CC 11-28-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regula:r Council Meeting Monday, Novembe:r 28, 1983 Page Six Deans add the inveate:rs will be looking at this. Woodbu:rn noted that pa:rk dedicatio~ depending on the cos t of th41 ~and, can bea significant figure; asked ~f this shoUld be 1. th. Woodbridge p-rospect\.ls? , Weir said he is very 1l1uch 8wa:re of iI;, but has not spent any time on it to ~ate; is not prepared to rellPond to it tonight. McAllister said she feels it should be dete:rmined . now; does not want it to be a stumbling block after the project gets going. . Woodburn explained that the park dedication ia 10% of the value of the land; 1\0 te d that if land is $1 million, park dedication is $100,000. Wei:r said he is not prepa:rec;! tonight to respond; notec;! that A:rden Hilla is one of two cities in the Metro Area that . ha,s not amended its a ub di vision .ordinance to comply with the 1981 statuto ry ,change whi,cn saya pa:rk dedication fees must bear some reasonable proximity to the nature of the deve lopment and its impact on the park system. McAllister noted new joba will impact the park a,..tem. Woodburn said it's his understa,nding that there w~li be no pay~off on the bonds the first 10 years. Weir said that is correct. Woodburn asked if it isn't customary to $4111 an item like this in 7 to 10 years? Weir said it is not their objective to sell in 7 to 10 years, but some people dq. Mr. Weir re fe rre d Counci I to his Ie t te r relative to suggested alternative to Administrative fee (11-17-83) . In discussion, it was explained that the resolution establishing application req ui remen ts for consideriing innustrial revenue bonds financing for this project states the administrative fee to be 1% of the amoun t finsnced, subject to arbitrage re'gulations. Administrative fee is in addi tion to the $10,000 cash deposit which is for out of pocket cos ts of the City and re fun dab Ie. Mr. Deans said he reviewed'the book provided by'Mr. Prince containing guidelines of 73 cities; referred Council to a fee chart he prepared indicating fee req ui remen ts of several cities in the Metro Area. Weir said the nature of the Administrive Fee at the 1% leve I , is for a bond . Paul Port Authority, which agen cy, s\.lch as th 41 St. provides credit to the recipient of the bond proceeds, which is not the case here; suggested that Mr. Deans explain the services the City will have to provide in conjunction with this is sue. We feel that the City does not want to charge us any more than a reasonab 141 fee for the services the City's providing in connection with this. Woodburn asked Mr. Prince to explain the fee struct\.lre. Prince pointed out that Minneapolis and St. Paul each charge a rather substantial administrative fee; the reason for this is that they . p rovi de an on-going benefit to the borrower; in both cases they p rovi de a con tinuin g bond rating; they initially help the bonds ge t sold and it keeps the ratings up on those bonds; explained that they administer the loans by keeping track of how the ldanis progressing etc. and keep a relatively large staff. Administrative fee is charged to borrowers who utilize their program. Prince . exp lained that other cities don't have this elaborate system, but have economic development commissions, which are generally un- paid but help the cities in reviewing IRE applications; noted that these cities char ge some administrative fee to off-set the administrative cos t of the people on the payroll, other than the, volunteer, committee people. Prince noted that there are only 6 other cities on the list that cha rgeany administrative fee and all of these are ~ or less than that which has been proposed for the City of Arden Hills, with the exception of Roseville and Vadnais Heights, both of which have the same type of fee as Arden Hills. Prince said, if the City were providing a rating and some on- going benefit to the developer to help see that the bonds are sold, the re might be some justification for an ~dministration fee. :' ,