I would be interested in understanding more of the rationale behind the vote. Is the proposed subsidy substantially greater than the long-term tax revenue and economic benefit the development is expected to generate for the City of Wausau? If not, I can understand why some residents may be questioning the decision.
The city's financial challenges seem to stem from the need to increase revenue while managing expenses. A development such as this apartment complex would appear to expand the tax base and generate additional revenue, which could help address some of those concerns. What I'm unsure about is the magnitude of that impact and whether there are other factors that influenced the down votes.
Am I oversimplifying the issue, or is that a reasonable way to think about it?
Interestingly for a split vote there wasn't too much discussion. Kilian said she didn't intend to repeat her stance on it, but I was able to find what she'd said in the past about the proposal when the city was approving a planning option.
I of course won't weigh in on the issue other than to say when TIF is involved, the calculation becomes more complicated, because that excess tax revenue goes to the district and not city coffers. Taxpayers don't realize that gain until the district closes (which the city is seeing with a couple of its districts now). The long duration of some of the districts, especially with extensions, means taxpayers miss out on a lot of that potential extra revenue. But also, TIF helps projects happen that otherwise might not. Like most things in life, there are always tradeoffs.
I would be interested in understanding more of the rationale behind the vote. Is the proposed subsidy substantially greater than the long-term tax revenue and economic benefit the development is expected to generate for the City of Wausau? If not, I can understand why some residents may be questioning the decision.
The city's financial challenges seem to stem from the need to increase revenue while managing expenses. A development such as this apartment complex would appear to expand the tax base and generate additional revenue, which could help address some of those concerns. What I'm unsure about is the magnitude of that impact and whether there are other factors that influenced the down votes.
Am I oversimplifying the issue, or is that a reasonable way to think about it?
Interestingly for a split vote there wasn't too much discussion. Kilian said she didn't intend to repeat her stance on it, but I was able to find what she'd said in the past about the proposal when the city was approving a planning option.
I of course won't weigh in on the issue other than to say when TIF is involved, the calculation becomes more complicated, because that excess tax revenue goes to the district and not city coffers. Taxpayers don't realize that gain until the district closes (which the city is seeing with a couple of its districts now). The long duration of some of the districts, especially with extensions, means taxpayers miss out on a lot of that potential extra revenue. But also, TIF helps projects happen that otherwise might not. Like most things in life, there are always tradeoffs.