Print Page | Close Window

AGENDA 3-01-2016

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6288
Printed Date: Nov 22 2024 at 2:38am


Topic: AGENDA 3-01-2016
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Subject: AGENDA 3-01-2016
Date Posted: Feb 27 2016 at 4:21pm

MIDDLETOWN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

TUESDAY, March 1, 2016

BUSINESS MEETING – 5:30 pm – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – LOWER LEVEL

1. MOMENT OF MEDITATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

2. ROLL CALL

3. CITIZEN COMMENTS, GUESTS, ORGANIZATIONS’ REPORTS

4. CITY MANAGER REPORTS

5. CONSENT AGENDA. . . Matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote of consent. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed and considered separately.

(a) Approve City Council Minutes: February 16, 2016

(b) Confirm Promotional Appointments: Brent Hughes & John Fadden - Fire Apparatus Operator, Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire

(c) Receive and File Oaths of Office: Stephen Busam, Adam Cox, Jennifer Ekey, Jeffrey Green, Ryan Saettel

(d) To approve the purchase of 80 pieces of body armor and related accessories for the Division of Police from Vance Outdoors, of Columbus, Ohio, in the amount of $55,680, off the State of Ohio Cooperative Purchasing Program.

(e) To authorize the purchase approximately 800 water meters from Badger Meter, Inc. of Milwaukee, WI, in the amount of $67.50 each.

(f) To approve a contract with various vendors for the purchase of supplies for the Water Maintenance Division. Est. Annual Cost Section 1 – Brass Ferguson Waterworks – Hamilton, OH $14,908.85 Section 2 – Repair Clamps Ferguson Waterworks – Hamilton, OH $14,670.00 Section 3 – Valve Boxes, Sleeves EJP, Inc. – West Carrollton, OH $23,458.48 Section 4 – Gate Valves Fortiline – Cincinnati, OH $ 6,684.82 Section 5 – Sewer Rings and Lids Fortiline – Cincinnati, OH $ 8,700.80 Section 6 – Miscellaneous Fortiline – Cincinnati, OH $ 2,501.28

COUNCIL COMMENTS LEGISLATION

1. Ordinance No. O2016-04, an ordinance establishing a procedure for and authorizing a contract for the transfer of City owned property located at 1316 Vail Street to Liberty Spirits, LLC for redevelopment, and declaring an emergency.

2. Ordinance No. O2016-05, an ordinance authorizing a contract with Buick GMC of Beachwood for the purchase of a GMC Sierra 15 Automobile. (2nd Reading)

3. Resolution No. R2016-06, a resolution authorizing an agreement granting tax abatement to Liberty Spirits, LLC for redevelopment of 1357 Central Avenue in the Downtown Middletown Community Reinvestment Area. (1st Reading)




Replies:
Posted By: Factguy
Date Posted: Feb 27 2016 at 4:39pm
No bid in spite of state code and city ordinance, tax abatement to shield Main Street, what else is new.

It has to be done though. Forbes is coming back downtown to revise their previous ranking of 'dying' to a strong 'buy.'


Posted By: 409
Date Posted: Feb 27 2016 at 5:18pm
Will this fiasco negate any demo, etc of the Studio elephant next door?

-------------
Every morning is the dawn of a new error...


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Feb 27 2016 at 6:27pm
409
I believe it would cost City Hall about $500,000 to demo the Studio 


Posted By: Cooper
Date Posted: Feb 27 2016 at 6:32pm
Just between us girls....

The 3.00 a month diversion of the street lamps from the city to the residents and business is to pay for the lost tax revenue associated with downtown tax abatements, abatements for Akers Packaging, and others on the east end.


Posted By: Analytical
Date Posted: Feb 27 2016 at 7:21pm
In review, what a nice income tax write-off for the former owners of a derelict movie theater who donated this dinosaur to the city for $1.00.  And, what an ongoing financial albatross for the city.  Does anyone know of affordable asbestos abatement and demolition contractors?


Posted By: Cooper
Date Posted: Feb 27 2016 at 9:17pm
The city as they did Sunset Pool demolition, will remove the asbestos. Who is behind the curtain of Robinette? $400,000 is a lot of dollars to raise. Maybe MMF can provide from the $ 5 Mm they are working on.




 


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Feb 28 2016 at 3:18pm
Tell me if I am wrong here....
3(?) parcels previously purchased by taxpayers for $200,000+ gifted + tax abatement to employ how many people just to sell alcohol?
If so--can't fault the guy for grabbing this deal

Do Buck's, At the Square and/or any other existing similar businesses receive tax abatements? Canal House? So--every other liquor establishment will now compete with the above deal? Shouldn't existing businesses(of all types) ask for and expect similar treatment?

I assume this means that the Studio/Strand won't be coming down after all? Didn't we allocate funds for it's demo long ago?

And this type of dealing + our recent academic scoring is going to change the minds of the people at Forbes?

So--help me out--what part of this methodology am I failing to grasp?

New Council/school board members??


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Feb 29 2016 at 7:36am
Spider

If Robinette has money to invest in this business  property...why hasn't he completed the Goetz Building?
Do you not find it a bit strange that Robinette has been involved in sooo many of these downtown city deals?
What about the church at 119 South Main Street that was demolished?
What about the Rose-Ewing Buildings?
What about the Goetz Building?
Now we have the 3 Vail-Central Ave properties being sold for a dollar.

City Hall has talked numerous time about the Studio..however I do not remember them allocating funding for demo.
Sorry Spider, no logic to help your bussiness mind grasp their DOWNTOWN PLANS. 


Posted By: Bocephus
Date Posted: Feb 29 2016 at 11:55am
They don't even care how obvious their shady dealings are like moving the hope house out of downtown to tytus avenue? Just did a property search and it looks like Hope House owns all the land plus some on the corner of Byron and Tytus where the factory burnt down a few years ago. How did Hope House that didn't have enough cash to pay their utility bills last time I heard all of a sudden make several land purchases? Hmm I wonder.



Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Feb 29 2016 at 3:08pm
Gentlemen
Here is the link to the law concerning HOME RULE...

http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/membersonly/128municipalhomerule.pdf


Posted By: 409
Date Posted: Feb 29 2016 at 6:36pm
MJ:
Middletown distillery seeks 10-year, 100 percent tax break

By Mike Rutledge
Staff Writer
MIDDLETOWN —
On the same night Middletown City Council will consider selling the property at 1316 Vail Ave. and two others to Liberty Spirits LLC for $1, City Manager Doug Adkins will recommend the council give the startup micro-distillery a 100 percent tax abatement for 10 years.

Liberty Spirits is owned by real-estate owner/broker Mike Robinette, a former Middletown city economic development and planning employee, who plans to produce vodka, gin and moonshine, plus aged bourbon and whiskey, at the micro-distillery.

“Liberty Spirits is a start-up business in an emerging industry which is highly competitive. In order for Liberty Spirits to succeed, controllable cost must be kept to a minimum,” Robinette wrote as explanation for the 10-year, 100 percent tax abatement request, according to the application he filed in September:

According to the application, Liberty Spirits plans to spend $35,000 acquiring the 4,000-square-foot building at 1357 Central Ave. — two properties away from the 4,000-square-foot city-owned structure he plans to buy from Middletown for $1 and renovate. The firm estimates it will spend $50,000 renovating the buildings at Vail and Central, spend $150,000 on machinery and equipment, $35,000 on furniture and fixtures, and another $30,000 on inventory, according to its application for tax breaks.

The city in 2010 spent $90,000 in local money to buy the property at 1316 Vail, which is in disrepair, from a custom-cabinetry company. At one point, the city planned to raze the building. Middletown also spent $215,000 in federal funds to buy and raze buildings on two adjacent vacant properties that are part of the proposed $1 sale.

Under the proposed sale to Liberty Spirits, if the Vail Avenue project is not completed by Dec. 31, the company will be in default of the agreement, and the city can give the company notice that the property will revert to city government within 60 days if work isn’t finished, Adkins has told council members. The real estate cannot be transferred to anyone else before the project is developed.

The company estimated it would have four part-time employees in the year after the project’s completion, with an annual payroll of $80,000.

Middletown City Council in 2015 approved tax abatements for two projects that have been put into effect: A 10-year, 75 percent break for NTE Energy’s $645 million power plant near Cincinnati-Dayton and Oxford State roads; and a 15-year, 100 percent break for AK Steel’s $36 million Research and Innovation Center.

Council also approved two other tax abatements for projects that have not come to fruition.


-------------
Every morning is the dawn of a new error...


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 29 2016 at 10:47pm
Hmmm....all the 0 percent tax but city hall putting the screws on the residents on the 3.00 monthly fee than the city paying it. Any other neighborhoods getting the benefit of being surrounded by 0% abatements. Of course not. Have to keep Main Street protected with Millions in cash infusion and no tax. Nice everyone is willing to give 3.00 month for the grand polish surrounding Main. Suckers. 

-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 3:44pm
A big wad of taxpayers' dough given away in the form of free real estate and tax abatements...in exchange for WHAT???

3 or 4 PART-TIME jobs!!!

BRILLIANT!!!         

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 3:59pm
No wonder Robinette finally went away from raising heck about the city not selling him the Bank One building having at least 2x to 3x the monthly cash-flow from MUM when his bid was higher by thousands.

He knew they were making downtown a TIF and the east end a TIF, with 0 percent tax. He kept mum after being told put a lid on it, you already have been given 90% of downtown Middletown. Wonder if there is any conflict behind the Managing Partners of these LLC's, that might be on council or have conflicts. Any council member going to ask for full disclosure of the members of the Liberty LCC?

The reason there has been no development, including Rose, and others, is they are waiting on the full TIF downtown announcement and hoping, raying, begging, somehow, city hall will push some cash through MMF for seed cash. Believe me, its hard to raise $ 5 Mm in a cap raise when you can show a 15x return in 10 years and low hurdle rate less than 18 months, let alone when its a plan so high, and glittering, only Concorde jets were able to fly, and when gravity moves from 9.8 mm/sec squared to 0.

Ground control to Major Tom----this isn't right ethically.      


-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Cooper
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 4:59pm
Are these tax abatements for both property and income tax or property tax? No wonder Doug Adkins makes so much money. Its hard to put together complex deals giving hundreds of thousands away for nothing, and then getting no tax. Only an MBA from Wharton would think of such a brilliant plan.   


Posted By: middielover
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 5:09pm
If I read correctly this building Robinette wants to develop has been vacant for 7 years, has a 30 foot hole in the roof and has no utility services.
Why not let him develop the building? At least saves the cost of demolishing the damn thing.


Posted By: middielover
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 6:22pm
Maybe Vivian Moon, Spiderjohn or Mike Presta will invest some of their money in downtown.
Don't hold your breath.


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 7:10pm
Middielover
Hmmm...it seems that Robinette/Grassroots had owned this property since 2013.

"According to the application, Liberty Spirits plans to spend $35,000 acquiring the 4,000-square-foot building at 1357 Central Ave."

PARID: Q6532004000030
LIBERTY SPIRITS LLC1357 CENTRAL AVE
Sales

Sale DateSale TypeSale AmountTrans #SellerBuyer
08-JUL-15LAND & BUILDING$2,203.006377LIDO ENTERPRISES INCLIBERTY SPIRITS LLC
09-MAR-151911GRASSROOTS OHIOLIDO ENTERPRISES INC
14-NOV-1311836RICH RANDALL S TR ETALGRASSROOTS OHIO
04-MAR-101566RICH RANDALL SRICH RANDALL S TR ETAL

PARID: Q6532004000030
LIBERTY SPIRITS LLC1357 CENTRAL AVE

TaxyrLand ValueBuilding ValueTotal Appraised ValueLand (35%)Building (35%)35% Total AssessedCAUV
2015$9,400$25,600$35,000$3,290$8,960$12,250$0
2014$9,400$25,600$35,000$3,290$8,960$12,250$0
2013$25,660$62,660$88,320$8,980$21,930$30,910$0
2012$25,660$62,660$88,320$8,980$21,930$30,910$0
2011$25,660$62,660$88,320$8,980$21,930$30,910$0
2010$25,660$68,620$94,280$8,980$24,020$33,000$0
2009$25,660$68,620$94,280$8,980$24,020$33,000$0
2008$25,660$68,620$94,280$8,980$24,020$33,000$0
2007$15,800$73,500$89,300$5,530$25,730$31,260$0
2006$15,800$73,490$89,290$5,530$25,720$31,250$0
2005$15,800$73,490$89,290$5,530$25,720$31,250$0
2004$21,380$59,540$80,920$7,480$20,840$28,320$0
2003$21,380$59,540$80,920$7,480$20,840$28,320$0
2002$21,380$59,540$80,920$7,480$20,840$28,320$0
2001$19,010$62,570$81,580$6,650$21,900$28,550$0
2000$19,010$62,570$81,580$6,650$21,900$28,550$0
1999$19,010$62,570$81,580$6,650$21,900$28,550$0
1998$19,010$62,570$81,580$6,650$21,900$28,550$0
1997$19,010$62,570$81,580$6,650$21,900$28,550$0
1996$19,010$62,570$81,580$6,650$21,900$28,550$0
1995$19,000$65,700$84,700$6,650$23,000$29,650$0
1994$19,000$65,700$84,700$6,650$23,000$29,650$0
1993$19,000$65,700$84,700$6,650$23,000$29,650$0



Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 7:16pm
City paying sham owners creating sham LLC's to shield Main Street. Open for Business through giveaways. Illogical and wasteful. Tear buildings down.  

-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 7:44pm
Middielover
I come from a very long line of some of the finest moonhiners and peach brandy makers in the State of Kentucky.
I do hope that Mr Robinette has some very deep pockets if not he will be out of business within two years.



Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 01 2016 at 8:45pm
fair enough middielover

so--why would city pay $200,000 for the properties mentioned in that condition?

4 jobs @ $20,000 per annum won't move the needle much, will it?

u want me to invest down there?
what r u going to give me?
why should I pay?
no one else does
if that area had to start and survive on their own dime, little would be there--it is all opm!


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 7:11am
Originally posted by middielover middielover wrote:

Maybe Vivian Moon, Spiderjohn or Mike Presta will invest some of their money in downtown.
Don't hold your breath.
Middielover:

OK...Even though the city's own market analysis (also paid for with taxpayers' money a few years back) says that the type of businesses that the city will allow in their downtown won't succeed, give me a property for a dollar, plus a few hundred thousand dollars bribe...oops, I mean incentive...like the city does to their cronies and I'd be tickled pink to invest next to nothing (just like these guys are doing)!!!

Where do I sign up???

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 10:40am

Middielover

I don’t know why you can’t understand that taxpayers DO NOT want City Hall to give away their tax dollars to start up businesses of their friends in the downtown area.
We have been told for several years now that MMF was going to ask for investment money from local movers and shakers to help fund these new businesses. What happened to that great plan?
If MMF doesn’t think these are great solid business investment then why should taxpayer’s dollars be used for startup investments?
If you want to open a business in the DOWNTOWN DREAM...gamble with own money.



Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 12:19pm
Hmmm..I just noticed that the cost of lovely wrought iron fence at the front of 1329 and 1341 Central Ave was not included in City Hall investment money of the Robinette $1 giveaway  properties.
So how much did this fence cost the taxpayers?


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 12:25pm

Posted: 11:59 a.m. Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Middletown Council approves $1 sale to distillery, but with hesitation

By Mike Rutledge

 MIDDLETOWN 

All five members of Middletown City Council voted Tuesday to approve the $1 sale of a building at 1316 Vail Ave. and two adjacent vacant properties to startup micro-distillery Liberty Spirits LLC, but not before significant discussion about whether terms negotiated by the city administration were too generous.

Council Members Dora Bronston, Talbott Moon and Steve Bohannon expressed concerns about the terms of the sale and a proposed 100 percent tax abatement over 10 years for the project. Mayor Larry Mulligan Jr. suggested the possibility of tabling legislation approving the $1 sale for two weeks until the March 15 meeting, which company owner Mike Robinette plans to attend to discuss legislation approving the tax abatement. Robinette was out of town during Tuesday’s meeting, officials said.

City Manager Doug Adkins told council the lack of tax abatement may jeopardize the project.

Council members indicated they have heard criticisms from citizens questioning generosity of the deals.

Ultimately, at the suggestion of Mulligan, council members voted for the sale, with the understanding they will speak with Robinette, a former city employee, during the March 15 meeting.

The Journal-News will update this story later today.

 

 



Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 12:34pm
Story in the Journal where city council approved this......BUT WITH HESITATION.

Yeah, apparently Bronston, Moon and Bohannon got some negative feedback from citizens as to the giveaways or so they say.


But, of course, with some "reassurance" from Mulligan, they eventually agreed.

The story mentions they will deal with this again when Robinette is back in town. Wanna bet it will be forgotten about with this becoming some more lip service to appease the public.

Well, so much for investigating the public's issue with this deal. Quickly and efficiently swept under the rug. Weakness shown. No one with any guts anymore behind that desk.

Bronston, Moon and Bohannon are showing they are no change from any of the other rubber stamping council members. No matter who sits behind that council desk, and no matter how they say they will "listen intently" if elected, they all eventually come into the Mulligan fold and rubber stamp the city agends, no questions asked. Not allowed to dissent and offer any argument against those who run the show or you're edged out of that council seat eventually.

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


Posted By: middielover
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 6:47pm
Vet
What do you propose be done with that junk building the City owns?


Posted By: middielover
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 6:48pm
Seems to me Adkins is trying to cleanup a mess created by Gilleland.


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 7:27pm
No no no Middielover,
Adkins was sitting right next to Miss Judy when the Thatcher buildings were given away.
Adkins has not earned a gold star just yet...


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 8:20pm
Originally posted by middielover middielover wrote:

Vet
What do you propose be done with that junk building the City owns?


The dam city should never have owned it in the first place. Why does the city think they need to get in the middle of any real estate transaction involving private entities?

It isn't about what I propose. It is about the insane practice of using taxpayer money to buy downtown buildings for over inflated prices to have them set for years on end just to turn around and give them away for a buck because they have fallen into further disrepair. Look how much the city paid for the Thatcher building package purchases with taxpayer money and they ended up giving most of those buildings away also. How about all the money sunken into the Rose Furniture fiasco. The Manchester? Office Outfitters site. How about the Duncan Oil/Jack's Rec Center/service station by the tracks idea that never materialized. They gave away the old Seniors Center. Nothing has been a success, yet the practice remains.

It is a losing proposition for the taxpayer and the city.

Before any of this voodoo real estate transaction nonsense began, the building should have remained in the hands of the owner prior to the city purchasing it. That owner should have been made to bring the building up to code or pays for demolition themselves. THEN, the OWNER sells the building if not demoed. The city stays out of it as it is a private transaction.

middielover, it is a fact that the city has made public several times that they are now getting out of the real estate business, yet, as we all see today, they keep buying junker buildings and give them away to their little buddies AT THE TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE, usually for a buck.

Mercy sakes, you don't see anything wrong with that?

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


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 02 2016 at 8:25pm
Originally posted by middielover middielover wrote:

Seems to me Adkins is trying to cleanup a mess created by Gilleland.


Seems to me that Adkins was sitting right beside Gilleland in the old city building and agreeing with anything and everything she wanted to do to take the city to ghettoland. He is guilty by association at best. He did his share of damage to the city during his tenure with Gilleland too. There were (and still are) many guilty as to being responsible for trashing this city. Adkins gets no credit so far as he has his baggage from the Gilleland regime. He doesn't have clean credentials either. He, along with Kohler and council did a job on this town.

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


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 3:06am
Originally posted by middielover middielover wrote:

Vet
What do you propose be done with that junk building the City owns?
The question is: "Why does the City own it?" WAIT!!! Let me re-phrase that!!! Why did the City pay a BIG WAD of taxpayers' dough for it???

After YOU answer THAT question, let me turn around the question that YOU asked Vivian, Spider and I: Why don't YOU take it off the taxpayers' hands??? HUH??? Riddle me THAT, Batman!!!

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 3:15am
You moron!!! We taxpayers should NEVER have owned these "junk buildings" and other white elephant properties in the first place!!!

You and MMF and the Mulligans, and the rest of the liberals in town who believe that government should control all aspects of business and private property, should pay for all of the damage that you've done to our fair city!!!


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 5:21am

Posted: 11:59 a.m. Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Middletown council debates micro-distillery subsidies

By Mike Rutledge

 

MIDDLETOWN
Five members of Middletown City Council voted Tuesday to approve the $1 sale of a dilapidated building at 1316 Vail Ave. and two adjacent vacant properties to startup micro-distillery Liberty Spirits LLC.

But they had significant discussion before that about whether terms negotiated by the city administration were too generous, and whether the project will become reality.

Council members Dora Bronston, Talbott Moon and Steve Bohannon expressed concerns about the terms of the sale and a proposed 100 percent tax abatement over 10 years for the company.

Mayor Larry Mulligan Jr. suggested the possibility of tabling legislation approving the $1 sale for two weeks until the March 15 meeting, which company owner Mike Robinette plans to attend to discuss legislation approving the tax abatement. Robinette was out of town during Tuesday’s meeting, City Manager Doug Adkins said.

In the weeks since the proposed sale was announced, officials have heard criticism from citizens about the wisdom of selling a building for $1 that Middletown bought with $90,000 of local money. Middletown also spent $215,000 in federal funds to buy and raze buildings on two adjacent vacant properties that are part of the $1 sale.

Middletown’s reaching new heights of ridiculousness,” said city resident Robin Fordyce, 62, who criticizes the subsidies for a micro-distillery in the city’s downtown, which she argues already has enough bars.

“If this is a capitalistic society, then let them figure out a business model that does not include paying $1 for a building that was bought for $90,000, and then they need tax breaks,” added Fordyce, who said she planned to attend Tuesday’s council meeting but was sick. “And, of course, it’s a former city employee (who owns Liberty Spirits). This is so old.”

Moon during Tuesday’s meeting noted, “I think we’ve all received phone calls, or emails, or messages on this, and there is some level of concern out there in the public, and I certainly share some of their concern.”

“I’m a proponent of small business — I’m a small-business owner here in town — and I think there’s certainly instances where it’s wise and necessary to incentivize business to come to town,” Moon said. Either the $1 sale or the tax abatement seem appropriate, he added, but: “I do have some reservations about both giving the building away and doing a 100-percent abatement,” Moon said.

Bronston, who expressed surprise Adkins had agreed to a 100-percent abatement, was among those on council who want to hear directly from Robinette, Liberty Spirits’ owner, as well as a real-estate owner/broker and former city economic-development and planning employee.

“I had some questions that I wanted to ask directly to Mr. Robinette, and for him to present his plan,” Bronston said. “I would prefer personally that he would come and give us some kind of a presentation.”

Bohannon said he wanted assurances about Robinette’s ability to complete the project.

“We put money into that property, a lot of money — of citizens’ money — into that, and I’m just concerned about the citizens’ money that we’ve spent on this thing, on speculation from someone that has not proven to me that he can follow through on a project,” Bohannon said.

“Now, granted, everybody deserves a first chance to try something,” Bohannon added. “I just don’t want to see this coming back and biting us in the tail, that we end up getting this property back again, and then the citizens saying, ‘What is the city of Middletown doing giving away property?’ And it just snowballs into that.”

“I think that’s certainly a fair concern, Mr. Bohannon,” Mulligan said. “There’s no doubt that we need to proceed cautiously with that.” But it’s also important to be friendly to business, the mayor said.

Robinette in his application for the abatement, explained: “Liberty Spirits is a start-up business in an emerging industry which is highly competitive. In order for Liberty Spirits to succeed, controllable cost must be kept to a minimum.”

Adkins noted the Vail Avenue building has no plumbing, electric or heat/air-conditioning, plus a large hole in the roof. Yet, “Liberty Spirits is willing to take the Vail property for $1,” he said. He later added: “No one in the last six years has had any interest in even looking at that property.”

Under terms of the proposed tax abatement, Liberty Spirits will pay property taxes for the value of a nearby 4,000-square-foot building at 1357 Central Ave., as that value was set when the property was purchased, plus income taxes on the distillery operation’s estimated $80,000 payroll, Adkins said. The 10-year, 100 percent tax abatement would eliminate taxes on that building’s added value created by the renovation. The estimated savings from the tax cut are $650 per year, or $6,500 over the decade, he said. The company will still have to pay about $908 yearly in property taxes, based on its purchase value.

Asked by council, Adkins speculated rejection of the tax cut could kill the deal: “I would want to ask him for sure, but my understanding is no, if he’s not going to get the … abatement, I’m not sure he would stay in this property on Central. He may look at other options and other locations.”

Council Member Daniel Picard said he saw no need to hear from Robinette.

“For us to start to insert ourselves into the negotiating process is someplace we ought not be,” Picard said. “If we’re going to insert ourselves into negotiating those deals, No. 1, that’s not what we were elected to do, and No. 2, no one’s going to come here. They’re not going to want to negotiate with all five of us.”

If Middletown isn’t business-friendly, Adkins told council, companies may say, “Nevermind, we’ll go to Hamilton.”

Adkins said if Robinette is willing to invest, “even if he goes out of business, that building now is renovated, ready for use in the future.”

“It helps if you don’t sandbag him on council night,” Adkins said, asking that council members send him their questions in advance of the March 15 meeting so Robinette can be prepared.

Picard said he believes critics of the project are jealous, or don’t like Robinette.

“As I said in my email this morning to all of you, the people who don’t want this to happen are people who have a grudge or something to hold against Mr. Robinette, and so they don’t want him to be involved, or they’re jealous,” Picard said.

Picard said he spoke about 30 minutes with one man who didn’t like the proposed deals, “and that’s really all it was: He’s jealous of the fact that Mr. Robinette’s getting a great deal. Well, I tell you what, folks: Mr. Adkins is putting together a list of all the properties that this city has. If you’ve got a deal, you want to do something, step forward. Bring us your project. We’ll be glad to consider it. We’ll probably be willing to make you a deal where you get a building for a buck, too.”

·                                  

 



Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 6:19am

"Picard said he believes critics of the project are jealous, or don’t like Robinette"

Picard, the people have spoken and, like a child, you don't want to hear what they have said. Now, to emphasize the child-like behavior, you go the "jealous" route to voice your displeasure.

What the..? jealous of Robinette? Has NOTHING to do with being jealous of Robinette. It doesn't matter who it is. Has EVERYTHING to do with taking taxpayer money, buying buildings downtown and ending up giving away the dumps to the friends of the city for a buck. Has EVERYTHING to do with wanting the dam city to get out of the private sector's business and staying out of the real estate business altogether like you said you were going to do many times. Has EVERYTHING to do with misappropriation of taxpayer dollars.

Picard, you clueless wonder. You have to go son.

Look, being "business friendly" doesn't mean you buy the building for 90 grand, it sits until you have some interest from a friend of the city, you give them the dam building for a buck PLUS TAX ABATEMENTS for 10 years...... being business friendly does not mean buying the property. gifting the property and powdering their behinds for them, especially when you use taxpayer money to do it. Under your "business friendly" program, the city incurs all the cost both in the loss of money in buying, gifting and tax abatements and the buyer gets all the benefit with no taxes and the city literally buying the building for them. It is revenue loss (didn't Adkins just talk to us about enhancing revenue sources) in lost taxes and paying 90 grand for a building and getting a buck for the investment. Only in Middletown would that be logical.   

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


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 7:46am

Can we have a little talk about the photo that was published in the Journal?

The caption states that this photo is the inside of the city owned 1316 Vail Ave. property. If the other city owned properties look like this it is no wonder that they are all still sitting empty.
Before you come after homeowners for rusty gutters I would strongly suggest that City Hall clean up it's own mess...make a list of all city owned property in THEIR DOWNTOWN area, take a picture of the inside, put a sign in the window, clean them up and get them ready for sale.
Shame on City Hall.



Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 8:57am
Wow
all of this emotion and press over such a small project
what cioncerns me the most is the insulting comments, attitude and direction displayed by Mr.Picard:

1. I do not dislike Mr.Robinette. I think that his wife and he are very nice people. He is intelligent and seems to have a very enjoyable personality.
2. I am in no way "jealous" of him or this project. He is already stuck on the 5th/3rd building(boarded up hole on the east side, incomplete and up for a fire sale) and the Rose building(much larger hole lol and dangerous--can't believe that Admin continues to let it be + they now want the city to sweeten the pot with $75,000 more of taxpayer $$). This new, somewhat small project is pretty high risk, and needs a lot of work just to begin. If he starts a local business ON HIS DIME, I will be there to support him.

When I was in business on Central Ave, and Mr.Picard was then my ward rep, I approached him about a temporary use of a shut down roadway for a couple of deliveries during an important holiday season. He had no knowledge of the traffic logistics, refused to visit to look at it, and in a nasty way refused to consider my request. He also tried to eliminate bus service in that area(up/down Central Ave!). Well--my 52yo in that location business closed and I sold my property to something better suited to the local demographics. I have no confidence in Mr.Picard as a Council member and hope that his tenure is short-lived.

3 members of the Council have expressed very legitimate concerns over this project. I hope that they see through the intimidation and smoke to vote correctly.

The long-standing concerns over city purchasing of private property(for high appraised value), allowing said properties to continue to deteriorate and gifting them to friends and non-profits has not been a good move for the taxpayers and must end. + it only seems to occur in the area formerly known as "downtown". Well--it quit being "our downtown" decades ago.

We have many strip centers(formerly flourishing) all over town. I operated two long running community essential businesses in a couple of them. One has looked like bombed-out Baghdad for close to 30 years. Every new ED director visited me, and promised to fill the area within 6 months to a year. Never had them bring in anything or saw any of them again. My other center started the same pattern when another large national anchor pulled out. Our past ED director told me "Sorry--we do not work with retail", yet Mr.Kohler and past Commission EMERGENCY legislated a stripper club in to a center that wasn't even permitted to have a liquor establishment. ?????

Those centers and neighborhoods could easily lose one of those businesses that I sold, and their neighborhood would lose a necessary business. The new owners have NEVER been visited or contacted by any member of ED or Admin.

Shouldn't those businesses and neighborhoods be given at least equal consideration for tax breaks, façade improvements and other "freebies"? If not--then why not?

After all of this "concern and discussion", I fully expect Admin to push hard for the liquor store, and Council to approve it 5-0.

Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, while expecting a different result.

Meet the new boss--same as the old boss.

jmo


Posted By: over the hill
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 11:24am
I believe VV hit the nail on the head, why were the original owners not held responsible for keeping the property in code? Then when the new owners became the city ,they didn't do any thing either. Many properties owned by the city are in disrepair,but we have to enforce the rules so no gutter is left in disrepair! I realilize Dougie is trying to to some good but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If these rules sure to be enforced across the board,as they claim, then clean up your own house before you start throwing rocks JMO


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 12:30pm
It is indeed sad out of 48,000 residents, perhaps 30 keep up with the finances of Middletown and its direction.

Consider the following. City Manager Adkins doesn't want to sandbag Robinette's deal, and wants pre-submitted questions. Dan Picard says what a waste of time to question Robinette's motivation nor business plan. In pother words, its not important. To add insult to injury, he says anyone can get land and a building downtown for a buck. Memo to council and Mr. Adkins- there is a correlation between residential property values and commercial.

Since Bill Becker became city manager, it was recognized to have control overt the city, there was a mandate to create an entity they controlled, to give the appearance council was right. That body became MMF. MMF has one charter, and that is to support city council. City council refers to Picard, and the Mulligan brothers. They help fund the frat boys council wants to sit with them, that will all nod yes. They are shills for council, not strategists.

Now turning to Mr. Picard and Larry Mulligan's obvious contradictions. Everything council does has been planned years out. Larry knows about Robinette's plan. Picard says its not council's job to negotiate for council. To be clear, this is a violation of state and city ordinance on the bid process alone, but the main objective has been and will be, to protect Main Street residents and their family members whom live on Main Street. Make no mistake. That is why the buildings have been given away, and millions wasted with no return. In legal terms, its a breach of good faith and fiduciary duty and obligation to the residents and commercial business owners who pay the funds for public utilization.

Your $800,000 annually to pay for street lamps will be plowed into all the tax abatements and more land purchases, while giving them away for $1., to finalize that grand concrete and asphalt moat around Main Street.

A thinking individual would cry foul and be running city council out of town with pitchforks. In Middletown, they will form the cliques and nod the heads yes, while witnessing the continued decline across the city, and never comprehend the inequity of waste downtown, for a small number of individuals. Flamingo's in head in sand, and just not getting it. Forbes was right in 2008, and it is more so presently.     

  


-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 12:38pm

Middletown Journal
Updated: 12:34 a.m. Monday, April 5, 2010 | Posted: 12:33 a.m. Monday, April 5, 2010

Land swap issue noticeably absent from council agenda

Cabinet company still hoping for deal

By  http://www.journal-news.com/staff/ryan-gauthier/" rel="nofollow - Staff Writer

    MIDDLETOWN — A controversial land swap that would have seen the city pay $95,000 to secure the former Middletown Antique Mall is on hold for the time being.

The deal would have seen the city purchase the former mall, 1607 Central Ave., for $90,000 and then turn around to trade that land with Midd-Town Custom Cabinets for its property at 1316 Vail Ave. The city would have also provided Midd-Town CustomCabinets with $5,000 to help cover their moving expenses.

    The city council was set to hold a second reading on an ordinance approving the land swap at its Tuesday, April 6 meeting, but the legislation did not make the final council agenda.

    Economic Development Director Mike Robinette said the land swap was pulled from the agenda while staff “works on some alternatives for the project.”

    “We’re trying to look at alternatives that would allow them to move forward with the project they’re wanting to do, but not have us involved in the land swap,” Robinette said.

The city became involved in the deal mainly over tax issues, Robinette said, as Midd-Town Custom Cabinets initiated swap conversations in an effort to avoid paying up to $15,000 in capital gains taxes.

    Midd-Town Custom Cabinets, co-owned by Jeff Brown and Don Kennedy, is responsible for carpentry inside of numerous local businesses, including the Middletown Public Library, Java Johnny’s and the now-closed 56 Degrees Wine Bistro.

    Kennedy said the deal has always been “designed to save the city money.”

    “Rather than paying $15,000 in taxes and passing that along to the city in our sale price, we figured we could just do an exchange,” Kennedy said. “It was an even deal as far as we were concerned.”

    Council raised questions about the swap when it came to light the current owner of the Central Avenue property had purchased it for $50,000 mere weeks before the deal was proposed. Kennedy dismissed claims the proposed swap was a “good old deal,” as he said his business is eating the $40,000 loss, not the city.

    “We were in talks with the bank to purchase the land, but (Daniel) Diver made a bid on it and had already been approved,” Kennedy said. “I was two weeks too late in planning this. I pretty much cried my heart out.”

    Their three-man operation has been able to survive for so long by picking from the corpses of larger carpentry operations that went under during the recession. A move to the larger building would allow them space to create a “drop-dead gorgeous showroom” and ideally hire on some additional staff.



Posted By: over the hill
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 3:09pm
I also agree with Spider that Picard's comments were insulting and unnecessary. He is most definitely on his way out. The first time he actually makes a comment instead of his usual bump on a log presents this is what we get? 😜 And Spider if it doesn't conform to "Main St" standards then they have no interest in. Our mayor has missed many opportunities to extend a welcome to small businesses. People may have noticed in the Feb. 4th Middletown Journal the representatives and liaisons for various boards and commissions and which ones Larry was sure to name himself to. Looks like the ones that Main St group wants to control and they pull his strings. JMO


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 3:39pm
If this is how our "new direction" admin is going to operate, then maybe their funded DMI and MMF could expand their scope to include every other business area of the community, buying up the distressed properties of other locals at their "fair value" and/or extending facade improvements and tax breaks to so many other EXISTING local businesses desperately in similar need. That would go a long way in bringing everyone on the same page, and strengthening the ENTIRE community.

If you don't live or work in the "holy land" on S Main, Broad or between(and few actually do), then that area is not nearly as important to you. With many other struggling business centers more approximate.

The current long-running policy has done little other than to divide and polarize businesses and residents(which should be painfully obvious to everyone, especially those "in charge" and representing EVERYONE equally).
So--give the man his liqour distillery as long as the same amenities are offered immediately throughout the entire community. It is not so much about this project as it is about the long-term pattern of area favoritism and cronyism. And check all of past/current/future deals as to who actually is involved in ownership.

As OTH mentioned, if something is good for one entity, it will probably be just as good for someone else.

And while Community Revitalization is sanitizing/citing businesses in other parts of town, maybe they should closely look at:
the old library
the old Mont Wards on Main
the Manchester
the Sonshine building
The Studio/Strand
the Sorg Opera House
the Rose building
the 5th/3rd building
the empty factories along the river
Bicentennial Commons

code/nuisance violations maybe?
special treatment maybe?


Posted By: Cooper
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 6:37pm
It would be a correct assessment to state there is a city council cartel protecting and embellishing Main Street under the guise of a downtown revitalization. Doug Adkins was named city manager because city council cartel had trained him.    


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 03 2016 at 6:58pm
Spider
Read and weep...and then we have the DUNCAN OIL SWAP DEAL
Here is the link to the Legislation #13 pages 65-78

http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/docs/council/1212009_w.pdf

S T A F F  R E P O R T

For the Business Meeting of December 1, 2009

Date: November 23, 2009

TO: City Council 

FROM: Mike Robinette, Economic Development Director

PURPOSE Authorize the City Manager to enter into a development agreement with Duncan Oil Company and, acquire certain real estate for the development of the Central Avenue Gateway Project, appropriating funds and declaring an emergency. BACKGROUND and FINDINGS The Central Avenue Gateway Project will provide for the City to acquire certain real estate needed for the development of the Middletown Station (Ohio 3-C Passenger Rail Project) and provide for a new development by Duncan Oil Company of a convenience service station. The City will acquire certain real estate and exchange that real estate with Duncan Oil Company for real estate needed for the Middletown Station Project. Duncan Oil Company will use the land acquired through the exchange with the City to develop a new convenience service station (Central Avenue Gateway project).

ALTERNATIVES Do not proceed with the Central Avenue Gateway Project and Middletown Station Project. FINANCIAL IMPACT The total cost of the project is $550,000 to be appropriated from the Downtown Improvements Fund (Account number: 481-990-54400)

CONFORMITY TO CITY POLICY This conforms to city policy to convert underutilized commercial and industrial property to productive uses as provided for in the City’s Master Plan.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS None

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the development agreement with Duncan Oil Company and the acquisition of certain real estate related to the Central Avenue Gateway and Middletown Station Projects as an emergency because of the need to have ownership of certain real estate needed for the development of the Middletown Station Project.

ATTACHMENTS None




Posted By: middielover
Date Posted: Mar 04 2016 at 8:13am
You can gripe all you want about the fact the City owns property. The fact is they do and this particular property seems to be falling apart. It has been vacant for 7 plus years and no one has come forward with an offer to do anything.

Why not get rid of the liability to the taxpayers?


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Mar 04 2016 at 8:52am
Do you find it interesting that the former city employee who negotiated the purchase of the property for $90,000 now wants it gifted to him for $1 + 100% 10-year abatement on improvements? Probably will sail through business as usual, but still somewhat ironic and UNusual imo

Was the property ever advertised as available?


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 04 2016 at 9:11am
Originally posted by middielover middielover wrote:

You can gripe all you want about the fact the City owns property. The fact is they do and this particular property seems to be falling apart. It has been vacant for 7 plus years and no one has come forward with an offer to do anything.

Why not get rid of the liability to the taxpayers?


Again, the city has said repeatedly that they do not want to stay in the real estate business and want to stop acquiring buildings but they just keep on doing it. Since you have chosen to take the city side of things here, please explain why the city says one thing and does another.

The initial liability to the taxpayer is of a financial nature in that the city uses taxpayer dollars to acquire these "falling apart" properties on a continual basis. Again, if they really got out of the real estate business, and left the natural course of development to the private sector, there would be no issue as to liability to the taxpayer be it legal or financial. The city mantra created this situation. Ask the city why this is occurring instead of defending them.

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


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 04 2016 at 9:40am
Steve Bohannon, Dora Bronston and Talbott Moon stated they needed more information from Mr. Robinette concerning this deal.
Steve Bohannon wanted to know if Mr Robinette had the capital to complete the project.
Mr Adkins stated that the ED Dept had vetted Mr. Robinette.
Mr. Picard said as a council should not be getting into banking...staff does the vetting.

Well Mr. Adkins and Mr. Picard how's all that VETTING been working out for you over the years? I have read several of your contracts and I will tell you that Mr. Mulligan's bank would not loan $5 with the the information that Mr Grau and others submitted to City Hall.

I believe that the three council members have every right to know if Mr. Robinette has the capital to complete this deal BEFORE they sign over 3 properties for a $1 plus a 100% 10 year abatement. 
This community did vote for these three council members to be good stewards of our city and our funds.



Posted By: over the hill
Date Posted: Mar 04 2016 at 11:01am
I agree VM. Mulligan would never agree in his banking potition to half of the banking/business deals he has signed on to with the city. But then he's not held accountable to anyone in his capacity as mayor. It's not his money. Talk about lack of fiduciary responsibility, he's the poster child for that. JMO


Posted By: whistlersmom
Date Posted: Mar 12 2016 at 2:43pm
Council and Dougie should reimburse the citizens for the $95,000 loss on the Vail property. A two and one half times reimbursment (voted in by council for everyone) would amount to $237,500. If council and Dougie had hired someone to maintain their property, maybe Rose Furniture bldg., the Ormond bldg. and the building on Vail would not have had the roofs collapse. Of course, hiring more inspectors to abuse our elderly property owners was more important than maintaining their property. Maintaining the infrastucture (including city owned buildings) is a fiduciary responsibility ignored by this council.


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 12 2016 at 4:00pm
Oh Whislersmom, 
it's more money than just the $95,000...it's also the two improved lots with the nice wrought iron fence out front plus the 10 year tax. 
But no one at City Hall can understand why we are going broke.


Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Mar 14 2016 at 9:30am
Let's be clear, the 10-year tax abatement is for 1357 Central Ave, and is exempts from property taxes any improvements made to the building that increases its taxable value.  

Vail property is not included as part of the CRA agreement.






Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 14 2016 at 10:23am

S T A F F  R E P O R T
For Business Meeting: March 1, 2015 DATE: 2/17/2015
TO: Douglas Adkins, City Manager
FROM: Alexis Fitzsimmons, Assistant Economic Development Director


Liberty Spirits LLC Community Reinvestment Area Agreement

PURPOSE To obtain authorization from the Middletown City Council for the City Manager to enter into a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) agreement with Liberty Spirits LLC, to support the development of a craft/artisan distillery, with a tasting room and retail area at 1357Central Ave. in downtown Middletown.
BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS The City of Middletown (the City) Staff has been working with the Liberty Spirits LLC to develop the 1357 Central Ave location. The project includes $300,000 in improvements and will create four (4) part time permanent positions with approximately $80,000 in new payroll. The work on the building is set to be completed by June 30, 2016.
ALTERNATIVES  There is no other alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS In accordance with the School Compensation Agreement with the Middletown City School District, the City will pay the District 25% of what they would have received in real property taxes, if the CRA agreement was not in place.
EMERGENCY/NON EMERGENCY Non Emergency –
1st Reading March 1, 2016
 2nd Reading March 15, 2016

Attachments: CRA Application & CRA Agreement


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 14 2016 at 10:41am

Swohio75

If you read this agreement it states that Robinette will invest $300,000…in the 1357 Central Ave building only?
It also states that this will have a tasting and retail area also...Isn’t that what the Vail and other two Central Ave properties were to be used for?

Since all of these properties are located in the same area it is my understanding that they ALL would be entitled to this same tax abatement. Or when Robinette starts work on the other properties he will simply return to council and request more tax abatements on these properties?



Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Mar 16 2016 at 6:52am

Updated: 11:55 p.m. Tuesday, March 15, 2016 | Posted: 7:53 p.m. Tuesday, March 15, 2016


Middletown council approves tax break for micro-distillery


By Mike Rutledge

Staff Writer



MIDDLETOWN — 

Liberty Spirits LLC, the startup micro-distillery that plans to open in June at 1357 Central Ave., was granted a 10-year, 100-percent abatement for that building, Middletown City Council decided with a 4-1 vote Tuesday.

Micro-distilling “is a growing business, we welcome you downtown, and you’re in the DORA (designated outdoor refreshment area), so we’ll be expanding, and I think it’s a great thing,” Vice Mayor Dora Bronston told company owner Mike Robinette after he gave a brief explanation of his plans.

Bronston and council members Talbott Moon and Steve Bohannon had expressed concerns at the March 1 meeting about the $1 sale by the city of a dilapidated building at 1316 Vail Ave. and the proposed abatement on the other building. But council unanimously approved the $1 sale then, and after hearing from Robinette, only Moon opposed the sale Tuesday.

Robinette told council he acquired the 4,000-square-foot Central Avenue building in mid-2015 and gutted it, repaired the roof, replaced the heating and cooling, and installed electricity and plumbing. The tax abatement only will eliminate taxes on that building’s added value that was created by the renovation. Liberty Spirits is expected to save $650 per year, or $6,500 over the decade. The company still will pay about $908 yearly in property taxes, based on its earlier value, City Manager Doug Adkins has said.

Robinette plans to operate a modest-sized tasting room and retail space at 1357 Central until the 4,000-square-foot structure at 1316 Vail also is renovated. At that point he plans to continue operating out of 1357 Central, while opening a larger tasting and retail space at the Vail address, which will be reconfigured to also face Central Avenue, with an outdoor entertainment area in front.

If Ohio Lawmakers this year allow craft distillers to operate bars the way craft wineries and microbreweries can, Robinette also plans a full bar at the Vail building.

Buildings like the two being reclaimed by Liberty Spirits are what city officials had in mind in 2010 when they created the downtown’s Community Reinvestment Area, Adkins said, noting many downtown structures have sat vacant so long, they’re in great disrepair.

“It’s one thing to open your business,” Adkins said. “It’s another when you have to put another $50,000 in it, just to be able to get it to where you can use it, before you can even get to your business plan.”




    Posted By: spiderjohn
    Date Posted: Mar 16 2016 at 1:00pm
    lol--like investing $50,000 to opening a bizness is something unique--probably so down there in Doug's special area

    thanks to Mr. Moon for having enough character to resist "the force"

    u da man, Tal!


    Posted By: middielover
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 8:23am
    Spider

    I watched the YouTube video of council meeting this morning. Moon voted against the 10 yr abatement valued at about a toal of $6,000.

    Moon then later in the meeting voted to wave $16,000 in tap in fees for a Buffalo Wild Wing at the old mall.

    Seems Moon's free market principles are highly flexible.


    Posted By: swohio75
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 8:32am
    Purely strategic move on Tal's part.

    CRA is available to an property owner wanting to make improvements in the CRA area.

    Exemption is for any improvements made to the building that increases the building's taxable value.  



    Posted By: acclaro
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 9:52am
    sw75, completely disagree with your assessment.

    Mr. Moon was not sufficiently provided reassurance the business plan presented supported an underpinning confidence Liberty Spirits would be a success. More importantly, he knew the property was valued more than $5,000, therefore requiring by state revised code and local codified ordinance, a bidding process. H therefore made the correct decision, the only one on council to do so. Too bad JL and TM aren't around to jointly serve or the rubber-stamp mindset would be derailed.  


    -------------
    'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


    Posted By: swohio75
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 10:31am
    I disagree.

    He voted FOR the Vail property transfer from the city at $1.

    He voted AGAINST the CRA tax exemption for the Central Ave property, which was acquired from a non-public entity.

    Regardless if LS is a success, the CRA deals only with increased value of the property based on improvements made.  


    Posted By: middielover
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 10:56am
    From what I saw of the meeting, Robinette was present to answer questions. Moon asked no question on either the CRA abatement or the $16,000 in fees forgiven to the Wings project.


    Posted By: spiderjohn
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 11:25am
    I pretty much agree with all of you, and I did not watch or hear about the proceedings(other than the arm-twisting prior to the decision).

    Disappointed with how a couple of Council members voted, but not surprised at all.

    Don't see why we would wave tap-in fees to a chain that is doing well and will probably do well here--they could pay the $16,000

    imo the distillery project has much more risk
    so---anyone in town who improves their business property should now ask for a 10-year 100% tax abatement on the improvements?

    too many former tax-revenue producing properties are being purchased then gifted to FUCC(friends of councilmembers and cronies) that now pay no taxes of any type and are constantly in need of public support.

    All of these tax liabilities(don't forget the schools' share) is being shifted to remaining property owners, along with city fee increases. It all seriously adds up. Seems to me these actions only make it tighter on the non-benefitting citizens.

    Does Mr.Robinette even live in Middletown to share these burdens?


    Posted By: Vivian Moon
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 12:00pm

    The remarks made by Bohannon at the March 1st meeting concerned the fact that other projects in the downtown area by Robinette have not been completed due to lack of funding. Bohannon requested proof that Robinette had the $300,000 needed to fund and open this business.

    I did watch the meeting and no reference was made by anyone that Bohannon’s concerns were answered or that Robinette had shared any financial records with council members before this meeting.
    Another sad night for the voters of Middletown when council members are not able to ask questions so they can make an informed vote.






    Posted By: Dean
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 12:38pm
    Spiderjohn, you are absolutely correct. It will be the commercial and residential property bill having fees and taxes raised to cover the give-aways.

    I have been informed through a few city employees Steve Bohannon met with Mr. Robinette privately, and the outcome was pretty much, go pound sand Steve, you are screwing this done deal up. Apparently, Bohannon got the message.

    Downtown is obviously going to be a non tax zone, and any business with the give away precedent established, will be demanding everything given by the city, the water tap in fee waived, no taxes, buy the land at city expense.

    The actions don't help the property owner values rise, instead, the cause them to drop, associated with the liabilities property owners have on taxes and fees to pay for the give-aways by the city.

    Picard says council doesn't get involved in city business, other approving or not approving what the city decides. By meeting with Robinette, Bohannon did the opposite. These practices of behind the door meetings are not justified.         


    Posted By: middielover
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 1:45pm
    V MOON

    Why did Bohanon and TMoon not ask any questions?


    Posted By: Dean
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 1:51pm
    They knew the answer. Robinette did not have the cash. Awaiting gap cash (100%) from MMF program. 


    Posted By: middielover
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 2:02pm
    If they knew the answer, why not ask him in public meeting. Why are they being so secretive. What does Bohannon and Moon have to hide?


    Posted By: VietVet
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 2:03pm
    Originally posted by Vivian Moon Vivian Moon wrote:

    <p ="Msonormal">The remarks made by Bohannon at the March 1st meeting
    concerned the fact that other projects in the downtown area by Robinette have
    not been completed due to lack of funding. Bohannon requested proof that
    Robinette had the $300,000 needed to fund and open this business.

    <!--if !supLineBreakNewLine-->

    <!---->



    <p ="Msonormal">I did watch the meeting and no reference was made by anyone
    that Bohannon’s concerns were answered or that Robinette had shared any financial
    records with council members before this meeting.
    Another sad night for the voters of Middletown when council members are not able to ask questions so they can make an informed vote.

    <p ="Msonormal">



    <!--if !supLineBreakNewLine-->

    <!---->





    Interesting. Adding to Vivian's comments...... Then why did Bohannon go along with the program if he didn't receive the information he requested to make his decision? If any of you were on council, and you asked for some info. to make an informed decision, would you have gone ahead and voted to approve this cluster? Would you keep voting to help Robinette out knowing his track record on developing these buildings once he gained ownership of them? Has Robinette been successful and shown any progress toward improving any downtown building since he made the real estate scene in the downtown area? What have the council people been given from Robinette to convince them he has the financial resources to achieve any building improvements?

    So now, they are going so far as to ignore council's requests? What is disturbing is members of council, once denied their request, just sit there in silence instead of demanding what they need. Apparently, we weren't too far off calling them puppets for the city. No council member with a spine other than Moon? If so, what a waste the others must be.

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


    Posted By: FmrMide81
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 2:07pm
    Apparently Donald Trump's candidacy has had one effect-the scrutiny of his past real estate dealings have shown all real estate developers that you NEVER use your own money in a deal. Wait for some sucker (say, Middletown fr'instance) to offer to pay things for you.


    Posted By: spiderjohn
    Date Posted: Mar 17 2016 at 10:17pm
    Hard to say middie lover, since most things are now discussed and decided prior behind the scenes. Frustrating when one would like to hear open discussion and details. Makes watching Council meetings somewhat pointless, however that is how admin and current Council prefers. Sad and somewhat a slap in the face to caring citizens imo, though it explains why many don't care or want to be involved any more.



    Print Page | Close Window