Butler County commissioners decline to object to Trenton residential incentive district; ask staff to track levy impacts

County staff on Thursday told Butler County commissioners that the City of Trenton has filed notice of its intent to create a residential incentive district (RID) tied to a proposed subdivision expected to include about 330 single-family homes on roughly 100 acres. The development—s total assessed value was described in the filing as about $110,000,000.

The county official summarized the RID proposal and the statutory protections enacted in 2006 that require making certain county levies whole if a district causes an increase in the effective levy rate. "In 02/2006 the state legislature amended tax increment finance law ... recognizing that residential properties generally utilize the services of countywide levies," the staff member told commissioners, noting that two levies in particulardevelopmental disabilities and elderly servicescould be affected in the long term if they seek replacement or increased levies after 2006.

Why it matters: County staff said the board may object to the RID within 30 days of receipt of the city—s notice if it wishes to protect county inside millage (about 1.92 mills). The staff gave the board a May 9 deadline for filing an objection. Commissioners pressed for clarifications about projected annual collections from the RID and who conducted the pro forma; staff said the bond underwriter prepared the valuation but the pro forma did not list an annual revenue estimate.

Commissioners asked whether county levies would immediately lose revenue; the staff explained that if a pre-2006 levy stayed as a continuing levy, it would continue to collect and would not be subject to the 2006 make-whole provisions. Commissioners ultimately indicated they had "no objection" to the establishment of the RID as presented during the meeting.

Details and context: Staff identified the developer as Local Development LLC and said the RID would help finance public infrastructure and a community center. The staff also said the developer—s bond underwriter (identified in the materials as Bridal Payne) provided the valuation and that the pro forma did not specify annual tax-increment receipts.

What the county did: Commissioners did not file an objection at the meeting; the staff advised of the May 9 procedural window to object and said the county would prepare any necessary documentation if the board directed it.

Speakers quoted in this report spoke during the administrators— report item on the agenda and during commissioners— questions. No formal levy or tax change was approved by the board at this meeting.

Ending: Staff said they would provide more detail if commissioners wanted to pursue an objection before the statutory deadline. The RID notice and the county—s next steps will be reflected in the county record if any formal objection or supporting correspondence is filed.