Is the Tail Wagging the Dog AGAIN?
On September 21, the Ashland City council voted to reopen the Community Center on Winburn Way. It had been a long time coming. On June 15, 2021, the Council voted 4 to 3, with Mayor Akins breaking the tie, to appoint an ad-hoc committee to “to develop least-cost recommendations for the timely repair and reopening” of the Community Center and Pioneer Hall. The Community Center had been closed since April, 2019 when a structural analysis determined that the building was unsafe due to the north exterior wall being out of plumb, and bowing outward. It was also determined that the roof might not be capable of supporting a significant snow load.
In January, 2020, Mayor Stromberg proposed a $10M bond to rennovate City Hall, which included $1M for repairs to the Community Center and Pioneer Hall. That bond was rejected by the voters in May, 2020. In October, 2020, the Council approved a formal public solicitation for professional engineering and architectural services via a Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) Request for Proposal (RFP) for repairs to the two structures. In April, 2021, staff requested approval of an expenditure of approximately $185,000 “to enter into two professional services agreements with Marquess to provide preliminary engineering services for the rehabilitation of Pioneer Hall and the Community Center.”
Meanwhile, a group of citizens led by George Kramer had been lobbying the Council to allow them to examine the buildings, and propose an alternative to the Marquess proposal, which had come in at a total of about $850,000 for the entire project. This group, consisting of a professional builder, an architect, and an historical restoration specialist suggested that the scope of work proposed was unnecessarily broad, and the cost too expensive.
At the April 20, 2021 Council business meeting, the authorization for the proposed expenditure of $46,768 for the initial engineering studies was rejected by a vote of four to three, with Mayor Akins breaking the tie. On May 18, 2021, the council unanimously voted to approve the creation of an ad-hoc committee to review, analyze and make recommendations to Council on alternative means of repair for each of the two buildings, and requested that the creation, appointment of members and scope of work be brought forward at the earliest available Council meeting. That committee, including Councilors Seffinger and Moran, was created at the June 15, 2021 meeting, and the scope of their work finalized by then City Manager Pro Tem Adam Hanks..
The report of the committee was finally presented to Council at the September 21, 2021 meeting. The ad-hoc committee proposed repairs to both buildings at a cost estimate of $215,500 to $278,500. After a lengthy discussion, Councilor Moran moved to approve the committee’s recommendations as presented. Councilor Graham questioned the adequacy of the proposed repairs. Councilor Hyatt offered an amendment specifying that the building would be opened pending legal review by staff to determine that the city would not incur any excessive liability due to the opening of the building. That amendment was rejected by a vote of four to three, with Mayor Akins breaking the tie. The final vote to approve the reopening of the community Center at the earliest possible date was approved by a vote of four to three, with Mayor Akins breaking the tie.
The many citizens who had been waiting so long for the Community Center to reopen breathed a sigh of relief. It had been a real nail-biter throughout the process. Pioneer Hall had previously been opened, unbeknownst to many citizens and councilors. People expected the Community Center to follow suit in short order.
But the Community Center remains closed as of this writing, October 20, 2021
What’s Going On Here? – My Analysis and Speculation
City staff apparently has chosen to ignore the express direction of Council. Instead, they appear to be following the direction that was rejected when the amendment to the motion failed. Understanding what happened at the Council meeting requires watching the proceedings to understand the nuances of what took place. You can view the meeting online at https://tinyurl.com/36ka6n45.
It’s clear that there is considerable opposition in the council to this project moving forward as proposed. Each of the three councilors who voted against the resolution expressed differing, but sometimes overlapping, objections. Hyatt’s primary concern was liability. Graham’s concerns were liability and an interest in doing much more to the building, pending further discussion. Jensen wanted to hear from the historical commission, and didn’t seem convinced that the building was safe.
Despite those objections, the council voted to instruct staff to open the Community Center (Pioneer Hall is already open). Yet a full four weeks later, the building still has a chain link fence around it. Who is holding up the process? Is it public works? I solicited a comment from Director Scott Fleury, who is usually willing to answer any questions I have posed to him in the past. This time, however, he did not respond. I asked Paula Hyatt, and she said she had no idea. I asked Tonya Graham, and she reiterated the objections she had stated at the meeting. I asked Shaun Moran, who was on the ad hoc committee, and he didn’t know. I asked George Kramer, and he reiterated the arguments for reopening. And I asked City Manager pro tem Milliman twice, and he twice declined to answer my inquiries.
Here again is the text of the motion as adopted: “We move to accept the ad hoc report, open the CC and PH immediately, as soon as possible, and then move forward with the recommendations outlined to fix PH and the CC building.” Let’s parse that. There are three simple clauses:
- Accept the report
- Open the buildings immediately, as soon as possible
- Move forward with the recommendations to fix the buildings
There is obviously no problem “accepting” the report, whether anyone agrees with its conclusions or not.
There should be no problem opening the building, since it is intact and in no way unsafe. It could possibly become unsafe if there were to be a heavy snow load on the roof, but that condition does not exist at this time. The building is not in imminent danger of collapse or failure of any nature.
The question of “liability” is an absurd red-herring. There is no more liability inherent in that building than there is in any other city building. If someone is injured in any city building for any reason, the city may face potential liability. This is a common tactic of some of the current councilors; some people refer to it as “the fear card”. They raise the possibility of a negative event occurring, even when the likelihood of that event is small.
You may remember the genesis of this situation — the initial closing of the Community Center –was a light fixture falling from the ceiling and injuring a visitor. That event had nothing to do with the structural integrity of the building. No doubt the fixture was installed improperly, otherwise it would not have fallen. Then a structural analysis of the building was performed, and the building was closed due to identified structural problems.
Moving forward with the recommendations does not commit the city to implementing the exact recommendations of the ad hoc committee. It means following the normal procedures for contracting to have the work done. If any problems with the recommendations of occur, they can be addressed at that time. It has no bearing on opening the building “as soon as possible.”
There is no reasonable justification for not reopening the building immediately, and then moving forward with the process.
My concern is that the city council voted to instruct staff to open the building, and staff has failed to do so. Our system of government requires that each component of the city government follow the law. Staff is required to carry out direction from the council. It is not staff’s prerogative to reinterpret that direction, nor to misinterpret it when that direction is clear. Staff can, and should, advise council, but it must not second guess nor subvert the will of council once direction has been given.
Is public works going to sabotage the intention of council to adopt the lowest cost option to reopen the building? There are many ways it could do just that. I won’t enumerate them here. But I would question why it might do that. The history of the project would indicate that PW has a strong preference for the solution proposed in 2020 for whatever reason.
Is the city manager choosing to ignore council because he feels that there are overriding issues that need to be addressed? Is he waiting for an opinion from the city attorney? Are other parties pressuring him to delay? This is pure speculation, but I cannot understand why he just won’t open the building, and won’t let the citizens know why he is not doing so. He is, after all, the chief executive of the city, and should be able to make it happen with a phone call.
The citizens have been left in the dark so often in the recent past regarding the operations and finances of our city government. The issues of transparency and openness have been raised countless times over the past many years. It seemed that we were—in fact we ARE—making good progress with those issues now that our interim city manager and finance director are on the job.
The Community Center is demonstrably NOT unsafe for occupancy, as some had feared. No change of occupancy (usage) has been proposed to trigger a need to upgrade the structure to current building codes. The city council has voted to reopen it as soon as possible, and to pursue the least cost option to repair the building.
I call on the city manager do just that: to reopen the building immediately, and to explain why there has been a further delay in reopening this cherished community building.
Dean Silver
Ashland
