Big vote today! If this doesn’t pass the Joint Review Board, the funding won’t happen. There are 5 people on the committee, the School Board Rep, Lucy Mathiak is voting no (no matter how much denial the Wisconsin State Journal is in) at the direction of the School Board. The County Rep, David Worzala, is also likely to vote no. The MATC/Madison College Rep is in an unusual position that they are asking voters for more money at a time when they keeping this TIF district open. Dean Brasser, from the City is going to vote yes. And then, the potential tie breaker . . . Gary Poulson. At large member. And I’m sure, under a HUGE amount of pressure.
GOOD BACKGROUND MATERIALS ON WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS TIF
This stuff is really, really, really good. Some of it is long . . . so some info about what is in them of importance is below:
Pete Ostlind/David Mullenhoff Memo
– Statement of the criterion the TIF Board needs to look at
– What DOR TIF documents say about how JRB’s should interpret this criterion
– General statement of the City’s failure to make a persuasive case
– Specific examples of this failure (highlighted in gray) For these examples we will provide:
– – key facts,
– – probable consequences for TID-32, and
– – questions JRB members should raise.
Big issues discussed are:
– City failed to analyze the cost of the condos.
– Costs shown for the public access component (PAC) are invalid for several reasons.
– The developer is claiming a 2% profit for this project. (That is not enough! Seriously.)
– The city failed to demand a strong developer guarantee.
– TID-32 will generate fewer good permanent jobs than claimed.
– TID-32 will generate very little new business
– TID-32 will have extremely limited impact on personal income
– TID-32 will generate much less new assessed value than claimed. (Includes comparisons to other hotels)
– Most of the increased value in TID-32 would happen without the creation of the district.
– The $2.8 million neighborhood improvement program is unlikely to achieve its stated goals.
– They did not do a cost-benefit analysis on the project (as required by the state)
– Taxpayers are financially better off closing the TID in 2015. (Well, 2017, as we now know)
– TID-32 revenue projections are specious
– The precedent set by blatantly violating four explicit City TIF policies is unwise, unsustainable, and unacceptable.
– The City’s blight studies failed to prove that the area included in the TID-32 amendment was blighted as required by law.
John Jacobs Memo
– This memo is only 4 pages and goes through the criteria again, with some different observations.
OOPS, WE MADE A MISTAKE
From the post on the school board vote:
Gromacki says that originally they thought the district would would close in 2015, since they did the audit, that has changed to 2017 for the closure of existing TID. As a result of the amendment that would increase
thewhen it would close to 2021. In early articles it was 2015 and 2019.
And, here’s the back up materials.
WHAT DO THEY BASE THEIR DECISION ON/HOW DO THEY DECIDE?
Lifted from the Ostlind/Mullenhoff Memo:
As a JRB member you know that state statutes provide criteria and procedures governing your evaluation of TID-32. You also know that these criteria and procedures are described in greatest detail in three DOR publications:
– Wisconsin Tax Incremental Financing: A Guide for Joint Review Board Members (Published 7/08) hereinafter called “Guide.”
– Municipal (City/Village/Town) Tax Incremental Financing Joint Review Board Supplemental Data, (PE-213 (R.9-08) hereinafter called “Guide Supplement.”
– Wisconsin Department of Revenue City/Village Tax Incremental Finance (TIF) Manual (Last updated January 5, 2010) hereinafter called “Manual”In this memo we will rely on these three publications and will cite them wherever appropriate.
Here is a summary of what we believe to be the most important JRB ground rules found in these publications:
1. In making your decision you are required to use three statutory criteria found in Chapter 66.1105 (4m)(c). They are:
● “whether the development expected in the TID would occur without the use of TIF,”
● “whether the economic benefits of the TID, as measured by increased employment, business and personal income and property value, are insufficient to compensate for the cost of the improvements,” and
● “whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the anticipated tax increments to be paid by the owners of property in the overlying taxing districts.”
2. Statutes require the City to give you specific types of information that is sufficient for you to make an informed decision. Appendix A summarizes the document categories required by statute and provides a list of documents included in the JRB packet.
3. If the City failed to provide you with the documentation you need to make a sound decision, you may demand this information. As the Guide puts it: “If you don’t get something, ask for it?”
4. If the project cannot pass the “but for” test, you cannot approve the new TID.
5. A TID may also be rejected if it fails to pass one of the other two criteria.
6. “The JRB may also hold additional public hearings as part of their deliberations.” (Guide)
7. If a majority of your members conclude that the City has given you “incomplete or inaccurate” information, you may request DOR to give you “the objective facts.” If this is done, DOR “must determine whether the information contains a factual inaccuracy or complies with TIF law requirements” (Guide).8. “The JRB may request, but may not require that the municipality resubmit the proposal for review. (Guide Supplement)
9. “The JRB must issue a written statement that includes the criteria by which in your judgment meets (approval) or does not meet (denial) the requirements in the but-for finding” (Guide Supplement).
10. “The JRB has the power of final authority” over the creation or rejection of a TID (Guide)
I JUST CAN’T GET PAST THIS
– The Mansion Hill Neighborhood wants more of their area included ($44M) and it is not.
– The James Madison Park Neighborhood doesn’t want to be included ($58M) and it is but gets no public improvements.
– The reason this can’t be fixed, there isn’t enough time. But . . . nothing is happening due to the law suit and the money won’t be spent this year, so we can do this next year.
LAWSUIT
Here’s the brief by Mohs/Devitt’s attorney. And the attachments. (sorry, they are upside down for some reason and didn’t have time to fix it! So print to read or save and rotate the view in the pdf reader)
FROM THIS MORNING’S ROUND UP
EDGEWATER TIF VOTE TODAY!
It’s the big vote! Here’s a decent description of why school boards oppose TIF. And Lucy Mathiak explains their lack of discussion at the end of this post.
WSJ MISOGYNISTS
Silly school board (5 of 7 are women) directed the one woman on the TIF Joint Review Board to vote no, but “guys”, vote with the the old boys club, ok? That’s just gross.
WHAT’S THE OLD BOYS CLUB DOING ABOUT THIS?
Will the Edgewater do anything about the issues in this article. This is worthy of a full post. More than 1 in 5 people in Madison live in poverty. It’s risen from 15% to 17%. And check out this:
Median income in Dane County dropped more than 6 percent between 2008 and 2009, and nearly 8 percent in Madison, the data show. That compares to a decrease nationally of just under 3 percent.
I wonder how many of those jobs were in government and non-profits? Seriously.
More/different info here.
http://www.lucymathiak.blogspot.com/
FYI – my two cents worth, posted over the weekend but still relevant to tonight’s discussions.
Lucy – Whoa! My bad! I meant to include it, really I did!
And for those who are going to the meeting, it has been changed to the City County Building, in the basement, GR-22 by the police department . . . . I wonder if the police will, once again, grace us with their presence!
The other piece to this elephant is that the TIF decision should be considered on INCREMENTAL REVENUE.
For example: if the new hotel will employ 150 people and the old hotel employed 120 people… the net jobs gain is 30 jobs.
Same rationale for taxes. If the new hotel pays $600,000 and the old hotel paid $400,000, the net gain to the city is $200,000.
You cannot claim the entire benefits of the new project, only the net benefits.
more to the local economy story…housing sales down here more than twice the national average in July…54%….In August, 34% (when National numbers were actually up 7%)…doubling of poverty in the schools..and we are run by “progressives” who go all out for luxury hotels and Maple Bluff fundraisers?
Rising tide lifts all boats…just sayin’
ps…these same TIF proponents were all for Cap west and Monroe Commons TIFS…how are those analysis’ working out? Meanwhile they turned down a good REAL job creating TIF of less than a mil…how progressive
I don’t want to ever hear “just saying” again. Either you mean it or you don’t. Can you tell I am upset about the TIF Board decision?
Kitty, I hear you…I definitely mean it..its too bad that our policy leaders don’t get that.
In times like this we need them to get it now more than ever.
Odd how the same rationale..we gotta go big on this project because we need jobs…was completely 180d by the SAME leaders on the Central Library project…where were the unions during those meetings revising the plans to a much smaller project?
Our consistent inconsistency is one of the main reasons why good paying private jobs go elsewhere…or never come..when in a city with the recipe of quality we have…it should be different.
Thoroughly disgusted with the TIF board decision last night. Sick and tired of everyone bending over backward to build ostentatious crap for rich people while schools, libraries and real jobs for working people get ignored.