News
Courthouse queries dominate county commission session
By Kevin Risner, krisner@advertiser-tribune.com
POSTED: October 17, 2007
The Seneca County commissioners faced more questions Tuesday during the public comment and question session.
County resident James Rhodes referred to a recent newspaper article in which Commissioner Ben Nutter said the decision to raze the existing courthouse was a financial decision.
“At the time the decision was made, we didn’t know we had a $30 million asset,” Rhodes said.
Commissioners Nutter and Dave Sauber disputed the $30 million figure put forward by preservation expert Stanley Graves during his visit from Texas.
Nutter said the $10.2 million estimate provided by MKC Associates was the most up-to-date estimate for renovation. Estimates from other architecture and engineering firms published recently no longer are valid, he said. Nutter said he has been told construction costs have been increasing in other types of projects by as much as 40 percent annually.
“When I said it was a financial decision, that’s exactly what I meant,” Nutter said.
Rhodes asked the commissioners where the money would come from to demolish the old courthouse and build a new courthouse. Sauber said demolition money would come from the general fund and money for constructing a new courthouse would be borrowed.
Rhodes asked how large a new courthouse would be. Sauber said a new courthouse would be between 20,000 and 24,000 square feet. Rhodes asked why the commissioners would spend money to build a smaller courthouse when the existing courthouse has about 33,000 square feet.
Sauber said Graves told him about one-third of renovation projects are completed on budget, about one-third under budget and one-third over budget. Sauber said there was no way to know whether the Seneca County Courthouse could be completed on budget, under budget or over budget.
“Graves said the major cost for the project is labor,” Rhodes said. “Everything is there.”
Rhodes asked about suggestions offered to the commissioners one week earlier. Why couldn’t the county reoccupy the courthouse and complete a renovation project over time? Sauber said he asked MKC about it and was told a huge amount of work would be necessary before the county could reoccupy the building.
Rhodes and Tiffin Historic Trust member Jacqueline Fletcher once again asserted as much as $2 million in grant money is available for a renovation project.
Fletcher said Wayne County was able to obtain $3 million in grant funds for a courthouse renovation project.
“What if you could get $3 million in grants to offset the cost of renovation?” Rhodes asked.
Nutter said $10.2 million minus $3 million is still $7 million, and is more than the $5 million-$6 million plan the commissioners are considering for new construction.
Carol Zemrock, budget director for the Wayne County commissioners, said later Wayne County is renovating its courthouse, but has not secured any grant money for the project. Zemrock said the cost of renovating the courthouse was expensive, but the county is pleased with the decision.
Fletcher said she believed Ohio law — chapter 34 — allowed the county to reoccupy the courthouse before all code violations are corrected. Sauber disagreed.
Fletcher said she believed rural development money or capital improvements money would be available for a courthouse project. Nutter and Sauber said the Department of Agriculture provides low-interest loans, but not grants. Nutter said applying for capital improvements money was dependent upon committing to the $10.2 million renovation project. If the county could not get financial assistance, it would be committed to the total cost, Nutter said.
“We do not have and cannot get $10 million,” Nutter said.
County resident Brenda Stultz asked about the process for identifying a firm to build a new courthouse. She was distressed the county seemed poised to demolish the existing courthouse before knowing who would build a new courthouse, or what they would build.
“So you choose someone to destroy before you choose someone to build?” Stultz asked.
Nutter said the exterior of a new building conceptually could be similar in style to the current courthouse.
The public comment and question session was part of the regular board session for the second time. During the previous board meeting, commissioners agreed to allow the comments and questions before the meeting was adjourned. Prior to last week, the commissioners adjourned first.
County resident James Rhodes referred to a recent newspaper article in which Commissioner Ben Nutter said the decision to raze the existing courthouse was a financial decision.
“At the time the decision was made, we didn’t know we had a $30 million asset,” Rhodes said.
Commissioners Nutter and Dave Sauber disputed the $30 million figure put forward by preservation expert Stanley Graves during his visit from Texas.
Nutter said the $10.2 million estimate provided by MKC Associates was the most up-to-date estimate for renovation. Estimates from other architecture and engineering firms published recently no longer are valid, he said. Nutter said he has been told construction costs have been increasing in other types of projects by as much as 40 percent annually.
“When I said it was a financial decision, that’s exactly what I meant,” Nutter said.
Rhodes asked the commissioners where the money would come from to demolish the old courthouse and build a new courthouse. Sauber said demolition money would come from the general fund and money for constructing a new courthouse would be borrowed.
Rhodes asked how large a new courthouse would be. Sauber said a new courthouse would be between 20,000 and 24,000 square feet. Rhodes asked why the commissioners would spend money to build a smaller courthouse when the existing courthouse has about 33,000 square feet.
Sauber said Graves told him about one-third of renovation projects are completed on budget, about one-third under budget and one-third over budget. Sauber said there was no way to know whether the Seneca County Courthouse could be completed on budget, under budget or over budget.
“Graves said the major cost for the project is labor,” Rhodes said. “Everything is there.”
Rhodes asked about suggestions offered to the commissioners one week earlier. Why couldn’t the county reoccupy the courthouse and complete a renovation project over time? Sauber said he asked MKC about it and was told a huge amount of work would be necessary before the county could reoccupy the building.
Rhodes and Tiffin Historic Trust member Jacqueline Fletcher once again asserted as much as $2 million in grant money is available for a renovation project.
Fletcher said Wayne County was able to obtain $3 million in grant funds for a courthouse renovation project.
“What if you could get $3 million in grants to offset the cost of renovation?” Rhodes asked.
Nutter said $10.2 million minus $3 million is still $7 million, and is more than the $5 million-$6 million plan the commissioners are considering for new construction.
Carol Zemrock, budget director for the Wayne County commissioners, said later Wayne County is renovating its courthouse, but has not secured any grant money for the project. Zemrock said the cost of renovating the courthouse was expensive, but the county is pleased with the decision.
Fletcher said she believed Ohio law — chapter 34 — allowed the county to reoccupy the courthouse before all code violations are corrected. Sauber disagreed.
Fletcher said she believed rural development money or capital improvements money would be available for a courthouse project. Nutter and Sauber said the Department of Agriculture provides low-interest loans, but not grants. Nutter said applying for capital improvements money was dependent upon committing to the $10.2 million renovation project. If the county could not get financial assistance, it would be committed to the total cost, Nutter said.
“We do not have and cannot get $10 million,” Nutter said.
County resident Brenda Stultz asked about the process for identifying a firm to build a new courthouse. She was distressed the county seemed poised to demolish the existing courthouse before knowing who would build a new courthouse, or what they would build.
“So you choose someone to destroy before you choose someone to build?” Stultz asked.
Nutter said the exterior of a new building conceptually could be similar in style to the current courthouse.
The public comment and question session was part of the regular board session for the second time. During the previous board meeting, commissioners agreed to allow the comments and questions before the meeting was adjourned. Prior to last week, the commissioners adjourned first.
Share:
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces