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

Puzzlement

(D'ont) Let There Be (More) Light

There are a couple of things that puzzled me, arising from the Sept 22nd council meeting.

First, was the presentation by former Fire Chief Ed Bencin, of a petition signed by quite a few Highland Woods neighbors, asking that the city stop considering the idea of providing additional lighting for Whiteford Park.

Second, was a quote in the Sun Messenger, attributed to Ward 3 council canidate Frank Zanella, in which Mr. Zanella distanced himself from the recent Whiteford Park renovations and suggested that maybe people were confusing the Whiteford Park renovations with his efforts to get a bench installed in the Community Park.

I vividly remember Mr. Zanella's presentation to council about Whiteford Park, and I have a copy of a memo he sent to his neighbors at the time, detailing his efforts to improve the park.

So I asked myself: why the back-peddling? And what's with all the concern about the lighting?

In fact, public records show that Mr. Zanella was instrumental in getting the splintering and dangerous old playground equipment in Whiteford Park removed and replaced. Both he and his neighbor, Dan Greves, should be commended for their efforts. They did not achieve success quickly or easily.

According to the minutes, Mr. Zanella appeared at the June 17, 2008 Committee of the Whole Meeting, to discuss replacing the playground equipment at Whiteford Park with council.

"Mr. Frank Zanella, 474 Lassiter, advised he has two young children. He showed pictures of the apparatus in the park. He stated the park is not representative of the city; that it is a little neighborhood park to them; and, they want to maintain it. He passed out a flyer in the neighborhood and numerous residents have contacted him wanting to support the cause....

Mr. Zanella suggested they take the equipment out and replace it with something. He did talk with Miracle, the company who supplied the new equipment in the Community Park and did receive a few quotes. ...

So, Frank Zanella's significant involvement in the Whiteford Park renovation (he even procured quotes for equipment replacement ) is clear---and on the record--and is to be commended.

But what about the lighting? I got the feeling that Former Chief Bencin thought the city was planning to light up Whiteford Park like the ball fields in the Community Park--in the fashion of the old Jacob's Field/Progressive Park.

Where did the discussion about lighting start?

According to same Committee of the Whole minutes, Councilman-at-Large, Frank Legan was the first person to bring the subject up. He said the idea started with the city's recreation director, Dave Ianiro:

"Mr. Legan stated one of the things that Mr. Ianiro came up with that he thought was good was posting signs with rules, time the park closes, etc. and perhaps some lighting. He also stated he would hate to start this process and not finish it. He would not like to see the equipment pulled out and not replaced with anything. "

The discussion about Whiteford Park and lighting continued during the regular June 24, 2008 council meeting.

According to the minutes of that meeting, Ward 4 Councilman Ted Anderson reported that he met with Councilman Legan and (now Ward 3 council candidate) Tony Valentino after the June 17th COW meeting to discuss Whiteford Park. The minutes say that Anderson then provided some recommendations:

"An additional light was suggested. The pole at the far right needs to be serviced because the lens is out."

Mayor Coleman also weighed in on the issue of lighting:

"Mayor Coleman reported he had spoken with (Service Director) Mr. Evans about the condition of the light poles in the Highland Woods Area. A lot of them are in need of maintenance. CEI owns the poles. Mayor Coleman advised Mr. Evans will see if CEI can add a pole to that area. "
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2008/06-24-08_city_council_minutes.htm

So, according to the official records, the only lighting that the city discussed in connection with the Whiteford Park renovation was putting in an additional utility pole and a street light in the vicinity of the park.

Kind of anti-climatic, huh?

But hopefully this news will be reassuring to our Highland Woods neighbors, who thought, for whatever reason, that the city might be planning to light up Whiteford Park like a Christmas tree---and that somehow Frank Zanella was responsible for that.

end

News and Notes from Oct 13th Council Meeting

Annual Fire Department Open House

Chief Bill Turner and his firefighting crew have invited the public to tour the Highland Heights fire department on Saturday, Oct. 24th from 10:30 am to 1 pm.

Recycling Bins

There are still recycling bins available for purchase at the service department. Just throw your cans, bottles, and plastic items in the bin and bring it out to the curb on your regular trash day. It's convenient and it reduces the amount of garbage that gets hauled to a landfill.

It was reported to council that there was a downloadable bin order form on the city's website, but I sure as heck didn't see it a moment ago, when I looked for it.

Halloween

We can all breath easy and make our plans now because council passed, as an emergency measure, an ordinance declaring that Halloween would be celebrated on, well, Halloween, Saturday Oct. 31st.

Engineer's Report

Although the construction looks to be complete, there are still unresolved issues pertaining to the rebuilt Bishop/Highland Road intersection. The city has not yet signed off on the project, and the contractor is purportedly demanding more money.

Happier news is that the Ridgebury Blvd. project should be completed, with a final layer of ashalt added, by the end of the month.

New Laws

Council passed two significant pieces of legislation:

1. An ordinance addressing empty homes under foreclosure; and
2. An ordinance stating that gas royalty payments are included as reportable income, for city income tax purpoes.

Councilwoman Cathy Murphy, who worked hard to bring both ordinances to the council floor, thanked the cities of South Euclid and Lyndhurst for their assistance with the foreclosed homes ordinance.

Speaking of Gas Wells...

The current rumor is that Cutter Oil (who drilled the well on Jim Dasher's property along Wilson Mills) is actively pursuing a second gas well to be placed behind residential property on the east side of Bishop Road, between Hawthorne Drive and Highland Road.

We can only hope it's just a rumor---and that the property owners along Bishop have done more than just listen to the golden financial promises made to them, but instead have actually researched the negative impact that giving up their mineral rights to a drilling company will have on their property value (and on their neighbors' property values too).

end