Karen Aikman <kaikman@mindspring.com> wrote:
I've been looking into this a little.
The Oct 17th minutes from Economic Development Committee states:
"The budget for the project remains at $19,000, of which 75% would be underwritten by the CDBG grant, and 25% would be paid by the City. Local funding for the Trade Market Analysis is included in the recently-approved project plan for Tax Increment District #6."
This tells me the study still needs $4,750. The Economic Development Committee which seems to be pursuing this study has a budget of some $5,000.
The TIF#6 project plan is a 33 page document. I found a marketing/trade market analysis study within a list of traditional infrastructure costs like water, sewer, and electric on page 14. It was listed as $40,000.
I asked a few Aldermen what changed their minds on this study when approving the TIF#6 plan, and they told me they were not aware of it's inclusion in the document.
I went over some minutes from meetings dealing with this market study and this is what I found:
July 10 Finance and Labor minutes:
Motion by Juergens, seconded by Braunschweig, to recommend to Common Council to authorize Ehlers & Associates to amend the project plan for TID No. 5 to include $40,000 for marketing to developers and potential tenants of redevelopment projects, including, but not limited to, possibly contributing to the cost of a trade market analysis study. The Committee questioned who would pay for the other part of trade market analysis study. The consensus was the Committee needed more information before they could approve this motion. Motion failed with Juergens and Braunschweig voting against it.
July 18 RDA Minutes:
V. Old Business.
A. Discussion of marketing study for TIF 5. The Chair reported that the Finance Committee has declined a proposed budget amendment for a proposed marketing study, and has returned the proposal to the Commission, with the suggestion that it be further developed, and submitted first to the Plan Commission. Mayor Decker advised she will ask Ehlers & Associates to draft an amendment to the Project Plan for presentation to the Plan Commission.
The Minutes of the Special Council meeting Sept 26 to evaluate TIF#6 reports it this way:
Tax Increment District No. 6
Motion Cothard, seconded by Braunschweig, to adopt Council Resolution 2006-37, creating, describing, and making certain findings and approving project plan for Tax Incremental District No. 6, City of Evansville, Wisconsin. Greg Johnson from Elhers and Associates presented the Project Plan for the Creation of Tax Incremental District No. 6 in the City of Evansville, Wisconsin. The Council and Mr. Johnson reviewed the Project Plan. Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
It seems this study jumps from Economic Development to the RDA and from TIF 5 to TIF 6 with incredible ease. I am not surprised to find Aldermen unable to follow it. How it went from needing $4,750 to $40,000 and is worthy of TIF funding is still confusing.
Karen Aikman <kaikman@mindspring.com> wrote:
The minutes from the June 20 RDA meeting contain:
Executive Director Connors reported that tax increment probably could be spent on studies and marketing, but this expenditure should be explicitly authorized in the project plan. He said the budget in TID No. 5’s project plan does not include a category of cost that clearly would include the cost of a study or marketing, and even though the budget is not intended to be exclusive, it would be prudent to amend the project plan budget to include an amount for such “soft” costs if the city wants to spend tax increment from TID No. 5 on them. Motion by Decker, seconded by Hammann, to ask the Plan Commission and Common Council to amend the project plan for TID No. 5 to include $40,000 for marketing, including, but not limited to, possibly paying part of the cost of a trade market analysis study. The commissioners instructed Mr. Connors to work with Ehlers & Associates to ensure that the project plan for TID No. 6 also contains a similar provision.
I believe the role of the RDA is to oversee TIF#5. TIF#5 RE-develops the downtown and Union Street area. TIF#6 is intended to Develop what is now cropland. I don't follow the grounds that the REdevelopment Authority had to instruct any aspect of TIF#6.
Please remember just because it is an approved "potential" expenditure in a TIF plan does not make it a realized expenditure. That would still require actual authorization, like any other TIF application.
ReplyDeleteThis is good to be pointed out, thanks Mason. A concern of course, is the potential argument that it should be approved because it was already included in the TIF Plan which was approved. An argument, that you are familiar with.
ReplyDeleteHopefully the $40,000 marketing/trade market analysis study expense will have the benefit of open public discussion at the Council level. A discussion that is noticed with enough time for people to clear their schedules so that they may voice their opinions. In this way, fair and good decisions are made.