Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/02/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Economic Development Authority - RegularA G E N D A E C O N O M I C D E VE L O P ME N T A U TH O RITY S T . L O UI S P ARK , MIN N E SO TA M onday , F ebru ary 6, 19 95 6:3 0 p .m . 1. 2. 3. Call to order Roll call Appro val of minutes a. EDA mi nutes of January 3, 1995 Action: Motion to approve - Motion to approve as amended Approval of agenda ) Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add/delete item(s) Jr & .Q - ]- Q . + a s k,, 4 , at@ 4 '. l t . >Li \,,2\a Victoria Village Tax Increment Finan cing plan 7,] 'yude d CU f oe s py9() · \5a ad> {coo t; . . b. Change order No. 4: Tower Pl ce parking ramp · .'7U./~d r if l ~ '"{ ~\O 't1 " c aws - "[l,z,, ¢ osase p, @+\,f.® 7., Communications and bills () rG-' \-V ~[~ ·1-0 a. Monthly financial reports Dec. 1994, Jan. 1995 (, f'lfl), ql;J # J !] .vendor.claims {NU 9 4. 8. ) Adjournm ent (y.fl) ' j-0 : RE Q U ES T FO R ED A A C T IO N DATE Februa ry 6, .1995 AGENDA SECTION: Reports NO. 5 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development ITEM·Victoria Village Project Preparation of Tax Increment NO. Financing Plan APPROVED: [Mg avid Hagen, Director BACKGROUND SYNOPSIS This memo addresses the question as to what scope/size and type of tax increment financing district should be created for the Victoria Village. BACKGROUND ) At the study session of January 9, the consensus was that the EDA should give form al direction to staff to begin preparation of the tax increment financing plan at the next EDA meeting. In addition to providing that direction, a decision needs to be made as to whether the tax increment financing district created should be larger than the project site. A total of approximately $840,000 could be collected from increments from the Victoria Village site after the Victoria Village project obligations are satisfied to meet other comm unity development needs in the area. If the EDA is not inclined to create a district larger than the site itself, then a qualified housing district should be created so that state aid penalties to the City are avoided. If the EDA is inclined to use the increments collected after obligations to the Victoria Village project expire to address other community development needs, then a decision needs to be made as to what type of tax increment financing district, qualified housing or redevelopment, is to be created and the next section addresses that question. Expanded Qualified Housing Versus Expanded Redevelopment TIF District The creation of a qualified housing district has the advantage of avoiding state aid penalties which are estimated to amount to approximately $250,000 over the life of the district. The disadvantage of creating a qualified housing district is that either PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL 'BTAINED J FINANCE APPROVAL OBTAINED COMMUN I Y UEVL UH. APPROVAL OBTAINED APPROVAL OBTAINED Executive Director APPROVAL OBTAINED ACTION: MOTION BY 2NDBY TO ar-ra 1 I Victoria Village) Febru ary 6, 1995-) Page 2 20% of the units in the project must be occupied by households under 50% of the median income or 40% of the units must be occupied by households under 60% of the median income. The developer has indicated that this restriction is no more demanding than occupancy restrictions resulting from the tax credits that will be used to raise some of the equ ity for the project. It would be necessary for other housing assisted with these tax increments to also meet these occupancy requ irements. Given the large numb er of multi-family stru ctures that need rehabilitation that could be included in this TIF District this should not pose a problem in making use of those increments e A disadvantage of creating a redevelopment district is that the parcels included in the district must meet cert ain criteria relating to the presence and sub standardness of buildings on the parcels or to the parcel being vacated railroad right-of-way. The same numb er of years of increment (25) can be captured from qu alified housing and redevelopment districtse RECOMMENDATION By motion direct staff to prepare a plan for an exp anded qu alified housing tax increment financing districts 5614:GEN50e F in e M a n a g e m e n t o f M n . \A Division of J.N. Fine & Associates Inc. TO: Economic Development Authority FROM: Jeffrey Fine DATE: February 3, 1995 RE: Tax Increment Financing/Victoria Village I am opposed to the creation of tax increment financing agreement in any form with regard to the proposed Victoria Village project, and believe very strongly that the members of the Economic Development Authority should also oppose it. My reasons are as follows: As an owner and manager of multi-family properties in the City of st. Louis Park, and an involved participant in the St. Louis Park multi-family coalition, I have become aware of the fact that "The city" has a substantial concern with regard to the status, condition, and/or well-fare of its current aging or older multi-family housing stock. If there is proper basis for concern, there are a number of reasons for the conditions of concern existing. The substantial, if not explosive, creation and/or development of new multi-family units in the mid-1970's, carrying through to the mid- 1980's, created a situation of substantial over-supply in the availability of apartments. As that over-supply peaked, failure of the Savings & Loan Institutions and tax reform all combined, as you know, with some very negative impacts on the multi-family industry. To the extent that the physical condition of older apartment properties in the City of st. Louis Park have not been maintained and/or improved to levels the City would find acceptable or appropriate, the cause has been one of financial hardship wrought on those properties, in general, because of the economic conditions that have affected the industry since approximately 1985, and more specifically because from 1985 until now, high vacancy factors and aggressive competition to obtain tenants have depressed rents to the point that it has not been financially possible for many owners of older properties to spend monies as was necessary to maintain and improve their real estate. Admittedly, the condition of over-supply is starting to correct itself by reason of the fact that there has been no substantial new construction since approximately 1988, and the over-supply is being absorbed. ------ 2101 Hennepin Avenue • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 e (642)874-9484 Economic Development Authority February 3, 1995 Page 2 ) There is still no financial justification in the market place to support any new construction in the apartment field. Stabilized occupancy at acceptable levels will now allow for adjustments in rent that were not possible over the period of the last seven years or more. Both factors will combine to provide an opportunity for owners of older multi-family property to begin reinvesting in the physical well-being and appearance of the properties they own. It is wrong in this economic climate for a governmental entity to provide financial incentives to encourage new multi-family construction which is exactly what you are considering doing with tax increment financing of the Victoria Village scheme. I recognize that the City of st. Louis Park is not alone in considering subsidizing something that is not otherwise financially feasible in the market place. The State, with tax credits, and the Federal government, with its incentives, will also have a hand in this ill-advised action, if it proceeds. The second reason I am opposed is because some of the arguments and positions in support of this project are fallacious. I have heard the justification that City involvement will encourage the development of property that has long stood neglected and undeveloped and which is assumed to be undevelopable without some form of governmental assistance. The truth is that this land holding was, for a number of years, held as inventory for future commercial/business/ industrial development. No attempt was made toward the development of this property while properties contiguous to it in a more favorable and accessible location were being developed. At some point in the "recent" past, when commercial/business/industrial development could have taken place on the subject land area, opposition to that type of land use was voiced by the residential properties surrounding the land area, and the City responded by rezoning the property to, I believe, a limited multi-family use only. Bearing in mind that neither the economy in general, or specifically, the multi-family industry in area was favorable and/or would support new development after 1985 through and including this moment, it is not surprising that this land has not yet been developed. I firmly believe that if this property is, today, offered publicly and broadly for sale, it would be of interest to a private developer with conventional financing supported by appropriate economic circumstances, within the next 3 to 4 years such that the site will be developed without the involvement of City of St. Louis Park subsidies. Economic Development Authority February 3, 1995 Page 3 ) Another reason I have heard in support of this project is that its creation will somehow encourage current St. Louis Park residents in the age group of 65 or older to sell their single-family homes in order to occupy this property, thereby making their homes available for younger families. It sounds good in theory, but in practice I ask two questions. If this property is developed, is it possible that once an assured occupancy date can be determined, a current senior citizen homeowner is going to have time to list his property for sale and, in fact, accomplish that sale in a timely enough fashion to take advantage of the opportunity to occupy this subsidized project? What assurances is the developer giving that he will not rent up this property to senior citizens now living outside of st. Louis Park, as opposed to holding it vacant and available to show preference to st. Louis Park residents only? Incidently, if, in fact, the prospective resident for Victoria Village is a current homeowner in the City of st. Louis Park, do they really need "a financial subsidy" in order to be encouraged to sell their home and live in this property? It seems to me that the Federal and State governments, when they designed their incentive programs for low and moderate income housing development, did not have it in mind that they would be encouraging homeowners to sell the private family home in favor of living in this type of property. Couldn't these funds be better used to create homes for the homeless? In addition to the above concern and opposition to the creation of tax increment financing for this project is the fact that I do not believe government involvement or intervention in general, or specifically in this project, is necessary or appropriate. A market place, free-enterprise system will be more than capable of developing and meeting the needs of this property and the City of St. Louis Park now and in the near future. There is currently no need for this type of luxury senior housing that should be met or encouraged by public charitable funds. Why should every homeowner in the City of st. Louis Park pay any sum (47¢) for the privilege of subsidizing seniors who are comfortably lodged today in their own homes elsewhere. Is it possible the recent message sent by "the people" in the last national election has not reached local political levels? We need less governmental involvement, less bureaucracy, and more private industry response in meeting the day to day social needs of all people. ? JNF:mew REQUEST- FOR EDA ACTION DATE Feb. 6, 1995 AGENDA SECTION: Reports ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: NO. 5 Administration ITEM: APPROVED: - Change order No. 4: Tower Place parking NO. 5b ramp Robert I arson Background The Tower Place parking ramp was open for public parking June 1994. Since that time the contractor, Adolfson & Peterson, Inc., has been working on the punch list, a list of items that needed to be corrected. The items on the punch list have now been resolved and staff is prepared to recommend closing out the project» With this report, the construction manager, Kraus-Anderson, is requesting formal approval by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Change Order No. 4 for the project which includes 37 items that represents a net increase in the total cost of $98,000, Discussion Attached to this report is a copy of the change order and a narrative that explains each of the 37 items. Staff's position was to have Adolfson & Peterson complete the punch list items before a final change order for the project would be presented to the EDA for consideration of payment» Recommendation It is recommended that the Economic Development Authority adopt the attached resolution approving Change Order No. 4 In the amount of $98,000 to EDA Contract No. 8-93 with Adolfson & Peterson for construction of the Tower Place parking ramps Note: A representative from the construction manager, Kraus-Anderson is scheduled to be at this meeting to address any questions about the parking ramp project or this report» 3L IC WORKS % OVAL os «AiNeD FINANCE APPROVAL OBTAINED COMM APPROVAL OBTAINED APPROVAL OBTAINED MANAGER'S APPROVAL OBTAINED COUNCIL ACTION: MOTION BY 2NDBY TO ---------- ---------- ------ R E S O L U T IO N N O . __ RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 WITH ADOLFSON & PETERSON, INC. FOR EDA CONTRACT NO. 8-93 WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority entered into EDA Contract No. 8-93 with Adolfson & Peterson, Inc. for the construction of the Tower Place parking ramp; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority has determined that certain modifications be made to the contract to facilitate the construction of the project, said modifications being as follows: Three deductions, 28 additions, five no-cost items, and one negotiated settlement credit to the project as described in the attached narrative for Change Order No. 4, and WHEREAS, the contractor, Adolfson & Peterson, Inc., has agreed to the prices for the modifications referenced above, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority that the above modifications to EDA Contract No. 8-93 are approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority that the increase of $98,000 to the project is accepted. Adopted by the Economic Development Authority February 6, 1995 Lyle W. Hanks President Charles W. Meyer Executive Director CHANGE ORDER (SEE NARRATIVE ATT ACHED) Distribution to: OWN ER X CONTRA CTOR HGA X KA FIELD KRAUS-ANDERSON X JOHN DECOSTER Park Nicollet Tower Place Parki ng Ram p 5000 West 39th Street St. Louis Park, MN 554 16 Adolfson & Peterson, Inc. 6701 West 23rd Street Minneap olis, M N 554 26 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: 1. ASI #5 - Door an d guardrail. 2. RFP #8 - Architectural and structural chan ges required due to chan ges in base radiation system adopted by co #2. Detail 1A/3-4 - Add embed plate for snowgate pipe an chorage. RFP #10 - Signage revisions. ASI #6 - Precas t an d Skyw ay A connection. RFP #11R - Sketch 12R2 - grade beam for ram p slab . RFP 4#12 - Methan e detection an d alarm system. RFP 4#7- Concrete ap ron at door 101-P. RFP 4#13.1 - Add ram p asphalts, delete concrete. RFP #13.2 - Cap on retaining wall. RFP #13.3 - Revise existing concrete stairs. RFP #13.4 - Widen Skyw ay "A". RFP #13.5 - Security cab le for elevator. RFP #2, CP #3- Move bollards. Sketch 7-6/7 - Remove drain pipe in elevator machine room per elevator inspector; revise roof an d add scupper per HGA sketch, doors, sign, GFI, ledges. 16. RFP 4#14R - Methane vents in concrete slab L1. 17. Ramp frost correction. Add 14 days to Completion Date. 18. Add 9 stair lights; L3 exit, south stair light for Certificate of Occupancy. 19. Add signage at fire extinguishers an d stan dpipes; AAA: lower clearan ce. 20. Add fire extinguishers; paint background. 21. Ram p soil correction - east side. 22.1 Test pits in dump material. 22.2 Special pipe supports. 23. Frost ripping. 24. Petco panel. 25. Correct bollards loosened by test. 26. Sign Solutions allowance adjustment an d sign add. 27. Bollards an d Pipe Guard additions. 28. L3 relocate sprinkler stan dpipe. 29. Correct ions to expansion joint L3. 30. Expan sion joint alignment in ram p. 31. Crack rep air/filling to date. 32. Add second coat of paint to soffit under walkw ay. 33. RFP #15- stair PC rep air. 34. Add ladder to elevator pit. 35. Medical was te. 36. Precas t ap pearan ce credit at stair tower. AM O UN T REQUESTED: PROJECT: (nam e, address) TO (Contractor): CONTRACT FOR: General Construction CONTRA CT DA TE: October 5, 1993 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 37. Ne otiated Settlement Credit CHANG E ORDER NUMBER: FOUR (4) INITIATION DATE: 9/2 7/94 ARCHITECTS PROJECT NO.: 868.030.06 CONSTRUC TION MANA GER'S PROJECT NO.: 4185 Proposed CO Amount ADD: No Charge ADD: ADD: DEDUC T: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: DEDUC T: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: ADD: DEDUCT: No Charge 149.00 <2,784.00> No Charge 8,050.00 9,361.00 245.00 8,486.00 1,966.00 2,052.00 2,128.00 1,002.00 No Charge 5,258.00 No Charge 14,000.00 2,399.00 564.00 1,578.00 1,519.00 527.00 1,269.00 18,407.00 13,819.00 1,282.00 <2,613.00> 3,689.00 3,069.00 2,345.00 3,815.00 2,812.00 350.00 3,242.00 338.00 3,018.00 <2,000.00> 109,342.00 <$11,342.00> X X x TO TAL NEG O TIATED SETT LEM ENT ADD CHANG E ORDER NUM BER FOUR 4 : ADD: $98,000.00 N ot valid until sig ne d by the O w ner, the A rchitec t (H G A ) and the Co nst ruction M ana ger (Kr aus-Anderso n Construc tion Com pany). Signa ture of the Contractor indicates agreement herewith, including any adjustment in tho Contract Sum or the Contract Time The original Contract Sum was Net ch ange by previously authorized Chan ge Orders The Contract Sum prior to this Chan ge Order was The Contract Sum will be (increased) {decre ased) {unchanged) by this Chan ge Order The new Contract Sum including this Chan ge Order will be The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) -{unchan ged) by The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is June 17, 1994. Recommended By Construction Man ager: Ap proved By Re-Developer: KRA US-AN DERSO N CO NSTRUCTION COMPAN Y PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENT ER HOLDINGS 525 South Eighth Street, Minneap olis, MN 55404 5000 West 39th Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 $ $ $ $ 4,263,000.00 (189,598.00) 4,073,402.00 98,000.00 4,171,402.00 ( 0 ) Days BY Donald D. Hackert, Vice President DATE BY Josep h Mitlyng, Vice President DATE Agreed To By Contractor: ADOLFSO N & PET ERSON, INC. 6701 West 23rd Street, Minneap olis, MN 55426 Authorized By Owner: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ECONO MIC DEVELOPMENT AUTH ORITY 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Loius Park, MN 55416 / • John Palmquist, Vice President Approved By Architect: HA MMEL, GREEN & AB RAHA MSO N, INC. 1201 Harmon Place, Minneap olis, MN 55403 DATE BY Lyle W. Hanks, President DATE BY Charles W. Mayer, Executive Director DATE BY Gary Nyberg, Vice President DATE NARRATIVE CHANGE ORDER #4 ADOLFSON &> PETERSON, INC. PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER TOWER PLACE PARKING RAMP September 27, 1994 1. ASI #5 - Door and Guardrail No Charge Relocate door 106P from south wall to west wall of Room 106P. Relocate door set 105P from south wall to east wall of Room 105P. Dimension clarification for stair PA. Guardrail mounting detail issued for clarification. Criteria for pipe supports in trench under unacceptable conditions. 2. RFP #8 - Architectural and Structural Changes Resulting From No Charge Changes in Base Radiation System, Which Was Adopted In Change Order #2 HGA issued corrected architectural/structural details to accommodate the base radiation system, which was adopted by Change Order #2. These changes included the extension of structural beam support in floor system, interior finish modifications, addition of plastic laminate sills, deletion of rigid insulation or spandrel glass, and relocation of handrail. 3. Detail lA/3-4 - Add Embed Plate For Snowgate Pipe Anchorage $149.00 ) Detail lA/3-4 showed the addition of an embedded plate which is to be used for the ) snowgate pipe anchorage at the level 3 area. 4. RFP#I0-Signage Revisions <$2,784.00> HGA revised the signage requirements by deleting the following signs: one S7, three S8's, three Sl0's, one S15, three S16's, three S19's, two S23's, three S25's, two S26's, one S28, one S29, three S30's, one S31, two S33's and one S35. HGA added the following signs: two S11 'sand one S24. 5. ASI #6 - Precast In Skyway Connection No Charge Clarification of the precast panel/ skyway A connection, The precast panel at level 2 southeast comer of the ramp, extends in front of the concrete masonry wall of the ramp and walkway. A concrete masonry wall and the cast-in-place concrete curb will be set back as indicated on the details. 6. RFP #llR - Sketch 12R-2 Grade Beam For Ramp Slab $8,050.00 Special construction and engineering was required between grid 8.6 and grid 8 on the ramp in order to avoid differential settlement. HGA's engineer changed the slab on grade to a structural slab supported by a retaining wall at grid 8.6 and by a 38" deep x 16" wide grade beam along grid line 8. The grade beam is supported off piers at each end. These piers go from the bottom of the grade beam to the top of the pile caps, which are setting on top of the special concrete piling. 7. RFP #12 - Methane Detection and Alarm System $9,361.00 HGA's electrical engineer, per requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, added a methane detection and alarm system. This included one 4-channel receiver, two gas sensor transmitters, one automatic telephone dialer and the associated conduit, cable and connection requirements. PAGE 1 OF6 P a r k N ic o ll e t M e d ic a l C e n t e r - T o w e r Ra m p < A&P-Narrative Change Order #4 September 27, 1994 8. RFP #7 - Concrete Apron at Door 101P $245.00 This item included the deletion of the asphalt and the addition of concrete in front of the door due to a work difficulty situation. The asphalt installer could not get inside the bollards (just outside the door) to properly place the asphalt. Therefore, the asphalt was deleted and concrete was installed. 9. RFP #13 Item #1 - Add Ramp Asphalt, Delete Concrete $8,486.00 This change from concrete to asphalt was considered to be an advantage in the project's maintenance program. Since the ramp is on dump material, anticipated settlement would result in the breaking up of the concrete slab, which would require repair or replacement. Repair of asphalt in this area would be easier and less costly. In addition, a special asphalt was installed which would allow water to permeate. The asphalt material ( called popcorn asphalt) would allow for better drainage and help avoid the ice buildup. RFP #13 Item #2 - Cap on Retaining Wall $1,966.00 A cap on the retaining wall was a requirement to complete the ramp substitution option. Originally the concrete slab was to be poured over the top of the retaining wall. This would not be a wise condition for asphalt. Therefore, a break was made by capping the retaining wall with concrete and placing the asphalt next to the concrete cap. 10. 11. RFP #13 Item #3 - Revise Existing Concrete Stair $2,052.00 The stair at the center of level 2, which connected the scissor levels of the ramp for access to the level 2 lobby, had a clearance problem. The head clearance was approximately 6'-5" which did not meet code requirements. Thus, the stair was relocated in order to accommodate code clearance requirements. 12. RFP #13 Item #4 - Widen Skyway A 2,128.00 A conflict in dimensions between the architectural and structural drawings mandated corrective action. This action consisted of adding some steel structural supports on the outside to increase the width to accommodate an inside dimension of 12 foot. 13. RFP #13 Item #5 - Security Cable For Elevator $1,002.00 The security cable for the elevator was added to accommodate a camera. This camera is monitored 24 hours a day for security purposes. 14. RFP #2, CP #3 - Move Bollards No Charge HGA relocated two bollards from the inside of the ramp entry to just outside the ramp entry. This action, being completed before the installation of the original bollards, resulted in no cost. PAGE2 OF6 Park N icollet M edical C en ter - T ow er Ra m p 7\ A& P-Narrative Change Order #4 September 27, 1994 15. Sketch 7-6/7. Remove Drain Pipe in Elevator Machine Room $5,258.00 Per Elevator Inspector; Revise Roof and Add Scupper Per HGA Sketch; Doors, Sign, GFI, Ledges During the Certificate of Occupancy inspection of the elevator, the state inspector, Mr. Sullivan, stated that codes required the machine room to be free of drain line, door to be identified by signage, ground fault interrupters be installed and no ledges in shaft with a flat surface of 2" or greater. These items were corrected as directed. 16. RFP #I4R - Methane Vents In Concrete Slab Level 1 Wall No Charge This RFP relocated some methane vents from the concrete slab on grade to the upper part of the retaining walls. 17. ') 18. 19. 20. 21. Ramp Frost Correction $14,000.00 During the winter frost had gone down as far as 9 foot in the dump area on the ramp. The soils engineer, Braun Intertec, informed us that soil stability would require removal of all frozen material and replacement with good material. Since this item had previously been installed and compacted per contract requirements, a change order was requested. A&P, along with their excavation contractor, Carl Bolander & Sons, requested an add of $28,000.00. After negotiations a compromise was reached wherein a value of $14,000.00, a split of the cost, was agreed to plus a 14 day time extension. Add Nine Stair Lights, Level 3 Exit Light, South Stair Light For $2,399.00 Certificate of Occupancy During a walkthrough with the City Inspectors, it was decided that additional lighting for safety and exit lighting for directional purposes was required. We complied with the City's request. Add Signage At Fire Extinguishers and Stand Pipe, AAA Signs $564.00 and Lower Level Clearance Sign The additional fire extinguisher signage and stand pipe signage was requested by the Fire Marshal during his walkthrough for Certificate of Occupancy. The AAA signage was added by the City to accommodate their agreement with AAA, and the lower level clearance sign was added by Park Nicollet to identify clearance problems. Add Fire Extinguishers and Paint Backgrounds $1,578.00 During a walkthrough with the Fire Marshal, the Fire Marshal requested nine additional fire extinguishers. These fire extinguishers were furnished and installed, and the concrete behind these extinguishers was painted. Ramp Soil Correction - East Side $1,519.00 During final preparation prior to the installation of class 5 and asphalt material, Braun Intertec inspected the areas after the frost went out of the ground to verify suitability of bearing surface. An area along the east side of the ramp was wet and unsuitable. Under the direction of Braun Intertec, this material was removed and replaced with engineered fill. PAGE3 OF6 P ark N ico ll et M ed ical C en ter - T ow er Ra m p <\ A&P-Narrative Change Order #4 September 27, 1994 22.1 Test Pits in Dump Material $527.00 In the spring when the frost was coming out of the dump material, our testing engineer requested the mechanical contractor on site, who had a backhoe available, dig into the dump material to locate the frost depths. There was a serious concern about whether the frost would come out naturally or whether special measures had to be taken in order to continue construction and get the ramp opened. Frost monitoring by Braun Intertec in the dump material was a request of the Owner. 22.2 Special Pipe Supports $1,269.00 Special construction was needed for the installation of the underground drainage system in the dump area. The mechanical contractor ran into unsuitable soils, which in the opinion of the engineer, would not properly support the pipe. Yale was required to provide a special deeper foundation for the below grade storm piping as designed by HGA and installed under the direction of Braun Intertec. 23. Frost Ripping $18,407.00 Early in the project the concrete displacement pile contractor informed us that he was concerned about the support of his crane over the dump material. Therefore, he requested that the Class 5 material underneath the asphalt be left in place to stabilize the dump site. Further, a pathway had to be maintained in the dump material to accommodate his movement through the dump area from pile cap location to pile cap location. This, along with the changes in the foundation plan, which was a result of the displacement pile testing program, added time to the schedule, which resulted in pushing the pile cap excavation into January/February. Original pile cap excavation had been scheduled to complete in December. Thus, additional frost ripping occurred at a cost of $22,907.00, less the $4,500.00 anticipated in their original bid, resulting in a net request of$18,407.00. 24. Pefco Panels $13,819.00 In A&P's Change Order #2 a credit was taken of $13,819.00 for a Pefco panel substitution. During the shop drawing process and the sample submittal process, it was discovered that the substitution could not meet the architect's requirements. Thus, it is required that the original Pefco panel being reinstated and installed as noted on the architect's drawings. 25. Correct Bollards Loosened By Test $1,282.00 This item is contested. Bollards were tested as a result of incorrect installation of some bollards. The Owner feels that the random testing by A&P under the guidance of Braun Intertec was a good faith effort to verify to the owner that the remaining bollards were correctly installed. This was followed up by a letter accepting responsibility for corrective action of any bollard that failed due to improper installation. 26. Sign Solution Allowance Adjustment and Sign Addition <$2,613.00> The contract specifications included an allowance of $3,000.00 for the addition of various signs. This allowance is now being adjusted minus the addition of 10 aluminum T- brackets for mounting of handicap signs, the addition of two 3 x 25" raised copy and Braille signs for electrical and elevator rooms, the addition of 12 signs for low clearance. PAGE4OF6 Park N icollet M edical C enter - T ow er Ra m p 7\ A&P-Narrative Change Order #4 September 27, 1994 27. Bollards and Pipe Guard Additions $3,689.00 Pipe bollards were added in various locations at Grids B3 and D3. Two additional pipe bollards were installed at each location for storm drain piping protection. At Grid C18 behind column A19 a bollard was installed for safety reasons. This reduced the space between the stub column and the precast which was greater than 6". On level 3 from Grid D2 to Grid Dl two additional bollards were installed to protect the sprinkler standpipe. During Certificate of Occupancy inspection is was discovered that some clean-outs were not accessible. The guards protecting these pipes were relocated or modified to make the clean-outs accessible. 28. Level 3 Relocate Sprinkler Standpipe $3,069.00 The standpipe as shown on the architectural drawings was located on level 3 at Grid D2. Since the columns from below did not continue on level 3, the standpipe was exposed to damage. Therefore, it was decided to relocate this standpipe to Grid Dl, which required the x-raying of the slab so no post-tensioning tendons would be damaged. The core drilling of the slab and the additional pipe from moving from Grid D2 to Dl is included. 29. Correction to Expansion Joint Level 3 $2,345.00 A conflict in details for the expansion joint between the ramp and the elevator tower resulted in a joint situation that was not workable. In order to correct and address this situation, Hammel, Green & Abrahamson met with the contractor to expedite field modifications. This included the caulking of the joint and the addition of an aluminum threshold specially sized for this particular joint. 30. Expansion Joint Alignment in the Ramp $3,815.00 In two portions of the ramp, both outside portions, a settlement occurred at the expansion joint area. After design review, it was ascertained that this was not an installation problem but resulted from the characteristics of the concrete PT/resteel design system. The contractor suggested a repair method to correct the elevation alignment problem. The recommendation was reviewed by HGA and accepted. 31. Crack Repairs/Filling To Date $2,812.00 Due to the normal actions of concrete, one of which is shrinkage, cracks appear at various locations throughout the ramp deck. The cracks, although not structurally harmful, do allow water to drip to the lower level. In an effort to reduce the water droppings on cars parked below, crack repair/filling was suggested. The contractor, utilizing his forces, proceeded with this at a cost of $2,812.00. 32. Add Second Coat of Paint to Soffit Under Walkway $350.00 Under previous change order, the entire underside of the ramp was reduced to one coat of paint. Most of the ramp on the underside is concrete and one coat is sufficient. On the soffit for the walkway, it appears that a second coat of paint would provide a better finish. Therefore, a second coat of paint was requested. PAGE5OF6 P a r k N ic o ll e t M e d ic a l C e n t e r - T o w e r Ra m p A & P - N a rr a tiv e C h a n g e O r d e r #4 S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 9 4 3 3 . RFP #15 - Stair PC Repair $3,242.00 A design problem occurred on Stair PC which resulted in the stair concrete shrinking and cracking. HGA reviewed the problem and designed a fix. The fix includes sawcutting loose one end of the stair and installing a bearing assembly which will allow the stair to move with the changes in temperature and ramp size. 34. Add Ladder to Elevator Pit $338.00 During a previous change order, where the traction elevator was deleted and a hydraulic elevator was added at a savings close to $30,000.00, the ladder in the elevator pit was overlooked. To add this ladder back in, a cost of $338.00 is requested. 35. Medical Waste $3,018.00 During footing excavation along Grid Line 8, medical waste was encountered. The contractor was directed to install plywood protection along the bank and relocate medical waste excavation to a special container. The contractor was told to leave his forms in place, pour the concrete both inside and outside the formwork, thus covering the entire area with a protective layer of concrete. The cost for this is included in this change order. » 36. O Precast Appearance Credit at Stair Tower <$2,000.00> The precast panels as erected at the stair tower contain color variations in the finish. These color variations (per Spancrete) will dissipate over time. An appearance credit was offered, which the Owner is accepting. 37. Settlement Credit <$11,342.00> During Change Order No. 4 review and discussions, various areas of agreement and disagreement were addressed. Resolution was established through compromise which resulted in this negotiated settlement. TOTAL AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NUMBER FOUR (4): AD D : $98,00.00 PAGE6 OF6 R E Q U E S T F O R E D A A C T IO N DATE February 6, 1995 AGENDA SECTION: Reports NO. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development ITEM: Park Shore Assisted Living NO. _ Project - Business Terms APPROVED: ~ T)::a '\T; n 1'..f::aNOn al BACKGROUND At the January 9 City Council meeting the proposed plan was presented and the loan repayment provisions were discussed. The consensus of the Council at that time was to move forward with the project by addressing the variance question and further refining the repayment terms. ) VARIANCES Attached is a list of the 22 variances that would be required for this project under the Zoning Ordinance. Also attached is a summary comparing the proposed assisted living to similar projects in other cities. The proposed project has much higher density (units/acre) than other projects. It may be justifiable to allow increased density on this site because of its location next to the park and consideration should be given to modifying the Zoning Ordinance to allow for that if these variances are approved to restore credibility to the ordinance. REPAYMENT TERMS Attached is a calculation indicating that the present value of the developer's proposed repayment of the $800,000 loan is $625,500. Staff has proposed that interest rates of half the 8% market rate be used through 1997 and that at that point the loan accrue interest at 8%. This repayment method has a present value of $728,000 as indicated on the attachment. Staff's proposal utilizes the standard method of compounding interest whereas the developer's proposal uses simple interest until the district expires in 2001. Staff's proposal includes repayment of the $880,586.00 of principal and interest from tax increments received until increments are no longer received at which time the remaining principal balance is amortized over a five year period at an 8% interest rate with equal PUBLIC WORKS ·q0VAL c ivzD FINANCE APPROVAL OBTAINED COiMMUII I Y DUE VtELOH. APPROVAL OBTAINED APPROVAL OBTAINED Executive Director APPROVAL OBTAINED tu ACTION: MOTION BY 2NDBY TO ----------- ----------- ------ Park Shore Assisted Living Project February 6, 1995 Page Two payments being received twice per year until the entire balance is retired. Although the developer has indicated a desire for a longer period of time to pay back the remainder, staff believes this proposal would be accepted. SCHEDULE Attached also is a schedule of the various City/EDA approval processes that will be required for this project. RECOMMENDATION Request the EDA attorney to prepare a ·proposed development agreement for the project with the financial terms outlined by staff. 5615:GEN5O Febru ary 6, 1995 EDA TO: Economic Development Authority THR OUGH: Charlie Meyer, Executive Director Wk} FROM: Mac McBride, Finance Director Lori Ziemer, Asst. Finance Director SUBJECT: December 1994 EDA Monthly Statement ) The Combining Statement of Revenue and Expenditures, the Individual Statement of Revenue and Expenditures and the Schedule of Investments provides in summary form the financial position of the EDA. Revenue collections reflect the December tax increment settlement received from Hennepin County and interest received on investments which matured during December. Significant expenditures reflect reimbursement to the City for Excelsior Blvd. bond and interest payment during 1994, EDA salaries and expenditures from September through December and parking lot construction costs for Oak Park Village, relocation expenses for Wilkins Pontiac, reimbursement for the Cityscape project, and legal services for September through December. S t. L o u is Park Economic Development Authority Combining Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Budget and Actual For Period Ending December 31, 1994 YTD BALANCE PERCENT COLLECTED/ UNCOLLEC.I COLLECTED/ BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPEND. EXPENDED REVENUE Tax increment $3,100,740 $2,953,951 $146,789 95 Rent 4,680 4,680 100 Interest 639,005 905,375 (266,370) 142 Transfers Refunds & Reimburse 149,188 (149,188) TOT AL REVENUE 3,744,425 4,013,194 (268,769) 107 EXPENDITURES Administrative Salaries 84,520 95,302 (10,782) 113 Employee benefits 17,278 19,929 (2,651) 115 Supplies & other chgs. 4,646 4,372 274 94 Legal 5,408 4,167 1,241 77 Contractual 1,685 (1,685) ) Planning Total Administrative 111,852 125,455 (13,603) 112 Project Cost Professional service 17,000 4,347 12,653 Legal 127,636 140,209 (12,573) 110 Environ. analysis 19,500 18,375 1,125 94 Public improvement 7,380,000 6,105,571 1,274,429 83 Relocation/demolition 490,000 653,967 (163,967) 133 Property acquisition 130,000 129,760 240 100 Referendum payment 11,802 11,802 Property maintenance 42,500 21,958 20,542 52 Other services 22,918 Transfers Total Project Costs 8,218,438 7,108,907 1,132,449 86 Debt Service Bond principal 600,000 (600,000) Bond interest 504,000 198,763 305,237 39 Transfer Inter-govt., City 620,000 620,000 100 Bond agent fees 1,199 (1,199) Total Debt Service 1,124,000 1,419,962 (295,962) 126 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,454,290 8,654,324 822,884 92 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (5,709,865) (4,641,130) (1,091,653) 81 1 S T . L O U IS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Individual Statement Of Revenue And Expenditures For Period Ending December 31, 1994 EX C EL S IO R O A K PA R K TR U N K CA PITA L D EB T R E VE N U E B L VD VI LLA G E HWY7 P R O JE C TS S E R VI CE TO TA L Tax increment $1,885,637 $393,391 $674,923 $ $ $2,953,951 Rent 4,680 4,680 Interest 594,741 69,533 16,840 195,470 28,791 905,375 Transfers Refund/reimburse 94,524 50,000 4,664 149,188 TOTAL REVENUE 2,574,902 467,604 741,763 195,470 33,455 4,013,194 EXP EN D ITU R E S Administrative Salaries 33,311 20,743 41,248 95,302 Employee benefits 6,978 4,250 8,701 19,929 Supplies & other chgs. 2,576 826 970 4,372 Legal 3,673 278 216 4,167 Contractual 1,685 1,685 Planning ) Total Administrative 46,538 26,097 52,820 125,455 Project Cost Appraisal/survey 4,347 4,347 Legal 125,024 822 14,363 140,209 Environ. analysis 17,316 1,059 18,375 Public improvement 5,970,994 40,032 94,545 6,105,571 Relocation/demolition 653,967 653,967 Property tax Acquisition 4,960 124,800 129,760 Referendum payment 8,980 2,822 11,802 Property maintenance 2,260 19,698 21,958 Other services 22,918 22,918 Total Project Costs 6,810,766 43,676 254,465 7,108,907 Debt Service Bond principal 600,000 600,000 Bond interest 198,763 198,763 Transfer Inter-govt., City 620,000 620,000 Bond agent fees 1,199 1,199 Total Debt Service 620,000 799,962 1,419,962 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,477,304 69,773 307,285 799,962 8,654,324 R E VEN U E O VER (UND ER) EXP EN D ITUR ES (4,902,402) 397,831 434,478 195,470 (766,507) (4,641,130) 2 S T . L O U IS P A R K E C O N O M IC D E V E L O P M E N T A U T H O R ITY S C H E D U L E O F IN V E S T M E N T S DECEMBER 31, 1994 Investments Date Institution/Type Yield Purchase Maturity Balance Dain Bosworth - Treas. 3.65 11-15-93 12-31-94 1,000,000 Dain Bosworth - FH L 3.59 10-25-93 01-25-95 1,500,000 1st Banks - FNMA 3.90 12-01-93 03-10-95 2,250,000 1st Banks - FC 3.90 12-02-93 04-03-95 700,000 1st Banks NA- FHL 5.06 05-03-94 04-03-95 699,154 Park Investment - Treas. 3.25 01-10-94 04-30-95 1,500,000 1st Banks - Treas. 3.65 01-31-94 04-30-95 1,500,000 1st Banks - Treas. 4.44 03-08-94 05-31-95 700,000 Park National - C.D. 5.45 06-03-94 05-31-95 600,000 Dain Bosworth - Treas. 4.90 04-15-94 06-30-95 1,000,000 Park Investment - FC 5.52 07-07-94 07-05-95 1,297,779 ) 1st Banks - FHL 5.93 09-30-94 08-08-95 1,023,646 1st Banks - FHL 6.01 10-11-94 08-25-95 398,853 Dain Bosworth - FC 5.47 08-01-94 09-01-95 500,000 1st Banks - FHL 3.84 09-20-93 09-20-95 1,000,000 Dain Bosworth - FHL 6.59 11-16-94 11-03-95 1,023,922 1st Banks -FNMA 7.09 12-01-94 01-10-96 1,301,419 Dain Bosworth - FNMA 7.22 12-01-94 02-12-96 1,052,138 4M Fund Various Open 167,76Q Total Investments $19,214,671 ---------- ---------- Legend: C.D. = Certificate of Deposit C.P. = Commercial Paper F.C. = Farm Credit F.N.M.A. = Federal National Mortgage Assn. F.H.L.B. = Federal Home Loan Bank Treas.= U.S. Treasury Bonds Gov't Agencies= Term U.S. Government Securities 3 VENDOR CLAIMS Economic Development Authority-St. Louis Park February 6, 1995 Vendor Adolfson & Peterson Inc. Braun Intertec Corp. Dahlgren Shardlow & Uban EDAM Hennepin County Treasurer Publicorp Inc. RLK Associates Ltd. Description Park Nicollet Ramp Services Professional services Membership dues Tax settlement Services Services Amount $ 98,000.00 1,493.00 14,616.88 325.00 70,695.70 105.00 261.75 TOTAL $185,497.33 Accounting Dept ._ ........ -t<---"'---._/J1_.;_..,:....;..7-.:.acc-ca,~""" . ....,;;;.-===.._::;;__ Dated ~_· --"');_.,,;z-+,l~j_S- _ Executive Director __ ,_,/!'-·l__,tfl,.___~_/[ ___;Dated_Q;__.,.,/:,_/,_9,--1,(:'---{)_fJ _ L )