Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Facilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pike County plans to rebuild Greasy Creek community center after total loss fire

Pike County Fiscal Court · July 9, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After an early‑July fire that completely destroyed the Greasy Creek community center, Pike County officials said insurance coverage on the building is $291,000 with $35,000 for contents and directed staff to produce rebuild proposals — exploring lower‑maintenance metal or block construction and cost estimates.

Pike County Fiscal Court announced plans to rebuild the Greasy Creek community center after fire investigators and insurance personnel concluded the structure was a total loss. Judge Jones reported the blaze occurred in the early morning hours of July 4 and said the cause is still under investigation; he noted “there is a person of interest” and that the state fire marshal has inspected the site.

Bobby, who accompanied the county’s insurance adjuster from CAECO on an on‑site inspection, told the court, “We’ve got $291,000 coverage on the building itself and $35,000 on content.” Court members discussed whether to rebuild in the same materials or to pursue lower‑maintenance options such as metal or block construction and whether to consult an architect or use existing blueprints. The building footprint referenced in the discussion is about 1,600 square feet plus decks.

Judge Jones asked county staff to prepare proposals and basic estimates and asked Kevin Gillum at Summit Engineering (to review plans) if necessary. County members emphasized accessibility and lower maintenance costs for elderly and mobility‑limited users, suggesting a slab‑on‑grade design to avoid interior steps and extensive ramping. One commissioner suggested testing alternatives such as metal fabrication buildings that might allow a larger building for similar or lower cost. Local contractors and suppliers were discussed as potential builders.

The court did not set a reconstruction timeline or final budget; Judge Jones asked staff (Bobby and Paul) to produce proposals within roughly a month and return the matter to the fiscal court for formal action. Insurance coverage figures and choices about construction type will determine whether the county supplements coverage with additional local funds.