Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council t1i nutes <br />June 11. 1985 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Business. IRB Applications. continued <br /> <br />Schmidt asked what time period is available for our $9 Million <br />allocation; Winkels responded that on September 1st if we have <br />not allocated the monies. the City would have to pay one percent <br />(1%) to the State to retain the allocation and. further. if the <br />project does not move forward very shortly afterward (by October <br />or the first part of November) the City would lose the one per- <br />cent (1%) or $90.000. When we do allocate out the monies. the <br />bonds have to be closed before December 31. 1985. or we would <br />forfeit the one percent (1%), Winkels reminded council of the <br />time involved. noting that the developer would have more of a <br />time conflict than the City. <br /> <br />Blomquist asked what the chances would be of knowing by July 9th <br />what additional allocations may be available to the City; <br />Winkels responded that some cities have indicated they will know <br />by Ju.ly 1st and other cities will know by August 1st whether or <br />not they will sell their funds to other municipalities or turn <br />them back into the State pool; therefore. by July 9th New Brighton <br />will have a better understanding of what will happen with the pool <br />and will have more knowledge of each project. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Schmidt felt the question becomes. as we call the pUblic hearings. <br />that we have a process to be sure that those projects with the <br />greatest probability of going forward receive the allocations for <br />the Industrial Revenue Bonds. noting there are two hotel projects <br />that will be competing. We need to know what we have to do after <br />September 1. 1985. and before the end of the year, <br /> <br />Harcus feels if the City is going to hold $90.000 to hold the <br />allocation. he would want some security on that. <br /> <br />Winkels replied that last year the developers absorbed the <br />amounts. <br /> <br />Motion by Blomquist. seconded by Schmidt. to SET A PUBLIC HEARING <br />DATE FOR JULY 9. 1985. AT 7:35 P,M. TO CONSIDER APPLICATION OF <br />THE SKILLMAN CORPORATION FOR $5.6 MILLION IN INDUSTRIAL REVENUE <br />BOND FINANCING; SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR JULY 9. 1985. AT <br />7:40 P,M, TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION OF NEW BRIGHTON INNS. INC, <br />FOR $9 MILLION IN INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FINANCING; AND TO SET <br />A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR JULY 9. 1985. AT 7:45 P,M, TO CONSIDER <br />AN APPLICATION FOR HAL-FICS. INC, FOR $5 MILLION IN INDUSTRIAL <br />REVENUE BOND FINANCING. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />With regard to LeFevere1s firm representing those that have been <br />contaminated, Harcus feels that individuals who are water rate <br />payers in the City of New Brighton should have the benefit of <br />work already accomplished by LeFevere. Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien, <br />and Drawz at no cost; feels this should be a standing policy for <br />all those contaminated. <br /> <br />Page Five <br /> <br />Contamination <br />Representation <br />Report 85-168 <br />