Building Assessment Committee Mtg. 11-11-14

Blogger Foreword:  This post is now complete and covers the first meeting of the Building Assessment Committee. It is a combination of a transcript of my notes--not a court reporter's-quality record--and a condensation of the minutes.  It is not the minutes, but it follows them closely. My goal is to give a clear account of the concerns and positions so that they are as understandable as possible. They will also reveal character where I believe it should be revealed.  Brackets around comments indicate your blogger's views, most of the time.  On some occasions, brackets indicate an insertion of a word or two that will make things clearer or more readable.  The difference between the two should be clear enough.

Also--the first part of this post was made on December 10.  This morning, December 11, I reviewed it, caught the inevitable typos, and clarified a couple of things that could have been construed as implying something negative about the person or people mentioned in a given sentence or section.  Believe me, if I think that intentions are negative or hostile, I will say it flat out, not merely imply it.  Such a surprise, right? 



The first meeting of the Building Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday November 11 at 6:30 p.m. in the annex/gymnasium of the Mantua Center school building, despite John Festa's attempt at the October 22 meeting to hold it in the Civic Center or Township Hall.  [How a greater understanding of the school building could be gained by meeting elsewhere  is something to ponder.]

Present: Todd Peetz, Portage County Regional Planning; John Festa and Victor Grimm, Mantua Township trustees; Jeff Benner, Benner Masonry; Frank Horack, Aurora Mantua Electric; Eric Hummel, Hummel Construction; Dan Tillett, Troy Construction; Doug Fuller, Architect, Dave Sommers Associates; Cal Brant, Phil Derthick, Carole Pollard, Dave Pollard, and Terri Vechery, residents.

Things began contentiously when John Festa objected vehemently to the presence of non contractors and wanted us to leave. [I understand that he said something about cancelling the meeting because of our unwanted (by him) presence.] 

Terri Vechery:  I'm reporting for The Community Journal.  Do you want me to leave?

John Festa:  I do.

Terri:  Really.

JF:  This meeting was for contractors.

Terri:  It is not closed.  There are two trustees here.

John Festa insisted that the Building Assessment Committee was always intended for contractors only.

Carole Pollard:  That was something that grew  out of your mind.  That was not in the original meeting.  [I asked Todd Peetz about that.  The idea of committees was introduced in one of the well-attended meetings at the Civic Center early in the spring/late in the winter.  Todd never said that the Building Assessment Committee should be restricted to contractors.]

Todd then clarified the process that had gone before and asserted, we still have to be accountable to the community.  What we didn't want or I was told we didn't want was to burden the contractors with people looking over their shoulder.  At this first meeting the concern was that the residents would interfere with your job.  That is the dilemma.  We have a few residents who were at the meeting on October 22.  There was no suggestion then that they couldn't be here.  [Blogger's italics.]

Dave Pollard:  What do the contractors say?

[This question was asked several times, and it was not really answered or commented on until after the walk around.]

Carole Pollard:  What's so hard about just asking us to be quiet and observe and just tag along.  What is so hard about that?

John Festa:  There are people who are not here.  [Blogger:  That wasn't why he objected at the beginning.  This is an attempt to sound democratic.  An attempt.]

Dave:  That is why I was asked to video tape it.

John Festa:  No one made an announcement.  [That is open to challenge also.]

Todd:  What do you guys want to do?  Do you feel we can just meet as a group and bring it back to the residents?  We need to be as transparent as possible.  I don't want to make people on either side uncomfortable.  [Blogger:  At the November 20 trustees meeting, John Festa used the word "dictator" in connection with Todd.  Now that you've read Todd's comments right here, I suggest that you look at the opening comments by John Festa again.  Who sounds more like a dictator?]

Carole Pollard:  I have a question:  The voice that is determined to keep the residents out belongs to someone who has made a 28-minute video blackwashing the school.  So where does that leave us?  [I hadn't intended to boldface all of that, but forgot to go back to standard type.  The boldface is going to stay.  Surely by now you don't have to guess at who made the blackwashing video.]

Todd:  We are just trying to get the contractors up to speed since the last meeting and then report to the residents.
Todd then reviewed the committees and their functions.  He clarified that there are 9 classrooms and that the township may use three of them.
Whatever the needs are, it is going to cost money.  The fund raising committee is looking for grant money or private money or sponsors or money from foundations.

 [Later, John Festa raised the issue of selling bonds, and Todd said that it was a bit early to consider that avenue--that the funding committee should see what it could do first.  So, since your faithful blogger is also a member of The Mantua Restoration Society, Inc., I am pitching you to make a donation to the matching challenge grant.]

Todd, continuing:  Once we know what the issues are, [then] how are we going to pay for it?
Then Todd asked the contractors to tell him how to proceed.

Frank Horack thought that the group should have a chair and vice chair and possibly a secretary.  He nominated Dan Tillett for chair, and eventually Eric Hummel was nominated as vice chair.  You already know that I, Carole Pollard, served as secretary for this meeting only.

Dan asked Todd what his function was.

Todd:  Facilitator.  Many people want the school no matter what.  Others feel the school has financial issues.  We are here to see how to make it work.

Dan:  Is there a charge to the committee?

Todd:  The charge is how to make this work.  This committee's charge is to figure out what has to be fixed immediately and the things that need to be fixed but may be more cosmetic than a real problem.  How the building is ultimately used is up to the trustees, but the utilization committee will make recommendations and seek users.  Ideally the utilities costs would be covered, but we can't charge rents that are unrealistic.

Eric Hummel:  Does the Utilization Committee have a report that we can begin working from?  It is almost up to Doug Fuller to design it and then the contractors come in.

[Note:  This issue of proper sequence was raised at a trustees meeting:   Users say what they want, and then the contractors/estimators tell them what it will cost.  Then, if my tiny experience of building a house is typical of how this process works, the users review and regroup and revise to get closer to what is affordable.  Starting with the contractors in this case is, in my opinion, an attempt to get an estimate that will scare the voters into rejecting the building out of hand.  That will be dealt with in exquisite detail eventually.  For now, the events of the meeting will be sufficient. A professional with over 30 years in the field confirmed that starting with contractors is a way to drive the price up.  Let me make it very clear that I am not implying that the contractors on the committee are going to do that.  But leading off with contractors is an approach that can have that result.]

Todd:  From you guys, we are looking to see whether the rooms are rentable.

Eric:  Is there a question about whether the building has worth?

Todd:  The building is paid off as of this month, and I am sure it has value.  It appears to be in better shape than some of the buildings I have been in.

Eric:  So there is no chance of going backwards--it is all forward.

Todd:  Yes.  The worst case scenario is that the renovations would take $2,000,000 or there may be something seriously wrong.  But that is worst case.  How do we use the building to be an asset to the township in the long run?

Cal Brant:  Realistically, what [government] building covers its costs?

Todd:  You should be trying to cover the utility costs.  Maybe [it will need] a new roof.  You have to set aside some money to cover the big maintenance items.  If the costs can't be covered, how much will be put in from the township to fill in the difference?  Once the building is paid off, it's a good thing to have.

Doug Fuller:  So what you are looking for from us us information and possibly uses of the building would help us with that.  We can help you figure out what is working and what is not.  People who are well versed in what is and isn't working can give us a hint of what we are looking for.

Doug also commented that there are two parts to dealing with the building.  One is the physical assessment and one is code assessment.  Building uses affect building code requirements.

[Blogger:  This is a necessary stopping point.   Jerry Carlton came and presented the cost summary of his renovation/rehabilitation of the Mantua Village school building.  There are enough differences in all kinds of things to make his experience interesting, but not necessarily of any real bearing on the Center school.  The total was quite large, of course.  Inviting Jerry was, in my opinion,  another of the many attempts to convince township residents that we can't have the building.
[That having been said, Jerry deserves the thanks of many people for taking on the project of saving a building that has been part of the Village and of thousands of our memories and formative experiences for going on 90 years now.  What if we drove into the Village and it wasn't there?  What if it had been razed and replaced with some modern thing that could be expected to look good for maybe 30 years and then would begin showing its age?
[What gets conveniently left out of conversations about demolishing buildings and putting up new ones is that--I believe--the demolition cost is part of the cost of the new building--unless the owner/rebuilder has unlimited funds.  That is a question to ask of the voices that still bray "Tear it down"--how are you going to pay for the whole shebang?  And how much less would it/might it cost to renovate what we already own?]

The post resumes here.

Upon returning from the walk-through, group discussed a number of things about the building.  The consensus was that Doug should go through the building again, and that a scrutiny in daylight would be necessary.  [That was done.]

In the past, the heating and cooling were very creatively done, important in order to avoid spending too much on utilities.

There was a general feeling, expressed various ways, that the contractors needed focus and guidance both from Doug Fuller and from the Building Utilization Committee.

The original idea of using the main/first floor for township offices was reiterated, as well as using the building for community-oriented things.  Todd mentioned the idea that the building might be used as a center to accommodate everyone from youth and day care up through seniors--possibly all in the north classroom.

In response to a comment about the building possibly being used for emergency shelter, Vic explained that that use was listed on the original loan papers for the building.  The building has its own well and septic system, and with a generator, it would be useful for emergency shelter.

Questions of uses/users came up, and if the township uses the building, the view was that ADA and access requirements would be triggered.  [More came up about that at the second meeting, which included the Building Utilization and Funding Committee members.]

John Festa thought that Todd's office could coordinate the schedule as well as disseminate information and then have the whole community come in at the end.

  [Blogger:  Throughout every discussion about the school building, whether in the committee meetings or trustees meetings, a number of comments get made that on the surface of it sound reasonable.  The italicized phrase above is an example.  Maybe that's all there is to it.  But it also indicates that whatever is decided would be done with a very small decision-making body, and then their results will be delivered as a done deal to the residents.  Todd addressed that in the next comment.]

Todd:  This group needs to talk about the basics of the issues.  We need to let the community know what those are and get the fund raising and volunteer committees in on this.  We should not leave them completely out until the end.  [Blogger's italics.]

Cal raised a question about the committees working in isolation.

Todd responded:  On October 22, we talked about having that discussion  with the contractors about the issues with the building.  Maybe we can do that with the community in early December.  You are not going to be coming to the community and saying "this is the plan and we are done."  You need to hear back from the community.

Eric observed that if things begin in the wrong direction and create adverse feelings, it will be counterproductive.

Todd defined a kind of catch-22: The Utilization Committee can not try to find renters if the rooms are not viable.  At the same time, the fund raising committee can not go out and get money without knowing what the cost is.  The volunteer committee were people who wanted to do whatever they can but can not do that until things are in place.

Doug Fuller asked a key question:  Can you heat this building top to bottom?
Vic:  Yes.
Doug:  Electrically, everything is working?
Vic:  Yes.

Other questions followed. Vic checked the electrical service:  400 amps on the panel, and another 200 amp service no longer in use because the classroom trailers on the west side of the building had been removed.  This was to correct Frank Horack's assertion that the service was smaller than it turned out to be.

Gas, water, and sewage treatment are all handled..  The phone and data system are as the school was left in 2004, but technicians had come and tested the service and reported that it was pretty much ready to go.  [Which leaves your blogger wondering what all of John Festa's concerns were about phones, Wi-Fi, and other data service to the building.]

Eric Hummel urged a date to have a joint session with the Utilization Committee.  December 2 was set, another Tuesday, at 6:30 p.m. at the annex.  At the 11-11 meeting, the group that had been having dinners together had still been there when everyone else began arriving.

Eric Hummel said, to John Festa, that he didn't think there was any damage with any number of people being here.  Whatever works.  Let's bring people here to talk about it.

Frank Horack:  The least the better.  [Blogger:  A basic principle of democracy and community is inclusiveness.  One of the things to watch for is who is supporting inclusion and who is pushing for very limited, selective participation.]

General uses for each floor needed to be stated for the contractors/architects to work effectively on the project.

Doug Fuller:  You have a tough old bird of a building, and it can be made to function.  He listed a number of things either to work on or that could be made useful.  He thought that the windows, although ancient, did not need to be replaced right away.  He thought that renters would probably want the building to be cooled in hot weather.

Cal asked how much of each day the building or part of it would be in use by the township, and then he asked about a secretary.

Frank Horack said that "a business lady" would be willing to take notes, and Eric clarified that it would be pro bono.

Carole Pollard agreed to turn her notes into minutes for this meeting.

Eric said that a goal was needed--enough assumptions about how the Building  Utilization Committee wanted to use the building to guide the work for Doug and the contractors.

Todd asked about the composition of the Building Assessment Committee and whether the residents who had asked to be on it should be included at the next meeting.

Dan Tillett thought that all could attend but not necessarily participate.

Todd:  We want to avoid hard feelings.  The non contractors are there as observers at that meeting.  Those who are not here tonight should make an effort to come through the building before the next meeting, and an effort should be made to coordinate and combine walkthroughs--do it as a group rather than individually.

Dan asked for the five biggest things that the professional group saw that needed to be addressed.

Carole Pollard agreed to meet Eric Hummel's request for the minutes to be done in a week, and the date of the next meeting was confirmed.  There was not a formal motion to adjourn, but that ended the meeting.

[Note:  That was done; the minutes were written, proofread, and electronically sent to Todd Peetz and Dan Tillett by the following Wednesday morning, I believe.  At that point, they were out of my hands.]

Blogger:  There is a bit more.  Several interesting things happened on the walk-through.  Terri Vechery and I stayed in the annex, so I am relaying what I was told about the events on the walk-through.

To some extent, one of them was brought up in the November 20 trustees meeting:  That Frank Horack told Dave, who was using a video camera, not to put him on it--that he didn't want his face on film.  My understanding is that Dave told Frank that he wasn't filming him, but merely panning across the room.  Dave did not stop filming, and it was made clear at the trustees meeting that it is not possible to prevent such filming.

The second one was that outside, when the group was looking at the condition of the front stoop, John Festa told Dave to turn the camera off.  Dave replied that the chairperson and [I believe] the co-chair had no problem with his using the camera:  he had cleared it with them at the beginning of the tour.  So he kept filming.

What that incident does is put the lie to John Festa's protestations about openness, transparency, and his training in those matters.  That was for the camera.  What he said at this first BAC meeting seems to present his actual attitudes.

That's enough for this post.  The issue of openness and public meetings is not going to go away, so there will be ample opportunity to address it as we go along.

   .