Tax-Increment Financing
The Need for Increased Transparency and Accountability
in Local Economic Development Subsidies
Tax-Increment Financing
The Need for Increased Transparency
and Accountability in Local Economic
Development Subsidies
U.S. PIRG Education Fund
Rob Kerth,
Frontier Group
Phineas Baxandall, Ph.D.,
U.S. PIRG Education Fund
Fall 2011
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Rachel Weber, associate professor of urban planning and policy
at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Greg LeRoy and the staff at Good Jobs First; Ben
Forman, research director at MassINC; and Deirdre Cummings, legislative director at
MASSPIRG, for their insightful comments and suggestions. Thanks also to the Council
of Development Finance Agencies for allowing us to share their detailed state-by-state
information on TIF policies. Finally, thanks to Tony Dutzik and Ben Davis of Frontier
Group for their writing and editorial assistance.
U.S. PIRG Education Fund is grateful to the Ford Foundation for making this report
possible.
The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of
U.S. PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.
© 2011 U.S. PIRG Education Fund
With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing
their own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that
works on behalf of the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems,
craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Americans meaningful opportunities for civic
participation. For more information about U.S. PIRG Education Fund, or for additional
copies of this report, please visit www.uspirg.org/edfund.
Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner,
healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and
compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more
information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org.
Cover Rendering: ArchMan/shutterstock.com
Design and Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1
Introduction
4
What Is Tax-Increment Financing and
Why Does it Matter?
5
Tax-Increment Financing: Identifying the Pitfalls
9
Tax-Increment Financing Sometimes Fails to Benefit the Public
The Process for Creating and Managing TIF Districts
Often Fails to Protect the Public
9
13
The Public Needs Stronger Guidelines and
Greater Accountability in Tax-Increment Financing 15
TIF Should Be Targeted and Temporary
TIF Should Be Governed by Open, Democratic Processes
Information on TIF Districts Should Be Easily Accessible to the Public
Developers Should Be Accountable for Keeping their Promises
15
17
17
18
Appendix: Details of State TIF Legislation
19
Notes
40
Executive Summary
L
ocal and state governments use various tools to encourage development
in economically challenged areas.
Tax-increment financing (TIF) has been
a leading tool used for this purpose. TIF
allows cities and towns to borrow against
an area’s future tax revenues in order to
invest in immediate projects or encourage
present development. When used properly
and sparingly, TIF can promote enduring
growth and stronger communities. When
used improperly, however, TIF can waste
taxpayer resources or channel money to
politically favored special interests.
To protect the public interest, governments should impose strong safeguards
that ensure that TIF projects are implemented through a transparent, accountable process with clear and compelling
goals.
Gover nments must use care in
choosing when to use tax-increment
financing. The public can benefit from
subsidies that bring lasting economic development to declining or stagnant areas.
However, tax-increment financing can be
wasted on projects that:
• Fail to achieve public goals: By
definition, TIF diverts money from
schools, parks, and other important
services. TIF projects certainly won’t
be justifiable if they are used to support projects that fail to bring the
hoped-for investment or harm the
community in other ways.
• Enrich special interests at the
public’s expense: Poorly designed
TIF programs can give government
officials a tool to lavish subsidies on
favored or well-connected developers—regardless of the project’s public
benefits.
• Encourage development in areas
where it is least needed: TIF is intended to spur redevelopment of areas
in difficult economic straits, but the
tool has also been used to fuel development of previously undeveloped areas.
Fort Worth, Texas, for example, used
TIF to lure the big box sporting goods
chain Cabela’s to a tract of prime,
newly developed land that was declared
Executive Summary “blighted” due to the presence of a
stream and lake on the property.
The process of awarding tax-increment financing often takes place
without sufficient public awareness and
input—creating the opportunity for
favoritism and corruption.
• TIF often lacks transparency: The
public often lacks the tools to evaluate whether a particular TIF project
makes sense. In some states, TIF
budgets are not published for public
review. In addition, not all states require the completion and publication
of growth forecasts that would enable
the public to evaluate the costs and
benefits of TIF subsidies.
• TIF often lacks accountability: TIF
is undertaken in the hope of generating specific benefits—increased employment, land value, and tax revenue
among them. Many TIF laws do not,
however, require follow-up reporting
that would enable the public to determine if the goals of the project were
realized.
• TIF can create “slush funds” that
lack public oversight and accountability: In some jurisdictions, TIF
revenue can be spent at the discretion
of mayors or other public officials.
Chicago’s TIF funds have traditionally been disbursed through a separate budget overseen by the mayor,
and not even shared in full with the
city council. Funds may be allocated
to political allies or pet projects—or
may continue to be used for projects
inside a TIF district long after the
project originally intended to receive
the TIF funds was completed.
To prevent these problems, states and
municipalities should adopt strong rules
Tax-Increment Financing
governing the use of TIF districts and
similar development subsidies. In short,
rules should ensure that TIFs are targeted, transparent, accountable, and
democratically governed.
• TIF districts must be targeted
and temporary. TIF should only be
used in service of a specific development strategy and only in cases where
evidence shows that it is likely to
succeed. TIFs should not become an
all-purpose tool to woo developers.
TIF should only be targeted toward
areas in special need of development,
for projects that are unlikely to occur
without public intervention, and with
a defined time limit at which point the
property’s tax revenue will once again
be used for general public purposes.
• Subsidy recipients must be held
accountable for meeting goals. TIF
agreements should include measurable targets for success, and regular
performance reviews should measure
progress towards those benchmarks.
Where possible, municipalities should
retain the ability to demand return
of some or all of the money used to
subsidize private investors in the event
that development promises are not
fulfilled.
• Information on TIF must be
transparent. Because TIF has longterm implications for a jurisdiction’s
finances and ability to provide public
services, the decision to create a TIF
district should come with the highest level of transparency and public
participation. In addition, jurisdictions should supply detailed, ongoing
information about the finances and
performance of TIF projects via the
Internet, following “Transparency
2.0” standards of budget and spending
disclosure. (See page 17).
• Citizens must have the tools to
evaluate the benefits and tradeoffs of TIF. Governments should
account for the costs of TIF districts
as part of a jurisdiction’s overall
budget—enabling the public and decision-makers to evaluate the trade-offs
involved in tax-increment financing
and the impacts on other public
services.
Executive Summary Introduction
I
n 2005, a hunting goods superstore
opened in Fort Worth, Texas, on a parcel
of newly developed land near a highway.
The location might have seemed a little
questionable—the new store, a Cabela’s,
would be competing with another such
superstore, a Bass Pro Shop, located only
10 miles away, and Fort Worth already had
other hunting and sporting goods stores.1
But the choice of location makes much
more sense when one realizes that it came
with $30-40 million worth of taxpayer
money attached.
Claiming that the new store would draw
more tourists than the famed Alamo, Cabela’s asked Fort Worth to construct much
of the needed infrastructure for the project
at public expense, paid for with a mechanism known as “tax-increment financing”
(TIF). Despite a lawsuit from a citizens’
group, and protests from other local business owners upset that their taxes would be
financing their competitors, the city agreed
and went ahead with the project.
TIF—which originated as a tool to
spur reinvestment in declining neighborhoods—has emerged in recent decades as
an all-purpose stimulant for development
that is too often subject to abuse.
In Baraboo, Wisconsin, a TIF district was used to convert a cornfield into
Tax-Increment Financing
a Walmart and lure businesses from
neighboring towns to adjacent parcels—a
reversal of the traditional role of TIF as a
tool to draw new investment into previously
developed areas that need revitalization.2
In Chicago, TIF revenue funded an entire
“shadow budget” of projects under mayoral
control, hidden from the public and even
the city council.3 In California, use of the
tool became so widespread that school
districts began to sue cities to recover the
revenue they were losing to TIF-funded
redevelopment schemes.4
The failure to restrict TIF to appropriate settings and to impose sufficient public
oversight and budgeting rules over TIF
funds have allowed what should be a mundane tax policy to instead become a temptation that too many municipal officials find
themselves unable to resist—an immediate
infusion of cash that often comes with little
consideration of long-term costs. Egged
on by developers eager for subsidies, cities have pushed the boundaries of TIF far
beyond what common sense or good policy
would dictate.
With the growing use of TIF, the time
has come to reestablish basic principles of
good government and responsible use of
taxpayer money in the operation of these
development subsidies.
What Is Tax-Increment Financing
and Why Does it Matter?
C
ities and towns often struggle to
spur economic redevelopment in
down-and-out neighborhoods. Many
governments issue subsidies to encourage
developers or other businesses to set up
shop in the community, in the hope that,
by doing so, they can plant the seeds for
broader economic revitalization.
Governments have many tools in their
toolbox to encourage development in a
particular geographic area. They can use
governmental powers such as eminent
domain and authority over zoning to ease
the way for development. They can invest
public money in public projects—such as
rail stations, better parks, waste cleanup
and improved schools—that encourage
redevelopment. Governments also have
the ability to directly subsidize particular
companies through the tax code to encourage them to locate within a specific
geographic area.
Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) is one
of the most popular tools local officials
use to encourage economic development
in a particular area. Like other subsidy
programs, TIF can be a powerful tool to
encourage economic development—but it
can also be misused on projects with few
public benefits or to line the wallets of
well-connected developers.
Tax-increment financing originated in
California in 1952 as a tool for cities to raise
money for development in order to secure
federal matching funds for their projects.5
It spread slowly at first; only six other states
had adopted similar policies by 1970.6
During the next several decades, however, the use of TIF expanded dramatically,
as alternative tools that had once been
available for municipalities to encourage
and direct development—such as federal urban renewal funding—disappeared.7
During the 1980s and 1990s, more states
adopted TIF enabling legislation, and a
number of states that had already adopted
the policy loosened their requirements for
using it, allowing TIF districts to proliferate dramatically. In Illinois, for instance,
the number of TIF districts in the state
quintupled in a single year after the state
loosened the requirements for using the
mechanism in 1985.8
The volume of TIF bond issuance has
dramatically increased over the past two
decades, especially outside of California.
Between the early 1990s and the late 2000s,
the number of TIF bonds in circulation
What Is Tax-Increment Financing and Why Does It Matter? from outside California grew by 260 percent; over $20 billion worth of TIF bonds
were issued.9 At present, every state but
Arizona (which repealed its TIF law) allows
the use of TIF.
Basics of Tax-Increment
Financing
“Tax-Increment Financing” (TIF) is a
term for a process in which municipalities
use a portion of future tax revenue from
a given area to promote development in
that area. States vary widely in their rules
for when TIF can be used and how it can
be applied, so no single description of
TIF is likely to apply universally. But one
example of a TIF plan might look like the
following:
• A city, hoping to lure new businesses
to a commercial district that has stagnated in recent years, looks for ways to
invest in improvements, perhaps better street lighting and a new parking
garage.
• To raise the funds for that investment,
the city draws a boundary around the
commercial district, and declares that
area a “TIF district.”
• Within the TIF district, future property tax revenues are split between the
tax districts that ordinarily receive
revenue from the area and a special
fund that is devoted to projects benefiting only the TIF district. The tax
districts—which might include city
and county governments, and special
districts such as school and parks districts—continue to receive property
taxes based on the old value of the
property at the time the TIF district
was created, while any additional
Tax-Increment Financing
revenues resulting from rising property values are devoted to the TIF
district. This is the “tax increment”
that gives the mechanism its name.
• In order to begin construction on new
improvements immediately, the city
may sell bonds secured against the
revenues expected to be paid to the
special fund over its lifetime. Over
time, money flowing into the special
fund is used to pay off the bonds.
• At the end of the TIF district’s defined lifetime (for example, 20 years),
its special status comes to an end and
all taxes from the district again flow
to the regular tax districts that claim
revenue from the area.
Not every state uses TIF revenue in
exactly this way, or in only a single way.
For instance, in Massachusetts, although
cities have the option of issuing bonds and
making infrastructure improvements in
TIF districts, many choose to pursue an
alternate strategy in which they sign an
agreement with a developer to not charge
taxes on all or part of the increased value of
a parcel for a set number of years. 10
Implementation of tax-increment financing varies widely among states. Among
the important distinctions:
• In some states (e.g., Illinois), revenue must be spent by the municipal
government in the city in which the
TIF is located, while in others, an
independent development agency may
be created to manage the district.
California, the first state to adopt TIF,
makes widespread use of this model
through its redevelopment agencies.
• States allow various taxes to be diverted. Most states include only property
taxes, but others tap a wider variety of
revenues, such as the sales tax. In New
Jersey, for example, government officials can tap up to 19 separate
sources of incremental local and state
revenue for use in TIF.11
• Overlapping tax districts, and school
districts in particular, may or may not
have to sacrifice their tax increments
as part of a TIF project. Some states
require school districts to approve
TIF districts that will claim a portion of their revenue; in others, such
as Kentucky, school districts may be
partially or entirely exempted from
participating in TIF districts.12
Tax-increment financing appeals to
municipal officials because it often seems
to be a way to get something for nothing.
Cities can finance highly desired economic
development using tax revenue that would
not have been available to them if the development had not taken place. Taxpayers
appear to lose nothing. The local economy
hopefully grows, and everyone seems like
a winner.
In reality, however, even the most
thoughtful TIF projects come with tradeoffs:
• TIF agreements may fail to account
for future growth in property values
caused by factors that have nothing
to do with the TIF investment—such
as general inflation or pre-existing
trends in real estate prices.13 Failing
to account for these factors results in
a reduction in the amount of revenue
flowing to general government funds
compared to what would have occurred without the use of TIF. Other
taxpayers then must pick up a greater
tax burden or bear the brunt of cuts.14
• Development receiving TIF subsidies
may impose new demands on municipal government without providing the
additional general tax revenue to pay
for it. For instance, new housing units
might result in new students for local
schools, or new demands for police or
fire protection, thereby burdening the
rest of the community. Overlapping
taxing districts such as school districts
and county governments—which, in
many states, can have their tax increments diverted to TIF projects as
well—may have a particularly difficult
time responding to these growing
needs, forcing them to increase taxes
on other taxpayers.
Despite these trade-offs, the TIF
mechanism has been embraced around the
country. TIF is currently permitted in 49
of the 50 states, with varying restrictions
on its use.
Municipalities can use the revenue collected by a TIF district in different ways
in different states and depending on their
strategies for improving the district: 15
• If the goal is to use a large initial
capital improvement to jump-start
development, such as a shopping mall
or rail station, the municipality will
likely issue bonds to help fund the
improvement and then pay them back
with revenue from the tax increment.
• If the goal is to subsidize a private
developer’s investment in the area,
the city may negotiate an agreement
under which the developer receives
payments from the TIF revenue over
time until a certain portion of their
investment has been paid for. Alternatively, in states like Massachusetts
where TIF revenue is disbursed in the
form of tax abatements, the city and
the developer can sign an agreement
stating that a certain portion of the
property taxes on a new development
will not be collected for a set period.
• If the city wishes to undertake a series
of smaller projects to promote What Is Tax-Increment Financing and Why Does It Matter? development in the district, revenue
accruing to the district may be used as
a continuous stream of funding, which
allows the city to undertake various
projects as sufficient revenue becomes
available.
In essence, TIF represents a way to
divert future tax revenue to finance current new development projects or retain
Tax-Increment Financing
existing businesses.
TIF districts can either result in productive investments that spark much-needed
economic revitalization or be unproductive
wastes of taxpayer resources. To ensure
that TIF projects advance the public interest, the public and decision-makers need to
be aware of the many potential ways that
TIF can go awry.
Tax-Increment Financing:
Identifying the Pitfalls
T
ax-increment financing can be a boon
to the public, or it can be a vehicle for
corruption, favoritism and wasteful subsidies. There are many potential pitfalls
to the use of TIF as a tool to subsidize
development—pitfalls that cities and
states can avoid only by adopting sound
strategies for public investment through
TIF and effective practices to make sure
those investments deliver benefits for the
broader public.
Tax-Increment Financing
Sometimes Fails to Benefit
the Public
Tax-increment financing is only an effective tool if it is used properly to achieve
ends that advance the public interest.
Laws governing the use of development
subsidies often give broad leeway for cities
to decide when such subsidies should be
used. Unfortunately, this leeway sometimes
enables cities and towns to use TIF in ways
that waste taxpayer money.
Tax-Increment Financing Can Fail
to Bring “New” Investment
In order to be a worthwhile use of taxpayer resources, a city must judge that a
development would not happen but for the
issuance of a subsidy. In practice, this is a
difficult counterfactual to prove one way
or the other.
Much of the appeal of tax-increment financing to cities is that the subsidy appears
to be “free money”—that is, the tax increment that is invested in a given development project would not have been available
to the municipality otherwise. The appearance of “free money” is magnified given
the potential of municipalities in many
states to “capture” the tax increments of
overlapping jurisdictions—such as county
governments and school districts—for use
in the financing of TIF projects.
However, if the development would have
happened in that area even without the
subsidy, the logic of tax-increment financing breaks down rapidly:
• The money dedicated to the TIF
district is not “free,” but in fact comes
from funds that would otherwise
Tax-Increment Financing: Identifying the Pitfalls have been available to pay for police,
firefighters, schools, parks and other
municipal services—forcing either
a reduction in service quality or an
increase in taxes for other taxpayers.16
• These funds are also wasted, because
taxpayers give money to benefit private actors without any demonstrable
public benefit in return.
When development subsidies are invested in projects that might have taken place
without the subsidy, the public benefits
can rapidly vanish. A study of the overall
costs and benefits of development subsidies
found that when benefits are directed towards a project that had even a 20 percent
chance of taking place without the subsidy,
the net impact on tax revenue over the long
term will almost always be negative.17
In Chicago, a coalition of community
groups studied 36 of the city’s TIF districts
and found that property values had been
rising even before the city stepped in to
issue subsidies. Once those trends were
considered, they found that the city had
spent $1.3 billion to achieve a return of $1.6
billion in tax revenue—in other words, the
city had gained $300 million in tax revenue
over the long term, but only by diverting a
very large amount of revenue from school
districts, municipal government, and other
government entities in the short term.18
Legal requirements designed to assure
that a given development would not have
occurred without creation of a TIF typically provide little direct public protection
because such statements are nearly impossible to challenge. Communities in Illinois,
for example, are required under state law
to demonstrate that redevelopment of an
area would not have occurred “but for” the
creation of a TIF district.19 Minneapolis
requires applicants for TIF funds to provide detailed financial information about
the project.20 At worst, these requirements
provide a fig leaf of public accountability
10 Tax-Increment Financing
that public officials hide behind to avoid
imposing stricter targeting rules. At best,
such requirements can spur local officials
to put forward a concrete rationale for
creation of a TIF district, and may expose
the least justifiable TIF proposals to the
light of public scrutiny before they are
approved.
Tax-Increment Financing Can
Serve Narrow Private Interests
without Broader Public Benefit
TIF can be lucrative to private developers seeking locations in which to build.
But, from the public’s perspective, TIF is
meant to benefit broader public goals. A
clear evaluation of a TIF project’s benefits
to the public, however, can often become
lost in public officials’ rush to deliver new
economic development.
Especially during trying economic
times, public officials are anxious to be
associated with development initiatives
that are seen to bring jobs and economic
activity. Eagerness to bring in new development (or retain an existing business),
however, may lead governments to be
overly generous in providing subsidies
that are not justified by the level of public
benefits delivered.
Adding to the potential for overly generous subsidies is the fact that municipalities, and even states, can find themselves
engaged in bidding wars with neighboring
jurisdictions, generating a race to the bottom that can impose large costs, even for
the apparent “winner.”
Government officials may also make poor
decisions because they lack the technical
capacity to evaluate developers’ business
models that claim to demonstrate their investments will produce large future returns.
And the public may give more attention to
where development locates than to the hidden costs that may have been incurred in attracting this development. Politically then,
it should be no surprise that municipalities
can often “overpay” for development—offering greater subsidies than the public
benefits of a project would justify—or fail
to ensure proper accountability.21
The potential for overpayment is further magnified when governments can tap
multiple sources of revenue for subsidies.
In New Mexico, for example, the state
overhauled its TIF law in 2006 to enable
governments to divert increments of the
city, county and state portions of the gross
receipts tax, in addition to local property
taxes, to TIF projects. 22 And, as noted
earlier, New Jersey allows for as many as
19 revenue sources to be tapped for TIF
projects. The more sources of revenue that
can be tapped, the greater the potential for
governments to make bigger, riskier bets
on proposed development schemes and to
engage in economic subsidy “arms races”
with neighboring jurisdictions.
Tax-Increment Financing Can
Steer Investment Away from
Areas Most in Need of Help
Tax-increment financing was originally
conceived as a tool to spark new investment
in blighted neighborhoods that suffer from
chronic underinvestment. Such neighborhoods can suffer from vicious cycles of
economic decline for a variety of reasons.
Toxic waste in need of cleanup may scare
away developers. Derelict buildings, abandoned properties and rampant crime may
discourage investment, no matter how low
the price of land. By providing a mechanism to improve public infrastructure in
these areas, or provide a direct financial incentive to developers, TIF can potentially
provide a way to escape the viscious cycle of
disinvestment and economic decline. TIF
enables governments to give blighted areas
a “shot in the arm” that would ideally lead
to sustained revitalization and economic
growth down the line.
Governments can also use TIF to unlock economic potential in other ways—
encouraging the revitalization of a former
military base or economically struggling
downtown area, sparking development
in efficient locations close to transit and
other amenities, or providing affordable
housing that allows taxpaying families to
remain in a municipality.
However, while TIF may spark “new”
economic development in some cases, it
also redirects investment into the TIF
district that would otherwise have gone
elsewhere. Research in Illinois has shown
that land outside the boundaries of TIF
districts experiences slower growth than
land in cities with no TIF districts.23
TIF, in short, makes sense as a public
policy tool when used as part of a development strategy that delivers broad public
benefits and unlocks economic potential
that is currently languishing. Poorly
targeted use of TIF, on the other hand,
actually works against the public interest by
sucking investment out of areas that need
it and diverting it elsewhere.
In recent years, states have consistently
moved to weaken the criteria used to determine when TIF can be used. A 2003
study found that 16 states had moved in
recent years to weaken the restrictions
they place on the use of subsidy districts,
generally by removing the requirement
that TIF be used only in “blighted” areas,
or by weakening the definition of blight
significantly.24 Looser definitions promote
more widespread use of TIF. Several states
have expanded eligibility to include retail
stores.25 In Maine, any district in which 70
percent of the land is zoned for commercial
or industrial use is eligible for TIF, while in
Missouri, at least one district was declared
blighted for the sole reason that the homes
it contained were over 35 years old.26
The lack of clear criteria to guide the
use of TIF results in municipalities wielding the tool in battles with neighboring
municipalities for new development and
sometimes subsidizing projects that work
against the interests of existing businesses.
Tax-Increment Financing: Identifying the Pitfalls 11
In Fort Worth, Texas, for example, the
large hunting goods store Cabela’s was
able to secure $30-$40 million worth of
public investment in a new superstore
by promising that the shopping center
would draw more visitors than the Alamo.
The project was sited on newly developed
land in an attractive location, which was
declared “blighted” because of the presence of a stream and lake on the property.
Existing hunting goods stores in the area
felt that the city was unfairly subsidizing
a competitor that could put them out of
business. They even filed an unsuccessful
lawsuit that tried to declare the TIF to be
an inappropriate subsidy.27
The use of TIF to subsidize development on previously undeveloped “greenfield” parcels is particularly problematic.
Greenfield locations are appealing to developers, but impose significant infrastructure costs on the public when compared
to more central locations. Rather than
being able to make better use of existing,
underused infrastructure in already builtup areas, greenfield developments require
new expenditures on roads, sewers, power
lines, and other infrastructure elements
to support the new development. Lowdensity greenfield developments are more
costly to support and maintain than both
the rural infrastructure they replace, and
the urban infrastructure they compete
with—although these costs are not passed
on to developers.28 Greenfield development
also places new stresses on the operating
budgets of schools (which may need to open
new school bus routes), sewer authorities
and trash collectors (which need to expand
their services to new areas) and transportation departments (which need to maintain
new roads).
TIF revenue is frequently used to pay for
the construction of much of the new public
infrastructure required for previously undeveloped “greenfield” development, but
at the cost of diverting the tax income that
would ordinarily pay for the maintenance
12 Tax-Increment Financing
and other ongoing expenses occasioned by
the new development.
The benefits promised by TIF districts
come from directing development toward
locations that provide broad public benefits
and in unlocking the economic potential
in declining neighborhoods and business
districts. Poorly targeted use of TIF can
actually make matters worse by further
sucking investment out of the places that
need it the most.
TIF Can Saddle Local Governments
with Additional Costs if Growth is
Less than Anticipated
If a municipality issues bonds on future
TIF revenue and the developments fail to
generate sufficient additional growth, local
government may be forced to use its general tax revenue on an expensive bailout.
Although TIF bonds are generally secured
only against the revenues allocated to that
specific TIF district, governments often
feel compelled to bail out TIF bonds at
risk of default out of the fear that allowing
a default would prevent them from doing
similar TIF deals in the future, or might
result in higher interest rates on future
general obligation bonds. 29 In the late
1970s, for instance, when Proposition 13
dramatically reduced tax income for TIF
districts in California, the state legislature
and numerous municipalities moved to bail
out TIF districts across the state, at significant cost.30 The city of Arvada, Colorado,
for instance, suffered a credit downgrade
when investors grew worried about bonds
issued on revenues from a slow-developing
TIF district, even though the city ultimately avoided defaulting on the debt.31
TIF Districts Can Create “Slush
Funds” for Political Patronage
As noted above, TIF district budgets are
typically “off-budget” and need not adhere
to the ordinary rules of municipal budget
oversight. Politicians may therefore be
more likely to misspend TIF funds. Where
restrictions on the use of TIF funds are
loosest, the opportunities for political
patronage broaden. In most states, tax increments collected by TIF districts must
be spent within the district where they
are raised, but a few states allow funds to
be shifted around from district to district
within cities—creating the potential for a
mayor to shift funds away from the districts
of political opponents and toward the districts of allies.32
Patronage can also take place through
the assignment of subsidies within a district. Some TIF laws allow developers to
receive subsidies based not only on the
additional tax revenue produced by their
own developments, but also on the additional revenue from other nearby properties, which are judged to have increased
in value because of their proximity to the
development. Successful developments
can raise value in surrounding property
in this way—a store located next to a
thriving shopping center is more valuable than one located next to an empty
lot—but their contribution to surrounding property values is best determined by
objective review.
In some cities, political figures can decide to subsidize individual developments
with tax increments from other nearby
properties, making it possible for such
subsidies to be dispensed on the basis of
favoritism, rather than merit. In Chicago,
for instance, the city council and planning department can decide that a project
merits subsidies exceeding the increased
revenue it alone is expected to produce.33
The Process for Creating and
Managing TIF Districts Often
Fails to Protect the Public
Even in situations when development
subsidies are appropriate tools for sparking investment, they can be misused. TIF
district subsidies around the country tend
to be issued in ways that lack transparency,
democratic governance, and accountability
to the public.
The TIF Process Often Lacks
Transparency
Development subsidies are like other forms
of municipal spending—taxpayer money
is committed and municipal credit is (indirectly) put on the line. Just like ordinary
spending, revenue lost to TIF districts has
a bottom-line effect on municipal budgets:
each dollar must be made up for with other
higher taxes or cuts to municipal public
programs.
Unlike ordinary spending, however, TIF
subsidies typically are issued outside the
framework of the municipal budget, and
can even be used to circumvent ordinary
restrictions on municipal borrowing.34
TIF district spending is typically far
harder for residents to follow and monitor
than ordinary spending. Ordinary budget
transparency requirements generally do not
apply to TIF districts. TIF districts may
be overseen by relatively obscure agencies
with little public disclosure. Alternatively,
mayors or other officials may make decisions about TIF districts outside of normal
budget processes. TIF district budgets are
separate from general municipal budgets;
they are “off-budget.” In some cases, such
as Chicago, even aldermen might be unfamiliar with the specifics of how a city
spends its TIF revenue.35
The lack of transparency is especially
worrisome given the rapid spread of TIF
districts to constitute a significant and
growing portion of many cities’ taxable
Tax-Increment Financing: Identifying the Pitfalls 13
property. In California, entire municipalities can be legally placed inside a TIF
district (an inherently inappropriate use
of TIF, since it effectively caps the city’s
general fund property tax revenue, and diverts all additional revenue above the base
amount into a separate fund).36 In Chicago,
meanwhile, about 30 percent of the city’s
land was inside TIF districts by the end of
Mayor Richard Daley’s tenure in 2011.37
The use of TIF can also circumvent
public control over municipal borrowing
authority. Municipal officials often are
required to seek voter approval to approve
municipal bond issues, a safeguard to
ensure that cities’ ability to issue debt is
closely overseen by the public. TIF bonds,
however, can be issued without voter approval in some states.38 As noted above,
credit rating agencies are disinclined to
discriminate between a city’s TIF debt
and its general debt when issuing -important credit assessments that determine the
interest rate municipalities pay on loans.
In such cases, a TIF default would have
consequences similar to those of a general
default for a city’s credit.39
TIF Districts Are Often Created
with Little Accountability for
Results
TIFs are intended to deliver a range of
benefits from job creation to development
of new housing units. Agreements between
municipalities and developers have failed
at times to clearly establish that developers are responsible for actually delivering
the promised benefits if they are to receive
14 Tax-Increment Financing
the subsidies promised to them in the
bargain.
In best practice, development subsidies
are proposed with specific development
goals and expected results in mind. Citizens could rest easier if they knew that if
recipients of public subsidy agreements
do not deliver on anticipated results, then
money will be returned to the taxpayer.
At present, however, developers are rarely
held responsible for meeting those goals,
and can typically retain the subsidies they
receive, even if they clearly fail to meet the
expectations under which the project was
undertaken.40
Practically speaking, governments’ ability to “claw back” funds allocated to TIF
projects may be limited. Local governments will still need to pay investors who
bought municipal bonds that were issued
against anticipated TIF revenue to finance
up-front improvements. Or governments
may have done a poor job articulating
specific goals for the TIF project. But in
some circumstances, states have created a
measure of accountability—Minnesota, for
example, requires meaningful action on
TIF-funded projects within three years,
while some communities in Massachusetts
(where TIF generally takes the form of
tax abatements, rather than underwriting
bonds) have adopted clawback provisions
in TIF agreements.41 And, even in states
where clawbacks may be impossible, governments can insist that recipients of TIF
funds provide regular updates on their
progress in achieving the economic development or other goals of the project.
The Public Needs Stronger
Guidelines and Greater Accountability
in Tax-Increment Financing
T
ax-increment financing can be a
powerful tool to help government
spark new economic life in economically struggling areas. The power of TIF,
however, also leads to the potential for
misuse—fostering a mutually destructive “race to the bottom” for new investment; steering development toward areas
that least need help; or simply rewarding
well-connected developers and political
allies.
To protect the public interest, governments should only use TIF in limited circumstances, ensure that the designation
of TIF districts is done with full transparency and accountability, and provide
ways to measure whether TIF districts are
actually delivering on their promises.
TIF Should Be Targeted
and Temporary
The ideal outcome of a TIF district is that
a jolt of investment sparks new economic
activity in a stagnant area, creating economic activity that benefits the broader
community and increases the value of
land within the district when it returns to
the tax rolls. Poorly targeted use of TIF,
however, can actually produce the opposite effect—sucking further investment
out of economically challenged areas to
facilitate new “greenfield” development.
In addition, without strong targeting
rules to limit the situations in which TIF
can be used, it becomes yet another tool
in the arsenal of municipalities locked
in mutually destructive competitions to
attract new economic activity and jobs,
whatever the cost.
State governments, which create the
legislation that governs where and how
TIF is used, are responsible for adopting
strong requirements to limit the use of
TIF, including the following:
• The maximum duration over which
a TIF district can remain in place
should be firmly fixed. Even before
the maximum duration expires, tax
revenue from TIF districts should return to the tax districts that normally
claim it as soon as the investments
envisioned in the initial development
plan have been paid for, rather than
The Public Needs Stronger Guidelines and Greater Accountability 15
being reserved for additional discretionary spending within the TIF
district.
• Before a TIF district is approved,
municipalities should be required to
demonstrate that:
oInvestment in the district would
not take place without a subsidy.
oThe designation of the district
has a public interest rationale
and is consistent with the jurisdiction’s economic development
strategy.
• States should place a cap on the percent of a municipality’s land—both
by area and by land value—that can
be included in TIF districts, in order
to ensure that use of these tools is
actually targeted to the parcels where
it is most needed and to prevent cities
from implementing TIF districts that
are merely designed to “capture” revenue from other, overlapping taxing
districts.
• In states where TIF revenue gets
pooled into separate budgets, municipalities should file a plan detailing
their intended use of TIF revenue
from a district beforehand, with
analysis of the expected outcomes
of the plan. Once a district has been
approved, spending should take place
according to the initial plan, unless
that plan is changed through a public,
democratically accountable process,
with unspent funds returning to the
jurisdictions from which they were
diverted.
• State rules should require that land
targeted for TIF districts must meet
criteria for actual blight or economic
stagnation, and that previously 16 Tax-Increment Financing
undeveloped land cannot be placed
in TIF districts.
• States should index the fixed assessed
value of land in TIF districts to
inflation, and should consider indexing it to the existing trend of property value increase when districts are
established in areas where property
values are already increasing. These
measures help ensure that the incremental revenue raised by TIF districts
actually represents improvement
prompted by investment in the district, and not the product of pre-existing economic trends.
• States should set time limits for the
commencement of redevelopment
activity within a TIF district. Minnesota, for example, automatically
decertifies TIF districts in which no
meaningful activity occurs within
three years of the creation of the
district, reduces the tax increment
for properties where no construction
has occurred within four years, and
requires all construction to be completed within five years.42 Such time
limits can ensure that funds generated
by TIF are used only for the purposes
for which they were originally
intended.
No set of state requirements will perfectly direct the use of TIF districts. States
should aim to put in place guidelines that
will eliminate the worst abuses, and then
ensure that the public has the information
necessary to judge individual cases. As
discussed below, this is best done by requiring robust transparency and democratic
control throughout the process of creating
and operating such districts.
TIF Should Be Governed by
Open, Democratic Processes
The creation of a TIF district is a decision
with long-term implications for a jurisdiction and its residents. It is important,
therefore, that residents have access to
clear, accurate information with which to
evaluate TIF proposals and the ability to
make their voices heard.
To ensure that the public is able to vet
TIF proposals and help shape them, TIF
laws should:
• Require that information about TIF
proposals be publicized before any
decisions are made, with enough
time for residents to review
proposals.
• Require local governments to hold
public hearings and accept public
comments as part of the process of
approving a TIF district.
• Present information on new and
existing TIF districts as part of the
overall municipal budget, so that voters and elected officials can evaluate
TIF spending in the same context as
general municipal spending.
• Require reauthorization of the TIF
district if the city wishes to change
its development strategy in the TIF
district. Initial approval by voters or
other elected bodies should not be
treated as carte blanche to send revenue
from the TIF district on any and all
development projects.
• When tax revenue that would flow to
overlapping tax districts—like school
or parks districts—is affected by a
TIF district, those entities, and their
taxpayers, should be given a voice in
decisions about creating and ending
TIF districts.
Information on TIF Districts
Should Be Easily Accessible
to the Public
Information on TIF districts is generally
available to citizens with the tenacity to
obtain it from obscure government publications and agencies, and the expertise
to understand it. However, because the
creation of a TIF district is a decision with
long-lasting implications for a municipality, government officials must go the extra
mile to make sure that such information is
easily accessible and understandable to the
general public.
In recent years, governments around
the United States and around the world
have embraced “Transparency 2.0”—a
new standard of comprehensive, onestop, one-click budget accessibility and
accountability. Cities and states that have
adopted Transparency 2.0 principles have
developed transparency websites that enable citizens to find government spending
information that is:
• Comprehensive – including all the
various ways governments spend
money, including the provision of
subsidies to private actors.
• One-stop – aggregating all information on government spending into a
single website.
• One-click – providing searchable,
downloadable information that can be
accessed by citizens without requiring
a pre-existing knowledge of budgetary
nomenclature or bureaucratic
structure.
At minimum, jurisdictions with TIF
programs should create websites that provide key information about TIF that meets
the standards of Transparency 2.0. Ideally,
information on TIF revenue and spending
The Public Needs Stronger Guidelines and Greater Accountability 17
should be included in a transparency website that includes all aspects of municipal
spending.
With regard to TIF districts, governments should provide:
• Budget information about all TIF
districts in a city, school district, or
state, and about each individual TIF
district, accessible online.
• Information on each TIF district
should include:
oThe overall goals of the TIF district
oThe value of the TIF
oThe specific benefits (in terms of
jobs or other measures) that it is
expected to produce
oThe most current information on
what benefits have been produced
to date
oThe identities of all recipients of
TIF funds
oRegular reports on the progress of
the project.
• Funds raised through TIF districts
should be covered by at least the same
transparency requirements that apply
to ordinary municipal spending.
• Tracking of city spending in TIF
districts should include not only direct
outlays, but also subsidies provided in
the form of selling land at below market value, allowing delayed repayment
on loans, or issuing loans at favorable
rates.
18 Tax-Increment Financing
Developers Should Be
Accountable for Keeping
their Promises
Tax-increment financing provides potentially lucrative subsidies that benefit
developers. Cities frequently plan TIF
districts with a specific developer in mind;
when they do not, specific developers are
eventually selected for the projects.
In return for the benefits they receive,
developers need to commit to delivering on
specific goals, and, at minimum, provide
regular reports on their progress toward
meeting the goals of the TIF district.
• The designation of a TIF district
should be accompanied by a detailed
plan delineating the responsibilities
of the various actors, laying out the
public interest rationale and goals of
the project, and providing metrics by
which success or failure can be measured.
• Where possible, developers should be
contractually bound to deliver on the
promises they make in exchange for
TIF subsidies they receive. For jurisdictions that bond against anticipated
TIF revenue, this type of requirement
is likely impossible to enforce, but jurisdictions that generate TIF revenue
on a pay-as-you-go basis should establish strict conditions that developers
must meet before being guaranteed
access to the tax increment.
• Any exemptions, grace periods, or
other potential loopholes should be
spelled out clearly upfront. The public
should have the opportunity to comment on any significant changes from
the terms of an agreement.
Appendix: Details of State TIF Legislation
All data in this appendix is drawn from Council for Development Finance Agencies,
2008 TIF State-By-State Report, December 2008.
Alabama – Georgia
Alabama
Year
Authorized
1987
State Statute
Sections 11-99-1, et.
seq.
Terminology
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Eligible Tax Revenue
Sources
Property Tax
Financing Options
Approval Ag
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City Council,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
General Funds
Alaska
2001
Sec. 29.47.460
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Municipality
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Arkansas
2001
§§ 14-168-301 et seq.
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, PILOTs
Appropriations, Redevelopment
Bonds
City Council,
Quorum Cou
California
1952
California Community
Redevelopment Act
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Pay As You Go, Tax Allocation
Bonds, Loans
Community R
Agency Boar
Colorado
1972
31-25-107-Urban
Tax Increment
Renewal authority, 31-25- Finance (TIF)
807-Downtown
development authority
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some limited
county and sc
Property Tax
(municipalities), Sales
Tax (state)
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Council,
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments,
May Pledge Any Other Assets
School Board
Council, Cou
bond issuer
Connecticut
1972 or prior Chapter 132
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Delaware
2002
Title 22 Municipalities,
Tax Increment
Chapter 17 Municipal
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment Financing
Act
Property Tax, Allows
Pledge of Any Other
Assets
District of
Columbia
1998
D.C. Code Section 21217.01 et seq.
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax, GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
City Council
Catchall allows DC to
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
pledge other assets/funds May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Florida
1969
163.330-163.463
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments
Community R
Agency Boar
Georgia
1985
Redevelopment Powers Tax Allocation
O.C.G.A. § 36-44-8
District (TAD)
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Pay As You Go
City Council,
Redevelopme
Appendix 19
Hawaii
1985
Division 1. Title 6
Subtitle 1 Chapter 46
Part IV 46-101
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
County, Rede
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, if agreement
Loans, Tax increment bonds in
ax
Alabama – Georgia (cont’d)
Year
Requirements for District Eligible
Max.
Tax
Length
Revenue
of
Financing Options
Approval
Authorized
Agencies
State Statute
Creation
Terminology
Sources
District
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
City Council,
1987
County
Sections 11-99-1, et.
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic Property
30 years
Tax
Alabama
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
seq.
Hearings
Finance (TIF)
General Funds
Site Specific Area Wide TIF
TIF
Financing
Allowed?
Options
Allowed?
Approv
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
City Cou
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
General Funds
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Municipality
2001
Alaska
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Municip
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Blight Requirement
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property
No limit
Tax
Appropriations, Redevelopment
Arkansas
Bonds
City Council,
2001
Town
§§ 14-168-301
Council, et seq.
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementFeasibility
Property
25 years
Tax, PILOTs
Quorum Court of the County
Study, Finance
Public Hearings
(TIF)
Appropriations,
Yes
Redevelopment
Yes
Bonds
City Cou
Quorum
Pay As You Go, California
Tax Allocation
Bonds, Loans
Community
1952 Redevelopment
California Community
Blight Requirement
Tax Increment
Agency Board Redevelopment Act
Finance (TIF)
Property
50 years
Tax
Pay As
YesYou Go, Tax Allocation
No
Bonds, Loans
Commu
Agency
Loans, Appropriations,
Special
Colorado
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some
1972
limited involvement
31-25-107-Urban
of
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic
county and school
Renewal
districts
authority, 31-25Hearings,
Finance
Impact
(TIF)
Report to
807-Downtown
County
development authority
Property
25 toTax,
50 years
Sales Tax
depending on the
statute
Loans,
Yes
Appropriations,
Yes
Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some lim
county a
GO Bonds, Special
Connecticut
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City
1972
Council,
or priorState
Chapter 132
GO Bonds,
Yes Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Cou
GO Bonds, Pay As
You Go,
Delaware
Loans, Special Assessments,
May Pledge Any Other Assets
School
2002
Board/District,
Title 22City
Municipalities,
Blight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
30 years
Tax, Allows
Council, County,
Chapter
Delegated
17 Municipal
by
Test, Feasibility
Finance (TIF)
Study, PublicPledge of Any Other
bond issuer Tax Increment Financing
Hearings,Consistent with
Assets
Act
Comprehensive Plan
GO Bonds,
Yes Pay As You
YesGo,
Loans, Special Assessments,
May Pledge Any Other Assets
School B
Council,
bond iss
ax,
GO Bonds, Pay As
You Go,
City Council
1998
District
of
Loans, Special Assessments,
Columbia DC
nds May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
ax
Sec. 29.47.460
Feasibility
Tax Study,
Increment
Creation of Property
Bonds
Taxmust be
Local Development
Finance (TIF)Agency (municipalities),
repaid in 40Sales
years.
Tax (state)
District doesn't
expire.
D.C. Code Section 2But ForTax
Test,
Increment
Cost-Benefit Property
In TIF
Tax,
agreement.
Sales Tax, GO Bonds,
Yes Pay As You
YesGo,
City Cou
1217.01 et seq.
Analysis,
Finance
Feasibility
(TIF) Study, Catchall allows DC to
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
Various Recommended Criteria
pledge other assets/funds May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Pay As You Go, Florida
Loans, Special
Assessments
Community
1969 Redevelopment
163.330-163.463
Agency Board
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic
Hearings
Finance (TIF)
Property
Bonds
Taxmust be
repaid between 7
and 40 years.
Pay As
YesYou Go, Loans,
YesSpecial
Assessments
Private Activity Revenue
GeorgiaBonds,
Pay As You Go
City Council,
1985
Community
Redevelopment Powers
Public Tax
Hearings,
Allocation
area has notProperty
Not specified;
Tax, Salesuntil
Tax Private
YesActivity Revenue
YesBonds,
RedevelopmentO.C.G.A.
Agency Board
§ 36-44-8been subject
Districtto(TAD)
redevelopment costs Pay As You Go
growth/development
are paid
Commu
Agency
City Cou
Redeve
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
County,
1985
Redevelopment
Division 1.agency
Title 6 - Consistent
Tax Increment
With Redevelopment
Property
Determined
Tax
by
Hawaii
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, if agreement inSubtitle
place 1 Chapter 46
or Other
Finance
Existing
(TIF)
Plans
ordinance, not until
Loans, Tax increment bonds in
Part IV 46-101
bonds paid off
general
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
County,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, if agree
Loans, Tax increment bonds in
general
Private Activity Revenue
Idaho Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans
Private
YesActivity Revenue
YesBonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans
20 City Council,
1987
Community
Title 50, Chapter 29,Blight Requirement,
Revenue Allocation
Feasibility
Property
24 years
Tax
RedevelopmentIdaho
Agency
Code
Board
Study, District
Public Hearings,
(RAD)
Consistency with Comprehensive
Tax-Increment Financing
Plan
City Cou
Redeve
Alabama – Georgia
Alabama
Public
Public
Hearings
Hearings
Required for
Required for
Qualified
Eminent
TIF
Year
District
TIF Deal
Types of
Domain UseEligible Tax Revenue
Authorization?
Authorized State
Approval?
Statute
Projects
Terminology
Allowed? Sources
Special Features
1987
Yes
Sections Yes
11-99-1, et.Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Property Tax
seq.
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Alaska
2001
No
Sec. 29.47.460
No
Arkansas
2001
Yes
§§ 14-168-301
Yes et seq.
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
California
1952
Yes
Colorado
1972
Yes
Connecticut
Not specific,
Tax Increment
Yes
all could
Finance
apply (TIF)
Financing Options
Approva
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City Cou
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
General Funds
Property
Very broad
Tax statute.
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Municipa
Very few limitations or Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
clarifications on details Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Appropriations, Redevelopment
Bonds
City Cou
Quorum
CaliforniaYes
Community
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes, but
Property
20% of
Tax
TIF receipts
Redevelopment Act Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
cannot use
must go to Affordable
Industrial,
eminent
Housing
Mixed-Use
domain to
acquire singlefamily
residences
Pay As You Go, Tax Allocation
Bonds, Loans
Commu
Agency
31-25-107-Urban
No
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Renewal authority, 31-25Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
807-Downtown
Industrial,
development authority
Mixed-Use
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some lim
county a
Property Tax
(municipalities), Sales
Tax (state)
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Cou
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments,
May Pledge Any Other Assets
School B
Council,
bond iss
1972 Yes
or prior Chapter 132
No
Commercial,
Tax Increment
Yes
Industrial
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, PILOTs
Delaware
2002
Yes
Title 22 Municipalities,
No
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Chapter 17 Municipal
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment Financing
Industrial,
Act
Mixed-Use
Property Tax, Allows
Pledge of Any Other
Assets
District of
Columbia
1998
No
D.C. CodeNo
Section 2Residential,
Tax Increment
No
1217.01 et seq.
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Mixed-Use
Property Tax, Sales Tax, GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
City Cou
Catchall allows DC to
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
pledge other assets/funds May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Florida
1969
Yes
163.330-163.463
No
Property Tax
Georgia
1985
Yes
Redevelopment
Powers
Tax Allocation
No
Residential,
Yes
O.C.G.A. § 36-44-8 Commercial,
District (TAD)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Hawaii
1985
Yes
Division 1.
Title 6 Not Specific
Tax Increment
Tax statute
Yes
Not specifiedProperty
Very broad
Subtitle 1 Chapter 46As to Type
Finance
- (TIF)
Part IV 46-101
Broad
GO Bonds, Private Activity
County,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, if agreem
Loans, Tax increment bonds in
general
Idaho
1987
Yes
Title 50, Chapter
29,Residential,
Revenue Allocation
No
Yes, After Property Tax
Idaho Code
District (RAD)
Commercial,
Kelo, can no
Industrial,
longer use
Mixed-Use,
condemnation
Public
for economic
Facilities
development
exclusively.
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans
Residential,
Tax Increment
No
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments
Commu
Agency
Property
Tax, Sales
Tax Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Tax allocation
bonds,
Pay As You Go
notes, or other
obligations shall mature
at such time or times
not more than 30 years
from their respective
dates.
City Cou
Redevel
Appendix 21
City Cou
Redevel
Hawaii – Louisiana
Georgia
Hawaii
Alabama
1985
Year
Authorized
1985
1987
Redevelopment Powers Tax Allocation
O.C.G.A. § 36-44-8
District (TAD)
State Statute
Division 1.11-99-1,
Title 6 et.
Sections
Subtitle
1 Chapter 46
seq.
Part IV 46-101
Terminology
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Eligible Tax Revenue
Sources
Property Tax
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Pay As You Go
City Coun
Redevelo
Financing Options
Approval
County,
R
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City
Coun
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, if agreeme
Loans, Tax
increment bonds in
General
Funds
general
Idaho
Alaska
1987
2001
Title 50,
Chapter 29,
Sec.
29.47.460
Idaho Code
Revenue
Allocation
Tax
Increment
District (RAD)
Finance
(TIF)
Property Tax
Private
Activity
Revenue
Bonds, Municipal
City Coun
GO
Bonds,
Private
Activity
Pay As You
Go, Loans
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Redevelo
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Arkansas
2001
§§ 14-168-301 et seq.
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, PILOTs
Appropriations, Redevelopment
Bonds
California
Illinois
1952
1978
California
Community
65 Illinois Compiled
Redevelopment
Act
Statutes5/11-74.4-1
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
(TIF),
Special Tax
Allocation Fund
Property Tax
Tax, Sales Tax
(for certain historic
districts)
Pay
As YouPrivate
Go, TaxActivity
Allocation
Communi
GO Bonds,
Joint Revi
Bonds,
Loans
B
Revenue
Bonds, Pay As You Go, Agency
capacity),
Loans, Special Assessments,
Developer Notes; Special
Revenue Bonds; Special Service
Area Taxes
Colorado
1972
31-25-107-Urban
Tax Increment
Renewal authority, 31-25- Finance (TIF)
807-Downtown
development authority
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some lim
county an
Property Tax
(municipalities), Sales
Tax
(state)
Property
Tax
City Coun
Property Tax, Allows
Pledge of Any Other
Assets
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans, Special
Assessments
GO
Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments,
May Pledge Any Other Assets
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Property Tax, Sales Tax,
Catchall allows DC to
pledge other assets/funds
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
City Coun
Loans,
Appropriations,
GO
Bonds,
Pay As YouSpecial
Go,
City Coun
Assessments,
Revenue DC
Loans,
SpecialTIF
Assessments,
Bonds
May
Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Property
Property Tax,
Tax Sales Tax,
Economic Activity Tax,
PILOTs, Private Sources,
Transient Guest, State or
Federal
GO
Activity
Pay Bonds,
As YouPrivate
Go, Loans,
Special
Revenue
Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Assessments
Special Obligation Bonds
Connecticut
1972 or prior Chapter 132
Indiana
1975
Delaware
2002
Iowa
District of
Columbia
1970
1998
Kansas
Florida
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
36-7-14 et seq. and 36-7- Tax Increment
25 et seq.
Finance (TIF)
Title 22 Municipalities,
Tax Increment
Chapter 17 Municipal
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment Financing
Act
Chapter 403
Tax Increment
City Coun
Quorum C
City Coun
School Bo
Council, C
bond issu
D.C. Code Section 21217.01 et seq.
Finance
(TIF)
Tax
Increment
Finance (TIF)
1976
1969
12-1770
et seq
163.330-163.463
Tax
Tax Increment
Increment
Finance,
Sales Tax
Finance (TIF)
and Revenue districts
(STAR)
Kentucky
2000
65.7041-65.7083, 65.490- Tax Increment
65.499 and KRS 65.680- Finance (TIF)
65.699 limited to
development areas
established before
March 23, 2007
Property Tax, Income
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Tax, Sales Tax, Corporate Loans, Special Assessments
Income Tax, Limited
Liability Entity Tax
City Coun
state choo
Louisiana
1988
Chapter 47 Section 8000 Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds
TIF Comm
Maine
1977
30-A, Chapter 206
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds,
Notes, Special Assessments,
Grants
City Coun
Maryland Economic
Tax Increment
Development Article,
Finance (TIF)
Title 12. Local
Development Authorities
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds,
Special Assessments
City Coun
22 Tax-Increment Financing
Maryland
1980
School
Bo
Communi
Council,
Agency BC
State if ST
Hawaii – Louisiana (cont’d)
vate Activity Revenue
GeorgiaBonds,
y As You Go
City Council,
1985
Community
Redevelopment Powers
Public Tax
Hearings,
Allocation
area has notProperty
Not Tax,
specified;
Salesuntil
Tax Private
YesActivity Revenue
YesBonds,
RedevelopmentO.C.G.A.
Agency Board
§ 36-44-8been subject
Districtto(TAD)
redevelopment costs Pay As You Go
growth/development
are paid
City Council, C
Redevelopmen
Requirements for District
Max. Length of
nancing Options
Approval Agencies
Creation
District
O Bonds, Private
Activity
County,
1985
Redevelopment
Division 1.agency
Title 6 - Consistent
Tax Increment
With Redevelopment
Determined
Tax
by
City Council,
County
Blight Requirement,
Public Property
30 years
Hawaii
venue Bonds, Pay As You Go, if agreement inSubtitle
place 1 Chapter 46
or
Other
Finance
Existing
(TIF)
Plans
ordinance, not until
evenue
Hearings
ans, Tax
increment bonds in
Part IV 46-101
bonds paid off
eneral
Funds
neral
Site Specific Area Wide TIF
TIF Allowed? Allowed?
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
County, Redev
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, if agreement in
Loans, Tax increment bonds in
general
Activity
Revenue
Bonds, City
Council,
1987
Community
Title 50, Chapter 29,Blight Requirement,
Revenue Allocation
Feasibility
Property
24
Tax
Ovate
Bonds,
Private
Activity
Municipality
Requirement
No years
limit
Idaho
y As You
Go, Loans
Agency
Code
Board
Study, District
Public Hearings,
(RAD)
evenue
Bonds,
Pay As You Go, RedevelopmentIdaho
Consistency with Comprehensive
ans, Appropriations, Special
Plan
sessments
Private
YesActivity Revenue
YesBonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans
propriations, Redevelopment
nds
City Council, Town Council,
Quorum Court of the County
Blight Requirement, Feasibility
Study, Public Hearings
25 years
As YouPrivate
Go, Illinois
Tax
Allocation
Community
Requirement
50 years
Oy Bonds,
Activity
Joint
1978
ReviewRedevelopment
Board
65 Illinois
(advisory
CompiledBlight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
23
Tax, Sales Tax
nds, Loans
Agency Board
venue
Bonds, Pay As You Go, capacity),
City Council
Statutes5/11-74.4-1Test, Public
Finance
Hearings,
(TIF), in certain
(for certain historic
ans, Special Assessments,
cases, Special
Joint Review
Tax Board districts)
veloper Notes; Special
override
Allocation
by 60% of
Fund
city council;
venue Bonds; Special Service
Housing Impact Study; Map of
ea Taxes
Land Uses to be funded
ans, Appropriations, Special
sessments, Revenue bonds
O Bonds, Special
sessments, Special Revenue
Onds
Bonds, Private
Activity
Indiana
venue Bonds, Loans, Special
Osessments
Bonds, Pay As You Go,
ans, Special Assessments,
ay Pledge Any Other Assets
Some limited involvement of
county and school districts
Blight Requirement, Public
Hearings, Impact Report to
County
25 to 50 years
depending on the
statute
City Council, State
Feasibility Study, Creation of
Bonds must be
Local Development Agency
repaid in 40 years.
District
City Council,
1975
County
36-7-14 et seq. andBlight
36-7- Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
25
years
Taxdoesn't
expire.
25 et seq.
Test, Public
Finance
Hearings,
(TIF) (Either
Blight or
Opportunity"But
for For"
School Board/District, City
Requirement,
30 years
Economic
Development
Council, County, Delegated by
Test, Feasibility
Study, Public
Required)
bond issuer
Hearings,Consistent with
Comprehensive
PlanPublic Property
City Council,
1970
County
Chapter 403
Blight
Requirement,
Tax Increment
20 years
Tax, Sales Tax
O Bonds, Pay As
You Go,
Iowa
Appropriations,
Oans,
Bonds,
Pay As YouSpecial
Go,
City Council
sessments,
Revenue DC
ans,
SpecialTIF
Assessments,
nds
ay
Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Oy Bonds,
Activity
1976
Board/District,
12-1770City
et seq
As YouPrivate
Go, Kansas
Loans,
Special School
Community
Redevelopment
evenue
Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council,
County (if affected),
sessments
Agency Board
ecial Obligation Bonds
State if STAR Bonds sought
Hearings,
Slum
(TIF)
Finding or
But ForFinance
Test,
Cost-Benefit
Economic
Development
Finding
Analysis, Feasibility
Study,
Various Recommended Criteria
In TIF agreement.
Yes
City Council, C
Redevelopmen
Yes
No
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Joint Review B
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, capacity), City
Loans, Special Assessments,
Developer Notes; Special
Revenue Bonds; Special Service
Area Taxes
Yes
Yes
Yes
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds, Loans, Special
Assessments
Yes
Yes
City Council, C
GO Bonds,
Yes Pay As You
YesGo,
Loans,
Appropriations,
Special
Yes
Yes
Assessments, TIF Revenue
Bonds
City Council, C
Cost-Benefit
Tax Increment
Analysis,
Feasibility
Property
20
years
Tax,
Sales
Yes Private Activity
No
School Board/D
Blight Requirement,
Public
Bonds
must
be Tax, GO Bonds,
Yes
Study,
Finance,
Public Hearings
Sales Tax Economic
Tax,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, County
Hearings
repaidActivity
between
7
and Revenue districts PILOTs,
Sources, Special Obligation Bonds
State if STAR B
and Private
40 years.
(STAR)
Transient Guest, State or
Federal
O Bonds, Pay As
You Go,
Kentucky
ans, Special Assessments
City Council,
2000
County,
65.7041-65.7083,
State if the 65.490Blight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
30 years
Tax, Income
GO Bonds,
Yes Pay As You
YesGo,
state chooses to
65.499
participate
and KRS 65.680Test, Cost-Benefit
Finance (TIF)
Analysis, Tax, Sales Tax, Corporate Loans, Special Assessments
65.699 limited to Feasibility Study, Public
Income Tax, Limited
development areas Hearings
Liability Entity Tax
established before
March 23, 2007
City Council, C
state chooses t
O Bonds, Private
Activity
Louisiana
evenue Bonds
TIF Commission
1988
Chapter 47 Section Public
8000 Tax
Hearings
Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property
30 years
Tax
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds
TIF Commissio
O Bonds, Revenue
Bonds,
Maine
otes, Special Assessments,
ants
City Council,
1977
State
30-A, Chapter 206 Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic
Hearings,
Finance
Suitable
(TIF)
for
Commercial Uses
Property
30 years
Tax
City Council, S
O Bonds, Revenue
Bonds,
Maryland
ecial Assessments
City Council,
1980
County
Maryland EconomicPublic Tax
Hearings,
Increment
Resolution must
Property
Not Tax
specified
Development Article,
designate
Finance
area;(TIF)
pledge of
Title 12. Local
revenue.
Development Authorities
GO Bonds,
Yes Revenue Yes
Bonds,
Notes, Special Assessments,
Grants
Appendix GO Bonds,
Yes Revenue Yes
Bonds,
Special Assessments
23
City Council, C
Hawaii – Louisiana (cont’d)
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
1985
Yes
Redevelopment
No
Powers
Residential,
Tax Allocation
Yes
O.C.G.A. § 36-44-8 Commercial,
District (TAD)
Industrial,
Public
Mixed-Use
Hearings
Property
Tax allocation
Tax, Sales
bonds,
Tax Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
notes, or other
Pay As You Go
obligations shall mature
Public
at such time or times
Hearings
not more than 30 years
Required for
Required for
Qualified
Eminent
from their respective
TIF District
TIF Deal
Types of
Domain Use
dates.
Authorization? Approval?
Projects
Allowed?
Special Features
1985
Division 1.
Title 6 Residential,
Not Specific
Tax Increment
Not specifiedProperty
Very broad
Tax statute
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Yes
Yes
Yes
Subtitle 1 Chapter 46Commercial,
As to Type
Finance
- (TIF)
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go
Part IV 46-101
Broad
Loans, Tax increment bonds in
Industrial,
general
Mixed-Use
1987
Yes
No
Title 50, Chapter
29,Not
Residential,
Revenue Allocation
Yes, After Property
Tax statute.
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
No
specific,
Yes
Very broad
Idaho Code
Commercial,
District
Kelo, can no Very few limitations or Pay As You Go, Loans
all
could
apply(RAD)
Industrial,
longer use
clarifications on details
Mixed-Use,
condemnation
Public
for
Yes
Residential,
Yeseconomic
Facilities
Commercial, development
exclusively.
Industrial,
Yes
Mixed-Use
Illinois
1978
Yes
Yes
Yes
Indiana
1975
Yes
Yes
65 IllinoisYes
No
Compiled Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes but
Property
Publicof
Tax,
registry
Tax GO Bonds, Private Activity
Yes,
20%
TIFSales
receipts
Statutes5/11-74.4-1 Commercial,
Finance (TIF),
certain
public
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go
cannot use (forrequirements,
must
gohistoric
to Affordable
Special Tax
districts)
buildings restrictions, noLoans, Special Assessments,
Industrial,
eminent
Housing
Mixed-Use,
Allocation domain
Fund to
blighting farmland in
Developer Notes; Special
Mixed-Use
Public/Instituti acquire single- certain circumstances, Revenue Bonds; Special Service
onal; Vacant
intermodal projects
Area Taxes
family
Land
greatly facilitated if near
residences
a Class 1 railroad, post
No
Residential,
Yes
establishment reporting
Commercial,
requirements.
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
No
Commercial, Yes
Industrial
36-7-14 et
Yes
seq. and Residential,
36-7- Tax Increment
Yes, In
Property Tax
25 et seq.
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
blighted areas
Industrial
only
No
Residential,
Yes
Commercial,
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Chapter 403
Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes, Recent Property Tax, Sales Tax
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
limitations in
No
Residential,
No
Industrial,
the economic
Commercial,
development
Mixed-Use
context
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans, Special
Assessments
Iowa
1970
Yes
No
Kansas
1976
Yes
12-1770 et
Noseq
Kentucky
2000
Yes
65.7041-65.7083,
No
65.490Residential,
Tax Increment
No
65.499 and KRS 65.680Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
65.699 limited to
Industrial,
development areas Mixed-Use
established before
March 23, 2007
Louisiana
1988
Yes
Chapter 47
NoSection 8000
Residential,
Tax Increment
Not SpecifiedProperty Tax
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Cultural
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds
Maine
1977
Yes
30-A, Chapter
Yes 206 Commercial,
Tax Increment
Not specifiedProperty Tax
Industrial
Finance (TIF)
GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds,
Notes, Special Assessments,
Grants
1980
Yes
Maryland Economic Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Development Article,Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Title 12. Local
Industrial,
Development Authorities
Mixed-Use
GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds,
Special Assessments
24 Tax-Increment Financing
Maryland
Commercial
Tax Increment
Yes
Residential,
No
Finance, Sales Tax
Commercial,
and Revenue districts
Industrial,
(STAR)
Mixed-Use
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, TIF Revenue
Bonds
Property
Provisions
Tax, Sales
for
Tax, GO Bonds, Private Activity
Economic
bioscience
Activity
development
Tax,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go
PILOTs,
districts
Private
and STAR
Sources, Special Obligation Bonds
Transient
Bond projects
Guest, State or
Federal
Property
Potential
Tax,for
Income
state
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Tax,participation
Sales Tax, Corporate Loans, Special Assessments
Income Tax, Limited
Liability Entity Tax
Property Tax
Kansas
1976
12-1770 et seq
Kentucky
2000
65.7041-65.7083, 65.490- Tax Increment
65.499 and KRS 65.680- Finance (TIF)
65.699 limited to
development areas
established before
March 23, 2007
Property Tax, Income
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Tax, Sales Tax, Corporate Loans, Special Assessments
Income Tax, Limited
Liability Entity Tax
City Council,
state choose
Louisiana
1988
Chapter 47 Section 8000 Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds
TIF Commiss
Financing Options
Revenue
Bonds,
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Notes,
Special
Assessments,
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay As You Go,
Grants Funds
General
GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds,
Special
Assessments
GO
Bonds,
Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Approval Ag
City Council,
Appropriations, Redevelopment
Bonds
City Council,
Quorum Cou
Maine – Minnesota
Maine
Alabama
Year
Authorized
1977
1987
Maryland
Alaska
1980
2001
Arkansas
2001
California
Massachusetts
1952
2003
Michigan
1975
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Tax Increment
Finance, Sales Tax
and Revenue districts
(STAR)
Property Tax, Sales Tax, GO Bonds, Private Activity
School Board
Economic Activity Tax,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, Cou
PILOTs, Private Sources, Special Obligation Bonds
State if STAR
Transient Guest, State or
Federal
Eligible Tax Revenue
Sources
Property Tax
State Statute
30-A, Chapter
206et.
Sections
11-99-1,
seq.
Terminology
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Maryland Economic
Development
Article,
Sec.
29.47.460
Title 12. Local
Development Authorities
and Resources, Subtitle
2.
Increment
§§Tax
14-168-301
et seq.
Financing Act (Sections
12-201 et seq.)
Tax Increment
Finance
(TIF)
Tax
Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Property Tax
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, PILOTs
California Community
Redevelopment
Act
Chapter 40Q
Tax Increment
Property Tax
Finance
(TIF)
District Improvement
Property Tax
Financing (DIF)
Downtown Development Tax Increment
Authority (Act 197 of
Finance (TIF)
1975),
Tax Increment
1972
31-25-107-Urban
Tax Increment
Finance Authority
Renewal
authority,(Act
31-25- Finance (TIF)
450
of 1980), Local
807-Downtown
Development authority
Finance
development
Authority (Act 281 of
1972 or prior Chapter 132
Tax Increment
1986), Brownfield
Finance (TIF)
Redevelopment
Financing Act (Act 381
of 1996), Corridor
2002
Title
22 Municipalities,
Improvement
Authority Tax Increment
Chapter
17
Municipal
Finance (TIF)
Act (Act 280 of 2005),
Tax
Increment
Financing
Historical
Neighborhood
Act
Tax Increment Finance
City Council,
Municipality
Pay As You Go, Tax Allocation
Community R
Bonds,
Loans
Agency
Boar
GO Bonds,
Private Activity
City Council,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go of Selectmen
Property Tax
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans
TIF Commiss
Community R
Agency
Boar
Some limited
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Property Tax
(municipalities), Sales
Tax (state)
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Council,
Property Tax, Allows
Pledge of Any Other
Assets
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments,
May Pledge Any Other Assets
School Board
Council, Cou
bond issuer
county and sc
Authority
(Act 530
D.C.
CodeAct
Section
2- of
2004), Neighborhood
1217.01
et seq.
Improvement Authority
(Act 61 of 2007), Water
Resource
Improvement
163.330-163.463
TIF (Act 94 of 2008)
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax, GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
City Council
Catchall allows DC to
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
pledge other assets/funds May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments
1979
Section 469.174 469.1799
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City Council,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Body of Auth
Loans, Interest Reduction
Programs
Mississippi
1986
21-45-1
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City Council,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments
Missouri
1982
Chapter 99, Sections
800 - 865
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Income
Tax, Sales Tax, Gross
Receipts Tax, Economic
Activity Tax (50%
Sales/Utility/Earnings),
PILOTs (Property Tax)
GO Bonds (requires voter
City Council
approval), Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Pay
As You Go,
Appendix 25
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, TIF Revenue
Bonds
District of
Columbia
1998
Florida
1969
Minnesota
Community R
Agency Boar
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
School
1976
Board/District,
12-1770City
et seq
Kansas
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, County (if affected),
, Special Obligation Bonds
State if STAR Bonds sought
GO Bonds, Pay As
You Go,
Kentucky
e Loans, Special Assessments
Cost-Benefit
Tax Increment
Analysis, Feasibility
Property
20 years
Tax, Sales Tax, GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
No
School Bo
Study, Finance,
Public Hearings
Sales Tax Economic Activity Tax,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, C
and Revenue districts PILOTs, Private Sources, Special Obligation Bonds
State if ST
(STAR)
Transient Guest, State or
Federal
City Council,
2000
County,
65.7041-65.7083,
State if the 65.490Blight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
30 years
Tax, Income
GO Bonds,
Yes Pay As You
YesGo,
Tax, Sales Tax, Corporate Loans, Special Assessments
65.699 limited to Feasibility Study, Public
Income Tax, Limited
development areas Hearings
Liability Entity Tax
established before
March 23, 2007
City Counc
state choo
TIF Commission
1988
Chapter 47 Section Public
8000 Tax
Hearings
Increment
Finance (TIF)
TIF Comm
Maine – Minnesota
(cont’d)
state chooses
to
65.499
participate
and KRS 65.680Test, Cost-Benefit
Finance (TIF)
Analysis,
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Louisiana
Revenue Bonds
Financing Options
GO Bonds, Revenue
Bonds,
Maine
Private
Activity
Notes,
Special
Assessments,
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay As You Go,
Grants
General Funds
GO Bonds, Revenue
Bonds,
Maryland
Special
Assessments
GO Bonds,
Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Appropriations, Redevelopment
Bonds
Property
30 years
Tax
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds
Requirements for District
Max. Length of
Approval Agencies
Creation
District
City Council,
1977
State
30-A, Chapter 206 Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic Property
30 years
Tax
County
Hearings,
Finance
Suitable
(TIF)
for
Hearings
Commercial Uses
Site Specific Area Wide TIF
TIF Allowed? Allowed?
GO Bonds,
Yes Revenue Yes
Bonds,
Notes, Special Assessments,
Grants
City Council,
1980
County
Maryland EconomicPublic Tax
Hearings,
Increment
Resolution must
Property
Not Tax
specified
designate
Finance
area;(TIF)
pledge of
Municipality Development Article,
Blight Requirement
No limit
Title 12. Local
revenue.
Development Authorities
and Resources, Subtitle
2. Tax Increment
City Council, Town Council,
Blight Requirement, Feasibility
25 years
Financing Act (Sections
Quorum Court of the County
Study, Public Hearings
12-201 et seq.)
GO Bonds,
Yes Revenue Yes
Bonds,
Special
YesAssessmentsYes
Pay As You Go, Tax Allocation
Community Redevelopment
GO
Bonds,
Private
Activity
City
Council,
2003
Chapter
Town
40Q
Board
Bonds,
Loans
Agency
BoardState,
Massachusetts
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go of Selectmen
Blight Requirement
50 years
Feasibility
District
Study,
Improvement
Public
Property
30 years
Tax
Hearings
Financing (DIF)
Private Activity Revenue
Bonds,
Michigan
Pay As You Go, Loans
TIF Commission,
1975
Downtown
City Council,
Development
Public Tax
Hearings
Increment
Property
30 years
Tax or project
Community Redevelopment
Authority (Act 197 of
Finance (TIF)
plan completion
Agency
Board,involvement
1975),
State Tax Increment
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Some limited
of
Blight Requirement, Public
25 to 50 years
Finance
Authority (Act
Assessments, Revenue bonds
county and school
districts
Hearings, Impact Report to
depending on the
450 of 1980), Local County
statute
Development Finance
Authority (Act 281 of
GO Bonds, Special
City Council, State
Feasibility Study, Creation of
Bonds must be
1986), Brownfield
Assessments, Special Revenue
Local Development Agency
repaid in 40 years.
Redevelopment
Bonds
District doesn't
Financing Act (Act 381
expire.
of 1996), Corridor
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
School Board/District,
City Authority
Blight Requirement, "But For"
30 years
Improvement
Loans, Special Assessments,
Council, County,
by2005),
Test, Feasibility Study, Public
ActDelegated
(Act 280 of
May Pledge Any Other Assets
bond issuer Historical Neighborhood
Hearings,Consistent with
Comprehensive Plan
Tax Increment Finance
Authority
Act
(Act
530
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
City Council
ButofFor Test, Cost-Benefit
In TIF agreement.
2004), Neighborhood
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
Analysis, Feasibility Study,
Improvement Authority
s May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Various Recommended Criteria
(Act 61 of 2007), Water
Resource Improvement
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special Community Redevelopment
Blight Requirement, Public
Bonds must be
Assessments
Agency Board TIF (Act 94 of 2008)Hearings
repaid between 7
Yes
City Counc
City Counc
Yes
Yes
No
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
City Counc
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go of Selectm
Private
Yes
Activity Revenue
YesBonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans
Yes
Yes
TIF Comm
Communit
Agency Bo
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
and 40 years.
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
City Council,
1979
County,
SectionGoverning
469.174 - Blight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
Up to
Tax
26 years of
Minnesota
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Body of Authority
469.1799
Test, Public
Finance
Hearings
(TIF)
increment collection
Loans, Interest Reduction
Programs
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
No
City Counc
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Body of Au
Loans, Interest Reduction
Programs
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
City Council,
1986
County
21-45-1
Mississippi
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments
Cost-Benefit
Tax Increment
Analysis, Public Property
30 years
Tax, Sales Tax
Hearings
Finance (TIF)
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
City Counc
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments
Chapter 99, Sections
Blight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
23 years
Tax, Income
800 - 865
Test, Cost-Benefit
Finance (TIF)
Analysis, Tax, Sales Tax, Gross
Public Hearings
Receipts Tax, Economic
Activity Tax (50%
Sales/Utility/Earnings),
PILOTs (Property Tax)
GO Bonds
Yes (requires voter
Yes
City Counc
approval), Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, TIF Revenue
Bonds
GO Bonds (requires
voter
City Council
1982
Missouri
approval), Private Activity
Revenue Bonds,
As You Go,Financing
26 Pay
Tax-Increment
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, TIF Revenue
Bonds
Kansas
1976
Yes
12-1770 etNo
seq
Commercial
Tax Increment
Yes
Finance, Sales Tax
and Revenue districts
(STAR)
Kentucky
2000
Yes
65.7041-65.7083,
No
65.490Residential,
Tax Increment
No
Maine – Minnesota (cont’d)
65.499 and KRS 65.680Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Property
Provisions
Tax, Sales
for Tax, GO Bonds, Private Activity
School Board/D
Economic
bioscience
Activity
development
Tax,
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, County
PILOTs,
districts
Private
and Sources,
STAR
Special Obligation Bonds
State if STAR B
Transient
Bond projects
Guest, State or
Federal
Property
Potential
Tax,for
Income
state
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Tax,participation
Sales Tax, Corporate Loans, Special Assessments
Income Tax, Limited
Liability Entity Tax
65.699 limited to
Industrial,
development areas Mixed-Use
established before
March 23, 2007
Public
Public
1988
Yes
Chapter
47No
Section 8000
Residential,
Tax Increment
Not Specified
Property Tax
Hearings
Hearings
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Required for
Required for
Qualified
Eminent
Industrial,
TIF District
TIF Deal
Types of
Domain Use
Cultural
Authorization? Approval?
Projects
Allowed?
Special Features
1977
Yes
1980
Yes
No
Yes
Massachusetts
Yes
2003
Yes
Michigan
1975
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds
30-A, Chapter
Yes 206
Commercial,
Tax Increment
Not specifiedProperty Tax
GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds,
Residential,
Yes
Industrial
Finance (TIF)
Notes, Special Assessments,
Commercial,
Grants
Industrial,
Maryland Economic Mixed-Use
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds,
Development
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Special Assessments
No Article,Not
specific,
Yes
Very broad statute.
Title 12. Local
Industrial,
all could apply
Very few limitations or
Development Authorities
Mixed-Use
clarifications on details
and Resources, Subtitle
2. Tax Increment
Yes
Residential,
Yes
Financing Act (Sections
Commercial,
12-201 et seq.)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Yes
Chapter 40Q
No
Residential,
Yes, but
20% of TIF receipts
District Improvement
Yes
Commercial,
cannot
use Property
must Tax
go to Affordable
Financing (DIF)
Industrial,
eminent
Housing
Mixed-Use,
Mixed-Use
domain to
Residential
acquire singlefamily
DowntownYes
Development
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes, very Property
Several
TaxTIF statutes,
residences
Authority (Act 197 of Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
restrictive
each with their own
1975), TaxNo
IncrementResidential,
Industrial,
Finance Authority (Act
Mixed-Use
Commercial,
450 of 1980), Local Industrial,
Development FinanceMixed-Use
Authority (Act 281 of
No
Commercial,
1986), Brownfield
Industrial
Redevelopment
Financing Act (Act 381
of 1996), Corridor
No Authority
Residential,
Improvement
Act (Act 280 of 2005),Commercial,
Industrial,
Historical Neighborhood
Mixed-Use
Tax Increment Finance
Authority Act
(Act
530
of
No
Residential,
2004), NeighborhoodCommercial,
Improvement Authority
Mixed-Use
(Act 61 of 2007), Water
Resource Improvement
No
Residential,
TIF (Act 94 of 2008) Commercial,
Yes
purpose, powers and
restrictions
City Council, Co
state chooses to
TIF Commission
City Council, Sta
City Council, Co
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City Council, Sta
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go of Selectmen
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans
TIF Commission
Community Red
Agency Board, S
Yes
Yes
No
No
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Minnesota
1979
Yes
Section 469.174
No
469.1799
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes, very Property Tax
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
restrictive in
Industrial,
recent years
Mixed-Use
Mississippi
1986
Yes
21-45-1 Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
No
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Missouri
1982
Yes
Chapter 99,
Yes
SectionsResidential,
Tax Increment
Yes
800 - 865
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City Council, Co
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Body of Authorit
Loans, Interest Reduction
Programs
Property
TIF can
Tax,beSales
usedTax
for
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City Council, Co
private development, Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
however the TIF debt isLoans, Special Assessments
taxable
Property
UnderTax,
certain
Income
GO Bonds (requires voter
City Council
Tax,circumstances,
Sales Tax, Gross
a portion
approval), Private Activity
Receipts
of theTax,
stateEconomic
sales tax orRevenue Bonds, PayAppendix As You Go,27
Activity
state
Tax
withholding
(50%
taxes Loans, Appropriations, Special
Sales/Utility/Earnings),
for a project can be
Assessments, TIF Revenue
PILOTs
captured,
(Property
withTax)
state
Bonds
approval
Tax Increment Finance
Authority Act (Act 530 of
2004), Neighborhood
Improvement Authority
(Act 61 of 2007), Water
Resource Improvement
TIF (Act 94 of 2008)
Mississippi – New Jersey
Minnesota
Alabama
Mississippi
1979
Year
Authorized
1987
1986
Section 469.174 469.1799
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
State Statute
Sections 11-99-1, et.
21-45-1
seq.
Terminology
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Eligible Tax Revenue
Sources
Tax Sales Tax
Property Tax,
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Interest Reduction
Programs
Financing Options
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
GeneralSpecial
Funds Assessments
Loans,
Tax Income
Property Tax,
Tax, Sales Tax, Gross
Receipts Tax, Economic
Activity Tax (50%
Sales/Utility/Earnings),
Property Tax, PILOTs
PILOTs (Property Tax)
Bonds,(requires
Private Activity
Municipality
GO Bonds
voter
City Council
Revenue
As You Go,
approval),Bonds,
PrivatePay
Activity
Loans, Appropriations,
Special
Revenue
Bonds, Pay As
You Go,
Assessments
Loans,
Appropriations, Special
Assessments,
Revenue
Appropriations,TIF
Redevelopment
City Council,
Bonds
Bonds
Quorum Cou
Property Tax
Pay As Activity
You Go,Revenue
Tax Allocation
Private
Bonds,
Bonds,
Pay
As Loans
You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments, Tax Increment
Bonds
Community
City
Council,R
Agency Boar
Renewal
Aut
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some limited
county and s
Property Tax
(municipalities), Sales
Tax (state)
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Council,
Property Tax,
Tax Allows
Pledge of Any Other
Assets
GO Bonds, Pay
As Activity
You Go,
Private
Loans, Special
Assessments,
Revenue
Bonds,
Loans
May Pledge Any Other Assets
School Boar
Council, Cou
Council
bond issuer
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax,
Tax Sales Tax,
Catchall allows DC to
pledge other assets/funds
GO
Bonds,
Pay As
You Go,
City Council
Loans,
Revenue
Bonds
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments
Community R
Agency Boar
Private Activity Revenue Bonds
City Council,
(town)
Alaska
Missouri
2001
1982
Sec. 29.47.460
Chapter
99, Sections
800 - 865
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Arkansas
2001
§§ 14-168-301 et seq.
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
California
Montana
1952
1974
California
Community
Title
7 Section
15
Redevelopment
Act
Chapter
42
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Colorado
1972
31-25-107-Urban
Tax Increment
Renewal authority, 31-25- Finance (TIF)
807-Downtown
development authority
Connecticut
Delaware
Nebraska
District
Nevada of
Columbia
Florida
1972 or prior Chapter 132
2002
1978
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Title
22 Municipalities,
Tax Increment
Chapter
18, Section
Chapter 17 Municipal
2101.01
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment Financing
Act
1998
Code
Section
2About
1959 D.C.
Chapter
279
for
1217.01 et seq. Agency
Redevelopment
and Chapter 278C for
Tax Increment Areas in
City
or County
1969
163.330-163.463
Property Tax
New Hampshire
1979
162:K
Development District Property Tax
New Jersey
2002
52:27D-459 et seq.
Revenue Allocation
District (RAD)
New Mexico
1978
Sections 5-15-1 through Tax Increment
5-15-28 NMSA 1978,
Finance (TIF)
Sectopms 6-18-1 et.
seq., NMSA 1978 and
the Tax Increment for
Development Act, Laws
2006, Chapter 75
28 Tax-Increment Financing
City Council,
Body of Auth
Approval Ag
City Council,
Sales Tax, PILOTs,
GO Bonds, Loans, Revenue
Payroll or Wage Taxes,
Bonds
Lease Payments, Parking
Tax
Community R
Agency Boar
Property Tax, Gross
Receipts Tax
City Council,
State Board
Mexico Finan
Legislature
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds
Tax Increment Finance
Authority Act (Act 530 of
2004), Neighborhood
Improvement Authority
(Act 61 of 2007), Water
Resource Improvement
TIF (Act 94 of 2008)
Mississippi – New Jersey (cont’d)
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Minnesota
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Interest Reduction
Programs
Financing Options
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Mississippi
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans,
GeneralSpecial
Funds Assessments
City Council,
1979
County,
SectionGoverning
469.174 - Blight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
Up to
Tax
26 years of
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
No
City Counc
Body of Authority
469.1799
Test, Public
Finance
Hearings
(TIF)
increment collection Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Body of Au
Loans,
InterestArea
Reduction
Requirements for District
Max. Length of
Site
Specific
Wide TIF
Programs
Approval Agencies
Creation
District
TIF
Allowed? Allowed?
City Council,
1986
County
21-45-1
Cost-Benefit
Tax Increment
Analysis,
Public Property
30 years
Tax, Sales Tax GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
City Counc
Blight Requirement,
Public
Hearings
Finance (TIF)
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments
GO Bonds
voter
City
Council
1982
Chapter 99, Sections
Blight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
23
Tax, Income
Bonds,(requires
Private
Activity
Municipality
Requirement
No years
limit
Missouri
approval),
PrivatePay
Activity
800 - 865
Test, Cost-Benefit
Finance (TIF)
Analysis, Tax, Sales Tax, Gross
Revenue Bonds,
As You Go,
Revenue
Bonds, Pay As
You Go,
Public Hearings
Receipts Tax, Economic
Loans, Appropriations,
Special
Loans,
Appropriations, Special
Activity Tax (50%
Assessments
Assessments,
TIF
Revenue
Sales/Utility/Earnings),
Appropriations, Redevelopment City Council, Town Council,
Blight Requirement, Feasibility
25 years
Bonds
PILOTs (Property Tax)
Bonds
Quorum Court of the County
Study, Public Hearings
GO Bonds
Yes (requires voter
Yes
City Counc
approval), Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments,
TIF Revenue
Yes
Yes
Bonds
Pay As Activity
You Go,Revenue
Tax Allocation
Private
Bonds,
Montana
Bonds,
Pay
As Loans
You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments, Tax Increment
Bonds
Community
Requirement
50 years
City
Council,
1974 Redevelopment
County,
Title 7 Urban
Section 15 Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementCost-Benefit
Property
15
Tax with
Agency Board
Renewal
Authority
Chapter 42
Analysis,
Finance
Feasibility
(TIF) Study,
maximum extension
Public Hearings, Infrastructure
of another 25 years
Deficiency in Industrial Cases
for bond. Districts
can exist for the
longer of 15 years or
the term of any
outstanding
Some limited involvement of
Blight Requirement, Public
25 to 50 years
associated revenue
county and school districts
Hearings, Impact Report to
depending on the
bonds, however,
County
statute
bonds may not
beissued after 15
City Council, State
Feasibility Study, Creation of
Bondsofmust
be
years
district
Local Development Agency
repaid
in
40
years.
existence.
District doesn't
expire.
No Bonds,
Private
Yes
Activity Revenue
Yes
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments, Tax Increment
Bonds
School
Board/District,
30 years
1978
ChapterCity
18, SectionBlight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
15
Tax
Council, County,
Delegated by
Feasibility
Study,
Public
Council
2101.01
Test, Cost-Benefit
Finance (TIF)
Analysis,
bond issuer
Hearings,Consistent
with
Feasibility
Study, Public
Comprehensive Plan
Hearings
Yes Private Activity
Yes
GO Bonds,
No
Revenue Bonds, Loans
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
GO Bonds, Private
Pay As
You Go,
Activity
Nebraska
Loans, Special
Revenue
Bonds,Assessments,
Loans
May Pledge Any Other Assets
GO Bonds,
Pay As
You Go,
City
Council
But For
Test,
Cost-Benefit Property
In TIF
agreement.
Loans,
Revenue
Bonds
About
1959 Chapter 279 for
Blight
Requirement
Tax
Increment
45
years
Tax
for
Nevada
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
Analysis,
Feasibility
Redevelopment Agency
Finance
(TIF) Study,
Redevelopment
s May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Various Recommended Criteria Areas and 30 years
and Chapter 278C for
Tax Increment Areas in
for Tax Increment
City or County
Finance
Areas
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special Community Redevelopment
Blight Requirement, Public
Bonds must
be
g
Assessments
Agency Board
Hearings
repaid between 7
and Tax
40Bonds
years.
Private Activity Revenue
Bonds City Council,
1979
Board
162:Kof Selectmen Public Development
Hearings
District Property
Life
of
New Hampshire
(town)
Yes
City Counc
Renewal A
Yes
Yes
School Bo
Council
Loans,
Yes
Revenue Bonds
Yes
Yes
Yes
Private
Yes
Activity Revenue
No Bonds
City Counc
(town)
GO Bonds, Loans,
Revenue
New
Jersey
Bonds
Community
2002 Redevelopment
52:27D-459 et seq. Blight Requirement,
Revenue Allocation
"But For"SalesNot
Tax,
specified
PILOTs,
GO Bonds,
Yes Loans, Revenue
Yes
Agency Board
Test, Cost-Benefit
District (RAD)
Analysis, Payroll or Wage Taxes,
Bonds
Public Hearings
Lease Payments, Parking
Tax
Communit
Agency Bo
Private Activity Revenue
Bonds,
New Mexico
Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds
City Council,
1978
County,
Sections
State,
5-15-1 through
But ForTax
Test,
Increment
Cost-Benefit Property
25 years
Tax, Gross
from the
State Board of 5-15-28
Finance,NMSA
New 1978,
Analysis,
Finance
Feasibility
(TIF) Study, Receipts
pointTax
of bond
Mexico FinanceSectopms
Authority 6-18-1
&
et.Public Hearings, No Net Expense issuance
Legislature
seq., NMSA 1978 and
the Tax Increment for
Development Act, Laws
2006, Chapter 75
City Counc
State Boar
Mexico Fin
Legislature
Private
Yes
Activity Revenue
YesBonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds
Appendix 29
Tax Increment Finance
Authority Act (Act 530 of
2004), Neighborhood
Improvement Authority
(Act 61 of 2007), Water
Resource Improvement
TIF (Act 94 of 2008)
Mississippi – New Jersey (cont’d)
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Public
Public
1979
Yes
Section
469.174
No
Hearings
Hearings
Required for 469.1799
Required for
TIF District
TIF Deal
Authorization? Approval?
1986
Yes
21-45-1 Yes
No
1982
Yes
NoSectionsResidential,
Not specific,
Chapter 99,
Yes
Tax Increment
Yes
all could
apply (TIF)
800 - 865
Commercial,
Finance
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Yes
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
1974
Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes, very Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
restrictive
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Qualified
Eminent in
Industrial,
recent
years
Loans, Interest Reduction
Types of
Domain
Use
Mixed-Use
Programs
Projects
Allowed?
Special Features
Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
No
Property
TIF can
Tax,
beSales
used for
Tax GO Bonds, Private Activity
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
private development, Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Industrial,
however the TIF debt is Loans, Special Assessments
Mixed-Use
taxable
Yes
Title 7 Section
No 15
Yes
Chapter 42
Residential,
Commercial,
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes, may
Property
Urban
Tax
Blight;
Industrial
but only
20% of
TIF receipts
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
be
utilized
cannot
useby Infrastructure
must go to Affordable
Industrial,
authorized
Deficiency;
eminent
Housing Aerospace
Mixed-Use
jurisdictions
domain to to Needs; Technology
facilitate
public Company Needs
acquire singleworks
family projects.
residences
Yes
No
Residential,
Commercial,
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Yes
Yes
No
Commercial,
Industrial
Yes
1978
Yes
Very broad
statute.
Property
Under
Tax,
certain
Income
GO Bonds (requires voter
Very
fewTax,
limitations
or approval), Private Activity
Tax,circumstances,
Sales
Gross
a portion
clarifications
on details
Receipts
of
the Tax,
stateEconomic
sales
tax or Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Activity
stateTax
withholding
(50% taxes Loans, Appropriations, Special
Sales/Utility/Earnings),
for a project can be
Assessments, TIF Revenue
PILOTs
captured,
(Property
with state
Tax)
Bonds
approval
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments, Tax Increment
Bonds
NoSection Residential,
Chapter 18,
Yes
Tax Increment
Yes
2101.01
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans
No
No
AboutYes
1959 Chapter 279
No for
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Redevelopment Agency
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
and Chapter 278C for
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Tax Increment AreasMixed-Use
in
City or County
Yes
No
Residential,
No
Property Tax
Loans, Revenue Bonds
1979
Yes
162:K
New Jersey
2002
No
52:27D-459
Noet seq. Commercial,
Revenue Allocation
Yes
Industrial
District (RAD)
Sales Tax, PILOTs,
GO Bonds, Loans, Revenue
Payroll or Wage Taxes,
Bonds
Lease Payments, Parking
Tax
New Mexico
1978
Yes
Sections 5-15-1
No
through
Residential,
Tax Increment
No
5-15-28 NMSA 1978,Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Sectopms 6-18-1 et.Industrial,
seq., NMSA 1978 and
Mixed-Use
the Tax Increment for
Development Act, Laws
2006, Chapter 75
Property
No more
Tax,than
Gross
75% of Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Receipts
new revenue
Tax
for bond Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
repayment. Local tax Increment Revenue Bonds
use requires only local
approval. State Gross
Receipts Tax use
requires State Board of
Finance approval. When
GRT is bonded, then
requires NMFA Board &
state legislature
approval.
30 Tax-Increment Financing
No
Commercial,
Industrial,
Commercial,
Development
No District Property Tax
Mixed-Use
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
New Hampshire
Private Activity Revenue Bonds
2101.01
Nevada
Finance (TIF)
About 1959 Chapter 279 for
Tax Increment
Redevelopment Agency Finance (TIF)
and Chapter 278C for
Tax Increment Areas in
City or County
Revenue Bonds, Loans
Property Tax
Council
Loans, Revenue Bonds
New Mexico – Ohio
New Hampshire
1979
162:K
Development District Property Tax
New Jersey
2002
52:27D-459 et seq.
Revenue Allocation
District (RAD)
State Statute
5-15-1 through
Sections 11-99-1,
et.
5-15-28
NMSA 1978,
seq.
Sectopms 6-18-1 et.
seq., NMSA 1978 and
the
Increment for
Sec.Tax
29.47.460
Development Act, Laws
2006, Chapter 75
Terminology
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Municipality
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
New Mexico
Alabama
Year
Authorized
1978
1987
Private Activity Revenue Bonds
City Council, B
(town)
Sales Tax, PILOTs,
GO Bonds, Loans, Revenue
Payroll or Wage Taxes,
Bonds
Lease
Payments,
Parking
Eligible
Tax Revenue
Tax
Sources
Financing Options
Tax, Gross
Private
Activity
Revenue
Bonds,
Property Tax
GO
Bonds,
Private
Activity
Receipts Tax
Pay
As You
Go, Loans,
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay AsTax
You Go,
Increment
Revenue Bonds
General
Funds
Community Re
Agency Board
Approval Agen
City Council, C
State Board of
Mexico Finance
Legislature
Alaska
2001
Arkansas
2001
§§ 14-168-301 et seq.
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, PILOTs
Appropriations, Redevelopment
Bonds
City Council, T
Quorum Court
California
1952
1984
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
New York
California Community
Redevelopment Act
18-C
Pay As You Go, Tax Allocation
Bonds, Loans
Tax Increment Bonds
Community Re
Agency Board
City Council, C
Body of Creatin
Colorado
1972
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some limited in
county and sch
Property Tax
(municipalities), Sales
Tax (state)
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Council, S
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments,
GO Bonds
May
Pledge(Require
Any Other Assets
Referendum), Pay As You Go,
Appropriations
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
School Board/D
Council, Count
City Council
bond
issuer (C
party to joint ag
County,
State
City Council
Connecticut
31-25-107-Urban
Tax Increment
Renewal authority, 31-25- Finance (TIF)
807-Downtown
development authority
1972 or prior Chapter 132
Delaware
2002
North Carolina
2004
District of
Columbia
1998
Florida
1969
North Dakota
1973
Chapter 40-58
Ohio
1976
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Title 22 Municipalities,
Chapter 17 Municipal
All references
North
Tax
Incrementto
Financing
Carolina General
Act
Statutes.
D.C. CodeFinancing:
Section 2Chapter
Article 6;
1217.01 159
et seq.
City Redevelopment:
160A-515.1; City and
County Development:
163.330-163.463
158-7.3
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Tax Increment
Property Tax, Allows
Finance (TIF)
Pledge of Any Other
Project Development Assets
Property Tax
Financing
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax,
Catchall allows DC to
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
pledge other assets/funds May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Title 57. Chapter 5709,
Chapter 725, Chapter
1728
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
School Board/D
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, Count
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
1992
Local Development Act
Title 62. Chapter 9.
Section 850-869
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax,
Other Local Taxes by
Consent of Juris
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans,
Appropriations, Special
Assessments
1960
Chapter 457
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax, Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Gross Receipts Tax,
Assessments, TIF Revenue
PILOTs, Any Ad Valorem Bonds
1990
1990, July 11, P.L. 465,
No. 113, § 1
Property Tax
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special Community Re
Assessments
Agency Board
GO Bonds, Special Assessments City Council
Appendix City Council, C
Committee
School Board/D
Council, Count
31Taxing Agencie
School Board/D
Commission, C
County, Local M
Revenue Bonds, Loans
Loans, Revenue Nevada
Bonds
Council
2101.01
Finance (TIF)
Test, Cost-Benefit
Analysis,
Feasibility Study, Public
Hearings
About 1959 Chapter 279 for
Tax Increment
Blight Requirement
Redevelopment Agency Finance (TIF)
and Chapter 278C for
Tax Increment Areas in
City or County
New Mexico – Ohio (cont’d)
Revenue Bonds, Loans
Property
Tax for
45 years
Redevelopment
Areas and 30 years
for Tax Increment
Finance Areas
1979
162:Kof Selectmen Public Development
District Property
New Hampshire
Private Activity Revenue
Bonds City Council,
Board
Hearings
Life Tax
of Bonds
(town)
2002 Redevelopment
52:27D-459 et seq. Blight Requirement,
Revenue Allocation
Tax,
PILOTs,
Community
"But For"SalesNot
specified
District (RAD)
Agency Board
Test, Cost-Benefit
Analysis, Payroll or Wage Taxes,
Payments,
g
Public
Hearingsfor District LeaseMax.
Requirements
LengthParking
of
Tax District
Financing Options
Approval Agencies
Creation
1978
Sections
5-15-1 through
Tax
Increment
Tax, Gross
New
Mexico
Private
Activity
Revenue
Bonds, City Council,
County,
State,
But For
Test,
Cost-Benefit
25 years
from the
GO
Bonds,
Private
Activity
County
Blight
Requirement,
Public Property
30
Finance
(TIF) Study, Receipts
Pay As You
Go, Loans,
Finance,NMSA
New 1978,
Analysis,
Feasibility
pointTax
of bond
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay AsTax
You Go, State Board of 5-15-28
Hearings
et.Public Hearings, No Net Expense issuance
Increment
Revenue Bonds
Mexico FinanceSectopms
Authority 6-18-1
&
General
Funds
seq., NMSA 1978 and
Legislature
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Municipality the Tax Increment for
Blight Requirement
No limit
Development Act, Laws
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
2006, Chapter 75
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
New
Jersey
GO Bonds, Loans,
Revenue
Bonds
Blight Requirement, Feasibility
Study, Public Hearings
25 years
,
,
Loans,
Revenue Bonds
Yes
Yes
Private
Activity Revenue
Yes
No Bonds
City Coun
(town)
GO Bonds,
Yes Loans, Revenue
Yes
Bonds
Communi
Agency B
Site Specific Area Wide TIF
TIF Allowed? Allowed?
Private
Activity Revenue
Yes
YesBonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Appropriations, Redevelopment
Bonds
City Council, Town Council,
Quorum Court of the County
Pay As You Go, Tax Allocation
Bonds, Loans
Tax Increment Bonds
New York
Community Redevelopment
Blight Requirement
50 years
Agency Board
City Council,
1984
County,
18-C Legislative Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementCost-Benefit
Property
Silent,
Taxbut ground
Body of Creating Municipality
Analysis,
Finance
Feasibility
(TIF) Study,
leases may not
Public Hearings, Compliance
exceed 99 years
with Redevelopment Plan
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some limited involvement of
county and school districts
Blight Requirement, Public
Hearings, Impact Report to
County
25 to 50 years
depending on the
statute
Yes
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Council, State
Feasibility Study, Creation of
Local Development Agency
Bonds must be
repaid in 40 years.
District doesn't
expire.
Yes
School Board/District, City
Blight Requirement, "But For"
30 years
Council, County, Delegated by
Test, Feasibility Study, Public
bond
issuer (City
Hearings,Consistent
with
City Council
2004
All only
references
if issuer
toor
North
But ForProject
Test, City
Development
Property
30 years
Tax
party to joint agreement),
Carolina General Comprehensive
Redevelopment
FinancingPlan
Requires Blight
County,
State Statutes. Financing:or
City Council
ButSimilar
For Test, Cost-Benefit
In TIF agreement.
Chapter 159 Article Analysis,
6;
Feasibility Study,
City Redevelopment:
Various Recommended Criteria
160A-515.1; City and
County Development:
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special Community Redevelopment
Blight Requirement, Public
Bonds must be
158-7.3
Assessments
Agency Board
Hearings
repaid between 7
and
40 years.
GO Bonds, Special
Assessments
City Council
1973
Chapter 40-58
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic Property
15 years
Tax
North
Dakota
Hearings
Finance (TIF)
Yes
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments,
May
Pledge(Require
Any North
Other Carolina
Assets
GO Bonds
Referendum), Pay As You Go,
, Appropriations
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
ds May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
School
1976
Board/District,
Title 57.City
Chapter 5709,
Blight Requirement
Tax Increment
(only
Ohio
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, CountyChapter 725, Chapter
required
Finance
for certain
(TIF)TIFs)
Loans, Appropriations, Special
1728
Assessments
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Oklahoma
Revenue Bonds, Loans,
Appropriations, Special
Assessments
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Oregon
Revenue Bonds
32 City Council,
1992
County,
Local Development
Review
Blight
Act Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
25 years
Tax, Sales Tax,
Committee
Title 62. Chapter 9. Test, Public
Finance
Hearings,
(TIF) ProjectOther Local Taxes by
Section 850-869 Plan Required
Consent of Juris
School
1960
Board/District,
ChapterCity
457
Council, County, State, All
Tax-Increment Financing
Taxing Agencies
Pay As You Go, Pennsylvania
Loans, Special
Assessments, TIF Revenue
m Bonds
Property
30 years
Tax
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic
Hearings
Finance (TIF)
Property
Not Tax
specified
Council
Tax Increment
Yes
BondsYes
City Coun
Body of C
Yes
Yes
GO Bonds
Yes (Require Yes
Referendum), Pay As You Go,
Appropriations
Yes
Yes
Yes
City Coun
State Boa
Mexico Fi
Legislatur
City Coun
party to jo
County, S
Yes
GO Bonds,
Yes Special Assessments
Yes
City Coun
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
School Bo
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, C
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds, Loans,
Appropriations, Special
Assessments
City Coun
Committe
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds
School Bo
Council, C
Taxing Ag
School
1990
Board/District,
1990, July
TIF11, P.L. 465,
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementFeasibility
Property
20 years
Tax, Sales Tax, Pay As
YesYou Go, Loans,
YesSpecial
Commission, City
No.Council,
113, § 1
Study, Finance
Public Hearings
(TIF)
Gross Receipts Tax,
Assessments, TIF Revenue
County, Local Municipality
PILOTs, Any Ad Valorem Bonds
School Bo
Commiss
County, L
2101.01
Nevada
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
AboutYes
1959 Chapter 279
No for
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Redevelopment Agency
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
and Chapter 278C for
Industrial,
Tax Increment AreasMixed-Use
in
City or County
Revenue Bonds, Loans
Property Tax
Council
Loans, Revenue Bonds
New Mexico – Ohio (cont’d)
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
1979
Yes
162:K
North Carolina
Commercial,
Development
No District Property Tax
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Private Activity Revenue Bonds
City Council, B
(town)
Public
Public
2002
No
52:27D-459
Noet seq. Commercial,
Revenue Allocation
Yes
Sales Tax, PILOTs,
GO Bonds, Loans, Revenue
Hearings
Hearings
Industrial
District (RAD)
Payroll or Wage Taxes,
Bonds
Required for
Required for
Qualified
Eminent
TIF District
TIF Deal
Types of
Domain UseLease Payments, Parking
Authorization? Approval?
Projects
Allowed? TaxSpecial Features
1978
Sections Yes
5-15-1
No
through
Tax Increment
No
Property
No more
Tax,than
Gross
75% of Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Yes
Residential,
Yes
5-15-28 NMSA 1978,Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Receipts
new revenue
Tax
for bond Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Sectopms 6-18-1 et.Industrial,
repayment. Local tax Increment Revenue Bonds
seq., NMSA 1978 and
Mixed-Use
use requires only local
the
Tax
Increment
for
approval.
Gross
No
No
Not specific,
Yes
Very broadState
statute.
Development Act, Laws
Receipts
Tax use or
all could apply
Very
few limitations
2006, Chapter 75
requires
StateonBoard
of
clarifications
details
Finance approval. When
GRT is bonded, then
Yes
Yes
Residential,
Yes
requires NMFA Board &
Commercial,
state legislature
Industrial,
approval.
Mixed-Use
Yes
New York
No
1984
Yes
Yes
18-C
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
2004
Yes
No
Yes
Residential,
Yes, but
20% of TIF receipts
Commercial, cannot use
must go to Affordable
Industrial,
eminent
Housing
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Property
Special
Tax
State legislationTax Increment Bonds
Mixed-Use
domain to
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
can create municipal
acquire single- redevelopment
Industrial,
family
Mixed-Use
authorities which can
residences
include multiple
municipalities, state
Residential,
Yes
authorities can be
Commercial,
utilized with State
Industrial,
legislative authorization.
Mixed-Use
The school portion of
Commercial, Yes
real property taxes are
Industrial
excluded from paying
for TIF debt.
Residential,
Yes
Commercial,
Industrial,
All references
No to North
Residential,
Project Development
Yes, under Property
Can pledge
Tax any
Carolina General Mixed-Use
Commercial,
Financing general law
revenues available to
Statutes. No
Financing:Residential,
Industrial,
issuer including sales
No
Chapter 159 Article 6;
Mixed-Use
tax payments from
Commercial,
City Redevelopment:Mixed-Use
State, so long as not a
160A-515.1; City and
pledge of full faith and
County Development:
credit of taxing party
No
Residential,
No
158-7.3
Commercial,
Industrial,
Chapter 40-58
Residential,
Tax Increment
No
Property Tax
Mixed-Use
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial
GO Bonds (Require
Referendum), Pay As You Go,
Appropriations
Community Re
Agency Board
City Council, C
State Board of
Mexico Financ
Legislature
City Council, C
Body of Creati
City Council (C
party to joint ag
County, State
North Dakota
1973
Yes
Ohio
1976
Yes
Title 57. Chapter
No
5709,
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Chapter 725, Chapter
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
1728
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Property
ThereTax
are other TIF
statutes that can be
utilized in an urban
redevelopment context
in addition to the
statutes cited
GO Bonds, Private Activity
School Board/D
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, Count
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Oklahoma
1992
Yes
Local Development
Yes
Act
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Title 62. Chapter 9. Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Section 850-869
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Property
Can be
Tax,
used
Sales
for Tax,
Other
educational
Local Taxes
buildings.
by
Consent
Must produce
of Juris annual
report
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans,
Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Oregon
1960
Yes
Chapter 457
No
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds
Pennsylvania
1990
Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
1990, July
Yes
11, P.L. 465,
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
No. 113, § 1
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
GO Bonds, Special Assessments City Council
Executive Summary Property Tax, Sales Tax, Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Gross Receipts Tax,
Assessments, TIF Revenue
PILOTs, Any Ad Valorem Bonds
City Council, C
Committee
School Board/D
Council, Count
33 Taxing Agenci
School Board/D
Commission, C
County, Local
Oklahama
1973
North Dakota – Texas
Ohio
Alabama
Oklahoma
1976
Year
Authorized
1987
1992
Carolina General
Statutes. Financing:
Chapter 159 Article 6;
City Redevelopment:
160A-515.1; City and
County Development:
158-7.3
Financing
Referendum), Pay As You Go,
Appropriations
Chapter 40-58
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Special Assessments City Council
Title 57. Chapter 5709,
Chapter 725, Chapter
1728
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
School Board
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, Cou
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
State Statute
Sections
11-99-1, et.Act
Local Development
seq.
Title 62. Chapter 9.
Section 850-869
Terminology
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Eligible Tax Revenue
Sources
Property Tax
Tax, Sales Tax,
Other Local Taxes by
Consent of Juris
party to joint
County, State
Financing Options
Approval Ag
GO Bonds, Private Activity
City Council,
Revenue Bonds, Pay
As You Go, Committee
Loans,
General
Funds Special
Appropriations,
Assessments
Alaska
Oregon
2001
1960
Sec.
29.47.460
Chapter
457
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Arkansas
Pennsylvania
2001
1990
§§
14-168-301
et seq.
1990,
July 11, P.L.
465,
No. 113, § 1
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, PILOTs
Sales Tax, Appropriations,
Pay As You Go,Redevelopment
Loans, Special
Bonds
Gross Receipts Tax,
Assessments, TIF Revenue
PILOTs, Any Ad Valorem Bonds
Tax
City
Council,
School
Board
Quorum
Cou
Commission
County, Loca
Rhode
Island
California
1956
1952
Chapter
Section 33.2 Tax Increment
California45,
Community
Finance (TIF)
Redevelopment Act
Property Tax
GO
Pay Bonds,
As YouPrivate
Go, TaxActivity
Allocation
Revenue
Bonds, Loans
Bonds, Loans
Community R
Agency Boar
Colorado
1972
31-25-107-Urban
Tax Increment
Renewal authority, 31-25- Finance (TIF)
807-Downtown
development authority
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some limited
county and s
Property Tax
(municipalities), Sales
Tax (state)
Property
Tax, PILOTs,
Utility revenues,
Assessments,
Property Tax, Allows
Redevelopment
Project
Pledge of Any Other
Revenues
Assets
GO Bonds, Special
City Council,
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
TIF
acts contain bond provisions School Board
Council, Cou
Taxing
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
School Entity
Board
Loans, Special Assessments,
Council, Cou
May Pledge Any Other Assets
bond issuer
Connecticut
South Carolina
Delaware
1972 or prior Chapter 132
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
City: 1984 Cities: Title 31 Chapter 6 Tax Increment
County: 1999 (Sections 31-6-10 and
Finance (TIF)
following),
Counties: Title Tax Increment
2002
Title 22 Municipalities,
31
Chapter
(Sections Finance (TIF)
Chapter
17 7
Municipal
31-7-10
and following)
Tax Increment
Financing
Act
District of
Columbia
South
Dakota
1998
1978
D.C. Code Section 21217.01 11-9
et seq.
Chapter
Tennessee
Florida
1945
1969
13-20-2
163.330-163.463
Texas
1983
Utah
1968
34 Tax-Increment Financing
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Municipality
School Board
Revenue Bonds,
Bonds Pay As You Go, Council, Cou
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Taxing Agen
Assessments
Tax Increment
Finance
(TIF)
Tax
Increment
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment
Finance
(TIF)
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax, GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Catchall allows
Loans,
Special
Assessments,
DC
Property
Tax DC to
GO
Bonds,
Private
Activity
pledge other assets/funds May
Pledge
OtherLoans
Assets/Funds
Revenue
Bonds,
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go
Property Tax
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments
City Council
Planning Com
Chapter 311 of the
Texas Tax Code
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)/Tax
Increment
Reinvestment Zone
(TIRZ)
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Increment Contract Bonds,
Municipal Bonds
City Council,
Redevelopm
County
Title 17C
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax,
Economic Activity Tax
Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans,
Appropriations
School Board
Council, Com
Redevelopm
County, State
TIF Commiss
County
Community R
Agency Boar
ferendum), Pay As You Go,
propriations
party to joint agreement),
Carolina General Redevelopment
FinancingRequires Blight
County, State Statutes. Financing:or Similar
Chapter 159 Article 6;
City Redevelopment:
160A-515.1; City and
County Development:
158-7.3
Oklahoma – Texas (cont’d)
Chapter 40-58
O Bonds, Special
Assessments
City Council
1973
North
Dakota
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic
Hearings
Finance (TIF)
O Bonds, Private
Activity
School
1976
Board/District,
Title 57.City
Chapter 5709,
Blight Requirement
Tax Increment
(only
Ohio
venue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, CountyChapter 725, Chapter
required
Finance
for certain
(TIF)TIFs)
ans, Appropriations, Special
1728
sessments
Referendum), Pay As You Go,
Appropriations
Property
15 years
Tax
GO Bonds,
Yes Special Assessments
Yes
City Council
Property
30 years
Tax
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
School Board/D
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go, Council, County
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Requirements for District
Max. Length of
Site Specific Area Wide TIF
nancing Options
Approval Agencies
Creation
District
TIF Allowed? Allowed?
1992
County,
Local Development
Review
Act Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic
"But For"Property
25 years
Tax, Sales Tax, GO Bonds,
Oklahoma
O Bonds, Private
Activity
City Council,
County
Blight
30
Yes Private Activity
Yes
venue Bonds, Loans,
Title 62. Chapter 9. Test,
Public
Finance
Hearings,
(TIF) ProjectOther Local Taxes by
Revenue Bonds, Loans,
Pay As You Go, Committee
Hearings
propriations,
Section 850-869 Plan Required
Consent of Juris
Appropriations, Special
neral Funds Special
sessments
Assessments
School
1960
Board/District,
ChapterCity
457
Oregon
O Bonds, Private
Activity
Municipality
Bonds Pay As You Go, Council, County, State, All
venue Bonds,
Taxing Agencies
ans, Appropriations, Special
sessments
y As You Go,Redevelopment
Loans,
Special
Pennsylvania
propriations,
sessments,
TIF Revenue
nds
nds
Oy Bonds,
Activity
As YouPrivate
Go, Tax
Allocation
Rhode
Island
venue
Bonds, Loans
nds,
Loans
ans, Appropriations, Special
sessments, Revenue bonds
Requirement,
Tax IncrementPublic
Blight Requirement
Hearings
Finance (TIF)
Property
Not
specified
Tax
No limit
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds
City Council, Co
Committee
School Board/D
Council, County
Taxing Agencie
School
1990
Board/District,
1990,
July
TIF 11, P.L. Blight
465, Requirement,
Tax IncrementFeasibilityProperty
20 years
Tax, Sales Tax, Pay As
City
Council,
Town
Council,
25
YesYou Go, Loans,
YesSpecial
Commission,
No.the
Council,
113,
§1
(TIF)
Gross Receipts Tax,
Assessments, TIF Revenue
Quorum
CourtCity
of
County
Study, Finance
Public Hearings
County, Local Municipality
PILOTs, Any Ad Valorem Bonds
Tax
School Board/D
Commission, C
County, Local M
Community
1956 Redevelopment
Chapter 45, SectionBlight
33.2 Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
25
Tax
Requirement
50 years
Agency Board
Test Finance (TIF)
Community Red
Agency Board
Some limited involvement of
county and school districts
Blight Requirement, Public
Hearings, Impact Report to
County
25 to 50 years
depending on the
statute
O Bonds, Special
City Council, State
Feasibility Study, Creation of
Bonds must be
sessments, Special Revenue
Local Development Agency
repaid in 40 years.
nds
District
acts contain bond
City: 1984
Board/District,
Cities: Title
City 31 Chapter
Blight
6 Requirement
Tax Increment
(not required
Property
Not
specified
Tax,doesn't
PILOTs,
Southprovisions
Carolina School
Council,
County: County,
1999 (Sections
Each Affected
31-6-10 and
for Counties),
FinancePublic
(TIF) HearingsUtilityexpire.
revenues,
Taxing
following),
Title Requirement, "But For"Assessments,
O Bonds, Pay As You Go,
School Entity
Board/District,
CityCounties:Blight
30 years
31Delegated
Chapter 7by
(Sections
ans, Special Assessments,
Council, County,
Test, Feasibility Study, PublicRedevelopment Project
Revenues
y Pledge Any Other Assets
bond issuer 31-7-10 and following)
Hearings,Consistent with
Comprehensive Plan
O Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Special
Assessments,
Oans,
Bonds,
Private
Activity
South
DakotaDC
y Pledge
OtherLoans
Assets/Funds
venue
Bonds,
O Bonds, Pay As
You Go
Tennessee
y As You Go, Loans, Special
sessments
party to joint ag
County, State
City Council
Planning
1978Commission
Chapter 11-9
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
No
Revenue Bonds, Loans
Yes
Yes
Yes
TIF acts
Yes contain bondYes
provisions School Board/D
Council, County
Taxing Entity
Yes
Yes
But For Test, Cost-Benefit
In TIF agreement.
Analysis,
Blight
Requirement,
TaxFeasibility
IncrementStudy,
FeasibilityProperty
15 years
Tax
VariousFinance
Recommended
Criteria
Study
(TIF)
Blight Requirement
Tax Increment
Property
Limited
Taxin the
Finance (TIF) Public
redevelopment
Blight Requirement,
Bonds must be plan
Hearings
repaid between 7
and 40 years.
Yes
Yes
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds, Loans
GO Bonds,
Yes Pay As You
YesGo
Yes
Yes
y As You Go, Loans,
Texas Tax
rement Contract Bonds,
nicipal Bonds
City Council,
1983
Community
Chapter 311 of the "But For"
TaxTest,
Increment
Cost-Benefit Property
40 years
Tax, Sales Tax
RedevelopmentTexas
Agency
TaxBoard,
Code Analysis,
Finance
Feasibility
(TIF)/Tax
Study,
County
Public Hearings
Increment
Reinvestment Zone
(TIRZ)
Pay As
YesYou Go, Loans,
YesTax
Increment Contract Bonds,
Municipal Bonds
City Council, Co
Redevelopment
County
vate Activity Revenue
Utah Bonds,
y As You Go, Loans,
propriations
School
1968
Board/District,
Title 17C
City
Council, Community
Redevelopment Agency Board,
County, State
Private
YesActivity Revenue
YesBonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans,
Appropriations
School Board/D
Council, Comm
Redevelopment
County, State
TIF Commission,
1945
13-20-2
City Council,
County
Community Redevelopment
Agency Board
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property
Depends
Tax, Sales
upon Tax,
Economic
agreement
Activity Tax
Planning Comm
TIF Commissio
County
Appendix 35
Carolina General Commercial,
Financing general law
Statutes. Financing: Industrial,
Chapter 159 Article 6;
Mixed-Use
City Redevelopment:
160A-515.1; City and
County Development:
158-7.3
Oklahoma
– Texas1973
(cont’d)
Yes
Chapter 40-58
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
1976
Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
No
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial
Title 57. Chapter
No
5709,
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
revenues available to Referendum), Pay As You Go,
issuer including sales Appropriations
tax payments from
State, so long as not a
pledge of full faith and
credit of taxing party
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Special Assessment
Property
ThereTax
are other TIF
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Chapter
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
statutes that can be
Public
Public725, Chapter
1728
Industrial,
utilized in an urban
Hearings
Hearings
Mixed-Use
redevelopment context
Required for
Required for
Qualified
Eminent
TIF District
TIF Deal
Types of
Domain Use in addition to the
statutes
Authorization? Approval?
Projects
Allowed?
Special cited
Features
1992
Yes
Local Development
Yes
Act
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Property
Can be
Tax,
used
Sales
for Tax,
Title 62. Chapter 9. Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Other
educational
Local Taxes
buildings.
by
Section 850-869
Industrial,
Consent
Must produce
of Juris annual
Mixed-Use
report
Oregon
1960
Yes
No
Chapter 457
No
Pennsylvania
1990
Yes
Rhode Island
1956
Yes
1990, July
Yes
11, P.L. 465,
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Property Tax, Sales Tax, Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
No. 113, § 1
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Gross Receipts Tax,
Assessments, TIF Revenue
Industrial,
PILOTs, Any Ad Valorem Bonds
Mixed-Use
Tax
Chapter 45,
NoSection Residential,
33.2 Tax Increment
Yes
Property
45-33.2-18
Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Yes
Yes, but
20% of
TIF Annual
receipts
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
report.
NoAffordable
later than Revenue Bonds, Loans
cannot use
must go– to
Industrial
September
Industrial,
eminent
Housing 1 of each
year a project plan
Mixed-Use
domain to
acquire single- pursuant to this chapter
is in effect in a city or
family
town, the city or town
residences
shall make a report to
No
Residential,
Yes
the director of the
Commercial,
department of economic
Industrial,
development
Mixed-Use
Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Not specific,
Commercial,
Finance
all could
apply (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans,
Appropriations, Special
Assessments
Property
Tax statute.
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Very broad
Very few limitations or Revenue Bonds
clarifications on details
Yes
No
No
1978
Yes
No
Chapter 11-9
No
Tennessee
1945
Yes
Yes
13-20-2 No
No
Texas
1983
Yes
Chapter 311
No of the Residential,
Tax Increment
No, except Property Tax, Sales Tax
Texas Tax Code
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)/Tax
when
Industrial,
Incrementundertaken by
Mixed-Use
Reinvestment
the creating
Zone
(TIRZ)
jurisdiction
Utah
1968
Yes
Title 17CYes
South Carolina
South Dakota
36 Tax-Increment Financing
Commercial, Yes
Industrial
City:Yes
1984 Cities: Title
No31 Chapter
Residential,
6 Tax Increment
Yes, Unrelated
Property
Amendment
Tax, PILOTs,
in 2008
TIF acts contain bond provisions
County: 1999 (Sections 31-6-10 and
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
to TIF.
Utility
permits
revenues,
low income
following),No
Counties:Industrial,
Title
Eminent
Assessments,
housing to be financed.
Yes
Residential,
Yes
31 Chapter 7 (Sections
Mixed-Use
Redevelopment
All projects must
Project
be
Commercial, domain under
31-7-10 and following)
general law Revenues
publicly owned, except
Industrial,
low income housing
Mixed-Use
Residential,
No
Commercial,
Tax Increment
Yes
Industrial
Finance (TIF)
Mixed-Use
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Mixed-Use
Finance (TIF)
Residential,
No
Commercial,
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans
Property
Tennessee
Tax statute 7-88-GO Bonds, Pay As You Go
106 provides for sales
tax increment financing,
but only in the limited
context of "Tourism
Development Zones."
Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Increment Contract Bonds,
Municipal Bonds
Property
Heavily
Tax,
based
Sales
upon
Tax, Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Economic
taxing entity
Activity
approval
Tax asPay As You Go, Loans,
to the amount of TIF
Appropriations
available for financing
South Dakota
1978
Chapter 11-9
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Tennessee
1945
13-20-2
Chapter 311 of the
Texas Tax Code
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)/Tax
Increment
Reinvestment Zone
(TIRZ)
Property Tax, Sales Tax
State Statute
Title 17C 11-99-1, et.
Sections
seq.
Terminology
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Eligible Tax Revenue
Sources
Tax, Sales Tax,
Property Tax
Economic Activity Tax
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go
Planning Comm
Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Increment Contract Bonds,
Municipal Bonds
City Council, Co
Redevelopmen
County
Financing Options
Private
Activity
Revenue
Bonds,
GO
Bonds,
Private
Activity
Pay
As You
Go, Loans,
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay As You Go,
Appropriations
General
Funds
Approval Agen
School
Board/D
City
Council,
Co
Council, Comm
Redevelopmen
County, State
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay
As You Go,
GO
Bonds,
Private
Activity
Loans, Appropriations,
Revenue
Bonds, Loans,Special
Housing
Assessments
and
Urban Development Section
108
Financing Instruments,
State
Appropriations,
Redevelopment
of Vermont Revolving Loan
Bonds
Funds, Interfund Loans Within a
Municipality, United States
Department of Agriculture Loans
Pay As You Go, Tax Allocation
Bonds, Loans
Municipality
City Council, St
legislative body
TIF Commissio
County
Utah – Wyoming
Texas
Utah
Alabama
1983
Year
Authorized
1968
1987
Alaska
Vermont
2001
1985
Sec. 29.47.460
24 VSA Sections 18911901 and 32 VSA
Section 5404a(f)-(k)
Tax Increment
Finance
(TIF)
Tax
Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Property Tax, State
Education Property Tax
Arkansas
2001
§§ 14-168-301 et seq.
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, PILOTs
California
1952
California Community
Redevelopment Act
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Virginia
1988
58.1-3245 et seq.
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Governing body
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations
Colorado
1972
31-25-107-Urban
Tax Increment
Renewal authority, 31-25- Finance (TIF)
807-Downtown
development authority
Property Tax, Sales Tax
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Some limited in
county and sch
Property Tax,
Tax Sales Tax
(municipalities), Sales
Tax (state)
GO Bonds, Pay
As You Go
Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Council, Co
St
protection distri
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans,
Pay
As Special
You Go,Assessments,
Special
May Pledge Any
Other Assets
Assessments,
Revenue
Bonds
payable from taxes off of
increment
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
School Board/D
Council,
County
City
Council,
Co
bond issuer
Community Red
Agency Board
Washington
Connecticut
chapter 39.89
19722001
or prior Chapter
132 RCW;
chapter 39.102 RCW
Increment
Area,
Tax Increment
Revenue
Finance (TIF)
Development Area
City Council, To
Quorum Court o
Community Red
Agency Board
Delaware
West Virginia
2002
2002
Title 22 Municipalities,
Tax Increment
Chapter
Municipal
Finance
(TIF)
7-11B
or17
77-22-7
and 8- Tax
Increment
Tax Increment
38-7
(sales tax)Financing Finance (TIF)
Act
Property Tax, Allows
Pledge ofTax
Any Other
Property
Assets
District of
Columbia
1998
D.C. Code Section 21217.01 et seq.
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax, Sales Tax,
City Council
Catchall allows DC to
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
pledge other assets/funds May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Florida
1969
163.330-163.463
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments
Wisconsin
1975
s. 66.1105
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Joint Review Bo
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go
Wyoming
1983
Title 15, Chapter 9
Tax Increment
Finance (TIF)
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds
Planning Comm
Appendix 37
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
South
Dakota
Revenue Bonds, Loans
GO Bonds, Pay As
You Go
Tennessee
Planning
1978Commission
Chapter 11-9
Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementFeasibility
Property
15 years
Tax
Study Finance (TIF)
Blight Requirement
Tax Increment
Property
Limited
Tax in the
Finance (TIF)
redevelopment plan
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds, Loans
GO Bonds,
Yes Pay As You
YesGo
Planning C
City Council,
1983
Community
Chapter 311 of the "But For"
TaxTest,
Increment
Cost-Benefit Property
40 years
Tax, Sales Tax
RedevelopmentTexas
Agency
TaxBoard,
Code Analysis,
Finance
Feasibility
(TIF)/Tax
Study,
County
Public Increment
Hearings
Reinvestment Zone
(TIRZ) for District
Requirements
Max. Length of
Financing Options
Approval Agencies
Creation
District
Private
Activity
Revenue
Bonds, School
1968
Board/District,
Title 17C
City
Tax IncrementPublic Property
Depends
Tax, Sales
upon Tax,
Utah
GO Bonds,
Private
Activity
City Council,
County
Blight Requirement,
30 years
Pay
As You
Go, Loans,
Finance (TIF)
Economic
agreement
Activity Tax
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay As You Go, Council, Community
Hearings
Appropriations
Redevelopment Agency Board,
General Funds
County, State
Pay As
YesYou Go, Loans,
YesTax
Increment Contract Bonds,
Municipal Bonds
City Coun
Redevelop
County
TIF Commission,
1945
13-20-2
City Council,
County
TIF Comm
County
Utah – Wyoming (cont’d)
Pay As You Go, Texas
Loans, Tax
Increment Contract Bonds,
Municipal Bonds
GO Bonds, Private Activity
GO
Bonds,
Private
Activity
Revenue
Bonds,
Pay
As You Go,
Vermont
Revenue
Bonds, Loans,Special
Housing
Loans, Appropriations,
and
Urban Development Section
Assessments
108
Financing Instruments,
State
Appropriations,
Redevelopment
of
Vermont Revolving Loan
Bonds
Funds, Interfund Loans Within a
Municipality, United States
Department of Agriculture Loans
Pay As You Go, Tax Allocation
Bonds, Loans
Municipality
Blight Requirement
No limit
City Council,
1985
State,
24 VSA
Municipal
Sections 1891But ForTax
Test,
Increment
Feasibility Study,
Property
20 year
Tax,limitation
State on
legislative body1901 and 32 VSA Public Hearings,
Finance (TIF)
Location
Education
use ofProperty
tax revenue
Tax to
Section 5404a(f)-(k)criteria, public good outcome;
pay debt
nexus/prop
City Council, Town Council,
Blight Requirement, Feasibility
25 years
Quorum Court of the County
Study, Public Hearings
Community Redevelopment
Agency Board
Blight Requirement
50 years
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Governing
1988 body58.1-3245
of localityet seq. Blight Requirement,
Tax IncrementBlight helpful
Property
No specific
Tax
Virginia
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
but development
Finance (TIF)
needs generally timeframe
Loans, Appropriations
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Governing
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Loans, Appropriations
Some limited involvement of
county and school districts
GO Bonds, Pay
As
You Go
Washington
Special
Assessments, Special Revenue
Bonds
City Council,
2001
County,
chapterfire
39.89 RCW;
But
ForIncrement
Test,
Public
Area,
Hearings
None
Tax,
Sales
State
Feasibility
Study,
Creation
of Property
Bonds
must
be Tax
protection district
chapter 39.102 RCW
Revenue
Local Development
Agency
repaid in 40 years.
Development Area
District doesn't
expire.
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
Pay
As Special
You Go,Assessments,
Special
Loans,
West Virginia
Assessments,
Revenue
Bonds
May Pledge Any
Other Assets
payable from taxes off of
increment
GO Bonds, Pay As You Go,
School Board/District, City
Blight Requirement, "But For"
30 years
Yes
Yes
City
Council,
2002County,
County,
7-11B
State
or 77-22-7
But
8-For
Tax
Test,
Increment
Feasibility
Study,
Property
30 years
Tax from date
Pay As
YesYou Go, Special
Yes
Council,
Delegated
by and
Test,
Feasibility
Study, Public
Public
Hearings
Finance (TIF) with
of creation of district Assessments, Revenue Bonds
bond issuer 38-7 (sales tax)
Hearings,Consistent
payable from taxes off of
Comprehensive Plan
increment
City Council
But For Test, Cost-Benefit
In TIF agreement.
Yes
Yes
Pay As You Go, Loans, Special
Assessments
Community Redevelopment
Agency Board
Yes
Yes
GO Bonds,
Yes Pay As You
YesGo
City Coun
protection
City Coun
Analysis, Feasibility Study,
Various Recommended Criteria
Blight Requirement, Public
Hearings
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Joint 1975
Review Board,
s. 66.1105
City Council But ForTax
Test,
Increment
Cost-Benefit
Wisconsin
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go
Analysis,
Finance
Public(TIF)
Hearings
GO Bonds, Private
Activity
Wyoming
Revenue Bonds
25 to 50 years
depending on the
statute
School Bo
Council, C
Redevelop
County, S
Yes
Yes
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
City Coun
Revenue Bonds, Loans, Housing legislative
and Urban Development Section
108 Financing
Instruments,
Yes
Yes State
of Vermont Revolving Loan
Funds, Interfund Loans Within a
Municipality, United States
Department of Agriculture Loans
Yes
No
Loans, Appropriations, Special
Assessments, Revenue bonds
Loans, Special Assessments, DC
s May Pledge Other Assets/Funds
Blight Requirement, Public
Hearings, Impact Report to
County
Site Specific Area Wide TIF
TIF Allowed? Allowed?
Private
Yes
Activity Revenue
YesBonds,
Pay As You Go, Loans,
Appropriations
Bonds must be
repaid between 7
and 40 years.
Yes
Property
23-27
Tax
years,
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Joint Revi
depending on type of Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go
development
Planning
1983Commission
Title 15, Chapter 9 Blight Requirement,
Tax Increment"But For"Property
25 years
Tax
Test, Public
Finance
Hearings
(TIF)
38 Tax-Increment Financing
Yes
GO Bonds,
Yes Private Activity
Yes
Revenue Bonds
Planning C
South Dakota
1978
Yes
Chapter 11-9
No
Tennessee
1945
Yes
13-20-2 No
Commercial,
Tax Increment
Yes
Industrial
Finance (TIF)
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Mixed-Use
Finance (TIF)
Utah – Wyoming (cont’d)
Texas
Utah
Vermont
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds, Loans
Property
Tennessee
Tax statute 7-88-GO Bonds, Pay As You Go
106 provides for sales
tax increment financing,
but only in the limited
context of "Tourism
Development Zones."
1983
Yes
Chapter 311
No of the Residential,
Tax Increment
No, except Property Tax, Sales Tax Pay As You Go, Loans, Tax
Texas
Tax
Code
Commercial,
Finance
(TIF)/Tax
when
Increment Contract Bonds,
Public
Public
Industrial,
Incrementundertaken by
Municipal Bonds
Hearings
Hearings
Mixed-Use
Reinvestment
the
creating
Zone
Required for
Required for
Qualified
Eminent
(TIRZ)
jurisdiction
TIF District
TIF Deal
Types of
Domain Use
Authorization? Approval?
Projects
Allowed?
Special Features
1968
Title 17CYes
Tax Increment
Property
Heavily
Tax,
based
Sales
upon
Tax, Private Activity Revenue Bonds,
Yes
Residential,
Yes
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Economic
taxing entity
Activity
approval
Tax asPay As You Go, Loans,
to the amount of TIF
Appropriations
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
available for financing
No
1985
Yes
Yes
Yes
Virginia
Property Tax
1988
No
Yes
Washington
2001
Yes
West Virginia
Yes
2002
Yes
No
Yes
Wisconsin
1975
Yes
Wyoming
1983
Yes
No
Not specific,
Yes
24 VSA Sections
Yes
1891Residential,
Taxapply
Increment
Yes
all could
1901 and 32 VSA Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Section 5404a(f)-(k) Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Yes
Residential,
Yes
Very broad statute.
Property
Districts
Tax,
can
State
utilize or GO Bonds, Private Activity
Very few
limitations
Education
incremental
Property
municipal
Tax
Revenue Bonds, Loans, Housing
clarifications
on details
property tax and state and Urban Development Section
education property tax 108 Financing Instruments, State
revenue. Infrastructure of Vermont Revolving Loan
Commercial,
may be outside of TIF Funds, Interfund Loans Within a
Industrial,
District, but use of
Municipality, United States
Mixed-Use
revenue is subject to Department of Agriculture Loans
Yes
Residential,
Yes, but
20%
TIF receipts
nexusofand
Commercial, cannot use
must
go to Affordable
proportionality
tests
Industrial,
eminent
Housing
domain
58.1-3245Yes
et seq. Mixed-Use
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes, butto Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
acquire singleCommercial,
Finance (TIF)
eminent
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go,
family is for
Industrial,
domain
Loans, Appropriations
residences
Mixed-Use
public
purpose
not simply
No
Residential,
Yes
economic
Commercial,
development
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
chapter 39.89
No RCW;Residential,
IncrementNo
Area,
Property
Applicable
Tax, Sales
only toTax GO Bonds, Pay As You Go
Commercial,
Yes
chapter 39.102 RCWCommercial,
Revenue
property taxes not
Industrial
Industrial,
Development Area
approved by vote; or
Mixed-Use
taxes levied by State or
school districts
No
Residential,
Yes
7-11B or 77-22-7
No
and
Residential,
8- Tax Increment
Yes, Only to Property Tax
Pay As You Go, Special
Commercial,
38-7 (sales tax)
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
the extent that
Assessments, Revenue Bonds
Industrial,
Industrial,
eminent
payable from taxes off of
Mixed-Use
Mixed-Use
domain
is
increment
No
Residential,
No
Commercial, available for
any project.
Mixed-Use
No special
authorization
No
Residential,
No
for TIF
Commercial,
eminent
Industrial,
domain
Mixed-Use
s. 66.1105
Yes
Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Revenue Bonds, Pay As You Go
Industrial,
Mixed-Use
Title 15, Chapter
No
9 Residential,
Tax Increment
Yes
Commercial,
Finance (TIF)
Industrial
Property Tax
GO Bonds, Private Activity
Revenue Bonds
Planning Comm
TIF Commission
County
City Council, Co
Redevelopment
County
School Board/D
Council, Comm
Redevelopment
County, State
City Council, St
legislative body
Governing body
City Council, Co
protection distric
City Council, Co
Joint Review Bo
Planning Comm
Appendix 39
Notes
1 All details of the Cabela’s story from
Daniel McGraw, “Giving Away the Store
to Get a Store,” Reason, January 2006.
Weakening Enterprise Zone and Tax
Increment Financing Programs, August
2003.
2 David Merriman, Mark Skidmore,
and Russ Kashian, Do Wisconsin Tax
Increment Finance Districts Stimulate
Growth in Real Estate Values, October
2007.
9 Randall O’Toole, Cato Institute,
Crony Capitalism and Social Engineering:
The Case Against Tax Increment Financing,
18 May 2011.
3 Ben Joravsky and Mick Dumke,
“Shedding Light on the Shadow Budget,”
Chicago Reader, 10 December 2009.
4 Rachel Weber and Laura Goddeeris,
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Tax
Increment Financing: Process and Planning
Issues, 2007.
5 Larry Marks, “The Evolving Use of
TIF,” Review, Summer 2005.
6 Ibid.
7 Richard Briffault, “The Most
Popular Tool: Tax Increment Financing
and the Political Economy of Local
Government,” University of Chicago Law
Review, 77:65-95, 2010.
8 Alyssa Talanker and Kate Davis with
Greg Leroy, Good Jobs First, Straying
From Good Intentions: How States are
40 Tax-Increment Financing
10 Massachusetts Senate Post Audit and
Oversight Bureau, Policy Brief: Return
on Investment? Economic Development
Incentive Program Lacks Accountability,
December 2002.
11 Sarah Stecker, New Jersey Policy
Perspective, The Good, the Bad and the
ERGly, September 2010.
12 Polsky Associates LTD, A State By State
Look at TIF, downloaded from www.polskylaw.com/downloads/StateByStateTIFNumbers.pdf on 6 September 2011.
13 See note 4.
14 Ibid. Some states, such as Minnesota,
allow for the adjustment of the base
property valuation over time to reflect
inflation, but this is not the general rule.
15 For a more detailed discussion of the
various strategies available, see note 4, p. 19.
16 Indeed, residents of overlapping
jurisdictions may face higher taxes even
if a TIF is successful in drawing new
investment. To the extent that a TIF
development increases demands for
schools or other services provided by
overlapping entities – without providing
additional funding to pay for those
demands – the gap must be filled by
other taxpayers. For further discussion of
this, see George Lefcoe, “Competing for
the Next Hundred Million Americans:
The Uses and Abuses of Tax Increment
Financing,” Urban Lawyer, 43(2): 427-482,
Spring 2011.
17 Kenneth A. Kriz, “Tax Increment
Financing: Its Effect On Local
Government Finances,” CURA Reporter
(publication of the Center for Urban and
Regional Affairs), Summer 2003.
18 Patricia Nolan and Helene Berlin,
Neighborhood Capital Budget Group,
“NCBG’s TIF Study Shows that TIF is
Not Cost-Free” in PRAGmatics, Summer
2002.
19 Illinois Tax Increment Association,
About TIF, downloaded from www.illinois-tif.com/about_TIF.asp, 23 September
2011.
20 George Lefcoe, “Competing for
the Next Hundred Million Americans:
The Uses and Abuses of Tax Increment
Financing,” Urban Lawyer, 43(2): 427-482,
Spring 2011.
21 Rachel Weber and David Santacroce,
Good Jobs First and the University of
Illinois at Chicago Center for Urban
Economic Development, The Ideal Deal:
How Local Governments Can Get More
for Their Economic Development Dollar,
March 2007; and Greg LeRoy, The
Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax
Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation ( San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler, 2005). pp. 7273 and 117-118.
22 Greg LeRoy, “TIF, Greenfields,
and Sprawl: How an Incentive Created
to Alleviate Slums Has Come to
Subsidize Upscale Malls and New
Urbanist Developments,” Planning &
Environmental Law, 60(2): 3-11, February
2008.
23 Richard F. Dye and David F.
Merriman, The Effects of Tax Increment
Financing on Economic Development,
September 1999.
24 See note 8. The states that have
loosened their TIF laws include Alaska,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, Utah and
Virginia. 11 states—Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas
and Wisconsin—have loosened their laws
governing enterprise zones, or zones in
which businesses do not have to charge
sales tax.
25 See note 8.
26 Greg LeRoy and Sara Hinkley,
Good Jobs First, No More Secret Candy
Store: A Grassroots Guide to Investigating
Development Subsidies, March 2002.
27 Daniel McGraw, “Giving Away the
Store to Get a Store,” Reason, January
2006.
28 Todd Litman, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, Understanding Smart
Growth Savings: What We Know About
Public Infrastructure and Service Cost
Savings, and How They Are Misrepresented
by Critics, 17 June 2011.
29 “General obligation bonds”: Gary
L. Sullivan, Steven A. Johnson, and
Dennis L. Soden, Institute for Policy and
Economic Development, University of
Texas at El Paso, Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) Best Practices Study, 1 September
2002.
30 David A. Wilcox and David A.
Notes 41
Versel, Economics Research Associates,
Review of Best Practices for Tax Increment
Financing In the United States, 12 October
1999.
and Accountability, 23 August 2011.
31 See note 4.
38 John Locke Foundation, CommonSense TIF Reforms: Ways to Avoid Randy
Parton Theater-Like Debacles and Other
Disasters, 28 May 2008.
32 Ibid.
39 See note 29.
33 Ibid.
40 Rachel Weber and David Santacroce,
Good Jobs First and the University of
Illinois at Chicago Center for Urban
Economic Development, The Ideal Deal:
How Local Governments Can Get More for
Their Economic Development Dollar, March
2007
34 Craig Johnson, “The Use of Debt
in Tax In­crement Financing,” in Tax
Increment Financing and Economic
Development: Uses, Structures, and Im­
pact, ed. Craig Johnson and Joyce Man
(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2001), p. 74
35 See note 3.
36 Eric T. Nakajima and Robb Smith,
District Improvement Financing In
Massachusetts: A Report on Challenges and
Opportunities Based on the Redevelopment
Experience of Other States with Tax
Increment Finance, November 2004.
37 Chicago TIF Reform Panel, Findings
and Recommendations for Reforming the
Use of Tax Increment Financing in Chicago:
Creating Greater Efficiency, Transparency
42 Tax-Increment Financing
41 Minnesota: Minnesota Department
of Revenue, Auditor/Treasurer Manual,
Chapter 13, updated December 2010;
Massachusetts: Massachusetts Senate
Post Audit and Oversight Bureau, Policy
Brief: Return on Investment? Economic
Development Incentive Program Lacks
Accountability, December 2002.
42 Minnesota Department of Revenue,
Auditor/Treasurer Manual, Chapter 13,
updated December 2010.
Notes 43
44 Tax-Increment Financing