Lebanon officials weigh who would bear future demolition costs, parking and grant timing in Boys & Girls Club lease talks

Good evening: Lebanon city and school officials met July 2 in a joint special session to narrow terms of a proposed ground lease with the Boys & Girls Club for a new childcare facility, with the central unresolved issues centering on decommissioning liability, parking access and looming grant deadlines.

Matt Decker, an attorney representing both the city and the school district, told the joint meeting the draft ground lease gives the club a 40‑year initial term plus two 10‑year extension options and would require the club to “turn the building over to the property owner” at the end of the lease. Decker said the city and school district are considering several long‑term approaches if the building later becomes unusable: “the city paying for the demolition and removal and site restoration costs,” the city leasing the building under the same terms as the club, or subdividing the leased parcel so the city acquires the ground and improvements at fair market value.

School board members repeatedly pressed for protections that would keep taxpayers from absorbing future demolition bills. Richard Ford Burley, a school board member, said he and others worry that if the building is “not usable we want to know that the taxpayers aren't gonna be left holding the bag.” Decker responded that demolition can be “cheaper to knock a building down than it is to put it up,” citing a recent hazardous‑building removal with asbestos remediation that received a quote of about $38,000 as a reference point.

Board members said a top priority in negotiations has been ensuring the community benefits: the draft lease prioritizes spaces first for the club’s employees, then low‑ and middle‑income families required by grant terms, and then Lebanon residents. Several school board members said they want clearer, binding language to guarantee a local benefit and to prevent the district from inheriting long‑term liability without commensurate local access to the childcare slots.

Parking and access emerged as a second major sticking point. Decker outlined a concept plan that keeps roughly 25 parking places at the top of the SAU parcel under district control and shows about 30 additional gravel spaces on adjacent city land. City staff cautioned, however, that Land and Water Conservation Fund restrictions tied to the adjacent property could limit the ability to earmark those spaces exclusively for SAU use, and that coordination with parks and recreation will be necessary. Frank Anzalone of city parks and rec said the proposed gravel access drive “would be much more organized and safer” than current ad hoc parking, but that the road was not required for emergency vehicle access.

Timing is urgent because multiple funding sources require site control or equivalent evidence. Rebecca, a staff member handling grants, said the CDBG public facilities application needs “site control or substantial demonstration” by July 31 to release funds for design; CDFA tax‑credit evidence was cited with a September deadline. Participants agreed those deadlines require either a finalized lease or a signed letter of intent and draft agreements that demonstrate clear progress toward execution.

To bridge the remaining gaps, negotiators discussed two main options: (1) include contingency or “escape hatch” language in the ground lease so that construction cannot proceed unless the city and school board reach a side agreement on decommissioning and parking, or (2) finalize a side agreement now that spells out a cost‑share or land‑swap arrangement. The school board said certain decommissioning terms are a dealbreaker for them; the attorney offered to draft contingency/side‑agreement language for review by both boards by the agreed timeline.

Officials set an accelerated schedule: staff and counsel aim to circulate draft lease and side‑agreement language for council and school board review by Aug. 8 so the councils can set public hearings and, if needed, vote in time to preserve grant opportunities. If either body fails to approve the required contingencies, participants acknowledged the funding could be jeopardized.

The meeting ended with agreement to continue negotiations under that timeline; the school board made and seconded a motion to adjourn.