County discusses possibility of new courthouse, again

by Angie Asam, Staff Writer

The Presque Isle County Courthouse has been a topic of discussion for the board of commissioners for many years, dating back to 1959. Wednesday the discussion surfaced again when the board approved paying Trinity Architecture of Gaylord $2,500 to update plans that were drawn for a new facility in 2002. ?I really think it is important that we get all the cost factors on the table. I think it is important that we are comparing apples to apples and not reaching out to some pie in the sky figure,? said chairman Carl Altman. Trinity worked with Presque Isle County recently on the energy grant the county received along with many neighboring counties. Altman liked the work done by Trinity and founder Tad Latuszek.

Altman invited Latuszek to the meeting of the board. Latuszek told the board his company specializes in architecture and construction management for buildings across the state and nation. He told them his company is like a problem solving unit, working to do things as economically as possible, making sure people get the best bang for their buck.

Latuszek informed the board that his company would look at the 2002 plans, bring them up to code as well as make sure they are still viable. He will meet with the different county offices to make sure the plans still include enough room to meet their needs. In addition to looking at the plans done nine years ago for a new courthouse, Latuszek will look at the former Nowicki building and give the county a cost estimate on making that building work for some offices. ?I will look at both and make suggestions and provide you a cost estimate. My cost estimates are almost always within two to three percent of actual costs,? said Latuszek.

?I am not trying to be persuasive here but I see three options for us; doing something with the Nowicki building, renting space for offices or looking at the construction of a new courthouse,? said Altman. The board agreed that what needs to be looked at is a long-term cost approach for each of the three options. Moving offices to a rental space or the Nowicki building does not erase the problems in the courthouse. ?There is a space issue here, there are changes we need to make with the courts as far as security goes. This building is not conducive to making those changes,? said Altman. After discussing the issue the board unanimously approved contracting with Trinity. ?My goal is to make you guys very happy with the plan, whatever we decide to do. It?s your plan, not mine. It?s your building,? said Latuszek.

IN 1959 a proposal to build a new courthouse, which at that time would have cost $560,000 was defeated by voters by about 300 votes. The then board of supervisors unanimously voted to submit a proposal to the voters to erect and equip a county courthouse and jail. The county would issue bonds and raise property taxes 2.5 mils to pay for those bonds.

The bonds would have run 20 years, from 1960-79. R.S. Gerganoff of Ypsilanti did the architectural work, which included a jail and sheriff?s residence. ?Whereas the county courthouse is approximately 70 years of age and is no longer adequate for the needs of the county and the county jail, which because of age and obsolescence is threatened with being closed by the state inspector of jails through the Michigan Department of Corrections,? stated the resolution explaining the need for the courthouse at that time. THE ISSUE resurfaced again in 1970, when the jail was condemned and the county was paying $8 per day to house inmates in Alpena and Montmorency County. The board at that time proposed a $1.5 million bonding issue for a new building and put it before voters in the August primary election, the proposal was again defeated.

A that time the courthouse was estimated to be 88 years old and at one time had been partially destroyed by fire and rebuilt. There was no heat on the third floor and the roof was leaking, the plan was to have a new structure built around the existing courthouse. Once the new structure was in place the old building would be torn down. IN MARCH of 2002 the board of commissioners adopted a resolution to issue up to $5.5 million in bonds to construct, equ

ip and furnish a new courthouse. ?We have talked for more than a year about this project. The old one is falling down, is a fire hazard and is a waste of money,? said then commissioner Don Field.

In May 2002 the board discussed the security issues, the fact that no smoke alarms or sprinklers existed in the building and that the heating/cooling system was inadequate as reasons to again think about a new building. The board did realize the building was in a great location and was paid for but did have serious issues. The proposal appeared on the August primary election ballot and was defeated 1,762-959.

WHAT REMAINS unknown is how much the county has spent on repairs of the building, which has needed work since 1959, at least. ?If we needed it years ago what is it like now?,? said commissioner Kris Sorgenfrei. The board felt the need to find a way to make the public aware of just how bad conditions are in the courthouse by inviting them to open houses to see it for themselves. Altman also brought up the safety issue, stating it was their job as commissioners to make the working environment for county employees safe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.