By Stephen Smoot
Among other business conducted in last week’s Harrison County Commission meeting, the body deliberated on a subject that has simmered on the back burner in recent meetings. A public hearing, then a vote, brought together those on the Commission and in the public who opposed and supported the proposal to extend the Charles Pointe Tax Increment Financing district bonds for an additional 15 years.
A 2006 Exponent Telegram article in its establishment stated that “the TIF is being used to fund infrastructure at the $1 billion planned community of 2,000 acres along Interstate 79 and W, Va 279.”
Vince Collins, the then bond counsel for the Commission, said “taxes generated by the development will be used to pay debts service on these bonds. No taxpayers’ money will be used.”
The vision of development company Genesis Partners lay in a plan to “bring the best technology, research, and planning” to create “a sustainable and intelligent community for today’s global and digital age.”
According to the Harrison County government website, “TIF is a tool authorized by the West Virginia State Legislature to help counties and municipalities finance redevelopment projects and promote economic activity in distressed areas.”
It goes on to explain that TIF district public and private partnership models capture “the projected increase in property tax revenue gained by developing a discrete geographic area and uses that increase to assist in paying for projects.”
TIF districts, such as Charles Pointe, use some taxes from development within a defined area to support added economic development. Incremental tax monies go to the district to pay for needs such as infrastructure, as opposed to local government entities such as the City of Bridgeport, Harrison County, or Harrison County Schools. These governmental bodies do receive some tax revenues, but not all.
In this case, the developer and others for the Charles Pointe project wish to authorize the bonds for 15 more years. All, including the Harrison County Commission and the holders of the bonds, must agree for the authorization to occur. The stated reason for the need for more time lay in challenges brought about by COVID’s effect on the economy and skyrocketing inflation in recent years that makes construction on the site more expensive and time-consuming, reducing the TIF benefit below that needed to pay off the bonds.
The County Commission in its meeting last week held a public hearing to include the views of those who both opposed and favored the extension.
At the outset, speakers in the public hearing received the rules and guidelines of participation from county counsel Trey Simmerman. The rules limited speakers to three minutes, allowed no speaker to give up his or her time for another, and permitted no interaction with Commissioners or other speakers.
David Hinkle, Harrison County Commissioner, objected, saying “this is the first time this Commission has enforced rules” of this type in this hearing format. He added that rules had not been discussed with Commissioners or participants ahead of time and that the action was “typical of this Commission. We do these things in the dark.”
Although grouped in the “opposed” category the first speaker, Bridgeport Mayor Andy Lang, started by saying he was “not for or against” the proposal, but said “it’s a public hearing and there has been extremely limited information.” He pointed out that TIF represented a “diversion of taxes from local government for a total of 45 years,” if the extension takes place.
“How will diverting these dollars benefit the citizens of North Central West Virginia?” Lang inquired. The Mayor added that the extension would cost Harrison County Schools $6.6 million. Harrison County $5 million, and the City of Bridgeport $4 million.
After Lang, Bridgeport City Council members rose to “support what Andy said” and also help to finish his statement for him. Hank Murray asked “what further development is going to take place?” while also posing questions about the lack of a feasibility study and analysis of additional development. Murray also shared that the bonds had “been in default for over a decade.”
Clayton Rice, also on Bridgeport City Council, supported a delay in the process instead of an outright denial, but objected to what he described as “minimal transparency” and that more “information on the impact on Harrison County and its business community” is needed.
Don Burton, also on the city council, said “some of this information was not put out in a timely manner.”
Steve Webb, Assistant Director of the West Virginia Economic Development Authority read a letter of support from Kris Warner. He described the process to create TIFs and why Charles Pointe represents an economic driver for the entire region.
Businessman Jim Cava, who also serves on the Economic Opportunity Development District Board of Directors at Charles Pointe, used his time to explain why not providing the extension, given the unforeseen challenges to consistent development, would send a negative message to those looking to invest in future development. He said that people would hesitate to risk their capital and that, concerning Charles Pointe, “you can see the benefit to the whole community.”
Fellow board member Mike Romano added that the TIF district had funded $81 million in infrastructure at a pace and rate that local governments could not match.
Jamie Corton, representing Genesis Partners, shared that “we are a model (TIF) district” that other areas look to as an example of how to do it right. He went on to say that “we are not here today asking for additional funding beyond what was originally approved in our district in 2005 . . . we are only asking for the additional time permitted by the West Virginia Legislature to fulfill the obligations originally sought.”
To those who stated that transparency was their main concern Steve Ludwig, director of hospitality for Charles Pointe, shared that 161 public meetings and 384 public reports about the status of the project had taken place. Mark Dellana then provided the “in favor” case using hard financial statistics. He shared that with the TIF in place, even “beyond TIF allocation,” property tax revenues would total $21 million by 2024, $45 million by 2035, and $78 million by 2050.
Dellana emphasized that “the extension we are seeking here today will allow for payoff of all of our remaining property TIF bonds without any additional building or development.”
After the public hearing ended, and before the Commission voted on the resolution of support, Hinkle again raised objections. He said “I don’t think anyone really understands what they are approving” and leveled criticism at the lack of dollar amounts and terms. Hinkle also again shared his displeasure that there was “no opportunity to discuss or ask questions of each other.”
Hinkle then had an exchange with bond counsel Todd Aman. Aman explained through his answers that the resolution considered by the Commission represented just one step in the process. Delays, such as those requested by those in opposition, could hamper further development. “Time is never on a developer’s side,” Aman stated.
He then added that there was “an offer to have a feasibility study done . . but the City was not interested in it . . . the city did not want to go down that path.”
Patsy Trecost, Harrison County Commissioner, stated that “the only thing we are voting on today is the extension.” He went on to add that “any transaction that happens comes before the Commission and we have to vote on it.”
Commissioners then voted two to one, Hinkle dissenting, to pass the resolution. Next, the question of approval goes before the West Virginia Economic Development Authority who can give or deny their assent.