Franklin City joint review board approves Tax Increment District No. 10 after debate over blight, costs

The Franklin City joint review board voted 5‑0 to establish Tax Increment District No. 10 after hearing staff presentations on blight designations, environmental constraints and projected economic benefits.

Staff summarized the statutory tests the board applied, including the "but‑for" test — whether the development would occur without tax‑increment assistance — and the economic feasibility tests. SB Freriedman, an external reviewer “available on the call,” told the board that in Freriedman’s view "the project would not proceed without the requested assistance," a point staff relied on in recommending approval.

The board heard financial estimates from staff and a Baker Tilly excerpt in the April 3 memo. Staff said the project would directly create about $42 million in property value and generate roughly $2 million in impact fees as it is built. The construction phase was estimated to produce about $68 million in economic output and roughly 442 direct or indirect jobs; ongoing operations were estimated to yield about $14.9 million in annual economic impact and about 77 full‑time‑equivalent jobs, rising to an estimated $36.1 million in total annual impact when secondary spending by new residents is included.

Board members pressed staff about blight and site constraints. Staff described two types of blight: buildings whose repair costs exceed value, and vacant parcels with technical constraints. Staff cited geotechnical reports that documented extensive, unengineered fill on parts of the site (including material the staff described as evidence of dumping), former dry‑cleaner contamination flags and a leaking transformer that required additional investigation. Those site conditions, staff said, increase foundation and remediation costs and were part of the rationale for designating about 81% of the analyzed parcels as blighted (the statute’s minimum threshold discussed was 50%).

Staff also described access problems: the developer owns parcels along 76th Street but not along Rosson Avenue, and board members were told additional ingress and egress would be needed to meet fire‑code requirements and emergency access.

Staff summarized overall project economics as discussed in the packet: the developer’s build‑out was described as roughly $83.9 million; the city’s incentive package was estimated at about $15.7 million (including roughly $700,000 of city administrative costs). Staff said that under a full build‑out scenario the project could add up to $48 million in value and generate an estimated $22.6 million in future tax increment that could allow the TID to close in roughly 20 years if those optimistic assumptions are realized.

Before the final vote, board members noted a late opposition letter from an attorney and a developer response that arrived the same afternoon and appeared on social media. The board voted to receive the letters and place them on file so they are part of the public record.

A board member moved "I move for the creation" of the district; the motion to adopt the resolution to create Tax Increment District No. 10 was seconded (Andy Cromy is named in the transcript as the second) and passed by voice vote, 5‑0. The board then adjourned.

The resolution creating Tax Increment District No. 10 took effect upon passage by the board; the transcript does not record any immediate implementation timeline beyond staff remarks about potential closure of the district under a full development scenario.