Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press city to secure and clean 92 Bowen property; council approves consent agenda including related actions
Summary
Residents asked the Roswell City Council on July 14 to secure and clean a city‑owned property at 92 Bowen and sought details about insurance reimbursements and potential demolition.
Residents at the July 14 meeting pressed city staff for details about a city‑owned property at 92 Bowen that residents say has sat vacant and deteriorated since the city purchased it more than a year earlier.
Courtney Rozier asked whether insurance reimbursements applied to all structures and whether an estimate had been requested for demolition of the sanctuary building. City staff said they would follow up and provided an on‑record summary: staff estimated roughly $192,000 in insurance reimbursement for storm damage at structures behind the property and said demolition of specific accessory structures was funded from the park maintenance fund. Staff said a recommendation to demolish a single‑story ranch home on the parcel is based on “extensive vandalism and continued public safety issues.”
Resident Ashley Glass, who identified herself as a concerned community member, described the sanctuary at 92 Bowen as having open doors, broken glass, discarded bottles and drug paraphernalia, and urged the city to “clean up the property now, at least put gates up.” She called on the city to enforce the same standards on publicly owned property that it enforces on private property under the state’s minimum standard codes.
Council action and next steps: staff told the council the demolition estimate for the sanctuary building and a full plan would be provided to the Marion Council (city committee) in the coming month; staff said they would follow up on the specific questions Courtney Rozier raised. The consent agenda, which included the item related to the Bowen property, was approved unanimously by voice/hand vote (recorded as 5‑0).
Why it matters: residents argued the city should “lead by example” in maintaining publicly owned property and asked whether the city would pursue code enforcement or other actions. City staff committed to provide the requested follow‑up answers and to present demolition estimates and a plan to the appropriate council committee.
