Council deadlocks 4-4 on proposed Eleventh & Washington TIF allocation area after public hearing

The Columbus Common Council on Tuesday voted to reject a resolution that would have created a new tax increment financing (TIF) allocation area for a proposed 120-unit, five‑story mixed‑use project at Eleventh and Washington streets.

The resolution, presented by Heather Pope of city staff, was intended to carve a single-site allocation area from the existing Central Economic Development Area so the city could recoup an approximately $6.4 million redevelopment commission investment tied to the project over a 25‑year allocation period (recoupment projected over 21 years). After a public hearing and more than an hour of council questions and public comments, the roll call ended in a 4-4 tie, and the resolution failed.

Pope described the development in the packet as a five-story, mixed-use building with about 120 residential units (10% proposed as workforce units at a 20% rent reduction), a 143-space parking garage with ground-floor parking and 5,300 square feet of first-floor commercial and tenant common space. Staff estimated the total project investment at about $31 million and said creating the Eleventh & Washington allocation area would allow the city to recoup roughly $6.4 million over the defined recoupment period rather than losing the remainder of increment when the central allocation provision expires in 2035.

Bond counsel Brad Bingham and financial advisor Andrew Lanham explained why the city recommends a single-site allocation area. Bingham said single-site allocation areas are common in Indiana, and they allow the city to isolate the TIF revenue stream tied to a specific project and to verify revenue under taxpayer agreements. Lanham provided figures the council later cited: between system stabilization and 2035 the project would generate about $2.4 million in TIF revenue; the remainder of expected revenue (to reach the guarantee contemplated in the project agreement) would be captured only if the new allocation area extended beyond 2035.

Several residents urged caution during the public hearing. Mike Mullet said he circulated a letter and cited best-practice guidance from organizations focused on municipal finance, arguing the project’s financial indices indicated a “high risk” TIF (long recoupment, high leverage relative to equity). Carrie Cinebaldi said the proposal appeared to prefer a single developer and argued it was not consistent with the Envision Columbus comprehensive plan's approach to downtown housing. Other speakers raised concerns that the city might be using public subsidy for above‑market housing, questioned site drainage and maintenance access for underground detention in the proposed garage, and urged a broader, programmatic approach to housing development rather than piecemeal single‑site carve outs.

Council members asked detailed procedural and financial questions about why the allocation area was limited to this parcel rather than expanded, how captured increment could be spent (statute requires a finding that expenditures serve or benefit the allocation area), whether debt would be used, and the implications for overlapping taxing units. City staff said the project's development agreement and forgivable-loan structure were approved in prior meetings; staff and counsel said nothing had closed on financing and that the developer would likely not guarantee payments beyond 2035 unless the allocation area was extended.

At roll call the council produced a tie vote and the presiding officer noted a 4-4 tie has the same legal effect as a negative vote; the resolution therefore failed.

Because the resolution did not pass, staff said the city would need to return to the developer to renegotiate the project agreement if the developer will no longer guarantee the payment stream under the current expiration of the central allocation area. The redevelopment commission and city staff indicated further steps would include confirmatory hearings at the redevelopment commission level should council later approve an allocation area.

The matter drew sustained public interest during the meeting and is likely to return to the council if staff and the developer renegotiate terms or pursue alternative financing structures.

The council’s next regular meeting is March 18.