HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 18,2016COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA
WORKSHOP
APRIL 18, 2016
The Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville met in a workshop on Monday, April 18, 2016.
Council President Owen called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilperson White, Councilperson Zastawny, Councilperson Jahn,
Councilperson Maples, Councilperson Gill, Council President Owen, Councilperson Hawkins,
Councilperson Samuel, Councilperson Rodriquez.
I. Les Merkley - 2016-R-5 A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville
Approving the Order of the Jeffersonville Plan Commission (Tabled 4/4/16)
2. Les Merkley - 2016-R-6 A Resolution of the Jeffersonville Common Council Regarding
Approval of Expansion of Economic Development Area (Tabled 4/4/16)
City Attorney Les Merkley presented both Resolutions together. This is in reference to expanding the
Falls Landing and Innercity Road TIF. This requires the approval process going from Redevelopment,
Planning Commission, then to City Council, then back to Redevelopment Commission to hold a Public
Hearing.
Mr. Brian Colton from Umbaugh came to present the numbers concerning this matter. There are
multiple factors impacting the analysis. They are assessed value, the tax rate, the Levy, timing, and
Legislation.
There were five scenarios presented:
Scenario one: Assumes $150 million of new incremental assessed value
• Brings in an additional tax increment revenue of 4.7 million (net of Circuit Breaker loss)
Scenario two: Assumes $150 million of new assessed value not captured (No other AV, Rate or Levy
Changes)
• Additional tax increment revenue: $0
Taxing Unit
Levy Change
Circuit Breaker Red.
New Levy Change
City of Jeffersonville
$18,000
$1,516,000
$1,534,000
Clark County
$103,000
$408,000
$510,000
Greater Clark County
Schools
$406,000
$814,000
$1,221,000
Jeffersonville Twp
Library
$70,000
$70,000
Other Taxing Units
$230,000
$230,000
Tota Is
$527,000
$3,038,000
$3,565,000
Scenario three: Assumes $150 million of new assessed value not captured — offsets tax rate increase (no
other AV, Rate, or Levy changes)
• Additional tax increment revenue: $0
1
Taxing Unit
Levy Change
Circuit Breaker Red.
New Levy Change
City ofJeffersonville
$18,000
$0
$18,000
Clark County
$103,000
$0
$103,000
Greater Clark County
Schools
$406,000
$0
$406,000
$813,000
Jeffersonville Twp
Library
Jeffersonville Twp
Library
$0
$35,000
$35,000
Other Taxing Units
Other Taxing Units
$0
$115,000
Totals
$527,000
$0
$527,000
Scenario 4: Assumes $150 million of new assessed value not captured - 50% net AV increase (no other
AV, Rate or levy changes)
• Additional tax increment revenue: $0
Taxing Unit
Levy Change
Circuit Breaker Red.
New Levy Change
City ofJeffersonville
$18,000
$758,000
$776,000
$0
Clark County
$103,000
$204,000
$307,000
Greater Clark County
Schools
$406,000
$407,000
$813,000
$122,000
Jeffersonville Twp
Library
Jeffersonville Twp
Library
$35,000
$35,000
$7,000
Other Taxing Units
Other Taxing Units
$115,000
$115,000
Totals
$527,000
$1,519,000
$2,046,000
Scenario 5: Assumes $150 million of new assessed value with 90% captured and 10% pass-through (no
other AV, Rate of Levy changes)
• Additional tax increment revenue: $4,230,000
Taxing Unit
Levy Change
Circuit Breaker Red.
New Levy Change
City ofJeffersonville
$18,000
$151,600
$153,400
$0
Clark County
$10,300
$40,800
$51,100
$18,000
Greater Clark County
Schools
$40,600
$81,400
$122,000
$18,000
Jeffersonville Twp
Library
$18,000
$7,000
$7,000
$18,000
Other Taxing Units
$776,000
$23,000
$23,000
$1,800
Totals
$52,700
$303,800
$356,500
Scenario Summary:
2
Tax Increment
Revenue
Levy Change
Circuit Breaker
Reduction
Net City
Revenues
Scenario 1
$4,700,000
$0
$0
$4,700,000
Scenario 2
$0
$18,000
$1,516,000
$1,534,000
Scenario 3
$0
$18,000
$0
$18,000
Scenario 4
$0
$18,000
$758,000
$776,000
Scenario 5
$4,230,000
$1,800
$151,600
$4,383,400
2
Additional Bonding Capacity - $100% TIF (assumes 150% coverage and SBT back-up)
Councilperson Gill asked if the Council agreed to do this could an option be that some of the revenue be
dispersed to the County and the Schools. Mr. Colton stated that the City would have to decide how to
disperse that money.
Councilperson Jahn noted that money collected from a TIF has to be used for redevelopment. Mr.
Colton stated there is Legislation that allows up to 15% to be distributed to the schools as long as the
projects passes certain guidelines.
Councilperson Hawkins asked if the 15% is an annual amount that is given for the life of the TIF. Mr.
Colton advised that it is determined on an annual basis how much, if any is distributed to other entities.
Councilperson Zastawny stated that when there is a change in administration and Redevelopment it
comes along with a change of priorities. We cannot guarantee what future priorities will be. This would
be a good time to talk about sharing and try and set up a plan so at least future administrations know
what our intent is, even if it is not followed through. If there was a way to legally bind the amount that
would be shared, maybe we could do that.
Council Attorney Lewis stated there is not a way to legally bind this, you can recommend it or propose it
but you cannot determine what future administrations do with the money.
Councilperson Zastawny asked if the TIF plan could be changed to reflect a certain amount being used
for joint projects with the school and County.
City Attorney Merkley stated the plan has to be approved by the City Council and the redevelopment
Commission has to use that money how it is outlined in the plan. There has to be concrete projects
presented not just a dollar amount.
Councilperson White made the recommendation instead of looking at ways to share the revenue, that it
be used for the priority infrastructures that need to be addressed.
Councilperson Gill asked if there was an option to not expand it so far so that all of the revenue isn't in
the TIF.
Redevelopment Director Rob Waiz stated that developers are already asking for help. In 10 years about
90% of the current TIF will sunset. By the time this gets up and developed you will be losing a lot of
money in the TIFs that sunsets. This will be a way to regains some of that revenue to continue helping
developers to ensure the quality of the work being done. Thing about everything that has been done
using TIF dollars, we have a new police station, a new fire station, Big 4 Bridge and Park — we wouldn't
have been able to do these things without the TIFs.
Council President Owen asked the assessed value for the portion that is sunsetting. Mr. Colton stated it
is right at $250,000,000.
Mr. Waiz stated we need to make sure developers are asking for help to do things right, and to make
sure this is something we can all be proud of. It is a great opportunity and would provide a lot of
potential that will not be able to happen if this does not pass.
3
10 Year Bond Issue
15 Year Bond Issue
20 Year Bond Issue
Years of Principal
Payment
6
11
16
Assumed Interest
Rate
4.5%
5.0%
5.5%
Illustrative Annual
Payment
$3,110,000
$3,015,000
$3,065,000
Illustrative Bond
Principal Amount
$16,000,000
$25,000,000
$32,000,000
Coverage
151%
156%
153%
Councilperson Gill asked if the Council agreed to do this could an option be that some of the revenue be
dispersed to the County and the Schools. Mr. Colton stated that the City would have to decide how to
disperse that money.
Councilperson Jahn noted that money collected from a TIF has to be used for redevelopment. Mr.
Colton stated there is Legislation that allows up to 15% to be distributed to the schools as long as the
projects passes certain guidelines.
Councilperson Hawkins asked if the 15% is an annual amount that is given for the life of the TIF. Mr.
Colton advised that it is determined on an annual basis how much, if any is distributed to other entities.
Councilperson Zastawny stated that when there is a change in administration and Redevelopment it
comes along with a change of priorities. We cannot guarantee what future priorities will be. This would
be a good time to talk about sharing and try and set up a plan so at least future administrations know
what our intent is, even if it is not followed through. If there was a way to legally bind the amount that
would be shared, maybe we could do that.
Council Attorney Lewis stated there is not a way to legally bind this, you can recommend it or propose it
but you cannot determine what future administrations do with the money.
Councilperson Zastawny asked if the TIF plan could be changed to reflect a certain amount being used
for joint projects with the school and County.
City Attorney Merkley stated the plan has to be approved by the City Council and the redevelopment
Commission has to use that money how it is outlined in the plan. There has to be concrete projects
presented not just a dollar amount.
Councilperson White made the recommendation instead of looking at ways to share the revenue, that it
be used for the priority infrastructures that need to be addressed.
Councilperson Gill asked if there was an option to not expand it so far so that all of the revenue isn't in
the TIF.
Redevelopment Director Rob Waiz stated that developers are already asking for help. In 10 years about
90% of the current TIF will sunset. By the time this gets up and developed you will be losing a lot of
money in the TIFs that sunsets. This will be a way to regains some of that revenue to continue helping
developers to ensure the quality of the work being done. Thing about everything that has been done
using TIF dollars, we have a new police station, a new fire station, Big 4 Bridge and Park — we wouldn't
have been able to do these things without the TIFs.
Council President Owen asked the assessed value for the portion that is sunsetting. Mr. Colton stated it
is right at $250,000,000.
Mr. Waiz stated we need to make sure developers are asking for help to do things right, and to make
sure this is something we can all be proud of. It is a great opportunity and would provide a lot of
potential that will not be able to happen if this does not pass.
3
Council President Owen asked when these TIFs sunset. Mr. Colton stated 2032. Council President Owen
stated as the Council has already talked about they are going to need to increase their bond capacity for
infrastructure improvements and this is one way to do that.
Councilperson White agreed that it is very important to increase the Bond Capacity.
Greater Clark County Schools Superintendent Dr. Andrew Melin stated he believes in economic
development and that TIFs are part of what drives that. There are also negative impact to the tax rates
to take into consideration. The impact of the TIFS raised the taxes that the taxpayers are already paying.
There are currently 29 TIFs in Clark County. The school wants to partner in as many ways as possible. In
Clarksville, they have designated a portion of the TIF revenue to go towards updating the technology
infrastructure. Let's look at ways we can work together on this.
Councilperson Samuel stated this is a 25 year decision. Redevelopment Commission has used the TIFs
and it has been used for a lot of great things. Maybe we need to slow down and get a meeting with
everyone that this effects for discussion.
Councilperson Gill asked Mr. Waiz if he was willing to work with the schools to come up with a proposal.
Mr. Waiz stated he is, but he would like for it to happen as soon as possible so that this can get moving.
Councilperson Hawkins stated it doesn't sound like this needs action tonight, we want to work with the
schools. We want people to move here, not just to come here to work.
Mr. Waiz pointed out that whatever he agrees too could be meaningless to future administrations.
Councilperson Zastawny mentioned that it is easier to keep things moving that have been done in the
past than start new things that have just been talked about.
Councilperson White stated we would not have all of the things that we have if it wasn't for TIFs. We
need to increase our bonding capacity and this is not something we can wait on. We need to get on top
of this now and we should be mindful of jumping into making decisions for the Executive function.
Knowing the obligations that we have, it should be an easy decision to do this.
Council President Owen said that he agrees with Councilperson White. This is a necessity for moving
forward with the growth and development with what we have and the things that we need to figure out.
Dr. Melin stated that Indiana Code 366-7-25-7 stipulates the different options and opportunities. He
would like to see this be mutually beneficial and under that statute it could move through multiple
years.
Mayor Mike Moore spoke and mentioned that TIFs are necessary. Imagine Veteran's Parkway without
the TIFs. It wouldn't be there. it never would have been developed without the assistance with the
infrastructure in the area. This is necessary to keep developing Jeffersonville.
Councilperson Gill made a motion to ADJORN at 6:36 PM with Councilperson Jahn seconding.
APPROVED BY:
A STED:
LL_
Vicki Conlin
l.4/C°474 itd°
Matt •wen, Pres' s ent
4