North College Hill council rejects emergency contract to stabilize 1500 West Galbraith building

North College Hill City Council voted 4–3 on Sept. 15 to reject Resolution 12 20 25, a proposed emergency contract with RWB Properties & Construction to stabilize the city-owned 1500 West Galbraith building. Councilmember Erica Chichester moved to adopt the resolution; Councilmember Wilson seconded. The motion failed (No votes: Orme, Gaston, Alexander, Davis; Yes votes: Chichester, Wilson, Underwood).

The legislation sought approval to award a stabilization contract and declared an “urgent necessity” under Ohio Revised Code section 735.051, allowing the administration to proceed without a full competitive bid process. Supporters argued the building presented an operational and safety hazard and that delaying action risked losing $485,000 in encumbered ARPA funds. “If we do not move on step 1, you cannot get to step 2,” Councilmember Wilson said, urging colleagues to authorize work that would make later programming possible.

Opponents raised procedural, cost and scope objections. Councilmember Mary Jo Zorbb and others said portions of the record show prior committee agreement differed from what was on the council-floor document and questioned whether the scope — including partial demolition versus full rehabilitation — had been resolved. Zorbb also cited outside guidance and cautioned that some ARPA fund classifications cannot be used for new construction or certain demolition activities.

Law director Bill Dieters and City Administrator Mary Jo Dufting answered procedural and technical questions during debate. Dieters said minor edits to legislation are allowed so long as they do not materially alter the bill’s purpose. Dufting and staff explained that some ARPA funding streams the city received are restricted and that the specific set of ARPA dollars encumbered for this project could not be used for a wholesale new build; that constraint shaped the administration’s push for a stabilization contract.

Council debate also focused on contract timing and deliverables. Supporters pointed to a contractor quote and the administration’s claim that the work must begin by year-end to avoid returning grant funds; administrators said the RWB estimate had already expired and would need to be reissued. Administrator Dufting said officials had a meeting scheduled with the $100,000 grant holder to determine whether that grant could be applied to the project.

Public commenters — including veterans’ representatives and multiple residents — urged the council to act but also pressed for clearer long-term plans. Resident Kathy Cureton read an outside legal opinion arguing that an ordinance that has been defeated after three readings cannot be repeatedly reintroduced without following proper procedures, and she urged more citizen engagement early in the process.

With the resolution defeated, the mayor announced a town hall to solicit public input on Sept. 29 at 6:00 p.m. The council directed that the budget-and-finance committee return with alternative legislation or plans. If the city does not encumber or spend the disputed ARPA funds by the applicable deadline, administrators warned the funds could need to be returned.

What’s next: the mayor has scheduled a town hall for Sept. 29 at 6:00 p.m. to collect community input; the budget and finance committee will prepare follow-up proposals to bring to the council floor. The RWB estimate will need re-confirmation if the city pursues that contractor again.