By Robert Tomlinson
News Director
CENTREVILLE — Despite opposition from numerous citizen attendees and some commissioners, the St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners Tuesday narrowly approved bonding up to $6 million to cover a portion of the cost of a renovation project for the courts building in Centreville.
The 4-3 vote in favor of bonding is one of the biggest steps taken thus far in moving forward with the projected $10.5 million project, which has been discussed by commissioners off and on for over a decade.
Voting to approve the bonding were Fourth District Commissioner Luis Rosado, Second District Commissioner Rick Shaffer, Sixth District Commissioner Ken Malone, and chairman Jared Hoffmaster, who ultimately cast the tiebreaking vote. Voting against the bonding were Fifth District Commissioner Christina Yunker, Third District Commissioner Rusty Baker, and Seventh District Commissioner Terry Conklin.
Potentially bonding part of the project was brought up the week prior in the board’s Executive Committee meeting, where it was explained that the county could get a fixed rate on what are called “General Obligation Limited Tax Bonds” of around 3.75 to 4 percent, depending on what happens the day of the bond sale. According to a timeline of events for the financing, the bond sale is expected to take place on Aug. 28.
As previously reported by the Commercial-News, according to the schematic design budget approved by commissioners in October, $8.6 million is budgeted for construction and $1.36 million for furniture, fixtures and equipment. The county is reportedly going to use general fund money to pay for the rest of the project that isn’t bonded.
Nearly two dozen people spoke during an hour-long public comment at Tuesday’s meeting, nearly all of whom commented against the bonding in one form or another. Many of the objections centered on how much money is actually needed to make the repairs and fixes needed at the courthouse, and how much of the proposed $10.5 million project is just “wants.” Many also cited the debt the county is in from other projects in the past, which was $10.5 million in itself, with only $6.3 million of it tied to the county’s general fund, plus the county’s $13 million pension liability through MERS, which Hoffmaster said last week he would exclude, since the number is based on what it would cost the county over people’s lifetimes if everyone eligible for a pension retired at the same time.
However, the idea of needs versus wants and using the money the county already has was prevalent throughout public comment, as well as questioning if the county could afford it.
During her final report as Circuit Court administrator, Kathy Griffin also stated the need for the remodel of the courthouse, describing what she said the building would need for the remodel.
“We’re asking for safety of the officers transporting people to the building, inmates to be treated with justice and the ability to have a full-sized courtroom with a full jury, not an extra panel stuck somewhere else because we don’t have the room for it,” Griffin said. “My office has five different carpets in there that are patched together, I have black mold from five roofs ago in my ceiling panel. I don’t put that as a want, I put that as a need if you want to have people work in this building and have a feeling that they’re part of the community.”
When it got to discussion of the bond itself, Hoffmaster gave what many in attendance saw as a sales pitch of sorts for the bond prior to a motion being made. The third-term commissioner and local banker brought out a couple of charts explaining normal and inverted yield curves, and said that interest rates the county is looking at were at “historically low” levels.
Hoffmaster also explained about the county’s financial situation, explaining the surpluses and deficits the county has had over the years, and said that the bonds they are going for could not have a millage go toward that, something that was also a concern brought up in public comment. In all, he said the county has the funds to be able to pay for the bond.
“In a $22 million budget, we plan on paying for it through normal operating expenses,” Hoffmaster said. “We have the black and white numbers that show we can afford it. We have the opportunity to go for historically low interest rates, an inverted yield curve. We have the operating budget to be able to pay for it. When we talk about wants and needs, we aren’t looking at wants. … We care about the security, safety and health of the people who work for the county, and that’s the main goal.”
Yunker, however, between Hoffmaster’s comments and previous Physical Resources Committee meetings she has been part of, said she was “not convinced” that the project is all about needs for the building.
“It’s been, ‘here’s what we want to do,’ and it’s $11-plus million, we don’t even have the final budget numbers because we have to do the bond first before we do anything else,” Yunker said. “This isn’t about selling, this is about what we need to do as a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers in this county. If it’s all a need, I’d be sitting here saying, ‘yep, we neglected that building, we’ve got needs.’ But sitting on the Physical Resources meeting, I’m not convinced they’re all needs.”
Malone, in his comments, claimed that the $10 million number for debt and claims of a millage being used to pay for it was “used to scare” people to be in opposition to the bonding, and that it would “close off your minds to what we were doing.”
“It wouldn’t have taken this many years to get this far if we were not doing it in a very solid fashion,” Malone said. “None of this has ever been taken lightly in the over six years I’ve been here, nobody is trying to look at it from the perspective of trying to keep all those wants in there. It was, what do we need, what do we have to do to make sure we’re providing the services that we owe our citizens?”
Baker and Conklin, in their comments, questioned why the county is doing the project now, instead of when it was first discussed back in 2014, with Baker mentioning that he believed some of the changes made in an energy efficiency project the county undertook a few years ago and is still paying off would be taken out as part of the project. Conklin said he believed the money should’ve been used in 2014 to do the work.
Rosado reminded those in attendance that the project is part of a two-phase project regarding court buildings in this county, a project that started with moving Probate Court and Family Court to Three Rivers to make room for the renovations in Centreville. He said there wasn’t any going back regarding the situation, and that with the lack of space, if the project doesn’t go forward, they cannot put court workers who have moved over to the Three Rivers building back to Centreville.
“The project has already been approved. This train has already left the depot and is already traveling down the railroad,” Rosado said. “To say we need to stop for a few commissioners who want to review everything and all the decisions that were made by other commissioners, in my opinion, is not responsible.”
Baker, however, said there’s plenty of projects that will be coming down the line for the county that could also have high price tags.
“I’m just a little nervous where we’ll be the next couple of years,” Baker said. “We know we have an issue over at the jail and we have to do something with the sewer system, it’s going to be a substantial investment. Say our roof goes bad, any of these other things go bad – we don’t need a millage to pay for it right now, but what happens next when you have to do the work at the jail, and a week after that when we have another problem and another problem and another problem, now all of a sudden, we’re pretty thin.”
Following the vote, and during the Commissioner Comments section of the meeting, Yunker read a statement saying that the county commission’s decision showed a “clear disconnect” with the people they serve, and that it “disregards” residents’ desires of how their money should or should not be spent.
“As commissioners, we are entrusted with the responsibility in representing the interest of our constituents,” Yunker said. “While I respect the opinions of my fellow commissioners, I believe this decision disregarded the fundamental authority that our authority derives from the consent of the governed. I maintain that a more thorough, responsible approach, one that prioritizes meaningful dialogue and addresses the concerns of our taxpayers, is essential.”
Yunker later added that she will be pursuing “increased transparency” in public engagement, as well as video recording of all meetings moving forward as a way to have the county government remain “accountable.”
Conversely, Shaffer, in his first comments on the matter during the meeting, said the vote and the decision was “government in action,” while Malone stated he believed residents weren’t informed about what was actually going on with the project.
“You’re here tonight, and that’s great, but how many of you were here every month? The reality of this is you can’t be involved every six months and have an idea of what we’re dealing with every day,” Malone said.
Conklin said in his comments that commissioners are allowed to have opinions and “agree to disagree” about different subjects. Hoffmaster closed it out by saying 4-3 votes such as these were “good for St. Joseph County,” and that they’re trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money.
“It means that we are doing what we need to do to make sure the same concerns and questions you have are being addressed in these different meetings and among ourselves,” Hoffmaster said. “I personally think it’s smart to take care of what we have, it’s good stewardship to make sure we’re maintaining the buildings we currently have, and not kicking the can down the road and push it on to future generations.”
In other business…
- Commissioners heard annual reports from District Court, Circuit Court, Probate Court, and the Chief Public Defender.
- Commissioners approved a resolution in support of an application by Midwest Energy and Communications for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program funds.
- During commissioner comment, County Administrator Teresa Cupp said she has reached out to the county’s IT department about possibly livestreaming or recording meetings in the future.
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.
