Laserfiche WebLink
210 <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION <br />FROM: INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND COMMITTEE <br />DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1984 <br />SUBJECT: POSITION ON INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS <br />This past week, Barry Evans, Tom Hedges, and Jim Miller <br />discussed on several occasions the position the Municipal <br />Legislative Commission should adopt with respect to possible <br />changes in the Industrial Revenue Bond financing laws. <br />The Committee has learned that the Minnesota NAHRO (National <br />Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials) has <br />been meeting regularly over the last several months in an <br />attempt to adopt a position. Peggy Flicker from the League <br />of Minnesota Cities staff has been meeting with that Committee, <br />and it appears that NAHRO will be drafting a bill for intro- <br />duction into the 1984 session of the Legislature. Also, it <br />was learned that the NAHRO position will be reviewed by the <br />League of Minnesota Cities Board at its meeting next Wednesday. <br />NAHRO obtained data on Industrial Revenue Bond usage, and <br />concluded that a distribution of 85 percent on the $150 <br />per capita allocation should go to localities, with the <br />remaining 15 percent controlled by the State. It is under- <br />stood that this is based on an approximate historical <br />distribution of Industrial Revenue Bond issues between the <br />State and localities in Minnesota. <br />With respect to how local governments would be affected, <br />NAHRO is contemplating dividing cities into one of two cate- <br />gories. The first would be identified as historical users, <br />and the latter would be eligible to participate in a pool. <br />They have tentatively indicated that approximately 80 percent <br />of the allocation to cities (85 percent of the total alloca- <br />tion for the State of Minnesota) should be allocated for <br />historical users, while the remaining 20 percent would go <br />into the pool. <br />Historical users would be defined as those cities which, <br />over the three highest of the last four consecutive years, <br />have issued an average $1 million or more. These communi- <br />ties would be entitled to receive a proportionate share <br />of the money allocated for historical users, based on their <br />