London council hears developer pitch and resident concerns about proposed CRA for downtown property

Ordinance 140-25, a proposal to approve a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) agreement for properties at 36–42 West First Street, was discussed by the London City Council and members of the public Wednesday evening; the council did not adopt the ordinance and left the item on the agenda for a later meeting.

The measure would freeze assessed value for improvements for 15 years to incentivize redevelopment, but the transcript does not specify the abatement percentage. Resident Jim Boyd told the council he supports downtown revitalization in principle but said the draft lacks basic accountability and financial projections. “Do we know that amount? An auditor or a tax department report, do we have anything showing what that estimated would be?” Boyd asked, adding that the application shows TBD for projected revenues and employee counts, which he said hinders informed decision-making.

Supporters including Cole Antle, a developer who said he lives in Hilliard and identified himself as the landlord/developer for the project, described the property as long vacant and argued the CRA is needed to make redevelopment feasible. “We’re not asking for a % abatement of the entire, property tax value. We’re solely asking for it to be frozen in its current time and in 15 years, have it be, reassessed again,” Antle said. He said his team has invested in downtown buildings elsewhere and has invested “millions” in London properties; he told council members he is negotiating with a tenant under nondisclosure and called the planned project an event space with restaurant or food-truck uses, a turf area, playground, potential Airbnb and wedding bookings.

The council’s discussion noted several procedural dependencies. Council members and staff said the CRA also must be considered by the local school board and that the item could be amended to be contingent on the school board’s approval. A council member told Antle the school board had scheduled the CRA for its agenda on the 24th (transcript phrasing: “20 fourth”). Council members agreed to leave the ordinance on the docket and revisit it at the next regular meeting rather than adopting it that night.

Why it matters: CRAs remove some future property tax growth for a set period to lower the developer’s costs and encourage investment; proponents say they can catalyze long-term downtown renewal, while critics say the city should require clearer job, revenue and performance commitments before granting tax relief.

Additional details from the meeting: Jim Boyd emphasized the absence of projected tax‑revenue estimates and clear performance expectations in the application. Antle said the target building had been “a personal junkyard” for years and estimated it had been vacant for decades; council members who inspected the site said it had been unused for “20-plus years.” Antle also said one of the developer’s other downtown holdings, at 106 South Main Street, required urgent structural work before his group’s intervention restored it. Council members asked about job projections and whether abatements transfer to a future owner; Antle said he expected his group to retain the property and that any sale was unlikely but suggested the council could include sale conditions in a CRA agreement if it chose to do so.

Next steps: Council left Ordinance 140-25 on the agenda for a future meeting and indicated it may require school‑board concurrence and additional ordinance language (for example, performance obligations or contingencies). The council did not take a final vote on the CRA at this session.