Tif Redevelopment Agreement

Funding for tax increases was first introduced in California in 1952, and there are currently thousands of TIF districts that are still active throughout the country in the United States, from small and medium-sized cities to large urban areas. As of 2008, California had more than four hundred TIF districts, with total revenue of more than $10 billion annually, more than $28 billion in long-term debt, and more than $674 billion in land assessment. [6] In 2011, the State of California suspended the use of TIF funding following lawsuits and passed the California Emergency Proclamation in 2010, ending the diversion of property tax revenues from public funds, including the use of TIF to fund the state`s nearly 400 relief agencies. [7] [8] RdPs appealed this decision, although they were finally eliminated in February 2012, after the adoption of the state budget in 2011. [9] [10] Tax Increase Financing (TIF) is a method of public financing that is used in many countries, including the United States, as a grant for rehabilitation, infrastructure and other Community improvement projects. The initial objective of a TIF program is to stimulate private investment with a devastated area, which has been considered in need of economic revitalization. [1] Similar or related value recording strategies are used worldwide. In a 1998 paper published by the Public Policy Institute of California, Michael Dardia challenged the ruling recovery agencies` (RDPs) assumption “that recovery pays off through tax funding for increases. The claim is that FDI “receives any increase in property tax revenues (above an inflation factor of 2 percent) in the project areas, because their investments in territorial improvements are responsible for the increase in the value of real estate.” [30]:ii Dardia argued that property tax revenues allocated to fund tax increases generate lost revenue in “other local jurisdictions – the county, schools and special districts”[30] and while RDPs “are not largely responsible for the increase in real estate assets, these jurisdictions are indeed subsidizing rehabilitation without being able to respond to how they are used.” [30] In 2009, SunCal Companies, a developer based in Irvine, California, set up a voting initiative that embodied a turnaround plan for the former Alameda Air Naval Station and a financial plan, based in part on tax increase funding worth about $200 million to pay public institutions. SunCal structured the initiative in such a way that the provision of public bodies depended on funding through tax increases and the creation of a community district (Mello-Roos) that would impose a special (additional) tax on property owners under development. [32] As Alameda City Council has not renewed the exclusive bargaining agreement with Suncal, this project will not proceed.

. . .