Laserfiche WebLink
<br />these decisions yet - and we should not make any promises to the developers <br />that would tie our hands in advance. <br /> <br />6. The proposed subsidies do not meet the reQuirements of state law or <br />Roseville's own policies. <br /> <br />Minnesota state law and Roseville's own policies establish a "but for" test <br />for public subsidies- under which the developer must demonstrate that the <br />project as proposed cannot be built without public assistance. The <br />developers have not met this requirement. It is not enough for them <br />developers to simply say that they will not build the project unless the city <br />gives them the subsidies they want. Roseville's TIF policies also require the <br />developer to submit a market analysis, and net worth statements for the <br />proposed owners and developers, but this information has not been <br />provided. State law also requires a public hearing and specific findings <br />establishing that the proposed development meets the "but for" test. The <br />city council should not agree, even "in principle", to provide public <br />subsidies without following the applicable laws and policies. <br /> <br />The proposed development will certainly be profitable to the developers, <br />and other retailers who end up on the site. The city should not grant <br />subsidies to private businesses that can pay their own development costs. <br />Otherwise, any public money the city spends to fund this project will simply <br />increase their profits at the expense of Roseville residents and taxpayers. <br /> <br />Roseville's TIF policy states that "the City will use tax increment <br />financing investments only in very specific cases where a needed public <br />objective is identified and private capital could not be attracted to <br />accomplish this objective." (City of Roseville Tax Increment Policy, Section <br />1). Public subsidies like TIF should be used only for public purposes that <br />the market will not support. The proposed development does not serve any <br />public purpose - the plans contain no public space or public amenities, no <br />park or open space, no pedestrian or public transit facilities, no community <br />center. The developers propose to build another large retail center and <br />more senior housing. Roseville is already saturated with both retail and <br />senior housing - the market has already supported more than enough of <br />these developments - and it is absurd for the city to even consider <br />subsidizing more. The proposed development also violates Roseville's <br />Comprehensive Plan for the Twin Lakes area, which specifically <br />recommends against big box and shopping mall development at Cleveland <br />and County Road C. <br /> <br />Roseville should not offer development subsidies without a competitive <br />bidding process in the open market. The city council has agreed to allow <br />the current developers exclusive negotiations rights, and has placed a <br />