05-03-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 _______________________________________________________________________ Stevenson thought it would be an encroachment to a house and would not be connected to a retaining wall definition. This would be similar to a patio or deck. Commissioner Hegland thought they were getting into an area that will be hard to differentiate between a terrace and landscaping. He suggested they do not define a terrace because it will make everything more difficult. Chair Stevenson did not think they could address the surface issue of a terrace. Commissioner Hegland wondered what the difference would be between a patio and terrace. Chair Stevenson stated he was not opposed to leaving the code the way it is for terraces. Chair Stevenson stated if they are going to define a terrace they needed to equate it to a use such as a seating area. He thought this may be what is needed. Director Ericson questioned at what point is it a terrace or not. Commissioner Meehlhause thought Circle Pines defined a terrace well. Director Ericson noted the Mounds View code was similar to Circle Pines. _____________________________________________________________________________ B. Discuss Economic Development funding priorities and philosophy Community Development Director Ericson stated the EDA is looking at Tax Increment Financing in the City to determine what level of spending would be appropriate for what items. They have a high rate of TIF in Mounds View. The majority of their industrial area is in a TIF District. The City Council is looking at the various options. One consideration is whether they want to maximize the increment collected over the course of the remaining life of the District, which will be 2015. If looking toward the future, they project that the City would collect approximately $14.6 million in unobligated TIF that can be utilized for City projects. Director Ericson reviewed the programs the TIF dollars would support. Director Ericson stated one of the options is to do nothing and capture the maximum amount possible but there is reluctance to do this because there is an impact to residents in doing so. There is a possibility of scaling back the amount of TIF collected which in turn lowers their percent and turns the dollars back to the general fund. That could be done a number of ways. They could either decertify the District as a whole; District 3 is a good district to do that. Another option is selective desertification. The existing three Districts are election A for fiscal disparities. This could be changed so it is completely election B or half election B, which would lower the amount of TIF collected and lower the percentage of tax base captured. Director Ericson reviewed potential funding projects for TIF. He stated the amount of expenditures that have been identified for potential funding via collected tax increment revenues totals approximately $37 million, which far exceeds the projected $14.6 million on non-obligated pooled increment to be collected through 2015.