Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery council tables decision on historic community center after residents and historical commission press for preservation
Summary
After public comments and historical-commission offers of grants and volunteer engineering help, the council voted to table action on whether to demolish or rebuild the downtown community center to allow more study and documentation.
Council members voted on Dec. 9 to table consideration of a proposal to demolish and replace the downtown community center after several residents and the Montgomery County Historical Commission urged preservation. The council’s decision came after a sustained public forum and a staff presentation that said the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) recommended removing the existing 800-square-foot building and rebuilding a larger, more usable structure.
Resident Carl Ross told the council the community center has hosted civic events since the 1800s and called it a “historical building in our town.” Larry Forrester, chairman of the Montgomery County Historical Commission, said the commission could pursue grants — “these grants could run up to $50,000” — and offer volunteer structural and site-engineering assistance to evaluate preservation options. Forrester said the structure could qualify for a state historical marker and emphasized the site’s cultural significance.
City staff and EDC representatives described the building as structurally compromised and noted remediation costs. A staff speaker said the interior is largely unusable and that the building’s “bones” may be too deteriorated to save without effectively rebuilding from scratch; staff estimated mold remediation and repairs at significant expense. Council discussion weighed historic value against cost and functional needs for events and performances.
Council member Miss Fox moved to table item 6 “until further discussion,” a motion seconded by Mr. Donaldson. The motion passed by voice vote and the council formally tabled the matter. Chair and staff asked the public to provide documentation and clarify what follow-up information the council should receive; the EDC said it can provide the materials it used in reaching its unanimous recommendation.
The immediate outcome is procedural: the council delayed final action and directed staff to provide additional information (including documentation of the building’s condition, the EDC’s analyses, grant opportunities and any cost estimates) before returning the item to a future agenda.
