Councillors here are prepared to make a final decision about the South Luther Hall at their next meeting.
But that intent spoken on Monday night is not the first time such comments have been made about the building. In fact, the process has dragged on for years since the building was condemned a few years ago, and the council of that day did not believe the rentals of the building would cover costly upgrades needed for the hall to meet current building and drinking water regulations.
A group, The Friends of the South Luther Hall, formed to rally for the preservation of the building and, ultimately, council chose to declared it surplus and sell it to the group, which would then be responsible for the property. However a simple solution never seems to be on the horizon.
A covenant on title for the property stipulates that once the building is no longer owned by the municipality for community or recreation purposes – it is to be demolished.
On Monday night, council heard that one of the original trustees has refused to sign a waiver to that covenant.
As a result, Chief Administrative Officer Lori Heinbuch said the legal opinion received by the municipality is the covenant remains in force and the building must be demolished if it is no longer to be used by the municipality for community or recreational purposes.
A recommendation by the township’s building and property committee was to advertise and call for tenders for demolition and removal.
The recommendation further suggested the historic contents of the hall be presented to the historical archives in Arthur village.
That is when the fireworks began.
Watching the council debate were a handful of representatives from the Friends of the South Luther Hall.
Councillor Ross Chaulk said council’s options are limited as a result of the legal interpretation of the covenant – and that without the signatures of all the original trustees (still alive), that covenant cannot be lifted.
Mayor Mike Broomhead, argued the covenant might not apply because if the hall is used by a community group, it could still be used by the community.
Heinbuch said council has already declared the property surplus.
Broomhead said there is no reason council could not “un-declare it surplus and keep the building.”
Chaulk argued that declaring a property surplus means that it will be put up for sale.
“Did we ask for other alternatives,” Broomhead asked.
“There is no alternative,” Chaulk said, as he referred to the letter from the township solicitor.
Broomhead said if the township were to keep and maintain the building, the covenant would not come into play.
Chaulk asked why council would want to go through all of that again – and go against the recommendation of its lawyer.
Broomhead again said council can simply change its mind about the building being surplus.
“Does this mean council did not know what it was doing when it declared [the hall surplus]?” Chaulk asked.
Broomhead said the intent was to sell, or turn the building over to the Friends of the South Luther Hall. Now that it cannot happen that way, he believes council is within its rights to change its mind.
Chaulk disagreed.
Broomhead said it has been a costly process, and legal opinions and demolition costs would bring that amount even higher. As in previous meetings, Broomhead said he was “dead set against tearing down a heritage building. It would be a big mistake,” he said.
The mayor maintained the building was declared surplus for a particular reason, and, being unable to achieve that purpose, he does not believe council would appear foolish reversing the decision to declare the building surplus.
Councillor Dan Yake was confused.
He said the building committee stated it has a legal opinion directing one course of action, and the mayor said he has a legal opinion which disagrees.
Without seeing either opinion in writing, Yake said he would have a hard time making a decision either way.
Heinbuch again explained that under the covenant on title, if the building is no longer to be used for community or recreation purposes, it is to be demolished. And unless that covenant is removed, the property cannot be sold by the municipality and removal of the covenant requires all of the remaining trustees to sign a waiver.
That has not happened.
She said if the township wants to keep the building, it will need to be brought up to building and drinking water standards.
The cost could be upwards of $50,000 – before the building is even allowed to be reopened for community use.
Broomhead maintained council needs to consider all the alternatives.
“There are other ways to deal with this without tearing the building down.”
Chaulk asked if the municipality chooses to keep the building, is it prepared to spend the $50,000 to $60,000 to bring it back into shape – and maintain it.
Heinbuch said that to abide by the covenant, the work has to be done in order for it to be used by the community.
Broomhead said there should be ways for the building to be brought back into good shape without incurring costs to the municipality.
Councillor John Matusinec said he is now totally confused.
Heinbuch said to keep the building, it must be for recreation purposes, by the township.
“We cannot remove the covenant . We tried.”
Broomhead argued the lawyer was not asked for an opinion on whether the building could be owned by the municipality and used for recreation.
Chaulk said he did not believe there was a desire by the municipality to keep it open under municipal ownership.
“I think you are trying to manipulate the facts, to get the answers you want,” Chaulk said.
Broomhead said he considered that comment out of order.
As council again considered the option of demolition, Matusinec recommended deferral “until we can see other options – if there are any.”
Yake, too, is willing to hold off on a decision until the next council meeting – but no longer. “We’ve been dealing with this for … I don’t know how long. This is crazy. Obviously, there’s a difference of opinion here.”
Broomhead said if the township continues to own the building, it could be maintained by Friends of the South Luther Hall.
“What I want to hear is that it will not cost the municipality any money,” said Matusinec. He also questioned if the township can legally allow a community group to pay costs of a municipally-owned building.
“In the end, I believe there will be a cost to the ratepayers,” said councillor Bob Mason. He suspected rentals of the building may not cover the cost of general maintenance.
Mason suggested if council believes the rentals would cover $50,000 to $60,000 in upgrades “It will be a long time in coming.”
Yake said while he is prepared to sell the building to the community group, he is not prepared to spend tax dollars to bring it up to the standards needed to reopen it.
He contended that making the group a committee of council would only guarantee that at some point it would be coming back to the municipality for funds to upgrade.
Heinbuch explained the upgrades must happen before rentals are made since the building was condemned by a township official.
Yake suggested that by the time the community group raises the funds to fix the building it will have fallen down.
The building has remained vacant for the past two years, and Yake said without heat, hydro, or maintenance, the building is deteriorating even faster.
Broomhead said what council is forgetting is a demolition order would take away part of the community’s heritage. “Once it is torn down, the community will never have that building again.”
He suggested, “If we’d just written a cheque [for repairs] at the start … I’m hoping I’m the guy to cut the ribbon when it reopens. “If the generation coming up forgets about their buildings, it is a poor sign of the times.”
