Developers propose $170,000 project; Greene County commissioners debate $85,000 contribution and timing

Developers told Greene County redevelopment staff May 22 that they have signed a purchase agreement for a one‑acre lot in Westgate and have contingencies tied to matching funds or grants. The redevelopment commission discussed whether to offer a contribution — staff proposed paying half of a $170,000 development cost (an $85,000 offer) with no tax abatement — but took no final vote and directed staff to return with more information.

Staff said the purchaser’s agreement contains a 30‑day contingency for financing (some documents show two 30‑day contingencies). Staff described the project as a 10,000–12,000 square‑foot speculative “flex” building on the one acre, with a potential second parcel that could expand the project size to 24,000–30,000 square feet if the adjacent property deal proceeds. Project supporters told the commission the park is fully leased and speculative inventory is scarce.

Bryant and staff presented modeled returns showing, in their estimate, the redevelopment commission’s $85,000 contribution (half of $170,000) could be recouped in roughly two‑and‑a‑half years under the model used; staff emphasized the calculation was an estimate that makes multiple assumptions about assessed value and tenant mix. Jim Higgins of London Whiting, the financial consultant present, cautioned the figures are preliminary and that official assessed‑value calculations should be relied upon for any formal agreement.

Commissioners asked a series of fiscal questions: which account would fund a contribution (TIF vs. non‑TIF), the remaining balances in those accounts, whether the contribution required a tax abatement request, and how recent and pending state tax changes (discussed in the meeting as “Senate Bill 1” impacts) could affect long‑term revenue assumptions. Several commissioners said they were reluctant to commit $85,000 without firmer data; one commissioner suggested a smaller contribution (around $44,000). Another commissioner argued the investment could transform a neglected corner and generate multiple‑fold returns for the county.

Staff emphasized they had only just received the purchase agreement and that the developers were aware the redevelopment commission is a deliberative public body. Commissioners asked staff to verify timelines with the buyer’s realtor and to return with a written proposal that lays out funding source, required conditions (such as demolition and performance deadlines), whether any tax abatement would be requested and how the county would recover funds if the developer did not build on schedule.

No motion to commit funds was made at the May 22 meeting. Staff said they would work with the developer, counsel and the financial consultant and present a formal, written proposal for the commission’s consideration at the rescheduled meeting (tentatively June 4th/June 20th adjustments discussed in the meeting).