Loading...
HRA Agenda Pkt 11-1-16 HOPKINS HRA REGULAR MEETING November 1, 2016 7 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve minutes of the October 4, 2016, regular meeting 2. Approve disbursements through October 31, 2016 3. ITEM 2016-10 Authorize renewal of general liability and property insurance and grant authorization to not waive the statutory tort liability on the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Policy 4. ITEM 2016-12 MHFA funding for plumbing project, adopt Resolution 516 5. Schedule a special HRA meeting for Monday, November 14, 2016, 7 p.m. Recommendation: approve consent agenda Board Action: ___________________________________________ III. NEW BUSINESS 1. ITEM 2016-11 Authorize decertification of Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 of the City of Hopkins Recommendation: adopt HRA Resolution 515 Board Action: ___________________________________________ IV. ADJOURNMENT Board Action: ____________________________________________ CUMMINGS CAMPBELL GADD HALVERSON KUZNIA MORNSON ELVERUM November 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 December 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 31 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF HOPKINS HRA REGULAR MEETING October 4, 2016 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority was held October 4, 2016, at Hopkins City Hall. Present were Chair Molly Cummings, Commissioners Katy Campbell, Jason Gadd, Kristi Halverson and Aaron Kuznia. Also present were Executive Director Mike Mornson, Assistant Executive Director Kersten Elverum, and Finance Director Christine Harkess. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. II. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve minutes of the September 6, 2016, regular meeting 2. Approve disbursements through September 30, 2016 Commissioner Gadd moved, Commissioner Kuznia seconded, to approve the consent agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. III. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 2016-09 Authorize execution of Pledge Agreement with the City of Hopkins relating to the 2016D GO TIF Refunding Bonds and providing for the redemption of bonds refunded. Ms. Harkess stated that staff is requesting authorization to execute a tax increment pledge agreement with the City of Hopkins to call the HRA Tax Increment Revenue Bonds (Excelsior Crossings Project), Series 2009, for redemption and refund with the 2016D Tax Increment Refunding Bonds. This will realize an estimated present value savings of $1,144,000. The savings from refunding the 2009 HRA bonds will reduce total debt service by an estimated $1,318 million over the next 12 years, and as a result, additional funds will be available to the City for development. Debt service will be paid from tax increment revenues generated from TIF 2-11. UNOFFICIAL HRA Minutes, 10/4/16 – Page 2 Commissioner Gadd moved, Commissioner Kuznia seconded, to adopt Resolution 514, authorizing execution of a tax increment pledge agreement with the City of Hopkins relating to the City’s general obligation tax increment revenue refunding bonds, Series 20216D, and providing for the redemption of bonds refunded thereby. The motion was approved unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gadd moved, Commissioner Kuznia seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ____________________________________ Molly Cummings, Chair ____________________________________ Michael J. Mornson, Executive Director November 1, 2016 HRA Report 2016-10 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 11/1/16 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 2015-2016 insurance year was $16,950, which was a decrease of $1,059 or 5.9% over the previous year. This is the third premium decrease in a row. 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 LMCIT Waiver Form LMCIT Memo – LMCIT Liability Coverage Options ____________________________ Christine Harkess, CPA, CGFM Finance Director LIABILITY COVERAGE – WAIVER FORM LMCIT members purchasing coverage must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. Please return the completed form to your underwriter or email to pstech@lmc.org This decision must be made by the member’s governing body every year. You may also wish to discuss these issues with your attorney. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) members that obtain liability coverage from LMCIT must decide whether to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision has the following effects: If the member 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 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 apply regardless of whether the city purchases the optional excess liability coverage. If the member waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover up to $2,000,000 for a single occurrence. (Under this option, the tort cap liability limits are waived to the extent of the member’s liability coverage limits, and the LMCIT per occurrence limit is $2 million.) The total all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $2,000,000, regardless of the number of claimants. If the member 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 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. LMCIT Member Name Check one: The member DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04. The member WAIVES the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04 to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of city council/governing body meeting Signature Position X 11-1-2016 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE HOPKINS HRA 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: 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. 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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 injured 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 Highlight The waiver option coverage does not give the city better protection. The benefit is to the injured party. 5 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 Your League Resource Feel free to call the Underwriting Department at 651-281-1200 or 800- 925-1122 with any questions. LMCIT Liability Coverage Options Coverage structure If the city: On a liability claim to which the statutory limits apply On a liability claim to which the statutory limits do not apply This is the maximum amount a single claimant could recover on an occurrence. This is the maximum total amount that all claimants could recover on a single occurrence. This is the maximum amount of damages which LMCIT would pay on the city’s behalf for a single occurrence, regardless of the number of claimants. 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 October 26, 2016 HRA Report 2016-12 MHFA FUNDING FOR PLUMBING PROJECT Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Adopt Resolution 516, approving the MHFA Loan in an amount not to exceed $535,327 for the Plumbing, Handicapped Accessible and Bathroom Improvement Project work at Dow Towers. With approval of this motion, staff will move forward with the final steps in the End-Loan closing for the work at Dow Towers substantially funded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and their Publicly Owned Housing Program. Overview In 2014, the HRA applied for special funding made available by the State Legislature through the MHFA for public housing capital projects. In 2015, we received confirmation that they would assist us in the modernization of 72 bathrooms and one handicapped accessible unit at Dow Towers. We opted to pursue the End-Loan funding for this project. Over the past months we have been working to complete the numerous requirements prior to the loan closing. The loan is a twenty year, forgivable loan. Several Minnesota HRAs have already completed this process, and the documents have been reviewed and approved by both the local and Washington, D.C., HUD offices. We are required to pass a resolution within 90 days of the loan closing for this project. Supporting Information • HRA Resolution 516 Alternatives The HRA has the following alternatives regarding this issue: 1. Approve the action as recommended by staff. 2. Continue for further information. ________________________________________ Stacy Unowsky, Executive Director 1 Borrowing Resolution (Revised Sept. 2016) CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF HOPKINS HRA RESOLUTION 516 I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the duly appointed Executive Director and keeper of the records of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Hopkins, a public body corporate and politic of the City of Hopkins, which is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the “HRA”), that the following is a true and correct copy of the Resolutions duly and unanimously adopted by all of the members of the HRA on November 1, 2016, all of the members of the HRA being present and constituting a quorum for the transaction of business; further, that such meeting was called in compliance with all applicable laws of the HRA; that such Resolutions do not conflict with any laws of the HRA nor have such Resolutions been in any way altered, amended or repealed and are in full force and effect, unrevoked and unrescinded as of this day, and have been entered upon the regular Minute Book of the HRA, as of the aforementioned date, and that all of the members of the HRA have and at the time of adoption of such Resolution, had full power and lawful authority to adopt such Resolutions and to confer the powers thereby granted to the officer therein named who has full power and lawful authority to exercise the same. WHEREAS, on this 1st day of November 2016, there has been presented to the meeting of the HRA a proposal for the HRA to borrow a zero-interest forgivable loan from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, a public body corporate and politic of the State of Minnesota, 400 Sibley Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, (the “Agency”) in an amount not to exceed $ 535,327 (the “Loan”) that will be forgiven in twenty (20) years, which Loan will be evidenced by a Deferred Loan Repayment Agreement. Further, a General Obligations Bonds Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the “G.O. Declaration”) and a Publicly Owned Housing Program Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the “POHP Declaration”) shall be executed in connection with the Loan, the terms of which require that (i) the HRA retain ownership of the Development located in the 2 Borrowing Resolution (Revised Sept. 2016) County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, and (ii) provides public housing for a term of thirty-five (35) years. The Deferred Loan Repayment Agreement, the G.O. Declaration and the POHP Declaration are referred to collectively as the “Loan Documents.” NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by all members of the HRA that Stacy Unowsky, the Executive Director of the HRA, be, and hereby is, authorized on behalf of the HRA, at any time hereafter and without further action by or authority or direction from the HRA, to execute and deliver to the Agency in such form as may be required by the Agency, the Loan Documents evidencing the indebtedness. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of the HRA be, and hereby is, authorized and directed on behalf of the HRA, at any time and from time to time hereafter and without further action by or authority or direction from the HRA, to execute and deliver or cause to be executed and delivered, all such other further agreements, assignments, statements, instruments, certificates and documents and to do or cause to be done all such other and further acts and things as they may determine to be necessary or advisable under or in connection with such borrowing, and that their execution of any such agreement, assignment, statement, instrument, certificate or document, or the doing of any such act or thing, shall be conclusive evidence or their determination in that respect; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Agency be and it hereby is authorized to rely on the continuing force and effect of these Resolutions, until receipt by the Commissioner of the Agency at its principal office of notice in writing from the HRA of any amendments or alterations thereof. ATTEST: ____________________________ Executive Director Dated: November 1, 2016 (SEAL, if applicable) MEMORANDUM TO: HRA Board FROM: Kersten Elverum, Planning & Economic Development Director DATE: October 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Special HRA Meeting Staff is requesting that the HRA board schedule a special HRA meeting to approve amendments to the parking lot improvement agreement among the City, the HRA and the VFW and the Purchase and Development Agreement between the HRA and Mokabaka LLC. The meeting should be scheduled for Monday, November 14, 2016, at 7 p.m. Economic Development November 1, 2016 HRA 2016-11 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF HOPKINS APPROVE DECERTIFICATION OF TIF DISTRICT 2-9 Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 515 approving decertification of TIF District 2-9. Overview TIF District 2-9 was created on August 20, 1996, and is commonly known as the Pines - Oaks of Main. The development consists of a townhouse development on Mainstreet. The duration of TIF District 2-9 is 25 years from the receipt of the first increment, which was in 1997, thus making December 31, 2023, the mandatory decertification date; however, all obligations of the district have been met with the last bond payment being made February 1, 2016. There are no outstanding obligations of this TIF District. For taxes payable in 2017 this decertified TIF district's tax base will be added to the City, thereby adding to the City’s taxable market value. Primary Issues to Consider All required TIF expenses have been met Decertifying this district adds value to the tax base Supporting Information Resolution 515 ______________________________________ Christine M. Harkess, CPA, CGFM Finance Director Financial Impact: $ increased tax capacity Budgeted: Y/N X N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): __ _________ Notes: ____________________ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF HOPKINS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 515 BEING A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DECERTIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-9 OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS. WHEREAS, on August 20, 1996, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Hopkins, (the “HRA”) established its Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-9 (the "District") within its Redevelopment Project No 1 (the "Project Area"); and WHEREAS, on September 3, 1996, the City Council of the City of Hopkins approved the creation of the District within its Project Area; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2016, the tax increment bonds to which tax increment from the District have been pledged was paid; and WHEREAS, all other costs of the Project have been paid; and WHEREAS, there are no parcels located in the District which have delinquent taxes; and WHEREAS, the HRA desires by this resolution to cause the decertification of the District after which all property taxes generated by property within the District will be distributed in the same manner as all other property taxes beginning in 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the HRA that: 1.The Executive Director of the HRA shall return all tax increment when received in 2016 to the County for redistribution. 2.The Executive Director is further directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County together with a request to decertify the District effective for taxes payable in 2017. DATED: November 1, 2016 __________________________________ M o l l y C u m m i n g s , C h a i r ATTEST: ________________________________ Michael J. Mornson, Executive Director (Seal)