Collection of TIF monies lies ahead

Springfield's TIF district is alive and accumulating as yet uncollected income from city-county sales tax and real property tax, according to Mary Mannix, city budget administrator.

Mannix said the city's proposed budget will have to be amended when the TIF monies for 2000 are assessed in about four months. Those monies have to go into a separate account, according to state law.

The process details

As for the TIF itself, SBJ's news staff has reviewed documents provided last fall to the 11 TIF commissioners by the city's Economic Development Department and other departments involved in the Jordan Valley Park project. The documents were provided by TIF Commission member Darrell Decker, also a Greene County commissioner.

The documents state that the commission's legal purpose is "to provide a forum where redevelopment proposals contemplating the use of tax increment financing may be reviewed by the affected taxing districts and the general public."

That forum was a public hearing held Sept. 21, 2000, and continued to Sept. 25, 2000. The commission's role was to "make recommendations to City Council concerning redevelopment plans and the designation of redevelopment areas and projects," according to the documents.

The affected taxing districts in this instance were the Springfield R-12 School District, Greene County, the Springfield-Greene County Library Board, OTC, The Developmental Center and the state.

On Aug. 7, as required by law, 45 days before the hearing, a certified letter from Mary Lilly Smith, economic development coordinator for the city, went out to the affected taxing districts advising them of the public hearing. She also advised them that the redevelopment plan and projects information dated Aug. 7 was available for inspection in the city clerk's office.

The taxing districts were advised that their written comments and objections should be filed with the TIF commission, which was sworn in Sept. 7 at a study session. None of the taxing districts submitted written comments before the hearing.

On Aug. 31, a letter was sent by Smith to potential developers soliciting their proposals on behalf of the commission, which is the actual body required by law to solicit proposals. That notice gave the developers 20 days to prepare proposals. Over the spring and summer, several proposals were submitted for the multipurpose arena and ice rink.

Documentation

Ten days before the public hearing, the commission members were hand-delivered an amended proposed redevelopment plan and projects, according to a letter from Smith. The plan contained definitions, a project overview, 32 pages of property legal descriptions, aerial photos, diagrams and details on the TIF process.

On Sept. 18, three days before the public hearing, the commissioners received a packet containing a cost benefit analysis and the blight study that were required by state law. According to Smith's letter, the commissioners received the first volume of the blight study, an executive summary of the 233-page property-by-property blight analysis. The study was disseminated Sept. 16; the effective date of the study was Aug. 18.

Commission members didn't receive the 233-page report, but Smith wrote that "copies of that volume will be available for your review at the TIF Commission public hearing, or call me if you would like to review it prior to the public hearing."

The cost benefit analysis provided at the same time as the blight study included 16 pages of statistics and 10 pages of graphs.

As for the developers' proposals, "I have pulled pertinent information from their proposals for your review," Smith wrote in a letter to the commissioners. "I will have their full proposal packets at the public hearing," or the packets could be reviewed ahead of time, she wrote.

The vote

At the end of the second day of hearing, the commission voted 8-3 to recommend the plan and two developers John Q. Hammons and Group Seven. During the hearing, several commissioners asked why they had to make the decision so fast, and could the hearing be continued for a week or so.

The city's economic development proposal deadline created the hurry, Smith said.

In an attempt to educate the commissioners about their role before the hearing, their policy review package explained the background of TIF as follows: "Tax increment financing ... is a method which enables a municipality to support private and public redevelopment in targeted areas by providing funding for a portion of the costs of such redevelopment.

"Its purpose is to encourage development that eliminates or prevents urban blight, as well as to stimulate the local economy through job creation and tax base growth."

To a developer undertaking projects, the explanation continued, " ... TIF should be regarded as a deal-maker' for projects that prudent private sector investors would not undertake without the assistance of the public sector." TIF, it continued, is "to be used as a tool to fill the gap' between (the) amount of investment upon which an economic return can be achieved for private investors and the total development cost of a project, or to provide support to fund public improvements which could not be reasonably be funded without such assistance."

During the past legislative session the city sought appproval to receive 50 percent of the increase in state sales taxes from the TIF area to help pay for development; however, the request died in committee.

The TIF was created life by city ordinance on Oct. 23 and two projects of the redevelopment plan were activated Project 1, the Jordan Valley Park Project; and Project Area 9, which includes no projects but is a revenue generator for the TIF district, according to plan documents.