HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/10/03 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Economic Development Authority - RegularAGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 3, 1994
6:45 p.m.
1.
2.
Call to Order
Roll Call
±? #
es • Mp.G?
Authority to convene in executive session to discuss matter of litigation~
p ·«sews CH 4%, 39
%-'fl sLaadscape/screening piantorsPs (°
6. Communications and Bills Cl,oW\ ~ ~ ~d.
S - -@+- ('o ®: ® p o l,lr
7.
"% • q fail p 3¢-0 {ert «,n R he »s s' me € obof y "i Rf#, o#co.,,
3. Approval of Minutes
)
a. EDA meeting of September 12, 1994
4. Approval of Agenda
a. EDA agenda for October 3, 1994
5.
CONFID ENTIAL ME MORAN DUM
ATT ORNE Y/CLIE NT PRIVILE GED
TO:
FR OM:
DATE :
SUB JE CT:
Economi c Development Authority
Charlie Meyer, Executive Director (41/)n
September 30, 1994
Attached memorandum
Attached is a confi dential memorandum from attorney Wayne Popham relative to the W ilkin s
site.
The Authority will convene in executive session (see agenda) at Monday night's meeting to
discuss this item. Please note the meeting is beginnin g at 6:45 p.m.
)
J
I
I
TO:
<> FROM:
RE:
Minneapolis, Minnesota 93402
(612) 333-4800
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Wayne Popham
Bruce McLellan
Legal Action Against Wilkins Pontiac, Inc. to Recover Property Tax Payments
an d Environmental Cleanup Costs
11959-005
DATE: September 30, 1994
INTRODUCTION
The EDA has incurred substantial costs regarding environmental contamination on
land formerly occupied by Wilkins Pontiac, Inc., which was condemned in November 1987 as
part of the Excelsior Boulevard Redevelopment Project. We have analyzed the EDA's rights
regarding these expenses and believe the EDA has a cause of action under state and federal
environmental laws by which it can recoup the costs of testing and remediation incurred at
the Wilkins site.
During Wilkins' tenancy after the November 1987 condemnation, Wilkins did not pay
rcal estate taxes as required by the lease. The back taxes am ount to $36,460.23. Th is
amount would be increased by prejudgment interest if we arc successful in litigation.
CLAIMS
I. Obligation for Taxes.
Wilkins Pontiac, Inc. has an unresolved obligation to the EDA in the amount of
$36,460.23. This amount represents real estate taxes paid by the EDA from 1989 through
September, 1992 which were not reimbursed by Wilkins. The obligation arises from the
November 17, 1987 lease and specifically, Section 4.02 and Section 4.05 which reads:
4.02 Additional Rent. For additional rent, the Lessee shall pay all costs and
expenses of any nature of kind whatsoever attributable to the Leased Premises
during the term of this Lease. These costs and expenses shall include, but are
001/18052979 9/30/94
0 9 /3 0 /9 4 12 :2 3
@ 002
not necessarily limited to, utilities, operating expenses and repairs and
maintenance of the Leased Premiscs, real estate taxes and special assessments
payable therewith during the term of this Lease and all insurance premiums
related to the Lcased Premises. It is specifically contemplated and understood
by the parties that by the terms of this Lease, the Lessor will not incur any
financial responsibility relative to the Leased Premises during the term of this
Lease for which it is not repaid or reimbursed by the Lessee.
4.05 Tax Escrow. Lcssec agrees to make monthly deposits with Lcssor a sum
equal to one twelfth (1/12) of the yearly real estate taxes and special
assessments payable therewith for the Leased Prcmises. If the Leased Premises
constitute a portion of a larger tax parcel, taxes and special assessments shall
be cquitably apportioned to the Leased Premises.
This obligation came to the attention of the EDA as a result of the hearing in front of
Judge Bowen. At this time, Wilkins raised the question as to whether the EDA had, in fact,
paid taxes on the parcel. Davc Hagen, Community Development Director, in reviewing the
tax account, identified the tax shortfall. Specifically, Mr. Hagen identified that for 1989
Wilkins owed $9,909.27; 1990 $7,879.62; 1991 $9,724.58; and 1992 $8,946.76.
)
)
The clements of proof for this claim are relatively straight forward. The EDA would
have to establish the validity of the lease and a representative, likely Mr. Uagcn, would need
to testify as to the receipts and disbursements madc by the EDA. Wilkins might argue that
the EDA has in some way waived its claim for this amount. This argument should fail as the
lease clearly obliges Wilkins to the tax payments, thus creating the duty for him to be aware
of any increases which would have made his monthly payments deficient.
IL. Environmental Claims.
Statutory causes of action against former land owners and tenants of the Wilkins site
arc available to the EDA under both the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Minnesota Environmental
Response and Liability Act (MERL A). These statutory schemes provide causes of action
whereby a damaged land owner such as the EDA can bring a civil action regarding
environmental contamination upon land owned by the EDA.
The best course of action would be to commence an action under MERLA. MERLA
contains provisions which protect municipal landowners who have acquired land through
condemnation from responsibility for cxisting environmental contamination. This protection
under MERLA is not available under CERCLA.
Also, MERLA provides for somewhat broader damages than CERCLA. Economic
loss of various types may be sought under MERLA. From the EDA's point of view, this
might include loss of use of the property due to dclay in development caused by the
00 1/18052979 9/3 0 /9 4
environm ental clean -up cfforts. Econom ic loss al so might include lost taxes and other
revenues avai lable to th e E D A but for the contam ination.
FORUM
Th e sta te claim s under M ERL A may be as serted only in sta te court. I feel th e general
opinion is that sta te courts generally are m ore friendly to plaintiffs.
DAMAGES RECOVERABLE
The ED A has spent approxim ately $145,000 -- $165,000 to date in testing and
rem ediation at th e W ilkins site.
U nder M ERL A all "response costs" ar c recoverable. R esponse costs include te sting,
excavation, soil rem oval, an d all oth er form s of hazar dous waste rem ediation. Attorneys' fees
and th e costs of litigation are al so recoverable under the state and federal sta tutory schem e for
a successful plaintiff in an environm ental action.
COSTS TO THE EDA
O
)
Th e E D A can approach th is action w ith little finan cial risk. The EDA w ould not need
to initiate any discovery, an d w ould only be obligated to respond to W ilkins' disc overy.
A ttorney's fees ar c recoverable by the ED A in a M ERL A claim . Th e fact that W ilki ns will
have to pay both his ow n and the ED A 's attorneys' fees is a deterrent to an y significant
discovery and w ill give the ED A strorg leverage in bringing about a favorable settlem ent
w ithout tri al.
It is very unlikely th at the ED A w ill not achieve a favorable settlem ent and equal ly
unlikely th at th e m atter w ould proceed to tri al. In th e event the EDA was not successful in
obtai ning a settlem ent, tr ied th e cas e and lost it, the attorney fecs could ran ge from a low of
about $15 ,000 if the case w ere dism issed before trial to a range of $50,000 if the case were
tri ed. A gai n, th is is an extrem ely unlikely outcom e since th e law is onc of strict liability.
CHANCE OF SUCCESS
Should the ED A decide to initiate the environmental litigation under consideration, we
view th e chance of success to be excellent. Under M ER L A an environm ental plaintiff m ust
prove th at a hazardous substance w as deposited upon the site, th ere was an im proper release
of the hazardous substance, and the plai ntiff incurr ed response costs . Th e EDA should have
no tr ouble proving these basic elem ents of its environm ental claim . The chances of success
in such liti gation ar e greater th an norm al tort litigation since the standard of proof is
es sentially strict li ability. In other w ords, all th e ED A needs to do is p rove th at som eone
improperly dumped the hazardous material improperly on the site and liability is established.
001/1 8052979 9/30/94
0 9 /3 0 /9 4 12 :2 5 @ 004
DEFENDANT
Th e m o st obvio u s defendant is W ilkins P onti ac, Inc., the m ost recent tenan t of the
land. For the sake of sim plicity fror th e ED A 's point of vicw , w e recommend that th e ED A
nam e only W ilki ns P ontiac, Inc. as a responsible party in th e law suit. It is not necessary
from a p ro cedural stan dpoint for the ED A to nam e additional defendants . W ilkins m ay,
how ev er, ch o ose to add additional resp onsible par ties. Al l form er te nants and lan dow ners
co uld be broug h t in to the law suit by W ilkins.
STATUTE OF LIMITATION
The statute of lim ita tions under M E R L A is six years from th e date response costs are
first in curr ed. In Oc tob er, 1993 w e advised th e E D A th at th e m ost prudent course w ould be
to com m ence th e environme ntal litigation before th e sixth an niversary of th e N ovem ber, 1987
qu ick tak e. A t th at tim e w e w ere also considering bringing com mo n law claim s w here the six
ycar sta tute of lim itatio ns is triggered by know ledge of the contam ination. Th ere w as som e
evid ence of earlier kn o w ledge of contam ination on th e sitc . Th ere is, how ever, no dispute
abo ut th e date the E D A star ted incurring costs . If w e assert only a claim under M E RL A
no w , w e could com m ence the law suit at this tim e since th e E D A 's first on-site incurr ing of
costs did not occu r un til 199 2,
cc. C h arlie M eyer
Dave Hagen
Jim G rube
)
)
00 1/18052979 9/30/94
RE Q U ES T FO R ED A A C T IO N
< ------------------------------------------ AGENDA SECTION: °
Report s
DATE October 3, 1994
NO.
ORIGINATING DE?ARTMENT:
ITEM:
NO.
[APPROVED:
P <lsior Boulevard street=scape f4y
David Hagen
BACKGROUND
Attached is a hand cut that was provided to th e Excelsior
Boulevard Task Force at its meeting on Septemb er 28th relating
to phasing, implementation strategy and short term
im plementation steps. Comm issioner Haun will give a status
report as the Authority liaison to the task force. Following
are the estimates of the costs of each cf the various
streetscape phases:
Phase 1 $1,386,459 (un der constru ction)
Phase 2 estimate being prepared
Phase 3 $1,148,712
? Phases 4 & 5 $2,243,597
Total $4,778,768
5338:GEN49
PU8L IC WORKS
APPROVAL
OBTAINED
FINANCE
APPROVAL
OBTAINED
COMM
APPROVAL
OBTAINED
APPROVAL
OBTAINED
Executive Director
APPROVAL
OBTAINED
ACTION: MOTION BY 2ND BY TO
a ·'
Phase 1: 1994 - 1995
4
/
/4
?
,/' .··
Phase 2: 1995
Phase 3: 1997··
Phase 4: 1998 to 2000
Phase 5: 1998 to 2000
y
. ½'-~ @ss
,,
t' "--
2
O
Streetscape Phasing Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape
St. Louis Park, Minn esota [IH I !a ! Ii]
0 I00 N O R T H .--yg @get
j Er-
E X C E L SIO R B O U L E V A RD : IM P L E M E N T A T IO N ST RA T E G Y
CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT ORGANIZA TION & PROMOTION DESIGN & APPEA RAN CE PROJECT
PHA SIN G
FUNDING
SHORT-TE RM 1. Refine building/site value assessment 1. Coordinate plan objectives with all pertinent 1. Adopt streetscape plan as an Phase One: . TIF i---) 0-1 1/2 years 2. Define potential redevelopment sites City departments, council, and committees amendment to the City's -Hwy. 100 to . Maintenance
3. Determine City's level of involvement in 2. Formulate architectural design and Comprehensive Plan Quentin Ave. Assessm ent
redevelopment of specific sites redevelopment advisory group (ie. Excelsior 2 Create an overlay zoning -Park Center Blvd. • Arts Grants
4. Prepare market evaluation of sites Blvd. Redevelopment Partnership, staff) district for the Excelsior to Byerlys
5. Identify business retention issues and 3. Define mission Boulevard Area
recruitment opportunities 4. Create subcommittees to address specific -Incorporate specific site and Phase Two:
6. Target and begin redevelopment with a projects architectural design standards -Park Center Blvd. • TIF
key seed project Such as: into a zoning overlay district north to 36th Street
7. Hennepin County DOT-establish -Recruitment -Amend the Comprehensive -Monterrey Ave.
timeline of planned improvements, -Design Review Plan and Zoning to
coordinate design efforts -Corridor Logo and Joint Promotional Campaign incorporate design objectives
8. Place streetscape improvements in -Highway 100 Bridge Design and recommended land-use
Capital Improvements Plan -Economic Development changes
9. Define special maintenance assessment -Business Recruitment 3. Establish site and architecture
district -Maintenance Program design review procedures
10.Apply for arts grant -Funding 4. Design development of North
I I .Establish tenant improvement incentives -Art work Park Center Blvd. and
and low interest loan program for -Banners Monterrey streetscapes
private building and site improvements -Special Events 5. Establish maintenance
-Flower Plantings program
5. Establish design guideline enforcement strategy 6. Design Development of
and monitoring for public and private Excelsior Blvd.: Monterrey
improvements: to France Avenue
-Architectural and Site Plan Review 7. Design development of
6. Implement simple, short term projects such as Excelsior Blvd.:
banner designs or community art work -Monterrey to France Avenue
) MID - TERM 1. Prepare site specific development 1. Create corridor newsletter or column in local 1. Incorporate logo into Phase Three: . TIF
11/2- 5 years parameters for highest priority parcels paper streetscape elements, ie. -Excelsior Blvd. • Hennepin
2. Assemble parcels where possible 2. Advisory group recruitment banners -Monterrey Ave. to County
3. Solicit development proposals for 3. Leadership training 2. Establish specific time period France • IS TEA
selected sites 4. Continue implementing short term community for businesses to comply with • Utility Funds
4. Select preferred developers for retail, projects parking lot buffering • Maintenance
office, residential uses requirements Assessment
5. Form public/private partnerships with 3. Establish arts competition for
@p= developers to develop selected sites sculpture and other art works
6. Establish business retention and within the corridor
recruitment strategy 4. Begin working with MNDOT
on the new bridge design at
Hwy. 100
5. Design development of
Excelsior Blvd- Quentin to
Monterrey Avenues
6. Prepare east entry design and
construction
7. Incorporate public artworks
LO NG- TE RM 1. Continue redevelopment of selected sites l. Monitor progress and format l. Monitor progress Phase Four: • TIF
5- 10 years 2. Monitor Progress 2. Continue recruitment and training 2. Highway 100 bridge -Excelsior Blvd. • Hennepin
3. Recruit targeted businesses construction -Quentin Ave. to County Road
Monterrey Ave. • Utility Funds
• ISTEA
• Maintenance
Assessment
Phase Five: • TIF
-38th Street and
Park Linka es
19 9 4 , 1995 1996
MASTERPLAN
Defines:
o Goals & Objectives
o Vision
o Design Framework
o srcescape Paes ]]]
o Architectural & Site
Planning Guidelines
o Implementation
Strategy
o Adopt Plan as
Amendment to
Comp. Plan
o Create Overlay
Zoning District
ORGANIZATION
ADVISORY GROUP:
o Excelsior Blvd
Redevelopment
Partnership
- Business Owners
- Residents
- Staff
- EDA
MISSION
o Implement Plan
o Advocates for the
Corridor
Sub com m itt ees
PROMOTION:
o Corridor Logo
o Coordinated
Promo Campaign
o Special Events
DESIGN & APPEARANCE
o Establish Site &
Architectural Design
Review Process
o Review Development
Proposal
o Design Development of
Future Street scape phases
DESIGN
REVIEW
COMMITTEE
) 4av
o EDA
o Planning Commission
o Staff
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
o Site Planning
Architectural Review
o Enforce Guidelines
o Advisory Group
to EPA
o Include:
- Business Rep.
- Architects
- Landscape Architects
o Business Recruitment
o Economic Development
o Funding
o Maintenance
DI]
CORRIDOR
REDEVELOPMENT
o Determine City's Level
of Involvement
o Define Redevelopment Sites
o Prepare Market Evaluation
o Identify Business Retention
Issues '
o Establish Tenant Improve-
ment Incentives & Low
Interest Loan Prograr
Promo Campaign
o Target a Seed Project
O N -G O IN G
RE D E V E L O PM E NT
D
SPECIAL SHORT
TERM PROJECTS:
o Banners
o Flowers
o Artwork
o Hwy. 100 Bridge
S hort Term Im p lem entation
o Business Recruitment
o Economic Development
o Funding
o Maintenance Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape
St. Louis Park. Minnesota [Hi]
R E Q U E S T F O R E D A A C T IO N
/ /"""\)
AGENDA SECTION:
DATE October 3, 1994
NO. 5 Reports
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
ITEM:
NO. 5b
SPS Landscaping Plan
APPROVED:
David Hagen
BACKGROUND
At the last City Council meeting, there was some discussion as
to whether this matter should be referred to the EDA. Since
that meeting, Suburban Plumbing has indicated some reluctance to
cooperate with the City/EDA in the construction of an 8 foot
high fence to screen the entire outside storage even it were
paid for by others. An alternative to the screening plans
described in the staff report would be to add shrubs or
ornamental trees between Highway 7 and the frontage road.
Attached is the memo that was prepared for the Council for that
meeting in the event the EDA chooses to discuss this matter at
the EDA meeting.
}
)
5339:GEN49
P U B L IC W O R K S FINANCE COMM Executive Director
APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL
"AINED OBTAINED OBTAINED OBTAINED OBTAINED
I J)
) ACTION: MOTION BY 2ND BY TO
9/22/94
LAND SCAPE SCRE ENING
ALTERNATIVE S AND COST ESTIMA TES -
SPS PROJECT
ARE A A
Move 2 Norway maples; plant 3 blue spruce
ARE A B
Install 3-4' berm; plant hedge on east half
ARE A C
Plant 1 blue spruce
SUBTOTAL
$ 900 - 1,000
$4,000 - 4,500
S250 - 300
$5,150 - 5,800
FENCE ALTERN ATIVE AD D-ONS (green-treated, 100% opaque)
Install 4' fence on top of berm in Area B $5,300 - 6,000
Install 8' fence in Area C $2,500 - 3,000
Install 8' fence to replace chain link
in Areas A, Band C (in lieu of 4' in
Area B and 8' in Area C)
Install 4' fence in Area D
$15,000 -18,000
$ 2,100 - 2,400
5314:GEN49
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 26, 1994
AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions
NO. 8
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Comm unity Development
ITEM:
Modification of Variances
NO. for Apex Addition-6363 Hwy. 7
APPROVED:
bf!avid Hagen, Director
BACKGROUND
At the September 12 Council meeting action on a resolution that would
have modified the variances granted for the existing building on the
land platted as Apex Addition was deferred to this meeting to give
staff an opportunity to research minutes relating to landscape
screening requirements. On Septemb er 13, 1993 the EDA approved
constru ction plans for the Suburban Plumb ing redevelopment project
including the landscaping and grading concept plan and authorized
staff to review and approve the final landscaping and grading detail.
Wh ile EDA minutes contain no expressions of concern relating to
screening of outside storage, staff ackn owledges that such concern was
expressed.
APPROVE D LAN DSCAPING PLAN S
) Attached is a copy of the final landscaping and grading plan that was
approved. A sight line drawing from Highway 7 showing the line of
sight to the outside storage area from vehicles passing by is being
prepared and will be available at the meeting. The outside storage is
clearly visible from a significant stretch of Highway 7 to the
traveling public.
AN ALYSIS, ALTERNATIVES AND COST ESTIMA TES
Screening for the outside storage, overhead doors, and truck unloading
areas can be broken down into four geographical areas as identified on
the attached approved landscaping plan. Area A is visible from
westbound Highway 7 and is currently planted with a row of Norw ay
maple trees. This area could be improved by moving two of these trees
to a green space on the north side of the adjacent drive aisle and
planting three blue spru ce in this area at a cost of $900 to $1,000.
PUBLIC WORKS [FINANCE COMMUNITY DEVELOP. [MANAGER'S
APPROVAL {APPROVAL [APPROVAL {APPROVAL [APPROVAL // y,
ITAINED [OBTAINED [OBTAINED [OBTAINED [OBTAIN=D (4er \
' 7" Is WP5P '-
lCOUNCIL ACTION, MOTION BY 2ND BY TO
Area B is the longest stretch of the outside storage visible from
Highway 7. Screening of the outside storage from Highway 7 wil?
improve significantly in this area as the hedge materials planted on
the berm installed along the frontage road reach maturity in four to
five years. Screening in this section could be improved by installing
a four foot high berm that would taper down to three feet at the east
end of this area, relocating the existing hedge located on the west
half of this stretch on top of the berm and installing a hedge in the
east half. These modifications would cost $4,000-$4,500. A four foot
high 100% opaque green treated wood fence could be added on top of the
berm for a cost of an additional $5,300-6,000.
Like Area A, Area C is also mostly visible from westbound Highway 7.
This area has a significant slope to it which does help provide some
screening from Highway 7 and also makes planting of vegetation on it
somewhat difficult. An additional blue spruce could be planted in
this area at a cost of $250-300.
Area Dis heavily planted with landscaping which will provide a better
screen as it reaches maturity. A four foot high 100% opaque green
treated wood fence could be installed on top of the berm for a cost
of $2,100-2,400.
An eight foot high 100% opaque green treated fence matching the fence
located on the south side of the outside storage could be added to
Areas A, B and C at a cost of $15,000-$18,000. A fence of this nature
could be added to Area C where berming would be impossible and there
is not room for much additional landscaping for a cost of $2,500-
$3,000.
SPS' POSITION
SPS has indicated a willingness to cooperate with the City in
improving screening on the site. SPS has plans to plant ivy or some
other vine next to the chain link fence to improve its screening
value.
COUNCIL ALTERNATIVE
Attached is the resolution that may be used by the City Council to
approve modifications to the variances. Alternatives to the Council
are:
1. Approve the resolution accepting the landscaping as planted.
2. Approve the resolution with the condition that additional
screening as specified be installed.
3. Defer the resolution to the October 3 City Council meeting.
If Alternatives 2
screening plan be
October 3 meeting.
RECOMM ENDATION
or 3 are selected it
referred to the EDA
is suggested that the
for discussion at its
It is recommended that the resolution be deferred to the October
3 meeting (Alternative 3) and that the screening alternative be
referred to the EDA for discussion at the October 3 meeting.
5309:GEN38
(39) MISS CANADA
(5± ER LINE HONEY±.CCUST
;7) 2AISS CANADA LILAC
,- (40) COMPACT EUROPEAN
SOD-
AREA TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL
AND BE SEEDED
.%\
6' 1 {I+(as) Miss KI
\ '\'a) acx us,ska,l\Tu:' -
(15) BRIDAL, WREATH\' !
CANADA ,Ac 5PR£A \' • if5 I _'?
\ MISS KIM LAC
'\(3) BLA CK HILLS
SPRUCE
.4) GREEN>PIRE L+NET
'40) wINGi
EUONT MuS
(43) DWARF WINGED
EUONYMUS
e (3) BLA CK HILLS
SPRUCE
' - (4) COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE
=-(23) PEKING COTONEASTER
PLANTINGS ALONG TRACK ON SOUTH SIDE
OF SITE ARE NOT TO RECEIVE IRRIGATION (TYP)
- TY PE F6 WOOD FENCE CASE NO. 94-14-5
R][RO[ I
i PLANT SCHEDULE
October 3, 1994
EDA
TO: Economic Development Authority
THROUGH: Charlie Meyer, Executive Director (uh
FROM: Mac McBride, Finance Direcs-f
Lori Ziemer, Asst. Finance Direclf f;
SUBJE CT: September 1994 EDA Monthly Statement
)
The Combinin g Statement of Revenue and Expenditures, the Individual Statement of
Revenue and Expenditures and the Schedule of Investments provides in summ ary
form the financial position of the EDA.
Revenue collections reflect interest received on investments which matured durin g
September.
Signifi cant expenditures reflect reimbursement to the City for EDA salaries and
expenditures from May through August and ED A's share of project costs associated
with the water tower construction, construction costs associated with the Park
Nicollet parking ramp project, architectural design services for Excelsior Blvd. and
legal services for May and June.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
~) Combining Statement of Revenue and Expenditures
Budget and Actual
For Period Ending September 30, 1994
YTD BALA NCE PERCENT
COLLECTED/ UNCOLLEC./ COLLECTED/
BUDGET EXPENDED UNEXPEND. EXPENDED
REVENUE
Tax increment $3,100,740 $1,476,151 $1,624,589 48
Rent 4,680 3,510 1,170 75
Interest 639,005 704,867 (65,862) 110
Transfers
Refunds & Reimburse 149,188 (149,188)
TOTAL REVENUE 3,744,425 2,333,716 1,410,709 62
EXPENDITURES
Administrative
Salaries 84,520 63,188 21,332 75
Employee benefits 17,278 13,201 4,077 76
Supplies & other chgs. 4,647 3,147 1,500 68
Legal 3,560 1,033 2,527 29
Contractual 656 (656)
O Planning
Total Administrative 110,005 81,225 28,780 74
Project Cost
Professional service 108,200 379 107,821
Legal 75,000 68,112 6,888 91
Environ. analysis 2,000 16,423 (14,423) 821
Public improvement 7,392,000 5,770,320 1,621,680 78
Relocation/demolition 692,500 484,133 208,367 70
Property acquisition 824,800 824,800
Environ. remediation 510 (510)
Referendum payment 11,802 (11,802)
Property Maintenance 22,860 6,706 16,154 29
Other services 8,000 13,414 (5,414) 168
Transfers
Total Project Costs 9,125,360 6,371,799 2,753,561 70
Debt Service
Bond principal 600,000 (600,000)
Bond interest 504,000 198,763 305,237 39
Transfer
Inter-govt., City 840,000 840,000
Bond agent fees 6,199 (6,199)
Total Debt Service 1,344,000 804,962 539,038 60
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,579,365 7,257,986 3,321,379 69
o-? REVENUE OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES (6,834,940) (4,924,270) (1,910,670) 72
1
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Individual Statement Of Revenue And Expenditures
For Period Ending September 30, 1994
EXCELSIOR OAK PARK TRUNK CAPITAL DEBT
REVENUE BLVD VILLA GE HWY7 PROJECTS SERVICE TOTAL
Tax increment $940,952 $197,889 $337,310 $ $ $1,476,151
Rent 3,510 3,510
Interest 463,027 54,134 13,110 152,181 22 ,415 704,867
Transfers
Refund/reimburse 94,524 50,000 4,664 149,188
TOTAL REVENUE 1,498,503 255,533 400,420 152,181 27,079 2,333,716
EXP EN D ITU R E S
Administrative
Salaries 22 ,07 1 13,855 27 ,2 62 63,188
Employee benefits 4,620 2,835 5,746 13,201
Supplies & other chgs. 1,887 582 678 3,147
Legal 742 75 216 1,033
Contractual 656 656
Planning
Total Administrative 29,320 17,347 34,558 81,225
) Project Cost
Appraisal/survey 379 379
Legal 57,322 462 10,328 68,112
Environ. analysis 15,364 1,059 16,423
Public improvement 4,944,372 825,948 5,770,320
Relocation/demolition 484,133 484,133
Property tax
Acquisition 510 510
Referendum payment 8,980 2,822 11,802
Property maintenance 2,260 4,446 6,706
Other services 13,414 13,414
Total Project Costs 5,526,734 3,284 841,781 6,371,799
Debt Service
Bond principal 600,000 600,000
Bond interest 198,763 198,763
Transfer
Inter-govt., City
Bond agent fees 6,199 6,199
Total Debt Service 804,962 804,962
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,556,054 20,631 876,339 804,962 7,257,986
REVENUE OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES (4,057,551) 234,902 (475,919) 152,181 (777 ,883) (4,924,270)
JO
2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS
September 30, 1994
Investments Date
Institution/Type Yield Purchase Maturity Balance
1st Banks - Treas. 3.57 07-07-93 09-30-94 1,000,000
Park Investment - Treas. 3.49 10-01-93 11-15-94 1,000,000
Dain Bosworth - Treas. 3.61 11-15-93 11-30-94 1,500,000
Dain Bosworth - Treas. 3.65 11-15-93 12-31-94 1,000,000
Dain Bosworth - FHL 3.59 10-25-93 01-25-95 1,500,000
1st Banks - FNMA 3.90 12-01-93 03-10-95 2,250,000
1st Banks - FC 3.90 12-02-93 04-03-95 707,314
1st Banks NA- FHL 5.06 05-03-94 04-03-95 699,154
Park Investment - Treas. 3.25 01-10-94 04-30-95 1,500,000
1st Banks - Treas. 3.65 01-31-94 04-30-95 1,500,000
1st Banks - Treas. 4 44 03-08-94 05-31-95 700,000
) Park National - C.D. 5.45 06-03-94 05-31.95 600,000
Dain Bosworth - Treas. 4.90 04-15-94 06-30-95 1,000,000
Park Investment - FC 5.52 07-07-94 07-05-95 1,297,779
Dain Bosworth - FC 5.47 08-01-94 09-01-95 500,000
1st Banks - FHL 3.84 09-20-93 09-20-95 1,000,000
4M Fund Various Open 1,112. 137
Total Investments $18,866,384
---------- ----------
Legend: C.D. = Certificate of Deposit
C.P. = Commercial Paper
F.C. = Farm Credit
F.N.M.A. = Federal National Mortgage Assn.
F.H.L.B. = Federal Home Loan Bank
Treas. = U.S. Treasury Bonds
Gov't Agencies= Term U.S. Government Securities
3
V E N D O R C L A I M S
E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t A u t h o r i t y -S t . L o u i s P a r k
O c t o b e r 3 , 1 9 9 4
V e n d o r D e s c r i p t i o n Am o u n t
A d o l f s o n & Peterson Inc.
Aetna Life Insurance Co.
Dahlgren Shard low & Uban
Kraus-Anderson Construction
Noble Nursery Retail Inc.
Publicorp Inc.
Park Nicollet Ramp
Cityscape Project
Professional services
Park Nicollet Ramp
Landscaping construction
Services
$195,616.85
62,400.00
12,184.00
5,643.70
8,597.39
262.5O
TOTAL $284,7O4.44
Accounting Dept ·-i.......::'---"-"c..=::.i....::....--,,.,<:.~Jo<C...L..LJ.~""-"'-------CDated tJ /24J/qf
Executive Director_...}C..zl.Zll~!lll!!'.~~-~;,,,c."-'-~~-.....:Dated 2P ~ 9Y
)