There were legitimate reasons to oppose Mahoning County’s purchase of Oakhill

EDITOR:

Your coverage of the Ohio Valley Mall v. Mahoning County commissioners trial sensationalized my opposition (and that of other county officials) to the Oakhill project. You and the officials that supported the project have implied that our resistance was contrived with the former JFS landlord to protect that company’s business interests. That is absolutely untrue.

Nothing new came from trial testimony. For a year I've admitted that I met with individuals from the Cafaro Co. (and many others) to discuss Oakhill and its ramifications. I've also stated that we shared a goal of stopping the project — though not necessarily for the same reasons.

I fear that Oakhill will become a boondoggle, painfully funded for decades by Mahoning County taxpayers. I believe there has been little due diligence or financial planning — and that the long-term costs of purchasing, renovating, occupying and maintaining the building are unknown and will greatly exceed any official “estimates” that have been provided.

In 1978 the Portage County commissioners purchased the former Robinson Memorial Hospital in Ravenna for conversion to an administration building. Those favoring the Oakhill acquisition had cited the “success” of Ravenna's hospital-turned-office project, so last year Commissioner McNally, Auditor Sciortino and I had a look. We found anything except a success story.

The projects are strikingly similar. Both buildings date to the 1930s, with additions through the early 1970s. The impetus for both projects was a space need for Jobs & Family Services.

There are also differences. Arguably their building was in better shape in 1978 than ours is in 2007. Clear title to their building cost $1; ours could cost over $1 million. 1970's building code compliance was less costly than today, including hazardous materials abatement. And their renovation labor was free to the county, courtesy of the federal government's CETA program.

Our visit confirmed what I'd already suspected: Old concrete buildings are not conducive to today's wiring needs; asbestos abatement is challenging; upkeep is labor-intensive and costly; utilities are expensive; effective security is difficult, and the unexpected loss of old equipment like elevators and boilers creates significant logistics challenges.

Mostly I learned that our proposed $50 per square foot investment will affect a cosmetic-only renovation. After originally doing the same, they've spent decades trying to “make it right.” They continue to renovate, department-by-department, at a cost in recent years of $135 to $150 per square foot. Notably, they haven't yet refurbished their JFS offices, so the most expensive construction is yet to come. “If you're going to do this, do it right up-front,” they admonished.

Part of my Oakhill objection is that we haven't considered any options. I testified at trial that my preference would have been a brand new JFS building. I've said that all along, as many can attest. With new construction we could have designed functional space, contributed to Downtown revitalization, lowered maintenance and utility expenses, and produced equity for the county — all at a known cost. But The Vindicator has not reported those statements, perhaps because new construction wouldn't benefit the interests of the former JFS landlord, therefore not supporting the notion that I was “told what to do.”

I am capable of independent thinking. My background is in business and economics, and I didn't need anyone to point out the incredible lack of planning with Oakhill. My questions were not unfounded.

JOHN B. REARDON

Boardman

X The writer is the former Mahoning County treasurer.