Budget Season Getting Really Interesting - CIB Budget Delayed

Usually this part of budget season is dull and boring.  We're in the wrap-up phase after all the departments and agencies responsibilities and budget numbers have been discussed and after the big public hearing before the full Council.  About now, in the old days, there would be technical amendments to fix transposed numbers and whatnot - sometimes undoing the consumption of one group by another - but normally routine passage of the introduced budgets by the committees.

This year, due expressly to split government, we have real review of the budget and the Democrats are reworking the budget in significant ways.  They made it clear over the last month or so of committee hearings, that they would try to reinstate IMPD and IFD contractual raises and recruit classes. 

I have heard discomfort from Councillors on both sides of the aisle about Mayor Ballard's request that the homestead credit be eliminated - which sounds like, and is, a tax increase to many.  Plus its elimination actually causes a $3.5 million loss in revenue to Marion County schools.  So, the Ds are trying to dredge up an additional $8 million to substitute.  Heads of the municipal corporations have reported to the Council that the Mayor will be offering a deal to them to soften the blow from the homestead credit elimination, but so far no such deal has been revealed to the public.

With that back drop, I still wasn't expecting for something to be afoot with the CIB budget, but it is.  At their budget hearing in committee, they were chastised for not stepping in to aid the City in its time of need, when the City had stepped up when they needed a helping hand.

In the CIBs budget there was a golden egg for the ICVA.  DMD is in the process of selling a building next to the old Conseco Fieldhouse (someone please remind me of the new name) and the proceeds will go to the ICVA.  Something like $4.6 million is expected.  This is over and above the $9 million they get annually from the CIB.  The lion's share of the CIB revenue is from taxes of one kind or another.

The CIB is done with its $10 million a year 'loan' to the Pacers, so that's freeing up some cash.

Last night the Municipal Corporations committee of the Council met to make any final tweaks to the muni corp budgets.  But Chairman Monroe Gray announced that the CIB budget would not be discussed.  They are working on the numbers and they will call another committee meeting, hopefully by Wednesday or Thursday of next week.  The entire budget must pass out of committee in time for the October 15 meeting of the full Council.

What's brewing with the CIB budget?  Nobody is telling me anything.  But something interesting is going on.  Stay tuned.

Councillors Mahern and Adamson Stand Up for What is Right

Yesterday was a bad day for sense and sensibility in Indy government.  The Council voted 25 to 2 to pass Prop 15, which expands the consolidated downtown TIF by more than a square mile.

The only two who had the strength of their convictions were Councillors Brian Mahern and Zach Adamson.  Angela Mansfield appeared to be absent and Vernon Brown was excused from voting due to a conflict of interest. 

By my count, at least 7 Councillors, bent their principles and voted in favor. (Others were always going to vote the party line, the public interest be damned.)  Sure, their vote would not defeat the measure, but it would have sent a message that the ongoing community discussion on TIFs is necessary.  That conversation will continue.

Councillor Vop Osili made promises to folks living in the Riverside and UNWA neighborhoods.  The language he negotiated and inserted into Prop 15 fails to target those promises to those neighborhoods. 

Councillor Joe Simpson refused to amend the Mass Ave portion of the TIF to exclude 2 of the several parcels that are already slated for private investment.  This extension of the consolidated downtown TIF is merely being created as a slush fund for the Ballard administration, and Simpson is fine with that.  He and they are stealing revenue that would have gone to help teach the children of IPS, stealing revenue that would have gone to deliver poor relief in Center Township, stealing revenue that would have gone to IMPD, IFD, IndyGo, Health & Hospitals, Parks, and the libraries - and spending it on development that could and would have happened without the TIF.

I sincerely hope that a dye was not cast last night.  I hope we merely walked down the wrong path on a course that we can change before it is too late.  TIFs have consequences.  They are not free money.  At some point, we will cross a line that harms Indy's economy and the services we pay taxes for.

Councillors will feel the urge to get in line to get a TIF for their area, too.  By my count, the two that passed last night are just the first of 8.  I don't know where the line of economic harm is.  Perhaps it isn't even a bright line, but rather a gradual loss of services and quality of life for most of Indy's residents until drastic cuts in public safety and education become routine, and we do the best we can to wait out the 25 year lifespan of the TIFs.

The issue of TIFs is a hard one.  I have been happy to see the community trying to get on top of it, digest it, and decide upon it.  The conversation began in earnest about a year ago as key people in key groups began to understand there is no free ride with TIFs.  And the conversation will continue. 

Today I want to thank Councillors Mahern and Adamson for standing up for Indy, even when the powers that be tried to make them bow.  We need elected officials with spines and principles and who will fight for what is right and best for Indianapolis and its people.

The public good suffered a blow last night, but the fight continues.

The Case Against Prop 15

Tonight the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council is poised to vote on Prop 15 - which would expand the consolidated downtown TIF district in two directions for a total addition of 1.1 square miles.

There are three components :

A) 112 acre easterly expansion, less than half of which runs along Mass Ave (see "What's Wrong With This Picture - The Proposed Mass Ave TIF" for maps of the proposed TIF) all supposedly needed for the development of 0.8 acres.

B) 604 acre westerly expansion (see "Proposed Bush Stadium TIF - Google Aerial View" for maps of the proposed TIF) all supposedly needed for the development of a couple of block area.

C) Also pasted on top of the expansion TIFs are three programs - a $2 million microloan, a $10 million microloan, and a $1.5 million job training program - to be funded by the TIFs.  It must be noted here that TIF funds may only legally be spent on projects within the TIF boundaries and these programs run significantly beyond boundaries.

These are the reason that come readily to mind as to why Prop 15 should be defeated.

1) Prop 15 is dead --- Council rules require that any proposal that is tabled for more than 6 months be removed from the list of pending proposals.  This is exactly what happened to Prop 16, another TIF proposal, which had been introduced and tabled on exactly the same dates as Prop 15.

2) There is a lawsuit pending against the Council for taking any action on Prop 15 because it is dead.  It should give any member of the public pause as to why the Council did not simply follow its own rules and reintroduce the proposal under a new number.  It would only be two weeks from now, before it would be back to the full Council.  Likely, they did not want the TIF Study Commission recommendations (Prop 316) to beat it into law.  This brings me to 3)....

3) The TIF Study Commission recommendations (Prop 316) (see "Finally, TIF Study Commission Recommendations At Committee"), which would require full disclosure of the underlying finances of the proposed projects and the abilty of the TIF to generate adequate revenue to make payments on any debt incurred.  The way I have been framing the need for information is so that the Council and the public could see for themselves - Why a TIF?  Why this location?  Why this project? Why this footprint?  Clearly, the rush on Prop 15 is because there is a concerted effort to avoid full disclosure.

4) The Mass Ave area is thriving, if not downright booming, and has at least 3 large projects already slated for 2013 and 2014 - needing no public dollars.  (Well, suddenly the developers are supposedly telling Deron Kintner, deputy mayor for economic development and director of the bond bank, they think they might need public dollars after all.  Believe him if it makes you feel better.  Many Councillors, who know for a fact that Kintner has previously lied to the Council and to the press, will be citing his words when these TIFs don't work out well.  But, I digress.)  Creating a TIF here is ass backwards from how TIFs are supposed to be created.  The intent is to create a TIF to fund a project to spark development with private dollars.  Instead, the Mass Ave TIF is being created to cannibalize tax revenues from development made with private dollars.  By all rights those tax revenues should be flowing to the schools, library, IndyGo, etc, instead of to a TIF fund.  This is how you set up a thriving slush fund - not a beneficial TIF.

5) The Mass Ave TIF contains three 'nodes' - two along Mass Ave and one abutting the current consolidated downtown TIF.  At least half of the 112 acres is contained in this mystery node.  I have only heard one question asked in a public venue about this huge footprint.  Councillor Zach Adamson (who ultimately was the lone, brave, vote against Prop 15 in committee) asked why that node was needed.  Kintner's answer was that he could not divulge that information at this time.

6) One of the bids responding to the RFP put out by the City to solicite plans to relocate the Mass Ave fire station, actually offered $2 million to the City to buy the property and did not request any public dollars. This proposal was rejected.  The three proposals still in the running curiously all ask for a TIF to be established and for public dollars to be invested in the project.  Now, why would a developer care where public dollars came from?  Really !  This is an example of exactly how stupid and gullible Kintner and the Vaughn/Grand/Ballard administration think the public and the Councillors are.

7) I have not heard one question asked as to why there must be 604 acres of TIF to support a couple of blocks of infrastructure improvements in the Bush Stadium area.  This is the only project publicly acknowledged by the administration.  Obviously, the Councillors have no answer to why this footprint is necessary and wise.  Instead, they focused their attention on getting residents of the area to speak in favor of the TIF because their neighborhoods need help.  Mark Fisher of Develop Indy worked to turn out the residents.  While any caring human being wants to help, we have no gauge for whether or not this TIF is the answer, whether or not other public funds can address the issues, and where this area lands on a prioritized list of neighborhoods in need.

8) The language added to Prop 15 to satisfy some of the neighborhood leaders' interest in tearing down the old Bryant Heating & Cooling facility, is slipshod and may not be enforceable. Lets see if anyone introduces an amendment tonight to clear up the language, or if the Councillors are content to leave it in doubt.

9) There has been no financial data or analyses introduced that would justify why a TIF, why this location (although some need was demonstrated), what project much less why that project, and why this footprint for the proposed Bush Stadium area TIF.

10) The $2 million microloan and the $1.5 million job training programs would be made available to anyone within a 2 mile perimeter of the outline of the two-way expanded consolidated downtown TIF. The language is so poorly written that the recipients may not have to be low income, and/or may not have to have a business located in a low income neighborhood.  Promises have been made to nearby neighborhoods and the Indianapolis religious community at large, that these programs are to help the residents within or abutting the TIF area.  These promises are false promises - if you go by the agreement that has actually been reduced to writing.

11) Expending TIF funds, or swapping TIF dollars for other City dollars, to pay for the $2 million microloan and $1.5 million job training programs outside of the footprint of the TIF would be illegal.

12) The $10 million microloan program has no details except it would be funded by the TIF and spent throughout Indianapolis.  Expending TIF funds, or swapping TIF dollars for other City dollars, to pay for the $10 million microloan program outside of the footprint of the TIF would be illegal.  The City could use $10 million to fund raises for IMPD and IFD, and/or a recruit class for IMPD and IFD.  Money the administration insists is not available.  What will be sacrificed for this microloan program, if the law is actually followed and TIF funds are not used for the program?

13) There has been no consideration given to the question, how many TIFs are too many TIFs for Indianapolis and Marion County.  Already 11% of all taxable property is contained in a Marion County TIF, 33% of all taxable property is contained in a Center Township TIF, and 22% of all taxable property is contained in an IPS district TIF.  Prop 15 seeks to add another square mile of TIF to each of those jurisdictions.  Prop 15 will cannibalize taxes that would have flown to the schools, library, IndyGo, Health & Hospitals, Townships, Fire, IMPD, Parks, as well as the City and County government.  Prop 15 will decrease the tax revenues that flow to these units, as well.

For completeness sake, I recommend the following blog entries as well -- "TIF Fact #1 -- We've Been Bailing Out TIFs for Years", "TIF Fact #2 -- $490 million of property value was transferred from the base to the increment this year", "TIF Fact #3 -- TIFs Cause Higher Property Taxes For Everyone and  Cause 41% of Circuit Breaker Penalties To The Taxing Units", "TIF Fact #4 -- TIFs Comprise 11% of All Taxable Property In Marion County - How Much More is Prudent?",   "TIF Fact #5 -- 16 of 40 Marion County TIFs Have Seen Their Base Driven to Zero Value",  "TIF Fact #6 -- 5 of 6 TIFs Comprising the Consolidated Downtown TIF Have Seen Their Base Driven to Zero Value", "TIF Fact #7 -- 33.3% of All Taxable Property in Center Township is Contained Within a TIF -- How Much is Prudent?", "TIF Fact #8 -- 20% of IPS Taxing District Contained Within a TIF -- How Much is Prudent?", "TIF Fact #9 -- Most TIF Districts Underperform County as a Whole" )

There are many excellent reasons for Prop 15 to be voted down tonight.  But, instead, what we will witness is greed, ambition, threats of retaliation, blackmail, and willful ignorance drive the Council to pass this retched dreck.

Prop 15 - A Nightmarish Mess

The tortuous life of Prop 15 through the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council is not the Council's finest hour by any stretch of the imagination.

The ridiculoucity continued this past week with two evenings of meetings of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee.

Even before Monday night's meeting began, the committee knew it would be recessing that night without passing Prop 15 due to a disagreement with the Ballard administration over a proposed amendment that sought to add language guaranteeing two microloan programs and one job training program.  Councillor Vop Osili had a memo from Deron Kintner to the effect that the City agreed to those programs, but wanted it written into the proposal.  I uploaded to Google Docs the disputed, and never introduced, amendment.  What you'll notice is it's clarity of language.  The header suggests this amendment was intended to be voted on at the full Council meeting where, instead, the Council decided to send Prop 15 back to committee.

What was introduced Friday night, after they had four full days and nights to come to an agreement, was a mess - tortuous language construction, dubious protections for the intended beneficiaries of the programs, and massive loopholes.  Not to mention the misspelling of the word "Councillor" - which is defined in Council rules, by the way.  Plus you'd think commas were an endangered species that had to be included sparingly.  This amendment passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Councillor Zach Adamson providing the sole no vote.  I have uploaded my copy of this amendment, as the Council website has not yet updated their version of Prop 15.  Sorry for the scribbling, I wasn't thinking I'd be sharing it with everyone.

From the header one might think this amendment would be introduced at the full Council.  The meeting Friday night did start 5 minutes late and the amendment was not available until seconds beforehand.  So, it may be the negotiations were deemed done enough and this messy amendment was introduced at the committee instead.

Here are some attributes of the amendment that catch my eye:

The $10 million microloan program will require "the leveraging of current resources" which usually means floating bonds to be repaid with some revenue stream.  There aren't many details provided on this proposed program.  One thing that is stated is that it would be a county wide program.  It would be a violation of state law for the funds to come from the downtown TIF.

I looked through google street maps and the Marion County Assessor's interactive map to try to locate the "Bryant Heating & Cooling Facility located at 21st and Montcalm".  All parcels at that intersection are owned by private entities, none of which are Bryant.  To the west, however, at 1100 W. 21st Street, there is a large parcel with large buildings that appear abandoned, which is owned by DMD.  Why the lack of specificity when an address or parcel number is three mouse clicks away?  This is important because there is an attempt to require the demolition of this facility.

In multiple places the phrase "the area" is used.  From context it seems like it refers to possibly different boundaries at times - but the phrase is never clearly defined, which results in little to no protection of the residents of the Bush Stadium area that any of the promises made to them will actually be fulfilled - or even be required to be fulfilled.

The $2 million microloan program can be awarded to any business within a two mile radius of the enlarged downtown consolidated TIF.  The language is poor, again a comma or two might clarify, but it is either attempting to say the business must be located in a lower income area (median household income 75% or less of the median income in the County) or that the 2 mile perimeter must be centered on a low income area.  Just by the way, the median household income in the County is $40,421.  But a two mile radius?  How does that adequately target the Riverside or UNWA residents who came out to say they needed help?  Looking at maps, this perimeter could reach the Speedway to the west, Garfield Park to the south, Butler University to the north, and nearly Emerson Avenue to the east.  The intent is to take the funds from the TIF.  But TIF revenues must be spent within the TIF.  These requirements are a clear attempt to circumvent the state laws regarding the expenditure of TIF revenues, and it does not target the folks who live in the Bush Stadium area.

The exact same thing can be said of the $1.5 million job training program as was just stated for the $2 million microloan program.

And the last I'll mention is the really botched attempt to get work for the TIF district residents.  The language seems to say that any business receiving TIF money, should they require new hiring, would have to ensure that 40% of those hired lived in the TIF district.  The business could get out of this by filling out a form that indicated why it tried but failed to get to the 40% figure.  Or, they could bring in all their additional help from out of state, since those folks will not be counted.

Osili has been all over town touting the targeted benefits he personally negotiated for the residents and businesses of the Bush Stadium expansion area.  But, he is not delivering on that promise with this language.  Someone is being scammed - its either Osili or the residents.

Prop 15, that twice beaten dead horse now burdened with the worst amendment in the history of amendments, was voted on twice by the committee Friday night.  The first time the phrasing of the motion left off the key part where it would be sent back to the full Council with a do-pass recommendation.  On the advice of Council counsel, they did a do-over with the correct motion.

Both times the vote was 6 yeas and 1 nay.  Councillor Zach Adamson was the lone no vote both times.  The yeas were Councillors Robinson, Talley, Adams, Osili, Miller and Cardwell.  The last two are Republicans and the rest are Democrats. 

Prop 15, that raggedy, tattered zombie that it is, returns to the full Council Monday night.

Matt Tully - Wrong on TIFs - Not Just Merely Wrong; Most Sincerely Wrong

There is no doubt the IndyStar columnist, Matt Tully, is a talented writer.  As a person, Tully's opinion is of no more importance than the next guy's.  As a paid opiner for the Star, with its wide reach, his opinions are amplified in the community.  With that reach, and with being a journalist, one would hope Tully would be fastidious in checking what he promotes as facts.  Unfortunately, in his column on the proposed Mid-North TIF, Tully fails the accuracy test.

Tully repeats that tired old fairy tale that TIFs only capture new development.

First, the TIF captures only new property tax revenue -- meaning money from new investment over and above what is already collected.

We see this year, where $490 million of base - which is the 'old stuff' - in Marion County's TIF districts, was converted into increment - which is, according to the fairy tale, supposed to be only the 'new stuff'.  That's a full third of the existing base.  How much time would it take to accumulate an additional $490 million of property value for our tax roles through development?  And yet, in one year that huge amount of property value is yanked from producing tax revenues for the schools, libraries, IndyGo, Health & Hospitals, fire departments, IMPD, parks, as well as the city-county government.

Where Tully gets alarming is where he promotes brand new fairy tales about TIFs.  He actually most succinctly framed the idea in a short twitter debate he had with Amos Brown a week ago.  Below is a screen shot of the back and forth so you can get the context in which Tully said

"If Midtown continues losing high income families that's a disaster for the city--particularly the most struggling parts of it."  Huh?  And, from the context, TIFs are apparently the answer.

Let's face it, a Mid-North TIF is a solution searching for a problem. 

Tully is promoting the idea that TIFs are designed to bring tax dollars into well to do neighborhoods to make them even better places to live so that rich people stay in Marion County.  His logic is other worldly when he can reach the conclusion that improving the lot of the well to do has a positive impact on those who struggle daily.

If it were just Matt Tully, a person, with this attitude, it would be part of the community conversation.  But, it is Matt Tully, the print media columnist, who is spreading this insidious meme that TIFs are for the better off areas.

You likely remember that extraordinary series of columns Tully wrote about the Meadows years ago now.  Where is that Matt Tully?  TIFs were designed to help just this type of neighborhood, where no dollars are going and a few dollars has a shot at making a real difference; first in the real estate, then in the lives of those who can't afford the rent in Tully's neighborhood.

If there were a prioritization of neighborhoods in need in this city/county, Meridian Kessler, Broad Ripple, and Butler-Tarkington wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list.  Yet, they want to get theirs first, before the reality sinks in that TIFs have consequences, not all of which are good for Indianapolis and its future.

The last couple of years, Tully has taken immense amounts of time to experience IPS, and he penned riveting and pivotal pieces that helped to elevate the discussion of education in Indy.  Where is that Matt Tully?  Doesn't he know that existing TIFs already harm IPS' bottom line?  And yet he is promoting the creation of another square mile TIF in the IPS district. They call the downtown TIF the "dead zone", because of all the property value that does not send revenue their way.  IPS already has 22% of all taxable property within its district caught up in a TIF increment.  One-fifth.  That's twice the average for the County as a whole.  40% of the circuit breaker penalty (the property tax revenues that government qualifies for, but cannot collect due to the property tax caps) in the County can be attributed directly to TIF districts and their sequestration of property value.  With its higher percentage of property valued contained within TIFs than the County as a whole, one would estimate that TIFs cause an even greater percentage of the $15 million circuit breaker penalty that IPS will see in 2013.  What could IPS do with an extra $6 to $12 million a year more?

But this Tully, the one for whom there is no valid and valuable community conversation about TIFs going on, this Tully would add another square mile of untouchable tax revenue in IPS's district.  He seems to think that excluding residential property from the proposed Mid-North TIF is a positive.  But, lets face it, residential property has a 1% tax cap, and the TIF would capture the commercial values - which are higher in assessed value and which have 2 % and 3 % tax caps, so pay a greater proportion of property taxes from the same size lot.

Tully does columns on crime in a variety of areas in our city-county.  Yet, he doesn't mention that TIFs take revenue away from IMPD - not just shelter revenue from IMPD's grasp, but take it away in the form of the circuit breaker penalty.   According to Jeff Spalding, City Controller, the 2013 circuit breaker penalty will be over $5 million for IMPD and over $7 million for IFD.  As currently configured, the 2013 budget calls for no IMPD recruit class and one for IFD only if they can get their hands on a federal grant.  Again, at least 40 % of those circuit breaker amounts are directly attributable to existing TIFs.

Well, with or without Matt Tully, the community conversation about the reality of TIFs will continue.  Personally, I had hoped by this time our conversation would be about how much of our property value should be tied up in TIFs for the next 25 to infinity years.  Other jurisdictions that use TIFs and place a limit, set that limit at 5% of property value.  We are at 11%.  With the ramrodding of TIFs through the Council prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the TIF Study Commission, based on incomplete information, one has to wonder what generational damage these folks are doing.

Tully has a soapbox courtesy of the Star's circulation.  He also has a responsibility to be accurate with the facts he sprinkles throughout his columns to support his opinions.  On the TIF issue, he completely and utterly fails on the accuracy test.

Dust Up - For Reasons Unknown, But I Speculate Anyway

I have the greatest admiration for Councillor Brian Mahern, but last night he flubbed.

The Rules committee began their consideration of Prop 316, which would implement the recommendations of the TIF Study Commission.  After a thorough and really well done overview of the findings of the Commission, Councillor Bob Lutz introduced an amendment that would strike the very last part of Prop 316:

(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.

The discussion, which actually preceded the motion to amend, revolved around current Council rules and how the proposed change would impact the ease with which the full Council could call a TIF proposal out of committee.  Currently, if a committee kills or votes down a proposal, the full Council can call it out of committee by the vote of a simple majority; or 15 votes.  This change would require the suspension of the rules in order to call a TIF proposal out of committee, which requires a 2/3 vote; or 20 votes.

After the motion and a second, Mahern refused to take a vote and asked to postpone the proposal until the next meeting of the committee.  He said postponing would allow time to discuss this amendment as well as one Councillor John Barth would be introducing.  He noted that Barth's amendment was only received that afternoon.  There was no second to his motion.  Mahern then tried to move off Prop 316 and on to the next agenda item.  After some brief, heated discussion, a recess was properly motioned and voted on.

After the recess a vote was taken on Lutz' amendment and approved by a vote of 5-1, with Mahern being the lone dissenting vote.  Then there was a motion and second to postpone further consideration of Prop 316 until the next meeting.  That vote was 4-2, along party lines.

I got no indication from the cheap seats why Mahern was so intent on getting the proposal to the next meeting.  While I would welcome a requirement for a super majority vote on any TIF proposal, it didn't seem to rise to the occasion of clearly violating parliamentary procedure in order to avoid a vote.

Barth's amendment was available at the Secretary's table.  This amendment would gut the entire proposal.  Barth is promoting his own TIF for his own neighborhood - Prop 291; the Mid-North TIF (see "The Mid-North TIF -- Developer Driven and Sans Critical Financial Details").  He introduced his proposal at the last full Council meeting.  Prop 316 was introduced at the same time.  One might expect, therefore, that any implementation of the recommendations of the TIF Study Commission would not apply to the Mid-North proposal.  But, Prop 291 was not placed on the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee agenda for Monday night, and it will not be until after the next full Council meeting that the committee would take it up.  So, as of yesterday morning it looked as if the TIF recommendations would indeed apply to the Mid-North TIF.  I can't read minds, but it is very suspicious that Barth introduced his amendment just hours before the meeting and that amendment would gut the entire list of recommendations contained within Prop 316.

Besides a technical correction, Barth's amendment would add one line to section (b) of Prop 316.  Here is (b) with the added sentence underlined:

(b) The factors set forth in subsection (a) [which enumerated the recommendations] 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. 26-7-15.1(9)(a).  Likewise, the absence of any factor or part thereof does not limit the council's discretion to approve or disapprove a proposal.

With that last sentence included, none of the recommendations would be securely implemented.  The administration, or any that follows, could continue its pattern of withholding key financial information from the Council.  That information is necessary to a realistic look at the TIF being proposed.  Without that information the Council cannot make an informed decision and it cannot carry out its duty to review and vote to approve or disapprove as required by law.

TIFs do not generate free money, as many continue to believe.  TIFs have consequences, as many continue to avoid believing.  TIFs always caused increases in property tax rates.  Now they increase substantially the circuit breaker penalty caused by the property tax caps.  Property tax caps that were voted on by the people.

In this age of property tax caps, it is time for the Councillors to learn about the reality of TIFs. It is time to act as the fiscal body of our City that is different from the Mayor's office and that has a distinct role and responsibility.  It is time to demand full disclosure on proposed TIFs so that a reasoned decision about TIFs can be derived.  It is time to implement, not blow off, the Council's portion of the TIF Study Commission recommendations. 

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.