Look past the first part of reporter Suddeath's article, which confirms yet again that despite the city's urgency to expedite a vote on the River View project, perhaps no one really knows how a levee cut fits into the plan, how much it would cost or who pays for it, and see that very soon we'll be reviewing the merits of two other downtown TIF projects.New Albany’s River View project doesn’t get vote; Scope of proposed levee cut to be reviewed,
by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)
The redevelopment commission approved amending the State Street TIF district to include funding up to $250,000 for a New Albany bicentennial park and $400,000 for refurbishing the downtown Farmers’ Market.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Are you TIF enough?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I hope the meetings are convenient to for the public too.
How I understand the scope of the private/public partnership, the city is getting a good deal.
But I want to see it in writing.
Mainland Properties is asking for the city cooperation by using Economic Revenue Bonds. This financing tool is considerably different than TIF bonds, which I have been told aren’t going to be used.
The ERBs are a private loan that Mainland Properties will have to acquire on their own through the bond market. There is no risk to the city. To help Mainland secure the necessary funding city administrators have offered to reimburse Mainland any new taxes captured by the State St TIF. If the River View doesn't generate any taxes into the TIF Mainland doesn't get a penny.
The levy cut, as explained in the special Thursday meeting has nothing to do with River View. It was only an option if the city wants to pursue it.
Sounds like a good deal for the city to me.
If that is true, it addresses one of my concerns. I've said all along that I would much rather do "abatement" type of help. My question now is, "all" additional taxes and for how long? Most abatements diminish over 10 years or so.
Also, if that is all true(not calling anyone out)why is it presented as the city building the garage?
Check again, RemCha. Economic Development bonds, not ERBs. Big difference. I know they sound alike, but TIF bonding consists of 2 types: Redevelopment Bonds and Economic Development Bonds. The administration is proposing EDBs for River View.
No one is well served by having the issue confused. You may want to take down your comment and revise.
$400K for the farmers' market? Are we buying a farm?
Jeff,
Maybe someone else is.
I think for $400,000 we could certainly buy a farm! We could buy the old country club and turn it into a urban farm, now that would be interested...
To build a roof-top...$100,000 MAX.
I agree, G. I like and support the farmers' market but fully realize there have been successful markets in existence for hundreds of years that don't have any more permanent infrastructure than what we already have. I'm not necessarily against some improvements to the space (or even a change in venue if it makes sense) but $400K for low use, outdoor space is off-base.
For that much, we could have a year-round, indoor market that could generate revenue via rents while still providing additional, inexpensive outdoor space for seasonal vendors.
The former Shrader Stables or Street Department properties could have worked for that before we sold them.
Economic Development Bonds are not a form of TIF bonds.
The city used EDB for Christian Academy which isn't in a TIF.
To use TIF bonds it has to be in a TIF or service a TIF.
If you get caught up between the use of a R or a D that's your problem but what I said earlier is still true. The only people confusing the situation are those saying the city will be using 12-18million in TIF bonds to build a garage and/or levy cut. Not true. The city is using EDBs and there isn't any risk to the city for their use. It allows Mainland to acquire better lending rates.
The city is also offering a pledge of new TIF revenue captured by the State Street TIF from River View. This pledge causes some gray areas and additional questions. Mark is getting at what some of those additional questions need to be.
The upcoming resolution starts the process for Mainland to find out exactly what those details will be. The process is far from over. Mainland hasn’t acquired financing or started construction documents. It could be years before anything will happen.
If this project is completed and successful it will have a large impact to downtown; a bigger impact than the YMCA has had.
I would add this. A lot of money over the years has been used out of TIF with very tax gerneration.
The State Street Parking Garage, YMCA, miles of sidewalks and roads, etc.
River View would be a project that would actually generate new tax receits for the city.
Jameson, you are wrong about EDBs. They ARE TIF bonds and the city is on the hook.
Industrial Revenue Bonds are different (as in the C.A. instance)).
HOWEVER, I too have now heard that secret negotiations have been conducted (Why are they secret and why is this not being discussed in public?) and the indications are, according to my sources, that the new "ask" is, in fact, for revenue bonds, which have no risk other than opportunity cost.
If that is true, then Jameson deserves an apology from me. Despite the fact that his terminology was incorrect, his underlying truth jibes with my information. It's just not an Economic Development Bond any longer. It is a revenue bond.
The only debate that can remain is whether this Mainland proposal is the best use of the site. Without competing proposals (which have been shut out by the 2-year cheapie option), it's very hard to argue against letting Mainland take these risks with little more than a thumbs-up from the city.
The bonus? The project WILL be TIF'd and new tax revenues would go to infrastructure improvements in the district.
NOW, if it is true, it looks like a real win-win situation.
Can we now move on to discussing why this is being done in secret? I'm absolutely fed up with this administration's proclivity to be so unnecessarily secretive. No wonder the council won't trust anything it hears.
I'm getting a little(actually a lot)tired of officials(elected, appointed, paid, unpaid)saying that "our" facts are wrong, that we don't know what we are talking about and then they just vanish. No explanation of what facts are supposedly wrong. No answers to questions. Heck, even deletion of questions.
Would this blog be willing to give space to Carl and/or Shane to write about what is actually being proposed? The newspaper seems to have space constraints.
I have been reading this particular blog subject and wholeheartedly agree that there are significant "ambiguities" swirling about. I am going to do my best to prepare factual Q&A on this project and post via the City's website, hopefully by the end of the day Friday, April 15. That, of course, depends upon what rears its ugly head in the meantime.
Thanks, Carl. Looking forward to it.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to post Q&A on the City website until Monday afternoon, April 18.
Fair enough.
http://cityofnewalbany.blogspot.com/2011/04/carl-malyszs-lost-comment-at-are-you.html
Post a Comment