Opponent Testimony on Substitute House Bill 147

Summary

Written opponent testimony on Substitute House Bill 147 submitted to the Ohio House Development Committee on February 25, 2026 by the Chair of the Delaware County Finance Authority (DCFA). The testimony states the DCFA Board's opposition to the bill. It argues that the proposed $25 million threshold for "minimally acceptable investments" is arbitrary, that no incentive should be automatic, and that the Tax Credit Authority override after 30 days would remove the say of townships, villages, cities and port authorities. It also objects to the proposed 20% fee cap, stating that the DCFA typically charges a 25% fee and that between 2022 and 2026 it authorized 38 sales tax exemptions. The testimony says the cap would have reduced DCFA revenue by 75% and affected its bond fund program.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Delaware County Finance Authority

Fostering Economic Growth Throughout Delaware County

Angel Mumma Bill Bishop Franz Geiger
Chair Vice Chair Secretary/Treasurer

John Comerford Frank Reinhard
Member Member

HOUSE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

SUB. HOUSE BILL 147 - OPPONENT TESTIMONY

February 25, 2026

Angel Mumma
Chair, Delaware County Finance Authority

Chair Hoops, Vice Chair Lorenz, Ranking Member Brownlee, and Members of the
Ohio House Development Committee:

My name is Angel Mumma. I serve as Chair of the Board of the Delaware County
Finance Authority (the “DCFA”). On behalf of myself and my fellow Board
Members, we appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony. I am here to express
our Board’s opposition to Substitute House Bill 147.

We appreciate our partnership with the State of Ohio, Delaware County
Commissioners, our local jurisdictions, and the many private and public partners who
have invested and continue to invest in Delaware County. According to the Ohio
Department of Development, Delaware County will continue to be ranked among the
three fastest-growing counties in Ohio through at least 2050. This is not by accident.
This has been the result of strategic planning and investment. It is also reflective of
setting conditions and leveraging responsibly applied economic development
incentives as authorized by Ohio law. Protecting these limited incentive tools is
essential for our county, region, and state, as well as for the future of economic
development.

We oppose Substitute HB 147 for the following reasons:

e We believe the proposed definition of “minimally acceptable investments” is
arbitrary. There is no reason given for establishing $25 million as the minimal

Delaware County Finance Authority, 91 N. Sandusky St., Delaware, Ohio 43015
PHONE: (614) 390-0972 FAX: (740) 833-2099 WEB: dcfa.co.delaware.oh.us

171148850v1
amount of investment nor clear understanding of associated public
infrastructure requirements to receive an automatic sales tax exemption. The
DCFA has approved sales tax exemptions for projects ranging from $3.8
million to over $250 million. All projects were equally important to the
jurisdiction, county, company, and/or developer. These projects are usually
associated with public infrastructure investments aimed at meeting the needs of
the wider community, instead of solely advancing the interests of the project
itself.

Unreasonable refusal of a project remains too vague in the proposed legislation.
No incentive should be automatic. Therefore, the proposed language limits
local discretion just because it did not enter into an agreement or did not meet a
30-day time constraint. Projects, especially when tied to infrastructure
improvements, are complicated and often require the local jurisdiction, the port
authority, and potentially other agencies, including the State of Ohio, to
participate in the decision-making process. Additionally, local jurisdictions
and/or port authorities administer incentives including tax increment financing,
community reinvestment areas, enterprise zones, new community authorities,
payroll incentives, tax exempt bonds, sales tax exemption, and other programs
based on job creation, payroll, investment, public infrastructure improvements,
and community impacts. These incentives can be applied separately or together.
Jurisdictions, including port authorities, who understand the goals, beliefs, and
impacts of their community should continue to have the ability to approve,
modify, or even deny incentives to assist local jurisdictions in achieving their
vision. We recognize that it is important for applicants seeking incentives to
receive prompt responses and clear explanations when any incentive is denied.
We try to live up to that standard, and we encourage all local jurisdictions and
port authorities to be mindful of this.

The Tax Credit Authority (the “Authority) override places an unfair burden on
the Authority. Under the proposal, if the local port authority does not take
action within 30 days and the arbitrary requirements for “minimally acceptable
investments” are met, the Authority must issue a certificate. This action
removes the ability of townships, villages, cities, and port authorities to have
their say, leaving the Authority unable to assess if the incentive is genuinely
necessary. Should it be determined that an appeal process is needed, such a
process should be implemented with appropriate policies and procedures to
ensure every party has an opportunity to be heard.
e The proposal to cap fees at 20% is also arbitrary. The DCFA derives revenue
through fees associated with sales tax exemptions. The revenue generated by
these fees assist the DCFA to cover administrative costs, support the DCFA’s
bond reserve, and provide additional funding to assist with other economic
development opportunities. DCFA typically charges a 25% fee, with possible
reductions approved by the Board. The DCFA completed its tenth bond fund
deal and established an appropriate bond fund reserve balance in 2025. As a
result, the DCFA will pursue its first bond fund rating in 2026. Reducing fees
will have a detrimental effect on the DCFA and its ability to support a bond
fund program. For example, between 2022 and 2026, the DCFA authorized 38
sales tax exemptions. Of the exemptions, 22 of 38 (60%) were valued at $25-
50 million. Limiting the sales tax to 20% would have reduced DCFA revenue
by 75%, making it impossible for the DCFA to maintain a bond fund that
supports local jurisdictions and other relevant economic development
initiatives. In the last three years and with consideration to projects in the
pipeline, the DCFA’s sales tax exemption and bond program have resulted in
nearly $1 billion dollars in private and public investment. The DCFA Board
appreciates the ability to apply a fee structure and commits to responsibly
administering it to maximize economic development opportunities for the
County, Region, and State.

In closing, local port authorities provide capital lease financing and exempt sales taxes
on building materials for projects in collaboration with local jurisdictions, companies,
and developers. By doing so we strive to create economic opportunities and quality of
life by leveraging the economic development incentives we have at our disposal. We
believe Substitute HB 147 diminishes our capability, removes accountability, and
places an unfair burden on the Tax Credit Authority that removes the voices of local
governments, specifically townships, villages, and cities. With that in mind, we
oppose Substitute HB147.

Again, on behalf of the DCFA Board, thank you for this opportunity and I am happy
to address any questions you may have to the best of my ability.

Delaware County Finance Authority

File and source

File

2026-02-25_development_testimony_testimony-14439.pdf

Size

1,511,803 bytes

SHA-256

fec1662b09dd3f5820dc4c8d0a58d916fa3b078632e34d3c4ef8dcc866e4c160

Our copy

2026-02-25_development_testimony_testimony-14439.pdf

Original

No public link identified.