Their performance at Tuesday's council meeting was pathetic, and if anything continued the perception that Middletown is not business-friendly. 

hey middielover--where have you been?

Wow--we fundamentally agree
Still--you have to start somewhere, and these situations have festered far too long imo

Bronston and Bohannon are not business friendly to local investors but don't question giving tax breaks to multi million dollar businesses from out of town.
Why give tax abatement to an auto parts retailer?

Middletown business won’t be penalized for delays

Mike Rutledge

Staff Writer

1:12 p.m Friday, Dec. 23, 2016  Middletown

 

MIDDLETOWN

City Council, frustrated by delays a micro-distillery had meeting contractually required deadlines, voted to penalize the company $100 per month starting Jan. 1.

Initially, the emergency legislation proposed by City Manager Doug Adkins failed on Tuesday. But after the company’s owner pointed out the city had been the cause of the delays, council reconsidered and approved the legislation as an emergency measure, rather than letting the development agreement lapse.

Mike Robinette, the owner of Liberty Spirits LLC, pointed out some of the slowness in meeting those timelines was prompted by a lag by Middletown’s city administration in providing the company a deed.

NEW: Download the free Journal-News app, Butler County’s #1 source for local news

That delay stalled the company’s work on the property at 1316 Vail Ave., which Liberty Spirits bought from the city for $1 amid controversy about the price and tax abatements, although Robinette said he did do work on the roof while awaiting the deed.

Upon hearing city government had hindered progress on the work, council members reversed themselves.

Adkins initially recommended the council penalize Liberty Spirits for failing to have the building on Vail ready for operations by Dec. 31, as had been specified under an agreement with city government.

Adkins, who early this year had been a strong proponent of the sale and abatement despite concerns of some on the council, noted the building has been gutted, has a new roof, new windows and a garage door, “but no way is it anywhere near to be ready by Dec. 31.”

As was allowed under the contract, Liberty Spirits has sought a deadline extension to April 15. The company now expects to be open by mid-March.

Adkins recommended that in exchange for granting the extension, the city penalize Liberty Spirits at a rate of $100 per month, starting Jan. 1, from a $1,000 deposit the company made, with the remainder of the deposit defaulted if the building isn’t open by April 15.

Mayor Larry Mulligan Jr. noted that while Liberty Spirits failed to meet the deadline, it’s important to be equitable and treat businesses equitably. Officials noted other businesses also haven’t met their development-agreement deadlines.

Mulligan said he thought $100 per month was reasonable.

Council Member Steve Bohannon disagreed: “I think he should lose his $1,000,” he said, with perhaps additional monthly penalties of $100 or $250.

Vice Mayor Dora Bronston thought Robinette should be penalized either $250 per month from the deposit or the entire $1,000.

Adkins and Mulligan suggested Liberty Spirits, facing penalties, could say, “nevermind” to the project.

“I think this brings a good point, in the fact that we shouldn’t be owning real estate in the city, because this puts us in a heck of a bind every time this comes about, so we can help other people out,” Bohannon said. “We write contracts that we sat down and agreed upon, for this contract to be written, and it seems to me like it doesn’t mean anything….”

Adkins responded that if the business opens 60 days late, the city nevertheless will have a new company operating.

Council Member Talbott Moon said he could agree with Bohannon’s and Bronston’s idea of taking $250 per month from the deposit.

Robinette said more than the money, he objected to the city singling him out when other companies have missed deadlines.

“I feel like I’m being singled out here, and I’ve invested a substantial amount of money in this project downtown,” he said. “So if the intent is to try to extract a pound of flesh out of me, you can do that. But if you want to get down to the nit-picky aspects of the contract, which you seem to be interested in doing, Mr. Bohannon, the contract says we would have had deed to the property by April 30. We didn’t get the deed until May 27” He later clarified the date was May 26.

The city took weeks longer than promised to make the deed transfer happen under the early March agreement, Robinette said: “The city hasn’t abided by the contract, in terms of when we were supposed to get control of the project.”

Council voted 3-2 to penalize Liberty Spirits $100 per month, with Bohannon and Bronston voting no.

Bronston later voiced concern that the matter was a late addition to the council’s agenda as an emergency measure, leaving her to feel on the spot. Because the legislation was an emergency matter, requiring at least 4-1 approval, it failed to win approval with the first vote.

Council Member Daniel Picard later offered to personally pay $1,000 on Liberty Spirits’ behalf.

“I’ll invest my $1,000 in Liberty Spirits to move it forward,” he said.

Robinette again told council the deed wasn’t delivered until May 26, and Bohannon announced he would change his vote because of the delay.

Council then voted 5-0 to approve the legislation, penalizing the company $100 per month.

“I apologize to council for the confusion,” Adkins said after the vote.

Spider
I have heard enough of this crap
I dare the Downtowners to read the contract written and approved by the last council for the Manchester and Snyder buildings, Mercy, a high school drop-out could have written a better contract...NO PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS WHAT SO EVER! 
We have three council members that demanded conditions to the Robinette give away contract and now they are being slammed for doing the right thing.
These council members should be given a gold star and a big thank you.

middielover
Are we talking about the Robinette deal?

The building was not condemned at time of purchase, and was functioning as a cabinet shop.
You honestly need to trace this back to the beginning to understand the amazing journey that has led us to this point.
You couldn't make up anything as crazy as the reality.

Spider
Let us not forget the other great real estate deal that them boys at City Hall did with the property right next door.
City Hall purchased the Studio building from Finkleman for $1.
Sooo within the next five years the tax payers will get the privilege of paying the million dollars price tag for demo of this building also.
Then after they plant the grass maybe they can sell this property to Robinette also for $1.
Mercy...

middielover wrote: Vivian If the city owns a building that is condemned and will be expensive to tear down and someone is willing to take the building and makes repairs so that it is usable, how is that a give away?

I'd like to interject if I may here and offer a viewpoint.......

Let's start by getting one thing out of the way here....

"If the city owns a building"....The city has repeatedly said that they were "getting out of the real estate business". They have made that remark many times in the past. Return question to middielover's question. Why is the city still buying buildings using the taxpayer's money?

The city has purchased several buildings in the past where there were no takers. The Studio Theatre comes to mind here with the million dollar price tag to remove the asbestos. The Manchester was purchased using taxpayer money with a city asking price of 350 thou.....no takers and GIVEN AWAY for a buck with little to no work done on it since that time. The Thatcher Estate buildings were purchased using taxpayer money. Out of that purchase, the old CG&E building is currently being used by CS, the old Barnitz bank building sat for years before a buyer was found (Walden wasn't it?)and the First National Bank building on the corner of Central and Main has had a few tenants over the years. The old Seniors Center was purchased at 130 grand and has sat empty for years now. (Wasn't it given back to the city after some buyer backed out?) Don't remember. And hey, how about the Rose building fiasco to date? That is one giant cluster....Oh, and the old Journal building hasn't been a Sunday stroll in it's development either. And, of course, there's always the old "car hood" PAC, the "flagship of success" in the downtown. Again, using taxpayer money, it was set up with the city purchase of the old John Ross/Armco Steel building and converted into arts studios for their artzy buddies. It has been a revolving door of tenants to date also. And then there are the Moormans with the 75 thou dollar city loan and the old GC Murphy building giveaway.(Was that ever repaid?) A lot of activity but few success stories. Even the most optimistic would honestly have to do a double take on the transaction history in the downtown area.

The point is, IF the city did what it said it was going to do....IE, "Get out of the real estate business", none of this would be an issue because any property transactions would be made in the private sector domain and the city would be totally out of the picture. Instead, the city leaders keep purchasing property downtown to control who eventually moves into that property to protect their little dream of an artzy, "cultural" utopia. (which will never work by the way simply because it will never be accepted by 95% of the people living here). We are blue collar, proud of it and not exactly the most "cultured" people to satisfy the downtown dream of a few people who have no clue what Middletown demographics are all about. JMO

Vivian
If the city owns a building that is condemned and will be expensive to tear down and someone is willing to take the building and makes repairs so that it is usable, how is that a give away?

middielover
This is not a simple yes or no question so I can not answer your question.
A great deal depends on the location of the property and the long term vision of the planning department for the area and how the city acquired the property.

Is the property residential or business property that will produce jobs?