Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Buildings topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Engineer warns Blue Street Printing building is unsafe; council moves to secure site and explore options

5968638 · October 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A structural engineer told Hopkinsville City Council the former Blue Street Printing building at 116 E. Ninth St. is not safe for occupancy, prompting the city to secure the property, block adjacent sidewalks and pursue cost estimates for asbestos abatement and potential demolition or sale.

A structural engineer who inspected the former Blue Street Printing building on East Ninth Street told Hopkinsville City Council on Oct. 21 that the structure shows “significant deterioration” and is “not safe for occupancy” in its current condition.

The engineer, identified in the meeting as Mr. Gardner, told the council his team performed a visual interior and exterior review on Oct. 2 and found extensive roof and parapet damage, water infiltration, failing mortar in exterior brick walls and settled, cracked floor slabs. Gardner said the roof system shows sagging and areas where flashing and coping have deteriorated, allowing moisture to enter the building and accelerate the decay.

Gardner read his executive summary to the council: “Without remediation and repairs, the building poses potential risk of failure due to water, displaced brick, compromised floor slabs, roof framing damage, and parapet damage. Until stabilization or demolition is completed, the property should remain secured and unoccupied.”

The city’s presentation and photographs shown to the council documented missing brick at parapet corners, cracked flashing and interior water stains above a drop ceiling. Gardner said his inspection was visual and that a comprehensive structural review would be needed to determine whether rehabilitation is feasible, including probing roof rafters above the drop ceiling and assessing whether an adjacent demolished building (the former Phoenix building) had been structurally tied to this wall.

Council and staff discussion focused on immediate public safety and the options moving forward. City staff and the mayor directed that the sidewalk adjacent to the property be barricaded “in an abundance of caution,” and the report’s recommendation that public access be restricted was accepted. Mayor James R. Knight said the city has condemned, locked and secured the building since receiving the report. The council asked staff to obtain a price for asbestos removal and return with a plan that could include declaring the property surplus, issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to sell with preservation restrictions, or pursuing demolition if rehabilitation proves infeasible.

Several council members and speakers urged an effort to sell and rehabilitate the building to private investors if possible, citing previous downtown preservation projects (the L & N depot was referenced). Others emphasized the need to quickly secure the property and protect pedestrians. Council directed staff and the public works department (Steve and Chad were named in the meeting) to block the sidewalks and to have the city attorney and staff prepare recommendations for council consideration, including potential surplus declaration and RFP timing.

No formal vote to demolish or sell the property was held at the Oct. 21 meeting. The council’s next steps, as stated on the record, are: (1) maintain the building secured and closed to the public; (2) erect barricades around the sidewalk adjacent to the building; (3) obtain asbestos abatement cost estimates and a demolition estimate; and (4) bring a formal surplus-declaration and RFP plan back to council for a vote.

Council members and several speakers repeatedly said they prefer the city sell and preserve the building where feasible, but said that safety and compliance with property-maintenance codes come first.

The city staff noted that any sale would require declaring the property surplus and returning to council with an RFP and recommended terms before any transfer or redevelopment agreement could be finalized.

The building’s owner, potential private investors and other stakeholders were present in the meeting and were acknowledged; the council asked staff to include interested parties in forthcoming steps.

The immediate public-safety measures and the instruction to return with a formal plan were the principal outcomes of the discussion; no ordinance or binding redevelopment agreement was approved at the meeting.