AUBURN — A decision to knock down the Great Falls Performing Arts Center in June 2011 stands after all, Mayor Dick Gleason said Wednesday.
Gleason said he was wrong when he declared the Nov. 15 vote to knock down the building in error.
"As of now, I'm perplexed," Gleason said Wednesday. "It seems to me that the whole purpose of ordinances and rules is to do what is best for the people at large. I don't think motions to suspend do this."
He had planned a formal vote on the matter at the Dec. 6 meeting. He said it would take a motion by one of the four councilors who voted to raze the building to revisit the issue.
"I've talked to councilors and they've said they would be willing to consider any proposals from (Community Little Theatre) to take over the building," Gleason said. He expects the theater group to present an offer to the city by the end of this week.
On Tuesday, Gleason declared the Nov. 15 vote in error, saying Robert's Rules of Order require a two-thirds majority vote to suspend the city's rules. In Auburn, a two-thirds majority equals five votes.
Councilors voted 4-3 on Nov. 15 to suspend their rules, allowing them to take up an unscheduled agenda item. They then voted 4-3 to tear down the building — with councilors Mike Farrell, Dan Herrick, Ray Berube and Belinda Gerry voting to demolish.
Gleason said he was unaware of the five-vote requirement at the time of the meeting, but learned about it afterward. He checked with the Maine Municipal Association before issuing his statement Tuesday.
But the MMA contacted him Wednesday, saying the city's charter overrides Robert's Rules of Order, specifically on suspending the rules.
"Somewhere down the line, I think we need to look at this and maybe change the section," Gleason said.
Report a correction
Sneeky
The problem was, people didn't go because the agenda item was for rent increases NOT demolishing it. The council knew what they were doing by putting the rules off to the side and voting on a completely different solution for the building when there weren't many people there to comment. Throw out the vote and put it on the agenda again with the right topic of conversation and many more would show up, I'm sure. And what about the stipulations that were put on the building when it was given to the city. I don't think, because of those, that the building can be taken down. Let CLT take over and manage the building and let the tenants stay put. Those businesses put alot of money into there spots within the building. L-A Economic Growth Coucil is running a contest to give money to an entrepreneur to START a business in the city as the city coucil is busy pushing MULTIPLE businesses out of business and out of the city. Some of these businesses may not be able to survive moving because of the out-of-pocket expense that they put in to prepare the rooms for their business to move in. The tenant have done a GREAT job improving many parts of the building with their own money. Give them a break, we can't afford to lose more business to other areas, not even across the bridge to Lewiston.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I don't really care either way...
BUT, there has to be some sort of procedure. The council can't just suspend the rules, take a vote, and make these kinds of decisions without the opportunity for public input. Yeah, CLT was present at the meeting. But they certainly were not prepared or given the opportunity to prepare for this vote. The agenda item was a rent increase topic, not razing the building. Not only CLT, but all the other tenants were side-swiped here. "Auburn needs the money!" "this council is making tough decisions!" "hurray!" doesn't change the fact, in my opinion, that if this council wants to do something once and for all about Great Falls, they should schedule it as an agenda item and allow a reasonable debate. The arrogance of these councilors is amazing. What other issues will be taken up in this manner? I really don't care about the issue one way or another, but it bothers me that the council chooses to act in this manner. They're elected public servants, not part of some royal family of Auburn.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Go to the meeting and have your input
You and others on this website keep saying there was no chance for public input. I was at the meeting. I could easily have stated my opinion at that time. Anyone who attended the meeting could have said something. There was a period for public input. Before any vote the mayor always defers to the public for comment. And quite frankly, there still is time for input. You have until June 2011 to come to the council with a proposal.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the methodology used in this situation. I am only saying that you are misrepresenting the situation. If you care about the way the city is being run, attend the council meetings, the planning board meetings, the school committee meetings and so forth and let your voice be heard. The Great Falls building was on the agenda so if you were interested in that topic why weren't you there? Most of the tenants of the building were there and some spoke. Unfortunately for everyone, I think both the city and the public act like this building should either belong to CLT or the city with no other alternatives. The other tenants in the building seemed to demur to Mr Peters of CLT. I can't understand why. Mr Peters has CLT's interest at heart, not the interest of the other tenants or anyone else and really shouldn't be expected to care about others.
I too don't care one way or the other, I just want it noted that there was room for public input and still is time for such.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Does anyone know if the
Does anyone know if the Edward Little Institute has given permission to have the building razed? Conditions were placed on the property when the city was given it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Whatever anyone says, you're
Whatever anyone says, you're going to trump them or belittle them, so what's the point?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Give it back to them
and have them pick up the tab. The City of Auburn needs money!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Whats wrong with transferring
Whats wrong with transferring ownership of the Great Falls School to Community Little or some other non profit group...then the city say DON'T ask us for $$$ for this property anymore...this is now yours......
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Why should it go to a non profit?
What makes non profits so special that they should be given city property? Why not put it out to bid and let the highest bidder take it? Do you advocate giving non profits other city property? What is different about this situation?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Because
they can't afford the upkeep. They want us to foot the bill. Do you think they could even afford the property tax, insurance, and heating fuel? Don't think so. It's easier if someone else pays for their hobby. And yes it's a hobby!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (8)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Playing hockey is also a
Playing hockey is also a hobby. Just saying.
Please don't try to make it sound like CLT doesn't want this building, because the organization has tried to get the building a number of times over the last decade and some. The proposals have always been denied, shelved, forgotten. You can still find at least one of the proposals/studies on the city of Auburn website.
There is something far far deeper that is a problem here. This building was allowed to rot while it was still a SCHOOL. There are three or four other school buildings just rotting away in the city, a school that would have become yet another empty rotting building if not for private funding, and other schools losing accreditation in part because their building has a number of violations. This isn't really... normal.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.the calvery to the rescue
Where is John Jenkins when you need him??!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.City Manager?
A city the size of Auburn should have a City Manager who will be responsible for ensuring that all rules are followed. Elected officials are part time and are not expected to know everything. That is why a City Manager is a good idea.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I believe
that the City of Auburn does indeed have a manager?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (8)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And has in fact had a City
And has in fact had a City Manager for quite some time.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (9)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I disagree with that
Even though elected officials are "part time" and are not expected to know "eveything", they should know the basic rules of order for their own body. come on, already.....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."My Heavens", sez the parrot.
"My Heavens", sez the parrot. "If we can't trust our mayors, whom can we trust?"
(Pretty good verbage for a parrot, eh?)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Cut taxes we cry, then when
Cut taxes we cry, then when we get a council who makes the hard decisions to do so, we cry even louder.
There must be other venues in LA to have plays that are not in buildings with code violations.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (13)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Whats wrong with transferring
Whats wrong with transferring ownership of the Great Falls School to Community Little or some other non profit group...then the city say DON'T ask us for taxpayer $$$ for this property anymore...this is now yours......
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.name one
waiting.....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What a joke.
Not only do we have Farrell, Berube, Herrick, and Belinda Gerry representing themselves rather than representing the majority of their constituents, but we also have a mayor that doesn't know if the charter trumps Roberts Rules of Order. Do your homework Mayor. You ran for Mayor, so when were you gonna familiarize yourself with the City charter ??? I'm sure you've seen disputes about the city charter here way before you were Mayor. Ya think maybe you could read it, and try to understand it, or ask a friend to study it with you ?? Forget it............... Just make a motion to "never mind" , and I'm sure someone will second it Mayor.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (12)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Is there more than one Mike
Is there more than one Mike Farrell. MAybe you should check this link which has Michael Farrell as the sole proprietor of Farrell Enterprises and lists DEMOLITION as one of the services they offer.... Check this link: http://www.bbb.org/boston/business-reviews/demolition-contractors/farrel...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (12)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.yes, crafty - there ARE two Mike Farrells
I'm not sure if you really knew that and were just trying to make some political point or if you really don't know and are simply not that good at research.
The Mike Farrell who lives on Eastman has been at odds with the city for a long time for having so much junk around his home. He owns and operates Farrell Enterprises which discovered. The other Mike Farrell - Councilor Mike Farrell - lives up near Lake Auburn and works as a car dealer.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ironic Professions
What I find extremely ironic is that the two councelors that are pushing the HARDEST to close and demolish Great Falls School, own and operate demolition and construction companies. I see that as a TOTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Even more so, it would validate the fact that they are looking to line there own pockets. They shouldn't get a vote as far as I'm concerned. Those that voted to not demolish the building need to stick to there guns and morals. Counselors, keep your hands out of the coffers.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (25)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You are mistaken craftydad
Councilor Farrell is not associated or related to the Farrell Brothers Demolition Company. And Councilor Herrick does have a construction company, but focuses on residential building and remodeling.
I can't believe you would stoop this low to try and cast doubts about the motives of these councilors. They are trying to save the taxpayers of this city money. CLT has had it great for a number of years getting about 10,000 sf of space for about $700.00 a month. That is outrageously cheap; well below market value. Why do you think we as taxpayers should continue in this manner? We have cut essential city services such as plowing, spring clean up and such - so why not look at this expenditure as well?
As far as the way the decision was made, there was a period for public input. CLT was there that night to talk about the building. True the demolition was a new idea, but CLT was there and could have made an offer right there. Instead, they asked for even more time. They have had years to come up with a workable solution and yet still they stalled.
Even having said that, CLT or anyone else has six months to come to the council with a proposal. Stop all the letter writing campaigns and simply get a proposal in front of the council - they may sell you the building. But think before you do it because the building has been estimated to need many millions of dollars in repair. So bring your checkbook when you make your proposal. They citizens of this city cannot be asked to fund this any longer.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (16) Agree (22)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."True the demolition was a
"True the demolition was a new idea, but CLT was there and could have made an offer right there."
Nice try. You can't argue with the fact this was a sneaky, sleazy way for the council to deal with the issue. The agenda topic was for a rent increase. What did you expect CLT to do? Shout out "We bid $1!!!!" in the meeting? They did not even have an opportunity to discuss it among themselves, much less make a proposal on the spot.
Get over it Norm. The firestorm about this issue is VERY warranted and I hope all the tenants and other interested parties make those councilors miserable over this. In fact, I bet it may even backfire on them - because of the way they handled it, there is going to be such an uproar that they'll probably have to backpeddle on that vote and may end up keeping the building after all. What's another $40k for another year, eh?
This is the kind of mess that happens when we elect these firebrand types. They can't even dress appropriately for a City Council meeting or follow their own rules.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Important matter
I think with a subject as controversial as this, that the rules should not be set aside. The vote to demolish the building was sneaky and underhanded as to do it when no one was there from the public to speak as it wasn't on the agenda. Therefore the vote should be thrown out and put on the agenda so people can speak. Remember we put people on the board and we may need to vote them off.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (29)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.