A proposed tax increment financing district in the county has stalled again after a disagreement over the map’s boundaries in the Greenwood area.
The Johnson County Redevelopment Commission was poised to vote on an updated map at a meeting Monday. The Interstate 65 TIF district — one of two firsts for the county — has been stalled since April, when the mayors of Franklin and Greenwood called on the county to rethink its size and impact on the cities. A separate Interstate 69 TIF district was approved earlier this year.
The purpose of the TIF districts is to spur development in specific unincorporated areas of Johnson County. Taxes collected from commercial or industrial developments in the TIF district would remain in the district to be used for infrastructure improvements. TIF districts open the door to tax breaks and other incentives for developers.
Clark Township residents spoke against the new map during the meeting, calling for a return to the old map. Redevelopment commission member R. Lee Money called for a hybrid approach that would keep new boundaries near Franklin and Whiteland intact, but roll back boundaries near Greenwood to give the county control of development east of the city.
The new map presented Monday reduced the size of the I-65 TIF district substantially, and was carefully negotiated with city and town leaders, officials said.
Previously, the map included all of Clark Township, areas of Pleasant Township around Tracy Road, Emerson Avenue and Combs Road, and unincorporated areas east and south of Franklin.
[embeddoc url=”http://www.dailyjournal.net/wp-content/files/sites/9/2021/09/RevisedTifFranklinCounty-1.pdf” download=”all”]
It was scaled down to included unincorporated areas near Earlywood Drive in Franklin, including the area east of Hurricane Creek to County Road 700 East. The TIF district runs north along I-65 to Whiteland, where it is drawn around every parcel of unincorporated land between I-65 and U.S. 31 near the town, and stretches east of I-65.
East of Greenwood, there would be space between the city limits and the county’s proposed TIF district, with western boundaries at Nay Road, Matthews Road and Franklin Road, and an eastern boundary at Harvey Road.
Franklin Mayor Steve Barnett and Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers are pleased with the revised map. Both cities would have room to grow and development plans already in the works would not be interrupted, they said.
For Franklin, potential collaboration with the county could come in handy, considering the city’s desire for a new I-65 interchange at Earlywood Drive. It would create a stronger case for the interchange because it would facilitate travel between growing areas along I-65, Barnett said.
Whiteland Town Manager Kevin McGinnis was not happy with the boundaries which, if approved as is, would landlock the town. Nearly all remaining developable land around Whiteland is included in the proposed TIF district. The town would be largely limited to industrial and logistics projects that are already under construction between Whiteland Road and Tracy Road and on Paul Hand Boulevard.
Before the public had a chance to comment on the proposal, redevelopment commission members underscored that while public support for the district is appreciated, it will not stop development. There might be a slight delay to bring utilities to the area, but development will continue under the county’s jurisdiction.
Most public comments centered around the Greenwood area of the proposed TIF district. The city has not heard their pleas to stop moving eastward, or to restrict eastward development to estate homes like theirs, they said.
“We are not against development. We are against the type of development that the city of Greenwood is bringing out there,” said Michael Benefield, a Clark Township resident.
Benefield presented a petition in support of the county’s TIF district and against annexations by Greenwood to the redevelopment commission. It was signed by about 50 people.
Money, who served for 15 years on the Greenwood redevelopment commission, said Greenwood’s record of development shows they will not work with the county on development. He advocated reverting to the original map because the county would lose out on revenue for at least 20 years until the area — now further east from the city than it was on the old map — begins to develop, he said.
If the county were in charge of developing areas east of Greenwood, the process would be more fair for Clark-Pleasant schools and better for nearby residents, Money said.
“You’re really doing nothing to generate TIF funds for the county, for police, for county services and for infrastructure in that area. I understand Greenwood says they are in talks with people about that area, but not one time has someone told us in talks with who,” he said.
Myers was unable to attend the meeting, but spoke with the Daily Journal afterward.
If the redevelopment commission reverts to the old map, it would be less favorable for the city and rural Clark Township residents. The area would take longer to develop, and developers may not be attracted to the county as they are the city due to lack of utility service, Myers said.
Greenwood’s plan right now is to bring multi-family housing and high-end single-family homes to the area. Homes developed after an annexation into Greenwood would be subject to more stringent design requirements than if the homes were built in unincorporated Johnson County. More details about the developments that are in progress have not been released because the city is unable to publicly share those details at this time, per non-disclosure agreements, he said.
The proposed I-65 TIF district was, again, tabled until the next redevelopment commission meeting Oct 18.
At the next meeting, two maps will be presented. The map that was presented Monday, and a map that rolls back boundaries around Greenwood, per Money’s request.
If the TIF district is approved by the county redevelopment commission at its next meeting, it would then be forwarded to the Johnson County Board of Commissioners for consideration. All three county commissioners are on the redevelopment commission.
If the commissioners approve the map, it would be sent back to the redevelopment commission for final approval.
