Laserfiche WebLink
<br />If the city council agrees to allow the project to go forward without <br />first determining the extent and nature of TeE contamination in the <br />Twin Lakes area, we may be potentially liable for our failure to take <br />proper action to deal with known environmental and public health risks. <br />The city should at least obtain a legal opinion on this issue before taking <br />any other steps toward approving the development. <br /> <br />4. ReQuirin2 the develoDers to "advance" the costs of the Droiect does not <br />remove any of these risks - because the city is still a2reein2 to Day all of <br />requested costs with Dublic money. <br /> <br />Requiring the developers to "advance" the costs does not remove any <br />of these risks. As long as the city agrees to pay back the costs advanced <br />using public money, the city (not the developers) will pay for the <br />development costs for the project and take on all of the risks discussed <br />here. <br /> <br />If the developers are able to "advance" the costs of development, why <br />shouldn't they be able to pay the development costs themselves? <br /> <br />5. The DroDosed subsidies do not meet the "directives" of the city council. <br /> <br />The city council did not vote on or formally adopt any "directives" on the <br />proposed public subsidies at the August 9 meeting. There was discussion of <br />some guidelines proposed by Mr. Maschka. His guidelines assume that <br />public money will be used to support the project. The current public <br />subsidy proposal does not meet those guidelines. <br /> <br />The proposed tax increment financing does not follow Roseville's "pay as <br />you go" policy. "Pay as you go" financing does not involve issuing TIF <br />revenue bonds, and does not give the developers any money "up front". <br />Some members of the council now say that the developers will be required <br />to "advance" all of the development costs - but the council has not voted on <br />this issue and the developers have not agreed to do it. If the developers are <br />required to advance all development costs, how tax increment bonds fit into <br />the picture is unclear. The whole purpose of issuing the bonds would be to <br />borrow money for the developers to use "up front", which the city would <br />pay back to bond holders using future tax increment. <br /> <br />The city council needs to get clear on its own objectives and policies <br />before agreeing in principle to any public subsidy package. These decisions <br />need to be discussed and voted on in open public meetings, and the policy <br />implications and fiscal impact of any financing arrangements (such as TIF <br />revenue bonds) need to be clearly spelled out. The council has not made <br />