Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-04-09 CC MIN• (212 COUNCIL CHAMBER STILLWATER, MINNESOTA SPECIAL MEETING - BID OPENING PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: PRESS: Citizens: This was the day and time for the bid opening for the proposals for feasible and prudent alternatives to the destruction of the property known as the "Old Nelson School ". The following proposals were received and opened: Proposal No. 1 Proposal No. 2 Proposal No. 3 Proposal No. 4 Proposal No. 5 Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, Powell Mayor Junker Councilman Roger Peterson Finance Officer /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Attorney, Magnuson; City Clerk, Schnell Stillwater Gazette - Bob Liberty James Hunt, Shirley Tibbetts, Jeanne Stenerson, Bob Hagstrom, Marie Zoller, Jeff Zoller, Mr. & Mrs. Mark Carroll, Mr. & Mrs. Dick Emanuelson, Mrs. Ben Schaffer, Richard Kilty, Al Ranum Proposal: Duplex of 3 to 4 bedrooms - one unit on the first floor and the other on the second floor with a garage in the basement. Estimated cost of the remodeling would ve $20,000 and all possible labor would be done by his family. Did not offer a performance bond since he owns the house just to the north of the school building. Richard S. Kilty 118 West Oak Street Stillwater Purchase Price: $10,000 Proposal. Demolition of the building and the construction of two single family homes Richard Huston P. 0. Box 252 Stillwater Price dependent upon density - $500 per unit for lst thru 5th units One Unit $500.00 Two Units $1,000.00 Three Units $1,500.00 Four Units $2,000.00 Five Units $2,500.00 $2,500 per unit for 6th thru 8th units Six Units $5,000.00 Seven Units $7,500.00 Eight Units $10,000.00 Daniel E. Grogan 805 West Orleans Stillwater Purchase Price $2,500.00 Single Family Residence owned by resident family Jeffrey Zoller 703 West Oak Street Stillwater Purchase Price: $2,000.00 (included check for 5% of the bid $100.00) Four Units- no garages and 8 off - street parking spaces. Some variances needed and would like to waive the performance bond. (Mr. Zoller read the cover letter on his proposal booklet) Purchase Price: April 9, 1979 7:00 P. M. Tom Strandberg 1006 South First Street Stillwater Purchase Price: $1.00 • • • • • April 9, 1979 r • DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSALS #1 Mary Emanuelson reported that Mr. Strandberg has been two years putting a roof on his home with the use of his family and questioned how he could renovate this building within the time limit required - also he does not have a permit for his roofing job. #2 No comments #3 Mrs. Emanuelson stated she had gotten a call from Mr.Houston stating that he wanted to buy their property in order to save the school and in talking to her, he stated that if she did not want to sell her house and stay there and they could sell just a part of the property and make a lot of money that way and she felt that man was crazy - he would never be able to put up and do what he says he is going to do. She had told him that this was cause for harrassment. JAMES HUNT felt that this was a slander and that Mr. Houston was a friend of his and felt that this was entirely uncalled for. MARK CARROLL did not believe that it was feasible and to do what he proposes to do. #4 No comments #5 MR. JAMS HUNT stated that he felt there were realistic proposals; personally, and not for RTR he would tend to favor Jeff's proposal. MAYOR JUNKER did not feel that there was a realistic proposal - Jeff Zoller was the only one that was realistic outside of Mr. Kilty's and it is a two year plan again. MR. HUNT stated that the Grand Grage has been going for three years and that has not been an eyesore - MAYOR JUNKER did -ot feel that we could compare that since it is downtown - eventually if something is not done with the Nelson School it is going to burn down. MR. HUNT felt that Jeff's proposal was valid and he felt that Jeff could do it. MAYOR JUNKER stated that the City took a headache from the School District and that the City is father behind right now than we were six months ago or a year and a half ago, and that they are just putting salt on the wounds right now - the building would be down right now and here we get a proposal for $8,000 less and he wanted to know if this was fair to the City Council to wait for that. MR. HUNT stated that it is going to pay more taxes. MAYOR JUNKER stated that the four units price of two homes that Kilty would put but MR. HUNT felt that it would be. He vulnerable proposals made here that the an alternatire to demolition - there is MR. MAGNUSON felt that the Council should a further determination of facts and seek to the feasibility of the plans submitred and he would be glad to make inquiries on back to the Council - have more facts and is feasible. isn't going to be appraised at the up there which would be $70,000 apiece stated that RTR feels that if there are City is compeled to seek proposals as a court order. MAYOR JUNKER did not feel that Mr. Houston's proposal was realistic - he would be there 25 years and the building would still stay the same. SHIRLEY TIBBETTS stated that you do not know that, for sure and talking about being unfair . .. as to salt on wounds, and everything. MAYOR JUNKER stated that this is salt on wounds right here - the City turned down the Austin - Hilleren proposal at $23,500 because they did not have their financing available. COUNCILMAN POWELL asked the City Attorney how much time was required on the initial bid to establish the fact that they had financing. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he thought that we required that they have it within 45 days on the accept- ance and they did not have to have it at the time of the bid opening. Discussion was held as to whether or not the Austin - Hilleran bid was legal at the time and questions were raised as to where he was at this time and it was stated that possibly he was scared off. MR. HUNT felt that we had a legal bid with Jeff Zoller. MARK CARROLL felt that this would be too much desnity for this crowded neighbor- hood. make inquiry of each proposal to make advice of the Building Inspector as and seek the City Engineer s opinion the availability of financing and report then make a determination whether it 213 • • • • ■ RI • • 214 April 9, 1979 DICK KILTY stated that it was not clear in his mind how the bids are going to be considered - it didn't state just what is a feasible use for the school and asked the Council what they feel is a feasible use for the school - he would like to ask what is a feasible use. Another thing that concerned him about the proposal, that it stated in there that you require a performance bond of 1259, of the cost of the !mprovement, but then there is an out when you say that you would replace that with some other guaranteee - what would be another guarantee? MR. MAGNUSON stated that first of all it is not clear what feasible and prudent mean= - the Supreme Court has desk with it several times - they are economically feasible is one thing - the zoning considerations are atother and whether or not it is prudent and feasible is something that the Council will have to determine and there was no guidelines for that and that is the reason there was no definition setforth in the invitation to bid. MR. KILTY felt that each member of the Council has to set some standards or determine some standards - what they think is feasible and he felt that should be discussed or brought out publicly - have to judge this matter on some standards. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that her main concern all along is what the neighbors have to live with - if they prefer his proposal to four units or what- ever and she was sure at one time they did accept a maximum of four units and two professional offices in that building - they are directly affected as far as she was concerned. In view of the court action taken that the Council also has to look at now as to what is prudent and feasible. Some where along the line the Council will have to make the determination and she would like to make the best determination and to please all of us but she did not know if that is possible, but she will attempt to. MR. MAGNUSON it is a decretionary decision with the Council whether or not the person has the ability to carry through with the project and the 125% performance bond payment is specially difficult to get on a project of a large size and some- one could be very sound but not able to secure a bond. MR. KILTY felt that this was the root of the problem when you see what is happen- ing downtown - they are forclosing on the Restoration - another one has got the door locked and another one is in trouble - and he felt that the City has to demand that to insure completion. He felt that Mr. Zoller has a fine proposition, but he could get sick or could have hard times and the neighb ors would be stuck with an "eyesore ". He could not see how they could waive that requirepment since you want that building completed. MR. MAGNUSON stated that it is within the Council's discretion to require that and it is within their discretion to waive it. MAYOR JUNKER askee Jeff if he was a member of the RTR and Mr. Zoller replied that he was. MAYOR JUNKER stated that in the proposal from Mr. Grogan he stated that he would be found by all of the conditions of any purchase or development agreement entered into and he is going to make it a single family residence - it is probably more realistic that the neighbors would agree more with Grogran's program that they would with any other program since it wouldn't institute any more than one apartment. BOB HAGSTROM felt that the tax base would be more realistic for bur units - give or take with a value of $50,000 or $60,000 each. MAYOR JUNKER stated that anything over two units requires a variance and that the Council would have to look at it a little bit - you might not care if there are eight units there, but you do not live there and that is the general feeling as long as I do not live there - let them have it - but if the prison comes next to my house, don't build it there - I live there - he stated that he was not against saving the Nelson School but he was against the time that has already been spent - not the time on his own personal time, but the City has been a year and a half and even price wise - the $2,000 that is offered is already eaten up by the Public Works Department putting plywood on the building and the other general maintenance- we are just going backwards. He felt that Mr. Zoller was a great guy and a great architect - how long is the Council going to continue - that is all he asks - another two years. MR. ZOLLER felt that he would need two years and he would like to waive that. MRS. OSCAR LONG asked where Jeff was going to find people who would rent an apart- ment for $420.00 a month and JEFF stated that they did a market survey in the area and that three bedroom homes smaller than this go from $375.00 to $500.00 per unit - he would not be in it unless he is convinced that he can make it. She asked how long those families stay there and could not see anyone paying that kind of rent. JEFF stated chat he is also concerned about who will be renting since he will be living there too and he felt confident that there is a market for these types of units. V • • • • • • • • A April 9, 1979 r THERESA SCHAFFER cited that there was a similar case on Sixth Avenue South and the owner also lived there and they had more police calls than any other place in Stillwater. Then this party moved up on Third Street and moved out of the building and left the problems behind. MR. ZOLLER stated at $420.00 per month it will be a different kind of people renting from him. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Zoller if he had worked out the cost estimates which appear in his proposal and he replied that he had Bob Hagstrom and John Larson review them and they obtained bids to see how close the estimates were and they were very much in line. The building will be insulated. The total cost is the project is $143,130.00. MARY EMANUELSON stated that last evening she had talked to Dick Olsen who went through the building and his thinking estimate was around $200,000 and there are other bids that are as high as $300,000 and those bidders felt that it was virtually impossible to renovate that building for that price. MR. ZOLLER stated that he will be doing most of the labor and that a major portion of the cost. They usually figure that 507 of the cost is for labor and he is able to do this because he will be living there and it will be inspected, and he will not do his own plumbing and other work unless it is instated as it will affect his insurance rates. He will not have to have a sprinkler system or an elevator since they are not required by the code. COUNCILMAN POWELL felt when the Mayor stated that we are going backwards, that we are going backwards, in his opinion, when we don't try to preserve the buildirg where it costs the City so much for plywood to cover the windows or whatever - that has been done. The verdict that the City received that they must exerc all prudent and feasible means of keeping the building. He. felt that the only way they can do that is to turn these bids first over to the City Attorney to see if they are a legal bid and secondly if there are some that are, they then be given to a contractor or a contractor and the building inspector and have them look at them and say that you can do it this way or you can't do it this way and that would be the proper action to take. Then whatever comes of that the Council can determine which direction they want to go. If the Council is going to follow the ruling that was handed down to them, that they have no other alternative and that if none of them are worthwhile, then Mr Kilty should get it - if there is no way of saving the building, that Mr. Kilty should have it and that would be as fair as possible - he would like to see as few residences as possible, but he was not sure that four was too many - the original proposal was for four apart- ments and two offices which would generate less traffic that way and felt that there is no proposal for any garages which is a plus - it has to be looked at somebody who knows what they are doing. MR. KILTY felt that if you issue a deed to a man who can't build the thing, he did not care that the court says, that the Council is not doing their duty. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON that his only interest in the retention of the Nelson School is to see it in that same form - if any restoration is done it will be cleaning of the outer building - was he to assume that there would be no change in the structure of the windows or the doors, the balconies on the bilding as it is now - can they be utilized for res'_dential purposes without being altered. JEFF ZOLLER stated that they could be and the only alteration would be that the south chimney would be built up higher and the little shed on the back end be taken off, otherwise there would be no change - any thermo - paning of the windows would be done on the inside - insulated shutters on the inside of the rooms. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Zoller if he had the financing for the $72,000 and replied that he had discussed this with the bank - he has not signed any papers and he has met with the people at the bank four times already. MARY EMANUELSON questioned whether or not there would be garages and MR. ZOLLER said that they will have parking on the west side of the property and she felt that people paying this kind of rent would not be willing to go all winter without parking thie cars in some kind of enclosure. MR. ZOLLER stated that there are two reasons for not having the garages - one is financial, secondly it is not in keeping with the style of building and they did have it in the original proposal but it was taken out. MRS. EMANUELSON felt that in the future someone could come in and ask for a variance. DICK EMANUELSON stated that unless it states in the proposal that there would be no variances and it could not be done and it would not be binding. Further he stated that it would have to be in the proposal stating that this could not be- come more units than the four originally proposed. MR. KILTY stated that if the City issues a deed to him, he would have to forever live up to the agreement and MAYOR JUNKER AND COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK agreed to that. 215 • • • • April 9, 1979 MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Zoller if the City does not waive the bond requirement then you are out of the picture and MR. ZOLLER replied "yes ". BOB HAGSTROM stated that he has reviewed Jeff's proposal and appreciated the work that he has done - he is not just coming in with just a letter and some thoughts off the top - he has researched this - designed it - done this with conscience to the Council - when he talks about being done in two years, he is talking about interior - the exterior is coming under control in a short time and he will be living there and there is a lot of things to keep it under control. He has had the appraiser up there from the bank and evaluated it - there are a lot of positive things going on there - he is qualified and will do a good job - and if the Council is going to put it back and that he needs a bond, he felt that there are enough people who have confidence in this whole project that will see that bond can be reached. He stated he would not mind living in this building or living next door to ti - it is one of the finest pieces of craftsmanship in town and he is proud of it. Questions were raised if he got the deed and then could not get bonded what would happen and MAYOR JUNKER stated that the Council has to waive the 125% bond and he would have to pay the City the $2,000 within 45 days and then he would have to furnish the performance bond. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that prior to the meeting this evening that the City Attorney stated that the Council did not have to rush into their decision and MAYOR JUNIOR did not feel that they would want to continue on forever. MAYOR JUNKER felt that when the proposals were presented this evening that they were to have their financing ready in black and white. Discussion was held as to when the Council would have to make a decision on this matter and the motion passed at the February 6, 1979 meeting was read by Councilman Harry Peterson at this time -- That the City Council of Stillwater will receive proposals for feasible and prudent alternatives to the destruction of the property known as the old Nelson Schocl, until 7:00 P. M., April 9, 1979. Proposals shall include a statement by the proposer indicating the proposed use of the building,the number of units, the ownership, the source of financing, any zoning variances required, including variances to the area requirements, recreational facilities requirements, parking requirements, and floor area ratio requirements, proposed landscaping plans, exterior alteration plans, interior alteration plans. The proposer shall indicate his willingness to be bound by all conditions in the enclosed Purchase Agreement and Development Agree- ment, and the proposer shall indicate the proposed purchase price. Proposals will be considered by the City Council at the next regular meeting following receipt, and the proposer will be given an opportunity to be heard by the Council if he desires. The City Council reserves the right to reject all proposals. He felt that the Council is bound by this to take action tomorrow night, the next regular meeting. Discussion was held regarding financing and MAYOR JUNKER felt that this should be known by tomorrow. MAYOR JUNKER felt that all of these proposals could be struck from the records right now, at least three of them, and that we have waited for four months for that. Questions were raised about the passible variances that would be required in Mr. Zoller's proposals and Mr. Zoller read from the proposal at this time. COUNCILMAN H. PETERSON asked about the limited partnership on Mr. Zoller's proposal and MR. ZOLLER responded that the financing would be through the First National Bank of Stillwater and the other partners are Mr. & Mrs. William Zoller. MAYOR JUNKER indicated that he did not doubt Jeff's integrity, but that the City wants to do something with the Nelson School and so something that the neighbors would be satisfied with - he felt that Jeff could do a good job, can't let it go two years, four years. MR. ZOLLER indicated that he would be living in the building within 90 days after the closing and he will be living a bear -bone budget - he will be living there for a couple of reasons - first to make it secure - and secondly he can watch any building materials that he purchases and finally he can work on the building as he is living there. c 0 • • • • • • • 0 0 • April 9, 1979 DICK EMANUELSON did not believe that anyone craftsman or workman could do any $35,000 of work in all of these different fields within two years or one year - it would be very difficult - he is in the trade - he is an electrician and an engineer - it just cannot be done with these variances and it is hard to believe. MAYOR JUNKER asked if the present stairway would stay there and MR. ZOLLER stated that they would - this would be a central unaltered hallway. SHIRLEY TIBBETTS stated that she does not live right next to the school, but a few blocks away, asked how the people felt when the school was in use as a school and administration building - were they happy with it then - and most of the people did buy their homes when the building was there. She felt that people do not have any imagination. MRS. SCHAFFER stated that if it was not good enough for a school or administration building it is not good enough for a condominium. MARY EMANUELSON stated that the School District let the building become run down and at the present time they had one family move into the neighborhood and it is a disaster - she thinks the proposal sounds great, but she is afraid of the time limit and MRS. TIBBETTS stated that when it is restored it will be an asset to the neighborhood. (A discussion continued between the RTR members and the neighbors) MRS. TIBBETTS stated that Stillwater is noted for its history and there is no place like us because of the historic value and the people want to tear every- thing down. MARK CARROLL stated that someone who had looked at the building stated that twenty years ago something could have been done, but that today it is too late to do anything with it. MARY EMANUELSON stated that when Austin Hilleran's proposal was made it was for $23,500.00 and Kilty's was for $10,000 and basically Mr. Hunt sued the City as a taxpayer and not any of these bids has come close to this $10,000 bid - they are very sincere that they want to save the building and they were very critical when the City went for Mr. Kilty's proposal originally, but nobody has come close to that now and they all knew that the $10,000 was sitting there and they would have had a better chance if they would have overbid him by $1,000. JEFF ZOLLER stated that he would be honest, he would hate to say that he would love to bid $12,000 for the site, but he honestly stated that he could not afford to bid more than $2,000. MRS. MARIE ZOLLER asked if the building is to be torn down, is the City going to put a limit on the amount of time required to get it down - how long will it take to down the school? (She made reference to the demolition time for the building at the Junior High School). MAYOR JUNKER felt that RTR made a mistake and that they did admit to the School Board and they are out of line and that they will not be involved in the Nelson School since it is because of RTR that it is not down and MR. HUNT stated that he was the one that made this mistake. MR. KILTY stated that there was nothing in the biu that required a time limit, but at the hearing prior to the bids he stated that it would take six months. MR. ZOLLER stated that if the neighbors wanted to look at his proposal, he would be happy to show it to them. He stated that it took him from about two weeks after the announcement of the proposals and until tonite to put his proposal together. He could vertify the finan cing from the First National Bank. ADJOURNMENT - On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 P. M. Attest: ,�4�.._■�. J CiL Clerk Mayor 217 • a • •