So where does the council go from here?
It seems pretty obvious to us that the council needs to at least consider what might be the actual cost of repairing the existing Sesquicentennial Park on the northwest corner of Court Square.
About a year ago, bids solicited by the city brought in bids of $379,425 and $470,701. Those prices have long since expired, but it could certainly be worthwhile to find out the updated, 2026 equivalents.
At the time, those levels seemed high – and certainly more than the council was willing to spend. And they were simply ignored and largely forgotten.
It should also be noted that the two bids from a year ago were based on an informal solicitation from city government, rather than an open and public bidding process, such as the one just conducted for the demolition of the front part of a parking lot at 129 West Elm Street and the subsequent construction of a new park, ostensibly to replace the Sesquicentennial tribute, which was built to celebrate 150 years of county and city history.
It seems to us entirely possible that bids for shoring up the foundation of the current park might end up being far more reasonable than those recently solicited – and also avoid the downside of cutting out valuable downtown parking spaces.
And now, part of the consideration will be a comparison to the bids for a new park; even inflation-adjusted bids might be far more reasonable.
The city might even consider bids with at least two styles of response.
Some have suggested that various modern technologies may allow various companies to bid on some sort of process that injects a kind of intensive foam (such as polyurethane), which is a fast, non-invasive method to lift settled foundations (like the park’s brick floor), fill voids, and stabilize soil.
The process employs a method used to expand and lift structures without major excavation. Mebane used a similar approach in repairing water lines in recent years. This would likely be a cheaper method, depending on the warranty or guarantee that would apply to the work.
Council members have often cited the old-fashioned method as though it is the only alternative available: excavating the entire corner where the park is located, removing any remaining underground structures from the previous basement of the old Soda Shop that once stood on the site, and then replacing everything underneath the current park with a new soil pack.
In either case, however, it looks increasingly likely that either method might well be less expensive than the bids received for a new park.
The fact that the public at large strongly prefers to preserve the current park is an intangible, non-financial factor, as well.
It doesn’t cost the city anything to try, which, alone, would seem to make it a worthwhile venture.
It also would help to offset the current public impression that the three council members who want to move the park made up their minds without substantive information.
