Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant briefs commission on TIF mechanics, bonds and developer-purchase models to spur housing
Summary
Nick Lawrence, the commission's consultant, delivered a practical TIF '101' and 201 briefing explaining increment capture, bond issuance costs, RIFF loans, developer-purchase models, and case studies showing how counties with limited TIF cash can still support housing and infrastructure.
Nick Lawrence, the commission’s retained consultant, told the Franklin County Redevelopment Commission that tax increment financing is a tool to create conditions for redevelopment rather than a guarantee of development itself.
Lawrence, who described several recent local case studies, emphasized that TIF proceeds typically fund public infrastructure and site-readiness to attract private investment. He illustrated bond economics with a $1 million issuance example that showed roughly $150,000 in issuance costs and about $850,000 in net proceeds—underscoring that smaller bond sizes may be inefficient because issuance costs are proportionally large.
He outlined common financing approaches the commission could consider: paying site costs with cash-on-hand; issuing bonds (which require underwriting and approval by the county fiscal body and potentially the economic development commission); using RIFF (residential infrastructure) loans or similar IFA-backed instruments; and employing developer-purchase or conditional reimbursement models for residential districts.
Lawrence walked commissioners through multiple real-world projects—Trailside Landing, South Valley, North Ridge and Westgate—demonstrating mixes of single-site TIFs, developer-purchase bonds, conditional reimbursements and splits (for example, an 85/15 developer/community allocation noted in one case study). He stressed that agreements must include performance milestones and monitoring to protect public investment.
On oversight and approvals, Lawrence reminded the board that redevelopment commissions can pledge revenue but cannot unilaterally issue certain types of debt without further approvals from the county fiscal body, economic development commission or other statutory bodies. He recommended maintaining a ready roster of advisors (financial advisor, bond counsel, trustee) and said the commission should evaluate projects through pro forma underwriting before committing public resources.
Commissioners asked practical questions about phasing, accountability for developer-built infrastructure, and whether money from commercial TIFs could be leveraged to support residential projects. Lawrence said legal and structural approaches exist to combine or reimburse across allocation areas but advised the commission to consult counsel to ensure compliance.
Lawrence also offered to remain available to the commission on an hourly engagement basis to help evaluate proposals and to prepare scenario analyses if the commission chooses to pursue bonds or developer agreements.
Next step: commissioners agreed to keep Lawrence as a consultant when needed and to convene or call special meetings if credible project proposals arrive that merit fast consideration.
