Land bank makes progress on demolition grant projects

At the most recent meeting of the Highland County Land Reutilization Corporation (land bank) board, held Aug. 20, administrator Jason Johansen announced that all of the initial projects in the 2026 iteration of the state Building Demolition & Site Revitalization Grant program are completed.

“Now we just move on to the next 15 that have now been approved by ODOD [the Ohio Department of Development], and we are ready to accept bids and move forward,” Johansen said.

A pre-bid meeting was set for Aug. 26, with bids to be opened at the land bank’s Sept. 17 meeting.

Of those 15 projects, Johansen gave an update on three properties with asbestos abatement required. He said that 6490 Lucas Lane was abated;  0631 State Route 72 was “waiting on the electric to be disconnected;” and 13094 Barrett Mill Road had an issue with removing bees from the property that had caused delays. 

Johansen listed 10 potential projects for application for the 2027 version of the grant program but said he would “hold off on approvals for now.” 

“As always, if anyone has any properties needing demolished, reach out to us,” Johansen said. “[There is a] 25% match commitment, capped at $2,500, and then I'll review and make sure fits the parameters of the demolition program. The application portal for that one opens on September 15, with all projects due by October 16.”

The current list of possible applicants includes seven Hillsboro and three Greenfield properties.

Board president Terry Britton asked if the regulations include “anything that states that they have to put that back into the tax, build a house, do anything like that to get that property back into a more usable property.”

“No, the whole point of the program is really trying to clean up blight in the counties,” attorney Todd Book said. “As we go along, they may attach more strings to the program.”

Johansen added that the Brownfield Demolition Grant project has evolved into one that is more “merit-based, so they're based on what output, what economic development is going to take place, so I could probably see that start to happen on the demolition side.” Book said that it is also “completely within our realm of authority” as a land bank to include “those types of restrictions” during land sales or transfers.

For replacement projects in the 2024-25 Building Demolition & Site Revitalization Grant program, Johansen said that 246 East South Street in Hillsboro is completed, while the board took action on matters involving 226 South High Street. As previously reported, Johansen said in July that he and the contractor have had “ongoing disagreements” over a tree on High Street and whether it was part of the property being demolished or “belonged to the city,” as well as over the price of the removal of what was believed to be a cistern on the property. The board voted in July to seek bids for the cistern removal. 

However, Johansen told the board it was determined that “a well, not a cistern” is present, and their lone quote for its removal, from Evans Landscaping, was $3,850. 

“The original bid for the removal of a cistern was right around $2,000, and but a well is a much more in-depth process, and so you don't want to alter or destroy the the aquifer underneath the well,” Johansen said. “That is why it's almost double to condemn the well rather than the cistern. 

“That would be an unknown condition on that demolition project. We went ahead and obtained quotes, and so we had two quotes when we did it as a cistern, and once we put it back out for a well, we only got one quote. That's for $3,850, which is a reimbursable cost from the Department of Development.”

The board agreed to authorize the $3,850 cost.

For the same property, Johansen also updated the board on the previously discussed tree “that sits between the public sidewalk and High Street” at the property site.

“The demolition contractor still does not believe that it is a part of the contract,” Johansen said. “There were disagreements whether it was a city tree or owned by the property owner, and then during a site visit on July 1st, there was some confusion, or a disagreement, on whether I had stated to leave the tree. 

“I’ve consulted pretty heavily with Todd on this, and we did go ahead and just receive quotes for the tree's removal, and those quotes were $2,875 from Evans Landscaping and $3,000 from Howland Asphalt.”

Johansen referred to the contract, in which he said this particular tree is not “specifically named.” However, the contract does stipulate “all trees … shall be removed from the site” and that “the entire property shall be vacant land.”

The contractor, who was present at the meeting, said it was his belief the tree in question was “a city tree, just like the sidewalk is also part of the city jurisdiction,” and that it would require “a city permit to be taken out.” Johansen said that he and the contractor “weren’t on the same page, unfortunately.

“I felt like I had said that we need to consult with the city, see if it's a city tree,” Johansen said. “We need to consult with the property owner, see if they would be OK in leaving it, and and those things weren't done for about five or six days before we really got an answer back. By that time, by the time I consulted with [the contractor], he already had moved out.”

Book said that the land bank’s “position was that this would be part of the contract” and that “in this situation, it’s not” a city-owned tree.

“There's some discrepancies in that regard, and obviously $3,000 or $2,800 for the amount to remove the tree was a substantial expense associated with the project, so that's that was our position,” Book said. “Legally, I can't say what would happen in that situation. I would say that we would probably spend more money just fighting about that than what it's actually worth just to get it done.”

Book said that the contractor wanted to be the one to remove the tree, but he did not submit a quote when the board sought bids.

“Well, we already put the bids out, so I say we just move forward,” board member Lauren Walker said. “It's not worth fighting about it.”

The board agreed to award the tree removal contract to the low bidder, Evans Landscaping. Book said that he would also like to see the board and contractor “enter into some type of an agreement” where they mutually agree to relieve the other party from “any liability associated” with the tree. 

In other discussion, Johansen provided updates on the Brownfield Demolition Grant projects from both 2024-25 and 2026.

The lone project remaining from 2024-25, the Rocky Fork Truck Stop, is winding down, according to Johansen.

“Tetra Tech is working on their tier II report [to the EPA], and he's hoping to submit that by the end of September,” Johansen said. “They're continuing to evaluate the breakdown of the chemicals in the groundwater. With each report we submit, each injection cycle, we're getting closer and closer to the clean site and an NFA letter [No Further Action letter from the EPA], which is our ultimate goal throughout that project.”

For 2026 projects, Johansen said that there will be a demolition of a former Belfast gas station “sometime in September,” with the work being handled by Victory Excavating under the oversight of TetraTech.

“Once the demolition is complete, tier I activities will begin, including drilling to identify possible contamination,” Johansen said.

For a former East Main Street gas station in Hillsboro — which received grant funding from the state, after which the property owner denied access — Johansen said that Matt Wagner of TetraTech is working to communicate with the property owner.  

TetraTech is also working on evaluating the sites of a former gas station on Spruance Road (where no tanks were found and the site is being tested for contamination) and a former gas station on South Washington Street in Greenfield (where two tank cavities were found and scoping is taking place), Johansen said. The land bank is also still “waiting on approval” from the state to begin working on their next projects, which include the former Elliott Hotel property and a former machine shop, both in Greenfield.

Book added that the application period has opened for the 2027 state brownfield grant program, but Johansen agreed they “just don’t have anything ready to go” that fits the grant specifications. 

“It's $120 million, up to $5 million per project,” Book said. “It's a merit-based program, but the problem is your site has to be fully assessed. Everything has to be assessed, and be kind of shovel ready to do the work, and I don't think we have anything that's ready at this point.”

In other discussion:

• Johansen reviewed three Rocky Fork Lake-area properties owned by the land bank and asked the board to consider asking prices and methods of sale for all three. Those include 11923 Elmhurst Trail, which is valued at $13,800 and for which the land bank has “just under $30,000 in expenses” to date including clearing the taxes; 10635 North Shore Road, which is valued at $15,000 and for which the land bank has approximately $46,000 in expenses; and 11410 Cathy’s Court, which is valued at $18,800 and for which the land bank has $43,749 in expenses.

After discussion, the board agreed to accept sealed bids for the three properties.

• At the suggestion of Book, the board voted to allow Johansen the authority to accept “potentially forfeited properties” to be transferred to the land bank before being forfeited to the state without a special meeting for board approval.

“Normally there's a short window of time — I think it's 10 days, something like that — that we have to respond,” Book said. “It never really seems to line up with our meetings, so we hate to call a special meeting because we know we can get it through the forfeiture process anyway.”

• Book explained a “kind of complicated” situation with a Hillsboro property that could be donated to the land bank. He said that there is one surviving half-owner, who is “willing to donate her half,” but the other owner has passed away. To acquire his half, Book said it would require “legal means, most likely through a partition action, where we actually ask the court to sell the property or give it to us for whatever price we decide.”

Book asked the board how they would like to proceed. Britton said it “sounds like we might have this thing for quite a few years before we could get it straightened out.” However, it was pointed out that there are several issues, including with alleged code violations as well as back taxes, that the land bank could help with. 

Book said he would do additional research for further discussion at another meeting. 

• Book also gave an update on tax lien certificates, as he said they “are working on” foreclosing on several properties. Another one may be taken off the list where the owner’s son is interested in donating the property to avoid the “tax lien process,” Book said.  

• The board approved the financial report as presented. Johansen reported a starting balance of $395,658.90 and ending balance of $235,643.19 for July. 

In a separate motion, the board also authorized the payment of unpaid bills totaling $102,628.71, including advertising fees, salary, rent, legal fees and numerous contractor payments for work on grant-funded projects, plus mowing. Also approved was a $200 payment to a contractor for a reimbursement for permits. 

• The board held an executive session with Book to discuss a “potential imminent legal dispute.”

The land bank board is scheduled to meet again this week, on Thursday, Sept. 17.