Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIF Minutes 3-17 Downtown Tax Increment Finance Board Meeting Minutes March 21, 2017 Attending: Vonda Laird, Cory Lawrence, Bobby Bear, Bill Stoddart, Jeff Krauss Chris Naumann Absent: Bob Hietala Public Comments: None Minutes ACTION: Cory Lawrence moved to approve the February minutes as presented. Vonda Laird seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Financial Report The March finance report included updated income figures as provided by City of Bozeman Finance Department. Year to date income totaled $2,322,690. Expenses over the following month included: Streetscape engineering and design work for $13,200; Fiber infrastructure $312; $765 for UDC Update consulting. The board had no other questions regarding the finance report. Executive Director’s Report Technical Assistance Program Update—NO CHANGES Two grants have been awarded thus far for FY2017—shown at the bottom of the chart. The chart also lists uncompleted grants that were awarded in FY2016. Keep in mind that the committed grant amounts are only tentative since the actual reimbursement amount will be determined as a one to one match upon completion of the grant work. As a reminder, the Planning grants have a $7500 cap and the Façade grants are capped at $3000. Date Project Name Project Address Applicant Professional Type Value 8/21/2015 712 East Main 712-716 East Main BCHO Architects BCHO Architects Plan/Façade $10,500 12/28/2015 Rialto 10 West Main BARC Thinktank Planning $7,500 12/30/2015 Big Sky Western Bank 106 East Main Big Sky Western Sanderson Stewart Façade $3,000 Total 21,000$ Date Project Name Project Address Applicant Professional Type Value 10/31/2016 Owenhouse 2nd Floor 26 East Main Larry Bowman Yellowstone Arch Planning 7500 10/31/2016 Owenhouse 2nd Floor 26 East Main Larry Bowman Yellowstone Arch Façade 3000 Total 10,500$ FY17 Budget 50,000$ remaining 39,500$ Technical Assistance Program FY2016 Report Technical Assistance Program FY2017 Report Board Name Change In order to be consistent with the enabling City Ordinance and the Montana Urban Renewal Law, the Downtown Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Board will be renamed to the Downtown Urban Renewal District (URD) Board. I will change all board documents going forward replacing “TIF” with “URD”. Currently the official (but never ratified) name of our board is the “Downtown Bozeman Improvement District Tax Increment Financing Board (IDB/TIF)”. This name is not only unnecessarily long but also gets confused with the Downtown Business Improvement District Board. The name change will be formally adopted by a resolution of the City Commission. Building Project Updates Lark Addition (corner of Grand and Main) 4 story building with 28 new Lark hotel rooms. Construction began in December 2016. 5 West Building (northwest corner of Mendenhall and Tracy) Construction began on October 2016. First floor businesses scheduled to open in April 2017 and the upper floors completed in June 2017. Etha Hotel (old Armory building) first phase of foundation work complete. No date for when construction will resume. Willson Residences (old East Willson School) being redeveloped into 18 residential units with underground parking. Partial completion scheduled for Summer 2016. Rialto Theater under construction to be completed by August 2017. Black & Olive Apartments formal site plan application was submitted in late September but a new design was submitted in January thus beginning the DRC/DRB process over. New Businesses Update • Union Market—39 North Rouse—old Service Electric space opening date unknown • Squire House—27 East Mendenhall—Element Hotel restaurant is under construction • Stuffed Waffles—26 West Main—(former Tonsorial Parlor) to open in April • F-11 space—16 East Main—vacant but under contract • Headroom space—12 East Main—vacant but under contract • Reflections space—240 East Main—vacant • Mountain Lodge space—14 West Main—vacant • Rockford space—411 East Main--vacant Planning Updates In this section I will provide update about several ongoing City planning processes. Transportation Master Plan www.bozemantmp.com Consultants: Peccia & Associates (Helena), Alta Planning (Bozeman) Timeline: September 2015 (kickoff) through September 2016 (adoption) Update: Draft plan now available and comments were due March 17, 2017. UDC Revisions http://bozeman.net/Projects/UDCCodeupdate/Home Consultants: Makers (Seattle), Leland Group (Portland), Studio Cascade (Spokane) Update: Draft to be released in April 2017 then public meetings and comment period in Summer 2017 City Vision & Strategic Plan Consultants: HDR Timeline: March 2016 (kickoff) through October 2016 Update: draft plan completed by April 1st 2017 Community Plan (City Growth Policy) Update Consultants: City release RFP for consultants January 2017 Timeline: October 2016 through late 2017 Discussion and Decision Items Soroptomist Park Update Chris reviewed the problems last summer at Soroptomist Park with transients and illegal camping. As discussed at last month’s meeting, Greenspace Landscaping has prepared an estimate to remove the tall shrubs along the wall and replace them with perennials and grasses. The associated cost estimate is $4,176.00. The board agreed the landscaping changes are necessary and a good use of tax increment funds to help address the public safety issues at the park. TIF Legislation Update Chris handed out a document highlighting a dozen pieces of legislation that would impact Montana’s urban renewal law and the use of tax increment financing. See legislation overview below. Downtown Development Referendum Chris spoke with the board about the upcoming City Commission review and decision on the Black Olive project. He asked for direction regarding his public comment. Chris offered that he could speak during the public comment opportunity at the meeting. He said if he did he would focus his comments on the Urban Renewal Plan and Downtown Improvement Plan. The board asked if submitting written comments would not be a better option due to the personal and political tenor of the debate. The board asked Chris what he would propose to submit as written comments. He replied that he considers his Chronicle guest editorial that was published in November was a strong statement about the history of proactive downtown planning. The board agreed that written comments would be best. They asked Chris to have the same conversation with the BID Board and let them know their thoughts. Meeting was adjourned at 1:00pm 2017 TIF Legislation Update (as of 21 MARCH 2017) House Bill 30 Short Title: Remove voted levies approved after creation of TIF from tax increment provision Long Title: AN ACT AMENDING TAX INCREMENT PROVISIONS RELATED TO CERTAIN LOCAL MILL LEVIES; EXEMPTING LEVIES VOTED ON AFTER THE ADOPTION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Sponsor: Jeff Essmann (R) Billings Analysis: This bill was also approved by RTIC (LC 414). This bill removes levies adopted after the TIF is created from the TIF calculation. The bill now has an immediate effective date. Question whether existing TIFs could add new levies to the calculation (i.e., does it just apply to TIFs created after effective date of bill). Fiscal analysis is still being done to determine the ramifications of this proposed provision. Safe to say exempting new mill levies during the life of any TIF district would reduce increment revenues. Amended in House on floor to clarify that this provision applies to any new voted levy after bill becomes law (immediate effective date). Update: Passed House Taxation and Senate Taxation Grade: good bad neither House Bill 76 Short Title: Amend laws related to remittance of tax increment Long Title: AN ACT REQUIRING REMITTANCES OF UNUSED TAX INCREMENT TO BE MADE PROPORTIONALLY TO ALL AFFECTED TAXING JURISDICTIONS Sponsor: Greg Hertz (R) Polson “A local government that enters into an agreement to remit unused tax increment shall remit to each taxing jurisdiction for which the mill rates are included in the calculation of the tax increment as provided in 7-15-4286. The remittance must be proportional to the taxing jurisdiction's share of the total mills levied.” Analysis: The bill is unchanged from what was proposed by RTIC (LC 412). It adds language to existing 7-15-4291 that restricts the agreement terms for remittance of unused portions of tax increments, requiring it to be with all taxing jurisdictions included in the calculation and proportional to each jurisdiction’s share of total mills levied. Only applies to remittance agreements entered into after February 17, 2017. Update: Signed by Governor 2/17 Grade: good bad NEITHER House Bill 134—Amended to no longer involve TIF—DEAD Short Title: Revise school funding related to facilities Long Title: AN ACT REVISING FUNDING RELATED TO STATE SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES; UTILIZING THE 95 MILLS LEVIED ON THE INCREMENTAL TAXABLE VALUE WITHIN AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA OR TARGETED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL FACILITY MAJOR MAINTENANCE GRANTS Sponsor: Jeff Essmann (R) Billings Analysis: Every session GOP legislators have been targeting the school 95 mills dedicated to TIF districts. This attempt is packaged with a school facilities funding omnibus bill. The bill would be effective July 1, 2017, but allows 95 mills to be used in calculation is it was pledged to pay bonds on or before August 29, 2016. Across the state, the average loss in URD revenue if 95 mills are exempted from TIF increments would be 16.3%. Conversely, the average gain in school district revenue would be about 0.4%. Thus, if this bill is approved, for every $1 gained for the “School Facility Maintenance Grant” program $38 would be lost for TIF districts to reinvest. If you factor in the conservative estimate that every dollar invested by TIF districts yields a 6 to 1 return on investment, the opportunity cost loss would be at a ratio of 228 to 1. Update: Essman amended the bill to exclude the 95 school equalization mills thus leaving them eligible for tax increment funding. Grade: good BAD neither House Bill 359—Tabled—DEAD Short Title: Limit tax increment financing revenue to local mills Long Title: AN ACT LIMITING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING; PROVIDING THAT PROPERTY TAX REVENUE DISTRIBUTED TO AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA OR TARGETED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS LIMITED TO REVENUE RECEIVED FROM LEVIES IMPOSED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT ESTABLISHED THE AREA OR DISTRICT; Sponsor: Tom Burnett Analysis: Only the local/City increment mills would be available as TIF funds. In the case of the Downtown TIF District for FY16 that would have meant total revenues before debt service of $560,000 then $425,000 of debt service would leave $135,000 of funding for all other TIF programs/projects. DOR will prepare fiscal note quantifying overall impact to TIF districts statewide; initial estimate will be a loss of about half of all TIF revenues; up to ¾ of revenues in individual TIF districts. Update: Tabled House Taxation 2/16 Grade: good BAD neither House Bill 396 Short Title: Revise laws related to tax increment financing Long Title: AN ACT REVISING LAWS RELATED TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING; REQUIRING CONSULTATION WITH AFFECTED LOCAL TAXING JURISDICTIONS WHEN ADOPTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROVISIONS AS PART OF AN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN OR A TARGETED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHEN MODIFYING AN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN RELATED TO THE USE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; Sponsor: Bruce Grubbs (R) Bozeman Analysis: Replacement bill for HB 250. MACO, MTSBA, and League drafted amendment language to HB 250 that would remove veto vote but require that city meet and confer with county and school district before creating plan with TIF, adding TIF to existing plan, or bonding. Update: Committee passed amendment written by League for Rep. Grubbs specifying that the consultation with county and school districts will be a public meeting with opportunity for public comment (same as SB 27 language); Committee passed second amendment. Passed House Taxation as amended. Transmitted to Senate 2/20/17. Passed Senate Taxation unanimously. Grade: good bad neither House Bill 403—rolled in to HJ 18—TIF Interim Study Bill--DEAD Short Title: Revise TIF laws to require remittance if increment exceeds certain level Long Title: A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT REQUIRING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX INCREMENT THAT EXCEEDS A PORTION OF TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE IN A MUNICIPALITY; PROVIDING THAT TOTAL INCREMENTAL TAXABLE VALUE IN EXCESS OF 5% OF TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE MUST BE REMITTED TO AFFECTED TAXING JURISDICTIONS; PROVIDING AN EXCEPTION FOR TAX INCREMENT PLEDGED TO BONDS; Sponsor: Adam Hertz Analysis: Revise TIF laws to require remittance if increment exceeds certain level. HB 403 would require remittance of all incremental taxable value of one or more urban renewal districts in excess of 5% of the municipality’s total taxable value, except to the extent such revenues are pledged for the payment of bonds before the effective date of the act (immediate effective date). The bill also incorporates the same language in HB 76 and if transmitted would likely get a coordination provision making HB 76 null and void. Sponsor has admitted he “made up” the 5% threshold. Grade: good BAD neither House Bill 413—rolled in to HJ 18—TIF Interim Study Bill—DEAD Short Title: Revise laws related to use of tax increment financing Long Title: AN ACT REVISING LAWS RELATED TO USE OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING; SUBJECTING TAX INCREMENT PROVIDED TO BUILDING OWNERS TO RECAPTURE IF A BUILDING IS TRANSFERRED WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD; PROVIDING PROPERTY TAXPAYERS WITH THE RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISIONS OF A LOCAL GOVERNING BODY Sponsor: Jeff Essman Analysis: Two main provisions: (1) The bill provides for a recapture provision if building improvements are made with TIF funds. If controlling stock or other equity interest in the building is sold, leased, or transferred within 5 years of the TIF funded improvements, 100% of the funds must be paid back; 80% if within 6 years; decreasing by 20% each year thereafter. No recapture after 10 years; no recapture if ownership conveyed to a governmental entity. (2) The bill provides for a direct court review of any decision made under Title 7, Chapter 15, Parts 42 or 43 by any taxpayer or taxing jurisdiction. The bill has an immediate effective date, and applies to improvements funded on or after effective date of bill; liability provisions apply to decisions on or after the effective date of the bill. Grade: good BAD neither House Bill 573 Short Title: Revise education funding laws related to tax increment financing Long Title: AN ACT REVISING EDUCATION FUNDING LAWS RELATED TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING; EXEMPTING PUBLIC SCHOOL EQUALIZATION MILL LEVIES FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Sponsor: Rob Cook The bill would remove the 95 school mills from TIF calculation, but only for TIFs in urban renewal districts or TEDDs established on or after the effective date of the act (October 1, 2017). UPDATE: Bill was amended so that new TIF districts created after October 1, 2017 will be able to use the 95 mills in the TIF calculation for the first 15 years only. With the amendment, the bill passed out of House Taxation 18-2. Dems Jacobson (Great Falls), Zach Brown (Bozeman), Dunwell (Helena), Fern (Whitefish), and Hamilton (Bozeman) all voted yes. Senate Bill 27 Short Title: Amend TIF laws related to public hearings and reporting Long Title: AN ACT REVISING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING LAWS; REQUIRING A PUBLIC MEETING WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR URBAN RENEWAL AGENCIES; REQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS TO INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF DISTRICTS USING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING; REQUIRING AN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN ITS ANNUAL REPORT; Sponsor: Fred Thomas (R) Stevensville Analysis: Sen. Thomas agreed to amend the bill to include the revisions crafted by our TIF working group as reflected above. As amended, requires the local government’s annual financial report under 2-7-503 to include a report of the financial activities related to TIF; requires public meeting and opportunity for comment on all matters before the urban renewal agency board; requires the TIF annual report under 7-15-4237 to “describe the public purpose of expenditures of tax increment and how the expenditures meet the goals of the urban renewal plan”. Update: Transmitted to House 2/1/17 Grade: good bad NEITHER Senate Bill 34—Hoven tabled the bill—DEAD Short Title: Amend laws related to an urban renewal agency board of commissioners Long Title: AN ACT REVISING LAWS RELATED TO AN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; REQUIRING A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO INCLUDE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNTY Sponsor: Brian Hoven (R) Great Falls Analysis: This bill would require a representative of a school district within the municipality and a representative who lives in the county to be appointed by the mayor to the urban renewal agency board. The mayor must appoint these two new members from a list of three people each submitted by the school board and by the county commission. Grade: good BAD neither Update: The sponsor, Senator Hoven, tabled the bill MONITORING HB 411 (Hertz) – TABLED House Taxation 2/16 Would prohibit TIF funds for paying for facade improvements to privately owned buildings. Bill has immediate effective date. HB 549 (LC2420) (Skees) - Allow cities with BID/TIF districts to issue ordinances to license alcohol sales Tabled in House Business and Labor Committee 2/24 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA REQUESTING A STUDY OF URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS AND TARGETED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS THAT USE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. (1) review the legislative audit of districts that use tax increment financing with specific attention to findings related to administrative costs, the life of districts that bond and districts that do not bond, and oversight and audits of the districts; (2) study the percentages of tax increment revenues that are spent on administrative overhead and the variance between communities; (3) consider developing guidelines for the ratio of public-private investment to be used in districts that use tax increment financing; (4) consider whether to establish a maximum allowable incremental taxable value in districts that use tax increment financing and a maximum percentage of the tax base of the local government that can be placed into urban renewal districts or targeted economic development districts; (5) consider whether to revise the definition of "blight" or the allowable reasons for creating of an urban renewal district; (6) consider whether a third party should confirm the presence of blight or the need for infrastructure improvements and approve district boundaries; (7) review local government expenditures on purely public projects that may not increase the tax base, review expenditures for projects that use money to spur private investment, and consider whether to limit expenditures on purely public projects; (8) consider whether to require remittance of increment not necessary to make bond payments after expiration of the tax increment financing provision; (9) review impacts of districts that use tax increment financing on other taxing jurisdictions, including the 2011 study on tax increment financing prepared by Montana State University- Billings; and (10) review programs that use tax increment financing for facade improvement programs and historical preservation programs.