LAURINBURG — A group opposed to a proposed $8.1 million City Hall and demolition of the current administration building got a chance this week to grill members of the Laurinburg City Council about the project.
Few, if any, in the group — Super Majority for Saving the Barrett Building — seemed satisfied with any of the council’s answers.
Frank Evans, who served as a spokesman for the group, presented questions to council gathered from the members of Super Majority. Evans, who is also seeking election to city council, posed about 10 questions to council before city officials ultimately voted to move forward with bidding out the project and pursing financing.
The group is opposed to the City Hall construction project, but also believes that the Barrett Building, which currently houses some of the city’s departments and administration, should not be torn down to make way for it.
The Super Majority believes the 80-year-old building constructed in the 1930s and used as a church parsonage should be preserved as a historical landmark. In the 1990s it was named after W. Charles Barrett − one of Laurinburg’s longest serving mayors.
The group has threatened to sue the city council over the demolition.
Evans asked council how the project would help residents.
“The benefit will be having more police officers to help patrol the city of Laurinburg and exactly do what they want to be done, fighting crime,” council member Dee Hammond said.
Hammond’s reply was met with derisive comments of “two, two,” from some members of the audience referring to the fact that the city has recently hired two new officers when residents say many more are needed.
Evans also asked how the city could spend more than $600,000 to move some city workers to the renovated Sanford Building and on planning for new construction “before having so much as a sticky note” of approval from the Local Government Commission. The commission has to sign off on the project before construction can begin.
“The Super Majority feels that this speaks to an arrogance on this council’s part as to what you think you can get away with,” Evans said. “is there an arrogance when it comes to the council and what you feel you can do that the citizens won’t ask questions about,”
Council member Drew Williamson said the money spent was typical of that kind of project
“I would bet any new municipal building that requires financing … to my understanding you unfortunately have to spend to show the local government commission exactly to the dollar what it would take to finance the building,” Williamson said. “Is that arrogance or is that just following what we’re supposed to do?”
But Evans wanted to know who told council “to go after this project” in the first place.
Williamson said that when he took office in 2011, the former city manager took council on a tour of current City Hall and police department.
“It was in dreadful shape, and the point of that whole tour was to tell us that a facilities needs study had been ordered by the then-council. I wasn’t on council then” Williamson said.
A year later, Oakley Collier, an architectural firm, presented council with recommendations to address issues, but those suggestions were not moved on for a few years.
But Mayor Matthew Block said the Oakley Collier study also included two recommendations. He said the first was to renovate the current City Hall for $1 million and build a new police department for $6 million total. The other was to build a new City Hall on the site where city hall currently stands for $5.7 million.
“Interestingly both of their options did not include demolishing the Barrett Building,” Block said. “They recognized the historical value of the Barrett building to the city, and they felt if the city was going to stop using it that it could be used for another purpose.” Block said.
Evans also asked how council would get the $635,000 back if the LGC decide not to approve the loan.
The answer was that they would not be able to recoup the money.
Also among the questions were whether the town would have money to cover natural and other disasters or emergency money for a capital project if they were to finance the new municipal building.
“That is what the LGC will weigh in on,” City Manager Charles Nichols said. “Davenport and Company are saying this can be paid for not affecting our fund balance.”
Evans asked why there was so little support from the public for the project. No one spoke in favor of the project at Tuesday’s public hearing.
“We really can’t speak to where the other people are,” council member J.D. Willis said.
Council member Mary Jo Adams had a different take on the issue.
“I did speak to some folks who talked with me and they are concerned about the atmosphere that’s been created here, the hostility and don’t want to be slammed on Facebook by the mayor the next day,” Adams said.
Evans ended the session by asking the three members who were up for re-election, Willis, Hammond and Williamson, if they were bothered by the fact that losing their seats could cause the project to be stopped.
“If that’s what the citizens want … then I will accept it,” Hammond said.
