Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Sharing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent County approves tax-sharing agreement with Byron Township over commissioner objections
Summary
The Kent County Board of Commissioners approved Resolution 67, a tax-sharing agreement with Byron Township that allows a corridor improvement authority to capture a portion of county property-tax increment; some commissioners questioned whether the county should share future tax revenues and pressed for details on governance and project uses.
The Kent County Board of Commissioners on Thursday approved Resolution 67, a tax-sharing agreement with Byron Township that lets a corridor improvement authority capture a portion of the county’s future property-tax increment.
Commissioner Steck moved approval of the resolution; the motion passed on a voice vote. Commissioner Ponstein raised repeated objections during debate, saying he has been “pretty consistent” in his dislike for tax-increment financing and expressing concern that such agreements redirect money taxpayers expected to go to general county services. Commissioner Faber asked detailed questions about governance and how the captured funds would be used, noting the plan materials emphasize promotional activities and events rather than capital infrastructure.
Josh (county staff) said the corridor improvement authority has a separate board from the township and described the proposal as primarily focused on promotion and events, not large capital projects. He also said the county’s current approach treats this arrangement as a tax-sharing agreement rather than a formal tax-increment financing district. Administrator Vandenberg summarized the county’s historical shift after the 2008 recession toward opting out of longstanding TIF arrangements and said staff are preparing a broader review of county policy and a comprehensive report on uses of TIF across Kent County.
Commissioner Ponstein said taxpayers in his view risk losing funding that would otherwise go to county services. Commissioner Faber asked whether the agreement reset the increment baseline; staff said it does not in this instance but acknowledged baseline resets and other details will be part of a future policy review.
The board voted to adopt the resolution. The county clerk recorded the voice vote as passing; commissioners did not request roll-call on this item.
Why it matters: Tax-sharing agreements let local authorities capture future increases in property tax revenue for designated projects. Commissioners who opposed the measure cautioned the county should guard general-fund revenue and said they expect a forthcoming review of when and how the county enters these agreements.
What’s next: Staff said they will provide commissioners with the authority’s development plan and the county’s compiled report on TIF uses as part of an anticipated policy discussion in the finance committee and before the full board.
