Trending
After sifting through feasibility studies, elected City officials determined not to "stay put" but consider an expense over $6,700,000 of taxpayer dollars to construct a new City Hall and Police Station. City staff and politicians purport the existing 21,000 square foot Church Street brick building, offering a new roof, elevator and handicapped entrance, is not adequate to serve 8,000 residents who pay two million dollars each year for 14 police officers -- or about $142,000 per officer.
Your City Council, in its quest to select a new location, "kicked around" the construction of buildings at (1) Bellefonte Avenue, (2) Hope Hose, (3) Hand-in-Hand Hose, (4) Church Street parking lot, (5) Second Street complex and (6) the Ross Library. But the larger question is: do YOU want it?
Five years ago your City annually spent about $4,732,000 and this year they're budgeted to spend $5,795,000. In addition to this 5-year annual increase of 2.5% and projected 11% (per annum) future water/sewer increase, they may spend another $6,700,000. The estimated cost appears to be $325 per square foot, equal to the cost to build a hospital!
Given a lack of financial sense and non-elected City Manager who lobbies to upgrade and expand, it's probable you'll get the whole bill.
If one makes a logical list of benefits to rehabilitate the existing structure versus the cost of a new building, there are overwhelming reasons to redesign and "stay put" in contrast to somewhat ill-advised reasons to slice the operation in two. Undeniable reasons for the City to "stay put" include ample room to expand, a solid structure, efficiencies of consolidation and built-in security protection.
One management "cardinal rule" is to avoid any bifurcation of the operation; it is unwise to move departments to different locations. Local taxpayers were subjected to those costs when their county government moved downtown offices to Lamar, Flemington, McElhattan and the airport. Taxpayers not only pay for these moves with money, but with inconvenience. And this movement seems to be a pattern as some elected officials are quick to play with architects and your money. Let us not forget, a new high school was constructed on the Lusk Run Road because former buildings, now occupied by the University, were deemed to be inadequate. So, bussing prisoners and students has become both expensive and acceptable.
That stated, albeit foolish, reasons to build a City "Taj Mahal" include a potential sale of the existing building to a taxable entity, hope that a $1M grant might be available, concluding there is no alternate way to provide separate areas for female officers, one set of 3 steps and the likely need to pay prevailing wage rates. Those reasons are without merit. There is no need for 25 new work spaces and the City's own, expensive York engineers concluded "the existing facility has minor structural issues but is an acceptable candidate to renovate." YOU paid big bucks for a recommendation the city seems to be ignoring.
Only Mayor Long and Richard Morris, who will not be retaining his seat, voted NO. Council members Byerly, Brinker, Masorti, Stevenson and Conklin voted YES. Does that sound like 5 to 2 to YOU?
Some council candidates, including Di Costanzo (D), Brannan (D) and Alexander (D), may conclude YOU do not want a new "Taj Mahal." But if existing Council members are not replaced with more logical politicians, it appears you're going to get a new building -- want it or not.
Your Mayor only earns $4,800 a year and Council members about $3,600. When evaluating options, there are many factors to consider; it requires hours of debate and I appreciate the effort. But under the council-manager form of government, the City Manager should not make decisions. He is an employee. Yet, the current City Manager is lobbying for a 567 square foot personal office that would be larger than an efficiency apartment and almost as large as President Biden's 816 square foot Oval Office! While not disclosed, he recently purchased a new desk and sent part-time employees, at time and a half, to State College to pick it up.
It's difficult to learn exactly how your money is spent. Upon filing a demand and paying fees, I received a ream of paper but no longer have time to sort through it all. Having made that investment in the past, I previously concluded city data can be unreliable to conceal reality.
Furthermore, there are myths that should be dispelled. The city often avers, "we had no choice, the expenditure was mandated." Remember when mandations were $40,000,000? While mandates do exist, they could be appealed. Now YOU will pay for that lack of diligence.
Let us also remember that, based on income, Lock Haven is the second poorest city in the Commonwealth with a declining population and rising costs. The city refuted this designation with laughable excuses.
For those who witnessed the city wrecking ball demolish hundreds of homes and historical buildings, annual taxes crept up more than the consumer price index. Perhaps the city might repair deplorable roads before commencing construction on a new complex?
My former audit of exempt taxes that accompanied a give-away of Painter Stadium to investors and purchase of the airport, I found millions of dollars of waste, losses and poor judgement.
This year the city should generate a little over six million dollars in taxes. Those taxes go up, and the number of taxpayers go down as the city suppressed a gift of the vacant Dickey School by imposing antiquated code requirements. If voters hold any leverage to scream NO to a new complex, their only remedy may be to support the Mayor and candidates Di Costanzo, Brannan and Alexander.
If city officials wish to expand, they could simply adopt the recommendation of its chosen engineer and Mayor Long -- and just "stay put."
Stephen Poorman is a longtime area resident and business consultant.