Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />~ <br /> <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br /> <br />it <br /> <br />private-sector interest can be generated, the 2001 property tax reform package significantly <br />diminished the ability of cities to undertake these efforts by dramatically reducing revenues <br />generated by TIP. Exacerbating this situation, the redevelopment account administered by the <br />Dept. of Trade and Economic Development and the Metropolitan Council programs supporting <br />land recycling continue to be under funded. <br /> <br />Response: In recognition of the uniqne needs of land recycling projects, the state <br />should restore and increase funding for the redevelopment account administered by the <br />Dept. of Trade and Economic Development and the redevelopment programs administered <br />by the Metropolitan Council. Additionally, as part of a comprehensive approach to land <br />recycling needs, the Legislature should consider state income tax credits and other tax <br />incentives for local historic preservation efforts. The Legislature should also enact <br />authority similar to the "This Old House" law that would provide a tax deferral on <br />improvements to commercial buildings located in designated rehabilitation or historic <br />preservation districts. Finally, the Legislature should continue its support and increase <br />funding levels for state and regional programs to assist in contamination cleanup and <br />brownfields remediation efforts. <br /> <br />LE-21. Property Tax Abatement Authority (ABH) <br /> <br />Issue: In an effort to increase the number of development tools available, the 1997 <br />Legislature authorized local units of government to grant property tax abatements. Although TIP <br />continues to be the primary financing mechanism for local development projects, tax abatements <br />provide a good addition to a needed list of economic development tools. In order to provide <br />rnaximum benefits, tax abatements should be less restrictive in terms of funding caps and <br />financing terms. Property tax abatements should not be considered a replacement for tax <br />increment financing. <br /> <br />Response: TIF is still the primary, viable development tool available for cities. <br />Abatement authority should continue to be available, but not offered as a rationale to <br />eliminate TIF. Additionally, the Legislature should develop a state fund to facilitate state <br />participation in abatement projects. Finally, the funding caps should be increased or <br />eliminated. <br /> <br />LE-22. OSA Response Timelines (ABH) <br /> <br />Issue: The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) is responsible for TIP oversight. As part of <br />its review of TIP districts, the OSA identifies alleged violations of the TIP laws and issue <br />noncompliance notices to TIP authorities. After responding to these noncompliance notices <br />within the required 60-day period, authorities often do nol receive timely responses on the matter <br />from the OSA. Governmenl agencies typically have response time deadlines. Additionally, TIP <br />authorities are often unclear about the final disposition of the matter upon receipt of a final <br />noncompliance notice. <br /> <br />Response: In the event that the OSA determines to issue a ("mal non-compliance <br />notice to a TIF authority, the Legislature should require the OSA to issue the notice within <br /> <br />17 <br />