HRA 10/12/1989 - 29667CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MEETIN(3� OCTOBER 12� 1989
.._�..��....��������_�������..������������������_���..�����.._����»������_
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the October 12, 1989, Housing &
Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer,
Duane Prairie
Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen
Others Present: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
Dave Newman, HRA Attorney
Steve Billings, City Councilmember
Jim Casserly, Casserly Molzahn & Associates
Jerry Farrell, SBF Development Corp.
Bob Boisclair, Boisclair Corp.
Dick Bienapfl, Boisclair Corp.
Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction
David Sebold, Ron Clark Construction
� Sid Inman, Publicorp Inc.
Hugh McCloud, rep. SW quadrant land owners
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 10. 1989, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the
August 10, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as
written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF OUTLINE FOR CREATING A TIF DISTRICT AND FOR
A REDEVELOPMENT AGREEP7ENT WITH SBF CORPORATION•
Mr. Robertson stated the SBF Cinemark proposal for redevelopment
has gone through the City Council with all the permit procedures.
On August 4, 1989, staff received a request from SBF for the City
to consider assistance with tax increment financing because SBF
had been unable to obtain their primary financing. At the August
10, 1989, meeting, the HRA authorized staff to proceed with a
financial analysis. Under discussion at that time was underwriting
a part of the SBF's financing. Staff asked Jim Casserly to analyze
;�
�
HOIIBING 8 REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 2
that. Mr. Casserly responded in a memo that a loan guarantee would
not be cost effective, and he recommended instead a limited revenue
note as a no-risk option.
Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Farrell has informed staff that the second
mortgage option is really unavailable because Trustco, their
Canadian equity partner, has already taken a second position on the
project.
Mr. Robertson stated staff has discussed with Mr. Farrell either
the 3-5o grant for land write-down or essentially a"pay as you
go" proposal. Staff is recommending the "pay as you go" proposal
in which the HRA would create a redevelopment district and enter
into a development agreement to pay back the developer a limited
revenue note of approximately 2/3, a conservative estimate of the
total tax revenue the project can generate over a 3 year period,
for a total of approximately of $250,000.
Mr. Robertson stated the Appeals Commission, Planning Commission
and City Council approved several permits for the project. When
the Planning Commission and �ity Council were informed that Mr.
Farrell was now asking for financial assistance, they requested
that those permit approvals and some of the questions about the
,,-1 site plan be re-reviewed.
Mr. Robertson staff has met with Mr. Farrell, and he has submitted
a revised site plan staff believes will address most of the
problems raised by the Planning Commission and City Council.
However, if the HRA wishes to proceed with the creation of a tax
increment district, staff recommends the approval be contingent
upon Planning Commission and City Council approval of the revised
site plan.
Mr. Jim Casserly stated this is really quite identical to the Lake
Point concept. Of all the different methods of providing some
assistance, this method will probably have the least risk for the
HRA. It requires positive action by the developer to get the
return.
Mr. Meyer asked what happens if the developer gets the project
going, but has to leave the proj ect one year later, where does that
leave the HRA?
Mr. Casserly stated the note is designed so that if there are no
taxes being generated, nothing is paid.
Mr. Commers stated the questions facing the HRA are:
Philosophically, is this the kind of project that deserves some
priority right now? What will it do for the community? Should
''� the HRA offer this type of assistance on this kind of a project?
,�
HOIIBIN6 5 REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MTG.. OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 3
Ms. Schnabel stated another issue is how this fits into the long
range plans for spending the money they have available and where
their emphasis is going to be.
Mr. Commers stated this project would stand on its own. As he
understood it, it will fund itself in three years and presumably
at that point the balance of the increase in increment would go to
the taxing authorities. So, it is not a long range thing which is
good. It will turn over some additional tax dollars in a short
term period of time. That is the real positive thing about this
project.
Mr. Robertson stated it would be a redevelopment district, not an
economic development district, in that the property qualifies as
a redevelopment project.
Mr. Commers asked staff's thoughts on the project.
Mr. Robertson stated the actual TIF would be self-contained on just
this site, but they would create a larger redevelopment area to
include some older properties to the north, west, and south. They
have not done a feasibility study on it yet.
� Mr. Casserly stated the HRA already has a redevelopment program.
� All they do is expand the boundary lines of the existing program
and amend the existing program and create a very small tax
increment district, probably just for this site.
Mr. Robertson stated this is similar to Tax Increment District #9
that was set up for Onan Corporation.
Mr. Meyer stated one negative thing is that the current building
that will be torn dotAm is a building that is more flexible for
other kinds of uses, whereas a theater is not a easily convertible
building for other uses.
Mr. Farrell stated that is true; however, there have been quite a
few proposals for this site as it is, and no one has been able to
do anything. He stated structurally the building is alright,
except for the asbestos. This project has seemed to work out the
best for this site.
Mr. Robertson stated staff has done some research on the building,
and the building has been occupied less than 25� of the time over
the last 7-8 years. The building inspector has looked at the
building and, in addition to the roof, it does not meet the present
energy code. The roof insulation, as well as the asbestos, the
boiler, the unit heaters and the air conditioning all do not meet
code.
�
80II8ING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG.� OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 4
�
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to authorize staff
to initiate the process of creating a redevelopment tax increment
financing district to include, not only the Cub Foods site, but
possibly the older commercial properties on the north side of
Osborne Road to the corner of Osborne and University Avenue, based
on a limited revenue note approach for a total of $255,000. The
final agreement is to be contingent upon reapproval by the Planning
Commission and City Council. In a report from the Building
Division inspectors, the following was documented:
1. Repair damage to the electrical
2. Repair all exit lights
3. Repair all exit doors
4. Repair leaks in the roof
5. Repair/replace the floor tiles
6. Following items do not meet the
a. roof insulation
b. boiler
c. unit heaters
d. air conditioning
7. The building was occupied less
the last 7-8 years.
panel
(asbestos)
Energy Code:
than 250 of the time for
,� Mr. Casserly stated it is very important that the HRA, City
Council, and staff consider this as a redevelopment project. That
is because there are specific exclusions in state law about using
tax increment for theaters and other uses. The reason for creating
this tax increment district is to involve themselves in a
redevelopment activity, not to provide assistance to a theater
activity.
'�1
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON COMMERB DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Robertson stated representatives from Ron Clark Construction
and Boisclair Corporation are at the meeting, and he would
recommend the HRA move item #5 to item #2 at this time for the
convenience of these representatives.
2. INFORMATION ON RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION. ATLAS DEVELOPMENT AND
BOISCLAIR PROPOSALS FOR THE SOUTHWEST OUADRANT OF UNIVERSITY
& MISSISSIPPI STREET:
Mr. Commers asked about the Atlas Development proposal.
Mr. Robertson stated that when he called representatives from Atlas
to remind them of this HRA meeting, he was told that there had been
a miscommunication and that they had not planned to attend this
meeting. Several principles are out of town. Representatives from
Atlas asked that consideration of their proposal be held over until
the November 9, 1989, meeting.
�
�
HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 5
Mr. Commers asked if Atlas has provided a financial analysis.
Mr. Casserly stated Atlas' proposal was to have the HRA enter into
a governmental housing bond that has some very different
characteristics.
Mr. Robertson stated Atlas submitted a 5 page outline which was
included in the packet. Staff did not enter into a financial
analysis because staff did not know if the HRA even wanted to go
in this direction, because it is so drastically different than
anything the HRA has done before.
Mr. Commers stated the HRA is familiar with that kind of proposal,
and it is not anything the HRA is really interested in doing.
Ron Clark Construction
Mr. Robertson stated that on August 10, 1989, the HRA authorized
staff to undertake a preliminary analysis of the Ron Clark
Construction proposal to develop approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of
retail space and three 100-unit apartment complex. The important
point here is that the Clark project is very comparable to the
Tanurb project. The Tanurb project was unable to proceed because
they were unable to secure an anchor tenant. Both the Clark
project and the Tanurb project have approximately $1.6 million
available for developer reimbursement because of the value.
Mr. Robertson stated he feels the Clark project is essentially
close to the HRA's criteria of "breaking even". There are some
details that have to be worked out.
Mr. Robertson stated staff inet with Mr. Dave Sibold and Sid Inman,
the consultant, on Tuesday, October 10, and Mr. Sibold and Mr.
Inman have concluded that, given the two analyses that Mr. Casserly
has run, they are very close in terms of the feasibility of the
project. Mr. Sibold, Mr. Inman, and Mr. Ron Clark are at the
meeting.
Mr. Sebold stated Ron Clark Construction has been in business for
15-17 years as a builder developer of residential projects, single
family, multi-family, and townhouse projects and also have done
some for-rent multi-family projects. Over the last seven years,
they have become more involved in commercial construction
development as well as residential. In that seven year period they
have remodeled or built over one million square feet of commercial
retail and industrial property. Within the company, they not only
provide the construction services for development, they also do
their own property management and leasing.
�
HOIIBING � REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG.. OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGB 6
Mr. Sebold stated they are confident that a retail development on
this site will be a success. They have done their homework on
rental housing and feel 100 units of for-rent, probably a townhome
flat concept, would be most successful for them. The townhome
proj ect would be on the west portion of the site and the retail
project would be in a"L�� shape facing University/Mississippi.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Sebold to describe the type of construction.
Mr. Sebold stated the townhome portion of the project would be a
wood frame, three-story building, of low maintenance materials,
gabled roof, with attached and some detached garages. They have
not gotten into a discussion with the HRA on the construction
details for the retail portion of the project, but he envisioned
a one-story town square, more colonial style, brick and stucco,
with pitched roofs.
Ms. Schnabel asked if they would be using low income tax credits,
or would these be market rate units?
Mr. Sebold stated these will be for-rent market rate units.
Mr. Casserly handed out a"Comparison of Proposals for Development
� of Southwest Quadrant of Mississippi Street and University Avenue
N.E." He stated the City has had a wide range of genuinely
legitimate development proposals. So, he thought it would help the
HRA to see some of the comparisons between these proposals and
maybe that would help the HRA focus on the public policy issue of
they "pay for what they get".
Mr. Casserly stated the way all these proposals have been designed
is that the HRA is not purchasing the land. The developer is
purchasing the land, and the developer is doing the public
improvements, demolition, and relocation. If necessary, the HRA
will enter into a condemnation in the event of a holdout, if the
HRA gets the proceeds from the developer first to make the
acquisition. About one year after the project is under way, the
HRA will then issue its bond and reimburse the developer from what
can be gotten from the bond proceeds. So, in each of these
projects, the developer will do the acquisition. There are a lot
of reasons for this, not the least of which is the developer might
be able to get better prices, have more control over the
development, and might be able to do things more efficiently.
Also, the obvious advantage to the HRA is it greatly reduces the
risk to the HRA. This is an important feature in all of these
proposals, and for purposes of analysis, that is the assumption.
Mr. Casserly reviewed the "Comparison of Proposals" information
comparing Tanurb, Boisclair, and Clark Construction.
�,
�'�1
HOIIBINa � REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTa., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 7
Mr. Sebold stated their intent is to not ask for funds outside the
district. They would like to reserve the Burger King site for the
future. They do not need that site right now for their proposal.
Mr. Hugh McCloud, broker representing the land owners, the Suh's
and Levy's, asked if there was any information on how the land
owners would be compensated.
Mr. Casserly stated all proposals assume the same thing--that the
developer acquires the land. In the event of a holdout, the HRA
condemns the property, and the developer carries, which is a cost
not factored into this because that requires a lot more refinement.
Mr. Meyer asked what the projected taxes were for the City and for
Lundgren before his project fell through.
Mr. Casserly stated the taxes of rental ranged from $900 to $1,900.
The City projected in the $1,100 range. There was a lot of low and
moderate income housing involved in it. The Clark p=oject is very
much market rate, and the developer could anticipate the taxes per
year to be in the $1,400 range.
Mr. Ron Clark stated this is a townhouse-style development with
,�. more square footage per unit than other proposals the HRA has had
� for this property, and that will push the tax rate higher.
Mr. Meyer stated one of the ultimate evaluations for the HRA is
going to have to be on whose units are better than the others,
because that is where the tax projections are based.
Mr. Commers stated size and quality are going to be very important.
Mr. Casserly stated that in all these summations, he has tried to
use the developer's best judgement on what they think they will be
paying in taxes. His vision of the development agreement is going
to place the risk substantially on the developer to perform to
generate the kind of taxes they are estimating so they can get
their return back. Maybe just the difference in size of the units
can contribute substantially to the difference in taxes. They
could have equally high quality exteriors and all the amenities
could be identical, but the difference in the size of the units can
make the difference in the taxes.
Mr. Casserly stated the HRA has had a variety of proposals
presented to them and while a lot of these are approximations, at
least it gives the Commission a feel for what is required for the
different kinds of projects. He will definitely work with the
Boisclair representatives to get a better understanding of the
numbers.
�
�
HOIIBING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITSORITY MTC:., OCT. 12, 1989 - PA(3E 8
Mr. Commers asked if the-Clark Construction people had any comments
for clarification on their proposal.
Mr. Inman stated Clark Construction represents a standard
transaction of worth. They just completed a development in Golden
Valley that is similar in size to this proposal, and the HRA could
check the tax numbers on that project.
Mr. Commers stated that regarding the Burger King site, does this
proposal meet the commitment that somewhere there is third phase
that would pick up the Burger Ring site?
Mr. Inman stated they have not gotten that far into the proposal.
He stated he thought there were two options:
(1) To pay an inflated price for a piece of property just to
remove the building, but that is not economical for Clark.
(2) To try to make the site self-supporting with what is there
now and what they perceive the market to be.
Mr. Inman suggested the City Assessor look at the concept of both
proposals.
�� Boisclair Corporation
Mr. Boisclair stated he wanted to re-emphasize that they have
$1,280,000 so that parallels the bottom line. They push from the
standpoint of doing a redevelopment project that enhances the site
and makes a statement. It would be a complete project on a phased
basis. They feel office is not viable in this area. As far as
taxes, they will not know that until they look at the rents. They
are building a little more density which creates more population
base which creates more volume of purchasing power. The second
phase includes the Burger King.
Ms. Schnabel stated neither proposal really includes the Burger
Ring site in the first phase.
Mr. Casserly stated the bottom line costs on both these proposals
of what has to be contributed by the developer in cash includes
the Burger Ring site. There is a further refinement the Clark
proposal would like to make.
Ms. Schnabel stated it is real "iffy" whether either proposal will
buy the Burger King site. They should figure the proposals both
with the Burger King site and without the Burger King site.
Mr. Commers asked Mr. Boisclair to outline phase I.
�"1
�
HOIIBINa & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTa., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 9
Mr. Boisclair stated it will include acquiring the liquor store
and all the vacant property behind it, the Levy property, the Dairy
Queen, Kiffe's Automotive, the City street portion, and the car
wash facility.
Mr. Inman stated basically phase I was the same for Clark
Construction.
Mr. Boisclair stated that regarding taxes, he would also suggest
that the City Assessor look at both proposals and give them a
quote.
Mr. Casserly stated the developers have responded to some direction
from staff. Staff has told them to be conservative as possible.
The reason for that is this system assumes they are going to issue
a tax exempt bond, and that assumes the City has some risks. The
developers are not going be guaranteeing debt service, so they want
some margin for error.
Mr. Commers stated he had hoped the HRA could review these
proposals at this meeting and start to move on this but, for
whatever reason, the Atlas Corporation, was unable to present their
proposal at this meeting.
�� Mr. Commers asked what Clark Construction's time line was if Clark
Construction's proposal was chosen.
Mr. Sebold stated they would like to be in the ground by June 1990.
They would need a decision from the HRA by January 1, 1990, at the
latest.
Mr. Boisclair stated they contemplate their first phase starting
in June 1990 as well. Their concern is the bond inducement for
the low income housing revenue bond, and they need to be in line
the first week in January.
Mr. Commers asked about the status of Mr. McCloud's clients, the
Levy's and Suh's.
Mr. McCloud stated they had spent quite a bit of time on the Tanurb
proposal. They have had discussions with the Boisclair
Corporation, and the Boisclair project is an acceptable project to
them. They are not aware of the Ron Clark Construction proposal.
He stated they have been trying to get the momentum going after
being exposed to the process for many years without success and
being caught in between condemnation and not being able to do
something.
Mr. Commers stated this is a big project and a very important
�`1 project. They might be in a position of committing a significant
amount of money, and he felt they should spend whatever is needed
�
�
��
HOIIBINa � RTDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTa., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAaE 10
to get as accurate an analysis as possible and should authorize Mr.
Casserly to do it right away.
Mr. Prairie agreed.
Ms. Schnabel agreed. She would like to see an analysis of
Boisclair and Clark with and without the Burger King site.
Mr. Meyer agreed. He stated he would also like to see a more exact
tax appraisal.
Mr. Commers stated that timing is also important. So, if Mr.
Casserly can get an analysis done fairly soon, the HRA should
probably have a working meeting devoted to these proposals so they
can arrive at a conclusion possibly in November.
Mr. Casserly stated he would work with the developers, put the
analysis together, and then let the developers react to the
analysis before it is brought back to the HRA.
Mr. Commers stated staff should notify Atlas Development to get
their numbers in quickly so that Mr. Casserly can incorporate them
in his analyses.
Mr. Commers stated staff should get some tax assessment comparisons
from Anoka County for other projects that have been done.
Mr. Clark stated he would recommend they use new projects that are
comparable, projects that have been completed within the last year
or two, because there is a considerable difference between what new
projects are being assessed at and what older projects were
assessed at.
Mr. Sebold stated that the project ownership will be Ron Clark for
both the retail and the rental. They have no reliance on outside
investors.
Mr. Commers tentatively set a working meeting for Thursday,
November 2, 1989.
Mr. Commers thanked the representatives from Boisclair Corporation
and Ron Clark Construction, and Mr. McCloud representing the
landowners, for coming to the meeting.
The HRA members expressed concern about not having enough
background information on the Boisclair Corporation and Ron Clark
Construction.
Mr. Commers stated maybe the City can get some Dun & Bradstreet
reports on these companies.
,�
�'�1
�
1
HOIISING � REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTd., OCT. 12, 1989 - PAGE 11
Mr. Meyer asked if it would be possible to urge Clark Construction
to submit some type of overview of their project--a plot plan and
an architectural sketch rendering of their project.
3. CONSIDERATION OF PLAZA LANDSCAPE REVISIONS:
Mr. Commers stated that according to Mr. Robertson's memo dated
September 7, 1989, he suggests the HRA wait a year before taking
any further action on the Plaza landscaping.
Mr. Robertson stated that although it is clear to the Graduate
Landscape Architect that the trees are beginning to show distress,
the HRA might want more time to look at other alternatives. In his
memo, he outlined several options:
1. Do nothing at this time and wait several years until more
trees have died before replacing.
2. Replace all the trees at this time as recommended by
Public Works.
3.
4.
5.
Remove all trees and replace with paving materials
instead.
Remove dead trees and those with 50� or less healthy
canopy.
Remove all trees and replace with fewer, more widely
spaced larger trees.
Mr. Meyer stated this is a very central part of a very lovely
quadrant. They have a newly remodeled Municipal Center. If they
have a second rate prominent feature, it just seems like such a
contrast. It seems they should go first class in this area.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer to authorize the Plaza landscape revisions as
soon as possible as outlined in Mr. Flora's August 24, 1989, memo.
Ms. Schnabel stated she is uncomfortable with the dollar amounts.
There is also the philosophy about the best time to plant, and slie
feels spring is a better time to plant than fall.
Mr. Meyer stated he had no problem with specifying that the
planting be done in the spring.
Mr. Newman
maybe they
Architect,
consider.
stated that if they are going to wait until spring,
should ask Michele McPherson, Graduate Landscape
to put together a recommendation for the HRA to
MR. MEYER WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
�
HOIISINC� & REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MT(�. , OCT. 12 , 1989 - PAaE 12
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to table discussion
on the Plaza landscape revisions and authorize staff to develop a
plan for HRA review.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DLCLARED
T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
4. INFORMATION ON PARKING RAMP CONSTRUCTION COSTS:
Mr. Robertson stated that at the August meeting, the HRA requested
staff to put together a breakout of Municipal Ramp costs. That was
done by Mr. Flora in his memo dated September 1, 1989. Attached
to the memo was additional materials to describe many of those
proposals.
Mr. Commers stated his biggest concern has always been all this
landscaping. He did not know how the City can contend that it is
part of the ramp itself. They are talking $100,000 for landscaping
and for the bridge. If the City Council wants these things, they
should pay for them. Why is it lumped into the cost of the ramp?
Mr. Commers stated the HI2A made a commitment to build a ramp at a
cost of $750,000. They are now at a number that is unbelievable
,.� in terms of overages. Now the landscaping costs are being lumped
in with the ramp costs, and he did not think the HRA should have
to pay for it.
Mr. Robertson stated it was consciously omitted at the time the
contracts were let because the plans and the specs for the
landscaping and the signage were not prepared at the time they went
to bid the project.
Mr. Commers stated the HI2A was never told that these were to be
included in the costs. That might have happened, but the HRA was
not made aware of it.
Mr. Billings stated that when the bids were coming in, the
Municipal Center came in some $250,000 over budget, and the ramp
came in at $250,000 under budget. The City Manager, Mr. Qureshi,
decided to put the landscaping with the ramp. So, the lines of
communication between the HRA and City Council were not very good.
Mr. Commers stated he certainly appreciated this information.
Mr. Meyer stated he had requested this information, and Mr. Flora's
memo is a good summary for the record of how the changes came
about.
!'1
,�
HOIIBINa � REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MTa.. OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 13
5. INFORMATION ON BIDS FOR ANTI-GRAFFITI SEALER FOR PARKING RAMP:
Mr. Robertson stated $5,000 was allocated for the white paint, and
the HRA decided to see what it would cost for anti-graffiti sealer.
The low bid came in at $16,940 and paint was $8,250. Since there
has only been one isolated incident, he would recommend any action
on this expense be delayed until ne�rt summer.
The HRA concurred with staff's recommendation.
6. INFORMATION ON OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PRO-
ENGINEERING:
Mr. Robertson stated this was an information item.
7. ESTIMATE: RAY JORDAN & SONS - MOORE LAKE COMMONS & LAKE
POINTE MAINTENANCE
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the
estimate for Ray Jordan & Sons in the amount of $1,739.80 and
$1,680.00.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN�3 AYE � CHAIRPER80N COMMERB DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
8. ESTIMATE: GREENMASTERS, INC. - LAKE POINTE MAINTENANCE
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the
estimate for Greenmasters, Inc., in the amount of $29,331.43.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPLRBON COMMERB DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
9. CLAIMS:
a. Billinq for Personal Bervices for Auqust & 8eptember
Mr. Commers stated he has noticed that for the last several months,
the HR� has been getting additional expenses they never used to
get. The expenses he is referring to are under Operating Expenses:
long distance telephone calls, electricity, microfiche service,
inspection service, etc. The HRA always paid its prorata share of
the Labor Detail, and if the HI2A was paying for these operating
expenses in the past, he would like to know how those were charged.
He was not saying it was not an appropriate change, but he would
like to know why it has been changed.
Ms. Schnabel stated she wondered what Inspection Service was under
Operating Expenses in the amount of $716.48. It was the same
�''� dollar amount for both the August and September billings. She
,�
HOIISINa � RTD�VELOPMENT AIITHORITY MTG., OCT. 12. 1989 - PAGE 14
would also like to know what the irrigation supplies include under
the Operating Expenses in the August billing.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the
Billing for Personal Services for August and September 1989.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, COI�IERB, PRAIRIE, MEYER VOTIN(� AYE, BCHNABEL
ABBTAININa, CHAIRPERSON CO1rII�lERB DLCLARED THE MOTION CARRITsD BY A
VOTE OF 3-1.
b. CheCIC Reqister (1932-1948)
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the
check register as submitted.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N CO1�IIriERB DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the
meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votiaq aye, Chairperson Commers
dealared the October 12, 1989, Housinq and Redevelopment Authoritp
^ meetinq adjourned at 1o:i5 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/
,Z, Q�.��--�
Lyn Saba
Recording Secretary
�