The first plan was basically an expanded version of the current annex with larger courtrooms, jury room and conference areas and a security elevator, sally port and holding cells. The ground floor would be clerk of courts and title department, with a common pleas court on the second floor and third floor.

The second plan was an expanded version of the first plan budget permitting.

Neither plan included space for the Prosecutor’s office.

Sure, the commissioners could decide to build something that cost less than it would cost to restore/renovate the courthouse. But will the construction be as good? Will it be as sturdy of a building as our courthouse? Will the materials be as unique as what we have now? Will there be enough room for what the commissioners say we will need?

The commissioners want to build a building that will have LESS SPACE than what our current courthouse has. Sure, they can do that for cheaper, but how long will it take before they then say, “well, folks, we still don’t have enough room. We have to spend more money to build on to it. Sorry ’bout that!”

While some estimates say it would cost more to restore/renovate, look what we’d end up with in the end: a building that will stand for another hundred years, that’s solid as a rock, as compared to a building that would only be good for maybe 50 years, and which will probably end up with shaky floors, thin walls made of drywall, a leaky roof (like the annex developed when it was only a couple years old), or full of mold (like the RTA is).

If I were given the choice of living in a house that was built solid, but that needed some repairs right now, or a house that was less expensive & needed less repairs at the present time, but would not be as solid nor would last as long, I think my choice would be obvious. Doing the repairs on a solid building might cost more, but I’d be getting more bang for my buck, as they say.

There will be cost overruns on any project, and those overruns will be harder to estimate, what with the price of gas, etc, fluctuating as much as they are. I’d rather pay for cost overruns on a project that I know will stand the test of time.

You get what you pay for, after all.

Moreover, the second article makes it clear that this “interior” renovation project does not include the 1992 repair of one portico and the removal of three other stairways. I believe that at one time, they discussed removing all but one of the porticos on our courthouse to save money.

Consequently, it would be easy to attack the renovation idea based on the second article by pointing out that if the Tiffin courthouse is also estimated at 8 million (which it is not) it too will increase to 13.65 million.

Of course that would not be a fair statement either as the second article explains that most of the increases were due to change orders for items that apparently cost more now but would eventually save the county money in the future. Would the county here allow that. Also, I would advise the readers to check out the pictures that accompany the second story and look at the one for courtroom six. It doens’t look all that retro and frankly is not much an improvement over the annex rooms. Moreover, in the photo it looks from the window in the background as they are continuing to create space by subdividing floors just as we did in our courthouse by creating the horrible fourth floor.

As to the unfair comparisons, their costs including building more than one elevator, one that was in another building to allow for items from the courthouse to be moved to that building while construction took place. It is rather instructive to read the second article and to see how the thick load bearing walls, just like in the Seneca County Courthouse, create problems.

See also: http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_story_173220914.html?keyword=topstory
for more information.

As to the Vigo Courthouse, the link takes you to a newspaper story that discusses a plan to renovate just the interior for 8 million dollars this year. It no where references the other renovation costs that bring it up to the 13.65 million that is cited. When was the other amount spent, because unless the dollars are adjusted to reflect today’s dollar it is a misleading comparison.

If he and Sauber spent 5 minutes researching similar courthouse renovation costs online, they would come across the recent renovation of the Vigo County, Indiana courthouse in Terre Haute, Indiana.

The much more extensive renovation of this courthouse which is twice the size of the Seneca County Courthouse was $13.65 million. This equates to $183/sq ft. That’s $8 less per square foot (and includes all change orders) than any of the estimates presented to the commissioners, which they said were too low. This comment coming from a fire man and former police officer turned politicians who have no experience in renovating historic structures.

See http://specials.tribstar.com/terrehautestop40/stories/courthouse.html

He stated that they could transfer ownership of the courthouse to another governmental agency. Well, now that the Port Authority has expressed interest in getting involved, Nutter is ONCE AGAIN finding problems with that. WHY? Because he thought nobody would bite. But now that someone has, he’s seeing that there’s a definite possibility that he won’t get to tear down that building and get his way, once again. Another public tantrum is sure to follow - mark my words.