Loading...
HRA 01/08/1987 - 2933210 CITY OF FRIDLEY I* 40 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the January 8, 1987, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. ROLL CALL: Meribers Present: Larry Commers, Duane Prairie, John Meyer Menbers Absent: Virginia Schnabel, Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Jock Robertson, HRA Executive Director Nasim Qureshi, City Manager Dave Newman, HRA Attorney Rick- Prbyl, Finance Director Samantha Orduno, Management Assistant Ken Belgaarde, 7841 Ifayzata Blvd. Harry Yaffee, 7841 Wayzata Blvd. Sherrill Kuretich, 7900 Xerxes Ave. S. Louis & June Lundgren, Lundgren Associates APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 11, 1986, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE THE DEC. 11, 1986, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Commers stated he would like to have a schedule of the Rice Plaza Center leases made available to the Commission. 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SALE, LEASE OR OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE HRA PROPERTY-GENERALLY-LOCATED'.DIRECTLY'EAST-.OF'THE'-SPRI G OOK `,l MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMF.RS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7 :19 P.M. Mr. Robertson stated the subject property was located directly east of the Springbrook Nature Center, north of 83rd Avenue, south of 85th Avenue, and west of University Avenue. This was a preliminary site plan for the develop- ment of a 358 -unit apartment complex. They understood that the final regula- tory decisions were scheduled by the City Council at the end of January. . HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1987 PAGE 2 Mr. Robertson stated the developer was waiting for the final permit from the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Robertson stated he would turn the meeting over to the developers for any statements they would like to make. Ms. Sherrill Kuretich stated she was speaU ng on behalf of the developers. She stated she would not make a formal presentation as the HRA had probably already heard a great deal about the project. She just wanted to update the HRA on the status of the land acquisition. They did close on a contract for deed with the landowner in December, so the preliminary requirements to the development contract have been fulfilled to the effect that they now own the property. They w111 be deeding it over to the HRA. At such time as the financing is in place for the project, they will be asking the HRA to then deed it back to them in accordance with the provisions in the development contract. She stated she was willing to answer any questions the HRA members might have. Mr. Meyer stated that as far as the Nature Center was concerned, had anyone associated with the Nature Center expressed any problems or concerns with this development? Ms. Kuretich stated they had not. If anythinq, the people from the Springbrook Nature Center were very pleased with the project and the things being done in the Nature Center itself. Mr. Meyer asked if the HRA needed to be concerned about access from this site to 85th Ave. Ms. Kuretich stated she did not think that was an issue that needed to be resolved at this time; however, the City was getting an easement over the northerly portion of the site that would be available for that connection to the north if it was needed. Mr. Robertson stated the City Council would make the final determination on the access road. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO CLOSE. THE PUBLIC HEARING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPF,RSON COMMF.,RS DECLARED THE PI7BLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:30 P.M. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT Mr. Comers stated the HRA members had a copy of a draft contract for private development between the HRA and University Avenue Associates. He stated they have discussed this at length before, but he would like to review it again briefly with legal counsel. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 89 1987 PAGE 3 Mr. Commers asked Mr. Newman to clarify for the record what was done with respect to the interest in years in terms of deferrel through years 4, 5, and 6. Mr. Newman stated the interest would begin to run at 8% in years 4 and 5. There would he no payment for those two years. The interest for those two years would be divided on a pro -rated basis for the last 10 years, years 6 -15. The interest was approximately $136,000. Under Section 4.5, the developer has posted a letter of credit in that amount, and that letter of credit would expire upon completion of the construction. Mr. Commers stated that as he understood it, they were not going to require a letter of credit as they normally require to ensure the development, but instead they were getting personal guarantees. Mr. Newman stated that in this case, they have both personal guarantees - -for the payment of the second mortgage and payment of the taxes - -plus a letter of credit for the two years. Mr. Commers stated he did not see the section that included the personal guarantees. 0 Mr. Newman stated that apparently the personal guarantees had not been attached to the copy of the development agreement the HRA members had at the meeting, but had been given to them previously. He stated he would get a copy of the personal guarantees to the members. Mr. Commers stated that if they are going to approve the development agreement at this meeting, they should have the complete document before them. Mr. Newman agreed in that respect, but as far as the development quality plan, it has been practiced some times in the past that because of ongoing design, that portion of the document might not be completed prior to execution of the development agreement. Mr. Commers stated some members of the HRA have expressed a desire that prior to adoption, they would like to at least have some review of the types of materials being used on the outside of the building, etc. He was not sure they wanted to get into too much detail. Mr. Robertson stated the development quality plan was in the draft stage subject to final verification from the developers on the materials, etc. They have discussed the draft and have gotten an agreement on it, and they are waiting for other portions such as the final site plan. The final site plan cannot be completed until the developers get the permit from the Corps of Engineers. It was his understanding that the development quality plan would be approved first before the development agreement was actually • consummated, 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MFFTING JANUARY 8 1987 PAGE 4 Mr. Meyer stated the Agreement stated that: "The Authority shall have no obligations of the developer to take any action pursuant to any provisions of this Agreement until such time as the developer has submitted construction plans to the Authority." Mr. Meyer stated he interpreted that to mean that even though they approved the development agreement, they would have a grace period beyond it. Mr. Newman stated the question raised several months ago on the Lake Pointe Development site was: How do they ensure quality? The farther they get into the specifics of the plans, the easier it is to define it. In this case, the developers are quite far along in the design proposal for the project, so, in essence, the City was taking their floor plans and specifications and incorporating those into a development quality plan. Of course, even after the development agreement was signed, the developers are going to be doing additional designing and planning. The final construction plans will also have to he submitted to the City to make sure the final design conforms with the development agreement. Mr. Robertson stated he would get a copy of the draft development quality plan for the [IRA members. MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. HRA- 1 1087, "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE ASSOCIATES, A MINNESOTA PARTNERSHIP ". Mr. Comers stated he would like the record to show that the HRA had been presented with a copy of the Tax Increment Guarantee Agreement which would be executed by Mr. Belgaarde and Mr. Yaffee. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMF.RS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION TO VANTAGE COMPANIES FOR COMPLETION OF THE'WHOLESALE CLUB'AND AUTHORIZING'THE'RELEASE OF , OLIN -- MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ISSUE, A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION TO VANTAGE COMPANIES FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE WHOLESALE CLUB AND TO AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE, OF$100,000 IN SOIL CORRECTION ASSISTANCE AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. TABLED: CONSIDERATION OF DRAWING ON LOU LUNDGREN'S LETTER OF CREDIT: Mr. Commers stated they have had this before the HRA several times in the past. There have been several extensions by the HRA relative to the drawing on Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit. It was his understanding that Mr. Lundqren was supposed to present some information to the HRA at this meeting. • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 8; 1987 PACE 5 Mr. Robertson stated no information had been received from Mr. Lundgren..- He had talked to Mr. Lundgren, and Mr. Lundgren had apologized and said that because of extenuating circumstances, he was unable to get this material to the HRA. Mr. Lundgren was at the meeting to give the HRA an update and why he was not able to get this material to the HRA. Ms. Kuretich stated that at the Dec. HRA meeting, she had told the HRA she expected they would have two things by this meeting: (1) a feasibility report on the project by Meritor Mortgage Corp.; the local mortgage lender Mr. Lundgren was now working with on the financing, and (2) a schedule. Ms. Kuretich stated she would like to tell the HRA what they have done since the last meeting. They have met with Meritor several times and they have also met with FHA, the local HUD office, about the project. They did not receive an answer from HUD until Tuesday afternoon, so they were unable to get any written materials together for the HRA's meeting. Ms. Kuretich stated the FHA has gone out and looked at the site and has looked at the submissions made by Meritor Mortgage and Mr. Lundgren including cash flow projections, the renderings, and the plans to the extent those are available. The FHA people do not believe that a high -rise or mid -rise building is appropriate to this site. She stated Mr. Lundgren does not agree with the • FHA and does not believe the City agrees with the FHA in light of the fact that in order to produce the tax increment needed for the project, there would have to be a higher density than a 3 -story low -rise building. Meritor said that someone from the FHA office had talked to someone at the City who said the City did not want a mid -rise building. She stated this had caused Mr. Lundgren some concern, because it was contrary to what they had been presented and what they had assumed the City wanted. She stated she normally did not repeat third - hand information, but she felt this was serious enough to get a verification from the HRA and Staff that they had, in fact,not changed their view with respect to the density of this development. Ms. Kuretich stated the net result was that the FHA has indicated to Mr. Lundgren that they are not willing to look at this project for FHA insurance as long as it is a mid -rise project proposed for the site. The elderly portion of this project would be a six -story mid -rise building. Ms. Kuretich stated Mr. Lundgren was continuing to work with Meritor Mortgage to have access to a number of other guarantors, insurers, and conventional sources of financing. He is also working with other sources in other parts of the country. Ms. Kuretich stated she could only reiterate what she had asked the HRA in the past, and that was that they are continuing to explore every alternative available. They had a commitment to do this project from the FHA, but it was prior to the Tax Reform Act which has totally thrown everything into a tailspin. • As long as the HRA was holding the letter of credit which was drawable until June 1987, they would like the opportunity to continue to explore all the • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING; JANUARY 8; 1987 PAGE 6 alternatives, always keeping in mind that the HRA could draw on that letter of credit in the event another developer comes along with a project they like better or think might be more successful in performing. She did not think it could hurt the HRA to continue to hold that letter of credit as long as it can be drawn upon. On the other hand, as she had stated last month, if that letter of credit was drawn upon at this time, Mr. Lundgren would be called upon by the bank to immediately reimburse the bank for the amount of the letter of credit. That would effectively kill any opportunity Mr. Lundgren would have to proceed with the project. Ms. Kuretich stated they do not believe any other developer would be in any better position than Mr. Lundgren to put together the financing necessary for the project as it has been proposed. The FHA made its decision soley based on what they viewed to be the feasibility of the proposed project on the site. She did not think all prospective lenders were going to look at it in the same way; otherwise, they would quit right now without spending any more time on it. But, they are asking the HRA's continued indulgence in allowing them to explore every avenue available before the HRA determines they want to draw on the letter of credit. Mr. Commers asked if there had been any recent discussions with Staff about the letter of credit and the recommendation Staff had made previously that the . HRA draw on the letter of credit at this time. Pis. Kuretich stated they have not discussed this with Staff because they had hoped to have more positive progress by this time. Mr. Lundgren stated he has worked with HIID for ten years, and what they have said is they will not ensure the project on this site over three stories and that is over medium density according to the City's qualifications. He understood the tax bonding was still available. They will have to get a guarantee other than the HUD guarantee. There are other kinds of credit enhancements and he will continue to seek those.out. He stated he has not had much time to do this. He stated he had a meeting with Meritor Mortgage the following day, and he will be making other phone calls. Mr. Qureshi stated he would like to comment in defense of what Pis. Kuretich had said regarding the contention that a city employee had told the WD office that the City di -d not-want a mid -rise building, The two staff present were the ones who generally would make that kind of recommendation, and they were both aware that the HRA and the City Council approved the six -story apartment complex on this site. Somebody was saying the City did not approve when the City has already approved it. He would be very surprised that as staff member with any knowledge at all would make that kind of statement. Mr. Comers stated he agreed, especially after they had gone through the public hearing process and approved the six -story apartment complex. The six -story building was actually the result of a compromise between the City, the developer, and the neighborhood, compared to the original proposal for a 12 -story building. There had been no change in attitude from the HRA's point of view. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1987 PAGE 7 Mr. Lundgren stated he will have to produce their own feasibility study separate from the one that has already been paid for. They will also have to produce an appraisal. This was kind of important because any conventional underwriter was going to require an appraisal of the project as it would be completed which includes a study of the cash flow, expenses, evaluation of the value of the property, etc. Mr. Commers stated he was sympathetic to Mr. Lundgren's position; however, Mr. Lundgren had to understand that they have had a lot of discussions along these same lines for many months, and they have not seen any progress. Mr. Commers asked if there had been any change in Staff's position or recommendation. Mr. Qureshi stated that on the basis of not being repetitious, Staff's recommendation was the same as the last two meetings and that was the HRA should draw on the letter of credit. There was an agreement, and the HRA had been very concerned that they not deal with a developer who was not serious about the project because of the sensitivity of the neighborhood and the number of tenants in the existing building. The letter of credit was requested to show that the developer was indeed serious about the development. Mr. Commers stated that was correct. This was an unusual situation to the extent that they have attempted development before that has not worked, and they wanted to have some assurances at this time and to satisfy the tenants and the neighborhood that this was a serious proposal. Mr. Qureshi stated that was the basis, and now Mr. Lundgren has gone way beyond the timetable set forth. The agreement was null and void back in August 1986, and it was now January 1987. Mr. Commers asked if the drawing or not drawing on the letter of credit prejudiced or hurt anything at this point as far as inquiries or interest on the part of other potential developers? Mr. Qureshi stated there have been inquiries. There was a financial loss because the $200,000 could be drawing interest for the HRA. As long as this is still lingering,it does have some influence on other projects. How much he did not know. He had a made a statement previously that because of the climate of real estate and the new laws, it might be more difficult to get a project. The only issue has been that whoever comes in first with a valid proposal that is acceptable -- whether it is Mr. Lundgren or another developer— the City will take it. On that basis, they are not considering any obligation to Mr. Lundgren. Psychologically, but not legally, they are still linked to Mr. Lundgren. If it was the decision of the HRA not to draw on the letter of credit, that was a policy decision the HRA had to make. Ms. Vuretich. stated she certainly understood how City Staff felt and the • HRA's impatience. Mr. Lundgren has been put into a position through no fault of his own. He thought the financing was arranged for the project. She did • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JANUARY 8, 1987 PAGE 8 not want to keep bringing up the Tax Reform Act, but clearly it has had a significant impact on trying to finance any kind of project, particularly one that was designed around the uses of tax increment financing. She stated she thought it was safe to say this was the largest overhaul of the tax code they have ever seen, and it will take time to adjust. Ms. Kuretich stated that by Mr. Lundgren continuing to attempt to arrange financing showed he was still interested in the project. She could under- stand that the City was losing interest on the $200,000; on the other hand, she thought there was an element of fairness involved as long as Mr. Lundgren was continuing to try to put the package together. He was not responsible for the Tax Reform Act. In terms of the psychological impact on developers who might want to work with the HRA, perhaps it might give these developers some comfort to know that the HRA was not anxious to draw on the letter of credit until it actually becomes necessary. Mr. Prairie stated just the fact that the HRA has not drawn on the letter of credit for four months already indicated that. If the letter of credit expires in June, the HRA should make some kind of firm deadline before that time, as they have just gone from one delay to another. He thought 6 -7 months was more than fair. Mr. Commers stated he did not want Mr. Lundgren to think that because they haven't drawn on his letter of credit that he still had the project. He might still lose the project. Another developer might come in or it might be that Mr. Lundgren will never be able to put the project together. At this point, the HRA had no legal commitment to Mr. Lundgren. Mr. Lundgren stated he understood that. He understood there was no legal commitment, no moral commitment, and no ethical commitment. He did intend to come in with a project the City and the HRA would be excited about, but he did need more time. He wanted to do this project, and he wanted it to be successful. The only thing he was asking of the HRA was they not cash his letter of credit. Mr. Meyer stated whether it was now or May or June, as he had said before, he was not sure whether he would vote to cash the letter of credit. He felt that until such time as they could demonstrate that the City was being financially hurt, then he would be more concerned and would be more inclined to vote to cash the letter of credit. Mr. Prairie stated that obviously they hope Mr. Lundgren will be able to make the project work. Mr. Commers stated he did not want to mislead Mr. Lundgren to think the HRA would not do anything and have some artificial date like the May meeting and say they would not do anything until that meeting. It could happen next month. • • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1987 PAGE 9 Mr. Comers stated that a motion to table this item was made at a previous meeting. At the last meeting, there was no motion to remove the item from the table, and it was the concensus of the members present that they not exercise their option and not take any action on Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit. Mr. Comers stated it seemed to be the concensus of the HRA members present that they do not intend to remove the item from the table, and no action would be taken on Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit. He cautioned Mr. Lundgren to not read too much into this statement. . Mr. Lundgren stated what he read into it was that he better meet with Staff before the next meeting and be prepared to present a formal plan and schedule at the HRA's February meeting. Mr. Commers stated that since there were no motions, this item would remain on the table until the next meeting. Chairperson.Commers declared a ten minute recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 5. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEV • PROJECT NO.- 1'TO'INCLUDE ADDITIONAL:'PARCELS AND ESTABLISH A TAX INCRE DISTRICT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO: Mr. Qureshi stated that at the last meeting during the review of the -study on the development of the University Avenue Corridor, it was indicated during the discussion that other than just putting in some cosmetic improvements, shrubbery, lighting, etc., the [IRA should be looking to see what they can do with some of the other empty land, underutilized land, and some of the sub- standard structures along University Avenue. Mr. Qureshi stated that normally each year the State Legislature and the Federal Government tinker with the authority of the HRA and there was some discussion at the state level to review the whole tax increment situation and possibly propose to make it more restrictive. Now might be the time for the HRA to look at this and give some thought to adding some areas to Redevelopment Project No. 1 and making some tools available to see how some underutilized areas could be utilized. Mr. Qureshi discussed the properties Staff was proposing to be included in Redevelopment Project No. 1, to include the southern end of the University Avenue Corridor. Mr. Qureshi stated the first step would be to establish a redevelopment area. Then they could decide which properties were defined under economic develop- ment and which ones were defined under redevelopment. After that, nothing would happen until the HRA decided to develop an area and then they would • create an increment district. • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1987 PAGE 10 Mr. Comers stated as he understood it, the University Avenue Corridor proposal the HRA has adopted did not in and of itself at this time provide for the taking of any underutilized or underdeveloped land. Mr. Qureshi stated that was correct. The University Avenue Corridor proposal was only for the general aesthetics and appearance for public right of way. But, at the last month's meeting, there was some discussion that the City needed to do more than just the general aesthetics and appearance. Mr. Qureshi stated if it was the HRA's desire to proceed, the HRA should instruct Staff to start preparing information and come back to the HRA with a formal presentation. He stated Staff has estimated that the amendment to the redevelopment plan to include the southern end of the University Avenue Corridor could be accomplished in a minimum of two months with ten steps. These ten steps were outlined in Mr.Robertson's memo to the HRA dated Jan. 2, 1987. Mr. Meyer stated he was remembering about 20 years ago when the tornado hit Fridley and the tasks of the HRA then. The perceptions of some of the people at that time were they felt something was beinq thrust down their throats, and they turned against even the beneficial aspects of redevelopment. Mr. Meyer stated it might be beneficial to informally approach some "key" people . in these proposed areas, talk to them and get some informal feeback. Maybe the mayor or the appropriate councilperson could describe what the City was proposing and get some feedback before going public with this with public hearings. This might avoid any problems that might backfire in the main events that are going on. Mr. Prairie stated he thought most people would not be opposed to being included in a redevelopment district; however, it wouldn't hurt to make people aware of it. Mr. Commers stated that in the ten steps listed by Staff, Step #4 was to "set City Council public hearing ". He thought the HRA has always had the public _hearing in the past. Ms. Orduno stated that by law, the HRA was not required to have the public hearing, but the City Council was required to have a public hearing. Mr. Comers asked if the City Council had any feelings as to whether the HRA should or should not have a first public hearing before the City Council`s public hearing and then be able to make recommendations to the Council. Would that be a better procedure or should the City Council hold the only public hearing ? - Mr. Qureshi stated he could ask-this question of the City Council members. • If the City Council wants the HRA to also hold a public hearing, he would advise the HRA of that decision. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JANUARY 8 1987 PAGF 11 Mr. Prairie stated he would have no objection to the HRA also holding a public hearing, but if it was not necessary, it would save them a little time. Mr. Meyer stated he had no objection to the HRA having a public hearing. before the City Council's public hearing. His main concern was what he had raised earlier. He was concerned because they were talking about one of the same areas the HRA dealt with 20 years ago. It seemed to him that to .some extent people were still going to see this as control of their property being taken away from them. Mr.Newman stated there was at least a month until the first public hearing, so there would be ample time for the City Councilperson to talk, -to some of the neighbors if he /she wanted to. Mr. Qureshi stated the City Council could decide to put a notice in the paper or send a letter to every owner affected or potentially affected, but he thought Staff needed to do some preliminary work before they proceed too much farther. Hopefully, Staff can come back with more information at the HRA's next meeting. Mr. Commers stated he did not think the HRA had any problem with Staff going ahead and starting some preliminary work, coming back to the HRA with more information, so the HRA can determine how they should proceed from there. It was the concensus of the HRA to authorize Staff to do some preliminary work on the proposal to amend the redevelopment plan to include the southern end of the University Avenue Corridor. Before any public hearing was held, the HRA would like Staff to discuss with the City Council some of the concerns raised at this meeting. The HRA would be making the decision on whether or not to go forward;and at that time, the HRA could decide on the appropriate way to publicly present this. 10. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE FRIDLEY HRA (1) RE UESTING THAT THE 'FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZ-E--TUN—SjKIJL;I.ION.UF.THE-INTERSEGTION*IMPROVEMENTS ND ES K E. HERETO AND 2 'A ROVI G -A 'AU ORI G TRFRE i FRIDLEY ON A MONTHLY BASIS FOR THE COST OF _S C I I S: Mr. Prairie stated there were no dollar amounts listed in the resolution. Mr. Comers stated that was a good point. The HRA has only authorized a certain dollar amount on that project. It would be good for a dollar amount to be included in the resolution. He stated that also in the past, the HRA has always paid the design contracts directly if not associated with the construction. The only time they have reimbursed the City was on construction contracts. Mr. Qureshi stated this resolution would have to be reworked and should be • withdrawn at this time. Mr. Comers stated he would like to have the dollar amounts included in whatever new resolution was brought back to the HRA. 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 8 1987 PAGE 12 11. 1985 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Mr. Pribyl stated he would apologize to some degree for the delay in getting the financial statement to the HRA. For some reason the auditors had tied it up for 3 -4 months in their office. The City did not actually see the statement until October. Another problem was that last year Mr. Sid Inman and Mr.Pribyl °s assistant left the City, so there were some problems because of the lack of staff. Fie stated that situation has now been corrected. From this time on, the HRA will have a very timely financial statement. The 1986 financial statement will be presented to the HRA in June or July. Mr. Pribyl reviewed the high points of the financial statement. Mr. Commers stated one schedule the HRA had in the past that he would request Staff prepare again for the HRA was a general schedule reflecting the total amounts of money paid by the HRA to the City of Fridley for services rendered and what those services are. Specific individuals did not have to be named. Another request by the HRA was to receive an analysis of the investments over the year to be done on an annual basis. 12. CLAIMS (1557- 1564): MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER AS PRESENTED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. HRA ANNUAL REPORT: Mr. Robertson stated he would like the HRA to give their general approval of the annual report before it was printed and mailed out. It was the concensus of the HRA members that they would like to read the report before giving their approval and would contact Mr.Robertson before noon the following day if there were any problems. 14. UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR LIGHTING DESIGN: Mr. Robertson stated the HRA members had a copy of a: memo from John Flora to himself concerning the design of the lighting system on the University Avenue Corridor. fie stated the City intended to hire Robert Eller, a retiree from NSP, who now does consulting work. Mr. Eller was extremely familiar with all NSP's requirements on servicing and was knowledgeable about all MnDOT requirements. Mr. Eller would design the lighting system and would get the necessary MnDOT permits and make sure NSP would service the lines. The cost of Mr.Eller's services was $1,000. 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JANUARY 8 1987 PAGE 13 MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RETAIN THE CONSULTING SERVICES OF ROBERT EHLER AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED .$1,000 TO DESIGN THE LIGHTING SYSTEM ON THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR. Mr. Robertson stated that in December, the HRA approved a minimum lighting plan which would include just the intersections. They would like Mr. Ehler to design the lighting for the entire corridor so that in the future if they want to do more and light the whole corridor, the intersection design will be consistent with making those additions. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMF.RS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE JANUARY 8, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 :40 P.M. Respectfully subm'tted, Lyrfng Saba Recording Secretary • • r F v� hu, &*-,�t/ b4f-`71gpe- -r-</ 1 �4,-ao -- Azle- c s i boo