BZA Decisions Impact Our Community In Tangible Ways - Parking In Broad Ripple

You know, we have zoning development standards for a reason - to make our City a well functioning, attractive, and structurally safe place to live and work.  Unfortunately for our City, the Boards of Zoning Appeals give out variances at head spinning percentages.  A study of variance petitions passing through the BZAs during 2009 demonstrated that of 245 variance petitions filed, 223 were approved - for a numbing 91% approval rate.  If you have the money for the filing fee, you are pretty much assured of getting your variance.

But, the community loses in this race to the bottom.  If a law needs to be changed, then change it so that everyone is abiding by the same laws. This onslaught of poor decisions on variances year after year causes an erosion in our zoning laws, creates havoc in enforcing them, and throws out all efforts a reasoned planning for a great City.

As regular readers of my blog know, I have been looking into just how many required parking spaces have been waived by the decisions of the Boards of Zoning Appeals (see "BZA Decisions Contributed Mightily To Broad Ripple Parking Situation", and, "Broad Ripple Parking - More BZA Decisions Noted - Running Total 320")  Today I will report the latest tally of parking space variances granted for Broad Ripple going back to 1979.

Before I wade into the methods and results, I want to specifically thank Heather Stephan of Current Planning, who pulled several dozen documents for me in record time.  I also need to acknowledge that the entire linkage between BZA decisions and any perception of parking insufficiency in Broad Ripple came from BR resident and community activist, Clarke Kahlo.

I searched the City's Accela website for variances filed for any property within the area bounded by 62nd to the south, 64th to the north, N. College to the west, and N. Winthrop to the east.  As I noted in a previous blog, I could turn up no results of any kind for Broad Ripple Ave, likely due to its two-word name.  As luck would have it, there is a current variance being requested at 829 Broad Ripple.  Melanie Mullens, Senior Planner for Current Planning, had gathered a list of previous variances filed in the area, as part of her usual due diligence.  I obtained further variances from her list.

Using this master list, I requested a copy of the letter of 'Grant of Variance' for all those I had indication were actually approved.  From this letter I hoped to gather the number of parking spaces approved and the number required by ordinance.  The number waived would be determined by simply subtracting the number approved by the variance from the number required under the ordinance.

I found 41 variances filed asking for a waiver of the required number of parking places since 1979.  One was withdrawn, two were dismissed (which usually happens due to prolonged lack of interest of the petitioner), and 38 were approved.  None were denied.

Location of Variances found in the Broad Ripple area



The letter of Grant of Variance did not include the number of spaces required for 9 variances granted between 1979 and 1994, but did indicate a waiver of some number was approved.  So, the number of waived parking spaces I could obtain is merely a minimum.

That left 29 variances granted for 22 addresses since 1987.  I assumed that when there were two variances for the same address, the latest one reflected the totals for that address.

The 22 variances granted a waiver of a grand total of (drumroll, please) 646 parking spaces in this area of Broad Ripple.

646

646 parking spaces waived in a couple block area of a busy night spot.  These variances brought the number of parking spaces required by ordinance, which totaled 912 for these addresses, and waived 71% of them.   Instead of 912 spaces, the variances said it was okay to provide only 266.

I can hear them now : "Don't need no stinkin' parking in Broad Ripple !!!  Of course you can have your waiver, good sir !!!"

Clearly, the decisions of the BZAs have led to whatever need there might be for parking in Broad Ripple.  The residents have suffered the consequences every weekend late night for some time.  Now, the taxpayers are suffering the consequences.

More News About Broad Ripple Parking Garage Deal - Sheesh !

In what ranks as a truly convoluted and weird twist in the ongoing saga of the bad Broad Ripple Parking Garage deal, WRTV reporter, Kara Kenney scores this tidbit from Council President, Ryan Vaughn:

If the garage is profitable - the City can buy it for $1.  If the garage is unprofitable - the developer can make the City buy it for $1.

Wowsa !

Fellow blogger and lawyer, Paul Ogden, does an excellent job of analysing the legal illogic embodied in this strategy in his entry yesterday "Council President Ryan Vaughn Claims Broad Ripple Parking Garage Will Have Two-Way, Buy-Sell Option; Vaughn's Claim Strains Any Credibility".  I highly recommend you read it.

I have to look at it this way -  if the garage is profitable, why would the City essentially take it from the developer?  Don't we want private enterprise?  I know that's why I question a lot of deals that the City makes, because the taxpayers are bankrolling what should be private enterprise on the private dime.  I can't imagine any Mayor taking the heat for taking a profitable business from any business person for $1 for any reason - contract or no contract.

If the garage is unprofitable, why should the City's taxpayers be on the hook for it?  Why is the theme of the Ballard administration that business should not carry any risk?  In one deal after another, Ballard forks over large sums of taxpayer cash to a developer and crafts a deal to remove any future risk to the develop, and transfers that risk back to the taxpayers.  Remember No-So; the poster child of no risk to the developer?

I would sum this deal and others up with :

heads - the developer wins -- tails - the City loses

Public Input Sacrificed For Convenience Of Elected Officials

Last night, the Elected Councillors serving on the Metropolitan Development committee of the City-County Council, in effect, told the public that their opinions on who the Council appoints to important boards and commissions, is none of the public's business.  The particular focal point of the public gag order was the committee's discussion of the appointment of one Richard Kraft to a vacancy on the Board of Zoning Appeals 3.  The particular fall guy for the gag order was one Clarke Kahlo, who seeks to improve our community, in part, by improving the decisions of boards like the BZA.

Fellow bloggers Gary Welsh (Advance Indiana - "GOP Council Committee Refuses To Hear Public Comment") and Paul Ogden (Ogden On Politics - "Republican Councillors Refuse To Allow Public Testimony On Controversial Appointment To Zoning Board") covered this earlier.

I think Gary and Paul did a great job.  I would just have to say, that Democrat Councillors were present in the room and did not protest the gag ruling.

I know nothing of Mr. Kraft, and this blog entry is solely about public policy.

The Councillors knew two years ago, that the appointment hearings of some individuals could embarrass the appointee and those Councillors who picked them.  Democrat and Republican alike had two years to find a way for public input into these important matters.  At best they fumbled the ball that only they get to carry.  At worst they put on their best Boss Hog attitudes and told the public to take a hike, that the public's opinion meant nothing to them.

The work of the BZAs and the Metropolitan Development Commission causes good and evil to fall upon our community.  These very important panels are commonly populated by political-party-approved folks, and do not fairly represent the broad community.  At every turn the Councillors complain about how hard it is to get folks to serve.  Yet, every year the Council fails to even experiment with having just one of the three BZAs work evening hours.  This would immediately provide a whole host of individuals who would be willing to serve, but could not contemplate getting one afternoon a month off from work.  An additional bonus falling out of an evening BZA meeting is that more neighbors could come and speak their mind about petitions that will affect them.  But, working stiffs who have no flexibility cannot be a Board member under current conditions, nor are they able to often speak at hearings on zoning and variance matters that affect their quality of life and property values.  And, make no mistake, that's exactly the way some people in high places want it.

It is paramount that the Council find a way to let the public speak on the wisdom or insanity of the Council's picks to all of the boards and commissions.  You simply cannot pretend to value public input, then tell members of the public to shut up, move along, their opinions do not matter.  That applies to the Republicans who hold the majority on the Committee and the Council, and it applies to the Democrats who hold their tongues.

Councillors in attendance at last night's meeting were:
Janice McHenry (Chair), Paul Bateman, Jeff Cardwell, Jenny Cain, Brian Mahern, Dane Mahern, Jack Sandlin, and Angel Rivera.

TIF Districts - Links To Documents

In response to Jeff's request on the last blog post, here are some documents that I've uploaded onto Google Docs.

From DLGF - County Auditor's Certificate of Adjustment to the Based Assessed Valuation of TIF Districts - part 1

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwdQpQK1GbNrYjUxZWE5YzMtY2IwNC00OWQ0LThhYmUtY2I0YmY4OTQ2ZjY0&hl=en_US

 
 
From DLGF - County Auditor's Certificate of Adjustment to the Based Assessed Valuation of TIF Districts - part 2


https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwdQpQK1GbNrNjMxZTdhMTAtYmRkNS00MDY4LWE5ZjktOWZkYjI2OGVlZDE2&hl=en_US



 
My summary of info from first two documents

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwdQpQK1GbNrNTE0OTYxNzMtYjNkYS00MjdiLWE5NWQtNWY4NmUzMjJkYWY4&hl=en_US



TIF District revenue and debt service (obtained last year from City - Controller, as I remember)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwdQpQK1GbNrZDFkMTY4OTEtZDAwMC00ODk5LWI4ZmEtYzdkNTcyYzIxZTEw&hl=en_US&authkey=CLq1qPoB

 
 
TIF District fund balances (obtained last year from City - Controller, as I remember)
 
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwdQpQK1GbNrZWU2YWFjOTEtOGE1MS00MmYyLWI0NDItM2Q4ZjZlNjIwNTZi&hl=en_US&authkey=COC3tr8I

TIF Districts - Who Knew The Base Could Drop?

I'm sure some folks in Marion County know that the base of a TIF District can drop.  But, not once was that ever indicated while I was present in a discussion of TIF Districts.

A Tax Increment Financing District is an area created to help finance and spur development.  The additional, new, taxes collected after the District is created, go to pay off bonds that were floated to support the new development in some way.  Sometimes the assistance is in the form of infrastructure improvements, like new street, sewers, etc.  Sometimes it is in the form of helping with construction costs. 

I always heard that the property taxes collected from the property prior to the creation of the District would always go to the usual taxing units as it always did before.  The idea is that there is a 'base' assessed value and the property taxes from the base would flow to the schools and townships and library and IndyGo, etc.  Only the taxes from the increased accessed value (or "increment") would be used to pay off the bonds floated for the TIF District.

Well...  turns out not to be the full story.  I obtained copies of a form called "County Auditor's Certificate of Adjustment to the Based Assessed Valuation of TIF Districts" for 40 TIF Districts in Marion County, covering this year's property tax collections.  These forms are submitted to the Department of Local Government Finance by the County Auditor; Billie Breaux in this case.

Overall, the 40 TIF Districts had a combined gross AV of $4.81 billion.  The base AVs had a combined value of $1.45 billion. 

In the period between 2010 and 2011, assessed values all over the County dropped.  If one accounted for that drop, the base should have come in at $1.5 billion.  But, instead, the combined base AV dropped an additional $43.4 million.  That means over the county, individual property taxpayers had to pay a bit more to cover the shift in base AV.

All TIF Districts did not change in like manner.  While none had an increase in base value, after accounting for the general drop in AV due to the economy, 10 stayed the same, 15 were at zero and stayed at zero, and 15 accounted for the $43.4 million drop in base AV (again, after accounting for the effect of the economy on real estate values).

Now, this might be beneficial in the bigger picture, if there were no real growth in AV - since the bills still have to be paid.  But, the AV grew substantially.  All 40 TIF Districts combined for real growth of $203,337,569.  Surely the base could have been maintained with that kind of real, additional growth.  The 10 districts whose base stayed the same (after adjusting for lower real estate values), combined for $133.6 million real growth.  The 15 districts whose base was zero in 2010 and remained zero for 2011, the combined growth was $15.4 million .  And the 15 districts that lost base value combined for a real growth of $45.2 million.  Add that to the loss of base AV, and you have a taxable increase in the "increment" of  $88.7 million.

So, what do we have?  The base AV has always been promised as a continuing source of property tax dollars.  We are always told that we can count on that and the new development will pay for itself and ultimately contribute to us all once the TIF district is retired.  Only they don't retire TIF districts, do they?  Sometimes they DO return all of the tax dollars to the regular taxing units.  For 2012, only 3 TIF Districts will return all the tax dollars to these regular taxing units, down from 5 Districts doing so in 2011.  But, we were lulled into thinking that at least we had the taxes from the base to keep us going.

But, nooooo..... Excluding areas owned by government, the initial base AV of a TIF District cannot be zero.  The fact that by 2010, 15 had sunk to zero AV, suggests the erosion of the base AV over time.  Now, two of those 15 are or were owned by the government, so zero AV is understandable in those two cases.   Of the remaining 13, though, fewer and fewer property tax dollars flowed to the regular taxing units from TIF District areas, and that means the rest of us picked up the slack in our tax bills.

The way this particular DLGF form recalculating the base AV works, there can never be an increase in the base AV (outside of an increase in real estate values generally).  Once the base AV reaches zero, there can be no increase, even with an increase in real estate values generally. 

I do have to wonder what the initial base AVs were for all of our TIF Districts and what the full extent of the erosion in that base AV has been.

This raises a lot of questions about what can or should be done to fulfill the promise that if we create a TIF District, well at least we can count on the base AV to support our schools and libraries and public transportation and township/fire safety.

Meanwhile, there is enough to do, just to digest the meaning of base AV in a TIF District.

Council Rules Committee Meeting Postponed to August 10 - And the Superbowl Ordinance With It

The City-County Council Rules and Public Policy Committee meeting, regularly scheduled for this Tuesday, July 26, has been rescheduled to Tuesday, August 10, at 5:30 pm in Room 260 of the City-County Building.  This also means that the Committee's review of the Superbowl Ordinance (Prop 188) is also rescheduled to that date.

Excellent !

Rarely do I read an article in the IBJ about TIF Districts and say to myself, "Excellent" !

Well, that's not entirely true.  I never have.  Until today.

IBJ reporter, Francesca Jarosz, reports in today's edition, that City officials are looking at creating rules to return excess TIF funds back to the base taxing units, like the Library and schools.  If you don't have a subscription to the IBJ, you might be able to track them down at your local Library branch.  IBJ has become a must read for me.

In her article "Indianapolis eyes TIF surplus to shore up city coffers", Jarosz reports:

The city is considering ways to channel money captured for economic development in some of its 22 tax-increment-financing districts to units such as libraries and city-county government.


City financial officials and consultants are evaluating whether they can afford to shift some of the property taxes within the TIF districts back to the general tax base. They must make a determination by the end of this month.

City-County Council leaders also plan in the next month to start a public discussion on how to craft guidelines for using TIF in ways that maximize revenue for basic city services.

Excellent!

Jarosz even quotes Ryan Vaughn, President of the City-Council, as saying:

“We have property-tax caps in place now and reduced income-tax revenues,” said Ryan Vaughn, the council’s Republican president. “We have to start releasing some of the money back to the base when the district starts to over-perform.”

Excellent !

Jarosz also reached out to experts outside of Indiana:

“If you’re diverting that much money, it’s going to have an impact on the budget,” said Thomas Cafcas, a researcher with Washington, D.C.-based Good Jobs First, which advocates making communities more accountable for economic development incentives. “If money is just sitting there, it should be returned rightfully to other taxing jurisdictions.”

Gonna hafta Google Cafcas....


But, what can I say, except, Excellent !  Bring on that community conversation !

Excellent !!!!!!!