Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enterprise Zone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears request tied to county enterprise-zone agreement for a Center District project
Summary
Staff briefed council on a resolution asking county commissioners to consider terminating an enterprise-zone agreement said to be out of compliance, and noted a Carvana-related employment metric and tax incentive dispute; county action remains required before termination.
Mister Musisklas presented to the Trenton City Council on May 1 about a resolution the city has prepared asking county commissioners to review and potentially terminate an enterprise-zone agreement involving a developer in the Center District.
Musisklas told council the resolution had previously been handled as a first reading and that county staff requested early action so they could discuss the matter with commissioners before a tax incentive review meeting in August. He said the county did not require immediate passage that night and that the company involved (named in the meeting as Carvana) requested to be present at the council vote in two weeks.
On the substance, Musisklas said the county granted the company a tax agreement of roughly 55% for seven years conditioned on meeting employment metrics set by the county and the state of Ohio, and that staff believe the company has not met those employment metrics and has had compliance issues with local and state filing and municipal income tax requirements. “We have found that they have not met this employment metrics and, have further had, other issues with following local and state ordinances pertaining to filing and pulling municipal income tax,” Musisklas said. He added that the county commissioners have the authority to terminate the enterprise-zone agreement.
City staff recommended notifying the county commissioners and then taking further action after the county’s review; the county staff and the company indicated they prefer to be present at a future council vote. No formal action was taken by council on the resolution at the May 1 work session.
The presentation also referenced a related planning item: a second reading on an economic development plan for the Center District and a planned incentive district that would fund infrastructure for a PUD already adopted for residential development. Staff described the economic development plan as laying groundwork for future infrastructure funding but said the incentive district cannot be finalized without subsequent approvals.
