Councillor Scales Reacts to New Funding Mechanism for Avondale-Meadows

Councillor Christine Scales, co-sponsor of the proposed expansion of the Fall Creek TIF she had hoped would be used for the benefit of Avondale-Meadows residents, reacted on Facebook to the news the Councillors Talley and Robinson would introduce a proposal with an alternate funding mechanism.  Scales is a Republican, while Talley and Robinson are Democrats.  Here is her post:

News to Me: Talley&Robinson coming to aid of Avondale Meadows It would have been helpful for any of the committee members who voted against the Avondale Meadows TIF to have shared their concerns with me before the MDEC meeting, when it was voted to be tabled. The co-sponsor, Councillor Steve Talley never shared any misgivings with me. It was obvious through Talley's prepared statement, and the ready agreement by others who opposed the TIF, that they never intended to consider testimony given during the meeting. The decision to oppose was made prior to the meeting's start. Now,Talley and Robinson are sponsoring a new proposal in my district without any discussion first with me, the councillor, representing the Avondale Meadows District. I have to mention that the TIF was needed not just for a grocery store but to advance further revitalization in the area. I don't need to be psychic to know that whatever these two D's propose will pass. There will be no record of them ever having voted against the TIF, as the proposal will die due to tabling. The D's will get credit for "helping" the neighborhood and no Republican will receive any credit for years of committed work in the Avondale Meadows area-which was the D's motive for not supporting the Avondale Meadows TIF all along."

Different Funding Mechanism To Be Proposed for Avondale-Meadows Area

Councillors Steve Talley and Leroy Robinson will introduce a proposal to the Council on January 28, that will include alternate funding to substitute for the failed Avondale-Meadows TIF proposal. 

The Metropolitan & Economic Development committee tabled indefinitely (AKA - killed) Prop 349 Monday night.  Prop 349 was passionately presented and championed by Councillor Christine Scales (see "Case for Meadows TIF")  That proposal included an expansion of the Fall Creek TIF to assist the Avondale-Meadows area in attracting a grocery store.  The TIF would exist for 25 years, even though the grocery store project bonds likely would have a term of only 10 years.  Deputy Mayor for Economic Development/Director of the Bond Bank Deron Kintner, doing financial calculations on the fly, estimated that the $3 million bond would take $10 million to pay off in 10 years.  Why a bond would have to have these terms is totally beyond reason - but that's what Kintner said.

Talley and Robinson, who voted against the proposed TIF, will introduce a proposal with alternate funding to meet the goals of the Avondale-Meadows area residents to attract a grocery store - which is absolutely critical for the residents to have available healthy, normally priced food.  They are now subject to the absurdly high prices and paucity of fresh food from convenience stores and the like.

I look forward to reviewing the new proposal once it is introduced.  And, I am glad that something is being done to provide the good folks of the Avondale-Meadows area with critical tools to lift up their quality of life.

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.

Council Committee Followed Improper Procedure In Pushing TIF Expansion Out the Door

Recently fellow blogger Fred McCarthy, over at Indy Tax Dollars, made a startling discovery regarding the outrageous meeting conducted by members of the Council's Metropolitan & Economic Development committee back on August 27.  McCarthy noted that the committee failed to properly vote on amending Prop 15 before voting to move it to the full Council with a 'do-pass' recommendation (see "Haste Makes Waste").

I just watched the ad hoc extension of the committee meeting and followed closely what motions were made and voted on.  (See "WCTY Archive For Metro Devel Committee" to view this section of the meeting for yourself.)

McCarthy is right.

It is surprising, given Councillor Adams lengthy tenure on the Council, that she would goof this up, but she did.

Here are the series of motions and votes.

0:26 -- Chairman Talley adjourns the meeting.

1:56 -- Councillor Osili moves to take Prop 15 off the table.  Adams seconds.  Cain 'thirds'.

Talley does not recognize Osili's motion.

4:40 -- Adams takes control of the meeting by consent.

5:00 -- Osili again moves to take Prop 15 off the table.

5:48 --  Osili reads full text of Prop 15 with amended parts.

No motion to amend is made.  No second to amend is made.

11:59 -- Councillor Robinson moves for recess.  Adams does 'not entertain at this time'.

12:30 -- Adams say incorrectly that the proposal as amended has been moved and seconded.

13:00 -- vote is taken to move Proposal 15 off the table.

Adams follows vote to take off the table with erroneous statement that the matter is "before us as amended".

19:20 -- Adams says they "need to take a vote on the amendment"

no vote is taken

20:05 -- Adams says, erroneously, that they have amended version of Prop 15 before them.

20:20 -- Adams says she will take a vote on Proposal 15 "as amended" - voice vote, not sure if Robinson in the room.

20:38 -- Councillor Adamson explains his vote, Osili thanks him for his assistance.  It should be noted that if Adamson had not remained in the meeting, and left with Talley and Robinson (who came and went during the ad hoc portion), there would not have been a quorum of the members and no doubt that the meeting could not continue.

22:50 -- Cain makes a motion to move Prop 15 as amended to the full Council with a do pass recommendation.  Cannot hear a second on the video.  Vote proceeds again with a 5-1 outcome (Osili, Adamson, Adams, Cain and Miller yes -- Robinson no).

There is never a motion to amend Prop 15.  There is never a second to amend Prop 15.  There is never a vote to amend Prop 15.

The five yes voting members of this committee clearly do not value public notification that a hot topic will be considered by the committee and therefore real opportunity for public input.  There likely will be protests of this characterization, but when push and shove came together, they acted without public input and were fine with it.

Council rules do not require public input in this type of ordinance, unfortunately.  But, Council rules do require proper motions, seconds, and votes to amend.  If the full Council is not interested in sending Prop 15 back to committee because of lack of public notification and input, then they surely must send it back due to improper Council procedure. 

Kudos to Fred McCarthy for bringing this to light.

TIF Study Commission Wraps Up Its Work

With the 10th and final meeting, the TIF Study Commission wrapped up its work last night.  The vote was 5 to 2 to adopt proposed recommendations along with a very lengthy report that distilled the testimony presented.   To summarize this herculean effort effectively, I will cut this into three parts - the Commission itself, the ideas and facts collected, and the recommendations.

The 8 Commissioners were Councillors Steve Talley, Brian Mahern, Ryan Vaughn (and his replacement Jeff Cardwell), Auditor Billie Breaux (and her proxy Richard Hunt), State Representative Bill Crawford, MDC President Ed Mahern, City Controller Jeff Spaulding, and Bond Bank Director Deron Kintner.

All came to the table with their own perspectives, and the give and take was on the highest level - all to the gain of the public in this process.

The presentations were mostly in plain English, yet had an academic rigor to them. 

All of the meetings can be found archived on the WCTY webpage (click here and scroll down to the last category, "Special Events").  The 10 meetings are listed there.  I added up the time for all of the meetings and it came to 24 hours.  You can find all of the documents that formed the presentations on the TIF Study Commission webpage, organized by date.

Needless to say, all of the information from this 24 hours makes a thick document - even when distilled.  The draft of the Executive Summary has been posted online.  I'll put up a link to the final document when it is posted, as well.  The final document without the appendices comes to 86 pages.

I cannot finish this roundup of the Commission without paying respects to two members of the Council Staff.  First, Leslie Williams took copious minutes, which can be found on the TIF Study Commission webpage.  I think the amount of work involved in taking the minutes of a meeting, especially long ones, is often undervalued.  I know that is a job I studiously try to avoid doing in organizations because of the number of hours actually required. 

Second, Hope Tribble, the Council's CFO.  I cannot begin to guess at how many hours Tribble put into this Commission - along with doing her regular job.  It appeared to me that she invited the guests, set the agendas, provided presentation and agenda materials to all through email, got super quick responses to questions fielded through email, and wrote (and likely re-wrote numerous times) the report that is being issued by the Commission. She most assuredly was the secret weapon for this Commission and a key reason why it functioned at the high level it did.

From the last two meetings it was clear that there were two camps assembled on the Commission.  All seemed to agree to more transparency and more documentation for why a TIF District should be set up.  The camps were apparent when the discussion turned to recommendations that would put limits or more oversight on the use of TIF funds or would place time limits on the life of an existing TIF District.  The majority wanted to rein in the use of TIF dollars, provide more oversight, and limit the lifetime of existing TIFs so that more of these property tax dollars could flow to the various units of government to provide the services that have been strained due to the property tax caps that were implemented a few years ago.  The minority wanted to retain the 'flexibility' that the Ballard Administration now has in determining on what to expend any excess TIF funds and maximize the options for future Mayors to reactivate dormant TIFs - all with an eye to being nimble enough to remain competitive with other municipalities that compete for the same businesses.

The work of this Commission is the finest example of good government that I have witnessed in my years of closely watching Indianapolis' government.  Everyone who attended had to have learned something new, if not a lot of stuff that they did not realize before.  The meetings are archived on WTCY for review and the report is being finalized for release.  The recommendations of the Commission will need to be reviewed and acted upon by the Council, the Mayor, the MDC, and the State Legislature.  So, this is not the last you'll hear of the TIF Study Commission's work.  Like a rock thrown into a lake, the ripples will be around for some time to come.

Excellent job.  Well done all.

This Week's Fundy Goes to Steve Talley - Chairman of theTIF Study Commission

I've been debating how to handle the excellence in public access that is the TIF Study Commission, and I've decided to carve out individual awards as each person is serving a different aspect of public involvement and access.

So, this week's Fundamental Friday Fundy Award is going to Steve Talley, who is the Chairman of the Commission.  He is certainly doing a great job of keeping the meeting flowing, but more importantly, it is Councillor Talley who has managed to maintain an inviting ambiance to public comment time.  Outside of the first meeting, where the length of the meeting took us all by surprise, Talley has not limited the time for comments, either in total or individually.  Now, as we enter the phase of discussion to create policy, he is opening the floor several times for input from those not on the dais.

I've seen my share of public comment periods, and the way Steve Talley is running these ones lowers the threshold for those who might be unaccustomed to speaking their minds in public settings.  He is always attentive, welcoming, and sincerely appreciative of the input of the folks who do comment.

TIF Study Commission Off To Rollicking Good Start

You simply must wonder what wrong turn your life took when you find yourself energized by the geeky, wonky, TIF-er-ific lecture/discussion that happened at last night's opening TIF Study Commission meeting.  That is the situation I find myself in this morning.

WCTY, our government channel was present, capturing it all for your viewing pleasure.  As of this moment, it has not been posted, but I'll post a link as soon as I see it go up. [Edited to add link to the March 27 meeting - click here]

The TIF Study Commission falls out of City-County Council Prop 70, which set its composition and broad agenda.  On the panel are Councillor Ryan Vaughn, Controller Jeff Spaulding, Councillors Steve Talley and Brian Mahern, Auditor Billie Breaux, Bond Bank Executive Director Deron Kintner, MDC President Ed Mahern, and State Senator Bill Crawford.  Kintner was absent last night and sent a 'proxy', but I am afraid I did not get her name.

Missing last night was the taxpayer perspective, which left me squirming in my seat and my head flooded with my own internal comments.

Much information was thrown out there.  Bruce Donaldson, Attorney with Barnes & Thornburg, gave a overview of what the law allows TIF to be set up for and how TIF funds can be spent as well as the process whereby a TIF district is legally established.  Deputy Mayor Michael Huber was up next, going through the TIF philosophy of the Ballard administration.  Jeff Spaulding joined in for more of the administration's perspective on why use a TIF over other means of economic development.  Taking up the rear and pretty much rushed due to the late hour, was the Director of the Department of Metropolitan Development, Maury Plambeck.  Plambeck went through examples of the variety of TIF districts we have in Indy.

More detail is assured for future meetings.  So, let your geek flag fly !

Here are some of my observations from the cheap seats.

Billie Breaux brought up one of the great points last night - since you can create TIF districts to help spark redevelopment or for general economic development - why do we seem to be doing mostly the latter?  This really struck me as pertinent.  There is evidence that using TIF for economic development only moves economic development from where it would occur organically, to a location of the government's choosing and profits a developer of the government's choosing.  It does not accomplish much more.  But, trying to turn around a truly blighted area, is a different matter.  We can identify and prioritize, if you will, the areas most in need of a catalyst to improve a blighted area.  For the rest, we all want development in our neighborhoods, and prioritizing is more open to political interpretation.

I mentioned it earlier and it bears repeating, missing was the taxpayer perspective.  A number of platitudes were uttered last night that we have all heard before.  They are the 'promises' of TIF districts that do not necessarily come to fruition and for which TIFs are not necessarily the best approach. 

Spaulding mentioned "a rising tide lifts all boats" - that is true up to a point.  The never ending TIF district, however, has built around it an imaginary retaining wall - so the 'tide' cannot escape to outside areas to lift the 'boats' found there.  Huber opined that expanding the consolidated downtown TIF to nearby neighborhoods is way to share the wealth within that district.  I say, pay off the bonds, dissolve that TIF and let us all partake in the wealth.

On the same topic, Huber said that the development in a TIF would not have happened without the TIF, so it benefits all taxpayers.  While that is debatable on its face, by ending a TIF you would definitely help all taxpayers.  It might be a few dollars per taxpayer, but the aggregate it stunning.  The TIF districts in  Marion County take in over $100 million a year in property tax revenue.  If those TIF districts were retired, it would set off some critical dominoes.  First, the tax rates throughout the County would drop.  This makes Indy more attractive to homeowners and business owners alike.  It also means that fewer people hit the property tax caps.  When fewer people hit the tax caps, more money flows to the taxing units like the schools, the library, IndyGo, and the City.  When more money flows to the taxing units, more services or higher quality services can be provided.  This increases the quality of life in Indy, again improving the attraction of our city for people to live and work.  And, lets not overlook the impact on the taxpayers for those property tax savings.  For some, it means a better chance to keep their homes or business, and for others it is disposable money left in their pockets that can be spent on restaurants or new equipment or new cars, etc, etc, etc.  Retiring TIF districts can fulfill one of the promises made when the TIF was created - that it will benefit everyone.  When you do not retire the TIF, it only benefits those within the district, since the rest of us are footing the bill for the necessary public services that they still enjoy but do not pay for.

Mentioned by Donaldson was the idea that the tax revenue coming from a TIF district before day 1 of the district, will continue to flow to the schools and library, etc, after the TIF is formed.  This is called the 'base'.  He noted one readjustment as the tax caps were initiated that allowed a new calculation for the 'base' of our TIF districts, so that the new laws would not impede the City's ability to pay off existing bonds.  He did not mention that this readjustment is done annually.  I have blogged on the base and the annual calculations that the Auditor must submit before (see "TIF Districts - Who Knew The Base Could Drop?") .  From 2010 to 2011, these re-calculations caused $43 million in property value to be moved from the base, into the TIF revenue.  That was likely due to the drop in property values caused by the bursting housing bubble and recession.  But, if you look at the forms, there is no way that the value will be returned to the base once the recession is over.  The forms leave you with a choice - either stick with the same base as last year, or let it drop to recover more money to pay the bonds of the TIF district.

So, dear reader, if you've gotten this far, I thank you for your perseverance.  Its geeky, nerdy, wonkish stuff to be sure.  But, TIFs can be a promise for a better future, or a drain on the rest of us, or a slush fund, or all simultaneously.  As taxpayers, as citizens of a City we all want the best for, we owe it to ourselves to get at least ankle deep in the topic and lend our guidance to our elected officials as they try to navigate the best course for TIFs in Indianapolis.