Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Findlay committee directs staff to draft post‑1994 CRA ordinance to allow abatements
Loading...
Summary
The Findlay City Strategic Planning Committee voted to have the administration draft a post‑1994 Community Reinvestment Area ordinance so the city can consider property‑tax abatements on a project‑by‑project basis; the committee also asked for consultant review and additional fiscal analysis before final council action.
The Findlay City Strategic Planning Committee voted to ask the administration to draft a post‑1994 Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) ordinance that would allow the city to consider property‑tax abatements for incoming projects, committee members heard at the meeting. The motion to instruct staff to finalize draft language and obtain confirmation from the city finance adviser carried by voice vote.
City staff (referred to in the record as S2) told the committee the ordinance would not automatically grant abatements. "This is just saying we are willing to consider CRAs," the staff presenter said, adding that any individual project would return to council with the specific negotiated incentive package and an ordinance that lists the abatement terms as exhibits. The staff presenter also read standard Ohio Revised Code language that governs the program and cited Ohio Revised Code section 3735.67 as the governing statute for some provisions.
The committee discussed practical differences between the older pre‑1994 CRA framework and the post‑1994 option staff proposed. Under pre‑94 rules, staff said, certain abatements were effectively automatic when a property met defined criteria; the post‑94 approach requires advance negotiation and city council approval and gives the city more control over percentage and term. Staff described a typical example of a post‑94 package as up to 75% abatement for as many as 15 years, while noting special provisions in the code allow larger or longer abatements for very large "mega" projects but require additional approvals (including school‑board signoff if abatements exceed 75%).
The committee’s fiscal officer urged committee members to have the city’s hired consultant and outside counsel review draft language with the group so members can understand interdependencies with TIFs, development agreements and other incentives before the ordinance is finalized. The fiscal officer told the committee that a clear term sheet and consultant briefing would help ensure that future individual negotiations align with the city’s strategic priorities.
At the close of discussion, a committee member moved that administration proceed with drafting the post‑1994 CRA ordinance language and obtain confirmation from the city finance adviser that the draft is an appropriate starting framework; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. Staff said it will circulate the draft language and a supporting letter/documentation and then bring the matter back to the committee and later to full council for first reading.
Next steps: staff will prepare formal draft ordinance language for committee review, secure consultant and outside counsel review as requested, and return with the draft and additional fiscal context before any formal council adoption.
