Print Page | Close Window

Vacant building

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: Community Revitalization
Forum Description: Middletown Community Revitalization News
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6437
Printed Date: Mar 23 2017 at 12:19pm


Topic: Vacant building
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Subject: Vacant building
Date Posted: Mar 12 2017 at 10:57am

Middletown considers $11 offer for vacant building

http://www.journal-news.com/news/local/richter/uXflDgPmOLMkhUpWJZU0UM/" rel="nofollow -   Staff Writer
8:00 a.m. Sunday, March 12, 2017
   http://www.journal-news.com/community/middletown" rel="nofollow - MIDDLETOWN

It wasn’t a typo in a first reading of legislation before Middletown City Council last week to sell a building on First Avenue for about $11.

The city received a proposal from Patrick Klancar, owner of MJK Management LLC of Middletown, who said he’d be willing to purchase the property at 1200-1204 First Ave. for $11.39.

While selling this fixer-upper for $11.39 may seem to be a bargain, Klancar said the estimated cost to revitalize the building is about $50,000 with contingencies to create three market-rate apartments on the upper level and three small storefront businesses at the street level. One of those businesses would be his property management office.

In his plan, Klancar said he had $40,000 set aside for this project and that he planned to do much of the work himself as well as being connected to a network of wholesale high-quality building material suppliers.

MORE:  http://www.journal-news.com/news/middletown-seeks-developers-for-downtown-properties/TvMQzPmPIBPxcEwZpAOX1J/" rel="nofollow - - Middletown seeks developers for 4 downtown properties

According to Klancar’s proposal, the building is in a state of decay due to a leaky roof and a lack of ongoing maintenance. In addition the interior has a lot of water damage that will require extensive repairs. Klancar said structurally the building seems to be intact per spot inspections. However Klancar said the state of the plumbing, electricity, HVAC is not known as access to the basement was not possible. The building has broken windows, missing siding and a non-secure door.

After completion of this project, Klancar said he would like to acquire additional projects in the surrounding area to revitalize.

City Manager Doug Adkins said Klancar came to the $11.39 amount after taking the Butler County Auditor’s last appraisal of the property and deducting the costs in bringing the building up to current building standards. Adkins said this was preliminary proposal and that a structured development agreement would be developed that would include credits for work done to get the price to where the developers wants it to be.

“It seems to be a nice project,” Adkins said.

Council will consider the proposed agreement for final approval at an upcoming meeting.

Proposed development met with resistance in Middletown

Several properties in the downtown area have been put out for Request for Proposals for redevelopment three times over the past six months. The last round of Request for Proposals resulted in one bid for 1200-1204 First Avenue, as well as a second bid which was incomplete. According to city records, these are the first bids for this property. Last year, the city started putting out RFPs for various properties on a quarterly basis.

According to Matt Eisenbraun, Middletown’s assistant economic development director, said the city acquired the property in July 2013 through the Sheriff’s sale process at no cost to the city.

Properties that do not receive a bid during a first attempt to sell are made available to the city before they go through a second auction attempt,” Eisenbraun said in an email.

He said if there are no bids are received at the second attempt, the property is then forfeited to the state of Ohio.

Eisenbraun said the RFP process is being utilized to sell off city property that is not used or occupied. In addition to the 1200 First Ave. property, the city is trying to sell the following buildings: the former Studio Theatre on Central Avenue; 19 S. Clinton St., and 24 N. Main St.

He said the city sold the old Midtown cabinets on Vail Street last summer. Eisenbraun said the next round of RFP submissions are due April 3.

 




Replies:
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 12 2017 at 1:09pm
expect a deal on the Studio/Strand ----
probably a giveaway/subsidy similar to what we always see


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 12 2017 at 2:03pm
Spider
The Studio and the Mongomery Ward buildings both need to be torn down imo.
The Studio will cost some really big bucks to demo because it is flled with abestos. 


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 12 2017 at 2:12pm
Wards will come down
Studio will not and we will subsidize a private venture imo


Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Mar 13 2017 at 10:52am
Originally posted by spiderjohn spiderjohn wrote:


Studio will not and we will subsidize a private venture imo

Depends on how you define subsidize.

Since the building is in a CRA area. and the developer could utilize that as part of the deal.  CRA--as a reminder-- exempts increased value in property from property taxes for x period of time based on the agreement.  I believe both Goetz and TV Middletown/Torchlight Pass is using this type of agreement. 

The developer could also go after facade improvement grants as well as job creation grants.  Job creation grants/incentives are available through the city.  Facade improvement, I believe, is limited to downtown area. 

I don't see the city giving $ outright for redevelopment, imo.  




Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 13 2017 at 8:58pm
??
Sounds like private sector welfare financed by taxpayers
Who recieve little to nothing for their $$$
Basic services don't improve
Private owners pocket $$$$
No property tax
Few jobs

Wrong swo?

Will we ever learn?


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 14 2017 at 7:41am
swohio75:

"I don't see the city giving $ outright for redevelopment, imo."

How about the taxpayer money used to purchase the Thatcher Estate buildings setting Cincy State up for business? Was taxpayer money used to do interior work on the old CG&E building as well?

The Rose Furniture deal where the city loaned 350 thou for redevelopment. Robinette's group wasn't it?

Or the Manchester where the city used taxpayer dollars for purchase, tried to sell it for 350 thou with no takers and ended up giving it away to Grau for a buck just to see him back out of the deal?

Hey, and how about the old Senior's Center where the city bought the building, had it sold and bought it back again, right? Still empty with no planned use.

The city using money to pay for the lease of the lower floor of the former bank building for excess city building personnel to help the building owner with his redevelopment costs? Is this a Robinette deal as well or another owner?

What about the Duncan Oil plans on property purchase, demolition costs and the plans for a convenience store that went awry? Office Outfitters location? What happened there?

Or the old Hobby Lobby/cabinet city money store purchase for 95 thou that went south?

Who owns the Liberty after a number of failed business attempts there?

Who owns the old library on 1st Ave? How about all the vacant storefronts on Central downtown? City own a few of those as well?

The old Journal building perhaps? The old Reed-Klopp furniture store of the old Studio Theatre property? City owned and sitting with a million dollar price tag to remove the asbestos with no takers in decades?

How about all the cost for all of the buildings demoed for extra parking around Cincy State that has yet to be used? Ligon gas station?

What about the old Armco/John Ross building and the 350 thou of city taxpayer money to set up the PAC?

All examples of the city using taxpayer money to set up redevelopment opportunities to control who develops their downtown, right?

-------------
I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over.


Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Mar 16 2017 at 11:16am
Originally posted by spiderjohn spiderjohn wrote:

??
Sounds like private sector welfare financed by taxpayers
Who recieve little to nothing for their $$$
Basic services don't improve
Private owners pocket $$$$
No property tax
Few jobs

Wrong swo?

Will we ever learn?
Again - depends.  I don't know the specifics about the project.   However, CRA does not exempt a property from property tax.  Just anything incremental based on improvements made for x # of years based on the agreement.  This type of development tool is not unique to Middletown and has been used by cities for decades.  And if improvements made increase surrounding property values, incremental taxes to those properties will be collected. 

Re: Job Creation--if you are going to call it corporate welfare when it gets used in the downtown area, you need to call it corporate welfare when it is applied to projects outside of downtown as well.  Again, I don't know the specifics about the project/proposal or how many jobs it is expected to create, so this type of incentive may not even get used.  I am just suggesting that is is one possible option for the developer.  


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 16 2017 at 11:53am
swo--for the small guy it doesn't happen outside of the former downtown
We will wait for the details and hidden taxpayer costs
How many(%) of these former downtown area giveaways have worked?


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 16 2017 at 12:30pm
swohio75:

"if you are going to call it corporate welfare when it gets used in the downtown area, you need to call it corporate welfare when it is applied to projects outside of downtown as well."

Nope. Disagree. This "corporate welfare", in the form of using taxpayer money for development, occurs in the downtown area 99% of the time. The rest of the city is on it's own and is at the mercy of private enterprise for the most part. The city does very little to promote any development outside the downtown area. It is well documented within these pages just how much taxpayer money has been socked into the downtown area and what little reward it has yielded. There has been very little taxpayer money go toward development in any other part of the city. Every story the Journal presents to the public, every transaction handled by council in a typical council meeting and when promotion of an area is announced, it is about financing the downtown. Every dime available for development goes into the dam downtown and I might add, the return on investment takes a nosedive every time this happens. The slow-to-no downtown progress over all of these years proves that statement. It has been a disaster as to investment value but the dam downtown supporters keep the fiasco alive anyway.    

-------------
I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over.



Print Page | Close Window