2012YearPhotos

UPDATED: BG to buy, demolish former Central Admin. Bldg. PDF Print E-mail
Written by HAROLD BROWN/Sentinel City Editor   
Monday, 18 June 2012 20:54
BG_CA_rotator
Bowling Green City Council Monday night agreed to purchase the former BG City School Central Administration Building at 140 S. Grove St.
The move came following an executive session to consider land acquisition that was requested by Mayor Richard Edwards.
The vote to purchase was 6-1 with Fourth Ward Council Member Greg Robinette opposed.
The purchase price is $245,000, which includes demolition and leveling of the site. The work is to be completed by Sept.1.
"This is not good stewardship of public funds," Robinette said. He added that even if the city had extra funds available it would not be a good use of $245,000, since the city has no projected use for the property.
At-Large Council Member Bruce Jeffers, who heads council's Public Lands and Buildings Committee, said the location is important because the city hopes to someday build a new administration building on the adjacent land where the old junior high school is being demolished. "This makes the property different than any other the city might consider purchasing. It's the right thing to do."
Taking the long view, Council Member Robert McOmber said the purchase is a good one. "The demolition company is already here and we may not be able to do as well a few years down the road. We would have ownership and control."
Third Ward Council Member Michael Aspacher agreed with McOmber and hopes the city and the school system can work  together regarding possible future uses for old buildings. "I hope we can come up with a development plan. If we don't step up, this building can become a blight. I can't believe that is something anyone would want in their neighborhood."
City Attorney Mike Marsh said the building is owned by Gold Nugget Properties LLC, of Missouri, which purchased it at auction.
Council approved the ordinance as an emergency, making it effective upon signature by the mayor.
Council has held at least two recent executive sessions on land acquisition, but had not publicly indicated the property being considered. At its June 4 meeting council indicated it expected to take action after an executive session but adjourned without comment.
The building was completed in 1913 for grades seven through 12. In 1928 the top four grades moved across Grove Street to a new high school, which was expanded in 1951. That is the building on which demolition is being completed. The building at 140 S. Grove St. was used as a junior high school until 1964.  After that the structure was used for some classes, school administration and storage.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 09:35
 

Comments  

 
# 2012-06-19 02:10
so let's all spend a quarter of a million dollars that the city doesn't have so we can buy this land that we might, maybe, possibly, someday might use for something?
sounds great to me!
What was the selling price at auction? wasn't it like $5,000
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 09:47
BGVoter -

This one was purchased for $15,000. South Main was $5k.

You are absolutely correct, such a waste of money. Right now, they can collect tax revenue from the property. When it is purchased, no tax money can be collected.

Sounds like a "great" plan.

Our council members and administration is looking to get this done as quickly as possible as to avoid issue with the public.

When it comes to being unprincipled, it seems those in office now are as bad as it gets.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 11:47
More cost effective to do it now, while all the heavy equiptment is there, very costly to move them from place to place, saving really !
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 14:54
Are we saving? It may seem the perception is such, however, with one reading and the emergency clause, there is no right of citizens to challenge the decision.

Moreover, this is what is lacking in our city offices. Real long term planning. Zoning is more than just labeling a map and issuing permits. Its a vision that is put together by the community and business leaders for an optimal economic development.

Think of the possibility of even bigger savings had the city bid on the property last year. How much of the cost of the demo is in that $245k? How much is built in profit for that company that purchased the property?

We lost money Jeff. Phantom unrealized savings do not count as savings. That is why we have budget issues as we do now.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 09:07
Remember folks, Democrats have no problem spending other people's money. When they run low on funds, taxes are raised.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 10:03
so does the demolision company get to keep all the copper in the building too?
@ $3.00 per pound.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 11:45
probably, that is why the bid is so low to do this. Most Demo Contractors do this ! Very common.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 10:06
I think $245,000 would be better spent on repairing the city streets not purchasing the CA building! Thank you Greg Robinette for being the ONLY one on city council that seems to care about the taxpayer!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 11:35
BG RES< good comment, and let's include the Sidewalk too !
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 16:14
BG Res Capital money is for capital active not in the general operating fund like you trying whine about. I am explaining something that is not hard to understand or is it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 11:51
Actually Jeff, you could have been a little more clear with your response. Further, just because money is in such funds, does not mean it should be spent without competitive and OPEN bids.

How much money has been wasted from there not being a FULL, OPEN, and COMPETITIVE bid process, with FULL transparency?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 10:59
It seems to me they chose the best of bad options in this case. It's alarming to see a high taxpayer tag attached to a property with no apparent purpose yet, but what do you think the Missouri-based owner would have done with it? If the city doesn't purchase the building, it probably sits unoccupied and becomes a blight on the neighborhood sooner rather than later. That's a prime location for property, it's better the city has some form of control over it than letting others decide its fate. The money wasn't wasted, it was used to acquire an asset some people don't think they need.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 11:38
Note to self: Buy old school buildings at next auction.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 12:04
To those that already know the type of thinking of the above posters. The city saved money the cost original demolish of the Jr. Building was almost 1,000,000 dollars. They got it demolish for 438,000 add that $ 245,000. So the total of this was 683,000 which is less than 1,000,000.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 15:00
Jeff...that is not savings. We still spent the money. Further, that was one bid, without competition to come up with the $1 million. Not an accurate figure.

ALSO, that estimate has been used to tell citizens the cost of demo, and was also used for the cost of renovation. Which one is it?

You can not base savings on an estimated noncompetitive bid from several years ago. In this environment, especially the last four to five years, the costs would be about the same in that industry.

Therefore, if they were diligent and looked for real competitive bids for both out of state and in state companies, the bid could have been much lower than the phantom $1 million.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 02:06
So Jeff your telling me this demo company is losing at least $350,000 on this deal out of some sort of act of kindness? Probably not, that million dollar bid is just some made up number to make council look good. Im interested in what conection is there between members of council and this demo company.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 17:26
why don't you look at the audit report, I know you won't believe this but part a audit program is that question form has to be filled out by the members. I Think you still think their something going on although the cost of the project was below because the company needed work to keep those workers which would be cheaper than letting them go, and the cost of that as well as finding the same workers when needed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 17:52
yes, because you layoff workers that have no work and Asbestos, which is dangerous, is a skilled labor that is hard to find. So you do the project at or below a loss to keep the labor which you would have to find. Finding experience workers or training them has a cost to. Also if they did loss money who the say they don't use that as a tax advantage.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-21 11:59
Jeff - yes, in many instances, that is the practice to keep employees. However, it is not at a loss. If it were a loss, their financing would be dropped. If it were at a loss, they would likely be unable to competitively bid on additional projects in the region.

Further, tax loss advantages do not outweigh loss of capital and loss of cash.

You do realize that it is not costing us $245k alone, right? The loss of future tax revenue from property taxes, loss revenue from possible commercial/ business related activity on the property is also a "cost".

And why did this "just happen", when the Jr. High was being demolished for the last few weeks?

Council needs more business minded and financially responsible members. Not more of the same old same old.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 13:57
Jeff that's because the square footage is a lot smaller than the old Hugh School buiding They proably figure their expenses by the sq ft or year.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 14:10
I can't figure for the life of me why we need metered parking spots in BG anyway. We won't go there. They could save money if there wasn't that department.

I hope if the city decides to construct a new City building (and you know they will) that they leave the Jr/Sr high school building lot available for parking only and use the old ad min building as the new spot for new city ad min building. BG needs a free parking lot for down-town shopping and advents. Oh by the way-do away with paid parking lot's. It's not needed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 13:07
The city is tearing down buildings and Newlove is cuttung down all the trees on their properties. Pretty soon, all of BG will be a BIG parking lot. Someone should call Carol Cartwright and see if she has any "parking lot grass seed" left.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 15:02
No worries. The City will likely approve the building of a new Admin building, likely in the range of $2 to $3 million in the next few years in that very same property. But they will find an alternative costing only $1.8 million and tell everyone that they saved the tax payers money. At this point, a parking lot with meters would be a much better choice for the city...at least then the City would have additional revenue.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-19 16:11
Nate, for you spending a dime is a wasted of tax payers money. They budgets a set amount of the demolishing of the JR High which was delay because problems with the cleaning of the building was going to push the cost higher than budgeted. So they saved money a two for one. I cannot be the only who though 3 years ago that the city could use the former central property as a parking lot. The building itself is beyond use. Nate for you support it is only if the private sector would take care of that. And that not going to happen anytime soon.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 11:48
Incorrect Jeff. I do not believe that spending a dime is a waste of taxpayers money. The efficient and well thought out expenditure of money is good, especially for sewer, sanitation, roads. All wonderful things. but is not spent wisely can quickly become waste.

However, no bid contracts, no transparency on public forums of bids, or secretive executive sessions do not instill confidence that they are spending the money wisely.

Who is to say that another company would not be cheaper?

Competition creates winners (and for others the dreaded loser). In this case competition would mean taxpayers win.

It is funny to hear council state they represent the residents, when their actions are actually contrary to full public opinion.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 11:55
I know BG will come up with another brilliant plan like build 4 more bars to sit on the land because we certianly don't have enough of those. Or maybe 3 more fast food places because again BG lacks those too! Bowling Green used to be a great place when I was a kid growing up but I won't let my kids walk around town during the day time! Family values, safety and fun for the kids is the last thing on the councils mind. We need more than a pool and the city park for the kids & is family oriented!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 17:35
Nate did you miss the story or talk to anyone, I did, that the company approach the city about this because it was better to do this job below price so that they could use work so they did not have to layoff workers that they would have to retain at a later date which would be more costly for them. Unless there where a lot companies willing to do that project for LOSS why would you do a bid process. The City waited two whole years to get this done the city park and Rec spent 5 years or more before they went to the voters on the pool levy and both times you have companied about this.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 17:48
Nate you are a Pure ideologue and as I said in my letter to the editor in Nov of last year. City council is not the place for that. Your Ideology want's a very narrow scope of the roll of government which if put in practice would save you and Susie and who every else that posted against this move. The money you want keep in your keep in pocket. At the cost of what the rest of see as well run city government. Fun thing Nate about your Comment "It is funny to hear council state they represent the residents, when their actions are actually contrary to full public opinion." I wonder where you where during that five year stretch when the Parks and Recs did open Fourm and hardly no one went until it was election time and the compiling began.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-21 11:46
Jeff -

At times in the last 5 years I have held multiple jobs, as well finished my undergraduate degree and started and finished my masters degree. All while working full time outside of the City.

It is very difficult for me to be at all meetings. Further, with very limited public notice of meetings, it is even more difficult for the average person to attend.

Jeff, since you lack proper education and expertise in bidding, government operations, finance, and accounting, I'd suggest you do not speak to the bid process, proper transparency and control, and city planning.

To address the pool again, many people in BG still don't know about the pool project. When they learn of it, they are upset. BG Parks / Recs did little to educate, but rather did a lot to campaign.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-21 11:51
I work with someone who lives on W. Reed, a block from the Park. She had no clue what the project was about, as she thought it was just a simple replacement of the pool.

When learning of the lazy river, the splash fountain area, etc, she is full opposition to the new complex.

Jeff, please understand that many don't know because they are busy. They trust Council and the Administration to look out for the best interest of all citizens. Not to do what feels good, or what others are doing.

Council and the Administration are not acting as leaders, let alone representatives . Otherwise, I'd hear more from Mr. Aspacher.

Before attacking me, again, please at least respond kindly to the points being discussed. This is about the Cent. Admin. building. Not the pool issue.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-25 13:12
For better or worse, the responsibilty of being informed about city issues and business lies with both the individual, and your community newspaper(s).

Council is responsible for representing citizens, not calling them to ask opinions about each issue. That's why there are comment portions to council meetings. If you contacted Mr. Aspacher or whoever represents your ward, I guarantee they would listen to your concerns. It's unfair to criticize council members for not calling to ask your opinions prior to each meeting.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-25 21:26
This is the issue with all of us and our elected representatives .

In fact, though a lengthy example emails going back and forth with council, we (another person and myself) found that even when presented with complete facts and research, it was ignored and instead action was based on emotion, not solid fact finding.

It is indeed on all of us, however, it often falls on deaf ears. We do have a responsibility to reach out to our representatives . However, with items of major worth, such as expenditures of funds previously reserved for a specific project, action should not be taken in such quick fashion.

With this situation, there was no way to provide comment, except for after the fact.

You are correct. I hope that I may be able to speak to Mr. Aspacher more often (really nice guy)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 12:50
Just as long as they don't block the sidewalks.

Of course, we haven't added any unplanned park space in a few months, lets go with that!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-20 19:36
BG can tear down the court house next.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-21 12:28
Quoting Joe:
BG can tear down the court house next.


The.....they......it isn't......

Nevermind. Somebody else tell him.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-21 15:31
That its Wood County property?

I get his point though. Seems like they will look to take out another historic building, in the PROCLAIMED historic district.

Just which one?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-26 15:03
Quote:
BG can tear down the court house next.

your kidding right?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# 2012-06-22 06:11
Hey... the equipment is in town , why not tear down the Manville Av. water tower! Sell it to the contractor for a $1 and buy it back, when the lot is leveled and seeded. I'm catching on now.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

NOTE: Comments are moderated. Comments have a 800 character limit! Comments are not posted until reviewed by Sentinel staff. Depending on the time of day you submit comments there may be a delay in posting to the website. If you see a comment that you think needs our attention, please e-mail hbrown@sentinel-tribune.com.


Front Page Stories

Plant to shut down (5-24-13)
05/24/2013 | Sentinel-Tribune

PERRYSBURG - The Diamond Crystal Brands plant in Perrysburg Township will be closing this summer, af [ ... ]


+ Full Story
 Owens may hike tuition (5-24-13)
05/24/2013 | MARIE THOMAS BAIRD, Sentinel Education Editor
article thumbnail

There likely will be a tuition increase for Owens Community College students thi [ ... ]


+ Full Story
Other Front Page Articles
Sentinel-Tribune Copyright 2010
generic viagra