Monday, June 14, 2010

Planning for the Future (by Mike Stegall)

Everybody makes plans. We plan for college. We plan for a new car. We plan for a new house. We plan for retirement. We even make plans for dinner. We all make these plans hoping that they will come true. Sometimes, however, we have to change our plans. Maybe the timing is wrong, or maybe that raise in salary we were planning on didn’t happen. Possibly, someone became ill, or changed jobs and moved. Whatever the reason, plans are made, and plans change. No plan should be totally rigid without some wiggle room in case things change.

Everybody makes plans, including elected officials. Planning for the future of Darke County is essential for its growth and well-being. The commissioners make budgets and growth plans based on what they know at the time and what they can predict by past trends. Sometimes they work out; sometimes they don’t.

Take the courts building for example. Four years ago, the plan was to build a new courts building behind the existing courthouse. The money would come from a one-half percent sales tax increase and from the capital improvements fund. This would be a new, three-story structure behind the old courthouse connected by a walkway. Four years ago, this was a solid plan. Times change. Due to some unexpected expenses and the economy turning slower than predicted, the revenue was not there for this project. So what did the commissioners do? The same thing we all do: changed their plan!

Now the plan is to use what grant money is available from the federal and state governments and money from the capital improvements fund as it becomes available. The commissioners realize that going into further debt for a project like this would be very foolish. They also realize that they cannot raise taxes either. The plan they have now does neither one. The plan takes what is available and uses it. The Commissioners were smart enough to allow for a change in plans, and they are to be applauded for that.

I have heard all kinds of stories from people about the new courts building ranging from, “They are going to put us further in debt,” to, “that darn building will cost us 15 million dollars!” One of my favorites was, “This can’t be done!”

Allow me to address these three statements. First, they are not going to put us further in debt. They realize that adding more debt would be damaging the future of the county. If anyone tells you they are adding debt, have them call the commissioners and ask for themselves. They will be shocked to find out that the commissioners try to run the county like their own households, on a budget and responsibly. Second, the plan that I saw four years ago, and just recently, put the total cost between 6 and 9 million dollars. A lot of money for sure, but nowhere near the numbers I have heard people repeat to me. Last, but not least, IT CAN BE DONE! If people can build a house a little at a time as they get the money, (my mother and grandfather did when my dad was in the service) why can’t the commissioners work on the courthouse and courts building a little at a time?

The plan now is to tear down the old buildings behind the courthouse, build a parking lot, and start refurbishing the old courthouse. The money for this project is coming from the NSP (neighborhood stabilization program), which is a grant, and the rest from the capital improvements fund. The best part about this plan is the NSP Grant. The state is giving us back some of our money! We send money to Washington and Columbus all the time, and it is always nice to get some back. This plan is workable and addresses a need. That need is for modernizing and making more room in our 136-year-old courthouse.

I like the plan. The only question that must be asked every day is, “Is this still what we need?” If the answer is yes, then continue. If the answer is no, in that we need something bigger, smaller, taller, shorter, not at all, etc., the commissioners will do what we all do: CHANGE OUR PLANS!!

[Mike Stegall is a candidate for Darke County Commissioner]

28 comments:

  1. Well Mike, now they are talking about something I think the citizens would get behind them on… my only suggestion is, keep the character, update in away that it does not deter from the beautiful structure, inside & out…

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it is great the Mr. Stegall has taken the time to write this informative article. It is nice to get the facts instead of just hearing all the gossip. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where do grant dollars come from? (I know the answer, but I sometimes wonder if elected officials truly understand that spending grants "just because they are available" is still an abuse of the taxpayers' hard earned dollar.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. The fact is that someone, somewhere will get and spend the money if Darke County doesn't. I applaud the commissioners for doing whatever they did to apply and receive the money. Not to do so would be not fullfilling their responsibilities. As long as the money is made available, someone is going to get it and Darke County needs to get their share..........they are truely hurting financially. I would guess they need the money more than some others that will be receiving it. Perhaps your gripe should be with whoever makes the tax payer's money available. The commissioners are doing the right thing to apply for available monies. We can't afford to sit back and be nice when the money is going to go to someone. Good job commissioners!

    ReplyDelete
  5. VOTE NO FOR STEGALL

    ReplyDelete
  6. If doubling the size of the courthouse is considered a good idea, in this climate of reducing government and not increasing tax revenue, then we are surely all flaming liberals. Like schools, we have heard nobody address the additional continuing expenses for operating this new monument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 3:13 .... you can't vote no for stegall. it might sound crazy, but you have to actually pick a candidate ... :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was at the courthouse last week and was told that they can not add any more weight to the third floor according to an engineer, they are afraid the whole thing will collapse apparently.
    Don't know if that is true but that is what they are saying in any case.
    You can see the floors are sagging and the stairway is being held up by cables.
    I assume a new addition would result in some stuff being moved off of those floors lightening the load somewhat.

    And nice dig DJ!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Did you all get the part where the courthouse is 136 years old and yet people think it is terrible to remodel, fix, update or even build a different building. I am not for a new building now that our money is very short, but compare this old building that is still being used every workday of the year and compare that to the school buildings some want to build. Compare that to the 9 million to the 37 million the schoolboard is proposing. I can't believe the grade school is to cost more than 37 million! We must have a bunch of people from our liberal congress running the school board too.

    ReplyDelete
  10. we need schools before we need a new courthouse/office building/ or whatever it is going to be used for.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Mike for shareing this very useful info. Why is this info not made readily available to the public from the commissioners?
    I personally would appreciate more transparnecy from our local County and Greenville City Government. Anyone agree with this idea?

    ReplyDelete
  12. To Mike the Mechanic @ 3:29 pm. You are assuming that the commissioners, and people like myself, are talking about building the structure tomorrow. The commissioners that I have talked to, and agree with, say that this project will probably not be done for 10 to 15 years. As for paying for building operations, you are going to pay for them whether you build a building or use another structure. If you build your own, you can use the newest energy saving materials and ideas to run as efficiently as possible. Good post, people need to keep asking questions. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  13. To Mike Stegall:
    I am not assuming,I observe that the building would be started tomorrow if the money could be borrowed. Regarding operational costs, the judge at Garst Avenue made it quite clear a year ago that he wished to remain there with some improvements. A second judge has expressed no opposition to unoccupied county-owned space on Wagner. Is it then justified to double the size of the courthouse to house one judge who now occupies only part of one-fourth of the present building?

    ReplyDelete
  14. bring back the Mayor's court!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey Mike- the people have been educated enough over the school bond issue that grants expire-
    Why can't the attorneys in the county pay for the new courthouse they are the only ones who use it to make money.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Question....what about an economic study on purchasing the empty Marsh building vs. the new revised plan? This property is close to down town, rather new, will continue to be an eye sore. Just makes me ask, have we really looked hard at this property?

    ReplyDelete
  17. My question is how can the Comissioners use the money from the NSP to build a new parking lot when the state says the following: Senator Brown states that "these funds are about helping Main Street recover from the economic crisis, by rebuilding neighborhoods devasted by the economic crisis, we will improve surrounding property values, create new jobs, and foster long term economic growth." Look around our community, we have homes that are in dire need of help if not need to be demolished, homeowners that are stuggling to keep their properties in order. I would like to know how the Commissioners justify using those funds for its unintended use?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kathy, because they can.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If the commissioners buy the old Marsh Building, then there goes the real estate taxes! What we don’t need is the county owning more buildings!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think using the old Low Bill's buidling would be a great idea. I'd like to see something in there vs. being empty and an eye sore. Then we could use the NSP money for what it is intended.

    What are the reasons using that building aren't good?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I try to limit the comment rejection as much as possible. But if you're going to comment and just say that somebody's dishonest, or they can't be trusted, then your comment will be rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  22. To Mike the Mechanic and Kathy: Mike, If the 2 judges want something different, that is fine. Then the commissioners, who must also look to the future, not just the here and now, decide they don't require more space, then they will do what I said, Change their Plan!! However, I do not see the traffic in the courthouse going down in the next few years, but we will see. Remember the plan is flexible and can be modified to fit the particular need. Kathy, the money is to be used by the neighborhoods as they see fit, overseen by the Darke County Commissioners. The tearing down of old buildings, making a parking lot, and planning for the future does exactly what the money is to be used for, or I am sure the state of Ohio would not allow this process to be done. Thanks to both for asking good questions, more of this is needed by people who care about Darke County!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Who is ready to bulldoze this beautiful, historic building? Anyone? Anyone???

    If your answer is that you do not, in fact, want to tear down the court house building- then, it NEEDS repairs and updates, period.....regardless of for what it will be used. I see people claiming that it is unsafe. Yesssss....sooooo- it needs fixed, does it not?

    Most buildings this old have long since been refurbished and updated. Look around- not just hear, but in other counties/ areas. Darke Co. is WAY behind on this.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I agree to NOT tearing down the building. We are loosing the history of our county. In many other countries people travel to see the beauty of there old building and land sites. Some times we need to put away the new and enjoy the old and that means putting money and time to refurbish. Lets open our eyes and enjoy the beauty.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The question has never been to tear down the courthouse. The question is whether to build a new addition as big as the present courthouse, with no money to pay for it, and with two- thirds of the judiciary saying it is not needed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Good response Mike! The old courthouse was never to be torn down, just renovated. The question that must be asked every day is "is this still what we need?" I have still not heard any good suggestions as to what to do about the increased traffic in the courthouse, or the increased load on the building. I don't think anyone wants the county buying more property and reducing the tax structure, nor do they want to see the old courthouse fall in. No, I think the plan now is solid, but could change in a heartbeat. Who knows, the Federal Government might call tomorrow and say "Here"s 10 Million dollars for a new courts building!" I doubt it, but it could happen. You never know, but we must be as prepared as possible for all scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The point is....it is no longer big enough for everything needed there- and probably can't or shouldn't handle the load anyway. If it isn't fixed up soon, it may well fall down, rather than need torn down (that was the point). And if it is going to be fixed up anyway, why not use it for the purposes for which it was intended.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Is this what you call politicing ?

    ReplyDelete

Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */