The Dane County Board authorized a $728,800 jurisdictional offer for Sen. Fred Risser’s, D-Madison, property Thursday night, in order to build a new county courthouse.
The offer passed 23-10, with the majority of the board members finding the purchase necessary, if not ideal.
Risser originally requested $1.5 million for his property, and the Personnel and Finance Committee designed the $728,800 compromise.
“This is more money than most of us want to spend, but we’ll have to go with it,” David Ripp, District 29, said.
Those opposing the offer believe the project is too expensive, especially in the face of budget concerns.
“We’re $5.74 million in the hole,” Brett Hulsey, District 19, said. “I’m concerned that we haven’t put a cap on spending.”
Echnaton Vedder, District 8, was also concerned about the distribution of the county’s limited funds.
“Over $40 million could be better spent,” Vedder said. “This courthouse is a runaway train.”
Richard Kiley, District 17, called the buying price bizarre and too expensive.
“So much money on an architectural design doesn’t make sense and is unfair to taxpayers,” Kiley said.
The courthouse’s total cost is projected at $44 million.
Despite the high price, the majority of board members felt obtaining Risser’s property was crucial to the courthouse construction. Dennis O’Laughlin, District 22, said the additional land would allow for two holding cells, AV equipment for two courtrooms, more office space and an extra conference room.
“Look at the big picture,” O’Laughlin said. “The courthouse will not be as user-friendly and convenient if Risser’s property is left intact.”
Whether Risser will accept the offer is questionable, according to board members, who said Risser has not expressed approval of the offer.
“He has indicated to me he will reject the offer,” Hulsey said.
Risser now has 20 days to accept or reject the offer. His rejection would result in condemnation proceedings, in which a commission will determine just compensation for the property and send the adjusted estimate back to the County Board for a decision to accept, reject or abandon the property purchase.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if it went to court,” Vedder said.
If proceedings are smooth, courthouse construction could begin as early as this fall or as late as 2003.
In other action, the board chose to not to endorse Ordinance-Amendment 31, after heated debate lasting over an hour.
Ordinance-Amendment 31 is an ordinance easing appeals of conditional use permits by town boards.
Town boards often vote against quarries when neighbors protest, but if a business is granted a conditional use permit the town board can be overruled. If the ordinance had passed, town boards would have had more authority to appeal a conditional use permit.
Lyman Anderson, District 31, said conditional use permits were unpopular but necessary.
“Nobody wants landfills or quarries or childcare centers in their backyard, but yet they have to be,” Anderson said. “We must be analytical, not political.”
