In late 2017, Anderson County purchased a building at 205 East Main, Clinton, to be used as a new senior center.
An unofficial inspection was performed and issues were identified and then corrected, and resolutions were approved.
The Senior Center has moved at least twice back to its original site since the initial purchase and following inspections. Issue found were visible and airborne mold and building code issues and others.
Since the purchase of the building by the county, a local business was leasing the front of the building (they left a short time later), seniors used the building and other functions continued to use the facility while some of the issues were resolved including the mold issue.
I believe the County Commission has to follow state guidelines. If so, have they violated any?
The building has since been placed at auction as excess property but the bid was refused due to being too low.
Questions have not been asked or if they have, they have not been made public.
• Is an inspection required before a purchase. If so, why was it not performed?
• When the initial formal inspection results were signed off, was that person qualified under state or local requirements, if any?
• What were the levels of mold and was the complete building affected and were there stay time limits that had to be followed?
At one point in the time line, some rooms were not to be used, but this was used as part of the ingress and egress routes into the building.
•A previous article in the Courier News dated Aug. 21, 2019, talks about the auction results.
• Who approved the purchase?
• What, if any, are the ties between who approved the purchase and the seller?
• What is being put in place to ensure this does not happen again?
• Who is being held accountable for the purchase of this facility and the initial waste of $600,000 of county money?
• Have processes been put in place to ensure this does not happen again?
Michael E. Wagoner