North College Hill town hall presses council on whether to stabilize or demolish 1500 Galbraith

North College Hill residents pressed city officials on Sept. 29 over whether to stabilize or demolish the vacant 1500 Galbraith building, focusing on public-health hazards, competing cost estimates and an end-of-year deadline to use federal ARPA funds.

William (Bill) Deters, the city law director, recounted the property's history and prior council actions, saying, “the city first took possession of that property in 2009” as part of an exchange with the school district and that council in 2017 authorized soliciting bids to fix the administrative-side roof and to demolish the other half. Deters and other officials cited a JMA engineering estimate that put demolition of the remaining half at roughly $470,000 and a later combined estimate that reached about $624,840, while the city borrowed $276,000 to repair the administrative roof in 2017.

Why it matters: the city is holding roughly $483,000 in ARPA funds that officials say must be assigned to a qualifying project and have work started by Dec. 31, 2025, or the money risks being returned. That deadline framed most exchanges at the town hall and sharpened disagreements about whether to spend the funds to stabilize the building or to decline ARPA funds and pursue demolition later using other financing.

Residents described health and safety concerns. Annalisa Clear said an environmental assessment delivered to the city in December 2023 identified asbestos, mold and HVAC and electrical problems that prompted evacuation; she asked whether the administration has a full estimate to restore the building for active public use. “There is a full report that was done by environmental scientists that was delivered to the city in December 2023,” she said.

City staff and council members urged caution about abandoning ARPA funds without a plan. The city administrator read the stabilization scope that appeared in the proposed legislation and contract based on a Burgess and Knipe assessment dated Dec. 7, 2023, listing hazardous-material remediation (asbestos and mold), roof replacement, HVAC cleanout, window and door replacement and an environmental study after work completion. Councilman Victor Wilson, chair of recreation and community development, said the city’s working stabilization estimate is about $789,000 and argued that stabilizing the building preserves options: “It is gonna cost us 789,000, I believe, to put the building in a stabilized condition.”

Opponents of stabilization said prior partial repairs produced ongoing problems and that demolition may be more cost-effective. Multiple residents and construction professionals at the meeting said fixing only part of the roof in 2017 was a mistake that left the structure vulnerable; James Taylor, who identified himself as having more than 40 years in construction, told the town hall the city has already “wasted $200,000 on that building” and urged officials to consider demolition and grant-seeking for a new facility.

Officials, however, said some grant sources or county-level ARPA distributions that funded demolition in other communities do not apply here because of different site conditions; administration noted that some grants require an established plan for future use of the property, which favors stabilization or a clearly documented redevelopment plan over emergency demolition paid entirely from local funds. The administration also said it has pursued additional funding avenues and has taken steps such as requesting first right of refusal on an adjacent property as part of comprehensive-plan efforts.

Community engagement and next steps were also contested. Residents presented a council-funded survey that organizers said showed 62% of respondents favored demolition, but administration and others said the poll reached roughly 125–128 respondents and is not citywide representative. Several speakers urged a broader, collaborative outreach — either via the mayor’s newsletter or a coordinated mailer — so council can see a larger, more statistically useful sample before making a final decision.

The city administrator told residents that stabilization work would allow officials to keep the ARPA funds, use the building temporarily for administration or sell it later, while demolition now would forfeit ARPA and place the full demolition cost on the city’s books. Officials repeatedly said the council — as the body that authorizes city expenditures — must decide whether to authorize bids and appropriations to tear down the building or to accept a stabilization contract. There was no formal vote at the town hall.

What’s next: administration and council were asked to return with clearer cost comparisons, a collaborative outreach plan for broader resident input and literature on alternative grant opportunities; residents were told the ARPA timeline requires the city to commit to and begin a qualifying project by Dec. 31, 2025, to avoid returning the funds. The town hall ended with officials urging continued public input and with council responsibility emphasized for any formal action.