By MELINDA J. OVERSTREET
for Glasgow News 1
The question of whether the City of Glasgow should accept a donation of a property along West Main Street from a city councilman is headed back to the full Glasgow Common Council for consideration after further discussion in the council’s finance committee Tuesday.
The committee members did not specify that it was going to the council as a recommendation as it had, conditionally, in December.
When the agenda item arose at the Jan. 8 full council meeting as to whether to accept the proposed donation of property at 210-216 W. Main St. that is currently owned by Councilman Patrick Gaunce, Councilman Terry Bunnell immediately moved to refer the matter back to the Finance Committee, which he chairs, pre-empting further discussion of the question at the full council meeting. Councilman Joe Trigg cast the only vote against sending it back to the committee, and he and Gaunce were both present at Tuesday’s committee meeting, along with Bunnell, via Zoom; all the other committee members – Chasity Lowery, Freddie Norris and Marlin Witcher; relevant city staff members; and media representatives.
Mayor Henry Royse recapped the situation in that the property owner was willing to give the property to the city for only a receipt showing the fair market value of the property, and he later advised the property owner that the city could not accept it with the encumbrance of having to get asbestos removed from the site but could be interested once the hazardous material was gone. The property owner then paid for that removal and provided a copy of the report certifying its absence.
Royse said that because it never got to the point of discussion at the Jan. 8 council meeting, the council didn’t get to hear the reasons for accepting the property, which backs up to a retaining wall that’s at the edge of the city’s parking lot situated between Commerce Plaza and the Mitchell Terry Building along the west side of Glasgow Public Square.
He asked Jim McGowan, superintendent of the Department of Public Works, to speak to the condition of and access to the wall.
“The wall directly behind this property is in pretty decent shape right now,” McGowan said. “The adjacent wall – when I say adjacent wall, it’s the wall directly behind the [vacant] county lot – it’s actually in really bad shape right now. We won’t know what the structural integrity of that is until we actually get somebody … to evaluate that.”
He said there is a separation of 2 to 3 inches between “our property” and the one behind the county property.
“It would certainly benefit us if we had that to actually be able to work on that wall there,” McGowan said.
The mayor asked about the city’s ability to handle the demolition of the existing structures.
McGowan said the city has the equipment and the manpower to do it. He said it would take the DPW three to four weeks without devoting full time to it, and he provided a rough estimate of $5,000 to $6,000 in fuel costs for the project.
Royse also had invited Kevin Myatt, planning director for the Joint City-County Planning Commission of Barren County, to the meeting to explain a relatively new development.
Myatt said that current plans for the future justice center a little further west of the site in question would require it to have about 185 parking spots.
“They’re short of those spots a little bit,” he said.
Glasgow’s zoning ordinance allows that if there is additional parking within 400 feet of the facility, they can use that to fulfill the rest of the required number of spaces contingent on agreement from the owner of that additional lot. A request was being made of the Glasgow Board of Adjustment at a meeting that was simultaneous with the latter portion of the Finance Committee meeting for a variance to allow that sort of overflow parking arrangement with that current city parking lot.
Myatt clarified that 185 is what is anticipated as being possibly needed for peak times of use, “when everyone is there,” and it may never actually be necessary, but they have to plan for the possibility.
Royse said the city owns a lot “that’s going to all of a sudden have a lot more usage, and we have an opportunity to acquire access to maintain that property.”
He said that keeping in mind to be diligent with city finances, “there’ll probably never be a time when we can acquire access to maintain this wall for any less amount of money than, you know, the contribution, the asbestos has been taken care of, and we’ve got the DPW. In other words, who knows what the future will bring if, all of a sudden, our parking lot that’s being used by the judicial center starts to cave in then we’ve got to pay somebody $200,000 or $300,000 to get that same spot back there to build the retaining wall that’s going to have to be built.”
If that parking lot is going to continue to be utilized, the city needs to be able to access it to maintain it, Royse said.
Gaunce asked to make a statement and when given the floor said he wasn’t the one who approached the city with the idea of a donation but rather “the city and county approached me,” he said, later clarifying when asked that City Administrator April Russell brought up the possibility after she and Barren County Judge-Executive Jamie Bewley Byrd had discussed the neighboring properties and the possibility of putting a “pocket park” there. Royse said there are no current plans for any type of park; that was just one idea that was mentioned as a conversation starter.
After a variety of questions and comments which have, for the most part, been addressed in prior meetings were voiced, Bunnell offered his thoughts on the issue, acknowledging the difficulty of maintaining such a retaining wall and that the property does have value to the city.
He expressed concern about setting a precedent with regard to accepting properties that could then have additional unforeseen costs associated with them, as he could imagine additional costs with this situation arising.
“There’s no strings attached at all with this, but for us to receive this as a city, we’ve got to spend some money on it,” Bunnell said, so they need to decide whether they want to invest in the demolition, etc.
“I sure would like to see us, if we move forward with this, for us not to have any cost in this,” he said, ultimately adding that he would want them to only accept it if it were already a vacant lot.
Royse said he didn’t have a preference one way or another but he was trying to spend the city’s money wisely and was looking at down the line and the maintenance of that wall, and with the regard to the concern about setting a precedent, he said that maintenance is a “true need” the city has, so that makes it different than someone wanting to donate property for which the city has no real need.
Norris asked what the situation might look like if someone parked there and the wall fell and someone were hurt or worse and then sued the city.
City Treasurer Stephanie Garrett said the city is responsible for due diligence on maintaining the property it already has, “and that’s the easiest way to do it,” and Royse said they have an obligation to not be knowingly neglectful.
After a little more discussion, a motion to send the matter back to the full council passed 3-1, with Witcher casting the vote against. Later, Lowery asked whether he wanted to add anything about his reason for his disapproval, and he chose not to do so.
The council’s next regular meeting begins at 6 p.m. Monday in Council Chambers on Floor 2 of Glasgow City Hall, 126 E. Public Square.
Comments