ELKINS — Elkins City Council voted against using $10,000 to fund a design study for a possible First Responder’s Park at the former Four Seasons Motel property, with several council members raising concerns on the price and timing.

During the City Council’s Nov. 20 meeting, eight of the nine present council members voted against a resolution “authorizing (an) expenditure of $10,000 to fund (a) design study for a city-owned property on Harrison Avenue.” Fifth Ward representative Burley Woods was the only member to vote in favor of the resolution. Third Ward’s Christopher Lowther was absent from the meeting.

The resolution would have authorized a $10,000 expenditure for a “conceptual design and master plan” from The Thrasher Group, Inc. for a proposed First Responders Park at 1091 Harrison Avenue, the location of the former Four Seasons Motel, according to the meeting’s agenda item report.

Funding for the proposed park construction was not identified, according to the report; however, it was stated that Elkins Mayor Jerry Marco, who was absent from the Nov. 20 meeting, had proposed seeking contributions.

According to a letter to Marco from Samuel A. Rich, the Land Development Division Lead at The Thrasher Group, the company was “pleased to provide a proposal for services” and that he understood the City of Elkins “wishes (to) develop a master plan for the vacant property located at 1091 Harrison Avenue.”

“At this time we understand the City of Elkins wishes to develop a master plan that demonstrates a vision for the vacant former motel property located on Harrison Avenue,” a letter from Thrasher to the City of Elkins states. “Initial ideas for the development of this park include a commemorative space to honor first responders as well as some passive recreational spaces that help to beautify this gateway property.”

In the letter, Rich explained that the company would meet with the City to “review the vision for the property and discuss potential amenities to be included in the park concept,” before developing drawn concepts. Each concept would include a “high-level order of magnitude cost estimate for consideration” and would need to be reviewed by the City for feedback.

“Thrasher will incorporate feedback received from the client to develop a preferred master plan for the redevelopment of the property,” the letter from Rich states. “The preferred master plan will include a 2D illustrative drawing of the proposed improvements, 3D renderings and a line item cost estimate projecting the development cost.”

In the letter, Rich proposed a “lump sum fee” of $10,000 for the aforementioned design study work.

Before the council voted, Fourth Ward representative Andrew Carroll asked what the timeframe would be for the company’s work.

First Ward representative Robert Chenoweth, who is on the City’s Finance and Municipal Properties committees, stated that it was his understanding that Marco had been “instrumental” in the plan, but Chenoweth admitted that he did not know of any timeline, as this resolution would just authorize a contractual agreement for the work.

Second Ward Council member Lisa Severino was the first to raise concerns with the resolution as, from her understanding, it appeared that Thrasher would not come to survey the property in person, but instead use aerial maps.

“I can’t imagine anything exists that shows (the property) in its current state,” Severino said. “There’s no survey or anything or like that.”

Woods countered that there should be a parcel maintained within the city that shows the dimensions of what Thrasher would have to work with.

Fourth Ward Council member Nanci Bross-Fregonara also voiced her concerns.

“It’s $10,000 for this particular plan, and I feel like… we have so many other priorities,” Fregonara said. “Things that have been on our strategic plan for a long time that I feel need to receive more attention, and with the Event Center opening and Augusta opening I really feel like we need to focus more on downtown.

“I feel a $10,000 study for this particular project when we haven’t looked at the potential of just doing a green space or some other project, I don’t think it’s appropriate.”

Fregonara also questioned if the city would have to put curbing around the property. City Operations Manager Michael Kesecker informed council that, according to the permit Elkins has with the Department of Highways, the city only needs to “maintain a three-foot space of brush away from the road.” There is no known requirement for the city to put curbing on the property.

Woods stated that, eventually, something will have to be done with the property. He also explained the reasoning behind making the property a First Responder’s Park.

“Regardless of what’s going to happen, there’s going to have to be a study done sometime along the way of how we’re going to develop it, are we not going to develop it, what’s going to happen,” Woods said. “There has been talk multiple times about the first responders spending so much time at that residence (the former Four Seasons Motel), and it would be a nice entrance into the City of Elkins to show that we support our first responders.”

First Ward representative Cody Kearns countered that he believed the neighborhood around the property deserves a “quiet year with a pretty green lot.”

Fifth Ward representative Cody Thompson said he agreed with Woods that Elkins needs something to honor first responders, but he added that he did not know if now was the time to do that or if that property would be the right place for it.

“I just don’t know right now, with everything we need and have kind of going on in all of our ‘things in the fire,’ if this is the appropriate time or the appropriate place, or if we can use that money in some other way to fund the monument or something in a different location,” Thompson said. “I’m just saying $10,000, when I first saw that, in my opinion, (the property is) not a very large lot. It’s pretty small, and I’m just looking at it from the perspective of you’re going to develop pictures and a map and a plan. I don’t see what kind of computer program or development would cost that kind of money.”

Carroll stated that he would vote against the resolution, or at least be in favor of tabling the vote to a later date, as he had several reservations. Carroll explained that he believed there was nothing wrong with the property remaining a grassy space for the time being, and that there was no way of knowing how much the entire park project would cost until after Thrasher finishes the $10,000 design study.

Third Ward representative Erika Plishka raised the idea of the city possibly leasing or selling the lot for someone to build a drive-through ATM or similar kiosk. She explained that there was future potential to make money off the space.

The council considered postponing the vote to a later date due to the number of reservations and questions they had; however, Fregonara stated that she was hesitant to pick a later date as she felt there needed to be a lot more discussion before any vote could be made.

Chenoweth pointed out that, if the council were to vote against the resolution, it could be brought back at a later point when more information had been gathered. Several council members agreed with him, with Fregonara pointing out that it seemed like the “cleanest” option.