FDDA & Tax Increment Financing
Use the pause to reassess results, compare business cases, and explore alternative revenue streams and funding methods.
The pause in the Firestone Downtown Development Authority (FDDA) and tax increment financing (TIF) approach is an opportunity to reassess what has worked and explore alternative revenue streams and funding methods. I would compare the options using consistent portfolio criteria for combined financial, functional, and community value, considering their financial effects across the whole town. The review should distinguish additional revenue created from existing revenue redirected, and examine costs, obligations, risks, and measurable public benefits.
Each proposed investment and funding approach should have a business case that compares its expected value, costs, risks, obligations, and alternatives. Those business cases should explain why continuing, modifying, or replacing an arrangement offers the strongest combined value. The evidence should support an explicit decision to proceed, pause, or cancel. This reassessment should also examine alternative revenue streams that could offer sustainable value without increasing residents’ tax or fee burden.
Questions I’m Working Through
- What do the business cases show about the value, costs, risks, and results of the FDDA/TIF approach compared with other funding methods?
- What alternative revenue streams could Firestone develop, and which offer the strongest sustainable value without increasing residents’ tax or fee burden?
More detail
Identify the need and compare the available tools
The review should identify the problem being addressed and why public participation is needed. FDDA, FURA, and tax increment financing have different roles that should be clearly explained in each proposal. Ordinary town funding, developer contributions, grants, partnerships, and performance-based reimbursement should be compared with authority-based arrangements by their combined value, costs, complexity, and risks.
Explain where revenue comes from and where it goes
Residents should be able to understand the revenue supporting an arrangement, how much is expected, where it is directed, and for how long. The business case should distinguish additional revenue created from existing revenue redirected, including effects on the town and other affected taxing entities. Public contributions, administration, financing, infrastructure, and continuing obligations should be included in the full cost.
Revalidate the project and test the downside
Before selecting the next approach, I want the current authority status, contracts, funds, assets, and remaining obligations confirmed. Changes to the project, partners, or facility mix should trigger an updated business case. The review should test slower development, lower revenue, higher costs, delays, and partner nonperformance, identifying what remains payable and who carries the risk. Any borrowing should meet the criteria established in my fiscal position.
Make governance and the end of the arrangement clear
Membership, appointments, quorum, conflicts, records, and reporting should support reliable decisions through turnover. Agreements should establish responsibilities, milestones, approval of significant changes, and remedies when commitments are missed. They should also explain how the arrangement ends and what happens to remaining funds, assets, contracts, records, and ongoing responsibilities.
Measure the public value actually delivered
Actual private investment, completed improvements, revenue, reimbursements, and resident benefits should be compared with the assumptions used to approve public participation. Significant differences should be explained and inform corrective action. The evidence should support a clear decision to continue, modify, replace, pause, or cancel an arrangement, with lessons applied to future funding decisions.