Troy finance committee lets CIC pursue purchase of deteriorated downtown building, orders inspections and report back to council

Troy Finance Committee Chairman Todd Seivert said the committee would consider allowing the Community Improvement Corporation to seek purchase of a downtown building offered by an absentee owner, but he and other council members demanded inspections and a council review before any demolition or final funding.

"This property has been a troublesome property for us, property maintenance wise," said Mr. Davis, the staff presenter, describing multiple code-enforcement cases dating to 2017 and court actions in 2023, 2024 and 2025. The property has been declared a public nuisance, Davis said.

City staff said the California-based owner contacted the city after receiving a civil-penalty order and asked whether he could sell the property to satisfy outstanding litigation. According to staff, the owner proposed a sale price that the city would consider a discount compared with the valuation shown in county records; staff said the city would consider purchasing the building for up to $125,000.

Law Director Grant Korber said the proposed purchase is structured as an arm's-length transaction contingent on CIC ratification and that legal counsel saw no barrier to the city or CIC buying at a sub-market price. "It's an arm's length transaction with consideration on both sides," Korber said.

Preservation advocates and residents urged caution. Ben Southerly of the Troy Historic Preservation Alliance told the committee he feared the administration was "tipping its hand" toward demolition and warned the city could end up holding a grass lot after investing public funds. "I would really caution you about acquiring this property," Southerly said.

Resident Steve Hendrickson questioned the owner's motives and warned the city could be stepping into a costly rehabilitation. "Once you buy it, it's a black hole for money," Hendrickson said, urging a pause until contractors and inspectors can estimate rehabilitation costs.

Staff said they had not done interior inspections and recommended a structural analysis; Rob England had advised a structural analysis because the foundation appears to be leaning. Committee members pressed for a due-diligence period that would allow access for inspections and cost estimates once the city or CIC is under contract.

Council members debated whether the CIC should hold and redevelop the property, place conditions on a sale or sell the property on the open market. Mr. Davis described the CIC as the city's economic-development arm able to hold property, negotiate conditions and market it for rehabilitation or redevelopment. Committee members asked that any agreement with the CIC include a requirement that the CIC report back to council before pursuing demolition through the planning commission.

The committee did not approve emergency legislation. Staff noted the current draft contract calls for CIC ratification by Dec. 31, 2025, which gives time for inspections and estimates. The committee's working outcome was to allow the CIC to pursue the contract and conduct due diligence, but require the CIC to report findings and recommendations to city council before any demolition, planning-commission submission or final city funding decision.

Next steps identified by the committee include securing interior access for inspections, obtaining structural and rehabilitation cost estimates during a due-diligence period, and returning a formal recommendation to council for a final funding decision.