Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears developer presentation on 1,100-acre TIF and new community authority; hearing on residential TIF continued
Summary
Developers and council members discussed a large tax-increment financing (TIF) package that would create 19 residential incentive districts, a nonresidential TIF, and a New Community Authority covering roughly 1,100 acres; Council continued the public hearing on Ordinance 207-24 to Feb. 20 to meet notice requirements.
London City Council held extended discussion on a package of development tools that would enable large-scale infrastructure work and staged residential development on roughly 1,100 acres, including Ordinances 207-24, 208-24 and 209-24 and Resolution 210-24.
The most immediate procedural outcome was a motion to continue the public hearing on Ordinance 207-24 (the residential TIF) to Feb. 20, 2025, after staff said property-owner notice required by statute had not been completed in time. Council voted to move the hearing so the required direct mail notice to property owners can be perfected before a final vote.
Developers and their representatives, including Paul Gross (developer) and Wes Smith (property-owner representative), gave a long presentation and answered council questions about how the TIFs and a proposed New Community Authority (NCA) would work. Gross described a package that splits the area into multiple incentive districts (19 for the residential proposal) so tax-increment collections would begin in each district after that district achieved $1 million in assessed improvements. He said some districts would trigger sooner than others and that infrastructure work could be staged.
Gross told council that the developer carries the front-end risk: if projects do not materialize, the developer — not the city — would not be repaid. He gave an example based on a recent development (Johnson Creek) and said a completed buildout could generate roughly $2.1 million annually in income-tax revenue for the city in a mature scenario. Gross also explained that early-stage borrowing for infrastructure without an existing tax base typically carries higher interest costs, and that the agreements therefore set an interest rate tied to market borrowing costs (the draft uses an 8% or comparable market-based index in some schedules).
Council members pressed for specifics: how the $1 million improvement trigger would operate per district; whether the city would have any contingency obligation if TIF revenues were insufficient; the anticipated duration of reimbursement (the draft contemplates up to 30 years but included language that council members flagged as a possible typo referencing 2044); and whether the school district had been asked to pass the required resolution to allow the exemption. City staff and the developer said many details — precise infrastructure lists and costs — will be identified as projects are planned; they also said the county auditor would administer collection and that separate accounting would be established for each incentive district.
Resolution 210-24, the petition to form a London Gateway New Community Authority, was discussed as the complementary mechanism that would collect a millage/charge to pay infrastructure costs; the NCA would have separate bonding authority as an independent entity, council was told. Staff said the NCA structure and the TIFs are designed to run in parallel and that 80% of NCA receipts would be used to reimburse infrastructure with 20% available to the city for locally-designated uses (safety services was cited as an example in the draft).
No final votes were taken on the TIF or NCA ordinances at this meeting. Council moved the residential TIF (Ordinance 207-24) to the Feb. 20 agenda to address a statutory personal-notice requirement to property owners; Ordinances 208-24 and 209-24 (nonresidential/title-transfer technical steps and the commercial TIF declaration) were read for consideration and left pending further action.
Why it matters: The package would enable private developers to build public infrastructure with reimbursement tied to future incremental tax receipts. Council members sought more exact cost projections, amortization schedules and clarification of interest and trigger language before making final decisions.
Council and developers agreed to continue technical review; outside counsel will be consulted on bondability and the precise language in the reimbursement schedules and commencement deadlines.
Ending: Staff said they will provide corrected draft language on the durations and interest schedules and coordinate the required notices so the resumed hearing on Ordinance 207-24 can proceed on Feb. 20.
