Loading...
4.3. SR 02-19-2002MEMORANDUM Item# 4.3. TO: FROM: DATE: SU BJ ECT: I~layor and Council /~. /// Pat Klaers, City At~t4*at'or February 19, 2002 HRA Update and Consider Special HRA/City Council Meeting Councilmember Paul Motin is the City Council representative on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. At this February 19, 2002 meeting, Councilmember Motin is scheduled to provide the Council with an update on HRA activities. Special HRAICity Council Meeting Council is asked to call a special meeting for Monday, February 25, 2002, at 5:00 p.m., to meet with the HR_A_ to discuss downtown redevelopment goals and process. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002 Members Present: Staff Present: Chair Toth, Commissioners Thompson, Lieser, Motin and Wilson Executive Director Catherine Mehelich, Economic Development Assistant Heidi Hall, City Administrator Pat Klaers, Senior Planner Scott Harlicker, Planner/Park Planner Chris Leeseberg, City Engineer Terry Maurer, and City Clerk Sandra Peine Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Housing and Redevelopment Authority was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chair Toth. Consider February. 4,2002 HRA Agenda COMMISSIONER MOTIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 4, 2002, HRA AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER WILSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Downtown Sidewalk Project Summary Catherine MeheLich indicated that the final project cost for the 2001 Downtown Sidewalk Improvement is $320,179.17. Catherine noted that the HRA contribution to the project consisted of $243,465.17, which is approximately $32,000 over the initial estimate. City Engineer Terry Maurer discussed the reasons for the overrun. He explained that the amount of curb and gutter being removed was more than expected which increased the bid. He indicated that another reason for the overrun involved Northstar Access and Qwest Communications replacing their facilities under the sidewalk which extended the period of time the Contractor was working on the project and increased the number of hours for inspection. Discussion was held regarding whether the HRA should be responsible for the overrun cost or whether the Council should pick up some of the overrun. Chair Toth and Commissioner Thompson felt the Council should pick up some of the overrun cost. COMMISSIONER MOTIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REVISED INTERFUND LOAN PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROJECT AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER WILSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. CHAIR TOTH OPPOSED. Housing and Redevelopment Authority February 4, 2002 Page 2 4. Do~vntown Riverfront Revitalization Project 4.1. Review Development Objectives and Design Concepts Catherine Mehelich reviewed the proposed development objectives. She indicated that the objectives were compiled following feedback from the December HRA meeting and individual meetings between staff and HRA commission members. Chris Leeseberg indicated that in December the HRA reviewed five design concept options prepared by staff, which were based on previous studies and goals of the HRA. Chris noted staff has refined the concepts since the last review process. Chris presented three new concepts to the HRA for review. Following review of the concepts the HRA noted that the "brick block" buildings located along Jackson Avenue between Highway 10 and Main Street should be maintained as it helps to establish the traditional character of the area. It ~vas further noted that the HRA would like to see a concept, similar to the earlier Best and Hempel concept, which would include redevelopment of the riverfront area between Parrish Avenue and King Avenue. 4.2. Update on Communication Activities Catherine Mehelich informed the HRA of the methods that will be used to communicate with the public regarding the revitalization process. She noted that a Downtown Riverfront Revitalization Q&A Newsletter would be distributed via the newspaper, an open house will be held on February 12, and the Star News will have an article regarding the project in the February 6 edition. 4.3. Review Implementation Policies and Next Steps Jim Prosser of Ehlers & Associates reviewed implementation policies that are necessary in order to proceed with the redevelopment project. Discussion topics included the possible need to use the HRA power of eminent domain, the Historical Context Study, and requests for financial assistance. Jim indicated that the next step will involve soliciting developer proposals. Commissioner Motin suggested it is important that the Mayor and City Council concur with the HRA on the project goal, objectives, and process. Ms. Mehelich stated that the February 25, 2002, HRA meeting will be held jointly with the City Council. Chair Toth noted that there was a lot of redevelopment potential north of the railroad tracks, which could be impacted by Highway 10 interregional corridor plans. 4.4. Consider Property. for Sale Located in Revitalization Project Area Catherine Mehelich indicated that a piece of property located within the HRA's identified revitalization project area is for sale. The property is located at 204 Lowell Avenue and the asking price is $74,900. The HRA discussed the merit of purchasing the property. Commissioner Motin indicated that he would like to know the actual value of the property before making a decision. It was the consensus of the HRA to take no action on the purchase of the property at this time. Housing and Redevelopment Authority February 4, 2002 Page 3 5. Adjournment There being no other business, COMMISSIONER WILSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting of the Elk River Housing and Redevelopment Authority adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Sandra Peine City Clerk Elk River Core CBD Redevelopment Strategies Ehlers & Associates February 4, 2002 1. Solicit Proposals · Use development objectives and concepts as basis for RFP · Request proposals for multiple areas · HRA not committed to accepting any proposals 2. Preserve some sites for later development · Hold some sites from RFP process (Parking area) · Include in RFP but drop from development if proposals do not meet objectives. Land Acquisition · Developer to use best faith efforts to acquire · Require mediation if not successful with efforts · Eminent domain if mediation is not successful 4. Highway 10 · Elevated Highway 10 likety to pose 3roblems with development · Recommend alternative designs · Seek developer planning feedback 5. Historical Context Study · Solicit RFP prior to completion of study · After selection work with developer to explore results of study in design alternatives · Use results of developer analysis to assess costs and impacts of various alternatives 2 6. Redevelopment Time Frame · Expect need to update concept after 5 years · Revision to consider market conditions 7. Initial Time Frame for Redevelopment · Do not expect construction before 2003 · Later stages 3-7 years 8. Financial Assistance · Assistance likely due to land cost · Consider qualifying area for tax increment · Abatement and grants are other assistance options · Value and density impact ability to provide tax increment assistance 9. Communication · Redevelopment is controversial · Forecast time frame, upcoming decisions, opportunities for public involvement · Encourage questions · Respond to concerns 10. Advance purchase of land ~'~': ~ ,:¢~:,~, · Generally not recommended i Exceptions include willing sellers, strategic locations, reasonable costs, ability to resell May save on relocation and acquisition 11. Concepts are Framework · Concepts are not plans · Final development is likely to be different than' concepts and even proposals · Final plan impacted by community input. market, financing and regulatory reviews · Be flexible 4 Final Thoughts · Redevelopment is long process · Take measured steps · Many small (but important) decisions · Don't dismiss any,concerns