BC 2006 09 26 RECESSED - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 26, 2006 (Recessed Meeting) Page 126 The Board of Commissioners for the County of Cabarrus met in recessed session at the Harrisburg Town Hall located at 4100 Main Street, Suite 101, in Harrisburg, North Carolina on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. Present - Chairman: Robert W. Carruth Vice Chairman: Joni D. Juba Commissioners: Carolyn B. Carpenter Absent - Commissioners: Robert M. Freeman Coy C. Privette Also present were John D. Day, County Manager; Richard M. Koch, County Attorney; Mike Downs, Deputy County Manager; Pam Dubois, Deputy County Manager; and Frankie F. Bonds, Clerk to the Board. Scott Milligan, Construction Executive with Turner Construction Company, and Pete Cayado and Paul Bonsall with Ware Bonsall Architects were also present. In addition, Victoria Cherrie of THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER (Cabarrus Neighbors) and Eric Defines of THE INDEPENDENT TRIBUNE were present. The meeting was delayed due to the lack of a quorum. At 6:12 p.m., Chairman Carruth called the meeting to order upon the arrival of Vice Chairman Juba who was late due to a doctor's appointment. Commissioner Privette was out of town and Commissioner Freeman was absent due to a family emergency. Mr. Milligan presented information regarding an issue associated with the Sheriff's Office and Detention Center project and the old Tribune Building (125 Union Street, South, Concord). He used a site plan to show the location of the old Tribune Building, the Jail Annex and the retaining wall for the construction project. Mr. Milligan stated there had been site survey discrepancies and the project had encroached onto the area of the old Tribune Building. He pointed out the proximity of the old Tribune Building to the construction site and reported the footing and the elevator chimney for the building were in the way of the retaining wall for the new facility. He stated an access of only two feet and four inches would be left for crews to lay brick on the retaining wall. Mr. Milligan outlined the following two options: (1) Remove the footing and chimney from the old Tribune Building and engineer scaffolding at an estimated cost of $20,800.00 for the workers to put brick up as shown; or (2) Demolish the old Tribune Building at an estimated cost of $59,000.00 plus the abatement costs for removing asbestos, lead paint, etc. He said an abatement cost estimate would not be available until September 27. Further, Mr. Milligan stated the old Tribune Building was in the critical path of the construction project and was delaying this part of the work. Finally, he commented on the instability of the chimney and the need to provide a safe access for workers. Mr. Day stated the demolition would be more costly at a later date as the building would be adjacent to the new Jail Annex. He also said a crane would be needed on the site to set the cells in the Annex. Mr. Downs reported that one person had looked at the old Tribune Building during the past year. He stated the building would not be available for sale for two years until the construction project was completed. There was discussion by the Board regarding the two options presented by Mr. Milligan. The following issues related to the old Tribune Building were addressed during the discussion: (1) Safety factor for the construction workers; (2) Instability of the building; (3) Two-year period before the building can be sold and liability risks during that period of time; (4) Possibility that the building would have to be demolished in the future and/or possibility the building would be damaged during the construction project; (5) Cost of demolition would be higher in two years due to the proximity of the new jail; (6) Past construction project delays and increased costs along with the potential for further delays and increased costs; and (7) Good business decision to demolish the structure at this time. Chairman Carruth stated the Board had identified a number of reasons for demolishing the old Tribune Building. He asked for reasons as to why the building should be saved. No reasons were stated. Mr. Day said the building had no significant historical or architectural significance. He also stated that the abatement would be required whether the building was demolished or marketed for sale in the future.