HRA 12/11/1997 - 6283HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1997
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COPY
(Please return to Community Development Dept.)
- CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1997 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
LOCATION. Conference Room A (upper level, next to Council Chambers)
Fridley Municipal Center
* * * BUDGET WORK SESSION BEGINS AT 6:30 P.M.
LOCATION: Council Chambers (upper level), Fridley Municipal Center
CALL TO ORDER
L gW3A -I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 13, 1997
CONSENT AGENDA
Resolution Authorizing an Increase in Compensation ............ 1 - 1A
for Fridley Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Employees for the 1998 Calendar Year
Agreement for Legal Services with Krass Monroe, P.A. .......... 2-2D
Resolution Authorizing Release of Development Contract ........ 3-3E
with University Avenue Associates
Approve 1998 Meeting Dates .............................. 4-4A
Revenue and Expenses ....... ...........................5 -5B
ACTION ITEMS
None
INFORMATION ITEMS
Concept Proposals for Agreements with MEPC American ....... 6-61
Properties
Regional Remodeling Planbook ........................... 7 - 7A
OTHER BUSINESS
W •
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the November 13, 1997, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, Jim
McFarland, John Meyer
Members Absent: Duane Prairie
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Jim Casserly, Financial Consultant
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
Craig Ellestad, Accountant
Councilmember Bob Barnett
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the
October 9, 1997, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes as
written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT AND
ACKNO LEDGNrF: , COLUMBIA PARK PROPERTIES
2. CONSIDER ACQUISITION OF 1545 - 75TH AVENUEN._E._
Mr. Meyer asked that this item be removed from the consent agenda.
3. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PARCELS FOR PHASE II OF THE HOUSING
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
4. REVENUE AND EXPENSES
Mr. Ellestad provided copies of additional expenses submitted for
approval as outlined in his memo of November 13, 1997.
MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve
items 1, 3, and 4 of the consent agenda including the additional
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVMlZa 13, 1997 PAGE 2
expenses as submitted by Mr. Ellestad in his memo of November 13,
1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ACTION ITEMS:
Mr. Commers stated a copy of the resolution was included in the
agenda packet. The only issue he has is what the situation would
be if anything would develop with one of the current people they
have talked to about the site. How does that interfere with this
exclusive right of negotiation?
Ms. Dacy stated the second amendment extends the terms of the
original agreement to the end of January, 1998. A 100,000 square
foot building is proposed on the western part of the site. MEPC
did draw a master plan to accommodate another user. One of two
scenarios was contemplated. One was a 250,000 square foot
building or two buildings each with 125,000 square feet with the
associated ramps. She thought an extension of the amendment would
not preclude continuing talks with another entity regarding the
site. The city manager, the executive director and Mr. Jellison
of MEPC met with another user about the master plan and showed the
alternatives they were evaluating. An extension of the amendment
provides the HRA with time to negotiate terms of a one -story tech -
flex type of development. The terms of what happens with the
remainder of the property would still be up to the HRA to
negotiate.
Mr. Commers asked if those negotiations have to go through MEPC.
That may be a different issue.
Ms. Dacy stated the bottom line is that the second amendment would
not preclude anything with another entity. Between now and the
end of January, there will be two vehicles the HRA would need to
approval in January - the development proposal for the one -story
development at the west end of the site and then another contract
where the HRA can establish the development for the rest of the
property. Through that second vehicle, the HRA can define the
terms of how to handle MEPC or another entity. She thought the
HRA's position was preserved.
Mr. Commers stated in other words, even though the HRA would be
giving MEPC exclusive rights to negotiate for the development of
the property, Ms. Dacy does not believe the HRA would have to go
through MEPC if they were able to develop something on their own.
a
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PAGE 3
Ms. Dacy stated this was correct.
Mr. Meyer asked why MEPC would be willing to settle for that.
They have always talked about the'full site that they wanted to
develop. Why should MEPC settle for one corner and pass their
opportunity for the rest of the site?
Ms. Dacy stated they had just begun talking with MEPC on the
arrangements for this particular site. They discussed that there
may have to be two agreements - one for the tech -flex and one for
the rest of the property. She also thought that by the end of
November they would have a definitive answer from the company that
will help in that regard. Mr. Meyer is correct that MEPC would be
concerned about that. On the other hand, we have not had the
opportunity to explore all of those options with MEPC at this
time.
Mr. Commers stated now is when the leverage exists. It should be
clear now as to what will happen before signing something. Now is
the time to do this rather than after signing. If a misunder-
standing then arises, it usually evolves into a bigger problem.
Ms. Dacy stated an alternative is to table consideration of the
second amendment to the December meeting. Staff can then clarify
those issues and come back in December.
Mr. Meyer asked if this building would be built with MEPC money as
a speculative money.
Ms. Dacy stated yes. MEPC plans to go to their board for
approval. Then they will initiate the planning process with the
City in January. In the meantime, they will find a tenant for the
building.
Mr. Meyer stated MEPC will start the ball rolling.
Ms. Dacy stated yes. Essentially, the agreement is that the HRA
will sell the property to MEPC for construction.
Ms. Schnabel asked if MEPC was looking at one tenant for this
building.
Ms. Dacy stated, based on their experience in Golden Valley, you
may see at the maximum three tenants. In Golden Valley, Cyber
Optics comprises 2/3 of the building with a smaller company in the
remaining portion. They usually seek 50,000 to 75,000 square foot
tenants.
Ms. Schnabel asked if this was a rental office space as opposed to
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVOMER 13, 1997 PAGE 4
condominium type of office space.
Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. The space will be leased.
Mr. Meyer asked if their was any more information on MEPC and
their fate.
Ms. Dacy stated they had no additional information beyond what Mr.
Jellison gave at the last meeting. In terms of timing, it makes
sense for them to continue with the portfolio they have developed.
Beyond that, that is all the information staff has at this time.
Mr. Commers stated he had asked Mr. Jellison that question. Mr..
Jellison indicated he anticipated MEPC would continue as is with
the management in place. There are however no guarantees. There
is some risk associated in that we could be dealing with someone
else or with a different philosophy.
Mr. Commers asked Mr. Casserly if proceeding with the second
amendment would jeopardize arrangements with another company.
Mr. Casserly stated, unless there is another potential user that
is very close to making a decision, it will take us some weeks to
sort out the vehicles we are going to be using to continue our
relationship with MEPC. It appears now we will have a single
development agreement for a specific development and have another
agreement something like the agreement for continued negotiations
for the balance. It is in that second agreement that we will make
provisions for other potential uses.
Mr. Commers stated his concern is that the HRA is giving a
contract for exclusive negotiations, which means to him that they
cannot negotiate or that no other user can negotiate with the city
but that it must be done through MEPC. He wondered if there
should be an exception or a provision held out with respect to the
business with which they have had some discussion. He was not
sure that they should be forced to deal with MEPC.
Mr. Casserly stated this could be accommodated in the second
amendment. He thought there was some reference to that in the
original agreement which is being extended. He will make a
provision in the second amendment that excludes what has been
described. With the HRA's permission, he can simply add that to
the document.
The HRA consensus was that this was acceptable.
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve a
Resolution Authorizing Execution and Delivery of a Second
Amendment to the Contract for Exclusive Negotiations By and
S
HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEIMER 13, 1997 PAGE 5
Between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the
City of Fridley and MEPC American Properties, Inc.
Ms. Schnabel stated they had talked briefly about tabling this
item until the December meeting. She asked if they should table
this until they see the final draft.
Mr. Commers stated he thought it would be okay with the change.
Mr. Meyer stated he was assuming that MEPC might have an
objection.
Mr. Casserly stated he did not think so. They are focused on
getting the first structure going. They understand very well what
the opportunity may be for another large user and simply want to
be able to coordinate and participate in that. That is the way
this second agreement is designed.
Mr. Commers stated this raises another issue to make sure that
what we would have on the table with MEPC and what we might have
on the table with another potential developer are compatible. It
seemed to him that the proposals are different, and he would be
particularly interested to make sure that they have the assurance
that they are compatible in terms of the parking, treatments, etc.
Mr. Casserly stated this also includes the design, appearance,
architecture, easements, etc. The HRA will have to maintain
careful supervision and control over this process. We may have to
make things integrate.
Mr. Meyer asked if the presence of the tech -flex building
precludes another party from coming in. This is at a crossroads.
We have the option of not renewing the contract.
Ms. Dacy stated that was the purpose of the meeting held several
weeks ago. She was not at that meeting. She thought it was made
clear about the type of development. It was a development that
could enhance and work hand -in -hand with another entity because of
the nature of their spin -off types of companies, and they could
become a tenant. There was no indication that it was the criteria
that would throw out consideration of the site.
Mr. Commers stated they had asked this company to respond within a
specific timeframe, namely the end of November. He asked if they
could still expect a response by that time.
Ms. Dacy stated she thought so.
Mr. Casserly stated he was not sure we have been essentially
operating in good faith with them and that they have been
tr
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEKBER 13, 1997 PAGE 6 }
operating in good faith with us for the last several months. The
first amendment expired August 1 and was extended to November 1.
MEPC has been going out and putting together plans based on an
ongoing relationship. This is a pro forma exercise. The
agreement we are extending is not the plan that we are now talking
about pursuing. The agreement envisions a multi -story office
building. The first building we are talking about is not a multi-
story office building. He was not sure it was essential that this
be extended. This tends to help formalize our relationship.
Mr. Commers stated the first paragraph of the memo states the
purpose of the extension is to provide additional time to complete
negotiations for development of a one -story 100,000 square foot
office /showroom building. He did not think they could say MEPC is
not meeting the requirements of the contract which calls for a
multi -story office building.
Mr. Casserly stated it was a question of whether or not to try to
do a very extensive redevelopment contract or start laying out a
number of terms to be considered in the development contract for
the HRA's approval. They have concluded they are still putting
together the business terms of that agreement. While they were
doing that, they thought it would be prudent to give more time to
put the business terms together and, during that time period,
provide some level of security for MEPC to continue their existing
arrangement. The existing arrangement describes something
different than what we are presently negotiating. Rather than try
to go back and renew the entire contract for exclusive
negotiations, he believes the time is better serviced trying to
figure out the business terms for the first building. This
agreement is changing while we are trying to put the next deal
together. They are having quite a bit of discussion about how
that deal should look, what should MEPC's role will be with the
balance of that site, what should we provide them, what should
they expect from us, what should we expect from them. They have
not sorted out all of those issues. That was the reason for
simply trying to extend this agreement even though they know this
agreement is being changed through discussions. With the joint
meeting held with the City Council, they are looking at a
different approach for a portion of the property. They know this
agreement is not working but it gives MEPC a sense of a continued
relationship while we are sorting this out. We are negotiating
now to try to piece these things together.
Mr. Casserly stated, if the HRA feels comfortable leaving it open,
he did not think it would affect their efforts to put a project
together. We have given MEPC encouragement to go ahead with this
first building. MEPC would like to do that building and would
like to have a continuing relationship. It is not intended to try
to answer those questions, but to suggest this ongoing interaction
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PAGE 7
that we have.
Mr. Meyer asked if Mr. Casserly thought the HRA had a moral
obligation to stay the course.
Mr. Casserly stated he thought so at least while they were trying
to sort out the business terms. If MEPC insists on business terms
that the HRA finds unsatisfactory, then we have no obligation. At
this point, we have worked with MEPC for two years, and we are
trying to put together the first building.
Mr. Meyer stated, if he signs a contract or agreement to sell his
house through a realtor for 90 days, he cannot negotiation with
another individual who comes along individually with an offer.
In this situation, why should MEPC who seemingly has an exclusive
on this property be happy with another client coming to us and us
talking to them about working out other parts of the exclusive
area in which MEPC has invested time and effort. It seems odd to
him. Are we building in problems with other people down the line?
Mr. Casserly stated everything has been above board in terms of
our conversations with MEPC. They have been apprised of our
conversations with others. He saw this as being very short term.
As a practical matter, there will not be a resolution with anyone
else in that time period.
Mr. Commers stated there is the possibility of a proposal by the
end of November. It would seem to him that the more flexibility
they have the better it is.
Mr. Casserly stated he can provide for that is the HRA wants to do
so. He did not think it was critical that they do this at all.
Mr. Commers asked if MEPC asked for this.
Ms. Dacy stated she thought it was an extension of the joint
meeting in July where there was an August 1 deadline and consensus
about option C which was a one -story 100,000 square foot building
and a multi -story 225,000 square foot office user. With that
expiration date on August 1 and with the meeting in the middle of
July, the consensus was to extend the contract to give MEPC time
to do the planning with their board, etc. Pentair then came back
and had done two or three proposals. Also, during this time there
was the proposed changeover in ownership. And as a practical
matter, the architects were backed up with other clients and did
not have time to develop a plan. Staff was not presented with a
concept plan until the next week.
Mr. Commers stated he thought the resolution should include a
provision to exclude the people we have been dealing with. If
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PAGE 8
that is agreeable with MEPC, bring the contract back next month to
sign.
Mr. Casserly stated he could do that. He had planned at the
December meeting to have the concept for the HRA in terms of
laying out the business terms for the first building, the terms of
what the project would entail, and what the concept would be for a
continuing relationship. Their attorney has ideas to run by us.
They are not going to do anything precipitous in the next 30 days.
The HRA's consensus was that this would be acceptable.
Mr. Meyer rescinded his motion to approve the resolution.
TI by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to table this item
to the December meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RESOLUTION CONSIDERING POLICY FOR SUBORDINATION AGREEMENTS
FOR HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM
Mr. Commers stated staff had explained quite well the problems
encountered when someone wants to refinance their first mortgage.
This sounds like what a financial institution would want.
Mr. McFarland stated a financial institution would not be so
liberal. Under Schedule A, Loan Subordination Requirements, he
asked if #6 meant 100% of the market value of the property before
or after the improvements.
Mr. Fernelius stated this would be the after improvement value not
to exceed 100 %.
Mr. Commers stated he thought that should be pointed out. The way
he reads it is that the first mortgage would not exceed 100 %.
Mr. McFarland stated the first mortgage and the HRA's would not
exceed 100% of the value of the improved property.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve a
Resolution Establishing a Policy for the Subordination of Housing
Loans of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Fridley; Providing for the Delegation of Certain Power and
Duties, amending Schedule A, Loan Subordination Requirements, #6
to read, "The combined loan -to -value ratio of the new first
mortgage and the Authority's debt shall not exceed 100% of the
market value of the improved property."
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PAGE 9
Mr. Commers asked if this will cover all of the HRA!s programs.
Mr. Fernelius stated this would cover all of the housing
rehabilitation programs funded through the HRA.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. CONSIDER ACOUISITION OF1545_- 75TH AVENUE N
Mr. Fernelius stated this is another scattered site acquisition.
The property was identified through a windshield study done this
summer which was an exterior condition study. The house is
located at 1545 - 75th Avenue N.E. The cross streets are Arthur
to the west and Lakeside to the east. The property itself is
rather small with 2 bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, and unfinished
basement with approximately 720 square feet. It has suffered from
a considerable amount of deferred maintenance. The siding is
fairly deteriorated. There is some significant interior
remodeling that needs to be done. That came from the appraisal
report that was done before making an offer on the property.
Mr. Fernelius stated the house is set back from the street
considerably. It•is beyond the typical 35 foot setback so it
stands out in comparison to surrounding properties. It is also
considerably lower in value than the surrounding properties. The
assessed value for tax purposes in $61,900. The appraised value
is $59,900. Staff negotiated with the owner a price of $60,000
which is within the guidelines discussed before. The median value
of approximately 17 properties immediately adjacent to this
property is $102,000 so this is significantly less than that.
This would be a voluntary acquisition. The owner would not be
required to sell. No relocation benefits would be paid. The
intention would be to tear down the property.
Mr. Fernelius stated they had discussed in the past using some
kind of code enforcement on a property like this. There are some
minor issues of outside storage. We could not address the
maintenance or the actual condition of the property through our
existing code. We don't have that ability. It is not in a
hazardous condition where we could really take significant action
against the owner. This is a logical step to address a property
that will probably continue to decline in value and condition, and
to step in and curb the potential blight and decline.
Mr. Meyer stated he was still concerned about the appraised value
of this house and other houses. It seems there is a floor of
$60,000 per house in the city as representing the value of the
least desirable, smallest, most rundown houses in the city. He
does not understand that. He also does not understand that his
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEKBER 13, 1997 PAGE 10 ss
home is assessed for tax purposes is about double this. The area
where the home is located is assessed at double this property.
According to the assessor, the value of this house which is in
such a shabby condition that it needs public money to demolish it
and to save the neighborhood is taxed at the same rate as his
house. It seems very odd that we have this very shocking
situation of assessed valuation of our properties. He does not
understand how we can have such an equal taxation based on square
footages with one house representing a shabby house that needs
public money and another which is a viable home.
Mr. Meyer asked when Mr. Jones purchased this house.
Mr. Fernelius stated he did not know. There is an existing
mortgage balance of about $57,000, so he thought the purchase
would have been fairly recent.
Mr. Meyer asked when the assessed valuation was last adjusted.
Mr. Fernelius stated he did not know. The assessor goes through
properties on a four -year cycle. He did not know when the
assessor went through this property. He would assume that the
valuation is consistent with similar properties and is based on
the sales of comparable properties. He was surprised to learn
that median values in Fridley in the appraisal report for the
first six months of 1997 was over $97,000. -Home values have
continued to appreciate in-the city.
Mr. Meyer stated, if someone can get $60,000 for a house in this
condition, they are doing well. He asked when the mortgage was
taken out.
Mr. Commers stated it could not have been too long ago because
there is not much equity.
Ms. Schnabel stated the owners could have refinanced the property.
Mr. Meyer asked, for a house valued at $60,000, would a bank give
a $57,000 loan.
Mr. McFarland stated he did not think anyone would. He asked if
the property was financed with a contract for deed.
Mr. Fernelius stated he understands it is a mortgage lender.
Mr. Commers stated in this case we have an appraisal. We have
gone over the subjectiveness of those. The appraiser has put on
this value, the assessor who at some time in the last four years
has put on a similar value, plus there is a $57,000 mortgage so
yet another party thought that value was in this general area.
a
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVMMER 13 1997 PAGE 11
Ms. Schnabel stated included in that $60,000 is the cost of the
land. Almost 50% of the cost is for the land.
Mr. Commers stated $34,700 is the cost for 720 square feet which
is approximately $50 /square foot. To rebuild at that size would
cost approximately $70,000 to $80,000.
Mr. McFarland stated it is possible that it has deteriorated in
two or three years. It is not large. It depends on how many
people occupy the structure. He asked if properties are assessed
at 100% of the value.
Mr. Fernelius stated the law states properties are to be assessed
within 90% to 95% of the value.
Mr. McFarland stated the assessor says the property is worth more
than this.
Mr. Meyer stated he thought there is something wrong that they are
paying $60,000 for this property. This price seems to be the
bottom figure for the properties in the worst condition in the
city.
Mr. McFarland asked for the date of the appraisal.
Mr. Fernelius stated the appraisal is dated September 25, 1997.
Mr. McFarland asked if the appraisal was obtained just for the
transfer to the HRA.
Mr. Fernelius stated this was correct. Staff as a practice get an
appraisal. They do not share that appraisal with the seller.
This is used as a basis for negotiating.
Mr. McFarland stated the seller's appraisal could come in higher
than this.
Mr. Meyer stated he disagreed with public monies being used to buy
properties in this condition.
Ms. Schnabel asked if this was habitable.
Mr. Fernelius stated the house is habitable to his knowledge. The
home is owner occupied.
Mr. Commers stated, as we go through this, the more information
staff can get for the HRA the better. This could include the
financing, etc. That is all public information. Calling to find
out what it is would be helpful. Real estate seems to be selling,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PAGE 12
and it seems that the values as listed in the newspaper are going
up.
Mr. Meyer asked if there was also a high mortgage on the last
property. That property was in even worse shape.
Mr. McFarland stated there are a lot of factors. We have some
home buyers that are not that astute and invest all their money in
a home. Then when something major goes wrong, they have no money
to make the repairs and the condition continues to deteriorate.
They get into the position where they let the house go back and
they would be better off.
Mr. Fernelius stated standards are getting tougher, particularly
with FHA insurance. This year, they have tightened their
standards even more. For that reason, lenders are getting
properties back that are in poor conditions. They are trying to
correct that, but it does not solve this particular problem.
Ms. Schnabel asked if this was a buildable lot.
Mr. Fernelius stated yes.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to authorize
staff to purchase the property at 1545 - 74th Avenue N.E. for
$60,000 and to.authorize the Executive Director to sign all
documents necessary to complete the purchase.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. SMINABEL, MR. MCFARLAND AND MR.
COMMIERS VOTING.AYE, AND MR. MEYER VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE.
INFORMATION ITEMS
Mr. Commers stated this item is for informational purposes. We
have been participating but we are being asked to renew or make a
contribution to the program.
Mr. Fernelius stated the HRA is being asked to make a contribution
to the Minnesota Solutions Redevelopment Initiative as part of a
two -year work program that they have identified. He has attended
a few of the meetings over the last several months. It seems like
a very good group given a lot of the things that are going on in
the legislature. Discussions that we have had about our housing
program are a part of this work plan. He thought that many of the
issues that we are concerned about can be assisted through this
group. They are trying to create a strong voice for
redevelopment. The contribution is $800 each year for the next
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , NOVEMBER 13 1997 PAGE 13
two years.
MO TO by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the
expenditure of $1,600 ($800 per year for two years) and to approve
,participation in the Minnesota Solutions Redevelopment Initiative.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. MONTHLY HOUSING REPORT
Mr. Fernelius reviewed the Loan Origination Report and the Loan
Servicing Report. For loans serviced, they have gone over the $2
million mark in total principle issued, and as of the end of
September have an outstanding principle of $1,886,617. For loan
originations for October, 65 loans were issued. The HRA has
issued a total of $565,814 in loans. There are also some MHFA
loans and CDBG grants that have been issued as well. The total
loans and grants as of the end of October is $613,980.
Mr. McFarland asked how many of these were delinquent.
Mr. Fernelius stated, as he recalls, they had approximately 9
loans that were in default as of the end of September. A majority
of those were no more than one month behind and many of those
people make up their payments and become current.
Mr. Meyer asked staff to explain a deferred loan.
Mr. Fernelius stated a deferred loan does not have to be paid back
until the property is sold. These are offered in the Hyde Park
neighborhood and as part of the last resort program.
Mr. Commers asked what percentage of loans were delinquent.
Mr. McFarland stated it was a bit high but they don't consider
loans delinquent until after 30 days. They may have a higher risk
group. It is probably within the norm is you eliminate those that
are less than 30 days past due.
Mr. Commers asked how it was working with CRF servicing.
Mr. Fernelius stated it was working very well. They have received
no complaints from the borrowers. The reports are timely and
thorough. The payments are on time. They are very reasonably
priced for what they charge for their services.
OTHER BUSINESS:
9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEWSLETTER
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVMaER 13, 1997 PAGE 14
Mr. Commers stated a copy of the Community Development Newsletter
was included in the agenda packet for informational purposes.
f 0. ECOKOMIC DEVELOPMENT RE)MLYING LOAN FUND POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES
Ms. Dacy stated the executive director asked her and Mr. Fernelius
to distribute a memo to bring the HRA up -to -date this. The Onan
Corporation pursuing a $2.5 million project to purchase additional
equipment to create a product line for generators used in marine
and recreational vehicles. Mr. Burns put together a successful
application with the state to obtain $360,000 from Minnesota
Department of Trade and Economic Development (DIED) funds. This
is the same program that the city applied for and received for
McGlynn's new facility in Fridley. One of the application
requirements is that the city has to write revolving loan
guidelines for this particular type of program. Mr. Fernelius is
still in the process of coming up with the guidelines. Those
guidelines will be discussed with the City Council on November 24.
Mr. Burns wanted to make sure the HRA understood the guidelines
being put together. It does not affect the HRA. Before you is a
copy of the guidelines from the City of Pipestone.
Mr. Commers stated he noted the job retention issue. He thought
they already had in the existing programs some kind of statement
on bringing in new jobs.
Ms. Dacy stated the city does not have specific job creation
criteria. The state as part of tax increment projects does
require that development agreements state the number of jobs the
businesses will be creating.
Mr. Commers thought this should be compatible with that.
Ms. Dacy stated they had discussed that today. In other words,
our guidelines could be consistent with the TIF approach.
Mr. Commers stated the HRA has before them a letter from Dr. Mary
Nelson, Superintendent, Independent School District 14, regarding
the school district referendum renewal.
Ms. Dacy stated the copy of the letter was provided to let the HRA
know that staff had received it. The annual agreement for school
district refunds will be on the agenda in December.
Mr. Commers stated, as he recalled from last year's discussion,
the school district loses in some way other credits when given
s
° HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG., NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PAGE 15
this refund.
Mr. Casserly stated, if the school could lose other state
subsidies or support, we should find that out.
Mr. Commers stated part of what we are giving them may come from
other sources or they may lose money from other sources. We
should find a balance.
12. 1998 MEETINGS
Ms. Dacy stated the January meeting is scheduled for January 8.
The week before that is part of the Holiday week. She asked if it
would be okay to hold that meeting on January 15.
Mr. Commers stated he would be gone that week and would prefer to
have the meeting on January 22.
Ms. Dacy staff were looking at the dates for meetings on the 1997
calendar. The HRA and City Council meetings fall on the same
week. Staff has to prepare two agenda packets the week before in
nine months out of twelve. She asked if the HRA meeting could be
changed to the first Thursday of the month which would reduce the
occurrence of having two agenda packets in one week to.five months
out of twelve.
Mr. McFarland stated he would prefer that if a change is made that
it be to the third Thursday of the month.
Ms. Dacy stated she will report back on this in December.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to adjourn the
meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE NOVEMBER 13, 1997, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:53 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
41) 1"rbto C=L)4—k)a)
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
1998
HRA BUDGET
Cash Flow and Projection of
Annual and Cumulative Balances .............. Pink
Budget Summary ..........................Cherry
Housing Programs .........................Blue
Housing Fund (262) ........................Green
Operating Budget . .........................Yellow
Legal Services Summary ....................Salmon
x
Q
v
m— gr tD gig O I C p p p O
c0 O N N V h n g c9 l+f Pf l+f
:'CS::O ' of -e c4 of c f cf v vi of eV N .-
:::'..;:F..yt p �j s tVi
wf
:..
::G:[~f:G 3S�ts3�tyyt5�ml �00000000000 �
Z j . Z�add �:m66 ttCiiff gff ttg66 iia�. tt g ign ,
....
•:�: 0, J r fV N fV Njj 1� `Nj l�7 t
�'
ZS i
m e
;:. `. Sd Q
Q Q$ §§ o 0 0 0 o O o o o 0 o o o o o o o
F ?:(;f i:: .: 22$Qii 22ggS5 ii55 ZZ55 22SS e
O
:�•:; �I.:�yi. Rl l`7 Ol ���yy O O � tv�J IAA 1� �Nj m� tN� � � � � Off p�� pm pm OC) Cm ��+
...�Q7y n n Of C� N' n A 1� N N 1� P P n tD 1n fh l7 n7 F7 C
::::::::i:•:W ����QQ�i73Xf�g����iOaa�����bio�i�����
of of of cr
F:: i.....:•:•:jjj: o n S2 n m
0.::: :•: t�. �n N m M
P7 N l'�i Phf K � i� CC
,::':::�; (�(pp ee�� GO ppO pOp oOp O CO
m vl m �D Ifi
m n n h r h A h r n
o maomwodeeaaoaeeR3 ry
:�'�: ' cd�n'SE��oL}gopppQ�����fy�00000
tvoyy��gg�� uS nagg�c�niti eo
9ciffi2i `oinFi� - - - --- e.
" " " "` nnrnnrrh cncnOi00000a
o
mmmmmmm
�rhrnrhn incr 6
recd. =o a�
•:'::' IV N N N {V N N N �V N N fV f�1 tV fV IV N N N
D
m
C O C
M I
W
$
m �
0
N
$
� � m
E
d
m
m �
■ e
2
W
Z
J
W
a
rter,
Fl,
3
O
u
:ti
n o_.- NCnvmmneom �
MEN I I I I I h
m
O o � F 0 m �} �y pN�
V .Q- 1 W
W 9
fD b m ri OD W O O a P a a � cl C6 � vi �- � � le If
r
gill- p
pppp app ' m tp pap} O yr r .np V m Q�
'ira':':'
c3iisc�cE31if8S'S�V��N�RRRRr
m
m 1.p
D
m
C O C
M I
W
$
m �
0
N
$
� � m
E
d
m
m �
■ e
2
W
Z
J
W
a
rter,
Fl,
3
O
u
:ti
d
m
m �
■ e
2
W
Z
J
W
a
rter,
Fl,
3
O
u
:ti
Housing Operating
Expenses and Capital
Outlay
Housing Rehab Programs
Total
HRA Operating Expenses
Capital Outlay
Total
��� 11 1�
1 •• ••:
$ 847,371
$ 826,220
(2.5 %)
$1,600,000 $1,050,000
(34 %)
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
$2,447,371 $1,652,220
$1,063,673
$ 666,000
•• : ••:
$ 992,567
6%
$ 932,000'
40%
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
$1,729,673 $1,924,567
11%
1 This figure includes the possible additional payment for the Cherrywood Apartment
appeal (worst case scenario is $651,000). It also includes $180,000 for Highway 65,
$86,000 for 57 th Avenue, and $15,000 for miscellaneous projects.
Fridley HRA
1998 Budget
Housing Loan Programs and Funding Sources
Programs
5% Revolving Loan Program
Last Resort Loan Program
Target Neighborhood Program
Apartment Rehab Program
Projected Loan Repayments
HRA Budget
1998 Budget Attachment
12/4/97
$
.500,000
$
100,000
$
200,000
$
250,000
Total $ 1,050,000
$ 240,000
$ 810,000
Total $1,050,000
Fridley HRA
1998 Budget
Summary of Programs
5% Revolving Loan Program ($500.000)
Provides a 5% loan to eligible Fridley homeowners for home repairs and Improvements.
To qualify a homeowner can have an annual income up to $58,650 or less, good credit
and the ability to repay the loan. The maximum loan is $25,000 with terms up to 20
years.
Funding History: 1996 1997 Total
Loans WA 105 59 164
Amount WA $ 1,472,320 $ 591,412 $ 2,063,732
Last Resort Loan Program ($100.000)
Provides a deferred loan up to $10,000 to homeowners who cannot qualify for a loan
or a grant due to income, credit or other financial problems. Program is available to
households who earn up to $58,650. The loan is deferred until sale of the property.
Interest accrues at 1 % per year.
Funding History: 1995 1996 1997 Total
Loans WA 6 1 7
Amount WA $ 43,952 $ 10,000 $ 53,952
Target Neighborhood Program ($200.000) *
Provides a loan up to $4,000 per homeowner. Loan is deferred until sale of the home.
Homeowners must provide a dollar -for- dollar match in order to qualify. The loan does
not accrue any interest. Maximum household income is $58,650.
Funding History: 1995 1996 1997 Total
Loans 3 6 5 14
Amount $ 16,332 $ 43,952 $ 16,565 $ 76,849
• HktmkW ligr rW show Hyde Park nelghbodrood arty. Program w18 be expanded to kdude the RwmewHe/ghts nelghba-
hood &1190.
Apartment Rehab Program ($250.000)
Details of this program will be developed in 1998. Multiple - family rehab has been
Identified as a priority. Funds will be used to provide loans and/or grants for apart-
ment rehabilitation.
Funding History: 1995 1996 1997 Total
Loans WA WA WA WA
Amount WA WA WA WA
1998 Budget Aftwhn d
12/4197
V F
• -
BUDGET 1998
HOUSING COORD FUND (262)
o-
PERCENT
1997
1997
1998
INCREASE/
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
BUDGET
(DECREASE)
HOUSING PROGRAM
4101 FULL TIME EMPLOYEE -REG
67,582
33,287
47,563
30-
4102 REGULAR 0/T PAY
4104 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE-REG
16,614
19,140
4105 TEMP EMPLOYEE- OVERTIME
4112 EMPLOYEE LEAVE
9,408
5,746
8,077
14-
4120 MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS
1,116
806
1,084
3-
4122 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIB
4,773
3,446
4,636
3-
4125 ICMA CONTRIBUTION
3,449
2,477
2,397
31-
4131 HEALTH INSURANCE
4,608
2,881
2,289
50-
4132.DENTAL INSURANCE
360
150
180
50-
4133 LIFE INSURANCE
102
69
51
50-
4134 CASH BENEFIT
4150 WORKERS COMPENSATION
1,868
1,174
1,829
2-
* PERSONAL SERVICES
93,266
66,650
87,246
6-
4220 OFFICE SUPPLIES
500
54
500
4221 OPERATING SUPPLIES
1,000
544
500
50-
4229 WORK ORDER TRANSFER -PARTS
* SUPPLIES
1,500
598
1,000
33-
4330 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15,065
5,551
8,815
41-
4331 DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS
350
588
1,230
z 251
4332 COMMUNICATIONS
750
476
750
4333 TRANSPORTATION
500
397
500
4334 ADVERTISING
8,000
4,919
6,500
19-
4335 PRINTING 8 BINDING
2,000
531
8,000
300
4337 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS
5,500
3,384
500
91-
4338 UTILITY SERVICES
388
500
4340 SRVS CONTRACTED NON-PROF
80,300
53,366
57,850
28-
4346 MISCELLANEOUS
4350 PAYMENTS TO OTHER GOVTS
20,000
10,900
33,000
65
4354 UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCTS EXP
* OTHER SERVICES 8 CHARGES
132,465
80,500
117,645
11-
4510 LAND
618,500
65,160
621,000
4520 BUILDING
4530 IMPS OTHER THAN BUILDING
4560 FURNITURE 8 FIXTURES
1,640
100-
* CAPITAL OUTLAY
620,140
65,160
621,000
** HOUSING PROGRAM
847,371
212,908
826,891
2-
BUDGET 1998
HOUSING COORD FUND (262)
PERCENT
1997 1998 INCREASE/
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET (DECREASE)
HOUSING PROGRAM
4101 FULL TIME EMPLOYEE-REG 67,582 47,563 30-
LEVEL TEXT TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR 47,563
47,563
4102 REGULAR 0/T PAY
4104 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE -REG
19,140
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 PART-TIME REMODELING ADVISOR (24
HOURS/WEEK)
19,140
19,140
4105 TEMP E14PLOYEE-OVERTI14E
4112 EMPLOYEE LEAVE
9,408
8,077
14-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
5,945
REMODELING ADVISOR
2,132
8,077
4120 MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS
1,116
1,084
3-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
776
REMODELING ADVISOR
308
1,084
4122 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIS
4,773
4,636
3-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
3,317
REMODELING ADVISOR
1,319
4,636
4125 1CMA CONTRIBUTION
3,449
2,397
31-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
2,397
2,397
4131 HEALTH INSURANCE
4,608
2,289
50-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
2,289
2,289
4132 DENTAL INSURANCE
360
180
50-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
180
180
BUDGET 1998
HORSING COORD FUND (262)
PERCENT
'
1997
1998
INCREASE/
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
BUDGET
BUDGET
(DECREASE)
4133 LIFE INSURANCE
102
51
50-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT ANT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
51
51
4134 CASH BENEFIT
4150 WORKERS COMPENSATION
1,868
1,829
2-
LEVEL TEXT
.TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
1,329
REMODELING ADVISOR
500
. 1,829
* PERSONAL SERVICES
93,266
87,246
6-
4220 OFFICE SUPPLIES
500
500
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 GENERAL SUPPLIES
500
500
4221 OPERATING APPLIES
1,000
500
50-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 SUPPLIES
500
500
4229 WORK ORDER TRANSFER -PARTS
* SUPPLIES
1,500
1,000
33-
4330 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15,065
8,815
41-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOLSTAD AND LARSON
(LEGAL SERVICES
SCATTERED SITE) 5,000
KRASS MONROE (CASSERLY�S CONSULTING)
2,500
WELLNESS TESTING
65
GAR HARGENS (ARCHITECTURAL WORK ON
APARTMENTS)
1,250
8,815
4331 DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS
350
1,230
251
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 NAHB PUBLICATIONS
230
AMERICAN FAMILY HANDIMAN (REMODELING ADVISOR)
50
NAHRO MEMBERSHIP
150
MINNESOTA SOLUTIONS REDEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE
800
1,230
4332 COMMUNICATIONS
750
750
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
BUDGET 1998
HOUSING COORD FUND 1262)
PERCENT
1997
1998
INCREASE/
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
BUDGET
BUDGET
(DECREASE)
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
500
REMODELING ADVISOR
250
750
4333 TRANSPORTATION
500
500
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING COORDINATOR
150
REMODELING ADVISOR
350
500
4334 ADVERTISING
8,000
6,500
19-
'LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 REMODELING FAIR
2,500
HOUSING PROGRAM
2,500
REMODELING ADVISOR
1,500
6,500
4335 PRINTING & BINDING
2,000
8,000
300
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 REMODELING PLAN BOOK
(FRIDLEY VERSION)
3,000
REMODELING PLAN BOOK
(REGIONAL VERSION)
5,000
8,000
4337 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
5,500
500
91-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 HOUSING SEMINARS
350
REMODELING SEMINARS
150
500
4338 UTILITY SERVICES
500
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 UNPAID UTILITY BILLS
(SCATTERED SITE HOMES)
500
500
4340 SRVS CONTRACTED NON -PROF
80,300
57,850
28-
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE
400
PRINTER MAINTENANCE
350
CEE LOAN ORIGINATION
FEES (98 LOANS)
34,200
CEE INSPECTION FEES (98
LOANS)
4,900
CRF LOAN SERVICING FEES
(250 LOANS IN PORTFOLIO)
15,000
SPONSORSHIP OF ANNUAL
REMODELING FAIR
3,000
57,850
4346 MISCELLANEOUS
4350 PAYMENTS TO OTHER GOVTS
20,000
33,000
65
BUDGET 1998
HOUSING COORD FUND (262)
PERCENT
1997 1998 INCREASE/
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET (DECREASE)
1 1996 HOME PROGRAM MATCH CONTRIBUTION 15,000
FUNDS TO COVER 1998 CDBG SHORT -FALL (EXPENSE) 18,000
33,000
4354 UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCTS EXP
* OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES 132,465 117,645 11-
4510 LAND 618,500 621,000
LEVEL TEXT TEXT ANT
1 PURCHASE 10 HONES 8 555,000 AVG. 550,000
DEMOLISH 10 HONES 8 55,000 AVG. 50,000
WELL CAP 10 HOMES 2 $500 AVG. 5,000
SECURE 10 HOMES 2 $250 AVG. 2,500
CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS OF 10 HOMES 2,500
APPRAISALS (INCLUDING REVIEW APPRAISAL) 6,000
LOT SURVEYS 5,000
621,000
4520 BUILDING
4530 IMPS OTHER THAN BUILDING
4560 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1,640 100-
* CAPITAL OUTLAY 620,140 621,000
** HOUSING PROGRAM 847,371 826,891 2-
A
BUDGET
1998
HRA OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY
•'
PERCENT
J
1995
1996
1997.
1997
1998
INCREASE/
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
ACTUALS
ACTUALS
BUDGET
ESTIMATE
BUDGET
(DECREASE)
*
ADMIN CHARGES
185,154
243,322
250,621
208,851
258,139
3
**
----
PERSONAL SERVICES
-- - - - - -- ------
185,154
- - - --- ------
243,322
-- - - -- ------
250,621
- - - - -- ------
208,851
- - - - -- -
258,139
---- -- - - - ---
3
*
OFFICE SUPPLIES
45
210
250
109
250
*
OPERATING SUPPLIES
36
1,145
400
400
*
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPP
**
- -----------
SUPPLIES
----
81
--- -- --- --- --
1,355
---- --- -
650
--- --- --- -- ---
109
--- -- - - -- --
650
---- - - - ----
*
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
356,304
200,645
305,000
295,341
212,100
30-
*
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
280
252
165
73
165
*
COMMUNICATIONS
1,737
742
675
659
675
*
TRANSPORTATION
130
491
600
5.
600
*
ADVERTISING
21,938
504
17,000
4,526
17,000
*
PRINTING & BINDING
999
2,090
2,950
16,732
3,534
20
*
INSURANCE, NON - PERSONNEL
9,635
9,841
8,214
12,276
10,419
27
*
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
410
1,507
1,600
1,179
1,600
*
UTILITY SERVICES
4,176
7,904
3,500
333
3,500
*
SRVS CONTRACTED NON -PROF
228,543
41,389
31,750
30,990
33,150
4
*
RENTALS
MISCELLANEOUS
183,857
227,185
125,121
109,348
128,120
2
*
PAYMENTS TO OTHER GOVTS
304,548
307,193
315,827
157,270
322,915
2
**
-
OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
----- - - - - -- -----
1,112,557
- - - - --- -- ---
799,743
- - - -- -- ------
812,402
- -- - -- -----
628,732
- - -- - --
733,778
--- -- -- - - - - --
10-
*
LAND
3,667,040
548,694
651,000
651,000
*
BUILDING
*
IMPS OTHER THAN BUILDING
15,000
281,000
1,773
*
PUBLIC UTILITY & IMPROVEM
2,061
**
---
CAPITAL OUTLAY
--- - -- --- ------
3,667,040
------ -- ---
550,755
-- - -- -- ----
666,000
-------- -
------ -----
932,000
- ---- -- -- - - --
40
1
L u s»
1114 �_
;r
APT
AOL
a'
tz
°'`+ aX '. '�K, �:
•+rW4 yi NF °�
awu.+e��- : ,nn.+W"wa �iY!'iMC�Tar.r,+h
ei +.
1
L u s»
;r
9
BUDGET 1998
HRA OPERATING BUDGET
a
PERCENT
1997 1998 INCREASE/
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET (DECREASE)
AREA WIDE
AREA WIDE
4107 ADMIN CHARGES 250,621 258,139 3
LEVEL TEXT TEXT AMT
1 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (1997 X 3 %) 252,079
ADMIN OVERHEAD (1997 X 3 %) 3,511
MICRO COMPUTER CHARGE (1997 X 3 %) 768
MINI COMPUTER (1997 X 3 %) 1,781
258,139
* PERSONAL SERVICES 250,621 258,139 3
4220 OFFICE SUPPLIES 250 250
LEVEL TEXT TEXT AMT
1 AGENDA PREP 250
250
4221 OPERATING SUPPLIES 400 400
LEVEL TEXT TEXT AMT
1 MISCELLANEOUS 100
FILM 100
FILM PROCESSING 200
400
------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
* SUPPLIES 650 650
4330 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 305,000 212,100 30-
LEVEL TEXT
1 AUDIT FEES
LEGAL (KNAAK; INCLUDES CHRYWD APPEAL)
TIF DISTRICT REV /EXP ANALYSIS
LAKE POINTE MARKETING /BUSCH
SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS
NONPROGRAMMED STUDIES
NONPROGRAMMED APPRAISALS
NONPROGRAMMED ENV. AUDITS
NONPROGRAMMED RELOCATION ASS.
BRUCE A. LEISCH (FAST LUBE WELL TESTING)
TAX INC ADMIN CHARGE FROM COUNTY
CASSERLY (KRASS 8 MONROE)
4331 DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS 165 165
LEVEL TEXT
1 CORPORATE REPORT
TEXT AMT
2,500
15,000
10,000
10,000
500
75,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
2,000
12,100
50,000
212,100
TEXT AMT
25
r
a
HRA OPERATING BUDGET
1997
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET
TWIN CITIES BUSINESS MONTHLY
CITY BUSINESS
NAHRO DUES (DACY)
BUILDER MAGAZINE
4332 COMMUNICATIONS 675
LEVEL TEXT
1 POSTAGE
PHONE
4333 TRANSPORTATION 600
LEVEL TEXT
1 APA OR NAHRO CONFERENCE
4334 ADVERTISING 17,000
LEVEL TEXT
1 FRIDLEY VIDEO /BROCHURES
LEGAL ADS FOR TIF DISTRICTS
4335 PRINTING & BINDING 2,950
LEVEL TEXT
1 COPIER ALLOCATION
ANNUAL REPORT IN CITY NEWSLETTER
4336 INSURANCE, NON-PERSONNEL 8,214
LEVEL TEXT
1 ESTIMATE FROM FINANCE
4337 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 1,600
LEVEL TEXT
1 LUNCH AND MEETING REIMBURSEMENTS
CONFERENCE LUNCHES
APA OR NAHRO REGISTRATION
MISCELLANEOUS
BUDGET 1998
PERCENT
1998 INCREASE/
BUDGET (DECREASE)
20
25
15
80
165
675
TEXT AMT
500
175
675
600
TEXT AMT
600
600
17,000
3,534
10,419
1,600
4338 UTILITY SERVICES 3,500 3,500
LEVEL TEXT
1 LAKE POINTE ELECTRICITY FOR IRRIGATION
TEXT AMT
15,000
2,000
17,000
20
TEXT AMT
2,034
1,500
3,534
27
TEXT AMT
10,419
10,419
TEXT AMT
500
100
500
500
1,600
TEXT AMT
500
I
a
HRA OPERATING BUDGET
1997
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET
LAKE POINTE WATER CHARGES
4340 SRVS CONTRACTED NON-PROF 31,750
LEVEL TEXT
1 COURIER SERVICE
LAKE POINTE MAINTENANCE SERVICE
FRANK'S LAWN MAINTENANCE
LAKEPOINTE SPRINKLER MAINTENANCE
BUDGET 1998
PERCENT
1998 INCREASE/
BUDGET (DECREASE)
3,000
3,500
33,150 4
TEXT AMT
250
22,400
500
10,000
33,150
4341 RENTALS
4346 MISCELLANEOUS 125,121
128,120
2
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 MCGLYNN'S PAY AS YOU GO EXPENSE
95,916
PFW/OSBORNE CROSSING PAY AS YOU GO
EXPENSE
9,286
SCOTT LUND PAY AS YOU GO EXPENSE
6,178
BOB SCHROER /EAST RANCH ESTATES PAY
AS YOU GO
16,740
128,120
4350 PAYMENTS TO OTHER GOVTS 315,827
322,915
2
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 SCHOOL DISTRICT REFUNDS
322,915
322,915
------ - -- - -- ---
* OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES 812,402
--- -- - - -- ---
733,778
---- - --- --
10-
4510 LAND 651,000
651,000
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 ADDITIONAL PAYMENT FOR CHERRYWOOD APT APPEAL
651,000
651,000
4530 IMPS OTHER THAN BUILDING 15,000
281,000
1,773
LEVEL TEXT
TEXT AMT
1 PLAZA TREE REPLACEMENT
10,500
REPLACEMENT DECORATIVE LIGHTS
4,500
57TH AVENUE PROJECT
86,000
HWY 65 IMPROVEMENTS
180,000
281,000
------ - -- - -- -----
"' CAPITAL OUTLAY 666,000
- - -- --- ------
932,000
- - -- - --
40
+* AREA WIDE 1,729,673
1,924,567
11
------ - - - - -- ------
*** AREA WIDE 1,729,673
- - - - -- -------
1,924,567
- - - - --
11
: T,V
Yon AYF
4
07 SAY
j
AR
look
��
„� � ,
�1'ls• 'li l+lF�FieYwM+' f ♦+iN N.�YA �It�irMiKv
Con
a
g
C �`.
inn
GAIN
C
y
toy
tot
t
- Y
tot
W
a n i
Sp
k
TOE
b lk
KA
SAW-
0 W Ton
siti
nF fi
ONEF
�c N
k+� i fir
y
ASn
P
X
t 1$
Tot" , k"
YM
O
sn
§
z
l
wv
}�
T
QA
LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE HRA
1997
�.
OPERATING FUND
Casserly Molzahn $43,830.57 -0-
Holstad Larson $ 2,090.00 $ 15,000
HOUSING FUND
Casserly Molzahn
$ 4,725.00
$
5,000
Holstad Larson
730.00
$
5,600
This is the amount expended through November 1997.
MEMORANDUM
QTY OF
FROLEY
William C. Hunt
Assistant to the City Manager
Memo to: Barbara J. Dacy, Director of Community Development
From: William C. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: Resolution Authorizing Pay Increase for HRA Employees
Date: December 3, 1997
Since the HRA is a distinct entity it will be necessary for its board to authorize salary
increases for employees. I have adapted the resolution we use for the Fridley City
Council to apply to the needs of the HRA. In order to provide salary increases effective
January 1, 1998 it will be necessary for the HRA to take action on this matter at its
meeting of December 11, 1997. I recommend that you present this matter for action at
the above mentioned meeting. If I can be of any further assistance let me know.
WCH/jb
it
RESOLUTION NO. HRA
-1997
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN
COMPENSATION FOR FRIDLEY HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES FOR
THE 1998 CALENDAR YEAR
WHEREAS,, it is the intention of the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) to provide fair and equitable compensation to Employees within budgetary
constraints; and
WHEREAS, the Fridley HRA intends to comply with the Minnesota Local Government
Pay Equity Act; and
WHEREAS, Staff of the City of Fridley have reviewed the BRNs financial position as
well as economic indicators and compensation adjustments by comparable employers;
and
WHEREAS, an adjustment of employee salaries and benefits is warranted;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment
Authority that the following adjustments be authorized for employees of the Fridley
BRA, with the exception of employees who are members of a bargaining unit, effective
January 1,1998:
I. A general increase of 3.0 percent in employee salaries.
2. Mileage reimbursement at the rate of $0.315 per mile.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF
, 1997.
LAWRENCE R. COMNIERS - CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM W. BURNS - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1A
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: December 5, 1997
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA r
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Agreement for Legal Services with Krass Monroe, P.A.
The HRA executed a two year contract with Jim Casserly in 1995. A proposed contract
for 1998 and 1999 is proposed. The hourly rate is proposed to increase from $105 per
hour to $110 per hour in 1998, and $115.00 per hour in 1999.
Staff recommends that the HRA approve the proposed two year contract for legal
services with Jim Casserly of Krass Monroe, P.A. During the last year, Krass Monroe
provided a variety of support services including the detailed financial analysis on the
Lake Pointe options, closing services, back -up services for Jim Casserly when he is out
of the office, and administrative help on tracking TIF district issues.
Jim has also suggested two ways to recover more legal fees from developers/
petitioners. Staff agrees with his recommendations 'and will implement these
suggestions.
WWWUMMIN, • ►
Staff recommends the HRA authorize the Chairperson and the Executive Director to
execute the attached agreement for legal services between the Fridley HRA and Krass
Monroe, P.A.
BD /dw
M- 97-498
R;
12/04/97 THU 14:03 FAX 612 885 5969 KRASS MONROE IA002
KRASS MONROE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
■ James R Casserly
Email jcmnesc@Jvaamonraacom
DirectDiat (612) 885 -1296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: William Bums, City Manager
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
From James R. Casserly
Date. 12/04/97
Re: Agreement for Legal Services with Krass Monroe, P.A.
Attached you will find an Agreement for Legal Services which is identical to our existing contract
with the following exceptions:
1. The name of my new firm, Krass Monroe, P.A. is inserted.
2. The Contract runs from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999.
3. There is a Five ($5.00) Dollar increase in the hourly rate in 1998 to One Hundred Ten
($110.00) Dollars per hour (a 4.76% increase).
4. There is an additional Five ($5.00) Dollar increase in the year 1999 to One Hundred Fifteen
($115.00) Dollars an hour (a 4.55% increase).
5. Preparation of copies, that is, reproduction will be a reimbursable cost.
After reviewing the kind and quantity of services that we have provided over the last several years
we have two suggestions to recover a portion of your legal fees which include the following-
1. Many, if not most, cities are trying to recover their out -of- pocket costs in developer originated
projects. Simply put, when a developer or user contacts the city requesting assistance, the city
has them sign a letter agreement reimbursing them for its costs. One approach is to simply
recover all of your costs. A second approach is to have a formula which could be easily
understood and would be stated as follows:
SUITE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER • 1650 WEST 82ND STREET • BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1447
TELEPHONE 6121885 -5999 • FACSIMILE 6121885.5969
2A
1
12/04/91= HU 14:04 FAX 612 885 5969 BRASS MONROE
Z.
a. For any BRA loan the borrower would pay one and one -half percent (1 %2 %) of the
principal amount which shall be not less than Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars nor more
than Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars.
b. For all other forms of assistance, the applicant would pay three (3 %) percent of the
principal amount which shall be not less than Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.00)
Dollars nor more than Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars.
2. The Authority should consider charging for documents that are or may be required subsequent
to the original transaction. For example, over the last several months we have been asked to
review and revise a collateral assignment agreement, a release of a development agreement and a
subordination agreement on a refinancing. We have found in several cities that because our
hourly rate is considerably lower than the private sector rate, that even when the cities charge for
the work, the developers would rather have us prepare the documents. We are very well qualified
to prepare all of the ancillary documents. Even if we are only reviewing documents that have
already been prepared, the Authority should consider charging for its costs of having these
documents reviewed.
Once again, we wish to thank you for the opportunities you have giver= us over these many years.
Because of the Council's and the HRA's willingness to address their development and
redevelopment problems and because of the excellent staff leadership, we have been able to help
design some of the most interesting and innovative programs in the state.
We look forward to once again having the opportunity to serve you. Thanks again for your
continued support and your business.
3RCrms
Encl.
G:IWPWITA1FlFWLEYr."-000
• Page 2
k�-
R003
12/04/97 THU 14:04 FAX 612 885 5969 BRASS MONROE
1.
t�
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE FRIDLEY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA)
AND KRASS MONROE, P.A.
Term of the Agreement: January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999.
Duties and Responsibilities of Klass Monroe. P.A.:
A. Analyze subsidies requested by developers or offered by the City, including:
i. Tax increment analysis;
ii. Internal rate of return analysis; and
iii. Pro forma cash flow and balance sheet analysis.
B. Assist with any tax increment work, including the following:
i. Modify the redevelopment project area;
ii. Establish the tax increment district and the tax increment finance plan,
including impact analyses;
iii. Prepare resolutions adopting the above;
iv. Prepare notice of public hearings;
V. Attend public hearings to provide support and background;
vi. Prepare letters and notices for the School and County Boards; and
vii. Prepare letters requesting certifications and filing documents with the
appropriate jurisdictions.
C. Assist in the negotiation and preparation of contracts for private development,
assessment agreements, special assessment agreements, interest rate reduction
programs, revenue noes, and other contractual arrangement between the Fridley
HRA and the developer.
D. Assist with any debt insurance including recommendations as to size, maturity,
form and sale of debt as they relate to the project analysis.
E. Assist with policy analysis and with the review and updating of tax increment
districts.
FTPOIN
,.� lZJ 004
76005
n&SS JONROE
12/04/97 TEN 14:04 FAX 612 895 5969
F. Assist with the development of housing programs and Prepare the appropriate
documents and resolutions.
3. Compensation:
A. from shall be at the hourly rate of One Hundred Ten Dollars ($110.00)
from January 1, 1998 through December 31,1998; and One Hundred Fifteen
Dollars ($115.00) from January 1, 1999 though December 31, 1999.
B. Krass Monroe, P.A., shall submit an itemized statement that clearly accounts for
the hours of service provided by Krass Monroe, P.A.
4, Other Reimbursements:
A. Krass Monroe, P.A., shall be reimbursed for long distance calls, reproduction and
delivery services, as well as for any filing fees that it incurs on behalf of the
Fridley HRA. All other expenses will be included as part of the per hour
compensation rate.
Agreed and entered into this day of January, 1998.
KRASS MONROE, P.A.
DO
FRIDLEY HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
M
LM
2D
KRASS MONROE, P.A.
A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W
■ James R. Casserly
Email jamesc Jkrassmonroe.com
Direct Dial (612) 885 -1296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
From: James R. Casserly
Date: 12/03/97
Re: Release of Contract for Private Redevelopment Between the Fridley HRA
and University Avenue Associates (Springbrook Apts.)
Our File No. 9571 -27
Enclosed you will find a Release of Contract for Private Development and a resolution
authorizing execution of the Release.
Legal counsel for University Avenue Associates has asked that the Fridley HRA release the
Contract for Private Development. The University Avenue Associates is in the process of
refinancing the project and will be paying the remaining principal balance on the notes (the two
notes have a remaining combined principal balance of $528,825).
Once the notes are paid in full, the provisions of the Contract should be terminated with the
exception of those provisions relating to the Assessment Agreement. Please note that the Release
does not release the Assessment Agreement. The Assessment Agreement is not terminated until
January 2, 2001, and until that date the minimum market valuation shall be not less than
$9,200,000. The pay `97 market valuation for the Springbrook Apts. is $13,911,600 and the pay
`98 market valuation is $14,298,800.
With the full payment of the notes and the Assessment Agreement still in place, we recommend
execution of the Release of Contract for Private Development.
Please call if there are any further questions or problems.
JRC /j ms
Enclosures
cc: Doherty, Rumble & Butler
Attn: Sherrie Oman, Esq.
SUITE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER • 1650 WEST 82ND STREET • BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1447
TELEPHONE 612/885- - FACSIMILE 612/885 -5969
L3
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
N AND FOR THE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A RELEASE OF
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY N AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY TO UNIVERSITY
AVENUE ASSOCIATES
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 execute a Release of Contract For Private
Development (the "Release ") for delivery to University Avenue Associates, a Minnesota partnership
(the "Developer ").
Section 2. Findings.
2.01 The Authority hereby finds that it entered into a Contract For Private Development
with the Developer on the 27`h day of May, 1987 (the "Contract ") which contained certain covenants
and restrictions in which a breach by the Developer would result in an event of default thus
providing the Authority, its successors and assigns, with certain remedies as set forth in said
Contract.
2.02. The Authority hereby finds that the Developer has performed said covenants and
conditions as outlined in the Contract in a manner deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the
execution and delivery of the Release.
Section 3. Authorization for Execution and Deliverv.
3.01. The Chair and the Executive Director of the Authority are hereby authorized to
execute and deliver the Release when the following condition is met:
The Developer paying in full all of its obligations to the Authority.
3A
Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Authority this _ day of , 199_.
ATTEST:
Executive Director
G:\ WPDATA \F \FRIDLEY \27 \DOC \RELESRES.DOC
Chair
RELEASE OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota organized under the Constitution and
laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Authority") entered into a Contract For Private
Development dated as of the 27th day of May, 1987 (the "Contract ") with University Avenue
Associates, a Minnesota partnership (the "Developer") relating to the development of real
property located in Anoka County, Minnesota, as described on the attached Exhibit A (the
`'Property");
WHEREAS, said Contract contained certain covenants and restrictions in which a breach
by the Developer would result in an event of default thus providing the Authority, its successors
and assigns, with certain remedies as set forth in said Contract;
WHEREAS, said Contract contained within it an Assessment Agreement and Assessor's
Certification dated June 11, 1987, by and between the Authority and the Developer that was filed
of record with the Anoka County Recorder on August 25, 1987, as Document No. 776006 (the
"Assessment Agreement "); and
WHEREAS, said Developer has performed said covenants and conditions in a manner
deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the execution and recording of this release.
NOW, THEREFORE, the covenants and conditions in said Contract have been
performed by the Developer and the Contract is hereby released by the Authority absolutely and
forever insofar as it applies to the Property, and the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota is
hereby authorized to accept for recording and to record this release, and the filing of this release
shall be a conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and
conditions of the Contract and shall forever release the Property from the Contract; and
FURTHER THEREFORE, that this release does not release the Assessment
Agreement.
Dated: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
By
Its Chair
And
Its Director
3C
STATE OF Mr.NNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 199_, before me, a notary public, personally appeared
and to me personally known who by me duly
sworn, did say that they are the and respectively, of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota on behalf of
said Authority.
This instrument was drafted by:
KRASS MONROE, P.A. (JRC)
1100 Southpoint Office Center
1650 West 82nd Street
Bloomington, MN 55431
G:\ WPDATA\F FRIDL EY\RE LEAS E.DOC
3D
Notary Public
Exhibit A
Lot 1, Block 1, Springbrook Apartments at Northtown, according to the duly recorded plat
thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota.
1VIEMORANDUM
HOUSING
NNKIO�M�
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: December 4, 1997
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRAA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Approve 1998 Meeting Dates
The proposed schedule of meeting dates for 1998 is different than in previous years.
The first Thursdays of the month are proposed as opposed to the second Thursdays of
the month, except in January. After reviewing the City's commission calendar,
changing the regular meeting dates to the first Thursday of each month will reduce the
necessity to publish the City Council agenda and the HRA agenda the same week.
RECOMMENDATION
Unless otherwise directed, staff recommends approval of the 1998 meeting dates as
presented.
BD /dw
M- 97-499
2
9 ti
Second Thursday of Each Month (except for in January it is the third Thursday):
January 8th
• February 5d'
• March 5"
• April 2nd
• May r
• June 4`►
• July 2°d
• August 6`►
• September 3`d
• October I'
• November 5d'
0 December 3'
a
TO: FRIDLEY H.RA
FROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY
RE: BILLING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING EXPENSES
NOVEMBER 1997
Account #'s for
HRA's Use
ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING:
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD
COMPUTER OVERHEAD
(For Micro & Mint computers)
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE BILLING : 460 - 0000 - 430 -4107
OPERATING EXPENSES:
USPS - POSTAGE 262 - 0000 - 430 -4332
PETTY CASH - PHOTOS 460-0000- 430 -4221
NORTH MEMORIAL - WELLNESS 460- 0000 - 430 -4330
USPS - POSTAGE 460 - 0000 - 430 -4332
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
BENEFITS EXPENSES:
Account #'s for CR
City's Use Code
20,394.75 101- 0000 - 341 -1200
284.13 101- 0000 - 336 -3000
206.26 101 - 0000 - 336 -3000
16.31
236 -0000- 336 -3000
12.77
236 - 0000 - 336 -3000
130.00
236- 0000 - 336 -3000
4.68
236 -0000- 336 -3000
163.76
CITY OF FRIDLEY - HEALTH INS 262 -0000- 219 -1001 371.18 236 -0000- 219 -1001
CITY OF FRIDLEY - DENTAL INS 262 - 0000 - 219 -1100 45.06 236 - 0000 - 219 -1100
CITY OF FRIDLEY - LIFE INS 262 - 0000 - 219 -1200 14.00 236- 0000 - 219 -1200
TOTAL BENEFITS EXPENSES: 430.24
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - NOVEMBER 1997 >1:4794
Fie :1EXDATAIHRA %TIFU7BILLAs Malls
5
H1
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
11
12
13
r N 1 1
r 1 I
r r
1 /
r 1
z 1 1
1 1
H 1 /
60 1 1
1 1
W 1 1
i 1
LU C9
0 US
go
cc
i 2 i O A I^ O �O O O M 1H
ppO CD �t N A� ��p} fpp��� �O pCppp w
i 00 00 N M O P N O 00 M
1 1
/ r- • M IM .O M �
I rr
I 1
1 Li W 1
1 cc 1
1 � I
1 1
1
1 1
/ 1
1 1
1 i..i 1
1 W r
1 O 1
I OL 1
1 1
F 1 r M
/ 1 w
W
1 I i.r I 1 d G
JW H 1 r L V 0
W W r r O 4-
im Z
z SL 3 _cm o o -1 u Lei u aQ Q «
s
x a r r p p O O d d O•
I CC 1 01 r 1 1
jLWi i W . 710 L L L W W I� W O O M
S K i O 1 IL < .0 < V V V U N N O
1 I
L- S 1 I
W N 1 K 1 O O O O O O O O O O O
J�
y r r O O O U1 M O U\ 00 O U1 00
01 U. i+ 1 / N O O r O r O r O
LL 4. i Z i
F- .Np
•CO1 i i M .N- M s m M M M M
0► 1 / r 1 / 1 1 r 1 1 r I m 40 O O O u O O O O O O O
u _
O O O O O O O O O O
Iq r < r M O O O O O O O O O O
07 I / 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 /
u I 1 O N N N N N N N OI Or N
1 1 .O U1
in Ln %O %O IA Ln .O
N
It It .2 N N N N �1 S N
O\ I I
1
1=9 1
> 1 1
lu
IL
In a
WWW
O.-WWW 1 W 1 p p p p 4.
M i K
Ln
r 1 1
K 1 W i 1� ►� P. 1� f� 1� A t� 1� f� 1�
ui
1 O N 1 .- — — .- r- — r — 0
�- m r 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \'r
\ Z m m 1 0 .Z 1 �f �t d' �t I� 1� 1� 1` 00 CO IA >
z l — r- e- — — e- r- .- — — N 'O
\N} W z ►. W W 1 F- 1 .- r r r r .- r r
N Z �9 Z s
0.- z u N ae 6 i O ou, 'n U1 In Ul I�Ap LUp1 pUp1 ILAp Ipnp IpAp U1
a a' u q= i N O us i 00 8 8 O 00 00 C 00 00 K
W L7 7 7 Z O O O O O O O O O O O
G. d O tai tZ9 tZ7 I.-- cc
5A
H U%
J N
0
O A
in
0
z z
V S
O i z i
a 1 Z I
W!
� i 4
I i
w
a
a
U
Y
z
x
u` r
� O•
W a
A V
z 0
<¢ \
N
A +�
0
H a
W ~
LL N
ol
Oi .+
co
Y O
U \
w c!
z .+
U
z
O. O
\ O:
Q L
z
Z
CL
O
w W
>
O w
v u:
A
r
0,
\ 0
nJz
OOH
iiD
•1zo
Ua
CWCQW
0: J
w o"
iC CC a:
O
H
CL
H
U
10
A
UW
W S1
Uz
w
E
z
A
w
W Q
UA
NOOOOQO.g00000VP- OOONOO M
O.00OON*OMNOOWO.fmOnonoo Cd
N0000 fl- 0•M1000v0OkN00]0NT0 0
toNO•n WnNOO•'1nN>DO�COVNO .+
MmNMCd CtNMKJrt b7 0vQQ D]n('7b7 Cd
of •+ � ri .+ O:.+ ca r` o
cl rd 10 v
.i
cn >
W Ea >-I> w0: (az w> Z
LL
Z ce C0AX o° Ncet - QtA
Z0xx-=S - aI - -XQU QLN xwwJ
WHCD W�ILCL n" i 0it_j"• --
•W ¢noW
LWw N Lt- ouJw townC00)03z
WZ CcWa0MZU rczvoLZOo
RH0500ar -w HH�WOno DME
S 7 L N .1 > 0 CL X .l >- O t i
•¢rd Rn is .4InOCw i i wR1UZZ
Z\ Wz.•1- Z »,O \W-)0 WZZAR 00
UJAO F-000 wwazoO I OtbNH
H Q H U J H H z z J w O: H N N j z E— j—
I z3 i QU i J i i CL> -CL�3� \HO-O.
jH RU}H-i-jU} x H O.JHH
.. o>- QHxJJJHOWHH >-wWOW6lx
d:u:Hdu:U O: CGGCCH Hm w 0 cc
>-OU LLW >-) O.OJ >006 - >Z►Tm
3CLJ¢QBO. w O UUWw'"IM
CL N Cd N Q W O. O_ Or Q M A O z N Q O A CC M N
O. irdMpnOi�as.tf}MQ•nOi�mO�O+aN
a•^ �•+r+•a•�•+•1•+NNNJ�JNNNCdJ'JMMM
67nn17]b7niAb7nnnnnnb7nnnnnb7
0 10 10 10 *0 Y} 10 .0 �c 10 a %C 10 d 10 •0 .0 -0 10 10
NC•}NNNNNt3}NNNNNC7NNNCdNNN
zCC z zN OC
0CCL N >. �0 W U
ss H z U 0) 0 Z H W z Q OT
0C z0 > a H
iw zH Oi- w 7L
i-WJ Lx f-> 7wJN -j co a J
1- 60 w F- CWL }W.6AF aC=G cn U} z Ix W>-H3� WWQD) - MH H ~QOM(Lj 0
r- 0 N F- ZO"MLhtnULO)Z HW H
WO:DUJ W O: WwoomofLt -z WIXU) 00 1i "Hz2dWZHCL UZ(L ) -XIX J HU 1•-W wxc - WHWXCf- 4TWSO_WH
w ¢A O_WOZ F-
W H¢J YJ
ceww_wwxlx Q O: Qum O: J A
oxaF -o cmiowz m4z¢> >
L LCU - t- CU. Oi —QIx CL
a >- f- ¢o7-rn ¢ r'> - RSOaw
O:w -N (0O)HxCCOJWWQ N L
EwJY O-LW W¢WOLCJJF- NWF -L0.
F-A¢W • Z3CChO.wnow }ZZm
C.1ZHC!e ZXO-ZMJHHJCZHOM
HULLLYJZHxZ000l=iI1WLLLXXxWWr
N N N r- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0�0-0.0.0.O.Ol ID, p. 0•OlaaOO,.pp. aa0•0.pp. &p.
0. 0. 0. 0• P O• Ol 0. 0 A 0l a 0. 0� 0� 0I O• D` Ol 0 0�
.1 It .i e1 .i .1 .1 rf v1 M H .d H .i -1 .i
\ \ \ N. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ IN \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
nb7nn67nnnb767nb7 If) nnnn jr) n if) n
0000000000 N, dCiCdNlNMP} J J Jt\°} J 1M Jt\`t dC lOJ
s
a
a
A
-J
Im
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
•� i
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: December 5, 1997
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA y/U
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Concept Proposals for Agreements with MEPC American
Properties
• MKI 9
At the November 1997 meeting, the HRA tabled consideration of an amendment to the
Contract for Exclusive Negotiations with MEPC American Properties. At that meeting,
Jim Casserly suggested that the HRA conceptually discuss the terms for the upcoming
redevelopment agreement with MEPC on construction of the one -story, 100,000 square
foot tech -flex building, and also discuss the terms for a listing arrangement with MEPC
for the balance of the site. A synopsis of the terms for each agreement is attached.
REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The purpose of the redevelopment agreement would be to sell approximately nine
acres of this site at the west end of the development to MEPC in order for them to
construct the 100,000 square foot tech flex building prior to the end of 1998. It is
suggested that a closing take place on April 1, 1998 and that the construction would
commence on May 1, 1998. The price per square foot for the property is suggested at
$2.50 per square foot (see additional memo from Jim Casserly regarding the supporting
data for said price). In return, the developer would be responsible for constructing a
project 100,000 square feet in size at a minimum market value of $60 per square foot to
be effective on January 2, 1999 for taxes payable in 2000.
A right of reverter is proposed in case the developer does not proceed with the project,
or if the ownership of MEPC changes. The agreement will not be assignable. Staff has
MEPC American Properties
December 5, 1997
Page 2
verified with MEPC that an ownership transfer has not occurred and is not projected to
occur until the Summer of 1998.
LISTING AGREEMENT
The purpose of the listing agreement is to provide the legal vehicle for MEPC to act on
behalf of the HRA for the remainder of the property aside from the nine acre one -story
tech flex development. It is suggested that the term of this agreement be for one year
and the agreement would terminate if there is a change in ownership. Further, an
exclusion would be included to enable the HRA to work with potential users who are on
file with the Authority's attorney (Jim Casserly).
RECOMMENDATION
The HRA should review the proposed terms and suggest any changes or revisions.
Unless otherwise directed, staff will continue to negotiate with MEPC based on the
terms presented to the HRA and will conclude the process with the formal documents to
be approved by the HRA at the January 1998 meeting. No action is needed on these
items at this time.
BD /dw
M -97 -500
12/03/97 WEDa12:45 FAX 612 885 5969 KRASS MONROE
KRASS MONROE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
■ James R Casserly D W
Emai[jamesc@krassmonroe.com
Direct Dial (612) 885 -1296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
William Burns, City Manager
MEPC American Properties, Inc.
Attn: David M. Jellison, Vice President
From: James K Casserly
Date: 12/03/97
Re: Terms of Redevelopment Contract
Our File No. 9571 -14
Authority: Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for The City of Fridley,
Minnesota
Redeveloper: MEPC American Properties, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Size: Approximately 9 acres but the least amount of land to accommodate the
project
Location: Western end of Fridley Executive Center
Price: 2.50 /sq. $.(approximate $1,000,000) $30,000 Earnest Money, balance at
closing.
SURE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER • 1650 WEST 92ND STREET • BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1447
TELEPHONE 6121895 -5999 • FACSIMILE 612015 -5969
6B
IM 002
12/03/97 WED 12:46 FAX 612 885 5969
Execution of
Redevelopment Contract:
Payment of Earnest Monev:
Closing on Property:
BRASS MONROE
January 15, 1998
January 15,1998
April 1,1998
Construction Commencement: May 1, 1998
Construction Completion: December 31, 1998
Project (Minimum
a
Dip
Improvements): 100,000 sq. $. Flex Space Building with brick and glass
exterior with an approximate completion for office usage of
75 %. Project will be designed to be compatible with an
Authority approved Master Plan.
Authority Approvals: Redevelopment Contract; Construction Plans; Master Plan.
Assessment Agreement: Minimum Market Value of $60.00 /sq. ft, ($6,000,000) to be
effective January 2, 1999 (for pay 2000).
Authority Security: A right of reverter for non performance.
Provided by Authority
Marketable Title: Provided by Authority
Form of Deed: Quit Claim Deed
Inspection: Full right of inspection as long as Authority is indemnified.
Environmental Representations: None.
. Page 2 6C
9063
12/03/97 WED 12:46 FAX 612 885 5969 HRASS MONROE
A
Zonin : Project is a permitted use.
M 0 M ff v
Assignability: Not assignable until Certificate of Completion is issued except as a "Like Kind
Exchange" or except to an entity controlling, controlled by or under common
control of the redeveloper.
JRCrms
Q: ►WPDATA*VMDLEY►141COR1M13JRC.DOC
• Page 3
�Ic
Ca 004
12/04/97 THU 14:43 FAX 612 885 5969 KRASS MONROE � � � 002
KRASS MONROE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
■ James R. Casserly
Email jams @kraumonraacom
Direct Dial (612) 885 -1296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
William Burns, City Manager
MEPC American Properties, Inc.
Attn: David M. Jellison, Vice President
Doherty Rumble & Butler
Atha: David C. Sellergren
From. James R. Casserly
Date: December 4, 1997
Re: Terms of Listing Agreement with MEPC
Our File No. 9571 -14
Authori Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for The City of Fridley,
Minnesota
Redeveloper: MEPC American Properties, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Property: Fridley Executive Center site.
Term: 1 year
Renewable: Every 6 months thereafter with consent of both parties.
Termination: Upon the sale, transfer or assignment of the Redeveloper.
SURE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER • 1650 WEST 82ND STREET • BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55+431.1447
TELEPHONE 612N5-q= - CeCSIMILE 612f8US69
6E
12/04/9x7 THU 14:44 FAX 612 885 5969 KRASS MONROE
Redevelo er Res onsibilities:
1. Submit Revised Site Plan for Authority approval.
2. Promote and market site in accordance with Revised Site Plan.
3. Disseminate marketing materials and provide revisions when necessary.
4. Work with Authority and City staff.
5. Prepare plat and revisions thereto as required by the City.
Authority Responsibilities:
1. Provide environmentally acceptable site.
2. Provide marketable title and surveys
3. Complete Highway 65 intersection improvements.
4. Assist Redeveloper with achieving maximum density and market valuation of the
site in accordance with the Revised Site Plan.
5. Refer all third party inquiries.
Joint Responsibilities:
1. Determine purchase prices for the site which reflects market conditions, long term
use, quality of user, costs imposed by the City, the Authority or as a result of the
Master Plan, cost and impact of parking treatments to achieve desired density and
use and Redeveloper out -of- pocket expenses for marketing and promotion.
Design a mechanism to resolve differences of opinion in the purchase price.
2. Coordinate construction of public improvement with construction of any
Minimum Improvements.
3. Develop architectural standards and controls that will insure a uniform and high
quality development of the entire site.
4. Execute contracts for Private Redevelopment as needed
Exclusion: Those potential user(s) who are on file with the Authority's attorney, as of the date
this Agreement is authorized by the Authority, shall be excluded from this
Agreement Any excluded party shall not be in the business of developing sites for
lease or sale and must conform to the Revised Site Plan, the architectural standards
and controls and any agreements between the Redeveloper and the Authority
regarding site development issues.
Assignability: Not assignable by the Redeveloper
JRCrjms
WPMTAWWRHXM14=RW1WRC.WC
• P"02
6F
@003
12/03/97 WED 15:40 FAX 612 885 5969 BRASS MONROE k 9 062
KRASS MONROE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
■ James R Cassedy
Email ja mesc@Arassmorvoacom
Direct Dial (612) 885 -1296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
William Bums, City Manager
From: James R. Casserly
Date: 12/03/97
Re: Purchase Price to MEPC
Our File No. 9571 -14
We are suggesting a purchase price of $2.50 per square foot for the MEPC acquisition in the
Fridley Executive Center. The Authority may wish to make a downward adjustment to this price
to reflect expenditures already incurred by MEPC for the promotion and marketing of the site. In
arriving at this price I have spoken with city officials, majors developers in the northern suburbs
and legal counsel for several projects. I focused on three areas in particular.
1. Center Point in Roseville (previously owned by Dave Weir).
2. The industrial park adjacent to Northland Inn in Brooklyn Park.
3. The Scimed Campus in Maple Grove.
Listed below is a brief description of my findings and an attempt to determine the cost per square
foot for land in each of those sites.
ROSEVH.LE
The Center Point site is approximately 44 acres. The cost to Ryan for the site and improvements
is approximately $4 per square foot; however, Ryan is receiving substantial amounts of tax
increment to reduce its costs. A 100,000 sq. ft office showroom currently under construction that
would have approximately 70% to 80% office usage has a land value of approximately $2.50 per
square foot. This is the amount being shown on pro formas to secure private sector mortgage
financing. Because of the substantial parking requirements for this type of building, the density
coverage (the ratio of the footprint of the building to the total site) is approximately 25 %. As a
result, a site that cost $2.50 per square foot has a cost per square foot of building of $12.00. For
SUITE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER • 1650 WEST 82ND STREET • BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1447
TELEPHONE 6121885 -5999 • FACSIMILE 6121685 -5969
6G
12/03/97 WED -15:40 FAX 612 885 5969 KRASS MONROE 1A003
this type of product, the $12.00 per square foot is at the "top end." It should be noted that other
portions of the Center Point site are being sold for higher square foot land costs. However, these
sites are being used for or are intended to be used for restaurants, hotels and multi-level office
buildings., A competing developer believes that the Roseville site is better situated because it is
midway between Minneapolis and St. Paul and should command a higher purchase price than the
Fridley site.
Sources: Roseville City Staff; Ryan and competing developer.
BROOKLYN PARK
The industrial park is approximately 95 to 100 acres. The pricing on the land is $2.50 to $2.75 per
square foot. However, the city is offering tax increment assistance which reduces the net site cost.
Dealers Manufacturing, for example, built a 90,000 square foot building on approximately 7.5
acres. Their site cost of approximately $850,000 when reduced by the net present value of the tax
increment of $200,000 generates a net site cost of something over $650,000. When that amount is
divided by the size of the site (approximately 326,700), the site cost per square foot is
approximately $2.00.
Sources: Ryan.
MAPLE GROVE
Scimed purchased 82.62 acres for its campus in 1993. However, only 60.2 acres of the site are
buildable. The purchase price of the site was $2,850,000. There were and are additional site
improvement costs in excess of $3, 000, 000. These site improvement costs are being reimbursed
through the use of tax increment revenue notes. The goal of several tax increment agreements
which Scimed and Maple Grove have executed is to reimburse Scimed for these various costs. It
will be several years before the full development occurs on the property so we do not know at this
time if all of the site improvement costs will, in fact, be reimbursed However, if we simply take
the buildable acreage which is 2,622,183 square feet and divide it into the purchase price of
$2,850,000 we have a land acquisition cost of $1.09 per square foot. A developer who is most
familiar with Maple Grove development believes that comparable sites should sell for $2.50 to
$2.75 per square foot. This developer pointed out that as the site becomes larger, it will generally
cost less on a square foot basis. This developer further pointed out that when the site costs
reaches $12.00 per square foot of building, it is at the high end for this type of product.
Sources: Legal counsel and financial analyst for Scimed; developer; city records.
CONCLUSION
The Authority could get more per square foot if the City and the Authority allowed other types of
uses. As freeway exposure becomes more important, an office showroom user will be willing to
pay more per square foot for a site. The opposite is also true. While the cost per square foot the
0 Pac, @Z 6H
12/03/97 WED 15:41 FAX 612 885 5969 KRASS MONROE 19, 9044
Authority actually receives for the site is important, the amount of taxes generated by the use is
far more important. A minimum market value of $60.00 per square foot generates (using a pay
'98 class rate of 4 %) approximately $3.00 per square foot in taxes. This would mean an annual
tax revenue of approximately $300,000 which is approximately 30% of the total purchase price.
In short, $2.50 a square foot may be all the market can bear for this product (unless, of course,
freeway exposure is especially significant). Having a minimum market value of $60.00 per
square foot of building and having that value be effective as of January 2, 1999 generates
significant revenues to the Authority. Finally, the Authority may wish to consider whether or not
MEPC should be credited for out -of- pocket expenses they have already incurred. The Authority
could certainly conclude that the MEPC expenses are simply the price it has paid to have an
exclusive arrangement.
JRCTjms
WDATA*V RML M14=RW114JRC.DOC
• Page 3
61
MEMORANDUM
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: December 5, 1997
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Regional Remodeling Planbook
Over the last several months, staff has been working with other "fully developed
communities" (cities surrounding the central cities) regarding the possibility of producing
a remodeling planbook which would focus on remodeling ideas for World War II era
housing. As you know, the HRA will be producing a remodeling planbook focusing on a
rambler as part of the 1998 Remodeling Fair. The regional handbook will be broader in
scope since it will include ideas for ramblers, cape cod, and other similar houses. At
this point, there are 15 communities who are agreeable to collaborating on a regional
book.
A request for proposal was issued and the architectural firm which assisted the
Longfellow neighborhood in Minneapolis with a planbook was selected. A preliminary
scope of service with the architectural firm has been completed and producing the
planbook will cost approximately $63,000 to be divided between the participating
communities. Printing the planbook will be an additional charge. Grant applications to
foundations or other sources will be sought in order to generate funds to cover the
printing costs. In addition, a small fee could be charged to recover funds as well.
At this time, it is suggested that each community contribute a maximum of $5,000
toward the project, both planbook production and printing. In order to initiate the
contract with the architectural firm, all of the cities must contribute so that a source of
funds is available to pay the architectural fee.
The 1998 budget includes $5,000 in the housing fund for this purpose. The planbook
would not be produced until 1999.
7
Regional Remodeling Planbook
December 5, 1997
Page 2
No action is needed at this time by the HRA; however, an invoice from one of the
participating communities may be received within the next month to pay for the
architectural contract.
BD /dw
M -97 -502
7A
e
e
z
:Z�
F
CL
s
Z
' $�
pig
y.
_
Q
N
W L)
.>
�w
oD
a
W W
r >
tZ-t Q
a.<
LO w�
Y Z
r J U
M O O
1 O
1
t LQ Ln
M
ti i O M ID
O r ti I
O .N+ C. O
n.o_aa
N V1 N V)
PO
Ma N tm0 m
Opp F
N
,4 i 2
NHH Ij]K
Z
a
'fig` z
w
O
loll
c
ttoa Z
O OaCtg w1 Z
z O
Nv4i F, 83 18°R %u�ii99 vl O N U
Q ii y
�5 Lo m W
Z
m� L4
r
U
7
4>.
0
Z
¢:o 0:
aU o:o
H E-
r�
WU 'W'-: =W
r:Vi r
W: `"
1
W
Z:as Z:
U;0 Ew
0
�\
0��
Z:Z N J
avoiO
�o
Z
� ~
ZZW
a
H
W Q
�y
Vi
7: � W
O:r z
mm
2:w >:
r:r
- yg''ogJ
tl�
� L:
W: 117:
L7.
Q'm
FJ--I
I-LI
Tk
a: � o
�:C1 cr
yy�
1� 1
W W x
Z:1r
a
04U
a i z
Q
E-i
C ° LO:
R1 Q-' F+
r
��Z
O z:
a �
W
>-
O
d z
/W
a a
o:
000
E- z
W Z
O
-1
z
E- U ¢
Z
J
z °
i--i
O
U
y.
_
Q
N
W L)
.>
�w
oD
a
W W
r >
tZ-t Q
a.<
LO w�
Y Z
r J U
M O O
1 O
1
t LQ Ln
M
ti i O M ID
O r ti I
O .N+ C. O
n.o_aa
N V1 N V)
PO
Ma N tm0 m
Opp F
N
,4 i 2
NHH Ij]K
Z
a
'fig` z
w
O
loll
c
ttoa Z
O OaCtg w1 Z
z O
Nv4i F, 83 18°R %u�ii99 vl O N U
Q ii y
�5 Lo m W
Z
O
� a
z a w
0 0: 1-
� rn
`a
win ¢ago too _
f., u
a nZ-t
I fi fi
odm ON °o'o °co : °zo
Lj
.mm
o vi z a
oaF a
iH" g
vW Maw :H 5 c4¢a e:aU
J M
3: 680a �H$
dud
U Z ( o. + •�
W a�
a
m� L4
gig
A
°
o
1
U
NIn
c0
B E e H
oil �i�
�\
Ni
�o
$
AI
W
mm
NO
- yg''ogJ
tl�
o
a
Z
O
� a
z a w
0 0: 1-
� rn
`a
win ¢ago too _
f., u
a nZ-t
I fi fi
odm ON °o'o °co : °zo
Lj
.mm
o vi z a
oaF a
iH" g
vW Maw :H 5 c4¢a e:aU
J M
3: 680a �H$
dud
U Z ( o. + •�
W a�
a
m� L4
gig
A
°
o
1
U
NIn
c0
B E e H
8i3
Ni
�o
$
AI
W
g
w O.-1 �da6
y
- yg''ogJ
tl�
o
a
Z
O
� a
z a w
0 0: 1-
� rn
`a
win ¢ago too _
f., u
a nZ-t
I fi fi
odm ON °o'o °co : °zo
Lj
.mm
o vi z a
oaF a
iH" g
vW Maw :H 5 c4¢a e:aU
J M
3: 680a �H$
dud
U Z ( o. + •�
W a�
a
an'
m� L4
gig
A
°
o
1
U
NIn
c0
B E e H
O> �
Ni
�o
.°a NN a
g
w O.-1 �da6
y
- yg''ogJ
tl�
an'
m� L4
gig
A
®
Ill��llily�l�l�l�t9ll d:� II�� c+$� ° #� I1
8 � N
In ': a s; o
o;: a �:::::::::;'' ::
N piggy
N74'I059H111
4
�a_ l I IW.. , i.. .h. C. ,a n _J
OWn IW,3110 ND03 ssxiaa,31"
LJ
LM It 130131V0 N ZoMjddqy"
:..a Y H s LJ
/ 2k
_ ■ !f
� §k\
g�)
82
2\
§�\\
�LO
( ' \` !_
on
!7
;� • , |
5 3/
a :• .
LA " �
. . ! . . _ � j
LM -0 I= 31YO NDnMASdd 13M
L-: L Li Lj L-2.
lm'f loon" NwtONB ,3m
CZ r
A 2�1111
LM•n IM13IVa NaaIMWd*3
0
0
U
.L
o
�
J a
CL S
o
�
Z
M W
i
c
/
t—
L)
m
a:
N
o
i 7
i i
H
Z "
U
_
a
W N
O
p / /
+
N Pmn
WLn
t0 0: a
oFb�
NHHH
¢J
N20
/
/ ♦
O
/
/
r
u+
/ /
8
H1
lC w
m
]i
u
to z
'
�4
°
4
n o
Z'OI
000
66'bb9+
86'659+
a
c�
m
�
---- - - - - -`
- -
- --
- - - - -- - -- - - -
-_
— \\
\
i
LM•n IM13IVa NaaIMWd*3
I I
• QI$ t I— Q
m �t
TTIIQ Q Q 1a
W
n Z Y
yy ZZ JJ PW1yr ZZ A N •�
Z \ CyYFQ- CLL N XW X = y L
CN @b CvIZ C~- �~j pQ W 1-•W fZWI
31 °.o o ®555 6'uiWO 9 c SN P
Ln
@ 11 I Q
i
t0 a
z Q Cl $=u1
0 11 @ II LW.t ---
ti OY
ZO
-cz
2 p
Q Z� @ � \
\V. \ Q Q Q °. C}
-0
2 e
�; mm
1 C
a Q/
°y Q Z \ .,
� U\
O O2
Q \\ \
ceei'n iao:azva x�vmvrova:�nm
_ i _ .., .: _.......v: (�.....a 6».�.�d .:w,1 k� ,- .,:,,,. Ni.�� i.. .;..� •r9 ri.:.� a,.
130 .n o -Romlwlaa 1T
��• i
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DATE: January 2, 1998 %-
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA`�
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Femelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Acquisition of 611 Buffalo Street and 5297 Lincoln Street
rzIr M' Mr.��3i
Seller: Tony Turek
Purchase Price: $47,000
Subject property is a one story, slab on grade, single family home located near
Broad Avenue and Buffalo Street in the Riverview Heights neighborhood. The
home was built in 1944 and has 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, a kitchen and a living
room for a total of 572 square feet of finished living space.
The lot is 50'x 110' or 5,500 square in size which is considered non - buildable
under current code. The City owns the vacant lot to the west which could be
combined with this site to create a buildable parcel. Another option would be to
land bank the parcel for possible redevelopment of the entire 600 block of
Buffalo Street. We will be evaluating redevelopment options for the Riverview
Heights area in 1999.
The property was purchased by the current owner on a contract for deed in 1989
for $38,000. Since that time, the owner has refinanced the property and has a
mortgage with a current balance of approximately $46,000. The property is
assessed for tax purposes at $37,593 for taxes payable in 1998 ($10,750 for -
land, $26,843 for buildings). The City Assessor last inspected the property on
May 28, 1996.
Feel
JAN 98 HRA ITEMS (GF)
Acquisition of 611 Buffalo Street and 5297 Lincoln Street
January 2, 1998
Page 2
On November 6, 1997 our contract appraiser valued the property at $54,500
($19,250 for land, $32,250 for buildings). A review appraisal was obtained and
placed the property's value in the $44,000 to $47,000 range.
Staff initially offered $44,000 for the property, however the owner counter- offered
at $47,000 citing that he has an outstanding mortgage for $46,000 and would not
sell for a loss. Staffs offer was made contingent upon HRA approval and
execution of a relocation waiver by the seller.
The contract appraiser noted that the house is in fair condition and has
undergone some remodeling, including a new roof and some drywall work.
According to building inspection records permits were issued for a small addition
in 1975, plumbing in 1981, and a new furnace in 1989. A visual inspection of the
property revealed that the siding is deteriorating and will need to be replaced. In
addition, the house is very small and does not have a garage or hard - surfaced
driveway.
We should also point out that most of the homes on the block were identified as
priorities during our windshield survey this spring. Of the six owners who were
contacted, only the owner of 611 Buffalo St. has indicated an interest in selling.
Photos of the site are attached.
5297 Lincoln Street
Seller: Ralph Porter
Purchase Price: $35,000
Subject property is a one story, slab on grade, single family home located on the
comer of Lincoln Street and 531 Avenue. The home was built in 1950 and has
been completely gutted. In fact, the house has been without sewer, water or
electrical service since 1988. A two car detached garage was built in 1968,
however the exterior siding has never been installed. Due to the condition of the
property, the appraiser determined that the structures had little or no significant
value and essentially appraised the site as if it were a vacant parcel.
The lot is 84'x 126' or 10,584 square in size which is considered buildable under
current code. The lot is located in a very stable neighborhood where the
average home value (for tax purposes) is $101,400. The site would be very
attractive to a home builder.
8 =A
JAN 98 HRA ITEMS (GF)
Acquisition of 611 Buffalo Street and 5297 Lincoln Street
January 2, 1998
Page 3
The property has somewhat of a complicated history. In 1992, the property was
declared tax forfeit for non - payment of real estate taxes. However, the owner at
the time, Marie Puchtel, Mr. Porter's ex -wife was allowed to sell the property on
her own to make up the back taxes. In July of 1996 after attempts to sell the
property failed, Ralph Porter came forward and purchased the property from his
ex -wife for $30,000 in cash. It was unclear what his motivation was for
purchasing the property because he lives in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Since the
1996 sale, Marie Puchtel Porter has essentially acted as a property squatter
living in a small trailer on site.
Prior to initiating discussions with Mr. Porter, staff made it very clear that this was
a voluntary sale and that acquisition could only occur if the property was vacant.
Mr. Porter has taken the necessary legal steps to vacate the property, which
were finalized on December 3, 1997. Ms. Puchtel now resides off -site with
relatives.
The property is assessed for tax purposes at $63,400 for taxes payable in 1998
($38,700 for land, $24,700 for buildings). The City Assessor, however, inspected
the property on September 17, 1997 and has since reduced the base value .
because the home is not habitable. On September 10, 1997 our contract
appraiser valued the property at $31,130 which included only the land value. A
review appraisal was not obtained.
Staff initially offered $31,000 for the property, however the owner requested
more than $60,000 for the property and terminated negotiations. He later
contacted staff and offered $35,000. Staffs offer was made contingent upon
HRA approval and execution of a relocation waiver by the seller.
Photos of the site are attached.
Staff recommends that the HRA approve the purchase of 611 Buffalo Street and
5297 Lincoln Street for $47,000 and $35,000, respectively, and further authorize
staff to prepare the necessary documents to close the purchases.
M -97 -518
JAN 98 HRA ITEMS (GF7
it
- Kl WWR
It
--------------
.1 -, -
�f 4
'_
tA T'z
VoN
Ao
,, 3
fig mi
t $
.fl9
I
:z-
. .........
Ty_
1 0,1401
sk
i^
aim t 1i
r
• r
. �.
� � �;'�
` / _�
�
..
e' �.�!
,
i� ,yes♦ • ;r
f
i^
aim t 1i
r
• r
DATE: December 18, 1997
HOUSING
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
TO: William Bums, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Change in TIF Fee Policy
Background:
On July 19, 1990, the HRA approved an administrative policy regarding charging fees
for tax increment financing projects. In essence, developers would pay the HRA a fee
which would be used to defray the consultant costs for analyzing the TIF project. If the
project proceeded, the fee was to be returned to the developer.
During the negotiation of the Krass Monroe P.A. contract, it was suggested that the
HRA revisit this administrative policy and amend it to allow the HRA to keep the fee as
opposed to returning it.
Proposal:
The current fee schedule is a graduated schedule depending on the size of the TIF
request. The fee schedule is as follows:
(1) for a request of $500,000 or less, $2,500
(2) for a request of $500,000 to $1,500,000, $5,000
(3) for a request of $1,500,000 or more, $7,500
In some instances, the HRA has requested a $15,000 fee (Rottlund project, McGlynn's,
and Noah's Ark).
Unless otherwise directed, beginning in 1998, staff will amend the HRA's TIF policy to
state that the HRA will retain the fees despite the outcome of the project (see attached).
Proposed Change in TIF Fee Policy
December 18, 1997
Page 2
Further, the following fee schedule is suggested:
(1) for a request of $500,000 or less, $2,500
(2) for a request of $500,000 or more, $2,500 plus % of 1 % for every dollar
above $500,000
Also, it was suggested that the HRA charge a fee for reviewing subordination
agreements or satisfaction of mortgages, or other routine requests that requires the
services of the HRA's legal counsel. It is proposed that the HRA administrative policy
be amended to state as follows:
7. Additional Fees
In cases where the HRA incurs charges for legal services to resolve
any outstanding issues regarding administration of the redevelopment
contract including, but not limited to, satisfaction of mortgages,
subordination agreements or other documents relevant to a project,
the developer shall fully reimburse the HRA for its costs to close the
transaction.
It may also be prudent to have these requirements in the redevelopment contract as
well.
-61"I 115-HUMM
Unless otherwise directed, staff will amend the policy which was adopted by the HRA in
1990 and present it for approval by the HRA in the February 1998 agenda.
BDJs
M -97 -517
9 -A
POLICY STATEMENT ON COVERING
TAB INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
(adopted by HRA July 19, 1990)
1• Purpose
This Policy Statement establishes a policy and a procedure to cover
costs associated with processing a TIF request.
2. Intent
Inquiries are being received regarding the appropriateness or
availability of TIf monies for a project. The HRA does not employ
staff who are technically knowledgeable on TIF's. It is the intent
of this policy to provide expert assistance at no cost to the
general public.
3. Inquiries
a. General Inquiries
Staff personnel shall respond to general inquiries. This
assistance shall be general in nature for which no detail
or specialized knowledge is required.
b. Specific Inquiries
Once information or assistance is requested requiring
knowledge and /or assistance of a fee basis consultant to
the HRA, Section 4 (below) becomes operative.
4. Processing Specific Inquiries Through Authority Decision
a. When a point is reached that:
(1) consultant assistance is required, or
(2) an inquiry turns into a written proposal for
Authority consideration of a TIF application, and
the applicant shall be notified that a fee shall be
paid to the HRA.
b. No further activity shall occur until the fee is paid.
Once the fee is paid, the process shall continue.
C. Upon the discontinuance of the process or a final
determination by the Authority on an application, any
unexpended monies shall be returned to the applicant.
POLICY STATEMENT ON COVERING TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING (TIF) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Page 2
5. Fees
a. The initial deposit amount shall be:
(1) for a request of $500,000 or less, $2,500;
(2) for a request of $500,000 to $1,500,000, $5,000;
(3) For a request of $1,500,00 or more, $7,500.
b. At any time the amount of deposit falls below $1,000, the
applicant shall deposit, within ten (10) days of written
notification, an amount to restore it to the initial
deposit amount.
6. Use of Fees
a. Fees shall be used for the cost of securing appropriate
consultants to assist the HRa in processing the inquiry
or application. Representatives of appropriate
consultants include, but are not limited to, HRA
Attorney, Planning Consultant, Development and Financial
Consultant, Bond Counsel, Traffic and other consulting
engineers. The determination and use of HRA consultants
is and remains the exclusive determination of the HRA.
b.
�,,XOO"Oc.
�O bk Qa.
To all Consultant's invoices, there shall be added a 5%
administrative charge for the processing of such
invoices.
Upon completion of any inquiry or decision on a TIF
application, the HRA shall render a total of all claims
and charge's paid. The sh 1 refund a y outstandin
balance. f-- �.e- Imo. ,[e bbu
IZe r �u� ,tom lzXt
If TI is ap rove the applicant shall be reimbursed
its fees from bond proceeds or tax increments but only
if such reimbursement is statutorily authorized and
financially feasible.
This Agreement is
by and between the Cit
School District No. 11,
337145.3
AGREEMENT
dated as of January 2, 1998, is
y of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
and provides as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"Project" means Redevelopment Project No.
1 established and operated by the HRA pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001
through 469.047.
111985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
111995 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$4,090,000 General Obligation Temporary Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1995A, dated
November 1, 1995.
111997 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,575,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1997A, dated June 1,
1997.
"Tax Increment Obliaations ",means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, the
1995 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
"TIF Distric
Financing District
and 9 through 16
attached Exhibit
dates and other
Districts.
ts" means Tax Increment
Nos. 1 through 3, 6 and 7,
within the Project. The
A contains certification
information on the TIF
6
"School District" means Independent
School District No. 11, the Anoka School
District.
"Subdivision" means Minnesota Statutes
Section 469.177, Subdivision 10 (a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B).
2. Recitals.
(a) In certain cases, the Subdivision
either requires or allows by agreement certain
tax increments attributable to school district
referendum tax levies to be paid to school
districts.
(b) A portion of TIF District No. 3 is
located within the boundaries of the School
District.
(c) None of the property within TIF
District Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15 and 16 is located within the boundaries
of the School District.
(d) It is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide for payment of certain tax
increments to the School District pursuant to
and in accordance with the provision of the
Subdivision.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to violate the covenants and
agreements heretofore made respecting the
application of tax increments from the TIF
Districts pursuant to the Tax Increment
Obligations.
3. Representations of the Citv.
(a) The Tax Increment Obligations were
issued to finance various activities of the
HRA within the Project.
(b) The 1985 Revenue Bonds are not
general obligations of the City or the HRA.
Tax increments from TIF District Nos. 1
through 5 are pledged to the payment of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, and there are no other
sources of funds pledged to the payment
thereof. The final scheduled principal
maturity of the 1985 Revenue Bonds is
February 1, 1999.
337145.3 2
(c) The 1997 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from various TIF
Districts, including TIF District Nos. 1, 2,
3, and 6, and the final scheduled principal
maturity of those Bonds is August 1, 2009.
(d) The 1995 G.O. Bonds are payable, to
the extent permitted by applicable law, from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1 through 13, and the final scheduled maturity
of those Bonds is November 1, 1998.
(e) Portions of the principal of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, and
the 1995 G.O. Bonds were outstanding on May 1,
1988, and /or are outstanding on the date of
this Agreement.
4. Representations of the School District.
(a) On October 5, 1982, the electorate
of the School District approved a continuous
6.0 mill levy first effective for the 1982
payable 1983 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the 111982 Levy ".
(b) On October 6, 1987, the electorate
of the School District approved a 6.0 mill
continuous levy first effective for the 1987
payable 1988 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the 111987 Levy ".
(c) According to the Minnesota
Department of Education, for purposes of the
above - mentioned referendum levies the tax
capacity rate equivalent of 6 mills is
.06999697.
5. Payment of Tax Increments to School District. The
City and the School District hereby agree that, except as
otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement,
tax increments shall be paid to the School District by the HRA
as and to the extent received by the HRA, with respect to the
tax increments relating to the 1997 payable 1998 property
taxes, as follows:
TIF District No. 3. Pursuant to clause
b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax increment
from TIF District No. 3 which is attributable
to the 1982 Levy and the 1987 Levy shall be
paid to the School District.
6. Further Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended or shall be applied in such a manner as to violate
the obligations and covenants made by the City or the HRA in
337145.3 3
connection with the Tax Increment Obligations, 'and to the '
extent but only to the extent that the application of the
terms of this Agreement would give rise to a violation of said
obligations and covenants, including without limitation, the
default in the timely and full payment of the Tax Increment
Obligations, the applicable tax increments shall be applied
instead in the manner, but only to the extent necessary, to
avoid such default or other violation of said covenants or
obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the
City or the HRA in the exercise of the powers which they may
have relating to the Project or the TIF Districts.
In addition, the City and the School District agree that
the provisions of paragraph 5 providing for payment of tax
increment to the School District shall be limited to and shall
apply only to such tax increment attributable to the 1997
payable 1998 real estate property taxes, and at the conclusion
of said period, the City and the School District agree to
review the circumstances and to attempt to negotiate in good
faith such further agreement or agreements as may be permitted
by law and which are acceptable to both the City and School
District with respect to discretionary payments of such
applicable tax increment to the School District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the School District have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Mayor
City Manager
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11
School Board Chair
Superintendent
337145.3 4
k
9
EXHIBIT A
Schedule of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Within Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 of the Fridley HRA
Independent
" Terminated
337145.3
Certification
School
TIF District
Name
Date
District No.
1
Center City
5/11/79
14
2
Moore Lake
7/31/81
13/14
3
North Area
5/19/82
11/16
4"
Johnson Printing/
Skywood Mall
1/20/84
13/14
5
Paschke
3/15/84
16
6
Lake Pointe
12/24/85
13
7
Winfield
10/22/86
16
8"
Shorewood
10/24/86
14
9
Onan /Old Central
9/7/89
16
10
Northco Phase III
4/10/90
16
11
Osborne Crossings
1/31/92
16
12
McGlynn Bakeries
3/5/92
14/16
13
Satellite Lane Apts.
6/20/95
14
14
Industrial Equities
5/30/96
16
15
MN Comm. Railway
9/9/97
16
16
57th Avenue
9/9/97
14
" Terminated
337145.3
Exhibit B
Subd. 10. Payment to school for referendum levy. (a) The provisions of this subdivi-
sion apply to tax increment financing districts and projects for which certification was
requested before May 1. 1935. that are located in a school district in which the voters
have approved new local tax rates or an increase in local tax rates after the tax incre-
ment financing district -was certified.
(b)(1) If there are no outstanding bonds on May 1. 1988. to which increment from
the district is pledged, or if the referendum is approved after May 1, 1988, and there
are no bonds outstanding at the time the referendum is approved, that were issued
before May 1, 1988, the authority must annually pay to the school district an amount
of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the increase in the local tax_
rate under the referendum.
(2) If clause (1) does not apply, upon approval by a majority vote of the governing
body of the municipality and the school board, the authority must pay to the school
district an amount of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the
increase in the local tax rate under the referendum.
(c) The amounts of these increments may be expended and must be treated by the
school district in the same manner as provided for the revenues derived from the refer-
endum levy approved by the voters. The provisions of this subdivision apply to projects
for which certification was requested before, on, and after August 1, 1979.
C
o .
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated as of January 2, 1998, is
by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
School District No. 13, and provides as follows:
337153.3
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
" Proiect" means Redevelopment Project
No. 1 established and operated by the HRA
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 through 469.047.
111985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
111995 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$4,090,000 General Obligation Temporary Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1995A, dated
November 1, 1995.
111997 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,575,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1997A, dated June 1,
1997.
"Tax Increment Obligations" means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, the
1995 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
"TIF Distric
Financing District
and 9 through 16
attached Exhibit
dates and other
Districts.
ts" means Tax Increment
Nos. 1 through 3, 6 and 7,
within the Project. The
A contains certification
information on the TIF
"School District" means Independent
School District No. 13, the Columbia Heights
School District.
"Subdivision" means Minnesota Statutes
Section 469.177, Subdivision 10 (a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B).
2. Recitals.
(a) In certain cases, the Subdivision
either requires or allows by agreement certain
tax increments attributable to school district
referendum tax levies to be paid to school
districts.
(b) TIF District No. 6 is located
entirely within the boundaries of the School
District, and a portion of TIF District No. 2
is located within the boundaries of the School
District.
(c) None of the property within TIF
District Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15 and 16 is located within the boundaries of
the School District.
(d) It is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide for payment of certain tax
increments to the School District pursuant to
and in accordance with the provision of the
Subdivision.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to violate the covenants and
agreements heretofore made respecting the
application of tax increments from the TIF
Districts pursuant to the Tax Increment
obligations.
337153.3 2
3. Representations of the City.
(a) The Tax Increment Obligations were
issued to finance various activities of the
HRA within the Project.
(b) The 1985 Revenue Bonds are not
general obligations of the City or the HRA.
Tax increments from TIF District Nos. 1
through 5 are pledged to the payment of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, and there are no other
sources of funds pledged to the payment
thereof. The final scheduled principal
maturity of the 1985 Revenue Bonds is
February 1, 1999.
(c) The 1997 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from various TIF
Districts, including TIF District Nos. 1, 2,
3, and 6, and the final scheduled principal
maturity-of those Bonds is August 1, 2009.
(d) The 1995 G.O. Bonds are payable, to
the extent permitted by applicable law, from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1 through 13, and the final scheduled maturity
of those Bonds is November 1, 1998.
(e) Portions of the principal of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, and
the 1995 G.O. Bonds were outstanding on May 1,
1988, and /or are outstanding on the date of
this Agreement.
4. Representations of the School District.
(a) On October 5, 1981, the electorate
of the School District approved a 5.0 mill
continuous levy first effective for the 1981
payable 1982 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the 111981 Levy ".
(b) On September 23, 1986, the
electorate of the School District approved a
7.0 mill continuous levy first effective for
the 1986 payable 1987 property taxes. This
levy is hereinafter referred to as the 111986
Levy".
337153.3 3
(c) According to the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Education, for purposes of the above -
mentioned referendum levies the tax capacity
rate equivalents of 5 mills and 7 mills are
.06162496 and .07875910, respectively.
S. Payment of Tax Increments to School District. The
City and the School District hereby agree that, except as
otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement,
tax increments shall be paid to the School District by the HRA
as and to the extent received by the HRA, with respect to the
tax increments relating to the 1997 payable 1998 property
taxes, as follows:
(a) TIF District No. 6. Since the 1981
Levy was approved before the date of
certification of TIF District No. 6, the
Subdivision does not apply to that Levy with
respect to this District, and no tax
increments attributable to said Levy from this
District are payable to the School District.
Pursuant to clause b(2) of the Subdivision,
the tax increment from TIF District No. 6
which is attributable to the 1986 Levy shall
be paid to the School District.
(b) TIF District No. 2. Pursuant to
clause b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax
increment from TIF District No. 2 which is
attributable to the 1981 Levy and the 1986
Levy shall be paid to the School District.
6. Further Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended or shall be applied in such a manner as to violate
the obligations and covenants made by the City or the HRA in
connection with the Tax Increment Obligations, and to the
extent but only to the extent that the application of the
terms of this Agreement would give rise to a violation of said
obligations and covenants, including without limitation, the
default in the timely and full payment of the Tax Increment
Obligations, the applicable tax increments shall be applied
instead in the manner, but only to the extent necessary, to
avoid such default or other violation of said covenants or
obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the
City or the HRA in the exercise of the powers which they may
have relating to the Project or the TIF Districts.
In addition, the City and the School District agree that
the provisions of paragraph 5 providing for payment of tax
increment to the School District shall be limited to and shall
337153.3 4
apply only to such tax increment attributable to the 1997
payable 1998 real estate property taxes, and at the conclusion
of said period, the City and the School District agree to
review the circumstances and to attempt to negotiate in good
faith such further agreement or agreements as may be permitted
by law and which are acceptable to both the City and School
District with respect to discretionary payments of such
applicable tax increment to the School District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the School District have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Mayor
City Manager
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 13
School Board Chair
Superintendent
337153.3 5
EXHIBIT A
Schedule of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Within Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 of the Fridley HRA
F
Independent
* Terminated
337153.3 6
Certification
School
TIF District
Name
Date
District No.
1
Center City
5/11/79
14
2
Moore Lake
7/31/81
13/14
3
North Area
5/19/82
11/16
4*
Johnson Printing/
Skywood Mall
1/20/84
13/14
5*
Paschke
3/15/84
16
6
Lake Pointe
12/24/85
13
7
Winfield
10/22/86
16
8*
Shorewood
10/24/86
14
9
Onan /Old Central
9/7/89
16
10
Northco Phase III
4/10/90
16
11
Osborne Crossings
1/31/92
16
12
McGlynn Bakeries
3/5/92
14/16
13
Satellite Lane Apts.
6/20/95
14
14
Industrial Equities
5/30/96
16.
15
MN Comm. Railway
9/9/97
16
16
57th Avenue
9/9/97
14
* Terminated
337153.3 6
0 a
Exhibit B
Subd. 10. Payment to school for referendum levy. (a) The provisions of this subdivi-
sion apply to tax increment financing districts and projects for which certification was
requested before May 1. 1938, that are located in a school district in which the voters
have approved new local tax rates or an increase in local tax rates after the tax incre-
ment financing district was certified.
(b)(1) If there are no outstanding bonds on Nlay 1. 1988. to which increment from
the district is pledged, or if the referendum is approved after May 1, 1988, and there
are no bonds outstanding at the time the referendum is approved, that were issued
before May 1, 1988, the authority must annually pay to the school district an amount
of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the increase in the local tax
rate under the referendum.
(2) If clause (1) does not apply, upon approval by a majority vote of the governing
body of the municipality and the school board, the authority must pay to the school
district an amount of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the
increase in the local tax rate under the referendum.
(c) The amounts of these increments may be expended and must be treated by the
school district in the same manner as provided for the revenues derived from the refer-
endum levy approved by the voters. The provisions of this subdivision apply to projects
for which certification a-as requested before, on, and after August 1, 1979.
6
'Y z
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated as of January 2, 1998, is
by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
School District No. 14, and provides as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
" Proiect" means Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 established and operated by the
HRA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 through 469.047.
111985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
111995 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$4,090,000 General Obligation Temporary Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1995A, dated
November 1, 1995.
1"1997 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,575,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1997A, dated June 1,
1997.
"Tax Increment Obligations" means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, the
1995 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
"TIF Districts" means Tax Increment
Financing District Nos. 1 through 3, 6 and 7,
and 9 through 16 within the Project. The
attached Exhibit A contains certification
337157.3
r
a
dates and other information on the TIF
Districts.
"School District" means Independent
School District No. 14, the Fridley School
District.
"Subdivision" means Minnesota Statutes
Section 469.177, Subdivision 10 (a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B).
2. Recitals.
(a) In certain cases, the Subdivision
either requires or allows by agreement certain
tax increments attributable to school district
referendum tax levies to be paid to school
districts.
(b) TIF District Nos. 1, 13 and 16 are
located entirely within the boundaries of the
School District, and a portion of TIF District
Nos. 2 and 12 are located within the
boundaries of the School District.
(c) None of the property within TIF
District Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 is
located within the boundaries of the School
District.
(d) It is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide for payment of certain tax
increments to the School District pursuant to
and in accordance with the provision of the
Subdivision.
(e) Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to violate the covenants and
agreements heretofore made respecting the
application of tax increments from the TIF
Districts pursuant to the Tax Increment
obligations.
3. Representations of the City.
(a) The Tax Increment obligations were
issued to finance various activities of the
HRA within the Project.
(b) The 1985 Revenue Bonds are not
general obligations of the City or the HRA.
Tax increments from TIF District Nos. 1
337157.3 2
through 5 are pledged to the payment of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, and there are no other
sources of funds pledged to the payment
thereof. The final scheduled principal
maturity of the 1985 Revenue Bonds is
February 1, 1999.
(c) The 1997 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from various TIF
Districts, including TIF District Nos. 1, 2,
3, and 6, and the final scheduled principal
maturity of those Bonds is August 1, 2009.
(d) The 1995 G.O. Bonds are payable, to
the extent permitted by applicable law, from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1 through 13, and the final scheduled maturity
of those Bonds is November 1, 1998.
(e) Portions of the principal of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, and
the 1995 G.O. Bonds were outstanding on May 1,
1988, and /or are outstanding on the date of
this Agreement.
4. Representations of the School District.
(a) On September 23, 1986, the
electorate of the School District approved a
2.0 mill continuous levy first effective for
the 1986 payable 1987 property taxes. This
levy is hereinafter referred to as the 111986
Levy".
(b) On September 29, 1987, the elec-
torate of the School District approved (i) a
7.0 mill continuous levy first effective for
the 1987 payable 1988 property taxes and (ii)
a continuous additional 6.5 mill levy first
effective for the 1988 payable 1989 property
taxes. These levies are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the 111987 Levies ".
(c) According to the Minnesota
Department of Education, for purposes of the
above - mentioned referendum levies the tax
capacity rate equivalents of 2 mills and 13.5
mills are .02261395 and .15264411,
respectively.
(d) On November 4, 1997, the electorate
of the School District approved a levy
337157.3 3
e
increase of $68.52 per actual pupil unit,
effective for the 10 years ending with the
taxes payable in 2007, unless earlier reduced
or revoked; however, since the proceeds of
this levy are paid directly to the School
District by the applicable County taxing
authorities, it is not necessary or
appropriate to include said levy or its
proceeds under this Agreement.
5. Payment of Tax Increments to School District. The
City and the School District hereby agree that, except as
otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement,
tax increments shall be paid to the School District by the HRA
as and to the extent received by the HRA, with respect to the
tax increments relating to the 1997 payable 1998 property
taxes, as follows:
(a) TIF District Nos. 12, 13 and 16.
Since TIF District Nos. 12, 13 and 16 were
requested for certification after May 1, 1988,
the Subdivision does not apply to those
Districts, and no tax increments from those
Districts attributable to the 1986 Levy or the
1987 Levies are payable to the School
District.
(b) TIF District No. 2. Pursuant to
clause b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax
increment from TIF District No. 2 which is
attributable to the 1986 Levy and the 1987
Levies shall be paid to the School District.
(c) TIF District No. 1. Pursuant to
clause b(2) of the Subdivision, the tax
increment from TIF District No. 1 which is
attributable to the 1986 Levy and the 1987
Levies shall be paid to the School District.
6. Further Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended or shall be applied in such a manner as to violate
the obligations and covenants made by the City or the HRA in
connection with the Tax Increment Obligations, and to the
extent but only to the extent that the application of the
terms of this Agreement would give rise to a violation of said
obligations and covenants, including without limitation, the
default in the timely and full payment of the Tax Increment
Obligations, the applicable tax increments shall be applied
instead in the manner, but only to the extent necessary, to
avoid such default or other violation of said covenants or
obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the
337157.3 4
a A
City or the HRA in the exercise of the powers which they may
have relating to the Project or the TIF Districts.
In addition, the City and the School District agree that,
except in each case described in paragraph 5 of this Agreement
where payment of tax increment to the School District is
mandatory pursuant to clause b(1) of the Subdivision, all
other provisions of said paragraph 5 providing for payment of
tax increment to the School District shall be limited to and
shall apply only to such tax increment attributable to the
1997 payable 1998 real estate property taxes, and at the
conclusion of said period, the City and the School District
agree to review the circumstances and to attempt to negotiate
in good faith such further agreement or agreements as may be
permitted by law and which are acceptable to both the City and
School District with respect to discretionary payments of such
applicable tax increment to the School District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the School District have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Mayor
City Manager
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14
School Board Chair
Superintendent
337157.3 5
EXHIBIT A
Schedule of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Within Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 of the Fridley HRA
r ,
• Y
Independent
Terminated
337157.3 6
Certification
School
TIF District
Name
Date
District No.
1
Center City
5/11/79
14
2
Moore Lake
7/31/81
13/14
3
North Area
5/19/82
11/16
4"
Johnson Printing/
Skywood Mall
1/20/84
13/14
5'
Paschke
3/15/84
16
6
Lake Pointe
12/24/85
13
7
Winfield
10/22/86
16
8
10/24/86
14
9
Onan /Old Central
9/7/89
16
10
Northco Phase III
4/10/90
16
11
Osborne Crossings
1/31/92
16
12
McGlynn Bakeries
3/5/92
14/16
13
Satellite Lane Apts.
6/20/95
14
14
Industrial °Equities
5/30/96
16
15
MN Comm. Railway
9/9/97
16
16
57th Avenue
9/9/97
14
Terminated
337157.3 6
! Y
d
Exhibit B
Subd. 10. Payment to school for referendum lei-•. (a) The provisions of this subdivi-
sion apply to tax increment financing districts and projects for which certification was
requested before May 1, 1933, that are located in a school district in which the voters
have approved new local tax rates or an increase in local tax rates after the tax incre-
ment financing district was certified.
. (b)(1) If there are no outstanding bonds on Nlay 1, 1933, to which increment from
the district is pledged, or if the referendum is approved after May 1, 1953, and there
are no bonds outstanding at the time the referendum is approved. that were issued
before May 1, 1933, the authority must annually pay to the school district an amount
of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the increase in the local tax
rate under the referendum.
(2) If clause (1) does not apply, upon approval by a majority vote of the governing
body of the municipality and the school board, the authority must pay to the school
district an amount of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the
increase in the local tax rate under the referendum.
(c) The amounts of these increments may be expended and must be treated by the
school district in the same manner as provided for the revenues derived from the refer-
endum lev -v approved by the voters. The provisions of this subdivision apply to projects
for which certification was requested before, on, and after August 1, 1979.
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated as of January 2, 1998, is
by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
School District No. 16, and provides as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"Project" means Redevelopment Project No.
1 established and operated by the HRA pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001
through 469.047.
111985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
111995 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$4,090,000 General Obligation Temporary Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1995A, dated
November 1, 1995.
111997 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,575,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1997A, dated June 1,
1997.
"Tax Increment Obligations" means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, the
1995 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
337158.3
� e
4
A
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is dated as of January 2, 1998, is
by and between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Independent
School District No. 16, and provides as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following meanings, respectively:
"City" means the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
"Project" means Redevelopment Project No.
1 established and operated by the HRA pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001
through 469.047.
111985 Revenue Bonds" means the HRA's
$4,070,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of
1985, dated May 1, 1985.
111995 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$4,090,000 General Obligation Temporary Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1995A, dated
November 1, 1995.
111997 G.O. Bonds" means the City's
$9,575,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 1997A, dated June 1,
1997.
"Tax Increment Obligations" means the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, the
1995 G.O. Bonds, and any other contractual
obligations of the HRA or the City which were
entered into prior to the date of this
Agreement and which commit the use of any tax
increments from the TIF Districts for
specified purposes, projects, or parties.
"Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179.
337158.3
"TIF Distric
Financing District
and 9 through 16
attached Exhibit
dates and other
Districts.
ts" means Tax Increment
Nos. 1 through 3, 6 and 7,
within the Project. The
A contains certification
information on the TIF
"School District" means Independent
School District No. 16, the Spring Lake Park
School District.
"Subdivision" means Minnesota Statutes
Section 469.177, Subdivision 10 (a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B).
2. Recitals.
(a) In certain cases, the Subdivision
either requires or allows by agreement certain
tax increments attributable to school district
referendum tax levies to be paid to school
districts.
(b) TIF District Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 14
and 15 are located entirely within the
boundaries of the School District, and a
portion of TIF District Nos. 3 and 12 is
located within the boundaries of the School
District.
(c) None of the property within TIF
District Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 13 is located within
the boundaries of the School District.
(d) It is the purpose of this Agreement
to provide for payment of certain tax
increments to the School District pursuant to
and in accordance with the provision of the
Subdivision.
(e) Nothing in this
intended to violate the
agreements heretofore made
application of tax increment
Districts pursuant to the
Obligations.
337158.3 2
Agreement is
covenants and
respecting the
:s from the TIF
Tax Increment
n e
n
3. Representations of the City.
(a) The Tax Increment Obligations were
issued to finance various activities of the
HRA within the Project.
(b) The 1985 Revenue Bonds are not
general obligations of the City or the HRA.
Tax increments from TIF District Nos. 1
through 5 are pledged to the payment of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, and there are no other
sources of funds pledged to the payment
thereof. The final scheduled principal
maturity of the 1985 Revenue Bonds is
February 1, 1999.
(c) The 1997 G.O. Bonds are payable from
tax increments derived from various TIF
Districts, including TIF District Nos. 1, 2,
3, and 6, and the final scheduled principal
maturity of those Bonds is August 1, 2009.
(d) The 1995 G.O. Bonds are payable, to
the extent permitted by applicable law, from
tax increments derived from TIF District Nos.
1 through 13, and the final scheduled maturity
of those Bonds is November 1, 1998.
(e) Portions of the principal of the
1985 Revenue Bonds, the 1997 G.O. Bonds, and
the 1995 G.O. Bonds were outstanding on May 1,
1988, and /or are outstanding on the date of
this Agreement.
4. Representations of the School District.
(a) On October 8, 1981, the electorate
of the School District approved a 5.0 mill
continuous levy first effective for the 1981
payable 1982 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the 111981 Levy ".
(b) On February 27, 1986, the electorate
of the School District approved a 6.0 mill
continuous levy first effective for the 1986
payable 1987 property taxes. This levy is
hereinafter referred to as the 111986 Levy ".
(c) According to the Minnesota
Department of Education, for purposes of the
337158.3 3
above - mentioned referendum levies the tax
capacity rate equivalents of 5 mills and 6
mills are .05226653 and .06271984,
respectively.
5. Payment of Tax Increments to School District. The
City and the School District hereby agree that, except as
otherwise provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement,
tax increments shall be paid to the School District by the HRA
as and to the extent received by the HRA, with respect to the
tax increments relating to the 1997 payable 1998 property
taxes, as follows:
(a) TIF District Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14
and 15. Since TIF District Nos. 9, 10, 11,
12, 14 and 15 were requested for certification
after May 1, 1988, the Subdivision does not
apply to those Districts, and no tax
increments attributable to the 1981 Levy or
the 1986 Levy from those Districts are payable
to the School District.
(b) TIF District No. 7. Since the 1981
Levy and the 1986 Levy were approved prior to
the date of certification of TIF District No.
7, the Subdivision does not apply to those
Levies with respect to this District, and no
tax increments attributable to said Levies
from this District are payable to the School
District.
(c) TIF District No. 3. Since the 1981
Levy was approved prior to the date of
certification of TIF District No. 3, the
Subdivision does not apply to the 1981 Levy,
and no tax increments attributable to said
Levy from this District are payable to the
School District. Pursuant to clause b(2) of
the Subdivision, the tax increment from TIF
District No. 3 which is attributable to the
1986 Levy shall be paid to the School
District.
6. Further Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended or shall be applied in such a manner as to violate
the obligations and covenants made by the City or the HRA in
connection with the Tax Increment Obligations, and to the
extent but only to the extent that the application of the
terms of this Agreement would give rise to a violation of said
obligations and covenants, including without limitation, the
337158.3 4
1, b
�I
a
default in the timely and full payment of the Tax Increment
Obligations, the applicable tax increments shall be applied
instead in the manner, but only to the extent necessary, to
avoid such default or other violation of said covenants or
obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the
City or the HRA in the exercise of the powers which they may
have relating to the Project or the TIF Districts.
In addition, the City and the School District agree that
the provisions of paragraph 5 providing for payment of tax
increment to the School District shall be limited to and shall
apply only to such tax increment attributable to the 1997
payable 1998 real estate property taxes, and at the conclusion
of said period, the City and the School District agree to
review the circumstances and to attempt to negotiate in good
faith such 'further agreement or agreements as may be permitted
by law and which are acceptable to both the City and School
District with respect to discretionary payments of such
applicable tax increment to the School District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the School District have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
337158.3
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Mayor
City Manager
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 16
School Board Chair
Superintendent
5
EXHIBIT A
Schedule of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Within Housing and Redevelopment
Project No. 1 of the Fridley HRA
b r
Certification
School
TIF District
Name
s
Independent
* Termianted
337158.3
Certification
School
TIF District
Name
Date
District No.
1
Center City
5/11/79
14
2
Moore Lake
7/31/81
13/14
3
North Area
5/19/82
11/16
4`
Johnson Printing/
Skywood Mall
1/20/84
13/14
5`
Paschke
3/15/84
16
6
Lake Pointe
12/24/85
13
7
Winfield
10/22/86
16
8`
Shorewood
10/24/86
14
9
Onan /Old Central
9/7/89
16
10
Northco Phase III
4/10/90
16
it
Osborne Crossings
1/31/92
16
12
McGlynn Bakeries
3/5/92
14/16
13
Satellite Lane Apts.
6/20/95
14
14
Industrial Equities
5/30/96
16
15
MN Comm. Railway
9/9/97
16
16
57th Avenue
9/9/97
14
* Termianted
337158.3
P, e
v
Exhibit B
Subd. 10. Payment to school for referendum le%-y. (a) The provisions of this subdivi-
sion apply to tax increment financing districts and projects for which certification was
requested before May 1. 1933, that are located in a school district in which the voters
have approved new local tax rates or an increase in local tax rates after the tax incre-
ment financing district was certified.
(b)(1) If there are no outstanding bonds on May 1, 1933, to %,.hich increment from
the district is pledged, or if the referendum is approved after May 1, 1933, and there
are no bonds outstanding at the time the referendum is approved, that were issued
before May 1, 1983, the authority must annually pay to the school district an amount
of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the increase in the local tax
rate under the referendum.
(2) If clause (1) does not apply, upon approval by a majority vote of the governing
body of the municipality and the school board, the authority must pay to the school
district an amount of increment equal to the increment that is attributable to the
increase in the local tax rate under the referendum.
(c) The amounts of these increments may be expended and must be treated by the
school district in the same manner as provided for the revenues derived from the refer-
endum levy approved by the voters. The provisions of this subdivision apply to projects
for which certification was requested before, on, and after August 1, 1979.
i
i
i