At the Ellis County Commission Meeting last night commissioners heard an overview of plans for the renovation of the Ellis County Courthouse and Law Enforcement Center. Architect Andrew Pitts presented a brief summary of the changes being considered. Some of those changes include:
- Renovation of 2nd level of Law Enforcement Center (Jail)
- 2-story addition built onto Law Enforcement Center to act as garage and entry point into the jail
- New public entry into the building with new access points
- New holding cells and booking area
- Two new jury rooms
- Holding cells for inmates brought to court
- 3 courtrooms
- Upgrading mechanical and electrical systems in the building
- One secure entry point into the building with monitored exits that can’t be accessed from outside
As part of the discussion, Pitts presented the option of adding the building onto the National Historic Register. The commissioners at first unanimously agreed that it may not be in the best interest of the county to involve the state in this project. Commissioner Swede Holmgrem summarized his opinion on the matter.
“Unless you can give me 6 advantages that the state coming out here and monitoring this building is going to provide us, I have no intention in having the state come out here. I love historic Fort Hays, and this town is all about history, but this courthouse has been out here a long, long time without being put on the state register. And I will tell you: putting this building on the state register is just like the lesser prairie chicken. It’s more government involvement in our lives.”
Pitts responded that the oversight would be minimal and his company has a great deal of experience working with the state. He said that adding the building to the state register now would allow the county to garner tax credits or grants from the state. Pitts estimated that about half of the construction cost for the upcoming project may be eligible for these tax credits.
The commission asked for Pitts to come back to them with figures and dollar amounts so that they could better gauge the benefit of making this change. Pitts had said that removing a building from the registry in the future is easy to do and the only downside is ineligibility for future tax credits. Holmgrem voiced the skepticism the rest of the commission felt about the ease of taking the building off the register in the future.
“For everybody that is married, when you get married it’s a 20 minute, 30 minutes at most… When you get a divorce, it’s a long, painful process. To try to take this building off the historic register; where are we going to be?”