The URL can be used to link to this page

HRA PacketSEPTEMBER S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I. CALL TO ORDER II. CONSENT AGENDA HOPKINS HRA REGULAR MEETING September 2, 2014 7 p.m. 1. Approve minutes of the August 4, 2014, regular meeting 2. Approve disbursements through September 30, 2014 3. ITEM 2014-06 Renewal of general liability and property insurance and authorization to not waive the statutory tort liability on the League of Minnesota Cities insurance trust policy 4. ITEM 2014-07 Year Two Contract for Dow Towers Kitchen Remodel Project Recommendation: approve consent agenda Board Action: III. ADJOURNMENT Board Action: OCTOBER MAXWELL S M T W T F S CUMMINGS 1 2 3 4 GADD 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 HALVERSON 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 YOUAKIM 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MORNSON 26 27 28 29 30 31 ELVERUM HOPKINS HRA REGULAR MEETING September 2, 2014 7 p.m. 1. Approve minutes of the August 4, 2014, regular meeting 2. Approve disbursements through September 30, 2014 3. ITEM 2014-06 Renewal of general liability and property insurance and authorization to not waive the statutory tort liability on the League of Minnesota Cities insurance trust policy 4. ITEM 2014-07 Year Two Contract for Dow Towers Kitchen Remodel Project Recommendation: approve consent agenda Board Action: III. ADJOURNMENT Board Action: uuuuum MINUTES OF HOPKINS HRA REGULAR MEETING August 4, 2014 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority was held August 4, 2014, at Hopkins City Hall. Present were Chairman Eugene Maxwell and Commissioners Molly Cummings, Jason Gadd, Kristi Halverson and Cheryl Youakim. Also present were Executive Director Mike Mornson, Assistant Executive Director Kersten Elverum and City Attorney Kim Kozar. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. II. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve minutes of the July 1, 2014, regular meeting 2. Approve disbursements through July 31, 2014 Commissioner Halverson moved, Commissioner Cummings seconded, to approve the consent agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. III. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gadd moved, Commissioner Youakim seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Eugene J. Maxwell, Chairman Michael J. Mornson, Executive Director PACKET; 03801 HRA 08-11-2014 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK . HRA HRA WELLS FARGO CHECK CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR NAME / I.D. DESC TYPE DATE DISCOUNT AMOUNT N09 AMOUNT 27829 ACME GENERAL CONTRACTING R 8/1.1/201.4 013200 305.00 .29075 B & B PLU14BING LLC R 8/11/2014 013201 283.37 03165 CENTERPOINT ENERGY R 8/11/2014 013202 459,1.9 17806 QWE'ST CORP R 8/11/2014 013203 166.92 03316 CITY OP HOPKINS R 8/11./2014 013204 34,832.24 07182 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO R 6/11/2014 01320.5 472.00 07563 GOODIN COMPANY R 8/11/2014. 013206 1,796.52 07661 W. W. GRAINGER,INC R 8/11/2014 013207 85.52 08004 HANCE HARDWARE, INC R 8/11/7.01.4 013206 177.77 27200 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE R 8/11./2014 0132014 930.55 08644 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES R 8/11/2014 013210 25.71 13336 MIDWEST MAINTENANCE & MECHkNICAL INC R 8/11/2014 01321.1 50.00 28107 MN NAHRO R 8/11/2014 013212 425.00 15880 OWENS SERVICE CORP- CHEMTEX R 8/11/2014 013213 285.82 16322 PIPELINE SUPPLY, INC R 8/11/2014 013214 297.50 27124 SHERWIN WILLIAMS R 8/11/201,4 013215 60.77 28281 TRUGREEN PROCESSING CENTER R 8/11/2014 013215 57.00 21.558 STACY UNOWSKY R 8/11/2014 01323.7 24.95 22000... VAIL PLACE R 8/1.1/2014 013218 6,627.68 22167 VERIZON WIRELESS R. 8/11/203.4 013219 142.32 29014 PATRICK WOLF R 6/11/2014 013220 26.75 8/1.1/2014 9c53 AM A ✓ P CHECK REGISTER PAGEc 2 PACKET: 03801 HRA 08-11-2014 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK HRA HRA WELLS FARGO CHECK CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR NAME / 1,D, DESC TYPE DATE, DISCOUNT AMOUNT N04 AMOUNT * * T O T A L S + * NO# DISCOUNTS CHECK AMT TOTAL APPLIED REGULAR CHECKS: 21 0.00 47,534.58 47,5...34.58 HANDWRITTEN CHECKS: 0 0.00 0..00 0..00 PRE -WRITE CHECKS:. 0 0.00 0.00 0..00 DRAFTS: a 0.00 0.00 O.00 VOID CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 CORRECTIONS: 0 0.00 0.00 o.00. REGISTER TOTALS: 21 0.00 47,534.58 47,534.59 '.. TOTAL ERRORS: 0 TOTAL WARNINGS: 0 8/11/2014 9:53 AM A / P CHECK REGISTER PAGE: 3 %CKE'T: 03801 HRA 08-11-2014 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK HRA HRA WELLS FARGO CHECK CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR NAME.. / I.D. DESC TYPE DATE DISCOUNT AMOUNT NO# AMOUNT *+ POSTING PERIOD RECAP ** FUND ------------------------------------------- PERIOD AMDUNT 001 8/2014 47,534.58CR ALL 47,534.58CR 8/20/2014 8:56 AM A / P CHECK REGISTER PAGE: 1 ,CKET: 03820 HRA 08-.20,.2014 VENDOR SET: 01. BANK . HRA HRA WELLS FA.RGO CHECK CHECK CHECK. CHECK VENDOR. NAME / I.D. DESC TYPE DATE DISCOUNT AMOUNT N04 AMOUNT 17806 QWEST CORP R 8/20/2014 013221 159..62 27274 CITY OF HOPKINS R 8/2.0/2014 013227. 1,119.60 0771.1. FINKEN WATER SOLUTIONS R 8/20/2014 013223 12.60 27200 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE R 8/20/2014 013224 244.65 06644 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES R. 8/20/2014 013225 171.,33 10004 .I.R.S ADVANCED RECYCLERS R 5/20/2014 013226 30.00 14040 C. NABER &. ASSOCIATES R 8/20/2014 013227 210.00 14002 NAHRO R 8/20/2014. 013228 150..00 16322. PIPELINE SUPPLY, INC. R 8/20/201.4 013229 297.50 16450 PLUMBMASTER R 8/20/2014 013.230 353.63 23008 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN R 8/20/201.4 013231 892.58 25080 XCE.L ENERGY R 8/20/2014 013232 9,,068.,34 + * T Q T A L S * * NOt'# DISCOUNTS CHECK AMT TOTAL APPLIED REGULAR CHECKS: 12 0.00 7,704.85 7,704.85 HANDWRITTF,N CHECKS': 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRE -WRITE C14ECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 CRAFTS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 VOID CHECKS:. 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 CQRRECTICSNS: 0 0..00 0.00 0.00 REGISTER TOTALS: 12. 0.00 7,704.85 7,704.85 8/20/2.014 8!55 AM A / P CHECK REGISTER PAGE: 2 PACKET: 03820 HRA 08-20-201? VENDOR SET: 01. BANK HRA HRA WELLS FARGO CHECK CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR NAME /' I.D. DESC TYPE DATE DISCOUNT AMOUNT, N04 AMOUNT ** POSTING PERIOD RECAP ** FUND PERI_OD.. AMOUNT 001 8/201.4 7,704.8SCR ALL 7,704.85CR September 2, 2014 14ca HRA Report 2014-06 City Of flopkip RENEWAL OF GENERAL LIABILITY AND PROPERTY INSURANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO NOT WAIVE THE STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY ON THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST POLICY Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following: Move to approve renewal of the LMCIT Insurance Policy for the HRA and to not waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. Adoption of this motion will result in staff moving forward with the proposed LMCIT insurance coverage including not waiving the statutory tort liability limits. The staff recommendation to not waive the statutory tort liability limits is based on liability exposure to the city in the form of higher premiums. This is the option selected this past year. Overview The renewal date for the HRA Insurance Policy is 11/1/14 and is for a one year period. The LMCIT has indicated that insurance rates will increase about 0-3% for automobile physical damage, 0-3% for municipal liability and auto liability insurance and 2-3% for property insurance due to recent overall industry claim history. Our actual increases will be known once the renewal application has been submitted and the rate quoted. Our specific claim history, which has been low for the HRA will also have an impact on the rates. The premium for the 2013-2014 insurance year was $18,871, which was a decrease of $1,489 or 7.3% over the previous year. Primary Issues to Consider • Election of waiver of tort limits for liability • Liability exposure if we elect to waive the tort limits for liability Staff Recommendation Finance recommends renewal of the LMCIT Insurance Policy based on past HRA Board action and to not waive the monetary limits on the tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Supporting Information 0 LMCIT Waiver Form 0 LMCIT Memo — LMCIT Liability Coverage Options Christine Harkess, CPA, CGFM Finance Director SECTION L• LIABILITY COVERAGE WAIVER FORM Cities obtaining liability coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must decide whether or not to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision to waive or not to waive the statutory limits has the following effects: If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no more than $500,000. on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether or not the city purchases the optional excess liability coverage. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover up to $1,500,000. on a single occurrence. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $1,500,000., regardless of the number of claimants. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. This decision must be made by the city council. Cities purchasing coverage must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. For further information, contact LMCIT. You may also wish to discuss these issues with your city attorney. HOPKINS HRA accepts liability coverage limits of $ $500,000/51,500,000 from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). Check one: ❑X The city DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. ❑ The city WAIVES the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of city council meeting 9-2-2014 Signature �'/. t¢z- Position Finance Director Return this completed form to LMC17; 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, MN. 55103-2044 LEACEJE OF CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION LMCIT LIABILITY COVERAGE OPTIONS Liability Limits, Coverage Limits, and Waivers LMCIT gives cities several options for structuring their liability coverage. The city can choose either to waive or not to waive the monetary limits the statutes provide; and the city can select from among several liability coverage limits. This memo discusses these options and identifies some issues to consider in deciding which of the options best meets the city's needs. Statutory Limits on Municipal Tort Liability The statutes limit a city's tort liability to a maximum of $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. These limits apply whether the claim is against the city, against the individual officer or employee, or against both. Coverage Limits for LMCIT's Basic Primary Liability Coverage LMCIT's liability coverage provides a limit of $1,500,000 per occurrence, matching the per -occurrence part of the statutory municipal tort liability limit. Beside the overall coverage limit of $1,500,000 per occurrence, there are also annual aggregate limits (that is, limits on the total amount of coverage for the year regardless of the number of claims), for certain specific risks. Aggregate limits apply to the following: Something to Think About Under the basic coverage form, the $500,000 per claimant part of the statutory liability limit is not waived, so if the statutory limit applies to the particular claim, LMCIT and the city would be able to use that limit as a defense. Products $2,000,000 annually Failure to supply utilities $2,000,000 annually EMF $2,000,000 annually Limited pollution* $2,000,000 annually Mold $2,000,000 annually Land use litigation** $1,000,000 annually Employers liability (work comp) $1,500,000 annually * Includes sudden and accidental releases of pollutants; herbicide and pesticide application; sewer ruptures, overflows and backups; and lead and asbestos claims. The limit applies to both damages and defense costs. ** Coverage is on a sliding scale percentage basis, and applies to both damages and litigation costs. C.EAGUL OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145UNIVERS1IYAVE wrsr mioNr:(651)281-1200 1Ax:(651)281-1298 I N S U RA N C E TRUST sr. PAr.iz.. MN 55103-2044 -rc7LL FREE. (800) 125-1122: wr1�: Nn�ww.Emc. oRG If the Statute Limits our Liability, Why Purchase Higher Coverage Limits? There are several different reasons why cities should strongly consider carrying higher limits of liability coverage. The Statutory Tort Limits Either Do Not or May Not Apply to Several Types of Claims Some examples include: • Claims under federal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. • Claims for tort liability that the city has assumed by contract. This occurs when a city agrees in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party. • Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that have mutual aid agreements with adjoining states, or when a city official attends a national conference or goes to Washington to lobby, etc. • Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal liquor stores, but it could also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire relief association fund-raiser, for example. • Claims based on a "taking" theory. Suits challenging land use regulations frequently include an "inverse condemnation" claim, alleging that the regulation amounts to a "taking" of the property. LMCIT's Primary Liability Coverage has Annual Limits on Coverage for a few Specific Risks The table on page one lists the liability risks to which aggregate coverage limits apply. If the city has a loss or claim in one of these areas, there might not be enough limits remaining to cover the city's full exposure if there is a second loss of the same sort during the year. Excess liability coverage gives the city additional protection against this risk as well. However, there are a couple important restrictions on how the excess coverage applies to risks that are subject to aggregate limits: • The excess coverage does not apply to three risks: failure to supply utilities; mold; and "limited pollution " claims if either the pollutant release or the damage is below ground or in a body of water; and • The excess coverage does not automatically apply to liquor liability unless the city specifically requests it. 2 The City may be Required by Contract to Carry Higher Coverage Limits Occasionally, a contract might include a requirement the city carry more than $1,500,000 of coverage limits. Carrying excess coverage is a way to meet these requirements. (There's also another option for cities in this situation. LMCIT can issue an endorsement to increase the city's coverage limit only for claims relating to that particular contract. There's a small charge for these "laser" endorsements.) There may be more than One Political Subdivision Covered Under the City's Coverage An HRA, EDA, or port authority is itself a separate political subdivision. If the city EDA, for example, is named as a covered party on the city's coverage and a claim were made that involved both the city and the EDA, theoretically the claimant might be able to recover up to $1,500,000 from both the city and the EDA, since there are two political subdivisions involved. Excess coverage is one way to provide enough coverage limits to address this situation. Another solution is for the HRA, EDA, or port authority to carry separate liability coverage in its own name. This issue of multiple covered parties can also arise is if the city has agreed by contract to name another entity as a covered party, or to defend and indemnify another entity. Cities Sometimes Carry Higher Coverage Limits Because of a Concern the Courts Might Overturn the Statutory Liability Limits However, those limits have now been tested and upheld several times in Minnesota. While it's always possible that a future court might decide to throw out the statutory limits, this is now less of a concern. Available Excess Liability Coverage Limits Excess coverage is available in $1 million increments, up to a maximum of $5 million. Does the Optional Excess Coverage Apply to all Types of Claims? No. The excess liability coverage does not apply to the following types of claims: limited pollution, mold, failure to supply utilities, auto no-fault, uninsured / underinsured motorist, workers compensation, disability, unemployment claims, or claims under the medical payments coverage. Who Needs Excess Liability Coverage? If anything, excess liability coverage is even more important to a small city, rather than a large city. If a city ends up with more liability than it has coverage, the city will have to either draw on existing funds or go to its taxpayers to pay that judgment. A large city faced with, say, a million dollars of liability over and above what its LMCIT coverage pays might be able to spread that $1 million cost over several thousand taxpayers. The small city by contrast might be dividing that same $1 million cost among only a couple hundred taxpayers. $1 million divided among 5,000 taxpayers is $200 apiece — annoying but probably at least manageable for most taxpayers. $1 million divided among 200 taxpayers is $5,000 apiece — enough to be a real problem for many. 3 What's the Effect of Waiving the Per Claimant Statutory Liability Limit? If the city chooses the "waiver" option, the city and LMCIT no longer can use the statutory limit of $500,000 per claimant as a defense. Because the waiver increases the exposure, the premium is roughly 3% higher for coverage under the waiver option. If the city waives the statutory limit, an individual claimant could therefore recover up to $1,500,000 in damages on a claim. Of course, the individual would still have to prove to the court or jury that s/he really does have that amount of damages. Also, the statutory limit of $1,500,000 per occurrence would still apply; that would limit the individual's recovery to a lesser amount if there were multiple claimants. Why Would the City Choose to Pay More to get Waiver -Option Coverage? The statutory liability limit only comes into play in a case where • The city is in fact liable. • The injured party's actual proven damages are greater than the statutory limit. Very literally, applying the statutory liability limit means an Highlight The waiver option coverage does not give the city better protection. The benefit is to the injured party. inured party won t be fully compensated for his/her actual, proven damages that were caused by city negligence. Some cities as a matter of public policy may want to have more assets available to compensate their citizens for injuries caused by the city's negligence. Waiving the statutory liability limits is a way to do that. Other cities may feel that the appropriate policy is to minimize the expenditure of the taxpayers' funds by taking full advantage of every protection the legislature has decided to provide. There's no right or wrong answer on this point. It's a discretionary question of city policy that each city council needs to decide for itself. For claims the statutory tort liability limits don't apply to, it doesn't affect how the city's coverage or risk on those claims. Waiving the statutory tort limits has no effect on claims the statutory limits don't apply to. Effects of Waiving the Statutory Limits if there is Excess Coverage If the city has $1 million of excess coverage and chooses to waive the statutory tort limits, the claimants (whether it's one claimant or several) could then potentially recover up to $2.5 million in damages in a single occurrence. If the city carries higher excess coverage limits, the potential maximum recovery per occurrence is correspondingly higher. Carrying excess coverage under the waiver option is a way to address an issue that some cities find troubling: the case where many people are injured in a single occurrence caused by city negligence. Suppose, for example, that a city vehicle negligently runs into a school bus full of kids, causing multiple serious injuries. $1,500,000 divided 50 ways may not go far toward compensating for those E injuries. Excess coverage under the waiver option makes more funds available to compensate the victims in that kind of situation. The cost of the excess liability coverage is about 25% greater if the city waives the statutory tort limits. The cost difference is proportionally greater than the cost difference at the primary level because for a city that carries excess coverage, waiving the statutory tort limits increases both the per - claimant exposure and the per -occurrence exposure. Waiving Statutory Tort Liability Limits: Increase in Risk? There is no increase in risk for the city to end up with liability if LMCIT doesn't cover it. The waiver form specifically says the city is waiving the statutory tort liability limits only to the extent of the city's coverage. Of course, that's not to say there is no risk the city's liability could exceed its coverage limits. We listed earlier a number of ways that could happen to any city. But the waiver doesn't increase that risk. Can we Waive the Statutory Tort Limits for the Primary Coverage but not for the Excess Coverage? No. If the city decides to waive the statutory tort limits, that waiver applies to the full extent of the coverage limits the city has. The city cannot partially waive the statutory limits. Is there a Simple way to Summarize the Options? It's not necessarily simple, but the table on the following page is a shorthand summary of what the effect would be of the various coverage structure options in different circumstances. Pete Tritz 12/09 5 Your League Resource Feel free to call the Underwriting Department at 651-281-1200 or 800- 925-1122 with any questions. LEAG U E or MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 LMCIT Liability Coverage Options LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145UNwCRSITYWI W1s1 NION[ (651)28M200 1 AXi (651) 281-1298 INSURANCE TRUST S1'rn01.,MN551032044 TOLLrYLI� (800)925-1122 WB: WWW LAC ORG On a liability claim to which On a liability claim to which the statutory limits apply the statutory limits do not apply Coverage structure This is the maximum This is the maximum total This is the maximum amount of damages which LMCIT would If the city: amount a single claimant could recover on an amount that all claimants could recover on a single occurrence. pay on the city's behalf for a single occurrence, regardless of the number of claimants. occurrence. Does not have excess coverage & Does not waive the statutory limits $500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Does not have excess coverage & Waives the statutory limits $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Has $1,000,000 of excess coverage & Does not waive the statutory limits $500,000 $1,500,000 $2,500,000 Has $1,000,000 of excess coverage & Waives the statutory limits $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145UNwCRSITYWI W1s1 NION[ (651)28M200 1 AXi (651) 281-1298 INSURANCE TRUST S1'rn01.,MN551032044 TOLLrYLI� (800)925-1122 WB: WWW LAC ORG August 27, 2014 HRA Report 2014-07 Year Two Contract for Dow "Powers Kitchen Remodel Project Proposed Action Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Adopt Resolution 499 authorizin execution of the Year Two Contract with Frerichs Construction Company for the Kitchen Remodel Project at Dow Towers for 2014. Overview The Hopkins HRA completed eighteen unit kitchen remodels at Dow Towers in 2013. Funds for the project were allocated from the 2012 Capital. Improvements Funds and HRA reserves. A second year option was available to us with a five percent increase on the original bids procured in 2013. The HRA is ready to move forward and utilize Capital Improvement Funds from 2013 and 2014 for phase two and complete an additional thirteen units. Staff is recornmending the contract in the amount of $123,663 for Year Two be awarded to Frerichs Construction Company. They were the low bidder for both the base bid for: a standard unit and end unit last year. Primary Issues to Consider * "What is the scope of work? Is the project within the proposed budget? Is the bid from Frerichs Construction Company a responsible bid? Analysis What is the scope of work? The scope of work includes removal and replacement of cabinets, front entry closets, countertops, sink, faucet and flooring in the kitchen of units at low Towers. The funding available will allow for 13 kitchens to be completed in 2014. Is the project within the proposed budget?' Yes. The design of the project bidding allows us to chose the number of units to complete in 2014 at the discretion of the HRA. The flexibility in the bidding process provides the option for the number of units to be completed to be an HRA decision based on funding. We are proposing to complete 13 units for the project this year. The Capital Funding for 2013 and 2014 will provide the funds to complete the kitchen remodel in these 13 units. The increased costs for labor- and materials will be minimized as a result of the five percent cap on year two pricing. Stacy Uno);Ivsky, Executive Director Page 2 - HRA Report 2014-07 Is the bid from Frerichs Construction Company a responsible bid? Yes. Frerichs completed and submitted all the requested components with their bid last year. The completion of the first year units was timely and they were responsive to both resident and staff requests. Alternatives The HRA has the following alternatives to consider: 1. Approve the action as recommended by staff. This will allow the HRA to enter into a contract with Frerichs Construction Company for $123,663. 2. Continue for additional information. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION No. 499 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOPKINS HRA OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that the bid from Frerichs Construction Company was the lowest responsible bid for the Kitchen Remodel Project at Dow Towers in 2013. The procurement process and contract signed last year allowed for additional kitchens to be completed in year two, The HRA has determined it has sufficient funding to remodel thirteen kitchens in 2014 for $1.23,663. As a result, the HRA Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said contractor for and on behalf of the Hopkins HRA. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, this 2`1 day of September 2014. IN, ATTEST: Stacy Unowsky Executive Director Eugene J. Maxwell, HRA Board Chair