Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> .Ji;I..-.:."'.' W -~ ~~ <br /> !:~,,{.;.;iII'-. i ' ,"'''.d\~ <br /> 1*"" l' <br /> , ,",_.._- <br /> CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ~ &.. t\-....-D-e..& <br />. MEMORANDUM lojl'-j[47 <br /> DATE: October 15, 1997 <br /> TO: Economic Development Authority (EDA) <br /> FROM: Brian Fritsinger, City Administrator ~ <br /> SUBJECT: Tax Increment Financing Request Update - Welsh <br /> Update <br /> Staff has held additional conversations with Welsh Company on the request for additional tax <br /> increment financing (TIF) assistance. As the EDA is awarc, the devcloper had initially requested <br /> an additional $250,000 in assistance for its project within the Gateway Business District (GBD). <br /> The developer has since revised this request which is detailed in Mr. Zchring's October 14,1997 <br /> memorandum. Wclsh is sceking an additional $250,000, or a total of$500,000. <br /> What Would the Funds be Used For? <br /> The developer is proposing to use these funds to offsct thc cxtraordinary soils corrcction costs <br />. and for exterior upgradcs to the buildings. The Council reccived a memorandum dated October <br /> 7,1997, which highlights the rationale behind the request for soil correction assistancc. <br /> How do These Additional Costs Affect the Developer's Rate of Return? <br /> Thc dcveloper has providcd thc City and it's financial advisor, Ehlers & Associates, with copies <br /> of its Sources and Uscs of Funds/Proforma Budgets. In revicwing these documents, thc <br /> additional funds do not appear to be related to significantly increasing the dcveloper's rate of <br /> rcturn. The financials and othcr documcnts revicwcd by the City's attorneys appear to be <br /> consistent with the dcveloper's rcpresentations. <br /> What other Related Options have been Addressed by the Developer? <br /> As Mr. Ringwald indicated in his October 14, ] 997 mcmorandum, staff has been guidcd by two <br /> gcneral principals in the use ofTTF for the development of the GBD. The first is the use ofTIF <br /> exclusively for infrastructure and somc propcrty acquisition. The second is thc use of brick, <br /> stone or glass on buildings. <br /> The revised requcst for funding is based upon the concept that if the City were to provide <br /> additional funding, what would it want to receivc in rcturn. In this case, the elevations have bcen <br /> amended to includc additional brick on all thrce buildings. <br /> How Can the City Financially Provide the Additional TIF Request? <br /> Mr. Ringwald previously outlined the problem related to thc use of bond proceeds for private <br /> development, and the impact ofspcnding morc than ten pcrccnt (10%) of the proceeds on thc tax <br /> exempt status of the bond. Bond Counsel has providcd additional clarification on this topic. <br />