Loading...
HRA 08/12/1982 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1982 7:30 P.M. City of Fridley AGENDA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1982 7:30 P.M. Location: Community Room I (Upper Level) CALL -TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: JUNE 17, 1982 APPROVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: JULY 15, 1982 APPROVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: JULY 21, 1982 1. CENTER CITY PROJECT A. Shopping Center - Phase III 1. Letter from Executive Director B. Office Building Project 1. Letter from Mark Haggerty 2. Memo from Executive Director (No. 82-57) 3. Background Information a. Contract Document (Major points) b. Minutes of HRA pertaining to item c. Alternatives on approach to the office development C. Design Contract for Center City 1. Memo from Executive Director (No. 82-58) 2. Contract Documents D. Discussion on Consultant for Commercial Relocation 1. Memo from Executive Director (No. 82-59) E. 362-378 64th Avenue N.E. 1. Approval of sale of structures to Badger Movers 2. Approval of bid on removal of basement and backfill Housing & Redevelopment Authority Agenda for August 12, 1982 Page 2 F. 332 and 336 64th Avenue N.E. 1. Letters from Mr. Rischard 2. Response Letter from Executive Director 2. MOORE LAKE PROJECT A. Cheryl Nybo Office Project 1. Memo from Executive Director (No. 82-60) B. Central Avenue Project 1. Memo from Executive Director (No. 82-61 ) 3. FINANCIAL A. Check Regisiter B. Financial Report 4. OTHER ITEMS A. Information Items 1. HRA Annual Report to State 2. HRA Audit Report - December 31 , 1981 3. Clinic Bond Sale information 4. Minutes of City Council - July 26, 1982 5. Newspaper articles ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JULY 15, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the July 15, 1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Elmars Prieditis, Walter Rassmuson, Duane Prairie (arr. 9:30 p.m.) Members Absent: Carolyn Svendsen Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Nasim Qureshi , City Manager John Flora, Public Works Director Jim Robinson, Planning Staff Ed Hamernik, City Council Dennis Schneider, City Council Bob Barnette, City Council Jim Brown, 17600 Copperwood, Wayzata Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect Bill Short, Barton-Aschman Assoc. , Inc. Charlie Moser, Barton-Aschman Assoc., Inc. Roger Martin, InterDesign, Inc. Harold Skjelbostad, InterDesign, Inc. William Sanders, Sanders & Assoc. David Gjertson, Sanders & Assoc. APPROVAL OF JUNE 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. RASSMUSON, TO CONTINUE APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1 . PRESENTATION BY ARCHITECTS ON CENTER CITY COMPETITION: Mr. Coroners stated there were four groups making presentations, and they will try to set the schedule so that each group will have approximately 20 minutes for the presentation and 10 minutes for questions and answers. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman handed out a packet of written material that was- submitted along with the presentations. He stated the material included costs and breakdown of costs. He stated he was also handing out a point schedule that Staff had put together. This was to assist the HRA in making their final determination on the selection of the project. Mr. Boardman stated this is a design competition. These four firms were selected after a lengthy process of interview. All four firms are good reputable firms in the area. He stated the City's overall purpose was to at least set up some stage for an overall theme for the Center City area. With the clinic as the initial project in the system, they felt it was good to start looking at what they could do to tie things together and what overall theme they could develop in the entire area. A. Presentation by Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect Mr. Baldwin stated he is a custom designer and he thought the unique- ness of the scheme was important for them to concentrate on. Mr. Baldwin stated the idea of being invited to participate in the competition was kind of like an opportunity to be a part of Fridley "becoming". He stated one of his thoughts was that there was a feeling of good sun exposure on the site. Another thought was that in arriving in the City of Fridley, one felt like you were near the top of the world. With the statements made by the buildings already in place and the patterns, things seem to happen on that edge. He stated the buildings tend to be low in profile and, except for some gestures of vertical line, tend to be horizontal in their massing. Part of the whole notion was to reverse that line. Mr. Baldwin stated the concept is to provide a natural and efficient circulation system and spaces, recognizing the existing building arrangement and design, proposed office and restaurant, and required parking and service. The idea was to develop a conduit of varying desire lines, points of entry, activities, and spacial openings and closings. Mr. Baldwin stated there was a good opportunity for solar access. He felt that in Minnesota's climate, the opportunity to link buildings, particularly in the area where they wanted to create and stimulate circulation and interaction, is achieved through the buildings serving as linkages. Mr. Baldwin stated that, unfortunately, the northeast entrance of the proposed office building is not going to fit into the area well . It responds well to its parking, but it doesn't take advantage of the most important ingredient--the sun. One of the most difficult areas to attend to on a building is the northeast side as the sun never gets there. He felt if there was any opportunity to open the office building up into the plaza area, it would be a desireable objective. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Baldwin stated that features such as sculptures, fountain, trees, color and textured forms are used discreetly. Plant material , parti- cularly trees, are used to soften the relationships of building, screen vistas, and shade and create the sense of enclosure. Mr. Baldwin stated he would propose eventually the relocation of the Fire Department and the Police Department to a more appropriate site providing for safe and immediate access to the City. Mr. Baldwin stated he would propose an irregular,informal planting of trees along the edges. He would like to see the City' consider a pedestrian overpass which would provide the gateway to the community. Because of the two commercial areas on the west side of University and given the depressed area, they have the opportunity to use an underground structure to tie the east and west commercial districts together. Mr. Baldwin stated one challenge the City gave in the competition was the question of what to do with the screening of the highway. It was important to be able to see into the plaza, but then you are going to see all the cars. He stated this area again would be an irregular planting of trees, maybe some low canopy crabapple, where the portion to the north would be higher. He would also propose to have trees in the parking lot, so the parking lot is not open. Mr. Baldwin stated the circulation is an important thing to deal with. Pedestrian traffic is encouraged through the site. He felt if they don't promote linkage within the site, they are going to lose the whole notion of anything being successful . Mr. Baldwin thanked the HRA for this opportunity to do this design and stated he would look forward to being a part of further development. Mr. Rassmuson stated it seemed that the type of plant materials used in the design should be clarified a little more so they would have a better idea of what it would look like. Mr. Baldwin stated he is just generating an idea. The idea still has a lot of work. The plant material is part of that idea. At this point, he felt he would be doing the City a disservice if he were to say this idea was complete and disallow the opportunity for input, which he felt was very important. Mr. Baldwin stated he has an irrigation system designed in the plaza area itself, but that would be as much as the City could afford. The plantings selected would be native to Minnesota which would be easy to establish and would not create a burden on the maintenance staff. Mr. Qureshi stated one of the concerns of the people interested in the office building was their lack of exposure to the highway. He asked Mr. Baldwin how he would achieve that exposure. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING,JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Baldwin stated he could not answer that question directly. It goes back to relating themselves to "a place". There has to be a "Fridley". He did not think signs are necessary if things are laid out well . A very discreet symbol on the building might be all that is necessary. Mr. Commers thanked Mr. Baldwin for his presentation. B. Presentation by Bill Short and Charlie Moser of Barton-Aschman Assoc. , Inc. Mr. Short stated he and Mr. Moser are both landscape architects. As part of the design team working on this assignment, they have also been working with a civil engineer, a community planner, and another land- scape architect. He stated their presentation will be broken into two parts. He will describe the general plan and framework and Mr. Moser will discuss the description of the plaza, to be followed with a brief slide presentation. Mr. Short stated when they first got involved in the project and based on the introduction from Mr. Boardman and Mr. Robinson, the first issue and first characteristic they wanted to address was a sense of entry-- a sense of introduction of the passerby going through Fridley, something that would be important to announce the Center City area. Along with that, they made a couple of observations: 30,000 vehicles per day travel University Ave., and 11 ,000 vehicles per day travel Mississippi St. , which would result in around 80,000 people per day passing through this main intersection. Another observation was that the intersection of University Ave. & Mississippi St. was the highpoint of this part of Fridley. Mr. Short stated that based on those two important observations and opportunities, they wanted to capitalize on this intersection as being that opportunity to announce the introduction to Fridley. With that, they developed a simple, but strong architectural statement that would not conflict with the number of shopping center signs and other signs up and down the commercial strip. They designed a "Super Pylon", a monolithic concrete column with a natural aggregate finish, with its only message being a logo of the City of Fridley on the top illuminated from within and the name of"Fridley, Minnesota" (or something else) cast in stone at the bottom. This structure would occur on all four quadrants of the Center City area. Mr. Short stated that concentrating on the southeast quadrant of the intersection, they developed a vocabulary of design elements which they are recommending be used throughout the Center City area. The Super Pylon would be the first introduction to the Center City concept, rein- forcing the concept of the Super Pylon by using it again on a lesser scale, an "Intermediate Pylon" entering the Center City site, possibly reinforcing with another "Super Pylon" at the plaza site, and, importantly, the rest of the "furniture", including pedestrian level lighting pylons and pylons to support the canopy systems, and bollards used to control pedestrian circulation and illuminating low level lighting, benches, etc. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 5 Mr. Short stated that once they have established the sense of entry into the Center City area, they want to reinforce that with a sense of place. They can do that subtly with medians on Mississippi St. & 5th St. and also how they integrate the landscaped treatment around the parking lots and particularly through the private sector and public improvements in the overall quadrant of the Center City area. Mr. Short stated that in dealing with the property north of City Hall , they felt they had to meet the following four design objectives: (1 ) building objectives of the restaurant and office building (2) 300 parking stalls (3) the importance of a link between this active intersection and focal point of the Center City area with the main Center City plaza. They would do that through the design of a passive garden greenway which is a pedestrian-oriented system. (4) to make sure they were, not only providing that pedestrian movement, but also making sure that movement was consistent in character with the rest of the pedestrian improvements. Mr. Short stated that wherever greenways abut both streets and parking lots, they can soften the look of the parking lots by somewhat depressing the parking lot below the street grade, using that depression to build a small berm over the greenway, and then screening with a hedge to reinforce that grade separation. All that with the street trees will provide a nice screen between the large parking lots and the street. They are also recommending, wherever possible, actual landscape improve- ments within the parking lots. Mr. Short stated they also dealt with the median between University Ave. and the service road. He stated the Minnesota Department of Transporta- tion has standards whereby certain obstructions cannot be placed within a certain distance of the roadway. He stated because they wanted to frame the view for the passerby, but not screen the view of the passerby, they are suggesting a gentle mound of berming to soften the view and direct the eye away from the roadway and parking areas. Mr. Short stated that, in summary, they want to reinforce what they feel is very important, and that is a strong pedestrian amenity greenway system which moved through the site from pylon to pylon in this quadrant of the Center City area. They would recommend the same concept be pursued in all four quadrants as those areas develop. Mr. Commers asked about the different elevations on both sides of University Ave. and what their thoughts were to handle the different levels. Mr. Short stated they saw that ideally as a great opportunity to put an underpass under the highway to lead to the southwest quadrant. But because that is a long term application, they see that as occurring at HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 6 a grade just lower than the grade of Mississippi St. and .not much lower than the grade of the plaza area, so there would not bea great deal of difference. Mr. Moser stated that throughout the project, there were three evident things that had to be dealt with in the plaza: (1 ) the whole matter of events--flea markets, art shows, and other spontaneous events; (2) per- formances, weekly band concerts, etc. ; and (3) a sense of place. They see the "sense of place" as a very basic part in defining the Center City area. Mr. Moser stated the performance area is sited toward the easterly end of the building envelope. They opened the plaza up to City Hall , and that is where the events would take place. They have chosen to relate the space to the street, fe ling that noise is not a problem, and that it was important to show passersby where Fridley is. He stated they did consider water in the plaza area, but felt it was too expensive. Mr. Commers asked about the number of people who could feasibly attend an event at any given time. Mr. Moser stated the plaza would comfortably seat 200 people, but they have a capacity of up to 500 people. Mr. Commers thanked Mr. Short and Mr. Moser for their presentation. C. Presentation by Roger Martin and Harold Skjelbostad of InterDesign, Inc. Mr. Martin stated that both he and Mr. Skjelbostad are landscape archi- tects. As they do for many projects, they run little competitions in the office for design so that the project the HRA is seeing is the result of competitive work of a lot of people in the office as well as competing with the other firms. Mr. Martin stated he would give a brief presentation of the concept behind their plan using slides, and Mr. Skjelbostad would describe the firm and hand out a summary of the project for the HRA's reference. Mr. Martin stated one of the key problems they faced in this project was the challenge of giving an identity to the total area of the site. In order to do that, they felt the key issue to the whole community was the Center City area and the design of that area in terms of identity for the community. It was that focus that gave them the theme and the source. They feel it is very important to maintain a visibility from University to this space. They feel this plan accommodates a variety of uses and they think it reinforces City Hall as a focus of the future. Mr. Martin stated they felt the vital key element was to have a vertical focus, and they came up with the concept of a sundial , approximately 30 feet wide, with which the participant essentially tells the time. They called it the Great Fridley Sundial Mosaic. They decided that, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 7 rather than just putting it on a flat surface, they needed to get some vertical emphasis, especially for viewing from University Ave. , so they raised it up on a 15 foot berm. They felt it was important to use this kind of element because it was linking the community to the environment. Mr. Martin stated another key element to the scheme is water flowing down in a series of levels. He stated they call the major plaza space the major event place and provide seating on the slope in the form of steps for approximately 200-300 people, focusing on the entrance to City Hall . Mr. Martin stated another key feature they felt was basic to the scheme was that of linkage. They felt it was a great opportunity to link together some of the very exciting natural features of Fridley--Moore Lake and the Moore Lake nature area could be linked if they carried space through public owned land and provided a linkage back to the source of the community; and, likewise, back on to Rice Creek and the new community park to the north through the use of bikeways and walkways. Mr. Martin stated that within the scheme, rather than carry the greenways around the periphery of the site, they have tried to bring the greenway through the center of the site, focusing directly on the major plaza and down to link into the other extensions to the south and Moore Lake. The reason they have emphasized this so strongly is to create a natural contrast to the grade and rigidity within the City. Mr. Martin stated that in regard to the proposed restaurant and office structure to the north of City Hall , they have recalled the same tree pattern and paving pattern grid to the entrance of these buildings that they have used in front of the other buildings, the clinic, and the proposed office building to the south. Mr. Martin stated that in regard to the automobile arrival to the City, they tried to provide some special identity along University Ave. They felt from the Highway Department's point of view that it was vital to maintain some degree of security, but they felt they also needed trans- parency. Their proposal is to work with a black vinyl chain link fence material, with a 3 foot high turf berm. They have shown the fence jogging to give the opportunity at various points for "relfectorized packages", reflectors that reflect car lights so as the driver approaches the inter- section, there is a greater amount of light and the driver gets the feel- ing there is something special happening here. The segments of fence become shorter and shorter as they get closer to the intersection. Because they feel they could not do any intense plantings in the narrow sections, they are proposing that wild flowers be seeded along the black vinyl chain link fence throughout the whole corridor of Fridley to give a special identity. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 8 Mr. Martin stated that maybe at 694 and other major entries to the community, some strong gateway element be devised to give a stronger announcement of entry to Fridley, which he felt was crucial to the community. Mr. Martin stated they tried to give some special identity to Mississippi St. in this area by making plantings in the median. It reinforces the fact that it is an important street and that the intersection of Mississippi St. & University Ave. is a special place. He stated their proposal is to use a very highly textured concrete surface, different from those used on roadway surfaces, to provide a contrast. The highly contrasting surface in the intersection would let people know that when they are going through that intersection, they are going through the center of Fridley. Also, to give identity, they have suggested very high canopy trees that branch above 7 ft. so visibility would be maintained. They have carried the textured surface wherever the pedestrians cross the circulation ways throughout the center. Mr. Martin stated that, in summary, they feel there are three key things a scheme needs to do: (1 ) It needs to provide a strong identity for the City in terms of an element that is unique and that people will come and visit. (2) It needs to have linkage to the great natural features of Fridley and celebrate those. (3) It needs to provide a focus for all the community activities and festival functions. Mr. Martin stated they feel their scheme does all three things. Mr. Skjelbostad handed out a brochure briefly summarizing their presenta- tion, along with a cover letter. He stated the remainder of the brochure talked about InterDesign, Inc. Mr. Coroners thanked Mr. Martin and Mr. Skjelbostad for their presentation. D. Presentation by William Sanders and Dave Gjertson from Sanders & Assoc. Mr. Sanders handed out a proposal to the HRA members. He stated the proposal includes a very detailed outline of their proposal , the scope of their services, explains their office and staff, gives a background of their work and experience and a general overview of their qualifica- tions. He stated the proposal also includes their fee structure and the detailed cost breakdown of the proposal . Mr. Sanders showed some slides of some of the other projects Sanders & Assoc. has been involved in. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15,1982 PAGE 9 Mr. Sanders stated that for the Center City plan, they developed the plan in a number of image sketches. They have addressed the program of the area by creating a very strong visual image that starts with the plaza and continues on. Mr. Sanders stated the plaza is the heart of this area, and they have expanded the plaza character up through the area to be expanded to the north with the same materials, lighting, landscaping, etc. The greenway occurs on 5th St. and Mississippi St. coming in. Mr. Sanders stated the concept for the intersection of University Ave. & Mississippi St. is a building up of materials and elements to where they reach a high point at the intersection. They have increased the land- scaping as the intersection is approached. They have a series of banners that are proposed to build up as the intersection is approached, and they are also proposing some texturing of the street surfacing as the intersection is approached. Mr. Sanders stated they have a variety of spaces planned for the plaza area--large spaces and more intimate spaces for the types of uses that are involved. They have an open area they think ties together City Hall , the proposed office building, and the new clinic. A fountain is proposed which is a small pool with a waterfall . They are proposing an amphitheater and some canopy structures that are picked up from the design of the City Hall building. Mr. Sanders stated they have provided a very intense area of planting along the south end of the plaza--a large concentration of evergreen material . The pedestrian walkway connection continues from the large plaza area up to a small plaza by the office building north of City Hall and on to the restaurant, repeating a number of the same plaza elements. The same design and materials is used over to the medical clinic. Mr. Sanders stated that, in summary, the primary concept is to make the area as flexible as possible, and they have designed it for a wide variety of activities that could take place there, as well as created a very strong visual image for the City. Mr. Boardman stated that there has been some talk about sun orientation, yet in this proposal , the amphitheater is situated so the stage is in the darkened area and the seating is in the sun. He asked Mr. Sanders to comment on that. Mr. Sanders stated that even though activities will take place any time of day, the amphitheater is in an area where when the sun is very low, people in the seating area will not be looking directly at the sun. So, this becomes a comfortable place to view an activity. They wanted to get some sun orientation for that seating space. Mr. Qureshi asked about winter uses for the plaza area. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 10 Mr. Sanders stated there are areas that can be used for a= small skating area or an ice sculpture-type plaza. They are not anticipating a lot of winter activity to occur, but it did offer those two opportunities. He thought the forms used in the plaza are going to be very pleasant when they are covered with snow, and they are using a lot of evergreen material . Mr. Corners thanked Mr. Sanders and Mr. Gjertson for their presentation. 2. SET DATE FOR SELECTION: The HRA set a special meeting for Wednesday, July 21 , 1982, at 7:00 p.m. , to discuss and select an architect for the Center City area. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Commers declared the July 15, 1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully subm'tted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING JULY 21, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the Special Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to order at 7 :40 p. m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Duane Prairie, Walter Rasmussen Members Absent: Carolyn Svendsen, Elmars Prieditis Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner John Flora, Public Works Director Jim Robinson, Planning Staff Ed Hamernik, City Council Bill Nee, City Council Dennis Schneider, City Council Mr. Commers stated the Housing and Redevelopment Authority wanted to meet with the City Council regarding an update on the Center City Project and input from the Council regarding the proposals that were submitted. Mr. Boardman stated a staff summary was submitted on the different architectural firms which indicates their staffing capabilities, local projects they have undertaken, and a breakdown of the costs and service fees. He stated the sum- mary includes the four major items discussed, i. e. the plaza, linear system, sense of place, and the vegetation. Mr. Boardman stated what they are looking for,, at this point, are some suggestions as to how they approach the selection of an architect relative to what things in the project are important. Mr. Boardman stated, ever since the setup of the Center City Project, they have been looking at the development of a theme_ that would attract development and provide a cohesive feeling in the City which says Fridley is a nice place to be, live, and shop. He stated the direction they started was to see what kind of development they could attract, however, it was known, -at some point in time, they would have to hire a landscape architect to assist them in the overall theme. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 21, 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Rasmussen stated one of the things he has a concern is that, until they get another building and the design of it, he felt the whole thing could . change as a result of that building. Mr. Commers asked if staff is recommending that since they have the clinic, they go ahead with a plaza project. Mr. Boardman stated that the development of the concept would be staged based on development and not just because the design is completed or selected. Mr. Boardman stated they are trying to tie in things that have been discussed, whether or not they want a plaza, and, if so, what kind of linear system they want in the project. He stated there is a possibility the area to the north of City Hall would change, however, what they are trying to do is to establish an overall theme:they want to develop. Mr. Prairie stated he thought the plans may be pre-mature if they are talking about four or five buildings. Mr. Boardman stated the real question is how to promote development without showing the developers something on what is envisioned for the area. Mr. Rasmussen felt there should be a development plan laid out with some type of design. Mr. Boardman stated the development plan was laid out, in writing, and gave six phases and the type of development in these different phases. Mr. Flora stated there are three buildings in the Center City Project now, the City Hall, the bank, and the proposed clinic so any other construction should be complimentary to these structures. Mr. Rasmussen felt they had to have a development plan, in addition to the landscape plan, in order for someone to tell them whether or not it is economically feasible. Mr. Boardman stated what they have is a development plan for the southeast quadrant of the Center City Project. He further stated, in the initial phases, there was a consultant who was not in favor of a feasibility study because most persons coming into the Center City would have their own feasibility study done. Mr. Boardman stated for all six phases, the most feasible development in an area was laid out and, from that point, they started working with developers towards those projects that fit within those schemes. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boardman if the Housing and Redevelopment Authority made a selection of a certain theme, what he would envision and project would take place. Mr. Boardman states the who thing would be set up on a phasing basis. They would work with developers to promote the overall theme that is developed and work with the Housing Authority on the staging of the public improvements. Mr. Prairie stated, obviously, if everyone on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority felt approval of a plan would generate development, they would be in favor of it. He felt, if they proceed with a plan and several years from now it doesn't generate any development, they may be open for criticism. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 21, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated that it is not the intent of the selection to proceed with the plaza, without other development, but is only that saying before they get development, the Housing and Development Authority has to make some commitment on an overall theme so that we can promote the area for development. He stated everyone they had talked to wouldn't want to build an office building, unless there is something there to attract people. He further stated the clinic Wouldn't have come into this area unless they were convinced the Housing & Re- development Authority was going to do something to make the Center City Project a very attractive pluve to locate. • Mr. Boardman stated there has to be an overall approach to the development, and right now they don't have an overall theme. He felt that if they don't have this theme, it will be very difficult to attract any more good development. He stated one of the problems is economics, but they do have to have something to attract developers. Mr. Commers stated if they have to commit to a half million project to get in an office building they really don't like, he didn't think it really made sense. He stated the only reason the office building is in the plan is be- cause they gave the clinic so much they have to have something else to make the tax feasible. Mr. Boardman stated they are getting a clinic, but didn't feel they gave away the store. He stated they are looking at other office building development in this area and provide parcels of land that can be packaged for certain types of development. Mr. Flora stated if they have a plan, a developer can see where he has to build because it is part of the pre-requisite. Mayor Nee felt it should be explicit the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will assist in the development, if a developer builds in a certain place and follows a certain architectural theme. Mr. Boardman stated Winfield Development Corporation is very interested in this site, but something is needed to attract them. Mr. Commers stated it would be the desirability of the land and the write-down. Mr. Boardman stated breaks on land in this kind of financial market is not the thing that makes a project proceed, but whether they get financing. He stated they look at how they can attract tenants and want to provide a cer- tain identity so people will know exactly where they are located. Mayor Nee stated he spent most of his adult life about a block off Nicollet Avenue and, when they first began plans for the mall, everything was torn down, the street narrowed, trolley tracks removed, and the end result was space where rentals skyrocketed. He felt this was an example of what can happen when a little imagination and creativity was applied in a theme in a business district. He stated the decision for this mall had a great effect on Minneapolis, as well as other cities all over the United States. He stated the problem here is the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has to tie down something and say this is how it is going to look when it is completed. He felt if the Housing and Redevelopment Authority makes a HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 21, 1982 PAGE 4 commitment that says, at some point in time, the Center City will be inte- grated in a certain way and have some kind of amenities, it has a lot of effect with some people. Mr. Prairie stated possibly the Housing and Redevelopment Authority could promise such things would happen as soon as they have commitment for a third building. He felt when this happens, he would feel justified in approving a plan. Mr. Boardman stated he is not saying the plaza has to be done because the architect is selected. He stated one of the primary things the architects were told is that the project has to be able to be staged. Mr. Flora stated any plan would work, however, staff is looking for direction on how they wish to proceed. Mr. Rasmussen felt they needed something to get the interest going and, in that regard, he doesn't have any problem. Mr. Prairie asked about 64th Avenue and if this was why they needed action on a plan. Mr. Flora stated 64th Avenue is not an issue until April, 1983 because they wouldn't be doing anything until this time. He stated it is hoped the Housing and Redevelopment Authority would give them a blueprint so, before the clinic is completed, there will be a street. He further stated the commitment to the clinic is the street will be available when they open their doors in June, 1983. Mr. Rasmussen asked if they have a commitment for the street. Mr. Boardman stated they do have a commitment, however, the question is if they should do it now or next spring. Councilman Schneider asked who knows of all the commitments that have been made. He stated the Council knows what they are committed to and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority knows their commitments, but he keeps hearing of these "fuzzy" areas where they are not sure what is happening and 64th Avenue is an example. Mr. Boardman stated what was looked at and brought to the Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority is an obligation, but it is not a written commitment, to go back and construct 64th Avenue because the preliminary design was accepted and the clinic needs that access. He stated they are concerned about not having that access when they open and- then.dis- rupting the clinic to put it in at a later date. He stated, at that point in time, a recommendation was made they had to do it now or in the spring. Mr. Prairie stated when the clinic first came in with their plans, their design was with the street as it now exists. He stated then the office building came up and a change was needed on 64th Avenue because of the office building. He stated these plans fell through which was the main reason for the change in the street. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 21, 1982 PAGE 5 Mr. Boardman stated the change in the street was because the clinic made modifications.of their design and moved their building to the back to allow development of an office building. He stated the whole thing boils down to the fact that they don't have an overall development plan. Mr. Commers stated what got them in trouble is tying the clinic and office building together at the same time and then the office building plans did not materialize. Mr. Boardman stated they are looking at what kind of density is needed in this area to make an overall plan and indicated the clinic itself is not enough development for that block. He stated they looked at the relocation of 64th Avenue to give them the space they needed for development of that parcel. Mr. Rasmussen stated he has a problem with a landscape architect developing the development plan. Councilman Schneider stated there have been various development plans which showed phases of development. He stated what staff is looking for is approval from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to lock in a development plan. Mr. Boardman stated a theme has to be developed if they want to try and accomplish a plaza and entry node into the area. He stated they have to be somewhat flexible, but the overall design theme will have to be the key. Mr. Prairie stated if staff wants an agreement on a plan to present to pros- pective developers which indicates that, sometime along, the line, this is how the Center City will develop, this would be agreeable to him. If, however, they want approval of the plan and it will be built as soon as it is approved, this is another matter. Mr. Commers stated they are being asked this evening to make a commitment now, but then they have a problem in making changes. Mr. Commers stated there is a certain amount of theme or continuity that will have to carry through the development as other developments will have to be compatible with the design of the clinic. Mr. Boardman stated staff is looking at doing the development in a manner than is best for the City. If a plaza is included, most users of this facility would come from tenants of the office buildings. Mr. Boardman further stated he felt a lot of recreational activities can take place in a plaza and there is need in this area for this type of square footage. The plan will not be built as soon as it is approved. It would be best to be stages with development. Mr. Prairie asked if Mr. Boardman was reffering to senior citizen and 49er Day activities. Mr. Boardman felt some of those activities could be in an area that is set up as part of a civic plaza. Mr. Flora asked what the Housing & Redevelopment Authority sees as a use for the Center City Project. He stated the plans submitted by the architects provide spaces for different types of activities and it was a question of what they wanted. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 21, 1982 PAGE 6 Mayor Nee stated no member of the Council wants the Housing and Redevelop- Authority to rush into anything. He stated the Council doesn't want them to move in any imprudent way because of the feeling of pressure, but it seems they should adopt a plan for certain kinds of needs. Mr. Commers stated he didn't necessarily feel any pressure, however, felt staff needs some decisions made. He stated if it is simply for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to adopt a plan and say that is the way they are going to proceed and hope it will materialize, that is one question; however, he feels it is something more than that if they adopt a plan. Mr. Commers stated they wanted some input from the Council on how they would like to see this area develop. Mr. Commers stated if they are going to put in a half million dollar plaza and if it would be used for City functions, feels the City would have to contribute and it would be a joint decision. Mayor Nee stated he wanted to make it known the City wasn't going to contri- bute development money. Mr. .Boardman stated the City would be contributing in the sense they would be maintaining it. Mr. Rasmussen felt they had to have a development plan that is sound economi- cally. He stated that isn't going to happen by setting up a landscape plan. Mr. Flora stated they have identified the amount of space necessary to make the tax increment district work and questioned what was wrong with the pro- posed plans as they show the proposed buildings and plans for other areas. Mr. Rasmussen stated he didn't like the design of one of the buildings. Mr. Flora stated they are flexible enough so that the configuration could be changed. Mayor Nee pointed out there have been several plans done by private developers, but they were not able to obtain financing. Mr. Boardman stated four architects were asked to submit their proposals. He stated they were all given the same criteria and some limitations were set which all the architects looked at in coming up with an overall design. Mr. Boardman stated the total cost from each firm is about $500,000 as this was the limit set. He stated the question is who does the Housing and Redevelopment Authority think is going to do the best possible job and under- stands what they want in the Center City Project. Mr. Commers stated the problem is they are going to get locked in to what they select. Mr. Flora stated if everyone agrees they want a certain design for a theme, he couldn't see what is wrong in getting locked into that design. Mr. Rasmussen asked if they could select a design and put some restrictions on it regarding possible changes. Mr. Prairie stated it isn't the idea which design is best, the question is when do they proceed. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 21, 1982 PAGE 7 Mayor Nee stated the Council is looking to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for management of this project. He felt it would make sense to have a decision on a design and then make it very clear to staff that this is a direction statement, but not a "cast in concrete" concept. Councilman Hamernik stated from a concept, their theory sounds very good, but from past experience, he is not sure that is what would happen. Mr. Boardman stated-Ttaff would sit down with prospective developers and point out the thing's they have to offer and ask what they want from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. He stated all the conditions have to go to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for approval. If these conditions are not accepted, Mr. Boardman stated they will have to work on a compromise. Mr. Commers stated the Housing and Redevelopment Authority felt there was no commitments for the other project and the staff came back and indicated they, in fact, had an understanding that certain things would be done when they hadn't made a commitment. He stated he didn't want a situation to arise where someone comes back and stated they put up an office building with the understanding the Housing and Redevelopment Authority would do certain things. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Robinson for his appriasal or opinion of the plans submitted. Mr. Robinson stated he didn't include opinions in the summary because he didn't want to sway anyone. Mr. Robinson stated the members of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority saw the presentations made by the firms and all the plans have very good aspects. Mr. Robinson stated Fridley has an image problem and if they weren't going to adopt a strong theme, they probably should leave things the way they are now. Mr. Commers asked if a two man firm is capable of handling this project and also if the larger firm might feel this project is too small for them. Mr. Robinson stated the two man firm is probably one of the most respected landscape architecture firms in the Midwest, however, he felt any one of the firms would do the job well. Mr. Robinson stated they had some problems in the north area and had plans that gave the firms the tool for development in this area. He stated this doesn't mean these are firm plans or the way the Housing and Redevelopment Authority wants it done. The four design firms the Housing and Redevelopment Authority were consider- ing were: InterDesign, Inc. Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. Herb Baldwin Sanders and Associates HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 21, 1982 PAGE 8 Mr. Robinson stated the plan by InterDesign, Inc. provides a lot of diversity in the plaza and felt it would be a nice place when there isn't a lot of people. He stated there is a lot of shade, seating areas, and year around interest tied in with the natural features of Fridley. He stated this architect spent most of the effort in the plaza area. Mr. Robinson stated the plan by Sanders and Associates provides a lot of different areas such as a small outdoor amphitheatre and fountain. He stated the plan is like a "living room" and canopies are carried throughout the space. Mr. Robinson stated this plan doesn't strike him as being terribly dynamic. Councilman Schneider stated he didn't see a sense of identity coming through in this plan. Mr. Robinson stated Barton Aschman's plan handled the intersection well by the use of pylons and liked the use of the green spaces. Mr. Robinson stated Mr. Baldwin's plan was more sculptured and didn't think it was well-defined enough for people to get an idea what was going on inside. Mr. Robinson stated he liked the plaza best in the InterDesign plan and liked the linear system in Burton Aschman's plan. Mr. Boardman stated he was also impressed with the linear system in Burton Aschman's plan. Councilman Schneider stated he felt this plan had the strongest sense of identity. Mr. Boardman stated he had a problem with the plaza because of the European style and the plan is more auto oriented in a sense and not pedestrian oriented. Mr. Boardman stated InterDesign's plan is oriented to 64th Avenue but missed development on the four corners. He stated most of the development is in the plaza. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority then reviewed the models submitted and discussed the plans submitted by these architectural firms. A vote was then taken on the plan each -member of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority felt was appropriate. InterDesign, Inc. - Vote by Mr. Commers and Mr. Rasmussen Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. - Vote by Mr. Prairie Herb Baldwin - No votes Sanders and Associates - No votes Mr. Commers stated the InterDesign plan was selected by a 2 to 1 vote. Mr. Commers felt there should be a flyer given to prospective developers on what they are proposing for this area, but it is a concept only and subject to changes. Mr. Boardman felt the Housing and Redevelopment Authority should meet with the architect selected, InterDesign, to make any modifications to the plan. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 21, 1982 PAGE 9 Mr. Boardman stated, once the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is com- fortable with the changes, they will have a prospectus which includes this concept and the disclaimers. RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT - ST, PHILIP'S CHURCH: Mr. Commers stated it was the concensus that the amendment to the Right of Development by St. Philip's Church is agreeable to the Housing and Re- development Authority. MEETINGS WITH CITY COUNCIL: Mr. Prairie suggested perhaps the Housing and Redevelopment Authority should meet several times a year with the Council as he felt these meetings would be beneficial. Mayor Nee stated the Council is very much interested and to let them know when they wanted a meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Commers declared the July 21, 1982 Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting adjourned at 9:45 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Recording Secretary CENTER CITY PROJECT TME CITY OF '72-jimmy ,, HOUSING � � - - E -...:: Law end cc REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYEii ..� 0.1%, ....� FRIDLEY ' August 6, 1982 Marlin Hutchinson Barthel Construction 21370 John Milless Drive Rogers, MN 55374 RE: Fridley Center City Project Dear Mr. Hutchinson: I have been trying to contact you in regard to a status report on the retail center in Phase III of our Center City Project. The last report that was given was on June 8, 1982, in which Ms. Manske indicated that things were going very smoothly. Since that time, I have received information that there are some possible problems in your negotia- tions for a major tenant, as well as possible financial difficulties in your company, which would hamper your ability to perform under the conditions of the right of develop- ment, dated March 30, 1982. I might remind you that under No. 2 of that agreement, it states "Each party must keep the other informed of potential problems and delays. If, in the opinion of the Housing Authority, Barthel Construction is not proceeding in a timely and positive fashion, the Housing & Redevelopment Authority may withdraw this selection." In light of the information that I have received, and the inability to contact you by telephone, I feel that it would be important that you have a representative of your firm attend the August 12, 1982 Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to give a status report on your progress on this project. I would very much like to discuss this item with you prior to that meeting. Please call me at 571-3450. S' • erely, RROLI L. BOARDMAN /Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority C-82-65 TME CITY OF I 7-7J,..., HOUSING and "'� .. (\. REDEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM. AUTHORITY ` FRIDLEY FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO NO. 82-57 DATE August 6, 1982 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redevelopment Authority X 36,493 sq. ft. OFFICE BUILDING - MARK HAGGERTY , We have been meeting with Mark Haggerty regarding his proposal to the HRA for the development of an office building southeast of City Hall . He has been working with Gus Doty on the development and it appears that the project could now move ahead. If you remember, this issue was brought before you. ) !I' h. .. (See attached minutes of March 24, April 8 and May 13) for project consideration and contract document review. Because of particular problems with the financing, Mr. Haggerty was unable to proceed at that time. He has now indicated that he is in a position to move ahead on the project. I am attaching a copy of the letter received from Mr. Haggerty regarding this proposal. Items #1 and #2 relate to the acquistion of both properties that are presently owned by the principals of this project. If the Housing & Redevelopment Authority decides to acquire the property, we feel that based on the appraisals that we have recived in this area, the figures on the Lawyer's Building would be reasonable and easily justified. ($135,000 with the relocation of the three tenants). I feel that a reasonable value of Mr. Doty's property would be at no more than $3.00 per sq. ft. which is a reasonable value for University Avenue frontage. All of the other issues in the letter have been previously discussed with the HRA and were previsionly conditioned in the proposed contract documents. Mr. Haggerty will be at this meeting as noted in the letter, so that we can discuss further the conditions of this proposal. JLB/de LAW OFFICES SMITH,JUSTER,FEIHEMA,MALMON & AASHVITZ WYMAN SMITH CHARTERED LEONARD T.JUSTER SUITE 1250 HENRY H. FEIKEMA BUILDERS EXCHANGE BUILDING ALVIN S. MALMON MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 RONALD L.HASKVITZ TELEPHONE(612) 339-1461 CARL J.NEWOUIST MARK E.HAGGERTY FRIDLEY OFFICE 6441 UNIVERSITY AVENUE,N.E. JOHN M.GIBLIN FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE(612) 571-6870 ASSOCIATES J.CHRISTOPHER CUNEO B.WILLIAM EKSTRUM STACEY A.DEKALB JAMES W. HOESCHLER August 6, 1982 A Fridley Housing Redevelopment Authority Fridley City Hall 6431 University Avenue N. E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Proposed 36,493 square foot office building to be located immediately to the Southeast of City Hall Fridley Housing Redevelopment Authority: The following is a proposal for the development of a three story 36,493 square foot office building in the Fridley Center City project. The following requests are made and most of them are identical to the requests that were made during the April , May, and June HRA meetings. Also attached is a letter from Miller Securities stating the requirements for financing the project. In addition, I have also attached a letter from Leonard Juster, the president and chairman of the board of Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon & Haskvitz, Chartered, guarantying that the law firm would in fact masterlease the entire building for the first three years. The following is a list of conditions which I , as the developer, along with the other partners, feel must necessarily be met in order to make the project a viable and feasible project. 1. The HRA would purchase immediately the Madsen Building for $115,614.00 and pay an additional $19,386.00 relocation costs. After payment of the mortgage and non-interested partners the principals of the law firm would be left with approximately $75,000.00 net, all of which would be put directly into the new building as required by the Miller Securities' letter. It should be noted that our appraisal shows that the real value of the Madsen building without relocation costs is $150,000.00. However, we would be willing to accept a minimum of $135,000.00 as outlined in order to expedite the construction of the new office building. 2. The Fridley HRA would acquire the 30,200 square feet from Mr. Gustave Doty located directly south of the Fridley State Bank for a sum of $ 3.32 S. F. Fridley Housing Redevelopment Authority Page Two August 6, 1982 Mr. Doty would put $87,500.00 directly into the project plus any good faith monies required upon HRA approval . 3. The Fridley HRA would commence construction of the plaza immediately to the west of the proposed building site in the spring of 1983. In addition, the Fridley HRA would landscape around our proposed office building with a mini-plaza immediately to the northeast of our building's entrance which would blend with the primary plaza and would assess the cost of our building's landscaping over a period of 10 years at the City's or HRA's regular interest rate. 4. The Fridley HRA would build and pay for all of the landscaping, paving, curbing, and other costs related to a 166 car parking lot adjacent.to our proposed building. The City would charge no rent or taxes or costs back to our partnership for two years after we completed construction of the proposed office building. After two years the partnership would commence making $800.00 per month rental payments to the City for 30 years at which time the partnership would have an option to purchase the parking lot for the sum of $100,000.00. If the option was not exercised, the rental would continue at $800.00 per month for an additional 20 years. 5. In order to guarantee that the proposed building would correspond to the new Columbia Park Clinic structure, the partnership would agree to use the services of BWBR Architects. 6. The City of Fridley would pay for all costs of changing the design of 64th Lane, including street, curbing, gutter, and further would absorb all the costs in moving the utilities, water, and sewer, and further would cover all the costs for drainage and site preparation. These costs could in fact be assessed back to the proposed building but the HRA would have to agree to pay those assessments through tax increment financing. 7. The City would allow our partnership to purchase a 133 foot by 150 foot area to correspond to the site plan at a cost of $2.00 per square foot free and clear of all assessments, judgments,and other encumbrances. The total cost would be $40,000.00. The partnership would pay the sum of $1.00 for a warranty deed from the City of Fridley or the Fridley HRA and would give back to the HRA or the City of Fridley a mortgage for $39,999.00 with no interest or principal reduction payments until December 31, 1986 at which time interest would commence at the rate of 11 percent per annum and on the first day of January for the ten subsequent years principal reduction payments of $4,000.00 would be made plus accrued interest. The mortgage that would be given back to the City of Fridley or the Fridley HRA would be a mortgage subordinated to the construction bond mortgage. 8. The partnership, its successors and assigns, would enter into a develop- ment and assessment agreement which would state that the minimum real estate tax for the proposed building would be $2.00 per square foot based on an estimated gross size of 36,493 square feet. Fridley Housing Redevelopment Authority Page Three August 6, 1982 9. HRA would grant to the partnership a zero lot line on one of the walls of the building in order to allow the partnership to expand or in the alternative would give us some form of development rights to develop another office building in the Center City area. 10. The HRA would commence demolition of the Gustave Doty shopping center and buildings along 64th Lane during the spring of 1983. Demolition and landscaping of those areas would be at no cost to the partnership constructing the proposed office building described herein. 11 . The partnership would be willing to put up a non-refundable good faith deposit provided the above conditions were agreed to. The partnership presently has a preliminary resolution for $1 ,900,000.00 that could be used in order to expedite the construction of the project. It is hoped that the bonds would be sold either during September or October at the latest in order that footings could be poured before the winter sets in. It would be estimated that the building would be ready for occupancy eight to nine months after the ground was broken which would coincide with the opening of the Columbia Park Clinic building. The partnership consists of the principals of the law firm of Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon & Haskvitz who own 422 percent, Gustave Doty who owns 422 percent and 15 percent of other investors who are doctors and businessmen outside of the area. It is anticipated that on August 12, an architect from BWBR, myself, Gustave Doty will be present at the HRA meeting to answer any and all questions. It is imperative at this late date that authorizations be granted quickly in order that financing and construction can be commenced. One final item would be that the HRA allow Rice Creek Agency, Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon & Haskvitz, and Royal Electric to stay in the Madsen building until the new proposed office building is ready for occupancy. The Madsen building rentals which in fact are comprised of the principals who in fact will be building the new building would be allowed to stay there rent-free but would have to pay all costs including real estate taxes for 1982 and any rents from other parties would in fact make payments directly to the Fridley HRA. Yours truly, Mark Haggert MH/cv Enclosure LAW OFFICES SMITH,JUSTER, FEIKEMA, MALMON 8c FTASKVITZ LAYMAN SMITH CHARTERED SUITE 1250 LEONARDM T.FE1KEMA BUILDERS EXCHANGE BUILDING HENRYNNY S. MALMON MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 ALVIN 3. p RONALD L.HASKVIT2 August 5, 1982 TELEPHONE (612) 339.1451 CARL J.NEWOUIST FRIDLEY OFFICE MARK E..HAGGERTY 6441 UNIVERSITY AVENUE.N.E. JOHN M.GIBLIN FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE(612) 571-6870 ASSOCIATES J.CHRISTOPHER CUNEO B.WILLIAM EKSTRUM STACEY A.OEKALB JAMES W. HOESCHLER Miller Securities 1660 South Highway 100 Suite 421 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Fridley Housing Redevelopment Authority Fridley City Hall 6431 University Avenue N. E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 RE: Proposed 36,49.3 Square Foot Office Building To Be Located Immediately To The Southeast Of City Hall Dear Sirs: I as President and Chairman of the Board of Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon and Haskvitz, Chartered, a Minnesota Professional Corporation, agree to lease all of the rentable square footage in the building described for a period of three years after the building is ready for occupancy at a rate of $8.00 per square foot triple net (the lawfirm shall be responsible for all costs and operating expenses for a period of the lease). The lawfirm understands that it is possible that the operating expenses per square foot may exceed $5.00 per square foot over and above the $8.00 per square foot and is still willing to pay all of that cost. This letter of intent constitutes a corporate obligation on the part of Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon & Haskvitz, Chartered and has been agreed to by the shareholders and the Board of Directors of Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon & Haskvitz, Chartered. In addition the corporation has further agreed to allow the conditions of this three year lease to be disclosed within the official statement which is needed for the purposes of marketing the industrial revenue bonds in order to secure the funds for the construction of the building. Rentable square footage is estimated to be 30,444 s.f. SMITH, JUSTER, FEIKEMA, MALMON & HASKVITZ, CHARTERED r` By \. - Leonar?d T. Jt ter President and Chairman of the Board CITY,0F FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTIQRITY = MEETING _.-MARCH 24, 1982= _ . CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the March 24;1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Russel Houck, Carolyn Svendsen, Elmars Prieditis Members Absent: Duane Pr -ie Others Present: Jerrold .Boariman, eitylPlanner Corinne Prindle, 6$70 Wash'3pgton St. N.E. Dorothy Smith, 362 - 64th Ave. N.E. ' Len Schollen, 6381 University Ave. N.E. Judy Schollen, 6381 University Ave. N.E. Curtis Radebaugh, 7449. Concerto N.E, Dick Harris, 6204Riveriiew Terrace' Al Singer, 378 - 64th Ave. N.E. Mark Haggerty,- 6441 University Ave. N.E. Stan Kowalski APPROVAL OF MARCH 11 , 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MR. HOUCK, TO POSTPONE THE APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 11, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• TNTIL THE REGULAR MEETING ON APRIL 8, 1982.- UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. I. CENTER CITY PROJECT A. Phase II - Office Building Mr. Boardman stated that at the March 11th meeting, the HRA received a letter from Mark Haggerty dated March 10, 1982, that laid out some points on the development of an office building. The way the office building was laid out when they were working with Columbia Park Clinic was with 64th Ave. going straight through.'-"jhey were going to. do some kind of development with an office building on the south side of 64th Ave. When they actually started working with an office development to tie a package together with the Clinic, they found it would be easier for both the office and the Clinic to pull the office away from the Clinic a little and separate them with a road system. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MARCH 24, 1982 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated the Clinic people are very concerned about not having controlled parking. This way all the parking is controlled parking and it is the Clinic's parking. Parking for the office building will be leased from City Hall . At the present time, they have 50 parking stalls in the City Hall space. Since the Court is moving out of City Hall , they do not feel there is going to be a parking problem. They will have adequate parking with 166 spaces for the office and City Hall. Mr. Boardman stated that in Mr. Haggerty's letter, he talked about purchasing the land under the building and leasing the parking spaces necessary for that building. It was set up with payments of $1 ,000/month for leasing parking spaces and that would carry over 31 years. After 31 years, they had the option of buying the parking for $1 . Mr. Boardman stated that was not acceptable to the City, and after a negotiation session, they are now looking at $800/month for leasing parking spaces and after the 31 years, there was an acquisition cost of $100,000 on the parking land. Mr. Boardman stated that as far as the building, Mr. Haggerty is looking at $2/sq. ft. for the property under the building (20,000 sq. ft.) for a total purchase price of $40,000. They will delay any payment on that purchase price for the first four years. After that, they will pay it off in 10 years at 11 3/4% interest rate. Mr. Boardman stated these terms are agreeable with City Staff at this time, and they are now coming to the HRA with these terms. However, there are some other conditions, and Mr. Qureshi , the City Manager, has been working on this thing. He stated the HRA would not be owners of the property, they would not want to own the parking; and, therefore, the lease arrange- ment would not come back to the HRA. The question of whether the HRA is going to purchase the land from the City and the HRA would get the lease monies, or whether the lease monies would go directly to the City and the City would retain control of the property has not yet been worked out in detail in the lease agreements. Mr. Boardman stated that at this point, they have done the contract docu- ment work, they have given all of it to Mark Haggerty to look over, and maybe Mr. Haggerty could give the HRA more information from that point. Mr. Haggerty stated they did not really want to finish the contract docu- ments until they knew for sure where they were with the HRA. They have no problems with the overall substance of the documents. It is just a matter of "fine tuning" what is going to be done. Once they know it is a viable project in terms of numbers, they can have those documents completed and back to City Staff within a few days. Mr. Commers asked if the HRA was in any position to take any action at this meeting without that information. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MARCH 24, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Boardman stated that if the conditions of (1) the payment of the property over the ten year period at 11 3/4% and (2) the lease of the parking are acceptable conditions to the HRA, he thought Staff was in the position where they can move ahead with the documents, complete the documents, and bring them back to the HRA. He stated he has looked at the cash flow on the whole thing and that is looking fairly good. Mr. Boardman handed out a copy of a "Cash Flow Analysis - Phase II". He stated Dick Ehlers, Ehlers & Associates, has done a quick run on the bonding. They have a bonding capacity with the Clinic and the office building of $1 .1 million. One thing that is very clear is that if the Clinic doesn't go, the office will not go. So, they are trying to out both projects together about the same time. Mr. Commers stated that, knowing the office is contingent upon the Clinic, he did not know how they could approve the office building without knowing the final situation with the Clinic. Mr. Boardman stated they expect a letter from Juran & Moody on financing for the Clinic next week, and Mr. Haggerty is expecting a letter on his financing commitment. These are just commitment letters for the financing. Mr. Boardman stated he would like to get approval from the HRA to start negotiations for purchase based on those commitment letters. He stated there are several things they are working on. The Clinic will not be able to sell bonds until they have actual control of the property, so Staff would like to move as quickly as possible but still stay within the limits acceptable to the Clinic people and the office people. Mr. Boardman stated that with the situation on the Clinic, they may have to negotiate with Gus Doty as far as the purchase of a portion of his property. He would like to have the authorization from the HRA to get appraisals on Mr. Doty's property. He stated he has talked with Mr. Doty, and Mr. Doty is a willing seller, but Mr. Boardman stated he needs a price with which to start negotiations. The other properties they need to acquire are the properties to the east of the Fourth Right-of-Way, and they have gotten appraisals on all of those properties. Mr. Boardman stated that when the commitment letters come in, he wants the authority to go ahead and start negotiating purchase prices. Otherwise, he would have to wait until the April 8th HRA meeting. By that meeting, he would like to be able to come back with the negotiated prices they have worked on. Mr. Commers stated he did not see a problem with whether they lease the land from the City or whether they acquire the land from the City, it is just that they need to get the final numbers in some kind of format so they can review those numbers to see how it will work and how the overall project will work. The cash flow helps, but they still need to see it in terms of overall project, bond retirement, etc. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MARCH 24, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman stated he will not know that until he gets the actual runs on the bond retirement from Ehlers & Associates. They are looking at 15-year bonds. Again, they are looking at all of the construction work, the street relocation, the plaza, landscaping, as a street improvement bond. That will be done as an assessment project. When they get into the contract documents, they will have to negotiate with the property owners on how they are going to break up those assessments. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boardman to put a proposal together with that information and get it to the HRA for their April 8th meeting. Mr. Haggerty stated that at the last HRA meeting, he had stated he hoped to go to market the first week in April , but now they are not going to be able to do that. He stated he could live with the April 8th date, but at that time, he would need a pretty firm commitment from the HRA in order to proceed any further. Mr. Commers stated the office building is still dependent upon what the Clinic does. If the HRA is not in a position to have a commitment from the Clinic, he did not see how they could make a commitment to Mr. Haggerty. Mr. Haggerty stated maybe the best thing for him to do in the meantime is to assist the Columbia Park Properties in making their decision. Mr. Haggerty stated one thing he has discussed with Mr. Boardman is that if they would ever want to expand their office building, they would like to have the option to buy, sooner than 30 years, a portion of land that would be in the form of a lot, and actually have their northerly boundary be a "zero" lot line, so they could expand without having to get some kind of mortgage lease from the bond holders. That was the only major consideration; otherwise, everything else was the same as in his first proposal. Mr. Commers asked what Staff's position was on this option. Mr. Boardman stated the City is not ready to give that kind of option. They can look at it at some point in time, but the City would like the option to relocate then in another area. Mr. Haggerty stated the only thing he would ask in that regard is that when the City goes to plat this area, they be cognizant of the fact that maybe there should just be a lot there or something that would save every- one if the City did decide the office building could expand. That would be a feasible alternative to them, because then they would know the expansion was still a possibility. Mr. Boardman stated the City could consider that possibility in the platting. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MARCH 24, 1982 PAGE 5 Mr. Boardman stated he had some problems with the HRA in a long-term lease arrangement, because this is being looked at as a 31-year lease • agreement. He is not sure where the HRA is going to be after 31 years, because the District is completed in 25 years. He stated they are going to have to work with the City on this. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boardman if he and the City Manager would have something put together in a plan to present to the HRA at their April 8th meeting so the HRA can make that decision. Mr. Boardman stated he would. Mr. Haggerty stated that, other than the option he had mentioned earlier, he would go on that basis and plug in all the recommended changes into the contract documents and get those back to Mr. Boardman the first part of the next week, along with their commitment letter. Mr. Prieditis stated he was in agreement with the conditions as outlined by Mr. Boardman earlier, and he thought it seemed reasonable to make provisions for the future by separating a portion of the property in the plat for possible future expansion. Mr. Commers asked what Staff would have available to the HRA at their April 8th meeting. Mr. Boardman stated he planned to have the following: (1) commitment letters from the Clinic and Mr. Haggerty (2) contract documents (3) a more detailed breakdown on costs (if possible) (4) a general understanding from the City's point of view on how the lease arrangements are going to work and what costs are going to be involved to the HRA on land acquisition or land purchase. Mr. Commers stated they should also have a written summary of what Mr. Boardman is proposing as far as assessments. Mr. Boardman stated Mr. & Mrs. Smith (362 - 64th Ave.) are very concerned about the timing. He stated he has assured Mr. Smith that the City will be working with them and will do everything they can to make the relocation easier for them. There are relocation monies available, and the City will pay any moving expenses. He stated he has discussed with Mr. Smith that at some point in time, the City will have a real estate person try to find a property that is acceptable to them for repurchase. Mr. Commers stated that if the HRA approves the Clinic's proposal on April 8th, what is the timing going to be for these people? HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MARCH 24, 1982 PAGE 6 Mr. Boardman stated that as far as taking the actual title to the properties, they are looking at taking title as soon as possible. That doesn't mean the people have to move at that time. As far as timing, they are looking at at least 90 days. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boardman to review the letter from Mr. Al Singer to Mr. Boardman dated 3/19/82. Mr. Boardman stated he has talked to 'Mr. Singer, and Mr. Singer will accept $58,900, as long as there is $15,000 in relocation costs. He stated they now want to get a multiple listing from a real estate company and check to see if $15,000 is an acceptable relocation. Mr. Singer is entitled to relocation with an acquisition. Mr. Commers stated they needed a legal opinion to see if they can do that without an actual relocation taking place. He asked Mr. Boardman to have the City Attorney give the HRA a letter stating the relocation is, in fact, something that is permissible to meet Mr. Singer's request that the relocation monies be given directly to him. Mr. Len Schollen, 6381 University Ave. N.E. , stated that if this project ever gets off the ground and construction is started, he is concerned about the impact this construction is going to have on the access to their business. Their business is a convenience business, and people are going to go where it is more convenient. Their business is going to suffer. Mr. Commers stated that Mr. Boardman should negotiate with Mr. Schollen and maybe his building can be taken down sooner. B. Phase II - Clinic - Re-evaluation of Site Layout due to Office Plan Mr. Boardman stated he had a meeting Monday with Columbia Park Clinic and Juran & Moody. They are now reworking the contract documents. Before, the City was selling the Clinic the property up to 64th Ave. , and the City was retaining the right for buy-back on the office building, etc. Now, 64th Ave. has been changed and they are reworking the Phase II documents. They have gotten the rewrites of the documents to Columbia Park Clinic's attorney, the Clinic people are going to get their recommendations/ modifications/changes back to the City, and then the City's legal counsel will review it, also. C. Phase I - Purchase of Northwestern Bell Building Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Wyeth has said he will come down from $275,000 to $270,000. Now it was up to the HRA as to whether they want to purchase the building at $270,000. He stated Mr. Wyeth is at the point where he is ready to sign a 5 year lease with two 5-year options with Northwestern Bell at $16,000 yr. If the HRA decides they want to HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, APRIL 8, 1982 PAGE 5 MOTION BY MR. HOUCK, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE HRA AND COLUMBIA PARK PROPERTIES AND THE FINANCING COMMITMENT LETTER FROM JURAN & MOODY, SUBJECT TO THE NEGOTIATION OF A SATISFACTORY LETTER OF INDEMNIFICATION BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY FOR COLUMBIA PARK PROPERTIES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. 73rd Ave. Partnership 1 . Review of Contract Documents and Financial Commitment (Memo #82-25 from Executive Director) Mr. Haggerty stated the contract documents had been discussed that afternoon, but there were a couple of areas in the document that have to be explored further: (1 ) who is responsible for any potential drainage problems; (2) they have decided on a new layout for the office building and there were some concerns regarding that. Mr. Herrick stated the area that seemed to cause Mr. Haggerty the most concern was the timing in the development of the plaza area. Mr. Haggerty stated they are concerned in putting the office building together about the fact that the clinic, the office building, the parking lot, and the plaza are to be completed at approximately the same time. He stated Mr. Boardman has said he cannot make any commit- ment as to when the plaza is going to be completed. It may not be started until next spring. He stated he told Mr. Boardman that they still want to sell bonds about the same time as the Clinic and place those funds into a high interest-bearing account and then start groundbreaking at a point where they feel the completion of their project would coincide with the Clinic and the plaza. He stated he has asked Mr. Boardman to do more investigation as to a reasonable time frame on the plaza, as it will make a difference in their costs. Mr. Haggerty stated right now he has to make a decision on whether it would be better to delay commencement of construction and only pay 21/100 of 1% of that delay on an annual basis or to just commence construction and leave the building at only 20-50% occupied until the rest of it is completed. Before he can make that decision, he needs a better idea about when the plaza will be completed. Mr. Boardman stated that right now the City is in the process of interviewing about twelve design architects. They are trying to set up a design contest between three design firms so they can get the best design project for Fridley. They are looking at a 30-day HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, APRIL 8, 1982 PAGE 6 design competition with a selection after that period of time to go to working drawings. They could possibly go out for bids in September and start the plaza, but he doubted if they would get everything done, as far as landscaping in the plaza, until next spring. Mr. Boardman stated they are looking at parking as part of the public improvement so when the road goes in, the parking will go in. They are looking at the possibility of doing the road at the end of August to September. Mr. Haggerty stated they have worked out a site design profile of the building they think will work out better from the perspective of rental and the design factor. He stated it was his suggestion that they check into these problems, firm up these problems, and make the appropriate changes in the contract. Since the construction of the office building is three months shorter than construction of the Clinic and since they missed the April market date, it might be best to defer the actual approval of the contract documents until more information is received regarding the potential drainage problems and the development of the plaza. He stated he was sure he could have the contract documents and financial commitment ready for the HRA's May 13th meeting. MOTION BY MR. HOUCK, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO CONTINUE THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE 73RD AVE. PARTNERSHIP DOCUMENTATION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. City Council Discussion on City Property Purchase (Memo #82-26 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated that at the City Council 's March 29th meeting, they discussed the Phase II office project and the options they have in regard to the use of City property for this development. The City Council gave their preference on the way they would like the HRA to handle the purchase of City property. Their preference is a direct purchase of the property at $2/sq. ft. The portion of the building that is on City property is 9,310 sq. ft. , and the portion that is on the parking lot is 30,100 sq. ft. The City Council is requesting that, when the district no longer exists, the HRA sell the parking lot property back to the City for $1 to continue the lease arrangements on parking. Mr. Commers asked if this was the most advantageous thing for the HRA. As he understood it, the City Council wants the HRA to spend a sub- stantial amount of money on the plaza, and maybe they should negotiate with the City for some medium ground. He was not sure the HRA should be responsible for everything. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 2 condemnation, they would spend at least $5,000 or more on the purchase of the property. He stated Art & Dorothy Smith have settled on the purchase price of $85,000 and are in the process of building a new home in Blaine. MOTION BY MR. HOUCK, SECONDED BY MR. PRIEDITIS, TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE PRICE OFFER OF $85,000 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ART & DOROTHY SMITH'S PROPERTY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Approval of Letter of Understanding dated April 16, 1982 f Mr. Boardman stated that at the last meeting, the HRA made a motion approving the contract for private redevelopment by and between the HRA and Columbia Park Properties, subject to the negotiation of a satisfactory letter of indemnification by the City Attorney and the attorney for Columbia Park Properties. Mr. Boardman stated the approval for this letter was done by a telephone poll of the HRA members. Mr. Commers was out of town, but four out of four of the other HRA members agreed to this letter and it was submitted for approval to Columbia Park Properties. Mr. Boardman stated he was under the understanding that everything in the letter was what was discussed and agreed upon by the HRA. B. 73rd Avenue Partnership Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Mark Haggerty to bring the HRA up to date on this project. Mr. Haggerty stated that with him was Ron Berg, of Miller Securities, who was the primary individual who has been working on underwriting this particular project. Mr. Haggerty stated that as of Friday, May 7, he had received firm construction numbers from Hagmann Construction (also the construction firm for Columbia Park Properties), and they were going to build the two buildings together. BWBR Architects (architects for Columbia Park Properties) had drawn up the plans the HRA had in their agenda, and it appeared they would also be the architects for the office building. Mr. Haggerty stated the thing that went wrong was that on Friday, two senior partners in his law firm which had agreed to be the master tenant in the office building, decided to pull out of the project. Mr. Haggerty stated he is now trying to get up to 50% occupancy, at which time the two senior partners have agreed to go along with leasing the building. He stated that at that point, they could issue bonds and begin construction. Right now they only have 10-15% rented. ( HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, MAY 13, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Haggerty stated that because of this situation, he could not, in good conscience,ask the City to issue the bids for moving the road or doing the parking lot at this time. Mr. Berg stated they had scheduled to sell bonds on July l internally themselves, based on all previous discussion, and they had hoped to be under construction by Aug. 1. He stated that as far as Miller Securities' offer to underwrite the bonds, that offer remains open if a master lease tenant can be found. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Haggerty to keep Mr. Boardman advised of any new .developments. Mr. Haggerty stated he appreciated what the HRA has done, and he was very sorry to have to make this report. Mr. Commers asked what bearing this new situation had on the street project. Mr. Boardman stated they are continuing the bids on the street project and have set up the parking lot as an alternative bid. They are going to keep 64th Ave. in as a regular bid, because by state law, they can legally delete up to 25% of the project, and 64th Ave. is not up to 25%. So, if by the end of July, Mr. Haggerty cannot put the office building project together, the City can make a decision as to whether to go ahead with the street project or hold off on the street project until an office building project can be put together. He stated it might be worth the City's while to go ahead with 64th Ave. now, because the bids may come in much cheaper than doing it later. C. NSP Proposal for Action on 64th Ave. Project (Memo #82-34 from Executive. Director) Mr. Boardman stated he would like to delay this item as it was based on the removal of 64th Ave. MOTION BY MR. HOUCK, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO TABLE THE CONSIDERATION OF MEMO #82-34 FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING THE NSP PROPOSAL FOR POWER LINE MODIFICATIONS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. D. Request by Mayor to Remove Existing Hardware Sign (Memo #82-35 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated that Mayor Nee has requested that the HRA take the necessary action to remove the Fridley Hardware sign as it is a non- conforming sign to the City's present code. The Mayor felt now was a good opportunity to have it removed. ��c b ?eciutous -INFO NSR 3/Zy /St • LAW OFFICES SMITH, JUSTE$,FEIKEMA,MALMON & HASKVITZ WYMAN SMITH CHARTERED SUITE 1250 LEONARD T.JFEIKEMA BUILDERS EXCHANGE BUILDING HENRYNNY S. MALMON • MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 R RONALDVIN .HASKV TELEPHONE(612) 338-1461 L.HASKVITi CARL J.NEWOUIST FRIDLEY OFFICE MARK C.HAGGERTY • 8441 UNIVERSITY AVENUE,N.E. JOHN M.GIB LIN FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE(612) 571-6870 ASSOCIATCR J.CHRISTOPHER CUNEO B.WILLIAM EKSTRUM STACEY A.DEKALB JAMES W.HOESCHLER March 10, 1982 frn (.077: tj Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Fridley City Hall Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Proposed 30,000 square foot office building of Smith, Juster, Feikema/ Owens, Ayers Company Dear Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority: The following is a proposal for the construction of a 30,000 square foot office building with approximately 24,000 rentable square feet on a location just southeast of the Fridley City Hall as shown in a site plan prepared by the City of Fridley Planning Department. At the present time it is anticipated that the preliminary tax exempt bond. resolution of the 73rd Avenue Partnership for $1 ,950,000 would be used as the basis for obtaining an industrial revenue bond to cover the cost of construction in an actual issuance amount of $1 ,250,000. The ownership of the building is anticipated to be by six of the principal lawyers of the law firm of Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon & Haskvitz who would own between 25 and 30 percent and of a number of the principals of Owens, Ayers Company who would own the balance of 75 to 70 percent. The underlying corporations would in fact master lease the building based on the percentage of ownership of the principals. The principals would form two underlying partnerships and each partnership would own a percentage as outlined of the overall partner- ship to be known as the 73rd Avenue Partnership or whatever name we decide to ultimately issue the bonds under. The following is the actual proposal..for the construction of the building along with an approximate time table. 1. The 73rd Avenue Partnership or its assigns would construct the building commencing on or about the 21st day of May, 1982 and occupancy would take place on or about the 2nd day of January, :0-- % . ; i Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Page Two f March 10, 1982 1983. The law firm would rent approximately 2,000 square feet and master lease an additional 4,000 square feet which would be sublet `at between $7.00 and $8.00 triple net. The law firm would initially employ seven people. Owens, Ayers Company would lease 5,000 square feet with approximately 25 people and master lease the remaining 13,000 square feet at between $7.00 to $8.00 triple net. 2. An industrial revenue bondwould bnterestissued ratethe over 30 years2of,000 , at an approximate average annual 14.8 percent with semi-annual payments. Reserve funds would be • established to cover defaults and the earnings off the reserve ,: funds would be used to pay principal . The underwriter of Miller Securities, Inc. have already indicated that they would be able to issue the bonds as they recently did in a similar issue in the City, of Stillwater with the same type of financing. Attached to this proposal is a copy of the issue that went to market in Stillwater to give you an idea as to how the financing would be arranged. If we could obtain a firm title commitment from a j reputable title company on the basis that the Citywould guarantee that the land would ultimately be obtained and that a valid first ;I mortgage could be placed upon the land then it is hoped that we would go to market during the early part of April , 1982. The bonds would then be used for construction financing as well as ; the 30 year permanent financing. It is anticipated at this time T that the partnership would actually have to contribute approximately $500,000 over and above the bond issue itself in order to complete the building. Due to the high equity contribution on the part of ;i the partnership certain requests are going to be made in the following proposals of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 3. The partnership would purchase approximately 20,000 square feet � upon which the three story 30,000 square foot office building would be located at a price of approximately $2.00 per square foot. J Due to the high equity contribution it would be necessary that the HRA allow the partnership to purchase the building with $1 .00 down and the balance being paid in equal installments over a ten year period commencing the fourth year after construction. 4. It would further be requested that the City construct the 166 car parking lot and landscape through the use of tax increment 4 funds. It is estimated that the total cost of the construction and landscaping of the parking lot would be $104,000. The partnership would be willing to pay rent on the basis of $1 ,000 per month commencing one year after the issuance of the building t Fridley Hous4ng and Redevelopment Authority Page Three March 10, 1982 permit for a period of 30 years. $1 ,000 per month would cover the entire principal payment on the $104,000 plus interest assuming 11 percent. Therefore, the HRA would recoup its entire principal investment in the parking lot plus all of its interest that it would be paying on the bond. In addition, the lease would run for a period of no less than 50 years but that at the end of 31 years the partnership would have the option of purchasing :. the parking lot for $1 .00. The lease may have to be subordinated to the underlying tax exempt bonds. 5. The City would condemn and obtain the necessary land for the location of the buitding at no cost to the partnership and handle the rerouting of utility facilities if necessary and' drainage problems if, in fact, necessary. This would have to be done very quickly in order to meet our deadline for commencing construction. 6. The partnership's primary general partner, Owen, Ayers Company, is in fact an engineering architectural firm and would want to assist the City in drawing up some comprehensive plans in regard to the Columbia Park Medical Clinic and 73rd Avenue Partnership building and in particular would want to have some input into a plaza area to be constructed between. the Columbia Park Clinic building Phase 1 and this building. It is estimated that the plaza area would cost approximately $50,000 and that the partnership would be willing to maintain its share of the plaza area and actually purchase its share of the plaza area based on the cost of the improvement to the plaza area on the same terms and conditions as the actual purchase of the ground under the building. In other words, no payment would be required for four years and the balance • of the principal would be paid over 10 years. However, the partnership would, in fact, be willing to pay the cost of maintenance during the entire time that the building is in fact occupied. 7. The taxes on the building would, in fact, only be on the 20,000 square feet or so that it is purchasing. 8. The partnership would also want the option to construct other commercial office buildings within the Center City projects, specifically north of City Hall and possibly an extension of the existing City Hall to a three or four story building. 9. The partnership would work with the architectural firm of BWBR which is designing the Columbia Park Clinic building and the building that the partnership would construct would in fact 1 Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Page Four March 10, 1982 be aesthetically compatible in all respects with the Columbia Park Clinic building and the surrounding area. 10. At the present time, the total assessed value of the property upon which the Columbia Park Clinic building.and the 73rd Avenue Partnership building is to be located is $14,400. Based on preliminary estimates it appears that the actual assessed value for the 73rd Avenue Partnership building after completion will be $725,274 and the first phase of the Columbia Park Clinic building after completion will be $836,923. The total assessed value at that time for the project area will be $1 ,562,197 less the $14,400 would leave an assessed value upon which increments could be captured of $1 ,547,797. With factors of $2.72 per square foot for the Columbia. Park Medical Clinic Phase,l , it appears that the annual tax generated upon which could be included in the increment is $76,160 and based on $2.20 per square foot for the 73rd Avenue office building, it appears that the annual 4 tax capture for increment purposes would be $142,160 per year. A large portion of that would be realized in the year 1984. The full amount would be realized in the year 1985. The above proposal is rather far reaching but it appears in today's financial market that bonds could be sold within 30 days or less and that the market may change very very quickly. As the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is probably aware, the law firm of Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon & Haskvitz was the first developer to make the first proposal on the Center City project three years ago. It has always been our hope to assist developing the downtown Fridley area and it is felt that bringing Owen, Ayers Company into the City of Fridley would be a tremendous asset. Owen, Ayers Company plans on expanding and may someday employ a number of people within the City of Fridley. At the present time, Owen, Ayers Company employs 300 people. We would appreciate it if you would review this matter as quickly as possible since time is of the essence in marketing the bonds and obtaining commitments for title insurance. Attached to this letter is a letter from Miller Securities, Inc. which verifies the fact that they would be willing to give a firm commitment for the financing and if the HRA were to consent the principals of 73rd Avenue Partnership would, in fact, be willing to contribute as outlined above the necessary $500,000 equity in order to make the building a reality. On the other hand, it is very necessary since such a large amount of equity will be placed into the building that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority give full consideration and approval to the conditions as outlined above. Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated.. Yours truly, Mark Haggerty Managing Partner - 73rd Avenue Partnership MH/cv Enclosure ADDENDUM Section 3.2 Public Improvements (add at the very end of that paragraph) ". . . (e) The agency or the City shall furnish to the redeveloper a utility map for the district and prepared by the City engineers department showing the location of all utility lines and further the City or the HRA shall be responsible for, and bear all cost of the relocation of water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer lines in the street right-of-way and street for E4th Lane and further shall be responsible for the relocation of all the curbs, asphalt, and the actual layout of 64th Lane and pay for the same. Any and all assess- ments that may be assessed against the property for previously mentioned improvements shall be Paid by the agency or the agency shall and hereby agrees to reimburse the redeveloper, its successors and assigns, for the same. " Section 3.6 Good Faith Deposit and Purchase Price (add the following sentence after the first paragraph under that section) ". . . In the event that the redeveloper or its predecessors such as joint ventures have out any type of a good faith deposit the redeveloper shall recei'fe credit for said good faith derosit Provided that the redeveloper submits to the agency evidence of a firm financial commitment for the financing of the minimum improvements. " Section 7.1 Financing (add at the very end of the first paragrarh) "The agency and the City further agree that in the event that it is necessary to place industrial revenue bond financing on the premises prior to the approval of a special zoning district, lot splits, replatting, vacation of the street, acquisition of appropriate property, and/or vacation of Eisenhower Park, the City and the agency shall provide the redeveloper with a title conn itment guarantying over these heretofore mentioned title problems with absolute assurances from the agency and the City in writing that these problems will , in fact, have been cleared prior to the completion of the minimum improvements. The agency acknowledges that the redeveloper has alreadycontacted a title insurance company and is proceeding with obtaining this form of a commitment." Go to Pane 34 (new sections) Section 11 Sale and Purchase Price. "Subject to all the terms, convenants, and conditions of this aareement, the agency does hereby agree to sell to the redeveloper, and the redevelooer does hereby acree to purchase from the agency the property described in the attached Exhibit A for a purchase price of Forty Thousand and 09/100 Dollars ($4n,n99.9n) . The agency shall deliver to the redevelooer a deed to the property described in Exhibit A in exchange for S1 .90 consideration and a mortgage back in the sum of $39,999.00 which shall be subordinated to the tax exempt bond which is being secured by a first mortgage on the property as described in Section 7.2 herein. There shall be no payments required for four (a) years after the issuance of the certificate of completion on the part on the agency for the minimum improve- ments. After the four year Period of time, the redeveloper, its successors and assigns, shall commence payments to the agency of Four Thousand and 90/10'1 -1- Dollars ($4,000.00) per year principal reduction payments. In addition thereto, there will be charged accrued interest at the rate of eleven percent (11%) per annum comencino January 1 , 1987. The first principal and interest payment shall be due and payable on or before June 1 , 1987 and shall be due and payable in installments of $4,909.00 plus accrued interest on the first of June each year thereafter until paid in full . The redeveloper, its successors and assigns, shall have the right to pay off the mortggge at any time without penalty. " Section 12 Agengi's . Obligations to Construct Parking Lot. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Schedule F is a lease agreement to be entered into by and between the agency and the redeveloper for a parking lot to have a minimum parking capacity of 166 cars. The agency agrees to clear the land, prepare it for servicing, put in all curbs, drainage and asphalt, install all appropriate landscaping as required by ordinances including shrubs, trees, soil and sod at no cost to the redeveloper. All costs will be ,paid for out of a lease arrangement which has been referred to herein and attached hereto as Schedule F. The terms and conditions of that lease are described in fore detail in Schedule F. Section 13 New Plaza Park. The agency hereby agrees and warrants that it shall install at no cost to the redeveloper a plaza which shall adjoin the redeveloper's office building with the City of Fridley City Hall and that said plaza will include landscaping amenities and which are shown in the attached Exhibit site plan which is an approximation of the layout of the plaza. The redevelopers, its successors and assigns, agree to be responsible along with the City of Fridley for the ongoing maintenance of the plaza. Section 14 Redeveloper's Richt to Expand Property. The agency agrees to allow the redeveloper to build its 30,009 square foot office building on the northerly boundary line of the legal description shown in Exhibit A. The agency will obtain the necessary variances and approvals from the City of Fridley to build the building on the northerly boundary line in order to facilitate the expansion of the building if in the opinion of the agency and the redevelopers that would be an advantageous endeavor. In addition the agency shall rezone the redevelopment area into a special district and lots will be created which will facilitate the development of the area. One of the lots will be located immediately to the north of the 30,990 square foot office building which would be of an approximate size to permit the expansion of the office building itself. The agency states that it makes no warranties to the redeveloper that it will permit the expansion of the office building, not- withstanding the zero lot line location of the building and the development of the lot which may someday facilitate the expansion of the building. Notwith- standing, log,,ith- standing, the agency does agree to permit the redeveloper to develop other property within the redevelopment district provided that the redeveloper is successful in completing the minimum improvements as described hereinbefore. -2- Further, the agency agrees to remove the Ryan Automotive Buildino and the W. Gustave Doty building on or before June 1 , 1983. In addition, the agency agrees to complete the construction of the Parking lot as described hereinbefore and the park plaza described hereinbefore no later than 30 days after the completion of the 30,000 square foot office building. Section 15 Drainage. The agency shall pay for the cost of all engineering problems associated with excessive drainage in the area of the 73rd Avenue Partnership office building and will take and pay whatever corrective measures may be needed for drainage in the area including the parking lot area which is to be leased. INi WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agency and the Redeveloper have caused this Addendum to the Lease to be executed in their respective corporate names and their respective seals to be hereunto affixed and attested by their duly author- ized officers, all as of the date first above written. (In addition to this Addendum, the agreement can remain the same with the penned in correcticn3 already made. ) There are no major changes to be made to the parking lot lease agreement itself. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I:1 AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY By By 73RD AVENUE PARTNERSHIP By—General—Partner STATE OF IINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF ANOYJ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1982 by and , the and , respectively, of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley. Notary Public -3- STATE OF 9INNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1982, by , a general partner of 73rd Avenue Partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public -4- THE CITY OF -77777; HOUSING .• .• ,, . . I •••: ArigriMM/milligir and .. 1 •• REDEVELOPMENT ._.� •; MEMORANDUMiii ,.. AUTHORITY •11 , E FRIDLEY ���� FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMON0.82-58 DATE August 6, 1982 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redevelopment Authority X Contract with InterDesign on the Center City Design Theme Please see attached Contract Documents submitted to the Fridley HRA by Mr. Roger Martin for the design of the Center City Project. I met with Mr. Martin, Mr. Qureshi and Mr. Flora on July 30, 1982 to discuss the selection of InterDesign by the HRA. The emphasis of this meeting was primarily to lay out the condition by which the firm was selected. We placed major emphasis on the following points: 1. That any design concept would stay within the project costs of $500,000.00. 2. That the design would be as vandal-proof, maintenance free, as possible. 3. That the project would be detailed on a cost, per item, breakdown. 4. That more emphasis is placed on the development of a design theme that will be carried throughout the project, with focal points at the intersection of Mississippi and University Avenue N.E. , and the public plaza. 5. That the design fees is on an hourly basis, up to a maximum set cost per phase, of design construction. We feel that it is important to work closely with Mr. Martin and the HRA in the modification of the design theme, _Oa design that the HRA and the City Council is comfortable with, for the promotion of the overall development. JLB/de 1409 Willow Street Architecture Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403-2294 Duane Thorbeck. AIA. Principal 612/871 7979 Landscape Architecture Roger B. Martin,ASLA. Principal Architecture Robert M. Lambert. AIA, Principal Landscape Architecture Harold Skjelbostad. ASLA,Associate Financial Planning Consultant George Doty • InterDesign Inc. August 3, 1982 • City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Attention: Jerrold Boardman City Planner Executive Director-H RA Dear Jerry: It was a pleasure to learn of our winning the Fridley City Center Competition. Based on our meeting last Friday, I have prepared an Agreement for complet- ing the design work on the project. As you see, I have based the Agreement on the total project of $500,000 but included verbage to allow us to proceed beyond the first 40% design fees on a phased construction cost basis. Because of the potential of the project being broken up into many small phases, I feel it is fair to consider the 8% fee we initially proposed. The 7% fee would be acceptable if we were to do the total project over a normal one- year time frame. The cost of preparing separate contract documents for several projects over a longer period of time would place an excessive cost on our shoulders. As you see, we are willing to work on an hourly basis up to the maximum in each phase. We are most willing to adjust the design to take into consideration those concerns voiced by the City Manager, the Director of Public Works and yourself. During the design phase we will work towards solving these con- cerns and others which the Housing and Redevelopment Authority requests. Enclosed are three copies of the Agreement. If it is agreeable, please sign and return one of the copies to our office. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, I nterDesign Inc. Roger Martin RBM/la Enclosures THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS ;hip AIA Document B141 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect 1977 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES;CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION AGREEMENT made as of the day of August in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-two. BETWEEN the Owner: Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 and the Architect: I nterDesign Inc. 1409 Willow Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project location and scope.) Fridley City Center Project The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. Copyright 1917, 1926,1948,1951, 1953, 1958, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1%7, 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 B141 • 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 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 1.1.1 The Architect shall review the program furnished of Probable Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in by the Owner to ascertain the requirements of the Project obtaining bids or negotiated proposals, and assist in and shall review the understanding of such requirements awarding and preparing contracts for construction. with the Owner. 1.5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE—ADMINISTRATION 1.1.2 The Architect shall provide a preliminary evalua- OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT tion of the program and the Project budget requirements, 1.5.1 The Construction Phase will commence with the each in terms of the other, subject to the limitations set award of the Contract for Construction and, together with forth in Subparagraph 3.2.1. the Architect's obligation to provide Basic Services under 1.1.3 The Architect shall review with the Owner alterna- this Agreement, will terminate when final payment to the tive approaches to design and construction of the Project. Contractor is due, or in the absence of a final Certificate 1.1.4 Based on the mutually agreed upon program and for Payment or of such due date, sixty days after the Date Project budget requirements, the Architect shall prepare, of Substantial Completion of the Work, whichever occurs for approval by the Owner, Schematic Design Documents first. consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating 1.5.2 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement and the scale and relationship of Project components. incorporated in the Contract Documents, the Architect 1.1.5 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a State- shall provide administration of the Contract for Construc- ment of Probable Construction Cost based on current tion as set forth below and in the edition of AIA Docu- area, volume or other unit costs. ment A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Con- struction, current as of the date of this Agreement. 1.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1.5.3 The Architect shall be a representative of the 1.2.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Docu- Owner during the Construction Phase, and shall advise ments and any adjustments authorized by the Owner in and consult with the Owner. Instructions to the Contrac- the program or Project budget, the Architect shall pre- tor shall be forwarded through the Architect. The Archi- pare, for approval by the Owner, Design Development tect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner Documents consisting of drawings and other documents only to the extent provided in the Contract Documents to fix and describe the size and character of the entire unless otherwise modified by written instrument in ac- Project as to architectural,structural,mechanical and elec- cordance with Subparagraph 1.5.16. trical systems, materials and such other elements as may 1.5.4 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals ap- be appropriate. propriate to the stage of construction or as otherwise 1.2.2 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a further agreed by the Architect in writing to become generally Statement of Probable Construction Cost. familiar with the progress and quality of the Work and to CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE determine in general if the Work is proceeding in accord- 1.3. ance with the Contract Documents. However, the Archi- 1.3.1 Based on the approved Design Development Doc- tect shall not be required to make exhaustive or con- uments and any further adjustments in the scope or qual- tinuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quan- ity of the Project or in the Project budget authorized by tity of the Work. On the basis of such on-site observa- the Owner, the Architect shall prepare, for approval by tions as an architect, the Architect shall keep the Owner the Owner, Construction Documents consisting of Draw- informed of the progress and quality of the Work, and ings and Specifications setting forth in detail the require- shall endeavor to guard the Owner against defects and ments for the construction of the Project. deficiencies 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 charge of tion of the necessary bidding information, bidding forms, and shall not be responsible for construction means, the Conditions of the Contract, and the form of Agree- methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for ment between the Owner and the Contractor. safety precautions and programs in connection with the 1.3.3 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjust- Work, for the acts or omissions of the Contractor, Sub- AIA DOCUMENT B141 • 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 3 _ contractors or any other persons performing any of the necessary or advisable for the implementation of the intent Work, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the of the Contract Documents,the Architect will have author- Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. ity to require special inspection or testing of the Work in • 1.5.6 The Architect shall at all times have access to the accordance with the provisions of the Contract Docu- ments, whether or not such Work be then fabricated, in Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. 1.5.7 The Architect shall determine the amounts owing stalled or completed. to the Contractor based on observations at the site and on 1.5.13 The Architect shall review and approve or take evaluations of the Contractor's Applications for Payment, other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals and shall issue Certificates for Payment in such amounts, such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but as provided in the Contract Documents. only for conformance with the design concept of the 1.5.8 The issuance of a Certificate for Pa ment shall Work and with the information given in the Contract Y Documents. Such action shall be taken with reasonable constitute a representation by the Architect to the Owner, promptness so as to cause no delay. The Architect's ap- based on the Architect's observations at the site as pro- proval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an vided in Subparagraph 1.5.4 and on the data comprising assembly of which the item is a component. the Contractor's Application for Payment, that the Work has progressed to the point indicated; that, to the best of 1.5.14 The Architect shall prepare Change Orders for the Architect's knowledge,information and belief,the qual- the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with ity of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Docu the Contract Documents,and shall have authority to order ments (subject to an evaluation of the Work for con minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time formance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial which are not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Completion, to the results of any subsequent tests re- quired by or performed under the Contract Documents, Documents. to minor deviations from the Contract Documents cor- 1.5.15 The Architect shall conduct inspections to deter- rectable prior to completion,and to any specific qualifica- mine the Dates of Substantial Completion and final corn- tions stated in the Certificate for Payment); and that the pletion, shall receive and forward to the Owner for the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certified. Owner's review written warranties and related documents However, the issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall required by the Contract Documents and assembled by not be a representation that the Architect has made any the Contractor, and shall issue a final Certificate for Pay- examination to ascertain how and for what purpose the ment. Contractor has used the moneys paid on account of the 1.5.16 The extent of the duties, responsibilities and lim- Contract Sum. itations of authority of the Architect as the Owner's rep- 1.5.9 The Architect shall be the interpreter of the re- resentative during construction shall not be modified or quirements of the Contract Documents and the judge of extended without written consent of the Owner, the Con- the performance thereunder by both the Owner and tractor and the Architect. Contractor. The Architect shall render interpretations nec- 1.6 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES essary for the proper execution or progress of the Work with reasonable promptness on written request of either 1.6.1 If the Owner and Architect agree that more ex- the Owner or the Contractor, and shall render written de- tensive representation at the site than is described in cisions, within a reasonable time, on all claims, disputes Paragraph 1.5 shall be provided, the Architect shall pro- and other matters in question between the Owner and the vide one or more Project Representatives to assist the Contractor relating to the execution or progress of the Architect in carrying out such responsibilities at the site. Work or the interpretation of the Contract Documents. - 1.6.2 Such Project Representatives shall be selected, em- 1.5.10 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall ployed and directed by the Architect, and the Architect be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable shall be compensated therefor as mutually agreed be- from the Contract Documents and shall be in written or tween the Owner and the Architect as set forth in an ex graphic form. In the capacity of interpreter and judge, hibit appended to this Agreement, which shall describe the duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful perform- ante by both the Owner and the Contractor, shall not such Project Representatives. show partiality to either, and shall not be liable for the 1.6.3 Through the observations by such Project Repre- result of any interpretation or decision rendered in goad sentatives, the Architect shall endeavor to provide further faith in such capacity. protection for the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the Work,but the furnishing of such project representa- 1.5.11 The Architect's decisions in matters relating to artistic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent of tion shall not modify the rights, responsibilities or obliga the Contract Documents. The Architect's decisions on tions of the Architect as described in Paragraph 1.5. any other claims, disputes or other matters, including 1.7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES those in question between the Owner and the Contractor, shall be subject to arbitration as provided in this Agree- The following Services are not included in Basic ment and in the Contract Documents. Services unless so identified in Article 15. They shall be provided if authorized or confirmed in writing by 1.5.12 The Architect shall have authority to reject Work the Owner, and they shall be paid for by the Owner which does not conform to the Contract Documents. as provided in this Agreement, in addition to the Whenever, in the Architect's reasonable opinion, it is compensation for Basic Services. 4 8141-1977 MA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION • JULY 1977• AIM• ©1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 1.7.1 Providing analyses of the Owner's needs, and pro- struction, and furnishing services as may be required in gramming the requirements of the Project. connection with the replacement of such Work. 1.7.2 Providing financial feasibility or other 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 Providing planning surveys, site evaluations, envi- the Work of the Contractor, or by failure of performance ronmental studies or comparative studies of Cf either the Owner or Contractor under the Contract for p prospective Construction. sites, and preparing special surveys, studies and submis- sions required for approvals of governmental authorities 1.7.17 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings or others having jurisdiction over the Project. showing significant changes in the Work made during 1.7.4 Providing services relative to future facilities, sys- construction based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by the Contractor to the Architect. tems and equipment which are not intended to be con- structed during the 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 Providing services to investigate existing conditions adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and or facilities or to make measured drawings thereof, or to maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation verify the accuracy of drawings or other information fur- and maintenance, and consultation during operation. Wished by the Owner. 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 1.7 20 Preparing to serve or serving as an expert witness requested by the Owner. in connection with any public hearing, arbitration pro- 1.7.7 Providing coordination of Work performed by ceeding or legal proceeding. separate contractors or by the Owner's own forces. 1.7.21 Providing services of consultants for other than 1.7.8 Providing services in connection with the work of the normal architectural, structural, mechanical and elec- a construction manager or separate consultants retained trical engineering services for the Project. by the Owner. 1.7.22 Providing any other services not otherwise in- 1.7.9 Providing Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost, cluded in this Agreement or not customarily furnished in analyses of owning and operating costs, or detailed quan- accordance with generally accepted architectural practice. tity surveys or inventories of material, equipment and 1.8 TIME labor. 1.8.1 The Architect shall perform Basic and Additional 1.7.10 Providing interior design and other similar ser- Services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional vices required for or in connection with the selection, skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work. Upon procurement or installation of furniture, furnishings and request of the Owner, the Architect shall submit for the related equipment. Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the 1.7.11 Providing services for planning tenant or rental Architect's services which shall be adjusted as required as spaces. 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 jurisdiction over the Project.This schedule,when approved with written approvals or instructions previously given, by the Owner, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be are required by the enactment or revision of codes, laws exceeded by the Architect. or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such doc- 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 services 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 Con- requirements for theProject including a program, which struction Cost is not commensurate with the services re- shall set forth the Owner's design objectives, constraints quired of the Architect, provided such Change Orders are and criteria, including space requirements and relation- required by causes not solely within the control of the ships, flexibility and expandability, special equipment and Architect. systems and site requirements. 1.7.14 Making investigations, surveys, valuations, inven 2.2 If the Owner provides a budget for the Project it tories or detailed appraisals of existing facilities, and serv- shall include contingencies for bidding, changes in the ices required in connection with 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. AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION • JULY 1977• AIA®• ©1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141-1977 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. respect to the Project. The Owner or such authorized compen- representative shall examine the documents submitted by sation ofCtheuArch Cost doesdnot include the the Architect and shall render decisions pertaining thereto tet land, rights-of-way, and the Architect's others costs promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of are costes the land, rightseof way, or cedts which 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 bud et, State- ing property; rights-of-way, restrictions, easements, en- ! g ments of Probable Construction Cost and Detailed croachments, zoning, deed restrictions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and com tete Estimates of Construction Cost, if any, prepared by the p 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 serv- 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, tjie 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. 2.6 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, 3.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be estab- chemical and other laboratory tests, inspections and re- lished as a condition of this Agreement by the furnishing, ports as required by law or the Contract Documents. proposal or establishment of a Project budget under Sub- 2.7 The Owner shall furnish all legal, accounting and in- paragraph 1.1.2 or Paragraph 2.2 or otherwise, unless such fixed limit has been agreed upon in writing and signed by surance counseling services as may be necessary at any time for the Project, including such auditing services as the parties hereto. If such a fixed limit has been estab- the Owner may require to verify the Contractor's Applica- lished, the Architect shall be permitted to include con- tingencies for design, bidding and price escalation, to de tions for Payment or to ascertain how or for what pur- poses the Contractor uses the moneys paid by or on be- termine what materials, equipment, component systems half of the Owner. 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 2.7 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 the Owner observes or otherwise becomes aware 3.2.3 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not corn- of any fault or defect in the Project or nonconformance menced within three months after the Architect submits with the Contract Documents, prompt written notice 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 lusted 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 posal, the Owner shall (1) give written approval of an 3.1 DEFINITION increase in such fixed limit, (2) authorize rebidding or re negotiating of the Project within a reasonable time, (3) if 3.1.1 The Construction Cost shall be the total cost or the Project is abandoned, terminate in accordance with estimated cost to the Owner of all elements of the Project 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 Cost. 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- ify the Drawings and Specifications as necessary to comply 6 B141-1977 AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION• JULY 1977• AIA4)• ©1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., 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 tor 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 on such portions, in accordance 4.1 Direct-Personnel Expense is defined as the direct sal- with the schedule set forth in Subparagraph 14.2.2, based 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 hid 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 bene- mate of Construction Cost for such portions of the Project. fits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions 6.2 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF and similar contributions and benefits. 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 upon presentation of the Architect's statement of services 5.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the Corn- rendered or expenses incurred. pensation for Basic and Additional Services and include 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 which 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 6.4.1 If the Project is suspended or abandoned in whole the Project. P or in part for more than three months, the Architect shall 5.1.2 Expense of reproductions, postage and handling of be compensated for all services performed prior to receipt Drawings, Specifications and other documents, excluding of written notice from the Owner of such suspension or reproductions for the office use of the Architect and the abandonment, together with Reimbursable Expenses then Architect's consultants. 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- ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS quested by the Owner. 5.1.6 Expense of any additional insurance coverage or 7.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses per- limits, including professional liability insurance, requested twining 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 consultants. be kept on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles and shall be available to the Owner or the Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient ARTICLE 6 times. PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT ARTICLE 8 6.1 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS 6.1.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 14.1 is 8.1 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of serv- the minimum payment under this Agreement. ice are and shall remain the property of the Architect 6.1.2 Subsequent 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 eluding reproducible copies, of Drawings and Specifica- forth in Article 14. 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 B141 • 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 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- tect. 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 matic 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 5 percent if termination occurs during any subse- ARTICLE 9 quent phase. ARBITRATION ARTICLE 11 9.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of or 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- 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- 11.3 As between the parties to this Agreement: as to all taining a specific reference to this Agreement and signed acts or failures to act by either party to this Agreement, by the Architect, the Owner, and any other person sought any applicable statute of limitations shall commence to to be joined. Any consent to arbitration involving an ad- run and any alleged cause of action shall be deemed to ditional person or persons shall not constitute consent to have accrued in any and all events not later than the rele- arbitration of any dispute not described therein or with vant Date of Substantial Completion of the Work, and as any person not named or described therein. This Agree- to any acts or failures to act occurring after the relevant ment to arbitrate and any agreement to arbitrate with an Date of Substantial Completion, not later than the date of additional person or persons duly consented to by the issuance of the final Certificate for Payment. parties to this Agreement shall be specifically enforceable 11.4 The Owner and the Architect waive all rights under the prevailing arbitration law. against each other and against the contractors, consult- 9.2 Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed in ants, agents and employees of the other for damages cov- writing with the other party to this Agreement and with ered by any property insurance during construction as set the American Arbitration Association. The demand shall forth in the edition of AIA 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, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with 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- tivesTERMINATION OF AGREEMENT of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall 10.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party assign, sublet or transfer any interest in this Agreement upon seven days' written notice should the other party without the written consent of the other. fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. ARTICLE 13 10.2 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner 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. MA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION• JULY 1977 • AIA®• ©1977 8 8141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF 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 Agreement,as follows: . 14.1 AN INITIAL PAYMENT of - 0 - dollars($ - zero - ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account as follows: 14.2 BASIC COMPENSATION: eight percent (8%) of $500,000.00 or $40,000.00. 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 be computed as follows: (Here insert basis of compensation, including fixed amounts, multiples or percentages,and identify Phases to which particular methods-431 compensa- tion apply,if necessary.) • Minus credit of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) on Schematic Design Phase for initial competition payment. • Actual fees charged will be based on an hourly cost plus expenses up to the maximum for each phase indicated below. • Work will be accomplished for the total $500,000 project through this Agreement up through completion of the Design Development Phase, which is 40% of the work. Subsequent fees will be based on the eight percent (8%) fee related to the total construction funds available in each phase. Forty percent (40%) of these fees will be considered as paid by the fees received for the first phase of the work unless redesign is requested. 14.2.2 Where compensation is based on a Stipulated Sum 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 following percentages of the total Basic Compensation payable: (Include any additional Phases as appropriate.) Schematic Design Phase: twenty percent( 20%) Design Development Phase: twenty percent( 20%) Construction Documents Phase: forty percent( 40)/0) Bidding or Negotiation Phase: five percent( 5%) Construction Phase: fifteen percent( 15%) 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. AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION• JULY 1977 • AIA®• ©1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 6141-1977 9 14.4 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES 14.4.1 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ARCHITECT, as described in Paragraph 1.7, and any other services in- cluded in Article 15 as part of Additional Services, but excluding Additional Services of consultants, Compen- sation shall be computed as follows: (Here insert basis of compensation, including rates and/or multiples of Direct Personnel Expense for Principals and employees,and identify Principals and classify employees, if required. Identify specific services to which particular methods of compensation apply, if necessary.) Staff @ 2.75 x direct personnel expense $60.00 per hour for Principal's time. • 14.4.2 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS, including additional structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services and those provided under Subparagraph 1.7.21 or identified in Article 15 as part of Addi- tional Services,a multiple of t 1.15 times the amounts billed to the Architect for such services. (Identily specific types of consultants in Article 15, if required 14.5 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES,as described in Article 5, and any other items included in Article 15 as Reim- bursable Expenses,a multiple of ( 1.0 ) times the amounts ex- pended by the Architect, the Architect's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project. 14.6 Payments due the Architect and unpaid under this Agreement shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing at the principal place of business of the Architect. (Here insert any rate of interest agreed upon.) (Usury laws and requirements under the Federal Truth in Lending Act, similar state and local consumer credit law and other regulations at the Owner's and Architect's principal places of business, the location of the Project and elsewhere may affect the validity of this provision Specific legal advice should be obtained with respect to deletion, modification, or other requirements such as written disclosures or waivers I 14.7 The Owner and the Architect agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement that: 14.7.1 IF THE SCOPE of the Project or of the Architect's Services is changed materially, the amounts of compensation shall 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 and multiples set forth herein shall be equitably adjusted. AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION• JULY 1977• AIM• ©1977 10 B141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ARTICLE 15 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT• THIRTEENTH EDITION• JULY 1977 • AIA®• ©1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 8141-1977 11 o Cost estimates shall be prepared during the initial design phases — Schematic and Design Development, and the final design develop- ment cost estimate shall be the basis of fee calculation for the subsequent design phases. This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT HORIY_ARCHITECT CITY OF FRIDLEY INTERDESIGN INC. 6431 University Avenue N.E. 1409 Willow Street Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Minneapolis Minnesota 55403 4(BY BY • Its Ro er B. Martin, Principal MA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • THIRTEENTH EDITION • JULY 1977• AIAt• ©1977 12 B141-1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N. Y., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 TME CITY OF -- HOUSING " � , • i and 1 :: REDEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM_ %\. :: AUTHORITY ;�E i L :: FRIDLEY FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO NO. 82-59 DATE August 6, 1982 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redavelopn'ent Authority X The Hiring of a Consultant on Commercial Relocation , f In the past, I have discussed with you the necessity of hiring a consultant when we get involved with commercial relocation. The difficulty of coordination, and follow through, with commercial business, makes this area very difficult and time consuming for the Housing & Redevelopment Authority staff. It would be more cost effective to consult this portion of the project out to an expert in commercial relocation. For this reason, I have contacted Mr. Bill VonKlug of VonKlug and Associates, Inc. , and discussed the commercial relocation that we will be undertaking in the very near future. VonKlug and Associates is a very highly recommended firm that deals strictly in relocation. He will be submitting a proposal to be by Wednesday, August 11 , 1982, that I will being before the HRA for your review. JLB/de Dyers Corporation and WouSem ST � macne"�� - PHONE 425 - 2822 !RN ' ' 55445 MINNEAPOLIS, MN' 00 85TH AVENGE NO. July 28, 1982 The City of Fridley velopment Authority Housing and 61131 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 551132 Attention Jerrold L. Board' Executive Director t the following Dear Mr. Boardman: oration, su6k h Avenue B.E. Housemovers Corporation, 362 . bid is and d garage now located at location. We, Ernst N the hoes their present bid to purchase from s 03,319.00)• to be removed Dollar Minnesota ee Nineteen Fridley,ousan Hundred remain Threeity to do business with your we Thank You for the opportunity Yours very truly' F. S CORPORATION MACHINERY AND HOUSEMOVER / 14./ A - ,.teth R. E s KRB/aaw July 28, 1982 Badger Movers, Inc. 3111 California St NE Mpls. , MN 55418 City of Fridley 6431 University Av NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Jerry, Badger Movers, Inc will pay $500.00 for the house at 378 64 Av NE, Fridley Mn. We will also pay $3,750.00 for the house at 362 64 Av NE, Fridley, MN. BADGER MOVERS, INC i Evert J. Boerhave PRESIDENT EJB:vf1 THE CITY OF HOUSINGi;l ,�; € ii end .. 1 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FRIDLEY ' August 12, 1982 Evert J. Boerhave, President Badger Movers, Inc. 3111 California Street N.E. Minneapolis, Mn 55418 RE: Bid on 362 and 378 64th Avenue N.E. Dear Mr. Boerhave: The Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority, on August 12, 1982, officially accepted your high bids of $3,750.00 for 362 64th Avenue N.E. , and $500.00 for 378 64th Avenue N.E. , as per the request for bids dated July 21 , 1982. The structures are ready for removal as of August 12, 1982. Please make the necessary application for permits with the City, and make the purchase checks payable to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Please notify us when you will be on the site for moving. Thank you for your bids on this project, and we look forward to working with you. Sincerely, 9?(6(LL JERROLD L. BOARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority C-82-66 THE CITY OF HOUSING _� and E -- REDEVELOPMENT ,- ♦ .- .. ..:� AUTHORITY ;;�: �� FRIDLEY •- July 29, 1982 Herbst & Sons, Inc. Belair Wrecking & Excavating, Inc. Ted Renolett 2299 County Road H 443 8th Avenue N.W. ' 927 Andover Blvd. N.E. New Brighton, Mn 55112 New Brighton, Mn 55112 Anoka. Mn 55303 f Re: Bids on the Removal of Two Single Family Basements and Foundation at 362 and 378 64th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota Dear Sirs: This is a request for written quotes on the removal and backfilling of the basement and foundations of two single family homes that are being removed from the lots at 362 and 378 64th Avenue N.E. These structures will be removed with the next three weeks so it will be important to be able to remove the basements as soon after the struc- ture is moved as possible. If you are interested in bidding on this project, please contact me at 571-3450 to review the sites. The bids should be returned to me by Thursday, August 5, 1982 so that we can move on the project as quickly as possible. zAiliiierely, • 1111" (Xf440-„44521- .ERROLD L. BOARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority JLB/de C-82-62 • STATEMENT TED RENOLLETT 927 Andover Blvd. N. E. 755-3126 J4..,y`` Anoka, Minn. 55303, , 19 TOei°tP t t i 6 1. 1-4-e g s ADDRESS CITY - STATE /j • Date Description . Charges Credits Balance *3-s _fa a) ' ' /41 4 r P. a I - • 3 !p �; a a ,.� 3 7. 7) . -Z. —pat- ` ., �,u,,.� • .0 �a s� — 1 f . /0_0 • 1 • •..,• l _• I • I I _ 1'p,. e1 I 4, iz_0 /42--0-eat-di 4- 1 , Ii! _ ck __I.a-/J-,_ - .1)-ti-/- ---v. -. / ' 1," ' -, d - -4_A-it.Pi: a .• I k • Pay last Amount in Balance Column 1% per month service charge will be made on all items not collected within 30 days of due date. I Herbst and Bons Cort Cu..Inc.Cops` STANDARD FORM PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT Herbst and Sons Coast.Co.,lac. Minneapolis-784-8510 • 22f! Ce. Rd. H N° 7896 New Brighton.- Minnesota 55112 DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS 571-3450 CVNER ENT TO: ROUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AU �i)T� AUTHORITY 6431 University Ave. N, i:.t....1?;idl Made this )rd day of A §1 !hi , i9.82 For Removal and backfilling of basements Located at 362 and 378 64th A. e. N• E. in the City of Fridley, ,State of Minn. Subject to the Terms and Conditions hereinafter stipulated: (1)We agree to wreck. dismantle, and,'or remove the above described structo,e-...,in nrcnnlance with the following soceificatione: Utility disconnections to be made and paid for by• None Basement to be left clean and empty: Yes .X. No Basement to be filled with non-combustible material and dirt:Yes B No Erection of barricade around basement hole after wrecking to be done by None Barricades furnished by contractor to remain his property and returned to him upon release by owner. Contract- ors liability on property to cease upon erection and acceptance of barricades by owner. Salvageable material to remain property of owner• None Tree Removal: None Leveling of Lot: Rough.grade demolition area only. Permit to be paid by: none Completion time: per your letter dated July 29, 1982 Other Contract conditions: Removal of basement foundations and floor slabs. all.f.Onc.E:t<e.1.1abe laa�..s�de�+ ]des..-aa.bQtkt..lo Br &ackflll of basements, 362 64th Ave. N. E. $1,500.00 & 378 64th Aye. N. E. $1,500.00 (2) We will do this work for and in consideration of our receiving all salvage of every nature and description contained in and/or derived from said wrecking, all of which is to become our property, and in addition thereto payment to us of the sum of...111REE TUQ,SAND AND NQ/100 Dollars ($..$,,.0.0.Q..0Q.) payment of which shall be made as follows• 30 days after completion of contract, (a) Persons or companies furnishing labor or materials for the improvement of real property may enforce a lien upon the im- proved land if they are not paid for their contributions,even if such parties have no direct contractual relationship with the owner; (hi Minnesota law permits the owner to withhold from his contractor so much of the contract price as may be necessary to meet the demands of all other lien claimants,pay directly such liens and deduct the cost thereof from the contract price,or withhold amounts from his contractor until the expiration of 90 days from the completion of such improvement unless the contractor furnishes to the owner waivers of claims for mechanics' liens signed by persons who furnished any labor or material for the improvement and who provided the owner with timely notice. Contracture Insurance Coverage: Workmen's Compensation and'or Workmen's Liability, statutory, Public Liability or Bodily Injury, $300,000 Mels semen, 1600,000 each accident. Property Damage,$160,000 each accident, 1300.000 aggregate. (e) This proposal, if accented. shall constitute a contract and agreement between the Wrecking Contractor and the Owner, Architect, or General Contractor• or any of their agents, for the wrecking of the buildings or structure named herein. (5)Notwithstanding the reference in previous paragraphs to "week, dismantle and remove," unless otherwise specifically stated in the specifications. the Wrecking Contractor reserve the right to dismantle the building or buildings by reducing the soon. walls, ailing, and roofs to flat panels, or to remove the building as a whole or substantially as a whole,ur by accomplishing such wrecking,dismantling,and removal by such other means as it elects. 161 This proposal is submitted under the assumption that the buildings or structure when released to the Wrecking Contractor, will be In the same condition so when this proposal was submitted• and the Owner or his agents agrees to tar to the Wrecking Contractor the prevailing market price for any materials nr aalvage taken from the premise by the Owner or other* in the intervening time. (7)The Wrecking Contractor shall not be held liable for the adequacy or responsibility of any of the Architect's or Owner's plane specifications or designs for shoring, bracing, temporary construction, such ea eanopis and bridges. or the stahility of any parts of buildinn, Party walls. adjoining build- or parts thereof, which are to he left ntandine: nor does this probaal include any of the above work unless aceeificaliy mentioned herein. tel This proposal is submitted under the assumption that the pians and specifications are complete (unless otherwise noted). and no work is to be Included that is not specifically mentioned. Any extra work which the Wrecking Contractor is requested is perform shall be paid for al extra work, and will be done only on the written direction of the Owner or Architect or their agents. (9) If the building or structure are dismantled according to contract, but are found to he in oblation of legal reoulrements or property rights of others. the Owner shall defend the Contractor against any snit or action brought egaiest him for such violation• and shall pay all fine, damage and assessments levied against the Wrecking Contractor as a result of such suit or action. (10) In the event the said buildings or structures are damaged or destroyed prior to the date of the commencement of wrecking,then the Wrecking Con- tractor shall hose the option to rescind this proposal or agreement,and the Owner agrees to such recision. Further. the Owner agree that the buildings or structures on s:dd premises are Insured against fire and tondo, and that in the event the said property,which is insured,is destroyed or damaged by fire or tornadk,before it is dismantled from said premise.the Owner will hold all proceeds of such insurance for the benefit of the Wrecking Contractor to in- demnify It for Ina low of rid houniiPes or structure. tilt Voirea the contract for this work state a definite per diem bonus and penalty fur any specified time or length of time for completion. the Con- tractor shall not hr held liable or he reouired to Pay any amount as licoldated damage for delay In completion, and Owner shall waive all claim for dam- age against said Contractor for his failure to armulet& the work in a given time. (12)This instrument shall contain all of the terms and conditions under which the work I.to be done and shall not be altered or modified exempt for an additional written instrument newly signed by both startles. (Ill This proposal. If not accepted under the conditions herein stated, and within ten days from data hereof, ceases thereafter.subject to the option of the Wrecking Contractor,to be as offer for am:aptasee. ACCEPTED: ig,... HEREST SONS CONS�- O INC. By 44:04214 By' Title Vice President (Owner - Agent . Architect - Contractor) Owner's Purchase Order No. THE CITY OF L-J HOUSING - € i and •• REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYEEE � H ! 6 5 iEE FRIDLEY August 12, 1982 Ted Renolett 927 Andover Blvd. N.E. Anoka, MN 55303 RE: Bids on the Removal of Basements, and Backfill , at 362 and 378 64th Avenue N.E. , Fridley, Minnesota Dear Mr. Renolett: The Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority has officially accepted your bid of $1 ,295.00 for the removal of basements, concrete, driveways and retain- ing walls, from 362 and 378 64th Avenue N.E. The structures will be removed within the next three weeks, and we want to coordinate the removal of the foundations with the structural removal , to minimize any potenital accidents with an open basement. I will contact you as soon as I know when the structures will be removed. Thank you for your bids on this project. Sincerely, / ERROLD L. BOARDMAN / Executive Director Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority JLB/de C-82-67 TME CITY OF HOUSING -- and '�' E f REDEVELOPMENT ,.. AUTHORITY k FRIDLEY • � •• July 29, 1982 G. Stanley Rischard, Atty. Suite 925 Dain Tower Minneapolis, Nh 55402 Re: Purchase of property at 336 64th Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Rischard: As per our meeting on July 13, 1982, you indicated that your clients were asking for a purchase price of $200,000.00 for 336 64th Avenue N.E. Due to the fact that our appraisal on the property is substantially different from your asking price and that even in our discussion, the ability to satisfactorily negotiate a reasonable compromise is limited, we have no other alternative than to start condemnation proceedings as per you June 28, 1982 letter. This matter has been turned over to our attorney, Mr. Virgil Herrick, 6279 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 (571-3850). Please direct all further correspondence on this matter to Mr. Herrick with a copy to myself. rely, dtirdAZ RROLD L. BOARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority C-82-64 cc: Virgil Herrick OFFICE: 1140141 RESIDENCE: 934-2924 LAW OFFICES OF G. STANLEY RISCHARD SUITE ' DAIN TOWER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 June 28, 1982 Mr. Jerrold L. Boardman Executive Director Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Purchase of property described as the Easterly 54 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and the Easterly 54 feet of the North 7. 5 feet of Lot 4, Block 4, Ree' s Addition to Fridley Park, Anoka County Dear Mr. Boardman: This office has been retained by Mr. Roland E. Hardel and Mr. Steven G. Hardel to represent them in the proposed acquisition of their property by the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I have been authorized to reject your offer of $77, 500.00 and request that this matter be put in condemnation proceedings by your department filing a petition with the Clerk of Court in Anoka County. Any and all further correspondence by your department rela- tive to this parcel of land should be directed to this office. If you have any questions relative to this matter, feel free to contact me at any time. Respectfully yours, tanieey H schard GSR:jd cc: Mr. Roland E. Hardel TME CITY OF HDU NGHi end ' E .. REDEVELOPMENT .. AUTHORITY E FRIDLEY � ' July 29, 1982 6. Stanley Rischard, Atty. Suite 925 Dain Tower Minneapolis, Mn 55402 RE: Purchase of property at 332 64th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr. Rischard: As per our meeting on July 13, 1982, you indicated that your clients were asking for a purchase price of $85,000.00 for 332 64th Avenue N.E. Due to the fact that our appraisal on the property is substantially different from your asking price and that even in our discussion, the ability to satisfactorily negotiate a reasonable compromise is limited, we have no other alternative than to start comdemnation proceedings as per your June 28, 1982 letter. This matter has been turned over to our attorney, Mr. Virgil Herrick, 6279 University Avenue N.E. , Fridley, NAV 55432 (571-3850). Please direct all further correspondence on this matter to Mr. Herrick with a copy to myself. Sincerely, ERROLD L. BOARDMAN Executive Director Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority C-92-63 cc: Virgil Herrick OFFICE: � 341 X i 47 RESIDENCE: 934-2924 LAW OFFICES OF G. STANLEY RISCHARD SUITE 5OAIN TOWER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 June 28, 1982 Mr. Jerrold L. Boardman Executive Director Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Purchase of property described Lots 1, 2, 3 and the North 72 foot of Lot 4, Block 4, Ree' s Addition to Fridley Park except the Easterly 54 feet of above said lots (332 64th Avenue NE) Dear Mr. Boardman: This office has been retained by Mr. Steven G. Hardel to represent him in the proposed acquisition of his residence by the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I have been authorized to reject your offer of $66,000.00 and request that this matter be put in condemnation proceedings by your department filing a petition with the Clerk of Court in Anoka County. Any and all further correspondence by your department rela- tive to this parcel of land should be directed to this office. If you have any questions relative to this matter, feel free to contact me at any time. Respectfully yours, 11 i c / L ( Stanley RAschard GSR:jd cc: Mr. Steven G. Hardel MOORE LAKE PROJECT THE CITY OF -� r.. . __ ..... HOUSING Irmirm-Amir and -,, .,. .. REDEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM .. AUTHORITY 71 - ' OSO FRIDLEY FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTORIIIMEMO NO. #82-60 DATE August 6, 1982 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redevelopment Authority X NYBO OFFICE PRODUCT I've been in several meetings with Cheryl Nybo concerning the office build- ing she is proposing on Hillwind Road. We have discussed alternative methods of getting the project under way so as to remove the land acquisition prob- lems with delayed financing. The HRA at their June 17, 1982 meeting, had approved contract documents to be signed with start of acquisition when she has proof of financing (which is contingent on 50% lease up) , The contract document as laid out commits the HRA to acquisition of the property with a sell back at 50% of the ap- praised raw land value. Ms. Nybo has approached us with the alternative of her contracting with Mr. Burandt on the purchase of the land with a balloon payment due in one year with the option to purchase at any time. What that does essentially, is remove the HRA from the negotiation of land acquisition, it ties down the property for Ms. Nybo so that she can wait until financing is at an accept- able rate and it puts all the risk of the purchase of land on Ms. Nybo. She would still require the assistance of the HRA on the project. In our discussions with Ms. Nybo, we have laid down two possible alternatives on that assistance. 1 . The HRA, on financing commitment, would pay off the balloon payment on the contract held by Ms. Nybo at the same value that we would have pro- vided for in the original contract documents. (In this case, unless there is an upper limit set by HRA, we have no control on purchase price) , 2. The HRA, will do the exterior improvements (blacktop, curp landscaping) for the project up to the same value that we would have provided for in the original contract. We have the option of paying for the improvements in one payment or as an assessment whichever is more favorable, In either case, we would remove the existing structure and foundations for the project. JLB/nh TME CITY OF ---E--J HOUSING �•�/ 4 and ' frlREDEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM ♦ AUTHORITY "':::---- '•=' FRIDLEY • ""'� FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MEMO NO. 82-61 DATE August 6, 1982 TO ACTION INFO. SUBJECT Housing & Redevelopment Authority X Central Avenue Project f Mr. Dennis Ewing and Mr. Dick Reiersgord sumitted additional information on their proposed project in a meeting I had with them on August 5, 1982. This project was initially submitted to you by Mr. Dick Mochinski, the owner of Lots 16 and 17, Spring Valley Addition, on February 17, 1982. We are presently analyzing the figures that they have given us, so that we can see if the project is economically feasible, from the standpoint of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority, W hope to have this information prior to the HRA meeting of August 12, 1982. I am bringing this item to you for your inforamtion, with the intent of getting further direction on this project. JLB/de l HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - PAGE 4 Mr. Houck agreed with Mr. Prieditis. The HRA members agreed to authorize Mr. Boardman to contact Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Wyeth and see if there was any room for negotiation. Mr. Commers declared Memo No. 82-10 received into the record. He also declared the appraisal report from Leon Madsen and the appraisal from Newcombe & Hanson dated Jan. 15, 1982, received into the record. II. MOORE LAKE PROJECT A. Phase I - Update on Nybo Project (Memo No. 82-11 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated the project is moving along satisfactorily. Ms. Nybo did receive the necessary commitments for rental space from her finance company, and she indicated she would have all the necessary commitments by the HRA's March 11 meeting. Mr. Commers declared Memo No. 82-11 received into the record. B. Phase III (Memo No. 82-08 from Executive Director) Mr. Commers stated this memo is regarding City Council approval for CDBG funds for land acquisition in the Moore Lake Project area for a potential elderly project by St. Phillips Lutheran Church. Mr. Boardman stated this was for the HRA's information. No action was required at this time. *--- C. Phase V-VI (Memo No. 82-12 from Executive Director) Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Dick Mochinski is proposing to develop a townhouse/quad project to be located in Phase V-VI of the Moore Lake District. This would be an all ownership project. The quad homes would run approx. $64-68,000, and the townhouses would run approx. $78-80,000. Mr. Mochinski is proposing they work on Phase I, II, III, and IV in a phase development starting with the property he presently owns and the City owns. Mr. Mochinski stated they were originally working with Mr. Boardman on a commercial project on the property he owns, and then it was discovered that the area was going to be set up for a future residential district. After meeting with a couple of finance companies that expressed some interest in this project, he came up with this preliminary proposal , r based on the realty study he bad done on what the market would be for that type of housing. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 - PAGE 5 Mr. Mochinski stated one of the problems associated with this site is the bad soil . He is looking at the possibility of the HRA participating in some method of soil correction to make these buildings feasible. After borings were done on his site, he was looking at a cost of approx. $80-100,000 to prepare the soil. Assuming the ground is similar on the City's site, it could be another $80-100,000. For a developer to absorb that kind of cost would probably make the cost of those units prohibitive. Mr. Mochinski stated this is still in the preliminary stage; however, based on the cost of land per unit, he is looking at a minimum of 96 units for the whole area. Mr. Coroners asked what action the HRA should take. Mr. Boardman stated he would like an indication from the HRA as to whether it was worth Mr. Mochinski 's while to move ahead and do further design work and for the City to go ahead with further analysis. Is the HRA willing at some point in time to make acquisitions as necessary to continue this project? Mr. Coroners asked how many structures would need to be acquired in the whole project. Mr. Boardman stated they would need to acquire nine residential , one commercial , and one substandard residential. He stated the project appeared to be feasible. He felt it was a worthwhile project and felt they should continue to analyze it. Mr. Prieditis stated he did not like the placement of the units as shown on the site plan. He felt they were detrimental as far as the visual impact, and there has to be a better way of placing the units. Mr. Boardman stated one of the City's concerns is the number of access points onto the major road systems, and they would like to work with Mr. Mochinski on a more workable design on road and road patterns. Mr. Commers stated it was the concensus of the HRA that Staff go forward in trying to develop additional information, to work with Mr. Mochinski on the general development of this project, and report back to the HRA. Mr. Commers thanked Mr. Mochinski for coming to the meeting. III. NORTH AREA PROJECT A. Phase I 1 . Memo No. 82-09 from Executive Director (Action on Housing Bond Program for 360-Unit Complex) Mr. Commers stated that on Feb. 1 , the City Council requested the HRA to review the program submitted by the developer to analyze the r FINANCIAL (,...__t _t ( Ili a II P 3 ) „. - , , ,. mo - , - -0 , ' ;'. ' : '7, ;',1 ,!•Z ; g :'.., 0- ;m ; A :--. .-. ,' .7 .. , 22 :T.:Z :3: ':2 'e ' ,--, ; ;,.' 7 ' ' -'• ' , . i i 1 • • . ' • . . i i 1 I . . . , • I • I I VI! , 1 1 • : I . . , , 1 ! • • 1 . i , . , , 44 VI . ; v) fa• !..s Mc ..I ..) al at• I ..s I ..1 ! ac ..I.a.al a: ...I ;gm 4.4 a' ' IC. a Ile et ..01 at 1 at •IC ' f.) 4111 a a C.)I at ;a '= ,1 7, 7 3 7 7, 4; 0 • 7 7 1 1 17 7 7 e 1 = CD i Z i• Z Z r Z• at. • Z 1 Z Z , • it IC Z •, Z • ,Z Z !? • la at I it ;• a ar. •C a( iff 4 1 1 •C ' •C 40C ' . * IW.1 4IC 44 • 0 •! Z Z Z .1 • 'IC Z MC •I Z • it tt Z •• at w I I I I O. LI • : ; . , . Z • I • I , N 81 1 ! , 0 ! I I • . . • .4) 0 • 0 O. I O. • i . , , I P. I 1 0 • i i • I , , . I . . • 3. I I . Z In in, 0 0 In on un In In in p.t.. In lin in .in 444 .44- . A. P. A P.' P. A A P. Ian r.P. P. ip. 4.. I.. a •a. a e S . I' I • 1 41, I . 1 I. I I • ... v 0 CO• CP CS w4 • ai am ' a)co.4 v4 ,p4 •.1 .4 0 •111 In w) in in ail an , 0 I 117 I.4 0 0 In ;0 .411 0 Z A p. p. p.' P. P. P• , P. i P. iloP 0 AP I.• .1.. .- P. 1 •e e • e' $ 5 a . 1 1 a !a I I• 1 .5 1 I A 0 0 ea Q' 0 0 ea i cy i a .C/a a a ea a ea Z o CO 0 CP cs, c. o : 0 I o 000 P. ct 4m 0 B V in ..., an 0 0, 4P 0 a,, 4P 4p cm 4P 1 rf - cr I 0 cr tr)ea on •••op• on aP sn 41. in ar in 4P LI In ! 1 4 a 1 1: 11111 !I 11 1' 1 ,1 1 1 U in in in on In' • In In In ; In at ca.4 In In in in a P. ! P. P. P. P. A A ! A A • 4:4 CO 40 • A P. •A A ' . • , . . . • ; . i • . . . V) 0 .4 P. I-4 64 1.4 4.4 la 44.1.•A , , CI La A at r. r. o. ip- a • -5-A;A, C:1 .t V/ 0. A O. 6J la US 14,1 0 ' 644.4•4 W Z 4-4 -a cc z Z z z 1r Z Iri ta 0 0 0 0 C) CO 31. v) It 6J 6- hi it , I/3 •CC ct CIC C.) 0 2 It Z Z Z Z 0 C./ 0 0 0 0 A ! 4C CO 413 OD Z •CC 4. Z IIE ai 0 as 4.4 sa 104 Z C• IC W W Z Fi 11. 0 9.1 cn cos V) Ca 04 .4 O. 64 as 4.4 a Z a 74 la ta la la W "44 ! a. ALI la ta 0 •4.? 4IC C) 0 CI 0 0 & , P. I IC ar CC CC IC Ca O. •Z , . . , . W • ; , . , , A . . ; V) i I . • , 1 . . CD , , . , • , , • LP I , CC • i , . ' IC , ! • Z 'Il.IL O. II. LP Z . . 0 0 0 CP SA 41 4C 4A CC : GO Z Z Z 0 W Z AI . ! z •A P.A P. z 1.4 at X 4» CC Z • 0 ; IC P.P.P. P. Sai C) .3 0 0 Z• ea oc ' of 1 se • 1.)LI 1.6 1.4 CC ...I 0 fa a a 0 641 ac - 1.4 161 V) at • Z 7 . 0 Z 0 0 at • II) ! 10.4 P.A A ; 6- 7 la Ly ee z cc ... z . la W 161 61 ,.1 60 CC b. . 0 h. 0 0 W • P. • la ; 4J 0 0 0 0 a P. 0 0 a. oc .or • z = IL ' mj .MC Z CC CC : W 0 a. i . , . • . , . . . ; ! . . i . . . .• • . • . , • ! • , ' ' • • •0 • i• • • •; • . • 44 • • • I - . • ca o 00 4:6 a aa 0 0 øe : 0 co N Ca 00 ,tr,or e-en ! CA CD P-p. 1.1 In 00 00 00 00 00 00 0A7 . CM CD 41)0, 0 ea P.co Cl PI CI CY 41 In N N C7 C7 S . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a m • • ' • • • • • • • • • .4.4 CP CA CP 0 CS C7 00 0 CA t.V. IP OP AD CD .4 4P 4P 0 P.A 41.Ir VI 41 CA CD CD CD CA CD CD a CD CD 0 0 p.p. • 0 0 0 40 AP PI CP CP 47 PI IP Cr 00 IP. 00 CP CD CD CD cb CD 00 .4.4 40 0 .4 Op In in ! 4.4.4 PI PI .4.4 In U7 Z • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • •7 , • • wow mn 47 CV CV 4P 4P.4.4 .4.4 .4.4 .4.4 ! . MI.4 In , In .4... ' .44 ••• ; OD W .4.4 Z : ' . ; . 444 1 I . . . . , • , • • , • • . . . . . ; . : . , • : . . • . . I i ' , • Ca N of ta N OS ra ' a) . IO N ; N N N N N Ol 0.1 b. AO i 40 OD CO 0 OD OD 0 CD OD ID CO a) co La ... .. • • 416 146 .••• . •,,k eh. Alb 041.81.. •• 4.. %b ..., ma tii .0 %1D 0 0 0 41/ 41 441 sys‘14 41 44 ' 0 .43 tal LI 0 0 c. ea ea ea a . o a ,•:>c•ci CD ' CI CD 42 04 kJ '... .... ... .... IA A.. AA Ilk 71A - ..1/4.PA%. A. 1.6 .p., A6 CC A A A p. P.. p. p. P• l• 16. - 'T.P.A A A P. P. . IL AC 0 ' CP 0 CD 0 CD CP 45 0 , •4:6 ca 0 0 4D ca 0 I 0 • , , . . • . • • . , • 4C • : i 1 . I • CD • • . . • . , , . , .. . • w z . . , I . . • ' • , ! ' . . . . • . :• X. Z a 0 4.4. OA VI 4-, In •f •0 , ... I 0 ! • .11.1 re... •. 14 • .1.... a) 'sr • fJ 10 • ca 0 0 4D •, 0 4o . o • • so o 0 • co • co 0 C) • N W In • an WI WI In 111; • 0 ' WI , In , • 16.IL O. • 14. • in in 0 • W IC A • o 0 0 o 0 • la 1.1 ' rl : * soll • C• • ;In PI v) • CP LI .11 • 40 CD W W ID • 0 ID ! 0 ' : CO cla W • CO • IC CO a) • m la 1.4 • •4 .4 v4 4.1 w4 •• lot i oil ! 1.4 • w4v4.4 • .4 • v4 . ! . . , . . , , ! 5.--7:-7,--, _.. 1-.7.-_-7-:.--- - 'T--,-T---..----i-5 77-.,..-o-i----cc--- •' r cal ---17.i.-. ." 0 - 4,4 ^ ... r •- .. , - - rN ••• < : r ,• . • ' . :_ . _ _.... . . . . 1 11,11_--.0____IL . 0 • • 0 t_. ,_, I_______0____A_,0____0__0____0_ ,_,.. , , 10, _„•_,____9 ., • __ T._...eli r)1 " ." ,•0 °- , • -. ' i'_r. ir vizr., ,..3:; : ,,,,,, xp, :-. t.1.9,4 ; :,• • ; ' zit,- ; 4 g i; . ":. :i:-, ',:; :i '• -• . .,- 0 c0 :- - L.. ,_,_,-_,.,, :).. I . , . . . • . • 1 . 1 I cv . • 44 • Ice , ft.• ic ; us • =41 0 0 . ! 1 '= ,1 UP • i . i i •• IP ' Z 0 ;2 i• • . . kJ a •IC • '•IE 'a 1 i LO 0 Z * :Z '41 , 1 4 III i i IL 1.-I . , I . . . CNI 11111 • 1 , : 10 . 1 • gi 0 ; . • 0 • 1 1 ! 1 . . 1 e- i . , I , . • • , 31. • - •in 1 , Z in , 1 . •.• tft , • 1 ' •eft I • • , 1 , 1 • , , • .1 • ../ . 1 ' , I , • . , 0 In i in . . , • z p.; . ; . , S I 1 ; ; 1 : I , e- ..4 , .... I 1 1 I , . w ' 0 a 1 I II ! 8 : . !,.. A. I , . • . • e., • ; , 1, ; • I I . • • , • • . , , 4., in . •e., , , 1 • , . dt pd pd • . . . . , 1 . , i . . . • . 1 1 i . , .„ • . . . • , 1 ! 1 . 1 . . , • . , , • . • i . . , i • . 1 z • • i . , 1 , . , • • i, . •0 : . . , . . . i z 0 . z 0 de , • . . 1 , . . •• . , . 0 . • • , , . • 1 . . 0 . , 1 ! • a. de • .6.1 . , • . , . . . b.. . , . 1 I. • . • • . I e., to 1..1 la ta It 'vl • . , , I i • ' • , . 1 • , , I 0 .• , , 1 IC V) c.J •-• •L.) . i • . • . 1 La •- u• 4 •la a. . . . . • 1 •-• •- tn , i I a i.J • , . •- . •-• • cs• 1 1 ia eg . . 1 4.) &a .• ta 0 ft• a at a 0,-p.•-•ft - • • . • , , , • i cc oft 0000 , i 1 I , • , L.) a- 0- I-I-oft I- • , , j 1 • , ec ..... a p.- t.) 11)in .g. •4 . , Z 0 •4 , . I 1 I • i , 0 . 1.1 Ca 0 0 0 ••.J ' . i 1 • I . i 3. we ..I ; ZZZZ ••• I 1 • , • , • . IC . 0 0=== 4. • ! , • •.• : ft, ' 111.16.• lc. U. •ca ' , 1 ' 1 , • Z ,CC i • ie.* . . I . 1, ! • . I I I . ! I . . . , • • • • I . ! . . , . '. I • i • • 0 I . i i ! . • I I 1 . 00 00 0e.lar. ft • ! I • . i 0 C. .1 44 P.0 N IV In . . , . , • • • • • • • • • , 0 OD AIN •40•00 0 , . AI N 4.0 0 al ra a in I- mm Mwo yr in 111 if) 0 I , Z • • • • • • . Z 01 ri o PI.4 411 • E N..• 4 VI • or • . 1 . , 1 i 1 , 4 . . , • , . • 1 . 1 . . . • 1 1 1 1 . i 1 1 . . ; • , , ; ; . 1 , ; 1 • t'g eNS . 0- ID 1 . tai ..1 ‘,0 .MI • . I ca a . C, • , . I 1 , " SA I ...6 '%. 6 i ; • . • IL MC 1... F- a , P. • , i 1 - ,ilrC) I 0 • , i . • , • , ac • • 0 • I . • . iz Z • : ,•• • • . , I . . . 1 1 Z 1e 0 • .1 • . ., . , 0 4.4 • 0 • , . CV ka me • IL, • 1 • . . .• 0 C PI ain 0 t.1 0 a CD I I . • . , •• re a .4 • . , . . . i . I • . i • . • . OTHER ITEMS