My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7388
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7300
>
res_7388
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:16:38 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:13:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7388
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-82-17 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications Therefor
Resolution Date Passed
8/9/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />MR. POPOVICH: Mayor, forgetting about the residential <br />people for a moment - Mr. Lund is here and he has industrial and <br />as you will recall, nis statement was that number one, he didn't <br />feel he needed it and, number two, he didn't want to pay $50,000. <br />Let's suppose it was included in tax increment and it wouldn't <br />cost him a dime, how does he feel about it now? That's a <br />different shoe than the shoe that these people have. <br /> <br />MR. CLIFFORD LUND, 2241 North Milton, Representing Roberts <br />Construction: You can't guarantee that this is going to go <br />tax increment. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: Let's just assume that for the sake of dis- <br />cussion . <br /> <br />MR. LUND: Are you go~ng to approve the contract tonight? <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: No. <br /> <br />MR. LUND: Then you don't know which way it's going to go. <br />We say no. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: You'd be opposed to it under tax increment <br />too? <br /> <br />MR. LUND: Yes. Somebody has to pay the tax increment taxes. <br />We're the biggest taxpayer in Roseville. We're against it. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: Apparently you don't understand tax increment <br />financing. Tax increment ~ if we go to that - freezes the <br />taxes at the present level and the bonds are paid out of the <br />new taxes that come in from new property that is developed, <br />over and above what is there now. It's that captured new value <br />that would pay the bonds - not the existing value. Would you <br />still be against it if the new value paid for it and not the <br />existing value? <br /> <br />MR. LUND: That's not guaranteed. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: It has to be. That's the only way you can <br />sell tax increment bonds. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: That's the way it works. <br />only reason we're interested in it. <br /> <br />That's the <br /> <br />MR. LUND: I'm saying that it's not guaranteed that we <br />would fall under that. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: You will if I have a vote and I will <br />nave a vote. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I think it's just a matter of determining <br />how it's going to go and what we will include (inaudible). <br />As far as what Mr. Popovich just said, you know the revenues <br />that are being generated by the houses and Hoffmann Electric. <br />If this is approved within 90 days from the time the building <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.