Mount St. Scholastica
Administration Building Questions

The following represents a sample of frequently asked questions we receive and the responses we give.

Building Needs Questions

Q. How old is this building and for what has it been used?
R. The building was built in 1924 and was used for the Mount Academy, Junior College, Mount St Scholastica College administration and classrooms, as sisters’ living quarters, and for the administration and some programs of The Mount Community Center.

Q. How large is this building?
R. The building is 170,780 square feet: five stories with gym, auditorium and sub-basement.

Q. What has been the cost of utilities for a year?
R. In 2001, the last full-use year, the total cost of utilities was $78,184.00.

Q. How much of the building was in use during that year (2001)?
R. The ground floor was full, main floor was three-quarters occupied, third floor was half occupied, and 23 sisters were housed on fourth and fifth floors.

Q. What would need repair regardless of use?
R. In 2001, a facility assessment by Schemmer Associates, an architectural and engineering firm, indicated a need to: revamp heating system, add A/C, replace plumbing pipes and fixtures, add electrical service and replace existing wiring, add a sprinkler system, upgrade lighting, and comply with fire codes.

Q. What would be the cost of these repairs?
R. The report lists $5,902,951.00 as needed repairs, some of which are critical.This figure DOES NOT include anything that would be needed for any renovation project.

Q. What are some of the “critical" items?
R. Most of the items classified as “critical” are related to Life Safety Issues: sprinkler system, fire doors, ventilation and exhaust system, fire alarm system, smoke detection system.

Q. How much have the sisters invested in the building?
R.$3,547,955 has been spent for the total of The Mount Community Center buildings and programs. In total $1,008,621 was spent in the Administration Building from 1998-2001, which were the years when there were the most users in the building.

Q. Have you done any capital improvements on the building?
R. When the college returned the buildings to us in 1989 there was an estimated $1,000,000 in deferred maintenance cited on all the buildings. In retrospect that number was very low. Between 1991-2003 a total of $948,483.18 was spent on capital improvements alone in the Administration Building, including a new roof and a new electrical transformer.

Q. From where did this money come?
R. A Task Force in conjunction with the Sisters Development Office helped to raise the money for improvements. Approximately $776,000 was raised; the rest came from the sisters’ own resources.

Q. Are there other structural needs that would have to be addressed before someone could occupy the building?
R. The structural needs would depend on usage. Regarding egress from the building, the exits are too far and too few. There are no public phones; the restrooms are in poor condition and do not meet present fire codes or ADA codes. Considerable tuck pointing is needed. If air conditioning is added, the electrical transformer is too small. There was asbestos on pipes in the basement; all electrical wiring is cloth covered and would need to be replaced and it needs better distribution.

Q. Why does the building need an electrical transformer?
R. When the transformer was replaced, the new one was sized to include the possibility of air conditioning the building. However, service distribution has been found to be poor, especially in light of all the electronic equipment needed today. Also, we had an erroneous calculation of square footage cited for the building, so the current transformer is too small.

Q. Is the heating system adequate for the building needs?
R. The heat comes from a steam-filled radiator system. The hot water is generated in Dooley Center and piped to the building, where it is converted to steam and circulated. It would need its own boiler or other means of producing heat.

Q. Is the building on the historical register?
R. The building is not on the historical register.

Q. Would it be to your advantage to put the building on the register to help with capital improvements?
R. Being on the register does allow for matching grant possibilities. The downside is that the work must be done in the exact way the society demands, which often is more costly. There could be no upgrades to the building if using matching funds. i.e. there would be no way to replace windows with double hung or any other type of window other than what is there now.

Q. Are there other alternatives to tearing the building down?
R. While money is always a concern, it is not the only concern. We have projected costs over 10 years to maintain the building as is, to raze the building and to board the building up, using as little in utilities as possible. The first option is unreasonable financially and the last option is something that many in the Mount Community see as poor stewardship.


What Have You Tried?

Q. Have you employed any kind of facility consultant to assess uses for this building?
R. We began exploration in 1989 with a consultant from St. Louis, Tom Callahan, who had worked mostly with religious organizations who were faced with some of the same issues we had. We have since talked to various consultants about the building. In 1993 we began a study with the Arthur Clark Co. from KC regarding elderly housing. The conclusion of that study was that the needed renovations would be too costly and would drive the rent too high. We also employed the services of Gossen and Livingston Architects from Wichita to study with us and provide a master plan for renovation and use. We have had real estate salespersons and assisted living representatives. The Tri-Conference, a national religious organization, came and did both building and program assessments. Schemmer Associates was hired during 2001 to do an assessment of the building. Most recently, we have done a Master Plan for the Community conducted by Barry Halm and Associates from Minnesota. This plan, called Vision 2010, is in the implementation stage right now.

Q. Have you solicited help from any other groups or organizations, i.e., the alums of the Academy and College?
R. Over the years various administrators connected both with the Benedictine Sisters and The Mount Community Center have made presentations to a variety of organizations and interest groups. In the early 1990’s a letter was sent to both male and female college alums living in the greater Kansas City area explaining the situation, asking for ideas etc. In 1996, Sister Mary Agnes Patterson, who was then our prioress, appointed a task force made up of several sisters and lay people who have had interest in our Community over the years. Sister Mary Agnes asked Benedictine College to consider using the Administration Building before they built their new student union building in1996.

Specifically the Task Force was asked to find programming for the Administration Building, promote our facilities and raise money for needed repairs to the Ad. building. Every not-for-profit organization that was contacted by Sister Noreen Hurter noted that building improvements would need to be addressed first. The TMCC Task Force’s thought was that, if the building was improved, people would be more inclined to rent space. They were successful in raising approximately $776,000.00 and overseeing some much needed repair work.

In August of 2004, another task force, Friends of the Ad. Building, was formed. This group was interested in finding uses for the Administration Building and was given the same set of guidelines as had been used by past administrations. These guidelines were a litmus test for what the Community felt was important in finding an occupant(s).

Q. Was the building ever listed for sale?
R. No. Of primary concern was that we maintain our monastic identity. This building connects with our main monastery and living quarters. It is attached at St. Cecilia’s, the Music Conservatory, which is attached to St. Scholastica’s Chapel, which attaches to the monastery and Dooley Center. We wanted to maintain some amount of control over who was in the building and what their purpose would be. This is important to us because, first, we would want to be good neighbors. Second, because we have an obligation to the other programs on the campus, nothing incompatible should be placed here. Finally, we are aware of instances elsewhere in the country where a religious organization has sold a piece of property only to have the buyer turn around and sell to another organization to whom the religious organization would not have sold.

Q. Did you ever try to market the facility on the web or through a broker?
R. No. The web does not seem to be an appropriate place for us to market for many of the above reasons. Although a broker is a legitimate avenue for a sale, we have talked to various realtors who didn’t even begin to know what an honest or fair market value for the building might be.

Q. What kind of contacts have you made for the use of the building?
R. Since we have been working on the situation for more than sixteen years, naming contacts would be inappropriate as some of the people involved are no longer in those positions. So, we will cite various categories of programs and institutions which used or considered using the facility:

1. Educational uses from preschool through college: The Mount Mini School, ACES preschool, ACES, The Academy of Mount St. Scholastica, Maur Hill Prep School, Benedictine College, Northeast Kansas Vocational/Technical College and Highland Community College.

2. Nontraditional schooling: tutoring, parenting, GED, Home School College.

3. The arts for children and adults: drawing, painting, clay, music, dance, drama

4. Headquarters for a national child care training program

5. Church denominations

6.Recreational uses

7. Historical room for Benedictine sisters

8. Medical continuing education through Atchison Hospital

9. Independent and assisted care living

10. Thrift shop and other programs for the poor

11.Juvenile offenders

12. Legal and social services

13. Adult education programs: Elderhostel, an airline maintenance & hospitality school, physically and mentally challenged adults

14.Community center for youth

15. Battered women’s shelter

The programs which actually ran in the Administration Building were:
• Sophia Center Spirituality Program
• Art Institute, Clay Classes – Adult & Youth
• Phil Young English Foreign Language School
• Helping Hand Thrift Store
• Happy Hearts
• Wee Care Day Care
• Mini Mount Pre-school
• Read-On Reading and Tutoring Center
• Head Start
• 2 Church Organizations
• Step-in-Time Dance School
• Family Literacy Program
• Photography Studio
• Family Preservation Program
• Center Gift Shop
• National Institute for Childcare Management
• Atchison County Extension Office
• Youth Ministry Program
• NEKCAP Offices
• Gym use by outside groups including the Mount Academy


Q. Why not have a “for profit,” such as loft apartments, in the building?
R. As Benedictines, that would not be in line with our view of ministry, purpose or monastic identity. The cost to renovate would be high. There would be possible exposure to taxation which could endanger the tax status of the entire campus. The cost of utilities is large.

Q. What else do you want to say?
R. Our monastic identity is to be preserved and to prosper. We are women of peace, women of the gospel who have a wonderful heritage to share, but who look to a new horizon as well. Sophia Center, our spirituality center, is one of the bright spots in our future. We want a campus that will nourish and enrich those who visit us. It necessarily needs to be a place of quiet and reflection. We no longer will maintain a building that we cannot use and which does not fit our purpose. The donations we have received have been used to support our ministries and our retired sisters.

Q. By what process did you arrive at this decision to tear the building down?
R. We have come to this decision by prayer, discernment, study and finally by saying “what do we want to be in the future and what will best help us to insure that vision?” In 1990 the sisters set up a separate 501C3 corporation which we named The Mount Community Center Inc. The Community gave itself an initial three to five years to work with all the buildings. After that period, we gave ourselves another five years and finally three more years. During those intervening years, whenever the Community met (approximately four times per year), the topic of buildings often dominated our agenda. All of the consultants we employed told us that we had too many buildings and the Tri-Conference Consultants suggested that we tear down a number of buildings. That was more than ten years ago. This has not been an easy decision. Our demographics, however, say to us that we do not have the personnel, the ministries, or finances to adequately use or maintain the building. We have already invested enough time and money in this building. We are ready to let it go so we can move on to more life-giving ventures.


To view the press release (November 25, 2005)
"Mount St. Scholastica Decides on the Administration Building"


For more information, contact:
Sister Anne Shepard, Prioress
email: anne@mountosb.org
phone: (913) 360-6200

Sister Mary Agnes Patterson, Director of Development & Communications
email: patterson@mountosb.org
phone: (913) 360-6200