[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6382194,"mediaKeyId","2127511-ecf78b2f2f8232a6d651a990531465b0","parentId",2127511,"title","Council hears developer on London Gateway TIFs, moves residential TIF hearing to Feb. 20","audioSeconds",5859,"startMs",181000,"endMs",6040000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2127511-ecf78b2f2f8232a6d651a990531465b0&start=181&end=6040","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2127511-ecf78b2f2f8232a6d651a990531465b0/thumbnail_181000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6382194/Ohio/Council-hears-developer-on-London-Gateway-TIFs-moves-residential-TIF-hearing-to-Feb-20","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6382194-5e6f14c09f428dc8e5259c694059f13d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162587&Signature=k5NpRxrNZJR5vpEo-6lFXC3wVRdBKNPArPSRi9RmpFrZ57EzKiQDfrSwbWwa-~1UwmKgkAz2kz54RvGfCPoBZefZ1ZhLCt3Efxr2yZCt3qbtbpSDLb-Ck2g2b9hrvAvJ03qYAUcVbMs87x28u5IyqFcnBkyMThpkr84jEKkZ1g2dMrls5dXIqWPx8HNvGmZGRwmaIW~EllSWnUQP24Ee8KwHJjzFvmwGZLmKXWhO3AKOdl92-pumt~O-n4YaPWE8fKPH3Gsu22M-X5CaclpvGEp63LkLn5g9oG67i8S061t5mIsgYCYQ9qSxgVU-k5LQO3cehzpWGSeudRGFP~5ekg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Tipp OH","date","2025-01-18T00:49:58.227Z","article","London City Council on Jan. 16 debated a package of measures to enable development on roughly 1,100 acres described by the developer as the London Gateway project, including two tax-increment financing (TIF) proposals, implementing ordinances and a petition to form a New Community Authority (NCA).

The council postponed final action on Ordinance 207-24 — the residential TIF ordinance creating 19 incentive districts — and rescheduled its public hearing to Feb. 20 after staff said a statutorily required personal notice to property owners had not been sent. The council also held a public hearing on Resolution 210-24, the NCA-sufficiency resolution, and heard an extended presentation from developer Paul Gross and city staff about how the TIFs and the NCA would work.

Why it matters: The package, if approved in later proceedings, would allow the developer to fund major public infrastructure up front and recover costs through tax-increment payments tied to new development. Council members pressed the developer and staff on repayment timelines, interest rates, school-district protections and what financial risk, if any, the city would assume.

Developer Paul Gross said the residential TIF is structured as 19 separate incentive districts so project buildout and tax revenue triggers could be managed parcel by parcel. He described a common construction of infrastructure up front and later reimbursement from incremental property taxes. \"The city is not obligated to anything,\" he told council, adding that the payments are generated from incremental tax revenues once improvements occur rather than the city's general fund.

Gross and city staff outlined key mechanics that councilors asked about: each residential incentive district would begin producing TIF revenue when improvements in that district produce an assessed increase (a $1,000,000 improved-value threshold is used in the draft), and reimbursement schedules would be managed through a TIF fund tracked by the county auditor. Gross said developers typically carry capital early in the project and that market borrowing costs today make initial financing materially more expensive than municipal-borrowing rates.

Council questions focused on three recurring topics: (1) duration and triggers (the draft contemplates up to 30 years but actual repayment may be shorter if revenues permit); (2) interest-rate mechanics (the draft ties developer reimbursement interest to either a fixed higher rate or market rates for private borrowing; Gross said 8%–9% approximates current commercial borrowing costs for this kind of undeveloped site); and (3) school-district protections. City staff confirmed the Board of Education must pass the statutory resolution or otherwise be compensated; councilors pressed on how school payments are prioritized in the reimbursement waterfall.

City staff also explained a related technical ordinance (208-24) needed to satisfy a statutory requirement that the city briefly accept and immediately re-transfer certain parcels so the nonresidential TIF can be implemented under Ohio law. Staff and the developer repeatedly emphasized that the TIF and NCA tools are intended to pay for public infrastructure (roads, sewers, drainage) and that the NCA would have authority to issue bonds once taxable base and cash flow exist.

Actions at the meeting: council voted to reschedule the Ordinance 207-24 hearing to Feb. 20 to perfect a property-owner notice; the motion carried on roll call. Council also moved into and approved a public hearing on Resolution 210-24 (NCA sufficiency) and allowed the presentation to proceed. No final ordinance adoptions were made tonight for the TIF package; staff and the developer were asked to provide further details and (per council requests) to consult outside counsel on bonding options and amortization projections.

What council asked staff to provide: written amortization or cash-flow projections for likely near-term phases (for example, the subdivision currently planned for Johnson's Creek), clarification of the $1,000,000 per-district threshold and timeline, exact language tying school compensation or waivers to board action, and a follow-up on the notice requirement that triggered the rescheduling of 207-24. Councilwoman Treanor requested clarity on whether the TIF fund sufficiency language could require city backstop — staff and Gross said the draft is designed to avoid putting the city's general fund on the line.

Next steps: Ordinance 207-24 is rescheduled for public hearing on Feb. 20; the enclosed ordinances and the NCA petition remain under council review. Staff and the developer will return with requested financial detail and with clarifications to the draft interest-language and commencement dates.

Votes at a glance: the motion to move Ordinance 207-24 to Feb. 20 carried on roll call; the motion to go into the public hearing for Resolution 210-24 carried on roll call. No TIF ordinance was adopted tonight.

Ending note: Council members repeatedly asked for plain-language repayment tables and for a timeline showing when taxable values in each incentive district are expected to reach the draft thresholds; staff said some near-term, parcel-level projections (for Johnson's Creek and an immediately planned 49-lot subdivision) can be provided at the next meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","London City Council 1 16 2025","oneSentenceSummary","London City Council on Jan. 16 debated a package of measures to enable development on roughly 1,100 acres described by the developer as the London Gateway project, including two tax-increment financing proposals, implementing ordinances and a petition to form a New Community Authority (NCA).","taxTitle","London City Council, London, Madison County, Ohio","taxId",70685,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6382186,"Council debates CivicPlus agenda-management purchase; clerk and staff to test alternatives",913,6187000,7100000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2127511-ecf78b2f2f8232a6d651a990531465b0&start=6187&end=7100","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2127511-ecf78b2f2f8232a6d651a990531465b0/thumbnail_6187000.jpg","/articles/6382186/Ohio/Council-debates-CivicPlus-agenda-management-purchase-clerk-and-staff-to-test-alternatives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6382186-a0ace3a87c11957a07ff47bbf4d8d20e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162587&Signature=ogKYacme2jBCabppR-ivDhTH231z4HBxEirucnWpM0r3aYzcXQALPXyR-EMPrj6Jo9Qq41W9o8Q1~h1qwPBFpzlyN-L6I7bWlnHwU7RPPeKPwYkp31XP2H1DSegINelGdlSzghI5U41Itr2zviWZZ2SXeNvXzYkFqjRzxx9cYRxvFCJrmyJY3rbWrm55GIZuwwEmc3qjML5xZWl2J0KC19w0n9NZ7qkRO3vZCg-mkPnffxoHDNugeAZ5rQSwjTlnto3E6jPBCTY-E7wui5jddztam1C7uSS2LlW-aVP7N-cbwiWFHLti2MViur81WR34IrtDJNjRu7IUAtV6BlI4Gg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","London City Council on Jan. 16 considered a second-reading resolution to purchase CivicPlus meeting- and agenda-management software but did not adopt the appropriation during the session.

The proposal on the table (Resolution 101-25) would have purchased CivicPlus meeting-management functionality for a quoted annual price (clerk cited $5,200 including a $1,000 setup fee and an honored 10% discount). Council members and staff discussed whether the features council sought — streamlined agenda compilation, consolidated uploads, and facilitated minute-taking — could be achieved with existing tools already paid for by council (Zoom for meeting recording/transcripts and Adobe for PDF compilation) at lower ongoing cost.

City administrative staff (Miss Breedlove) told council that many of CivicPlus's more advanced meeting-minute features are sold as add-ons and require a CivicPlus-hosted website for full integration; those add-ons would add to the total cost and were not included in the basic price presented. The clerk said he is willing to use whatever tool council decides but noted cost and workflow implications. Several council members asked staff and the clerk to meet and test a Zoom+Adobe workflow and compare it side-by-side with CivicPlus (including any required CivicPlus website fees and add-on pricing) before the council votes on any appropriation.

Why it matters: The purchase would centralize agenda and meeting management in one vendor solution and could reduce repetitive manual steps for staff. Council members balanced that potential efficiency against the additional ongoing license and website costs and the possibility that current subscriptions already meet most needs.

Next steps: The clerk and Miss Breedlove will meet to test whether existing subscriptions and a changed workflow can meet council needs; they will report back to council before the next meeting. Council did not approve Resolution 101-25 at this session.","Council discussed a proposed purchase of CivicPlus meeting-management software (Resolution 101-25). Staff and the council clerk described overlapping functionality available through existing tools (Zoom transcript + Adobe) and agreed to meet and report back with a comparison before any purchase.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6382192,"Council adopts sidewalk maintenance standard, moves forward with citywide sidewalk assessment study",1739,5861000,7600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2127511-ecf78b2f2f8232a6d651a990531465b0&start=5861&end=7600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2127511-ecf78b2f2f8232a6d651a990531465b0/thumbnail_5861000.jpg","/articles/6382192/Ohio/Council-adopts-sidewalk-maintenance-standard-moves-forward-with-citywide-sidewalk-assessment-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6382192-67794da014bc831cc981084afc7e05c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162587&Signature=XHmMXoF7vH6k1FAVMLumCWQyxtT4RHcZL7zbypTGh79JKtj-lPqj0T-FS05hh71E~jv05UYdwkjIK7vvlXxFmcZH67SmHwbVbz5SZu8X5ZRkR4TOffkssM6FHWfg2VitRlVpoHlh4-QwbK6VHilQ1ZVkVlLV9Hac~ye~Fc6iPlAwfZsYW5fIfxp5UurRZ7Xdy7eKgM2WuD2-h37ot2RwHosklPqmcqbqhki554Mms-kcyPbOmppMXHxObamnHFSNL0RECdz1cXdaT5PLHZk6V~LS~YBWf7~9XxosU72twtkfmeINhlsNCrI4SJgao-~sJLKfbSlfFw~oW-Dt7jEbKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","London City Council on Jan. 16 approved an amendment to the codified ordinances that adds specific standards for sidewalk condition and enforcement and debated contracting a private vendor to survey and grade every sidewalk in the city.

The council adopted Ordinance 212-24, which amends Section 660 of the codified ordinances to define sidewalk standards and the process by which the city will identify and require repairs. The ordinance passed on a recorded vote; the council then discussed Resolution 102-25, a request to appropriate money to enter a contract with StreetScan (and associated StreetLogic tools) for a data-driven sidewalk assessment and prioritization program. Councilors and staff spent substantial time debating how to pair an assessment with funding and an enforcement/assistance policy for property owners.

Why it matters: Council members said they do not currently know the scale or cost of sidewalk repair citywide. The proposed vendor assessment would map sidewalk panels, rate condition, and produce prioritized repair lists and estimated costs, which staff and councilors said they need before approving a multi-year repair program or potential property assessments.

What council adopted: Ordinance 212-24 (amending Section 660) was approved; the ordinance adds enforceable repair standards and a process for assessing and, where necessary, ordering repairs. Council discussed whether repairs paid for by the city would be assessed back to property owners or handled through a city assistance fund for low-income homeowners; staff said the assessment would be an option and that assessments would be collected on property tax rolls if not paid.

What the StreetScan proposal would do: Council members described the tool as producing a citywide inventory with photos, condition grades, and cost models so the city can set a budget and programmatic priorities. The vendor's software can also produce recommended annual repair lists based on a chosen budget and policy (for example, prioritize F-grade panels first).

Next steps and outstanding questions: Council did not vote to appropriate funds for the StreetScan contract during this meeting; members directed staff to return with clearer proposals for (a) who pays for repairs (city fund, owner assessment, grant/assistance for low-income households), (b) administrative steps for enforcement and notice periods, and (c) budget scenarios for phased repair programs. Several council members said they want rules for hardship waivers and multi-year assessment payment schedules if the city ultimately pays for repairs and collects through property taxes.

Ending: Councilors emphasized that the ordinance (adopted) is a first step toward a data-driven program; the assessment is intended to give the city the evidence it needs to make fair and predictable decisions.","Council adopted an amendment to the city's codified ordinances setting clearer sidewalk repair standards and discussed a proposal to contract StreetScan for a comprehensive sidewalk assessment to create prioritized repair lists and cost estimates; the assessment appropriation was discussed but not adopted.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council hears developer on London Gateway TIFs, moves residential TIF hearing to Feb. 20

Council debates CivicPlus agenda-management purchase; clerk and staff to test alternatives

Council adopts sidewalk maintenance standard, moves forward with citywide sidewalk assessment study