(As usual, the postings on the city’s website are woefully behind and out of date. I’ll add the link to the July 2010 newsletter when it becomes available.)
This is what Mayor Coleman said:
"Update on the Church Property
As many of you know, the city has owned the church property adjacent to city hall for the past few years. We have discussed many times at council meetings what should be done with the property. We have reached out to residents and have received many suggestions. Most of the ideas, unfortunately, involved renovation costs that were outside of our budget. We continue to get proposals for the property.
Recently, a social group offered to renovate the entire building at their cost in exchange for their use of part of the property for a long term lease. The city would still have access to the building and would be required to maintain the property, but would not need to bare the cost of the renovations. The details of the proposal are still being studied as to whether or not it is feasible. More information to come in the future."
Reality Check Time.
I was there when the single-sex, private social club first pitched their barter/lease proposal to council, and I have a copy of their written proposal, detailing the proposed arrangement. Here are the facts:
Reality Check # 1.The club never committed to “renovating the entire building at their cost”.
I have checked and double-checked my notes. During the June 1st Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting, a club representative told council that the club:
1) did “not want to spend $280,000” to buy the property;
2) would provide an estimated $ 100,000 worth of their own labor and material to “restore the left side of the building (the sanctuary) and install two bocce courts there;” and
3) would be willing to undertake “other restoration projects” at some time in the future, doing work that the “city and we agree on.”
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2010/06-01-10_council_committee_minutes.htm
During a June 15th COW meeting, Mayor Coleman described the club’s proposal this way: “They offered to reconstruct the building, including the roof, air conditioning and heating unit, interior needs and cement work and all to City specifications.”
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2010/06-15-10_council_committee_minutes.htm
On June 30th, the club submitted a written proposal to the city outlining what it was willing to do as its part of the proposed barter/lease deal. The club proposes to do far less work than Mayor Coleman reported--and far less work than is necessary to fully renovate the building and bring it up to code. The club has agreed to do the following:
1) “constructing three bocce courts;”
2) “providing a new roof;"
3) “repairing the many sections of the interior ceiling damaged from leaks";
4) “remodelling” the kitchen and 2 meeting rooms;
5) scraping and painting the exterior:
6) “updating” the bathrooms; and
7) “inspection of” the HVAC, plumbing and sewer systems and the concrete areas, with “possible” repairs.
Bottom Line: What the club has actually offered, in writing, to do is far less than what Mayor Coleman described in the July newsletter.
Reality Check # 2.
Even if the club’s proposal were accepted, city taxpayers would still have to “bare” (sic, “bear”) most of the cost of renovating the building.
While the club’s “inspection” offer is certainly a generous one, the city has already paid a professional structural engineer to inspect and evaluate the building. If anything, the building’s condition has deteriorated since that inspection was performed in 2008—presumably increasing the renovation cost. http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/pdf%20files/CT_Report.pdfEven if the club’s proposal were accepted, city taxpayers would still have to “bare” (sic, “bear”) most of the cost of renovating the building.
According to the structural engineer:
1) the building’s electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems are obsolete and/or non-functioning and should be completely replaced;
2) the building has minimal insulation, and its doors and windows are substandard and should be replaced;
3) the building’s current septic system is unusable; and
4) because all renovation work has to meet current building codes and be ADA-compliant, the bathrooms need to be completely redone, not simply “updated".
The engineer’s estimate to properly renovate the building in 2008 was $773,262. Based on the engineer’s estimates, the value of the work that the club has committed to doing is far less than even their own $ 100,000 estimate: “new roof” ($16,000); exterior painting ($3,000); “repairing many sections of the ceilings” ($ ?. The engineer stated that all of the mold-ridden interior ceilings, drywall and insulation—not just the ceilings---needed to be replaced, at an estimated cost $14,000); and “updating” the bathrooms ($?. The engineer estimated it would cost $20,000 to upgrade (not just “update”) the bathrooms to meet current building code and ADA requirements).
Bottom Line: Even if the club’s proposed restoration work is worth $100,000, that would still leave a $673,000 tab for the city to pick up, to complete the rest of the necessary renovation work.
The club would not just use “part of the property”---they’d use most of it.
At the June 1st COW meeting, a club representative told council that the club was pursuing the barter/lease deal for the Old Church Building because the club “wants a place of our own” and that the club would want “sole use of the bocce courts at night.”
The Club’s June 30th written proposal includes a drawing of the club’s proposed interior reconfiguration of the building. As the club envisions it, they would reconfigure the building to hold three (not the original two) large indoor bocce courts spaces and two small “meeting rooms,” fit in around the bocce courts.
Bottom Line: The proposed bocce court areas will take up most of the building.
Reality Check # 4.
At the June 1st COW meeting, Mayor Coleman stated that he was “very supportive” of the club’s proposed barter/lease arrangement for the Old Church Building---an arrangement that the mayor, the club, and Councilman Frank Legan have all positively characterized as being a public-private “partnership” between the city and the single-sex, 40 member private social club.
Whatever their enthusiasm, City Law Director Tim Paluf told council at the July 20th COW meeting that legally there “can’t be a partnership” and that the city “can’t partner with them (the club) or anything like that, that’s for sure”.
Bottom line: However exciting or attractive the club’s barter/lease proposal for the city-owned Old Church Building might be to the mayor or others, the city is apparently legally barred from entering into such a “partnership” arrangement with the club.
Which leads to this question: If the arrangement isn't legal, why is Mayor Coleman discussing it in the newsletter?
The end.
