Only part of the 2008 structural engineer’s report on the Old Church Building was posted online on the city’s website last week. I pointed the finger at Mayor Coleman because, as the website’s gate-keeper, he alone decides what gets posted online.
No one should be surprised at this latest episode of mayoral game-playing. We've seen it before: the mayor dragged his feet for a month before signing the contract for an approved environmental and asbestos study of the building.
What's going on, you might ask?
Here's the backstory:
The structural engineer estimated that it would cost $773,300 (or $66.88 per square foot) to renovate the building and bring it up to current code.Councilmen Scott Mills, Leo Lombardo, Bob Mastrangelo and Councilwomen Cathy Murphy and Lisa Stickan looked at the numbers and concluded that it would not be fiscally responsible to invest such a huge amount of public tax dollars to renovate and operate the decrepit, substandard building. They voted in April to solicit bids for tearing the structure down. Mayor Coleman and his two council buddies, Councilmen Ed Hargate and Frank Legan, oppose that decision.
So just what information was kept from the public, when an edited version of the 2008 structural engineer's report was posted online on the Highland Heights website?
You guessed it—all the parts of the report in which the engineer discusses the estimated cost of demolishing (rather than renovating) the building.
Luckily, I have a copy of the full, unedited version of the report. You can read the withheld information here.
This is what Mayor Coleman apparently didn’t want you to know:
1. The version of the 2008 structural engineer’s report posted online does not include the last two paragraphs of Page 7, which read:
CT (CT Consultants, the structural engineering firm that issued the report) has developed an opinion of probable construction cost to demolish the structure. The cost includes pavement removal, reseeding the site, capping/abandoning utilities and septic system removal. Total cost is $ 138,000.
Potential environmental hazards have not been performed as part of this report. Asbestos removal may affect the renovation and demolition cost. To understand the impact associated with demolishing any element requires an environmental engineering review be performed. Physical samples must be taken of suspect materials for verification and evaluation before overall budget costs can be finalized.
2. The online version also does not include two pages that provide a detailed breakdown of the engineer's estimated demolition costs, which are:
Building Demolition: $30,000.
Utility Capping/Abandonment: $8,000.
Pavement Removal (tearing up the parking lot and sidewalks): $12,000.
Septic System Removal (versus capping): $ 30,000
Topsoil (for full re-landscaping of lot): $ 16,000.
Seeding: $ 3,000.
Total For all of the Above: $99,000 (or $13.20 per square foot)
In addition, the engineer estimated the following: demolition-related contingency ($19,800); testing and agency approval fees ($5,000), and architectural/engineering design costs ($14,256), for a grand total of $138,056.
You can read the rest of the report online at the city’s website. Among the engineer’s comments:
The windows and flat roofing are “substandard or past their expected useful life expectancy”. (Pg 1)
The roof shingles have “pin hole size shape failures” throughout the building “possibly due to a manufacturer’s defect”. (Pg 3)
Flat roofing material over part of the building is “well past the life expectancy.” Water on roof has entered the building “causing severe damage”. (Pg. 2)
Windows are “single pane glazing type.” The windows’ age and weather inefficiencies “make this an energy issue”. (Pg 2)
The building “does not meet any (of the required Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act) standards. The existing bathrooms and entry doors are not ADA compliant (Pgs 1, 3, 4)
The mechanical and electrical systems are original (circa 1961) and difficult to find replacement parts. There is no air-conditioning. (Pg 1)
The storm sewer and fire alarm system “are not operational”. (Pgs 2, 4)
Building envelope insulation “is minimal”. (Pg. 3).
Ceiling in kitchen, east church and lobby areas must be removed due to “extensive water damage”. In addition, “Ceiling batt insulation, drywall, etc. in lobby and classroom areas has developed mold. All materials must be completely removed.” (Pg. 4)
“Current regulatory requirements will prohibit the use” of the building's septic system. (Pg 4)
The entire building is serviced by only a “2-inch water main.” Some water lines run overhead; some run underground. (Pg.4)
The electric service is “not operational” and the “service size is inadequate”. The electrical panel in part of the church is original. “Complete replacement is needed.” (Pg. 5)
Tile used in church is “characteristic of materials containing asbestos. Abatement may be required”. (Pg 5)
Building area is less than 7,500 square feet. (Pg. 6)
It is extremely disappointing that the game-playing about such a potentially significant financial decision continues to occur---as evidenced by the fact that parts of the 2008 structural engineer’s report on the Old Church Building were apparently intentionally withheld when that report was posted online on the city’s website for residents to view.
But at least now you know what the structural engineer really said---all of it.
But at least now you know what the structural engineer really said---all of it.
The end
