Council approves inspection for Waldron building

Though the discussion regarding the Waldron/Gitchell building was a work session, meaning the council had no obligation to hear public comment, they invited Eric Gleason, spokesperson for Friends of the Waldron Brothers Drugstore, to provide the community perspective.

Gleason spoke to the history of the building, citing it as the oldest standing commercial building in The Dalles, having been erected in 1863. Gleason voiced his support for a potential restoration to the building, due to its long history in The Dalles.

“It’s been here for eight generations,” he said. “And none of us really want to see it gone.”

He also said that, with its visibility from the freeway, he believes the building “draws people into (the) community.” Gleason expressed that he believed that there was potential to restore and revitalize the building, at which point the city could make use of it for tourism purposes, or whatever else they decided.

The fate of the building was previously put on hold at the request of city councilors, but Interim City Manager Daniel Hunter put it on the agenda following a request by Mayor Rich Mays, Hunter said.

Mays confirmed this, saying he believed the matter had “really been going on too long.

“It’s been two-and-a-half years since we last discussed it,” Mays said. “The building has been sitting there, getting worse by the day, and so I thought there was some sense of urgency to get this back on the agenda.”

The staff report created by Hunter and City Attorney Jonathan Kara seconded this idea of urgency, as it cited the Waldron building as a “danger to public health and safety,” as well as a “legal and financial liability.” The report also addressed the possibility of transferring ownership from the city to a third party as “impractical due to the landlocked location of the building.” This would require the city to grant the new owner a permanent easement.

According to Kara, granting an easement would incur additional liability.

“From a very literal standpoint of legal liabilities, any access that we grant to any private entities or people over public land, namely the city’s land, is the very definition of a liability,” Kara said. “Anything can go wrong, and it would be over our land.”

Kara went on to say that there would need to be legal legwork done to limit the liability of an easement, and, while that can be done, it may not be worth it just to give access to the building.

“It’s doing quite a bit of work for not much to show for it,” he said.

Councilor Tim McGlothlin said he understood Kara’s point of view, but he felt the decision should be postponed, potentially until after the city visioning process in January, something suggested earlier in the meeting by Councilor Darcy Long.

“My feeling is that if (the building) is city property, then it belongs to all the citizens of the city,” McGlothlin said. “And I understand the liability you’re talking about but … I know the history and it’s the last remaining commercial building. We owe it to the history of our community to prevent or at least try to head off the destruction of the property.”

Following McGlothlin’s comment, Councilor Rod Runyon informed the council that he had been performing a large amount of community outreach on the matter and had invited two previous mayors, Jim Wilcox and Steve Lawrence, to attend the meeting. Though there was no public hearing, nor was there obligation on the part of the council to hear outside testimony, Runyon asked that Mays allow the former mayors to give their opinions.

Upon request for any objections by the city council, Mays received none, leading him to allow the former mayors to speak.

Wilcox said that in 2009, the council put $250,000 toward the Waldron building, which he expressed feeling frustrated with. He said he believed the building to be nothing more than a liability that they should document and take pictures of for historical purposes, then demolish.

“It’s an attractive nuisance the way it stands, because people can’t access it just by walking there,” Wilcox said. “And as far as drawing people to The Dalles? I don’t think so. They say, ‘Why is that ugly thing still standing?’”

Following this, Councilor Long voiced frustration as to the nature of Wilcox’s comments.

“I agreed to let the former mayors speak because I thought they were going to speak about things they knew from being a mayor, not their personal opinion,” Long said. “I don’t think it’s fair for you to limit comment that way.”

Mays agreed with Long’s assessment and reminded the mayors that they were to be there as advisers, giving their perspective as former mayors, rather than to spark a debate, because this was not the hearing for public opinion. Following this reminder, he asked former mayor Lawrence to speak.

Lawrence said he believed that though the public requests for the building to be saved and promises to help and contribute, it never happens.

“When there’s a discussion about the possibility of taking the building down, (the public shows) up in mass and they’re all worked up and then the council says, ‘OK, what are you going to do about it?’ And then a long period of time goes by,” Lawrence said.

Lawrence said that during his three terms, from 2013 until 2019, members of the public frequently came to the council and said they would get organized and provide action plans for the building, but this never happened.

“The last time this came up was actually after I left office and I came up and testified because it was Main Street who showed up, with all of Mr. Gleason’s supporters, and said, ‘OK, we’re going to take over,’” Lawrence said. “I made a comment at that time, which turned out to be true. I said first of all, at that time Main Street wasn’t strong enough to do it, and second of all … when you turn around in about six months, all of these people aren’t going to be here.”

Lawrence continued on to say that he didn’t feel like the non-profit Friends of the Waldron Brothers Drugstore had necessarily done anything. He claimed groups in support of keeping the building alive always promise to make a plan and raise money but “they don’t ever do it.” He said he believed community groups wanted the city to do everything, which he felt it is not in the financial position to do.

Lawrence also pointed out that the building had previously been approved by council to be demolished, with the only one who was on council at the time to vote no being Councilor Long. 

Following Lawrence’s statement, Long pointed out that the non-profit had tried to help with the building, but were unable to gain access to the building for their engineer, as it was not permitted by the city manager at the time.

Councilor Dan Richardson expressed a desire for the city to perform an alternatives analysis where they would look at the three options — do nothing, demolish, and allow access — in terms of cost, risk and liability.

Councilor Long pointed out that Gleason and his group were offering to pay for a structural analysis. Gleason explained that the group had raised $8,000 and found a quote for $5,000.

The last structural evaluation of the building was conducted in 2015, Interim City Manager Hunter said.

After discussion, the city decided they would feel more comfortable hiring an engineer and paying for it themselves, rather than having the non-profit finance the inspection.

The council then agreed that they would commission an engineering firm to analyze the feasibility and cost of four different options: Leaving the building as is without any improvements, demolishing the building, relocating the building, and improving the structural integrity of the building through investment of time and materials. Additionally, city attorney Kara said the city would also ask the engineering consultant if they could see any alternatives that had not been considered.

The matter will likely be discussed at the upcoming city council meeting on Monday, Jan. 10.