Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant warns state tax changes and deductions will shrink some TIFF areas; several districts remain healthy
Summary
Baker Tilly presented the redevelopment commission with a 2026 TIFF (tax-increment financing) snapshot showing legislative changes (House Enrolled Act 1210 and Senate Enrolled Act One) will reduce capture in several allocation areas while others remain robust enough to consider new debt. The commission discussed options to protect expiring TIFFs and passed related clerical resolutions.
Matt Eckerly, a principal at Baker Tilly, told the Delaware County Redevelopment Commission on March 12 that recent state-law changes will materially change the county’s tax-increment financing outlook and recommended specific management steps.
Eckerly opened the commission’s annual TIFF snapshot by noting that House Enrolled Act 1210 and Senate Enrolled Act One altered homestead and deduction regimes and added procedural requirements. "There’s now a requirement to make an annual determination before June 15 of your intent to capture or pass through eligible incremental assessed value," he said, explaining that failure to upload that determination into the state Gateway system can trigger an automatic pass-through of incremental assessed value for the next calendar year.
Why it matters: those changes reduce the amount of taxable incremental value available to capture in several legacy and land-heavy allocation areas. Eckerly cited Morrison Road, NEBO2, Daleville and State Road 32 East as material examples where SEA1 deductions, delinquent payments and assessment appeal timing have reduced collections versus prior projections. "Some areas will show an assessed-value hole that new development must fill before you see 'dollar one' of TIFF revenue," he said, describing the effect of deduction phasing on land‑heavy districts.
At the same time, Eckerly highlighted allocation areas with healthy coverage and no outstanding debt — notably portions of the Industria Center/Magna geography — as potential sources the commission could use if it wanted to issue new debt to fund priority projects earlier than pay‑as‑you‑go funding allows. He also noted several pledged‑revenue bond series where TIFF is the only pledged county revenue and underscored the risk borne by bondholders if TIFF revenues decline significantly.
Commissioners pressed Baker Tilly on two practical questions: whether the commission can extend an allocation area by adding debt (it cannot extend statutory expiration beyond the statutory term tied to outstanding obligations), and whether the commission should consider terminating allocation areas that have generated no revenue. Eckerly recommended a case‑by‑case cost‑benefit analysis, noting that early termination would create a new baseline if the commission later sought to reestablish a TIFF in the same geography.
Context and next steps: Baker Tilly said the TIFF management report required by statute will be uploaded to Gateway and presented to county council by April 15; staff will prepare the formal pass‑through letters for the commission’s May meeting to meet the June 15 deadline. The presentation prompted discussion but no formal policy change at the March meeting. The commission approved two routine resolutions on the consent agenda (a clerical correction to Resolution 2025‑017 and rescinding Resolution 2025‑018) that do not alter TIFF policy.
The commission directed staff to: (1) verify prior-year fund allocations for consultant contracts, (2) consider a strategy for pooling healthy TIFF areas if the commission wants to issue new debt before certain allocations expire, and (3) complete the statutorily required Gateway uploads and pass-through determinations ahead of June 15.
