1 September 17, 2012 TO: FROM: Art House Board of Trustees and Amy Craft, Executive Director Art

House Property Task Force. Members: Alan Forman, Gloria Ferris, Bill Graham, Joe Mestnik, Rachel Tatter, Amy Craft, Megan Meister, Councilman Brian Cummins. City of Cleveland representative: Dan Musson. facilitatorFacilitator: Bobbi Reichtell. Recommendation from Property Task Force regarding buildings at 3119 and 3201 Denison Avenue
Formatted: Left: 0.6", Right: 0.6", Top: 0.6", Bottom: 0.6"

RE:

RECOMMENDATION: Based on the research done by the Property Task Force on the possible redevelopment of 3119 and 3201 Denison Avenue for alternative productive uses, the Task Force recommends the demolition of both properties and the development of the land to enhance programming at Art House. (See detailed Conclusions and Recommendation on Page 3.) This memo will outline for the Art House (AH) Board of Trustees the process undertaken by the Property Task Force, the research carried out, the conclusions that have been reached, and the recommendation that is being made to the AH Board of Trustees. The Task Force Members and Process: The Property Task Force was comprised of individuals who were selected because they are trusted and respected leaders in the community with special expertise in relevant areas. Alan Forman is active in historic preservation and community organizations and is a business owner; Gloria Ferris is a well-respected leader and strong spokesperson for the Brooklyn Centre neighborhood; Joe Mestnik is an architect and community activist; Bill Graham is a business owner (B & R Machine) and civic leader; Donna Nolen-Brooks was invited but could not serve because of time constraints. All are members of the Stockyard Clark Fulton Brooklyn Centre Advisory Council except Joe who is a leader of the Brooklyn Centre Community Association. Councilman Brian Cummins, Rachel Tatter, Amy Craft, and Megan Meister also participated in meetings and research but refrained from decision making at the last meeting. These individuals met from June to September 2012 to research and develop a set of recommendations for 1 or 2 financially feasibllefeasible projects or uses for the vacant properties owned by Art House. They understood their role was to make recommendations to the Art House Board and that the board would make the final decision in consultation with the key funder, the City of Cleveland. The minutes of their meetings are attached for review.

Focus and Scope of Research: Over the past 10 years many ideas had been put forth for the properties from artists gallery space and residences to office space for the American Indian Education Center and Brooklyn Centre Community Association. At the first meeting Rachel Tatter, Art House Board cChair , made it clear that because the economy and fundraising potential of non-profits have been depressed, and most community arts organizations are struggling to maintain existing programming and funding, Art House does not have the

2 internal capacity to develop the buildings. Their focus is to provide high quality visual and creative arts programming for youth and adults and that they are firmly committed to continuing to serve this community into the future. The properties as they exist now present a risk and liability to Art House and they have been informed by their insurance agent that the property insurance for the two homes will be dropped as of November 2012. It is imperative that the Board develop a viable strategy for them, with assistance from the Task Force. It was made clear that everything is open for discussion, but the final recommendations to the board on their use must be financially and programmatically viable. Councilman Cummins stated that his top priority was to insure that Art House be financially viable so that it can continue to provide services to the community. Possible Redevelopment Concepts Pursued: At the first meeting in June, the Task Force toured the properties, reviewed renovation outline and cost estimate by a historic preservation specialist, and brainstormed possible uses for the properties. The ideas generated included: 1. renovation of one of the properties by the American Indian Education Center (AIEC) or use for their programming; (1 vote) 2. development of an artist in residence program with gallery space; (5 votes) 3. redevelopment by and for Hispanic organizations; and (4 votes) 4. as a fallback last option, demolition of the two houses and creation of gardens, sculpture park, outdoor classroom area for Art House and parking area. (5 votes) Based on these ideas, the Task Force discussed the pros and cons of each and then voted for the three project concepts they were most interested in. (seeSee details in attached June meeting minutes). Each concept had 2 to 4 members of the Task Force volunteer to research the feasibility of the concept through meetings with agencies and organizations that might carry it out, and then develop a short summary that would include the concept, what organization would do it, what their capacity was, the project budget and the possible funding sources. Research was then carried out from June to mid-August and at its August 14th meeting the Task Force heard reports backs from the research teams. See attached minutes and matrix of research results from August 14th meeting. It had been determined through the research and meetings that the American Indian Education Center was interested in one of the houses and AIEC director Robert Roche and board member Lucy Miler attended the August meeting. They however did not come forward with a written proposal as requested and it was determined at the September 13th meeting that they were not a viable option. Conclusions and Recommendation: After meetings with numerous non-profit organizations, the Cleveland Foundation, additional partnership conversations with Alenka Blenko at Convivium /St. Josaphat and Baldwin Wallace University on the priority redevelopment strategy of developing an artist in residence facility and art gallery, the, the Property Task Force determined that there was no organization that had any interest or ability in developing this. None of the Hispanic organizations consulted (Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Esperanza, Hispanic Contractors Association) had an interest in developing the building. The AIEC did not follow through with a written proposal or plans. Therefore, despite the Property Task Forces original strong support for historic preservation of at least one of the buildings, it was concluded at the September 13, 2012 meeting that neither have a viable redevelopment opportunity. Therefore, the Property Task Force

Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Font color: Orange, Highlight Formatted: Font color: Orange

3 recommends the demolition of both homes with careful removal of architectural details and foundation stone for use in an art park and outdoor studio/classroom and that any parking created should utilize environmentally sustainable practices (e.g. bio swale, permeable paving, rain garden, etc.). The next steps after the Property Task Force recommendation to the Board is for the Board to make their decision, then hold a community meeting in the third week of October, a new MOU would be drafted by the City and distributed, and then the City will hold a meeting of the consulting parties.

4 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Art House Property Task Force Meeting June 7, 2012 Minutes of First Meeting Task Force Members in Attendance: Alan Forman, Gloria Ferris, Bill Graham, Joe Mestnik, Rachel Tatter, Amy Craft, Megan Meister, Councilman Brian Cummins. City of Cleveland representative: Dan Musson Facilitator: Bobbi Reichtell Task Force Members Not Able to Attend: Donna Nolen-Brooks Minutes of Meeting: The Art House Property Task Force began its work with a tour of the two properties lead by Amy Craft, Executive Director of Art House. Joe Mestnik and Brian Cummins pointed out areas of special concern related to the foundation of 3201 Denison Avenue due to a car crashing into the house. After the tour, the Task Force went back to the Art House building and started the meeting. Amy Craft welcomed the group to Art House and asked people to introduce themselves. The Task Force members introduced themselves and told about what civic activities they are engaged in, where they live and where their business is located. Rachel Tatter, the Art House Board President thanked everyone for participating and stated the purpose of the Task Force and timeframe for its work. She explained the challenging situation that Art House is in, owning the two historic but deteriorated buildings. She said Art House has a four-member board, none of whom were with the organization when it started or when the properties were acquired. They have reached a critical juncture because as they exist now, they presentthey present a risk and liability to Art House and they have been informed by their insurance agent that the property insurance for the two homes will be dropped by as of November 2012. Art House, like many small community arts organizations around the country, is working hard just to keep the programming going. In this difficult economic period, with foundation and donations reduced, they are not in a financial position to develop the properties as originally envisioned by the founding director and original board. She stated the strong desire by Art House (AH) to be a good neighbor and for the Task Force to recommend a viable strategy for the buildings or land that would be an asset to the neighborhood through some other entity developing it. Councilman Brian Cummins gave a history of the situation and included actions over the past several years to explore an arrangement in which the Wirth House (3119 Denison) would either be utilized by the Brooklyn Centre Community Association, or be demolished and the American Indian Education Center (AIEC) and the BrookynBrooklyn Centre Community AssociationCommunity Association (BCCA) would take over development of 3201 Denison. The idea was for the two nonprofits to potentially utilize itthe properties for their operations. He discussed the Community Development Block Grant funds committed to the project and the Section 106 Review that was underway to get approval for the demo of 3119 Denison. Councilman Cummins reported that he recently met with Robert Roche, director of AIEC, and reported on their financial condition and potential ability to take on the one building. The AIEC has a federal grant to work with formerly incarcerated nNative Americans in a workforce readiness program, but the issue of compatibility with youth coming for AH programming has been raised and he is sensitive to that. Councilman Cummins state that his top priority is the preservation of AH as a resource to the community and wants to insure

5 that it is financially viable. While the houses pose a risk to AH and need to be addressed by another entity, he sees them as an opportunity for some positive use. Megan Meister then reviewed the ground rules for discussion at the Task Force meetings, so that everyone gets heard and we are respectful of everyones point of view. Dan Musson from the City of Clevelands Department of Community Development then explained the somewhat complex Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). Because CDBG funds (federal funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development) are involved in the project and the houses are in a historic district, it requires the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to review the effects of the undertakings on historic properties . . Dan said that the previously the consulting parties and the City looked at how to address the adverse effect of the loss of 3119 Denison if demolished. This included photo documentation of the historic structures (already done) and possible preparation of a guide to the history of the Brooklyn Centre neighborhood. The city did not move forward with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) two years ago because there was not a clear decision on what the undertaking would be on both houses. Bill Graham asked the question what if restoration is infeasible and the homes are a threat to Art House? The process that this Task Force is going through to determine alternate uses by other entities will be used by the City of Cleveland to document the efforts to save the properties. If no other group comes through to restore one or both homes, then that would be laid out in an MOU and reviewed by Ohio SHPO. Bobbi Reichtell stated that the Task Force will go through a research and exploration process together and arrive at 1-2 recommendations to the Art House Board. She stated that AH is committed to an open process with representatives of the community and that Task Forceask F members were chosen because of their reputations as effective neighborhood leaders who have a balanced approach to issues and can represent various perspectives and community interests. She described the process to not only brainstorm and dream up positive uses, but also to help determine what is operationally and financially feasible. Everything is on the table for discussion, but the final recommendations to the board need to be financially and programmatically viable. The Task Force then brainstormed on possible uses and identified the pros and cons of each. They were as follows: 1. Renovation of 3201 Denison by American Indian Education Center and Hispanic Contractor Association for their offices (suggested by Councilman Cummins) PRO: Would save one of the houses; AIEC has operating funds for next 2-3 years from a federal grant. CON: Questions of the feasibility based on AIEC capacity; question on their programming with community re-entry population being next to Art House and near the elementary school; the Hispanic Contractors Association. is only interested in a small office for a year; Art House would not have control of the site or how it is used. 2. Artist in Residence/Digital Media (suggested by Gloria Ferris) and Art Gallery (suggested by Bill Graham); demolish 3119 Denison for art garden originally they were separate ideas but later the group decided to combine them together. PRO: Could change image of this part of the neighborhood; use is attractive to young people; Joe Mestnik identified an architect who would work almost pro bono on design; house could be saved. CON: What developer would take this project on; capital funding and arts funding is shrinking where would funding comefunding come from; where would parking be; who would manage

6 it? AH not able financially to take on project; does a gallery really meet the need in community? 3. Hispanic organizations use the buildings for social services and arts (suggested by Councilman Cummins) PRO: Another agency would take over development and management; greater potential for partnership with AH on programming, etc. CON: AH would not have control of the use; AH cannot develop this project. 4. Demolish both homes and create an art park, parking, and interpretive signage on history (idea brought up by Bobbi Reichtell as a fallback if other ideas arent feasible) PRO: Attractive green space on Denison; could be used as an outdoor classroom; eliminates liability to art house; AH would control the use and its destiny; could use CDBG from Councilman Cummins if it leveraged private donations. Hispanic Contractors Association has expressed interest in assisting with rehabilitation of property. CON: Section 106 Review is more challenging and would need to justify demo to HUD; loss; loss of acquisition investment money; residents; residents would like to save at least one of the houses. The Task Force members (not Bobbi Reichtell, Megan Meister or Dan Musson) then voted on their top 3 choices and then a small group was put together to research the top 3 vote getters. The results of the voting and the volunteer research teams were ares follows. The top 3 vote getters in bold font and are being researched. 1. Renovation by AIEC and HCA 1 vote 2. Artist in Residence 5 votes; Gallery 5 votes the two uses were then combined . combined. The research team: Gloria Ferris - explore Baldwin Wallace College connection, Brian Cummins explore institutional connections, Amy Craft explore museum connections, Alan Forman and Joe Mestnik. Bobbi Reichtell will schedule an interview for the team with Elizabeth Emery, who manages the Zygote Press artists in residence program. 3. Hispanic organizations renovate and use ;use; with possible involvement of Detroit Shoreway Community Development Organization 4 votes - The- The research team: Rachel Tatter and Brian Cummins; Megan Meister will talk to DSCDO director Jeff Ramsey. 4. Demo houses and create art park 5 votes The research team: Rachel Tatter and Dan Musson; Brian Cummins on the asbestos abatement and possible involvement of the Cuyahoga County Land Bank. The research team work will involve 3-4 hours of interviewing and research over the next 8 weeks. The following information will be collected for each concept: Project Concept/Idea: Lead Organization/Developer and Partners: (Willing to take on the project) Organizational Capacity: (Have they done this before? Do they have the staff to carry it out? Can they raise the funding needed? Approximate Project Budget: (Both development costs and ongoing operating) Potential Sources of Funds and Range of Amount:

Formatted: Font: Bold

7 The next meeting of the full Task Force to report back and discuss will be Tuesday, August 14th at 6pm at Art House.

8 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Art House Property Task Force Meeting August 14, 2012 Meeting Minutes Task Force Members in Attendance: Alan Forman, Gloria Ferris, Bill Graham, Tatter, Amy Craft, Megan Meister, Councilman Brian Cummins. City of Cleveland representative: Dan Musson Guests: Lucy Miller and Robert Roche from AIEC, Greg Baron Facilitator: Bobbi Reichtell Minutes of Meeting: The Art House Property Task Force meeting was called to order and introductions were made. There was a recap of the process to date and explanation of the voting at the previous meeting to determine which redevelopment options to pursue. There was a report back from the small groups who had researched each of the options and as the reports were made, Bobbi Reichtell recorded the information on a matrix that identified who the lead organization would be, if they had organizational capacity to take on the project, the, the approximate budget, sources of funds and any other considerations and follow up. SEE MATRIX FOR SUMMARY OF RESEARCH. On the Artist in Residence idea, Gloria Ferris reported that Julie Bishop stated that Baldwin Wallace University could not be a lead organization but that she could explore whether the Music/Theater Dept might be interested. Gloria will follow up on that. AlenkaAneka BancoBenko of Convivium /St. JosaphatJosephat was interested in working on the project for college credit but would not be the developer. It was made clear again that Art House cannot take on the project as the developer because they do not have the staff capacity to do it and no one wants to put Art House at risk. Brian reported that the Cleveland Foundation and Creative Fusion program are not interested in the project and neither is Zygote or Spaces. Most arts organizations are moving away from managing housing themselves. Regarding the AIEC use, Lucy Miller and Robert Roche were in attendance and discussed what their proposal for the one building would be. There were questions about their finances and how they would raise the additional funds needed beyond the CDBG funds. Their response was that they would use in kind labor to bring down the cost of the rehab. And that they have federal funding for their programs, but cannot use the funding to purchase a building. They were thanked for attending and told that the group would be back in touch with them. It was reported that the Hispanic organizations are not an option because they cannot sustain this type of a building and the Hispanic Contractors Association is only interested in a possible one year lease, not owning. The demolition and art park option is a possibility but the city of Cleveland would need a specific plan. Greg Baron provided estimates on asbestos removal and demolition from three contractors. The Task Force felt that since AIEC has had more than a year and a half to come forward and take on the project and havent, they did not seem capable or seriously interested. The financial information that they provided at the meeting was insufficient. It was decided to send them a certified letter asking for the following within 10 business days: Business Plan (to include, but not limited to the following):

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Bold

9 o Executive Summary: Mission Statement, Description of Board of Directors, Number of current employees and the number of additional employees needed to operate the Denison Avenue facility o List of current programming and proposed expanded programming o Funding Sources Organizational Budget to include combined agency Income Statement (sources & use report), showing total combined revenues and expenses as well as the organizations combined Balance Sheet (financial conditions report). Rehabilitation Plan for 3201 Denison Avenue; Scope of work to include: o full rehabilitation specifications o cost estimates o bidding for pest inspection o asbestos survey and abatement o Structural engineering assessments and cost estimates for foundation and framing repairs 2011 Organizational Audit

Greg Baron agreed to draft the letter and circulate it to the Propertythe Property Task Force for review before sending. It was agreed to come from the Property Task Force and not Art House itself and that Gloria Ferris would sign for the Task Force. The follow up work was reviewed and the group agreed to meet on September 13th to prepare its final recommendation. The Art House Board will meet September 19th.