patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

UPDATED: CH-UH School Board Approves Tax Abatement for Development of Meadowbrook and Lee

School Board members granted the City of Cleveland Heights and developer The Orlean Company an 11-year, 80 percent abatement that includes a compensation agreement.

 

Updated at 10 a.m. Tuesday

The Cleveland Heights-University Heights School Board unanimously approved an 11-year, 80 percent tax abatement for the City of Cleveland Heights and developer The Orlean Company for the proposed residential and commercial building on the Meadowbrook and Lee property at its regular meeting Monday night.

Cleveland Heights City Council members, the city's planning and development director, the law director, the acting city manager, Orlean Company president David Orlean and other officials attended the meeting and answered questions from school board members.

Superintendent Doug Heuer and Chief Financial Officer Scott Gainer recommended that the board approve the resolution for a tax abatement for the Meadowbrook and Lee property.

"The analysis does indicate a positive financial gain for the district in comparison to the status quo condition of this property. Additionally, we share the political opinion that cooperation with the City of Cleveland Heights on the request will contribute to future, mutually beneficial collaboration between the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City Schools and the City of Cleveland Heights moving forward," the letter stated. 

The more than $11.4 million project, with the abatement, will bring in an average of $70,000 in property taxes each year during the 11 years. Without the abatement, it would have produced $300,000 in property taxes annually.

Nancy Peppler, school board member, said because the school hasn't received money on the Meadowbrook and Lee property in years, it would be beneficial to approve the abatement because the district isn't losing any money now — only gaining.

The school board also approved a compensation agreement involving the value of the Cedar Lee parking deck.

The city recently had the parking deck appraised and determined that it has no real market value, said John Gibbon, the city's law director. The Board of Revision reduced the value from approximately $3.8 million to $2.4 million. Instead of appealing this decision to argue that the market value is zero or less, the city and school board have agreed to lock the value of the deck at $2.2 million during the term of the abatement so that the board continues receiving property taxes from that structure.

After the 11 years is up, the Meadowbrook and Lee development is expected to bring in an average of $440,000 in property taxes each year, according to the Orlean Company. The developer also said more residents would help the local economy and presented figures about how much revenue they'd bring in through income taxes, parking fees and other means.

Cleveland Heights Planning and Development Director Richard Wong also said it would contribute to the aesthetics of the Cedar Lee Business District and neighborhood.

"It's a beautifully functioning district with a hole right in the center, and we have this project to connect. So it connects north, south, encourages pedestrian activity and, in my opinion, it's beautiful," Wong said.

The four-story, 77-unit building would house studio, one and two bedroom apartments ranging from 513 square feet to 1,138 square feet, according to early proposals. Though Stuart Friedman, spokesman for the Orlean Company, said it's too soon to talk exact rent prices, rates will likely be "a little bit north of a $1.50 a square foot."

Current estimated rental rates range from $950 to $1980 a month.

The drawings include a bike storage area, fitness room, theatre and a courtyard with green space. Photos of other Orlean Company projects show kitchens opening out to living room and dining room spaces, hardwood floors, tear drop and spotlight fixtures and stainless steel appliances. Friedman noted the buildings would have features that older Cleveland Heights buildings do not, like air conditioning, and will follow green zoning standards.

The ground floor units would house commercial and retail space.

Board members asked what some of the risks associated with the project were — what if the market doesn't support the luxury apartments being proposed?

Some of the handful of residents who came to speak in opposition to the project voiced similar concerns, citing vacancies in the area and much lower rent rates in the city.

Cleveland Heights resident Garry Kanter spoke at the meeting and said there is no evidence the apartments will do well in Cleveland Heights or analysis of the risks of the project.

Council member Cheryl Stephens, who works for the Cuyahoga County Land Bank, said that "one of the most positive things about this property is that it is located in a 'supercluster,'" or within the proximity of educational and medical institutions.

She said between 2010 and 2015, approximately 3,000 jobs will be created.

"All we need is 100 people to move in to make it work," she said.

Based on her studies, the estimated occupancy rate will be about 93 percent.

"We can't do urban development without some sort of investment on the public sector's part anymore," she said.

"In this business district, most of the buildings are mature, and they have become functionally obsolete. They no longer attract either a young commercial tenant or residential tenant ... We have to have something more upscale."

Orlean Company president David Orlean said if this fails, his company assumes the greatest risk. He said though these units are not typical in Cleveland Heights, they are in other areas such as Downtown Cleveland and University Circle. And they are appealing to younger renters — the kind Cleveland Heights is trying to attract.

"As we all saw five years ago, the 'worst case' can be far more extreme. We developed Bluestone and faced those very severe issues, and that's the risk that we face as the developer. That's why it is so important to get some form of assistance," Orlean said.

Cleveland Heights resident Fran Mentch spoke at the meeting and asked why the developer needed an 80 percent abatement — why they couldn't get a lower abatement that wouldn't need approval the CH-UH School Board.

"It is clear that the decision tonight was based on the relationship between the city council and the school board and that the citizens and their money were irrelevant. Citizens who watch the proceedings on video will see that the city council and school board bargained about the taxes to be paid on the parking garage and future support of the bond issue. The Meadowbrook-Lee project was handed over to the developer," Mentch said.

School board member Kal Zucker said though the abatement is a short-term win for the school district, which will now receive money on the property, he asked the city "not to accept this as a precedent."

"Cities will come to school boards asking to abate ... And I think the overwhelming reason cities come to us is they're saying look, we have the opportunity to advance this community. We have the opportunity for economic development in this community, and you hold the keys. Please invest in this community," Zucker said.  "I think this board seems wiling to invest in the community, which is not true of all of them. The reason this is a difficult decision for us, is we're asking you to invest in our students. So when you say invest in our city because it will develop this area, we're saying invest in our students who will develop this area, this country this state in this world."

Cleveland Heights Mayor Ed Kelley thanked the board after members voted 5-0.

Related Topics: CH-UH School Board meeting, Cleveland Heights City Council, Meadowbrook and Lee, Meadowbrook and Lee Tax Abatement, The Orlean Company, and cleveland heights-university heights school board

Garry Kanter

7:56 am on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

"It's better'n nuthin' " was the only rationale for passing that abatement, 5 - 0.

That statement is actually the *absence* of thoughtful analysis and consideration.

There is only one element of fact in such a ridiculous "standard", the "currently receiving $0" aspect.

Everything else is conjecture, and ignores the downside of all risks. It also fails to ask "what are the reasons that the property is currently not generating any tax revenues?"

The BOE would have rubber-stamped *any* project brought forth, because it's better'n nuthin'.

But just for kicks, here's the other rationale from the Treasurer's & Superintendent's recommendation to vote in favor:

"Additionally, we share the political opinion that cooperation with the City of Cleveland Heights on the request will contribute to future, mutually beneficial collaboration between the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City Schools and the City of Cleveland Heights moving forward."

Ugh.

The document makes no mention of any of the risks involved with the project, or the impact to the Cedar-Lee district, or on the community.

While I wouldn't say the opposition had a "fair hearing" throughout the process, or last night, we certainly made the BOE aware of the real world risks of approving a project that relies on rents for studio apartments of $1,000 and 2 bedroom apartments for $2,000. Pure fantasy.

But this isn't over, yet. We'll be back for the next round with city council.

Reply

John H.

9:51 am on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

I understand why CHUH approved it. It makes sense -they want to eventually tax the property, and they aren't right now. Moving forward with the project and eventually, they will make money off of it.

It's not the school district's place to decide what should/should not be built in Cleveland Heights. That's up to CH City Council. And that's where the arguments against such a proposal should be heard.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Garry Kanter

10:28 am on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

The laws of Ohio require the BOE to approve any abatement over 50%.

That is a statement of fact.

It is your opinion as to what the BOE should consider when voting.

I find your opinion logically flawed, as a rubber stamp approval process usurps the point of a vote.

I'm delighted that this discussion is taking place, especially online.

Peace.

Comment_arrow

Garry Kanter

6:25 pm on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Your opinion about the district's interests is contradicted by state law.

The Tax Abatement Application requires 14 days for the board to review it, before council acts on it. There's a reson for that. It involves due dilligence.

Which the board, treasurer, superintendent and legal council failed to perform. The application is dated August 17, and council's resolution is dated August 20. 3 days, max. *If* the board ever saw it at all.

And the application has no applicant. It's a farce, and they all turned their backs on it. The "applicant" is TBD - To Be Determined. The space for the officer's title is blank. Because TBD is not a legal particpant in a contract. Total, inexcusable, and intentional disregard for the law and the interests of the citizens and the state.

Comment_arrow

Garry Kanter

7:20 pm on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Is "NOT TRUE!" addressed to me?

Please, explain my errors. I've been at this for almost 4 months, and none of this outcome or explanation makes sense to me. I'd welcome your help in understanding this better.

Comment_arrow

John H.

3:42 pm on Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Garry, it is not the place of a School District to decide on Economic Development of a city, it's place is the educate our students. Yes, CHUH gets a vote, but the vote is on theterms of a tax abatement on the property.=, it has no authority to stop the project itself. They aren't "rubber stamping" the project -they decide on the TAX ABATEMENT, not the project itself.

You read far to into my comment, and then you added all of these things that I had not even talked about. You sound like you want to debate someone on the issue. Perhaps because the BOD wouldn't hear you on the issue. I have no actual stance on building this thing, other than, I want the Cedar Lee District to thrive, and I appreciate the attention to it.

Comment_arrow

Garry Kanter

4:06 pm on Wednesday, November 7, 2012

There's a reason for the state laws requiring 14 days review before council's resolution, and why the BOE votes at all.

That reason is to allow them time to perform due diligence of the project as part of their fiduciary responsibilities,

I *don't* think it was so they could negotiate "compensation agreements" about the tax value of city garages.

Nor do I think it's to gain political favor with the city of CH.

Read the Treasurer's & Superintendent's recommendation. And then add in the "compensation agreement". That favorable vote had long since been decided on. Whether the BOE realizes it, or not.

michaelschwartz

11:01 am on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

The BOE signing off on the tax abatement despite the half vacant storefronts along Lee speaks for itself. When you have incompetents making decisions for a community in dire straights as it is can only mean one thing-- The East Clevelandization of a once proud community. And as a sidelight, since the BOE is so cavalier with the taxpayers money, I see absolutely no reason to vote for the upcoming school levy and wil be educating my neighbors by showing them this blatant example of incompetence.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Ralph Solonitz

2:56 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012

I agree with Garry Kantor and Michael Schwartz...abatement not necessary...and more residential and retail not necessary.
How about improving housing stock and retail establishments.
The greening of the city Hall? Why?
Soon to be vacant severance center WallMart needs some thought!
Re purposing the school system? How about re-purposing our tax dollars into forward thinking planning.
Enforce housing codes!
Fix the dang roads!
Hire more police and fire forces.
Start thinking about the future...do not give away free money to those that don't need it...the developers.

There's a reason I live in Cleveland Heights...keep that reasoning on track!
Thank you. Ralph Solonitz

Richard Hollis

11:08 am on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

This is thye same BOE that wants our money to repurpose all of the buildings. Doesn't make a world of sense to me.

Reply

michaelschwartz

11:19 am on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

This city is so desperate for any good news that it will accept a bad deal just to show they are doing something. The first floor of the building will be retail. Has the city noticed the vacant storefronts already along Lee? Perhaps not as they are to busy wasting time/money on pet projects like their "green" parking lot. And what about the schools? If they spent an ounce of energy on improving academics rather than distracting the sheeple with new and exciting LEED certified school bulldings, which will do nothing to attract the very families they need and have abandoned the Heights schools, it would be worth it. But no, in their infinite wisdom, they will put the massive tax levy on the ballot next year which will further chase away families if passed. But hey,its easier to address old school buildings and the like rather than address the real issue which is bad academics/poor performance.

Reply

Garry Kanter

12:35 pm on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

I uploaded the Treasurer's & Superintendent's recommendation.

I spoke with each BOE member, and my take-away is that unless Zeus himself said otherwise, they would follow the recommendation.

How the unelected Superintendent of schools is qualified to make that decision on behalf of our elected representatives on the school board escapes me.

How Mr. Gainer could ignore the risks (not the least of which is rents that are excessive high by every measure), and describe the alleged benefits as "likely" is another thing I will never understand.

But that they want to make nice with the council, surprised the Hell out of me. And I am disgusted seeing that as a rationalization for how they purport to "represent" me.

Reply

Garry Kanter

12:40 pm on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

I've also uploaded page 2 of the developer's October 16th document where they admit they have no idea if the rents of $1,000 to $2,000 are attainable. Beginning in the first paragraph, fourth line.

If they had anything to support such a notion, they would have included it, no?

Reply

Garry Kanter

1:32 pm on Tuesday, November 6, 2012

"All we need is 100 people to move in to make it work," she (councilperson Stephens) said.

Right. And all Bluestone needed in 2005 was 110 households, and in 7 years they've gotten just 37.

Same developers, same lack of demonstrated demographic support, same non-existent customer base, same crappy outcome.

Reply

Garry Kanter

1:47 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012

That huge posse from the city and developer were there *only* to talk up their project's awesome impacts on the community.

Don't anyone tell me what the BOE was, or wasn't "supposed" to consider.

Reply

Chris

8:23 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012

I completely agree that this is the wrong project and unworthy of abatement -- but I blame the city not the school board. The school board is correct in assuming that anything that they get out of this project is more than what they are getting now. For reasons well stated in the comments on the city's decision to offer abatement in the first place, abatement is wrong for this project.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Garry Kanter

8:42 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012

I blame the SD for ignoring the flawed and deceptive application and the missed deadlines.

I blame the BOE for going along with this "Business as usual", by voting 5 - 0 for "Better'n nuthin' ".

The BOE *could* have stopped it. They're citizens, they have brains, and reasoning powers. I pointed out the huge risks, that $ is not a sure thing.

Of course the mayor and city council need to stop this. They need to hear from all of you. This isn't over yet.

Why hasn't the city council had any public discussions about this?

I ask that at last night's council meeting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eTQl0GEcL8w#t=270s

michaelschwartz

8:56 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012

I sense that the BOE just goes along with whatever the city tells them to as they certainly don't want to raise cackles with the city council with their pending rebuild all the schools tax levy next year and they will need the city council to rubber stamp approve it so that the zombie sheeple (read Heights taxpayers) will buy into as a "great deal" with all the politicians behind it.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Garry Kanter

9:09 pm on Thursday, November 8, 2012

Read the pdf I've attached.

Removes all doubt. And the "compensation agreement" confirms it.

Leave a comment