Finally - TIF Study Commission Recommendations At Committee

The TIF Study Commission did extraordinary work - and its knowledge base should be used by each and every Councillor in order to do what is best for Indianapolis.

The recommendations that pertain to the Council are being considered in Prop 316, which is being heard by the Rules committee tonight, beginning at 5:30 pm.  The agenda notes room 260, but it would be really nice to see such a crowd of supporters that it had to be moved to the public assembly room.

The meat of prop 316 is cut and pasted below.  The bottom line is that it will require full disclosure from any administration wanting to create or expand a TIF district.  Its a first.  Its important.

Here are the recommendations in the proposal:

SECTION 1. Chapter 151, Article VI of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County is hereby amended by adding a new Section 151-88 to read as follows:

Sec. 151-88. Special requirements for consideration of proposals concerning creation and expansion of allocation areas under I.C. 36-7-15.1.

(a) In exercising the council’s discretion under I.C. 36-7-15.1-9(a) to “approve or disapprove” proposals creating or expanding tax increment financing (TIF) allocation areas under I.C. 36-7-15.1, the council and its committees shall consider the following factors:

(1) Whether the city has provided a cost/benefit analysis that includes a description of how the project plan aligns with the county-wide comprehensive economic development planning document; a description of how the project plan aligns with the local/neighborhood planning document; a market analysis of the existing, possible or likely future free market unsubsidized private development in the proposed geographic area; an analysis of recent changes in the assessed value in the individual parcels located within the geographic area of the proposed project; and an analysis of use of a project TIF as compared to a TIF district.

(2) Whether the proposed geographic area of the proposed TIF district would include parcels that are in the process of being improved, even if not substantially complete enough to be assessed and added to the county’s inventory of taxable property.

(3) Whether the city has created and implemented a uniform TIF application, employing best practices and including all information needed to evaluate the proposed project and all data elements required for a TIF database, including a financial pro forma.

(4) The extent to which the city has employed the use of alternative or complementary economic development tools and infrastructure funding prior to the use of TIF.

(5) Whether the proposal minimizes the duration of the TIF district to the amount of time reasonably required to accomplish both the economic development goals of the TIF district and to provide for the permanent return of incremental assessed value to the base taxing units as soon as possible by decommissioning the TIF district.

(6) Whether the proposed TIF district targets the use of tax increment financing in a targeted, limited and compact geographic area.

(7) Whether the existing TIF districts in the jurisdiction of the redevelopment commission have sunset dates established.

(8) Whether the existing dormant or partially dormant TIF districts in the jurisdiction of the redevelopment commission have been terminated.

(9) Whether the proposal would expand an existing TIF district that does not have an established sunset date.

(10) Whether the proposal is for redevelopment projects or economic development projects.

(11) Whether the proposal includes local hiring goals and MBE/WBE participation goals.

(12)Whether the proposal includes provisions for educational, work training, and worker retraining programs.

(13)The extent to which the base taxing units and community organizations that may be impacted by the creation or expansion of a TIF district were included from the beginning of the process and provided with meaningful economic impact analysis including projections of foregone revenue, not limited to current financial reporting requirements in state law.

(14) Whether the city has adopted semi-annual local reporting requirements, including a three-year capital spending plan for pay-as-you-go projects and other estimated spending for eligible uses of TIF funds.

(15) Whether the proposal includes accountability and remediation requirements for the performance of the TIF district, including progress reports measuring performance against stated goals at the time the district was established.

(16) Whether the proposal captures more incremental revenue than is necessary to cover debt service and reasonable reserves for the associated projects.

(17) Whether the city has established a uniform documentation, reporting, tracking and monitoring system for TIF districts and projects, including a TIF database and a TIF website which would be a repository of the TIF data and information made available to the public.

(18) The extent to which the proposal would remove from the base the incremental assessed value of projects that were completed or substantially completed before the adoption of the declaratory resolution.

(b) The factors set forth in subsection (a) are not exclusive, and the council may consider any other factors it deems appropriate in exercising its discretion to approve or disapprove proposals under I.C. 36-7-15.1(9)(a).

(c) Prior to voting to approve or disapprove a proposal creating or expanding a TIF allocation area, a council committee must publish notice and an agenda of the meeting at least ten (10) days in advance, and the proposal must be specifically included on the noticed agenda.

(d) Any proposal creating or expanding a TIF allocation area must be approved by a standing committee of the council before it can be considered for adoption by the full council.