Advertisement

The truth about TIFs


Illustration by Mark Vollenweider
Are TIFs being used the way they were intended? — Illustration by Mark Vollenweider

In mid-July, the Iowa City City Council authorized $14.1 million dollars in TIF-funded financial aid to the $49 million dollar, 15-story luxury high-rise named The Chauncey. The debate over the city’s decision to essentially subsidize part of the construction of The Chauncey—which will include more screens for FilmScene, a bowling alley, art gallery space and a café—spilled out onto the editorial page of the Iowa Press-Citizen with former City Council Candidate and local attorney Rockne Cole, slamming The Chauncey as a “breathtaking wealth transfer from working families struggling to make ends meet to provide subsidized housing for the one percent. It’s morally wrong and bad public policy.”

Mayor Matt Hayek and Mayor Pro Tem Susan Mims responded in less bombastic terms, noting, “A TIF project is repaid through taxes on the increased value of the property. No money is transferred from city taxpayers. We disagree with the characterization of this as a ‘breathtaking wealth transfer.'”

The Chauncey is just the latest battleground in the long-standing controversy over the city’s Tax Increment Financing (TIF) program. A funding scheme adopted by state, county and local municipalities across the nation over the past few decades, its place in the public consciousness is best summed up by Peter Fisher, a public finance expert and research director at the Iowa Public Policy: “poorly understood, yet hotly debated.”

It’s easy to see why TIFs exist in the proverbial shadow of most Iowa Citians (or for that matter, Americans) minds. Comprehending them requires burrowing into Johnson County Auditor’s files, think tank reports, Iowa City financial archives, old Daily Iowan and Press-Citizen stories and Iowa Department of Revenue studies. If trying to understand your average political issue at a basic level is like running a metal detector over a sandy beach, familiarizing yourself with TIF programs is akin to a full-blown archeological dig.

The best way to begin to understand TIFs is to view them as public-private subsidy partnerships. Under state law, municipalities can designate certain areas under their jurisdiction as “TIF districts.” In these districts, the property tax rate is frozen at whatever level it happens to be at during the time of TIF designation. However, municipalities still collect tax revenue in the district as if the property tax rate had never been frozen.

For example, if you live in a TIF district  and your property tax rate was $10 when the rate was frozen, but now the rate is $20, the city still takes the $20. The difference between the frozen rate and the actual rate the city collects is called the “increment,” which is put into the city’s TIF fund. The city council then doles out the money to private contractors in order to subsidize various developments around the city. In recent years, TIFs have been used to fund ventures such as FilmScene, the Plaza Towers, Park@201 and the Sycamore Mall, among others.

The governing philosophy behind TIFs is that, without them, private developers are dissuaded from investing in economically blighted neighborhoods by the risks associated with such a move. To encourage badly needed economic development, local governments provide incentives in the form of TIF subsidies, which help lure the businesses into neighborhoods where they wouldn’t otherwise develop. Local residents get jobs and services, businesses generate their profits while saving on start-up costs and the city, as noted by Iowa City officials in the Press-Citizen, get “repaid through taxes on the increased value of the property.” The best of all possible worlds.

However, the image of TIFs is considerably less rosy in execution than it appears to be in conception, particularly when it comes to the intellectual core of TIF law: the focus on blighted neighborhoods. The idea that TIF funds are supposed to be used to revitalize poor neighborhoods is paramount, to the point that it’s written into the Iowa State Code. As the Iowa Department of Revenue explains, “Iowa Code recognizes two primary purposes for [TIF funding]; namely, to eliminate slum or blight and to promote economic development.”

And yet, when it comes to the real-world TIF priorities of municipal officials, such as the Iowa City City Council, the latter part of that sentence, “economic development,” is a term that essentially gives municipalities carte blanche to designate non-blighted neighborhoods (such as downtown Iowa City) as TIF districts. With $2.8 million for Park@201, $6 million for the Plaza Towers and now $14 million for The Chauncey, TIFs have increasingly become a mechanism to shovel tax revenue into high-end real estate developments in affluent sections of the city, particularly in the downtown/university bubble. Rather than transform the lives of Iowa City’s most vulnerable citizens, TIFs are used to help fund the homes and entertainment of its most prosperous.

This dynamic isn’t just playing out in Iowa City. A study conducted by the Iowa Department of Revenue on TIF usage across the state over the past decade found that 89 percent of TIF valuation statewide was being allocated for “economic development,” while a mere 11 percent was going toward improving blighted neighborhoods. Just down Interstate 80 in Chicago, any pretense of focusing on the economically disadvantaged areas of the city has been shattered, with the TIF fund becoming the personal property of the mayor’s office to throw around on expensive development projects such as a $55 million hotel and arena for a local college basketball team in the least blighted area of the city: downtown.

Can TIFs be reformed? An Iowa Policy Project authored by Peter Fisher offers some promising solutions: eliminating TIF districts in favor of allotting funds on a project-by-project basis, prohibiting TIFs from acting as a means of subsidizing retail outlets and eliminating the “anti-democratic” nature of TIFs by allowing their usage to be put to public referendum.

However, if the ‘TIF question’ were ever to be put before the voters of Iowa City, it would behoove us to consider if the program is even worth salvaging. The same Iowa Department of Revenue report that found that TIFs were being disproportionately appropriated to wealthier neighborhoods, also discovered that the increase in TIF usage that Iowa has seen over the past decade has had almost no effect on the wages, employment and overall “economic development” of the communities they have been utilized in. And that’s all you really need to know.

Curious what's happening this weekend? Sign up here to stay in the know.


Comments:

  1. This would appropriately be labeled as an “Opinion” piece–not News. Also, a correction for the record: FilmScene has never received any TIF funding.

  2. Hey Andy Brodie, co-founder of FilmScene: you are correct that you didn’t get the TIF. It went to The Moen Group in the amount of $250,000 to refurbish the space you occupy. What is not debatable is that you are a beneficiary of past and potential future TIFs.

    This article should have been labeled as an expose of a practice that has the appearance of corruption and and it demonstrably used for the benefit of one or a few connected developers but not in any way that serves to revitalize blighted areas. One piece of the puzzle that was missed is the parcel at the corner of Gilbert and College. It has a market value of ~$2M and it is set to gifted to The Moen Group. That gift of $2M is on top of the public financing through the TIF mechanism.

    The Chauncey is a massive transfer of wealth to one of the city’s wealthiest citizens for dubious economic benefit and little in the way of the one of the original goals: work force housing. The present plan for any sort of non-luxury condo living is that the city purchases five units in The Chauncey for $1M. That’s five apartments for $200,000 each and that is how The Chauncey is going to fulfill the one of the original goals of the RFP. It’s brilliant. Why create any affordable housing when you get the tax payers of Iowa City to buy it at inflated rates and token quantities?

  3. FilmScene may not be directly receiving any TIF money, but it certainly is the direct benefactor of such financing arrangements both in the current location and the location it expects to occupy in the future. One can’t take the benefactors out of the equation. Add this to the questionable privatization of the oldest film-screening programs on a university campus where control has largely been transferred out of the hands of students to an organization where students have only tacit control, and, well…. this has never passed the smell test to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement

A collaboration between The Englert Theatre and FilmScene

STRENGTHEN
GROW•EVOLVE

Help us build the greatest small city for the arts in America—right here in Iowa City. Learn more »

Donate Today

Strengthen • Grow • Evolve is a collaborative campaign led by two Iowa City-based arts nonprofits, The Englert Theatre and FilmScene that seeks a major reinvestment to strengthen the arts through modern and historic venues, innovative programming, and new models of collaboration.

For 18 years...

Little Village has been telling the truth and changing our little corner of the world.

If you can, help us head into the next 18 years even stronger with a one-time or monthly contribution of $18, or any amount you choose.

Little Village
2019 Give Guide

Get to know some of the nonprofits helping to make the CRANDIC a better place to live.