Athens committee reviews process for new or amended tax allocation districts; commission votes to pause changes

The Legislative View Committee met Thursday, Feb. 6, at City Hall to review a staff proposal for a formal process to create new Tax Allocation Districts (TADs) or amend existing ones; commissioners subsequently moved to pause any creation or boundary amendments of area TADs while leaving room for project-specific proposals.

The proposal, presented by Ilkay McConnell, director of the Economic Development Department, and Daniel Young, the TAD coordinator, outlined the state and local steps needed to form or change a TAD, including parcel definition, certification of the tax base by the Georgia Department of Revenue and preparation of a redevelopment plan and school‑impact analysis. "The proposal is staff's recommendation on a draft process," Sarah George, chief of staff in the manager's office, told the committee. "We're not asking you to tell us right now to go amend the TAD or to create."

The committee’s vote came after multiple commissioners pressed staff for more information before authorizing redevelopment plans. Commissioner Wright moved that the committee "pass this agenda item without action — no new TADs, no amending existing TADs," a motion seconded by Commissioner Thornton and carried by the body. The motion directed staff not to initiate area boundary expansions or amendments at this time; it did not categorically bar project‑specific requests if a separate process is later agreed.

Staff reminded the committee that Athens currently has six existing TADs that were established by voter referendum and local ordinance and that, under state law, a TAD’s tax base must be certified by the Georgia Department of Revenue. According to presenters, the six TADs were identified and effectively created around January 2020 and together represented about 6.6% of the tax digest at the freeze date; state law limits TADs to no more than 10% of the tax digest. Most of the current TADs are structured for roughly 20 years; the mall redevelopment area was noted as having a 29‑year term under its community benefits agreement.

Commissioners raised several recurring concerns: how "affordable housing" would be defined within TAD funding priorities, whether to rely on HUD area median income (AMI) or a locally determined income threshold, and how community benefit agreements (CBAs) and other conditions placed on TAD projects affect developer interest. Presenters said the countywide funding priorities originally were set with an 80% AMI baseline for the four funding categories, and that the mall project’s community benefits agreement specified 60% of AMI for that project. As staff explained, HUD AMI covers a multi-county region that can raise income thresholds for Athens‑area households because the HUD region combines Athens‑Clarke with neighboring counties.

Several commissioners said they want staff to assemble additional materials before authorizing redevelopment planning work. Requests included: examples of successful and stalled TADs in other Georgia jurisdictions, a short timeline of documents and decisions related to the mall redevelopment, clarity on the fiscal and legal effects of amending a TAD boundary (including how an amendment resets the TAD baseline and affects future increment), and a recommended approach to advisory committees for TAD oversight. Ilkay McConnell and Daniel Young said staff would compile comparisons (Gwinnett, Gainesville, Rome, Atlanta examples were cited), legal citations, and a timeline of the mall process for the committee.

Staff also described a two‑track approach recommended in the draft process: (1) an "area‑specific" track for defined contiguous parcels that rely on a redevelopment plan and certification, and (2) a "project‑specific" track that would require an earlier feasibility study and developer fees to support the technical work (redevelopment plan, school impact analysis, legal review). Staff noted that project‑specific TADs can sometimes sunset earlier if the development’s increment finishes sooner; however, amending an existing area TAD’s geographic boundary generally resets the baseline for increments and can reduce or delay funds flowing into an area.

The committee did not authorize staff to proceed with redevelopment plans for new or amended area TADs at the Feb. 6 meeting; staff were asked to return with the requested comparative research, a concise timeline of the mall and related CBAs, and clearer options for AMI thresholds and advisory‑committee structure. The committee scheduled its next meeting for March 6.

The vote and discussion indicate continued caution among commissioners about expanding the county’s use of TADs while the long‑running mall redevelopment and related community benefit negotiations are still unresolved, and while commissioners seek clearer policy choices on affordable housing thresholds and other priorities.