Ad hoc committee weighs rehab, demolition and funding options for 1500 West Galbraith

An ad hoc subcommittee of the North College Hill City Council spent its session focused on the future of the municipal property at 1500 West Galbraith, debating whether to pursue remediation and renovation, partial or full demolition, or other redevelopment and how to pay for it.

The committee chair opened the meeting by saying the group’s role is to recommend a direction for the property and hand a proposal to council; financing decisions, the chair said, fall to budget-and-finance processes at council level. Speaker 3 urged the group to ground its recommendations in what funding sources will permit and cautioned against making decisions without clear documentation about allowable ARPA uses.

Why it matters: committee members said the city must avoid returning federal relief dollars and should pursue revenue-generating options that do not burden the general fund. The discussion framed a trade-off: restoring the building to a usable “white box” state could unlock grants and lease revenue, while demolition would remove the asset but risk disqualifying certain funding streams tied to restoration.

City staff and committee members debated federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) guidance and related rules for use of encumbered funds. Speaker 3 summarized the city’s handling of ARPA: the city encumbered a broad pool of projects to meet a Dec. 31 deadline and said the encumbrance defined permissible project categories; on eligibility she stated, “ARPA funds are COVID relief funds.” She added officials had advised encumbring monies by the deadline and preparing a management letter before spending.

Committee members pressed whether ARPA can be used to abate environmental hazards if the building is later demolished. Speaker 3 cautioned that while abatement can qualify in some circumstances, performing abatement and then demolishing the structure could require repaying funds: “You can use it to abate and remediate mold. But if you turn around and tear that building down, you’re gonna have to run that money back.” The committee asked members to bring any municipal ordinances or written examples (one member cited Middletown) so the city can compare documentation rather than rely on verbal claims.

Survey and community input: staff presented preliminary results from a public survey of residents. Speaker 3 said there were 303 responses from a resident base she cited as 9,665, reporting a 95% confidence level and an estimated 5.5% margin of error. Preliminary tabulation showed 185 respondents (about 61% of those answering that question) selected “Keep and Restore” as a preferred future; other written responses suggested demolition, creation of green space, or various reuse ideas. Speaker 3 noted data-cleaning issues (variations in wording that split identical answers) and said she would provide the raw results and methodology to committee members.

Next steps and scheduling: members requested written cost estimates and vendor quotes for abatement, demolition and roofing warranties. Speaker 4 said she had not yet received a demolition quote and asked for those numbers in writing; Speaker 3 agreed to provide available vendor reports and to distribute a written definition of the “white box” stage. The committee also agreed to invite a contractor/expert for a question-and-answer session (proposed for the next Tuesday evening) and set the next ad hoc meeting for November 25 from 6:00–7:30 p.m. at City Center.

The meeting closed with members agreeing to continue the exchange by email where documentation is needed before the committee finalizes recommendations for council.