CC 11-28-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Monday, November 28, 1983 Page Seven . Hicks asked if the cities listed "non .pacified" on the chal't, 1..n fact, do not have an Administl'ative Fee, or did they just not specify what it is? Prince said the' infol'mation was supplied' by each of the cities' guidelines; if not specified, they do not charge the fee. Deans said his analysis did not go beyond the guidelines; did not call the val'ious cities. . Mulcahy asked if the relatively high Roseville and Vadnais ,Height. administrative fees have ever been imposed. Deans replied that Roseville has clos,ed on one issue; was not able to get the full . amount. Vadnais Heights has received the fee, or a portion of the fee, on approximately 8 issues ; a number of those issues wel'e undel' a million dollars. Mulcahy said he wonders if the 1% fee in Roseville and Vadnais Hei,ghts may be a little "show", and isn' t really the way the world operates. when you have a development that you really want. Mulcahy says he feels it is exhorbitant and improper; feels the fee should relate to actual expenses; does not feel Arden Hills should impose a fee which has to be compromised later. It was explained by Deans that Woodbridge will be obligated to pay the City's expenses up through the date of issue (City's bond counsel, Briggs and Morgan, all publications etc.); these costs will be paid in any case; the 1% administrative fee does not go for these expenses. Weir suggested that a fee based on the percentage of the bonds seems preposterous; in many cases, the size of the issue has little to do with the complexity of the administration; said thst in many cases it is easier to handle a 5-10 million dollar credit-enhanced package than a 1 million dollar privately placed mortgage. In answer to why Roseville and Vadnais Heights did not get their 1% Administrative Fee, Deans explsined that there are arbitrage limitations, which will be determined by Briggs 'and Morgan. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m. In Council discussion, McAllister referred to a newspaper editorial which she read, in part, relative to restrictions on IRBs; expressed her concern about abuse of these bonds; stated that the Woodbridge project is nice, but feels it is not necessary to Arden Hills; noted that the applicant is already obje~ting to the park dedication requirement and the administrative fee. McAllister said she feels these two fees should be settled before approval of the Preliminary Application. Deans explained that approval of the Preliminary Application authorizes the applicant's completion of the application form for review by the Department of Energy Planning and Development; gives the City's blessing of the project; explained that final appl'oval by the City will be requested at a later date; feels some deter- . mination should be made re the administrative fee and park dedication before final approval; noted that it would be preferable if these can be settled tonight, if possible, because a business judgement must be made by the developer. Weir said he would like the administrative fee determined tonight. '. . Mulcahy moved, seconded by Hicks that Council adopt Resolution No. 83-65, RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR AtOMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AUTHORIZING THE SUIlMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SAID PROJECT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID PROJECT. (Phase I)