Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . . <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />Monday, December 17, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. <br />Page Two <br />Hicks asked Routhe if his projected budgets are still the same as presented <br />previously - <br /> Answer: Yes <br />Hicks asked Routhe if a 1st year $162,000 gross, and a net income of $50,000 <br />is realistic; noted that some veterinarians say these estimates are "out of <br />line". Hicks also noted that, in the November 1984 Vet Economics Magazine, <br />$101,000, with a $42,000 net income is projected as average. Hicks asked <br />again if Routhe's projections are realistic. . <br /> Answer: Yes, feels they are definitely not out of line, has an <br /> established clientele, not "starting from scratch". <br />Hicks noted that based on letters received, residents apparently do not under- <br />stand revenue bonds; asked Deans for verification of the following: <br /> 1. No money will be used from the Arden Hills Treasury. Deans <br /> confirmed that no money from Arden Hills, or from any State or <br /> Federal Treasury will be used. <br /> 2. Do revenue bonds generate income to State and Federal. Deans <br /> answered only from new jobs, income tax and building property tax <br /> increases by having the facility on this property; do not generate <br /> interest income to State and Federal since bond interest is tax <br /> exempt. <br /> 3. If the project fails, who pays the unpaid balance? Deans said <br /> the lender could operate the facility, lease or sell the pro- <br /> perty, and apply the proceeds to pay any balance owed; no City <br /> liability; doesn't cost taxpayers. <br />Routhe confirmed that the building will be built as previously approved by <br />the Council. <br />Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council adopt Final Bond Resolution <br />No. 84-50, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR VETERINARY CARE FACILITY <br />-ROUTHE. <br />Woodburn said taxpayers do pay in the end because of the tax exempt status <br />of the interest on bonds; because Council has approved the first resolution, <br />he will support the motion. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br />A roval of Winter Pro ram leaders and <br />Council was referred to Buckley's memo the hiring of <br />1984-85 Winter Program Personnel. <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council approve the 1984-85 Winter <br />Program Personnel as outlined in Buckley's memo. Motion carried unanimously. <br />(5-0) <br />Parks and Recreation Committee Recommendation - Tax Forfeited Land, Lot 7, . <br />Block 1 and Lot 6, Block 2, Janet Estates <br />Council was referred to Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting <br />of 12/11/84, recommending that Council accept Parks Director Buckley's <br />recommendation that the Village not use the lots for park purposes. <br />Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council concur with the Parks and <br />Recreation Committee's recommendation, and adopt Resolution No. 84-49, <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARCELS OF FORFEITED LAND AS <br />NON-CONSERVATION lANDS AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE THEREOF. Motion carried <br />unanimously. (5-0) <br />Human Rights Commission Recommendation - 1985 Pacer Program Expenditure <br />Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council approve the $100.00 1985 <br />Pacer Program Expenditure recommended by the Human Rights Commission. Motion <br />carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> -. <br />