By MELINDA J. OVERSTREET
for Glasgow News 1
After roughly an hour of discussion, questions, accusations, misunderstandings and more at Monday’s Glasgow Common Council meeting, Mayor Henry Royse cast a tie-breaking vote for the city to accept a donation of property currently owned by Councilman Patrick Gaunce.
With Gaunce’s abstention from the vote, the remaining council members voted 4-4 on whether to take the property at 210-216 W. Main St. that is currently occupied by structures that would need to be demolished.
The suggestion was first brought to the council last fall, and the topic bounced between the full council and its finance committee. The agenda called for a resolution on the matter, but City Attorney Rich Alexander said that after further thought, he decided it would be best for the council to make whatever decision it was going to and they could always follow up that vote with a formal document.
The mayor announced and Gaunce confirmed that he would be abstaining from the discussion and the vote. Immediately following that, Councilman Max Marion asked Gaunce whether he would like to abstain, and Gaunce reiterated that intention.
Once the mayor had broken the tie Monday, Alexander suggested the council vote on whether he should draw up a contract that would make the transaction contingent upon Gaunce’s having a clear title and also noting that an updated appraisal would be done as well so the property’s current value could be included with the document.
A motion to that effect was approved unanimously.
As the discussion got underway on the original motion to accept the property, Councilman James “Happy” Neal asked whether they had done an appraisal on the value of the property, and the mayor informed him that they had one, although he didn’t specify at that time that it was one that Gaunce had had done. Neal asked about the “tax credit” Gaunce would get, referring to an incorrect use of that wording the mayor had previously used.
Alexander said the use of that term was a bit of a misnomer, explaining that it would simply be a tax deduction for which Gaunce could be eligible just as any donation to a nonprofit organization with a 501(c)(3) designation would be eligible, and it would apply to state and federal taxes. The city would not be giving Gaunce any actual credit or discount to any city taxes he would owe.
Councilwoman Marna Kirkpatrick chimed in next, qualifying what was to come with a statement to Gaunce that she bore no ill will toward him and would be asking the same kinds of questions and seeking the same kinds of facts no matter who owned the property.
She rattled off a list of concerns and questions, including why they hadn’t heard about the condition of the retaining wall that abuts a city parking lot behind the property in question as well as the neighboring vacant lot owned by the county before this property-donation issue arose; whether they had a proposed contract for the property, because she hadn’t seen one; and whether there was an appraisal, then noting they had just mentioned there was one.
The mayor and others have cited the condition of at least portions of that retaining wall and the need to secure it, for which owning the property would provide easy access, as their primary reasoning as to why the city should accept the Gaunce’s property. If someone buys it, then the city would need to pay them for access at some point down the line.
“Before I could ever move forward on this, I would need to read a contract and the appraisal, any updates on grants [that could be used to pay for demolition of the buildings],” Kirkpatrick said.
She asked whether it was common practice for the city to provide tax credits to owners, acknowledging they had just explained it would actually be a tax deduction, and she asked whether they had seen a letter certifying the abatement of any asbestos and/or other hazardous materials on the property.
“We have that, too,” Royse said. He pointed out much later in the discussion that Gaunce paid roughly $24,000 to have that abatement done after he had told Gaunce the only way the city could consider receiving the property is if that were already done.
Kirkpatrick said that in the past week, they’ve learned that that same city parking lot supported by the retaining wall was being eyed as overflow parking for the future judicial center on the other side of a busy West Main, when the city owns the South Central Kentucky Cultural Center that is closer to the judicial center property and has about 50 spots and that could be accessed without having to cross West Main Street and walk up a steep hill.
That question was answered later as well, by Kevin Myatt, planning director for the Joint City County Planning Commission of Barren County. He said that before the variance was approved last week by the Glasgow Board of Adjustment that would allow that lot off the west side of the Glasgow Public Square (between Commerce Plaza and the Mitchell Terry Building) and South Liberty Street to be used if necessary as overflow for the judicial center, some reconfiguring of the parking spaces for the judicial center had been done, and it was determined it would have at least as many as the required number of spaces, so the applicant, the Barren County Public Properties Corp., had actually asked to cancel the request but it was too late.
So, although it was unlikely to be needed, they have the variance just in case, Myatt said.
Some of Kirkpatrick’s questions indicated that she was under the impression that the intent was to make this donated property into a parking lot rather than the existing lot’s being the one for which the variance was approved.
She said she had heard there would be no cost to the city but she said everyone knows there’s a cost to everything.
The latest estimate for the city Department of Public Works to do the demolition itself, which has been reported by Glasgow News 1 at least once and which Councilman Freddie Norris mentioned later in the meeting, is $5,000-$6,000, primarily for the cost of the fuel to operate the heavy machinery that would be used for the job.
She said she had another item she wanted the council to discuss, not pertaining to the property, later before it adjourned. She did not mention it again, though, as the council approached the end of the agenda.
Marion then read from an apparent prepared statement, noting a pocket park is already just across the street and is rarely used. A pocket park was one of the ideas – but only that – suggested early on as a use for the property. The mayor has said on multiple occasions that no definite plan currently exists for the future use, other than its providing access for maintenance of the retaining wall.
He added that if “the wilderness” that’s grown up behind the buildings that are to be demolished were removed, he believed that would give the city plenty of space to be able to access and maintain the wall.
“That being said, that wall has been there God knows how many years, so why this is a concern now is beyond me,” Marion said.
Marion also made a comment indicating he believed the intent for the Gaunce property was not a parking lot, and he also mentioned the parking spaces available at the cultural center.
“Council, this is not a need by the citizens, and in fact, I’ve had several citizens approach me via phone and in person. They do not want this, and as a representative of them, we should not either …,” Marion said. “Council, there are a lot of words that begin with the letter ‘p.’ We have pocket park, parking lot, property; the one that should be on our minds that doesn’t seem to be right now is people. The majority – when I say majority, I mean the majority of hardworking people – do not want this at their expense.”
Norris asked the mayor about precedents of other properties’ being donated, and the mayor touched briefly on the fact there have been others.
“I don’t know that this is a precedent, as much as it is an opportunity,” Royse said.
He said that Jim McGowan, DPW superintendent, who has an engineering degree had gone over and done some measuring.
“I am really leaning on what he says, that that wall is someday going to cause us a lot of trouble, when it comes to time to maintaining our parking lot,” the mayor said. “The price of that property is not going to go down. The price of that property, no matter who owns it, is going to continue to climb.”
He said Gaunce could keep it and make a lot of money, but then it would be more expensive to the city if they need to have it to get in there and take care of that wall, “which is why that I think we need to think about the reasons rather than the person.”
After further discussion and questions, Councilman Terry Bunnell, who chairs the Finance Committee, said he would like for them to have the property so they can maintain that wall, but to him, “if we’ve got a cost in it, I don’t think it’s a gift anymore.”
He said he didn’t think they should accept it unless it were completely vacant – free of any buildings or vegetation.
City Administrator April Russell, who is also the city’s grant writer/administrator, to answer Kirkpatrick’s earlier question, said there are a few different types of grants for which it could apply that might help with the cost of the demolition and/or beautifying the property.
McGowan said the mayor asked him to get an estimate on the cost of having a contractor demolish the buildings, and it was around $80,000, so if the DPW did it, it would be a considerable savings.
Kirkpatrick said that even the $5,000-$6,000 estimated cost would be taxpayer money.
Royse said that she’s right, but any funds the city expends to maintain the parking lot would always be taxpayer money.
“So, as the mayor, I’m thinking, ‘When’s the time for us to buy into doing this, when somebody’s going to give us most of it or when somebody’s going to build something that we’ve got to buy for $500,000 or $600,000 to go back there and fix it?” Royse said.
Kirkpatrick echoed Bunnell’s opinion that if they were going to have to pay to prepare the site, it wasn’t really a gift.
It perhaps should be noted that the city government has, on numerous occasions, accepted grant funds for a project with one of the conditions being that the city has to provide a certain amount of “matching” funds, and sometimes, in-kind contributions such as city-provided labor and equipment are counted toward that match.
Ultimately, council members Chasity Lowery, Joe Trigg, Neal and Norris voted in favor of accepting the property, and Marlin Witcher, Marion, Bunnell and Kirkpatrick cast the votes against it.
…………………………………….
RELATED CONTENT:
Question of proposed West-Main property donation to city to head back to full Glasgow council
Board, commission approve variances sought by justice-center planners
Glasgow council members contemplate property donation for downtown pocket park
Comments