HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/02/21 Item 10a COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 10 ,a
Meeting Date 2/21/84
ITEM TITLE: Report: Relocation and Restoration of the Greg Rogers House
a . Resolution /L3 / Appropriating funds from Community
Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $52,000
SUBMITTED BY: Community Developmen Director j ; 5ths Vote: Yes X No )
vpf
Planning Director
Building and Housi g Director f
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
At a recent meeting, the City Council requested a study to determine the
feasibility of relocating the Greg Rogers house from its present site to
another, yet to be chosen. The house itself is on the City's Historical Sites
List. Architecturally, the house is built in the "Orchard" style. This design
was quite common at the turn of the century. Many examples of this type of
house can be seen in the City and the surrounding areas. Again within the
historical context, a brief summary of the house and family that occupied it
follows: (excepted from the Chula Vista Booklet of Historic Sites)
"Gregoire Rogers and his family migrated west from Ohio in 1909.
They settled in Chula Vista and built their home, 'Bay Breeze' , at
699 "E" Street in 1910.
"When Chula Vista incorporated in 1911 , Greg Rogers was elected to
serve as one of the City's first councilmen. Shortly thereafter, he
and Warner Edmonds founded the community's first financial
institution, the People's State Bank of Chula Vista.
"The Greg Rogers school and adjacent community park, east of Oleander
Avenue, were named in recognition of Mr. Rogers and his contributions
to the City's early development."
The staff has studied the question of relocation and several sites suggested
for the house. The results of that study are considered within the context of
historic significance and fiscal prudence.
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the cost to move and restore the house, it does
not appear to be cost effective. However, the intangible historical value of
the house is difficult to measure in economic terms. As a result, a
resolution has been proposed to allocate block grant funds to move and save
the house if, in your judgment, the historical value of the house justifies
the expenses of its move and restoration.
Page 2, Item 10 ,
Meeting Date 2/21/84
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission
expressed their desire to save the home.
DISCUSSION:
One characteristic of this study is to balance the feasibility of relocation
against the house's obvious historic value. Obviously, this house has value
as a significant part of the City's history. On the other hand, certain
expense will have to be incurred in order to relocate the house and to
maintain it. Additionally, several sites were reviewed in identifying
possible final location for the structure. In short, the issues in
determining the recommendation were:
1 . Site selection
2. Cost of relocation; namely,
a. moving costs
b. utility costs
c. site preparation and foundation costs
d. rehabilitation costs
3. Program and/or function of the house in its new location
4. Sponsorship of the house, in terms of:
a. maintenance costs for the structure and grounds
b. maintenance of the program or purpose for the house's continued
exi stence
The balance of this report will focus briefly on each of the four main issues
and consequent sub-issues.
1 . Site Selection
City-owned sites were reviewed to negate the cost for acquisition of
land. Three sites were chosen:
a. Eucalyptus Park at Fourth and "D"; and
b. Friendship Park next to the City's Library; and, finally,
c. Memorial Park adjacent to the Community Center on Park Way.
Each of the sites are located within 2 miles of the present location of
the house. Each of the sites were located in parks; therefore, providing
a complimentary setting to the architecture of the house. Each of the
sites could accommodate the house with approximately the same costs in
site preparation. Each site would qualify the project for Community
Development Block Grants. The disadvantages of the sites are that they
Page 3, Item 10 , a
Meeting Date 2/21/84
are all small and are already heavily programmed with a number of uses.
Of all three sites Eucalyptus Park has the best chance of accommodating
the move of the building. Memorial Park would be the least desirable site
since it is already programmed with major uses for its size.
2. Costs for Relocation
Inquiries were made to house movers in the area and an average price for
moving the structure is $18,500 excluding utility and relocation costs.
That is, the basic structure of the house could be moved without the
additions that were made to it. The cost to move the structure down City
streets is $50 per mile. All the sites reviewed are within 2 miles of the
existing location of the house.
Utility costs, in the interest of time, are approximated by staff and are
to be verified by SDG&E and Pacific Bell . The costs involved are based
upon removing overhead wires on "E" Street and Broadway as the alternate
possible routes are selected for each site. These costs are then
estimated at $25,000 to $30,000, for discussion purposes.
Site preparation and foundation costs are based on current construction
costs. They involve grading, utilities trenching, on-site improvements,
and off-site improvements. The average cost is estimated at $15 per
square foot. The size of the parcel is estimated at a minimum of 40'x100'
or 4000 square feet. This cost is then approximated at $60,000.
Rehabilitation costs for the structure are dependent upon the use for the
facility itself. Since programming, then, has not been determined, only a
range of value for rehabilitation can be estimated. That range of costs
includes structural renewal of the building, possible reroofing, possible
rewiring and replumbing. A minimum estimate is $60,000 ($15/sq. ft. at
4000 sq. ft. ) for structural rehabilitation not including the addition of
amenities that relate to the specific use proposed for the facility.
Finish work and amenities may add as much as $60,000 or more. The range
of costs are, therefore, approximated at $60,000 to $120,000. This does
not take into account volunteer labor, who must be supervised to meet the
standards appropriate for restoration of a historic structure.
3. Program/function of the house in its new location. This question must be
addressed in a preliminary way. The costs are associated with programming
the house as a historical museum, or as a community meeting center, or
both.
The last issue; namely, sponsorship of the house, leads to a host of concerns
related to the continued maintenance of relocated structure and by whom. If
the City places the rehabilitated structure in its capital budget, there is
still the concern of ongoing maintenance which is not an eligible block grant
expense. While it may be possible to get a non-profit organization to assist
in maintaining the structure, it is not something that can be relied upon for
planning purposes. It is estimated the City's annual building maintenance
/?• //t.fhP,
Page 4, Item 10 ,a
Meeting Date 2/21/84
cost will be $6,700 for a fully programmed community center to $1 ,500 for a
historical museum with limited public hours.*
In short, the costs range from $163,000 to $228,000 for relocation and
rehabilitation of the house and $1 ,500 to $6,700 for ongoing maintenance. By
comparison, a new structure of comparable size is estimated to cost $67,000
with maintenance cost about the same as the restored building.
The house has historical value by virtue of the honored gentleman that lived
there. It is representative of a style of architecture in days gone by. It
can be a contribution to a nascent, growing concern for a search for ties to
Chula Vista's past.
All of these concerns can be interpreted as benefits. But they cannot be
quantified. There are no costs associated with a search for a City's past.
On the other hand, staff concludes the costs for relocation and rehabilitation
appears prohibitive. This expense can be programmed, however, if Council
concludes that historical merit of the structure justifies the expense of
saving it.
Staff has prepared an alternative, a resolution that requests the use of
Community Development Block Grant funds or other funding sources
(State/Federal grants) that staff has not had the opportunity to investigate
at this time. If the Council so desires, as an interim measure and to remove
the house from the site, since it is scheduled for demolition this month, the
house could be moved to one of three sites listed earlier in this report.
(The School District does not wish to have the house on any of its sites. )
The cost for such a move is $18,500, $30,000 for overhead utility moving and
$3,500 for cribbing and fencing for total of $52,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of relocation and rehabilitation falls within a
range of $163,000 to $228,000. Block grant funds are available in the amount
of $98,088. The subject resolution would provide $52,000 for moving the
house. Restoration costs could be obtained from future block grant funds
and/or other State and Federal grant sources.
* The $1 ,500 and $6,700 figures represent only estimated utility and
custodial expenses annually. Maintenance and repair costs if the use is
for a community center could be anticipated at 5 and 10-year cycles
(interior painting during 6th year, $2,500; refinish floors, 6th year,
$2,500; repaint exterior, 10th year, $8,650).
If the use is for museum purposes, the maintenance and repair cycles would
be on an estimated 10-year basis. (Exterior painting, $8,650, $2,500 for
interior painting, and $2,500 for floor refinishing,1_ - - t
/2/?_
WPC 0773X
/141/51if 9"
E•
}
Form No. F-229
12/73
CERTIFICATE OF CITY/DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Certification of Unappropriated Balance
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the money required for the
appropriation of funds for the purpose set forth in the attached
resolution is available in the Treasury, or is anticipated to
come into the Treasury, and is otherwise unappropriated.
Amount $ Fund
Purpose
Bidder
Director of Finance
The City of Chula Vista
Date By
Certification of Unencumbered Balance
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the indebtedness and obligation
to be incurred by the contract or agreement authorized by the
attached resolution can be incurred without the violation of any
of the provisions of the Charter of the City of Chula Vista, or
the Constitution or the laws of the State of California, that
sufficient monies have been appropriated for the purpose of said
contract, that sufficient monies to meet the obligations of the
contract are actually in the Treasury, or are anticipated to come
into the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation from which
the same are to be drawn, and that said monies now actually in
the Treasury, together with the monies anticipated to come into
the Treasury, to the credit of said appropriation are otherwise
unencumbered.
Amount Not to Exceed $ 52,000.00
Account 631-6310-BG145
9--Director of Finance
The City of Chula Vista
Date 2/29/84 By
Fund 631-6310-BG120 Dept./Activity Community Development
Purpose Relocation of the Greg Rngers House
Bidder
Certificate No. 55