Laserfiche WebLink
`r <br />� ,� � �►f <L '� .i.�L <br />.� �. `�i � '�.v .� �:1 <br />Bo�rd o$ <br />..J�d�2 s e r Co �� ��on2r�21ss,ior� e�.� <br />, � � I <br />Presented By Coaunissioner Schaber Oat� Sept�mber 13, 1982 � N0. 82-734 <br />Attention: <br />Page Two - con�inued <br />making negotiated recoupment either a total or partial <br />requirement for every tax incremen� project, Starting with <br />the premise that the municipality shouTd eventually reeoup <br />all ar part of its subsidy, with tne timing and amount of <br />recoupment determined by a project's profitability, a more <br />selective use of tax incremen� financing would accur. The <br />recoupment plan coulG include alternatives such as repayment <br />to �he city very quickly or only when ar+d if the project is, <br />sold; muni�ipally retained ownership of the land and recoupjng <br />expenses through iease arrangements; or the developer al7owing <br />the municipali�y �o be partial owners of the de�elapment. <br />Municipalities are encouraged to de�elop tax increment plans <br />as part of �heir capital improvement planning and budgeting <br />processes to ins�re tnat �heir goals are aceomplished in a <br />systematic way_ Since a municipality's capacity �o earry <br />bonded debt is limited, so is its ability to use tax increment <br />finan�ing. As part of its debt management protess, the muniCi- <br />pality should decide what portion of jts bonded deht it wishes <br />io allocate to tax increment bonds. That poriion should then <br />be tentatively alTocated to various ac�ivities deemed appropriate <br />recipients of tax incremen� resources. Resulting development <br />projec-�s could then be considered on how they re]ate to the <br />previously identjfied needs of the munic�pality. <br />R08+EKi J. ORTN, Clza,i�n�an 8y —��G�= __ ���'i•/� <br />. r ,.� _ r�,��N�,i Rn�r � <br />. �1 9�4u�8U��'�r 'Oi�I%�i;�l '�,�%�!'�; ;b,_�� ��UIPH,�! cvg,�-���-�l9 'Ii1yd'I.� 1vtJ�0� � S��I'd� ;�i0�� <br />