HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_0828"What if the city exercised the same vigor in securing another site than Meeting Street'?
Perhaps we would be presented with a site that is more suitable and .not require the
closing of a street that is constantly used by business traffic and regularly used by
emergency vehicles.
Che $1.5 or the $1.6 million gets us no larger building, no nicer building, no additional
parking, just muck, mud, clay and gasoline.
"I am not against the location of the library, but the underground streams remain in the
midst of a terrible drought extending over a period of four years. If the Lord blesses us
with rain, and I trust that he will, water will be a greater problem than what it is today.
But then, it will be the county's problem -- just like the city's problem with the fire
department -- but only worse because we will have a building full of books.
"One word kept recurring in the council's debate last night. This word was 'unknown.'
Unknowns will eventually become known, and when this happens, they will be county
problems at county expense.
"What are we giving up on Meeting Street? (1) Room for any significant expansion of
floor space in the future (2) Room for any significant expansion for parking (3) Loss of a
major traffic corridor for business and emergency vehicles and (4) Peace of mind that the
facility will not need substantial maintenance in the future.
"What do we get? (1) No larger building (2) No nicer building (3) The unknowns
discussed at the city council meeting last night and (4) Convenience of some members of
our community at the expense of the entire community.
"We have an opportunity for cooperation between the city and county. I desire that, but
participation does not necessitate the spending of $1.5 million on a polluted site plagued
with water problems since before we were all bom.
"Again, I prefer downtown, but not at Meeting Street, and who knows at what cost. I can
only hope that the people of Statesville and Iredell believe that I want what is in the long
term best interest of all of the patrons of the library, and that I do not desire to raise the
possibility of huge costs to future boards of commissioners and subsequently the
taxpayers."
(end of Johnson's remarks)
Commissioner Williams said a downtown site had always been his preference.
He said that originally he felt an addition to the present library, with parking to be located
at the Bryant Building site, was the best choice. He said that approximately 48,000 sq. R.
could have been achieved with this plan. Mr. Williams said that later, discussions started
occurring about building a totally new library at the Bryant Building site, but it was
determined the area was not large enough. He said that after this, the county started
considering the Eastside Drive site. Mr. Williams said this was a "beautiful" site with
more than enough space. He said it was only then, when the county was considering
Eastside Drive, that the city became interested. Williams said that on June 18, 2002, the
board of commissioners agreed in a five to zero vote that if the city could develop the
property and come up with the financing, the site would be approved. He said the
commissioners may have been wrong in making the decision, but he gave his word in the
vote, and he would rather be considered stupid than dishonest.
Johnson said the county manager, in the agenda briefing, had said the building
design would work on either site. Mr. Johnson said the option was still available for the
commissioners. Commissioner Johnson said he had talked to engineers, and they had
advised that if the county had another site, the library shouldn't be placed on the Meeting
Street property.
VOTING: Ayes — 3 (Ray/Tice/Williams); Nays — 2 (Bowles/Johnson).
MR. DAVID MAYFIELD AND MR. THORNTON BROOKS DISCUSS THE
RECENT DECISION TO ALLOW NON-PROFIT RETREATS IN RESORT
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: Mr. Mayfield said he was concerned about the board's
decision on May 7, 2002 to allow non-profit retreats in Resort Residential (RR) areas.
Mayfield said he believed the board of commissioners made an error in the decision,
especially since a special use permit would not be necessary. He also expressed
concerns about not notifying adjoining property owners. He said his single-family