Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minot committee recommends prioritizing TIF for blight and public improvements, urges caution on bonding
Summary
The committee voted to recommend prioritizing tax-increment financing for blight remediation and to allow limited use for new development tied to public improvements, while emphasizing that bonding taxpayer risk should be a high threshold.
The Economic Development Plan Review Committee voted May 9 to recommend that City Council prioritize tax-increment financing (TIF) for blighted properties and only consider new development TIF agreements when proposals provide a clear public benefit, such as public improvements or amenities.
The motion, offered by a committee member and seconded, asked that blight remediation be the primary use of TIF and that new development be considered only when the applicant provides demonstrable public benefit to the city. The committee passed the recommendation by majority vote.
Discussion focused on the legal framework, risk and precedent. Harold and staff reminded the committee that the city’s authority to use TIF is granted by state law but that the council has discretion over whether and how the tool is used. Harold recommended attaching TIFs for new development to public improvements that benefit the general public — for example, intersection work, extensions of water/sewer, or publicly accessible parking garages — rather than using TIF to increase a developer’s private profit margin.
Finance staff and committee members urged caution about bonding public dollars to development projects. Staff noted the city’s experience: some past projects used TIF to reimburse developers for public infrastructure (for example, water, sewer and paving in the Blue on Broadway project), while other projects required removal of hazardous materials and had additional risks. Committee members and staff said the city should prefer reimbursement agreements (where developers deliver improvements and are later reimbursed from incremental taxes) over the city assuming construction-bonding risk whenever possible.
Committee members used past local examples to illustrate both benefits and risks: Trinity Hospital (where required intersection improvements benefit the public), the Blue on Broadway infrastructure work, the M Building and the Tracks Building were all raised in discussing how TIF has been used locally. Several members said the M Building example had mixed outcomes and that projects that shift most project risk to taxpayers require particularly close vetting.
The committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council with language that encourages prioritizing TIF for blight remediation, tying TIF support for new construction to public improvements, favoring developer-funded improvements with reimbursement rather than city bonding, and reserving bonding for exceptionally high-threshold cases.
