Public safety center: Good money after bad?

Monday, July 28, 2008

The public safety building that houses the city police and fire departments is in need of repairs, said the McCook City Manager, so much so that at this point "we're spending good money after bad."

Kurt Fritsch, city manager, explained to the McCook City Council at the budget meeting July 21 that $500,000 in city sales tax money has been included in the 2008-09 budget as start-up money for a municipal police/fire/city offices facility.

This would be a multi-year project, he explained, with funds saved each year if possible.

Frtitsch said he had no concrete number of what the facility would ultimately cost but the $500,00 would begin the process in design and engineering fees.

Fritsch told the council that about $150,000-200,000 has been spent so far on repairs at the current police/fire department building, near the railroad tracks at 500 West B. "The building has outlived its time," he related. Fritsch added that although safety issues haven't diminished, the overriding concern now is the deteriorating condition of the current public safety building.

Renovating the former West Ward Elementary property is still an option, he reminded the council, although there would be sizable costs in removing walls to eliminate the wide hallways.

In addition, another major expense would be in installing an elevator in the three-story building.

Still, "It's not in terrible shape," he said of the former school building on the 300 block of West Fifth. There's some damage from a leaking roof and some mold on the north side, he said, but structurally the building is sound.

In response to a request from Councilman Lonnie Anderson, a tour will be set up in the near future for council members to inspect the building themselves.

Councilman Aaron Kitcher said he hasn't been in the building since fourth grade but that "I knew my way to the principal's office really well."

Comments
View 5 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • If you leave the 'wide' hallway's, you save big bucks, and leave space for 'Historical artifact' display cabinets, and shelves, without hazarding the structural integrity of the building. If memory serves the back of my head, the building would not take kindly to having the interior walls moved, expecially concerning roof support. The best way, in my opinion, to mess up an historical building, is to decide to be artistic, and creative, with a solid structure. Moving those solid walls, you gain a bit, but loose a lot.

    Just a thought.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Jul 28, 2008, at 10:16 PM
  • Isn't this convienent? When the county invited the city to join in with trying to build a facility they didn't need one. Now all of a sudden they need to build their own.

    -- Posted by rodwrencher on Mon, Jul 28, 2008, at 10:25 PM
  • I'd liked to know just what is deteriorating now at the exsisting safety center, That wasnt in the same condition when The county tried to get the city to go together and built a cohabitaul safety center to which the city so sternly refused to participate in. After spending alot of money on upgrades on the safety center the city wants to spend more money and keep Taxes at an all time high for this town. These city officals can not see past the end of their noses. Lets upgrade! Now lets move! Its time to stop spending. And start cooperating.

    -- Posted by g-man on Tue, Jul 29, 2008, at 6:19 PM
  • The city DID cooperate with the county on asking the public to fund a new joint facility. There were multiple joint meetings and public sessions where both the city and county made their cases for the project. The voters soundly rejected the county plan and but a slightly less margin rejected the city portion of the plan. It just is WRONG to say the city officials did not support putting the plan to a vote.

    -- Posted by dennis on Wed, Jul 30, 2008, at 10:43 AM
  • Voting is a good thing. The information on what to vote on is another story.

    The city and county could be in the same structure and work together with no problems.

    Still it ends up with who has the biggest stick they can swing. County??? City??? Who is going to make the first swing?? This has been the way things go in this fine city and county for the past fifty or so years. One thinks the other is getting something more, so they argue.

    Check attitudes at the door. It is time to work together. Not against each other.

    -- Posted by edbru on Thu, Jul 31, 2008, at 5:29 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: