Mayodan council reviews two Washington Mills Park designs, orders more contractor costing and archaeological survey; PCB cleanup next step

Designers and staff presented two competing schematic directions for Washington Mills Park and asked the Mayodan Town Council for direction on which to advance to a council‑approved schematic.

The council heard from Destination by Design, represented by Eric, who said the team prepared two concepts: one that preserves the existing administration/mill building as an open‑air pavilion and concentrates parking and program areas to the east; and a second that removes the structure and creates a small amphitheater with a new restroom and terraced seating. Eric said the project team is still in schematic and discovery phases and stressed that grant obligations require on‑site football and basketball courts, a trail and river access.

Why it matters: the site carries multiple constraints — a Duke Energy easement, a storm drain that “cannot move,” a portion of the building within railroad right‑of‑way, and base‑flood‑elevation issues that affect whether restrooms and enclosed spaces can be insured and permitted. Those constraints materially affect permitting, insurance costs and whether it is feasible to keep and renovate the historic structure.

Council and staff flagged cost uncertainty and asked for competitive contractor inspections and hard cost estimates before committing to demolition or renovation. A contractor figure referenced in the presentation put an initial renovation baseline near $350,000 for certain work, while the design team highlighted a working design number in the packet that the transcript records as roughly $1.655 million (presentation language was imprecise); council members emphasized they wanted multiple contractor quotes and a formal memo with Stitch’s structural findings and revised site plan before making a schematic decision.

Environmental and archaeological issues: staff reported completion of phase 1 of PCB remediation at the site and presented testing results showing most samples below one part per million but with some localized orange (~1 ppm) and red (hazardous) spots that would require removal and disposal at a lined, out-of-state landfill. Funding discussed for remediation included an approximately $120,000 RLF award for cleanup, anticipated Duke Energy reimbursement (discussed as roughly $60,000), and PTRC consulting funds that will likely be used up. The council discussed two regulatory approaches: (a) removing to EPA standards with engineered capping (which requires financial assurance and a more involved EPA work plan), or (b) a state brownfield approach that allows a two‑foot fill cap with annual reporting. Justin (a consultant present) advised that a January sampling round will better define whether the project can meet state standards with a cap and reporting or must pursue full EPA cleanup.

Archaeology: staff said the State Historic Preservation Office directed a full‑site survey covering 13 acres rather than the originally scoped 4.5 acres; the additional work was estimated at $3,900. Council approved an amendment to the archaeological agreement to extend the survey to the full 13‑acre parcel and to pay the additional cost from the Washington Hills Park fund.

What council directed: council members asked staff to arrange contractor site walks, gather firm hard quotes for repair v. demolition, and return with a formal memo (Stitch’s structural recommendations, contractor pricing, and a revised site plan) at the next council meeting. Staff also set testing for PCBs in January and will return with sampling results that will inform whether the brownfield/state‑reporting approach or an EPA cap is required.

Details and numbers (as discussed on the record): the design team said grant funding sources include NC Water Resources and LWCF; the presentation referenced roughly $33,000,000 in combined funding obtained or pending across multiple grants (contextual note: the transcript’s phrasing around the $33M and the later $3M working budget was not precise). The council recorded a contractor preliminary renovation baseline roughly in the mid‑hundreds of thousands and design‑phase working site cost figures the design team summarized as in the low millions; council repeatedly requested firm contractor estimates before design decisions.

Next steps and timeline: staff will commission targeted geotechnical testing in phase 1 areas (playground, courts) once the council selects schematic priorities; archaeological survey will proceed as amended; PCB sampling is scheduled for January and a second cleanup phase will follow based on results.

Speakers quoted in this article can be found in the meeting record. Ending: council did not adopt a final schematic at the meeting but approved the archaeological amendment, approved direction to staff to gather contractor numbers and directed further testing; the matter will return to a future meeting with the requested memo and contractor estimates.