Commissioners to discuss courthouse revisions
After his fellow county commissioners voiced concerns about the cost of two projects he proposed, Joseph A. Hardy III didn’t stick around to find out whether they voted to include the projects on the Dec. 10 regular meeting agenda. After Hardy left Wednesday’s agenda-setting meeting, Commission Chairwoman Angela M. Zimmerlink and Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites voted in favor of placing a motion on the agenda authorizing renovation of the county courthouse, for discussion purposes only.
The estimated cost of all the renovations suggested in an architectural study, which Hardy paid for himself, was $16 million.
The second motion he submitted was to build a new 504-bed prison at a projected cost of $35 million, but it died for lack of a second and will not appear on next week’s meeting agenda.
While discussing the courthouse renovation motion, Vicites said the cost of that project, combined with the proposed cost of building a new prison and the estimated $1 million cost of buying new voting machines, was overwhelming: “Fifty million dollars with everything else,” Vicites said.
“Yeah, it’s a lot of money, but we need a courthouse and we need a prison. Thank you,” Hardy said before leaving the meeting.
After Hardy left, Vicites said a bond issue would be needed to pay for all the projects, but taking out a bond would result in a tax increase. He said a maintenance program is needed at the courthouse.
Zimmerlink said approving the motion Wednesday on the renovations only places it on the business meeting agenda for discussion, and the matter can be investigated further before then. She noted that Hardy’s motion did not identify a source of money to pay for the project.
Without grant money, “the money would have to come from an increase in taxes,” Zimmerlink said.
Hardy’s assistant Charmaine Sampson said she would provide the commissioners with the costs of repairing or replacing only the roof and windows. Reducing the scale of the project was mentioned earlier in the session.
Zimmerlink suggested that performing only some of the work identified in the study was an option.
Sampson said the architect who did the study recommended repairing the roof to prevent further structural damage that has already occurred because the roof leaks.
Hardy said some work has to be done or “the damn thing will fall down.” He also said offices are overcrowded and storage space is running out.
County Manager Warren Hughes said the report also included a $12 million plan that involved fixing or replacing the roof, windows, the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, the electrical system and doing some work on the stone exterior.
Sampson said the Pennsylvania Historical Commission told her that no state money is available for the project, and the only apparent option for assistance would be to ask the county’s U.S. congressmen to obtain project funding.
Vicites said the commissioners have to be “sensible and reasonable with taxpayers’ money” and projects have to be prioritized. He repeated the need to be “sensible and reasonable” with tax dollars when the motion to build a new prison came up for discussion.
Vicites cited a 2001 county prison needs study that recommended a number of sentencing alternatives that would slow inmate population growth. He said overcrowded prisons are a statewide problem, and the study suggested using alternative sentencing programs to address the issue.
The study recommends sentencing people who are unable to pay fines to community service, like picking up litter; setting up a clearinghouse or settlement week in court to resolve cases that have been on the docket for a long time; expanded use of intermediate punishment, like house arrest and halfway houses; and setting bail guidelines for district justices.
Vicites said the county prison population grew by 90 to its current level of 290 in one year.
Two other counties named in the study, Northumberland and Mercer, have higher crime rates than Fayette County but fewer inmates in their prisons.
The Fayette County Prison’s capacity is 292 inmates, but space for 395 inmates will be needed by 2010, unless something is done to reduce the number of inmates, Vicites said, citing the study. By 2020, the county will have 750 inmates, according to the study.
Vicites said if it takes three years to build a new prison, there could be enough inmates to fill it completely as soon as it opens.
“Where does it end?” he asked.
He said he would consider building a new prison after alternative sentencing programs have been implemented. The inmate population probably would grow even if alternative sentencing were enacted, but the program would slow the rate of growth, he said.
“I don’t believe we’ve maximized our alternative sentencing. I’m not prepared to vote to build a $35 million prison,” Vicites said.
Zimmerlink said it was too bad that the 2001 study wasn’t acted upon when it was released.
She said she attended a recent summit meeting on the prison, and the only item on the agenda was to select a location to build a new prison, and no alternatives were discussed. County courts and the adult probation office would have to get involved to find a solution to prison overcrowding, she said.
After the prison motion died for lack of a second, Zimmerlink and Vicites voted in favor of placing a motion on the agenda to discuss buying new voting machines.
Vicites said the county has received a $500,000 or $600,000 grant for the purchase, but the machines will cost $1 million to $1.5 million.
He said the federal government will force the county to buy electronic machines that last only five years and that lever machines will not be permitted after 2006.
He said lever machines are reliable and durable.
Zimmerlink said the county’s plan to buy new machines is due by Jan. 31, which was an extension of the original deadline in August.