The URL can be used to link to this page

060997 EDA - Official File Copy CITY OF NEW HOPE EDA AGENDA EDA Regular Meeting #6 ' June 9, 1997 Agenda #6 President W. Peter Enck Commissioner Sharon Cassen Commissioner Don Collier Commissioner Pat La Vine Norb¥ Commissioner Gerald Otten 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes of April 28, 1997 and May 27, 1997 4. Discussion Regarding Sandpiper Cove Townhome Association Loan Program and Establishment of Housing Improvement Area (Improvement Project No. 600) 5. Adjournment CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved EDA Minutes April 28, 1997 Meeting #4 CALL TO ORDER President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby Absent: Otten Staff Present: $ondrall, Hanson, Donahue, Leone, McDonald, Olson APPROVE MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Collier, to approve the EDA minutes of March 10, 1997. Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby: Abstained: None; Absent: Otten. Motion carried. TIF PLAN President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution Approving Item 4 1997-2 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans and Requesting the Approval of the City Council. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, explained that this amendment would authorize the expenditure of tax increment revenues derived from the Tax increment Districts to pay costs of a senior adult day care and senior resource center on property owned by the EDA and located at 5425 and 5501 Boone Avenue North. The New Hope Economic Development Authority approves the "master modification" to the redevelopment and tax increment financing plans and must approve the amendment prior to consideration by the City Council. Mr. Donahue clarified that although no specific plan is set forth, the amendment would save substantial time if the City Council authorized a future development. EDA Commissioner Norby introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION 97-05 adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING 1997-2 AMENDMENT TO MASTER Item 4 MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS AND REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL)'. The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Otten; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved EDA Minutes May 27, 1997 Meeting #5 CALL TO ORDER President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 9:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby, Otten Staff Present: Sondrall, Hanson, Donahue, Leone, McDonald, Olson SECTION 8 HOUSING President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution Approving CONTRACT Amendment to Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Contract Item4 No. C-94-56 for Administrative Services Between the Metropolitan Council and the City of New Hope and Authorizing President and Executive Director to Execute Agreement. EDA Commissioner Otten introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION 97-06 adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8 Item 4 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. C-94-56 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF NEW HOPE AND AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT". The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Collier, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby, Otten; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director. ANNOUNCEMENT President Enck commended Marlene Isaacson, Housing Representative, for her efforts in assuming Osseo's Section 8 contracts ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Otten, seconded by Commissioner Collier, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope EDA May 27, 1997 Page 1 t I EQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager /'~ 6-9-97 Item No. Kirk McDonald By: Management Assistant 4 DISCUSSION REGARDING SANDPIPER COVE TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION LOAN PROGRAM AND ESTABLISHMENT OF HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 600) For the past 1 ~ years, City staff have met on several occasions with representatives of the Sandpiper Cove/Rockford Townhome Association regarding potential City financial assistance to upgrade the exterior of these properties. Sandpiper Cove is a townhouse development located at 8101-8953 42"d Avenue that contains 36 owner-occupied townhomes (four 4-plexes and 10 duplexes). The complex is 20 years old and there are significant exterior deterioration problems (please refer to the enclosed correspondence). They have sought preliminary bids from contractors who estimated that $350,000 is needed to make siding, deck, window and other improvements. Although they have recently taken steps to increase their monthly association dues, they do not have the financial capability to make these improvements. Due to the fact that they are a townhouse association consisting of individual owners, they have been rejected by several banks for loans to make the needed improvements. That is why they have approached the City for assistance. Staff have cooperated with them because it is felt that the City has a vital interest in maintaining multi-family dwellings. Staff and the City Attorney originally explored utilizing the existing multi-family financial assistance policy for apartments for this situation, however, the policy is not applicable because it requires a 50 percent match from the owners. Over the past year, staff have inquired about programs utilized in other cities to address townhome/condominium improvements and became aware of some new legislation that was recently enacted to address these situations. The City Attorney has outlined the new legislation and procedures in his attached March and June correspondence. The program allows for City-funded loans to property owners unable to obtain financing through private means. Instead of securing the loans as a typical mortgage transaction, the City can assess the benefiting properties similar to a special assessment project. Review: Admtnis~aUon: Finance: I I RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 6-9-97 The general process to establish a housing improvement area is as follows: 1. Initially, the Council would need to adopt an enabling ordinance specifically defining the improvement area or areas and specifically indicating the necessary improvements to be made within the area. The City cannot adopt this ordinance on its own initiative. Before such an ordinance can be considered, there must be a petition by at least 25 percent of the owners within the proposed area requesting the enabling ordinance. 2. Before adoption of the enabling ordinance, the City would need to conduct a public hearing. At the hearing and within the ordinance, the Council would need to make findings that the necessary improvements will not be made if the housing improvement area is not created and making the improvements within the area is needed to maintain and preserve the area's housing units. Further, the enabling ordinance will allow the City to impose a fee against the benefiting property owners to pay for the cost of the improvements. 3. The property owners within the improvement area also have veto power over the ordinance. In other words, if 35 percent of the property owners object to the ordinance after its adoption, it will not take effect. As a result, the effective date of the ordinance must be at least 45 days after its adoption by the City Council. During that 45-day interim period, the property owners, after all receive notice of the ordinance and its contents within five days of its adoption, can file an objection to the ordinance with the New Hope City Clerk. If 35 percent of the owners object, the ordinance is void. 4. If the ordinance is not vetoed, property owners can individually object to their inclusion in the improvement area or the imposition of fees against their property. The objection procedure works similar to the special assessment challenges found in Chap. 429. Also, the City will need to hold a second public headng before it can collect fees or specially assess properties for payment of the improvement costs. Again, this works like the special assessment procedure found in Chap. 429. 5. If an improvement area is established, the repairs would be done as a public improvement. This may potentially require the City to act like a general contractor for repairs on pdvate property. The City would be subject to the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law for letting contracts. 6. Finally, this law has a sunset provision of June 30, 2001. After said date, no housing improvement areas can be established pursuant to Minn. Stat. §428.11, et al. Therefore, we do have some time to consider this kind of funding option for the Sandpiper Cove Development. City staff recently met with representatives of Sandpiper Cove and explained this program and the process. They are interested in the program and have submitted the enclosed petition requesting that the City begin work on establishing an ordinance that would create a housing improvement area for their property. Staff desires to discuss this request and program with the EDA to determine if the EDA is favorable towards proceeding with this project/program. If the EDA is agreeable, the direction to staff would be to begin work on the creation of such an ordinance. June 2, 1997 We the undersized, members of the Rockford Homeowners Association, request and petition the City of New Hope, for the creation of' an enabling ordinance and the conception of a special district for a housing improvement area. Unit No.., 8805 8877 8821 8903 8823 8911 8825 8913 8833 ~ 2/; '?~ ~ ~_._, / .;~ ~._._ ~ 8921 8835 8923 8845 8933 8853 8941 885~~ 8943 8857 8951 8859 8953 886~~ ~.~ 8963 June 2, 1997 We the undersigned, members of the Rockford Homeowners Association, request and petition the City of New Hope, for the creation of an enabling ordinance and the conception of a special district for a housing improvement area. 8805 8877 8807 8879 8809 8881 8811 8883 8819 8901 8821 ~/~-~~~ 8903 8825~/ ,~ ~,m 8013 8835 8923 8843 8931 8845 8933 8855 8943 8859 8953 8867 8961 8869 8963 ~ AVE. · 4.f~,2. ~ NEW HO ~ ~P~ ELEMEN' ~ +~ SCHOOL, ~ TH AV ~ 4~ ~J CiViC ~ ~ CENTE~ __ RO A D' ROCKFORO T ~ June 2, 1997 Ki~k McDonald City of New 14ope 4401Xylon Avenue North New HoDs, HN 55428 RE: Sandpfper Cove Loan Program Our F~3e: 99.11155 Dear Ktrk: This letter w~31 confirm our Hay 29, 1997 meeting with the repre~enba'b~ves ~rom Che Sandpiper Cove Townhome Assoc. regarding the establishment of a housing Jmprovement area for t~e~r property This is a new program es~ab31she~ by ~he 8~a~e ]as~ year. [= w~l =~o~ ~or City ~unded ]oan~ ~o property owners unable ~o ob[a~n ~inancing through private means. However, instead o~ securing ~he 3cans as a typtca~ mcr[gage transa=Cion Che Ci[y w~ be a31owed ~o assess the benefitting mrooerties much 3ike a s~ec~a~ assessmen~ project. However. ~ w~3] require %he a~ected property owners ~o ps, ii,on the City for ~n ordinance establishing the improvement district and ~he work wi~l need ~o be performed as a public imorovement in como~iance wi[~ ~he Un~form Munlcipa~ Conifer%trig ~aw. My MarCh 27th ~etter goes through som~ ef the datai~ on how this program wi3~ work. It is my understanding Ihs Randp~per Cove Homeowners Assoc. wil~ ~raf:ing :~e en&Dl~ng ordinance for consJdera~ton by ~he Council. Th~s may :aka some :ime since :ht$ is a new ~rogram with ~it:~e or no ~aet h~atory from other ~t~ee on ho~ ~ha program w~11. [t is my unders[anding s~aff is contacting Brooklyn Park in that they may be working wi[h :ht$ orogram at :h~s tlme. We e~oul~ De a~e :o ~t~l~ze ~heir ~ra~ork for our program and ordinance. JUN-02-9? mN 09: 52 P. 03/03 Kirk'McDonald June 2, 1957 Page 2. .. Contact me if you have any further q'uestions or con~nents about this matter. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall z3m Com~cK & SO~L, P.A. ~T~V~ A. SO~O~U- ATTORNEYS AT LAW M~C~c m. ~cEum Ed~bur~ Ex~uU~ Office Pl~a ~ ~ss,~r~r MARTIN p. MALECHA 8525 Ed~br~k Crossing SHARON O. DERBY WILLIAM C, STRAIT* S~ ~203 BrookI~ P~k, M~nesota 55443 ~LEPHONE {612) ~1 F~ (612) 42~ March 27, 1997 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Loan Request for Housing Improvements/Sandpiper Cove Association Our File No: 99.11155 Dear Kirk: This letter is your long awaited response regarding your question about the loan and other funding options for needed improvements at the Sandpiper Cove Townhome Development. It is my understanding the property owners in the development need collectively between $200,000 to $300,000 for replacement of siding, replacement and/or repair of defective decks and other structural problems. It is my further understanding the Townhome Association is severely underfunded and as a result are without any reserves to pay for these needed repairs. The Association has also informed us neither the Association or the individual unit owners can arrange a private loan. Banks apparently will not transact business with the Association and the individual unit owners lack equity in their units sufficient to secure a loan by a mortgage against the individual units. The City has two options it could implement to assist the Association and individual owners at the Sandpiper Cove Development as follows: 1. Bond counsel has indicated we could provide loans to either the Association or the individual unit owners utilizing our existing TIF funds. Basically, we would be acting like a private banking institution taking back mortgages from the individual owners and/or the Association as security for the loans. Unfortunately, the City has the same problem as the lending institutions in this regard. Namely, lack of unit equity as security Kirk McDonald March'ZT, lgg7 Page 2 for the loans. Nor do we'want to become owners of the units in the event of default on the loans requiring foreclosure of the proposed mortgages and quite possibly being subject to superior first mortgages already in place on the property. 2. Our second option involves establishing a housing improvement area under Minn. Stat. §§428A.11 through 428A.21. As you know, this law was enacted during the 1996 legislative session. Basically, it allows us to define a housing improvement area, permits us to make improvements within said area and assess the benefiting properties for the cost of the improvements much like the special assessment procedure under Chap. 429. This appears to be a more viable solution to the funding problem for Sandpiper Cove than direct loans to individual property owners from excess TIF funds secured by a mortgage. The remainder of this letter will briefly detail how the City could implement a housing improvement area for the Sandpiper Cove Development or any area in the City. Initially, the Council would need to adopt an enabling ordinance specifically defining the improvement area or areas and specifically indicating the necessary improvements to be made within the area. The City cannot adopt this ordinance on its own initiative. Before such an ordinance can be considered, there must be a petition by at least 25% of the owners within the proposed area requesting the enabling ordinance. Before adoption of the enabling ordinance, the City would need to conduct a public hearing. 7 days published notice and 10 days mailed notice to all property owners within the proposed area is required for the public hearing. At the hearing and within the ordinance, the Council would need to make findings that the necessary improvements will not be made if the housing improvement area is not created and making the improvements within the area is needed to maintain andpreserve the area's housing units. Further, the enabling ordinance will allow the City to impose a fee against the benefiting property owners to pay for the cost of the improvements. However, the ordinance must also specify'the basis for the imposition of the fee and the number of years it will be in effect. The property owners within the improvement area also have veto power over the ordinance. In other words, if 35% of the property owners object to the ordinance after its adoption it will not take Kirk McDonald March 27, 1997 Page 3 effect. As a result, the effective date of the ordinance must be at least 45 days after ~ts adoption by the City Council. During that 45-day interim period the property owners, after all receive notice of the ordinance and its contents within 5 days of its adoption, can file an objection to the ordinance with the New Hope City Clerk. If 35~ of the owners object, the ordinance is void. If the ordinance is not vetoed, property owners can individually object to their inclusion in the ~mprovement area or the imposition of fees against their property. The object,on procedure works similar to the special assessment challenges found in Chap. 429. Also, the City will need to hold a second public hearing before it can collect fees or specially assess properties for payment of the improvement costs. Again, this works like the special assessment procedure found in Chap. 429. Collection of fees also may take two forms. It can be done either by an ad valorem tax or it can be done like a special assessment to benefitted properties. If done like an ad valorem tax, it would be based on the net tax capacity of the property, the square footage of the property, or some other method determined by the Council. If it is done like a special assessment, we would need to codify special assessment regulations and incorporate them in the ordinance. If an improvement area is established, the repairs would be done as a public improvement. This may potentially require the City to act like a general contractor for repairs on private property. Obviously, we would be subject to the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law for letting contracts. Further, it creates numerous liability and warranty issues involving the completed work. I would not consider this program unless we had extensive releases, hold harmless and indemnification agreements with the involved property owners. It would also allow the City to issue general obligation bonds to finance the construction costs in lieu of using TIF funds. Finally, this law has a sunset provision of June 30, 2001. After said date, no housing improvement areas can be established pursuant to Minn. Stat. §428A.11, et al. Therefore, we do have some time to consider this kind of funding option for the Sandpiper Cove Development. Some extensive work is involved to establish a procedure for creating housing improvement areas. I have contacted the League of Minnesota Cities to find out ~f other municipalities have Kirk McDonald March 27, 1997 Page 4. implemented a program like this under Minn. Stat~ §428A.11. Possibly, there is a model ordinance developed by the League or we could obtain ordinances from other cities that have already adopted this program. Before we get-.into this project too far, I think we need direction from the City Council whether they would be willing to entertain this kind of program for the Sandpiper Cove Development or any other area within the City requiring this kind of assistance. At any rate, I will not do anything further unless I receive direction from you or the City Manager to proceed, Please contact me if you have any other questions or comments regarding the content of this letter. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slt4 Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager (w/enc) Jerry Gilligan, Esq. (w/enc) § 428A. 11' ~'. SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT~ , SERt~IC' E DISTRICTS HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA '~ , · - ..... . thai~lnduaian of the hearing,by a .... ~,.~.. :. , · .,.,,:,[,.~ ..~ ~.... ,,.~ , , 428.A. 11: Housing i, mP. rovemenisreaz~:' '"' 'defimt~om' · . .... ' · 7. ,,,I? ,,, ,,:.:,, ..... ~ ~, .... *.. :....,.: - . .; . .,:: .:,~ .... .~.....~ ,~.~.,.,,.~ ,.~i ~, .;..r,,,: ;*..i~:.:--: 2. hoUsin~improvem, , ,Subdivision 1. -Applicability...Az used in .sections,428AJl to 428A.20, the terms defined · preliminary listh in this section have the-meanings ~iver~them,. ,;., .... :,.:..j.,...:.,;, - ... ~ . :,'.:. :,:'~,',. area, The liatin~ shall identify those impr ': Stibd.'~. 'Cit~!" 'City~ means a hoi~'mle c~iarter 0r'statut~l'y city.-' , ' '~ · · gl or a porgon of the common elements ':"~;'~:" .... ::" ~' "~'~"' ''' ' ;":' ';" .'"~.':,': ' those housing units that have complete · ~ s.~...~..,E~!~.~i~,, ;"E~s o~anca: m~. the.o~ce ~iop~ 'b~ , mp~d ~ ~ ~p~ ~m e po~o. of the city council estab '.liahi~ the ho.u~ improvement a~[,:... ,;..,., ~ ,.., ..... . "; .... with the residents of the area and the cond · Sub& .4:, Ho~sine improvement., ~Housing improvements~. has the: meaning ~iven ia ,4."- Be~efl2 objection.' Before the city's enabling ordinance. Housing improvements may?clude improvements to commoa , it ia to be adopted, the owner of a housin elements.gl·condo .ngnium. . :.:: . ..,: ; . · · ...... . . . may ~e a written objection with the city c ~' Sub¢I[' 5.' Hbes[n~' improvement: are~.., "Housing improvem~fit area' mban's a'deffined be included in the area or should not be area within the city where housing improvements are made or constructed and tile costs of ., the housing u~it in the area, for the re· the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area~'" ' " ' ' '"' l~xl'y shall make a deter~ the governing consistinffsf'a one-dwelling unit, or an apartment as described in chapter 515 or 515A, thi~t is ' ' , : .... :.,.,.. the ordi~ncc with · reser~a2on th 'occupied by a per~on or family for, use asa residenc~.. Law~lg~6,.c.' ;'471,' . ......... '....., ... ,, · , '."' .... :.:. · · : .::..:.... improvement area or fee wher. ar~.' S, i, 7. ,... ~ ",;:...~ ,~:~. ~. '~.' ,;. .'.: ?,,;; Sub& L. Appeal to district corot .,. . , . : [ ,~ .,.j: · ,,; · · . : ' ""~ ', ':. '; ' ";'" :': '~"'~". '" .'. · ~ :~' !, i . .: '~.', ,. ' ~. ,,.:-. .:,:~ ,~,.:,.. ;,!:,.~ s~eved, who is 421A.1~-, Petition ~equ~ed.,,. /.i..; ...... ;' ' ,' ..;,: ', · .'.'.;.~', . ,:', ;;.~::': ; .,~": ", ....i,..'.~:. failure to. object is du~ · '.~"~'i:'' ' *'. · ' ' ~" J ' tl ...... ' ~ ' ''' ' "' ' ........... ~,.~0.. ~ .o.n .ma,¥ b~ t~. ~'e~ u. nder' sections a.~A.13 and l~S~I4 unless owner~ of 25 percent[ or notiCe'upOn the mayo · .more_of .~.e hous'.mg ~nits that, wotdd '~e subject to fees in' the proposed h0USing:~iio~inent the district court w '~ar? ~e.a pe .u. tion r~a~i ii public hi·ring on the propoied action' with the city'clerl~': iNo ~ the, ·i~pel~t a'cerU~ed copy of action..may i~ t~t~ under section 42~14 to impose · fee unless :owner,'0[ 25 pe~,,.,.e~t or ' .afFirm the. action objec~ more of the hbusing"uni~"Subje.Ct:"t6,the 'pr~poi~! fee~'fi]e:s ;Petition.' reViSiting ~,::p~iblic itJ. If doe~ iheafi~,{~thi ,P,r-°-~sedfeewiththed clerk or other a ro 'teo~icia~,'.'" ...... '~-~ an' · l[St:i~.~ ~t',~ii~'ni'of h~usi~ ~m~ro*em~at'~res:!~ ?" · ::'; '~ -:' · '~.:' - ~.", .~, ?~'?: "" '" :;':'2";','t;Jl~i;,::,,~.'"~ 4 .,:.',~;'. ':"i :'";'V,,';'C ";f,'. :,., , ,t';~l ~,~:';!fi:!;::;'~o.:!. ~f,:f., ,i:~--'~9-'~ .~14.. Improvement feee authority;, ..i,~a~,.o,,n,, ,l~,.f O. r~ce,,:; Th.e; ~,,~e.r~, _~. body of,. tli.e..c~ty ~ma. y. adoi.~ all, ~r. cl~uanCe 1. Authority. Fees ;D¥,Ln~,eo.ndon~mum .as~J~ons,.o~ h.o, usm~ umt. owner~:and.the des~ution ia need~ to "of th~' f~s, ~ h e~rin~ ~u~t b maintain' and preserve, the housin~ un~ts .witCh the housin~ improvemenf.:are~....The ~' ~' seven days~before t~ ordManee may ~otb~.~, adopte~l._ .un~ a p .ublie hearin~ h~s been. held re~rd~.~ the:orcRL~.~n_, ce. ' to'any hous~n~ ~u~t The ordinanCe may ~e amended by the L~vefnln~ body of the c~t~ provided the ~ove~;nin~ i~the.not~ice.m..u~t also include: ......... . .~.~/?mp.~.~. with ~ p~b~ be~ notiCe p~.~ons of. ~u~v~o~ .2. W~ ~0 da~ ~ aao. p~on'of tae'ord~m~'uager this sulxli~'on, the'~l~ly. Shall send'a eop. y'cf the : (1) ~ statement that all interested per. :, Sub& 2.' Public he~e~n~ The notice of public hear~ n~ust include the t~ne and pl~ce of ' (2) theinestimatedpart by theC°Stfee°fimposedimpr°veme~unde he~n~, a map showing' the boundaries of the proposed ~rea, and a statement that all per. ns ~, ~ ~.o,'tmt to'b~ ~ a~ainst t own~ housing/unim in'the proposed: are~ .th~ would be ~ubject to-a 'fee' for housin~ ............ hnprovements will be g~ven ~n opportunity to be heard at the hea~n~ ~,, ~oiice of the henrin~ .the.r~.of the property ownor, to must be ~ven by publication in the official newspaper of the cit~~ T~e public 'hearin~ must ~numb~.0f yesfs the/fee will be held at least se~en days after the publ~catior~ Not less than ten days before the hearing, 't~'the p~t[~°n requ notice must also bemafled, to the 'owner cf each housingunit;wit~n.the propos~ are~ For · 'the proposed fee.., the. purpose of '~.~, ~.~..e~! notice, owners are..those sh~o~ on the records of the~county .auditor. O~erire~ord~ m~y. be used to .~uppl~ the"n~'info~matiSn~· At thee'public ~t~n, six.months of the pUbBc hear hea~.' ~ a persoh-ownin~ prope~y in the proposed h0us[n~' improvement ~ea 'may testify on area not exceeding the any msues relevant to the proposed are~ The hearinE may be adjourned from time to.tim~ The ordinance establishin~ the area may be adopted at any time within s~x months after the ,~l~or.the,housi~,improvement to adoption, of the re~olu~ionarea .~h~l ap~ .124 · SPECIAL SERVICE SEItV~E DI~TRICT~ I§ 4~14 )~MENT AREA 0~ ' ' rous~g ~p~em~nt ~a' ~s's ~e ~ ~t ~e p~.~ not ~e · e pr0~ied ae~on ~ m~se a fee unle~ ~e~'of of ~ of ~e dry my ~opt tdi~on, ~e ord~ce must ~clude find~ of ~e ~ ~P~ of ~e ho~m~ ~ ._ .... a ~6~ ~ ~e ~lu2o~' B~om ~e pm~sed ~provemen~ could not ~ ~e ~g or a me~ de~n~ oY me ~un~ ~,u .~ ., '~e offi~ ~n ~e housing ~pmvem~t ~ ,~e n~pa~r at l~t ~en da~ ~om ~e ~g ~d ~ ~'~ at ~ ~ days 5ng h~ Men held reg~ding ~e o~in~ ~fom ~e h~g ~ ~Y ho~g ~}.~ subj~ ~, a f~': F~r p~, of ~ ~n, the governing ~dy sh~l send a ~py of ~e h~z e.d at ~e he~g. No~ce of ~e ~ (4) ~e ~t of ~e p~ ~ P~ ........... . ..~ .,~-, :~. !: ~' ~,' . , . Not I~ ~an ~n days ~fo~ hose sho~ on ~e reeo~ of ~e ~; - housing ~provement ~ea may ~ on~ ~ ~e ~ not ~c~ me ~o~t ~ , , ..... "'. ' ,.Nng may be adjo~ ~om ~e ~ ~e.' PNor ~ ~opflon of ~e ~lu~on ipp~ ~ ~ ~ ~ndo~ ~om 1~ ~§ 428A. I4 ** SPECIAB, SERVI~E: DISTRICTS ; ,~CAL~ IMPROVEMENTS .independent4:third~. part~, 'acceptable 'tel 'the dty, In~, assodati0n~,0 that .'provides'for 'the does not become effective. If owners of 3,5 ! a,.q,sociatiorm to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements in the condomini* subject to the- fee under section 428A.14 ufa and ~:lor~g:.~?~,~ ~ .L~. ,~.~n..du.ct ~nd .fin~.'ce capital '.mspro.¥ements,)~.~.,.~. ,~,:. . ' :.4:,..! effective date of the resolution, the resolutio~ +.i,~J~e city: ma~ provide fo.~ ~he. co.l!ection of the. hc~usin~ improvement fee~.~according to the information from the associations. At ' any:. time afl~,'~a :contract. for the construction of all or part'of an improve~n~t~t The L, ov .e.t~ning' .,b~.y ,of.the city may ahthor[zad under isecti~rt~ ~IA.11 to 42SA.20 has be~n entered into or the'work has'been *sectisn,'. .. /;( ". ", .... ' ' ' ordered, the govern~l~"b~l_ ~r of th~ 'city may iasud' obliffations' in the' mount it :deents .Law~ 1996, e. 471, art,:8, i 16. necessary to defray in Whole Or i~ part the expense incurred and estimated to 5e incurred in making the improvemen~':lhclucling every-item of' cost from inception to ~ompletiofl "and"all ,.428A~L,,: ~lu.nset i, !,.,., .......... ; ..... ,~;., ,, ,f~.~esand.expenses:incurred ~onnection.~ith the i~prevement or. the.firmncing. ~,:, ;.,¢!~.4 .: No new housing improvement areas may "¢~.~L'14,~0r' n-om'any ',,o~h.~ ~l':~ments or'revenues igaflable:~ be¥1edged for L~h- pro.videc[':that it receives e.nablMg, legisla~ .'Piy~[eht: tinder'ch~ ~r'Statutor.~.' ]ititho. ri.ty.;' q~ .from tw5 'of mom*' of thO'*source'* Tl~e ' Laws 1996, c 471, art. 8, § 17. faitii,"~*ect~t,"and'taXizi~0~er"of the' cit~ t~ assur~ paym~t of the principal and interest ff ~ '. · · , . "~equirecl;"~nd the amSit~it 5f L~ obli~at~C~bt'~e' not incl~l .c~c~ Jif de~ti5it0f .the ~et debt ........ - , . improvement a.,~; the advilary board "of the' housihg impr~ven~.nt ai'ea shall have an Subdivision 1. Notice of fight to file objectio_~s..., The effective date of Shy'ordinance or I~..,qbl~':lil:.;,~O~'..~t4: resolution' adopted under, aecti6ns'4~UtLi3;~d"4~SAJl~'~*~:at la.4L~4~ ~7~ after it is ~,t~e~,.~d,t~mi~t. insf~lled in 'or adoptecL' Within five days. afte~'*adoption,b~ the' erdinance*'ov.*resointio~ tl'a~m~ of'the ~'~r~ter. L~ont~tion*'~ b ordinance' or resolution shall' be n~.~.,t~, ~ha~ .own. erI[9~..~ each,.h.o .tt~g .un~.', '.m. dpded in the : Stances in the water, whether the improve; multiurtit hoUSing tmproyen~.e.n,.ti area. T~.e mailins, shall ~el,,u. de a nptiee.that oWns.ers subject objections with the city clerk before the effective date of the 5~lflian~;5~- t,~5lU~iSn and that ' '~*"*'~'! '''i ;" '.i · ,,HistoriCal a copy of: the ordil~mee o~,re'solution.'i~l:on file .with th~ 'city:.cle~'k for,~publie' inspection. · l~ement~ f~r veto. If residents of 35 percent or more of the l~ousmg uniLs in the area subject to! ~e. ~ee "file 'an 'objeL'tion: to, the o~ adopted b~., the city. under ~ 1988 amendmentof subd. 2b. Fordeletedformerthe ~F-mal seetW° sect. ion 428A.13 with the:city clerk, beforethe effective: date,of'the ordinance, the ordinance o~ ~e ~mmon elemen~ in ~e ~ndo~ su~ ~ ~e' f~ und~ ,: : . -.~,',=. ,: .,~, +~i i~S. ~n~~''~'a=~''~'y''~ · ~ · ~ --... ...... ' "- ~'-'-:'~6~t i~' b ~ ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ g!In ~.~ d~ ~ tt ~Y~ ~ ~.,~ .,.. . ~ .~r: ~ ..... ;,'t -. · ' '; . .'~.- .~., .... . , ap~ .'475;i~i ~at:'~ el~o~ ~' not .... ~.,. ~e.a ....... : ~d~ ~ de~a~bn of ~e n~ debt .~ ~ .. ,.; .v~,. ~. ,r ~,d~bL ;I' ~.~ :,~ ~,,,,~.;: :,......,:,.: ~.f;? ,~'~,~ ~'. * ' ' I.~ ,. -' - . · ' ip~mt ~ ~ ~ for ~e ho~ '/': . . .. ,. . . .~,t~l )1)~,. ~. flL..l~ I ~ . .- · , ip~g ~e bo~, ~e ~c~ s~ .p~n6:~.~~s ~ . . '. ;....; ~:.r,. i i''r ' ' . ' ' ~. :'.;.''i~',Ip, Z: . .; ' ', ?''";'' "' ' ' ' ''.;r ~'":l,":. ' ~o~enda~o~ ~ ~e ~v~R ~y ~.011. '~o~..: .t~.~ ;;,=: .: .~.. ,: . ',.- . ' ......... ~ro~de ~p~vemen~ ~.~e ho~ . . ' .~':...'"" ' ,: . ' ~ .~, . .. . ., '::_,' ~'~.~;~ h~ ~g ~p~vem~nt ~ sh~ have ~ '' ~w ~ ~e ~ u, ,~,~ ...... - · · ~' ~ ~ ~g . f. .: ~ . ;~,~'~'.. ; ~ ~- (10)... ;.;:. ~-,.,~ :: :~,,h~',~ ~i t,~ , ~'~:..; ~:~ :'~l:t''''~ ...... ' ..... ' ~ ' '.:, · ~":.,": :' ' ' ' ' ,.. ......... , ...,~ s.' ~e ~ve da~ of ~yo~ ~ ~' Su~ 16. On-~. ' d merit .L14 must ~ at le~t'~ da~ ~ · ~ d~ ~ ~P ter of ~ ho~g ~t ~clud~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~, wh~ ~e ~p~em~ :ha~ include a no,ce ~at ~ s~j~ ~ by ~m .e of ~e or~ee 'or ~olugon ~d ~at f ~ ~cent or mo~ of ~e ho~g ~ ~e 1~ ~t del~ ~e ~ ~ ~ :~': ~i'~i~;~i''~a~ ~ i~"d~ he o~ce ~op~ by ~e ~ ~d~ ~n~ of ~ ire da~ of'~e o~ ~e o~ ~l~ '1~ ' ~!~1 !o~'n~t, gaxt cf[aaci~lnay~be'.12~yablbiind:coilected'atcthO e~ne~3band4n.:.the ,same 'Mlnneoi~ St~ t989 Supplememt and 'sub manner as provtded;.fot' payment and collection of ad.~orem-.t~m~ When°M payabl~ in ~littorm of tlm'.~tatut~ except I' gT~Oll amounf~',not [~!' .._lEI ti~ lW~iv,.' e due dat~.,T~.,e3du~,da~ for' &,service .charge payabl~.'in h~Mlane~Statut~ under sect, ion~, .4,~A.0! to ,12SA.10 are not included in computations under sed~on'469.1~, · chapter'4731a,'or!any~ .Q~hk~. hw ~hat. applfes to'general,ad valm~em l~?lFor the;purpo~ of xt~&~~ _~_ '~ng'mo'd':,tffnman.'.~ li~..oV&nei~.*~l,a~_~mmq' _J~., in making the tmprovement,.includ- are payable ~ 56~ of · b~..'.oa'ne~'.~:~i~'.iSt~:"'.maY. 1)9.' payable' ~ .co]].ected''.g.~e same time 'and:in the 'same: m3poMd on :nef,.:tax capeci~, which,ace,:= oeeome l~..y..~%jn,me.[o.u.o,w~...y...~r..m~ chapter. 276A o~; .473F¥: ~'. aa,y.other. ]a~r tha~ applies, to ~ ad .v.a]orem lavie&,.~ F.o~ the, September, 1996 Members of New Hope City Council City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear City Council Members: We are writing to you as an association to request your assistance in a matter which is of great importance to us. As residents of the City of New Hope, Sandpiper Cove Community and members of the Rockford Townhouse Association, we want to take pride in where we live. However, the condition of our townhomes is deteriorating at a rate with which we cannot keep up. We understand the City of New Hope takes pride in the condition of its residential properties. We want to be proud of our townhomes and to have them be an attractive and pleasant enhancement to this city. We are living with a problem that began when our homes were built. Gleason Construction, the contractor who constructed our townhomes, used materials of poor quality and whose construction techniques were questionable. The materials have lasted approximately fifteen years but are now deteriorating and are in desperate need of repair. At various levels of urgency, our homes need to be sided, gutters and downspouts applied, roofs, windows, patio doors and decks. · The founders of the Association felt, with the newly built homes, there was no need to put money aside in a maintenance fund for future repairs. A majority of the Current residents are relatively new to the complex and had no control over or voice in the decisions made so many years ago. We have just recently started such a maintenance fund; however, it will take some time before assets are built up. We are doing all that is within our means to correct this problem ourselves. Even with the majority of our residents living below New Hope's median income level, we have voted and passed a $20 per month increase from $115 to $135 in our association dues with an additional $20 increase effective January, 1997 from $135 to $155. Within the past five years, the monthly fee has increased from $75 to $135. Unfortunately, this will only make a small impact on the property's overall need. Page 2. The work to be performed is not superficial improvements that we desire. Some residents can no longer walk on their decks due to the structural weakness, some have water leaking through their light fixtures and others have siding that is rotting right off their home. The improvements we are requesting your assistance with are vital and would benefit us as well as the City of New Hope. Aesthetically, the property would be much more attractive and pleasing with new vinyl siding, roofs, windows, patio doors and stable decks. Being located right off the major intersection of 42nd and Boone Avenues, positions our townhomes in the direct view of the public. We do not want our property to nullify the improvements that have been made along 42nd Avenue over the past years. We want to be considered an asset rather than a drawback. We hope that by receiving this letter you will see our serious concern and dedication to this subject. Once again we ask you to carefully consider the possibility of assisting us with the special funding so improvements can be made. Respectfully, Residents of the Rockford Homeowners Association New Hope City Council, I have been a resident of Sandpiper Cove off' and on since it was built by Gleason Construction in 1978 and have lived in New hope since 1970 when my parents bought a home on Northwood Parkway. The city of New Hope has always been a nice place to grow up and live in. I'm stating this from first hand experience. I would like it to stay that way. Sandpiper Cove is in desperate need of repairs and updating. The repairs are coming too Fast and numerous for us as an Association to keep up with. We need financial help. We've been to five banks already andcannot get loans because we are an association. We spent $25,000 on repairs this year alone and these are only band-aid jobs that are coveting up needed major repairs. Some of the repairs needed as follows are: 1~, some rotting right offoftheir buildings. All are original decks made without pressure treated lumber. None of the decks are up to current Codes and most of them leak. 2)Windows and patio doors, these were of poor quality and were installed poorly -as a result most are to the point of total failure 3)Siding and garage doors, again a poor choice of materials and most were installed wrong, resulting in damage to the builtrite as well on a lot of the buildings. 4)Roofs. these should last 3-5 more years before needing replacement. 5)P~ki~ ~t, will have to be seal coated in 1997 at a cost of about $7000 to $8000. 6)~o~dalio~ at least one garage floor will have to be replaced in 1997 due to settling. As you know we're on a swamp. This is just an overview to help you assess are situation. Estimated cost of repairs needed is $350,000 (see attached bids). This is by no means a final figure but will be close when were done. A brief financial picture: $13,258 in savings account at Norwest $5000-$6000 in account with management company $4860 taken in from monthly dues, $5580 starting in January 1997 $2200 in fixed monthly expenses Enclosed is information that we have come up with so far.. Please let us know of any other information you will need. Thank You Daniel P. Leaf President Rockford Owners ROCKFORD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Sandpiper Cove Townhomes The following information was compiled to help establish the demographics of our community. A copy of the surVey used to compile the information was sent to each household in the complex in November and December 1995. SAMPLE SIZE: 36 homes/homeowners Number of Responses: 20 Percentage Responding: 55 % QUESTION #1: Do you own or rent your home? , All respondents were owners - 100% QUESTION #2: If you rent, who owns your home? Cannot determine / no renters responded. QUESTION #3: If you own, how long have you lived In your home? Average length of ownership: 6.37 years Median length of ownership: 4.5 years (High / 17 years - Low / 2 months) QUESTION #4: What was the purchase price of your home? Average pumhase pdce: $58,900.00 Median purchase price: $57,500.00 (High / $80,000 in 1981 - Low / $49,500 in 1990) QUESTION ifS; Which Mortgage Company holds current mortgage? Citizens Independent Bank 10% Norwest Mortgag~ 20% TCF Mortgage 20% Other / each 5% 50% QUESTION #6:. What is your average annual household Income? $15,000 - 20,000 $20,001 - 25,000 20% $25,001 - 30,000 20% $30,001 - 35,000 5% $35,001 - 40,000 45% Other: 5% Results calculated this 30th day of December, 1995. By:~ Teres~ L. CondorS Vice-President CITIES MAINTENANCE INc. 6311 WAYZATA ]~)ULEVARD, SUITE 310 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416-1224 TELEPHONE:' 612-79%8606 FAX: 612-797-8601 Christine Houchins Cities Management, In~. 6311 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Regarding: St. Piper Cove Dear Christine: Enclosed please find copies of the report and recommendations for the aboVe project. This study of the property includes the inspection notes we gathered from our walk through with the owners, a pdority listing of issues that should be addressed, along with an estimated cost of the repairs. Please take note that the bids for the vadous repairs are based on today's market prices and are firm for about 60 days. If'this project is. not scheduled for work at this time, I would suggest that you add a 10% per year pdce increase allowance to each bid. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Thank you. f Sincerely, SANDPIPER COVE PRIORITY I~ISTING OF REQUIRED REPAIRS' 1. Roofing ~ |., 2. Gutters 3. BloWn in Insulation 4. Windows. __._..____.__.. ~,. 5. Patio Doors 6..Siding ~ ~ '' 7. Decks "8: Painting ' 9. Misc.-Dumpsters & HuaI, Away , SANDPIPER COVE REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENT ESTIMATES 1. ROOFING 25 YEAR GAF Royal Sovereign shingle roof. Remove all plumbing stacks and vents Remove all existing roofing materials Replace any rotten roof boards Apply weather ice and Water shield. Apply 15,t felt Install new preformed valleys, galvanized Apply fiberglass shingles with nails Replace all plumbing Macks and vents. Apply new Boston Ridge 'Clean up and hual away all debds 25 year materials warranty and 10 year labor.warranty . ALL UNITS WiLL REQUIRE REROOFING-TOTAL BID .................... · ...... $90,000.00 GU'I-FERS Alcoa aluminum seamless gutters and downspouts color as selected from brown or white Complete perimeter of each unit is to be included. ALL UNITS WIlL REQUIRE GUII'ERS -TOTAL BID.~ ............................ $15,325.00 BLOWN IN INSULATION Blow in new fiberglass insulation to meet code of equal to an R-38 rating (Appro× 3216 square feet). Each attic now has about 6' of insulation which does not meet code. ALL UNITS WILL REQUIRE NEW INSULATION-TOTAL BID. ................. $10,273.00 WINDOWS Vinyl clad aluminum with insulated clear glass, extension jambs, storm windows and screens 144-40" x 55' 44-40" x 67" ALL UNITS REQUIRE NEW WINDOWS-TOTAL BID ............................. $89,132.00 f PATIO DOORS Vinyl clad alun~um doors, .special size 6'5112' x 6'9' low E glass ALL UNITS REQUIRE NEW PATIO DOORS-TOTAL BID ......... .............. $138,000.00 SIDING Alcoa .19 aluminum siding. Tear off old siding, hual away and dispose Cover soffits, facia, window and door openings, overhead door trim, full chase. Install 1/4 inch fan fold ALL UNITS REQUIRE NEW sIDING-TOTAL BID .......................... ~ ........ $346,020.00 DECKS 1/2 of all decks on site need total replacement' 1/2 of decks on site need upgrade to meet code Decks to be constr~cted of .040 treated lumber Posts are 6" x 6" to meet code Pickets. are spaced every 4' to meet code. ALL UNITS REQUIRE DECKS-TOTAL BID ........................................... $97,578.00 PAINTING-FRONT STEPS AND DECKS Hand scrape peeling paint Prime paint bare wood Paint or stain with one coat of exterior latex ALL DECKS/STAIRS REQUIRE PAINTING-TOTAL BID ......................... $25,000.00 MISC-DUMPSTERS. If window, doors or decks replacements is required than 20 yard dumpsters will be needed. ADD FOR DUMPSTERS .................................................................... $3,500.00 ALL PRICES INCLUDE ALL MATERIALS, LABOR, TAXES AND PERMITS PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CURRENT SIDING .WOULD NOT NEED REPLACING FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS IF THE ROOFS AND GUTTERS ARE REPLACED NOW. ' SANDPIPER. COVE INSPECt'lC'."; NOTES ' UNiT # 8845 Roof: N~eds 12" minimum of. bl'own in insulation No snow or ice on roof-all heat is escaping siding: Facia is.rotted, soffit is bowed, masonite siding is swollen from moisture. Siding is pulling away from the structure. In~edorWalls: Major stress cracks on some walls. Some walls are bowing Door frame in bedroom is bowing: Entrance Doors: Not plumb. Needs weather striping Patio Doors : Rotted and leaking at header Windows: Frames are bowed and rotting. No ~torm. windows throughout Garage Door:. Weather strip missing. Needs painting. Foundation: Masonite at foundation is rotted. Major stress cracks. Decks: Deck joists are rotted-very dangerous. Some boards'are f-ll!ng down. Exterior Paint: Decks and stairs need, scraping and painting Gutters: 'None on bldg. Should have gutters around perimeter. Concrete:'.. Garage flo~r' is heaving. Concrete at. wnlkway is heaving SANDPIPER COVE iNSPECTION NOTES UNIT# .8869 Roof: Soffits need additional ventilation. Insulation is wet in attic. Needs 12" of blown in insulation . No snow or ice on roof-all heat is escaping. Shingles axle curled-needs re-roofing Siding: Wet and pe~lin~, bowing and swollen from moisture. Intedor Walls: OK Entrance Doom: Needs new threshold. Entrance door tc{' garage is out of plumbobT. 1"-on perimeter. Pat-io D~}~rs Both doors are 'rotted through the wood frame-needs replacement. Windows: No storms. Leaking cold air through the seams. Siding is bad around sashes. Garape Door: Gaps at ends-Needs new stops and gasket. Foundation: Front stairs have settled-no frost 'footings poured under the, original concrete. Block walls in garage are cracked. Flooring Under carpet is cracked. Flooring in garage is cracked. Decks: Deck is ~ulling away from the stz;ucture. Boards are warping. Posts are not to code, pickets are not to code Exterior Paint: Chipped badly on stairs Gutters: None-needs new 'gutters arouhd perimeter ConCrete: See fouhdation · SANDPIPER COVE INSPECTION NOTES · UNIT# 8901 (Owner Not Home) Roof: Could not inspect-no snow will probab[y need insulation and new roof Needs additiona/ soffit ,~ents Shingles are curled-needs re-roofing . Siding: Wet and rotted. Tr/m is rotted and loose. Water is coming through the 'siding in the back. Interior Walls: Could not inspect Entrance Doors: Patio Door~ Rotted exterior frames Windowsi No storms. Frames on exterior are rotted Garage Doon Bottom panel is rotted. Needs seals and gasket Foundation: . · Decks: Exterior Paint: Gutters: Facia rotted. Needs gu[ters around perimeter Conc..rete: ' , SANDPIPER COVE INSPECTION NOTES UNIT# 8931 (Owner' Not 'Home) Roof: No snow ore-'ice will 'need 12" additional insulation blown in Shingles loose and curled-'needs re-roofing Siding: Rotted under fx;ont deck. Sw. ollen-from'moisture Interior Walls: Could nOt inspect .. Entrance Doom: Patio Doors Frames are rotted, need replacement of entire doors Windows: No storms., Frames on exterior are rotted. Garage Door: Frame is rotted-, entry door is also rotted (3' x 6'8") Foundation: Masonite at foundation is rotted. Front Stairs ~[re settling-no frost fo~,tings were poured, Decks: Header rotted, flo~ing boards'are rotted, joist stringers . . are rotted, 2*x 8 joists are rotted-deck needs to be rebuilt. Extedor Paint: Facia rotted in back Gutters: No gutters. Needs gutters around perimeter. Concrete: could nbt inspect in garage Builders ,Nc. 7401-42ndAve. No. July 25, 1996 Minneapolis, MN 55427 533-6168 Fax 533-6211 Rockford Home Owners Assoc. Attention: Debbie Tompkins RE: 8943-8945 42nd Ave. N. Dear Mrs. Tompkins, Thank you for inviting me to offer you our quote on the exterior work required on the above property. It is my recommendation to have the existing siding removed along with the 1X 6 planking on windows and corners, then use a styrofoam insulation under all siding for a firm and flush substrate. 1. Remove existing siding and planking, haul away. 2. Check all lumber, repair or replace as necessary. 3. Caulk and seal all doors and windows. 4. Use a 3/8 inch styrofoam insulation under all siding. 5. Re-side complete building in a permanent solid vinyl siding in your choice of color and profile with a life time warranty. 6. Cover all soffit and fascia in aluminum in your choice of color. 7. Cover all trim on doors and windows in aluminum, choice of color. 8. Furnish permit, license, bond and lien waiver. 9. Remove all work related material on completion. Your investment in above work would be $8,67¢.00. Windows Furnish and install 10 new vinyl replacement windows. These windows are double insulated glass Fusion welded frames and sash Thickest P.V.C. walls Lifetime warranty 30 year glass warranty Your investment in the above windows would be $3,287.00. RE: 8805-8811-8877-8883 42nd Ave. N, New Hope We measured this unit and it seems to have more windows and openings than some of the other ¢ units because of this the other unit would have a lesser price. Using same specification as 8943-8945. Your total investment in this building would be $20,890.00. The vinyl windows for this 4 unit building would be $11,152.00. ! want to thank you for considering NORTH CENTRAL BUILDERS for your remodeling needs. If you have any questions or concerns give me a call. Sincerely, Bob Norcross __- J 3118 Snelling Avenue · ~ Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540~ Telephone: 612/721-6624 FAX: 612/721-31 Since 19 Pro~sal Submtff~ to: Job Na~a~on: Roc~ord Road Owner's ~soc. S~dpiper Cove To~omes ~o ~ren BI~ Debbie Tompklng 8811-8963 42nd Ave. No. 8943 42nd Ave. No. New Hope, New Hope, ~ phone: Date: 8/7/96 ~. 531-9905 '~. ~e hereby submit spec~cattons ~d estimates for: Fu~sh ~d ~on ot~nyi r~l~ ~dows. To ~clude: m Remov~ of e~ing ~ndows; h~ away old ~dows ~d ass~iat~ debts. · Fu~sh ~d ~ Trio S~es 9l 1 th~o-p~e ~dows ~ ~g op~gs (s~ ~ tot s~les ~d qu~6~es); ~ u~ to ~ w~e Doubl~ Low-E/~gon en~ ~, mIns~a~on of~ows ~c~d~ remov~ otwei~ts ~d ~ation of tiberius ~lation; ~st~lation of wood ~ops inside ~d om ~ ne~ed; c~l~g ot ~1 ~ts. ·Fu~sh ~d ~ nor~d~ ~~ cl~g on ~ ~or b6c~ol~ ~ s~s. Clad~ng to ~ve ~-M~ coa~g ( s~ ~d~g pro~). ·Remov~ of e~s~g P~o d~rs; h~ away old d~rs md ~at~ deb6s. Fu~sh ~d ~s~ R~ub~c ~yl ~o-p~e S~d~g pa6o doors ~ e~g ope~gs. ~ u~ts to be w~te ~ '~-~e" t~ed ~, ~w-~gon ~ Price per Window ~ $400.00 - $~00.~ ~' ~, /r~ Price per Sliding Door: $!~75.00- $1,400.00 / ~;'- Pricing based on window sizes a~ n~ber of units replaced at a given time. P~ent to be m~ ~ foilo~: Autho~zed To be negotiate. S~a~: EW IMAGI Proposal Submitted To: Dan Leaf 8951 42nd Ave. New Hope We hereby propose ~o furnish all materials and perform all ~abor necessary* for the completion of the improvements as follows: DUPLEXES: -Remove existing siding and replace with Journeyman vinyl siding and 3/8' styrofoam insulation. -Replace existing window sashes with Benada vinyl windows. -Wrap window bdck moldings and garage door bucks with aluminum. qnstail aluminum soffit and facia. -Reptace gutters. -Replace patio doom with Windsor, vinyl, 6' gliders. -Replace 6.x10' patio decks. Use existing footings. No steps. -Replace entry decks and steps. Use existing footings and roofs. QUAOPLEX$: -Remove existing siding and replace with Journeyman vinyl siding and 3/8" styrofoam insulation. -Replace existing window sashes with Benada vinyl windows. -Wrap window brick moldings and garage door bucks with aluminum. -install aluminum soffit and facia. -Replace patio doors with Wirm~sor, vinyl, 6. gliders. .Replace 4'x18' decks. Use existing footings. No steps. -Replace 4'x20' decks and steps. Use existing footipgs. MATERIAl. SPECIFICATIONS: Siding: Manufactured by Royal. .042 thiok. Warmn~. Lifetime, non-prorated, transferable. Labor and material. Silicone caulking. Windows: 7/8" insulated glass. Fusion welded main frame and sashes. TiE-in sashes. Pick resistant cam locks for added security. Full screens. 30 year, transferabl~ warranty. Benada windows are manufactured in Minneapolis. White. Windsor Doors: 1" tempered, insulated glass. Fusion welded mainframe and sashes. White. 13710 59th PI. N. · PI:mouth. MN 55446 · 553-0394 EW IMAG Proposal includes removal of all construction debri and permits. All material is guaranteed to be as specified and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted. S .AL.E...P..RICE: Duplex: Siding $8670.00 Windows 3200.00 Dec ks 1945.00 Gutters 495.00 Patio doors 3400.00 Permit, Rubbish removal 1555.00 Total $19265.00 Quadptex: Siding $19g00.00 Windows 9200.00 Decks 96go.00 Patio doors 3400.00 Permit, Rubbish removal 2500.00 Total Additional work required will be charged at $26.00 per man-hour plus material. Patio doors not replaced will be credited $850.00. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only 1t _bec~__me an extra charge over and above the estimate. uark~Shbnhardt - '" ~.~. Acceptance °f Pr°P°sal Date Date 13710 59th PI. N. · Plymouth. MN 55446 · 553-0394 EDA RESOLUTION NO. 93-:[3 RESOLUTION APPROVING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING POLICIES WHEREAS, the City of New Hope contains over 3,839 .units of rental multiple unit housing; and WHEREAS, many of those units have been constructed during the period from 1960 to 1979; and WHEREAS, many of those units have begun to show signs of aging and obsolescence; and WHEREAS, many private owners are having difficulty obtaining private capital necessary to rehabilitate and properly maintain their units; and WHEREAS, many of these rental housing projects have been subjected to the real estate recession that has involved most of the United Statee as well as the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, this housing stock, if maintained, can provide a decent, safe, and desirable source of affordable housing for the current and future residents of New Hope; and WHEREAS, the City of New Hope Economic Development Authority (EDA) has a desire to provide assistance where that assistance is clearly needed and warranted; and WHEREAS, the purpose of that assistance would be to: stem physical property deterioration, improve public safety, improve values, enhance neighborhood cohesiveness, and assist in the provision of modern rental amenities; and WHEREAS, the City of New Hope must target its limited resources, reflecting the reality that it can provide only limited funding, compared to the funding that might potentially be required to renovate a significant percentage of the 3,839 multi-family rental units in the City; and WHEREAS, the goal of the EDA's involvement would be to meet public policy needs in the housing and human ~- services area, rather than to resolve project financial problems and i~sues that private owners and lenders may have, and WHEREAS, the EDA recognizes that financial assistance to real estate projects involve some risk. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following policy shall be used by the EDA to evaluate potential future requests for assistance by rental unit owners: 1. The minimum amount of public funding required shall be provided in each case. 2. Funding priority will be given to basic needs (such as roof replacement, wiring, heating, etc.) as opposed to provision of amenities (such as washers and dryers in each unit, new office and lobby furniture, etc.) 3. No funding will be provided which, directly or indirectly, is used for fees by the owner or related parties (including construction management fees, developer fees, use of "contingency funds", fee sharing, etc.) 4. At least two bona fide bids, from non-related parties, will be required for each item that is a part of an overall program of rehabilitation funded partially or completely with City funds. Normally, "in house" contracting and/or related party contracting will be prohibited. 5. No funds will be provided to bring defaulted mortgages current. ° 6. No funds will be provided to bring taxes current. 7. Public funds will be used to leverage private funding wherever possible. Normally a 50/50 matching of funds for eligible activities would be required. 8. Wherever possible, loans shall be used as the preferred financing vehicle, rather than grants or equity investments. 9. In the case in which a project has substantial private financial stress, appropriate participation by the lender and the equity owner will be a requirement for City investment. The private investment may take the form of additional equity, debt forgiveness, interest rate reduction, loan term extension, payment deferrals, management fee reduction, reduced cash flow distribution, etc. In no case will tax funds be used to solve financial I~oblema that would otherwise be solved privately in the absence of public participation. 10. Public funds will only be provided in those inatancse in which the public funds are essential to the rehabilitation of the project. Public funds will not be provided when the primary result of that provision would be to merely raise the profitability of a building. 1 1. Public funda will not be Substituted for private funds that could reasonably be raised in the private market. For example, if a private loan could be obtained, and/or if Iow income tax credits would be available, EDA funds will not be used to displace these other potential resources. 12. Each financial assistance agreement will contain an accelerated repayment provision iff the event of property sale, or other significant changes in circumstances. 13. Funds will not be provided that will allow the owner to displace moderate income residents and attract higher income tenants. Nothing in this statement shall be construed to preclude tho attraction of desirable tenants to a project, and the displacement of undesirable tenants. 14. Funds would not be provided for projects that would result in lower property tax payments, unless ouch projects meet other City objectives. 15. EDA Rehabilitation funds shall not be provided for use in such a way that Relocation stitues and payments are ~ggered. 16. No funding will be considered for approval without a prior objective financial analysis of the project, and an indepandsnt recommendation as to the amount and type of proposed funding. Adopted by the Economic Development Authority in an~l for the City of New Hope this 13th day of September, 1993.