Archetype is run by a single individual, Jim Lichty. After discovering that the facility would not be approved by the state, commissioners spent three months working with Lichty, hoping he would try to solve the problems and bring the facility into compliance with standards. Finally convinced that Lichty was not going to take any responsibility, commissioners placed a stop-work order on the cell portion of the building. Commissioners were concerned that there might be other problems with the facility as well and decided to ask the state to perform a general code review on Lichty’s design for the courthouse and the jail. The state review did in fact find several serious as well as minor code violations in both the courthouse and jail portions of the facility. Commissioners spent two months working with Lichty until they were persuaded that he had no intention of correcting code problems. They then hired a lawyer, and later hired another organization to finish construction of the courthouse/jail.

The difficulties that the county experienced were intensified because of the contract commissioners signed with Archetype, which they later referred to as “a mistake.” Among the many problems that have arisen because of the contract are the following: the contract did not require payment or performance bonds from Archetype and did not specify that state jail standards should be met.

As of March 9, 1999, builders said that the facility would be ready to open in June. Now, in November, it is still unclear when the facility will open. It is also uncertain how many inmates will be housed there. Close to $400,000 of unanticipated costs have been incurred so far, and there will certainly be more. Commissioners have notified Lichty’s insurance company of a potential claim.

Part of the purpose of this history is so that other communities who are looking at the future construction of a public building can get an accurate picture of what happened here in Council and use our experience to their benefit.

TIMELINE (all quotes from The Record)

May, 1997

After voters fail to pass a bond for a new jail/courthouse commissioners, in conjunction with Lichty, plan to build a 300 bed privately run prison in Council. Residents are so against the idea that one individual offers to pay for a bond election himself. Commissioners agree to allow a bond election to be held. However, they stipulate that if the bond is successful, Lichty must be hired as architect.

AUGUST, 1997

The $2.85 million bond issue passes. Commissioners immediately pay Lichty $40,000 which they say was owed to him because of design work he did for previous bonds that failed. Citizens offer to form a committee to help with courthouse design and negotiations. One stated his concern that “the design (for the courthouse/jail) was done so quickly that it’s basically an off-the-shelf plan” that may need closer examination. Commissioners refuse to involve citizens in any way at all until the fall of 1999, when they ask for volunteers to help with landscaping. A lone volunteer responded.

Commissioners take the lowest bid for the purchase of the bond and are excited that the low interest rate may enable them to make early extra payments. At a later meeting, a citizen asked commissioners “what would happen if the final costs of construction are less than the full amount of the bond; any funds left over, the commissioners explained, would go directly toward the repayment of the bond.”

JANUARY, 1998

Two of the three county commissioners (Newman and Bennett) are replaced, and the new commissioners (Stoker and Brown with incumbent Fry) start their duties.

See DECISION-MAKING PROCESS for more information.

MARCH 9

Delpro, a company who has worked with Lichty on numerous other projects, was hired on Lichty’s recommendation to manage the project.

The problems of working with an out-of-state architect who had other projects going on started almost immediately; throughout the construction process, commissioners expressed frustration with the quality and timeliness of Lichty’s response to problems that arose on-site.

JULY 21

“Sheriff Rich Green spoke with commissioners about a reduction in the budget increase he had requested for law enforcement. Commissioner Larry Fry said that in the future, rent revenues from the new jail will help fund law enforcement activities but that there isn't a lot of money at present for increases.”

AUGUST 19

“Commissioners discussed the possibility of using interest money from the building fund.... possible uses for the interest coming in from the building fund would be redoing the communications system for law enforcement and, later, for the road and bridge fund to compensate for road and bridge labor and equipment that was used in site

preparation at the new courthouse.”

Because the facility does not meet state standards, it is not certain whether rent revenues will be forthcoming to fund law enforcement as Fry projected. The county, rather than interest money, will be paying for the communications tower for a total of $210,000. Interest money will not be reimbursing the county for site preparation valued at $70,000. See WHERE THE MONEY GOES for more information

OCTOBER 14

“Commissioners discussed a delay in construction at the courthouse/jail site, caused by delays in inspections of the cell modules delivered from Missouri. A letter from Tom Lehnert to the company that provided the modules reads as follows: ‘Delpro and Adams County were today notified that the modules you supplied to the project on September 29 were “red-tagged” and had not been approved for use by the state of Idaho. We were similarly informed that the plumbing within the modules was not approved....’”

Problems with the cell modules that were prefabricated by a company called Barbour in Missouri according to Lichty’s specifications would linger on for more than a year. A number of problems with their design are still unresolved. See CODE VIOLATIONS for more of the story.

JANUARY 19, 1999

“During their Monday meeting, commissioners discussed two problems that have recently come to light with the new courthouse/jail: some of the cell modules fail to meet the square-footage minimums specified by state standards for county jails, and some fail to meet ADA requirements for handicapped accessibility. Commissioner Bill Brown praised the vigilance of county building inspector Don Horton and the sheriff's office for discovering these problems while construction is still underway....

“At this point, the proportions of the problem are still unclear. Commissioner Larry Fry said that ADA requirements could probably be met with only minor changes... “Increasing the square footage of the cells, however, to meet the state jail standards set by the Idaho Sheriff's Association, could pose much more serious difficulties. Because the cell modules are pre-fabricated, taking them out and shipping them back to Missouri would mean removing the roof and beams of the jail. The commissioners felt that Archetype, not the county, should take responsibility for the costs of bringing the cells up to state standards....

“Archetype was hired, Fry said, partly on the basis of its expertise in the field; conforming to state standards, Brown said, should be an elementary part of that expertise. In addition, Archetype was, in fact, presented with copies of the state standards by the sheriff's office and by the jail committee. Stoker said that the county would be foolish to accept a situation that could easily lead to lawsuits. Apparently, because the cell modules were pre-fabricated units, their dimensions were not included on the plans that Archetype submitted to the county.”

See NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATE JAIL STANDARDS for more information.

JANUARY 25

ISA jail supervisor Bill Lynn told Green that the cells did not meet state requirements. The minimum required square footage for double occupancy cells is 80 square feet; the ones at the jail are 57 square feet.

“Lichty, speaking to The Record last week, said that the cells, as far as he knew, met the state requirements. When asked what action Archetype would take if it turned out the cells fell short of those requirements, Lichty said that Archetype would take responsibility for changing them.”

Lichty takes issue with how the square footage of the cells is being calculated; this is the first in a long series of arguments he becomes involved in with state authorities who tell him his designs do not meet state standards and state code. .Also on this date, Tom Lehnert from Delpro told commissioners that Lichty had underpaid them by $50,000- $60,000. Delpro and Lichty start having conflicts that will lead them into arbitration.

FEBRUARY 9

“The county commissioners are hoping that a meeting next week with jail supervisor Bill Lynn and Archetype will clarify the status of the cell modules at the new jail.... Until that meeting, all county payments to Archetype, Delpro, or Barbour-- the company that supplied the modules-- are being held back.”

FEBRUARY 17

“Jim Lichty, of Archetype, declined to attend today's meeting during which members of the jail standards committee toured the new jail to determine whether it meets state standards. Lichty has reiterated his statement that Archetype will take responsibility for ensuring that the jail meets state standards.

“Bill Lynn, jail standards coordinator, and several members of the jail standards committee spoke with commissioners about the question of whether the prefabricated cell modules shipped from Missouri met state standards. The sheriff's office had approached the commissioners about the fact that the double-occupancy cells at the jail measured around 58 square feet instead of the required 80. Lynn affirmed the fact that state standards call for a minimum of 80 square feet of unencumbered space for a double-occupancy cell....

“He said that in Kansas, where Archetype is located, there are no state standards, but thought that an architect working out-of-state would be even more careful to do proper research on the subject. "I can't imagine an architect not exploring to find out if there were state standards," Lynn commented. He said that after speaking with sheriff Rich Green he'd found out that the architect had been given copies of the state standards and should have made sure he understood the terms....

“David Sasser, attorney for the Idaho Sheriff's Association, described the architect's behavior as "amazing." Archetype had copies of the state standards, he pointed out, which specifically call for a review of jail plans before any physical construction begins. The reason the jail standards committee asks that plans be reviewed before construction begins is to prevent counties from finding themselves in the situation that has developed in Council. He expressed a strong hope that someone in the county was reviewing the contract with Archetype very carefully and that care was being taken to make sure that construction matched the plans.

“ Fry said that the contract had been for a 32-bed facility and that's what the county should have....

“Applications for variances from compliance with state code could next be made in June. Fry said that the projected opening date for the facility was June 1, but the opening could be postponed until the issue of compliance was resolved. Lynn strongly recommended that no beds in the jail be rented until the matter was settled, although part of the jail could probably open for county use. A special inspection could be scheduled to make that possible.”

Payments to Lichty are resumed, commissioners explain, since no wrongdoing on Archetype’s part has been established; commissioners state that they are hopeful Lichty will step forward to honor his obligations and that they don’t wish to antagonize him.

FEBRUARY 23

Commissioners ask prosecuting attorney Chuck Kroll “to write a letter to Archetype, asking for a payment bond and a performance bond. The payment bond would guarantee that suppliers, such as Delpro, would be paid, by Archetype's insurance if necessary, and not by the county. The performance bond would guarantee that the contractor build the facility according to the plans presented.

“[county attorney] Kroll said that Jim Lichty, of Archetype, had agreed over the phone to get a payment bond. A performance bond, Lichty pointed out, would be difficult to obtain at this time since construction is so far along. ....Stoker also brought up a question about why Archetype's fee has gone up. Kroll will also be finding out the reasons for that increase.

“Some questions arose in light of the possibility that the jail might not be able to house as many occupants as originally planned: will the number of staff required to run the facility remain the same? Should the county consider cutting administrative expenses if there are fewer beds to rent out? These matters were shelved until the arrival of the jail committee's recommendations.”

MARCH 9

“Since last month, so many questions have arisen about the new courthouse/jail facility that commissioners have discussed the possibility of stopping construction on the entire project. After inspecting the facility, the Idaho Sheriff's Association Jail Standards committee sent a written report to commissioners, outlining problems they saw in 10 areas... The Adams County jail falls so far short of the requirement that ‘the team can find no way to support a variance on this issue,’ the report reads. Without a variance, the jail could not be certified by the state.

“It appears, from Jim Lichty's response to the report, that he believes the standards can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Commissioners expressed frustration with the fact that Lichty did not have the plans reviewed by the state. The ISA Jail Standards specify, in no uncertain terms, that jail plans be sent for review before any construction starts. If the plans had been reviewed, the cell size requirements would have been clear to the architect before he came up with specifications for the cell modules-- before they were cast in Missouri, then shipped to Adams County, and then installed in a structure that would now have be dismantled in order to remove them and install larger ones.

"If we don't stop construction," Commissioner Bill Brown said, "then what we are doing is condoning a jail that we know is not in compliance with state standards." Rather than waiting for developments in this matter as construction continues, Brown suggested that the county look into its legal options, including the consequences of putting a stop-work order on the whole facility.... Even if the jail were granted a variance of some kind, the county would not be getting what it contracted and paid for, and would not be keeping its commitment to the community. "That's why I'm livid about what's happening now," Brown said, recalling that the substandard conditions of the current jail were part of the motivation to build a new facility. "That's gotten lost along the way," he said. "I'm afraid we're going to end up with a nice-looking building that's a hollow shell."

“Delpro, the company managing the building of the facility, was represented by Tom Lehnert, who voiced his opinion that the county should not stop funding the project and should let construction continue as planned. He also told the commissioners that he was happy to let them know the building will be finished in early June instead of the scheduled completion date in September.

“Later, Commissioner Ray Stoker pointed out that the county could be taking a big risk if it lets the facility be built without state approval and tries to remedy the situation down the line. "We may end up with no recourse," he said.....Commissioner Larry Fry said that he thought Lichty would keep his word if there was a clear agreement. Fry added that he would want the agreement in writing, however. The commissioners also discussed the fact that the opening of the courthouse/jail might be delayed significantly.

“Where is Lichty? was a question asked by several people at the meeting. The commissioners said they felt he should be here to address the problems that are arising, and they will be asking him to travel to Council for that purpose.... commissioners said that their first step will be to try and resolve the issues they have with Archetype informally.”

In March, Lichty said that he thought he could provide the county with a payment bond. He never did provide a bond, however, explaining to commissioner Fry that it was in fact Delpro’s responsibility to provide the bond. Delpro, on the other hand,, told commissioners that since they don't have a contract with the county, they are not responsible for the bond. After Lichty was contacted on the fact of his fee being raised, he said he didn't know why that had happened, but would look into it.

MARCH 16

“County commissioners Monday authorized building inspector Don Horton to put a stop-work order on the cell module area of the new jail facility. They also passed a motion authorizing prosecuting attorney Chuck Kroll to look for an attorney with whom the county could contract for possible future litigation with Archetype. The commissioners continue to express their belief that Archetype is responsible for design problems with the facility. The problems, in fact, appear to be multiplying.

“This week, commissioners and Horton requested a code review of the facility by the state. Horton said that the review was prompted by the number of issues that have arisen concerning the design of the facility. Commissioner Bill Brown said that the county needed to have a full accounting of all the issues at stake before taking legal steps.

Commissioners had planned to contact Lichty with a request for a written commitment to state jail standards last week, but Kroll counseled them against that move. Commissioner Larry Fry said the county would be acting under the provisions the contract with Archetype makes for work that does not conform to the requirements of the contract documents.

“Sheriff Rich Green spoke with the commissioners about several consequences that would arise from the county agreeing to accept a jail facility that did not meet state jail standards. The sheriff explained that one of the duties of his office was to administer the county jail facility responsibly. The administration of the jail, he said, was based on ISA state standards. The responsibility of his office, Green said, could not be fulfilled by operating a new facility that failed to meet those standards.”

MARCH 23

“A state review of Archetype's plans for the courthouse/jail found that the plans are not in compliance with code on 11 separate counts. The most serious discrepancies between the plans and code requirements have to do with fire safety. The Building Bureau Plan Review states that the fire corridor designed for the facility is not in compliance with code. The corridor is supposed to create a safe exit route in case of fire, and extends through the courthouse as well as the jail. Correcting the corridor to meet code could involve measures as extreme as removing the roof.”

APRIL 13

“Frustrated by new design problems with the courthouse/jail and dissatisfied with Jim Lichty's proposals for solving them, county commissioners on Monday changed their approach to Archetype. ‘We've turned the case over to our lawyer,’ Commissioner Larry Fry said, referring to Wayne Mueleman, the attorney hired by the county last month. Through Mueleman, Lichty was informed that the county would be notifying his insurance company that a claim may be filed. Because the county did not request that Lichty put up a payment or performance bond, Lichty's professional insurance is one possible alternate source of financing alterations to the courthouse/jail.

“Several new issues have arisen in the past two weeks. The most serious is that one of the dayrooms in the jail does not meet minimum square feet requirements; Lichty has still not presented satisfactory solutions for elements of the facility that according to state review are not compliant with code. These include the fire-safety of the wall between the courthouse and the jail areas as well as handicapped-accessible cell modules. Both these problems could be very expensive to solve. The commissioners on Monday expressed frustration with how Lichty is handling the issue of design flaws.

“Three weeks ago, Lichty told commissioners he would draw up plans for expansion of the cell modules which, at present, do not meet state requirements of space per inmate. The commissioners did not receive the plans until the afternoon of Monday's meeting and no pricing was included. When Lichty told commissioners he would draw up the plans he did not say whether Archetype would bear any of the cost for the changes. Lichty continues to maintain that the facility meets ISA standards as he interprets them, even though the ISA inspection team told the county that the jail could not be certified as it was designed.

“Commissioner Bill Brown stated that the commissioners ‘want Lichty to drop all his other projects until these issues are addressed.’ Commissioners say they are concerned by the time delay on the construction site that various problems are creating. The cost of any construction, now underway, that will have to be torn out at a later date, is being borne by the county. The county will continue to pay for work being done now, and possibly pay again when it has to be redone. When Brown heard that Barbour was doing finishing work on the cell modules, which are going to have to be modified, he was upset. Commenting on the fact that Lichty apparently was having the work done by Barbour while he was at the same time working on plans to modify the cell modules, Brown said: ‘That looks to me like he's not acting in good faith.’

“Lichty responded by saying that the 560 square foot minimum could be met if the stairway were included as part of the total and if a narrow ledge on the far side of a railing were included as well. He billed the county $900 for providing that information. The bill has not been paid. Sheriff Green contacted the ISA on the matter; they rejected the notion of including the ledge.”

APRIL 21

“Although commissioners appeared confident last week that Archetype would start moving ahead with satisfactory solutions to design problems with the new courthouse/jail, no progress has yet been made. Apparently Lichty has again approached the commissioners asking for authorization to start incorporating design solutions to code problems that have not been approved by the state. Commissioner Larry Fry said he told Lichty that until approval was received from the state on code issues and from the ISA jail standards committee on cell modifications, the commissioners would not give the OK to proceed. It is unclear why Lichty is seeking authorization from the commissioners to start work on code problems without previously securing approval from the state on his design solutions.”

APRIL 27

Commissioner Larry Fry spoke with Delpro, project managers who have worked with Lichty on several construction projects. "‘I know you've got a contract with Archetype, and that's our fault,’ Fry said. ‘We made the first mistake by signing the contract with Archetype-- your first responsibility should have been with us....We assumed we had a bond and now we're in a double bind, and having a lot of problems.’ Fry went on to say that he felt Lichty should have seen to it that the county had bonds, and also that it would have been more ethical for Lichty to have sent the plans for the courthouse/jail to Boise for review. ‘That would have saved us a lot of heartburn. We all three made mistakes. But now we have to stop pointing the finger and work to get the project finished.’

“Fry said that the county needed to know exactly what the costs of code corrections would be. Archetype is contractually responsible for the expense of bringing the structure into compliance with code. If the county is paying for the work up front however, bookkeeping will be very important. ‘If the costs are more than our budget, we'll have to find another route,’ Fry said. ‘The county can't afford court costs, but we'll go that way if we have to.’

‘We haven't gotten what we expected,’ Fry said, referring to the courthouse project, ‘and we still haven't found a solution. It makes me feel that we've been taken advantage of by both outfits. It really irritates me that with handshakes and agreements, we thought we had a good faith situation. Now we've got people mad-- they're mad at us, and we've got to take the heat....The possibility of problems with code should have been recognized sooner-- before we spent over two million dollars out there.’

“The most serious problem identified by the state in a code review is the fire safety of the wall separating the jail and courthouse areas of the building. The state has told Lichty that code requires a 4-hour wall between the areas. Lichty's first response to the state was that a 4-hour wall was not necessary because the courthouse and jail could be considered separate buildings. The state did not accept that argument, saying that a building under one roof is one building.

“On Monday, Lichty said that he was no longer pursuing the line of argument that the courthouse and jail were separate buildings, but he believes that the state is not interpreting the code correctly in requiring an area separation wall at all. The state has responded to his new arguments by saying they are not acceptable. Lichty indicated that he would appeal the state's judgment. The process for appeal involves requesting the commissioners to appoint an appeal board.” See CODE VIOLATIONS for more information on the 18 violations identified by the state in Lichty’s design for the courthouse/jail.

MAY 11

“Commissioners took decisive action on Monday after two hours in conference with attorney Wayne Mueleman. The county is withholding all payments to Archetype, commissioner Ray Stoker said, until code violations at the courthouse/jail are solved....Stoker and Brown said they were tired of Lichty submitting unacceptable proposals for resolving code problems with the design of the courthouse/jail. At their last meeting, commissioners were hopeful that Lichty would respond quickly and effectively before a deadline he'd agreed to, of the end of April, for proposing solutions to a number of code problems. Apparently, the optimism of that meeting has abated. Stoker said that the commissioners were not satisfied with Lichty's solutions.

“The letter that the county's representative sent to Archetype reads as follows: Dear Mr. Lichty; The Board of Commissioners reviewed your latest Master Invoice dated May 4th for the project at its meeting on May 1Oth. The Board authorized payment of the amounts certified for payment to the County's direct construction contractors. The amounts requested for payment under the Design/Build contract to Archetype Design Group and Delpro, its construction manager, will be withheld pending correction of work pursuant to Article 9. The County will provide payment under the contract at such time as deficiencies are corrected and a complete reconciliation of payments is provided. Your letter dated May 4, 1999, does not adequately reconcile discrepancies in the invoices you have submitted. We do not agree with your position regarding the $35,OOO for site work performed by the County and the $75OO for testing. Additionally, your letter fails to address the $123,482 owner Allowance identified in the budget.

As you are aware, we received Delpro's estimate of costs to correct building code and other identified deficiencies totaling approximately $5OO,OOO plus several "unknown" costs. Further progress payments under the Design/Build contract will be withheld pending; a. Correction of all code deficiencies under the 1994 Uniform Building Code itemized in Delpro's estimate dated May 5, 1999, however, the County is continuing its review of the "four hour separation wall" and will not require that item to be corrected until a final decision by the Adams County Building Inspector is reached. You should promptly proceed with all other building code correction items.
b. Completion of modifications for two handicap cells as called for in the approved plans. Delpro's estimate of corrective work indicates that only one cell is to be modified for handicap accessibility. You are required to provide both handicap cells as agreed.
c. Receipt of your proposal as an alternative to expanding the existing building to meet the requirement for 32 inmates in accordance with the Idaho Sheriff Association Jail Standards. You agreed to provide a detailed design of modifications of the current jail facilities (without expansion of the existing building) necessary to accommodate the maximum number of inmates under the Idaho Sheriff Association Jail Standards as interpreted by the Association, an analysis of the total number of inmates permitted under those standards with your proposed modifications, and an estimate of the cost of such modifications.
d. Receipt of the cost estimate for all items in Delpro's estimate listed as either "unknown", "guesstimate", or the like. We have received your letter dated May 7, 1999, contending that the applicable building code is the 1985 UBC rather than the 1994 UBC. We do not agree and, until you recently found it to be to your advantage, you have consistently and repeatedly referred to the 1994 UBC as the controlling building code and as the code relied upon in your design. Finally, as required under the Design/Build contract, we request pursuant to Section 7.5 that you immediately furnish performance and payment bonds covering all obligations under the contract and payment of all obligations arising under the contract and that you immediately provide a certification of professional liability insurance renewing the policy expiring May 16, 1999.

Adams County intends to honor all of its obligations under the Design/Build contract and expects Archetype Design Group Inc. to do the same.”

MAY 18

"We're holding our course," commissioner Bill Brown commented on developments between the county and Jim Lichty, of Archetype, who designed the new courthouse/jail....Delpro, the company that is managing construction of the project, has informed the county of their intention to stop work at the site if the county and Lichty are unable to resolve their differences and resume payments...

“Lichty has sent the county several communications in response to the withholding of payments. In one, Lichty insists that communications between Delpro and the county cease immediately. The letter states that Delpro has been instructed on several occasions not to communicate with county representatives but has persisted in doing so. The letter states that the commissioners' ‘assistance in affecting the termination of all direct communications between Delpro, their suppliers and subs and Adams County will be a great benefit to the project.’

“The letter does not specify how a total lack of direct communication between on-site managers and county staff will help construction-- while Archetype controls the flow of information from out of state. Apparently, Delpro is supposed to make all communications to the county through Archetype-- communications such as the results of tests and inspections that are currently being performed for the county...

“How the county building inspector, Don Horton, is supposed to inspect the site without communicating with Delpro is also unclear. Horton stated that no construction has taken place that would conflict with corrections to code problems. He also said that no work had been started to correct a number of the issues that had been identified as not in compliance with code. Commissioner Larry Fry pointed out that the contract the county has with Archetype specifies that communication between Delpro and the county will take place through Archetype; so Lichty, by requesting that Delpro and the county not speak to each other, is asking that the terms of the contract be honored....

“One of the first issues to be raised between the county and Lichty was the failure of the cells to meet state jail standards. Although at one point commissioners had hoped that Lichty would assume some responsibility for this failure, a letter from Lichty received on May 17 makes it clear that Adams County will have to pay if it wants a jail that will pass state inspection: an estimated $125,000 for expanding the cells to meet state requirements for square footage (plans for the expansion have not yet been inspected or approved); or $550,000 to add cells in order to meet the planned occupancy of the facility. In the same letter, Lichty notes that the county is contractually responsible for the costs of additional inspections and tests that have been done; he notes the costs at $28,000. Lichty has also required the county to furnish, as required by the contract, a Builder's Risk or Property Insurance...

“By declining to take responsibility for a number of code issues, including ISA standards, state accessibility requirements, and fire safety issues, Lichty is saying that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be required to correct all these problems should come from the county, not from the company that designed the structure. In the two pages of costs that Lichty sent to the commissioners, Archetype is listed as the responsible party for only two minor changes that need to be made.”

JUNE 15

“After a conference on Monday with Wayne Meuleman, the county's legal representative, commissioners announced that they were going to hire a project manager to complete construction of the courthouse/jail. Meuleman, they said, would be contacting Dick Horak, of Delpro, to see if Delpro and the county could come to an agreement for the arrangement. If Delpro doesn't wish to act as project manager for the county, the commissioners will look elsewhere. “The commissioners specified that they were not terminating their contract with Archetype, and stated that they were acting on legal advice in making that decision. The existing contract allows the county to hire another project manager if construction is not proceeding in a timely fashion. Commissioners said that they had given Jim Lichty, of Archetype, ample opportunity to correct code problems. Lichty has not corrected a number of these problems, and his latest letter to the county indicates that he does not even recognize any major code problems as existing....

“One of the recent conflicts between the county and Lichty has been over issues of fire protection. The fire marshall's approval is necessary in order for the courthouse/jail to receive an occupancy permit, and he has not approved several aspects of the structure. Smoke dampers or draft stops are absent, and smoke detectors, for the alarm system, are located in ducts instead of in rooms. In his letter, Lichty suggests that an addendum to the contract could eliminate the need for the fire marshall's approval, making alterations to the structure unnecessary. Lichty also states in his letter that he will terminate his agreement with the county if payments continue to be withheld....

JUNE 22

“On Monday, county commissioners reached an agreement with Delpro to finish construction at the courthouse/jail....The contract amount will be a compromise between what the commissioners expected to pay Delpro originally and the amount that Delpro had signed on for with Lichty. Apparently, the amount of money the commissioners believed that Delpro would be receiving was less than what Delpro was offered. Delpro will be putting some of the money it expected to receive as profit into the job, and the county will be budgeting some more money for Delpro than had been anticipated. More exact figures will be available next week after the contract is finalized.

“Around $700,000 remains in the building fund. Hopefully, that will be sufficient to solve enough of the code problems so that a temporary occupancy permit can be obtained. A temporary occupancy permit would mean that any remaining work could be completed safely while the building was occupied; the county would be able to save the thousands of dollars it is spending monthly to have inmates housed in facilities outside the county.”

JUNE 30

“Hugh McNair, hired by the county as manager for the project, will be acting as coordinator between contractors and the county as solutions to code problems are worked out. McNair will also be handling paperwork for construction. Delpro, when the contract is signed, will be hired to finish the job according to existing plans. Code corrections that are not in the plans will be recorded separately since the county will be seeking reimbursement from Archetype's insurance for the cost of those corrections. The same subcontractors will be working on both aspects of construction... “Archetype contacted the county with a new contract for commissioners to consider. Commissioners are not going to pursue a new contract with Archetype, however, saying that Archetype did not fulfill the terms of the original contract.”

JULY 13

“After several weeks of discussion, county commissioners and Delpro have signed a contract for completion of the courthouse/jail. The contract states that Archetype terminated its Delpro contracts in June, and that Archetype and Delpro both ceased to work on the project. Under the new contract between the county and Delpro, Delpro agreed to complete construction of the project according to the terms of the original contracts with Archetype for general construction and construction management. Delpro will also ‘correct deficiencies in the work as authorized by Adams County.’

“The contract states that the county will pay Delpro $145,990.00 for work and management services up to the present time. When the county started withholding payments from Archetype, Delpro also went unpaid, since those payments went through Archetype; similarly, sub-contractors were not paid through Delpro. The two parties agreed on the figure of $145,990.00 to cover unpaid costs at the time the contract was signed. The county and Delpro also agreed that the Delpro's payment for general construction work and construction management services in the completion of the project would not exceed a "total guaranteed maximum cost" of $199,328.24.

“These payments to Delpro are for work according to the existing plans for the courthouse/jail and do not include corrections to bring the building into compliance with code or jail standards. ‘It is understood by the Parties that certain building code and fire code deficiencies exist in the current design and construction of the Project which must be corrected prior to Adams County occupying the Project. Delpro agrees to work to correct such deficiencies as authorized in writing by Adams County and Adams County agrees to pay Delpro, in addition to the sums identified above, the actual reasonable direct cost of such corrective work plus 8.3% of such costs or an agreed negotiated price for the corrective work. Only corrective work deemed necessary and expressly authorized by Adams County will be performed.’”

JULY 20

“On Monday, sheriff Rich Green spoke to commissioners and prosecuting attorney Chuck Kroll concerning persistent questions that the citizenry of Adams County has about the bond process and the county’s contract with Archetype. “I’m still getting complaints,” he said, “and I feel I have an obligation to the public to look at these questions further.” He said that a grand jury investigation could be the best way to resolve the matter. Commissioner Ray Stoker asked if the accusations that had been brought to Green had come from a small isolated group in the community. Green replied that the concerns were not restricted to a single group but were in fact widespread throughout the community. Green added that he felt people were asking legitimate questions. An investigation, he said, could answer those questions.

“Commissioner Larry Fry asked what the cost of such an investigation would be. He also wanted to know if any formal complaints, in writing, had been received. Kroll explained that in order for a grand jury investigation to take place he had to receive a particularized allegation of criminal action such as, for example, misappropriation of funds. He stressed the fact that this type of investigation could proceed only after some basis for suspecting criminal action had been established.

“Kroll asked Green what kind of allegations had been brought to him. Green said questions about the bond process were common, and the use of tax funds; questions about the fact that voters had voted for a bond to build a jail that it looked like they weren’t going to get-- a jail, for instance, that would house 32 inmates. Fry said that the jail still might be able to meet that specification.

Commissioner Bill Brown asked Kroll whether the commissioners, as county officials, had liability insurance that could be accessed in any way to help cover unforeseen expenses in the construction of the new courthouse/jail. Kroll responded that since the main issue appeared to be a contract issue, insurance would probably not provide any coverage. Contract issues, he said, are not usually cited as insurable. When Brown asked whether any Errors and Omission insurance might apply, county clerk Mike Fisk responded that the first thing he does when a lawsuit is filed against the county is send the complaint to ICRIMP for information about coverage.

“Fry said that public dissatisfaction was a different matter than allegations of criminal action. He said that when he signed the contract with Archetype he simply missed the lines that required the county to request bonding and other items. Green told the commissioners that he felt it was important that an open discussion be held on the subject. ‘We need to show,’ he said, ‘that the public’s concerns are being seriously addressed.’

JULY 27

“County commissioners and Sheriff Rich Green discussed future staffing at the courthouse/jail, with commissioners questioning the sheriff's assessment of how many people would be necessary to run the jail safely.... Fry told Green that in Washington County, only one person worked in the control room, handling both dispatcher and jailer duties. Green said that he didn't know how things were set up at the Washington County facility, but physical limitations at the Adams County jail would require more staffing than that....

“Green said that part of the problem was that the jail design meant that the same number of people were required to run the facility whether it could house 32 inmates or 16. The revenue from renting out beds had been expected to help cover staffing costs. He said he knew that the jail's finances were now looking worse and he had to settle for less than an ideal number of staff....Fry stated that the revenue from rented beds had never been counted on for the jail's budget and asked Green to talk with Washington County.

“Green and Brown made a visit to the facility in Washington County where they were told that the dispatcher does not have time to help out with jailer's duties. Two jailers are employed in addition to the dispatcher, and they work in the control room as well as on the floor. Furthermore, Green and Brown were informed that Washington County had plans to increase its jail staff. Two more employees will be hired in the fall, a decision that was made after the county was sued by an inmate. The lawsuit, which concerned understaffing of the facility, was settled in favor of the inmate and the county was required to pay damages.”

SEPTEMBER 7

“A tort claim was filed last week against the county commissioners and clerk. Brad Masingill, who filed the claim, is a Weiser attorney and Adams County landowner. He explained the nature of a tort claim and its purpose in the present instance....The tort claim leaves the option of further legal action open. Masingill said that the tort claim will allow for the possibility of damages being paid by the county's insurer in the event that more money is required to bring the courthouse/jail up to county expectations. He said that maybe there's enough money to cover all the costs of a courthouse/jail that would be acceptable to the county, and that would be fine. Or maybe the county will obtain funds from Archetype's insurance to cover costs of additional improvements, and that would also be fine. But, he said, if there's not enough money, filing the tort claim before the statute of limitations runs out will mean that a suit for damages could be filed. Damages could be paid if it were determined that commissioners had been negligent or made mistakes in their dealings with Archetype. Negligence, for instance, could consist of a failure to get a bond, or failure to get legal advice on a contract. The purpose of having insurance, Masingill pointed out, is to cover costs if mistakes have been made, so why not use it if necessary. Masingill also commented that a suit for damages might be more useful to the county than a Grand Jury investigation, which would determine whether any criminal action had been taken by county commissioners.”

SEPTEMBER 14

“Sheriff Rich Green and Undersheriff Scott Kump asked commissioners if October 1 was still the projected date for occupancy of the jail, and received an affirmative answer. Kump and Green said that with occupancy 2 weeks away, issues that were crucial to the jail’s operation, such as the communications tower and whether sufficient staff could be hired or not, needed to be resolved.

“The communications tower and system were bid last year at an estimated cost of $157,000. Commissioners agree that the system is essential for law enforcement and emergency services in the county. However, because of added expenses to the courthouse/jail, money in the building fund is no longer available for the purchase of the equipment. When asked how the cost was originally budgeted for, commissioner Ray Stoker said that interest from the bond money had been expected to cover the cost. That money, however, is being used to pay for unforeseen construction expenses such as corrections to code violations. When Archetype refused to have corrective work done, the county had to cover the costs of that work.”

SEPTEMBER 28

“No inspections have been scheduled yet for the courthouse, and it is still uncertain when a transition into the new building will be made. Inspections are required before a temporary occupancy permit can be issued for the courthouse side of the facility.

“Sheriff Rich Green reported to commissioners on a meeting with the Idaho Sheriffs Association jail standards committee. The committee is reviewing the jail design and is being very helpful, Green said, in working with the sheriff’s office to come up with the best possible solution to the jail’s problems. Green told commissioners he was working with building inspector Don Horton on plans that will be reviewed by the ISA committee....

“Commissioner Larry Fry said that the county’s legal counsel had cautioned them against making structural alterations of any kind before going to arbitration with Archetype.”

OCTOBER 13

“Commissioners discussed the timeframe for moving into the new courthouse/jail and said that the move might not happen until December. Darell Taylor from Delpro, county representative Hugh McNair, building inspector Don Horton, Sheriff Rich Green and Undersheriff Scott Kump said that the following elements need to be coordinated: a walkthrough of the facility by county engineer Mike Holladay, state inspections of the cell modules, an inspection by the fire marshal; also, plumbing to two cells needs to be completed, as well as duct work that was involved in bringing the mechanical room up to code. Condensers for the air conditioners are located outside under the eaves where the snow load would easily damage them; housings for the condensers must be built. McNair commented that Jim Lichty's design for the air conditioning system failed to take local snow conditions into account....

“Last Friday, the courthouse was inspected and the county gave its OK for the following elements: the interiors, walls, doors, and windows. The inspection did not address any structural or safety issues, but will allow furniture to be moved into the building. The inspection was not related to the county accepting ownership of the building or accepting any problems with work that has not been inspected such as, for example, the mechanical room, the outside of the building, or the roof.

“Life safety inspections can't be performed until the generator for the jail is installed.... Opening the courthouse for occupancy is linked to the jail in one very significant way: the fire alarm system for the whole building is monitored on the jail side, so someone must be working on the jail side in order for the courthouse to be occupied. This would add to the problems of what Kump called the “logistical nightmare” of trying to open the courthouse side of the facility before the jail side is ready to function.”

OCTOBER 19

“County commissioners and sheriff Rich Green discussed the number of inmates that the new jail would be able to house, temporarily, before any structural changes are made to the facility. Green and building inspector Don Horton have been working with the state jail inspection committee to come up with workable solutions to problems with the facility.

“The county is in a dilemma at present because it needs rental revenue in order to pay for the increase in staff that the new facility requires. However, the commissioners have been advised not to make any structural changes to the facility until an attempt has been made to determine whether Jim Lichty, who designed the jail, is responsible for paying to bring the jail into compliance with state standards.

“The solution that the county is currently considering would enable the facility to house 27 inmates and would minimize the immediate financial impact of the jail’s problems. The A and B cell blocks would house half the expected number of inmates: 8 instead of 16. The jails standards committee will not allow double occupancy of these cells since their square footage falls substantially short of the minimum required: 57 square feet instead of 80.

“The C cell block, if used as a dormitory with the doors locked open, could house 15 inmates. State inmates could be housed in the C cell block with county inmates if their status was minimum security. In addition, the holding cells, which were not initially intended to house inmates, could be used to house an additional 4, bringing the total up to 27. Apparently, the state would allow the county to use the facility in this way until a decision about structural changes was made. Commissioner Bill Brown said that it would take at least a year for a settlement with Lichty to be reached and changes made.”

OCTOBER 25

“On Monday at the new courthouse/jail, cell modules that were red-tagged over a year ago failed to pass a state inspection. The modules, which were designed by Jim Lichty of Archetype, failed to meet handicapped accessibility requirements... Commissioners were also informed that the plumbing in all the cell modules is leaking and will need to be repaired. The sprinkler system passed inspection by the state....

“County commissioners and sheriff Rich Green were subpoenaed to testify in arbitration proceedings between Delpro and Archetype.”

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

The county voted against previous plans for a new jail facility and commissioners expressed a great deal of frustration with the amount of work they had put into the project, only to have county residents vote it down. The jail facility was operating under a variance because it fell far short of state standards. Commissioners came up with a 300-bed private prison designed by Lichty as a solution to the problem. They felt residents would still vote against another bond issue in spite of public outcry against the private prison. However, they agreed to let an election be held with the stipulation that, if successful, the designs for the courthouse/jail will be those Lichty worked on previously. Commissioners stated that the county owed Lichty for that work. Residents weren’t happy with that stipulation but felt, at the time, they had no choice but to accept it. When the commissioners declined to accept any public involvement in the project after the bond passed, a great deal of public resentment was expressed.

The fact that the offer to form a citizens’ jail committee was turned down by the commissioners problemetized the situation when Lichty’s design and the contract he drew up for the county started causing difficulties. People ended up questioning other aspects of the project in addition to its failure to meet state standards: why was the jail, instead of the courthouse, facing the highway? Why was Lichty’s fee a higher percentage of the project cost than that charged by many other architects? Why weren’t Lichty’s plans and the contract he proposed examined more closely?

CONTRACT

It is unclear exactly why the contract was insufficiently reviewed. A contract review would certainly have revealed the fact that commissioners had omitted to request that Lichty provide performance and payment bonds. This omission could prove to be an extremely expensive one.

If the contract had been reviewed, other problems might have been solved as well. The commissioners ended up stating that their contract should never have been with Lichty, the architect, but with Delpro, the builders. Whatever it would have cost to have the contract reviewed by a specialist would certainly have been less expensive than the ultimate costs of not reviewing it. Commissioners hired a contract law specialist whose services have cost the county thousands of dollars.

There is a place on the contract where commissioners could have specified that ISA standards were to be followed in the construction of the jail. If they had done so, the case against Lichty would have been much stronger. As it is, commissioners may try to claim money from Lichty’s professional insurance on the basis that failure to follow ISA standards was not professional; if it had been stated in the contract, failure to follow state standards would be a breach of contract.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATE JAIL STANDARDS

All jails in the state of Idaho are inspected by the Idaho Sheriff’s Association according to a set of standards that the ISA has established. The problem, Sheriff Rich Green states, in not being certified on a state level, is one of liability. The state standards were formulated in direct response to court cases in which counties were sued over jail conditions. By not complying with state standards, the likelihood of such suits being successful is increased. On January 19, all the commissioners felt strongly that a brand-new jail should not start out with the handicap of not qualifying for a state certificate, but the problem has not yet been solved.

Green went on to say that Adams County jail was the 30th county jail in the state to be sued, and that only four counties in the state have not been sued. While in the process of developing new standards to prevent lawsuits, the Idaho Sheriff's Association received grant funding through the National Institute of Corrections. With their assistance, a new set of standards was adopted in 1988, and these are the standards by which all county jails in the state are evaluated. The standards are based on what federal courts have deemed acceptable conditions in county jails. It is possible to apply for a consent decree from the Jail Standards Committee and to be monitored separately, as is the case with most older jails in the state, including the old Adams County jail.

Sheriff Green asked the committee to speak with commissioners about what compliance or non-compliance with state requirements meant. The committee's response stressed the importance of compliance for liability reasons. Compliance with the state standards gives the county a solid defense in the event of being sued over jail conditions-- a very common kind of suit in the state. Although the standards are not Idaho code, in court they have been treated as having the force of law. The legislature has recognized several aspects as code. Stoker asked if the standards have been holding up for the counties in court, and the response was that the track record was good.

CODE VIOLATIONS

Red-tagged cell modules: Building Inspector Don Horton, on the subject of state inspections and handicapped accessibility requirements, said that the modules were supposed to be inspected and approved on-site before being shipped to Idaho. The inspector there was apparently told that not all the modules were ready; he left. The modules, however, were shipped out the next day. Because they had not been inspected, they were red-tagged and Horton issued a stop-work order. Commissioners believed that state approval was being held up only by paperwork, so they decided to have construction continue. A stop-work order was eventually replaced on the modules until plans for altering the cells to meet handicapped accessibility requirements had been drawn up; then the order was lifted. The cells failed to pass a state inspection in October, more than a year after the initial red-tagging of the cells.

Mechanical room: After an electrical inspection, Horton discovered that access to the mechanical room was not up to code and could require major work to improve the access.

State code review found the following violations

· Handicapped-accessible cells that don't meet state requirements. Lichty told commissioners that Barbour, the company that fabricated the cells, would correct the problem.

· The lack of a 4-hour area separation wall. Lichty does not believe that the state is interpreting code correctly in requiring the wall.

· The type of heads in the sprinkler system. Lichty stated that the heads will be replaced, if necessary.

· Problems that the fire marshal has identified with the smoke and fire detection alarm system.

· The proper functioning of the smoke alarm system under emergency power. These two items caused some debate. Lichty said that the fire marshal had become heated over the smoke detection system, and suggested that Idaho might be "behind the times" in the nature of its requirements. "The main thing I see," Horton responded, "is that the contract (the county has with Archetype) says that the fire marshal's office has to sign off." Horton said that Lichty needed to get any information required by the marshal to his office. Horton also offered to set up a meeting between the marshal and Lichty. Lichty said that Archetype didn't have a contract with the fire marshal and expressed discomfort with the number of officials who have become involved in code negotiations. "Our contract," he said, "calls for only one point of contact... Larry has been that contact."

Fry told him that Horton would now be acting as contact since the issues at hand are code issues.

· Questions about adequate outflow in the plumbing system. Lichty said diagrams for waste-water removal had been made available.

· New building code issues that had come up after the state review: handicapped-accessible counters and seismic bracing in the ceiling grid were issues that Lichty said he was looking at. Draft stops was an issue that had just surfaced, and questions about the exhaust hood in the kitchen had already been resolved. Special inspections that the county requested were also on this list.

· The failure of public toilets and a shower to meet handicapped-accessibility requirements. Lichty said they would be changed to meet the standards. Work was also progressing or had been completed on the following items:

· glazing in the fire corridor

· the fire rating of roll-down shutters

· accessibility of visitation counters

· accessibility of service counter in sheriff's office

· fire labels on doors

· a change-order for the isolation of the deputy's bull-pen area

· the design of the roof to handle the snow-load

· The last three items included a repeat of the seismic bracing in the ceiling, an agreement to meet with Idaho Sheriff's Association jail standards committee ("Whoever they are," commented Lichty), and a record of Mueleman's request that Lichty notify his insurance company that the county has a potential claim.

Later in the meeting, Horak asked that Lichty and the commissioners go through the list and identify who would be responsible for the cost of the various items, if a cost were to apply. The county would be paying for only two items: the change order, and the special reviews and inspections that have been requested. Barbour would be paying for some of the items, and Lichty said that others would be paid for by the engineer's Errors and Omission insurance.

WHERE THE MONEY GOES

AUGUST 31

The county commissioners have expressed hopes that the costs of completing construction of the courthouse/jail will not exceed the total amount of moneys remaining in the building fund. Completion of construction, at this point, does not mean the county will have a jail that can house 32 inmates, as planned. Completion means that the building will have been issued an occupancy permit and that an as yet unspecified number of inmates will be housed in the jail facility.

How have the problems that the county experienced with Archetype affected the cost of the courthouse/jail? If the county is paying for code corrections that were not included in the original budget, where is the money coming from to pay for those corrections? Are taxpayers paying more than had been anticipated? What happens to money remaining in the building fund? The following profile of the building fund may help answer questions like these.

First of all a word of reassurance to anyone who's been concerned that other county funds were being used to cover the costs of construction. County clerk Mike Fisk points out that it's procedurally impossible for more money to be spent on building the courthouse/jail than is available in the building fund; only the bond amount and interest on the bond amount were budgeted for construction. No matter what stage construction was at when the building fund ran out, the project would stop there.

· What's in the building fund and where do the funds come from? The building fund consists of the bond amount, 2.85 million dollars, plus the amount of interest that has been earned from investments of the bond amount, minus payment of claims for the construction project. When the bond money became available, the county purchased 4 CDs at First Security Bank in Weiser for $250,000 each. The CDs allowed for a one-time withdrawal without penalty.

The remainder of the bond money was invested in the State Treasurer's Investment Fund, which is more liquid than the CDs but has a lower interest rate: 5-5.25% as opposed to 6.16% currently on the CDs. The idea was to transfer the CDs into the State Treasurers Investment Fund as cash for the construction project became necessary, so as to take advantage of the higher interest rate as long as possible. From the State Treasurer's Investment Fund the money went to a checking account, from which claims could be paid.

The building fund is managed somewhat differently than other county funds. Usually, any interest accruing from county investments goes into the current expense fund; it would be cumbersome to have a separate account for each county fund and track interest payments. Interest on the building fund, however, as investment counselor Mike Hilleman explained to the commissioners when the bond passed, can only be used as part of the building fund or as part of payment on the bond.

The Treasurer's Office did not have an exact total of the amount of interest that has been generated by the invested bond money. An approximate figure, with a 10% margin of error, would be $170,000. As of Tuesday, $626,700.58 remained in the building fund. The Treasurer's Office expected those funds to be close to exhausted by mid-September, when commissioners hope that a temporary occupancy permit will be issued for the courthouse/jail.

· How about the repayment of the bond money? Payments on the bond are handled entirely apart from the building fund, in a separate account. When the tax levies are collected in November and December, they are deposited into the account and accumulate interest until the payments are made, in February and August. Interest on the bond tax levy can only be used on bond payments. There is a twenty-year schedule for bond payments, which will total $4,537,873. Interest payments on the $2.85 million will total $1,687,873.11.

· How much have problems with Archetype cost the county? An exact calculation would be difficult to make, but the following information would be relevant in starting to formulate total additional costs: The construction budget was originally set without making use of interest payments on the bond-- around $170,000, possibly more. If the building fund is exhausted in September, as expected, the interest will have been spent in addition to the amount budgeted for construction.

There are other moneys in the building fund as well that were not slated for construction costs. These moneys, apparently, will be required at this point to finish construction, pay legal fees, or other expenses. If they were not required for these purposes, which are in excess of budgeted costs, they would have come back to the county.

Items funding unanticipated costs include the contingency fund, which was $123,000. Site preparation was included in the original budget at a cost of $38,000; the work was done by the county with no cash expenditure, so that amount remained in the building fund. The payment withheld from Archetype also remained in the building fund: $26,000. These items alone-- interest money, money saved on site prep, money withheld from Lichty, and the contingency fund-- total $357,000. That amount could have been used for paying off the bond or for courthouse equipment and furnishings if it were not being used to correct design flaws, cover legal fees and other unanticipated construction costs.

When bids were taken for the bond, county commissioners were excited because the successful bid was lower than they had expected, and they thought they'd be able to use money left over from construction costs to make payments on the bond. Those payments would in essence have been a gift back to the taxpayers. If the entire building fund is required for construction costs, it can't be used to offset bond payments. $357,000 is approximately equal to the first three years of interest payments scheduled for the county on the bond.

Some costs to the county can only be evaluated in the future, as the facility's running expenses and revenue become established. The sheriff's office had anticipated that rental of some of the 32 beds in the jail would bring in revenue for the county. It is unclear at this point how great a reduction there will be in that revenue, or what extra costs the county may face in order to create adequate housing for its own inmates.

Other costs may arise sooner. If the building fund is used up in September, any problems that emerge as the move is made into the new facility would have to be solved from other sources. It is difficult to anticipate what problems may exist in the building that are as yet unidentified. Last week, for instance, it was discovered that lights in the cells had not been wired. That problem did not turn out to be expensive to remedy. This week, the state alerted the sheriff's office to possible problems involved in moving the Idaho Law Enforcement Telecommunication System from the old courthouse to the new courthouse, and recommended the transfer be tested-- an unforeseen expense. With available funds being so limited, everyone involved in the move is likely to be on tenterhooks until the move is made. If commissioners make a successful claim on Lichty's insurance, some funds could become available for further improvements to the facility.

Personnel at the courthouse and the sheriff's office said they'd be glad when the transition was complete and the advantages of the new facility could be appreciated, as well as its problems faced and resolved.

Addendum