CC_Minutes_2004_0927 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

development moratorium on all other landowners in the area. By tying up the free market, the council has made it impossible for other developers to propose alternatives, and there has been no open bidding or calls for proposals for Twin Lakes redevelopment. So we don't know whether the market could provide development alternatives that better meet the city's public needs - or whether there are other developers who could redevelop the area without public subsidies. There is also no way to show that "but for" the subsidy the redevelopment would not occur (as state law and Roseville policies require). Roseville's TIF policies require that proposed projects be "consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations." (City of Roseville Tax Increment Policy, Section 2(10)). Minnesota law similarly requires tax increment financing plans to conform with a city's plans for development or redevelopment. However, Roseville's Comprehensive Plan for the Twin Lakes area (as amended on June 26, 2001) specifically states that "retail is not encouraged, especially large scale regional and subregional big box developments." Since the proposed development includes exactly that, it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As a matter of state law and sound public policy, Roseville should not subsidize a development that goes against our own Comprehensive plan. Tax increment financing and other public development subsidies should be used only as a last resort, where the city has identified an important public purpose that the free market will not support. The city should then make a policy judgment about whether to offer subsidies as an incentive to encourage the private sector to help provide public goods. We should not treat public subsidies as business entitlements, to be given on demand for market-driven projects that should pay for themselves. State law requires a public hearing and specific legal findings before tax increment financing is authorized. It is premature and risky for the city to agree to TIF "in principle" before these legal requirements are met - the city council should not promise the developers any public assistance without following the law. 7. The proposed redevelopment does not provide any public benefit that could possibly iustifv the hU2e costs to the city and the community. Roseville should not offer any public subsidies for this proposal, because the development will not provide any public needs that the free market wouldn't otherwise support. The market has already given Roseville more than enough retail and senior housing. Any public benefits from the proposed redevelopment are more than outweighed by the costs and risks to the city and Roseville residents.