Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEDA MIN 04-20-04ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) REGULAR MEETING AND JOINT WORKSESSION MINUTES APRIL 20, 2004 CALL TO ORDERfROLL CALL President, Murzyn called the meeting to order at 8:29 p.m. EDA Present: Don Murzyn Jr., Patricia Jindra, Julienne Wyckoff, Bobby Williams and Bruce Nawrocki, Tammera Ericson, and Bruce Kelzenberg P & Z Present: Gary Peterson, Marlaine Szurek, Donna Kay Schmitt, and Phil Baker P & Z Absent: Ted Yehle PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes Financial Report and Payment of Bills MOTION by Williams, second by Wyckoff, to adopt the consent agenda items as listed. All ayes. Motion Carried. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION City Center/Recreation Center Discussion- John Shardlow Streetar stated the purpose of this joint worksession with the Planning & Zoning Commission is to review the set of issues and attempt to reach some Ia'nd of consensus about the direction the City shouM pursue. Both the School Board and the City Council have recognized the need for additional gym space and the City of Minneapolis, the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Clubs are also considering construction ora community center on Central Avenue in the range of $20 million dollars. There have been discussions regarding a new City Center including a City Hall, Library and potentially some senior housing, similar to the City Center by Dunbar Development in Waconia. In 1998 the Minnesota Design Team developed the "Town Square" and "Urban Green Concepts ", which included a Community Center and other Civic facilities. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a Community Center as one of the goals also. John Shardlow, DSU is present to open the discussion. Shardlow stated he'would document the answers by the commissioners from the enclosed questionnaire. The following summary was provided by John Shardlow of DSU: WORKSHEET The following sections are provided to identify the key questions that need to be answered. The questions include the most basic ones, including whether or not you still want to pursue the development of these facilities. They focus on the options related to the program for these facilities, what they should include and why. They also identify potential partners for the city in these ventures to allow a candid discussion of the pluses and minuses associated with each of these alternatives. Question Number 3. If you believe the City should pursue the development of a recreational facility, discuss the pluses and minuses associated with each of the following options: A. City develops its own facility Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 2 of 9 Pluses: City is in control of the process Start with a basic facility and add to it as possible, in the future The City gets to choose the location that works best for Columbia Heights The City can control the appearance of the facility City should take responsibility to satisfy its own recreational needs A City facility would unite the community - It would be a community focal point If the City were to take control, it would send a strong message to the Community - It would be a statement about commitment A City owned facility would allow the Recreation Dept. to better provide for what our kids need and want Tournaments that would be held at the facility would bring outsiders to the City and their experience with a quality facility would also send a positive message to the region about Columbia Heights Ne~,atives: It might be harder to sell to the residents and meet community expectations Would it result in higher taxes? The community would be critical of that outcome The facility could be a money loser and will take some stake money If the City goes it alone, there is no opportunity to either share costs, or realize the benefits of joint programs Is the timing right now? Do we really know the right location? We have had inadequate citizen input This should have been done a long time ago The on-going operating expenses and maintenance costs could prove to be a burden If we go it alone, we can't share the risks with another entity and may not be able to meet some community needs A pool could add dramatically to costs B. Ci~, collaborates with the School District on a ]oint facility Pluses: There would be the ability to share costs and risks - both construction and operating This could prove to be the most cost effective provision of services to more people There would be the opportunity for Synergy (the whole being greater then the sum of the parts) There is a successful precedent for cooperation with the school district, which could lead to the assumption that it would work well this time Tax payers would perceive this collaboration as adding value It is a logical collaboration, - both serve same population This could present the opportunity to use their land This approach would be an easier sale to the public A shared use facility would result in greater efficiency of use - less duplication of services or facilities There would be the opportunity to leverage state money, a 60/40 match for capital investment The School District boundaries extend beyond the City limits, thus broadening the base for funding 1Nel!atives: There could be possible arguments about the location and types of facilities to be built There would be a difficult time determining the relative share of costs and there is the potential for on-going conflicts regarding scheduling It would likely hurt the District's pending bond issue, if there were two issues on the ballot We could lose a sense of community ownership, if the facility was located in a school building One group or the other should be in charge The High School is bad location due to parking The school has not served the community well Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 3 of 9 Need to clearly defined use policies on an ongoing basis There is a precedent for failure in past ventures There is a distinct cultural difference between the city and the school board The Schools more possessive about their facilities It would present a challenge to retain Institutional memory regarding responsibilities, fights C. City collaborates with the City, of Minneapolis~ the YMCA, and the Boys and Girls clubs on a facility in northeast Minneapoli~ Pluses: Columbia Heights could make a small contribution and secure access to a great facility We could let them handle thc expensive clements This is a way to provide access to big-ticket items - wc could provide more amenities for our citizens This would present thc opportunity for mom creative funding, including private sources With a bigger base the costs could be spread mom widely This would msult in more programs - and mom operational efficiency Contributions could bc tax deductible Them would bc an Opportunity/possibility to draw money from a broader ama The City could access greater expertise in facilities and program operations It appears that it is going to happen Neeatives: Many of the same negatives associated with collaborating with the schools, the City would lose control, and lose the opportunity to establish a community focal point Historically residents would resist going to Northeast Minneapolis This solution doesn't necessarily solve the current programming needs and problems Citizens would have concerns about safety; whether this was perception or reality I am afraid that Columbia Heights would receive a low priority for programming and use Question Number 4: Is there a preferred site for a recreational facility? If the answer is yes, please share your thoughts about the relative merits of each of the following potential locations: A. The NEI site This is a wonderful site! The City already controls it, it is large and the current facility can't be reused It is currently tax-exempt It is a centralized location within the community The City could control the facilities It is vacant and ready to be developed I don't believe that m-use has not been explored enough This should be a housing site It has too much potential to be just a recreational facility This is a valuable site and could support tax base This is the best site This site presents the opportunity to build a potential town center Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 4 of 9 B. Huset Park No- although maybe just gyms No - because of inconsistency with the approved master plan Yes, because of the positive relationships with other uses We could tear down some of what is there to make room for the facility It would be compatible with Murzyn Hall It could accommodate parking better If we added more industrial land it could work, otherwise it will be too tight It would conflict with the baseball fields This could be an option - but it really hinges on the NEI Site C. The High School Parking is a very real problem (mentioned multiple times) It is centrally located, but it would be more of an effort to get there The community would not perceive that they owned the facility if it was located at the High School There is inadequate space on the site Seniors would be uncomfortable going there If we moved one of the schools to the NEI site, then there would be enough room D. Valley View Elementary School Parking is really bad Where would you put the building? It would have the same negatives as the High School The location is not as good It could displace some of the existing uses E. Other (please be specific) 39th and Central - but I would rather keep the area commercial Question Number 5. Do you believe that the city should pursue the development of a city center? If the answer is no, please explain why not. Yes - we should invest in the City Yes, pending a more detailed review of the financials Yes - Yes No - not at this time, we already have enough proposals to improve community There are several things that should take a higher priority Yes - but the timing is critical Yes - timing critical Yes - but both timing and phasing are critical Yes - but phasing is key Not right now because neither the money, nor the community support is there Definitely yes - but with a phased in approach Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 5 of 9 Question Number 6. If you answered yes to the idea of a new city center, what elements do you believe belong in that center? Please record your thoughts about each of the potential elements listed below, as well as any others that you would like the city council to consider. A. Library Yes - there would be great synergy with a gym Yes Yes Yes - but maybe, but not city run Yes Yes - but tinting is critical 4-5 years Not at this time Definitely yes - with coffee and plenty of couches Yes Yes Yes B. Police/Fire Depends on the evaluation of all of the issues associated with remarketing the existing facilities They are better served where they are Better served where they are; It represents a better use of space Better served where they are Not at this time It could make sense to locate them in the context of a comprehensive city center campus I like them where they are I am open - but they are pretty well served where they are Should be considered as pan of a phased plan It would present the opportunity to redevelop the current site It might be possible in future, but it is adequate for now Wouldn't want to keep just for city hall C. Senior Housing Possible - but not too much Yes Yes Yes Yes (Huset Park) May need to take a good hard look at the demand, given everything built and in the pipeline No, not sure Good idea - would help to pay for it, but concerned about market demand Yes, if fire and police underneath it - but I am not really for it I agree with the concem about the lack of demand It might be too crowded Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 6 of 9 D. Other License bureau Community meeting rooms Art space Theater Coffee - plenty of couches Streetar stated staff would compile the results for the board and present them at a City Council worksession. Approve Contract for Asbestos Abatement of NEI Buildin~ Streetar stated staff sent out a total of 13 bids, received eight back, the low bidder was Southern Environmental at $48,615, which includes removal of friable asbestos, transite panels in Room 417, but does not include roof patching compound. This element of the asbestos abatement will be addressed before demolition. Anoka County indicated the reallocated CDBG grant funds from the sale of Tyler are available to pay for the asbestos abatement. Depending on the subsequent reuse of the NEI site, a portion of the CDBG funds may have to be repaid and would remain solely for use on other projects in Columbia Heights. Murzyn asked why we delayed this issue until this meeting. Streetar stated the Mayor wanted to explore all other options and per Anoka County we had to have a historical review preformed on the building, which turned out that the building is not historical. Nawrocki stated he was opposed to the motion, as we haven't explored all the options for use of the building, is opposed to building a City Hall or Library, and would like to utilize gym space in the NEI building. Williams agreed with Nawrocki and felt it was a little premature, and we should wait for the Town Meeting on Thursday night or until we have a plan. Ericson stated she likes old building structures, but felt the private sector has explored the options of fixing it up with no results. Murzyn stated the gym floors aren't worth salvaging, it wouldn't be cost effective to save the building and the people in the community deserve a new facility. MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Ericson, to Approve the Asbestos Abatement Contract with Southern MN Environmental for the NEI building at 825 41st Avenue in an amount not to exceed $48,615; pending review and approval by the City Attorney, and furthermore, to authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same. Upon Vote: Jindra- Aye, Nawrocki- Nay, Ericson- Aye, Kelzenberg- Aye, Murzyn- Aye, Williams- Nay, Wyckoff- Aye. Motion Carried. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 7 of 9 Approve Contract for Demolition of NEI Buildin~ Streetar stated staff sent out nine bids with four responses. F.M. Frattalone was the lowest bidder at $286,500. Bids include demolition of the building, removal of all non-friable asbestos, removal and preservation of the front archway and balusters, with demolition to begin after July 1st. Anoka County indicated the City will receive $284,600 of CDBG grant funds to pay for the demolition, with the remaining $1,900 to come from reallocated CDBG funds from the sale of 4607 Tyler. Depending on the subsequent reuse of the NEI site, a percentage of the CDBG funds may have to be repaid. In that event, the funds would remain solely for use in other projects in Columbia Heights. MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Kelzenberg, to approve the Demolition Contract with F.M. Frattalone for the NEI building at 825 41st Avenue, in an amount not to exceed $286,500 and pending review and approval by the City Attorney; and furthermore to authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same. Upon Vote: Jindra- Aye, Nawrocki- Nay, Ericson- Aye, Kelzenberg- Aye, Murzyn- Aye, Williams- Nay, Wyckoff- Aye. Motion Carried. Nawrocla' asked why we are saving the Baluster's and archways. Wyckoff stated she requested they be saved and possibly reused as they have some architectural history of the City, as it was the original High School. 40th & University Predevelopment Agreement Schumacher stated at the EDA meeting on March 16th Mr. Peterson asked the board if they were interested in a development from the partnership of Williams-Peterson using the same agreement to market the site as the Haugland Company had with the EDA. The board requested Peterson, to prepare a proposal for this meeting. The agreement attempts to formulate a definitive development contract, addresses the purchase price of the property, satisfactory mortgage, equity financing, resolution of zoning, land use and site design issues, economic feasibility and soundness of the development. The EDA also set four parameters of priority to work with: 1) upscale development with single or multi-use tenants; 2) no fast food restaurants; 3) no auto related activities; and 4) uses that would provide vitality and needed services along University Avenue. If the Williams- Peterson, Partnership, met the requirements of the Predevelopment Agreement, staff will return to the board with a final development contract for consideration. Williams stated he would not be participating in the discussion as he is in the partnership. Ericson stated she did not agree with putting a larger building on the site without it being pre- leased, as Haugland already tried marketing the site with no interested parties and asked what is it about their proposal that would make the board think it would work. Peterson stated he has pursued a business tenant for theproject site, but can't go any further with them until he has an agreement. He has been in the construction business for 40years, has lived in Columbia Heights for 35years, has built complexes like this before, has never leased out the units, but his partner, Mr. Williams has and felt it was time to invest in our City. Streetar stated Haugland's consensus was to have 80% leased before a development agreement was signed. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 8 of 9 Murzyn asked staff, with the 120-day agreement, how long before they have to come back to the board with their status. Streetar stated they would come to City staff within 30 to 60 days with a progress report. Peterson asked how long would it take the City to obtain the MGS building and the street vacated. Ericson stated we don't know at this time. Kelzenberg stated the board shouldn't deny the agreement because one of the partners is a former Mayor and the other owns an automotive business in Columbia Heights. Nawrocki stated the following: we are not ready to develop this site as we cannot vacate the street until we own the MGS property, which he understood the property owner isn't ready to sell and that the City may have to use eminent domain to speed the process up, felt we shouM have gone out for bids, has heard talk about a nice restaurant placed there but, didn't think it is our decision to make as it's what the marketplace allows. Stated he was disappointed this came to the last meeting, which he could not attend, heard something was passed out at the meeting, which he never received a copy of and didn't really know about this until this meeting. However, he would be supportive of this agreement if some of the issues addressed could be taken into consideration. Ericson stated we did go out for developer bids, prior to signing the agreement with Haugland, and therefore, we shouldn't have to do it again. Wyckoff asked what options they have when the plan comes back to the board. Streetar stated they would have three: 0 accept it; 2) reject it; or 3) accept it with modifications. Schumacher stated Williams, would have to sustain from any further discussion, once the agreement was approved by the board. Murzyn requested the City Attorney review the agreement and determine if there were any conflicts of interest that may violate State Statute. Peterson stated he is on the side of the City, excited for the opportunity to work with the City and would hope they would be excited also. MOTION by Kelzenberg, second by Murzyn, to Approve the Predevelopment Agreement with Williams-Peterson Partnership, subject to review and approval by the City Attomey; and furthermore, to authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same. Upon Vote: Murzyn- Aye, Jindra- Aye, Wyckoff- Aye, Nawrocki- Aye, Ericson- Aye, Kelzenberg- Aye, Williams- abstained. Motion Carried. Set Special Meeting to Discuss the Schafer Richardson Predevelopment Agreement Schumacher stated Schafer-Richardson has prepared a Predevelopment Agreement for the EDA 's consideration. Staff is recommending holding a special EDA meeting at 8:00pm on Tuesday, April 27th in Conference Room 1 at City Hall to go over the agreement. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 9 of 9 MOTION by Ericson, second by Williams, to set a Special Meeting of the EDA at 8:00 pm on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 in the City Hall, Conference Room 1, to discuss the Schafer-Richardson Predevelopment Agreement for the Industrial Park Project. All ayes. Motion Carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Taco Bell $chumacher stated Border Foods, owner of Taco Bell has been working for the past 2 years on remodeling their building on the corner of 49th and Central along with purchasing the car wash just to the north of their building. They are currently asking the City to help in TIF or eminent domain to purchase the car wash property. The car wash owner is willing to sell, but wants a large amount for the property. What direction would the board like staff to pursue. Williams stated he was against condemnation, but felt the car wash owner was unrealistic about the cost of their building. The consensus of the board was to direct staff not to get involved in the issue of purchasing the car wash. 4855 University Avenue Schumacher stated the non-conforming single-family home at 4855 University was taken down. ADJOURNMENT President, Murzyn, Jr., adjourned the meeting at 11 '15 p.m. Respectfully ~ Ch~I~I~en Community Development Secretary H:~EDAminutes2004\4-20-2004