Council amends asbestos-abatement resolution for 1500 W. Galbreath; adoption effort fails on emergency-clause technicality

North College Hill City Council spent the Nov. 3 meeting debating Resolution 18-2025, which would direct the city administrator to instruct RWB Properties & Construction LLC to perform asbestos and mold abatement at 1500 West Galbreath Road, require third-party special inspections, and set the scope described in Exhibit A.

During third-reading consideration, Miss Chichester moved to amend the resolution to the version recommended by the Budget & Finance Committee; Mister Wilson seconded the amendment. Council members discussed the document’s late revisions, the scope in Exhibit A, whether the contract language requires a “white box” condition, and whether a new AIA contract is necessary.

Miss Dukestein, speaking for administration, said the draft before council “coincides with the existing contract” and urged members to consider time constraints tied to grant deadlines. Finance Director Sheba Stevens Knotts and others warned that federal ARPA funds have timing rules and that projects must meet start or completion tests to avoid returning money to the state.

After amendments, the council voted on adoption. The roll-call vote recorded four members in favor and three opposed. Because the amended resolution included an emergency clause, the administration reminded the body that an emergency adoption requires five affirmative votes; the council’s four‑vote majority therefore did not meet the emergency-clause threshold and the emergency adoption failed. Council members and residents then debated next steps and whether the city could begin phased work to meet ARPA spending timelines.

Key outcomes and clarifications

- Amendment: Motion to amend Resolution 18-2025 to the Budget & Finance Committee version (moved by Miss Chichester; seconded by Mister Wilson) passed on a roll-call vote (4 yes, 3 no).

- Adoption attempt: Motion to adopt the amended resolution passed on a roll-call tally of 4‑3, but the emergency clause added to the ordinance required five votes; because the emergency‑clause threshold was not met the emergency adoption failed and council did not finalize a binding emergency authorization at the meeting.

- Contract and scope: Administration stated the revised exhibit aligns with RWB's existing contract language and that work includes asbestos and mold abatement and third‑party observation as listed in Exhibit A. Council members asked for additional specifics including the contract’s not-to-exceed amount (not specified in the meeting) and whether the abatement covers the entire structure.

- ARPA deadlines: Council discussed ARPA timelines; staff said projects must be started by Dec. 31, 2025 and, in many cases, funds must be spent or projects completed by Dec. 31, 2026, or unspent dollars must be returned. Members differed on how start vs. completion rules apply; administration clarified the project must be started by the stated date and completion/spending rules vary by contract.

What happens next

Because the emergency adoption failed, the council has not executed an emergency authorization to begin work immediately. Council members and staff said they will continue follow-up with the Budget & Finance Committee, clarify contract terms (including not-to-exceed amounts) and confirm ARPA timing and compliance requirements before the council takes further action.

Quotes

"We are unfortunately at a time crunch as we have tried as a group to move this forward," Miss Dukestein said, urging members to consider grant deadlines.

"Rita has access to your federal tax returns," Finance Director Sheba Stevens Knotts said in a separate report explaining how non-filer letters were generated; that comment factored into later ARPA and funding discussions.

The council did not adopt a final emergency authorization on Nov. 3; members said they will reconvene committee and staff work to address unanswered contract and financing questions before bringing a revised, executable measure back to council.