Development committee hears draft housing-incentive guidelines for TIFs, CRAs and NCAs

Nate Green, a consultant with Montrose Group, presented a draft housing incentive policy to the Pataskala City Development Committee, describing how the city could use tools such as tax-increment financing (TIF), community reinvestment areas (CRA) and neighborhood community authorities (NCA) to support housing and public infrastructure.

The recommendation calls for a guideline the administration would use to screen developer requests and to standardize how incentive proposals are negotiated and presented to the committee and city council. "What I wanted to do was really just bring this back to you as an idea to say, okay. If we want to incentivize housing and use those tools ... how do we wanna go about that?" Green said, adding that pages three through five of the draft summarize the purpose, need and factors to consider.

Committee members pressed for clarifications about whether the draft would apply retroactively to previously established TIF districts and how incentives would affect other taxing entities, such as the fire district. Green said the guideline would be applied going forward and that previously enacted TIFs would not automatically be changed; if activation of an existing TIF is proposed, the administration would bring that activation through the same review process described in the draft. The draft’s approval process would have the developer submit an application and fee, the director of planning and an economic consultant review, a development-committee review, and then a council decision after law and administration approvals.

Members debated recommended terms and safeguards. The draft lists possible incentives and terms and notes the city has used 100% non-school, 30-year non-school TIFs except in a single case; committee members discussed whether to exclude fire district levies from the diverted TIF proceeds (i.e., hold schools harmless, exclude fire districts) or adopt pilot-payment alternatives that pay in lieu rather than diverting tax revenue. Committee members also recommended guardrails for NCAs, including limits on on-site uses, controls over the NCA board composition and protections so special assessments do not unduly burden future homeowners.

The committee discussed practical points including: verifying sewer and water capacity before approving incentives; ensuring a positive economic return to the city over time; addressing off-site infrastructure costs; clarifying administrative fees and who pays implementation costs; and whether and how TIFs/NCAs could be expanded to adjacent properties. Several members urged including explicit language requiring administrative costs be paid up front.

At the end of the discussion a committee member moved that Nate and city administration (Scott and other staff identified in the meeting) continue work on the housing incentive policy, incorporating committee comments. The motion was seconded and recorded as approved by the committee. The committee asked staff to return an updated draft for further review.

The discussion was a policy-direction briefing rather than an ordinance; no incentive agreement or TIF/CRA/NCA measure was adopted at the meeting.