Loading...
HRA 10/05/2000 - 29556� CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OCTOBER 5, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the October 5, 2000, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, John Meyer, Jim McFariand, Pat Gabel Members Absent: Virginia Schnabel Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator William Burns, Director of HRA Rick Pribyl, Finance Director Jim Casserly, Development Consultant ,-� APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 7. 2000. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve the September 7, 2000, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REGARDING JOINT TASK FORCE EXPENSES: 2. RESOLUTION NO. HRA 10-2000. AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM (GATEWAY EAST�: 3. CLAIMS AND EXPENSES: Mr. Pribyl stated that five additional claims were added for approval. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the consent agenda with the ^ additional claims. HOUSING 8� REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. OCTOBER 5. 2000 PAGE 2 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: 4. CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SALE OF 530 HUGO STREET AND CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT WITH SCOTT OLMSTEAD BUILDERS FOR 530 HUGO STREET: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:36 P.M. Mr. Femelius stated that the HRA is required to condu�t a public hearing before it sells any real property. The purpose of the public hearing is to review the project and provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions. Staff would then ask the HRA to consider approval of the plans as well as authorization of entering into a redevelopment contract with the builder. The lot in question, located in the Riverview Heights neighborhood, was acquired by the HRA in 1995. A house and garage on the site were tom down and the property has been on the market since that time. Two offers on the property were withdrawn. One offer was withdrawn due to the high water table limiting the type of home that could be built on this site. A full basement is not feasible. A walkout design or half basement would be appropriate for this site. !�`� Mr. Femelius stated that Scott Olmstead, the builder, is proposing to construct a split entry design with an attached two-car garage. The home would have 1,141 square feet of finished floor area on the main level. The lower level would be unfinished but could be finished at a later point by the homeowner. The home would have three bedrooms with 1 1/2 baths on the main level. The sales price would be $152,475. Mr. Femelius stated the plan submitted by the builder initially was with a three car attached garage. The buyer and the builder agreed to some changes similar to the designs in the pattem book used by the City, but stated that this would be at additional cost and the lot price needed to be adjusted. The changes include additional brick along the front faCade, additional windows, relocation of the stairs inside the garage, a sidelight front window, the garage being pushed back, and additional square footage to the house. Those costs approached $6300. The lot is priced at $31,200. The adjustment price would be $24,900. The practice of reducing a lot price to accommodate certain aesthetic improvements to a house has been done in the past. Mr. Fernelius stated that the builder would enter into a redevelopment contract with the HRA; the HRA would then close on the sale of the property within 45 days of execution of the agreement. The HRA would then be paid for the land, and the builder would start construction after the building permit is obtained. The builder would close with the homebuyer upon completion of the property scheduled sometime in the first quarter of ^ 2001. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the HRA's action would be to approve the plans and execution of the development contract. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 3 � Mr. Fernelius stated that the builder accomodated the covered entry. The realtor, Janet Sandretski, who is working on the project is here to answer any questions. Ms. Gabel asked how much the HRA paid for the lot originally. Mr. Fernelius stated that they paid $60,000 for the lot and the house. Mr. Burns asked if the brick was veneer or solitary. Mr. Fernelius stated that he believes it is a solitary. Ms. Sandretski stated she has been working with both the buyer and the builder on this property. She does have a signed purchase agreement copy in her file. Mr. Meyer asked if the fa�ade of the garage was moved back so it would not be as. prominent. Where was the garage before? Mr. Fernelius stated that the house plan had a three-car attached garage and was out farther than it is right now. Ms. Sandretski stated that the garage was closer to the front door where the two windows were added. It also came out farther in front. � Mr. Meyer asked how far in front of the house the garage is now. Ms. Sandretski stated it is not more than a few feet. Mr. Meyer stated there is a lack of windows on the side elevation. Ms. Sandretski stated that they have tried doing a window in the dining room area to go along the side wall, but then people do not have places for their china hutch and things like that. Mr. Burns asked if the property has concrete or asphalt driveway. Ms. Sandretski stated it has an asphalt driveway. Mr. Commers asked about the additional footage inside the garage with the stairs going down into the lower level. Ms. Sandretski stated they needed to add more footage to accommodate the stoop going into the house. Mr. Fernelius stated that since the garage was moved back, it has to be deeper to accommodate the location. � � Mr. Meyer stated that to enter the garage, you have to enter it from the lowest level only. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5. 2000 PAGE 4 Ms. Sandretski stated that in order to comply with putting the garage back, the buyers are willing to go in from the garage so they do not have to go outside to get into their home. �"'� Mr. Meyer asked about the carbon monoxide factor. The lower level lower than the garage floor is questionable because of the carbon monoxide danger. Ms. Sandretski stated that it is only the stairs going into the lower level. It is the same type of door there that would go into a regular entry. Mr. Meyer stated that he is not sure what the code states about that. Mr. Pribyl stated that a concrete lip is at the slab level, and the carbon monoxide will actually hover across the concrete floor creating a ledge where it cannot move over the top of that. Mr. Meyer stated that is a terrible tripper and it is a good idea to pursue that. Ms. Sandretski stated that she could check with the building official. Mr. Meyer stated that if the lip does do the job, the buyer should be consulted as to the toe tripper coming down the stairs into the house. Mr. Meyer asked what specifications Ms. Sandretski had for the qualifications of the construction. ,---� Ms. Sandretski stated that they are prepared. The homeowner has not seen them. She stated she has worked with Scott Olmstead for 4 1/2 years. He is reputable builder who has been in the business for 22 years. He builds between 75 - 100 homes per year. Mr. Meyer stated that it is a matter of good business that the quality should be known thoroughly. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. McFarland to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. McFarland, to approve the sale of 530 Hugo Street with the adjustment of the lot price from $31,000 to $24,900 and to approve Resolution No. HRA 11-2000, Authorizing Execution and Delivery of a Contract for Private Redevelopment by and between the Housing & Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and Scott Olmstead Builders, Inc. Mr. Meyer asked where the adjustment in lot price was outlined in the memorandum. Mr. Commers stated that change will be made in the actual contract itself. ^ HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 5 � Mr. Casserly stated they should just note that they should make a change in the contract and the resolution would reflect that price. Mr. Commers stated that on page 3 under Terms of Agreement, the number should be changed to $24,900 for the property price at closing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ACTION ITEMS: 5. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL, MEDTRONIC. INC.: Ms. Dacy stated that this request is for a free-standing daycare center for Medtronic employees to be located at the northwest corr�er of the world headquarters campus site. This use was programmed to be inside one of the buildings; but because of a variety of issues, Medtronic has proposed a separate free-standing site. The property is zoned S-2, redevelopment district. Medtronic stated that there were a number of issues of placing the daycare within one of the proposed Stage 1 buildings. Daycare facilities are classified as an E occupancy in the building, and they have stringent requirements in terms of exiting and the separation from other types of uses and occupancies in a building. Medtronic determined it would be safer for a free-standing building because there can be an exit achieved for each part of the building. A facility is proposed to hold up to 120 children from ages infant to pre-school age. Ms. Dacy stated that the daycare center is set back 35 feet from the property lines, and each part of the daycare has an exit to the outdoors. The play areas outside are enclosed by fencing. It is for Medtronic employees only. The parking has ten drop-off spaces plus a 34-space surface parking lot for the staff. That surface parking lot will become part of the Phase 3 ramp. The driveways are about 180 feet from the intersection to 7�' Street. The cost for the daycare facility is $1,800,000 or $156 per square foot. The Planning Commission discussed this on September 20 and recommended approval. The S-2 zoning district requires that the HRA also make a recommendation on this project plan in the S-2 district. This is a change in Medtronic's master plan, and staff recommends that the HRA concur with the change. Ms. Dacy stated that Phase I is the five buildings on the east side of the site. The daycare facility is located in the extreme northwest part of the site. Mr. Commers asked if the daycare was going to be fenced off from the street or the parking ramp. Ms. Dacy stated that the preschool, transitional, and infant/toddler areas will all have separate fenced play areas adjacent to their rooms. A covered walkway will be n constructed from the drop-off area to the front entrance to the building. The staff will park in the 34-space lot next to the building. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 6 Mr. Commers asked how far apart the ramp is to the building. Ms. Dacy stated that there is at least 80 feet between them. Mr. Commers asked how much space would be devoted to the daycare center including the parking. Ms. Dacy stated that it is approximately one-half acre. The storm pond has been moved to the south. Mr. Meyer asked if the storm pond is fenced. Ms. Dacy stated that the storm pond is not fenced. Six-foot fencing will be constructed around the daycare facility. Council will consider this on October 9. Mr. Commers stated that, theoretically, they will have additional square footage on the tax rolls as a result of this. Mr. Casserly stated that is correct. Mr. Meyer asked if this is a revenue raiser for Medtronic. Ms. Dacy stated that she did not know. � Ms. Gabel stated that most places with daycares on the site do charge, but the intent is to provide an employee benefit, not make a profit. MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the Project Plan and Master Plan Amendment by Medtronic, Inc., for the daycare center. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INFORMATION: 6. GATEWAY EAST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPDATE: Mr. Femelius stated that they are still in discussions with the developer of Real Estate Equities. They are still in the process of pulling together plans and cost estimates. The revenue sharing concept was unacceptable to them and they have countered with a proposal to split profit after project expenses 50/50. Staff is currently evaluating that concept. Staff is also trying to refine the eligible improvements for the project that the HRA will pay for. That assistance would not exceed $545,000. Staff has prepared an application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for the Redevelopment Grant Program. The request was for $187,000 to help pay for public improvements for the project. The program is very competitive, and the DTED staff liked ^ the project. The more significant issue is the creation of the tax increment district. The City Council has a public hearing scheduled for October 23 for the creation of the TIF HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 7 district and then the HRA would consider a resolution to create the district at the November � 6 meeting. 7. PROPOSAL BY CEE TO ADMINISTER PREVAILING WAGE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: Ms. Dacy stated that Mr. Femelius and she have worked together on this part of the Gateway East Project. At the Joint Council and HRA workshop last spring, there was a unanimous direction to ensure that the Gateway East Redevelopment Project's contractor is required to meet the City's Prevailing Wage Ordinance requirements. Staff met with State employees from the Department of Labor and Industry and talked to prevailing wage officials at the County. Staff has talked to the City of Minneapolis about how to appropriately enforce these types of requirements. Fridley is unique for a suburban community having a prevailing wage requirement for redevelopment projects. The City of Minneapolis has a whole department assigned to enforce those types of requirements. The City of St. Paul has a similar approach as well. Ms. Dacy stated that the City's approach has been to require in the development agreement that the developer and the contractor are responsible for meeting the prevailing wage requirements. Staff is suggesting that the City contract with CEE personnel with extensive experience with these types of requirements. They can assist in the appropriate procedures and documentation that the City could maintain to properly track what is going � on. The key is to establish the wage rate prior to the initiation of the project. They must establish the types of employees and classifications in concert with the contractor and the developer. They must establish appropriate payroll sheets and forms referring to Federal requirements. Some routine site inspections to ensure the wage requirements are being paid are necessary also. Ms. Dacy stated that if the contract with Real Estate Equities proceeds, they have extensive experience with prevailing wage rates and will cooperate fully. The other proposer did not have experience. Staff is suggesting that it is a contract not to exceed a certain amount approach. They could be incurring less cost. The maximum estimate was about $15,000. It is a working contract and staff would have to submit a monthly invoice. Prior to the November meeting, they have to incur a minor amount of expense with the CEE staff to make sure that the development contract is referring to the right sets of rules. The City and the HRA have not embarked on such a project before. They have leamed a lot about the prevailing wage with the Banfil Crossing project and this is a good approach for the City. This would maintain documentation that is readily available to the City. Ms. Gabel stated that she had no idea it would cost this much. What are the interviews? Ms. Dacy stated that the intent is to interview the employees on the job site. It would be a random set of interviews to make sure that the people that are working on the job are being paid appropriately. They would then compare the on-site information with the documentation on the payroll. � Mr. Commers stated that his concern is that they want to encourage and support the City's prevailing wage law, but the issue is that this is the City's statute that bears enforcement,. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 8 and is up to the City to enforce it the way the Council deems most appropriate for themselves. He is not sure if it is appropriate for the HRA to get into the funding of this � kind of enforcement of a City statute. An intermediate suggestion is that the language be put into the development contract requiring the developer to certify that he is meeting the prevailing wage rates. If this is misrepresented, the City can determine what they want to do. Mr. Meyer asked if the $15,000 in this case is a pass through incidence to be passed through the contractor? Mr. Casserly stated that it could be passed through if the HRA could get the contractor to accept it as a negotiating issue. In this particular transaction, there is a substantial shortfall. The developer has indicated that they know how to deal with the forms and from their perspective they do not see themselves as incurring any great costs. If we told them they would incur these additional costs, he is sure they would have a lot of additional discussion. Mr. Commers stated that the City Council feels that it is appropriate to monitor the administrative costs. If they decide it needs monitoring, they certainly should act on their concems. Mr. Meyer asked if it was necessary to go through this elaborate checking. Can they go completely the other way and put it in their contract that they shall abide by this or be guilty of fraud? � Ms. Dacy stated that it is perfectly defensible and that is what they have been doing so far. The developer and the contractor hold all of the information, and staff feels that it should be more involved and it puts the City in a better information position. The developer and the contractor must swear to affidavits that they must meet those requirements. The City is still open to a challenge from an aggrieved employee, and the developer will need proof that they are not in violation. This will put the City in a good position to respond to complaints promptly and would not require the City to expend the legal time and expense to go after the contractor. This is a temporary enforcement provision and helps establish the documentation, and they will advise us as to how to take steps is a complaint occurs. Mr. Burr�s stated this is coming from staff, not City Council, stemming from the Banfil Crossing incident. Mr. Commers stated that the merits are well taken, and it would be nice to have that information. The question is who is the appropriate body for this. Mr. Meyer asked for clarification of the Banfil Crossing problem. Ms. Dacy stated it was the senior housing project up on University Avenue and 83�d Avenue There was an allegation that the subcontractors were not paying the prevailing wage rates. Each of the subcontractors submitted an affidavit that stated that they were paying the prevailing wages. The general contractor appeared before the Council and ^ testified to the fact that he believed that he was in compliance with the State requirements. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 9 � Mr. Meyer asked if the complainant just went away after the complaint. Ms. Dacy stated that the complainant needed a swom testimony to challenge it. They did not come back with that. Mr. Meyer asked if the City feels that these people had agreements and were "cowed" into not pursuing it. Ms. Dacy stated that the City direction was to properly enforce the requirements. Her department is charged to make sure that these things are complied with. She is being responsible to the City by researching all of the potential options and the wish to enforce it. She feels this is a good option. Ms. Gabel asked if this is similar to an insurance policy effect of having prevailing wages. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. Mr. Burns stated that some people who had these complaints were going to the City Council who were in turn coming back to City staff asking how prevailing wage was being enforced. Staff was able to use the technique Ms. Dacy described, but it was not comfortable because they were not really doing any enforcement other than requiring the contractor to provide the affidavit. �' Mr. Meyer stated that the procedure following Banfil was not giving the true results. Ms. Dacy stated that was entirely legal but from a practical, administrative standpoint, it is like having a setback requirement and you ask the builder to comply but then you do not have a survey and then you take the builder's word for it. Mr. Meyer stated that and other things are evenly proven. Ms. Dacy stated that the ability to prove may be an issue the City should take over. Mr. Meyer stated that after the fact, proof is just as good as during the fact proof. Mr. Burns stated that is exactly what they have here. A practical approach versus a retroactive approach. Mr. Meyer stated that the staff is dissatisfied with the results of the Banfil Crossing incident. Ms. Dacy stated that she is not dissatisfied with it. The results were legal. Mr. Meyer stated this is a bureaucratic situation imposing on the HRA and the contractor. All of this is fine if there is a demonstrated hazard or requirement. He is puzzled as to why ^ they are creating this bureaucracy of $15,000 and maybe another $15,000 on the part of the contractor. HOUSING 8� REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 10 Mr. Commers stated they had difficulty after the fact getting evidence together. They had the swom a�davits; and if they are lying on those, there may be revenues enforced �"1 against them. To take an aggressive posture and monitor all of these projects, you are undertaking a significant task. If staff feels it is necessary, he respects that and they should go ahead and do that. His only question is if it is an HRA function. They should not use the public money and the HRA to pay for that type of expense. The City Council should be doing it to enforce it. They should table this and see what the City Council's response is. Mr. Casserly stated that the HRA did adopt a resolution on this topic. There is a four page resolution defining what all this is about. Staff is saying that they have no verification that the provisions the HRA has adopted are being adhered to. They are looking at some abilifiy to meet the provisions. They are concerned about being placed in an untenable position. Mr. Commers stated there is an answer without having to do the monitoring. It is satisfactory and that is the way the Banfil Crossing problem was handled. It was proper and legal. The conclusion was there was no violation in the prevailing wage, and everybody accepts that. Mr. Casserly stated that he has no information other than what has been presented. MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to table this item. � Mr. Bums stated that the HRA has adopted prevailing wage. This feels like the prevailing wage is the Council's responsibility, not the HRA's so they should go back to Council and make them pay for it. He thinks that the better route to go is to say that the HRA does not want to go through the approach and accept the reactive approach rather than send this back to Council. That is what he would prefer, but the HRA can pursue the course they want to. Mr. Commers stated that they may well want to do the monitoring. Mr. Burns stated that it would be an unbudgeted expense for a redevelopment project, which is typically an HRA project. It would be an emergency fund balance. Mr. Commers stated that if they go back to accepting the method done by the City with Banfill, he assumes there is no cost. Ms. Dacy stated that there was no cost; but if a claim would be made, costs could match any amount below or above $15,000 to defend the City. If the City or the HRA wanted to go after the developer for the damages, they would expend costs trying to compel the evidence and look at it after the fact. Mr. Commers stated that if this is staff generated, it should be taken to the Council first to see where they stand. Mr. Bums stated they could do that. What are the limitations of a prevailing wage? HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 11 ,,..1 Ms. Dacy stated that the single family housing replacement program is exempt. Owner- � occupied redevelopment townhomes are exempt under the ordinance, but the prevailing wage requirements need to be enforced under this type of project. Mr. Meyer stated the wage lists are posted in a public place where the workers congregate. He has never heard of an action needed against a contractor under #hose circumstances. Why do they create this bureaucracy? Mr. Burns stated that this is not an action, and it may not even need a tabling motion. Mr. Commers stated that what they are saying is to talk to the City Council first and go ahead and draft what you want; but whether or not it is for HRA approval is being reserved. He asked that staff provide copies of the City Council minutes when this is discussed. Ms. Dacy stated that the procedures and forms are needed if there is a problem. It is standard operating procedure. It is a very controversial topic as well and they need to provide the documentation. Ms. Gabel asked if the documentation needs to be this extensive. If this is the HRA's project, the HRA cannot divorce itself from this process. She is wondering about the forms though, and they seem quite extensive. ,_,\ Ms. Dacy stated that this particular developer is used to this and is very cooperative. An ' experienced contractor will make sure that the subcontactors comply with that. Things will go smoother, faster, and maybe cheaper. Mr. Commers asked if the Rottlund project was exempt. Ms. Dacy stated that was correct. Mr. Commers stated that at the joint meeting, they voted to put this into the prevailing wage, even though it does not fall under that statute. MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to withdraw the motion to table this item. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: FORMER LYNDALE GARDEN CENTER: Ms. Dacy stated that Bob's Produce has purchased the Lyndale Garden Center. They are hoping to redevelop that site and are looking at additional retail and warehouse space for Bob's Produce. They may be planning for a restaurant use as well. They are hoping to ^ finalize plans this winter and wanted to give the HRA an early heads-up that they may come in for a specific request for tax increment assistance. If that is agreed to, then a new tax increment district would have to be created for that particular parcel. In the meantime, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, OCTOBER 5, 2000 PAGE 12 they will proceed on their own with the University Station site in demolishing that building and constructing a new building with finro tenant spaces, with one having a drive-through ^, window. Mr. Meyer stated that he thought this was a very exciting development. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Commers asked about an update on the negotiations on the salvage yards, but it is a little premature. The HRA will get a report when there are more details. Mr. Bums stated that he had a meeting with a company called Quick File in the Northco Business Park. They make high density filing cabinets for mail rooms and are seeking DTED funding. They will bring in 25 new jobs and be eligible for $75,000 in DTED funding that would be passed through the City. The City's role would be to fill out the application and file quarterly reports. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. McFarland, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. GabeL UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE OCTOBER 5, 2000, MEETING OF THE HOUSING !� AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:57 P.M. RespectFully submitted, a ,Q �% Sig e L. Joh son � Recording Secretary �