Chamber email regarding ordinance 60.

Thanks to Connect Duluth, Duluth Politics retained a copy of the Chambers email.

Connect Duluth can be found on the web here, http://connectdultuh.com


Here is the email from the Chamber to the Mayor and City Council regarding ordincance 60. We will have commantary on this email either later tonight or tomorrow.

Look the Chamber does not even know it is an ordinance they say resolution instead. They could at least get ordinance right.


City Councilors and Mayor Bergson:


The Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce often encourages the city council to>
be fiscally conservative regarding the stewardship of city resources.> We are convinced the council desires to restrain spending when the city> enters into any kind of development agreement. The Chamber also> understands the council has at times been strongly encouraged to vote on> development agreements without adequate time to consider all the> specifics and ramifications of particular agreements. We understand the frustration this kind of pressure creates. As such, we congratulate you for your motivation in proposing and considering Resolution 05-060-0. Thank you for bringing these issues to light.


Yet, we are concerned with the unintended consequences passing Resolution 05-060-0 may create. We do not believe it is prudent to> pre-determine how and when the city should commit to participate in a> development. As elected representatives, it is your duty, on a case by case basis, to refuse to approve development agreements when not given> adequate time or information. We also expect you to eliminate those> agreements that are too risky. In doing so, you properly protect the citizen taxpayer. Resolution 05-060-0 may also hamper the city's ability to acquire> property at the lowest possible price. Given the dynamic nature of business negotiations, gaining public approval to spend the highest> amount possible before making an offer will only help the party from> which the property is being purchased. Simply stated: property owners> would be motivated to refrain from selling until the city offers the maximum pre-approved amount for the sale.

We also believe Resolution 05-060-0 may increase development agreement costs given the re-opener clause. In this case, the city would be> protected from unforeseen consequences. Unfortunately, in reality, it will pay those costs upfront. A private party will simply enter an> additional cost into the agreement, building in a cushion to cover these> unforeseen costs rather than risk re-opening a potentially political> contract. Alternatively, the clause may dissuade developers from> participating in projects that may be to the city's economic advantage. The Chamber commends your willingness to address the problems associated> with development agreements. We believe that you - and future councils> - should view every development proposal with the intent reflected in Resolution 05-060-0 firmly in mind.

Nonetheless, we believe that> passing Resolution 05-060-0 will ultimately cause increased costs and> create more problems than it addresses. For these reasons, we oppose> the ordinance and we encourage you to do the same.

Thank you for considering our appeal.

Respectfully submitted,David Ross