By GAGE WILSON
Transparency and communication were the themes for Monday nights Glasgow City Council meeting, with one item on the agenda taking the spotlight, not only for the council, but for the public as well. The meeting began at 6 p.m. at Glasgow City Hall, with Councilman Terry Bunnell present via Zoom, the council saw no absences.
The council was facing a lengthy agenda, with the most pressing being the acceptance or rejection of a property donation by Councilman Patrick Gaunce. The property near the Glasgow Public Square runs from 210-216 West Main St. and shares a border with city property.
As the item was raised Mayor Henry Royse explained that due to Gaunces’ personal connection to the item, Gaunce would abstain from both discussion and the council vote.
The item had come before the council once before at the Jan. 8th meeting, where a motion by Bunnell was made to return the item, for consideration, to the finance committee which Bunnell is the chairman. Should the property be accepted, it would be used as an “overflow” parking lot when the new justice center is constructed.
With the decision returning to the council, Royse opened the floor to discussion.
The first question came from Councilman James “Happy” Neal asking for further elaboration on the tax credit that Gaunce would receive should the city accept his donation. Glasgow City Attorney Rich Alexander explained that the tax “credit” is a misnomer, explaining that the donation is comparable to donating to a church, or any non-profit organization. The IRS defines a tax credit as, “An amount you subtract from the tax you owe. This can lower your tax payment or increase your refund. Some credits are refundable — they can give you money back even if you don’t owe any tax.” Whereas a tax deduction is defined as, “An amount you subtract from your income when you file so you don’t pay tax on it. By lowering your income, deductions lower your tax.” So, while the distinction may seem trivial, Alexander, in the interest of communication between the council and public, wanted that distinction to be made clear.
Neal then asked, “So, there will be nothing for the city to pay?”
“Correct,” said Alexander.
Councilwoman Marna Kirkpatrick was next to speak, with several concerns about the donation. The wall, according to Superintendent for Glasgow Public Works, is in disrepair and while he could not give an estimate on how urgent repairs are needed, discussion regarding the ease of repair were had with McGowan explaining that the equipment needed to fix the wall would be expedited if the building currently sitting at the property was demolished. Royse explained that, should the wall shift or collapse the damage done by such an incident could result in a dire situation for the city, and urged for a more proactive plan for the repairs.
Kirkpatrick rebutted, “Why haven’t we been maintaining the wall?”
McGowan sited the poor condition around the wall as a major setback for inspection, reiterating the need for a full assessment, to better inform the city.
“I don’t think anyone wants the parking lot to fall,” said Royse. “I think everybody wants to do what is right, and safety of what we own is of upmost importance.”
Bunnell’s concerns were raised as to the cost versus benefit should the property be accepted.
“As I shared with the finance committee last Tuesday night, I would like for us to have the property, to maintain the wall” Bunnell said. “At the same time, I have difficulty seeing investing money in this.”
He went on to say that to recognize it as a gift, he would like for the demolition of the building to be completed without the city funding the project. “If the city has any cost in it, I don’t see it as a gift anymore.”
Royse did point out when Gaunce first talked with him about the donation that the building would have to have the asbestos removed. Gaunce complied, and had the asbestos removed at a cost to himself, which Royse disclosed was around $24,000.
Addressing council concerns about the use of tax payer dollars for the project, Royse said that,”Whatever we pay to keep that wall up there will always be tax payer money…when is the time to buy into doing this, when someone is going to give us most of it, or when someone is going to charge us.”
Royse ended with, “This is just the easiest way to get to it.”
After almost an hour of discussion, Councilman Joe Trigg mirrored Alexanders earlier statement saying, “Most of us give at church, do we take a write-off, I hope so.” further explaining that if a person is able to give and does, the law mandates those donations and gifts be reported, and in the spirit of transparency, Gaunce is merely following the law in receiving the deduction. Trigg also pointed to an upward trend in property value within Glasgow and that the city may stand to gain in the years to come.
A call for question was then made by Trigg, at which time Gaunce left the council room to fully abstain from the vote. This left eight council members, with 4 voting against and 4 voting in favor of the acceptance, Mayor Royse was then tasked with the deciding vote.
Ultimately the city council agreed to accept the donation with no further discussion.
