Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines obsolete-property exemption for 224 Washington amid tax-delinquency and subsidy concerns
Summary
Council voted not to approve an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act exemption certificate for 224 Washington Avenue after members raised owner tax delinquencies and questioned public benefit; prior Brownfield funding for the same property and a pending MEDC grant application were discussed.
City Council voted Oct. 20 not to approve an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act exemption certificate for 224 Washington Avenue after members expressed concern that the property owner has been delinquent on city property taxes and that the public benefit was unclear.
Council discussion recounted the property's history: the owner purchased the building in 2020; the structure had been vacant since about 2018; the city assessor previously declared the building obsolete; and the developer left the property vacant for a multiyear period. Councilmember McLaughlin noted the city previously approved a Brownfield TIF to subsidize work on the propertyspecifically for second-floor units. McLaughlin said the earlier Brownfield support covered the second-floor conversion to seven apartments, three of which lack exterior windows, and that the current certificate request would provide an additional tax abatement for first-floor work. He said the developer is pursuing a Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) grant of about $1.1 million.
During discussion, council members raised a new factual issue: according to council remarks, the owner was delinquent on city property taxes for 2023 and 2024 and, after partial payment, still owed $22,410 as of the Oct. 20 discussion. Several council members said they were unwilling to approve a tax exemption while that delinquency remained unresolved. A motion to postpone consideration to allow the tax issue to be cured did not proceed to success; the subsequent vote on the exemption certificate did not carry.
Council members who opposed the certificate framed the decision as a concern about rewarding neglect and urged stricter code-enforcement pathways instead of taxpayer-funded abatements when an owner has allowed a downtown property to remain vacant. City staff noted the EDC and Brownfield Redevelopment Authority had recommended approval; council members said they expected a clearer value proposition and stronger documentation from those advisory bodies before authorizing additional tax dollars.
Next steps: staff and the applicant may revise materials and resubmit; the council indicated the owner could remedy tax delinquencies and return with a corrected application.
