Agenda - 10-19-2004-7b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 Is PDF Different ~DF and TIF differ in that TIF projects are regarded as being applied more From Tax- narrowly than PDF Historically, TIF projects are limited to urban city centers in Increment an effort to redevelop a blighted area located within an inner city. In contrast, Financing? PDF projects will be used throughout the state and are geared more towards new " " redevelopment , Some critics economic development projects as opposed to believe that proponentr are making use of the term PDF, as distinct from TIF, in order to avoid the perceived negativity associated with the word "tax". This view is bolstered by the fact that the most noticeable difference in the legislation between the failed 1982 constitutional amendment and the current version is that the phrase "tax-increment" has been removed. Prior TIF Currently, North Carolina's constitution prohibits the issuance of this form of Proposals Have debt without voter approval; and state law requires voter approval to change Failed the Constitution. As a result, the General Assembly has passed legislation concerning self-financing bonds three times. The prior two referenda were resoundingly defeated at the polls, On July 29, 1982, voters defeated the amendment on a vote of 182,147 for to 810,565 against, or 77..5 percent On November 2, 1993, the amendment was again soundly defeated by a vote of 176,762 for to 651,190 against, with 72..8 percent of voters against the proposal.. In fact, the 1993 amendment passed in only one of North Carolina's 100 counties. Hertford county passed the amendment by 21 votes. Ballot Language (proponents of the latest self-financing bond package assert several reasons for Edited for 1 the previous two failures at the, polls, The two most cited explanations for Success? failure are that vo'ter's fear projects will lead to tax increases and second, that due to the complexity of the projects, voters did not receive adequate information to fully understand the advantages associated with TIF. Proponents have sought to respond to these perceptions in the expansion of language that will appear on the 2004 ballot Specifically, the ballot language is more detailed both in explaining how the project can be financed and in providing a greater explanation of self-financing bonds, Interestingly, in comparison fo the earlier versions, the language is less clear in explaining that voter approval is not required to issue the bonds. The 2004 ballot language will read: [ ]For [ ]Against Constitutional amendment to promote local economic and community development projects by (i) permitting the General Assembly to enact general laws giving counties, cities, and towns the power to finance public improvements associated with qualified private economic and community irnprovementr within development districts, as long as the financing is secured by the additional tax revenues resulting from the enhanced property value within the development district and is not secured by a pledge of the local government's faith and credit or general referendum; and (ii) permitting the owners of property in the property, which is binding on future owners as long as the development district is in existence. In comparison, the 1993 ballot read: [ ]For [ ]Against Constitutional amendment permitting the General Assembly to enact general laws permitting issuance of bonds without a referendum to finance public projects associated with private industrial and commercial economic development projects, with the bonds to be secured in whole or in part by NC BIIGGET H[ TA% CENTER ~ BTC REPORTS 3