Tax increment finance (TIF) districts are the subject of a lot of public misunderstanding. In order to increase transparency about TIF districts, redevelopment commissions in Indiana were recently given some requirements for increased public reporting on the impacts of tax increment finance (TIF) districts on other units of local government. In the short 2018 special session, the Indiana General Assembly passed House Enrolled Act 1242, which, among other things, required that:
Each redevelopment commission shall annually present information for the governing bodies of all taxing units that have territory within an allocation area of the redevelopment commission. The presentation shall be made at a meeting of the redevelopment commission and must include the following:
(1) The commission’s budget with respect to allocated property tax proceeds. (2) The long term plans for the allocation area. (3) The impact on each of the taxing units.
HEA 1242 of Special Session 1 of 2018
Remember that TIF districts “capture” any growth in the assessed value of real property within the district and use it to support infrastructure in the district, rather than being used to lower the tax rates of the underlying taxing units that serve the district. These taxing units refer to other units of government, such as cities and towns, county, township, public library, etc., that have territory that overlaps a TIF district, and may have to provide services to the development within the district.
Monroe County currently has 4 TIF districts: Westside, Fullerton Pike, State Road 46 (also sometimes referred to as North Park), and Curry-Profile (which consists of two parcels of the former GE plant purchased by Cook and moved out of the Westside district into a newly created TIF).
This past Wednesday, the Monroe County Redevelopment Commission hosted the first annual public presentation of this information, in fulfillment of the statute. All taxing units were invited to attend. I’m including a link to the presentation that was given (by Financial Solutions Group) here, because it provides a good overview of the status of current and future projects, debt, and overall cash flow of each of Monroe County’s TIF districts, as well as their impact on other taxing units. The presenter acknowledged that this was the first report for Monroe County of this kind, and that the data will be improved and presented in more detail in future years.
In brief, the presentation outlined the following types of (positive) impacts that the underlying units of government see from the TIF districts (in greatly varying degrees):
Personal Property: TIF districts typically capture only the grown of assessed value of real property (buildings and structures), not personal property (equipment used in producing income). However, factories and other businesses typically employ a lot of personal property as well (machines, IT equipment, etc.). So the assessed value of the personal property does accrue to the other taxing units, and thereby goes to reduce their tax rates
Circuit Breaker: Due to the aforementioned growth in personal property typically associated with growth in TIF districts, the tax rates are slightly lower than they would have been, and therefore the circuit breakers (constitutional tax caps) are slightly lower, leading to a bit more revenue for the other taxing units. Note that this effect, while positive, is generally quite small.
Income Tax: With employment associated with growth in TIF districts comes local income tax (LIT), which benefits all taxing districts. Note that this income tax only goes to Monroe County taxing units if the employee earning the wages lives in Monroe County.
The presentation to the Redevelopment Commission is also available on CATS.
I want to mention a big caveat, though. There is a big omission in this type of analysis, and that is the additional costs to the other units of government caused by development in the TIF districts. To understand the impact of these costs would require a case-by-case assessment. For example, the impact on the Monroe County Public Library by the industrial development in the Westside TIF is negligible/zero. On the other hand, the same development puts significant additional responsibilities on the Ellettsville Fire Department (which serves Richland Township, by contract). A more comprehensive understanding of the impact of TIF on other governmental units needs to take these additional costs into account.
Note: in the presentation above, the Curry-Profile Allocation Area is referred to as the Cook Allocation Area. While Cook is the sole property owner in the TIF district, the official name is Curry-Profile.
Note: This version of the posting has been revised to address some questions from an early reader.
The last stage of the process of splitting off two parcels from an existing Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district and creating a new TIF district to support the planned Cook Group redevelopment of the shuttered General Electric property in the County’s Westside Economic Development Area has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 4:30PM in the Nat U. Hill Meeting Room at the Monroe County Courthouse. This meeting of the Monroe County Redevelopment Commission (RDC) will include a public hearing, followed by an anticipated vote on resolutions creating the new TIF district and pledging any TIF revenues from the new area towards paying the bonds for the redevelopment.
This public hearing culminates a series of actions that began with the RDC passing an initial resolution on January 17, 2018 that stated its intention to pull the two parcels of the GE plant purchased by Cook Group out of the County’s Westside Economic Development Area (WEDA), sometimes referred to as the Richland TIF, and create a new TIF district (referred to as an allocation area in the documents) consisting solely of these two properties. Since then, the Monroe County Plan Commission and the County Commissioners have both approved this action. On February 13, 2018, the Monroe County Council approved the issuance of $6.2M in economic development bonds to support the redevelopment project.
The following map shows the proposed new TIF allocation area. The purple shaded area illustrates the City of Bloomington’s incorporated area. On October 18, 2017, Cook Group and the City of Bloomington signed an agreement for Cook to pay the City of Bloomington $100K per year for 15 years in order to avoid annexation by the City. The new TIF district would last for 25 years. Note that this proposal does not actually increase the number of parcels in Monroe County in a TIF district — it simply splits off two parcels from the Westside Economic Development Area and creates an independent allocation area out of the two.
The RDC’s stated purpose for the creation of the new TIF allocation area, from Exhibit B in the resolution is:
Site clean-up and preparation; paving of parking lots; hardscape and soft-scape landscaping including streetscape improvements, curbs and sidewalks; site access improvements; and exterior building improvements. The estimated cost of the entire redevelopment project is $125 million, and the Commission’s contribution to these costs will be based on what may be financed from the new tax increment revenues derived from the project.
Based on representations of the Companies, the Commission has determined that the development will not proceed as planned without the contribution of tax increment revenues to be derived from the Cook Allocation Area to the projects described above.
Essentially, Cook is estimating the cost of the redevelopment of the sprawling factory at around $125M. The County is providing $6.2M in bond funds towards this effort to support streetscape, access, sidewalk and walking trail, and exterior building improvements to what has become a blighted area of the County’s westside — all improvements that will benefit the public as well as Cook.
The sole source of repayment of these bonds will be the additional property taxes generated from this new TIF district (the so-called “increment” in Tax Increment Finance) resulting from Cook’s redevelopment efforts. This includes both real property and personal property (equipment). Further, the bonds have been structured so that Cook (or a related business entity) will purchase the bonds, meaning that the risk of any shortfall in revenue would be borne by Cook, not the County taxpayers. Once the bonds have been paid off, any additional revenues can be spent on improvements in this new district or in the larger Westside Economic Development Area.
If you really want to get into the weeds of the estimated revenues and payments from this proposed TIF district, you can see the analysis performed by the County’s financial analyst Financial Solutions Group, Inc.
One of the questions that has come up from a reader of a previous edition of this posting is why to create a separate TIF allocation area at all — why isn’t the existing Westside Economic Development Area adequate? The answer is that creating a separate single-taxpayer TIF district constrains the risk of the project. First of all, if by some chance the developer is unable to generate the required revenues to pay the bond (unlikely, but is within our due care duty to prevent against) it is only they who will suffer. The rest of the taxpayers of the westside TIF will not have to make up the difference (or have to shift resources out of other important westside projects). Secondly, if the project were funded out of the Westside, then the revenues (increment) from the rest of the Westside TIF would need to be pledged for repayment of these bonds as well. The need was to have the revenues from Cook’s investment and only those revenues pledged for repayment. The structure of an independent allocation area provides both of those protections.
In my view, this project represents a generational opportunity to redevelop a blighted and abandoned factory and allow it to return to providing jobs for Monroe County residents (Cook is pledging at least 500 new jobs from the project), and also represents an effective and responsible use of tax increment finance to improve the well-being of Monroe County residents.
This public hearing gives you an opportunity to make your thoughts known about this project to the Redevelopment Commission. Please come on Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 4:30PM in the Nat U. Hill Meeting Room at the Monroe County Courthouse.
This Tuesday’s regular session of the Monroe County Council (2016-03-08 5:30 PM in the Nat U Hill Room) will feature several important topics, including a first reading for a tax abatement application for the 3D Stone mill at 6700 S Victor Pike and appropriation of grant funding for the County’s Futures Family Planning Clinic. The full packet for the meeting is available here: Council_Packet_20160308.
The Council will be hearing the first reading (of two) for a personal property tax abatement application from Lily and Kurt Sendek (doing business as L & K Real Estate Investments) for an expansion of their 3D Stone business at 6700 S Victor Pike, in southern Monroe County.
The property is shown below. Note that the property crosses Victor Pike, and includes a parcel that a proposed County greenway (going along the Illinois Central rail line) goes through.
The site currently has 44 full-time employees. The owners are proposing to add a second production shift to the business, which will add approximately 32 new full-time permanent positions, ranging in starting wages from $11 (General Labor) per hour to $20 (Stone Cutter) per hour, plus a supervisor at $25 per hour. Benefits include employee profit-sharing plan and health/dental/vision insurance. The abatement application in the council packet (Council_Packet_20160308) provides more details on positions, wages, and benefits.
The owners are requesting the tax abatement only on personal property (i.e., business equipment) — on the approximately $800,000 in equipment they propose to purchase for the business expansion (including CNC cutting equipment, saws, forklifts, and IT production management system).
Here is a picture of the business. Note that the red lines are caused by an error in the county’s GIS.
The County Council will be hearing this tax abatement application for the first reading. It has already been reviewed and received a favorable recommendation by the Monroe County Economic Development Commission (EDC). If the County Council votes in favor of this tax abatement at the meeting, a public hearing will be conducted and the Council will take a final vote (“confirmatory resolution”) on the abatement.
Other items up for discussion at the meeting include:
The Health Department is requesting the appropriation of funding (as well as creation of budget lines and other housekeeping) for the County’s Futures Family Planning Clinic from Title V, Title X, and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)
The Legal Department is requesting the appropriation of $40,000 in fees that the county attorneys are allowed to receive in penalties and fees collected from delinquent personal property taxpayers. County attorneys are able to supplement their regular salary by working off-the-clock to collect unpaid personal property taxes. The amount they receive is on top of the taxes actually collected on behalf of the county, so the county does not lose any tax revenue.
The Probation Department is requesting the appropriation of $50,000 in grant funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), which supports alternatives to incarcerating youth.
The Veterans Affairs department is requesting an additional appropriation of $41,503, primarily because the county’s Veterans Service Officer position was reclassified and upgraded to full time after the 2016 budget had been set. In addition, $5000 of new training funding is being requested.
As always, the meeting is open to the public, and will be held this Tuesday evening (March 8, 2016) at 5:30 in the Nat U Hill room of the Monroe County Courthouse, and it will be broadcast on CATS. Public comment will be taken. Hope to see you there!
The Indy Star published an interesting and balanced article today on the Indianapolis Convention Center, its expansion over time (there is a great interactive infographic on its expansions since 1972 at the end of the article), and its effects on tourism and visitation in Indianapolis.
The article makes the case that the Convention Center has largely been effective, and kept Indianapolis highly competitive as a second-tier destination, bringing in the desired revenue and visitation into the city.
However, at the same time, the article points out some of the long term challenges. First, convention center expansion in itself is a very expensive arms race — just as Indianapolis invests in expansion, its competitor cities are doing the same thing, and competing over essentially the same visitors. Second, the article points out some challenges more specific to Indianapolis. Indy is perceived as a bland Midwestern city — friendly, walkable, but not very exciting. It doesn’t have many natural assets, and those that it does have (the White River, for example) are very difficult to capitalize on. And of course, RFRA has harmed the state’s reputation and had some effect on convention business.
One thing that the article never addresses is the benefits and costs that the Convention Center and tourism in general has on residents. I have never seen good statistics (anywhere, not just with respect to Indianapolis) on how much tourism taxes (lodging, car rental, ticket taxes, and food and beverage) cost residents (vs. visitors). Clearly lodging and car rental taxes are paid primarily by visitors (although they are also indirectly paid for by businesses whose employees and consultants travel to Indianapolis). But what about food and beverage taxes? How much new revenue do they actually bring in, and how much goes to local residents?
The Monroe County Council will be considering an application for a tax abatement at its work session tonight, 2015-12-22, the only item on the agenda. The packet is available here: Council_Work_Session_Packet_20151222
Tax Abatement Application Facts
Here are the basic facts about the tax abatement application:
The applicant is RSSJ Rentals, AKA Robert (Bobby) Scank, local restaurateur (Bobby’s Colorado Steakhouse), who plans to build a 3600 sf building. The application that the building will cost approximately $300,000 — however, Mr. Scank told the Economic Development Commission (EDC) that the cost will be closer to $425,000 (since the tax abatement is tied to the investment, the value of the abatement would scale accordingly).
The tenant will be Shoshone Trucking, based in Peru, IN. Shoshone will use the property for truck storage, vehicle maintenance, materials storage, and an office. The company currently has 12 employees, and plans to expand to 20 when they are able to move into the building
The jobs to be added are truck drivers, with a starting wage of $21.10/hour plus benefits.
The property is 5260 W Vernal Pike. A map is included below. This property is within the county’s Westside Economic Development Area (TIF District). This means that the costs of and benefits of this take abatement will both accrue to the TIF district, not to the other units of government that service this parcel. This also has implications as to the process (which I’ll discuss below).
The property is zoned Light Industrial, with no zoning changes required for this usage.
Mr. Scank reported that he had a 5-year lease with Shoshone Trucking, with 2 2-year options. For this reason, he is applying for a 5-year tax abatement (this is shorter than the more typical 10 years). As with all tax abatements, the percentage of new assessed value as a result of the investment that is abated declines throughout the life of the abatement.
For example, for a 5-year abatement, the first year 100% of the new assessed value is abated, in the second year 80%, down to only 20% in the fifth year. After the term of the abatement, 100% of the new assessed value is taxed.
This abatement application is unusually small in scale compared to our typical tax abatement applications. Most of our abatements come in the form of much bigger investments (i.e., bigger buildings); this project is similar in scale and scope to the abatement that the Council granted for Eco Logic in 2014.
All tax abatement applications in the unincorporated county (which this is go to the Monroe County Economic Development Commission (EDC) for review, analysis, and recommendation to the County Council. The EDC met last Thursday, 2015-12-17, and voted 3-0 to recommend in favor of the 10-year abatement (the abatement request has subsequently been reduced to 5 years).
All tax abatement applications require two votes by the County Council: what is called a “declaratory resolution” and a “confirmatory resolution”. Tonight will be the declaratory resolution. If the vote is in favor of the abatement tonight, then the Council will schedule the confirmatory review and vote at their 2016-01-12 regular meeting.
In addition, however, because this abatement request is in a TIF district, the Monroe County Redevelopment Commission and the Board of Commissioners (as the legislative body that created the Redevelopment Commission) also are required to approve the abatement request. The RDC’s review of the tax abatement application is restricted to consideration of whether the granting of the tax abatement would jeopardize the Westside TIF’s ability to meet its bond obligations. Since the investment that is associated with this tax abatement will increase the revenue to the TIF district and the overall value of the investment is very small in proportion to the overall value of the TIF district, it would be very difficult for the RDC to find that the abatement would jeopardize the ability to make bond payments. In any case, the RDC met on 2015-12-17 and found that the abatement would not jeopardize the Westside TIF’s ability to meet its bond obligations.
The County Commissioners’ review will be scheduled for their regular meeting on Friday, 2016-01-08 (assuming the Council approves the declaratory resolution tonight).
Finally, as a matter of practice, the County Council always requires a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the recipient of the abatement. This MOU constitutes a binding contract between Monroe County and the recipient of a tax abatement, and specifies in detail the terms of the abatement, including the timeline for the creation of any proposed jobs, criteria for substantial compliance with the terms of the abatement, and any remedies (“clawbacks”) for noncompliance. This MOU would be considered at the same time as the confirmatory resolution.
In summary, here are the relevant dates:
Review by Economic Development Commission: 2015-12-17 (Completed)
Review by Redevelopment Commission: 2015-12-17 (Completed)
First Review by County Council: 2015-12-22
Review by County Commissioners: 2016-01-08 (tentative, if first review by the County Council is successful)
Second Review by County Council: 2016-01-12 (tentative, if first review by the County Council is successful)
The property is currently assessed at $62,300 and pays approximately $1080 in property tax per year. The following table summarizes the value of the investment and the 5-year abatement, over a 10 year period. I used estimated tax rates provided by the Assessor’s Office — and made the assumption that neither the property value nor the tax rates would change during the 10-year period.
There are two numbers that matter most in the analysis of the abatement. The first is the total of the column “Estimated Revenue Not Received”, $21,412. This is essentially the value of the abatement to the property owner over a 10-year period, and is also the revenue forgone as a result of the abatement, assuming the investment went on as planned, without the abatement.
The second number is the total of the Additional Taxes Paid from Investment column, $49,962, which is the estimate of the additional amount of taxes over the status quo that would be brought in as a result of the investment.
These two numbers really can be seen as reflecting the two different sides of the abatement: the tax revenue forgone (assuming the investment goes ahead) and the additional tax revenue generated by the investment.
In addition, it is useful to look at the two columns labeled Cumulative Without Improvements and Cumulative With Improvements. In particular, these numbers show that even WITH the abatement, the property will be generating more revenue by the second year of the abatement than it would have without the investment.
Tax Abatement within a TIF District Critique
So besides the usual criticisms of tax abatements in general (in my opinion the most salient being that the literature shows that tax abatements have a minimal impact on a business’s decision to make an investment), this abatement is subject to another critique — that it is a tax abatement within a TIF district. Indiana is one of the few (not the only — at least Iowa and Missouri also permit them) state that permits tax abatements within TIF districts, so overall this is a relatively rare and not-well-studied situation.
I’ve heard this critique take 2 different forms, which can actually be seen as diametrically opposed:
A tax abatement in a TIF district is “double-dipping”, as it combines two economic development incentives
A tax abatement in a TIF creates two economic development incentives working against each other, because the purpose of the TIF district is to capture revenue from development in the district, and a tax abatement diminishes the amount of revenue for capture
I reject double-dipping argument, at least in the general case. Tax abatements and TIF districts are often lumped together in public discourse as similar economic development incentives. However, they are really very different. While a tax abatement is clearly an economic development incentive that works to the benefit of an individual business/investor by reducing the amount of new taxes paid by the business, the TIF district serves to provide infrastructure that makes particular parcels of land broadly develop-able. Any business that is going to expand or site at a particular location will generally only do so if there is existing infrastructure.
So the benefit to an individual business owner of being in a TIF district is simply having access to land with infrastructure. But this is not a particular benefit beyond any other land that has infrastructure that is outside a TIF district. The benefit of a TIF district accrues more directly to the unit of government that created the TIF district — the ability to raise revenue to put in infrastructure to support employment.
Incidentally, I’m not saying that double-dipping couldn’t occur in a specific case. A redevelopment commission could choose to invest in or provide some other sort of direct assistance to a particular property (other than providing publicly-available infrastructure) and then also allow a tax abatement on the same property. However, this is not the case here, and in general.
The second argument — that a tax abatement in a TIF creates two economic development incentives working against each other, because the purpose of the TIF district is to capture revenue from development in the district, and a tax abatement diminishes the amount of revenue for capture — does have some merit — but this merit has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. First, we have to start from the premise that the goal of the TIF district is not to accumulate as much revenue as possible, but to provide overall benefits to the community. These benefits can include redevelopment of blighted/brownfield land, amenities that improve the quality of life of residents of the community, and employment available to local residents (in urbanized areas, providing housing is an additional potential benefit of a TIF district).
The revenue captured by a TIF district is simply a means to the above purpose(s), in that the revenue allows for the investment in the infrastructure (in particular, pays the bond that created the infrastructure). So in the case of a tax abatement within a TIF, the abatement would only work at cross-purposes with the goals of the TIF district if it impaired the ability of the TIF district to invest in the infrastructure necessary to meet its goals. This could mean impairing its ability to make debt service payments, but could also mean impairing its abilities to make other infrastructural improvements that aren’t funded through debt.
So as long as the abatement does not impair the ability of the TIF district to make the necessary investments to meet its goals, it does not work at cross-purposes to the TIF district. Again, making this determination requires looking at the specific case. Is the abatement relatively large compared to the overall cash flow of the TIF district, such that it could materially affect that cash flow? Is the TIF district putting in special infrastructure or other incentives specifically to serve this property? Does the project necessitate special services or greatly increased demands on government? If the answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, then the abatement could be seen as working at cross-purposes with the TIF district; if not, though, the abatement can be seen as working in concert with the TIF district. If the abatement plays a role in incentivizing the investment (again, it is not a given that this happens), then the abatement can increase, not decrease, the revenue available to make investments in the TIF.
And finally, even if you take an entirely negative view of tax abatements — in effect, see them as harming all of the other taxpayers — the taxpayers that are harmed in the case of a tax abatement within a TIF district — are only the other property owners (businesses) in the TIF district. So even if you take a categorical stance against tax abatements, having the tax abatement in a TIF district actually mitigates the harm done to the other taxpayers AND units of government.
Council Meeting Tonight
The Council will take the first vote on this tax abatement application tonight. As always, the meeting is open to the public, and will be held this evening (December 22, 2015) at 5:30 in the Nat U Hill room of the Monroe County Courthouse, and it will be broadcast on CATS. Public comment will be taken on this tax abatement application. Hope to see you there!
In an effort that appears to have flown completely under the radar, the US Army Corps of Engineers (ASACE) — the owners of our only water supply, Monroe Lake — is in the process of updating the Monroe Lake Master Plan. This is the first master plan update since 1967!
The USACE has hired the engineering firm Woolpert to produce the master plan. I’m attaching the draft plan, as of December 3: MLMP December 3, 2015. Woolpert is contracted to deliver a revised draft of the master plan on January 15, 2016, which will incorporate the public comment received during the planning process.
In order to receive public input, the USACE has an open house planned for December 15 (tomorrow) from 3-7PM in the conference room at the Middle Wabash Area Office at Monroe Lake at 1620 East Monroe Dam Ct. The public will be able to view the planning efforts so far and make input to the plan.
Overall, the draft master plan appears pretty complementary to the needs of our residents in Monroe County. The draft plan is long, but the most salient section is 5.0 Resource Use Objectives. In short, the objectives are:
5.1 Flood Control
5.2 Water Supply for the City of Bloomington
5.3 Provide Low Water Augmentation to Salt Creek Drainage Area
5.4 Provide Opportunities for Recreational Use of Land and Water
5.5 Protect and Preserve Natural Resources and Habitats
These objectives seem to preclude (or at least prejudice) a water claim from Indianapolis. I’m also glad to see the “Water Supply for the City of Bloomington” objective listed above the “Provide Opportunities for Recreational Use of Land and Water” objective, even though there is no explicit ranking among the objectives.
However, there WAS one line that opened my eyes, on page 3-3:
“The city of Bloomington withdraws an average of 15 million gallons per day through the Monroe Water Treatment Plant from Monroe Lake. This withdrawal can increase to as much as 23 million gallons per day during warmer months (Bloomington, Lake Monroe). Eight rural water companies (Jones, Diagnostic Study) account for additional water draws from the reservoir. Indianapolis reserves the right to withdraw water in the future, but currently does not do so. [emphasis mine]”
The plan does not elaborate. It does not specify under what authority Indianapolis reserves a right to withdraw water, and it does not specify any process or legal authority for adjudicating any claim if and when Indianapolis might assert one.
I plan to be there, and I hope others who want to make sure that our community’s interests in Monroe Lake are included in this plan. I will also report back on additional means through which to provide public input as soon as I learn more tomorrow.
This Tuesday, I had the opportunity to attend the Bloomington Life Sciences Partnership‘s Annual Summit, highlighting the state of the life sciences industry in Bloomington. The event featured an introduction by Dr. Sengyong Lee, the chair of the Ivy Tech Biotechnology Department, along with a panel discussion among representatives of 3 Bloomington life sciences companies of very different sizes: Dan Peterson from Cook Group (approximately 4700 employees in the Monroe County area), Susan Easton from Baxter BioPharma Solutions (approximately 800 employees in the Monroe County Area), and John Morris from Morris Innovative (a startup with 6 employees). The panel was moderated by George Telthorst, the Director of the Center for the Business of Life Sciences at the IU Kelley School of Business.
The panelists highlighted the drivers affecting their businesses, including customers, local supplier networks, workforce, and regulatory issues. They also discussed workforce issues, and highlighted the large number of jobs that are currently available and unfilled, as well as the opportunities for promotion. Workforce issues came up multiple times in the conversation. One comment that I found particularly interesting was that students coming out of high school do not necessarily think of life sciences as a choice for employment; that students often think of life sciences employment as being only for scientists and engineers, when in reality the majority of employees work in a manufacturing/production environment.
The life sciences industry is clearly of strategic importance for Monroe County, employing more than 4000 local residents in medical device manufacturing and 1750 in biopharmaceuticals (Source: http://bloomingtonlifesciences.com/workforce/data/). And local government needs to be engaged with the regional significance of the industry. The Indiana Biosciences Research Institute (IBRI) in Indianapolis — the anchor of a proposed major tech-centered development on the south side of Indianapolis, aims to bridge the gap between university-based research and corporate research in the life sciences, and represents a major strategic opportunity for Monroe County and central Indiana.
One of the most exciting aspects of this summit, however, was the opportunity to highlight the summit’s venue — the Indiana Center for Life Sciences (ICLS). Operated by Ivy Tech, the ICLS is a state-of-the-art workforce development facility located in Monroe County’s Westside Economic Development Area. In addition to lab and classroom space, the ICLS includes a voluminous 5000 square foot training facility, which allows local life sciences companies to conduct training in a simulated production facility. The real advantage of the ICLS training facility is that it allows companies to conduct realistic training that they could not easily conduct in their own “clean room” facilities.
The ICLS was created in 2007 through a strategic partnership between Monroe County Government and Ivy Tech, that included a $5M investment in the facility by the Monroe County Redevelopment Commission. This investment was funded through Redevelopment District Bonds (2007 Series), with a principal of $5M, and paid by property tax revenues in the Westside Economic Development Area tax increment finance district. The debt is scheduled to be retired in 2024.
Thus far, the ICLS has been a story of successful local government investment in strategic economic development, and has become a valued facility in the local life sciences industry, bringing in millions in additional investment and grant funding.