Three council members say the $3.1-million needed to renovate the old Kumar property would be better spent on building a brand new arts center.
By AARON SHAROCKMAN
Published December 18, 2003
OLDSMAR - The renovation of an unfinished 1920s hotel into a new city cultural center was to be Mayor Jerry Beverland's final legacy after 16 years at City Hall.
But those plans might have bit the dust.
Three council members shocked Beverland on Tuesday night, saying they think the old Kumar mansion on Shore Drive should be demolished. They say a new building housing the cultural center should be constructed on the 5.57-acre waterfront property instead.
Renovating the 80-year-old structure as an arts center would cost $3.1-million, architects have estimated.
"We could build one heck of a new building for $3.1-million dollars," said council member Janice Miller, who said she would not support any plan to restore the property.
Council members Jim Ronecker and Marcelo Caruso agreed, saying they think the city's money could be spent more wisely. The city has already paid $2.2-million to buy the property from Roger and Lila Kumar. That money came from a 20-year loan through the Florida League of Cities.
"We're just chasing bad money right now," Ronecker said.
Before deciding the property's fate, the City Council will hold a public meeting 6 p.m. Jan. 13 at council chambers to discuss options. At that time, the city's architects for the project, Harvard Jolly Clees Toppe Architects of St. Petersburg, will outline complete demolition costs.
Tuesday night, Harvard Jolly executive vice president Jonathan Toppe presented an update on the city's plans to renovate the building. He said that although he thought the $3.1-million price tag was accurate, he admitted the cost could fluctuate.
"The only way to find out is to actually go out to bid - to have contractors put their money where their mouths are," Toppe said. ". . . There is always a risk you will find concrete that needs to be repaired, and that will increase the cost."
Miller has visited the property numerous times. She said the building is falling apart in places and that repairs could be costly.
"It really is in rough shape," Miller said. "We're supposed to be stewards of the people, and I just can't see throwing good money after bad."
The council purchased the Kumar property for $2.2-million last year with a vision of turning the waterfront estate into a cultural arts center. In August, the City Council unanimously approved the first phase of a preliminary plan.
But the costs of renovation have been hard to nail down. An engineering firm recommended replacing the entire roof at a cost of $215,000. City officials later said the cost would be in the $75,000 to $95,000 range, and architects said only sections of the roof would be replaced.
Then, Tuesday night, plans seemed to change.
Beverland had long championed restoring the 23,455-square-foot building because of its historical significance. The hotel was in the original plans for the city and was to be Oldsmar's first hotel.
"It's sad if we lose it," Beverland said. "It's part of our history, and that's very important."
A new building allows the city more options, said Miller, who was "flabbergasted" council members agreed with her. It could build closer to the water, she said, or in any configuration it chooses.
"This way, we can tell the architects, we want to do this, or we want to do that," Miller said. "You can have two stories if you want or a higher roof. There are so many more choices."
Miller said the Kumar property, though a piece of Oldsmar's past, is hardly a historic landmark. She can't imagine any objective agency labeling the unfinished hotel an area treasure.
"It's never been a whole building," she said. "It's the first floor of a hotel."
Tuesday's reversal was made more stunning because it put Beverland, a boisterous mayor who has regularly pushed his ideas, potentially on the losing side - a rarity in city politics. Both Miller and Beverland were surprised the balance had shifted on restoring the Kumar mansion.
"If I lose on this, I know it was for legitimate reasons," Beverland said. "I can accept that. . . . But it will not derail my ambition, my desire to have a new arts center.
