than any mortal" should know about this process:
Before I get too deeply into this discussion, what ever happened to the House
Tax request to see the privately-held Mall's books? The committee wanted to
see why there was a compelling need for the subsidy. MoA agreed to get that
information to them. Did they do it? Did they cop out? If they did present,
where is the public document or record of discussion?
I didn't have a copy of the discussion item so I am working from imperfect
information...feel free to add, correct, clarify.
Since there isn't any bill coming from the House, proponents announced this
would be resolved the Conference committee. Concern was expressed over this
mechanism and an explanation came that, since it had passed in Senate, it was
fair game for Conference. I guess only 'strictly interpreted' revenue bills
need to originate in the house. hmmm.
Since this was more of a discussion, it was not subject to vote but some in
the house will be presenting in conference. To win outstate support, it is
different from the Senate version.
Proponents' version would dump the fiscal disparities part hoping to win
approval from out-state legislators. I don't understand this as fiscal
disparities applies to the Iron Range and the 7 county metro area. Wouldn't
Ramsey Co. and Out-state impact still come from consequences of TIF
extension/LGA ? From my understanding of the voluminous non-partisan tax
research, LGA would still be impacted state-wide...and potential property tax
increases for services as TIF impacts LGA?
In its place would be a 35 year TIF & extension...10 years more than the
earlier house bill. This would be paid for by all of Hennepin County. Chair
Lenczewski said that 1/4 of Minnesota would be paying for the mall. The Chair
also reminded people that the biggest chunk of property tax is the county's
section on our tax statements.
The chair also pointed out that the increment (not the original base
valjuation) property tax is paid by the mall to itself (I seem to remember
someone saying earlier that it's also deductible). She reinforced this with an
analogy of making improvements on your house. When the tax assessor comes by,
instead of paying for the increased value, write a check to yourself and use it
to finance other improvements instead of using it to pay for city services.
The new version also changes TIF boundaries...of concern to the Tax
committee. Also of concern is who is backing the bonds...Bloomington has
refused to do so. It cannot be compelled to back them...however, the State
taxpayers can be forced to back the bonds.
The Chair also said the state and not the local units of government are a
beneficiary. The project will not pay local property tax (schools,
municipalities, counties) on the increqased value increments. Because of the
way the original TIF was set up, the Mall is sitting on 'a pot of gold' it
hasn't used...and, if this is approved, they will be back for another pot of
gold at some future time (i.e., to finish off the mall's 4th floor?).
Another issue of concern was the labor agreement (PLA). Although not
mentioned tonight, spectres of future private projects loomed in the background
from this precedent-setting project.
Proponents made alot of 'statements' tonight that the chair corrected, over
and over again. In the Rah-Rah pep rally atmosphere, it will be interesting to
see if the complicated provisions and implications will be lost on those
legislators not fluent in tax policy. As previously said in the Tax Committee,
Taxes 'is not for the faint-hearted'.
The "bill's" proponents are Nelson and Westrom. Things got a little dicey
when (after a long, tense discussion) Rep. Westrom questioned whether Chair
Lenczewski 'would' even be on the conference committee. Maybe he and Nelson
would be there instead....whoa !!!
Although I disagree with some of the projects approved and not approved by
the House tax committee, they are making a valiant attempt to deliver property
tax relief -- within the box created by the Governor--and this proposal appears
selectively to negate some of the tax equity being sought.
...or 'Remains to be seen' in the next 9 days... or, the higher up ya gets in
the decision-making food chain, the more ingredients going into the sausage.
best wishes,
cheryl luger
nokomis east (Minnehaha) mpls
p.s. Thanks to StPaul forum Neala for the 'but for' restrictions on TIF's:
"Let's get back to basics. TIF funds were never intended to build
parking
ramps. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/tifdist.htm
Check out the "but for" test:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/butfortif.htm "