. There was $6,105 in personal property. Mr. Von Klug is recommending that the City draw up a bill of sale in the amount of $6,105 as he HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1983 PAGE 13 felt it was a justifiable figure for a fixed appraisal. The House of Dragon is also entitled to the $2,500 for relocation. Mr. Boardman stated he had put together for the HRA's information an "Activity List on Acquisition/Fixtures/Relocation" which gives the HRA an indication of where they are with all the properties involved in Phase II. Mr. Commers stated the HRA has received this "Activity List" and it should be attached to these minutes for the HRA's information. OVE THE RELOCATION BY MS. APPRAISAL COSTSED FORYHOUSEPOFEDITIS, TO DRAGON IN THERAMOUNTS OF RELOCATION AN $2,500 AND $6,105. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. FISLIC/FDIC Program and General Reserve Program (Memo #83-14 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated there are two possible ramssthatttscoulOnbeis used to promote development in the redevelopment the FISLIC/FDIC program which Thehas otherbeen programin isMtheeGeneralaReserveBlaine for multi-family housing. Program. Mr. Commers stated the HRA members shoulde xhave t eetichchance to review these programs and discuss them a Mr. Boardman stated hthereCity isCouncil interestalso there.receiving HRAthis shows information to see ifHaggerty, an interest at their dnenttheeBla9nePprogramser, ffwouldabe happyHtog who has been involve discuss this with the HRA. ADJOURNMENT: SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, 1983, A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE FEB. 17, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. Respectfully su' ►itted, i, / y Sa.a Recording Secretary A i 74 N = a 11 k 4 I 1 I ii iiia : ill is li : .0 11 • 11 II IJ1JJ 3l: Ili ig 11 11 is 'Bs 's 4. 4 te 3 ll la 11 11 II il lig I§ ig ig4 igi I- i t' s 1! § i 11 l '" i Ili lih 1 1 3 a 4 I • Vs 3 a i 6 3 s 7, 0 . ZZ SZ $ Ni I 0 4 .4 .4 .4 li i" Ito 1 11 % 4 7:0 gi ] A§ 4 H i4 11 p a aF. ,1 1 < sigi 3 G 0 �e C- .; v le rC4' �f. G .a�py�,i4O1i� 1�0�% i % % f'n i Pil _ "a I A Eli Y i Y faif ig it jt acjt v E iti2 4- 4-Thurs.,Yee.I7,l4 3,3 lb____ r� -,fin I ., i ,Pr - ' b 339'-7633 ; L ; 6o ge- i l 6-71-aWI diu - /3%o / - It yl_c`. 76-3- - 73 P mink. 4attne. IJ1 k.Rh 98g1 W. o- Sake_ Dr9-1 y--(-t-5 507 w . f 7/ 4, / 3_3 .jo-L-4--_,d-1-41-eff4A-e-s4-i..S. -41--tetit-AA--0-A--.,_) J-76 7 cV fl..."---,•-t_L ivitt /IL( , .7 /9,:v/ o. rsv Sio 3 - gN7 zL itt 4C 37/ - as yV e -. Yrtc -L 'pit 5.-a703 — r, ' n __, 4_ ,/e__ ,5-,//..oe(4---,,(0s•zeXez.A , .. .-2, --.5.,-.z.4 ••- ' d/n - ,/ - .- .5331 Lc). a.IRe .02, 3'71- 7787 JZ c y X.1-7TA,e Ly- *et, ..5-e/- 64..Aroo,ee L • ,d/e is7/ -3 3-4 *7/1/ f"'La ((Id& , ' b (47-Geob 1 !.e y 2<57/ r3r r N / 44 tb, /1P'1.4. O's. . .c7/- 372.7 Y414, 41y, ,r, Bi/e) lo'%xu v 44 I'' 57/- 374'77 Ctuibaa 9 C.1401° o-, • S71 - %07 O ia-vt 2 / 14,.4.1, 6 o a' - e°v ja..A.N.e - 5 7/ - 060 7 Fi S`.µ-- .5-) 1 - 9 -2S11 � /5s7 /� - ,67/7-6.9/ >p, ' ' A,-.0-;eze,, 43.0 Ifae..-...-..- ,1-1,-.), ... _ 5--7 --. 6' 4 " �: ' �� 135 �b �____-_ �___ __ �> , - Si�/_ p�-� .. , , _ . At , 14 _5'71- I /ailfir,i, - ..„ , 67/‘ee s c; e:-. - 377/-//6( 1 - i A, lee.sv o,r7 ety- tx-..,:s-vt.„ - ,- • _,,,,,/ te.* ge, €4,4__ _ .1,-ht- 5-7/ -/6(2? fa-. iia., - iis() otk004. i/E - s 7 V - / ? o c-, i p,_ _ A.C.2,..-._ ft...0,Q._ , s—jrz,k,e,.,_ (... cr� - jtarro-47 ____ _ yow te.)4dA•ee- Wil- {`. ri - . - s . 3 63 z____. If �� -, Vin- , .11; , - 13 3 ( Ala ' / P/7.. 57/--t67/ grea-t ,,, cc26/i,./4.,,. MI `� gt�J 0, &ze �S7/- 2 6 ri .,„.." S4g b 9 un Spc- oz Z) ez„,„,/ 9 ey04.c._ /3/,‘ Aelae,.."1- „s-2‹e- --9_.) I'' , / AteAk.... /3 /.d ,' p --5-7 i-/J''73 42/77*A"-it_ c$ dA L fo /a a 4)04 Ida-e_ 7/- 7got,- VI ix.c.t.,11 le,,,, ,,i e(3.2/ / 761.t7& f1 -/0.1.3 ,,,‘6‘....41-4444,,, , ,p_ i iv 5-25 - 's7� '4::e._, i." • < _ ..yt . __ �_ ___ - . .%t... • __ _ -._.- it...1-ice - - K ,. HR ii- Thti 's.r Vet , (7, 1483 * lit — 'h - - -e- C>.A3r.4 c ell%lr ;; _3- 41� to a SO S. W. � 57"- 11t. 4. or„",,s ' . L(J - G os, '4. E . 57 -36/. -. f++�Afitell K 4 c� i eps.4.zor,24ext ce er e re pc rD- ) Guziel, 6 //a- CJac o 5 7/ —(05z3 P;41,, . / slr'�h g S,/ - ?/02 t .1' ! ..5)orr- 24 6k 57/ - 8 /off. 19 -41 '' AZO Jeitiazed-Del 7/- 05/Vyi • /..moo s7J D �5f- • , y- 5-8. /4) / Z ck"''` •7� h 44, /t4-= ,57y- '727d" dr , . Q /3s1 444( irt. 6-71l-0,177 I; « �.5g 'kit 724 SW-01V - 60.‘1 (it ____ , 20 � o� 1-2. /04-1( CicirmAArri 6 o q 5- 6.a„..te.,_ krt..._ Y-7 ( _ 1464,1 hifyze.d.c., sr 605Iv dbritrioi Act 77 57/ -32. 93 y - � 't ! $ ' _ i '-/ iieIiiir,Aav .S7s s7/ ,Y7r7 * ,.577.5 &% _ - S7/ -� , _ 704 '';'‘ d_a.t.,,,‘ i . :1C4likt' _.,1- 7/ -- 4/2 ,i /V ,< /3/5/%//C reM)t. .. _,57/ --S2 8Z -i/ lif-- ifeeii4f4er e, L5-7/ OW 04 /3 3(/ :, -_ 57/- to 'f37 d I/ / t4`tiVu . A33 -241( All tk4A4 i Qv, .-ri4- ru 4-11/ ( iios5•,-A. .e",?--) _"/ ... • s3 _ Cyt'ii riAYjSfl�4S ! i -7 }' --4 1-..e-s7-peri.. NuZ`i.z.„v_'s Ebb r _._- 1 .Gay - - - ko6Z_-- /1Te�/ ___ L-3?33 / .41fri° t :0 . h0 62L 07i c3533 -- - Dt ,- _lva/4- - - c -733_A./. iiyee; !/,`, s-2/ ,03x' � /o2 /Q &&4) S7( (i .:3- 41 id .1 ,57/-6af(P • .419 leol-7 • /3/ _ _ 57/- 37ag �;` ' /1 < Esq 6�' C Zle ;' 'Q7 • fr/ c_42.4.>14.4r.A..0.42. i c• V/, ›....e.-1.:c.,e__>_,4"-)7 X dAe-44- 10"0 47/4ei-e/7 /C y7 5- "/- c)_3 ? JQ4{vi 541/}d , �,//��4n//44 Sq Sc ? �/�///Ia 5-7/ -q`/V/ c aas 41,06 33- s"V'5 r • t,"�R1► i - ns H I LL.c sr Dm. SZif- q oz3 Wit ... GO Ca q<de.4-4,1-6 --ae/' S-7/ -0?7/9 • .: AV''1011,-Aiii -- ,II 6o s Y w� r dy L°J 6-11 -i a-71 iv, /J�s / (oosf! Gvob 51f-77 ' F� _ _ -__-- _._ _-__. -.-_- --._.... 4 y n ',Cc' DISCUSSION FISLIC PROGRAM AND BOND RESERVE FUND • I TME CITY OF / ---Z1 HOUSING ••w - --- a nd -� . 1 VI REDEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM. . AUTHORITY • .. FRIDLEY •'`"' FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO NO.83-14 DATE February 16, 1983 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redevelopment Authorit% X Two Possible Programs That Could be Used to Promote Development in the Redevelopment Districts I've been reviewing material on two separate programs that may be beneficial to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in the development in its Redevelopment Districts. The two programs are FISLIC/FDIC PROGRAM which has been used in Minneapolis and Blaine for Multi- Family Housing and the General Reserve Fund System also being used by Blaine for industrial/ commercial development. Both systems have good potential for us and are worth exploring in more detail. I am enclosing a brief summary of each of the programs for your review. However, I will attempt to simplify each of the programs. A. FISLIC Program 1. Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Housing); Industrial Revenue Bonds (Commercial/Industrial ) are used by the City of Fridley. 2. Proceeds of Bonds are then deposited with a Lender as a deposit for mortgage lending for construction/rehab, etc. for specific project. 3. Lender issues a certificate of deposit insuring the deposit under the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation. 4. This certificate of deposit is security for the Bond Holders which gives the Bond a AAA-L Bond rating. S. The lender make loans to specific projects as approved by the City at a fee of 1 1/2% and would retain credit risks associated with all loans. 6. The repayment schedule on the loans would match the maturity schedule on the deposits allowing the Lenders to "pass through" the principal repayments and interest costs on the deposits. B. General Reserve Program 1. The first thing to remember is that this program is a pooled security program, meaning that all money in the pool (System) is available to secure the payment of all general Revenue Bonds outstanding under it. Memo No. 83-14 February 16th, 1983 Page 2 TWO POSSIBLE PROGRAMS HRA 2. Every Project that elects to use this pool as security for financing must: a) Enter into a Revenue Agreement with the HRA/City (in almost all cases would be a lease). b) Transfer title of the entire project to the HRA/City. c) Make a deposit (out of IRB proceeds) of a reserve amount roughly equal to the maximum annual debt service of the IRB's financing the project. 3. The Leases which the Company pays under lease will be used to pay in full the bonds issued to finance that facility. 4. The HRA/City will own each facility until the General Revenue Bonds which financed it are paid off or at least until moneys have been paid under its lease to discharge the bonds. 5. There are Two Financial Components in the System (Pool of funds used for security). a) Common Bond Fund b) IDB Account Common Bond Fund - consists of Debt Service Account, Common Reserve Account and the Administrative Fee Account. a) Debt Service Account - is where lease payments are made. b) Common Reserve Account - is where all reserve deposits are made. c) Administrative Fee Account - is where all payments for account maintenance is deposited - Charge per $100,000 of bonds paid as additional rent. IDB Account - exists for no other purpose than to back up the Common Bond Fund. This should be in an amount equal to 10% of all bond funds issued. Funding for the IDB Account can come from a variety of sources including, CDBG, Tax Increment, etc. Funds, are and remain HRA/City funds, and must be preserved intact for the benefit of the bondholders. 6. This basic security system allows enough security to the bond holders to allow for considerably lower interest rate for those company's and small businesses that do not have the same financial AAA rating as some of the large companies. Both the FISLIC Program and the General Reserve Program could also be combined as a project security to lending institution in qualifying the project for development approval under the FISLIC Program. If you feel that these are potential programs that you want to use to further encourage development, we will bring in those people who are packaging the programs to discuss further the benefits of the programs. JLB/de CENTER CITY DISTRICT THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AIA Document 8141 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect 1977 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IAIPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES;CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION AGREEMENT made as of the day of February in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-three. BETWEEN the Owner: Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 and the Architect: InterDesign Inc. • 1409 Willow Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project location and scope.) FRIDLEY CITY CENTER PLAZA The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. Copyright 1917, 1926, 1948, 1951, 1953, 1958, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1974, ® 1977 by The American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • THIRTEENTH EDITION • JULY 1977• AIA€ • ©1977 1HE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1735 NE\\' YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 6141_1977 1 (This Page Is Blank) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT • • ARTICLE 1 ments to previous Statements of Probable Construction ARCHITECT'S SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Cost indicated by changes in requirements or general market conditions. BASIC SERVICES 1.3.4 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection The Architect's Basic Services consist of the five with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents re- phases described in Paragraphs 1.1 through 1.5 and quired for the approval of governmental authorities hav- include normal structural, mechanical and electrical ing jurisdiction over the Project. engineering services and any other services included 1.4 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE in Article 15 as part of Basic Services. 1.4.1 The Architect, following the Owner's approval of 1.1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE the Construction Documents and of the latest Statement 1.1 The Architect shall review the program furnis• d of Probable Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in b he Owner to ascertain the requirements of the Pr.ject obtaining bids or negotiated proposals, and assist in and hall review the understanding of such requir• ents awarding and preparing contracts for construction. with t e Owner. 1.1.2 e Architect shall provide a prelimin y evalua- OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT • tion of th- .rogram and the Project budget r•quirements, each in ter of the other, subject to the mitations set 1 .1 The Construction Phase will commence wit the forth in Subp. agraph ass•rd of the Contract for Construction and, togethe with the rchitect's obligation to provide Basic Service under 1.1.3 The Arch ect shall review with e Owner alterna- this • 'reement, will terminate when final payme,t to the tive approaches to design and constr tion of the Project. Contractor is due, or in the absence of a final Iertificate 1.1.4 Based on the mutually agre d upon program and for Pay nt or of such due date, sixty days aft,r the Date Project budget requir ents, the Architect shall prepare, of Substa tial Completion of the Work, whit•ever occurs for approval by the Oss r, Sch•matic Design Documents first. consisting of drawings a i a ier documents illustrating 1.5.2 Unles• otherwise provided in this greement and the scale and relationship o: roject components. incorporated the Contract Documen , the Architect 1.1.5 The Architect shal su .nit to the Owner a State- shall provide a. inistration of the Con act for Construc- ment of Probable Con motor Cost based on current tion as set forth clow and in the ed ion of AIA Docu- ment volume or other .nit costs. ment A201, Gener.I Conditions of t - Contract for Con- struction, current as •f the date of t'is Agreement. 1.2 DESIGN DEVEL••MENT PHASE 1.5.3 The Architect shall be a representative of the 1.2.1 Based on le approscd Sc hem, tic Design Docu- Owner during the Co truction Phase, and shall advise ments and any adjustments authorized v the Owner in and consult with the Os, er. I tructions to the Contrac- the program .r Project budget, the Arch ect shall pre- for shall be forwarded th •u: the Architect. The Archi- pare, for a• royal by the Owner, Design . eselopment tett shall have authority t .ct on behalf of the Owner Documen consisting of drawing, and other locuments only to the extent provide, in the Contract Documents to fix a . describe the size and character of Te entire unless otherwise modifie. b written instrument in ac- Projec as to architectural,structural,mechanical a'd elec- cordance with Subparagraph 1. 16. trica systems, materials and such other elements a may be ppropriate. 1.5.4 The Architect s all visit e site at intervals ap- propriate to the sta• of constr bon or as otherwise - .2 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a furth:r agreed by the Arch ect in writing o become generally tat.o.mewl-ef-izrobahlc Construetic>n Co7t. familiar with the progress and quality .f the Work and to 1.3 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE determine in gene al if the Work is pr• ceding in accord ance with the C-,ntract Documents. Ho ever, the Archi- 1.3.1 Based on the approved Design Development Doc- tett shall not e required to make exh•ustive or con- uments and any further adjustments in the scope or qual- tinuous on-sit inspections to check the q .lity or quan- ity of the Project or in the Project budget authorized by tity of the ork. On the basis of such on cite observa- the Owner, the Architect shall prepare, for approval by tions as an rchitect, the Architect shall keep the Owner the Owner, Construction Documents consisting of Draw- informed .f the progress and quality of the . ork, and. ings and Specifications setting forth in detail the require- shall en,eavor to guard the Owner against de -cts and ments for the construction of the Project. deficie cies in the Work of the Contractor. 1.3.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in the prepara- 1.5.5 The Architect shall not have control or cha to of tion of the necessary bidding information, bidding forms, and shall not be responsible for construction m_.ns, the Conditions of the Contract, and the form of Agree- m ods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or or ment between the Owner and the Contractor. s. ety precautions and programs in connection with t' 1.3.3 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjust- ork,-for the acts or omissions of the Contractor, Sub- AR DOCUMENT 8141 • O1\\\ER-ARCIiI TE CT AGREE.\tr\T • 1HIRTEESTH 11)1110\ • JULY 1977• AIA! • ©1977 THE AMERICAN ENSTITLTE OF ARCHITECTS 1-33 NEW 1ORR ;W-E\LE, N.\\'., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 B141-1977 3 i ork, or for the failure of any of them to carry out t f the Contract Documents,the Architect will have autho - ork in accordance with the Contract Documents. y to require special inspection or testing of the Work in 1. 6 The Architect shall at all times have access to the a.cordance with the provisions of the Contract D. u- m: ts, \whether or not such Work be then fabricate., in- Wo k wherever it is in preparation or progress. 1.5. the Architect shall determine the amounts swing stal d or completed. to th- Contractor based on observations at the site +nd on 1.5.1 The Architect shall review and approve •r take evalua Vons of the Contractor's Applications for Payment, other :ppropriate action upon the Contractor's s mittals and sh. I issue Certificates for Payment in such .mounts, such a Shop Drawings, Product Data and Sa •les, but as provi.ed in the Contract Documents. only fo conformance with the design conc .t of the 1.5.8 Th. issuance of a Certificate for Payencshall Work an with the information given in t • Contract Documen . Such action shall be taken wit reasonable constitute . representation by the Architect to the Owner, promptnes so as to cause no delay. The • chitect's ap- based on t'e Architect's observations at th site as pro- proval of a c)ecific item shall not indicate proval of an vided in Su..aragaph 1.5.4 and on the d, a comprising assembly of \ hich the item is a compone t. the Contract. 's Application for Payment, hat the Work has progresses to the point indicated; th to the best of 1.5.14 The A hitect shall prepare Ch nge Orders for the Architect's s owledge,information an belief,the qual- the Owner's ap,royal and execution in accordance with ity of the Work in accordance with ll • Contract Docu the Contra(t Doc rments, and shall hay, authority to order ments (subject t an evaluation of ti e Work for con minor changes in he Work not invo ing an adjustment formance with the Contract Docume s upon Substantial in the Contract Su or an extension ,f the Contract Time `Which are not incon intent with the ntent of the Contract Completion, to th• results of any • bsequent tests re- quired by or perfo led under the ontract Documents, Documents. o minor devjation: from the Co ract Documents cor- 1.5.15 The Architect hall cond ct inspections to deter- rt.,-1,,N,. 0.:0, .. ',t t. any specific qualifica- mine the Dates of Subs Tntial C'mpletion and final com- trons stated in the A 4 '.:\,uelit' and that the pletion, shall receive an forw.rd to the Owner for the Contractor is entitled t, pas men In the amount certified. Owner's review written \ 'rra ies and related documents However, the issuance c f a Ce titivate for Payment shall required by the Contract il. uments and assembled by not be a representation lat t e Architect has made any the Contractor, and shall is 'e a final Certificate for Pay examination to ascertain o\ and for what purpose the ment. Contractor has used :'e nT 1 ccs> paid on account of the 1.5.16 The extent of the ut •s, responsibilities and lim- `,x_:-_`.Sum• itations of authority of I,e Arc•itect as the Owner's rep- t,5.9 The Architect shall b the interpreter of the re- restvatative during cons ruction .hall not be modified or quirements of the Contrat D.currents and the judge of extended without writ n consen of the Owner, the Con- the performance there der ov both the Owner and tractor and the Archi ct Contractor. The Archite't shall render interpretations nec- 1.6 PROJECT REPRE NTATION BEV) D BASIC SERVICES essary for the proper r. elution r progress of the Work with reasonable pro ltness on v. itten request of either 1.6.1 If the Ow r and Architect . .ree that more ex- the Owner or the Co tractor, and s Tall render written de_ tensive represent tion at the site th.n is described in visions, within a re, onable time, ( T all claims, disputes Paragraph 1.5 s II be provided, the A chitect shall pro- and other matters i• question bethNe 1 the Owner and the vide one or )re Project Representati es to assist the Architect in c, ming out such responsibil ies at the site. Contractor relatin to the execution or progress of the Work or the ince )retation of the Con act Documents. 1.6.2 Such roject Representatives shall b: selected, em- 1.5.10 Interpr- ations and decisions of he An_hitect shall ITluyc'cl and directed by the Architect, and he Architect be consistent N. ith the intent of and reasonably inferable shall be c mpensated therefor as mutually agreed be from the Con ract Documents and shall 'e in written or tween th • Owner and the Architect as set for. in an ex- graphic for In the capacity of interpre er and judc,e, Mbit ap •nded to this Agreement, which aha describe the dut responsibilities and limitations of au ority of the Archite. shall endea\or to secure fai Tful perform- ance by br th the Owner and the Contrac r, shall not such P Tject Representatives. show part'.lity to either, and shall not be I,'ble for the 1.6.3 Through the observations by such Project •epre- result of .ny interpretation or decision rende 'ci in gocrd sent fives, the Architect shall endeavor to provide . rther faith in • ch capacity. pr ection for the Owner against defects and deficie•cies in he Work, but the furnishing of such project represe ta- 1.5.11 The Architect's decisions in matters r ating to artisti• effect shall be final if consistent with the i tent of t ,n shall not modify the rights, responsibilities or obli:a the r'ontract Documents. The Architect's decisi ns on • any .they claims, disputes or other matters, in uding 1.7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES • tho.e in question between the Owner and the Contr ,ctor, sh 11 be subject to arbitration as provided in this A.ree The following Services are not included in Basic n nt and in the Contract Documents. Services unless so identified in Article 15. They shall he provided if authorized or confirmed in writing by .5.12 The Architect shall have authority to reject W. k the Owner, and they shall be paid for by the Owner • 'which does not conform to the Contract Document . as provided in this Agreement, in addition to the (Whenever, in the Architect's reasonable opinion, it i• compensation for Basic Services. B141-19774 MA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • THIRTEENTH EDITION • JULY 1977 • AIAs • G 1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 . ' = = - ' • ' a • , • . • f- struction, and furnishing services as may be required in gr. • ming the requirements of the Project. connection with the replacement of such Work. 1.7.2 • •viding financial feasibility or oth' special 1.7.16 Providing services made necessary by the default studies. of the Contractor, or by major defects or deficiencies in 1.7.3 Providin: .tanning surveys, site valuations, envi- the Work of the Contractor, or by failure of performance ronmental studies • comparative dies of prospective of either the Owner or Contractor under the Contract for sites;and preparing sp ial sun'- •s, studies and submis Construction. sions required for approva - : governmental authorities 1.7.17 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings or others having jurisdicti. o ,r the Project. showing significant changes in the Work made during 1.7.4 Providing serv' es relative t. future facilities, s s construction based on marked-up prints, drawings and > other data furnished by the Contractor to the Architect. tems and equipm• t which are not in ,nded to be con- structed durin, le Construction Phase. 1.7.18 Providing extensive assistance in the utilization of any equipment or system such as initial start-up or testing, 1.7.5 Pr. ,ding services to investigate existing nditions adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and or lac' ' ,es or to make measured drawings thereo r to maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation ver' ' the accuracy of drawings or other information cr- and maintenance, and consultation during operation. 1.7.19 Providing services after issuance to the Owner of 1.7.6 Preparing documents of alternate, separate or the final Certificate for Payment, or in the absence of a sequential bids or providing extra services in connection final Certificate for Payment, more than sixty days after with bidding, negotiation or construction prior to the the Date of Substantial Completion of the Work. completion of the Construction Documents Phase, when requested by the Owner. 1.7.20 Preparing to serve or serving as an expert witness ,n connection with any public hearing, arbitration pro- 1.7.7 Providing coordination of Work performed by ceeding or legal proceeding. separate contractors or 61 the Owner's own forces. 1.7.21 Pros iding services of consultants for other than . . the normal architectural, structural. mechanical and elec- a co - ruction manager or separate consultants re ned Intal engineering services for the Project. by the • ' er. 1.7.22 Providing any other services not otherwise in- 1.7.9 Providin Detailed Estimates of C .truction Cost, eluded in this Agreement or not customarily furnished in analyses of owning anus operating co- .. or detailed quan- tity surveys or imrntories of enal, equipment and 1.8 TIME labor. 1.7.10 Providinginto r deli;�n1d other similar ser- 1.8.1 The Architect shall perform Basic and Additional Sen lees as expeditiously as is consistent with professional vices required for r in connection with the selection, skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work. Upon procurement • Installation of furniture, tihnishings and request of the Owner, the Architect shall submit for the related e '.ment. Owner's approsal a schedule for the performance of the 1.7.1 Providing services for planning tenant or rental Architect's services which shall be adjusted as required as the Project proceeds,and shall include allowances for peri- 1.7.12 Making revisions in Drawings, Specifications or ods of time required for the Owner's review and approval other documents when such revisions are inconsistent of submissions and for approvals of authorities having with written approvals or instructions pre to o given, Irlrisdi;tion over the Project.This schedule,when approved rc\are required by the enactment or revision of codes, laws I11 the Owner, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such doc- exceeded by the Architect. uments or are due to other causes not solely within the control of the Architect. ARTICLE 2 1.7.13 Preparing Drawings, Specifications and supporting THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES data and providing other ser ices in connection with Change Orders to the extent that the adjustment in the 2.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding Basic Compensation resulting from the adjusted Cora- requirements for the Project including a program, which struction Cost is not commensurate Yvith the services re shall set forth the Owner's design objectives, constraints quired of the Architect, pros ideci such Change Orders are incl criteria, including space requirements and relation required by causes not solely ss thin the control of the ships, flexibility arid expandability, special equipment and Architect. systems and site requirements. 1.7.14 Making investigations, surveys, valuations, imen 2.2 If the Owner provides a budget for the Project it nes or detailed appraisals of existing facilities, and ser shall include contingencies for bidding, changes in the - to ices required in connection ex construction performed Work during construction, and other costs which are the by the Owner. responsibility of the Owner, including those described in this Article 2 and in Subparagraph 3.1.2. The Owner shall, 1.7.15 Providing consultation concerning replacement of at the request of the Architect, provide a statement of any Work damaged by fire or other cause during con- funds available for the Project,and their source. AR DOCUMENT B141 • 011\ER-ARCH ECT AGREE 1',F\1 • 1HIRTEEN1II EDITION • ILLY 1977 • AIA's'• C1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 173', NESS YORK ASENLL, N.W., IYASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 B141-1977 5 2.3 The Owner shall designate, when necessary, a rep- signed, specified, selected or specially provided for by resentative authorized to act in the Owner's behalf with the Architect. i respect to the Project. The Owner or such authorized representative shall examine the documents submitted by 3.1.3 Construction Cost does not include the compen- the Architect and shall render decisions pertaining thereto sation of the Architect and the Architect's consultants, the cost of the land, rights-of-way, or other costs which promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of the Architect's services. are the responsibility of the Owner as*provided in Arti- cle 2. 2.4 The Owner shall furnish a legal description and a certified land survey of the site, giving, as applicable, 3.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoin- 3.2.1 Evaluations of the Owner's Project budget, State- ing property; rights-of-way, restrictions, easements, en- ments of Probable Construction Cost and Detailed croachments, zoning, deed restrictions, boundaries and Estimates of Construction Cost, if any, prepared by the contours of the site; locations, dimensions and complete Architect, represent the Architect's best judgment as a data pertaining to existing buildings, other improvements design professional familiar with the construction indus- and trees; and full information concerning available sere- try. It is recognized, however, that neither the Architect ice and utility lines both public and private, above and nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, mate- below grade, including inverts and depths. rials or equipment, over the Contractor's methods of de- 2.5 The Owner shall furnish the services of soil engi- termining bid prices, or over competitive bidding, market neers or other consultants when such services are deemed or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect necessary by the Architect. Such services shall include test cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or borings, test pits, soil bearing values, percolation tests, air negotiated prices will not vary from the Project budget and water pollution tests, ground corrosion and resistivity proposed, established or approved by the Owner, if any, tests, including necessary operations for determining sub- or from any Statement of Probable Construction Cost or soil, air and water conditions, with reports and appropri- other cost estimate or evaluation prepared by the Archi- ate professional recommendations. tect. •'+' - o•• - < I • r , a Tr"- , 3.2.2 No fix,d limit of Ceriro,tct;o,, Cost shall be estab- che and other laboratory tests, inspectio - <nd re- _ ports as re... ed by law or the Contract uments. . - - - • 2.7 The Owners 'urnish all accounting and in- fixed paragraph 1.1.2 or Paea�r►t h 2.211r oti—c,�,i,e �,,,I�„eCh surance counseling seryl may be,necessary at any fixed limit 4.1-4-14„rr- e,d ,ort ;, estab- time for the Project, uding Mu-h auditing services as t If such a fixed limit has been,the Owner may -.uire to verif} the ractor's Applica- lished, the Architect shall be permitted to include de- tionscon- for • • ent or to ascertain how or ...,‘,:.,,hat pur- con- tingencies for design, bidding and price escalation, to pos• e Contractor uses the moneys paid by or--on be- and what materials,'equipment, component systems �• a and types of construction are to be included in the Con- tract Documents, to make reasonable adjustments in the 2.8 The services, information, surveys and reports re- scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Docu- quired by_Paragraphs 2.4 through 25 inclusive shall be ments alternate bids to adjust the Construction Cost to the furnished at the Owner's expense, and the Architect shall fixed limit. Any such fixed limit shall be increased in the be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness amount of any increase in the Contract Sum occurring thereof. after execution of the Contract for Construction. 2.9 if tiltUvvrtt.., olnenec orvtheiwise-becuines aware 3.2.3 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not corn- of any fault or-defect ;n the Project or iiuiICoi1.O,r1idi11C menced within three months after the Architect submits ' = = the Construction Documents to the Owner, any Project thereof shall be given by the Owner to the ,Architect. - budget or fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be ad- 2.10 The Owner shall furnish required information and jested to reflect any change in the general level of prices services and shall render approvals and decisions as ex- in the construction industry between the date of submis- peditiously as necessary for the orderly progress of the sion of the Construction Documents to the Owner and Architect's services and of the Work. the date on which proposals are sought. 3.2.4 If a Project budget or fixed limit of Construction ARTICLE 3 Cost (adjusted as provided in Subparagraph 3.2.3) is ex- ceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated pro- CONSTRUCTION COST poral, the Owner shall (1) give written approval of an 3.1 DEFINITION increase in such fixed limit, (2) authorize rebidding or re- 3.1.1 Construction be the or negotiating of the Project within a reasonable time, (3) if estimated.1.1The cost to the Owner Cost all shallebe the s total the cost or the Project is ab�.ndoned, terminate in accordance with Paragraph 10.2, or (4) cooperate in revising the Project designed or specified by the Architect. scope and quality as required to reduce the Construction 3.1.2 The Construction Cost shall include at current Cosi. In the case of (4), provided a fixed limit of Construc- market rates, including a reasonable allowance for over- tion Cost has been established as a condition of this Agree- head and profit, the cost of labor and materials furnished ment, the Architect, without additional charge, shall mod- by the Owner and any equipment which has been de- ifv the Drawings and Specifications as necessary to comply AIA DOCUMENT O` FAGREEMENT THIRTEENTHN.W.,• IA6 8141-1977 AI AINTITUTE OACHTCTS, l35NEW YORKAVE UE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 with the fixed limit. The providing of such service shall be or extended through no fault of the Architect, compensa- the limit of the Architect's responsibility arising from the tion for any Basic Services required for such extended establishment of such fixed limit, and having done so, the period of Administration of the Construction Contract ` Architect shall be entitled to compensation for all services shall be computed as set forth in Paragraph 14.4 for Addi- performed, in accordance with this Agreement, whether tional Services. or not the Construction Phase is commenced. 6.1.4 When compensation is based on a percentage of Construction Cost, and any portions of the Project are ARTICLE 4 deleted or otherwise not constructed, compensation for DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE such portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent services are performed such4.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct sal- with the schedule set forthon n Subpartag aph 14.2.2,rbased aries of all the Architect's personnel engaged on the Proj- on (1) the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal or, ect, and the portion of the cost of their mandatory and (2) if no such bid or proposal is received, the most recent customary contributions and benefits related thereto, such Statement of Probable Construction Cost or Detailed Esti- as employment taxes and other statutory employee benc- mate of Construction Cost for such portions of the Project. fits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions and similar contributions and benefits. 6.2 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARTICLE 5 6.2.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Additional Services as defined in Paragraph 1.7 and for Reimbursable REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Expenses as defined in Article 5 shall be made monthly 5.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the Com- upon presentation of the Architect's statement of services pensation for Basic and Additional Services and include rendered or expenses incurred actual expenditures made by the Architect and the Archi- 6.3 PAYMENTS WITHHELD tect's employees and consultants in the interest of the 6.3.1 No deductions shall be made from the Architect's Project for the expenses listed in the following Sub- compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages paragraphs: or other sums withheld from payments to contractors, or 5.1.1 Expense of transportation in connection with the on account of the cost of changes in the Work other than Project; living expenses in connection with out-of-town those for vyhich the Architect is held legally liable. travel; long distance communications; and fees paid for 6.4 PROJECT SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 6.4.1 If the Project is suspended or abandoned in whole 5.1.2 of reproductions, postage and handling of or in part for more than three months, the Architect shall Drawings1.2 Expense, Specifications and other documents, excluding be compensated for all services performed prior to receipt reproductions for the office use of the Architect and the of written notice from the Owner of such suspension or Architect's consultants. abandonment, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due and all Termination Expenses as defined in Paragraph 5.1.3 Expense of data processing and photographic pro- 10.4. If the Project is resumed after being suspended for duction techniques when used in connection with Addi- more than three months, the Architect's compensation tional Services. shall be equitably adjusted. 5.1.4 If authorized in advance by the Owner, expense of Overtime work requiring higher than regular rates. ARTICLE 7 • 5.1.5 Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups re- quested by the Owner. ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS 7.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses per- 5.1.6 Expense of any additional insurance coverage or limits, including professional liability insurance, requested taming to Additional Services and services performed on by the Owner in excess of that normally carried by the the basis of a Multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall Architect and the Architect's cat nor ntll be kept on the basis of generally accepted accounting principle's and shall be available to the Owner or the ARTICLE 6 Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient times. PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT ARTICLE 8 6.1 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES 6.1.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 14.1 is OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS 8.1 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of serv- the minimum payment under this Agreement. 6.1.2 Subsequent ice are and shall remain the property of the Architect q payments for Basic Services shall be whether the Project for which they are made is executed made monthly and shall be in proportion to services per- or not. The Owner shall be permitted to retain copies, in- formed within each Phase of services, on the basis set forth in Article 14. cluding reproducible copies, of Drawings and Specifica- tions for information and reference in connection with the 6.1.3 If and to the extent that the Contract Time initially Owner's use and occupancy of the Project. The Drawings established in the Contract for Construction is exceeded and Specifications shall not be used by the Owner on AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • THIRTEENTH EDITION • JULY 1977• AIA0• Cr 1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 6141-1977 7 other projects, for additions to this Project,or for comple- 10.4 Termination Expenses include expenses directly at- tion of this Project by others provided the Architect is not tributable to termination for which the Architect is not in default under this Agreement, except by agreement in otherwise compensated, plus an amount computed as a writing and with appropriate compensation to the Archi- percentage of the total Basic and Additional Compensa- tion earned to the time of termination, as follows: 8.2 Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory .1 20 percent if termination occurs during the Sche- requirements or for other purposes in connection with the nlatic Design Phase; or Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation .2 10 percent if termination occurs during the Design of the Architect's rights. Development Phase; or .3 S percent if termination occurs during any subse- ARTICLE 9 quent phase. ARBITRATION ARTICLE 11 9.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of or MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be "11.1 Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construc- governed by the law of the principal place of business of tion Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitra- the Architect. tion Association then obtaining unless the parties mutu- 11.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same mean- ally agree otherwise. No arbitration, arising out of or re- ing as those in AIA Document A201, General Conditions lating to this Agreement, shall include, by consolidation, of the Contract for Construction, current as of the date joinder or in any other manner, any additional person not of this Agreement. a party to this Agreement except by written consent con- taining a specific reference to this Agreement and signed a11.3 As between the parties to this Agreement: as to all by the Architect, the Owner, and any other person sought anynts or lic breres toact ofy limitationsier y htthis Agreement,mnc to to be joined. Any consent to arbitration involving an ,Tel_ rapplicable statute shall commence to ditional person or persons shall not constitute consent to havne and any allegedncauseall of events not laterae he deemed rele- arbitrationto of any dispute not described therein or with have accrued in any and events than the any person not named or described therein. This Agree- Fant Date of Substantial Completion of the Work, and as ment to arbitrate and any agreement to arbitrate with an to any acts or failures tel act occurring after the relevant additional Date of Substantial Completion, not later than the date of person or persons duly consented to by the issuance of the final Certificate for Payment. parties to this Agreement shall he specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law. 11.4 The Owner and the Architect waive all rights consult- 9.2 Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed in against each other and against the contractors,9. iting the other pardemand to this Agreement and with ants, agents and employees of the other for damages cov- ered by any property insurance during construction as set the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall forth in the edition of MA Document A201, General Con- be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute ditions, current as of the date of this Agreement. The or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall Owner and the Architect each shall require appropriate the demand for arbitration be made after the date when similar waivers from their contractors, consultants and institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on agents. such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ARTICLE 12 9.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 12.1 The Owner and the Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and ARTICLE 10 to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representa- TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT fives of such other party with respect to all covenants of 10.1 This Agreement may he terminated by either party this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign, sublet or transfer any interest in this Agreement upon seven days' written notice <hould the other part without the written consent of the other. tail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. 10.2 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner ARTICLE 13 upon at least seven days' written notice to the Architect EXTENT OF AGREEMENT in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned. 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated 10.3 In the event of termination not the fault of the Ar- agreement between the Owner and the Architect and chitect, the Architect shall be compensated for all services supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agree- performed to termination date, together with Reimburs- ments, either written or oral. This Agreement may be able Expenses then due and all Termination Expenses as amended only by written instrument signed by both defined in Paragraph 10.4. Owner and Architect, AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-.ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION • JULY 1977 • AIAli • C 1977 8 8141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Or ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ARTICLE 14 BASIS OF COMPENSATION The Owner shall compensate the Architect for the Scope of Services provided, in accordance with Article 6, Payments to the Architect, and the other Terms and Conditions of this Agreemr-,lt, as follows: 144,4 AN IM4-T-IAL PAYMENT of d.,Hars($ 1 shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and ered.t,d tuthr d) fvlluws. 14.2 BASIC COMPENSATION 45% of 8% of $356,824.00 or $12,846.00 per Article 6, Subparagraph 6.1.4. 14.2.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES, as described in Paragraphs 1.1 through 1.5, and any other services included in Article 15 as part of Basic Services, Basic Compensation shall he computed as follows: (here inert hazrs nt rornp,'n.ata,n rraloJ,ng Gsed amount multiples or percentage, and ident,ly Phases to which particular methods of compensa- tion apply, Il necm':'ar, FEES FOR BASIC SERVICES will be charged on an hourly cost up to the maximum for each phase indicated below. TITLE CHARGE PER HOUR APPROXIMATE% INVOLVEMENT Principals $60.00 25% Associates $40.00 50% Technician $25.00 25% 14.2.2 Where compensation is based on a or Percentage of Construction Cost, payments for Basic Services shall be made as provided in Subparagraph 6.1.2, so that Basic Compensation for each Phase shall equal the follom ing percentages of the total Basic Compensation payable: (Include any add,tiona' Phare, as appr prlate Schematic Design Pha.c: ( %d) Design Dcvelopmcw4-41hase- F,etee,tt( %) Construction Documents Phase: percent ( J0 %) Bidding or Negotiation Phase: percent ( 10 %) Construction Phase: prtcent( %) 14.3 FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES, as described in Paragraph 1.6, Compensation shall be computed separately in accordance with Subparagraph 1.6.2. MA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION• JULY 1977• MA.• ©1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141-1977 9 14.4 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES 14.• 1 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ARCHITECT, as described in Paragraph 1.7, and any other services n- cluded in Article 15 as part of Additional Services, but excluding Additional Services of consultants, Co •ven- ation shall be computed as follows: (Here sort basis of compensation, including rates and-or multiples of Ihrect Personnel I\pense for Principals and employees, and ide ,fy Principals and clas .ly employees, if required. Identify specific services to which parti,ular methods of compensation apply, if necessary.) • 14.4.2 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF CONSULTAN - , in ;ding additional structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services and those provided and Subparaaph 1.7.21 or identified in Article 15 as part of Addi- tional Services,a multiple of times the amounts billed to the Architect for such services. (identify specific hpes of consultants in Article 13, it req ,ed • 143 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES,as described in Article 5, and any • er items included in Article 15 as Reim- bursable Expenses, a multiple of ( ) times the amounts ex- pended by the Architect, the Architect's employees and consultants 'n the interest of the Project. 14.6 Payments due the Archi ct and unpaid under this Agreement shall bear i erest from the date payment is due at the rate entere. •elow, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate pre .iling at the principal place of business of the Arch. •ct. (Here insert any rate of inter ,t agreed upon Usury laws and requir Tents under the federal Truth in Lending Act, similar 'tale and local consumer credit law and other regulahnnc at the Owner's and Architec principal places of business, the location of the Protect and elsewhere may affect the validity • this provision Specific legal advice should he oh :nest with re'pect to cielehnnmndiiicationor other requirement. such as written disclosures or O'er,.I 14.7 The Ow er and the Architect agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Ag •ement that: 14.7.1 IF T E SCOPE of the Project or of the Architect's Services is changed materially, the amounts of compensation s . I be equitably adjusted. 14.7.2 IF THE SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed within ( ) months of the date hereof, through no fault of the Architect, the amounts of compensation, rates . d multiples set forth herein shall be equitably adjusted. • AIA DOCUMENT B141 • O\\'\ER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • THIRTEINTH EDITION • JULY 1977• AIAg • G 1977 10 B141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHIIECTs, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 • ARTICLE 15 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES • 1. The Architect, as part of this Contract, shall provide detail construction documents and specifications in sufficient clarity so as to be sufficient for final construction of the project. Questions dealing with the clarification of those documents as provided shall be the responsibility of the Architect. If the Owner requests additional services of the Architect due to material changes, design changes or layout changes in the project, the Architect shall be compensated according to Article 14.2.1. 2. The Architect, as part of this Contract, shall provide services through the Bidding Stage including the pre-construction meeting following the contract award. This will provide for any clarification of the construction documents and specifications as noted above. 3. During the Construction Phase, the Owner shall provide all inspection service to carry out the intent of the design provided. The Owner shall field all questions from the contractors and determine which are clarifications of the Construction Documents or which the Architects should be brought in due to design changes. 4. The Architect will provide specifications in such a manner as to allow Line Item Reduction of the Bid without rebidding of the project. AIA DOCUMENT 1141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION• JULY 1977• AIA•• ©1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 B141-1977 11 • o Modify Section 3.2.4 as noted below: If the fixed limit of Construction Cost (adjusted as provided in sub-paragraph 3.2.3 ) is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal or the sum of all bids or negotiated proposals on all parts of the overall project, the Owner shall cooperate in revising the project scope and quality as required to reduce the construction cost. The Architect, without ad- ditional charge, shall modify the design, drawings and specifica- tions as necessary to comply with the fixed cost limit. This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. IHITECT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INTERDESIGN INC, CITY OF FRIDLEY 1409 Willow Street 6431 University Avenue N.E. M'• Minnesnta 5543 Minneaoolis__Minnesota 554.63 BY _4d6�t �� - BY �. 04547-::—. Roge B Martin Its "c' e Vice President AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION • JULY 1977 • AIA • ©1977 12 8141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 TN[CITY OP k C.•1N. •»•1N ^� HOUSING I €.."": end � � V% REDEVELOPMENT •; •• ,•• ♦ ••• �.� ....N piii 1.111 AUTHORITY :n .111. 11N1...I iil FRIDLEY • January 31, 1983 Dick Carson, President Clothing Liquidators Inc. Highway 95 East Cambridge, MN 55008 RE: Payment Due for Rent for 214 Mississippi Street N.E. , Fridley, Minnesota Dear Mr. Carson: We have not yet received the rent on 214 Mississippi Street N.E. for the "Fridley Market" as per our lease agreement. As you are aware the first payment was due on January 10, 1983 in the amount of $3,422. Please make sure that this is taken care of promply and that the second payment due on February 10, 1083 is also sent in a timely manner. I tried to contact you at 427-0410 and found this number disconnected. Please furnish me with a new telephone number so that I can contact you directly. i rely, ,t JERROL . B ARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority C-83-03 JLB/de IMa CITY OF HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT „• AUTHORITY .. ' 6 FRIDLEY February 17, 1983 Richard Carson 214 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Conversation with Mr. Phil Snapko, Cadillac Glass Dear Mr. Carson: Mr. Phil Snapko of Cadillac Glass, Inc. has contacted me regarding the work they did on the building at 214 Mississippi Street N.E. They have not been paid as yet, and are concerned about when you are planning on taking care of this item. If they need to, they indicated that they would place a lien on the building. Please contact them and make necessary arrangement for payment before they take any action to place a lien. We are also awaiting your first payment as per our conversation last week. This was supposed to be in our office on February 14, 1983. Please let me know what is happening. Sincerely, JERROLD L. BOARDMAN / 'Executive Director Fridley Housing b Redevelopment Authority JLB/de C-83-14 671-1119 CADILLAC GLASS, INC. COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL COMPLETE$ERVICE FOR PLATE.WINDOW.MIRROR.STOREFRONTS 7500 UNIVERSITY AVE N.E FRIDLEY.MINN AFTER HOURS 85432 SPIN •533-2803 24 HOUR SERVICE PiirL OCAPie0 February 22, 1983 Housing and Re-Development Authority 6431 University Ave., N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Attn: Mr. Jerry Boardman Dear Jerry; In reply to your letter of February 17, 1983. I talked with Mr. Phil Snapko of Cadillac Glass and have worked out a payment program with him. There is one other outstanding bill with Pierce Regrigeration, which will be paid shortly. In regard to the rent on the building, it was my intent to be current by now. But due to circumstances beyond my control it has not been possible. I had a Real Estate Closing scheduled which would have enabled us to become current but due to minor title problems the closing has been delayed for 30 days. In our last meeting, I indicated that we were losing approximately $2,500 per month which is still the case although I am confident this will change by April 1, If not it will be necessary to seriously consider sub-leasing with the HRA's approval. I'am considering several alternatives at this time. I will be in touch with you no later than February 25, 1983. Sincerely, Ric and . Carson, President RMC:dc X72 - 8/3y TME CITY OF '7:jimmy HOUSING 41PIF and REDEVELOPMENT(\* 1 ..,., AUTHORITY �► % FRIDLEY .-- ----- • - - - March 4, 1983 Dick Carson, President Clothing Liquidators, Inc. 214 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 RE: Property Lease for 214 Mississippi Street N.E. , Fridley, Minnesota Dear Mr. Carson: I have discussed your letter of February 22, 1983, concerning payment problems you are having with the lease as per our agreement, with Virgil Herrick, attorney for the Housing & Redevelopment Authority. He has advised me that payment of $2500 will be necessary by March 11 , 1983 with the remainder due on April 1 , 1983 in order us to continue to lease this property to you. We understand the problems that you are encountering in starting up a new business, however, we cannot continue to overlook the lack of lease payments on this property. Failure to meet this schedule will force us to take necessary legal action. Please advise me of your intentions with a copy to Virgil Herrick, Esq. , 6279 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley, MN 55432. • Sincerely, JERROLD ARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority JLB/de cc: Virgil Herrick C-83-19 Northern States Power Company North Division 4501 68th Avenue North Brooklyn Center,Minnesota 55429 Telephone(612)566-9120 March 2 , 1983 Mr. Jerrold Boardman Engineering/Director of Planning City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 Re : Undergrounding Facilities/5th Street N.E. Dear Mr. Boardman : I have reviewed in consort with our Service Policy Department NSP' s policy concerning the undergrounding of main feeder lines in urban renewal areas. We have determined that the Company will place underground at its expense only that portion of its overhead facilities (excluding distribution and service laterals) which distribute power from main feeder lines to serve new and existing buildings within the renewal area. Main feeder lines which pass through an urban renewal area and serve other areas will be undergrounded only if the re- questing party arranges to pay the undergrounding cost. The main reasons for this limitation on underground are that main feeder lines, as well as sub-transmission and transmission lines, which may pass through an urban renewal area do not serve exclusively the renewal area and are also more costly to underground. If the main feeder line that exists on the west side of 5th Street N.E. , is to be placed underground rather than relocated overhead to clear the proposed street widening, the additional costs of underground will have to be borne by the city. We have made a cost comparision and have determined the additional cost of installing underground versus relocation of overhead for the portion of the existing main feeder line on 5th Street N.E. , from Mississippi Street to 63rd Avenue N.E. , to be $48 ,630. 00. If the city agrees to pay the additional cost, we will prepare an agreement and proceed with the underground plan. Mr. Jerrold Boardman March 2 , 1983 Page Two • -At the last meeting the possibility of rerouting the main feeder overhead through another area was discussed. After studying this option we find that a practical way of ac- complishing this does not exist. The cost of such re- routing would equal or exceed the undergrounding cost. If you have any further questions regarding our policy on this matter, please contact Warren Johnson on 566-9120. Sincerely, .0J gel 6git4+ 1_Y 21J$J W.W. Eldridge General Manager North Division cc: W. Johnson L. Benson J. Kosik 44.47 Northern States Power Company MIP North Division 4501 68th Avenue North Brooklyn Center,Minnesota 55429 Friday, August 20, 1982 Telephone(612)561-7200 • Mr. Jerrold Boardman Engineer/Director of Planning City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N. E. Fridley, Minnesota 55421 Dear Jerry, In regards to your inquiry regarding charges for the replacement of overhead with underground facilities in an urban renewal area, I wish to submit the following. In an urban renewal area wherein 75% of the buildings are being demolished and undergrounding of electric lines are required by the urban renewal plan, NSP will at its own expense replace its overhead system with a standard underground system excluding underground distribution lateral and underground service laterals to individual customers. Each customer will be subject to charges, on an individual project basis, for the permanent installation of the necessary underground distribution for facilities in excess of those normally provided, or where construction costs exceed that covered by future estimated revenues. Therefore if revenues are adequate and there are no excess facilities, there will be no charges for underground service. In addition to the above charges, if any, the customer shall pay all additional installation costs incurred by NSP because of (a ) delays caused by customer; (b) ground conditions, such as frozen soil , and rock conditions that impair the installation of facilities; (c ) paving of streets, alleys or other area prior to the installation of underground facilities. Customer may also be required to provide an underground conduit system when required by soil or construction conditions. NSP will not remove its existing overhead service to an undemolished building until after a period of time reasonably adequate for the customer to make the necessary alternations in his electrical facilities to accept underground service. I trust this provides you with the information you are seeking. Sincerely, tect/t/wn 012 Warren R. Johnson' Staff Assistant North Division WRJ/kf r MOORE LAKE DISTRICT PEPIN, DAYTON, HERMAN, GRAHAM & GETTS CHARLES K.DAYTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW RICHARD G. PEPIN,JR. JOHN H. HERMAN 930 LUMBER EXCHANGE KATHLEEN M.GRAHAM TEN SOUTH FIFTH STREET. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 16121339-7633 PHILIP N.GETTS JAMES A.PAYNE JOHN C. KUEHN BRADLEY J.GILLAN. CAROLYN CHALMERS MENTOR C."DUKEADDICKS.JR. JONATHAN L.EISENBERG March 1, 1983 MARYBETH DORN ROSEMARY HANSEN Mr. Jerrold Boardman Executive Director Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Our File No. 1892-02 Dear Mr. Boardman: We represent Mr. and Mrs. Dan Nelson and have met with most of the other persons who reside between Central Avenue and Moore Lake within the Moore Lake Redevelopment District. I have drafted a Petition on their behalf requesting the exclusion of all of the residential property located between Central Avenue and Moore Lake located within both the Moore Lake Redevelopment District and the Moore Lake Tax Increment District. I expect this Petition to be signed and forwarded to you next week, together with the Petitions of other neighbors supporting the Petition of the persons residing in the districts. I understand from our telephone conversation of today that you will be placing this request for exclusion from the districts on the HRA' s agenda for March 10th, as an information item only. I further understand that the HRA may direct you to prepare a staff report and recommendation on this issue for discussion and that there will be a decision made on the Petition at a later meeting of the HRA. . I will not be present at the March 10th meeting but expect one of the Petitioners to be there to monitor the meeting. I would like to meet with you to review the original formation of these districts and discuss my clients' concerns, and will be calling for an appointment in advance of the March 10th meeting. Please let me know if I can provide any additional in- formation. Sincer ly our e,dez Mentor C. "Duke" Addicks , Jr. MCA/lme cc: Mr. and Mrs. Dan Nelson TME CITY OF I - -" "" 7:12 HOUSING ,,,, and 7 .,. € •• (t; REDEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM iii .1i AUTHORITY ,'' FRIDLEY • •• FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO NO. 83-17 DATE March 4, 1983 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT INFORMATION REQUESTED ON SOIL HRA Members COMPACTION TESTS FOR PROPERTY AT OLD CENTRAL & RICE CREED ROAD (ST. PHILLIPS, INC.) As was discussed at the February 17, 1983 HRA meeting, St. Phillips is interested in making application for 202 funds for a 60 unity elderly building. They feel that it will be imperative to have soil compaction tests on that property before they can submit the application. HUD has shown major concern with the site in last years application and may have turned it down based on unknown soil conditions. If the HRA wants to test the soil for compaction, it will cost between $1,500 and $2,000. The compaction tests will give an indication on whether the soil conditions are adequate for the proposed building. .TLB/jh FINANCIAL OTHER BUS I NESS TME CITY OF j --rjAili, HOUSING •••. -- 4p7 and %, I • .. REDEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM • .. ♦ ...W_ ." ::: AUTHORITY �'' H FRIDLEY .::m� •':: FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO NO.83-18 DATE March 4, 1983 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redevelopment Authority X Acquisition of 6385-6389 University Avenue N.E. (Tom Ryan - Owner Tom Wing - Tenant) Please see attached copies of correspondence that was sent to both Tom Ryan and Tom Wing on the acquisition of their property as noted above. Tom Wing, who has been working with our relocation consultant, has agreed to the fixture purchase and relocation costs as recommended by Jackie Wentworth. These items need the approval of the HRA for issuance of payment. He will be moving out of the property on March 5, 1983. We will start negotiation with Tom Ryan on March 14, 1983. Indications at this time looks like he will be requesting the HRA to take necessary condemnation action. However, his attorney has indicated that he may be willing to sign an agreement turning title over to the HRA similar to the two Hardel acquisitions. I will inform you of any action necessary after our March 14th negotiation. JLB/de MND D.41 L6EE0 's'y • Stu. #Desionf — Ma CN J, 1483 CJ 5:30-em . THE CITY OP .--/ / HOUSING . i ariff •nd VA REDEVELOPMENT `` AUTHORITY •••;•:-7 .�� : iii FFaiDLEY March 1, 1983 Tom Ryan 6389 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 RE: Purchase of Your Property Legally Described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 4, Ree's Addition to Fridley Park, generally addressed as 6385-6389 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Mr. Ryan: The Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority, as part of the Center City Redev- elopment Project, has authorized the acquisition of your property as described above. We have had the property appraised by a competent and unbiased fee appraiser and have found the report well supported by a competent appraisal analyst. Based on the apprisal , the Housing Authority hereby makes you a firm offer in the amount of $113,000 for real estate and $24,117 for fixture purchase. This offer is the fair market value of your property and reflects no relocation or moving costs which you may be entitled to receive under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. This offer is contingent upon HUD release of Community Development Block Grant Funds which is expected on or about March 2, 1983. We feel that the above offer is most equitable and we urge your favorable consider- ation in acceptance of it. If this meets with your approval , we will prepare an act of sale and will assist in any way convenient to you in finalizing the acquisition. Negotiations for the purchase of your property are scheduled to begin on March 4, 1983 at 2:30 p.m. Again, any negotiated purchase is dependent upon release of CDBG funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thank you very much for your cooperation and your favorable consideration of this offer. S' rely, PXY00,--f ERROLD L. BOARDMAN Executive Director(/;;; f Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority JLB/de cc: Virgil Herrick Other Attachments: Statement of Just Compensation C-83-10 STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION Description and Location of Property 'rhe City of Fridley proposes to purchase land and improvements at 6385-6389 University Avenue N.E. (Lots 12-14, Block 4, Ree's Addition to Fridley Park) from owner Tom Ryan. It is a commercial unit which conforms to zoning, present use, surrounding land use, and area trends. Purpose of Purchase The City of Fridley intends to use the whole parcel for the construction of a clinic as part of the Center City Redevelopment District Description of Improvements The subject property is a one-story block building used as an automotive repair garage. The building is sectioned off in two parts; a repair garage, and a battery retailer. The subject was originally built as a service station in 1956. In 1963, 2,000 sq. ft. of area was added to the building. Again in 1972 and 1976, additions to the building were made. During this period, the gas pumps were removed, making the subject exclusively a service garage. The office was remodeled in 1976. Size: 4,013 sq.ft. Age: Original 1956 Ceiling Height: Garage - 12 ft. Battery Retail - 17 ft. Exterior: Concrete block bearing walls with either a stucco or brick facade. A 3 ft. high metal parapet trims the building out. Roof: The roof covering is built-up felt and asphalt. In the garage, the roof joists are made of wood, while in the retail area the joists are steel. Doors: 6 overhead doors; 4 in the auto garage and 2 in the retail area. Only one of the retail area overhead doors is in service. Pedestrian entry doors are aluminum and glass. -1- Description of Improvement (Continued) • • Windows: Glass in overhead doors, glass block in rear of building and 4 horizontal windows in office. • Interior: Office in garage is nicely finished with panelled walls, dropped acous- ' tical tile, abestos floor tile and work counter. There is no office finish in retail area. The garage area and retail battery shop are unfinished with concrete floors, painted block walls , and fluorescent lighting. Beating, Ventilating i Air Conditioning: Office in garage is air conditioned with window style unit, the remain- der of the building has no air con- ditioning. Beating is provided in garage and retail area by ceiling hung, gas- fired forced air units. Plumbing: Copper supply lines with cast iron waste lines. Two bathrooms in garage, none in retail area. Water cooler and additional supply outlets in building. Special waste collection system. Electricity: Separate 200 amp service panels for both units; incandescent and fluorescent lighting for building with connections for outdoor light- ing. Special Features: Mezzanine in retail area, alignment pit in service garage; unlawfull entry detection unit; gasoline storage tank. Land Improvements: Extensive exterior landscaping, 11,200 sq.ft. of bituminous paving. -2- Delaration of Offer Based on the appraisals, the City of Fridley hereby makes you an offer in the amount of $120,000.00 for the purchase of your property. This offer is for the fair market value of your ;property and does not include any consideration of decrease or increase in value attributable to the project for which it is being acquired. It reflects no relocation payments which the owner/tenant may be intitled to receive under the Department of Housing and Urban Development Regulations. • Definition of Fair Market Value "Fair Market Value is the highest price estimated in terms of money which the property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market, allowing a reasonable time in which to find a purchaser buying with knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used. " Appraisal Techniques Three major techniques, cost approach, income approach and market data approach, were utilized to determine the fair market value of this property. Cost Approach to Value The Cost Approach is predicated on the principle of substitu- tion which holds that an informed purchaser will pay no more for a property than the cost of acquiring or constructing a substitute property with the same utility. The Cost Approach to Value entails two elements, namely the site value plus the improvements value. The site value is usually estimated by direct comparison with other similar land in the neighborhood which has sold recently. The improvements value is derived from estimated replacement cost new less accrued depreciation. This replacement cost reflects current labor and material prices and assumes normal contractor's overhead and profit. Our estimate of replacement cost is based on published con- 'struction cost data adjusted for local and current factors. According to the Marshall Valuation Service, the replacement cost of the subject building is about $28.00 per sq.ft. , ex- clusive of yard improvements. _ In this appraisal, accrued depreciation has been estimated by the age/life method whereby the effective age of the building is related to its economic life. The resulting fraction is a measure of physical depreciation. -3- • Cost Approach to Value (Continued) Remaining economic life of the subject building is estimated at 20 years. No functional or economic depreciation was ob- served. The subject property was built in 1956 as a two-stall service station. In 1963, 2,000 sq.ft. of space was added to the original building. Again in 1972 and 1976 additions were made to the structure. It was during this period that the pumps here removed and the building became solely a service garage and retail outlet. Lastly, in 1979 the office was remodeled to its present condition. • Overall, the average age of the subject is 15 years. Since the normal economic life of a service garage is 35 years , and the remaining economic life is 20 years, accrued depreciation is then estimated at 15 years s 35 years, or 43%. Details of our Cost Approach calculations are as follows : Estimated Replacement Cost: 4, 013 Sq.Ft. x $28.00 Per Sq.Ft. $112,364.00 Less: Accrued Depreciation Effective Age = 15 years = 43% 48,316.00 Economic Life 35 years Depreciated Value of Improvements $ 64,048.00 Yard Improvements: Base i Blacktop: 11,200 Sq.Ft. x $.60/Sq.Ft. - $ 6,720.00 Concrete Curbing: • 200 Lin.Ft. x $9.00/Lin.Ft. • 1,800.00 Landscaping = '5,000.00 $13,520.00 Less: Accrued Depreciation Observed @ 20% 2,700.00 Depreciated Value of Yard Improvements 10 ,820.00 Value of All Improvements $ 81,491.00 Add: Land Value 41,500.00 Market Value Indicated By Cost Approach to Value $ 116,363.00 Rounded To $ 116,000.00 -4- Income Approach to Value The Income Approach to Value is predicated on the real estate principle of "anticipation" which holds that value is created by the anticipation of future benefits, or that value may be defined as the present worth of all rights to future bene- fits. •. In the Income Approach to Value the appraiser considers the subject property in the light of the net income it is capable • of producing and has capitalized this net income in accordance with prevailing returns of property investments of comparable risk in order to obtain an indication of the property's value. In order to properly estimate the net income that would be attributable to the subject property, the appraiser must con- sider the gross and/or net incomes available by comparable leases. The probable expenses incurred for ownership and operation of the property must also be considered as well as an appropriate capitalization rate to be applied to the re- sulting net income. Our investigation of the rental market indicates that service garages most often rent on a total net basis. Net rent as- sumes that the tenant pays all expenses except major struc- tural. Currently the property owner rents 1,640 sq. ft. to Discount Batteries at a rate of $4.40 per sq.ft. , including property taxes and insurance, but not utilities. This rent when calculated on an equivalent net basis would convert to $3.50 per sq.ft. From our investigation of competitive rents , we believe that the market rate rent for the subject property is in the $3.75 per sq. ft. to $3.90 per sq. ft. range. We will use $3. 80 per sq. ft. as our market rental rate. In the Income Approach, we observed the property from the in- vestment perspective and have estimated the potential net in- come to the perspective buyer. From potential rental income, deductions were made for vacancies and property management. We estimate the vacancy factor for the subject to be 5% and a normal management fee at 4%. Our estimate of net income for this property is as follows: Estimated Potential Net Rental $1T,249.00 Less: Vacancy Allowance, 5% 762.00 Effective Net Income $14,486.00 Less: Management Fee, 4% 579.00 Net Operating Income $13,907.00 -5- • Income Approach to Value (Continued) Capitalization Rate • Because of the inactive real estate market and high interest rates in the last two years, we have very few sales of income properties from which capitalization rates could be derived. During this same period, characterized by inflation, market sales data reflected capitalization rates ranging from 9% to • )214 in anticipation of increased property values at the end bf the investment period. It would not be appropriate to use cap rates from that period in today's economy where in- terest rates are falling and inflation is under 5 ,percent. The most reliable indication of capitalization rates appear in the "Investment Bulletin" published by the American Council of Life Insurance. This report covers mortgage commitments on real estate income properties made by 20 life insurance companies. In the third quarter of 1982, commitments were 'made on 21 industrial warehouses and 3 other industrial prop- erties. As shown on the following "Table L" , interest rates averaged 15.27% and 14.5014. Capitalization rates were 11. 8% and 9. 81 with terms of seven and nine years. It was reported that almost all loans include some type of income participa- tion in addition to interest. The average capitalization rate for all properties listed in the report was 12.0%. In our opinion, the capitalization rate for the subject prop- erty should be one or two percentage points higher than that of the new developments for which mortgage funds were recently committed. This would reflect the additional risks inherent in older and specialized properties. Therefore, we belief that the appropriate capitalization rate in this case would be 13.5%. Using a capitalization rate of 13.5%, we estimate the market value of the subject as follows: Net Income = Cap. Rate Value $13,907.00 .135 $103,014.00 Indicated Value By Income Approach - Rounded To $105,000.00 -6- Direct Sales Comparison Approach The Market Data Approach to Value, also known as the Direct Sales Comparison Approach, is based on the proposition that an informed purchaser will pay no more for a property than the cost to him of acquiring an existing substitute property with the same utility. ` This approach is particularly reliable where there is an ac- tive market in similar properties. • In the Market Approach, the appraiser investigates actual re- cent sales of similar properties and then makes direct com- parisons with the subject. The unit of comparison commonly used by purchasers of service garagessis the price per sq. ft. of useable floor area. We have researched the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area for sales of service garages of size and useage similar to the subject. On the following pages are details of seven sales of service garage properties. In order to minimize the impact of variations in size, loca- tion, and value of the sites underlying the comparable sale properties, the appraiser has abstracted an estimated land value from each sale price. The remainder, reflecting improve- ment value only, is related to useable floor area of each building to allow direct comparison with the subiect. Improved Sales Adjustments, • Excluding Land (Adjustments in Percent) Odle Price Secluding Land !Ls Osssp Adjusted Coop. Odle Per $q.It. Of Age I 6 Mot Value Mo. Location Oats Of Floor Area bale Condition Otility 611.:, Per Sq.►t., 1 New brighten. 0/S2 629.62 1.00 .10 .OS .77 022.01 Minnesota 2 Mev brightos. 4/02 $20.00 1.00 1.0S .00 .00 $10.00 Minnesota 3 Osseo. 2/02 $10.62 1.90 .94 1.00 .00 $14.07 MlneesOtd 4 St. Paul. 1/01 $20.62 1.00 .OS 1.00 .6S 017.11 Minnesota $ Sopkins. 2/00 $21.01 1.00 1.00 .10 .00 010.67 Minnesota 6 Moundsviev. 7/00 $17.02 1.00 1.00 .OS .OS 614.47 MLMeuOta 7 Minneapolis. 11/71 $21.21 1.00 • .10 1.01 .11 $20.11 Minnesota Neo $10.21 On the above chart we have shown our price adjustments for time of sale, age and physical differences between the com- parables and the subject. -7- • Direct Sales Comparison Approach (Continued) Time adjustments are based on appreciation of 6% per Year in 1979 and 1960, none thereafter. Adjustments for age and physical differences are based on the appraiser's judgement with consideration given to the age/life measure of depre- ciation and the cost the these items. Useage and utility adjustment are based on the difference in construction cost between service stations and service garages. Also, the ad- . justment measures differences between the land to building ratio of the subject and comparables. We are of the opinion that most weight should be given to those comparables which are auto repair shops and which have a land to building ratio similar to the subject, namely comparables #2, #4 and #5. • We estimate that the market value of the subject property, exclusive of land, is $18.00 per sq.ft. Total value is calculated as follows: 4 , 013 sq. ft. x $18.00 per sq.ft. $ 72,234.00 Add: Land Value 41,500.00 Total Value Indicated By Direct Sales Comparison Approach $113,734.00 Rounded To $113,000.00 -8- RECONCILIATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE The three approaches to value, all based on market data, give the following indications of market value. Cost Approach $116,000.00 Income Approach $105,000.00 ' • Direct Sales Comparison Approach $113,000.00 The indications of value fall within a reasonable range, and any price therein could be justified. The Cost Approach estimated the replacement cost of the improvements less accrued depreciation. Since the subject was built in stages, was adapted for new uses over time, and is an older property, the analysis involves considerable subjective opinion. This fact diminishes the value of the Cost Approach as a value estimator. The Income Approach tends to show investment value and is primarily concerned with the quality, quantity and durability of the property income stream. The capitalization rate for income property reflects the risks of ownership and the benefits of tax shelter. This approach is most ap- plicable when valuing income producing properties. Since the subject is primarily used as owner/occupied garage, the Income Appraoch is best used as supporting documentation rather than the prime value estimator. The Direct Sales Comparison Approach has sufficient sales date to give a strong indication of market value. The date is reliable and the con- clusion is supported by the Cost and Income Approaches. Based on the foregoing date and analysis, we believe that as of January 15, 1983, the estimated market value indicated for the subject real estate is $113,000.00 This is exclusive of all equipment utilized by two tenants of the subject property. Market Value allocated as follows: Land $ 41,500.00 Improvements 71,500.00 Total $113,000.00 ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FEEHOLDER PROPERTY - 6385 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. . riP • 82230F COST OP PER CENT PRESENT r ITEM ANO DESC I�IpN REPLACEMENT DEPR. VALUE ` FEEHOLDER PROPERTY ' Immovable Fixtures Retail & Shop Item 01 1 25' long z 12" wide x 4" deep - concrete floor trench v/angle iron edging & steel grate cover 1,750. 20 1,400. 02 1 Approx. 18" dia. wall exhaust fan v/auto louvers, cord & plug 260. 35 169. Outside /3 1 Roof mtd. single face illuminated metal box sign, 2'x16' v/plastic face, steel supports, PFW, timer, etc. 2,315. 40 1,389. Note: Painted copy on sign is property of tenant. 04 1 Post mtd. sign cs/o: 1 - 5'x3' double face illuminated metal box sign v/2 - plastic faces 1 - 6"x6"x approx. 12' high steel H-col. type post on 2' dia. x 2'6" high concrete base 1 - quartz iodine post mtd. floodlight 1 - lot PFW, timer, etc. 2,610. 50 1,305. Note: Painted copy on sign is property of tenant Total Feeholder Property - Immovable Fixtures 6,935. 4,263. Process Utilities Retail & Shop f5 • - 2 Leviton 220V power outlets w/PFW 60. 120. 10 108. Total Feeholder Property - Process Utilities 120. 108. PATCHIN APPRAISALS. INC. FEEHOLDER PROPERTY - 6389 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. . ITEM ANO DESCRIPTION, COST OF PER CENT PR REPLACEMENT DEPR. VALUE C FEEHOLDER PROPERTY Immovable Fixtures Office Item #1 1 Fedders 7,000 BTU sleeve type • air conditioner 500. 20 400. Shop #2 1 560 gal. under floor steel waste oil tank incl. piping 1,400. 25 1,050. #3 1 10' x13' x2'5" deep wheel alignment pit cs/o: 37 - sq.ft. 12" ptd. conc. block retaining walls 115 - sq.ft. assumed 8" ptd. conc. block retaining walls 146 - sq.ft. conc. slab on ground C624 - cu.ft. excay. i backfill 2 - 2' wide open wood stairways w/2 - treads 1 - floor drain system cs/o: pipe and barrel 1,715. 35 1,115. #4 1 2'9" x4'2" wall mtd. ptd. metal pegboard tool rack 40. 40 40. #5 2 19"x 8'7"x 3' high steel angle iron frame wall mtd. workbench w/3 - legs, angle iron top frame and loose 2" wood top deck 180. 360. 35 234. #6 3 Wayne 8,0001 cap. single post hydraulic automobile hoists incl. piping, controls, etc. 3,500. 10,500. 30 7,350. #7 1 2 r5"s 6' x2'10" high steel workbench w/1 - undershelf and cutout for pilaster 250. 40 150. PATCHIN APPRAISALS. INC. -5- COST OF PER CENT PRESENT ITEM AND DESCRIPTION REPLACEMENT DEPR. VANE C FEEHOLDER PROPERTY Immovable Fixtures • Shop 08 1 iTl" wide x 11'10" long col. and wall mtd. workbench cs/o: 1 - 2"x13" wood base member, 1"x6" wood back panel, 2 - angle iron end supports 130. 50 65. 09 1 13"x6"x2'10" high wall .td. ptd. wood shelf unit w/6 - shelves 75. 35 49. #10 1 Irregular shaped wall mtd. shelf 13"x29" overall cs/o: 2" wood shelf, wood and metal supports 40. 50 20. 011 1 1'9"x10" wall mtd. wood shelf. C w/ptd. 2" TO wood shelf, 2 - metal L-brackets 35. 50 18. #12 1 10"x31"x2'8" high wall mtd. ptd. wood storage cabinet v/2 doors 80. 60 32. #13 1 Irregular shaped wood frame corner shelf for water heater, 3'x3' overall cs/o: plywood deck and ptd. wood wall supports 165. 45 91. #14 1 4x2'9" wall mtd. ptd. metal pegboard tool rack w/7"x4' metal shelf 60. 40 36. #15 1 L-shaped shelf unit l'x7'4" and 1'x8'x6'5" hi w/6 - 5/8" ptd. plywood shelves and 1" ptd. wood supports • 365. 35 237. PATCHIN APPRAISALS. INC. -6- COST OF PER CENT PRESENT ITEM AND DESCRIPTION( REPLACEMENT DEPR. C FEEHOLDER PROPERTY Immovable Fixtures Shop #16 1 4'x7'4" wall mtd. wood shelf cs/o: 2" wood supports and plywood deck 90. 30 63. • #17 1 2 6"x7'4" wall mtd. wood shelf cs/o: 2" wood supports and plywood deck 55. 30 39. Outside #18 1 Soffit hung illuminated single face sign l'6"x10" cs/o: ptd. mtd. box housing, steel supports, plastic face w/plastic letters reading C BEAR ALIGNMENT 6 BALANCING Incl. PFW, timer, etc. 1,425. 35 926. #19 1 Lot wall mtd. plastic letters reading DR. RYAN'S AUTOMOTIVE CLINIC cs/o: 4 - 24" high plastic letters 19 - 18" high plastic letters 1,270. 20 1,016. #20 1 Wall mtd. assumed 5'x4' single face illuminated box sign with plastic face reading DEPENDABLE CHAMPION SPARK PLUGS DR. RYAN'S AUTO CLINIC Incl. PFW, timer, etc. 1,510. 25 1,133. #21 1 11"x8'x2" wall mtd. sign with grooved letters reading DR. TOM RYAN 250. 25 188. PATCMIN APPRAISAL&. INC. —7— COST OP PERCENT PRESENT )TEM AND DESCRIPTION( REPLACEMENT DEPR. VALUE C FEEHOLDER PROPERTY Immovable Fixtures • • Outside 022 1 3'x3'x3/4" ptd. wall mtd. plywood sign reading OFFICIAL HEADLIGHT AII^IING STATION 85. 25 64. 023 1 L-shaped metal fence around dumpsters cs/o: 20 - lin.ft. 4'4" high ptd. corr. metal fence w/steel posts 500. 35 325. 024 2 5,000 gal. underground steel gas storage tanks v/submersible pump, piping, PFW, etc. 4,775. 9,550. 65 3,343. Total Feeholder Property - Immovable Fixtures 30,450. 17,968. CProcess Utilities Throughout 025 1 Lot of air pipe throughout building cs/o: 76 - lin.ft. 5/8" O.D. soft copper tubing 8 - 5/8" flared ftgs. 95 - lin.ft. g.i. pipe 37 - ftgs. 2 - l" valves 49 - lin.ft. l" O.D. soft copper tubing 4 - l" flared ftgs. 27 - lin.ft. 3/8" black steel pipe 11 - 3/8" ftgs. 1 - lot misc. rbr. hoses 1.270. 35 826. Shop 026 1 Lot lubrication piping cs/o: 30 - lin.ft. 5/8" O.D. soft (continued) PATCHIN APPRAISALS. INC. -8- 1 . COST OF PER CENT PRESENT )TEM AND DESCRIPTION, REPLACEMENT OEPR. VA_L_J_ C FEEHOLDER PROPERTY Process Utilities • Shop 126 (continued) copper tubing 2 - 5/8" flared ftgs. 30 - lin.ft. l" black steel pipe 5 - l" ftgs. 280. 30 196. 127 1 Sanitary dump station for motor homes cs/o: 15 - lin.ft. 4" PVC pipe to sanitary sewer line 1 - 4" expansion type cap 270. 15 230. 128 1 Power outlet for motor home battery charging 60. 15 51. C 129 1 Paulding 220V power outlet for arc welder incl. PFW 130. 20 104. 030 1 220V power outlet for Bear wheel balancer incl. PFW 80. 10 72. 031 1 Lot electrical for air compressor cs/o: 1 - Bulldog 30A sf/sw. , Cat. 0JN-321 1 - C.H. magnetic starter v/reset button 1 - lot greenfield PFW, incl. jct. box 1 - plywood mtg. panel 460. 35 299. Total Feeholder Property - Process Utilities 2,550. 1,778. Movable Equipment Office 132 1 Carpeted wood counter w/lam. plastic top PATCNIN APPRAISALS. *C. -9- -- - -- — TFwe CITY of HOUSING 4ird tend � E :: REDEVELOPMENT .. AUTHORITY .. FRIDLEY Mares Z, 19113 SdRran Dr. Iyans Automotive Clinic 6389 University Avenue N.E. Prridley, Mei 551e2 Subject: Notice of Ddaplaoeae13t - Fridley Center City Project Dear W. 1/1113: On March 4, 1983, the Fridley Aouairg and Redevelopment Authority gave the you a written offer to buy the buildirg which you am and occupy at 6389 Odveraity frame I.E. The building is a site of Fridley Center City Project. This is a NOTICE CF I:asuLN*7JT. In order that we an carry out ar plans to develop the Fridley Center City . Project, it will be necessary ttr you to move sometime in the Mutase. Ramer, TOO DO NOT NEED TO MOVE N . When you do move, you will be entitled to relocation payments and other assistance in accordance with regulations of the Federal Department at Irsirg and Urban Development (®). The effective date of this Notice is March 4, 1983. As an occupant of the property, you are eligible to receive a meant ttr the actual res arable coat of moving as well as a a relocation p qm nt. If you want, you lay elect to receive a tined payment for actual moving axes. Previously a bro hue was given to you titled, "Relocation Aseietanoe to Displaced Aomea+rers. Please read the brcahre care?1tlly. It will help you to determine `Bich of these marts is ant advantageous to you. She Reloation Consultant will cortant you to determine your needs and preferenoea and to help you find and relocate to a suitable replacement location. She will explain your rights and will help you obtain the relocation permits std other assistance Milch are rightfully yawns. Tt you have any Questions, please cell Jaoquejyne Wentworth, reloatioo aoaeultant with Von Aug & Associated, Dc. She an be reached at 929-559T or 4725 Reoelsicr Boulevard, Spite 401, Minneapolis, MI 55416. We are are that Pb. Wentworth an answer your questions. , 0(kelemc—Z L lbardrmn • Ptaroutive Ddrectar 3/0/2V4 C-83-11 TM_r_E CITY OF HOUSING '. J 111 ,Anow.1111111r and ' •• • VII' REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FRIDLEY .., ••c -- March 2, 1983 Tom Ryan 6389 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 RE: 90 Day Notice to Vacate Property Located at 6389 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley, MN Dear Mr. Ryan: The Housing & Redevelopment Authority has been involved in the purchase of your property since its initial notice of intent to purchase on June 15, 1982. The HRA, on March 1 , 1983, made an offer on your property with negotiation set for March 4, 1983. It is the intent of the Housing Authority to proceed on this acquisition within the time table as was discussed with your previously. Therefore, we hereby give Notice to Vacate. In order that we can carry out our plans to develop the Fridley Center City Project, it will be necessary for you to move in 90 days. When you do move, you will be entitled to relocation payments and other assistance in accordance with regulations of the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The effective date of this notice is the date on this letter and the vacation must take place no later than June 2, 1983. As an occupant of the property, you are eligible to receive a payment for the actual reasonable cost of moving as well as a relocation payment. If you want, you may elect to receive a fixed payment for actual moving costs. Previous, a brochure was given to you entitled, "Relocation Assistance to Displaced Businesses, Non-Profit Organizations and Forms". Please read this brochure carefully. It will help you determine which of these payments is most advantageous to you. The Relocation Consultant has contacted you to determine your needs and preferences and to help you find and relocate to a suitable replacement location. She has explained your rights and will help you obtain the relocation payments and other assistance which are rightfully yours. If you have any questions, please call Jacquelyne Wentworth, relocation consultant with Von Klug & Associates, Inc. She can be reached at 989-5597 or 4725 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 401, Minneapolis, MN 55416. We are sure that Ms. Wentworth can answer your questions. nc rely, KL—J.1- ERROLD L. BOARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority JLB/de C-83-13 ?Ng CITY OP 713HOUSING E EE and ' fr(NREDEVELOPMENT 4AUTHORITY 1` FRIDLEY • ...,.. ..a March 2, 1983 Tom Wing 6385 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Purchase of Immovable Fixtures - Tenant Property at the property, Legally described as Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 4, Ree's Addition to Fridley Park, generally addressed as 6385 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Mr. Wing: The Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority, as part of the Center City Redevelopment Project, has authorized the acquisition of your Immovable Fixtures - Tenant Property, as described above. We have had the property appraised by a competent and unbiased fee appraiser and have found the report well supported by a competent appraisal analyst. Based on the appraisal, the Housing Authority hereby makes you a firm offer in the amount of $2,695 for fixture purchase. This offer is the fair market value of your property and reflects no relocation or moving costs which you may be entitled to receive under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. This offer is contingent upon HUD release of Community Development Block Grant Funds which is expected on or about March 2, 1983. We feel that the above offer is most equitable and we urge your favorable consideration in acceptance of it. If this meets with your approval, we will prepare an act of sale and will assist in any way convenient to you in finalizing the acquisition. Negotiations for the purchase of your property are scheduled to begin on March 4, 1933 at 2:30 p.m. Again, any negotiated purchase is dependent upon release of CDBG funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thank you very much for your cooperation and your favorable consideration of this offer. Si erely, ERROLD L. BOARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Houisng & Redevelopment Authority JLB/de cc: Virgil Herrick Other Attachments: Statement of Just Compensation C-83-18 STATEMENT OF THE BASIS POR THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION • Description and Location of Property The City of Fridley proposes to purchase land and improvements • at 6385-6389 University Avenue B.!. (Lots 12-14, .Block 4, Ree's Addition to Fridley Park) from owner Tom Ryan. It is • commercial unit which conforms to Boning, present use, surrounding land use, and area trends. Purpose of Purchase The City of Fridley intends to use the whole parcel for the construction of a clinic as part of the Center City Redevelopment District Description of Improvements TENANT PROPERTY Leasehold Improvements (To be appraised by the real estate appraiser) None Immovable Fixtures Retail 6 Shop 06 1 24' long x 8' high wood frame divider wall v/plywood paneling and ptd. backside 575. 5 546. /7 1 Ptd. battery sign on south wall 300. 5 285. 08 1 8'x4' wall std. ptd. pegboard display rack 85. 5 81. /9 1 Double plastic laundry tub on legs, incl. supply 6 waste rough-in, 19"x20"x15" deep cos- partsents 280. 40 168. Outside #10 1 Lot signage on building front ca/o: ptd. window signs 6 wood signs v/copy; illuminated sign faces have been stripped 6 repainted v/new copy 1.700. 5 1,615. Total Tenant Property — • Immovable Fixtures 2.940. 2,695. Process Utilities None TFie CITY OF , -7:Jo__ HOUSING • E and f( 11/11111 REDEVELOPMENT •• . i AUTHORITY 6 FRIDLEY -• Pints 2, 1983 Its Virg 63$ thiveraity berme M.E. Fridley. MN 55432 Stdject: Netioe of Displacement - Fridley Meter City Project Deer P . Virg: On March 4, 1983, the Fridley Itusirg and Aedevelcpment Aufha-ity gave the weer a written offer to buy the building which you maw at 63$ University Avenue LE. The building is a site of Fridley Center City Project. This is a NOTICE OF DIMACMOTI. Ib order that we can awry cut or plane to develop the Fridley Center City P eject, it will be neoeeaary Ibr you to wove aometime in the !Mare. !braver, YOU DO NOT NEED TO MOVE NOW. Item you do eveyou will be entitled to relocation payments and other assistance in accordance with regulations of tie Federal Departient oC lbusirg and Urban Development (BUD). The effective date of this Notice is March 4, 1983. As an cc:crlent d the property, you are eligible to receive a payment for the actual reasonable cost of waving as well as a a relocation payment. If you want, you say elect to receive a fixed payment for actual waving amts. Previously a broohre was given to you titled, 'Relocation Aaeistarns to Displaced Rueowners. Please read the bro:hre carefully. It will Delp you to determine which of these payments is wet advan agecus to you. lhe Dalmatian Ocneultant has contacted you to determine yaw needs and preferences and to help you find and relocate to a suitable replacement location. She has explained your rifts and will help you obtain the relocation pm:ments and other asalstanoe ibich are rightfully yaws. If you have arbr Teatime, please cell Jacqueyne Weriberth, relocation ooneultaat with Von Rug & Associated, Dcc. She can be reached at 929.559T a' 4725 0melsior Boulevard, Suite 401, Minneapolis, MN 55416. We are are that Pb. Wentworth can arguer your Questions. 4.4,.../leildILL d L Bcardaan Eacutive Mnrctar 3/Q/2V4 C-103-12 A C 4725 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD/SUITE 401 CMINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 35416 (612)929-5567 DENVER AREA(303)431-5123 February 23, 1983 Jerrold L. Boardman Executive Director Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Subject: Business Relocation Claim Discount Batteries 6385 University Avenue NE Fridley Center City Project Dear Mr. Boardman: Transmitted herewith is the Business Relocation Claim for the captioned concern. We have assembled the accompanying documen- fl tation and believe it is in accordance with applicable regula- tions. Upon the City's approval of this claim, please make payment in the amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen Dollars and No Cents ($3616.00) to: Tom Wing Discount Batteries 7401 Central Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 If you have any questions regarding this relocation transaction, please contact me. Sincerely, Acrjyy-i. Jacquelyne Wentworth Relocation Consultant sl Enclosure I ■Ven kluo £ Acenriatoc_ Inr• Cner•ialietc in PoAovolnnrnvr.t P,Iii, Linn EXHIBITS 1) SUMMARY • L 2) CLAIM FOR ACTUAL MOVING COSTS AND RELATED EXPENSES - BUSINESSES, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND FARM OPERATIONS d 3) RELEASE OF PROPERTY 4) MEMORANDUM ON DIRECT MOVING COSTS 5) DOCUMENTATION OF DIRECT MOVING COSTS 6) MEMORANDUM ON REPLACEMENT SITE SEARCH 7) DOCUMENTATION OF SITE SEARCH COSTS 8) RECEIPT FOR INFORMATIONAL BOOKLET 9) CERTIFICATION OF EVALUATION 10) QUALIFICATIONS OF RELOCATION CONSULTANT i I I t 'Von Klug 6 Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation I SUMMARY I Mr. Tom Wing has operated Discount Batteries at 6385 University Avenue NE, site of the Fridley Center City Project since April of 1982. This new and used battery outlet remained at the above location until after the City of Fridley initiated negotiations to purchase the building. The business thereafter dispersed its personal property to its other stores within the Minneapolis Metropolitan Area. The move was completed on March 5, 1983. This submission documents and requests payment of Actual Moving and Related Expenses via the non-documented self-move provision of the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970. Also included in the claim booklet is a verification of the costs incurred in searching for a replacement site and reimbursement of same is mandated. It should be noted that the Fixed Payment In Lieu of Actual Moving Expenses was explored with this displaced concern; however, Dis- count Batteries does not fulfill the eligibility requirements for this payment by virtue of its ownership of several other stores involved in the same business. The following lists the costs identified in the present claim: Non-documented Self-move of Personal Property $3116. 00 Site Search Expenses 500.00 Total Entitlement At This Time $3616. 00 Von Rlug and Associates, Inc. recommends payment of $3616.00 be made available to Discount Batteries for this preliminary claim. A supplementary claim will be forthcoming which will cover the costs of telephone reconnection and reprinting of stationery rendered obsolete by the relocation of this firm. I i I I r I I Von Klug 6 Associates. Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation I - -Yr _ Fenn Approved OMB No.63•R1468 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR AGENCY-USE ONLY CLAIM FOR ACTUAL MOVING COSTS AND 'CASE NUMBER PROJECT NAME OR NUMBER RELATED EXPENSES—BUSINESSES,NONPROFIT Fridley Center City I ORGANIZATIONS,AND FARM OPERATIONS (HUD Regulations at 24 CFR Pan 42) NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY Fridley ERA, 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN 55432 INSTRUCTIONS: This dais form is for use In applying for a relocation PAYMENT FOR ACTUAL MOVING AND RELATED EXPENSES of is business, -6 I I non•prot t ogian)r tiara,or firm operation. Before filing, the claimant ahouid consult with the displacing agency to determine whether it would be to the claimant's athrintap to apply fora FIXED PAYMENT in lie of a payment for aetwl moving and related apply. *pate will explain the differsnc�es between these two types of payments,and the efipJjty requirements taMy. A representative ofi the displacing the documentation that is needed in support of the claim. If the hull amount of your darn is not approved,the displacing nwlprovideil also describe a written explanetion of the reesan. If e er will n. you with g you are not tetislred with the dihphhcing aggncys drterminetion,you may appeal that determination. The displacing I agency will explain how to make en appal. A general description of reimbursable costs is contained on pap 4 of this form. SECTION A—GENERAL DATA 1.NAME UNDER WHICH CLAIMANT CONDUCTS OPERATIONS 2.NAME.ADDRESS.AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON FILING CLAIM ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT il Discount Batteries Tan wing, 7401 Central Ave. NE, Fridley, 3A.ADDRESS FROM WHICH CLAIMANT MOVED NN 55432 (612) 780-4022 3B•DATE FIRST OCCUPIE 3C.DATE MOvE STARTED 6385 University Avenue NE 1 Fridley, 144 55432 - 4-1-82 3-5-83 4A.ADDRESS TO WHICH CLAIMANT MOVED 40.DATE MOVE i COMPLETED Articles dispersed to other outlets. 3-5-83 I S.TYPErPOF OPERATION(Check one/ 6.TYPE OF OWNERSHIP(Cheek one/ 7.IS THIS A FINAL CLAIM? L?�utimest 0 Farm operation 0 Sole proprietorship ['Corporation 7.1S Yes ®No SC's 0 Nonprofit organization 0 Partnership ❑Nolprofit (If'No,' ettech explanation) k7�.dh l) Orge nization I ITEM B. COMPUTATION OF PAYMENT AMOUNT FORAGENCY CLAIMED USE ONLY (1) Moving Expenses(From Section B) $ 3116.00 $ I (2) Storage Costs(From Section Cl — I (3) Reasonable Search Expenses(From Section 0) — 500.00 (4) Actual Direct Loss of Personal Property(From Section El — I (5) Cost of Substitute Personal Property(From Section F) — (6) Other(Attach explanation) I (7) TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED(Sum of Lines(1)thru(61) 3616.00 (8) Amount Previously Received(If Any) — (9) Amount Requested(Line(71 Minus Line(811 $ $ 3616.00 19. CERTIFICATION BY CLAIMANT(S) WARNING: If you knowingly or deliberately make false statements on this form,you may be subject to civil or criminal penalties under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.In addition you may not receive any of the amounts claimed on this form. I CERTIFY under the penalties and provisions of USC Title/8,Sections 286,287,and 1001,and any other applicable law,that this claim and inform..ton submitted have been examined by me and are true and complete. I further certify I have not submitted any other claim for,or received compensation Irom I any other source for any item of this claim,and that any receipts submitted with this claim accurately reflect costs incurred My choice of type of payment was made on the basis of a full explanation by the displacing agency representative of the differences between the two types of payments available and the digibilitY requi ars nt for well ' ..4,11.- �... 2-/�c,-$ 3 ISignaturels)of Caw s)ora �V Apra (Name and Tide(Tp or Kiva (Dar.) l( 10.TO BE COMPLETED BY AGENCY I PAYMENT ACTION AMOUNT OF PAYMENT SIGNATURE NAME(Type or Prim) DATE Recommended Sulm&lge went sssocia4rth, 3616.00ik.)0044,t 44447-140 VJan Ates, Inc. 2-23-83 IApproved i Previous Edition is Obsolete . Page 1 HUD-4004 19-79) • SECTION I—SUPPORTING DATA FOR MOVING EXPENSES Riot ldendflsd ht Secdons 8,C,Cl.and El (Hdaim k for'eff r►ow,"with no documsntadon,only Law 19)TOTAL COSTS needs as be completed) IDENTIFICATIONOP TYPE Ct Y R AMOUNT FOR AGENCY SMIRK NAME.ADORES{AMO TEL.EF14014E NO.OP CONTRACTOR 1 E CLAIMED Nr ONLY PERFORMED YIM • 111 self-move X $ 3116.00 $ 12) al 141 15, PEI 171 le) (91 TOTAL COSTS (Enter this*mount on Line(1)of/tem 8 hi Section A) $ 3116.00 S SECTION C—SUPPORTING DATA FOR STORAGE COSTS _- If THIS A FINAL CLAIM FOR STORAGE? 0 Ya 0 No WA COMPUTATION OF STORAGE COSTS DATE MOVED TO STORAGE DATE MOVED FROM STORAGE ITEM AMOUNT FOR AGENCY USE ONLY NAME AND ADDRESS OF STORAGE COMPANY Monthly Rite for Storage S Number of Months in Storage Total Storage Costs Rine t times Line 2 = _ • Enter on Line(V of lain A S.etlo1 Al SHOULD PAYMENT SE MADE DIRECTLY TO STORAGE COMPANY? Amount rs� %Y_Rofsc/t (i ❑Yes 0 No (�l DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY STORED(List may be.ttadmrd) SECTION D—DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE AMOUNT OF SEARCH EXPENSES AMOUNT FOR AGENCY ITEM CLAIMED USE ONLY NUMBER OF HOURS HOURLY RATE OF EARNINGS 1)Searchingrunty ( 58 ) x (f 10.00 ) $ 580.00 $ 2)Transportation(Consult with displacing agency on allowable rate per mile for use of personal which) 149.05 3) Lot7gitlS (;3asElr .Attadh Receipts) 4)Fees Paid to Real Estate Broker or Agent(Attach contact or other evidence) 5) Cost of Meals 6)Other Expenses(Specify and attach receipts) (7) TOTAL SEARCHING EXPENSES (Sum of Lines(7)tiro(6),not to exceed 3"3*Enter this amount on Line(3)of Item 8,in Section A) S 500.00 $ Pee 2 HUD-4004(9-79) ' 'moi 1 RELEASE OF PROPERTY This is to notify the City of Fridley, Minnesota, that I, Tom Wing, representing Discount Batteries, have vacated the property at 6385 University Avenue NE, Fridley, Minnesota, on , 1983. 1 jFor Discount Batteries I 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Von Klug g Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation I 1 MEMORANDUM • TO: Discount Batteries Business Relocation Claim FROM: Jacquelyne Wentworth 1 SUBJECT: Direct Moving Costs 11 Payment is permitted to displaced businesses under HUD reg- ulations for non-documented self-moves if two criteria are met. First, there must be a detailed inventory list of the items moved; and there must be estimates of the cost to conduct the move commercially. A sum may be negotiated between • the agency and the claimant for the self-move to the sum desig- 1111 for a commercial move. A complete listing of the personal property of Discount Batteries is attached. In addition, two moving companies, chosen by this concern, were contacted for estimates to transport these items to the replacement site. The figures, as shown below, include all activities pertaining to the movement of the property such as packing, unpacking, simple disconnecting, simple reconnecting, etc. A. Ballard Moving & Storage Co. $3116.00 Midwest Van & Storage $3125.00 I This particular business operator chose to undertake the move on his own; therefore the lowest bid of $3116.00 is appropriate for reimbursement of actual moving costs. This amount, which is verified by the enclosed estimates, appears to meet the reasonable and necessary standards of any relocation payment, and is therefore recommended for payment. No further documentation is needed. As previously stated, our recommended amount of compensation to Discount Batteries for a non-documented self-move is $3116.00. Von KIuo £ Associates. Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation • • 1 MOVING EXPENSE BID . Instructions This bid (original and one copy) must be mailed or otherwise presented to: the Von [lug & Associates, Inc., 4725 Excelsior Boulevard Su to 401 s minaTiFfir, , or the i opening time set in the moving specifications -based upon consultation with - the business concern or non-profit organisation. Name of lover A. Ballard Moving b Storage Co. - 23742 Permit No. Address 2020 W. Seventh St. At St.Paul, Mn. ' 690-1531 Telephone No._ This bid of moving expense is based upon asical inspection pection of the present and future premises of the claimant and upon an inventory and scope ,of work to be performed provided by the claimant. Name of Claimant Discount Battery Moving From 6385 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN Moving To Wayzata, Mn. Distance of Move Local Miles - or ! Blocks Claimant's Supervisors No. of People Hours Each Total Cost Claimant's Own Personnel No. of People Hours Each Total Cost Packing and Unpacking No. of People Hours Each Total Cost No. of Cartons Total Cost Cartage No. of People Hours Each _ Total Costs 1600.00 1upo. of Vans 6 Hours Each 8 Tota Cost 648.00 supervisor —T zbt.uU • No. of Loads 6 I • Insurance Coverage Cost Per Total Cost Explain Additional Services Dismantle signs b electrical disconnect and T reconnection of sign and battery chargers. . $600.00 Total Cost of Additional Services $ i Total Cost to Complete Move $ 53116.00- Date for which move is requested A.S.A.P. MOVERS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATION LOCATED ON TIE PROCEEDING PAGE. s Klug 6 Associates. Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation MOVING EXPENSE BID Instructions This bid (original and one copy) must be mailed or otherwise presented to: the Von Klug A Associates, Inc., 4725 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 401 Minneapolis, MN 55416 , for the bid opening time set in the moving specifications based upon consultation with the business concern or non-profit organization. I R C C 28391 Name of Mover MIDWEST VAN & STORAGE Permit No.L C C 169 Address 6400 CENTRAL AV NE, FRIDLEY, MN Telephone No.571 - 1211 This bid of moving expense is based upon a physical inspection of the present and future premises of the claimant and upon an inventory and scope of work to be performed provided by the claimant. Name of Claimant Discount Battery Moving From 6385 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN Moving To Distance of Move Local Miles - or Blocks Claimant's Supervisors No. of People Hours Each Total Cost Claimant's Own Personnel No. of People Hours Each Total Cost Packing and Unpacking No. of People_ Hours Each _a_ Total Cost 864 . 0G No. of Cartons_ Total Cost 700. 00 Cartage No. of People_ Hours Each 8 Total Cost 1 008 . 00 No. of Vans 2 Hours Each JAL. Total Cost 432 n(1 No. of Loads comes with Insurance Coverage Cost . 604 Per Lb Total Cost move Explain Additional Services pi„R,h;n0 Iasi d;. -+ „na connect _ Total Cost of Additional Services $ 121 . 00 Total Cost to Complete Move $ 3125 . 00 Date for which move is requested A.S.A.P. MOVERS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATION LOCATED ON THE PROCEEDING PAGE. laug 6 Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation • • CERTIFICATION Ire resect has the I, the undersigned, hereby state that the company P proper permits and authority to accomplish the wokviouslys uoutlined. I further state I have not been a party to any agreementperform ire for xhes bid and am tious mannerware that if all work previouslyis dis describedted forithell cost of in an expeditious $3125 . 00 • • CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, agree to perform the work described before - for an amount not to exceed $ 312. . 00 . I understand that this amount does not include the cost o new materials, for nstallationons oofr additions new equipment or fixtures, or for the making of any to personal or real property, except as specified herein or approved by the Agency and concurred in by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I further understand that the total for moving expenses may not exceed the bid. I certify under the penalties and aple rovi ions of the U.S.C. Title 18, Section 1001, and any en that the information submitted herewith has been examined by me and is true and correct. • � c 11 'Signature of Officer of Agent WILL HARRIS • - :Mae: 2-8 -8 3 I • MEMORANDUM • 11 TO: Discount Batteries • Business Relocation Claim FROM: Jacquelyne Wentworth SUBJECT: Replacement Site Search 1 HUD relocation regulations provide for reimbursement of actual reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business site, not to exceed $500.00. These costs may be associated with transportation, meals, lodging away from home, and the time actually spent in searching, whether i by the business or realty specialists. Payment for time is based on the person's reasonable hourly wage rate, with an allotment of $10.00 per hour commonly used for self-employed individuals without an established hourly rate. Tom Wing, the owner of Discount Batteries, submitted the attached document stating that he expended a total of fifty-eight hours in an endeavor to find an alternative location. Fifty-eight hours times the $10.00 hourly rate amounts to $580.00. Additionally, $149.50 worth of transportation costs was incurred by this dis- placed concern, based on 596.2 miles reimbursed at a rate of 25 cents per mile. Although the total verified charges total $729.05, Von Klug & Associates, Inc. is limited in its recommendation to the maximum allowable compensation of $500 for site search efforts. Therefore, we concur in the request made by Discount Batteries for reimburse- ment of $500 under this provision of the law. /on Klug 6 Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation ur,..........._ 40.4.0d4;di.pa- oeazatu:s) - !- 63,,s. il,ne:41e-cady- aze 1)6 (4,/4,) 57/— ..5-45/A3 E.a4-delie-e•--4 _...klaue.A4-4_____.4a, _xiaiwynet I - . —iluile;21.PlopeAe;, I9%D-62.120;2 _____ 411pLer2 M11,4) ; gOtk 4' 61i,d.a./L ai-i ieht7)21;24,03 I, au4211) ._o-vitio se JC i A A )1 _Eevri;eu i 6 •?. Iiijtv221/ 0 6/1J,‘4eetiaii4) ,441, __Wcipki44.2' /a . t. AL, eAt, id4ozz I AO o iqujithma-__i_eavii ag s so 6 e 4 laZitia_03420 datiP,iittiL &V1)_ .5" _____AO___ I 3(140 06,424.) I IgItI 77. Anc , StL)nid3) f 2 P ,41, 25 A.. 6 ILOwirrizindaltd ialet• d- Olot•__Qtz .34,-14 I *v.t1J._ q ipz.tA4L _ 41___ _5.04 5- 3 . tir aithit 441,/tY 115),a) _Arb V , MV ' Aeade,0_ &_ a4'__ — S,5. U. IF ` ).21/"2/ne.eg n A _&di 4 dt44,4 i.10. _ ___AI, 5- I. , ____YA.Alzec. 44./6 4 74 4Z1 d2, cf.. - 11. __Ja.zovni Gee 9.0z* _ JG A• Mires) ,tdidde24__L2'4tL,ae,a OD 3,o It • ./. 4-0.,27.1.) dae 4_4 Al e _ 1-5- _Z5- Tg. ,r4405-___72. L4F_.& if r _ A 6 • al - 1,-11/__J12.114.44./.4___*-__Actublit 7 S' I. 0 ,/5, _ may,i7 01_344_ - ,G.___ 1ks_eita....0 - 2I. 40e.41-$51-401 492.0 Jotat /5- :_o5...611 s/vs.. s----__ _ _ -- A 5- 4. Sa• 6- A. o A. o - * A.o.A.A.,,p , , _y y1L�, cln_ ei.yaCt, 4Jc.tx.,J ewruA.aJ. I I - - — _ __- .. _ r. I RECEIPT FOR RELOCATION INFORMATIONAL BOOKLET Date, —r-F3 Name AS(IOW,c,T r Address 4 3 $S 14iV/1/ ,zJ/,),, I have talked with my Relocation Counselor and understand that I may be required to move because of a government-assisted project called the f/LiDCCy (/may f,000erf . We discussed: 1. Relocation Services Yes >< No 2. Financial Benefits Yes T No 3. Claim Documentation Yes No 4. Grievance Process Yes "T No 5. Information Release Yes 4 No I have received a copy of the booklet entitled 'ACA ern,,,, Asses'WJ. cC i u up/4c.t� 1-1,,s/A/ CC 5ll . , printed by )1. Ui and have looked it over with my Counselor. I understand that my eligibility for mone- tary benefits will depend on my cooperation in providing documen- 11 tation to establish my claim. My signature on this receipt does not obligate me in any way. % 47 . Client's Signatu 11 1 Von Klug 6 Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation CERTIFICATION OF EVALUATION • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify the following: 1. That I have personally inspected the business eval- uated herein and the property it uses and occupies; • 2. That to the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained in this report and upon which the opinions herein are based, are true and correct; 3. That this evaluation has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and specifically its Circular 1376.1. 4. That neither myself, my company, nor my employees have a present interest or a contemplated future interest in the business evaluated or the real property it occupies; and 5. That neither the employment to make the evaluation nor the compensation for it are contingent upon the amount of eligible relocation compensation estimated 01 herein. I I )747,x, 44,1:x/k Jacquelyne Wentworth Relocation Consultant Von Rlug & Associates, Inc. 01 01 02 —.75'-fr1 Date I I I ton Klug g Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation QUALIFICATIONS JACQUELYNE D. WENTWORTH VON KLUG & ASSOCIATES, INC. EDUCATION * Bachelor of Arts Degree, Major in Criminal Sociology and Minor in Psychology and Speech - University of Minnesota, 1969. * Certified Instructor of Classical Dance. * Guest Speaker for University of Minnesota Urban Studies Courses and elementary schools in the Minneapolis area. * Miscellaneous workshops and seminars on housing and relocation. * Private Pilot's License. PAST AND PRESENT AFFILIATIONS * International Right of Way Association. * Minnesota Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). * Past Board President and Treasurer and present Board Member of Eastside Neighborhood Services. * Vice-President of Minneapolis Federation of Settlements. * Member of National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers. * Member of Grace United Methodist Church. EMPLOYMENT AND EXPERIENCE * Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority (M.H.R.A.) - 1969 to 1978. N.E./S.E. Field Office - 1969 to 1975. Provided residential relocation services to over 300 families and individuals from all walks of life. Worked in tax increment and conventionally-funded projects. Personally trained representatives from St. Cloud, Columbia Heights and Albert Lea, Minnesota, as well as Brazil and South Viet Nam. on Kluo £ Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation EMPLOYMENT AND EXPERIENCE (Continued) Loring Park Field Office - 1975 to 1978. Supervisor of Trouble Shooting Team, working on problem M.H.R.A. cases as well as contracts with the City of Minneapolis Development Districts, Minneapolis Board of Education, Minneapolis Park Board, and Minnesota Highway Department. Guest on various T.V. and radio programs relating to the Development Districts. * Von Klug & Associates, Inc. - 1978 on. Relocation Consultant, specializing in residential relocation assignments including the City and HRA of Golden Valley and Northern States Power Company, as well as business relocation for the City of Minneapolis City Center Project. Von Klug € Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocati. QUALIFICATIONS VON KLUG AND ASSOCIATES, INC. , 0 - • HISTORY i * Founded in March, 1975, by William Von Klug as sole proprietorship. * Incorporated in July, 1976, as bk associates, inc. * Name changed in September, 1978, to Von Klug and Associates, Inc. ACTIVITIES * Complete relocation services, from estimating and surveying in III planning stages to searching for replacement sites and preparation of claims. * Preparation of relocation plans. 1111 * Preparation of mandatory relocation informational books. * Consulting on acquisition procedures and eminent domain cases. 1111 4 Preparation Pre aration of property analyses. 11 * Preparation of fixture and real property appraisals. R * Workshop presentations for agency staff. III * Special projects related to expertise. f a III STAFF 111 * Individual qualification sheets are available for the full-time consultants working with Von Klug & Associates, Inc. * All full-time consultants are members of the International Right of Way III Association. The corporate President, William Von Klug, is Chair- person of the tri-state chapter's Relocation Assistance Committee, the t designated Chapter President for 1984, and a member of the International II Relocation Assistance Committee. 4 * The President of Von Klug & Associates has testified before the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations about revising the I Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. i * Support personnel provide complete secretarial, printing, computer, and I graphic services. * Staff can be supplemented as needed. _ i__ vt.._ e . __ _ . .__ _ C.,er-i2liete In Qpr'1PuPInnmPnt Relocation CLIENTS, PRESENT (Partial Listing as of September, 1982) * City of Minneapolis. * City of Dayton, Ohio. * Denver Regional Transportation District. * City of Fargo, North Dakota. * City of Golden Valley, Minnesota. CLIENTS, PAST (Partial Listing) * Northern States Power Company. * City of Walnut Grove, Minnesota. * Hennepin County, Minnesota. * Private attorneys. * Minnesota Power & Light. * Riverview Bar in LeSueur. * City of Chanhassen. * Hodne/Stageberg Partners. * Mr. Fixit Service Center in Duluth. * Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority (Staff Training) . OFFICE * 4725 Excelsior Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416. * (612) 929-5597. * Guaranteed office hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, although office is generally occupied from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays. Von Kiug 6 Associates, Inc. Specialists In Redevelopment Relocation • TIMM CITY OF 71::::? HOUSING "' jr and • -�. ` I c: frA(\V , REDEVELOPMENT • AUTHORITY ::•be 414P •••�' , � _ see . FRIDLEY "`"'" • March 2. 1983 ' Tom Wing 6385 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 RE: 90 Day Notice to Vacate Property Dear Mr. Wing: On March 2, 1982, you received a notice of displacement describing the acquisition of property in which you are a tenant for purposes of removal as part of the Center City Relocation Project. The letter also described your rights, as a tenant, to relocation payments as required under State Law. Our relocation consultant has also been in touch with you to discuss your needs of relocation and answer any questions that you might have regarding the process of relocation. We are now giving you a 90 day notice to vacate the property generally described as 6385 University Avenue N.E. in which you operate a business as a tenant. The Relocation Consultants will be finalizing negotiations for your relocation in this 90 day period. If you have any questions regarding the relocation of your business, please call Jacquelyn Wentworth, relocation consultant with Von Klug and Associates, Inc. at 929-5597. Sincerely, 2.4 Pidifd 1— ERROLD L. BOARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority JLB/de C-83-17