HomeMy WebLinkAboutEDA MIN 02-23-10ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
February 23, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by President-Gary Peterson.
Members Present: Bruce Nawrocki, Marlaine Szurek, Tammera Diehm, Gary Peterson, Gerry
Herringer, Bobby Williams, and Bruce Kelzenberg.
Staff Present: Scott Clark, Sheila Cartney, and Shelley Hanson.
Also present were: Clark Gassen, Jack Boarman and Gretchen Camp from BKV, and Steve Bubul-
EDA attorney from Kennedy & Graven.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- RECITED
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS-
Motion by Diehm, seconded by Williams, to cast a unanimous ballot nominating and appointing
Gary Peterson Chair, Marlaine Szurek for Vice Chair, and Bruce Kelzenberg
for Secretary/Treasurer. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approve the Minutes of November 24th and December 2nd, 2009.
2. Approve the Financial Report and Payment of Bills for November and December 2009,
and January 2010 per Resolution 2010-01
Questions from members:
Nawrocki questioned several expenses from the November-January Reports as follows:
*Asked what the payment to Google was for-Staff checked into this expense and found it
is the department's share of the City's Anti-Spam Service.
*Check to Cartney was for mileage/parking reimbursements.
*$5,300 check to Carlson Co-was for Huset Park III expenses that will be reimbursed by
Shafer Richardson.
*Check to Clark for $42.40 was for mileage reimbursement.
*$8,500 check to Carlson Co. was for Phase III for RAP Plan that will be reimbursed by
Shafer Richardson.
*$1,300 check to Carlson Co.was for conceptual RAP Plan for 39th and Central Ave.
project. This is a preliminary action plan that will be submitted to the PCA for the
Mady's site, Heights Rental site, and the Burger King site, that will save time when that
site is redeveloped in the future.
*Check to TMS was for demolition of one of the scattered site homes.
*Checks to Tim Sullivan and Fadia Salem were for Planning Case refunds.
Nawrocki asked about the contract with Carlson Company and the amount authorized for
payment to them. Clark explained that there isn't a contract in place for a certain amount.
Based on past practice, Carlson bills us, and we in turn bill the developers for
reimbursement. It was set up this way as we received funding from grants for some of the
analysis and clean up costs for these sites. Most of the bills are for soils tests and reports,
removal of wells, and RAP Plan for the PCA.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 2
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
3. Approve Consulting Services Agreement with GMHC
The EDA has partnered with the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corp (GMHC) and its
Housing Resource Center since 2002 to provide our residents with a variety of housing
services. Services include information on home rehabilitation and construction
consultation services, as well as loan and grant programs available.
Staff recommends the EDA enter into an agreement with GMHC/Housing Resource
Center at a cost of $15,000 for the year 2010. Funding is available from Fund 408-
Housing Maintenance Fund.
Questions from members:
Nawrocki asked if anything had been done with the property at 38th and 2"d Street. Clark
told him that nothing has been built to date. He said the e~tended agreement calls for
construction to begin by May and for it to be completed by December 2010. Nawrocki
then asked staff to check to ensure GMHC has the proper insurance per the Administrative
Agreement.
Motion by Nawrocki, seconded by Williams, to waive the Reading of Resolution 2010-01
and 2010-02, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION
PASSED.
Motion by Nawrocki, seconded by Williams, to approve the Minutes from November 24tn
and December 2, 2009; and to adopt Resolutions 2010-01, approving the Financial Report
and payment of bills for November and December 2009 and January 2010; Resolution
2010-02 approving the Consulting Services Agreement with GMHC, and appropriating
$15,000 from Fund 408-EDA Housing Maintenance for the same; and furthermore, to
authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
EDA RESOLUTION 2010-O1
RESOLUTION OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(EDA) APPROVING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2009
AND JANUARY 2010 AND PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND
DECEMBER 2009, AND JANUARY 2010.
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) is required by Minnesota
Statutes Section 469.096, Subd. 9, to prepare a detailed financial statement which shows all receipts and
disbursements, their nature, the money on hand, the purposes to which the money on hand is to be applied, the
EDA's credits and assets and its outstanding liabilities; and
WHEREAS, said Statute also requires the EDA to examine the statement and treasurer's vouchers or bills and
if correct, to approve them by resolution and enter the resolution in its records; and
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 3
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
WHEREAS, the financial statement for the months of November and December 2009 and January 2010 and
the list of bills for the months of November and December 2009, and January 2010 are attached hereto and
made a part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has examined the financial statement and the list of bills and finds them to be
acceptable as to both form and accuracy.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Columbia Heights
Economic Development Authority that it has examined the attached financial statements and list of bills,
which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, and they are found to be correct, as to form and content; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the financial statements are acknowledged and received and the list of bills
as presented in writing are approved for payment out of proper funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this resolution and attachments are to be made a part of the permanent
records of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority.
Passed this 23rd day of February, 2010.
MOTION BY: Nawrocki
SECONDED BY: Williams
AYES: All ayes
Attest by:
President
Shelley Hanson, Recording Secretary
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2010 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE GREATER
METROPOLITAN HOUSING CORPORATION (GMHC) AND APPROPRIATING $15,000 FROM FUND 408 - EDA
HOUSING MAINTENANCE FUND FOR THE SAME.
WHEREAS, the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) has agreed to provide consulting services.
WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority through its Comprehensive Plan has established as
a goal the preservation of the single-family housing stock.
WHEREAS, the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation has provided housing preservation services since 2002.
WHEREAS, the residents have found these services to be a significant assistance to help preserve and maintain their
homes.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 4
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the EDA approves the 2010 Consultant Services Agreement with the Greater
Metropolitan Housing Corporation and appropriates $15,000 from Fund 408 - EDA Housing Maintenance Fund for the
same.
Passed this 23rd day of February, 2010
Offered by: Nawrocki
Seconded by: Williams
Roll Call: All ayes
President
Walter R. Fehst, Executive Director
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Fourth Amendment to Development Agreement for Grand Central Lofts-Resolution
2010-03
Clark gave the background of the original Grand Central Lofts project that began in 2003.
It was envisioned to include a three phased condo project, townhomes, and new
commercial development by one developer that would take about four years to complete.
The City's participation included: 1) Issuance of a$700,000 tax increment note to the
Developer based on completion 2) A potential second tax increment note for the
commercial development and 3) A policy understanding that after construction of Phase I,
no new construction could occur until a sewer expansion was completed on Central
Avenue, and that obligation rested with the Housing Developer. (The expansion of the
sewer was amended by means of a new Agreement that shifted the burden to the
Commercial Developer, although that Agreement is now in default).
Since 2003 many events have occurred that made this project falter: Phase I of the condos
did not sell well (29 of the 67 units are currently sold), the sale of the project to a new
developer, the commercial piece being sold to a separate developer in 2007, and the
commercial developer not being able to lease and finance the project. Other factors
included the collapse of residential markets and a world wide recession, and most
recently, the housing developer looking at amending the Agreement to allow rental
buildings, rather than condos for Phase II and III.
Staff believes the objectives of the original agreement would be hard to achieve,
especially given the fact, that multiple developers are now involved. Staff views that the
primary objective is to get the site ready for the ne~t development phase, and therefore,
proposes a major change to the original agreement. The proposal is to have the City
construct and for the EDA to pay for the expanded sewer line on Central Avenue, and in
exchange, the Housing Developer forfeits any and all rights to the $700,000 TIF note. To
clarify, the EDA would use TIF funds to construct the sanitary sewer expansion instead of
paying the Housing Developer for past eligible TIF costs.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 5
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
The net effect would be to remove the Housing Developer from receiving TIF (the EDA
retains the rights to use the TIF for the eligible public improvement), which would result
in the EDA's control over this site being effectively removed since the Housing Developer
would no longer receive assistance. The City's primary control for future development on
the site would happen through the land use permitting process. If the amendment is
approved by the EDA, it would be implemented regardless of the final outcome of the
rental project as these are two separate issues.
Clark then explained the proposed funding for this project. He recommends using cash
funds that were derived from "non-obligated Sewer Access Charge credits" and TIF funds
from District T4 which would cover the cost of the projected sewer expansion.
Clark then went on to explain the benefits to "exchange" the TIF note obligation for the
obligation to construct the sewer expansion for Central Avenue. The following was noted:
1) Cost and liability of paying off the Housing Developer's TIF note is estimated to be
$820,000. The cost of the pipe expansion is estimated to be $625,000 equating to
$195,000 of reduced TIF expenditure from the District.
2) If the City uses the SAC cash account of $120,000 this will reduce the TIF
expenditure by the same amount (resulting in $505,000 of TIF funds being used).
This reduces the future obligation of the TIF District from the $820,000 TIF note
estimate to $505,000 for the expansion pipe, which is a$315,000 reduction in
obligations.
3) And several Engineering improvements as outlined in a memo from the Public Works
Director dated February 18, 2010.
Clark stated that staff recommends approval of the Fourth Amendment as written,
including use of the non-obligated SAC credit fees as a source of financing. He told
members by approving this plan, the City would not have to bond for this project.
Questions from members:
Nawrocki asked why the sewer expansion was needed. Clark told him the sewer system is at
100% capacity in that area. It was part of the original development agreement that the sewer
needs to be expanded before any more construction could be done after the construction of Phase
1 of the condos, including any additional townhouses. Nawrocki then asked why the burden of
paying for this expansion was shifted to the Commercial Developer. Clark explained that
originally we had one developer for the entire site. After Dave Klober took over as owner he sold
off the commercial site to another developer. After that the EDA entered into a formal agreement
with the new commercial developer and transferred responsibility for the sewer expansion to the
new owner. Since that agreement is now in default, the pipe bursting obligation falls back to the
original housing developer.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 6
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
Herringer asked if Ehteshim Khoratty has fee title to the commercial piece. Clark said as far as
the City knows, he does.
Steve Bubul, legal counsel for the EDA, stated that the TIF generated from Phase I will pay for
this pipe expansion as detailed in the proposal. It was noted that so far a$650,000 fund balance
has been generated, and in addition the EDA capitalized the future revenue stream in order to
secure $580,000 in bonding proceeds to be used in the Sheffield Area Development. Nawrocki
asked what the terms were for the Bond. Clark responded that he did not know the specific time,
but estimated it to be approximately 6 years.
Clark explained that originally $700,000 of TIF revenue would have gone back to the developer
to cover qualified costs if all requirements of the Agreement were done. These requirements have
not been done to date. The plan being considered currently would improve the public utilities by
using a portion of these funds and would benefit this area of Central Avenue, as well as any future
development that may occur on this site.
Herringer commented that this development hasn't actually cost the City much and has generated
a tax base that has paid back the TIF. He then asked whether spending the SAC credits now
would hurt future developments, as it would take away this small incentive we could use at a later
time. Clark said it wouldn't affect future development projects since the Met Council has
changed the rules governing SAC credits and staff felt the credits on hand should be used for
sewer related projects, such as this proposal.
Peterson thought by enhancing the utilities on this site, it will help any future development of the
site. He felt it was a good economic move for the City and its residents as it saves money and
provides an improvement at the same time.
Nawrocki asked whether this is considered a business subsidy. Bubul responded that this is the
same language that was used in the original agreement and that state statute defines what is
considered a subsidy. Nawrocki then asked what the administrative costs were as referenced in
#5. Clark stated these would be for Attorney, Consultant and other professional services.
Herringer was concerned with the language on page 2 regarding the "Housing Improvements"
section. It included rental units, which he thought was premature since we haven't yet approved
an amendment to the development agreement to allow the addition of rental units. He thinks this
language needs to be removed for this approval. If, and when, the rental project is ever approved,
the agreement will have to be amended again at that time. Diehm agreed that the "rental"
language needs to be removed.
Diehm questioned section 9.2 whereby our option would be limited in the event of default. Clark
said that is true and any issues now would have to be handled by drawing on the Letter of Credit.
He noted that as part of this agreement, since the pipe expansion is being removed as an
obligation of the developer, the Letter of Credit will be reduced from approximately $400,000 to
$75,000.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 7
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
Diehm also wanted the language changed in Section 9.4.5 to clarify that the Minimum
Improvements would still be owner occupied. This section should not address rental units as that
has not yet been approved.
Nawrocki stated he feels the developer should be responsible for the costs of this expansion as the
original agreement was approved. He also stated he felt the consideration of changing this to
allow rental buildings is a move backwards in his opinion.
Clark stated that if this amendment is approved, Kevin Hansen would start the pipe expansion as
soon as possible and hopes for a completion date of mid-September.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Kelzenberg, to waive the reading of Resolution 2010-12,
there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Kelzenberg, to adopt Resolution 2010-12, approving a
Fourth Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Columbia Heights
Economic Development Authority and Grand Central Properties LLC, with the changes as
noted, and furthermore to authorize the EDA President and EDA Executive Director to enter
into an agreement for the same.
Roll Call: Ayes: Kelzenberg, Diehm, Szurek, Herringer, Williams, Peterson,
Nays: Nawrocki
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR
PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND GRAND CENTRAL
PROPERTIES, LLC
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners (the `Board") of the Columbia Heights Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority and New Heights Development, LLC entered into that certain Contract for
Private Redevelopment dated as of September 22, 2003, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated April
26, 2005 and by a Second Amendment thereto dated November 22, 2005 and a Third Amendment thereto
dated August 28, 2007 (the "Contract") providing for the redevelopment of certain property in the City.
1.02. New Heights Development, LLC has changed its legal name to Grand Central Properties, LLC
but in all respects remains the Redeveloper under the Contract.
1.03. The Authority considered and approved a further amendment to the Contract in September,
2008, but such amendment was not executed.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 8
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
1.04. The parties have determined a need to amend the Contract further, and staff has submitted to
the Board a Fourth Amendment to the Contract which supersedes any prior unexecuted versions of such
amendment.
1.05. The Board has reviewed the Fourth Amendment to the Contract and finds that the execution
thereof and performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its
residents.
Section 2. Authorit~~proval; Further Proceedin~s.
2.01. The Fourth Amendment to the Contract as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by
the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be
conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the
Authority the Fourth Amendment to the Contract and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by
the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority its obligations thereunder.
Passed this 23rd day of February 2010.
Motion By: Williams
Second By: Kelzenberg
Ayes: Kelzenberg, Diehm, Szurek, Herringer, Williams, Peterson
Nay: Nawrocki
President
ATTEST:
Secretary
2. Discussion on Rental Proposal
Clark told members that BKV Architects submitted plans in early February for review by the
Planning Commission and City Council in March for a rental development at Grand Central
Lofts. Staff wanted the EDA to review the plans also and give direction to the Planning
Commission for their formal review.
Comments by members:
Jack Boarman from BKV Group showed the members the revised design plan based on
feedback he has received thus far. He said they have had communication with the condo
owners about the circulation of traffic on the site, and have received feedback from the Public
Works Department from staff that lead to changes in the layout of the internal streets to
eliminate traffic problems. He noted the Fire Department would have break-away access in
the SW corner for emergencies. They have also changed the buildings to 4 story buildings
with 100 units in each. The new design also creates more green space for all the residents that
creates more of a sense of a small community.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 9
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
There was a discussion regarding the amount of parking provided in the design and whether
there could be any deviation from the requirements.
The current design depicted 217 underground parking spaces in the lower level combined
garage for the two buildings and 32 parking spaces at ground level. The zoning ordinance
requires 1 covered parking space per bedroom. This means they need to add 49 covered
spaces in order to meet the minimum requirement of 266 parking spaces. Boarman told
members this is the expensive part of the project with a cost of $18,000-$20,000 per spot
(which amounts to over $900,000 additional cost). Therefore, they want the most efficient
use of the space as possible. Boarman also stated they want to keep as much green space
around the buildings as possible. His desire was to provide one underground spot for each
unit with the remaining required spaces to be outside at grade.
Boarman said the options are as follows:
He could keep the garage size as proposed and add more parking outside.
He could reduce the number of two bedroom units which is now 33% of the units.
He could try to keep the same number of two bedroom units if he would be allowed to design
tandem parking spaces for the two bedroom units.
He could design the garage to accommodate as many tandem spots as possible and then
reduce the number of two bedroom units until the required number is met.
Kelzenberg asked if they couldn't have two levels of underground parking. Boarman said
they could, but it could be cost prohibitive.
Boarman asked what has been the typical policy of the City in other developments. Clark said
what must be remembered is that in the first rental discussions it was agreed to that the
apartment plans would reflect the quality of the condo building, which included the concept
that all required parking be underground. Boarman said they would accommodate that by
providing as many tandem spaces as they could and then reduce the number of two bedroom
units to meet the requirement. They would also plan for 20 spaces at grade for visitors.
Clark questioned if both buildings would be constructed at one time. Boarman said they
would construct one at a time with the garage below being constructed at the same time.
Once the second building is built, they will open up the wall between the garage areas. The
Community Center would be constructed along with the first building.
Diehm stated this is a significant change from the owner occupied units that were originally
proposed. She told the developer she thought the tour went well and that the other buildings
they looked at were nicely constructed and maintained. She went on to say that in order to
make a decision about this, she wants to make sure it is a viable project, and would like to see
the results of a market study in order to help her make that determination. She wanted to
know what protection is in place to keep this a market rate rental site. How do you keep it
from becoming a subsidized housing rental project. Boarman said the City can list any
stipulations it wants in the development agreement to prohibit that from happening. Clark
said the City can't do that as it falls under the Federal Fair Housing Laws. He said a better
way to ensure it remains market rate is to approve a plan that has amenities that will drive the
rates up. Gassen said that the management companies are allowed to prohibit the use of
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
Section 8 vouchers. Diehm said that could vary depending on management company in
control and that is something to consider.
Diehm stated that our community struggles with lower property values more so than other
communities.
Herringer said the original plan depicted units that were 700 sf to 1,200 sf in size with a rental
rate of approximately $1.20/sf. He noted the units that the group looked at on the tour were a
higher value per square foot. He wanted to know what quality of construction would be
sacrificed to lower it to the $1.20 target price. Boarman stated that some of the difference was
in site acquisition costs, not having two level parking, no demo costs, and less brick on the
e~terior. They will try to keep the inside quality the same in case it is ever converted to a
condo situation. They also are pursuing a HUD Loan which will keep interest rates on their
loan at a lower level than previous projects. Herringer asked them how much equity they
needed to have for the HUD loan. Gassen stated they would be required to have 10% down
on the project and that it would be a 40 year fixed loan that cannot be transferred for 10 years.
The broker they are working with said HUD is anxious to provide a loan for a project in this
area.
Herringer said this project would be adding appro~mately 11% more rental to the City. He
knows the City Council will be the body that decides whether or not to approve this project.
He wants them to consider the following issues:
1) Would they have approved this type of project if Nedegaard had brought it in originally.
2) What if Ryland would come back and ask to build some rental units as part of their
proj ect?
3) He is concerned over subsequent owners and/or managers of the property.
Boarman wanted to know what their ne~t step should be and in which order they need to get
their approvals done. They don't want to expend a lot of additional funds if the EDA or other
commissions are not interested in the project. They need to get approval from the Planning
Commission on the Site Plan first. Then the City Council will need to approve or deny the
proposed project. If they approve it, then the Development Agreement would need to be
changed and approved again by the EDA.
Nawrocki felt we should stick with the original plan of building owner occupied housing on
the site. He said the majority of the people at the public meetings were against this project.
Kelzenberg and Williams said if all the requirements can be met and the design worked out to
pass the approvals they would be in favor of the project. Williams thought it would help
promote development of the commercial piece as well.
Diehm said she is less concerned over the parking policy issue than she is from taking the leap
from owner occupied to additional rental. She said the market study would provide additional
information with which to make a decision. Szurek thought a market study should be done
also.
Boarman and Gassen said they would get one started.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 11
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
3. Access and Indemnification Agreement - Twin Cities Community Land Bank
Cartney told members about a new program that has been established to deal with foreclosed or
abandoned properties. She explained that the National Community Stabilization Trust was created in
2008. The trust is comprised of Enterprise Community Partners, the Housing Partnership Network, the
Local Initiatives Support Corporation and NeighborWorks America which have day-to-day working
relationships with hundreds of local non-profit organizations and state and local governments. The Trust
is working to stem the decline of neighborhoods with high concentrations of vacant, foreclosed
properties. The Trust coordinates the acquisition or transfer of real estate owned (REO) properties from
lenders, loan servicers, investors nationwide while working through state and local governments; to
return the properties to the stock of rental and ownership housing available primarily for low-and-
moderate income families.
The First Look program gives local buyers early access to REO properties, which can reduce carrying
costs for REO sellers. When financial institutions receive newly foreclosed properties, local buyers
begin working with the Trust to determine if they are interested in acquiring the property. This occurs
well before financial institutions would otherwise be ready to market properties. This allows local
buyers to inspect the property and decide if they want to purchase the properties at the prices set by the
financial institutions. This process benefits financial institutions: as REO sales occur more quickly,
financial institutions reduce carrying and marketing costs and avoid further declines in property value,
vandalism, and other risks. In turn, financial institutions are expected to pass on these savings as pricing
adjustments to local Stabilization Trust users. At the local level the Trust has partnered with Twin Cities
Community Land Bank to handle these properties and process.
The City of Columbia Heights has the opportunity to access the First Look program. As proposed, the
City will have the "first look" at any REO properties and determine our interest. If we are not interested
then the ne~t look goes to GMHC and if they are not interested the ne~t look goes to Habitat for
Humanity. It is set up this way because GMHC and Habitat have requested access to our city cascade.
The cost of this program initially is free. The only time a fee is paid to the Trust is when we buy a
property through this program. The transaction cost is $2,000, which is paid as part of the closing costs.
This fee covers the Trust's administration fees. They keep an e~tensive web-based spreadsheet for each
city that is part of this program. The spreadsheet is managed and updated everyday by the Trust. If we
do not purchase any homes through the First Look program we do not pay anything to the trust. The
EDA attorney has reviewed the agreement.
Staff recommends the EDA enter into an Access and Indemnification Agreement with Twin Cities
Community Land Bank in order to be part of the First Look program; further authorizing staff to
participate in this program. As in any property acquisition the EDA or City Council will have to
approve the purchase.
Questions by members:
Members thought this agreement was a good idea as it gives us the right of first refusal.
After a brief discussion it was decided that Habitat for Humanity should not have a preferred spot on
our first look program list.
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 12
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
Nawrocki asked what other closing costs would be involved when we purchase a property through this
program. Cartney responded that it would be the usual closing costs that usually amount to around
$900 (pro-rated taxes, title transfer). Since there is no agent involved, there is no commission being
paid. The $2,000 fee is the cost to administer the program so that we can purchase properties at prices
that have been reduced by 10-12% o average.
Diehm stated she also wanted staff to continue promoting programs that help homeowners fix up the
homes they have.
Motion by Diehm, seconded by Herringer, to approve the Access and Indemnification Agreement with
Twin Cities Community Land Bank as part of the First Look program; further authorizing the EDA
President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same.
Roll Call: All ayes
ACCESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
This ACCESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this lst day of
March, 2010 ("Effective Date"), by and among TWIN CITIES COMMUNITY LAND BANK LLC, a
Minnesota nonprofit limited liability company ("TCCLB") whose address is 615 First Avenue NE, Suite 410,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413, THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, a municipal corporation and
political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("City"), whose address is 590 40t'' Avenue NE,
Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421, and the COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ("EDA"), a public body corporate and politic and political subdivision under the laws of the
State of Minnesota, whose address is 590 40t'' Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, TCCLB and certain qualified sellers consisting of lenders and servicers ("Sellers") as
owners of certain foreclosed and abandoned properties located in certain economically distressed
neighborhoods in the greater Minneapolis and St. Paul metropolitan area which are heavily affected by the
foreclosure crisis ("Targeted Communities") are participants in the Real Estate Owned Purchase Program
("REO Purchase Program") of the National Community Stabilization Trust ("NCST");
WHEREAS, pursuant to the REO Purchase Program, TCCLB is provided with (a) a right of first offer
to purchase real estate owned properties ("REO Properties") located in the Targeted Communities from Seller
prior to the traditional marketing and listing for sale of such REO Properties ("First Look Program") and/or (b)
a bulk aged REO Property purchase program for purchasing significant numbers of currently-listed properties
(`Bulk and Aged Property Program" and collectively with the First Look Program shall be referred to as the
"Program") all of which REO Properties are located in the Targeted Communities;
WHEREAS, the certain Program guidelines and agreements ("Program Guidelines") agreed to by
TCCLB and by the Sellers provide TCCLB with an opportunity and limited right to access and inspect certain
REO Properties identified through NCST prior to the execution of a Purchase and Sale Agreement;
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 13
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
WHEREAS, the Program contemplates the re-sale by TCCLB of certain of the REO Properties to
City and EDA and City and EDA has expressed an interest in purchasing certain of the REO Properties
("Identified Properties");
WHEREAS, TCCLB desires to assign to City and EDA its rights to access and inspect the Identified
Properties;
WHEREAS, as a condition of TCCLB's assignment of its right to access and inspect the Identified
Properties, City and EDA each agree to defend, indemnify, and hold TCCLB harmless from any and all claims
made against TCCLB in connection with City and EDA's inspection ofthe REO Properties;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Assignment of Right to Access and Inspect. TCCLB hereby assigns and delegates to City and
EDA its rights to enter upon and access and to inspect the REO Properties pursuant to the Program Guidelines.
This assignment and delegation is non-delegable without TCCLB's prior written permission.
2. Indemni~cation. In consideration for TCCLB's assignment of its rights to inspect the Identified
Properties and other consideration, including the right to purchase certain of the Identified Properties, City and
EDA hereby agree to indemnify and fully protect, defend, and hold TCCLB, its officers, directors, employees,
shareholders, servicers, representatives, agents, attorneys, tenants, brokers, successors or assigns harmless
from and against any and all claims, costs, liens, loss, damages, attorney's fees and expenses of every kind and
nature that may be sustained by or made against TCCLB, its officers, directors, employees, shareholders,
servicers, representatives, agents, attorneys, tenants, brokers, successors or assigns, resulting from or arising
out of (a) the entry upon and (b) inspection of the Identified Properties by the City and EDA, or its employees,
officers, agents or its permitted successors or assigns. Liability of City and EDA shall be governed by the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, as amended, or other applicable law.
3. Insurance Requirements. City and EDA shall maintain during the term of this Agreement
comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $3,000,000
in the aggregate. Upon request, City and EDA shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing such
coverage and naming TCCLB as an additional insured. The certificate of insurance shall also state that the
insurer shall provide written notice to TCCLB of cancellation or material change in the insurance coverage
stated on the certificate not less than 30 days prior to the cancellation or change of coverage. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary, the liability of City and EDA shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 466, as amended, or other applicable law.
4. Costs of Inspection and Appraisals. City and EDA shall be responsible for paying all costs
resulting from its access to and inspection of the REO Properties. In addition, City and EDA shall be
responsible for paying the costs of any appraisals or broker price opinions ordered by City and EDA.
5. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue
until December 31, 2010 unless sooner terminated pursuant to Paragraph 6 below. Any sections of this
Agreement which are intended by their terms to continue after termination survive the expiration or earlier
termination of this Agreement.
EDA NIlN UTES
PAGE 14
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
6. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement at its discretion and without further
obligation: (a) immediately if the other party breaches this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within five
(5) days of written notice of default, ar(b) at any time upon ten (10) days written notice to the other party.
Upon termination, all unpaid fees owed to TCCLB or any third party by City and EDA shall be immediately
due and payable.
7. Independent Contractor. City and EDA will at all times act as an independent City and EDA
and nothing contained herein will be construed to create the relationships of joint-venturers, agency or
employer and employee between the parties. City and EDA shall be responsible for the manner and means of
performing its services under this Agreement and said manner and means are subject to the City and EDA's
sole control.
8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties regarding the
subject matter of this Agreement, and there are no other promises or conditions in any other agreement,
whether oral or written. This Agreement may only be amended by a written instrument signed by both parties.
10. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for
any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. If a court finds that any
provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision it would become
valid and enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be written, construed, and enforced as so
limited.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the
Effective Date first above written.
TWIN CITIES COMMUNITY LAND BANK
LLC,
a Minnesota nonprofit limited liability company
By:
Rebecca L. Rom
Its: Vice Chair
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public
body corporate and politic and political
subdivision under the laws of the State of
Minnesota
By:
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, a
municipal corporation and political subdivision Its
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
By:
Gary Peterson
Its: Mayor
By:
Walter Fehst
Its: City Manager
Gary Peterson
President
By:
Walter Fehst
Its: Executive Director
EDA MINUTES
PAGE 15
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Staff inet with Developer Chris Little this week and will be bringing an updated plan for the 37tn
and Central Avenue project to the March meeting.
Staff also received an initial offer from Gene Mady this week and will bring that to the March
meeting for discussion.
Clark said they are hoping to have an update on the NHHI Senior housing project by then.
Clark stated that foreclosures still haven't subsided. There have been 30 since January 1, 2010.
He said they seem to be selling, but many of the home sales are around $100,000.
Nawrocki asked about the Root property. Clark said they are in process of doing a Phase 1
environmental.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
The ne~t regular EDA meeting is scheduled for March 23, 2010.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Hanson
Secretary