My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
EDSR INFORMATION 06-12-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
EDA Packets
>
1993-2002
>
1995
>
06-12-1995
>
EDSR INFORMATION 06-12-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/3/2016 9:31:25 AM
Creation date
3/3/2016 9:31:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
EDSR
date
6/12/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
LAW OFFICES <br /> BRIGGS AND MORGAN <br /> PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION <br /> . 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING <br /> SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 <br /> TELEPHONE (9121 223-9000 <br /> FACSIMILE (012) 223-0450 <br /> MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE <br /> 2400 IDS CENTER <br /> WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER May 24, 1995 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 <br /> TELEPHONE(012)334-8400 <br /> FACSIMILE!012)334-8650 <br /> (612) 223-6420 <br /> INFORMATION <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> FROM: Jim O'Mearap, <br /> DATE: May 24, 1995 <br /> RE: Final Tax Increment Provisions of the Omnibus Tax Bill <br /> The Legislature has passed the Tax Bill. If and when the Governor signs it, I will <br /> provide you a more detailed summary of the tax increment provisions, but for now offer the <br /> following very general observations: <br /> 1. The Bill DOES NOT CONTAIN many of the controversial proposals made by <br /> Representative Ozment and others. The following earlier proposals did not <br /> survive in any form in the Bill: <br /> (a) The drastic restriction of the usability of tax increments from pre-5/1/90 <br /> tax increment districts. <br /> (b) A similar curtailment that was proposed for pre-5/1/88 redevelopment <br /> tax increment districts (including pre-1979 districts). <br /> (c) The elaborate cost/benefit analysis that had been proposed as a <br /> required finding for establishing tax increment districts. <br /> (d) The requirement of finding that an economic development district had <br /> to be for a project that would otherwise go to another state. <br /> (e) The suggestions that TIF districts be approved by the State Auditor, <br /> the School Board, or the County Board also did not survive. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.