Council moves proposed community-center steering committee to committee, then removes item; abatement estimates to be presented in finance committee

North College Hill City Council members on the floor discussed a draft resolution to establish an ad hoc steering committee to study renovation, funding and scope for the North College Hill Community Center and city administrative offices, moved the draft to the Public Safety committee and then voted to remove the item from the agenda pending committee review.

The move came after several council members said the draft had not been through committee and residents and council members asked for clearer cost information about asbestos and mold abatement before the council pursues broader renovation options. Council voted twice on the item: first to move the draft resolution to the Public Safety committee and then to remove the resolution from the current agenda. Both votes passed 7–0.

Why it matters: The community center at 1500 West Galbraith Road has been the subject of separate emergency cleanup and abatement work; several residents and council members said they want hard cost estimates for abatement and for ‘‘all options’’ to be evaluated—tear down and rebuild, full rehabilitation, or land-sale alternatives—before forming a steering committee.

Council member remarks and next steps Council member discussion began after a motion to accept the agenda, when a member suggested moving “resolution 7‑2025, a resolution to establish an ad hoc council steering committee for the purpose of exploring the renovation and scope of the funding and improvements for the North College Hill Community Center and city administrative offices,” to Public Safety. The motion to refer to Public Safety was made and seconded and passed 7–0.

Minutes later, a motion to remove resolution 7‑2025 from the agenda also passed 7–0. Council members said the item had been circulated as an early draft intended to start conversation, not as a final proposal for immediate adoption. City administration and council said the draft contained different earlier versions; one attendee noted the draft she received included an incorrect street number (1800 instead of 1500).

Resident and administrator concerns Resident Kathy Keratin told the council she was surprised the draft appeared on the agenda before committee review and questioned why a steering committee’s duties would duplicate the city administrator’s work. ‘‘How do we even get here? How do we get to this piece of legislation when we have solely, in fact, counsel made a vote on… asbestos and the mold abatement?’’ Keratin said during remarks.

City administration responded that abatement and stabilization work is already underway and that more detailed cost breakdowns were being gathered. The city administrator told council she had received a detailed breakdown of abatement estimates the same day and said administration will present those numbers in committee; the law director said the administration may bring urgent‑necessity resolutions if a contractor must be hired quickly to address safety or stabilization concerns.

Council deliberations repeatedly requested that any steering committee or public process review ‘‘all options’’—including full teardown, rebuild, or renovation—and that citizen input be gathered before committing to long‑term decisions. Council members asked that committee vetting include impartial experts (engineers/architects) if a special committee is formed.

What was decided and what’s next - Formal action: Motion to refer draft Resolution 7‑2025 to Public Safety: passed 7–0 (roll call recorded as: Miss Zoram; Miss Gaston; Miss Chichester; Miss Alexander; Mister Wilson; Mister Davis; Miss Underwood). - Formal action: Motion to remove Resolution 7‑2025 from the agenda: passed 7–0 (same roll call). - Administration reported it will present the abatement cost breakdown and related contractor options in the Budget & Finance committee (administration indicated it received additional cost detail that day). The law director noted the city may use a resolution of urgent necessity to award emergency contracts if required.

Council members and residents asked for clearer public documentation of prior changes in the special meeting minutes and for the amended legislation to be consistently circulated so absent members and the public can see what changed. Several council members said the legislation as drafted should explicitly allow the steering committee to evaluate multiple courses of action rather than presuppose renovation.

Ending Councilors and staff said the next step is committee review and that any steering‑committee proposal should be revised in committee before return to the council floor. Abatement cost estimates and contractor recommendations will be shared in Budget & Finance and Public Safety committee meetings; no new steering‑committee appointments or final decisions were made at tonight’s meeting.