Feb 5, 2020 5 min read

Washington city council members continued an ongoing discussion Monday over wanting to have more leverage in any potential agreement to join the county’s land bank.

The motion to join Washington County Land Bank is on the agenda for Thursday’s meeting, but Mayor Scott Putnam said he would like to see some “language changes” to the agreement.

“I think the principal of it is a good idea, but I just want some things cleared up before the agreement is in place,” he said.

The four-party, “intergovernmental cooperation agreement,” would consist of the city, land bank, county commissioners and the city’s school district, according to Rob Phillips, assistant community development director for Redevelopment Authority of Washington County.

Phillips, who oversees the land bank for the redevelopment authority, said the purpose of the agreement is to allow the land bank to purchase city property through judicial sale, then renovate and sell the properties to get them back on the tax base.

“We target those properties because the price is fixed and it’s low,” Phillips said. “Typically, the buildings that we’re looking at need substantial renovations to bring them back to productive use.”

In the time between the property’s rehabilitation and its sale, however, the city would be responsible for maintenance, grass cutting and securing the building, Phillips said. That raised concerns for Putnam, who believes the city should at least be compensated for any repairs, boarded up windows or lawn maintenance.

“We are currently budgeting for abandoned property maintenance,” Putnam said. “But if they’re going to sell these properties and get some money for them, we’d just like some back for the maintenance.”

Phillips said the land bank board is “uncomfortable” sharing any profits made from the sale of the properties with the city.

“We’re buying properties that aren’t desirable and investing land bank funds to renovate,” he said. “The times that we are able to make a profit are how we’ll be able to stay in business. There has to be some wins for the land bank.”

Putnam said he’s concerned if the land bank takes years to sell a property, the city would then have to put time and finances into maintaining the property for a longer time. But Phillips said the land bank doesn’t want the properties long term, because they’ll be benefiting from the taxes following the sale.

“The intent is not to hold them long term because it doesn’t do us any good,” Phillips said.

The land bank would also be keeping 50% of the taxes for the first five years from the time of the sale, once the property is back on the tax base – which is why the school district and county commissioners have to sign the agreement.

“When we first started, we made it clear that we do not want to consider properties that don’t have some repurpose path identified,” Phillips said. “We’re being strategic. We want to invest in properties that we know will sell and have an impact.”

Another concern for Putnam and Westcott is they don’t want the land bank selling property to nonprofits because the city already has more than its share of tax exempt properties.

Westcott said he would also like the city to be able to choose which properties the land bank acquires.

Phillips said the land bank would be looking to acquire one or two properties and invest about $50,000 a year. He said the main focus of the investment is to get the properties back on the tax base, which would benefit the city.

“Right now, you’re getting nothing,” he said.

He said in some cases, this program could be used instead of spending funds to demolish homes that “haven’t been cared for financially or physically.”

“Even if the blight is gone, you’re left with a vacant lot by a property owner that’s not paying taxes,” Phillips said.

Councilman Joe Manning, who put the agreement on Thursday’s agenda, said he’s hopeful the land bank would be able to help the city have more owner-occupied residences.

“I feel if we’re going to move this city forward, we have to have single-family homes that are family owned,” he said. “We have to start flipping some of these rental properties back into family homes, and if the land bank can go sink money into it and market it to maybe even a first-time homebuyer, the better for it.”

Manning voiced frustration with a multitude of “absentee landlords” who live far away, purchase cheap properties and don’t take care of them. He said if more residences were owner-occupied they’ll be “invested in the community” and “take pride in your property and the community.”

Westcott said he thinks the city should be a part of the land bank, but he would like to see those concerns addressed in “language tweaks” in the agreement.

“There’s no downside to this,” Westcott said. “The county would give us a broader ability to look at more properties because they have the means and the money.”

Phillips said he would take the city’s concerns back to the land bank board to see if any “tweaks” could be made to the agreement before it’s voted on at Thursday’s meeting.