Greg Sekula, director of the Southern Regional Office of the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, contributed the following to the Tribune as a guest column. It appears today. We're reprinting the piece in its entirety.
----
As has recently been reported in the media, a group of concerned citizens of Floyd County has expressed a desire to investigate the option of saving the historic two story section of the former Floyd County Home on Grant Line Road. This group has dubbed itself “The Friends of the Floyd County Home” and continues to grow in numbers as this issue garners increased public attention.
In response to the numerous articles and the Jan. 27, 2008, letter to the editor written by Pam Prince, president of Floyd County Youth Services Advisory Board, I think it is imperative that a number of points be addressed to clarify and frame this discussion and ensure that it is portrayed accurately from our viewpoint:
1. The concern for saving the former Floyd County Home is not an 11th hour revelation on the part of preservationists. The issue was raised by the New Albany Preservation Commission and Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana in letters written August 20, 2004, and May 16, 2005, respectively. The concerns went unheeded by county officials who claim that they had no knowledge of community interest in preserving the building.
2. Advocates for saving the historic building are not advocating for continued use of the annex as the youth shelter. We see the merits of constructing a new facility that is more conducive to modern day living accommodations. Our group, however, does desire to have our county officials sincerely study the costs involved in retaining the main historic sections of the former county home and utilizing this structurally sound building for office uses related to support services for the youth shelter operations or other functions as deemed fit by the county. If this option has indeed been studied, then as taxpayers of Floyd County, we respectfully request an opportunity to review those studies, including the cost estimates developed.
3. Larry McAllister, County Council President, acknowledged at a Jan. 22 site visit of the annex that there is not a statutory requirement that counties provide a youth shelter. Mr. McAllister explained that the County is providing this service to Floyd and surrounding counties because there is a recognized need for this service and the shelter creates a revenue stream for the county. Given this reality and the fact that citizens are today faced with property tax uncertainty, it is important to acknowledge that the citizens of Floyd County are being asked to support and ultimately pay for a $10 million dollar capital project that is not a required function of county government.
4. It has been stated that the existing building will likely remain standing until the new building is finished and ready for occupancy. Thus, it appears that there is time to further study re-use of this building without necessarily impacting the construction schedule of the shelter. Given what we have seen of the proposed campus plan for the annex site, it appears that the footprint of the two story section of the historic county home is outside the footprint of the proposed youth shelter building and the associated parking lot. Retention of the two story sections of the original building (main central block and wings) will undoubtedly necessitate some site plan and engineering adjustments to the campus plan. However, we would contend that such costs are potentially minimal when compared to the cost of demolishing a usable building that can continue to serve the people of Floyd County.
5. Demolition costs of the annex are conservatively estimated to be in the neighborhood of $120,000. - that is $120,000 of tax payers’ money. Could this money not be put toward the rehabilitation of this piece of our history? The demolition cost does not factor in the cost of improvements already made to the building in recent years, at tax payers’ expense, which would be wasted through demolition, nor the additional strain on our landfill that the demolition debris would provide.
In order to accurately determine the feasibility of retaining and rehabilitating portions of the county home for office use to equip our county leaders with the best information to make a fiscally responsible decision, it will be necessary to study the approach that I have outlined. Our group would like to hire an architect from outside the area to evaluate our recommended approach. The County’s cooperation in providing access to all relevant studies, reports, plans, financing, and cost estimates that have been prepared at taxpayer expense in connection with this project is needed. Additionally, access to the building by the selected architect must be granted so a rehabilitation assessment can be made. Cooperation and assistance from the County’s hired architect is also necessary to share any relevant information with the consultant architect. If the County is agreeable to this approach, The Friends of the Floyd County Home intend to pursue independent funds to cover the cost of this study without asking the county to contribute financially to the investigation.
I would, however, ask our county officials to approach the study with an open mind and to be willing to re-consider the fate of this piece of Floyd County’s heritage if the facts and figures demonstrate that retention of the building is a fiscally prudent and feasible option.
--Greg Sekula
----
Other links:
Diggin' in the Dirt: 7 Million Dollars
Tribune guest column by Vincent Klein: Floyd County reader believes now is the time to proceed on youth shelter
NA Confidential: North Annex? It's time to address Floyd County's political culture and its congenital cultural amnesia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Wondering what a newspaper with an editorial policy might do with this story.
(more pins dropping ... more crickets chirping ... somewhere, a dog barks)
Bluegill, can you repeat your comment here from Diggin' in the Dirt?
Point number 3 from Greg's letter is important to note:
3. Larry McAllister, County Council President, acknowledged at a Jan. 22 site visit of the annex that there is not a statutory requirement that counties provide a youth shelter. Mr. McAllister explained that the County is providing this service to Floyd and surrounding counties because there is a recognized need for this service and the shelter creates a revenue stream for the county. Given this reality and the fact that citizens are today faced with property tax uncertainty, it is important to acknowledge that the citizens of Floyd County are being asked to support and ultimately pay for a $10 million dollar capital project that is not a required function of county government.
We DO NOT have to build this. It is a 'want'.
"Bluegill, can you repeat your comment here from Diggin' in the Dirt?"
The gist of the comment was that IU Southeast is managing to build five buildings to house 403 students for $20 million. That's roughly 80 students per building at $4 million each.
Why, then, does it cost $7 million (of economic development money) to house 25 children, even with some classroom and recreation space, and a couple of related government departments?
We've already spent $1.25 million to buy and renovate the M.L. Reisz building on Spring. Three county departments have moved there from the Floyd County home. According to the Tribune, that building is 24,000 square feet. The county plan is to move those offices back to grant Line in the new building once completed.
The old Holy Trinity School/General Services building is available on Market. It's in excellent shape and is accompanied by about an acre of ground. Price tag? $565K for 28,000 square feet.
It's also interesting that $3 million of the $10 million bond that was approved is to expand the fourth floor of the City/County building to make room for the new court. Mayor England has already publicly expressed his desire- in the Tribune- to vacate the third floor of that building. Does it make sense to spend $3 million to expand one floor if another might be vacated? Why tie that uncertainty to this bond?
And the most obvious question in all this: how much would it cost to renovate the Floyd County Home into office space?
I've been reviewing Tribune stories on the issue and, while there are references to a feasibility study and quotes from elected officials saying they were told rehabbing the county home would be too expensive,
the dollar figure hasn't ever been published. Has the Tribune even asked what it is? Do the county officials quoted as saying it's too expensive know what it is?
Also, does the architect have experience with similar, large scale historic renovation projects? If not, why didn't the county consult with someone who does? How might that affect the outcome of any studies?
To be clear, that's not an accusation against the architect but rather a remembrance of the last time the county consulted an "expert" on historic property: Gary McCartin regarding Silvercrest. He claimed historic rehab was a bad idea right up to the point at which he said he'd do it if the state would help pay for it.
Thanks to Greg for this informative article. I was getting my thoughts together to write about this on my blog with the central question being,"why does the existence of one building preclude the existencce of the other?"
Greg has answered that question satisfactorily for me in his second point. Neither precludes he other.
I didn't realize that the county was in search of revenue generation. I guess that comes with the territory when you plan to "run government like a business", which is a sound byte tossed around by people who somehow think such sentiment equals greater efficiency in government. I don't buy it. And everyone could site numerous business examples which would not make for good government. I'll choose Enron as my example.
But, if we want to look for money-making enterprises for government to offer, here's an idea: look for a developer to lease the existing building,renovate the daylights out of it, and put a first-class restaurant there, complete with outdoor seating in a park-like setting.
Jeff, I hope you will make these points to the County Council as well as providing them here. Let's see what sort of response they generate.
Jeez, what's with all you commie-liberals trying, yet again, to conserve resources? Out with the old!! We can order fake wood from china and fake glass from Taiwan and truck bricks in from thousands of miles away and erect a proper monument to our narrow-mindedness. Are you trying to put aluminum siding folks outta bid-ness? Next thing you say will be - Let's turn the old Holy Trinity school back into a school again! You people are crazy!
On a serious note, and pardon the stupid attempt at humor, but when people act so against their own self interest, parody is the only outlet..
But in reading all your links on this topic, I as well did not see anywhere that having a decent youth shelter precludes restoring that annex, or any other good useable old building in town. the collective mind-set her e is so damaged by the mindless destruction of the city over the last 50 years it's like people have lost the mental ability to understand even the concepts of conservation we are so enamored of. What i really mean is SAVE it - REPAIR it - USE it.
One negative consequence of tying the youth shelter to demolition is that it unnecessarily pits two proactive, positive groups against each other.
The youth shelter folks have undoubtedly advocated long and hard for improved conditions, and rightfully so. What they've been told is that tearing down the county home is the ONLY way to get it.
It's created another fight where there really is none.
I'm doing a comment-to-marquee elevation. The discussion perhaps can continue in this new post?
Post a Comment