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.