Skeptical Seneca County commissioner-elect questions planned courthouse renovation

The crowd listens as Franklin Conaway, representing the Seneca County Courthouse and Downtown Redevelopment Group, makes a lengthy presentation about financing for the renovation project. THE BLADE/JEREMY WADSWORTH Enlarge | Photo Reprints

Seneca County Commissioner Ben Nutter said saving the courthouse costs less than constructing a new one. THE BLADE/JEREMY WADSWORTH Enlarge | Photo Reprints

TIFFIN — Seneca County Commissioners Ben Nutter, Dave Sauber, and Mike Bridinger found themselves in the unlikely position of defending the work of the Seneca County Courthouse and Downtown Redevelopment Group Monrday after a skeptical state Rep. Jeff Wagner fired off a list of questions about the proposed renovation of the 1884 courthouse.

Mr. Wagner (R., Sycamore), who will take office as a county commissioner in the new year, posed the questions after a two-hour presentation on the courthouse project at the National Theatre, just two blocks from the mothballed courthouse.

While the three current commissioners were persuaded in August, 2009, to support a $7.99 million plan to save and restore the historic courthouse, Mr. Wagner questioned the timetable for the project and the estimated price tag. He asked Franklin Conaway, president of the group, how much money had been raised so far toward the development group's commitment of $1.65 million.

"A huge amount of work has been done, but no funds have been committed because we don't have the public share committed," Mr. Conaway replied. "It's a chicken and egg thing, but that's the way it works."

The biggest delay in the project, he said, has been in getting final approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a $5 million low-interest loan. The county received preliminary approval for the loan earlier this year, he said, but the project was not funded with federal stimulus dollars as expected and may have to be approved as part of the next congressional budget.

"We have a very good idea of how much [private] money will come in in the months following a decision to move forward with the project and learning that the department of agriculture funds are there," Mr. Conaway said. "There's not going to be any problem reaching the goal or surpassing it, we know that."

Mr. Wagner was not impressed.

"That does take some faith to believe you're going to come up with $1.65 million," he said.

Mr. Wagner questioned how firm the construction estimates are and how the county would pay for cost overruns.

Mr. Nutter said the development group had included contingencies for overruns in its estimates, and he encouraged Mr. Wagner to sit down and go over the detailed figures with representatives of the development group. He said commissioners began six years ago believing the local conventional wisdom that the long-neglected courthouse was falling down and not worth saving, but they now have far more reliable information to the contrary.

Mr. Nutter said commissioners voted to support the project based on cost estimates that pegged it at a lower price than tearing down the building and constructing a courthouse.

"They have a plethora of information that you need to see before arriving at a decision, and I think it certainly would behoove you and the group to have a meeting to discuss that," Mr. Nutter told Mr. Wagner.

Mr. Sauber, who long expressed concerns about cost overruns associated with renovation projects, said the group had done its homework.

"They probably have hundreds of man-hours in the courthouse," Mr. Sauber said. "They've actually removed some pieces to look behind to understand some of these costs."

Mr. Conaway and other representatives of the group gave the commissioners and about 100 people gathered for the meeting an overview of the project, discussed the need for it, and talked about the implications it would have beyond creating new space for the common pleas courts and the clerk of courts, including helping to spur development in the downtown and encourage heritage tourism.

Through words and pictures, Columbus architect Robert Loversidge outlined a design plan that would preserve a historic building while at the same time creating a modern space for the courts, the clerk, and the public that is "better than new."

"It didn't make sense to say let's save this old building because it's cool. We need to save this old building because it could meet the needs of the courts now and into the future," he said.

He urged commissioners to move forward with the project sooner rather than later, in part because construction costs are low right now because of the recession.

"I know that when you drive by it today it looks tired. It's a little sad, but the things that are wrong with this building can be fixed," Mr. Loversidge said. "Recognize that part of the urgency of this is the pent-up need for court facilities and the other part is to do it while it's the best bargain for taxpayers."

Dwight McCabe, another member of the group, said that at the current projections, the project would cost the county $286,449 a year for 30 years. Delaying the project for five years would increase the county's annual obligation to $399,161, figuring 3 percent per year inflation, he said. Demolishing the courthouse and waiting five years to build a new one would cost an estimated $461,202 a year for 30 years, he said.

Mr. Bridinger, whose term expires at the end of the year, said the project is a bargain for Seneca County.

Contact Jennifer Feehan at: jfeehan@theblade.com or 419-724-6129.