(01-13-2015 01:21 PM)George CantStandYa Wrote: (01-13-2015 01:08 PM)tigerjeb Wrote: the main thing that would worry me is taxing cooper-young & overton square(depressing investment in one of the few growing areas inside the city limits) in order to help developers later on. if commercial redevelopment of some small portions of the fairgrounds isnt viable enough for that to happen out of their pockets, then it shouldnt happen. if they are looking to raise money to just tear down the coliseum, then the city should just cowboy up and do it and not put the onus on cooper-young/overton square only.
i would keep a weather eye on letting developers carve up the fairgrounds. they put out a plan one time that only left a parking garage to service the Liberty Bowl Stadium. imagine cars for 60000 people trying to get out of one garage.
Not saying it is a good or bad plan, but your worry is misplaced. A TDZ does NOT tax a district. It is a tax designation. Our state sales tax is 9.25%, 2.25% of which is the local option. The other 7% is the state portion, under normal circumstances the state portion flows to Nashville to be spent by Nashville. Under a TDZ, the 7% remains in the municipality BUT it can only be used on "qualified projects within the TDZ area". The application lists the qualified projects but beyond the Liberty Bowl, and repayment of the City for Tiger Lane, I can not provide a comprehensive list. The issue for Cooper Young and Overton Square is their revenue is pretty obviously the hedge if retail sales at the new site do not work out. But do you want to capture that areas growth and confine it to those qualified projects? How does that mathematically come out when you factor in the 7% you would retain from the State? The idea of a TDZ at the fairgrounds is not a bad one, this particular plan is somewhat of a gamble. But most of the info you get is amazingly biased. Either from Lipscomb's people or Henry Turley's people (the con side ie Taylor berger). A personal preference is for the University to present a TDZ plan that utilized the fairgrounds for their master plan. It would mean back to the drawing board, but ok...
Also, The Coliseum is not salvageable unless someone wants to spend OCS type money.
So is the issue of diversion of education funding a strawman? If the TDZ is wise for the taxpayer, I'd support it.
Edit: Within that 7% of state taxes would be expenditures that would theoretically go to that district for other purposes (assuming a number of things, but it's undeniable a certain portion, if not all of it, would otherwise return as part of state expenses). Is that the education they are concerned about? That the district will lose state funding for other projects or needs that parts if not all of that 7% would pay for? I don't think the districts would receive $0 of that 7% without a TDZ to recoup it. Maybe I'm over thinking it.
Edit 2: "When Shelby County Commissioner Steve Basar questioned Lipscomb about the point at a Cooper-Young Community Association meeting in October, Lipscomb was adamant that the only sales tax revenue pulled in would be revenue that would otherwise go to state government for possible distribution to other parts of the state.
Lipscomb repeated that several times as Basar said county attorneys had told him otherwise.
“None of that’s true,” Lipscomb said.
Shelby County Finance Director Mike Swift followed the exchange that same month by saying “In the existing TDZ today, it covers both the state sales tax and the local option sales tax. Half of that, off the top, goes to schools. Therefore there would be a reduction in what goes to schools.”" (
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/201...ds-zone/).
I'm not sure if there has been clarity, as a bystander on the sidelines, I'm kind of stuck in the middle. Attorneys mention one thing to the county, and Lipscomb says differently... Maybe Lipscomb's right, but maybe not...