What's Going On With TIFs?

For the second consecutive meeting of the Metropolitan and Economic Development committee, the Mid-North TIF (prop 291) was postponed - now to November 26.  Ostensibly it was due to sponsor Councillor John Barth's drafting of an amendment, which he told a couple of us who attended the meeting, was still a concept in his head.  He did promise to have the Council office post his amendment online in advance of the November 26 in order to give the public a chance to review it prior to that meeting.

The committee also postponed to November 26, two proposals on the TIF Study Commission recommendations - Prop 274 urging the MDC to adopt those recommendations pertinent to them, and Prop 275 urging the General Assembly to adopt recommendations that fall in their wheelhouse.  Although these proposals were introduced before the Mid-North TIF proposal, this was the first time they were actually placed on a committee agenda.

Also being delayed from any actual agenda, is the reintroduced TIF proposed for the Meadows area - formerly Prop 16, declared dead when Prop 15 was not.  This is the proposed expansion of the Fall Creek TIF and now is alive as Prop 349.

The Council has 45 days to put an introduced proposal on a committee agenda, and November 26 will come in just under the wire at 42 days.

Tonight's Rules committee meeting will entertain Prop 316 for the second time.  This proposal seeks the enactment of the TIF Study Commission recommendations that the Council can do something about.  You will recall that Barth authored a poison pill amendment that would have gutted the recommendations, the last time the committee met.  (see "Dust Up For Reasons Unknown - But I Speculate Anyway") We shall see if he still tries to do so.

It is obvious that the Democratic caucus is dysfunctional when it comes to TIF policy.  That is very unfortunate for the economic health of Indianapolis going forward.  We simply cannot absorb square mile after square mile of new TIFs - ones that primarily benefit well to do areas of our City to boot - without harming all of our governmental units' ability to deliver the services we are actually paying taxes to get.

Tonight is an opportunity to return the horse to the front of the cart, and let the Council adopt the well considered recommendations for full disclosure, transparency, and accountability that the public deserves regarding TIF district establishment and maintenance. 

Mid-North TIF - Developer Driven and Sans Critical Financial Details

A letter to the editor in yesterday's Star, signed by Councillor John Barth and leaders of a number of Mid-North Neighborhood Associations, claims that the proposed Mid-North TIF is not developer driven.

Hogwash.

Developer Leif Hinterberger testified a number of times at the TIF Study Commission.  During his testimony he noted the several years he has been working with Ryan Vaughn, and also listed a number of people in the City administration who he claims promised him that a TIF would be created to fund his project.

The project is 'The Uptown', on the northwest corner of 49th & N. College; a mixed use project of retail and residential.  The southern half of the block is owned by 49-50, LLC, whose agent is Leif Hinterberger.  The northern half of the block was owned by Leif Hinterberger, but recently sold to a Tom Melangton.

Many of these neighborhood groups signed letters asking for quite a bit of public money resources to be aimed at this project.

HOME funds and CDGB grants
Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority tax credits and grants
tax abatements
infrastructure curtesy of DPW
 

The entire block has been subject to a very large number of high weeds and grass complaints, forced mowing and legal action in environmental court, as well as a Health & Hospital demolition order on a building at 4902 N. College.

The Mid-North TIF as proposed (Prop 291 now before the Council) encompasses over a square mile of real estate.  The footprint is known, but nothing else has been disclosed to the public.  This is another pig-in-a-poke being pushed through before full disclosure is required through the passage of Prop 316.

If you take a peek at Prop 291 you'll see next to nothing as far as information, valuable or not, contained in it.  The MDC resolution, which I uploaded to Google Docs, does have the list of 1971 parcels contained in the footprint along with a map. 

Almost 1/3 is in Center Township and the remainder is in Washington Township.  All appears to be within IPS' district.  Center Township already has 30% of all taxable property contained within the increment of a TIF district.  IPS has 22% of all taxable property contained within the increment of a TIF district - what's another 700 some acres and over 1 square mile more.

And, lets not continue with the fairy tale that only new property value will have its property taxes diverted from IPS and placed within the TIF fund.  16 of 40 TIF districts have seen their base converted entirely to increment over the years.  So there is a track record that strongly suggests a high probability that the current value of property within the footprint will partially or entirely become another dead zone for contributing to the services of IPS, and the city-county.

Yes, the proposed Mid-North TIF is entirely project and developer driven.  And it puts an unknown amount of property value at risk, and stands to drive even higher the $15.2 million that IPS qualifies for but cannot collect because of the property tax caps.

If there is financial evidence that any of this is leaping to erroneous conclusions - the City has not provided it to the public.  With a lack of evidence to the contrary, we must conclude that past performance is the only indicator of future performance that we have.

Big Night At Rules Committee

The City-County Council Rules Committee will be taking up some big issues tonight, including partner benefits for City/County employees, and an ordinance banning blackballing of hotel workers who preveiusly worked for a temp agency. 

While most people attending will be interested in one of those two, I do want to make mention of an additional proposal that,if passed, would seek a half million loan from the state and then increase your taxes in 2013 to pay it back.  Hmmm...
Prop 168 does not say what purpose the half million would serve, just that it would be deposited in the City's Cumulative Capital Development Fund.  According to the budget for 2012, this fund was estimated to have over $3.7 million fund balance at the end of this year.  They used this fund to handle some of the property tax circuit breaker credits, eating into the over $8.8 million beginning balance. (see p 82 and 33 of the pdf) So why they need to feed this fund with a loan and add to our taxes next year is not clear.

Prop 179, sponsored by Councillor Brian Mahern, would establish a new requirement for a hotel to qualify for its annual operating license from the City.  No hotel would be able to enter into a services contract if that contract contained a stipulation that the hotel could not employ a person who had previously worked for the services agency.  This practice traps people in the employ of these temporary agencies and their attendant low wages with no benefits.  The hotels were quite happy to hide behind the skirts of the maids and other hotel workers in petitioning for more and more taxpayer funds to flow to the ICVA and the CIB - then unceremoniously cut these workers' jobs in favor of these black-hearted outsourcing agreements.
Prop 213, sponsored by Councillors Mansfield, Adamson, Barth, Hickman, Lutz and Hunter, would make various benefits available to City and County government employees who are in domestic partnerships. To qualify, the couple would have to be living together for at least one year and file a Domestic Partnership declaration the Human Resources.  The benefits provided to the partner would be the same as those now afforded to a spouse of an employee - such as health insurance and pension benefits - and family/medical leave would be provided to the employee for situations arising with their partner.  Should the domestic partners cease being a couple, HR would have to be notified immediately.  All benefits provided to a partner would be taxable to the employee.

On Prop 213, all I can say is - about time.  The State refuses to allow same sex partners to marry, stripping these couples of many legal rights married couples take for granted.  The least we can be as a City is progressive enough to provide equal benefits for partners as we provide to spouses.

The agenda for the Rules Committee lists 8 items.  The meeting will begin at 5:30 pm in the Public Assembly Room.