Monday, December 27, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
DDA decision
At the DDA meeting on Thursday, December 15, the decision to tape and air meetings on Channel 18 passed by unanimous vote. Beginning in January, the DDA will meet in the McKune Room of the library at 7:30 a.m. All the visioning sessions for the upcoming comprehensive plan will also be held in the McKune Room, taped and aired on Channel 18.
This is a very positive step forward!
This is a very positive step forward!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Presented at City Council December 14, 2010--double click to read easily
December 14, 2010
Good evening, Mayor Lindauer, Members of the Council, City Manager Hanifan, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Jan Bernath and I live at 238 Harrison Street. I am speaking only for myself as a resident of Chelsea.
I believe that the Downtown Development Authority is crucial to developing the vitality of Chelsea's downtown and therefore is a very important government authority supported by tax dollars.
I come to you tonight because the DDA, as stated in Public Act 197, is under the supervision and control of the chief executive officer of the municipality. As a government authority, the ethical principle of accountability defined in Chelsea's City Charter applies. That principle states that government is conducted openly, efficiently, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and to hold government officials accountable. It is signficant that he DDA has approximately a half a million dollars of discretionary money to spend annually as a government authority.
At the last report of the DDA to the Council, I was pleased to learn that an extensive planning process—including all stakeholders—will be undertaken in the near term and that six to twelve visioning sessions will be conducted, taped and shown on Channel 18. As I understand the process being planned, citizens will be able to have input and present ideas in planning for projects to be undertaken for five years out. This is an example of an open and transparent process in looking at the the possibilities for revitalizaing our downtown.
However, several times in the past year and a half, I have asked two things of the DDA to encourage participation by citizens in the important work of the DDA.
1. move the meetings from 7:30 a.m. to a time that is more convenient for the public to attend,
2.tape the meetings to be shown on channel 18 as are City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
I was told that holding the meetings in the evenings would be inconvenient for DDA members. At the last Council meeting, you were told that the room in which the DDA meets is not conducive to taping and cost is a negative factor. DDA representatives suggested that the DDA be taped when the new board room is in place—a date in the future yet unknown at this time. However, the Planning Commission's recent meeting held in the same room as the DDA meets was successfully taped and aired on Channel 18.
I believe that we are entering an especially critical period of activity for the DDA. It would be an appropriate time to begin meeting later in the day for public accessibility as well as tape the meetings for public viewing.
While cost was cited as a reason for not taping now, the DDA is a government authority that has considerable funding at its disposal, In the interest of keeping the public informed and engaged, the expenditure of approximately $2,750 annually for taping and airing meetings would be well spent (at the current provider rates). This is less than half of a percentage of the total budget of approximately $500,000 of discretionary money available to the DDA.
I respectfully request that the Mayor and Council recommend to the DDA that they move the regular meeting to a more convenenet time for public accessibility and/or, at minimum, tape and air the meetings on channel 18 beginning January 2011.
Thank you for considering this request.
Good evening, Mayor Lindauer, Members of the Council, City Manager Hanifan, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Jan Bernath and I live at 238 Harrison Street. I am speaking only for myself as a resident of Chelsea.
I believe that the Downtown Development Authority is crucial to developing the vitality of Chelsea's downtown and therefore is a very important government authority supported by tax dollars.
I come to you tonight because the DDA, as stated in Public Act 197, is under the supervision and control of the chief executive officer of the municipality. As a government authority, the ethical principle of accountability defined in Chelsea's City Charter applies. That principle states that government is conducted openly, efficiently, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and to hold government officials accountable. It is signficant that he DDA has approximately a half a million dollars of discretionary money to spend annually as a government authority.
At the last report of the DDA to the Council, I was pleased to learn that an extensive planning process—including all stakeholders—will be undertaken in the near term and that six to twelve visioning sessions will be conducted, taped and shown on Channel 18. As I understand the process being planned, citizens will be able to have input and present ideas in planning for projects to be undertaken for five years out. This is an example of an open and transparent process in looking at the the possibilities for revitalizaing our downtown.
However, several times in the past year and a half, I have asked two things of the DDA to encourage participation by citizens in the important work of the DDA.
1. move the meetings from 7:30 a.m. to a time that is more convenient for the public to attend,
2.tape the meetings to be shown on channel 18 as are City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
I was told that holding the meetings in the evenings would be inconvenient for DDA members. At the last Council meeting, you were told that the room in which the DDA meets is not conducive to taping and cost is a negative factor. DDA representatives suggested that the DDA be taped when the new board room is in place—a date in the future yet unknown at this time. However, the Planning Commission's recent meeting held in the same room as the DDA meets was successfully taped and aired on Channel 18.
I believe that we are entering an especially critical period of activity for the DDA. It would be an appropriate time to begin meeting later in the day for public accessibility as well as tape the meetings for public viewing.
While cost was cited as a reason for not taping now, the DDA is a government authority that has considerable funding at its disposal, In the interest of keeping the public informed and engaged, the expenditure of approximately $2,750 annually for taping and airing meetings would be well spent (at the current provider rates). This is less than half of a percentage of the total budget of approximately $500,000 of discretionary money available to the DDA.
I respectfully request that the Mayor and Council recommend to the DDA that they move the regular meeting to a more convenenet time for public accessibility and/or, at minimum, tape and air the meetings on channel 18 beginning January 2011.
Thank you for considering this request.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Public Comment City Council 11.23.10--Larry Bean
City Council Meeting Report
November 23, 2010
I am here tonight as a representative of The Chelsea Connection Team to provide you with a progress report in our effort to save the buildings in the Longworth Complex. In the last month we have had two meetings to discuss our diversified approach to saving these historic buildings and have focused on the following efforts:
1) Members of our team have been contacting individual DDA members to set up
one-on-one meetings with them to discuss the Longworth Complex. We are arranging these meetings for several reasons. One, the agenda at DDA meetings is very full and public comment periods are short which makes it difficult for us to have fruitful discussions about our efforts during their meetings. Secondly, we want to use a more personal approach to get input from each DDA member about any specific concerns they may have about the proposal we submitted. Thirdly, we want to start to break down some of the walls that have been built up between our group and the DDA, as we have a mutual need and desire to work more effectively together.
2) We are attending every DDA meetings to keep updated on anything that is being proposed for the Longworth Complex, as well as the more recent discussions about the DDA hiring a consultant for reviewing the Longworth Complex as well as several other buildings downtown. We are looking forward to fully participating in any and all public visioning sessions that will be held for public input as was mentioned at the November DDA meeting.
3) We are making plans for a public event to be held early next year to celebrate the designation of Downtown Chelsea on the National Register of Historic Places. This will be a public event and we will keep the Council informed as plans are solidified.
4) One of our members is starting to gather information for holding tax credit workshops for the building owners of buildings downtown that are on the National Register of Historic Places to teach them about the benefits that they can tap into for tax credits and grants.
5) We are compiling a list of monies that are available to any interested parties through public and private grants to help with the repair and restoration of the Longworth Buildings (as well as other historic buildings downtown).
6) We have met with one potential buyer who has expressed interest in partnering with our group and working with the DDA to purchase the Longworth Complex.
This completes our report. If there are any questions, myself or other members of the team would be happy to answer them for you.
November 23, 2010
I am here tonight as a representative of The Chelsea Connection Team to provide you with a progress report in our effort to save the buildings in the Longworth Complex. In the last month we have had two meetings to discuss our diversified approach to saving these historic buildings and have focused on the following efforts:
1) Members of our team have been contacting individual DDA members to set up
one-on-one meetings with them to discuss the Longworth Complex. We are arranging these meetings for several reasons. One, the agenda at DDA meetings is very full and public comment periods are short which makes it difficult for us to have fruitful discussions about our efforts during their meetings. Secondly, we want to use a more personal approach to get input from each DDA member about any specific concerns they may have about the proposal we submitted. Thirdly, we want to start to break down some of the walls that have been built up between our group and the DDA, as we have a mutual need and desire to work more effectively together.
2) We are attending every DDA meetings to keep updated on anything that is being proposed for the Longworth Complex, as well as the more recent discussions about the DDA hiring a consultant for reviewing the Longworth Complex as well as several other buildings downtown. We are looking forward to fully participating in any and all public visioning sessions that will be held for public input as was mentioned at the November DDA meeting.
3) We are making plans for a public event to be held early next year to celebrate the designation of Downtown Chelsea on the National Register of Historic Places. This will be a public event and we will keep the Council informed as plans are solidified.
4) One of our members is starting to gather information for holding tax credit workshops for the building owners of buildings downtown that are on the National Register of Historic Places to teach them about the benefits that they can tap into for tax credits and grants.
5) We are compiling a list of monies that are available to any interested parties through public and private grants to help with the repair and restoration of the Longworth Buildings (as well as other historic buildings downtown).
6) We have met with one potential buyer who has expressed interest in partnering with our group and working with the DDA to purchase the Longworth Complex.
This completes our report. If there are any questions, myself or other members of the team would be happy to answer them for you.
Public Comment City Council 10.26.10
My name is Cathy Bean. I live at 204 Washington Street. I am a member of The Chelsea Connection Team that has spoken before the Council on numerous occasions. We were pleased to see that a DDA report is on tonight's agenda. We hope to hear about the work of the DDA that is underway about the Longworth Property.
As you know, our proposal to the DDA for redevelopment of the entire property was declined on August 14. The Chelsea Connection Team is still working for adaptive reuse of the complex.
Our hope is to begin a productive dialog with members of the DDA to identify common ground. We will continue to provide updates on our effort to the Council.
Thank you for your interest in this important decision and in a process of working toward a win-win solution.
As you know, our proposal to the DDA for redevelopment of the entire property was declined on August 14. The Chelsea Connection Team is still working for adaptive reuse of the complex.
Our hope is to begin a productive dialog with members of the DDA to identify common ground. We will continue to provide updates on our effort to the Council.
Thank you for your interest in this important decision and in a process of working toward a win-win solution.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Public Comment City Council 9.28.10
City Council Meeting – September 28, 2010
Michelle McClellan, 232 Jefferson Street, Chelsea
Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Michelle McClellan, and I am a Chelsea resident, as well as a history professor at the University of Michigan and the current president of the group Preservation Chelsea. I also have the privilege of serving on the Chelsea First Advisory Committee, where I represent the domains of history and historic preservation.
Historic architecture is a key ingredient in making Chelsea a charming place to live. It connects us to the history of Chelsea, to the people who have come before, and it anchors us to this place, whether we are long-time residents or relative newcomers. It is also a very important economic resource. For these reasons, I am here to advocate for the preservation of the buildings known as the Longworth Complex.
Some of you attended the public presentation by Ed McMahon, a nationally known expert on sustaining livable and prosperous communities. I’d like to thank Bob Pierce, the Chamber of Commerce, and others who brought such a dynamic and engaging speaker to our community.
According to McMahon, community differentiation is an important concept in economic development. What makes your town special?
In Chelsea we are fortunate to have many resources which enrich our lives as residents and which have huge potential to draw tourists. In particular, we have a very powerful 1-2 punch of natural and historic assets, with a charming downtown that also functions as a gateway to the Waterloo State Recreation Area. We need to be stewards of both sorts of resources to ensure our quality of life and to leverage their economic potential.
The buildings of the Longworth Complex, unique in appearance, exemplify McMahon’s points about the importance of keeping what is special about your town. The historical importance and structural integrity of the entire complex have been found to be significantly greater than initially realized – certainly greater than is apparent with a casual glance at their current condition.
In fact, these buildings have received national recognition for their historic significance. That recognition, in turn, can open the door to financial tools, including tax credits and grants which, along with in-kind contributions and venture capital, can make the rehabilitation of these buildings economically viable. The Chelsea Connection Team has proposed structuring a partnership or purchase agreement with the DDA that would allow us to take full advantage of these financial tools to rehabilitate the buildings.
Rehabilitation, rather than demolition, will lead to long-term economic benefits for our community.
First, the process of rehabilitation itself functions as an economic engine. As compared to demolition or new construction, rehabilitation is more labor-intensive. That is a good thing, particularly in a recession. Rehabilitation creates jobs. With a higher proportion of the money spent on labor, the dollars circulate longer in the community. Dollars spent on materials circulate once. Dollars spent on labor can circulate locally up to six times, according to economic development expert Donovan Rypkema.
Second, once the rehabilitation is complete, this unique venue will add to Chelsea’s brand identity. One of the main goals of the Chelsea First Marketing Initiative is to promote Chelsea as a destination, and to my mind, rehabilitating the Longworth Complex aligns perfectly with that goal. It also follows the advice of Ed McMahon to use what you have, enhance your particular assets, and protect community character.
We know that tourism is a critical sector for the state of Michigan, and also for the Chelsea area. Heritage or cultural tourists – those who visit a place because of its historic attractions and ambience – stay longer and spend more.
As you know, this issue has galvanized a lot of citizen involvement. I deeply regret that this situation has given rise to animosity, since that was never our intent. The necessary constraints of a formal RFP process may well have impeded certain kinds of dialogue. I still believe that working together can turn these buildings into a wonderful asset for our community.
Thank you.
Information on Ed McMahon: http://www.uli.org/sitecore/content/ULI2Home/ResearchAndPublications/Fellows/McMahon.aspx
The Economics of Historic Preservation, Donovan Rypkema
http://www.placeeconomics.com/index.html
Michelle McClellan, 232 Jefferson Street, Chelsea
Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Michelle McClellan, and I am a Chelsea resident, as well as a history professor at the University of Michigan and the current president of the group Preservation Chelsea. I also have the privilege of serving on the Chelsea First Advisory Committee, where I represent the domains of history and historic preservation.
Historic architecture is a key ingredient in making Chelsea a charming place to live. It connects us to the history of Chelsea, to the people who have come before, and it anchors us to this place, whether we are long-time residents or relative newcomers. It is also a very important economic resource. For these reasons, I am here to advocate for the preservation of the buildings known as the Longworth Complex.
Some of you attended the public presentation by Ed McMahon, a nationally known expert on sustaining livable and prosperous communities. I’d like to thank Bob Pierce, the Chamber of Commerce, and others who brought such a dynamic and engaging speaker to our community.
According to McMahon, community differentiation is an important concept in economic development. What makes your town special?
In Chelsea we are fortunate to have many resources which enrich our lives as residents and which have huge potential to draw tourists. In particular, we have a very powerful 1-2 punch of natural and historic assets, with a charming downtown that also functions as a gateway to the Waterloo State Recreation Area. We need to be stewards of both sorts of resources to ensure our quality of life and to leverage their economic potential.
The buildings of the Longworth Complex, unique in appearance, exemplify McMahon’s points about the importance of keeping what is special about your town. The historical importance and structural integrity of the entire complex have been found to be significantly greater than initially realized – certainly greater than is apparent with a casual glance at their current condition.
In fact, these buildings have received national recognition for their historic significance. That recognition, in turn, can open the door to financial tools, including tax credits and grants which, along with in-kind contributions and venture capital, can make the rehabilitation of these buildings economically viable. The Chelsea Connection Team has proposed structuring a partnership or purchase agreement with the DDA that would allow us to take full advantage of these financial tools to rehabilitate the buildings.
Rehabilitation, rather than demolition, will lead to long-term economic benefits for our community.
First, the process of rehabilitation itself functions as an economic engine. As compared to demolition or new construction, rehabilitation is more labor-intensive. That is a good thing, particularly in a recession. Rehabilitation creates jobs. With a higher proportion of the money spent on labor, the dollars circulate longer in the community. Dollars spent on materials circulate once. Dollars spent on labor can circulate locally up to six times, according to economic development expert Donovan Rypkema.
Second, once the rehabilitation is complete, this unique venue will add to Chelsea’s brand identity. One of the main goals of the Chelsea First Marketing Initiative is to promote Chelsea as a destination, and to my mind, rehabilitating the Longworth Complex aligns perfectly with that goal. It also follows the advice of Ed McMahon to use what you have, enhance your particular assets, and protect community character.
We know that tourism is a critical sector for the state of Michigan, and also for the Chelsea area. Heritage or cultural tourists – those who visit a place because of its historic attractions and ambience – stay longer and spend more.
As you know, this issue has galvanized a lot of citizen involvement. I deeply regret that this situation has given rise to animosity, since that was never our intent. The necessary constraints of a formal RFP process may well have impeded certain kinds of dialogue. I still believe that working together can turn these buildings into a wonderful asset for our community.
Thank you.
Information on Ed McMahon: http://www.uli.org/sitecore/content/ULI2Home/ResearchAndPublications/Fellows/McMahon.aspx
The Economics of Historic Preservation, Donovan Rypkema
http://www.placeeconomics.com/index.html
Public Comment City Council 9.28.10
City Council Meeting, Public Participation, September 28, 2010
My name is Jane Creswell. I live at 131 E. Middle Street.
I am a fourth generation resident of Chelsea. My great-grandfather was a blacksmith and was one of the founders of what is now St. Paul’s church. My grandfather was a pharmacist, photographer, engraver, and businessman who was very active in the village government and the school board. Both my parents were born and raised here and I came back a few years after graduating from college to live here. My husband chose to live here—and that wasn’t easy—he’s from Texas and they don’t often leave Texas for good……….Bottom line—I love Chelsea and I‘ve seen it go through many changes over the years. When I was young, Chelsea was a farming community and also a very active industrial community. During those times the downtown was made up of businesses that supported the people who worked in the businesses and the vehicles in town were mostly pickup trucks, not BMW’s. It went through a frightening time as the farms and the industries began to disappear and change. We survived by going with the changes. We lost our corner drug store, in favor of a coffee shop. We lost small businesses when chains began to develop south of town. We started to see new businesses such as gift shops and art galleries. We’ve become a downtown that caters to the casual visitor who wants to get a bite to eat and stroll the historic downtown, perhaps see a play. This is a good thing because tourism is big and historic tourism is bigger.
Ed McMahon stated that tourism is the biggest industry in the world in his Sept. 15 speech. Michelle has already told you about Ed McMahon so I won’t describe him further. If you haven’t had a chance to see the presentation, it is airing on Channel 18 and there is a DVD that will be available for viewing. The presentation was amazing.
There was much that applied to Chelsea as it moves forward. The title of his talk was “The Dollars and SENSE of Protecting Community Character”. One of the questions he asked was “What makes your hometown different than other places? Historic preservation physically connects us to a place. It identifies us as who we are.” He also said “If every place was just like the other place, then there would be no reason to go anywhere”. He said parking is the biggest myth. Buildings are good neighbors— not parking. “Tourists won’t go to a town that lost it’s soul.”
Why am I telling you this? Over the last year I have been working with a talented group of volunteers who have been trying to find a way to save the buildings in the Longworth complex. At first, I just didn’t want to see 100 year-old buildings knocked down. With what our group has learned I now feel we would be losing far more than the buildings. We have learned that the Livery portion of these buildings—by it’s existence and placement next to the first hotel (which is now the Farmer’s Supply) and the depot –is unique, not just to Chelsea but in the state and maybe in the country. That makes Chelsea unique. Tourists will come to visit and see these buildings. It makes the “Jackson Street Corridor” an amazing focal point for tourism. To tear down the livery and replace it with a parking lot wouldn’t make economic sense in the long run. We have a spectacular asset in these buildings that we didn’t realize we had. McMahon stated that “How much something costs is NOT the most important question. The most important question is what should we do?” Historic buildings are a scarce resource and we should cherish and protect them. McMahon suggests that any building that was built before the World War should not be torn down.
Our group submitted an RFP to the DDA with an “out of the box” proposal that would allow these buildings to be saved without any more money being spent on them by the city. It was rejected and the demolition has been scheduled. We are here to ask that you utilize your authority to stop the demolition, ask that work be stopped on the due care plan for the demolition and allow time for you to research what an asset we have and determine how best to proceed. We are here tonight and can answer questions. We have a great deal of information we would be happy to share. McMahon stated that working together creates the most successful communities. Our desire is to work together to preserve our history and retain our uniqueness so we can move forward to the future. Our ancestors left us their legacy in their buildings and their history. It’s up to us as caretakers to make sure it isn’t lost or thrown away. It makes economic sense. It’s more sustainable. It’s a win/win situation.
Thank you.
My name is Jane Creswell. I live at 131 E. Middle Street.
I am a fourth generation resident of Chelsea. My great-grandfather was a blacksmith and was one of the founders of what is now St. Paul’s church. My grandfather was a pharmacist, photographer, engraver, and businessman who was very active in the village government and the school board. Both my parents were born and raised here and I came back a few years after graduating from college to live here. My husband chose to live here—and that wasn’t easy—he’s from Texas and they don’t often leave Texas for good……….Bottom line—I love Chelsea and I‘ve seen it go through many changes over the years. When I was young, Chelsea was a farming community and also a very active industrial community. During those times the downtown was made up of businesses that supported the people who worked in the businesses and the vehicles in town were mostly pickup trucks, not BMW’s. It went through a frightening time as the farms and the industries began to disappear and change. We survived by going with the changes. We lost our corner drug store, in favor of a coffee shop. We lost small businesses when chains began to develop south of town. We started to see new businesses such as gift shops and art galleries. We’ve become a downtown that caters to the casual visitor who wants to get a bite to eat and stroll the historic downtown, perhaps see a play. This is a good thing because tourism is big and historic tourism is bigger.
Ed McMahon stated that tourism is the biggest industry in the world in his Sept. 15 speech. Michelle has already told you about Ed McMahon so I won’t describe him further. If you haven’t had a chance to see the presentation, it is airing on Channel 18 and there is a DVD that will be available for viewing. The presentation was amazing.
There was much that applied to Chelsea as it moves forward. The title of his talk was “The Dollars and SENSE of Protecting Community Character”. One of the questions he asked was “What makes your hometown different than other places? Historic preservation physically connects us to a place. It identifies us as who we are.” He also said “If every place was just like the other place, then there would be no reason to go anywhere”. He said parking is the biggest myth. Buildings are good neighbors— not parking. “Tourists won’t go to a town that lost it’s soul.”
Why am I telling you this? Over the last year I have been working with a talented group of volunteers who have been trying to find a way to save the buildings in the Longworth complex. At first, I just didn’t want to see 100 year-old buildings knocked down. With what our group has learned I now feel we would be losing far more than the buildings. We have learned that the Livery portion of these buildings—by it’s existence and placement next to the first hotel (which is now the Farmer’s Supply) and the depot –is unique, not just to Chelsea but in the state and maybe in the country. That makes Chelsea unique. Tourists will come to visit and see these buildings. It makes the “Jackson Street Corridor” an amazing focal point for tourism. To tear down the livery and replace it with a parking lot wouldn’t make economic sense in the long run. We have a spectacular asset in these buildings that we didn’t realize we had. McMahon stated that “How much something costs is NOT the most important question. The most important question is what should we do?” Historic buildings are a scarce resource and we should cherish and protect them. McMahon suggests that any building that was built before the World War should not be torn down.
Our group submitted an RFP to the DDA with an “out of the box” proposal that would allow these buildings to be saved without any more money being spent on them by the city. It was rejected and the demolition has been scheduled. We are here to ask that you utilize your authority to stop the demolition, ask that work be stopped on the due care plan for the demolition and allow time for you to research what an asset we have and determine how best to proceed. We are here tonight and can answer questions. We have a great deal of information we would be happy to share. McMahon stated that working together creates the most successful communities. Our desire is to work together to preserve our history and retain our uniqueness so we can move forward to the future. Our ancestors left us their legacy in their buildings and their history. It’s up to us as caretakers to make sure it isn’t lost or thrown away. It makes economic sense. It’s more sustainable. It’s a win/win situation.
Thank you.
City Council public comment 9.28.19
My name is Ryan Beekman, and I live at 208 South Street--commonly known as the Glazier House.
Why demolish the Longworth Complex now?
Why demolish the Longworth Complex now?
Friday, September 24, 2010
Quote from Ed McMahon (link to his speech on right side bar)
A Chelsea Connection team member drove Mr. McMahon to the Longworth Property while he was in town. When he learned of the impending demolition, Mr. McMahon said, "It's stupid!"
Friday, September 17, 2010
Points sent to each City Council Member, p 1
City Council Points September 12, 2010
The following are some ideas for halting demolition on the Livery and Daniels Showroom:
Financial Reasons/Fiscal Responsibility
- From a fiscal standpoint we feel that for the DDA to purchase these buildings for more than their appraised value and then turn around and tear down ½ to 2/3s of the complex is fiscally negligent and irresponsible.
- We feel that this it is not fiscally responsible of City Government or the DDA to demolish nationally significant historic buildings for a parking lot.
- The potential taxes that could be collected from the Longworth Complex as businesses would be roughtly . As a parking lot/sitting/entertainment area, it would bring $0 in taxes and would cost the city approximately to maintain.
- Three serious potential buyers have been interested in these buildings, but were chased away by the price that the DDA was asking to purchase these buildings and/or by the cost of sanitary sewer/water hookup fees.
- The DDA wants a buyer to pay $400,000 to purchase these buildings, but no one could get a mortgage for that amount, because the appraised value is only $300,000.
- When the DDA is quoting their renovation costs compared to our renovation costs they are not comparing apples to apples. They keep quoting the much higher cost of a “full fit out”, as opposed to the cost of “white-boxing” all the buildings. This helps to support their argument that they cannot “afford” to renovate these buildings.
- The DDA has continued to misrepresent the cost of reusing these buildings. A local builder has studied these buildings and has quoted a significantly lower price to stabilize and do any necessary repairs on the buildings. The following are his quotes
Charlie Shiver’s original quote for restoration and white-boxing the entire facility (all three buildings) was $800K. In a subsequent evaluation, Charlie estimated $500K to restore and white-box the Livery by itself. This included all new structural work for the roof and 2nd floor.
The RFP Proposal called for about $2.2M for a full fit out of all three buildings, a green roof on the livery, a rooftop restaurant, and a roof top patio.
The one and only bid that the DDA obtained for restoration and white-boxing all three buildings was $1.50M-$1.75M.
- The following is an estimated cost comparison for the Chelsea Connection Proposal vs. DDA “Plan B” (See Attachment A for more detail)
Chelsea Connection:
DDA takes a $200k loss on sale, plus a $50k loss for professional fees: total loss of $250k
Chelsea begins collecting property taxes: first based on new basis for the property ($200k) – maybe $6000/ year, and escalating as property value increases with renovation.
The following are some ideas for halting demolition on the Livery and Daniels Showroom:
Financial Reasons/Fiscal Responsibility
- From a fiscal standpoint we feel that for the DDA to purchase these buildings for more than their appraised value and then turn around and tear down ½ to 2/3s of the complex is fiscally negligent and irresponsible.
- We feel that this it is not fiscally responsible of City Government or the DDA to demolish nationally significant historic buildings for a parking lot.
- The potential taxes that could be collected from the Longworth Complex as businesses would be roughtly . As a parking lot/sitting/entertainment area, it would bring $0 in taxes and would cost the city approximately to maintain.
- Three serious potential buyers have been interested in these buildings, but were chased away by the price that the DDA was asking to purchase these buildings and/or by the cost of sanitary sewer/water hookup fees.
- The DDA wants a buyer to pay $400,000 to purchase these buildings, but no one could get a mortgage for that amount, because the appraised value is only $300,000.
- When the DDA is quoting their renovation costs compared to our renovation costs they are not comparing apples to apples. They keep quoting the much higher cost of a “full fit out”, as opposed to the cost of “white-boxing” all the buildings. This helps to support their argument that they cannot “afford” to renovate these buildings.
- The DDA has continued to misrepresent the cost of reusing these buildings. A local builder has studied these buildings and has quoted a significantly lower price to stabilize and do any necessary repairs on the buildings. The following are his quotes
Charlie Shiver’s original quote for restoration and white-boxing the entire facility (all three buildings) was $800K. In a subsequent evaluation, Charlie estimated $500K to restore and white-box the Livery by itself. This included all new structural work for the roof and 2nd floor.
The RFP Proposal called for about $2.2M for a full fit out of all three buildings, a green roof on the livery, a rooftop restaurant, and a roof top patio.
The one and only bid that the DDA obtained for restoration and white-boxing all three buildings was $1.50M-$1.75M.
- The following is an estimated cost comparison for the Chelsea Connection Proposal vs. DDA “Plan B” (See Attachment A for more detail)
Chelsea Connection:
DDA takes a $200k loss on sale, plus a $50k loss for professional fees: total loss of $250k
Chelsea begins collecting property taxes: first based on new basis for the property ($200k) – maybe $6000/ year, and escalating as property value increases with renovation.
Points sent to each City Council member p 2
When 18,000 SF complex is worth $2M in 3 years, that’s maybe $60k/year. Tack in utility tap fees of at least $100k, and DDA/ City in aggregate is “above water” in 3-4 years.
Note: additional out of pocket expense for DDA: $0
DDA Plan B:
DDA currently is invested for say $450k.
Livery and Mack Demolition: $70k + additional environmental professional fees, legal fees, soft cost for Hanifan’s time etc.: easily $100k total, could see this doubling with legal fees.
Daniels Green space and Mack face restoration: $50k minimum
Livery redevelopment (parking, retaining wall, entertainment venue, lighting, public restrooms etc.) $500k ballpark.
Mack Vanilla boxing (bear in mind they will not have the luxury of pro-bono/ in-kind etc.) : $700k ballpark, could be $1M if they’re not careful.
Sale when 7500 SF Mack is complete: $800k.
Net loss: $1M ballpark.
Tax revenue: maybe $25k/ year.
Maintenance/ operating cost for new public outdoor spaces: Not sure, maybe $5-10k? …but more than with Chelsea Connection Chelsea in any case.
Chelsea is not likely to ever get “above water” with this scenario.
- The DDA states that they cannot “afford” to reuse the livery and Daniels Showroom, because they don’t have enough money. Their plans do not call for just stabilizing and repairing the buildings, but for “white box renovations” which would make them move in ready. We don’t feel that this is necessary at the present time and may not be what a developer may want, as the industrial feel is very appealing in the present marketplace.
- All three buildings have been found to be eminently re-useable by qualifies professional architects and builders who have each looked at these buildings.
Historic Reasons
- Adaptive reuse of historic buildings is cited as a Planning Guideline in Chelsea City Documents for the future growth and vitality of Chelsea.
- The Central Business District Management Strategies Goals include:
- Preserve the historic, small town character of downtown Chelsea
- Ensure the renovations of historic buildings in the downtown area to retain the existing historical and architectural integrity
- Ensure new infill development is compatible with the downtown’s historic architecture…and character.
- The word historic occurs 29 times in Chelsea Comprehensive Plan as a stated value.
- Janet Greenstein Potter, author and nationally recognized expert on railroads and railroad buildings has written a book entitled “Great American Railroad Stations” which was commissioned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. She has stated that the Train Depot, Livery and Chelsea House Hotel (presently the Farmers Supply) are
Note: additional out of pocket expense for DDA: $0
DDA Plan B:
DDA currently is invested for say $450k.
Livery and Mack Demolition: $70k + additional environmental professional fees, legal fees, soft cost for Hanifan’s time etc.: easily $100k total, could see this doubling with legal fees.
Daniels Green space and Mack face restoration: $50k minimum
Livery redevelopment (parking, retaining wall, entertainment venue, lighting, public restrooms etc.) $500k ballpark.
Mack Vanilla boxing (bear in mind they will not have the luxury of pro-bono/ in-kind etc.) : $700k ballpark, could be $1M if they’re not careful.
Sale when 7500 SF Mack is complete: $800k.
Net loss: $1M ballpark.
Tax revenue: maybe $25k/ year.
Maintenance/ operating cost for new public outdoor spaces: Not sure, maybe $5-10k? …but more than with Chelsea Connection Chelsea in any case.
Chelsea is not likely to ever get “above water” with this scenario.
- The DDA states that they cannot “afford” to reuse the livery and Daniels Showroom, because they don’t have enough money. Their plans do not call for just stabilizing and repairing the buildings, but for “white box renovations” which would make them move in ready. We don’t feel that this is necessary at the present time and may not be what a developer may want, as the industrial feel is very appealing in the present marketplace.
- All three buildings have been found to be eminently re-useable by qualifies professional architects and builders who have each looked at these buildings.
Historic Reasons
- Adaptive reuse of historic buildings is cited as a Planning Guideline in Chelsea City Documents for the future growth and vitality of Chelsea.
- The Central Business District Management Strategies Goals include:
- Preserve the historic, small town character of downtown Chelsea
- Ensure the renovations of historic buildings in the downtown area to retain the existing historical and architectural integrity
- Ensure new infill development is compatible with the downtown’s historic architecture…and character.
- The word historic occurs 29 times in Chelsea Comprehensive Plan as a stated value.
- Janet Greenstein Potter, author and nationally recognized expert on railroads and railroad buildings has written a book entitled “Great American Railroad Stations” which was commissioned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. She has stated that the Train Depot, Livery and Chelsea House Hotel (presently the Farmers Supply) are
Points sent to each City Council member p 3
nationally significant and “together , the train station, old hotel, and livery make up one of the (if not THE) last remaining transportation cooridors in the US to have all three of these buildings types. She stated that in her consultations with several hundred historians, architects, transportation specialists, librarians and state historic preservation officers that “Chelsea is extraordinary and, in my view, literally unique in retaining not only the first hotel, but also the livery. In my research, I uncovered no equivalent situation…The loss of this building (the Livery) would affect not only Chelsea, but also the history of everyday life in the United States.”
- The Livery is believed to be one of only a few liveries still standing in Michigan, Several of these have been adaptively reused and house successful businesses.
- The Longworth Buildings are a contributing part of a nomination for the National Register of Historic Places.
- Historic buildings,including those with exposed brick interiors, are very marketable to present day restaurants (Common Grill) and retail businesses (Treehouse) owners.
- In the most recently published Community Guide published by the Community Observer, 100 % of Chelsea’s listed “Attractions” (See Attachment B) were either located in historic buildings in town (which was often mentioned in its description) or involved historic information sharing. We are using our HISTORY to market our town and yet the City and the DDA are tearing down very historically significant buildings without just cause.
Improper Operation of DDA
- The DDA made these decisions without following appropriate procedures such as using bylaws and Open Meetings Act requirements
- Demolition does not support the DDA’s own adopted goals and objectives:
Goals
A. To maintain the strength of the city center as an active marketplace-the retail
center of Chelsea,. It is important to capatilize on the historic character of the
downtown.
B. To continue to enhance the historic character of the downtown through
restoration and renovation…
D.Maintain the distinction of the different character…of the commercial district
and downtown Chelsea.
Objectives
A.Preservation of Chelsea’s small-town character and historic image.
- Demolition of these historic sites is in violation of State of Michigan Public Act 197 of 1975 (the act which allows for the formation of DDAs) “A public facility, building, or structure that is determined by the municipality to have significant historical interest shall be preserved in a manner…in accordance with laws relative to the preservation of historical sites.”
- The DDA has not had bylaws in its entire existence (since 1985) which violates the City of Chelsea Code of Ordinances Chapter 12, Section 12-45 Bylaws “The board of the authority shall develop and approve bylaws for its operation.” (Ordinance No. 97)
Without written bylaws and procedures, the public has no idea how the DDA works, how decisions are made, or how to have input and it allows the DDA to operate without public accountability.
- The Livery is believed to be one of only a few liveries still standing in Michigan, Several of these have been adaptively reused and house successful businesses.
- The Longworth Buildings are a contributing part of a nomination for the National Register of Historic Places.
- Historic buildings,including those with exposed brick interiors, are very marketable to present day restaurants (Common Grill) and retail businesses (Treehouse) owners.
- In the most recently published Community Guide published by the Community Observer, 100 % of Chelsea’s listed “Attractions” (See Attachment B) were either located in historic buildings in town (which was often mentioned in its description) or involved historic information sharing. We are using our HISTORY to market our town and yet the City and the DDA are tearing down very historically significant buildings without just cause.
Improper Operation of DDA
- The DDA made these decisions without following appropriate procedures such as using bylaws and Open Meetings Act requirements
- Demolition does not support the DDA’s own adopted goals and objectives:
Goals
A. To maintain the strength of the city center as an active marketplace-the retail
center of Chelsea,. It is important to capatilize on the historic character of the
downtown.
B. To continue to enhance the historic character of the downtown through
restoration and renovation…
D.Maintain the distinction of the different character…of the commercial district
and downtown Chelsea.
Objectives
A.Preservation of Chelsea’s small-town character and historic image.
- Demolition of these historic sites is in violation of State of Michigan Public Act 197 of 1975 (the act which allows for the formation of DDAs) “A public facility, building, or structure that is determined by the municipality to have significant historical interest shall be preserved in a manner…in accordance with laws relative to the preservation of historical sites.”
- The DDA has not had bylaws in its entire existence (since 1985) which violates the City of Chelsea Code of Ordinances Chapter 12, Section 12-45 Bylaws “The board of the authority shall develop and approve bylaws for its operation.” (Ordinance No. 97)
Without written bylaws and procedures, the public has no idea how the DDA works, how decisions are made, or how to have input and it allows the DDA to operate without public accountability.
Points sent to each City Council member p 4
implement them. The mayor only gave us a letter stating that we were allowed to investigate grant funding. We are a citizen group with no money ourselves and no power over these buildings because we do not own them.
Possible remedies
1)Council direct the DDA to sell all the buildings to our group per our proposal. (Ask Council Member…”Have you seen our proposal?”)
2)DDA retain ownership of all three buildings but allow the PC-CCT to actively search out funding, in-kind services and volunteer help to restore these buildings while they deal with the Mack Building with their resources.
3)Direct the DDA to work with the PC-CCT on their proposal to find a mutually acceptable plan for moving forward with renovating all three buildings.
4)Council put an immediate stop on any demolition plans and revisit the 2010 DDA budget with regards to the Longworth Complex Demolition.
5)Require that the DDA work cooperatively with the PC-CCT to a positive end to this for all, as opposed to ignoring us and perpetuating a negative relationship with the public.
6)The Mayor and the Council have the regulatory authority to change how the DDA does business and can require that they listen to public input before decisions are made that affect all of its residents in a significant way!
7)We want the DDA to give the citizens and local businesses a chance to raise the
necessary funds for rehabilitation.
Questions to Pose to Council Members
1)How is this project fiscally responsible for the City and the DDA now that we have shown that there are less expensive alternatives from professionals that know what they are talking about?
2)How can the DDA be allowed to use $500,000 in Public taxes annually, while ignoring the input of over 700 residents (which apparently is more than the amount of people who elected the present mayor) of Chelsea and the surrounding area who say they want all these buildings saved?
3)How can the DDA ignore their own mission, goals and objectives to “preserve and restore historic buildings” with this project?
4)How can the City of Chelsea have historical buildings as an attractions (see the Community Observer), yet continue to tear down historic structures downtown.
5)How can the DDA just “refuse” our very detailed, well thought out proposal without any kind of detailed reply to us about how it was reviewed and why specifically it was rejected?
6)Why is there no apparent public accountability for the decisions of the DDA? They seem to work in a vacuum and are allowed to use Public Tax dollars to do it.
7)Why was the DDA allowed to purchase these buildings at a cost above the appraised value?
Possible remedies
1)Council direct the DDA to sell all the buildings to our group per our proposal. (Ask Council Member…”Have you seen our proposal?”)
2)DDA retain ownership of all three buildings but allow the PC-CCT to actively search out funding, in-kind services and volunteer help to restore these buildings while they deal with the Mack Building with their resources.
3)Direct the DDA to work with the PC-CCT on their proposal to find a mutually acceptable plan for moving forward with renovating all three buildings.
4)Council put an immediate stop on any demolition plans and revisit the 2010 DDA budget with regards to the Longworth Complex Demolition.
5)Require that the DDA work cooperatively with the PC-CCT to a positive end to this for all, as opposed to ignoring us and perpetuating a negative relationship with the public.
6)The Mayor and the Council have the regulatory authority to change how the DDA does business and can require that they listen to public input before decisions are made that affect all of its residents in a significant way!
7)We want the DDA to give the citizens and local businesses a chance to raise the
necessary funds for rehabilitation.
Questions to Pose to Council Members
1)How is this project fiscally responsible for the City and the DDA now that we have shown that there are less expensive alternatives from professionals that know what they are talking about?
2)How can the DDA be allowed to use $500,000 in Public taxes annually, while ignoring the input of over 700 residents (which apparently is more than the amount of people who elected the present mayor) of Chelsea and the surrounding area who say they want all these buildings saved?
3)How can the DDA ignore their own mission, goals and objectives to “preserve and restore historic buildings” with this project?
4)How can the City of Chelsea have historical buildings as an attractions (see the Community Observer), yet continue to tear down historic structures downtown.
5)How can the DDA just “refuse” our very detailed, well thought out proposal without any kind of detailed reply to us about how it was reviewed and why specifically it was rejected?
6)Why is there no apparent public accountability for the decisions of the DDA? They seem to work in a vacuum and are allowed to use Public Tax dollars to do it.
7)Why was the DDA allowed to purchase these buildings at a cost above the appraised value?
Points sent to each City Council member p 5
Attachment A
Here’s the spreadsheet I included in the 4/10 and 7/10 proposal. This is a summary spreadsheet of far more detailed conceptual estimates that I prepared for each phase. A few things about the estimates and summary:
This is a conceptual estimate, based on the conceptual scope and sketch described. Conceptual means each sub-item is subject to significant change, but taken in aggregate, we should be +/- 10-20% for each phase. If this project were to proceed, the design team would have developed “schematic design” (SD) documents (plans and specifications), then possibly “design development” (DD) documents and finally “construction document” (CD) level drawings. With each step we revisit and finetune an estimate, adding more detail and refining accuracy as we go. Based on scope defined and delivery method proposed, I think this is a pretty good estimate. I’ll remind folks that unlike most of the members of the DDA, I do and/or manage construction estimates on almost a daily basis.
Estimates include allowances (where I could not come up with a good number), contingencies (design phase and construction phase scope change), design and project management fees (based on reduced rates we proposed to charge), as well as operating costs during each phase (including allowance for property taxes, fees, utilities etc.). These are all encompassing “project cost” numbers. I may have underestimated water tap fees, but most of that is likely covered elsewhere, and would work itself out in the wash.
Phase 2 includes the cost of real estate purchase at $200k.
I included a “phase value” for each of the seven phases. This is not out of pocket cost for each phase. Rather, it includes all “funding sources”, including value of pro-bono/ volunteer time, in-kind investments etc. Furthermore, phase value includes more than just associated costs for work done in that phase. Rather, it also includes carrying cost associated for costs incurred in previous phases, and operating costs associated with that window in time. It may not be a purist accountants approach (remember, I’m an engineer, not an accountant), but I thought it was the easiest way to summarize value and cash flow required on one sheet of paper. Note that total “value” over the 3 year window we projected for project completion, total project phase value was about $2.4M. This includes the $200k for purchase price. If you subtract out the pro bono value of $120k and projected lease income of $280k thru 2012, you’re at about $2.0M. Furthermore subtract about $800k for tax credits and grants, and you’re down to about $1.2M for “investment value” in the property (investment that must be repaid). Note I may still be underestimating tax credits, but may also be overstating grants, but this was my best guess projection based on info that we’d heard from MHPN etc. Investments breaks down into:
o Venture Capital Investment of $342k – maybe call it $350k. My personal target was to have $400k available. We needed most of that up front to purchase the buildings outright. A hoped for negotiating point
Here’s the spreadsheet I included in the 4/10 and 7/10 proposal. This is a summary spreadsheet of far more detailed conceptual estimates that I prepared for each phase. A few things about the estimates and summary:
This is a conceptual estimate, based on the conceptual scope and sketch described. Conceptual means each sub-item is subject to significant change, but taken in aggregate, we should be +/- 10-20% for each phase. If this project were to proceed, the design team would have developed “schematic design” (SD) documents (plans and specifications), then possibly “design development” (DD) documents and finally “construction document” (CD) level drawings. With each step we revisit and finetune an estimate, adding more detail and refining accuracy as we go. Based on scope defined and delivery method proposed, I think this is a pretty good estimate. I’ll remind folks that unlike most of the members of the DDA, I do and/or manage construction estimates on almost a daily basis.
Estimates include allowances (where I could not come up with a good number), contingencies (design phase and construction phase scope change), design and project management fees (based on reduced rates we proposed to charge), as well as operating costs during each phase (including allowance for property taxes, fees, utilities etc.). These are all encompassing “project cost” numbers. I may have underestimated water tap fees, but most of that is likely covered elsewhere, and would work itself out in the wash.
Phase 2 includes the cost of real estate purchase at $200k.
I included a “phase value” for each of the seven phases. This is not out of pocket cost for each phase. Rather, it includes all “funding sources”, including value of pro-bono/ volunteer time, in-kind investments etc. Furthermore, phase value includes more than just associated costs for work done in that phase. Rather, it also includes carrying cost associated for costs incurred in previous phases, and operating costs associated with that window in time. It may not be a purist accountants approach (remember, I’m an engineer, not an accountant), but I thought it was the easiest way to summarize value and cash flow required on one sheet of paper. Note that total “value” over the 3 year window we projected for project completion, total project phase value was about $2.4M. This includes the $200k for purchase price. If you subtract out the pro bono value of $120k and projected lease income of $280k thru 2012, you’re at about $2.0M. Furthermore subtract about $800k for tax credits and grants, and you’re down to about $1.2M for “investment value” in the property (investment that must be repaid). Note I may still be underestimating tax credits, but may also be overstating grants, but this was my best guess projection based on info that we’d heard from MHPN etc. Investments breaks down into:
o Venture Capital Investment of $342k – maybe call it $350k. My personal target was to have $400k available. We needed most of that up front to purchase the buildings outright. A hoped for negotiating point
Points sent to each City Council member, p 6
would have been to sign purchase agreement with contingency on raising capital, giving us 60-120 days to secure say $300k, but we never got to discussing details with the DDA
o Commercial financing accounted for $576k. This first portion of this ($350k) was accounted for in the letter of interest from CSB. Key factor was getting a lease commitment for $4000/mo, which we had in the New Chelsea Market. The second installment ($226k) would have come when we were ready to go with the livery/ apartments. We could have leveraged the completed Mack/ Daniels buildings for this additional borrowing power, or made the push to get leases signed. We already had a verbal commitment for one of the 8 apartments. Worth noting, by the 3rd year we projected positive cash flow that would allow repayment to start, and in 4th year we projected making a big dent in debt reduction. If property were not sold first, I think we would have owned it free and clear in about 8 years, though the spreadsheet doesn’t carry that far out.
o In-kind investment (shows on spreadsheet as deferred payment) filled the balance, at about $286k. A big chunk of this was firmly but verbally committed from Scott and me on the design end, and from several contractor friends who were willing to invest a large portion of their labor, and in some cases material, in exchange for a proportionate share in the property. Conservatively, I’d say I had at least $150k accounted for already. I suspect we could have increased this component, but I think the DDA were already skeptical on our ability to make this approach work.
Tom Girard
o Commercial financing accounted for $576k. This first portion of this ($350k) was accounted for in the letter of interest from CSB. Key factor was getting a lease commitment for $4000/mo, which we had in the New Chelsea Market. The second installment ($226k) would have come when we were ready to go with the livery/ apartments. We could have leveraged the completed Mack/ Daniels buildings for this additional borrowing power, or made the push to get leases signed. We already had a verbal commitment for one of the 8 apartments. Worth noting, by the 3rd year we projected positive cash flow that would allow repayment to start, and in 4th year we projected making a big dent in debt reduction. If property were not sold first, I think we would have owned it free and clear in about 8 years, though the spreadsheet doesn’t carry that far out.
o In-kind investment (shows on spreadsheet as deferred payment) filled the balance, at about $286k. A big chunk of this was firmly but verbally committed from Scott and me on the design end, and from several contractor friends who were willing to invest a large portion of their labor, and in some cases material, in exchange for a proportionate share in the property. Conservatively, I’d say I had at least $150k accounted for already. I suspect we could have increased this component, but I think the DDA were already skeptical on our ability to make this approach work.
Tom Girard
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Comments and request made at City Council on September 14
September 14, 2010
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Jan Bernath, and I live at 238 Harrison Street. The last time I was before this body was less than a year ago when I presented 700 signatures of area residents who did not want the Longworth Property demolished. Since that time, a group of hard-working, knowledgeable, skilled Chelsea citizens submitted a proposal to buy the property in response to the DDA's RFP. It was declined on August 19.
You all have received an email from Cathy Bean today citing, in detail, the reasons the impending demolition of the Daniels Addition and the livery is an unwise decision. The categories of those reason are:
1.financial/fiscal responsibility
2.historic significance
3.environmental
4.public accountability
5.partnering for a maximum solution
6.improper operation of the DDA
It's my understanding that the Council has oversight of the DDA by approval of the:
1.overall budget
2.mayor's appointment of a nominee to fill a vacancy
3.bonds for long term debt
4.changes in the DDA charter
I respectfully urge a motion tonight to direct the city manager and staff to temporarily halt further work on the due care plan and application for a demolition permit. This would allow you to read, study and discuss the information provided to you by Cathy Bean.
You are the stewards of our community resources. As elected officials, you operate within the five ethical principles of the government of the City of Chelsea. Thank you for your service.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Jan Bernath, and I live at 238 Harrison Street. The last time I was before this body was less than a year ago when I presented 700 signatures of area residents who did not want the Longworth Property demolished. Since that time, a group of hard-working, knowledgeable, skilled Chelsea citizens submitted a proposal to buy the property in response to the DDA's RFP. It was declined on August 19.
You all have received an email from Cathy Bean today citing, in detail, the reasons the impending demolition of the Daniels Addition and the livery is an unwise decision. The categories of those reason are:
1.financial/fiscal responsibility
2.historic significance
3.environmental
4.public accountability
5.partnering for a maximum solution
6.improper operation of the DDA
It's my understanding that the Council has oversight of the DDA by approval of the:
1.overall budget
2.mayor's appointment of a nominee to fill a vacancy
3.bonds for long term debt
4.changes in the DDA charter
I respectfully urge a motion tonight to direct the city manager and staff to temporarily halt further work on the due care plan and application for a demolition permit. This would allow you to read, study and discuss the information provided to you by Cathy Bean.
You are the stewards of our community resources. As elected officials, you operate within the five ethical principles of the government of the City of Chelsea. Thank you for your service.
Comments and request made at City Council on September 14
Larry Bean 204 Washington
As a follow up to Jan’s request for a motion tonight to temporarily stop demolition activities, I would like to describe our plan to work with you on these issues which are very important to the City of Chelsea.
This will give you time to evaluate the information provided and ask us questions over the next two weeks.
We ask that you place this issue on your agenda for discussion during the next meeting on September 28. We suggest that you then continue these discussions with us and the DDA over the next couple weeks after that meeting.
During the October 12 meeting we will request that you make a motion to vote on blocking funding for demolition of these buildings and require the DDA to work with this Citizen’s group to rehabilitate the entire Longworth complex with promised money from within Chelsea and outside grant money.
As a follow up to Jan’s request for a motion tonight to temporarily stop demolition activities, I would like to describe our plan to work with you on these issues which are very important to the City of Chelsea.
This will give you time to evaluate the information provided and ask us questions over the next two weeks.
We ask that you place this issue on your agenda for discussion during the next meeting on September 28. We suggest that you then continue these discussions with us and the DDA over the next couple weeks after that meeting.
During the October 12 meeting we will request that you make a motion to vote on blocking funding for demolition of these buildings and require the DDA to work with this Citizen’s group to rehabilitate the entire Longworth complex with promised money from within Chelsea and outside grant money.
Friday, September 10, 2010
All the contacts needed for you to act on
Easy actions you can take to save the Longworth Complex
to Keep Our Past Present
If you are interested in supporting future development by adaptively re-using this important part of the historic downtown and our heritage,
Speak and Write Publicly & Contact Personally Your Local DDA and Council Members
LOCAL
Chelsea City Council — elected officials
Speak during the public comment section at the beginning of City Council, meeting September 14 (Tuesdays), 7 pm, held in the Board Room of the Washtington Street Education Center. (southern-most building, west side through double doors. Again, public comment is at the beginning of the meeting. Introduce yourself, state your address. It is best to prepare a written statement and to hand the statement to the clerk for filing.
Contact City Council members personally. Make an appointment during office hours: Monday and Friday 3:30pm to 5:00pm.
Jason Lindauer, Mayor — email: jlindauer@city-chelsea.org — 475-1771
Cheri Albertson, Mayor Pro-Tem — email: cheriaa@umich.edu — 475-8313
Ann Feeney — email: annfeeney@aol.com — Home Phone: 475-1493
Bill Holmberg -- email: holmbergwilliam@sbcglobal.net — 433-9733
Rod Anderson — email: rod.anderson@sbcglobal.net — 475-5898
Kent Martinez-Kratz — email: kkratz@jpsmail.org
Frank Hammer — email: beemerguy@fastmail.fm — 475-1828
John Hanifan, City Manager — email: jhanifan@city-chelsea.org — 475-1771 ext 201
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) — appointed officials
Attend the next DDA meeting on August 19 (Thursday) beginnning at 7:30 AM in the basement of City Hall. Speak during public comment at the end of the meeting.
Contact these DDA members by phone or at their place of business.
Jason Lindauer — mayor, City of Chelsea — City Hall, 305 South Main — 475-1771
Michael Jackson — owner of Vogel's and Foster's, 107 South Main — 475-1606
Mark Heydlauff — owner of Heydlauff's Inc, 113 North Main — 475-1221
Paul Frisinger — Realtor with Reinhart Realtor, 800 South Main — 433-2184
Robert Pierce — Dir. Chelsea Area Chamber of Commerce, 310 North Main — 475-1145
Jeff Holman — Property Manager, McKinley, Inc., 320 North Main — 734-769-8520, ext. 489
Pattie Schwarz — River Gallery, 120 North Main — 433-0826
Jim Myles — owner of Chelsea House Victorian Inn, 118 East Middle — 433-4663
Rob Winans — owner of Winans Jewelry, 108 South Main — 475-2622
Palmer Morrel-Samuels — EMPA, 111 South Main — 433-0344
Pat Cleary — owner of Cleary's Pub, 113 South — 475 1922
Peter C. Flintoft — attorney, Keusch, Flintoft,& Conlin, PC, 119 South Main —475-8671
John Hanifan — (Staff Liaison) City Manager — City Hall, 305 South Main — 475-1771 ext 201
The Chelsea Standard
Write a letter to editor to The Chelsea Standard stating your position. Send an electronic and hard copy to:
Daniel Lai – email: Dlai@heritage.com Editor, Chelsea Standard
Address: Heritage Newspapers, Chelsea Standard, 106 W Michigan Ave, Saline, MI 48176
Phone: 734 429 7380; FAX: 734 429 3621
You must include your address.
to Keep Our Past Present
If you are interested in supporting future development by adaptively re-using this important part of the historic downtown and our heritage,
Speak and Write Publicly & Contact Personally Your Local DDA and Council Members
LOCAL
Chelsea City Council — elected officials
Speak during the public comment section at the beginning of City Council, meeting September 14 (Tuesdays), 7 pm, held in the Board Room of the Washtington Street Education Center. (southern-most building, west side through double doors. Again, public comment is at the beginning of the meeting. Introduce yourself, state your address. It is best to prepare a written statement and to hand the statement to the clerk for filing.
Contact City Council members personally. Make an appointment during office hours: Monday and Friday 3:30pm to 5:00pm.
Jason Lindauer, Mayor — email: jlindauer@city-chelsea.org — 475-1771
Cheri Albertson, Mayor Pro-Tem — email: cheriaa@umich.edu — 475-8313
Ann Feeney — email: annfeeney@aol.com — Home Phone: 475-1493
Bill Holmberg -- email: holmbergwilliam@sbcglobal.net — 433-9733
Rod Anderson — email: rod.anderson@sbcglobal.net — 475-5898
Kent Martinez-Kratz — email: kkratz@jpsmail.org
Frank Hammer — email: beemerguy@fastmail.fm — 475-1828
John Hanifan, City Manager — email: jhanifan@city-chelsea.org — 475-1771 ext 201
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) — appointed officials
Attend the next DDA meeting on August 19 (Thursday) beginnning at 7:30 AM in the basement of City Hall. Speak during public comment at the end of the meeting.
Contact these DDA members by phone or at their place of business.
Jason Lindauer — mayor, City of Chelsea — City Hall, 305 South Main — 475-1771
Michael Jackson — owner of Vogel's and Foster's, 107 South Main — 475-1606
Mark Heydlauff — owner of Heydlauff's Inc, 113 North Main — 475-1221
Paul Frisinger — Realtor with Reinhart Realtor, 800 South Main — 433-2184
Robert Pierce — Dir. Chelsea Area Chamber of Commerce, 310 North Main — 475-1145
Jeff Holman — Property Manager, McKinley, Inc., 320 North Main — 734-769-8520, ext. 489
Pattie Schwarz — River Gallery, 120 North Main — 433-0826
Jim Myles — owner of Chelsea House Victorian Inn, 118 East Middle — 433-4663
Rob Winans — owner of Winans Jewelry, 108 South Main — 475-2622
Palmer Morrel-Samuels — EMPA, 111 South Main — 433-0344
Pat Cleary — owner of Cleary's Pub, 113 South — 475 1922
Peter C. Flintoft — attorney, Keusch, Flintoft,& Conlin, PC, 119 South Main —475-8671
John Hanifan — (Staff Liaison) City Manager — City Hall, 305 South Main — 475-1771 ext 201
The Chelsea Standard
Write a letter to editor to The Chelsea Standard stating your position. Send an electronic and hard copy to:
Daniel Lai – email: Dlai@heritage.com Editor, Chelsea Standard
Address: Heritage Newspapers, Chelsea Standard, 106 W Michigan Ave, Saline, MI 48176
Phone: 734 429 7380; FAX: 734 429 3621
You must include your address.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Minutes of DDA meeting August 19
CITY OF CHELSEA
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2010
DRAFT
Present:
Jackson, Cleary, Frisinger, Heydlauff, Holman, Lindauer, Morrel-Samuels, Myles Pierce, Schwarz, Winans, Hanifan
Absent:
Flintoft
Others Present:
Ann Feeney, Cheri Albertson, City Council; Bill Harmer, Chelsea District Library;Tom Girard, Tom Knox, Scott McElrath, Carey Church, Jane Cresswell, Mark Cresswell, Jim Drolett, Ric Detroyer, Diane Good, Elsie Swanberg
President Jackson opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. and asked the Board and guests to pause for a moment to remember Jeff Flintoft who passed away last week.
1.
Motion by Bob Pierce, second by Jason Lindauer to approve the minutes of the July 1, 2010 Board of Directors meeting. Motion carried
2.
Longworth Project process – Jackson noted that the RFP for the property had been extended in February. There has been one response from Chelsea Connection. Comments by Mark Heydlauff: There were good points in the proposal, looking to outside investor for funding, but those who looked at it concluded that it was not financially possible. Heydlauff asked that the project be looked at as a whole and not just a building. Motion by Morrel-Samuels, second by Myles to accept the proposal put forth by Chelsea Connection LLC to restore and develop the Longworth property. In a roll call vote, 10 “No”, 1 “Yes” (Morrel-Samuels) absent Flintoft. Discussion continued: Heydlauff: “I did not want to accept a proposal which would be voted down because there is not financial support. Let's look at the whole downtown. I want to work together with Historical Society, Preservation Chelsea and Chelsea Connection and not have them fighting us. The DDA funds must be spent as budgeted.” Myles suggested that a committee recommendation could have shortened the process when it was evident the DDA Board was not in support. Motion by Winans, second by Frisinger to begin demolition of the west showroom addition & the east concrete building of the Longworth property, leaving the center two-story building. The remaining building to be structurally secured for further study. The site is to be fenced and graded. Discussion: Frisinger: Once it is down, it can be studied and get ready for work in the spring. Drolett: Get a demolition permit with a stability plan and how will deal with rain water. Morrel-Samuels: Noted the presence of pollution on the site. Hanifan: The original bid by the contractor included dealing with the environmental requirements. They are obliged to not exacerbate environmental issues. Roll call Vote: “Yes – 9; “No” - 2, Morrel-Samuels, Myles, absent Flintoft.
3.
Motion by Frisinger, second by Pierce to solicit a professional service proposal from architectural firms for historic design and redevelopment concepts of the remaining two story structure. Proposal will address historic facade design and temporary front sidewalk to be designed & completed in the fall of 2010. The scope of the proposal to be determined following a meeting between representatives from the DDA. There will be a time line of 30 days included in the proposal. Motion carried “Yes” - 11; “no”, 0. Flintoft absent.
4.
Motion Heydllauff, second by Pierce to proceed with a proposal for professional services to continue planning and design concepts for the development of the area in and around the Longworth property, depot, alley behind Main Street businesses and the Congregational Church. The proposal will include a 30 day time line. Motion carried unanimously.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2010
DRAFT
Present:
Jackson, Cleary, Frisinger, Heydlauff, Holman, Lindauer, Morrel-Samuels, Myles Pierce, Schwarz, Winans, Hanifan
Absent:
Flintoft
Others Present:
Ann Feeney, Cheri Albertson, City Council; Bill Harmer, Chelsea District Library;Tom Girard, Tom Knox, Scott McElrath, Carey Church, Jane Cresswell, Mark Cresswell, Jim Drolett, Ric Detroyer, Diane Good, Elsie Swanberg
President Jackson opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. and asked the Board and guests to pause for a moment to remember Jeff Flintoft who passed away last week.
1.
Motion by Bob Pierce, second by Jason Lindauer to approve the minutes of the July 1, 2010 Board of Directors meeting. Motion carried
2.
Longworth Project process – Jackson noted that the RFP for the property had been extended in February. There has been one response from Chelsea Connection. Comments by Mark Heydlauff: There were good points in the proposal, looking to outside investor for funding, but those who looked at it concluded that it was not financially possible. Heydlauff asked that the project be looked at as a whole and not just a building. Motion by Morrel-Samuels, second by Myles to accept the proposal put forth by Chelsea Connection LLC to restore and develop the Longworth property. In a roll call vote, 10 “No”, 1 “Yes” (Morrel-Samuels) absent Flintoft. Discussion continued: Heydlauff: “I did not want to accept a proposal which would be voted down because there is not financial support. Let's look at the whole downtown. I want to work together with Historical Society, Preservation Chelsea and Chelsea Connection and not have them fighting us. The DDA funds must be spent as budgeted.” Myles suggested that a committee recommendation could have shortened the process when it was evident the DDA Board was not in support. Motion by Winans, second by Frisinger to begin demolition of the west showroom addition & the east concrete building of the Longworth property, leaving the center two-story building. The remaining building to be structurally secured for further study. The site is to be fenced and graded. Discussion: Frisinger: Once it is down, it can be studied and get ready for work in the spring. Drolett: Get a demolition permit with a stability plan and how will deal with rain water. Morrel-Samuels: Noted the presence of pollution on the site. Hanifan: The original bid by the contractor included dealing with the environmental requirements. They are obliged to not exacerbate environmental issues. Roll call Vote: “Yes – 9; “No” - 2, Morrel-Samuels, Myles, absent Flintoft.
3.
Motion by Frisinger, second by Pierce to solicit a professional service proposal from architectural firms for historic design and redevelopment concepts of the remaining two story structure. Proposal will address historic facade design and temporary front sidewalk to be designed & completed in the fall of 2010. The scope of the proposal to be determined following a meeting between representatives from the DDA. There will be a time line of 30 days included in the proposal. Motion carried “Yes” - 11; “no”, 0. Flintoft absent.
4.
Motion Heydllauff, second by Pierce to proceed with a proposal for professional services to continue planning and design concepts for the development of the area in and around the Longworth property, depot, alley behind Main Street businesses and the Congregational Church. The proposal will include a 30 day time line. Motion carried unanimously.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Letter to Mayor Lindauer read & delivered at City Council meeting August 24 by Cathy Bean on behalf of many others
Jason Lindauer, Mayor August 24, 2010
City of Chelsea
305 South Main Street
Suite 100
Chelsea, Michigan 48118
Dear Mayor Lindauer,
I am writing this letter to you not only for myself as a resident of Chelsea, and a member of Preservation Chelsea, but as a voice for the over 700 citizens who signed our petition saying they wanted the Livery and Daniels Showroom buildings in Chelsea saved from demolition. As you are well aware, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) voted last week to not accept the THIRD proposal submitted by The Chelsea Connection LLC that would have saved all these Nationally Significant Historic buildings from demolition. Forming an LLC was necessary after the first submission, in February 2010 for a collaborative effort by the DDA and Preservation Chelsea-Chelsea Connection Team (PC-CCT), was not well received. Clearly, there was no interest by the DDA for collaboration. At that time, PC-CCT was willing to work to seek funding and provide skilled assistance with the rehabilitation of the entire Longworth Complex.
Several members of the original PC-CCT including myself have grave concerns about the operation of the DDA which is under the direct supervision and control of the City of Chelsea Government. As directly quoted from State Act 197 of 1975 that allows for the formation of Downtown Development Authorities, “an authority shall be under the supervision and control of a board consisting of the chief executive officer of the municipality…”. We are assuming that you as the mayor of Chelsea would be considered the “chief executive officer” as mentioned in the act as well as your position as a voting city liaison member of the DDA. We believe that the DDA is operating outside the requirements of the State Act 197 of 1975 and the Chelsea City Ordinance, and have serious concerns about their unwillingness to work with the public and listen to what 700 + residents of Chelsea and the surrounding area have to say. They seem to be operating in a vacuum and are being allowed to make decisions that are detrimental to the rich historic legacy that makes Chelsea a place that people want to come to.
Several members of our group have received very different answers from City employees as well as City Council members about the relationship between the DDA and the City.
Because the City seems to clearly have some responsibility for the operation and existence of the DDA, we feel you, and not the DDA should respond to our concerns.
Therefore, we have the following questions about the operation of the DDA:
1) We need clarification, in writing about the relationship between the City of Chelsea and the Downtown Development Authority. Who specifically from the City of Chelsea (by name) is in charge and what power does the City have over the DDA and the decisions that they make?
City of Chelsea
305 South Main Street
Suite 100
Chelsea, Michigan 48118
Dear Mayor Lindauer,
I am writing this letter to you not only for myself as a resident of Chelsea, and a member of Preservation Chelsea, but as a voice for the over 700 citizens who signed our petition saying they wanted the Livery and Daniels Showroom buildings in Chelsea saved from demolition. As you are well aware, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) voted last week to not accept the THIRD proposal submitted by The Chelsea Connection LLC that would have saved all these Nationally Significant Historic buildings from demolition. Forming an LLC was necessary after the first submission, in February 2010 for a collaborative effort by the DDA and Preservation Chelsea-Chelsea Connection Team (PC-CCT), was not well received. Clearly, there was no interest by the DDA for collaboration. At that time, PC-CCT was willing to work to seek funding and provide skilled assistance with the rehabilitation of the entire Longworth Complex.
Several members of the original PC-CCT including myself have grave concerns about the operation of the DDA which is under the direct supervision and control of the City of Chelsea Government. As directly quoted from State Act 197 of 1975 that allows for the formation of Downtown Development Authorities, “an authority shall be under the supervision and control of a board consisting of the chief executive officer of the municipality…”. We are assuming that you as the mayor of Chelsea would be considered the “chief executive officer” as mentioned in the act as well as your position as a voting city liaison member of the DDA. We believe that the DDA is operating outside the requirements of the State Act 197 of 1975 and the Chelsea City Ordinance, and have serious concerns about their unwillingness to work with the public and listen to what 700 + residents of Chelsea and the surrounding area have to say. They seem to be operating in a vacuum and are being allowed to make decisions that are detrimental to the rich historic legacy that makes Chelsea a place that people want to come to.
Several members of our group have received very different answers from City employees as well as City Council members about the relationship between the DDA and the City.
Because the City seems to clearly have some responsibility for the operation and existence of the DDA, we feel you, and not the DDA should respond to our concerns.
Therefore, we have the following questions about the operation of the DDA:
1) We need clarification, in writing about the relationship between the City of Chelsea and the Downtown Development Authority. Who specifically from the City of Chelsea (by name) is in charge and what power does the City have over the DDA and the decisions that they make?
Letter to Lindauer, p 2
2) Are there bylaws for the operation of the DDA and if not, why not? According to City of Chelsea Ordinance No. 97, § 2.006, 10-15-1985, Sec. 12-45 “The board of the authority shall develop and approve bylaws for its operation. The bylaws and any amendments thereto shall be filed with the city council and if the city council takes no action on said bylaws of amendments thereto within 30 days after filing the same, said bylaws or amendments thereto shall be deemed approved.”
3) According to Act 197, “The business which the board may perform shall be conducted at the a public meeting of the board held in compliance with the open meetings act, 1976 PA267 MCL 15.261 to 15.275…“The board shall adopt rules consistent with the open meetings act…”This seems to say that they are required to comply with the Open Meetings Act. We want confirmation from the City that this is true and that they are held to this requirement as we have witnessed what we believe to be violations of this Act during DDA meetings. We also have concerns that the DDA is not complying with the City Ordinance with regards to their meetings.
4) According to the Act, “Members shall be appointed by the chief executive officer of the municipality, subject to the approval of the governing body of the municipality.” What is the written process by which new members are appointed to the DDA? How does the City ensure that there is a fair process involved in choosing new members that allows all interested businesses an opportunity to serve on the DDA in order to bring fresh ideas to its operation?
5) According to the Act, “of the members first appointed, an equal number of the members, as near as is practicable, shall be appointed to 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years…Thereafter, each member shall serve for a term of 4 years.” What are the written term limits for members of the DDA, are these limits enforced and by whom? If there are not term limits we feel that this is a very necessary addition and one required by the Act.
6) What is the written process by which potential new members qualifications are reviewed? How does the DDA and the City choose its new members? We have observed that there is very little turn over in the membership of the DDA and feel this is not appropriate and does not comply with the Act.
7) What is the written process by which the City ensures that the DDA has public accountability since they are using City tax dollars to act upon their decisions?
From our observations, there doesn’t seem to be any public accountability for their decisions and actions as they were able to ignore the over 700 signatures we collected from the public stating they did not want the Livery and Daniels Showroom buildings torn down.
8) Where is the site plan for Plan B (and any necessary amendments that have been made) for the Longworth Complex and when will it be made available to the public for review?
3) According to Act 197, “The business which the board may perform shall be conducted at the a public meeting of the board held in compliance with the open meetings act, 1976 PA267 MCL 15.261 to 15.275…“The board shall adopt rules consistent with the open meetings act…”This seems to say that they are required to comply with the Open Meetings Act. We want confirmation from the City that this is true and that they are held to this requirement as we have witnessed what we believe to be violations of this Act during DDA meetings. We also have concerns that the DDA is not complying with the City Ordinance with regards to their meetings.
4) According to the Act, “Members shall be appointed by the chief executive officer of the municipality, subject to the approval of the governing body of the municipality.” What is the written process by which new members are appointed to the DDA? How does the City ensure that there is a fair process involved in choosing new members that allows all interested businesses an opportunity to serve on the DDA in order to bring fresh ideas to its operation?
5) According to the Act, “of the members first appointed, an equal number of the members, as near as is practicable, shall be appointed to 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years…Thereafter, each member shall serve for a term of 4 years.” What are the written term limits for members of the DDA, are these limits enforced and by whom? If there are not term limits we feel that this is a very necessary addition and one required by the Act.
6) What is the written process by which potential new members qualifications are reviewed? How does the DDA and the City choose its new members? We have observed that there is very little turn over in the membership of the DDA and feel this is not appropriate and does not comply with the Act.
7) What is the written process by which the City ensures that the DDA has public accountability since they are using City tax dollars to act upon their decisions?
From our observations, there doesn’t seem to be any public accountability for their decisions and actions as they were able to ignore the over 700 signatures we collected from the public stating they did not want the Livery and Daniels Showroom buildings torn down.
8) Where is the site plan for Plan B (and any necessary amendments that have been made) for the Longworth Complex and when will it be made available to the public for review?
Letter to Lindauer, p 3
9) The DDA assured that they would work with other interested parties such as the Chelsea Historical Society to receive grant funding to help restore the one historic building of their present plan(which has been the same for more than a year and a half), but as of the present, no such contacts have been made. Will the DDA be following through on its promise to involve other interested parties?
10)During the public visioning session that the DDA did on April 29, 2009 the DDA stated that they would have more visioning sessions with the public where we could have input into the decision making process. As far as we know, these never occurred. If they did we would like to know when they occurred and what the written outcome of the meetings was. None of the members of our group were made aware of any such meetings.
11) Where is the “Due Care” plan required by the State Department of Natural Resources and Environment for the demolition of a site of contamination? If the DDA in fact tears down the Livery building, they are required to ensure that the contamination is not exposed to the public. They have proposed a gravel parking lot in place of the livery building, which is not acceptable in a State Due Care Plan. If a Due Care Plan is not developed and followed, the City will be liable for any contamination that is spread by any negligence by the DDA.
12) What is the written process by which the PC-CCT proposal for this site was reviewed? Who was on the subcommittee who reviewed the proposal? We want a copy of the written record of the review and decision making process used by the DDA to reject this proposal.
13) Since the enabling legislation for this and all DDAs includes the objective of preserving the historic character of downtown communities, and since all three of these buildings are a very significant part of Chelsea's and Michigan's history and contribute importantly to Chelsea's historic character, shouldn’t the DDA provide the public with alternatives to demolition that would include rehabilitation of all three buildings?"
14) How can the City Attorney sit as a voting member of the DDA without having a conflict of interest?
15) What was the written process and the decision making used to select a Landscape Architect instead of a Preservation Architect to draw up the proposed design for the Longworth Buildings. A Preservation Architect could have potentially presented a viable option to save all the buildings at a reasonable cost.
16) What are all the legal clearances permits, etc. that are required of the DDA before the demolition of the Livery and Daniels Showroom can move forward?
17) What is the written process for dissolving the DDA? Under what circumstances would this occur? In a City Council meeting on July 28, 2009, the City Attorney stated that the City could eliminate the DDA if so desired.
10)During the public visioning session that the DDA did on April 29, 2009 the DDA stated that they would have more visioning sessions with the public where we could have input into the decision making process. As far as we know, these never occurred. If they did we would like to know when they occurred and what the written outcome of the meetings was. None of the members of our group were made aware of any such meetings.
11) Where is the “Due Care” plan required by the State Department of Natural Resources and Environment for the demolition of a site of contamination? If the DDA in fact tears down the Livery building, they are required to ensure that the contamination is not exposed to the public. They have proposed a gravel parking lot in place of the livery building, which is not acceptable in a State Due Care Plan. If a Due Care Plan is not developed and followed, the City will be liable for any contamination that is spread by any negligence by the DDA.
12) What is the written process by which the PC-CCT proposal for this site was reviewed? Who was on the subcommittee who reviewed the proposal? We want a copy of the written record of the review and decision making process used by the DDA to reject this proposal.
13) Since the enabling legislation for this and all DDAs includes the objective of preserving the historic character of downtown communities, and since all three of these buildings are a very significant part of Chelsea's and Michigan's history and contribute importantly to Chelsea's historic character, shouldn’t the DDA provide the public with alternatives to demolition that would include rehabilitation of all three buildings?"
14) How can the City Attorney sit as a voting member of the DDA without having a conflict of interest?
15) What was the written process and the decision making used to select a Landscape Architect instead of a Preservation Architect to draw up the proposed design for the Longworth Buildings. A Preservation Architect could have potentially presented a viable option to save all the buildings at a reasonable cost.
16) What are all the legal clearances permits, etc. that are required of the DDA before the demolition of the Livery and Daniels Showroom can move forward?
17) What is the written process for dissolving the DDA? Under what circumstances would this occur? In a City Council meeting on July 28, 2009, the City Attorney stated that the City could eliminate the DDA if so desired.
Letter to Lindauer, p 4
We request that these questions be answered in writing by August 27, 2010. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 734-475-4648.
Cathy Bean
204 Washington Street
Chelsea, Michigan 48118
cc: Congressman Mark Schauer
Senator Liz Brater
Representative Pam Byrnes
Commissioner Mark Ouimet
Daniel Lai, Editor, Chelsea Standard
Cathy Bean
204 Washington Street
Chelsea, Michigan 48118
cc: Congressman Mark Schauer
Senator Liz Brater
Representative Pam Byrnes
Commissioner Mark Ouimet
Daniel Lai, Editor, Chelsea Standard
Saturday, August 21, 2010
DDA decision on August 19
The DDA did not accept the proposal of The Chelsea Connection. They also voted to domolish the Daniels Addition that fronts Main Street and the livery on Jackson Street. If you wish to comment on these decisions, please take some action now!
Easy actions you MUST take to save the Longworth Complex
to Keep Our Past Present & Still Standing
It's not over until the buildings are in the dump.
Speak and Write Publicly, Contact Personally on Local, County and State levels.
To be silent now sends the message that you agree with the DDA's decision that erodes historic downtown.
LOCAL
Chelsea City Council — elected officials
Speak during the public comment section at the beginning of City Council, meeting on August 24 (next Tuesday), 7 pm, held in the Board Room of the Washtington Street Education Center. (southern-most building, west side through double doors. Again, public comment is at the beginning of the meeting. Introduce yourself, state your address.
Contact City Council members personally. Make an appointment during office hours: Monday and Friday 3:30pm to 5:00pm.
Jason Lindauer, Mayor — email: jlindauer@city-chelsea.org — 475-1771
Cheri Albertson, Mayor Pro-Tem — email: cheriaa@umich.edu — 475-8313
Ann Feeney — email: annfeeney@aol.com — Home Phone: 475-1493
Bill Holmberg -- email: holmbergwilliam@sbcglobal.net — 433-9733
Rod Anderson — email: rod.anderson@sbcglobal.net — 475-5898
Kent Martinez-Kratz — email: kkratz@jpsmail.org
Frank Hammer — email: beemerguy@fastmail.fm — 475-1828
John Hanifan, City Manager — email: jhanifan@city-chelsea.org — 475-1771 ext 201
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) — appointed officials
Attend the next DDA meeting on August 19 (Thursday) beginnning at 7:30 AM in the basement of City Hall. Speak during public comment at the end of the meeting.
Contact these DDA members by phone or at their place of business.
Jason Lindauer — mayor, City of Chelsea — City Hall, 305 South Main — 475-1771
Michael Jackson — owner of Vogel's and Foster's, 107 South Main — 475-1606
Mark Heydlauff — owner of Heydlauff's Inc, 113 North Main — 475-1221
Paul Frisinger — Realtor with Reinhart Realtor, 800 South Main — 433-2184
Robert Pierce — Dir. Chelsea Area Chamber of Commerce, 310 North Main — 475-1145
Jeff Holman — Property Manager, McKinley, Inc., 320 North Main — 734-769-8520, ext. 489
Pattie Schwarz — River Gallery, 120 North Main — 433-0826
Jim Myles — owner of Chelsea House Victorian Inn, 118 East Middle — 433-4663
Rob Winans — owner of Winans Jewelry, 108 South Main — 475-2622
Palmer Morrel-Samuels — EMPA, 111 South Main — 433-0344
Pat Cleary — owner of Cleary's Pub, 113 South — 475 1922
Peter C. Flintoft — attorney, Keusch, Flintoft,& Conlin, PC, 119 South Main —475-8671
John Hanifan — (Staff Liaison) City Manager — City Hall, 305 South Main — 475-1771 ext 201
The Chelsea Standard
Write a letter to editor to The Chelsea Standard stating your position. Send an electronic and hard copy to:
Daniel Lai – email: Dlai@heritage.com Editor, Chelsea Standard
Address: Heritage Newspapers, Chelsea Standard, 106 W Michigan Ave, Saline, MI 48176
Phone: 734 429 7380; FAX: 734 429 3621
You must include your address.
COUNTY
Contact Mark Ouimet, County Commissioner
Phone: 734 663 0927
Email: ouimetm@ewashtenaw.org
mco3502@aol.com
STATE
Contact Pam Byrnes, Michigan State Representative
Toll-Free
(800) 645-1581
Email
pambyrnes@house.mi.gov
pgbyrnes@gmail.com
Contact Senator Liz Brater, Michigan Senate
Phone: 517 373 2406
Email SenLBrater@senate.michigan.gov
Easy actions you MUST take to save the Longworth Complex
to Keep Our Past Present & Still Standing
It's not over until the buildings are in the dump.
Speak and Write Publicly, Contact Personally on Local, County and State levels.
To be silent now sends the message that you agree with the DDA's decision that erodes historic downtown.
LOCAL
Chelsea City Council — elected officials
Speak during the public comment section at the beginning of City Council, meeting on August 24 (next Tuesday), 7 pm, held in the Board Room of the Washtington Street Education Center. (southern-most building, west side through double doors. Again, public comment is at the beginning of the meeting. Introduce yourself, state your address.
Contact City Council members personally. Make an appointment during office hours: Monday and Friday 3:30pm to 5:00pm.
Jason Lindauer, Mayor — email: jlindauer@city-chelsea.org — 475-1771
Cheri Albertson, Mayor Pro-Tem — email: cheriaa@umich.edu — 475-8313
Ann Feeney — email: annfeeney@aol.com — Home Phone: 475-1493
Bill Holmberg -- email: holmbergwilliam@sbcglobal.net — 433-9733
Rod Anderson — email: rod.anderson@sbcglobal.net — 475-5898
Kent Martinez-Kratz — email: kkratz@jpsmail.org
Frank Hammer — email: beemerguy@fastmail.fm — 475-1828
John Hanifan, City Manager — email: jhanifan@city-chelsea.org — 475-1771 ext 201
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) — appointed officials
Attend the next DDA meeting on August 19 (Thursday) beginnning at 7:30 AM in the basement of City Hall. Speak during public comment at the end of the meeting.
Contact these DDA members by phone or at their place of business.
Jason Lindauer — mayor, City of Chelsea — City Hall, 305 South Main — 475-1771
Michael Jackson — owner of Vogel's and Foster's, 107 South Main — 475-1606
Mark Heydlauff — owner of Heydlauff's Inc, 113 North Main — 475-1221
Paul Frisinger — Realtor with Reinhart Realtor, 800 South Main — 433-2184
Robert Pierce — Dir. Chelsea Area Chamber of Commerce, 310 North Main — 475-1145
Jeff Holman — Property Manager, McKinley, Inc., 320 North Main — 734-769-8520, ext. 489
Pattie Schwarz — River Gallery, 120 North Main — 433-0826
Jim Myles — owner of Chelsea House Victorian Inn, 118 East Middle — 433-4663
Rob Winans — owner of Winans Jewelry, 108 South Main — 475-2622
Palmer Morrel-Samuels — EMPA, 111 South Main — 433-0344
Pat Cleary — owner of Cleary's Pub, 113 South — 475 1922
Peter C. Flintoft — attorney, Keusch, Flintoft,& Conlin, PC, 119 South Main —475-8671
John Hanifan — (Staff Liaison) City Manager — City Hall, 305 South Main — 475-1771 ext 201
The Chelsea Standard
Write a letter to editor to The Chelsea Standard stating your position. Send an electronic and hard copy to:
Daniel Lai – email: Dlai@heritage.com Editor, Chelsea Standard
Address: Heritage Newspapers, Chelsea Standard, 106 W Michigan Ave, Saline, MI 48176
Phone: 734 429 7380; FAX: 734 429 3621
You must include your address.
COUNTY
Contact Mark Ouimet, County Commissioner
Phone: 734 663 0927
Email: ouimetm@ewashtenaw.org
mco3502@aol.com
STATE
Contact Pam Byrnes, Michigan State Representative
Toll-Free
(800) 645-1581
pambyrnes@house.mi.gov
pgbyrnes@gmail.com
Contact Senator Liz Brater, Michigan Senate
Phone: 517 373 2406
Email SenLBrater@senate.michigan.gov
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
.jpg)
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Updated Response, p 1
Updated Initial Response
To RFP DDA-001
Former Longworth Plating Site
Submitted: 7-14-2010
The Chelsea Connection, LLC
Introduction:
This document supersedes two previous documents submitted by Preservation Chelsea - Chelsea Connection Team (PC-CCT) on 2-18-10 (dated 2-16-10) and by The Chelsea Connection, LLC (TCC) (dated 4-15-10). It includes supplemental and/or amended information as well as much of the original text from those documents.
Late Breaking (post-printing) Updates/ Errata:
• Chelsea Area Historic Society has submitted a Letter of Intent to lease 2000 SF within The Chelsea Connection complex. Letter has been added to the Appendix.
• Conceptual floor plans of first and second floor were added to the Appendix. Plans show general location of planned uses. Final plan will change significantly as concepts are further refined. If all leases are executed as proposed, The Chelsea Connection will be more than 50% occupied.
• The enclosed proposal erroneous states that only 15-20 parking spaces could be developed along Jackson Street, east of existing Depot parking. It appears 20-25 spaces could be added easily, and up to 34 could be added if additional trees are removed.
To RFP DDA-001
Former Longworth Plating Site
Submitted: 7-14-2010
The Chelsea Connection, LLC
Introduction:
This document supersedes two previous documents submitted by Preservation Chelsea - Chelsea Connection Team (PC-CCT) on 2-18-10 (dated 2-16-10) and by The Chelsea Connection, LLC (TCC) (dated 4-15-10). It includes supplemental and/or amended information as well as much of the original text from those documents.
Late Breaking (post-printing) Updates/ Errata:
• Chelsea Area Historic Society has submitted a Letter of Intent to lease 2000 SF within The Chelsea Connection complex. Letter has been added to the Appendix.
• Conceptual floor plans of first and second floor were added to the Appendix. Plans show general location of planned uses. Final plan will change significantly as concepts are further refined. If all leases are executed as proposed, The Chelsea Connection will be more than 50% occupied.
• The enclosed proposal erroneous states that only 15-20 parking spaces could be developed along Jackson Street, east of existing Depot parking. It appears 20-25 spaces could be added easily, and up to 34 could be added if additional trees are removed.
Updated Response, p 2
Updated Initial Response
To RFP DDA-001
Former Longworth Plating Site
Submitted: 7-14-2010
The Chelsea Connection, LLC
Contents:
Letter of Interest ..... 4
Project Overview ....... 7
Proposed Uses ...........7
Conceptual Size .........9
Economic Impact ....... 10
Management Plan for Purchase l1
Compensation for the City of Chelsea 12
Other Benefits for the Residents of the City of Chelsea 12
Financial Plan/ Capability 14
Proposer Information (Amended) 17
Firm Name and Contact Information 17
Ownership Organization/ Structure 17
Parent Company (if Applicable) 17
Officers and Principals ..... 17
Firm Size ................ 18
Authorized Representative 18
In-House Capabilities and Services 18
Percentage by Firm if Joint Venture 18
Relevant Development Experience: 18
Initial Response - Additional Information 20
To RFP DDA-001
Former Longworth Plating Site
Submitted: 7-14-2010
The Chelsea Connection, LLC
Contents:
Letter of Interest ..... 4
Project Overview ....... 7
Proposed Uses ...........7
Conceptual Size .........9
Economic Impact ....... 10
Management Plan for Purchase l1
Compensation for the City of Chelsea 12
Other Benefits for the Residents of the City of Chelsea 12
Financial Plan/ Capability 14
Proposer Information (Amended) 17
Firm Name and Contact Information 17
Ownership Organization/ Structure 17
Parent Company (if Applicable) 17
Officers and Principals ..... 17
Firm Size ................ 18
Authorized Representative 18
In-House Capabilities and Services 18
Percentage by Firm if Joint Venture 18
Relevant Development Experience: 18
Initial Response - Additional Information 20
Updated Response, p 3
Design and Proposed Use Considerations .......... 20
Parking: ........................................ 20
Demolition vs. Renovation of Daniels Showroom ... 21
Demolition vs. Renovation of Livery Building .... 22
Sustainable Design and Construction ............. 23
PC-CCT / TCC Organization: ...................... 24
Chelsea Connection Team Profiles................. 27
Schedule and Phasing ............................ 35
Core Values and Resulting Goals: ................ 37
Chelsea Connection – Prospective Tenant Profiles: 39
Supporting Information Appendix.................. 43
Letters ......................................... 43
Supplemental Information .........................43
Parking: ........................................ 20
Demolition vs. Renovation of Daniels Showroom ... 21
Demolition vs. Renovation of Livery Building .... 22
Sustainable Design and Construction ............. 23
PC-CCT / TCC Organization: ...................... 24
Chelsea Connection Team Profiles................. 27
Schedule and Phasing ............................ 35
Core Values and Resulting Goals: ................ 37
Chelsea Connection – Prospective Tenant Profiles: 39
Supporting Information Appendix.................. 43
Letters ......................................... 43
Supplemental Information .........................43
Updated Response, p 4
Letter of Interest
To: John Hanifan, City Manager City of Chelsea 305 S. Main City of Chelsea MI, 48118
From: The Chelsea Connection, LLC
Date: July 14, 2010
Re: Former Longworth Plating Site – RFP DDA-001
Introduction
The Chelsea Connection, LLC (TCC) is pleased to submit our Updated Initial Response to RFP DDA-001.
We propose to purchase the site and buildings from the Chelsea DDA for $200,000, and to redevelop the property through the adaptive reuse of most of the existing structures, as detailed herein.
Immediate Action Requested
We respectfully request that the DDA take immediate action to approve the sale, and to expedite necessary transactions for several reasons, including:
• Barring a surprising new development, there does not appear to be another party interested in developing the property. Prior to Kincaid-Henry announcing their intention to submit a proposal at the April 2010 DDA meeting, the DDA had a proposal on the table to begin negotiations on a sale of the property to TCC.
• Lack of positive response (to our proposals) and action by the DDA has made securing tenants, venture capital and even grants extremely difficult. We and our potential partners need assurance that the DDA is serious about working with TCC to positively impact Chelsea through the adaptive reuse of these buildings.
• Roofs and other components of the building envelope throughout the complex continue to leak into the structures, further degrading their condition, increasing renovation costs, and risking spread of contaminants.
• Delays will risk that another construction season will be lost without any positive action being taken to redevelop the site and return it to the tax roles.
• One of our major prospective tenants, The New Chelsea Market intends to relocate as soon as possible and is committed to moving their business before the holidays 2010. If immediate
To: John Hanifan, City Manager City of Chelsea 305 S. Main City of Chelsea MI, 48118
From: The Chelsea Connection, LLC
Date: July 14, 2010
Re: Former Longworth Plating Site – RFP DDA-001
Introduction
The Chelsea Connection, LLC (TCC) is pleased to submit our Updated Initial Response to RFP DDA-001.
We propose to purchase the site and buildings from the Chelsea DDA for $200,000, and to redevelop the property through the adaptive reuse of most of the existing structures, as detailed herein.
Immediate Action Requested
We respectfully request that the DDA take immediate action to approve the sale, and to expedite necessary transactions for several reasons, including:
• Barring a surprising new development, there does not appear to be another party interested in developing the property. Prior to Kincaid-Henry announcing their intention to submit a proposal at the April 2010 DDA meeting, the DDA had a proposal on the table to begin negotiations on a sale of the property to TCC.
• Lack of positive response (to our proposals) and action by the DDA has made securing tenants, venture capital and even grants extremely difficult. We and our potential partners need assurance that the DDA is serious about working with TCC to positively impact Chelsea through the adaptive reuse of these buildings.
• Roofs and other components of the building envelope throughout the complex continue to leak into the structures, further degrading their condition, increasing renovation costs, and risking spread of contaminants.
• Delays will risk that another construction season will be lost without any positive action being taken to redevelop the site and return it to the tax roles.
• One of our major prospective tenants, The New Chelsea Market intends to relocate as soon as possible and is committed to moving their business before the holidays 2010. If immediate
Updated Response, p 5
action is taken, TCC can move TNCM into their new home in time. If immediate action is not taken, TNCM will be forced to exercise one of their other relocation options, possibly pulling out of downtown Chelsea.
Recommended Action Plan:
• DDA leases the Former Longworth Complex to The Chelsea Connection LLC for a nominal monthly fee, with a modest security deposit of $1000. This will afford TCC to begin necessary stabilization, selective interior demolition, and design of renovations necessary to move the New Chelsea Market into the first floor of the Mack Building as outlined above. TCC will assume responsibility for utilities, maintenance and security of the facility, including insurance. Target: Complete short-term lease agreement by 7-23-10.
• DDA and TCC negotiate final terms on sale of property to TCC. Target: Complete sales agreement and execute sale by 9-1-10
• TCC will negotiate final terms and conditions with The New Chelsea Market, subject to successful closing by TCC. Target for completion: 8-1-10.
• TCC will develop their operating structure and terms for venture capital and in-kind investments. Target for completion: 8-1-10 draft, 8-15-10 final
• TCC will immediately mount a venture capital campaign and finalize commercial financing to raise the balance of funds necessary to complete the sale and phase 3 renovations. (See Phasing Plan) Target for completion: 9-1-10.
• TCC will develop and maintain a critical path project schedule to ensure timely move of The New Chelsea Market, and completion of the overall project.
Recommended Motions at 7-15-10 DDA Meeting:
• …that the Chelsea DDA negotiate terms and conditions to sell the Former Longworth Plating Site to the Chelsea Connection LLC for the sum of $200,000.
• … that the DDA lease the Former Longworth Plating Site to The Chelsea Connection, LLC, with terms and conditions to be negotiated by 7-23-10.
Summary
This Updated Initial Response is our third proposal to the RFP DDA-001. Hopefully, the third time will be the charm, and we (you, the DDA and The Chelsea Connection, LLC) can forge a productive relationship.
Recommended Action Plan:
• DDA leases the Former Longworth Complex to The Chelsea Connection LLC for a nominal monthly fee, with a modest security deposit of $1000. This will afford TCC to begin necessary stabilization, selective interior demolition, and design of renovations necessary to move the New Chelsea Market into the first floor of the Mack Building as outlined above. TCC will assume responsibility for utilities, maintenance and security of the facility, including insurance. Target: Complete short-term lease agreement by 7-23-10.
• DDA and TCC negotiate final terms on sale of property to TCC. Target: Complete sales agreement and execute sale by 9-1-10
• TCC will negotiate final terms and conditions with The New Chelsea Market, subject to successful closing by TCC. Target for completion: 8-1-10.
• TCC will develop their operating structure and terms for venture capital and in-kind investments. Target for completion: 8-1-10 draft, 8-15-10 final
• TCC will immediately mount a venture capital campaign and finalize commercial financing to raise the balance of funds necessary to complete the sale and phase 3 renovations. (See Phasing Plan) Target for completion: 9-1-10.
• TCC will develop and maintain a critical path project schedule to ensure timely move of The New Chelsea Market, and completion of the overall project.
Recommended Motions at 7-15-10 DDA Meeting:
• …that the Chelsea DDA negotiate terms and conditions to sell the Former Longworth Plating Site to the Chelsea Connection LLC for the sum of $200,000.
• … that the DDA lease the Former Longworth Plating Site to The Chelsea Connection, LLC, with terms and conditions to be negotiated by 7-23-10.
Summary
This Updated Initial Response is our third proposal to the RFP DDA-001. Hopefully, the third time will be the charm, and we (you, the DDA and The Chelsea Connection, LLC) can forge a productive relationship.
Updated Response, p 6
regarding the redevelopment of the Former Longworth Plating Site. To simplify review of the TCC proposal, we have compiled the information into a single document. See Recent Background on Proposed Redevelopment and RFP DDA-001 in the Appendix for additional discussion.
Although the attached proposal includes numerous refinements, our proposal has not changed substantially since our 4-15-10 submission. TCC, LLC continues to believe that our plan is in the best long-term interest of the City of Chelsea and its residents. Our goals are to:
• Connect Downtown and Clocktown
• Create a new downtown Chelsea destination
• Maximize fiscal responsibility for the City of Chelsea
See A Discussion on Mission, Values and Vision in the Appendix for more comprehensive discussion on shared values and goals.
Please let us know (see contact information on p. 17) if you need any additional information of have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Girard – President, The Chelsea Connection LLC
Michelle McClellan – President, Preservation Chelsea
Jan Bernath – Director, Preservation Chelsea
Scott McElrath –TCC Design Team Co-Coordinator
Joe Merkel – member, PC-CCT
Attachments:
• Project Overview
• Proposer Information
• Updated Initial Response - Additional Information
• Updated Initial Response - Supporting Information (appendices)
Although the attached proposal includes numerous refinements, our proposal has not changed substantially since our 4-15-10 submission. TCC, LLC continues to believe that our plan is in the best long-term interest of the City of Chelsea and its residents. Our goals are to:
• Connect Downtown and Clocktown
• Create a new downtown Chelsea destination
• Maximize fiscal responsibility for the City of Chelsea
See A Discussion on Mission, Values and Vision in the Appendix for more comprehensive discussion on shared values and goals.
Please let us know (see contact information on p. 17) if you need any additional information of have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Girard – President, The Chelsea Connection LLC
Michelle McClellan – President, Preservation Chelsea
Jan Bernath – Director, Preservation Chelsea
Scott McElrath –TCC Design Team Co-Coordinator
Joe Merkel – member, PC-CCT
Attachments:
• Project Overview
• Proposer Information
• Updated Initial Response - Additional Information
• Updated Initial Response - Supporting Information (appendices)
Updated Response, p 7
Project Overview
Proposed Uses
Overview: Our general philosophy on proposed uses has not changed substantially. However, securing a major tenant for the Daniels Addition and first floor of Mack Building has allowed our vision to crystallize.
Prospective Tenant Profiles describe program (space, infrastructure) requirements of committed and potential tenants. See Additional Information. Proposed uses within specific building areas and other building modifications are described below.
Daniels Showroom (1940s Addition): First floor: The New Chelsea Market – retail grocer, with focus on organic, natural and specialty foods and local produce and other goods. Limited eye-catching retail display from local artisans. Small Chelsea Information Kiosk. Historic photos and other secured displays. Open flow to Mack Building. Rooftop: Rooftop patio garden housing a portion of the dining space for a Restaurant. Egress: New public stair with artistic flair. Elevator installation will be accounted for in the layout, but may be deferred, pending review of ADA variance request.
Mack Building: First Floor: Continuation of The New Chelsea Market - Indoor market, local produce, local artisans, small retail shopping, and eventually, a modest commercial kitchen. Second Floor: Portion of restaurant (overlapping from showroom rooftop patio), with performance space for live music or theatre. In the interim, second flood may be rented for special events.
Mack-Livery Connector: Egress passage for Mack and Livery Buildings. On-grade loading dock with air, fire and security locks for both buildings. Stair from floor level to back alley grade allows access to refuse (dumpsters/ recycling) in rear, and possibly public access from nearby Church to parking along railroad.
Livery Building: First floor: The New Craftsmen Workshop - working primarily on larger scale projects - in wood, metal, stone – furniture, furnishings, art, building components. Enclosed, secure parking for residents/ tenants – approximately 8 spaces. Secure, compartmentalized storage for building tenants - bike storage for residents, stock storage for retail shops, and chair and table storage for flexible use space. Public restrooms. Second floor: Approximately 8 studio apartments with an urban edge. High quality but clean, minimalist look. Second floor also includes 500 to 1000 SF of shared collaborative living space, laundry. Premium energy efficiency and sustainability are focal points of design and marketing for these units. Third floor: New community rooftop garden for tenants – approximately 500 SF enclosed, and 500 SF covered patio, surrounded by 4000 SF roof garden (green roof).
Proposed Uses
Overview: Our general philosophy on proposed uses has not changed substantially. However, securing a major tenant for the Daniels Addition and first floor of Mack Building has allowed our vision to crystallize.
Prospective Tenant Profiles describe program (space, infrastructure) requirements of committed and potential tenants. See Additional Information. Proposed uses within specific building areas and other building modifications are described below.
Daniels Showroom (1940s Addition): First floor: The New Chelsea Market – retail grocer, with focus on organic, natural and specialty foods and local produce and other goods. Limited eye-catching retail display from local artisans. Small Chelsea Information Kiosk. Historic photos and other secured displays. Open flow to Mack Building. Rooftop: Rooftop patio garden housing a portion of the dining space for a Restaurant. Egress: New public stair with artistic flair. Elevator installation will be accounted for in the layout, but may be deferred, pending review of ADA variance request.
Mack Building: First Floor: Continuation of The New Chelsea Market - Indoor market, local produce, local artisans, small retail shopping, and eventually, a modest commercial kitchen. Second Floor: Portion of restaurant (overlapping from showroom rooftop patio), with performance space for live music or theatre. In the interim, second flood may be rented for special events.
Mack-Livery Connector: Egress passage for Mack and Livery Buildings. On-grade loading dock with air, fire and security locks for both buildings. Stair from floor level to back alley grade allows access to refuse (dumpsters/ recycling) in rear, and possibly public access from nearby Church to parking along railroad.
Livery Building: First floor: The New Craftsmen Workshop - working primarily on larger scale projects - in wood, metal, stone – furniture, furnishings, art, building components. Enclosed, secure parking for residents/ tenants – approximately 8 spaces. Secure, compartmentalized storage for building tenants - bike storage for residents, stock storage for retail shops, and chair and table storage for flexible use space. Public restrooms. Second floor: Approximately 8 studio apartments with an urban edge. High quality but clean, minimalist look. Second floor also includes 500 to 1000 SF of shared collaborative living space, laundry. Premium energy efficiency and sustainability are focal points of design and marketing for these units. Third floor: New community rooftop garden for tenants – approximately 500 SF enclosed, and 500 SF covered patio, surrounded by 4000 SF roof garden (green roof).
Updated Response, p 8
Livery Building Rear Addition: Demolished and replaced with impervious parking, a portion of which may be covered.
Consideration for an Outfitter: TCC recognizes RFP DDA-001 specifically listed: outfitter retail, housing, restaurant and parking. While our proposal addresses the last three, our preliminary investigation indicates an “outfitter” may not be an ideal fit for the site for the following reasons:
• While thousands of outdoor seekers travel through Chelsea to enjoy Waterloo and Pinckney Recreation Areas on summer weekends, Chelsea is home to Aberdeen Bike and Outdoors, Pamida, and even hardware stores that carry some outfitter-related items. PC-CCT/ TCC believes that it is in the best interest of the City to strengthen these existing businesses by encouraging them to carry additional items that might otherwise be sold at an Outfitter store, and helping them develop this new market accordingly.
• Parking at or near the site is not conducive to vehicles towing trailers – a frequent occurrence for prospective outfitter customers traveling through Chelsea.
Consideration for an Outfitter: TCC recognizes RFP DDA-001 specifically listed: outfitter retail, housing, restaurant and parking. While our proposal addresses the last three, our preliminary investigation indicates an “outfitter” may not be an ideal fit for the site for the following reasons:
• While thousands of outdoor seekers travel through Chelsea to enjoy Waterloo and Pinckney Recreation Areas on summer weekends, Chelsea is home to Aberdeen Bike and Outdoors, Pamida, and even hardware stores that carry some outfitter-related items. PC-CCT/ TCC believes that it is in the best interest of the City to strengthen these existing businesses by encouraging them to carry additional items that might otherwise be sold at an Outfitter store, and helping them develop this new market accordingly.
• Parking at or near the site is not conducive to vehicles towing trailers – a frequent occurrence for prospective outfitter customers traveling through Chelsea.
Updated Response, p 9
Conceptual Size
This section has not changed since the Initial Response. Occupied Area impact on existing and proposed structures, all in approximate, gross square feet (SF):
Showroom/ Daniels Addition:
• First floor: no change, 760 SF
• Roof garden: new 760 SF of summer-occupied outdoor patio space
Mack Building:
• Basement/ Pit: existing gross area approximately 400 SF. Portion may be retained for mechanical space, pending further assessment of contaminants and water table. Otherwise, area will be filled/ sealed.
• First floor: no change in gross area, 3800 SF, split between two levels.
• Second floor: little or no change in gross area, 3800 SF. New open stair will reduce net area.
Mack-Livery Connector:
• First floor: no change in covered area, 730 SF. Gross enclosed area will be increased from 240 SF to 500 SF to accommodate 30 foot truck on-grade loading dock with new air lock.
Livery Building:
• First floor: no change in gross area, 5100 SF
• Tank Room Addition: Demolition of 1500 SF
• Second floor: no change in gross area, 5100 SF
• Third floor: new enclosed area, 500 SF, additional covered patio: 500 SF
Total Area
• Covered Footprint: Reduced from 11,900 SF to 10,400 SF
• Enclosed Floor Area: Reduced from 20,300 SF to 19,600 SF
Note: "Enclosed Floor Area" is floor space enclosed by walls and roof, but not necessarily conditioned space (eg. parking area in First floor of Livery is enclosed but not conditioned). "Covered footprint" is total roof area, or "bird's eye view" area.
This section has not changed since the Initial Response. Occupied Area impact on existing and proposed structures, all in approximate, gross square feet (SF):
Showroom/ Daniels Addition:
• First floor: no change, 760 SF
• Roof garden: new 760 SF of summer-occupied outdoor patio space
Mack Building:
• Basement/ Pit: existing gross area approximately 400 SF. Portion may be retained for mechanical space, pending further assessment of contaminants and water table. Otherwise, area will be filled/ sealed.
• First floor: no change in gross area, 3800 SF, split between two levels.
• Second floor: little or no change in gross area, 3800 SF. New open stair will reduce net area.
Mack-Livery Connector:
• First floor: no change in covered area, 730 SF. Gross enclosed area will be increased from 240 SF to 500 SF to accommodate 30 foot truck on-grade loading dock with new air lock.
Livery Building:
• First floor: no change in gross area, 5100 SF
• Tank Room Addition: Demolition of 1500 SF
• Second floor: no change in gross area, 5100 SF
• Third floor: new enclosed area, 500 SF, additional covered patio: 500 SF
Total Area
• Covered Footprint: Reduced from 11,900 SF to 10,400 SF
• Enclosed Floor Area: Reduced from 20,300 SF to 19,600 SF
Note: "Enclosed Floor Area" is floor space enclosed by walls and roof, but not necessarily conditioned space (eg. parking area in First floor of Livery is enclosed but not conditioned). "Covered footprint" is total roof area, or "bird's eye view" area.
Updated Response, p 10
Economic Impact
The proposed Chelsea Connection development will have significant, positive, short and long-term impact on the Chelsea area, as described in the Initial Response. While most of the discussion there remains relevant, by transferring ownership immediately to The Chelsea Connection LLC, the financial picture for the DDA/ City changes, but still remains very strong.
Economic Impact on City of Chelsea and its Residents:
• The DDA will receive full purchase price at closing, offsetting much of the investment the DDA has made in the site.
• Sale will eliminate need for the DDA to invest additional money in the redevelopment of the site, and eliminate utility and insurance associated with the property.
• Property tax income: TCC, LLC’s ultimate goal for The Chelsea Connection development is to return it to the tax roles, at an appropriate value.
• By transferring ownership of the property to The Chelsea Connection LLC, the DDA/ City will reduce/ eliminate the liability of owning a vacant, unprotected property.
Economic Impact on Chelsea Area Workforce and Prospective Business Occupants:
• Job Stability and Growth
o Over the next 3-5 years, the Chelsea Connection will offer short-term construction work to many area workers. With area construction activity in recession, these opportunities will make a big difference to workers in this struggling industry. The TCC will maximize the use of local labor and skilled trades.
o Unlike new construction in which much of the cost is for materials produced elsewhere, the labor-intensive nature of rehabilitation of historic buildings results in relatively more of the money expended for local labor, keeping salary dollars in the community longer. Dollars spent on imported materials circulate through a community only once, but dollars spent on local labor circulate through a community six times.
o The TCC projects that The Chelsea Connection will be host to the equivalent of approximately 20 long-term, full-time (40 hour/week) jobs, measured based on work performed on-site.
• Small business/ talent incubator. The New Craftsmen Workshop and portions of the Mack building offer potential to “soft-start” new businesses by offering low-cost terms that allow tenants to ramp up their costs as business grows. With the support of these low-cost start-up opportunities, tenants in these areas can focus on growing their business. Potentially these growing businesses may outgrow these spaces and move into higher value properties in the area that are currently underutilized (empty portions of Clocktower complex, former Bookcrafters, former Federal Screw Works, former UAW hall, former Post Office etc.). Mack second floor performance space offers budding area talent new opportunities to perform.
The proposed Chelsea Connection development will have significant, positive, short and long-term impact on the Chelsea area, as described in the Initial Response. While most of the discussion there remains relevant, by transferring ownership immediately to The Chelsea Connection LLC, the financial picture for the DDA/ City changes, but still remains very strong.
Economic Impact on City of Chelsea and its Residents:
• The DDA will receive full purchase price at closing, offsetting much of the investment the DDA has made in the site.
• Sale will eliminate need for the DDA to invest additional money in the redevelopment of the site, and eliminate utility and insurance associated with the property.
• Property tax income: TCC, LLC’s ultimate goal for The Chelsea Connection development is to return it to the tax roles, at an appropriate value.
• By transferring ownership of the property to The Chelsea Connection LLC, the DDA/ City will reduce/ eliminate the liability of owning a vacant, unprotected property.
Economic Impact on Chelsea Area Workforce and Prospective Business Occupants:
• Job Stability and Growth
o Over the next 3-5 years, the Chelsea Connection will offer short-term construction work to many area workers. With area construction activity in recession, these opportunities will make a big difference to workers in this struggling industry. The TCC will maximize the use of local labor and skilled trades.
o Unlike new construction in which much of the cost is for materials produced elsewhere, the labor-intensive nature of rehabilitation of historic buildings results in relatively more of the money expended for local labor, keeping salary dollars in the community longer. Dollars spent on imported materials circulate through a community only once, but dollars spent on local labor circulate through a community six times.
o The TCC projects that The Chelsea Connection will be host to the equivalent of approximately 20 long-term, full-time (40 hour/week) jobs, measured based on work performed on-site.
• Small business/ talent incubator. The New Craftsmen Workshop and portions of the Mack building offer potential to “soft-start” new businesses by offering low-cost terms that allow tenants to ramp up their costs as business grows. With the support of these low-cost start-up opportunities, tenants in these areas can focus on growing their business. Potentially these growing businesses may outgrow these spaces and move into higher value properties in the area that are currently underutilized (empty portions of Clocktower complex, former Bookcrafters, former Federal Screw Works, former UAW hall, former Post Office etc.). Mack second floor performance space offers budding area talent new opportunities to perform.
Updated Response, p 11
Management Plan for Purchase
While PC-CCT was not in financial position to purchase the subject property when our Initial Response was discussed at the 3-18-10 DDA meeting, we have retrenched, and have formed The Chelsea Connection, LLC (TCC) to purchase and develop the property. See Financial Plan and Scheduling and Phasing.
Within PC-CCT, we quickly identified approximately 15% of the venture capital necessary to purchase the property. Pending contingent approval to sell by the DDA, TCC, LLC will raise the remainder of the capital necessary to close, and complete renovation necessary to occupy the first floor of the Daniels and Mack buildings.
TCC has received a letter of interest from Chelsea State Bank (CSB) expressing interest in the project, and willingness to finance a portion of the project. CSB's level of commitment is contingent on execution of appropriate due diligence, and upon a firm commitment(s) to lease a portion of the site. TCC has acquired letters of intent from two tenants, including what we consider to be a cornerstone tenant (4000SF retail), and a 2000SF workshop and the first of eight apartments in the Livery Building. We also have a verbal/email commitment for the first of eight apartments in the Livery Building. See Prospective Tenant Profiles in Appendix.
PC-CCT/TCC, LLC will work actively to raise a large portion of the needed capital through grants and tax credits. So far PC-CCT is 1:2 on grant awards, having received a modest $1000 toward raising awareness and education about the role these buildings played in the evolving transportation industry. Our second grant proposal was submitted in late March 2010 and recently rejected. Based on information acquired since 2-18-10, we realize we have greatly understated these two funding sources, especially tax credits.
As a for-profit LLC, our ability to raise funding through community-wide campaigns will be somewhat limited compared to the 2-18-10 Initial Response. Fundraising will be targeted to completion of the green roof that surrounds the third floor sunroom and patio on the Livery Building.
TCC has had serious discussions with ASTI Environmental (see appendix), which has extensive experience in environmental work, and associated tax credits and grants.
Purchase Activities and Milestones
• DDA approves (by vote, hopefully at 7-15-10 meeting) to sell property to TCC, LLC, pending successful negotiation of terms and conditions.
• DDA/ City leases the complex to TCC, LLC to afford access for design and additional investigation especially in the Mack and Daniels Buildings; roof repairs, selective demolition, and clean-up to Mack and Daniels Buildings; and temporary protection and stabilization throughout the complex.
While PC-CCT was not in financial position to purchase the subject property when our Initial Response was discussed at the 3-18-10 DDA meeting, we have retrenched, and have formed The Chelsea Connection, LLC (TCC) to purchase and develop the property. See Financial Plan and Scheduling and Phasing.
Within PC-CCT, we quickly identified approximately 15% of the venture capital necessary to purchase the property. Pending contingent approval to sell by the DDA, TCC, LLC will raise the remainder of the capital necessary to close, and complete renovation necessary to occupy the first floor of the Daniels and Mack buildings.
TCC has received a letter of interest from Chelsea State Bank (CSB) expressing interest in the project, and willingness to finance a portion of the project. CSB's level of commitment is contingent on execution of appropriate due diligence, and upon a firm commitment(s) to lease a portion of the site. TCC has acquired letters of intent from two tenants, including what we consider to be a cornerstone tenant (4000SF retail), and a 2000SF workshop and the first of eight apartments in the Livery Building. We also have a verbal/email commitment for the first of eight apartments in the Livery Building. See Prospective Tenant Profiles in Appendix.
PC-CCT/TCC, LLC will work actively to raise a large portion of the needed capital through grants and tax credits. So far PC-CCT is 1:2 on grant awards, having received a modest $1000 toward raising awareness and education about the role these buildings played in the evolving transportation industry. Our second grant proposal was submitted in late March 2010 and recently rejected. Based on information acquired since 2-18-10, we realize we have greatly understated these two funding sources, especially tax credits.
As a for-profit LLC, our ability to raise funding through community-wide campaigns will be somewhat limited compared to the 2-18-10 Initial Response. Fundraising will be targeted to completion of the green roof that surrounds the third floor sunroom and patio on the Livery Building.
TCC has had serious discussions with ASTI Environmental (see appendix), which has extensive experience in environmental work, and associated tax credits and grants.
Purchase Activities and Milestones
• DDA approves (by vote, hopefully at 7-15-10 meeting) to sell property to TCC, LLC, pending successful negotiation of terms and conditions.
• DDA/ City leases the complex to TCC, LLC to afford access for design and additional investigation especially in the Mack and Daniels Buildings; roof repairs, selective demolition, and clean-up to Mack and Daniels Buildings; and temporary protection and stabilization throughout the complex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
