"A slap in the face": Firelands Schools officials balk at development tax proposal

SOUTH AMHERST — There appears to be a major sticking point in the proposed tax abatement for a planned development in Vermilion, as Firelands Schools officials took issue with a cap placed on how much money the district could receive. DBR Commercial Realty, owned by developer Dan Reaser, is asking for a tax increment financing agreement for its proposed $300 million, roughly 600-home mixed-use development Vermilion Landing. The proposed TIF would remove 100 percent of property taxes on the property owed to Vermilion and to Firelands Schools for 30 years, which needs to be approved by both entities. Property owners would still pay taxes, but the money would go into a separate pool to be used for public improvements in the area such as roads, sewer lines and other infrastructure. DBR has offered Firelands Schools a compensation agreement of 45 percent of the tax value it would receive, with a cap of $1.2 million. Treasurer Keri Angney estimated that if there was no abatement, the district would receive roughly $3 million in total property taxes based on the number of homes and the cost projected by DBR. "The $1.2 million is a slap in the face; that's just absurd," board member Ben Gibson said at a special meeting Wednesday to discuss the proposal. "There's no way you can educate the number of kids that could potentially come from this (development) for $1.2 million." Every member of the Board at some point echoed that concern, and several took issue with a lack of clarity on how many homes the development would actually include. Board member Myles Bremke said that if the development brings in 300 more students, which he said was "on the low end," their education would cost the district about $3 million. "You're really asking the rest of the Firelands taxpayers to subsidize this development for another $2 million annually," Bremke said. "And that's assuming we can put all 300 kids in our current facilities. … That cap is absolutely insane to me." Bremke and other members of the board said that they would not be opposed to a TIF in principle, but that agreeing to one with a cap did not make financial sense for the district. "I think we have to go to the developer and say, 'There's no way we can agree on a cap,'" Bremke said. "'And you'll have to hit us with a better number percentage-wise, I think too, to consider it'." The board had a number of questions for both DBR and Vermilion, but neither the developer nor the city had a representative at the meeting. "I don't feel — I guess this is my personal opinion — that the city of Vermilion has ever put the Firelands School District at the forefront of this conversation," board Vice President Ellen Gundersen said. "So I do have a problem with an agreement that says we're gonna work together when I don't think we have." Gundersen said that the district was not brought into the conversation at all until several board members attended a public meeting on the project and "made a stink." Gibson was bothered by the fact that the agreement board members had received did not include solid estimates on housing numbers or any additional drawings or exhibits. "These would all be questions that were discussed if they actually considered us a partner in this agreement, and I don't feel like that," Gibson said. "We haven't been brought to the table, just had this half-completed document thrown in our lap and told to make a decision." The board took no action on Wednesday night, but members made it clear they would not accept the compensation agreement while it contained a cap on money for the district. Bremke said that the board should speak with its legal counsel, DBR, Vermilion city officials and superintendents from other districts such as Avon and North Ridgeville which have dealt with similar large developments. DBR could proceed with a TIF without the consent of Firelands Schools, as state law allows a developer to have a TIF of up to 75 percent and for a maximum of 10 years with only the approval of the city. Vermilion City Council approved the rezoning necessary to allow the development during a meeting in June, a move that was vocally opposed by many residents at that meeting. Some residents filed a petition for a referendum blocking the rezoning to be placed on the ballot, which obtained enough signatures, but was kicked off the ballot due to it being filed incorrectly by the petitioners. Contact Owen MacMillan at (440) 329-7123 or omacmillan@chroniclet.com.