The City of Findlay Strategic Planning Committee voted to support moving forward with terms to sell two City‑owned parcels on Carlin (Collins) Street for residential development, including proposed rezoning steps and development safeguards.

Committee members and nearby residents discussed price, auction method, infrastructure costs and neighborhood impacts before the panel approved a motion expressing committee support to sell the property and to return with more detailed bid and selection procedures.

The two parcels were described in the meeting as a smaller northern parcel of about 5.7 acres (zoned R-2) and a larger southern parcel of about 20 acres (zoned R-3). The City purchased the land in 2008 for $150,000 and has been leasing it for roughly $4,500 per year, according to the presentation. Staff recommended rezoning the smaller parcel to match the larger (R-3) and packaging the land for sale with restrictions intended to prioritize single‑family, owner‑occupied housing.

Staff said the sale package under discussion would include a reverter clause that would allow undeveloped parcels to revert to the City in 2050, a minimum development requirement of 20 homes built within an agreed schedule, bidder qualifications (experience developing subdivisions or planned residential developments, use of licensed builders and being in good standing with the City), and a proposed minimum bid (staff cited a $25,000 figure as a discussion point). The presenter said the City’s primary intent was to see the property developed for homeownership rather than to maximize immediate sale revenue.

Committee members raised several recurring concerns. One member recommended obtaining an independent appraisal before setting a minimum bid so taxpayers receive fair value. Another argued a reverter clause and other deed restrictions can reduce market interest and lower the sale price. “Reversion is huge. Negative,” the commenter said during deliberations. A separate committee member recommended a more structured solicitation that prequalifies bidders and then invites a short, staged design/build competition with three finalists rather than an immediate sealed‑bid sale.

Infrastructure costs were a central issue. Staff noted the state is designing an infrastructure housing revolving loan fund aimed at helping communities finance public infrastructure for housing developments; staff said details are pending but suggested the program could be available to support utility and detention work needed for the site. One committee member also proposed partnering with the Port Authority or pre‑negotiating a development agreement that allows the developer to recoup infrastructure costs from future revenues.

Nearby residents voiced concerns about construction impacts and site suitability, including potential bedrock and blasting risks referenced by a resident who said earlier developers had stopped work because of rock. One resident, Robin, said, “There’s no reason farmers can’t buy that property. It's not a true and fair auction if you limit it to housing.” Staff responded that development feasibility (including geotechnical issues) will be revealed during due diligence and permitting and that drainage work for any development must meet floodplain and detention requirements.

The motion that the committee “is in support of the sale of the property for development in residential housing and that we would like to see a little bit more ideas around how we would go to bid on the process” carried by voice vote. The motion asked staff to return with more detailed procurement and development agreement options (including use of outside counsel and development experts) before Council action.

Next steps described in the meeting included: filing a rezoning application to convert the smaller lot to R-3 to reduce that permitting hurdle for future buyers, seeking input from the City’s outside consultants to craft development agreement templates and clawback provisions, and evaluating financing options for infrastructure (state revolving loan program, TIF or Port Authority partnership). The committee asked staff to bring back a recommended solicitation approach and to share draft bidder qualifications and deed restriction language for review.

The committee explicitly distinguished discussion items from firm decisions: the vote recorded committee support to pursue sale and to return with procurement and development‑agreement proposals, not a final contract award or immediate transfer of title.

Ending: Staff will draft formal solicitation materials and development agreement options consistent with the committee’s direction and return to the committee and appropriations for review prior to any Council action.