1 / 21

Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFDs) – The California Case Study

Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFDs) – The California Case Study. Tuesday - August 7, 2012 12:30 pm to 1:45 pm. Panelists. Mr. Michael Wright, Director, Community Reuse Planning, City of Concord, CA Robert M. Haight, Jr., Partner, Goodwin Procter, Los Angeles, CA

eshana
Download Presentation

Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFDs) – The California Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFDs) – The California Case Study Tuesday - August 7, 2012 12:30 pm to 1:45 pm

  2. Panelists • Mr. Michael Wright, Director, Community Reuse Planning, City of Concord, CA • Robert M. Haight, Jr., Partner, Goodwin Procter, Los Angeles, CA • SuheilTotah, Executive Vice President, Lennar Urban Development, San Francisco, CA Moderator • Ms. Kristie Reimer – Associate Vice President, ARCADIS–US, Marina, CA

  3. Background • Redevelopment project financing is complex, and adequate funding for infrastructure improvements are critical to overall project success. • In February 2012, 400 redevelopment agencies throughout the State of California were abolished. • Redevelopment agencies used a portion of property tax money (tax increment) in partnership with developers to encourage development in blighted areas. • This equated to billions of dollars per year in tax revenues – a portion of which were allocated to support redevelopment on former military installations. • Reuse and redevelopment of former military bases is a complicated process, and in now in California it is even more challenging without these fiscal tools. • LRAs are promoting State law amendment to provide an easier process to create Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs); allowing a percentage of tax increment used to fund public infrastructure improvements.

  4. Focus of the Panel • This session will provide details on IFDs, their applicability and potential benefits to BRAC sites. • Various perspectives will be presented: • Local Reuse Authority viewpoint and realities • Legal interpretations and aspects • Developer experience and outlook • Session Outline • Background / Impact from loss of Redevelopment • IFD Options and Application • Legislation • Implications to Redevelopment • Panelist will engage in an active discussion and encourage an open Q&A discussion

  5. Impact from Loss of Redevelopment • Loss of tax increment for infrastructure + affordable housing contribution by municipalities • Impact is to recently closed bases and early round closures that have progressed to issuing bonds • Reduced attractiveness of reuse of closed bases • Adds years to development build-out

  6. IFDs • What are they? • What can they do? • Are they a substitute for RDAs?

  7. IFDs: The Drew Barrymore of Public Finance

  8. IFDs • IFD legislation enacted in 1990. • Only two IFDs in existence: • City of Carlsbad (Legoland Improvements) (early 90’s) • City of San Francisco (Rincon Hill) (2011) • Hybrid of Mello-Roos CFD Law and RDA Law.

  9. Formation of IFDs(Like a CFD)

  10. Formation of IFDs(Like a CFD)

  11. Financing Method(Like an RDA)

  12. IFDs(Unlike an RDA) • Participation in an IFD is 100% voluntary: • Tax increment that is usually paid to an “affected taxing entity” may NOT be allocated to an IFD without the affected taxing entity’s explicit approval. • Education districts may not participate in IFDs. • ERAF not allocated to IFDs. • IFDs formed only by City or County.

  13. Other IFD Restrictions • Facilities • Public Capital Facilities only (no private facilities). • Useful Life of 15 Years or greater. • Finding of Community-Wide Significance. • Finding that Facilities benefit an area larger than the IFD. • Only “completed” Facilities may be acquired.

  14. Other IFD Restrictions • Housing • Like RDAs: • Housing that is destroyed by development must be replaced. • Unlike RDAs: • No tax increment set aside. • If the IFD finances public housing, then 20% of units must be set aside for affordable housing. • No Eminent Domain powers.

  15. So Why Aren’t IFDs More Popular? • IFDs can’t be formed in a former RDA project area. • Voluntary nature of IFDs drastically reduces tax increment amounts. • 30-year life limits bond financing capacity. • Less flexible than RDAs. • More complicated than CFDs.

  16. Infrastructure Financing Districts Alternative to Redevelopment • Existing sections of California Government Code and Health Safety Code allow for formation of IFD • Existing law is restrictive and cumbersome in terms of formation and operation of a District • Six basic goals for change • Waive existing District formation restrictions • Streamline formation requirements • Extend term of the District • Match affordable housing requirements to Redevelopment • Expand definitions for use of funds • Affected tax entities control

  17. Redevelopment/IFD Comparison

  18. Legislative “Fixes” in the Works • AB 2144 (Perez) • Renames IFDs “Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing Districts”. • Removes RDA Project Area restriction. • Extends tax increment life to 40 years from date of Ordinance, or such later date as set forth in Ordinance. • Allows certain private facilities, including housing. • Lowers vote to 55% (from 2/3). • No vote required for former military bases under certain circumstances.

  19. Legislative “Fixes” in the Works • SB 214 (Wolk) • Creates new “Public Financing Authority” to be appointed by Issuer. • Removes RDA Project Area restriction. • Extends tax increment life to 40 years. • Eliminates voting requirement for formation and bond authorization. • Allows for tax increment to be used for maintenance of constructed facilities. • Imposes public accountability measures.

  20. Legislative “Fixes” in the Works • SB 1156 (Steinberg) • Creates new “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority” (SCIA) as a substitute for RDAs (not IFDs). • For transit oriented and sustainable communities only through Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). • SCIA formed by County, or as joint powers agency with City and County. • SCIA has all powers of an RDA. • If joint powers agency, tax increment generated from both City and County (but not ERAF).

More Related