Special Double Radio Post: Is 'Option 4' still an option?

In our last two Finger Lakes Morning News interviews with Ted Baker on WGVA radio (April 16 and May 21), we discussed our point of view that Ontario County’s process for deciding which one of five building options ought to be pursued for the permanent home of Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) Geneva Extension Center had a preordained outcome, an outcome which, itself, was ill conceived.
Now we wonder if Option 4-- to demolish the architecturally and historically significant 1926 Geneva High School edifice and build a new, significantly smaller structure-- is still an option. It seems that the County rammed through Option 4 only to discover that state law may not allow the plan to go forward.
What the County finds itself up against are two state-placed hurdles. First, County Administrator Geoff Astles says that he has received notice that purchasing the building will trigger a series of code enforcement actions that would render the building unusable for FLCC’s intended purpose. Second, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) must sign off on the County’s demolition and mitigation plan before any state funds can be drawn down for the project.
In a sense, the County has found itself having gone full circle back to the position held by some opponents of the plan. The 1926 building may, in fact, have to stand with FLCC remaining the primary tenant.
On Friday, May 21st, FLCC announced it would seek to renew its current lease with the Geneva City School District, rather than executing the purchase offer that was on the table. The purchase offer was used by the Projects Committee as the main reason that additional options could not be considered. They announced that the purchase had to be made before the end of June and therefore, time was of the essence. Turns out that isn’t the case after all. And as Capraro pointed out in the April interview, anytime a multi-million dollar project hinges on an accelerated deadline, there’s probably a lot being overlooked, a lot of important reasons to slow down and do a more thorough review.
In the May radio appearance, we challenged the Mayor of Geneva’s suggestion that it was “arrogant” for the Geneva City Council to take a position on the FLCC project that did more than just support whatever the County proposed. Arrogant? Since the County had asked for a resolution from the City on the project it was not arrogant but rather the responsible action to take. As we had covered in our post, state legislation that forbids state money to be used to demolish architecturally and historically significant buildings, and the 1926 building is one of them. It is not a given that the state would approve the drawdown of funds for the demolition option. Between that and the code issues, the County Board of Supervisors might have given their unanimous support to an option that isn’t really an option at all.