A-WAITING GAME
How much is the City of Bishop willing to pay for nostalgia?
About $20,000. That’s how much the city council approved to get a structural engineer’s report on the aging A Frame building it owns. The A-Frame has housed the Bishop Chamber of Commerce for the past 55 years.
But at its regular meeting Monday, council made clear the city is facing large, “generational” infrastructure costs and tight budgets for all city services so additional money to possibly fix the structure, half of which has been red-tagged and essentially sealed off, will have to get in line behind other, more pressing priorities.
Some councilmembers didn’t want to spend any more on the A Frame since the chamber has not offered any statement on whether it wants to stay there or keep a visitor center in the building, located across Main Street from Schat’s Bakkery. Meanwhile, the chamber is buying a new building, and the deal is in escrow. The chamber was notified in June it needed to vacate the building but has been silent on its plans since then, leaving the city council twisting in the wind and taking long, loud heat from residents who lambasted the process, and decisions and everything else the city did regarding the A Frame and the chamber.
The latest public scolding occurred Monday when the council took up approving a contract for the engineering report. Speakers called the A Frame historic, iconic, charming, a great home for the chamber, and an excellent location for a visitor center. Several blasted the “secret” decision-making process about the building that blindsided the public and the chamber and demanded the council be more astute and careful about spending tax money.
But unlike a previous meeting on the same topic with the same level of intense public criticism, this time the council pushed back. Clearly and without hesitation.
The Bishop Chamber of Commerce is a nonprofit, but there are two chamber functions, it was pointed out. One is the traditional chamber of commerce, a business group funded by member dues. Money from that budget will be used to buy the new building. The marketing operation, funded by a TBID tax, has a separate budget and the tax money is largely designated for marketing. (There are even two “chamber” webpages, the marketing page is BishopVisitor, while the regular chamber page is BishopChamberofCommerce.) “In this digital age,” noted councilmember Dennis Freundt, marketing does not require a building. “They could do that work in this room.”
The crowd, which has consistently urged in-person visitor contacts, groaned and muttered. A look at the 2023-24 TBID report bears out the digital marketing focus and the limited reach of the visitor center. While the visitor center sees about 19,000 people a year, the chamber web pages get 681,000 visits and 2.2 million interactions; the email list has 46,000 addresses; social media has around 110,000 “followers”; the Visit Bishop App has 57,000 followers, and paid search engine ads reach roughly 38 million.
As far as process, “the chamber has been looking for a new building for years,” said Freundt, which countered public comments about a quick council decision without chamber input. City Manager Deston Dishion said he and former City Manager Jim Tatum and former Public Works director David Grah inspected the building ten years ago and realized it had been compromised and would be difficult to repair. Making any repairs more problematic, costly and time-consuming is the gauntlet of state permits needed to work on the banks of the South Fork of Bishop Creek (no, that is not a ditch running through the city park, it’s still a creek) that is eating away at the foundation of the building. The chamber was alerted to the state of the building, he said.
As for the assertation the “decision” on the building was made in a secretive, single-topic meeting, councilmember Stephen Muchovej said it was discussed in a public, publicized, 8-hour long budget and strategic plan session that included all aspects of the city budget and priorities. The city is facing some “generational costs,” including a new sewer plant, aging firefighting equipment, public works and recreation projects, he said. While few members of the public were at that meeting, “Tawni was there,” he added, referring to Bishop Chamber Director Tawni Thompson. “We weren’t doing things behind closed doors.”
With those big-ticket items in mind, Mayor Karen Kong said the council had to decide “what amount makes sense for (spending) taxpayer dollars,” on the A Frame. Money for that work could result in fewer recreation programs, for instance. In her mind, A Frame spending should be minimal. She said her gut feeling is to demolish the addition which has been red-tagged. Then, if feasible, work to keep the A Frame only, which is still safe to occupy. Some audience members responded, “we want it all.” Kong said, “that is not the message” she has been getting, which focus on the “emotional” attachment to the A Frame, not the rest of the building.
Councilmember Karen Schwartz asked, “is the visitor center going to stay in the A Frame?” and if not why should the city pay to fix a building that might not be used. Since the chamber has been silent about what it wants to do with the A Frame, she said maybe the city could explore other partners, such as ESIA (Sierra Forever) to run a visitor center. She suggested making no decisions and spending no more money until the chamber’s plans were clarified.
If the chamber buys a new building and moves its offices and visitor center, “why spend money” on a building that won’t have people in it, said councilmember Jose Garcia.
Muchovej noted chamber director Thompson and several board members were in attendance. He asked if they could outline the chamber’s plans for the new building and whether it wanted to keep a visitor center in the A Frame. No one responded.
Freundt said the city should spend $20,000 on the engineering report, regardless of the chamber’s plans so the city will have information on how extensive the structure is compromised and possible fixes. In the meantime, the council and the chamber should meet and get an answer on what the chamber’s plans are for its new building, he added.
Dishion said the structural engineering report by Wood Rodgers, Inc., will only detail problems with the building, and point out possible remedies. It would not firm cost estimates to repair or demolish parts of the building. The report could be completed in about two months, he noted.
