My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03405
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3400
>
pf_03405
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:00:26 PM
Creation date
6/15/2005 9:05:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3405
Planning Files - Type
Miscellaneous
Project Name
HOUSING and REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Applicant
City of Roseville
Status
Approved
Date Final City Council Action
9/23/2002
Additional Information
Establishment of an HRA
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
170
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Economic Development Districts. The creation of economic development districts has <br />caused controversy. Under the current law, there are three separate justifications for creating <br />economic development districts: to discourage employers from leaving the state, to add jobs to <br />municipalities, and to preserve and enhance the tax base. All of these purposes are crucial to <br />central cities in several ways: they provide jobs and real estate development in depressed areas <br />where they are needed most; they allow cities to respond to legitimate business expansion; and <br />they enhance the property tax base. <br />Unfortunately, suburban communities have used economic development districts to <br />assist in the development of vacant land, which is prime development real estate that might <br />have been developed without assistance. Developers expect that they can get tax increment <br />subsidies from many suburban communities. They frequently induce bidding wars between <br />cities that ultimately increase the public costs of development. <br />An example of how developers shop around for the best deal can be illustrated with the <br />Excelsior-Henderson motorcycle plant in Belle Plaine. The company owners, who had never <br />built a motorcycle, purchased the rights to the Excelsior-Henderson Motorcycle name with the <br />intent to produce the motorcycle again (Feyder, 1996). The company owners contacted various <br />communities, looking for a site on which to build their factory. <br />In July 1996 there were four Minnesota cities and three Ohio cities on the list of possible <br />locations (Phelps, 1996). Belle Plaine, the hometown of the company owners, won. The <br />owners raised equity for development of the plant by issuing stock, loans from the State <br />Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED), and tax increment assistance from <br />the city of Belle Plaine (DePass, 1996). <br />The company was supposed to start production in December of 1998 but didn't start until <br />early in 1999 (Tevlin, 1999). In September of 1999, the company cut 97 jobs from its workforce, <br />and in October of that year it defaulted on the DTED loan (Kennedy, 1999, September and <br />October). High manufacturing costs and slow sales were reasons given for its financial <br /> <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.