Home > FAQ About the FCA Building Issues
March 11, 2006
FAQ About the FCA Building Issues
Introduction
What does the Fernwood Community Association do?
What does managing the building have to do with the other FCA activities?
The building represents a lot of work. Doesn’t it drain time from your core activities?
What is the upstairs used for?
Why should the City subsidize the businesses and organizations renting the upstairs offices?
Why should Fernwood have two City-owned buildings?
How did the two building situation come about?
In a CBC interview on February 8, 2006, the FCCS Executive Director said that the FCA occupies “a free building which no other community association gets.” Why should you get it?
How do other communities address their needs for space?
Of what use is the space to anyone and why should the City support it?
Why this particular building?
Why are you against the idea of a combined facility to house everything?
Why are there two groups doing the same thing?
What is the nature of the renovation?
What’s the hold up?
What’s the cost?
Introduction
We appreciate the bind that City council is in and applaud its efforts to ensure that tax money is well spent. However, the current situation did not arise overnight, and, as everyone agrees, responsibility for the $30,000 “fix” recommended in 1992 morphing into an $800,000 behemoth rests entirely with the City. The Fernwood Community Association (FCA) dotted its “I”s and crossed its “T”s, but it is now being portrayed as an uncooperative organization because it wishes to proceed with plans jointly developed with the City over the last five years. There appear to be internal issues related to joint-stewardship of the building that the City needs to address, but these should not be allowed to interfere with the commitment made November 3, 2005 to proceed with renovating the FCA building. Nor should process by jeopardized by the sudden appearance of a totally unrelated request from another organization simply because it is also in Fernwood. Had the renovation proceeded as planned, it would be done by now, and the legitimacy of the FCA’s use of the building, suddenly a grave concern, would be a non-issue.
The funding issue comes down to whether or not the City is willing to spend an extra $400,000 - $600,000 to fix a problem that it created, and whether it should allow a small organization with years of community service to bear the brunt of this bureaucratic malfunction.
What does the Fernwood Community Association do?
The FCA addresses a broad range of issues related to the urban environment, and provides many important services to the community of Fernwood as well as the larger community of Victoria. Some of these include:
Land Use: Long-standing and multi-faceted, the Land Use Committee addresses issues ranging from re-zoning to tree preservation. Recently, a representative participated on the City of Victoria’s Community Association Land Use Committees (CALUC) task force. In February, it sponsored a public lecture on issues concerning property demolition.
Safety: the Safety Committee addresses issues ranging from Block Watch to hypodermic needle disposal, and it was recently instrumental in helping develop the City’s nuisance property bylaw.
Management of two allotment garden sites (at Chambers Street and Garden Street) as well as the Spring Ridge Common, a public green space on property leased from the School Board (previously a gravel parking lot covered in broken glass).
Management of a heritage building, preserving a community asset and ensuring public access to a community hall and meeting space.
Other committees: Cultural, Communications/Fernwood News, Building.
Community Office: Open daily (regular, part-time hours), a conduit for information and referrals, a clearinghouse for community issues and committee work.
A history of sponsoring and/or assisting fledgling groups, some of which include the FCCS (Fernwood Community Centre Society), Compost Education Centre, Solar Farm, Together Against Poverty Society, LETS, and Farmer’s Market.
What does managing the building have to do with the other FCA activities?
Heritage preservation is part of the FCA’s urban environmental focus, as manifested in its efforts to preserve and manage 1921/23 Fernwood Road. The community use of the building for the past quarter century is now also a part of the area’s heritage, and the FCA’s stewardship of the building has become a significant component of its community service, accomplishing three interrelated goals:
Maintaining access to the community hall and meeting space used by a wide variety of groups and individuals seeking medium/small sized, moderately priced venues.
Insuring that numerous FCA meetings and activities have adequate access to space without sacrificing ever-expanding programming.
Generating revenue to fund FCA activities and a coordinator
The reasonable cost for meeting and event space helps many community organizations, including:
Several 12 step programs (AA and others)
Power of Hope youth program
Theatre Inconnu (a local theatre company that uses the FCA hall for rehearsals and performances)
Pandora Arts (an arts program designed to support residents facing mental health challenges).
Good Food Box program
The building represents a lot of work. Doesn’t it drain time from your core activities?
To some extent this was true in the early days of FCA management, but as the requirements of building management became clearer over time, policies and systems were developed to address the issues related to usage and maintenance. Since 1990, the day-to-day operation of the building has been but one of many foci of the FCA. A contingency fund was established, and a committee of people who enjoy building-related work has continued to meet monthly, attending to needs as they develop.
This question – doesn’t it interfere with your community work? – was posed recently by a member of City council whose speculation, regrettably, led to an even more time- and energy-consuming question: “Why should you have this building at all?” Lease negotiations, facilities studies, and now the renovation glitch, have, over the years, involved our devoting an inordinate amount of time to addressing this question. We hoped that signing a 10-year lease and co-developing concrete plans with the City – which the City paid for – would signal an end to this counter-productive activity. However, once again the FCA has been drawn into this debilitating exercise. Its implications for a volunteer organization are enormous, involving countless meetings, documents written and re-written, statistics compiled – all with an “I need it yesterday” urgency. The FCA employs a part-time coordinator, and, under normal circumstances, this employee can handle board/committee support, office work, and rentals; but faced with the make-work project of continual justification, the organization’s modest resources are severely taxed.
What is the upstairs used for?
The FCA and other groups make much use of the main-floor meeting and event space, but there is little need for the upstairs office space. Leasing the upstairs portion of the space pays building costs, provides funds to run the FCA office, and supports community work. Stewardship of the building has evolved to be a part of that community work.
As various public/private partnerships demonstrate, harnessing private capital to assist in supporting under-funded activities is not inherently bad, and the current arrangement amounts to a private sector contribution to the FCA’s community work.
Why should the City subsidize the businesses and organizations renting the upstairs offices?
The City is not subsidizing these groups. This misconception stems from the fact that, typically, property owners pass on a portion of the tax bill to tenants, who then indirectly pay taxes through their rent. As is the case for all community associations/centres, the FCA does not pay property taxes, so the assumption is that groups leasing offices from the FCA have unfair advantage over similar groups leasing offices in taxed buildings. However, the rents charged for the upstairs offices are comparable to those charged for similar no-frills offices, and so do not confer any advantage.
The businesses (an acupuncture clinic and a massage/pilates studio) and non-profit organizations (Power of Hope, Car Share Co-op, and Pandora Arts) leasing office space in the building also contribute to the vitality of the area. They are as legitimate a presence as the businesses leasing space in other parts of the square. The assumption seems to exist that if the building were sold, the storefronts would automatically be used for “good” businesses, such as a coffee shop or drugstore; but the space could just as easily be used for businesses with no drop-in potential, such as an upholstery shop or medical supplies wholesaler. There is a shortage of office space in the City, and it is hard to determine any benefit from reducing the stock.
The amount of money the City would otherwise collect in taxes is approximately $14,000, a relatively small sum, and, unlike other community associations/centres, the FCA receives no funding from the City for maintenance costs (the FCCS, by comparison, receives $50,000 to annually from the City). This passive contribution helps the FCA provide community services.
Why should Fernwood have two City-owned buildings?
The idea that two structures automatically result in serious inefficiencies may, upon first consideration, seem true, but when community needs for space are considered by function and price per square foot, a different picture emerges. The two-building “problem” leaves the false impression that there are two equal buildings, used for the same activities by two groups that do the same things. The fact that the two structures are 1 ½ blocks apart obscures the fact that they were designed to be one facility (comparable to the two buildings – one old, one new, and only ½ a block apart – that make up the Fairfield Community Association).
The building at 1923 Fernwood Road was purchased as one part of a two-building facility meant to meet community needs for space – which it does. If the square footage needs for program and meeting/event space in the community are met, it is difficult to understand the persistently expressed view that one building is necessarily better than two, or that the FCA building is automatically the wrong set of walls to contain a portion of that square footage.
Whichever way the management chart is re-arranged, the work associated with a community hall and meeting space has to be done by someone, and the maintenance and utility bills have to be paid. The assumption that staff employed by the FCCS would do the work for less than current costs is without substance. When you consider the FCA’s extremely modest budget, it is hard to see how these fixed costs would be significantly lessened, and the case could be made that the costs might even be more.
How did the two building situation come about?
As in other city neighbourhoods, the uses for, and administration of, similar facilities evolved in different ways in response to different circumstances. The City owns the building because it took advantage of the federal Neighbourhood Improvement Program (NIP) in the 1970s, enabling it to expand its community/recreational facilities while paying only 25% of the cost. This was a conscious decision, not a case of inheriting an inappropriate or outdated structure. The City agreed to the acquisition and, shortly thereafter, the current management arrangement, as well as all subsequent stages of building development.
The original idea springing from the citizen-driven NIP process was to create a facility for recreational programming, a senior’s centre, daycare, and meeting and administrative space. The FCA building started out as a crafts annex. For reasons of the day (1979), the stakeholders (including the City), decided to create a facility with two sections – one new construction, the other an existing structure a short distance away – rather than build a single large structure to hold everything.
Lack of attendance (which made classes unsustainable financially) and safety concerns (the woodworking shop needed expensive fire prevention equipment), among other reasons, contributed to the decision to abandon the crafts centre concept in favour of a community hall and meeting space. As a result, these functions are performed primarily by the FCA building. The fact that these buildings are now administered by separate organizations (a decision endorsed by the City in the early 1980s and examined at length at different times since) is not inherently problematic.
The FCCS has a free building, and all other city-owned buildings used for community hall and meeting space by the various community associations, community centres, and senior’s organizations are also free. Not only that: the City essentially pays them to use the buildings. The FCCS receives approximately $50,000 a year from the City for maintenance costs, whereas the only money the FCA receives from the City is a $5,000 base funding grant. In addition, all these organizations use their facilities to generate revenue. All rent their meeting and hall space for a variety of non-program activities (i.e., not directly supervised or offered by the centre, such as Brownies or all-candidates meetings) and charge for many of the programs housed in the facility.
It is true that the Jubilee and North Park community associations, which formed in the 1990s, do not have their own facilities, although the Burnside Community Association, which emerged at about the same time, does, and is slated to have a multi-million dollar replacement built in the next year or so. When the community association/community centre concept gained acceptance in the 1970s, facilities were acquired piece-meal, based on the availability of appropriate existingbuildings and/or funds for new ones. The lack of standardization is a problem the City wrestles with, but it is one that occurs in every neighbourhood in the municipality.
How do other communities address their needs for space?
James Bay has numerous facilities and organizations, including the James Bay Project, James Bay Community Centre (attached to James Bay Community School), and James Bay New Horizons Seniors Centre. The Neighbourhood Environment Committee, which performs some of the same urban environment oriented functions as the FCA, is a separate society.
The Fairfield Community Association’s facility consists of comparable square footage (or considerably more, depending on how the access to Sir James Douglas school is calculated), spread between three buildings – one old, one new (a block apart), plus the school.
The Burnside Community Centre is slated to receive a new 17,000 square foot facility.
Of what use is the space to anyone and why should the City support it?
There is a need for event and meeting space in all communities, and the various community buildings share some portion of their facilities with others. Space rental is one of the services they provide, and one from which they all derive revenue. There is very little space available in the FCCS, which has no community hall, making it inadequate to meet the community’s needs.
The FCA is in a unique situation, having developed a policy that allows it to subsidize fledgling groups, through rent reductions or waivers, and give them a hand at a time when they are struggling to get going. The City uses some of the tax money it collects to give grants to a variety of groups, who then use some of the money to rent space for their activities. By assisting small or new groups with low or no rent, the FCA performs a similar role, and its administration costs are considerably lower than the City’s.
In the late 1970s, when the planning process was underway for creating a Community Centre, many options were considered. At some point, the idea of constructing a building on the site where the Centre now sits was formed. For reasons not clear today, the designers came up with the idea of creating a two-building facility instead of one building large enough to accommodate the various recreational, child/youth services, and Association activities. What is now the Association building was purchased at the same time the Centre building was constructed, and it was an annex of the Centre. The use of the FCA building as community hall and meeting space for the past twenty-five years is now also a part of the area’s heritage.
The City promotes the preservation of heritage buildings, but the increased costs scare off many would-be purchasers. By putting money into the FCA building, the City accomplishes several things: it preserves a heritage space; it increases the re-sale value, thus ending up with a more valuable asset; and it enhances and expands the versatility of existing community hall and meeting space.
Why are you against the idea of a combined facility to house everything?
Prior to the current renovation crisis, there was no perceived need to re-open the question of the building’s value and role. Even during last year’s amalgamation talks, there was never any discussion about getting rid of the building, only about re-configuring how the two buildings would be administered.
The event triggering this ad hoc re-evaluation was the building inspector’s refusal to accept the premise that a change of usage was conferred in the1980s with City council’s approval of Cool Aid’s group home use of the upstairs space, and re-affirmed in 1995 with council’s approval of the change to office rentals after Cool Aid’s departure. The million-dollar price tag attached to what was to have been a project costing less than one third that amount understandably raised everyone’s anxiety levels, and council’s unanimous vote to support the more expensive seismic upgrade option was an acknowledgement of its responsibility for a problem that could have been solved by due diligence and $30,000 in the early 1990s.
The discussions of one and two decades ago regarding the building’s value to both the community and the FCA appeared to be long over. The ten-year lease and the City’s investment in planning and funding the renovation – including $25,000 paid to D’Ambrosio Architects to re-design the hall – strongly indicated agreement with the FCA’s position on, and use of, the building.
Ever since a budget meeting on January 30, 2006, when City Councillor Geoff Young mused aloud about the possibility of a multi-use facility to house the FCCS, FCA, and Boys and Girls Club, this notion has been referred to as if it were a full blown proposal that the FCA is refusing to consider. In fact, there is no proposal. There is a vague, unsubstantiated idea that it would be somehow better (cheaper, more efficient, etc.) to scrap what exists and start all over again. Perhaps so, perhaps not. However, if this option was one the City saw as vital, why wasn’t a proposal – with costs, sites, and logistics fleshed out – developed during the past 5, 10, or 15 years?
In 1993, FCA participation in discussions with the FCCS and Vic High regarding facilities was a condition for our receiving a long-term lease (three years). This discussion process eventually led to the charette held in 2000, which in turn led to the City’s decision to renovate the FCA building and grant the FCA a 10-year lease. The City paid for the architects who drew up the plans for the renovation and re-design, and also pledged to contribute $108,000 if the FCA raised $200,000. The FCA has been raising funds and putting off much needed maintenance and cosmetic work for years (which affects its desirability as a rental), because we believed that everything would be taken care of in the renovation. The FCA remains open to all possibilities, but there is a pressing reality now: planning for the future is at a standstill and the heavy workload associated with trying to resolve this problem is seriously taxing FCA volunteer resources. To invoke, at the last minute, the amorphous vision of a mega-facility, after the countless volunteer hours that have been spent on this project for the last five years, is inappropriate and counter-productive.
Why are there two groups doing the same thing?
They aren’t. In the 1970s, residents in different parts of the city became alarmed at the rapid rate of demolition and re-development and formed community associations. One of these was the Fernwood Community Association, founded in 1973. The Association’s most important long-term involvement of that time was in bringing the federal Neighbourhood Improvement Project to Fernwood, as had happened in James Bay and Vic West. A number of improvements resulted (the Belfry Theatre, Gladstone mall, parks, playgrounds, etc.), the biggest of which was the creation of a community centre consisting of two buildings, one purpose-built and one heritage. Thus, the Association identified a need for, and was instrumental in, securing the funds for a community centre in Fernwood. The Fernwood Community Centre was conceived as a recreational and social facility (offering daycare, youth programs, classes, a sports and senior’s centre) with services provided primarily by professionals. A separate non-profit society was created to manage it at the behest of some residents and City staff, for reasons that presumably made sense at the time. The Fernwood Community Association continues to be a grass-roots organization focused primarily on volunteer activities related to improving the urban environment.
What is the nature of the renovation?
This is a seismic and safety upgrade for the building, which will also increase its capacity from a maximum of 60 people to 100. Like all community halls, it will essentially be a big uncluttered “box,” adaptable to many different uses. The orientation of the hall will be rotated 90 degrees, bathrooms upgraded, the office re-located, and numerous improvements made to the roof, masonry, and other elements.
A very complicated set of structural and bureaucratic issues. (See the renovation history report for details.)
Over $300,000 has already been raised (including the $108,000 already allocated by the City, plus the $200,000 brought in through FCA fundraising). The current problem surfaced when application was made to begin construction on a project for which funding had already been allocated. The additional $850,000 estimated by staff for the comprehensive upgrade is to cover a worst-case scenario. It is likely the costs would be considerably less.
The argument has been made that the FCA’s use of 1923 Fernwood Road costs the City money, since the FCA pays no property taxes (estimated currently at $14,000 per year). It has also been argued that the FCA position that it provides an affordable hall and meeting space is misleading, since the lack of taxation constitutes a subsidy. There are many other organizations that also pay no property taxes; presumably, the services they provide to the community form the basis for tax forgiveness. By facilitating access to the building (through the FCA’s economical management of it), the City provides, or creates opportunities for, a number of services both to and through the FCA worth considerably more than $14,000. They include:
FCA specific:
Support for the ongoing committee work of citizens wishing to be involved in addressing issues related to the urban environment (land use, safety, etc.)
A venue for public education events (such as the recent lecture on issues involving demolition versus re-development)
Space for joint FCA-FCCS sponsored events such as Fernfest and craft fairs
Office space for the FCA employee coordinating Association activities, and storage space for related records
Additional community activities:
Central America Support Committee [est.1979] has been renting the premises since 1984. CASC organizes a monthly coffee house, Cafe Simpatico [est.1984], which provides a educational and entertaiment venue, for little or no cost to those attending. CASC supports humanitarian and social justice projects in Latin America as well as hosting local visits by intellectuals, artists, human rights activists and political figures from around the world.
CASC volunteers are also active in the FCA Building Committee and Municipal issues.
Various volunteer or recreational groups, ranging from seniors fitness groups to low-cost food distribution, use the hall for ongoing and/or occasional activities
Six weekly12-step meetings are held in the board room
Several small, non-commercial theatre groups use the hall for rehearsal space
It is a venue for various other cultural events (art shows, small-scale musical performances, etc.)
It provides space for private functions ranging from parties to memorial gatherings
There are substantial costs to the FCA – in terms of finance and volunteer time – associated with both the renovation and the long delay of that renovation:
Hall and office rentals revenues that fund the FCA’s modest budget are threatened.
Funds raised to finance the original renovation plan are secure for now, but cannot be counted on indefinitely.
Thousands of volunteer hours have been donated over the past 5 ½ year planning/consultation period. Many more will be required to oversee the renovation.
Part of the renovation plan requires a commitment from the FCA to pay for or actually work on demolition, painting, and cosmetic improvements.
-FCA Executive