Piqua Plays Monopoly

Vol. III, No. 286 - The City Looks to Loan The Piqua Improvment Corporation nearly $400,000 to purchase two properties

The Piqua City Commission is being asked to approve another round of vague, open‑ended real estate deals routed through the Piqua Improvement Corporation by loaning the PIC $396,000 to purchase two properties near Lock Nine Park.

What’s on the table March 17th

On Tuesday, March 17, the Piqua City Commission will consider two “economic development loans” to the Piqua Improvement Corporation (PIC) to buy downtown properties at 101 S. Wayne (Zollinger building) and 114 E. Water (Edison building). The staff reports frame both as strategic redevelopment opportunities identified in past planning documents, with the stated intent to position them for future private investment.

For 101 S. Wayne, the City proposes to loan PIC up to $196,000 from the General Fund; for 114 E. Water, another $200,000 from the same source. The County Auditor has the East Water property valued at $42,000, yet the City is prepared to put roughly five times that amount on the table, with no meaningful terms in the legislation about how, when, or even if the loan will be repaid. The resolutions simply direct the City Manager to execute a loan agreement and authorize the Finance Director to draw up to the stated amounts “according to loan terms,” without specifying those terms in public.

How PIC has been used

To understand why this should concern residents, you have to look at how PIC has already been used to move property off the public books and into private hands. Since 2016, PIC has transferred at least 16 parcels, including three recent examples that illustrate the model.

In 2022, the City bought a property in the 100 block of South Wayne for $30,000 at a Sheriff’s Sale; the County Auditor had it appraised at $29,500 in 2019. In May 2023, the City gave that property to PIC at no cost, and in April 2024 PIC gave it to a private LLC at no cost. It appears that the new owners sometime in 2024 demolished the commerical structure on the property leaving the land vacant.

In another 2022 transaction, the City purchased a vacant lot in the 500 block of West Water at a Sheriff’s Sale for $7,600; the County Auditor had it valued at $6,300. In May 2023, the City gave it to PIC at no cost, and PIC gave it to a business that same day at no cost.

In November 2024, the City took possession of a vacant lot in the 500 block of Walnut Street. In September 2025, the City gave the parcel to PIC, who in turn transferred it to a private LLC the same day at no cost.

In each case, the City acquired and held the risk, PIC served as the intermediary, and private entities ended up with property, often without paying the public anything close to what the City invested.

Why the structure matters

PIC is a nonprofit Community Improvement Corporation set up under Chapter 1724 of the Ohio Revised Code. These entities are quasi‑public: created by local government, aligned with local government goals, but not bound by many of the same rules that apply to the City itself. They do not have to follow the same competitive bidding requirements and are free to dispose of property on whatever terms they choose, just like any other private owner.

On paper, that flexibility can make it easier to redevelop difficult sites. In practice, without clear guardrails, transparency, or performance expectations, it becomes a way to move public assets into a gray zone—out of the full light of public process but still using public money and public credit. The current resolutions lean into that gray zone by:

Failing to spell out repayment timelines, interest rates, or default provisions in the legislation itself.

Leaving open the question of whether PIC can ever seek forgiveness of these “loans.”

Treating six‑figure General Fund dollars as expendable risk capital, backed only by the promise that something good will eventually happen with the properties.

When you layer that on top of PIC’s record of accepting City‑owned parcels and then transferring them to private LLCs or businesses at no cost, the public’s role starts to look less like “partner in redevelopment” and more like “silent financier.”

Questions residents should put on the record

The City has already signaled—by its practice—that public comment time is not for debate. Commissioners will likely sit and listen, thank you for your input, and move on. That does not make your questions any less important; it just means you have to use that time to put the right questions on the record.

Residents might consider asking:

On loan terms: What are the specific repayment terms, interest rate, and maturity for each loan to PIC, and why are those terms not disclosed in the resolution itself?

On risk and security: What collateral is the City receiving for each loan, and what happens if PIC cannot repay?

On forgiveness: Under what circumstances, if any, can these loans be forgiven, and who makes that decision on behalf of the public?

On disposition: If PIC sells or gives these properties to a private owner, how will proceeds be used, and how much will flow back to the City to repay taxpayers?

On accountability: Given that PIC has previously taken parcels and transferred them at no cost to private parties, what safeguards are in place to prevent that from happening again with 101 S. Wayne and 114 E. Water?

On public benefit: What specific, measurable public benefits—jobs, tax base, housing units, or otherwise—will be required in exchange for this level of public investment?

A call to show up anyway

The City Commission may treat public comment as a one‑way street, but that does not absolve them of the responsibility to hear you or to govern in the open. On March 17, residents should show up, fill the room, and use the public comment period to ask clear, specific questions about these loans, PIC’s track record, and the City’s long‑term strategy for handling publicly funded real estate.

Even if you do not get answers that night, your presence and your questions will be part of the public record the next time the City proposes to move hundreds of thousands of General Fund dollars into a quasi‑public corporation with no visible terms and no guarantee of a return for taxpayers.

The choice right now is between a quiet vote and a visible community asking, very plainly, “Whose interests are these deals really serving?”

Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.