Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 2 <br />Ms. Barsness replied that the differences between the two would make them incompatible <br />within a single development. Abatement has more involved with other authorities and <br />requires additional approval. <br />Mr. Grochala stated that these would not be used on the same project and that abatement <br />is more permissive. He continued that both have different revenue and support <br />mechanisms. These tools would be used on a by project basis. <br />The committee asked about if residential projects and if TIF would be a good use. <br />Mr. Grochala stated that residential is different than commercial or industrial projects. He <br />stated that increment financing would not work well for them and that abatement would <br />be a more appropriate tool. TIF needs to be used on a single parcel or project that the tool <br />is being used whereas abatement can be used on separate disparate properties within a <br />jurisdiction. <br />Ms. Barsness stated that TIF has limitations on what the money can be used on, but <br />abatement is wider in scope for what the funds can be used for, but generally would have <br />less money available for the project and require additional approvals. <br />The committee asked if abatement is using a certain dollar amount on what the project is <br />valued today and how long abatements typically take to be approved. <br />Mr. Grochala answered that the abatement could be on the future value of the land like <br />TIF. He also stated that the city still has both tax increment districts and abatement <br />districts, Woods Edge and the Marshan Industrial Park are both in TIF districts. While the <br />YMCA and the Lino Lakes fire hall are both abatement projects. <br />Ms. Barsness added that abatement approval can vary, but can typically take 2 to 3 <br />months from initial application to approval. <br /> <br />Ms. Barsness began a discussion on what City objectives should be for TIF and <br />abatement policies. Her first question was if City policies should still be specific to the <br />town center area or to expand it to city wide. The Committee agreed that it should be <br />expanded to include the entire city. <br />Ms. Barsness asked next if the city should keep language about creating options for <br />affordable housing or to include life cycle housing instead as it includes more options and <br />affords the city more flexibility towards what kind of development can receive benefits. <br />The Committee agreed that the language should provide more flexibility and questioned <br />if the city wanted to be more open to retirement communities and housing for older <br />people. Mr. Grochala stated that it was a question that is going to be looked at for the <br />upcoming comprehensive plan. <br />Mr. Grochala stated that abatement could be used to increase design standards for <br />specific developments. <br />Ms. Barsness asked if upfront payment should be included in the language or if its normal <br />practice. Mr. Grochala answered that it is usually pay as you go, but that the language <br />should stay to allow the City to bond for projects upfront.