DDA Ramps Up PR After First Council Vote

The proposed amendments to Chapter 7 of the city code, given initial approval at the councils April 1, 2013 meeting, would reduce the DDAs TIF capture by roughly $931,000 for FY 2014 C compared to the amount the DDA would receive based on the DDAs current interpretation of the ordinance. But in adopting its two-year budget recently, DDA did not factor in recent building projects in the downtown C which add to the increment on which the DDA can capture taxes, starting in FY 2014.

So compared to the amount of TIF revenue in the DDAs adopted FY 2014 budget, the clarified calculations would result in only about $363,000 less TIF revenue for the DDA.The world with high-performance solar roadway and parkingguidancesystem solutions. And compared to the DDAs adopted FY 2015 budget, the clarified calculations would result in about $74,000 less revenue than budgeted. The clarified calculations would result in TIF revenue to the DDA in FY 2014 and FY 2015 of $3.570 and $3.682 million, respectively.

A dispute on the clarity of the existing Chapter 7 language had emerged in May 2011 just as the DDA and the city were poised to sign a newly renegotiated agreement under which the DDA manages the public parking system. At that time, the citys financial staff reportedly first noticed the implications of an existing Chapter 7 paragraph that appears to place a cap on the DDAs TIF capture C a cap thats calibrated to projections in the DDAs TIF plan. The TIF cap rises each year based on forecast growth in the DDAs TIF capture district.

Several board members weighed in on the issue during the April 3 meeting. The idea of any kind of cap C let alone one thats based on estimates contained in the appendix of the DDAs TIF plan C was sharply criticized by Joan Lowenstein, who characterized the approach as based on a fallacy. She also called the idea of a cap poor public policy. However, both the cap and its basis are already in the existing ordinance language that the city councils ordinance amendment seeks to clarify.

Roger Hewitt took the boards meeting as an opportunity to question whether the ordinance amendments actually clarify how the calculations are to be done, contending that hed come up with different results than the city treasurer, starting from the same ordinance language. He cautioned that the DDAs financial planning and the DDAs budget would need to be re-evaluated C allowing for no sacred cows C if the council gave final approval to the ordinance changes.The Motorola streetlight Engine is an embedded software-only component of the Motorola wireless switches.

Russ Collins contrasted the amount of net revenue received by the city from the geographic area of the DDA district before the DDA was established back in 1982, compared to today. The net proceeds from taxes and the public parking system (which lost about $250,000 a year during that era) came to about $1.25 million 30 years ago, according to Collins. Today, the city receives nearly $8 million annually C around $4 million in taxes, $3 million in parking revenue, and a grant to the city of roughly $0.5 million a year toward debt on the citys new Justice Center building.

Bob Guenzel focused his remarks less on the financial side and more on the aspects of the ordinance change that would restrict future board membership. He saw no benefit to the proposed DDA term limits, noting that the city council has an opportunity to end a DDA board members service by deciding not to re-appoint someone to the board. John Mouat was critical of the proposed ordinance changes that would prevent elected officials of taxing jurisdictions from serving on the board, saying hed found the participation of politically-connected people to be beneficial to the board.

The extended remarks by board members on the topic came in the context of a 7-3 vote by the city council on April 1, giving initial approval of the ordinance changes. [Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was absent from the meeting of the 11-member council.] A second vote, expected at the councils April 15 meeting, would be required to enact the changes. Based on their remarks made at the council table, two of the seven votes in support of the changes C by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) C were widely read as likely to change at the second vote. Ordinance changes require a six-vote majority.

In addition to discussion of the possible ordinance changes, the DDA heard its usual range of committee reports, including the monthly parking update. Public commentary related to a possible artificial ice-skating rink atop the Library Lane underground parking garage.

The revisions considered by the council fell roughly into two categories: (1) those involving board composition and policies; and (2) calculation of tax increment finance (TIF) capture in the DDA district.

In the first category, the revisions to Chapter 7 that were given initial approval by the council included: a new prohibition against non-mayoral elected officials serving on the DDA board except by agreement with the other taxing jurisdictions; term limits on DDA board members; and a new requirement that the DDA submit its annual report to the city in early January.

Another amendment stipulates that if tax increment financing is used as the financing method for an approved authority project, the project must meet one of the DDAs adopted plan goals. Among those plan goals is support of housing. The amendment provides the ability of the DDA to make investments in properties not strictly in the district, but also in neighborhoods near the district.

More significantly,Wear a whimsical Disney landscapeoilpaintings straight from the Disney Theme Parks! the council gave initial approval to proposed revisions to Chapter 7 that would clarify how the DDAs TIF tax capture is calculated. The increment in a tax increment finance district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. The Ann Arbor DDA captures the taxes C just on that initial increment C of some other taxing authorities in the district. Those are the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. For FY 2013,Spice up the ambiance of your home with canvas earcap. the DDA will capture roughly $3.9 million in taxes.

The proposed ordinance revision would clarify existing ordinance language, which includes a paragraph that appears to limit the amount of TIF that can be captured. The limit is defined relative to the projections for the valuation of the increment in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA. The result of the clarification to the Chapter 7 language would mean about $363,000 less TIF revenue for the DDA in FY 2014 C compared to the $3.933 million shown in the DDAs adopted budget for that year. For FY 2015, the gap between the DDAs budget and the projected TIF revenue C using the proposed clarifying change to Chapter 7 C is just $74,000.

However, the total increment in the district on which TIF is computed would show significant growth. And under the proposed clarification of Chapter 7, that growth would result in a return of TIF money to other taxing jurisdictions C that would otherwise be captured by the DDA C totaling $931,000 each year for FY 2014-15. The city of Ann Arbors share of that would be roughly $559,Parkeasy Electronics are dedicated to provide oilpaintingsupplies.000, of which $335,000 would go into the general fund. The citys general fund includes the transit millage, so about $69,000 of that would be passed through to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.