Residents, developers press Middletown council to delay demolition decisions until RFQ process completes

Dozens of residents, preservation advocates and business leaders urged Middletown City Council on July 1 to delay any demolition of key downtown buildings until the city finishes and circulates a revised request for qualifications for downtown redevelopment.

The plea came during an extended public‑comment period in which speakers representing the Save Downtown Middletown Coalition, the South Main and Highlands Historic Associations, Downtown Middletown, Inc. and individual citizens described work with city staff on an updated RFQ and asked council to hold demolition votes until developers have had time to respond.

Why it matters: Council controls the fate of several landmark, city‑owned properties — including the Manchester Inn, First National/First Financial Bank building and the Sunshine/Snyder building — and demolition decisions could remove options for adaptive reuse. Several residents said an August demolition vote would chill developer interest and undercut ongoing efforts to attract investment.

What speakers said - Jeff Payne of Downtown Middletown, Inc. asked council to “delay its decision on the demolition of the Manchester Snyder Building, First National Bank building, and the Vale House until after the completion of the downtown refresh process,” defining completion as issuance of the RFQ and receipt of developer submissions. - Mika Glazer Jones, a downtown property owner, told council “stabilizing and reinvesting in our historic buildings is the smarter, more sustainable, more community‑driven path forward,” and urged use of historic tax credits and facade grants. - Gabe Shainline, representing the Save Downtown Middletown Coalition, said staff and citizens have developed a draft RFQ and are mobilizing developers; he asked council to keep working with citizens and staff to show “multiple developers and high interest before investing public funds.”

Council response and next steps Council members broadly acknowledged the intense citizen engagement and the work of staff and volunteers on the RFQ. Councilor Paul Lolli said he was willing to push back the August target if citizens want more time, saying his original intent in setting an August deadline was to “light a fire” to make downtown a priority. Councilor West and others said the timeline is aggressive but that some delay is acceptable to allow better RFQ detail and developer outreach.

City staff described the engagement to date: an online survey (289 responses), a March town‑hall and two working sessions in June facilitated by Miami University; staff said public feedback was incorporated into the draft RFQ and that the next steps are a final internal review, release of a 30‑day RFQ posting, review of developer responses and interviews of finalists.

Council did not set a firm new demolition date at the meeting and asked staff and the downtown working group to confirm timing. Councilor Horn suggested an October 4 decision date as a possibility; several council members said they preferred staff and the community committee to confirm a date that allows a full quarter of work for developers and review time for council.

Context and background Speakers repeatedly referenced the city’s previous downtown studies, past developer negotiations and a 2022 RFQ whose prior prospects fell through; they noted recent property walk‑throughs, a structural assessment and a cost analysis ordered by council. Supporters of preservation cited the potential to use state historic tax credits and other incentives; supporters of an expedited timetable said prolonged delays have left city‑owned properties vulnerable and stagnant.

Ending Council and staff agreed to continue working with citizen groups on the RFQ and the overall downtown refresh process. Staff and the downtown committee will return to council with recommended dates for RFQ release and any timeline adjustments so that a decision on demolition — if any — follows developer outreach and the RFQ process.