 |
Details
| Title |
Tax Increment Financing in Rapid City: A Guide for Applicants |
| Highlights |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Some communities require developments to pay for public improvements required by affordable housing.
|
| |
 |
Rapid City uses tax increment financing as an alternative method to finance needed public infrastructure.
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Some communities do not use increases in property tax revenue to benefit the new development.
|
| |
 |
Rapid City uses tax increment financing as a method to finance needed public infrastructure.
|
 |
|
| Description |
This document describes Rapid City’s tax increment financing (TIF) program. The document says that the South Dakota Legislature authorized TIF in 1978 and Rapid City created its first TIF district in 1983. It also describes TIF as a mechanism to fund public investments by capturing all of the increased tax revenue from that which “results when public investment stimulates private investment.” The city identifies the reasons for having such a program including encouraging the redevelopment of deteriorated real property and stimulating the construction of safe and affordable housing. The guide goes on to identify allowed uses for the TIF. It also contains a list of criteria that the development must meet in order to qualify for the program. Each project must meet three threshold criteria and two of six optional criteria. Some of these criteria include lack of economic feasibility, elimination of actual or potential hazards, and creation of affordable housing. The guide goes further and describes ten additional criteria that the project should meet. The guide also provides a schedule for approval process. This site was accessed in June 2005. |
| Publication Date |
2005 |
| Organization |
Rapid City, South Dakota Government |
| Web Location | http://www.rcgov.org/planning/committeeminutes/tif/tifguide.pdf |
Feedback: Please contact
us if you have a similar experience.
Notice: The contents of this record reflect
the views of the author and/or promulgating municipality, and should
not be construed as representing the views or policies of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development or U.S. HUD's Office
of Policy Development and Research. No attempt has been made by
U.S. HUD or its contractors to verify the accuracy, currency, or
validity of the record contents presented herein.
|
|