Renovating the Old Church Building on City Hall Property: Reality or Fantasy?

Some Background

The city bought the property in front of city hall in 2008. Since that time, council has disussed what to do with the property--including the old church building, which as Mayor Coleman recently acknowledged, the city has no current use for.

Sun Messenger reporter Jeff Piorkowski recently wrote a story about the building ( it was subsequently posted online by Robert Nozar) :

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_looks_to_resu.html

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2009/08/highland_heights_council_consi.html

Here are some facts and a couple of excerpts from that story:

• The church building was built in 1961. It has 117,000-square feet.
• The city paid $300,000 to acquire the building in January 2008.
• Money was allocated in the city's 2009 budget to demolish the building.
• "The building, by all accounts, is in bad shape."

Here are what several council members were quoted as saying about the building:

• "There is severe water damage on the roof, insulation is minimal and the ceiling has developed mold," said Ward 1 Councilwoman Cathy Murphy.
  
• It's in very, very poor condition," said Council President Scott Mills. "There's no power or heat in it. It will probably have to come down. It's a mess."
  
• Councilman at-large Frank Legan: "I'm in favor of having a day where the residents come out and use their imaginations as to what they might want to make of it...Either that, or we can make a video to show people what it looks like inside. We owe it to our residents, before we pass judgment, to let them have a look at the building. It could be very useful for all residents... the building could be used for recreational or meeting purposes, or it could be utilized as a business incubator, in which small, start-up businesses can have use of offices."

Confused by the totally different assessments of the condition of the building, as expressed by the comments above? I was.

Depending on who you listen to, the building is either in bad shape (an attractive nuisance) and needs to be torn down or it's in decent shape and worth salvaging.

I do know that when council toured the building in mid-June, 2008, members of the public attending that council meeting (myself included) were forbidden from accompanying council members because, as stated by Council President Mills, the church building was not safe.

The city paid a local engineering firm to conduct a structural analysis of the building in 2008. That firm, CT Consultants, reported on the building's condition and provided estimates both for the cost of renovating the building (to bring it up to current building standards) and the cost of razing (demolishing) the building.

Here are some pertinent findings from that report:

• Projected total cost to renovate the building (as of May 2008): $ 773,262.
  
  This figure takes into account "creating a usable space in the existing building configuration", but does not include the cost of: kitchen equipment, interior room alterations, partitioning to create different spaces, cosmetic changes (not specified in the report), and use of the church attic area.
  

Projected probable cost to demolish the building, remove the pavement (driveway and parking area) and septic system, cap the utilitities and landscape the property (as of May 2008): $ 138, 000.

The cost of just demolishing the building and capping the utilities: $ 38,000.

Some details from the report:

• The building exterior is in good condition overall for a 40+ year old building, but the roof and windows are substandard and/or past their expected useful life expectancy. The windows are single pane glazing type.
  
• The building has a septic system (it is not connected to public sanitary sewer system). "Current regulatory requirements will prohibit use of this system."
  
• At least part of the storm sewer was not operational and the condition of the rest of the storm sewer could not be determined.
  
• All of the exterior and interior doors are non-compliant and must be replaced. The sidewalks also must be replaced.
  
• There are pin-hole size failures in the roof shingles thoughout the building. "Water on roof has entered building causing severe damage."
  
• There is "extensive water damage" in the kitchen, east church and lobby areas, which "will require all materials to be replaced". "Ceiling batt insulation, drywall, etc. has developed mold. All materials must be completely removed."
  
• The building and its existing bathrooms are not ADA-compliant. The entire building and the bathrooms must be made ADA-compliant (they must meet legally prescribed standards to allow for full use and access by individuals with disabilities) as this is a publicly-owned building. This is a non-waivable requirement.
  
• "The mechanical and electrical systems are original and difficult to find replacement parts."
  
• The heating system is "non-working."
  
• Service size for the electrical system is inadequate, and at least two electric panels are original. "Complete replacement is needed".
  
• The building is not air-conditioned. "Cooling/ventilation is provided by an operable center window."
  
• The building envelope insulation is minimal. Insulation is 1" thick foil faced insulation. The radiant heating system/hot water system piping is not insulated.
  
• The resilient tile observed under the carpeting (and throughout the building) "is characteristic of materials containing asbestos. Abatement may be required" (cost not included in the estimates).

There are a couple of other truisms at play here:

1. Not every old building has historical or cultural value to a community.
2. Needs should drive buildings, buildings should not drive needs.
3. Experts usually consider a building's projected future operating costs as a factor when making demolition vs. renovation decisions. That is because the future cost of operating an older, poorly insulated, pre-energy crisis building will be substantially higher than the cost of operating a newly constructed, energy-efficient building. The engineer's report does not include the projected operating costs for a renovated building.
4. The city does not have grant money to spend on the building. Public tax dollars will be used, either to raze or to renovate it.

The engineer's report is a public document (your tax dollars paid for it). If you'd like to read it yourself, you can request a copy from city hall.

It seems clear to me, after reading the structural engineering report and re-reading the quoted comments above, that some council members have embraced the engineer's realistic assessment of the true condition of the building and are using a rational cost-benefit analysis to make their decision on how to best spend our tax dollars.

As for the rest?

Well, read the report and decide for yourself.

end