Figures, opinions change
Nutter, Sauber moving toward renovation; Bridinger already thereBy Kevin Risner, krisner@advertiser-tribune.com
Seneca County Commissioner Mike Bridinger has been a happy man in recent days. He believed the Seneca County Courthouse and Downtown Redevelopment Group could present a reasonable plan to renovate the 1884 Seneca County Courthouse at an affordable cost, and he is convinced the group came through. He was all smiles again Thursday when the commissioners met with Franklin Conaway and other members of the redevelopment group.
"Commissioner Bridinger has perfect faith in you," Bridinger told the group.
Commissioners Ben Nutter and Dave Sauber have a bit of a challenge, however. How do they vote to accept the plan without angering constituents who have preferred demolition of the building - constituents who believed Nutter and Sauber would make it happen?
Nutter said he is not yet fully comfortable with the financial numbers presented by the redevelopment group, but he admitted to a high level of respect for the detailed work done by the group. Sauber asked members of the redevelopment group how they could prevent huge cost overruns if the project proceeded, but he said he was mainly interested in the answer being communicated to the public rather than to himself.
The long journey of decision-making in the commissioner board room has inspired the passions of county residents on two distinct sides of a divided county. Not only do the commissioners have the burden of deciding the most economical way to provide for a county courthouse, they also may need to find a way to heal community wounds and calm the passions of those who are on what might be perceived as the losing side.
Nutter and Sauber said they have been contacted by constituents who have accused them of turning their backs on the will of voters and their own earlier convictions.
Nutter admitted after the meeting he characterized the March 2007 ballot issue at the time as a vote to either renovate the courthouse or demolish it. County voters defeated the ballot issue that would have authorized the county to borrow up to $8 million for the project to add to a potential $2 million from the state.
n please see CHANGE, 8A
Change
n from page 1A
Nutter said Thursday his hard-line position leading up to that primary election was based on the best evidence at the time. The county now has significant new information to consider, he said.
Nutter tried to explain his comments and position of early 2007 and how his view might be changing now.
Based on the best information two years ago, the less-expensive option was to remove and replace the vacant courthouse, Nutter said. Based on current information presented by the redevelopment group, the less-expensive option could be to renovate the vacant courthouse, he said.
Nutter said his goal always has been to find the most fiscally responsible option. That goal never changed, he said.
Nutter said he is continuing his efforts now to get the state to match the $2 million commitment made by Gov. Ted Strickland in 2007, more than the $400,000 that now is committed through the Ohio Department of Development.
Sauber said county residents have accused him of flip-flopping on the courthouse issue.
"I am not a flopper," Sauber said. "This is a huge decision based on numbers."
Sauber has often raised the potential for cost overruns as a reason to oppose renovating the courthouse. No architectural firm before has been able to convince him cost overruns would not balloon out of control. The homework of the redevelopment group may have provided the information to settle Sauber's fears about cost overruns.
Construction expert Dwight McCabe said the key was starting the project with a "broader team at the table from the beginning" of the process. The redevelopment group has involved far more construction and renovation experts in studying and analyzing the courthouse than any architectural firm hired by the county. While cost estimates by other firms may have been made on the basis of assumptions, the current cost estimates are more likely done on the basis of known details, Sauber said.
Nutter said the work done by the group is likely worth at least $250,000 - work no prior board of commissioners would have ever paid for as a beginning point for a renovation or restoration project.
Sauber said the courthouse, if renovated, would have the original 1884 shell with the appropriate historic features, but would be a technologically modern building in all other respects.
Conaway said he believed the redevelopment group likely would exceed its original fundraising commitment for the project. The group has committed to raising about $1.6 million to pay to replace the clock tower and related historic features inside the tower.
Bridinger said he, too, has been receiving calls and letters from people who do not believe the redevelopment group really could do the job for so much less money than previously estimated. Bridinger thanked the group for "turning over every rock."
"It's incredible what you guys have done," Bridinger said. "Thanks for rebutting the Doubtful Thomases."
The commissioners are expected to meet with members of the Redevelopment Group again Tuesday. Jim Schmidt of MKC Associates is expected to take part in the meeting. MKC is the architectural firm hired by the county.
