The timing is a bit confusing.
The 2010 city budget that Mayor Coleman presented for council’s approval on March 23rd includes money for demolishing the decrepit, substandard Old Church Building. Last month the city hired a company to determine if there was any asbestos in the building, which would require special handling to remove.
Yet last night, Mayor Coleman was talking about finding “a whole host of uses” for the building.
I was shaking my head at the ping pong. Coleman has done a major flip-flop on this issue. After earlier agreeing that the building probably needed to be torn down, Mayor Coleman is suddenly pushing to find some use----any use---for the building. It appears he and Councilman Frank Legan have decided to play tag-team and take turns at bat on this issue.
Last night, Mayor Coleman introduced representatives from a 40-member, men’s-only, private social club and informed council that he was “very supportive” of their idea to use the Old Church Building for the club’s social and recreational activities.
No specific details were offered---in fact the actual details were quite fuzzy—but a club member outlined the following deal to council:
Members of the club would pitch in to make at least a part of the Old Church Building “habitable” and “useable” in exchange for a long-term lease allowing for the club’s exclusive night-time use of the building and provided that the city agreed to pick up all of the insurance and/or liability costs and paid all of the building’s maintenance and operating costs.Most interesting (and telling) was the club representative’s estimate for renovating the building----which he described as a real mess"---“maybe $ 100,000”.
Although the general public has been kept out due to safety concerns, the mayor apparently allowed club members to tour the Old Church Building---but he didn’t give them a copy of the 2008 structural engineer’s report---which puts the cost of properly renovating the property (and bringing it up to current code) at $ 773,000.
Why such important and relevant information about the building would be withheld from the club members is beyond me, but it clearly explains why the club representative’s renovation figure was so completely out of sync with the professional structural engineer’s cost estimate.
According to the engineer’s report, in addition to other significant problems (including inoperable heating and plumbing systems, mold infestation and the fact that it is not connected to a sanitary sewer), the Old Church Building is not at all energy efficient. It has minimal insulation, substandard doors and single pane windows.
In other words, the building leaks like a sieve.
That means that, even if club members were able to renovate at least part of the Old Church Building to make it minimally “habitable” and “useable,” the cost to city taxpayers to actually operate and heat/cool the building would be astronomical.
Finances aside, zoning is also a major stumbling block to the club’s proposal. The city hall property is zoned for residential use---which means that the Old Church Building cannot be used for any commercial purpose---including operating a private social club.
It will be interesting to see if residents---who would have to approve both a zoning change and the leasing of the property—are as enthused as Mayor Coleman about allowing a private single-sex social club to move into the publicly owned building.
Other Topics of Discussion at the COW Meeting
Council got price estimates on several items.
- The estimated cost to buy a special sidewalk plow machine: $ 125,000. Council balked at the cost two years ago and instead approved Service Director Thom Evans’ recommendation to purchase a less expensive, multi-purpose machine for the city. Although that machine doesn’t remove snow quite as well as a dedicated sidewalk plow would, it is more versatile and can be used year-round.
- The estimated minimum cost for replacing the Highland Road water main: $ 2.8 million (not including approximately $ 400,000 to $ 500,000 to resurface the road once the project was completed). City Engineer Steven Hovanscek told council that the project was “very expensive but very important” and that the city “can’t ignore” the deteriorating condition of the water main and “had to do something” about it. According to Hovancsek, the time has come for Mayor Coleman and council to begin planning—including figuring out how to pay for that project.
Council President Scott Mills asked for ideas for energizing the city’s Economic Development Committee. Although in the past the Committee included members of the business community, its membership changed under Mayor Coleman.
Now, in addition to the council president, the Committee is composed only of the mayor and the city's police chief, fire chief, and finance director.
When asked whether he thought the Committee "was working" as currently configured, Mayor Coleman replied, “I’m not going to give you a yes or no on that.”
Councilman Bob Mastrangelo, who has served as a member of the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission for many years, stated that he thought that business leaders should be brought back and made part of the Economic Development Committee again. As he explained, “The fire chief knows how to put out fires; business leaders know something about business.”
Not surprisingly, Mastrangelo’s commonsense comments drew support from several other council members.
end
