Le Roy group makes new offer to buy the Wiss Hotel

The Article has one misstatement, the provision is not that the Village loan them money to purchase the property, the provision was a loan towards the completion of their project. They want to purchase the property from the Village for $1.00. One can only assume that the LLC must have thought that they didn’t have community support for the first paragraph of the Executive Summary outlined in their plan which was the assumption that the village would give them the funds allocated for demolition in the form of an interest free loan. That being said, there are a number of important questions that remain which are not limited to the following.

1. Another Key assumption of the LLC is the establishment of Main Street as a National Historic District through an application process to the Federal Government. How long does the process take to establish Main Street as National Historic District? If this process takes an extended time period, could the building be in jeopardy of actually falling in on itself (or a passerby) and exposing the Village to further liability? What if this process gets bogged down with bureaucracy and/or ultimately gets denied?

2. What is GCEDC’s position on the lending of funds for this project? One would think that such a successful entity would be cautious based on the number of assumptions outlined in the plan, namely the assumption that occupancy levels would be sufficient to meet financial obligations (the build it and they will come theory).

3. Assuming that the project was completed, what if the venture fails to attract occupants and the LLC. can not meet financial obligations? What lender would be in first place on the defaulting loans? Is there a risk that the building would sit idle, owned by a lender who has no interest in the upkeep of the property thus recycling the current situation, after all, this is a LIMITED LIABILITY Corporation proposal?

4. Since the LLC. has withdrawn the provision of a loan from the Village, where does the Village now stand on tax abatement? Does the Village support a plan where a limited number of investors benefit from the proposed tax breaks in an economy in which taxes are spiraling out of control? Is the Village expecting a significant number of jobs created from this project after completion to add to the local economy/tax base that would come close to giving the Village any benefit from tax breaks extended to the LLC.? What if occupants in the building are directly competing with other building owners/businesses that are paying taxes? Does this create an unfair advantage based on decreased rents created by tax breaks? Has the LLC. considered that they may attract business occupants that are currently open in other buildings on Main Street who would be willing to vacate spaces they currently rent or lease from other tax paying building owners thus leaving more empty spaces on Main Street and risking more buildings becoming defunct?

Before attending Mr. Hauser’s presentation I was very skeptical of the proposal to rehab the Wiss. However, I found his presentation, his accomplishments in Perry and his model for community investment into rehabilitation of old buildings very intriguing and inspiring. I also admire the principle parties involved in this effort for their community spirit and dedication to a belief in such a community based effort. I still do not believe that the Wiss is a suitable candidate for this project. There are a number of reasons associated with my opinion. I do not find the building to be remotely aesthetically pleasing and I don’t see away to make it so and I have talked with many people that hold the same opinion. Parking is a problem, I realize that there are a number of municipal parking lots to provide for occupants and patrons of the building but I would think that any prospective occupant would definitely need to consider parking as an issue when deciding whether to rent. During Mr. Hauser’s presentation regarding the apartments his position was [trust me] they will rent (the build it and they will come theory). I think that the assumption that $800 - $1300 apartments with little to no on site parking and no common outdoor space would rent is a rather large assumption. There are for rent signs all over the village and most of them look to have ample parking for more than one vehicle per tenant whether it is curbside or on property. The rental to owner occupied ratio in the village looks to be one of the highest in the State at about 43% compared to the State average of around 36% with around only 7% renting for over $600/mo (I surfed several websites so the numbers provided are subject to scrutiny but look to be somewhat reliable). I believe that the Village needs to “bite the bullet” and raze the building and try and recover the loss through the sale of the vacant lot. By the way, I fold my left thumb over my right. Just my opinion……

how can you comment at the beginning of the meeting when you don't even know what the proposal is?

At the beginning of what meeting? The organizers presented a feasibility study at the end of Rick Hauser's presentation which I'm assuming will be the basis of their proposal. I'm also making the assumption that the proposal hasn't changed other than they are not seeking a loan from the Village.

Judging the former hotel to be aesthetically deficient (aside from being a case of "eye of the beholder") PRIOR to renovation is unreasonably dismissive. It also does not take into account that the original facade is buried under a latter-day cover-up, the main portico is gone as are the window treatments. I very much doubt that the rental units in a refurbished Wiss Hotel would compare to the average LeRoy rental property; they would be aimed at an under-served clientele. Wait until the project design work is done to judge the building's appearance.

As I said, just my opinion. Do you have knowledge of some cover on the building? I've looked at it and there doesn't seem to be "a latter day cover-up" but I am not a Structural Engineer. Even if there is a cover, why did they cover it so long ago? Could it have been to cover structural deficiency and did Mr. Hauser take any burial of the original facade into account while doing his assessment? any cover that was put on must have been long long ago as the building appears that same today as when I was a young man. You also state that there exists an "under-served" clientele which the apartments would be marketable to. Is that your opinion or do you have some data that makes that statement factual.

The brick is in fact a facade. You cannot tell unless you look very closely. Yes, engineers have confirmed this.

Jennifer, what is underneath the facade? I can only assume that the cover up improved the appearance at the time. Is the building brick? If so is it deteriorated past the point of repair (hence the need for a facade)? If it is not brick, is the original building really a building of "historical importance" seeing as in Mr. Hauser's words, "nothing inside the building is salvageable"? As I said, I am intrigued by the model that your group has put forth. I am not in favor of a renovation given the amount of information put forth so far. I do commend you and your group for the interest and efforts in the village.

Howard, You are quick to put in opinions that you state as though they are factual, [The building] "is a very attractive building", you "have no doubt" and there is "simply no way they don't rent" are nothing but opinion. You have no data to back those statements up. OPINION. I look not to get into some sort of argument with other posters on your site. I gave an opinion and stated as thus. I think there are many questions that need to be answered before the Village sells this property.

The Village has a willing recipient of a donation, not a buyer. The Village did not ask to become the owner but is now faced with the burden. If the Village (ie, me and other residents) is/are to donate the Wiss to the LLC., I for one would like to see a concrete plan of success and some of the questions above as well as other questions answered. Do you propose that the Village of Le Roy just go off half cocked and sell/donate the property to a few folks with good intentions? You have heard what "they" say about good intentions haven't you??

A building that doesn't need it? You were at the presentation and I'm assuming you picked up the Feasibility Study provided by ISA. Did you see the pictures? now that we know that the brick is just a facade, I pose the question again. Is the building brick? If so is it deteriorated past the point of repair (hence the need for a facade)? If it is not brick, is the original building really a building of "historical importance" seeing as in Mr. Hauser's words, "nothing inside the building is salvageable"?

Also, you say now "Why should a government agency tie up property that is more rightfully being privately owned from a private buyer? Yet in an earlier forum when posters were saying no village money you were all for it even calling it essentially private funds. Which is it??

The brick facade was added neither as remediation for structural deficiency nor could it serve as such. Like stucco or siding, its purpose was aesthetic. Perhaps at the time it was deemed more practical than painting the clapboards or a more compatible fit with the other brick-faced buildings. It may even have been mandated to meet commercial fire code.

There have been several references to the building being structurally unsound. No one has asserted that the foundation is collapsing or that any of the beams are rotted or otherwise compromised. Noting that the interior is deficient does not equate to structural deficiency; it may be simply outmoded in terms of future use. One would assume that the interior will need to be re-partitioned to serve functions not of the original design- as well as upgraded utilities and safety features as needed.

It is also apparent that the previous owners gutted the building, removing anything salvageable such as the bar, fixtures and architectural features- again, nothing that would imply structural deficiency.

Last Thursday, I took the time to attend the Wiss Hotel Feasibility Study presented by Rick Hauser, CEO of Insight Architecture LLP. In addition, I was able to take home a hard copy of the study which included photographs of the inside of the property. I’m not ashamed to say I went into this presentation very skeptical and although I remain so, I guess I’ll say I’m less skeptical. I guess I see The Wiss Hotel as a bit of the history of LeRoy. I can remember my grandfather telling me that pre-Thruway, the Wiss was an overnight stop for travelers on Route 5. It’s a piece of our Village’s history.

I have to ask a fundamental question. How did this building and more importantly, how was this building allowed to reach the current situation? I realize the property has been vacant for a couple of years but don’t we have a Zoning Officer that monitors commercial building code in this town? Maybe that was done and ignored by the owner(s). In addition, understanding the situation where the county and later the village took ownership, why was a salvage/restoration company allowed by the original owners to come onto the property and strip components of value? We any of the resulting funds used pay back taxes and obligations?

Regardless, now the Village and its budget are left with a burden. What to do? There is the tear it down and sell the property school of thought that might possibly end up a break even or slight profit (with a lot of luck) to the village. Then there is the question of what’s right for that property? Please not another drug store scenario, we’ve made that mistake once already. I’ve heard Starbucks or Tim Horton’s? I for one feel we have a couple of well-established coffee houses, no more coffee joints please. Lesson learned: We put a couple of drug stores out of business with the last decision, let’s not put a couple of reputable coffee places in jeopardy. What’s right for that corner, if not the Wiss is a question for careful consideration.

So then there’s the proposal we listened to. Again, I was not in favor of “saving the Wiss” but I have to admit, I’ve put my sledgehammer away for at least the immediate. I think there are a lot of questions to be answered but somewhere in Mr. Hauser’s presentation, there may be a reason to further delay the decision on the property and explore.

Mr. Hauser proposes a loan from the village equal to the cost of demolition. I question whether this is even legal but were it to be so, don’t do it. The village should not be in the business of funding private enterprise. We have a couple of community banks with community spirited leadership; go see them for your loans.
1. Mr. Hauser and his company have done an assessment, which seems quite well done of the property but what are his credentials in assessing structural integrity? Shouldn’t there be a second opinion? Before I laid out any contribution to the LLC, I’d want to be sure the end product was going to be structurally sound. In addition, Rick Hauser’s company will financially benefit from this project. This will need to be very well researched and contractual agreements well spelled out before progressing.
2. There was discussion regarding Historical Preservation Funding. I believe that typically requires others in the immediate area to join. Are other property owners ready to assume that responsibility? I remember 20 years ago that being explored on East Main. I was not well accepted and never became reality.
3. The project suggests 5 loft type apartments on the 2nd and 3rd floors. 4 apartments with rent of $1,300 and a small unit with rent of $790. I question the likelihood of getting rent in LeRoy at those rates. Especially considering the view from these apartments isn’t of the Oatka Creek or some other picturesque location.
4. There are also 4 retail spaces bringing $850-1100/month rental income. Will they be filled? I think so, if marketed correctly.
5. I’m also wondering what the local feel is for contributing to this LLC. I liked the statement Rick made of “put your money where your house is”. At the same time, it doesn’t seem like the return on this investment will be large or immediate. Will people contribute an aggregate of $400,000?

Conceptually, seems possible. Reality, a significant amount of work needs to be done and this should not be a leap of faith. Saving the building is the right decision if it can be done prudently and responsibly and most importantly, without municipal funding.

This has been an interesting discussion. I would like to clear up an error by a couple of posters, though. It looks like the amounts quoted for the rents are in fact the proposed square footage of the apartments. The most expensive apartment in the preliminary design is a1360sq. foot one. The monthly rent for this unit is proposed at $950 per month. The smallest 790sq foot apartment is proposed to be rented for $550.