HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_0876and as a member of the board of commissioners we must respect that. They know their financial
conditions better than we do. If no is no, CII honor that as I'm sure the rest of this board will do.
Honorable people would do this. Subsequent to that, came the possibility of placing the library on Eastside
Drive. An occurrence that was unbeknown to anyone on this board previously. There became some
serious discussion on this board's part on locating the library on Eastside Drive, but there was never any
formal action -- merely discussion. But as is usually the case, rumors abound, and it wasn't long before the
city council heard we were talking about Eastside Drive. We were approached by the city about the
possibility of allowing them to participate financially in the Iredetl County Library, which we were more
than happy to discuss at that point. There was never any action by this commissioner or any other
commissioner that I know of who tried to use Eastside Drive as a leverage to gain financial participation
for the county. Nevertheless, we were approached. Later on, there was an appearance before the board of
commissioners. At that meeting, there was not a presentation on a specific site, but two sites were
discussed, that being Stockton Street and the site at Front and Meeting Street as Mr. Eisele referred to a
moment ago. It was commented in the city council meeting that at some point the county had been offered
seven different sites for the library by city council. That did not happen. There were only two sites that 1
know of that were ever offered. I know of no staff member whoever heard of seven sites. 1 haven't talked
to any commissioner who ever heard of seven sites. At the end of the discussion we were somewhat
hesitant. We gave the charge to the city at that time to come back with a 'buildable' site. The county did
not choose Meeting Street, the city council chose it, and presented it to us as a 'buildable' site. Now the
debate at that time became couched in the terms of Eastside Drive versus downtown. Several
commissioners, other than myself, made the comment that they were not prone to vote either way, but they
wanted room for expansion of the library, adequate parking, and a 'buildable' site. At a reappearance
before this board, the city offered Meeting Street, and this board in a three/two vote accepted Meeting
Street. Mr. Bowles and 1 voted against Meeting Street, and in the meeting, I listed the reasons why I voted
Re I did -- the closing of Meeting Street as far as a commercial and emergency corridor, problems with
underground springs, and pollution. What has brought us to this point was the city's withdrawal of the
offer. My understanding was that this was because of the degree of contamination on the Raymer property.
By State standards, a site is deemed to be what they call 'hot' if there are 50 parts per million. The Raymer
property has 2800 parts per million, and it is stated there would have to be monitoring wells that would
have to be continually monitored for stability of the site and to see if any additional pollution had occurred.
1 understand that in the conducting of county business it is necessary for the commissioners to be
magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat; however, I will take a departure from my magnanimity for
one moment and say, 'I told you so.' So the city realized the great expense that they would incur ongoing,
and subsequently, they withdrew the offer on Meeting Street. As a result of this, I am more than happy to
support Mr. Williams' motion to release them from this offer they have made. I say those remarks not to
offend anyone, but in the age in which we live, there are always folks willing to rewrite history. But that's
the history of this great saga. Thank you for your indulgence Madame Chairman."
Commissioner Bowles said the motion was well crafted, and he believed it was
best for the county to return to the original site, especially since there would be enough
money for expansion, for the grading, and for ample parking.
Chairman Tice commended Mr. Eisele and the citizens for their involvement. She
said this was truly the democratic process in motion. Tice said, "we had the property on
Eastside Drive, then the citizens said 'no,' we want it downtown, so we proceeded to work
with the city on a suitable site. I had given my word to the council that if they came back
with a suitable site, one that our architect approved, that I would support it. As the
different citizens called me about this situation, my response to them was that they needed
to talk to the city council because it was in their court. I think all of the commissioners on
this board are eager to build a new library, we know we need a new library, but certainly,
we want to please the citizens as to the location. It has taken some time, as Mr. Johnson
pointed out, but I believe that maybe we have come to a conclusion that is acceptable to
most of the county's citizens."
Commissioner Ray said, "I am in support of Mr. Williams' motion. I, too, think
this has been a real democratic process. I will say, that I'm going to let Mr. Johnson offer
his own history, because I have a little different version than he does."
Commissioner Williams said the debate was now over, and it was time for everyone
to become involved in the library project. Williams said the county had budgeted
$5,600,000.00, and the city was going to put in $1,250,000. He requested the business
community and private citizens to become involved.
Commissioner Johnson asked Support Services Director Jim Vernon if the site
would have adequate parking and room for expansion.