Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charles Town finance committee hears outside briefing on tax-increment financing for downtown redevelopment
Summary
Outside counsel and a Piper Sandler finance director explained how a property-tax TIF district would be defined, how base values and increments work, financing options (pay-as-you-go vs. bonds), and next steps for a possible Charles Town TIF application.
Charles Town’s Finance Committee met to hear an introductory briefing on tax increment financing (TIF) as a tool for downtown redevelopment, with outside legal counsel Tom Percy and Joe Nasup, managing director in Piper Sandler’s public finance office, outlining how a property‑tax TIF would work and what the city would need to prepare.
Tom Percy said West Virginia law contemplates two TIF types but that the committee was most likely considering a property‑tax TIF. He described a TIF district as a contiguous set of parcels with a certified base assessed value; any increase in assessed value above that baseline generates an increment that can be used for eligible public improvements. “A TIF district is a physical boundary,” Percy said. “Once established, the assessor will certify a base value of the TIF district.”
Joe Nasup of Piper Sandler, who said he has worked on roughly $700 million of TIF and related projects in the state, described two main financing approaches: pay‑as‑you‑go, which uses annual increments as they are collected, and monetization through TIF bonds that can front capital for larger projects. “You can monetize that value over the life of the district to do an upfront project,” Nasup said, noting a typical TIF district life is 30 years.
Committee members pressed presenters about parcels now owned by tax‑exempt public entities. A council member asked whether buildings owned by the county commission could produce a zero taxable base; Percy and Nasup explained assessors list such parcels and mark them tax‑exempt, but that any future change in ownership or use that makes a parcel taxable would immediately create increment for the district. “They would be included as parcels, but they show up as tax exempt or zeros,” Nasup said. “If those parcels change hands and become taxable, you’re going to get immediate increment from that.”
The presenters walked through practical next steps: drawing a contiguous boundary that captures likely sources of increment, listing projects the TIF would fund (streetscape, utilities, building rehabilitation), preparing projections to size any bond issue, and assembling a TIF application and attachments for review by the West Virginia Development Office. Percy and Nasup emphasized the need to work with a bond counsel, the assessor, and local levying bodies during preparation and to document a statutory “but‑for” finding that the project would not proceed absent TIF.
Nasup used a recent Elkins example to show scale: modeled new investment on the order of $60 million produced several hundred thousand dollars annually in increment supporting roughly $10 million of projects over the district life, with municipal dollars leveraged by county and school levies. The presenters offered to send their slide deck and to return for site mapping and boundary discussions if the committee chooses to proceed.
The committee did not take a formal vote on creating a TIF district during the meeting; presenters recommended additional technical work — mapping, assessor coordination and project lists — before filing an application with state review. The committee returned to regular business after the briefing.
