2004-08-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1932 August 16, 2004 would be on the November 2004 ballot, and that he, himself, must respond to all questions relating to the matter over the next three months. He said he appreciated Mr. McCarthy's questions at this point and that he will cooperate to answer them. Elsie Glickert, 6712 Ezel Avenue, described herself as a member of the University City Historical Society and then pointed out that in the preamble to the study for the renovation of the City Hall building it stated the plan was submitted and approved by the Historical Society, but "not one word has ever come to the Historical Society about this study and the proposal." Ms. Welsch asked the City Manager to provide status information on "where their work on this issue stands and where the Historic Preservation Commission is proceeding" and "what contact has been made with the Historical Society." She said she thought both groups had seen at least the first draft, if not the final draft, and thinks both should be involved. Mr. Ollendorff answered that the draft plan contained several errors which were corrected through meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission, and one of those errors was the misstatement that it was received by the Historical Society for review. The preamble should have read that it was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission; this correction was made in the final copy along with several others. He said that on June 15, 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission passed the following Resolution:"That the City develop a master plan based upon the assessment prepared by Tirvers Associates to prioritize and phase the needed building renovations. The master plan will permit City Council in consultation with Historic Preservation Commission to prioritize needed renovations. The prepared documents will be carried to the design/development phase with the appropriate independent budget estimates." Mr. Ollendorff explained that was the action taken by the Council earlier this evening, to authorize the contract to go to the design/developmet phase. "The rationale for this recommendation is to ensure that the work is not undertaken piece meal fashion and to develop a long range vision for the building. He said the information to go on the ballot included the entire financing of the project so that it does not have to be accomplished in phases. The Historic Preservation Commission's concern was that the job would be done piece meal and the wrong pieces would be done in the wrong order. The voters are being asked to consider the necessary funding to carry out the entire project and the contract approved this evening for the design documents also specifies that the sequencing to each item must be included. Ms. Welsch said she wanted more information about the Historical Society's role in this matter, and Mr. Ollendorff, confusing the Historical Preservation Commission with the Historical Society, responded that the Historical Society were "clearly not pleased that they had not been kept up-to-date" on this matter. Ms. Welsch then asked what the rationale was for not involving them in the process, and Mr. Ollendorff, believing many members of the Historic Preservation Commission also belonged to the Historical Society, responded that he thought "cross-membership took care of that," so he made no plan to add an another layer of information. Ms. Welsch asserted concern because Page 11