Moving Forward: Thompson Community Center
This presentation to the Union Board of Selectmen outlines the need for revitalizing the Thompson Community Center by exploring various options, cost assessments, citizen feedback, and future actions. The community values the center and seeks a mixed-use approach that includes a business space, senior housing, and community center functions. The report details the findings of structural assessments, maintenance costs, and public preferences towards retaining, renovating, or repurposing the center.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Presentation to Union Board of Selectmen Moving Forward: Thompson Community Center July, 2022 MCOG
Summary of Reports The Future of the Thompson Community Center Complex -2019. It concluded: The Community values the building and its activities Citizens are concerned about costs A need for Mixed Use including use as a Community Center, Business Space and Senior Housing Revisit structure of the TCC Board Capital Needs Assessment Report-2018 Lead: Merriam Architects Thorough analysis that included: Site Structural Mechanical/Electrical Environmental Lead, asbestos, mold, water, septic Conclusion: $1.3-1.5 million MCOG
Summary of Reports-Cont. Committee for the Future of the TCC completed a detailed review, presenting 5 options to the community (3/22): Retain and Renovate the building Senior Housing Lease or Sale Sell to a Rehabilitation developer Demolish the Buildings Sell on the Open Market Annual Maintenance Cost: just under $196,000 as is MCOG
Summary of Action June 14/22 Referendum: Option 1 was selected with 34% of the vote Option 1 205 (retain and renovate) Option 2 160 (senior housing) Option 3 87 (sell to a rehabilitation group) Option 4 40 (Demo) Option 5 105 (Sell) Tier 1 expenditures were approved ($285-465,000): Roof, Safety and entryway repairs, further engineering Tier 2 expenditures (not approved) $490-852,000: Boiler System, septic, walls and bathrooms Tier 3 expenditures (not approved) $115,000: Kitchen, bathrooms, lift, floor, internet July 5/22 Selectmen Action July/22 Citizen Petition; July 19; November petition vote MCOG
Some Positive Observations Location, Location, Location Two solid buildings that can not be replaced at today s construction costs A unique gymnasium and community meeting space that will be hard to duplicate Old Schools make very good apartments or condos--there are examples all over the State Activities have gone on in the building since 1989, successfully 76% of voters wanted to retain, develop for senior housing, or sell to a specialist in rehabilitation saving the buildings MCOG
Some Negative Observations Community Catch-22: passion for the uses in and history of the Center, but not at any cost---Everyone cares. However: There are roof issues that need attention, among some other deterioration issues, buildings don t heal themselves; Can t know what you want to do without understanding more detailed costs and a the strategy for repair; Can t attract interest in the building without a plan of action Can t identify alternative funding sources without knowing what you want to do, can t do that without knowing the market; MCOG
One Possible Strategy Assumption: try to pull the overall vote into a consolidated action plan MCOG
Goal Statement: Preserve the integrity of the Thompson Goal Statement: Preserve the integrity of the Thompson Community Center Community Center at no or minimal costs at no or minimal costs to the taxpayer to the taxpayer Assumption: There is a way to make money on one side of the building to pay for the other side one side will require private redevelopment. Assumption: There is no market for office or similar business space in today s market. Possibly for artisan/professional trades. A market study is necessary or just move forward with a housing strategy. Assumption: There is a housing market for seniors of all incomes; Rental, condo-ownership, or cooperative options. MCOG
Action Steps Complete Physical Assessment (roof, walls, floor structure); update costs Implement stabilization recommendations Clarify the role of the TCC Identify clear paths for funding by use, including housing Prepare the remainder of the building for presentation to the market; seek Development Partners through interview or RFP process Based on use and partners, seek funding MCOG
Complete Assessment Define the areas, primarily in the Original Section, that the community would like to retain Identify updated costs for repair, move forward with deeper assessment where necessary Understand all of the common spaces and how they are related or to be preserved if the buildings were separated (furnace, ADA, security) Develop a pre and post-development Capital Improvements Program MCOG
Implement stabilization recommendations Utilize funds set aside to: 1. Provide detail to the costs outlined in the 3/29 and Merriam Report with course of action 2. Establish a schedule for improvements: Basic stabilization (e.g. roof; furnace; floors in community center) Safety and Fire Marshall s office compliance All others contingent on development partners and rehab at that time 3. Identify funds to be raised and potential sources MCOG
Clarify the role of the TCC Is the TCC a public entity or a Private corporation? If public, what are the rules for development and decision making that do not require multiple votes by the community. If private, what roles or power does the community want to cede to the TCC in order to expedite future development If there are unresolved political steps in the process, finding development partners will be difficult. It must be a predictable process. MCOG
Identify clear paths for funding by use, including housing There are multiple paths for funding sources with different requirements: Historic Tax Credits (building eligibility) Housing Tax Credits (more than 50% at between 40-60% of median income, rest is market) Tax Increment Financing (local, can establish greater local control on housing choice, spin funding towards the Community Center) USDA Rural Development (https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/community- facilities) EDA (job creation) CDBG Funding (housing or business development) Maine Housing Community Partnership Program (80-120% of median income) Foundations (Libra, JT Gorman, E. Sewell Foundation, Maine Community Foundation- Knox County) MCOG
Prepare the Development side of the building for presentation to the market Establish Development Program for the Thompson Street Center and stick to it Develop list of potential partners based on selected strategies Establish a Selection program: RFQ process RFP process Other Conduct Interviews Make a Selection, Enter into Joint Development Agreement Ps: back to the TCC, what is the decision tree? MCOG
Demographic Bullets of Note There are 1003 households in Union: 44% of those households are 60 years or older Of those 11.4% are males with no spouse 51% are females with no spouse Replacement housing at Thompson creates new housing supply elsewhere There are 94 Union residents with difficulty living independently, 39 of those over 65 MCOG
Aging in Place in Union Committee . The mission of this committee is identified as the ability to stay in your home safely as you age. The committee vision is Union is an age friendly community. We are a community that helps meet the changing needs of its aging residents by connecting them with services and support that allows them to stay in their own homes. MCOG
2021 Affordability Index Income Needed to Afford Median Home Price - Annual Househ olds Unable to Afford Median Home Househol ds Unable to Afford Median Home (%) Income Needed to Afford Median Home Price - Hourly Affordable Homes Sold Home Price Affordable to Median Income Median Home Price Median Income Name Appleton 2021 Year Affordability Unaffordable Index 6 $221,265 390 68.9% $93,171 $44.79 0.69$320,000 $64,423 Hope 2021 Unaffordable 66.7%$105,05 9 $264,088 427 $50.51 0.68$390,000 $71,138 5 Union 2021 Unaffordable 17 $239,914 518 51.3% $67,121 $32.27 0.98$244,000 $65,997 Warren 2021 Unaffordable 22 $248,827 908 57.0% $77,824 $37.42 0.89$280,000 $69,160 MCOG
Floor Layouts MCOG
