There is strong support among citizens for a hotel in downtown Mount Airy — and using a hefty sum of city funds to help bring that about — based on comments aired at a hearing.
This process that unfolded Thursday night during a Mount Airy Board of Commissioners meeting was not your grandfather’s public hearing with speakers piling into council chambers of the Municipal Building and awaiting their turn to address city officials.
Instead, with seating limited due to the coronavirus, most of the comments that were heard had been emailed in advance and were read aloud by Carolyn Hegler, a city clerk.
Meanwhile, those showing up in person were spread out around the premises and voiced comments after the written ones were presented on an issue surrounding plans for a boutique upscale hotel containing 77 rooms in the Sparger Building fronting Willow Street.
Overall, the count totaled 17 that were emailed and six registered in person, dominated by those favoring a municipal funding proposal for the hotel which had been unveiled in late January.
The Sparger Building is part of the former Spencer’s textile property bought by the municipality in 2014 to develop for other uses, which so far has included a new apartment complex. It filled up quickly last year despite units renting for more than $1,000 per month.
In addition to the hotel, which might be operated under either the Marriott or Wyndham label, a group headed by Sunhouse Development is seeking to establish a market center. It would contain convention-type meeting rooms and other amenities in the so-called Cube Building located to the rear of the Sparger structure.
The total price tag of the project has been put at $13 million to $14 million.
Mount Airy officials are considering whether to invest $2.9 million in taxpayer dollars for a Phase II infrastructure effort emerging in conjunction with the hotel/market center development. About $1.63 million of that would provide parking areas at the project site.
Speakers support
Most of the citizens offering comments were of a mind-set that a downtown hotel is needed and the city government’s financial involvement should be viewed as an investment which will pay dividends in the future.
This represents an opportunity other rural cities “can only dream about,” said Chris Lumsden, the president and CEO of Northern Regional Hospital, who was among the live speakers.
Few hotels are being built anywhere because of the pandemic, added Lumsden, who lives near the Spencer’s property involved.
The hospital official said having sufficient infrastructure goes hand in hand with such a development. “If you don’t have infrastructure, you don’t have a good city.”
Along with parking, the Phase II project includes grading, water, sewer and storm-drainage work along with decorative lighting, landscaping, a retaining wall and other improvements in the area of Willow and Franklin streets including a pocket park on Willow.
Commissioner Marie Wood prefaced Thursday night’s hearing by saying some components of the $2.9 million infrastructure plan represent work needing to be done by the city even without a hotel.
“I fully support the concept of a hotel,” said Joseph Zalescik, another in-house speaker, a local small business owner who moved here from New Jersey and is a member of the Mount Airy Planning Board.
“I fully support the infrastructure improvements that have to be made,” Zalescik told the assemblage.
Others said the hotel project would aid tourism efforts locally, both present and long-term.
A downtown hotel could draw more visitors to the central business district during the week, especially with the meeting space envisioned for conventions and other events, believes Jessica Roberts, executive director of the Mount Airy Tourism Development Authority.
Roberts also cited the jobs to be created during the construction phase and after the hotel and market center open, and said the project “would contribute to the overall downtown transformation.”
Dawn Wallace both emailed comments and spoke in person at the hearing in support of the project.
In the interest of full disclosure, Wallace identified herself as assistant general manager of the Hampton Inn by Hilton on Rockford Street, owned by Sunhouse Hospitality LLC, which is part of the Sunhouse Development group.
But this doesn’t alter the merits of the planned endeavor by Sunhouse owners, who Wallace said “have a heart for this town” and want to help it grow.
“They really could go anywhere and build a brand-new hotel at a lesser cost,” Wallace suggested.
The local effort is motivated by a desire of the developers to convert a deteriorating former industrial structure into something worthwhile, she said.
“They want to have a beautiful hotel that everyone can be proud of — they really want to see this property become beautiful again.”
Wallace also said there is a need for lodging in the downtown area within walking distance of restaurants and retail shops.
The speaker said she understands fears of a property tax increase possibly resulting from the city’s funding injection. “I think that’s a very shortsighted way to look at this project,” Wallace added regarding the gains it offers.
Carolyn Choate, site manager of the Spencer Mill Apartments located next door to the Sparger Building, provided a similar view when addressing city officials:
“I think Mount Airy is ready for the next step,” Choate remarked.
Some cons included
The written comments received also were mostly supportive of the hotel and city funding.
Lenise Lynch, general manager of the Hampton Inn, wrote that would-be visitors to Mount Airy frequently inquire about room availability in the downtown section.
Another woman emailing a comment, who lives in the Spencer’s vicinity, referred to the “eyesore” existing there now.
“And if that could become a boutique hotel it would be good for the town,” she wrote.
Other emailers mentioned previous debacles surrounding the Spencer’s redevelopment, including an attempt to locate a Barter Theatre expansion there which fell through about two years ago despite much city government expense.
“Don’t use any more of my tax money on anything having to do with the Spencer’s project,” Tom Snow wrote. “Stop gambling on Spencer’s.”
John Pritchard pointed out that three of the five city commissioners are relatively new on the job and should learn “from the previous board’s mistakes” with Spencer’s decisions.
“The city can’t afford any more of that,” Pritchard further wrote.
One woman wants municipal officials to avoid any large appropriations given the present state of the economy.
A joint comment mailed by Macon and Candace Sammons mentioned that they are pleased by the project while also expressing a hope that it will be feasible for all concerned:
“Obviously, it must be a good deal for the taxpayers as well as the developers.”
Source: https://www.mtairynews.com
Be First to Comment