Aberdeen council approves TIF 45 for Roosevelt Business Park after heated debate over changing numbers
Loading...
Summary
After days of packet revisions and a tied first vote, the Aberdeen City Council voted to establish Tax Increment Financing District 45 and set an aggregate reimbursement amount intended to support infrastructure at the Roosevelt Business Park. Debate centered on shifting project-plan figures, interest inclusion, and how grants and future funds are applied.
The Aberdeen City Council voted to create Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 45 to support infrastructure and reimburse eligible project costs for the Roosevelt Business Park, approving an aggregate package that includes an added $500,000 grant component.
The resolution — approved after an earlier 3–3 tie and a short executive session with the Aberdeen Development Corporation (ADC) — drew sustained questioning from council members about late changes to the project plan and how interest and grants were accounted for in the new figures.
Why it matters: The TIF is intended to finance roads, water, sewer and storm drainage to prepare roughly 56.55 acres for industrial, commercial and retail development. ADC says the project will create lots for businesses and that public infrastructure costs can be reimbursed under SDCL 11-9-15(8), which allows a governing body discretion to grant additional TIF dollars in certain instances.
ADC representative Ron told the council the district is wholly owned by the ADC and described eligible project costs and financing terms, directing council members to SDCL 11-9-15(8) for the statutory basis that allows discretionary grant-like TIF dollars. “That grant is shown at subsection 8 of the statute, which allows the governing body, in this case, the council, at its discretion to grant additional TIF dollars to a developer,” he said.
Tim Hannigan, who identified himself as representing ADC, said the project plan originally listed about $9.1 million in TIF-eligible expenses and that ADC had been awarded a $3.5 million federal EDA grant to offset public infrastructure costs. He acknowledged arithmetic and presentation errors in materials distributed to the council and described the effort to correct the figures: “It’s really just ultimately a math problem,” Hannigan said. “We chose to correct it, and we believe being upfront and acknowledging that is a much better approach than present[ing] a plan that creates a lot more risk down the road.”
Council members pressed for clarity on what changed in the Friday packet submissions and whether interest costs had been included in the aggregate TIF requests. One council member criticized the moving target of project numbers and urged caution because the city is authorizing taxpayer-backed financing: “When this body spends money, we are ultimately talking about taxes, and taxes are ultimately money that is collected by use of force,” the member said, underscoring the sensitivity of asking the public to underwrite long-term financing.
After an initial motion that produced a 3–3 tie, the council entered executive session to review the ADC’s financing details. Returning to open session, a motion to adopt a resolution specifying an aggregate amount of $4,137,000 — which proponents said would make the Roosevelt math work while remaining below ADC’s original request — was moved, seconded and approved by roll call.
The council’s approval authorizes the creation of TIF 45 and sets the maximum aggregate reimbursement the city will permit under the adopted resolution. The motion and approval instruct city finance staff to plug the approved amount into the draft resolution’s specific paragraph for reimbursement limits.
What council said next: Supporters framed the vote as a way to keep the project moving and preserve a $3.5 million EDA grant that ADC has already secured. Opponents and some undecided members said they wanted better, earlier disclosure of calculations and asked for stronger assurances about how other grants or future funds would be applied if one or both parks (Roosevelt and Rivet) do not proceed as originally envisioned.
What happens now: City staff will finalize the resolution language with the adopted aggregate figure and proceed with the steps needed for ADC to pursue underwriting and — pending title and grant-signature milestones — to put the project out to bid. ADC warned that missing the underwriting timetable could jeopardize EDA grant timing and the construction season.
Authorities cited: SDCL 11-9-15(8) (statute cited in council discussion regarding TIF-eligible costs and discretionary grants).
Ending: Council approved the resolution and the aggregate figure after extended debate and a short executive session; members said they expect staff and ADC to return with any further clarifications if the financing picture changes.
