Safe Harbor of Grand Traverse has offered to purchase a city-owned warehouse at 517 Wellington Street for $50,000 – a proposal that could reopen commission discussions to make it a homeless shelter. Sale of the property would also make it one of the first to go through a new city property disposal process.

Safe Harbor officials submitted a purchase offer Friday for the building and a small parcel of surrounding property. The $50,000 offer includes “a deed restriction limiting (the property’s) use to services for those experiencing homelessness,” according to a Safe Harbor statement, and attaches a $1 million commitment to renovate the building.

“Despite the damage to the building – including mold, ruptured water lines, dilapidated HVAC and a compromised roof – we feel that this property remains the most viable option for a shelter, given its location to other services, and the fact that it already has a special land use permit approved for its use as a shelter,” says Safe Harbor Chair Peter Starkel.

Board member Christie Minervini explains the group ran into several obstacles as they prepared to lease the building, including restrictions placed on donations and tighter construction regulations due to being a city-owned property versus a privately-owned one. “We were advised by city staff that purchasing the building could be a better way to go,” Minervini says. Renovating the building will cost roughly $300,00-$400,000 less than tearing it down and constructing a new facility, says Minervini.

A purchase agreement would need to be reviewed and approved by city commissioners. City Manager Marty Colburn says the offer won’t be added to tonight’s (Monday’s) agenda, likely marking it for either an October 12 study session or the commission's October 19 meeting.

Commissioners tonight will consider adopting a new policy for disposing of city property – with Safe Harbor one of the first organizations potentially affected by the new guidelines.

Commissioners Gary Howe, Jeanine Easterday and Ross Richardson helped draft the policy for determining how to handle surplus or underutilized city properties. “It describes a hierarchy of needs,” explains Easterday. “We’d be looking first at whether the property is needed for a government use. If not, we look at whether there is a public use for the property - and if so, if the city can handle that use, or if it wants to partner with another organization to provide that.”

For properties where there’s no governmental need and no suitable public use, the land could be sold on the market and proceeds dedicated to a specific city project, according to the draft policy.

In terms of the Wellington property, the portion of the site needed for government use – city storage – has already been excluded from Safe Harbor’s offer. Easterday and Howe say the next step is looking at public use for the remainder of the property. Both believe an emergency homeless shelter fits that criteria. “It’s something that we don’t have in the city,” says Howe. “It’s (addressing) a public health issue.”

City Attorney Lauren Trible-Laucht has also advised commissioners that they’ll need to consider user groups as well as uses when disposing of city property. If the board decides a parcel should be used in a particular way – such as for an emergency homeless shelter – commissioners should consider “(bidding) it out for that purpose,” she says.

“This would serve to undermine any arguments of anti-competitiveness with a minimum amount of effort on the part of the city,” Trible-Laucht wrote in a memo to commissioners. “This would also serve to establish and support a market price for the property based on the required use.”

Though Safe Harbor might be the only organization willing to bid on running an emergency shelter, both the nonprofit and commissioners say they’re willing to go through that process to meet the recommended city guidelines.

“There’s something to be said for going through that step not only for this particular city parcel, but other parcels down the road,” says Easterday. Concurs Minervini: “If it’s a matter of process and the city wants us to do that, we don’t have any problems with that. If not Safe Harbor, let’s get somebody to do this, because it’s an important service.”

Regardless of what the commission decides to pursue for property disposal, Howe hopes Safe Harbor’s purchase offer will give commissioners and residents “an opportunity to have a more productive dialogue” about the shelter. “Maybe we can have a better discussion this time around to address the need of an emergency winter shelter...and the needs of our homeless population," he says.