New Franklin council members and city advisers discussed proposed tax‑increment financing (TIF) incentive districts intended to fund sewer, water and road infrastructure for a multi‑phase development at Turkey Foot Lake.

The city introduced two ordinances to create Incentive District No. 1 and No. 2 and an accompanying economic‑development plan. The plan and ordinances rely on Ohio’s TIF statute; the presentation cited the relevant sections of the Ohio Revised Code when the program was described to council.

The mayor and city counsel explained how the TIF would work: when new taxable value appears from built homes, a portion of the generated tax increment would be retained to reimburse allowable infrastructure expenses before the remaining dollars flow to the county and school partners. The advisers and the developer’s team described a negotiated split (discussed publicly during the meeting as 55% to the city and school‑system shares, with the remainder available to reimburse developer‑eligible expenses), and they said the developer estimated infrastructure costs in the high single‑digit to mid‑tens of millions. As the mayor said during the committee: “If there’s ever going to be any meaningful development on the West Side Of The Channel, it’s gonna require sewer and water.”

Council members and residents pressed several substantive questions: which parcels are included in each district; whether the developer’s proposed lift station and force main will be sized to accommodate future tie‑ins from adjacent neighborhoods; how reimbursable costs will be staged across phases; whether prevailing‑wage or Davis‑Bacon requirements would apply to reimbursed public‑work parts of the project; and what happens if market absorption is slower than projected. City counsel and the developer’s attorney said those constructs are within the draft development and reimbursement agreements and that final allocations will be confirmed in the development agreement and financing documents.

Several council members and residents raised concerns about public engagement and the long‑term implications for school and county revenues. The mayor and legal counsel said negotiations with the school district and other stakeholders have been ongoing and that council would see the ordinances over multiple readings. The ordinances were introduced and time was granted for further review; council did not adopt the TIF ordinances that night.

Advisers and council emphasized key limits and protections that will appear in final documents: reimbursable costs are limited to enumerated infrastructure work (water, sewer, roads and permitted public works), the developer must present invoices and draw documentation to support reimbursement, and county fiscal procedures will create a distinct increment parcel to track TIF collections. The advisers also noted the financing market will require documentation showing how the reimbursement stream is generated, and that lenders will evaluate the credit‑support structure and developer guarantees when underwriting any public‑sale or private financing tied to the project.

Councilmembers asked for additional time and clarity on engineering estimates, the parcel lists for each district, and the waterfall of distributions. Multiple speakers urged the city to publish a clear, plain‑language summary of the plan and the reimbursement waterfall so residents can understand long‑term revenue effects; the mayor said the city would prepare a public summary and encouraged further public engagement.