SCHPC supports placing old hospital on National Register of Historic Places (Update 12:10 p.m. Aug. 3)

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Even though development plans have fizzled for the old Fitzgibbon Hospital, the building may still achieve a spot on the National Register of Historic Places.

When the Marshall Housing Authority submitted a letter opposing the addition of more low-income housing for the elderly, Sunflower Development Group opted out of the pending old hospital development project.

As part of the development, Sunflower had hired Rosin Preservation to submit the nomination for national historic status. At Sunflower's request, Rosin attempted to drop the nomination on Thursday afternoon.

However, Saline County Historic Preservation Commission Chairman Eric Crump said at this point the nomination can't be withdrawn. National Register Coordinator Tiffany Patterson explained the public still maintains the right to comment on the nomination.

"She had to dig deep into the regulations to see how to handle this situation," Crump said.

Even without a pending development plan, SCHPC discussed and approved the building's historical significance at the monthly meeting on Thursday, Aug. 2. Crump and SCHPC member Jim Steinmetz extensively researched the ramifications that the commission's decision would have on any future development projects for the old Fitzgibbon Hospital.

Crump explained national historic status would assist development but not hinder it. Auxiliary member and local historian Marvin Wilhite said the status is more of a title than a decree. The federal or state governments will not have any say in development, unless the developers choose to pursue historical tax credits. Unless those credits are utilized, the only historic protection the building has would be the government's ability to revoke national status.

"That's the biggest club they got," Wilhite said.

Sunflower Development Group had intended to use historical tax credits to refurbish the building. Another developer may decide not to utilize them. Crump said without the credits, the owner could alter the building in any way or even completely destroy it.

"If it's on the national registry, that's an honorary degree," Steinmetz said. "The only time the government gets involved is when there's money involved."

Crump also noted the option of historic tax credits could potentially lure a new developer to the project. He cited an old report from Sunflower, which stated the project would cost $7.7 million total. However, once Sunflower acquired both housing and historic tax credits, the company would only generate $1.6 million in debt.

The discussion then segued into the Marshall Housing Authority's decision to oppose the Sunflower development project. Steinmetz seemed relieved Sunflower had dropped the project. He hoped the building could be used for something to broaden the area's tax base, and he noted using government money for the project would require income limitations for residents.

"I don't want to do anything that's good for six months and bad for 10 years," Steinmetz said.

Steinmetz's comment prompted a discussion among auxiliary members regarding the lack of affordable housing for young professionals, professors and working-class residents.

Auxiliary member Julie Larabee said she had been excited that someone had taken interest in the building, but she also questioned the nature of the project.

"I'm thinking more along the lines of young people getting out of college need a place to live and don't qualify for low-income housing," Larabee said. "That's where I feel we fall short in this area, and that's where I feel we need to really be trying."

On the contrary, SCHPC member Mike Mills disagreed with the Marshall Housing Authority's decision.

He stated the email Marshall Housing Authority Director David Hayes sent to Sunflower overlooked potential adjustments to housing authority property.

"I thought it was pretty close-minded of the housing authority to take the stance that it did," Mills said.

Meeting guest Keith Jackson, who lives near the old hospital, expressed his disappointment that the project had failed as well.

He said he'd hoped the developers would help clean up a decaying building while also preserving a structure significant to Marshall history.

"We would very much like to see that property renovated and used ... rather than just broken windows and weeds," Jackson said.

The building's owner, Pat OHanlon, conveyed his extreme frustration in an email Thursday evening. He cited the difficulty in locating an investor to pursue this type of project.

In his opposition, Hayes cited the potential negative repercussions this project could pose for the housing authority and the community.

With nine units available for elderly renters and only four on the waiting list, Hayes believes Marshall will not have enough prospects to fill those housing authority spaces and the new 44 units.

"It would be the housing authority and that development fighting for those few applicants that we would have," Hayes said.

Hayes also said the housing authority does not posses the power to stop the Sunflower project, but it would not support it.

"As far as the housing authority putting the nix on this project, we're not," Hayes said. "We're not supporting it."

OHanlon commended the housing authority's research, but he questioned what other purpose the old hospital could serve.

"I have spent the last two years trying to find an investor that has the funding to do justice to what I was trying to do to save this property," he wrote.

OHanlon wrote that if the city has a desire to see the building refurbished and restored, it would approve R2 zoning.

This zoning would provide future investors with an incentive to renovate the old hospital.

"I am extremely disappointed that this good opportunity offered to refurbish this building is being thrown down the drain," he wrote. "There are not investors lining up to do projects like this."

While the Sunflower project has stirred controversy, placing the building on the National Historic Register of Historic Places fostered no objections from SCHPC or the eight guests in attendance.

The commission reasoned the building qualified for the category that recognizes structures associated with events that have made significant contributions to the broad pattern of the country's history.

"Fitzgibbon Hospital represents health care in the early 20th century for Saline County and surrounding counties," Crump said.

With no apparent repercussions for pursuing national historic status, the commission agreed this status could only ease a developer's project.

SCHPC will present its recommendation to the Saline County Commission. If the county commission approves the recommendation, the decision will transfer to the Missouri Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

In addition to discussing the old hospital, SCHPC also formed a committee to discuss procedures for creating a local historical register and discussed ways to liven the Marshall square.

Sunflower Development Group recently dropped its plan to renovate the old Fitzgibbon Hospital and transform it into low-income housing for the elderly. Do you see a need for low-income housing for the elderly in Marshall?
 There is a dire need for affordable elderly housing in Marshall.
 There are other more prominent housing issues in Marshall.
 There is a surplus of affordable housing for the elderly in Marshall.
 The type of project isn't nearly as important as putting the hospital to use.
 

Your comments about the poll question: (Optional)

Contact Maggie Menderski at mmenderski@marshallnews.com

Related story:
Developers abandon plan for old hospital, historic status still pending
www.marshallnews.com/story/1877582.html

Comments
View 7 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I have a question about the waiting list statement from Mr. Hays.

    Why on earth would there be a waiting list of 4 families if they have nine units available?

    -- Posted by Gal66 on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 12:59 PM
  • I think the people against this project are being very shortsighted. The last time I checked, there was not a shortage of elderly people. Especially since there is about to be a huge influx of baby boomer generation senior citizens. This has all the signs of certain people not wanting this renovation because it would muscle in on their action, so to speak.

    -- Posted by Ello on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 2:15 PM
  • The building should have been torn down years ago.. The building was wore out when the hospital left, so why is it allowed to just sit and fall down? Sometimes progress is a good thing, so tare it down and move on.. it has set as a danger and eyesore how many years now?

    -- Posted by Gumby on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 2:45 PM
  • If I had ANY authority I would put cleaning this town up on the TOP of my list. I've heard so many professionals comment they would never consider Marshall because it's dirty and run down, embarassing.

    -- Posted by mommaofthree on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 11:56 AM
  • What is so historic about it? It was a hospital, big deal. No one suggested making the original building before this one a historic landmark. I lived down the street from the thing growing up. It is just an old building that needs to be torn down.

    -- Posted by countyliving on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 6:18 PM
  • I can tell you why I voted to support the nomination. It was nominated in Category A: "Property associated with events that have made a significant contribution to our history."

    For most of the 20th century, the old Fitzgibbon Hospital WAS health care in our area. Except for people who have moved here or were born since 1991, most people went there and experienced significant moments in their lives. They welcomed children into the world there. They said goodbye to loved ones there. They healed there. They hoped fervently there. There are so many stories of so many families that intersect that property that it seems to me its shape is stamped on the local consciousness. It is integral to the character and culture of Marshall.

    If it continues to deteriorate and eventually is lost, we'll still have photos and memories and stories to pass along. But I think it would be better to recognize its place in our history and if we're lucky, save it for future generations to appreciate.

    -- Posted by Eric Crump on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 7:37 PM
  • The Board of Trustees were neglect when they aborted the site for the new hospital. Dr. Fitzgibbon made a personal commitment to the community; the TRUSTEES had a fiducuary obligation to honor the preservation of Dr. Fitzgibbons donation. Shame on their oversight. Currently, the PRESERVAATION designation is late coming; but, who is going to maintain the facility? The Housing Authority exceeded its authority. Where are the "deep community pockets" needed to step forward? This should be "basic economic development" action! The $90K study is where?

    -- Posted by Chevy on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 4:33 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: