To see copies of proposals handed to Commissioner Jones see this week's print edition
The courthouse advisory commission voted Friday to stop meeting and to turn over to the commissioner a set of problem-filled options on what to do with the marble courthouse on Jasper’s Main Street.
Discussion between committee members and several public comments at the Friday meeting indicated that of the four options discussed by the committee: one is likely illegal, one unfeasible, and two unpopular with committee members.
Members of the committee were candid about the fact they unearthed more questions than they answered during the past year they have been studying ways to expand and modernize the main courthouse. But they noted the potential challenges have been discovered and “fleshed out” well ahead of any construction or blueprints.
Ann Parks, one of the latest appointees to the committee, said, “It sounds like you just can’t get there from here,” summarizing issues with the current options and the need for a workable courthouse plan.
The meeting began with Chairman Sanford Chandler presenting a list of three options prepared by project consultant Tom Eubanks, each option listing pros and cons. The fourth option (finding a new courthouse site) was added during discussion.
Chandler noted several times he doesn’t feel any of the plans represent a solid choice, but they form “talking points” for continuing to look at renovation and expansion options.
Courthouse options originally presented were:
• The original plan to issue bonds for a full $17 million and to build on the existing site;
• Wait for SPLOST to provide sufficient funding and then begin construction on a $17 million new construction project.
•Renovate the existing courthouse with modifications and additions to meet minimum judicial requirements and develop a phase 2 for 2010-2015 for build later, possibly using an additional SPLOST.
Added during the meeting, was the option to find a new site. This idea was popular with several speakers, both on the committee and among the public. But Chairman Chandler said this option “has been discussed ad infinitum” but was determined to violate legal requirements for using collected sales tax revenue.
According to the opinion presented previously by County Attorney Phil Landrum and seconded by Judge Brenda Weaver, the voters approved money to renovate the current structure, not to build a new one, and doing so would violate state guidelines.
Chandler said the committee had questioned Landrum about this point “until he was red in the face.”
Weaver said Friday this may be hampering the county in this project, but overall strict guidelines on sales tax use are needed. She explained that a state law is needed to prevent counties from getting voters to approve one thing and then doing something different.
With all of the options, primary among concerns was finances. All members expressed a strong desire to see that whatever is built remains on a budget funded by sales tax revenue and does not require anything more from taxpayers.
Committee Member Mimi Jo Butler said it would be a “nightmare” and “worse case scenario” to have the county commit to a project that would require a property tax increase later.
Many of the financial concerns stem from the faltering economy and poor sales tax collections. In a report to the committee, Commissioner Robert Jones said the SPLOST was originally projected to collect $34 million in revenue in six years, but that estimate is now somewhere around $24 million. Jones said several times that he won’t issue bonds in this economic environment.
There was some confusion between Jones and the committee over the original budget for the courthouse project. Committee members prepared documents, and the county finance director prepared a spreadsheet with the budget listed at $17 million for the courthouse.
Jones said those were wrong. He said the original budget was $17 million for all tier one projects to be funded by the SPLOST, including $3.2 million to retire an existing debt on the jail and $2.726 million to retire the debt on the County Admin Building.
A copy of a SPLOST spending resolution, the legal notice of the elections and previous reports show it was indeed $17 million for the courthouse alone.
Committee Member Frank Martin said he didn’t like either of the first two options. He said it is imperative that they are fiscally responsible but also produce something citizens of the county will be proud of.
“It is unfortunate we don’t have the money to do it,” he said. “It needs to be done right. But it has to comply with state regulations.”
Judge Weaver said the third option of a phased project is unworkable, as you can’t separate different departments of a judicial system, nor can you have juries assembling while construction is underway.
“It sounds good, but it’s not reality,” the judge told the committee. “It won’t work. A court is not an office building. You can’t leave part of us there.”
She said a remodeling plan now and then expanding later will waste tax money. “Other than keeping us from dying of mold,” she said, remodeling is not needed as much as more space is needed.
Several members voiced the opinion that a suitable courthouse with adequate parking can’t be built on the downtown site. One member said the only way it would work would be to tear down the existing structure to gain more space on the roughly one-acre-sized plot.
Chandler said the parcel is roughly one acre with 20 percent of that in the front yard.
Chief Tax Assessor Roy Dobbs, who has attended several of the meetings, said “That site is never going to give you what you need.”
Committee Member T. J. Keener said, “We’ve gone about the whole project ass-backwards. The most prudent fiscal thing we could have done is built a new facility on property at the county ‘work camp’ (Camp Road). There are 16 acres for parking and we could have left offices where they are until we got ready to move.”
The committee voted unanimously to hand all options over to Commissioner Rob Jones and suspend meetings unless they were called upon again.
Jones thanked them for their work and said he would continue working on the project and watching sales tax collections.
|
|
