Council asks for detailed comparison after administration shifts TIF plan and parking-garage approach

The County Executive’s office presented a revised TIF financing plan for Downtown Columbia that removes a previously proposed county‑financed Crescent parking garage and instead anticipates Howard Hughes privately financing the garage while granting Merriweather Post Pavilion continuing access. The revision also accelerates several road projects — notably the North–South connector and the so‑called "jug handle" — into the first authorization. Council members asked for a clearer, itemized comparison between the original authorization and the revised plan and pressed the administration and Howard Hughes on several points:

- Qualified costs: County staff explained which line items can legally be paid with tax‑exempt TIF bonds (public assets with no private rights) and which cannot (private utilities), and said IRS rules and county code determine legal eligibility.

- Developer fees: The revised spreadsheet separates previously buried developer-fee line items (a 5% development-management fee the developer included in earlier figures) and shows them explicitly; council asked for transparent line‑by‑line reconciliations.

- Parking garage and Merriweather access: Howard Hughes said the new private garage will be available to the public and will honor an easement giving Merriweather use for events (Merriweather access begins at 5 p.m. weekdays and at 8 a.m. on weekends), but council asked for a specific side‑by‑side: how many spaces were public under the publicly financed plan vs. the current private finance approach, how many spaces are in phase 1 vs later phases, and whether the county’s removal of the garage from the bond proceeds materially shifts expected future TIF tranches.

- Timing and phasing: Council members asked how accelerating road projects from later phases into phase 1 affects the county’s ability to fund future phases and whether the "but‑for" test used to justify the TIF was recalculated using the new, revised numbers. Municap (the county’s financial advisor) presented a revised but‑for test for the bonds being considered and confirmed that, at the issuance point, the updated test uses actual lease and cost figures rather than earlier estimates.

What’s next: The council asked the administration and Municap for a clearer side‑by‑side spreadsheet that (a) shows original vs. revised line items, (b) extracts developer fees and shows them explicitly, (c) flags which costs are legally eligible for TIF financing and which are not, (d) maps timing and phasing implications for future tranches, and (e) provides a one‑page comparison of the Crescent parking-garage commitments under the old and new approaches. Council members said they want those materials in hand before drafting or filing any TIF‑related amendments or votes.