Committee Reviewed All Options

As a volunteer member of the original courthouse committee that was selected to make recommendations to the commissioners I want to make it clear that we, as a committee, reviewed many options. All of our meetings were public meetings and the times and dates were posted and often placed in the local papers ahead of time. The newspapers reported to the public what was happening in the meetings. To suggest that this was all done in a vacuum or that the committee was biased in any way is not correct. In fact I volunteered to be a part of the committee because I was very biased towards keeping our current courthouse building.  I was convinced before attending the first meeting that it was going to be very hard for me to let go of the historic building.  Anyone that knows me at all knows how much of a preservationist I am. I’ve restored my great grandparent’s home and am currently doing restoration to the exterior of my current home. I definitely wasn’t hand picked because I was biased towards removing the current structure. In fact the commissioners knew from the start that I was biased in the other direction. However, there has to be a limit. I truly believe that the true estimate of restoring the courthouse is the first one that we were submitted for almost two million dollars. The lower estimate given to us at the spring meeting wasn’t a full restoration. It was, in my opinion, a partial cheaper restoration cost that was given to us by the engineer to appease all sides and was going to leave us a courthouse with patched up stucco and a tin roof attached to a brand new building.  What I started to ask myself during this year long process was; “How can I justify to my grandchildren that we spent two million dollars now so that they could be taxed again in 50 years to build what we should have done in the first place?” As we explored the options I could not justify it in my mind and became convinced that the best use of tax payer money was to do what needed to be done to provide one building that housed all county government and also provided a court room that was to the current safety standards of the 21^st century.  My decision that I wrestled with early in the process was whether I would allow my emotions to make my decision or whether I would do what is in the best interest of the tax payer. I too, have to remind myself sometimes that a building is just a building and that no matter what we try to do it will, sooner or later, come down.

As a committee we did review restoration of the existing building with an annex addition added for the court system and county offices. The cost estimate given to us from experienced engineers that have contracted and oversaw several public building projects was $4,821,627.31. The meeting was attended by several people from the public and both newspapers reported on the meeting. The county can not issue bonds for this amount of money.  The amount a county can issue bonds for is decided by state statute and the assessed value of property in the state.  This wasn’t even a full restoration but the partial restoration I mentioned before.

The questions and answers pamphlet handed out at Old Settler’s (they are available at several businesses) was written by our committee to help people make their own decision.  I wrote and submitted to the committee the first draft and then our committee, as a whole, edited and re-wrote the pamphlet several times, being very careful not to misrepresent any fact.  We placed all of our names on the pamphlet. I think that it’s also important to point out that the courthouse recommendation committee not only unanimously voted their recommendations to the commissioners but we also 100% voted to transform to a campaign committee because we believe we’ve made the correct decision. 

I know that these decisions are always emotional. And I respect anyone’s opinion whether it’s the same as mine or not. If the ballot were to fail by an 80/20 margin I would be convinced that the public had clearly spoken and we would want to review the restoration options again.  I must admit though that I will be surprised if this is the result. I believe that it is the right time to build a new courthouse in Clark County and if the voters approve the tax issues to do this I encourage those that want to preserve the county’s history to focus on how they can make that a reality also.  As for me, I am voting YES to both ballots on November 3^rd.

            Shawn McAfee