Tax Increment Financing for Transit Projects (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

40 TCRP LRD 55 TIFs, and Miami-Dade County secured its TIF after finding that “there exist limited transportation options and increasing traffic congestion within the SMART Plan rapid transit corri- dors;” and “the improvement of these transportation conditions through funding of rapid transit infrastructure improvements and operations is a proper matter of Miami-Dade County policy and concern and is a valid and desirable public purpose.”206 This explains the broad leeway that the county was able to give itself in allocating TIF revenues to transit as the Board of Commis- sioners deems necessary. Eligible Expenses Though the county ordinance is mostly intended to expand transit through new capital expenditures, the eligible expendi- tures section (Section 2-2365, Permitted Use of Funds) explic- itly says that TIF funds may be spent on “annual cost of opera- tions… [and] maintenance for the SMART Plan rapid transit corridor projects”, as well as “initial and replacement costs of the rolling stock” and “replacement capital costs and mainte- nance costs.”207 It remains to be seen whether or not funds will be used to pay for these expenses, especially given the demand for transit expansion in Miami-Dade County which may push the agency and the Board of Directors to use them on capital projects instead. However, the ability to use the TIF to pay for operations and maintenance is written into the ordinance. Bonds against TIF revenues are disbursed to Metrorail at the Board’s discretion, subject only to fairly broad rules for eligible expenses (“The Board must approve the amount, duration of the obligation and the purpose of any bond, note or other form of indebtedness, including advances, pledging or otherwise obli- gating the Tax Increment”). As such, when it comes to bonds, one cannot say for sure how future Boards will choose to man- age any bonds taken out on TIF funds, and how much negotia- tion Metrorail will need to do in order to secure bonds for capi- tal improvements. It remains unclear at this time, however, who has authority over non-bonded, pay-as-you-go TIF revenues, as the ordinance simply states that “Moneys in the Trust Fund may be expended from time to time” without clarifying who deter- mines the allocations.208 Political Issues The large land area included in the TIF district and the large amount of resulting tax revenue that Miami-Dade County voted to allot to transit may be attributed to years of frustration over the county’s underwhelming transit infrastructure despite years of largely-fruitless investment. A 2002 sales tax increase prom- ising a historic expansion of rail yielded, since then, three new miles of track connecting Metrorail to Miami International Airport.209 In 2016, the County approved Metrorail’s sweeping 206 Tax Increment Financing Transportation Infrastruc- ture, (2018), http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter =180059&file=true&yearFolder=Y2018. 207 Id. 208 Id. 209 Hanks, supra note 205. APPENDIX A: CASE STUDIES OF TIFS INVOLVING TRANSIT To illustrate how TIFs are currently used in ways that sup- port transit operations and maintenance, three case studies were researched in-depth to determine what problems the TIF was implemented to solve, what enabling legislation and political issues allowed its creation, and what takeaways can be applied to other cases. Relevant counter-examples were also gathered to illus trate why and how a certain usage of TIF might not be possible elsewhere. Case studies were identified by searching for TIFs that were used to support transit, partially with the help of other research that identified relevant case studies, and identifying TIFs that are or are not enabled to use proceeds on operations- and maintenance-related tasks. Conversations with subject matter experts also helped identify avenues of research. The TCRP advisory panel of experts, especially, pointed the re- searchers to look for TIFs that could indirectly support agencies through funding Transit Oriented Development; the Utah Transit Authority case study was identified with their help. When possible, telephone interviews were conducted with subject matter experts, providing the most in-depth informa- tion on how their TIFs were implemented and used. Email com- munication with a number of other experts and agency leads was also instructive. Supplementary research materials included government reports and legal documents, news reports, and ac- ademic research papers. A.I. Miami-Dade County Enables Transit Expansion and Operations with Massive TIF Background On February 6, 2018, the Miami-Dade County Commission passed an ordinance putting about one-third of the county’s area into a Transportation Infrastructure Improvement District. Intended to fund transit expansion projects under Metrorail’s Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Plan, an ambi- tious plan to improve rapid transit along six corridors and ex- press buses along several others,204 the TIF district is forecast to generate $1.8 billion for Metrorail over the district’s 30-year lifespan, covering part of the plan’s $6 billion cost.205 Enabling Legislation Florida has strong state-level support for TIF financing. Multiple Florida Supreme Court decisions have upheld TIF bonding, including for transportation expenses, as a valid use of local government power not requiring a popular referendum: see Strand v. Escambia, State v. Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency. Florida does not take a particularly restrictive attitude towards its local jurisdictions exercising the power to create 204 The SMART Plan, supra note 15. 205 Douglas Hanks, The county may have found $2 billion to extend Metrorail. But there’s a catch., Miami Herald, February 8, 2018, https:// www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/ article199010084.html.

TCRP LRD 55 41 support transit is not as straightforward when the transit agency is neither a taxing agency itself, nor directly operated by one, as in this case. Whereas most TIFs supporting transit involve bonding against tax revenue to support upfront capital expenses, the Miami-Dade County TIF is by default a pay-as-you-go TIF. (However, it also allows for the possibility of future bonds at the Board of Commissioners’ discretion.) The TIF’s basic structure dictates that the county will pay into the fund on a yearly basis as it receives ad valorem tax revenue, but may choose to issue bonds for upfront expenses. The pay-as-you-go structure may be more conducive to paying for operations and maintenance than for onetime capital expenditures: whereas capital expen- ditures typically require large, lumpy expenditures and long- term repayment streams, which generally require bond issu- ance, operational and maintenance expenditures generally need annuity-type steady revenue sources, which match the stable year-by-year income to a pay-as-you-go TIF. TIF for Streetcar in Portland Allows Only Localized Infrastructure Investments Whereas Miami-Dade County wrote the possibility into its ordinance of spending TIF funds on maintenance and op- erations, state statute in Oregon prevents TIF spending on any- thing other than capital expenditures to alleviate blight. Hence, when the city of Portland used TIF financing to help pay for es- tablishing the Portland Streetcar, all TIF revenues had to pay for building the streetcar lines only, never operating and maintain- ing them. Furthermore, while Miami-Dade County also autho- rized possible spending on rolling stock as well as rolling stock replacement costs, capital expenditures in Oregon TIFs must be strictly localized within the district itself, and since street- car vehicles travel both within and outside of the districts, they are an ineligible use of funds.216 This counter-example demon- strates how the character of state regulation of TIFs can affect the possibility of spending TIF revenues on transit operations and maintenance. Neighboring California likewise expressly prohibits spending TIF revenues on maintenance, routine repairs, and operations, with the only allowable expenditures being planning, acquisi- 216 Page et al., supra note 26. SMART Plan, intended to develop six new transit corridors with rail and Bus Rapid Transit, but the $6 billion cost has left the government searching for new revenue sources.210 The TIF is intended to meet about one-third of the cost.211 Likely the largest political issue surrounding the TIF district’s implementation, however, was concern over revenue-sharing. The TIF captures increases in property tax revenues that would otherwise flow to the general fund which pays for police, educa- tion, parks, and other services; it was widely acknowledged that capturing these revenues for transit might have repercussions for funding these essential County needs. News coverage of the TIF indicates a that some County Commissioners hesitated to vote for the TIF for this reason,212 as well as a statement by County Mayor Carlos Gimenez expressing concern about the diversion.213 Commissioners and the County Mayor also expressed concern that the growth in property tax values may not result without other institutional changes, such as rezoning, that will provide for denser development to occur. The tax increment is therefore partially dependent on future political decisions to manifest its full potential.214 Concern has been expressed that tax increments ought not be contributed to the general fund be- fore transit infrastructure plans are actually finalized, as transit corridors without a clear and certain plan are unlikely to spur development and justify diverting taxes.215 Key Takeaways Metrorail is operated by Miami-Dade County rather than being an independent agency, the latter of which is most com- mon among transit agencies nationwide. Its case demonstrates that it is easier for a transit agency to increase its tax revenues when it’s part of a taxing entity, rather than having to coordinate with a separate governmental body to earn its tax allocations. As will be seen in other case studies, establishing TIF districts to 210 The SMART Plan, supra note 15. 211 Carlos Gimenez, Fiscal Impact and Social Equity Statement for the Proposed Transportation Infrastructure Improvement District (2018), http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/legistarfiles/Matters/ Y2017/172663.pdf. 212 Hanks, supra note 205. 213 Gimenez, supra note 211. 214 Hanks, supra note 205. 215 Gimenez, supra note 211. Agency Interviewee(s) Date Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Paul Drake, TOD Project Manager Kevin Leo, TOD Project Specialist 2019-03-05 Prince George’s County, Maryland Tom Hiller, Consultant, Office of the County Executive David Iannucci, President/CEO of Economic Development Corporation 2019-04-11 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Andy Scott, WMATA Real Estate 2019-04-19

42 TCRP LRD 55 tures will repair and improve the existing line, they are projected to save a fortune on ongoing maintenance costs.223 Enabling Legislation Illinois state law was not always receptive to using TIF for supporting transit projects. Illinois enabling legislation focused the tool on spurring economic development, and, like many TIF statutes nationwide, required that the taxing agency show that a proposed TIF district suffers from blight. Several areas along the CTA Red and Purple Line are among the wealthiest in Chicago, and could not be considered blighted. However, as the need for transit reinvestment was recognized, state legislators successfully passed an amendment to the TIF enabling statue in 2016, which specifically allows TIFs to be used for capital investment in transit projects. These new transit TIFs, unlike regular TIFs, do not require a finding of blight.224 This state law amendment enabling transit TIFs is project- specific: the TIFs are only to be established in the city of Chicago, and the planned projects that are eligible for transit TIFs are mentioned by name in the law. They include two rail reinvest- ment projects in Chicago, the Red and Purple Modernization and the future Blue Line Modernization (and possible Exten- sion), and one rail expansion project, the Red Line Extension.225 Eligible Expenses The state law specifically allows spending on “financing the development, expansion or rehabilitation of new or exist- ing transit passenger stations; transit maintenance, storage or service facilities; and rights-of-way for use in providing transit (together, known as ‘Transit Facilities’).”226 Allocating funds directly toward transit operations and maintenance is not allowed, but capital improvements that enable better operations and maintenance are eligible. Political Issues TIFs have acquired something of a questionable reputation in Chicago where they are frequently used, in part due to diver- sion of revenues from schools and other taxing bodies,227 and in part because their actual benefits for economic development have come under scrutiny, as public funds have been allocated to private projects of dubious value to the city.228 However, in constructing the state law amendment, the transit TIFs man- aged to avoid these issues. The revenue-sharing concern with overlapping jurisdictions was addressed by ensuring that rev- 223 Red and Purple Modernization Phase One Project Redevelop- ment Project Area: Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Plan and Project, supra note 81. 224 S.B. 2562, (2016), http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/SB/PDF/ 09900SB2562lv.pdf. 225 Steven Vance, Transit TIF Districts Pass State House and Senate, Would Fund CTA Projects, Streetsblog Chicago (2016), https://chi. streetsblog.org/2016/06/30/transit-tif-districts-pass-state-house-and- senate-would-fund-major-cta-projects/. 226 S.B. 2562, supra note 224. 227 Podgers, supra note 222. 228 The Good TIF, supra note 195. tion, construction, and rehabilitation costs.217 TIFs are particu- larly controversial in California, its birthplace, due to concerns regarding oversight and revenue-sharing with other recipients such as school districts.218 Though TIFs are still allowed, all Re- development Agencies, the structural bodies that had governed TIFs since their invention in 1945, were dissolved in 2011, re- placed by more limited financing mechanisms called Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) and Community Re- vitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs).219 A.II. Chicago Uses TIF to Reinvest in Aging Transit Infrastructure Background The Chicago Transit Authority’s (CTA) aging Red and Purple lines, which run on the same tracks and together comprise a vital transportation artery of the city’s North Side, are suffer- ing from increasing delays and breakdowns from mechanical problems, as well as congestion due to increased ridership. To modernize the system for the 21st century, the CTA’s Red and Purple Modernization program seeks to rebuild tracks, improve signaling, renovate stations, and construct a large overpass to remove the congestion problem at the major rail junction at Belmont station.220 The improvements are projected to extend the lifespan of the line by 60 years and increase passenger capac- ity by 30%.221 In general, it is difficult to make the case that reinvesting in an existing transit line, as opposed to building an entirely new one, adds value to surrounding properties – skeptics ask, how much amenity will faster and more reliable service really add?222 However, Chicago – a frequent user of TIF as a tool for economic development – managed to seal the deal with its Red and Purple Modernization TIF. With a lifespan of 34 years, the TIF covers a broad swatch of the North Side within a half-mile straight-line distance of the tracks (excluding areas already in different TIFs) and is easily the city’s largest. The TIF does not directly provide for ongoing revenue to the CTA, as it funds ex- clusively capital improvements, but since the onetime expendi- 217 Aaron Laurel & James Hamill, Primer on California’s New Tax Increment Financing Tools 8 (2017), https://www. cacities. org/Resources-Documents/Policy-Advocacy-Section/Hot-Issues/ New-Tax-Increment-Tools/CALED-TIF-Primer-3-17-FINAL.aspx. 218 Lefcoe and Swenson, supra note 203. 219 Laurel and Hamill, supra note 217. 220 Red and Purple Modernization Phase One Project Redevelop- ment Project Area: Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Plan and Project, (2016), https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/ tif/RPM_RDP.pdf. 221 The good TIF, supra note 195. 222 Michael Podgers, Some Skepticism, Lots of Support for Funding Red Line Work With Transit TIF, Streetsblog Chicago (2016), https://chi.streetsblog.org/2016/09/15/some-skepticism-lots-of- support-for-funding-red-line-work-with-transit-tif/.

TCRP LRD 55 43 the many jurisdictions through which MBTA rail lines run.233 234 A bill was filed in the Massachusetts General Assembly in 2016 to create Supplemental Infrastructure Finance for Transporta- tion (SIFT) districts, by which the Massachusetts Department of Transportation would have been able to collect tax increments from participating jurisdictions and pool them into a fund for the MBTA, thus placing much of a transit line into a single co- ordinated TIF. If passed, the bill would have made TIF revenues available for, among other things, repair of existing transporta- tion infrastructure. However, the bill failed to pass the Senate.235 A.III. TIFs to Spur Joint Development and Boost Ridership in Prince George’s County Background The Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Author- ity (WMATA) has a well-established joint development pro- gram, in which agency-owned land near stations, most of which was initially acquired in order to be used as commuter parking lots, can be leased to private entities to build transit-oriented developments. WMATA currently leases over 60 acres of land to private developers and has plans to further expand its joint development projects. This case study highlights how Prince George’s County, one of the jurisdictions in WMATA’s service area, uses TIF to enhance the transit agency’s joint development efforts and, in turn, stimulate ridership growth. Through its joint development program, WMATA has part- nered with developers to build on over 30 sites surrounding Metrorail stations. In this way, WMATA gains income from ground leases, as well as increased ongoing revenue from in- creased use of their transit services. As will be shown, WMATA prizes these lease revenues, as they are some of the few steady, ongoing revenue sources the agency earns that are entirely with- in its control. WMATA is not a taxing authority, such that securing rev- enue requires negotiation with taxing governments – a situation greatly complicated by the fact that the service area includes not only multiple local jurisdictions, but three state-level jurisdic- tions as well, namely Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. This difficult situation explains why, until as recently as March 2018, WMATA did not even have a dedicated, guar- anteed funding stream from those state-level jurisdictions, who for decades were unable to come to an agreement on the matter. The 2018 intergovernmental agreement that gives WMATA re- liable funding has been hailed as a triumph of political collabo- ration, though the years of deferred maintenance, owing in part 233 Allison Nemirow, Expanding the Use of Value Capture for Transportation and TOD in Massachusetts (2017), http:// w w w . m a p c . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 7 / 0 9 / MAPCValueCaptureExecSumm.pdf. 234 Eric Bourassa, (2019). 235 An Act Relative to Transportation Infrastructure Value Capture, (2016), https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/ H4094. enues would be distributed to those jurisdictions in the same proportion due to each jurisdiction if the TIF did not exist: spe- cifically, the school district (Chicago Public Schools) receives the same revenue allocation as if the TIF did not exist, and 20% of the TIF fund is set aside for all the other jurisdictions and dis- bursed in the proportions they would receive if the TIF did not exist.229 Better clarity and protections against misuse, including safeguards against the city “porting” revenue between separate TIF districts, led the Chicago Tribune, normally a skeptic of TIFs, to pen an editorial calling it “the good TIF.”230 Doubters remained: some questioned whether TIFs were the best or most transparent mechanism to fund the Red and Purple Modernization. Others – crucially – doubted that line improvements would be enough of an amenity to justify using tax increments from properties outside the immediate physical area surrounding the upgrade work. CTA planners, however, re- sponded that faster and more reliable service would benefit the entire transit line. For the most part, however, public support for the TIF was strong.231 One political aspect of this case that sped the implementation of the TIF was the rush to fund the Red and Purple Moderniza- tion and gain matching federal funds before President Obama left office and policies were liable to change. The national-level political circumstances certainly lent urgency to the drive to es- tablish the TIF.232 Key Takeaways Reinvestment in aging transit infrastructure can be sold as a value proposition, adding tangible value to areas already served by existing transit. If service improvements can plausibly be shown to benefit the area along an entire transit line, then the case can plausibly be made that properties not adjacent to the physical worksites ought to be included in a TIF district to pay for them. State legislation may need to be changed to allow transit- specific TIFs. Language in state law that may prevent TIFs from being used to support transit include Illinois’ language that demands a finding of blight, a situation also seen in Oregon. The amount of political will necessary to change state law may require canny coalition-building on the part of an agency and those who support its mission. Value Capture in the Boston Stymied by Difficulty Coordinating Jurisdictions Chicago TIFs were established within only one local jurisdic- tion: the city of Chicago. Although the Boston area has also con- sidered using value capture to reinvest in the aging rail lines of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), plan- ners have so far been stymied by the difficulty of coordinating 229 S.B. 2562, supra note 224. 230 The Good TIF, supra note 195. 231 Podgers, supra note 222. 232 The Good TIF, supra note 195.

44 TCRP LRD 55 The way that Prince George’s County uses its TIF pro- ceeds supports WMATA indirectly, by attracting developers to joint development sites surrounding Metro rail stations in the County. Prince George’s County is in the eastern half of the Washington metro region, which, relative to the western half, has more poverty and attracts less growth and investment, so that market demand for intensive development is not as strong.241 Developers seeking to build transit-oriented develop- ments on WMATA-owned land may benefit from county funds that make the development more financially feasible, paying for infrastructure improvements such as parking structures and utility relocation that would otherwise fall to the developer. Hence TIFs can bolster WMATA’s joint development program, which in turn bolsters the agency’s ability to generate lease and fare revenue to support system maintenance and operations.242 WMATA, in particular, has been focusing more on generating ongoing revenues instead of one-time dividends, such that they have been prioritizing projects that generate more ridership and fares over those that gain the agency the highest upfront revenues.243 Political Issues The political case for investing in transit-oriented develop- ment is a fairly clear-cut one. From the transit agency perspec- tive, WMATA benefits from developing its property, earning more revenue from ground leases than it did when the land was a paid commuter parking lot, and increasing ridership.244 From the local jurisdiction perspective, Prince George’s County benefits from attracting business investment and, in the long term at least, from putting formerly tax-exempt WMATA land (due to its ownership by a public agency) onto the tax rolls with productive private development.245 Still, the county and tran- sit agency do not always have the same goals; for example, the county might be geared exclusively toward attracting employ- ers, more so than supporting increased transit ridership.246 Re- gardless, Prince George’s County has expressed a goal to build better places to attract companies and government bureaus who don’t want a bland suburban campus. With good agree- ment on the underlying political issues, there is good commu- nication and collaboration between the County and WMATA on which stations should be developed with transit-oriented developments.247 248 The process of establishing a TIF takes time, and is used only sparingly in Prince George’s County, with nearly all TIF districts 241 A Region Divided: The State of Growth in Greater Washington, D.C., (1999), https://www.brookings.edu/research/ a-region-divided-the-state-of-growth-in-greater-washington-d-c/ (last visited Sep 30, 2019). 242 Scott, supra note 237. 243 Himler and Iannucci, supra note 238. 244 Scott, supra note 237. 245 Himler and Iannucci, supra note 238. 246 Scott, supra note 237. 247 Himler and Iannucci, supra note 238. 248 Scott, supra note 237. to the previous funding shortfall, have left WMATA with a spate of challenges to address to maintain a state of good repair.236 Since the 2018 agreement focuses on capital funds, WMATA, although glad to receive a more steady revenue stream, is also on the lookout for ways to boost its maintenance and operations income, and joint development is a key tool in its toolbox.237 When WMATA solicits development on their land, they collab- orate closely with local governments to select the best locations and spur development. Sometimes, this collaboration involves TIF districts that local governments use to attract developers to otherwise less-feasible locations, thus indirectly supporting WMATA’s ongoing revenue needs. Prince George’s County, Maryland, immediately east of the District of Columbia, has a few such TIFs in progress. Enabling Legislation Maryland TIF enabling legislation, like most states’, delegates the authority to issue TIFs to local governments, which in Prince George’s County refers to the Economic Development Corpora- tion in conjunction with the Office of the County Executive.238 Special regulations apply to Maryland-specific programs for economic development, including development districts (simi- lar to Special Assessment Districts), RISE zones (development areas usually surrounding higher education institutions), and sustainable communities (revitalization for existing older com- munities in need of state investment).239 Prince George’s County, being the second-most-populous of Maryland’s 24 counties and county-level equivalents, is men- tioned by name several times in the law, allowing specific con- ditions to apply to Prince George’s, such as the ability to spend proceeds on convention centers. Eligible Expenses Maryland legislation enabling TIFs allows revenues to be spent on infrastructure for economic development. Eligible expenses include property acquisition, utility installation, and construction of roads and parking garages.240 No specific men- tion of transit is mentioned, though a reading of Section 12-207, Application of Proceeds, indicates that spending on transit- related capital infrastructure would not be barred, though direct spending on maintenance and operations is likely a grey area. 236 Robert McCartney, Metro gets third and final ‘yes’ as Maryland commits to its full share of dedicated funding, Washington Post, March 22, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ trafficandcommuting/ metro-gets-3rd-and-final-yes-as-maryland-commits-to-its-full-share- of-dedicated-funding/2018/03/22/ecd63946-2dfa-11e8-8ad6- fbc50284fce8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.22c907c674d1. 237 Andrew Scott, (2019). 238 Tom Himler & David Iannucci, (2019). 239 2016 Maryland Code Economic Development Division II - Independent and Regional Development Units and Resources Title 12 - Local Development Authorities and Resources Sub- title 2 - Tax Increment Financing Act, (2016), https://law.justia. com/codes/maryland/2016/economic-development/division-ii/title- 12/subtitle-2. 240 Id.

TCRP LRD 55 45 could cause them legal troubles.254 Utah’s state legislature could improve UTA’s joint development program by hearing the con- cerns of anxious developers and amending the law to provide them more certainty. 254 Paul Drake & Kevin Leo, (2019). either currently existing or in development occurring near tran- sit stations as described in this case study. When WMATA solic- its private development on its land, the County’s Economic De- velopment Corporation may pre-approve a TIF district to show serious intent to attract potential developers, but the TIF and any associated bonds are still subject to approval by the County Council. Some TIF districts have been in development for the better part of a decade after WMATA put out solicitations seek- ing private development on their land, pre-approved but await- ing finalization and Council approval for bonding.249 Prince George’s County has made it clear that their TIF rev- enues are unlikely to ever go directly toward Metro service,250 and the Maryland TIF enabling statute currently prevents TIF funds from being disbursed in this way.251 Key Takeaways When a transit agency is not a taxing entity, it’s difficult to get taxing entities to create TIFs that directly put money into the agency’s operations and maintenance. Loudoun County, Virginia, has passed a Special Assessment District that feeds into Metro expansion and maintenance, which is similar, but so far, no examples exist of TIFs that directly support WMATA operations. However, through the tool of joint development, agencies can bank land and leverage it to create taxable value for local governments. Thus, agencies can convince local governments to capture this value with TIFs, fund transit-oriented develop- ments and the infrastructure improvements they need, and thus indirectly support agencies’ ongoing revenue growth. Utah Has Transit-friendly Enabling Statute, but TIF Use is Not Yet Common Utah’s state legislature, taking a page out of Texas’ playbook, passed a law in 2018 enabling Tax Increment Financing and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones in support of transit-oriented development.252 Like WMATA, the Utah Transit Authority uses joint development to support TODs, with construction ongoing on former park-and-ride lots surrounding several TRAX light rail stations.253 No TIFs are currently being used to build supporting infra- structure, however, and so far, the vague state-level language en- abling them tends to scare away developers more than it attracts them. Interviews suggest that some developers may fear that any potential reinterpretation or clarification of the TIF statute 249 Himler and Iannucci, supra note 238. 250 Id. 251 2016 Maryland Code Economic Development Division II - Independent and Regional Development Units and Resources Title 12 - Local Development Authorities and Resources Sub- title 2 - Tax Increment Financing Act, supra note 100. 252 Kurt P. Gassner, Transportation Governance Amend- ments (2018), https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0136.html. 253 Transit-Oriented Development Policies and Procedures, (2017), https://www.rideuta.com/-/media/Files/Doing-Business/TOD/ 2019/TOD_Policy_and_Procedures2019xx.ashx.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was performed under the overall guidance of TCRP Project Committee J-5. The Committee is chaired by Sheryl King Benford, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Cleveland, Ohio. Members are Rolf G. Asphaung, Consultant, Denver, Colorado; Jayme Blakesley, Hayes Godfrey Bell, P.C., Holladay, Utah; Darrell Brown, Consultant, New Orleans, Louisiana; Robert I. Brownstein, AECOM, Greater New York Area; April Greenhouse, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston, Texas; James P. LaRusch, Raul V. Bravo +Associates, Inc., Reston, Virginia; Teresa J. Moore, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Pompano Beach, Florida; Elizabeth M. O’Neill, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, Georgia; Robin M. Reitzes, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, California; Bryon T. Smith, Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell, Washington, D.C.; James S. Thiel, Madison, Wisconsin; and Alan S. Zimmet, Tampa, Florida. Bonnie Graves provides liaison with the Federal Transit Administration; Linda Ford provides liaison with APTA; Dan Smith serves as the liaison with the Amalgamated Transit Union; Sheryl Gross-Glaser provides liaison with Community Transportation Association of America; Robert Shea provides liaison with TRB’s Technical Activities Division, and Gwen Chisholm Smith represents the TCRP staff.

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Subscriber Categories: Public Transportation • Law • Finance These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP). Persons wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001.