My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/23/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
4/23/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:49 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:26:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/23/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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).
View images
View plain text
CONCLUSION <br />Any economic development financial incentive will cost the County money. Whether that cost <br />is associated with revenue not received such as in tax abatement or associated with, direct <br />payment of funds, financial incentives have a cost. <br />TIF financing could be a low cost financial incentive. Under the best set of circumstances, the <br />only cost could be added administrative expenses. With financing, however, there is risk, and <br />added risk can result in higher cost. <br />Even more important is the fact that the TIF revenue at risk is economic development related. <br />Because TIF revenue is used to build roads and enhance transportation infrastructure, the funds <br />allow growth and economic development to continue. Losing TIF revenue and delaying roadway <br />construction projects, then, could adversely affect economic development. <br />As with most issues, TIF financing involves tradeoffs. To establish a broad based TIF financing <br />program increases risks: and costs. By limiting the scope of a TIF financing program, risk can <br />be reduced and potential costs lessened. With the parameters identified, the TIF financing <br />program identified above reduces risk and provides a limited economic development incentive. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff and the Economic Development Council recommend that the Board of County <br />Commissioners approve a traffic impact fee financing program with the characteristics as <br />identified above. <br />Staff also recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant TIF financing agreement <br />approval authority to the county administrator or his designee. <br />Commissioner Bird identified three possible scenarios which <br />would exist when trying to entice a new business to come in: lease <br />space already available (no TIF would apply); buy and build (TIF <br />would be a direct benefit to them); and lease/build-to-suit (TIF <br />would benefit the builder) . Only one scenario would surely benefit <br />the targeted industry. He felt it was important that the County <br />protect itself with proper liens. <br />Commissioner Eggert thought there were very few good leasable <br />buildings now for industry. She advised this technique has been <br />requested by a number of different fronts and is one of the main <br />reasons it was brought forward from the Economic Development <br />Council's workshop. It is part of the package and something that <br />will add to the incentive. She thought Brevard County had waived <br />some of its fees for incoming industry. <br />Commissioner Bird indicated that was his point in mentioning <br />the three scenarios. In the build -to -suit scenario, there is a <br />43 <br />April 23, 1996 <br />nof( 97, PnF 897* . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.