Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears update: Union at Crescent abatement ultimately retained after finding of noncompliance cited circumstances beyond owner control
Summary
Staff updated the commission on the abatement review of the Union at Crescent property: city recommended noncompliance, county hearing found noncompliance was due to circumstances beyond the owner’s control and allowed the abatement to remain; staff flagged on-site management and property-damage issues as contributing factors.
At the start of the meeting’s old-business section, Economic and Sustainable Development staff updated commissioners on the Union at Crescent tax-abatement review.
Staff said the ESD recommended a finding of noncompliance during its abatement review, which initiated an investigation and a public hearing process. The county hearing ultimately found the property noncompliant but determined that the causes were outside the owner’s control, and the owner was allowed to retain the abatement.
Staff said the property’s low occupancy rate and a high level of property damage tied to a vulnerable tenant population were central to the case. As a result, the owner was characterized as being in a “reset period” with a plan to return the property to compliance in the fall, and staff said the building remained in a separate compliance process.
Staff and commissioners said the case illustrated the importance of on-site property management. Staff noted examples of other properties with stronger outcomes after implementing daily on-site management and tenant support.
Commissioners characterized the hearing as difficult and lengthy and said it is an item to watch going forward because removing abatements can accelerate foreclosure and reduce the city’s affordable-housing stock.
No formal action was taken by the commission at the meeting on this item; the update was provided for information and tracking.
