LAURA TARANTELLA/THE EXPRESS Lock Haven’s City Hall is pictured. Council is continuing to circle the longstanding debate on the structure’s long-term feasibility, especially with regards to housing the city’s police force.

LOCK HAVEN — Lock Haven City Council has elected to hold off on accepting bids for the long-discussed police building following lengthy and often intense discussion amongst its members this week.

Discussions surrounding how to provide the Lock Haven Police Department with adequate facilities has been a topic through many iterations of council, particularly starting in 2018. At the time, council was faced with an aging City Hall at 20 E. Church St. due to years of neglect.

Since discussions picked up in 2018, through direction of council, city staff have worked with architectural firm Burchart Horn to design a police building which would be constructed in a portion of the Church Street parking lot diagonal from City Hall.

In March, aspects of the project were put out for rebid, as city staff worked to bridge a funding gap.

Currently, the city is working within a $3.2 million budgeted for the project between a $1 million USDA Community Facilities Grant, $500,000 in a Local Share Program Grant and $2.1 million in a 2021A Borrowing note from Northwest Bank.

The Local Share Grant has a deadline of June 30, 2027, to be utilized and the USDA grant funding must be used by September of 2030.

On Monday night, council was presented with the list of lowest bidders, with City Planner/Interim Manager Abbey Roberts noting the General Construction was the only rebidded portion of the project. The following bids were outlined in information provided to council:

— Mechanical: Dixon AC & R Corporation: $126,333

— Electrical: G.R. Noto Electrical Construction: $746,115

— Plumbing: PBCI Allen Mechanical and Electrical: $201,900.

— General Construction: Mid-State Construction: $2,703,786.

In total, the cost for the project would be $3,778,134, roughly $500,000 over the current budget. This cost was cut down from the previous $4,440,328 projected in March.

Roberts told council there is the option of negotiation with the general contractor to decrease the amount even further if approved.

Following this, council’s discussion dominated much of Monday night’s meeting, with tense moments and interruptions riddled throughout.

Talks began with questions from Councilmember Micah Clausen.

Clausen said he reviewed the feasibility study of city hall conducted in 2021, which included a review of the police department — currently housed within the basement.

He noted the recommendation would be for the station to be larger than the 6,000 square feet projected for the new building.

He further questioned what would come of city hall even if the building were constructed.

“We build a new police station and those problems are still here for city hall,” he said. “It would be the same expenses for us to fix unless we build another $4 million facility for city hall. Which would make it a $6 to $7 million project and not a $3.3 million we’re considering today,” he said.

Clausen also acknowledged that staff has worked to reduce expenses for the proposed building, but said he hadn’t seen a list or diagram that showcases these changes.

Roberts noted an initial list was presented to council at its March meeting when it rebid the project.

However, since then Roberts said other adjustments were made including strictly using primer on the interior walls, changing materials for items such as first floor grates to meet flooding codes and more.

“It’s still a two story structure with parking underneath. It still looks the same aesthetically just with different material costs,” she said.

Councilmember Tami Brannan also noted, with the locker room adjustments, the city will have the opportunity to find other grant funding opportunities to replace the current ones.

Mayor Joel Long, who has been vocal of his dislike of the project since discussion began years ago, reiterated his stance. He said affordability was his focus.

“I wish we could give the police a world class facility, but we can’t afford this,” he said, noting that during police contract negotiations recently there were talks about whether or not it was affordable to have 24/7 coverage.

“We admittedly have not done a good job of maintaining our facilities and we’re going to add another building that we’re going to maintain,” he said. “I can’t, in good conscience, vote to go in the direction we’ve been going in.”

Long further said if council had elected to instead rehabilitate City Hall when discussions started in 2018 “we’d have a lot of stuff done here.”

Councilmember Barbara Masorti disputed some of Long’s claims.

“You may be right about had we have gone in a different direction. But you could also be wrong,” Masorti said. “We don’t know what we would have found the first time we got the walls down in this building.”

Masorti noted that, in 2013 when the city purchased the former PennDOT building on Second Avenue — which now houses its Public Works Department — there had been talks of moving the police department there.

“Today, the police are still here in the basement of City Hall,” she said.

She further noted that in 2016 council voted down putting new flooring in the police department, because the department was meant to move to Second Avenue.

“I don’t know if the police ever got new flooring or if anything else happened. All I know is the last six years I’ve been on council this has been a discussion,” she said in reference to new facilities for police. “Nothing has been done here at city hall except we put a new roof on.”

She added she wasn’t certain the last time there were any major improvements done at the building prior to the roof.

“I think you are correct, it goes without saying we are poor custodians of the properties we have,” she said. “But we’ve worked hard on this, city staff have worked hard on this, the police have.”

She gestured to Police Chief Matthew Rickard who was in attendance of Monday’s meeting.

“He has told us this is what they need. I think it’s short-sighted of us to think we are always going to be the only people that this police department serves,” she said, referencing the potential for regionalization in the future.

“I think moving the police outside of city hall opens up opportunities for us to pursue a larger picture of a regionalized police force,” she said.

Long fired back, saying he didn’t disagree with her about regionalization; however, “that is not going to change until the city has the guts to step up and charge the other municipalities for not having their own police force and using the state police.”

“If (regionalization) does come, should the other municipalities that become involved be involved in building a facility for that regional police force,” he said. “I don’t think it’s short-sighted. I think it’s proper management for where we are today.”

Councilmember Jeff Brinker, similar to comments he made in March, questioned if there was still the possibility the 2021A borrowing note money could be used to rehabilitate parts of city hall.

He asked if council could speak with a representative from Code Enforcement, Inc., which the city has worked with since the early 2000s on ensuring compliance for properties within the city.

“Can (they) come here and meet with maybe a committee of some individuals of council,” he asked. “It always felt like we were never involved in the discussion.”

Masorti noted discussions about city hall and the feasibility of rehabilitation have happened in the past few years.

“We had discussions at the time about what is wrong in this building and what needs to be done and how to do this and can we piecemeal it,” she said. “What happened between then and now is there is a different group of people on council.”

Masorti cautioned, with an election next year, this could happen again.

“This is what happened in the last 13 years. I think we’ve asked the police since at least 2013 to bear with us, we’re getting there. And 13 years later we’re having the same discussion we had the first year I was on council,” she said.

Masorti said she was in favor of moving forward with the police building.

“Yes, we’re going to have this building (city hall) and we’re going to have to deal with it. We’re not going to have many people in this building. We can consider smaller options, maybe we can rent something,” she said.

Roberts told council to keep in mind the funding opportunities between building something new and rehabilitating a different building.

“When we’re talking about budgeting and how much it will be in the future, it certainly changes when you’re looking at a rehab of a building. It’s more difficult to fund in my experience,” she said.

She further noted it could be seen as a negative if the city were to not use the $1 million or $500,000 in grant funds it was awarded.

Councilmember Heather Alexander asked how the city would pay for the roughly $500,000 gap in funding based on the proposed bids.

Roberts said her request included looking into financing that amount.

Alexander asked if the police could move to the first floor, with city staff moved to the second floor.

Long chimed in at that.

“We have a big room up there filled with empty desks, filing cabinets and crap,” he said.

He noted the issues with city hall, moving the police to the first floor would take them out of the horrible conditions in the basement; moving council chambers to the second floor and turning the current chambers into locker rooms/a breakroom area would also be an improvement.

“There are options here we haven’t bothered to explore. We only looked at a complete redo of this building and we can’t afford that either,” he said, noting council wasn’t involved in discussions for the direction of the initial feasibility study in 2021.

“We didn’t get to talk to the engineers about it. We weren’t part of that process. Staff did all of that,” he said.

Roberts addressed these concerns. She noted, if council chose to look into other options, staff could work with a committee to ensure their inclusion.

“After the feasibility study and the gap between it and fixing the roof here, it was a decision that council voted for the police building and to look into funding,” she said. “That was what staff did at the direction of council.”

She added staff do take into consideration what could be done with city hall, however the direction from council was to look into the police building.

“We’re thinking about it. But the direction of council was more or less focusing on the police building and that’s what we did and that’s why we’re here today,” she said. “If the direction of council changes then we will move forward. But that is just what has been done in the past years.”

Brinker asked if a meeting with Code Inspection, Inc. to walk through the building was possible.

Cyndi Walker, building code official, said it’s possible but suggested a design professional be included. She said Code Inspection, Inc. focuses on making sure plans are in compliance but not to suggest alternatives or renovations.

She added, per a question from Brinker in March, she asked Code Inspection if it would be feasible to keep the police department in city hall.

She was told if the city can completely isolate the police department and the remainder of city operations it would be possible.

“If you can completely isolate the police facility and the office facilities on the second floor. Then you could deal with them individually. But they have to be completely isolated,” she said.

That means it would involve separate HVAC systems, plumbing and electric among other items.

Councilmember Rick Conklin, who was in favor of the police building, asked members of council if they weren’t interested in investing $2.5 million into a $4 million asset.

“If you knew you could invest $60,000 today and get $80,000 tomorrow you would certainly do that. You’d be foolish not to,” he said.

A back and forth erupted between Conklin and Alexander when she asked him where the money would be coming from.

Conklin noted $2.1 million has already been borrowed for the project, with the $500,000 from the projected bid cost needed to be covered.

“It’s the taxpayers money. That doesn’t say we blow it irresponsibly and hope for a return,” she said.

Conklin said he believed the community wanted to see the police building.

Meanwhile, Alexander said the constituents she spoke with were not in favor of the building.

The first motion to be put down was to table the bids and form a committee to investigate the use of city hall by Clausen. It died for lack of a second.

Roberts noted in the midst of this that she couldn’t guarantee the bid numbers past Tuesday.

Conklin then motioned to accept the bids, which was seconded by Masorti.

Before a vote could take place, Brinker offered further comment. He noted, regardless of which way the vote went, there were still questions about what would come of city hall moving forward.

“There is no vision with this vote going beyond that. As far as what we’re going to do with this building and our employees in this building. I think that is something we should think about. Whether we vote to say yes or we vote to say no, we don’t have a direct vision,” he said.

Brinker offered an alternate motion to table the bids for a week and a committee from council to tour the building with Code Inspection, Inc. He said council could hold a special meeting on Monday, April 27, to decide whether or not to accept the bids after that. It was seconded by Alexander.

The bids were tabled in a 4-3 vote, with Long, Brinker, Clausen and Alexander voting yes and Masorti, Conklin and Brannan voting no.

Upon request from Roberts, Long, Masorti and Alexander will serve on the committee to review city hall.