Skip to main content Skip to office menu Skip to footer
Capital IconMinnesota Legislature

SF 1957

as introduced - 85th Legislature (2007 - 2008) Posted on 12/15/2009 12:00am

KEY: stricken = removed, old language.
underscored = added, new language.

Current Version - as introduced

Line numbers 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 2.1 2.2

A bill for an act
relating to economic development; extending the expiration date for the
neighborhood revitalization program; amending Minnesota Statutes 2006,
section 469.1781.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 469.1781, is amended to read:


469.1781 REQUIRED SPENDING FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION.

(a) The provisions of this section apply to a city of the first class if the following
conditions are met:

(1) the city refunded bonds and revenues, derived from increment from a district for
which certification was requested before August 1, 1979, were pledged to pay the bonds;

(2) the refunding bonds were issued after April 1, 1988, and before April 1, 1990;

(3) the refunded bonds' obligations were due and payable in full by the calendar
year 2002 and the refunding bonds' obligations are payable, in whole or part, during the
calendar years 2001 through deleted text begin 2009deleted text end new text begin 2029new text end ; and

(4) the city had in place during 1989 an ordinance providing for excess increments to
be distributed under section 469.176, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (4), and the city
modified the ordinance to eliminate all or part of the distributions of excess increments.

(b) For calendar years 1990 through 2001, in each year the city must expend for a
neighborhood revitalization program, as established under section 469.1831, an amount
of revenues derived from tax increments equal to at least:

(1) the amount of the additional principal and interest payments that would have
been due for the year on the refunded bonds, if the bonds had not been refunded; and

(2) the amount of money which would have been distributed as excess increments
under the city ordinance had it not been modified.