Council hears Bricker & Graden presentation on TIFs, abatements, port authority financing and new community authorities

The Village of Commercial Point council received a briefing from attorneys with Bricker & Graden explaining how common economic-development tools work — tax increment financing (TIF), community reinvestment area tax abatements (CRA), port-authority financing, PACE energy assessments, new community authorities (NCAs) and the Tax Incentive Review Council (TERC) — and what local officials need to know when negotiating them.

Adam, an attorney with Bricker & Graden who led the presentation, told the council these tools are part of a municipal “toolkit” used to make large projects pencil by rearranging or adding tax revenue streams to pay for infrastructure such as roads, sewer and water. He described three basic ways to address a project’s infrastructure needs: reduce taxes for the developer (tax abatement), divert tax revenue to an infrastructure fund (TIF), or add tax (new community authority assessments). “Abatement is almost like we’re just entering into another area to negotiate these things,” Adam said, describing how abatements are contractual, include promises about job creation and construction schedule, and typically include pilot or payment obligations rather than being “free.”

The presentation covered several technical points the council flagged as important. Project TIFs (the commercial/industrial type discussed in the meeting) are governed by Ohio law cited in the presentation (project TIFs under Ohio Revised Code section 5709.4(B)); residential or incentive-district TIFs are governed under the different code section the presenter referenced (identified in the briefing as 5709.40(C)). The presenter emphasized that residential TIFs are more constrained to preserve school and county revenue and noted that properly structured residential TIFs are typically written to hold schools harmless.

On CRA tax abatements, Adam said the municipal agreement is a binding contract that lists the promises (building size, value, jobs, timetable) and enforcement mechanisms; abatements are commonly 15 years for ordinary projects, while “mega projects” the state designates can receive up to 30-year payment terms. The presenter used a previously negotiated large project as an example, saying the state permitted a longer term because of large infrastructure needs and high job commitments.

Port authorities were explained as an avenue to monetize future revenue streams (for example, a TIF stream) by issuing bonds so developers or municipalities can access money up front; port authorities also have specific powers such as limited sales-tax exemptions for construction materials, which can materially lower construction costs for very large projects. The presenter identified Tim Colburn as the executive director of the port authority and said county port authorities often coordinate on large-area projects.

The briefing covered NCAs as a municipality-driven way to add a modest millage on new development so the new residents or properties pay for their share of roads, sewers, parks or other amenities rather than shifting those costs to existing residents. Adam said forming an NCA and setting rules can be done on a municipal timeframe and estimated it takes roughly four months to put an NCA in place if the village decides to pursue it. He said NCAs commonly run 30 years and typically involve council-driven policy decisions about millage levels and board appointments.

The presentation closed with enforcement and accountability items: the county Tax Incentive Review Council (TERC) conducts annual reviews of TIFs and abatements and can trigger enforcement if contractual promises are not met. Adam described “clawback” provisions that local agreements can include to recoup benefits when a developer fails to meet performance targets, and he gave the recent state‑level approach (used in large agreements) as an example of how clawbacks are structured for partial or total nonperformance.

Council members asked about posting the presentation and the toolkit online; Adam confirmed the full presentation and a linked toolkit would be made publicly available and could be posted to village channels for council and community review. The presentation was informational; no vote or binding action on specific incentives was taken at the meeting.