HRA 12/13/1990 - 6888dpi
j�
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1990
7:00 P.M.
;.• 0.
WIF-WWOU .04 A ••
CITY OF FRIDLEY
A G E N D A
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1990, 7:00 P.M.
Location: City Council Chambers d� Y �W �j��` � t
Fridley Municipal Center
6431 University Avenue N.E.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 8, 1990
ACTION ITEMS•
PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT TURNBACK
TOSCHOOL DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - III
SIGN PERMIT FOR FRIDLEY PLAZA PHARMACY,
FRIDLEY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING . . . . . . . 2 - 2D
ESTIMATES:
THE KORDIAK COMPANY (RICE PLAZA) . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CLAIMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CONSIDERATION OF 1991 MEETING DATES . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5A
INFORMATION ITEMS:
PROPOSED AGREEMENT TO ASSIST
PROPOSED NEW RMS PLANT WITH ONE -HALF
OUTSTANDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
STATUS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION AT 57TH PLACE . . . . . . 7
STATUS OF UNIVERSITY /MISSISSIPPI
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8A
STATUS OF PROPOSED FRIDLEY TOWN
SQUARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
4r
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 8, 1990
w w r r r r r r r r r r w w w w w rrrrww wwr rrrr w w w rrrrw w r w w r r rr w w w.11w..r ww w r r r ww r r w w
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice - Chairperson Schnabel called the November 8, 1990, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie, John Meyer
Members Absent: Larry Commers, Walter Rasmussen
Others Present: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant
Jim Hoeft, Assistant City Attorney
Paul Hansen, Accountant
Mike Schrader
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 11. 1990, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the
October 11, 1990, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as
written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Mr. Robertson added the following item to the agenda under Action
Items:
Agreement Regarding Confidentiality of Lake Pointe
Negotiations
Mr. Robertson stated that before discussion of the agenda items,
he needed to tell the HRA that he is resigning from the City of
Fridley for personal and family reasons. He stated it has been a
difficult decision to make, and words cannot express how much he
has enjoyed working with the HRA members as their Executive
Director. They are a wonderful group of people.
Ms. Schnabel stated each member of the HRA will miss Mr. Robertson
tremendously. They have enjoyed working with him and certainly
appreciate all the work he has done for them over the years.
3
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , NOV. 8 1990 PAGE 2
Mr. Meyer and Mr. Prairie expressed their regret and stated they
wished Mr. Robertson a lot of luck for the future.
1. SALE OF LAND RECEIVED FROM CITY TO FRIDLEY AUTO MALL:
Mr. Robertson stated that his memo on agenda page 1 outlines the
proposed schedule for the sale of excess property to Al Schrader.
The Council had already approved, by resolution, the transfer of
the land to the HRA. The letter has gone to the County asking for
the County's approval for this change. The next step is to get the
same letter of approval from the State Commissioner of Revenue.
The Council will then pass an ordinance declaring the land surplus
and deeding it to the HRA. They will then need simultaneous
approval of a purchase agreement between Al Schrader and the HRA
and an agreement between the City and the HRA for the HRA to
reimburse the City for money received in the transaction. At the
closing, the HRA will transfer title from the HRA to Al Schrader,
collect the money from Al Schrader, and, subsequently, transfer the
money back to the City as per the agreement.
Mr. Robertson stated staff is recommending the HRA approve the
above procedure.
Mr. Schrader stated he is at the meeting to answer any questions
the HRA might have. He stated he has been in contact with Mr .
Herrick, City Attorney, regarding this procedure. It is a somewhat
convoluted, but necessary, procedure. In order to utilize this
piece of land for their proposed development, this is the way it
has to work.
Mr. Meyer asked what interest, vested or private, would potentially
have a stake in this in terms of raising a question of any kind to
this whole procedure. Should they expect a potential conflict from
another source?
Mr. Robertson stated that is a good question, and he does not have
an answer to it. As the law stands, this is an exception to the
normal procedure where the City by law must give the land to the
state and then purchase it back from the state. But, the law
give it to an HRA. The
allows the one option where the City can
law does not specify what the HRA must do with the land.
Mr. Schrader stated he has not handled this form of transaction
himself, but, given the changes in staff and personnel, he thought
it would be a one - step -at -a -time approach. The land is unbuildable
given the setbacks and the way it is set up, and will work nicely
with their project once the transaction is completed and the land
is replatted into one piece for frontage. Given the fact that the
land is in a redevelopment district right now and the City has
given its blessing that there are no other uses within the City's
design for it, he did not see that the Commissioner of Revenue
HOUSING &__REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG.. NOV. 8. 1990 PAGE 3
would have to pursue those avenues as vigorously as they may have
given other pieces of property.
Mr. Hoeft stated the only other possible avenue he would consider
is if the routine is followed and the property would go back to
the state, and then the HRA would purchase it back from the state.
The only potential there is that the state would have the option
when they received the property to place it out for bid. Since the
state would be agreeing, by this letter of approval to the
Commissioner of Revenue, that this is acceptable, he did not see
any other problems. And, as Mr. Schrader has said, this land, the
way it is situated, is really not of any use to anyone else.
Mr. Schrader stated that since the Council approved the procedure
last week, they are working quickly to finalize the leasing and
financial commitments.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the
concept for the sale of excess property to Al Schrader for the
proposed Fridley Auto Mall as proposed by staff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. AGREEMENT REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF LAKE POINTE
NEGOTIATIONS•
Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Utley has been hired by Lake Pointe
to represent them in some negotiations. He stated it is quite
common to have a confidentiality agreement when undertaking
negotiations so that it is held in confidence and cannot be used
in court.
Mr. Robertson stated he talked to Larry Commers about this the day
before. Mr. Commers thought one sentence should be added and that
he would call in the change to Mr. Robertson. He stated he did not
receive any call from Mr. Commers, and he believed that meant that
Mr. Commers did not think the change was significant enough to make
the amendment. The change had something to do with the use of the
material that would be developed during discussion.
Mr. Robertson stated that this agreement has been reviewed by Mr.
Casserly and Mr. Herrick. After the HRA's approval, the Mayor and
Larry Commers will sign it.
Mr. Casserly stated staff has been reluctant to have any more
discussions until this agreement is reached. What this agreement
does is that when there are discussions to solve the problem, those
discussions cannot be admitted later in court.
Mr. Robertson stated the MPCA has revoked the Indirect Source
Permit. Woodbridge Properties paid the $400 for the extension of
NOOSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOV. 8, 1990 PAGE 4
the Indirect Source Permit, and staff is recommending that fee be
refunded back to Woodbridge Properties.
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to authorize the
execution of an agreement regarding confidentiality of Lake Pointe
negotiations.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL' VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the return
of $400 to Woodbridge Properties because of the revocation of the
Indirect Source Permit by the MPCA.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. CONCEPT OF PROPOSED TIF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR NEW
RMS PLANT:
Mr. Robertson stated that at the time City staff was approached by
RMS Company, they asked specifically about the creating of a tax
increment district. He spoke with Mr. Casserly about this, and Mr.
Casserly stated it can be done. It meets the statutory`
requirements for an economic development district; however, there
would be LGA penalties to the City. Subsequently, Mr. Herrick and
he met with the buyers and the sellers and determined there was a
total of about $100,000 of outstanding special assessments. The
HRA would essentially agree to pay for half of that. Then it would
be up to the buyer and seller to negotiate how to pick up the rest
of it. They had previously negotiated an agreement whereby the
buyer was going to pay $27,000 of the special assessments which was
on the books at the beginning. What happened was the new special
assessments were added to the tax rolls after they took a casual
look at the outstanding assessments when they first started
negotiations. After they had covered the agreement that the
$27,000 was going to be picked up, the buyer's attorney discovered
there was another $75,000 that had been added.
Mr. Robertson stated
for the HRA to split
parties. The buyer
pay the other half.
City.
staff feels it
the assessment
and seller will
It is an easy way to
is i n
half
then
the City's best interest
and half with the private
have to negotiate how to
keep this industry in the
Mr. Casserly stated it is not impossible to create this kind of
economic development district. It is just that the amount is so
small that he did not think it is worth going through all the time
and expense.
Ms. Schnabel asked what it would cost the HRA to create the
district.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOV. 8, 1990 PAGE 5
Mr. Casserly stated it would probably run between $2,000 -2,500 to
create the district, and then for assurance that the company is
going to proceed, they should have a simple development agreement
which would cost $1,500 - 2,500. Overall total costs would probably
be around $4,000 - 5,000.
Ms. Schnabel stated the HRA's costs would then be $4,000-5,000 plus
the $27,000 of LGA penalties, for a total of $31,000- 32,000. She
had a hard time understanding why the HRA should split the special
assessments and pay $50,000, when they can create the economic
development district and pay $32,000 maximum. She had a hard time
being very sympathetic to people who do not thoroughly research the
tax situation on a real estate deal.
Mr. Casserly stated he had the same question. It was the attorney
who was representing the purchaser who, before he allowed his
client to sign the purchase agreement, decided to doublecheck. It
was one of those things that when they originally started
negotiations, these special assessments were not pending.
Ms. Schnabel asked about option #1 as listed in Mr. Robertson's
memo dated October 29, 1990: The HRA, the buyer, and the seller
could split the additional special assessments three ways.
Mr. Robertson stated that option was offered to the company, and
it was not acceptable.
Ms. Schnabel stated she wondered if it is appropriate for the HRA
to take discretionary funds to pay for special assessments on
property 60 days before a scheduled closing.
Mr. Casserly stated the use of discretionary funds for this purpose
is completely appropriate because they are furthering their
development program and are spending the funds on site related
expenses.
Mr. Hoeft stated he sensed that Ms. Schnabel is concerned about
setting a precedent. That is a valid concern, but he thought it
would be unlikely that another buyer and seller would come in with
this situation, because of the fact that the assessments were not
pending at the time negotiations were begun and were assessed
thereafter. This type of situation does not happen very often.
Ms. Schnabel stated her point is that there is still 60 days until
closing, and there is still time for the buyer and seller to work
out their differences.
NOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve option #2
as outlined in Mr. Robertson's October 29, 1990, memo that the HRA
and the private parties could split the assessment half and half.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOV. 81 1990 PAGE 6
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MEYER AND PRAIRIE VOTING AYE, SCHIJABEL VOTING
NAY, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A
VOTE OF 2 -1.
4. ESTIMATES:
a. The Kordiak Company (Rice Plaza
b. Talberg Lawn &'Landscape (Lake Pointe Maintenance)
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the
estimate for The Kordiak Company in the amount of $260.34 and
the final estimate for Talberg Lawn & Landscape in the amount
of $6,100.70.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. CLAIMS:
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the check
register dated November 8, 1990, as submitted.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. STATUS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION AT 57TH PLACE:
Mr. Robertson stated that at the October HRA meeting, staff was
asked to find out whether the clean -up equipment could be placed
in the side yard of a new development project so that redevelopment
could proceed without waiting for the completion of the clean -up
action which may take several years.
Mr. Robertson stated that when he telephoned Art Newby, he was told
that Jack Lemley of Ashland Oil was requesting that all calls from
the City of Fridley be referred to him. He then contacted Mr.
Lemley who said he would have to talk to his attorney before
responding. At this time, Mr. Lemley has not yet responded to this
request.
Mr. Robertson stated this is for the HRA's information.
7. STATUS OF RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION FOR MISSISSIPPI / UNIVERSITY
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IN 1991:
Mr. Robertson stated the City Council has petitioned the County to
complete the intersection improvements in 1991. In order to do
that, the City will have to furnish some right -of -way from both
Kiffe's Auto and Rice Plaza, both of which the HRA own. However,
they do not own the Dairy Queen.
OUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOV. 8, 1990 PAGE 7
Mr. Robertson stated he contacted the City's appraiser and asked
him to prepare an outline of an appraised value so that they can
meet with Mr. Fitch of the Dairy Queen and negotiate an agreement.
He is following the direction of the City Council for this, and he
will bring a progress report and possibly a proposed settlement for
HRA action at the next meeting.
Mr. Robertson stated that in connection with this, he had mailed
to the HRA some supplemental material entitled "Mississippi Street
Improvements ". Does the HRA and the City Council wish to make a
commitment to the pedestrian improvements, the landscaping, and
decorative lighting at this time? These are things they had in the
long range plan for University Avenue and which the HRA put on hold
at a joint meeting with the City Council about 1 1/2 years ago
(minutes included in the material). At that time, he believed it
was the policy direction that rather than doing the two
demonstration sections of the Corridor, they would put those in
hold and concentrate on the North Gateway area, with the idea that
once they got a project in the North Gateway area, they would
complete the public improvements with that.
Mr. Robertson stated that 1 1/2 years later, they now have the
opportunity to do that same thing with Mississippi Street. If the
County is going to make the improvements, now is the time to put
the NSP lines underground, put in the decorative lighting and
pedestrian improvements. He stated he believed this would be
consistent with that policy direction made 1 1/2 years ago.
Mr. Robertson stated that in this case, however, the City Council
has said they want to give the HRA policy direction and they are
discussing this at their meeting that same evening. The HRA should
be aware that with the cost of all the improvements, it could be
about $700,000 for everything.
Mr. Robertson stated he had discussed this with Mr. Commers. Mr.
Commers had commented that they should definitely put in the
underground utilities and probably at least the underground wiring
for the decorative lighting. He felt strongly that they should do
the pedestrian improvements and move the traffic signals so the
whole intersection becomes pedestrian friendly. If they could
defer something, he thought it could be the actual plant materials.
Mr. Robertson stated that when the City Council discussed this at
their November 5, 1990, meeting, their main concern was that with
the median extending further back on the west side, it would
prevent the frontage road between the Dairy Queen and Riffe's from
having full movement. The Council has asked John Flora to prepare
plans for a temporary connection for the frontage road.
Mr. Robertson stated that at this meeting, he is asking the HRA to
be aware of the costs and then they will have to wait for input
HOUSING; & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOV. 8. 1990 PAGE 8
from Council before proceeding. This will be discussed again at
the December HRA meeting.
Mr. Meyer stated it might be interesting to revisit some of the
concepts they discussed in the past. For instance, he would like
to review the lighting as a number of things have changed since
their last discussion.
Ms. Schnabel agreed. She stated she has very strong feelings about
some of the lighting. Some of the lighting that has been done in
the City is excessive.
Mr. Robertson stated Terri Mau, owner of the beauty salon and
tanning salon in the Rice Plaza Building, approached him two months
ago with an offer. She wanted to trade some of her rent for her
future relocation entitlements. Now that Target is no longer
interested in the southwest quadrant, she is still interested in
moving across to the Fridley Town Square development at the 10,000
Auto Parts site.
Mr. Robertson stated Ms. Mau will not be able to move for a year.
She has 2 - 2 1/2 years outstanding in leases. He did think it
would be appropriate to tell Ms. Mau that if she is still in
business at that time, the HRA would forgive the rest of the lease.
This would save a Fridley business by putting it into a new
location. Ms. Mau needs a commitment from the HRA before the end
of the month. Of course, if the Fridley Town Square does not go,
then this will be moot.
Ms. Schnabel stated she did not like the concept of doing that,
because she is afraid of it setting a precedent for other
businesses in that Rice Plaza building. She would prefer that the
HRA not make a commitment. However, if the HRA must make a
commitment, she would reluctantly agree to forgive the balance of
Ms. Mau's lease to the HRA, if she agrees that when she moves, she
will move from Rice Plaza to the Fridley Town Square development
project and nowhere else.
MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to forgive the
remaining lease to Ms. Mau, with the stipulation that when she
moves, she moves to the Fridley Town Square development.
UPON A VOICE VOTE# ALL VOTING AYEv VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. STATUS OF TARGET AND FRIDLEY TOWN SQUARE PROPOSALS FOR CENTER
CITY REDEVELOPMENT:
Mr. Robertson stated that on October 19, 1990, Target informed the
City that they had decided not to proceed with the projected
combined NOC /CPC office space project on the southwest quadrant of
Q
s
HOUSING A REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOV. 8, 1990_ PAGE 9
University /Mississippi. Target explained that it was a short range
financial consideration in which the corporation wished to make
most of its capital investment in new retail facilities while
taking advantage of the very favorable office space lease market
in the Twin Cities and continue leasing space for the CPC in
Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Robertson stated that regarding the Fridley Town Square
project, Mr. Scott Erickson feels there is a 90% plus probability
that the project will proceed as proposed. He has gotten a
preliminary commitment on a construction loan from Miller Schroeder
within the last couple of days.
Mr. Casserly stated Miller Schroeder has given Fridley Town Square
Associates an oral commitment, but the partnership has asked for
a little larger loan amount. He stated he believed the project has
about a 75% chance to proceed.
Mr. Casserly stated he will be coming back to the next meeting with
another concept for assistance for the Fridley Town Square project.
He stated he truly believes that if the HRA does not assist this
project, it will not succeed.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. North Gateway Plan
Mr. Robertson stated the City Council reviewed the North
Gateway scenarios for different housing as an alternative to
57th Place /Winfield Development. The Council has asked staff
to explore some ways of enhancing the financing, which would
be different from a straight TIF district.
Mr. Robertson stated he would like a consultant, Bill
Schlatslein, to prepare a proposal for more creative ways to
finance that project. He stated he will bring this proposal
back to the HRA at their December meeting.
b. Tax Increment Revenue Return to the School Districts
Mr. Robertson stated that, at the HRA's direction, Paul Hansen
and Rick Pribyl have prepared the school TIF turnback
proposal.
Mr. Hansen stated that at the October meeting, the HRA
requested him to come back with some information regarding
the tax increment revenue return to the school districts. At
the election on November 6, School District #13 was the only
school district that passed a referendum. He used the 1990
estimates and added in the portion that applied to the new
referendum which is approximately $33,770. So, the total
ROUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AIITRORITY MTG., NOV. 8. 1990 PAGE 10
refund amount for 1991 is $295,569. That is $33,770 more than
in 1990.
Mr. Pribyl stated this will come back to the HRA for formal
action at the December meeting. Because there is the possible
windfall to School District #13, he may recommend not
returning the $33,770 levy to School District #13, if they
participate in half the penalties and interest on the Skywood
Mall project.
ADJOURNMENT:
NOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn the
meeting. upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice - Chairperson
Schnabel declared the November 8, 1990, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Resp ctfully sub itted,
ti
yn Saba
Recording Secretary
ACTION ITEMS
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
11 1
WA
MEMORANDUM
TO: ERA COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
PAUL S. EANSEN# ACCOUNTANT
SUBJECT: REFERENDUM LEVY RETURN AGREEMENTS
DATE: December 7, 1990
Attached you will find a copy of the 1991 School District
Referendum Levy Return Agreements and the 1991 estimated return
amounts. This is submitted for your discussion and approval at the
December 13, 1990 HRA Meeting.
We have been working with Jim O'Meara at Briggs & Morgan Law Office
to calculate the estimated returns. This estimate is based on
information supplied by the School Districts, Minnesota Department
of Education, State Statute, and the draft agreements prepared by
Jim O'Meara.
Woodbridge Development, Inc. has elected not to continue to pay the
taxes on the Lake Pointe property, which is a violation of their
agreement with the Fridley HRA. Consequently, the dollar amount
associated with district #6, Lake Pointe, has been subtracted from
the refund to School District #13.
The total estimated return, for 1991, for all School Districts is
calculated to be $268,950.47. We estimate the total return for
1992 will be at least, if not more than, $268,950.47 and this
amount will continue to increase each year. I would suggest that
a ceiling be placed on the increment return that would not exceed
this amount.
You should be aware that the interest and penalties associated with
the Skywood properties has been distributed 50% to the county and
50% to School District #13. This amount is a windfall to School
District #13 in the amount of $113,500.00. You might recall in the
last meeting I discussed interpretation of Anoka County's regarding
the penalties and interest on tax increment properties. They feel
that the statute allows the distribution of interest and penalties
to the county and school district. In the research I have done it
appears that Anoka County is the only County in the metro area with
that interpretation. I still feel that this is a misinterpretation
of the statute. When considering the agreements you might consider
approving the agreements with.a stipulation that School District
#13 amount be amended so that the amount that they have previously
1 -A
Memo to: HRA Commission Members
Re: Referendum Levy Return Agreements
Page 2
received from the interest and penalties be deducted from the
amount. You will note on the schedule showing what the estimate
of the return will be that their proposed return is smaller than
the amount they received from the interest and penalties. I would
suggest that we withhold amounts until the $113,500 has been
withheld from their tax increment distribution.
RDP /me
Attachment
�
CD
�
z
§
E
0)
«
m
■
¢
�
¢
%
�
�
0
w
w
U.
¢
�
$
0
§
§
#
%
&
st
&
«« ««
z r
z =
�
g
=
zz
R
A
■
g
�
�
■■
■■
o
■
B
k�
�
E
�p�
�
vi
c
�k��
�
§
BBB &
cx aSR
$
S$$
�
BC; 0
&
«« ««
1 -13
z r
z =
r
zz
=
zz
R
■
■
g
�
■■
■■
1 -13
�
■
cm
■
■
g
�
I
o
■
1 -13
�
k
■
�
vi
ci
V)
BBB &
cx aSR
$
S$$
$
BC; 0
%kk
B
$ -
B
— �
K
® 2
K
f««
§Cd
li
Cd
U Z
U81
co Sto-
—_—
co
■_
®—
�
�
V
w
CUD,
■2�
���
2kIL
§0
§£�
■H
■V40
■■■
■V■
■ ■m
■v■
ft ft
IS
co
�
& in
$
z
�
■
�
m
Z
0
w
N
4
CD
0)
J
O
w
8
W
-a ;
g �
t
v
0
l7 r l7 N R
r cv
A 9 9 9 g
� k R R
m
�<c v
V U
-23 ca
V- V- N V N
v
J
J
02
m N
Of
4 A A A A
�v;mi mi ui
� x i R
Of A c co CY
toV-
10
Hal al A
V- W- N ♦ N
9
J
Ix
N
�J
r
1 -C
s
�
o
CY
N
4 A A A A
�v;mi mi ui
� x i R
Of A c co CY
toV-
10
Hal al A
V- W- N ♦ N
9
J
Ix
N
�J
r
1 -C
A AAgIg
51 , OP OP o
i5 U, V.
co to It
I
Y Y
mo�o��
32 a
rrei��r
z°z°az°
a m
r
L
s
�
o
co
A AAgIg
51 , OP OP o
i5 U, V.
co to It
I
Y Y
mo�o��
32 a
rrei��r
z°z°az°
a m
r
L
$
w
m
�
�
z
E
■ U �
� §
� m ■�
§ ®&
& �
K � �
t
a
$ � � ■�■
� ■ g o % � � �
CD
CL
2 IL
�
P
V 0 » Ef$
Q t $ m &
■ § � c ■
�g ■ t�E
JIDI 7 � @ � CD
I % § L $
e � §
■ c
�
F- cL A J e ® ® -
s $ g
I -D
1 -E
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated as of January 2, 19911 is
by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
School District No. 13, and provides as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
" IRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
" o ect" means Redevelopment Project
No. 1 established and operated by the HRA
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 through 469.047.
"1985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
"Limited Revenue Note" means the HRA's
$5,603,755.80 Limited Revenue Capital
Appreciation Tax Increment Note, dated
December 20, 1985.
"1985 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$11,550,000 Variable Rate Demand General
Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 19851
dated December 30, 1985.
"1986 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$10,045,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1986, dated as of
August 1, 1986.
"1990 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,485,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds of 1990, dated March 1, 1990.
"Tax Increment Obligations" means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the Limited Revenue Note,
the 1985 G.O. Bonds, the 1986 G.O. Bonds, the
9708
1 -F
1990 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
"TIF Districts" means Tax Increment.
Financing District Nos. 1 through 10 within
the Project. The attached Exhibit A contains
certification dates and other information on
the TIF Districts.
"School District" means Independent
School District No. 13, the Columbia Heights
School District.
"Subdivision" means Minnesota Statutes
Second 1989 Supplement, Section 469.177,
Subdivision 10, as amended by Laws of
Minnesota 1990, Chapter 604, Article 7,
Section 24 (a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B).
2. Recitals.
(a) In certain cases, the Subdivision
either requires or allows by agreement certain
tax increments attributable to school district
referendum tax levies to be paid to school
districts.
(b) TIF District No. 6 is located
entirely within the boundaries of the School
District, and a portion of TIF District Nos. 2
and 4 are located within the boundaries of the
School District.
(c) None of the property within TIF
District Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 is
located within the boundaries of the School
District.
(d) It is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide for payment of certain tax
increments to the School District pursuant to
9708
2
1 -G
and in accordance with the provision of the
Subdivision.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to violate the covenants and
agreements heretofore made respecting the
application of tax increments from the TIF
Districts pursuant to the Tax Increment
Obligations.
3. Representations of the City.
(a) The Tax Increment Obligations were
issued to finance various activities of the
HRA within the Project.
(b) The 1985 Revenue Bonds are not
general obligations of the City or the HRA.
Tax increments from TIF District Nos. 1
through 5 are pledged to the payment of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, and there are no other
sources of funds pledged to the payment
thereof. The final scheduled principal
maturity of the 1985 Revenue Bonds is February
1, 1999.
(c) The Limited Revenue Note is not a
general obligation of the City or the HRA and
is payable solely from tax increments pledged
for such purposes from TIP District No. 6.
(d) The 1985 G.O. Bonds were payable
from tax increments derived from TIF District
Nos. 1 through 6, and the final scheduled
principal maturity of those Bonds was February
1, 2000. However, on February 10, 1990, the
City discharged the 1985 G.O. Bonds by paying
all then outstanding principal thereof and
interest thereon.
(e) The 1986 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1 through 61 and the final scheduled principal
maturity of those Bonds is February 1, 2000.
However, the City has advance refunded the
1986 G.O. Bonds via the issuance of the 1990
G.O. Bonds, and the City expects pursuant to
said refunding that all of the principal of
9708 3
1.H
and interest on the 1986 G.O. Bonds will have
been paid on or before February 1, 1994.
(f) The 1990 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1, 20 3, and 6, and the final scheduled
principal maturity of those Bonds is August 11
2009.
(g) Portions of the principal of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the Limited Revenue Note,
the 1985 G.O. Bonds, and the 1986 G.O. Bonds,
and the 1990 G.O. Bonds were outstanding on
May 1, 1988, and /or are outstanding on the
date of this Agreement.
4. Representations of the School District.
(a) On October 51 1981, the electorate
of the School District approved a 5.0 mill
continuous levy first effective for the 1981
payable 1982 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the 01981 Levy ".
(b) On September 230 1986, the
electorate of the School District approved a
7.0 mill continuous levy first effective for
the 1986 payable 1987 property taxes. This
levy is hereinafter referred to as the "1986
Levy ".
(c) According to the Minnesota
Department of Education, for purposes of the
above - mentioned referendum levies the tax
capacity rate equivalents of 5 mills and 7
mills are .06162496 and .07875910,
respectively.
(d) On November 6, 1990, the electorate of
the School District approved a .08 tax capacity
rate levy authorized for 7 years and first
effective for the 1990 payable 1991 property taxes.
This levy is hereinafter referred to as the "1990
Levy".
5. Payment of Tax Increments to School District. The
City and the School District hereby agree that, except as
otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement,
tax increments shall be paid to the School District by the HRA
9708
4
1 -I
as and to the extent received by the HRA, with respect to the
tax increments relating to the 1989 payable 1990 property
taxes, as follows:
(a) TIF District No. 6. Since the 1981
Levy was approved before the date of
certification of TIF District No. 6, the
Subdivision does not apply to that Levy with
respect to .this District, and no tax
increments attributable to said Levy from this
District are payable to the School District.
Pursuant to clause b(2) of the Subdivision,
the tax increment from TIF District No. 6
which is attributable to the 1986 Levy and the
1990 Levy shall be paid to the School
District.
(b) TIF District No. 4. Since the 1981
Levy was approved prior to the date of
certification of TIF District No. 4, the
Subdivision does not apply to that Levy with
respect to this District. Pursuant to clause
b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax increment
from TIF District No. 4 which is attributable
to the 1986 Levy and the 1990 Levy shall be
paid to the School District.
(c) TIP District No. 2. Pursuant to
clause b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax
increment from' TIF District No. 2 which is
attributable to the 1981 Levy, the 1986 Levy,
and the 1990 Levy shall be paid to the School
District.
6. Further Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended or shall be applied in such a manner as to violate
the obligations and covenants made by the City or the HRA in
connection with the Tax Increment Obligations, and to the
extent but only to the extent that the application of the
terms of this Agreement would give rise to a violation of said
obligations and covenants, including without limitation, the
default in the timely and full payment of the Tax Increment
Obligations, the applicable tax increments shall be applied
instead in the manner, but only to the extent necessary, to
avoid such default or other violation of said covenants or
obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the
City or the HRA in the exercise of the powers which they may
have relating to the Project or the TIF Districts.
gyros
5
1 -J
In addition, the City and the School District agree that
the provisions of paragraph 5 providing for payment of tax
increment to the School District shall be limited to and shall
apply only to such tax increment attributable to the 1990
payable 1991 real estate property taxes, and at the conclusion
of said period, the City and the School District agree to
review the circumstances and to attempt to negotiate in good
faith such further agreement or agreements as may be permitted
by law and which are acceptable to both the City and School
District with respect to discretionary payments of such
applicable tax increment to the School District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the School District have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Mayor
City Manager
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 13
School Board Chair
Superintendent
9708
6
MC iIBIT A
Schedule of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Within Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 of the Fridley HRA
1 -K
Independent
9708
7
Certification
School
TIF District
Name
Date
District No.
1
Center City
5/11/79
14
2
Moore Lake
7/31/81
13/14
3
North Area
5/19/82
11/16
4
Johnson Printing/
Skywood Mall
1/20/84
13/14
5
Paschke
3/15/84
16
6
Lake Pointe
12/24/85
13
7
Winfield
10/22/86
16
8
Shorewood
10/24/86
14
9
Onan /Old Central
9/7/89
16
10
Northco Phase III
4/10/90
16
9708
7
1 -L
EXHIBIT B
Sec. 24. Kinnescta Statutes Seccnd 19E9 S- iple-ent,
section 469.177, s_bdivisie n So, is a-.ended to :ead:
S..d. io. (PAY!! ::,,: :'o SC-@C•1, rCi +1r7,TxD;:.4 L_yf• 1 (a "a
g :cvisic -s e: this subdivision asrly to tax i-c :e-e :.t fi-a-eing
districts and projects for which certification was requested
tefc:e May 1, 1968, that a:e located in a school district i-'%
which the vcters have apprcved new tax capacity rates cr an
Increase in tax capacity rates after the tax increment financing
district was certified_
(5) (1) if there are no outstanding bonds on MAY 10 1968,
to which increment frees the district is pledged, or fit if the
referendum is apprcved after May 1,1968, and there are no bonds :
outstanding at the time the referenduz is approved, that were
iss:ed tefere May 1, 1988, a :- {39- $s_•.Le_ :ere :e.'.dn�- :'e :eae :rg
t= e- .ax- ea =ee:tY- :are -�aa -a eye d - after- the- most-:acent -Issue
rr•
e=- _undo- to- rt :eh -_ -ere- eat- r :e. »- t::e- d :st : :et -:s -p- edged: --sc
eca :ee- {_g- c:- { :;- app's :ear the authority must annually pay to
the school district an amount of increrent equal to the
increment that is attributable to the increase in the tax
capacity rate under the referendum.
(2) If clause {3;- app=:es (1) does not apply, 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 aount of increment equal to the increment that is
attributable to the increase in the tax capacity rate under the
referendum.
(c), The amounts of these increments may be expended and
must be treated by the school district in the same manner As
provided for the revenues derived from the referendum levy
approved by the voters. The provisions of this subdivision
apply to projects for which certification was requested before,
on, and after August 1, 1979-
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated as of January 2, 1991, is
by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
School District No. 11, and provides as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"M&" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
" Project" means Redevelopment Project No.
1 established and operated by the HRA pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001
through 469.047.
"1985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
"Limited Revenue Note" means the HRA's
$5,603,755.80 Limited Revenue Capital
Appreciation Tax Increment Note, dated
December 20, 1985.
"1985 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$11,550,000 Variable Rate Demand General
Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985,
dated December 30, 1985.
"1986 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$10,045,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1986, dated as of
August 1, 1986.
"1990 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,485,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds of 1990, dated March 1, 1990.
"Tax Increment Obligations" means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the Limited Revenue Note,
the 1985 G.O. Bonds, the 1986 G.O. Bonds, the
1990 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
970
1 -M
1 -N
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
"TIF Districts" means Tax Increment
Financing District Nos. 1 through 10 within
the Project. The attached Exhibit A contains
certification dates and other information on
the TIF Districts.
"School District" means Independent
School District No. 11, the Anoka School
District.
"subdivision" means Minnesota Statutes
Second 1989 Supplement, Section 469.177,
Subdivision 10, as amended by Laws of
Minnesota 1990, Chapter 604, Article 7,
Section 24 (a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B).
2. Recitals.
(a) In certain cases, the Subdivision
either requires or allows by agreement certain
tax increments attributable to school district
referendum tax levies to be paid to school
districts.
(b) A portion of TIF District No. 3 is
located within the boundaries of the School
District.
(c) None of the property within TIF
District Nos. 1, 2, 4, 58 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
is located within the boundaries of the School
District.
(d) It is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide for payment of certain tax
increments to the School District pursuant to
and in accordance with the provision of the
Subdivision.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to violate the covenants and
agreements heretofore made respecting the
application of
9705 2
1 -O
tax increments from the TIF Districts pursuant to
the Tax Increment Obligations.
3. Representations of the City.
(a) The Tax Increment Obligations were
issued to finance various activities of the
HRA within the Project.
(b) The 1985 Revenue Bonds are not
general obligations of the City or the HRA.
Tax increments from TIF District Nos. 1
through 5 are pledged to the payment of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, and there are no other
sources of funds pledged to the payment
thereof. The final scheduled principal
maturity of the 1985 Revenue Bonds is February
1, 1999.
(c) The Limited
general obligation of
is payable solely frog
for such purposes frog
Revenue Note is not a
the City or the HRA and
tax increments pledged
TIF District No. 6.
(d) The 1985 G.O. Bonds were payable
from tax increments derived from TIF District
Nos. 1 through 6, and the final scheduled
principal maturity of those Bonds was February
1, 2000. However, on February 1, 1990, the
City discharged the 1985 G.O. Bonds by paying
all then outstanding principal thereof and
interest thereon.
(e) The 1986 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1 through 6, and the final scheduled principal
maturity of those Bonds is February 11 2000.
However, the City has advance refunded the
1986 G.O. Bonds via the issuance of the 1990
G.O. Bonds, and the City expects pursuant to
said refunding that all of the principal of
and interest on the 1986 G.O. Bonds will have
been paid on or before February 11 1994.
(f) The 1990 G.O.
tax increments derived
1, 2, 3, and 6,
principal maturity
2009.
Bonds are payable from
from TIF District Nos.
e final scheduled
Bonds is August 1,
and t h
of those
(g) Portions of the principal of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the Limited Revenue Note,
9705
3
1 -P
the 1985 G.O. Bonds, and the 1986 G.O. Bonds,
and the 1990 G.O. Bonds were outstanding on
May it 1988, and /or are outstanding on the
date of this Agreement.
4. Representations of the School District.
(a) On October 5, 1982, the electorate
of the School-District approved a continuous
6.0 mill levy ' first effective for the 1982
payable 1983 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the "1982 Levy ".
(b) On October 6, 1987, the electorate
of the School District approved a 6.0 mill
continuous levy first effective for the 1987
payable 1988 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the "1987 Levy ".
(c) According to the Minnesota
Department of Education, for purposes of the
above - mentioned referendum levies the tax
capacity rate equivalent of 6 mills is
.06999697.
5. Payment of Tax Increments to School District. The
City and the School District hereby agree that, except as
otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement,
tax increments shall be paid to the School District by the HRA
as and to the extent received by the HRA, with respect to the
tax increments relating to the 1989 payable 1990 property
taxes, as follows:
TIF District No. 3. Pursuant to clause
b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax increment
from TIF District No. 3 which is attributable
to the 1982 Levy and the 1987 Levy shall be
paid to the School District.
6. Further Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended or shall be applied in such a manner as to violate
the obligations and covenants made by the City or the HRA in
connection with the Tax Increment Obligations, and to the
extent but only to the extent that the application of the
terms of this Agreement would give rise to a violation of said
obligations and covenants, including without limitation, the
default in the timely and full payment of the Tax Increment
Obligations, the applicable tax increments shall be applied
instead in the manner, but only to the extent necessary, to
avoid such default or other violation of said covenants or
obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the
9705
4
1 -Q
City or the HRA in the exercise of the powers which they may
have relating to the Project or the TIF Districts.
In addition, the City and the School District agree that
the provisions of paragraph 5 providing for payment of tax
increment to the School District shall be limited to and shall
apply only to such tax increment attributable to the 1990
payable 1991 real estate property taxes, and at the conclusion
of said period, the City and the School District agree to
review the circumstances and to attempt to negotiate in good
faith such further agreement or agreements as may be permitted
by law and which are acceptable to both the City and School
District with respect to discretionary payments of such
applicable tax increment to the School District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the School District have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Mayor
city Manager
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11
School Board Chair
superintendent
9705
5
EXHIBIT A
Schedule of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Within Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 of the Fridley HRA
1 -R
Independent
9705
Certification
School
TIF District
Name
Date
District No.
1
Center City
5/11/79
14
2
Moore Lake
7/31/81
13/14
3
North Area
5/19/82
11/16
4
Johnson Printing/
Skywood Mall
1/20/84
13/14
5
Paschke
3/15/84
16
6
Lake Pointe
12/24/85
13
7
Winfield
10/22/86
16
8
Shorewood
10/24/86
14
9
Onan /Old Central
9/7/89
16
10
Northco Phase III
4/10/90
16
9705
1 -S
EXHIBIT B
Sec. 24. Minnesota statutes Seccnd 1909 Su ;clement,
section :69.177, subdivision 10, is amended to :ead:
S_td. 10. ( ?:.Y:! -s \i :O SC C�CL :Ci presi ::-D U.4 i =tit.
;rcvisiens of this subdivision A;;17 to tax i-c:ene :t financing
districts and projects fcr which certi :icat :cn
was regrested ,
tefc:e May i, 1968, that are located in a school district in
which 'he voters have &;;roved new tax capacity rates or an
increase in tax capacity rates after the tax increment financi-g
district vas certified_
(b) (1) if there are no outstanding bonds 0-1 MAY 1, 1468,
to which increment frcz the district is pledged, or {s; if the
refe:e-d::a is a ;proved after May 1,1468, and there are no bonds ti
cutsta-di-q at the time the referendum is.a ;p:cved, that were
iss:ed te:cre May 1, 1468, e:- t0i-- f_`- `e- :efatandun- e- e:eas :nI
r:
et" % ends- te- Whieh- =.:esemen: --': on- the-di sc: : at- es- p:ed%ed: - - -d
e?anse- { : ;- e:- t: ;- srp3 :esr the authority must annually pay to
school district athe s a %ou nt of increment equal to the
increment that is attributable to the increase is the tax
ca ;acity rate under the referendum-
(2) if clause t3 ;- applies (1) does not &0-01 , 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
as amount of increment equal to the increment that is
attributable to the increase in the tax capacity rate under the
refe:endu -m. .
(c ) The amounts of these increments may be expended and
must be treated by the school district in the same :Wanner as
provided for the revenues derived from the referendum levy
approved by the voters. The provisions of this subdivision
apply to projects for which certification was requested before,
on, and after August 1, 1979-
c
1 -T
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated as of January 2, 1991, is
by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
School District No. 14, and provides as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
" RA" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"Project" means Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 established and operated by the
HRA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 through 469.047.
01985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
"Limited Revenue Note" means the HRA's
$5,603,755.80 Limited Revenue Capital
Appreciation Tax Increment Note, dated
December 20, 1985.
"1985 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$11,550,000 Variable Rate Demand General
Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985,
dated December 30, 1985.
"1986 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$10,045,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1986, dated as of
August 1, 1986.
"1990 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,485,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds of 1990, dated March 1, 1990.
"Tax Increment Obligations" means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the Limited Revenue Note,
the 1985 G.O. Bonds, the 1986 G.O. Bonds, the
9707
1990 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
"TIF Districts" means Tax Increment
Financing District Nos. 1 through 10 within
the Project. The attached Exhibit A contains
certification dates and other information on
the TIF Districts.
"School District" means Independent
School District No. 14, the Fridley School
District.
"Subdivision" means Minnesota Statutes
Second 1989 Supplement, Section 469.177,
Subdivision 10, as amended by Laws of
Minnesota 1990, Chapter 604, Article 7,
Section 24 (a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B).
2. Recitals.
(a) In certain cases, the Subdivision
either requires or allows by agreement certain
tax increments attributable to school district
referendum tax levies to be paid to school
districts.
(b) TIF District Nos. 1 and 8 are
located entirely within the boundaries of the
School District, and a portion of TIF District
Nos. 2 and 4 are located within the boundaries
of the School District.
(c) None of the property within TIF
District Nos. 3, 5, 61 7, 9, and 10 is located
within the boundaries of the School District.
(d) It is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide for payment of certain tax
increments to the School District pursuant to
9707
1 -U
I -V
and in accordance with the provision of the
Subdivision.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to violate the covenants and
agreements heretofore made respecting the
application of tax increments from the TIF
Districts pursuant to the Tax Increment
Obligations. .
3. Representations of the City.
(a) The Tax Increment Obligations were
issued to finance various activities of the
HRA within the Project.
(b) The 1985 Revenue Bonds are not
general obligations of the City or the HRA.
Tax increments from TIF District Nos. 1
through 5 are pledged to the payment of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, and there are no other
sources of funds pledged to the payment
thereof. The final scheduled principal
maturity of the 1985 Revenue Bonds is February
1, 1999.
(c) The Limited Revenue Note is not a
general obligation of the City or the HRA and
is payable solely from tax increments pledged
for such purposes from TIF District No. 6.
(d) The 1985 G.O. Bonds were payable
from tax increments derived from TIF District
Nos. 1 through 6, and the final scheduled
principal maturity of those Bonds was February
1, 2000. However, on February 1, 1990, the
City discharged the 1985 G.O. Bonds by paying
all then outstanding principal thereof and
interest thereon.
(e) The 1986 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1 through 61 and the final scheduled principal
maturity of those Bonds is February 1, 2000.
However, the City has advance refunded the
1986 G.O. Bonds via the issuance of the 1990
G.O. Bonds, and the City expects pursuant to
said refunding that all of the principal of
9707
3
1 -W
and interest on the 1986 G.O. Bonds will have
been paid on or before February 1, 1994.
(f) The 1990 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1, 2, 3, and 6, and the final scheduled
principal maturity of those Bonds is August 1,
2009.
(g) Portions of the principal of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the Limited Revenue Note,
the 1985 G.O. Bonds, and the 1986 G.O. Bonds,
and the 1990 G.O. Bonds were outstanding on
May 1, 1988, and /or are outstanding on the
date of this Agreement.
4. Representations of the School District.
(a) On September 23, 1986, the
electorate of the School District approved a
2.0 mill continuous levy first effective for
the 1986 payable 1987 property taxes. This
levy is hereinafter referred to as the "1986
Levy ".
(b) On September 29, 1987, the
electorate of the School District approved (i)
a 7.0 mill continuous levy first effective for
the 1987 payable 1988 property taxes and (ii)
a continuous additional 6.5 mill levy first
effective for the 1988 payable 1989 property
taxes. These levies are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "1987 Levies".
(c) According to the Minnesota
Department of Education, for purposes of the
above- mentioned referendum levies the tax
capacity rate equivalents of 2 mills and 13.5
mills are .02261395 and .15264411,
respectively.
5. Payment of Tax Increments to School District. The
City and the School District hereby agree that, except as
otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement,
tax increments shall be paid to the School District by the HRA
as and to the extent received by the HRA, with respect to the
tax increments relating to the 1989 payable 1990 property
taxes, as follows:
9707
4
1 -X
(a) TTF District No, 8. Since the 1987
Levies were approved after the date of
certification of TIP District No. 81 and since
on May 1, 1988, there were no bonds
outstanding to which increment from TIP
District No. 8 was pledged, the tax increments
from TIP District No. 8 which are attributable
to the 1987 Levies are automatically payable
and shall be. paid to the School District
pursuant to clause b(1) of the Subdivision.
Since the 1986 Levy was approved prior to the
date of certification of TIP District No. 8,
the Subdivision does not apply to that Levy
with respect to this District, and no tax
increments attributable to said Levy from this
District are payable to the School District.
(b) TIF District No. A. Pursuant to
clause b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax
increment from TIP District No. 4 which is
attributable to the 1986 Levy and the 1987
Levies shall be paid to the School District.
(c) TIP District No. 2. Pursuant to
clause b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax
increment from TIP District No. 2 which is
attributable to the 1986 Levy and the 1987
Levies shall be paid to the School District.
(d) TIP.
District No. 1. Pursuant to
clause b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax
increment from TIF District No. 1 which is
attributable to the 1986 Levy and the 1987
Levies shall be paid to the School District.
6. Further Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended or shall be applied in such a manner as to violate
the obligations and covenants made by the City or the HRA in
connection with the Tax Increment Obligations, and to the
extent but only to the extent that the application of the
terms of this Agreement would give rise to a violation of said
obligations and covenants, including without limitation, the
default in the timely and full payment of the Tax Increment
Obligations, the applicable tax increments shall be applied
instead in the manner, but only to the extent necessary, to
avoid such default or other violation of said covenants or
obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the
City or the HRA in the exercise of the powers which they may
have relating to the Project or the TIF Districts.
9707 5
1 -Y
In addition, the City and the School District agree that,
except in each case described in paragraph 5 of this Agreement
where payment of tax increment to the School District is
mandatory pursuant to clause b(1) of the Subdivision, all
other provisions of said paragraph 5 providing for payment of
tax increment to the School District shall be limited to and
shall apply only to such tax increment attributable to the
1990 payable 1991 real estate property taxes, and at the
conclusion of said period, the City and the School District
agree to review the' circumstances and to attempt to negotiate
in good faith such further agreement or agreements as may be
permitted by law and which are acceptable to both the City and
School District with respect to discretionary payments of such
applicable tax increment to the School District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the School District have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Mayor
City Manager
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14
School Board Chair
Superintendent
9707 6
EXHIBIT A
Schedule of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Within Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 of the Fridley HRA
1 -Z
Independent
9707 7
Certification
School
TTF District
Name
Date
District No.
1
Center City
5/11/79
14
2
Moore Lake
7/31/81
13/14
3
North Area
5/19/82
11/16
4
Johnson Printing/
Skywood Mall
1/20/84
13/14
5
Paschke
3/15/84
16
6
Lake Pointe
12/24/85
13
7
Winfield
10/22/86
16
8
Shorewood
10/24/86
14
9
Onan /Old Central
9/7/89
16
10
Northco Phase III
4/10/90
16
9707 7
EXHIBIT B
Sec. 24. Minnesota Statutes Seccnd 1SE9 Su;p e-_ert,
section 469.177, subdivision 10, is amended to :ead:
S.bd. 10. (- r;+YM7N :0 SC-OC•E, FCC -=rERc` :Oi:H L =tip
C! this b i "l' tO tax inc:e-•ent financing
p:CViSiCn4 C. ....5 SL'- d.viSiCn a =: -f
districts and i:ojects for which certification was rec_ested
tefc:e May 1, 1SES, that a:e located in a school distr`_ct in
_rich the vcte:s have approved new tax capacity rates cr an
increase in tax capacity rates after the tax increment financing
district was certified.
(b) (1) If there are no outstanding bonds on May 1, 1SE8,
to which increment from the district is pled5ed, or {_} if the
refesendu:W is approved after May 1,'1SES, and there are no bonds
cutstanding at tha time the referendum is approved, that were
�- P8
issued efere May 1, 19 ,
the- t1X_ CS;IC. ty- r ate- We 3-&.Z;C CyCd-Z ft ar - th""S t- :event - =» to
the- dS Ste = ct- :s-
the authority
must annually pay to
the school district an amount of increment equal to the
increment that is attributable to the increase in the tax
.capacity rate under the referendum.
(2) If clause {3 }- e x.es (1) does not apaly, upon approval
p_'
by a -,ajcrity vote of the governing body of the municipality and
the school board, the authority must ray to the school district
an amount of incre:rert equal to the increment that is
attributable to the in .1 the tax capacity rate under the
referendum.
(c) The amounts of these increments may be expended and
must be treated by the school district in the same :Wanner as
provided for the revenues derived from the referendum levy
approved by the voters. The provisions of this subdivision
apply to projects for which certification was requested before,
on, and after August 1, 1979-
C
1-AA
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated as of January 2, 1991, is
by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
School District No. 16, and provides as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"M" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"Pro;" means Redevelopment Project No.
1 established and operated by the HRA pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001
through 469.047.
"1985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment .Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
"Limited Revenue Note" means the HRA's
$5,603,755.80 Limited Revenue Capital
Appreciation Tax Increment Note, dated
December 20, 1985.
"1985 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$11,550,000 Variable Rate Demand General
Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985,
dated December 30, 1985.
986 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$10,045,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1986, dated as of
August 1, 1986.
"1990 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,485,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds of 1990, dated March 1, 1990.
"Tax Increment Obligations" means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the Limited Revenue Note,
the 1985 G.O. Bonds, the 1986 G.O. Bonds, the
9M
1 -CC
1990 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
"TIF Districts" means Tax Increment
Financing District Nos. 1 through 10 within
the Project. The attached Exhibit A contains
certification dates and other information on
the TIF Districts.
"School District" means Independent
School District No. 16, the Spring Lake Park
School District.
"Subdivision" means Minnesota Statutes
Second 1989 Supplement, Section 469.177,
Subdivision 10, as amended by Laws of
Minnesota 19900 Chapter 604, Article 7,
Section 24 (a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B).
2. Recitals.
(a) In certain cases, the Subdivision
either requires or allows by agreement certain
tax increments attributable to school district
referendum tax levies to be paid to school
districts.
(b) TIF District Nos. 5, 7, 9, and 10
are located entirely within the boundaries of
the School District, and a portion of TIF
District No. 3 is located within the
boundaries of the School District.
(c) None of the property within TIP
District Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 is located
within the boundaries of the School District.
(d) It is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide for payment of certain tax
increments to the School District pursuant to
9M
2
1 -DD
and in accordance with the provision of the
Subdivision.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to violate the covenants and
agreements heretofore made respecting the
application of tax increments from the TIF
Districts pursuant to the Tax Increment
obligations.
3. Representations of the City..
(a) The Tax Increment Obligations were
issued to finance various activities of the
HRA within the Project.
(b) The 1985 Revenue Bonds are not
general obligations of the City or the HRA.
Tax increments from TIF District of Nos.
th1
through 5 are pledged to the payment
1985 Revenue Bonds, and there are no other
sources of funds pledged to the payment
thereof. The final scheduled principal
maturity of the 1985 Revenue Bonds is February
1, 1999.
(c) The Limited Revenue Note is not a
general obligation of the City or the HRA and
is payable solely from tax increments pledged
for such purposes from TIF District No. 6.
(d) The 1985 G.O. Bonds were payable
from tax increments derived from TIF District
Nos. 1 through 60 and the final scheduled
principal maturity of those Bonds was February
e
1, 2000. However, on February 1, 1990,
City discharged the 1985 G.O. Bonds by paying
all then outstanding principal thereof and
interest thereon.
(e) The 1986 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1 through 6, and the final scheduled principal
maturity of those Bonds is February
However, the City has advance refunded the
1986 G.O. Bonds via the issuance of the 990
G.O. Bonds, and the City expects pursuant to
said refunding that all of the principal of
9M 3
1 -EE
and interest on the 1986 G.O. Bonds will have
been paid on or before February it 1994.
(f) The 1990 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1, 2, 3, and 6, and the final scheduled
principal maturity of those Bonds is August 1,
2009.
(g) Portions of the principal of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the Limited Revenue Note,
the 1985 G.O. Bonds, and the 1986 G.O. Bonds,
and the 1990 G.O. Bonds were outstanding on
May 1, 1988, and /or are outstanding on the
date of this Agreement.
4. Representations of the School District.
(a) On October Be 1981, the electorate
of the School District approved a 5.0 mill
continuous levy first effective for the 1981
payable 1982 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the 01981 Levy".
(b) On February 271 1986, the electorate
of the School District approved a 6.0 mill
continuous levy first effective for the 1986
payable 1987 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the "1986 Levy ".
(c) According to the Minnesota
Department of Education, for purposes of the
above - mentioned referendum levies the tax
capacity rate equivalents of 5 mills and 6
mills are .05226653 and .06271984,
respectively.
5. Fayment of Tax Increments to School District. The
City and the School District hereby agree that, except as
otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement,
tax increments shall be paid to the School District by the HRA
as and trtsxrelating to received
the 989�p'ayable 1990 property
tax inc
taxes, as follows:
(a) TIP District Nos. 9 and 10. Since
TIF District Nos. 9 and 10 were , requested for
certification after May
Subdivision does not apply to those Districts,
9706 4
and no tax increments
Levy or the 1986 Levy
payable to the School
attributable to the 1981 1 -FF
from those Districts are
District.
(b) TIF District No. 7. Since the 1981
Levy and the 1986 Levy were approved prior to
the date of certification of TIF District No.
7, the Subdivision does not apply to those
Levies with respect to this District, and no
tax increments' attributable to said Levies
from this District are payable to the School
District.
(c) TTF District No. 5. Since the 1981
Levy was approved prior to the date of cert-
ification of TIF District No. 5, the Subdi-
vision does not apply to the 1981 Levy, and no
tax increments attributable to said Levy from
this District are payable to the School
District. Pursuant to clause b(2) of the
Subdivision, the tax increment from TIF
District No. 5 which is attributable to the
1986 Levy shall be paid to the School
District.
(d) TIF District No. 3. Since the 1981
Levy was approved prior to the date of
certification of TIF District No. 3, the
Subdivision does not apply to the 1981 Levy,
and no tax increments attributable to said
Levy from this District are payable to the
School District. Pursuant to clause b(2) of
the Subdivision, the tax increment from TIF
District No. 3 which is attributable to the
1986 Levy shall be paid to the School
District.
6. Further Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended or shall be applied in such a manner as'to violate
the obligations and covenants made by the city or the HRA in and to the
connection with the Tax Increment Obligati c of the
extent but only to the extent that the application
terms of this Agreement would give rise to a violation of said
obligations and covenants, including t tohf utt limitation, he
default in the timel full
taxpincrements shall be applied
Obligations, the applicable
instead such defaul manner, or other violation necessary,
of said covenant
avoid s s or
9706 5
1 -GG
obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the
City or the �toithe Project exercise
on the TIP cwhich they may
Districts.
have relating
In addition, the City and the School District agree fthax
the provisions of paragraph 5 providing for payment
increment to the School District shall be limited to and shall
apply only to such tax increment attributable to the 1990
payable 1991 real estate property taxes, and at the conclu iono
of said period, the.City and the School District agree
review the circumstances and to attempt to negotiate inigood
faith such further agreement or agreements as may be perm
by law and which r c to discretionary�paYmen n payments of School
such
District with respect
applicable tax increment to the School District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the School District have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Mayor
city Manager
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 16
School Board Chair
Super ntendent
9M 6
E CHIBIT A
Schedule of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Within Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 of the Fridley HRA
1 •HH
Independent
9706
Certification
School
TIP District
Name
Date
District No.
1
Center City
5/11/79
14
2
Moore Lake
7/31/81
13/14
3
North Area
5/19/82
11/16
4
Johnson Printing/
Skywood Mall
1/20/84
13/14
5
Paschke
3/15/84
16
6
Lake Pointe
12/24/85
13
7
Winfield
10/22/86
16
8
Shorewood
10/24/86
14
9
Onan /Old Central
9/7/89
16
10
Northco Phase III
4/10/90
16
9706
1 -II
EXHIBIT B
See. 24. :Minnesota Stat'-'tes Seccnd 1959 S_;.ple-ectc
section 4E9.177, subdivision 10, is a mended to read:
SC GC aGi � !��S_bd. ? �. ( ?AY!t�a L$'vi. ) ill The
previsions of this sebdivisic.1 aF =1y to tax increment financing
districts and projects for which certification was requested
tsfe:e May Z, 1968, that are lecated in a school district in
which the voters have apprcved new tax capacity rates or a-
increase in tax capacity rates after the tax Increment financing
district was certified_
L (1) is there are no'cutstanding bonds ca May 1, 19E8,
to which Increment frem the district is pledged, or fit if the
referendum is apprcved after May 1,'1988, and there are no bonds
outstanding at the time the referendu-a is approved, that were
Issued before May 1, 1988,
t= e- tsx- eapneitY- :ate -xas-t - moored- ar:e:- :•'•e-- es:- :eee.::-iaase
rr•
ef- :e- ds- :e- rhie�►- ire: e- e-=- f:e-- t::e- dist:iet- ia- ? =eeged:- =s
the authority .oust annually pay to
the school district an amount of increment equal to the
increment that is attributable to the increase in the tax
capacity rate under the referendum.
2� If clause t9;-app=ies (1) does not AvOlY, upon approval
by a majority vote of the SC4.orning body of* the municipality and
the school beard, the authority must pay to the school district
an amount of increment equal to the increment that is
attributable to the increase in the tax capacity rate under the
referendum.
(c ) The amounts of these increments may be expended and
must be treated by the school district in the same manner as
provided for the revenues derived from the refererdua levy
approved by the voters. The provisions of this subdivision
apply to projects for which certification was requested before,
on, and after August 1, 1979.
c
OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2
COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS. CHARMAN
DUANE PRAM VIROM SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: December 7, 1990
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT: Sign Permit for Fridley Plaza Pharmacy,
Fridley Plaza Office Building
Background
The development contract for the Fridley Plaza Office Building
requires that all exterior signage be approved by the HRA and the
City prior to the issuance of a sign permit in order to review the
overall appearance of the building.
On December 6, 1990, the Fridley Plaza Pharmacy applied for a sign
permit for a 17 sq. ft. area in which to place the word "pharmacy"
just above the first story windows and just east of the two
existing.pine trees.
Analysis
Staff advised the management company of the necessity to have the
sign permit reviewed by the HRA and the City. We also advised the
management company that if further exterior signage was to be
considered, they should submit a' comprehensive sign plan
identifying the exact type of letters and wall signage that would
be permitted. However, since the building's construction in 1983,
exterior wall signage has not been proposed.
The reason that Fridley Plaza Pharmacy is proposing the additional
signage is to help direct customers from the Fridley Plaza Clinic
across the street. The proposed location of the additional signage
would not detract from the overall appearance of the building,
given its location on the south side of the wall. Other tenants
in the building, however, may start requesting signage on the west
side of the building facing University Avenue. Staff is
recommending this not be permitted until the HRA and City consent
to consider additional signage.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (612) 571-3450
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
2 -q
Sign Permit for Fridley Plaza Pharmacy
December 7, 1990
Page 2
The proposed pharmacy sign is to consist of individual white
plastic letters. Given that other window signs in the building
consist of gold lettering, we recommend that a similar gold color
be used to maintain that theme.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the HRA approve the sign permit request for
the Fridley Plaza Pharmacy subject to the following stipulations:
1. The letters shall be a similar gold color consistent with
other window signage in the building.
2. No additional signage shall be permitted until the HRA
and City Council consent to allow submission of a
comprehensive sign plan for additional exterior signage.
BD:ls
M -90 -882
3
z
z�
� a
z
N �
2
�z
w �
N
a�
M
O
"D
m
O
-n
C
-P
2 -B
M
2 -C
-7-�n ��= I�FTEXM /n/6 /fit/ c., v✓.t/�J�
5o uT-H f�l,� v A-776 eJ
o r lb V'I L-Di A) &
CITY OF FRIJ=
SIGN PF*lIT APMCATION
2 -D
Effective: 1990 - 1991
Owner: fa r7 L t y PZ A ZA Fs/A,eN1AC y SIGN MREC.ZC R:
Address: ADUMSS: -7775 lllofeW
City/Zip: �',eii c 5/ . lk),' ✓V �s'S/3� CITY /ZIP: �'h'i�1 s/, ��►/� ���1�''c�
Tel. No: , S' 71 - -;10 '/' / TEL. NO: S' 71 - a 9ys
Fj rki r y (4;, 1
Lot: Block: Addition:
DESCRIPTION OF SIGN
1. Wall Length of Wall 1i'� l�u Max. Allowable Sq. Ft:
Sign Length: �(! Width: Sq. Ft.:
2. () Pylon Distance Fr. Prop. Line: Distance Fr. Inter /Dwy:
Sign Length: Width: Height: Sq. Ft.:
3. ( ) Roof Roof Sign in Lieu of Pylon Sign
Sign Length: Width: Sq. Ft.:
4. ( ) gn
Constructed of: Estimated Value $ , ?nn .can To Be Completed `//4A/. /,99/
Illuminated: Yes () No (YES; Electrical Permit is Necessary For Wiring Sign
SIGN MESSAGE: PHW ,-e IVI A C V
The undersigned hereby makes application for a permit for the work herein specified
agreeing to do all work in strict accordance with the City of Fridley orcbx xms and
rulings of the Building Inspection Department and hereby declares that all the facts
and representations stated in this application are true and correct.
DATE: le -6 - 9 n APPLICANT 7- f
Please Print
0 to 40 square feet: $24.00 plus $.50 surcharge if not lit.
41 square feet or more: $60.00 plus $.50 surcharge if not lit.
Political Signs: $15.00 deposit, refunded when signs removed
;11 V 4;") F-5 M e 1�-
Revolving beacons, zip flashers and similar devices including any source of light which
changes in intensity are prohibited.
Approved By: Date:
City Sign Code Enfoncenoent
The RECEIVED
n n n Kordiak DEC 0 4 1990 3
n n n Company __ - - - ---
1 Real Estate n Property Management it Appraisals n lncome Tax Service
City or Fridley HRA
6431 University Avenue Northeast
Fridley. flinnesoto 55432
For the Following Services:
Amount Due
Management Fee for November 1990 I
Total Rent Collected 5224.18 5.009 261.21
Misc.Expenses:
Total Amount Due:
3948 Central Ave. N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55421
788 -9651 788 -0911
0
CLAIMS
(AT MEETING)
- OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5
COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS. CHAIRMAN
DUANE PRANK VIRGINIA SCHNABEL WADER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: December 7".1990
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Lynne Saba, Secretary
SUBJECT: 1991 Meeting Dates
Attached is the proposed HRA meeting dates for 1991. Please review
for approval at the December 13, 1990, meeting.
LS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AYE. (d 12) 571 -3450
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
5 -A
PROPOSED HOUSING A REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DATES
FOR 1991
January 10
February 14
March 14
April 11
May 9
June 13
July 11
August 8
September 12
October 10
November 14
December 12
INFORMATION ITEMS
OUSIVG and REDEVELOPMENT AU HORRY
6
COMMISSION MEMBERS: - LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN
DUANE PRARE VR GNIA SCHNABEL WALTER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: December 6-, 1990
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
SUBJECT: Proposed Assistance to Reduce Special Assessments
for the Proposed New RMS Plant
Since the last HRA meeting, the RMS Company has increased
employment to 248 people (forty -two employees currently have
Fridley home addresses) in two shifts at its three present
locations on Baker Street, Osborne Road, and 81st Avenue (38,000
sq. ft. total). Present annual sales are in the vicinity of $18
million. On December 3, 1990, RMS leased an addition 2,500 sq. ft.
at the Martens /Brenny building on 83rd and Main Street in Fridley.
RMS plans to purchase 8.9 acres at the northwest corner of Osborne
Road and Main Street to consolidate operations in a new 80,000 sq.
ft. building in which an additional 50 -75 people would be hired to
manufacture a new product line which is currently undergoing
research and development. RMS is a privately held subsidiary of
Cretex Corporation of St. Cloud. Another division of Cretex is
expected to move into the 12,000 sq. ft. facility located on
Osborne Road which is owned by the Cretex Corporation.
At the November 8, 1990, meeting, the HRA approved a plan whereby
the HRA would split the outstanding special assessments half and
half with the proposed parties to the land sale. At this time, the
City Council wishes to review the circumstances surrounding the
special assessments and the sale. This has been scheduled after
the regular Council meeting on December 17, 1990. Dennis Forcelle,
RMS President, has been invited to attend that meeting. At such
time as a letter of agreement can be drafted, based on Council
input, this item will come back to the HRA for final approval.
JR:ls
M -90 -878
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. (d 12) 671 -3460
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
OUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
7
LAWRENCE COMMERS, CHAIRMAN
DUANE PRARE VIRGINIA SCHNABEL WADER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: December 6,. 1990
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
SUBJECT: Status of the Corrective Action at 57th Place
On Tuesday, December 4, 1990, I spoke with Mr. Jack Lemley of
Ashland Oil as a follow -up to the HRA's request for information on
the location of the separation equipment during the recovery
operations projected for the next 3 -5 years. Mr. Lemley said he
had just spoken with Mr. Art Newby, the consulting engineer, and
at this time he had no further information on the proposed location
of the equipment.
I suggest a follow -up on this item during the month of January and
February 1991 so that Ashland Oil is aware of our continuing
interest in the redevelopment of the site.
JR:ls
M -90 -879
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 0491 UNIVERSITY AVE. ($12) 671 -9480
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
Eng,neer,ng
Sewer
Water
ParkS •
SlreelS
Ma,ntenanco
MEMORANDUM
TO: William W. am-A, City Manager MO -459
FAf.Bi: Jch n G. Flora, Public Wcaft Director
Dm: November 29, 1990
BUBMM: Mississippi Street/University Avenue
Intersection MIprcveoent Project
On Nove ber 28, 1990, I met with representatives from the Anoka County Highway
Department and their consultant from Stagar-Rosooe regarding the City- desired
changes and igxav , ,tents proposed for Mississippi Street between 5th and Main
Streets including the intersection of University Avenue. (Reference Public Works
letter PW90 -306).
The Anoka Oaomty Highway Departzw* w4*orted. the suggested dhanges with the
urrb
15 .2 1 that additional engineering costs for plan revision will be borne
by the IHMM. Because the original plans are currently in for MnDOT review,
Stagar`Rosooe was requested to expedite the revisions so that the review process
can cm*J m and the Nh= eovp wative agreement period is not overly extended.
In orderl=*Jia�e the of the project the Mn W review, the
' Pte! Pr'o'j
City will have to submit resolutions requesting use of off -road ICAS funds, plan
approval of the Anoka plan and designation of "No Parking" on Mississippi Street
within the project limits. In order to expedite the process, we will be
preparing the appropriate resolutions for submittal to the Council at their
December 17 meeting.
Once the necessary dhanges have been made to the plans and specifications, we
can expect an amt from Anoka County requesting approval and identifyingU
the appropriate fund pm ticipaticn. I indicated to them that the City would then
process it to the HRA for approval and comment before the City Council would take
positive action. Every effort is being made by the County to obtain plan
approval for early award and ooc�I ruction of the improvement. In addition,
County and the City are working with MnDOT to coordinate the University Avenue
resurfacing project sdheduling with the Mississippi constructicn.
JGF/ts 06V I;b Mf�A
cc: Barb Davy
Mark Winsan
",.O3 •,
Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350 Phone: (612) 332 -0421
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax: (612) 332 -6180
USA
November 27, 1990
Mr. Jock Robertson
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: University Avenue Improvements - Plan Set
Dear Mr. Robertson:
On Monday, November 19, 1990, Barton - Aschman delivered a set of reproducible
plan sheets regarding University Avenue improvements (un- built) for your
records. This letter identifies the limitations of using this plan set due to
liability and related engineering restrictions.
The plan set has been signed with professional liability limited to seven
years from date of signature. Therefore, the project as designed and
specified can be bid within this period of time. However, existing conditions
are subject to change since the initial conditions were taken into
consideration during the plan sets preparation. It is important that existing
site characteristics be reviewed previous to any construction to determine
whether design or engineering limitations present changes to the plan set.
For example, drainage, electrical systems, hard surface elements and surface
features may have been added or deleted from the affected area in turn
requiring changes to the plan set.
We are concerned that application of those elements designed or specified
within this plan set be restricted to the specific project area. The plan set
should not be used, without modification, for other intersections or corridors
for which the project was not intended or designed for.
Please contact David Warzala or me if you have specific questions or comments
regarding this letter.
Sincer6ta ly yours,
Barrner , ASLA, AICP
Principal Associate
BJW:kro
cc: John Flora, Fridley Public Works Director
0
HOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
9
COMMISSION MEMBERS: LAWRENCE COMMERS,CHAIRMAN
KA DUANE PRAi1E VMGiN1A SCHNABEL WADER RASMUSSEN JOHN MEYER I
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: December 6, 1990
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA
SUBJECT: Status of Proposed Fridley Town Square Development
Agreement
On Friday, November 30, 1990, Jim Casserly, our Development
Consultant, talked with Scott Erickson concerning the profit
sharing arrangement that was discussed informally at the November
13, 1990, HRA meeting. Mr. Erickson was to have taken the proposal
under advisement, and, as we go to press, we are waiting for his
response. At such time as Mr. Casserly has been able to negotiate
an outline of a proposed development agreement, this will come back
the HRA for final action.
JR:ls
M -90 -880
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOCK ROBERTSON 6491 UNIVERSITY AVE. ($12) 571 -9450
FRIDLEY, MN 55432