pm_880803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Paget 7 Wednesday, August 3, 1988 stated that the current proposal is not the best, most cost effective alternative for the site. Schomaker inquired about the timing and sequence of this proposal and whether other developers were approached. Johnson responded that the commission must review proposals as they are presented. Schomaker questioned if tax increment financing was appropriate for use on this site and for this type of project. Waldron responded that tax increment financing is viable for use with housing projects, and that the city council has a policy which supports it. Waldron also pointed out that when the cost of the land exceeds what the reasonable land cost would be for that type of development, the city can step in and use tax increment financing to pay for that difference. Schomaker questioned the land area involved and whether it was a unusual to have this kind of a land exchange. Waldron testified that tax increment financing is a negotiation process in which land exchanges and various other aspects are put together. Schomaker questioned why there would be no buffers such as single family dwellings next to the Vietnamese temple. Johnson commented that single family use may not be appropriate adjacent to Highway 36. Dahlgren stated that church uses don't generally require the same type of buffer as single family houses do, and that typically a 15 ft. set back is required while 60 ft. is being proposed in this plan. Schomaker questioned in what situations has tax increment financing been used to purchase public buildings. Waldron replied that this is the first time the city has considered tax increment financing for purchasing a public building but that it is also considering using tax increment financing to assist Ramsey County Library in their expansion plans. Schomaker questioned how are the other tax increment finance districts in the city doing. Waldron responded that they are doing extremely well, and that they are ahead of projections. Schomaker asked why shouldn't the development stand on it's own, rather than be subsidized by Roseville citizens. Waldron pointed out to the commission that we don't view the tax increment as subsidy but rather that the developers taxes are going to pay for the recreation center rather than the general tax payers money.