Cuyahoga County Council’s committee of the whole on Dec. 9 heard from the county law office and the mayor of Brooklyn about recent notices that the cities of Brecksville, Independence and Brooklyn intend to create residential tax-increment financing districts (TIFs). Law department representative Greg Huth recommended the county place formal objections so county staff can negotiate terms with the municipalities rather than allow unilateral 30‑year exemptions.

Huth told the committee that notices received on Dec. 3 from Independence and Brooklyn join an earlier Brecksville matter; under the statutory provision cited by staff, if the county and city do not reach agreement the county’s share of the incremental value is reduced beginning in year 11. "If we don't come to an agreement, then starting in year 11, the county would get half of what we would otherwise get," Huth said, urging that objections bring parties to the table to discuss term length and share percentages within the statutory range.

Mayor Ron Van Kirk of Brooklyn told the council the city has spent years assembling parcels, updated its zoning and partnered with a developer to build 62 townhomes. He said Brooklyn’s public hearing and notice process were completed, and that the county executive’s office email stating "Cuyahoga County intends to object" came as a surprise. "This objection is holding up this process," Van Kirk said, adding that local TIF counsel estimated the county's portion of service payments at "14 to $15,000 a year." He asked the county to withdraw the objection and to notify all 59 municipalities if this is to be the county’s policy going forward.

Council members questioned both the mayor and county staff about the arithmetic and precedent. Council President Miller said county analysis shows a different scale of impact: "Our numbers... are that it's $650,000 over 20 years" to the county’s general and levy funds and that the total diverted across affected taxing entities could be "estimated around 6,000,000." Huth and others stressed that the county is not preventing municipalities from proceeding; an objection triggers negotiations and the statutory fallback would narrow some of the benefit to the municipality if no agreement is reached.

Members also discussed how Cleveland’s large TIF used a different Ohio Revised Code provision that did not allow county objection, while recent residential TIFs are being filed under the provision that permits county responses. Multiple council members and the mayor expressed concern that municipalities were not clearly informed if the county intended to default to an objection policy.

Council President Miller said the council will consider at its 5:00 p.m. meeting whether to add resolutions objecting to the Brooklyn and Independence TIFs to the agenda. Before that, the committee voted to go into executive session to discuss collective bargaining matters and pending or imminent litigation; the motion passed on roll call.