Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions proposed TIF cooperative agreement, retains concerns over bond assignment and reimbursement terms
Summary
Commercial Point council members told developers they are uncomfortable assigning tax-increment financing (TIF) revenues to a bond issuer through a cooperative agreement; members raised questions about indemnification, interest on reimbursements and how port authority bonds would interact with village administration of funds.
Commercial Point Village council members spent an extended portion of their meeting on a draft development agreement for the Addison Farms project and an accompanying draft cooperative agreement that would assign TIF revenues to a bond issuer.
Council members said the developer returned redlined contract language that generally accepted the village’s requested edits, but raised two remaining concerns: language that would allow a bond issuer or port authority to be assigned the village’s TIF revenues and a provision obligating the village to reimburse certain eligible costs plus interest.
Why it matters: under the draft cooperative agreement the bond issuer would receive assignment of TIF receipts, effectively giving the third party a first claim on those revenues. Council members said that departs from how Commercial Point has handled TIFs in the past, where the village fiscal officer retained receipts and distributed funds per the agreement.
Council members and village counsel said they had not previously used an arrangement where the bond issuer is assigned TIF revenues and that they were uneasy about it. The fiscal officer’s normal role, council said, has been to receive and distribute TIF collections and to account for audits. The draft cooperative agreement also included language that, in the council’s view, went beyond that single purpose and could let an outside party control distributions.
Council members flagged several specific issues they said need resolution before the village could consider endorsing the cooperative agreement: a clear description of which TIF revenues would be assigned (the draft appeared to contemplate assignment of 100% of some outside TIF receipts), whether the village would be reimbursing “soft costs” such as engineering and attorney fees, the interest rate to be paid on reimbursements, and the village’s exposure if a third party failed to pay contractors.
Council discussed past TIF arrangements used in town and reported that existing agreements differ: one agreement provides the village 100% of receipts; another pays the developer 100% until a specified cap (the transcript named $2,000,000 in one example), and one practice was described as taking 15% of receipts for a first period and 10% afterward. Members said those precedents influenced their expectations about control and distribution of TIF funds.
Council asked staff and the developer to return with clearer legal language and with answers from the developer’s bond counsel. Among the remedies discussed: keeping the village fiscal officer as the administrator of TIF receipts, tightening language to limit the cooperative agreement to assignment for bond security (if any), and requiring indemnification and defense language before the village would consider signing an assignment that ceded control.
Council also asked staff to raise questions about the proposed use of port authority bonds and whether that financing type imposes different legal or reporting requirements on the village. Members said they wanted a written explanation of any tradeoffs and any possible upside for the village before moving forward.
Ending: Staff and council agreed to continue negotiations. Council members said they would not sign a cooperative agreement that gave a third party broad control of TIF receipts without further legal review and clearer protections for the village.
