Loading...
HRA 12/08/1988 - 6526HOUSING AND IEDEVE LORENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8; 1988 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC COPY City of Fridley A G E N D A HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. DEC. 8, 1988 7:00 P.M. Location: Community Education Center 6085 Seventh Street N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 10, 1988 CONSIDERATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND MISSISSIPPI STREET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1B CONSIDERATION OF WINFIELD PROPOSAL ON 57TH PLACE .. . .. . 2- 2F CONSIDERATION OF STINSKI OFFICE PROPOSAL 3 CONSIDERATION OF 1989 MEETING SCHEDULE . . . . . . . • . . . . 4 - 4A CONSIDERATION OF OUTLINE FOR 1989 ANNUAL REPORT • • • • • • 5 CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. 6 - 6K CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING A SENIOR HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7B CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 6, LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION, AND LIGHTING PROJECT NO. 168 - LAKE POINTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8G CONSIDERATION OF RETURN OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDUM LEVIES . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9L INFORMATION ON PROPOSED METAL -TEK FACILITY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 79TH AVENUE & MAIN STREET .10 - 10B CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 - 11F OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 10, 1988 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the November 10, 1988, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer, Walter Rasmussen Members Absent: Duane Prairie Others Present: Jock Robertson, Executive Director to HRA Dave Newman, HRA Attorney Rick Pribyl, City Finance Director William Burns, City Manager Tim Turnbill, Police Department Bill Fogerty, Winfield Development Joe Commers, The Commers Company Liv Homeland, Coldwell Banker Pat Fisher, Stinski project Cheryl Stinski APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 8. 1988. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the September 9, 1988, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF PROCEDURES AND DEVELOPERS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF UNIVERSITY AND MISSISSIPPI STREET: Mr. Robertson stated several developers have responded to the RFQ. He had indicated earlier to the developers who responded that they would each have about 5 minutes to make a presentation at the HRA meeting. One of the respondents was Liv Homeland from Coldwell Banker. Coldwell Banker has now secured exclusive listings on all the private property on the site, and it is their intent to try to find a developer as a buyer of the property and to assist that developer with finding tenants. This is a short listing agreement and Coldwell Banker and City Staff formally agreed that Coldwell Banker should have until November 30 to try to put together a package. The other developers who responded with interest on this site have agreed to wait for a month. It was his understanding HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988 -PAGE 2 that Ms. Horneland did talk to all the developers listed on the City's mailing list for RFQ's for the southwest quadrant. Ms. Horneland stated the sellers definitely want something to occur on this site. They had retained Coldwell Banker's services for that purpose. Since the relatively short time ago when they obtained the listings, they have obtained considerable interest and have met with the City to make sure they were not doing anything contrary to the City's plans and that what they were doing would be in the City's best interest. At this point, they have obtained three parties that are making offers. There are also a couple of other developers who have shown interest. They are trying to do this as expeditiously as possible in everyone's best interest. She could not say how long it was going to take to respond to these offers, but they are trying to make a decision this month in order to honor the City's time schedule, as well as their own. Ms. Schnabel asked if the prospective developers were making offers on individual parcels or on the whole package. Ms. Horneland stated they are making offers on all three properties. They want to do the whole package. Any development will be contingent upon City approval. Ms. Horneland stated the sellers are very concerned that the property get developed. They are being very careful, and credability and ability to perform are key things they are considering. Mr. Newman stated the City has also received other responses to the RFQ. The discussion staff has had with Coldwell Banker is that Coldwell Banker will have until the end of November to select a developer for the property. If they have not done that by November 30, then staff will notify the other people who have responded to the RFQ on December 1 and have them in attendance at the next HRA meeting on December 8. Mr. Newman stated after the September meeting, Mr. Levy contacted staff to tell staff he and the other sellers had signed a listing agreement with Coldwell Banker, that they would like the opportunity to try to develop the property, and to ask the City to hold off for a little while. Mr. Levy also named a few very prospective developers. Staff felt comfortable with these developers. Staff then contacted Larry Commers, the HRA Chairperson, and reviewed this situation with him, and explained to him that under Mr. Levy's proposal, the HRA would not be acting on the responses to the RFQ until Coldwell Banker had the opportunity to complete their process. He stated this was taking a little longer than staff had anticipated, so it has been delayed now until the HRA's December meeting. ROUSING % RNDEVELOPMENT ARMORITY MEETING. NOV. 10. 1988 -PAGE 3 Mr. Newman stated Coldwell Banker has asked staff what the City's position would be on the Liquor Store. If Coldwell Banker finds a developer, they are certainly going to receive a commission from the other property owners, and they are asking the HRA's position on this situation. He stated this was something staff reviewed with Mr. Commers* because it is an issue the HRA has not specifically reviewed in the past. He stated he wanted the HRA to be aware that this point has been raised. Mr. Newman stated that after the discussion with Mr. Levy, staff thought they should give Mr. Levy and the other sellers an opportunity to try developing the property on their own. Mr. Levy wanted to know that if they find a developer, would the HRA enter into a development agreement with the developer? Mr. Newman stated he told Mr. Levy he thought the HRA would be comfortable with the property owners entering into a 60 day option; and within that 60 day period, the developer would be required to enter into a conceptual agreement with the HRA. If they reached that conceptual agreement within 60 days, then the option would be extended for another 60 -90 days. Mr. Levy felt comfortable with that. The HRA members agreed with staff's recommendation to give Coldwell Banker until November 30 to find a developer for the southwest corner of University and Mississippi Street. Discussion was continued until the next meeting. 2. INTRODUCTION OF WILLIAM BURNS, CITY MANAGER: Mr. Robertson formally introduced Mr. Burns to the HRA members. Mr. Commers stated he felt the HRA has had a pretty good working relationship with the City Council over the years, and he hoped that good relationship would continue. Mr. Robertson stated that under the HRA Charter, Mr. Burns is the Director of the HRA, and he, Mr. Robertson, is the Executive Director. The HRA might want to think about what role they want Mr. Burns to play as Director. This could be discussed at a future meeting. Mr. Rasmussen stated he has an ongoing anxiety about the independence of the HRA and having to wear two hats, with the City on one side and the HRA on the other. He stated it was his opinion that it would be nice if the HRA's Director was independent of the City. 3. CONSIDERATION OF WINFIELD PROPOSAL ON 57TH PLACE: Mr. Commers stated the HRA members had received a copy of a letter to Mr. Thomas Dolphin, President of Crosstown Bank, from Winfield HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988 -PAGE 4 Developments, Inc., regarding the proposed lease to Crosstown Bank for banking and office facilities at 57th Ave. and University Ave. N.E. Mr. Commers stated the HRA had originally given Winfield Developments, Inc., a 90 day period in which to put the project together. He asked Mr. Fogerty where he was with respect to the lease with Crosstown Bank. Mr. Fogerty stated they just arrived at the numbers last week. He had wished they could have had the lease signed by now. He was requesting a three week extension in order to get the lease done and to get the appraisal done on Rapid Oil. Mr. Newman stated that at the last meeting, they had talked about a lot of concepts that neither party had agreed upon, and the next step was to get a firm price on Rapid Oil so they could work the numbers. Mr. Robertson stated he has talked to Mr. Bubany of Winfield who said the appraisal is done on Rapid oil, and it is on its way. Marshall Stevens is the appraiser. Mr. Robertson stated it is staff's recommendation that the HRA grant an extension to Winfield Developments, Inc., to November 30 for a bare bones agreement. Mr. Joe Commers stated that as a competing developer for this project, he would like to bring up a couple of things in the interest of this project. At the August 11 HRA meeting, Mr. Casserly had suggested that "the desirable course would be for the HRA to pick a developer to proceed with trying to put together a viable proposal that would essentially pay for itself with more specific commitments, give the developer a deadline, and if the developer cannot meet that deadline, then they would go with another developer ". Also at that same meeting, Mr. Fogerty had stated: "They have a very high quality attractive development for this site, and he did think they would be able to put the project together within three months. Within 45 days, they would be willing to post a $50,000 letter of credit or whatever the HRA deemed necessary." Mr. Joe Commers stated that in July Mr. Fogerty had said their anchor tenant is a bank and they have a firm commitment for the bank. He had also stated they were also willing to put up a letter of credit to start the project. Mr. Joe Commers stated as a very interested and enthused developer for this project, he wanted to bring up these points. It seemed to him that 90 days ago, the HRA was very vehement about a 90 day agreement to give this particular developer the time to put ROUSING is REDEVELOPMENT AUTRORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988--PAGE S together a viable proposal. Quite frankly, in reviewing this from the sidelines, he stated Security Development would like to ask the HRA to give them a period of time in which to put together a viable proposal as the competing developer. Mr. Joe Commers stated it was his understanding the competition was supposed to have a'signed lease and soil tests done by this time, yet they have not seen anything of substance from this developer. He thought the HRA and the City staff should be reminded that maybe they should think about the whole situation and perhaps give the Security Development team a chance to do their thing. They feel very confident that they could expedite the project in March and finish the project in October. Mr. Newman stated Mr. Joe Conners made some very valid points. As the HRA remembered, Mr. Fogerty originally asked for a shorter time period, and staff recommended 90 days. Staff has been somewhat frustrated that the leasing arrangements have not been progressing in the timeframe that was discussed. At the last HRA meeting, staff and the HRA were under the impression from Mr. Fogerty that the lease agreements would be completed within a week or so; however, it does appear that Winfield is progressing in obtaining the lease. Based on the proposal originally made to the HRA, it was his understanding that a bank as a major tenant was much more preferable to the HRA. In light of the fact that Winfield has indicated they can provide that major tenant and have agreed to have a conceptual agreement within the next 20 days, staff feels comfortable with an extension to November 30. However, staff feels that unless substantial progress is made within the next 20 days, staff will not recommend any more extensions. OTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, to grant an extension of exclusive development rights to Winfield Developments, Inc., until November 30, 1988, for the 57th Place Development. UPON A VOICE VOTE, SCHANBEL, RASMUSSEN, AND MEYER VOTING AYE, COMMERS ABSTAINING, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Commers stated that even though he abstained from voting, he would support the extension until November 30. He would caution Mr. Fogerty, however, that he should follow through quickly as the HRA will not continue to grant extensions. 4. CONSIDERATION OF PARKING LOT LEASE TO COLUMBIA PARR PROPERTIES: Mr. Robertson stated in their original lease, Columbia Park Properties had an option for the 26,000 square feet of parking area that expired in January 1986. Subsequently, the HRA extended the option for two years through May 31, 1988. The City is presently using that parking area for temporary parking while the Fridley HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988 -PAGE 6 ramp is being built. Columbia Park Properties informed the City that they will not be able to make a commitment for several years to proceed with their second phase building expansion which would require the additional parking. Mr. Robertson stated staff is recommending the HRA lease that site for temporary parking on a year -by -year basis at the same rate they are leasing it for now, to be available as soon as the need for temporary parking is over and the ramp is completed. In this way, the HRA will be able to review with Columbia Park Properties, the leaseholder, their plans on an annual basis. This is agreeable with Columbia Park Properties, and staff had included the text of the lease in the HRA agenda. Staff would recommend the HRA approve the lease. There is also a release and quit -claim deed that would be to complete the termination of any interest Columbia Park Properties might have under the terms of the earlier option. Mr. Robertson stated Columbia Park Properties has reviewed the language of the lease and the quit -claim deed, and they are in agreement with it. Ms. Schnabel asked if there was any possibility of the City doing some landscaping along the service drive by this parking lot. She stated it is such a bare, open space. It bothered her that the City demands that other people beautify their property and landscape to the hilt, but yet here is some property the City has that doesn't look very good. She thought the City has an obligation to at least beautify this area a little. With the completion of the parking ramp and the remodeling of City Hall, this might be an appropriate time to add some landscaping aspects. Mr. Robertson stated the City put down a thin layer of blacktop on this lot because it is their intention to break it up again in the spring when the temporary parking is no longer needed. So, they will have not only the boulevard area, but approximately 60 feet of space that will be replaced with black dirt. If it is the HRA's desire, staff could prepare some kind of minimum landscaping plan that would be in that 60 foot area until Columbia Park Properties picks up an option on the lot. Ms.'Schnabel stated she would like staff to prepare a landscaping plan for this lot for the HRA's consideration. MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the parking lot lease with Columbia Park Properties as set forth on pages 2 -B through 2 -D of the November 10, 1988, HRA agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. CONSIDERATION OF SETTING UP PROJECT MAINTENANCE TRUST FUNDS: XQUOING 6 RSD$VSL0PXMXT AMMORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988 -PAGE 7 Mr. Robertson stated staff's recommendation is that staff be directed to prepare a policy alternative paper. They are fairly confident that legally the HRA cannot create a trust fund in the technical sense of the word that cannot be modified by future action of the HRA. They can call it a reserve fund or something like that. The poiht of the staff's recommendation is to do a more thorough analysis of what the legalities are, what the policy options are, and what the financial options are. This then can be discussed in a joint conference meeting with the HRA and the City Council. Mr. Burns, the City Manager, is instituting more frequent City Council conference meetings, so this could conceivably be done in January. Mr. Commers asked, regarding the first estimate that was made in March by John Flora (March 4, 1988, memo from John Flora, re: Project Maintenance Costs), was that just a guess of what the maintenance the maintenance costs will be on current projects? Mr. Pribyl stated he believed that was a "ball park" figure. The figure, $176,000, was a very high estimate, and he did not know how Mr. Flora arrived at that figure. Ms. Schnabel stated that regarding Mr. Flora's memo and the attachment to his memo (agenda page 3 -B) entitled "HRA Costs Maintenance ", she would like to see the prices broken down. For example: Lights $10.00 x 100 x 12 = $12,000. What does that mean? Are they talkinf,7 shout original lights, costs for replacing lilghts, costs for °. bulbs, electrical costs, etc.? These are questions ...v like answered. She would like to know specifically what the HRA is being charged for. Mr. Pribyl stated that when they know the basis for these estimates, they will make that information available to the HRA. 6. CONSIDERATION OF PLAZA RAMP SECURITY SYSTEM: Mr. Robertson stated that at the September meeting, the HRA authorized him to expend money for the design for the installation of the electrical conduit for the lights and surveillance system the consultant had recommended in order to preserve all options for future decisions on safety. He stated that has been done. The cost of the drawings and design was about $1,100. The actual cost of the work was about $9,370. The costs were outlined on page 4- C of the agenda: Additional interior fixtures $2,080 Additional conduit and rough -in work 5,790 Extra light pole basis 1,500 TOTAL $9,370 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988 -PAGE 8 Mr. Robertson stated that since the last meeting, the passive safety system with the additional lighting has been committed, and all the options for an active system of electrical surveillance have been retained. They also have the architects working on screening the ventilation opening on the north side with chain link fencing. The costs of those are included on agenda page 4 -C also. Mr. Robertson stated that at the September meeting, the HRA raised the question of whether the Police Department would be in a position to hire full time or part time staff to monitor the surveillance system. He stated Mr. Turnbull was at the meeting to respond to that question. Mr. Turnbull stated the HRA had asked him to give them an estimate of the cost of hiring a person to monitor the full surveillance system, specifically if, in fact, it would take a full time person to do that or what the level of commitment from the Police Department would be. He stated he has discussed this with Jim Hill, Public Safety Director, who has determined that in the current 1989 approved budget, there is at this time no funding for the purpose of hiring someone to monitor the surveillance equipment. They are probably talking about someone who would be on a half time basis. If they take the lowest payscale level in the Police Department, which is the Community Service Officer (CSO), that is about $6,000 on an annual basis. That would probably provide around 20 -24 hours per week of monitoring time. Generally, there are meetings at City Hall on Monday through Thursday nights, and they would provide surviellance until those meetings are over, averaging about 6 hours a day. Mr. Turnbull stated that, again, he wanted to emphasize that the people who are in the front office area of the Police Department have many responsibilities so what they are talking about are some additional hours on the part of the CSO to be in the office area to assist in monitoring the screen that would provide surveillance for the cameras. Since there is no money in the 1989 budget for these additional hours, it would be a task that would need to be assigned above and beyond what is currently budgeted. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Turnbull if the Police Department would be interested in hiring someone for this purpose beyond the 1989 budget. Mr. Turnbull stated that if there is a job that has to be done, then some arrangement has to be made to do that job. Mr. Meyer stated he would first like to see what this ramp looks like with the passive security before making any decision on the monitoring surveillance equipmemt. Mr. Turnbull stated that, as he stated at a previous meeting, there HOUSING A REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988 -PAGE-! is no sense in having cameras if no one is monitoring the cameras. It is his opinion that they should not say they have a certain level of security if they are not going to follow through with the whole system. Mr. Meyer stated he thought it was a good idea to give everyone, especially women, the feeling of comfort and security, at least by having the walls brightly painted, more lighting, etc. Then later, if they feel it is necessary, they can consider putting in the hardware and the monitors. He stated he felt the $40,040 takes care of the ramp "security measure" items that should be done immediately as part of this construction. The rest can be set aside for now. Mr. Rasmussen asked if the Police Department had given an opinion on what the level of security should be for the ramp. Mr. Turnbull stated he believed it was Mr. Hill's recommendation at the August meeting that the City does not need a security system - -that the increased lighting and increased visibility would probably provide an adequate amount of security. However, it was not up to him or the Police Department to tell the HRA what level of security they should have on their property. They should take into consideration the fact that this property is directly next to City Hall where there will be squad cars coming and going 24 hours a day. It is not the Police Department's job to provide security specifically in the ramp, however, but their presence will be a deterrent. There is also other issues with regard to security, vandalism, or damage to HRA property. Ms. Schnabel stated it is the kind of situation where they will never know if the security system is adequate until there is an incident, and then they will know. She agreed they should have the painting and additional lighting, etc., done now. Then after the ramp is finished, they can view the ramp in the daylight and evening hours, and make a decision on whether or not to go with the cameras. Perhaps also at that time, they might want to poll some of the people who will be using the ramp in the evening and daylight hours. NOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to authorize the security system budget for the parking ramp be increased by $40,040 for the additional passive security considerations. Mr. Meyer stated it seemed to him that for things like these parking ramp security system items, they should receive a statement from the architect stating they have reviewed these proposals and costs, that the costs are proper and necessary and should be properly executed. He stated the HRA has had earlier discussions that the ramp and the remodeling are a joint venture between the architect and construction manager. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988 -PAGE 10 Mr. Robertson stated the architect has, in fact, approved these prices and the consulting services of Electronic Interiors. The current document exists as part of a larger document for a number of change orders also signed off by the architect. He had neglected to put it in the HRA information packet. He would furnish that information to the HRA at their next meeting. 7. INFORMATION ON PASCHKE UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL PARK: Mr. Newman stated the HRA received a copy of a letter he sent to John Gries on Sept. 26, and he has not received any response to that letter. 8. INFORMATION ON DEFENSE FROM CLARK ENGINEERING: Mr. Newman stated the HRA has copies of the correspondence on this item, he has not received any response other than the service of a summons and complaint. 9. INFORMATION ON "THE COTTAGES" PROPOSAL: Mr. Robertson stated the City has asked the applicant of both St. Williams (Norwood Square) and "The Cottages" (also going through a change in name and ownership) to hold their applications for Council final approval on the zoning and special use permits until staff has prepared an analysis and policy paper for Council consideration of what should be the senior housing policy in Fridley. He had included a copy of that policy paper in the HRA packet. Mr. Robertson stated the Council met and discussed this policy paper on Oct. 31 and essentially what the Council decided was that since senior housing is being built at market rate and there seems to be a market for it, at this time the City Council is advising the HRA that they do not believe financial assistance is required. Further, the City Council directed staff to prepare an outline of an additional study to better determine the needs of Fridley elderly citizens. The reasons for this are the data they have to date done by the Maxfield Study. That study envisions the market area stretching from Brooklyn Park on the west to Arden Hills on the east, and they really do not have good data on what the market is for either market rate elderly housing or market rate assisted elderly housing for Fridley. Mr. Robertson stated they subsequently met with the City Manager and have an outline of the types of research questions that have to be answered. They are preparing some cost estimates of what it would take to either have a consultant do the research or have a non - profit group at the University of Minnesota do the work. He anticipated some answers by the end of the winter. NOQBING i RSDSVBLOPMSNT AOTSORITY MEETING. N", 10. 1988 -PAGE it 10. INFORMATION ON STINSRI OFFICE PROPOSAL: Mr. Robertson stated City Council did grant the rezoning and variance on September 12. Staff asked for some financial assistance information and a proforma from Ms. Stinski, which only arrived last Thursday; therefore, staff has not had a chance to review this thoroughly. Staff did have a meeting last Thursday with Ms. Stinski and her financial consultant, Pat Fisher. The HRA should note that on agenda pages 9 -A through 9 -D, the initial proposal was for the City to authorize a bond sale of housing revenue bonds in the amount of $31,550 for 20 years which would be a total of $631,000. Of course, the HRA has never undertaken this kind of assistance before. The proposed rental rate of $15.25/sq. ft. is near the top of the market rate for the northern suburbs and the proforma assumes a vacancy rate of 16 %. If there was a vacancy ratio of 5% which is the industry norm, that would nearly cover the missing $30,000 a year. Of course, at this time it is unrealistic to assume that they could build and immediately rent up to 95% occupancy. However, he thought it was equally unrealistic to assume they would run a vacancy ratio of 16% over an entire 20 year period. Mr. Robertson stated he took the initiative of asking Ms. Stinksi and Mr. Fisher to prepare some alternative financial assistance proposals. They both thought they could have something prepared for the HRA meeting, and this was merely a progress report from them. Mr. Pat Fisher stated that after meeting with Mr. Robertson, they prepared three different financial assistance proposals. The first alternative was doing something with the interest rate reduction program where, instead of issuing bonds which puts the City at risk, the project would pay taxes into the City and the City would rebate a certain amount of taxes back to the project. With this alternative, the City has no liability to issue tax bonds. He stated that of the three proposals they have prepared, they feel the interest rate reduction program is the best alternative. Mr. Fisher stated this project will not work without city assistance. Mr. Commers asked when Ms. Stinski comtemplated starting the project. Ms. Stinski stated that, based on the HRA's recommendation, and the HitA's assistance, she would like to start around the first of the year. She stated she has a signed lease for approximately one- third of the building already. Mr. Robertson stated staff really needs some policy direction from HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV. 10, 1988 -PAGE 12 the HRA. Up until now, the HRA has never participated in this kind of financial assistance. When staff met with the City Council to discuss the elderly housing project, staff pointed out that the general formula the HRA has used in previous projects was either a second mortgage up to 10% of the total project value or a grant for land assembly or soil correction ranging from 2% - 5% of the total prject value: The City Council asked staff when this policy had been adopted, and he was not able to answer that question; therefore, he needed some reaction from the HRA on how staff should proceed. Should they run this by the City Council because this would be a new policy? Is the HRA comfortable with this procedure and the precedent it will set for future projects? Mr. Commers stated he could not see any problem with exploring this if the tool is available, but the HRA does not know how it works in terms of the total amount of financing, what the liability might be, etc. They need some feedback from staff on how the interest rate reduction program works. The HRA members were in agreement that this type of financing should be explored. Mr. Robertson stated he would meet with Mr. Fisher and Ms. Stinski as soon as possible to look at these alternatives and would bring more information back to the December HRA meeting. 11. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. HRA 4 -1988 DESIGNATING OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR THE FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve Resolution No. HRA 4 -1988 Designating Official Depositories for the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. CLAIMS (1808 - 1835) : MOTION by Mr. Meyers, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the check register as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Pribyl stated he and Mr. Rasmusssen had met and discussed an investment policy for the HRA. They would be bringing information for discussion to the December HRA meeting. Mr. Newman stated that discussions with the Lake Pointe people have ROUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOV. 10. 1988--PAGE 13 been on hold for a period of time, partly due to the change in city administration. He stated that, subject to any direction contrary to it, staff will begin informal discussions with the Lake Pointe people in the near future. ADJOURNMENT: OTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers declared the November 10, 1988, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully subiAitted, ,r L e Saba Recording Secretary MOTION OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN DUANE PRAIRIE VIRGMIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director to the HRA DATE: December 1, 1988 REGARDING: Consideration of Redevelopment Proposal for Southwest Corner of University Avenue & Mississippi Street Staff has had several phone conferences with Mr. Levy and Ms. Horneland indicating that they are making substantial progress on a development proposal for this site. A developer has been selected and, as we go to press, arrangements are being worked out with the other major private land holder on this site. The proposal will be for a major retail center which would be complimentary to the Holly Center on the north. The project, as envisioned at this time, does not include any housing phase. The developer is a major Canadian firm with one project in Minnesota, Loehmann's Plaza, North of Rosedale. We understand that all the economic terms of the purchase agreement have been worked out, with the exception of the earnest money conditions. The two major private landowners hope to have these resolved by the HRA meeting on Dec. 8, 1988. At this time, it appears that the developer will probably not be able to reach terms with the owners of the Dairy Queen. If purchase agreements are signed by December 8th with the major landholders, the next three weeks in December must be devoted to completing negotiation of the terms of a conceptual agreement for the January HRA meeting. We would anticipate the following schedule: 1. December 12 - Meet with developer for a review of the development concept and estimate of costs. 2. December 22 - Jim Casserly to complete financial analysis for review by staff and develper. 3. December 28 - Review financial analysis with developer and work out an outline of the development agreement. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (6 12) 571 -3450 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117 lA Southwest Corner December 10� 1988 Page two 4. January 30, 1989 - Meet with developer to finalize terms of development or the concepts of the development agreement. 5. January 4, 1989 - Draft a summary of the proposed development agreement for HRA. 6. February 1989 HRA meeting -Final action of completed HRA document by HRA Mr. Levy and Ms. Horneland will be at the HRA meeting on Dec. 8 to provide the HRA with a status report. JR:ls M -88 -357 'IRKER SOUTHWEST QUADRANT STATISTICS 1B L VA N � PIN A 14-30 -24-32 -0001 B 14- 30 -24 -32 -0046 C 14- 30- 24-32 -0047 D 14-30--24-32-0048 E i4-3o-24-32-0049 F 14- 30 -24 -32 -0050 Improvements Sq. Ft. Dollars 1,588 $ 44.100 14,000 $276,500 2,470 $150,500 2,079 $ 17,900 614-30 -24- 32-0051 Daisy Queen 11,125 $ 46400 0 4.00 738 $ 20,400 H 14-30 -24 -32 -0056 Liquor Store 83,963 $209,900 @ 2.50 11,904 $318,600 1.14-30--24-32-0058 Rice Plaza 202,050 $351,400 @ L74 106890 $2108600 IM 9.825 ac. 427,987 $959,500 @2.24 (12/87- 43,669 $1438,600 .r 1J :s .r dIL Land Business Sq. Pt. Est. Mkt. Value hwco Station 15425 $ 70,300 @ 4.50 Jai M. Suh . 11,390 $ 31,300 @ 2.75 Shopping Center 18,753 6 51,600 @ 2.75 Burger Ring 61,891 $170,200 @ 2.75 Car Namb i5,190 $ 26,100 @ L72 R. Q W. 7,500 $ 2s200 @ .29 Improvements Sq. Ft. Dollars 1,588 $ 44.100 14,000 $276,500 2,470 $150,500 2,079 $ 17,900 614-30 -24- 32-0051 Daisy Queen 11,125 $ 46400 0 4.00 738 $ 20,400 H 14-30 -24 -32 -0056 Liquor Store 83,963 $209,900 @ 2.50 11,904 $318,600 1.14-30--24-32-0058 Rice Plaza 202,050 $351,400 @ L74 106890 $2108600 IM 9.825 ac. 427,987 $959,500 @2.24 (12/87- 43,669 $1438,600 .r 1J :s .r dIL IOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2 COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN DUANE PRAF E VIR GNIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER CITY OF FRIDLEY To: HRA From: Jock Robertson, Executive Director David P. Newman, Attorney Re: 57th Place Date: December 1, 1988 On November 23, 1988 a meeting was held between ourselves, Jim Casserly, Bill Fogerty and Ed Bubany. While Winfield Development did not yet have a written report from their Appraiser for the Rapid Oil site, they did indicate that they had verbally talked to the Appraiser and that it was his estimate that the value of the Rapid Oil site building and the adjacent home was approximately $200,000. Based on this most recent information it is our best estimate that the acquisition costs for this site are as follows: Land & Building Fixtures Relocation Total Rapid Oil 141,000 15,000 156,000 Adajcent Home 59,500 59,500 J & R 115,000 15,000 20,000 150,000 Duplex 94,000 24,500 118,500 Vacant Lots 50,000 50,000 459,500 15,000 59,500 534,000 Based on the analysis prepared by Jim Casserly, the parties have agreed upon the following concept for financing this proposed development: 1. Upon the formal execution of a Development Agreement, Winfield will post a $20,000 Letter of Credit, or cash equivalent, less the $2,500.00 already paid. 2. It is assumed that the subject parcels will need to be acquired through condemnation. Prior to the HRA commencing the condemnation action, the Developer will post a Letter of Credit or cash equivalent in the amount of $125,000, less any amounts previously deposited EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (612) 571 -3450 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117 2 -A 3. After the condemnation action has been commenced, the HRA will use its statutory authority to enter upon the property for the purpose of conducting soil tests and environmental assessments. If the results of these tests are favorable then the HRA will proceed with the condemnation and issue the Quick Take Notices. However, the Developer will be required to post a Letter of Credit or cash equivalent, with the HRA before they commence the quick take process. The amount of the Letter of Credit will be the purchase price which the Developer is paying for the subject property, less any amounts previously paid and less any amount of the purchase price which is being deferred. 4. At the time of execution of the Development Agreement, the Developer will also execute an Assessment Agreement. In essence, this Assessment Agreement will require the Developer to pay taxes at the rate of $2.75 per square foot on the building. This Assessment Agreement will continue until the Tax Increment Bonds have been retired. Because of changes in the tax law, the estimated market value of the property may be adjusted. This is agreeable to the Developer as long as the effective tax rate on the building is $2.75 per square foot. 5. The Developer will guarantee the payment of taxes for the Development for a period of 3 1/2 years following completion of construction of the Development. During this period the Developer will be allowed to convey or sell the property, providing that the successor in interest meets the creditworthiness standards of the HRA. 6. It is assumed that the building will be completed by the end of 1989. If there are any delays in this construction schedule, which delays are beyond the control of the Developer, then this period will be extended. However, to the extent that the completion of construction is delayed, then the tax guarantee provided for in the preceding paragraph will also be extended by a like period of time. 7. If the building is not completed, subject to unavoidable delays, by December 31, 1989, then title to the property will revert to the HRA. The assistance which is being proposed is that of land write down. In addition to the land costs reviewed above, it is anticipated that the HRA will have the following costs: W Land $459,500 Fixtures $ 15,000 Relocation $ 59,500 Infra Structure $154,000 Miscellaneous Costs $ 18,000 Contingency $ 36,450 Demolition $ 23,000 TOTAL $765,450 At the time of closing the Developer will pay $450,000 for the site. Of this sum up to $100,000 will be deferred in the form of a second mortgage. Interest on this second mortgage will be at prime, with interest payable semi - annually and the entire unpaid principal balance plus accrued interest due at the end of three (3) years. There are two items which we would like to make the HRA aware of. First of all is that there are certain environmental concerns. Due to past activities which have occurred on the site, we want to insure that the HRA does not come into the chain of the title and thereby acquire environmental liability. Consequently, our approach is for the HRA to commence the condemnation action which allows it to go on the site and do the necessary environmental testing. If the test results are favorable then we will proceed with the condemnation. On the other hand, the quick take process will not be completed until favorable results are received. Consequently, if the test results are unfavorable, then the condemnation action will be dismissed. While we cannot guarantee that after construction actually begins there won't be certain environmental hazards discovered which were not disclosed in the environmental assessment, this appears to be a risk which can never be fully protected against. Under our proposal the HRA at least will be able to maintain the defense of an innocent purchaser which made reasonable inquiry. The second risk is also associated with this environmental issue. In trying to anticipate problems, there is the remote potential risk that if the HRA commences condemnation, conducts environmental testing, and then concludes that the site is environmentally unsound and dismisses the condemnation, that the property owner will then commence an action against the HRA for inverse condemnation. The landowners theory will be that through all the development activity which we have engaged in and by commencing the condemnation action, that we have effectively deprived the property owner of the use of this property. While we do not believe that such an action would prevail, we have added the additional safeguard of requiring the Developer to post a Letter of Credit,of $125,000 before commencing condemnation. It is our belief that the site upon which the environmental risk is greatest, is Rapid Oil which we anticipate will cost approxi- mately $200,000 to acquire. By requiring the Developer to post a 2 -c $125,000 Letter of Credit we believe that this will provide the HRA with $25,000 for legal fees and costs associated with condemnation plus $100,000 to reimburse it for any damages which the property owner may be awarded against the HRA. Considering the present status of the law and the risks associated with it, we believe this is a reasonable approach. There is a remaining unsolved issue. Although Crosstown Bank has apparently verbally agreed to a lease commitment, it was not executed by November 30th as directed by the HRA in November. Although we did not recieve direct authority from the HRA to extend this deadline, it seemed reasonable under the circumstances to extend it until 5:00 P.M. on December 7, 1988. If a commitment is not received by then we will invite the other Developer to attend the December 8, 1988 HRA meeting. (See attached letter from Newman to Bubany.) We trust that this has adequately summarized the conceptual agreement reached between the HRA staff and the Developer. If the HRA supports this proposal, the next step will be to prepare a development contract for presentation to the HRA at the January meeting. H ERRICK & NIEIVKAINI I[ A. 2 -D ATTORNEYS AT LAW Virgil C. Herrick David P. Newman November 30, 19 8 8 ;limes D. Hoeft Gregg V. Herrick Edward C. Bubany Executive Vice President Winfield Developments, Inc. 3300 Edinborough Way Edina, MN 55435 RE: 57th Place Dear Ed: Unforunately, I missed the very beginning of our meeting last Wednesday. After reviewing my notes it appears that there is a remaining unresolved issue which needs to be immediately addressed. At the last HRA meeting, Mr. Fogerty was advised that it would be` necessary to have the lease commitment with the Crosstown Bank executed and in hand by November 30, 1988. It is my understanding that Crosstown has not executed this commitment and in fact intends to first review the lease. While I can understand why the Bank wishes to take this cautious approach, it does create considerable problems for the HRA. Initially Mr. Fogerty indicated that the Developer would be in a position to enter into a development contract within sixty (60) days. At the suggestion of the staff the sixty (60) day period was extended to ninety (90) days, which ninety (90) day period expired at the November meeting. At the November meeting your competing Developer raised some very valid issues and reminded the HRA that Winfield was not complying with the time schedule which it originally agreed to. At that time it was emphasized to Mr. Fogerty that in fact a signed lease commitment would need to be obtained by November 30 or the HRA would entertain and further consider proposals from other Developers. Frankly, I do not believe that either Jock or myself have the authority to extend this timeline. I am also very reluctant to go to the HRA and ask them to provide conceptual approval of a development concept or to direct the staff to prepare a develop- ment contract until we know that in fact the Bank has committed to this site. The Bank is a critical element to this proposal and I do not believe that the HRA wishes to have us expend any addition time until we know that this tenant has made a formal. commitment. In light of this confusion I am taking the liberty of extending this deadline in which to provide an executed lease commitment, until 5:00 P.M. on December 7, 1988. If a formal Suite 205, 6401 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432, 612 - 571 -3850 2 -E Edward C. Bubany November 30, 1988 Page Two lease commitment is not received by that time, then Mr. Robertson will inform the other Developer of this fact an3 will invite him to attend the December 8, 1988 meeting of the HRA. I realize that this is a twist from our meeting last week and I apologize if we have led you astray. However, Mr. Fogerty has always been aware of this requirement and I do not believe that we are imposing any new conditions which were not previously agreed to. Due to the fact that the Bank is a critical factor in the mind of the HRA, I believe that we would be ill advised to proceed any further until we know that there is a final commitment with the Crosstown Bank. If either I or Mr. Robertson can provide you with any additional information please do not hesitate to contact either one of us. S'ncerely yours, I� m vi d - DPN:jeb cc: James Casserly 58 ttL AVE.N.E. op- 04 e-.- 91 C- T -TI Tts -"-'A -r,*- d' Uj lo 6 14 57 ft AVE.N.E. TE PLAN ALE I': 30w SITE INFORMATION SITE AREA, 114,180 So. FT. - 2.62 ,AC. BLnLDWG 1 STORY io-goo SO. FT' 2 STORY 8,400 SO. FTI 19,300 SO. FT. - 16.9% W V. PARKNG 6/1000 So. Fr. PROVIDED = 124 STALLS; -2- (DRIVE-UP TELLER AREA) a 2-F v. Z LU I.- Z O La > —i LU ul U- cr OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 3 COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN DUANE PRARE VMGMUI SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director to the HRA DATE: December 2, 1988 REGARDING: Stinski Hillwind Road Office Proposal On November 17, 1988, Dave Newman, Jim Casserly, and I met to review the three different financial assistance proposals introduced at the November 10, 1988, HRA meeting. Mr. Casserly's legal research indicated that the proposed interest rate reduction alternative was not applicable to an office project. Further policy direction from the City Council indicated that the Council would prefer that the HRA not establish new precedents on financial assistance packages until a more thorough joint City Council /HRA policy review is completed. We are currently reviewing the feasibility of the traditional HRA second mortgage for 10% of the total project value with the applicant. We will have a progress report at the December 8, 1988, HRA meeting. JR:ls M -88 -362 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. ($12) 571 -3450 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117 OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 11 COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN DUANE PRARE VIRGINIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: Housing & Redevelcpiment Authority FROM: Lynne Saba, Secretary DATE: November 30, 1988 REGARDING: 1989 City Cm- mission Rtes Please review the attached 1989 meeting dates for the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (the second Thursday of the month). Feel free to suggest any alternatives, but it is important that you adopt a calendar for 1989. Thanks for your help. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (6 12) 571 -3450 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117 TENTATIVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETINGS FOR 1989 (Thursday) January 12, 1989 February 9, 1989 March 9, 1989 April 13, 1989 May 11, 1989 June 8, 1989 July 13, 1989 August 10, 1989 September 14, 1989 October 12, 1989 November 9, 1989 December 14, 1989 JANUARY SM TW 'f F S 1 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 U,, 73 14 15 ]7 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 Tl 28 SN,jTWTFS 0234,/56 7 9101. 13 14 616 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28X30 31 SEPTEMBER SMTWTFS 1 2 3 5 6 V8 9 10 12 13 '4;15 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 2812930 FEBRUARY SMTWT FS 1 3 4 5 7 6 9F 10 11 72 1114 75 16 17 78 19 2122232425 2 28 JUNE SMTWTFS 3 4 6 7 K, 1%10 11 1314151617 18 9 021222324 25 27 28 29 30 OCTOBER S TWTFS 1�3 4 S/6 7 8 10 11 in 14 75 18192021 22¢24 25 26 27 28 29�3Q,ji1 MARCH SMTWTFS 1 8 11 12 14 75 16 17 1 22 23 24 25 26 71 28293031 JULY SM TW T FS 1 2�X 5 b%7 8 9 1112 1ii4 75 16 17 18 19 20 2122 2325 26 b 28 29 30M) NOVEMBER SMTWTFS 1 2V-3 4 5 . 7 8 �� ��6111 12 1415 ,6 17 18 19 2122 4 26 27 28 29 30 11-A APRIL SMTWTFS 1 2 ©4.57 8 9 12,-q 14 15 16 811 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 AUGUST S M T W T F S 1 2 4 5 6 8 91 ,1112 13 (615 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27QO 29 30 31 DECEMBER SM TW 'f F S 1 2 3 (1) 5 6 7V,8 9 10 1112 13,A j;15 16 17 019 20 2-122 23 24 )k26 27 28 29 30 1 1 IOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 5 COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN DUANE PRAIRIE VIRGNIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA DATE: December 2, 1988 REGARDING: HRA 1988 Progress Report I have been delaying commitment to subject matter for our 1988 annual report hoping that we could include some definite development agreements for 57th Place N.E. and the southwest corner of University Avenue N.E. and Mississippi Street N.E. Both these projects now look close enough that I will prepare a draft including these, as well as the Moore Lake Commons and Center City Plaza Ramp updates. A first draft will be available for your review and comment at the meeting on Thursday, December 8, 1988. JLR /dn M -88 -360 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (S 12) 571 -3450 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117 i FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY M E M O R A N D U M To: Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Members From: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director Regarding: Investment Policy Date: December 1, 1988 Attached you will find the draft of the investment policy that I am providing to you for comment. Mr. Rasmisson and some of his people from the Northeast State Bank and I have had a chance to discuss this policy and also a possible change. The draft policy attached is the same policy that Mr. Rasmisson has previously recieved. One change that Mr. Rasmisson felt strongly about, was providing for the possiblity for local investing. If this is something that the commission feels strongly about, changes can be made in the policy to AliNw for this. I have not altered this document since the original draft so that if additional changes need to be made based on the HRA meeting of December 8, 1988 they can be incorporated into a final document for the January meeting. It is my hope that the final draft of this document is approved at the January meeting. G -Q D R A F T CITY OF FRIDLEY STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY Effective cash management is recognized as essential to good fiscal management. This is particularly true as mounting costs and expanding programs have placed ever increasing pressures on local governmental revenues. The extent to which local governments can obtain investment returns on funds not immediately required can help to reduce this pressure. Investment policies must be well founded and uncompromisingly applied in their legal, vendor, and administrative aspects. It is the policy of the City of Fridley that available funds be invested to the maximum extent possible, at the highest rates obtainable at the time of investment, in conformance with the legal and administrative guidelines outlined herein. I. Legal Aspects Minnesota Statutes authorize and define an investment program for municipal governments. (Exhibit A) A. Investment Instruments Authorization The City of Fridley shall invest in the following instruments allowed by Minnesota Statutes: 1. United States Treasury obligations 2. Federal Agency issues 3. Repurchase Agreements (repo's) 4. Reverse Repurchase Agreements 5. Certificates of Deposit 6. State and Local Bonds 7. Commerical Paper - prime 8. Bankers Acceptances - prime 9. Money Market Funds whose portfolios consist of United States Treasury obligations and Federal Agency issues. 10. Futures Contracts B. Supplemental Depositories Annually the City Council will designate depositories for investment purposes. D R A F T CITY OF FRIDLEY STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY (CONTINUED) II. Vendor Aspects The vendor aspects of investment activity focus upon protection of taxpayer dollars and investment income, consistent with statutory authorization and financial prudence. 'The City of Fridley shall seek to conduct its investment transactions with several competing, reputable investment security dealers and qualifying banks. Special care should be exercised when considering new services. A. Perfectine Collateral in a Repurchase Aereement There is currently a great deal of confusion in the court system concerning the legal status of repurchase agreements. The courts have rendered conflicting opinions and have not decided if a repurchase agreement is a secured loan or an actual purchase and /or sale of securities. Because of this we feel that the collateral in each repurchase transaction must be perfected. (Perfection is a legal concept by which a lender attains the right to take delivery and ownership of the collateral involved in a loan in the event that a debtor defaults and files bankruptcy.) With collateral perfection there is less principal risk for the lender since the claim against the collateral is in place in relation to those of other parties. For repurchase agreements with maturities of 18 days or less, collateral is considered perfected without security delivery. For repurchase agreements with maturities extending past 18 days perfection occurs only by taking possession of the securities. Therefore, it will be the policy of the City of Fridley to insist on delivery of the securities if the repurchase agreement is for a period greater than 18 days. B. Selection of Vendors for Repurchase Agreements A legal interpretation of repurchase agreements as secured loans adds risk to a transaction even when collateral has been perfected. This is because resources can be held in stay pending the resolution of bankruptcy proceedings. In an attempt to minimize the risk of loss the Finance Director shall only purchase repurchase agreements from vendors that meet certain criteria. Those criteria are as follows: 1) The vendor must be a primary reporting dealer in United States government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; or any national or state bank in the United States which is a member of the Federal Reserve System and whose combined capital and surplus equals or exceeds $10,000,000. 6-c D R A F T CITY OF FRIDLEY STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY (CONTINUED) 2) The qualifying dealer or bank must have demonstrated over a significant period of time a successful, profitable, and reliable operation. 3) The qualifying dealer or bank must have an established managerial team and a knowledgeable, professional staff capable of ensuring the continued success of the enterprise. C. Certificates of Deposit The City of Fridley will follow Minnesota Statutes 118.01 and 118.005 (Exhibit B). D. Bankers Acceptances and Commercial Paper The use of these instruments does involve more risk than instruments of the Federal government or Federal agencies. This is particularly true of commercial paper which is an unsecured debt of the issuing corporation. Therefore, the City of Fridley will invest in these instruments only when the yield is greater than the yield on United States Treasury Obligations or Federal Agency Issues of similar term to maturity. The combined position of the City in bankers acceptances and commercial paper shall not exceed 30 percent of the portfolio at any given time. Also, the City will not have a position in either of these instruments in excess of 5 percent of the total portfolio for any single issuer. Additional requirements for the use of these instruments is as follows: 1) Bankers Acceptances a. Purchase is restricted to the issues of the domestic operations of the largest 40 banks in the United States (measured by deposit), First Bank Minneapolis, and Norwest Bank Minneapolis. Bankers acceptances in any of these banks will not be made if any news items cause the Finance Director concern over the financial condition of the institution. b. The broker, dealer, or banker will verify that the bankers acceptance is eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. 2) Commercial Paper a. Purchase is restricted to issues which mature in 270 days or less with a rating of A -1 (Moody's), P -1 (Standard & Poors), or F -1 (Fitch) among at least two of the three rating agencies. b. Purchase shall be through reporting dealers in commercial paper or qualifying banks. D RAF T 6-C CITY OF FRIDLEY STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY (CONTINUED) Everyone participating in the investment process shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of the public trust. Investment officials shall avoid any transaction that might impair public confidence in the City of Fridley's ability to govern effectively. By the same token, in the event of a loss in the portfolio due to'bankruptcy, fraud, or any other reason, it shall be the policy of the City of Fridley that all officials involved in the investment process including but not limited to the City Manager, the Finance Director, and the Assistant Finance Director shall be held harmless providing that they have acted in good faith and have followed prudent investment practices as outlined by State Statute and in this policy statement. A. Cash Management and Investment Procedures 1. Each morning cash balances are prepared based on cash received the previous day, checks paid the previous day, and sizeable checks or wire transfers that present an investment opportunity. 2. Each morning the investment records are reviewed and updated as investments mature or are purchased. 3. Each month the investment records are balanced to the general ledger. 4. Each month the Finance Director shall submit a report of the City's investments to the City Council. That report shall contain the following items: a. Total dollar amount of investments. b. Percentage breakdown of portfolio by instrument. c. Percentage breakdown of portfolio by institution. d. Average maturity of the portfolio. 5. Interest earned will be allocated to the various funds of the City at least yearly. B. Banking Depositories Investment procedures also include selecting qualifying institutions where City funds may be deposited. All City funds are centralized in one bank account: 1. Effective August 1, 1985 Minnesota Statute 118.005 was amended to read "The governing body may authorize the treasurer or chief financial officer to exercise the powers of the governing body in designating a depository of the funds." It shall be the policy of the City to authorize the Finance Director to exercise these powers. In the selection of depositories for City funds, if all criteria are considered to be equal then preference will be given to banks located within the City of Fridley. 6-F D R A F T CITY OF FRIDLEY STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY (CONTINUED) 2. Minnesota Statutes 118.005 and 118.01 require that all deposits be collateralized in the amount of 110% of deposits (140% if the collateral is mortgages) in excess of federal government insurance coverage. (Exhibit B) 6 -C EXHIBIT A (5) Obligations issued to fund pension and retirement fund liabilities under section 475.52, subdivision 6, obligations issued with tender options under section 475.54, subdivision 5a, crossover refunding obligations referred to in section 475.67; subdivision 13, and any issue of obligations comprised in whole or in part of obligations bearing interest at a rate or rates which vary periodically referred to in section 475.56. [For text of subds 3 to 7, see M.S.1984] History: 1Spl985 c 14 art 8 s 54 475.66 DEBT SERVICE FUND. Subdivision 1. All debt service funds shall be deposited and secured as provided in chapter 118, except for amounts invested as authorized in this section, and may be deposited in interest bearing accounts, and such deposits may be evidenced by certificates of deposit with fixed maturities. Sufficient cash for payment of principal, interest, and redemption premiums when due with respect to the obligations for which any debt service fund is created shall be provided by crediting to the fund the collections of tax, special assessment, or other revenues appropriated for that purpose, and depositing all such receipts in a depository bank or banks duly qualified according to law or investing and reinvesting such receipts in securities authorized in this section. Time deposits shall be withdrawable and certificates of deposit and investments shall mature and shall bear interest payable at times and in amounts which, in the judgment of the governing body or its treasurer or other officer or committee to which it has delegated investment decisions, will provide cash at the times and in the amounts required for the purposes of the debt service fund, provided however, that the governing body may authorize the purchase of longer term investments subject to an agreement to repurchase such investments at times and prices sufficient to yield the amounts estimated to be so required. Repurchase agreements may be entered into with a bank qualified as depository of money held in the debt service fund, or with any national or state bank in the United States which is a member of the federal reserve system and whose combined capital and surplus equals or exceeds $10,000,000, or a primary reporting dealer in United States government securities to the federal reserve bank of New York. [For text of subd 2, see M.S.1984] Subd. 3. Subject to the provisions of any resolutions or other instruments securing obligations payable from a debt service fund, any balance in the fund may be invested: (a) in governmental bonds, notes, bills, mortgages, and other securities, which are direct obligations or are guaranteed or insured issues of the United States, its agencies, its instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act of Congress, 6-H (b) in shares of an investment company (1) registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940, whose shares are registered under the Federal Securities Act of 1933, and (2) whose only investments are in securities described in the preceding clause and repurchase agreements fully collateralized by those securities, if the repuchase agreements are entered into only with those primary reporting dealers that report to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and with the 100 largest United States commercial banks, (c) in any security which is a general obligation of the state of Minnesota or any of its municipalities, (d) in bankers acceptances of United States banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System, or (e) in commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries that is of the highest quality and matures in 270 days or less. The fund may also be used to purchase any obligation, whether general or special, of an issue which is payable from the fund, at such price, which may include a premium, as shall be agreed to by the holder, or may be used to redeem any obligation of such an issue prior to maturity in accordance with its terms. The securities representing any such investment may be sold or hypothecated by the municipality at any time, but the money so received remains a part of the fund until used for the purpose for which the fund was created. [For text of subd 4, see M.S.1984] History: 1985 c 187 s 2; 1985 c 239 s 3,4 475.67 REFUNDING BONDS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS; VALIDITY; PROCEDURE. [For text of subds 1 to 7, see M.S.1984] Subd. 8. Securities purchased for the escrow account shall be limited to: (a) general obligations of the United States, securities whose principal and interest payments are guaranteed by the United States, and securities issued by the following agencies of the United States: Banks for Cooperatives, Federal Home Loan Banks, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks, Federal Land Banks, and the Federal National Mortgage Association; or (b) obligations issued or guaranteed by any state or any political subdivision of a state, which at the date of purchase are rated the highest or the next highest rating given by Standard and Poor's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service, or a similar nationally recognized rating agency, but not less than the rating on the refunded bonds immediately prior to the refunding. [For text of subds 9 to 12, see M.S.1984] Subd. 13. Crossover refunding obligations may be issued by a municipality without regard to the limitations in subdivisions 4 to 10. The proceeds of crossover refunding obligations, less any proceeds applied to payment of the costs of their issuance, shall be deposited in a debt service fund irrevocably appropriated to the payment of principal of and interest on the refunding obligations until the date the proceeds are applied to payment of the obligations to be refunded. The debt service fund shall be maintained 2 6-I as an escrow account with a suitable financial institution within or without the state and amounts in it shall be invested in securities described in subdivision 8. Excess proceeds, if any, of the tax levy pursuant to section 475.61, subdivision 1, made with respect to the obligations to be refunded, and any other available amounts, may be deposited in the escrow account. In the resolution authorizing the issuance of crossover refunding obligations, the governing body may pledge to their payment any source of payment of the obligations to be refunded. Subdivisions 11 and 12 shall not apply to any crossover refunding obligations, or the obligations to be refunded. Subject to section 475.61, subdivision 3, in the case of general obligation bonds, taxes shall be levied pursuant to section 475.61 and appropriated to the debt service fund in the amounts needed, together with estimated investment income of the debt service fund and any other revenues available upon discharge of the obligations refunded, to pay when due the principal of and interest on the refunding obligations. The levy so imposed may be reduced by earnings to be received from investments on hand in the debt service fund to the extent the applicable recording officer certifies to the county auditor that the earnings are expected to be received in amounts and at such times as to be sufficient, together with the remaining levy, to satisfy the purpose of the levy requirements under section 475.61. History: 1Spl985 c 14 art 8 s 55,56 475.754 DISASTERS OR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES, CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS. If in any fiscal year the receipts from taxes or other sources are insufficient to meet the expenses incurred or to be incurred in said year by any city however organized, county or town by reason of any natural disaster or other public emergency requiring the making of extraordinary expenditures, the governing body of any such city, county or town may authorize the sale of certificates of indebtedness to mature within three years and to bear interest at a rate not to exceed the amount prescribed in this chapter. The certificates may be issued with or without advertising for bids on such terms and conditions as the governing body may determine and shall be in such form as the state auditor in cooperation with the commissioner of commerce shall prescribe. All certificates and interest thereon shall be payable from taxes levied within existing limitations or from other available revenue. Certificates of indebtedness issued under the provisions of this section shall not be considered bonded indebtedness for the purposes of section 275.50, subdivision 5, clause (h). The certificates shall not be included in the net debt of the issuing city, county or town. History: 1Spl985 c 14 art 4 s 94 475.76 REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS. Subdivision 1. A reverse repurchase agreement may be entered into by a municipality, subject to the provisions of this section, only with a bank qualified as depository of funds of the municipality, or with any national or state bank in the United States which is a member of the Federal Reserve System and whose combined capital and surplus equals or exceeds $10,000,000, or with a primary reporting dealer in United States government securities to the federal reserve bank of New York. [For text of subds 2 to 4, see M.S.1984] History: 1985 c 239 s 5 3 6 -J EXHIBIT B CHAPTER 118 DEPOSITORIES OF PUBLIC FUNDS 118.005 Designation, protection of deposit. 118.01 Depository bonds and collateral. 118.005 DESIGNATION, PROTECTION OF DEPOSIT. Subdivision 1. The governing body of every municipality, as defined in section 118.01, which has the power to receive and disburse funds, shall designate as a depository of the funds such national, insured state banks or thrift institutions as defined in section 51A.02, subdivision 23, as it may deem proper. The governing body may authorize the treasurer or chief financial officer to exercise the powers of the governing body in designating a depository of the funds. For purposes of this chapter, a credit union is a thrift institution. Subd. 2. In the event the bank or insured thrift institution selected as a depository is a member of the federal deposit insurance corporation or the federal savings and loan insurance corporation, or is insured by the national credit union administration, the custodian of the funds may deposit an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of insurance on the deposits. In the event it is desired to deposit a greater amount in any bank or thrift institution prior to the deposit the governing body or officer shall require the bank or thrift institution to furnish a bond, executed by a corporate surety company authorized to do business in the state in a sum at least equal to the estimated sum to be deposited in excess of the maximum amount of insurance. In lieu of the bond, the depository shall assign to the custodian of the funds collateral security in accordance with section 118.01. History: 1985 c 239 s 1; 1985 c 292 s 8 118.01 DEPOSITORY BONDS AND COLLATERAL. Subdivision 1. Any bank, trust company or thrift institution authorized to do business in this state may, in lieu of the corporate or personal surety bond required to be furnished to secure deposited funds, deposit with the custodian of the funds as collateral security, notes secured by first mortgages of future maturity, upon which interest is not past due, on improved real estate free from delinquent taxes, within the county wherein the depository is located, or within counties immediately adjoining the county in the state of Minnesota, the obligations which are legally authorized investments for debt service funds under section 475.66, subdivision 3, and qualified state or local government obligations acceptable to the treasurer or chief financial officer. Qualified obligations must be general obligations rated "A" or better by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or Standard & Poor's Corporation. 6-K Subd. 2. Except for notes secured by first mortgages of future maturity, the total in amount of the collateral computed at its market value shall be at least ten percent more than the amount on deposit at the close of the business day, in excess of any insured portion, which would be permitted if a corporate or personal surety bond were furnished. The total amount of collateral consisting of notes secured by first mortgages of future maturity computed at its market value shall be at least 40 percent more than the amount on deposit at the close of the business day, in excess of any insured portion, which would be permitted if a corporate or personal surety bond were furnished. The depository may furnish both a bond and collateral aggregating the required amount. Subd. 3. Any collateral so deposited shall be accompanied by an assignment thereof to the municipality from the depository. The assignment shall recite that the depository shall pay over to the treasurer or chief financial officer on demand, free of exchange or any other charges, except for early withdrawal penalties on time deposits, all money deposited therein at any time during the period the collateral shall be so deposited and shall pay the interest thereon when due at the agreed rate; and that, in case of any default upon the part of the depository, the governing body of the municipality or the treasurer or chief financial officer may sell the collateral, or as much thereof as may be necessary to realize the full amount due the municipality and to pay over any surplus to the depository or its assigns. Subd. 4. A depository may make withdrawals of excess collateral or substitute other collateral, as defined in subdivision 1, on receipt by the municipality of written notice from the depository. Authority is vested in the treasurer to return the collateral to the depository. All interest on the collateral so deposited shall be paid to the depository so long as it is not in default. Subd. 5. The closing of a depository shall be deemed a default on the part of the depository and no demand on the part of the municipality shall be necessary to establish the default. If a depository closes, any deposit placed therein shall immediately become due and payable. Subd. 6. All collateral shall be deposited with the treasurer or chief financial officer of the municipality or placed in safekeeping for the municipality in a financial institution approved by the governing body of the municipality or the treasurer or chief financial officer, if approval authority is designated to the treasurer or chief financial officer. The collateral shall not be redeposited in the bank, trust company or thrift institution furnishing it. Subd. 7. "Municipality" for the purpose of this section means a county, city, town, school district, hospital district, public authority, public corporation, public commission, special district, police or salaried firefighter's relief association, volunteer firefighter's relief association, independent nonprofit firefighting corporation having a subsidiary firefighter's relief association, or any retirement association established pursuant to statute or special law holding funds intended to support or pay retirement benefits for employees of a municipality, any other political subdivision, or an agency of the state or of its subdivisions. History: 1985 c 239 s 2 IOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7 COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN DUANE PRAIRE VIRGINIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director to the HRA Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator DATE: December 1, 1988 REGARDING: Senior Housing Study Outline and Costs As a result of the City Council conference meeting on October 31, 1988, staff was directed to prepare an outline and cost estimates for a study to determine the demand and housing preference of low to moderate income seniors (including persons age 55 and over) for senior housing. The City Council concluded that the results of this study would provide better information regarding senior housing demand in Fridley and would be able to guide the HRA in analyzing requests for financial assistance for senior housing projects. Attached for your review is the proposed outline of the study and estimated costs. We evaluated several types of survey methods, as well as several consulting firms and individuals to conduct such a study. It was determined that a combination of demographic analysis, a mail survey, and focus groups would be the best approach. Health Planning and Management Resources, Inc., is the recommended consultant to conduct the study. This firm conducted the Senior Housing Study for Dakota County and for Burnsville, Apple Valley, and Eagan. The consultant, based on its past experience, has determined that the mail survey is cost effective and can achieve better results than a phone survey. It is the firm's experience that the mail survey tends to generate a higher response rate than a phone survey, especially with seniors. Seniors can complete the mail survey at their leisure instead of being interrupted by an unknown phone caller. The purpose of the focus groups would be to followup on the mail survey to clarify the behavior indicated in the survey. It can also be used as a brainstorming session for other ideas for senior services. It therefore has a dual purpose of providing a direct contact with the senior community as well as serving as a useful tool as part of the study. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (IS 12) 671 -3450 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EXT. 117 7 -A Senior Housing Study Outline and Costs December 1, 1988 Page two Recommendation Because the results of this study will generate information that the HRA can use to base its decision for financial assistance for senior housing projects, it is requested that the HRA fund up to $10,000 of the study. Staff has requested a scope of services from the consultant. Should there be any cost in excess of $10,000, the City Council could be responsible for those expenses. It is recommended that the HRA authorize funding not to exceed $10,000 for the senior housing survey for Health Planning and Management Resources, Inc. JR /BD:ls M -88 -358 0 SENIOR HOUSING STUDY GOAL: To determine the demand and housing preference of low to moderate income seniors (including persons aged 55 and over) for senior housing OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine demographic characteristics a. Number of households b. Persons /household C. Housing type d. Housing cost e. Age f. Income /occupation g. Health status /special needs 2. To determine willingness to live in "assisted" housing 3. To determine willingness to live in Fridley or elsewhere 4. To determine housing type preference 5. To conduct a brief inventory of service needs 6. To maintain data base in format which can easily be updated STUDY METHOD: Health Planning and Management Resources, Inc., will use these tools to accomplish the above objectives: 1. Analyze existing demographic data 2. Conduct a mail survey to Fridley residents aged 55 and over 3. Conduct up to two focus group sessions STUDY RESULTS: 1. The consultant will prepare a written report interpreting the results of both the mail survey and focus groups. 2. Data generated from the study will be on a computer file. 3. The consultant will present the findings of the study to the HRA and City Council. ESTIMATED COST: Study - $ 7,500 2 focus groups - 1,000 Printing & postage - 2,000 -4,000 TOTAL $10,500- 12,500 CITY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE., N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 December 19, 1988 Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc. 9700 Bush Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55438 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 6, Landscaping, Irrigation and Lighting Project No. 168 Gentlemen: 0 You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for Landscaping, Irrigation and Lighting Project No. 168 by adding the following work: Addition: APPROX. ITEM QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1. Planting adjustments for necessary maintenance and labor increases 100 Lump Sum $14,950.00 TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . $141950.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS: Original Contract amount. . . . . . . . . . . . Contract Additions - Change Order No. 1. . . . - Change Order No. 2. . . . - Change Order No. 3. . . . - Change Order No. 4. . . . - Change Order No. 5. . . . - Change Order No. 6. . . . REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $481,413.00 5,585.47 11,872.00 ( 43,219.50) 880.00 7,285.20 14,950.00 $ 478,766.17 1� Cr Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc. Page Two Change Order No. 6 December 19, 1988 Submitted and approved by John G. Flora, Public Works Director, on the 19th day of December, 1988. red by Checked by 1�j7L? o G. Flora, P.E. erector of Public Works Approved and accepted this day of�t�,.L� 1988, by MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPE, INC. C��— , P�z J rry nftttlom, IvEesident ^L Approved and accepted this S day of�T,t� 1988, by CITY OF FRIDLEY William J. Nee, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager JT /ts RICO AA-Vi Ernst Associates 30 November 1988 Mr. John Flora City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ref: Lakepointe Corporate Centre / Plaiting & Irrigation Deer Mr. Flora: In reference to John Thompson's telephone conversation on Monday, November 28,1 have prepared this letter to clarify my position in reference to the above mentioned project. On November 25,1 received a letter dated 22 November 1988 from Minnesota Valley stating that they are proceeding with the work with the understanding that the request for additional funds had been approved by the public works department and project landscape architect. To clarify my disausions with Mark Burch, I had never totally agreed with the request for the additional fees as outlined in Minnesota Valley's letters dated October 26, November 2, and November 17, 1988. In those previous letters I had noted that Minnesota Valley was requesting additional costs for the 20 red splendor crabapples. I felt that there should not be any additional cost to the city because those trees had not been tagged until September 19, 1988. In the letter dated November 2, you will note that Minnesota Valley has agreed to subtract the additional cost for the red splendor crabapple from the original request. The original request was =16,617.50. They have given you a a-edit of $1,667.50 for the 20 crabapples. I feel that the contractor is justified additional assts as it relates to maintenance and possible use of the land for future production. Due to the delay the trees would have in reeled in size with proper maintenance and are over 18 -24 months. As I discussed with Mark, I was not in total agreement that the City should be paying more money for the increased size. The city had made payments towards those trees (Chicago or Minneapolis) at the time they were tagged and accepted back in 1986 and 1987. At that time most of the trees were the caliper that was originally called for in the specifications. It should be noted that some of those trees tagged were less than 6" cal. as specified This was done with the idea that they would increase in size from the time they were tagged until they would be transplanted to the field There were trees that I tagged that measured 5 1/2" - 5 3/4" in caliper. As you will note in my memo doted 19 September, I was not able to tag all the correct sizes of crabapples as specified In that letter i had stated that the city and Minnesota Valley would have to workout a credit for installing those smaller sires. This has not been verified by Minnsota Valley, but the approximate difference in cost between a 3 1/2" cal. and 3" cal. is =20 -=25 and an additional s 10-112 difference between e 2 3/4" and 3" cal. tree. If you feel that there is sane compensetion needed in reference to the red splendor crabapple I suggest that you contact Minnesota Valley and have them provide you with the credits LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 5 LAND PLANNING ■ 122 WEST SIXTH STREET ■ CHASKA. MINNESOTA 55318 ■ PHONE 612 - 448 -4094 M. Ernst Associates Mr. John Flora 20 November 1988 Page 2 It was also my understanding that Minnesota Valley agreed to do additional sodding and seeding in the spring 1989 to repair areas that have been damaged by trucks moving the trees. There are other areas that did not establish this last season. At the time Mark held the meeting with Minnesota Valley to discuss these various items I was out of town. I feel with the delay on the project there are additional costs justified as outlined in Minnesota Valley's letter dated November 17, 1988. With the approval of this request I do not feel that any future requests should be granted If there are any questions in refen*nce to this letter or the project please do not hesitate to give me a call. Best , ERNS IATES Gene F. Ernst GFE: cb c.c. Dave Lindstrom, MN Valley Jon McClure, Woodbridge Prop. Eric Nessett, Woodbridge Prop. f'•i'�',sm +�-1 } o 6 verity ► A — .4 .S.C- z +, Door )*Oft yo o So bew IV rwk, i z oo Kp i I Ax L I Engineering Sewer Water Parks Streets Ma ntenance MEMORANDUM TO: John G. Flora, Public Works Director PW88 -372 FROM: Mark L. Burch, Asst. Public Works Director DATE: November 21, 1988 SUBJECT: Completion of Landscape Contract For Lake Pointe Development We have been working with Minnesota Valley Landscaping toward completion of the landscaping on the Lake Pointe Development. As you are aware, this contract was let in 1986 for completion in 1987. Due to many factors, the completion of the landscaping on this project has been delayed and Minnesota Valley has not been able to complete their work until now. Because of the delay in completing the work, Minnesota Valley has incurred additional costs for maintaining the trees reserved for this project and will now have additional labor costs. We have met with Minnesota Valley and Gene Ernst of Ernst Associates to determine what is necessary to complete this project. There are three options that appear to be workable: 1. Agree to a change order with Minnesota Valley Landscaping for $14,950.00 to pay them for their costs incurred while maintaining the trees the additional year and for their increased labor costs. If this change order is approved this fall, the work could be completed in the next two weeks. 2. Agree to approve a change order for the work during the winter and have Minnesota Valley complete the landscaping in the spring of 1989. 3. Not agree to a change order and complete as much work as possible with the dollar amount of the contract. This option would leave the site short approximately 100 trees. Please review these options for completing the Lake Pointe landscaping with the City Manager and City Council and advise us on how to proceed. MLB /ts '. Was, 8-F November 17, 1988 City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN S5432 Attn: Mark Burch Re: Lake Pointe Corporate Center / Planting and Irrigation Dear Mark, Enclosed is our change order proposal for $ 14950.00. As pre- viously discussed, allow me to elaborate on this requested sum. We have incurred additional costs for plantings not yet installed that were originally scheduled to be planted by October 31st, 1987. Those plantings consist primarily of 45 Sugar Maples, 42 Ash, and 20 Red Splendor Crabapple. The nursery suppliers are requesting a total of $ 9075.00 in additional expenses incurred to care for these plants for the past growing season. The requests appear to be fair and legit- imate in light of the care given these plants. The trees have received an ongoing maintenance consisting of root pruning, watering(during the drought, in particular), cultivation of weeds, etc. The trees were pre- pared in the field for spring planting of this year but then delayed. The root prep required careful monitoring and watering during one of the worst droughts in recorded history. The fact that the trees were not harvested when originally stated at time of order has tied up valuable nursery production land for an extra year. The growers are entitled to compensation for -this as well. There is also increased costs for labor of $ 2800.00 and $ 1125.00 for shipping. To this sun we have added 15% for administrative costs, profit, and overhead for a total requested change order in the amount of $ 14950.00. It is our intention, Mark, to resume final planting operations Monday, November 21st (weather permitting) and have all work substantially completed in approximately two weeks from start to finish. 1 9700 west bush lake rd., mpls., mn. 55438. 16991612. 944.1626 LANDSCAPE INC. S-G November 17, 1988 2 You will be pleased to know Jerry Lindstrom will be returning to the project as superintendent and will coordinate with your John Thompson on site to do the required dormant seeding, and Bob Cat operations. I have reviewed Gene Ernst's memo to you of 20 October. The dead pine have been replaced, all other items will be addressed when we return to the site next week. I appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to have met with us Tuesday last. I further appreciate your clarification to us about the agreed 1000 contract completion on November 1st, 1959. If all planting is accepted this fall and replacements made next year prior to November 1st, this would match the original contract completion date. Also given the bonding of the contract, the release of retainage monies upon acceptance this fall is mutually understood. And lastly, the vacant lot on the southwest corner of the project shall be returned to a visually acceptable state with the ash presently there to be donated to the City of Fridley. Sinc ely, David A. Lindstrom Project Manager DAL /cb FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7 M E M O R A N D U M To: Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Members From: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director Regarding: Return of school district referendum levies Date: December 1, 1988 As you recall at the July HRA meeting representatives from School District 14 provided you, in written form, a request for funds the HRA has received because of the school districts referendum levies. Attached you will find the information the Fridley School District provided to you at the July Meeting. Included in this information was a resolution the School Board passed requesting the Fridley City Council to exercise its option under Minnesota State Statute 469.177 to provide School District 14 with the proceeds generated by the levies. You directed staff to proceed to have Jim O'Meara review the request and determine its applicablity to our increments. You will also find his review of Fridley's situation and some of the concerns he has in regard to the "contract" that exists between the City of Fridley and the bondholders. Since the issuance of Mr. O'Meara's letter, he and I have met with Mr. Rens and Mr. Seeman from School District 14 and shared concerns that the HRA has and the School District has. At that meeting, the staff had not had the opportunity to update projections with the new developments that are taking place in the increment districts. We informed Mr. Rens that we were somewhat hesitant to initiate an action that would deplete the cash position of the HRA because of the development dilemma that exits on the Lake Pointe site and possibly endangering proceeds earmarked for bondpayments. Upon the updating of the financial information, it appears there are enough resources to provide the school district their share of proceeds generated by the levies. If the levies are returned to the school districts, it should be uniformily applied to all four school districts within the city. I have attached a worksheet that provides a close approximation of the amounts that could be paid to the school districts as a result of the taxes collected during 1988. I would like to emphasize that should the HRA and the City agree to provide funds, it should be on a cash basis, and each year the topic would be reevaluated based on the financial health of the HRA. We should only provide funds that we have received and not give them credit for delinquencies. The estimate that School District 14 provided us did not make an allowance for delinquencies. Our figures show the following amounts applicable to the different school districts: School District #11 $4,711.25 School District #13 $5,754.92 School District #14 $104,067.80 School District #16 $20,288.36 9-A I reviewed this information with Mr. O'meara and he once again stated that extreme care must be taken in developing an agreement between the city and the school district so there is a firm understanding of some critical elements. My recommendation would be that a formal agreement be executed beteen the city and each school district outlining the terms for the provision of increment. Bond Councel should be involved in the agreement process because of the necessity to avoid any impairment of bond payments. Because of the additional Capital Appreciation bond that was sold to Mo dbrilge Proguatigg,,lkbghasfoXAdes the incentive to the developer, addi�iona cars impair future repayment of this debt and hamper any current negotitions with the developer. This agreement is currently unavailable for inclusion in the agenda, but hopefully can be available the night of December 8, 1988. It is Bill Burns intent to provide this information to the City Council with your concurrence, at the meeting of December 12, 1988 for discussion and formal action on December 19,1988. FM YJ July 13, 1988 TO: HRA FROM: Dennis E. Rens, School District #14 Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: School Board Intent Relative to Recent TIF Legislation As part of recent tax law, school district excess levy referen- dums applied to value captured in Tax Increment Finance Districts now will go to the school district as opposed to the municipality - if the City Council approves the distribution. School District #14 currently has 15.5 levy referendum mills in place and has declared its intent to seek City approval to generate the revenue those mills would raise when applied to TIF districts. Prior to approaching the City Council, the District #14 School Board is seeking HRA support of the concept. Attached to this memo is a copy of the resolution passed by the District #14 School Board on July 12, 1988, a copy of recent Minnesota Statute that addresses the issue, information related to school district referendums, and a list of TIF districts within the City of Fridley. District #14 representatives will be at the July 14 HRA meeting to respond to any questions you may have of the District. DER /hj Enc. L -MEMO1 9-C JULY 129 1988 SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTION Motion by Sangster, seconded by Schrupp, to approve the following resolution: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 469.177 has been amended to, under certain con- ditions, allow school districts to apply referendum levies to the value cap- tured in Tax Increment Financing Districts, and WHEREAS, Subdivisiop 10 of the amended statute now states that "if the referendum increasing the mill rate was approved after the most recent issue of bonds to which increment from the District is pledged," then "upon approval by a majority vote of the governing body of the municipality and the School Board, the authority must pay to the School District an amount of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the increase in the mill rate under the referendum," and WHEREAS, District #14 residents passed a 2.0 mill levy referendum on September 23, 1986 and a 13.5 mill levy referendum on September 29, 1987 that are currently in place, and WHEREAS, these referendums apply to recently amended Minnesota Statute 469.177, subd. 10, and WHEREAS, the additional revenues are needed for the continuation and impro- vement of District #14 programs for students as provided for in the referen- dums approved by the voters, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Independent School District #14 for- mally seek the approval of the Fridley City Council to exercise its option under Minnesota Statute 469.177, subd. 10, and gain access to revenues available through applying recently passed levy referendums to Tax Increment Financing Districts within District #14 boundaries. On the roll call, the following voted in favor: Furgason, Lapinski, Sangster, Schrupp; the following abstained: Newman, Prairie; and the following voted against: none; whereupon said resolution was adopted. 1 fasediaeeit -0 �}°g- ��- eppsevai -sl -the ees iaesemeat 9-D all 2 lfaaaeiag- liras 'as -a+sttt *ed- br- eM- assesass. 3 Sec. 23. 1(inaesota Statutes 1997 Supplesant. section 4 469.177. is amended by adding a subdivision to reads S Sum IDISUIBOTIONS OF EXCESS TAXES ON CArMRED 6 VALOE.1 a I if the amount of tai id on captured value exceeds 7 the aWnnt of tae incremant the count auditor shall distribute 6 the excess to the annici lit county, and school district as 9 follows: each aoversuental unit's shots of the excess eduals 10' 1 the total amount of the excess for the tax increment '11 financing district, multiplied by 12 2 tta ioa the sumstate of wbieb is the cur' sill 13 rate of the Govetowntal Wait less the vernmentai unit's still 14 rate for the year the orieisal mill rate for the diittl4tt IS certified (in 00 case ma9 this amount be less than zero) and the 16 denominator of which is the sum of tba anmetatots tot the 17 municipality, county, and school district. IS It the entire increase is the mill rate "is attributable to a 19 taxing disttict other than the mnniei lit count or school 20 district then the excess distributed to the 21 auaieipalltr.�tount and seboel disitiot in mrs ectioa to the T� 22 tesveetiva mill to tin 23 (b) the mounts distributed shall be deducted in coapu a 24 the isvr limits of we taxi district for the sneceedia� 2S taxable near• 26 a in the ease of distributions to a school district, tbs 27 eouat auditor shall town amounts distributed to ehe 26 commissioner of education is the sasm maWwt provided for 29 excess increments under section 469.176 subdivision 2 and the 30 distribution shall be treated as as escoos iacrdent for 31 ss of section 124.214 subdivision 3. Ss.. 24. Minnesota Statutes !967 Suppldnea=• = �c :- -- 33 469.177, is amended by adding a subdivision to reads 34 Subdue 0. (PAYI�T TO SCOOOL !M REFEBEM M UM • 1 Me 0 3S Otovisions of this subdivisien asselr to tax iactament fiaanciaa 36 districts and to acts for which certification was r seted 325 its I before MAY 1 il88 that ace located in a school district in 9-E 2 which the voters have approved new millage or an increase in 3 millage after the tax increunt financing district was certified 111 if there are no outstanding bonds on May It 1988 to which S incronent tram the district is pledged, or (2) if the referendum 6 is a roved after MAY 11 1988 and there ace no bonds 7 outstanding at the tin the referendum is a roved. that were 8 issued before Maw 1, 1988, or (31 if the referendum increasiag 9 - the mill rate was approved after the most recant issue of bonds 10 to which increment from the district is pledged. if clause (1) •11 or 121 applies, the authority must annual!; pal vo1 L 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 vote of the *Warning body of the municipality and the scnooi board, the authority suet Day to the school district an amount of increment MMI to the iasrnsnt that is attributable to the increase in the -mill rate under the referendum. yhe amounts of these increments may be expeaded mad suet be treated by the '� SlY� ism �..� ���__�__ ZSs•,`�' `4 Supplemeet, Sec. 2s. �onesota seatutes 1l�7 reads' ..rye 23 469.179. is amended to _ 24 469.179 (UISTMW PRWMC'l - 2S Subdivision i. (ZMDWTIOh•i Ibe Provisions of sections 26 469.174 to 469.178 shall not affect any project for which tae 27 increment cectiticatLos was repeated pursuant to law prior to 28 August 1, 1979, or any project carried on by an authority 29 pursuant to section 469.033, subdivision S, with respect to the governing body s by resolution designated properties IL for inclusion in the district prior to August 1, 1979, except: 32 (1) as otherwise expressly provided in sections 469.174 to 33 469.1781 or 34 (2) as an authority elects to proceed with an existing 3S district, under the provisions of sections 469.174 to 469.1781 36 or 326 July 59 1988 9-F pt �� C 0,04 p- �.r r TO: Dr. Rens,.Superintendent School Boaird Members FROM: Jerry T. Seeman, Dir. Finance /Personnel SUBJECT: Analysis of School District Referendums that are in Place for Those School Districts in the City of Fridley School District Date of No. of Length of Name No. Referendum Mills Referendum Anoka 11 Fall 1982 6 Continuous — Fall 1987 6 Continuous Columbia Heights 13 Fall 1981 5 Continuous Fall 1986 7 Continuous Fridley 14 Fall 1983 6.5 5 years Fall 1986 2.0 Continuous -Fall 1987 13.5 Continuous (Replaces 6.5 mills and adds 7.0 mills so the total mills in place on a continuous basis is 6.5 + 2.0 + 7.0 a 15.5 mills) Spring Lake Park 16 Fall 1981 5 Continuous Fall 1986 6 Continuous JTS /h j L- BOARDI Na low J roan JM L Vam s N@W1Lj • LAW OFFICES s Nam Gmo `M Bow a Na. BRIGGS ANI) DiORGAN 26VAM ` I ,.�'cL® a':�4a= ten L SWAXNW Jum J Lamm ram L INTmmm �1ZM9 Sut GaL�oL Jm. m Now LL s<mavr sa �swaa bwj XdCm Nda V ssmoeaaL a=A�1 Jms<L4mrmmso Lm L VAW Lai00 !i> dT ll►'1't�AL = s>?>Z�II9O _J 8 II Amama.mm am= L Lam w Tmmoa:m tamais Ilda LLimos RWIW AL Lxaas L Lnm Jaacsr L Lma sham PAWL, Jae IImnar L N Lis"" Lea MW Lsms aws L s ma �resaLLUm Ap P.Nmtca TZMEMCRIE IBM M-am AM IN fmr ao LGmema>. om Lan=* !rare JmTmo® a� romanN•Loma TMNNW L Fun �LZ IM) Me -4071 �ILN armsms IIm LGmmo Mena Lhu A Jam Limas TOM-- A•I+m.s mmoa a Arian Jme scum. Naar ILDrm 14rs J. 9i IILTM A Gm a6 Ames a NO Me 3. Mans secs vat" Zan POS2AZZ Plant C1� Tam s riKam Ommau L ssm Mremaa LJasue TWr J. WL Naar Lbra LEVITT, PAXX=. EOWZN, BOTMAN A SHA= N� sBa Lsoorr mVm sr� W.IUV r JAM A.oama a� Llamm July 13, 1988 IL mama Ncnomo Jock Robertson Executive Director, Fridley BRA City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Tax Increment Districts /School Levies Dear Jock: 9-G No.mL s GmmWs Mamrm X.nam Lamy II aaa Naaam► s rr :....�... PW& isao Ca 6 ma T. smmsr Minim BRUP TkMEVA Maw lkm LL sr Nieman TOOK" Nam Gnus a. cmmamoa"o F�L Oom a d Raa Tamar A.7eaam Naas ram saran L 16U Amon. X. Macaz m n■IL� or memmn areaaa Lam Jmma IL faun Uum L No~ Aamm C. GaLmar A. Leman Dam CLamocm 0.lmams Lmmmam J. am*s Jame M. Smutom In response to your request, I am writing to provide some information to the BRA concerning the new Subdivision 10 of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, dealing with school referendum levies. This was a new Subdivision added to the Tax Increment Act in the wake of the 1988 legislative session. I have enclosed a copy of this Subdivision for your information. Before final determinations can be made, there is a fair amount'of information which must be assembled and reviewed, including the date and amount of referendum levies of each of the school districts involved, the date of certification of each of the `tax increment districts, the date of issuance of each of the tax increment financing bonds or similar obligations that have been issued, and the identification of the tax increment districts whose increments are pledged to pay those various bonds or obligations. The new law applies to tax increment districts for which certification was requested prior to May 1, 1968, that are located in a school district where the voters have approved now millage or an increase in millage after the date the Increment district was certified. I assume that all of Ue tax increment districts. were requested for- prior to that May 1 date. 4' °_ mm Ns WMA ="a COMM I 0 Tam? laTAW" Sala amoo Iva Czars aaort rams. SlarsaUM am smaer AIM. I9011128M moor MMMM POU9. UnnMMM ammae mom-=& M Ram -mm Imaas•om 9-H BRIGGS wxn MORG.&N Jock Robertson Page Two July 13, 1988 There are then three separate cases, as follows: (1) There are no bonds outstanding on May 1, 1988, to' which increment from the particular district is pledged, or (2) The referendum is approved after May 1, 1988, and there are no bonds that were issued before that May 1 date which are outstanding at the time of the referendum 'approval, or (3) The referendum was approved after the most recent issue of bonds to which increment from the district has been pledged. The law provides that in the case of (1) or (2) above, the increment attributable to the applicable levies must annually be paid to the school district. If (3) above applies, the payment of this "school levy referendum tax increment" would be payable only upon approval of both the City Council and the particular School Board. I am aware of the following tax increment obligations: (1) - A $5,603,755.80 Limited Revenue Capital Appreciation Tax Increment Note of 1985, which was issued by the HRA in December of 1985 for the Woodbridge tax increment project and which I believe is payable exclusively from increments from that tax increment district. (2) The City's $11,500,000 Variable Rate Demand General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985, issued in December of 1985 for a variety of 'tax increment projects. I believe that there is a general pledge of increment from all of the existing districts at that time to the payment of these bonds. (3) On August 1, 1986, the City issued its $10,045,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1986, which was a "crossover refunding" of the bonds described in (2) above. However, at least a portion of the bonds described in (2) above are still outstanding and will continue to be until 1 24 Sec�2 Minnesota Statutes 1987 Supplement, section 25 469.177, is amended by adding a subdivision to read. 26 Subd. 10. (PAYMENT TO SCHOOL FOR REFERENDUM LEVY.) The 27 provisions of this subdivision apply to tax increment financing 28 districts and projects for which certification was requested 29 before May 1, 1988, that are located in a school district in 30 which the voters have approved new millage or an increase in 31 millage after the tax increment financing district was certified 32 (1) if there are no outstanding bonds on May 1, 1988, to which 33 increment from the district is pledged, or (2) if the referendum 31 is approved after May 1, 1988, and there are no bonds 35 outstanding at the time the referendum is approved, that were �� Idsued before May 1, 1988, or (3) if the referendum increasing .f - the mill rate was approved after the most recent issue of bonds 2 to which increment from the district is pledged. rf clause (1) or (2) applies, the authority must annually pay to the school 4 district an amount of increment equal to the increment that is 5 attributable to the increase in the mill rate under the ! 6 referendum. if clause (3) applies, upon approval by a majority t 7 vote of the governing body of the municipality and the school 8 board, the authority must pay to the school district an amount 9 of increment a ual to the increment that is attributable to the 10 increase in the mill rate under the referendum. The amounts of 11 these increments may be expended and must be treated by 'the 12 school district in the same manner as provided for the revenues 1 13 derived from the referendum levy approved.by_..the_voters. BRIGGS wxa MORGAN Jock Robertson Page Three July 13, 1988 the "crossover date" described in this bond issue. I believe there were other tax increment obligations that the City issued prior to 1985 and which may or may not be still outstanding. I would note that the new law simply does not apply to a tax increment district if the new or increased referendum levy was approved after the certification of that tax increment district. I would also caution that, even in case (3), where this referendum levy tax increment would be payable upon agreement by the City and the School District, some care must be taken to avoid impairing the "contract" that exists with the bond holders concerning the payment of the respective obligations from the tax increment. The limited revenue note would be of particular concern here, but care needs to be taken with the City's general obligation tax increment issues as well. As I mentioned above, until we have all the relevant information, it is not possible to determine how much, if any, of the tax increment from the various districts can or should be paid to the particular school districts involved. I would be happy to assist the City and the HRA in assembling and reviewing that information and determining what obligations or possibilities exist in this regard. Ve truly urs, ames P. O'Meara JPO: cf Enclos es cc: asim Qureshi Rick Pribyl 9-I School District Inararmt Calculation Tam Ioctement District School District #11 North Area B3 North Area D5 School District #13 Moore Lake A9 idmsaa /Skywood C1 Lake Pointe B8 School District #14 Center City A2 Center City AS Moore Lake A5 Johnson /SkYwood B9 School District #16 North Area B2 North Area D3 PaschIm C6 20.55 Captured Assessed Referendum Value Mill Rate Amount 862,601 6 5,175.61 3,425 6 20.55 5,196.16 103,169 7 722.18 1,913,748 7 13,396.24 739,056 7 5,173.39 19,291.81 4,989,932 15.5 77,343.95 740,935 15.5 11,484.49 657,031 15.5 10,183.98 1,005,137 15.5 15,579.62 114,592.04 1,530,452 6 9,182.71 1,816,756 6 10,900.54 34,185 6 205.11 20,288.36 $159,368.37 9-K Delinquents Applicable to School District Referent m 9-L PIN Cwtured Assessed Referea�Lm Number District Name Value Mill Rate Mount School District #11 03 14 0004 B3 Marlen Development 39,135 6 234.81 03 14 0005 B3 Marlen Development 41,683 6 250.10 484.91 School District #13 24 32 0019 A9 Dave Harris 2,680 7 18.76 24 32 0020 A9 Dave Harris 1,880 7 13.16 25 22 0001 C1 Skywood Mall 0 7 0.00 25 22 0003 C1 SIMmod Mall 13,445 7 94.12 25 22 0005 C1 Skywood Mall 1,915,836 7 13,410.85 25 22 0006 C1 Skywood Mall 0 7 0.00 25 22 0007 C1 Skywood Mall 0 7 0.00 13,536.89 School District #14 14 31 0033 A2 Gus Doty 10,807 15.5 167.51 14 31 0094 A2 Fridley Office Plaza 652,884 15.5 10,119.70 14 34 0005 A2 A & G ffiiterprises 8,858 15.5 137.30 13 42 0046 A5 Eileen Weitnauer 2,374 15.5 36.80 13 43 0006 A5 Richard Hartfiel 4,060 15.5 62.93 10,524.24 School District #16 02 23 0006 B2 Rafaellas in Fridley 0 6 0.00 02 32 0025 D3 Ronald J. Flanagan 0 6 0.00 0.00 $24,546.03 3 2I Q 9D --- L1 t MWN OTAMr. 10-A QN\ BUMM HERMAN METAL —TEK Conn. o ARCHITECTS INC. I I - �° I DAU .� OFRM PROM CTM It WARE110Ya1 FACSM "'••••"'°•••� o�n ismohillffift Hri AIM U#6431 f�612- 546 - °ii MIDLEY, MINNESOTA o�n � "' uo ro. log a �$ p _ k N r T --- L1 t MWN OTAMr. 10-A QN\ BUMM HERMAN METAL —TEK Conn. o ARCHITECTS INC. I I - �° I DAU .� OFRM PROM CTM It WARE110Ya1 FACSM "'••••"'°•••� o�n ismohillffift Hri AIM U#6431 f�612- 546 - °ii MIDLEY, MINNESOTA o�n � "' uo ro. , OUR EN u CLAIr1S 1336 - 1345 Adir AAMWWA57E"I P ENMNEERS ■ ARCMREC75I PLANNERS 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, ST PA "- ,WVNESOTA 55777 612 494 -0272 City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 ATTN: John Flora Director of Public Works 1-1-A INVOICE November 15, 1988 RICE CREEK ROAD INVOICE NO 3075 SEH FILE NO 88057 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. FOR PERIOD APRIL 17 THRU OCTOBER 15, 1988 For plans, specifications, and observation of construction for reconstruction of Rice Creek Road from T.H. 65 to Central Avenue. In accordance with our contract dated October 8, 1987. Plans and Specifications Project Engineer S 626.22 Design Engineer 6,111.37 Technician 1,209.11 Clerical 311.42 Mileage and Expense 149.05 TOTAL COST THIS INVOICE $8,407.17 Maximum Fee for Plans and Specifications $55,500.00 Less Amount Previously Invoiced (47,615.39) SUBTOTAL 7,884.61 Observation of Construction Project Engineer Clerical Mileage $1,821.83 50.41 48.50 1,920.74 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE THIS INVOICE . . . . . . . . $ 9,805.35 MAXIMUM FEE FOR OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION: $50,500.00 INVOICED TO DATE: $ 1,920.74 Mate :0. Anurovtud SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY. CITY OF SAINT PAUL Donald E Lund In said Couray and Scare. b&9 duty twrom, on oath, says, drat he is President a Snort -Elton -Hen aetson. Inc.. maz ft araAov swam! is just an Itherem charged w Sctually r. ad of the value !!!stein carged: that the lees as by ty law dtat no part at such a000unt nm !seen paid. Subsu,eed and swum to before mejpE dey4 19 My wnsrus— WWW '0--f % 19 ` ur BETH J. ERSKINE NOTARY PUBLIC — MINNESOTA RAMSEY COUNTY MY COMM EXPIRES MAY 27 1992 t r SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC MINNESOTA WISCONSIN CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 FRO4: City of Fridley Engineering Division TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1988 LAKE POINTE DEVELOPME -NT MAINTENANCE PROJECT #161 STATEMENT OF WORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- CONTRACT ITEM ------------------------------------ Maintenance Services ------------------------------------ TOTAL 11 -$ RE: Estimate No. 7 (FINAL) Period Ending:11 -15 -88 FOR: TALBER6 LAWN 6 LANDSCAPE 188 WILSHIRE DRIVE MINNETONKA, MN 55343 ESTIMATED UNIT QUANTITY THIS TOTAL QUANTITY PRICE UNIT ESTIMATE TOTAL AMOUNT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 %31750.00 LUMP SUM 8.143 1.80 33,758.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- f_3,750.00 SUMMARY: Original Contract Amount Contract Additions Contract Deductions Revised Contract Amount Value Completed To Date Amount Retained ill' Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE CERTIFICATE OF THE CONTRACTOR sc 333,750.08 $8.88 $0.00 $33,758.88 $33,758.80 $8.88 $27,48:.14 $6,267.86 1 hereby certify that the work performed and the materials supplied to date under the terms of the contract for this project, and all authorized thanges thereto, have an actual value under the contract of the amounts shown oa this estimate land the final -quan ities on the final estimate are correct ?, and that this estimate is just and correct and no part of the, °A, m e Th'ii s(ti(ate" has been received. Q By - - - -- �� -= -- �` ----------------------- �\, Date - - -F -1 - -` o Contractor "s ,Authorized Fe P resenteti:e (Title) CERTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER I hereby certify that I have prepared or examined this estimate, and that the contractor is entitled to payment of this estimate under the contract for reference project. CITY OF FRIDLEY. INSPECTOR ° By Checked By 1PPRPAGEI'AG RPAGE2'AGP Date Respectfully Submitted, oe - - -- ----------- --- - - - - -- 9H S. F1ora,P.E. (Public Works Director CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 6431 University Ave., N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 November 21, 1988 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fridley C/O William W. Burns, City Manager 6431 University Ave., N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Council Members: CERTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER We hereby submit the Final Estimate for Lake Pointe Development Maintenance Project No. 181, for Talberg Lawn and Landscape, 100 Wilshire Drive, Minnetonka, MN, 55343. We have viewed the work under contract for the construction of Lake Pointe Development Maintenance Project No. 181 and find that the same is substantially complete in accordance with the contract documents. I recommend that final payment be made upon acceptance of the work by your Honorable Body and that the one -year contractual maintenance bond commence on November 16, 1988. Respectfully submitted, ohn G. Flora Director of Public Works Prepared b, Checked by JT /ts FINLENGR 1-1-D November 21, 1988 To: Public Works Director City of Fridley REPORT ON FINAL INSPECTION FOR CITY OF FRIDLEY LAKE POINTE DEVELOPMENT MAINTENANCE PROJECT NO. 181 We, the undersigned, have inspected the above - mentioned project and find that the work required by the contract is substantially complete in conformity with the plans and specifications of the project. All deficiencies have been corrected by the contractor. Also, the work for which the City feels the contractor should receive a reduced price has been agreed upon by the contractor. So, therefore, we recommend to you that the City approve the attached FINAL ESTIMATE for the contractor and the one -year maintenance bond, starting from the day of the final inspection that being November 16, 1988. / / Jmpson, n�truttion Inspector I 11�, j Contrac�6r Representative\ (Tilde) JT /ts FINLRPT 11 -E ll -F November 21, 1988 City of Fridley LAKE POINTE DEVELOPMENT MAINTENANCE PROJECT NO. 181 CERTIFICATE OF CONTRACTOR This is to certify that items of the work shown in the statement of work certified herein have been actually furnished and'done for the above - mentioned projects in accordance with the plans and specifications heretofore approved. The final contract cost is $33,750.00 and the final payment of $6,269.86 for the improvement project would cover in full, the contractor's claims against the City for all labor, materials and other work down by the contractor under this project. I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is just and correct. TALBERG LAWN A LANDSCAPE Mark Tolberg, President JT /ts FINLCONT