Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions Washington Mall demolition agreement, asks why repayment or lien provisions were not included
Summary
A resident raised questions during public comment about the Washington Mall demolition agreement, saying the previous owners received $12.75 million and the demolition contract lacked lien or repayment provisions; the transcript records no substantive response from commissioners.
Thomas Monich, a resident who has raised questions about the Washington Mall demolition at previous meetings, told the Washington County Board of Commissioners he remains concerned the agreement authorizing demolition lacked lien and repayment provisions.
Monich said the mall appeared to have deteriorated through owner decisions rather than fire or natural disaster and asked why the demolition agreement did not require the owners or developer to repay demolition costs. He told commissioners the previous owners received $12,750,000 from the developer when they sold the mall and said he has not received documentation answering why no lien or repayment provisions were included.
"I continue to raise questions concerning why the agreement did not contain lien provisions," Monich said, and said his Right‑to‑Know requests have not produced the documents he expects to exist. He asked the board to explain why no repayment agreement was included in the demolition approval.
The meeting transcript records Monich’s questions and his offer to answer questions from commissioners; the record does not show commissioners providing an explanation or directing staff to produce additional documentation during the public meeting segment.
Why it matters: The comments allege taxpayer money was used to help demolish the mall while protective financial provisions were not included in the agreement. Such provisions — lien or repayment clauses — can affect future county recovery of public funds if redevelopment terms change.
What the record shows: The speaker described prior meetings and a "sledgehammer ceremony," cited a $12,750,000 payment from a developer to previous owners, and said Right‑to‑Know requests have not confirmed documents he believes were discussed. The transcript contains no recorded response that resolves his questions.
