2025 Updates 3021 Lorna Road

July 25, 2025 Work Session

Riverwalk and 3021 Lorna Road

1. The city allocated $1,900,000 to renovate 3021 Lorna Road; purchasing the building was just over $2,000,000. 

2. The city stated the space in 3021 Lorna was needed and that the building was in good shape.

3. The city is asking the council to shift money ($100,000) from the renovation fund at 3021 Lorna Road, a building the city OWNS to Riverwalk, a floor in a building the city rents. 

4. The city is asking the council to shift money ($1,500,000) from the renovation fund at 3021 Lorna Road, to repair the stormwater infrastructure at 31 and 150 (Panda Express etc.). The remaining $2,500,000 will come from the general fund.  Clearly, this must be done for the health, safety and welfare of residents. 

5. The city does not have the cash to fix major problems, like the flooding at 31 and 150, because of questionable investments in corporate real estate like Riverwalk and 3021 Lorna Road.

6. Recall the city took a 10% budget cut in the 2025 fiscal year. Money from the reserve was used, essentially to pay one year of rent for Riverwalk.

7. Riverwalk, what was supposed to be a healthcare facility, will be rented to the Alabama Department of Revenue for five years.  That is not a healthcare purpose.  It will not be health care for the term of the Revenue lease.  Will it ever be 90% occupied; five story building 20% is the city's? Does the Hoover portion count toward the 90%?

8. How much of the city's rent will be recouped? (20,997 sq ft *$25=$524,925 of $3 million) Will this lease interfere with the development of the health care purpose of the building? Recall Hoover is stuck in this until the building is 90% occupied.  

9. The council was wrangled into Lorna Road by the Mayor, city administrator, COO, and CFO.  When the COO states the building is in good shape and then more than the cost of the building is allocated for repairs, there are serious credibility issues. 

10. Riverwalk was questioned by the council; for example Dr. Middlebrooks and Mr. Swiney suggested the CON should be obtained before making a financial commitment.  The mayor pushed the development through.  

11. The city has no business in corporate real estate.  The city is not good at this. This is our money; tax dollars. 

February 17, 2025 City Council Meeting

3021 Lorna Road: Hoover owns it but has no clue how to use it 

Mayor Brocato (with help from retired employee Mr. Jehad Al-Dakka) presented a retrospective on a property the city purchased at 3021 Lorna Road.  When purchased, the city had no clear plan on how to use the building nor how much it would cost to renovate the three-story class B office building.  The Hoover Sun published two articles on the purchase.  What we know now about the building is different from what the mayor told Jon Anderson of the Sun about the building. https://hooversun.com/news/hoover-council-to-consider-buying-lorna-road-office-building/ and https://hooversun.com/news/hoover-councils-oks-1-9-million/ 

The fact remains that the city has no plan for the building; there was the initial investment of taxpayer funds ($1,950,000), and the upkeep of the building (since 2022), and the lost tax revenue.  How and why did this happen? The entire presentation is available on The Hoover Channel thanks to Robin Schultz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=918x8AJdUBU

What the presentation to the council did not reveal

The December 5, 2022 council meeting video revealed nothing but 2 minutes of reading the resolution and the vote.  

As usual, the work session mattered; unfortunately, this video was among those "lost" by the city when it removed videos from the website.  That video was recovered by The Hoover Channel (thanks to Robin Schultz) and is interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94uzDoG-b2I  

The fact that the work session was rescheduled to 5 on Monday before the council meeting at 6 pm was important and concerning.  There was less than an hour to consider this purchase.  This resolution and purchase were not discussed at November 21. 1022 council meeting, where a first reading typically would occur. There was no motion to suspend the rules for immediate consideration, maybe that was not necessary. 

The discussion included concerns by the council.

Why not rent available office space (Dr. Middlebrooks)? (Mr. Rice admitted there were lots of vacant offices at the time)

Would this be an appropriate location for the courts (Ms. Driver)? (Mr Rice, no)

The city administrator (Mr. Rice) shifts the conversation, with the help of Mr. Al-Dakka, to the cost of building (new construction) Class A office space.  An apples-to-oranges comparison to justify purchasing this Class B office building. The process appears rushed without an explanation.  The building was 60% empty and no competitive offers were mentioned. It appears renovations to the building will cost twice the amount approved by the council at a later meeting (Millions?). 

The sellers were Ratliff Partners LLC.  Sound familiar?   Turns out Ratliff Partners LLC is the uncle (deceased) and cousins of a member of the firm serving as the city attorney (William A Ratliff) of  Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff and Brandt. 

Assuming the city administrator and mayor did not already know; the city attorney(s) would have revealed that connection as the contract was reviewed.  

Twenty-six months and still no plan for the building.