My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000 EDC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Commission (Disbanded)
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
2000 EDC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 8:19:08 AM
Creation date
1/6/2015 3:23:27 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
City of Mounds View Staff Report <br /> June 14, 2000 <br /> Page 2 <br /> • <br /> (6)finance or provide public infrastructure" (Minnesota Statutes §469.1813). <br /> The public purposes highlighted above are primarily oriented toward economic development objectives <br /> such redeveloping blighted areas, preserving the tax base, and providing employment opportunities. <br /> However, abatement can also be used for public infrastructure and facilities. Therefore, abatement <br /> may be one of the finance options for the anticipated improvements to Highway 10, or other public <br /> infrastructure projects. <br /> While the term of the TIF assistance varies with the type of district, abatements have a duration limit of <br /> 10 years if combined with another taxing jurisdiction, or 15 years if just one jurisdiction is involved " <br /> (Minnesota Statutes §469.1813 subd. 6). Finally, "In any year, the total amount of property taxes <br /> abated by a political subdivision under this section may not exceed (1) five percent of the current levy, <br /> or (2) $100,000, whichever is greater" " (Minnesota Statutes §469.1813 subd. 9) <br /> Tax Abatement and Tax Increment Finance:A Comparison <br /> There are both and advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of tax abatement and tax <br /> increment finance. There are several reasons a development authority would consider granting a tax <br /> abatement as opposed to TIF assistance. First, granting an abatement is less time and resource <br /> intensive. Second, there are less restrictions on how and when a development authority can use <br /> abatement proceeds. Third, there are no specific reporting requirements associated with abatement. <br /> Conversely, a considerable amount of time is spent responding to information requests from the Office <br /> of the State Auditor and completing "TIF Authority" and "TIF Municipality" reports for each TIF district. • <br /> Fourth, abatements are less costly to establish compared to tax increment (Bubul et al 13). <br /> Finally, tax abatements are not geographically restricted to districts like its TIF counterpart. In most <br /> instances, an abatement can be granted anywhere within the political subdivision's jurisdiction. In <br /> sum, abatement's flexibility allows taxing jurisdictions to better address smaller development and <br /> particularly redevelopment concerns that TIF may not be considered for. <br /> When contrasted with abatement, there are also some obvious advantages to the use of tax increment <br /> finance. While abatement is left to the respective taxing jurisdictions, TIF allows a development <br /> authority to capture the tax base of each political subdivision. As a result, in most instances TIF will <br /> result in greater funding potential than abatement. However, it is possible to obtain greater funding <br /> with abatement if all taxing jurisdictions participate. Unfortunately, there are some structural <br /> disincentives for a school district to not grant tax abatements. <br /> Financial Considerations <br /> There are several financial issues that must be considered when using tax abatement. Like TIF, <br /> abatement revenue can be paid to a developer or business owner in either a pay-as-you-go <br /> arrangement or with up-front financing. Pay-as-you-go financing is paid to the recipient on a semi- <br /> annual basis usually three months after taxes have been collected. In most arrangements, the political <br /> subdivision will pay the recipient a percentage of the captured abatement minus an agreed upon <br /> percentage for administration. For example, a typical agreement would be structured in the following <br /> manner: 95% of property taxes paid would be disbursed to the recipient while 5% would be retained by <br /> the taxing jurisdiction for administrative purposes. The above represents the maximum abatement <br /> that a developer/business might hope to receive. In reality, the development authority or other taxing • <br /> N:\DATA\GROUPS\ECONDEV\EDC\Staff Reports\Staff00\06-6A.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.