Fresno EIFD authority accepts FY 2024–25 annual report; no projects yet, staff to return with bond-capacity update

The Fresno Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Public Financing Authority on June 23 held a public hearing and approved the EIFD’s annual report for fiscal year 2024–25, a report required by state law.

The authority found the district has accumulated tax-increment revenue since collections began but has not undertaken or expended funds on any projects to date. Santino D’Nisi, controller for the City of Fresno, told the authority the annual report was made available to the public 30 days before the meeting and that “there aren't any projects that have been undertaken, to this point.”

The report, D’Nisi said, covers five standard sections: description of projects (none reported), a comparison of anticipated versus actual revenue, a cumulative increment-revenue table, an assessment of project completion status (blank because no projects exist), and disclosure of any revenues expended to assist private businesses (none). He also said mailed notice to property owners within the district had been sent in accordance with the code.

Public commenters raised local concerns during the hearing. Darlene Holland, identifying herself as a West Fresno resident, asked whether the EIFD actions relate to eminent domain in West Fresno; Chair Esparza replied that the district’s focus is on downtown, the Blackstone Corridor and adjacent areas and that eminent-domain action was not part of this item. Samantha Moreno described repeatedly reporting sidewalk and graffiti issues in downtown Fresno and encouraged continued city responses. A separate commenter asked how EIFD revenue would interact with Southwest Fresno specific plans and infill housing; officials said those concerns would be part of ongoing conversations as investment decisions are identified.

Board members discussed timing and capacity for using the accumulated increment. Vice Chair Maxwell asked what revenue threshold would “trigger” project investments; D’Nisi said identification of projects and timing is at the authority’s discretion and that staff would need to analyze the district’s finances to determine bonding capacity. Member Grama referenced projections in the original financing plan that suggested a potential bonding amount of about $12 million at year five; D’Nisi said he believed that figure was part of the original projection but would confirm.

The authority also discussed a county reporting omission that resulted in previously omitted tax-rate areas being added back into the EIFD totals. D’Nisi said the County of Fresno disclosed the omission in February and the adjustments increased prior-year receipts by roughly $240,000. Authority members noted that administrative expenses to date primarily reflect outside reporting support and that future annual reports will capture additional administrative staff and mailing costs as well as audit costs.

Authority members asked staff to return with a more detailed estimate of bonding capacity and possible project priorities. Chair Esparza said late fall would be an appropriate time for staff to present an update so the authority could consider whether to pursue bonding or otherwise identify projects.

Votes and formal actions at the meeting included approval of the agenda and the minutes for the Aug. 28, 2024 meeting, and adoption of the FY 2024–25 annual report. Vice Chair Maxwell made the motion to approve the annual report and a member seconded; with no opposition the report was approved. The record shows members present at roll call were Member Girm, Member Arias, Vice Chair Maxwell and Chair Esparza; Member McTarian was absent.

The authority emphasized that the EIFD is a long-term financing mechanism (the plan anticipates a 50-year district) that uses portions of existing property taxes (tax-increment financing) and that there is currently no immediate change to property-tax rates or immediate projects funded by the district. Staff said the first increment collection for the district occurred in fiscal year 2022–23 and that, with the corrected county reporting, the district’s revenue profile is closer to the original projections than previously reflected.

The authority closed the hearing after public comments and the staff presentation and approved the annual report. Members asked staff to return with a bonding-capacity analysis and potential project priorities in the coming months.