City Council - Special Meeting

And did you accept bids to have the memorial repaired or only to move? We did receive bids to have it repaired as it is, but these bids are all old and outdated. If we were to repair the park as it is, we would have to rebid that process. Um, we don't have any costing numbers for what it's going to be if we move the park. Um, so those are the community members questions. I hope that gives us a little bit of a context and answers a couple of questions. Um, one more thing I want to do before we start in discussion. Brian, is Bob coming this morning? Okay. Um, Dr. Can you please read or summarize your information for the 100.2-1?

Yes, ma'am. Uh, from last council, of course, we were going to interpret or try to put our interpretation on the statute. So I guess first of all uh of course it's 100-2.1 more or less B that we're looking at. Is this a object of remembrance and is it on public property? We're going to say yes. It's object of remembrance and it's on public property. And what triggers the statute is um one or two things or both. When appropriate measures are required by the state or political subdivision to preserve the object or when necessary for construction, renovation or reconfiguration etc. Those two things trigger the the statute. And the alternatives there you have two options. you can relocate the object temporarily and if you do that then you're required to bring that object back to the same place 90 days after the renovations or construction have been completed and those are renovation or construction that were caused for the relocation in the first place or you can relocate it permanently. uh if you relocate it permanently then you have to put it in a a place of similar prominence, similar visibility, walkability and availability. Those are your two options. Now the other the other thing is if it's determined by um you know we'll say a building inspector or somebody of the like or an engineer that the property creates a public safety hazard. uh then the it can be removed and those are your options. That's that's what we we determine.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Brian. Okay, Madame Mayor. Yeah. Um, I I know you know in your video you put on Facebook you had you asked everybody to email and you gave all our email addresses. And since you read the ones that you had gotten, I I also received one and uh it just says, "Dear Mr. Young, could you please ask the mayor and the council where the grant money is that Miss Dicki said she could get and more importantly, why did she discourage someone from forming a fundraising committee?" That's the one I got. Would you like me to answer? Would you like me to answer? Yeah.

Okay. Um, it's the grant that we have that's going to expire on June 30th. We have the grant funds. We've got $483, right, Megan? Okay. $483,000. Projected renovation cost for Cesennial Park at the location that it currently is is around 400. And so we've got enough grant funds plus some to fix it at its current location. Those are the ones that I was referring to.

Okay. So the the grants that you have been talking about since before you were elected, Duke Energy and Impact Alamance, that's I think that's what it's referring to as well. Well, yeah, we also have opportunities to do Duke Alamance. We were talking about a ARP grant with Aaron last week. There is impact alamance, but there are also 400 over $400,000 in grant funds that we can use and that will go away if we don't use them.

Okay. I I the last last meeting, Tuesday's meeting, prior to that meeting, I had asked staff to check with the uh contractors that had placed the bids on repairing the park where it's at to see [clears throat] if they would honor those bids. Um before the meeting Tuesday, I was told they would not. And so what that did was we would have to send out requests for bids by the time and this is by law. Am I right Aaron? By law we have have a time frame. It's 10 days out. Is that right? As far as for for bids

to send out requests. So it it depends on the path you take for the bidding. Um the path that we're looking at is no less than I I think it's somewhere around the 20ish days that you would have to do for the type of bids that we were going to have to do for this project. And it's because we're needing to be able to have a speedier backend of how we're doing the bidding. So it's a longer uh stretch of advertisement so that you are able to do the uh backend a little quicker. And the concern was [clears throat] by the if if all that had to happen, the grant money will have expired by then. So that money could not be used towards this even if we wanted it to. And I I think you are are kind of misleading people in not letting them know that that that is a possibility that it that we can't use those funds for that because of that time frame for the quotes.

I agree. the more that we sit up here and talk about it and I would appreciate it to the last meeting

put that out as well. we need to discuss ASAP and we would be um better suited if we could vote in this meeting to go ahead and start the process to allocate these $483,000 to fixing the Cesco Centennial Park at this current location right now today because every week that goes by absolutely Jim's right it gets harder and harder to finish this project in the time frame that we're given. And I I do believe that the last bids we got were 479,000 and some change to to uh to fix it and put it back where it is. Um that bid is only going to go up from there. So I I would anticipate it since it's been expired for months. I I would anticipate it's going to go up quite a bit from that. And and again, that's just a a wag because they don't know what's going to happen when they start digging. You've got a wall that's sitting on top of the ground because when the Patterson building fell back in 1978, it it took part of that outer wall with it from the other business next to it. So what happened was they had a inner brick wall that was exposed to the weather. So they had to build a outer brick wall and they just sat it right on top of the the ground. Basically there is no it's not shored up at all. Um and and I will point out too that you know back when this park was originally conceived and built you know they had no they didn't they didn't know how much money it was going to cost. They didn't know how much money they were going to have. It was all done by a committee and the city of Graham agreed to build it or

to have it built there to allow it to be built there with no engineered drawings, no nothing, no bids, no nothing. So, just wanted to point that out that you know it's not that unusual to be in a position where you you go forward on something without an engineering drawing. So, these are the bids that came back last time to repair the park. So, we do have one that is 470,000, but we also have one that's 379,000. Yeah, but that Well, okay. You were here when those came in. But I will tell you, yeah, it was

when those bids were submitted, the soil contamination had not been identified. So that was not factored into their bid. [clears throat] So I have a question to council. Um we can go down this path and we can keep talking about this but this is not what Ricky and Bonnie had called the meeting for. And so if you guys want to go here and say we're going to keep Sesqua Centennial Park,

let's let's go and do this conversation. Well, given what we have learned from from our attorney, the conditions that we have to meet is one of first condition [clears throat] that you mentioned about location and it's satisfying the conditions of visibility and of compared to where it is now. We have a location that I think uh satisfies that con. You know what is being considered or should be considered is instead of behind the museum, the park will be located on West Elm Street with [clears throat] the entrance from West Elm Street next to the coffee depot. And if you're downtown, if you're at Court Square at the courthouse, you can see the park. You would see the park from there. So, it's around the block. It's around the corner. And would that meet the conditions, Brian?

Yeah, I guess that's, you know, it's hard for me to say because that's kind of in my mind. It's going to be different from for everybody. But I think that if you're asking me if I think it is

it is of prominent it has needs to be of similar prominence. So Westy Street's a busy street. It's it's it's walkable. It has access to it. It's visible. It it seems to meet you know again this is [clears throat] this is my opinion and this is up to a a try fact probably. Uh but um you know I would think that it would probably fall under that criteria of of similar not exact but of similar prominence. I mean it's not that far from where it is right now. It is accessible. It's going to be visible but I everybody's going to have a different opinion obviously especially on a topic like this. So, in our last month's meeting, we did vote to move the park and we did vote to go out for RFQS, which is what we're here to talk about today. So, do you have those RFQ that you you're going to put them up here, right,

guys? For anybody, they'll be up here, but they're on my Facebook page, too, if y'all want to flip through them.

Yeah. So, so basically the RFQS, we received two different RFQS. One from uh Steuart, Inc. and the other one was from Concore Engineering and Surveying Inc. CESI. uh staff reviewed both um firms that being our public works director, our city engineer and myself and based on the um credentials that both firms presented as well as timeline and past experience um Steuart was the the firm that we felt would be able to provide the product that we were looking to have done. Um, so that's the recommendation that staff is presenting if this is the will of council to move forward, relocate the park would be to use Steuart uh to do that.

Mayor, would you pull up Stuart's proposal, their RFQ?

Give me one second. While he's doing that, the I I want to restate my my opinion that the community has spoken that we have the funds to keep the park as it is. So, that is my opinion. And also with Stuart's RFQ, I I have a lot of problems. Um we're looking at a schedule that's too tight. Um Aaron sent a proposed timeline and just said that we need 20 days to put stuff out for bid and this is only allowing a 10day. Uh the project manager is out of Charlotte. We need to do new utilities. They're saying construction starts week three with no bid. Like there there's so much going on here and I don't want us to push through a project that does not have community engagement, that does not have um any buyin from the community. I'm not sure how we're looking to fund this park. If we're looking to fund it out of taxpayer dollars, like he said, it it's the funds are expiring. Then we just passed a huge Graham Regional Park master plan that I would love to throw those funds into. So I have a lot of questions.

Those funds that we're talking about could not be used for the Graham Regional Park. That'd be downtown, right? But Jim is also saying that we could not use it to fix Graham re or the Cesco Centennial where it is because he's saying that they're going to expire too soon and that project is significantly smaller than this project because this one includes a design phase. Well, can you bring up that picture that that shows the entrance on West Elm drawing they propose?

Now, now point of point of clarification, we would have to do bids either way, right? So, it's not that one way you would have bids, you have to rebid regardless for the current location. I I don't want anyone to think that that part of the process doesn't happen. This also there's a lot of um handicap prime spaces that are taken away. There's a lot of parking spaces that are taken away. Um and our the county has not said that we can use any of their parking spaces. And it's my understanding, Erin, correct me if I'm wrong. the He's gonna get so tired of [laughter] me.

Um the Graham Pres parking lot that we can utilize during the week. Does that have a end date on that agreement? It's my understanding that that doesn't have an end date and can be taken away at their leisure. Well, I think any agreement that a city has has an end date. Um I don't Can you pull it out for me? It's my understanding that it does not have an end date. So the the downtown parking impact to this I I think I think all agreements that we have has end dates. It just I I had to look up the agreement to see what that term is. Sure.

So if you give me one second and find that one. Okay. Thank you, Erin. Mhm.

With or without that parking, it still takes away a ton of other parking. We don't have county parking locked in. Um, and the businesses on this block don't want that space there. They need their parking so that they have customer base. M mayor

and after speaking with Brian Baker um about the parking issue then he clarified that we could use the additional parking at um Richards. So, the the parking, if I can see it on here, and I apologize, I'm trying to run at one time here, but um so you have the you have the assigned parking that's right there at the regular deeds, which speaking the county, that area is going to be tough for them to be able to allow for the public to use in addition to it being reserved parking for um their employees. But the uh the larger lot that's right there in front of the entrance into the rest um is is currently public parking already. So they were saying that if the city needs to use that in a in a way to uh promote parking for that space, I'm sorry that the city could because it's already public parking already. Um but the assigned ones, the ones that have marked numbers, those are the ones that um he was saying that this the county wouldn't be able to allow to be shared park. [clears throat]

Thank you. I just want to show that what Stuart prepared as a concept for the park is in stark contrast to the park proposed by Councilman Hall where basically would be a a brick uh a park that was all brick and such versus here is a concept where it's got green space. the pergola would be there. It's prominent. It's open. Uh [clears throat] so, and if we want the if you think the community is going to be excited about this, then let's open it up and hear from the community and have a community impact uh input process. Um, but I I don't want to

think we have

I know that's that's the whole point is I don't want to push through a project that we don't know that the community is about. Well, what has been proposed by the community, you know, is to inject foam into the ground below the current park. And Bert, would you share with the with those here that that foam has a shelf life that we solve a problem temporarily, but it's not a uh there is foam injection and there's also grout injection, which grout is basically a cement, which is a permanent a permanent repair, but either process far as grout injection is pretty expensive. expensive the grout injection side. Last we used it was in 2015 on a project. It was $253 a cubic foot. Um so how many cubic foot do we need to fill the voids we don't know about? I can't even begin to give you a price what that would cost because it's just too many unknowns.

Oh goodness. So it's it's basically running as a uh the parking agreement is expired as of December 31st, 2023. So it's running as a month a month right now, right? Okay. Um so we need update. So you were right. It did have an end date. Yeah. [laughter] Um I don't think it's legal for us to have a agreement that doesn't have a an end date. Okay. So we'll put that on the to-do list. Yeah, I'll work on that one. Okay.

Um All right. So, with with Mayor Dickiy's uh objections noted again, we did vote last month to move forward with moving the park. That's why we did the RFQS and what we're here for today. Clarification December meeting, but yes. Right. So, so it's been what, two months? Okay.

So, we did vote to move forward. So that's what we're here for today is to look at these RFQS and determine if we want to pick one of them or not. And we keep getting sidetracked. So we need to get back on track and let's talk about the RFQS. So does from the two that I looked at, the Steuart one appealed to me more because they and I don't see the drawing up here that I saw before. um where they they didn't use the whole parking lot. You know, the parking lot's like an L-shape. If you're coming in off of West Elm, uh they were only using a portion of it

right. Yeah. Right here where it went into by the coffee uh place. So, it went these are just the project examples that they've done because it didn't use the whole parking lot. It only used a portion of it. It didn't use that that area in the back behind like the museum and all that stuff. Can you find that one, Aaron, please?

A little more definition, a little more detail. So, I want to point out that our original RFQ, the call for qualifications, had a date of July 4th to have the park construction completed by. Um, these are the two that we got that said that they could meet this deadline. Um, the firm, Erin, correct me if I'm wrong, but the firm that just did our master plan did not submit because they said that they couldn't do it in that same timeline. So, there's there's other firms that we really enjoy working with that are saying this timeline is not feasible.

Well, maybe it's not feasible to them because they have other projects going that they can't get to it as quickly. Maybe, but I've had other industry professionals look at this timeline and it it's they said it was not feasible. So, I'm not relying on like I know small construction. I don't know park construction. They said that this timeline's not feasible. Okay.

And we have some that say it is. Mhm. So, [clears throat] but the service being what we're contracting for again is engineering services or re or relocating and then bidding on uh getting bids to do the work. Yeah. I think the the first thing that has to be done, we we had to get a firm to draw up an actual conceptual engineering

plan so that the bid can be derived from that. So what we have here, you know, we had two firms that basically say that based off of the guide that was used that uh Mayor Pro Tim um Hall provided, okay, you're looking to relocate into this general area. This is what can be done based off of um you know, site surveying and and and review of the location, utilities, all that stuff that you have to take into consideration. Um, so there there's that first part that they're needing to do in order for us to even get out for bid. So we can't even go out and do any bidding yet until we actually have the drawing from them in order to, you know, basically know who or what is needed going forward.

And so that's what we're voting on. Correct. So this is this is like the true even though the RFQS were done to me this is more of your first steps to actually doing it is to get a firm on board so they can do the the the drawing for us. Right. And we voted that we want to move the park to the location uh originally behind the museum. Yeah. So, I mean, taking in consideration the I mean, all of that is the city parking lot, right?

Um, there were parts of even what um, Mayor Pro Tim had provided that sort of bled into the side lot over here as well. But Stuart, for example, looked at it from a okay, we can make this work, but there's an alternative that you should consider where you're more or less looking into this space over here because you're able to get the elements more readily done in this space based on their review. So now we really do have to have someone who is going to come out, look at it, and pin the paper, draw it out, and then we actually have the engineered drawings of what's actually going to be able to go there, that's going to fit in there, that's not going to have conflicts with um other elements that that you want within the park. So without without having someone come out and doing it, you you don't have the true plans until you get that done.

Right. Erin, what's the square footage proposed versus the square footage of our existing Cesa Centennial Park? Um I want to say this area here is about 5,000 square feet. Um I think the other location was 3,000 and change. 3100.

31. Okay. It's like 3,000. So, it's at least 50% bigger. um for this space here. Um obviously this space here is is much larger which would require you know a little more review but this space here [clears throat] because it's a tighter space you're able to sort of fit it into a I don't want to say cohesive plan but you're able to to definitely um not have to worry about spreading stuff further out. It's just more compact.

So, what we will be voting on is picking a firm and then giving them the conditions of what we want them to design too. For example, this space that is accessible from West Elm Street, right? So I from staff perspective, if this is what council is going to do, we would just need for y'all to give us the green light to meet with the firm and then based on the I guess the guidelines so to speak the conceptual to the point that Mayor Pro Tim provided this is what they can do in this space and then we would bring that back to council.

Okay. more than likely it would have to be a special meeting because if if it's too far off, you know, we're we're obviously all working on the tight timeline as [clears throat] Mayor Dicki pointed out. So, we don't really want to carry it on to a a regular meeting if it's not one that's coming up

right in a few days. Let me ask a question that I think a lot of the community members might be wondering. Is if y'all want to move forward with this, are they still okay to put their committee together and sell bricks and have something put back on our current site of Cesco Centennial Park because that's what the community left Tuesday excited for. Um, and I think that was what's already been said in motion. Did you raise your hand? No.

If we move the park, we are not going to fix its current location. But you challenged the community on Tuesday night to raise the funds so that they could fix it. I'm asking, can they raise the funds to fix it at their current location? Because I I don't think the community is interested in this. They're interested at the current location. Well, why is that? What's What's the We heard a lot of people say that last Tuesday.

Well, I think the question of at at the last meeting was at on Tuesday, was it legal for us to move it? So, I think there were other options discussed with raising money, whatever, because we weren't sure if we could move it or not, but now we know we can. So, and we had already made that decision. And hold on, guys. I got it. Um,

I think you said that we keep getting sidetracked. And I think we keep getting sidetracked because we're trying to put a square peg into a round hole because the community and the funding and and everything is lined up to keep the park where it is. And I don't see a lot of other people wanting to move the park. And a lot of people are asking how we're going to fund something this big. Well, we have $480,000 and we've heard that it's 600 to 800,000. We don't know that yet. That's what just like we don't know how much it will cost to repair the park where it is. We don't know either.

And we're under a time constraint. We've already voted on it and we need to move forward and pick a contractor so that we can give our city staff some direction on this and we need to just get on with business. Hold on, guys.

My my concern is, [clears throat] you know, I'm I'm the one that wanted to reaffirmed the motion that was made in May to uh tear the pergola down. Tear is not really a great word, but to to remove the pergola and put the memorial bricks in safe storage and make the area safe. And [clears throat] then the other part of what I said was to allow the community time to get together and raise funds to get the park back the way that it was originally done. Um, [clears throat] I'm not I'm not going to sugarcoat or use any touchyfey words. I think I feel like we're kind of doing this a bit too fast. Um, and I know we want we we've got that timeline and we want to hit that July 4th and I can appreciate that. And I think um I think Ricky has a has a a great plan, but I I just think that we need to give the public time to come up with some funds if if you know give them the opportunity. Um and I I just can't I can't vote for for this right now. not without after what I said at the last meeting to allow them to have the opportunity to raise the money. But I I do want want the folks to understand the grant money will probably have expired by the time the park if we put it back where it's supposed to go. um no matter what the the mayor implies

it we're you're probably not going to have that those funds to use for that. Um it's that's just the truth. Um but I still think that we should allow the public time to raise raise some funds and hey madame mayor you'll have time to get those grants you were talking about. Um, that's just that's just my opinion and uh I'm I'm sticking to my guns on this one. I know I'm gonna make some people mad and you know, so far I'm doing that every meeting. So that's that's just my two cents.

Thank you for your two cents, Jim. Um, yeah, I think I think slowing the process down and and actually talking to the business owners, doing more of a parking assessment um and letting the community get involved would be very beneficial. Well, also I did speak to the commissioners last night and uh I believe the uh chairperson of the commissioners um told the city manager to get in touch so we can set up a time for us to discuss that. So, you know, who knows, the county might come up with some money, too. um you know maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to see if they want to finally put some funds towards their Zesqua Centennial celebration. So, you know, we you don't know, but I felt like I had to go even though, you know, it probably wouldn't get anywhere, but somebody had to and um I think it went pretty well.

Thank you. Um thank you for doing that. That's it. Thank you, Jim. Well, I will point out too that we've been having this discussion for some time. It's been going on I think we've had probably upwards of 10 10 times we've had it on the agenda um without a peep um until now that we're under the gun. Now people show up and say no no no. So hold on guys. Um, hold on. Yeah, control your I think we all know that that this is not a I understand that I'm not letting

we've been discussing this for a long time is my point. Then we finally made a decision and and now everybody, you know, here these people here want us to put the brakes on it. And and I will also point out that at the last meeting, you know, we we had an outflow area of 30 people, right? And come to find out uh most of those were Elon students getting class credit to sit out there during our meeting. That is the first I'm hearing of that. I I'm sure it is.

I I also want to point out that you said although want you to put the brakes on it, but Jim and I also are saying pump the brakes. Well, and I'm I'm not I'm not in agreeance with that. Okay. And we've already voted on it. So, Madame Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we award contractor Stewart to proceed to consider if we to relocate the park for the property off of Westm as shown in the slide here.

I want to confirm that this is right after you've challenged the community to raise funds. Correct. Okay. All right. Do I have a second? Separate from second. You said it wasn't separate. They want to raise funds. They can raise funds for this this park or that. Hold on, guys. If they don't if you don't want to raise fund if we But they're not allowed to raise funds for the current location of Cesco Centennial Park. I'm asking because you challenged them to do that last week. They can, but I mean, we're going to move forward with this. And they're not allowed to rebuild at the current location.

We're not going to fix it. If we the city, if if we move the park, I'm asking for clarification. Yeah. If we move the park then the we will not then improve the park the old location even with charity funds because it will be moved and they would have to you would have to raise the funds to fix the site and we're not going to fix the site. That's the whole point. It's too much of a liability for Hold on guys. Hold on. I'm It's too much trying.

No, you're not. Um it's too much of a liability um for the city to start digging next to a historical building. It's just the the amount amount of money that it could end up costing us could be tremendous.

Bobby, can you reiterate if they're allowed to raise funds and then remake your motion, please? I don't want to get sidetracked. I just want a clarification. My motion is to hire Stuart to review and provide engineer drawings engineering drawings to relocate the park from its current location to West Elm Street. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I I All opposed. I I

passes 32. The public is not I I I need to hear this from you. Is it is or is not allowed to raise funds to fix the park at its current location. That's their choice. They can raise funds, but it's it's going to be moved. But if we move, I don't see a point. Hold on, guys. Bobby, I just want an answer. Are they allowed? Will you permit them to build it back as a council? Because it's city land. We have to say if it's okay for them to build it back. No, we intend to sell the land. Okay, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Okay. I stop that.

Hold on, guys. That is the entirety of what was on our agenda for today. I want to say that um it's disappointing because I think that the community does want to to keep it, but this is the vote of council at pass 32. Um reach out to your council members, work as a community, and we'll we'll we'll try to make special meetings in the future in the afternoon, night time time so you guys don't have to take off work to come and and be with us. Um thank you for being here. Do I have a motion? Do you need anything else from us?

Mayor Dicki, may I ask a question? Yeah. The motion that was reaffirmed last week at the council meeting to essentially make the existing park safe. I know there were other conditions that kind of go along with that. With the action taken today for staff, it would just be helpful to have clarification on yes, that is still our path while Stuart is working on the drawings or no, we don't want to expend staff resources if if we don't need to be using them in that regard. So, if it's possible just to get a little clarification on that, it would be helpful for us. Sure. Well, I don't think that we we should use city staff to disassemble it at this point because if it's going to be included in the bids, you know, to move it to pick it up and move it, we need to let them do it. So, but that's just my opinion.

Is it included in the bid? Well, it's not been bid. It's not been bid. So, it's not No. No. Okay. No. Thank you, Megan. Yeah. And the other point of clarification is that consensus of city council. So just so we're clear, I would like to not feel about it. Do you want want to go ahead and have the city staff remove it or or do we want to wait and let I'm holding out bidding remove it that we can still use the grant to take it down and build it back up. Um so I I'm okay leaving it for right now. Are y'all okay leaving it for right now? Ricky, what do y'all think?

The the motion from Tuesday was to reaffirm the decision in May to take the park down, put the bricks, everything in safe storage, and make the area safe. Um, I'm assuming that when that motion was made, they were planning on using staff to do it. Um, so that was the motion that I wanted reaffirmed. Um, and Madame Mayor, you keep harping on that grant money that you you you need to throw that little disclaimer in there that it's possible we can't use it. It is. And it becomes more possible we can't use it, the further we can.

You're not informing You're not informing people. All you're doing, you're inflaming them and you're making them mad when you need to give them both sides. Thank you. I will. If if we don't get this vote passed very quickly, hold on. The the grant funds will go away and they will go back to the state and we will not use them. Hold on. We will have to talk about that later. There's no public comments during this. Mr. Bony, I'm sorry. This is not this is not a public comment time. I'm sorry. We'll talk right after we adjourn. So, what Oh, Councilman Hall, what do you think about should we go ahead and remove it?

Let it sit there so we don't have to pay the extra fees to have to bring the cranes back in there and lift it a second goound as Burke Mr. Burke has talked about that several times. You have a consensus. Okay. And then one other point of clarification with the contract being awarded to Stuart, is the proposed funding mechanism the downtown revitalization grant funding? Because if so, we have to go through the process with OSBM to change our scope of work. Yes. To get that approved. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Megan. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second.

Thank you. We need all in favor. You're not listening to the community. You're not listening to