A smattering of applause from a capacity crowd followed the Cottage Grove City Council’s 5-2 vote to authorize the City’s purchase of the Cottage Grove Armory Monday.

A lengthy public comment session preceded the vote to purchase the nearly 70-year old building for $395,000 from the Oregon Military Department. The Armory National Guard’s Headquarters/Headquarters Company 2-162 vacated the building in February of 2009 to move into a larger facility in Springfield.

Historian Marcia Allen began the discussion by recounting the building’s past. She included the labor and materials provided for its construction by businesses and individuals in Cottage Grove.

“The old growth timber was provided by J.H. Chambers,” Allen said. “Twin Oaks provided cement. Gravel was taken from the bars near Saginaw. When completed it was called a monument to the town, for the people and by the people.”

Allen stated that a plan should be developed to acquire the building, then another plan should be formulated to involve interested parties in its use.

Frank Long also approved the purchase.

“You have to hang on to the things you have, or at some point you end up rootless,” Long said.

Downtown business owner Su Rosenthal said she was against the proposal because of its high cost and would rather see the building go to a business owner that could bring jobs downtown.

Amy Callahan demanded answers to several questions, including those pertaining to the building’s holding costs and costs to remove hazardous materials such as lead paint and asbestos.

Ron O’Keefe compared the purchase proposal to earlier proposals to purchase the Safeway building (now the Community Center.)

“People said No,” O’Keefe said. “They said it was too much money, that there would be parking problems. But looking at the success of that building gives me a sense that we should try to make this happen.”

City Manager Richard Meyers fielded questions regarding why the purchase price of the Armory was so high. The Military Department has to sell the building at fair market value, he said, because some cities don’t think it’s fair that one city be given an armory when they have to pay for theirs. The City already received a substantial discount because the City contributed $15,000, almost a quarter of the building’s cost, to its construction. Deferred maintenance also brought the price down from the Army’s original $760,000 asking price, he said.

Councilor Mike Fleck said he would be “absolutely shocked” if the City could renovate the building for the previously estimated cost of $760,000. Fleck cited parking as another reason he would not support the purchase.

Councilor Tom Munroe stated that the City had lost enough of the young men that had served at the Armory, and that cost paid should more than pay for the building.

“To give the building up now would be a bad mistake,” he said.

Councilor Diane Conrad asked what would happen if the City didn’t purchase the Armory. Meyers responded that the building would sit and deteriorate, as no parties save the City had expressed interest in its purchase. Conrad added concerns that the payment of renovation costs is heavily dependent upon grants that the City has not secured and that the estimated $80,000 annual cost of maintaining and staffing the building would be prohibitive.

Meyers responded to questions about planning for the Armory’s eventual use by stating that the building would be “buttoned up” to block its deterioration; a town hall meeting would then be held to discuss the building’s possibilities.

Councilor Wayne Clark stated that the City could pursue deferment of payments on the Armory for 10 years; as it stands now, the City would pay nothing for the loan’s first year.

“I’ve lived here all my life,” Clark said. “And I can’t imagine that Armory just boarded up and rain ruining that basketball floor just so we can say we saved that money, we made our point that government is wasteful.”

Mayor Gary Williams stated his support for several reasons.

“We owe it to those who built the building originally,” he said. “And I think we owe a greater debt to those who served in that building. Young people deserve our investment in them. I’ve lived here a long time, and we haven’t done a very good job of that in Cottage Grove. We’ve got a pandemic of drug and alcohol abuse and tons and tons of idle time for young people to get in trouble. There’s an opportunity for mentoring here. With any investment, you start out paying principal. Hopefully you end up with something worth your investment. And this property is.”

With that, the matter was put to a vote and passed with Councilors Fleck and Conrad dissenting.

The Council also approved a resolution for a $250,000 loan to the Village Green Resort and Gardens to renovate 51 of the hotel’s outdated rooms. The loan was obtained from a fund set up by Lane County using transient room taxes and will be matched with a like private loan from investors Ivan Del Sol, Glenda Koyama and Gary Sauger.

Councilor Conrad asked whether the urgency to renovate the Village Green, as cited in previous Council deliberations, still existed. Meyers replied that waiting to apply for the County funds again would put the hotel off schedule to complete construction by next year’s tourist season. The Village Green’s Melinda Thompson was asked what the hotel would do with the money.

“We will be remodeling 51 rooms, a lot of which don’t have air conditioning or adequate heat,” Thompson said. “As they are now, I can’t rent those rooms out to groups. They do site tours, but they just won’t do it. We plan on putting new beds, televisions, draperies, carpet and paint in them. We’re not asking to do a deep remodel. We want to do what we can to get ourselves in competition with the Valley River Inn, the Hilton, the Comfort Inn or whatever. We look at ourselves as a group conference hotel, and that’s what we’re trying to do.”

The loan proposal passed with a 4-2 vote, with Councilor Mike Fleck recusing himself.

For the complete article see the 07-28-2010 issue.