Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Reinvestment Area Cra topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends rescinding CRA agreement for 135 West Indiana after project delays
Summary
Committee members agreed to move legislation to rescind the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) agreement for 135 West Indiana so the property owner can reapply with a revised timeline after construction delays and administrative mismatches.
The Perrysburg Finance and Economic Development Committee agreed to recommend legislation to rescind a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) agreement covering 135 West Indiana — the “Blue House” next to Wayne Cask’s office — after project delays and an ownership-name mismatch in the original agreement.
The action matters because CRA agreements provide tax abatements tied to property improvement timelines and value capture; rescinding the agreement will let staff “clean up our books” and avoid reporting a partially served abatement during the Wood County tax and review committee’s annual review.
Brody (staff) introduced the owner, Valentine Anonye, identified in the meeting as the owner/operator of B Couture at the 135 West Indiana property. City staff explained the project timeline has stretched beyond the period initially contemplated when the CRA was approved; the property owner entity name has changed and the agreement no longer matches the current owner name. As a result, the owner is not yet receiving the full benefit of the abatement and staff said it would be administratively cleaner to rescind the current agreement and allow a new application with an updated timeline.
The owner told the committee that the architectural work is complete and financing approvals from the bank are in place. “We’re very anxious to start,” the owner said, and added that contractor scheduling delays and other headwinds pushed the schedule back but that the project was likely to be in better position to begin in the spring.
Committee members asked city staff to prepare the rescission legislation and move it to the next council meeting; staff said they would coordinate with the city law director and prepare the legislation. Several members encouraged the owner and said the committee would support the applicant returning with a revised timeline and projections.
No final council legislation or formal vote to rescind was recorded in the committee meeting; the committee directed staff to prepare legislation and move the item to council for formal action.
