Council recently debated whether to grant a Community Reinvestment Area tax abatement to Tim Dawson, the owner of the properties at 160 and 156 W. Main Street, pictured above. The replacement of windows at 156 W. Main Street, previously the Plain City Food Pantry, became a point of contention, as property owners are not eligible for a CRA abatement if remodeling has already begun. (Journal-Tribune photo by Kayleen Petrovia)
Officials OK one request, while rejecting the other
Differing interpretations of a state law during Monday’s Plain City Council meeting led to a passionate debate and opposite results on two pieces of legislation.
The board considered two potential tax abatements for Tim Dawson, owner of the properties at 156 and 160 W. Main Street.
Dawson applied for Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) abatements on the properties in late March.
CRA abatements are applied specifically to the property taxes of the assessed valuation of the redeveloped structure that will be constructed under the project.
The proposed agreements considered by council would allow for a 100% exemption over 12 years on commercial portions of the project and a 75% exemption over seven years for residential portions.
Dawson’s applications do not detail exactly what the projects at each property will entail.
Zoning Inspector Taylor Brill said Tuesday that she has not yet received zoning applications for either property. She said she has discussed intended uses for each property with Dawson but does not believe he has yet developed specific plans.
The site at 160 W. Main Street will become a “retail and residential” space, according to his application. It will create four new jobs at a salary of approximately $25,000.
Dawson wrote that he will invest $170,000 in the project, between $50,000 in new construction, $100,000 in improvements to the current building and $20,000 in furniture and fixtures.
The property at 156 W. Main Street, previously the Plain City Food Pantry, will become “retail and restaurant,” Dawson wrote in his application.
He estimated that it will create six new jobs, also with salaries of approximately $25,000.
It will be a slightly larger investment at $200,000, split between $25,000 for new construction and $175,000 in improvements to existing buildings.
Dawson wrote that he is requesting a tax incentive because the projects will “revitalize (the) Uptown district within Plain City to create jobs.”
Council member Frank Reed argued that Dawson is ineligible for the CRA abatements. He said the Ohio Revised Code section that establishes CRAs has a clause that dictates abatements can only be approved if no work has commenced on the project.
“They want it to be an incentive, not a reward,” he said.
However, Reed noted that the windows of the building at 156 W. Main Street have been replaced.
Brill also said Tuesday that Plain City’s Design Review Board granted Dawson a certificate of appropriateness on March 31 that would allow him to replace the windows.
Solicitor Paul Lafayette said Dawson’s eligibility for the abatement is dependent on a “technicality.”
He said Reed is correct that CRAs cannot be granted if remodeling – not just demolition – has begun.
The state defines a remodel as something that makes the structure “more sound, more habitable or improves its appearance,” Lafayette said.
If council feels as though replacing windows meets that definition of a remodel, then Dawson would not be eligible for the abatement.
Council members were split in their interpretations.
“What he’s doing is remodeling,” said Council President John Rucker. “He replaced windows.”
Meanwhile, Council member Michael Terry said he felt it was a matter of semantics but “the spirit” of the CRA, encouraging investment in the community, was being met.
“I do not believe we should be playing ‘gotcha’ here,” Terry said.
Reed, though, said he had larger issues with the applications than just the windows.
He said he felt applications for both properties should be rejected because “the applicant left a lot of spaces blank,” specifically regarding the project descriptions.
“It’s a very cavalier and casual approach to doing business,” Reed said.
Terry disagreed and questioned Reed’s critiques of Dawson’s applications.
“It feels personal, Mr. Reed,” Terry said.
He added that annual reports are required upon approval of a CRA. If Dawson does not meet requirements, Terry noted that council could default on the abatement at any point in the future.
Council voted 4-2 to approve the CRA application for 160 W. Main Street, with Reed and Council member Sherry Heineman dissenting. Rucker joined the two in opposition for a 3-3 vote surrounding the property at 156 W. Main Street.
Since Mayor Jody Carney was not present at the meeting to cast a tie-breaking vote, the measure failed.
Though one application was approved by council, Village Administrator Nathan Cahall said Tuesday that the legislation is tabled for a “procedural re-do.”
The CRA applications were submitted to the Jonathan Alder Local School District for approval prior to coming before council.
Cahall said village staff transmitted the drafts to Jonathan Alder, but they actually needed to be certified by council.
“It should have been submitted legislatively, not administratively,” he explained.
Now, the village will “re-notify” Jonathan Alder and resend a draft. If the school district approves it once again, it will appear before council for the board to take action.
The application for 160 W. Main Street will reappear before council for a final vote, but the application for 156 W. Main Street will not, as its failure Monday essentially serves as a decision not to certify the draft for Jonathan Alder, Cahall said.