Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Reinvestment Area topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects proposal to extend abatements for five Falls Glen lots after debate over map omission
Summary
Olmsted Falls Council debated whether five lots in the Falls Glen subdivision were left out of a prior Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) amendment and voted down a measure to extend the residential tax abatement for those lots, 6–1, after competing accounts about whether the exclusion was an oversight or intentional.
Olmsted Falls City Council declined to adopt an amendment to the city’s Community Reinvestment Area ordinance that would have allowed five lots in the Falls Glen subdivision to qualify for a residential tax abatement. After more than a half hour of history and explanation, the motion failed on a roll call of 1 aye (Council President Garry Thompson) and 6 nays.
The proposed change related to Ordinance 31-2026, which amends the city’s CRA as implemented under Ohio Revised Code sections 3735.65 through 3735.70. The lengthy exchange centered on whether those five lots were omitted from prior legislation by mistake or by design. Developer and resident Tony Valore told council the omission had left him at a competitive disadvantage and described efforts to replat and finish the development: "We are just trying to finish the street with five lots and he does not think it’s any great impact on any community other than you will have five more residents that are part of this community," he said, asking that the lots be reinstated.
Council members and the law director reviewed the history. Law Director Max Rieker summarized the statutory background and prior procedural steps; Councilman Brett Iafigliola pressed for financial context and transparency about precedent and long-term effect. Council President Thompson said the omission looked like "an oversight" and framed the proposal as an effort to correct an inequity after similar developments were left eligible. Mayor Chad Gluss raised a contrasting view, saying he believed some prior council members thought Valore had earlier had an abatement and that the omission might not have been accidental. The council did not adopt the amendment. The failure of the motion leaves the current CRA map and eligibility intact until or unless council takes different action in the future.
