Graham’s city council remained deeply divided this week as they took another 3-2 vote on the future of the Sesquicentennial Park on the northwest corner of Court Square.
This time the issue arose over mayor Chelsea Dickey’s suggestion that the city seek bids on repairing the existing park.
Inasmuch as the council had unanimously turned down proceeding with bids for what had been intended as a new park at 129 West Elm Street, Dickey said the city should at least explore how much it might cost to repair the existing one.
The bids for the new park came in at $1.2 million and $1.6 million, so council member Bonnie Whitaker had recommended not proceeding any further during a special meeting on April 27, which was unanimously approved, 5-0.
About a year ago, bids were received from H.F. Mitchell Construction of Graham for $470,701 and Durham-based Pinam Construction for $379,425. Those prices have long since expired, but Dickey said it would be worthwhile to find out the updated, 2026 equivalents.
Those bids were for: removal of landscaping, structures, brickwork, with preservation of the memorial benches, clock, and pergola that would be placed in storage; grading the site for drainage; and re-seeding the lot.
Councilman Jim Young complained that there had already been two motions – last year before he was on the council and again after he joined, which he made – to remove the brick/steel pergola and the memorial bricks that form the floor of the park but that nothing has been done to proceed.
Council member Bonnie Whitaker speculated that inevitably prices would be higher this year than last.
Dickey’s motion to seek bids failed 2-3; she and Young voted in favor; Bobby Chin, Ricky Hall, and Whitaker voted against.
However, later in the meeting, during city council comments, Whitaker returned to the park issue, insisting that it was not safe and should be disassembled.
She repeatedly pressed for a “consensus” to have the staff proceed with dismantling the current park.
Alamance News publisher Tom Boney, Jr. interjected at one point that state law prohibits governments from demolishing or removing a historical monument – termed “an object of remembrance,” in the statute.
But Whitaker said that, because the park wasn’t safe, that restriction did not apply.
Ultimately, Chin suggested that the city get its engineering firm – Alley, Williams, Carmen & King – to look at estimating the cost of repairing the park, which seemed to be agreed to.
[Editor’s Note: the second half of the meeting was video-recorded, but the audio did not work – an equipment failure to the entire system, according to city officials – so it was not possible to review the exact wording of either the motion or discussion.]
