Graham’s city council laid the foundation this week for an eventual demolition or “reimagining” of the Sesquicentenial Park at the northwest corner of Court Square across from the Historic Court House.
Council members voted 4-1 Tuesday night to remove the pergola 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 the motion by councilman Bobby Chin.
Graham mayor Jennifer Talley and council members Joey Parsons and Bonnie Whitaker joined Chin in voting to begin the removal process. Mayor pro tem Ricky Hall cast the lone vote against.
Construction of Sesquicentennial Park was completed in 2001, with funding from private donations to commemorate Alamance County’s 150th anniversary in 1999.
The council’s vote comes after a year’s worth of periodic speculation and discussion about the potential costs to repair the park’s sinking foundation – or whether it should be razed and the property declared surplus and sold to a private party.
During an hourlong discussion Tuesday night, the council majority dwelled largely on concerns about safety as the basis for why they feel the park should be demolished, while insisting that they wouldn’t be good stewards of taxpayer money if they spent upwards of $500,000 to repair it. The city received bids of $379,425 and $470,701.
When the park was built, Talley pointed out, “They did it the cheapest way they could. It was just filled in with a bunch of stuff, into a basement that had all these voids, and now it’s sinking. Contamination is a concern.”
Chin and Whitaker echoed that general concern about safety, with both council members opining that the longer the park remains as it is, the worse it will get.
“All it’s going to take is somebody to climb that small wall and get hurt,” Chin said, before suggesting that the council declare the property as surplus, put it up for sale, and decide what conditions to attach to any potential sale.
State law would allow the city to impose restrictive covenants regarding architecture or other aspects of future development of the property; and ownership could revert to the city if the restrictive covenants were violated.
“In my personal opinion, I just don’t see a lot of use,” Talley elaborated. “I just don’t think that’s being a good steward of the taxpayers’ money. I’m not trying to do what Jennifer wants; I feel like I’m trying to do what a majority of the citizens want. We try to do what we feel the majority of people want.”
However, Alamance News publisher Tom Boney, Jr. reminded the council later in the discussion that the city had made no formal effort to solicit public input on the future of the park.
“My question,” Boney asked at the conclusion of the discussion, “is how the council could make this decision without a public hearing to hear from the public. I find this absolutely unprecedented, surprising, disappointing.”
City manager Megan Garner told the council that she’d been copied on an email sent to the council earlier Tuesday by former city councilman Griffin McClure, who owns Green & McClure Furniture in downtown Graham, restating his opposition to demolishing Sesquicentenial Park.
No council members revealed during Tuesday night’s discussion whether they had been contacted by other resident or business owners, supporting or opposing the demolition of the existing park structure.
Talley offered her assurances that the public would be able to weigh in during a forthcoming rewrite of the downtown master plan.
Request for bids stipulated contract award in April or May
Meanwhile, the city’s staff outlined several options for repairing the park and restoring it to its original condition in its current location and/or moving it to an alternate location, such as the city’s civic center on McGee Street, near Graham Middle School.
Earlier this year, city issued a request for bids for the Sesquicentenial Park demolition. The request sought a base bid 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.
Prospective bidders had also been asked to submit alternate bids for the costs to: remove and replace existing soil and grade the site; rebuild the park to its original specifications, reusing as much of the original materials as possible, plus install new lighting and irrigation systems; rebuild the park “per original plans” with the original materials and refinish the existing pergola; and rebuilding the park at another location but install the memorial bricks in their existing location along the sidewalk at the northwest corner of Court Square.
The city’s request for bids also stated that the contract would become available in late April or early May 2025.
Another possibility that assistant city manager Aaron Holland briefed the council on this week would be to forgo all of those options to repair the park’s sinking foundation.
Whitaker said her preference would be to have the public works department remove the materials, list the property for sale, and “put the burden of repair, cleaning it up, on the buyer.”
The city received two responses to its request for bids. H.F. Mitchell Construction of Graham bid $470,701 for the base bid plus alternates; Durham-based Pinam Construction bid $379,425 for the base and alternates, according to figures presented to the council this week.
However, Talley warned, “[Contractors] will bid a project low and then hit you with all these change orders.”
For her part, Whitaker said she was troubled by the roughly $100,000 gap between the two bids.
Garner told the council Tuesday night, “Most places will hold their bids for 60, 90 days,” warning that failure to act would result in the city having to issue another request for bids.
“One of the options that wasn’t in the bid,” Holland said, “[is] if council wishes to sell property for development, the only costs we would be responsible for would be taking up the bricks, pavers, benches, and stuff and storing that and putting it where it goes later on. All those alternates wouldn’t come into play; the other option is we use our [staff] to take stuff up.”
Graham public works director Burke Robertson told the council that it would probably be cheaper to remove the pergola and rebuild a new one later than it would to disassemble the existing one, transport it, and figure out how to store it. “It won’t fit through any gates at public works,” Robertson said, adding that the disassembled structure would be at least 20 feet wide.
Chin interjected, saying he felt that a better option would be to reconstruct the park at the civic center.
“If we don’t put it back there,” Holland said of the northwest corner of Court Square, “we would have to put it somewhere.”
Much nicer than getting married in the jail
Talley said that relocating the park at the civic center would be “perfect” for creating a venue for weddings and other events.
“You have a full bathroom and auditorium,” the mayor said. “This is much nicer than going to the magistrate’s office to get married in the jail.”
“I’m fine with moving forward and having the public participate in the downtown master rewrite and give us some input on how they re-imagine this space,” said Talley.
Meanwhile, Chin and Whitaker insisted that, if people wanted to keep the park in its current location, they should fund it.
“People who wanted to keep it have had ample opportunity to go raise money or get donations to help pay for it if they wanted to keep it there,” Whitaker said, preemptively broadcasting that her vote would be to “go ahead and remove it.”
“People have climbed over,” Whitaker added. “I’ve seen it. If the benches weren’t there, it removes the temptation.”
“If we do that, we should put the land up for sale,” said Chin.
Hall countered that the park had been put there for a reason. “Everyone that comes into Graham [sees] what a great place this,” the mayor pro tem said. “It’s place for people to go and sit and eat ice cream, lunch. I ate lunch there [when I was with the county].”
‘Rusty water’
Hall later corrected Parsons, who said that the money to fix the park would be better spent repairing water lines.
“I’d have a hard time spending half a million dollars knowing that there’s people in town that are drinking rusty water,” Parsons said. I’m not against the park; it’s a great thing, whatever, but half a million buys a lot of water line. [If you do that] you need to tell people drinking rusty water, ‘sorry, we’d rather have a pergola downtown; we don’t care about your health.’”
Hall pointed out that “tax dollars can’t be used for water lines,” referring to a requirement for water/sewer revenue to be used to fund water line replacement projects.
Continuing to press the council to act, Garner pointed out that any action to declare the park property as surplus would need to come back to the city council for a vote. She informed the council earlier, “There is nothing in the proposed budget that addresses this in any way; that ship has sailed.”
Though Parsons initially voted with Hall in voting against Chin’s motion to remove the pergola, bricks, benches, and shore the property up before considering putting it up for sale, he ultimately reversed his position after Talley explained that the first step would be to make it safe and then hear from the public about how it could be repurposed. Parsons subsequently joined the majority in voting 4-1 to pass Chin’s motion.
Publisher skewers council over lack of public input
At the conclusion of the discussion, Talley insisted to the newspaper’s publisher that, regardless of whether the park is repaired or relocated, “You’ve got to take up the basement.”
That had been outlined in the scope of work when the city issued its request for bids, Boney pointed out.
Chin proclaimed, “The point is, we’re not going to spend taxpayer dollars.”
“I find the process to be extremely disappointing, without public input, when you consider things like a hair salon in a house requires a public hearing,” Boney insisted, as Whitaker and Talley argued with the publisher’s characterization of the council having acted without first seeking public input.
“We’re not closing the doors for the public to be able to do that,” Talley responded.
“I think you did that already, mayor,” Boney said. “You have not followed protocol in order to let the public be able to have input. What notice did anybody have that the council [would consider this tonight]?”
“You put it on the front page of the paper,” Talley said, referring to a story that appeared on page 10 of the May 8 edition of The Alamance News. “You have to agree it’s not in good shape. I’m not making decision based on what I want; I’m making a decision based on what I’ve heard. I’ve heard from people; I know Bonnie has; Bobby has. We’ve not hid that we have to do something.”
Read our front page editorial views on the council’s deliberations and decision: https://alamancenews.com/who-cares-what-the-public-wants-grahams-city-council-begins-the-end-of-sesquicentennial-park/
