The Ruston council recently held a study session to discuss the school building costs and options. Most of the council expressed support for selling the building. Following are my notes from the study session, held December 19, 2011.
_____________________________________
Study Session: Ruston School Building Discussion – evaluating current financial position and possible uses and/or disposition of the property.
The mayor called the study session to order at 6:12 pm. Councilmember Kristovich was excused. Councilmember Hunt began by explaining she had been in contact with Jeff Jaygosh, who works for CRB Ellis (a real estate company) and lives in Ruston. CBRE is willing to do a marketing plan but would expect to be allowed to then market the building for the standard 6% commission. Hunt thought they might be able to talk them down a bit on the commission. She had not followed up with them in time to get them at tonight’s meeting. The mayor has authorized them to look at the building and they will get something to the town by early 2012.
The mayor then talked about the current situation with the tenants in the building. Asarco did not exercise their final option year with the lease and Point Ruston now has about 45% of the building on a month to month for $1,725 per month ($2.54 per square foot). The mayor had proposed increasing the rent $8 per square foot, which was not approved by the tenant. The mayor estimated $5.74 is the town’s current cost per square foot.
There was some discussion on the leasehold excise tax, which Ruston has to pay but gets reimbursed by the tenants. Jane Hunt’s partner, Al Olson was asked for his opinion on what the market rate for office space was in the Tacoma area (answer was inaudible).
Councilmember Huson wants to insist that Point Ruston pay $3,396 plus their utility costs to remain in the building. Councilmember Hedrick thought the best the town could do was break even on renting the building but it puts the town in a business they have no expertise in. He felt the best thing was to put the building on the market and sell it. Hunt agreed especially since it gets the property back on the tax rolls.
The mayor confirmed that for the short term he would insist that Point Ruston pay $5.74 per square foot or move out. If that happens, the town will board up the building.
Councilmember Hardin stated again that the council needed to get public input before making a final decision. The Joyce family and others may have concerns about losing the community center. Hunt did not think people would be upset. She had presented the situation to her neighbors and asked them which part of the $50,000 deficit they wanted on their utility bill, but no one had expressed interest in keeping the building. Huson did not think there would be any public interest. He felt putting a note in the town newsletter would be enough.
Hedrick asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak. Al Olson was the only one to comment. He said he was interested in this old ugly building, but the town needed to market it for sale.
The mayor wanted to proceed with paving the parking lots before marketing the building. He said he has asked Ken Brown to reestablish the real estate committee to look at all the town’s surplus properties.
The meeting adjourned at about 6:40 pm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Your notes' first comment of Al Olson is as 'Jane Hunt's partner'. This was an unnecessary qualifier, code for a moral judgment on Jane Hunt and Al Olson. Why do you not simply stay with the action of the meeting's subject? Why venture off into a mention of the personal relationship? Is it because of Olson's interest in the building that you want to draw attention to the relationship of a council member (Hunt) and a developer (Olson)? For whatever reason, your mention, though brief, caught my eye; and I think you were out of line.
I think its a relevant observation, especially since they were one of the bidders last time the property was put up for sale and he was the only person invited to address the council at this meeting - invited by Hunt. As you noted, it was a minor event and given a minor note in my summary. Thanks for your input!
Sounds like the same old same old. I. E. the "Commencement bid" debacle.
Look at all options. This building is a maintenance elephant. Renting it will be difficult without major improvements. Finding a buyer any buyer, that can close will be amazing. This is a tough place for our town right now. If you have any ideas please share them with the council.
Karen, you are incorrect. I did not state anywhere in my post that your mention of Al Olson and Jane Hunt's relationship 'was a minor event and given a minor note' in your summary.
If you will re-read what I actually did say, it was that your mention was brief - not minor, and that your description of Al Olson was code for a moral judgment about him and Jane Hunt.
Your response shows clearly that you are concerned and suspicious about his interest in the school building.
Do you know for a fact that he was the only person invited to address the council?
And is it a bad thing if Olson shows interest in the school now, for the reason that he was an unsuccessful bidder years ago?
Don't we want to get this financial drain of a building off our backs?
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the dialoge. My concern is Mr. Olson's special access and influence on parts of the council - real or percieved. He was the only one invited to speak at this meeting and his business partners made a special presentation to the council last night. I did not intend any "moral judgement" on his relationship with Ms. Hunt, just a statement of fact.
The council has a tough decision before them. The last time the town sold part of the school and did a 499 year lease on the building it tore the town apart. I don't want to see that happen again regardless of what happens to the school.
The
Has this property has never been cleaned up by the EPA?
Commencement paid $4.25 million for the lower parking lot. My understanding only other offer was for the $1.3 million for the entire block.
Ironic if after hullabaloo over The Commencement it was turned into an apartment block.
"will board up the building"?
Sounds like a rerun of the Casino debacle where the distinguished council decided zero made more sense than $30 thousand dollars per year and 50 jobs.
And the lawsuit $9.6 million. I will agree not much is in their expertise.
$2.54 is a good return on that antiquated building in today's market. But, of course zero is always better in Ruston.
Ever wonder why they run a deficit every year?
What is the zoning for the school? Can/will it change? Where will the Police Dept. go and where will council meetings be held. What part of the 50K is used to support current operations in the school, i.e. police? If sold how soon would the property be on the tax rolls? Would a deferment be issued? What is the cost of replacing exist townhall with a new building as opposed to renovating the school. Traffic? Parking? How new apartments affect the Commencement rentability? When school is gone these and many more questions will remain.
Have we learned anything from the Commencement
sale?
Post a Comment