08-15-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) HRA MEETING OF JULY 18, 1994 AND (2) HRA
MEETING HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH CITY .COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 1994
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE HRA ON ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA
2. CONSIDERATION OF REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR
REDEVELOPMENT OF PHASE II AREA ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
HRA LETTER NO. 59
3. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUATION OF USE OF SOUTH PART OF CLOVERLEAF
SITE FOR CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AND ROAD MATERIAL STORAGE AND
RECYCLING AREAS FOR 77TH STREET PROJECT, PHASE II
HRA LETTER N0. 60
4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WITH HENNEPIN
TECHNICAL COLLEGE TO INITIATE 1994-95 NEW HOME PROJECT AT 7537
GIRARD AVENUE
HRA LETTER N0. 61
5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF EIGHT
PROPERTIES FOR RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED
HRA LETTER NO. 62
6. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR PAYABLE YEAR
1995 FOR CERTIFICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY AND SET OPTIONAL DATE
FOR PUBLIC BUDGET HEARING FOR 1994 REVISED/1995 PROPOSED BUDGET
AND TAX LEVY
HRA LETTER NO. 63
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
- ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 63
Agenda August 15, 1994
Issue Statement:
Approval of proposed property tax levy for payable year 1995 for
certification to Hennepin County and set optional date for public
budget hearing for the 1994 Revised/1995 Proposed budget and tax
levy.
Background:
As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation, each taxing
authority must certify its proposed tax levy for the payable year
1995 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 1994.
Taxing authority for the purpose of this requirement includes all
counties, school districts, cities, towns and special taxing
districts such as an HRA. No local unit of government is exempt
from this requirement. In addition, certain taxing authorities
must certify to the County Auditor the dates that have been
selected for Truth in Taxation hearing and for the continuation
of this hearing (if necessary) by September 15, 1994. In those
instances, the dates must not conflict with hearing dates of the
county or the school district in which that taxing authority is
located. Such hearings must be scheduled between November 29 and
December 20, 1994.
However, the Truth in Taxation law does not require the HRA to
hold a Truth. in Taxation hearing prior to adoption of a final
levy. Instead, the final levy is adopted as part of the City's
final certification process.
The HRA could, however, decide to hold a public hearing on the
HRA budget and levy at some point in the future prior to the
City's adoption of a final levy. It is currently anticipated
that the City will hold a Truth in Taxation hearing on December 7
with a continuation date of December 14. The HRA could hold a
public hearing at its regular November meeting.
The Proposed 1995 HRA and Relocation levy represents a 2.5$
increase from the previous year's levy. The maximum HRA levy is
established by law and represents .0144% of the City's total
market value.
Recommended Motion:
1. Adopt the attached resolution approving the Proposed 1995
Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund and
Relocation Information Fund tax levies.
2. Set a public budget hearing for 7 p.m. on November 21, 1994.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Minnesota Truth in Taxation law requires adoption of a
preliminary levy from each taxing authority.
2. The recommended levy is allowed under Minnesota levy limits
which are still in effect for housing redevelopment
authorities.
3. The budget and accompanying proposed levy for 1995 are ready
for consideration.
4. There is adequate time to meet the deadline for submission
to Hennepin County.
5. Even though a Truth in Taxation hearing is not required by
the State Statute, it would still be appropriate for the HRA
to hold a public hearing on the budget and adopt a final
levy sometime in November prior. to the City's consideration
of a final levy if the HRA desired to do so.
Alternative-Recommendation:
1. The HRA could adopt a preliminary levy less than the one
proposed herein. However, that would not provide for
programs which are recommended in the 1994 Revised/1995
Proposed. budget.
2. The HRA could select a different date other than November 21
(regular November HRA meeting) to conduct a public hearing
and adopt a final levy.
3. The HRA could simply proceed at a future date to adopt the
budget and levy without holding any public budget meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action by the HRA on August 15 is necessary to certify
preliminary levy to the County within the Truth in Taxation
statute time frame.
Acting Executive
for
SLD:cak
HRA RESOLUTION N0.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED 1995 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY BUDGET AND CERTIFYING THE PROPOSED TAX LEVY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
Section 1. The proposed budget .for the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority General Fund of Richfield for the year 1995
in the amount of $465,100 is hereby ratified.
Section 2. The estimated gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority General Fund of Richfield from all sources, including
general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the
year 1995, and as the same are more fully detailed in the
Executive Director's official copy of the proposed budget for
the year 1995, in the amount of $509,690 are hereby approved.
Section 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of
Richfield a direct maximum amount allowable by law a proposed ad
valorem tax in 1994, payable in 1995 for the following purposes:
Housing and Redevelopment Authority $152,160
Relocation Information Services and
Assistance $ 15,100
Section 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to .the
County Auditor.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota this
15th day of August, 1994.
Thomas E. Harms Chair
ATTEST:
Vern Luettinger Secretary
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 62
Agenda August 15, 1994
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution authorizing the purchase of eight
properties for Richfield Rediscovered.
Background:
In April 1994, the HRA authorized an allocation of $700,000 from
the Development Fund toward the continuation of Richfield
Rediscovered. Staff has identified and concluded negotiations on
the purchase of eight properties. (Up to five additional
properties will be presented to the HRA in September.) BCL
performed the requested appraisals. The negotiated purchase
price and appraised value are the same.
Address
6645 Upton
6320 Oliver
6821 Logan
7525 Girard
7344 Bryant
6828 Elliot
6500-14th
6236 Pleasant
Appraised Value
$57,000
$53,000
$57,000
$57,000
$57,000
$57,000
559,000
$39,000
All the properties have been inspected to determine that they
meet program requirements for acquisition. All the properties
are part of the Richfield Rediscovered Tax Increment Program as
approved by the HRA in June 1994. Those properties marked with
an asterisk (*) have builder/buyer teams identified. Three of
the buyers are from New Ford Town and Rich Acres and responded to
recent marketing efforts in these areas. One of the properties,
6320 Oliver, is designated for a Habitat for Humanity initiative.
Only $25,000 of that purchase comes from the $700,000 allocation.
The balance comes from a State grant received by the HRA for
modest cost housing development.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes:
1. The purchase of the properties at the values indicated.
2. The Executive Director and HRA Chairperson to execute
purchase agreements and other documents to effectuate the
purchase.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The properties meet program requirements for acquisition and
are identified in the plans previously approved by the HRA.
2. Funding for acquisition is available.
3. The owners have voluntarily indicated an interest in selling
their property to the HRA.
4._ Purchase has been negotiated at the stated .values.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not authorize acquisition.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Agreements to purchase would be prepared in final form and work
will continue with builder/buyer teams. Those sites not yet
reserved for development will continue to be marketed.
Re e tfully ubmi ed,
t~
e n L. Devich
Acting Executive Director
SLD:ds
RESOLUTION NO.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6645 UPTON AVENUE
6320 OLIVER AVENUE
6821 LOGAN AVENUE
7525 GIRARD AVENUE
7344 BRYANT AVENUE
6828 ELLIOT AVENUE
6500-14TH AVENUE
6236 PLEASANT AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield Minnesota (HRA) desires to purchase certain
real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the Richfield
Rediscovered Redevelopment Project (Project) heretofore adopted
by the City of Richfield (City) and the HRA, said real properties
being described as follows:
6645 Upton: Lot 15, Block 5
Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills Addn.
6320 Oliver: Lot 7, Block 12
Ray's Lynnhurst Addn.
6821 Logan: Lot 9, Block 5
Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills Addn.
7525 Girard: Lot 18, Block 19
Irwin Shores Addn.
7344 Bryant: Lot 12, Block 3
Irwin Shores No. 2 Richfield, MN
6828 Elliot: East 1/2 of North 1/2 of Lot 37
of Baumgartner's First Addn.
6500-14th Ave.: Lot 1, Block 4
Rich Highlands Addn.
6236 Pleasant: Lot 6, Block 1
Kendale Addn.
WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section
469.012 to acquire real property within its area of operation;
and
WHEREAS, the properties meet all program requirements for
acquisition; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has caused appraisals of the subject
properties to be made by a qualified independent professional
real estate appraiser and has negotiated purchase prices with the
owners based on stated values; and
WHEREAS, funds have been provided by the HRA and are
available for acquisition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority:
1. That purchase prices are approved as follows:
Address Purchase Price
6645 Upton $57,000
6320 Oliver $53,000
6821 Logan $57,000
7525 Girard $57,000
7344 Bryant $57,000
6828 Elliot $57,000
6500-14th Ave. 559,000
6236 Pleasant 539,000
2. That the Chairperson and Executive Director are authorized
to execute a Purchase Agreement and other documents to
effectuate purchase for the amounts set forth in this
resolution.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and•
for the City of Richfield Minnesota this 15th day of August 1994.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Vern Luettinger, Secretary
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 61
August 15, 1994
Issue Statement:
Authorization to execute contract with Hennepin Technical College
(HTC) to initiate a 1994-95 New Home Project at 7537 Girard Avenue.
Background•
On March 21, .1994, the HRA authorized staff to purchase the property
at 7537 Girard Avenue for $24,000. The property has been vacant and
in poor condition which has resulted in many calls to Public Safety
since last fall. HUD rules require that the City purchase the
property and transfer the property to the HRA. The City acquired the
property on July 19, 1994 and transferred the property to the HRA on
August 1, 1994.
HTC has requested that the HRA participate in a new construction
project for the 1994-95 school year. The 7537 Girard site would be
an appropriate location. The two organizations have participated
together in over 20 projects since 1977. The projects provide
rehabilitation and new construction training opportunities for the
building trades students and new housing for the community. The home
will be stick-built on the site.
Staff, in cooperation with HTC architectural drafting faculty, has
developed a house plan to meet all setback requirements, to
complement the design of neighboring homes and to incorporate
interior features desirable in today's market. A lot-width variance
has previously been granted for this 46' wide lot. A copy of the
preliminary house plan is attached. The new house will have
approximately 1,164 square feet of finished living area. It will
feature a split entry design with a living room, dining room,
kitchen, three finished bedrooms, a bathroom, deck and a walkout
patio. There is room for a future bedroom, family room and bath to
be finished.
The amount of the HTC contract for this project is not to exceed
$76,983. This cost is consistent with previous projects given design
and square .footage variabilities.
The estimated project costs and funding sources follow:
ACTIVITY FUNDING SOURCE
Acquisition, site: $ 24,000 CDBG
Demolition, site: $ 4,750 CDBG
HTC Contract: $ 76,983 Proceeds of Sale
Landscaping: $ 2,500 Proceeds of Sale
Legal (Sale): $ 600 Proceeds of Sale
Closing Costs: $ 2,500 Proceeds of Sale
Total Cost $111,333
Private contractors will complete the electrical, plumbing, heating,
and painting portions of the work. Legal counsel has previously
reviewed the contract requirements. A copy of the building
elevations also accompany this letter. Although the completed value
of the home has not yet been determined by independent appraisal,
staff estimates that the value should approximate $90,000. The new
home .will be sold to a first-time home-buying family of three to six
members with a moderate income ($30,000 to $46,300 annually), as
determined by federal Section 8 income limits.
A reduced-rate interest mortgage will be secured from the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency in the fall of 1995, if availabl;e, to coincide.
with the completion and sale of the project. The contraact specifies
completion in December 1995.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the HRA adopt the attached resolution which
authorizes the execution of the HTC contract in the amount of $76,983
for the 1994-95 new construction project at 7537 Girard Avenue.
Basis. of Recommendation:
1. The HRA has purchased the property. Demolition prior to the end
of August makes the site ready for fall, 1994 development.
2. Plans have been developed that will meet site requirements and
program needs of the HRA.
3. The contract provisions are similar to previous contracts with
HTC; a summary of contract provisions is attached.
4. HTC has demonstrated a unique ability to provide a desirable
product at a more modest cost than other builders on sites that
are challenging to market.
5. It is unlikely that the site will sell on the market due to the
uninhabitable structure currently on the property and due to the
undersized lot width. As is, the site continues to be a
blighting influence.
6. Site development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
7. A neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the house plans and
development concerns. There were no objections received and a
representative for the neighborhood stated that the positive
change is very welcome.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not authorize execution of the HTC contract.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The 7537 Girard Avenue project would
Building Trades class. Neighbors are
construction at that site.
begin in September with the fall
very supportive of new
Res tf y s tt d,
Steven L. Devich
Acting Executive Director
SLD:ds
RESOLUTION N0.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RELATING TO HTC AGREEMENT FOR
7537 GIRARD AVENUE
WHEREAS, on March 21, 1994, the HRA authorized the purchase
of the property at 7537 Girard Avenue, legally described as:
Lot 15, Block 19, Irwin Shores Addition; and
WHEREAS, utilizing CDBG funds, the City and HRA have
cooperatively purchased the site; and
WHEREAS, a project has been proposed as a cooperative effort
between the HRA and Hennepin Technical College (HTC); and
WHEREAS, the property at 7537 Girard Avenue would be
developed with a new single-family home; and
WHEREAS, the Construction Agreement price for the new
construction project will not exceed $76,983; and
WHEREAS, following completion of the new construction work,
the property will be sold to a first-time, home-buying, moderate
income family.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota that the HRA Chairperson and Executive Director are
authorized to:
Enter into a Construction Agreement with HTC for an amount
not to exceed $76,983 for the new construction project at 7537
Girard Avenue South.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 18th day of July, 1994.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Vern Luettinger, Secretary
SUMMARY OF
CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS FOR HTC PROJECT AT
7537 GIRARD AVENUE
• The construction of a split entry home at 7537 Girard Avenue.
• The professional installation of heating, electrical and
plumbing systems.
• Completion and marketing for sale by December 1995..
• Supervision of labor and insurance coverage to be the
responsibility of HTC.
• HTC is responsible for a one-year warranty for defects caused
by faulty workmanship defective materials; a two-year warranty
on installation of plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling
systems; and a ten-year warranty on structural defects.
• A provision specifying HTC's responsibilities concerning timely
completion of the exterior facade, and routine site maintenance
during the construction period.
~- I v
~~ 1 L 1't ~r' ~~~ ~ t.
~t~~~~ ~
~G~~~~
c~v~T
~~
13~ ~
\/
.~I ~~ ~~~~~~~
~~~
i
32
~- 2~' ~
E--- t 5 ~ ---~
~ ~ ,, ~~ ice.
'I
~'~'~~ . !
=~" ~ LLli
-- ~r ~
~,
~~
,~
t ;~ ~
~ ~.
~__,_
a
J
W
W
J
I -
~1
J
~ W
j W
~ J
1 ~
i W
a
a
~`~ ~~ Q~
_=~ _.
~II~
Z
Z
O
a
W
J
W
Q
W
• I i i
~ ~~ N
~•
® ~
,, Q
~! ;, ,.
a~ ~ ~ , D
;~ ~~~ a
l' i ~ i~I
:~ i~ ~
~~I, ~ ~:
~~ ~
I~I'1~ '.
a
W
J
W
2
HOUSING. AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 60
Agenda August 15, 1994
Issue Statement:
Continuation of use of south part of Cloverleaf site for concrete
batch plant and road material storage and recycling areas for
77th Street Project, Phase II.
Background:
On July 15, the HRA authorized staff to negotiate a Temporary Use
and Occupancy Agreement for the Cloverleaf site with the 77th
Street Phase II contractor.
Shafer Contracting Company will be selected as the Phase II
contractor (they were the Phase I contractor). They have
indicated a desire to continue the use of the Cloverleaf site.
The major points of the agreement with Shafer are:
• permission to utilize the site for a batch plant and the
recycling of top soil, asphalt and concrete as it relates
to-the 77th Street Project;
• if the batch plant won't be used for any 15 day consecutive
period, it must be removed;
• all operations on the Cloverleaf site must conform with the
noise ordinance;
• site taken "as is";
• HRA held harmless if there is a discharge of any hazardous
waste and contractor must remove;
• site to be restored to prior condition, $50,000 performance
bond to be provided;
• insurance in the minimum amount of $1 million for public
liability and a like amount for property damage;
• HRA indemnified and held harmless from any claims resulting
from use of site;
• operation must be conducted safely, liens against property
not permitted;
• agreement is until December 31, 1995 and may be extended,
in writing, for an additional period and it may also be
terminated immediately for any significant breach of the
agreement or by 90 day written notice for any other reason.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the Chair and Executive Director to execute the
agreement with Shafer Contracting Company.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Shafer has performed responsibly under the previous
agreement.
2. Recycling helps to minimize costs.
3. The temporary storage of recyclable material can help to
reduce noise transmitted to adjoining property.
4. Storage at other locations would be more disruptive to the
neighbors and benefits of noise reduction lost.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do-not approve the use of this site for recycling.
2. Delay .action.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Phase II work will begin within the next few weeks.
Re a tfull subm' ted,
- J~
n is
Acting Executive Director
SLD:ds
TEMPORARY USE AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT
(Cloverleaf Site)
This Agreement is made this day of 1994, by
and between HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, a public body corporate and politic
("Authority"), and SHAFER CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., a Minnesota
corporation ("Contractor").
Recitals
A. The Authority is the owner of certain land ("Site")
located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Interstates 35W and 494 in the City of Richfield, legally
described on the attached Exhibit A.
B. Contractor has entered into a contract ("77th Street
Contract") with the State of Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the construction of improvements to 77th
Street in the City of Richfield. In order to perform
Contractor's obligations under the 77th Street Contract,
Contractor requires the use of the Site for location and
operation of a portable cement batch mixing plant (Batch Plant)
and for the location and operation of a portable asphalt and
concrete recycling plant (Recycling Plant).
C. Authority and Contractor desire to enter into an Agreement
to permit Contractor's use of the Site, subject to the following
terms and conditions.
Agreement
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and
one dollar, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Authority,
the parties agree as follows:
1. Use of Site. The Authority hereby grants to Contractor
the right to enter upon and use the Site for the placement and
operation of a portable cement batch mixing plant (Batch Plant)
and asphalt and concrete recycling plant (Recycling Plant),
together with the right of ingress and egress over and across
those portions of the Site which are depicted on the attached
Exhibit B. The Batch Plant may be used for no other purposes
than the making of cement to be used in connection with the 77th
Street Contract. The Recycling Plant may be used for no other
purposes than the recycling of asphalt and concrete in connection
with the 77th Street Contract.
2. Plant location; mitigation of adverse impacts. The Batch
Plant and Recycling Plant must be located within that portion of
the Site which is depicted on Exhibit B. Contractor will
stockpile materials to be recycled in the area identified on
Exhibit B. The stockpiles must be enclosed by a snow fence or
1
appropriate substitute which is designed and placed in a manner
to exclude intruders from any stockpiles. At any time during the
term of this Agreement, the. Authority may require additional
mitigative measures which, in the Authority's reasonable
judgement, are deemed necessary to reduce the adverse impacts of
the Batch Plant and Recycling Plant on neighboring properties
(e.g., noise, dust, odor, vibrations and light).
3. Removal of Plant During Non-Use. Contractor will remove
the .Batch Plant from the Site during any period of 15 or more
consecutive days when the Batch Plant will not be in operation.
4. Hours of Operation. Contractor will operate the Batch
Plant and Recycling Plant (including Run-up tie and maintenance
procedures) in compliance with the requirements of Section 930.09
of the Richfield City Code or variance, if any, granted under
Section 930.35 of the Richfield City Code.
5. Condition of Site. Contractor acknowledges that it has
had an opportunity to inspect the Site and accepts the Site "AS
IS". The Authority makes no representation regarding the
suitability of the Site for the intended activities, or the
availability of appropriate utility services needed in connection
with the Contractor's operations. Contractor acknowledges that
it is responsible for satisfying itself with respect to these
matters and for making all necessary arrangements with utility
suppliers, including matters relating to fees and charges,
metering, connections and permits.
6. Water Wells. If Contractor intends to install a water
well on the Site, it must obtain all required permits and
approvals, and the consent of Authority as to the location of any
water well. Authority may require that Contractor post a bond or
other security reasonably acceptable to Authority, to assure
Authority that Contractor will properly remove and seal the well
upon termination of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless Authority from all claims, damages,
costs, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, that
Authority may suffer or incur as a result of Contractor's failure
to properly remove and seal the well.
7. Pollution•indemnification. Contractor agrees not to
release or discharge any hazardous wastes, contaminants of
pollutants on the Site; if such releases or discharges occur,
Contractor agrees to cooperate with all government agencies
having jurisdiction over such matters and to fully comply with
the directives of such agencies regarding clean-up and
remediation of the Site. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless Authority from any such release or discharge.
8. Site Restoration. Upon termination of this Agreement,
Contractor will remove all rubbish, debris, materials, and
equipment placed on the Site as a result of its activities, and
will restore the Site to its prior condition. Contractor shall
2
not locate the Batch Plant or Recycling Plant on Site until
Contractor has furnished Authority with a performance bond in the
amount of $50,000.00, to secure Contractor's performance under
this paragraph.
9. Insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain Public Liability
and Property Damage Insurance, naming the Contractor and the
Authority as joint assureds, and with a cross liability
endorsement protecting the City of Richfield from claims or
damages for personal injuries, including accidental death, as
well as for claims for property damage which may arise from
operation of the Batch Plant and/or Recycling Plant, whether such
operations be by the Contractor or by a subcontractor or by
anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. Said
Public Liability and Public Property Damage Insurance policy
shall provide that the insurance company. waives the right to
assert the immunity of the Authority as a defense to any claims
made under said insurance. The amount of the insurance will be
as follows: Public Liability Insurance in an amount of not less
than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for all damages arising
out of bodily injuries to, or death of one person and subject to
the same limit for each person in a total amount of not less than
One Million Dollars (51,000,000.00) on account of one accident,
and property damage insurance in an amount not less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for all damages to or destruction
of property in any one accident and subject to that limit, a
total limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for all
damages to or destruction of property during the policy period.
10. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold
Authority, its officers and employees, harmless from all claims,
damages, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees,
which arise out of the Contractor's activities on the Site.
11. Safety. Contractor must conduct its activities on the.
Site in a manner which is reasonably safe and shall at all times
maintain the Site in a reasonably safe condition.
12. No liens. Contractor will not permit or suffer any liens
or other encumbrances to be placed on the Site as a result of its
activities and agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Authority
harmless from any such liens or encumbrances.
13. Term bf Agreement. This Agreement will terminate December
31,-1995, except as provided in this paragraph. Authority, in
its sole discretion, may extend the term of this Agreement by
executing a written document to that effect. The authority may
terminate this Agreement at any time during its term or extended
term: (a) for any material breach of this Agreement by
Contractor, such termination to be effective upon written notice
by Authority to Contractor of the breach; and (b) for any or no
reason, such termination to be effective 90 days after written
notice by Authority to Contractor.
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Agreement on the date and year written above.
CONTRACTOR
By
Its
By
Its
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
By_
Its
By_
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of 1994 by and
Notary public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of 1994 by and
the chairperson and executive director,
respectively, of Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield, a public body corporate and politic under
the laws of Minnesota.
Notary Public
_, the ana
respectively, of
a
4
EXHIBIT A
(Legal Description of Site)
PARCEL 1: The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of
the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township
28, Range 24 excepting roads.
PARCEL 2: The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of
the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township
28, Range 24 AND the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33,
Township 28, Range 24 excepting roads.
PARCEL 3: The East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4
of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 AND the
West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, except that
part taken for road and being described as that part of said
Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter which lies
Southwesterly of a line running parallel with a distance of 75
feet Northeasterly of the following described line: From the
Southwest corner of said Section 33, running Easterly on a line
which would pass through the South quarter corner of said Section
33, for 4069.1 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence running Westerly along the last above described
course for 321.17 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an
angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 1.5 feet; thence deflecting to
the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes for 100 feet;
thence deflecting to the right on a 10 degree 00 minutes curve,
delta angle, 38 degrees 57 minutes for 389.5 feet; thence
deflecting to the right on a 1 degree 00 minutes curve, delta
angle 6 degrees 32 minutes 18 seconds for 600 feet and there
terminating. Also except street easement per Document No.
3214864.
PARCEL 4: All that part of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, lying South of the North 315
feet thereof, except the east 30 feet thereof.
Containing 13.436 acres more or less.
5
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 59
August 15, 1994.
Issue Statement:
Review and evaluation of a concept proposal for the redevelopment
of Phase II area ILN Redevelopment Project.
Background:
The Contract For Private Development between ,;the HRA and CSM
Corporation describes a process for selecting a redeveloper (s)
for the Phase II area (bounded by 77th Street, Colfax Avenue,
78th Street and Lyndale Avenue).
The process is as follows:
s Alternative proposals (alternative to CSM Phase II) were
due August 1, 1994.
s Alternative proposals are to be reviewed by the HRA against
eight .criteria. The criteria from page 10 Section 3.2A is
attached.
Section 3.2A then gives the HRA the "absolute discretion" to
determine whether or not the alternative proposal would proceed
to the next evaluation period, which is demonstrating financial
feasibility.
By November 1, 1994 an alternative proposal is to:
• demonstrate financial capability to complete the project,
• indicate ability to provide adequate security for
performance, and
• agree to terms of a redevelopment contract.
At that time, the HRA is to select the~Phase II developer.
(Presumably the selection would take place at the November 21 HRA
meeting.)
Under the contract, CSM advances automatically to the November 1,
1994 selection date even if an alternative proposal advances to
that date.
On August 15, 1994, the Feldmann proposal which envisions an
auto/retail complex will be presented. The attached booklet
defines the concept and responds to the eight criteria. The CSM
proposal, which was previously presented, will also be reviewed.
The attached materials define their concept.
Recommended Motion:
1. Listen to the presentations.
2. Evaluate from a purely conceptual standpoint whether the
Feldmann proposal represents the kind of development which
the HRA is interested in seeing on the Phase II site.
3. Direct staff and the proposers to continue to generate
information which would permit the proposal to be judged
against the eight criteria.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The HRA previously set August 15 as the date on which
.alternative proposals would be presented.
2. The Feldmann proposal is a concept which deserves to be
evaluated on all its merits. Establishing its financial
feasibility .would permit that full evaluation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay presentations.
2. Reject the Feldmann proposal because its basic concept is not
acceptable and proceed to immediately implement the CSM
concept per the contract.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consider the implications of the Feldmann request for 90
additional days beyond November 1 to determine financial
feasibility (February 1, 1995).
Res c fully s mit ,
d
teven L. Devich
Acting Executive Director
SLD:ds
Section 3.2A . Phase II Property -Other Proposals . The rights, obligations
and responsibilities of the parties as such relate to the Phase II Property and the
Phase II Minimum Improvements are made expressly subject to the provisions of this
Section, and the procedure provided for herein.
(a) The owners and/or occupiers of lands lying within the Phase II
Property shall have until August 1, 1994 to submit and obtain
preliminary approval from the HRA for sn alternative proposal to
develop all or part of the Phase II Property. Such alternative proposal
may be made jointly with the Redeveloper, separately or with others .
(b) If alternative proposals together with any deposit required by the HRA
to cover its review expenses are submitted, the HRA shall have the
absolute discretion in all matters relating to the review of the proposals
and the selection of a developer for all or part of the Phase II Property.
In its selection process, the HRA will give consideration to factors
which include the following:
1. .the effect on the city's tax base;
2. the effect on employment;
3. the effect on existing businesses, property owners and
employers in the area;
4. the aesthetic quality and its harmony with the design of Phase I;
5. the appropriateness of any proposed uses to the area;
6. the effect that the redevelopment will have in relation to the
development of the Clover Leaf property and properties adjacent
to Lydale Avenue;
7. the amount and nature of assistance requested; and
8. similarity with Redeveloper's plan for the Phase II Minimum
Improvements . _
(c) If no alternative proposals are submitted within time to be considered
on or before August 1, 1994, or if, following review of any alternative
proposals the HRA confirms the Redeveloper as redeveloper for Phase
II, the HRA shall so notify the Redeveloper in writing and the
Redeveloper shall then proceed with its obligations under this
Agreement with respect to the Phase II Property and the Phase II
Minimum Improvements.
J8D6732~
RC125-68 l o
(d) If the HRA, in its sole discretion, makes a preliminary selection of an
alternative proposal, the proposer shall then be given until November
1, 1994 to (i) provide evidence satisfactory to the HRA that it has the
necessary financial capability whether in the form of equity, borrowing
or otherwise to successfully complete the redevelopment of the Phase II
Property; (ii) can provide suitable and adequate security to the HRA
to assure its performance; and (iii) has agreed to the terms for a
contract for redevelopment of all or part of the Phase II Property .
(e) If no proposer complies with the provisions of paragraph (d) by
November 1, 1994, the HRA will so notify the Redeveloper in writing
and the Redeveloper shall then proceed with its obligations under this
Agreement relating to the Phase II Property and the Phase II Minimum
Improvements.
(f) In the event that the HRA selects a proposer to be the developer of all
or part of the Phase II Property, the HRA will so notify the Redeveloper
in writing and upon such not cation, the parties hereto shall be
relieved from any further obligation to one another under this
Agreement with respect to the Phase II Property and the Phase II
Minimum Improvements .
(g) If the HRA makes a selection pursuant to paragraph (f) above, the HRA
agrees that it will give reasonable consideration consistent with the
Phase II development to provide the Redeveloper the right to purchase
from the HRA or through the selected proposer anon-exclusive
easement over and across a portion of the Phase II Property and lying
contiguous with the Phase I Property sufficient either to: (i) the
establishment of enough parking spaces which, when combined with the
parking on the Phase I Property would result in a parking ratio of 5:1
for Phase I, or (ii) provide 100 additional spaces, whichever is less .
This proposal shall not be construed to permit the creation of parking
spaces other than those which are shown on the approved Concept Plan.
(h) The provisions of this Section are intended to inform the Redeveloper
of the procedure to be followed by the HRA with respect to Phase II and
are not intended and shall not be construed as creating any right in
individuals which are not parties to this Agreement .
iu:,~~-ed 11
w
x
W
a--~
Z
J ~'
~i
Q
J
...~
Q
0
Q
W
O
U
W
a
w
W
w
W
U
Z
C~
~_
w
Q
m
W
U
u:
ti
vi w
vi u.
vi ~
c
..,
a ..;
a
~ r-
~
a
U
rn
to U
~ U
~n
~ U
~
~
N
'd' ~l of cn ~
W
W
FJ„~ ~
~ ~
^' ~
M
~ U
a
w
~-1 a+ w
~ M ~
_
~
~
H
z
a
~ w~ ~ °
'd' [~
W ~
.-a
`p .-r
~ ~
.-~
N
~ ~
.--i
M ~
~G fr
~O
~N
'~O
.-r
N
O'
~I
00
O
00
M
~t
N
°o
M
N
J
` a
.
Z
~-+
Q
~
~
~
,.a
~
~
W
~
~
W
~
w
~
¢
O
~
~ ~
w
a
w
0
~
~
~
O
0
U
~
~
~ O
w
V ~
~ W
A
° ~
`~
H W
U O
"
~
z
-..~
~ z x H ~
0
U
c~
s..
O
a; N
o
~'
~
~ ~
N
~
...
~
~
c
~
b
M
A
txq
~
a ~
~
O
~
"C7
C~
W M
bA
V1
~
~
U
~
3
b
N
~
3
O
A ~'
o
O
~
~
~
.~
~ .
~
bq
C
.~
~
~
O
A b
~
o
~
V
.~
.c
~
O
A ~
~
N
~
v~
U
~
U ~
~'
0
s„r
~
~
o
~
'~
.^,
°~'
A
--+ N e*) ~t ~ ~ t~
August 15, 1994
TO: Richfield Housing & Redevelopment Authority:
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
FROM: Richfield Auto/Retail Complex
Feldmann Project Team
PRESENTATION
Project Team consists of:
Principals:
Project Manager:
Architects:
Legal:
Retail Consultant:
Planning Consultant:
Terry Feldmann & Robert Naegele
Neil W. Peterson
Dan O'Brien, Brian Cluts, Cluts-O'Brien
Greg Poe, Leonard Street & Deinard
Bruce Peterson
Don Brauer
Outline for Presentation
L _ Neil Peterson:
-Introduce team
-Background
-Process
-Objective
II. Dan O'Brien:
-Complex design
-Expanded Dealership
-Adapting the Process
III. Legal Questions: Greg Poe
-Public Purpose Issues
-T.I.F. Issues
IV. Response to Specific Questions
E
~~
' ~~
~:.
~-
1
'Q~
P~"
z~
~iA
~~
J
n
_~
0
0
3
N
~.
ii ~li~.~,~~
ail llt(~
i i l i i i ~
iii 1 t ~~
!it! to
LAW OFFICES
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
SIDNEY BARROWS ROBIN HANSEN MICHELLE A. MILLER JEFFREY E. GRELL
HAROLD O. FIELD. JR. ROBERT L. DtMAY DEBRA G. STRC HLOW BARBARA P
OOLUCKY BERENS
ALLEN I. SAE KS ANGELA M. BON MANN SUITE 2300 MARC D. SIMPSON JANE i. GODFgEY
THOMAS O. FEINB[RG ROBERT P. THAVIS SHAUN C. MCELHATTON ERIC M. GAUT$
MORRIS M. SNERMAN JAMES G. BOLLARD I r
- Q SOUTH FIFTH STREET JAMES J. BERTRANO DWIGHT A. LAR50N
GEORGE REILL7 JOSEPH M. FINLEY j MARK W. OELE HANTY ROSANNE JACU$$I
CHARLES K. DAYTON LAWRENCE J. iIELD PETER C. SCHIFSKY DANIEL L. OµMOUiST
STEPHEN R. PFLAUM DAVID W. KELLEY MIMNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 CAROLYN V. WOLSKI CATHERINE A. STEBUY
CHARLES A. MAYS MARK 5. WEITZ BTEVEN R. LINDE MANN SNERI KASPER HANK
LOWELL J. NOTCBOOM ROSERT J. HUBER T£LEPMONE 1612) 335-1500 WILLIAM H. KOCM JOHN E. KING
GEORGE F. MCGV NN~GLE. JR DAVID KANTOR RONALD J. SCHULTZ PAMEU J.F. WMITMpgE
RICHARD G. PEPIN, JR. JOHN M. SHERAN FACSIMILE /6~2) 335-1657 CLLEN G. LUGER DANIEL OBEROORFEq
BTRON E. STARNS ANGELA M. CNRISTY JERRY S. PODKOPAC2 STEVEN P. ZABEL
ST[VEN M. ROBIN JAMES J. ECHOER PATTI L. 2ENK DAVID R. CROSBY
JOHN H. MERMAN LOWELL V. STORTZ STEVEN J. RINOSIG JAMES R. FREY
STEVEN D. DtRUttER DOUGLAS B. GREENSWAG JAMA M. KRR
JAMES R. DORS[Y CLLEN G. SAMPSOH WENDY C. SKJERVEN
KATHLEEN M. GRAHAM
STEPHEN J. DAVIDSON JOAN ERICKSEN LANCASTER
ROSANNE NATMANSON
August 1 5 , 1 9 9 4 LOREN A. UNTERSENER
ROBERT H. TORGERSON
STEPHEN R. LITMAN MICHAEL G. TAYLOR EDWARD A. MURPHY GEORGE S. LEONARD IItYA~fy6,
EDWARD M. MOCRSFELDER JOHN W. GETSINGER THOMAS J. CONICY ARTHUR L.H. STREET ~IB)T.~f6~~
ROBERT LEWIS BARROWS THOMAS P. SANDERS GREGORY L. POE •ENEDICT DEINARD IlffPl%f~
RICHARD J. WEGENER ROBERT 2EGLOVI7CH JOSHUA J. KANASSA7EGA AMOS S. DEINARD uffsdffsl
DANIEL J. MCINCRNEY, JR. TIMOTHY WELCH JANN M. EICHLERSMITH
FREDERICK W. MORRIS GREGG J. CAVANAGH RUTHB. O'NEILL
JOHN C. KUEHN SUSAN M. ROBINER ANDREW P. LEE ~~
BRADLEY J. GiLLAN BRADLEY J. GUNN I. DANICI COLTON
MICHAEL A. NCKICH BLAKE SHEPARD. JR. NICOLC A. ENGISCN SIDNEY LORBER
MARTHA C. BRAND NANCY A. WILTGEN DAwD D. ET2WILER IRENE SCOTT
DAVID N. HAYNES WILUAM L. GREENE TAMMIE 5. PTACEK DANIEL M, SATORIUS
CAROLYN CHALM ERS STEVEN L. BELTON MICHAEL J. WURZER PCTER H. BACHMAN
JAMES V. ROTH JOHN S. BRENNAN KAREN E. GIiiORD o~ couKat.
RICHARD H. MARTIN
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(612) 335-1525
Via Hand Deliverv
Mr. Thomas Harms, Chairperson
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Feldmann Groub Phase II Redevelopment Proposal
Dear Mr. Harms:
This Firm represents Terry Feldmann's Imports, Inc. When
Feldmann Imports started doing business at Colfax in Richfield, the
location's attractiveness was immediately obvious. For instance,
our Nissan sales in 1986 set records that still stand. Among other
things, that kind of success led us to (1) present a redevelopment
proposal to City staff that met a stone wall because of the C-3
zoning code then in effect (demanding extremely high density); and
(2) negotiate a short-term lease with Richfield Mitsubishi that
preserved our right and intention to return and redevelop our
property. In short, we have always intended and still intend to
use our Richfield property to further our business and thereby
benefit Richfield.
We believe that the Feldmann Group has generated a superior
redevelopment proposal that fully meets your guidelines. Our
proposal would ensure high-paying jobs, a solid tax base and
infrastructural improvements that will benefit Richfield's
residents over both the near-term and the long-term. We hope that
the HRA will share our enthusiasm and our views by choosing us to
develop Phase II, and we look forward to the opportunity to move
forward with our proposal.
Mr. Thomas Harms
August 15, 1994
Page 2
At the same time, we recognize that. the HRA may decide not to
proceed with the Feldmann proposal. In that event, we trust that
the City will recognize the merits of the stand-alone alternative
that we have presented, and support us in the redevelopment of our
own property. Both Feldmann Imports and the City will benefit
greatly from our continued operation in Richfield. Our stand-alone
would well-complement a development like the one proposed by CSM,
would pay higher taxes, would not require subsidies, and would keep
high paying jobs in place.
Moreover, we believe that we would be entitled to go forward
with our stand-alone alternative on several legal grounds:.
* The Feldmann stand-alone alternative can co-exist with a
larger redevelopment by CSM and would provide higher
taxes and requires no subsidy. As a result, we cannot
envision a valid financial public purpose that would
allow the City to reject our stand-alone alternative.
* The City would not be acting for a valid redevelopment
public purpose if it condemns the Feldmann property. Mr.
Feldmann's parcels constitute such a large percentage of
the total Phase II redevelopment area that both the
stand-alone and a CSM project may productively proceed.
Under Minnesota law, a public body cannot properly take
property owned by one private entity for the purpose of
allowing another private entity to undertake a similar-
type development.
* According to current law governing TIF districts, there
is a serious question whether the Feldmann Imports
parcels should have been decertified, since no
development has occurred on or adjacent to the parcels.
In such circumstances, recertification for a CSM-type
project. would not meet current law and, we believe, is
not permissible.
All of these problems would be avoided if the City were to accept
the Feldmann stand-alone alternative. While we believe that we
must provide you these legal arguments for the record, we want to
assure you that we are enthusiastic about our current relationship
with the City.
Mr. Thomas Harms
August 15, 1994
Page 3
We hope that the City will. recognize the .promise of the
overall Feldmann proposal. But if the City nonetheless. chooses an
alternative developer, we look forward to redeveloping our property
as a stand-alone project. We would be pleased, if necessary, to
discuss with you and CSM means by which the stand-alone alternative
and the rest of the redevelopment area might complement each other.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET DEINARD
,.~-- .
jYYSi.~.~,
By:
John H. Herman
Gregory L. Poe
JHH:GLP/jlh
cc: Members of the HRA
James Prosser
174666.1