My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 6594B
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
06500 - 06999 (2005-2007)
>
Resolution 6594B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2019 10:11:01 AM
Creation date
1/31/2007 10:17:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
Resolutions
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 6594B <br /> <br />The reasons and facts supporting the findings l'or the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) <br />tar Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section <br />469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: <br /> <br />I. Finding that the District is an economic developme1/t district as de.lined in AI.S, Section 469.174, Subd. 1]. <br /> <br />The District is a contiguous geographic area within the City's Mounds View Economic Development <br />Project, delineated in the TIF Plan, far the purpose of financing economic development in the City through <br />the use of tax increment. The District is in the public interest because it will facilitate developmcnt of an <br />approximate 820,000 sq. n. business campus l'or Medtronic which will discourage commerce, industry. or <br />manufacturing ti'om moving their operations to another state or municipality: it will increase employment <br />in the state, and preserve and enhance the tax base of the state. <br /> <br />.., <br /> <br />Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the 0(\' ('ouncil, lI'ould not rt!aso1/ahly be <br />e.\pected to occur sole~v through private investment lvithin the reasonah~v foreseeahle fitture and that the <br />increased market nllue qj" the site that could reasonah~1" be expected to occur without the ust! of tax <br />increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result jl-om the <br />proposed development ajier subtracting the present value of the projected tax incremellfs for the 1//(/ximum <br />duration qj"the District permitted by the TlF Plan. <br /> <br />The proposed development, in the opinion of the 0(1', would not reasonab~l' be expected to occur sole~v <br />through private investment ll'ithin the reasonab~v foreseeable fiJture. Several issues are impediments to <br />private development of the site including lack of access, existing wetlands and inadequate roadway and <br />infrastructure. The transportation improvements that have to be constructed alone l'or this development (or <br />any other type of development constructed here) total over $20 million. Because Medtronie is viewed as a <br />major asset to Minnesota's biotech initiatives and large employer within the State, the additional roadway <br />funding that was approved for this project would never have been available to this site, thus not making any <br />other type of development (housing or commercial) financially feasible. In addition, site constraints <br />require the developer to acquire adjacent land to preserve existing wetlands and green space which adds <br />additional costs. Based upon analysis of the developer's proforma the City has determined that a gap needs <br />to be filled through tax increment in order to make the proposed development financially feasible. The <br />City therefore does not believe the proposed corporate office facility is likely to occur without the <br />assistance described in this TIF Plan. (See Appendix F orTIF Plan.) <br /> <br />l1/e increased market value 0/ the site that could reasonably he expected to occur lvithout the use of tax <br />in cremeJlf .Iinancing would be less than the increase in market mlue estimated to result .Ii.om the proposed <br />development after suhtracting the present value (~( the projected tax increments for the maximum duration <br />0/ the District permitted by the TlF Plan: While the property could be sold to another developer for some <br />other use, these scenarios are not feasible in the market due to various constraints mentioned above along <br />with others. First, industrial uses could not meet the market valuation due to the fact that they arc single <br />story in nature (can't get to the same density as office), lack the amenities in design and construction and <br />are traditionally valued at \IS the market value of commercial and office uses. Second, cOlllmercial retail <br />uses have the same restraint in that the market does not allow for ve11ical commereiallrctail development. <br />Although retail can on occasion have a higher per sq/ft value, the lack of the ability to develop vertically <br />limits the overall value developed on the site. Third, the office market is still soft in the metropolitan area <br />and the ability to develop this entire site for ortice use is unlikely as it is unlikely that the oflice sites <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.