Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Vernon weighs urban renewal RFQ to steer redevelopment of downtown block
Summary
City staff proposed using an urban renewal area and an RFQ process under the Ohio Revised Code to guide redevelopment of a downtown block (the 'Toger block') including three buildings and nearby 3 and 5 North Gay Street; the city paid roughly $685,000 for the site in 2022 and signaled willingness to accept a sale loss to preserve downtown character.
City staff presented Resolution 20268 and an overview of redevelopment options for a downtown parcel the administration described as the "Toger block," which includes three city‑owned buildings on Public Square and nearby parcels at 3 and 5 North Gay Street.
Staff said the administration has pursued multiple redevelopment conversations over several years and that community feedback favored preserving downtown retail and residential uses rather than converting the site to a courthouse. To preserve form and give the city leverage over design and developer selection, staff proposed using an urban renewal area under the Ohio Revised Code and issuing a request for qualifications (RFQ) or request for development proposals to identify qualified developers.
Officials said they purchased the site in 2022 for just under $700,000 (cited in the meeting as approximately $685,000) and cautioned that some structures have ADA and rear‑building constraints that could require substantial back‑of‑building work or demolition — notably at 3 North Gay — as part of making a viable redevelopment. Staff recommended avoiding short‑term occupancy of buildings that a future developer may need to remove.
The administration said it is working with Pizuti Solutions on a draft RFQ and emphasized priorities including historic form, downtown shops, third‑place spaces, infill housing, parking, and accessibility. Staff told councilors the urban renewal mechanism would allow the city more control over the plan and selection process than an ordinary land sale, where the city would otherwise have to accept the highest bid.
Council members said they would accept a modest sale loss if it resulted in redevelopment that preserves downtown character and generates long‑term revenue. Staff said they will seek community input and bring back legislation; they signaled an intention to take the resolution to a third reading that evening and to pursue the RFQ process.
Ending: The Streets and Public Buildings discussion recessed; staff said they will proceed with RFQ drafting and return with legislation and community engagement steps.
