Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Purchase topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Street committee declines to forward GT Tower lot purchase after liability, revenue concerns
Summary
The Glendive Street Committee reviewed a request to buy the GT Tower lot for $30,000 but, citing insurance, structural-age and uncertain lease revenue beyond 2028, agreed not to put a purchase recommendation on the upcoming council agenda. Committee members said the project could proceed with a nonprofit or private owner instead.
The Glendive Street Committee on its March meeting discussed a Community Gate request asking the city to buy the GT Tower lot for $30,000 and debated whether the city should take ownership as part of a pilot tourism hub project.
Committee members said they had met with Community Gate representatives who asked $30,000 for the lot and noted Verizon currently pays about $18,000 a year under a lease. “The Verizon payment of the 18,000 will end in 2028,” the Chair said, adding that the revenue is therefore not guaranteed beyond that date.
Members raised multiple concerns including the tower’s age and long-term liability. One committee member said the structure “is very sturdy” and has withstood windstorms, but others warned the nearly 100-year-old tower presents maintenance and insurance risks. Several members said adaptive uses pitched by Community Gate — such as an indoor climbing component — might be attractive but would more appropriately be managed by a nonprofit or private entity, not the city.
After discussion the committee coalesced around not forwarding the purchase to the next full council agenda, saying they would continue to attend and support the Community Gate project but would not recommend the city buy the property at this time. Staff noted the committee will still meet with architects and monitor the project, and may revisit the issue if new information emerges.
The committee’s decision is procedural (no formal vote recorded in the transcript); members asked staff to await architect input and return with additional information before any final recommendation to council.
