Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I <br /> ~. 1 programs. The Legislature should not make further restrictive changes to the tax <br /> I 2 increment statutes. The State should partner with cities in econoinic development and <br /> I 3 redevelopment and encourage cities' use of tax increment in achieving the laudable goals <br /> 4 of long-term tax base stabilization and growth, job creation, development of low-to- <br /> I <br /> 5 moderate income housing, remediation of pollution, elimination of blight, recycling and <br /> I 6 redevelopment of the infrastructure, and redevelopment of its communities. Cities should <br /> I 7 be given more flexibility in the use of tax increment financing as they are in the best <br /> position to evaluate what is best for the economic health of their communities. The <br /> 8 <br /> I 9 legislature should: <br /> I 10 . remove existing restrictions to property included in a deferred assessment program <br /> 11 within the last five years (e.g., green acres; agricultural preserves); <br /> Ie 12 . eliminate the inflation adjusted base for economic development districts; <br /> I 13 . authorize any tax increment districts approved after April 1, 1990 to pool increments <br /> I 14 in the same manner as districts certified prior to April 1, 1990; <br /> 15 eliminate the LGAIHACA penalty currently imposed on newly created districts or, if <br /> . <br /> I 16 the penalty is not eliminated, remove the restrictions on the source of payment; and <br /> I 17 . expand the use of tax increment financing to assist in the development of <br /> 18 technological infrastructure, job training, and the restoration of historic structures. <br /> I <br /> I 19 LE-2. Property Tax Reform & TIF <br /> I 20 Issue: The 1997 legislature is likely to consider several property tax reform proposals. <br /> ,. 21 Any changes to the property tax system could have significant implications for tax increment <br /> I 1997 City Policies 11 <br /> ,> <br />