CC_Minutes_2004_0927 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Roseville City Council should not agree in principle to provide public financing or subsidies for the proposed Twin Lakes redevelopment, for the following reasons: 1. Grantinl! the reQuested public subsidies will cause severe nel!ative impacts on the city's revenue and bude:et (for the next 25 years or lone:er). If the new development is built, demands on city services (such as police and fire protection) and infrastructure and maintenance costs for roads, etc. will certainly increase. Normally, the additional taxes generated by the new development would provide revenue the city, county and school district could use to pay for these additional costs. But if tax increment financing (TIF) is used, the additional tax money will be given to the developers, for the next 25 years. The city (county and school district) will still need to pay for the additional costs and services somehow - either by raising property taxes, or making cuts in services to other Roseville residents and businesses. Thus if TIF is used as proposed, new development in Twin Lakes will not increase our tax base or tax revenue - only increase costs and burdens on local governments and other taxpayers. If hazardous substance sub-districts are created, the money for environmental clean-up will come directly out of the city's current tax base, until all environmental costs are paid. This will cause a significant reduction in Roseville's property tax revenue. The current proposal allocates $3 million in costs to hazardous substance sub-districts. The actual costs of environmental clean-up are still uncertain (and could be much greater than estimated). Since environmental clean-up must occur before construction begins, authorizing hazardous substance sub- districts would cause an immediate, severe reduction in tax revenue - a structural budget gap much larger than the recent loss of state aid funding, that would require very significant budget cuts and take years to overcome. The developers are asking us to give away $40+ million of our future tax revenue, that the city (and county and school district) would otherwise be able to use to provide necessary services to Roseville residents and taxpayers. Such a large public subsidy for private, for- profit development is unprecedented for Roseville (to put the amount in some perspective, Roseville's entire annual property tax levy totals about $10 million). The city council's obligation is protect the public interest, not the interests of developers and wealthy corporations. We have a basic responsibility to safeguard the taxpayers' money and the financial health of the city - and whatever anyone thinks of the proposed redevelopment, the subsidy is simply too expensive and risky for