02-16-88 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
HRA Letter No. 13
February 16, 1988
Issue Statement:
Modifying income limit requirements for the Rehabilitation
Deferred Loan Program and the Housedoctor Energy Program
Background•
The HRA's Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program provides
CDBG funds as loans to lower income homeowners. The HRA receives
the CDBG funds from Hennepin County by City Council
authorization.
Each year 15-20 households receive home improvement loans. The
average household income for recipients approximates $10,200.
Individual loan amounts average $5200. Primarily, funding
improves weatherization, roofing, exterior maintenance, plumbing
and electrical problems. The loans are administered by the HRD
in accordance with the Richfield Home Rehabilitation Program's
Procedural Guides. The procedural guides were approved by the
HRA in March, 1984, and modified from time to time as community
and program needs dictate.
The HRA's Housedoctor Energy Program provides weatherization
grants to lower income homeowners. Housedoctor clients,
identified by requesting and receiving an energy audit, benefit
from instrumented tests that identify air leakage problems
followed by the sealing of major infiltration areas. At a cost
of approximately $420 per household, homeowners can minimize heat
loss, reduce fuel bills, and increase comfort.
Although approximately 150 moderate income households have
benefited since 1984, in recent years CDBG funds have been
utilized to offset the lack of available funds from other
sources. The focus of the program is increasingly lower income
households. The administrative procedures for the housedoctor
program are similar to the deferred loan program.
The maximum income limits, present and proposed, for these two
programs are:
Family Size Present Income Limit
-1984
1 $13,500
2 14,500
3 15,500
4 16,500
5 17,500
6 18,500
7 19,500
8 20,500
Proposed Income Limit
(1988)
$14,250
16,300
18,300
20,350
22,000
23-,600
25,250
26,850
The proposed 1988 Income Limit represents a standard of 50
percent of median income as determined for the metropolitan area
'"~-/
by HUD. The previous income requirements did not consistently
recognize the relationship of family size and income and dated
from 1984. Since the income limits change (i.e., the 50 percent
figure changes from time to time., usually annually), the HRA
should consider the percentage of median income as the basis for
defining the income limits rather than the specific income limits
as noted. When HUD and Hennepin county notify Richfield of
change in the future, the HRA would receive the adjustments. At
no time would the adjustment exceed 50 percent of median income.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the Deferred Loan
and Housedoctor Programs to use 50 percent of median income as
the standard and limit to qualify for CDBG home improvement
assistance.
Basis of Recommendation:
1) The Rehabilitation and Energy Program both have CDBG funds
available to distribute at this time.
2) The slightly higher income limit will serve more clients
that have difficulty securing financing to make needed
improvements.
3) Seven households recently applied for Rehabilitation
assistance and are just slightly over present income limits.
A similar dilemma. has occurred with the Energy Program.
4) Now is an advantageous time to promote home improvement work
in homes..
5) Hennepin County, the review administration for Richfield CDBG
funds, has allowed Richfield to proceed, pending HRA
authorization.
Alternative Recommendation:
Not authorize the modification in the way the income limits are
defined. This would prevent serving a larger number of lower
income households in need.
Decision Mode•
Advertising of the modified income limits would begin immediately
and those that recently applied, but did not qualify, would be
reconsidered.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
Executive Director
~~
HRA RESOLUTION N0.
Resolution Authorizing Modification To Income
Requirements For Rehabilitation and
Energy Programs
WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
has a Rehabilitation Deferred Loan and Housedoctor Energy Grant
Program which utilizes CDBG funds to assist lower income
homeowners with rehabilitating their homes; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has indicated that when CDBG funds
are utilized for rehabilitation, income limit requirements may be
modified to reflect a HUD established standard of 50% of the Twin
City Metropolitan Area median income; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has reviewed the standards which will
require. changes to administrative procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, that the Executive Director is authorized to amend the
administrative procedures for the Richfield Rehabilitation
Deferred Loan Program and the Housedoctor Energy Grant Program as
presented herein.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of February, 1988.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Joan Helmberger, Secretary
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
HRA Letter No. 12
Agenda February 16, 1988
Issue Statement:
Hearing on sale of property in the CABA redevelopment project and
adoption of resolution.
Background:
During the months of January and February, the City Council, HRA
and Planning Commission have been taking actions related to the
establishment of a tax increment redevelopment project, and the
construction of a corporate headquarters for CDP, Inc. presently
located in Bloomington, MN. These activities are centered on the
old Cedar Avenue liquor store site.
Under state statute, it is necessary for the HRA to hold a public
hearing prior to authorizing the sale of property through the
adoption of a resolution.
Recommended Motion:
Hold the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution which
authorizes the sale of the old liquor store site together with a
portion of the adjoining vacated rights-of-way to The Lincoln
Companies.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. In January, the City Council gave two readings to an
ordinance calling for the sale of the property to the HRA and
held a public hearing as required by S tatute.
2. The Planning Commission on January 19, found the purchase
and sale of the property by the HRA to be in conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The HRA and The Lincoln Companies have entered into a
developer's agreement which details th e transaction and
includes the payment by the developer of $318,000 for the
land.
4. The sale is consistent with the redeve lopment plan approved
by the HRA in January.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay adoption of the resolution.
2. Refuse to adopt the resolution.
®ecision Mode:
There are additional actions
City Council, on February 22,
proposal on schedule, the HRA
February 16th.
to be taken on this project by
but to keep the development
should approve the resolution
the
on
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
Executive Director
RESOLUTION N0.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority In
and For the City of Richfield, Minnesota
Resolution Relating to the Sale of Certain
Land Located Within The Cedar Avenue Business
Area Redevelopment Project
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the. City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") has adopted a
redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cedar
Avenue Business Area Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment
Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan designates certain lands
within the Redevelopment Project for acquisition and
redevelopment including lands described as follows:
Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Block 1 Wexler's
Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together
with all that part of the north one-half of
adjoining. vacated or to-be-vacated East 67th Street,
and together with all that part of adjoining
vacated or to-be-vacated Cedar Avenue South.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356 require the
Planning Commission's finding as to the conformance of the
proposed sale with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS., The Lincoln Companies (the"Developer") and the HRA
entered into a Contract for The Sale of Land For Private
Development (the "Contract") on the date hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has offered and proposed to purchase
the subject property at a cost of Three Hundred Eighteen Thousand
and no/100 Dollars ($318,000) and for additional terms as
contained in .the Contract; and
.WHEREAS, pursuant to due notice thereof, a public hearing
was held on the proposed sale of the subject property to the
Developer and all interested persons had an opportunity to be
heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the finding of the Planning Commission regarding the
sale of this property is acknowledged.
2. The sale of the subject property is consistent with and
necessary for the redevelopment provided for in the Redevelopment
Plan.
.~ ~ ~~~
3. The use value of the subject property within the meaning of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.032, is Three Hundred Eighteen
Thousand Dollars.
4. The sale of the property is consistent with and necessary for
the Developer to implement the Contract.
5. The HRA Executive Director is authorized and directed to
execute agreements with the Developer for and on behalf of the
HRA, which provide for the sale of the subject property at a
price of Three Hundred Eighteen Thousand Dollars.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of February,
1988.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairman
ATTEST:
Joan~Helmberger, Secretary
" /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
HRA Letter No. 11
Agenda February 16, 1988
Issue Statement:
Adoption of resolution approving a developer's agreement with The
Lincoln Companies and requesting the City Council to approve the
agreement.
Background:
The significant elements of the proposed developer's agreement
are discussed below.
The agreement would involve four parties; the HRA, the City, The
Lincoln Companies and Mr. John Malinski, President, Copy
Duplicating Products, Inc.
The basic sales transaction is that the HRA would sell the
property to The Lincoln Companies for a total of $345,000 which
includes $318,000 for the land plus $27,000 for the cost of
demolishing the old building. Interest computed at 10~ annually
on the $318,000 from August 5, 1988 until the date of closing
would also be paid by the redeveloper. The HRA would then pay
those monies to the city.
The Lincoln Companies, at the appropriate time, would transfer
its interest in the property and the developer's agreement to Mr.
John-Malinski who would assume the responsibilities of the
redeveloper and lease the completed development to CDP.
The HRA would reimburse the redeveloper for costs related to the
development in .the total amount of $850,000. The HRA would make
these payments from the tax increment generated by the
development over a period not to exceed eight years beginning in
1990 at an annual rate of $106,250. However, the HRA would also
have the right to pay the $850,000 in less than eight years if
sufficient funds accumulated.
Provisions have also been made for the HRA to be reimbursed for
the total cost of administration in the first year, estimated at
$74,898, rather than spreading payment over 8 years.
The date of closing is scheduled for March 7, 1988 but, in any
case., no later than March 31, 1988.
The redeveloper has agreed to make a payment in lieu of taxes of
$5,000 in 1988 for the period of time the property is
undeveloped. (The property has been tax exempt).
Part of the agreement also includes the Assessment Agreement and
Certification of Assessor setting the minimum market value of
the land and improvements in the amount of $5,343,000. This
figure has been used as the basis for computing the taxes.
.~~ y i
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which approves the developer's
agreement and requests City Council approval.
Basis of Recommendation:
1) The contract is fair and equitable.
2) No bonds are being sold to finance project activities.
3) The developer assistance will be provided in eight years
or less from the tax increment cash flow.
4) Staff costs may be recovered in the first year (1990).
Alternative Recommendation:
1) Modify .the agreement and adopt the resolution.
2) Delay action on the resolution.
3) Refuse to take any action.
Decision Mode:
Action by the HRA on February 16, will permit the City Council to
act on the agreement on February 22 and the development process
will be on schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
Exec tive Director
/ " ~i
RESOLUTION N0.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For The City of
Richfield, Minnesota
Resolution Approving The Contract For Private Redevelopment With
The Lincoln Companies
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) has received a proposed
document entitled "Contract for Private Development" (Contract),
which Contract is on file in the office of the City Clerk for
inspection; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has reviewed the Contract and determines
that such is in the best interests of the City and serves the
health, safety and general welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is also to be party to this
Contract..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, as
follows:
1. That the Contract is hereby approved and the Chairman and
Executive Director are hereby authorized and directed to execute
the same on behalf of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
2. The Executive Director is hereby directed to present the
Contract to the City Council of the City of Richfield requesting
their approval.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of February, 1988.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairman
ATTEST:
Joan Helmberger, Secretary
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD,-MINNESOTA
HRA Letter No. 10
Agenda February 16, 1988
Issue Statement:
Discussion of statements to be incorporated into a Request For
Proposals (RFP) for the Graham Avenue Development site (GAD) and
an anticipated timetable for action.
BackcLround
At the January, 1988, HRA meeting staff was directed to initiate
a process which would result in the selection of a developer for
the GAD site.
Information which would be incorporated into a Request for
Proposal (RFP) is attached and, a timetable is as follows:
1. RFP Circulated
2. Developer's response to RFP due
3. Preliminary staff report on
development proposals to HRA
4. Two best proposals presented to
HRA along with staff recommendation
as to which should be selected
5. Agreement granting developer
exclusive right to negotiate
developer's agreement presented to
HRA for adoption
6. Developer's Agreement presented
to HRA for adoption
February 29, 1988
May 2, 1988
May 16, 1988
June 20, 1988
August 15, 1988
November 21, 1988
Recommended Motion:
Accept the criteria and timetable as submitted and direct staff
to circulate it to selected developers.
Basis of Recommendation:
The statement and timetable presented herein are based on staff
experience and research regarding similar RFP processes
elsewhere.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Modify the criteria and timetable and direct staff to
circulate it to prospective developers.
2. Not proceed with the RFP.
Decision Mode:
Because the process of developer selection and negotiation of
agreements is time consuming, it would be appropriate to initiate
the process now so that construction could begin in 1989.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
Exe ive Director
~r~ _~
INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN RFP
A. General Information
Concept:
We are seeking a single structure mixed use development which in
design, siting and massing reflects the significant location of
the site as a entrance/exit point to this downtown area. It must
also be sensitive to the existing adjacent development. A
portion of the development must include rental apartments and
related living space suitable for occupancy by elderly persons
with incomes approximating 50~ of the Twin City median as
determined by HUD.
Site Characteristics: The site of approximately four acres
(Would be written is located adjacent to the intersection
from more of a of Lyndale Avenue and Lake Shore Drive.
PR perspective) These streets also border the site. The
topography varies from flat to sloping.
It lies on the edge of a redeveloped
commercial and residential area. To
the north and west is Lake Shore Drive
and Wood Lake Point Condominiums, north
and east are the commercial facilities of
Lyndale Hardware, Richfield Bank and
Trust and Market Plaza. To the south,
the site overlooks Wood Lake Nature
Center.
Site Ownership: The site is only partially under public
ownership. Three vacant lots are
owned by the HRA. The remainder of the
site is under private ownership and
includes three small businesses, the
VFW, and two homes. Graham Avenue
would be vacated. (See map)
Fiscal Considerations: The site would be within an Economic
Development Tax Increment District
established according to MN Statutes
469.174 to 469.179 wherein tax increment
revenues would be available for 8 years.
Tax Increment is the only revenue which
the HRA could make available to assist
the developer. The HRA would assist the
developer in obtaining tax exempt
financing for construction if available.
Site Assembly: The developer would be expected to
negotiate options with owners of the
property within the site. The use of
the power of eminent domain by the HRA
would be considered in those instances
~ ~~
where the developer is unable to
negotiate an option.
B. Submission Elements Required From Developers/Format of
Proposals
Proposals shall be written and presented in the following
format, utilizing the headings presented below for the
organization of responses. Respondents shall address all
questions asked and provide a sufficient level of detail to
enable evaluation of the proposal.
1) Developer -- Indicate the name, address and telephone
number of the proposed owner of the project.
Provide the names of two (2) contact
persons who can speak for the owner.
2) Overview of Proposal -- Present a statement
which provides a clear
identification of the .proposal.
3) Justification -- Present information available at this
time which indicates there is or would be
a market for the proposed .development.
4) Previous Experience/Qualifications
Provide a list of all the developer's
• projects, developments or redevelopment
proposals for the last five years and
supply the following:
A. Project or proposal name and year
B. Location by city or county., if
unincorporated area
C. Contact person within governmental unit
D. Size and type of project or proposal
E. Source of financing
F. Your participation if other than
sole developer
G. Other parties involved include name,
role and address
H. Status of development, redevelopment,
or construction and name of general
contractor if built
I. Indicate if there was a developer's
agreement, the parties to the
agreement and whether or not any
performance requirements have not been
met.
5) Project and Financial References -- Provide the names,
addresses, phone numbers and relevant
positions of at least 3 banking references
who are aware of your current financial
~~ ~
situation. Present a copy of your firm's
most recently audited financial statement.
6) Participants in Project -- Identify each participant in
the project. Identify their role and give an
overview of their previous experience.
Indicate whether they have worked together
previously.
7) Plan of Action -- Provide an overview of how the proposal
will be implemented. Include a time
schedule for completion of each element.
Present the material in both written and
graphic form. The time schedule and cost
estimate should be presented in a matrix
format, as well as described in a narrative
manner. Provide a site plan, typical
elevations and floor plans for all proposed
construction at a scale of 1:20.
8) Pro formas --Provide preliminary tax increment,
construction and operational pro formas.
9) Financing of Project -- Describe how the proposal will be
financed. Identify the method, sources of
funds and amounts from each source. Provide
evidence of funding commitment, if available.
If owner financing is expected, describe
what is expected.
10) Assistance --Discuss the probable type and amount of
assistance you may seek from the HRA/City.
11) Impact of Proposal -- Describe the probable economic
impact of the proposal, including: the
number of low rent housing units, the number
of construction and permanent jobs to
be created and tax revenue to be generated by
the proposal.
12) Management Plan -- Present a management plan for the
project's implementation and the operation
of the finished project. Identify the
method of management to be employed and the
identity of the individuals and/or firms
to be responsible for each element of the
management plan.
13) Promotion and Marketing -- Describe how the project will
be promoted and marketed. Identify the
individuals and/or firms to be responsible
for promotion and marketing.
-~~'_/
C. Evaluation of Proposals
Proposals will be initially evaluated by staff. Two finalists
will be recommended to the HRA Board. The two finalists will be
requested to prepare a scale model of their proposal.. They will
make a presentation before the HRA and other interested persons
with the final selection following.
D. Agreements
With the selection of the developer, staff will be authorized to
negotiate an agreement which would give the developer the
exclusive right to negotiate a Developer's Agreement. At the
initiation of the negotiations for the exclusive right to
negotiate agreement, the developer will be required to pay by
Cashier's Check a non-refundable fee of $15.,000. Following the
execution of the agreement, the developer would pay an additional
$15,000. Upon execution of the Developer's Agreement, a final
payment of $15,000 would be made. The payment of $45,000 would
help to defray HRA, legal, administrative and consultant costs.
E. Right to Reject Proposals
The HRA reserves the right to reject any and. all proposals
received as a result of the .Request for Proposals., or to
negotiate in any manner necessary to serve the best interests of
the HRA.
~~~_
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
HRA Letter No. 9
Agenda February 16, 1988
Issue Statement:
Request from Mr. Gary Tushie to address the HRA on the status of
his discussions to identify a developer partner for the Landmark
Center Project.
Background-
Attached is a letter from Mr. Tushie requesting a place on the
agenda.
Recommendation:
Grant Mr. Tushie's request
Basis of Recommendation:
Mr. Tushie continues to be interested in developing the GAD site.
A11 parties have invested-considerable resources in his proposal.
It would be appropriate to listen to his remarks.
Alternative Recommendation: ~~~
Not grant Mr. Tushie's request.
Decision Mode.:
It would facilitate the redevelopment process to consider this
report in the context of the RFP consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
Executive Director
~~
'~ Tushi¢
', Montgom¢ry
Associat¢s
Inco
Architects=Space Planners 3300 Edinborough Way, #601
Landscap¢ Architects Minneapolis, Minn¢sota 55435
612 -830-8208
February 10, 1988
_ __
- __
Mr. Thomas Harms,
Chairman, Richfield HRA
- City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423.
Re: Landmark Centre
Dear Mr. Harms:
Since your last HRA meeting I have been busy trying to restructure the ownership of
the Landmark Centre project.
I have made arrangements with Mr. Roger Derrick to buy his interest in Lyndale
Partners and have structured a deal with Mr. Stuart Nolan and Stuart Corporation to
become the managing general partner for the development of the project.
Stuart Corporation is very excited about the project and becoming involved in it.
Their experience in redevelopment projects is extensive and their financial
condition strong. I am confident that their credentials will meet with your
approval.
I hope that these changes will meet with the HRA's approval and will get the
project back on track.
I request that the HRA review these changes at their next meeting on February 16,
1988 and hope for their approval so we can proceed with the final stages of the
development process.
Sincerely,
LYNDALE_PARTNERS
~.._--
`-' Gary Tushie,
Managing General Parter
cc: Roger Derrick
Stuart Nolan
Jim Prosser