Loading...
HRA 02/14/1991 - 6359HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1991 7:30 P.M. William Burns Executive Director of HBA CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1991, 7:30 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 10, 1991 ACTION ITEMS: 1. RECONSIDERATION OF TIF TURNBACK TO SCHOOLS 2. CONSIDERATION OF SUH REQUEST TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY 3. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT FOR HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES 4. CONSIDERATION OF ANOKA HRA REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO OPERATE HOUSING PROGRAM 5. CONSIDERATION OF 1991 BUDGET 6. ESTIMATES /CLAIMS INFORMATION ITEMS: 7. UPDATE ON FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT'S PROPOSAL 8. UPDATE ON FRIDLEY TOWN SQUARE PROJECT 9. RICE PLAZA UPDATE 10. REPORT ON TIF PROPOSALS FOR 1991 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 11. LETTER REGARDING TAX DELINQUENCY AT LAKE POINTE SITE 12. MEETING WITH LINVILLE PROPERTIES 13. OTHER ITEMS: ADJOURNMENT r _ i Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 7, 1991 TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA4 Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Meeting Time for February 14, 1991 We would like you to attend the meeting beginning at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in order to review the proposed 1991 budget. We will provide dinner for you. If you cannot attend the meeting at 5:00 p.m., please contact us as soon as possible. It is our understanding that so far Duane Prairie and Larry Commers can attend. BD /dn M -91 -95 d i CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING i REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 10, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Vice - Chairperson Schnabel called the January 10, 1991, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes to order at 7:40 p.m. MOLL CALL: Members Present: Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie, John Meyer Members Absent: Larry Commers, Walter Rasmussen Others Present: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Jim Hoeft, HRA Attorney Rick Pribyl, Finance Director Paul Hansen, Accountant Steve Billings, City Councilmember Jim Casserly, Development Consultant Terry Moses, BMB Realty Investments Ray Wormsbecker, Caba Realty Doug Erickson, Fridley Focus Lisa Williams, 2742 Hennepin Ave. S. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 13 1990. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the December 13, 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. Burns stated he would like to add an item, Lake Pointe Maintenance, to the agenda under "Action Items ". 1. RMS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Mr. Burns stated that at this meeting, the HRA is being asked to consider a proposal to return 50% of the value of outstanding assessments for public improvements to RMS Company. These assessments are for projects involving street widening, resurfacing, and the construction of a storm sewer. A lot of this occurred on Commerce Lane in 1989 and 1990. It HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 2 also involved some storm sewer work on Main Street in the vicinity of this property. Mr. Burns stated the RMS Corporation is a manufacturer of parts for the aircraft industry and large companies requiring other precision metal parts. RMS currently employs 248 people at four different locations: Baker Street, Osborne Road, 81st Avenue, and 2,500 sq. ft. location at the Martens /Brenny building on 83rd Avenue. Mr. Burns stated RMS plans to purchase a 8.9 acre site at the northwest corner of Osborne Road and Main Street. The preliminary plan is to construct a 70,000- 80,000 sq. ft. building which will cost an estimated $4 -5 million. Total taxes on the property are estimated at $2.75/sq. ft. or $206,225. The local share of that will be $33,000. The new consolidation of the three facilities will create 50 -75 new jobs; and if another company is included as part of a buy -out, there would be 140 -150 new jobs. Mr. Burns stated RMS is a privately held subsidiary of Cretex Corporation in St. Cloud, Minnesota. They expect another division of Cretex to move to the 12,000 sq. ft. facility on Osborne Road. Mr. Burns stated there are several justifications for the HRA spending the approximately $40,000- 50,000 to RMS: 1. The project is consistent with the objectives of the HRA's redevelopment plan for the subject area. 2. The assistance will enable the City to retain 250 jobs and create another 50 -75 jobs. 3. The property tax benefit ($33,000 per year) is supposed to cover the cost within two years. 4. The proposed level of assistance is about 1 -2% of the total construction value. Mr. Burns stated Jim Casserly has drafted the development agreement, and he would like Mr. Casserly to review some of the details of the development agreement with the HRA. Mr. Casserly stated the development agreement handed out at the meeting is the latest version. He stated the two kinds of changes made were at the request of RMS and its legal counsel: 1. RMS wanted to make it very certain that the company was not obligating themselves to build a building ROUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 4 and Delivery of a Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley and RMS Company ". UPON A VOICE VOTEr ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated the HRA appreciates the fact that RMS is going to stay in Fridley, and they hope this assistance will encourage that development to proceed very quickly. Mr. Moses thanked the HRA and stated he would convey that message to Mr. Forcelle. Mr. Casserly stated he wanted to point out that this is the first time the HRA has assisted a project without creating a tax increment district. So, all the value that is being put on it will be received by the taxing jurisdictions. Councilmember Billings stated that it might be a good idea for the HRA to send a letter to the City, County, and school districts informing them that the HRA just committed money to a project that they will not recover through tax increment. This project is in Spring Lake Park School District #16. Letters should also be sent to Representative Wayne Simoneau, Representative Alice Johnson, and Senator Don Frank. Ms. Schnabel stated Mr. Billings' point is well taken. If the other members agree, she would ask staff to write the appropriate letters. Mr. Prairie and Mr. Meyer agreed. 2. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR FRIDLEY HRA: MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve Resolution No. HRA 2 -1991, "Resolution Designating Official Depositories for the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority ". UPON A VOICE VOTE,, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CLAIMS (2090- 2094): MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the check register as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 5 4. LAKE POINTE MAINTENANCE: Ms. Dacy stated that the Public Works Department notified them of three issues pertaining to the maintenance of the Lake Pointe property. The HRA currently pays for an annual maintenance contract for lawn cutting and other trash pick -up on the Lake Pointe, property. These three items are in addition to that cost. 1. Mr. Winson, Assistant Public Works Director, has pointed out that the Public Works Department would like to execute an annual fertilization and tree pruning contract. They would like the KRA to include funds in the 1991 budget to do those activities. After getting some preliminary estimates from a landscape contractor, Mr. Winson has told her that the cost could be as high as $7,500. She would like the HRA to authorize that $7,500 be included in the 1991 budget for that expense. They would go out for bid for that particular activity, so the cost could be less. 2. Twenty trees on the Lake Pointe property have died within the last year. The warranty period the HRA retained for landscaping has expired, and if the HRA replaced all 20 trees, the maximum cost would be $12,960. After discussing this with the City Manager, Mr. Burns, it is staff's recommendation that the HRA not expend that money and that it is possible a number of these trees could be replaced by virtue of development on the property. The City recently passed a new landscaping ordinance that will require developers to plant extensive landscaping. At this point, the number of dead trees is still minor and is not affecting the overall appearance of the site. 3. The third item pertains to the underground irrigation system to maintain all the landscaping. The Public Works Department says that from time to time, maintenance issues may arise for the underground irrigation system. Currently, staff is preparing a 1991 budget and is looking at allocating about $10,000 for a "just in case" provision if something should happen. Ms. Dacy stated that at this meeting, the only action necessary is for the HRA to authorize the City to go out for bid for an annual fertilizing and tree pruning contract not to exceed $7,500. Mr. Meyer stated he did not know the status of the lawn and sodded areas or if there are any weeds or crab grass. He knows what weeds can do to expensive lawns, and he hoped that they are watching that closely. He would appreciate staff checking to make sure that the contract for lawn maintenance includes HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 6 ^ fertilizing and weed control in order to preserve the expense they have put into that lawn. NOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve and authorize the City to go out for bid for a fertilizing and tree pruning contract not to exceed $7,500. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CHAIRPERSON SCHNA3EL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. TARGET PROJECT: Ms. Dacy stated First Western Equity Corporation is interested in constructing a 126,500 sq. ft. shopping center at the southwest corner of 85th and University Avenues. In conjunction with that shopping center, they are also working with Dayton- Hudson Corporation to locate a 117,000 sq. ft. Target facility at that site. Ms. Dacy stated the developer has made applications for variances, a rezoning, and a plat. The status of the applications is that the developer wants to go through the variance process first to receive direction from the Council for one specific variance, and that is the parking stall width. The developer is requesting a 9 foot wide space. The City ordinance dictates a 10 foot wide space for commercial development. That issue is so important to Dayton- Hudson and the developer that they want to determine whether or not that would be granted before they proceed with other parts of their applications. Ms. Dacy stated the variances will be going to the Appeals Commission on January 22, and then to the Council in February. It will take about 2 -3 months for the developer to finish the rest of their, development approvals. Staff has raised some questions about traffic and storm water quality and has requested some specialized studies. Ms. Dacy stated staff met briefly with the developer in December regarding soil correction assistance from the HRA. Staff gave them the new application forms and the policies used by the HRA for that type of assistance. The developer has not indicated any dollar amount or the amount of their request at this time. Ms. Dacy stated there is about 4 acres of wetlands on the property right now located approximately in the northwest corner of the site and is the area where they will be putting their stormwater management pond. Obviously, the area where the shopping center is to be located will destroy the wetlands site. The developer has received an Army Corps of Engineer's permit based on the fact that they are required to recreate HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 7 another wetland elsewhere in the community. That site is the Meadowlands Park site just north of Mississippi Street. The Army Corps appears to be happy with the plans prepared for the Meadowlands Park site. The Army Corps is still reviewing this particular development plan. Ms. Dacy stated there is a substantial amount of peaty soils on the property right now, as deep as 3 -4 feet in some places. A lot of excavation work will be necessary and a lot of clean fill will be needed to be placed on the site. Ms. Dacy stated she had originally anticipated an application from the developer as soon as the February HRA agenda, but that does not appear to be the case. This information is just to make the HRA aware that First Western Equity Corporation may apply for soil correction assistance. Mr. Meyer asked what affect this development would have on the Springbrook Nature Center. Ms. Dacy stated the developer made a presentation to the Springbrook Nature Center Board on December 17, 1990. The Board's main concerns were the impacts from the shopping center lights as well as the quality of the water runoff from the property. Another issue that has come up since that meeting is that because of the high water table in the east part of the site, the Board is wondering how construction will affect the water table into the park area. The Board wants to make sure the Nature Center's integrity is maintained in terms of night programming and that the water quality is not degraded any more than the runoff through the park right now. Mr. Meyer stated he would be very concerned about the water runoff that would contain oil and gas from the development into Springbrook Nature Center. 6. UPDATE ON UCD PROJECT: Mr. Burns stated that at the last HRA meeting, they talked about a development agreement with Fridley Town Square project. Since that time, they have had continual concerns about the addition of a Burger King proposed by the developer, Scott Erickson. Staff has pointed out to the City Council that the addition of a Burger King will substantially increase peak hour traffic (between 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.). As a result of additional traffic, there is the potential for creating stacking problems on Mississippi Street for eastbound traffic that wants to turn left into the center. There is also the potential for undesirable traffic impact behind the shopping center. Staff has noted the possibility of loud mufflers and other vehicle noises and the impact of those things on the neighbors. There is also a potential conflict between the HOUSING 8 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 8 traffic using the Burger King moving behind the shopping center and those that are loading and unloading, particular at the Walgreen store. Mr. Burns stated the staff has.discussed these concerns with City Council, and basically the Council members are not supportive of the Burger King addition unless there is a way to mitigate the impacts of the additional traffic. About the only way staff sees to mitigate the problem is to buy the property next door and move the driveway down. That is very expensive and something that the Walgreen Corporation would not approve. Mr. Burns stated that in view of the mitigation problems and Council's position on the Burger King addition, Mr. Erickson was urged to find a new tenant or a new project. Mr. Erickson has requested that he be allowed to have a public hearing that is available to him under the S -2 chapter of the zoning ordinance which says that any time there is a major change in the plan for a redevelopment district, the Planning Commission has to have a public hearing, and the plan change has to be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Burns stated that after consulting Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, about Mr. Erickson's request, staff developed the following schedule of events: 1. January 7, 1991: Informal review of the situation after the Council meeting. 2. January 10, 1991: Informal review of the situation at the KRA meeting. 3. January 23, 1991: Public hearing on the proposed change before the Planning Commission. 4. February 11, 1991: City Council consideration of the proposed change. Mr. Burns stated the Council has opted to consider a major change requiring a hearing before the Planning Commission and to follow the calendar (above). Mr. Burns stated that as far as the HRA is concerned, Mr. Erickson had requested tax increment assistance for his project. They would have had a tax increment agreement before the HRA at this meeting if the addition of the Burger King had not arisen. Does the HRA now want to bear the cost of proceeding with the draft of the development agreement for the Fridley Town Square project, or does the HRA want to wait until the Burger King problem is ironed out? If the HRA wants to proceed with the draft of the development agreement, then HOUSING i REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 9 does the HRA agree in concept with the equity participation agreement discussed at the last meeting? Mr. Burns stated it is staff's recommendation that the HRA hold up on the development agreement and not spend any money at this time to have it drafted until the Burger Ring issue is resolved. Ms. Schnabel stated they should at least hold up on the drafting of the development agreement until after the Planning Commission public hearing. If the Planning Commission and City Council do not vote in favor of it, then it is over. Mr. Prairie stated the HRA is traffic, and he thought anything to that site is a negative. very concerned about the that would add more traffic Mr. Meyer stated that when this was discussed with the traffic consultant, the consultant said that any additional traffic would change it from a D to an E intersection. That is getting pretty bad. The Burger Ring addition is definitely a negative. Mr. Meyer stated that when the developer was before the HRA with the project originally, he assured the HRA that the neighbors on 67th Avenue would not be jeopardized by the development. Now he is introducing a Burger Ring that will bring vehicle noise, loud speaker noise, extra lights, etc., and now they are impinging onto the residential nature of that street more than before with the center as first proposed. Mr. Casserly stated the City Manager has the prerogative that if the Council moves on the land use decision, he can authorize Mr. Casserly to move on the development agreement very quickly. 7. UPDATE ON RICE PLAZA: Ms. Dacy stated that in November, the HRA members made a motion to approve rent forgiveness for Terrie Mau of the Cinnamon Skin Tan with the stipulation that when she moves, she moves only to the Fridley Town Square development. Mr. Rordiak is still pursuing with her the money that she owes. Her slow season is in the fall months, Sept. -Dec., and her business picks up during the winter. He feels confident that she will keep current. However, if the Fridley Town Square development does not go through, then Ms. Mau still has to pay what she owes the HRA. Ms. Schnabel stated she appreciated the update. She stated she was surprised that she had voted in favor of this rent forgiveness, because she had spoken against it in the past. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 10 Because of her concern, she would like to see this type of report on a month -to -month basis. 8. APPLICATION FEES AND PROCESS; Ms. Dacy stated that at the July 19, 1990, meeting, the HRA discussed their policies and procedures for assisting with tax increment financing. Out of the discussion and out of the materials Mr. Robertson had prepared, she developed three handouts that staff will give to developers. These materials were included in the agenda packet and consisted of the following: 1. Policy statement regarding TIF administrative costs including the statement of fees. 2. Agreement for which the developer would execute with the HRA for an application. 3. A three page application form 9. INFORMATION REGARDING PAST HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM: Ms. Dacy stated the information included in the agenda was self - explanatory. Later in the meeting, Mr. Burns will be talking about some of the research staff will be doing for other housing programs for the 1990'x. Ms. Schnabel stated that at other meetings she has brought up the possibility of creating a pool or fund that could be used in a manner such as the way the Habitat for Humanity program operates. She is curious about their process and how their applicants are screened. Maybe they should obtain some information from the Habitat for Humanity program as there might be something in their screening process that would be of assistance to the HRA. Ms. Dacy stated she has worked with two builders for that program, and she would be happy to contact them and see if she can get some information. 10. FRIDLEY OFFICE PLAZA BUILDING: Mr. Burns stated he has been contacted by Mr. Dan Cardona, a representative of a group planning to purchase the Fridley Plaza Office Building for approximately $850,000. Their request was that the HRA consider a tax reduction on this property and also give them a better price on the parking ramp. The HRA has an agreement with the office building to provide parking at $800 /month. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 11 Mr. Burns stated Mr. Cardona requested a copy of the development agreement, along with the second subordination agreement for the second mortgage and the agreement on the rental of the parking. He had indicated to Mr. Cardona that the City thought it was the petitioner's responsibility to make a case for his claim; and that he was welcome to state his case to the HRA. Mr. Burns stated he has not heard from Mr. Cardona since that time. He has also heard that this group is no longer pursuing the purchase of the office building, so the issue is moot at this point. Mr. Burns stated there are a couple of other issues that are related to the office building that he will discuss under "Other Business ". 11. STATUS OF TAX COLLECTIONS FOR VARIOUS TAX INCREMENT PROJECTS: Mr. Burns stated that when staff looked at the tax increment turnback for the schools, he had suggested that the amount they were turning back was probably going to stabilize as the taxes for various projects in tax increment districts start to come on line. In a discussion -after the last HRA meeting, they decided it might be worthwhile to look at what taxes had originally been projected for the various projects, what projects have come on line, and what projects have yet to come on line. In the material given to the HRA, they could see that it will be a another year or so before the remaining taxes for the Moore Lake Racquet, Swim & Health Club come on line. That is the biggest project yet to come on line, so there should be another big jump in the next couple of years. However, there have been some tax devaluations for other projects. The Fridley Plaza Office Building is an example. Mr. Burns stated the table included in the agenda packet gives a good overall view of potential project revenues which may have a bearing on the TIF turnback to the school districts. 12. 1991 BUDGET: Mr. Burns stated he had hoped to have the 1991 budget ready to distribute at this meeting. Staff is still working on it, and it will be available for the February 14, 1991, meeting. 13. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Medtronic Mr. Burns stated he recently had a luncheon meeting with representatives from Medtronic. Medtronic is talking HOUSING i REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 12 about two projects - -a neurological center and an addition to their technology center. Mr. Burns stated that in order to produce the neurological center, Medtronic is going to combine three groups - -one in California, one in Canton, Ohio, and one in Columbia Heights. They are looking for 40,000 sq. ft. They have identified three sites and want to identify the final site within one week. One site is the East River Road Business Park. The new facility would create 40 -60 new jobs with the consolidation, with a total of 100 jobs. Medtronic will ask the City to apply for economic recovery funds, a low interest loan program for companies that employ at -risk individuals. They will not be asking for any tax increment financing or other HRA assistance. Mr. Burns stated Medtronic is very seriously talking about building a 90,000 sq. ft. addition to their technology center (the building on the east side of Central Avenue). At this point, Medtronic is not asking for tax increment financing, but they do want to avoid doing a new environmental assessment. They did an environmental assessment in October 1980. According to Medtronic, the MPCA is happy with the 1980 environmental assessment unless the City requests another one. He stated he needs to respond to Medtronic about this as soon as possible. Mr. Burns stated that as an alternative, he has promoted the Lake Pointe site to Medtronic, and they seem interested in the site. Medtronic has agreed to send the HRA a written request for proposal asking the HRA to tell them what the HRA would provide on the Lake Pointe site. Before sending the written request for proposal, they will identify the amount of space they need for the 90,000 sq. ft. building, as well as the amount of space they might need for future campus. Additionally, they are going to list other uses that might go on the Lake Pointe site. b. Lake Pointe Negotiations Mr. Burns stated that before Christmas, Ray Haik, Virgil Herrick, Jim Casserly, Barbara Dacy, Jock Robertson, and he met to discuss the nonpayment of taxes on Lake Pointe by Woodbridge. They decided the City is not going to pay the taxes and would eventually claim tax forfeit or acquisition through the tax forfeiting process. Mr. Burns stated the bigger question that they discussed was what are they going to do with Lake Pointe. They have identified four options: HOUSING i REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 13 1. Let Woodbridge buy the HRA out. 2. The HRA buys out Woodbridge. 3. They negotiate a new development agreement, based.on today's market. 4. They do nothing. Mr. Burns stated they decided it might be worthwhile in 1991 to pursue option #2. On December 21, 1990, Jim Casserly sent him a memo asking for authority to begin discussions with John Utley, the attorney representing Woodbridge, about a negotiated buy -out. Mr. Casserly will be coordinating these discussions closely with Mr. Burns. C. TIF Turnback to the School Districts Mr. Burns stated that at their last meeting, the Council tabled any action on the TIF turnback until January 28, 1991. Fridley School District Chairperson, Jim Ferguson was at the Council meeting and spoke strongly in favor of the City returning the entire amount to the school districts. Mr. Ferguson was opposed to the $200,000 cap put on by the HRA. The School District staff is asking to get together with City staff to see if there is a way to accommodate the school district's interests on this issue. Ms. Schnabel asked what concerns the City Council had regarding this item. Councilmember Billings stated he was rather concerned when he saw this on the City Council agenda. One of the proposals that was before the legislature last session was that any new tax increment financing districts had to go to the counties and school districts. Now they can object, but their objections are not necessarily a veto. Some of the proposals floating around one year ago was that the county and school districts could essentially have veto power. So, he was a little concerned from a political standpoint that essentially they were taking the school districts money and using it for HRA purposes. Since the Council meeting on Monday night, and realizing that the increase in value on the properties has therefore also increased the referendum amount, his suggestion might be to come up with a formula rather than a dollar amount of $200,000 as recommended by the HRA. Although a lot of thought may have gone into the dollar amount, that dollar amount appears to be a little bit HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 14 4 arbitrary. He stated Fridley is probably one of the only cities that is turning TIF monies back to the school districts. He stated it is important to be fair to the school districts so that, if in the future, the Legislature does come up with a program wherein the school districts and counties actually have veto power, the City and HRA have maintained a friendly relationship with the school districts. Ms. Schnabel stated she thought the HRA was really fair when they voluntarily took the initial steps to turn back TIF monies to the school districts ahead of any other community. They certainly were not obligated to do it. But when the HRA saw how the turnback monies are dramatically increasing, and yet at the same time took another look at the Lake Pointe development and other projects, they were a little concerned and decided they maybe should not be too generous. Mr. Commers was the one who really brought these concerns to the HRA's attention. Ms. Schnabel asked the HRA members if they wished to reopen the discussion on the TIF turnback to the school districts. Mr. Meyer stated he did not think so. He stated the HRA discussed this at length at the last meeting. They had logical reasons for their decision, and they should leave it at that. Mr. Prairie agreed. Councilmember Billings stated maybe all that is necessary is for the City staff to meet with the school district staff. Ms. Schnabel stated the HRA did not think it was the type of situation where they needed to negotiate with the school district - -the HRA is strictly looking at their budgets and what they are facing in the future. Ms. Schnabel stated it seems to be the consensus of the HRA members present that they are still comfortable with the $200,000 as recommended at the last meeting and do not see any reason to change it. Mr. Burns stated he believed that before the next meeting, the staff will have to meet internally and look at what the levy referendum was originally intended to bring in with what has actually gone into the tax increment return process. HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 15 Mr. Prairie asked that the HRA be sent that information when staff has put it together. He stated it might also be helpful for the HRA members to see the figures from the first, second, and third years and the breakdown of what they were so the HRA can understand exactly what has happened. Mr. Burns stated he will get this information for the HRA. If they then feel they want to discuss this issue again, he can put it on the February agenda. Mr. Prairie asked that Mr. Commers be informed of what was discussed at this meeting. d. Housing Rehab and Housing Redevelopment Programs Mr. Burns stated he and Ms. Dacy have scheduled a number of meetings with economic development people and city managers in other cities to take a look at how other cities are structuring their housing rehabilitation and housing redevelopment programs. Staff would like to put together an inventory of different strategies and different incentive programs that are being used in these two areas. They have meetings scheduled with Columbia Heights, Minneapolis, and Brooklyn Center. Mr. Burns stated the HRA members also were given a copy of a letter from Dave Newman with a copy of an article that deals with the project in the E1 Cerito, California. E1 Cerito has been involved in a housing redevelopment program that has used an equity participation process, so that is another technique the HRA might want to consider. e. Lake Pointe Mr. Burns stated he will be meeting on January 15 with Mike Scott and client who is interested in about 12 acres at the Lake Pointe site for a retail project. He stated he is trying to discourage this as he believed the HRA is more in favor of a project that is closer to the original plan for that site. f. Old Cub Food Site Mr. Burns stated Mr. Sid Inman, former Finance Director for the City, will be talking to City staff about a possible redevelopment project on the old Cub Food site. HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 16 g. Fridley Plaza Office Building Mr. Burns stated City staff has been approached by Jerry Caputo, who has been asking the City to cut down the property taxes on the Fridley Plaza Office building. That raises the issue about whether or not the pledge of future taxes contained in development agreement passes onto successors and assigns. Mr. Casserly stated it is his opinion that if there has been an involuntary succession, it probably is not enforceable against the successor. Mr. Burns stated that staff really did not want to start disturbing development agreements and the taxes pledged in the development agreements; however, as property values decline, at some point in the future the HRA may need to face the policy issue of whether or not it is prudent for the ERA to reconsider the tax levels that are pledged in these agreements. ADJOURNMENT: Vice - Chairperson Schnabel declared the January 10, 1991, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully sub fitted, Lynr}p( Saba Recording Secretary ACTION ITEMS Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager DATE: February 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Request for Further Discussion of TIF Turnback to Schools I received the attached letter from Dr. Dennis Rens formally requesting that the Council delay its action on the four agreements with the four school districts for turnback of TIF revenue. Dr. Rens points out that the loss of $41,000 to School District 14 translates into about a teacher and a half at a time when the school district is facing some rather critical revenue shortfalls. He also points out that the notification of the lost revenue comes at a difficult time as far as their fiscal planning is concerned. As a result of the request, I did ask Council to delay action on the TIP turnback to the schools at their January 28 meeting. They understand that the matter will be going back to the HRA, and from what I can interpret, believe that the decision will essentially be an HRA decision. I would also like to point out that Rick Pribyl has prepared data that illustrate the amount of TIF turnback that has occurred since 1988. Although we do not have prefect information for 1991 we expect a complete turnback of revenue would be about $269,000 as compared with about $262,000 in 1990. Turnback to School District 14 is projected as $164,536. This is the same amount that was actually paid out in pay 1990. In addition to showing the history of the TIF turnback, Rick also has listed the levies on which the turnback is based. I think it is interesting to note that in only one instance has a new levy accounted for increased turnback revenue since we first began turning back revenue in 1988. All of the other increases in TIF turnback revenue to the four school districts are due to appreciation of property values and to new property value being included on the tax duplicate. I 1.A ,- Request for Further Discussion of TIF Turnback to Schools February 5, 1991 Page Two The final handout describes the proposal that has been put forward by the HRA at their December meeting. The handout displays the pro rata distribution of discretionary levy return to each of the four districts. It also displays the mandatory levy return that is paid out to School District 14. Finally, it displays the total amount that each school district is being denied as a result of the decision to cap the total turnback at $200,000. Thank you for reviewing the data and for the additional discussion time that will be required for this issue. WWB /jb Attachment 6000 WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 / 571 -6000 January 22, 1991 Dr. William Burns, City Manager City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Dr. Burns: JAN 2 419gl . B DR DENNIS E BENS SUPERINTENDENT FAX 612 - 571 -7633 This letter relates to our recent discussions concerning the tax increment referendum levy agreement between the City and the School District. First of all, the School Board and I appreciate the support you and the City Council have provided on this issue in the past and during recent discussions. I also appreciate the - opportunities you have provided over the past several weeks for me and members of the School Board to interact with appropriate City and HRA personnel regarding the matter. These discussions have been most helpful. As we have continued to discuss the issue, School Board Members express two major concerns: 1. While the amount of the proposed reduction ($41,000) may not seem like a lot of money, it really translates into a teacher and a half as the Board plans for 1991- 92. This comes during difficult budget times as the Di ^tr. ie"t as forced to cut. itc 1989 -90 $250,000, cut an additional $250,000 out of its 1990 -91 budget, and faces another $250,000 expenditure over revenue projection in its upcoming 1991 -92 budget which will most likely force the District into a referendum attempt in November of 1991. 2. The timing of this decision is very difficult as the Board really began planning for 1991 -92 a number of months ago and made decisions based on receiving the $164,000 in 1991 -92 that was available in 1990 -91. The primary purpose of my letter, Bill, is to encourage you to ask the City Council to delay action on this issue and to return it to the HRA for reconsideration. While the District would obviously like the HRA to reverse its LIC Dr. Burns 2 January 22, 1991 decision, we would at least encourage replacement of the 1991 -92 dollars to the full amount available and to then have a discussion about a longer term solution to the issue. My personal thanks for whatever help you can provide in moving this issue forward. Sincer ly, Dennis E. Rens, PhD Superintendent DER /hj LBUPIISTI .WPS 1.0 IK I REFSui SUMMARY OF REFERENDUw, REFUNDS SCHQE�. DISRTRICT 11 LEVY HISTORY 1015x62 6 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT 1010/87 6 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT AFL LEi S WERE EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THUS ALL CHANGE IN THE REFJNDS ARE DUE TO 6ROWTH IN THE TAI INCREMENT VALUE [R C Q16ES IN PFOPERTY TAX FORr.JLA S SCFOCL DISTRICT 13 LEVY HISTORY 1015181 5 MILL LEVY. PERMANENT 9/23/66 1 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT 11/06/90 .08 TAX CAPAEITY RATE. TEAPORAR'i 7 YEAR TriE I961 ANEW THE :566 LEVIES WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE E *FECTIVE DATE OF THE FIST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, ALL GROWTH THAT OC GRRED UNDER THESE TWO LEVIES WERE BECAUSE OF 6ROkTH IN VALUE. TW LEVY THAT OCCURED IN 1990 GENERATED AN ESTIMATED $13,413.44 IN TAXES CULLEi ED BY THE HFA THAT OAS STF;CTLY RELATED TO THE NEW F'EFEREND'JM LEVY. SU -5`3L DISTRICT 14 LEVY HISTORY 6.5 MILL LEVY, 5 YF. TEMPCFARY 9/2u'83 2 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT 9:23;16 13.5 MILL LEVY, PERMANENTiREPLACED THE 6.5 LEVY AND ADDED 7 MILLS) 9127181 ALL LEVY'S WERE EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THUS ALL CHANGE IN THE REFUNDS ARE DUE TO GROWTH IN THE TAX INCREMENT VALUE OR CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX FORMJLA'S SCHOh L-ISTRI;.T 16 LEVY HISTORY 10!i:8s81 5 MIL LEVY, PERMANENT—DOES NOT APPLY TO REFUND PER STATE STATUTE /11b. 6 MIL LEVY, PERMANENT 1.D SCHOOL DISTRICT % CHANGE YEAR #11 #13 #14 #16. TOTAL SINCE 1988 1988 4,711.25 5,754.92 56,012.08 0.00 66,478.25 1489 4,366.26 26,698.94 132,078.19 0.00 163,343.39 145.71" 1595 14,805.20 34,096.93 164,536.05 48,358.63 261,798.81 293.81% 199'; 14,8u5.2(: 41,250.59 164,530.05 48,3.`•6.63 268,950.47 304.577. TOTAL 38,68-.51 108,003.39 517,162.31 96,717.26 760,570.92 SCHQE�. DISRTRICT 11 LEVY HISTORY 1015x62 6 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT 1010/87 6 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT AFL LEi S WERE EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THUS ALL CHANGE IN THE REFJNDS ARE DUE TO 6ROWTH IN THE TAI INCREMENT VALUE [R C Q16ES IN PFOPERTY TAX FORr.JLA S SCFOCL DISTRICT 13 LEVY HISTORY 1015181 5 MILL LEVY. PERMANENT 9/23/66 1 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT 11/06/90 .08 TAX CAPAEITY RATE. TEAPORAR'i 7 YEAR TriE I961 ANEW THE :566 LEVIES WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE E *FECTIVE DATE OF THE FIST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, ALL GROWTH THAT OC GRRED UNDER THESE TWO LEVIES WERE BECAUSE OF 6ROkTH IN VALUE. TW LEVY THAT OCCURED IN 1990 GENERATED AN ESTIMATED $13,413.44 IN TAXES CULLEi ED BY THE HFA THAT OAS STF;CTLY RELATED TO THE NEW F'EFEREND'JM LEVY. SU -5`3L DISTRICT 14 LEVY HISTORY 6.5 MILL LEVY, 5 YF. TEMPCFARY 9/2u'83 2 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT 9:23;16 13.5 MILL LEVY, PERMANENTiREPLACED THE 6.5 LEVY AND ADDED 7 MILLS) 9127181 ALL LEVY'S WERE EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THUS ALL CHANGE IN THE REFUNDS ARE DUE TO GROWTH IN THE TAX INCREMENT VALUE OR CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX FORMJLA'S SCHOh L-ISTRI;.T 16 LEVY HISTORY 10!i:8s81 5 MIL LEVY, PERMANENT—DOES NOT APPLY TO REFUND PER STATE STATUTE /11b. 6 MIL LEVY, PERMANENT 1.D 1.E ALL LEVi'S WERE EFFECTIVE PROF: TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST RETURN TO THE SE400L DIETR, :TS, THGS ALL CHANGE IN THE REFUNDS ARE DUE TO 6RONTE IN THE TAX INCREMENT VALUE OR CHANGES IN PROPERTt TAX FORMULA'S LEVRET91 MAXIMUM RETURN $10,000 $30,000 $120,000 $36,000 $200,000 ADD: MhhDITORY LEVY RETURN $1,866 $1,866 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- $10,000 $30,000 $121,866 $36,000 $20.,866 DIFFERENCE FREM, TOTAL $4,805 $11,251 $42,670 $12,359 $67,084 1.F 111 113 114 116 TOTAL ESTIMATED 1991 RETURN $14,805 x41,251 $164;536 $48,359 $268,950 LESS: MANDITORY LEVY RETURN - - - -- $1,866 --- - - - - -- --- --- - -- $1,866 -- - - - - -- TOTAL DESLRETIONAFY --- - - - - -- $14,B05 -- --- - $41,251 --- - - - - -- $162,670 --- - - - - -- $48,359 --- - - - - -- $270,816 --------- PERCENTAGE TO TOTA, --- - - - - 5.0000% --- - - - - -- 15.0000% --- - - - - -- 60.0000% --- - - - - -- 18.00001 -- - - - - -- 98.00001 --- - - - - -- MAXIMUM RETURN $10,000 $30,000 $120,000 $36,000 $200,000 ADD: MhhDITORY LEVY RETURN $1,866 $1,866 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- $10,000 $30,000 $121,866 $36,000 $20.,866 DIFFERENCE FREM, TOTAL $4,805 $11,251 $42,670 $12,359 $67,084 1.F i r � Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley V TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members A FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager DATE: February 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Suh Request Please note the attached memorandum to file regarding the meeting I had with Mr. and Mrs. Suh. The bottom line is that they want us to buy their portion of the Southwest Quadrant. Pursuant to my instructions, they put their request into writing. A copy of their letter is attached. No doubt, we will need to consider this request at a future HRA meeting. WWB:rsc Attachments 2 MEMORANDUM 2.A Municipal Center _ 6431 University Avenue N.E. Office Of the City Manager Fridley, MN 55432 William W. Burns CITYOF (612) 571 -3450 . FRIDLEY TO: File FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager1� �i DATE: January 24, 1991 SUBJECT: Meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Suh On Wednesday, January 23, 1991, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., I met with Jai M. Suh and Shinjai Suh who live at 12 Island Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55127. Mr. and Mrs. Suh are upset with the City of Fridley and the HRA. They feel that our identification of their property as part of a redevelopment district, along with other actions that we have taken, have served to limit the profitability of their retail rental property along University Avenue. They said that with the property being in a redevelopment district, they have difficulty leasing and selling the property to future buyers. They also said that we have generated rumors about redevelopment projects from time to time, and that they have even participated in projects to the extent of hiring attorneys and spending as much as $7,000 at a time to develop purchase agreements for projects that never materialized. They also are upset with Scott Erickson. They feel that he has been soliciting their tenants for occupation of the new Fridley Town Square project. Although Scott does not represent the City, they feel that since the HRA's money is being pledged to the Fridley Town Square project, we are indirectly responsible for taking business away from them. They feel it is unfair for us to let the developers of our other HRA projects attempt to lure in their tenants into a new development. They also learned that we bought the Levy property and are planning to buy the Dairy Queen property. They feel that -it is only fair for us to also buy their property and to end the continued impact of our unsuccessful redevelopment projects that they have experienced over a thirteen year period. 2.B Memo to File January 24, 1991 Page Two I suggested that they write us a letter outlining their request, and also promised that I would present the letter at the next HRA meeting. We should receive the letter within the next couple of days. They suggested that if we decide not to buy their property, which they value at $1.3 million, we should provide tax increment financing money that will help them remodel their existing property. They also asked me to send them a copy of the HRA minutes of the meetings in which we discussed the purchase of the Levy property and the Mississippi widening project. They are having a hard time understanding why we are spending money on the Mississippi widening project in the absence of a southwest quadrant development. They were somewhat upset over the potential impact of the Mississippi widening project on their businesses. cc: Mayor and City Council Members of the HRA Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director r.. 2.0 JAN 3 ?991 William Burns City Manager, Executive Director of H.R.A. City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. MN. 55432 Jan.29, 1991 Dear Mr. Burns, As we said to you at the meeting on Jan. 23rd, we'd like to request the City to acquire our property at this time. We have been owners of the rental properties facing University Ave. N.E. right next to Rice Plaza Center and Dairy Queen in the "Southwest Quadrant "Redevelopment area since November 1978. We are facing another refinancing of our properties at the end of Feb. 1991. [ Ref. 1 ] For the last 10 years we managed it ourselves, and it has been difficult for us to run the rental business under the constant threat of redevelopment and condem- nation. Soon we will be left as only one private landlord in the Southwest Quadrant, and be forced to compete for the tenants doing same types of businesses in the same area with the City - backed developers. and /or Cityfiired property manager. We think it is best for the City to own all properties in this area at this time and to deal with one property manager, and more importantly to proceed to redevelop the whole area with more incentives. [ Ref. 2 ] Thank you. Very truly yours, a ffG` Zw� Shinjae Suh and Jai M. Suh Ref. 1; Valerie trudeau, Norwest Bank, MPLS,MN.55479 Ref. 2; Minutes from Mar. 8,1990 HRA of Fridley Meeting C sviC,I V Seth 2.D 8OD8ING 8 RBDz"WPMENT AQTSORITY XTa.. Nag, A, 1990 PAGE 14 ` entire 10 acres, then it is best for the HRA to acquire control of the Levy parcel at this time. If they do not move ahead with acquisition at this time, then they face the inevitability that the entire 10 acres may never be available and-they might want to just decertify this part of the Center City plan and not proceed with it, because it would not be a comprehensive development, but small parcel development. Mr. Robertson stated staff is recommending the HRA direct staff to begin conversations with Mr. Levy to negotiate an acquisition price and come back to the HRA with an update at the next meeting. Mr. Newman stated that at a luncheon meeting with Mr. Commers and • the Mayor, Mr. Commers asked that this be put back on the agenda, because it was Mr. Commers' feeling that the HRA should seriously consider acquiring the site. This was discussed by the HRA 3 -4 years ago, but since that time things have changed. If they are going to upgrade Mississippi Street, early acquisition could speed up the intersection improvements for Mississippi and University by Anoka County. If the HRA is going to develop this site, they need to do it very quickly; otherwise, the increment will run out and they will not have that option. If the corporate user does not step forward, then it is staff's recommendation that the HRA go back to Ron Clark or another developer in order to get a project in place to consider so they have a development in place by next spring. Mr. Newman stated the HRA would have to own and lease and manage the property until development occurs, but that might not be too great a risk. Mr. Newman stated the HRA has the money to acquire the property. That is what the bonds were issued for back in 1985. The County appraised the property three years ago, and the estimate was slightly over $1 million. Mr. Levy had an appraisal done in the amount of $1,050,000 and $1,150,000. In looking at the development proposals in the last year, Mr. Levy agreed on a $1.1 million purchase price. Mr. Prairie asked what happens if the HRA acquires the property and nothing happens in the next five years. Mr. Newman stated the HRA would have to own, lease, and manage the property for five years. Mayor Nee stated he was also getting to the point where he thinks the HRA has to do this. If they acquire the property, there will be more of an incentive to make something happen in the southwest quadrant in less than five years. They have to deal with this corner. 2.E Ell".. .14 dex 0 li -1 61 A-1 -4 d�*) -4:1 A 4 & -11-k 4: (0) 1� 1� 4'W Y ieP Mr. Meyer stated he is in favor of acquisition. He did not want the HRA to be in the leasing and managing business, but he agreed they have to do something with this corner. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to authorize staff to have an appraisal done on the Levy property and authorize staff to approach Mr. Levy and begin negotiations regarding the purchase of the property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE- CBAIRPERBON SCZNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Newman stated that if the appraisal cost is any higher than $2,500, staff will come back to the HRA. M UN TO 0 i 4 Kea 4 M IILIRFW-OiW Mr. Robertson stated his memo to the HRA dated March 1, 1990 (agenda page 5) was self - explanatory. Mr. Newman has obtained a summary judgment granted by the court that the claims against the HRA and Clark Engineering are dismissed; however, the claim for slander of title to property and for attorneys' fees pursuant to < bad faith litigation is still intact. The court has not this matter for trial on June 18, 1991. Staff needs some policy direction from the HRA. Mr. Newman stated that when the law suit initially commenced, both he and Mr. Commers were offended by it. There was no basis for the law suit. At the HRA's direction, he attempted to negotiate a resolution and in response received a summons and complaint. He stated he needs some direction from the HRA as to whether they wish him to pursue this claim for bad faith, to negotiate a final settlement, or pursue it to trial to get the attorney's fees. It does take staff time and HRA resources. Mr. Meyer stated Clark Engineering is a competitor, but also a colleague, and he would abstain from voting on any motion. Mr. Prairie stated that if the HRA does not pursue this claim, he would like to not see the City use any of Clark Engineering's services in the future, even though the City has not hired this firm. in the past. He would be inclined to say that staff should not pursue it. Mr. Newman stated that if the HRA does not wish him to pursue it, he will try to negotiate some concessions. Ms. Schnabel stated it is her feeling that legal staff should not pursue this. 3 a° 0 Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 7, 1991 � r� Q . TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRAA. FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of Contract for Bill Schatzlein Attached is a contract with Bill Schatzlein of Schatzlein Associates to prepare a market analysis for housing redevelopment options in the University Avenue corridor in and around the 57th Place redevelopment area, as well as the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road. These two areas have been the focus for long -term planning in 1990. In order for the HRA to determine whether or not it would be prudent to pursue a redevelopment project in these two areas, it is recommended that the HRA approve the attached contract. On August 9, 1990, the Executive Director reviewed with the HRA the staff recommendations identified for redeveloping this area. One of the recommendations from that analysis suggested redeveloping the area for housing. Poor access and poor market conditions make it impossible to redevelop the entire area for commercial. After we worked with Jim Casserly to determine the tax increment financing issues, we determined that it was necessary to complete a market analysis to identify the demand for housing in this particular area. Another project area we have asked Schatzlein to address is the property located in the northeast corner of Central Avenue /Rice Creek Road. The HRA reviewed a soil correction request in 1987 on the Mochinski property for a townhome project. The townhome application and the recent Moose Lodge request were turned down. John Arkell from The Cottages also proposed acquisition of the property owned by the City to the rear of the Mochinski property for the development of elderly townhomes. That particular application was withdrawn in order for the City to conduct a senior housing study. Schatzlein and Associates is a professional real estate development company that provides technical consulting services to, not only local governments, but developers, non profit organizations, and lending institutions. Schatzlein has also worked with the 3.A Contract for Bill Schatzlein February 7, 1991 Page 2 Minneapolis Community Development Agency prior to starting his own consulting business. The contract identifies specific tasks by which Schatzlein would undertake to prepare a report regarding the market feasibility of a housing redevelopment at both these locations. The contract proposes an hourly rate with a maximum not to exceed $3,500. Completing this analysis will give the HRA information as to whether or not it would be prudent to pursue a redevelopment project in these two areas. Once the market conditions and limitations have been determined, we can then proceed with identifying a course of action to redevelop the properties. Recommendation Staff recommends that the HRA approve the consultant service contract with Bill Schatzlein as presented. BD:ls M -91 -78 3.B AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND SCHATZLEIN ASSOCIATES 1. Housing Redevelopment Consultant: Schatzlein Associates is hereby contracted to serve as a Housing Redevelopment Consultant for the University Avenue Gateway Area and the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road. 2. Duties and ResRonsibilities of the Consultant: A. The Consultant shall prepare a report documenting preliminary market research regarding the market feasibility of housing redevelopment in the University Avenue Gateway Area and the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road. The report shall address the feasibility of types of housing units, the value of housing units, the amenities associated with a housing project, the densities, and any issues regarding the synergy between the types of housing units and site specific conditions. The Consultant shall prepare this research by completing at minimum the following tasks: (1) Review market feasibility studies of other proposed housing projects; (2) Interview local or regional developers; (3) Review City and regional demographic data; (4) Interview housing /real estate market professionals. B. The Consultant shall attend Housing & Redevelopment Authority meetings as directed by the Executive Director of the HRA. C. Attend meetings with the Executive Director of HRA and the Community Development Director at the request of the Executive Director of HRA. 3. Term of the Agreement: The Consultant shall submit the report no later than April 1, 1991. The report shall be delivered to the office of the Executive Director of the HRA. 4. Compensation: A. The Consultant shall be compensated at the rate of $65.00 per hour, up to a maximum of $3,500.00. B. The Consultant shall submit an itemized statement that clearly accounts the hours of service provided by the Consultant as it relates to the items listed in Section 2A. Agreement for Consultant Services Page 2 5. Other Reimbursements: 3.0 A. The Housing & Redevelopment Authority will not be responsible for payment or withholding of any state or federal taxes.. B. Reimbursements for items other than compensated by the hourly rate shall be approved by the Executive Director of the HRA; however, in no case shall the total expense exceed $3,500.00. 6. Cancellation of Agreement: The agreement may be terminated within fifteen (15) days written notice by either party of this agreement. Agreed and entered into this 14th day of February, 1991. SCHATZLEIN ASSOCIATES By Bill Schatzlein CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Lawrence C. Commers HRA Chairperson By William W. Burns HRA Executive Director Schatzlein Associates is a professional real estate development company providing technical consulting services to a wide range of clients including: * Private developers * Building and land owners * Government agencies * Non - Profit organizations * Lending Institutions Schatzlein Associates provide consulting services related to the following types of real estate development: * Shopping centers *Multi Family Housing * Rehabilitation and Historic Preservation * Office Building * Redevelopment and Tax Increment * Special needs facilities Schatzlein Associates provides the following types of real estate development consulting services: * Land use planning and site plan preparation * Site selection or building selection * Rehabilitation of existing buildings * Coordination of the property acquisition process * Coordinate the work of the development team * Preparation of the development proposal * Market feasibility study * Financial analysis * Identify alternative sources of financing * Manage the government approval process * Coordinate the community involvement process * Serve as the owner's representative and work with the construction management team BILL SCHATZLEIN 4 0 3 2 GRAND AVENUE S O U T H MINNEAPOLIS, M I N N E S O T A 5 5 4 0 9 612 -824 -1628 3.D 3.E References for Bill Schatzlein Jim Kerrigan, Director Planning and Economic Development City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935 -8474 Robert Shadduck Jerry's Enterprises 5101 Vernon Avenue Edina Minnesota 55436 929 -2685 James Prosser, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minn. 861 -9700 Douglas Head, President Nationwide Housing Corporation 2425 East Frank -J in Avenue Minneapolis, Minn. 338 -3850 339 -1601 law office 3.F has agreed to the extension of the first mortgage between Citicorp . however, they are University Avenue Associates and Citicorp; j requiring the consent of the HRA as the guarantors. Ms. Schna bel stated she is a little unsure July 11 when 1993, and Mr. payment is due. Mr. Robertson's memo says Ju Herrick's memo says June 11, 1993. 1993. Mr. Herrick stated he believed the correct date is June il, Mr. Herrick stated that the extension of the first mortgage fo r a affect the HRA. The reason he one year period will not adversely mortgage was to show the put in the dates of the payment on the is being made, and that this ERA that presently no payment extension will not extend up to the date of the first payment Mr. Prairie, to approve the MOB by Mr. Meyer, seconded by year period for extension of the subordination agreements frequested by University Springbrook Apartments with Citicorp Avenue Associates. U pON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE - CHAIRPERSON SCgNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. OPOSED NORTH GATEWAY REDEVELOPK—ENT PLAN. r. Burns stated he would like to review the maps of the North M agenda. Gateway Redevelopment Plan that were included in the HRA ged the d that the map on agenda page 1 -B illustrated ate venue Gateway Mr. Burns stated t A scope of what has been labeled lan University will provide for planned The concept is to develop P to 61st Avenue. That redevelopment of the area north plus up to the vicinity includes everything from Holiday Mechanical on the west side of University Avenue and from Motor Valet Used Cars up to the Sinclair Station at 61st Avenue on the east side of University Avenue. On _ is shown on agenda page 1 -C. Mr. Burns stated that the zoning the parcel including the the west side of University restaurant is zoned C -3, Holiday Plus store and The Cattle company General Shopping, and the Parcels across the street are zosouth of General Business. On the east side of University is more C -2, General 57th Avenue all the way to 61st Avenue, Business zoning. On the west side of University A vet i =eSt =i�ted Bus Special Zoning, Park area which is S -1, P commercial residential area, which does allow the three existing Valet site properties as nonconforming uses. Behind zoning. Behind the commoningl there is some multiple family there R -2, Two gamily between 58th Avenue and 61st Avenue, I XODSING AND REDEVELOPMENT PiOTHORITY MTG, AUG, P. 1990 PAGE 3 Mr. Burns stated that the map on agenda page 1 -D shows what are considered the problem areas. On the west side of University Avenue, they are considering the three commercial properties, Frank's Used Cars, Werner's Furniture, and Custom Mechanical as potential targets for redevelopment. On in of ea t side of University Avenue, they are looking at everything to 61st Avenue for redevelopment. Mr. Burns stated that the map on agenda page 1 -E shows the commercial option. They looked at both commercial and residential as options for redeveloping in this University Avenue Gateway area. The first option would be redeveloping phase I. Phase I includes some landscaping and landscaping upgrade behind the Holiday Plus store and includes Frank's Used Cars and another parcel located next to 57 1/2 Avenue. Phase I also includes the Winfield property. Mr. Burns stated Phase II would be to develop the properties north of Winfield as commercial up to the Alanon Society. There is some feeling by staff that perhaps these lots do not have enough natural depth for commercial development. A suggestion involves taking out not be the duplexes hashould be considered to enhance y the success desirable, cess of commercial development. Mr. Burns stated that the map on agenda page 1 -F shows a slight change in the plan. Winfield would still be commercial, and the Frank's Used Cars site would continue to be residential, but the l. two districts north of Winfield are now designated as residential. The plan would be some form of townhouses or condominiums. property north of the Alanon society the alternative shows designated as commercial property. Again, the residential extending as far as the duplexes; however, north of the commercial Society, development seem to be in pretty residences good shape Land the commerci P should stay. Mr. Burns stated another parcel discussed with the City Council is the Motor Valet site. There has been some serious discussion about putting an LRT park and ride station there. The LRT is not a sure thing and this location for a park and ride station is not a sure thing. The Anoka County Regional Rail Authority is also looking at the northeast quadrant of 53rd Avenue. If the Motor Valet site does not become designated as an LRT park and ride station, then staff is open as to whether or not it should become residential or commercial or a na use for this parcel. Staff has not projected a clear future 1 Mr. Burns stated there does not appear to be much support from the City Council for extending tax increment financing to assist that Holiday Plus with oactive landscaping pproach with Holiday and proposing y to wo the City take a p k out 3.G IV 3.H OUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG.. AIIG. 9. 1990 PAGE a combination of land use and future landscaping for that parcel so they can perhaps get something going on a cooperative basis. Mr. Meyer stated he did not see a lot of visibility or worry about the Holiday Plus site. Mr. Prairie stated he thought the area that is more visible is from 57th Avenue north. Mr. Herrick asked if anyone has looked 57 the 2 economics of putting a single family house on the corner / Mr. Burns stated the game plan is to talk to several developers to look at the whole situation, not only this parcel, but the parcels north of developed and Winfield, n lidea on get he numbers of townhouse units i that might de p be feasible. Mr. Prairie stated he thought townhouses in this area along the east sik and ride station goes in on the be the best Motor valet option. LRT par sites it might help sell the townhouses. Mr. Herrick stated townhouses might be viable. He serious-Lr doubted that single family would be viable. Mr. Meyer stated so many of the problems and solutions they are talking about now were there in 1964. At that time, the City hired a planner, nd it might to bed inter sting in rseeing the old Hodne suggestion g plans. Mr. Burns stated staff will be getting out the Hodne plans. So, the first thing staff would like to do is talk to some developers to get a sense of their plans for this area and then staff wants do owe is swhat the state increment going to financing. Another variable with tax ri n increment right n financing. asked fv thought given eliminating th e University Avenue Seri a Di e and using 4th St e t as access if townhouses are developed. Mr. Burns stated staff had not thought of that, but it is certainly something that can be considered. after all these Mr. Meyer stated that it is his to be be successful as ommercialthat this strip is just never going Ms. Schnabel stated that for many years it has been impressed on them that the parcels should be the ar eas e eas clean d up first becaus park and ride e 3.1 ,/ - - -_- qLw., erf,V-VV.Tn9MZNT AUTHORITY MTG• - AUG 9. 1990 PAGE 5 that is the focal point coming development off of apartment buildingssor saw that area more for th something that cleans up that area. Mr. Burns stated that once a decision is made for the LRT park and ride station site either here or at 53rd Avenue, staff can examine this further and pro. ceed. Ms. Schnabel stated she has been he about an LRT since about 1968. If the City makes thenretheiaite° develop did not i think they finds a good and viable use f should hold back just because the site might be used for an LRT park and ride station. nt Plan was Mr. Burns stated that the Gateway described mthe p tential reviewed with the City Council. Staff at a very low level of actions they would take as being the involvement, simply changing the Comprehensiv economic forcesttake Gateway Redevelopment Plan Opposite level of involvement, they would go their course. At the out, buy the land, clear the land, and send out RFP's to The Council liked the proposal but rather than they developers. a landowner immediately, the proactive approach of becoming preferred to meet with developers d. clear indicate he land and relocate the City stands ready to buy the l ► et. That the residents, etc., to see what kind of reactions they g not essentially is what staff plans to do. on the council indicated so sure about the residential opt parcel north that if a strong commercial should be e willing to consider that as well. of Winfield, the City Ms. Schnabel stated she liked the approach of the City educating themselves ahead of time with d v word d of cautionaandethatois that get. She would like to offer o she would not like to see a crowd 1d a =eat high densities lonithe to see some reasonable figures without property. 3. KaXIMATES a. Talberg Lawn and Landscape (Lake Pointe) b. W. B. Miller (Flaten Property) OAT_ by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, estimate for Talberg Lawn and Landscape in $4,458.21 and the estimate for W. B. Miller in $700.00. to approve the the amount of the amount of IIPON A VOICE VOTE, �CARVRIED �MAAId�IMOIIBLY.C� RPERSON DECLARED THE MOTION SCMMZL B —1 o' m o 00 ~AV 46 p ° 4 to C � G ° : so . 40 00 0 C !% n c 0 3 a J3 0 a Q4 8 p° �� m 0 ° i w c V lob 9 E « � p ° a � d 0 Q 7i, o� m mc 13 ®,14 0 R.10 0 8 0 ® 8 0=: g it © 0 � o �4 o—on ® .nu.w wcs_ 3.J 3.K • vav� S 112 SEC. /3, T. 30, R. 24 cm' OF FRIDLEY @1 . �UUUUL Am �fr•,�s�f►Tf- aifr��Giww� �— ... �_ _ — _ ---- �s+a�Pl --'s�— - -+� O• ' �r.i •M r + .. ar p ~ ib M M1 M IC 10 Or I ••� N.f r r Z70 ;W 16 lip two U too .le a �,s r � a: � •, • , K . �� J : tom' • ` AVE rf M RE2� flV�: 9 i (a 1a M" ow p` Vt I V1 to i l�� of .f : , • + /,i 7 ni 00 00 ' r' T, '' /t s, �' ° ` i ts� C _•~ _- /7 r: ar tv 40 4�P 7 f M ✓, to '• •„ r•a 3 ' E 7 to +A A Is rte:" ,r t+� s r3 M • ie R � ,t( _` �s+ N. r 6 far bo - -'� .► a , � • ? � AUDITORS SUa ' A11p!'°►• �•�� .• �� •� ., ;,, 1 « g 006 K L� K r T .• -� A R IR wJ J �, E > , O � ti - f s; • n V / � � Ap SO .I• d , , y1 , A E p y w .i •�• a op rr• • t V !• • ' ,: • J ` t • ` Li l • ..r .+r.. ,sir Rt S \ ! a e ; S ! jowl w Ar ft do Q � ivO IA. • Ar t I J ` b .•. At7 6 ^ p / v� �' 1p .g. by 43 ® 24 0 §1 Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager Al. DATE: February 6, 1991 SUBJECT: Anoka HRA Request On Friday of last week, Rita Ander, Community Representative for the Anoka HRA, contacted me about asking our HRA to give their permission to include Fridley in the area to be served by a proposed rental assistance demonstration project for persons with a mental illness disability. More specifically, she was asking us to allow the Anoka HRA to administer housing inspections and issue rent payments to landlords in Fridley. Apparently, this demonstration project is much more attractive and fundable to the MHFA if it is a multi - jurisdictional proposal. Altogether, the proposal would provide funding for twenty units in Anoka County. Each mentally disabled person would be eligible for a rent subsidy of up to $150, primarily in apartment units. I understand from the proposal that Rise, Inc., would administer the casework for each of the individual tenants, including counseling the tenants who have or could potentially become disruptive. In reviewing this request with Pat Wolfe, our Section 8 Housing Coordinator, she indicated that she is a little concerned about having an administrator from another city administer a rent subsidy program in Fridley. She pointed out that this could easily be done by her office, and suggested that if we do give permission, that we ask the Anoka HRA to subcontract this service to the City of Fridley Housing Coordinator. By the time we meet on February 14, 1991, I will have discussed this issue with the Fridley City Council, and should be in a position to let you know their feelings. Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. WWB:rsc Attachment F FER 0 �4 9A e ANOKA Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1991 Mr. William Burns City of Fridley HRA 6431 University Ave. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr.Burns: City Hall Anoka, Minnesota 55303 EIN 2015 First Avenue (612) 421 -6630 Former Governor Perpich appointed a Commission of Affordable Housing for the 1990's in response to concerns about the provision of decent and affordable housing in Minnesota, These concerns arose due to basically three factors: 1. substantial decreases in federal support for housing 2. changes in Minnesota demographics increasing the need for low income housing and 3. more pronounced housing needs of special populations including people with mental illness, people with physical disabilities, families and homeless people. The Commission was to advise the Minnesota Legislature on solutions to housing problems. One of the recommendations of this Commission was to establish rental housing programming in conjunction with providing social services to persons with mental illness. This recommendation coincides with mental health professionals' concept of "housing as housing ". This approach states that people with mental illness should be able to select and obtain the same types and ranges of housing available to the general public, that is, decent, stable, safe and affordable housing. As a result of the Governor's Commission recommendations, the Legislature authorized the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to develop programming for persons with a mental illness disability whose incomes do not exceed 30% of the area median income. The MHFA has issued a Request For Proposal for a Rental Assistance Demonstration Project for Persons With Mental Illness. This project would provide housing assistance of $150 per month for up to twenty participants for a period of two years. The $150 would be sent directly to each landlord. MHFA anticipates funding at least two projects, one in the Metro area and one outstate and has committed $250,000. to this demonstration. Rise, Inc. and the City of Anoka Housing and Redevelopment Authority have submitted an application for this demonstration project. HRA Letter PAGE 2 Rise, Inc. contracts with Anoka County to provide the Independent Living Skills Program to persons with severe and persistant mental illness. Therefore this portion of the project is already in place. The Anoka HRA provides Section 8 Rent Assistance to about 250 clients in Anoka and Hennepin Counties through the Metro HRA program. Together these two agencies can provide an effective model for future projects. Because the Anoka HRA only has authority to operate housing programs within the City of Anoka, we are asking the Fridley HRA to allow, if funded, the MHFA demonstration project to operate within their city. This program would require no funds or staff assistance from Fridley. It would simply allow me to conduct inspections, and issue rent payments to landlords in your community if necessary. This authority could be accomplished with a motion and approval at your next scheduled meeting. Rise, Inc. and the Atoka HRA feel this program would be most successful operating throughout Anoka County and are asking all cities within the county that have HRA's for their support. Very simply put, the end result of this proposal, would be that up to twenty people would be able to stay in or find decent, safe and affordable housing in Anoka County. We would appreciate your cities' cooperation in providing this opportunity. Sincerely, r Rita Ander Community Representative, Anoka HRA i 5 Community Development Department HoUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AuTmRiTY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager i) 4 0- DATE: February 7, 1991 SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Please note the attached 1991 budget. It is my understanding that this is the first.budget that the HRA has reviewed in some time. As we embark upon this new experience, I would like to offer the following observations: 1. The revenue calculations for 1991 are based upon revenue projections contained in the attached document labeled "Tax Increment Financing Tax Projections, January 17, 1991." An overview of the revenue expenditures and fund balances is available upon Page 8 of this document. 2. We have also provided a line item budget that enables you to compare the budget for 1991 line items with our estimate of expenditures for 1990. The line item budget will also enable you to compare 1990 expenditures with the 1991 budget by broad category expenditures. 3. In addition to the line item budget, we have also attached the backup sheets that provide additional information about the items that are actually being purchased under each line item. 4. At the bottom of the line item budget, the figure for total expenditures does not include Debt Service. If we add 1991 Debt Service to the figure that is budgeted for 1991, the total HRA expenditures for 1991 amount to $2,550,513. This compares to $3,152,308 in 1990. 5. You will notice that under Capital outlay Expenditures, we have projected only the Mississippi /University Avenue street improvement project, expenditures for Plaza tree replacement, and the purchase of additional lights for East Moore Lake Drive. If we succeed in doing substantial economic development or redevelopment, costs for public improvements could significantly exceed those provided for in our budget. Memo to H A 1991 Budget February 7, 1991 Page Two We have asked you to come in of our meeting on February to you our appreciation for on this occasion. WWB:rsc Attachments early for the budget work session part 14, 1991, and ve would like to extend your willingness to donate your time 5.A City of Fridley State of Minnesota DRAFT BUDGET 1981 C,.nsrte�it.. nw211 _ Lim Mam Detail 5.B DEBT SERVICE 46605 Principal Payment 46610 Interest Expense 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees TOTAL TOTAL OMMDiTURES 492.327 496.834 492.364 0 365.983 490.384 492.327 496.834 492,364 0 365,983 490.384 uric 4TO-3 A DRA - -7� ACTUAL ACTUXI ACTUAL ESTIMATE C :.:.ACCOUNT DESCFUM)N = EXPEND . EXPEND ; EXPEND BUDGET THRU BUDGET NO - ;` .... !887 :1988 .12F 990 . 991 DEBT SERVICE 46605 Principal Payment 46610 Interest Expense 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees TOTAL TOTAL OMMDiTURES 492.327 496.834 492.364 0 365.983 490.384 492.327 496.834 492,364 0 365,983 490.384 City of Fridley State of Minnesota DRAFT BUDGET 1991 S.0 RA 1381 .. �Ife Rate Debt Sentie CC ;ACCOUNT O ESCRIP'Tf4N ACTUAL. IMPEND l�87 AC EXPEND . EXPEND BUDGET THRU X2131/90 BUDGET 1991 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES: 42300 Professional Services 42430 Miscellaneous TOTAL DEBT SERVICE: 46605 Principal Payment 46610 Interest Expense 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees TOTAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES It 0 0 0 0 0 0 649,665 718,418 800,387 0 18,437 0 649,665 718,418 800,387 0 16,437 0 1 City of Fridley State of Minnesota DRAFT BUDGET 1081 W -,...� nr� I _ t 1-. Maw, r%omalf 5.D RA Puno 382 :'CrOSSO M Sands of 3966 TUAL ACTUAL CC NO ACOWNT DESCRWTWN CPENO - <: 'l887 £XP&dD ;r?l988 £XPE iD. 7989 BUDGET <'S90 :: THRl1 !?J31�90 BUDGET 1991 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES: 42300 Professional Services 42430 Miscellaneous TOTAL DEBT SERVICE: 46605 Principal Payment 46610 Interest Expense 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees TOTAL TOTAL ExPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 0 0 112.229 498.483 825,661 0 393,348 0 112.229 498.483 SM.661 0 393.348 0 1 City of Fridley State of Minnesota DRAFT BUDGET 1991 5.E aA iJ ,s.00 cr� Rob � C - ACCOUNT DESCfl�PTK?N CPEND EXPEND. EXPEND BUDGET THRU BUDGET NO 'l987 '1988 T989 ;: `::« �19U a 2131M 1991 DEBT SERVICE. 46605 Principal Payment 46610 Interest Expense 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees TOTAL TOTAL EXPENDfTURES 0 0 0 0 270,471 649,130 0 0 0 0 270,471 649,130 City of Fridley State of Minnesota Administrative Charge Full time - regular of Full time - feg ul ular Temporary - regular, regular of Temporary heave Medicare contribution pERA contribution FICA contribution Health insurance Dental insurance 3 Life insurance 4 Cash benefit compensation compensation o 0 Unemployment o jo Workeorder transfer SUPPLIES: 42200 Office supplies 42210 Operating supplies es Fuels andaub 42212 42217 allowance Clothingll & maintenance Supplies 42220 42225 Repair Small tools and minor eQUIPment I V • --- OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES' 422.29 Work order transfer c 42300 Professional services 42320 Communication 42330 Transporation 42340 Advertising 42345 Dues and subscriptions 42350 printing and binding 42360 insurance, non-personnel 42370 Conferences and school 42380 utility Services contracted 4244 00 Se 42410 Rentals 42430 Miscellaneous 42450 payments to otherlcotribution CAPITAL OUTLAYlal Assessments 45510 LandfSpeC 45,20 1julldin9 45530 Improvements other than bldg 45540 Machinery 45560 J■■ BUDGET 1991 , rye Item Detail Furniture and fbdures 0 0 17,19447 1,407,092 0 ,. TOTAL 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form HRA Budget Year 1991 Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision IncJDec. Over Last Year 41100 1 Administrative Charge Total Budget Requested 157,297 Wage and benefit cost computed by Finance Department 5.G Submitted by Barbara Dacy /Paul Hansen DEVELOPMENT CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form HRA Budget Year 1991 Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42200 1Offiice Supplies IJustification: Total Budget Requested 413 Paper for agenda packets Cassette tapes for meetings Typewriter ribbons Legal pads, pens, folders, post -it pads, tape, etc. Notebooks Total 103 50 10 200 50 413 5.H CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form Q..k. :Hnd by Rorhora nstnvipsaw Hansan Budget Year 1991 5.1 CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara- Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42300 1 Professional Services (Justification: Audit Fees Attorney Fees - Herrick and Newman Popham -Haik Jim O'Meara ' Jim Casserly Appraisals Non - programmed studies Schatzlein Kordiak Springstead Total Total Budget Requested 139,075 - Partially offset by development application fees 2,375 13,500 10,000 5,000 40,000 5,000 25,000 5,000 3,200 30,000 139,075 5.J CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy /Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 5.K CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 5.L CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy /Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 5.M CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form �..�...:..,.a k., na►hsra nary /Pant Hansen Budget Year 1991 5.N CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form n.,.. I000 a Wonsan Budget Year 1991 5.V CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy /Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 5.P CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 5.Q CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form .,..�_:..,.a &... oftrhos no~/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 5.R CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form Cith .find by RArhfarD1 nar` /Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 S. S CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment B Budget Detail Form a..Kmi,inei by Rarhara Dacv/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 5.T CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Submitted by Barbara DacyTaul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Division artment HRA +AMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dollar City Manager's Amount amount DesCd "on Requested R mmendation eco No. 45510 Special Assessments 26.503 ascription of Purchase: Fridley Plaza Parking Lot Relocated 64th Avenue (FO urmies Avenue) Additional CO rade -in (Conversion costs, aaessod�' set-up costs, trade -in description. etc): See above description. Council's Decision Estimated Cost Unit Total Cost Quantity 20.713 5,730 Estimated Cost/Trade-In Unit Total Cost Quantity 5 -V CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority #1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1891 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Amount City Manager's Council's Account Requested No. Description Recommendation Decision 45510 Land - Dairy Queen 112,000 Acquisition Estimated Cost Description of Purchase: Unit Acquire Dairy Queen property in order to Cost Quantity Total convey land area needed for Mississippi Street improvement. Estimated Cost/Trade -In Additional Costs/Trade -in (Conversion costs, accessories, set-up Unit costs, trade -in description, etc): Cost Quantity Total Justification: See above description. 5 -W CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority #1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy /Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Amount City Manager's Council's Account No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Improvements - 45530 Mississippi Street/. University Avenue Estimated Cost Description of Purchase: Unit Roadway, utility, and University Avenue Cost Quantity Total Corridor improvements in conjunction with Mississippi Street, Anoka County project. Additional Costs/Trade -in (Conversion costs, accessories, set -up Estimated Cost/Trade -In costs, trade -in description, etc): Unit Cost quantity Total Justification: Roadway 330,000 NSP 105,000 Corridor improvements 200,000 Total 635,000 5A CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority #1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy /Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Improvements - 45530 Plaza Tree and 10,670 Grate Replacement Description of Purchase: Unit Estimated Cost Replace trees, install grates, remove Cost Quantity Total stumps, and replace pavers. See below 10,670 Additional Costs/Trade -in (Conversion costs, accessories, set -up Estimated Cost/Trade -In costs, trade -in description, etc): Unit Cost Quantity Total Justification: Hardier tree species with grates at the base will ensure healthier, longer -lived trees in the Plaza area. Some existing trees have died and others are stressed. 8 deciduous trees 4,760 Replace pavers and 2,875 remove stumps 25% contingency 3,035 Total 10,670 5 -Y CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority #1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy /Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Improvements - 45530 Two Spare 4,500 Decorative Lights Description of Purchase: Estimated Cost Unit Two spare decorative lights Cost Quantity Total 2,250 2 4,500 Additional Costs/Trade -in (Conversion costs, accessories, set -up Estimated CostfTrade -In Unit Cost Quantity Total costs, trade -in description, etc): Justification: These lights will replace any damaged lights. Costs will then be charged to abutting property owner. x,v 01 OVA, w Ti , a' ITT t� � WAY y ?: Ally j - IF I.. r._ r. r f'. PRIM 04 , } f n } SIT 001 Q Vim YOU �8 T tF Y Who- _ a F p } "f+w. "Of viol ivy 1. - YVA < 7°M f y i „ t � 4' .`r r _ . F 4211 1 d VK0 € k. Won k• P �f AWN! < S 1 ?�t ?SU •_Y � x 41i 7 k _ 2f5 i. fm MwO i+'l��•;�� 1 +f �4y � � t � � 4 a `�'^ ,s :�?.,r r � fit' �a��.'�h' 'P � .��µ�Y:� n.�. z.:�.^k ,.. i'.�`•�: �.. 7 r I Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 8, 1991 I TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Status of First Western/Target Project First Western's variance applications were considered by the Appeals Commission on January 22, 1991. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances except for one setback variance along 85th Avenue. These items will be presented to the City Council at the February 25, 1991, meeting. As of this date, we have not received further documentation or indication from the petitioner as to the amount of HRA assistance request. BD:ls M -91 -76 F: r _ Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 8-, 1991 TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Update on Fridley Town Square Project The Planning Commission considered the redevelopment plan amendment to add a drive - through window at the west end of the shopping center at the January 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission did not pass a recommendation to the City Council as each motion for approval or denial tied in a 3 -3 vote. This item will be on the City Council agenda for the February 11, 1991, meeting. A verbal update will be provided for the HRA at their February 14, 1991, meeting. Consistent with HRA direction, we have not taken any action to work on the development contract regarding this project. Also, for the HRA's interest, attached is a copy of a newspaper article regarding banksruptcy of the Burger King restaurants. As you recall, the Burger King restaurant in the southwest quadrant was proposed to be relocated to the proposed shopping center. BD:ls M -91 -77 on RICE PLAZA 1991 RENT NORGE VILLAGE METZ BAKING CHILDREN CHARM HONG KONG KITCHEN MY SISTER'S CLOSET T'S HAIR PLUS CINNAMON SKIN TAN RAPIT PRINTING TOTAL YEAR TO DATE JANUARY FEBRUARY TOTAL 1,107.06 1,100.00 2,207.06 702.98 755.63 1,458.61 445.02 445.02 752.97 752.97 702.97 793.74 1,496.71 800.00 800.00 0.00 897.14 897.14 4,163.12 3,894.39 8,057.51 8,057.51 07- Feb -91 Rent amounts vary from month to month because insurance and tax costs are prorated to each tenant based on the percentage of square feet of building. Some choose to pay equal increments, and some'don't. DATE O2/07/91 PR%RAM F%g CHECK RUN BATCH # :001 VENDOR DESCRIPTION 1NV # POIINV # 2094 tttt CHECK - PREPAID tttt N0055 NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MPLS. BOND PAYMENT 0386 -01 CITY OF FRIDLEY - HRA CHECK REGISTER 002 HRA DISC. SE8 # PCNT NOW ACCT NLJMBFR 3FBT430. 0(100 245, 0c1. 00 BTW -202W 245,000.00 CR:4k0 -10100 BOND PAYMENT 00.1,% -02 fBT460.0000 126,132.50 DR30-20200 126,132.50 CR2 3 -1010 BOND PAYMENT 039-03 3FBT490.00O 490.19 DR'-' ,(YN0 490.19 CR380 -10100 tttt TOTAL VENDOR tttt f 371,622.69 IKr�S ¢ttt CIECK- PREPAID tttt E0176 BRICGS' AND MGRGAN PRfiF. ASSOC. LEGAL SRVICE 00389 -01 3FBT4TO.0000 304.50 DR460 -20200 304.50 CR460 -10100 tttt TOTAL VENDOR tttt f 304.50 206 tttt CHECK - PREPAID tttt FO(k)89 FIELD, T.C. & u1h1F'ANY IP6URANC.E 0390 -01 3FBT4E0.000 3,360.90 DR450 -20200 3,360.90 CR450 -10100 tttt TOTAL VENDS tttt f 3,360.90 2097 tttt CHECK:- PREPAID tttt HD0019 HERRICK & NEWMAN �.W;AWRY LEGAL SERVICES 0391 -01 TBT4XO.000 1,047.0 DR460 -20200 1, 047. (K) CR4W) -1010 t�tt TOTAL VE aiR tttt f 1,047.00 tttt CHECK; - PREPAID tttt P(*(, "7'4 PI)P RAM, HAIK, SGHNOBRICH, PRO ES IONAL SERVICE 0392 -01 3FBT4P0.000 901.20 DR455 -2020 901.20 CR455 -1010 tttt TOTAL VE0OR tttt f 901.20 210 ?9 tttt CHECK- PREPAID tttt IZ1203 SCHATILEIN AMIATES JOB y� NMBR MESSAGES ACCOUdTS PAYABLE CASH ACCOLWS PAYABLE CASH ACCOIINTS PAYABLE CASH ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CASH ACCLIJNTS PAYABLE CASH ACCOLWTS PAYABLE CASH ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CASH PAGE 1 6 PROFEtiSIONAL C014a- ILTING S 00393 -02 3FBT4KO.000 65.0 DR451 -20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 65.00 CR451 -1010 CASH PROFESSIONAL CCN9lLTING S 0393 -01 VBT4ZO.0000 65.00 DR4E4- 202,(K) ACCOlI ITS PAYABLE 65.0 CR460 -1010 CASH tttt TOTAL VENDOR tttt f 130.00 +rttt TOTAL NW!MBER OF CHECKS WRITTEN : 000(Ki tttt TOTAL DOLLARS FOR CHECKS WRITTEN : f 377,366.29 tttt LAST CHECK NIMBER : 0021193 ro 10 Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members PROM: William W. Burns, City Manager l►. DATE: February 4, 1991 NN'' SUBJECT: 1991 TIP Legislation I recently attended a NAHRO conference. During the conference, I asked the person giving the legislative update, Gene Ranieri, whether we were likely to see any amendments to TIF legislation in 1991. Gene indicated that he did not see much coming. He felt, however, that cities should draft their own TIF legislation if they wanted something to happen. It just so happens that Jim Casserly has been working on a number of TIF amendments that he proposes to somehow have introduced in the 1991 legislative session. A summary of the amendments is as follows: 1. The first amendments Jim is suggesting are designed to help us redevelop along University Avenue. Our general plan is to convert commercial property to residential. Not surprisingly, this-type of conversion leaves us very little tax increment to cover the costs of acquiring and clearing the land. Jim's proposal would permit an authority to create and certify a tax increment financing district and to elect to defer the date for receipt of the first tax increment from the district. It would also permit an authority to demolish substandard structures prior to creation of a redevelopment district, and yet treat the land as occupied by a structurally substandard building. I suppose the aim here is to get the value of the substandard structures off the property before we actually begin the redevelopment process. That should help us increase the increment. 2. The second amendments would remove a redevelopment district's hazardous housing districts and hazardous subdistricts from the LGA /HACA penalties that were enacted in 1990. Senator Frank publicly offered to carry this type of bill for me at the January 28, 1991, City Council meeting. IOA Memo to HRA February 4, 1991 Page Two 3. The third amendments relate to the use of assessment agreements in conjunction with a tax increment project. One of the amendments, for example, makes it clear that an assessment agreement may be entered into between an authority and any person. The law currently provides that agreements may be entered into between the authority and the developer and /or redeveloper of property. Another amendment permits that minimum market values established for land and improvements by an assessment district can be increased or decreased on the life of the assessment agreement. Other amendments are also provided and justified on bases best known to Jim. 4. The fourth amendments relate to the use of TIF revenue for administrative expenses and also, clear up the unintended result that constrains the use of tax increment financing revenue for pay -as- you -go financing districts. 5. The fifth amendment eliminates some of the authority of the Commissioner of Revenue over tax increment financing. 6. The sixth amendment is very important to us. It clearly establishes that the penalties and interest derived from tax delinquent property are to be distributed back to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. As you are no doubt aware, Anoka County is currently choosing to keep all penalties and interest collected on tax delinquent property in tax increment districts. 7. The seventh amendment extends the life of a renewal and renovation district from fifteen years to twenty years. No doubt, some of these amendments have been written by Jim to accommodate the interest of the MCDA. I will try to talk with him more in an effort to get a better explanation for all the amendments prior to our meeting on February 14, 1991. The amendments that appear to be most important are those contained in Nos. 1, 2, and 6. WWB:rsc A bill for an act relating to tax increment and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, Sections 469.174, subdivision 10, 469.175, subdivision 1, and 469.177, subdivisions 2 and 3. The purpose of these amendments is to permit an authority to create and certify a tax increment financing district but elect to defer the date for receipt of the first tax increment from the district. The proposed amendments would permit an authority to elect in a tax increment financing plan the first year in which the authority would receive the initial payment of tax increment from a district. The proposed amendments would also qpermit an authority to demolish a structurally substandard building prior to the creation of a redevelopment district or a renewal and renovation district and yet, under certain circumstances, treat the land as occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of determining whether the district qualifies as a redevelopment district or a renewal and renovation district.' 10.B f A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, sections 469.174, subdivision 10; 469.175, subdivision 1; and 469.177, subdivision 2 and 3. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.174, subdivision 10, is amended to read: Subd. 10. (REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.) (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad rights -of- way, (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or iOX 10.D similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence. If the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is not disqualified as structurally substandard, the municipality may make such a determination without an interior inspection or an independent, expert appraisal of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. For purposes of this subdivision, a varcel will be deemed to be occupied by structurally substandard buildings if the Darcel was occupied by structurally substandard buildings urior to the creation of the district and prior to the demolition and clearance of such parcel the authority found by resolution that the parcel was occupied by structurally substandard buildings and that after demolition and clearance the parcel would be included within a district. 10.E (c) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. (d) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (3), to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). Section 2. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.175, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. [TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN.] A tax increment financing plan shall contain: (1) a statement of objectives of an authority for the improvement of a project; (2) a statement as to the development program for the project, including the property within the project, if any, that the authority intends to acquire; (3) a list of any development activities that the plan proposes to take place within the project, for which contracts have been entered into at the time of the preparation of the plan, including the names of the parties to the contract, the activity governed by the contract, the cost stated in the contract, and the expected date of completion of that activity; (4) identification or description of the type of any other specific development reasonably expected to take place within the project, and the date when the development is likely to occur; 1 O (5) estimates of the following: (i) cost of the project, including administration expenses; (ii) amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; (iii) sources of revenue to finance or otherwise pay public costs; (iv) the most recent net tax capacity of taxable real property within the tax increment financing district; (v) the estimated captured net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district at completion; and (vi) the duration of the tax increment financing district's existence; (6) statements of the authority's alternate estimates of the impact of tax increment financing on the net tax capacities of all taxing jurisdictions in which the tax increment financing district is located in whole or in part. For purposes of one statement, the authority shall assume that the estimated captured net tax capacity would be available to the taxing jurisdictions without creation of the district, and for purposes of the second statement, the authority shall assume that none of the estimated captured net tax capacity would be available to the taxing jurisdictions without creation of the district; (7) identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in subdivision 3, clause (2); and (8) identification of all parcels to be included in the district.: and 10.G (9) the election, if any, as to the first year in which the initial receipt of tax increment from the district shall occur. Section 3. Minnesota Statutes 19901 section 469.177, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. [CAPTURED NET TAX CAPACITY.) The county auditor shall certify the amount of the captured net tax capacity to the authority each year, commencing in the first year in which tax increment is pavable to the authority as required by the tax increment financing plan pursuant to section 469.174. subdivision 1 (9). or as otherwise required by the terms of sections 479,174 to 469.179 together with the proportion that the captured net tax capacity bears to the total net tax capacity of the real property within the tax increment financing district for that year. (a) An authority may choose to retain any part or all of the captured net tax capacity for purposes of tax increment financing according to one of the following options: (1) If the plan provides that all the captured net tax capacity is necessary to finance or otherwise make permissible expenditures under section 469.176, subdivision 4, the authority may retain the full captured net tax capacity. (2) If the plan provides that only a portion of the captured net tax capacity is necessary to finance or otherwise make permissible expenditures under section 469.176, subdivision 4, only that portion shall be set aside and the remainder shall 10.H be distributed among the affected taxing districts by the county auditor. (b) The portion of captured net tax capacity that an authority intends to use for purposes of tax increment financing must be clearly stated in the tax increment financing plan. Section 4. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.177, subdivision 3, is amended to read: Subd. 3. (TAX INCREMENT, RELATIONSHIP TO CHAPTER 473F.) (a) Unless the governing body elects pursuant to clause (b) the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of chapter 473F. The first year in which the current net tax capacity of a district is determined, shall be no earlier than the year preceding the first year elected for payment-of tax increment to the authority pursuant to section 469.174. subdivision 1(9). or, in the absence of such an election, in the year in which the original net tax capacity of the district is certified. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net.tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to 10.1 share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (H) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. (b) The governing body may, by resolution approving the tax increment financing plan pursuant to section 469.175, subdivision 3, elect the following method of computation: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provision of chapter 473F. The first year in which the current net tax capacity of a district is determined shall be no earlier than the year preceding the first year elected for eayment of tax increment to the authority pursuant to section 469.174, subdivision 1(9), or, in the absence of such an election in the year in which the original net tax capacity of the district is certified. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial- industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to section 473F.08, 1011 subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. (3) An election by the governing body pursuant to paragraph (b) shall be submitted to the county auditor by the authority at the time of the request for certification pursuant to subdivision 1. (4) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body IOX may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). 10.L A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 273.1399, subdivision 1. The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate redevelopment districts, housing districts, and hazardous substance subdistricts Ifroa the tax increment financing districts subject to the LGA /HACA wpenalty imposed by Section 273.1399.' 10A A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 273.1399, subdivision 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 273.1399, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subd. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meaning given. (a) "Qualifying captured tax capacity" means the following amounts: (1) the captured tax capacity of an economic development district or soils condition tax- 4nefemeRt- €jaaae4ag- district for which certification was requested after April 30, 1990; and (2 ) the captured tax capacity of a tnx- increment --ft tetrci-ng- renewal and renovation district or mined underground s2 ace deve 1 oome n t d i s t r i c t, -other -than qtr -economifi i f o r -earl eendrtioft- distriet; for which certification was requested after April 30, 1990, multiplied by the following percentage based on the number of years that have elapsed since the district was first certified (measured from January 2 immediately preceding certification of the original tax capacity). In no case may the final amounts be less than zero or greater than the total captured tax capacity of the district. 10.N Number of Renewal and All other Renovation Districts years Districts 0 to 5 12.5 6.25 6 25 12.5 7 37.5 18.75 8 50 25 9 62.5 31.25 10 75 37.5 11 87.5 43.75 12 100 50 13 100 56.25 14 100 62.5 15 100 68.75 16 100 75 17 100 81.25 18 100 87.5 19 100 93.75 20 100 100 21 or more -1-rt}ke-.mss, of-*-*azaideus-substanee-sebdistr- iet,-tlie-Rumbef- of- - yea -rs -mu-&t -be - meas n r ed- €f em- t4w_-,da-t-e- -f- _eeLq_i- f -ioat ion- -e€ - t he- sub&_stri-ct-+or -purposes-- f-- t- he- a."rbiepaa 1-- eapt-tvFe4- tax- eagaeity- restrl-t+ixg - f s om- - the - -reduc6•i-On - Ie- -the - -s ub& st-r rot '� - or- - s i t e ' s- origi�tei- tear t- epecit�.- (b) The terms defined in section 469.174 and used in this section 273.1399 shall have the meanings -givetr-isr-that assigned to such terms in section 469.174. (:J) 10.0 A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 469.177, subdivision 8. -The purpose of this amendment is to make certain changes to the statute that authorizes the use of assessment agreements with T respect to tax increment financing districts. These changes are summarized below. dThe bill amends the statute to make it clear that an ;assessment agreement maybe entered into between an authority and •ny person. The law presently provides that the assessment lgreement must be entered into between an authority and a !'developer or redeveloper of property within the .t-ax increment financing district." The term developer or redeveloper" is not a defined term. If the term is defined according to the usual meaning of the term, then the provision is unnecessarily limiting to the extent that it restricts the use of assessment agreements to only those who are "developing or redeveloping a The bill permits an authority to enter into an assessment agreement with any person who owns or is expected to own land and improvements in a district. Similarly, the bill amends the statute to permit the assessment agreement to be applicable to existing improvements as well as newly- constructed improvements in a district. The bill amends the statute to permit the minimum market value established for land and improvements in a district to be fixed or to increase or decrease in subsequent years from the minimum market value initially established by the terms of the assessment agreement. The law presently assumes a single minimum market value in place for the life of the assessment agreement. The amendment will provide greater flexibility to an authority in negotiating the terms of an assessment agreement. The bill establishes the conditions for termination of an assessment agreement. The present statute provides for termination on a "specified termination date, which date shall be not later than the date upon pursuant to sect mon 1469 1176 subdisi�b remitted to the authority p ionThe bill would make it clear that the termination date can be a date on which certain conditions set forth in the assessment agreement are satisfied. The bill amends the statute to delete the requirement that there be a transfer of land from an authority to a developer or redeveloper as a condition to the filing of an assessment agreement in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles. This amendment is consistent with the amendments that permit "any person" to enter into an assessment agreement and to allow existing improvements to be the subject of an assessment agreement. The bill also eliminates the requirement that a copy of Section 469.177, subdivision 8, be filed with the assessment agreement. The latter requirement does not appear to serve any significant purpose. by the bill to the statute. Several other changes are made Most are made to make the statute consistent with the substantive changes summarized above. Some of the changes are made to 10.P eliminate unnecessary provisions or to correct technical mistakes in the existing statute. 10.0 A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.177, subdivision S. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.177, subdivision 8, is amended to read: Subd. 8. [ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS.] An authority may enter into a written assessment agreement 4z__mcordabLe -form_ with -a- deve iope -r- -or- - tedeve3eper- -0f- - pr eperty- - the - -taw - i ne r eme et anv person which establishes a minimum market value of the anv land in a district and _cornple ed- any existing improvements or improvements to be constructed -t4weon- -umti-1- -a- speci-f -i*d_ t rai4nat- Wr,4ate,_whIcb- date - shall -bQ -got- later -than in district and owned or to be owned b such Rerson. The minimum market value established by an assessment agreement may be fixed or it may increase or decrease in subsecluent years from the minimum market value initially established for the land and improvements. Every assessment agreement shall terminate upon the earliest to occur of: the date on which any conditions established in the assessment agreement for termination of the assessment agreement have been satisfied; the termination date ecified in the assessment agreement: or the date upon which tax increment will no longer be remitted to the authority pursuant to section 469.176, subdivision 1. Thessess:ner��- ag�eemeat -shall be-_pK,se,gt.e.d_te_.the- county assessorA, or city assessors having the powers of the county assessor,_, of the jurisdictiong in which -1- 10.R the tax - iflEfemeat-- f4*a *ciflg district is located. ---The -assessof shall r-ewie - tomMan s- a+jd-apec_Lf4catiORB -foc- the- imprevemeRts -to be- eensttuetedr- feview- -OW,- maskeb- value- - saigRed -to t- he -land - upon- whieh- the- - Lmprovemeate- &re-to - be- eenstsueted -and, so- long -as determine whether the minimum market values eenta3Red- in the assessment agreement appears r- ice- the- - }udg"at- of- -the- assess _te_4x-_a_ ag reasonable estimate, and, if so, shall execute the following certification upon the assessment agreement: The undersigned- aesesGor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described proper tyt- upon - completion _�_��_to-___atructQd -- thereon, hereby -aer-tif Lies- certify that the minimum market values assigned to the land and improvements upom- ccxaplstio&-shall -not -be -less _Wlan _______________________are reasonable. -ppo,m - tcaasf ef- -0€ - t3 -t-io- - o €- -the - -land- - to- -be - developed- - or redeveloped fir-em -the - authority- to- - t-he--developerr - as- redevelepec, t4v,- The assessment agreement ,- - •t� __ with - -a - -copy - -of -ibis - su"i- wi-&iotVr shall be filed for record and recorded in the office of the county recorder or _f- i _le&ism_tte- ofi ice- of -the registrar of titles of the county or counties where the - eal- -eatata land or any part thereof is situated. 41pon-- r4Dmpi.e6ti.Oq'�---of --t ie` improvement&- by- -0te -- developer - -az-- codeveloper, Thereafter. the assessor shall value the property pursuant to section 273.11, except that the market value assigned thereto shall not be less than the minimum market value .contaiined -in established by the terms of the assessment agreement. Nothing herein shall limit -2- 10.S the dise"t- iorr -e€ - the- assessor- to- ­ase4gn- assignment of a market value to the property in excess of the minimum market value 00%t_&Pwd irm established by the terms of the assessment agreement nor prohibit tfiL-demeloper- s>r --re e- v"opec any person from seeking - obtaining, through the- exereise -of- administrative -a *& 2-r- legal remedies, a reduction in the market value €er assigned to the property -bax- purposes; provided, however, that - the- devel-oper -er- Fede9e- I*pe- r- -not- seep, D2 city assessor, the - *county assessor, t4K- county auditor, any board of review, any - board of equalization, -the commissioner of revenue, or -aRy court of this state h� all grant a reduction of the market value below the minimum market value tontei4ied-3*-established by the terms of the assessment agreementsdeFing- the- te- rm--of-- t- he-agreemewt- €iled- o€- feeeFd-- regar�e5s- ��- aetdal-- marac�t - vabrres- �i3eh- �}�- fesult- €-rm - 3fleemplete- - ""t- Fueti-or* - off- -imp FevemeRts, - -de&t- rAi*t3on,- - ef- diinjo rt ioir -try- -airy- oa+ise -►- 44w.A red- or- efl3flsxfed, - except- 3 R- the - ease - o€ �acci+ri�i- t�otr ter- �4gtrie itiotr- of- t� €rropeftY- b�►- a- p�►bl i e- a at i ty, - Recording -or- -fLY- 14-n9 -of- an assessment agreement eemplyiwwlth-the- tercms__.of-__biti -s __sitbc}i{tisiorr shall constitute notice - e € - -the- agreement•- ho- .ate. - jmrc+ase-r- Or- eflctimbfaacef-a€- the- -land- ot- afly --pa-r-t - thefee € ?- whether-- veleataFy- or-- iRveluRtary, to all persons who have or may acquire any interest in the land and improvements subject to the assessment agreement of the minimum market- values established by he terms of the assessment agreement and shall be binding upon them. Mt (.,) 10.T A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 469.1763. There are two purposes to be accomplished by the amendments made by this bill. The definition of the term "activities" in paragraph (b) of subdivision 1 of the statute is proposed to be amended to eliminate the exclusion of administrative expenses from the scope of the defined term. Subdivision 2 of the statute provides that 75 percent of the tax increment derived from a district must be expended on "activities" in the district. Under the existing' definition of "activities" this means that none of such portion of the tax increment revenues of a district may be expended on administrative expenses. The subdivision also states, however, that the remaining 25 percent of the tax increment derived from the district may be expended on "activities" outside the district. Since the term activities is also applied to the authorized expenditures of the remaining 25 percent of the tax increment revenues of the district, it appears that none of the tax increment revenues derived from a district may be expended on administrative expenses. The bill would amend the statute by deleting any reference to administrative expenses. As a result, only the limitations imposed by Section 469.176, subdivision 3 [Limitation on administrative Expenses], on the payment of administrative expenses with tax increment revenues would apply. The five -year rule imposed by subdivision 3 of the statute on the expenditure of tax increment revenues on activities in a district has the unintended result of eliminating pay -as- you -g o financing for districts. To the extent that a pay -as- you -go financing is structured as a bond of the authority or municipality, clause (2) of paragraph (a) of subdivision (3) requires that the bond must be issued and sold to a third part.•. Since most pay -as- you -go financings involve the sale of a bond to a person receiving the benefit of the tax increment financing, such person would not qualify as a third party. Therefore, tax increment revenues derived from a district would not be available to pay debt service on such a pay -as- you -go bond after five years from the date of certification of the district. To the extent that a pay -as- you -go financing is structured as a contractual obligation to reimburse a person for the costs of activities paid by such person during the five year period after the certification of a district, clause (4) of paragraph (a) of subdivision (3) of the statute would appear to preclude the payment of interest accrued after five years from the certification of the district on the unpaid amount of such costs. The bill would amend subdivision (3) of the statute to permit pay -as- you -go financings in both circumstances. 10.0 A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.1763. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 19901 section 469.1763, is amended to read: 469.1763 (RESTRICTIONS ON POOLING: FIVE -YEAR LIMIT.) Subdivision 1. (DEFINITIONS.) (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Activities" means any purpose for which tax increment may be lawfully expended, including acquisition of property, clearing of land, site preparation, soils correction, removal of hazardous waste or pollution, installation of utilities, construction of public or private improvements, and other similar activities. T - bet- on- ly- {o— -t-he- e*t —se- tit -tax - iner-ement- revenues- may- be- -spent -far- stick- 1ptrrjo>seo-- &&der- - ether- 3aw-& -- A�etr*i- ties• -de- Aet- iq-o-lude -- allocated- e pe*ses7- -but -- lo- - iAelxde- eAgiReeF3agT-aFehiteetuFalT-aAd-similaF-eests- a € - the- impFevemeAts- lA- the- distFietT (c) "Third party" means an entity other than (1) the person receiving the benefit of assistance financed with tax increments, or (2) the municipality or the development authority or other person substantially under the control of the municipality. Subd. 2. (EXPENDITURES OUTSIDE DISTRICT.) (a) For each tax increment financing district, an amount equal to at least 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district must be expended on activities in the district or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities in the district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the district but within the defined geographic area of the project except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. The revenue derived from tax increments for the district that are expended on costs under section 469.176, subdivision 4h, paragraph (b), may be deducted first before calculating the percentages that must be expended within and without the district. (b) In the case of a housing district, a housing project, as defined in section 469.174, subdivision 11, is an activity in the district. 1 O Subd. 3. [FIVE -YEAR RULE.) (a) Revenues derived from tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the district under subdivision 2 only if one of the following occurs: '(1 ) before or within five years after certification of the district, the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity; (2) bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to -,&- third- -par-tjY- any person before or within five years after certification and the revenues are spent to repay the bonds; (3) binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation; or (4) costs with respect to the activity are paid before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent to reimburse a -party any person for payment of the costs (including interest on unpaid costs). (b) For purposes of this subdivision, bonds include subsequent refunding bonds if one of two test is met: (1) the proceeds of the original refunded bonds were spent on activities within five years after the district was certified or (2) the original refunded bonds are issued within five years after the district was certified and the proceeds are expended on activities within a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under section 148(c) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Subd. 4. [USE OF REVENUES FOR DECERTIFICATION.) Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the district, 75 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district that remain after the expenditures permitted under subdivision 3 must be used nlyto pay outstanding bonds, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (2), and paragraph (b) or contracts, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4). When the outstanding bonds have been defeased and when sufficient money has been set aside to pay contractual obligations as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4), the district must be decertified and the pledge of tax increment discharged. 101W L51 A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 469.1771, subdivision I. The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota does not have general rule - making powers with respect to tax increment financing. The bill amends Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 469.1771, subdivision 1, by delet.ing a general reference to the power of the Commissioner of Revenue to "enforce the provisions of sections 469.174 to 469.179" and by replacing it with a provision that grants to the Commissioner of Revenue the power to enforce the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1990, Sections 469.175, subdivision 6a, and 469.1771. Section 469.175, subdivision 6a, imposes upon each municipality the requirement to annually report to the Commissioner of Revenue certain information regarding the tax increment districts in the municipality. Section 469.1771 is the provision that provides for the recovery of tax increment paid to an authority or expended by an authority contrary to the provisions of the tax increment financing statutes. The bill also deletes the provision authorizing the Commissioner of Revenue to audit an authority's use of tax increment financing. The deletion eliminates duplication since the State Auditor already has audit powers with respect to tax increment financing districts. 10'X A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.1771, subdivision 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.1771, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subd . 1. ( a ) The Foma�iss- lone ; - �- ;tee' sh&lj" _8rjarcP_ -the Sr i- s' ic> r�s- of-- seetj_oRs- 46A-.41a4- - to- - 46- 9,1*X-9, - - -In.- addition.- -the owner of taxable property located in the city, town, school district, or county in which the tax increment financing district is located may bring suit for equitable relief or for damages, as provided in subdivisions 3 and 4, arising out of a failure of a municipality or authority to comply with ovisionso of rvisions of sections 469.174 to 469.179, or related p preceding 469. The prevailing party including includi g reason ble attorne sentence is entitled fees. (b) The responsibility for financial and compliance political subdivisions auditing of use of tax increment financing remains with the state auditor. If the state auditor finds evidence that an authority or municipality violated a provision of the law for which a remedy is provided section, the state auditor shall forward the relevant information to the commissioner of revenue. The commissioner of revenue may a+ i - arr -au the r- }ty's; ese -._f ;tIr - }Re v%A e� n ion a 6a A9 and section 469.1771. 10.Y MEMORANDUM ohn Green, Duane Johnson and John Utley TO; Pam Frantum, J -FROM: Arlin Waelti# DATE: September 28, 1990 RE: Department of Revenue Advisory Opinion the Attached is the September uding that the 1990 Opinion increment Department of Revenue con re_ existing districts. You will changes apply to expansions l p you on September 20th want to refer to the materials I sent to regarding the initial Joel Michael's mo As dlmment April ned at hthat Jim O'Meara's letters and memorandum. time, I doubted whether Seethe Department were whether of Re the legislature would persuaded, or if the the law. would respond by j 10.Z i. STATE OF MINNtSOTA OCrAllf"Ody OF "V4cmuc 6eptr,:,ber 25. 1990 MI. Jjstllc, U'Meam Briggs and Murgarl 2200 Y first NaLiunal Bank St. Paul, Minncsuta 55101 Uca, Mr. O'Meara: Thunk you for your letter and inennor-nduni of September 13. 1990 regarding the application of the 199. .niendments to the Tax lncr'emcnt Act. Please know altto whom tour Dave matter previously Jerky Silkey and Joel Mic Y voiced your concerns. While the Department cwinut issue an to adintnistrative ruling in ithrou h this awre h I lcoi�s der an .respond to you, co g advisory opinion only.1 It is true that prior to the 1990 Session, the Legislature did spccifrcally designate whether substantive amendments to the TIF act applied to pre - existing districts. However, in reviewing the intent of the 1990 Legislature. the context of enactment is extremely critical. Minn. Stat. 645.16. In reviewing statutes, a court's objective. acid mine here, is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's intent. Minn. Stat. 646.16. Tunna v Cominissioner of Economic Sri. 386 N.W-2d 702 (Minn. 1986). It is also necessary to consider the possible consequences of a Particular Interpretation in interpreting statutes. Minn. Stat. 646.16. and T ur ia. Id. at 707. The 1990 Session produced a major overhaul of the TIF systeni in Minnesota. The intent of the 1990 Amendments was very clear and substantially different than past TIF legislation. The Legislature sought 1 Although enforcement authority was granted to the Department in the 1990 Session, the enabling section is not effective until December 31. 1990. Art. 7, Sec. 31(a). AN EOUAL OPp^KIUNITY EMPLOYEA 10.AA Page Two reined abuses of the tool of tax- tncrunus t Tina F,ing. to t co Ii lfy the e to Y respollsit�ility of the state to finance local ,os,tio» to process to cnaUle tai• - payers to voice tl�>`e support ture provided t,u specific l��al 1I1• plans. '1'o that end, exception for pre- existing dtrict or unless Cap 604 districts %. Sep'• 31. You specifically »ai »c:d or as provided cnerate will recall that the Legislature limited the use of Till' funds g re- existing districts ill Minneapolis (Section 27) and specifically exemted only a I-landiul of expected .i. tie districts. requiring Tl car 1990. e P dish ict to seek cei-t,fication by a set a �v amendments. This approach is the ugislzture frugally limited the ability of pre- exisUng distr,c s or expanding districts to escape the ne not surprising, given the Legislature's extreme concern about 11l1513SC of T1F. Moreover, I must concur with Mr. Michael in his oe ne °flthat tifcd� area More ua c of sensible reading of Article 7, Section 31 is lain lug of an district is subject to the new rulesdistrict could d be subject to gthe the provistoizs suggests that the entire It w }rich 1 ct w rules. llowever, this would force the creatio�, 2oif result districts. ne r do rather than the ame1edni' �� the Legislature's intent. not believe is consistent �r reading of the statute, and your memorandum. Suggests Pt ft Ole Yoe A entire existing district, including a new area. assumption that "districts Ole new rules. Flurthermore, it requires P for which certification is requested" really Uest d after. - d�sh�tM or "districts for which certification is first req Michael corrcetly Points out, ail existing redevelopment district created after April 30, 1985 could ecasun the t asuart ki endinent to an of 1101-1- renewal and renovation district by g xostin redevelopment district." The resul atii would o be ection 1 ��v1U� out e g contiguous amendments to avoid the apPl�c rn uch, if any. effect on the amount of an increment or would ffectivel length of U+y e during which increment could be collected. allow over 400 existing TIF districts to be exempt from thed19 0ts �gislature's T1F overhaul legislation. a result passage. Page Thrrr If you have any furtl�cr questions, please Jo Sonha Kerr of Appeals and Y Assist1nt Coln» »tisioncr John Tomlinson. , 1,eQal Services. try U* Y ours, J In Jti ommissioncr 1U Rlvtr Park Plaza St. Paul, Minnesota 55146 -7100 cc: M�cliaelWandrnachtr Gordon rolknman Dob Cline Jerry Silkcy Representative Ann Rest 1tcitlh Carlson Juel Michael So „ja Kerr Gene Ranicri Andrea Lubov, League of Minnesota Cilics John Kirby, Dorsey & Whitney Stephen Rosholt, raegre & 13enson Robert Dieke, Iiulmes & Graven 10.CC An issue has been raised in several communities regarding the distribution of penalties and interest on real and personal property taxes for property located in tax increment districts. In most counties the practice appears to be that the penalties and interest go to the authority that establishes the tax increment district. This appears to be a "common sense conclusion" since most frequently the taxes are pledged to the payment of debt by bond resolutions. In order to eliminate any ambiguity the proposed amendment simply specifies that any penalties and interest allocable to the tax increment must be distributed to the authority, while the penalties and interest allocable to the base will be distributed proportionately to the local taxing jurisdictions. The amendment also makes clear that all taxing jurisdictions should share in the penalties and interest in the proportion that the local tax rate of each taxing jurisdiction bears to the total local tax rates of all the taxing jurisdictions. Penalties and interest are not windfall income to the local taxing jurisdictions. Because of delinquencies some will have to draw down reserves and others may be forced to borrow on a short term basis. Penalties and interest simply compensate the local jurisdictions for lost earnings and additional costs. 10,DD A bill for an act relating to penalties, interest and costs on real and personal property taxes; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 276.131 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 276.131 is amended to read: 276.131 DISTRIBUTION OF PENALTIES, INTEREST, AND COSTS. The penalties, interest, and costs collected on special assessments and real and personal property taxes must be distributed as follows: (1) all penalties and interest collected on special assessments against real or personal property must be distributed to the taxing jurisdiction that levied the assessment; (2) 50 pereent ei except as provided in clause 3 all penalties and interest collected on real and personal property taxes must be distributed to the eei► taxing Jurisdictions in which the property is located, and the other 50 pereenb mush in the proportion that the local tax rate of each taxing jurisdiction in the year of collection bears to the total local tax rates of all the taxing iurisdictions. The distribution to the school district must be in accordance with the provisions of section 124.10; and (3) penalties and interest collected on real and personal Property taxes from real and personal property located within a tax increment financing district must be allocated between the original net tax capacity and the captured net tax capacity of the real and 10.EE Personal Proverty in the same Proportion that each bears to the total tax capacity of the real and versonal vroverty and distributed as follows: (a) the penalties and interest allocated to the original net tax capacity must be distributed in accordance with the Provisions of clause (2) above. (b) the penalties and interest allocated to the captured net tax capacity must be distributed to the authority that created the tax increment financing district. (c) the terms "original net tax capacity ". "captured net tax capacity ". "authority" and "tax increment financing district" shall have the meanings given in 469.174. {3+.Li all costs collected by the county on special assessments and on delinquent real and personal property taxes must be distributed to the county in which the property is located. IOXF A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 469.176, subdivision I. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the life of a renewal and renovation district from fifteen (15) years after the date of receipt first thexfirst increment increment y ( 20 ) years after the 10.GG A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.176, subdivision 1 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.176, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subd. 1. (a) Subject to the limitations contained in paragraphs (b) to (g), any tax increment financing district as to which bonds are outstanding, payment for which the tax increment and other revenues have been pledged, shall remain in existence at least as long as the bonds continue to be outstanding. The municipality may, at the time of approval of the initial tax increment financing plan, provide for a' shorter maximum duration limit than specified in paragraphs (b) to (g). The specified limit applies in place of the otherwise applicable limit. (b) The tax increment pledged to the payment of the bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the tax increment financing district may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or date of redemption and interest thereon to the maturity or redemption date. (c) For bonds issued pursuant to section 469.178, subdivisions 2 and 3, the full faith and credit and any taxing powers of the municipality or authority shall continue to be -1- IOMH pledged to the payment of the bonds until the principal of and interest on the bonds has been paid in full. (d) No tax increment shall be paid to an authority for a tax increment financing district after three years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the taxable real property in the district by the county auditor or after August 1, 1982, for tax increment financing districts authorized prior to August 1, 1979, unless within the three -year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to section 469.178, or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to sections 469.152 to 469.165, prior to August 1, 1979, or (2) the authority has acquired property within the district, or (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district. (e) No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the authority (1) after 25 years from date of receipt by the authority of the first tax increment for a mined underground space development district, redevelopment district, or housing district, (2) after-1-5 20 years after receipt by the authority of the first increment for a renewal and renovation district, (3) after 12 years from approval of the tax increment financing plan for a soils condition district, and (4) after eight years from the date of the receipt, or ten years from approval of the tax increment financing plan, whichever is less, for an economic development district. For tax increment financing districts created prior to August 1, 1979, no tax increment shall be paid to the authority -2- 10.11 after April 1, 2001, or the term of a nondefeased bond or obligation outstanding on April 1, 1990, secured by increments from the district or project area, whichever time is greater, provided that in no case will a tax increment be paid to an authority after August 1, 2009, from such a district. If a district's termination date is extended beyond April 1, 2001, because bonds were outstanding on April 1, 1990, with maturities extending beyond April 1, 2001, the following restrictions apply. No increment collected from the district may be expended after April 1, 2001, except to pay or defease (i) bonds issued before April 1, 1990, or (ii) bonds issued to refund the principal of the outstanding bonds and pay associated issuance costs, provided the average maturity of the refunding bonds does not exceed the bonds refunded. (f) Modification of a tax increment financing plan pursuant to section 469.175, subdivision 4, shall not extend the durational limitations of this subdivision. (g) If a parcel of a district is part of a designated hazardous substance site or a hazardous substance subdistrict, tax increment may be paid to the authority from the parcel for longer than the period otherwise provided by this subdivision. The extended period for collection of tax increment begins on the date of receipt of the first tax increment from the parcel that is more than any tax increment received from the parcel before the date of the certification under section 469.175, subdivision 7, paragraph (b), and received after the date of certification to the county auditor described *in section 469.175, subdivision 7, MIN paragraph (b). The extended period for collection of tax increment is the lesser of: (1) 25 years from the date of commencement of the extended period; or (2) the period necessary to recover the costs of removal actions or remedial actions specified in a development response action plan. -4- 10.JJ Community Development Department D HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AuTmRITY City of Fridley DATE: February 8, 1991 j TO: William Burns Executive Director of HRA A h. FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Notice from Anoka County Attached are the formal notices sent to the HRA from Anoka County regarding the tax forfeit status of the Lake Pointe property. The HRA should be aware that these tax forfeit amounts will be published in the newspaper during the month of March 1991. As you recall, the requirement of the development contract with Woodbridge Properties is that the developer is responsible for paying the property taxes. Discussion about the Lake Pointe property has been scheduled as another information item in the agenda. BD:ls M -91 -79 11 3 A N 0 K A COUNTY RP REAL PROPERTY TAXES ACCOUNT R23 30 24 42 0036 KEY 00479547 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS OF 01/17/91 MORE INTEREST WILL ACCRUE AFTER 01/31/91 TAX -CODE 00021 YEAR LEVIED UNPAID PENALTY/INT ** DUE ** 90 45.55 22.77 3.41 26.18 R23 33 24 42 0036 HRA 6431 U11VERSITY AV'-:is FRIDLEY '1 *1 i-24 ,11i TOTAL DUE: 26.18 DONNAYS LAKEVIEW MANOR ADDN CITY OF FRIDLEY LOT 22 BLK 10 OONNAYS LAKEVIEW MANOR ADO(SUBJ TO 11.A Minnesota State Statutes require that the name, address and property description of all delinquent taxpayers be published in the newspaper during the month of March, 1991. If you wish to avoid this, please pay the.amount above including the penalty and interest that has accrued. The amount due is good until the end of January. If-you submit your payment after January 31, 1990, please contact this office at 421 -4760 extension 1130 for the exact amount due. Donald C. Bailey Division Manager Division of Property Records and Taxation. A N 0 K A COUNTY RP REAL PROPERTY.TAXES ACCOUNT R23 30 24 41 0001 KEY 00463676 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS OF 01/17/91 MORE INTEREST WILL ACCRUE AFTER 01/31/91 TAB' -CODE 00021 YEAR LEVIED UNPAID PENALTY/INT ** DUE ** 90 109,007.95 54,503.97 8.148.33 62,652.30 121 13 24 41 3131 Ffti)L =Y HIA 5431 U41VE3ITY AVE 4E FRI)LEY 34 55432 TOTAL DUES 62.652.30 AUD SUB NO 155 CITY OF TRIDLEY LOT 3 AUD SUB 155 -EX PT FOR HWY -EX PT FOR HWY -SUBJ I ImB Minnesota State Statutes require that the name, address and property description of all delinquent taxpayers be published in the newspaper during the month of March, 1991. If you wish to avoid this, please pay the amount above including the penalty and interest that has accrued. The amount due is good until the end of January. If you submit your payment after January 31, 1990, please contact this office at 421- 4760.extension 1130 for the exact amount due. Donald C. Bailey Division Manager Division of Property Records and Taxation. 12 a° 0 Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 8, 1991 TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA J.1. V FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Redevelopment Proposal at Former Cub Foods Site On January 15, 1991, the Executive Director and myself met with Sid Inman of Publicorp, Inc., and Richard Martens of Linville Properties, Inc., regarding the potential redevelopment of the Cub Foods site. Linville Properties is proposing to remodel the existing Cub Foods building (approximately 34,000 sq. ft.) to create two large tenant spaces. They indicated that a large pet food supplier would occupy one half and the Malmborg Garden Center would occupy the remaining tenant space. They requested information as to the HRA's ability to provide a rehabilitation loan. We asked them to submit information as to the proposed value that would be created by the rehabilitation of the building. We also indicated that that type of mechanism has not been used in the past by the HRA. Sid Inman from Publicorp also suggested that the City could establish the property in the redevelopment project area and utilize existing tax increment monies to finance the loan, thus saving the City time and expense of creating a new district. Since our meeting, they have not contacted us with more information. This item is brought to the HRA's attention for information only. BD:ls M -91 -75 JAN 09 '91 16 :15 FLINT612_334_3362_ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. P.2 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEM THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY FRIDLEY AND RMS COMPANY. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners ") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority ") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed that the Authority enter into a Contract For Private Redevelopment (the "Contract ") with RMS Company (the "Redeveloper "). Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The Authority hereby finds that it has approved and adopted a development program known as the Modified Redevelopment Plan for its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Program ")pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 et seq. 2.02. The Authority hereby finds that the Contract promotes the objectives as outlined in its Redevelopment Program. Section 3. Authorization for Execution and D liver . 3.01. The Chairman and the Executive Director of the Authority are hereby authorized to execute and deliver the Contract when the following condition is met: Substantial conformance of a Contract to the Contract presented to the Authority as of this date. 1 TAN 09 '91 18:15 FLINT612_334_3382_ P.3 Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Authority this day of , 19 —. ATTEST: Executive Director K Chairman P a JAN 09 '91 18 :15 FLINT812_3331_3382_ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLU`.['ION NO. P.2 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE HOUSING AND COMPANY. IN A REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND FOR THE CITY FRIDLEY AND RMS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners ") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority ") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01• It has been proposed that the Authority enter into a Contract For Private Redevelopment (the "Contract ") with RMS Company (the "Redeveloper "). Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The Authority hereby finds that it has approved and adopted a development program known as the Modified Redevelopment Plan for its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the Redevelopment Program ")pursuant to Minnesota gta.tutes, Section 469.001 et s_ea. 2.02. The Authority hereby finds that the Contract promotes the objectives as outlined in its Redevelopment Program. Section 3. Authorization for Xxecuti2n and liver 3.01. The Chairman and the Executive Director of the Authority are hereby authorized to execute and deliver the Contract when the following condition is met: Substantial conformance of a Contract to the Contract presented to the Authority as of this date. 1 JAN 09 '91 18:15 FLINT612_334_3382_ Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Authority this day of , 79 . ATTEST: Executive Director 2 P.3 Chairman �— • JAN 09 '91 17:22 FLINT612_334_3382_ P.2 Draft January 10, 1991 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT By and Between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY In and For THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA And RMS COMPANY This document was drafted by: Casserly Law Office, P.A. 215 South 11th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 JAN 89 '91 17:22 FLINT612-334_3382_ P.3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pane ARTICLE I , Definitions Section 1.1 Definitions 3 ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Section 2.1 Representations by the Authority 5 Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper 5 ARTICLE III Undertakings of Authority and Redeveloper Section 3.1 Payment of Public Improvement Costs 7 ARTICLE IV Construction ref Minimum ImProvements Section 4.1 Construction of Minimum Improvements g Section 4.2 Completion of Construction g Section 4.3 Certificate of Completion g ARTICLE V Additional Provision Section 5.1 Conflict of Interests 10 Section 5.2 Restrictions on Use 10 Section 5.3 Titles of Articles and Sections 10 Section 5.4 Notices and Demands 10 Section 5.5 Counterparts 10 SIGNATURES 11 SCHEDULE A Description of Redevelopment Property 74 SCHEDULE B Public Improvement Costs 16 SCHEDULE C Certificate of Completion 17 TAN 09 '91 17 :23 FLINT612_334_3352_ CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT P.4 THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the �, day of 19 by and-between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority "), a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and RMS Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Redeveloper "), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the "Board ") of the Authority has determined that there is a need for development and redevelopment within the corporate limits of the City to provide employment opportunities, to provide adequate housing in the City, including low and moderate income housing and housing for the elderly, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the City and the State of Minnesota; WHEREAS, in furtherance of these objectives, the Authority has established, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 .t sea. (the "Economic Development Act "), the development program known as the Modified Redevelopment Plan for its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (which program, as amended, and as it may be amended, is hereinafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Program ") in the City to encourage and provide maximum opportunity for private development and redevelopment of certain property in the City which is not now in its highest and best use; WHEREAS, major objectives in establishing the Redevelopment Program are to: 1. Promote and secure the prompt redevelopment of certain property in the Redevelopment Program, which property is not now in its highest and best use in a manner consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with a minimum adverse impact on the environment, and thereby promote and secure the redevelopment of other land in the City. 2. Maintain the employment of 248 people with the Opportunity of employing an additional 50 to 75 people within the Redevelopment Program and the City for residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby improving living standards, reducing unemployment and the loss of skilled and unskilled labor and other human resources in the City. JAN 09 '91 17:23 FLINT612_334_3362_ F.5 3. Secure the increase of Commercial property subject to taxation by the City, the Independent School District, Anoka County, and the other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay for governmental services and programs required to be provided by them. 4. Provide for the financing and construction for public improvements in and adjacent to the Redevelopment Program necessary for the orderly and beneficial redevelopment of the Redevelopment Program and adjacent areas of the City. 5. Promote the concentration of new desirable industrial, office, and other appropriate redevelopment in the Redevelopment Program so as to maintain the area in a manner compatible with its accessibility and prominence in the City. 6. Encourage local business expansion, improvement, and redevelopment, whenever possible. 7. Create a desirable and unique character within the Redevelopment Program through quality land use alternatives and design quality in new or remodeled buildings. B. Encourage and provide maximum opportunity for private redevelopment of existing areas and structures which are compatible with the Redevelopment Program; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Authority and City in creating the Redevelopment Program the Authority is prepared assist with the Public Improvement Costs; and WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the development and redevelopment of the Redevelopment Program pursuant to this Agreement, and fulfillment generally of the terms of this Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the Authority and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable federal, state and local laws under which the development and redevelopment are being undertaken and assisted; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: TAN 09 '91 17:24 FLINT612_334_3382_ ARTICLE I Definitions Section 1.1 Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 et s..eq. P.6 "Agreement" means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. "Authority" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota. "Certificate of Completion" means the certification, in the form of the certificate contained in Schedule C attached to and made a part of this Agreement, provided to the Redeveloper, pursuant to Section 4.3 of this Agreement. "City" means the City of Fridley, Minnesota. "Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property which the City ordinarily requests prior to the issuance of its building permit. "Council" means the Council of the City. "County" means the County of Anoka, Minnesota. "Minimum Improvements" means the interior and exterior improvements to the Development Property, including landscaping, parking and related facilities, to be constructed by the Redeveloper upon the Development Property pursuant to this Agreement, as such improvements are defined in the Construction Plans therefore and which Minimum Improvements shall consist of not less than a 50,000 square foot office and manufacturing facility which shall have a minimum market value upon completion of at least $2,000,000. "Minnesota Environmental located at Minnesota Statutes, amended. "Minnesota Environmental located at Minnesota Statutes, amended. Policy Act" means the statutes Sections 116D.01 et sea., as Rights Act" means the statutes Sections 1168.01 et s_ cam,. , as 3 JAN 09 '91 17:25 FLINT612_334_3362_ P.7 "National Environmental Policy Act" means the federal law located at 42 U.S.C. Sub. Sect. 4337 et sea., as amended. "Public Improvement Costs" means those costs described on Schedule B attached to this Agreement. The Public Improvement Costs represent the principal balances owing on special assessments levied by the City on the Redevelopment Property as of December 15, 1990 and-total $89,724.36. "Redeveloper" means RMS Company, a Minnesota corporation. "Redevelopment Program" means the modified redevelopment program adopted by the Authority for its Redevelopment Project No. 1, as amended. "Redevelopment Property" means the real property described in Schedule A of this Agreement. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Unavoidable Delays" means delays which are the direct result of strikes, delays which are the direct result of unforeseeable and unavoidable casualties to the Minimum Improvements, the Redevelopment Property or the equipment used to construct the Minimum Improvements, delays which are the direct result of governmental actions, delays which are the direct result of judicial action Commenced by third parties, citizen opposition or action affecting this Agreement or adverse weather Conditions or acts of God. 4 JAN 09 '91 17 :25 FLINT612_334_33$2_ P.8 ARTICLE 11 Representations and Warranties Section 2.1 Representations by -the Authority.. The Authority makes the following representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part herein contained: (a) The Authority is a public body duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act, the Authority has the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder which obligations are the valid, legal and binding obligations of the Authority. (b) The Authority has approved the Redevelopment Program in accordance with the terms of the Act. (c) The Authority proposes to pay for certain public improvements in accordance with the Redevelopment Program_ (d) The Authority will cooperate with the Redeveloper with respect to any litigation commenced by third parties in connection with this Agreement. Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties by the Redevelo er. The Redeveloper represents and warrants that: (a) The Redeveloper intends to construct and will operate and maintain the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations). (b) At the time the Certificate of Completion is issued, the Minimum Improvements shall have a market valuation for the computation of ad valorem property tax of not less than $2,000,000. (c) The Minimum Improvements will be an allowed use under the zoning ordinance of the City. (d) As of the date of execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper has received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official that the Minimum Improvements may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation. As of the date of execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper is aware of no facts, the existence of which would cause the Minimum Improvements to be in violation of any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure or which would give any person a valid claim under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. 5 JAN 09 '91 17 :26 FLINT612_334_3362_ P.9 (e) The Redeveloper will use its best efforts to obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Minimum Improvements may be lawfully constructed. (f) The Redeveloper is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. (g) Except for any negligent, willful or wanton misconduct of the City, the Authority their respective members, officers, agents and employees and, except for matters relating to or within the scope of the representations contained in Section 2.1, the Redeveloper agrees that it will cooperate with the Authority and shall indemnify the Authority and the City against all costs, including the costs of defense incurred by the Authority through an attorney of its choosing, with respect to any litigation commenced by third parties in connection with this Agreement. 6 JAN 09 '91 17:26 FLINT612_334_3362_ ARTICLE ITI Undertakings of Authority and Redeveloper P.10 Section 3.1 Payment of Public Improvement _Costs. If the Minimum Improvements are substantially completed by June 1, 1994, subject to Unavoidable Delays, then upon the issuance of the Certificate of Completion in accordance with Section 4.3 of the Agreement, the Authority shall pay to the City for application to the principal and interest of special assessments levied on the Redevelopment Property one half of the Public Improvement Costs, which amount equals $44,862.18. in the event the principal and interest balance of special assessments is less than $44,862.18, then the Authority shall pay the remaining balance of principal and interest to the City and the difference shall be paid to the Redeveloper. VA JAN 09 '91 17:27 FLINT612_334_3382_ ARTICLE IV Construction of Minimum Improvements P.11 Section 4.1 Construction of Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that it intends as of the date of this Agreement to construct the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property in-accordance with the approved Construction Plans, but the Redeveloper shall have the right in its sole discretion to determine if it actually desires to initiate and complete the project. If the Redeveloper does not initiate and complete the project, then the sole right or remedy available to the Authority will be to withhold the payment described in Section 3.1. hereof. Section 4.2 ComRletion of Construction. In order for the Authority to be obligated to make the payment described in Section 3.1 hereof, all work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the City. Section 4.3 Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after substantial completion of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the date for completion thereof), the Authority will furnish the Redeveloper with an appropriate instrument so certifying. Such certification by the Authority shall be (and it shall be so provided in the certification itself) a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of the agreements and covenants in the Agreement with respect to the obligations of the Redeveloper, and its successors and assigns, to construct the Minimum Improvements and the date for the completion thereof. (b) If the Authority shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.3 of this Agreement, the City shall, within ten (10) days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority, for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order to obtain such certification. 8 JAN 09 '91 17:28 FLINT612_334_3382_ P.12 (c) The construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be substantially completed when the Redeveloper has received an occupancy permit from the City's building inspector, which permit shall not be unreasonably withheld. Pi JAN 09 '91 17:28 FLINT612_334_3382_ ARTICLE V Additional Provisions P.13 Section 5.1 Conflict of Interests. No member, official, or employee of the Authority shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested. Section 5.2 Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. Section 5.3 Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles and Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 5.4 Notices Mad Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and (a) in the case of the Redeveloper, is addressed to or delivered personally to the mailing or delivery address the Redeveloper will, from time to time, furnish to the Authority; and (b) in the case of the Authority, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Housing and Redevelopment in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, or at such other address as the City may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the Redeveloper. Section 5.5 Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 10 TAN 09 '91 17:29 FLINT612_334_3382_ P.14 IN WITNESS WHEREOp, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and the Redeveloper has Caused this Agreement to be duly executed on or as of the date first above written. By Its Chairman And by Its Executive Director By Its By Its 11 JAN 09 '91 17:29 FLINT612_334_33E2_ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF ANOKA ) P.15 On this day of , 19 before me, a notary public within and'for Anoka County, personally appeared and to me personally known who by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Chairman and Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of said Authority. Notary Public 12 JAN 09 '91 17:32 FLINT612_334_3382_ P.16 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF ANOKA ) On this day of , 19 before me, a notary public within and for 01 Personally appeared and , the and respectively, of RMS Company, a Minnesota corporation, and acknowledge the foregoing instrument on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public 13 JHN 09 '91 17:30 FLINT613_334_3383_ SCHEDULE A DESCRIPTION f1F REDEVELQPMENT PROPERTY P. If Lot 5, Revised Auditor's Subdivision, No. 77, Anoka County, Minnesota, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the two following described parcels: 1. All that part of Lot 5, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of Osborne Road aLp »aw laid out with the Easterly - right -of -way line of -Northern -Pacific Railroad, said point-.;being : 1320 . S7 =feet­t5outherly---as-•measured -along said •- Easter%l:y' : right­�of- way% 1 -1ne `from the North -line of Section 1010 Township 30, Range 24; thence Northeasterly along said centerline •of:Osborne Road a -distance of 436.50 feet Y* thence deflecting --to -the left 66 degrees, 43 minutes, 20 seconds, a distance of x+36.50 feet; thence Southwesterly-parallel with - the ceriterl-ine•of- said Osborne Road to-the Easterly right�oftway line ?of Northern ':Pacifie Railroad.i 'thence Southe+hi-y,•long. -sari.d L,Easterl•y - right -of -way -li-rg to. he point -, of beginning. _ ' ' 2. That part of Lot 5, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the. intersection of the Center line of Osborne Road, as now laid out, with the Easterly right -of -way line of Northern Pacific Railroad; thence northeasterly along said center 1 ine :of J3sbor.ne -Road, _436.50 feet, . -said center line has an assumed - bearing -of -North'- 51?degrees; 03- minutes, 20- seconds East i thence -North 15 degrees, 40 ,minutes, * 00 seconds West, 4i distance of­ 436, 5 =feet -to °ttie point- of =beg'inni.nQ:--:thence..Soutfi 51 degrees, •.03 :minutes, -P0 .seconds : West,._paral le_l ,with.. the.. �enter�.:lir�e af•.ad.IIsiioi�e.:: Road;_ X435.; ::'ta_;t% e"Ea's'ter.'.'-1y::� right -of- way: 4me df-A;sas`tlaNgil#hiet -n ac£f ai�ai 3 road: "s: = xherice ";f - =.. »..X;tJles'1yr�' ^alang's�t d.astPMtir.' -igfitr intersect-ror: =of._: #iii nor_t,�r'-1i»e °df�.�a,id "tti�� ��ien�e;Nor�h_B5�_.: degrees, - :57.miriutes_, - .31:.seconds-•East;: -al.gn :said :north zne,u;:_ : 425.48 feet to its intersection with a7line bearing North 18 degrees, 05 minutes, 56 seconds West from the point of beginni.ngi• thence South 18 degrees, e5 minutes, 56 seconds East, a distance of 596.44 feet to the point of beginning. 14 JAN 09 '91 17:31 FLINT612_334_3382_ P.18 ALSO That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter-of Section 11, Township 30, Range 249 Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the northwesterly right of way line of Osborne Road, as the same IS now laid out and traveled, -and the west line of said Section 11; thence'North S1•degrees, 03- minutes, 20 seconds East, along said right of way line, said bearing is assumed, 364.27. feet's -.thence -on -a. tangent ial••.curve • to •-the left, #paving a x-dda seconds;=. ' � •ems iaf�8�4�feat� ;:ds�r. eES;;• �..- minutes, 34 secorsds. -West ; ta'nber+t -to last described curve, 37.66 feet; thence on=a- tangential -curve to the left, •havind a radius of 661.50 feet, central angle of 16 degrees, 01 minute, 01 second, a distance _of 184.92 .feet li thence North .46 degrees, 21 minutes, .35 . seconds West ' tangent to. last described curve, 168.36 feet; thence - on -.ra,tangent1al-•curve to•the right, -having . a radius of _254.52 - feet,f central. -angle. of • 45 degrees,. minutes, 55 seconds ,.. a istance -of 201.37 feet', thence. North._ I_ _ degree, 01 minutvi•4!b.seconds-. West. tangent to last :described curve, - to the North -l-ine -of • Lot 5, Revised Aud i tor* s Subdivision No.. 7.7: - - thence easterly, along said north line, 33 feet to the northwest corner of said Section 11 and the actual point of beginning: thence South 1 degree, 01 minute, 40 seconds East a distance of 53.14 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left, having a radius of 221.52 feet, a distance of 175.26 feet; thence South 46 degrees, 21 minutes, .35.second_s_- East tangent to--last described -curve,• 168.36- ,fedt;'•'t'hence4. ors` -A 4 -'V ­: tangent dal curve to the right, having a radius `of• 694. 50 feet; _ a distance of=194.15 feet; thence •-South•30 - degrees,=; 20 °m1nutes;,r,_!�: 34 seconds .East, tangent. -to last _described, curye, . -83Y 24� -teet,�, to .the center -Line .of. -sai•d J3sboifte :Koa tfi �_:� _• :- cEnter.I -i+e _of: Osborne ,Road 8:to ate Wester�i '1aae rsfs_ .._ _:- .;..•s•. `,,:,�ect.cr�._ii -;• thence- IVortF�eriy .._alyrtg.:t;#ie_i��pst�rY .w Section 11° to ahe actual -point -of - beginning ".rand= "�het':e; ~M�" terminat -ing: �1.i�J�m- raw- .ss���.r�•�5a�.:�r -a: t 15 JAN 09 '91 17:32 FLINT612_334_3382_ P.19 SCHEDULE B PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS Water /Sewer: Laterals $ 555.36 112.88 Subtotal $ 668.24 Storm Sewer: Mains, Laterals $ 1,008.79 1,647.07 39,079.10 481.16 785.56 13,026.37 Subtotal $56,028.05 Streets: Surfacing, Curb /Gutter, Sidewalk $ 2,003.80 4,356.11 2,125.74 9,070.87 2,937.25 12,534.30 Subtotal $33,028.07 Total $89,724.36 16 JAN 09 '91 17 :32 FLINT612_334_3382_ SCHEDULE C CERTIFICATE QF COMPLETION P.20 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "Authority ") and RMS.Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Redeveloper ") have entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Agreement ") dated IF 19_1 regarding certain real property referred to in the Agreement as the "Redevelopment Property" located in Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the City; and WHEREAS, the Agreement contains certain conditions and provisions requiring the Redeveloper to construct improvements upon the Redevelopment Property (hereinafter referred to and referred to in the Agreement as the "Minimum Improvements "); and WHEREAS, Section 4.3 of the Agreement requires the Authority to provide an appropriate instrument promptly after the substantial completion (as defined in the Agreement) of the Minimum Improvements so certifying said substantial completion; NOW, THEREFORE, in compliance with said Section 4.3 of the Agreement, this is to certify that the Redeveloper has substantially completed the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the conditions and provisions of the Agreement relating to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the date for completion thereof), and this certification shall be a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of the agreements and covenants in the Agreement with respect to the obligations of the Redeveloper, and its successors and assigns, to construct the Minimum Improvements and the date for completion thereof. Dated: , 19 . 17 JAN 09 '91 17:33 FLINT612_334_3382_ THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA By Its By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF ANOKA ) P.21 On this day of , 19 before me, a notary public within and for Anoka County, personally appeared and to me personally known who by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Chairman and Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of said Authority. This instrument was drafted by: Casserly Law Office, P.A. 215 South 11th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 18 Notary Public Community Development Department G DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: February 12, 1991 ` TO: William Burns, City Manager' Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director FROM: Pat Wolfe, Housing Specialist SUBJECT: MHFA's Mentally Ill Housing Demonstration Program MHFA is currently combining its resources with the Department of Human Services to develop a program to house the mentally ill. In 1989, MHFA appropriated $250,000 from the State Legislature for this program. MHFA and the Department of Human Services have developed a two year demonstration program for persons who meet the State's legal definition of mental illness. The demonstration program requires the social service agency to team up with an HRA to perform the functions of each agency as they apply to the individual. The program is set up so the social service agency develops criteria to select individuals to receive the housing subsidy. The subsidy amount at this time is $150 /month toward the rent. The social service agency will also perform the necessary counseling and transitional services required for the client to adjust within the community. The HRA's function is to determine income eligibility which at this time is at or below 30% of the area median income. The HRA determines whether the rental unit meets housing quality standards and performs rental negotiations between tenant and owner. It is also the HRA's function to receive the funds from MHFA and distribute those funds to the owners who are participating in this demonstration program. Approximately 20 certificates are available per chose agency. One agency will be selected in the metropolitan area and one for the rural areas. 20 applications were received by the MHFA requesting funding for this program. The HRA administering the program will receive 10% of the funding requested, i.e. if ten eligible participants move into the City of Fridley, the HRA would receive $150.00 per month for administrative costs. MHFA has determined the administrative costs will go to the HRA, not the social service agency. PW /dn M -91 -100 a° 0 Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 8, 1991 A. TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA 4. FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preparation Regarding Establishing Guidelines for Negotiating Purchase of Dairy Queen Property Background Anoka County has approved improvement plans for Mississippi Street from 5th Street east of University Avenue to 2nd Street west of University Avenue. The HRA completed acquisition of the Rice Plaza property the fall of 1990, in order to convey the necessary roadway easements to Anoka County. Easements are also needed from the Dairy Queen property. We have asked an appraiser to provide a letter of opinion as to the value and acquisition price of the Dairy Queen property. It is necessary to convey to Anoka County approximately 40 feet of the Dairy Queen frontage for the improvement of Mississippi Street. Proposed Purchase The Dairy Queen property totals 11,625 sq. ft. and contains a 788 sq. ft. building. The structure was constructed in 1961. Unique to this property is its franchise agreement between the current owner, Don Fitch, and Dairy Queen. Mr. Fitch pays a reduced price for the product which is used to make the soft serve ice cream. This special price, however, is only valid at the current location or if he relocates within one mile of the current location. In order to acquire the Dairy Queen property, the following negotiating guidelines are proposed based on the information given to us by the appraiser. 1. The HRA's initial offer would be '$135 per square foot of building or $106,380. You will note from the appraiser's opinion that the range was identified as $125 per square foot of building to $155 per square foot of building. The appraiser, however, noted that the three most comparable sales averaged $135.95. The appraiser recommended that, given the unique franchise agreement applicable to this site, as well as the comparables, an initial offer of $135 per square foot is appropriate. The maximum range the HRA would offer would be $155 per square foot or $122,140. Guidelines for Negotiating Purchase of Dairy Queen Property February 8, 1991 Page 2 2. The HRA would lease the property back to Don Fitch at 10% of the purchase price, or approximately $10,600 per year. Fitch would be responsible for costs for utilities, snow plowing, and other maintenance issues pertaining to operating the building. Taxes would be prorated based on the date of closing. There are no special assessments against the property. 3. Because of the changes as a result of the Mississippi Street improvement, it would be necessary to relocate the driveway exit of the drive - through window. We have discussed alternatives with the Public Works Department and have determined that a paved driveway could be constructed from the Dairy Queen property to the temporary access road that would be created along the west side of Rice Plaza. The HRA would have to execute an easement to permit traffic from the Dairy Queen property to cross its property. The Public Works Department would complete this project as part of the construction of the temporary access road. We anticipate the maximum cost to be $5,000. The HRA has already budgeted $635,000 for the Mississippi project. This expense can be assimilated into that budget. 4. Should a redeveloper be identified and a project approved for the redevelopment of the southwest quadrant, we would give Fitch 60 days notice to vacate. The HRA would not be responsible for any relocation expenses at that time. By the same token, if Fitch finds a new location, he would give the HRA 60 days notice. The appraiser notes that it is important to try to avoid any type of condemnation issue with this property. While we have not sought a legal opinion, because of the existence of the franchise agreement regarding reduced price for raw product, if the HRA moves to condemn the property, we may be also responsible for compensating the owner for the economic value of his business as well as the value of the land and building. Recommendation Staff recommends that the HRA authorize the Executive Director to negotiate a purchase agreement based on the above guidelines. The negotiated agreement would be brought back to the HRA for action at the March meeting. It is necessary that we convey an easement to Anoka County prior to April 1, 1991. Staff also recommends that the HRA authorize the Executive Director to begin any necessary legal or title work necessary to consummate the acquisition prior to April 1. M -91 -79 _ ,�, ..r -+� ° � ;'"`��` 1 � � -uSr`� �', �- �.•. � s Mir CL IL K'6:. 0 A � I _ �s t � • .+.. � �� �;I' -.... �u -`. � �'S,.. � . it V Y iN y 2L. I t / t • I .1 i no ,n e h J IF,itiT ri LP ra. • -h�. rte: :P'�.L -� ,.fir -e , � .._"Tx` � � Z •�' y,y��� � ..... - _ ............. (NV 103 W 30 ,OZZ) 9 'ON 133HS 1130 aid 3NO1S 9NIA`dd (IN`d 4NVS ll8 /M IOV'ld3a '8 NVI03IN NI WIdM 'JNOJ 3AOW3 'SNOISIAOad 7IVI33dS 33S '31W AG a33V -ld38 9 03AOW38 38 ' Ol 831TIHS Sn8 'S 'ON 133HS � -IId134 aid 33d-ld38 '8 add .83113HS Sn8 '1SIX3 3AOW38 (3aIM.9) 3NO1S JNIA'dd N ro i� 98nJ 'JNOJ 8IVd38.w i Ida , VA N 91S3a Olnt1 d sob amm ftm Uwe GPM dc> \ BanO snONIWn1I8 „9 - ` 21 o�....... �_ • .............. N _ .E CaL w N I :01 3NO1S 9NIA`d (.g. -133HS LI o w CA ; - - ;JI1GM3aIS 5 - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- t . k piO£ 'NOI1dW8O3N -ldIO3dS �- 9Z i'Sd38d 03dbOSON' rn 3NO1S 9NIAVd W31S1LS NId1Nl Imp 101 0 ' n ONOJ VA NJIS30 831N30 ONid a i t M� Lund P/aininy LaidSwwyffy Sods Wily ENGINEERING,. INC. Cnvl ,ti Olq vl Slinri4�'O+b6 Eny „wF, , — Engineers it Sur vepr.5 . certificate of surve r � . t I f ` N e • - IN i _!d ( N Z AV (vocal* 0) 1rnv' I N � o J � S rJ 0 ' /J I ►I �3 �O I j I. r Sc.a lg 1”- �o' i he Fns 7i.1 "pe+ o' � -e f`iol- �G of LA 3 P Iock 1, : Y1vQr� Ali l is FIQ� 5. I' _ �Yoy� A'ff P&j c!rWy moi #W a o hw ad o`fi/r /aav�iiovi #(fall bwlda y$ , &Vgff , a'd r/ riSA* a »orinserr>f� . �'�%. �(iav� r n MW liid. As Awwya jy or 11r,�3�= _cats j SuouRaw mr7xN EQING�• INC. oop- �- aG5�, 4 FEB 0 7 1991 Walter C. Rasmussen 4 %U .Stilt(' h'(l n February 6, 1991 Your independent Community Bank Mayor William Nee " City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mayor Nee: It is with deep regret that I find it necessary to submit my resignation from the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board because of personal medical reasons. I have enjoyed the privilege of serving our community in this way and hope that our relationship has been mutually beneficial. Thank you and the Board for your special greetings. Best wishes for your continued success in future endeavors. Sincerely, Walter C. Rasmussen WCR : mmc 1 Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. 215 South 11 th Street, Suite 200 - Minneapolis - Minnesota 55403 Office (612) 342 -2277 - Fax (612) 332 -4765 M E M O R A N D U M To: City of Fridley �. p- Attention: Bill Burns, City Manager From: James R. Casserly Re: Lake Pointe Negotiations Date: January 28, 1991 I had an extensive conversation with John Utley regarding the Lake Pointe options on Friday, January 25, 1991. John has spent some time reviewing those options with his clients. John indicated that the only options that are attractive to his client are the HRA Buy -Out option and the Recision option. The HRA Buy -Out is unquestionably their first choice and the chances of that option working will depend upon the amount of money the HRA is willing to pay for the site. If a suitable number cannot be agreed upon, then the Recision option should be exercised. The good news in all of this is that if the City /HRA wishes to resolve the Lake Pointe issue, then we may have the opportunity to do so without litigation. John further told me that he explained very carefully to his client the consequences of their not paying the second half 1990 taxes. John told them they had no reason to panic, but clearly if they did not proceed to a resolution or pay the taxes, they would ultimately forfeit the property to the State. Woodbridge is having a meeting in the near future with its investors and will be reviewing with them the options as well as the issue of the delinquent taxes. It is possible that the Woodbridge investors could require Woodbridge to follow a different course of action. However, John has heard nothing to suggest this is probable. In light of the initial Woodbridge response to our options and memo, and in accordance with my original instructions - that is to determine if a resolution is possible - I am suggesting the ` following be proposed to facilitate the HRA Buy Out: 1. The City /HRA selects a qualified appraiser. 2. The City /HRA works with the appraiser to establish land use criteria. Land use decisions will affect the appraisal results. 3. If the appraisal is satisfactory, the HRA may provide - Woodbridge with the a copy. 4. The HRA pays for its appraisal. If Woodbridge does not like the conclusion, it can pay for its own appraisal. 5. With the completed appraisal, we can negotiate over the price, terms and conditions of purchase. The appraisal is essential. It provides us guidelines for the offer and justifies the public investment in the project. In the event the terms and conditions can not be agreed upon, then we know the Buy -Out option is not workable and we can move on to the Recision option. The timing of the appraisal any Pointe problem appear to be at opportunities the City /HRA may We need to discuss this option preparing a list of appraisers Please advise. 3 the resolution of the entire Lake a very convenient time given other have with the Lake Pointe site. further. I would like to start in whom we would have confidence. -2- 0 Community Development Department D HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members �.� �Of FROM: William W. Burns, Executive Director of HRA DATE: February 8, 1991 sUBJECT: Medtronic Proposal Please note the attached memorandums from Jim Casserly. The first memorandum outlines the terms of the Medtronic proposal. The other memorandum offers suggestions for negotiated buy -out options on the Lake Pointe site. I will be presenting the proposal to Rodger McCombs and Donald Hagmann of Medtronic this afternoon (Friday) at 4:00 p.m. During the early part of next week, we will move toward hiring an appraiser to perform an appraisal on the Lake Pointe site. Larry Commers and Ray Haik have provided some names of reputable appraisers that should meet our needs. If you have any questions regarding the proposals, please let me know. WWB:rsc Attachments 0 Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. 215 South 11th Street, Suite 200 • Minneapolis • Minnesota 55403 Office (612) 342 -2277 • Fax (612) 332 -4765 M E M O R A N D U M � b• To: City of Fridley H..R.A. Attention: William Burns, Executive Director�l• From: James R. Casserly Mary E. Molzahn Re: Medtronic Proposal Date: February 6, 1991 INTRODUCTION Medtronic is interested in expanding their office facilities in the City of Fridley and have asked the H.R.A. what opportunities are available on the Lake Pointe site. The equitable owner of the Lake Pointe site, Lake Pointe Investment Co., a Limited Partnership, is currently negotiating with the H.R.A. to sell their interest. Any proposal to Medtronic is obviously contingent upon the H.R.A. 's ability to provide marketable title on a timely basis. With this important caveat the H.R.A. can make the following proposal. PROPOSAL Medtronic indicates that it may need 90,000 square feet of office space initially and potentially another 100,000 to 150,000 square feet. The H.R.A. should assume that the expansion opportunities, site integrity and architectural consistency are as important to H.R.A. Medtronic Proposal - Page 2 Casserly Molzahn & Associates Medtronic as cost and location. Site Cost: The H.R.A. can sell the site for $10.00 /square foot of building (a 90,000 square foot building has a site cost of $900,000). This price assumes a sale in 1991 with construction completed in 1992 for a building of 6 or more stories. The site costs include all existing public improvements. Parking: All parking space necessary for the development will be provided as surface parking by the H.R.A. Medtronic, however, would pay for the finishing of the surface parking. As the site develops and if the density warrants, then the H.R.A. will assist with parking treatments. Site Control: The H.R.A. should agree to hold enough of the site to accommodate the future expansion needs of Medtronic. The H.R.A. and Medtronic must negotiate further to determine the amount of space to be reserved and the length of time to maintain it. The site cost for the expansion space will be a function of these two factors, and it will be resolved easily. In any event, Medtronic will have no holding costs for its expansion opportunities. Land Use Planning: Medtronic should participate in all land use decisions affecting the site, and a notice mechanism should be established to ensure its involvement. City /H.R.A. staff will periodically meet and confer with Medtronic regarding land use G H.R.A. Medtronic Proposal - Page 3 Casserly Molzahn & Associates options and proposed projects. CONCLUSION This is a great opportunity to promote the public /private partnership of which the city and its H.R.A. are so justly proud. Medtronic will have a unique site at an excellent price, the opportunity to expand with no holding costs and considerable input into the development and the aesthetics of the entire Lake Pointe site. The H.R.A. will see the development of the finest site still available in the City for a use that is compatible with all of the City's plans and for a company that is already an excellent corporate resident. A Community Development Department D HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager A- DATE: January 30, 1991 SUBJECT: Lake Pointe Negotiations Please note the attached memorandum from Jim Casserly. Jim is reporting on his discussions with John Utley, and is also suggesting that in light of Woodbridge's interest in the negotiated buy -out, we proceed to negotiate a procedure for hiring a Lake Pointe appraiser. Please review the procedure and let me know at our meeting on February 14, 1991, whether this meets with your approval. Thank you for your consideration. WWB:rsc Attachment Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. 215 South 11 th Street, Suite 200 • Minneapolis • Minnesota 55403 Office (612) 342 -2277 • Fax (612) 332.4765 M E M O R A N D U M To: City of Fridley P• Attention: Bill Burns, City Manager. From: James R. Casserly Re: Lake Pointe Negotiations Date: January 28, 1991 I had an extensive conversation with John Utley regarding the Lake Pointe options on Friday, January 25, 1991. John has spent some time reviewing those options with his clients. John indicated that the only options that are attractive to his client are the HRA Buy -Out option and the Recision option. The HRA Buy -Out is unquestionably their first choice and the chances of that option working will depend upon the amount of money the HRA is willing to pay for the site. If a suitable number cannot be agreed upon, then the Recision option should be exercised. The good news in all of this is that if the City /HRA wishes to resolve the Lake Pointe issue, then we may have the opportunity to do so without litigation. John further told me that he explained very carefully to his client the consequences of their not paying the second half 1990 taxes. John told them they had no reason to panic, but clearly if they did not proceed to a resolution or pay the taxes, they would ultimately forfeit the property to the State. Woodbridge is having a meeting in the near future with its investors and will be reviewing with them the options as well as the issue of the delinquent taxes. It is possible that the Woodbridge investors could require Woodbridge to follow a different course of action. However, John has heard nothing to suggest this is probable. In light of the initial Woodbridge response to our options and memo, and in accordance with my original instructions - that is to determine if a resolution is possible - I am suggesting the following be proposed to Woodbridge to determine the feasibility of the HRA Buy -Out: 1. The city selects two or three appraisers which we believe are qualified. 2. We provide the list of appraisers to Woodbridge and ask them to select one of them. 3. We establish a set of criteria for the appraisal. The HRA and Woodbridge may well be using different criteria. However, it may be easy for both parties to agree on the assumptions for the appraisal. The differences will clearly be in establishing the development parameters. If only office use is contemplated, then the land will have one value; if only commercial use is contemplated, then certainly the land will have a much lower value; and obviously a mixed use development may generate a third value. More thought will have to be given to this problem of evaluation. We may have to provide the appraiser with two sets of variables which the HRA and Woodbridge must agree upon. 4. Woodbridge and the HRA agree to split the appraisal costs. S. Once we have the appraisals, then we can negotiate over the price, terms and conditions of purchase. The appraisal is essential. It provides us guidelines for the offer and justifies the public investment in the project. In the event the terms and conditions can not be agreed upon, then we know the Buy -Out option is not workable and we can move on to the Recision option. The timing of the appraisal and the resolution of the entire Lake Pointe problem appear to be at a very convenient time given other opportunities the City /HRA may have with the Lake Pointe site. We need to discuss this option further. I would like to have Woodbridge agree to the appraisal suggestions outlined above and to the payment of one half of the appraisal costs. I would also like to start preparing a list of appraisers in whom we would have confidence. Please advise. -2- 'JAN 31 1g9 j II' Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. 215 South 11 th Street, Suite 200 • Minneapolis • Minnesota 55403 Office (612) 342 -2277 • Fax (612) 332 -4765 - M E M O R A N D U M TO: City of Fridley Attention: William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Director of Community Development Richard Pribyl, Finance Director Virgil Herrick, City Attorney FROM: James R. Casserly Mary E. Molzahn DATE: January 29, 1991 RE: Payment of Penalties and Interest on delinquent property taxes Attached you will find legislation that we have prepared to resolve Fridley's problem with Anoka County regarding the payment of penalties and interest. The attached memo is self explanatory. We will send this to the League of Cities and to other organizations. We are on the Minnesota Institute of Public Finance legislative committee and expect it to support passage. Please call with any comments or suggestions. JRC /sc y Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. 215 South 11th Street, Suite 200 • Minneapolis • Minnesota 55403 Office (612) 342 -2277 • Fax (612) 332 -4765 M E M O R A N D U M or FROM: James R. Casserly DATE: January 16, 1991 RE: Proposed Changes to Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 276.131 An issue has been raised in several communities regarding the distribution of penalties and interest on real and personal property taxes for property located in tax increment districts. In most counties the practice appears to be that the penalties and interest go to the authority that establishes the tax increment district. This appears to be a "common sense conclusion" since most frequently the taxes are pledged to the payment of debt by bond resolutions. In order to eliminate any ambiguity the proposed amendment simply specifies that any penalties and interest allocable to the tax increment must be distributed to the authority, while the penalties and interest allocable to the base will be distributed proportionately to the local taxing jurisdictions. The amendment also makes clear that all taxing jurisdictions should share in the penalties and interest in the proportion that the local tax rate of each taxing jurisdiction bears to the total local tax rates of all the taxing jurisdictions. Penalties and interest are not windfall income to the local taxing jurisdictions. Because of delinquencies some will have to draw down reserves and others may be forced to borrow on a short term basis. Penalties and interest simply compensate the local jurisdictions for lost earnings and additional costs. JRC /db A bill for an act relating to penalties, interest and costs on real and personal property taxes; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 276.131 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 276.131 is amended to read: 276.131 DISTRIBUTION OF PENALTIES, INTEREST, AND COSTS. The penalties, interest, and costs collected on special assessments and real and personal property taxes must be distributed as follows: (1) all penalties and interest collected on special assessments against real or personal property must be distributed to the taxing jurisdiction that levied the assessment; (2) 60 peree t —e€— except as provided in clause 3 all penalties and interest collected on real and personal property taxes must be distributed to the eeunty taxing Jurisdictions in which the property is located and the-- her 50 percent must in the proportion that the local tax rate of each taxing jurisdiction in the year of collection bears to the total local tax rates of all the taxing iurisdictions. The distribution to the school district must be in accordance with the provisions of section 124.10; and (3) penalties and interest collected on real and personal property taxes from real and personal property located within a tax increment financing district must be allocated between the original net tax capacity and the captured net tax capacity of the real and personal Property in the same Proportion that each bears to the total tax capacity of the real and personal property and distributed as follows: (a) the Penalties and interest allocated to the original net tax capacity must be distributed in accordance with the provisions of clause (2) above. (b) the penalties and interest allocated to the captured net tax capacity must be distributed to the authority that created the tax increment financing district. (c) the terms "original net tax capacity ". "captured net tax capacity" "authority" and "tax increment financing district" shall have the meanings given in 469.174. {3+J11 all costs collected by the county on special assessments and on delinquent real and personal property taxes must be distributed to the county in which the property is located. . ®H 6000 WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 / 571 -6000 January 22, 1991 Dr. William Burns, City Manager City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Dr. Burns: whir c 41991 DR DENNIS E RENS S"PEQ %- tti i'. FAX 612 - 571.7633 This letter relates to our recent discussions concerning the tax increment referendum levy agreement between the City and the School District. First of all, the School Board and I appreciate the support you and the City Council have provided on this issue in the past and during recent discussions. I also appreciate the opportunities you have provided over the past several weeks for me and members of the School Board to interact with appropriate City and HRA personnel regarding the matter. These discussions have been most helpful. As we have continued to discuss the issue, School Board Members express two major concerns: 1. While the amount of the proposed reduction ($41,000) may not seem like a lot of money, it really translates into a teacher and a half as the Board plans for 1991- 92. This comes during difficult budget times as the Distr. ir-t'. was forced to cut its 1959 -90 budget by $250,000, cut an additional $250,000 out of its 1990 -91 budget, and faces another $250,000 expenditure over revenue projection in its upcoming 1991 -92 budget which will most likely force the District into a referendum attempt in November of 1991. 2. The timing of this decision is very difficult as the Board really began planning for 1991 -92 a number of months ago and made decisions based on receiving the $164,000 in 1991 -92 that was available in 1990 -91. The primary purpose of my letter, Bill, is to encourage you to ask the City Council to delay action on this issue and to return it to the HRA for reconsideration. While the District would obviously like the HRA to reverse its Dr. Burns 2 January 22, 1991 decision, we would at least encourage replacement of the 1991 -92 dollars to the full amount available and to then have a discussion about a longer term solution to the issue. My personal thanks for whatever help you can provide in moving this issue forward. Sinc rr ly, Dennis E. Rens, PhD Superintendent DER /hj LBUP;S?I.WPS Medtronic oI January 18, 1991 Mr. William W. Burns City Manager City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Burns: Medtronic, Inc. JAN 2 2 1991 7000 Central Avenue, N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55432.3576 Telephone: (612) 574 -4000 Cable: Medtronic Telex. 29 -0598 Telecopy: (612) 574 -4879 As part of our strategic planning process we are currently considering our options for building expansion at or near our Corporate headquarters site in Fridley. We anticipate minimum facility growth of 100,000 SF over the next 5 years. At our lunch meeting last week we chatted about city controlled opportunities and the Lake Pointe site was brought up. The Lake Pointe site with it's prestigious and convenient location surely has the capacity to provide for our future growth. In addition it's ability to sustain a future hotel and other accommodations makes it an interesting alternative. If you could provide us with any more definitive information regarding this as a short term or long term facility solution, please send us more details. Our short term facility recommendations will be formalized and presented in early February of this year. I realize you may not be able to definitively organize a detailed proposal in that short of a period, but any thoughts or response on your end would be appreciated. Please call if you have and further questions. Sincerely, Donald Hagmann Corporate Real Estate Manager DH /pk cc: Rodger McCombs x:dhburns.let V O °•O+ �, tb0 o- 0 co-� N Y9 m N 0� N Y'a a Obi N� m E V �- `Y ~ "'��� e ^o; `m`T•aW, ' m T q ^Tinge`"`° p i om T NT•[sb mqe aNNN. -. .-. ^.., a W N m N° T �• �ti N N T °� ~ ail � O� � U l� \L• o � m- e - � _ - - - _ - _ � _ �; _ - � •-•r .eNS •... _ — - - - - - - - - - J (Y1 0 2 .m.eisW N ° u9 N c-• _.n 4 I i m O O b b ♦TO N ONi a s -- It aNi Vb 7< Q ^Q Om TT -- .t -t mONONN� - - m D b C V m m LL• — m m— T G N FO MC c•D � c+D ass wa az c�•D cis cis a-s c�1 ws we a�a ass cn spa a-s a�a a7 an a-s ° O O - - m q N q m o m m m m m N N m m m _ w cl O m Oe. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N --- .•n •--� a7 O C4 m T U OE m O ? - - -- -_ - -_ - O m - m W b _ _ q g q q q w O m ° W b W °� ti N b b tT0 fp tTp b tT0 tT0 eT0 b f •�• T m m _ w m O m KD 0 0 0 O m O � o m ome. m.en eso m - m 0 m b q .-•, m m c� N m� •bC O't T O b 0- m g N 0 0 .N N a•°D m YD e e e O m r� p _ - _ _ - - - N N 6 Z m b m m m •fP __ O tNp •ls •° b m e �•-� It a Ili ° o_ o_ �_ °_ pF _ _ _ --------------------- 2! 1p m _ _ _ -- _ m 00 O3 �•-� .� •O b �• b in T O w -ti w c� cz N N T O o- m Z i F ¢S m -••• N .-r N N <•'> �! T uD b b c� m m g 0 0 0 0 0 m 1-•1 m 'i ^-•� y O d N � F A O LO w N N •-r '•-r N 1Z•1 pi0 T O d U O C O - O q two m i1 d O y m 61 'O T N N N y la 2 2 m m m m m m m m o m m m m oY. � a� iny ame eommaom mmomemmm m v - O U y m Op -•• m YO � y in cl •ti d ti e h in d�1 y~ d d aO.t N N N- T h- 0 0- N +� +� •� m d T n m m - -- q® co- ~ F N T w •sy O b o •� � y v � � a-s ao ss wa .-s a-s � .m m •o .•- .••. � e .°-. ..s ..°n ..°. Y pc m P •m - O c� m .--� •d m a i •O •.+ = d V .� m n W Y +� d ti �•+ _ _ N m m ��-1 q q q q q 4"o y d Y ti 0Om d 41 O d N IM b i m N o o - -___ -- •G. 1-�-I mmy — --D a-1 T O T BLS — — t0 Y ..+ Y Y 'O n ad.� � tal V U a am0 T n •O a� �•°. a .° y m� i O —�mi Y °..°. n L � � m n Y .Q m c°'•- � _ e .ssoN _ NNN ae oe a+ = d •° pop 2 O-' N m - •Y .•i i m U N! N O O oN O_ O O O m c-� Y d O m n .O•I 1--r �O - - - - - - - - - ------------------ m d O m O m W 0 6 O'J m O O O O O O O w W w w 0 0 0 O O O N O V9C y O ••-� — — _+ ••+ .•-� � .••- ••+ N N N N N N N N N N N -•w N c••a v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m F y V Oy0 .Vt � • m Z i F m m 2 Oi0 Z M O o m o b e e -® 0 0 o Fyet yc�a be m m - !t — my F � O_ 00 aq a-1 c-a N N � �• -�°-r O1 O ° m m m � O m a d F m aD m m aD m aD W 1.•1 yyy .•-� m m W N y i N N. Oi W 0 - - _ 0 _ - m •W C g p� 0 0 0 F C.7 .•-1 m m ti e e - - - m aw ws wJ c-s w m Z -- --- . -q-- -- is m ~ m V J m � Z V a m 1m-1 Y Y J m O J m O C m rO.1 .Ja o. •ti Fm to'� i O V eoo oC°o o.� v°�1�+•�.aWe`.Nimmo�° Y m b O ! N _! N ! b W - 1 l Q• L: i Z N N m O� ti N O Na+! Oa b O N � DO — ^ � o•� ^ N •••� O! O � .Oa i OD P - a q - N I a �cros m- — a 000-. o wm� .r.- .e_ ®.-. o— aom ao d J �• P! � .•n 0 0 W _ �o�:�� mm�mti Wm ym NelNm� m W e W T b A ati9 N .r O YY m - O b m O @+ OZO _ — a T — — — — T W m — — .N-1 6 m �— N = °° rf e F >> T A OWl O� c� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W� O Q t•') y O$ T m W m W m W 00 m m rn ONa OZ N N OOOOm om� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .••� .-. •--� m o3 ! V m y e m - m Vl N o w e a o m o N ai w b ss e m N ------------ ! m rn m O O � o y ! ! ! ! ! �• ..• ! ! gym+• m e F ! _ a0 ! m ° ° ao_cQO•s mmm�D fD b�'O e.rn. -s eo ° F m O It It W at al m m E m m cn as —-------------- = yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m F y V Oy0 .Vt � • m Z i F m m 2 Oi0 Z M O o m o b e e -® 0 0 o Fyet yc�a be m m - !t — my F � O_ 00 aq a-1 c-a N N � �• -�°-r O1 O ° m m m � O m a d F m aD m m aD m aD W 1.•1 yyy .•-� m m W N y i N N. Oi W 0 - - _ 0 _ - m •W C g p� 0 0 0 F C.7 .•-1 m m ti e e - - - m aw ws wJ c-s w m Z -- --- . -q-- -- is m ~ m V J m � Z V a m 1m-1 Y Y J m O J m O C m rO.1 .Ja o. •ti Fm to'� i O V 1 0..8.1 u rZ.l m v. d R m m !ws d b Q O B O e W •p .-y p w N B d D N d +1 o " s a! H •1•> d Id •..1 it Q -.w O 14 Y d m y C•� .-1 B B d'O p O < v E ++ O m Y d � d a. isy d Y Y. d •y m Ir d U y m•O � Y R Y t j m m O ~ w O D m d B F .ti m U � D<. m •O 8 M Y y.f d O� Q Y Q O u 6 E d Q p d v R1 U U m d Y d Y .e o. ti Q B O U Q s o 0 m. p is d Y O J ai R m .p � � a U 4+ V � a1 'i p o w r O O d O U 'O °m Qo a O d O Y O O d Q O O O � d ! C �• O d d rB d a � d '_1 V U Y C .0 p Y m d � y C OY F m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 m O m m m oD m m OD m m ONi et N N m 2 N N N .•-� .•-� J 31 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o•-� .••, -r O m tr. m 0�0 m V � m .•-� ON 0 0 0 0�� 0 0 0� 0 0 O O O O V m m c9 m O O O_ O H e a m m � m N •D t0 m m f0 10 b !gyp t�D b - t -t ! � N _ m q m e a m e m f •.n e•�vs �•n. m. .t m e N O �•-� m m �O f0 b 0 0 an N .••� O ~ m! m m ONa N ago It I _ _ _°o. It _ m_ .Q o .-. m m is .Nn ao an _ - - N N N N - - _ _ _ _ _ mO! ti N N N N N N N N N — W m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----- O l 6 D � 2 .--i �• mF�.••.Nem q�N _O F h V m V 2 m � • N a-a w m c� m e . � N N • r q q e=2.� .°n .N- � .N-. .N-.. .°a m 2 i �� =mom VIA � _ _�°-q .'"'� eon --� ;•.` �' `J� fi' 2 m 1•-1 m 2 m m F m m m q q Oqi g q q m m a7 N M O Co o O e o m o •°O �� o m N N ig � .mss ass eye �s c-s a+� ass w ass cs ws � e Z �:, m q$1 •V� m m m m OD m m m® m m O N N ti m a7 � a7 c-1 a-D a•.p aq a_d sn — cA t_s — C9 — — a+D a-s 69 s7 '1 3 O 0�! � O 4 w o C Z S p J C'1 J � N F m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 m O m m m oD m m OD m m ONi et N N m 2 N N N .•-� .•-� J 31 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o•-� .••, -r O m tr. m 0�0 m V � m .•-� ON 0 0 0 0�� 0 0 0� 0 0 O O O O V m m c9 m O O O_ O H e a m m � m N •D t0 m m f0 10 b !gyp t�D b - t -t ! � N _ m q m e a m e m f •.n e•�vs �•n. m. .t m e N O �•-� m m �O f0 b 0 0 an N .••� O ~ m! m m ONa N ago It I _ _ _°o. It _ m_ .Q o .-. m m is .Nn ao an _ - - N N N N - - _ _ _ _ _ mO! ti N N N N N N N N N — W m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----- O F h V m V 2 m 2 i m 2 � F v9 m 2 m 1•-1 m 2 M O o O e o m o •°O �� o m N N ti m yF N a a U i C q d O - om 2 m m .9 m .0 m •ti O Y O c Y ti c Q b N Nm N N N N N N m N� VD AQ .r J� t m m m m _ _ _ _ a Y U •O m _ d 0 m ss emmaomm mmaommm N - °d •ate. .di ° °':i ,'c..+o m � G •O � d d Y 0 0 0! m-t b N- a O e e • • N Y d rn �agO O F � 9 o! q °q q q g a aka .ii •� to •--� •••� O o F Ct .°-� m ti m — — — — — .-r _r — .-+ f O m _- b O 'O F Y O •O d •df C V J m >J N d � y d YOi O d d o � F _ -� _ _ _ d Y • V mCS a-� q q Oqi Oqi Oa q O a O W � Y Y J m p 0 0 0 00 °" CO It a ass .n s-s .► v..qi. in .. s .e m ,`�. ... w a. Y e o .° v �' em••. v v s m a m e v a c m o .:� a d F Ot O O N N N N •V N -s. Y — N N �a"o W .O F O O d m O PC 2 F �••+ q N V W •.Oi aNtl ° F O[ O n N •nNl. ! -•n wOf ° m t+OD sO-s a�D N O N -NNNNN _ _ _N- N N N� N N N N N N N N "O' V d o R •..m •00 � E rr M it _ O_ �+ e 2m -"� N N N N N N N N N N i V d O i i 3 sae .-. wm c- -mss -i e+u �+ mN-- !^ �emrno�.+s ..s�� a °woN --. .-. ^ ^^ ^^ N N N N ',� �..- N p O b N �•-� b Om ! c-D b m A m p Om . o•n PN•9 a N� ^ fi e m! nu! D air -mow. -aume� - W; m _ - W i « m ^ v .-.. -. .- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- .... -: J M 0 .-. ncm-w°-e.e: mebm W � � b - .-s o an .-s .••. N ... - � � F m ao c m e.ma mu ae°�i a m e�em.ma°e a•�.Na - _ _ _. -._e. Z S 4 ) O Q 00m �� ^ ^��mmmm ®mmmmmmoNN_! — m ! .r O — — awe —ass —sus —sus — w!s an a+e an an c9 ass c9 ass 00 ^ ^ H O O c1t It O m N m m F i Owi T O0i ��� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� m wm1 0 0 h D _ 00 m m OD ® 00 ® m m N N QO Z b N ----------- O 00 OL N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .-n .••� .-n a; a] GO Z w m m 60 0 0 0� 0 0� Owl O O O O O O O 0 0 00 m It It } - - - - - m u9 m O m m m O O N b b b b b b b b b b r• F .•-� .-.a -Z.-7 .r r .z ^ ^ m m p 00 0 0 0 O m ew ---- O e e a O m - - 00 a m m m m aO m O F - m ! ! DO e VJ N m m N aD O O m O O O O m � O a•9 N tV - ' - ^ 01 - - ' V D O ! N ! N m m a0 N � ! O b o - N C b o E � m .N--� c-a ai'i N t-9 N N N N a9 P's c•0 a�i N N �'T N --. .--� ^ .-n Cc1 ^ b 00 b w W m b m ! b •--� .fD O 01 ! .0-� ws O m m ! O b m N b N m Asa O N O_ _ m ot It yH b m Z i .N N ^ N N m! r• .[f b b �• m m oOf o 0 0 o e F 0y m M O H m 0 {1p O O Om O O T 00 � O p d ti 03 0 00 N O O EtC O Om0 � ca N N N. -•.. -n .r N 0 O O d � G O b �► 2 m _ D e+ a a m O O! A m •Y c O. M N N N_ N_ N N 4r Y � -� C Q a N O .•Oi i m 00 m m Ci0 m m m m O m— m m m m m m y O d 00 ua m •Oa O� d+.a o � o amd. VN w- l.s ----- -- apl e e o a °a � 0 0 _m ..�•n o It ISM °D ° °s m m m u o m° _- m o m :.°.• a d •O E � •O Y .at •N � O r► U J 00 ti 0 0 0_ e e e e o 'o 0 N N N !! �a ua eN0 tmp Y v H d s.a •O d y as U F� i 00 ! oa i o c om° .e a N N J •+ F CS m i 0 O _ _ It li O 1 D C+9 ------------------ ! Y O ! F OY i -0.7 O 0!O ! d .--� ..� .-n .•-� .--� .--. .--� ^ ^ - N N N N N N N N N N N N City of Fridley, Minnesota Proposed HRA 1991 Financing Estimated Debt Service Description Lake Pointe Dairy Queen Sue's Property Ashland Oil TOTALS: ---------- - - - - -- Projected Debt Service-------- - - - -- Low Expected High $5529500 $6649000 $775,000 $110000 $12,325 $13,500 $1060000 $1171500 $129,000 $50,150 $55,500 $61,000 $719,650 $849,325 $978,500 Prepared 11- Feb -91 By SPRINGSTED Inc. -------- ------ - - - - -- Project Cost------------- - - - - -- Description Low Expected High Lake Pointe $5,000,000 $8,0000000 $71000,000 Dairy Queen $900000 $100,000 $1109000 Sue's Property $900,000 $12000,000 $1,100,000 Ashland 011 $450,000 $500,000 $550,000 TOTALS: $6,440,000 $716001000 $8,760,000 acs :�eoo = == = == =s�eaaec ta= saw =aaa = Description Lake Pointe Dairy Queen Sue's Property Ashland Oil TOTALS: ---------- - - - - -- Projected Debt Service-------- - - - -- Low Expected High $5529500 $6649000 $775,000 $110000 $12,325 $13,500 $1060000 $1171500 $129,000 $50,150 $55,500 $61,000 $719,650 $849,325 $978,500 Prepared 11- Feb -91 By SPRINGSTED Inc. 02/11/91 11:20 $012 223 3002 SPk1NGSTED INC. W-JVu °'" " ME City of Fridley, Minnesota Wke Pointe Project Dated: 7- 1 -1891 Mature: 2- 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Year of I Levy (1) 1991 1992 1883 1994 less 1988 1897 lose 1889 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2008 ear of Wt. (2) 1993 1994 1895 1998 1987 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Principal Rates (3) (4) 0 0.00% 185,000 5.50% 195,000 5.604 205,000 5.70% 215,000 5.80% 230,000 5.90% 240,000 8.00% 255,000 8.10% 275,000 6.20% 290,000 6.30% 310,000 6.409E 330,000 6.50% 350,000 6.804 370,000 6.704 395,000 8.78% 425,000 6.60% 450,000 8.85% 485,000 6.904 615,000 6.90% TOTALS: 5,720,000 Total Principal Interest f Interest (5) -(8) 583,716 583,716 368,863 553,683 558,488 553,488 347,568 552,568 335,883 550,883 323,413 553,413 309,843 549,843 295,443 550,443 279,888 854,688 262,636 552,838 244,588 $54,568 224,728 554,728 203,278 553,278 180,178 550,178 155,388 550,388 128,725 553,725 99,825 549,825 68,000 554,000 35,535 850,535 Prepared February 8, 1991 By BPRIN88TED Incorporated Capital- Net Annual Interest: /zed levy Cumulative Interest Required Surplus (7) (6) (6) $85,000 0 1,284 0 553,863 0 0 553,468 0 0 552,588 0 0 $50,883 0 0 $53,413 0 0 549,843 0 0 550,443 0 0 554,888 0 0 552,638 0 0 554,556 0 0 554,728 0 0 553,278 0 0 550,178 0 0 $50,388 0 0 $53,725 0 0 549,825 0 0 554,000 0 0 550,535 0 4,606,966 10,526,968 585,000 9,943,252 Bond Years: 72,651.87 Annual Interest: 4,608,965 Avg. Maturity: 12.70 Plus Discount: 85,600 Avg. Annual Rate; 8.818'. Net Interest: 4,892,788 Rate: 6.759% N.I.C. Rate; 0.73.x`% Interest rates are estimates; Changes may taus# significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid my also vary. s ozo0 0JD Saf) -a3o SS��� OJD � Sr Q•a� 4 2�» 612 223 3002 02/11/91 11.21 0612 223 3002 SPR 1 NGSTED INC. 004/014 City at Fridley, Minnesota Lot Points Project Prepared February 8, iss1 By 6PRINO3TEO Incorporated Dated: 7. 1.1981 Mature: 2 -.1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Total capital- Not (ear of Year of Principal ized Levy Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest a Interest Interest Required surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1991 1993 0 0.00% 701,110 1-101,110 702,000 0 990 1992 1994 220,000 5.50% 442,806 662,806 0 862,806 0 1983 1995 235,000 5.00% 430,708 685,708 0 885,706 0 1494 less 245,000 5.70% 417,546 692,546 0 862,546 0 1995 1987 260,000 5.80% 403,58" 663,581 0 883,561 0 1996 1998 275,000 5.90% 386,501 683,501 0 883,501 0 1997 1999 290,000 6.00% 372,276 662,276 0 662,276 0 1898 2000 310,000 6.10% 354,876 664,876 0 664,876 0 19N 2001 325,000 6.20% 335,988 660,988 0 680,866 0 2000 2002 350,000 6.30% 315,818 085,818 0 685,818 0 2001 2003 370,000 8.40% 293,766 683,786 0 863,766 0 2002 2004 395,000 6.50% 270,086 665,068 0 085,088 0 2003 2005 420,000 6.60% 244,411 664,411 0 864,411 0 2004 2006 445,000 8.70% 216,691 661,691 0 661,691 0 2005 2007 475.000 6.75% 185,676 661,876 0 881,876 0 2006 2006 510,000 6.80% 154,813 664,813 O 664,813 0 2007 2009 545,000 6.65% 120,133 685,133 0 685,133 0 2008 2010 580,000 0.90% 62,800 882.800 0 662,800 0 2009 2011 620,000 6.90% 42,780 662,780 0 662,780 0 TOTALS; 6,870,000 5,775,540 12,645,540 702,000 11,844,430 land Years: 87,287.50 1vg. Maturity: 12.71 Ivg. Annual Rate: 8.617% r.I.C. Rate; 8.7S9%- Annual Interest: 5,775,540 Plus Discount: 103,050 Net Interest: 51878,590 N.I.C. Rate: 0.735% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations O1 this schedule. rho actual underwriter's discount Did May also vary. in $6 �� City of Fridley. Minnesota lake Pointe Project V Dated. 7. 1.1881 Mature: 2- 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1882 Year of V Levy (1) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 1897 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 ear of Mat. (2) 1993 1894 1805 lose 1897 1890 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2008 2010 2011 Principal Rates (3) (4) 0 0.0096 260,000 5.50% 270,000 6.604 285,000 5.706 305,000 5.80% 320,000 6.906 340,000 8.00% 380,000 8.10% 385,000 G.20% 405,000 6.306 430,000 8.40% 460,000 8.506 490,000 8.606 520,000 6.706 555,000 8.766 695,000 6.60% 635,000 8.55% 660,000 8.90% 725,000 6.90% 0,020,000 Bond Years: 101,923.33 kvg. Maturity: 12.71 kvg. Annual Rate: 6.617% r.I.C. Rate: 8.7596 Prepared February 6, 1991 By SPRIN05TE0 Incorporated 8,744,188 14,764,188 520,000 13,945,690 Annual Interest: 6,744,188 Plus Discount: 120,300 Net Interest; 8,884,488 N.I.C. Rate: 6.735% Intorost rates are estimates; changes slay cause significant alterations oT this schedule. fhe actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 0.)o DDC) Total Capital. Net Principal lied Levy Cumulative Interest a Interest Interest Required Surplus (5) (6) (7) (6) (8) 818,498 818,488 820,000 0 1,502 518,848 776,948 0 176,946 0 502,646 772,048 0 772,646 0 487,528 772,626 0 772,528 0 471,281 776,251 0 776,281 0 453,581 773,691 0 773,661 0 434,711 774,711 0 774,711 0 414,311 774,311 0 774,311 0 382,351 777,351 0 777,351 0 388,481 773,481 0 773,481 0 342,886 772,566 0 772,868 0 315,448 775,446 0 775,446 0 285,546 775,546 0 775,546 0 253,206 773,205 0 773,206 0 218, See 773,366 0 773,386 0 180,903 775,903 0 775,903 0 140,443 775,443 0 775,443 0 98,545 776,845 0 778,845 0 50,025 775,025 0 775,025 0 8,744,188 14,764,188 520,000 13,945,690 Annual Interest: 6,744,188 Plus Discount: 120,300 Net Interest; 8,884,488 N.I.C. Rate: 6.735% Intorost rates are estimates; changes slay cause significant alterations oT this schedule. fhe actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 0.)o DDC) PeAT 701,1ZO �rspre&j Ir'O��j� City of Fridley, Minnesota Dairy Queen Dated: 7- 1 -1991 Mature: 2. 1 First Interest; 2- 1.1992 Prepared February 0, 1981 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Bond Years: 1,180.25 Annual Interest; 70,151 Avg. Maturity: Total Capitol. Net Avg. Annual Rate: Year of Year of 78,726 T.I.C. Rate; 8.8914 Principal lzed Levy Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest A Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (6) (7) (e) (A) 1981 1993 0 0.006 10,581 10,501 11,000 0 439 1992 1994 5,000 5.5m 8,570 11,670 0 11,670 0 1993 1985 5,000 5.806 6,395 11,395 0 11,395 0 1994 1986 5,000 5.706 8,115 11,115 0 11,115 0 1985 1987 6,000 5.906 5,830 10,630 0 10,530 0 1986 1998 5,000 6.906 5,540 10,640 0 10,640 0 1987 1999 5,000 8.006 5,245 10,245 0 10,245 0 1988 2000 5,000 6.106 4,945 9,946 0 9,94b 0 1988 2001 5,000 8.206 4,640 9,640 0 9,640 u 2000 2002 6,000 6.306 4,330 9,330 0 9,330 0 9001 2003 5,000 8.404 4,016 9,015 0 9,015 0 2002 2004 5,000 6.509b 3,895 6,885 0 8,69b 0 2003 2005 10,000 6.904 3,370 13,370 0 13,370 0 2004 2006 10,000 8.706 2,710 12,710 0 12,710 0 2005 2007 10,000 6.759 2,040 12,040 0 12,040 0 2006 2008 10,000 8.006 1,385 11,365 0 11,365 0 2007 2009 10,000 8.856 685 10,685 0 10,885 0 TOTALS. 105,000 78,151 183,151 11,000 172,590 Bond Years: 1,180.25 Annual Interest; 70,151 Avg. Maturity: 11.39 Plus Discount: 1,575 Avg. Annual Rate: 0.533% Net Interest: 78,726 T.I.C. Rate; 8.8914 N.I.C. Rate: 6.66% Interest rates are estimates; changes May cause significant alterations oT this schedule. the actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 4 CA L 4-L t SSA,'- ►'^ City or Fridley, Minnesota 11.42 Avg. Annual Rate. 6.517% Prepared February 8, 1981 Dairy Queen By SPRINGSTEO InOurpuraled V Dated: 7. 1.1991 Mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2. 1.1992 Total Capital- Met Year of Year of Principal ized Levy Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest i Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) 13) (4) (6) l6) (7) le) (9) 1691 1993 0 0.00% 12,081 12,051 12,200 0 119 1992 1994 5,000 5.50% 7,630 12,630 0 12,830 0 1683 1985 6,000 6.60% 7,355 12,355 0 12,355 0 1994 1990 5,000 5.704 7,075 12,075 0 12,075 0 1995 1091 6,000 6.80% 8,790 11,790 0 11,790 0 1998 1998 5,000 6.90% 6,500 11,500 0 11,500 0 1997 . 1899 5,000 8.00% 6,205 11,205 0 11,205 0 1898 2000 5,000 8.10% 5,905 10,905 0 10,905 0 1966 2001 6,000 6.20% 5,800 10,800 0 10,600 0 2000 2002 10,000 8.30% 5.290 15,290 O 16,290 0 2001 2003 10,000 6.40% 4,880 14,880 0 14,660 0 2002 2004 10,000 6.50% 4,020 14,020 0 14,020 0 2003 2005 10,000 8.504 3,370 13,370 O 13,370 0 2004 2006 10,000 6.70% 2,710 12,710 0 12,710 0 2005 2007 10,000 8.75% 2,040 12,040 0 12,040 0 2008 2005 10,000 6.80% 1,385 11,385 0 11,385 0 2007 2000 10,000 6.85% 885 10,885 0 10,685 0 TOTALS: 120,000 89,281 209,281 12,200 197,200 Send Years: 1,370.00 Avg. Maturity: 11.42 Avg. Annual Rate. 6.517% T.I.C. note: 9.6M Annual Interest: 89,281 Plus Discount: 1,800 Not Interest: 91,081 N.I.C. Rate: 6.645% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations or this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid My also vary. 'y P,t' (05 I 0-4 - tips a b'7 � J - tUv "•� 02/11/91 11!23 IV612 ZZJ JVVz ^ • •�� -ity of Fridley, Yinnes0ta )&iry Queen Prepared february B, 1991 by SPRIN08TED Incorporated Dated: 7- 1 -1991 1lsture: 2. 1 First Intero6t: 2. 1.1982 Total capital- Net Principal ised Levy Cumulative year OT Year of Principal Rates Interest A Interest Intvrvst Required Surplus Levy Nat. (3) (4) (51 ('e) (7) l6) (1) (2) 0 0.004 13,115 13,115 13,250 0 135 1991 1993 1994 5,000 5.50% 8,263 13,283 0 13,283 0 1992 1983 1885 5,000 S. 8,008 13,008 p 13,000 0 0 1694 1888 6,000 5.704 7 728 , 12,728 0 0 12,726 12,443 0 1995 1997 5,000 6.804 443 7,443 12.443 12,153 0 1@98 .1898 5,000 5.90% 7,153 12,153 0 0 11,656 0 1897 1899 6,000 6.004 6,868 11'658 11,856 0 1988 2000 5,000 6.10% 6,556 11,556 0 18,263 0 1999 2001 10,000 6.20% 6,253 16,253 p 0 15,633 0 2000 2002 10 000 + 6.30% 5,633 15,533 18,003 0 2001 2003 10,000 6.40% 5,003 15,003 p 0 14,383 0 2002 2004 10,000 6.50% 4,363 383 14,383 0 13,713 0 2003 2006 10,000 8.60 4 3,713 13,713 p 13,053 0 2004 2006 10,000 6.70% 3,053 13,053 12,363 0 2005 2007 10,000 6.7515 2 , 383 12,3 83 0 11,708 0 2006 2008 10,000 6.80% 1,705 11,708 0 16,028 0 2007 zoos 15 , 000 6.0% 1,028 16,028 0 130,000 98,283 228,243 13,250 215,188 TOTALS: + Bond Tears: 1,505.83 Annual Interest: 93+283 Avg. wturity: 11.69 Plus Discount: 1,950 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.527% Net Interest: 100.233 T.I.C. Rate: 8.685% N.I.C. Rate: 6.65 Interest rates are estlaates; changes day cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid slay also vary. /!O o Zrp _ cop ''A i{ I M i( I City of Fridley, Minnesota Suws Property Voted: 7- 1.1991 Nature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1.1092 Year of Year of Levy Not. Principal Rates (1) (2) (3) (4) 1983 1984 1985 1988 1997 tees 1989 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 zoos 2006 2007 2008 2009 0 0.00% 40,000 5.50% 40,000 6.80% 45,000 5.70% 45,000 6.80% 50,000 5.90% 55,000 6.00% 85,000 8.10% 60,000 8.20% 65,000 8.30% 70,000 6.40% 70,000 8.50% 73,000 6.60% 80,000 0.70! 85,000 6.75% 95,000 6.80% 100,000 6.85% 1,030,000 Total Principal Interest a Interest (s) te) 103,688 103,588 85,423 105,423 83,223 103,223 80,983 105,963 88,418 103,418 55,808 105,908 52,658 107,858 48,558 104,658 48,203 108,203 42,483 107,483 38,388 108,388 33,908 103,808 29,358 104,358 24,408 104,408 19,048 104,648 13,310 108,310 8,850 108,850 Prepared February 16, 1981 8y SPRINOSTED Incorporated coital- Net trod Levy Cumulative Interest Required surplus (7) (s) (0) 104,000 0 414 0 105,423 0 0 103,223 0 0 105,983 0 0 103,418 0 0 165,868 0 0 107,858 0 0 104,558 0 0 108,203 0 0 107,483 0 0 108,388 0 0 103,908 0 0 104,350 0 0 104,408 0 0 104,046 0 0 108,310 0 0 106,850 0 783,013 1,793,813 104,000 1,890,227 Bond Years: 11,720.83 Annual Interest: 763,813 Avg. Maturity: 11.38 plus Disoount: 15,4SO Avg. Annual Rate: 8.517% Net Interest: 779,293 T.I.C. Rate: 6.675% N.I.C. Rate: 6.948% Interest rates are esti*ates; changes stay cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. q0t) , 0 -0a (a4 /600 ) S� 4So I�'S 1 1"03 �j �� City of Fridley, Minnesota 847,873 Avg. Maturity: 11.36 Prepared February 10, 1001 Oue's Property Net Interest: 604,648 T.I.C. Rate; 0.675% By OPRIN08TED Incorporated Dated: Interest rates are estiaates; 7- 1 -1081 significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1092 total Capital- Not Year of Year of Principal iced levy Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest & Interest Interest Required (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (01 (7) (8) 1881 1093 0 0.00% 115,121 115,121 115,000 121 1992 1994 45,000 6.50% 72,706 117.708 0 117,708 1993 less 45,000 5.W% 70,233 116,233 0 115,233 1994 1986 50,000 6.70% 67,713 117,713 0 117,713 1995 1997 55,000 5.80% 64,803 119,863 0 119,063 1998 1998 86,000 5.90% 61,873 116,673 0 116,873 foe? 1999 00,000 6.00% 60,428 118,426 0 118,426 1888 2000 00,000 6.10% 54,628 114,828 0 114,028 1999 2001 05,000 0.20% 51,188 116,166 0 116,188 2000 2002 70,000 6.30% 47,138 117,138 0 117,138 2001 2003 76,000 0.40% 42,728 117,728 0 117,728 2002 2004 80,000 6.50% 37,920 117,920 0 117,928 2003 2005 65,000 a.60% 32,726 117,726 0 117,726 2004 2005 00,000 0.70% 27,118 117,118 0 117,116 2005 2007 95,000 6.75% 21,088 1101068 0 116,068 2006 2006 106,000 0.60% 14,675 119,675 0 119,676 2007 2009 110,000 6.65% 7,635 117,635 0 117,mr TOTALS: 1,145,000 847,873 1,992,673 115,000 1,877,073 Bond Years; 13,007.62 Annual Interest: 847,873 Avg. Maturity: 11.36 Plus Discount: 17.176 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.617% Net Interest: 604,648 T.I.C. Rate; 0.675% N.I.C. Rste: 6.040% Interest rates are estiaates; changes may Cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. City of Fridley, Minnesota Prepared February 11, 1881 By SPRINOBTED Incorporated !ue'e Property Wed: 14,287.08 7. 1.1981 929,793 Avg. Maturity; 11.37 Plus Discount: 18,825 Avg. Annual Rate: daturs: Net Interest: 2. 1 T.I.C. Rate: 6.675% N.I.C. Rate: 6.640% Flrst Interest: 2. 1.1992 Total capital. Net rear of Year of Principal ized Levy Cumulative Levy Mat, Principal Rates Interest i Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (eI (7) (B) (•) 1991 1993 0 0.00% 128,198 128,198 126,250 0 54 1992 1994 50,000 5.50% 79,703 129,703 0 129,703 0 1993 1995 50,000 5.80% 76,953 128,953 0 128,953 0 1994 1988 55,000 5.70% 74,153 129,153 0 129,153 0 1995 1987 55,000 5.80% 71,018 126,018 0 128,018 0 loge 1998 80,000 B. W% 87,828 127,828 0 127,828 0 1997 1988 85,000 8.00% 84,288 129,288 0 129,268 0 1998 2000 70,000 8.10% 80,350 130,388 0 130,368 0 1999 2001 75,000 8.20% 58,110 131,118 0 131,118 0 2000 2002 75,000 6.30% 51,480 120,488 0 128,488 0 2001 2003 80,000 8.40% 46,743 126,743 0 128,743 0 2002 2004 85,000 6.50% 41.623 128,823 0 126,623 0 2003 2005 95,000 6.804 38,098 131,098 0 131,098 0 2004 2008 100,000 8.70% 29,828 129,020 0 129,828 0 2005 2007 105,000 6.75% 23,128 128.128 0 128,128 0 2006 2000 115,000 6.80% 18,040 131,040 0 131,040 0 2007 2009 120,000 8.854 8,220 128,220 0 120,220 0 TOTALS: 1,255,000 929,793 2.101,793 126,250 2,050,597 Bond Years: 14,287.08 Annual Interest; 929,793 Avg. Maturity; 11.37 Plus Discount: 18,825 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.517% Net Interest: 848,618 T.I.C. Rate: 6.675% N.I.C. Rate: 6.640% Interest ratds are estimates; changes my cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid my s190 vary. ey 1 Z 15 02/11/91 111Y4 p o1G 44,; V prepared February B, 1991 ty of Fridley, Minnesula By BPRINOBTEO Interporate0 Aland 011 Project ited: 7- 1 -1991 iturs: 2. 1 ,rot Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Total Capital - Net Principal izsd Lev Y Oumulative rar of Year of Mat. Principal Rates Interest i Interest interest Required 6urpluc Levy (3) (4) (5) (.9) (7) (s) (9) (1) (2) 1891 1983 0 O.00Ar 63,046 53,048 63,600 0 464 0 1992 1994 15,000 5.50 53503 , 48503 , 0 O 46,503 62,676 0 1983 1985 20,000 5-eft 32,676 ' 62,970 0 fi1 5fi8 0 1994 1986 20,000 5.700 31,.rifi8 61,656 0 ' 60,416 0 1895 1867 20,000 5-80% 30,418 50,418 0 49.268 0 logo 1898 20,000 5.900 29,2SB 49,258 0 48,078 0 1997 1998 20,000 0 0.0% 28,078 48,078 0 61,878 0 1008 2000 25,000 9.100 28,678 61,676 O 60,353 0 1609 2001 25,000 9.200 23,353 353 50,353 0 46,803 0 2000 2002 25,000 0-M 23 903 ' 48,603 0 52,228 0 2001 2003 30,000 6.40! 22,228 82,228 0 50,308 0 2002 2004 30,000 6.50% 20,308 60, 300 0 46,350 0 2003 2005 30,000 A.80�b 19,356 46,998 p 51,378 0 2004 2006 35,000 8.70% 18,376 61,370 0 19,033 0 ZOOS 2007 35, 000 6.750 14,033 49,033 0 51.870 0 2005 2008 40,000 6.80% 11,970 41,970 0 46,950 0 2007 2009 40,000 8.05% 9,950 se eso 0 61,210 0 2005 2010 45 000 ' 6.900 9,210 51,210 0 46,105 0 2009 2011 45,000 6.906 3,105 40,105 520 000 435,813 955,913 63,600 902,707 TOTALS: � Bond Years: 0,558.33 Annual Interest: 435,813 Avg. Maturity: 12.67 Plus Discount: 7 600 , Avg. Annual Rate: 6.615 Net Interest: 443,613 T.I.C. Rate: 9.7576 M.I.C. Rate: 8 733h Interest Fates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid nay also very. in City of Fridley, Minnesota Ashlan0 Oil Project Prepared February 9, 1081 By OPRINOSTED Incorporated Bond Years; 7,295.42 Annual Interest: 482,735 Avg. Maturity: 12.69 Plus Diacount: $.as Avg. Annual Rate: 8.817% Net Interest: 491,380 T.I.C. Rate: 0.769% N.I.C. Rate; 6.735% Interest rates are estimates; changes nay cause significant alterations Of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Sal -70 .y6zr_ -5-7 1,- 1� MW Dated: 7. 1.1091 Nature. 2 • 1 First Interest: 2- 1.1992 Total Capital- Net Year of Year of Principal 12od Levy Ounulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest d, Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (6) (7) l6) (o) 1991 1093 0 0.00% 68,087 58,667 58,750 0 83 1962 1994 20,000 6.C4)% 37,053 57,053 0 67,063 0 1983 1995 20,000 5 -W% 36,853 65,953 0 55,953 0 1094 1088 200000 5.70% 34,833 54,833 O 54,833 0 1995 1897 20,000 5.60% 33,893 53,093 0 83,693 0 1996 1988 25,000 6.904 32,533 57,533 0 57,633 0 1997 1999 25,000 0.00% 31,056 56,058 0 68,058 0 1988 2000 25,000 6.10% 28,568 54,658 0 54,839 0 1999 2001 25,000 6.20% 28,033 63,033 0 53,033 0 2000 2002 30,000 6.30% Z0,483 66,483 0 68,483 0 2001 2003 30,000 6.40% 24,593 64,683 0 64,593 0 2002 2004 35,000 6.609 22,673 67,673 0 67,873 0 2003 2005 35,000 8.60% 20,396 66,398 0 55,396 0 2004 2006 36,000 8.70% 18,088 53,086 0 63,088 0 2005 2007 40,000 6.75% 15,743 65,743 0 55,743 0 2006 2006 45,000 6.80% 13,043 68,043 0 58,043 0 2007 2009 46,000 0.85% 9,983 54,983 0 64.983 0 2008 2010 60,000 6.90% 6,900 66,900 0 66,900 0 2009 2011 50,000 0.90% 3,450 63,460 0 53,450 0 TOTALS: 576,000 462.735 1,057,736 56,750 988,088 Bond Years; 7,295.42 Annual Interest: 482,735 Avg. Maturity: 12.69 Plus Diacount: $.as Avg. Annual Rate: 8.817% Net Interest: 491,380 T.I.C. Rate: 0.769% N.I.C. Rate; 6.735% Interest rates are estimates; changes nay cause significant alterations Of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Sal -70 .y6zr_ -5-7 1,- 1� MW City of Fridley, Minnesota Prepared February 8, 1991 Ashland 011 PrOJOCt 9y BPRINO$TED Incorporated Dated: 7,982.50 7- 1.1981 628,772 Avg. Maturity: 12.69 Plus Discount: 9,450 Avg. Annual Rats; Mature: Not Interest: 2- 1 T.I.C. Rate: 8.7584 M.I.G. Rate: 4.734% First Interest: 2. 1 -1992 Total Capital- Net Year of Year Of Principal i:ed Levy Cumulative Levy met. Principal Rates Interact 6 Interest Interest Required surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (e) (�) (6) (9) 1991 1993 0 0.00% 84,280 64,280 84,500 0 220 1992 1984 20,000 5.506 40,598 80,698 0 80,599 0 1993 1985 20,000 5.604 38,498 59,498 0 80,498 0 1990 1998 26,000 6. 7011; 38,378 63,378 0 83,378 0 1995 1997 25,00D 5.806 39,953 91,953 0 61,953 0 1998 1998 25,000 5.90% 35,503 80,503 0 60,503 0 1997 • 1099 25,000 6.006 34,028 69,028 0 59,028 0 1888 2000 30,000 8.104 32,528 62,529 0 82,628 0 1999 2001 30,000 6.206 50,698 60,698 0 60,698 0 2000 2002 30,000 6.30! 28,838 58,630 0 68,838 0 SOO1 2003 35,000 6.406 20,948 61,948 0 61,948 0 2002 2004 35,000 6.504 24,708 59,708 0 $0,708 0 2003 2005 40,000 8.804 22,433 82,433 0 62,433 0 2004 2006 40,000 8.704 19,703 59,793 0 69,793 0 2005 2007 45,000 6.756 17,113 62,113 0 82,113 0 2008 2008 45,000 8.806 14,075 69,075 0 69,075 0 2007 2009 50,000 6.854 11,015 61,015 0 61,015 0 2008 2010 55,000 8.904 7,590 82,690 D 62,590 0 2008 2011 55,000 8.904 3,795 58,705 0 68,795 0 TOTAL$• 830,000 528,772 1,158,772 64,600 1,094,402 9on0 Years. 7,982.50 Annual Interest: 628,772 Avg. Maturity: 12.69 Plus Discount: 9,450 Avg. Annual Rats; 8.8186 Not Interest: 539,222 T.I.C. Rate: 8.7584 M.I.G. Rate: 4.734% Interest rates are estimates; changes my Cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid my also vary. SsbJ o �� X30! City of Fridley, Minnesota Proposed HRA 1991 Financing Estimated Debt Service Prepared 11- Feb -91 By SPRINGSTED Inc. -------- ------ - - - - -- Project Cost .......... -........ Description Low Expected High Lake Pointe $5,000,000 $61000,000 $7,000,000 Dairy Queen $90,000 $100,000 $1109000 Sue's Property $900,000 $190001000 $19100,000 Ashland Oil $450,000 $500,000 $550,000 TOTALS: $6,440,000 $71600,000 $8,7600000 $978,500 tcaaaaCCpca cccas� =aaCC �cc�ccapCCc Prepared 11- Feb -91 By SPRINGSTED Inc. --------- - - - - -- Projected Debt Service - - -- -- - - - - -- Description Low Expected High Lake Pointe $552,500 $6649000 $775,000 Dairy Queen $11,000 $12,325 $13,500 Sue's Property $106,000 $117,500 $1290000 Ashland Oil $500150 $55,500 $61,000 TOTALS: $719,650 $8491325 $978,500 �C�p��csc == �aneeoocas= onscC =ccocc Prepared 11- Feb -91 By SPRINGSTED Inc. 02/11/91 11:20 0612 223 3002 SPk I NGSTED INC. 'r6 `•`•" ME City of Fridley, Minnesota i4oa Pointe Project Dated: 7- 1 -1991 Mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2. 1 -1992 Year of V Levy (1) 1991 1992 1893 1994 1995 1998 1987 1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2009 2009 eer of Mat. (2) 1993 tons 1985 1988 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Principal Rates (3) 14) 0 0.0m 185,000 5.50% 195,000 5.60% g05,000 5. TID% 215,000 5.60% 230,000 5.90+1 240,000 8.00% 255,000 8.10% 275,000 6.20% 290,000 8.30% 310,000 6.40% 330,000 6.50% 350,000 6.80% 370,000 6.70% 395,000 6.75% 425,000 6.806b 450,000 8.85% 485,000 8.80: 615,000 8.9D% TOTALS: 5,720,000 Prepared February 8, 1991 By SPRINO9TED Incorporated 4,908,966 10,526,968 585,000 9,943,762 Bond Years: 72,851.87 Total Capital- Not Avg. Maturity: 12.70 Principal 1zed Levy Cumulative Interest i Interest Interest Required Surplus (5) -(6) (7) (6) (0) 583,716 583,716 $85,000 0 1,284 368,683 553,883 0 653,663 0 358,488 553,488 0 553,488 0 347,568 552,588 0 852,668 0 335,863 550,683 0 550,883 0 323,413 553,413 0 553,413 0 309,643 549,843 0 548,643 0 285,443 550,443 0 850,443 0 279,888 684,888 0 554,888 0 262,838 552,638 0 552,838 0 244,588 554,588 0 554,568 0 224,728 554,728 0 554,728 0 203,278 553,278 0 653,278 0 180,178 550,178 0 550,178 0 165,388 550,388 0 550,388 0 128,725 553,725 0 553,725 0 98,825 548,625 0 549,825 O 89,000 554,000 0 554,000 0 35,535 650,535 0 550,535 0 4,908,966 10,526,968 585,000 9,943,762 Bond Years: 72,851.87 Annual Interest: 4,806,988 Avg. Maturity: 12.70 Plus Discount: 85,800 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.8/8'6 Net Interest: 4,892,788 T.I.C. Rate: 6.759% N.I.C. Rate: 0.735% Interest rates are estlmtes; Changes nay cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid nay also vary. S ozo� oars �S�S��30 SSf�;a�n i 4 2•:)V 612 223 3002 02/11/91 11:21 0612 223 3002 SPRINGSTED INC. Z004/014 city of rridley. Minnesota lake Pointe Project Dated: 7. 1.1991 Mature: 2 -.1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Year of Y Levy (1) 1981 1992 1893 1994 1885 1996 1887 1988 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 ear of mat. (2) 1983 1991 1985 1998 1887 1998 1888 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2010 2011 Principal Rates (3) (4) 0 0.004 220,000 5.504 235,000 5.804 245,000 5.70% 260,000 5.504 275,000 5.904 290,000 6.004 310,000 6.104 325,000 5.204 350,000 6.304 370,000 6.404 395,000 6.504 420,000 8.604 445,000 6.704 475,000 6.754 510,000 6.804 545,000 8.554 580,000 8.904 620,000 6.904 TOTALS: 6,870,000 Bond Years: 87,287.50 hvg. Maturity: 12.71 kvg. Annual Rate: 8.6174 r.I.O. Rate: 6.759x► Total Principal Interest i Interest (5) (6) 701,110 1' `' 701,110 442,806 862,806 430,708 865,708 417,546 692,546 403,58" 663,591 385,501 063,501 372,278 662,276 354,876 084,876 335,980 600,968 315,810 685,016 293,766 663,766 270,086 0651086 244,411 664,411 216,691 861,691 1681876 681,876 154,813 664,813 120,133 685,133 02,800 662,800 42,780 662,780 Prepared February s, 1991 By SPRINGST90 Incorporated capital- Not /zed Levy Ouaulative Interest Required surplus (7) (6) (0) 702,000 O soD 0 662,806 0 0 685,706 0 0 862,546 0 0 663,591 0 0 683,501 0 0 652,278 O 0 664,876 0 0 660,966 O 0 685,818 0 0 663,766 0 0 685,085 0 0 864,411 0 0 661,691 0 0 881,876 0 0 664,813 0 0 665,133 0 0 862,800 0 0 662,780 0 5,775,540 12,645,540 702,000 11,944,430 Annual Interest: 5,775,540 Plus Discount: 103,050 Net Interest: 5,678,580 N.I.C. Rate: 8.735% Interest rates are estimates; changes clay cause significant alterations Of this schedule. the actual underwriter's discount Did May also vary. _ c off. �3 r E, $it �, 1q City of Fridley, Minnesota Lake Pointe Project Prepared February 6, 1891 by SPRINGSTED Incorporated I Dated: 7- 1.1891 Nature: 2. 1 first Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Total Capital. Net Year of Year of Principal l=ed Levy Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest a Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Iasi 1993 0 0.004 816,498 018,488 820,000 0 1,502 1992 1994 260,000 5.504 518,848 776,948 0 178,946 0 1993 1805 270,000 6.604 502,645 772,048 0 772,646 0 1894 1988 285,000 5.704 467,526 772,626 0 772,528 0 1955 1697 305,000 5.80% 471,281 776,281 0 778,281 0 1996 1980 320,000 5.804 453,591 773,591 0 773,681 0 1887 1999 340,000 8.004 434,711 774,711 0 774,711 0 1998 2000 380,000 6.104 414,311 774,311 0 774,311 0 1988 2001 385,000 6.20% 382,351 777,351 0 771,351 0 2000 2002 405,000 8.304 388,481 773,481 0 773,481 0 2001 2003 430,000 6.40% 342,986 772,966 0 772,988 0 2002 2004 460,000 8.504 315,448 775,446 0 775,448 0 2003 2005 490,000 8.604 285,546 775,546 0 775,646 0 2004 2008 520,000 6.704 253,206 773,206 0 773,206 0 2005 2007 555,000 6.764 216,388 773,366 0 773,368 0 2008 2008 595,000 6.90% 180,803 775,903 0 775,903 0 2007 2009 835,000 8.854 140,443 775,443 0 775,443 0 2008 2010 880,000 6.904 98,845 776,945 0 776,845 O 2009 2011 725,000 6.904 50,025 775,025 0 775,025 0 TOTALS: 8,020,000 8,744,188 14,764,188 820,000 13,945,690 Bond Years: 101,823.33 Avg. Maturity: 12.71 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.6174 T.I.C. Rate: 8.759% Annual Interest: 6,744,188 Plus Discount: 120,300 Net Interest: 6,864,488 N.I.C. Rate: 6.735% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. rho actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 7 01, � a� �93 °� Sao PCT CAP /Art nxc 1•S �ssr4 �s�1 ti r City of Fridley, Minnesota (airy Queen Dated: 7- 1 -1981 Mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1.1982 Prepared Pabruary 8, 1981 By SPRINOSTED Incorporated Bond Years: 1,196.25 Annual Interest; 78051 Avg. Maturity: Total Capital- Net Avg. Annual Rate: Year of Year of 79,728 T.I.C. Rate; e.6914 Principal iced Levy Cumulative Levy rat. Principal Rates Interest A Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (8) (6) (7) (8) iA) 1001 1803 0 0.004 10,581 10,581 11,000 0 439 1002 1994 5,000 5.50% 8,670 11,670 0 11,670 0 1983 1985 5,000 5.804 6,395 11,39$ 0 11,395 0 1994 1998 5,000 5.70% 6,115 11,115 0 11,115 0 1985 1897 5,000 5.804 5,830 10,83D 0 10,830 0 1996 1998 5,000 8.90$ 5,540 10,540 0 10,640 0 1907 1999 5,000 8.00% 5,245 10,245 0 10,245 0 1698 2000 5,000 8.10% 4,945 9,946 0 0,945 0 1989 2001 5,000 8.204 4,640 9,640 0 9,640 u 2000 2002 5,000 6.304 4,330 9,330 0 9,330 0 2001 2003 5,000 6.404 4,016 9,015 0 9,015 0 2002 2004 5,000 6.5076 3,895 8,695 0 8,895 0 2003 2005 10,000 6.60% 3,370 13,370 0 13,370 0 2004 2006 10,000 8.704 2,710 12,710 0 12,710 0 2005 2007 10,000 6.75% 2,040 12,040 0 19,040 0 2006 2008 10,000 8.60% 1,365 11,365 0 11,365 0 2007 2009 10,000 8.854 885 10,685 0 10,885 0 TOTALS: 105,000 79,151 183,151 11,000 172,590 Bond Years: 1,196.25 Annual Interest; 78051 Avg. Maturity: 11.39 Plus Discount; 1,575 Avg. Annual Rate: 0.533% Net Interest: 79,728 T.I.C. Rate; e.6914 N.I.C. Rate: 8.685% Interest rates are estimates; changes May cause significant alterations OT this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. I. LL1Z� t SSti +� � ►'^"� City of Frldley, Minnesota 89,281 Avg. Maturity: 11.42 Prepared February 81 1981 Dairy Queen 8.517% Net Interest; 91,081 T.I.C. Rate: 6y BPRINGSTED InOurpursted Dated: 0.848% 7. 1.1991 Mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2. 1.1992 Total Capital- Net Year of Year of Principal ized Levy Cumulative Levy Wt. Principal Rates Interest A Interest Interest Required surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1991 1993 0 0.00% 12,081 12,061 12,200 0 119 1992 1984 5,000 6.50% 7,830 12,630 0 12,830 0 1993 1995 6,000 6.60% 7,355 12,355 0 12,355 U 1984 1988 5,000 5.70% 7,075 12,075 0 12,075 0 1995 1991 6,000 5.80% 8,790 11,790 0 11,790 0 1999 1998 51000 6.90% 6,500 11,500 0 11,500 O 1987 1889 5,000 8.00% 6,205 11,205 0 11,205 O 1898 2000 5,000 6.10% 5,905 10,905 0 10,905 0 1999 2001 8,000 6.20% 5,800 10,800 0 10,600 0 2000 2002 10,000 8.30% $1290 15,290 0 15,290 0 2001 2003 10,000 6.40% 4,680 14,880 0 14,860 0 2002 2004 10,000 6.50% 4,020 14,020 0 14,020 0 2003 2005 10,000 6.80% 3,370 13,370 0 13,370 0 2004 2006 10,000 8.70% 2,710 12,710 0 12,710 0 2005 2007 10,000 8.75% 2,040 12,040 0 12,040 0 2008 2008 10,000 6.80% 1,365 11,365 0 11,365 0 2007 2009 10,000 6.95% 885 10,88$ 0 10,665 0 TOTALS: 120,000 88,281 209,281 12,200 187,200 Bond Years; 1,370.00 Annual Interest: 89,281 Avg. Maturity: 11.42 Plus Discount: 1,800 Avg. Annual Rate; 8.517% Net Interest; 91,081 T.I.C. Rate: 8.67716 N.I.C. Rate: 0.848% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid nay also vary. 1-2) 7 7 "J 6 �• a - tUv` ^r t1.OJ��v 02/11/91 11:23 $612 223 3M. ity of Fridley. Minnesota k1 py ouben Prepared February B. 1891 By BPRINOBTED Incorporated sted. 7- 1 -1981 store: 2. 1 irst Interest: 2- 1.1882 Total Capital - Not Principal ized Levy Cumulative 'ear oT Year of Mat. Principal Rates Interest 6 Interest Interest Required Surpluus Levy l2) (3) (4) (5) (B) (7) (6) ( ) (1) 1991 1993 0 0.006 13,116 13,115 13,250 0 135 1992 1994 5,000 5.5043 8,263 13,253 0 13,283 0 0 1993 1995 5,000 5.809r BOOB 13,008 0 13,000 0 1894 1998 6,000 5.704 7,728 12,728 0 728 12,728 0 1995 1997 5,000 6.80% 7,443 12,443 0 12,443 0 1806 1995 5,000 5.90% 7,153 12,153 0 12,153 0 1997 1999 6,000 6.00q 8,868 11 868 0 11,858 0 1988 2000 5,000 8.10% 6,556 11,598 0 11.558 0 1999 2001 10,000 6.2043 8,253 16,253 p f8,263 0 2000 2002 10,000 8.301 5,633 15,6 33 0 15,533 0 2001 2003 10,000 6.40% 5,003 15,003 g 16,003 0 2002 2004 10,000 6.50% 4,383 14,383 0 14,383 0 2003 2005 10,000 8.806 3,713 13,713 0 13,713 Q 2004 2006 10,000 6.70% 3,063 13,053 p 13,063 0 2005 2007 10,000 6.75% 2, 383 12,383 0 12,383 0 2006 2008 10,000 6. oft 1,708 11,708 0 17,708 0 2007 2008 15,000 6.0% 1,028 16,028 0 16,028 TOTALS: 130,000 98,263 228,263 13,250 215,168 Bond Years: 1,505.93 Annual Interest: 96,263 Avg. Maturlty: 11.68 Plus Discount: 1,950 Avg. Annual Rate; 6.527% Not interest: 100,233 T.I.C. Rate: 8.aas% N.I.C. Rate: 6.656% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may 9160 vary. c �y /j0 O 2J pvr! t t -A jri Al >a City of Fridley, Minnesota sues Property r sated: 7- 1.1991 Mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1.1092 prepared February 10, 1991 By SpRINa4TED Incorporated Bond Years: 11,720.83 Annual Interest: 763.813 Avg. Maturity: 11.38 plus Discount: 15,4SO Avg. Annual Rate: 6.517% Net Interest: 779,283 T.I.C. Rats: 8.676% N.I.C. Rate; 6.648% Interest rates are estimates; changes cry Cows* significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Oioda 0 -0.1 (a4 /o ,7 0 4310 )�1 Total Capital- Met Year oT Year of Principal tied Levy Cumulative Levy Wt. Principal Rates Interest t Interest Interest Required surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) t5) t8) (7) (6) (0) 19&1 1993 0 0.00% 103,568 103.5$a 104,000 0 414 1982 1094 40,000 6.50% 65,423 108,423 0 105,423 0 1983 1085 40,000 6.80% 83,223 103,223 0 103,223 0 1994 1996 45,000 5.70% 60,883 105,983 0 105,983 0 1995 1997 45,000 6.80% 88,418 103,418 0 103,415 0 1986 1998 80,000 8.90% 65,808 105,608 0 165,808 0 1997 1999 55,000 8.00% 52,858 107,658 0 107,858 0 1985 2000 $5,000 8.10% 49,558 104,658 0 104,358 0 1999 2001 80,000 6.20% 48,203 108,203 0 108,203 0 2000 2002 85,000 8.30% 42,483 107,463 0 107,483 0 2001 2003 70,000 8.40% 38,388 108,388 0 106,388 0 2002 2004 70,000 6.50% 33,808 103,008 6 103,908 0 2003 2005 75,000 8.80% 29,358 104,358 0 104,388 0 2004 2006 80,000 8.70% 24,408 104,408 0 104,408 0 2005 2007 85,000 6.76% 19,048 104,048 0 104,046 0 2008 2008 95,000 8.80% 13,310 108,310 0 10.8,310 0 2007 2009 100,000 6.65% 8,860 108,650 0 100,850 0 TOTAL$. 1,030,000 783,613 1,703,813 104,000 1.890,227 Bond Years: 11,720.83 Annual Interest: 763.813 Avg. Maturity: 11.38 plus Discount: 15,4SO Avg. Annual Rate: 6.517% Net Interest: 779,283 T.I.C. Rats: 8.676% N.I.C. Rate; 6.648% Interest rates are estimates; changes cry Cows* significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Oioda 0 -0.1 (a4 /o ,7 0 4310 )�1 City of Fridley, Minnesota Sues Property c Dated: 7- 1 -1991 mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1092 Year of Year of Prepared February 10, 1901 Levy Mat. Principal Rates (1) (2) (3) (4) 1661 1993 0 0.00% 1992 1964 45,000 6.60% 1693 1605 45,000 5.60% 1694 ism 50,000 8.70% 1895 1987 55,000 5.60 1960 1998 55,000 5.00% 1997 1069 80,000 6.00% 1989 2000 60,000 6.105b 1996 2001 65,000 0.20% 2000 2002 70,000 6.30% 2001 2003 75,000 0.40% 2002 2004 80,000 6.50% 2003 2005 85,000 6.60% 2004 2005 90,000 0.70% 2005 2007 95,ODO 6.75% 2006 2008 108,000 0.80% 2007 2000 110,000 6.85% TOTALS: 1,145,000 847,873 1,992,673 115,000 1,077,673 Bond Years: 13,007.92 Annual Interest: 847,873 Avg. Maturity: 11.36 Plus Discount: 17.175 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.517% Net Interest: 864,646 T.I.C. Rate; 0.675% N.I.C. Rate: 6.848% Interest rates are estimates; changes ray cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid any also vary. 17 v� Prepared February 10, 1901 By BPRIN88TED Incorporated Total Capital- Net Principal iced Levy Interest a Interest Interest Required (s) (6) (7) cal 115,121 115,121 115,000 121 72,708 117.706 0 117,706 70,233 118,233 0 118,233 67,713 117,713 0 117,713 64,863 119,563 0 118,863 61,673 118,673 0 116,673 50,428 118,428 0 118,426 64,628 114,828 0 114,826 81.168 118,166 0 118,160 47,138 117,138 0 117,138 42,728 117,728 0 117,728 37,828 117,828 0 117,926 32,726 117,720 0 117.728 27,118 117,118 0 117,118 21,080 116,088 0 116,068 14,675 119,675 0 119,075 7,535 117,835 0 117,535 847,873 1,992,673 115,000 1,077,673 Bond Years: 13,007.92 Annual Interest: 847,873 Avg. Maturity: 11.36 Plus Discount: 17.175 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.517% Net Interest: 864,646 T.I.C. Rate; 0.675% N.I.C. Rate: 6.848% Interest rates are estimates; changes ray cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid any also vary. 17 v� i prepared February 11, 1991 ty of Fridley, Minnesota 08 8y SAAINTE0 Incorporated us's Property 6 stsd: 14,287.08 7. 1.1081 928,783 Avg. Maturity: 11.37 plus DISCOUnt: 18,825 0v9. Annual Rate: 6.5174 ature: 948,618 2- 1 6.670% U.I.C. Rats: 6.6494 irst Interest; 2. 1.1002 Total Capital. Net of Year of principal ized Levy CMUlative ear Levy Yet. principal Rates interest a interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) ib) (7) lb) {8) 1991 1993 0 0.004 128.108 128,198 126,250 0 64 1982 1994 60,000 5.504 79,703 120,703 0 129,703 0 1993 1995 50,000 6.804 76,953 128."3 0 126,963 0 1984 1898 55,000 5.705k 74,153 128,153 0 128,163 0 1996 1997 55,000 5.60% 71,018 128,018 0 128,018 0 1988 1998 60,000 5.904 67,828 127.828 0 127,828 0 1997 1889 85,000 8.0045 84,288 129,288 0 129,288 0 1998 2000 70,000 8.104 60,350 130,388 0 130,388 0 1998 2001 75,000 8.20% 88,118 131,118 0 131,116 0 2000 2002 75,000 6.304 81,466 128,488 0 128,488 C 2001 2003 60,000 8.40% 46,743 126,743 0 128,743 a 2002 2004 85,000 6.504 41,623 128,823 0 126,623 0 7003 2006 95,000 8.801 38,098 191,098 0 098 131,099 O 2004 2006 100,000 8.704 29,826 128,625 0 129,828 0 2005 2007 105,000 6.764 23,128 128.128 0 128,128 0 2006 2008 116,000 6.8041 18,040 131,040 0 1311040 2007 2009 120,000 8.6% 6,220 128,220 0 128,220 0 TOTALS: 1,255,000 929,793 2,164,793 126,250 2,058,897 fond Years: 14,287.08 Annual Interest: 928,783 Avg. Maturity: 11.37 plus DISCOUnt: 18,825 0v9. Annual Rate: 6.5174 Net Interest: 948,618 T.I.C. Rats: 6.670% U.I.C. Rats: 6.6494 Interest rates ars estimates; changes spay cause significant alterations oT this schedule. The actual undervriter's discount bid my also vary. C0� r> vw. I � (� 2C •� ity of Fridley, Mimtesote eplend 011 Project s Prepared February 6, 1601 By srRINO8TE0 Incorporated ated: 7- 1 -1991 aturs: 2. 1 irst Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Total Capital- Not Principal Had Levy Cumulative ear of Year of Mat. Principal Rates Interest i Interest Interest Required surplus Levy 11) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (0) 1991 1983 O 0.001 53,045 53,048 63,600 0 464 1992 1994 16,000 5.501 33,503 49,503 0 48,503 0 1993 1985 20,000 5-90% 32,679 . 62,678 0 52,676 0 1994 1998 20,000 5.70% 31.658 51,558 0 51,658 0 1995 1987 20,000 5.80°6 30,418 50,410 0 50,418 0 1998 4990 20,000 5.901 28.256 49,256 0 48.268 0 1997 1899 20,000 S.oft 28,078 48,076 0 46,078 0 1888 2000 25,000 6.10% 28,678 51,578 0 51,678 0 1986 2001 25,000 8.2011 25, 353 50 353 � 0 60,353 0 2000 2002 25,000 6.30$ 23,603 48,803 0 46,803 0 2001 2003 30,000 6.40% 22,228 52,226 0 52,228 0 2002 2004 30,000 6.505 20.308 60,308 0 50,308 0 0 2003 2006 30,000 8.80+6 16,358 35a 40,35a 0 46,350 2004 2006 35,000 6.70% 16,378 51,370 0 51,378 0 2005 2007 35,000 0.75% 14,033 49,033 0 49,033 0 2005 2008 40,000 6.605 11,570 51,870 0 51 +870 0 0 2007 2009 40,000 8.855 6,950 40,950 O 48,950 2005 2010 45,000 6.90% 0,210 61,210 0 $1.210 0 0 2009 2011 45,000 6.9016 3,105 46,105 0 48,105 TOTALS: 520,000 435,613 855,813 63,.ri00 902,707 Bond Years: 6,588.33 Annual Interest: 435,813 Avg. Maturity: 12.67 plus Discount: 7,800 Avg. Annual Rate; 6.6155 Net Interest: 443,613 T.I.C. Rate: 8.757{6 N.I.C. Rate: 8.73316 Interest rates are estimates; changes way cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid Bay also vary. 1 • in City of Fridley, Minnesota Prepared February 9, 1081 Ashland Oil Project By 9PRINOSTFO Incorporated 9 Dated: 7. 1.1091 Mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Total Capital- Net Year of Year of Principal iced Levy Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest a Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) 15) (e) (7) (B) (9) 1981 1093 0 0.006 68,887 5B,667 58,750 0 83 1992 1984 20,000 5.509: 37,053 57,053 0 67,053 0 1883 1083 20,000 5.6dd 35,953 55,053 0 55,953 0 1094 1098 20,000 5.70% 34,833 54,833 0 64,833 0 1093 1997 20,000 5.00% 33,693 63,083 0 53,093 0 1986 1999 25,000 a.906 32,533 57,533 0 57,633 0 1897 1999 25,000 0.00% 31,059 58,058 0 58,058 O 1888 2000 25,000 8.106 29,558 51,558 0 54,558 0 1999 2001 25,000 6.206 28,033 53,033 0 53,033 0 2000 2002 30,000 6.306 28,483 56,483 0 68,483 0 2001 2003 30,000 6.40% 24,593 54,503 0 64,593 0 2002 2004 35,000 0.50% 22,673 57,673 0 57,873 0 2003 2005 35,000 6.806 20,308 55,396 0 55,388 0 2004 2006 35,000 0.701 18,088 53,OBB 0 63,088 0 2005 2007 40,000 6.75% 15,743 55,743 0 55,743 0 2008 2008 45,000 6.606 13,043 68,043 0 56,043 0 2007 2009 45,000 0.656 9,983 54,983 0 54,983 0 2008 2010 50,000 6.W% 6,900 56,900 0 58,900 0 2009 2011 50,000 6.906 3,450 63,450 0 53,450 0 TOTALS: 576,000 482,735 1,067,735 56,750 9@8,088 Bond Years: 7,295.42 Avg. Maturity: 12.69 Avg. Annual Rate: 5.8176 T.I.C. Rate: 8.7596 Annual Interest: 482,735 Pius Discount: 8,025 Net Interest- 491,860 N.I.C. Rate: 6.7356 Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid my also vary. 571 ��o sa, Aso G .Lt .76zr_ S'7 r �r . P /O) Cif blot city of Fridley, Minnesota 528,772 Avg. Maturity: 12.69 Prepared February 8, 1991 Ashland 011 Pr0)aCt Not Interest: 538,222 T.I.C. Rate: by BPRINosTFD Incorporated Dated: 8.734% 7- 1.1001 nature: 2- 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Total Capital- Net Year of Year of Principal lied Levy Cumulative Levy rat. Principal Rates Interest i Intereet Interest Required surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (71 (6) (9) 1091 1993 0 0.00% 64,280 64,280 84,500 0 220 1002 1984 20,000 5.596 40,59B 00,698 0 60,590 0 1983 1995 20,000 5.80% 39,408 59,498 0 80,498 0 1994 1996 25,000 6.70% 36,378 63,378 0 83,378 0 1995 1997 25,000 5.606 39,953 81,953 0 61,853 0 1998 1998 25,000 5.90% 35,003 60,503 0 60,603 0 1997 1098 25,000 8.00% 34,028 59,028 0 59,028 0 1988 2000 30,000 8.10% 32,520 82,526 0 62,628 0 1999 2001 30,000 6.20% 60,698 80,898 0 80,698 0 2000 2002 30,000 6.30% 28.838 58,830 0 58,836 0 2001 2003 35,000 6.40% 20,948 81,948 0 81,948 0 2002 2004 35,000 6.50% 24,708 59,706 0 89,708 0 2003 2005 40,000 6.W% 22,433 82,433 0 62,433 O 2004 2006 40,000 8.70% 19,703 59,783 0 $9,783 0 2005 2007 45,000 6.75% 17,113 62,113 0 62,113 0 2008 2008 45,000 0.00% 14,075 59,075 0 59,075 0 2007 2009 50,000 6.85% 11,015 61,015 0 81,015 0 2008 2010 55,000 0.90% 7,580 82,600 0 62,590 0 2009 2011 35,000 0.90! 3,795 58,795 0 68,795 0 TOTA0• 830,000 528,772 1,158,772 64,500 1,094,402 Bond Years: 7,992.60 Annual Interest: 528,772 Avg. Maturity: 12.69 Plus Discount: 9,450 Avg. Annual Rats; 6.618% Not Interest: 538,222 T.I.C. Rate: 8.758% N.I.C. Rate: 8.734% Interest rates are 9SUMates; changes my cause significant alterations of this schedule. Tits actual underwriter'& discount bid say also vary. SSbJ � D� Gy s >> City of Fridley, Minnesota Proposed HRA 1991 Financing Estimated Debt Service Description Lake Pointe Dairy Queen Sue's Property Ashland Oil TOTALS: ---------- - - - - -- Projected Debt Service - - -- -- - - - - -- Low Expected High $5520500 $664,000 $775,000 $110000 $12,325 $13,500 $1061000 $117,500 $129,000 $50,150 $55,500 $61,000 $719,650 $8499325 $978,500 ceeoocaccaw eager =wows: nas�e���aaa Prepared 11- Feb -91 By SPRINGSTED Inc. -------------- - - - - -- Project Cost ................... Description Low Expected High Lake Pointe $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 Dairy Queen $90,000 $100,000 $1100000 Sue's Property $900,000 $190000000 $19100,000 Ashland Oil $450,000 $5001000 $550,000 TOTALS: $6,4400000 $716000000 $8,7600000 �azaaDCC�oc cacarreaaCa CC aliccLCO�o Description Lake Pointe Dairy Queen Sue's Property Ashland Oil TOTALS: ---------- - - - - -- Projected Debt Service - - -- -- - - - - -- Low Expected High $5520500 $664,000 $775,000 $110000 $12,325 $13,500 $1061000 $117,500 $129,000 $50,150 $55,500 $61,000 $719,650 $8499325 $978,500 ceeoocaccaw eager =wows: nas�e���aaa Prepared 11- Feb -91 By SPRINGSTED Inc. 0211/91 11.20 '0612 223 3002 City of Fridley, Minnesota L41ce Pointe Protect s Dated: 7- 1 -1091 Ysturs: 2. 1 First Interest: 2. 1 -1992 Year of 1 Levy (1) 1991 1992 1893 1994 ISO 1998 1987 1998 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2008 'ear of Mat. (2) 1993 1984 1995 199e 1897 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Principal Rates (3) (4) 0 0.004 185,000 6.50% 195,000 5.60% 206,000 5.70% 215,000 5.80% 230,000 6.90fk 240,000 8.00% 255,000 8.10% 275,000 6.20% 290,000 8.30% 310,000 6.40% 330,000 6.50% 350,000 8.00% 370,000 6.70% 395,000 8.754 425,000 8.80% 450,000 6.85% 485,000 8.90% 515,000 8.90% TOTALS: 6,720,000 aNK i nc,a i to � 1v�.• Prepared February 8, 1991 By BPRIN08TED Incorporated 4,806,968 10,526,968 585,000 9,943,782 Bond Years: 72,651.87 Total Capital- Not Avg. Maturity: 12.70 Principal ized levy Cumulative Interest t Interest Interest Required surplus (5) 0) (7) (6) (5) 583,716 583,716 585,000 0 1,284 368,683 553,883 0 553,663 0 358,488 553,486 0 553,488 0 347,566 552,588 0 552,568 0 335,883 550,883 0 550,883 0 323,413 553,413 0 553,413 0 309,843 549,843 0 549,843 0 285,443 550,443 0 550,443 0 279,868 554,858 0 554,688 0 282,638 552,838 0 552,838 0 244,588 554,586 O 554,568 0 224,726 554,728 0 554,726 0 203,278 553,278 0 553,276 0 180,178 550,178 0 550,178 0 155.388 550,388 0 550,388 0 128,725 553,725 0 553,725 0 99,825 549,625 0 549,826 0 89,000 554,000 0 554,000 0 35,535 550,535 0 550,535 0 4,806,968 10,526,968 585,000 9,943,782 Bond Years: 72,651.87 Annual Interest: 4,808,868 Avg. Maturity: 12.70 Plus Discount: 85,600 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.818% Net Interest: 4,892,788 7.1.0. Rate: 6.758% N.I.C. Rate: 0.735% Interest rates are estimates; 91janges may Cause significant alterations of this schedule. the actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 5, 000/ OJU Sa()030 �SC�; ono i 4 2•�V ice_ 612 223 3002 02/11/91 11.21 $612 223 3002 SPRINCSTED INC. city of rridley, Minnesota Prepared February e, 1991 Lane Pointe Project By OPRINO5T90 Incorporated Dated: 7. 1.1991 Mature: 2 -.1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Total Capital- Not Year of Year Of Principal /zed Levy Cumulative Levy Yet. Principal Rates Interest a Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) tb) (7) (B) t0) 1881 1893 0 0.00% 701,1101701,110 702,000 0 890 1992 1994 220,000 5.50% 442,806 862,806 0 862,806 0 1993 1885 235,000 5.80% 430,706 886,708 0 695,706 0 1994 1998 245,000 5.70% 417,546 882,546 0 862,546 0 1883 1987 260,000 5.80% 403,56' 883,581 0 863,591 0 1986 1996 275,000 5.80% 388,501 883,501 0 883,501 0 1987 1898 290,000 6.00% 372,278 682,276 0 662,276 0 1996 2000 310,000 6.10% 354,876 864,876 0 884,876 0 1898 2001 325,000 8.20% 335,888 880,888 0 880,968 0 2000 2002 350,000 6.30% 315,810 085,618 0 685,819 0 2001 2003 370,000 6.40% 293,766 683,766 0 663,766 0 2002 2004 395,000 6.50% 270,086 885,088 0 085,088 0 2003 2005 420,000 6.60% 244,411 684,411 0 864,411 0 2004 2008 445,000 6.70% 216,891 861,691 0 661,691 0 2005 2007 475,000 8.75% 188,878 681,876 0 881,876 0 2006 2008 510,000 6.80% 154,813 664,613 0 864,813 0 2007 2009 545,000 8.85% 120,133 665,133 0 665,133 0 2008 2010 580,000 8.90% 82,800 062.80b 0 882,900 0 2009 2011 620,000 6.90% 42,780 662,790 0 662,780 0 TOTALS: 6,870,000 5,775,540 12,645,540 702,000 11,944,430 Bond Years: 87,287.50 Annual Interest: 5,775,540 Avg. Maturity: 12.71 Plus Discount: 103,050 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.617% Net Interest: 5,678,580 T.I.C. Rate: 6.759% N.I.C. Rate: 8.735% Interest rates are estimates; changes way cause significant alterations OT this sChedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid say also vary. L, 11004/014 City of Fridley, Minnesota Lake Points Prnject e Dated: 7- 1.1091 Mature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Prepared February 6, 1091 by BPRIN08TE0 Incorporated Bond Years: 101,923.33 Avg. Maturity: 12.71 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.6174 T.I.C. Rate: 6.7591k Annual Interest; 6,744,168 Plus Discount: 120,300 Net InteresL; 8,864,488 N.I.C. Rate: 6.735% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. P-MT CAP /A/T l ( .J �ssv'R �s�l ti . p0Zvjaaa total capital. Net Year of Year of Principal 12ed Levy Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest 4, Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (6) (91 1991 1993 0 0.004 818,498 815,488 820,000 0 1,502 1992 1994 280,000 5.504 518,846 776,946 0 /78,946 0 1083 1995 270,000 5.804 502,646 772,846 0 772,648 0 1994 1998 285,000 5.704 467,520 772,526 0 772,526 0 1995 1697 305,000 5.804 471,281 778,281 0 778,261 0 1998 1990 320,000 5.604 453,591 773,691 0 773,691 0 1997 1999 340,000 8.004 434,711 774,711 0 774,711 0 1998 2000 380,000 8.10% 414,311 774,311 0 774,311 0 1985 2001 385,000 6.2016 382,351 777,351 0 777,351 0 2000 2002 405,000 8.304 368,481 773,481 0 773,461 0 2001 2003 430,000 8.404 342,966 772,966 0 772,988 0 2002 2004 460,000 8.504 315,448 775,446 0 775,446 0 2003 2005 490,000 8.804 285,546 775,546 0 775,546 0 2004 2008 520,000 6.704 253,206 773,206 0 773,206 0 2005 2007 555,000 8.754 216,388 773,366 0 773,366 0 2008 2008 595,000 6.60% 180,903 775,903 0 775,903 0 2007 2008 835,000 8.854 140,443 775,443 0 775,443 0 2008 2010 660,000 6.90% 98,545 776,945 0 776,845 0 2008 2011 725,000 6.904 50,025 775,025 0 775,025 0 TOTALS: 8,020,000 8,744,188 14,784,188 620,000 13,945,690 Bond Years: 101,923.33 Avg. Maturity: 12.71 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.6174 T.I.C. Rate: 6.7591k Annual Interest; 6,744,168 Plus Discount: 120,300 Net InteresL; 8,864,488 N.I.C. Rate: 6.735% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. P-MT CAP /A/T l ( .J �ssv'R �s�l ti . p0Zvjaaa City of Fridley, Minnesota Dairy Queen r ated: 7- 1 -1981 Nature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Prepared February 5, 1991 By SPRIN08TED Incorporated Bona Years: 1,198.25 Annual Interest: 78,151 Avg. Maturity: Total Capital- Not Avg. Annual Rate: Year of Vear of 79,728 T.I.C. Rate: 8.8914 Principal ited Levy Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest A Interest Interest Required surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (6) (7) (8) (9) 1991 1993 0 0.00% 10,581 10,581 11,000 0 430 1992 1984 5,000 5.50% 6,870 11,670 0 11,670 0 1983 1995 5,000 6.W% 6,395 11,395 0 11,385 0 1994 1998 6,000 5.70% 8,115 11,115 0 11,115 0 1995 1997 6,000 5.80% 5,830 10,530 0 10,630 0 1996 1998 51000 6.904 5,540 10,640 0 10,540 0 1997 1998 5,000 8.004 5,245 10,245 0 10,245 0 1898 2000 5,000 6.10% 4,945 9,945 0 9,94b 0 1988 2001 5,000 8.20% 4,840 9,640 0 9,640 u 2000 2002 5,000 6.30% 4,330 9,330 0 9,330 0 2001 2003 5,000 8.404 4,015 9,015 0 9,015 0 2002 2004 5,000 6.50% 3,895 0,895 0 8,895 0 2003 2005 10,000 6.804 3,370 13,370 0 13,370 0 2004 2006 10,000 8.70% 2,710 12,710 0 12,710 0 2005 2007 10,000 6.75% 2,040 12,040 0 11,040 0 2006 2008 10,000 8.50% 1,365 11,365 0 11,365 0 2007 2009 10,000 6.85% 685 10,685 0 10,685 0 TOTALS: 105,000 79,151 183,151 11,000 172,590 Bona Years: 1,198.25 Annual Interest: 78,151 Avg. Maturity: 11.39 Plus Discount: 1,575 Avg. Annual Rate: 0.533% Net Interest: 79,728 T.I.C. Rate: 8.8914 N.I.C. Rate: 6.885% Interest rates are estimates; changes May cause significant alterations oT this schedule. the actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 0��3� C,1 i Z WV� . 4 " l SSA+ � � ►'^ T►t. city of Fridley, Minnesota Dairy Queen Voted: 7. 1.1881 Mature: Z- 1 First Interest: 2. 1.1882 Prepared February 8, 1881 By SPRINGSTED Ioourpurated Net Levy Total Capital - surplus (B) (9) Principal ized Principal Rates interest i Interest Interest (3) (4) (6) (8) (7) 0 0.00% 12,081 12,041 12,200 5,000 5.504 7,630 12,630 0 6,000 5.60% 7,355 12,355 0 5,000 5.704 7,075 12,075 0 6,000 5.S09t 6,780 11,750 0 5,000 6.804 6,500 11,500 0 5,000 6.004 8,205 11,205 0 5,000 8.104 6,805 10,803 0 6,000 6.204 5,800 10,800 0 10,000 8.30% 51280 15,280 0 10,000 8.404 4,660 14,680 0 10,000 6.504 4,020 14,020 0 10,000 6.W% 3,370 13,370 0 10,000 8.704 2.710 12,710 0 10,000 8.754 2,040 12,040 0 10,000 6.804 1,385 11,365 0 10,000 6.854 885 10,885 0 Net Levy Cumulative Required surplus (B) (9) 0 11a 12,430 0 12,355 O 12,075 0 11,780 0 11,500 O 11,205 O 10,805 0 10,600 0 15,200 0 14,060 0 14,020 0 13,370 0 12.710 0 12,040 0 11,385 0 10,655 0 120,000 89,281 208,241 12,200 187,200 Bond Years: 1,370.00 Annual Interest: Avg. Maturity: 11.42 Plus Discount: Avg. Annual Rate; 8.6174 Not Interest: T.I.C. Rate: 8.6774 N.I.G. Rate: 65,281 1,800 81,081 0.0484 Interest rates are estimates; changes my cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid May also vary. i2 -< 1 02/11/91 11:23 'fib 1'L ZZ.5 '5VVz. ity of Fridley, 111911106014 wiry Queen Prepared February B. 1081 By 6PRINOBTED Incorporated Gated: 7- 1 -1991 nture: 2. 1 -irst Interest: 2- 1.1882 Total Capital- Not Principal ised Levy Cumulative veer OT Year of Principal RateB Interest 8 Interest interest Required Surplus Levy vat. (3) (4) (5) (8) ( ) (1) (2) 1991 1993 0 0.00% 13,115 13,115 13, 250 0 135 0 1992 1984 5,000 5.b0% 6,283 13,283 0 13,283 0 1993 1985 5,000 5.80% 8,006 13,008 0 13,000 12,728 0 164 1888 5,000 5.70% 7,728 12 728 0 0 12,443 0 1095 1997 b,000 6.so% 7 443 12,443 0 12,153 o 1@88 1@88 5,000 5.90% 7,153 12,153 0 11,858 0 1997 1889 5,000 6.00% 8,658 11,58 0 11,b58 D 1095 2000 5,000 6.10% 6,556 11,6558 0 16,253 0 1999 2001 10,000 6.20% 6, 253 16,253 O 15,833 0 2000 2002 10,000 8.30% 5,533 15'633 0 18,003 0 2001 2003 10,000 6.40% 5,003 15,003 0 11,383 0 2002 2004 t0,OD0 6.50% 4,� 14 383 , 0 13,713 0 2003 2005 10,000 8.80% 3,713 13,713 0 MOO 0 2004 2006 10,000 8.70% 3, 053 13,053 0 12,383 0 2005 2007 10,000 8.75% 2,383 12,383 11;708 0 Zoos 2009 10,000 8.8m 1,708 11,708 0 0 16,028 o 2007 2009 15 000 , 8.65% 1.028 16,028 M000 98,263 228,283 13,250 215,168 TOTALS: � Bond Years: 1,505.53 Annual Interest: 98,263 Avg. Maturity: 11.88 Plus Discount: 1,950 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.527% Net Interest: 100,233 I.I.C. Rate: 6.685% N.I.C. Rate: 6.656% Interest rates are estiaates; changes slay cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid say also vary. ho o f'1) 0ty4. L' &31 T+'.+{14f I Iti'i� / o -nQ o I City of Fridley, Minnesota Prepared February 10, 1991 Sue's Property 9y SpnlwasTEO Incorporated 0 )Gted: 7- 1.1991 Nature: 2. 1 First Interest: 2- 1.1892 Total Capital- Net rear of Year of Principal trod Levy Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates interest i Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (e) (7) (6) (0) 1881 1993 0 0.00% 103,588 103,588 104,000 0 414 1982 1984 40,000 5.50% 65,423 105,423 0 105,423 0 1983 1986 40,000 6.00% 63,223 103,223 0 103,223 0 1884 1996 45,000 6.70% 60,983 105,983 0 105,983 0 1995 1997 45,000 6.60% 88,418 103,418 0 103,418 0 1008 1898 50,000 5.90% 66,806 105,908 0 105,808 0 1997 1999 65,000 6.00% $2,858 107,856 0 107,859 0 1996 2000 55,000 8.10% 49,558 104,855 0 104,558 0 1985 2001 60,000 6.20% 48,203 108,203 0 108,203 0 2000 2002 65,000 8.30% 42,483 107,483 0 107,483 0 2001 2003 70,000 6.40% 36,388 108,385 0 108,388 0 2002 2004 70,000 6.50% 33,908 103,808 0 103,908 0 2003 2005 73,000 8.60% 29,358 104,358 0 104,358 0 2004 2005 80,000 8.70% 24,408 104,408 0 104,408 0 2005 2007 85,000 8.764 19,045 104,048 0 104,048 0 2008 2008 95,000 8.80% 13,310 108,310 0 10.8,310 0 2007 2009 100,000 8.55% 8,680 108,850 0 108,860 0 TOTALS: 1,030,000 783,513 1,793,813 104,000 1,890,227 Bond Years: 11,720.63 Annual Interest: 793,813 Avg. Maturity: 11.38 Plus Discount: 15,450 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.517% Net Interest: 779,283 T.I.C. Rate: 8.875% N.I.C. Rate: 6.849% Interest rates are estimates; Changes my cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid my also vary. fa4�o�o 430 l� 1, 03�j ��� city of Fridley, Minnesota Sue's Property 4 Dated: 7- 1 -1681 mature: 2. 1 first Interest: 2- 1 -1662 Year of Year Of Levy mat. Principal Rates (1) (2) (3) (4) Prepared rebruary 10, 19D1 ey BPRINOSTED Incorporated Total Capital- Not Principal iced Levy. Interest i Interest Interest Required (5) •(6) (7) (0) 1881 1693 0 0.0011 115,121 115,121 115,000 121 1992 1984 45,000 6.504 72,708 117.708 0 t17,708 1993 1995 45,000 5.60% 70,233 115,233 0 118,233 1994 ism 50,000 5.704 67,713 117,713 0 117,713 1985 1981 63,000 5.601+ 64,863 119,883 0 119,803 1986 1988 55,000 6.904 61,873 116,673 0 118,673 f997 1999 60,000 6.004 68,428 118,428 0 118,426 1988 2000 80,000 6.104 64,82a 114,628 0 114,628 1999 2001 65,000 8.204 61. 1ab 116,188 0 116,188 2000 2002 70,000 6.30% 47,138 117,138 0 117,138 2001 2003 75,000 0.404 42,728 117,72a 0 117,728 2002 2004 800000 6.504 37,926 117,926 0 117,928 2003 2005 86,000 6.804 32,728 117,726 0 117,728 2004 2005 90,000 8.70% 27,118 117,116 0 117,118 2005 2007 95,000 6.75% 21,056 116,088 0 118,088 2006 2000 106,000 8.80% 14,675 119,675 0 119,075 2007 2009 110,000 6.65% 7,635 117,535 0 117,535 TOTALS: 1,145,000 847,873 1,992,873 115,000 1,677,673 bond Years; 13,007.92 Annual Interest: 847,673 Avg. Maturity: 11.36 Plus Discount: 17,175 Avg. Annual Rate. 6.517% Net Interest; 884,646 T.I.C. Rate; 0.675% N.I.C. Rate: 8.849% Interest rates are estimates; changes ray cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also wry. ,iS� poi 17,FvS �� � l� j� oa►7 ity of Fridley, Minnesota Prepared February 11, 1881 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated us's Property s atod: 7. 1.1091 ature: Z- 1 irst Interest: 2. 1.1802 Total Capital• Net Principal ized Levy OUAUlative ear of Levy Year of Wt. Principal Rates Interest i Interest Interest Required Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (8) (7) (8) (a) 1991 1993 0 0.004 128,190 128,109 126,250 0 84 1992 1994 50,000 6.504 79,703 120,703 0 129,703 0 1993 1995 50,000 6.804 78,953 128.953 0 126,953 0 1994 1888 55,000 6.704 74,163 129,153 0 120,153 0 1895 1887 55,000 5.604 71,018 128,019 0 128,018 0 1990 1998 80,000 5. oft 07,626 127,828 0 127,826 0 1997 1088 85,000 8.00% 84,268 129,208 0 129,268 0 1998 2000 70,000 8.104 60,388 130,388 0 130,388 0 1999 2001 75,000 0.20% se,116 131,118 0 131,118 0 z000 2002 73,000 6.304 61,466 120,4ee 0 128,488 0 2001 2003 80,000 8.40% 46,743 126,743 0 128,743 o 2002 2004 05,000 6.504 41,623 128,823 0 623 126,623 0 2003 2005 95,000 8.004 38,098 131,098 0 131,098 o 2004 2006 100,000 0.70% 29,826 129,528 0 129,028 0 2005 2007 105,000 6.754 23,128 128,120 0 128,120 0 2006 200e 115,000 a.80% 116,040 131,040 0 040 131 0 2007 2009 120,000 8.8% 6,220 128,220 0 128,220 o TOTALS: 1,255,000 920,793 2,104,793 126,250 2,056,597 Bond Years: 14,287.08 Annual Interest: 928,783 Avg. Maturity: 11.37 Plus Discount: 18,826 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.5174 Net Interest: 048,618 T.I.C. Rate: 6.670% N.I.C. Rate: 6.8494 Interest rates are estimates; changes slay cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid my also vary. C� ..^�`• I''1 All i 1 r•'] %14111,.71 as �- v- -- - :sty of Fridley, Mim969ta mmand 011 Project L Prepared February S. 1681 Oy BPRINOBTED Incorporated sated: 6,588.33 7- 1 -1991 435,813 Avg. Maturity: 12.67 Plus Discount: 7,600 Avg. Annual Rate: {sturs: Net interest: 2. 1 T.I.C. Rate: 8.7571E N.I.C. Rate: 8.73A drat Interest: 2- 1-1992 Total Capital- Net Principal Ind Levy Cumulative rear of Year of Mat. Principal Rates Interest k Interest Interest Required Surplus Levy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (B) (0) 1881 1883 O 0.00% 53,046 83.046 63,600 0 464 1982 1994 16,000 5.50% 33,503 48,503 0 48,603 0 1993 1995 20,000 5.804s 32,678 62,878 0 676 52,676 0 1994 1996 20,000 5.704 31,558 51,558 0 61,658 0 1895 1887 20,000 5.W% 30,416 , $0,418 0 50,418 0 INS 1998 20,000 5.804 28.258 49,256 0 49,268 0 1997 1998 20,000 8.004 28,078 48,070 0 46,078 0 ,898 2000 25,000 6.104 28,678 61,676 0 51,878 0 1998 2001 25,000 8.204 25,353 50,353 0 60,35 3 0 2000 2002 25,000 8.30'% 23,803 45,603 0 46,803 0 2001 2003 30,000 6.40% 22,228 52,228 0 52,228 0 2002 2004 30,000 6.50t 20,308 60,308 0 80,308 0 2003 2006 30,000 8.809s 18,358 40,358 0 46,350 0 2004 2006 33,000 8.70% 16,378 51,370 0 61,378 0 2005 2007 35,000 8.754 14 , 033 49,033 0 49,033 0 2006 2008 40,000 6.808, 11,670 51,870 0 61,870 0 2007 2009 40,000 8.651 8,950 45,950 0 950 48,950 0 2008 2010 45,000 6.904 8,210 51,210 0 $1,210 2009 2011 45,000 6.90% 3,105 48,105 0 48,106 C 707ALS: 520,000 435,613 955,813 53,500 902,707 Bond Years: 6,588.33 Annual Interest: 435,813 Avg. Maturity: 12.67 Plus Discount: 7,600 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.6154 Net interest: 443,613 T.I.C. Rate: 8.7571E N.I.C. Rate: 8.73A Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid my also vary. Pot." cu s� iv, i �•��� _'J.5shc ■ City of Fridley, Minnesota Ashland 011 Project 11 Voted: Mature: 2- 1 First Interest. 2- 1 -1882 Year of Year of Avg. Maturlty: 12.69 Levy Mat. Principal Rates 11) (2) (3) (4) 1991 1883 0 0.00% 1962 1894 20,000 6.50% 1893 1895 20,000 5.80$ 1864 1886 20,000 5.70% 1695 1697 20,000 5.60% 1896 1996 251000 8.60% 1997 1999 25,000 8.00% 1686 2000 25,000 6.10% 1999 2001 25,000 6.20% 2000 2002 30,000 6.30% 2001 2003 30,000 6.40% 2002 2004 35,000 6.50% 2003 2005 35,000 6.60% 2004 2006 35,000 8.70% 2005 2007 40,000 6.75% 2000 2008 45,000 6.60% 2007 2009 45,000 8.85% 2008 2010 $0,000 6.90% 2009 2011 50,000 8.80% TOTALS: 575,000 Bond Years: 7,295.42 Avg. Maturlty: 12.69 Avg. Annual Rate: 8.617% T.I.C. Rate: 8.759% Prepared February 9, 1091 By SPRINOSYED Incorporated 452,735 1,057,735 Annual Interest: 482,735 Plus Discount: 8,626 Net Interest: 461,360 N.I.O. Rate; 6.735% 58,750 999,068 Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid May also very. I J- Sd� ?SO Total Capital- Net Principal i20d Levy Ounulative Interest 6 Interest Interest Required Surplus I5) (6) (7) (8) (0) 58,887 58,667 55,750 0 83 37,053 57,053 0 57,053 0 35,653 55,653 0 55,953 0 34,833 54,833 0 54,833 0 33,893 53,093 0 83,893 0 32,533 57,533 0 57,533 0 31,056 56,056 0 58,058 0 26,586 64,558 0 54,558 0 28,033 53,033 0 53,033 0 28,483 68,483 0 56,483 0 24,593 54,583 0 54,583 0 22,673 57,873 0 67,673 0 20,388 65,398 0 55,388 0 18,088 53,086 0 63,088 0 15,743 55,743 0 55,743 0 13,043 68,043 0 58,043 0 8,983 54,983 0 64,983 0 8,900 56,600 0 68,600 0 3,450 63,450 0 53,450 0 452,735 1,057,735 Annual Interest: 482,735 Plus Discount: 8,626 Net Interest: 461,360 N.I.O. Rate; 6.735% 58,750 999,068 Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid May also very. I J- Sd� ?SO I City of Fridley, Minnesota Prepared February 8, 1991 8y SPRINOSTED Incorporated Ashland Oil Project t Dated: 7- 1.1991 Mature: 2- 1 First Interest: 2- 1 -1992 Total Capital- Not Year of Year Of Principal ised levy Cumulative Levy rat, Principal Rates Interest 6 Interest Interest Required surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (7) (e) (9) 1991 1993 0 0.00% 64,290 64,280 64,500 0 270 1992 1994 20,000 5.50% 40,596 80,598 0 60,599 0 1983 1995 20,000 5.80% 39,498 59,498 0 69,488 0 1994 1996 26,000 5.70% 38,376 63,378 O 63,378 0 1995 1997 25,000 5.80% 39,953 61,953 0 61,953 0 1998 1998 25,000 5.90% 35,503 80,503 0 60,603 c 1997 1998 25,000 6.00% 34,028 59,029 0 69,028 0 1988 2000 30,000 8.10% 32,528 62,629 0 62,628 0 1999 2001 30,000 6.20% 80,698 60.898 0 80,698 0 2000 2002 30,000 6.30% 26.838 59,630 0 48,838 0 2001 2003 35,000 6.40% 20,946 81,949 0 61,948 0 2002 2004 35,000 6.50% 24,708 59,708 0 69,708 0 2003 2005 40,000 6.60% 22,433 62,433 0 62,433 0 2004 2006 40,000 0.70% 19,793 59,793 0 69,793 0 2005 2007 45,000 6.75% 17,113 62,113 0 82,113 0 2006 2008 45,000 6.00% 14,075 58,075 0 59,075 0 2007 2009 50,000 6.85% 11,015 61,015 0 61,015 0 2008 2010 55,000 6.0% 7,590 82,590 0 62,590 0 2009 2011 55,000 6.90% 3,795 56,795 0 68,795 0 TOTALS: 630,000 528,772 1,156,772 64,600 1,094,402 Bond Years: 7,992.50 Annual Interest: 529,772 Argo. Maturity: 12.69 Plus Discount: 9,450 Avg. Annual Rats: 6.618% Net Interest: 538,222 I.I.C. Rate: 8.7W% N.I.C. Rats: 6.734% Interest rates are e9tim8te5; changes any caves significant alterations of this schedule. Tlm actual underwriter's discount bid my also vary. 6,05~ HOUSING &REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1991 7:30 P.M. Lynne Saba 6325 Van Buren Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 I CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1991, 7:30 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 10, 1991 ACTION ITEMS: RECONSIDERATION OF TIF TURNBACK TO SCHOOLS CONSIDERATION OF SUH REQUEST TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT FOR HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES CONSIDERATION OF ANOKA HRA REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO OPERATE HOUSING PROGRAM CONSIDERATION OF 1991 BUDGET i6. ESTIMATES/CLAIMS INFORMATION ITEMS: �I. UPDATE ON FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT'S PROPOSAL '4: UPDATE ON FRIDLEY TOWN SQUARE PROJECT .4/ RICE PLAZA UPDATE ;WY: REPORT ON TIF PROPOSALS FOR 1991 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 11. LETTER REGARDING TAX DELINQUENCY AT LAKE POINTE SITE 12. MEETING WITH LINVILLE PROPERTIES 13. OTHER ITEMS: ADJOURNMENT I Community Development Department Obij HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 7, 1991 TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members 6 . FROM: William Burns, Executive Director of HRAI Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Meeting Time for February 14, 1991 We would like you to attend the meeting beginning at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in order to review the proposed 1991 budget. We will provide dinner for you. If you cannot attend the meeting at 5:00 p.m. , please contact us as soon as possible. It is our understanding that so far Duane Prairie and Larry Commers can attend. BD/dn M-91-95 f CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JANUARY 10, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Schnabel called the January 10, 1991, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie, John Meyer Members Absent: Larry Commers, Walter Rasmussen Others Present: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Jim Hoeft, HRA Attorney Rick Pribyl, Finance Director Paul Hansen, Accountant Steve Billings, City Councilmember Jim Casserly, Development Consultant Terry Moses, BMB Realty Investments Ray Wormsbecker, Caba Realty Doug Erickson, Fridley Focus Lisa Williams, 2742 Hennepin Ave. S. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 13, 1990, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the December 13, 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. Burns stated he would like to add an item, Lake Pointe Maintenance, to the agenda under "Action Items". 1. RMS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Mr. Burns stated that at this meeting, the HRA is being asked to consider a proposal to return 50% of the value of outstanding assessments for public improvements to RMS Company. These assessments are for projects involving street widening, resurfacing, and the construction of a storm sewer. A lot of this occurred on Commerce Lane in 1989 and 1990. It HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JAN. 10. 1991 PAGE 2 also involved some storm sewer work on Main Street in the vicinity of this property. Mr. Burns stated the RMS Corporation is a manufacturer of parts for the aircraft industry and large companies requiring other precision metal parts. RMS currently employs 248 people at four different locations: Baker Street, Osborne Road, 81st Avenue, and 2,500 sq. ft. location at the Martens/Brenny building on 83rd Avenue. Mr. Burns stated RMS plans to purchase a 8.9 acre site at the northwest corner of Osborne Road and Main Street. The preliminary plan is to construct a 70,000-80,000 sq. ft. building which will cost an estimated $4-5 million. Total taxes on the property are estimated at $2.75/sq. ft. or $206,225. The local share of that will be $33,000. The new consolidation of the three facilities will create 50-75 new jobs; and if another company is included as part of a buy-out, there would be 140-150 new jobs. Mr. Burns stated RMS is a privately held subsidiary of Cretex Corporation in St. Cloud, Minnesota. They expect another division of Cretex to move to the 12, 000 sq. ft. facility on Osborne Road. Mr. Burns stated there are several justifications for the HRA spending the approximately $40, 000-50,000 to RMS: 1. The project is consistent with the objectives of the HRA's redevelopment plan for the subject area. 2. The assistance will enable the City to retain 250 jobs and create another 50-75 jobs. 3. The property tax benefit ($33,000 per year) is supposed to cover the cost within two years. 4. The proposed level of assistance is about 1-2% of the total construction value. Mr. Burns stated Jim Casserly has drafted the development agreement, and he would like Mr. Casserly to review some of the details of the development agreement with the HRA. Mr. Casserly stated the development agreement handed out at the meeting is the latest version. He stated the two kinds of changes made were at the request of RMS and its legal counsel: 1. RMS wanted to make it very certain that the company was not obligating themselves to build a building HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 3 right now, and they understand they will not receive any assistance if they do not build a building. 2. Because they are still in the design and planning stages, they really wanted to give themselves a little more leeway for the size of the building. Legal counsel has said they have not yet determined the final size of the facility, and they did not want to be limited to a certain size. Mr. Casserly stated he put in the agreement that the building size has to be at least 50,000 sq. ft. and have a value of at least $2 million. Mr. Casserly stated it is a very straight-forward development agreement. He stated there is also a two page resolution, and there are no changes to the resolution. Mr. Meyer asked if there is any history where the HRA has aided a developer by paying a portion or all of the special assessments. Mr. Burns stated he believed the HRA paid for the special assessments on the west side of the Moore Lake Commons project for either street improvements or public utilities. This is not the first time the HRA has done this. Mr. Casserly stated another obvious example would be the Lake Pointe property where, instead of doing special assessments, they used a tax increment approach for all the infrastructure. Ms. Schnabel stated she appreciated knowing that the HRA has given similar assistance in the past. Initially she had spoken against this development's support only from a philosophical standpoint, not from a standpoint of not wanting the development. Her philosophical approach was that the property has not even been purchased yet, and there is still time to negotiate that assessment between the parties that are involved, the buyer and the seller. Knowing that the HRA has provided this type of assistance in the past put it in a different perspective, and she is more comfortable with it. Mr. Terry Moses, a consultant for RMS, stated there is some concern about the timing of the construction. Mr. Forcelle, who is President of RMS Company, has said he wants to build as soon as possible, and all indications are that construction will start this year. Since RMS is owned by Cretex, Mr. Forcelle could be overruled, but he does have a lot of influence. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve Resolution No. HRA 1-1991, "A Resolution Authorizing Execution HOUSING is REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 4 and Delivery of a Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley and RMS Company". UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated the HRA appreciates the fact that RMS is going to stay in Fridley, and they hope this assistance will encourage that development to proceed very quickly. Mr. Moses thanked the HRA and stated he would convey that message to Mr. Forcelle. Mr. Casserly stated he wanted to point out that this is the first time the HRA has assisted a project without creating a tax increment district. So, all the value that is being put on it will be received by the taxing jurisdictions. Councilmember Billings stated that it might be a good idea for the HRA to send a letter to the City, County, and school districts informing them that the HRA just committed money to a project that they will not recover through tax increment. This project is in Spring Lake Park School District #16. Letters should also be sent to Representative Wayne Simoneau, Representative Alice Johnson, and Senator Don Frank. Ms. Schnabel stated Mr. Billings' point is well taken. If the other members agree, she would ask staff to write the appropriate letters. Mr. Prairie and Mr. Meyer agreed. 2. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR FRIDLEY HRA: MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve Resolution No. HRA 2-1991, "Resolution Designating Official Depositories for the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority". UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CLAIMS (2090-2094) : MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the check register as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 5 4. LAKE POINTE MAINTENANCE: Ms. Dacy stated that the Public Works Department notified them of three issues pertaining to the maintenance of the Lake Pointe property. The HRA currently pays for an annual maintenance contract for lawn cutting and other trash pick-up on the Lake Pointe property. These three items are in addition to that cost. 1. Mr. Winson, Assistant Public Works Director, has pointed out that the Public Works Department would like to execute an annual fertilization and tree pruning contract. They would like the HRA to include funds in the 1991 budget to do those activities. After getting some preliminary estimates from a landscape contractor, Mr. Winson has told her that the cost could be as high as $7,500. She would like the HRA to authorize that $7,500 be included in the 1991 budget for that expense. They would go out for bid for that particular activity, so the cost could be less. 2. Twenty trees on the Lake Pointe property have died within the last year. The warranty period the HRA retained for landscaping has expired, and if the HRA replaced all 20 trees, the maximum cost would be $12,960. After discussing this with the City Manager, Mr. Burns, it is staff's recommendation that the BRA not expend that money and that it is possible a number of these trees could be replaced by virtue of development on the property. The City recently passed a new landscaping ordinance that will require developers to plant extensive landscaping. At this point, the number of dead trees is still minor and is not affecting the overall appearance of the site. 3. The third item pertains to the underground irrigation system to maintain all the landscaping. The Public Works Department says that from time to time, maintenance issues may arise for the underground irrigation system. Currently, staff is preparing a 1991 budget and is looking at allocating about $10, 000 for a "just in case" provision if something should happen. Ms. Dacy stated that at this meeting, the only action necessary is for the HRA to authorize the City to go out for bid for an annual fertilizing and tree pruning contract not to exceed $7,500. Mr. Meyer stated he did not know the status of the lawn and sodded areas or if there are any weeds or crab grass. He knows what weeds can do to expensive lawns, and he hoped that they are watching that closely. He would appreciate staff checking to make sure that the contract for lawn maintenance includes ROUSING is REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 6 fertilizing and weed control in order to preserve the expense they have put into that lawn. NOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve and authorize the City to go out for bid for a fertilizing and tree pruning contract not to exceed $7,500. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. TARGET PROJECT: Ms. Dacy stated First Western Equity Corporation is interested in constructing a 126,500 sq. ft. shopping center at the southwest corner of 85th and University Avenues. In conjunction with that shopping center, they are also working with Dayton-Hudson Corporation to locate a 117,000 sq. ft. Target facility at that site. Ms. Dacy stated the developer has made applications for variances, a rezoning, and a plat. The status of the applications is that the developer wants to go through the variance process first to receive direction from the Council for one specific variance, and that is the parking stall width. The developer is requesting a 9 foot wide space. The City ordinance dictates a 10 foot wide space for commercial development. That issue is so important to Dayton-Hudson and the developer that they want to determine whether or not that would be granted before they proceed with other parts of their applications. Ms. Dacy stated the variances will be going to the Appeals Commission on January 22, and then to the Council in February. It will take about 2-3 months for the developer to finish the rest of their development approvals. Staff has raised some questions about traffic and storm water quality and has requested some specialized studies. Ms. Dacy stated staff met briefly with the developer in December regarding soil correction assistance from the HRA. Staff gave them the new application forms and the policies used by the HRA for that type of assistance. The developer has not indicated any dollar amount or the amount of their request at this time. Ms. Dacy stated there is about 4 acres of wetlands on the property right now located approximately in the northwest corner of the site and is the area where they will be putting their stormwater management pond. Obviously, the area where the shopping center is to be located will destroy the wetlands site. The developer has received an Army Corps of Engineer's permit based on the fact that they are required to recreate HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 7 another wetland elsewhere in the community. That site is the Meadowlands Park site just north of Mississippi Street. The Army Corps appears to be happy with the plans prepared for the Meadowlands Park site. The Army Corps is still reviewing this particular development plan. Ms. Dacy stated there is a substantial amount of peaty soils on the property right now, as deep as 3-4 feet in some places. A lot of excavation work will be necessary and a lot of clean fill will be needed to be placed on the site. • Ms. Dacy stated she had originally anticipated an application from the developer as soon as the February HRA agenda, but that does not appear to be the case. This information is just to make the HRA aware that First Western Equity Corporation may apply for soil correction assistance. Mr. Meyer asked what affect this development would have on the Springbrook Nature Center. Ms. Dacy stated the developer made a presentation to the Springbrook Nature Center Board on December 17, 1990. The Board's main concerns were the impacts from the shopping center lights as well as the quality of the water runoff from the property. Another issue that has come up since that meeting is that because of the high water table in the east part of the site, the Board is wondering how construction will affect the water table into the park area. The Board wants to make sure the Nature Center's integrity is maintained in terms of night programming and that the water quality is not degraded any more than the runoff through the park right now. Mr. Meyer stated he would be very concerned about the water runoff that would contain oil and gas from the development into Springbrook Nature Center. 6. UPDATE ON UCD PROJECT: Mr. Burns stated that at the last HRA meeting, they talked about a development agreement with Fridley Town Square project. Since that time, they have had continual concerns about the addition of a Burger King proposed by the developer, Scott Erickson. Staff has pointed out to the City Council that the addition of a Burger King will substantially increase peak hour traffic (between 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. ) . As a result of additional traffic, there is the potential for creating stacking problems on Mississippi Street for eastbound traffic that wants to turn left into the center. There is also the potential for undesirable traffic impact behind the shopping center. Staff has noted the possibility of loud mufflers and other vehicle noises and the impact of those things on the neighbors. There is also a potential conflict between the HOUSING i REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 8 traffic using the Burger King moving behind the shopping center and those that are loading and unloading, particular at the Walgreen store. Mr. Burns stated the staff has discussed these concerns with City Council, and basically the Council members are not supportive of the Burger King addition unless there is a way to mitigate the impacts of the additional traffic. About the only way staff sees to mitigate the problem is to buy the property next door and move the driveway down. That is very expensive and something that the Walgreen Corporation would not approve. Mr. Burns stated that in view of the mitigation problems and Council's position on the Burger King addition, Mr. Erickson was urged to find a new tenant or a new project. Mr. Erickson has requested that he be allowed to have a public hearing that is available to him under the S-2 chapter of the zoning ordinance which says that any time there is a major change in the plan for a redevelopment district, the Planning Commission has to have a public hearing, and the plan change has to be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Burns stated that after consulting Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, about Mr. Erickson's request, staff developed the following schedule of events: 1. January 7, 1991: Informal review of the situation after the Council meeting. 2. January 10, 1991: Informal review of the situation at the HRA meeting. 3. January 23, 1991: Public hearing on the proposed change before the Planning Commission. 4. February 11, 1991: City Council consideration of the proposed change. Mr. Burns stated the Council has opted to consider a major change requiring a hearing before the Planning Commission and to follow the calendar (above) . Mr. Burns stated that as far as the HRA is concerned, Mr. Erickson had requested tax increment assistance for his project. They would have had a tax increment agreement before the HRA at this meeting if the addition of the Burger King had not arisen. Does the HRA now want to bear the cost of proceeding with the draft of the development agreement for the Fridley Town Square project, or does the HRA want to wait until the Burger King problem is ironed out? If the HRA wants to proceed with the draft of the development agreement, then HOUSING is REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10. 1991 PAGE 9 does the HRA agree in concept with the equity participation agreement discussed at the last meeting? Mr. Burns stated it is staff's recommendation that the HRA hold up on the development agreement and not spend any money at this time to have it drafted until the Burger King issue is resolved. Ms. Schnabel stated they should at least hold up on the drafting of the development agreement until after the Planning Commission public hearing. If the Planning Commission and City Council do not vote in favor of it, then it is over. Mr. Prairie stated the HRA is very concerned about the traffic, and he thought anything that would add more traffic to that site is a negative. Mr. Meyer stated that when this was discussed with the traffic consultant, the consultant said that any additional traffic would change it from a D to an E intersection. That is getting pretty bad. The Burger King addition is definitely a negative. Mr. Meyer stated that when the developer was before the HRA with the project originally, he assured the HRA that the neighbors on 67th Avenue would not be jeopardized by the development. Now he is introducing a Burger King that will bring vehicle noise, loud speaker noise, extra lights, etc. , and now they are impinging onto the residential nature of that street more than before with the center as first proposed. Mr. Casserly stated the City Manager has the prerogative that if the Council moves on the land use decision, he can authorize Mr. Casserly to move on the development agreement very quickly. 7. UPDATE ON RICE PLAZA: Ms. Dacy stated that in November, the HRA members made a motion to approve rent forgiveness for Terrie Mau of the Cinnamon Skin Tan with the stipulation that when she moves, she moves only to the Fridley Town Square development. Mr. Kordiak is still pursuing with her the money that she owes. Her slow season is in the fall months, Sept.-Dec. , and her business picks up during the winter. He feels confident that she will keep current. However, if the Fridley Town Square development does not go through, then Ms. Mau still has to pay what she owes the HRA. Ms. Schnabel stated she appreciated the update. She stated she was surprised that she had voted in favor of this rent forgiveness, because she had spoken against it in the past. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 10 Because of her concern, she would like to see this type of report on a month-to-month basis. 8. APPLICATION FEES AND PROCESS; Ms. Dacy stated that at the July 19, 1990, meeting, the HRA discussed their policies and procedures for assisting with tax increment financing. Out of the discussion and out of the materials Mr. Robertson had prepared, she developed three handouts that staff will give to developers. These materials • were included in the agenda packet and consisted of the following: 1. Policy statement regarding TIF administrative costs including the statement of fees. 2. Agreement for which the developer would execute with the HRA for an application. 3 . A three page application form 9. INFORMATION REGARDING PAST HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM: Ms. Dacy stated the information included in the agenda was self-explanatory. Later in the meeting, Mr. Burns will be talking about some of the research staff will be doing for other housing programs for the 1990's. Ms. Schnabel stated that at other meetings she has brought up the possibility of creating a pool or fund that could be used in a manner such as the way the Habitat for Humanity program operates. She is curious about their process and how their applicants are screened. Maybe they should obtain some information from the Habitat for Humanity program as there might be something in their screening process that would be of assistance to the HRA. Ms. Dacy stated she has worked with two builders for that program, and she would be happy to contact them and see if she can get some information. 10. FRIDLEY OFFICE PLAZA BUILDING: Mr. Burns stated he has been contacted by Mr. Dan Cardona, a representative of a group planning to purchase the Fridley Plaza Office Building for approximately $850,000. Their request was that the HRA consider a tax reduction on this property and also give them a better price on the parking ramp. The HRA has an agreement with the office building to provide parking at $800/month. • • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10. 1991 PAGE 11 Mr. Burns stated Mr. Cardona requested a copy of the development agreement, along with the second subordination agreement for the second mortgage and the agreement on the rental of the parking. He had indicated to Mr. Cardona that the City thought it was the petitioner's responsibility to make a case for his claim; and that he was welcome to state his case to the HRA. Mr. Burns stated he has not heard from Mr. Cardona since that time. He has also heard that this group is no longer pursuing the purchase of the office building, so the issue is moot at this point. Mr. Burns stated there are a couple of other issues that are related to the office building that he will discuss under "Other Business". 11. STATUS OF TAX COLLECTIONS FOR VARIOUS TAX INCREMENT PROJECTS: Mr. Burns stated that when staff looked at the tax increment turnback for the schools, he had suggested that the amount they were turning back was probably going to stabilize as the taxes for various projects in tax increment districts start to come on line. In a discussion after the last HRA meeting, they decided it might be worthwhile to look at what taxes had originally been projected for the various projects, what projects have come on line, and what projects have yet to come on line. In the material given to the HRA, they could see that it will be a another year or so before the remaining taxes for the Moore Lake Racquet, Swim & Health Club come on line. That is the biggest project yet to come on line, so there should be another big jump in the next couple of years. However, there have been some tax devaluations for other projects. The Fridley Plaza Office Building is an example. Mr. Burns stated the table included in the agenda packet gives a good overall view of potential project revenues which may have a bearing on the TIF turnback to the school districts. 12. 1991 BUDGET: Mr. Burns stated he had hoped to have the 1991 budget ready to distribute at this meeting. Staff is still working on it, and it will be available for the February 14, 1991, meeting. 13. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Medtronic Mr. Burns stated he recently had a luncheon meeting with representatives from Medtronic. Medtronic is talking HOUSING is REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10. 1991 PAGE 12 about two projects--a neurological center and an addition to their technology center. Mr. Burns stated that in order to produce the neurological center, Medtronic is going to combine three groups--one in California, one in Canton, Ohio, and one in Columbia Heights. They are looking for 40,000 sq. ft. They have identified three sites and want to identify the final site within one week. One site is the East River Road Business Park. The new facility would create 40-60 new jobs with the consolidation, with a total of 100 jobs. Medtronic will ask the City to apply for economic recovery funds, a low interest loan program for companies that employ at-risk individuals. They will not be asking for any tax increment financing or other HRA assistance. Mr. Burns stated Medtronic is very seriously talking about building a 90,000 sq. ft. addition to their technology center (the building on the east side of Central Avenue) . At this point, Medtronic is not asking for tax increment financing, but they do want to avoid doing a new environmental assessment. They did an environmental assessment in October 1980. According to Medtronic, the MPCA is happy with the 1980 environmental assessment unless the City requests another one. He stated he needs to respond to Medtronic about this as soon as possible. Mr. Burns stated that as an alternative, he has promoted the Lake Pointe site to Medtronic, and they seem interested in the site. Medtronic has agreed to send the HRA a written request for proposal asking the HRA to tell them what the HRA would provide on the Lake Pointe site. Before sending the written request for proposal, they will identify the amount of space they need for the 90,000 sq. ft. building, as well as the amount of space they might need for future campus. Additionally, they are going to list other uses that might go on the Lake Pointe site. b. Lake Pointe Negotiations Mr. Burns stated that before Christmas, Ray Haik, Virgil Herrick, Jim Casserly, Barbara Dacy, Jock Robertson, and he met to discuss the nonpayment of taxes on Lake Pointe by Woodbridge. They decided the City is not going to pay the taxes and would eventually claim tax forfeit or acquisition through the tax forfeiting process. Mr. Burns stated the bigger question that they discussed was what are they going to do with Lake Pointe. They have identified four options: HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 13 1. Let Woodbridge buy the HRA out. 2. The HRA buys out Woodbridge. 3. They negotiate a new development agreement, based on today's market. 4. They do nothing. Mr. Burns stated they decided it might be worthwhile in 1991 to pursue option #2. On December 21, 1990, Jim Casserly sent him a memo asking for authority to begin discussions with John Utley, the attorney representing Woodbridge, about a negotiated buy-out. Mr. Casserly will be coordinating these discussions closely with Mr. Burns. c. TIF Turnback to the School Districts Mr. Burns stated that at their last meeting, the Council tabled any action on the TIF turnback until January 28, 1991. Fridley School District Chairperson, Jim Ferguson was at the Council meeting and spoke strongly in favor of the City returning the entire amount to the school districts. Mr. Ferguson was opposed to the $200,000 cap put on by the HRA. The School District staff is asking to get together with City staff to see if there is a way to accommodate the school district's interests on this issue. Ms. Schnabel asked what concerns the City Council had regarding this item. Councilmember Billings stated he was rather concerned when he saw this on the City Council agenda. One of the proposals that was before the legislature last session was that any new tax increment financing districts had to go to the counties and school districts. Now they can object, but their objections are not necessarily a veto. Some of the proposals floating around one year ago was that the county and school districts could essentially have veto power. So, he was a little concerned from a political standpoint that essentially they were taking the school districts money and using it for HRA purposes. Since the Council meeting on Monday night, and realizing that the increase in value on the properties has therefore also increased the referendum amount, his suggestion might be to come up with a formula rather than a dollar amount of $200,000 as recommended by the HRA. Although a lot of thought may have gone into the dollar amount, that dollar amount appears to be a little bit HOUSING is REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10. 1991 PAGE 14 arbitrary. He stated Fridley is probably one of the only cities that is turning TIF monies back to the school districts. He stated it is important to be fair to the school districts so that, if in the future, the Legislature does come up with a program wherein the school districts and counties actually have veto power, the City and HRA have maintained a friendly relationship with the school districts. Ms. Schnabel stated she thought the HRA was really fair when they voluntarily took the initial steps to turn back TIF monies to the school districts ahead of any other community. They certainly were not obligated to do it. But when the HRA saw how the turnback monies are dramatically increasing, and yet at the same time took another look at the Lake Pointe development and other projects, they were a little concerned and decided they maybe should not be too generous. Mr. Commers was the one who really brought these concerns to the HRA's attention. Ms. Schnabel asked the HRA members if they wished to reopen the discussion on the TIF turnback to the school districts. Mr. Meyer stated he did not think so. He stated the HRA discussed this at length at the last meeting. They had logical reasons for their decision, and they should leave it at that. Mr. Prairie agreed. Councilmember Billings stated maybe all that is necessary is for the City staff to meet with the school district staff. Ms. Schnabel stated the HRA did not think it was the type of situation where they needed to negotiate with the school district--the HRA is strictly looking at their budgets and what they are facing in the future. Ms. Schnabel stated it seems to be the consensus of the HRA members present that they are still comfortable with the $200,000 as recommended at the last meeting and do not see any reason to change it. Mr. Burns stated he believed that before the next meeting, the staff will have to meet internally and look at what the levy referendum was originally intended to bring in with what has actually gone into the tax increment return process. • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10. 1991 PAGE 15 Mr. Prairie asked that the HRA be sent that information when staff has put it together. He stated it might also be helpful for the HRA members to see the figures from the first, second, and third years and the breakdown of what they were so the HRA can understand exactly what has happened. Mr. Burns stated he will get this information for the HRA. If they then feel they want to discuss this issue again, he can put it on the February agenda. Mr. Prairie asked that Mr. Commers be informed of what was discussed at this meeting. d. Housing Rehab and Housing Redevelopment Programs Mr. Burns stated he and Ms. Dacy have scheduled a number of meetings with economic development people and city managers in other cities to take a look at how other cities are structuring their housing rehabilitation and housing redevelopment programs. Staff would like to put together an inventory of different strategies and different incentive programs that are being used in these two areas. They have meetings scheduled with Columbia Heights, Minneapolis, and Brooklyn Center. Mr. Burns stated the HRA members also were given a copy of a letter from Dave Newman with a copy of an article that deals with the project in the El Cerito, California. El Cerito has been involved in a housing redevelopment program that has used an equity participation process, so that is another technique the HRA might want to consider. e. Lake Pointe Mr. Burns stated he will be meeting on January 15 with Mike Scott and client who is interested in about 12 acres at the Lake Pointe site for a retail project. He stated he is trying to discourage this as he believed the HRA is more in favor of a project that is closer to the original plan for that site. f. Old Cub Food Site Mr. Burns stated Mr. Sid Inman, former Finance Director for the City, will be talking to City staff about a possible redevelopment project on the old Cub Food site. { HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JAN. 10, 1991 PAGE 16 • g. Fridley Plaza Office Building Mr. Burns stated City staff has been approached by Jerry Caputo, who has been asking the City to cut down the property taxes on the Fridley Plaza Office building. That raises the issue about whether or not the pledge of future taxes contained in development agreement passes onto successors and assigns. Mr. Casserly stated it is his opinion that if there has been an involuntary succession, it probably is not enforceable against the successor. Mr. Burns stated that staff really did not want to start disturbing development agreements and the taxes pledged in the development agreements; however, as property values decline, at some point in the future the HRA may need to face the policy issue of whether or not it is prudent for the HRA to reconsider the tax levels that are pledged in these agreements. ADJOURNMENT: Vice-Chairperson Schnabel declared the January 10, 1991, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully sub itted, yn4( Saba Recording Secretary ACTION ITEMS 1 1 UE:i Community Development Department I\ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager 4V -r DATE: February 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Request for Further Discussion of TIF Turnback to Schools I received the attached letter from Dr. Dennis Rens formally requesting that the Council delay its action on the four agreements with the four school districts for turnback of TIF revenue. Dr. Rens points out that the loss of $41,000 to School District 14 translates into about a teacher and a half at a time when the school district is facing some rather critical revenue shortfalls. He also points out that the notification of the lost revenue comes at a difficult time as far as their fiscal planning is concerned. As a result of the request, I did ask Council to delay action on the TIF turnback to the schools at their January 28 meeting. They understand that the matter will be going back to the HRA, and from what I can interpret, believe that the decision will essentially be an HRA decision. I would also like to point out that Rick Pribyl has prepared data that illustrate the amount of TIF turnback that has occurred since 1988. Although we do not have prefect information for 1991 we expect a complete turnback of revenue would be about $269,000 as compared with about $262,000 in 1990. Turnback to School District 14 is projected as $164,536. This is the same amount that was actually paid out in pay 1990. In addition to showing the history of the TIF turnback, Rick also has listed the levies on which the turnback is based. I think it is interesting to note that in only one instance has a new levy accounted for increased turnback revenue since we first began turning back revenue in 1988. All of the other increases in TIF turnback revenue to the four school districts are due to appreciation of property values and to new property value being included on the tax duplicate. % I 1 .A Request for Further Discussion of TIF Turnback to Schools February 5, 1991 Page Two The final handout describes the proposal that has been put forward by the HRA at their December meeting. The handout displays the pro rata distribution of discretionary levy return to each of the four districts. It also displays the mandatory levy return that is paid out to School District 14. Finally, it displays the total amount that each school district is being denied as a result of the decision to cap the total turnback at $200,000. Thank you for reviewing the data and for the additional discussion time that will be required for this issue. WWB/jb Attachment JAN241999 'B 'INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14 DR DENNIS E RENS S'JPEwv-ENDEN, C •. 6000 WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 / 571-6000 FAX 612-571-7633 • January 22, 1991 Dr. William Burns, City Manager City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Dr. Burns: This letter relates to our recent discussions concerning the tax increment referendum levy agreement between the City and the School District. First of all, the School Board and I appreciate the support you and the City Council have provided on this issue in the past and during recent discussions. I also appreciate the opportunities you have provided over the past several weeks for me and members of the School Board to interact with appropriate City and HRA personnel regarding the matter. These discussions have been most helpful. As we have continued to discuss the issue, School Board Members express two major concerns: 1. While the amount of the proposed reduction ($41, 000) may not seem like a lot of money, it really translates into a teacher and a half as the Board plans for 1991- 92 . This comes during difficult budget times as the Di.tri�'t. was forced to cut 19S9-9O budget $250, 000, cut an additional $250, 000 out of its 1990-91 budget, and faces another $250, 000 expenditure over revenue projection in its upcoming 1991-92 budget which will most likely force the District into a referendum attempt in November of 1991. 2 . The timing of this decision is very difficult as the Board really began planning for 1991-92 a number of months ago and made decisions based on receiving the $164, 000 in 1991-92 that was available in 1990-91. The primary purpose of my letter, Bill, is to encourage you to ask the City Council to delay action on this issue and to return it to the HRA for reconsideration. While the District would obviously like the HRA to reverse its i 1 .0 Dr. Burns 2 January 22 , 1991 decision, we would at least encourage replacement of the 1991-92 dollars to the full amount available and to then have a discussion about a longer term solution to the issue. My personal thanks for whatever help you can provide in moving this issue forward. Sincer ly, A1-4/ Dennis E. Rens, PhD Superintendent DER/hj LBURNSTI.WPS 1 .D REFSUM SUMMARY OF REFERENDUM, REFUNDS SCHOOL DISTRICT Y CHANGE YEAR #11 #13 #t4 #16 TOTAL SINCE 1988 1988 4,711.25 5,754.92 56,012.08 0.00 66,478.25 1969 4,366.26 26,698.94 132,078.19 0.00 163,343.39 145.71% 159U 14,605.20 34,096.93 164,536.05 46,356.63 261,798.61 293.81% 1991 14,8u5.2i: 41,250.59 164,530.05 48,356.63 268,950.47 304.57% TOTAL 38,68-.91 108,003.39 517,162.37 96,717.26 760,570.92 SCHOD DISRTRICT 11 LEVI HISTORr 1015/62 0 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT 10i0/87 6 MILL LE Y, PERMANENT A,L LEVY S MERE EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THUS ALL CHANGE IN THE REFUNDS ARE DUE TO GROWTH IN THE TAX INCREMENT VALUE DR CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX FORMULA S SCHOOL DISTRICT 13 LEVY HISTORI' 10/5'81 5 MILL LEVY, PERMANENT 9/23/86 7 MILL LEVt, PERMANENT 11/06/9v .08 TAX CAPACITY RATE. TEMFOFAR'i 7 YEAR THE 1961 ANC THE 1566 LEVIES MERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIST RETJRN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. ALL GROWTH THAT OC LRRED UNDER THESE TWO LEVIES WERE BECAUSE OF 6ROATH IN VALUE. INME LEVY THAT OECJRED IN 1990 GENERATED AN ESTIMATED $13,413.44 IN TAXES COLLECTED BI THE HRA THAT MAS STRICTLY RELATED TO THE NEW REFERENDUM LEVY. SCHOOL DISTRICT 14 LEVY HISTGPr 6.5 MILL LEVY. 5 YR. TEMPORARY 9i20'83 2 MILL LEVI', PERMANENT 5,23/86 13.5 MILL LEVY, PERMANENTiREPLACED THE 6.5 LEVY AND ADDED 7 MILLS) 5/27/07 ALL LEVY'S WERE EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THUS ALL CHANGE IN THE REFUNDS ARE DUE TO GROWTH IN THE TAX INCREMENT VALUE DR CHAGSES IN FROPERTi TAX FORMULA S SCHOOL DISTRICT 16 LEVY HISTORY 10/i-8;81 5 MIL LEVF, PERMANENT-DOES NOT APPLY TO REFUND PER STATE STATUTE :i17/St, 6 MIL LEVI, PERMANENT 1 .E ALL LEVY'S WERE EFFECTIVE PROF: TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST RETURN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THUS ALL CHANGE IN THE REFUNDS ARE DUE TO 6ROWTr IN THE TAX INCREMENT VALUE OR CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX FORMULAS 1 .F S LEVRET91 #11 #13 #14 116 TOTAL ESTIMATED 1991 RETURN $14,805 $41,251 $164;536 $46,359 $268,950 LESS: MANDITORY LEVY RETURN $1,866 $1,866 TOTAL DESCRETIONARY $14,805 $41,251 $162,670 $48,359 $270,816 FERCENTASE TO TOTAL 5.0000% 15.00001 60.0000/ 18.00001 98.0000% MAXIMUM RETURN $10,000 $30,000 $120,000 $36,00i $200,000 ALL: MANDITORY LEVY RETURN $1,866 $1,866 $10,000 $30,000 $121,866 $36,000 $201,866 DIFFERENCE FROM TOTAL $4,805 $11,251 $42,670 $12,359 $67,084 ;1 if i 2 Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager DATE: February 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Suh Request Please note the attached memorandum to file regarding the meeting I had with Mr. and Mrs. Suh. The bottom line is that they want us to buy their portion of the Southwest Quadrant. Pursuant to my instructions, they put their request into writing. A copy of their letter is attached. No doubt, we will need to consider this request at a future HRA meeting. WWB:rsc Attachments MEMORANDUM 2.A sir Municipal Center _ 6431 University Avenue N.E. Office of the City Manager Fridley, MN 55432 William W. Burns TY (612) 571-3450 FRIDLEY TO: File FROM: William W. Burns, City Managere`, DATE: January 24, 1991 SUBJECT: Meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Suh On Wednesday, January 23, 1991, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. , I met with Jai M. Suh and Shinjai Suh who live at 12 Island Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55127. Mr. and Mrs. Suh are upset with the City of Fridley and the BRA. They feel that our identification of their property as part of a redevelopment district, along with other actions that we have taken, have served to limit the profitability of their retail rental property along University Avenue. They said that with the property being in a redevelopment district, they have difficulty leasing and selling the property to future buyers. They also said that we have generated rumors about redevelopment projects from time to time, and that they have even participated in projects to the extent of hiring attorneys and spending as much as $7,000 at a time to develop purchase agreements for projects that never materialized. They also are upset with Scott Erickson. They feel that he has been soliciting their tenants for occupation of the new Fridley Town Square project. Although Scott does not represent the City, they feel that since the HRA's money is being pledged to the Fridley Town Square project, we are indirectly responsible for taking business away from them. They feel it is unfair for us to let the developers of our other HRA projects attempt to lure in their tenants into a new development. They also learned that we bought the Levy property and are planning to buy the Dairy Queen property. They feel that it is only fair for us to also buy their property and to end the continued impact of our unsuccessful redevelopment projects that they have experienced over a thirteen year period. 2.B Memo to File January 24, 1991 Page Two I suggested that they write us a letter outlining their request, and also promised that I would present the letter at the next HRA meeting. We should receive the letter within the next couple of days. They suggested that if we decide not to buy their property, which they value at $1.3 million, we should provide tax increment financing money that will help them remodel their existing property. They also asked me to send them a copy of the HRA minutes of the meetings in which we discussed the purchase of the Levy property and the Mississippi widening project. They are having a hard time understanding why we are spending money on the Mississippi widening project in the absence of a southwest quadrant development. They were somewhat upset over the potential impact of the Mississippi widening project on their businesses. cc: Mayor and City Council Members of the HRA Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director 2.0 JAN 3 ' 1091 William Burns City Manager , Executive Director of H.R.A. City of Fridley 6431 University Ave . N.E. MN. 55432 Jan.29, 1991 Dear Mr . Burns , As we said to you at the meeting on Jan. 23rd, we ' d like to request the City to acquire our property at this time. We have been owners of the rental properties facing University Ave . N.E. right next to Rice Plaza Center and Dairy Queen in the "Southwest Quadrant"Redevelopment area since November 1978 . We are facing another refinancing of our properties at the end of Feb . 1991 . [ Ref. 1 ] For the last 10 years we managed it ourselves, and it has been difficult for us to run the rental business under the constant threat of redevelopment and condem- nation. Soon we will be left as only one private landlord in the Southwest Quadrant , and be forced to compete for the tenants doing same types of businesses in the same area with the City- backed developers and/or Cityhired property manager . We think it is best for the City to own all properties in this area at this time and to deal with one property manager , and more importantly to proceed to redevelop the whole area with more incentives . [ Ref. 2 ] Thank you . Very truly yours, 1/4 kr 44 U'�yo `1241z. /7? 1 V Shinjae Suh and Jai M. Suh Ref. 1 ; Valerie trudeau, Norwest Bank , MPLS,MN.55479 Ref. 2 ; Minutes from Mar . 8 , 1990 HRA of Fridley Meeting 2.D a0U8ING i REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. . MAR. S. 1l9Q PAGE 14 entire 10 acres, then it is best for the HRA to acquire control of the Levy parcel at this time. If they do not move ahead with acquisition at this time, then they face the inevitability that the entire 10 acres may never be available and they might want to just decertify this part of the Center City plan and not proceed with. it, because it would not be a comprehensive development, but small parcel development. Mr. Robertson stated staff is recommending the HRA direct staff to begin conversations with Mr. Levy to negotiate an acquisition price and come back to the HRA with an update at the next meeting. Mr. Newman stated that at a luncheon meeting with Mr. Commers and • the Mayor, Mr. Commers asked that this be put back on the agenda, because it was Mr. Commers' feeling that the HRA should seriously consider acquiring the site. This was discussed by the HRA 3-4 years ago, but since that time things have changed. If they are going to upgrade Mississippi Street, early acquisition could speed up the intersection improvements for Mississippi and University by Anoka County. If the HRA is going to develop this site, they need to do it very quickly; otherwise, the increment will run out and they will not have that option. If the corporate user does not step forward, then it is staff's recommendation that the HRA go back to Ron Clark or another developer in order to get a project in place to consider so they have a development in place by next spring. Mr. Newman stated the HRA would have to own and lease and manage the property until development occurs, but that might not be too great a risk. Mr. Newman stated the HRA has the money to acquire the property. That is what the bonds were issued for back in 1985. The County appraised the property three years ago, and the estimate was slightly over $1 million. Mr. Levy had an appraisal done in the amount of $1,050,000 and $1,150,000. In looking at the development proposals in the last year, Mr. Levy agreed on a $1.1 million purchase price. Mr. Prairie asked what happens if the HRA acquires the property and nothing happens in the next five years. Mr. Newman stated the HRA would have to own, lease, and manage the property for five years. Mayor Nee stated he was also getting to the point where he thinks the HRA has to do this. If they acquire the property, there will . be more of an incentive to make something happen in the southwest quadrant in less than five years. They. have to deal with this t corner. 4 2.E (*' SOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. . MAR. S. 1994) PAGE 15, Mr. Meyer stated he is in favor of acquisition. He did not want the HRA to be in the leasing and managing business, but he agreed they have to do something with this corner. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to authorize staff to have an appraisal done on the Levy property and authorize staff to approach Mr. Levy and begin negotiations regarding the purchase of the property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Newman stated that if the appraisal cost is any higher than $2,500, staff will come back to the HRA. 5. CLARK ENGINEERING ET AL W. FRIDLEY HRA Mr. Robertson stated his memo to the HRA dated March 1, 1990 (agenda page 5) was self-explanatory. Mr. Newman has obtained a summary judgment granted by the court that the claims against the HRA and Clark Engineering are dismissed; however, the claim for slander of title to property and for attorneys' fees pursuant to bad faith litigation is still intact. The court has set this matter for trial on June 18, 1991. Staff needs some policy direction from the HRA. Mr. Newman stated that when the law suit initially commenced, both he and Mr. Commers were offended by it. There was no basis for the law suit. At the HRA's direction, he attempted to negotiate a resolution and in response received a summons and complaint. He stated he needs some direction from the HRA as to whether they wish him to pursue this claim for bad faith, to negotiate a final settlement, or pursue it to trial to get the attorney's fees. It does take staff time and HRA resources. Mr. Meyer stated Clark Engineering is a competitor, but also a colleague, and he would abstain from voting on any motion. Mr. Prairie stated that if the HRA does not pursue this claim, he would like to not see the City use any of Clark Engineering's services in the future, even though the City has not hired this firm in the past. He would be inclined to say that staff should not pursue it. Mr. Newman stated that if the HRA does not wish him to pursue it, he will try to negotiate some concessions. Ms. Schnabel stated it is her feeling that legal staff should not ( pursue this. ., I, . 3 Community Development Department I\ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 7, 1991 8 TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA A. FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of Contract for Bill Schatzlein Attached is a contract with Bill Schatzlein of Schatzlein Associates to prepare a market analysis for housing redevelopment options in the University Avenue corridor in and around the 57th Place redevelopment area, as well as the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road. These two areas have been the focus for long-term planning in 1990. In order for the HRA to determine whether or not it would be prudent to pursue a redevelopment project in these two areas, it is recommended that the HRA approve the attached contract. On August 9, 1990, the Executive Director reviewed with the HRA the staff recommendations identified for redeveloping this area. One of the recommendations from that analysis suggested redeveloping the area for housing. Poor access and poor market conditions make it impossible to redevelop the entire area for commercial. After we worked with Jim Casserly to determine the tax increment financing issues, we determined that it was necessary to complete a market analysis to identify the demand for housing in this particular area. Another project area we have asked Schatzlein to address is the property located in the northeast corner of Central Avenue/Rice Creek Road. The HRA reviewed a soil correction request in 1987 on the Mochinski property for a townhome project. The townhome application and the recent Moose Lodge request were turned down. John Arkell from The Cottages also proposed acquisition of the property owned by the City to the rear of the Mochinski property for the development of elderly townhomes. That particular application was withdrawn in order for the City to conduct a senior housing study. Schatzlein and Associates is a professional real estate development company that provides technical consulting services to, not only local governments, but developers, non profit organizations, and lending institutions. Schatzlein has also worked with the 1 • 3. A Contract for Bill Schatzlein February 7, 1991 Page 2 Minneapolis Community Development Agency prior to starting his own consulting business. The contract identifies specific tasks by which Schatzlein would undertake to prepare a report regarding the market feasibility of a housing redevelopment at both these locations. The contract proposes an hourly rate with a maximum not to exceed $3,500. Completing this analysis will give the HRA information as to whether or not it would be prudent to pursue a redevelopment project in these two areas. Once the market conditions and limitations have been determined, we can then proceed with identifying a course of action to redevelop the properties. Recommendation Staff recommends that the HRA approve the consultant service contract with Bill Schatzlein as presented. BD:ls M-91-78 3.B AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND SCHATZLEIN ASSOCIATES 1. Housing Redevelopment Consultant: Schatzlein Associates is hereby contracted to serve as a Housing Redevelopment Consultant for the University Avenue Gateway Area and the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road. 2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Consultant: A. The Consultant shall prepare a report documenting preliminary market research regarding the market feasibility of housing redevelopment in the University Avenue Gateway Area and the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road. The report shall address the feasibility of types of housing units, the value of housing units, the amenities associated with a housing project, the densities, and any issues regarding the synergy between the types of housing units and site specific conditions. The Consultant shall prepare this research by completing at minimum the following tasks: (1) Review market feasibility studies of other proposed housing projects; (2) Interview local or regional developers; (3) Review City and regional demographic data; (4) Interview housing/real estate market professionals. B. The Consultant shall attend Housing & Redevelopment Authority meetings as directed by the Executive Director of the HRA. C. Attend meetings with the Executive Director of HRA and the Community Development Director at the request of the Executive Director of HRA. 3 . Term of the Agreement: The Consultant shall submit the report no later than April 1, 1991. The report shall be delivered to the office of the Executive Director of the HRA. 4. Compensation: A. The Consultant shall be compensated at the rate of $65.00 per hour, up to a maximum of $3,500.00. B. The Consultant shall submit an itemized statement that clearly accounts the hours of service provided by the Consultant as it relates to the items listed in Section 2A. 3.0 Agreement for Consultant Services Page 2 5. Other Reimbursements: A. The Housing & Redevelopment Authority will not be responsible for payment or withholding of any state or federal taxes. B. Reimbursements for items other than compensated by the hourly rate shall be approved by the Executive Director of the HRA; however, in no case shall the total expense exceed $3,500.00. 6. Cancellation of Agreement: The agreement may be terminated within fifteen (15) days written notice by either party of this agreement. Agreed and entered into this 14th day of February, 1991. SCHATZLEIN ASSOCIATES By Bill Schatzlein CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Lawrence C. Commers HRA Chairperson By William W. Burns HRA Executive Director • 3.D Tit 4,4 - 1.1.-Lr77d1-:41A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Schatzlein Associates is a professional real estate development company providing technical consulting services to a wide range of clients including: * Private developers * Building and land owners * Government agencies * Non-Profit organizations * Lending Institutions Schatzlein Associates provide consulting services related to the following types of real estate development: * Shopping centers * Multi Family Housing * Rehabilitation and Historic Preservation * Office Building * Redevelopment and Tax Increment * Special needs facilities Schatzlein Associates provides the following types of real estate development consulting services: * Land use planning and site plan preparation * Site selection or building selection * Rehabilitation of existing buildings * Coordination of the property acquisition process * Coordinate the work of the development team * Preparation of the development proposal * Market feasibility study * Financial analysis * Identify alternative sources of financing * Manage the government approval process * Coordinate the community involvement process * Serve as the owner's representative and work with the construction management team BILL SCHATZLEIN 4 0 3 2 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH M I N N E A P O L I S , MINNESOTA 5 5 4 0 9 612 - 824 - 1628 3.E References for Bill Schatzlein Jim Kerrigan, Director Planning and Economic Development City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-8474 Robert Shadduck Jerry's Enterprises 5101 Vernon Avenue Edina Minnesota 55436 929-2685 James Prosser, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minn. 861 -9700 Douglas Head, President Nationwide Housing Corporation 242G East Franklin Avenue Minneapolis, Minn. 338-3850 339- 1601 law office 3.F OUSING D ME II AUG. G has agreed to the extension of the first mortgage between Citicorphowever, they are University Avenue Associates ands the��guarantors. 1 requiring the consent of the HRA Ms. Schnabel stated she is a little unsure o to when the anfirst Pa�es due. saysMr. Juneellsol993IDn's e saysJuly Henrick's memo 1993. � Mr. Herrick stated he believed the correct date is June 11, a affect the HRA. The reason he Mr. Herrick stated that the extension of the first mortgage for t a one year period will not adversely was to show put in the dates of the payment on the HRA mortgage and that thise presently no payment is being made, HRA that payment. extension will not extend up to the date of the first p Ym Mr. Prairie, to approve the MUM. by Mr. Meyer, seconded by yearor a one period for extension tarments subordinationwith Citicorp as reement frequested by University Springbrook Ap Avenue Associates. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. �GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PL. 11 • 2. PROPOSED NORTH GA Mr. Burns stated he would like to review them maps th of the North Gateway Redevelopment Plan that were includednda. on agenda page 1-B illustrated the Mr. Burns stated that the map Plan. Avenue Gateway scope of what has been labeled the University A for planned The concept is to develop a plan that will provide to 61st Avenue. That redevelopment of the area north plus up t-694 o the vicinity of Custom includes everything from Holiday Avenue and from Custom r Mechanical on the west side of University Vale t Used Cars up to the Sinclair Station at 61st Avenue on the east side of University Avenue. on agenda page 1-C. On Mr. Burns stated that the zoning is shownthe parcel including the the west side of University Avenue, Holiday Plus store and The Cattle CompanY restaurant is zoned C-3, General Shopping, and the parcels across the street are zoned C-2, General General Business. On the east side therer is moreeC-2,sout ofe 57th Avenue all the way to 61st Avenue, Avenue is the Hyde Business zoning. On the west side of University Avenue very restricted Park area which is S-1, Special Zoning, commercial residential area, which does allow a three existing e Mstinr Valet site properties as nonconforming uses. Behind the commercial there is some multiple family zoning. Two Family zoning. y between 58th Avenue and 61st Avenue, there R-2, 3.G ROUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. . AUG. 9. 1990 PAGE 3 Mr. Burns stated that the map on agenda west side age 1-D sho ws what are University /A considered the problem areas. On Avenue, they are considering the three commercial properties, Frank's Used Cars, Werner's Furniture, and Custom Mechanical as potential targets for redevelopment. On efrom eat side of University Avenue, they are looking at everything to 61st Avenue for redevelopment. Mr. Burns stated that the map on agenda page 1-E shows the commercial option. They looked at both commercial and residential as options for redeveloping in this University Avenue Gateway area. The first option would be redeveloping phase I. Phase I includes some landscaping and landscaping upgrade behind the Holiday Plus store and includes Frank's Used Cars and another parcel located next to 57 1/2 Avenue. Phase I also includes the Winfield property. Mr. Burns stated Phase II would be to develop the properties north of Winfield as commercial up to the Alanon Society. There is some feeling by staff that perhaps these lots do not have enough natural depth for commercial development. A suggestion involves taking out the duplexes that front on 4th Street. to enhance y or may not be the success of desirable, but should be considered commercial development. Mr. Burns stated that the map on agenda page 1-F shows a slight change in the plan. Winfield would still be commercial, and the Frank's Used Cars site would continue to be residential, but the two districts north of Winfield are now designated as residential. al. The plan would be some form of townhouses or condominiums. property north of the Alanon Society would continue to be designated as commercial property. Again, the alternative shows the residential extending as far as the duplexes; however, the , north of the Alanon Society, the single family residencesgood shape and the commercial development seem to be in pretty should stay. Mr. Burns stated another parcel discussed with the City Council is the Motor Valet site. There has been some serious discussion about putting an LRT park and ride station there. The LRT is not a sure thing and this location for a park and ride station is not a sure thing. The Anoka County Regional Rail Authority is also looking at the northeast quadrant of 53rd Avenue. If the Motor Valet site does not become designated as an LRT park and ride station, then staff is open as to whether or not it should become residential or commercial or a combinationfor this parcel. Staff has not projected a clear future land use Mr. Burns stated there does not appear to be much support from the City Council for extending tax increment financing to assisst HolidayeC Plus with landscaping lp roach with Holiday and in Phase I. Staff try to work out the City take a proactivePP 3.H ROUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. . AUG. 9. 1990 PAGE 4 a combination of land use and future landscaping for that parcel so they can perhaps get something going on a cooperative basis. Mr. Meyer stated he did not see a lot of visibility or worry about the Holiday Plus site. Mr. Prairie stated he thought the area that is more visible is from 57th Avenue north. Mr. Herrick asked if anyone has looked at the economics of putting • a single family house on the corner of 57 1/2 Avenue/University. Mr. Burns stated the game plan is to talk to several developers to look at the whole situation, not only this parcel, but the parcels north of Winfield, to get an idea of what densities can be developed and an idea on the number of townhouse units that might be feasible. Mr. Prairie stated he thought townhouses in this area along the east side of University Avenue would be the best option. If the LRT park and ride station goes in on the Motor Valet site, it might help sell the townhouses. Mr. Herrick stated townhouses might be viable. He seriously doubted that single family would be viable. Mr. Meyer stated so many of the problems and solutions they are talking about now were there in 1964. At that time, the City hired a planner, Hodne, to develop that strip area and to make suggestions, and it might be interesting in seeing the old Hodne plans. Mr. Burns stated staff will be getting out the Hodne plans. So, the first thing staff would like to do is talk to some developers to get a sense of their plans for this area and then staff wants to do some research on tax increment financing. Another variable right now is what the state is going to do with tax increment financing. Ms. Schnabel asked if any thought had been given to eliminating the University Avenue Service Drive and using 4th Street as access if townhouses are developed. Mr. Burns stated staff had not thought of that, but it is certainly something that can be considered. Mr. Meyer stated that it is his feeling after all these years that this strip is just never going to be successful as commercial. Ms. Schnabel stated that for many years it has been impressed on them that the parcels that are designated on the map for an LRT park and ride station should be the areas cleaned up first because 3.1 // MOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. . AUG. 9. 1990 PAGE S thatinto Fridle . isthe focal point for the development of apartment nt buildingsSor sawwthat area more something that cleans up that area. Burns stated tciotaLRTcn ark and examine ride stationn site either here or at 53rd Avenue, sffa this further and proceed. Ms. Schnabel stated she has been hearing about an LRT since about 1968. If the City makes the decision to develop this site and findsback a good viable or the site,the site mighte did not be used fornank tLRT y should hold just because park and ride station. Mr. Burns stated that the Gateway Redevelopment Plan wasa dewed ewed with the City Council. Staff described the potentiallow level ofe actions they would take as being at a very involvement, simply changing the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Gateway Redevelopment Plan and then letting economic forces take their course. At the opposite level of involvement, they would go out, buy the land, clear the land, and send out RFP's to developers. The Council liked the proposal but rather than take the proactive approach of becoming a landowner immediately, they preferred to meet with developers and indicate to developers that the City stands ready to buy the land, clear the land, and relocate cate the residents, etc. , to see what kind of reactions they get. essentially is what staff plans to do. One Council members was not so sure about the residential option on the east side and indicated that if a strong commercial project came along for the parcel north of Winfield, the City should be willing to consider that as well. Ms. Schnabel stated she liked the approach of the City educating themselves ahead of time with developers to see what reactions they get. She would like to offer one word of caution and that is that she would not like to see a crowded development. She would like to see some reasonable figures without real high densities on the property. 3. gSTIMATES: a. Talberg Lawn and Landscape (Lake Pointe) b. W. B. Miller (Flaten Property) MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the $4,estimate for thebestima a for and W. B. Miller in the the amount amount of $4,458.21 and $700.00. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • • i o 111 > a � ... .... .a. O0 o _ et a Q O D W 01 d' C >` j � 0 dl is • 0 1 I n 0 p o V a p � t i I o id a.cc I: . V) 2,1 ( 0 i r 1 EU . rjj j 0 p 4 E �= z 3 00 0 p f13.a Dr O0 go 1 41 I - C d cz . ril , 1 : : __0 1 _ , is 1 a CO _ Q o c7 m • a -1 � $ A 'l'l/A is f£11 0 6 k i B c 1� • t I B p — o g I itivt © p .::, . F _� ❑ , .s I • Q Qr �ft 11 i i t►i1\\\\l\\. +' w 0J l _ c OD ? 00a t. • / �� r tit Li II ri P6.4.--5 . i li r El p •- M 1 1 \ ...2 L _ _inti i i v_. . •-............„. 1nr ak• • r • 3.K r l Y=v S I/2 SEC. /3, 7730, R 24 CITY OF FR/DLEY 1\-' 14 .,_ . ED ® @ L-_F I I I uLJ tuu L 1 +fwSTA1E-AI' $$wciwnr „ro • r.�-r - -- --�:ao ''ST'_. , ."�— e "r =• ~ if r 1 + t iI f•. • M) •• • • I�r t I . 4, r t INFRA .ara 7•0 eS° Wii 3 i illimn N q ' 4 1 "ra #4: .. • • 1 - 464.. 4, 141 ' '0 4 i I.: IP; it • ‘.6 - rr`a p t• o . $ : imoI g, ` AIA r r1 V M M w =�7`4::' --, a _!•. a /2 .o d 4 �i w� p v w R (N) °M' (r) i, arm u f r B(ram /f tf ss 'jr J Inaill W V ail ss4-^ m ,i." MI s 1 � �� 11,,,. ' "., 4TH AVE r, "ad M4. s sRE2IF .o t+l�i. 3 V. .: w .pk . pgalta... .: . oi .., • ^ . . 3 .n "r ,i{[i �a� �` is ill /3L KE.+ /Nw F•�. . a r rr r• ' �' le 110.:-Z .�I'rr r . +.ifri., ,,, '`thG UIN, O.r•t 3 1WA 4to r p W .... _ - .. 1-l'E '/6-. .,: % 4* I ,,.r•. : ; . ,r..... - ... .�- MC p-.a - W� e3467: .:- 4� 7G} - _ w�`.,_ - �- -- •'-- .. 1 it t a- :.,It1 • •. L. � ....a.,'/ .. ; ...1, T. w Jj I. — 7 '4• I 7; ,•• /.r) it r. t. w.'' .*.• a�D.i. r.i E, /- I >R 41 ' 1 • • /ag h ; :J' •., KO p i s �: / `r` 1 1 l8 IS .r r ,,, t"a ;;s' ' I.' ""or to' `t g AUDITORS SUa . / Iv plik,,1 l- r4LE,Iram 4,4.41: V 1 AUD. ME : _12 .._ 11504 to 1.11111111.Z2M RE .4, . t i .r , — sIOORE— LAKE 41f) ';f 3 -. �`,d R lit. FR=Y aril• �,� a �. ,A. i' I ...:-7- b.T, Ai A pr,..... - •0: /......, ii#1 Mt 1 5O `vs !► •� r- s, ups• Z . OD 4.b 4 47; ; pi% le • R;.S �• _I 1.1 *1 1 ro IP AM. a. mo KW % t •.1 , #14 :, I II Ils N:2 P:10 vo.,;,,„44.4 ,1, . nao go m . gig jou;oliiiii 4 , ... . a Jp. INAIII '''-• ,IP-•".• -1- • .., NW: 1 , * . j ., • Or ...,.. o. i4 a ;i ..... ...CD 43 4 n Community Development Department ED. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager r DATE: February 6, 1991 SUBJECT: Anoka HRA Request On Friday of last week, Rita Ander, Community Representative for the Anoka HRA, contacted me about asking our HRA to give their permission to include Fridley in the area to be served by a proposed rental assistance demonstration project for persons with a mental illness disability. More specifically, she was asking us to allow the Anoka HRA to administer housing inspections and issue rent payments to landlords in Fridley. Apparently, this demonstration project is much more attractive and fundable to the MHFA if it is a multi-jurisdictional proposal. Altogether, the proposal would provide funding for twenty units in Anoka County. Each mentally disabled person would be eligible for a rent subsidy of up to $150, primarily in apartment units. I understand from the proposal that Rise, Inc. , would administer the casework for each of the individual tenants, including counseling the tenants who have or could potentially become disruptive. In reviewing this request with Pat Wolfe, our Section 8 Housing Coordinator, she indicated that she is a little concerned about having an administrator from another city administer a rent subsidy program in Fridley. She pointed out that this could easily be done by her office, and suggested that if we do give permission, that we ask the Anoka HRA to subcontract this service to the City of Fridley Housing Coordinator. By the time we meet on February 14, 1991, I will have discussed this issue with the Fridley City Council, and should be in a position to let you know their feelings. Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. WWB:rsc Attachment 4. A FER 0 la • ANOKA Housing and Redevelopment Authority City Hall 2015 First Avenue F 1991 Anoka, Minnesota 55303 1612) 421.6630 Mr. William Burns City of Fridley HRA 6431 University Ave. NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr.Burns: Former Governor Perpich appointed a Commission of Affordable Housing for the 1990 ' s in response to concerns about the provision of decent and affordable housing in Minnesota, These concerns arose due to basically three factors: 1. substantial decreases in federal support for housing 2 . changes in Minnesota demographics increasing the need for low income housing and 3 . more pronounced housing needs of special populations including people with mental illness, people with physical disabilities, families and homeless people. The Commission was to advise the Minnesota Legislature on solutions to housing problems. One of the recommendations of this Commission was to establish rental housing programming in conjunction with providing social services to persons with mental illness. This recommendation coincides with mental health professionals' concept of "housing as housing" . This approach states that people with mental illness should be able to select and obtain the same types and ranges of housing available to the general public, that is, decent, stable, safe and affordable housing. As a result of the Governor' s Commission recommendations, the Legislature authorized the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to develop programming for persons with a mental illness disability whose incomes do not exceed 30% of the area median income. The MHFA has issued a Request For Proposal for a Rental Assistance Demonstration Project for Persons With Mental Illness. This project would provide housing assistance of $150 per month for up to twenty participants for a period of two years. The $150 would be sent directly to each landlord. MHFA anticipates funding at least two projects, one in the Metro area and one outstate and has committed $250, 000. to this demonstration. Rise, Inc. and the City of Anoka Housing and Redevelopment Authority have submitted an application for this demonstration project. I HRA Letter 4.B PAGE 2 Rise, Inc. contracts with Anoka County to provide the Independent Living Skills Program to persons with severe and persistant mental illness. Therefore this portion of the project is already in place. The Anoka HRA provides Section 8 Rent Assistance to about 250 clients in Anoka and Hennepin Counties through the Metro HRA program. Together these two agencies can provide an effective model for future projects. Because the Anoka HRA only has authority to operate housing programs within the City of Anoka, we are asking the Fridley HRA to allow, if funded, the MHFA demonstration project to operate within their city. This program would require no funds or staff assistance from Fridley. It would simply allow me to conduct inspections, and issue rent payments to landlords in your community if necessary. This authority could be accomplished with a motion and approval at your next scheduled meeting. Rise, Inc. and the Anoka HRA feel this program would be most successful operating throughout Anoka County and are asking all cities within the county that have HRA' s for their support. Very simply put, the end result of this proposal, would be that up to twenty people would be able to stay in or find decent, safe and affordable housing in Anoka County. We would appreciate your cities ' cooperation in providing this opportunity. Sincerely, r b reAte62,, Rita Ander Community Representative, Anoka HRA i 5 lI1� Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Managed 4 0 DATE: February 7, 1991 f� SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Please note the attached 1991 budget. It is my understanding that this is the first budget that the HRA has reviewed in some time. As we embark upon this new experience, I would like to offer the following observations: 1. The revenue calculations for 1991 are based upon revenue projections contained in the attached document labeled "Tax Increment Financing Tax Projections, January 17, 1991." An overview of the revenue expenditures and fund balances is available upon Page 8 of this document. 2. We have also provided a line item budget that enables you to compare the budget for 1991 line items with our estimate of expenditures for 1990. The line item budget will also enable you to compare 1990 expenditures with the 1991 budget by broad category expenditures. 3. In addition to the line item budget, we have also attached the backup sheets that provide additional information about the items that are actually being purchased under each line item. 4. At the bottom of the line item budget, the figure for total expenditures does not include Debt Service. If we add 1991 Debt Service to the figure that is budgeted for 1991, the total HRA expenditures for 1991 amount to $2,550,513. This compares to $3,152,308 in 1990. 5. You will notice that under Capital Outlay Expenditures, we have projected only the Mississippi/University Avenue street improvement project, expenditures for Plaza tree replacement, and the purchase of additional lights for East Moore Lake Drive. If we succeed in doing substantial - economic development or redevelopment, costs for public improvements could significantly exceed those provided for in our budget. a 5.A Memo to BRA 1991 Budget February 7, 1991 Page Two We have asked you to come in early for the budget work session part of our meeting on February 14, 1991, and we would like to extend to you our appreciation for your willingness to donate your time on this occasion. WWB:rsc Attachments a DRAFT BUDGET 1991 5.B • City of Fridley State of Minnesota Expenditure Detail-Une Item Detail ttJr10 • RA 380 $4,070,000 Refunding Debt Service . ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE CCT .. ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION EXPEND EXPEND EXPEND BUDGET .THRU BUDGET NO 1987 ;1988 - 1859 1990 12/31190 _ 1991 DEBT SERVICE: 46605 Principal Payment 190,000 205,000 215,000 230,000 245,000 46610 Interest Expense 301,390 289,284 275,621 134,183 243,384 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees 937 _ 2,550 1,742 1,800 2,000 TOTAL 492,327 496,834 492,364 0 365,983 490,364 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 492,327 496,834 492,364 0 365,983 490,384 .... 1 a • DRAFT BUDGET 1991 5.0 City of Fridley State of Minnesota E cpenditure Detail-Line ftem Detail • t"#tf1f7 RA381i'ariftile Rate Debt Service ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL.T ESTIMATE CCT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ;'.EXPEND EXPEND EXPEND BUDGET THRU BUDGET NO :.1997 '1988 « 1989 . 990 ..: • 2131/90 1991 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES: 42300 Professional Services 42430 Miscellaneous TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEBT SERVICE: 46605 Principal Payment 38,200 57,500 0 46610 Interest Expense 532,613 501,983 708,060 0 0 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees 117,052 78,235 24,827 18,431 0 TOTAL 649,665 718,418 800,387 0 18,437 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 649,665 718,418 800,387 0 18,437 0 • • DRAFT BUDGET 1991 5�D • City of Fridley State of Minnesota Expenditure Detail-Line Item Detail . RA 382Crossover Bonds of 1986 " .ACTUAL " ACTUAL ' ACTUAL STIMATE CCT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ` EXPEND EXPEND EXPEND BUDGET THRU BUDGET NO :1 87 . ' 1988 1989 1990 ` 12/31 i/90 _ 1991 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES: _ 42300 Professional Services 42430 Miscellaneous TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEBT SERVICE: 46605 Principal Payment 446,800 772,500 - 365,000 0 46610 interest Expense 111,945 51,683 51,6i37 26,348 0 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees 283 1,274 2,001 TOTAL 112,229 498,483 825,661 0 393,348 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 112,229 498,483 825,661 0 393,348 0 1 • DRAFT BUDGET 1991 5■E City of Fridley State of Minnesota Expenditure Detail-Une item Detail HRA 13111Ia 383 19,485,000 General O131 lion Refunding Bonds of 1990 ACTUA. ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE ACCT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION TEND EXPEND EXPEND BUDGET THRU BUDGET NO 1087 =1988 1989 1990 12/31190 _ 1991 DEBT SERVICE: 46605 Principal Payment 0 0 0 0 0 46610 Interest Expense 0 0 0 Z70,4i1 ' 649,130 46620 Fiscal Agent Fees 0 D 0 0 _ 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 270,471 649,130 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 270,471 649,130 s. 5.F BUDGET 1991 City of Fridley State 0fMinnesota tt u re Del ai 1 _U ne Item Detail Expert PERSONAL SERVICES: immill 41100 Administrative Charge ----= 41101 Full time-regular 41102 Full time-regular,ot -----= 41104 Temporary- regular 41105 Temporary-regular,ot =----- 41120 Employees leave 41120 Medicare contribution ----- 41121 FICA contribution ====== 4113122 FICA hcontributionIsance --- -- 41131 Health insurance ------ 41132 Dental insurance ------ 41133 Cash insurance ------ 41134 benefit ------ 41140 Unemployment compensation — 41150 Worker's compensation 11111101111111111111110110111111111111110 149,807 157,297 41170 Work order transfer 0 0 0 TOTAL Illina NIIINIMI— SUPPLIES: =111111111111111111.11111111111101111111111111111.11111 - 422 Oper ing sup -- 42210 Operating supplies -- �- 42212 Fuels and tubes ------ 4222 RepClothing/laundry&maintenance allowance -- 42220 Repair&maintenance supplies 0 2.701 1,113 42225 Small tools and minor equipment 0 0 0 TOTAL --- f— OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES: --- �� 42229 Work order transfer c --- 42300 Professional services ---- 42320 Communication --- ; 42330 DuesTrans oratiu ---- � 42340 Advertising —=—irK:� 42345 Dues and subscriptions � 42350III 7 Printing and binding ---- 42360 Insurance,non-personnel _--1111111111111111111111.111111.11111111111111111.1_11—II � � 42370 Conferences and school 42380 Utility services 42400 Services contracted ---- r r„ 42410 Rentals -- 1111111111111111111111111111111101111112111 42430 Miscellaneous 460,009 42450 Payments to other/contribution 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY: ---- - 45510 La Building Land/Special Assessments 455203 Improvements other than bldg ==--- MII 45540 Machinery --- 0 1,282,681 788,673 45560 Furniture and fixtures 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 1,719,447 1,407,092 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.G Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 41100 Administrative Charge Total Budget Requested 157,297 Justification: Wage and benefit cost computed by Finance Department • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5 .H Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested _ Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42200 Office Supplies Total Budget Requested 413 Justification: Paper for agenda packets 103 Cassette tapes for meetings 50 Typewriter ribbons 10 Legal pads, pens,folders, post-it pads, 200 tape, etc. Notebooks 50 Total 413 CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.1 Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42210 Operating Supplies Total Budget Requested 700 Justification: Photos, mountings, processing,frames 225 Reference manuals 100 Drafting materials(TIF map) 150 Computer toner 25 Film and film developing 200 Total 700 • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.J Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42300 Professional Services Total Budget Requested 139,075 Justification: Audit Fees 2,375 Attorney Fees- Herrick and Newman 13,500 Popham-Haik 10,000 Jim O'Meara 5,000 * Jim Casserly 40,000 Appraisals 5,000 Non-programmed studies 25,000 Schatzlein 5,000 Kordiak 3,200 Springstead 30,000 Total 139,075 * Partially offset by development application fees • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.K Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42320 Communication Total Budget Requested 1,810 Justification: Postage-general 750 Postage for Annual Report 500 Telephone: Local 360 Long distance 200 Total 1,810 CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.L Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42330 Transportation Total Budget Requested 2,050 Justification: ' Travel to conferences(NAHRO) 1,000 Parking reimbursement for conferences 50 Professional development conference 1,000 transportation for Executive Director and Community Development Director Total 2,050 a • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.M • Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42340 Advertising Total Budget Requested 11,000 Justification: Legal notices for public hearings 2,000 Promotional ads for economic development 8,000 Request for Proposals 1,000 Total 11,000 • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.N Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42345 Dues and Subscriptions Total Budget Requested 380 Justification: Minnesota Real Estate Journal 100 American Economic Development Council 280 Total 380 5 0 • CITY OF FRIDLEY • • Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42350 Printing and Binding Total Budget Requested 5,552 Justification: TIF map 1,000 Request For Proposal's 500 Copier allocation 708 Annual Report 3,344 Total 5,552 CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.P Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42360 Insurance, Non-Personnel Total Budget Requested 36,865 Justification: Insurance- Rice Plaza 3,365 Insurance-Dairy Queen 2,000 Estimate from Finance Department 31,500 Total 36,865 • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.0 Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42370 Conferences and Schools Total Budget Requested 2,300 Justification: Lunch meeting reimbursement 500 Conference Lunches 100 Community Development Director 500 Executive Director 500 Miscellaneous local-NAHRO 700 Total 2,300 • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.R Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42380 Utility Services Total Budget Requested 2,650 Justification: • * Rice Plaza utility charges 2,400 Lake Pointe electricity for 250 irrigation Total 2,650 * Reimbursed by CAM fee • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.S Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over Last Year 42400 Services Contracted: Non-Professional Total Budget Requested 55,300 Justification: Courier and delivery service to 250 Chairman,clients, and consultants Lake Pointe maintenance service 36,500 Lake Pointe tree/fertilizer maintenance 7,500 Microfiche(for Finance Department) 150 Computer charge 900 Sprinkler maintenance 10,000 Total 55,300 a, 1 • CITY OF FRIDLEY 5.T Attachment B Budget Detail Form Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Inc./Dec. Over 1989 42450 School District Payments Total Budget Requested 200,000 Justification: Estimate from Finance Department 200,000 Total 200,000 • CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority#1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Council's Account Amount City Manager's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision 45510 Special Assessments 26,503 Estimated Cost Description of Purchase: Unit Cost Quantity Total 20,773 Fridley Plaza Parking Lot 0,773 Relocated 64th Avenue(Fourmies Avenue) Estimated Cost/Trade-In Additional Costs/Trade-in(Conversion costs, accessories, set-up Unit costs,trade-in description,etc): Cost Quantity Total Justification: See above description. I. • 5.V CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority#1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Amount City Manager's Council's Account Decision No. Description Requested Recommendation 45510 Land-Dairy Queen 112,000 Acquisition Estimated Cost Description of Purchase: Unit Acquire Dairy Queen property in order to Cost Quantity Total convey land area needed for Mississippi Street improvement. Additional Costs/Trade-in(Conversion costs, accessories, set-up Estimated Cost/Trade-In Unit costs,trade-in description, etc): Cost Quantity Total Justification: See above description. t. 5.W • CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority#1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Improvements- 45530 Mississippi Street/ 635,000 University Avenue Description of Purchase: Estimated Cost Unit Roadway, utility, and University Avenue Cost Quantity Total Corridor improvements in conjunction with Mississippi Street, Anoka County project. Additional Costs/Trade-in (Conversion costs, accessories, set-up Estimated Cost/Trade-In costs,trade-in description, etc): Unit Cost Quantity Total Justification: Roadway 330,000 NSP 105,000 Corridor improvements 200,000 Total 635,000 5. X CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority#1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Improvements- 45530 Plaza Tree and 10,670 Grate Replacement Description of Purchase: Estimated Cost Unit Replace trees, install grates, remove Cost Quantity Total stumps, and replace pavers. See below 10,670 • Additional Costs/Trade-in (Conversion costs, accessories,set-up Estimated Cost/Trade-In costs,trade-in description,etc): Unit Cost Quantity Total Justification: Hardier tree species with grates at the base will ensure healthier, longer-lived trees in the Plaza area. Some existing trees have died and others are stressed. 8 deciduous trees 4,760 Replace pavers and 2,875 remove stumps 25% contingency 3,035 Total 10,670 • 4 5.Y CITY OF FRIDLEY Attachment D Capital Outlay Request Form Priority#1 Submitted by Barbara Dacy/Paul Hansen Budget Year 1991 Department Division COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HRA _ Dollar Account Amount City Manager's Council's No. Description Requested Recommendation Decision Improvements- 45530 Two Spare 4,500 Decorative Lights Description of Purchase: Estimated Cost Unit Two spare decorative lights Cost Quantity Total 2,250 2 4,500 Additional Costs/Trade-in (Conversion costs, accessories, set-up Estimated Cost/Trade-In costs,trade-in description, etc): Unit Cost Quantity Total Justification: These lights will replace any damaged lights. Costs will then be charged to abutting property owner. DATE 02/07/01 CITY OF FRIDLEY - HRA PAGE 1 6 PROGRAM P003 CHECK REGISTER CHECK RUN BATCH 4 :0001 002 HRA VENDOR DISC. JOB DESCRIPTION INV 4 PO/INV 4 SEQ 1 PCNT AMDINT ACCT NUMBER M1BR MESSAGES 2094 **** CHECK-PREPAID **** N00055 NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MPLS. BOND PAYMENT 00388-01 3FBT430.0000 245,000.00 ORMO-YO200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 245,000.00 CR380-10100 CASH BOND PAYMENT 00338-02 3FBT460.0000 126,132.50 DR380-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 126,132.50 CR3880-10100 CASH BOND PAYMENT 00388-03 3FBT490.0000 490.19 DR380-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 490.19 CR380-10100 CASH **** TOTAL VENDOR **** $ 371,622.69 2095 **** CHECK-PREPAID **** BOO176 BRIOGS AND MORGAN PROF. ASSOC. LEGAL SRVICE 00389-01 3FBT4T0.0000 304.50 DR460-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 304.50 CR460-10100 CASH **** TOTAL VENDOR **** $ 304.50 2096 **** CHECK-PREPAID ***H F00089 FIELD. T.C. & COMPANY INSURANCE 00390-01 3FBT4E0.0000 3,360.90 DR450-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 3,360.90 CR450-10100 CASH **** TOTAL VENDOR **** $ 3,360.90- 2097 **** CHECK-PREPAID **** H00019 HERRICK & NEWMAN ANUARY LEGAL SERVICES 00391-01 3FBT4X0.0000 1,047.00 DR460-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 1,047.00 Ct460r10100 CASH **** TOTAL VENDOR **** $ 1,047.00 2098 **** CHECK-PREPAID **** P0004 POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, ?Rf1:ES:�I0NAL SERVICE 00392-01 3FBT4P0.0000 901.20 DR455-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 901.20 CR455-10100 CASH **** TOTAL VENDOR **** $ 901.20 2099 **** CHECK-PREPAID **** ZZZ2O3 SCHATZLEIN ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING S 00393-02 3FBT4K0.0000 65.00 DR451-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 65.00 CR451-10100 CASH PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING S 00393-01 3FBT4Z0.0000 65.00 DR460-20200 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 65.00 CR460-10100 CASH **** TOTAL VENIOR **** $ 130.00 **** TOTAL NUMBER OF CHECKS WRITTEN : 000000 **** TOTAL DOLLARS FOR CHECKS WRITTEN : $ 377,366.29 **** LAST CHECK NUMBER : 002093 INFORMATION ITEMS 7 Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 8, 1991 TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA ,,4 FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Status of First Western/Target Project First Western's variance applications were considered by the Appeals Commission on January 22, 1991. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances except for one setback variance along 85th Avenue. These items will be presented to the City Council at the February 25, 1991, meeting. As of this date, we have not received further documentation or indication from the petitioner as to the amount of HRA assistance request. BD:ls M-91-76 t f 8 Community Development Department EAHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 8, 1991 TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Update on Fridley Town Square Project The Planning Commission considered the redevelopment plan amendment to add a drive-through window at the west end of the shopping center at the January 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission did not pass a recommendation to the City Council as each motion for approval or denial tied in a 3-3 vote. This item will be on the City Council agenda for the February 11, 1991, meeting. A verbal update will be provided for the HRA at their February 14, 1991, meeting. Consistent with HRA direction, we have not taken any action to work on the development contract regarding this project. Also, for the HRA's interest, attached is a copy of a newspaper article regarding banksruptcy of the Burger King restaurants. As you recall, the Burger King restaurant in the southwest quadrant was proposed to be relocated to the proposed shopping center. BD:ls M-91-77 " =•r, 8 Rate- 1.3 m y ■7r aa . aai r -1 r » 1 1 r I r % . r Iva I IN=1 UT Son =,.. 9 1" :44.1 a. = w !!!! i > ....a-s, k --coc: - .'' O r O Q _N eri ; i SN o.0. F ^ a^` r c ad +` CD II sCD SA ' O N CD ;;^�; �zQ g�:;�. aft. ` z .• 3 AM -.. f. (11) , _ g pop ; ......., I () v. .., 0:7 5 113 cn , /-2,.--e,t, X l§ a -40 t. I _Fie V.< 41, A 0 71 a) t , ;,' C Cpc JD ?W�r, 3 it�8122a o.OP ? . a.d: _ 1 tIti _, -- �ns n VJ Not e rOFpp1 N al 0 .! • ;-'9 .. tr. , .,-,A.,_ , ' 1....wg -N1 li44 g I LO ::; 1 ---...... . v f., ' -7.• • r cip A0 =' ; -1 CD I ---'54,,,-,...:v,::::::-.,-. , ;:,-,t- - - lin .i.,32 -4,,,s, it=- c 0 1 .. ..';., 4 O 'O Q)Q, cTi = s,. �. ch •° O .,`t a e�I N4o , ^ a 44,4 , = (I) . . w aa 3 (1) F . °n w SO et ... ul - `‹ '''. g.0..6 i s.5 = m.... = 5' aO g• ° nv Hn.. ey °sg ?.. 0 am m ?(1s ge s ~.= 6 ° nnmm ° n� ..H a° O:; y oO °°. � � d . Hry ..D• o-Da m t , i= o' . nn �m s n � R � � .m„g . 90.- • ca MINI II 3 3 = . . 0 0 0 c:gZ 0 0 4 —. ar ao ^.� •�9 39 � ° � � o0.ncO7ncac o^ a - Scr-° n R = gss° <' � rm � � �� ��FOP c»o .g.ss.o -,1.8.,(t§,. -x za.8egF 9.-s-K = Pk" ntgligg°102f EgT. a CO ... N A O U H.< .0 - 2i. AM .44 •••• NO ,— y.N•9o.f m =- (11) as• co 2 m.p . „tea .'� oa * 1•- •o'�•s• SoPri .. .1114 C rS a^ 2 -.a_ 23— t8 eR A Fritts3 E 7 ^•o o e_ ...1 us,1 r... E.1 - NC $ = 5.=-0. .0 = OD sio C .9 c D4 0 to = e ".. C willt:) • •ei ^°fag 4rs 033€. uog . P•o,2m re5.ce mare 0 5• CD E.woe : on. ? 4°a° eSiS'o' 2oe<i ga?� ICn�g7 < e 3 * > "98-1 11 RI a?„•5-4 c 7 cr- (C:il (7) 9.12.., - Y.o 0 a i fn .- _. a: a f9-.54 er-tsp tggigl .5" -,..., -0 * .2 ININ• 7.'ia a 3.csg 5-8 'a-8 ...• 0 Ili< • , c=` I aw» 1r89m;moo ° 2 Srm ��e`;c; cc �o5� ^u:; `Q< o� c ao3 � N < N13 � (1) d �~ ems°-�° .. 2•-g09,rs (�• 0 5 = '.�I , e, - ;r F.2eT o ', Re sr.' M p e ag 9 ^ �B 9r .:5�•14:4t N �p • . ^ sm ^ o- CDm $�a.9� w ,,;nee 5 poc :ij iTod gY rS e'O ='°a° c •i I r .5 g • . ..Nl. •..a't .. 9 ¢a' • j•- - , t • • •' ?2e. '' " 1t •t 11 .1 I.w .' •• a. •.... . . . • - . • le i - �J ♦ •.• - _ . _sue i d 9 07-Feb-91 RICE PLAZA 1991 RENT JANUARY FEBRUARY TOTAL NORGE VILLAGE 1,107.06 1,100.00 2,207.06 METZ BAKING 702.98 755.63 1,458.61 CHILDREN CHARM 445.02 445.02 HONG KONG KITCHEN 752.97 752.97 MY SISTER'S CLOSET 702.97 793.74 1,496.71 T'S HAIR PLUS 800.00 800.00 CINNAMON SKIN TAN 0.00 RAPIT PRINTING 897.14 897.14 TOTAL 4,163.12 3,894.39 8,057.51 YEAR TO DATE 8,057.51 Rent amounts vary from month to month because insurance and tax costs are prorated to each tenant based on the percentage of square feet of building. Some choose to pay equal increments, and some don't. • 10 1 , 0 R Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager 4 DATE: February 4, 1991 SUBJECT: 1991 TIF Legislation I recently attended a NAHRO conference. During the conference, I asked the person giving the legislative update, Gene Ranieri, whether we were likely to see any amendments to TIF legislation in 1991. Gene indicated that he did not see much coming. He felt, however, that cities should draft their own TIF legislation if they wanted something to happen. It just so happens that Jim Casserly has been working on a number of TIF amendments that he proposes to somehow have introduced in the 1991 legislative session. A summary of the amendments is as follows: 1. The first amendments Jim is suggesting are designed to help us redevelop along University Avenue. Our general plan is to convert commercial property to residential. Not surprisingly, this type of conversion leaves us very little tax increment to cover the costs of acquiring and clearing the land. Jim's proposal would permit an authority to create and certify a tax increment financing district and to elect to defer the date for receipt of the first tax increment from the district. It would also permit an authority to demolish substandard structures prior to creation of a redevelopment district, and yet treat the land as occupied by a structurally substandard building. I suppose the aim here is to get the value of the substandard structures off the property before we actually begin the redevelopment process. That should help us increase the increment. 2. The second amendments would remove a redevelopment district's hazardous housing districts and hazardous subdistricts from the LGA/HACA penalties that were enacted in 1990. Senator Frank publicly offered to carry this type of bill for me at the January 28, 1991, City Council meeting. M.. a 10 .A Memo to HRA February 4, 1991 Page Two 3. The third amendments relate to the use of assessment agreements in conjunction with a tax increment project. One of the amendments, for example, makes it clear that an assessment agreement may be entered into between an authority and any person. The law currently provides that agreements may be entered into between the authority and the developer and/or redeveloper of property. Another amendment permits that minimum market values established for land and improvements by an assessment district can be increased or decreased on the life of the assessment agreement. Other amendments are also provided and justified on bases best known to Jim. 4. The fourth amendments relate to the use of TIF revenue for administrative expenses and also, clear up the unintended result that constrains the use of tax increment financing revenue for pay-as-you-go financing districts. 5. The fifth amendment eliminates some of the authority of the Commissioner of Revenue over tax increment financing. 6. The sixth amendment is very important to us. It clearly establishes that the penalties and interest derived from tax delinquent property are to be distributed back to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. As you are no doubt aware, Anoka County is currently choosing to keep all penalties and interest collected on tax delinquent property in tax increment districts. 7. The seventh amendment extends the life of a renewal and renovation district from fifteen years to twenty years. No doubt, some of these amendments have been written by Jim to accommodate the interest of the MCDA. I will try to talk with him more in an effort to get a better explanation for all the amendments prior to our meeting on February 14, 1991. The amendments that appear to be most important are those contained in Nos. 1, 2, and 6. WWB:rsc , • 1 10 .B A bill for an act relating to tax increment and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990 , Sections 469 . 174 , subdivision 10, 469. 175 , subdivision 1 , and 469 . 177 , subdivisions 2 and 3 . The purpose of these amendments is to permit an authority to create and certify a tax increment financing district but elect to defer the date for receipt of the first tax increment from the district . The proposed amendments would permit an authority to elect in a tax increment financing plan the first year in which the authority would receive the initial payment of tax increment from a district . The proposed amendments would also !permit an authority to demolish a structurally substandard building prior to the creation of a redevelopment district or a renewal and renovation district -and yet, under certain circumstances, treat the land as occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of determining whether the district qualifies as a redevelopment district or a renewal and renovation district. ' 10.0 • A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, sections 469.174, subdivision 10; 469. 175, subdivision 1; and 469 .177, subdivision 2 and 3. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.174 , subdivision 10, is amended to read: Subd. 10. (REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. ] (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: ( 1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or ( 2) the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of- way, (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or EL A I 10.D similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence. If the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is not disqualified as structurally substandard, the municipality may make such a determination without an interior inspection or an independent, expert appraisal of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel will be deemed to be occupied by structurally substandard buildings if the parcel was occupied by structurally substandard buildings prior to the creation of the district and prior to the demolition and clearance of such parcel the authority found by resolution that the parcel was occupied by structurally substandard buildings and that after demolition and clearance the parcel would be included within a district . IIII.. • 10.E (c) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. (d) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) , clauses (1) to (3) , to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a) . Section 2. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469 .175, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. (TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN. ) A tax increment financing plan shall contain: (1) a statement of objectives of an authority for the improvement of a project; (2) a statement as to the development program for the project, including the property within the project, if any, that the authority intends to acquire; (3) a list of any development activities that the plan proposes to take place within the project, for which contracts have been entered into at the time of the preparation of the plan, including the names of the parties to the contract, the activity governed by the contract, the cost stated in the contract, and the expected date of completion of that activity; (4) identification or description of the type of any other specific development reasonably expected to take place within the project, and the date when the development is likely to occur; 10.F (5) estimates of the following: ( i) cost of the project, including administration expenses; (ii) amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; (iii) sources of revenue to finance or otherwise pay public costs; ( iv) the most recent net tax capacity of taxable real property within the tax increment financing district; (v) the estimated captured net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district at completion; and (vi ) the duration of the tax increment financing district ' s existence; (6) statements of the authority' s alternate estimates of the impact of tax increment financing on the net tax capacities of all taxing jurisdictions in which the tax increment financing district is located in whole or in part. For purposes of one statement, the authority shall assume that the estimated captured net tax capacity would be available to the taxing jurisdictions without creation of the district, and for purposes of the second statement, the authority shall assume that none of the estimated captured net tax capacity would be available to the taxing jurisdictions without creation of the district; (7) identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in subdivision 3, clause ( 2) ; and (8) identification of all parcels to be included in the district. : and • 1 1 U.G (91 the election, if any, as to the first year in which the initial receipt of tax increment from the district shall occur . Section 3. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.177, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. (CAPTURED NET TAX CAPACITY. ) The county auditor shall certify the amount of the captured net tax capacity to the authority each year, commencing in the first year in which tax increment is payable to the authority as required by the tax increment financing plan pursuant to section 469. 174. subdivision 1 (9) , or as otherwise required by the terms of sections 479.174 to 469. 179 together with the proportion that the captured net tax capacity bears to the total net tax capacity of the real property within the tax increment financing district for that year. (a) An authority may choose to retain any part or all of the captured net tax capacity for purposes of tax increment financing according to one of the following options: (1) If the plan provides that all the captured net tax capacity is necessary to finance or otherwise make permissible expenditures under section 469. 176, subdivision 4, the authority may retain the full captured net tax capacity. (2) If the plan provides that only a portion of the captured net tax capacity is necessary to finance or otherwise make permissible expenditures under section 469.176, subdivision 4, only that portion shall be set aside and the remainder shall 10 .H be distributed among the affected taxing districts by the county auditor. (b) The portion of captured net tax capacity that an authority intends to use for purposes of tax increment financing must be clearly stated in the tax increment financing plan. Section 4. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.177, subdivision 3, is amended to read: Subd. 3. (TAX INCREMENT, RELATIONSHIP TO CHAPTER 473F. ] (a) Unless the governing body elects pursuant to clause (b) the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of chapter 473F. The first year in which the current net tax capacity of a district is determined, shall be no earlier than the year preceding the first year elected for payment of tax increment to the authority pursuant to section 469.174, subdivision 1( 9 ) , or, in the absence of such an election, in the year in which the original net tax capacity of the district is certified. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net .tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to 10.1 share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. ( 2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. (b) The governing body may, by resolution approving the tax increment financing plan pursuant to section 469.175, subdivision 3, elect the following method of computation: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provision of chapter 473F. The first year in which the current net tax capacity of a district is determined shall be no earlier than the year preceding the first year elected for payment of tax increment to the authority Pursuant to section 469.174, pubdivision 1(9) , or , in the absence of such an election, in the year in which the original net tax capacity of the district is certified. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to section 473F.08, . I 10.J subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. ( 2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. (3) An election by the governing body pursuant to paragraph (b) shall be submitted to the county auditor by the authority at the time of the request for certification pursuant to subdivision 1. (4) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body imok • • I 10.K may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b) . ft.. • , 1 10.L A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990 , Section 273 . 1399, subdivision 1 . The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate redevelopment districts , housing districts , and hazardous substance subdistricts from the tax increment financing districts subject to the LGA/HACA 'penalty imposed by Section 273 . 1399 . . 10.M A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 273.1399, subdivision 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 273.1399, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subd. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meaning given. (a) "Qualifying captured tax capacity" means the following amounts: ( 1) the captured tax capacity of an economic development district or soils condition tax- icfemeat-€4 aae44g—district for which certification was requested after April 30, 1990; and ( 2) the captured tax capacity of a tax--inc-rt--Einsncing renewal and renovation district or mined underground space development district, der en--asr-econom i-c- deve lopment o r rr eonditioft-distriet; for which certification was requested after April 30, 1990, multiplied by the following percentage based on the number of years that have elapsed since the district was first certified (measured from January 2 immediately preceding certification of the original tax capacity) . In no case may the final amounts be less than zero or greater than the total captured tax capacity of the district. • 1 . 1O.N Number of Renewal and All other years Renovation Districts Districts 0 to 5 6. 25 6 12.5 7 25 12.5 8 37 . 5 18.75 9 50 25 10 62. 5 31. 25 11 75 37 . 5 12 87. 5 43.75 13 100 50 14 100 56. 25 15 100 62.5 16 100 68.75 17 100 75 18 100 81. 25 19 100 87. 5 20 100 93.75 21 or more 100 100 I-n-the--cese-of-ar baseideus-subst aaee-subd}s t f i e t,-the-ssmb e f- of gears-m t-be-measured-€fem-the-data`-of--eeFt-if loa kom-a€-the- subd-i-stritt--f rr--pu-r poses-of--the-add rti a1 -eaptar-ed-tax-eapa e i t y- resu-l-ti-ng--from--the--reduction--ifl--t tie--s*bd-teat i '�-or--s i t e's- ori g-i-n e-1--tax- c pec-it3r.- (b) The terms defined in section 469.174 And used in this section 273.1399 shall have the meanings -iverr-km-that Assigned to such terms in section 469. 174 . L-5 ) 10. 0 A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990 , Section 469 . 177 , subdivision 8 . The purpose of this amendment is to make certain changes to - the statute that authorizes the use of assessment agreements with respect to tax increment financing districts. These changes are summarized below. !The bill amends the statute to make it clear that an sassessment agreement may be entered into between an authority and fatty person. The law presently provides that the assessment agreement must be entered into between an authority and a !'developer or redeveloper of property within the .t-ax increment financing district . " The term "developer or redeveloper" is not a defined term. If the term is defined according to the usual meaning of the term, then the provision is unnecessarily limiting to the extent that it restricts the use of assessment agreements to only those who are "developing or redeveloping" within a district . The bill permits an authority to enter into an assessment agreement with any person who owns or is expected to own land and improvements in a district . Similarly, the bill amends the statute to permit the assessment agreement to be applicable to existing improvements as well as newly-constructed improvements in a district . The bill amends the statute to permit the minimum market value established for land and improvements in a district to be fixed or to increase or decrease in subsequent years from the minimum market value initially established by the terms of the assessment agreement . The law presently assumes a single minimum market value in place for the life of the assessment agreement . The amendment will provide greater flexibility to an authority in negotiating the terms of an assessment agreement . The bill establishes the conditions for termination of an assessment agreement. The present statute provides for termination on a "specified termination date , which date shall be not later than the date upon which tax increment will no longer be remitted to the authority pursuant to section 469 . 176 , subdisivion. " The bill would make it clear that the termination date can be a date on which certain conditions set forth in the assessment agreement are satisfied. The bill amends the statute to delete the requirement that there be a transfer of land from an authority to a developer or redeveloper as a condition to the filing of an assessment agreement in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles. This amendment is consistent with the amendments that permit "any person" to enter into an assessment agreement and to allow existing improvements to be the subject of an assessment agreement . The bill also eliminates the requirement that a copy of Section 469 . 177 , subdivision 8, be filed with the assessment agreement . The latter requirement does not appear to serve any significant purpose . Several other changes are made by the bill to the statute . Most are made to make the statute consistent with the substantive changes summarized above. Some of the changes are made to M. , I 10.P eliminate unnecessary provisions or to correct technical mistakes in the existing statute . NEW ! 10.0 A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.177, subdivision 8. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469 .177, subdivision 8, is amended to read: Subd. 8. (ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS. ] An authority may enter into a written assessment agreement 421--r.ecordab]e-form_ with -a- developer--ef--redeveloper--0€-property--w-it-lh-i -the--t.ax--ieecemeet f-irraeeinit-di-t{3ct 8ny person which establishes a minimum market value of the any land in a district and -completed- any existing improvements or improvements to be constructed t ereon--ti-1-a- speci-f4-ec3-te-rsni.nat-ion-date,-wbicb-date-shall-be-not-later-than in a district and owned or to be owned by such person. The minimum market value established by an assessment agreement may be fixed or it may increase or decrease in subsequent years from the minimum market value initially established for the land and improvements. Every assessment agreement shall terminate upon the earliest to occur of: the date on which any conditions established in the assessment agreement for termination of the assessment agreement have been satisfied; the termination date specified in the assessment agreement; or the date upon which tax increment will no longer be remitted to the authority pursuant to section 469 . 176, subdivision 1. The -assessment-agteemeat-shall be-pr-esented-to--t-he- county assessors., or city assessors. having the powers of the county assessors., of the jurisdiction in which -1- ft. . . 1 10.R the tax-lnerement-t-inanclng district is located.--T-he-aeeessef shall review-t plane-and-spec-it-iFatione-€or-the-improvements-te be-eons tn*etedr-fevIew-tbe--maFket-value--previoueljr-assigned-to the-land-upon-wh}eh-the-l+ xovemente-are--tom-be-oenstrusted-and, so-long-as determine whether the minimum market valuel contained- in the assessment agreement appearsr- r}-the--}udgrnewt-of--the- asses oc-,--to-be--a- are reasonable estimate, and, if so. shall execute the following certification upon the assessment agreement: The undersigned - sseccor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described propertyt-upon-completion --t -;-mproi.temente...-#a-be--constructed--thereon, hereby -oerif-ies- certify that the minimum market valuel assigned to the land and improvements upon-c mpletion--shall-not-be-less -t -fr are reasonable. -Open---t-raest ef- --t-i-t-l-e--of- the--Land--to--be--desoeloped--o-r redeveloped €ram-the-authority-to-the--developer -® -cedevelo , the The assessment agreements---t;ogether--with--a-4. 4,1--tb4e- subdi-.ieicn-e shall be filed for record and recorded in the office of the county recorder or fi-led-441-the-office-of-tbe registrar of titles of the county or counties where the weal--es-rate- land or any part thereof is situated. Upon-- complet --of--tom impr-ovememta--by--the-developer--ar--redeveloper, Thereafter. the assessor shall value the property pursuant to section 273.11, except that the market value assigned thereto shall not be less than the minimum market value ai-ned--in established by the terms of the assessment agreement. Nothing herein shall limit • -2- 1oss the diseFetion-e€-the-assessor-to-a0Oign- assignment of a market value to the property in excess of the minimum market value oonta-i-ned- inestablished by the terms of the assessment agreement nor prohibit t-he toper-or--rede-ve-toper any person from seeking- obtaining, through the-exere-ise- of- administrative -and Qr_ legal remedies, a reduction in thg market value Ear assigned to the property -bax-purposes; provided, however, that -t-he-developer-er- Fedecelope-r-shal-l--Rob-seek,-fief-sha4-l-tom EQ. city assessor, the- county assessor, t county auditor, -any board of review, any- board of equalization, -bhe commissioner of revenue, or-any court of this state shall grant a reduction of the market value below the minimum market value -oontained-3o- established by the terms of the assessment agreementLduFiRg-the-term•-- f-t- e-agreement-€iled- o€-reeerd--regg-rimless--e -actual--ma-cac-e-t-valves-wh3Fh--ma-y--fesult- frmm-4neemplete--eongt ue ion -off--impFevemenisr- t,r et3<xi,--ef- diai-nu ion--by--a-ny-cause,-insured-or-fifiifisured,-except-3n-the-ease- o€,acqu-i-e-i-ti r-(x iequis it-ioe of-the-property-by-a-pub1 i a-a at i t y,- Recording assessment agreement complying-with-the- bertee---f---bhia--aitbdi-vision shall constitute notice -e€--the- agreement-to-may` - rchaser-or-encimbfancef-e€-the-land- or-any--arm-theree€,-- whet-he-r--veluRtary--or--iRveluRtacy, to all persons who have or may acauire anv interest in the land and improvements subiect to the assessment agreement of the minimum market values established by the terms of the assessment agreement and shall be binding upon them. -3- . . 1 7—( )1 10.T A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990 , Section 469 . 1763 . There are two purposes to be accomplished by the amendments made by this bill . The definition of the term "activities" in paragraph ( b) of subdivision 1 of the statute is proposed to be amended to eliminate the exclusion of administrative expenses from the scope of the defined term. Subdivision 2 of the statute provides that 75 percent of the tax increment derived from a district must be expended on "activities" in the district . Under the existing ' definition of "activities" this means that none of such portion of the tax increment revenues of a district may be expended on administrative expenses . The subdivision also states , however, that the remaining 25 percent of the tax increment derived from the district may be expended on "activities" outside the district. Since the term "activities" is also applied to the authorized expenditures of the remaining 25 percent of the tax increment revenues of the district , it appears that none of the tax increment revenues derived from a district may be expended on administrative expenses . The bill would amend the statute by deleting any reference to administrative expenses . As a result , only the limitations imposed by Section 469 . 176 , subdivision 3 [ Limitation on Administrative Expenses ) , on the payment of administrative expenses with tax increment revenues would apply . The five-year rule imposed by subdivision 3 of the statute on the expenditure of tax increment revenues on activities in a district has the unintended result of eliminating pay-as-you-go financing for districts. To the extent that a pay-as-you-go financing is structured as a bond of the authority or municipality, clause ( 2 ) of paragraph ( a ) of subdivision ( 3 ) requires that the bond must be issued and sold to a third party. Since most pay-as-you-go financings involve the sale of a bond to a person receiving the benefit of the tax increment financing , such person would not qualify as a third party . Therefore , tax increment revenues derived from a district would not be available to pay debt service on such a pay-as-you-go bond after five years from the date of certification of the district . To the extent that a pay-as-you-go financing is structured as a contractual obligation to reimburse a person for the costs of activities paid by such person during the five year period after the certification of a district , clause ( 4 ) of paragraph ( a ) of subdivision ( 3 ) of the statute would appear to preclude the payment of interest accrued after five years from the certification of the district on the unpaid amount of such costs . The bill would amend subdivision ( 3 ) of the statute to permit pay-as-you-go financings in both circumstances. 10.0 A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469. 1763 . BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1 . Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469. 1763, is amended to read: 469. 1763 (RESTRICTIONS ON POOLING: FIVE-YEAR LIMIT. ] Subdivision 1 . (DEFINITIONS. ] (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Activities" means any purpose for which tax increment may be lawfully expended, including acquisition of property, clearing of land, site preparation, soils correction, removal of hazardous waste or pollution, installation of utilities, construction of public or private improvements, and other similar activities. 7-bet-eMy-to-- he- -ter t -tlat-t-a*-raerement-revenues- may-be- e�rt-for-such-fltrr-poses--trader--ether- -- -de- net-i-tee]-ud -allocateel--ac Rirarstr-a rve-expeeses,--but--do--inelt,de eRgiReer3RgT-arehiteetura1T-and-similar-eests-ef-the-imprevemeRts- iR-the-distriet: (c) "Third party" means an entity other than ( 1 ) the person receiving the benefit of assistance financed with tax increments, or ( 2 ) the municipality or the development authority or other person substantially under the control of the municipality. Subd. 2. (EXPENDITURES OUTSIDE DISTRICT. ] (a) For each tax increment financing district, an amount equal to at least 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district must be expended on activities in the district or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities in the district or to pay, or secure payment of , debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the district but within the defined geographic area of the project except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. The revenue derived from tax increments for the district that are expended on costs under section 469.176, subdivision 4h, paragraph (b) , may be deducted first before calculating the percentages that must be expended within and without the district. (b) In the case of a housing district, a housing project, as defined in section 469.174, subdivision 11 , is an activity in the district. 10.V Subd. 3. (FIVE-YEAR RULE. ] (a) Revenues derived from tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the district under subdivision 2 only if one of the following occurs: ( 1 ) before or within five years after certification of the district, the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity; ( 2) bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to -a-third--per-t-y- any person before or within five years after certification and the revenues are spent to repay the bonds; ( 3) binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation; or ( 4 ) costs with respect to the activity are paid before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent to reimburse a-party any person for payment of the costs ( including interest on unpaid costs) . (b) For purposes of this subdivision, bonds include subsequent refunding bonds if one of two test is met: ( 1 ) the proceeds of the original refunded bonds were spent on activities within five years after the district was certified or ( 2) the original refunded bonds are issued within five years after the district was certified and the proceeds are expended on activities within a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under section 148(c) ( 1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code. Subd. 4. (USE OF REVENUES FOR DECERTIFICATION. ) Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the district, 75 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district that remain after the expenditures permitted under subdivision 3 must be used only to pay outstanding bonds, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a) , clause ( 2) , and paragraph (b) or contracts, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a) , clauses ( 3) and ( 4) . When the outstanding bonds have been defeased and when sufficient money has been set aside to pay contractual obligations as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a) , clauses ( 3) and ( 4) , the district must be decertified and the pledge of tax increment discharged. • 10 .W A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990 , Section 469. 1771 , subdivision 1 . The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota does not have general rule-making powers with respect to tax increment financing . The bill amends Minnesota Statutes 1990 , Section 469 . 1771 , subdivision 1 , by deleting a general reference to the power of the Commissioner of Revenue to "enforce the provisions of sections 469. 174 to 469 . 179" and by replacing it with a provision that grants to the Commissioner of Revenue the power to enforce the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1990 , Sections 469 . 175 , subdivision 6a, and 469. 1771 . Section 469 . 175 , subdivision 6a, imposes upon each municipality the requirement to annually report to the Commissioner of Revenue certain information regarding the tax increment districts in the municipality. Section 469. 1771 is the provision that provides for the recovery of tax increment paid to an authority or expended by an authority contrary to the provisions of the tax increment financing statutes . The bill also deletes the provision authorizing the Commissioner of Revenue to audit an authority' s use of tax increment financing . The deletion eliminates duplication since the State Auditor already has audit powers with respect to tax increment financing districts . 10.x A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469 .1771, subdivision 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469.1771, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subd. 1. (a) The comas-ionex-of- r u8-shall--enb°ue-the .pr-o ie.ic�r+s-of--seetkGRs- 46.9-.-1a�-to- 9-.a.-79-r---Iri-additioa,--the owner of taxable property located in the city, town, school district, or county in which the tax increment financing district is located may bring suit for equitable relief or for damages, as provided in subdivisions 3 and 4, arising out of a failure of a municipality or authority to comply with the provisions of sections 469 .174 to 469.179, or related provisions of chapter 469 . The prevailing party in a suit filed under the preceding sentence is entitled to costs, including reasonable attorney fees. (b) The responsibility for financial and compliance auditing of political subdivisions use of tax increment financing remains with the state auditor . If the state auditor finds evidence that an authority or municipality has violated a provision of the law for which a remedy is provided under this section, the state auditor shall forward the relevant information to the commissioner of revenue. The commissioner of revenue may aatd-i-t-,are-authority's-tise- of--t-ax-iReEemeRt-€inanciag enforce the provisions of section 469 .175, subdivision 6a, and section 469 . 1771 . 'IO. Y MEMORANDUM Pam Frantum, John Green, Duane Johnson and TO: John Utley -\ U FROM: Arlin Waelti(i DATE: September 28, 1990 RE: Department of Revenue Advisory Opinion Attached is the September 25, 1990 Advisory Opinion by the Department of Revenue concluding that the 1990 tax increment changes apply to expansions of pre-existing districts. You will want to refer to the materials I sent to you on September 20th regarding the initial Joel Michael ' s memorandum of April 27th and Jim O'Meara ' s letters and memorandum. As I mentioned at that t of time, I doubted if winh theercaseeth y were,enRevenue whether the legislature or would respond by just changing the law. I C.1%..:, loll te• 'r414.I•i STATE OF MINNtSOTA OCrAu?M .NT Or CVCr4UC September 25. 1990 Mt . JajuCS O'Me(rn Briggs and Morgan 2200 First National Bank St. Paul. Minnesota 55 101 teal Mr. O'Meara: Thunk you for your letter and Inemor-ndum of September 13. 1990 regarding the application of the 199 .. .mendments to the Tax Increment Act. Please know that I have discussed the matter with Jerzy Silkey and Joel Michael to whom you have apparently previously voiced your concerns. While the Department cannot issue an administrative ruling in this instance. I am rrt.ure than happy to •respond to your concerns through this letter. which I consider an advisory opinion only.' It is true that prior to the 1990 Session, the Legislature did specifically designate whether substantive amendments to the TIF act applied to pre-existing districts. However. in reviewing the Intent of the 1990 Legislature. the context of enactment is extremely critical. Minn. Stat. 645. 16. In reviewing statutes, a court's objective, and mine here. is to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's intent. Minn. Stat. 646.16. Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic Sec.. N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 1986). It is also nccessary to consider the possible consequences of a particular interpretation in interpreting statutes. Minn. Stat. 646. 16. and Turna. Id. at 707. The 1990 Session produced a major overhaul of the TIF system in Minnesota. The intent of the 1990 Amendments was very clear and substantially different than past TIF legislation. The Legislature sought 1 Although enforcement authority was granted to the Department in the 1990 Session, the enabling section is not effective until December 31. 1990. Art. 7. Sec. 31(a). AN EOUAL OPPr!NIUNITY EMPLOYER 10.AA rage Two remedy • abuses of the tool of tax-Increment financing to cdalify�„ to responsibility of the state to finance local use of TIF. and,os,ope t process to enable taxTayers to voice their support or opposition specific local TIF plans. To that unless nd. the T the districts satueire dct i,u exception for pre-existing districts specifically »arced or as provided for in Chap. 604. Art. 7, See. 31. You will recall that the Legislature limited th�Sect�on 27) and spec generated ifically by pre-existing districts in Minneapolis exempted only a handful of expected 'i tl' districts, requiring each dish ict to seek certification by a set date (Section` 30). his us. in 1o90. the Legislature frugally limited the ability pre-existing r expanding districts to escape the new amendments. z een entco . Thisn approach p,o,c is not surprising, given the Legislature's of TIF. Moreover, 1 must concur with Mr. Michael is in his the newly certifiedn that the. ost sensible reading of Article 7, Sectioncd c of of any district is subject the the enUre rules. district coo d be plain suU�ec gto �l�e the provisions suggests that new rules. l lowever, this would force the creationof result which l dos. rather than the amendment of an existing district, a not believe is consistent with the Legislature's intent. Your reading of the statute, and your memorandum, suggests that the entire existing district, including a new area.ssumption thatwould be apdistricts t from the new rules. Furthermore, it requires for which certification is requested" reallymeans after."new ,disU�t " or "districts for which certification isrequested Mr. Michael correctly points out, sl existig nd thccdul�a ton ofpment ddsnew trict created after April 30. 1985 could exte renewal and renovation district byfhe resultt as an wou d be the non- to an existing redevelopment district." of section 1, without amendments to avoid the application much, if any, effect on the amount of an increment crm This would effectively e of time during which increment could be coll allow over 400 existing TIF districts to bee s cxult never t f m the ed1990ts Legislature's TIF overhaul legislation, a passage. 1O.BB Page Three. If you have any further questions. please do not hesitate to contact rue. Assistant Colnmissioncr John Tomlinson, or Sonja Kerr of Appeals and Legal SeivicCs. ?try 1i•L1(y ours, • lnJu ommissioncr 10 River Park Plaza St. Paul, Minnesota 55146-7100 cc: John Tomlinson Michael Wandmacher Gordon Folkinan fob Cline Jerry Silkcy Representative Ann Rest Keith Carlson Joel Michael Sonja Kerr Gene Ranieri Andrea Lubov, League of Minnesota Cities John Kirby, Dorsey & Whitney Stephen Rosholt, Faegre & Benson Robert Dieke, Holmes & Graven - - 10.CC An issue has been raised in several communities regarding the distribution of penalties and interest on real and personal property taxes for property located in tax increment districts. In most counties the practice appears to be that the penalties and interest go to the authority that establishes the tax increment district. This appears to be a "common sense conclusion" since most frequently the taxes are pledged to the payment of debt by bond resolutions. In order to eliminate any ambiguity the proposed amendment simply specifies that any penalties and interest allocable to the tax increment must be distributed to the authority, while the penalties and interest allocable to the base will be distributed proportionately to the local taxing jurisdictions. The amendment also makes clear that all taxing jurisdictions should share in the penalties and interest in the proportion that the local tax rate of each taxing jurisdiction bears to the total local tax rates of all the taxing jurisdictions. Penalties and interest are not windfall income to the local taxing jurisdictions . Because of delinquencies some will have to draw down reserves and others may be forced to borrow on a short term basis . Penalties and interest simply compensate the local jurisdictions for lost earnings and additional costs . 1O.DD A bill for an act relating to penalties, interest and costs on real and personal property taxes; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 276. 131 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1 . Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 276.131 is amended to read: 276. 131 DISTRIBUTION OF PENALTIES, INTEREST, AND COSTS. The penalties, interest, and costs collected on special assessments and real and personal property taxes must be distributed as follows: ( 1 ) all penalties and interest collected on special assessments against real or personal property must be distributed to the taxing jurisdiction that levied the assessment; (2) S0 perccnt of except as provided in clause 3 all penalties and interest collected on real and personal property taxes must be distributed to the county taxing jurisdictions in which the property is located, and the othcr S0 perccnt must be distributcd to the school district in which the property is located in the proportion that the local tax rate of each taxing jurisdiction in the year of collection bears to the total local tax rates of all the taxing jurisdictions. The distribution to the school district must be in accordance with the provisions of section 124 . 10; and (3) penalties and interest collected on real and personal property taxes from real and personal property located within a tax increment financing district must be allocated between the original net tax capacity and the captured net tax capacity of the real and 10.EE personal property in the same proportion that each bears to the total tax capacity of the real and personal property and distributed as follows: (a) the penalties and interest allocated to the original net tax capacity must be distributed in accordance with the provisions of clause ( 2) above. - (b) the penalties and interest allocated to the captured net tax capacity must be distributed to the authority that created the tax increment financing district. (c) the terms "original net tax capacity". "captured net tax capacity authority and "tax increment financing district" shall have the meanings given in 469 . 174 . +444 4) all costs collected by the county on special assessments and on delinquent real and personal property taxes must be distributed to the county in which the property is located. • 10.FF ( � l A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing and amending Minnesota Statutes 1990 , Section 469 . 176 , subdivision 1 . The purpose of this amendment is to extend the life of a renewal and renovation district from fifteen ( 15 ) years after the date of receipt of the first tax increment to twenty ( 20 ) years after the date of receipt of the first tax increment . 10.GG A bill for an act relating to tax increment financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469. 176, subdivision 1 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 469. 176, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subd. 1. (a) Subject to the limitations contained in paragraphs (b) to (g) , any tax increment financing district as to which bonds are outstanding, payment for which the tax increment and other revenues have been pledged, shall remain in existence at least as long as the bonds continue to be outstanding. The municipality may, at the time of approval of the initial tax increment financing plan, provide for a shorter maximum duration limit than specified in paragraphs (b) to (g) . The specified limit applies in place of the otherwise applicable limit. (b) The tax increment pledged to the payment of the bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the tax increment financing district may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or date of redemption and interest thereon to the maturity or redemption date. (c) For bonds issued pursuant to section 469.178, subdivisions 2 and 3, the full faith and credit and any taxing powers of the municipality or authority shall continue to be -1- =MEN, • • 10.HH pledged to the payment of the bonds until the principal of and interest on the bonds has been paid in full. (d) No tax increment shall be paid to an authority for a tax increment financing district after three years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the taxable real property in the district by the county auditor or after August 1, 1982, for tax increment financing districts authorized prior to August 1, 1979, unless within the three-year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to section 469.178, or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to sections 469 . 152 to 469.165, prior to August 1, 1979, or ( 2) the authority has acquired property within the district, or ( 3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district. (e) No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the authority (1) after 25 years from date of receipt by the authority of the first tax increment for a mined underground space development district, redevelopment district, or housing district, ( 2) after -r5 20 years after receipt by the authority of the first increment for a renewal and renovation district, ( 3) after 12 years from approval of the tax increment financing plan for a soils condition district, and ( 4) after eight years from the date of the receipt, or ten years from approval of the tax increment financing plan, whichever is less, for an economic development district. For tax increment financing districts created prior to August 1, 1979, no tax increment shall be paid to the authority -2- 10.11 after April 1, 2001, or the term of a nondefeased bond or obligation outstanding on April 1, 1990, secured by increments from the district or project area, whichever time is greater, provided that in no case will a tax increment be paid to an authority after August 1, 2009, from such a district. If a district's termination date is extended beyond April 1, 2001, because bonds were outstanding on April 1, 1990, with maturities extending beyond April 1, 2001, the following restrictions apply. No increment collected from the district may be expended after April 1, 2001, except to pay or defease ( i) bonds issued before April 1, 1990, or ( ii) bonds issued to refund the principal of the outstanding bonds and pay associated issuance costs, provided the average maturity of the refunding bonds does not exceed the bonds refunded. ( f) Modification of a tax increment financing plan pursuant to section 469.175, subdivision 4, shall not extend the durational limitations of this subdivision. (g) If a parcel of a district is part of a designated hazardous substance site or a hazardous substance subdistrict, tax increment may be paid to the authority from the parcel for longer than the period otherwise provided by this subdivision. The extended period for collection of tax increment begins on the date of receipt of the first tax increment from the parcel that is more than any tax increment received from the parcel before the date of the certification under section 469.175, subdivision 7, paragraph (b) , and received after the date of certification to the county auditor described 'in section 469.175, subdivision 7, -3- 7 10.JJ paragraph (b) . The extended period for collection of tax increment is the lesser of: (1) 25 years from the date of commencement of the extended period; or ( 2) the period necessary to recover the costs of removal actions or remedial actions specified in a development response action plan. -4- c 1 t !, t 11 � Community Development Department U HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley • DATE: February 8., 1991 TO: William Burns, Executive Director of ERAj 0 . FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Notice from Anoka County Attached are the formal notices sent to the HRA from Anoka County regarding the tax forfeit status of the Lake Pointe property. The HRA should be aware that these tax forfeit amounts will be published in the newspaper during the month of March 199X. As you recall, the requirement of the development contract with Woodbridge Properties is that the developer is responsible for paying the property taxes. Discussion about the Lake Pointe property has been scheduled as another information item in the agenda. BD:ls M-91-79 i 11 .A ANOKA COUNTY RP REAL PROPERTY TAXES ACCOUNT R23 30 24 42 0036 KEY 00479547 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS OF 01/17/91 MORE INTEREST WILL ACCRUE AFTER 01/31/91 TAX-CODE 00021 YEAR LEVIED UNPAID PENALTY/INT ** DUE ** 90 45.55 22.77 3.41 26.18 TOTAL DUE: 26.18 R23 33 24 42 0036 HRA 6431 U V I V E R S I T Y AV Z 1" DONNAYS LAKEVIEW MANOR ADON • FRIDLEY 11 51417 CITY OF FRIDLEY LOT 22 BLK 10 DONNAYS LAKEVIEW MANOR DD(SUBJ TO Minnesota State Statutes require that the name, address and property description of all delinquent taxpayers be published in the newspaper during the month of March, 1991. If you wish to avoid this, please pay the amount above including the penalty and interest that has accrued. The amount due is good until the end of January. If-you submit your payment after January 31, 1990, please contact', this office at 421-4760 extension 1130 for the exact amount due. Donald C. Bailey Division Manager Division of Property Records and Taxation. t 11 .B ANOKA COUNTY RP REAL PROPERTY TAXES ACCOUNT R23 30 24 41 0001 KEY 00463876 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS OF 01/17/91 MORE INTEREST WILL ACCRUE AFTER 01/31/91 TAX-CODE 00021 YEAR LEVIED LAID PENALTY/INT *i DUE ** 90 109,007.95 54,503.97 8,148.33 52,652.30 TOTAL DUE: 62,652.30 121 33 24 41 3331 FRI)L_Y ii3A • 5431 U4IVE3ITY AVE 4E AUD SUB NO 155 CITY OF F'1 D L=Y :A Y 55432 FRIDLEY LOT 3 AUD SUB 155-EX PT FOR HWY-EX PT FOR HWY-SUBJ Minnesota State Statutes require that the name, address and property description of all delinquent taxpayers be published in the newspaper during the month of March, 1991. If you wish to avoid this, please pay the amount above including the penalty and interest that has accrued. The amount due is good until the end of January. If you submit your payment after January 31, 1990, please contact this office at 421-4760 extension 1130 for the exact amount due. Donald C. Bailey Division Manager Division of Property Records and Taxation. 1: • 12 CommunityDevelopmentDepartment De artment HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley DATE: February 8, 1991 �•P. TO: William Burns, Executive Director of }Md. FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Redevelopment Proposal at Former Cub Foods Site On January 15, 1991, the Executive Director and myself met with Sid Inman of Publicorp, Inc. , and Richard Martens of Linville Properties, Inc. , regarding the potential redevelopment of the Cub Foods site. Linville Properties is proposing to remodel the existing Cub Foods building (approximately 34,000 sq. ft. ) to create two large tenant spaces. They indicated that a large pet food supplier would occupy one half and the Malmborg Garden Center would occupy the remaining tenant space. They requested information as to the HRA's ability to provide a rehabilitation loan. We asked them to submit information as to the proposed value that would be created by the rehabilitation of the building. We also indicated that that type of mechanism has not been used in the past by the HRA. Sid Inman from Publicorp also suggested that the City could establish the property in the redevelopment project area and utilize existing tax increment monies to finance the loan, thus saving the City time and expense of creating a new district. Since our meeting, they have not contacted us with more information. This item is brought to the HRA's attention for information only. BD:ls M-91-75 nEJ Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members 0. FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager ,. DATE: January 30, 1991 SUBJECT: Lake Pointe Negotiations Please note the attached memorandum from Jim Casserly. Jim is reporting on his discussions with John Utley, and is also suggesting that in light of Woodbridge's interest in the negotiated buy-out, we proceed to negotiate a procedure for hiring a Lake Pointe appraiser. Please review the procedure and let me know at our meeting on February 14, 1991, whether this meets with your approval. Thank you for your consideration. WWB:rsc Attachment 1 Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. 215 South 11th Street, Suite 200 • Minneapolis • Minnesota 55403 Office(612)342-2277 • Fax(612)332-4765 MEMORANDUM To: City of Fridley 4.11 • Attention: Bill Burns, City Managery. From: James R. Casserly Manager* Re: Lake Pointe Negotiations Date: January 28, 1991 I had an extensive conversation with John Utley regarding the Lake Pointe options on Friday, January 25, 1991 . John has spent some time reviewing those options with his clients. John indicated that the only options that are attractive to his client are the HRA Buy-Out option and the Recision option. The HRA Buy-Out is unquestionably their first choice and the chances of that option working will depend upon the amount of money the HRA is willing to pay for the site. If a suitable number cannot be agreed upon, then the Recision option should be exercised. The good news in all of this is that if the City/HRA wishes to resolve the Lake Pointe issue, then we may have the opportunity to do so without litigation. John further told me that he explained very carefully to his client the consequences of their not paying the second half 1990 taxes. John told them they had no reason to panic, but clearly if they did not proceed to a resolution or pay the taxes, they would ultimately forfeit the property to the State. Woodbridge is having a meeting in the near future with its investors and will be reviewing with them the options as well as the issue of the delinquent taxes. It is possible that the Woodbridge investors could require Woodbridge to follow a different course of action. However, John has heard nothing to suggest this is probable. In light of the initial Woodbridge response to our options and memo, and in accordance with my original instructions - that is to determine if a resolution is possible - I am suggesting the following be proposed to Woodbridge to determine the feasibility of the HRA Buy-Out: 1 . The city selects two or three appraisers which we believe are qualified. 2. We provide the list of appraisers to Woodbridge and ask them to select one of them. 3. We establish a set of criteria for the appraisal . The HRA and Woodbridge may well be using different criteria. However, it may be easy for both parties to agree on the assumptions for the appraisal. The differences will clearly be in establishing the development parameters. If only office use is contemplated, then the land will have one value; if only commercial use is contemplated, then certainly the land will have a much lower value; and obviously a mixed use development may generate a third value. More thought will have to be given to this problem of evaluation. We may have to provide the appraiser with two sets of variables which the HRA and Woodbridge must agree upon. 4 . Woodbridge and the HRA agree to split the appraisal costs. 5. Once we have the appraisals, then we can negotiate over the price, terms and conditions of purchase. The appraisal is essential. It provides us guidelines for the offer and justifies the public investment in the project. In the event the terms and conditions can not be agreed upon, then we know the Buy-Out option is not workable and we can move on to the Recision option. The timing of the appraisal and the resolution of the entire Lake Pointe problem appear to be at a very convenient time given other opportunities the City/HRA may have with the Lake Pointe site. We need to discuss this option further. I would like to have Woodbridge agree to the appraisal suggestions outlined above and to the payment of one half of the appraisal costs. I would also like to start preparing a list of appraisers in whom we would have confidence. Please advise. -2- i i f ( 1___/ Community Development Department HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Fridley TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Members FROM: William W. Burns, City Manager ,it•1 DATE: January 30, 1991 SUBJECT: Suh Request Please note the attached memorandum to file regarding the meeting I had with Mr. and Mrs. Suh. The bottom line is that they want us to buy their portion of the Southwest Quadrant. I have instructed them to provide a letter to the HRA stating their wishes. As of January 30, 1991, I have not received their letter. No doubt, we will need to consider this request at a future HRA meeting. WWB:rsc Attachment L P. 5. .2 ol,:o/ - 7 n't.iit k MEMORANDUM Municipal Center 6131 University Avenue N.E. Office of the City Manager Fridley, MN 55432 William W. Burns CITYOF f iY (612) 571-3450 TO: File lee PROM: William W. Burns, City Manager e DATE: January 24, 1991 SUBJECT: Meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Suh On Wednesday, January 23, 1991, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. , I met with Jai M. Suh and Shinjai Suh who live at 12 Island Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55127. Mr. and Mrs. Suh are upset with the City of Fridley and the HRA. They feel that our identification of their property as part of a redevelopment district, along with other actions that we have taken, have served to limit the profitability of their retail rental property along University Avenue. They said that with the property being in a redevelopment district, they have difficulty leasing and selling the property to future buyers. They also said that we have generated rumors about redevelopment projects from time to time, and that they have even participated in projects to the extent of hiring attorneys and spending as much as $7,000 at a time to develop purchase agreements for projects that never materialized. They also are upset with Scott Erickson. They feel that he has been soliciting their tenants for occupation of the new Fridley Town Square project. Although Scott does not represent the City, they feel that since the HRA's money is being pledged to the Fridley Town Square project, we are indirectly responsible for taking business away from them. They feel it is unfair for us to let the developers of our other HRA projects attempt to lure in their tenants into a new development. They also learned that we bought the Levy property and are planning to buy the Dairy Queen property. They feel that it is only fair for us to also buy their property and to end the continued impact of our unsuccessful redevelopment projects that they have experienced over a thirteen year period. Nemo to File January 24, 1991 Page Two I suggested that they write us a letter outlining their request, and also promised that I would present the letter at the next HRA meeting. We should receive the letter within the next couple of days. They suggested that if we decide not to buy their property, which they value at $1.3 million, we should provide tax increment financing money that will help them remodel their existing property. They also asked me to send them a copy of the HRA minutes of the meetings in which we discussed the purchase of the Levy property and the Mississippi widening project. They are having a hard time understanding why we are spending money on the Mississippi widening project in the absence of a southwest quadrant development. They were somewhat upset over the potential impact of the Mississippi widening project on their businesses. cc: Mayor and City Council Members of the HRA Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director JAN 31 1091 William Burns City Manager , Executive Director of H.R.A. City of Fridley 6431 University Ave . N .E . MN. 55432 Jan.29, 1991 Dear Mr . Burns , As we said to you at the meeting on Jan. 23rd, we ' d like to request the City to acquire our property at this time. We have been owners of the rental properties facing University Ave . N.E . right next to Rice Plaza Center and Dairy Queen in the "Southwest Quadrant"Redevelopment area since November 1978 . We are facing another refinancing of our properties at the end of Feb . 1991 . [ Ref. 1 ] For the last 10 years we managed it ourselves , and it has been difficult for us to run the rental business under the constant threat of redevelopment and condem- nation . Soon we will be left as only one private landlord in the Southwest Quadrant , and be forced to compete for the tenants doing same types of businesses in the same area with the City- backed developers and/or City-hired property manager . We think it is best for the City to own all properties in this area at this time and to deal with one property manager , and more importantly to proceed to redevelop the whole area with more incentives . [ Ref. 2 ] Thank you . Very truly yours , ie l'"" ZIAA /77i t '�_,f�fijizilL Shinjae Suh and Jai M. Suh Ref. 1 ; Valerie trudeau, Norwest Bank, MPLS,MN.55479 Ref. 2 ; Minutes from Mar. 8, 1990 HRA of Fridley Meeting ( •v►c( osed) NOOSING i REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. . BAR. S. 1990 PAGE 14 71c entire 10 acres, then it is best for the HRA to acquire control of the Levy parcel at this time. If they do not move ahead with acquisition at this time, then they face the inevitability that the entire 10 acres may never be available and they might want to just decertify this part of the Center City plan and not proceed with it, because it would not be a comprehensive development, but small parcel development. Mr. Robertson stated staff is recommending the HRA direct staff to begin conversations with Mr. Levy to negotiate an acquisition price and come back to the HRA with an update at the next meeting. Mr. Newman stated that at a luncheon meeting with Mr. Commers and • the Mayor, Mr. Commers asked that this be put back on the agenda, because it was Mr. Commers' feeling that the HRA should seriously consider acquiring the site. This was discussed by the HRA 3-4 years ago, but since that time things have changed. If they are going to upgrade Mississippi Street, early acquisition could speed up the intersection improvements for Mississippi and University by Anoka County. If the HRA is going to develop this site, they need to do it very quickly; otherwise, the increment will run out and they will not have that option. If the corporate user does not step forward, then it is staff's recommendation that the HRA go back to Ron Clark or another developer in order to get a project in place to consider so they have a development in place by next spring. Mr. Newman stated the HRA would have to own and lease and manage the property until development occurs, but that might not be too great a risk. Mr. Newman stated the HRA has the money to acquire the property. That is what the bonds were issued for back in 1985. The County appraised the property three years ago, and the estimate was slightly over $1 million. Mr. Levy had an appraisal done in the amount of $1,050,000 and $1,150,000. In looking at the development proposals in the last year, Mr. Levy agreed on a $1.1 million purchase price. Mr. Prairie asked what happens if the HRA acquires the property and nothing happens in the next five years. Mr. Newman stated the HRA would have to own, lease, and manage the property for five years. Mayor Nee stated he was also getting to the point where he thinks the HRA has to do this. If they acquire the property, there will be more of an incentive to make something happen in the southwest quadrant in less than five years. They have to deal with this t corner. .`r NOOSING i REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. . MAR. S. 1990 PAGE 15 Mr. Meyer stated he is in favor of acquisition. He did not want the HRA to be in the leasing and managing business, but he agreed they have to do something with this corner. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to authorize staff to have an appraisal done on the Levy property and authorize staff to approach Mr. Levy and begin negotiations regarding the purchase of the property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Newman stated that if the appraisal cost is any higher than $2,500, staff will come back to the HRA. 5. CLARK ENGINEERING ET AL VS. FRIDLEY HRA Mr. Robertson stated his memo to the BRA dated March 1, 1990 (agenda page 5) was self-explanatory. Mr. Newman has obtained a summary judgment granted by the court that the claims against the HRA and Clark Engineering are dismissed; however, the claim for slander of title to property and for attorneys' fees pursuant to C, ( bad faith litigation is still intact. The court has set this matter for trial on June 18, 1991. Staff needs some policy direction from the HRA. Mr. Newman stated that when the law suit initially commenced, both he and Mr. Commers were offended by it. There was no basis for the law suit. At the HRA's direction, he attempted to negotiate a resolution and in response received a summons and complaint. He stated he needs some direction from the HRA as to whether they wish him to pursue this claim for bad faith, to negotiate a final settlement, or pursue it to trial to get the attorney's fees. It does take staff time and HRA resources. Mr. Meyer stated Clark Engineering is a competitor, but also a colleague, and he would abstain from voting on any motion. Mr. Prairie stated that if the HRA does not pursue this claim, he would like to not see the City use any of Clark Engineering's services in the future, even though the City has not hired this firm in the past. He would be inclined to say that staff should not pursue it. Mr. Newman stated that if the HRA does not wish him to pursue it, he will try to negotiate some concessions. - Ms. Schnabel stated it is her feeling that legal staff should not pursue this. f; I� !JAN 31 1991 Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. 215 South 11th Street, Suite 200 • Minneapolis • Minnesota 55403 Office(612)342-2277 • Fax(612)332-4765 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Fridley �. Attention: William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Director of Community Development Richard Pribyl, Finance Director Virgil Herrick, City Attorney FROM: James R. Casserly Mary E. Molzahn DATE: January 29, 1991 RE: Payment of Penalties and Interest on delinquent property taxes Attached you will find legislation that we have prepared to resolve Fridley' s problem with Anoka County regarding the payment of penalties and interest. The attached memo is self explanatory. We will send this to the League of Cities and to other organizations. We are on the Minnesota Institute of Public Finance legislative committee and expect it to support passage. Please call with any comments or suggestions. JRC/sc Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. 215 South 11th Street, Suite 200 • Minneapolis • Minnesota 55403 Office(612)342-2277 • Fax(612)332-4765 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: James R. Casserly DATE: January 16, 1991 RE: Proposed Changes to Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 276. 131 An issue has been raised in several communities regarding the distribution of penalties and interest on real and personal property taxes for property located in tax increment districts. In most counties the practice appears to be that the penalties and interest go to the authority that establishes the tax increment district. This appears to be a "common sense conclusion" since most frequently the taxes are pledged to the payment of debt by bond resolutions. In order to eliminate any ambiguity the proposed amendment simply specifies that any penalties and interest allocable to the tax increment must be distributed to the authority, while the penalties and interest allocable to the base will be distributed proportionately to the local taxing jurisdictions. The amendment also makes clear that all taxing jurisdictions should share in the penalties and interest in the proportion that the local tax rate of each taxing jurisdiction bears to the total local tax rates of all the taxing jurisdictions. Penalties and interest are not windfall income to the local taxing jurisdictions . Because of delinquencies some will have to draw down reserves and others may be forced to borrow on a short term basis. Penalties and interest simply compensate the local jurisdictions for lost earnings and additional costs . JRC/db 1 A bill for an act relating to penalties, interest and costs on real and personal property taxes; amending Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 276.131 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1 . Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 276. 131 is amended to read: 276. 131 DISTRIBUTION OF PENALTIES, INTEREST, AND COSTS. The penalties, interest, and costs collected on special assessments and real and personal property taxes must be distributed as follows: ( 1 ) all penalties and interest collected on special assessments against real or personal property must be distributed to the taxing jurisdiction that levied the assessment; (2) 30 perccnt of except as provided in clause 3 all penalties and interest collected on real and personal property taxes must be distributed to the eery taxing jurisdictions in which the property is located, and thc othcr S0 perccnt must be di3tributcd to thc school district is which thc preperty is locatcd in the proportion that the local tax rate of each taxing jurisdiction in the year of collection bears to the total local tax rates of all the taxing jurisdictions. The distribution to the school district must be in accordance with the provisions of section 124 . 10; and (3) penalties and interest collected on real and personal property taxes from real and personal property located within a tax increment financing district must be allocated between the original net tax capacity and the captured net tax capacity of the real and personal property in the same proportion that each bears to the total tax capacity of the real and personal property and distributed as follows: (a) the penalties and interest allocated to the original net tax capacity must be distributed in accordance with the provisions of clause (2) above. (b) the penalties and interest allocated to the captured net tax capacity must be distributed to the authority that created the tax increment financing district. (c) the terms "original net tax capacity" . "captured net tax capacity", "authority" and "tax increment financing district" shall have the meanings given in 469 . 174 . {3}(4) all costs collected by the county on special assessments and on delinquent real and personal property taxes must be distributed to the county in which the property is located. ,�` �I 1DEPENDEN`T: C OIL- 31STRICTIN0:1 41. DRDELIZ E RENS 6000 WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 / 571-6000 FAX 612-571-7633 January 22, 1991 - Dr. William Burns, City Manager City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Dr. Burns: This letter relates to our recent discussions concerning the tax increment referendum levy agreement between the City and the School District. First of all, the School Board and I appreciate the support you and the City Council have provided on this issue in the past and during recent discussions. I also appreciate the opportunities you have provided over the past several weeks for me and members of the School Board to interact with appropriate City and HRA personnel regarding the matter. These discussions have been most helpful. As we have continued to discuss the issue, School Board Members express two major concerns: 1. While the amount of the proposed reduction ($41, 000) may not seem like a lot of money, it really translates into a teacher and a half as the Board plans for 1991- 92 . This comes during difficult budget times as the District was forced to cut its 1989-90 budget by $250,000, cut an additional $250, 000 out of its 1990-91 budget, and faces another $250, 000 expenditure over revenue projection in its upcoming 1991-92 budget which will most likely force the District into a referendum attempt in November of 1991. 2. The timing of this decision is very difficult as the Board really began planning for 1991-92 a number of months ago and made decisions based on receiving the $164,000 in 1991-92 that was available in 1990-91. The primary purpose of my letter, Bill, is to encourage you to ask the City Council to delay action on this issue and to return it to the HRA for reconsideration. While the District would obviously like the HRA to reverse its I Dr. Burns 2 January 22 , 1991 decision, we would at least encourage replacement of the 1991-92 dollars to the full amount available and to then have a discussion about a longer term solution to the issue. My personal thanks for whatever help you can provide in moving this issue forward. Sincer ly, 44/ Dennis E. Rens, PhD Superintendent DER/hj LBUR27ST I.WPS 1' JAN 2 21991 Medtronic 2 Medt , Inc. 000rCe tralAvenue, N.E. • Minneapolis, MN 55432-3576 Telephone: (612) 574-4000 Cable: Medtronic Telex. 29-0598 January 18, 1991 Telecopy: (612) 574-4879 Mr. William W. Burns City Manager City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Burns: As part of our strategic planning process we are currently considering our options for building expansion at or near our Corporate headquarters site in Fridley. We anticipate minimum facility growth of 100,000 SF over the next 5 years. At our lunch meeting last week we chatted about city controlled opportunities and the Lake Pointe site was brought up. The Lake Pointe site with it's prestigious and convenient location surely has the capacity to provide for our future growth. In addition it's ability to sustain a future hotel and other accommodations makes it an interesting alternative. If you could provide us with any more definitive information regarding this as a short term or long term facility solution, please send us more details. Our short term facility recommendations will be formalized and presented in early February of this year. I realize you may not be able to definitively organize a detailed proposal in that short of a period, but any thoughts or response on your end would be appreciated. Please call if you have and further questions. Sincerely, Donald Hagmann Corporate Real Estate Manager DH/pk cc: Rodger McCombs x:dhburns.let Community Development Department I \ PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: February 12, 1991 TO: William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director FROM: Pat Wolfe, Housing Specialist SUBJECT: MHFA's Mentally Ill Housing Demonstration Program MHFA is currently combining its resources with the Department of Human Services to develop a program to house the mentally ill. In 1989, MHFA appropriated $250,000 from the State Legislature for this program. MHFA and the Department of Human Services have developed a two year demonstration program for persons who meet the State's legal definition of mental illness. The demonstration program requires the social service agency to team up with an HRA to perform the functions of each agency as they apply to the individual. The program is set up so the social service agency develops criteria to select individuals to receive the housing subsidy. The subsidy amount at this time is $150/month toward the rent. The social service agency will also perform the necessary counseling and transitional services required for the client to adjust within the community. The HRA's function is to determine income eligibility which at this time is at or below 30% of the area median income. The HRA determines whether the rental unit meets housing quality standards and performs rental negotiations between tenant and owner. It is also the HRA's function to receive the funds from MHFA and distribute those funds to the owners who are participating in this demonstration program. Approximately 20 certificates are available per chose agency. One agency will be selected in the metropolitan area and one for the rural areas. 20 applications were received by the MHFA requesting funding for this program. The HRA administering the program will receive 10% of the funding requested, i.e. if ten eligible participants move into the City of Fridley, the HRA would receive $150.00 per month for administrative costs. MHFA has determined the administrative costs will go to the BRA, not the social service agency. PW/dn M-91-100 Community Development Department 0E3j PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: February 12, 1991 TO: William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director FROM: Pat Wolfe, Housing Specialist SUBJECT: MHFA's Mentally Ill Housing Demonstration Program MHFA is currently combining its resources with the Department of Human Services to develop a program to house the mentally ill. In 1989, MHFA appropriated $250,000 from the State Legislature for this program. MHFA and the Department of Human Services have developed a two year demonstration program for persons who meet the State's legal definition of mental illness. The demonstration program requires the social service agency to team up with an HRA to perform the functions of each agency as they apply to the individual. The program is set up so the social service agency develops criteria to select individuals to receive the housing subsidy. The subsidy amount at this time is $150/month toward the rent. The social service agency will also perform the necessary counseling and transitional services required for the client to adjust within the community. The HRA's function is to determine income eligibility which at this time is at or below 30% of the area median income. The HRA determines whether the rental unit meets housing quality standards and performs rental negotiations between tenant and owner. It is also the HRA's function to receive the funds from MHFA and distribute those funds to the owners who are participating in this demonstration program. Approximately 20 certificates are available per chose agency. One agency will be selected in the metropolitan area and one for the rural areas. 20 applications were received by the MHFA requesting funding for this program. The HRA administering the program will receive 10% of the funding requested, i.e. if ten eligible participants move into the City of Fridley, the HRA would receive $150.00 per month for administrative costs. MHFA has determined the administrative costs will go to the HRA, not the social service agency. PW/dn M-91-100 C) t rn Z . 1 _, m o a r c') CI c a M —I z m 0 c o -' m 0 m rd (D (CD H m ro (CD Z (CD (D D cco a rt QG rt (D 0 0 cY rt PI 0 (D 9 8 r• A) rr rt rY 0 0 0 r-, rt 0 0 (Q 0 0 C.- C/) G rt (D (D m a) (D (D "0 0 m (D (p rt (D ri I-, rt rt ri (D rt rt rt r► CI I M a rt El O 0 ri M 0 r• O 0 cnrt rt o 0 O ) x •. • O 'C Co rwt C) x T (D C - rt (A r• E H. 00 r• rt m CO O C En r• a II-, 0 —•i rn' o• HI .. i 0 0 C) I-' w co W 1/40 r-' 0) 0 (D G' I-' rt bd ,1 0� C m ---I O CO D CO (moo rn o' 00 w• a fGi a CY 70 m G R. G i m 0 G a) l't CD O • ri ri r• rt ri Iv cn rt rt n Z Cr) 0 .- G 0 H. cn 1C7 Z . (D r• (n 'Cl w to a s r• (D Co I-n a s ,_., 00 IV G I--, rh m (D —. ri HI I-h 17(DD PPi \ rat G ' 0 rrtI Ifi - 0 — o m • 0 `O0 rt n o v td cow �g a) a ro 0 tad rt 0 w 0 Cd ar't 0 CD 0 CI CI ri a 7 C - a . (D G 0 b CO H. (D 0 �.., bd r-, CI, 0 (D r• rt, r-, C7 r• x I-“ ri N Gd (D rt al I-' Cd N cc() co rt ~ H N IDS ' I-. P rt CO 0 f W m 1-3 G cco G. 7d ri G cn • r G (D cn (D co 0 (Dft f i co (D s•C o rs co •• G •. rn .. .' Ii G co N I li � m rt G. 0 0 G G Co 0 0 - a X (D C (D W Pi N• a fir• 0 r• a. 5• 1-0 r• (D rt 0 a H. � C) °• m n c) r n ri tv A) 0 7d av 0 r-+ .7 (D10 co rt rt (D co r•I 5 \ m (D 0 cn fd V1 m --I CD (D '.0 IV rt r• G (D r• in •. 0 rs Z a) co n I-t rt .. rt '.. r- fD - 0 C) rr cD C 'C GO O 0 G' kC H• N ri rt t H _ • H. cn ri a I-' I-h CD r• 0 (D (D rt N r• i rP. o .. rt .'3 0 .. M Cr G m H. HI a ri (D G '- ccnn rt A) x - H "0J I-, (D '' a ri CD co `C w rD 0 a 'C IV -- O C rt 0) tV 0 -- cn 'C rt .. .0 r• '' r• 0 (D G 0 O I-h a (D rt O '.0 CD G (D � '.o \ v W O - - 1 -1 r m ti