Redevelopment commission expands Union Crossing allocation area, pledges increment to repay senior bonds

The Fishers Redevelopment Commission voted to expand the Union Crossing Lot 3 allocation area and to pledge tax increment from related allocation areas toward repayment of senior bonds for the Union Crossing project.

The actions, taken after a public hearing and staff presentation, will add parcels to the allocation area to reflect a changed building footprint and give the project additional certainty for financing tied to tax-increment financing (TIF). "The first . . . is a public hearing and . . . consideration of a confirmatory resolution related to an expansion to the Crossing Lot 3 allocation area," said Dustin Meeks of Barnes & Thornburg, who presented the item.

Why it matters: expanding the allocation area will allow additional parcels to be captured under the project's TIF district, potentially increasing the tax increment available to pay bonds. Commissioners also approved a pledge resolution that directs increment from the Union and Crossing allocation areas to repay senior bonds tied to the Crossing project.

Details the commission discussed and acted on: Meeks said the allocation-area expansion was prompted because "the original footprint for the building that is intended to be captured by the allocation area changed," and the parcels therefore needed to be adjusted. He also noted the change had passed through the planning commission and city council before returning to the Redevelopment Commission for the confirmatory resolution.

The commission approved a separate "union pledge" resolution that "is pledging the increment from those allocation areas towards the repayment of the senior bond or senior union bonds" for the Crossing project, according to a staff presentation. Commissioners were told the city's overall commitment amount is not changing; the pledge and the amended and restated project agreement are intended to clarify how revenues would be applied if tax increment revenues fall short of original expectations.

The amended and restated project agreement further adjusts the city's backstop language. As explained by staff, if the project's bonds are not fully supported by anticipated tax increment because of appeals or lower assessed values under minimum taxpayer agreements, the agreement allows the project to access up to $500,000 of excess increment from nearby parcels in the station/street-level allocation area to cover a shortfall. Meeks described that provision as providing "additional certainty" for the project while saying the city's dollar commitment is not changing.

What was decided: commissioners moved, seconded and voted in favor of the confirmatory resolution, the union pledge resolution, and the amended and restated project agreement. Each motion was carried after the public hearing and consideration. No individual roll-call tallies were recorded in the transcript excerpt; votes were recorded verbally as "aye" and the chair declared the motions carried.

Discussion vs. decision: the transcript shows staff presentation and brief discussion; there were no public speakers during the public hearing on the confirmatory resolution. The commission's votes were formal approvals of the resolutions and the amended agreement; the transcript does not show further conditions or referrals beyond the adopted language.

Next steps and implementation: with the confirmatory resolution approved, staff stated the allocation area will be expanded to include the additional parcels identified in the presentation. The amended and restated agreement implements the up-to-$500,000 backstop mechanism tied to specified nearby parcels in the station allocation area.

Sources: staff presentation by Dustin Meeks; Redevelopment Commission motions and votes recorded during the meeting.