Graham council appears to backtrack – some – on Sesquicentennial Park after outpouring of support to keep it where it is

Graham’s city council chambers overflowed its capacity Tuesday night – with community members spilling into an overflow area at city hall – due to a record number of people who attended the council’s meeting and unanimously, one by one, expressed their opposition to the council’s decision to relocate Sesquicentennial Park from the northwest corner of Court Square to a parking lot along West Elm Street.

The agenda for the council’s monthly meeting listed an action item, to consider awarding a contract for the “new park project design and construction” to Raleigh-based design and engineering firm Stewart, that was ultimately shelved after apparent statutory restrictions on relocation came to light later in the evening.

Initially, a nine-page proposal that mayor pro tem Ricky Hall presented last month, along with a sketch, had called for moving the park from the northwest corner of Court Square to a courtyard and parking lot behind the Graham Historical Museum at 135 West Elm Street.

The proposal that Stewart submitted in response to a Request for Qualifications, however, showed that the park would instead be relocated and expanded to the city-owned parking lot sandwiched between Roasted Coffee Depot at 131 West Elm Street and an office building at 103 West Elm Street.

[Story continues below special subscription offer.]

MORE GRAHAM NEWS THAN YOU’LL FIND ANYWHERE ELSE! SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Approximately 90 people attended Tuesday night’s meeting, with 52 attendees seated inside the council chambers, 30 in the overflow area, and three to five people standing outside city hall, Graham’s fire chief subsequently confirmed for The Alamance News.

At the outset of Tuesday night’s meeting, Graham mayor Chelsea Dickey asked the council to move up the public comments period – from the end of the meeting to the beginning – due to the unprecedented large number of people who had signed up to speak.  Thirty people who turned out for the meeting had been directed to stand in an overflow area in city hall until they were called to speak at the podium, Dickey said.

But that minor bit of housekeeping got pushback from other council members.

Council members Bobby Chin and Bonnie Whitaker voted against a motion to move the public comments period up earlier in what turned out to be a four-hour meeting.

“I believe,” Chin countered, “it would be best to stick to the agenda.”

Hall initially said Tuesday night, “The park project is not up for discussion – it’s not a public hearing,” but ultimately relented in voting alongside Dickey and councilman Jim Young to move up the public comments period.

“Go ahead and move it up and let’s get them out of the way,” Hall said prior to the vote.

Approximately two dozen people spoke Tuesday in opposition to the plan to move the park.

All of the speakers Tuesday night were united in their opposition to moving the park, and most asked the council to reconsider its decision, which passed January 13 on a 4-1 vote with Dickey casting the lone vote against.

Paul Keller, who lives at 410 Stonehedge Drive and had operated an insurance agency along East McAden Street until he retired in 2024, told the council Tuesday night, “Nothing short of a referendum is acceptable.”

“Nothing short of a referendum is acceptable.”

– Graham resident Paul Keller

Crystal Lawson, who lives at 2320 Cooper Road and owns a business in downtown Graham, said the plan to remove at least 20 parking spaces from the city-owned lot along West Elm Street would significantly reduce parking availability for visitors, residents, and downtown business customers.

“Downtown businesses rely heavily on convenient parking [in downtown, as she protested the proposed relocation that would eliminate 20 downtown parking spaces in a city parking lot].”

– Graham resident and business owner Crystal Lawson

“Downtown businesses rely heavily on convenient parking,” raising concerns about the long-term impact on businesses, Lawson said.

Kay McMullan, of 818 Rivers Edge Drive, Graham, said, “When I read the report from The Alamance News, I saw that a nine-page proposal was submitted; it had some significant gaps in it.  It didn’t mention anything about taking parking spaces or increasing the size; there was hardly any mention of the history or the reason we have the park now.”

“I know you’ll say you’ve already made a decision; you’ve voted; it’s done.  But things can be undone.  I hope now you will listen.  It was also pointed out at the last meeting that there were not many people in the community [in opposition] because there were only about seven or eight to speak, but I think you can see from the audience that we do have a lot of people who have deep feelings about it.”

– Former Graham resident kay mcMullan

“I ask you to reconsider,” McMullan said.  “I know you’ll say you’ve already made a decision; you’ve voted; it’s done.  But things can be undone.  I hope now you will listen.  It was also pointed out at the last meeting that there were not many people in the community [in opposition] because there were only about seven or eight to speak, but I think you can see from the audience that we do have a lot of people who have deep feelings about it.”

‘Trying to finish someone else’s agenda’

Randy Phillips, 130 Burton Street, Graham, said, “I just want to express how disappointed I am with this council.  It seems to me that the majority of you are trying to finish someone else’s agenda and not listening to the citizens you were chosen to represent.

“Now it seems that there is enough money to make the repairs to the park and not move it, but most of this council still wants to move and spend at least one-third more money to have it moved. . . Now there seems to be a big rush to get this done.  It’s starting to seem to me there’s an ulterior motive to moving this park that the council has not been willing to share with the citizens. . . Your loyalty should be to the citizens you represent and not just one or two people.”

– Graham resident and recent city council candidate Randy Phillips

“Two of you had stated just a few months ago you were opposed to moving the Sesquicentennial Park,” Phillips said.  “As a council member you have to keep an open mind so you can listen to all that is said from both sides and make a decision to make a decision on what the citizens want and what is best for the city.  Every time this issue has come up in the past, it was stated there was not enough money to make the needed repairs to the park and it should be moved.

“Council member Hall presented a plan at the last meeting, but there were a few questions that came to me as soon as I saw the drawings.  There will have to be changes made to the Elm Street side, to that parking lot, to make it usable and safe.  This was not included in Hall’s presentation.  The work on the Elm Street parking lot will have to be done during the construction of the new park; this will increase the cost of moving the park – above what councilman Hall stated in his presentation.

“Now it seems that there is enough money to make the repairs to the park and not move it, but most of this council still wants to move and spend at least one-third more money to have it moved,” Phillips said.  “Now there seems to be a big rush to get this done.  It’s starting to seem to me there’s an ulterior motive to moving this park that the council has not been willing to share with the citizens…Your loyalty should be to the citizens you represent and not just one or two people.”

Plan to move park with no funding ‘fiscally irresponsible’

Cheryl Ann Schmidt, 1981 Riverwalk Drive, told the council, “The idea of a walled, gated, and locked park not on the central square of town holds little to no appeal.  But, mainly to pass a plan with no funding is fiscally irresponsible on the part of this council.”

“The idea of a walled, gated, and locked park not on the central square of town holds little to no appeal.  But, mainly to pass a plan with no funding is fiscally irresponsible on the part of this council.”

– Cheryl Ann Schmidt

“The idea of a walled, gated, and locked park not on the central square of town holds little to no appeal.  But, mainly to pass a plan with no funding is fiscally irresponsible on the part of this council.” –

Jane Albright, 231 South Marshall Street –whose father, Jimmy Albright, and brother Jim Albright, had served on the city council – recalled briefly the history of Sesquicentennial Park, adding, “I was off somewhere coaching some basketball game when they built it.”  (Though she didn’t mention it during her comments to the council, Jane Albright owns Things Above, a bookstore and coffee shop, at 15 Southeast Court Square in downtown Graham.)

“It started out as a gift; all these people just gave—they gave the pergola, they gave the steel, the bricks.  It was a town ‘bring it together, kind of have a lovefest,’ celebration,” Jane Albright said. “Then they ran into a big hurdle, a wall of fiberglass I’m told.  They had to stop, [were told] can’t do this, it’s unsafe.  What did the town do? They raised $50,000, with bricks, $100 apiece… It brought everyone in this town together.  That’s what we’re speaking from our hearts.  There are three names from Alamance County; their names are [on the bricks: Governor Thomas M.] Holt; Gov. Bob Scott; Kerr Scott.”

“We need more beauty, and there has been a hurdle – the money.  We will come together and do whatever we need to do.  If we find fiberglass in that hole, we will figure it out; we will help you.  My challenge to you – this has gone on a long time – is be the council that does the right thing and keeps the park.”

– Graham resident and business owner Jane Albright

“It’s a connection in a world where people are on social media.  It will be a third place [i.e., an informal, community-focused gathering space] in town, but it will be beautiful,” Jane Albright said.  “We need more beauty, and there has been a hurdle – the money.  We will come together and do whatever we need to do.  If we find fiberglass in that hole, we will figure it out; we will help you.  My challenge to you – this has gone on a long time – is be the council that does the right thing and keeps the park.”

Eve Carmen Isley, a Graham native and proud Graham High School graduate “who currently lives at 10613 Flanagan Way in Charlotte, said her dad, Herb Carmen, was an architect – who had been a student of the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright before becoming a partner in Alley Williams Carmen & King – had designed and given the city the plans that had made the park possible.  (She is married to Graham native Johnny Isley, a famous radio personality who is one-half of the “John Boy and Billy” duo.)

“You have a real special thing here. . .  You’ve got this beautiful, unique city center that has a unique character that includes a unique park that’s not like any other.  You’ve got a lot of folks who truly care about the unique identity and the legacy of the historical city center.

“The park sits in the shadow of the Historic Court House, along with the picturesque city clock that sits as a reminder of the elements of time and space. . . It has been called a pocket park; if so, Graham, you are way ahead of the curve on that.

“Understanding the problems you have, you look like you have a constituency that really wants to find a solution – not pull the park up by the roots and replant it somewhere else that will not be the same.”

– Eve Carmen Isley, Graham native, now in Charlotte

“You have a real special thing here,” Isley said.  “As I drove back, approaching that court house, I almost teared up.  You’ve got this beautiful, unique city center that has a unique character that includes a unique park that’s not like any other.  You’ve got a lot of folks who truly care about the unique identity and the legacy of the historical city center.”

Wright’s influence was a part of many of her father’s architectural designs, Isley recalled. “This one was no exception: the brick and steel structure contrasts and complements the quaint shops on all the other corners.  The park sits in the shadow of the Historic Court House, along with the picturesque city clock that sits as a reminder of the elements of time and space…It has been called a pocket park; if so, Graham, you are way ahead of the curve on that.

“Understanding the problems you have,” Isley added, “you look like you have a constituency that really wants to find a solution – not pull the park up by the roots and replant it somewhere else that will not be the same.”

Former city councilman Jim Albright – who moved away from Graham several years after he stepped down from the council but now resides at 232 South Marshall Street – summarized for the council the responses he’d received to his online survey about the plans to relocate Sesquicentennial Park.

432 responses to online survey in six days

Of the 432 responses, 60 percent said they are Graham residents; 187 respondents were Alamance County natives; and 392 respondents said they did not want to move the park, Jim Albright said, and a “vast majority” of respondents said they support holding a referendum to give voters a chance to decide the park’s fate.

[Story continues below photo and questionnaire responses.]

 Sam Powell, 1067 Eastlake Drive, Burlington, was on the Burlington city council for 12 years, served as a county commissioner from 1998 until 2002 (when the park was built), recalled that he had served as co-chair of the committee that oversaw the fundraising for and construction of the park.

“I’m opposed to moving the park because you can’t just pick that up and move it somewhere else without losing the whole meaning of what the park is about. . .But moving that park doesn’t make economic sense…That park is an icon for the city of Graham and the county.”

– Sam Powell, former county commissioner, Burlington city councilman, and co-chairman of the 1999 Sesquicentennial Committee, charged with building the park

“I’m opposed to moving the park because you can’t just pick that up and move it somewhere else without losing the whole meaning of what the park is about,” Powell warned the council.  If you’re going to move it don’t worry about the cost of moving all that steel and everything – build what you want somewhere else because you want something else.  But moving that park doesn’t make economic sense…That park is an icon for the city of Graham and the county.”

Sam Cahoon, 219 South Melville Street, dropped what appeared to be a bombshell nearly two hours into the public comment: a 2015 state law prohibits relocating Sesquicentennial Park – specifically, “the original court house bell, and the memorial elements associated with the site.”

“The court house bell and its plaque are permanent objects of remembrance.  They were intentionally placed within as a civic memorial, in public view, adjacent to the court house, and in the historic center of Graham.  Sesquicentennial Park itself is part of the memorial of prominence, honor, and visibility.  The civic park setting is what gives the memorial its meaning and dignity.

“This memorial was explicitly presented to the citizens of Alamance County and intended to remain part of the civic landscape – not stored, obscured, or relocated to a lesser setting.

“Permanent relocation may be allowed only if the new location allows similar prominence, honor, visibility, and public access. This standard matters because prominence is contentual.  There is no other location in the jurisdiction that matches the prominence and access of the park adjacent to the court house and the historic heart of Graham. Relocating behind buildings, into a parking lot, is not similar prominence; it is a downgrade.”

“Temporary removal for safety does not authorize permanent relocation, elimination of a memorial, or placement in a diminished setting. Just last year, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that Alamance County could not remove a monument in front of the court house because the Monument Protection law limits government’s authority, regardless of personal views.

“The legal principle is clear: local governments do not have unlimited authority to move or remove historical memorials.”

– Sam Cahoon

The 2015 law prohibits any object of remembrance – specifically, a “monument, memorial, plaque, statue, marker, or display of a permanent character that commemorates an event, a person, or military service” – that has been placed or erected on public property from being temporarily or permanently removed or relocated.

Speaker says state law prohibits relocation of park

“My comments are not about relitigating the vote,” he said.  “They are about the legal constraints that still govern what the city can and cannot do with the historical memorial as it moves forward.  The court house bell and its plaque are permanent objects of remembrance.  They were intentionally placed within as a civic memorial, in public view, adjacent to the court house, and in the historic center of Graham.  Sesquicentennial Park itself is part of the memorial prominence, honor, and visibility.  The civic park setting is what gives the memorial its meaning and dignity.”

Cahoon said that the memorial bricks that had been purchased to fund construction of the park further confirmed that it was intended to remain a permanent place of public remembrance.  “The plaque itself makes the intent unmistakably clear,” he said, reading aloud what had been printed on the court house bell that the Crissman family had given, “on permanent loan,” for the park.  [The Crissman family subsequently removed the bell after it was damaged by protesters during the summer of 2020.]

“That language matters,” Cahoon said.  “This memorial was explicitly presented to the citizens of Alamance County and intended to remain part of the civic landscape – not stored, obscured, or relocated to a lesser setting,” he said, adding that the 2015 law says that an object of remembrance may not be permanently removed.

Such objects of remembrance may only be removed or moved under certain circumstances, such as a hazard to physical safety or for construction and/or renovation of buildings and open spaces, with permission from the appropriate governing body – in this case, the city of Graham, which owns the property on which Sesquicentennial Park is located, according to the state’s “Monuments, Memorials, and Parks Act” of 2015.

“Permanent relocation may be allowed only if the new location allows similar prominence, honor, visibility, and public access,” Cahoon told the council.  “This standard matters because prominence is contentual.  There is no other location in the jurisdiction that matches the prominence and access of the park adjacent to the court house and the historic heart of Graham. Relocating behind buildings, into a parking lot, is not similar prominence; it is a downgrade.”

“Temporary removal for safety does not authorize permanent relocation, elimination of a memorial, or placement in a diminished setting,” he said.  “Just last year, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that Alamance County could not remove a monument in front of the court house because the Monument Protection law limits government’s authority, regardless of personal views.

“The legal principle is clear: local governments do not have unlimited authority to move or remove historical memorials,” Cahoon concluded.  “As the city proceeds, please ensure that the court house bell, plaque, memorial bricks, and their civic park setting are not permanently removed or unlawfully downgraded, and that any action taken fully complies with North Carolina law.”

State grant for downtown revitalization might not fund ‘disassembly of park’

Later in the meeting, Graham city manager Megan Garner said that the city runs the risk of losing state grant funds that had been allocated to the city in 2023 – and are scheduled to expire at the end of the current fiscal year – and “risk not ever being allocated funds again.”

“Whatever we do we also have also have to amend our scope of work with the state,” the city manager said.  No plans had been submitted with the application – as yet, there’s no design to repair and/or relocate and expand the park – for the state grant, which was designated for “downtown revitalization.”

At the same time, Garner acknowledged, “I don’t know that disassembly of a park would fall into the category of downtown revitalization.”  She also said the city could apply for an extension of the grant funds but warned, “There is zero guarantee that will happen.”

Since it was awarded, the city has to provide quarterly reports to the state Office of Budget and Management about any activity on projects funded by the 2023 grant, Garner said.

Addressing speakers who called on the council to repair the sinking park floor, Chin said Tuesday night, “Here’s the park I put before all of you who want to build the park back in its current location, your challenge, given what we had heard from contractors to renovate the park, they all came in around $500,000.  You take the challenge to raise at least half of it, and then through grants and such, we raise the funds and put the park back in its current location.”

Council member Whitaker said, “I think we need more time for legality check.  I’m not comfortable making a decision tonight; I think our attorneys need a little bit more time to do some research.”

Graham city attorney Bob Ward said that the motion “doesn’t necessarily” obligate the council to putting the park back in its current location.  “I think you would need to take some other action to dispose of it, store it – whatever the wishes of the council would be.  I think you’ll have to address that statutory issue.”

City attorney Bryan Coleman said that if the park is temporarily removed, the city has 90 days to put it back.  “If you don’t, you could always relocate it but it has to be a place of similar prominence,” he said, quoting from the statute that Cahoon had cited.

The council voted 3-2, with Whitaker and Dickey opposed, on a motion by Young to “reaffirm” the May 2025 vote to dissemble and store the steel pergola and other memorial elements in the park “and make it safe,” Dickey summarized.

Chin, Hall, and Young voted in favor in the motion.

The city tentatively agreed Tuesday night to schedule a special meeting to discuss the next steps for the park once the city’s attorneys have had an opportunity to research the state’s “Monuments, Memorials, and Parks Act.”

- Advertisement -