In 1990, the then-Executive Director of the Civic, Marlene Klanfer, produced a document called "Concept Paper - Civic Preservation Project." The purpose of the project was "to secure the capital improvement funds and ownership structure needed to permit the Civic to meet its full potential as a resource for enhancing the quality of community life in Cleveland Heights."8

The experience of Temple Associates over their 10 years of ownership proved that the building did fulfill a significant role in the community. The spaces are well suited for the current uses and the building had the added advantage of owning an adjacent 300-car parking lot. The problem was the condition of the building. The owners estimated that income could be increased at least 40 percent to $550,000 per year if significant improvements could be made to upgrade the structure to current standards. While this income level could not sustain any capital improvement payback, it would support the current operating needs of the building. The Concept Paper identified $3,000,000 in capital needs that were required to renovate the major areas, repair the leaking roof, and upgrade the antiquated plumbing, heating, and electrical systems.

The paper concluded that Temple Associates, as a for-profit partnership, was not the appropriate vehicle for preserving the building as a community asset. Temple Associates, in this paper, agreed to donate its partnership equity to a new not-for-profit entity debt free. The paper concluded by stating that "preserving the current building, while developing it as a focus for community activities, is the use that will contribute the most. Demolition and conversion to commercial uses, the most likely alternative, would not be a comparable contribution."9

In retrospect, it is unfortunate that the Concept Paper was not written 10 years earlier when the building was originally taken over by the partnership. The building had declined even more during the partnership's period of ownership because there was never sufficient revenue to operate the building or make any significant capital improvements. This caused even further deterioration of the building systems. The owners faced the "catch 22" dilemma of not being able to maximize the rental of the building because of its condition, and not being able to improve the building because of the lack of sufficient revenue.