City Hall Saga Draws a Crowd

Another chapter in the City Hall saga played out at the Schulenburg City Council meeting Monday night, Aug. 3.

Leon John Langhamer, the former landlord of the temporary city offices at 605 N. Upton, spoke during the public comment period.

Langhamer had been leasing office space to the City for the temporary City Hall since 2024. Langhamer said he wished to correct some statements that were made by the City Administrator concerning the lease.

In an interview on July 21, City Administrator Tami Walker told the Record that City Hall needed to move because the lease became “null and void” after the property had been “repossessed” by Langhamer’s lender.

At Monday’s City Council meeting, Langhamer denied that characterization.

“I want to thank y’all for the opportunity to lease the building next door that I owned at one time,” Langhamer said. “And I wanted to do some clarification on it because I’ve been taking some damage over it. It was not foreclosed on, as was stated. That was incorrect.”

According to property records at the Fayette County Clerk’s Office, Langhamer voluntarily transferred the 605 N. Upton property to his lender through a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.”

In addition, Langhamer said the City could have stayed in the property until June of 2027.

“I had that arranged,” Langhamer said.

Langhamer said he offered to sell the building to the City when he still owned it.

“I was told the Council wasn’t interested in it,” Langhamer said. “I think it would have been a good choice for y’all. It would have been a very reasonable purchase. I think y’all made a mistake on that.”

After the meeting, Langhamer told the Record that he offered to sell the property for the same price he purchased it. He declined to give an exact figure. The Fayette County Appraisal District currently appraises the property at $383,900.

“I did approach the council about purchasing the building and was told it was not feasible at this time,” Walker told the Record on Tuesday. “And the sale price was more than we were willing to spend. The funds would be better spent toward renovating city hall. We also did not want to be with an idle piece of real estate that we wouldn’t be able to sell immediately.”

The City Council instead decided to purchase a portable building for $118,000 while seeking $8 million in certificates of obligation (COs) to renovate the old City Hall building on North Main St..

The portable building has been placed on City property near the maintenance warehouse on East Ave. At Monday’s meeting, Walker said City Hall will reopen at that temporary location on Aug. 17.

After Langhamer spoke, Schulenburg property owner Chad Zimmermann addressed the Council concerning the petition he organized to force an election over the $8 million financing plan for City Hall.

“We’re at a crossroads, both literally and figuratively,” Zimmermann said. “This is a watershed event for our small town. The decisions we make moving forward will have a lasting effect on the growth and prosperity of Schulenburg.”

Zimmermann conducted a survey about the City Hall project which he shared with the City Council and the local newspapers. The survey, which had 73 responses, showed that more than 80 percent of respondents felt “very poorly informed” or “somewhat poorly informed” about the City Hall project and the proposed costs.

Only 12.3 percent supported the project as proposed by the City Council.

Nearly half of the respondents said they support the exterior and first floor renovations, but not the second floor. The survey indicates much wider support for water well and waste water improvements, with 74 percent saying they would support a separate bond for water and wastewater improvements.

Zimmermann also shared a letter he sent to the mayor and council.

“When I spoke to all the aldermen on the phone last Monday, one of you compared this to the school bond,” Zimmermann wrote in the letter. “Here’s the difference: the School Board showed the community what they were getting for their money, and the voters got the final say in it. You didn’t do that. No one in the community knew what they were getting for $8 million until nine days after the Notice was posted.”

Concerning the petition, Walker said the Council will decide how to proceed at their Aug. 17 meeting.

“The petition ended the CO process,” Walker said. “The City would need to move forward with the election process and order the Special Election at the Aug. 17 meeting. The city is not required to do the bond election, but it can never issue a CO for the intended purpose without having it approved by an election.

“No formal action is needed by the Council to terminate the CO process,” she added. “But at (the) next meeting, we can announce that a valid petition was presented and that the Council will not take any further action on it unless they decide to hold a bond election.”

Walker said she learned Tuesday that the City will not have to pay the $21,400 bond rating call fee for the CO since no rating was issued.

“If the election passes, I will re-apply for the rating and start the process over again,” Walker said.