Commission hears from public, opens bid
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
The county building that previously housed the Cooperative Extension office has been a topic of discussion over the last few years, and the county is now expected to take action Tuesday on whether to raze the building. Photo by Christa Jennings
The old county building is a rock structure utilizing local rocks in various shapes and sizes; however, it has been reported that the concrete holding the rocks together has begun deteriorating, allowing moisture into the building. Photo by Christa Jennings
The building’s basement has been discussed at length over the years, with reports of black mold and other issues in the basement area, ultimately leading to the county Extension service vacating the building. Photo by Christa Jennings
By Christa Jennings
Senior Staff Writer
The County Commission met for approximately two hours last Tuesday evening, holding two public hearings and opening one received bid related to the Highway Department.
Commissioner Ronnie Joiner was unable to attend the two hearings and bid opening, with the remaining four commissioners present for all three, along with county attorney John K. Johnson and County Administrator Amy Gilliland.
Other elected officials present for the first public hearing were Judge of Probate Richard Dean and Circuit Judge David Law. One county resident was also in attendance for the first public hearing.
That hearing was to discuss the closeout of the Commission’s CDBG project number CV-NC-20-033, which was part of the financial assistance provided for the response and preparedness to the COVID-19 pandemic.
That public hearing was part of the required process in order to de-obligate those funds. Commission Chair Lamar Daugherty opened the floor for questions or comments from the public, and there were none.
In discussion, attorney Johnson confirmed that everything had been done and that this was the final public hearing on the matter, with it being a formality.
It was explained that the funds were not utilized and did not qualify for use toward other projects, so East Alabama recommended the county officially de-obligate the funds.
With no other discussion on the matter, that hearing was concluded, and the Commission waited approximately 20 minutes for the next public hearing to start. The second hearing was to discuss razing the building located beside the County Courthouse.
Elected officials in attendance for the second public hearing were Probate Judge Dean, Judge Law, Sheriff Michael Howell, and Revenue Commissioner Debra Lamberth.
There were also 10 area residents and members of the general public present for the hearing.
The building being discussed had most recently housed the county’s Cooperative Extension office. However, the Extension office was relocated to the county’s E-911 building in 2022 before then moving to the former Central High School office in Hanover in March 2023, where it remains now.
The Extension service being vacated from the building came about because of black mold in the building and other issues, including water, and ADA compliant issues. Additionally, based on the evaluation and report from an industrial hygienist, the building’s basement could no longer be utilized.
During last Tuesday’s public hearing on the matter, Chair Daugherty said that the building was discussed in 2021 when he joined the County Commission and that it had been discussed prior to his term, as well.
In reviewing financial figures related to the building, Daugherty said that the “bare minimum insurance” for the building costs the county $979 per year and $102 for the contents, the power bills over the last 10 months have been more than $2,000, the water and gas for the last 10 months has been “right at $2,500,” and that the water heater and minor repairs have cost $1,600.
Ultimately Daugherty said the county is paying $700 to $1,000 per month for the building to sit mostly vacant since 2022.
“That’s just not cost efficient for anyone,” he said.
He added that the Commission had decided to tear down the building, but wanted to hear from the public first.
The Commission last discussed the building at length during its August 2024 meeting, when discussing razing the building and potentially constructing a courthouse annex in its place, but the matter had not been on the agenda or discussed again until last month’s Commission meeting.
During the public hearing Daugherty did explain that no action would be taken at the hearing, as it was for discussion only. He said the matter would not be voted on until the next Commission meeting, which will be held Tuesday, June 10.
With the floor open for discussion, Bridget Graham Kelley spoke on the “historic and cultural significance” of the building, saying that it was constructed between 1931 and 1932. She reviewed the history of the building and programs in community held at the facility.
Regarding the mold and safety issues, she stated that the public should be provided a copy of that report.
Regarding the high utility cost, she said that the utilities should have been turned off since the building is unoccupied.
Kelley stated that historical sites should be preserved, adding that she hopes the Commission will consider other options for the building.
Daugherty said that while it is an old building, it is not on the historic register – either the Alabama Register of Landmarks & Heritage or the National Register of Historic Places – and therefore is not of historic significance.
He explained that the Extension was moved to the old high school because Auburn University would not let its employees be in the building. He further said that it would “take a lot” to bring the building up to code and that it is not feasible to spend $1 million on the building and still not have much space available.
Daugherty also said that the Coosa RSVP still goes in the building for limited amounts of time and has office space in there, which is why the utilities are still on. He added that the courthouse basement is not a viable option because of an ongoing leak issue.
County resident David Kelley spoke of the quartz and other rocks from Coosa County being hand placed to construct the building, voicing his concern about the architectural loss. He mentioned wondering if money might be available from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management to help preserve the historic building.
Daugherty said that the building would have to be put on the registry to be considered historic.
He further said that when someone was cleaning the exterior of the building they noticed the concrete between the rocks is deteriorating and that water gets into the building. He said that no one has given a viable option to restore and remodel the building, adding that he hates it and understands.
Commissioner Bertha K. McElrath said that she has personally looked around for someone to salvage the rocks because she likes old buildings, but that she could not find anyone to do it.
In ongoing discussion and responding to questions raised by resident Sandra Wilson, Daugherty said that based on estimates it would cost approximately $3 million to construct a new two-story annex and more than $1 million to get the Extension building up to standards.
Also in discussion, Judge Law mentioned the Clay County Courthouse being on the historic register and reviewed information relating to his experience with it, stating that the county cannot modernize it or do anything to it because it is on the register, but that the county also hasn’t received any funds from the Historic Commission to help with the building. As such, Law voiced that he did not think it would be a good idea to try to add the former Extension building to the historic register.
In further discussion, Daugherty said, “There comes a point in time where sometimes you just have to change. It is not something that was voted on in the shadow of the night. It’s not something that’s been quick. If anything it’s been dragged out entirely too long, one way or the other, but we wanted to give everybody a chance to come out and voice their opinions or concerns.”
He added that the county can do the demolition in house with the county engineer to save some money if the Commission does vote to raze it. He further said that the county does not have the funding to build something else right now anyway, so some things being discussed would not happen for some time, if approved.
Area resident Randall Lewis asked if the mold in the building is black mold, and Daugherty confirmed that it is.
Lewis further asked if the rocks from the building could be sold if the structure is torn down. Daugherty said that personally he would be willing to give the rocks away since they would have to be hauled away regardless. He added that the county may be able to save some of the rocks aside for an architect to use in the front facade of a building later.
Property owner Denise Nelson said, “It is a shame to lose a historic building. It’s still historic, even though it’s not on the register, it’s still a historic building in its own right, whether it’s useful to the courthouse or not.”
In ongoing discussion, it was asked whether the county could sell the building. County attorney Johnson stated that the building itself could be cold and moved, but that there would be the expense of disassembling and reassembling it elsewhere, since selling the land the building is on would be “an extreme hurdle.”
After much discussion, Daugherty said that if anyone is interested in the building, then he is willing to put on the agenda to put the building up for bid to be sold and moved, or that if anyone wants part of the building or the rocks for anything then the county is willing to consider that.
Last Tuesday during the public hearings the former Extension building was open for anyone wishing to go inside to see or tour the building, and paperwork and numbers related to the building’s financials were available. However, no one asked to see the information, and no one went into the building.
Following that public hearing, the Commission then held the bid opening for limestone for the Highway Department.
Those present for the bid opening included the four commissioners, Johnson and administrator Gilliland, as well as Sheriff Howell, Jail Administrator Sheila Thomas and County Engineer Tad Eason.
The only bid received was from Vulcan with bid amounts of $28.50 for number four crushed limestone and numbers five, 57 and six; $29.50 for number 78; and $24.50 for crusher run.
In reviewing the information, Eason said the Highway Department would primarily use numbers six and 78, with six being used for paving and 78 for the patcher.
The Commission will vote on accepting the limestone at its next meeting, as well.
The next regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the County Commission will be held at 9 a.m. Tuesday, June 10.
