National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: APPENDIX B
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX C ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23068.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX C ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23068.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX C ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23068.
×
Page 35

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.

33 APPENDIX C Summary Table: Tax Increment Financing State Statutes State Duration Enabling Statute Alabama 30 years per district; Tax Incre- ment Districts Code of Alabama 11-99.1 et seq. Alaska None specified; Improvement Area Projects Alaska Statutes 29.47.460. Arizona None Arkansas 25 years per district Community Redevelopment, Ar- kansas Code 14-168-301 et seq. California 30 years (plus up to 15-year extension) Community Redevelopment Law, California Code 33000 et seq. Colorado 25 years per project to fund bonds Urban Renewal Law, Colorado Revised Statutes, 31-25-101 et seq. Connecticut As determined by CT Develop- ment Authority Tax Incremental Financing Pro- gram, Title 8, Chapter 130, § 8-124 et seq. Delaware 30-year bond issuance Municipal Tax Increment Fi- nancing Act, 22-1701 et seq. District of Columbia Per project area Tax Increment Financing, § 2-1217.01 et seq. Georgia Dissolve by resolution of council and no debt Redevelopment Powers Law, 36-44-1 et seq. Hawaii Dissolve as established by ordi- nance Tax Increment Financing Act, 46-101 et seq. Florida 40 years from adoption of rede- velopment plan Community Redevelopment Act, 163.330 et seq. Idaho 24 years Local Economic Development Act, § 50-2901 et seq. Illinois 23 years per district Tax Increment Allocation Rede- velopment Act, 65 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/11- 74.4-1 et seq. Kansas 20 years Kansas Revised Statutes 12-1770 et seq. Indiana 30 years Indiana Code 36-7-14 et seq. Iowa 20 years per district Urban Renewal Law, Iowa Ad- ministrative Code 50-8-1 § 403.1 et seq. Kentucky 20 years Increment Financing Act, Ken- tucky Revised Statutes 65-680–699. Louisiana 30 years Tax Increment Development Act, Title 47, Subtitle 9, Chapter 1. Massachusetts 30 years District Improvement Financing, Chapter 40Q, § 1-4. Maine 30 years per district Title 30-A, § 5227. Maryland Per development district agree- ment Tax Increment Financing Act, § 14-201 et seq. (2001). Michigan Active until purpose has been ac- complished Tax Increment Finance Author- ity Act, § 125.1801 et seq. Minnesota 25 years per district (30 for pre- Tax Increment Financing Act,

34 1979) Minnesota Statutes 469.174– 469.179 Mississippi Per individual financing plans Tax Increment Financing Act, § 21-45-1 et seq. (2001). Missouri 23 years per district Real Property Tax Increment Al- location Redevelopment Act, 99.800 Missouri Revised Statutes et seq. Montana 15 years Urban Renewal Law, § 7-15-4201 et seq. Nebraska 15 year per districts; no limit of number per city Community Development Law, Nebraska Revised Statute 18-2100 et seq. Nevada Up to 45 years Community Redevelopment Law, § 279.382 et seq. New Hampshire 30 years Municipal Economic Develop- ment and Revitalization Districts, § 162-K et seq. New Jersey Until obligations for any project in the district cease to be out- standing Revenue Allocation District Fi- nancing Act, C.52:27D-459 et seq. New Mexico 5 years Urban Development Law, § 3-46-1 et seq. New York Per redevelopment plan Municipal Redevelopment Law, § 970-a et seq. North Carolina 30 years Project Development Financing Act, Chapter 159, Article 6 North Dakota By local ordinance Urban Renewal Law, § 40-58-01 et seq. Ohio 30 years Municipal Tax Increment Fi- nancing Act, § 5709.40 et seq. Oklahoma 25 years Local Development Act, § 850 et seq. Oregon 30 years Urban Renewal Law, § 457.010 et seq. Pennsylvania 20 years Tax Increment Financing Act, Title 53.§ 6930.1 et seq. Rhode Island By project plan Tax Increment Financing Act, § 45-33.2-1 et seq. South Carolina Per redevelopment plan Tax Increment Financing Law, § 31-6-10 et seq. South Dakota 15 years Tax Incremental Districts, § 11-9-1 et seq. Tennessee Per redevelopment plan Redevelopment § 13-20-201 et seq. Texas By local ordinance or when all project costs, tax increment bonds, and interest are paid Tax Increment Financing Act, § 311.001 et seq. Utah 25 years Redevelopment Agencies Act, § 17 B-4-101 et seq. Vermont On project basis Tax Increment Financing, Ti- tle 24, § 1891 et seq. Virginia For so long as any obligations or development project costs are un- paid Tax Increment Financing, § 58.1-3245 et seq. Washington 30 years Community Revitalization Fi- nancing, § 39.89.010 et seq. West Virginia 30 year district; no limit of num- ber per municipality West Virginia Tax Increment Fi- nancing Act, West Virginia Code 7- 11B-1 et seq.

35 Wisconsin 27 years (raised from 23 in 2003) Tax Increment Law, § 66.1105 et seq. Wyoming 25 years Wyoming Urban Renewal Code, § 15-9-101 et seq. Source: Council of Development Finance Agencies at http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/pages/tifstatestatutes.html.

Next: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS »
Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit Get This Book
×
 Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Legal Research Digest 28: Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit explores the use of impact fees for transit in the United States. The report examines policy and legal considerations relating to the use of impact fees and developer exactions for transit, reviews various methodologies currently in use, and identifies cases that exemplify strategies transit agencies may pursue when considering impact fees as an alternative funding source.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!