My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Meeting #1 SR 02-05-2001
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2001
>
02/05/2001
>
Meeting #1 SR 02-05-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:06 AM
Creation date
12/30/2002 5:10:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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).
View images
View plain text
Legislation in 1998 now requires that both manufacturing and distribution TIF projects on green acre parcels to pay 160 <br />percent of the federal minimum wage to at least 90 percent of the employees. <br /> <br />TYPES OF FINANCING <br /> <br />Bonds. <br /> <br />Bonds secured by tax increments are issued when there is a need for initial capital to finance public or private improvements. <br />Typically, the bonds are general obligation bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the municipality. As long as at least <br />20% of the debt service on the bonds is reasonably expected to be paid with tax increments, the bonds may be issued without <br />election. <br /> <br />Pay As You Go. <br /> <br />An alternative to bond financing is a "pay as you go" arrangement with the developer. The developer pays for various <br />TIF-eligible costs initially, and the authority promises to reimburse the developer from tax increment over time as it is <br />generated. The developer (rather than an unrelated bondholder) bears the risk that the increments will be insufficient to repay <br />the costs incurred. <br /> <br />This arrangement may be structured as a revenue note or bond issued to the developer, with an interest component to <br />compensate the developer for costs of financing the improvements up front. <br /> <br />LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID PENALTY <br /> <br />Generally. <br /> <br />The penalty applies only to districts requested for certification after April 30, 1990. The penalty is tied to the state school <br />aid formula. When an authority creates a TIF District, the state calculates how much less the school aids would have been <br />had the captured property value been available to the school district. That amount is then deducted from the municipality's <br />local government aid (LGA) and if necessary from the homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA). <br /> <br />Amount. <br /> <br />The LGA/HACA loss varies, but is usually about 30% of the tax increment collected annually when the maximum penalty <br />applies. Note that the penalty does not change the amount of increment collected; it changes the amount of state aid the <br />municipality receives. The amount of aid loss depends on the type of TIF district. <br /> <br />Penalty Recapture. <br /> <br />For districts created between May 1, 1990 and July 31, 1993, the municipality may obtain reimbursement from the developer <br />for lost aid. However, tax increment may not be directly expended to reimburse the general fund for such aid loss. <br /> <br />For districts requested for certification after July 31, 1993, new restrictions apply. If any agreement or "arrangement" <br />provides for the developer to repay any part of the tax increment assistance provided, such developer payments are subject <br />to restrictions imposed by law on tax increment itself. Thus, a municipality may not deposit such payments in the general <br />fund, but rather must maintain them in the TIF district account for use only on TIF eligible activities. As a practical matter, <br />this severely limits the ability to fill the aid-loss hole in the municipality's general fund. <br /> <br />Ehlers & Associates - TiF Basics 9 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.