The owners applied for emergency small business support from the EDC which voted to recommend a tax abatement on the property to the Common Council. The abatement would tax the owners for the value of the land only, for four years, after which time the entire property would be eligible for taxation.
The building owners presented a financial argument for the aid, in executive session, and showed a preliminary sketch of the building to commissioners in that session.
In other business, the EDC voted to recommend that the Common Council support owners of the Canoe Club, formerly known as Harbor Park, in the installation of a fire alarm at the building. The alarm, which is required by code was never installed in the former restaurant, and as a property leased from the city, owners argued that the city bore some responsibility for its installation. The EDC recommended that the city install the fire box, and that rent would be reduced by $1,000 for seven months to help the owners afford the $13,000 installation fee.
How could that be overlooked in one of the busiest gathering places in the area? It's not exactly secluded. Strange that this should be brought to light AFTER ownership has changed and after the Fire Marshal retires. How many other places like this have been "overlooked?" This is a tragedy waiting to happen.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the city as lessor should bear some responsibility for the installation of a fire alarm at Harbor Park is crazy. The original lessee got a very, very low rental price because the building was in extremely poor condition and the city did not want to spend any money fixing it up. For over 25 years the lessee has reaped the benefits of this very wise decision. Now the lessee is claiming the city is responsible for the failure of the prior lessee to make legally needed improvements? Heads I win, tails you loose? The new lessees are the ones who chose to do business with the "colorful" prior lessee. If the new lessees are not happy about having to spend 13k for work the prior lessee was legally required to do, have them take it up with Mr. Marotta. Otherwise, the city should offer to terminate the lease and let them off the hook. For the pittance that they are paying in rent there would be no shortage of people who would like to rent the building from the city and would gladly pay the 13k for the new alarm as part of the bargain.
ReplyDeleteThis raises some interesting questions, like 1) how does the reporter know what was discussed behind closed doors? And 2) why were requests for a tax break not held in open session?
ReplyDeleteDavid Sauer: Unless otherwise specified in the lease, the OWNER of the building (in this case the City of Middletown )is ultimately responsible for compliance with the Fire Code.
ReplyDeleteAnon:
ReplyDeleteIn this case the lease clearly requires the tenant at his own cost and expense to make all improvements necessary to operate the business and to obtain all necessary permits and approvals. All maintenance expenses are also entirely the responsibility of the tenant. The tenant is responsible for complying with all laws regarding the use of the building, and must save the landlord harmless from any violation.
If the tenant cannot get a C.O. because the building doesn't comply with the fire code, the lease clearly makes that solely the tenant's problem.
The lease payments are approximately $2,500.00 per month, which makes this a pretty sweet deal. I don't begrudge the tenant the benefit of the deal he made, he took a risk and it paid off. However, since this is a really sweet deal for the tenant, why is the city paying for what is the tenant's responsibility?