Laserfiche WebLink
the district. Mr. Winkelhake stated that TIF district No. 6 appears to be financially <br />healthy and cumulative fund balances of the district are projected to become substantial <br />over the life of the district. <br /> <br />Discussion returned to pooling. Mr. Winkelhake reiterated that pooling is spending Tax <br />Increment dollars outside the district boundaries, however, it has to be within the <br />municipal development district. In Ramsey's case, the project area is the boundaries of <br />Municipal Development District No. 1, which encompasses all of TIF Districts No. 1, 2, <br />4, 5, and 6, as well as other properties within the City. TIF eligible costs include, but are <br />not limited to, land acquisition, public improvement, site improvements, relocation, <br />demolition and interest costs associated with these items. He explained that pooling from <br />TIF districts established between July 1, 1982, and April 30, 1992, is generally <br />permissible, provided that the TIF plan budget allows for such expenditures. TIF plans <br />for these districts may be amended to allow for pooling, provided that a statutorily <br />prescribed amendment process is followed. The TIF plans for TIF Districts No. 1 (Rivers <br />Bend), No. 2 (Gateway), No. 4 (Front Street), and No. 5 (Wood Ponds) could be amended <br />to properly allow for pooling of a portion of their tax increment. While some of these <br />TIF plans currently allow for pooling in a general sense, there are no specific pooling <br />figures in their budgets. Such specific numbers are currently being required by the State <br />Auditors Office. TIF districts established on or after May 1, 1990, are generally subject <br />to many more restrictions and provisions. Generally, TIF District No. 6 (AEC Projects) <br />could be amended to allow for pooling; however, the amount of pooled increment would <br />be limited to no more than 25% of the total increment from the district. The 25% figure <br />would include any administrative fees taken by the City. He noted that the City Council <br />can draw boundary lines, within reason, wherever they want. <br /> <br />Mr. Winkelhake referred to Exhibits F, G, H and I. Exhibit F includes District No. 1 and <br />District No. 2. These districts were created in an era of different rules and it is common <br />to mix rules together. He realized he was presenting a lot of numbers that may be <br />confusing, but he recommended that the TIF plans for TIF Districts No. 1 and No. 2 be <br />amended to accurately break out and update how tax increments from each district will be <br />spent over the life of the districts. Budget amendments have to have been made prior to <br />decertification. He recommended making changes far before this ending date. All these <br />districts should be gone though on an annual basis, probably at budget time. When you <br />get to a point where you can identify the costs fairly well, that would be a good time to <br />amend your budget. If you amend more than one, you may attempt to amend all. Mr. <br />Winkelhake reminded Council that this takes a public hearing and notification of the <br />County and the School District. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen asked what the parameters are with regard to land <br />acquisition. <br /> <br />Mr. Winkelhake responded public and private use. He recommended amending the <br />budget this year or early next year. <br /> <br />Council Work Session/May 19, 1998 <br /> Page 6 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />