Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends Graham Community Building plan to EDTA, creates PYO sale subaccount
Summary
After public comment from residents and arts groups, the council asked the Economic Development & Tourism Authority to evaluate repair versus replacement options for the Graham Community Building and created a subaccount under the capital outlay sale-of-surplus account to hold proceeds from the PYO sale.
Residents, arts groups and council members told the Prior Creek City Council on March 18 they want the city to address long-unrepaired municipal buildings downtown, particularly the Graham Community Building on North Adair.
Several speakers described historic and community uses of the Graham building and the adjacent Graham Hall and urged the council to invest sale proceeds from the PYO property in repairs. "The Arts Council has been using this location for several years now," said Sula Robertson, identifying herself as a member of the Prior Area Arts and Humanities Council, and describing classes and art shows that draw visitors to downtown. Resident Rick Elliott described longstanding community ties to the building and urged the council not to spend the PYO proceeds on short-term needs: "That $80,000 should go to repair or keep repairing the 2 properties that still exist."
Councilmember Charles (last name not specified in the transcript) proposed that the Economic Development & Tourism Authority (EDTA) take a neutral, technical look at the building's condition and return to the council with options for repair, replacement, grant opportunities and long-term maintenance plans. Adam Anderson (Chamber/EDTA) said EDTA would take the assignment if the council provided specific direction and time to prepare recommendations.
The council voted to refer the Graham Community Building matter to the EDTA for study and options development, including grant and revenue ideas and an assessment of whether rehabilitation or replacement is more cost-effective.
On the same topic the council also acted to record proceeds from the sale of the PYO property in a dedicated subaccount. After an initial discussion about whether to postpone that accounting entry until the EDTA study was complete, the council approved placing the PYO sale proceeds into a new subaccount under the city's capital outlay sale-of-surplus account (account 4404181) and agreed the subaccount should be labeled to indicate the proceeds came from the PYO sale and could be earmarked for community-building work unless the council later authorized another use.
Council members and staff noted previous efforts to estimate repair costs (including an earlier, unsuccessful grant application for a shared kitchen) and warned that funding availability for block grants had declined since an earlier cycle; council members emphasized the need to pair a technical assessment with an evaluation of likely funding sources and of ongoing maintenance costs so the city would not be saddled with a facility it could not sustain.
Ending: The council asked EDTA to consult with local volunteers, the county historian (Councilman Lamar), and prior volunteers and contractors who prepared earlier cost estimates, and to return with options and cost estimates. Staff will also provide minutes/records showing prior capital expenditures related to those buildings for council review.
