Laserfiche WebLink
_ • <br /> ts)--G---7------ <br /> III . <br /> TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL / <br /> FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR PAULE* -�, <br /> DATE: JANUARY 16, 1990 <br /> SUBJECT: MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK PHASE III TAX INCREMENT ASSISTANCE <br /> ( TIF) <br /> As you know, Everest Development has submitted plans for Phase III of <br /> Mounds View Business Park . They propose to develop the Underdahl and <br /> Program Land properties ( approx . 10 acres) on the southeast corner and <br /> the Waste property ( aaprox . 10 acres ) on the west side of the original <br /> project . As part of their development proposal , they have requested <br /> TIF . <br /> Before getting into the details of this proposal and the request, I <br /> :would like to review the status of our Tax Increment Districts. At the <br /> present time, we have 3 districts (Mij ler , Mounds View Business Park and <br /> County Road I triangle ) . Two of these districts (Miller and Mounds View <br /> •siness Park ) have had projects and received TIF. A summary of these <br /> as follows, <br /> DISTRICT PROJECTS TIF ISSUED PROJECT VALUE <br /> Mounds View Business Park Phase I $6 million $19, 500,067 <br /> Mounds View Business Park Phase II $2.42 million $7.4 million <br /> Miller Sysco $1 .76 million $5.9 million <br /> For taxes payable in 1988, the City' s Assessed Value before Fiscal <br /> Disparities adjustments was $61 , 405,899. Assum-ing no additions to our <br /> assessed value other than these three projects , it would now be <br /> $94 ,205, 966 with $32,800,067 or 357 of that being captured tax increment <br /> value mot for tax revenue purposes by any jurisdiction . Admitted `;i our <br /> investment of $10. 18 million into these projects has brought a <br /> significant return , 3221:, on property that was originally valued at $2 . 5 <br /> million , a 13 fold increase in value, but our taxpayers will not see a <br /> direct benefit for at least another 13 years assuming the bonds are not <br /> retired early . <br /> Everest will argue that their projects have brought other benefits to <br /> - - - m,:, " c=e' tenDT _ *'_ - 'u- _ <br /> new businesses which attract others not requiring or receiving IIF, <br /> ,os , public improvements to the City s infrastructure and parks and an <br /> proved image for the community . Unfortunately, the one benefit most <br /> desired by property taxpayers is a reduction in those taxes and we <br /> cannot say that that benefit has been provided in the short term. <br />