Struggle over future of Belfast’s Hutchinson Center continues with another appeal to UMaine
Last week, the University of Maine said it was sticking with its decision to sell the Hutchinson Center to Calvary Hope Belfast church, despite appeals from two other parties that also held interest in the campus. This week, one of the parties — Future of Hutchinson Center Steering Committee/Waterfall Arts (FHCSC/WA) — remains intent on changing UMaine’s course of action as it files another appeal, this time over the university’s rejection of its Aug. 19 appeal.
“Following rejection of FHCSC-WA’s protest of award, the University informed us we have a further 10 business-day period from Aug 20 in which to file an appeal to the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, we intend to do so,” said FHCSC-WA on Aug. 26.
That entity, which has also cemented support from the City of Belfast, is calling on the community to get involved, “and write the university, legislators, state agencies and Governor Mills on this issue.”
On Aug. 27, one of the members of the FHCSC-WA said the effort to reverse UMaine’s decision will continue.
“We will take other actions,” said Shane Flynn, who has worked since last summer to convince UMaine to work on a plan that would develop, “the Hutchinson Center as the educational, cultural and civic hub of Belfast, Waldo County and the Midcoast....,” as expressed by FHCSC-WA Aug. 17, in its initial appeal of UMaine’s decision.
The dispute dates back to August 2023, when UMaine closed its Belfast satellite campus in a move to divest of property holdings across the state that it considered unused or underutilized..
The Hutchinson Center had, for the prior 23 years, served as a higher-level educational campus for the Midcoast. It was first built by credit company MBNA, Corp., which was a major employer in the Midcoast from 1994-2005, for its corporate purposes. After the Bank of America acquired MBNA, that company gave the Hutchinson Center to UMaine in 2007.
Several of the FHCSC-WA members were foundational to the Hutchinson Center educational development, including Jim Patterson, who was its first executive director. Now, they are now focused on keeping the campus for public use.
In January 2024, UMaine circulated a request for proposals for the Hutchinson Center and on Aug. 14, UMaine announced that it had chosen Calvary Hope Belfast, an evangelical church currently based on Route 52 in Belfast, from a pool of three proposals. The other two proposals were from Waldo Community Action Partners (WCAP) of Belfast, and FHC-WA.
The 11.6-acre campus includes a 16,675-square-foot facility constructed in 2000 and a 13,841-square-foot wing built in 2007. The property has been appraised at $2.52 million.
UMaine issued a news release Aug. 22, saying it would hold firm to its decision to sell the campus to Calvary Hope Belfast church. UMaine maintained that its selection process was consistent with it public procurement standards.
“Recent sales have also enabled university assets to be repurposed for community benefit or be returned to the tax rolls to generate needed revenue for municipalities,” UMaine had said, in July.
UMaine said it the appeals from FHC-WA and Waldo Cap were: “thoroughly reviewed but did not present evidence to warrant a revision to the original result. Only parties who submitted a non-selected proposal had standing to protest.”
UMaine continued: “The Bank of America donated the Hutchinson Center to UMaine in 2007 as a gift with no conditions. Since then the university has invested more than $14 million in capital improvements, including directly funding three-quarters of a large expansion project completed in 2009, for which UMaine still owes $885,000.”
While the university said it intended to the list the property with a commercial broker, it changed its mind in response to community response and instead issued a request for proposals, “to allow more time for purchase, lease and creative alternative use offers to be developed and considered by UMaine fairly and transparently.”
The top two scoring respondents — Calvary Chapel Belfast and WCAP — both submitted purchase offers of $1 million. UMaine said key factors that distinguished the winning proposal included:
- The top-scoring proposal offered a $1 annual lease agreement in perpetuity for a carve-out of space so the UMS can continue to maintain internet connectivity for midcoast schools, libraries and community centers through a NetworkMaine access hub historically located at the center. This was more favorable than the proposal from WCAP, which offered to lease the space back to the System at a rate of $2 per square foot annually.
- The top-scoring proposal waived the right to inspect the property before the sale. As the university has publicly disclosed, there was water damage due to burst pipes in the building in February.
- The top-scoring proposal offered $250,000 in earnest money, five times the offer of the second-highest bidder.
“None of the proposals would have resulted in the property – appraised in 2023 at $2.52 million – being added to local tax rolls,” UMaine said.
Citizens responded to the decision with at least 235 comments, UMaine said.
“In response, UMS offers the following statement and will not comment further: Long-standing State and System public procurement policy and process is intentionally designed to protect against bias and ensure the integrity of public entities in their stewardship of public resources and trust.
“Every organization and individual had the same opportunity to submit a proposal in response to the Hutchinson Center RFP, and all proposals received were scored by the same objective standards, which have been publicly available for eight months.
“The university cannot discriminate, including on the basis of religion. Doing so would be against the law and inconsistent with the university’s commitment to inclusion.”
Appealing a rejection of a prior appeal
FHC-WA, however, is calling foul, describing UMaine’s actions and review processes as illogical, opaque and, “approach the cynical.”
The group has signed their names: Todd Bluhm, Doug Chamberlin, Kim Fleming, Shane Flynn, Mike Hurley, Jim Patterson, Judy Stein, Larry Theye and Hugh Townsend. In their statement, they said FHC-WA would follow the process and submit their second appeal within 10 business days to UMaine’s Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration. That position is held by Ryan Low.
FHC-WA argue contradictions they found between what was said in the UMaine RFP for the Hutchinson Center, and how the review team ultimately considered and scored each of the three proposals.
They also dispute the scoring of the proposals, transparency of the process, and intent of the university. There is an omission by UMaine of serving the best interests of the community, while stating its decision serves in the best interest of the university, they said, addin that the lack of concern for anyone else’s interests is hypocritical.
“The university communicated a five-day appeal window and subsequently a 10-day high level appeal window, but provided no information on how this appeal would be judged,” FHC-WA wrote. “In the meantime, they have announced they are proceeding with the sale despite two ongoing appeals. This is disrespectful of all respondents.”
FHC-WA said it has already engaged organizations willing to use the Hutchinson Center for events and conferences, even as tenants.
“The FHCSC-WA vision for the Hutchinson Center is as a center for nonprofit organizations,” they wrote.” FHCSC-WA had engaged in serious dialogue with Belfast Senior College, Robert Shetterly’s Americans Who Tell the Truth, Diana Chapin’s Healing Garden, Our Town Belfast, Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and the Camden Conference as potential users and tenants. The Council Members of the City of Belfast—elected representatives of the entire town—endorsed the proposal, as did our state senator.”
“Given the lack of a meaningful bottom-line financial difference between the proposals, and the lack of a data-driven assessment of value to Maine, we ask: what was the award actually based on,” they asked.
“Given the continuing string of flaws and disrespect shown to the community we call on the university to cease this process immediately, respectfully engage a community that has consistently opened its arms to the university, and let us find a collaborative solution that works for the university and the people of Maine.”
The Future of the Hutchinson Center Steering Committee & Waterfall Arts Response to University of Maine press release clarifying reasons for protest
The Future of the Hutchinson Center Steering Committee & Waterfall Arts (FHCSC- WA) will follow the process laid out by the University by which the second appeal must be made to the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration within 10 business days after the notice of the rejection. FHCSC-WA filed an initial appeal on 19 August, which was rejected on 20 August thus opening a 10-business day second appeal window.
FHCSC-WA believes the University’s process is illogical, opaque, and approaches the cynical, as detailed below.
1. Illogical
- The university asked all three respondents to propose ideas to deal with the NetworkMaine server room located in the Center. None of the three bidders scored points on this, which is understandable because the University asked for locked-door access to the room. Yet this is an impossible task given that the center’s own phone lines and internet connectivity run through the same room. No owner of the building can operate the building without access to their own phone and internet lines.
- Realizing this, FHCSC-WA!s proposal presented flexibility to working out a solution, and offered the chance for the university to access the room in the Center indefinitely, saving hundreds of thousands in costs of moving the equipment and constructing a new building. The university dismissed this offer out of hand, saying they were not acceptng so-called cost avoidance ideas. Yet, the university's RFP stated that, "The University will consider alternative creative real property offers if it is in the best interest of the University”
- How could the university dismiss our creative idea by arguing they were not accepting creative ideas? How is saving several hundreds of thousands of dollars not in the best interest of the university?
- All three respondents requested a lease agreement with the university for access to this room. Two proposed an annual rent of $1, the other (that of the second place scorer) was at $2/square foot per year. The server room is 231 square feet. Given that the top two bidders placed equal bids of $1 million, the financial difference between winner and second-place finisher came down to $462 per year, a difference which the university appears to have thought was worth four points on their scoring matrix.
- Both the top two bidders offered the same price — one million dollars.
The top scorer’s earnest money proposal was larger than that of the second place finisher, $250,000 versus $50,000. While that appears to be a material advantage to the top scorer, earnest money is not the same as a deposit. The top scorer's response included a financing contingency.The second and third scoring proposals were cash offers. If the top scorer fails to secure financing, the earnest money would be refunded immediately. Given that possibility, the second scorer and third scorer proposals were in financial terms more certain. Why would the top scorer secure 10 points and the second scorer only 2 points?
- The top scorer did waive the right to inspection, but a mortgage or other lender will likely require an inspection to proceed anyway, minimizing the value of this offer.
2. Opaque
- FHCSC-WA was awarded 56 out of 80 points for its proposed use of the facility including: as a center for nonprofits based on education, community, and the arts, as well as studio space for Waterfall Arts. (The proposal did score 10/10 points for its property disclosure statement, and 10/10 for just filling out the cover sheet and signing a form for a total score of 76/100 points.) How were those 56 points awarded? Where were the 24 points lost?
- The university communicated a five-day appeal window, and subsequently a 10 day higher level appeal window, but provided no information on how this appeal would be judged. In the meantime they have announced they are proceeding with the sale despite two ongoing appeals. This is disrespectful of all respondents.
- The University in its most recent press release, asserts the standards (assessment of proposals) have been available for eight months. True enough, but their standards were hardly clear: “The University will consider alternative creative real property offers if it is in the best interest of the University. The evaluation team will use a consensus approach to evaluate and assign evaluation points.”
FHCSC-WA asked multiple times for clarification of those standards but received nothing material in response.
3. Cynical
The university has asserted several time that money is not their only criterion; value to the community, continuity of the mission of the Hutchinson Center, and advancing the interests of the public university system were also important. Maine President Joan Ferrini-Mundy said in a press release: “We look forward to concluding the RFP process in a way that advances the interests of both the community and our public university, and to continuing to serve this special region of our state.”
- While the university may have taken such factors into account for the FHCSC-WA proposal inasmuch as we were awarded 56/80 points, where and how is that scored for the other two respondents? The traditional bidding route they both took awarded 10 points for filling out a cover page and signing a debarment certification, 10 points for a property disclosure, 30 points for a purchase and sale agreement, 40 points for purchase price, and 10 points for earnest money.
Where is the category to compare the bidders in their potential to “advance the interests of both the community and our public university, and continuing to serve this special region of our state”?
B. The FHCSC-WA and the second place finisher have a long and proven record of serving the entire community. WA’s mission is to nurture and inspire creative expression across Midcoast Maine. In 2023 4,098 guests visited their center, 641 artsts exhibited, 1,007 guests attended youth and family events, 246 hours spent creating and growing in after-school programs, 1,843 patrons partcipated in art classes and workshops.
The FHCSC-WA vision for the Hutchinson Center is as a center for nonprofit organizations. FHCSC-WA had engaged in serious dialogue with Belfast Senior College, Robert Shetterly’s Americans Who Tell the Truth, Diana Chapin’s Healing Garden, Our Town Belfast, Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and the Camden Conference as potential users and tenants. The Council Members of the City of Belfast—elected representatives of the entire town—endorsed the proposal, as did our state senator. All could see the value to the enDre community of the FHCSC-WA proposal.
The second place finisher provides transportation services, early childhood programs, energy programs, housing assistance, resource advocacy, and more. Thousands of people in the Midcoast have been served by this federally supported program. The services provided by the top scorer are a fraction by comparison. Yet where is this considered in the scoring process?
As a taxpayer funded, public, state run university we find it unsettling that the university demonstrates by its decision so little respect for public education. The university’s claim to care about the community and to have run a process that respected the value of public education can only be seen as cynical, especially when one considers the top scorer’s position that "The public schools no longer have the best interest of your child in mind,” (ccbelfast.org, as of December 5, 2023) and "Sending kids to government schools feels like feeding them to the wolves...like lettimg them suffer the abuse of leftist dogma and perverted subject material.” (hXps://calvarychapelmagazine.org/arDcles/calvary-preparatory- academy).
In their rejection (of FHCSC-WA’s protest) letter the university stated, "The University will proceed with the present award so long as it determines, in its sole discretion, that doing so is in the best interest of the University.”
The omission of anyone else’s interests in that statement is telling, and hypocritical given their other statements alleging an interest in the community. And the university just went a step further when they announced they will ignore the voices of the community as the citizens ask for reconsideration of a decision that will impact the region for years.
We are asking for a process that is transparent, rational, and not blind to the value that FHCSC-WA or the second place bidder bring to Maine, including to its public university system. Given the lack of a meaningful bottom-line financial difference between the proposals, and the lack of a data-driven assessment of value to Maine, we ask: what was the award actually based on?
The flaws described above lead us to question the entire process and our confidence that the university competently administered this RFP. This is why we are continuing our appeal.
Given the continuing string of flaws and disrespect shown to the community we call on the university to cease this process immediately, respectfully engage a community that has consistently opened its arms to the university, and let us find a collaborative solution that works for the university and the people of Maine. FHCSC-WA calls on community members to get engaged and write the university, legislators, state agencies and Governor Mills on this issue.
