Sweet Home City Council members expressed frustration in the lack of progress in addressing the vacant buildings downtown during a work session held Tuesday, May 27, prior to their regular council meeting.
Council members also discussed what to do with the old City Hall at 11:40 12th Ave. Both of those topics are goals the council has set to work on this year, City Manager Jason Ogden reminded them.
Ogden said that a big obstacle in determining the future of City Hall is that the elevator is “old and we can’t get replacement parts.”
He said the state has given the city till the end of the year to get it fixed, but the cost of installing a new elevator would be between $500,000 and $1 million.
Assistant City Manager Cecily Pretty told councilors that the building was appraised, for insurance purposes, most recently for $918,000. She said she wasn’t sure whether that figure took into account the building’s code problems.
She said the building’s “major liability” is lack of ADA access.
Staffers said they could get a real estate appraisal for the building and bring that back to council.
Ogden also told the council that the city has gotten a “conservative” estimate of $162,062 to demolish the building.
“The building is out of compliance right now, so usability and rentability is in question because of this major out-of compliance,” Councilor Ken Bronson observed.
Councilor Dylan Richards said he “he didn’t “see any reason to keep the building.”
“I hate to see us just burn money, but that’s one thing this council’s good at doing. But I’m sick and tired of seeing it there.”
He later added that he meant “by getting rid of it,” he meant to have someone purchase it.
“I wasn’t talking about demolition.”
Councilor Josh Thorstad said he favored tearing down the building and using the property “for “something better,” such as a park or food court.
Most of the council seemed reluctant to pursue the demolition option.
“To me that’s a good amount of money that I would hate to see just destroyed, so I would like to see somebody purchase it instead of spending money on demolition,” said Councilor Angelita Sanchez.
“I think if we put that much work into it, we’d be selling for a very, very discounted price,” Councilor Aaron Hegge said. “Even if that cost is more than it would cost to demo it, it would still be a win.”
Councilor Chelsea Augsburger asked if any potential buyers had shown interest in the building, and Pretty said she was not aware of any and that potential lessees had lost interest after learning about the “issues.”
Councilors agreed by consensus to have staff get an updated appraisal of the building’s value.
Vacant Downtown
Thorsted said he’s aware that “lots of people are saying they’d like to see something with downtown” and while, as a business owner, he doesn’t enjoy “government coming into my building all the time.” But he said that steps need to be taken to deal with downtown buildings that have “been empty for years and years and years.”
“I’ve only been on the council 2½ years, and this has been the elephant in the room,” he said. Mayor Susan Coleman said that 189 of 389 respondents to a survey she circulated to residents late last year, to gain input on city concerns, “mentioned empty storefronts.”
Sanchez suggested Sweet Home should reach out to Springfield Commissioner David Loveall to learn about that city’s efforts to restore its downtown, which, she said, included courting investors, cracking down on crime and building purchase loans.
“If we could do that with our community, I’d love that.”
Thorstad noted that he has owned businesses in Brownsville, Lebanon and Albany, and that all of those communities have regulations governing “things you can do, can’t do.”
“None of them have vacant buildings,” he said. “Everyone in Sweet Home agrees something news to be done. I just want something done.”
He said Lebanon provides grant money for paint and signage.
Ogden said one of his goals is to revitalize Sweet Home’s Commercial Exterior Improvement Program (CEIP), which is currently dormant because it has no funds.
“As city manager, I’ve thought it would be important to build that back up,” he said, adding that he has diverted rent revenue from the city’s Flex Building to the CEIP account for that purpose, “but it’s going to take more funding than just that.”
Pretty noted that Albany has been “very successful” with its grant program but it has multiple revenue streams and requires matches to get those grants.
“We don’t have a dedicated economic development revenue stream,” she said.
Thorstad and Richards suggested the possibility of selling the Santiam Feed building, on the corner of Long Street and 13th Avenue, or the old City Hall.
Ogden said the Santiam Feed building is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000.
“Couldn’t we sell that and put it back into the CEIP grant?” Richards asked.
Thorstad said other cities own buildings that generate revenue and added that the point of purchasing the Santiam Feed building was to generate revenue.
“The city owns properties,” he said. “If managed properly, and we put people in those positions, those could generate revenue. I think that’s something the city should do but doesn’t.
“Cities own property for revenue so they don’t have to raise taxes every year because the city raises costs every year, the state raises costs every year – costs go up every year for everyone and the people who eat that are the taxpayers. It’s common sense.”
Sanchez said she didn’t think “the city should be in the landlord business” and she didn’t think the city should tell property owners what to do with their holdings.
“I really like the idea of collaborating with Springfield,” she said.
Coleman said the council should give staff clear direction and if her fellow council members agreed that staff should do an inventory of land the city owns and a list of vacant storefronts.
The council agreed by consensus.
“If we choose to not do anything, we need to remember we can no longer compare ourselves to Lebanon, Sisters, Albany – any other community that has regulations on their buildings downtown,” she said. “I’m not suggesting we have to do anything. I’m feeling pretty neutral, there’s nothing I want to go forward on right now.”
But, she added, “an inventory might start a conversation.”
Augsburger said she was interested in hearing from owners of vacant buildings.
“What do building owners want? Grants? Improved parking, no-parking zones?
Vacant property owners, what do they want? I’d like to hear how we can support, how we can help.”
Ogden said he and Pretty have been trying to rebuild relationships with downtown property owners, citing a recent experience in which he was able to bring someone looking for space in contact with someone with space to offer.
“I just want the council to know we are actually doing things behind the scenes,” he said. “It takes time, it takes effort in relationship-building.”
Pretty said feedback she has received has involved bringing interiors up to code.
“Finding the right match of a tenant who can sustain the rent level to make renovations worth it can be a challenge,” she said.
Sanchez said she wants to “have a meeting of the minds.”
“There’s been a lot of broken trust in the past, and hopefully we can start repairing that, rebuilding that and seeing how we can move forward together.”
Coleman said the city “in no way wants to harm private property owners.”
She acknowledged that many property owners have “worked diligently” to improve their holdings and she said the evening’s discussion “in no way targets anybody.”
“Councilors are elected to see the city as a whole and find ways to move the whole city forward in a way that’s healthy for the community,” she said.