Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Unidentified participant]: Welcome
[Unidentified conferee]: everybody back to the House Senate Conference on S-one 127, the omnibus housing bill, and it is 04:25 in the afternoon on the the ninth?
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: The
[Unidentified conferee]: '20 Okay. We we are coming back. Okay. And then we just have to make up our mind where we are. Go ahead.
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: So thank you for your offer. We have a counter. We're not willing to go where you are, but there are three things that we are looking at. I mean, can bring up the language. Can we do that? Yes, sir. And highlight where our changes are. Thank you, Cameron. Yes. You want to just scroll to the first one? Yeah. Our first change to counter to you is
[Unidentified conferee]: after we get too sick. Apologies. So
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: the Bud Ford test, you would ask to include moderate income. So we we still wanna limit it to affordable. And the reason why is that the percentage requirement does then open up the total value of projects. So we still think affordable has that more meaningful exemption for the but for test, but moderate doesn't. So that's our counter to you on that. I'll just move on to the next one. Still have the 40,000,000 in with the revisit. So, appreciate your offer of removing the or accepting the sunset on the TIF. We propose to remove the sunset on the TIF, but we still want the cap of $40,000,000
[Unidentified conferee]: Plus the
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: $5,000,000. And we're resetting.
[Unidentified conferee]: To TIF, sunset. So it's just not sunsetting, but we're staying with the cap.
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: Then the last sunset on either of them or just TIF? TIF. Just TIF. Right. So we still want the ability to review and Yeah.
[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: So no TIF sunset.
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: No TIF sunset. Right. So we got your proposal for 75, 85. We'd still like to go with seventy, eighty five. To create that 15% difference. Current TIF programs are at 70. So, we still wanted to stick within that, provide that meaningful increase that you had looked at before, 85. And then there's one more, I believe. This is pretty huge. Yes. Point well taken that Pepsi is saying we don't have enough time with our five year look back to adjust the increment. Different from a normal TIF is that this is a shorter should be project should be shorter. They shouldn't have so many different instances of debt. Should be easier to manage. So we're saying You're saying ten years? Should.
[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: How do you know that?
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: The whole design of the program is such that it was supposed to be simpler to administer.
[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It was. But what do you see in this that's simpler?
[Unidentified conferee]: Wait. Let's let's let's get this out. Okay. Go ahead.
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: So in terms of different phase filings, we're not anticipating that with this particular program.
[Unidentified participant]: Because you took that out.
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: No, phase filings was never part of it.
[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Most parcels could be considered.
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: Contiguous parcels is different, but phase filings is much different from that. Yep. So this is really looking at the eight years. We had had five, you had had ten. We said, We'd like to go with eight. What's the rationale
[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: for it? What's the rationale? I guess that's kind the question. What's the
[Unidentified participant]: rationale for eight years? Go ahead. What's the rationale for eight years?
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: There are two things. One is that we have the tax of the debt incursion period that is originally five, but could be extended for three. So the total of that is eight years.
[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I I would like to hear from Pepsi. I'm not hearing any expertise coming from what what you're saying. I'm just hearing you
[Unidentified participant]: just feel like I'm finished. Go ahead. I
[Unidentified conferee]: did not receive the testimony that you had, mister chair. Received testimony from that seat that eight years would work.
[Unidentified participant]: Eight years? No. We have pulled
[Unidentified conferee]: it up.
[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I don't see. Eight why don't we have Jessica speak
[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: after I don't think it's a good idea to
[Unidentified conferee (presenting counterproposal)]: disagree So with our counter is eight years where you recognize five is too short.
[Unidentified conferee]: And then that's our proposal. That's it. Okay.
[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So your but four is still only affordable. Half, at 40,000,000 plus the 5,000,000 additional. You're willing to let the sunset be removed.
[Unidentified conferee]: Yep. And
[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: your increment percents are are seventy, eighty five.
[Unidentified conferee]: Yes.
[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And you wanna go to eight years for debt instead of ten.
[Unidentified conferee]: Right. We're adjusting that.
[Unidentified participant]: Right. Mister chair, could we hear from Betsy? Think we'd appreciate hearing from Betsy. Of course. So thank you for the record. Jessica Hartleben, the Black Economic Harvest Council. My understanding is that when this bill was created as Spark, we were trying to keep things consistent with the TIF statute. I sent the comporees during the break the language that is in the current TIF statute that says that during the tenth year following the creation of the tax increment financing district, the municipality would submit an updated tax increment financing plan to the council, which would include adjustments and updates of appropriate data and information sufficient for the council to determine based on tax increment financing debt actually incurred and the history of increment generated during the first ten years, whether the percentages approved under Section F of this section should be continued or adjusted to lower percentages to be retained for the remaining duration of the retention period to provide sufficient municipal and educational increment to the service of the remaining debt. So what I'm hearing from Framing and Chair Marcotte is that maybe I said eight years, but I'm not sure that I did. And if I did, it may have been when the percentages of time for increment retention were being adjusted.
[Jessica Hartleben]: And because we are now in a place where we are going to incur debt for five years with the potential of three years, And the sort of basis for increment retention is twenty years, which is consistent with the TIF statute. Based on the history of the TIF program, it makes sense that we would look at this in year ten so that we have an understanding of how much increment has been generated by these projects. In addition, these are projects that are going to be smaller in nature and may not generate enough increment. So extending it out to ten years gives the municipalities and the private developers a longer period of time before they have to come back to VEPC to see if we're going to need to downward the increment retention. We're not going to be able to ever go up. We're only going to be able to go down. So giving the municipality and the private developers as long of a runway as we possibly can so that VEPC can then evaluate whether we should be decreasing
[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: the Sorry, need to I recall that. Yeah.
[Unidentified participant]: Okay.