$29M Hamilton redevelopment could get started this fall; some funding still needed
Last month, Hamilton City Council approved the plan for a project that has been said would be transformational for the city's Lindenwald neighborhood. Bloomfield/Schon is proposing a $29 million project to build 125 apartments and provide commercial and recreational spaces, as well as additional parking for the neighborhood.
Commonly known as the Shuler-Benninghofen project, the plans call for 91 one-bedroom apartments, with the remainder being two-bedroom, three-bedroom, or studio units.
Ahead of last month's unanimous City Council approval of the plans, Mayor Pat Moeller said the city's citizens are anticipating this project, and many in the administration have called it "transformational."
"The people we've talked to on the Planning Commission, at cookouts, everybody's really excited about this," he said. "We'll need to finish connecting the dots, but when that gets done, it'll be a great, great project."
Some of those dots relate to the developer's financing, which Bloomfield/Schon officials said is needed to finalize before the project begins. Part of the financing does include $3.5 million in Ohio historic tax credits announced in December.
Ken Schon, partner at Bloomfield/Schon, told city leaders last month they are speaking with "three or four lenders" and are working with tax credit investors.
The goal, Schon said, is to begin construction this fall.
"It's been a long haul, but it's going to be great for Lindenwald," said City Council member Michael Ryan. "It's going to be a fresh start for the neighborhood, and I look forward to watching this get redeveloped and am really excited for our Lindenwald neighborhood. This is going to be great. We've got a couple more steps we've got to get through, but I appreciate Lindenwald's patience and belief and trust."
This project is far from Bloomfield/Schon's first as the company has a growing portfolio of projects, including its first, the former American Can Factory in Cincinnati's Northside neighborhood now known as the American Can Lofts. They also redeveloped the former Peters Cartridge Factory in Warren County, now a facility with more than 130 apartments in Maineville.
------
MORE ONLINE
Follow the steps of this project in previous Journal-News articles.
journal-news.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rudee Park multi-million redesign gets green light, attracts national interest
VIRGINIA BEACH — The City Council agreed Tuesday to finally move forward with the design plan for Rudee Park and start a capital fundraising campaign for the multi-million project set to transform the south end of the resort area. It was the final approval needed to bring the project to fruition. The council has already set aside $50 million to build the park, with the money coming from a tourism tax fund. But council members hope to offset that cost by obtaining at least $20 million in sponsorships, which could include naming rights on elements of the park or programs and events held there. 'We are getting national sponsors who are very interested in this,' said Vice Mayor Rosemary Wilson, who represents the district. 'The exposure is going to be phenomenal.' Rudee Park will be built on 8 waterfront acres at the southernmost end of the Oceanfront's resort area where city-owned parking lots currently exist. It will feature a walking path on top of the 1st Street jetty, a water plaza and splash pad, a fishing ledge, elevated walkways with an ocean overlook and a grassy sunset lawn cascading toward Rudee Inlet. It's expected to attract more than 3 million people a year, according to the city. The next step — completing construction drawings — will take about a year-and-a-half and cost $4 million, said Michael Kirschman, director of Parks and Recreation. The city has already spent $2.5 million on the park design. The council opted for a new surface parking lot with 360 spaces, instead of a parking garage, which would have cost an additional nearly $30 million. Related Articles Virginia Beach's Rudee Park design features elevated ocean overlooks, jetty walk Meet the influential 20-member board shaping Virginia Beach's resort area Here's a look inside Virginia Beach's new surf park, which opens Saturday Council members had previously asked how the park will affect festival logistics at the Oceanfront. Currently, Rudee Loop is used as a staging area for event equipment. Kirschman said the park can be used as a festival entrance and the new surface parking lot can become an operations area. He also addressed questions raised about flooding in the area. Rudee Loop sits about 4 feet lower than the Boardwalk, which serves as a flood wall. The park design calls for elevating the site to be level with the flood wall, Kirschman said. Also, new plants and trees will reduce the area's impervious surfaces by more than half, which will relieve flooding issues and cool down the space in the summer, he said. 'We really green up the site' Kirschman said. The park is expected to generate $2.5 to $3.5 million in annual revenue from events, sponsorships, retail and rentals. It will cost $2 to $3 million a year to operate and maintain. Part of the city's next steps will be creating a nonprofit organization with a board of directors and an operations team to run the park. 'They would plan the programs,' Kirschman said. 'They run the whole site.' Stacy Parker, 757-222-5125, Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former Austin mayoral candidate sues over TRE ballot language
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A former Austin mayoral candidate is challenging the city over how it is presenting a tax rate election to voters in November. Last week, Austin City Council approved its budget for next fiscal year and set a property tax rate, which is high enough that it triggers a tax rate election, or TRE, in November. Council members also approved an ordinance ordering that special election to be held on Nov. 4. Austin signs off on $6B+ budget, triggering property tax rate election If voters approve the new tax rate, the average homeowner's property tax bill will go up by a total of $302.14 annually. The ordinance council members passed, ordering the TRE, lays out the rules of the election and what will appear on the ballot for voters. According to the ordinance, the TRE will be under Proposition Q on November's ballot, and it will say, 'this is a tax increase,' and describe what the money will go toward. However, Jeffery Bowen, a candidate in the 2024 Austin mayoral race, filed a lawsuit this week claiming that the ballot language as described in the ordinance doesn't make it clear that the property tax hike would be recurring, and that the ballot's description of what taxpayers would get out of the increase is not clear enough. Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, who defeated Bowen for the seat of city mayor last November, provided KXAN with the following statement: 'The City of Austin is confident the ballot language is appropriate and meets all legal requirements. We also have confidence in the court system and will respond in that venue.' The full lawsuit can be viewed below. Original Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus with App_1755530250Download According to the ordinance, the ballot will be prepared to permit voting 'FOR' or 'AGAINST' Proposition Q, which will state the following: CITY OF AUSTIN PROPOSITION QTHIS IS A TAX INCREASE Approving the ad valorem tax rate of $0.574017 per $100 valuation in the City of Austin for the current year, a rate that is $0.05 higher per $100 valuation than the voter-approval tax rate of the City of Austin, for the purpose of funding or expanding programs intended to increase housing affordability and reduce homelessness; improve parks and recreation facilities and services; enhance public health services and public safety; ensure financial stability; and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025 -2026 budget as approved or amended by City Council. Last year, the ad valorem tax rate in the City of Austin was $0.4776 per $100 valuation. According to Bowen's lawsuit, Bowen hand-delivered a letter to the city council on Aug. 13 that outlined the deficiencies in the ballot language, and demanded that the council 'fulfill its nondiscretionary duty to adopt ballot language for the tax increase election that does not mislead voters about the tax increase proposition.' The lawsuit alleged that, 'instead, the Austin City Council prescribed its own ballot language for the tax increase proposition that will grossly mislead voters and promote its passage.' The first issue the lawsuit alleged was that city council violated Texas law that was set forth by the Texas Supreme Court in Dacus v. Parker (Tex. 2015) because the ballot language does not explain the 'purpose' of the tax increase in definite and clear terms. The lawsuit specifically pointed out the phrase of the ballot that states, 'and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025-2026budget as approved or amended by City Council,' alleging that several parts of the phrase 'mislead' voters. It also said the ballot language fails to meet Dacus standards because 'several of the program descriptions are misleading for vagueness and non-neutral advocacy.' The other issue the lawsuit alleged was that the ballot is also too vague to establish an enforceable 'contract with the voters,' because it does not describe exactly how the current council and future councils could spend the money. The lawsuit said that because the tax increase would be a 'forever tax,' the ballot language should be 'definite and clear and become the foundation on which voters and taxpayers can rely—if the proposition passes—for how this huge tax increase will be spent, not only by this City Council but by all City Councils in the future.' Bowen's suit, which was filed in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, asks the court to 'issue a writ of mandamus ordering and compelling the Mayor and City Council of the City of Austin to promptly hold a validly called meeting of the Council to adopt ballot language that corrects each the deficiencies in the Council-adopted ballot language noted above so as to have accurate language on the November 4, 2025 ballot.' In other words, Bowen is asking the court to force the mayor and city council to change the ballot language for the proposition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Medicine Hat refuses mayor's request to cover $70K in legal bills
Medicine Hat's city council has decided against reimbursing its mayor for thousands of dollars she spent on taking the city to court and paying for outside legal advice during a leadership conflict that has dominated much of the last two years. Mayor Linnsie Clark requested compensation from the City of Medicine Hat totalling $76,017.62 across three items. Council decided to vote on each of the expenses separately instead of as a lump sum. The six councillors present at Monday's regular public meeting voted unanimously to reimburse Clark about $5,800 for one of the expenses, but denied her compensation on the other fees worth over $70,000 combined. "I thought that I laid it out fairly clear the cause and effect in relation to my costs," Clark told CBC News in a phone interview Tuesday. "So it was certainly a bit of a surprise and disappointment." Clark's reimbursement request first appeared on a council agenda in April, but she pushed back a vote several times citing the need to collect more information. After a municipal audit revealed an "untenable working environment" at city hall largely caused by a rift between Clark and the chief administrator, the legal fees remained as the only apparent outstanding item of interest after 24 months of division. 'Not just about right and wrong' Due to pecuniary interest rules, Clark was outside of the council chamber for most of the time her colleagues spent debating her payback request. Coun. Shila Sharps, who put forward the reimbursement motion, said Clark shouldn't be responsible for such a large sum because responsibility for the conflict at city hall rests with all of council. "Everybody was at fault ... I don't think one individual here should be picking up the tab," Sharps said. "I feel like we hold her to a higher level than we do our city manager, and that is unacceptable." Councillors who voted against reimbursing Clark for most of the fees said they couldn't justify spending taxpayer dollars on an issue that could've been resolved before lawyers were involved. "This job is not just about right and wrong, it's about working as a team and there was none of that," Coun. Allison Knodel said in reference to the mayor. Coun. Andy McGrogan, who is running for mayor in the fall election, asked Clark if she had attempted to get her legal fees paid through existing city policies. When she answered that she had and found that no options were available to her, McGrogan said he supported repayment for the sake of turning the page. "If there was nowhere for her to go than back to us, then I think we need to pay (the legal fees)," said McGrogan. "We need to heal, and move on." What were the fees for? Clark, who worked as a lawyer in Medicine Hat's solicitor office before running for mayor, paid for a third-party legal opinion on the reorganization of city hall that chief administrator Ann Mitchell carried out in 2023. Lawyer Guy Giorno, a partner at the national law firm Fasken, wrote that Mitchell's restructuring contradicted a city bylaw and was "null and of no effect." Clark used Giorno's opinion at the Aug. 21, 2023, meeting, catching councillors off guard and leading to a sharp exchange between Clark and Mitchell. Clark said she spent $10,500 for Giorno's services. Several councillors raised concerns about Clark's unilateral decision to acquire external legal advice without council approval. "The process has to be honoured or we make a mockery of it going forward and we set a dangerous precedent," said Coun. Robert Dumanowski at Monday's council meeting. With Sharps the only councillor to vote in favour of covering the Giorno expense, the item was not approved for repayment. Mitchell's lawyer sent Clark a letter in November 2023 demanding she "cease and desist" from further defaming the city manager. Council later reimbursed Mitchell the $6,520 she spent on the letter. Clark said she wanted to be remunerated for the $5,841.94 spent on retaining legal counsel after she received Mitchell's letter. "In light of the fact that there were fees covered in a similar vein for the city manager, I think it would be appropriate to do the same here," said Dumanowski. Council voted unanimously to cover Clark's expenditure to respond to the letter — the only of the three expense categories to receive approval. In March 2024, Medicine Hat's council placed several sanctions on Clark after finding she broke its code of conduct during the back-and-forth with Mitchell in 2023. Clark filed for a judicial review in an attempt to get the limitations on her mayoral powers removed, taking the City of Medicine Hat to court in summer of 2024. A Calgary justice ruled the sanctions were "disproportionate" and restored Clark's mayoral powers — while at the same time upholding council's conclusion the mayor broke its code of conduct. Clark reported Monday she spent $59,675.68 on taking the city to court. After some debate and a failed attempt by Dumanowski to get half the costs covered, the motion to cover the court costs failed after a tied 3-3 vote. Paul Salvatore, CEO of the Municipal Experts consultancy firm, said it was a tough decision for council to make after 24 months of controversy. "There is value in turning the page and resetting but I think, at the same token, just spending money for the sake of spending money is not a good way to move forward," Salvatore told CBC News. 'Terribly disappointed' Clark's supporters viewed council's decision not to pay the mayor back for most of fees as an injustice. "I am terribly disappointed," said Shirley Greenfield, a Medicine Hat resident who says she has followed the conflict at city hall for the past two years. "That to me feels like — and seems like — almost a punishment because of what they did to her previously with the sanctions and with cutting back on her income." Donald Knudsen, a declared council candidate for the October civic election, said council's decision was a poor way to put past issues to bed. "They've messed with Mayor Clark too much. She should be paid and move on from there. They'll never move on as long as they do that," Knudson said. After voting on the mayor's expenses, council agreed to seek legal counsel to find out if her reimbursement request falls under an existing city indemnification policy. It wasn't clear at Monday's meeting how that long that process would take.
