Graham city officials have received three new estimates of the cost to repair Sesquicentennial Park at the northwest corner of Court Square in downtown Graham.
City officials told The Alamance News Tuesday afternoon that the council had directed the staff in May to obtain estimates to repair the park from the city’s engineering firm, Alley, Williams, Carmen, and King (AWCK).
The council majority had also directed the staff at its May 13 meeting to begin disassembling the park and “make it stable, store the bricks, remove the clock so it can be repaired and moved to City Hall,” Graham city officials told the newspaper last week.
After returning from the Memorial Day holiday, city workers began dismantling the park and putting the pergola, commemorative bricks, and four-sided clock in storage at the public works department on East Parker Street, Graham public works director Burke Robertson told the newspaper while the disassembly was underway last week. A brick wall attached to a commercial building at 106 North Main Street that’s used to screen trash and recycling cans from view was left intact.
Straw was put down on the empty lot later last week.
Each of the three estimates that AWCK forwarded to the city on Tuesday is predicated upon restoring Sesquicentennial Park in its original location and according to its original specifications, Josh Johnson, vice president and head of engineering for AWCK, explained in a note accompanying the three new estimates.
Construction of Sesquicentennial Park was completed in 2001, with funding from private donations, including the sale of commemorative bricks as part of Alamance County’s and Graham’s 150th anniversary celebration in 1999.
Meanwhile, the council voted 5-0 at a special meeting on April 27 to reject two bids, from a low of $1.2 million to a high of $1.6 million, to build a new park at 129 West Elm Street.
The lowest bid, of $743,103 from Chadco of Burlington, was disqualified because it wasn’t fully responsive to conditions outlined in the city’s request for bids, assistant city manager Aaron Holland said during the meeting on April 27.
The second-lowest bid, $1,219,229, to build a new park at 129 West Elm Street was submitted by Central Builders of Mebane.
The highest bid, $1.618 million, was submitted by Bar Construction of Greensboro. Council members ultimately voted 5-0 at the special meeting in April to reject both bids for the construction of the new park.
Both bids were well above the $483,000 in remaining funds from a $600,000 state grant that Graham received for downtown revitalization as part of the budget that the General Assembly passed in September 2023.
The grant funds were originally set to expire on June 30, 2026, but that deadline has since been extended by one year, to June 30, 2027.
City received two bids for “Sesquicentennial Park Options” in 2025
By comparison, the city had received two bids – ranging from a low of $379,425 to a high of $470,701 – in April 2025, in response to what city officials had described at the time as “Sesquicentennial Park Project Options.”
H.F. Mitchell Construction of Graham submitted a base bid of $470,701; and Pinam Construction of Durham submitted a base bid of $379,425. The base 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 and covering the lot to prevent erosion.
Graham’s city council voted 4-1 in May 2025 to remove the pergola, clock, and memorial bricks and “do whatever’s necessary to make that piece of property safe and then consider declaring the land excess and putting it up for sale,” based on a motion by councilman Bobby Chin. Council member Bonnie Whitaker voted to begin removal, as did then-councilman Joey Parsons and then-mayor Jennifer Talley. Mayor pro tem Ricky Hall cast the lone vote against.
City would have to solicit formal bids to repair park
Graham mayor Chelsea Dickey had said during last month’s council meeting that it would be worthwhile to find out the updated, 2026 equivalents, since the 2025 bids had long since expired.
The three new estimates are not formal bids, which the city would have to solicit through a request for proposals.
However, a 3-2 majority of council members had opted not to direct staff to seek formal bids for repairing the park.
Under each of the three options that Johnson outlined in his letter to Graham city officials, debris buried beneath the former park foundation would be excavated and disposed; the site would be backfilled with stone and covered with “geotech matting,” (i.e., woven synthetic and natural materials to stabilize the soil and control future erosion); and a new storm drainage system would be installed.
The difference in the costs between the three estimates that AWCK has developed – the cheapest at $573,250; the midrange at $588,250; and the most expensive at $653,250 – stems from the amount of “uncompacted debris” that would be removed and replaced with geotechnical stabilization fabric, based on copies of the estimates that Holland furnished Tuesday in response to an earlier public records request by The Alamance News.
Under the cheapest ($573,250) and most expensive ($653,250) options, eight feet of uncompacted debris, or 800 cubic yards, would be removed and disposed of, at a cost of $100,000. Replacement of material with “geotechnical stabilization fabric” would cost $120,000 under the $573,250 option and the $653,250 option.
Under the mid-range option ($588,250), four feet (400 cubic yards) of uncompacted debris would be removed and disposed of, at a cost of $50,000. Replacement of material with geotechnical stabilization fabric would cost $80,000 under the mid-range option.
Johnson noted in his letter to city officials that the mid-range option also includes a potential cost of $25,000 for easement acquisitions.
“The issue with any storm drainage improvements around [Court Square is that it has] very little storm drainage installed and what little is present is very shallow,” Johnson wrote. “As such, in order to install drainage for this lot, about 400’ of storm drainage is required AND it would need to go through the alleyway to the north and west of the site. This would require an easement across the two privately owned alleyways.”
All three estimates include $15,000 for lighting and power. But under the cheapest and most expensive options, those elements would include trenching; conduit; 12 fixtures for “stage wash” and pathways; and installation of panels and receptacles.
Breakdown of other potential costs to repair park
Each estimate also includes potential costs for: installation of a new storm drain system ($75,000); construction of a brick structure with four brick columns and reinstallation of the metal pergola ($60,000); installation of 1,085 brick pavers over a sand bed, over a four-inch concrete slab ($54,250); replacement and reinstallation of the four-sided freestanding clock ($30,000); landscaping ($15,000); a central “brick monument” ($10,000); an irrigation system ($2,500); and restoration of the four existing granite benches $2,000), based on the estimates that city officials provided to the newspaper Tuesday afternoon.
The preliminary construction cost estimates do not specify whether the memorial bricks sold to fund construction of Sesquicentennial Park would be restored to their original location.
Holland, the assistant city manager, told the newspaper Wednesday afternoon that each estimate includes a potential cost of $5,000 for traffic control because temporary measures could be needed to limit vehicular access around that part of Court Square, if the council were to decide to proceed with repairing the park. He said another charge of $15,000 designated for “mobilization” would likely cover heavy equipment that a contractor might provide for the project.
Holland indicated that, while the estimates aren’t listed on the agenda for the council’s next meeting on Tuesday night (June 9), they could be on the agenda for July, adding, “it might not be this particular estimate but what to do with the site itself.”
