TIF Districts

[Pete]

^

This is a very complex issue only brought to the forefront by a lot of questioning here, Ed Shadid and the schools themselves.

When I first asked about this, I was told that the schools get all the redirected tax dollars offset by the state somehow and that it wasn't something openly talked out of fear of that little loophole being closed.

What I can say for certain is that if that state is somehow offsetting the OKC Public schools for this redirected tax money, it is being carved out of another tax base which means all the other districts that share in that money are being affected.


Keep in mind that TIF and these offsets are not increasing taxes but are taking existing taxes and redirecting them. So, by that definition, the same pie is just being carved up differently meaning a gain in one place is offset by a loss elsewhere.

[TexanOkie]

It may be a zero-sum game for available taxes amongst the various school districts in the state, as you mention, but if the state school aid formula tries to offset the amount of ad valorem revenue a school district receives, then I think it still makes sense to not include increment revenues in the formula offsets because school districts don't get the increment revenue (or at least not as operating revenue). In fact, that's probably why the TIF law requires the substitution of base assessed values for equalized assessed values in various things (debt limits, establishing mill levies, etc.), too. Although the indirect split used to get the schools to the table probably shakes this all up a bit.

[TexanOkie]

Apparently this article was published by the Journal Record last Friday: Addition and subtraction: TIFs cut funding for outside school districts | The Journal Record

Addition and subtraction: TIFs cut funding for outside school districts
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record
February 12, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – School districts across the state that fall outside tax increment finance districts are receiving less funding than they would otherwise deserve because of how increases in property tax revenue are omitted from the state aid formula, officials confirmed.

In Oklahoma County alone for 2014, Oklahoma City’s TIF districts diverted ad valorem taxes of $25 million that was generated from $218 million in net assessed property values away from other jurisdictions such as the Independent District 89 – the Oklahoma City Public Schools, city economic development project manager Brent Bryant said. Although $3.5 million was given back to those jurisdictions while the balance went to city infrastructure and economic development projects, the $25 million figure was never included in the state appropriations equation for education, which takes counties’ property values into consideration for additional funding.

Oklahoma City Councilman Ed Shadid has frequently questioned other city officials about the impact of TIF accounting. He recently asked Alliance for Economic Development President Cathy O’Connor whether moving a valuable property like the Devon Energy tower, 499 Sheridan Ave., from one TIF into another would help I-89 at the expense of other schools.

“Yes,” O’Connor said, adding that Oklahoma City school officials suggested the Devon adjustment near the end of its first TIF’s life span. “They requested that, they did. They wanted 499 in for that very reason. They’ve done the math. We’ve helped them do the math. They get more money.”

“So they get more money, but could you make an argument that rural schools or schools outside I-89 get less?” Shadid said.

“I guess you could,” O’Connor said.

Oklahoma City isn’t the only municipality active in TIF revenue diversion, however. According to the Oklahoma Tax Commission’s ad valorem division, local governments across the state had more than $445 million in active TIF districts in 2015. That concerns Larry Stein, chief deputy for Oklahoma County Assessor Leonard Sullivan, who sees a parallel situation at the next level of government as taxpayers end up paying for projects elsewhere they didn’t agree to.

“All of the counties in Oklahoma have experienced a similar thing from the state of Oklahoma. An amount of money that was supposed to be returned every year to the county has disappeared because of legislative initiatives,” he said. “The result is that the Legislature is $1.3 billion in a hole now.”

A TIF district is based on the idea that investing taxpayer money in a problem property can turn it around and consequently attract more private development for the surrounding area. In Oklahoma, state law allows municipalities to access funds for such development by defining a region and locking property values within it at a base level over several years while setting aside ad valorem tax revenue as it increases over the base.

Historically, the increased ad valorem is funneled back into a project within the TIF district, leaving other taxing jurisdictions such as school districts at a loss until the TIF dies. Proponents argue that local schools wouldn’t have benefited from property tax revenue but for the TIF anyway, so it’s not a true negative impact on school funding.

Oklahoma City now has nine active TIFs, with plans to add up to seven more. The original nine cover 4,000 acres, overlapping nearly 4 percent of the I-89 school district. The largest TIF is generally defined as downtown. Other smaller TIFs can be found within the district.

The properties within the six new TIF districts paid $750,000 in ad valorem property taxes in 2014, O’Connor said. Under the plan to be voted on Feb. 23, if any such area is judged to be struggling with development, a review committee can ask the City Council to activate one of the new TIFs to provide a financial boost. Any additional ad valorem tax or sales tax revenue collected above the current base will be kept within the district.

The city’s TIFs are being designed now to share diverted ad valorem revenue with the schools, which Bryant referred to as an unprecedented step – “We’re trying to do the right thing,” he said.

In 2000 when the 499 Sheridan block was placed into a TIF, the property had a value of $1.85 million, Bryant said. In 2014, that had risen to $9.5 million, or an increment of $7.7 million that generated $96,000 in taxes. Of that, $48,000 goes to the TIF district and the other half is given back to the other taxing jurisdictions, primarily the I-89 school district.
“That money does not count against their funding formula,” Bryant said, referring to the 72-page Oklahoma School Finance Technical Assistance Document that outlines the state aid equation.

Officials at the state Department of Education confirmed that normally, when a school district realizes ad valorem increases from year to year, the state Legislature appropriates less aid, which has the result of freeing up funding for other districts or programs. By not reporting improvements in property tax collections within a TIF, that school district is sapping more from the pool, leaving less for everyone else than they would otherwise be due.

Ryan Owens, an attorney representing the Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration, proposed that argument in an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Oklahoma Supreme Court in December. At the time, CCOSA was supporting a penny sales tax to increase funding for education. The argument spoke against concerns that revenue tied to retail purchases would somehow degrade other funding streams.

Owens said the topic was discussed with representatives from the Oklahoma State School Boards Association and the Oklahoma Education Association, who also contributed to the Supreme Court case brief. They agreed with the conclusion that the ripples from a local TIF could be far-reaching, he said.

Scott Randall, chief capital projects officer for I-89, said school district board members and Superintendent Robert Nue have met with city officials many times over the last few years and tried to consider a wide spectrum of potential impacts from municipal TIFs. The district has done nothing wrong, he said, and officials appreciate the City Council’s generosity in giving the schools some TIF revenue.

“We’re looking at it as, how do we benefit Oklahoma City public school students,” Randall said. “We do understand our responsibility to the state. Having said that, however, we are also the largest school district in the state, and we have some of the greatest challenges of being an urban district that go along with that.

“There are a great number of challenges with the state funding formula,” he said.

Owen said the state aid formula for schools is highly complex, taking into consideration such factors as teacher numbers, transportation area, student sparsity, special needs programs and grade levels. Each school should have a similar amount of funding per pupil statewide. The equation has been challenged twice before the state Supreme Court and has withstood judicial scrutiny both times, he said.

“The formula would not look so goofy if it had more money in it. The problem with the formula is that it’s starved,” he said. “If you add up the number of reductions we’ve experienced since the recession as a cumulative total, it comes to a loss of $1.2 billion in state appropriation. As those go down, the local revenue piece becomes more and important to school districts.”

[Pete]

^

Thanks for posting that.

Pretty much confirms what I said in my last post.

[TexanOkie]

Pay attention to this section of that article, though:

Officials at the state Department of Education confirmed that normally, when a school district realizes ad valorem increases from year to year, the state Legislature appropriates less aid, which has the result of freeing up funding for other districts or programs. By not reporting improvements in property tax collections within a TIF, that school district is sapping more from the pool, leaving less for everyone else than they would otherwise be due.

Perhaps you could make a case that the indirect split amounts given to OCPS should be included in the state aid reporting, but those sorts of provisions aren't in most TIF plans. It goes back to what I posted earlier--increment revenues customarily don't go to the school district. It's one of your main points against TIF in the first place. However, as long as TIF is still a thing, not including collections of increment in the state aid formula makes sense. If you include them, the affected school district both doesn't get that money AND is essentially penalized for it in the state aid calculation.

[Pete]

^

OKC Public Schools get money from the TIF, too.

It's what they used to fund John Rex Elementary and the improvements at Emerson, for example.

[TexanOkie]

The second hearings for the downtown TIF amendments and the Core to Shore TIF plan is on Tuesday next week (Feb. 23)--there's no listed course of action in the posted notices after this, so this might be the last time anyone has a say before Council adopts everything. If Pete and others are against these, you might want to make sure your research or arguments are in place in time. (Same goes for those of you who are in favor of these.)

[Pete]

^

It goes to final vote on Tuesday.

I've been collecting and analyzing the detail but they haven't given anyone much time to look all these complex matters over.

[TexanOkie]

Didn't see anything in the news about this yesterday. Did these pass?

[RodH]

It passed with one no vote. The emergency failed.

[Pete]

It's $395 million in tax dollars (will certainly end up being more) and the Oklahoman barely covered this.


Spending split: OKC Council creates six downtown TIF districts
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record February 23, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – Six new downtown tax increment finance districts are now queued to activate over the next decade.

City Council members on Tuesday approved a plan proposed by the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City to carve up the area just north of the Oklahoma River into economic development zones. The six districts fall between Western Avenue and the east side of Bricktown, bound by Sheridan Avenue to the north, in what officials are referring to collectively as the Core to Shore reinvestment area. Much of the area was originally identified as the larger TIF-2.

Once active, the six new TIFs will have a total budget of $395 million. Council members have up to 10 years to activate them.

Councilman Ed Shadid, the lone holdout in the 8-1 vote, questioned the need to define so many TIFs before they’re needed. Some are likely to never be triggered at all, he said, if other subsidies and free market forces are as successful as expected.

Oklahoma state law allows municipalities to access funds for economic development by defining a region and locking property values at a base level over several years while setting aside ad valorem tax revenue as it increases over the base. The additional revenue is then funneled into projects within the district, making the surrounding area more attractive as well.

“We have $63 million in TIF-2 that are not allocated … $63 million that we can now spend on economic development,” Shadid said. “It seems like we should finish our dinner before we go on to dessert.”

“There has to be a reason for rushing to do six TIFs that hasn’t been articulated publicly. I think that part of this is the convention center,” he said, referring to plans to build a larger center to replace the Cox Convention Center under the MAPS 3 temporary sales tax program. “We don’t have money for the parking garage. We don’t have money for the convention center hotel. And in my gut, I think that’s what this is all about.”

Shadid also noted the effect of TIFs on school district funding, as reported earlier by The Journal Record. The diversion of ad valorem taxes from the state school aid equation could mean less money for school districts elsewhere, officials confirmed.

Councilman Pete White said his vote had been swayed by more information about the TIF structure over several months and discussions between city, county and school district officials about funding implications. His concerns over the length of subsidies were mollified somewhat by an amendment requiring comprehensive reviews of active TIF districts every five years.

The properties within the six TIF districts paid $750,000 in ad valorem property taxes in 2014, officials said. Under the approved plan, if any of the areas is judged to be struggling with development momentum, a review committee can ask the City Council to activate the TIF. Any additional ad valorem tax or sales tax revenue collected above the current base in the TIF will be kept within the district instead of feeding into the city’s overall budget.

Council members also agreed to expand the original boundaries of TIF-2 to south of SW 30th Street, increase the budget for projects by more than $44 million and remove the First National Center at Park and Robinson avenues from the larger district. The historic bank building now sits in its own district with a $45 million project budget.

[warreng88]

Putting this here and on the OCU Law School thread:

‘Necessarily complicated’: Ownership structure helped OCU get tax credits for downtown law school

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record February 25, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – The same federal tax credit program that served the historic Skirvin Hilton and Colcord hotels so well is proving a good investment for the Oklahoma City University School of Law.

After just a few more years of leasing, the private Methodist school will wholly own the former Central High School property, OCU law school Dean Valerie Couch said.

As the building’s ownership structure took shape over the last few years, its opaque complexity drew attention. However, Tom Loy, chairman of MetaFund in Oklahoma City, said it’s not uncommon for several parties to enter a major real estate deal to ensure the most efficient financing, particularly when it involves tax credits.

The university actually kept the arrangement as simple as possible by bringing in the Methodist Foundation as an affiliate investor. Couch said no other investors are involved, and in about seven more years the foundation will step away.

The building at 800 N. Harvey Ave. was built in 1910 and used as a public high school until the late 1960s. It was purchased by Southwestern Bell Corp., and then by Oklahoma Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Co., now known as American Farmers and Ranchers Mutual Insurance Co. The latter put the building up for sale in 2010, and the private university bought it for $10 million through OCU Law Building Associates LLC, according to county property records.

Over the next few years, other parties came to be involved in the ownership and leasing of the property, including NMTC Investment Fund LLC, MF OCU Law Building LLC and Master Tenant LLC, according to public record audit statements.

The MF in the fund name refers to MetaFund. NMTC refers to the New Markets Tax Credit Program, which was created by Congress in 2000 as part of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act. The program helps revitalize economically troubled areas by providing tax credit incentives to investors in federally certified Community Development Entities. The credit is equal to 39 percent of the investment over slightly more than six years. Couch was unable to say how much the tax credit was worth to OCU, other than several million dollars.

The program is popular around the country. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, NMTC generated $8 of private investment for every $1 of federal funding as of the end of the 2014-2015 fiscal year, financing more than 4,800 businesses.

In addition to the Skirvin and Colcord hotels near downtown, the NMTC tax credit was figured into the development of the soon-to-open 21c Museum Hotel, formerly the Fred Jones Building in what is now the Film Row district west of downtown. MetaFund was involved in the Colcord deal; however, all three examples were structured similarly to the OCU law school deal.

“Unfortunately, for everyone who participates in them, the structures are necessarily complicated because of the requirements of the tax credit,” he said. “The OCU transaction was complicated, not because anybody wanted it that way, but because of the requirements of the tax credit.”

Typically, NMTC deals involve a bank loan and an investor who isn’t interested in the property as much as the tax credit. But even that gets messy under other federal laws and requires more parties, Loy said.

Regardless, OCU did nothing unusual, he said, nor is the ownership structure providing profit from students’ tuitions through the law school.

“The convoluted structure is not intended to hide any of the players,” he said. “In this case, it made an economic revitalization project very feasible. This deal without the New Market Tax Credits, I can say with a fair degree of certainty, would never have been able to convert that lovely old high school building, and it would be in an even further state of disrepair.”

[TexanOkie]

The Chamber is hosting a forum on TIF this Thursday from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM at the downtown Sheraton. The forum's panelists look to be a mix of inside and outside folks:

* Cathy O'Connor, Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City
* Russell Evans, Economist, Oklahoma City University
* Carl E. Edwards, Price Edwards & Company
* Forrest "Butch" Freeman, Oklahoma County Treasurer

Link: Greater Oklahoma City Chamber - Learn about OKC developments related to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts at Chamber Forum

[Teo9969]

…sigh...

[Pete]

^

Very telling this is being sponsored by the Chamber.

[TexanOkie]

^

Very telling this is being sponsored by the Chamber.

Perhaps. But there's going to be a Q&A session, and I've never really seen the OCU economist listed as a TIF resource by the City or Chamber before.

Also, discounting information presented just because you anticipate bias from the source is no worse than what TIF proponents do with the information from Good Jobs First, etc. I can imagine the truth about whether TIF is beneficial or not is somewhere in the middle of the two sides, but ignoring the other side's points or facts, even if presented in biased fashion, likely doesn't help settle the debate. It just further entrenches people.

[Pete]

Perhaps. But there's going to be a Q&A session, and I've never really seen the OCU economist listed as a TIF resource by the City or Chamber before.

He's the consulting economist for the City, meaning he is on their payroll.

[Teo9969]

Perhaps. But there's going to be a Q&A session, and I've never really seen the OCU economist listed as a TIF resource by the City or Chamber before.

Also, discounting information presented just because you anticipate bias from the source is no worse than what TIF proponents do with the information from Good Jobs First, etc. I can imagine the truth about whether TIF is beneficial or not is somewhere in the middle of the two sides, but ignoring the other side's points or facts, even if presented in biased fashion, likely doesn't help settle the debate. It just further entrenches people.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the "opposition" doesn't really have anything to gain or lose. The "opposition" is simply attempting to clarify what is going on so that the public can be aware and scrutinize the viability of the program.

Instead, the Chamber is hosting a $60 event so that movers and shakers can come and be persuaded about the positive qualities of TIF.

Look, if they present objective information that shows the positives of the program, but also highlight what the potential pitfalls are and to what failsafes they are implementing to prevent those pitfalls, then great. If this is a "everything's rosy, go on about your lives again" type of presentation, that's far more dangerous than anything the "opposition" can do.

Those in charge of TIF are going to be overseeing hundreds of millions of public dollars. Those who have put TIF under scrutiny aren't in charge of a dime.

To whom much is given, much is asked…the concerning thing is that the first public forum for those who are deeply involved in the process (i.e. Cathy O'Connor) is being held in a nice little bubble where those unaffected can come pretend like they care and those who are most affected can't afford to come.

[Pete]

Perhaps. But there's going to be a Q&A session, and I've never really seen the OCU economist listed as a TIF resource by the City or Chamber before.

Also, discounting information presented just because you anticipate bias from the source is no worse than what TIF proponents do with the information from Good Jobs First, etc. I can imagine the truth about whether TIF is beneficial or not is somewhere in the middle of the two sides, but ignoring the other side's points or facts, even if presented in biased fashion, likely doesn't help settle the debate. It just further entrenches people.

I've never seen anyone at the city even mention Good Jobs First or any of the points they raise.

In fact, when Greg LeRoy from that organization spoke at the town hall on TIF sponsored by Ed Shadid, Cathy O'Connor and other city representatives were invited and all declined.

Since I am literally the only other person who understands how OKC implements TIF's, where that money comes from and where it goes, I spoke on those subjects at the same town hall meeting.

I assume you did not attend this?

Many local developers attended that meeting -- most of whom have received TIF money or were planning to apply -- and all complemented me on my objectivity and fairness.


There are not "two sides" here. There is the city (and specifically the Chamber working in tandem with the Alliance for Economic Development) and people only hear what they have to say, which I've demonstrated to be biased and often out-right misleading. And if I appear to be on a different side, it's only because the whole truth is not being communicated.

I've made this point many times: If there were only negative comments and misleading information to the negative side of TIF's, I would have presented the fuller picture on that as well.

I personally do not have anything to lose or gain from TIF one way or another. I merely started studying the subject years ago because it's hundreds of millions of tax dollars being administered by a handful of people and literally no one -- including city council -- understands how it works. And in fact, have been frequently misled.

I have spent hundreds of hours researching this, collecting records and interviewing city personnel, all on a purely volunteer basis. I did not start with "a side" I merely wanted to understand and as I investigated I found many inconsistencies which I have attempted to document and share, for absolutely no personal gain.

[TexanOkie]

I've never seen anyone at the city even mention Good Jobs First or any of the points they raise.

In fact, when Greg LeRoy from that organization spoke at the town hall on TIF sponsored by Ed Shadid, Cathy O'Connor and other city representatives were invited and all declined.

Since I am literally the only other person who understands how OKC implements TIF's, where that money comes from and where it goes, I spoke on those subjects at the same town hall meeting.

I assume you did not attend this?

Many local developers attended that meeting -- most of whom have received TIF money or were planning to apply -- and all complemented me on my objectivity and fairness.


There are not "two sides" here. There is the city (and specifically the Chamber working in tandem with the Alliance for Economic Development) and people only hear what they have to say, which I've demonstrated to be biased and often out-right misleading. And if I appear to be on a different side, it's only because the whole truth is not being communicated.

I've made this point many times: If there were only negative comments and misleading information to the negative side of TIF's, I would have presented the fuller picture on that as well.

I personally do not have anything to lose or gain from TIF one way or another. I merely started studying the subject years ago because it's hundreds of millions of tax dollars being administered by a handful of people and literally no one -- including city council -- understands how it works. And in fact, have been frequently misled.

I have spent hundreds of hours researching this, collecting records and interviewing city personnel, all on a purely volunteer basis. I did not start with "a side" I merely wanted to understand and as I investigated I found many inconsistencies which I have attempted to document and share, for absolutely no personal gain.

I was at the Greg LeRoy town hall, and my point wasn't to question your objectivity. However, it's also fairly obvious from your posts on this thread that your initially objective analysis has led you to be very skeptical if not opposed to TIF as practiced by OKC. Granted, your skepticism/opposition is more nuanced than the rah-rahs coming from certain people at the City or Chamber. I guess I just have difficulty seeing how the program could be that poorly run or have such negative results when so many community leaders seem to be on board with it. That's all. Even the school district's on board now--and really, why wouldn't they be? With the state school aid formula being what it is, they effectively get $0.15 for every $1.00 in ad valorem revenue for operational use.

[Pete]

^

Not at all opposed to TIF, as there are very good applications for it, like First National. You clearly are not paying close attention to what I've said on this matter.

I came to my skepticism honestly and as result of hundreds of hours and research, with absolutely no agenda or possible benefit. In fact, quite the opposite as my name has been smeared by people at City Hall.

You and everyone else are only going off the information being fed by the City, which is incomplete, biased and intentionally misleading.


Here are some simple, irrefutable facts that get completely lost in all the rhetoric:

1. Tax dollars are being redirected largely from public schools to mostly private developers.
2. There is no proof that these developments would not happen without TIF.
3. There is absolutely zero proof that TIF has increased property values and raised property taxes.

[Teo9969]

TexanOkie,

Honestly, if the program were about to be over, I don't think anybody here would be saying anything.

Instead, we're talking about a program about which nearly the entire city is ignorant (and even if they wanted to know more is well above the average person's understanding of economics/tax-policy) that is about to double overnight. We're talking about MAPS amounts of money in a program that well under 500 people in the entire city have any real grasp of. This is why there's such a major push by Pete for complete and transparent information.

I'll reserve further judgement until after watching the video of their Panel discussion.

[TexanOkie]

^

Not at all opposed to TIF, as there are very good applications for it, like First National. You clearly are not paying close attention to what I've said on this matter.

I came to my skepticism honestly and as result of hundreds of hours and research, with absolutely no agenda or possible benefit. In fact, quite the opposite as my name has been smeared by people at City Hall.

You and everyone else are only going off the information being fed by the City, which is incomplete, biased and intentionally misleading.


Here are some simple, irrefutable facts that get completely lost in all the rhetoric:

1. Tax dollars are being redirected largely from public schools to mostly private developers.
2. There is no proof that these developments would not happen without TIF.
3. There is absolutely zero proof that TIF has increased property values and raised property taxes.

I'm not trying to go off information fed by the City any more than you're trying to be skeptical. I've read your information, information on TIF from other sources (including Mr. LeRoy's organization), and the information provided by the City. I've also worked as a city planner (not in OK, and not dealing with TIF [or "TIRZ" in TX]). I want to learn where the City's information is "incomplete, biased, and intentionally misleading," since there is clearly not a meeting of the minds about what is going on. If there were, and it were as you claim, then there is a pretty large contingent of City staff and others who are deliberately lying to and acting in bad faith toward City Council or the general population, and the rhetoric that IS coming from those sources doesn't appear to reflect any ill will or deception. These people seem to honestly believe they are doing a good public service. The only thing I have gathered is that you (and others such as Councilman Shadid) oppose--from an purely policy angle--the extensive use of TIF as part of a large redevelopment program. From what I've been able to gather, the City is working well within the constructs of how TIF is designed to work in OK.

I also think your "simple, irrefutable facts" are falling prey to the same problems of being incomplete, biased, and misleading (even if not intentionally so) as the City's information. And the 3 points themselves are circular. #1 presumes #2 & #3. There is no way to tell what the scale of these developments would be--if they would even happen--without TIF. I guess it all comes back to whether you believe these projects getting TIF support have an actual financing gap or not, and if so, what type of development the private financing market could support independently and what other sources might be available to fill the gap. I understand correlation doesn't equal causation and that there are a myriad of other variables that muddy the waters on being able to tell whether OKC's use of TIF has increased property values or not. Given the circumstances and the academic field the City's use of TIF would fall under (economics), I sincerely doubt there is a way to prove the developments would happen anyway or that TIF hasn't increased property values, either. Even if all 3 are correct, the tax dollars being "redirected" is not near the scale as has been claimed due to the current state school aid offsets for ad valorem collections in the foundation aid and salary incentive aid calculations. Now THAT is an irrefutable fact, though not simple.

[Teo9969]

...the tax dollars being "redirected" is not near the scale as has been claimed due to the current state school aid offsets for ad valorem collections in the foundation aid and salary incentive aid calculations. Now THAT is an irrefutable fact, though not simple.

Without getting into the rest of the post, this right here is just simply wrong. Redirected money is redirected money EVEN IF that redirected money is replaced with another stream. Because those streams that are now being redirected to the once vacant gap were at one point flowing to other areas.

[Pete]

there is a pretty large contingent of City staff and others who are deliberately lying to and acting in bad faith toward City Council or the general population, and the rhetoric that IS coming from those sources doesn't appear to reflect any ill will or deception. These people seem to honestly believe they are doing a good public service

Doesn't make it any less manipulative or wrong.

There is no way to tell what the scale of these developments would be--if they would even happen--without TIF.

The burden of proof is on the group seeking to divert hundreds of millions (approaching a billion) from schools to private developers, not the other way around.

the tax dollars being "redirected" is not near the scale as has been claimed due to the current state school aid offsets for ad valorem collections in the foundation aid and salary incentive aid calculations. Now THAT is an irrefutable fact, though not simple.

That money simply comes from other public school districts, hence it IS being diverted from public schools.