WEB decision: SELL

The West End Building: It's time to let it go. 

Last Tuesday, the City Council confirmed in a 5 to 2 vote, their decision to sell the West End Building  The meeting was called a "thoughtful pause" to reflect on why the property was being sold.

The meeting did not change the original decision to sell the WEB, though community members made a final plea to keep what they felt was a last chance for a community / recreation center.

There have been two sticking points that have never changed since the building with its 14-acre property was purchased in 2006:  The expense of the purchase and operating costs: and the lack of a clear plan that the citizens support.  In the last decade, neither problem has been resolved while the building has soaked up $1 million per year in financing and operating costs, not including the planning that has gone into property uses (over $2 million for the initial concept planning).

Looking back, minutes from a public hearing on July 24, 2007, tell of community conflict surrounding citizen reaction to the purchase.  Another meeting on June 11, 2007, reveals the lack of a clear vision of what the council and citizens wanted after they had the property; the same list of competing interests arose then, as now, with no way to resolve them all.

USC Observations:
1.  The WEB property has been on the market since 2012.  Redevelopment Director, Brant Williams, was in charge and fielded inquiries himself.  Using word-of-mouth to market the building, he presented few offers.  In mid-2014 the council hired Cushman Wakefield to handle the sale and a For Sale sign went up immediately.  They have produced 11 sealed, qualified, offers that the city is considering now.  Why did the Council wait so long to engage a professional real estate firm to market the property?  Hiring outside, firms with no connections to the city is a better way to do business.  Now let the pros broker the final deal!

2.  At the October 14, 2006 City Council

meeting, Brant Williams reported that a wetlands study had been done and of the 14+ acre property, only 7-8 acres were developable.  Councilor Jack Hoffman commented that the wetlands deliniation may be too generous.  An architect site plan deliniated these wetlands. This figure differs greatly from the Sensitive Lands area that the site has now.  Since the site has not changed in any way, why change the natural resource classification?  It's a legal technicality that was brought up 2 years ago when a sale was imminent.  It seems like when the city's interests are concerned, some wetlands are less sensitive than than others - but that's just my non-legal cynicism speaking. The city attorney has more information on the legal issues regarding these natural resources that aren't.

Draft Map of Sensitive Lands 2008: Shaded areas are SL designated in 1998, outlined areas were proposed for addition.  

3.  At  a July 24, 2007 Public Hearing,  Mr. Alec Holser testified about the troubled economics of the WEB purchase and potential use as a recreation center. At the end of the meeting, Mayor Hammerstad thought the council needed some time to consider the evening's testimony as it was 50:50 for and against keeping the WEB, and create a plan that would bring people together.

It's been 8 years since then and nothing has changed.  It was never going to be what people imagined, and there was no way the problems could have been resolved.  Now it will be sold.