Madison County designates 1,500-acre Community Reinvestment Area in Darby Township after debate

The Madison County Board of Commissioners on May 19 approved a resolution designating roughly 1,500 acres in Darby Township as a Community Reinvestment Area, a planning tool county staff said will reduce perceived developer risk and speed project timelines.

Savannah, an economic‑development staff member who presented the proposal, said the designation is intended to make the corridor more competitive. "So the more of those pieces of the puzzle you have in place beforehand, the more competitive and the more likely projects or businesses are to act," Savannah told the board, noting that the housing study and map required for state approval were included in the materials for this area.

The CRA designation allows the county to consider property tax abatements and other incentives on a project-by-project basis within the defined area. Staff and legal advisors walked commissioners through Ohio Revised Code section 3735.68, which the board was told provides two revocation pathways: the housing officer can revoke after the first year for property‑neglect situations, and the legislative authority may revoke exemptions if a commercial or industrial owner materially fails to meet obligations under a written agreement.

A Darby Township trustee urged caution, saying township officials felt sidelined in the process and warning that broad incentives can favor large corporations over local small businesses. The trustee said trustees "feel like our wings are flipped" and that trustees worry the community could lose commercial tax base if the county does not carefully steward the process.

One commissioner signaled reluctance to adopt a broad area in advance and said they preferred a parcel‑by‑parcel approach, arguing that waiting until a specific project emerges would provide more targeted public notice and examination. The presenter and other staff countered that because the housing study for this 1,500‑acre area was already complete, the county can designate the area faster in this instance and still review incentives on a project basis.

After discussion the board moved to approve the resolution. The motion carried on a roll‑call vote; commissioners then moved on to additional business.

The resolution cites ORC section 3735.68 for revocation procedures and requires project‑level approvals and annual reporting to monitor whether recipients meet job, payroll or investment commitments set in abatement agreements. The county’s staff said ongoing monitoring and an annual review process would inform any future revocation or modification of abatement agreements.