Board weighs TIF reconciliations and a proposed 1% income tax to fund school projects

At a work session focused on financial planning, Riverside Local School District officials briefed the board on several tax‑increment financing (TIFF/TIF) agreements tied to large developments and discussed whether a proposed 1% earned income tax should be placed on the ballot to address operating deficits and fund capital improvements.

David, a district presenter, walked the board through how TIFFs capture incremental property-tax revenue and explained the compensation structure negotiated for the 1,358‑unit Casement development. He described a three‑stage compensation schedule (50% in the first 10 years, 75% for the next 10, then 100%) and a catch‑up mechanism that would make the district whole over time should incremental revenue become available earlier. "We wanted to negotiate terms that as soon as it generated excess TIFF revenue ... it could be paid to the school district as soon as possible and called catchups," David said.

Board members pressed staff about timing and uncertainty: because taxes are assessed on values as of Jan. 1 of the tax year and collected the following year, projected receipts will lag construction and sales. Officials noted House Bill 920 and rollback provisions can affect how household property taxes interact with TIF structures, and they cautioned the board against treating TIF projections as guaranteed revenue.

Staff and a city representative described ongoing reconciliation work for older TIFFs (Shamrock and Encore) where records are incomplete, scanned or ambiguous and county rezoning and software conversion problems complicated payments. Austin and other presenters said the city and district are compiling parcel‑level payment histories and recommended hiring or engaging a trustee/third‑party administrator to produce an annual reconciliation and to negotiate revised, clearer compensation language. "These particular TIFFs sorely needed that independent audit and clearer documentation," one presenter said.

Separately, district counsel and the treasurer outlined a possible 1% earned income tax option (roughly equivalent to a 7.89‑mill property levy in the district’s estimate). They explained Ohio law prescribes ballot language and limits what the ballot can say; however, the board can specify in a "resolution to proceed" how the tax will be apportioned between current operations and permanent improvements. Board members debated apportionment scenarios (illustrative examples discussed: 80/20, 70/30, 60/40), their short‑term effect on debt service (COPs) and the district’s ability to bank PI funds for construction. Officials provided modeling that showed partial collections in early years (roughly $800,000 in the first full fiscal year at a conservative scenario) and larger receipts as collections ramp up (models in discussion projected as high as mid‑double‑digit millions by full collection years), and they emphasized the district could stage two separate borrowings if necessary.

Board members asked for draft resolution and sample ballot language in advance of the next meeting and tasked staff to: (1) continue TIFF reconciliations with the county and the city, (2) recommend options for a trustee/administrator and possible redrafting of compensation agreements, and (3) present draft levy/resolution language showing year‑by‑year apportionment scenarios. The session closed with routine announcements and a 5–0 vote to adjourn.