My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2016/02/08
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
Agenda Packets - 2016/02/08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:21 PM
Creation date
6/13/2018 4:03:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/8/2016
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/8/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
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 />Public Financing Policy Report <br />February 8, 2016 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br /> Any reference to Tax “Rebate” Financing was replaced by the statutory language of <br />Tax Abatement. <br /> <br /> We removed the section about administration of TIF, as many of the concepts <br />discussed in that section are handled elsewhere in the policy. The remaining TIF <br />administration items are very detailed to include in a policy. Instead, we included in <br />the Public Financing Principles section this language: “Tax Increment Finance <br />districts will be administered in accordance with applicable Minnesota State <br />Statutes, the Tax Increment Finance Plan, and the Development District Plan.” <br /> <br /> In the Business Subsidy section, we simplified the language to harmonize with the <br />Business Subsidy Policy and avoid being redundant. <br /> <br /> The application process and fees match the Business Subsidy Policy (i.e., $3,000 <br />non-refundable application fee and a $10,000 deposit once the assistance has <br />been approved to move forward, to be prorated and returned to the applicant for <br />any unused portion at the City’s discretion.) <br /> <br /> The TIF and Abatement policies differed in their approach to having the applicant <br />agree to the fee. The Abatement policy had a stand-alone agreement to be <br />executed, whereas the TIF application requires a signature acknowledging the fee <br />(and requires it to be remitted with the application). The latter approach is cleaner <br />so that is how the policy is written. There would be a term sheet, preliminary <br />development agreement, or some other type of agreement if the applicant gets to <br />that point that will contractually obligate payment of the fees. <br /> <br /> At the advice of Ehler’s, we modified the sample but-for analysis to reflect current <br />financing rates and to show a return with assistance that is just under 8%, rather <br />than the 12% listed in the previous policy. Since Ehler’s typically advises returns <br />limited below 12%, we thought this made sense, so as not to give the wrong <br />impression. <br /> <br /> There is now one application document that combines the two previous to preserve <br />all previous elements of both. <br /> <br /> There is one Commercial Industrial review worksheet and one Housing worksheet. <br />We tried to leave this exactly the same as before, however there are minor <br />changes for consistency with the policy revisions. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.