Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects proposed DDA ballot wording after contentious debate over revenue projection method
Summary
A proposal to set ballot language for an extension of the Downtown Development Authority TIF plan failed after commissioners and public commenters disputed projection methods and whether the ballot should show a single projected capture or a range. Staff will return with revised language on July 20.
The Traverse City Commission on July 6 declined to approve draft ballot language for a proposed extension of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) tax‑increment financing plan after an extended debate over how to present projected tax capture to voters.
City Attorney Dan Kelly (speaker 2) and Finance/Treasurer staff recommended ballot wording that included an estimated range of total projected tax increment capture ($127,358,608 to $139,959,327) and language describing an annual revenue sharing provision that would return 30% of the capture to overlapping taxing jurisdictions. City Treasurer Heidi Sheppey (speaker 16) described the tax‑billing mechanics: the city would collect the total and then disburse portions to jurisdictions according to statutory exclusion factors.
Resident Fred Bimber (speaker 17), a public commenter who submitted alternative calculations the night before the meeting, urged the commission to use a projection method based on historical taxable‑value growth. “The projection using a CPI‑based 2.3% method is way off,” Bimber said, arguing that a 7% methodology would yield a much larger total and that a defensible range should include a higher upper bound. The DDA director (speaker 18) told the commission the DDA’s plan followed statutory requirements and that the plan itself lists the $127 million estimate.
Commissioners and members of the public disagreed on whether including a range computed by different methodologies would confuse voters or provide useful transparency. Some commissioners favored a straightforward figure presented the way the city projects other ballot estimates (similar to millage estimates); others wanted the range highlighted to reflect uncertainty and different professional calculations.
At roll call the motion to adopt the amended ballot wording failed (Commissioner Bomer: yes; Commissioner Anderson: no; Commissioner Funk: no; Commissioner Shaw: no; Mayor Pro Tem: no; Commissioner Treadwell: yes; Mayor: no). The motion did not achieve a majority and the item will return to the July 20 commission meeting for revised ballot language and further discussion.
