County to Pay $700K Tax Bill for Oakhill

Related Links
Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 12/17/2010 7:52 am
After more than four years of back-and-forth arguing, Mahoning County Commissioners finally got the bad news concerning back-taxes on Oakhill Renaissance Place from the lawyer hired to try and negotiate with the Ohio Department of Taxation.

"Taxes that accrued at a time when the county did not own the property at Oakhill [must] be either paid, or contracted for payment," said Atty. Ray Anderson of Columbus.

At the time of Oakhill's purchase, its former owner, Southside Community Development Corporation, owed about $430,000 in back taxes and interest. The bill is now more than $700,000.

As part of the original deal, the county assumed all of Oakhill's outstanding debts, something County Auditor Mike Sciortino, among others, tried to warn against. Sciortino Thursday called the situation "unconscionable," adding, "those decisions that were not made, those leadership decisions, that were failure decisions, now cost taxpayers an additional $300,000."

Commissioners agreed to enter in a five-year plan to pay the back taxes. This may help another request from the board -- to make the county exempt from any taxes after Oakhill was purchased.

"Before an exemption can be applied for, all of the past-due taxes either had to be paid or an agreement or payment plan had to be entered into," said County Prosecutor Paul Gains.

In the meantime, the county's administrator, George Tablack, said these latest additional expenses will be recovered through rent paid by tenants like the Department of Jobs and Family Services.

While Sciortino again questioned the original plans for Oakhill claiming he's never seen them, Tablack and others say they will continue working to reverse the decision by the state.


Share
1 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

Wrywithatwist - 12/16/2010 6:49 PM
0 Votes
Was there ever a formal business plan written for the property, discussed in public, and vetted by independent professionals? And, if not, were the anticipated costs verified by a bona fide cost estimator? And, further, were both the property, and the proposed rents that were bantered about set, or verified by a competent real estate appraiser? Having toured the property in my capacity as a real estate professional specializing in commercial and industrial property, specifically the redevelopment of older, functionally obsolete properties into modern uses, and meeting with the consultant who was advising the corporation-- which was sinking into bankruptcy-- that was operating the property as a enormous loss, some months before the County's interest became public, I concluded much study was necessary to determine profitability from a business perspective. In hindsight now, with a deep recession still raging in the County, the most dire scenarios would be coming to fruition from any rational business plan. So, finally, is it the county government's responsibility to bail out the people who saddled the community a property with such high maintenance costs, as well as rehabilitation costs as to make rents higher than in competitive buildings in the County? I DO look forward to the trials of the Cafaro family and the public officials who opposed this project.
News Poll
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.