09/11/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

* Overhsad expense will be clear, with ir~entives pres~t to hold down amounts o~m~itted to ov~hsad. Of course, While these are good public policy reasons, city officials probably ha~ other things on their mind, such as the ability to generate substantial dollars with minimum public reaction. Thus it will be the totality of the proposal--the advantages of the ~develcpment fund balan~ against the disadvantages of tax-increment financirg--that will affect city officials~ ch~ioes o ~he Aegislature can observe the experience and decide wh~ther to encourage city govermm~.nts to mo~e more rapidly to the redevelopment fund. We believe a gradual, steady shift is desirable. Cities won'.t find themselves threatened overnight by a major transformation. If our r~tior~ are adopted, renewal plans could cover whatever areas a city governmer~ might choose, e~pt that the plans could mot include land Which is classified for tax purposes as agricultural ~r has been converted from agricultural purposes within the last 15 years. ~hat is our way of keepir~3 the emphasis on renewal, not develc~ment on raw land, without precludir~ the use of funds c~ lon~-star~r~ vacant ~ within the urban area. As can be seen, our reo:-~-.~atior~ do not discuss ir~ustrial revenue ~onds in detail. We support the current schedule for their l:~se-out, as provided by (~ress. Industrial revenu~ bonds sl~uld be discontinued. ~hey are indirect, off-budget, non-~ted assistar~e. A few details of ~ur proposal need m~e elaboration: ~y allow ~hree years of ':e~ess'.' tax-increment dollars to be transferred to ~ de~lGpment fund? Theoretically, mo exoess should be permitted, fkm~er, we are keenly ~are that cities already are findirg ways to pool re%~nues frc~ their tax-increment districts ar~ to keep property off tl~ tax ro~l- longer than is needed. Our proposal for allowir~ up to thre~ years of e~'ess increment to be transferred to the redeve~ fur~ is a practi~] acknowledgment that cities should recei~ somethir~ in return for elimination of the poolirg provisic~s Would the possibilities of ec~r~tion be reduced? Aco~rdirg to argument, the current syst~ is m-~e %~%lnerable because elected official- don'.t have pressure comin~ from cc~peting users of the dollar, which mear~ the existirg syst~ is not self-policir~. ~hus, an official may be m~re susceptible to grantir~ favors because c~mpeting users for the dollars aren'.t ~ alx~t ~ else gets the_~. A c(x~nter-ar~--=nt, h~wever, is ~hat the prol~o~ed system--with l~m~ts on total dollars available--is an invitation to (x~ruption, because, with resources limited, interested l~rties might try to receive favored treatment by passin9 ___money urger the table. Nevertheless, dollars of should help red~ce the potential fox cc~ruption.