Click for more weather

The News >> My Community

My Community   Little House Facing Uncertain Future By John Nelson Posted 06/24/2008 Updated 06/24/2008 Viewed 1215 times The following are the part of the minutes from the recent WCA meeting that concern the Little House in the park. Please read and add your ideas/comments below. 4. The Little House was the next item discussed. Mr. Burke reported that on 5/12/08 he and Ms. Harcourt met with representatives of the County’s Department of Parks (“DOP”) to discuss its structural engineering study of December 2007. Photos taken during that study, showing water damage behind Little House wall panels, were displayed at tonight’s meeting. The study found that the Little House needs repairs totaling appx $200,000 during the next 10 years. The County has advised the WCA not to rent the little house after 8/30/08 (prospective users have been notified of this deadline). The County’s tight budget will prevent paying for the repairs, and the County views the WCA as capable of bearing such costs. The County will allow the WCA to do its own structural study, so long as the County can attend it. On 6/4/08 Mr. Burke fedexed a letter appealing to County Executive Ike Leggett and First District Councilman Roger Berliner. Mr. Leggett’s office indicated he will respond next week. Mr. Burke spoke with Mr. Berliner’s Chief of Staff, who indicated that: --Mr. Berliner shares the WCA’s concern over the Little House, particularly given the neighborhood’s longstanding sentimental attachment to the facility; --the other two communities involved in the DOP’s study of park buildings (Randolph Hills and Garrett Park) have already reached out for County assistance, and Garrett Park has already hired its own consultant; --the WCA has a unique arrangement with the County, enabling the WCA to use and control access to the building in exchange for paying its maintenance costs; --DOP has a Facility Planning Forum in March, at which the County could be asked to tear down the Little House and build a new one. 5. Ms. Harcourt reported that on 6/4/08 she met at the Little House with home inspector Alan Beal, who said the County’s repair costs seem exorbitant and that a lack of visible water or mold indicates the structural defects in the Little House are not severe. She explained that the County runs 40 such buildings in area parks, 30 of which are accessed only through the County (i.e. by getting a key in Rockville), and 6 of which have ancillary operators (such as the YMCA). The County has already closed one park building and wants to close another. WCA pays the County $1,200 per year to rent the Little House, and spends another $10,000 per year for its utilities, insurance, and cleaning/maintenance, but WCA’s revenues (usage fees) from the Little House are only $9,000, resulting in an annual operating loss of $3,000. Spring and fall are the busiest times of Little House use, with birthday parties every weekend. This summer BCC Baseball is renting the Little House Mon-Fri (9am-5pm) for the first time. Today a letter was received from the County recommending rebuilding rather than repairing the Little House, due to asbestos tiles in the furnace room and other suspected hazards in the building. 6. In the ensuing general discussion, several WCA members expressed interest in trying to negotiate a cost-sharing deal with the County. Members were unhappy that the County wants to cut its traditional maintenance of parks and playgrounds benefiting local children, as evidenced by its request that BCC Baseball take over mowing of the baseball fields. Ms. Mulvihill recalled that in 1994 the County wanted to stop providing Little House services, and the WCA agreed to take over maintenance as part of the new lease – that lease was extended only to 1998, so no current document governs the respective Little House duties today. Other members theorized that the County is trying to channel playground maintenance and use from Westmoreland Hills Park to the new recreational facilities at Friendship Heights. Out of frustration over the County simply telling the WCA what to do, consideration was given to whether the WCA could construct and own a new facility, with questions raised about who would oversee that ownership and whether manpower exists for those duties. Several members urged that the WCA do as much as possible to keep the Little House functional by making some repairs, because allowing the Little House doors to close will bring the County one step closer to killing this issue. Fred Hunt suggested that a contractor in the neighborhood might want the goodwill of repairing the Little House inexpensively. 7. Mr. Burke will send an email to the WCA listserv inquiring whether anyone in the neighborhood can (or knows someone who can) perform a structural engineering study for the WCA. He moved to commission such a study at a cost not exceeding $2,500. Nicole Schwenker seconded the motion and it was passed. At the same time, it was agreed that the WCA will continue to seek more information from the County about what its plans are and what the WCA’s choices (particularly financial) are. One option is to ask the County to demolish the Little House so that the WCA can build a new structure, although this could take several years. Another option is to let the County close the Little House and then the WCA would pay to repair it and maintain the relationship. Mr. Burke will urge Mr. Berliner’s office to keep the Little House open past 8/30/08 while the WCA obtains its own structural study and tries to raise money for repairs. It was noted that if the County agrees to fix the Little House, then the County will want to take it over and use it for its own purposes, reducing WCA access to it. Ms. Harcourt will look into what other neighborhoods pay the County for their park buildings, and she will inquire if more money from the WCA would improve County services to the Little House. This raises the question of whether the WCA should hike its Little House usage fees to increase revenue. WCA members were urged to make their views known on the listserv so the WCA Board does not make decisions in a vacuum. Finally, it was agreed that a Save the Little House Petition will be on display at the July 4 party for all WCA neighbors to sign. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

Email This Article To A Friend |  Comments (0) |  Report Abuse

Comments

by John Nelson, on 06/24/2008 at 11:17 PM I don't think we need a study at all. I finally had a chance to look at the report (though I would like to see an electronic copy with useable photos) and the spread sheet, and here are my thoughts: 1. Get Carreye to move the close date. Nothing in the report said that the building is unsafe or in danger of imminent collapse. Both we and the county have spent quite a bit on the building over the last few years, and it's crazy to close it now. The close date should be waived and a decision made to replace, repair, or eliminate through the CIP process (and the house should remain open in the meantime). If they tear the building down, we will not get another one from the county. The county doesn't even want to run the state-of-the-art rec centers built by developers in Friendship Heights. 2. If the building has structural problems due to "water infiltration" it means that the county has not honored its part of the lease (it is responsible for the exterior and there's no other source of consistent moisture that could do the damage). Have we found the lease? If not, we should request a copy immediately from Carrye Palleschi. We should request a prorated refund of all our money invested in the house due to their abrogation of the lease. This could be a decent negotiating chip if we can't get this done amicably (which we should of course strive the utmost to do). 3. I don't believe the report. I looked at one opening the night of the meeting and there was NO rot or deterioration at all. I poked a knife blade in it, and it was good and solid. They other openings they made are nailed too tight to access. I suggest that we invite Carrye Palleschi and FEA back to reexamine the "damage" together with us since we have a substantial investment in the house--then we won't need an engineer. Add that there are significant questions about the report. Again, make the point that we are ENTITLED to another review to our large financial stake (we should have been invited the first time). This can also be a chance to discuss options in more detail after we all see any damage. 4. What is this spread sheet and does it have any relation to the building inspection? We are presented with a number of 175-200k to repair structural damage, with no detail whatsoever. We are then presented with a spreadsheet showing repairs and replacements which appears to have no relation to issue at hand other than perhaps that that is why they want to close the house. Further, half of what is on this sheet is wrong or unreasonable. Many of the items they claim will require repair in 2-4 years, have already been repaired at our (significant) expense. The floor has recently been replaced, the walls patched/painted, part of the ceiling drywall replaced, the lights replaced and wiring upgraded, the toilets repaired, and the emergency lights replaced. The roof, gutters, concrete sidewalk and siding were also replaced by the county in the last five years or so, not to mention the brand new furnace. In addition, many of the items they put down, we are responsible for under the lease, so this should ease their concerns. To further ease their concerns, we could start an account where we would accumulate a capital fund for future repairs that would be maintained at a certain level. 5. If the operating cost is what the county REALLY fears than perhaps they need to be made aware that $155k over twenty years is only $7,650/year on average. On top of that we pay them $1200 and we cover the inside expenses, which means that if we figure the exterior costs a bit more and they pay 60%, it costs them less than 4k/year on average to keep the house running. That's not unreasonable, especially compared to the tax base the 1002 households provide--somewhere in the "neighborhood" of $7-10 million. I'm sure Berliner can understand that. Additionally, rec centers are rec centers, not "profit centers" and having the county pay this modest amount is perfectly reasonable. 6. Our unusual and mutually beneficial relationship sharing the costs of the house should be emphasized and used as a way to continue to run the house. 7. If structural damage may really exist then let's find out about it in the process of doing something like replacing the paneling so that we can see what the situation really is. If the structure is in good shape or needs only modest repairs, than we (split the cost) do anything we can while the paneling is off (like reinforce where necessary and foam the foundation to keep out water and insects), and go ahead with repairs, instead of spending money on engineers/inspectors. If it's disintegrating, we close the house and tear it down and see if we can do something else, with or without the county. Community pool? I think a solution to this problem can be negotiated without any inspection other than the one I mentioned in number three. If she won't agree to another review, then maybe Berliner or Ike can persuade her/them. This building is a neighborhood treasure that has provided tens of thousand of happy memories for hundreds of thousands of people. It should be treated with that kind of value/respect and preserved for generations to come unless it TRULY has reached the end of it's life. We can cross that bridge when we get to it. John

What do you have to add?   Please login to publish a comment.  Member Login Username: Password: password help    New users register here