Laserfiche WebLink
354 In general, Mr. Culver reviewed the federal funds received to -date and previous <br />355 tax increment financing (TIF) funding used for construction of Twin Lakes <br />356 Parkway and other improvements; and remaining decisions in how to fund the <br />357 remaining $4 million in transportation improvements needed. Mr. Culver <br />358 reviewed other options available besides TIF, including assessing benefitting <br />359 properties, using Municipal State Aid (MSA) dollars, which would affect and <br />360 impact their use for other roadway maintenance, or use of General Fund dollars. <br />361 <br />362 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver reviewed pros and cons of using <br />363 assessments versus TIF and the methodology in identifying and assigning costs <br />364 per parcel, as some would benefit more than others. Mr. Culver reviewed State <br />365 Statute requirements and the process under Chapter 429 for assessing those <br />366 benefits; and the geographic district already established for TIF, and remaining <br />367 $800,000 estimated in that TIF Fund that was already co mitted to the project. <br />368 <br />369 At the request of Member Wozniak Mr. Schwartz advisedt staff would need <br />370 to research and report back to the PWETC on whether or no ould be feasible <br />371 or prudent to extend the TIF District fora dition ars. <br />372 <br />373 Member Wozniak stated that he was concerned about assessments o properties <br />374 discouraging development, but would not rule it out completely if there was <br />375 benefit to properties, and no other options were available. <br />376 <br />377 Mr. Schwartz clarified that developers were asked to contribute to improvements <br />378 as part of a Development Agreement for each property, provided their <br />379 development project triggered such a process and allowed the City some leverage. <br />380 However, Mr. Schwartz noted that there was not a consistent process in place for <br />381 ose developments requiring them to install or improve infrastructure unless <br />"RNV <br />382 those triggers were met. <br />383 <br />384 Member Seigler noted that the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area represented one <br />385 of the last primer areas of real estate in Roseville. <br />386 <br />387 Mr. Culver concurred, however, he noted that any site in Roseville could be <br />388 subject to redevelopment given the right opportunity; and while little virgin land <br />389 was available in Roseville, there were large areas suitable for re -use and <br />390 redevelopment, even though the Twin Lakes area provided a good opportunity to <br />391 start from scratch, but dependent on those uses refreshing on their own, since the <br />392 City could not force redevelopment. However, Mr. Culver opined that, over time <br />393 and as land values increased with more development occurring around existing <br />394 uses, the land values would increase even more and it would then make sense for <br />395 those property owners to redevelopment their parcels. <br />396 <br />397 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver briefly reviewed the methodology <br />398 in using TIF, with tax captured on the original use and multi-year deferment of <br />399 the improved property without any payback while still having increased service <br />Page 9 of 15 <br />