Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Transfers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council postpones two property-transfer ordinances after questions on parking revenue and right of first refusal
Summary
Council postponed two companion ordinances transferring city parcels to the Hancock County commissioners after members raised questions about unpaid parking revenue, an unresolved right of first refusal in an old deed and who would maintain or enforce parking on the lots.
Findlay City Council postponed two companion ordinances (Ordinances 20-25-022 and 20-25-023) that would have authorized deed transfers of two parcels to the Hancock County commissioners after several council members asked for more information about parking revenues, deed restrictions and maintenance responsibilities.
Council took the items up together but handled the motions separately. Ordinance 20-25-022 was postponed to the next meeting after discussion. Council discussed a missing $12,500 annual parking payment that had stopped being collected in 2021 or 2022, and an apparent ‘‘first right of refusal’’ included in an old deed that led council members to question whether that right remains enforceable.
Law Director Rob Feiner reported he and staff reviewed recorder’s office documents and found a 1986 certificate of dissolution for the Kirk Realty Company named in the deed, and no recorded assignment of the right of first refusal; he said that suggested the right may have lapsed. City Auditor Jim Stasiak and other members asked whether the administration had properly notified any successor interest and whether unpaid parking revenues should be pursued as part of the transaction.
Councilwoman Holly Frisci said the language in the transfer agreement that the city would ‘‘maintain 20 parking spaces’’ raised questions about who would perform repairs and whether the city could enforce paid parking on property it no longer owned. County-related staff told council they understood the city intended to continue enforcement of non-permitted parking on the lots, but Frisci pressed for clarity on maintenance and revenue flow.
Following debate and a procedural explanation from the law director about tabling versus postponement, Councilman Ed Wolpzer moved to postpone both ordinances to the council’s next meeting; the motion to postpone Ordinance 20-25-022 passed on a voice vote with one recorded nay, and Ordinance 20-25-023 was likewise postponed.
Council asked that specific questions be sent promptly to Director Martin (Service and Safety) and copied to council so administration staff could gather the requested documents and legal analysis in time for the next meeting.
