By 1831Galion

PART ONE

Allegations of a Predetermined Outcome

During the monthly meeting of the Galion Port Authority Board on Wednesday, the idea was advanced by more than one person that the Board was rushing toward a predetermined end and, in the process, ignoring important considerations.

What transpired during the two-hour meeting did little to answer that allegation.

This post will be shared in two sections, one today and one on Sunday.

Focus on the Church Demolition

Four members of the Board met, as the group is now at a reduced size, as well as Executive Director Mark Rantala and legal counsel David Rogers. Mayor Tom O’Leary was present, as were two council members and Design Review Board Chair Dan Brown.

The vast majority of the meeting focused on the Port Authority’s decision to pursue demolition of the bell tower and sanctuary at the former Peace Lutheran Church. The Board recently sought approval from the Design Review Board for demolition permission, a decision which the Board tabled so that the Port Authority could present information required by City ordinance, something which they had failed to do.

Rantala began the discussion about building demolition by showing a display of photos taken of selected neighboring buildings, mistakenly claiming that those areas meant the “district” was somehow deficient in its history and therefore would not control the Design Review Board. The errors in that assertion were quickly pointed out. He also did not seem to know that the first purpose-built funeral home in Ohio actually stands immediately to the south of the church.

This lack of preparation and review was evident as well in his discussion of the city ordinance. He shared with the Port Authority what types of information needed to be obtained and shared with the Design Review Board, but failed to mention at least one of the required elements. Some of Dan Brown’s comments unfortunately added to the confusion.

More on this discussion will be shared on Sunday.

Insurance Settlement Sparks Concern

The first part of the Board’s discussion focused on the current insurance offer of $100,000 as a “settlement” on damage to the structure. The question of possibly challenging that amount was raised. More than one member expressed incredulity that the insurance company would not provide the full coverage amount, although no Board member spoke to what the insurance contract actually specified, nor did Executive Director Rantala. No one suggested getting a professional to review the document to assess the merits of a possible suit.

Board legal counsel suggested that the company may have considered it a good faith gesture because of the public nature of their clientele.

Rantala repeatedly offered the observation that the company could have denied coverage entirely, and he questioned whether any attempt to negotiate would lead to that result. In the end, consensus was reached to respond with an offer to accept the $100,000 based on continuing coverage for the building.