Addie McCluskey
Elmore Autauga News
The Prattville City Council passed a resolution for Project Picker House on March 17, 2026, during its regular meeting, officially initiating the process of bringing a unique 9,000-square-foot restaurant to the historic property with an anticipated investment of $5.7 million.
The intent of the resolution, written as a development and cooperation agreement, is for Picker House LLC to develop the historic Picker House located on South Court Street. This development aims to create an attractive space in downtown Prattville, benefiting both the company and the city while preserving an important piece of local history.
“It reflects a belief in Prattville, in our downtown, and in the value of preserving and revitalizing a historic asset,” said District 7 Councilor Thea Langley. “I also want to be very clear that I am a strong advocate for our small businesses. They are the backbone of our downtown district and in many cases, are owned and operated by families who live right here in Prattville.”
Langley acknowledged that Project Picker House is not a typical economic development effort involving the recruitment of a large outside company. However, she also believes the project does offer an opportunity to establish a framework or guiding principles for how Prattville handles future investments in the historic district. Langley advised that, without laying some groundwork, she would not be comfortable voting in favor of the resolution.
“I just want to clarify that this resolution is to begin a process of discovery,” said District 1 Councilor Wade Newman. “This is a resolution to get us to start discussions and figure out what exactly we would be doing with this particular development project. I don’t see a need to stop or vote against this since it’s an exploratory, fact-finding, or evidence-gathering process.”
District 2 Councilor Marcus Jackson followed Newman’s explanation of the resolution by asking City Attorney Andrew Odom whether the city could move forward with an economic development project while also laying the groundwork for how similar requests will be handled in the future.
“While each project is unique, we need a consistent framework to ensure fairness, equity, and transparency across the board,” said Jackson. “My request is that both the agreement and the broader guidelines be developed simultaneously, so that we are not only addressing this project but also establishing a clear standard for those that follow.”
Odom advised the council that it would be possible to move forward with both. In response, Newman emphasized that he did not want the project delayed because of creating new guidelines. Jackson and Langley agreed with Newman, noting that their only intention is to avoid opening the door for large businesses downtown without clear standards in place.
Following the discussion, the council brought the resolution to a vote. No one voted against the project, but Langley abstained from voting.
