Despite proposal for former bank, city unsure if building should be saved

The Port Washington Plan Commission last week approved plans by businessman Gertjan van den Broek to renovate the exterior of the former M&I Bank in downtown Port — a building he plans to buy but that is slated to be razed by Feb. 17 per an agreement the city has with the current owner.

The contractor hired by the current owner, Port Harbor Investments, took out the raze permit by Friday, as required in the agreement, City Administrator Mark Grams said.

But demolishing the building and clearing the site is expected to take as long as 30 days — beyond the Feb. 17 deadline.

And if the Common Council wants to give van den Broek a chance to save the structure — something the city has championed in the past — it needs to delay the razing deadline in its agreement with Port Harbor Investments, Grams said.

The council, however, won’t meet again until Tuesday, Feb. 7, unless aldermen call for a special meeting.

“Somebody’s got to do something,” Grams said.

That is just one of the Catch 22 situations facing the city and van den Broek, who has an accepted offer to purchase the former bank.

It’s a situation that pits city officials who have tried repeatedly through the years to get Port Harbor Investments to repair the dilapidated structure and van den Broek, who said he has been trying to reach a purchase agreement for the building for years but was only able to so a month ago, when the city’s requirement that the former bank be razed went into effect.

City officials agreed in December to extend the deadline to raze the building so van den Broek could determine whether he would complete the purchase.

Searching for financing for the deal, van den Broek has asked that the raze requirement be lifted, saying it is difficult to get a bank to lend money to buy a building that is to be torn down.

But city officials are wary of his request, noting that if they don’t enforce the agreement with Port Harbor Investments — essentially voiding the agreement that would end their lawsuit against the firm — and van den Broek’s deal falls through, they could be back at square one, with nothing but a dilapidated structure to show for the years they have spent trying to get the building fixed.

“It’s a standoff,” Grams said. “This is kind of a unique situation.”

Van den Broek said he understands the city’s position but wants officials to remember that he and his firm, Renew Port Holdings, are not Port Harbor Investments.

“I can understand the frustration,” he said. “I get where the city’s coming from. I recognize the aldermen are in a very difficult position. They’ve been dealing with this for a long time. I don’t envy them.

“The last thing I want to do is become the new Port Harbor Investments. I only commit to things I feel I can do. I have a viable plan.”

But the city’s expectations of a short timeline to finalize his plans, renovate the building and fill it aren’t necessarily realistic, van den Broek said.

“I don’t even own the building,” he said. “I don’t control the Plan Commission or determine what it will approve. I don’t control the banks and financing. There are things I can’t guarantee right now.

“I’d rather do my homework and do something that’s credible and realistic, not pie in the sky.”

But Ald. Dan Becker said the city needs to see a clear plan and progress.

“It’s murky,” he said. “You say you have plans. We just want to see what they are. We’d like you to show us where some progress is being made.”

Van den Broek, who in December said he would finalize the purchase on Jan. 30, has asked the city for more time to determine his plans for the building, saying last week he would like to move the closing date of Jan. 30 to the end of May.

That extra time is needed, said van den Broek, both to complete his due diligence for the building and to obtain financing.

But some officials are skeptical about the purchase, fearful it will mean the building will stand in disrepair for yet another tourist season.

They want to see plans for the structure, they said, and want assurances van den Broek can obtain financing.

There are also concerns that, even if he renovates the building, it will sit empty like so many other downtown buildings, officials said.

Van den Broek said that while he has looked at as many as 12 plans for the structure and has a preferred option in mind, he said he is still contemplating ideas for the building.

“I have a concept that works, that makes money, that makes sense,” van den Broek said.

Until he buys the structure, he said, he doesn’t want to reveal those plans for fear someone else will implement them.

To allay fears that the building will remain in its current state throughout the summer, van den Broek pledged to put the funds to fix the facade in escrow and complete the repairs by tourist season — whether or not he buys the building.

Jim Read, van den Broek’s architect, told the Plan Commission that the facade improvements would likely cost about $8,000.

It’s a good-faith effort intended in part to assure the city he is serious about renovating the structure, van den Broek said.

“It’s my way of saying I heard the city’s request. I heard the city’s frustration, and I am willing to deal with that,” he said. “If I do fix the facade, it’s a cost but it’s also an investment in the building.

“I’m hoping it will give me the time so I feel I can do this right.”

Although some people are skeptical that the building is worth saving, Read said it is structurally sound. The boilers remain in the building, the plumbing looks sound and there is some electrical equipment that could be used.

Read said the building would likely be renovated for retail or commercial uses on the first floor, perhaps with a mezzanine level added, and apartments with lake views created on the upper floors. These apartments could be converted to condominiums in the future, he added.

The fact Port Harbor Investments would continue to own the building bothers some officials.

“We’ve gotten the runaround from them. They (aldermen) don’t want them to have any hand in this at all,” Mayor Scott Huebner, chairman of the Plan Commission, said.

Van den Broek said Tuesday that the closing remains scheduled for Jan. 30, although he will likely seek to have it delayed until after the Plan Commission’s Feb. 16 meeting.

If he doesn’t purchase the building and renovate it, van den Broek warned, the building will be razed per the agreement and the land will likely sit vacant until Port Harbor Investments finds another buyer.

That, both officials and van den Broek fear, could be years as the real estate market recovers.

Although some aldermen have supported van den Broek, others have remained skeptical. That, said van den Broek, makes it difficult to determine where to go from here.

“I’m very uncomfortable with the mixed message,” he said. “The only way I can pull this off is with the cooperation of the city.

The future of the building will be on the Common Council’s Feb. 7 agenda, Grams said. Because of the uncertainty about its future, work to demolish the structure likely won’t start until then, forcing aldermen to delay the deadline once again.

“They’re going to have to extend it,” he said.