The URL can be used to link to this page

HRA 12/11/1986 HOUSING & REDEVEIAPMOU AL3THORITY MEETING THURSDAY, DDCEMBER 11, 1986 7:00 P.M. Rick Pribyl Finance Director CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1986 7:00 P.M. Location: Council Chamber (upper level) CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Housing & Redevelopment Authority Minutes: November 13, 1986 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE \ MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND V AMENDING THE TAX INCREMEW FINANCING PIAS FOR TAX D1CRE 04T DISTRICTS NOS. 2-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1S CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING ACTIO11 TO DRAW ON LOU I1WWREN'S $200,000 LEITER OF CREDIT PER SECTION 4.5 OF THE JUNE 1986 DEVELOPMENT ACaF2F.E W TT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2A CONSIDERATION OF ENTERING INTO A MASTER LEASE FOR THE RICE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3B CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT \AGRM-MU BETWEEN THE HRA AND THE FRIDLEY BUSINESS PLAZA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4B CONSIDI ATION OF GIVING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO A BUDGET AND A \/I2IPLETOCATION PROGRAM FOR IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 UPDATE ON LAKE POINTE CORPORATE CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6A CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO PROCEED WITH PROPERTY ACQUISITION ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT OF HATHAWAY LANE AND OLD C EMRAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7B CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR FUTURE PROJECT DIPFOM4ENT EXPENDITURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 CONSIDERATION OF ENTERING INTO A JOINT POMRS ACS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE INTERSECTION OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE WITH THE ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9L PRESETTTATION OF THE 1985 FINANCIAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986 (GEOR(M M. HANSEN COMPANY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 - 11A cLAD1.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 OTFX-R BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the November 13, 1986, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7 :08 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer and Duane Prairie Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Jock Robertson, HRA Executive Director Nasim Qureshi, City Manager Dave Newman, HRA Attorney Rick Pribyl, Finance Director Julie Burt, Asst. Finance Officer Ken Belgarde, University Avenue Associates Linda Fisher, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Sherrill Kuretich, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Bob Levy, 100 S. 5th Street Richard Diamond of the Levy Law Firm Ron Schoneman, Rice Plaza Shopping Center Tenant Mr. & Mrs. Trocke, Rice Plaza Shopping Center Tenants APPROVAL OF MINUTES: HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1986: MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 1986: MOTION BY Mot. MYER, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HRA AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE ASSOCIATES FOR CON- STRUCTION OF A 358 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT COMPLEX BETWEEN 83RD AND 85TH AVENUES: HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 13 1986 PAGE 2 Mr. Newman stated, due to difficulties in their office, the draft of the development agreement is not before the HRA this evening. He stated he has met with representatives of University Avenue Associates and, with the exception of one issue, there is agreement on the basic concept. He stated he would like to review the concept and have the agreement before the HRA at the next meeting. W. Newman stated the developers went through the Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet process and need to obtain another governmental permit which means a later closing date on the property. He stated when the development agreement is executed it would include elevations for the buildings, a description of the materials to be used, the design of the buildings, and landscaping, parking and drainage plans. He stated there will be specific exhibits which outline the standards for this development. Mr. Newman stated it is proposed the HRA would provide assistance in the form of a second mortgage at $850,000 at an interest rate of 8%. He stated the payment schedule will be consistent as to what was proposed for the Lundgren project. He stated there would be no pay- ments for the first three years, payment of interest only for years four and five, and payment of interest plus principal for years six through fifteen. Mr. Newman stated the developer is proposing that payment of interest and principal wouldn't be in equal amounts and to pay one-half of the interest and at the end of the 15 years, the balloon would consist of the remaining principal plus any interest. Mr. Newman stated the HRA would acquire the land and convey it back to the developer at a cost not to exceed $850,000. He stated construction is proposed to begin no later than June 1, 1987 in order to allow time for the necessary permits. He stated the complex would consist of nine buildings with the last building constructed in 1990. Mr. Newman stated the developers are reluctant to provide a letter of credit as they want to use these funds for their construction. He stated, in lieu of a letter of credit, the developers would provide a personal guarantee. He stated the net worth of this partnership is quite substantial and verification would have to be provided. He stated the guarantee would continue until the project is completed and the second mortgage is satisfied. He stated if there was a substantial change in the developer's net worth, the HRA would have to be notified so they could request other security. He stated these are details which still need to be worked out. Mr. Newman stated the values discussed and to be contained in the agreement are as follows: $1.6 million as of January 2, 1988; $4.3 million as of 1989; $6.75 million as of 1990; and $9.2 million as of 1991. He stated this is a value of approximately $22,000 per unit and takes into consideration an inflationary factor. Mr. Commers asked if that was the fair market value of the units for tax purposes. Y HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 3 Mr. Qureshi stated it is the average market value the Assessor carries on the books. He stated if the Assessor feels the values are greater, these figures could be raised. He stated these assessment values are minimum levels and could be subject to change. Mr. Commers stated a letter of credit was required for the Lundgren project and asked why the HRA should change the policy. Mr. Newman stated although a letter of credit was required for Mr. . Lundgren's project, there are a number of projects where the HRA didn't supply 1 the funds until the project was completed. He stated he didn't feel a great deal of precedent had been set when assistance is provided in the form of a second mortgage. He stated it has been his experience that developers don't like the letter of credit as it takes away the use of funds for other projects. He stated if their fiatcia :=stdtments are as ,strong as indicated, their personal net r gu�4#otoe mortgage. He stated s are not in total agreement kv, dir*, pie and tti t sTt`� repayment schedule of [tie mortgage. Ms. Kuretich, representing the developers, stated their concern in repayment of the mortgage is not the amount, but the time schedule for the payments. She stated the developers would like the HRA to consider the possibility of no interest payments being made in the fourth and fifth years of the mortgage and extended these payments over the last ten years of the mortgage. Ms. Kuretich stated the project wouldn't be completed for four years and, as the schedule now stands, the developers would be required to make payments on the second mortgage before the project is totally completed and before they receive their full income from this develop- ment. She stated they are also concerned about meeting debt service coverage requirements on the first mortgage, if these interest payments have to be made to the HRA in the fourth and fifth years. Mr. Commers asked if the developers would be willing to make these interest payments if funds were available and, if not, it could be paid over the balance of the mortgage. Ms. Kuretich stated this possibility would have to be reviewed with the developers. Mr. Commers asked why the:HRA just couldn't provide the .secord mortgage and not go through the process of conveying the land. Mr. Qureshi stated it has to be shown that the HRA took certain action to assist the developers and by buying and conveying the land, the criteria under the State statute is met. Mr. Commers asked if there would be public improvements involved in this project. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 4 4 W. Qureshi stated the developers are providing all the utilities and drainage with no assistance from the HRA. He stated the HRA's assistance is only in the land write-down and second mortgage. He stated there is the potential for future assessments on this property when access roads are provided to the north. Mr. Qureshi stated when the concept of this apartment complex was presented to the HRA, consideration was being given to the develop- ment proposed by Mr. Lundgren. He stated this project is, apparently, no longer viable and the developer is not able to perform. He stated he wanted to make the HRA aware that this project of University Avenue Associates could have an affect on potential development in the southwest quadrant of Mississippi and University. Mr. Meyer asked if an access to 85th Avenue would be provided as part of this project. Mr. Qureshi stated 60 feet of right-of-way would be dedicated on the north of this project to provide for future access. Ms. Schnabel stated she is concerned if there would be no payments made in the first five years, and questioned the personal guarantee. Mr. Commers asked what the interest payments would be in the fourth and fifth years. Mr. Newman stated the interest would be about $68,000 per year for these two years. Mr. Newman stated a letter of credit is easier to collect and a greater level of security as funds are earmarked for this purpose. He stated, from the developer's standpoint, it does freeze some of their assets. He stated a personal guarantee would guarantee the payment of the taxes and would terminate when development is completed. He stated payments on the second mortgage would also be guaranteed and would continue until the mortgage is paid. W. Newman stated one of the difficulties in this type of development is the period when no income is generated. He stated there is generally a cash shortage in the first several years and is why no payments were proposed for the first three years in order to assist the developer. Ms. Schnabel stated she understands what Mr. Newman is saying, but it still bothers her if no payments are made for five years. She felt another possibility may be a letter of credit equal to the interest payments. Mr. Commers asked what would be the amount of a letter of credit for this project. Mr. Qureshi stated it would probably be $400,000 which amounts to about 50% of the assistance provided by the HRA. He stated a compromise may be to have the developer provide a personal guarantee and a lower amount for the letter of credit. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 5 Mr. Commers stated he believed there is some reluctance not to have any payments for five years, but possibly a -compromise could be worked out in regard to the letter of credit and personal guarantee. Mr. Prairie stated if a letter of credit for $400,000 would normally be provided, probably the compromise could be for a letter of credit in the amount of $200,000. Ms. Schnabel felt if a letter of credit is not provided for this project, it could possibly set a precedent. She- stated she would like to see some form of a letter of credit to secure part of their invest- ment. Mr. Meyer stated he would agree with Ms. Schnabel's position. Mr. Commers stated he believed staff had some feedback regarding the HRA's feelings and hoped to have the agreement at the next meeting. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO, 1 AND THE FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NOS, 1-8 TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT COSTS WITHIN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO, 3 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH ESTATES APARTMENT COMPLEX BETWEEN 83RD AND 85TH AVENUES: Mr. Qureshi stated this resolution requests the City Council to call for a public review on an amendment to the financing plan for the tax increment districts in order to provide $850,000 in assistance to the University Avenue Associates apartment project. MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. HRA 20-1986. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING ACTION TO DRAW ON LOU LUNDGREN'S $200,000 LETTER OF CREDIT PER SECTION 4.5 OF THE JUNE_, 1986 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: Mr. Commers stated the agenda packet contains a letter from staff dated November 7 , 1986 recommending the HRA draw on Mr. Lundgren's letter of credit. He stated Mr. Lundgren has also submitted a letter dated November 7, 1986 requesting the HRA refrain from drawing on the letter of credit. Mr. Qureshi stated staff feels Mr. Lundgren has been given adequate time to obtain his financing in order to proceed with this project and would recommend the HRA draw on the letter of credit. Ms. Kuretich, representing Mr. Lundgren, stated Mr. Lundgren is not able to be here this evening as he is Chairing an International Housing Conference in Toronto. She stated, as long as the HRA has HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 6 no other developers for this site, Mr. Lundgren would appreciate the HRA's continued patience as he is trying to work out the financing for this project. She stated if the HRA draws on this letter of credit, it would further reduce any opportunity for Mr. Lundgren to proceed. Ms. Kuretich stated if there should be another developer for this site, the HRA has the right to negotiate with them. She stated all they are asking is the HRA to refrain from drawing on the letter of credit at this time. Mr. Qureshi stated if the HRA draws on the letter of credit and if, for some reason, the Lundgren does proceed, this $200,000 could be made available to Mr. Lundgren. Mr. Meyer stated he is reluctant to draw on the letter of credit, unless it is felt the HRA has been hurt in some manner. He felt if the HRA hasn't earned the letter of credit, they shouldn't have it. He felt by exercising this right, they may be jeopardizing future development in the City if a good business climate isn't presented. Mr. Prairie stated, on the other hand, if the HRA has a letter of credit and doesn't proceed to draw on it, this requirement may not be taken seriously. Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Lundgren indicated at the last meeting he had spent over $500,000 in plans and specifications for this project. He felt, therefore, Mr. Lundgren was serious on proceeding. Mr. Qureshi stated proposals for development create a certain level of concern in the neighborhood and felt the HRA and City Council .is sensitive to the fact that these proposals are not entertained unless the developer is serious. Mr. Prairie stated action on this item could be postponed until the December meeting, even though some interest would be lost. He felt if a developer had several projects and faced the possibility of losing $200,000, this would be a motivation factor. MOTION BY MR. MEYER,' SECONDED' BY 'MR. PRAIRIE, TO TABLE THIS. ITEM RE- LATING TO THE LOU LUNDGREN LETTER OF CREDIT. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MR. MYER, MR. PRAIRIE, AND MR. COMMERS VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. MS. SCHNABEL VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION. CHAIR- PERSON CONKERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A 3 TO 1 VOTE. Mr. Commers requested staff place this item on the agenda for the next HRA meeting. 3A. RICE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER: Mr. Commers stated the HRA has had considerable discussion, both jointly with the City Council and on their own, regarding the possible acquisition of the Rice Plaza Shopping Center. He stated he understands the issue is whether or not the HRA should acquire the property at this time for $1,008,000. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER_ 13,_ 1986 PAGE 7 Mr. Richard Diamond, Attorney with Mr. Levy's law firm, stated the owner of this property is Bob Levy's father who has had a family relationship with the City for over 30 years with this property and the Holly Shopping Center property. Mr. Diamond stated the HRA members have a good feeling as to what has happened regarding this property and wanted to review what is on record. He stated it looks to him like what happened is simply a question of fairness. Mr. Diamond stated at some point in time, the HRA is going to take this piece of property. He stated they are here this evening to encourage the HRA to make a determination regarding this parcel. He stated there apparently has been some form of agreement as to the market value of the property. He stated this is very unusual where there is agreement to the price before a philosophical agree- ment if the property should be taken. Mr. Diamond stated there is a new tax law coming into effect and didn't know what it would do to development. He stated one thing they do know, from the owner's perspective, the new tax laws will have a serious impact on the net value as opposed to the market value on that property. He stated the figure they can agree on this evening and what makes sense today may not be the same in the next several months. Mr. Diamond stated as time goes on, the owner is dealing with a situation that is uncertain. He stated it is difficult to operate a property as a private owner without knowing what the public body is going to do or knowing something will be done, but when. Mr. Diamond stated the history goes back to 1979. He stated in May, 1980, a private developer proposed a project which didn't work out. He stated there was discussion on record about several businessmen in the area feeling jolted at that time because they weren't sure what would happen with the project. He stated in July, 1980, the Standard station was considered for a lease for a Mr. Donut franchise. He stated in 1981, Mr. Boardman spoke about tenants in the area being upset, and another project which didn't work out. He stated a brochure was compiled in 1984 which stated it was only a matter of time before projects developed. He stated the HRA decided not to distribute this brochure. Mr. Diamond stated Mr. Lundgren has come in with a proposed project and the owners signed an agreement in January and it has been dis- cussed ever since. Mr. Diamond stated the HRA is in the situation where there has been a purchase price negotiated of $1,008,000. He stated the County is working on widening Mississippi Street and a portion of the property will be taken and the funds for this acquisition will not be coming from the HRA. , HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 8 ' Mr. Diamond stated he recognizes it has to be in everyone's minds that Mr. Lundgren is having difficulty in proceeding with his project and even faces the possibility of forfeiting his letter of credit. He stated the Levy people are saying to take this land now. He stated the question may well become if the HRA can put itself into the position to have a piece of land that cannot in the fore- seeable future be developed. He stated that is a valid concern. Mr . Diamond stated the question is where the burden should lie. He stated if the property is left in limbo, as it has been for the last several years, should the impact be on the public body or shifted totally to the private individuals. He stated it seems logical that the parcel will be developed, however, the question is when will a determination be made to go ahead and acquire the property. Mr. Diamond stated he would suggest because of the combination of factors now, it is appropriate for the HRA to make that decision. He felt the owners and tenants should be made comfortable with the situation so they can go on with their lives. W. Qureshi felt it should be recognized this is only one parcel of property and the HRA has a number of other properties in the tax increment districts. He stated the HRA's position is not to acquire property unless there is a proposed development or use for it. He stated it was hoped, if the Lundgren project proceeded, it would give the HRA a valid reason to acquire this property. He stated the tenants' problems will be there, even if the HRA acquires the property. He stated experience has shown it isn't good to own property, unless there is a use for it. Mr. Commers stated the HRA has been through this discussion so many times, he felt a motion would be in order so everyone would have a chance to express their views. MOTION BY MR. MEYER TO ACQUIRE THE RICE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Newman if he could second the motion. Mr. Newman stated he understands the Chairperson cannot second the motion. Mr. Prairie stated nothing has changed since the last meeting, but there may have been movement on the other project which has some effect on this item. W. Newman stated one of Mr. Levy's frustrations was there wasn't a definitive action on the HRA's part because there was no second to the motion at the last meeting. W. Qureshi asked why it was critical to be on record that the HRA didn't want to acquire the property. Mr. Newman stated Mr. Levy was asking for some action one way or the other. THERE BEING NO SECOND TO THE ABOVE MOTION, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. i ' HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 13.- 1986 PAGE 9 MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, FOR THE HRA NOT TO ACQUIRE THE RICE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER AT THIS TIME. Mr. Prairie stated he felt bad for the property owners because develop- ment has been delayed. He stated the problem is that several years ago the HRA purchased property as they thought they had a developer and it didn't work out. He stated the HRA was subjected to criticism that they shouldn't own land. He stated he is sensitive to having the same thing happen again. Mr. Meyer stated he respected the views of the other HRA members and the City Manager that the HRA not acquire property unless there is a need for it. He stated it seems , in this case, it is a different situation as this redevelopment district has been targeted as the HRA's number one priority. He stated that, in itself, establishes the HRA has a use for the property. He stated there have been a number of developers showing an interest in developing and felt it was in the City's best interest to pursue development of the property. He felt they have a use for the property even though it may not be in the immediate future and for that reason, they should proceed with the purchase of the property. Ms. Schnabel stated her position really hasn't changed. She stated it is a philosophical one if the HRA should own property. She felt the presentation was good on behalf of the owner, but she wasn't persuaded why the HRA should purchase the property. Ms. Schnabel didn't feel the HRA should become landlords. She stated at any time in the future, if a developer has a concrete proposal, she would be more than willing to purchase the property. She stated she appreci- ated the Levy's contributions to the City, but didn't feel it was the HRA's responsibility to try and cure some of the problems coming out of Washington with the new tax laws. Mr. Commers stated he favors the purchase of the property at this time. He stated he agrees with past practices for the HRA not to become landlords, but exceptions do arise. He stated the Civic Center project was the HRA's prime goal and one of the most critical parts is the southwest quadrant of Mississippi and University. He felt in the last few years, the HRA has been distracted from their goals and was concerned about losing their direction and proceeding with other projects. He stated he felt it was in the best interests of the citizens of Fridley to acquire this property. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, MS. SCHNABEL AND MR. PRAIRIE VOTED IN FAVOR. MR. COMMERS AND MR. MEYER VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION. CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY. 4. UPDATE ON LAKE POINTE: Mr. Robertson stated- earthwork is ahead of schedule and all building pads, except A and D, are almost completed. He stated there are some problems with the final alignment of Lake Pointe Drive in the northeast corner. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 10 Mr. Qureshi stated the original plan for this development was approved by the HRA and City Council and the developer wishes to make a change which would affect the road alignment. He stated the City has asked the developer to submit a plan, that works under any scenario, to determine what adjustments could be made to accommodate them. Mr. Qureshi stated a meeting was held between him, Mr. Newman, Mr. Weir and Mr. Deike to see how this issue could be resolved, however, to this date, no request has been received from the developer. He stated the City has to know their needs so they can work with them to resolve the problem. Mr. Qureshi stated staff's position is to proceed with the plans approved by the HRA and City Council and to fulfill the obligations. He stated it is hoped Mr. Weir will take the same approach. Mr. Commers asked if there are any time frames that if Woodbridge didn't proceed with the project, they would be in default. Mr. Newman stated his recollection is Woodbridge is to commence construction by December 1, but would have to verify this in the development agreement. He stated Woodbridge has indicated they have pulled their engineer and architect off the project. Mr. Newman stated under the terms of the agreement, the $1,000,000 was to be released when the plat was recorded and rezoning completed. He stated one of the contentions is the alignment of the road. He stated he has been in contact with the developer and met with Mr. Weir and his legal counsel to come up with some solutions, but they haven't responded. W. Newman stated he contacted Sunde Engineering and indicated the City wanted the plat released. He stated Sunde probably has an ethical problem because Woodbridge is their client. Mr. Newman stated he contacted Suburban Engineering yesterday and would like to make provisions with them to complete the platting. He stated the City HRA is the property owner and owner of record and has the right to proceed and plat the property. Mr. Commers asked the cost if Suburban Engineering platted the pro- perty. Mr. Newman stated Suburban Engineering would have to recertify the descriptions at a cost of about $1,500. He stated the greatest cost is in placing of the monuments which would amount- to several.thousand dollars. He felt the whole thing could be done for about $5,000. He stated the platting process would probably take several weeks and once it is recorded, the title insurance company would be notified to release the $1,000,000. He stated it is anticipated Mr. Weir would take some action to not have these funds released. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. NOVEMBER 13_,_1986 PAGE 11 Mr. Meyer felt the funds are in escrow and time is on the HRA's side. He felt by having the plat recorded, it may invite a confrontation. Mr. Commers stated this would probably happen anyway sooner or later. Mr. Prairie stated this is only the first stage and wondered if there would be other problems coming up every month. Mr. Newman stated staff has tried to work with Mr. Weir time and time again and felt it would be easier to bargain once the $1,000,000 is in hand. He stated he felt reasonably comfortable, under the terms of the agreement, the funds would be released when the plat, as presented by the City, is recorded. Mr. Qureshi stated Woodbridge has committed $6 million to this project and the HRA has committed less than $2.5 million in addi- tion to agreeing to install almost $2 million in road improvements beyond the development. He stated the HRA has the control to receive the $1,000,000 and if you have a situation where it is going to become a frustration, the HRA may not want to put anymore money into the project. He stated a reasonable attempt has been made to keep the project moving, but wanted to bring to the HRA's attention some of the staff's concerns. Mr. Commers polled the HRA members and it was the consensus to proceed and have the plat recorded. It was suggested that staff remind Woodbridge, in writing, of their time frames. 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER TO THE LAKE POINTE DEVELOP- MENT STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1986-1 & 2. PHASE II: Mr. Robertson stated because of subsurface drainage problems that were not previously known, this change order is requested for installation of a perforated subsurface drainage pipe system to provide proper stablization for Lake Pointe Drive. MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO ADOPT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST 1986-1 & 2, PHASE II, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17 ,250 WHICH INCREASES THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE WITH H & S ASPHALT FROM $368,054.10 TO $385,304.10. Ms. Schnabel requested a print-out of past change orders in total dollar amounts. Mr. Pribyl stated a summary was provided of all the contracts and it shows the change orders, estimates and payments. He stated this summary will be provided for each and every contract entered into by the HRA. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, ALL VOTED AYE, AND CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. HOUSING &_.REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 12 6. RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM ANOKA COUNTY REGARDING STATUTE ACTIVITY VERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY'S TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS: Mr. Qureshi stated the State statute provides that tax increment districts must meet certain requirements within a three year period from the date of its original certification in order to qualify for the continued payment of tax increment for that district. He stated the County has requested the City provide information to substantiate that the three year qualification requirement has been met and a letter has been drafted to Mr. Tilden of the Anoka County Auditor's Office from Mr. Robertson dated November 7, 1986. Mr. Commers asked if the improvements made by the City in these districts would be funded by the HRA. Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA can make a determination if they want to fund them or not. He stated the test is it has to be a public improvement and this has been met. He felt the HRA would have to make a determination on where the funds from the bonds would be used, as $3.4 million has to be expended in the next two years. MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEND THE LETTER TO MR. TILDEN DATED NOVEMBER 7 , 1986 FROM JOCK ROBERTSON AND AS SHOWN ON PAGE 6C OF THE AGENDA. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7 . RECEIVING PROJECT TIMETABLE FOR BOND IMPROVEMENT INVESTMENTS AND CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING PROJECT IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES: Mr. Qureshi stated the HRA sold $11,550,000 in bonds for improvement projects of which $3.4 million is available and has to be expended in the next two years. He stated possible projects were discussed at the HRA meeting of May 8, 1986. The HRA received the memo dated September 19 , 1986 from Mr. Qureshi in regard to a policy for funding different public improvements to encourage and facilitate development or redevelopment. 8. CONSIDERATING OF ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION TO VANTAGE COMPANIES FOR CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED ON THE WHOLESALE CLUB PER SECTION 3_.3(a) - ii OF THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Qureshi stated Vantage Companies has completed the minimum improve- ments in respect to their development in Fridley and are requesting reimbursement of a portion of the soil correction costs. Mr. Meyer felt the letter from Mr. Beckmann dated October 9, 1986 is a little vague in regard to the actual soil correction work. He also felt the report should include lot and block numbers and details on the work performed. I HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 13 Mr. Prairie agreed there should be more detail supplied so it is on file-and everyone knows exactly what was accomplished. Mr. Newman stated he knows the cost estimate was closer to $1.6 million and the correction work was extensive. He stated when the contract was drafted, it was intended that more specific details on the correction be provided. MOTION BY MR. PRAIRIE, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO REQUEST THE ENGINEER TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 3.3 (a), ii OF THE CONTRACT AND UPON RECEIPT OF THIS REPORT, TO RELEASE THE $100,000 TO VANTAGE COMPANIES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF A PORTION OF THE SOIL CORRECTION COSTS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PRESENTATION BY WINFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC. REGARDING PROPOSED DEVELOP- MENT OF THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND MISSISSIPPI STREET: This item was deleted from the agenda at the request of staff. 10. ESTIMATES: MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE ESTIMATE FOR BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC., INVOICE NO. 37770 DATED OCTOBER 6, 1986 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,428.61. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. CLAIMS: MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MS. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER (CLAIMS NO. 1525-1539) AS PRESENTED. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. OTHER BUSINESS: A. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD IN THE CASE OF GERALD & NORMA JOHNSON: Mr. Commers stated the HRA has received a ]Ptter dated October 17, 1986 from Ford Crouch, Attorney for Gerald and Norma Johnson, and they are willing to accept an award of $71,640. Mr. Newman stated Mr. Qureshi has suggested approval of this settle- ment with the Johnson's to resolve the case without going forward with an appeal. He stated this $71,640 figure was based on acceptance a HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE 14 , of the offer by October 22, 1986 and since it is past this.date, there may be some adjustment necessary in this figure. MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF $71,640 IN SETTLEMENT OF THE GERALD AND NORMA JOHNSON CLAIM. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. HRA FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Mr. Commers asked the HRA members to review the financial statement before the next meeting and that the item be placed on the agenda for December. C. LAKE POINTE CONTRACTS: Ms. Schnabel asked if the Lake Pointe development would not proceed, if the HRA has an obligation to the other contractors. Mr. Qureshi stated he felt they are committed to these contracts, but hopefully the issues with Woodbridge could be resolved. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. MEYER, SECONDED BY MR. PRAIRIE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE NOVEMBER 13, 1986 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Recording Secretary 1 MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN LARRY COMERS AND HRA COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: SAMANTHA CEO=, MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PRQJECT NO. 1 AND AMENDING OF THE TAX IN(3UXENTT FINANCING PLANS FOR TID NOS. 2-8 DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1986 Due to the construction of the 358 unit apartment complex propsed by University Avenue Associates, which will be located in the City's Redevelopment Project No. 1 and will be part of Tax Increment District No. (the "North Area") , it is necessary to amens] the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and each of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment District Nos. 2-8 to include the increased project costs within the Project Area. There have been only minor changes made since the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plans were amended on September 22, 1986, at which time Tax Increment Districts Nos. 7 & 8 were added to the Project Area. The change in the budget for the Modified Redevelopment Plan is depicted on page 1 - 16--this indicates the budget of the public improvement costs associated with the University Avenue Associates' project. The other changes are merely in listing the date by which the amendments will be enacted by the City Council December 22, 1986. I have included an abridged copy of the Modified Redevelopment Plan which is blackmarded with the changes that have been made to the prior version of the document adopted on September 22, 1986. The M=lete document is included in ► packet. 7117 x7 o 1A Ba±� changes to pr ic - of t t, which was.' CL „wptember 22, 1986` MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 (CENTER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA) AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 THROUGH FICING OItICT NO. 8 1�A y HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA December 22, 1986 This document was drafted by: O'CONNOR & HANNAN 3800 IDS Tower 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612/341-3800 MUNICIPAL ACTION TAKEN Based upon the statutory authority described in the Modified Redevelopment Plan attached hereto, the public purpose findings by the Commissioners and for the purpose of fulfilling the Authority' s redevelopment objectives as set forth in the Modified Redevelopment Plan, the Commissioners have created, established and designated Redevelopment Proj- ect No. 1 pursuant to and in accordance with the require- ments of Sections 462.411 through 462.716, inclusive, as amended (the "Housing and Redevelopment Act" ) . The following municipal action was taken in connection therewith: May 15, 1979: The Redevelopment Plan for Center City was adopted by the City Council. April 6r 1981: The Redevelopment Plan for Moore Lake was s adopted by the City Council. November 23, 1981: The Redevelopment Plan for North Area was adopted by the City Council. August 22, 1983: The Redevelopment Plan for Center City was modified by enlargement to include the project areas formerly included in the Redevelopment Plan for Moore Lake and the Redevelopment Plan for North Area and was redesignated as Redevelopment Project No. 1 by the City Council. December 19, 1983: The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 was modified by the estab- lishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 within the project area. February 27, 1984: The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 was modified by the estab- lishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 within the project area. February 25, 1985: The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 was modified to provide technical modifications for purpose of the proposed Fridley tax increment refunding. November 18, 1985: The Modified Redevelopment Plan for Re evelopment Project No. 1 was amended to reflect re- vised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1, as set forth in Section I, Subsection 1.10 hereof. 4 1C September 22, 1986. The Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 was amended to reflect re- vised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 11 as set forth in Section I, Subsection 1.10 hereof. December 22, 1986: The Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 was amended to reflect re- vised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 11 as set forth in Section I, Subsection 1.10 hereof. The following municipal action was taken with regard to the Tax Increment Financing Districts comprising portions of Redevelopment Project No. 1: Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (Center City) : May 15, 1979: Prior to the enactment of the Tax Increment Financing Act of 1979 effective August 1, 1979, a separate Tax Increment Financing Plan was not required by law but was included as a part of the originally adopted Redevelopment Plan for Center City. August 220 1983: The Center City Redevelopment Area was modified by Resolution only (no hearing required) redesignating the Area as Tax Increment Financing District No. 1. February 25, 1985: Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 was modified to facilitate the refunding of the general obligation tax increment bonds of the Authority. Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 (Moore Lake) : May 4, 1981: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Moore Lake Redevelopment Area was adopted by the City Council. August 22, 1983: The Moore Lake Redevelopment Area was modified by Resolution only (no hearing re- quired) redesignating the Area as Tax Increment Financing District No. 2. February 25, 1985: Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 was modified to facilitate the refunding of the general obligation tax increment bonds of the Authority. l November 18, 1985: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. September 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for, this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. December 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (North Area) : November 23, 1981: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for North Area Redevelopment Area was adopted by the City Council. December 14, 1981: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for North Area Redevelopment Area was modified and clarified by the City Council. Au ust 22, 1983: The North Area Redevelopment Area was modified by Resolution only (no hearing re- quired) redesignating the Area as Tax Increment Financing District No. 3. February 25, 1985: Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 was modified to facilitate the refunding of the general obligation tax increment bonds of the Authority. November 18, 1985: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. September 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was lE amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant •to the - Modified Redevelopment Plan. December 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. Tax Increment Financing District No. 4: December 19, 1983: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 was adopted by the City Council. February 25, 1985: The Tax Increment Financing Plan was incorporated into the Master Plan. November 18, 1985: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. September 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. December 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. Tax Increment Financing District No. 5: February 27, 1984: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 was adopted by the City Council. February 25, 1985: The Tax Increment Financing Plan was incorporated into the Master Plan. � 1F November 18, 1985: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the z Modified Redevelopment Plan. September 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. December 22, .1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. Tax Increment Financing District No. 6: November 18, 1985: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 was adopted by the City Council. September 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. x December 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. Tax Increment Financing District No. 7: September 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was approved by the Fridley City Council. December 220, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing II Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was 1G amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant-to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. Tax Increment Financing District No. 8: September 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was approved by the Fridley City Council. December 22, 1986: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for this Tax Increment Financing District was amended to reflect and incorporate additional pub- lic improvement costs anticipated to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Modified Redevelopment Plan. lfl TABLE OF CONTENTS (This Table of Contents is not part of the Modified - Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plans, and is only for convenience of reference. ) PAGE SECTION I . MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 (CENTER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA) Subsection 1.1. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1 Subsection 1.2. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3 Subsection 1.3. Statement and Finding of Public Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3 Subsection 1.4. Statutory Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-8 Subsection 1.5. Statement of objectives. . . . . . . . . . . .1-9 Subsection 1.6. Boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-11 Subsection 1.7. Boundary Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-11 Subsection 1.8. Parcels to be Acquired in Whole or in Part Within Redevelopment Project No. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-11 Subsection 1.9. Estimated Public Improvement Costs and Supportive Data. . . . . . . . .1-12 Subsection 1.10. Public Improvements and Facilities Within Redevelopment Project No. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-15 Subsection 1.11. Environmental Controls. . . . . . . . . . . .1-16 Subsection 1.12. Proposed Reuse of Property. . . . . . . .1-17 Subsection 1.13. Administration and Maintenance of Redevelopment Project No. 1. . . .1-17 Subsection 1.14. Rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-17 Subsection 1.15. Relocation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-17 EXHIBIT I-A-1 Description of Property Constituting Redevelopment Project No. 1, as Established on May 15, 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . I-A-1 EXHIBIT I-A-2 Description of Additional Property Within Redevelopment Project No. 1, as Modified August 22, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . I-A-2 EXHIBIT I-B-1 Boundary Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1, as Established on May 15, 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-B-1 EXHIBIT I-B-2 Boundary Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1, as Modified August 22, 1983. . . . . . I-B-2 (i) • lI Engineering, Design and Planning, Legal, Fiscal, Bond Issuance _ Expenses and Discount and Miscellaneous 1,050,000 Contingency 300,000 Bond Debt Service Reserves 2,612,000 Capitalized Bond Interest 3,138,000 Total Project Costs $18,500,000 Maximum Bonded Indebtedness $18,500,000 (The following amendment of Subsection 1.10 hereof was approved on September 22, 1986. ) Additional public improvement costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and to be financed by tax increments derived from all tax increment financing dis- tricts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 are estimated to be: Land Acquisition/Writedown Costs $ 100,000 (The following amendment of Subsection 1.10 hereof was approved on December 22, 1986. ) Additional public improvement costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and to be financed by tax increments derived from all tax increment financing dis- tricts within Redevelopment Project No. 1 are estimated to be: University Avenue/84th Street Housing Project: Land Acquisition/Improvement/Writedown Costs $ 850,000 Capitalized Interest 290,091 Bond Discount 23,330 Issuance Costs and Contingency 26,579 Total Additional Project Costs and/or Bonded Indebtedness $1,190,000 Maximum Additional Administrative Costs $ 94,000 Subsection 1.11. Environmental Controls. The proposed development in Redevelopment Project No. 1 does not present significant environmental concerns. All municipal actions, public improvements and private development shall be carried out in a manner consistent with existing environmental stan- dards. 1 - 16 1J As of November 18, 1985, September 22, 1986, and December 22, 1_ 9_86,. the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 was- modified to reflect revised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 as a result of the amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan. 3 - 6 1K replace said bonds with tax increment revenue bonds. As of November 18, 1985, September 22, 1986, and December 22� 1986, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 was modified to reflect revised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 as a result of the amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan. 4 - 6 IL Incorporation of the tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 into the Master Plan, composed of the Modified Redevelopment - Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts 1 through 5. Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 to facilitate the refunding of existing general obligation tax increment bonds issued for payment of public activities within the project area and to replace said bonds with tax increment revenue bonds. As of November 18, 1985, September 22, 1986, and December 22 1986 the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 was modified to reflect ' revised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 as a result of the amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan. 5 - 4 Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 -to facilitate the refunding of existing general obligation tax increment bonds issued for payment of public activities within the project area and to replace said bonds with tax increment revenue bonds. As of November 18, 1985, September 22, 1986, and December 22, 1986, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax "17— Increment Financing District No. 5 was modified to reflect revised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 as a result of the amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan. 1 6 - 4 1.1 Subsection 7.13. Tax Increment Financing Account for Tax Increment Financing District No. 6. The tax increment received with respect to Tax Increment •Financing District - No. 6 will be segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the "Tax Increment Account" ) on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the City to be held for the benefit of owners of Tax Increment Bonds. Subsection 7.14. Land Disposition and Redevelopers' Requirements. All Redevelopers or Developer will be re- quired by contractual agreement to observe the building requirements and zoning requirements of the City, and such other requirements as may be established by the City Coun- cil. Land disposition parcels shall be made available under separate cover as they are determined by the Authority. The Authority proposes to consumate a certain Contract for Private Development (the "Contract" ) , with Woodbridge Properties, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation, concerning the public and private development of the property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 6. Subsection 7.15. Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 6. As of September 22, 1986, and December 22, 1986, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 was modified to reflect revised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 as a result of the amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan. 7 - 3 10 Bond sales will be based on availability of tax increment. It is contemplated that all bonds will not be issued at one time but as they are needed, at effective interest rates estimated to range between 6.50% and 10.00% per annum. Subsection 8.13. Tax Increment Financing Account for Tax Increment Financin District No. 7. The tax increment received with respect to Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 will be segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the "Tax Increment Account" ) on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the City to be held for the benefit of owners of Tax Increment Bonds. Subsection 8.14. Land Disposition and Redevelopers' Re uirements. All redevelopers or developers will be re- quired by contractual agreement to observe the building requirements and zoning requirements of the City, and such other requirements as may be established by the City Coun- cil. Land disposition parcels shall be made available under separate cover as they are determined by the Authority. The Authority proposes to consumate a certain Contract for Private Development (the "Contract" ) , with Winfield Developments, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation, concerning the public and private development of the property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 7. Subsection 8.15. Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7./� As of December 22, 1986, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Dis- tri�t No. 7 was modified to reflect revised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 as a result of the amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan. 8 - 3 IP time but as they are needed, at effective interest rates estimated to range between 6.50% and 10.00% per annum. Subsection 9.13. Tax Increment Financing Account for Tax Increment Financinq District No. S. The tax increment received with respect to Tax Increment Financing District No. 8 will be segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the "Tax Increment Account" ) on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the City to be held for the benefit of owners of Tax Increment Bonds. Subsection 9 .14. Land Disposition and Redevelo erso Requirements. All redevelopers or developers will be re- quired by contractual agreement to observe the building requirements and zoning requirements 'of the City, and such other requirements as may be established by the. City Coun- cil. Land disposition parcels shall be made available under separate cover as they are determined by the Authority. The Authority proposes to consumate a certain Contract for Private Development (the "Contract" ) , with Shorewood, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation, concerning the public and private development of the property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 8. Subsection 9. 15. Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 8.^As of December 22, 1986, the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Dis- trict No. 8 was modified to reflect revised project costs to be incurred within Redevelopment Project No. 1 as a result cf the amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan. 9 - 3 IQ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY ' COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND AMENDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING THERETO AND AMENDING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 2 THROUGH NO. 8 WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Com- missioners" ) of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority" ) , as follows: Section 1 . Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed, with respect to the Author- ity's Redevelopment Project No. 1, that (a) the Authority amend the Modified Redevelopment Plan relating thereto and established pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411 to 462.716, inclusive, as amended, and that (b) the Authority amend the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Financing Dis- tricts No. 2 through No. 8 to reflect the revised project costs of the Modified Redevelopment Plan of Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78, inclusive, as amended (collectively, the "Proposed Amendments" ) . 1.02. This Authority has investigated the facts and has caused to be prepared with respect thereto the Proposed Amendments. 1.03. The Authority has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption- of the Proposed Amendments. 1.04. The Board hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interest of the City and the Authority at this time to approve amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and to approve the amendment of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Financing Dis- tricts No. 2 through No. 8. 1R Section 2. Approval of Amendment of Tax Increment Fi- nancing Plans Relating to Tax Increment Financing Districts _ No. 2 through No. 8. T Subject to the finding, determination and approval thereof by the Fridley City Council, the proposed amendments of the Tax Increment Financing Plans relating to Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2 through No. 8, as pre- sented to the Authority on this date, are hereby approved by the Commissioners of the Authority. Section 3. Approval of Amendment of Modified Redevelop- ment Plan. The proposed amendment of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, as presented to the Authority on this date, is hereby approved and adopted by the Commissioners of the Authority. Section 4. Filing of Plans. The Authority shall cause the Proposed Amendments, upon approval thereof by the Fridley City Council, to be filed .with the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Authority this 11th day of December, 1986. 2 - ' TAX 1-N C RE, DISTRIGTN# �''3 I• R NORi ?� EXHIBIT IX B 1 REDEVELOPMENT i f -- - -- PROJECT NO . 1 0� - �•- S a i = j� _'�. �!I � ! �� _ _—J`"•�� a riT�^ I ..�;c� � ..1' �j L JE_A�� 1 .�-- --r-..-. -_ - -- .'- � � Thr T � •;r•" 1l - 7 - ;I y a .K� J ADD r i - .ta• �— ��l1JEL'JC 741 l-� L j r li 'rj 'h,L --_ �_-�e;__ T\_tel r __� ��•�, ., ��J�. �.i��J j �t _�J�'y ■nws• to i ■,r�� rpt" ,�. j �� '� FRIDLEY PLAZA ASSOCIATES A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP December 4, 1986 Mr. Larry Commers, Chairman and Commissioners Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6421 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Fridley Plaza Apartments Project Fridley, Minnesota Dear Commissioners: g. The purpose of this letter is to advise the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the Authority) , of the progress being made by Fridley Plaza Associates in arranging financing of the Fridley Plaza Apartments Project (the Project) . In running cash flow projections on the Project as originally proposed, that is 119 units of multifamily market-rate housing, we have determined that it is economically infeasible to develop the Project in its original form. This is due largely, as you know, to changes in the tax laws which contain more stringent requirements with respect to rent restrictions in order to use tax-exempt bonds, and significantly reduce the tax incentives for investors. We now believe, however, if the Project is changed to develop concurrently the market-rate rental housing and the elderly housing, we will be able to use tax-exempt financing for the entire Project. This would enable us to develop the high quality market-rate rental the Authority is looking for, as well as provide needed elderly housing at lower rents for the City of Fridley. We are working with a local mortgage lender, Meritor Mortgage Corporation - Central, formerly the Northland Mortgage Company Housing Development Division. We have been meeting with Peter Austin in the Income Property Division of Meritor to put together a package for submission to HUD for FHA insurance. We then anticipate using tax- exempt financing for the entire Project. I 1140 Minnesota building, st. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Q12-221-4M 2A Mr. Larry Commers December 4, 1986 Page Two We expect to have, by the January meeting of the Authority, a written response from Meritor as to the feasibility of development of the Project in this form. Accordingly, we are again requesting the Authority to refrain from directing the staff to draw on the Letter of Credit in its possession at this time. A draw on the Letter of Credit now would require Mr. Lundgren to immediately reimburse the bank in the sum of $200,000, money needed by the partnership to proceed with development of the Project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, FRIDLEY PLAZA ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP e-oz�-0- Louis R. Lundgren Its: General Partner SOK:BJ2S r- 3 LAW OFFICES ESTES PARSI N EN & LEVY A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JOHN D.PARSINCN 100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET - ' S.TODD RAPP R.0.ESTES SUITE 1100 HOWARD J.ROSIN ROBERT^.LEVY MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 CRTC S.iCNUlT2 DAVID CA JEFF ROSS JACK A.ROSSCRO TELEPHONE DAVID A.ORENSTCIN LEON I.STEINBERG SCOTT R.PORTER RICHARD 1.DIAMOND (6121 333-2111 M IG HALL 0.DAUGH ERTT DANIEL J.SIERSOORF FACSIMILE E.SURKC HINDS (6121 333-670& BRUCE S.JAMES Of COYNa[L November 28, 1986 David P. Newman, Esq. 6279 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 RE: City of Fridley/Rice Plaza Condemnation Our File 1353/2 Dear Mr. Newman: This office represents Rice Plaza, the owner of various property located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Mississippi Street and University Avenue N.E. At the meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) of the City of Fridley on November 13, 1986, a motion to approve the immediate taking of our client's property failed for the second straight month for a lack of a second. An alternative motion to refuse immediate taking, which was seconded as an accommodation, failed by a two-to-two vote. Since there are numerous reasons to proceed to resolve this matter, this letter is submitted for the purpose of a possible compromise solution. Confirming our telephone conversation of November 26, 1986, the concept of a Master Lease has been discussed on previous occasions. Essentially, our client is concerned that the designation of its property within a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District for a number of years has impacted available tenants and. market rents. In addition, our client is concerned that the value of the property is or may be depreciating during the period of time that the HRA continues to consider whether to take the premises. Although we can certainly understand the philosophy that the HRA simply does not want to undertake acquisition of property when there is no specific development project in hand, Rice Plaza is not able to effectively continue to keep its property leased under a cloud of condemnation and should not, as a private landowner, have the responsibility of bearing the economic burden attributable to warehousing the property at below market rentals pending a taking by the HRA. The Master Lease concept is intended to address each of these concerns. Crucial to the establishment of a Master Lease is the concept that a floor purchase price be established for an eventual taking. It is my understanding that there has been a tentative agreement between the City and my client of a compromise price of $1,008,000 assuming a closing before the end of 1986. Rice Plaza's willingness to agree to that ESTE:--S PARSINEN & LEVY November 28, 1986 Page 2 compromise reflected the fact that there would be a savings reflected by paying capital gain tax of approximately $80,000. Accordingly, if the property can still close this year, Rice Plaza is willing to continue to accept the $1,008,000 floor purchase price. On the other hand, if a taking cannot be arranged prior to the close of 1986, we believe that the floor purchase price for 1986, against which a floor purchase price for subsequent years must be measured, should be considered to be $1,090,000. Our concept of a Master Lease would contemplate that Rice Plaza would continue to own, operate, and manage the subject property. As vancancies occur, however, Rice Plaza would make all reasonable efforts to relet the premises, with immediate notice to the HRA. In the event that the subject space cannot be relet within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of the notification to the HRA of a vacancy, the HRA would agree under the Master Lease concept to pay Rice Plaza an amount equal to the market rental for the subject space, together with appropriate tenant pass throughs for real estate taxes and common area charges. Such market rentals and charges would be based upon and consistent with the most recent leasings with other tenants. Market rentals would have to be subject to adjustment to reflect inflation or the length of time of vacancy. At the current time, the landlord has been absorbing 50% of the real estate taxes and common area expenses run approximately $500 per year per bay. Under this scenario, we would have to agree to the length of the Master Lease. It is our current feeling that such an arrangement should not last over three (3) years, and that the HRA would have the authority to complete the taking at its option at any time during the three-year period. At the expiration of the three-year period, we would expect that either the property would be taken or, in the alternative, removed from the tax increment district. We express great concern about the property depreciating in value by reason of vacancies occurring and space not being relet, even during the period' of the Master Lease. In addition, the Master Lease does not address potential problems concerning capital improvements and repairs. For that reason, although our primary concern is establishing a floor price on the eventual acquisition, we do not intend to be bound by that number on the up-side, if by reason of major capital improvements, repairs, significant appreciation in land value, existing tenants renewing at higher rentals, or other factors, the property will support a higher value. It is my understanding that the HRA will meet again in December. As you can imagine, my client is severely frustrated with its attempts to solicit a meaningful decision regarding the taking at the board level. Even if Mr. Rasmussen were available for attendance at the December meeting, there is no indication of his position, or any assurance that any of the remaining four members would also be present. Although we do not wish to preclude the possibility of the matter being resolved by a taking at the December meeting, we would require assurances that the taking can in fact be closed prior to year-end. In the interim, I would appreciate your giving serious consideration to the broad outlines of a Master Lease proposal contained in this letter and informing me of your specific reaction to it. By this letter, you are specifically authorized to discuss this proposal with any and all appropriate HRA members, staff members and the like, who could contribute to the resolution of this matter. 3B -ESTZS PARSINEN & LEVY November 28, 1986 - Page 3 Thank you very much for your attention. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me or Robert Levy of this office at your earliest convenience. /Very truly yours, f V- E I Richard L Diamond krh RID-3 4 RESOUNION NO. HRA-=1986 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FRIDLEY IMA ApPR%ING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PGREEKENT BETWEEN THE HRA AND THE FRIDLEY BUSINESS PLAZA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority") , as follows: 1. On August 14, 1986 the Authority approved a proposed Contract for Private Development (the "Development Agreement") by and between the Authority and Winfield Development, Inc. concerning the construction of an approximately 55,000 square foot commercial/industrial complex to be located generally on Lots 40, 5, and 6, Block 1, Paco Industrial Park in Fridley, Minnesota. 2. Since such approval, the proposed developers have entered into a limited partnership for the purposes of constructing the proposed development project. Accordingly, there has been prepared and presented to the Board a corresponding revision of the above-mentioned agreement (the "Development Agreement"). 3. The Board hereby approves the Development Agreement, as so amended, and authorizes the Executive Director and Chairman of the Authority to execute the Development Agreement substantially in its present form, but with such minor amendments, deletions, or insertions as such oofficers may deem necessary or desirable, as evidenced by their execution thereof, and the Board further instructs such officers, upon the full execution of the Development Agreement, to take such actions as may be necessary to effectuate and implement the terms thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THIS DAY OF , 1986. LAWERENCE OOMMERS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: JAI "JOCK" ROBERTSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LIA HOUSING &REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FETING AUGUST 14 1986 -PAGE 6 W. Qureshi stated the HRA, at the last meeting, had given conceptual approval to assist Winfield Development in the amount of $30,000 for soil corrections. He stated there is a sizeable cost of approxi- mately $120,000 for soil corrections in order for Winfield to develop this prope Mr. Qureshi st ed another parcel to be included in th ax increment district is the orewood Inn property in order for em to expand and upgrade the proper . He stated the assistancepro4ided to Shorewood would amount to $70, 00. Mr. Qureshi stated the Nrpose of the resolution is to add these two parcels of property in th* tax increment districts by establishing Tax Increment District No. 7 and Tax Increment District No. 8. MOTION BY MS. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY:- R. MEYER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. HRA 12-1986 RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND AMENDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PIAN,;xAMENDING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS NO. 2 THROUGH NO. 6 WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS NO. 7 AND N0. 8 WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PIANS RELATING THERETO. Mr. Meyer stated apparently pperently there is a different rationale •for •Dist- rict No. 8 as com red with District No. 7. `, Mr. Qureshi stated the Shorewood property would\be in an economic development ,Oistrict, rather than a redevelopment,.district. He stated thi district has a shorter time period to recapture the tax incremen UPON VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, ALL VOTED\A AND CHAIR- PE ON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. S. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT WITH WINFIELD DEVELOPMENT INC. : W. Qureshi stated this resolution would authorize the execution of a contract for private development with Winfield Development, Inc. He stated the contract provides the HRA would assist Winfield Development with soil correction costs not to exceed $30,000 once improvements are completed and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. W. Winkels, representing Winfield Development, stated this contract shows soil correction costs to be $120,000 and their documentation was for $116,000. It. Qureshi stated it would be appropriate to adjust this figure to $116,000. NOTION BY ME. Mme, SECONDED BY M. SCHNABEL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 13-1986 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE RE- DEVELOPMENT WITH WINFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC., WITH THE $120,000 FIGURE AMENDED TO $116,000. 4B HOUSING & REDEVELOPMNT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 14 1986 PAGE 7 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON CONMRS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMDUSLY. 11 6. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH SHOREWOOD, INC.: i W. Qureshi stated the property owner, Mr. Nicklow, isrov sing to re vate his existing structure in order to expand andde addi- do 1 parking and landscaping. W. Qu shi stated some property to the east of the/Shorewood property is alrea in the tax increment district. i Mr. Qureshi'-*tated the total cost of the improvement is about $750,000 and the HRA would provide assistance of $70,000 payable after all construction phis have been approved, improvements completed, and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. W. Qureshi stated tse funds are paid back with no interest for three years, interest Oply for two years and the last ten years, the whole principal and interest is paid beck as a second mortgage to the property. \, I Mr. Nicklow stated they wished, to proceed with the parking lot improve- i meet as soon as possible and asked when payment would be received. y Mr. Qureshi stated no payment would be received until all improvements have been completed and the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. He stated the $70,000 in assistance from the HRA is contingent upon completion of all the improvements. Councilman Goodspeed stated $70,000 upfront would be worth more than after the improvements are completed. W. Newman stated he understands they cannot receive the funds until completion of the improvements, but felt itis an incentive for them to make all the improvements. MOTION BY M. SCHNABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MEYER,\,T0 APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1986 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH SHOREWOOD, INC. i \ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COM\\M DECLARED THE MDTION CARRIED UNANIPDUSLY. 7. REQUEST FORiASSISTANCE FROM KENNETH BELGARDE AND HARRY AME TO BUILD A 358 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX NORTH OF 83RD AVENUE: `. 3 � � W. Qure i stated a request has been received from Kenneth $eggarde and Har y Yaffee for the HRA to provide assistance in the development of a 358 unit apartment complex north of 83rd Avenue. 5 INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM WILL BE ' PROVIDED TO YOU BEFORE TEE L''FMC ON THUMAY, DECOTER 12, 1986 6 r A.= �S CITYOF FRIDLEY (•I%*I(•('I.N'1'I.R • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY.MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE(612)571-3450 November 26, 1986 Eric Nesset Director of Construction i*)oc'.bridge Properties, Inc. 320 Woodbridge Plaza 10201 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55343 Dear Eric: I am writing to confirm our phone conversation yesterday regarding recording of the Final Plat on the Lake Pointe development. I understand that you received the final document from Jerry Sonde on Friday, November 21, 1986 and have forwarded it to your architects for final approval. Also, that you have requested the one week waiting period to review the response from the architects. Accordingly, I am notifying you that the Fridley HRA will on December 1, 1986 retain the services of Suburban Engineering for the purpose of preparing and filing the Final Plat for Lake Pointe development unless you notify me that Woodbridge Properties, Inc. has already recorded the Plat. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, John L. "Jock" Robertson Executive Director Fridley HRA JLR,/dm C-86-532 cc: Larry Canners David Newman uh M E M 0 TO: Fridley Housing and Redevelopment FROM: David P. Newman RE: Lake Pointe Investment Company DATE: November 19, 1986 At the November 13, 1986 meeting the question was raised as to when the Developer must commence construction on the above project. Under the terms contained in the Addendum to the Contract for Private Redevelopment, it was agreed that construction would commence "within 4 months after con- veyance of the Phase I Parcel to the Redeveloper by the Authority." As you know, the Deeds to the Phase I Parcel have been placed in escrow pending completion of the plat. Since the Redeveloper has refused to date, to complete the platting, the Deeds to the Phase I Parcel cannot yet be recorded. On September 30, 1986 Mr. Weir sent a letter to the escrow agent requesting that the Metes an& Bounds Deed for the Phase I Parcel be released for filing. The notification which he gave was in accordance with the terms of the escrow agreement. To date the escrow agent has not been able to file these deeds because of the need to obtain a registered land survey before recording. However, I believe his instruction to the escrow agent to file the deed could effectively be construed as "conveyance of the Phase I Parcel to the Redeveloper by the Authority" . It would be my opi- nion that he therefore must commence construction by • January 30, 1987 or he will be in default under the terms of the Contract for Redevelopment. It would be my recommendation that if an impasse still exists at the time of your next HRA meeting, then the staff should send a letter to Mr. Weir informing him that the HRA is interpreting the contract to require him to commence construction by January 30 , 1987 . a �� ._.� �. _��.� _��_��.� _ _� � .. �.�.� �...�.� l C -^"-lir :.!►'� M • DIRECTORATE oO OF o o ML �o 0 PUBLIC WORKS CIlYOF MEMORANDUM FRIDLEY ID: Jock Robertson, Executive Director — HER EW86 349 FE M: John G. Flora, Public Works Director DAZE: December 4. 1986 SUBJECT: Highway 65/01d Central Intersection Improvement Associated with the intersection improvement of Righwav 65 and West Moore Lake Drive/Old Central in support of the Woodbridgej. Lake Pointe Development. 7he consultinq f inn of S.E.H. is preparinq final design plans for MnDOT approval. Associated with the intersection is the redesign of the Hathaway. Hacbnann, Hillwind and Old Central intersection. As you may recall, the HRA purchased the corner residential lot in the area in order to vrov ide for this intersection improvement. In reviewinq the final mans, it appears necessary to relocate the garage access from 5755 Old Central Avenue off of Old Central because of its proximity to the new intersection. In order to provide continued use of the existing garage by this resident, it would be necessary to provide access to the property off of Hathaway Lane. In order to accomplish this we will have to change the garage doors from front to rear and construct a new driveway from the rear of the property. This driveway by necessity will have to cross a Dart of 5760 Hathaway Lane's oroperty. This can be aocomplished by the acquisition of a triangular piece about 24 feet long and 28 feet deep. I have contacted both property owners and they are agreeable to this modification. Ms. Ann Williams of 5760 Hathaway Lane does not desire to provide an easement but is willing to sell the trianqular piece of property. If the HRA agrees, we can initiate a negotiation for the sale of this piece. I would assume it should be less than $1.000.00. Recommend the HRA authorize the City to proceed with the acquisition of the property and the reconf iguration of the garage and driveway associated with the intersection improvement of Hathaway and Old Central Avenue- JGF/ts 7A b 19 c_.. W O - - V #5763 REMOVE #5755 -------_----------- --.NOTE: GARAGE TO BE MODIFIED ACCOMMODATE NEW DRIVE HACKMAN AVE. r 24 tet. FE NU t 24 `I S7�o a hr� '.�,'",' "`s .a `mss d .�,•. �.. �• �a A�_` i }a ,fin *� • t�yv � �� Y'.RA._+ ,�. � � a 44 4p lj,6' N i 1 +,: '7r� +e ♦ice 's \ Im Pill 8 I1FORIATION FOR T}IIS ITEM WILL BE PROVIDED TO YOU BEFORE TIE PMING • M THURSDAY DECEJM 12, 19B61 DIRECTORATE o0 o OF PUBLIC WORKS CITYOF MEMORANDUM f RIDLEY TO: Jock Robertson, Executive Director - HIR EW86 348 FROM: John G. Flora;�Ribl is Works Director DATE: December 4, 1986 SZJ 3JECT: Mississippi/University Avenue Intersection Improvement We have received a Joint Powers Agreement for the improvement of the intersection of Mississippi Street and University Avenue by the Anoka County Highway Department. The project calls for the intersection upgrade and widening between 5th and Main Street. Incorporated in the project based upon the City's request, there is also the provision for water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems on the west side of Mississippi Street to support the redevelopment of the southwest quadrant. The total project is estimated at $531,954.00. Of that amount, the City's estimated cost is $147,859.54. Included in that is approximately $59,000.00 for the utility systems, the remainder is the City's portion for the concrete curb and gutter, brick paving, driveway, sidewalks, signals, signage, landscaping and engineering costs. At this time, it is understood that the intersection will not be improved until after the East River Road, Rice Creek bridge and Osborne intersections are completed. These projects are scheduled for 1987. Therefore, the Mississippi intersection will not be accamplished until the summer of 1988. In order to expedite the design and construction of this project, re a mend the HRA approve the improvements and request the City to execute the attached agreement with the Anoka County Highway Department. JGF/ts - Attachment L.c9, amantha Orduno QA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE INTERSECTION AT C.S.A.H. #6 (MISSISSIPPI STREET) AND T.H. 47 - This Agreement made and entered into this_ day of 1986, by and between the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, 325 East Main Street, Anoka, Minnesota, 55303, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the City of Fridley, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432, hereinafter referred to as "City." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement consider it mutually desirable to improve the intersection at C.S.A.H. #6 ('Mississippi Street) and T.H. 47; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is in their best interest that the cost of said project be shared; and, WHEREAS, said work will be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. 5 471.59. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. PURPOSE The County and City have joined together for the purpose of improving the intersection at C.S.A.H. #6 (Mississippi Street) at T.H. 47 in the City of Fridley. 2. METHOD The County shall provide all engineering services and shall cause the construction of Anoka County Project No. 02-606-08 in conformance with said plans and specifications. The letting of bids and the acceptance of all bid proposals shall be done by the County. 3. COSTS A. The contract costs of the work, or if the work is not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials, normal engineering costs and equipment rental required to OD - 2 - complete the work, shall constitute the "actual construction costs" and shall be so referred to herein. "Estimated costs" are good faith projections of the costs which will be incurred for this project. The estimated costs are attached as Exhibits A, and incorporated herein by reference. B. The total estimated cost of construction for the project is $531,954.00. Participation in the construction cost is as follows: 1. The City shall pay non-state aid portion of the storm sewer system which is estimated to be 25% of the cost of the storm sewer. The total estimated construction cost is $46,632.00, of which the City's estimated share is $11,668.00. 2. The City shall pay for all water system improvements and the irrigation system, estimated at $11,885.00. 3. The City shall pay 100% of the sanitary sewer improvements for which the estimated cost is $35,385.00. 4. The City shall pay for 50% of the cost of roadside curb and gutter not including the cost of the median curb, concrete driveways and concrete stone paving used in the medians and boulevards. The estimated cost of the curb and gutter is $33,975.00, of which the estimated cost to the City is $12,300.00. (a) The City shall pay 100% of the concrete stone paving, estimated at $33,250.00. (b) The City shall pay 100% of the concrete driveways, estimated at $5,040.00. (c) The City shall pay for all sidewalk which is not replacement sidewalk, in an amount estimated at $4,687.50.The total estimated construction cost for sidewalks is $34,050.00. 5. The City shall pay 25% of the cost of reconstruction of the traffic signal system at the intersection of T.H. 47 and C.S.A.H. 46. The 9C - 3 - estimated cost of the traffic control system is =65,400.00, of which the City's share is $16,250.00. 6. The City shall pay 100% of the cost of the lighted sign panels, estimated at $1,440.00. 7. The City shall pay 100% of the cost of trees planted for this total estimated cost is 1 500.00. project. The t 5 , B. The County shall pay all right-of-way costs associated with the project described in the project plans in Exhibit B, which is atached and incorporated herein by reference. If said plans are changed or modified, then the City shall pay the County all right-of-way costs in excess of the right-of-way costs that should have been included under the original plans described in Exhibit B. 9. The City shall pay the County for preliminary engineering services at a rate of eight percent (8%) of the actual costs for sanitary sewer and water main construction. The estimated cost for sanitary sewer and water is $47,270.00, with the preliminary engineering fee estimated at $3,781.60. 10. The City shall pay the County for construction engineering services at a rate of eight percent (8%) of its actual construction costs, excluding preliminary engineering fees. Total estimated construction costs for Fridley are estimated at $133,405.50, with construction engineering services estimated at $10,672.44. on aV - 4 - is 133 405.50 The total estimated construction cost to the City S , 11. _ . based on the following itemized estimates: Water systems $ 11,885.00 Storm sewer 119668.00 Sanitary sewer 359385.00 Roadside curb & gutter 12,300.00 Concrete stone paving 33,250.00 Concrete driveways 5,040.00 Sidewalks 4,687.50 Traffic signal system 16,250.00 Sign panels 1,440.00 Trees 1,500.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $ 133,405.50 Preliminary Engineering: $ 3,781.60 Construction Engineering 10.672.44 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $ 147,859.54 C. Upon final completion of the construction the City shall pay to the Count, upon written demand by the County, the actual cost of construction and engineering, estimated to be $1479859.54. The City's share of the project shall include only construction costs and engineering costs and does not include administrative or other expenses incurred by the County. 4. TERM This Agreement shall continue until (1) terminated as provided hereinafter, or (2) until the construction provided for herein is completed and payment provided for herein is made, whichever of (1) or (2) shall first occur. The City's obligation to supply ongoing electrical power costs will survive this Agreement. 5. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS All funds disbursed by the County or City pursuant to this Agreement shall be disbursed by each entity pursuant to the method provided by law. 6. CONTRACTS AND PURCHASES All contracts let and purchases made pursuant to this Agreement shall be made by the County and City in conformance to the State Laws. HRA CLAIMS 1525 - 1539 11-13-86 CHECK REGISTER PAGE 1 FRIDLEY STATE BANK - HRA DESCRIPTION VENDOR AMOUNT 1525 ***CHECK PREPAID*** GERALD W. PASCHKE $13, 500.00 IMPROVEMENTS ON LOT 7 1526 ***CHECK PREPAID*** FBS CAPITAL MARKETS GROUP $124,906. 14 BOND PAYMENT 1527 ***CHECK PREPAID*** FIRST NAT'L BANK OF ST. PAUL $3,639.07 BOND PAYMENT 1528 ***CHECK PREPAID*** AMERICAN FINANCIAL PRINTING $1,922.48 TYPESET, PRINT & NUMBER TAX INCREMENT BONDS 1529 ***CHECK PREPAID*** $2,952 .96 CITY OF FRIDLEY REIMBURSE CITY (#11057 , 10-21 FOR ERNST ASSOCIATES) 1530 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $141,634. 3? REIMBURSE CITY (#11060 , 10-21 FOR ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION) 1531 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $49, 595. 89 REIMBURSE CITY (#11274 , 11-04 FOR PARK CONSTRUCTION) 1532 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $6 ,923.80 REIMBURSE CITY (#11275 , 11-04 FOR SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING) 1533 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $1,650. 00 REIMBURSE CITY (#11058 , 10-21 FOR SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING) 1534 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $21,531. 11 REIMBURSE CITY (#11059 , 10-21 FOR SUNDE ENGINEERING 11-13-86 CHECK REGISTER PAGE`2 FRIDLEY STATE BANK - HRA DESCRIPTION VENDOR AMOUNT 1535 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $16 ,273. 07 OCTOBER PERSONNEL SERVICES 1536 ***CHECK PREPAID*** HERRICK & NEWMAN $2,200.00 OCTOBER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1537 ***CHECK VOIDED**** 0. Oc 1538 ***CHECK PREPAID*** CITY OF FRIDLEY $233,798 .41 ASSESSMENTS OF 1985 STREET PROJECTS 1539 ***CHECK PREPAID*** OLSON, GUNN & SERAN $633.02 SEPTEMBER & OCTOBER LEGAL SERVICES TOTAL CHECKS (14) $621, 160. 32 f f 11-Dec-86 FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PABE1 1986 HRA CONTRACTS 43 DATE DATE CONTRACT CONTRACTED ESTIMATE CHECK CITY HRA HRA AWARDED CONTRACTOR AMOUNT ESTIMATES APPROVED DATE EST 4 CHECK 4 CHECK 4 DAIE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H00001 H t S ASPHALT 8-14-86 Phase 11 1986- 1 ti 2 368.054.10 11-3-86 CHANGE ORDER 41 17.250.00 11-3-86 11-13-86 55.302.26 12-8-86 12-9-86 EST. 1 11985 }{ ---------------------------- 385.304.10 55,302.26 ---------------------------- ---------------------------- P00065 PARK CONSTRUCTION 8-14-86 Sanitary Sewer Project No. 162 08,100.00 49.595.89 11-3-86 11-4-86 EST. 1 11274 1531 11-13-86 26.460.05 11-17-86 11-18-86 EST. 2 11567 }t 47,170.98 12-8-86 12-9-86 EST. 3 11987 +t --------------------------- 18B.100.00 123.226.92 ---------------------------- E00058 ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 8-14-86 Demolition k Site Gradino No. 163 978.000.00 18B.311.85 9-22-86 9-25-86 EST. 1 10531 1511 10-9-B6 141.634.37 10-10-86 10-21-86 EST. 2 11060 1530 11-13-86 147,240.60 12-8-86 12-9-B6 EST. 3 11983 e ---------------------------- 978,000.00 477,186.B2 ---------------------------- MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPING, INC. 8-14-86 Irrigation h Lighting Project 4168 481,413.00 25,916.00 12-B-86 12-9-86 EST. 1 119B6 }+ ---------------------------- 481.413.00 25,916.00 RECAP TOTALS ------------ ORIGINAL CONTRACTS $2,015,567.10 CHANGE ORDERS 1986-1 6 2 $17.250.00 ESTIMATES PAID TO DATE $681,632.00 ---------------------------- $2,032,817.10 $681.632.00 11-Dec-86 FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PAGE1 1986 HRA CONTRACTS 13 DATE DATE CONTRACT CONTRACTED ESTIMATE CHECK. CITY HRA HRA AWARDED - CONTRACTOR AMOUNT ESTIMATES APPROVED DATE EST # CHECK # CHECK # DATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS ----------------------------------- S00148 SHORT ELLIOT & HEDRICKSON. INC. Central Ave/ Highway Redesign 30,750.00 1,008.98 -------- 2-07-86 ------- ------- 1464 1.731.08 5-05-86 5-06-86 7952 1522 10-9-86 3,017.89 9-08-86 9-12-86 EST. 1 10327 1522 10-9-86 9-11-86 Modification 161,400.00 843.41 10-6-86 10-07-86 PARTIAL 10845 1522 10-9-B6 246.08 10-9-86 10-10-86 -------- ------- 1515 10-9-86 5,942.62 11-17-86 11-1B-B6 PARTIAL 11568 ff 15,203.03 12-8-86 12-9-86 PARTIAL 11981 ff 200.71 12-8-86 12-9-B6 PARTIAL 11981 ff ---------------------------- 192.150.00 28,193.80 500024 SONDE ENGINEERING 9-11-86 Encineerino/Inspection Services 148.797.00 57.940.23' B-14-86 NRA AGREEMENT 1.502.00 10-9-86 7.745.11 9-22-B6 9-25-86 EST. 1 10532 1523 10-9-86 21.531.11 10-20-86 10-21-B6 EST. 2 11059 1523 10-9-B6 14.748.28 11-17-86 11-17-86 EST. 3 11570 1534 11-13-86 ---------------------------- ff 148,797.00 101.964.73 E00062 ERNST & ASSOCIATES 9-11-B6 landscape Architects 9.229.00 5.377.66 8-14-B6 HRA AGRMT EST. 1&2 ------ f B-14-86 Additional expenses 227.96 2.952.96 10-20-86 10-21-86 EST. 3 11057 f 11-13-86 13.05 313.05 12-8-86 12-9-86 EST. 4 ff ---------------------------- 9.470.01 B.643.67 500088 SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING 10-9-B6 Landscape and Irrio_ation 49,000.00 Project #16B 21,707.65 8-14-B6 HRA AGREEMENT 1502 8-14-B6 1.000.00 10-20-B6 10-21-B6 INV# 4718 11058 1533 11-13-86 650.00 10-20-B6 10-21-86 INV# 4779 11058 1533 11-13-66 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 812.50 812.50 ------ ------ ------ ------ 1508 9-12-86 6.923.80 11-3-06 11-4-B6 INV# 11275 1532 11-13-86 4.972.85 11-17-B6 11-18-B6 PARTIAL 11569 ff 450.00 12-8-86 12-9-B6 INV #4821 11982 ff 1,332.00 12-8-86 12-9-86 INV 14960 11982 ff 175.00 12-8-B6 12-9-B6 INV #4972 !1982 ff ---------------------------- 49.812.50 38.023.80 TO: FRIDLEY H. R. A. FROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY RE: BILLING FOR PERSONAL SERVICES FOR NOVEMBER, 1986 PERSONAL SERVICES: * November 9,059. 06 ------------ TOTAL 9,059.06 ------------ OPERATING EXPENSES: Postage 16. 58 Inspection Services 1 ,600. 00 ------------ TOTAL 1 ,616. 58 ------------ TOTAL FUND 2 :6 : 10,675. 64 * PERSONAL SERVICES WILL NOT TIE TO THE BALANCE OF FUND 236 BECAUSE OF J/E CORRECTING TIME CHARGED TO JOB 1108 AND TRANSFERRED TO FUND 236 H.R.A. LABOR DETAIL PAY DATE NAME 236 HOURS PAY ------------------------------ ----------------------LEAVE INSURANCE PENSION TOTAL ---- 11-14 Barb Ridout 30 2. 0 22.51 2.57- ____ f Donna Saba PT 30 8.5 59.67 66.08 Shirleyaa ala 6.78 66.45 Y P 31 2.6 28.84 3.03 31.87 Nasim Qureshi 31 6.0 170.02 7.23 177.25 Elsie Hanscom 31 2.0 16. 77 1.76 18.53 Rick Pribyl 31 8.0 172.41 19.66 192.07 Debbie Mootz 31 5.0 32. 17 3.67 John Robertson 31 21.0 422.41 35.84 Jim Robinson 48. 15 470.56 31 10.0 137.05 15.62 152.67 Nasim Qureshi 32 6.0 170.02 7.23 177.25 Rick Pribyl 32 8.0 172.41 19.66 192.07 John Flora 32 10.0 256.71 10.91 267.02 John Flora 32 10.0 256. 71 10. 91 267,62 Nasim Qureshi 33 6.0 170.0223 John Robertson 7•" 177,25 33 13.0 261.49 29.811 291.30 Jim Robinson 33 25.0 342.62 39.06 381.68 Rick Pribyl 37 8.0 172.41 19.66 192.07 John Robertson 37 13.0 261.49 29.81 291.30 Mark Burch 37 60.0 1 , 156.67 131.86 1 ,288.53 11-28 Barb Ridout 30 9. 0 101.28 11.54 112.82 Carole Haddad PT 30 10.5 84.32 9.61 93.93 Teri Albertson PT 30 4.0 22.20 0.32 22.52 Carol Bartlett30 6.0 34.92 3.99 38.91 Shirley Haapala I 31 5. 1 57.68 6.06 63. 74 Nasim Qureshi 31 6.0 170.02 7.23 177.25 Elsie Hanscom 31 2.0 16.77 Rick Pribyl 1. 76 18.53 Y 31 6. 4 137.93 15.67 153.60 Debbie Mootz 31 3.0 19.30 2.20 21.50 John Robertson 31 20.0 402.30 4 .87 448. 17 Jim Robinson 31 10.0 137.05 15.63 152.68 Nasim Qureshi 32 3.0 85.01 3.bi 88.62 Rick Pribyl 32 6.4 137.93 15.67 153.60 John Robertson 32 1.0 20. 11 2.29 22.40 John Flora 32 9.0 231.04 9.82 240.86 John Flora 32 7.0 179.69 John Robertson 33 13.0 261.49 27.64 187.39.81 291.30 0 Jim Robinson � 33 10.0 137. 05 15.63 152.68 Nasim Qureshi 37 6.0 170.02 7.23 177,25 Rick Pribyl 37 6.4 137.93 15.67 153.60 John Robertson 37 13.0 261.49 29.81 291. 30 Mark Burch 37 56. 0 1 ,079,56 123.0.8 1 ,202.64 Clyde Moravetz 37 6.0 87.07 9. 75 96.82 --------------------------------------------------- NOVEMBER TOTALS $8,254.56 $804.50 $9,059.06 * J/E CORRECTING TIME CHARGED TO 1108 AND PUT INTO 236 H.R.A. LABOR DETAIL NAME 236 HOURS PAY LEAVE INSURANCE PENSION TOTAL --------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ---------- Teri Albertson PT 30 4.0 22.20 0.32 22.52 Barb Ridout 30 2.0 22.51 2.57 25.08 Carol Bartlett PT 30 6.0 34.92 3.99 38.91 Barb Ridout 30 9.0 101.28 11.54 112.82 Donna Saba PT 30 8.5 59.67 6.78 66.45 Carole Haddad PT 30 10.5 84.32 9.61 93.93 ---------- --------------------------- ---------- $324.90 $34.81 $359.71 Shirley Haapala 31 2.6 28.84 3.03 31.87 Nasim Qureshi 31 6.0 170.02 7.23 177.25 Elsie Hanscom 31 2.0 16.77 1.76 18.53 Jim Robinson 31 10.0 137.05 15.62 152.67 Rick Pribyl 31 6.4 137.93 15.67 153.60 Shirley Haapala 31 5. 1 57.68 6.06 63.74 Rick Pribyl 31 8.0 172.41 19.66 192.07 Nasim Qureshi 31 6.0 170.02 7.23 177.25 John Robertson 31 20.0 402.30 45.87 448. 17 Elsie Hanscom 31 2.0 16.77 1.76 18.53 John Robertson 31 21.0 422.41 48. 15 470.56 Debbie Mootz 31 3.0 19.30 2.20 21.50 Jim Robinson 31 10.0 137.05 15.63 152.68 Debbie Mootz 31 5.0 32. 17 3.67 35.84 ---------- --------------------------- ---------- $1 ,920.72 $193.54 $2,114.26 Rick Pribyl 32 8.0 172.41 19.66 192.07 Rick Pribyl 32 6.4 137.93 15.67 153.60 John Robertson 32 1.0 20. 11 2.29 22.40 John Flora 32 10.0 256.71 10.91 267.62 John Flora 32 7.0 179.69 7.64 187.33 Nasim Qureshi 32 3.0 85.01 3.61 88.62 Nasim Qureshi 32 6.0 170.02 7.23 177.25 John Flora 32 10.0 256.71 10.91 267.62 John Flora 32 9.0 231.04 9.82 240.86 ---------- --------------------------- ---------- $1,509.63 $87.74 $1 ,597.37 Jim Robinson 33 10.0 137.05 15.63 152.68 John Robertson 33 13.0 261.49 29.81 291.30 John Robertson 33 13.0 261.49 29.81 291.30 Jim Robinson 33 25.0 342.62 39.06 381.68 Nasim Qureshi 33 6.0 170.02 7.23 177. 25 ---------- --------------------------- ---------- $1 ,172.67 $121.54 $1 ,294.21 y H.R.A. LABOR DETAIL NAME 236 HOURS PAY LEAVE INSURANCE PENSION TOTAL --------------------- --------------------------- ---------- John Robertson 37 13.0 261.49 29.81 291.30 Mark Burch 37 60.0 1, 156.67 131.86 1,288.53 Rick Pribyl 37 8.0 172.41 19.66 192.07 Nasim Qureshi37 6.0 170.02 7.23 177.25 Mark Burch 37 56.0 1,079.56 123.08 1,202.64 Clyde Moravetz 37 6.0 87.07 9.75 96.82 ---------- --------------------------- NOVEMBER TOTALS $3,326.64 $366.87 $3,693.51 * J/E CORRECTING TIME CHARGED TO 1108 AND PUT INTO 236 a I 12-11-86 CHECK REGISTER PAGE 1 FRIDLEY' STATE BANK-HRA DESCRIPTION , VENDOR AMOUNT ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1540 BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES 6,428.61 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1541 GERALD & NORMA JOHNSON, FORD CROUCH 71,952.00 CONDEMNATION AWARD ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1542 CITY OF FRIDLEY REIMBURSE CITY (PARK CONSTRUCTION, #11567, 11-18-86) 26,460.05 ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1543 CITY OF FRIDLEY 5,942.62 REIMBURSE CITY (SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, #11568 , 11-18-86). ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1544 CITY OF FRIDLEY 4,972 .85 REIMBURSE CITY (SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING, #11569, 11-18-86) ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1545 CITY OF FRIDLEY 14 ,748.25 REIMBURSE CITY (SUNDE ENGINEERING, #11570, 11-18-86) ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1546 GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY 1,400.00 AUDIT OF FRIDLEY H.R.A. ***CHECK 'PREPAID*** 1547 MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE 18 , 160.00 RATING OF BONDS ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1548 CITY OF FRIDLEY 10,675.64 NOVEMBER PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EXPENSES ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1549 CITY OF FRIDLEY 313.05 REIMBURSE CITY (ERNST ASSOCIATES, #11984, 12-09-86) 12-11-86 CHECK REGISTER PAGE 2 FRIDLEY STATE BANK - HRA DESCRIPTION VENDOR AMOUNT ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1550 CITY OF FRIDLEY 55, 302.26 REIMBURSE CITY (H & S ASPHALT, #11985, 12-09-86) ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1551 CITY OF FRIDLEY 147,240.60- REIMBURSE CITY (ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION, #11983, 12-09-86) ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1552 CITY OF FRIDLEY 25,916.00, REIMBURSE CITY (MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPING, #11986, 12-09-86) ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1553 CITY OF FRIDLEY 47, 170. 98 REIMBURSE CITY (PARK CONSTRUCTION, #11987, 12-09-86) ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1554 CITY OF FRIDLEY 15,403.73 REIMBURSE CITY (SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, #11981, 12-09-86) ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1555 CITY OF FRIDLEY 1,957.00 REIMBURSE CITY (SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING, #11982, 12-09-86) ***CHECK PREPAID*** 1556 HERRICK & NEWMAN 1,727.20 NOVEMBER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL CHECKS (17) $455,770.84 5-Nov-86 FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PA6E1 1986 HRA CONTRACTS 42 DATE DATE CONTRACT CONTRACTED ESTIMATE CHECK CITY HRA HRA AWARDED CONTRACTOR AMOUNT ESTIMATES APPROVED DATE EST 4 CHECK 4 CHECK 4 DATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H00001 H & 5 ASPHALT B-14-86 Phase 11 1986- 1 & 2 368,054.10 11-3-86 CHANGE ORDER 41 17,250.00 11-3-86 ---------------------------- 385,304.10 0.00 P00065 PARK CONSTRUCTION 8-14-86 Sanitary Sewer Project No. 162 188,100.00 49,595.89 11-3-86 11-4-86 EST. 1 11274 +�{ ---------------------------- 188,100.00 49,595.89 E00058 ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 8-14-B6 Demolition & Site Grading No. 163 978,000.00 188,311.85 9-22-86 9-25-86 EST. 1 10531 1521 10-9-86 141,634.37 10-20-86 10-21-B6 EST. 2 11060 f ---------------------------- 978,000.00 329,946.22 MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPING, INC. B-14-86 Irrigation & Lighting Project 4168 481,413.00 ---------------------------- 481,413.00 0.00 500148 SHORT ELLIOT & HEDRICK,SON, INC. Central Ave/ Highway Redesign 30,750.00 1,008.98 -------- 2-07-86 -------- ------- 1464 1,731.08 5-05-86 5-06-86 7952 1522 10-9-66 3,017.89 9-OB-86 9-12-86 EST. 1 10327 1522 10-9-86 9-11-86 Modification 161,400.00 843.41 10-6-86 10-07-86 PARTIAL 10845 1522 10-9-86 246.06 10-9-B6 10-10-86 -------- ------- 1515 10-9-86 ---------------------------- 192,150.00 6,847.44 500024 SUNDE ENGINEERING 9-11-86 Engineering/Inspection Services 148,797.00 1523 10-9-86 57,940.23 B-14-86 HRA AGREEMENT 1502 B-14-86 7,745.11 9-22-86 9-25-86 EST. 1 10532 1523 10-9-86 21,531.11 10-20-86 10-21-86 EST. 2 11059 t� ---------------------------- 148,797.00 87,216.45 500088 SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING 10-9-86 Landscape and Irrigation 49,000.00 Project 4168 21,707.65 B-14-86 HRA AGREEMENT 1502 8-14-86 05-Nov-86 FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PAGE2 1986 HRA CONTRACTS 12 DATE DATE CONTRACT CONTRACTED ESTIMATE CHECK CITY NRA HRA AWARDED CONTRACTOR AMOUNT ESTIMATES APPROVED DATE EST # CHECK # CHECK # DATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,000.00 10-20-86 10-21-B6 INV# 471B 11058 f* 650.00 10-20-86 10-21-86 INV# 4779 11058 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 812.50 812.50 ------ ------ ------ ------ 1508 9-12-86 6,923.80 11-3-86 11-4-86 INV# 11275 f* -----------------------5---- 49,812.50 31,093.95 E00062 ERNST & ASSOCIATES 9-11-86 Landscape Architects 9,229.00 5,377.66 B-14-86 HRA AGREEMENT ------ 1502 8-14-B6 Additional expenses 227.96 2,952.96 10-20-86 10-21-86 11057 �* ---------------------------- 9,456.96 8,330.62 �� - AMOUNTS TO BE REIMBURSED THIS PERIOD LAW OFFICES OF STRONG,TULLY, TULLY & CROUCH, LTD. 600 NORWEST MIDLAND BUILDING HARLAN S.STRONG MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55401 TELEPHONE RALPH H.TULLY 333-0911 FORD W.CROUCH WELLINGTON TULLY (1906-1963) October 17, 1986 Mr. Virgil C. Herrick Attorney at Law Herrick and Newman, P.A. 6279 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority, et al vs. GERALD G. JOHNSON and NORMA B. JOHNSON Dear Mr. Herrick: Confirming our telephone conversation earlier this morning, please be advised that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson would be willing to accept the Commissioner's award with the following clarifications: 1 ) Balance of Commissioner ' s award ($671 ,200 .00 less $621 ,000 .00 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 50,200 .00 2 ) Interest on $670,900.00 from April 25 , 1986 to August 21 , 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 17,350.00 3 ) Interest on $49 ,900 .00 from August 21st to October 23 , 1986 . . f . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 678 .00 4) Real estate taxes prorated as of quick- take date (April 25, 1986 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,412.00 Real estate taxes for the full year were $4 ,980 .00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL: $ 71 ,64 .00 As the deadline for appealing this award is fast approaching, I would request that you give me your verbal acceptance or rejection of this offer no later than Tuesday, October 21 , 1986. Please leave the message with my secretary as I will be out of the Office on that day. I would also appreciate it if you would provide written confirmation of the acceptance of the offer by Wednesday, October 22, 1986. Very truly yours, Ford W. Crouch FWC/CF cc Donald R. Bundlie Attorney at Law 9 - 5 - 7. STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY _ A strict accounting shall be made of all funds and report of all receipts and disbursements shall be made upon request by either party. S. SIGNALIZATION POWER The City shall be responsible for the ongoing cost of electrical power to the signal and lighting. 9. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time, with or without cause., upon not less than thirty (30) days written notice delivered by mail or in person to the other party. If notice is delivered by mail, it shall be deemed to be received two days after mailing. Such termination shall not be effective with respect to any solicitation of bids or any purchases of services or goods which occurred prior to such notice of termination. 10. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION In accordance with Anoka County's Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall illegally be excluded from full-time employment rights in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the program which is the subject of this Agreement on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, marital status, public assistance status, age, disability, or national origin. 11. NOTICE For purposes of delivery of any notices hereunder, the notice shall be effective if delivered to the County Administrator of Anoka County, 325 East Main Street, Anoka, Minnesota, 55303, on behalf of the County, and the City Manager, City of Fridley, 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432,on behalf of the City. 9F - s - 12. INDEMNIFICATION The City and the County mutually agree to indemnify and hold harmless each other from any claims, losses, costs, expenses or damages resulting from the acts or omissions of the respective officers, agents, or employees relating to activities conducted by either party under this Agreement. 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT OF A WRITING It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and all negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter thereof, as well as any previous agreement presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter thereof. Any alterations, variations, or modifications of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing and duly signed by the parties herein. 7l7 -7 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of this Agreement have hereunto set their hands on the dates written below: COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF FRIDLEY By: AlBy: Albert A. Kordiak, Chairman Name Nasim Df. Qureshi Anoka County Board of Title City Manaizer Commissioners Dated: , 1986. Dated: , 1986. ATTEST: By: By: John "Jay" McLinden Name: William J. Nee Anoka County Administrator Title: Mayor Dated: ' 1986. Dated: _ , 1986. Recommended for Approval: By: Paul K. Ruud, County Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: Assistant Anoka County Attorney ivvvjGv�vOvGv880YJOv�vvvOjO O ppOpp000 O pp00 000ppO 000 � � OO 0000�0� 000�0QOG0�coo � H 1�r �� • Y •M • r •M • • • Y • • • 0 • • 0• • ••• • r• M• r�M•r��r�+1�r� • M� - / O 1 / t 1 / 1 / 1 � �- i�JOGv003G �J000G0000G33GG8G8000000000000000000000000,00 % 1Cjy Gv•> JJvvOGOOGGvGvQOG � O_Q60300000000 0000000 +� / ;vGvOGGGvGGv0GOv0GOv0880v 0000 00 00 000 � GGOYIv •� ..� / p L JJ 100.00 C.C.NO vO0v31V .fN0003080GOGN0Q1�00Q OYlvOPGO LL Q 1•• 00 . 0000 • • • 0000 • • • • • • tYlmY10t00 m0 atf N frn .••7Q0� �1gM0 • mYly / H 1 Om -wo- p NNw -0 N0 e0 ■94-61 $palm 4.v•v • •• •• r 0• • • 1 • • 0 0 1 i Jf- loco.:! 0—Z0J000000000000oomf0010•+NO;; w �000�+��o 0 nt nM NIll 0 M.. ww -0% 0 pa i M N O Q080 00002000000000000% Iv Jv•:��G�� •:GvGO�JGv:7C•Q�JG > �J � G00 p v � / I�Jvvvv •Jv•J •JvGvOGOYI•> G vYl•� vG0v00� 0 Ov O 0 GGG0G00GO�J0G0GYlG0 -J1Y 'r o V •J •J 0,W O O G N Yl N 0,+lJ 8 G t0 ul m y,7 s ;O 0 tG 0 O0,0,0, O O 0 C,,7 v_ .7 0 tV 0 0 1 / a •oC!0Yl•J 'J0oC•tn00YIGG W i•/n •J W 0, CD0MGGaWa G N0 la W�00 • • 0000• • • G W• O / H fOvGYla WMW Wr]PaHWYIitIW PMW WP W•thWC•W a ••0 Yl•+ a ..a a IV 019 M f•- a =0 11..• • • 0 M .:(n •..Yi J..• lij..m C+m 0 •V Yl t0 M ^ w • • •.,j IV • Yl (� IV / 1 • ow • • Ma wA0 -• • 0000•62000 • • 0 .'J i O 1 j u , ...•• ..Ino 1gMmNmooYIUI�J .Olfl11 o r a am0m W aamt0 a mWvOGv01'IO.VOOG ••1, 1 / QH 1 P•:r ' n aG •• HYIm r GP MW W '?a ...0 Ja nl Yl G ■ Y Z 1 'Va Wh] h Vu/PINa6P w M a G 0w Q. ■ G3 1 411 .. m M- - Aj n -• -• ., ■ _ _ - - - — - G =o00 •_0 00 :_GVGG _8G8yOG '_ V'3O 'J 'JG _ y 'J ■ - 'J _ _ _ 'J •J ,�' 'J _ Yl 0 V r: _ J •J _ 'J 0•J0 L 0 0 'J0 v y'J'� 'J V V 'J D'C,v 0'J v 0 0 0 ■Y■ ^1r• ' � Yl ? .JM]u] W••1n arlOYli.J W nM W W : MnO•+U �m G Z_ Y_ atQ ,UaiJ0NW vv0 Y7 � � UJ •JYl ,.1 JOM00l Y 0 W S D Yl W 1 1" U Yl M •U W'NJW G v 0v0 G-nOoo •r •JYIYIa ••YIr1JJ ■ 00 1 .0000 • .0 • • • • 0 .� 0 ■ 0 0 ':J J i D r) -• r ..V; .0;•+ ••' Y) a - M•• �hl G M W P �•1 a M P Ill•U w M 4 bl •J M a 0 0 000 10 0 0000 00 000 A 1 A i.J - 'I _ •� V _ _ C• _ Y) C, 70 Y)Y) J - j) Yl _ •:+ V 'J L V G :•! ••/ V �'I L ••/ •� •J V V J V V ..• L Yl V ■■ r 4 1= - • • • • •.:.I•�• v • • — •• • J •• • •• :J••J a ) rv'J ' v J JJ.�1.7 .;, .7, •. 41 .D; Yl .y 11 o •• 1lI• 1•] •v :O YW JJQ ••J • billJ in 5 J .] • .•1 • 0 • U D Yl •Dlllh nJ^0 • Yl -• GmYlw• Yl • A - - • • • • • • ♦ .• .• • • •• .• • • • .. yl J u r £ E A = r > LL � > C!: LLLLLLILLLL LL U. LL U. 13 r Jli > 2 ZTIZ . ZI IIQZZT ZZG LL > .LiLJ2U Z Z Z Z J2 Z = 2ZZU UUUUZtJ L:u Z Z u U EUULI2 JU £ Z ^. R - Q � > 700000 3 ^-^•I aRaa - R S'I-^ a •7 �•I1 T ^OQ CGCG ^ .•: %a ;+: :,+ W _ LLU UIJ r- 1- 0- OL H O vJ JJ Jis 4: WW W J W t,;WJJW W J:u Wy J'-1 W JNu. J 11 �_ A •-. .. •. r] .D r ••] •: C. Yl Y 1 - •J Yl Y i S 'J Yl _ . . -+ •"J D Yl .. .1 ...J m m Yl s �••-1 M r)•r Yl M •-• n 1 "1. .-. n t .t- •l S .t` = r U•L Y. b) Y1 f^] Yl 4 3 .j 1•i n Yl.D !� .J S , ,^1 , ^i•J m ■ l7 l0 , A 0 ' 1; •W. L7 ,u n s C r LL Z w O 4 a ■ 71i. u v R 3 __ .»Ou J O •_ ■ J £ -E `r x C.I- MD t. -• - LL JLLZ U in 7 sS W r ■ .I 1 W L [ W -- XU Z 7 GO I 6'1d CG _OXXW Z0 ? N YuJJ U 1 ZS x n Ll Jawn L;-ACnN J1.1 Z •Y > 2 ¢ Q - .LLLr S W I, LJ / 1 :cG ^" W � > ••'• O £ lT uti'-]W W WWWOJ - W19 f JW U' u+ p / Y 1 aZ .LN 4: Stt10J z I- W J £ rt1 •� J ''p`rp2J L7¢ O-�Z � J^ ? a 1JIyQ / W 1 > J O Y S Wt9•-• - W . E x > 33 32 3 QS Z,■ ¢ ZEe 0 C QQr- r 04 Z tS00 -J Ji WJIZI- uH QI- 1111 ¢ Ulu fu WW— I ^ 22 - R � J -Q3SQL1 £ 14 O:J: J:�l11J^ 2 i'i'm1I' £ y I-WW3Q •clNRWJ¢ ~ ►- ¢ 3jS ■ 1Z u1 i 33IuWf > OJE �. E LT 1]Y WW- E it-IUU � � tf.f3W £ > aWWLLL17_ WC ■ •C1ut7J7t.. U S� nNQa Mw 4S1 ■ 1-— t• .:p r -C U C• In 1, 0 0 -i :+ C a a OL J U a tjm In a ZZ I CJ C a 301- CLU ■ 1-LL .. 0- -Iy.I3 c u rDI.: .3 t au - -^ ._ Ur r rrr OG UCN ULL QC Z U 2 w W A t1I LL .,... .•+ : h LL y^ J 2 .7 ^ 11 .1 4 1 t] J U 7 O U M '9 u W U LL •+91¢ t7 3 .. •t u : 1:1 1u 1 G Z Z J J W 4 7 F-•- W Q O U (I r r p « rl :.. 1U.t. ti,U l9 Z Z •L ^ Y U S ^ Z Z J � ..�'J U lJ 3 C S tL 2 Vf. Z Jr•G -R I. Q Q ►- t•Q E •+ t W W JJ .c 7J > > "• > 4dOGtJE r Z £ - .I .iJ 2s ¢ r f- 1- r� Z - Cltr;;O /-N U' UQN••C LL G ¢ ¢ J.� .1. 30 f E s �- W S .t- 0 In 01 InfJ10 .- ria N 7 -03zowxLL U U U i _ c E Y J E E I- Z J+ 2 1= •Z r - Z Z Z 3 U.� !.^ : 0 a It J r Q L 2 ■ .0•• J u W W W W W 1 is u G iz^ - R S - I.r.• 2 `'1 r:Y1 Q+ O ] 0 0 0 O W S Z-s :� O p »s©.p2 m 3 m iY a U r E '.. •• t LL LLL X 9111nIJU•• J,Z -Ztl:.Jt 3S •• ^^ ^u UUUUCU .Sm •+ us ■ w .. ,• .. A _•rl .l W. to ..M ..t•]•�] ? ♦ 1�1 t M .:J .. - wm mt�P•lt+ -.J ...1J..w CO AJ w.11 N.,JM J0 - A 1'_ - .. .. ._. ..:1 iU.� .1J ... w y •J J 1� w - .J ...j O o 1J:.1 w V .l V L V J J 'J n J J L 1 i s Yl r�Yl rl 61 YI YI 61 0 1 a) :+Y).G ly-11 0 A ■-11 I:r -11.1■)Yl YI YI YI YI YI Y) YI Y.YI■1 61 61 W W .O W u1 W.J.J YI r: •1 i E 1• _ i j i i r i t Yl Yl .• •• .• n - •_l•_?.•1+^.1_)r] .J.J .J 4 W:J .j•y+l•1 f1.J W 4 a a 4 t S J M •• M ■ .� M .. .. .. ..-.. . .•].�1.1 '] •. ••] 1 i.Yi ji, Yl%I Yl Yl Y)Yl Yl Q Yi::in Yl Yl hl Yl 0 611 Yl 0 41 Yl ul v .J ■ .. ..y.'y:y'. N. •:.1:,1.:l tJ:y Li v 1 •li•.:q . I. •.�.• .y..1 ,.J:J bJ.i� iq:J .-••i v V J .. '� v y v J -, 9I j 10.20 � va7r OGpG �� ■ IO V G VvVa30 �/ ■ a :6s 'i 6_ aoGOa o 1 O j• • • • • • •n• •• n M M M 100o•'000:000 0 Gooi a■ G O O Y Ou / 1 • _ ■ J IOOOC••� OOv :� Cv Yl 4 ■ Q 1••M •U s •vO • M G ■ 1- 1 Yt rl + M n a .y ■ 1 • • i •• • It . r • M W � 1 a ■ > 1 ■ JF 10,• 0" �jG 'r0 .. a 1 O ■ ¢7 1 m ■ LL 0 I 110 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ 10000•_000000 Yt Z r a It,ul00 -• •_•rt • _rta yt ■ F 11•ts 10 OM 61• G ■ O 1 • • ■ /- 1 Ch 1•o 0 + to / r M ■ 1 • ■ I ■ O 1 ■ u irto = Gn04bi0 ■ .. i O Q I CD i Q G I / I _ C. _ Cd ■ UJInOG •mit•r � •� Y Wa 1nn•,1 •,1 ^ ? :, 01.1 Yl r -1 1- 11`1 ? b)0 •r v n•11 • t" • t R� 11,+ �M •• Mn .•M Y 1 • ■ I Y I r 1 _ _ C. r W W 1•� �• = � � _ � r r FU 1•�Yt •: '.r � •rv •ry aJ r EQ IYIJIn "1MOC••� '.� 'IIO � Y in I W 1 Yt r � I • r I ■ ¢ F t r W 1 ,►- f r Z7 ru ILL » iLLa 1I . � St> Wa > z J0013ae o j W I= N N 7 JN W N th cc Y I _ I, N ZIr v@ ^ J U a Ica•• '1 �. •� r 7 1^ I w G I r I•yl r r 1 u Q 6 $ La W a > > IA E J I r IW a Z 7 a ■ IH 4 G O J U J / 17 > > G- W C•1nJ. .J. ■ 1{7 Z O / IQ Q W w - t ¢ N ■ z IZ ••• » W >In In Nn J N ■ f 1 Wa2mjz I- I.- z ■ w ImOO7W•• Jh a N 'O W W II. a !!1 Z U Z r IUwts:tai ]� u ..j E i IW¢ = ¢ 7Z Zto W ■ II- UV'z ——awz ZLL i r 1¢000f 1A In •• ; iuuuU7 Z ••• JJ f ..-.V• > > OE -•.c•••W % 0 0 i 10.- U� �pryt► UI¢ tI1NU ell •••••V ■ z InIII Y7r:atnd.Drtnrl n t F iI � •',i •i a1il �Yiri i r W Irt 1•t 1•f+t hld X10 rr rn ■ 1- IYt n V. C..ell Ill 0 rt n Yt Ill _ 91 too f I: r €' cr OO+IZ VIS , .:•ti c ••3NI1 ; t ;QZ - b t N //o�� W ----- —. :- 1 ,fib ,Z� M _. .......... 604 OR '98 i r:s N iD 3 W 'and W € €; Z lno nnvs �-.� _ � �• � , �o _ ..__. dOa„Q€-,os a3Jnv No Move1 : ,. - . `s. �......_..........................._. ...._..-..I........... lno mvs ;Olit7 'H :! onalSNOO ON3 1 j a R .... .... ........ : . r 6 _ .......... In Zr ; itt •L .3 w 1 ` i )•a i 9K _ t Mwj • , u Ir �1 j (Q . • V _.... ........... i < 44 W .1 i� H W zwa � F to _ y �VQ' �: 1' f • 1 Q UO. '• �# 1 t0 Q +q• I B O J iu tl �. i } QFZ _ ! fr N 00 O O z !'m Z 1'•'to 01 VH QO � a�y O � rzWfr h Q c� J � wt�i ON s i ul '• 2 N W a � w Nor: _ ap Z w O Q Z a L.... _._. i = Y a 1- t.7 �f�! 0 I a oCc U >I�yj 4� in- co i Ir 1 }j a W O W QQO! �09+ p t N ! us� ' Q CID . ........... ......... . OZ to 03 Q ' i to W w 0 O :3 O_ w G1 in i _ sTa 21t90 ..MATCH MINE . WE 40 1 m 0 6 : e � •A D 2• 4! _i z o 1 +4 5 +10 +20=j j_ 2 N -4 m N N t. mom mm 28 t om� 0 D mO 3�oa _� + �.... �. 2 nm< -4 m m ?r m — ! n mma z 0� - - --......_.........._.. _..---- < � J c) a is m �< N a z r z 25 ...... _ m o am CA Zz � � I mem Nc v030 m m m -00 m z (A Vt cn t _ t v ;x3ir 10 IlFORMATI0N FOR THIS ITQ.1 MILL BE ` PROVIDED TO YOU BEFORE TETE tMING ON THURSDAY, DECE11012, 1986 .---, U GMHCo GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY, P.A. A Proftssiaml Corporation of Cerrifwd Public A ecewnlonrs I Aove*ber 24, 1986 Commissioners Housing and Redevelopment Authority ofFridley 6431 :University Avenue F.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear! Commissioners: Thisletter will confirm our understanding of the arrangements covering our examination of the financial statements of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of F*idley, Minnesota for the year ending December 31, 1986. We will examine the balance sheet as of December 31, 1986, and the related financial statements for the year then ended. Our examination will be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and will include such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we consider nece sary in the circumstances. The objective of our examination is to express an unqualified opinion on the financial statements, although it is possible that facts or circumstances encountered may require us to express a less than unqualified opinion. Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected customers, creditors, legal counsel and banks. At the conclusion of our examination, we will request certain written representations from your staff about the financial statements and matters related thereto. The fair presentation of financial position and results of operations in conformity with; geuerally accepted accounting principles is management's responsibility. Management is responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of an adequate system of internal accounting control and for the accuracy of the financial statements. Although we may advise you about appropriate accounting principles and their application, the selection and method of application are responsibilities solely of management. Our engagement is subject to the inherent risk that material errors, irregularities or itlegal acts, including fraud or defalcations, if they exist, will not be detected. However, we will inform you of any such matters that come to our attention. 1433 UTICA AVENUE MOUTH.8U1TE 175 MINNEAPOLIS.MINNE80TA 11,4416 61 2/546-2566 Commissioners Hous*ng and Redevelopment Authority • ' ofFridley November 24, 1986 Page! 2 i Fees; for our services are based on our regular per diem rates, plus out-of-pocket expeV►ses, all of which will be billed as our work progresses. Our fee for this engagement will not exceed $1,450. This fee includes the work necessary in conjunction with the State Auditor's "Legal Compliance Audit Guide". Should any situation arise that would increase this eatiaate, we will, of course, advise you. Duri*g the course of our engagement, we may observe opportunities for economy in or i*proved controls over your operations. We will bring such matters to the attention of the appropriate level of management, either orally or in writing. Please indicate your agreement to these arrangements by signing the attached copy of this letter and returning it to us. We appreciate your confidence in retaining us as your certified public accoOntants and look forward to working with you and your staff. Verytruly yours, GEORd.E M. HANSEN COMPANY, Y.A. M � ;�� /,- 04 Gre Murphy 8ry Py JGM:iac Approbed by: Housin, and Redevelopment Authority of Fridley Date 12 CLAIMS 1540 - 1555 i