I have attended the most recent joint powers meeting with the Albertville and St. Michael city councils and STMA School Board, and to echo many of the public comments by those at the meeting, I am against the use of a tax abatement levy to fund the arena.
Per Minnesota Statue 469.1812-469.1815, the entity granting the abatement must make a finding that:
1. The abatement benefits to the political subdivision at least equal the costs of the proposed agreement, and
2. That the abatement is in the public interest for at least one of the following reasons: Increase or preserve a tax base; Provide employment opportunities; Provide or help acquire or construct public facilities; Redevelop or renew blighted areas; Provide access to services for residents; Provide public infrastructure; Phase in a property tax increase; Stabilize the tax base.
3. In any one year, the TOTAL amount a political subdivision may abate may not exceed the greater of 10% of the entity’s net tax capacity, or $200,000.
I’m assuming the three entities involved will somehow be “crafting” a finding that the benefits of the arena will outweigh the projected costs, and that the arena is “in the public interest”?
Both of those findings, however, are subjective, and given that the public sadly has no say (vote) one way or the other, there is unfortunately, and conveniently for the hockey program, no tool at the public’s disposal to stand in the way of forcing these additional taxes upon the public. I would argue that while the arena is obviously in the hockey program’s interest, it is no way in the public’s interest at large.
Given the anticipated and projected cost of $4,000,000 to $8,000,000, how does that fall on a percentage basis to each of the entity’s net tax capacity relating to item 3 above?
Given that the majority of the public and businesses in the communities will not benefit from the arena, but yet will be forced to pay for the arena, your duty and expectation going forward should be that of an advocate for these taxpayers to keep the total cost down to include only what is needed.
While the affected residents and taxpayers don’t seem to have any mechanism to prevent this from happening, I sincerely hope you listen not just to the vocal hockey minority as you have up to this point, but rather to the non-hockey majority that will bear the majority of the costs and none of the benefit going forward.
Mike Braegelman,
St. Michael