WOODCLIFF-ROCKWELL DISTRICT
​​​​ What We Were Told What Council and Mayor Settled For​​​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
WHAT WE HAVE
​
Taken 4/9/26 Taken 4/9/26
The administration’s decision in February to quietly extend the Master Development Agreement to December 2026 is a major disappointment. Instead of holding the developer accountable to original timelines or seeking more motivated partners through a new bidding process, the Mayor has essentially granted a two-year hall pass. This extension keeps the 'gateway' to our city in a state of perpetual 'coming soon' rather than delivering the actual progress residents were promised.
​A Pivot in Vision:
The newly amended plan for the Rockwell District marks a major shift from the "gateway" vision originally presented to residents. While the initial proposal focused on a vibrant, mixed-use destination from the start, the amended plan moves all "grand" elements—such as the community amphitheater and dense retail promenades—into Phases 2 and 3.
The administration’s current strategy is a "rooftops first" approach, prioritizing the construction of nearly 400 residential units. The rationale is that building a massive customer base now is the only way to "attract" high-tier businesses and retail later.
The Race to the 2025 Deadline (That never Happened):
Following the official adoption of Ordinance 59-2025 (Harcar and Elmore and support from Bevins) on August 5, 2025, the city has moved into a high-pressure timeline to justify the plan changes:​
-
Target Groundbreaking: The city is was fixated on a Quarter 4 2025 start date, framing the move toward residential construction as a necessary "kickstart" to avoid further stagnation.
-
The "Vague" Future: While officials claim that future phases will eventually deliver the promised community features, there is currently no binding timeline for when the amphitheater or the "grand" retail spaces will actually be built.
Summary of the Shift:
Feature Original Promise Amended Reality (Phase 1)
Primary Focus Mixed-use "Gateway" Residential Apartments
No Promenade Restaurant on the corner of Broad and Hamilton
Parking Garges Surface Parking
Commercial Integrated Retail Separated Retail/Reduced Footprint
Mixed-use Timeline Holistic Development "Rooftops First,"
City of Whitehall Resigns with NR Investments versus putting out to Open Bid:
For the 2026 fiscal year, the city reaffirmed its financial partnership with the developer through a $13.2 million capital investment plan. Master Developer Continuity: N.R. Investments remains the master developer, but the partnership structure evolved with Terry Wellons (formerly of N.R. Investments) launching T-Squared Development to co-develop the site.
How did the actions of the Whitehall Mayor and Council Impact this Decision?:
As of January 2026, the City of Whitehall and its Tax Increment Finance Authority (TIFA) authorized a significant new funding mechanism for projects like the Rockwell District.
The city approved an infrastructure agreement to reimburse the developer for public improvements (such as water and sewer lines, roadways, and sidewalks). Additionally, property owners within the Rockwell District will make service payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) into a special fund to reimburse the developer rather than traditional property taxes paid to the city.
​
City of Whitehall Acquires Woodcliff in 2018:
In 2018, the City of Whitehall paid $8.9 million to acquire the 317-unit Woodcliff Condominiums after an 11-year legal battle. Total costs, including legal and planning expenses, are estimated at $10–$12 million. Instead of recovering those funds through traditional development and property taxes, the city partnered with a private developer to create the Rockwell District.
Why the Woodcliff / Rockwell Deal Raises Serious Economic Concerns for Whitehall Taxpayers:​​​
1. Tax Revenue Is diverted away from the city
Instead of paying normal property taxes that support city services, properties within the Rockwell District will make Payments In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOTs). These payments are directed into a special fund used primarily to reimburse the developer for project costs. This means tax revenues that would normally support police, fire, parks, and city operations are instead used to subsidize the development itself.
2. Additional Public Subsidies Continue to Increase the Public Investment
In 2026, the City of Whitehall reaffirmed its partnership with the developer through a $13.2 million capital infrastructure plan, including TIF-backed bonds. These funds help finance roads, utilities, and other infrastructure inside the 50-acre project site—costs that are typically borne by developers in many private projects.
3. Public Risk, Private Reward
The city already invested approximately $10–12 million acquiring the site. Now additional public borrowing and tax diversions are being used to support redevelopment. If the project underperforms, taxpayers remain responsible for the public debt and infrastructure obligations, while the private developer retains the upside if the project succeeds.
4. Limited Competitive Bidding
Rather than reopening the project to a new competitive development process, the city chose to continue with N.R. Investments and its successor partnership with T-Squared Development. Without an open bidding process, taxpayers cannot know whether better financial terms or a more favorable development proposal could have been obtained.
Bottom Line:
Whitehall taxpayers have already committed tens of millions of dollars to acquire and prepare the Woodcliff site, and the current financing structure continues to rely heavily on public subsidies and diverted tax revenues. While redevelopment may improve the property, the financial structure places significant public resources like overcrowding schools and long-term tax revenue at risk, raising legitimate questions about whether the deal ultimately benefits Whitehall residents.
​​
Community Development
without Community Involvement
WIRTHMANS- ARIES LOFTS
​
FAMILIES LIVING ON A FORMER HAZARDOUS SITE
1. Excessive Tax Abatements (The PILOT Agreement)
A major point of contention for residents is the 15-year tax exemption (specifically a Payment In Lieu of Taxes, or PILOT, agreement) granted to the developer.
-
Lost Revenue: Critics argue that these abatements divert millions of dollars away from essential city services like police, fire, and Whitehall City Schools.
-
Referendum Effort: In early 2025, opposition was so high that residents gathered hundreds of signatures for referendums to block tax breaks for similar local projects, citing that the city is "giving away the farm" to developers while residents foot the bill.
2. Environmental and Safety Risks
Because the site was a junkyard for decades, it is a "brownfield" that required $5 million in remediation funds from the state.
-
Ongoing Inspections: The cleanup involves "encapsulation" (covering contaminated soil) rather than full removal. This requires annual EPA-certified inspections indefinitely.
-
Long-term Liability: Safety of families living on a former hazardous site and whether the city will eventually be left with the liability if the developer’s maintenance plan fails.
3. "Bait and Switch" on Design
The project was originally envisioned under the Community Crossroads District zoning, which typically requires first-floor retail with housing above.
-
Residential-Only: The developer received a variance to build 100% residential units.
-
The "Look" of Retail: To bypass the retail requirement, the buildings were designed with 22-foot glass windows on the ground floor to look like shops, but they are actually just amenity spaces (offices, fitness rooms) for residents. Critics argue this deprives the Main Street corridor of the actual businesses and tax-generating retail the city needs.
4. Schooling Enrollment & Capacity
-
Student Yield: Research on "attainable" or "workforce" housing—like the units proposed for Whitehall—suggests a higher student yield than luxury apartments.
-
Expected Increase: For a 300-315 unit project, Whitehall City Schools could see an influx of roughly 60 to 150 new students.
-
Current Capacity: 150-student jump in one neighborhood can strain specific elementary schools like Etna Road or Kae Avenue.
-
The Funding Gap: If a developer is granted a 15-year tax abatement, the school district does not receive the full property tax revenue that 300 new units would normally generate.
-
Operating Burden: While the district may receive a smaller, negotiated "service payment" from the developer, it often isn't enough to cover the full cost of educating 100+ new students (which costs roughly $14,000–$17,000 per student annually).
-
Bond Levies: If the schools become overcrowded due to new apartments that aren't paying full taxes, the district may have to ask residents to approve new bond levies (like the $30 million proposal discussed in late 2025) to build additions or upgrade facilities.
​
​​​​​​
FAIRWAY CLIFFS-
SCHMIDT'S PROPERTY
​
​
​
​​​
How did the actions of the Whitehall Mayor and Council Impact this Decision?
Mayor Bivens and Council members Elmore and Harcar have repeatedly and consistently discarded the public opinion on this development since the public started attending council meetings on the proposed development in October 2023. The last true demonstration of how far both the council members and the Mayor were willing to go was to hatch a plan with the developer’s Attorney. The plan was to present something called a “Motion to Reconsider” to try to prevent the ordinances from being submitted to the November 4, 2025 General Election ballot for the voters of Whitehall to decide. This was after the Referendum Petitions on the Tax Abatements and TIFs were found to be “valid and sufficient” by the Franklin County Board of Elections (FCBOE) and the City Attorney to was done for the sole purpose of preventing those documents from submitted to the FCBOEs by both our Whitehall Charter and the Law!
1. Public Opposition Begins (October 2023)
Beginning in October 2023, Whitehall residents began attending City Council meetings in large numbers to voice concerns about the proposed development and the use of tax abatements and TIF financing. Citizens repeatedly asked the Mayor and Council to reconsider the project and allow meaningful public input. Despite months of testimony from residents, Mayor Michael Bivens and Councilmembers Lori Elmore and Amy Harcar continued to advance the project without addressing the concerns of the community.
2. Citizens Use Their Charter Rights
After it became clear that public opposition was being ignored, residents exercised their legal rights under the Whitehall Charter by circulating Referendum Petitions to challenge the ordinances approving the tax abatements and TIFs connected to the development.
​
3. Petitions Certified as “Valid and Sufficient”
The petitions were reviewed by the Franklin County Board of Elections (FCBOE) and the City Attorney, and were officially determined to be “valid and sufficient.” Under the Whitehall Charter and Ohio law, this meant the ordinances should have been submitted to the voters on the November 4, 2025 General Election ballot, allowing the public to make the final decision.
4. Attempt to Block the Vote
On the evening of May 7th at City Council Meeting, the lawyer for developer of Fairway Cliffs asked for and was granted "reconsiderations" on the 3 had just received notice of sufficiency.
The City Council granted this period of time till June 17th for the developer to rewrite the language and make it quote "more palatable for the public".
This is wholly unacceptable, and we believe Whitehall City Council failed to properly read and interpret their own Charter. Section 16. Referendum Petitions - Filings and Procedures.
The council has a lawful and moral duty to refer said ordinance or resolution to the electors as provided in paragraph (a) under both the Ohio Constitution (Art II, Sec. 1f) and relevant city charter Section 16. "If the original or amended petitions are found to be sufficient, the City Attorney shall certify such finding to the Clerk of the Council and the Council shall refer said ordinance or resolution, or part thereof, to the electors as provided in paragraph (a) of this section."
This maneuver, lead by Councilmember Lori Elmore and supported by Councilmember Harcar appeared designed to prevent the ordinances from being submitted to the Franklin County Board of Elections, effectively attempting to bypass the referendum process and deny Whitehall voters the opportunity to vote on the issue.
​
Bottom Line
All of this matters, when residents attempted to use the same referendum process to challenge the Fairway Cliffs development as they with the Enclave development, the city leaders once again procedural tactics to prevent voters from deciding major development subsidies.
We fundamentally believe this demonstrates “Community Development without the Community” and is grounds for recall for the elected officials involved.
MAPLEWOOD-THE ENCLAVE
​
​
​
​
​Michael Bivens was sanctioned and reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 2021 for his actions as the Whitehall City Attorney during the Enclave on Main housing project dispute.
Basis for the Reprimand:
The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens, stemmed from the city’s handling of a citizen-led referendum petition.
Failure to Certify:
Bivens and the Whitehall City Council were found to have illegally refused to certify a valid referendum petition that sought to challenge tax breaks for the Enclave development.
Bad Faith Finding:
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Bivens acted in bad faith by advising the council to repeal and immediately reenact nearly identical legislation to the petition clock and circumvent the voters rights.
​
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2021/2021-Ohio-3134.pdf
Why this Matters:
Before the issue could reach voters, the Whitehall City Council (Elmore and Harcar) repealed and rewrote the original legislation. By slightly altering the ordinance, the city made the citizens specific petition legally irrelevant, allowing the project to proceed with the tax breaks without a public vote. The development was funded through a complex layering of public and private sources, including: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and bonds from the Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OHFA), and a 15-year, 100% property tax abatement (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) approved by City Council (Elmore and Harcar). This 2021 tactic became a major point of contention in 2025 and 2026.
When residents used the same petition strategy to block the Fairway Cliffs development, they cited the Enclave situation as evidence that city leaders were again acting against the will of the people.
​​​​
