Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />May 9, 1983 <br />Paga five <br /> <br />Wair said Arden Hills cannot sit back and expect that the current <br />type of development will continue; City is already axperiancing <br />ground water contamination; noted that not all businesses are lika <br />Land O'Lskes and MSI; feels it is inconsistent for City to sub- <br />sidize streats and utilities, and not also subsidize small busi- <br />nesses by granting them the benefit of Industrial Revenua llond <br />financing. <br /> <br />Another concern expressed was that the IRll systam circumvents tha <br />normal system of borrowing. Weir said IR bonds are intended to <br />serve small business;raason for the $10 million limitation. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Weir described the Arden Hills llusiness Center project to ~onsist <br />of 'three separate projects within the project, with three part- <br />nerships; therefore they are submitting three applications for <br />approval. <br /> <br />Mulcahy shared his experience relative to use of IRB; said the <br />2% interest makes the difference in the viability of the project; <br />his employer" used IRll in Golden Valley; would be in another city' <br />if he did not obtain IRlls. It was stated that the City's decision <br />should be based on whether or not it wants the proposed project; <br />rather than on one's attitude relative to the financing method; <br />should not oppose IRll per se. <br /> <br />How to rationalize granting this application when several others <br />have been turned down, was queried. It was suggested that when a <br />project is considered preferable over other projects, could grant <br />IRB on an inconsistent basis. A strong concern was expressed that <br />the law is being mis-used; feels aome cities are circumventing the <br />spirit of the law; noted that Arden Hills is not blighted and does <br />not experience chronic unemployment. <br /> <br />It was explained by Mr, Prince (Juran and Moody) that there .are seven <br />criteria for IR llonding; only one of which is UblightU; noted <br />that cities strike "blighted" from the language; suggested that if <br />the project is considered an asset to the community, a benefit to <br />the City, then it is a reason to vote for the project and the <br />application if it meets the other aspects of the law. <br /> <br />Another concern expressed was that Arden Hills could, in effect, <br />be taking jobs away from other areas; because other communitiea <br />grant IRll's is not a reason that Arden Uills should do it also. <br /> <br />Woodburn noted that the taxes that would accrue to Arden Hills <br />(according to the developers cover letter) are in error and would <br />be much less; also, the difference in bond repayment at 13% and <br />11%, as presented would apparently be 6-7,000 dollars per month a <br />and could not account for a 20% difference in rent. Ue felt that <br />revenue bonds have draWbacks: <br /> <br />I) Taxpayers subsidize a commercial enterprise, <br />since they pay the taxes that are avoided by the <br />landholde rs , <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2) The city would be giving an unfair competitive <br />advantage since other offices have been built without <br />City help, <br /> <br />3) Quasi public borrowing takes funds from private <br />borrowers. <br /> <br />4) They should be used for depressed areas, otherwise <br />they have no advantage. <br /> <br />Christiansen moved, seconded by Mulcahy that Council schedule a <br />public hearing on applications for Industrial Revenue llond Finan- <br />cing for Arden Hills llusiness Center on June 13, 1983. Motion <br />did not carry. (Christiansen, Mulcahy voting in favor of motion; <br />McAllister, Hicks, Woodburn voting in opposition). <br /> <br />-s- <br />