HRA 12/06/2007 - 6214�V'
December 6, 2007
HRA Meeting
Regular Meeting Agenda
7.30 A.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
Call to order
Roll call.
Action Items
1. Approval of expenditures
2. Approval of October 25, 2007 Meeting Minutes
3. Approval of November 1, 2007 Meeting Minutes
4. Approval of Final 2008 Budget
5. Authorization to Present Purchase Offer — Sinclair Site, GWNE
Informational Items
1. Housing Corridor Initiative — Final Report/Recommendations
2. Northstar Update
3. Monthly Housing Report
Adjournment
C:\Documents and Settings\tostensonj\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLKA\December -2007 Agenda
Outline.docC:\Documents and Settings \tostensonjU ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files \OLKA\December -2007 Agenda.
Outline.doc
M
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION
October 25, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at
7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers.
Pat Gabel
Williain Holm
John Meyer
Steve Billings
Others Present: Mike Jeziorski, City Accountant
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant
William Burns, HRA Executive Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
ACTION ITEMS:.
1. Approval of expenditures.
MOTION by Commissioner Holm, seconded by Commissioner Billings, approving the
expenditures.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
2. Approval of Commitment to Fund Portion of Northstar Project.
3. Approval of Resolution to seek reimbursement for Northstar expenditures.
MOTION by Commissioner Billings, seconded by Commissioner Gabel, removing Items 1
and 2 and adding an Informational Item (No. 1 below).
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Update on Fridley Northstar Rail Station.
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, stated it is no secret the corridor between
Minneapolis and St. Cloud is one of the fastest growing areas in the State and actually one of the
fastest growing areas in the country. Since about the mid- 1990's when folks started to look at
alternatives to move people through that corridor, Northstar using the existing Burlington
Northern Santa Fe has been viewed as an option. In 1996 the Northstar Corridor Development
Authority was formed. Going back to 2000, where Highway 169 enters Highway 10 the capacity
is 6,600 and, even in 2000, they were over that by almost 2,000 cars. They project by 2025 it
will be about double the capacity that it is meant to handle. Northstar is commuter rail, meaning
that it runs on those existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe lines. It is not like light rail, such as
the Hiawatha line where tracks actually had to be put into place.
Mr. Bolin stated the first phase of this project is going run from Big Lake to downtown
Minneapolis. There are stations that will be constructed in Big Lake, and work has already
started there. Elk River and Anoka have a station. Coon Rapids has one station that will be in
the initial run of construction at Riverdale. Then in Minneapolis there will be a station that will
allow folks to connect onto the Hiawatha line.
Mr. Bolin stated at this point in time the Fridley station is officially deferred in all the planning
documents. It is no longer really a question of whether the Northstar is going to happen. The
$156M of federal funds is going to be released to the State on December 17, and they will see
construction start soon after that on some of those other stations. The station proposed for
Fridley is located at 61St and Main Street. The station has been proposed on the west side of the
tracks, which is property the Anoka County Rail Authority has already purchased. They are also
looking at doing a park and ride and other amenities on the east side of the tracks as well.
Commissioner Holm asked is it correct that Burlington Northern has now deferred and
designated a decision from them until November 13?
Mr. Bolin replied, correct.
Commissioner Holm asked is there any action needed by the County Board in approving any of
this or is it just the Rail Authority?
Mr. Bolin replied, just the Rail Authority.
Commissioner Billings stated, however, in Anoka County the seven commissioners make up the
Rail Authority.
Commissioner Holm asked, in looking at the Memorandum of Understanding, the "Whereas"
referring to the HRA adopting a redeveloping plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, and as
included in the area for Fridley station as Redevelopment Project No. 1, has this already been
done by the HRA?
2
Mr. Bolin replied, correct, that is part of the City's original overall tax increment plan or project
area if you will.
Commissioner Holm asked, so this was done several years ago?
Mr. Bolin replied, yes.
Commissioner Holm asked, finally, we are in effect providing the funding for the acquisition of
property that ACRA would negotiate or take the lead in the event ideally we do not have the
funding in place by the time we need to make that land acquisition?
Mr. Bolin replied ideally we will end up only providing a guarantee of funding.
Commissioner Holm replied, we are a guarantor.
Mr. Bolin replied, you can tell from the language there is still some discussion about who would
be the best entity to try and acquire that property and there are provisions to work with Anoka
County with the Regional Rail Authority over the next several months if it takes that long to
make that determination.
Commissioner Holm asked why would the Anoka County Rail Authority or whoever is
designated be "unable to acquire the necessary property?" What are the legal or operational
hang -ups in Anoka County Rail Authority acquiring that property?
Mr. Bolin replied that "unable" can have a couple different meanings. "Unwilling" he thinks
might be a better term. Attorney Casserly has done a lot of research on which entity is probably
the best to do the land acquisition, and it looks like the Rail Authority is that body and not the
HRA.
Attorney Casserly stated in an ideal set of circumstances, it would make sense for the Authority
to be involved in the acquisition. We clearly have looked at trying to develop adjacent parcels.
There are a number of plans that have been discussed, and a portion of the property is not needed
for the Rail Authority. It would be that portion of the property we could encourage development
on and, if we had more control over it, we could clearly govern the development of that property.
Those parcels are also part of our special legislation. They are included within special legislation
that is in the. tax bill which we hope will be picked up again next session and ultimately passed.
It is that special legislation that allows to recover some of our costs in this development or
potentially all of our costs in this development.
Attorney Casserly stated since we are closer to all of this, the Anoka County Regional Railroad
Authority would prefer to have the HRA take the lead. On the other hand, his reading of the
statute is very clear that they have the ability to acquire it either voluntarily or involuntarily. He
thinks that is abundantly clear in their statute allowing them to function. So nobody is looking to
have an involuntary acquisition. Ideally we would acquire the property on a voluntary basis. If
it is on a voluntary basis, it clearly does not make any difference who does it as a practical
Kj
matter. As an authority we clearly have the ability to buy property and develop, that is our
function. They clearly have the ability to buy and acquire the property even through the use of
eminent domain if it is for the purpose of furthering the railroad. That is what we are still sorting
out. There is no particularly bad way to go on this. They are trying to figure out which is the
most logical way to proceed and which way would be the easiest to conclude this.
Commissioner Gabel asked if they were going to buy it, and still wanted to have some control
over it, can they buy a portion of it and then we work it out later?
Attorney Casserly replied if it is a voluntary acquisition, it is very clear that really everything is
possible. If it is involuntary then there is a different set of rules that are going to apply. That is
not the way we want to proceed. They have the ability to make this project work. If it means
only acquiring a portion of the property, they have that ability. The problem with acquiring a
portion and, the thinks Chairperson Commers can probably elaborate on this more, oftentimes
when you try to buy a portion of a substantial parcel, the court will determine as a practical
matter you need to buy the parcel. That may happen in this case in any event. We hate to
speculate on too many of the alternatives or options because they all assume that we are going to
have an absolutely worst -case scenario, and there is no reason to have to assume that. It is really
about money and so the only reason to use a forced acquisition is to try to have a third party in
this judicial branch oversee the acquisition and make sure the price being paid is a fair price.
That is the only reason we would want to be involved in any kind of forced acquisition.
Commissioner Holm asked, will there be any more formal actions completed by the time of our
next meeting on November 1 in terms of finalizing the agreement between the State and Anoka
County Regional Rail? What more information will they have by the next meeting compared to
now?
Mr. Bolin replied they will have the HRA's comments on the MOU. They will be able to sit
down with the staff at the County and get some more feedback from them, and hopefully bring
back to them next Thursday an MOU between the City and the County they feel comfortable
adopting. They will try and get some more specifics on acquisition and some of the different
scenarios under which that might happen.
Attorney Casserly stated they anticipate having an e -mail in the next couple of days verifying
Burlington Northern Santa Fe has extended the date in which to execute some of these
agreements so they should have that prior to our next meeting. They will also specifically ask if
the State has got any issues with the Memorandum of Understanding that the Rail Authority is
entering into with the State. We will want to know about any problems because clearly the Rail
Authority cannot proceed unless the State approves their Memorandum of Understanding as it is
really the Rail Authority that is being designated by the State. If the State does not agree to that,
the Rail Authority cannot proceed. So that is a critical piece, and we will ask very specifically if
the State has got any reservations or if they have any issues so then we will be aware of that
before the next meeting, too. We are led to believe this is not going to be a major problem and
that this format has been used by the State with other entities.
Cl
Commissioner Meyer stated he now sees they have between $1.3 and $1.6 million, and he
understands the extra difference of the $300,000 is wrapped up in soil conditions. He asked
whether any soil borings have been taken? Why is there a question?
Mr. Bolin replied because they have not done soil borings that he is aware of. The bids were
private between Burlington Northern and their three contractors of choice. There is always a
possibility that once they get partway beneath those tracks they could hit some poor soils. That
$300,000 is built in there as a contingency.
Commissioner Meyer replied he is absolutely astounded that no soil borings have been taken.
They take soil borings for buildings and structures one - quarter of the cost of that.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the point might be what type of soil
borings have been taken; they are at 90 percent design on the tunnel itself. So soil borings that
have to do with the structural footings and the tunnel itself have been taken. But, as Mr. Bolin
said, the Rail's standard practice is to assume there is going to be some sort of contamination
they will encounter through the course of their project. That being the case, they want to be
protected in case there is some contamination they find. So, if he is concerned soil borings have
not been taken, understand the structural part has been done. The contamination piece of it, had
their been random borings to see exactly where contamination is, no, that is the kind of borings
that Mr. Bolin is saying that they have not taken. However, they plan to deal with contamination
if they encounter it as they move ahead on construction.
Commissioner Meyer asked, is there an insurance policy that Burlington Northern is requiring
we take for damage to the tracks or anything like that, something they talked about way back in
September?
Attorney Casserly replied, no, the insurance issues all have to do mostly with the operation.
Even though we were not involved in the construction, Burlington Northern Santa Fe is the party
actually doing the tunnel. There could be other issues involved in insurance. He thinks one of
the reasons we were quite comfortable recommending this format is that we are not a party to
any of these other agreements. It is the Rail Authority who will be executing the agreement on
behalf of the State, and the Met Council will be executing other agreements. We do not own the
line, we will not maintain it, and we do not operate it.
Commissioner Meyer asked, for example, if the tunnel is put under the tracks, and we are
paying for it in some way or another, there is no way to come back to us because the tunnel
collapsed?
Attorney Casserly stated we are not responsible for the tunnel. We are not paying for it, we are
not responsible for it, and we do not own it; we are just simply removed. from that.
Commissioner Meyer stated bids were taken and he had asked to see those documents way back
before the bids were taken, do we have those documents we could examine? Specifically telling
the bidders what they are bidding upon? In other words the details for the tunnel construction.
Chairperson Commers referred to details provided to them by Kimmerly Horn (sp.) of the
tunnel and their sectional view shows a width of 12 feet.
Mr. Bolin stated as far as the bid packet goes, Burlington Northern is a private corporation doing
business with private contractors and they will not share that information with them. They have
given us a summary of where the two bids came in at with some detailed breakdown but still it is
just a half a page spreadsheet. He cannot get those documents.
Chairperson Commers asked what is this internal memorandum from Paul Danielson to Mark
Bishop dated November 9, 2006? It gives the dimensions of the tunnel and also attaches
drawings of the tunnel.
Mr. Bolin replied those are drawings we were provided and were done by the NCDA.
Kimmerly Horn (sp.) is a contractor for NCDA. They have done a lot of the design work on the
tunnels with Paul Danielson, an engineer who is actually an employee of NCDA through
Kimmerly Horn (sp.).
Chairperson Commers asked are these design items on which the bids were down?
Mr. Bolin replied, yes, those designs have been in place and reviewed at the county, state, and
federal level for almost ten years now.
Mr. Hickok stated even at the HRA level they may recall they had a work session meeting and
they had a packet of information about 1 1 /z- inches thick with a plastic ring binder which showed
pages and pages of detail; and the details Chairperson Commers had are extracts from the
engineer's designs but certainly a 1 1/2 -inch binder is available. They can check it out and review
it.
Mr. Bolin stated the bid packets were put together in conjunction with Paul Danielson, the
engineer for the MCDA. All those specifications in all of those documents are the ones that have
been approved by the Federal Transit Administration. Because of those designs that is how we
have gotten this far in the process. Everything has been reviewed and approved. There have
been no changes done to those. Burlington Northern, like any other private company, they can
do what they want with their bids. They do not need to share it. He is sure that folks at the
NCDA maybe saw the entire bid package because he knows Paul Danielson helped them put it
together. Tonight we have been removed now from the tunnel. The Anoka County Rail
Authority has agreed to take on the burden if you will of making the commitment in funding the
tunnel.
Mr. Hickok stated though we were taken out in the 11ffi hour of the federal funding package, that
does not mean the design of our tunnel changed because we were taken out of that federal
funding package. The contractor cannot pick and choose what they want out of that packet.
Now the tunnel, the platform, the elevators, and the stairs have been designed to meet FTA
requirements; and that would be what they were bidding on to give a construction value.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the stairs and elevators are in there?
0
Chairperson Commers stated the stair width is in here.
Chairperson Commers stated it does say, temporary culvert and plugs two in this design. It
says precast box culvert, 18 x 10 x 12 feet wide, 1 -foot granular pad beneath the limits of the
culvert, waterproofing on three sides at 3,500 square feet, and a temporary restraining wall that
looks like for construction. He certainly thinks Commissioner. Meyer is entitled to look at that
stuff although it looks like to him the materials they were given, if these are what they bid on, do
answer some of these questions.
Commissioner Meyer asked if that has been around for a while, why are they so reluctant to tell
them what the bids are on?
Mr. Hickok stated he is able to look at any and all of the items that go into our station design
platform, elevators, stairways, and box culvert. All that was designed by NCDA folks as part of
the Northstar program and is available to you. He would be glad to have him take a look at that.
That was all designed by Kimmerly Horn (sp.) and their engineers who are the consulting
engineers for this project.
William Burns, HRA Executive Director, stated the details of the tunnel are important to the
HRA, but at this point in terms of the work of this Board, the important decision is, do you want
to accept a guarantee on the acquisition of the land and have the County go ahead and assume the
financial responsibility of the tunnel. If we do not get closer to deciding that, we will have
wasted our time here tonight. It is important to know the details of the tunnel to be sure we are
getting a good product but, if we do not get into the direction of the critical decision, then we are
spinning our wheels.
Commissioner Meyer stated, alright, he personally has a lot of time here to talk about it. He
hopes he is not wasting other peoples' time. He has all the time in the world. It is $1.3 to $1.6
million of public monies.
Dr. Burns stated but we are not being asked to buy that $1.3 to $1.6 million.
Commissioner Meyer stated we are being asked to expedite the creation of a certain entity, and
he thinks it behooves us, and this entity is for the City's good. It behooves him he thinks to ask
is this a viable installation.
Dr. Burns stated we were asked to expedite the tunnel, but the County has come along and has
said we are ready to build the tunnel with our money if you are willing to give the HRA some
sort of a guarantee on the acquisition on the land. So that really becomes the issue, are we.are
going to agree with the County or not?
Commissioner Meyer asked, cari we divorce ourselves from the validity of the entity?
Mr. Hickok stated he did not think they are equipped to debate the validity of the installation. In
all due respect if Commissioner Meyer would like to take the time to review the plans in their
7
entirety and would like to forward his comments to Kimmerly Horn (sp.) for the deficiency in
the design, he is sure they would welcome his input. However, they are not here tonight on an
engineering mission to decide they were adequate in the engineering design of this project.
Dr. Burns stated on the other hand if we disagree with this proposal and we are taking over the
tunnel and insist that is our part of the project, then those details become much more relevant.
However, at this point, they are asking do we want to agree with the County in that they take
over the tunnel?
Commissioner Meyer asked Chairperson Commers if that was his understanding of the
situation, that we have no interest in the validity of the installation? It is merely to address the
legalities of things?
Chairperson Commers replied it is his understanding in the way it is being structured, and are
telling them tonight, that rather than the HRA being responsible for the construction of the
tunnel, that the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority is going to take that responsibility over
and build it. What our responsibility is going to be instead of constructing the tunnel and paying
for it is acquiring any land that might be necessary for parking although he is not sure if in the
first stage they are going to have to acquire any land. It may need a temporary construction
easement to build the tunnel which is really not an acquisition of land. However, he does not
disagree with Commissioner Meyer that they should confirm for themselves the tunnel is being
constructed in a manner that it is not going to have some issues with it. He does not know why
Commissioner Meyer could not talk to Kimmerly (sp.) people or to the chief engineer that was
here and try to confirm some of these things and to confirm the plan and designs that have been
given to them previously. Somebody out there besides Burlington Northern has to know what is
going on. They cannot expect to keep it a mystery.
Mr. Bolin stated Paul Danielson from NCDA did work with Burlington Northern in putting their
bid packets together. He has seen those, Burlington Northern does not want those, just their bid
packets. All of their designs are designs that we have on hand. He would be more than happy to
call and see if he can get a copy of the actual bid packet from Burlington Northern for
Commissioner Meyer to review.
Chairperson Commers asked Mr. Bolin if he could arrange a conference call with
Commissioner Meyers and Mr. Danielson for a few minutes so he can ask him those questions?
He is our expert in that area and has designed these things for many years and to a certain extent
we want to make sure we are comfortable about this even if we are not buying it. There could be
something that we do not like about it. However, the representations that were made for the
HRA initially in terms of the size, width, and end plugs and the waterproofing they have talked
about because of the O'Bannen (sp.) issue. They want to make sure that they have tested that to
make sure that is going to happen. That it does not need a drain or that the waterproofing they
are suggesting is sufficient. He would think Mr. Bolin could arrange something like that in the
next couple days before their next meeting so Commissioner Meyer could report back to them.
Commissioner Meyer stated he would be glad to swing over to anyone's office. It is no
problem for him to find a little time. He asked attorney Casserly, for example, a year from now
N.
the tunnel is in and there is no station there yet. If water comes in and someone has to pay
$100,000 put in a proper drain. Who would be responsible for that installation?
Attorney Casserly replied if it was not part of the bid project and was not done properly, then it
would either have to be the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority or the Metropolitan Council.
Commissioner Billings stated it would not be the City of Fridley because we are not doing
anything with the tunnel. All we are being asked to do is to guarantee the acquisition of the
parking lot on this side of the tracks. We are not asked to do anything inside of Burlington
Northern's tracks. We are not asked to do anything inside Burlington Northern's right -of -way
other than the possibility of some of our residents using that tunnel in the future to get from one
side of the tracks to the other. It is strictly NCDA, Anoka County, Met Council, and the State of
Minnesota Highway and Transportation Department in conjunction with Burlington Northern
that are doing things inside Burlington Northern's right -of -way. Is that correct?
Chairperson Commers stated that raises one question in his mind, however, is when
construction occurs on that property who is responsible for the inspection? Who checks to make
sure it is being constructed in accordance with the plans, and who finally passes the permit for
the construction on that property? Does the City have responsibility for that?
Mr. Hickok replied, no, all the inspections will now be taken on by the State, whether they have
Kimmerly Horn (sp.) or some other MnDOT inspectors do that, it will not be our responsibility
at the local level. That has already been discussed by the City's inspectors and the State.
Attorney Casserly noted there is a line item in the package for $43,000 for inspections,
engineering and geotechnical inspections.
Chairperson Commers asked Mr. Bolin to follow -up on that and get a little bit more
information and contact Commissioner Meyer so he can get some informed information for the
technical issues.
Commissioner Meyer stated he is reassured that they have no responsibilities but he would
certainly be glad to look over the documents.
Commissioner Billings stated the upsides to this particular proposal are good and downsides are
minimal from the standpoint that we are being asked to either acquire, or on a temporary basis
guarantee the financing for the acquisition of the parking on the east side of the tracks. If there
should be some surplus this would put the HRA in the driver's seat for being able to do
something with that surplus, particularly if it is an agreeable acquisition with the landowner. If it
does have to go to condemnation, then all of the new laws come into play. He is not sure anyone
is aware of the total implications of those new requirements by the State. He thinks this puts the
HRA in the best possible position that we could be in, in terms of controlling development and
having input on the development of any surplus on the east side. It takes the City out of the
responsibility that is happening inside the Burlington Northern right -of -way.
0
Mr. Bolin stated they do not have a date for when they come in and ask for more agreements to
commit to that funding. He does not see it happening before the first of the year.
Al Stahlberg , 8065 Riverview Terrace, asked is who is going to pay for the end caps, stairways,
and elevators when it comes time? Also, who is going to pay for the maintenance of those
things, the patrolling and the safety?
Attorney Casserly stated right now, in his reading of the documents, the State has designated
the Metropolitan Council to operate this line. They would be responsible.
Mr. Stahlberg asked about the policing?
Commissioner Billings replied it would be the Metropolitan Council Transit Police. There will
be cameras and two -way dialogue capability on the platform.
Ben Venowetz, 1232 Hathaway, stated they are strong proponents of having a station here in
Fridley. In fact they would be willing to put in money as a Fridley resident, and he thinks they
have neighbors that would be willing to do that also. He asked, even if the funding goes through
etc. are they talking four years out when the station will be completed?
Mr. Bolin stated if the funding goes through and the Met Council is able to provide the funds
early next year, if we get some money from the State, theoretically they could be up and running
in 2009 when the other stations open.
Chairperson Commers stated just to understand the four years is the outside by which it must
be built. It is not necessarily the earliest date by which it would be constructed if they were to go
that route.
2. City Comprehensive Plan Update
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated she is in charge overseeing and creating the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. She stated she appreciated everyone taking the time and looking at a
couple of chapters. Staff is very much interested in the HRA's input and everything that staff is
proposing as far as redevelopment in the community in the housing portions of our Plan do
coincide with the policies and the plans they have in mind for Fridley's future as well.
Ms. Jones stated they used a consultant to help them create the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This
time around we did not have the funding to do that it is primarily being done internally with
staff. A lot of it has been extremely cumbersome and difficult to take on such a huge task like
this on top of their normal duties, but she really thinks they are going to have a much superior
product in the end. They have been involving departments and managers of every division of the
City in various committees, and have a committee established for almost every single chapter of
the Plan. The great thing about this is that the very people that are going to need to implement
this plan and make things happen when it is complete are the people that are involved from the
very beginning of looking at the challenges before us, looking at the resources we have, and
figuring out recommendations for how they can improve things.
10
Ms. Jones stated they have had citizen participation through neighborhood planning meetings
they had this past spring which were well attended. The goals and objective they see in the first
chapter of the plan have come out of those meetings. In addition to that they will incorporate
several questions into the bi- annual citizen survey this fall. In those neighborhood meetings
several things were recommended or discussed, but they wanted a little more feedback from the
entire population of the City.
Ms. Jones stated right now they are in the midst of their commission review process where they
have various advisory commissions in the City looking at the various chapter of the Plan that
pertain to their area of expertise. Through the neighborhood meetings and various staff
committees where they have had lots of discussion, it is interesting to see the assets of the
community really come forward and being looked at.
Ms. Jones stated one thing they have realized through this is that we are close to the central City,
and they really see that as an asset to the community economically. We have great road access.
Business owners will often comment to them that is why they want to stay in Fridley or they
want to buy a piece of property in Fridley and move here. We are lucky to have lots of key
facilities in this community. Not all communities can boast they have a hospital and several
clinics. We have more jobs than workers in Fridley. The public fairly sees the Mississippi River
and Rice Creek as wonderful natural amenities, and Medtronic world headquarters facility came
up time and time again in the meetings as something people were proud of.
Ms. Jones stated one of the challenges that came out is the traffic congestion. Only 21 percent
of the people that live in Fridley work in Fridley. We also have a greater aged population than
any other city in Anoka County. With the increase of the baby boomer generation aging, that is
going to greatly increase and impact Fridley. We also have aging housing infrastructure and
aging businesses. There was a lot of concern raised in the neighborhood meetings, and they saw
that in the redevelopment area map and in the plan about some of the retail centers really needing
some redevelopment. We have an aged infrastructure. We have done a lot to rebuild our streets
and just have one more year to finish those reconstruction projects. We have aged sewer and
water systems. As everywhere else we have limited financial resources as well.
Ms. Jones stated through all of her conversations with citizens, etc. she has found the City is
really in a pivotal stage of Fridley's history. In history section put together in the
Comprehensive Plan, there are certain times in Fridley's history where Fridley had to make a
decision early what county they were going to become and choose to become part of Anoka
County. She thinks right now there is a strong feeling they need to either embrace the fact we
are a first- string suburb and we can see the towers of Minneapolis or we can fight it and try and
keep it a rural community. The Comprehensive Plan really embraces the fight that we have a lot
of potential of becoming a more urbanized community. There is. huge support from the
community to not only bring a rail station here but also to finance it.
Ms. Jones stated they have come up with a plan to connect Medtronic Parkway to 57th Avenue
to East River Road. They also have related to road connection, a redevelopment plan they have
sketched out for there. They are calling it City View. They are focusing heavily to meet
11
Council's requirements but partly because they see a real opportunity there. They are focusing
on getting more cycle transportation connections in the community and pedestrians connections
to our bus stops and park and ride sites.
Ms. Jones stated they are supporting the safe route to school program to get more kids walking
and biking to school instead of dropped off by their parents. They are looking at how they can
forge a better partnership in regards to improving our roadways. The City has invested a lot in
improving through streets, but our county and state roads are looking very tired and in need of
help. They strongly that if we are going to bring quality developers to this community to try and
get things redeveloped, we need to address those roadways.
Ms. Jones showed an aerial view to help visualize what they are talking about in connecting 57th
Avenue. Their concept is to connect Medtronic Parkway to the residential neighborhood, 57th
Avenue, and then across University further over to the west and on over past the Cub Foods, past
Home Depot, to what was an industrial site owned by JLT. They see a great opportunity to do
this right now because that site that is vacant, it is going to be replatted, and likely to obtain
easements necessary to continue that roadway. This of course involves building a bridge over
the railroad tracks.
Ms. Jones stated this is a rather aggressive concept, but they have many reasons why they feel it
is very important. The main reason that came out early in their staff meetings and land use
committee meetings with the Police and Fire Departments is they really need for public safety
another east -west connection in the community. Obviously 694 is very jammed up during rush
hours. In terms of flooding they cannot get underneath the underpass underneath the railroad
tracks on Mississippi Street because it floods. So that leaves them going across Osborne or 85fl'
which they have to hope and pray that there is no train passing at East River Road.
Ms. Jones stated it was kind of surprising to them they heard in the neighborhood meetings there
is rumbling about people wanting to have a walkable downtown in Fridley, such as Arbor Lakes
in Maple Grove or the Silver Lake shopping center area in St. Anthony. Staff asked some more
questions about that in the telephone survey and they thought about this, too, in their meetings
because they asked where would a walkable downtown be. However, with this connection from
Medtronic Parkway over East River Road, it seems like a great area and an opportunity for that
because we could create this parkway with bikeways, walkways, new mixed use development
where we could have some retail and housing mix and create that type of environment.
Ms. Jones stated she and Mr. Hickok have had some discussions with some of the retailers in
that area and would create some retail excitement because all of a sudden they see the
opportunity of connecting Fridley's largest employer, Medtronic, with our key and largest
commercial area in the City. Also, it would also connect that area to the Northstar Rail Station
site which would be very close by.
Ms. Jones stated it is also a redevelopment opportunity for some new senior housing which we
have heard loud and clear in our meetings and in the telephone survey that people want and are
going to need in the very near future in Fridley. The projections are about 10 years out when we
12
are really going to need that housing in a big way in our community. Particularly assisted living
has come out as the key type of housing that people see a need for.
Ms. Jones stated it also offers another recreational connection to the Mississippi River which we
have heard about a lot in our neighborhood communities. She did not know they had so many
bikers in Fridley that are interested in another east -west connection, and they have also been
interested in the tunnel at the Northstar Rail site as another east -west connection for bikers and
pedestrians to get over to the regional trail along the Mississippi River.
Ms. Jones stated she thinks the City View plan involves the neighborhood that would be
impacted by bringing through Medtronic Parkway to the west. The architectural student who
worked as an intern for the City last summer put together drawings. It offers a mixed -use
development along the new roadway. One of the panel experts at the Corridor Housing Initiative
meetings talked about the 60 -year redevelopment area on University Avenue between 61' and
57', and there was a real desire to put some senior housing there. However, it was difficult in a
small site without having a larger site in a community of a hub where they could have a lot of
those key services for transportation and the congregate dining etc. for seniors.
Ms. Jones stated they see a real opportunity to have this area as one of those hubs where you
could have different types of senior housing in one continuum of care type area where you can
have separate single - family homes and cottages, apartment, assisted living, and memory care in
separate buildings and all within one area. Of course it addresses that concern about meeting
assisted living care here in Fridley.
Ms. Jones presented a drawing of how the area could look with a tree -lined parkway with the
commercial development on the first floor of those buildings along the new parkway with
outdoor caf6 type seating outside and housing up above on the second level. She should have
pointed out but also a section of the street could actually be blocked off for special events that
may be a craft fair or farmers market or something like that and .create more interest in the area
for people to walk and bike through the area. The overhead utilities buried and some decorative
lighting put in place.
Ms. Jones stated they developed a redevelopment area map as part of the plan based on a lot of
the feedback that they have gotten which includes 11 different redevelopment areas for the
community. A lot of these areas came up of community interest and they are explained in the
economic and redevelopment plan they have before them. That is really what she wants to really
concentrate on. Staff would like to get some feedback and make sure they are in the right
direction on those things.
Ms. Jones stated only a small percentage of workers in Fridley are actually living here. They
would like to ask employees in a survey what their employees are looking for in housing and
amenities. We are obviously supporting the Northstar Rail Station site in that plan and have
figured in there that the HRA or the City would continue to seek what special legislation to help
fund that station site in the redevelopment around it. They want to encourage retail
development. They are not saying in the plan that the City is going to fund retail development,,
but try and do everything they can to encourage some of those sites that are on that map.
13
Ms. Jones stated they think that the City should look into creating this walkable downtown and
put some resources in that direction to create some excitement in our central retail area and
hopefully some of those other areas will develop spurt upon interest around them. They would
like to continue the redevelopment review committee to help keep businesses here. This is a
staff committee that meets every Tuesday morning where they encourage businesses that are
looking to expand or possibly move into a new site to meet with them to try and work with them
early on to help solve some of the difficulties of redevelopment.
Ms. Jones stated probably the most unique thing they have in the plan is the idea of putting a
restaurant on the river. They have heard loud and clear in the last Comprehensive Plan that
people want more sit -down restaurants in Fridley. They have heard it very loud and clear again
this time around. One of the ideas they came up with is we have these beautiful park areas in
Fridley, and would it not be wonderful if we could come up with a way to put a restaurant in one
of those park areas in Fridley to kind of create some interest and getting more people to the river
and opening that up.
Ms. Jones stated as far as the housing plans and the action in steps, they are putting in there that
we should consider adoption of a housing maintenance code. Again in the telephone survey
there was public interest in doing that and again funding it as well. Our housing stock is aged
and, although it is in very good condition, they feel that the time to look at that is when things are
still in good condition. Staff feels strongly that the HRA should continue the housing program
that they have in place. It has been very successful and seems to very much still be needed.
Staff feels the City should support any senior townhome or condominium development that
comes our way because again there seems to be strong public desire for that type of housing. It
is also going to be important for the City to support services for seniors to have them stay in their
home. Statistics show that a lot of elderly folks want to stay in their homes absolutely as long as
they can but in order for them to do that, they need in -home medical services, good
transportation services, and yard care services. That would be a challenge in the future with the
change in the dynamics of the age distribution of the population.
Ms. Jones stated they support loans for retrofitting homes to help seniors stay in their homes,
installing ramps, and anything that could create a one -level living situation for them in their
existing homes. Also because they want those homes to turn over to new first time home buyers
and help our school district in getting new families move into the community and also continue
the first -time home buyer program. Staff feels the City should look into promoting private
redevelopment of our aging rental structures. It would be difficult to do using public funds and
would be more of a private venture but, again, she is interested in what they think about that.
The City should recognize there is a need for subsidized housing that has been very difficult to
deal with when those cases have come before the City. However, if you look at the numbers in
the plan, there is definitely a strong need for subsidized housing. They have long waiting lists
for the existing facilities. Staff thinks the City should carefully evaluate the continued
participation in the livable communities program. It is getting to be more and more difficult for
us to meet those requirements.
14
Ms. Jones stated the staff likes the idea of developing a housing manual for new homeowners
and actually another similar idea is partnering it within the parks and trails chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff would like to be sure that all our rental property is licensed as they
see a potential problem. They have an idea of recognizing the historical significance of some of
the particular architectural styles of ramblers we have in the community, perhaps have some
signs at some homes in certain areas.
Ms. Jones stated they need to look at amending the Hyde Park zoning to allow redevelopment of
our current multi - family properties to new multi- family properties. The current zoning only
allows the property to be redeveloped into single- family homes. They see that as a real problem
because how is anyone ever going to be interested in reinvesting if they own a multi- family
property. Knowing at some point when that is building is beyond its useful life, all they can ever
build there are single - family homes. Obviously the economics are not there to have anyone
interested in owning a property like that. Particularly with the Northstar Rail coming through,
people will have a real interest living in that particular neighborhood.
Ms. Jones stated on the Plan before them there will probably be a requirement to put in our Plan
room in the City for another 116 affordable housing units somewhere by the year 2020. Staff
had said this early on in the process, they had confirmed the number, and it is more than feasible
to be able to accommodate those affordable housing units in existing property that is zoned R -2
or R -3 that has single - family homes in it now. She believed 215 properties could be redeveloped
without any change in zoning. They have had property adequately zoned right now to easily
accommodate that in the plan.
Commissioner Gabel asked the 116 more units, is that what they need to meet Met Council's
requirements?
Ms. Jones stated Metropolitan Council knows that there is an affordable housing need in the
metro area. They took a look at the amount of affordable housing they felt each community
needed and divided that up by Cities. They took into account the amount of affordable housing a
city already had, how well they were connected to public transit, and different criteria. There
were several cities in Anoka County that have to provide over 1,000 units. Ours is much less
because we already have a great deal of affordable housing. Over half of our housing right now
is considered affordable. The timing of that is a little bit different because of our Plan being a
2030 plan, those numbers are from 2011 to 2020. Not to necessarily build that housing or
finance that housing but they just want to ensure in the City's plan that we have enough space in
our City and land is properly zoned to accommodate that level of affordable housing in our
community.
Commissioner Gabel commented back in the 70's and 80's, she. was on the Planning
Commission and that was one of their goals in the Comprehensive Plan at that time. It seems
like it is so very difficult to do because of how our City is divided with the four school districts
and the major highways. She asked Ms. Jones if the parkway would be a way of trying to
overcome that?
15
Ms. Jones replied, yes, partially. She thinks a big part of it in talking to folks who were familiar
with the restaurant business, that it is very key in locating a fine dining restaurant. To have solid
nighttime population nearby interested in patronizing that restaurant. However, the daytime
traffic is important for the financial feasibility for such a restaurant. They see the inclusion of
the Medtronic world headquarters here, even though they do have their own cafeteria at their
facility. However, if they want to wine and dine an executive who is coming to town and
visiting for the day, for example, where are they going to go in Fridley? They see an opportunity
with the daytime traffic with the large daytime business community we have here in the City.
She thinks connecting it to the river is a key piece, too, because people do not go out just to eat
anymore, they go out for an experience. She thinks they could provide a very unique experience
here in Fridley by having a location right on the river and in the midst of a beautiful park where
people could go out and enjoy the park before and after dinner as well.
Commissioner Gabel stated she does not agree with the concept of doing something with those
rental units but they are going to scream bloody murder. It is like climbing a mountain.
Mr. Hickok stated there is some irony in that one of the things they hear from the public through
the housing forums and through the public input sessions is that folks in Hyde Park thought the
City should concentrate on fixing up the apartments. One of the most common answers is, well,
fix up the apartment buildings. However, there is a disincentive to fix up those buildings when
their destiny is to become single - family lots. When you look at the development potential, the
yield they could get, they might have an 11 -unit building on a piece of land that could only yield
2 '/2 single - family lots.
Commissioner Gabel stated she thinks the timing could be right because she has noticed the
houses are going in on Third Street, an apartment building sprucing things up and planting things
and making things look better. There could be some domino effect there.
Commissioner Holm stated as noted the City is facing limited financial resources. When he
sees the nice future of a walkway from Medtronic Parkway all the way across to East River
Road, he sees big dollar signs for that and maybe that should be 2050. In terms of limited
financial resources also, when you talk about services for seniors there should be some
recognition to seniors that has to be on a need basis rather than on an overall provision of
services to seniors. As a senior himself, he does not expect the taxpayer to pay for services to
him that he can afford himself. There has to be care in how they use our financial resources so
that they do not overspend in some areas. He is just using that as an example.
Ms. Jones stated the copies she provided were very early drafts and a lot of things have actually
changed since those were written.
Commissioner Gabel stated she does think they need to do something about senior housing.
The Commissioner member who left last ended up moving to Blaine because she wanted a
single -story townhouse and there was nothing like that in Fridley. She would have stayed in
Fridley if she would have found what she wanted. There are other people in their age bracket
that the same thing has happened to. She thinks there is a huge need for it now.
16
Ms. Jones replied, yes, she would agree.
Commissioner Gabel stated she was not sure that is going to go either, but she thinks the need is
definitely there.
Commissioner Holm stated a lot of that also is market -based and seeing the difficulty that
private developers have had in developing projects for seniors.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Commissioner Gabel, seconded by Commissioner Holm, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOITE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson
Recording Secretary
17
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 1, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the regular meeting of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority to
order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Commers, William Holm, Pat Gabel, Steven Billings, John
Meyers
OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
William Burns, City Manager
Mike Jeziorski, City Accountant
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Approval of Expenditures
None
2. Approval of Minutes — August 9, 2007
MOTION by Commissioner Gabel to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Holm.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. Approval of Minutes — September 6, 2007
MOTION by Commissioner Billings to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Holm.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4. Approval of Proposed 2008 HRA Commission Meeting Dates
Commissioner Gabel asked about the meeting scheduled for July 3rd, 2008 and if it should be
rescheduled.
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, suggested to postpone the July 3rd meeting to
July 10th if a meeting is necessary.
MOTION by Commissioner Holm to approve the proposed 2008 HRA Commission Meeting
Dates. Seconded by Commissioner Gabel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
INFORMATIONAL ITEM:
Karen Skepper, Community Development Manager for Anoka County and the Assistant HRA
Director, presented information regarding Economic Development Powers. For several years
County Commissioners have been wondering whether or not the County needs to be more
involved in the economic development activities and what roll they should play. In 2006 the
County Board appointed an Exploratory Committee to start looking at economic development
activities. This was an 11- person committee appointed with more than half of the committee
members being persons recommended by the City Council. The Committee also consisted of a
Mayor, a County Board Member and several County Commissioners.
Ms. Skepper said that the Committee had 90 days to go through a huge amount of information.
During this time the Committee looked at what the economic development activities are
currently throughout the community and analyzed and determined if the communities were
delivering services. The Committee made recommendations to the County Board based on the
statutory requirements. The Committee put together a local government inventory questionnaire
that went out to all 21 communities in Anoka County and once the results came back, that
became the basis for the Committee's work. After going through the survey's and conducting
additional surveys with people from the WorkForce Center and Anoka Chambers, the Committee
found some very interesting information. They learned that Anoka County was growing and was
expected to continue to grow through 2030.
Ms. Skepper said that there are three distinct development areas; fully developed areas that are
developing and rural areas. Out of the 21 communities, there were 10 communities that did not
have an Economic Development Authority. * There is much interest in communities to grow their
city, increase the tax base and create new jobs. Staffing and funding is the most common
obstacle with economic development activities. After looking at all of the information, the
Committee concluded that there are gaps in the economic development activities throughout
Anoka County. Communities have many challenges such as: staffing and funding, eminent
domain, limited financial resources and no staff dedicated to economic development.
Ms. Skepper said that there is a need for an organizational structure and coordination between
all of the communities within Anoka County. Many communities are interested in improving the
image of the County and perhaps a coordinated approach would be a good way to do this. There
is a great need to study high speed Internet in all areas of Anoka County.
Ms. Skepper said that the Committee determined that Anoka County's involvement in
Economic Development was desirable. The Committee took a look at the organizational
structure and presented to the County Board the need to create a brand new Anoka County
Economic Development Authority. The County Board voted and agreed that the need was there
for an Anoka County Economic Development Authority and recommended that the powers be
granted to the Anoka County HRA. The reason the County Board agreed to this is because a
structure is already in place and it was working. There was a Board, Trustees, experience and
most important, if the powers were granted to the Anoka County HRA they could levy one tax,
not an HRA tax and an EDA tax.
Ms. Skepper asked what could be expected from the Anoka County HRA. Because of the
interest in the high speed internet project, the committee is planning to spend $75,000 on a
feasibility study and try to figure out the best way to bring high speed internet to all areas. Some
other things the Committee can do for communities could be to provide technical assistance to
communities with limited staffing, help provide investment for community rail service or help
the community address foreclosures in the County.
Ms. Skepper shared some benefits of those participating in the Anoka County HRA. Many
communities access funds for comprehensive plan updates, senior housing projects, assist with
community focused projects and help set up homebuyer programs or business programs.
Commissioner. Gabel asked if the Anoka County HRA placed the funds in the communities in
which they were generated, was there any commitment made to the communities to get those
funds back.
Ms. Skepper answered that a fund is created for each community and funds go back to the
communities. This is a practice going forward but no promises are made. The City Council
decides how to use the funds. If the request for funds passes the resolution; it goes back to
Council and is reviewed. If the request for funds meets the criteria for Minnesota Statues,
assistance is provided and funded. To her knowledge there has never been a project that meets
Minnesota Statues that was not funded.
Chairperson Commers asked what communities are participating now.
Ms. Skepper said the following communities are participating in both the HRA and EDA: Burns
Township, Columbia Heights, Columbus, St. Francis, Hill Top, Lexington, Linwood and Spring
Lake Park. The following communities are participating in the HRA only: Bethel, Centerville,
East Bethel, Ham Lake, Oak Grove and Ramsey.
Chairperson Commers asked what Columbia Heights has done with regards to the HRA.
Ms. Skepper said that they participated in using the County funds to maximize their projects to
help the projects get done in a timely manner.
Commissioner Holm asked if the County and City HRA operate separately.
Ms. Skepper answered that is correct.
Commissioner Gabel asked for and example in which the community and county EDA worked
together.
Ms. Skepper said that the Ham Lake HRA-started a Senior Housing Project and after it started
the project was a little out of their element. The County finished the project and it was very
successful. They are ready to refinance the funds for a shorter term to lower the debt amount.
The city will share the profit generated from the property.
Commissioner Billings said that the feasibility study was needed on a countywide basis. It is up
to each municipality to opt in or out. There are multiple funding prospects needed to get projects
done in a timely manner, but the more tools you have, the easier it is to fix things when needed.
The City of Fridley is an aging community and has a need for redevelopment. Whether it is to
change the nature of areas or improve the current use, any tools are an advantage. He
recommended that the HRA opt in to participate in this program.
Chairperson Commers asked about the Senior Housing project and asked if the funding needed
to complete the project was county wide funds, not just funding involving the community.
Ms. Skepper said the County HRA enters a joint power with the city and uses their bonding
capabilities to use future levies. A very thorough financial analysis is done to ensure there is a
demand for that type of housing. After a few years of operations, they may need to dip into the
levy for a small amount.
Chairperson Commers asked for clarification that the County bonds were used for the senior
housing project and were generated by the community HRA to fund a bonding debt.
Ms. Skepper said that could happen but each project is different and it depends on what is
negotiated. If research is done and there is a cash flow and a demand, funds should not be a
problem.
Chairperson Commers asked about the possibility of the EDA helping fund the rail station.
Ms. Skepper said that this issue has been discussed and that there could be a HRA levy
generated each year that could be as high as the EDA levy. Communities have the authority to
use the higher of the two but not both.
Commissioner Billings said that the City of Fridley levy will still remain in place but the Anoka
County HRA/EDA levy would be whatever the Anoka County levy is, but the city and county
levy are both about the same value.
Chairperson Commers said that the Fridley levy is .0014 and Anoka County EDA is .0018. He
questioned what is available, are both available.
Ms. Skepper said that both would be available. There is capability to go as high as the EDA
levy.
ACTION ITEMS: (CON'T)
5. Approval of Contract for Administrative Services for 2008 Home and Garden Show
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, said that this is the fourth year we have
contracted with Marsha Wagner /Castle Visions to coordinate the Home and Garden Show. The
revenues from booth rentals more than cover all the expenses associated with this show. Last
year about $15,000 was collected in revenue and the expenses totaled about $12,000. Staff
recommends that HRA approve the contract between the HRA and Marsha Wagner /Castle
Visions to provide assistance with the 2008 Home and Garden Show.
William Burns asked for details on how much per hour is being paid to Marsha Wagner /Castle
Visions.
Mr. Bolin said that Marsha Wagner is paid $50 per hour not to exceed 120 hours.
Motion by Commissioner Gable to approve the contract for administrative services for the 2008
Home and Garden Show. Seconded by Commissioner Holm.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6. Approval of Preliminary 2008 Budget
Mike Jeziorski, HRA Accountant, presented the 2008 HRA Budget, an overview of the budget
and projected revenues and expenses. The budget is divided into three separate categories. The
General Fund covers the bulk of the administrative and overhead costs of HRA. The Housing
Loan Program Fund covers the housing related programs and services (CEE programs such as
Operation Insulation) and the $1.5M loan with the City. The Capital Outlay Funds include all of
the tax increment (TIF) districts. Cash balances as of 9/30/07 and detailed budget sheets for the
categories mentioned above have been included for review.
Mr. Jeziorski said at this time all the necessary numbers have not been received from Anoka
County to finalize the budget. The Operating Revenues are projected at $43M, which is a
$490,000 or 10% decrease from 2007. The Expenses are projected at $23M, which is $615,000,
or about a 20% increase from 2007. The increase is primarily made up of additional budgeting
for acquisitions built up on University Avenue. The General Fund Expenses include personnel
services budgeted at $290,000, supplies at $100, purchase services at $100,000, capital outlay at
$700,000 for a total of about $1.1M. Some of the significant outlays include Medtronic/Linn
pay -as- you -go total about $620,000, also budgeted is around $700,000 in University property
acquisitions. The total debt service is $1.9M and is paid from the following funds: housing loan
program, Moore Lake TIFF district and North area TIFF #3.
Commissioner Gabel asked what non - personnel insurance was.
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, said it was for insurance for the city and HRA in relations to
liability and property insurance that is allocated to various operation departments with in the city.
Commissioner Gabel asked about the 20% acquisition on University Avenue.
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director, answered that when the 2007 budget was done in
the fall of 2006, it was done before HRA looked at buying the properties on University Avenue.
If the HRA decides to buy any more properties on University, they did budget for them in 2008.
Chairperson Commers asked about the operating budget for 2008 and that it reflects a
$453,000 loss. He also asked which funds on page 280 would be gone after 2008.
Mr. Jeziorski said that the Moore Lake will expire in 2007 but it will keep open to pay off the
remainder of the balance. In 2008 the North Area will expire and in 2009 Center City will
expire.
Chairperson Commers asked which ones they are trying to utilize with the legislature.
Mr. Jeziorski said that the funds 462 University, 463 McGlynns and 463 Satellite.
Jim Casserly, Development Consultant, said the theory was to allow each district to continue
and we would use the future investment for our activities.
Chairperson Commers asked how much is needed to finish off the obligations.
Mr. Pribyl answered he did not know the number but that they exceeded the expenditures. All
increments on these districts are access.
Mr. Casserly said that District 11 and 12 are both in excess of $500,000 and will be collected in
2018 and 2019 respectively and District 13 there is $850,000 through 2020.
Commissioner Billings asked if these numbers are part of the 2008 Budget.
Mr. Pribyl answered no; the numbers are looking at future tax increment numbers.
Commissioner Billings said that these tax increments need to be used in the districts they were
collected in, there are restrictions on these increments.
Mr. Pribyl answered that is correct.
Chairperson Commers questioned the cash balance of $1.4M and when it would expire.
Mr. Pribyl said that the Center City could be used for related expenses within the project area.
Chairperson Commers said the last payment looks like $1.4M excess, but it won't be received
until 2012. That will give the BRA considerable extra money to use in some kind of manner.
Mr. Pribyl said that those are restricted but Districts pre -79 is open and available.
Chairperson Commers asked for staff to update the BRA at the next meeting. It is just a
question of how much of those funds will be available.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, said that about a year ago there was a joint BRA/Council meeting and
they explored using the TIF funds for the rail project. The information on what funds are
available for each district has been discussed and staff can find that information and mail to BRA
members.
MOTION by Commissioner Billings to approve the Preliminary 2008 Budget. Seconded by
Commissioner Gabel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE .MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between HRA and NCDA
Paul Bolin, BRA Executive Director, presented a draft Memorandum of Understanding between
the BRA and the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority. The Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) stated that the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority would make the commitment to
fund the tunnel, take on the responsibility for getting the funding for the tunnel and get the tunnel
constructed in a time frame that is acceptable to Burlington Northern. Last week there was a
concern about Burlington Northern meeting the November lst deadline. A copy of an email was
distributed from Burlington Northern to the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority agreeing to
extend the date from November lit to November 13th. Under the MOU, it will be the
responsibility of the Fridley BRA to make a commitment to acquire a construction easement
necessary to get the tunnel put into place. This MOU doesn't necessarily tie us to anything if we
are not able to get the work done. Staff will work with other entities to determine the appropriate
entity authority to acquire the property on the east side of the tracks. There is a resolution that
staff is recommending BRA approve.
MOTION by Commissioner Billings to adopt the resolution of the Memorandum of
Understanding between the BRA and the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority. Seconded by
Commissioner Gabel.
Commissioner Meyers asked for some clarification. The memorandum states that BRA will
provide, if possible... what if it is not possible, then what happens?
Mr. Casserly answered that we are not exactly sure who is most the appropriate party to be
acquiring the property. All this document is saying is if the BRA is able to provide the
construction easement, they will do so. What needs to be worked out here is who is to acquire
the property on the east side of the tracks. We would like to avoid paying for a construction
easement and then paying for the property. If there is a way to pull all this together over the next
number of weeks and months, we will do so. It is very clear that the Regional Rail Authority has
the power to acquire both the construction easement and the fee. There are a lot of reasons why
it may be good for them to do that, but a number reasons why it would be good for the Authority
to be the responsible party to try to acquire the property. This MOU leaves it open, and it clearly
says that the cost of the construction will be Fridley's cost.
Chairperson Commers said that the construction easement is the minor cost of the rail station.
Mr. Casserly said that this is not an unusual situation. What this document generally expresses
is the sincere intentions of both parties to continue to work together to pursue the common goal.
If there is some inability to do it, this avoids all kinds of litigation.
Commissioner Meyers said if we are unable and unwilling to perform, would there be any legal
obligation or put the HRA in jeopardy of anything.
Commissioner Billings said it is his understanding that as it directly relates to Fridley, Anoka
County has the authority to enter into the MOU with Fridley because they have a MOU with
MnDot. MnDot, according to legislation, is the one that is charged with managing, operating
and building commuter rail in the state of Minnesota. If in two weeks Fridley changes their mind
and does not want to participate, other than the loss of the good will between the City of Fridley
and Anoka County, there should be no damages that would take place.
Mr. Casserly said that this is about the letter of intent and MOU. There are a lot of parties and
contracts we are dealing with. Reducing the contract to this type of approach, there is no way to
make it any simpler and there is an advantage to do it this way.
Commissioner Gabel said that she works for the state and this is needed to get the ball rolling,
basically a contract that everyone agrees on.
Commissioner Meyer asked why not take out the "binding contract" language.
Mr. Casserly said that the language is very straightforward and there are more complex
agreements to come. This allows installation of a tunnel and solves the problem of the date; this
is just the beginning, not the end.
Commissioner Meyer said that Burlington Northern is going plan for a tunnel when they get
this MOU. They are going to take steps forward based on this MOU. If for any good reason, if
we can't or won't go forward with the project, where does that put us.
Mr. Casserly said that there would be issues with the Anoka County Rail Authority but not with
Burlington Northern because the contract is not with Burlington Northern.
Commissioner Holm said he fully supported the MOU because it puts the commitment with the
Anoka County Rail Authority and avoids any headaches with the construction of the tunnel and
any liability issues that relate to that construction project.
Chairperson Commers said that at this point we are not obligated to come up with any funds
and the Rail Authority is obligated to go ahead with the construction of the tunnel.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, asked about the possibility of creating a staging area along 61 '`, was
this still in the works or has it been written off.
Mr. Bolin said that the area would not provide enough space. Burlington Northern would want
more space closer to where the rail tunnel would be.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS, COMMISSIONER HOLM,
COMMISSIONER GABEL AND COMMISSIONER BILLINGS VOTING AYE,
COMMISSIONER MEYER VOTING NEY, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 4/1 VOTE
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Monthly Housing Report
Paul Bolin, HRA Executive Director, said that in the month of October two loans were closed
and two other loans were made. Year -to -date, 15 loans have been closed. Operation Insulation
has had only one visit year -to -date and the remodel visits have had three visits in October and 22
year;to -date. The Operation Insulation numbers are similar to other communities so it is not
unique to Fridley.
2. Other Business
Dr. Burns introduced Jim Kosluchar, the new Public Works Director.
Commissioner Meyer asked to discuss the physical features of the tunnel. He didn't realize
they were building a solitary tunnel. He questioned what the procedure would be if we got the
funds to build the station, what would happen to portions of the tunnel.
Mr. Bolin said that there would be a shaft in the center and the existing tunnel would be added
on to.
Commissioner Meyer said it looked like the tunnel would need to be taken apart to complete the
station.
Mr. Bolin said that he is removed from the details of the construction of the tunnel and if he
were to answer it would be pure speculation. He believed all the details were in the plan that was
provided. The engineer would be happy to meet with Commissioner Meyers to go over the plan
and answer specific construction questions.
Commissioner Meyer said he was not concerned with the actual construction, but with the
station in the middle of the tunnel, there is no indication as to what would happen to the tunnel if
this were to pass and he thought maybe two separate tunnel pieces would be a better answer.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said there was a plan with two tunnels and
this is the design that has been contemplated since the beginning. It was anticipated that Fridley
would have a park and ride on the east and west sides of the tracks. The engineer that is
designing the box is closely working with the contractor that will be doing the work. Burlington
Northern will put the box underground now so it will not disrupt their rail traffic in the future.
When the attachments are to be added, they will add on to the box culvert.
Mr. Bolin said the plans that were bid on; Anoka County is paying for the 160' long box.
Eventually, the sides and middle will be cut out and drop in steps and an elevator shaft will be
added. The bid does not include shafts and stairs.
Commissioner Meyer said that is his point; that part of the tunnel will be taken apart to install
the stairs and elevator. His other concern was the width of the tunnel. He did not think a 12'
wide tunnel would handle both pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Mr. Hickok said that he did not recall not anticipating bicycles on the elevators. This is a way
for people to commute, to ride their bikes to the rail station and take the rail to work.
Commissioner Meyer said that he was not impressed by the dual purpose of the tunnel and did
not think it would be wide enough. To construct a wider tunnel now would not take much more
money that what is going to be spent.
Chairperson Commers suggested that Commissioner Meyer speak with the engineer.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Commissioner Gabel to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Billings
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT
9:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Krista Monsrud
Recording Secretary
0
DATE: December 6, 2007
TO: William W. Bums, Executive Director of HRA 0 fd-1
FROM: Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Mike Jeziorski, HRA Accountant
Paul Bolin, Assistant Director of HRA
SUBJECT: Approval of Final 2008 Budget
Attached you will find the final 2008 budget document, cash balances as of 10/31/07, and a debt
service schedule. Please note that the County has yet to post updated tax capacity values on
their website, but because we believe the tax increment figures provided in the preliminary budget
are a solid estimation for these line items we decided to present these figures as final. We will be
available to answer any questions that you may have.
The budget is divided into three separate categories. The General Fund covers the bulk of the
administrative and overhead costs of the HRA. The Housing Loan Program Fund covers the
housing related programs and services (CEE programs such as Operation Insulation). The
Capital Outlay Funds include all of the tax increment (TIF) districts.
Staff recommends that the HRA make a motion to approve the 2008 budget.
HACity of FridleyU-IRAVRA Budget12008 budgetVARA 2008 Budget Memo.doc
City of Fridley HRA
2008 Final Budget
Packet
2007 Cash Balances ................Page (1 -2)
2008 Budget
General Fund ...............Page (3-4)
Housing Program ......... Page (5 -6)
Tax Increment Districts..Page (7 -13)
Debt Schedule .........................Page (14 -15)
City of Fridley HRA
2007 Cash Balances
As of 10/31/07
City of Fridley HRA
Cash Balances
as of 10131/07
Cash Balances
Fund -Description Balance
100
General Fund
4,458,171
265
Housing Loan Program
3,288,058
450
Center City
2,037,466
451
Moore Lake
(242,543)
Obligated to Bond
452
North Area
1,550,901
Repayment
455
Lake Pointe
48,379
456
Winfield
581,016
458
Onan
1,490,986
Poolable
462
University
276,057
463
McGlynn
180,739
Pending Special
464
Satellite
370,420
Legislation
467
57th Ave
(4,407)
468
Gateway East
31,309
470
Gateway West
3,906
472
TIF #19
(30,441)
501
Housing Replacement
241,673
14,281,689
Total
I
City of Fridley HRA
2008 Budget
General Fund
City of Fridley HRA
Budget
Fiscal Year 2008
2007 Activity YTD as a % of
Account Description through 10131W FY 2007 Budget Budget FY 2008 Budget
100 - General Fund
Revenues
City Revenues
100 -0000- 311 -1000
Tax Levy
183,706.40
373,151.00
49%
377,000.00
100 - 0000 -311 -2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
-
-
N/A
-
100- 0000 - 3341000
Residual MV Homestead Credit
-
-
WA
240.00
81%
264.00
183 706.40
373,151.00
49%
377,000.00
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
1OD-0000-362-1 000 Intent on Investment Earnings
177,793.31
222,500.00
800/0
180,000.00
100-0000 -362 -1500
Interest on Mortgages (Agro -N)
4,433.44
5,300.00
84%
4,900.00
100-0000 -362 -2000
Rent and Royalties (FraLwmhuh - parking lot rentaq
8,000.00
9,600.00
83%
9,600.00
100-0000 - 362 -0100
Sale of Miscellaneous Property (Medtronic Land Sale Payment)
34 368.38
67 300.00
51%
67,300.00
425.00
245.90
224 595.13
304 700.00
74%
261,800.00
150.00
35%
150.00
173.25
750.00
23%
Expenses
Salaries and Wages
100 - 0000 -430 -4101
100 - 00001430 -4107
100 - 0000 - 430 -4107
100 - 00001430 -4112
Benefits
100-0000- 430 -4120
100-00001430 -4122
100-0000 - 430 - 4125
100-0000 - 430 -4131
100 -0000- 430 -4132
100-0000430-4133
100 - 0000 -030 -4150
Supplies and Materials
100-0000- 430 -4221
Purchased Services
100-0000- 430 -4330
100 - 0000143014331
100-0000 - 43014332
100 - 0000 - 430 -4333
100 - 00001430.4334
100-0000-430 -4335
100 -0000 - 43014336
100 - 0000-430 -4337
100 - 0000 - 430 -4338
100 - 0000 - 430 -4340
Capital Outlay
100 - 0000 - 430.4350
100- 0000 - 304520
Full Time Employee Salary
54,955.93
77,792.00 71% 81,432.00
Temporary Employee Salary
6,058.08
- N/A -
Adminisfistion Charges (Allocation)
134,175.00
178,900.00 75°% 184,300.00
Employee Leave
8,418.87
- N/A -
9,237.27
203 607.88
256 692.00 79°% 265,732.00
Medicare (1.45% of Salary)
Social Security (6.2•% of Salary)
Wells Fargo Contribution (6.0'/ of Salary)
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Workers Compensation
Operating Supplies
Professional Services (Ehler&Krass Monroe)
Dues and Subscriptions (NAHRO, AICP)
Communication (Allocation)
Transportation (Mileage Reimbursement)
Advertising
Printing and Binding (Allocation)
Insurance - Non Personnel (Allocation)
Conferences/Seminers/Treining (Ehlers Seminar)
Utility Services
Services Contracted (Mowing Contract)
Payments to Other Governments (Property Taxes)
Capital Outlay - Building/Land Purchases
1,006.31
1,128.00
89%
1,200.00
4,303.19
4,823.00
89%
5,000.00
3,960.93
4,668.00
85%
4,900.00
9,237.27
11,437.00
81%
12,600.00
193.83
240.00
81%
264.00
42.50
51.00
83°%
100.00
1, 6.62
778.00
190°%
1,800.00
20 220.65
23,125.00
871/0
25,864.00
38.06
675.00
6%
100.00
38.06
675.00
6%
100.00
73,553.55
75,000.00
98%
75,000.00
-
425.00
0%
425.00
245.90
223.00
110%
162.00
51.90
150.00
35%
150.00
173.25
750.00
23%
500.00
180.30
1,000.00
18%
551.00
11,213.28
20,451.00
55%
15,699.00
654.00
2,000.00
33%
2,000.00
1,979.04
200.00
990%
1,000.00
4,277.77
5,000.00
86°%
5,000.00
92,328.99
105,199.00
88°%
100,487.00
41,005.31
-
WA
-
1,717,999,69
WA
700,000.00
1,759,005.00
WA
700,000.00
w
.� ,�.. >.,... ,� .:, Y -s.- ,+"' r � s �k" . -��s2` 'ti's- s " � �A�` � �s�._.r.'�'x• � ��_
e -
Unaudited Date - For Management Purposes Only
City Fridley HRA
2008 Budget
Housing Loan Program
City of Fridley HRA
Budget
Fiscal Year 2008
2007 Activity YTD as a % of
Account Description through 10/31/07 FY 2007 Budget Budget FY 2008 Budget
266 - Housing Loan Programs
Revenues
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
265-0000- 362 -1000
Interest on Investment Earnings
265 -0000- 362 -1501
Interest on Mortgages (Pool 0, 1, 2)
265-0000- 362 -1500
Interest on Mortgages (Pool3/ACCAP)
265-0000 - 362 -6100
Miscellaneous Revenue (Home and Garden Show)
109,672.08
122,900.00
89%
131,000.00
39,136.18
45,000.00
87%
48,00040
4,042.63
-
WA
1,400.00
14,975.00
14,000.00
107%
15,000.00
167,825.89
181 900.00
92%
195,400.00
Yii 5 x r, - A�, -
Expenses
Purchased Services
265- 0000 - 430 -4330
Professional Services (Castle Vision - Home Show)
5,695.47
8,000.00
71%
7,000.00
265 - 0000 - 430-4334
Advertising (Clear Channel -Home Show)
553.80
1,000.00
55%
1,000.00
265-0000.430 -4335
Printing and Binding (Advantage Sign - Home Show)
273.71
500.00
55%
500.00
265-0000- 430 -4340
Services Contracted (CEE)
16,771.12
35,000.00
48%
35,000.00
265-0000-430-4341
Charges/Rentals (National Sports ConterlCenaiko - Home Show)
6,912.51
5,500.00
126%
7,000.00
265-0000- 475 -4610
Debt ServiceAnte W Expense (1.5 Million Loan with City)
19 962.46
19,963.00
100%
16,550.00
50169.07
69,963.00
72%
67,050.00
Unmx tted Qate - For Mww9emwd Purposes Only
City of Fridley HRA
2008 Budget
Tax Increment Districts
0
450 - Center City (1979-2009)
Revenues
City Revenues
450-0000-311-1000
450-0000-311-2000
450 - 0000 - 3341000
Other Miscellaneot
450 - 0000.362 -1000
Account Description
Tax Levy
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
Residual MV Homestead Credit
is Revenue
Interest on Investment Earnings
City of Fridley HRA
Budget
Fiscal Year 2008
2007 Activity YTD as a % of
through 10131107 FY 2007 Budget Budget FY 2008 Budget
279,131.64 579,800.00 48% 579,800.00
1,247.60 - N/A -
- N/A
280,379.24
579,800.00
48%
579,800.00
66,072.77
54 700.00
121%
81 000.00
66,072.77
54 700.00
121%
81,000.00
sy , W
00,061-mr, Ift-K
M,bb" oft�hb"Wrl
Expenses
Purchased Services
45040000.-430-4330 Professional Services
461 - Moore Lake Area (1981-207)
Revenues
2,693.61 3,500.00 77% 3,000.00
2,693.61 3,500.00 77% 3,000.00
79 ,n
City Revenues
451-0000-311-1000
Tax Levy
267,609.62
555,900.00
48%
-
451 -DODO- 311 -2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
4,938.42
WA
-
451 -0000- 334 -1000
Residual MV Homestead Credit
-
WA
-
272,548.04
55E,.900.00
49%
-
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
451-0000-362-1000
interest on Investment Earnings
(240.23)
WA
-
(240 23)
-
N/A
-
Expenses
Purchased Services
451-0000-430-4330
Professional Services
2,392.57
3,000.00
80%
3,000.00
2,392.57
3,000.00
00%
3,000.00
Other Finance Uses
451-ONO-475-4760
Payments to Primary Governments (2004B and 2005B Bonds)
631,612.50
645,408.00
98%
34,000.00
631,612.50
645,408.00
06%
34,000.00
VIV
462 - North Area (1982-2008)
Revenues
City Revenues
452-0000 -311-1000
Tax Levy
596,250.44
1,245,200.00
48%
1,245,200.00
452-0000-311-2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
14,554.52
NIA
610,804.96
1,245,200.00
49%
1,245,200.00
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
452-0000-362-1000 Interest on Investment Earnings
61,125.89
63,900.00
96%
62,000.00
61,125.89
63,900.00
05%
62,000.00
.g
Ar
Expenses
Purchased Services
452400*0-430-4330
Professional Services
2,832.75
3,500.00
81%
3,000.00
2,832.75
3,500.00
81%
3,000.00
Unaudited Data - For Management Purposes Only
Capital Outlay
452- 0000 - 431 -4530
Other Finance Uses
452- 0000- 475-4750
City of Fridley HRA
Budget
Fiscal Year 2008
Account Description
Capital Outlay (BamW/ Pay as you go) Completed 7 -18-07
Payments to Primary Governments (2004B and 2005E Bonds)
2007 Activity YTD as a % of
through 10/31/07 FY 2007 Budget Budget FY 2008 Budget
42,240.99 77,000.00 55%
42,240.99 77,000.00 55%
1,238,325.00 1,224,080.00 101% 1,825,000.00
1,238,325.00 1,224,080.00 101% 1,825,000.00
465 - Lake Pointe (1985 -2025)
Revenues
City Revenues
455-0000- 311 -1000
Tax Levy
342,921.67
679,800.00
500/0
679,800.00
455 - 0000 -311 -2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
798.51
WA
-
343,718.18
679,800.00
51%
679,800.00
Other Miscellaneous
Revenue
456- 0000 -362 -1000
455-0000- 362 -1000
Interest on Investment Earnings
7,782.57
7,900.00
99%
2,000.00
19,201.04
7,782.57
7,900.00
99%
2,000.00
Expenses
Expenses
Purchased Services
Purchased Services
456- 0000-330 -4330
Professional Services
982.78
455 - 0000-430 -4330
Professional Services
1,025.78
3,000.00
34%
2,000.00
1,000.00
98%
1,025.78
3,000.00
34%
2,000.00
Capital Outlay
455-0000 - 430-4536
Parking Facilities (Me0onic Pay as you go)
309 346.36
611 820.00
51%
611 820.00
309,346.36
611,820.00
510/9
61 ,620.Q0
466 - Winfield (1986 -2012)
Revenues
City Revenues
456 -0000- 311 -1000
Tax Levy
32,929.85
65,100.00
51%
65,100.00
456 -0000- 311 -2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Year
82.59
WA
-
33,012.44
65,100.00
51%
65,100.00
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
456- 0000 -362 -1000
Interest on Investment Earnings
19,201.04
1920000
100%
23,000.00
19,201.04
19,2 0.00
100%
23,000.00
Expenses
Purchased Services
456- 0000-330 -4330
Professional Services
982.78
1,000.00
98%
1,000.00
982.78
1,000.00
98%
1,000.00
n
468 - Onan (1989 -2016)
Revenues
City Revenues
458-0000- 311 -1000 Tax Levy 179,398.62 356,800.00 50% 356,800.00
458 - 0000 - 311 -2000 Tax Levy - Delinquent Year 1,566.85 WA
180,965.47 356,800.00 51% 356,800.00
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
Unaudited Date - For ManegemeM Purposes Ordy
io
City of Fridley HRA
Budget
Fiscal Year 2008
462 - Unhrersity /Osborne (1992 -2018)
Revenues
CRY Revenues
462 -0000- 311 -1000
Tax Levy
22,041.76
2007 Activity
YTD as a % of
44,000.00
462 -0000 -311 -2000
Account Description
0.13
through 10/31/07 FY 2007 Budget Budget
FY 2008 Budget
458-0000462 -1000
interest on Investment Earnings
Revenue
Interest on Investment Earnings
48 609.82
42,800.00 114%
59,000.00
44,000.00
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
46240000 -362 -1000 Interest on Investment Earnings
9,077.16
48,609.82
42,800.00 114%
59,000.00
R'
9,077.16
8,800.00
103%
11,000.00
Expenses
Purchased Services
463- 0000 - 430-4330
Professional Services
Purchased Services
458 -DODD -430 -4330
Professional Services
90%
1,154.78
1 500.00 77%
1,500.00
Purchased Services
46240000- 430 -4330
Professional Services
1,360.57
1154.78
1,500.00 77%
1,500.00
1360.57
1,500.00
91%
�� : _x ,� s`Y�t .,, -�3,- ,c'-� •t;t J
�c: �° �
h `rte».,. t�.�
k ��..4
462 - Unhrersity /Osborne (1992 -2018)
Revenues
CRY Revenues
462 -0000- 311 -1000
Tax Levy
22,041.76
44,000.00
50%
44,000.00
462 -0000 -311 -2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent
0.13
-
N/A
36,000.00
Other Miscellaneous
463-0000 -362 -1000
Revenue
Interest on Investment Earnings
22,041.89
44 000.00
50%
44,000.00
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
46240000 -362 -1000 Interest on Investment Earnings
9,077.16
B 800.00
103%
11,000.00
7,000.00
9,077.16
8,800.00
103%
11,000.00
Purchased Services
463- 0000 - 430-4330
Professional Services
Expenses
1,351.97 1 500.00
90%
1,500.00
Purchased Services
46240000- 430 -4330
Professional Services
1,360.57
9 500.00
91%
1,500.00
1360.57
1,500.00
91%
1,500.00
`1 �[ ` _
p M
.n
463 - McGlynn (1992 -2019)
Revenues
City Revenues
463-0000 -311 -1000
Tax Levy
18 007.13 36,000.00
50%
36,000.00
18,007.13 36 000.00
50%
36,000.00
Other Miscellaneous
463-0000 -362 -1000
Revenue
Interest on Investment Earnings
5,919.95 5 500.00
108%
7,000.00
5,919.95 5,500.00
1�0�j8%
7,000.00
5:
Expenses
Purchased Services
463- 0000 - 430-4330
Professional Services
1,351.97 1 500.00
90%
1,500.00
135197 1500.00
90%
1,500.00
d
`1 �[ ` _
464 - Satellite (1996 -2023)
Revenues
City Revenues
464- 0000 -311 -1000 Tax Levy 24,326.03 51,400.00 47% 51,400.00
464-0000- 311 -2000 Tax Levy - Delinquent Years - - WA
464-0000 - 3341000 Residual MV Homestead Credit - - WA -
24 326.03 51,400.00 47% 51,400.00
Unau&ed Data - For Management Purposes DMy
City of Fridley HRA
Budget
Fiscal Year 2008 '
467 - 87th Ave (1897 -2023)
Revenues
City Revenues
2007 Activity
YTD as e % of
467 -O000 -311 -1000
Account Description
through 10131/07
FY 2007 Budget
Budget
FY 2008 Budget
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
38.90
WA
464 -0000- 362 -1000
Interest on Investment Earnings
12,241.11
11 900.00
103%
15 000.00
23,300.00
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
12,241.11
11,900.00
1030/6
1 ,000.00
467 -OWO- 362 -1000
Interest on Investment Earnings
0.35
Expenses
0.35
Purchased Services
464- 00MA30.4330
Professional Services
1,240.78
1,500.00
83%
1,500.00
Purchased Services
1,240.78
1,500.00
83%
1,500.00
467 4)000- 430 -4330
Professional Services
991.38
1,500.00
467 - 87th Ave (1897 -2023)
Revenues
City Revenues
467 -O000 -311 -1000
Tax Levy
11,682.51
23,300.00
50%
23,300.00
467-0000311 -2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
38.90
WA
11,721.41
23,300.00
50%
23,300.00
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
467 -OWO- 362 -1000
Interest on Investment Earnings
0.35
N/A
0.35
N/A
Expenses
Purchased Services
467 4)000- 430 -4330
Professional Services
991.38
1,500.00
660/0
1,500.00
991.38
1,500.00
66%
1,500.00
Capital OUOay
467 -0000-431 -4510
Capital Outlay (Linn Pay as you go)
10,549.00
17,040.00
620/c
20,970.00
10,549.00
17,040.00
62°A
20,970.00
468, - Gateway East (2001 -2028)
Revenues
City Revenues
468 -MO -311 -1000 Tax Levy
468-0000- 311 -2000 Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
468- 00003341000 Residual MV Homestead Credit
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
468 -0000- 362 -1000 Interest on Investment Earnings
Expenses
Purchased Services
468 - 0000-130 -4330 Professional Services
19,581.04 45,500.00 43% 45,500.00
- - N/A -
N/A -
19,581.04 45,500.00 43% 45,500.00
1,469.86 1,400.00 105% 1,000.00
1,469.86 1,400.00 105% 1,000.00
1,275.18 1,500.00 85% 1,500.00
1,275.18 1,500.00 85% 1,500.00
470 - Gateway West (2006-2032)
Revenues
Unaudited Data - For Management Purposes Only
11
City of Fridley HRA
Budget
Fiscal Year 2008
Unaudbd DaW - For Management Purposes Only
LIU
2007 Activity
YTD as a % of
Account Description
through 10/31/07 FY
2007 Budget
Budget
FY 2008 Budget
City Revenues
470-0000 -311 -1000
Tax Levy
-
-
WA
-
470 -0000- 311 -2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
-
-
WA
-
WA
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
470-0000 - 362 -4200
From Primary Government (MN DOT Money)
17,150.00
-
N/A
-
470-0000- 362 -5100
Sale of Misc Properly
86,771.25
348,000.00
25%
393,750.00
468- 0000 -362 -1000
Interest an Investment Earnings
91.21
1,400.00
7%
200.00
104,012.46
349,400.00
30%
393,950.00
a .
Expenses
Purchased Service
470 - 0000-430 -4330
Professional Services (Loan Closes)
6,395.68
12,000.00
53%
12,000.00
470 - 0000430 -4340
Services Contracted (Mowing Contract)
640.00
4,500.00
14%
2,500.00
470-0000 - 430 -4350
Payments to Other Governments (Anoka County - Property Tax)
4,246.65
2,500.00
170%
-
11 282.53
18 000.00
59%
14,5DO.00
Capital Outlay
470 - 0000 - 430.4530
Improvements offm than building (Final Asphalt)
50,000.00
0" /0
50,000.00
50,000.00
0%
50,000.00
472 - TIF #19 (Pending Information)
Revenues
City Revenues
472-0000311 -1000
Tax Levy
-
-
WA
-
0-311 -2000
472-000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
-
WA
-
WA
Expenses
Purchased Services
472 - 0000 - 4304330
Professional Services
30 440.71
WA
5,000.00
30,440.71
-
WA
5,000.00
601 - Housing Replacement (1897 -2024)
Revenues
City Revenues
501 -ODDO -311 -1000
Tax Levy
14,882.03
28,600.00
520/b
28,600.00
501 - MOO -311 -2000
Tax Levy - Delinquent Years
-
WA
501 -00003341000
MV Homestead Credit
WA
14,682.03
28,600.00
52%
28,600.00
Other Miscellaneous
Revenue
501 - 0000362 -1000
interest on Investment Earnings
7,883.61
7,900.00
101%
10,000.00
7,993.61
7,900.00
101%
10,000.00
r
Expenses
Purchased Services
501 -0000- 430 -4330
Professional Services
1,154.73
3,000.00
38%
1,500.00
501- =0-43D -4340
Services Contracted (Mowing Contract)
360.00
3,500.00
10%
1,000.00
1,514.73
6,500.00
23%
2,500.00
Unaudbd DaW - For Management Purposes Only
LIU
City of Fridley HRA
Budget
Fiscal Year 2008
2007 Activity
Account Description through 10/31/07
YTD as a % of
FY 2007 Budget Budget FY 2008 Budget
466 - Expired TIF Business Center
Returned money to County
ANOMOM
(662,660.23) N/A
(662,660.23) NIA
UnaudW Date - For Management Purposes Ony
\5
City of Fridley HRA
Debt Schedule
N
0
f
Debt Payment Schedule
PER TIF District
Cash Balance 10/31/07
2007 2nd Half Tax Increment
2008 Tax Increment
2008 Debt Payment
2009 Tax Increment
2009 Debt Payment
2010 Tax Increment
2010 Debt Payment
2011 Tax Increment
2011 Debt Payment
2012 Tax Increment
2012 Debt Payment
Fridley HRA
Debt Service/Bond Payments
TIF Districts 1/213
2007 through 2012
Expire 2009 Expire 2007
TIF #1 TIF #2
Center City Moore Lake
2,037,466 (242,543)
289,900 277,950
579,800 -
- (33,837)
579,800 -
(250,956) -
(604,906) -
(608,003) -
(618,159) -
Expire 2008
TIF #3
North Area
Total
1,550,901
3,345,824
622,600
1,190,450
1,245,200
1,825,000
(1,825,178)
(1,859,015)
-
579,800
(1,525,539)
(1,776,495)
-
(604,906)
-
(608,003)
-
(618,159)
Approximate Ending Cash Balance 1,404,942 1,570 67,984 1,474,496
*Allocations derived by trying to use up cash on TIF #2 first followed by TIF#3 and then TIF #1
*Please note that we are projecting a cash surplus of roughly 1.41VI after the debt service is paid back
ACTION ITEM
HRA MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2007
QTY OF
FRUXEY
Date: November 29, 2007
To: William Bums, City Manager
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Subiect: Gateway Northeast Property Acquisition
Lake States Realty recently conducted an appraisal of the Sinclair property located at
6071 University Avenue, as the owners recently expressed a real interest in having the
HRA purchase their property for inclusion in redevelopment efforts along University
Avenue. A copy of the appraisal report summary has been included for your review.
The value of the property follows:
Address / Building
Owner / Rep
FMV
City Assessor
Lake States Realty
Value
6071 (Sinclair Station)
Husein Ahmed
$305,000
$246,100
Kumi Properties,
LLC
The value for the former Sinclair Station is much higher than the City appraisers' value
as gas station site comparables tend to have higher values than other commercial uses.
An initial search of City records does not reveal any real concerns for contamination of
this property. Recent information from the State of Minnesota indicates that the
underground tanks on this site are in good condition. The City's Fire Marshall is further
reviewing his records of this site and will provide the results of his research to staff early
next week. The purchase agreement can be structured to allow for further
environmental review if deemed necessary.
Dan Wilson, the City's relocation consultant, is reviewing the existing lease and will
meet with the property owner to help refine relocation benefit costs. I hope to have at
least a preliminary number prior to Thursday's meeting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Authority authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of the
Sinclair property in order to provide more land for redevelopment north of the Gateway
East Townhomes. Staff also recommends that Chairman Commers be given the
authority to execute any purchase agreements matching the appraised values prior to
the Authority's next meeting, provided relocation benefits and potential soil corrections
are not excessively costly.
Executive Summary
ADDRESS:
6071 University Ave. NE, Fridley, MN 55432
PROPERTY TYPE
One level gas /service station /convenience store
OWNER:
Per Anoka County tax records, the owner is Kumi
Properties, LLC
INTEREST APPRAISED:
Fee Simple
APPRAISAL PURPOSE
Estimate Market Value
APPRAISAL USE
Internal planning purposes and possible negotiation purposes
related to proposed fee title purchase
SITE SIZE
15,166.62 s.f. per Anoka County
ZONING:
C-2, General Business District with special use permit, as
governed by the City of Fridley
HIGHEST AND BEST
USE
As vacant: Small commercial development
As improved: Existing use
FIVE YEARS SALES
HISTORY:
According to Anoka County property records, the subject
property has sold for $230,000 in December, 2004
IMPROVEMENTS:
A single one -level gas /service station with small
convenience store building with 1,323 s.f.
PROPERTY I. D. #:
23- 30 -24 -21 -0135
ASSESSOR'S
ESTIMATED PROPERTY
VALUE (2007 estimated
values for 2006 payable
taxes):
Land: $186,200°
Improvements: $ 59,900
Total: $246,100
PROPERTY TAXES
(2007 payable):
$6,718.00 with no special assessments
VALUE BY COST APPROACH:
N/A
VALUE BY MARKET APPROACH:
$305,000
VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH:
N/A
APPRAISER'S ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE $305,000
DATE OF VALUATION:
October 11, 2007, the date of most recent inspection
APPRAISER:
Paul G. Schwartz, Certified General Appraiser, MN
#20002323
ri
MY OF
FRUXEY
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
HRA MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2007
Date: November 29, 2007
To: William Bums, City Manager A4
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Su_biect: Corridor Housinq Initiative
Gretchen Nicholls of the Center 4 Neighborhoods will be presenting the results of the
Corridor Housing Initiative's University Avenue planning efforts. This was a very
educational and engaging planning process that has generated nothing but positive
comments from those in attendance.
Attached to this memo are summaries of the meetings, a rough guideline for future
development of the corridor, and recommendations for moving forward.
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative: Revitalizing University Avenue
L
DRAFT November 30, 2007
Summary
The Corridor Housing Initiative (CHI) partnered with the City of Fridley HRA, City Council and Planning
Commission to facilitate a series of community workshops to establish:
• Development objectives or criteria for publicly owned sites along University Avenue, which
will be presented as recommendations to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority for
consideration in the RFP process.
Strengthen participation and community involvement to form city goals for development along
University Avenue.
Provide strategic focus for the development of University Avenue parcels owned by the Fridley
HRA.
The collaboration between the Corridor Housing Initiative and the City of Fridley came through funding
from the Family Housing Fund and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation to serve as a demonstration
project to determine whether these technical resources and approach would be useful in a suburban
context. The City of Fridley provided in -kind staffing support.
The CHI community process consisted of four workshops, held on July 19, August 16, September 6 and
September 20, 2007 at the Fridley Community Center. Approximately 50 community participants attended
the workshops, aimed at strengthening their design and development literacy, articulate community
values for future development, and assess likely development scenarios that could meet those values. The
process involved a technical team of designers, developers, facilitators and city staff to inform and support
participants as they explored ideas. Resulting from the process was an increased confidence by participants
about possible development directions for the area, and strategies for getting there. The purpose of the
CHI process was to identify a range of development options that met community goals and market viability,
rather than landing on one specific development direction or product.
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative Report 11
Workshop 1: Revitalizing University Avenue
(July 19, 2007)
Participants gathered ideas on what makes
University Avenue interesting, what they wanted
to achieve through development along University
Avenue, and what were their concerns about
redevelopment in the area (see University Avenue
Development Wish List.in attachments).
Workshop 11: Development ABC's
(August 16, 2007)
Participants explored a variety of development
options for the University Avenue sites, using
blocks to create a massing, and running the option
through a financial analysis tool to determine if
it was a feasible scenario. Sketchers were also
on hand to draw what that development could
look like given design preferences expressed by
community members (see University Avenue Block
Exercise Summary Sheets in attachments). Design
and development experts were on hand to share
ideas and insights.
Workshop III: Moving Forward!
(September 6, 2007)
A panel of developers and commercial brokers
met with participants to explore the opportunities
and challenges for development along University
Avenue, and consider options for revitalizing
the area (see Panel Discussion Meeting Notes —
September 6, 2007 in attachments).
Workshop IV: Framing the Recommendations
(September 20, 2007)
Participants worked to build consensus on
recommendation to the Fridley City Council and
HRA Commissioners on development objectives for
publicly owned sites along University Avenue (see
Fridley / University Avenue Development Guidelines
in attachments).
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative Report 12
Through the discussions three core themes emerged for Fridley and the revitalization of University Avenue:
1. Strengthen the identity of Fridley / University Avenue as an important Gateway to Fridley,
2. Build connections from University Avenue to other parts of the city, and
3. Revitalize University Avenue to be a vital and viable district.
Participants discussed a variety of topics revolving around the potential use and strategies for development,
including:
rCh:allenges Opportunities
Participants had strong desire to create a city • Senior Housing - Provide housing options for
center / commercial retail district, but the people that would like to move out of larger
limited access from University Avenue and the homes (strong senior demographic).
shallow depth of the sites made this an unlikely • Market Fridley as a hub for medical facilities to
scenario.
attract medical or professional offices to the
• Due to the land values, single family homes were sites (see Medical facilities map).
not seen as viable.
• Northstar Commuter Rail station area within
a half -mile radius (walkable if connections are
strengthened).
Considerations for Success
• Need to be able to live by it (close proximity to single family residential)
• Option to move the frontage road to serve as buffer / transition
• Build higher buildings closer to University Ave to limit impact on single family homes
behind.
• Current 4 story height level limit in zoning code (no plans to change)
• Underground parking is desirable for residential and office use
• Want durable buildings, well designed with quality materials
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative Report 13
Strengthen Connections with OtherAmenities
• Extended Medtronic Parkway (outlined in the revised comprehensive plan) would enhance
accessibility to the area.
• Northstar Commuter Rail station area — Establishing walkable routes to the station area could lead
to stronger housing market for the University Avenue sites (located within a half -mile radius of the
station area).
• Bus access along University serves as a feeder to Northstar and into downtown Minneapolis.
• Strengthen connections with other parts of the city (especially parks and other natural amenities,
and retail areas.
• Desire for city center — gathering area for retail and restaurants somewhere in the City of Fridley
(the University Avenue sites are not the ideal location due to access limitations).
• Market Fridley as a Medical Hub — good way to recruit medical companies and offices into the area,
and provides a "promotional hook."
Strategies for Moving Development Forward
Community members were unified in their interest to attract good development that strengthened
University Avenue as a gateway and window into the City of Fridley. Throughout the process
there was an increasing awareness of the need for public resources to fill financial gaps to make a
development project viable (stemming from the added costs of demolition and land values), and a
positive addition to the future of the City. Participants agreed that it would be worthwhile to wait
until more sites could be acquired by the City of Fridley HRA to enable even greater positive impact
to the area, and to provide a more cohesive development strategy. Many voiced support for finding
ways to gain additional public resources to invest in the area. It was noted at both the developers'
panel and by city staff that public resources are available from regional, state and federal sources for
affordable housing, but not explicitly for senior housing. Examples of possible sources for affordable
housing resources include:
• United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
• Metropolitan Council (Livable Communities Demonstration Project)
• Anoka County Community Development Block Grant
• Fridley HRA
• Private foundations
Another option is to create a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to capture future tax revenue to
leverage redevelopment.
Concern was also expressed about sitting on the sites for a long period of time, allowing them
to continue to deteriorate. One way of avoiding this situation is to move forward with an
incremental strategy to develop one or two of the sites while the City HRA continued to work to
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative Report 14
acquire additional adjacent sites. Another suggestion was to identify a temporary use for the sites
(i.e. outdoor market area), but that would require demolishing existing buildings, which would
complicate the option of creating a TIF district (prematurely initiating the timeline for development
to occur).
To attract the right developers to the area, and to merge public and private interests, the developer
panel suggested that the City submit an RFQ (request for qualifications) rather than an RFP (request
for proposals) for the University Avenue sites. Developers are more apt to respond to an RFQ over
an RFP because of the intensive work ittakes to submit a specific proposal. The RFQ provides the
opportunity to create a working partnership between the City and developer, and typically results in
a much better end product.
Conclusion
The Corridor Housing Initiative submits the following recommendations to the City of Fridley City
Council and Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for your consideration regarding the publicly
owned sites along University Avenue:
The City of Fridley, Minnesota is located just north of Minneapolis on the east bank of the Mississippi
River. Our community is home to approximately 27,000 residents, 900 businesses, including the
Medtronic headquarters, Unity Hospital, and a variety of other medical facilities, and soon to have a
new Northstar Commuter Line station area.
In 2007 the City of Fridley and Fridley Housing Redevelopment Authority purchased a variety of
parcels along University Avenue between 61 st Street and 58th Street to revitalize one of the most
important gateways into the city. The sites along University Avenue face critical challenges, such
as shallow parcels and limited access, which will require creativity on the part of developers, or the
ability to acquire additional land for development projects. The City of Fridley worked with the
Corridor Housing Initiative to create the University Avenue Development Site Information Sheet as
part of this commitment to the street and its future development.
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative Report 15
Assets
The City of Fridley is
• actively supportive of new developments along University Avenue that respond to these
guidelines;
• centrally located, with easy access to downtown Minneapolis, convenient freeway access, and a
station area for the Northstar Commuter Line coming soon;
• supported by an active, engaged business community, institutions, and residents;
• ripe for new investment with several developable sites that are publicly owned;
• home to a variety of medical facilities and businesses, as well as excellent public schools and parks;
and
• a proven partner for working effectively with developers to achieve development goals.
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative Report 16
Guidelines
I. Strengthen the Positive Identity of Fridley
A. Incorporate design elements that help to enhance the
visual appeal of the area through plantings, public art,
ornamental lighting, and other interesting features.
B. Provide landscaping and new fencing along University
Avenue.
C. Increase the scale and density to offer a more
concentrated mix of uses and intensified
development strategy.
D. Orientation of the buildings should face the center
frontage road, while providing interesting
back sides to University Avenue, or providing a double
front to University Avenue and the
frontage road.
Create Connections
A. Consider opportunities for strengthening
access and connections between new
developments and other nearby amenities, such
as trail systems, transit (including the Northstar
Commuter Line station area), retail areas, parks,
and job centers.
B. Create engaging pedestrian- friendly street
level.
III. Encourage Development and Revitalize University
Avenue
A. Strong support for:
• Senior housing, and assisted living options,
• A mix of housing choices to accommodate a range of
household incomes and sizes,
• Office building, and
• Mixed -use buildings (e.g. office, residential, services,
and restaurant).
Contact Information:
City of Fridley
Paul Bolin, Asst Executive Director, Fridley HRA
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Bolinp @ci.fridley.mn.us
www.cityoffridley.org
r
!l�gMt
�.�, ,z.,��iiiii Itl � � •!
U r
X i
is ��
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative Report 17
Attachments:
I. Overview of the Corridor Housing Initiative process
- Description and purpose of CHI
- Preplanning
- Correlate with Comprehensive plan revision
- Reinforce common themes
- Engage community to decipher viable development scenarios
Technical team included;
- Metropolitan Design Center (Katie Thering)
- Center for Policy Planning and Performance (Barbara Raye)
- Aeon (Gina Ciganik)
- Formworks (Michael Byrd)
- Fridley Community Development / HRA staff (Scott Hickok, Paul Bolin)
- Center for Neighborhoods (Gretchen Nicholls)
Panel Discussion
- Alan Arthur, Aeon
-John Mehrker, Presbyterian Homes
- Bob Long, NAI Welsh (commercial broker)
- David Newman, Bancorp Group
11. University Avenue Development Wish List
III. University Avenue Block Exercise Summary Sheets
IV. Panel Discussion Meeting Notes - September 6, 2007
V. Fridley / University Avenue Development Guidelines
VI. Map: City of Fridley - Parcels with Medical Facilities
VI. Attendance / Contact list for Fridley CHI workshops
Fridley Corridor Housing Initiative Report 18
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
HRA MEETING OF DECEMBER 612007
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
Date: November 29, 2007
To: William Bums, City Manager
From: Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive HRA Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Subiect: Northstar Rail Update
Since the last HRA meeting, at which time the HRA approved the Memorandum of
Understanding with the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority; the ACRRA Board met
and approved the MOU on November 13tfi. The Anoka County Regional Rail Authority
has now taken on the commitment to fund the installation of the station's tunnel and
informed Burlington Northern of this commitment through the execution of the tunnel
agreement.
Due to the other entities reluctance to have meaningful discussions on the Fridley rail
site until after the Federal Full Funding Grant Agreement ( FFFGA —or- F00000f -Ga as
Dr. Burns likes to say) is in place, there is not much new information to present to the
HRA this month. NCDA staff informed me that they would like to re- examine the Met
Council — lease back idea once the FFFGA is in place.
Staff 'and legal counsel are meeting with the ACCRA, NCDA, and Northstar Project staff
members on December 12t' to further discuss how to best proceed in getting the Fridley
Station constructed. Staff will continue to keep the HRA updated, and anticipate having
a much clearer plan of action by the February 7tt' HRA Meeting.
r
Fridley HRA
Housing Program Summary
Cover Page
December 6, 2007 HRA Meeting
Report Description.
Loan Application Summary Loan application activity (e.g. mailed
out, in process, closed loans) for
November and year -to -date.
Loan Origination Report
Remodeling Advisor &
Operation Insulation
Loan originations for November and
year -to -date.
Shows the number of field appointments
scheduled and completed the Operation
Insulation and Remodeling Advisor
Services administered by Center for
Energy and Environment.
E
O
O
= N
CO M
C LCD-
m
i a)
O
■_ z
MC
L
N Ic
O C
J L
N
G .0
O G
u
v u
_ a
Q. L
an
ra
p o
vz
i - a
:°. a
I-°Qa
log
G '
Jt
H
G �
O I
.2
� � I
� I
.CL 0 `
Q Ir 1
N
L G
O O
V �
'CL
0 CL
Z Z Q I
OOr00'tO - -N1
��OM 0 �-C-4
LO o o, o m 0 0 0�
� 0 0 0 � 0 0 � O
D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
a
s d'0000— OOO
i
c W
� U �
.O LL LL
tm G
O
LL. I Cc G D C OL O 7
rLL K OsJLL
J p J C ,' tm G to
L
>� Co. O
0J 'O LL d J C
C'O ` Q�W
:? Y �W
.> �- E O O G r
j o C LL U O 0 0' 0
al 93LLLLLaLLLLLW CcLLLLU
99X2 =W'E =O
==2220a213
r N
G�
W
W
U
d
s
w
ti O
N
G
as
.Q
CL
ti t
rn
c
V
cc
O
c
O
o
N
M fA
G �
' G
3
o
rn
M O
CL
o
D
C CL
.a
7
O
V
.0 O
3 O
� c
� m
G Y
7 R
O U
A2
O
d G
U) W
N d1
E O
i!! N 7
�+ 0O O
0 (n �+
N d
N 'n
W 0!
C G
O
J IO
Q V
X CL
LL
O
7 d
E .O
OO
U
•
Fridley HRA
Loan Origination Report
November 30, 2007
Loan Originations
3
10%
'Kitchen remodel
3
10%
General plumbing
This
7%
Previous
3
10%
Electrical system
Month
3%
Months
-
YTD
HRA Loans (Incl. CFUF Discount loans)
1
3%
10
2
11
HRA Deferred Loans
-
10%
1
1
Other Loans (non -HRA)
-
7%
5
3
5
Total
1
10%
16
_
17
Fundina Sources
2
7%
Landscaping
1
3%
Misc. exterior projects
This
3%
Previous
Month
Months
YTD
Fridley HRA
$ 7,477.00
$
51,178.74
$
58,655.74
MHFA
$ -
$
127,875.00
$
127,875.00
Met Council
$ -
$
$
_
CDBG/HOME
$ -
$
$
_
CEE
$ -
$
35,000.00
$
35,000.00
Other
$ -
$
$
_
Total
$ 7,477.00
$
214,053.74
$
221,530.74
Types of Units Improved*
'some households receive more than 1 loan, so the # of loans may not equal #
of units Improved
This
Previous
Month
Months
YTD
Single Family
1
10
11
Duplex
_
Tri-Plex
4 to 9 Units
-
2
2
10 to 20 Units
-
1
1
20+ Units
Total
1
13
14
Types of Improvements
Interior # of Projects % of Total
Bathroom remodel
3
10%
'Kitchen remodel
3
10%
General plumbing
2
7%
Heating system
3
10%
Electrical system
1
3%
Basement finish
-
0%
Insulation
1
3%
Room addition
2
7%
Misc. interior projects
3
10%
Exterior
Siding/Fascia/Soffit
2
7%
Roofing
3
10%
Windows/Doors
3
10%
Garage
_
0%
Driveway /sidewalk
2
7%
Landscaping
1
3%
Misc. exterior projects
1
3%
VAI,
,W
L
MO
Q
cm
O
.a
O
E
MO
O
ti
O
O
r N
O
(, r M
.O
L 0
o
LM
Q. Z
LL O
w
m m
Em
C
M Lfl N C4 M O (M O
N
C Q
X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CL 0
CL V
Q
aL
C 'O
m d
'C
M LO r N CO M O M T O
co
d
0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
0.0
•
a� -CD
i EPEE
r
C
cc
Co =3 =
cu � >1 CD CL > �i
: 2
�U�a2��an0Z0
.0
r
;EPEE
L N
w
dm
wo
C Q
X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
CL O
aL
w
d
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0
CL y
Q
.n
�c
.0
r
;EPEE
L N
• O
• 2
(C6 N m Q w 7 7 U O N
-5 LL2Q2 -D 000Zo
0
to N �
to to to
O O O
� v �
C Q O
E
C e
.o
Q
C.
N r o
d'
O O
C9 � C9
•c Q o
E
= e
O
C.
CL
`�
® o
FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
December 6, 2007
slim
3 p
:os :000 1 3r
1. Fund Balances, questions from Last Meeting
Attached to this update are memos from the Finance staff and Attorney Casserly related to fund balance
questions raised at the previous HRA meeting. Rick, Mike, & Jim will be available to answer any further
questions you may have.
2. Salvage Yards
Be on the lookout for an excellent article in the City's upcoming newsletter regarding private
reinvestment and improvements to the salvage yards. There are a number of improvements being made
to these sites and Dr. Burns has put together a most informative article.
3. Gateway West
It is no surprise that with the huge slowdown in the housing market interest in these new lots has also
slowed. Blueprint Homes has been having a tough time getting potential buyers to commit to a contract
for new construction, as many of these buyers have existing homes they are unable to sell. In my most
recent discussion with Jeff Magdic, it sounds like he is very close to having a signed contract for 1 more
home and is currently talking with 4 other potential homebuyers.
If the housing market continues to decline and Blueprint is not able to get potential buyers to commit,
the HRA may need to consider some changes to the development agreement. Attorney Cerney and I
continue to monitor the project and have an ongoing communications with Blueprint to make this a
successful project. Any proposed changes would need to be agreed upon by both the HRA and Blueprint.
Staff is going to remain optimistic that this unique project (quality homes, great location) will continue to
sell despite an overall market slowdown.
If there are any items you would like covered in upcoming issues of the Non - Agenda Update please send
me an e-mail. bolinp @ci.fridley.mn.us
11
To: William W. Burns, HRA Executive Director
Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive Director
From: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Mike Jeziorski, HRA Accountant
Re: Questions from HRA Meeting of November 1, 2007
Date: November 30, 2007
This memo is written in response to the questions raised by Chairperson Commers at the last meeting
regarding some funds held in various area of the HRH's fund structure. The memo is intended to answer
some of those questions that needed further clarification.
Question — Which funds are involved in the Special Legislation -
o Answer — Post 90 Districts
• TIF District #11 University /Osborne — Fund Balance 12/31/2006 = $246,300
• TIF District #12 McGlynn Bakeries —Fund Balance 12/3112006 = $158,165
• TIF District #13 Satellite Lane Apts —Fund Balance 12/31/2006 = $335,092
The special legislation would allow these districts to remain open and use the increment in a
manner consistent with the transit related legislation. He has further projected that the present
value of all future increment in these districts would total $1,662,120.
Question — When would the $1,400,000 balance expire that is related to TIF District #1?
o Answer — This is the Pre -79 District, this district along with #2 and #3 have severe restrictions
on the use of their funds (debt repayment). These districts have their increment pledged for the
repayment of the 2004B and 2005B refunding bonds. The amount of excess TIF related funds
that is projected to exist at the retirement of all bonds has been estimated to be between 1.4 to
1.6 million dollars. These funds are restricted and will need to be returned to the County at that
time to be redistributed to the appropriate government units at that time.
Question — What funds are available?
o Answer — Mr. Casserly's extensive cash flow projection goes into great detail reviewing this
issue but the funds shown below provide a summary of what funds the HRA has as its
discretionary funds.
• HRA General Fund 12/31/2006 Cash Balance = $5,812,379
• TIF District #7 Winfield Cash Balance = $529,721
• TIF District #9 Onan Cash Balance = $1,262,298
The districts shown above are the ones that are considered poolable and could be used in other
parts of the project area.
9
To: William W. Burns, HRA Executive Director
Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive Director
From: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Mike Jeziorski, HRA Accountant
Re: Krass Monroe 2007 HRA Cash Flow Projections
Date: November 30, 2007
Attached you will find the cash flow projections that were recently provided to
us by Jim Casserly. Should you have any questions regarding this information we
would be happy to provide answers.
MMONROE �
James R. Casserly
jcasserly@krassmonroe.com
Direct 952.885.1296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: William Bums, City Manager
-Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Mike Jeziorski, HRA Accountant
From: James R. Casserly, Esq.
Date: November 13, 2007
Re: HRA Current and Projected Revenues Available for Program Activities
Our File No. 9571 -39
At the October 25, 2007 HRA meeting, Chairman Commers asked about the status of
various funds and available monies in the TIF districts. Unfortunately, I was not
prepared to respond to that question since I had not yet completed our annual review
and did not have last year's Cash Flow with me.
Enclosed please find a memo reviewing the entire HRA program.
Over the approximately 28 years of the HRA's existence, it has created 19 tax
increment districts and a housing replacement program which also utilizes tax
increment. Because the Legislature has amended the Tax Increment Act almost every
year since its inception, TIF funds are subject to many different restrictions depending
on the year of adoption and the type of district established. With the enclosed memo
and page one of the TIF Summary, we can easily review the available funds and
relevant restrictions for each TIF district. At the bottom of page one, we provide a
summary and describe the funds that would actually be available.
Please note that TIF Districts 11, 12 and 13 are minimally poolable which is the reason
for our Special Legislation. However, the HRA does have other revenues to assist with
the development of the Fridley Station and surrounding areas. Also, assuming our
8000 Norman Center Drive, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 -1178
TEL 952.885.5999 FAX 952.885.5969
www.krassmonroe.com
Special Legislation is adopted, the HRA has the opportunity to recover its investment in
the Fridley Station by creating a new tax increment district.
We have prepared the memo as a draft since we do want City staff to review our
observations and suggest any changes before this is distributed to the HRA members.
As in the past, this Cash Flow is only designed to assist the HRA in its financial
planning. If appropriate we would like to review the available funds and various TIF
district restrictions at the next HRA meeting.
JRC /al
Enclosures
Cc: Krass Monroe, P.A.
Attn: Greg D. Johnson, CPA, Senior Public Finance Analyst
G : \WPDATA \F\FRIDLEYk39 \COR\BURNS BOLIN HICKOK PRIBYL JEZEORSKI JRC.DOC
Greg D. Johnson
glohnson @krassmonroe.com
Direct 952.885.5994
James R. Casserly
jcasserly@krassmonroe.com
Direct 952.885.1296
ITI1:4& e77_1?I -Bill T1
To: City of Fridley
Attn: William Bums, City Manager
Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Direc
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Mike Jeziorski, HRA Accountant
From: Greg D. Johnson, CPA, Senior Public
James R. Casserly, Esq.
Date: November 8, 2007
Re: 2007 HRA Cash Flow F
Our File No. 9571 -39
Based on the City's 12/31/2006
2007 & 2008 tax increme
development funds ca
significant expenditur- roug
accounts of $17.3 n ($3.8
approximately $22 ti, less.
service. Excluding th m volt''
amounts, #3 (a et
TIF DISt l w� "' nt u
milli
or� =e cash ba r
TIF X edtronic), TI a/1/in
HR)kQQP Fund
Pre '9'ilevelopr
TIF ron�
TIF #7 I ,
TIF #9 (Onan =;
9
FP
ipreh ive An VAIl Ftnanci port (CAFR), and projected
ation �ine �I``0 C � unty, we have updated our
sis for � � idley H We have also included actual
/2007 of 12/31/2006 you had fund balances in all
is In yo evolving Loan Fund). Your cash balance is
amount, 87 million is reserved for next years debt
d� h -ing & economic development TIF district
for . 0 nt) and restricted amounts in your Post '90
available o'^ redevelopment uses at 12/31/2006 was $7.8
1 this amount are currently shown in the HRA General Fund,
,and TIF #9 (Onan).
Post'90 Redevelopment Districts
with Negative Balances
TIF #16 (57th Ave)
TIF #17 (Gateway East)
TIF #18 (Gateway West)
Available Funds for Redevelopment
Fund Balance Cash Balance
9,456,832 5,812,379
(823,053) 256,650 Cash less A/P
529,785 529,721
1,262, 566 1,262,298
(129,349)
(911,120)
(1,557,933)
7,827,728 7,861,048
9000 Norman Cerit�f Drive, 5uft I=
MinneapoUs, Minnesota 55437 -1178
"�„'952�85 5;999 F952i8�55`969
wwiy.krassmonroe.com
Although there are severe restrictions on the use of tax increment in TIF districts 1, 2 & 3, the
increment in these districts is pledged to the repayment of the 2004B & 2005B refunding bonds.
Enough tax increment should be collected for these bonds to be fully paid off from these
districts. No additional amounts should be required from the HRA General Fund as was
estimated in prior years. In fact, we now show that approximately $1.6 million will need to be
returned to the County by 12/31/2013 from TIF District #1.
Medtronic World Headquarters assessed value for taxes payable in the years 2003, 2004 and
2005 was subject to a settlement agreement with Anoka County. Pay 2006 tax was the first year
outside this settlement. Here is a summary of the new values and the results to the City:
Settlement - Pay 2003
Settlement - Pay 2004
Settlement - Pay 2005
Assessment - Pay 2006
Assessment - Pay 2007
Assessment - Pay 2008
Medtronic
Market Percent
Value Change
52,499,800
43,220,800 17
38,300,800
39,238,900 <q
43,613,600
46,598,700 6
This report contains the following s
1 - 4
TIF Fund Summary
5
Cash Balance, W -,"
6
Assumpt1 71 A"
7-8
Revent Ana
9-10
Debt dice
11 - 12
��
Revert `Notes
13 -41
TIF Fun s�1, -1ad
42-4 s29 1'
44 - 4 .�M WN
Revolvi
Some isa. which need
Max Land
Sale
1,921
;,921
b 75,342
64,586
.2
64,
4% 67
63,76
J6-'JR
°o 3
68,013
3,167
73,167
ie o "`ta iowmg pipe
Yea `` d Fun ' maces forU4TIF Districts (2002 -2025)
2002 06
Class , Tex Rate
Develop n, Special Assessments, Other
.O. Deb City Loan to Revolving Loan Fund
ayment D all TIF Funds
to & projected through 2015)
(Inception tdate & projected through 2014)
Revenue & Expenses for all TIF Funds & HRA Gen'I Fund
include the following:
1. T I dtronic j^ > District (#6) shows a negative balance of at the end of 2006.
r;
Becay 90 °/ e: �e tax increment is paid to Medtronic and assuming 10% is use
for H ees, this TIF District balance will never get to zero. This negative
balance reated in 1999 when bond payment amounts were charged to this TIF
District. A simple way to offset this negative balance would be to show fund transfers
from either TIF #7 (Winfield) or TIF #9 (Onan). Both of these districts and pre -1990
districts and all amounts are fully poolable in the project area.
2. Since 12/31/2000, the Revolving Loan Fund has ended the year with a balance of
over $3.0 million. The 12/31/2006 balance was $3.8 million. It appears the Revolving
Loan Fund no longer needs this level of funds to support its program. Some of these
funds could be transferred to the HRA General Fund and be available for other
purposes.
3. The HRA General Fund shows a 12/31/2006 fund balance of 9,456,832, but only a
cash balance of 5,812,379. This is due to an interfund loan recorded to show funds
for the negative fund balances in the following TIF Districts:
TIF #6 (Lake Pointe — Medtronic) 1,080,303
TIF #16 (57th Ave Redevelopment) 124,760
TIF #17 (Gateway East) 972,653
TIF #18 (Gateway West) 1,469,109
As listed in item #1 above, we recommend that the negative fund balance in TIF #6
be eliminated by a transfer from TIF #7 or TIF #9. Since all of the current tax
increment in TIF #16 is being used for payments on a r e�ue note and admin fees
through 2011, this negative fund balance will not go We recommend that a
similar transfer be made from TIF #7 or TIF #9. '3'
With some inflation, both The Gateway East an � ateway West ( #18) TIF
Districts should eventually show positive f balances, , o transfers need be
made at this time.
4. In 2001 $860,455 was transferred a Housm Replacemen ram fund in
order to show this fund as having a hive fun ance. If posse 1`, we should
create a loan. Tax increment generate "; thiram is severely restricted. We
should discuss further to determine th M y ` riate use of the tax increment
generated by this Program,,
Please keep in mind that this Cash Flow lysis� �� sts ti and the Authority with its
long range planning and in ing the snc��s� ;, s We have included no project
expenses for the year : a , reafter Y ve only in, Oded on the expense side, those
obligations which the is cor ed to FS�us some administrative and other expenses.
On the revenue pr ns, we ha een mo conservative by assuming the following:
1. No inflation cre`
2 N",,Mtationa sin
3loir lonst£ n by I
Balances at 2% and only through 2008.
We lob% rward to revie his C41' Flow Analysis with you and its underlying assumptions.
2007A.DOC
CITY OF FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA
Page 1
TIF SUMMARY
_
Actual
Actual
Fund
Actual
Fund
Actual
Fund
Projected
Fund
Projected
Fund
Projected
Fund
Fund
Balances
`Cy
0.061 Intlatlon
Fund
Balance
12/31/03
Balance
12/31/04
Balance
12131105
Balance
12131/06
Balance
12131107
Balance
12/31/08
Balance
12131/09
Fund TIF
Tenn of
#
#
Description I District Type
General Fund non - increment
Re lacement 7/18/1996 - 12!2022
City Pre 79 05/1979 - 12/2009
Moore Lake 07/1981 - 12/2007
i
H
9,185,008
147,095
9,234,053
165,447
9,357,032
187,466
9,456,832
220,312
8,231,042
255,325
8,553,725
289,185
8,631,494
315,386
. 100
HRA
501
Housin
certify-
R1
268,621
521,403
1,110,257 1,693,707
to pay G.O. TI Bonds ,336,140
2,984,082 �Afi
�used
450
1 Center
R1
R1
1,255,452
1,587,656
597,428
2,274,846
995,157
1,659,225
Deceit
119,152 51,537
2,206,180 2
2,325,332 2,320,383
pay G.O. TI Bonds
Decertify
1451
2
0
1,794,573
1,794,573
0
0
0
All TI used t
452
3 North
Area jUnly Ind Park
- Pre '82 Districts
0511982- 12/2006
2,843,108
2,872,274
2,654,382
Ali TI used to
Totals
E
E
R
R
E
R
E
980,416
341,753
0
496,837
0
960,792
393,275
0
677,9810
325,721
454,765
0
836,4470
965,491
823,053
529,785
0
1,262,5660
969,298
789,169
612,707
0
1,651,444
752,716
699,3 0
2,050,8 0
716,264
767,6 0
2,400,6 O
453
4 Johnson/Sk
ood/Frank Shear - Decertified
454
5
Paco/Paschke/E Ranch Estate - Decertified
455
6
Lake Pointe Medtronic 112/1985-1
212025
456
7
Winfield
10!1968- 1212012
457
8
Shorewood Rest - Decertified
458
9
Onan / Murphy Warehouse 09/1969 - 1212015
Phase III - Decertified
459
10
Northco
Totals - Pro '90 Districts
(141,826)
110,464
1,474,962
1,997,505
2,452,104
z
University/ Osborne 01/1992 -imole
Lane A is 06/1995 - 12/2023
al E uities Bus. Ctr 05/1996- 12/2008
lGateway n Bakeries 0311992 - 1212019
mmercial Railwa Decertified
e Unn 09/1997 - 1212024
East 2001- 1212026
Gateway West 2005 - 1212032
5110 Main St NE Ind E 0
Totals - Post 190 Districts
Decertify #14
in 2006
R
R
R
E
E
R
R
R
R
132,712
63,216
185,645
464,490
0
124.914
1,024,353
428,417
0
166,374
82,430
226,208
519,396
0
123,887
986,329
797,946
0
202,439
122,998
276,033
582,938
0
122,461
943,733
(1,421,922
0
(1,303,710)
246,300
158,165
2
662,6590
129,349
911,120
1,557,933
0
297,919
198,839
397,269
0
128,187
868,006
(1,197,330)
29,901
355,316
242,646
457,960
126,870
(824,893
(29,901.1
403,776
280,488
506,730
125,552
781,779
1,021,957
18,702
?462
11
463
12
464
13
465
14
466
15
:467
16
1468
17
'469
18
470
19
(731,621)
(913,754)
(1,196,186)
(1,329,397)
(970,884)
(756,993)
1
2,238,282
2,590,387
3,426,419
3,792,152
4,802,108
5,805,277
5,275,129
Totals -TIF Districts 1 -19
' Total FUND
Balance - All TIF Districts & HRA Genl Fund
11,570,386
11,989,867
12,970,917
13469,295
13,288,476
14,648,187
14 ,222,009
Revolving Loan Fund
Special Revenue/Housing Programs
I
3,541,492
16,141
3,643,374
18,943
3,695,905
32,530
3,826,384
36,728
4,046,906
36,728
4,239,195
36,728
4,313,665
36,728
267
F 265
Total
i
15,128,019
(1,673,973)
15,652,204
(1,698,857)
16,699,352
(1,818,415)
17,332,407
(1,869,938}
17,372,109
(1,859,015]
18,924,109
(1,776,495)
18,572 402
(604,906)
FUND Balance TIF, Gen'I Fund, Revolving Loans
Less Debt Serv(ee Reserve (next yrs Bonds)
TOTAL BALANCES AVAILABLE
13,454,046
13,953,346
14,880,938
15,462,470
15,513,094
17,147,614
17,967,495
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
Redevelopment
HRA General Fund non- increment
Redev. Dist- P•re'90 6,7,9 100% !able R
Redev. Districts- Post'90 - Negative balance R
Redev. Districts- Post'90- Positive balances R
Less Debt Service Reserve next Bonds
Economic Dev District Restricted Use E
Pre'79 &Pre 82 Districts Restricted Use R1
Housin District 1998 -2022) Restricted Use H
Revolving Loan Fund Reserved
Special Revenue/Housing P Reserved
Total Fund Balances
Funds Available Non TI & 100% Poolable
Increment from TIF #1, #2 and #3 is severe! restricted.
Available
9,185,008
141,826
(1,577,684
381,573
1.673,973
464,490
3,111,729
147,095
3,541,492
16,141
Available
9,234,053
110,464
(1,908,162)
475,012
1,698,857
519,396
3,393,677
165,447
3,643,374
18,943
Available
9,357,032
965,491
2,488,116
601,470
1,818,415
582,936
3,764,638
187,466
3,695,905
32,530
14,880,938
Available
9,456,832
969,298
(2,598,402)
739,557
1,869,938
662,659
4,019,039
220,312
3,826;384
36,728
Available
8,231,042
1,474,982
(2,223,424}
894,027
1,859,015
0
4,656,523
255,325
4,046,906
36,728
Available
8,553,725
1,997,505
2,026,807)
1,055,923
1,776,490
4,778,655
289,185
4,239,195
36,728
Available
8,631,494
2,452,104
(1,947,998
1,190,998
604,906
3,580,018
315,386
4,313,665
36,728
SUMMARY
13,454,046
13,953,346
15,462,470
15,513,094
17,147,614
17,967,495
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
7,465,498
7,436,355
7,834,406
1 7,827,7281
7,482,601
8,524,424
9,135,607 j
Current)
all amounts
.-a ♦l..,
enerated from
uo A ...ill
these three
-h.h1v nr wd
districts are
to deCBrtlty these
paying debt service
three districts.
_j
Tax
Ion the 1997A, 19956 ZUU4ts ano zwaes oonas vnw u�oao .._,�,•� a,� �•� �••. �•- • •• - • -•••• - -
11/8/2007
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A.
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 2
JIF SUMMARY
;Fund Balances
's
0.0'1
,Inflation
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
;City
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
Fund
,Fund
TIF
Tenn of
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
#
#
Description
District
Type
12131110
12131MI
12/31/12
12131113
12131114
12/31115
1 12131116
100
HRA General Fund non - increment
8,709,265
8,787,036
8,912,605
9,078,294
9,243,984
9,408,262
9,547,069
.501
Housing Re
ent 7/18119- 12/2022
lacem 96
H
341,586
367,787
393,987
420,188
446,389
472,589
498,790
Return to County
450
1
Center City
Pre79
05/1979 - 129
/200
R1
2,975,112
1 2,367,109
1,748,950
0
0
0
0
pay G. 0. TI Bonds
i451
2
Moore Lake
07/1981 - 12/2007
R1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
452
3
North Area Unlv Ind Park
0511982 - 12/2008
R1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
Totals - Pro '82 Districts
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
pay G.O. 77 Bonds
Deceit #12
?453
4
Johnson/S od/Frank Shear - Decertified
E
454
5
Paco/Paschke/E Ranch Estate - Decertified
E
455
6
Lake Pointe Medtronic
12N 985 - 1 212025
R
679,812
643,360
3
597,985
575,298
552,610
529,923
'456
7
Winfield I
110/1986-1=012
R
835,983
904,281 1,
972,579
972,579
972,579
972,579
972,579
457
8
Shorewood Rest - Decertified
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
458
9
Onan I Murphy Warehouse
10911989 - 1212015
R
2,750,532
3,100,380
3,450,228
3,800,076
4,149,924
4,499,772
4,499,772
459
10
Northoo Phase III - Decertified
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals - Pro '90 Districts
2,906,702
3,361,300
3,802,134
4,174,670
4,547,205
4,919,741
4,942,429
462
11
University I Osborne
01/1992-12/2018
R
1 452,236
500,695
549,155
597,615
646,075
694,535
742,995
463
12
1 McGlynn Bakeries
03/1992 - 12/2019
R
318,329
356,171
394,012
431,854
469,695
507,537
545,378
464
13
Satellite Lane A is
06/1995 - 12/2023
R
555,508
604,282
653,055
701,829
750,603
799,376
848,150
465
14
Industrial Equities Bus. Ctr
05/1996 - 12/2006
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 466
15
MN Commercial Raliwa - Decertified
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
467
16
57th Ave Linn
09/1997 - 1212024
R
124,234
122,917
97,883
72,850
47,816
2,251
i468
17
Gateway East
2001 - 12/2028
R
738,666
695,553
652,439
609,326
566,213
a(523,099)
479,986
469
18
Gatewa West
2005 - 1712032
R
998,771
975,585
952,399
929,212
906,026
859,654
L 470
19
5110 Main St NE Ind E
0
R
7,503
3,696
14,894
26,093
37,292
59,690
Totals - Post '90Districts
(543,102)
(329,211)
(91,604)
146,003
383,610,
621,217
858,824
Totals - TIF Districts 1 -19
5,338,712
5,399,199
5,459,481
4,320,673
4,930,815
5,540,958
5,801,252
!Total
FUND
Balance - All TIF Districts
& HRA Genl Fund
14,389,563
14,554 022
14,766,073
13,819,154
14,621,188
15,421 810
15,847,111
267
Revolving Loan Fund 1
4,391,905
4,474,106
4,516,755
4,516,755
4,516,755
4,516,755
4,516,755
265
Special Revenue/Housing P rams
36,728
36,728
36,728
36,728
36,728
36,728
36,728
Total FUND
Balance TIF, Gen9 Fund, Revolving Loans
18,818196
19,064 856
19,319,555 1
18 372,636
19,174,670
19,975,292
20,400,593
Less Debt Service Reserve next yrs Bonds)
(608,003)
(618,159)
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL BALANCES AVAILABLE
18,210,193
18,446,697
19,319,555
18,372,636
19,174,670
19,975,292
20,400,593
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SUMMARY
Available
Available
Available
Available
Available
Available
Available
HRA General Fund non - increment
8,709,265
8,787,036
8,912,605
9,078,294
9,243,984
9,408,262
9,547,069
Redev. Dist- Pre'90 6,7,9 100% lable)
2,906,702
3,361,300
3,802,134
4,174,670
4,547,205
4,919,741
4,942,429
Redev. Districts- Post'90 - Negative balance
R
(1,869,175 )
(1,794,055)
(1,702,721 )
(1,611,388 )
(1,520,055
1,428,722)
(1,339,640)
Redev. Districts-Post 'go - Positive balances
R
1,326,073
1,464,844
1,611,117
1,757,391
1,903,665
2,049,939
2,198,463
Less Debt Service Reserve
next yrs Bonds
608,003
618,159
0
0
0
Economic Dev District
Restricted Use
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pre 79 & Pre 82 Districts
Restricted Use
R1
2,975,112
2,367,109
1,748,950
0
0
0
0
Housing District 1996-2022)
Restricted Use
H
341,586
367,787
393,987
420,188
446,389
472,589
498,790
Revolving Loan Fund
(Reserveco
4,391,905
4,474,106
4,516,755
4,516,755
4,516,755
4,516,755
4,516,755
Special Revenue/Housing
Reserve
36,728
36,728
36,728
36,728
36,728
36,728 1
36,728
Total Fund Balances 1
18,210,193
18 446,697
19,319,555
18,372 636
19,174,670
19,97592
20,400,593
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Red evelo ment Funds Available Non TI & 100% PoolableL
9,746,792
10,354,282
11,012,017
11,641,575
12,271,134
12,899,281
13,149,858
Tax Increment from TIF #1, #2 and #3 is severely restr
E T
on the 1997A, 1998B, 200413 and 2005B bonds. Once
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/812007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 3
ARY
t
ces
0.0% Inflation
Projected
Fund
Projected
Fund
Projected
Fund
Projected
Fund
Projected
Fund
Projected
Fund
Projected
Fund
ITund-TIF
Description
Term of
District Type
Balance
12!31117
Balance
12131 /18
Balance
12/31/19
Balance
12131/20
Balance
12131121
Balance
12/31/22
Balance
12/31123
A General Fund non - increment
Re lac�ment 7/18/1998 - 1212022
H
9,685,876
524,990
9,824,684
551,191
9,960,943
577,391
10,095,211
603,592
10,218,281
629,792
10,341,352
655,993
10,463,046
655,993
501
Housin
Pre 79
0511979 - 12(2009
R1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
450
1
Center City
Moore Lake
North Area UnIv Ind Park
07/1981 - 1212007
0511982 - 1212008
R1
R1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
451
2
452
3
0
0
0
i
Totals - Pre '82 Districts
0
0
0
0
Johnson/Sk ood/Frank Shear - Decertified
Paco/Paschke/E Ranch Estate - Decertified
Lake Pointe Medtronic 12/1985 - 12/2025
Winfield 10/1986 - 12/2012
Shorewood Rest - Decertified
Onan / Mu h Warehouse o9/1w9-12/2o15
Northco Phase III - Decertified
Totals - Pre '90 Districts
E
E
R
R
E
R
E
507,235
972,579
0
4,499,772
0
4,965,116
484,548
972,579
0
4,499,772
0
461,860
972,579
0
4,499,7720
439,173
972,579
0
4,499,7720
416,485
972,5790
4,499,7720
393,798
972,5790
4,499,7720
371,110
972,5790
4,499,7720
453
4
454
5
"455
6
456
7
45 7
8
! 458
9
459
10
4,987,804
5,010,491
5,033,179
5,055,866
5,078,554
5,101,241
UnNers / Osborne 01!1992 - 1212018
McGlynn Bakeries 03/1992 - 19/2019
Satellite Lane A is 0611995 - 1212023
Industrial E uities Bus. Ctr o5/1998 - 12120o6
MN Commercial Raitwa - Decertified
57th Ave Linn 09/1997 - 1212024
Gateway East 2001 - 1212028
Gateway West 2005 - 1 212032
5110 Main St NE Ind E 0
R
R
R
E
E
R
R
R
R
791, 454
583,220
896,924
0
0
27,284
436,873
836,468
70,888
839,914
621,062
945,697
0
0
52,318
393,759
813,281
82,087
839,914
658,903
994,471
0
0
77,351
350,646
790,095
93,286
839,914
658,903
1,043,245
0
0
102,385
307,532
766,909
104,485
1
839,914
658,903
1,092,0180
0
127,418
264,419
743,723
104,485
839,914
658,903
1,140,7920
0
152,452
221,306
720,537
104,485
839,914
658,903
1,189,566
0
177,485
178,192)
697,350)
104,485
' 462
11
463
/2
464
'465
13
14
466
15
1467
16
L 468
17
E 469
18
19
1,096,431
1,334,038
1,523,185
1,674,490
1,814,597
1,954,704
2,094,811
Totals - Post '90 Districts
Totals - TIF Districts 1 -19
6,061,547
6,321,841
6,533,676
6,707,669
6,870,463
7,033,258
7,196,052
?
;Total FUND
Balance -All TIF Districts & HRA Gen? Fund
16,272,413
16,697,716
17,072,010
17,406,472
17,718,537
18 030,603
16,315,091
Revolvin Loan Fund
Special Revenue/Housing Programs
4,516,755
36,728
4,516,755
36,728
4,516,755
36,728
4,516,755
36,728
4,516,755
.36,728
4,516,755
36,728
22,584,085
4,516,755
36,728
j 267
265
20,825,895
21,251,198
22,272,019
22,868,573
Total
FUND Balance TIF, Gen9 Fund, Revolving Loans)_
21,625,492
21,959,954
1
Less Debt Service Reserve (next yrs Bonds)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
!
TOTAL BALANCES AVAILABLE
20,825,895
21,251,198
21,625,492
21,959,954
22,272,0190
22,584,0 0
22,868,5730
0
p
0
0
Available
Available
Available
Available
Available
Available
Available
j
j
SUMMARY
HRA General Fund non - Increment
Redev. Dist- Pre'90 6,7,9 100% fable R
Redev. Districts- Post'90- N egavbalancR
Redev. Districts- Post'90 - Positive balances R
Less Debt Service Reserve next yrs Bonds
Economic Dev District Restricted Use E
Pre'M&Prf 82 Districts Restricted Use R1
Hourict (1996 -2022 Restricted Use H
Revan Fund Reserved
S enue/Housin P Reserved
9,685,876
4,965,116
(1,273,340
2,369,771
0
0
524,990
4,516,755
36,728
9,824,684
4,987,804
2,541,078
0
0
551,191
4,516,755
36,728
9,960,943
5,010,491
1140741)
, ,
2,663,926
0
0
577,391
4,516,755
36,728
10,095,211
5,033,179
(1,074,441)
2,748,932
0
0
603,592
4,516,755
36,728
10,218,281
5,055,866
1,008,142)
2,822,739
0
0
629,792
4,516,755
36,728
10,341,352
5,078,554
941,82)
2,896,546
0
0
655,993
4,516,755
36,728
10,463,046
5,101,241
(875,543)
2,970,353
0
0
655,993
4,516,755
36,728
Totaalances
20,825,895
21,251,198
�21E,6625,492
21,959,954
22,272 019
22,584,085
22,868,573
0
0
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
0
t Redevelo
meet Funds Available Non TI & 100% Poolable
13,377,652
13,605,447
13,830,693
14,053,948
14,266,006
14,478,064
14,668,744
Tax Increment from TIF #1, #2 and #3 is severe! y restr
Inn fhw 1997A. 1998B. 2004B and 2005B bonds. Once _
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8!2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
/TIF SUMMARY
s Fund Balances
0.0%
Inflation
Projected
Projected
llCity
Fund
Fund
iFund,
TIF
Tenn of
Balance
Balance
#
#
Description
District
Type
12131/24
12131125
100
HRA General Fund non- Increment
10,582,173
10,699,984
501
Housing Replacement
711811996-1212022
H
655,993
655,993
i
450
1
Center City
Pre 79
05/1979 - 12/2009
R1
0
0
1
i
451
2
Moore Lake
0711981 - 12/2007
R1
0
0
452
3
North Area Univ Ind Park
05/1982 - 122008
R1
0
0
Totals - Pre'82 Districts
0
0
i
453
4
Johnson/Sk ood/Frbnk Shear - Decertified
E
i 454
5
1 Paoo /Paschke/E Ranch Estate - Decertified
E
455
6
Lake Pointe Medtronic
12/1985 - 12/2025
R
348,423
325,735
1 456
T
Winfield 1
110/1986-12/2012
R
972,579
972,579
457
8
Shorewood Rest - Decertified
E
0
0
458
9
Onan /Murphy Warehouse
09 /1989 - 12/2015
R
4,499,772
4,499,772
459
10
Northco Phase III - Decertified
E
0
0
Totals - Pre '90 Districts
5,123,929
5,146,616
462
11
University / Osborne
01/1992 -12t2018
R
839,914
839,914
463
12
McGlynn Bakeries
03/1992 - 122019
R
658,903
658,903
464
13
Satellite Lane A is
o6/1995- 122023
R
1,189,566
1,189,566
465
114
Industrial Equities Bus. Ctry
o5n996- 122008
E
0
0
: 466
15
MN Commercial Raiiwa - Decertified
E
0
0
467
16
57th Ave Linn
09 /1997 - 122024
R
202,519
202,519
1468
17
Gateway East
2001 - 122028
R
135,079
91,966
469
18
Gateway West
2005- 122032
R
674,164
650,976
470
19
5110 Main St NE Ind E
0
R
104,485
104,485
Totals - Post'90 Districts
2,186,144
2,252,443
Totals - TIF Districts 1 -19
7,310,072 1
7,399,060
:Total FUND Balance - All TIF Districts & HRA Gen9 Fund
1 18,548 238
18,755,036
267
Revolving Loan Fund
4,516,755
4,516,755
265
Special R 27 nuall-fousing Pro rams
36,728
36,728
Total
FUND Balance IF, Gen9 Fund, Revolving Loans
23,101,720
23,308,518
Less Debt Service Reserve (next yrs Bonds)
0
0
{
TOTAL BALANCES AVAILABLE
23,101,720
23,308,518
0
0
I
SUMMARY
Available
Available
HRA General Fund non -increment
10,582,173
10,699,984
Redev. Dist- Pre'90 6,7,9 100% lable)
R
5,123,929
5,146,616
I
Redev. Districts- Post'90 - Negative balance.
R
809,243
(742,943)
I
Redev. Districts- Post'90 - Positive balances
R
2,995,387
2,995,387
i
Less Debt Service Reserve
next yrs Bonds
t
Economic Dev District
Restricted Use
E
0
0
Pre'79 & Pre 82 Districts
Restricted Use
R1
0
0
Housing District 1996-2022
Restricted Use
H
655,993
655,993
Revolving Loan Fund
Reserve
4,516,755
4,516,755
Special Revenue/Housin P
Reserved
36,728
36,728
Total Fund Balances
23,101,720
23 308,518
0
0
i
Redevelopment Funds Available (Non TI & 100% Poolable ),
14,896,859
15,103,656
i
Tax Increment from TIF #1, #2 and #3 is severely restr
on the 1997A, 1998B. and 2005B bonds. Once
Page 4
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 5
SUMMARY OF CASH AND FUND BALANCES FOR HRA ACCOUNTS
{
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Projected
Projected'
12/31/02
12/31 /03
12131 /04
12131/05
12131 /06
12/31/07
12131/08
CASH BALANCES
,HRA General Fund
6,526,584
6,267,441
6,197,013
5,809,538
5,812,379
4,586,590
4,909,272 `
_Housing Funds (Rev. Loan/Sp.Rev Funds)
2,650,094
3,422,610
3,332,046
3,163,376
3,189,730
3,410,252
3,602,541 '
i Debt Service
0
0
0
0
0
jTiF
Districts (Capital Projects Funds)
1 1 Center City
402,748
265,243
519,484
1,108,462
1,690,974
2,333,407
2,981,349 1,
2 Moore Lake
834,822
1,242,187
589,172
987,415
117,168
49,553
(1,984)
3 North Area (Univ Ind Park) 1
1,837,854
1,423,905
2,137,070
1,601,973
2,198,077
2,260,743
1,786,470
!
1 4
Johnson/Skywood /Frank Shear -Decertified
'
_
5
Paco /Paschke /E Ranch Estate - Decertified
6
Lake Pointe (Medtronic)
235,817
703,358
0
543,472
585,139
619,023
655,475
7
Winfield
305,996
342,970
393,974
454,601
529,721
612,643
6991322
8
Shorewood Rest - Decertified
0
0 t
9
Onan / Murphy Warehouse
233,505
498,000
678,291
835,282
1,262,298
1,651,176
2,050,568
10
11
Northco Phase III - Decertified
University / Osborne
112,884
134,359
167,102
202,436
246,299
297,918 355,315
`
12
McGlynn Bakeries
64,436
65,078
83,158
122,998
158,166
198,840 242,647
13
Satellite Lane Apts
146,949
185,944
225,730
276,033
335,091
397,268 457,960
14
' Industrial Equities (Bus. Ctr)
339,766
405,238
478,916
561,683
662,635
returned to County - 2007
15
MN Commercial Railway- Decertified
51,071
0
16
57th Ave (Linn)
4,917
6,289
1,599
2,286
4,430
5,592 6,909
117
Gateway East
46,652
39,883
5,737
28,920
61,533
104,646 -- 147,7601
18
Gateway West
0
360,604 512,790
19
15110 Main St NE (Ind Eq)
(29,901) (29,901)
Housing Replacement Program
131,081
147,321
166,080
187,466
220,287
255,300 289,160
TOTAL CASH BALANCES
13,925,176
115,149,826
114,975,372
15,885,941
17,073,927
17,113,653
18,665,653
i
Annual Change
1,543,022
1,224,650
(174,454)
910,569
1,187,986
39,726
1,552,000
t
FUND
BALANCES
General Fund
8,919,070
9,185,008
9,234,053
9,357,032
9,456,832
8,231,042
t
8,553,725 J
,HRA
Housing Funds (Rev. Loan/Sp.Rev Funds)
3,427,480
3,557,633
3,662,317
3,728,435
3,863,112
4,083,634
4,275,922 ;
Debt Service
TIF Districts (Capital Projects Funds)
0
2,384,999
0
2,385,377
0
2,755,834
0
3,613,885
0
4,012,464
0
5,057,433
0
6,094,462
TOTAL FUND BALANCES
14,731,550
115,128,019
15,652,204
16,699,352
17,332,40
17,372,109
18,924,109
- -jT-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Redevelopment Cash Funds Available
7,301,902
7,811,769
7,269,278
7,6421893
8,189,537
7,844,410
8,886,233 t
+i Lake Point Accounts receivable (TIF #6)
TIF 18 AIR
191,559
442,440
442,440
0
-!Lake Point Accounts payable TIF #6
248,977
608,298
231,388
233,030
328,489
328,489
(328,489)1
Adjusted Cash Available
7,052,925
7,395,030
7,480,330
7,852,303
7,861,048
7,515,921
8,557,744
_f
Redevelopment Fund Balances Available
7,217,308
7,465,498
7,436,355
7,834,406
7,827,7281
7,482,601
1 8,524,424 i
I variance
(164,383)
(70,468)
43,975
17,897
33,320
33,320
33,320
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
OF FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA
Page 6
ALL TIF DISTRICTS
ASSUMPTIONS
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
Projected
-Projectedi
2009'
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
& beyond
Interest Earnings (on positive fund balance) - TIF #1 - #3
1
2.00%
4.00%
3.00%
0.00%
Interest Earnings (on positive fund balance) - All Other TIF Districts
1 2.00%
4.00%
3.00%
0.00%
Interest Expense on negative fund balance)
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Administrative Fees - TIF #1- #3
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Administrative Fees
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
Commercial / Industrial
Market Value Base
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
Base Rate 1 1
2.40%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%.
1.50%1
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.500/0
Rate for value above base
3.40%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%1
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
f
Rental - Market Rate
Market Value Base
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
_
Base Rate 1 1
2.40%
1.80%
1.50%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1'.25%
1.25%
1.25%
Rate for value above base
.2.40%
1.80%
1.50%
1.25%
1.25%
1.250/6
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
Rental - Low Income I Class 4d
(TIF #1)
Changed to .75% for 2006 with stricter rules
Market Value Base
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Base Rate
1.00%
0.90%
1.00%
1.25%
1.25%
0.75%
0.75%
0.75%
0.75%
Rate for value above base
1.00%
0,90%
1.00%
1.25%
1.25%
0.75%
0.75%
0.75%
0.75%
Residential Homestead
Market Value Base
i Base Rate 1
76,000
1.00%
500,000
1.00%
500,000
1.00%1
500,000
1.00%
500,000
1.00%
500,000
1.00%
500,000
1.00%
500,000
1.00%
500,000 ;
1.00 %i
_-_
Rate for value over base
1.65%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%
1.25%;
i
Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.640/6
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Fiscal Disparities Reduction - TIF
#3
- 19.7%
-18.7%
- 18.4%
-21.1%
-23.1%
- 20.0%
-21.1%
-21.1%
-21.1%
(percent of captured tax capacity)
Local Tax Rates *
1
City of Fridley
0.16350
0.29966
0.28616
0.30248
0.33565
0.31941
0.31349
0.31349
0.31349
!Anoka County
0.28859
0.37976
0.37714
0.35221
0.33080
0.32096
0.30696
0.30696
0.30696
,ISD #
Misc
i
Watershed
TI Districts
ISD
District
1 '13 116
17
14
6 Cities
0.98937
0.93324
1.04774
0.96373
0.96386
0.92322
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
2 1
81
14
Rice Creek
"Moore Lk"
0,99833
0.94439
1.05925
0.97525
0.97942
0.94072
0,94602
0.94602
0.94602
3 ill
112
16
6 Cities
-TIF #3"
0.93243
1.01524
0.97694
0.95194
0.90898
0.88929
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935 #
13 16
Cities
"Medtronic"
1.00923
1.14083
0.95209
0.96606
0.94773
0.91063
0.86339
0.86339
0.86339
_6
7
9
14
15 116
1
Rice Creek
"Onan" *
0.94139
1.02639
0,98111
0.96346
0.92454
0.90679
0.96206
0.96206
0.96206
°Onan" Frozen Tax Rate (TIF #9) is:
0.97756
Local Tax Rate does not include any rate charged for
the State
Property Tax.
i
it also excludes any effective rate adjustment due to fiscal disparities (In previous years this equated
to an effective 10% higher rate).
i
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 7
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 1118/2007
OTHER REVENUES
Principal I
Int. Rt. Term
Inc.) Loan
5.00% (211995 - ?02003)
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 }
HRA General Fund
30,640
30,640
30,640
30,640
15,320
DONE
Sheet Metal Connectors (MSCJ,
$200,000
Victor Rosenblum Loan
(211997- 8/1002)
26,808
26,808
26,808
26,808
DONE
$125,000
5.00%
TIF #15
Minnesota Commercial Rail Pro perty
Loan
(8!2000 - 2/2008)
(1991- 2003)
1991- 2003)
(1991- 2003)
PAID OFF
8,682
53,293
26,647
8,882
53,293
26,647
8,882
53,293
26,647
8,882
53,293
26,647
8,882
53,293
26,647
DONE
DONE
DONE
$125,000
5.00%
Special Assessments
Shorewood
Moore Lake Shopping Center
Northwest Racquet
Levy
(Total levy, curcenUy 80%
45,961 38,921
transferred
216,253
to Revolving
219,893
Loan Fund)
239,382
239,382
tax levy approved
321,192 343,135
ITax
Agro -K Loan
$75,000
5.00%
Payments readjusted at 10!2005
(1111997 - 1012015) 1 6,9751
6,975
6,975
6,975
6,975
new payment
6,975
stard 1111!2005
7,225 8,473
refinanced Nov, 2005
11.75%
(11/2005 - 1012015)
TIF #12
McGlynn Development Pa ent
(211994 - 812008)
9,182
9,182
9,182
9,182
9,182
9,182
9,182
9,182
TIF #14
Industrial Equities Loan
$140,000
5.00%
(8!1998 - 8!2008)
21,956
21,956
21,956
21,956
21,956
21,956
21,956
21,956
Payments
ACCAP Loan -
IAn aun aun
$57,500
7.25%
(811996
3,798
3,799
3,800
3,801
3,802
3,803
3,804
3,805
_-&2025)
Rental
(2001- Frauenshuh Pkg Lot)
9,600
9,600
9,650
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
SUBTOTAL - HRA General Fund Revenues
243,741
236,702
414,085
417,676
395,038
290,898
372,958
396,150
TIF Fund Admin Expense Receipts
437,437
201,445
185,518
78,201
60,641
81,394
177,926
91,373
495,877
455,679
372,292
550,885
487,523 {
TOTALS
$ 722,500
681,178
438,147
599,603
HRA General Fund
iMedtronic Land Sale Receipts
0
0
D
61,268
135,837
46,627
MISSING
110,D44
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 1118/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 8
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
OTHER REVENUES
Principal
Int.Rt.
Term
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
HRA General Fund
Sheet Metal Connectors
(MSCJ, Inc. ) Loan
$200,000
5.00%
211995 - 212003)
Victor Rosenblum Loan
$125,000
5.00%
(211997 - 812002)
TIF #15
Minnesota Commercial Rail Property
Loan
$125,000
5.00%
(812000 - 212008)
Special Assessments
Shorewood
(1991- 2003)
Moore Lake Shopping Center
1991- 2003)
Northwest Racquet
(1991- 2003)
Budget2007
Tax Levy
373,151
1 373,151
373,151
373,151
373,151
373,151
373,151
373,151
Agro -K Loan
Payments readjustec
$75,000
5.00%
(11/1997 - 10/2015)
8,473
8,473
8,473
8,473
8,473
8,473
8,473
8,473
refinanced Nov, 2005
11.75%
(1112005 - 1012015)
�TIF #12
McGlynn Development Payment
(211994 - 82006)
9,182
9,182
TIF #14
Industrial Equities Loan
$140,000
5.00%
(811998 - 82006)
ACCAP Loan
Annual Payments
$57,500
7.25%
(811996 - 8/2025)
3,806
3,807
3,808
3,809
3,810
3,811
3,812
Rental
(2001- Frauenshuh Pkg tot)
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
SUBTOTAL - HRA General Fund Revenues
404,211
404,212
395,031
395,032
395,033
395,034
395,035
395,036
�TIF
Fund Admin Expense Receipts
115,077
71,755
82,954
82,954
82,954
69,189
65,595
65,595
-
- I
TOTALS
$ 722,500
519,289
475,967
477,985
477,986
477,987
464,224
460,630
460,631
HRA General Fund
Medtronic Land Sale Receipts
671*768
72,904
72,904
72,904
72,904
90,750
90,750
90,750
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 9
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
f
DEBT SERVICE
Int.Rt.
Term
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Principal
TIF
#2 (Moore Lake)
Bonds 1998B (Taxable)
4,185,000 5.50% (8/1999 - 712012)
264,549
229,529
229,355
paid
302,144
by TIF #1
303,173
Refunded 3123 12004
396,433
jG!.ff0.TIefunding
G.O. TI Refunding Bonds 20048
3,920,000 3.76%
Paid by TIF #3
(2005 - 2/2012)
359,458
587,159
TIF
#3 & TIF #1
G.O. TI Refunding Bonds 1997A
9,575,000 5.00%
(2/1998 - 8/2009)
476,914
546,660
1,343,941
1,352,719
1,333,119
1,336,569
Refunded in 2005
1,337,569
G.O. TI Refunding Bonds 20058
4,645,000 3.40%
Paid by TIF #3
(2005 - 212012)
1,230,806
HRA
General
Fund
Ipmts after TIF #3 ends
1997A bonds
19988 bonds
1prnts after TIF #2 ends
City Loan - Pd for by Revolving
1,500,000
Loan Fund
5.00% (8/1997 - 712012)
658,333
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
Total Debt Service
1,399,796
863,618
1,660,725
1,742,291
1,723,720
1,820,430
1,784,455
1,905,393
i
11,080,802
4,643
0
0
389
59,028
1,831
450
`
debt refinanced
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 10
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
DEBT SERVICE
Principal
Int.Rt
Tenn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
:TIF #2 (Moore Lake
G.O. TI Refunding Bonds 1998B (Taxable)
TIF #3 pays after all funds
in TIF #2 are spent
4,185,000
1 5.50%
(8/1999 - 2/2012)
G.O. TI Refunding Bonds 20048
3,920,000
3.76%
(2005 - ?-2012)
595,613
53,083
Paid by TIF #3
542,982
599,095
604,906
608,003
618,159
TIF #3 & TIF #1
G.O. TI Refunding Bonds 1997A
9,575,000
5.00%
(219 998 - 8/2009)
G.O. TI Refunding Bonds 2005B
4,645,000
3.00%
(2005 - 2/2092)
1,273,875
1,262,950
1,177,400
Paid by TIF #3
HRA General Fund
11 1997A bonds
pmts after TIF #3 enc
1998B bonds
pmts after TIF #2 enc
City Loan - Pd for by Revolving Loan Fund
1,500,000
5.00%
(8/1997 - 2/2012)
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
43,714
Total
Debt Service
1,956,916
1,946,444
1,863,924
692,335
695,431
661,873
0
0
0
_
450
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 11
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
REVENUE NOTES
% of TI
Tenn
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Principal
Int. Rt.
Area)
TIF #3 (North
4rates
q12,484
WPAIDOFF
Banfill Sr. Crossing
of TI
12,484
of TI
812000 - 812007
8%1999 - 8/2005
0
6,242
0
12,484
0
12,484
89,514 81,345
adjusted for lower class
12,484 12,484
Max Sch Pmt always less than available TI
683,156
Paschke
60,000
8.00% 90%
Max payment
7.00% 90%
TIF
#6 (Lake Pointe)
of TI
of TI
812001- 212012
8/2012 - 212026
0
274,769 1,222,653 410,2741 0
adjusted for lower class rates & final Phase I MV
557,466 i
1
Medtronic
90%
80%
_
All Eli Ible Ex
6.75%
TIF #9 (Onan)
6,178
of TI
of TI
811996 - 212004
82001 -22016
6,176
0
6,178
0
6,178
92,821
6,178
HRA authorized
adjusted for
{
6,178 3,089 PAID OFF
pmt of Max Sch Pmt for all years
lows Sclass rates 5 079 includes refund PAID OFF
Rylund
Max payment
32,000 1.
8.00% 90%
Onan I Murphy Warehouse
496,303
8.00%
48%
i
TIF #11
16,740
of TI
811994 - 22003
16,449
16,740
14,153 5,783 PAID OFF
Max Sch Pmt always less than available
TI
Bob's Produce
Max payment 1
90,936
9.50%
90%
A64,602
E64,028
only 1 pmt
no pmts
TIF
#12 (McGlynn)
is more than available TI
of TI 811994 - 22009
66,753
49,489 37,953 18,967
adjusted for lower class rates
0
DONE l
McGlynn's
Max payment
701,172
9.50%
95%
TIF #16 (57th Ave)
Linn Project Max payment 23,000
175,000 8.50% 90% of TI 8/1999 - 212012 0
TIF #19
Industrial Equities - 5110 Main St. NE
1,500,000 7.00% 90% of TI 812009 - ?12021
REVIEW BENEFIT TO HRA OF PREPAYING ANY REV. NOTE
I $ 3,738,567 Total Revenue Notes 95,622
3,961
10,563
13,847
11,830
14,150
15,565
`
26,063
adjusted for
lower class rates
0
0
104,256
202,814
613,075
1,546,265
729,825
142,701
699,053
0
0
0
83,205
83,204
-
v
18,265 0 ##3
Banfill - T
refund for TIF #9
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 12
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
REVENUE NOTES
Principal
Int.Rt.
% of T1
Term
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
:TIF #3 (North Area)
Banfill Sr. Crossing
683,156
8.00%
90%
of TI
812000 - 8/2007
42,241
Paschke
Max payment
12,484
60,000
7.00%
90%
of TI
811999 - 812005
TIF #6 (Lake Pointe)
Rev Note changes to 80%
of TI
Medtronic
200K of tax Cap. return to County
All Eligible ExI
6.75%
90%
of TI
8/2001- 212012
609,912
656,137
656,137
656,137
656,137
408,375
408,375
408,375
80%
of TI
812012 - Z2026
:TIF #9 (Onan)
Rylund
Max payment
6,178
L
32,000
8.00% 90%
of TI
811996 - 212004
Onan / Murphy Warehouse
496,303
8.00%
48%
of TI
8/2001- Z2016
i
`TIF #11
Bob's Produce
Max payment
16,740
90,936
9.50%
90%
1 of TI
1811994 - 212003
71F #12 (McGlynn)
McGlynn's
Max payment
is more than available TI
701,172
9.50%
95%
of TI
811994 - 212009
TIF #16 (57th Ave)
Unn
Project
Max payment
23,000
175,000
8.50%
90%
of TI
811999 - 212012
20,912
23,716
23,716
23,716
23,716
0
0
0
TIF #19
Industrial Equities - 5110 Main St. NE
+
1,500,000
7.00%
90%
of TI
812009- 212021
0
0
201,578
201,578
201,578
201,578
201,578
201,578
REVIEW BENEFIT TO HRA OF PREPAYING ANY REV. NOTE
1$ 3,738,5671
otal Revenue Notes
673,065
679,853
881,431
881,431
881,431
609,954
609,954
609,954
_
variance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 13
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF
Center
DISTRICT
City
#1
TIF DISTRICT #1
County A2 & A8
`Center City
City Fund 450
Redevelopment District Pre -1979
0511979 - 1212009
TOTALS
Actual
1999
0
Actual
2000
509,611
Actual
2001
1,078,188
Actual
2002
1,479,423
Actual
2003
403,560
Actual
2004
268,621
Actual
2005
521,403
Actual
2006
1,110,257
t
To End
of District
Fund Balance
0
Includes delinquen
,Revenues:
Inflation
529,676
(11,407)
E587,428
37,914
513,158
66,560
274,570
2,286
0
343,058
16,735
0
500,957
20,109
0
551,162
19,253
20,501
509,728
17,788
59,153
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
15,293,687
Bond Proceeds
10,506,084
Loan Proceeds
4,852,080
Other Revenues
MVHC
116,986
Interest Earnings *
477,720
Change in FMV of investmenu
0
4,852,081
5,370,350
625,342
579,718
276,856
359,793
521,066
590,916
586,669
Land Sales
0
Transfers
4,852,081
;Annual Revenues
36,098,639
!Expenses
909
782
Land/building acquisition
10,149,245
Site improvements/prep. costs
1,364,482
':
Installation of public utilities
2,061
i
Parking facilities
290,065
Streets and sidewalks
4,050
Public facilities
0
park
Social, recreational, etc.
0
581,763
75,084
1,172,763
0
1,919,171
15,679,595
0
6,967
2,892
51,324
2,532
170,221
1,352,719
494,732
268,284
2,063
0
0
3,219
0
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI * %
Professional Services
School Dist. referendum reimb
Interest Expense **
I
Transfers (int earnings to HRA
(
Debt Service - Bonds
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
Debt Service - Loan
Interfund loans
4,852,081
Other Expenses
sAnnual Expenses
M63
4,860,739
2,549
56,765
5,730
178,483
1,352,719
494,732
268,284
2,063
3,219
d
;Annual Increase / Decrease
509,611
568,577
401,235
(1,075,863}
134,939)
252,782
588,854
583,451
Ending Fund Balanc
*
0
509,611
1,078,188
1,479,423
403,560
268,621
521,403
1,110,257
1,693,707
4
* Use of funds in this TIF District are severely limited
,After final debt service Payments have been made,
the TIF District should robably be decertified.
gNet Present Value @
0.00%
0
{* Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
** Interest Ex ense on neqative fund balance
?Administrative Fees 3.8%
Estimated
1.3%
0.5%
Actual
0.5%
Actual
0.0%
Actual
0.0% 0.0%
Actual Actual
OTC U dated b
0.4%
Actual
Coun
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Od anal Market Value
Ori final Tax Ca ad
M234,639
234,639
0
716,547
7,765,000
234,639
37,030,000
756,457
7,765,000
234,639
39,029,900
531,364
7,765,000
234,639
42,362,000
581,171
7,765,000
117 767
46,296,700
658,523
0
7,763,500
118,512
50,584,350
716,101
7,763,500
117,001
52,562,213
686,716
Total Market Value
430,970
481,908
0
587,428
1.17859
521,818
516,271
3,113
0.98937
100.00%
296,725
276,915
59
0.93324
100.00%
346,532
363,075
3,282
1.04774
100.00%
540,756
521,143
77
0.96373
100.00%
597,589
. 573,919
3,504
0.96386
99.64%
569,715
524,079
3,437
0.92322
99.64%
0.00%
Captured Tax Capacity
`Calculated Tax Increment
Variance incl MVHC
;Tax Rate
Tax Collection Rate
Inflation
s
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 14
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
!TIF DISTRICT #1
County A2 & A8
ITIF DISTRICT #1
Center City
City Fund 450
Center City
Redevelopment District Pre -1979
05/1979 - 1212009
ri TOTALS
To End
Projected
Projected -=
of District
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fund Balance
0
1,693,707
2,336,140
2,984,082
3,580,018
2,975,112
2,367,109
1,748,950
0
01
Inflation
pmts
_Revenues:
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
15,293,687
577,378
577,858
577,858
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
Bond Proceeds
10,506,084
Loan Proceeds
4,852,080
Other Revenues
MVHC
116,986
i
Interest Earnings
477,720
67,748
70,084
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of investment
0
Land Sales
0
_
Transfers
4,852,081
Annual Revenues
36,098,639
645,126
647,942
577,858
0
0
0
0
0
0
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
10,149,245
Site improvements /prep. costs
I
Installation of public utilities
_1,364,482
2,061
Parking facilities
290,065
Streets and and sidewalks
4,050
_Public
park facilities
Social, recreational, etc.
0
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI' %)
581,763
2,694
f
Professional Services
75,084
School Dist. referendum reimb
1,172,763
Interest Expense "1
0
0
0
0
0
0
return to County
,
Transfers (Int earnings to HRA
1,919,171
1,748,950
0
0
Debt Service - Bonds
15,679,595
0
0
(18,078)
604,906
608,OD3
618,159
0
0
0
_
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Loan
4,852,081
Interfund loans
0
I
Other Expenses
8,279
Annual Expenses
36,098,639
2,694
0
(18,078)1
604,906
608,003
618,1591
1,748,950
0 1
0i
Annual Increase / Decrease
0
642,433
647,942 1
595,936
(604,906
(608,003}
(618,159)
(1,748,950)
0
0
Ending Fund Balanc
•
L 0
2,336,140
2,984,082 1
3,580,018
2,975,112 12,367,109
1
1,748,950
0
01
0
0
1
' Use of funds In this TIF District are severely IimIG
After final debt service payments have been made
the TIF District should bq4l y be decertified.
Net Present Value @
0.00% 0
Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
!
"Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Fees
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
}
_Administrative
Estimated
'
Ori inal Market Value
7,833,600
7,833,600
7,833,600
i
Original Tax Capacity
119,311
119,311
119,311
Total Market Value
58 ,502,000
58,570,800
58,570,800
Estimated Tax Ca ac
740,181
740,697
740,697
Ca ptured Tax Capacity
620,870
621,386
621,386
Calculated Tax Increment
577,378
577,858
577,858
Variance ind MVH C
0
0
0
Tax Rate
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%1
0.00%
0.00%
I
i
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 15
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #2
A5 & A9
TIF DISTRICT
#2
_
Moore Lake
City Fund 451
Moore Lake
Redevelopment District
0711981 - 1212007
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fund Balance
0
916,323
18,026
417,091
791,102
844,945
1,255,452
597,428
995,157
'Revenues:
Inflation
includes
delinquen
Tax increment (TI)
0.00%
11,578,527
690,363
681,837
577,550
344,610
387,408
434,520
453,187
491,154
Bond Proceeds
928,170
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
M VHC
57,418
145
1,589
14,545
14,676
13,371
12,127
Interest Eamings `
236,391
11,863
5,091
26,862
16,979
16,013
10,412
18,622
22,612
Change In FMV of I vestmenti
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
2,010,446
1,993,938
16,508
;Annual Revenues
14,810,952
2,696,164
687,073
606,001
361,589
417,966
459,608
501,688
525,893
Expenses
Landibuilding acquisition
1,224,721
553,460
Site improvements/prop. costs
1,961,657
225,000
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
4,050
Social, recreational, etc.
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI ` %
0
146,211
23,166
2,635
5,602
6,600
1,824
2,458
2,479
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reimt
1,221,631
125,468
57,428
Interest Expense "
0
Transfers
1,534
859
675
Debt Service - Born
1998B
5,853,341
264,549
229,529
229,355
302,144
1,115,133
101,501
1,399,419
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service -Other
0
Interfund loans
1,993,938
project area expenses
Other Expenses
Annual Expenses
2,403,869
14,810,952
2,402,818
3,594,461
1,051
288,0081
231,990
1 307,746
7,459
1,117,632
103,959
1,401,898
'Annual Increase I Decrease
0
(898,297)
399,065
374,011
53,843
410,507
(658,024)
397,729
(876,005)
Ending Fund Balance*
l� 0
18,026
417,091
791,102
844,945
1,255,452
597,428
995,157
119,152
1
0
' Use of funds in this TIF District are sevetly limited.
;After final debt service payments have been made,
the TIF District should bably be decertified.
Net Present Value @
0.00%
0
i' Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
2.0%
'* Interest Expense on negative fund balance
Administrative Fees
0.0%
0.0%
OTC Updated by ounty
.0 anal Market Value
2,518,500
2,518,500
2,518,500
2,518,500
2,518,500
2,518,500
2,518,500
2,518,500
Original Tax Capacity
71,896
71,821
71,821
73,507
73,507
33,726
33,731
33,689
Total Market Value
0
0
26,129,200
27,270,900
30,318,000
32,680,900
34,361,300
37,744,800
Estimated Tax Ca pad
624,237
630,466
651,822
424,222
463,053
495,497
519,992
572,662
;Captured Tax Capa
552,341
558,645
580,001
350,715
389,546
461,771
486,261
538,973
+Calculated Tax Increment
0
579,032
331,212
412,627
450,342
474,539
505,197
Variance Ind MVHC
681,837
1,482
13,398
10,674
1,146
1 7,981
1,916
;Tax Rate _
:Tax Collection Rate
1.18575
0.99833
100.00%
0.94439
100.00%
1.05925
100.00%
0.97525
100.00%
0.97942
99.64%
0.94072
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
C/I
133024340026
C/I
133024340028
Cfl
1133024340029
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 16
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/8/2007
County
_
TIF DISTRICT #2
IA5&A9
I
TIF DISTRICT #2
Moore Lake
I City Fund 451
Moore Lake
Redevelopment District
07/1981 - 1212007
TOTALS
To End
Projected
Projected --,
of District
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
_
Fund Balance
0
119,152
51,537
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Revenues:
Inflation
pmts
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
11,578,527
561,624
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bond Proceeds
928,170
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
MVHC _
57,418
Interest Earnings `
236,391
4,766
1,546
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of I vestment.,
0
Land Sales
_
0
Transfers
_
2,010,446
Annual Revenues
14,810,952
566,390
1,546
0
0
0
0
01
0
;Expenses
Land/building acquisition
1,224,721
Site improvements /prep. costs
1,961,657
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
g
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
4,050
Social, recreational, etc.
0
,Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI % )
146,211
2,393
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum relm
1,221,631
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
1,534
Debt Service - Bo
1998B
5,853,341
631,613
53,083
Debt Service -Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
1,993,938
Other Expenses
2,403,869
.Annual Expenses.
14,810,952
634,005
53,083
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual Increase / Decrease
0
(67,615)
(51,537)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ending Fund Balanc
0
51,537
0
0
D 1
0 1
01
0
0
0
0
' Use of funds in this TIF District are severly limiter
After final debt service payments have been made
the TIF District should bably be decertified.
Net Present Value @
0.00%
0
` Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
!"Interest Expense (on negative fund balance )
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Administrative Fees
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Original Market Value
J 2,518,500
On�c final Tax Capacity
33,690
Total Market Value
43,911,300
:Estimated Tax Ca aci
629,505
j
Captured Tax Capacity
595,815
Calculated Tax Increment
561,624
Variance ind MVHC
0
Tax Rate
0.94602
Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 17
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
,TIF DISTRICT #3 82, 83, D3 & D5
North Area (Urdu [rid Park) I City Fund 452
Redevelopment District
TIF
North
DISTRICT
Area (Univ
#3
Ind Park)
'0511982 - 12/2008
EEE
TOTALS
To End
of District
Actual
1999
1,911,701
Actual
2000
170,285
Actual
2001
908,193
Actual
2002
868,206
Actual
2003
1,912,730
Actual
2004
1,587,656
Actual
2005
2,274,848
Actual
2006
1,659,225
Fund Balance
Inflation
0.00%
23,928,184
613,318
0
282,910
525,407
0
0
1,300,138
37,792
1,236,575
125,616
14,720
1,304,393
149,100
32,741
991,683
28,556
896,160
21,878
1,040,939
1,870
26,260
Includes
1,029,350
44,115
delinque
1,008,290
77,544
Revenues:
Tax Increment (TI)
Bond Proceeds
Loan Proceeds
Other Revenues
Interest
Earnings •
Change in FMV of investment
Land Sales
'Transfers
Annual Revenues
8,122,978
33,472,797
8,122,978
9,460,908
1,376,911
1,486,234
1,020,239
918,038
1,069,069
1,073,465
1,083,833
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
Site improvements/prep. cost
Installation of public utilities
Parking facilities
Streets and sidewalks
Public park facilities
Social, recreational, etc.
Admin Fees- Clty/HRA (TI • °k
Professional Services
School Dist. referendum reimlo
Interest Expense "
Transfers
Debt Service - Bon 97A/985
Debt Service -Rev. Notes
Debt Service - Other
2,557,339
510,054
0
0
0
0
0
230,196
0
763,749
0
2,330
11,663,255
558,392
0
1,417,001
71,369
38,028
476,914
2,250
12,276
65,644
546,660
12,484
1
158,635
11,161
0
1,343,941
12,484
7,917
0
101,998
6,603
1,121
1,141,559
93,829
1,848
0
p
1,209
290,556
88,266
2,414
0
1,597,356
89,316
2,359
0
418,996
115,524
3 payments
i
Interfund loans
8,122,981
project area expenses
prior period adjmt
Other Expenses
=Annual Expenses
9,064,501
33,472,797
9,196,762
11,202,324
1,939
639,003
1,526,221
(134,200)
(24,285)
1,243,112
381,879
1,689,086
536,878
i
Annual Increase / Decrease
0
(1,741,416)
737,908
87)1
1,044,524
(325,074}
687,190
(615,621)
546,955
-
IEnding Fund Balanc
0
170,285
908,193
868,206
1,912,730
1,587,656
2,274,846
1,659,225
2,206,180
0
• Use of funds in this TIF District are severly llmlted.
�ARer final debt service ppyments have been made,
the TIF District should robabl be decertified.
!Net Present Value @
0.00% 1 0
Interest Eamin s on ositive fund
Interest Ex ense on negative fund
;Administrative Fees
balance
balance
1.0%
Estimated
5.5%
Actual
5,218,600
244,445
0
1,637,279
(303,007)
1,089,827
1.0% 0.9% 0.8%
Actual Actual Actual
5,218,600 5,218,600 5,218,600
244,445 244,445 204,561
0 65,639,400 73,900,800
1,700,426 1,962,812 1,381,239
(305,436) (337,860) (219,903)
1,150,545 1,380,507 956,775
0 1,287,226 971,356
1,236,575 17,167 20,327
0.7% 0.2%
Actual Actual
OTC chap ed
5,218,600 5,218,600 5,218,600
204,561 89,565 90,346
78,564,700 83,969,500 89,089,150
1,399,448 1,463,799 1,549,304
(219,903) {289,302} (336,975)
974,984 1,084,932 1,121,983
952,501 1,032,790 1,016,189
56,341 (8,149) 13,161
k2. 0%
.0%
.0%
5,218,600
90,346
93,342,100
1,631,858
(308,954)
1,232,558
1,092,156
85,866
;Ori inal Market Value
'Original Tax Ca aci
Total Market Value
Estimated Tax Capacity
FISCAL DISPARITIES
!Captured Tax Capacity
Calculated Tax Increment
Variance
1.07905
0.93243
1.01524
0.97694
0.95194
0.90898
0.88929
:Tax Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.64%
99.64%
0.00%
;Tax Collection Rate
`Inflation
z
4
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 18
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
County
TIF DISTRICT #3
B2, B3, D3 & D5
TIF DISTRICT #3
North Area (UNv Ind Park)
City Fund 452
North Area
(Univ Ind Park
Redevelopment District
0511982 - 1212008
TOTALS
To End
Projected
Projected --->
of District
2007
2008
1 2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fund Balance
2,206,180
2,268,845
1 1,794,573
0
0
0
0
0
0
Revenues IInflation
pmts
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
23,928,184
1,257,367
1,263,594
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bond Proceeds i
613,318
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
282,910
Interest Earnings `
525,407
88,247
68,065
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of I vestment,
0
Land Sales
0
_
Transfers
8,122,978
Annual Revenues
33,472,797
1,345,615
1,331,659
0
01
01
0
0
0
0
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
2,557,339
Site improvements /prep. costs
510,054
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
+Public
park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI' %)
230,196
2,383
0
0
0
_
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reimb
763,749
i
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
2,330
Debt Service - Boni
97A/98B
11,663,255
1,238,325
1,805,932
1,794,573
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
558,392
42,241
0
0
0
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
8,122,981
Other Expenses
9,064,501
Annual Expenses
33,472,797
1,282,949
1,805,932
1,794,573
01
0
0
0
0
0i
.Annual Increase / Decrease
0
62,666
(474,273)
(1,794,573)
0
0
0
0
0
0,
i
Ending Fund Balanc •
0
2,268,845
1,794,573
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
• Use of funds in this TIF District are severly limiter
After final debt service pgMents have been made
i
the TIF District should bably be decertified.
Net Present Value @
0.00%
0
,*Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
it
••` Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
:Administrative Fees
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Estimated
Market Value
5,218,600
5,218,600
.Original
Original Tax Capacity
90,346
90,346
Total Market Value
100,934,900
101,602,100
Estimated Tax Capacty
1,774,570
1,782,910
JFISCAL DISPARITIES
i
{354,988)
(356,746)
Captured Tax Capacity ___ �_.
_
1,329,238
1,335,818
Calculated Tax Increment
1,257,367
1,263,594
Variance
0
0
—
i
Tax Rate
0.94935
0.94935
:Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
i
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 19
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #6
County #E8
TIF DISTRICT #6
Lake Pointe (Medtronic)
City Fund 455
Lake Pointe (Medtronic)
Redevelopment District
1211985 - 1212025
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fund Balance
0
0
(1,069,390)
(1,075,278)
(1,1062357)
(1,092,108)
(980,416)
(960,792)
(325,721)
-
negative delinquen
Revenues:
Inflation
lower- refund 20037
Why so low?
:Tax
Increment (TI)
0.00%
13,508,533
57,612
552,988
1,353,665
450,615
634,997
38,539
Bond Proceeds
22,829,451
T1 received for 2003 on higher
value
Loan Proceeds
5,641,933
0
than final settlement agreement
Other Revenues
46,335
38,744
2,888
Interest Earnings
44,415
677
2,672
8,976
2,750
5,202
24,138
;Land
Change in FMV of investment,
Sales
0
5,600,000
Transfe.
-- jTran
es --
-
4,876,718
4,876,718
Annual Revenues
52,547,384
4,876,718
38,744
61,177
555,658
1,362,641
453,365
640,199
62,677 1
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
11,356,323
69,753
52,151
15,700
15,900
Site Improvements/prep. costs
1,799,015
1,048
Installation of public utilities
1,518,489
224,716
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
2,132
Public park facilities
0
t
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI' %)
1,747,373
234,422
43,162
40,105
26,089
12,007
23,241
5,128
2,543
Professional Services
0
0
0
School Dist. referendum relmh
13,228
Interest Expense "
0
0
Transfers
361
135
226
Debt Service - Bonds
25,018,900
5,641,933
389
missing pmts to Medtronic
2005 & 2006
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
11,416,876
274,769
1,222,653
410,274
0
557,466
Debt Service - Other
0
3 payments
Interfund loans
0
Other penes
i
Annual Expenses
422
52,873,119
5,946,108
422
44,632
92,256
541,409
1,250,949
433,741
5,128
560,009
Annual Increase /Decrease
(325,735)
(1.069,390)
5,888
(31,079)1
14,249
1 111,692
19,624
635,071
(497,332)
Ending Fund Balance
(30
(1,069,390}
(1,075,278
1,106,357
1,092,108
(980,416)
(960,792)
(325,721)
(823,053)
0
4
Net Present Value @
0.00%
(325,735)
i
Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
2.0%
- Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
Administrative Fees
12.9%
69.6%
4.7%
0.9%
5.2%
0.8%
5.0%
Estimated
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Phase I fully valued
Original Market Value
2,867,900
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
Original Tax Capacity
93,411
142,201
83,780
83,780
83,780
83,780
83,779
Total Market Value
5,909,700
28,562,800
52,499,800
43,220,800
38,300,800
39,238,900
Estimated Tax Ca aci
0
93,411
199,430
570,506
1,049,246
863,666
765,266
784,028
Captured Tax Capacity
0
0
57,229
486,726
965,466
779,886
681,486
700,249
Calculated Tax Increment .
0
57,757
555,272
919,211
753,417
643,540
635,372
Variance
0
145
2,286
434,454
302,802
8,543
596,833
:Tax Rate
1.22669
1.00923
1.14083
0.95209
0.96606
0.94773
0.91063
Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.64%1
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
Old PINS
IM
-- _
New PINs
23-30 -24-41 -0030
23-30-24-42-0041
Medtronic
23-30 -24-41 -0031
23-30 -24-42 -0042
Medtronic
�� _
23-30 -24-41 -0034
23-30 -24-42 -0043
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 20
_J
TIF DISTRICT #6
County #E8
TIF DISTRICT #6
Lake Pointe (Medtronic)
City Fund 455
Lake Pointe (Medtronic)
Redevelopment District
i
,1211985 - 1212025
TOTALS
To End
Projected
Projected ---->
of District
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
_
Fund Balance
0
1 (823,053)
(789,169)
(752,716)
(716,264)
(679,812)
(643,360)
(620,673)
(597,985)
(575,298)
pmt
Revenues:
Inflation
TIF #6 OTC adjusted In 2092
j
'Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
13,508,533
677,680
729,041
729,041
729,041
729,041
453,750
453,750
453,750
453,750
_
Bond Proceeds
22,829,451
Loan Proceeds
5,641,933
y
Other Revenues
46,335
Interest Earnings
44,415
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of Investmenh
0
Land Sales
5,600,000
r from TIF #7
Transfers
4,876,718
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual Revenues
52,547,384
677,680
729,041
729,041
729,041
729,041
453,750
453,750
453,750
453,750
.Expenses
Land/building acquisition
11,356,323
Site improvements /prep. costs
1,799,015
Installation of public utilities
1,518,489
f
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
2,132
Public park facilities
0
'Social,
recreational, etc.
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI' %)
0
1,747,373
33,884
36,452
36,452
36,452
36,452
22,688
22,688
22,688
22,688
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reim
13,228
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
Transfers
361
f
Debt Service - Bonds
25,018,900
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
11,416,876
609,912
656,137
656,137
656,137
656,137
408,375
408,375
408,375
408,375
Debt Service - Other
0
interfund loans
0
1
Other Expenses
422
Annual Expenses
52,873,119
643,796
692,589
692,589
692,589
692,589
431,063
431,063
431,063
431,063
i
Annual Increase / Decrease
(325,735)
33,884
36,452
36,452
36,452
36,452
22,6881
22,688
1 22,688
22,688 •
i
Ending Fund Balance 11
(325,735)
(789,169)
(752,716)
(716,264)
(679,812)
(643,360)
(620,673)
(597,985)
575,298)
552,610)}
0
.Net Present Value @
0.00%
(325,735)
• Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
."Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0 %1
Administrative Fees
12.9%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0 %!
Estimated
add 200,000 s . R to be OTC in 2092
Original Market Value
4,226,500
4,226,500 14,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
4,226,500
'Original Tax Capacity
83,780
83,780
83,780
83,780
83,780
403,780
403,780
403,780
403,7801
Total Market Value
43,613,600
46,598,700
46, 598, 700
46, 598,700
46,598,700
46, 598, 700
46 ,598,700
46,598,700
46,598,700
Estimated Tax Ca aci
871,522
931,224
931,224
931,224
931,224
931,224
931,224
931,224
931,224 1
1
Ca lured Tax Capacity
787, 742
847,444
847,444
847,444
847,444
527,444
527,444
527,444
527,444
Calculated Tax Increment
677,680
729,041
729,041
729,041
729,041
453,750
453,750
453,750
453,750
Variance
0
0
0
--
I
Tax Rate
0.86339
0.86339
0.86339
0.86339
0.86339
0.86339
0.86339
0.86339
0.86339
Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64 %1
_Tax
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00 %1
Old PINs
--
i
i
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 21
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #7 Idounty
G3
TIF DISTRICT #7
Winfield
City Fund 456
Winfield
Redevelopment District
1011986 - 1212012
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual T
Projected
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Fund Balance
_
75,100
144,934
209,064
272,250
306,008
341,753
393,275
454,765
529,785
Revenues:
Inflation
includes delinquent pmts
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
1,711,562
65,980
57,208
53,742
30,242
34,011
48,935
52,278
55,155
64,979
_
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
0
Interest Eamings
117,320
3,854
7,311
12,761
5,924
4,529
4,462
10,075
20,752
21,191
Change in FMV of I vestment,
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
0
:Annual Revenues
1,828,881
69,834
64,519
66,503
36,166
38,540
53,397
62,353
75,907
86,171
'Expenses
Land/building acquisition
30,000
Site Improvements /prep. costs
0
installation of public utilities
0
_
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI' % )
32,879
3,317
2,109
2,527
1,604
863
888
3,249
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum relmh
0
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
Transfers
838
299
268
271
0
Debt Service - Bonds
792,196
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
0
i
lnterfund loans
0
Other Expenses
389
389
Annual Expenses
856,302
0
389
3,317
1 2,408
2,795
1,875
863
888
3,249
`.Annual Increase 1 Decrease
972,579
69,834
64,130
63,186
33,758.
35,745
1 51,522
61,490
75,020
82,922
:Ending Fund Balance
972,579
144,934
1 209,064
272,250
306,008
341,753
393,275
454,765
529,785
612,707
0
i
Total
442,794
PV
377,260
Net Present Value @
0.00%
972,579
' Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
2.0%1
4.0%
" Interest Expense on negative. fund balance
0.0%1
0.0%
Fees
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
6.2%
7.0%
7.4%
3.3%
1.6%
1.6%
5.0%
_Administrative
Estimated
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual.
Actuall
Actual
Actual
Actual
OTC change
.Ori final Market Value
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
Original Tax Capacity
10,960
10,960
10,960
41,372
11,372
3,582
3,582
3,582
3,582
Total Market Value
0
0
2,052,200
2,083,8W
2,346,6W
2,774,400
3,067,300
3,282,000
3,605,900
'Estimated Tax Capacity
65,643
63,970
68,275
40,926
46,182
54,738
60,596
64,890
71,368
:Captured Tax Capacity
54,683
53,010
57,315
29,554
34,810
51,156
57,014
61,308
67,786
Calculated Tax Increment
0
53,956
30,334
34,152
49,287
52,522
55,393
64,979
Variance
57,208
214
92
141
352
244
238
0
Tax Rate
1
1.08621
0.94139
1.02639
0.98111
0.96346
0.92454
0.90679
0.96206
Tax Collection Rate
100.00°!0
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL
11- 30 -24 -32 -0034
MV updat
MV update4
MV updato
MV updat
MV update
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA Page 22
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI ` %)1
32,879
3,595
3,595
3,595
3,595
3,595
0
0
l NF DISTRICT #7
County G3
Professional Services
TIF DISTRICT #7
838
Winfield
City Fund 456
Winfield
School Dist. referendum ream
0
Debt Service - Bonds
792,196
,Redevelopment District
}
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
10/1986 - 12/2012
TOTALS
'
Debt Service - Other
0
To End
Projected -->
Interfund loans
0
of District
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fund Balance
612,707
699,386
767,684
835,983
904,281
972,579
972,579
972,579
3,595
3,595
3,595 1
3,595 1
3,5951
0
1 0
1 0
Aevenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
1,711,562
71,893
71,893
71,893
71,893
71,893
0
0
0
86,6791
Bond Proceeds
68,298
0
68,298
0
0
1 0
Loan Proceeds
0
Ending Fund Balance 1
972,579
699,386
767,684
835,983
904,281
972,579
Other Revenues
972,579
0
0
i
Interest Earnings `
117,320
18,381
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of investmentt
0
s
Land Sales
0
Transfers
0
;Annual Revenues
_
1,828,881
90,2741
71,893
71,893
71,893
71,893
0
0
0
;Expenses
' Interest Eamin s on positive fund balance
3.0%
0.0 %.
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Land/building acquisition
30,000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Administrative Fees
Site improvementsiprep. costs
0
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Installation of public utilities
0
Estimated
r
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
Public park facilities
0
3,582
3,582
3,582
3,582
3,582
Rncial rarraaHnnal_ etc_
0
3,965,500
3,966,500
3,966,500
3,966,500
3,966,500
4
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI ` %)1
32,879
3,595
3,595
3,595
3,595
3,595
0
0
0
U
Professional Services
0
838
School Dist. referendum ream
0
Debt Service - Bonds
792,196
Interest Expense "
01
1 01
0
0
1 0
0
0
1 0
U
Transfers
838
Debt Service - Bonds
792,196
}
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
'
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
I
Other Expenses
389
:Annual Expenses
856,302
3,595
3,595
3,595 1
3,595 1
3,5951
0
1 0
1 0
;Annual Increase / Decrease
972,579
86,6791
68,298 1
68,298
1 68,298 1
68,298
0
0
1 0
Ending Fund Balance 1
972,579
699,386
767,684
835,983
904,281
972,579
972,579
972,579
972,579
0
r
i
s
Net Present Value @
0.00%
972,579
' Interest Eamin s on positive fund balance
3.0%
0.0 %.
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Administrative Fees
1.9%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Estimated
i
!Ori anal Market Value
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
216,600
;Ori inal Tax Ca a
3,582
3,582
3,582
3,582
3,582
Total Market Value
3,965,500
3,966,500
3,966,500
3,966,500
3,966,500
Estimated Tax Ca aci
78,580
78,580
78,580
78,580
78,580
!Captured Tax Capacity
74,998
74,998
74,998
74,998
74,998
Calculated Tax Increment
71,893
71,893
71,893
71,893
71,893
Variance
0
0
Tax Rate
0.96206
0.96206
0.96206
0.96206
0.96208
:Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
,Inflation
0.000/0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
i
i
i
COMMERCIAL F INDUSTRIAL -_. _.__. MV updated W ��
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 23
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #8
County G4
TIF DISTRICT #8
t
Shorewood Rest- Decertified IDecartified
I
Shorewood Rest - Decertified
Economic Development
1011986 - 1211996
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
'Fund Balance
3,180
3,180
3,180
4,907
0
0
0
0
i
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00 °k
82,303
Bond Proceeds
0
j
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
3,180
Interest Earnings
1,727
901
i
Change in FMV of I vestmerib.
0
t
Land Sales
4,607
1
Transfers
0
:Annual Revenues
92,718
0
0
1,727
901
0
0
0
0
:Expenses
Land/building acquisition
0
Site Improvements /prep. cost
0
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
}
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI ` %
0
Professional Services
0
i
School Dist. referendum reimt
7,898
interest Expense '°
0
Transfers
5,808
5,808
I
Debt Service - Bonds
79,012
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
'Annual Expenses
0
92,718
0
0
0
5,808
0
0
0
0
Annual Increase / Decrease
0
0
0
1,727
(4,907)
0
0
0
0
!Ending Fund Balance
01
3,180
3,180
4,907
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
'Net Present Value @
0.00%
0
Interest Eamin s on I positive fund balance )
2.0%1
" Interest Ex pen on negative fund balance
0.0%
:Administrative Fees
0.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
iOri inal Market Value
Original Tax Capacity
Total Market Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
01
0
0 1
0
`Estimated Tax Ca aci
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Captured Tax Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calculated Tax Increment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Variance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
ITax Rate 1999 rate < cart. rate)'
Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%1
t
,COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL
13 30-24 33 -0001
J
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 24
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #9
County K1
TIF DISTRICT #9
Onan / Murphy War0
City Fund 458
Onan / Murphy Warehouse
Redevelopment District
0911989 - 12/2015
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Projected
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Fund Balance
(14.538)
(59,774)
(128.241)
143,513
233,505
'496,837
677,981
836,447
1,262,566
TOO LOW
Revenues:
Inflation
orig 364,762
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
5,330,525
386,754
248,300
435,693
373,470
262,515
299,658
356,185
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
1,353
0
_
Other Revenues
5,108
4,250
Interest Earnings
187,842
7,389
3,794
6,260
7,850
18,086
44,417
50,503
Change in FMV of Investment,
0
I Land Sales
0
iT fsra enters
1,353
1,353
_
Annual Revenues
5,526,181
1,353
4,250
394,143
252,094
441,953
381,320
280,601
344,076
406,687
_Expenses
Land/building acquisition
4,094
4,094
0
Site improvements /prep. costs
11,491
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities 1
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI' %)
324,034
39,058
65,862
23,390
3,088
4,101
1,575
1,110
1,160
17,809
-
Professional Services
0
!School Dist referendum reimt
0
Interest Expense "
0
Transfers
1
931
195
303
433
Di ebt Service - Bonds
0
Overpaid?
Refund
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
685,181
3,437
6,178
98,999
158,619
174,217
198,168
121,025
(83,204)
0
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
128775
loan repaid to HRA Gen9 fund
.Other Expenses
677
677
not repaid
Annual Expenses
1,026,408
46,6891
72,7171
122,3891
162,102 1
178,621
1 200,176
1 122,135
82,044)
17,809
-
i
Annual Increase / Decrease
4,499,772
(45,236)
(68,467)
271,754
1 89,992
263,332
181,144
158,466
426,119
388,878 ;
Ending Fund Balance
4,499,772
(59,774)
(128,241)1
143,513
233,505
496,837
677,981
836,447
1,262,566
1,651,444
0
i
Total
3,237,206
PV
2,568,767
Net Present Value @
0.00%
4,499,772
d
+ Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
2.0%
4.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
Administrative Fees
6.1%
6.0%
1.2%1
0.9%
0.4%
0.4%
5.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Actual
Actual I
Actuall
Actual
Actual
One n property decertifled for 2003
1
_
Est. Original Market Value
1
1
20,424,265
20,531,050
2,837,000
2,837,000
2,380,500
2,380,500
2,380,500
_
Tax Capacity
714,246
6941 425
694,425
410,621
42,555
42,555
42,642
42,642
42,646
_Original
Total Market Value I
i I
1 0
0
33,007,100
33,637,700
21,137,600
21,943,800
22,204,950
19,144,800
21,091,700
Estimated Tax Ca aci
580,425
578,714
1,107,241
665,257
415,255
431,956
437,179
375,976
414,2161
Captured Tax Capacity
0
0
412,816
254,636
372,700
389,401
394,537
333,334
371,569
Calculated Tax Increment
0
388,621
248,922
364,337
375,172
363,452
301,176
356,185
Variance
0
1,867
622
71,356
1,702
100,937
1,517
0
Tax Rate 1
0.94139
0.97756
0.97756
0.96346
0.92454
0.90679
0.96206
Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.000/0
100.00%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64°!01
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
0.97756
I
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 25
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #9
County K1
TIF DISTRICT #9
i Onan / Murphy Ware
City Fund 458
Onan / Murph
Warehouse
R ®development District
109/1989-1212015
TOTALS
To End 1
lProjected->
of District
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
iFund Balance
1,651,444
2,050,835
2,400,684
2,750,532
3,100,380
3,450,228
3,800,076
4,149,924
Revenues:
Tax Increment (TI)
Inflation
0.00%
5,330,525
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
Bond Proceeds
0
i
Loan Proceeds
1,353
Other Revenues
5,108
Interest Earnings
187,842
49,543
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change In FMV of investmenti
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
:Annual Revenues
1,353
5,526,181
417,804
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
368,261
,Expenses
Land/building acquisition
4,094
!
Site Improvements/prep. costs
11,491
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
!
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
Admin Fees - City /HRA (TI . %)
0
324,034
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum reimt
0
!
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
931
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
685,181
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
I Other Expenses
?Annual Expenses
677
1,026,408
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
18,413
IAnnual Increase / Decrease
4,499,772
399,391
349,848
349,848
349,848
349,848
349,848
349,848
349,848
;Ending Fund Balance
4,499,772
2,050,835
2,400,684
2,750,532
3,100,380
3,450,228
3,800,076
4,149,924
4,499,772
l
0
Net Present Value @
0.00%
4,499,772
i
+' Interest Eamin s on positive fund balance
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance )
SAdministrative Fees 1 6.1%
3.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%1
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.00/0
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Est. Original MarketValue
12,380,500
2,380,500
2,380,500
2,380,500
2,380,500
2,380,500
2,380,500
2,380,500
Ori inal Tax Ca aci
1 42,646
42,646
42,646
42,646
42,646
42,646
42,646
42,646
's Total Market Valu
Estimated Tax Cap
1 21,721,600
426,813
21,721,600
426,813
21,721,600
426,813
21,721,600
426,813
21,721,600
426,813
21,721,600
426,813
21,721,600
426,813
Ca lured Tax Capacity
384,167
384,167
P384
384,167
384,167
384,167
384,167
384,167
;Calculated Tax Increment
I Variance
368,261
0
368,261
0
368,261
0
368,261
0
368,261
0
368 261
0
368,261
0
Tax Rate
Tax Collection Rate
0.96206
99.64%
0.96206
99.64%
0.96206
99.64%
0.96206
99.64%
0.96206
99.64%
0.96206
99.64%
0.96206
99.64%
0.96206
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
0.97756
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 26
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A.
11/8/2007
:TIF DISTRICT #10
County KB
TIF DISTRICT #10
i
Northco Phase III - Decertified
Decertified - 3/2000
Northco Phase Ill - Decertified
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Projected
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fund Balance
0
0
(364)
0
0
0
0
0
i Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
0
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
3,921
Other Revenues
0
Interest Eamings *
125
Change in FMV of I vestmentq
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
4,535
3,921
614
;Annual Revenues
8,581
3,921
0
614
0
01
01
01
0
Ex
nses
Land/bullding acquisition
0
Site Improvements /prep. costs
0
Installation of public utilities
0
I
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
!
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees - City/HRA (TI * % )
4,660
364
250
Professional Services
0
i
School Dist. referendum reimb
0
(
Interest Expense *'
0
Transfers
0
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
3,921
3,921
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
0
(Annual Expenses
8,581
3,921
364
250
0
0
0
0
0
;Annual Increase / Decrease
0
0
(364)1
364
1 0 1
0
1 0 1
01
0
:Ending Fund Balance
0
0 1
(364)
0
01
01
0 1
01
0
0
i
iNet Present Value @
0.00%
0
: *Interest Eamin s on positive fund balance
2.0%
*` Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
Administrative Fees
5.0%
i
iOriginal Market Value
jOri final Tax Ca aci
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Market Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
Estimated Tax Capacity
0
0
0
0
0
0
ICa turgid Tax Ca a
0
0
0
0
0
0
-Calculated Tax Increment
0
0
0
0
0 1
0
Variance 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
:Tax Rate 1999 rate < cart. rate)`
Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.0%
100.00%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%1
s
Certified Tax Rate
i
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A.
11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 27
._County
'TIF DISTRICT #11
L6 & L7
TIF DISTRICT #11
University / Osbome
City Fund 462
University / Osborne
iRedevelopment District
;01!1992 - 12/2018
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fund Balance
34,570
68,645
81,167
102,145
112,883
132,712
166,374
202,439
i
Revenues:
Tax Increment (TI
Inflation
0.00%
1,027,082
28,531
32,589
34,902
24,576
27,255
33,477
32,923
35,672
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
Interest Eamin s *
0
52,434
2,440
3,068
4,828
2,224
1,747
1,869
4,404
9,472
Change In FMV of Investmenti
0
t
Land Sales
0
Transfers
31,881
31,881
Annual Revenues
1,111,398
62,852
35,657
39,730
26,800
29,002
35,346
37,327
45,143
:Expenses
Land/building acquisition
126,544
20,818
0
t
Site Improvements /prep. cost
0
Installation of public utilities
0
j
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
01
1
?
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
Admin Fees - City /HRA (TI %
0
59,886
3,042
674
2,012
1,798
3,289
1,573
1,262
1,283
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum reimb
0
Interest Expense *'
0
Transfers
323
111
101
111
j
Debt Service - Bonds
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
79,301
4,917
17,031
16,740
14,153
5,783
0
0
0
Debt Service - Other
4,643
4,643
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
;Annual Expenses
787
271,484
28,777
787
23,135
18,752
16,062
9,173
1,684
1,262
1,283
:Annual Increase / Decrease
839,914
34,075
12,522
20,978
10,738
19,829
33,662
36,065
43,861
:Ending Fund Balance
839,914
68,645
81,167
102,145
112,883
132,712
166,374
202,439
246,300
0
Total
593,614
PV
440,627
i
Net Present Value @
0.001/6
839,914
[* Interest Earnings on positive fund balance)
" Interest Expense on ne ative fund balance
:Administrative Fees 5.8%
Estimated
10.7%
Actual
2.1%
Actual
5.8%
Actual
7.3%
Actual
12.1%
Actual
4.7%
Actual
3.8'/--
Actual
2.0%
0.0%
5.0%
:Est. Original Market Value
Original Tax Ca ac
Total Market Value
Estimated Tax Ca ac
44,714
0
72,892
43,510
0
75,695
1,812,917
43,510
2,467,900
80,909
1,765,267
26,479
2,613,900
50,778
1,765,267
26,479
2,803,800
54,576
1,765,267
26,479
3,156,200
61,624
1,765,200
26,478
3,209,000
62,680
1,398,900
26,479
3,404,300
66,586
:Captured Tax Capacity
Zaiculated Tax Increment
Variance
28,178
32,185
0
32,589
37,399
34,872
30
24,299
24,665
89
28,097
27,449
194
35,145
33,456
21
36,202
32,788
135
40,107
35,538
133
:Tax Rate
:Tax Collection Rate
Inflation
1.07905
0.93243
100.00% 100.00%
1.01508
100.00%
0.97694
100.00%
0.95194
100.00%
1
0.90898
99.64%
0.88929
99.64%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
L6
1.01508
L7
1.01508
5.92%
11 -30 -24-22 -0026
Bob's Produce East Ranch Estates
11 -30 -24-22 -0027
`COMMERCIAL
/INDUSTRIAL
11- 30- 24-22 -0024
MV updatel update
MV update4
MV update
MV update
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 28
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
County
TIF DISTRICT #11
L6 & L7
TIF DISTRICT #11
,University/ Osborne
City Fund 462
University / Osborne
Redevelopment District
:0111992 - 12/2018
TOTALS
To End
Projected
Projected ---%
of District
2007
2008
2009
2010
1 2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
'Fund Balance
246,300
297,919
355,316
403,776
452,236
500,695
549,155
597,615
646,075
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
1,027,082
43,965
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
0
Interest Earnings •,
52,434
9,852
8,938
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of investment,
0
_
Land Sales
0
^_
Transfers ; ^_
_
31,881
Annual Revenues
1,111,398
53,817
59,948
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
Expenses
--
Land/building acquisition
126,544
Site Improvementsiprep. costs
0
Installation of public utilities 1
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- Clty/HRA (TI • % )
59,886
2,198
2,551
2,551
2,551
2,551
2,551
2,551
2,551
2,551
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reim
0
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
323
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
79,301
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Debt Service - Other
4,643
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
787
Annual Expenses
271,484
2,19Fr
2,551
2,551
2,551
2,551
2,551
1 2,551
2,551
2,551
.Annual Increase t Decrease
839,914
51,619
57,397 1
48,460
48,460
1 48,460
48,460
48,4601
48,460
1 48,460
0
Ending Fund Balance
839,914
297,919
355,316
403,776
452,236
500,695
549,155
597,615
646,075
1 694,535
0
i
Net Present Value @
0.00%
839,914
* Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
'" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
'Administrative Fees
5.8%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Est. Original Market Value
1,398,900
1,765,200
1,765,200
11,765,200
1,765,200
1,765,200
11,765,200
1,765,200
1,765,200
Original Tax Capacity
26,478
26,478
26,478
26,478
26,478
26,478
26,478
26,478
26,478
Total Market Value
3,722,800
4,095,200
4,095,200
4,095,200
4,095,200
4,095,200
4,095,200
4,095,200
4,095,200
Estimated Tax Ca aci
72,956
80,404
80,404
80,404
80,404
80,404
80,404
80,404
80,404
Captured Tax Capacity
46,478
53,926
53,926
53,926
53,926
53,926
53,926
53,926
53,926
Calculated Tax Increment
43,965
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
51,010
Variance
0
0
1 0
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
Tax Rate
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
L6
1.01508
_
L7
1.01508
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL
MV updated
MV updated a
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 29
.._.._....._ ...._._..._._..._......,..County
TIF DISTRICT #12 L9 & Mt
TIF DISTRICT #12
McGI n Bakeries City Fund 463
McGlynn Bakeries
Redevelopment District
0311992 - 12/2019
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Projected
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Balance
33,363 33,363
66,145
72,535
74,500
64,436
63,216
82,430
122,998
158,165
�Fund
Revel rues;
Ta -- x ncrement(TI)
Inflation
0.00_0
1,302,792
65,431
70,577
64,055
39,827
39,787
39,279
39,347
30,489
36,155
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
Interest Earnings
Change in FMV of I vestmenb
Land Sales
0
39,408
0
0
2,323
2,877
3,917
1,456
494
1,211
2,473
5,952
6,327
i
Transfers
'Annual Revenues
32,112
1,374,312
32,112
99,866
73,454
67,972
41,283
40,281
40,490
49,820
36,441
42,482
Expenses
Land building acquisition
Site improvements /prep. cost
0
213,533
_installation
of public utilities
Parking facilities
0
0
i
Streets and sidewalks
0
_
Public park facilities
Social, recreational, etc.
Admin Fees - City /HRA (TI' %)
0
0
49,069
331
1,686
1,979
1,786
3,494
2,255
1,252
1,273
1,808
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum reim
Interest Expense "
Transfers
Debt Service -Bonds
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
0
180
0
451,851
66,753
64,602
64,028
72
49,489
0
54 54
terminated because they would not send emp. data
37,953 18,967 D
'
Debt Service -Other
0
,Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
Annual Expenses
776
715,409
67,084
776
67,064
66,007
51,347
41,501
21,276
1,252
1,273
1,808
`Annu- al Increase / Decrease
658,903
32,782
6,390
1,965
(10,064)
(1,220)
19,214
40,568
35,167
40,674
Ending Fund Balance
658,903
0
66,145
72,535
74,500
64,436
63,216
82,430
122,998
158,165
198,839
-
Total
500,738
PV
363,576
Net Present Value @
0.00%
658,903
I
Interest Eamings on ositive fund balance
"Interest Expense (on ne afive fund balance )
i dministratiye Fees -�- 3.8%
Estimated
0.5%
Actual
2.4%
Actual
3.1%
Actual
4.5%
Actual
8.8%
Actual
5.7%
Actual
3.2%
Actual
2.0%
0.0%
5.0 °k
4.0%
0.0%
5.0%
Est. Original Market Value
Original Tax Capacity
Total Market Value
Estimated Tax Coped
71,458
0
133,728
68,316
4,045,700
128,268
12,846,500
68,316
4,045,700
136,054
2,750,267
41,254
4,114,100
81,532
2,750,267
41,254
4,114,100
81,532
2,750,267
41,254
4,163,200
82,514
2,750,267
41,254
4232,100
83,892
2,100,200
41,253
3,800,000
75,250
2,100,200
41,254
4,011,300
79,476
Fiscal Disparities
:Captured Tax Ca ac
.Calculated Tax Increment
Variance
62,270
7.273
67,225
0
70,577
67,738
63,161
(8911
40,278
40,892
1,065
40,278
39,349
438
41,260
39,277
2
42,638
38,618
729
33,997
30,124
365
38,222
36,155
0
'Tax Rate
Tax Collection Rate
Inflation
1.07905
0.93243
100.00%
1.01524
100.00%
0.97694
100.00%
0.95194
100.00%
0.90898
99.64%
0.88929
99.64%
0.00%
0.94935
99.64%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
L9
1.11211
M1 1.02984
Schedule Pa ant - Max Amount Owed
100,492
103,604
106,762
109,968
113,222
116,524
119,876
123,278
126,732
10- 30-24- 14-0060
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL
11 -30- 24-23 -0026
no MV chg
MV update
MV update
MV update
MV u ate
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 30
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
oun
TIF DISTRICT #12
JL9&M1
TIF DISTRICT #12
I
'McGlynn Bakeries
JCItyFund463
McGlynn Bakeries
:Redevelopment District
03/1992 - 12/2019
70TALS
To End
Projected ---- ->
of District
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
'Fund Balance
198,839
242,646
280,488
318,329
356,171
394,012
431,854
469,695 '
i
'Revenues:
Inflation
1
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
1,302,792
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
0
Interest Earnings
39,408
5,965
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of Investment,
0
Land Sales
0
?
Transfers
32,112
Annual Revenues
1,374,312
45,798
39,833
39,833r
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
Expenses
i
Land/building acquisition
0
Site Improvements/prep. costs
213,533
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
!
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI' %)
49,069
1,992
1,992
1,992
1,992
1,992
1,992
1,992
1,992
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reim
0
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
180
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
451,851
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
1
Other Expenses
776
°Annual Expenses
715,4091
1,9921
1,992
1,992
1,9921
1,992
1,992
1,992
1,992
Annual Increase / Decrease
658,903
43,807
37,842
37,842
37,842
37,842
37,842
37,842
37,842
?Ending Fund Balance
658,903
242,646 1
280,4881
318,329 1
356,171 1
394,012 1
431,854
469,695
507,537
j
0
i
Net Present Value @
0.00%
658,903
i
1' Interest Earnings on
positive fund balance
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.00/0
0.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
. 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
'Administrative Fees
3.8%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
}
Estimated
'Est. Original Market Value
2,750,267
2,750,267
2,750,267
2,750,267
2,750,267
2,750,267
2,750,267
2,750,267 1
Original Tax Ca aci
41,254
41,254
41,254
41,254
41,254
41,254
41,254
41,254
L Total Market Value
4,205,700
4,205,700
4,205,700
4,205,700
4,205.700
4,205,700
4,205,700
4,205,700
Estimated Tax Capacity
83,364
83,364
83,364
83,364
83,364
83,364
83,364
83,364
Fiscal Disparities
Captured Tax Capacity
42,110
42,110
42,110
42,110
42,110
42,110
42,110
42,110
Calculated Tax Increment
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833
39,833 1.
Variance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:Tax Rate
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
0.94935
Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%1
0.00%
E
Certified Tax Rate
L9
1.11211
M1
1.02984
`Schedule Payment - Max Amount Owed
130,238
r
;COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL
MV updated
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA Page 31
{ . _
_
. - -
0 1
----
43,224 1
--I--- .
33,011 1
39,003
39,946
TIF DISTRICT #13
County N1
1
Variance
TIF DISTRICT #13
51,914
Satellite Lane Apts
City Fund 464
113
126
Satellite Lane Apts
805
I
Redevelopment District
0611995 - 12/2023
FTOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fund Balance
0
20,724
72,013
116,136
147,552
185,645
226,208
276,033
l
i Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
1,176,948
23,647
51,914
43,449
32,950
33,343
34,382
40,065
42,784
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
432,109
Other Revenues
MVHC
20,621
5,547
5,438
4,943
4,693
Interest Earnings'
59,161
411
1,911
4.966
2,697
2,464
2,563
5,977
12,799
Change in FMV of I vestment,
0
t
Land Sales
0
tfr from TIF #13 -per Ehlers
r
Transfers
431,070
431,070
;Annual Revenues
2,119,909
455,128
53,825
48,415
35,647
41,354
42,383
50,985
60,276
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
425,6981
698
Site improvements /prep. costs
4,781
952
0
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park.facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA(TI * %
66,601
2,636
854
4,292
4,096
3,123
1,669
1,160
1,218
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reimb
0
Interest Expense **
0
Transfers
424
135
138
151
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
1
Debt Service - Other
432,109
431,070
Interfund loans
0
tfr to General Fund - par Ehlers
Other Expenses
730
730
Annual Expenses
*
930,343
434,4041
2,536
4,292
4,231
3,261
1,820
1,160
1,218
Annual Increase / Decrease
1,189,566
20,724
51,289
44,123
31,416
38,093
40,563
49,825
59,059
-
i
Ending Fund Balance
1,189,566
20,7241
72,013
1 116,136
147,552
1 185,645
226,208
276,033
335,092
0
I
*
ARPLoximately $4.0 million in costs of this TIF District were paid by TIF #1
Total
854,474
PV
573,453
Not Present Value @
0.00%
1,189,566
>' Interest Earnings (on positive fund balance
2.0%
`* Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0 °h
Administrative Fees
5.7%
11.1%
1.6%
9.9%
12.4%
9.4%
4.9%
2.9%
5.0%
Estimated
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Est. Original Market Value
233,300
233,300
233,300
233,300
233,300
233,300
233,400
233,400
IOri anal Tax Ca aci
3,693
3,485
3,485
2,333
2,333
2,333
2,334
2,334
l Total Market Value
0
3,637,400
3,637,400
3,770,600
31955,900
4,378,200
5,000,200
5,307,000
iEstimated Tax Ca aci
27,947
43,799
47,173
37,706
39,559
43,782
50,002
53,070
i
ne veA
An 94A
A7 RRR
as z�z
q7 97F
dl 0110
47.668
50.736 I
i-. -- , on vo a
�Calculated Tax Increment
. - -
0 1
----
43,224 1
--I--- .
33,011 1
39,003
39,946
45,780
46,672
1
Variance
51,914
225
61
113
126
772
805
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 32
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #13 1 County N1
TIF DISTRICT #13
Satellite Lane Apts .City Fund 464
Satellite Lane Apts
Redevelopment District
:0611995 - 12/2023
TOTALS
To End
Projected
Projected ---->
of District
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fund Balance
335,092
397,269
457,961
506,735
555,508
604,282
653,055
701,829
750,603
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
1,176,948
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
432,109
Other Revenues
MVHC
20,621
Interest Earnings
59,161
13,404
11,918
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of I vestmenti
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
431,070
Annual Revenues
2,119,909
64,744
63,259
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
_
425,698
Site improvements /prep. costs
4,781
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI ` % )
66,601
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reim
0
Interest Expense"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
424
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
432,109
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
730
Annual Expenses
•
930,343
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567 1
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567
2,567
;Annual. Increase t Decrease
9
62,177
60,692
48,774
48,774
48,774
48,774
48,774
48,774
48,774
ti�
,Ending Fund Balance
397,269
457,961
506,735
555,508
604,282
653,055
701,829
750,603
799,376
0
Approximately 6pproximately $4.0 million in costs of this TIF L
Net Present Value @
0.00% 1,189,566
i
:*Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%1
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%1
0.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.00/0
0.0%
0.0%1
0.0%
,Administrative Fees 1
5.7%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%1
5.0%
Estimated
Est. Original Market Value
233,400
233,400
233,400
233,400
233,400
233,400
233,400
233,400
233,400
,Origin I Tax Capacity
2,334
2,334
2,334
2,334
2,334
2,334
2,334
2,334
2,334
F Total Market Value 1
5,754,200
5,754,200
5,754,200
5,754,200 1
5,754,200
5,754,200
5,754,200
5,754,200
5,754,200
Estimated Tax Ca aci
1 57,542
57,542
57,542
57,542
57,542
57,542
57,542
57,542
57,542
Ca tured Tax Capacity
55,208
55,208
55,208
55,208
55,208
55,208
55,208
55,208
55,208
Calculated Tax Increment
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341
51,341 1
51,341
Variance
0
0 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tax Rate
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331.
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
Tax Collection Rate
1 99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
1.17706
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 34
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #15
County P7
TIF DISTRICT #15
iMN Commercial Ra%vay-Di
City Fund 466
DECERTIFIED
MN Commercial Rahway-
Decertified
Economic Development Distric
0911997 - 0412008
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fund Balance
0
52,379
52,626
51,615
51,071
0
0
0
; Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
59,869
56,933
0
0
0
0
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
134,838
Other Revenues
0
Interest Earnings
5,996
2,175
2,777
1,044
0
Change in FMV of I vestment,
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
134,838
134,838
Annual Revenues
335,541
191,771
2,175
2,777
1,044
01
0
01
0
;Expenses
Land/building acquisition
1,718
Site Improvements /prep. costs
125,000
1
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
}
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
{
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees -C /HRA (TI ` %
22,460
4,554
1,528
3,788
1,634
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum relmh
0
Interest Expense ``
0
Transfers
51,125
54
51,071
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service -Other
0
Interfund loans
134,838
134,838
Other Expenses
400
400
;Annual Expenses
335,541
139,392
1,928
3,788
1,588
51,071
0
0
0
Annual Increase / Decrease
0
52,379
247
(1,011)
(544)
(51,071 )1
0
1 0
0
!Ending Fund Balance
0
52,379
52,626
1 51,615
51,071
0
0
0
0
0
',Net Present Value @
0.00 °!°
0
` Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
2.0%
;" Interest Expense on n ative fund balance
0.0%
,Administrative Fees
37.5%
8.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
OTC Increased In 2002
l Ori final Market Value
"Original Tax Capacity
9,964
13,661
15,355
20,563
20,563
0
0
0
Total Market Value
0
0
204,800
178,100
363,700
0
0
0
Estimated Tax Capacity
59,823
5,494
5,463
2,812
6,524
0
0
0
i
Captured Tax Capacity
49,859
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'Calculated Tax Increment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Variance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tax Rate
1.08621
0.94139
1.02639
0.98111
0.96346
0.92454
0.90679
:Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.64%
99.64 %1
Inflation
_
0.00%
t
Certified Tax Rate
1.14473
i
11 -30 -24-31 -0011
-Ed
COMMERCIAL i INDUSTRIAL
11 -30 24 31 -0012 1
MV update
MV updated
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 35
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
,
TIF DISTRICT #16 • County P8
TIF DISTRICT #16
i
57th Ave (Linn) -City Fund 467
57th Ave (Linn)
Redevelopment District
0911997 - 1212024
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Projected 4
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Fund Balance
(15,935)
(119,620)
(120.810)
(116,232)
(119,843)
(124,914)
(123,867)
(122,461)
(129,349)'
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
579,917
4,481
4,323
19,103
11,579
14,616
16,715
17,821
20,075
23,236
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
18,435
0
2,500
Other Revenues
0
Interest Earnings
1,070
227
84
63
38
42
(3)
0
Change in FMV of investmenb
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
15,935
15,935
:Annual Revenues
615,357
20,416
6,823
19,330
11,663
14,679
16,753
17,863
20,072
23,236
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
2,002
D
Site improvements/prep. costs
116,859
116,859
Installation of public utilities
0
_
TParking
facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees -Ci /HRA (TI' %)
65,757
7,242
3,652
4,189
1,419
7,915
1,573
872
897
1,162 ►
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum reimb
0
Interest Expense "
0
0
Transfers
16,066
8
5
3
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
211,755
3,961
10,563
13,847
11,830
14,150
15,565
26,063
20,912
Debt Service - Other
0
0
3 payments
Interfund loans
0
0
Other Expenses
Annual Expenses
400
412,839
124,101
400
8,013
14,752
15,274
19,750
15,726
16,437
26,960
22,074
Annual Increase /Decrease
202,519
(103,685)
(1,190)
4,578
(3,611)
(5,D71)
1,027
1,426
(6,887)
1,162
'Ending Fund Balance
202,519
(119,620)
(120,810)
(116,232)
(119,843
(124,914)
(123,887)
(122,461 )
(129,349)
(12811E7
0
:Net Present Value @
0.00%
I 202,519
a
t.• Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
2.0%
4.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
,Administrative Fees
11.3%
161.6%
84.5%
21.9%
12.3%
54.2%
9.4%
4.9%
5.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Est. Original Market Value
606,542
518,400
518,400
1 518,400
518,400
426,300
426,300 #
a
Original Tax C p caq
14,557
14,557
7,776
7,776
7,776
7,776
7,776
7,776
_
Total Market Value 1
Estimated Tax CaparAty
0
0
18,233
1,041,600
33,914
1,048,900
20,228
1,126,300
21,776
1,297,500
25,200,
1,355,200
26,354
1,518,500
29,620
1,675,600
32,762
Captured Tax Capacity
0
3,676
19,357
12,452
14,000
17,424
18,578
21,844
1 24,986
Calculated Tax Increment
0
19,152
11,621
14,668
16,792
17,842
20,094
23,236
Variance
4,323
49
42
52
77
21
19
0
Tax Rate
1.17859
0.98937
0.93324
1.04774
0.96373
0.96386
0.92322
0.93331
Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
1.18168
23- 30 -24 -23 -0144
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL
23-30 -24-23 -0145
MV updated
MV updated
MV update4
MV updated
MV update
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 36
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #16
County P8
TIF DISTRICT #16
57th Ave (Linn)
City Fund 467
57th Ave (Linn)
Redevelopment District
T9 1997 - 1212024
TOTALS
To End
Projected ->
of District
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fund Balance
(128,187)
(126,870)
(125,552)
(124,234)
(122,917)
(97,883)
(72,850)
(47,816)1
1
4
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
579,917
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
18,435
Other Revenues
0
Interest Earnings
1,070
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of investment
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
15,935
Annual Revenues
615,357
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351 }
'Expenses
Land/building acquisition
2,002
Site Improvements /prep. costs
116,859
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI' %)
65,757
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum relmh
0
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
16,066
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
211,755
23,716
23,716
23,716
23,716
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
400
I
;Annual Expenses
412,639
25,034
25,034
25,034
25,034
1,3181
1,3181
1,318
1 1,318
i
Annual Increase /Decrease
202,519
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
25,034
25,034
25,034
25,034
iEnding Fund Balance
202,519
(126,870)
(125,552)
(124,234)
(122,917)
(97,883)
(72,850)
(47,816 )1
(22,783)
0
-Net Present Value @
0.00%
202,519
' Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%j
0.0%
0.00%
0.0%
0.0%
" Interest Expense on ne ative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
(Administrative Fees
11.3%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Est. Ori inal Market Value
426,300
426,300
426,300
426,300
426,300
426,300
426,300
426,300
`:Ori inal Tax Cape
7,776
7,776
7,776
7,776
7,776
7,776
7,776
7,776
Total Market Value
1,643,100
1,843,100
1,643,100
1,843,100
1,843,100
1,843,100
1,843,100
1,843,100
:Estimated Tax Capacity
36,112
36,112
36,112
36,112
36,112
36,112
36,112
36,112 ;
iCaptured Tax Capacity
28,336
28,336
28,336
28,336
28,336
28,336
28,336
28,336
Calculated Tax Increment
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
26,351
1 26,351
Variance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
;Tax Rate
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
ITax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.640/q
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
:Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
1.18168
i
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL_
MV updated
I
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 37
s
_certified Tax Rate 1 0.98937
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #17 C
County R9 T
TIF DISTRICT #17
:Gateway East p
Gateway East
- 1212028 T
pCiFund 4
TOTALS
To End A
Actual A
Actual A
Actual A
Actual A
Actual A
Actual A
Actual A
Actual P
Projected
Fund Balance (
of District 1
1999 .
.2000 2
2001 2
2002 2
2003 2
2004 2
2005 2
2006 2
2007
Revenues: I
Inflation
1,109,528 0
0 0
0 2
2,471 3
33,747 3
35,607 39,289 4
45,382
Loan Proceeds 0
MVHC _ 4
0 e
4,050 2
0 8
21,042 1
1,785 4
4,990 7
est 1
4,928
1
Change in FMV of investment, 0
0
Transfers 0
0
0 4
4,050 0
0 2
29,588 4
4,682 3
39,608 4
43,796 4
46,046 4
45,3821
`Expenses
Land/building acquisition 6
602,963 1
15,399 8
81,075 2
29,981 3
355,290
Site improvements/prep. cos 2
26,966 2
26,966
Installation of public utilities 2
264,638 2
264,638
Parking facilities 1 0
0 '
'
Streets and sidewalks 0
0
Public park facilities 0
0
Social, recreational, etc. 0
0
15,817 6
60,959 3
38,378 7
7,044 3
3,511 1
1,541 .
.1,200 1
13,433 2
2,269
Professional Services 4
40,149 9
9,051 3
31,098
School Dist referendum reim 0
0
0
i T
Transfers 5
56 1
13 4
43
Debt Service - Bonds 0
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes 0
0
Debt Service - Other 0
0
Interfund loans 0
0
Other Expenses 0
0
40,267 1
173,132 3
359,963 3
362,334 3
3,524 1
1,584 1
1,200 1
13,433 2
2,2691
Annual Increase / Decrease 3
37,375 (
(40,267) {
{169,082) (
(359,963) (
(332,746) 1
1,158 3
38,024 4
42,596 3
32,613 4
43,113
Ending Fund Balance 3
3�7,378� (
(163,720) (
(332,802) (
(692,765) (
(1,025,511) (
(1,024,353) (
(986.329 9
943,733) (
(911,120) (
(868,006)1
(0)
Net Present Value @ 0
0.00% 3
37,375
i
` Interest Earnings on sitive fund balance 2
Actual A
Actual A
Actual A
Actual A
142.1% 4
4.6% 3
3.4% 5
2.0% 4
4.0%
Est. Original Market Value e
0 0
0 0
0 0
esf 5
508,900 5
508,900 5
508,900 5
504,200 5
504,200
Ca tured Tax Capacity 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
4,623 4
41,498 4
41,125 4
48,049 4
48,801 '
Tax Rate 1
1.17859 0
0.98937 0
0.93324 1
1.04774 0
0.96373 0
0.96386 0
0.92322 0
0.93331
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 38
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #17
County R9
11F DISTRICT #17
Gateway East
City Fund 468
Gateway East
Redevelopment District
;2001 - 12!2028
TOTALS
I
To End
Projected ->
of District
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
:Fund Balance
(868,006)
(824,893)
(781,779)
(738,666)
(695,553)
(652,439)
(609,326)
(566,213)
j
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
1,109,528
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
MVHC
45,643
I
Interest Earnings *
12,013
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of investment
0
Land Sales
0
Transfers
0
:Annual Revenues
1,167,184
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
'Expenses
Land/building acquisition
602,963
Site Improvements/prop. costs
26,966
Installation of public utilities
264,638
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees - City /HRA (TI % )
195,038
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
Professional Services
40,149
i
School Dist referendum ream
0
Interest Expense **
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
Transfers
56
I
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
0
interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
0
:Annual Expenses
1,129,810
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
2,269
j
,
jAnnual Increase / Decrease
37,375
43,113
43,113
43,113
43,113
43,113
43,113
43,113
43,113
0
Ending Fund Balance
37,375
(824,893)
(781,779)
(738,666)
(695,553)
(652,439 )1
(609,326)
(566,213)
(523,099)
Net Present Value @
0.00%
37,375
I
i
* Interest Earnings on
positive fund balance
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Administrative Fees
17.6%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Estimated
,Est. Original Market Value
504,200
504,200
504,200
504,200
504,200
504,200
504,200
504,200
';Original Tax Ca aci
5,042
5,042
5,042
5,042
5,042
5,042
5,042
5,042
Total Market Value
5,384,300
5,384,300
5,384,300
5,384,300
5,384,300
5,384,300
5,384,300
5,384,300 ;
`Estimated Tax Cap acu
53,843
53,843
53,843
53,843
53,843
53,843
53,843
53,843
Ca turgid Tax Ca :)acity
48,801
48,801
48,801
48,801
48,801
48,801
48,801
48,801
Calculated Tax Increment
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
45,382
Variance
0
0
'Tax Rate
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
:Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.640/6
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
0.98937
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 39
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #18 lCountl U4
TIF DISTRICT #18
Gateway West I City Fund 470
Gateway West
Redevelopment District
2005 - 12/2032
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Projected
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
(3,813)
(428,417)
(797,946)
(1,421,922)
(1,557,933)
Revenues:
Tax Increment (TI)
Inflation
0.00%
620,900
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,736
Bond Proceeds
Loan Proceeds
Other Revenues
Interest Earnings `
0
0
343,941
0
194,114
CDBG grant
8,441
CDBG grant
124,236
MN -DOT
17,150
0
Change in FMV of Investment,
Land Sales
0
690,049
217,049
344,000
Transfers
0
Annual Revenues
1,654,890
0
0
0
0
194,114
0
8,441
341,285
371,886
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
1,854,762
618,718
334,684
480,229
421,131
Site Improvements/prep. costs
0
_
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
,Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
Admin Fees- CIty/HRA (TI ` %)
0
288,928
3,938
34,845
152,188
56,166
11,283
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum ream
0
Interest Expense "I
0
0
Transfers
(125}
25)
Debt Service -Bonds
0
V(1
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
Annual Expenses
0
2,143,564
0
0
0
3,813
618,718
369,529
632,417
477,297
11,283
Annual Increase / Decrease
(488,674)
0
0
0
3,813)
(424,604 )
((369,529)
(6a3 976)
(136,011 )360,604
r
Ending Fund Balance
{40
0
0
0
1 (3,813)
(428,417)
(797,946)
(1,421,922)
(1,557,933)
(1,197,330)
0
Net Present Value @
0.00%
(581,419)1
1
` Interest Earnings on posiCe fund balance
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance)_
strative Fees 46.5%
2.0%
0.0%
5.0 °l0
4.0%
0.0%
5.0%
.Administrative
Estimated
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
.�_
OCri final Market Value
Original Tax Ca ac
_Total Market Value
Estimated Tax Ca ad
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
1,295,500
12,955
2,450,000
24,500
Captured Tax Cap2a
Calculated Tax Increment
Variance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,545
10,736
0
Tax Rate
Tax Collection Rate
Inflation
1.17859
0.98937
100.00%
0.93324
100.00%
1.04774
100.00%
0.96373
100.00%
0.96386
99.64%
1
0.92322
99.64%
0.00%
0.93331
99.64%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 40
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
TIF DISTRICT #18
County U4
TIF DISTRICT #18
Gateway West
City Fund 470
Gateway West
Redevelopment District
2005 - 1212032
TOTALS
To End
Projected ->
of District
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1 2014
2015
Fund Balance
(1,197,330)
(1,045,144)
(1,021,957)
(998,771)
(975,585)
(952,399)
(929,212)
(906,026)
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
620,900
24,407
24,407
24,407
24,407
24,407
24,407
24,407
24,407
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
343,941
Interest Earnings'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change in FMV of investment
0
Land Sales
690,049
129,000
Transfers
0
Annual Revenues
1,654,890
153,407
24,407
24,407
24,407
24,407
24,407
1 24,407
24,407
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
1,854,762
Site Improvements /prep. cos
0
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees-Cl RA (TI ` % )
288,928
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reftnt
0
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
(125)
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
0
Annual Expenses
2,143,564
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
Annual Increase / Decrease
(488,674)
152,186
23,186
23,1861
23,186
23,186
23,186
23,186
23,186
Ending Fund Balance
(488,674}
(1,045,144) (1,021,957
)
(998,771)
(975,585)
(952,399 )
(929,212)
(906,026)
(882.840)
0
Net Present Value @
0.00%
(581,419)
* Interest Earnings on
positive fund balance
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%1
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
°" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Administrative Fees
46.5%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Original Market Value
Original Tax Capacity
Total Market Value
1,295,500
12,955
3,920,000
1,295,500
12,955
3,920,000
1,295,500
12,955 1
3,920,000
1,295,500
12,955
3,920,000
1,295,500
12,955
3,920,000
1,295,500
12,955
3,920,000
1,295,500
12,955
3,920,000
1,295,500
12,955
3,920,000
Estimated Tax Ca aci
39,200
39,200
39,200
39,200
39,200
39,200
39,200
39,200
Captured Tax Capacity
Calculated Tax Increment
Variance
26,245
24,407
0
26,245
24,407
0
26,245
24,407
26,245
24,407
26,245
24,407
26,245
24,407
26,245
24,407
26,245
24,407
Tax Rate
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331 1
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%1
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
t
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 41
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. l ild/zuu /
TIF DISTRICT #19 County
TIF
DISTRICT
#19
5110
Main St
NE (Ind Eq)
5110 Main St NE (Ind City Fund 470
Redevelopment District
TOTALS
To End
of District
7TFR
09
9,901)
2010
(18,702)
2011
(7,503)
2012
3,696
2013
14,894
2014
2 6,093
2015
37,292
Fund Balance
Inflation
2,687,712
0
0
0
223,976
223,976
223,976
223,976
223,976
223,976
223,976
_Revenues:
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
Bond Proceeds
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interest Earnings *
0
;Change
in FMV of investment
0
0
0
223,976
223,976
223,976
223,976
223,976
223,976
223,976
Land Sales
0
Transfers
0
Annual Revenues
2,687,712
Expenses i
�Land/building acquisition
0
Site Improvements /prep. cost
0
Installation of public utilities
0
_
Parking facilities-
Streets and sidewalks
0
0
_
Publ� is park facilities
0
!Social,
recreational, etc.
0
thru 9/30/07
29.901 0
11,199
11,199
11,199
11,199
11,199
11,199
11,199
'Admin
Fees- City/HRA(TI ` %
164,286
Professional Services
0
School Dist referendum reimt
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
Interest Expense'*
0
Transfers
0
Debt Service - Bonds
0
201,578
201,578
201,578
201,578
201,578
201,578
201,578
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
2,418,941
Debt Service - Other
0
Interlund loans
0
29,901
0
212,777
12,777
212,777
212,777
212,777
212,777
212,777
Other Expenses
0
Annual
Expenses
2,583,227
(29,901)
0
11,199
11,199
11,199
11,199
11,199
11,199
11,199
Annual Increase / Decrease
104,485
48,491
(29,901)
(29,901)
(18,702)
7,503)
3,696
14,894
26,093
37,292
E ding g Fund Balance
104,485
0
Net Present Value @
4.0%
0.0%
3.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2,191,900
43,088
2,191,900
43,088
0
0
0
0.93331
99.64%
0.00%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2,458,373
49,167
14,538,240
290,015
240,847
223,976
0
0.93331
99.64%
0.00%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
5.0% 5.0%
2,458,373 2,458,373
49,167 49,167
14,538,240 14,538,240
290,015 290,015
240,847 240,847
223,976 223,976
0.93331 0.93331
99.64% 99.64%
0.00% 0.00%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2,458,373
49,167
14,538,240
290,015
240,847
223,976
0.9333 1
99.64%
0.00%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2,458,373
49,167
14,538,240
290,015
240,847
223,976
0331
.93
99.64%
0.00%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2,458,373
49,167
14,538,240
290,015
240,847
223,976
0.93331
99.64%
0.00%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2,458,373
49,167
14,538,240
290,015
240,847
223,976
0.93331
99.64%
0.00%
` Interest Earnings (on p2sitive fund balance
Interest Ex ense on n ative fund balance
Administrative Fees
6.1 °!0
5.0%
Estimated
�--
or! Inal Market Value
original Tax Ca aci
0
Total Market Value
0
Estimated Tax Ca aci
0
Captured Tax Ca ac
0
Calculated Tax Increment
0
Variance
0
Tax Rate
Tax Collection Rate
0.93331
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
27- 30 -24 -14 -0006
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. l ild/zuu /
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 42
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
Housing Replacemen,
County 04, 05, 06
Housing Replacement
Program
City Fund 501
Program
j
'Housing District
I
711811996 - 1212022
TOTALS
Actual
Through
1997 &
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual i
2025
Prior
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fund Balance
0
0
(824,477)
(852,018)
(861,034)
121,447
131,081
147,095
165,447 ;
I
_
'
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
572,353
45
5,881
5,927
12,177
12,435
10,313
16,217
19,899
22,921
Bond Proceeds
0
i
Loan Proceeds
724,445
724,445
0
0
Other Revenues
MVHC
15,567
2,554
1,633
1,125
2,145
2,803
2,830
Interest Earnings *
59,213
75
24,245
(3,889)
3,216
2,544
1,924
1,892
4,192 .
Change in FMV of I vestment,
0
Land Sales
257,771
75,652
1,000
24,900
150,719
5,500
Transfers
860,455
860,455
Annual Revenues
2,489,804
727,119
105,778
3,038
38,710
1,027,950
20,502
20,944
24,621
27,113
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
769,909
539,262
199,383
1,746
29,161
357
Site Improvements /prep. cost
166,585
158,562
8,023
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI * % )
169,506
29,295
6,427
28,833
7,536
45,469
10,380
4,816
6,154
5,094
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum reimb
0
Interest Expense **
0
Transfers
724,805
724,445
131
114
115
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
I
Debt Service - Other
0
_
'Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
3,006
3,006
Annual Expenses
1,833,811
727,119
930,255
30,579
47,726 1
45,4691
10,868
1 4,930
6,269
5,094
Annual Increase / Decrease
655,993
0
(824,477}
(27,541)1
(9,016)
982,481
9,634 1
16,0141
18,352 1
22,019 j
0
f
Ending Fund Balance
655,993
0
(824,477)
(852,018) 1
(861,034)1
121,4471
131,081 1
147,095 1
165,4471
187,466
0
f
Net Present Value @
0.00%
655,993
* Interest Earnings on
positive fund balance
'* Interest Expense on negative fund balance
Administrative Fees 29.6%
165100.0%.
109.3%
486.5%
61.9%
365.7%
100.6%
29.7%
30.9%
22.2%
Estimated
Actuall
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual'
Est. Original Market Value
311,400
451,300
488,700
488,700
Original Tax Capacity
2,601
2,601
2,391
3,114
4,513
4,887
4,887
Total Market Value
815,500
815,500
905,200
1,540,500
2,320,900
2,958,900
2,958,900
Estimated Tax Capaclity Capacity
8,155
8,155
11,573
15,405
23,209
29,589
29,589 i
,Captured Tax Capacity
0
5,554
5,554
9,182
12,291
18,696
24,702
24,702
Calculated Tax Increment
9,084
11,470
19,589
23,806
23,724
'Variance
3,351
1,157
3,372
3,907
803
Tax Rate
3 different tax rates
1.17859
0.98937
0.93324
1.04774
0.96373
0.96386 j
Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.000%
100.00%
99.64%
Inflation
Certifi�Ta, Rat e
04
1.17662
05
1.13880
06
M 1.25065
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 43
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
I
Housing Re laceme
County 04, 05, 06
Housing Replacement
Program
City Fund 501
Program
,Housing District
'
7/18h 996 - 1212022
TOTALS
Through
Actual
Projected
Projected --->
2025
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Fund Balance
187,466
220,312
255,325
289,185
315,386
341,586
367,787
393,987
420,188 '
i
Revenues:
Inflation
3
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
572,353
25,265
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580 I
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
_
724,445
Other Revenues
MVHC
15,567
2,477
Interest Earnings
59,213
8,542
8,812
7,660
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change In FMV of investment,
0
Land Sales
257,771
Transfers
860,455
Annual Revenues
2,489,804
36,284
36,392
35,239
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580 '
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
769,909
Site Improvements/prep. costs
166,585
Installation of public utilities
0
I
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees- City/HRA (TI * % )
169,506
3,438
1,379
1,379
1,379
1,379
1,379
1,379
1,379
1,379
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum reimb
0
}
i
Interest Expense '*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
724,805
v
Debt Service - Bonds
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - Other
0
Interfund loans
0
Other Expenses
3,006
"Annual Expenses
1,833,811
3,438
1,379
1,379
1,379
1,379
1,3791
1,379
1,379
1,379
Annual Increase ! Decrease
655,993
32,846
35,013
33,860
26,201
1 26,201
1 26,201
26,201
26,201
26,201
Ending Fund Balance)
650
220,312
255,325
289,185
315,386
341,586
367,787
393,987
420,188
446,389
0
Net Present Value @
0.00%
655,993
i
i
' Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
2.0%
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
- Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Administrative Fees
29.6%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Estimated
Est. Original Market Value
'Original Tax Capacity
556,200
4,888
488,800
4,888
488,800
4,888
488,800
4,888
488,800
4,888
488,800
4,888
488,800
4,888
488,800
4,888
488,800
4,888
Total Market Value
3,454,500
3,454,500
3,454,500
3,454,500
3,454,500
3,454,500
3,454,500
3,454,500
3,454,500
Estimated Tax Capaqu
34, 545
34, 545
34 ,545
34,545
34,545
34,545
34,545
34,545
34,545
s
Captured Tax Ca aci
29,657
29,657
29,657
29,657
29,657
29,657
29,657
29,657
29,657
Calculated Tax Increment
27,281
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
27,580
Variance
2,016
0
0
0
'
Tax Rate
3 different tax rates
0.92322
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
0.93331
Tax Collection Rate
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%1
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Certified Tax Rate
04
1.17662
05
1.13880
1
06
1.25065
i
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 44
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
HRA
HRA
General Fund
City Fund 100
General Fund
TOTALS
]
Through
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
2025
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fund Balance
10,769,309
11,537,480
9,181,232
8,673,706
8,919,070
9,185,008
9,234,053
9,357,032
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
0
Bond Proceeds
0
'
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
10,966,865
112,009
237,579
259,393
267,198
377,386
318,446
330,556
362,051
Interest Earnings `
2,728,146
270,855
468,870
303,302
160,686
91,450
86,229
148,883
245,658
Change In FMV of Investmenh
0
2005 & 2006
Land Sales Medtronl
1,983,661
61,268
135,837
46,627
MISSING
110,044
Transfers (includes TIF #1 int_
12,397,646
941,791
156,636
262,793
100,288
57,256
6,057
0
0
Annual Revenues
28,076,318
1,324,655
863,085
825,488'
589,440
661,929
457,359
479,439
717,754
Expenses
Land/building acquisition
1,718,000
Site improvements/prep. costs
0
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities 1
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Admin Fees
0
Professional Services
0
School Dist. referendum ream
0
Interest Expense "
0
to Revolving
Loan Fund
missing?
{
Transfers (to Revolving Loan 1
5,254,894
2,967,906
1,106,287
87,429
87,429
0
285,719
Debt Service - Bonds
0
0
0
0
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - City Loan
0
repayment not
made
Interfund loans
0
- 128775
loan repayment from TIF #9
Other Expenses
10,403,441
556,484
251,427
226,727
344,076
308,562
320,886
356,460
332,234
,Annual Expenses
17,376,335
556,4841
3,219,333
1,333,014
344,076
395,991
408,315
356,460
617,954 ,
Annual increase / Decrease
10,699,984
768,171
(2,356,248)
(507,526)1
245,364
265,938
49,044
122,979
99,800
Ending Fund Balance `'
10,699,984
11,537,480
9,181,232
8,673,706
8,919,070
9,185,008
9,234,053
9,357,032
9,456,832
0
Debt Service Reserve (next yrs Bonds)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Available Fund Balance
8,673,706
8,919,070
9,185,008
9,234,053
9,3579032
9,456,832
Net Present Value @ 0.00%
10,699,984
'*Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
2.0%
Interest Expense on ne ative fund balance
0.0%
Approximately
0
of the current year fund balance should be reserved for required future G.O. Debt ayments due
in 2009 - 2012.
i
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 45
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/8/2007
HRA
i
HRA
_
General Fund
City Fund
100
General Fund
f
TOTAL5
Through
Projected
Projected ---- ->
2025
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Fund Balance
9,456,832
8,231,042
8,553,725
8,631,494
8,709,265
8,787,036
8,912,605
9,078,294
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
0
Bond Proceeds
0
Loan Proceeds
0
Other Revenues
10,966,865
519,289
475,967
477,985
477,986
477,987
1 464,2241
460,630
1 460,631 '
Interest Earnings
2,728,146
378,273
246,931
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change In FMV of investment,
0
TIF #6 OTC & percentage adjusted In 2012
_
Land Sales IMedtronic
1,983,661
67,768
72,904
72,904
72,904
72,904
90,750
90,750
90,750
Transfers (includes TIF #1 int i
12,397,646
0
0
0
Annual Revenues
28,076,318
965,330
795,803
550,889
550,890
550,891
554,974
551,380
551,381
Expenses
thru 9130/07
Land/building acquisition
1,718,000
1,718,000
Site Improvements/prep. costs
0
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
1
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
_
Admin Fees
0
Professional Services
0
`School
;Interest
Dist. referendum reim
Expense •'1
0
0
(Transfers
(to Revolving Loan 1
5,254,894
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
43,714
0
0
Debt Service - Bonds
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
0
Debt Service - City
Loan
0
Interfund loans
0
Budget 2007
other Expenses
10,403,441
385,691
385,691
385,691
385,691
385,691
385,691
385,691
385,691
':Annual Expenses
117,376,335
2,191,119
473,120
473,120
473,120
473,120
429,405
385,691
385,691
Annual Increase / Decrease
10,699,984
(1,225,789)
322,683
77,769
77,770
77,771
125,568
165,689
165,690
Ending Fund Balance **
10,699,984
8,231,042
8,553,725
8,631,494
8,709,265
8,787,036
8,912,605
9,078,294
9,243,984
0
Debt Service Reserve (next yrs Bonds)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,Available Fund Balance
8,231,042
8,553,725
8,631,494
8,709,265
8,787,036
8,912,605
9,078,294
9,243,984
Net Present Value @
0.00%
10,699,984
Interest Earnings (on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%1
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
A roximatel
0
of the current
a
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 46
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
'TIF Districts & HRA General Fund
TIF Districts & HRA General Fund
iFund Balance Summary
Fund Balance Summary
(Excludes Revolving Loan Pro
]ram)
j
TOTALS
To End
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
of District
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
:Fund Balance
0
12,865,141
10,522,234
9,841,373
11,157,038
11,304,069
11,570,386
11,989,887
12,970,917
Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Increment (TI)
0.00%
81,162,607
2,866,456
2,819,344
3,146,088
2,602,153
3,627,239
3,078,426
3,224,205
2,649,019
Bond Proceeds
34,879,264
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loan Proceeds
11,960,911
0
2,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Revenues
12,052,009
252,009
412,017
414,095
292,671
612,915
368,359
384,412
528,300
i
Interest Earnings `
4,621,532
314,242
548,876
483,865
244,373
161,619
151,840
295,284
558,686
Change In FMV of I vestment4,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Land Sales
Medtronic
8,536,089
1,000
24,900
150,719
66,768
135,837
46,627
0
327,093
Transfers _
33,923,845
21,590,413
156,636
1,123,862
100,288
57,256
6,057
16,508
0
Annual Revenues
187,136,256
25,024,120
3,964,273
5,318,629
3,306,253
4,594,866
3,651,309
3,920,409
4,063,099
'Expenses
Land/bullding acquisition
30,823,317
2,083,878
110,236
240,767
371,347
634,618
334,684
480,229
421,131
Site Improvementsipre . costs
6,580,423
482,641
10,023
26,966
0
0
0
0
0
Installation of public utilities
1,785,188
0
0
264,638
224,716
0
0
0
0
Parking facilities
290,065
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Streets and sidewalks
6,182
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Public park facilities
4,050
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Admin Fees- CILy/HRA (TI ` %
4,170,543
437,437
201,445
185,518
78,201
60,641
81,394
177,926
91,373
Professional Services
115,233
9,051
31,098
0
0
0
0
0
0
School Dist referendum reimt
3,179,269
163,496
174,396
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interest Expense "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transfers
8,642,336
0
2,967,906
1,276,508
7,144
141,784
91,046
0
285,719
!
Debt Service - Bonds
59,086,299
6,383,396
776,189
1,573,296
1,654,863
1,636,680
1,673,973
1,698,857
1,818,415
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
15,822,297
77,357
104,256
202,814
613,075
1,546,265
729,825
225,906
615,849
Debt Service - Other
5,444,551
5,438,869
4,643
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interfund loans
10,251,757
134,838
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Expenses
21,688,066
12,156,064
264,942
232,457
209,876
308,562
320,886
356,460
332,234
`Annual Expenses
168,089,577
27,367,027
4,645,134
4,002,964
3,159,222
4,328,550
3,231,808
2,939,378
3,564,720
_
:Annual Increase l Decrease
19,046,680
(2,342,907)
(680,861 )1
1,315,665
1 147,031
266,316
419,501
981,030
498,378
Ending Fund Balance
19,046,680
10,522,234
9,841,373
11,157,038
111,304,069
111,570,386 11
1,989,887
112,970,917
13,469,295
0
iDebt Service Reserve (next yrs Bonds)
776,189
1,573,296
1,654,863
1,636,680
1,673,973
1,698,857
1,818,415
1,869,938
;Available Fund Balance
9,746,045
8,268,077
9,502,175
9,667,389
9,896,413
10,291,030
11,152,502
11,599,358
Net Present Value
0.00%
18,953,935
*.Interest Eamin s on positive fund balance
2.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
Admin Fees excl HRA Gen'I fun
5.1%
15.3%
7.1%
5.9%1
3.0%
1.7%
2.6%
5.5%
Estimated
Actual
Actual
Actuall
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Onan decertifed for 2003
OTC adjusted 2004
'Est. Original Market Value
11,054,900
12,413,500
45,868,723
47,027,950
30,020,833
30,097,900
29,681,133
28,080,300
Ori inal Tax Capacityl
1,416,195
1,501,164
1,551,647
1,134,595
773,589
474,556
476,745
475,834
Total Market Value
815,500
8,498,600
184,755,000
220,498,100
245,909,000
254,868,000
262,667,250
272,041,613
'Estimated Tax Capacity
3,962,419
4,147,412
5,150,906
3,876,147
4,250,981
4,326,951
4,420,118
4,506,210
Fiscal Disparities - TIF #3
(303,007)
(298,163)
(337,860)
(219,903)
(219,903)
(289,302)
(336,975)
(306,954)
Ca tured Tax Capacity
2,377,038
2,471,963
3,271,291
2,539,400
3,271,528
3,563,093
3,606,398
3,721,422
Calculated Tax Increment
0
0
3,131,659
2,576,291
3,234,533
3,427,170
3,374,562
3,372,303
Variance
2,807,167
14,429
28,148
429,533
308,521
112,790
688,677
Tax Collection Rate
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.64%
99.64%
Inflation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
' Schedule, Payment - Max Amount
Owed -,TIF #12
1001492_
1
1_ 06,762
109,968
113,
116 524
119 876
123,278
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, P.A. 11/8/2007
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Page 47
'TIF Districts & HRA General Fund
TIF Districts & HRA General Fund
Fund Balance Summary I
Fund Balance Summary
;(Excludes Revolving Loan Pro ram)
TOTALS
To End
Projected
Projected --->
of District
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Fund Balance
0
13,469,295
13,288,476
14,648,187
14,222,009
14,389,563
14,554,022
14,766,073
13,819,154
Revenues:
Tax Increment (TI)
i Bond Proceeds
Inflation
0.00%
81,162,607
34,879,264
3,733,609
0
3,276,550
0
2,236,932
0
1,659,075
0
1,659,075
0
1,383,784
0
1,311,892
0
1,311,892
0
Loan Proceeds
11,960,911
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Revenues
12,052,009
536,439
475,967
477,985
477,986
477,987
464,224
460,630
460,631
s
Interest Eamings
Change In FMV of investment
Land Sales Medtronic
4,621,532
0
8,536,089
649,225
0
411,768
489,032
0
201,904
0
0
72,904
0
0
72,904
0
0
72,904 1
0
0
90,750
0
0
90,750
0
0
90,750
Transfers
33,923,845
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual Revenues
187,136,256
5,331,040
4,443,453
2,787,822
2,209,965
2,209,966
1,938,758
1,863,272
1,863,273
,Expenses
Land/building acquisition
? Site improvements /prep. costs
Installation of public utilities
30,823,317
6,580,423
1,785,188
1,718,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking facilities
Streets and sidewalks
290,065
6,182
0
0 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Public park facilities
Social, recreational, etc.
4,050
0
0 1
0 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Admin Fees- CIty/HRA (TI' %)
Professional Services
4,170,543
115,233
115.0771
0
71,755
0
82,954
0
82,954
0
82,954
0
69,189
0
65,595
0
65,595
0
School Dist. referendum ream
3,179,269
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interest Expense -"T
Transfers
0
8,642,336
0
750,089
0
87,429
0
87,429
0
87,429
0
87,429
0
43,714
0
1,748,950
0
0
Debt Service - Bonds
59,066,299
1,869,938
1,859,015
1,776,495
604,906
608,003
618,159
0
0
Debt Service - Rev. Notes
15,822,297
673,065
679,853
881,431
881,431
881,431
609,954
609,954
609,954
Debt Service - Other
5,444,551
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interfund loans
10,251,757
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I Other Expenses
;Annual Expenses
21,888,066
168,089,577
385,691
5,511,860
385,691
3,083,742
385,691
3,213,999
385,691
2,042,411
385,691
2,045,507
385,691
1,726,707
385,691
2,810,190
385,691
1,061,239
t
3
1
Annual Increase / Decrease
19,046,680
(180,820)
1,359,711
(426,178 )
167,554
164,459
212,051
(946,918)
802,033
1
Ending Fund Balance
19�0�46,680
13288,476
14,648,187
114,222,009
14,389,563
14,554,022
14,766,073
13,819,154
14,621,188
0
Debi t Service Reserve (next yrs Bonds)
1,859,015
1,776,495
604,906
608,003
618,159
0
0
0
,Available Fund Balance
11,429,461
12,871,692
13,617,103
13,781,561
13,935,863
14,766,073
13,819,154
14,621,188
Net Present Value 0.00%
18,953,935 {
i
t
E' Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
" Interest Expense on negative
fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Admin Fees excl HRA Gent fun
5.1%
Estimated
:Est. Original Market Value
Original Tax Ca)acl!yJ
28,841,600
474,082
29,531,367
483,480
24,579,240
399,213
16,745,640
279,902
16,745,640
279,902
16,745,640
599,902
16,529,040
596,320
16,529,040
596,320
Total Market Value
298,112,100
263,308,600
174,052,840
115,482,040
115,482,040
115,482,040
111,515,540
111,515,540
:Estimated Tax Ca ac
4,856,985
4,388,322
2,852,339
2,111,642
2,111,642
2,111,642
2,033,062
2,033,062
Fiscal Disparities -TIF #3
Tax Ca aci
(354,988)
4,027,915
{356,746}
3,548,096
0
2,453,125
0
1 831,739
0
1,831,739
0
1,511,739
0
1,436,741
0
1,436,741
,Captured
Calculated Tax Increment
3,733,609
3,276,550
2,236,932
1,659,075
1,659,075
1,383,784
1,311,892
1,311,892
Variance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
;Tax Collection Rate
Inflation
99.64%
0.00%
99.64%
0.00%
99.64%
0.00%
99.64%
0.00%
99.64%
0.00%
99.64%
0.00%
99.64%
0.00%
99.64%
0.00%
i
;Schedule Payment - Max Amount
Owed -TIF #12
126,732
130,238
0
01
0
0
0
0
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Kress Monroe, PA. 11/812007
r,rry na ;:Rini FY MINNESOTA
Page 48
I
iHRA
HRA
Revolving Loan Fund City Fund 267
;(Special Revenue Fund)
.Revolving Loan Fund
TOTALS
Through
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
2025
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
;Fund Balance
(742,010)
(13,652)
3,066,283
3,379,484
3,395,968
3,541,492
3,643,374
3,695,905
Revenues:
Inflation
1 180%
of HRA levy?
_
Tax Levy
0.00%
1,880,242
1 140,000
150,424
0
Property taxes
0
Rental
34,558
6,475
6,713
6,500
0
Mortgage interest a mings
Investment income
696,637
959,289
108,563
46,923
110,927
70,720
113,293
90,214
88,308
48,814
56216
44,977
38,930
39,476
43,180
75,402
43,902
132,974
Miscellaneous
276,711 1
43,021
70,198
79,678
9,849
Land Sales
63,591
missing rcpt
missing rcpt
Transfers
7,072,570
586,666
2,967,906
2,106,888
0
87,429
87,429
0
0
,Annual Revenues
10,983,598
931,648
3,376,888
2,396,573
146,971
188,622
165,835
118,582
176,876
Expenses
I
Capital outlay
144,021
450
1
Site improvementsiprep.
cos
0
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park Willies
0
'
Social, recreational, etc.
0
i
Supplies & other charges
715,587
103,626
170,654
101,310
61,772
8,556
22,264
19,743
23,183
Personal services
276,305
30,838
86,168
79,378
School Dist. referendum reim
0
Interest Expense "n
City Loan
428,690
68,826
39,681
37,264
34,724
32,056
29,252
26,308
23,213
Transfers
4,783,319
1,777,991
2,479
2,506
12,437
20,000
j
Principal Payment
0
Interest Expense
0
Pmts show as reduction in Habgity on Bal. Sheet
j
Debt Service - City
an
628,673
87,429
01 01 01 61,121
64,215
I
Interfund loans
0
Interest expense shown above principal part of City loan
Other Expenses
(509,752)
31,492
jadded - PP adjmt ?
(61,121)
(64,215)
!Annual Expenses
6,466,843
203,290
296,953
2,083,372
130,467
43,118
63,953
66,051
46,396
i
'Annual Increase / Decrease
4,516,755
728,358
3,079,935
313,201
16,504
145,504
1 101,882
52,531
130,479
E
IEnding Fund Balanc
•
4,516,755
(13,652)
3,066,283
3,379,484
3,395,988
3,541,492
3,643,374
3,695,905
3,826,384
i
0
1 3,395,988
per report
ff all funds are not required, they could be returned to HRA General Fund
3,427,480
per last yr
i
,No Present Value @
0.00%
4,516,755
Interest Eamin s on positive fund balance
2.0%
Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
s
;Loan from City
1,500,000
805,410
757,662
707,497
1 654,793
599,420
541,244
480,123
Payment
Feb 1
658,333
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
Interest
5.00%
68,826
20,135
18,942
17,687
16,370
14,985
13,531
12,003
'
Principal
589,507
23,579
24,773
26,027
27,345
28,729
30,183
31,711
i
Payment
1
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
I
-Aug
Interest
19,546
18,322
17,037
15,686
14,267
12,777
11,210
Principal
24,169
25,392
26,678
28,028
29,447
30,938
1 32,504
Balance
805,410
757,662
707,497
654,793
599,420
541,244
480,123
415,908
i
:ANNUAL
Loan from City
805,410
757,662
707,497
654,793
599,420
541,244
480,123
i
Payment
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,4291
87,429
87,429
87,429
Interest
39,681
37,264
34,724
32,056
29,253
26,308
23,213
Principal
47,748
�7L7 65
52,705
55,373
58,176
61,121
64,215
Balance
805,410
757,662
97
6 54,793
599,420
541,244
1 480,123
1 415,908
Cash Flow 2007f.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, h'.A. i 11014vvf
CITY OF FRIDLEY. MINNESOTA
Paaa 49
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, PA. 11/812007
HRA
HRA
Revolving Loan Fundl
City-Fund 267
Revolving Loan Fund
:(Special Revenue Fund)
i
TOTALS
Through
Projected
Projected - ---- ->
2025
2007
2008
1 2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
'Fund Balance
3,826,384
4,046,906
4,239,195
4,313,665
4,391,905
4,474,106
4,516,755
4,516,755
4,516,755
.Revenues:
Inflation
Tax Levy
0.00%1
1,880,242
Property taxes
0
Rental
34,558
I Mortgage interest eamings
696,637
_
Investment income
_
959,289
153,055
121,407
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous
276,711
Land Sales
63,591
Transfers
7,072,570
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
43,714
0
0
0
Annual Revenues
10,983,598
240,484
208,836
87,429
87,429
87,429
43,714
0
0
0
Expenses
Capital outlay
144,021
Site Improvements/prop.
costs
0
Installation of public utilities
0
Parking facilities
0
Streets and sidewalks
0
Public park facilities
0
Social, recreational, etc.
0
Supplies & other charges
715,587
Personal services
276,305
School Dist. referendum ream
0
Interest Expense "
n City Loan
428,690
19,962
16,547
12,959
9,189
5,228
1,066
Transfers
4,783,319
Principal Payment
0
Interest Expense
0
Debt Service - City Loan
628,673
67,466
70,882
74,470
78,240
82,201
42,648
0
0
0
interrund loans
0
principal part of City loan shown as a reduction to loan payable account on balance sheet
Other Expenses
(509,752)
(67,466)
(70,882)
(74,470)
(78,240)
(82,201)
(42,648)
!Annual Expenses
6,466,843
19,962
16,547
12,959
9,189
5228
1,066
0
0
0
7
Annual Increase / Decrease
4,516,755
1 220,522
192,289
74,470 1
78,240
82,201
42,648
0
0
0
Ending Fund Balanc
*
4,516,755
4,046,906
4,239,195
4,313,665 14,391,905
1 4,474,106 141516,755
14,516,755
4,516,755
4,616,755
0
`
if all funds are not required, ey could be i
F
Net Present Value @
0.00%
4,516,755
` Interest Earnings on positive fund balance
4.0%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
" Interest Expense on negative fund balance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Loan from City
1,500,000
415,908
348,441
277,560
203,089
124,849
42,648
Payment
Feb 1
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
Interest
5.00%
10,398
8,711
6,939
5,077
3,121
1,066
Principal
1 33,317
35,003
36,775
38,637
40,593
42,648
Pa ant
Aug 1
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
43,714
Interest
9,565
7,836
6,020
4,111
2,106
0
Principal
34,150
35,878
37,695
39,603
41,608
0
Balance
348,441
277 560
203,089
124,849
42,648 1
0
ANNUAL
Loan from City
415,908
348,441
277,560
203,089
124,849
42,648
Payment
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
87,429
43,714
Interest
19,962
16,547
12,959
9,189 1
5,2281
1,066
Principal
67,466
70,882
74,470
78,240 1
82,201 1
42,648
Balance
I
L_348,441 1
277,560 1
203,089 1
124,849 1
42,6481
0
Cash Flow 2007f.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, PA. 11/812007