Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Methodist church restoration team flags ADA and concrete issues, engages University of Utah student help
Summary
Project representatives reported second‑quarter finances, an anticipated tourism grant pending acceptance of a bid, and concrete and ADA‑access problems at the restoration site; Dr. Matt Basso of the University of Utah offered to match an intern to help with artifacts and museum planning.
A project representative (identified in the transcript as speaker S3) updated the Corinne City Council on the Methodist Church restoration project, reporting second‑quarter finances, plans for an internship and immediate construction concerns.
S3 said reported revenues for the project were $351,616.22 and a budget balance of $12,477.85, but acknowledged some expense numbers may require verification. The speaker said the project will not add a pending Box Elder tourism grant to its totals until a construction bid is accepted.
S3 described contacts made at the Utah Historic Preservation Conference and said Dr. Matt Basso, a University of Utah public‑history professor, offered to match the project with a student intern to assist with artifact collection and museum planning: "He's offered to match us with 1 of his students," S3 said. The team said they expect the intern to help attract additional funding and aid in preparing for a museum reopening.
The update also highlighted construction concerns. S3 and other members said concrete work did not match the blueprints and that ADA access at the front entrance is inadequate: steps were described as too low and the front landing as too small. S3 said the subcontractor did not follow the prints; council members discussed a proposed fix that would extend the sidewalk and add a compliant landing and ramp. An on‑site meeting with the architect and contractor was scheduled for the following day to review the concrete and ADA issues.
No funding decision or formal vote was recorded on the project during this meeting; the project team said they would proceed with the on‑site review and follow up once the architect and contractor confirm next steps.
Next steps: on‑site review scheduled; accounting numbers to be double‑checked before being finalized.
