pf_03552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

From: ESANDS261 Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:43 AM To: city.council@ci,roseville,mn.us Subject: Twin Lakes --Recap of TIF collections by Retail, Office, & Housing Mr. Casserly fioalJy: released enough information on his calculations that we now can determine how much TIF is being generated by type by acre. I'm referring to his handout of last Monday titled "TAX INCREMENT ANALYSIS - MIXED USE". Attached is a summary of his analysis shown on pages 12 through 16, presented in terms of the present value of future ~$timatedtax collections by commercial, office and housing. I have calculated the total per acre that is not a part of Casserly's calculations. That summary is similar to my previous presentation of market value by type by acre I gave you on Monday, except that this takes in all the factors--- estimated tax capacities, fiscal disparities, etc.. This is the bottom line, and the facts upon which your decisions should be based. We calculate TIF in order to gauge how much is available to pay for the development costs. And that i$ the bottom line. Obviously, the more TIF a development collects, the more it will have available to pay for the costs. The facts are now clear: Retail only produces 31 % of what an acre of housing can, and office produces 67%. Say, 1/3 commercial, 2/3 housing. So it becomes a mystery as to why this group of developers wants to devote 30 acres or 41 % of the total project acreage into commercial. Retail is NOT NECESSARY, financially or otherwise. So what's really going on here? I've heard it said over and over again that the reason we need retail is to provide the funds with which to pay for the housing development's portion of costs. This proves that this assertion is either a misconception on how TIF now works, or an outright lie. Mr. McCoombs said it a week ago, Dean Maschka said it on Monday: We need Retail to pay for Housing. We can't have housing without the retail to pay for it. This is absolutely wrong and misleading the public into accepting the retail. If I hear anyone repeat that assertion again I will call them upon it immediately. It is just NOT true. The only appropriate thing to do is determine if these developers are willing to reduce the commercial down to what's now in the existing master plan, about 10 acres, and shift the other 20 acres either into housing or office, or a combination of both. Or put out an RFP for other developers, if Mr. Noonan says he's not interested in moving ahead. I doubt he'll say that, but that's his choice. I question whether this master developer is capable of doing this large of and type of development. I personally think we should have a number of different housing developers involved, like Mr. Shardlow did on the Owasso Hills project he managed for the School District, in order to bring in some variety in style as well as prices. Even if we have to set aside some land for future use as office/service commercial along the Cleveland/C corner, it is better to get the master plan, and the housing mix right, and right now. Remember, this can't all be built at once anyway. Its going to take 3-5 years just to complete the housing portion. We can take our time with the office and limited service retail 8/4/2004