There were six proponents testifying this morning in support of HB469 as amended. There were no opponents. These were the six proponents....

 

Kirk Schuring and Thomas Patton

Ohio House of Representatives  

 

Mark Wagenbrenner

Wagenbrenner Development  

 

Dave Dickerson

Miller Valentine Group  

 

Marty McGann

Greater Cleveland Partnership  (click to download testimony)

 

NAIOP of Ohio

NAIOP of Ohio (click to download testimony)

 

Kent Scarrett

Ohio Municipal League  (click to download testimony)

Edited November 14, 20186 yr by KJP

A few minutes ago I spoke with the committee chairman's secretary and the transformational tax credit legislation will have at least one more hearing, scheduled for Nov. 28. The secretary said that legislation typically has 2-3 hearings before being referred to the full Senate for a floor vote unless the President of the Senate suspends the rules in the interest of time/priority and requests an immediate floor vote.

 

So, we wait a little while longer.

Edited November 14, 20186 yr by KJP

Thanks for those updates on the legislative scoreboard, KJP.  So based on a few recent posts, it sounds like the original Nucleus “may be” shelved, but a newer plan ”might be” in development. It seems logical that no real revision will be put out there until the Senate makes their vote. If they ended up losing the shorter tower and the expensive bridge hotel, seems like the cost of the project could be significantly reduced- while still giving the city a new 600’ tower. (Hopefully a refined version of the brutal Jenga Tower).  If there is any info on a  “scaled-back” version,  I’m sure everyone would LOVE to know about it.  Hearing no specifics after all this time makes me think that there’s simply  nothing officially on the drawing board just yet. It’ll be fascinating to see what a new Nucleus looks like if a scaled- back version does emerge. That might even end up being a blessing - though I’d love a new project of this scale - I never felt the original Nucleus felt quite right visually in the Cleveland skyline. 

Next Ways & Means Committee hearing for the tax credit....

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_pub_api/api/unwrap/chamber/132nd_ga/ready_for_publication/committee_docs/cmte_s_wm_1/notice/cmte_s_wm_1_2018-11-28-0900_1624/current/notice.pdf

 

The fact that they advertise it as for proponent/interested party testimony and not opponent testimony either means they're going to hold another hearing (not much time left for that) or they've yet to receive any opponent testimony.

On 11/21/2018 at 11:47 AM, KJP said:

Next Ways & Means Committee hearing for the tax credit....

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_pub_api/api/unwrap/chamber/132nd_ga/ready_for_publication/committee_docs/cmte_s_wm_1/notice/cmte_s_wm_1_2018-11-28-0900_1624/current/notice.pdf

 

The fact that they advertise it as for proponent/interested party testimony and not opponent testimony either means they're going to hold another hearing (not much time left for that) or they've yet to receive any opponent testimony.

KJP: Any feedback from this mornings 2nd hearing on HB469

HB469 will have another hearing in Ways & Means, probably next week. Date and time TBA.

BTW...persons testifying are listed at:

http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committees/ways-and-means/document-archive

 

Some statements made today with links to their testimony in bold....

 

Heritage Ohio supports HB 469 because it is a solution in how to deal with the mammoth buildings in our cities such as The Arcade in Dayton and the Plaza Terrace in Cincinnati. In these cases: projects that have the opportunity to transform the energy in the city’s core reusing important, yet vacant properties. Time and again, we see the positive catalytic effects in cities when significant building re-investment takes place. This type of investment helps the cities in their revitalization strategies and is a safe investment by the State of Ohio.

 

Ohio Insurance Institute  - Our current work force is not the only good news. The property and casualty insurance industry is growing dramatically in Ohio. The insurance industry is poised to employ 29,000 new employees by 2024. The future is bright for the property and casualty insurance industry in Ohio. Ohio’s workers, consumers, business owners, motorists, and the economy benefit from the presence of the property and casualty insurance industry in Ohio. The property and casualty industry is strong and stable. This strength and stability provides the industry an opportunity to participate in the type of development that is contemplated in HB 469. The tax credit for insurance companies will be attractive to insurance companies to invest in real estate. Insurance companies are attracted to real estate investment because it is a safe and stable long-term investment. This legislation recognizes the long-standing investments that insurance companies have made in economic development projects across the state and the country. HB 469 provides more opportunities for insurance companies to deploy capital to the benefit of policy holders and Ohio.

 

Ohio Chamber of Commerce - We believe the eligibility criteria is specific enough to allow legitimate business development and growth. The estimated development costs associated with the project exceeding $50 million, including at least one building that is 15 or more stories high or more than 350,000 square feet, more than one intended "use" associated with the project site and have a transformational economic impact on the area. These restrictions will ensure well-funded, well planned developments.

 

Greater Akron Chamber of Commerce - Within the Greater Akron Region, there are numerous projects that could potentially qualify as a TMUD. For example, the City of Akron is currently in the back-end of the reconfiguration of Route 59 in order to open 35 acres of development immediately adjacent to downtown Akron. This site has been identified in the Downtown Akron Redevelopment Plan as one of the key areas for future investment. Given its proximity to Downtown Akron, including current and planned retail, residential and commercial amenities, and its ease to highway access, this site is an ideal location for a large-scale economic development project. .....Additionally, the East End project, which is the redevelopment of the former Goodyear Headquarters, is a good example of a project that could have significantly benefitted from the credits included in H.B. 469. While the East End project has progressed, it has taken almost a decade to develop a portion of the residential development, limited retail and commercial small tenants, and its first two large commercial tenants. However, much of the former Goodyear complex remains unoccupied, and significant development remains to be done.

Edited November 28, 20186 yr by KJP

KJP...I am assuming that after that hearing, a committee vote must be scheduled, then a full Senate vote and then Kasich has to sign the bill before the end of the legislative session.  With Christmas coming up, is there enough time to get it passed?  I know the legislature is not in Columbus full time.  If they don't get done this legislative session doesn't it have to start from scratch in both chambers?

It is possible the committee may meet on Dec. 5 and vote to send HB469 to the Senate floor. There has been no known opposition and all of the testimony is publicly supportive, without condition. So far I've seen nothing from the committee that they would amend it, meaning no conference committee hearing. Full sessions by the Senate are scheduled for Dec. 5, 6, 12, 13 and 19. There is still time for this bill to pass. If the governor doesn't sign (or veto) it within 10 days of it being sent to his desk, it becomes law without his signature.

Edited November 28, 20186 yr by KJP

Most of these bills have at least several hearings in a committee before they get reported out to the floor. If well-respected legislators from each party speak out in support of it on the Senate floor prior to the president ending debate on the bill and closing consideration of floor amendments, it will pass even though most Senators will have little or no idea what the transformational tax credit is or what it involves.

so we wait a little longer

I think nuCLEus has missed its window... at least as a development with any significant apartment presence, especially with the new information re: the Hippodrome lot

I disagree. I think the window to new construction is just starting to open. The CBD's residential population is still very small in relation to the metro area population. It's not yet even 1 percent, although it probably will be by 2020. Most healthy metros have 2 percent or more in the CBD. The recent market analysis by Urban Partners says there's a market for 6,800 more homes downtown. That's another 20 Lumen-sized buildings. With Opportunity Zone financing and hopefully Transformational Tax Credit financing, there are more financial tools to make these developments happen.

Edited November 28, 20186 yr by KJP

I’m down for another 20 Lumen-sized buildings! 

15 hours ago, YABO713 said:

I think nuCLEus has missed its window... at least as a development with any significant apartment presence, especially with the new information re: the Hippodrome lot

 

I'd encourage you (and everyone on here) to take some time and digest this study done by Urban Partners out of Philadelphia. The focus of the study is future downtown housing needs, but it also includes some interesting data for the core city neighborhoods.

http://www.downtowncleveland.com/DCA/media/DCA_Media/2018-Housing-Demand-Analysis.pdf

Edited November 29, 20186 yr by Clefan98

Wake me up when this is ready to go...

1 hour ago, w28th said:

Wake me up when this is ready to go...

 

And miss all the fun speculating??

56 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

And miss all the fun speculating??

That is the best part!!  

 

Personally I wouldn't recommend it, you may never wake up again.

I'm not rooting against this project at all but it's sad, that here we are, about 3 years after it was announced, that it still hasn't broken ground.  Like, how far off were the initial financial projections that they still can't close the gap with this public subsidy?  Does Stark even own the lots and the buildings to be torn down for this project or do they just keep doing options on them?  All I can think is the level of effort that has been committed to this in terms of financial analysis, legal work, incentive pursuits, architectural plans, construction budgeting, tenant negotiations...   for nothing

19 minutes ago, gottaplan said:

  All I can think is the level of effort that has been committed to this in terms of financial analysis, legal work, incentive pursuits, architectural plans, construction budgeting, tenant negotiations...   for nothing

 

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

- some famous basketball player

You people need to relax. The level of impatience is stunning. This isn't the Basílica in Barcelona that's been under construction for 130 years. But it's not a Dunkin Donuts either. Maybe it will happen. Maybe not. But it's way too soon for either judgment. And yes, Stark owns the property.

Edited November 29, 20186 yr by KJP

1 hour ago, gottaplan said:

I'm not rooting against this project at all but it's sad, that here we are, about 3 years after it was announced, that it still hasn't broken ground.  Like, how far off were the initial financial projections that they still can't close the gap with this public subsidy?  Does Stark even own the lots and the buildings to be torn down for this project or do they just keep doing options on them?  All I can think is the level of effort that has been committed to this in terms of financial analysis, legal work, incentive pursuits, architectural plans, construction budgeting, tenant negotiations...   for nothing

 

Where did you see that Stark can't close the financing gap even with the public subsidy? The new state bill hasn't even passed yet.

Edited November 29, 20186 yr by Clefan98

I think it'll get done, though much different than the original proposal. Stark simply isn't giving up which I give major props to him for. After his school board plan failed, he went to Columbus and it looks like they are going to deliver.

I wonder if someone has any updated renderings of the project; I believe @mjarboe mentioned a slimmed down version of the project not so long ago.

 

 

 

I hope it's still relatively large. I wasn't a fan of the old renderings, but I liked the projects height. They should go for a much cleaner design instead of making a bunch of awkward, ugly shapes. For example, I LOVE the design of Detroit's new skyscraper. 

3 hours ago, bjk said:

 

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

- some famous basketball player

I'm very dissapointed in you @bjk

 

It's Wayne Gretsky

Alltime best and top hall of Famer NHL player who played Old-Time Hockey in the 80's.

 

@CLE_Millennial that's an older rendering. There's a newer rendering that was approved to be higher than the original plans that were under way. I would direct you to the Non-Ohio Development Detroit thread.

Edited November 29, 20186 yr by tastybunns

1 hour ago, CLE_Millennial said:

I hope it's still relatively large. I wasn't a fan of the old renderings, but I liked the projects height. They should go for a much cleaner design instead of making a bunch of awkward, ugly shapes. For example, I LOVE the design of Detroit's new skyscraper. 

I agree 100%. The Nucleus Jenga tower is so fugly that because of its fuglyness most forumers are not overly disappointed.

if it never gets built. The Jenga tower just DOES NOT fit the skyline.  HOWEVER, something like this would fit in perfectly.

I liked the original design but maybe I’m in the minority lol. There are a couple of buildings in Toronto that look similar and I liked them in person. ??‍♂️

8 hours ago, simplythis said:

I agree 100%. The Nucleus Jenga tower is so fugly that because of its fuglyness most forumers are not overly disappointed.

if it never gets built. The Jenga tower just DOES NOT fit the skyline. .

Well stated! I bet most Urban Ohio followers would usually be heartbroken if a 600’ tower got cancelled - but Nucleus - no, it’s like the 21st century version of the Justice Center.  I’m not even a fan of “.Jenga Towers” in more dense settings where they can “blend in” . There’s one in Jersey City ( which is blowing up like Miami) and it’s ugly there too. 

i guess I’m hoping that the Nucleus project goes forward with a streamlined version featuring the same kind of height. As far as its viability, I think Stark is still all in on this. We saw how long The Beacon took to happen - so 3 or 4 years isn’t that long of a delay in Cleveland terms. Stark’s website still messages that they’re out to change the Cleveland skyline. The Beacon, a nice project, isn’t  on that scale - I think Stark really wants  to build something that joins the big 3 In terms  of scale and impact. Hopefully, the state legislature can provide the kick- start that the failing Cleveland Schools could not. 

Edited November 30, 20186 yr by CleveFan

15 hours ago, simplythis said:

I agree 100%. The Nucleus Jenga tower is so fugly that because of its fuglyness most forumers are not overly disappointed.

if it never gets built. The Jenga tower just DOES NOT fit the skyline.  HOWEVER, something like this would fit in perfectly.

If we’re so vein and self-absorbed that we’d rather something as significant as this not get built because we don’t like its design, then shame on us

6 hours ago, CleveFan said:

Well stated! I bet most Urban Ohio followers would usually be heartbroken if a 600’ tower got cancelled - but Nucleus - no, it’s like the 21st century version of the Justice Center.  I’m not even a fan of “.Jenga Towers” in more dense settings where they can “blend in” . There’s one in Jersey City ( which is blowing up like Miami) and it’s ugly there too. 

i guess I’m hoping that the Nucleus project goes forward with a streamlined version featuring the same kind of height. As far as its viability, I think Stark is still all in on this. We saw how long The Beacon took to happen - so 3 or 4 years isn’t that long of a delay in Cleveland terms. Stark’s website still messages that they’re out to change the Cleveland skyline. The Beacon, a nice project, isn’t  on that scale - I think Stark really wants  to build something that joins the big 3 In terms  of scale and impact. Hopefully, the state legislature can provide the kick- start that the failing Cleveland Schools could not. 

 

^What ended up being the Beacon did take a long time to complete, but you have to remember that the first phase was completed right before the biggest recession since the Great Depression, which put the brakes on everything obviously including the Tower. Nucleus was announced in the middle of one of the longest economic expansions in US history at a time when apartments are going up all over a typically slower market like Cleveland. I think there is something to be said about that. 

7 hours ago, CleveFan said:

Well stated! I bet most Urban Ohio followers would usually be heartbroken if a 600’ tower got cancelled - but Nucleus - no, it’s like the 21st century version of the Justice Center.  I’m not even a fan of “.Jenga Towers” in more dense settings where they can “blend in” . There’s one in Jersey City ( which is blowing up like Miami) and it’s ugly there too. 

i guess I’m hoping that the Nucleus project goes forward with a streamlined version featuring the same kind of height. As far as its viability, I think Stark is still all in on this. We saw how long The Beacon took to happen - so 3 or 4 years isn’t that long of a delay in Cleveland terms. Stark’s website still messages that they’re out to change the Cleveland skyline. The Beacon, a nice project, isn’t  on that scale - I think Stark really wants  to build something that joins the big 3 In terms  of scale and impact. Hopefully, the state legislature can provide the kick- start that the failing Cleveland Schools could not. 

Wow.  I've been to city's all over the U.S. and parts of the world.  This really isn't as bad as people are trying to portray it out to be.  Mr. Stark didn't just stumble upon this concept.  He wants to bring something extremely different to the city that he loves (something that would truly stand out).  To be honest, I have no problem with the design.  It isn't cookie cutter.  The concept would separate Cleveland's skyline from other mid size cities in a positive way IMO.  What I do know is that Mr. Stark has been bullish on the downtown market for years.  I still remember when he wanted to bring a Croker Park style format to the warehouse district.  That being said, I've never counted him nor his vision's out.

Cleveland should break out of this midwest funk....    hope the design stays the same...

16 hours ago, Enginerd said:

I liked the original design but maybe I’m in the minority lol. There are a couple of buildings in Toronto that look similar and I liked them in person. ??‍♂️

 

On 11/29/2018 at 8:57 AM, Clefan98 said:

 

I'd encourage you (and everyone on here) to take some time and digest this study done by Urban Partners out of Philadelphia. The focus of the study is future downtown housing needs, but it also includes some interesting data for the core city neighborhoods.

http://www.downtowncleveland.com/DCA/media/DCA_Media/2018-Housing-Demand-Analysis.pdf

 

Nice find... there's some interesting data in there (and can probably move this to another thread):

and relative to the 10 other cities they compared, Cleveland has a lower % of jobs in  Downtown than its metro area (pg. 34)  ;

 

I'm quite confounded why several (SF, Boston, Miami, Orlando, Seattle) of 10 comparison cities in the study are quite unlike Cleveland and why they excluded more comparable cities: (St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo) (see pg. 43 of the PDF to see comparisons with pittsburgh and cincy)

The way this agenda item is presented, it is likely this will be the final hearing for the legislation before being reported out of committee to the Senate floor....

 

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_pub_api/api/unwrap/chamber/132nd_ga/ready_for_publication/committee_docs/cmte_s_wm_1/notice/cmte_s_wm_1_2018-12-05-0900_1655/current/notice.pdf

 

WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE NOTICE

Wednesday, December 5, 2018 9:00 AM South Hearing Room

 

Sub. H. B. No. 469

Schuring, Patton

Grant tax credit for transformational mixed use development

3rd Hearing, Proponent/Opponent/ Interested Party (Possible Amendments)

16 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

If we’re so vein and self-absorbed that we’d rather something as significant as this not get built because we don’t like its design, then shame on us

 

I might be vain but I'm not vein:)

43 minutes ago, jeremyck01 said:

 

I might be vain but I'm not vein:)

Touché 

On 11/30/2018 at 10:38 AM, Enginerd said:

 

Reminds me of the Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi building: http://www.w5design.net/cleveland-clinic.html

 

Here’s a  New York City take on the Nucleus tower , completed in 2016....

In the Ways & Means Committee today regarding HB469 (the transformational development tax credit), proponent testimony today was delivered by:

 

Douglas Moormann

Development Strategies Group 

 

Tom Rowe

Terrex Development and Construction  

 

The first opponent testimony was delivered today by any committee in either house. It came from two interests groups from the opposite ends of the political spectrum (click on their names to read what they had to say):

 

Zach Schiller and Wendy Patton

Policy Matters Ohio  

 

Micah Derry

Americans for Prosperity Ohio  

 

I am attempting to learn what action, if any, was taken today by the Ways & Means Committee.

I'm getting wary of the growing list of tax credits available for real estate development. Property tax abatements, state/federal Historic preservation, and growing use of TIF's, and now potentially this new tax credit and federal "Opportunity Zones". I sometimes worry they are creating a house of cards where nobody is paying their real value of their developments.

 

HOWEVER, if the Koch backed Americans for Prosperity came out against it, I am all-in. Let's get it done.?

^Think of it as leveling the playing field with the enormous tax advantages suburban development has enjoyed for so long.

Not only tax advantages but the inherent cost advantages of greenfield development over infill. Especially when we keep building new roads.

So HB469 was not referred to the floor for a vote today. Instead, a proposed amendment was introduced and accepted by the committee to clarify how the total square footage (to meet the minimum 350,000-square-foot requirement) would be measured. That means if the bill goes to the floor and is passed by the Senate as amended, it will have to go to a conference committee. There is a standing conference committee in place and some bills will move very fast through that process. It remains to seen if this bill is one of them. Here is the amendment....

++++++++++++++

 

Amendment No. AM_132_2854

Sub. H. B. No. 469 As Passed by the House

 

Topic: Square footage requirement - multiple buildings or parking garages

_______ moved to amend as follows:

 

In line 68, after "height" insert ","; delete "has" and insert "includes one or more buildings or some combination of one or more buildings and one or more parking garages that collectively have"

 

The motion was agreed to

Will the Amended HB469 have to go thru 3 hearings or will it be referred to the the floor for a vote?

It will not have to go through three hearings. If the bill is referred, it will have to happen at the next meeting of Ways & Means, if there is one.

17 minutes ago, KJP said:

It will not have to go through three hearings. If the bill is referred, it will have to happen at the next meeting of Ways & Means, if there is one.

Isn't there a session scheduled for 12/6/18. So if it got referred that hearing is today?

On 12/5/2018 at 12:56 PM, Mendo said:

I'm getting wary of the growing list of tax credits available for real estate development. Property tax abatements, state/federal Historic preservation, and growing use of TIF's, and now potentially this new tax credit and federal "Opportunity Zones". I sometimes worry they are creating a house of cards where nobody is paying their real value of their developments.

 

HOWEVER, if the Koch backed Americans for Prosperity came out against it, I am all-in. Let's get it done.?

 

There isn't much getting built anywhere without some kind of subsidy.  We just need to make sure we're getting what we pay for when we give them out.  No more of this "the market says you get garbage urban design."  When the market has been modified by a gift from the people, the people have a say in what gets built.  Developers shouldn't get to make every decision based on maximizing profits, not at the expense of the community who made their profits possible.

You know, If only people could be able to vote alongside politicians in ways and means, and even city planning commissions we would have a denser Cleveland, with many vacant buildings. There's a reason why we have surface lots. I'm sure there would be much oversight on tax credits. I'm afraid if the people had a voice in TIF and subsidy markets, we would be bankrupt.