Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> --- LE-7. LGA/HACA Penalties · Renewal and renovation districts <br /> for Using TIF should also not be penalized <br /> -- because they offer the best <br /> Problem: The LGA/HACA aid opportunity for proactive efforts <br /> penalties have resulted in fewer, to prevent blight and redevelop <br /> - smaller, cheaper, and less challenging decaying urban areas. <br /> - tax increment financing (TIF) districts <br /> . being created. Although the use of TIF . The phased-in penalty on <br /> generall y improves the state's tax base redevelopment districts restricts <br /> I and economic vitality, cities are now the ability of cities to address the <br /> penalized for trying to create jobs, problems of advanced urban <br /> redevelop decay, or clean up pollution. decay and blighted neighborhoods. <br /> I Solution: The aid penalty is punitive . TIF programs should be <br /> and should be eliminated. "But for" reauthorized for use on scattered- <br /> I tax increment financing, site housing <br /> development, redevelopment, redevelopment/rehabilitation. <br /> I pollution clean up, and housing <br /> creation would not have occurred and <br /> benefitted the state's economy. The LE-8. Restrictions on Revenue <br /> I' state does not impose the penalty on to Pay LGA/HACA Penalties <br /> qualified housing and hazardous <br /> substance subdistricts, and these Problem: There are many restrictions <br /> I penalties should be removed on all on the sources of revenue available for <br /> other districts. cities to use to pay the LGA/HACA <br /> I penalty that is imposed on most new <br /> . All economic development TIF districts. <br /> (manufacturing) districts should <br /> I be exempt because they are Solution: If the LGA/HACA penalty <br /> necessary to attract new jobs to is intended to reimburse the state for <br /> the state, and particularly to additional costs for the school aid <br /> I support the economic viability of program, state restrictions on the <br /> smaller rural cities. source of the "penalty" are not <br /> , appropriate. There should be no <br /> . Hazardous substance subdistricts limitations on the city's payment of <br /> and soils condition districts are the penalty; tax increments, <br /> , needed across the state to clean up developer participation, or other <br /> pollution to protect the state's sources should be eligible. <br /> environment and to create viable <br /> I development opportunities within <br /> developed cities and should not be LE-9. Economic Recovery <br /> ,- subject to any penalty. Grant Program Funding From <br /> I 10 League of Minnesota Cities <br />