Cuyahoga County to routinely block city tax incentives

Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne directed his administration to routinely object to residential tax-increment financing districts established by local municipalities. Chief of Staff Erik Janas informed the County Council on Tuesday that the new policy aims to limit the amount of property tax revenue diverted from the county to city-backed development projects. The administration previously assumed a passive role in these negotiations, but it will now challenge specific districts as a matter of course.

Tax-increment financing allows cities to capture increases in property tax revenue generated by new construction. A city can set up a district that collects these new funds for up to 30 years to help fund infrastructure and development. When a city establishes such a district, other agencies funded by property taxes, including the county, local libraries, and Cleveland Metroparks, lose a portion of their expected revenue. Ohio law grants cities broad authority over these districts, leaving the county with limited power to stop them from being created.

Fiscal Officer Michael Chambers told the council that the county currently lacks significant control over most tax-increment financing districts. However, the county retains the legal right to object to specific districts. If the county does not object, the city retains 100 percent of the new property tax revenue for the full 30-year period. If the county objects and no agreement is reached, the city’s share drops to 75 percent for the first ten years and 50 percent for the subsequent 20 years. Chambers stated that objecting allows the county to enter negotiations with the municipality.

The county began implementing this strategy in 2025 by objecting to districts in Brooklyn and Brecksville. On Tuesday night, Ronayne asked the council to object to a proposed district in the village of Orange. That specific district would have diverted $3.6 million from the county’s general fund over 30 years. The county also plans to object to a district in Middleburg Heights, where officials already negotiated a cap on the diverted funds.

Councilmember Martin Sweeney voted in favor of objecting to the Orange district but urged the administration to improve communication with local cities. Sweeney noted that the surprise objection in Brooklyn strained his relationship with the local mayor. He requested that the administration ensure all communities are aware of the new policy and that negotiations occur in good faith.

Orange Mayor Jud Kline stated that the tax-increment financing was negotiated with a master developer to finance a mixed-use project. The development includes a small commercial area, homes for residents aged 55 and older, an active adult living facility, and a 35-acre green space. Kline said $800,000 of the funding would go to the developer, while the village would keep the remainder to build infrastructure. He argued that Ohio law permits municipalities to use these tools and that it would be fiscally irresponsible not to try to increase local income.

The council voted 11-0 to object to the Orange tax-increment financing district. Chambers reported to the council that tax-increment financing districts currently divert approximately $2.6 million annually from the county, though many of those districts are not subject to county objection.