A decision by Rockwall County commissioners Wednesday will lead to using $6.2 million in reserve funds to help pay the $37.2 million construction cost for the Rockwall County Courthouse.

The decision was a major step because the architect now can produce documents the contractor needs for the construction bid process.

But it wasn’t an easy step for commissioners.

The county has $30 million for the project and commissioners decided to take $6.2 million from the reserve fund to draw closer to the $37.2 million figure.

After discussing the project and funding scenarios for about four hours, Commissioner David Magness finally made a motion that commissioners accept the design document in the amount of $37.2 million. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jerry Wimpee.

Commissioner Lorie Grinnan cast the only dissenting vote.

“I strongly oppose the court's decision today to increase the cost of the new courthouse from $30 million to $37.2 million,” Grinnan said after the meeting. “Given the fact that our economy is depressed and we should be conserving every dollar, we cannot afford to build a facility with excess space that we may not need for our court system for 10, 15 or even 20 years.”

She said Chief Appraiser Ray Helm has relayed information to her that the county should expect a flat or lowered revenue for at least the next two years.

“This comes at a time when we will have an increase in expenses, when we have to provide a new district court and the associated additional personnel and auxiliary costs,” Grinnan added. “Also, we have a $3 million dollar deficit budget this year. The commissioners court chose to tap into our reserve fund, or savings account, and go beyond the $30 million in debt that was already issued to build the new court building.”

A key dialogue occurred between Commissioner Dennis Bailey and County Treasurer Bill Sinclair. Bailey, who serves as the liaison between commissioners and the architect and contractor, questioned Sinclair about the possibility of using a portion of the reserve fund to pay for construction costs. Taking $6.2 million from the reserve fund would leave a balance of $13.5 in the fund.

“I’m not asking you how much money to spend on this building, Mr. Sinclair. I’m asking you as the financial officer what your opinion would be to have a 13.5 million dollar reserve fund and looking into the future and anticipating a decrease in ad valorem taxes, knowing that a deficit in 2009-10 is gonna have to come at you. . .”

“If we’re looking at the next two years facing a deficit budget and not increasing tax revenue, we’re still safe starting with a 13.5 million dollar reserve,” Sinclair said.

“This is not your decision to make Mr. Sinclair on how much money to pull out of there,” Bailey responded. “I’m just asking you from the treasurer’s standpoint under those scenarios, would you be comfortable with having 13.5 million dollars?”

“The purpose of that reserve is exactly what you’re talking about,” Sinclair answered. “When you’re faced with a downturn in the economy, what’s the purpose of the reserve? To mitigate those circumstances.”

Earlier in the meeting, there was some discussion about reducing the scope of the project. But County Judge Chris Florance said changing the scope of the project would end up costing the county more in the future.

“That’s why it’s so important now to do something now because we’ll never make it up in the future,” Florance said. “So the question is, what’s the answer? Well, the only answer I see is the fund balance (reserve) at this point unless y’all see something different.”

“I say we don’t sacrifice the financial health the next five years in order to build space that we may not need for 15 or 20 years,” Grinnan responded.

Florance than answered Grinnan.

“You realize that when you say sacrifice our financial health means that in four or five years the same cost we have now, construction cost escalation would be 25 to 35 million dollars. Now, that’s a pretty big sacrifice.”

Later, the county judge addressed Grinnan again.

“How can we make this thing work is what I’m saying,” Florance said. “Your position is — let’s define it — is shut this thing down.”

The possibility of reducing the building from four stories to three was mentioned. The third floor now is “shelled out” for future use.

When this question arose, architect Hal Sargent stood and began walking down the aisle.

“Hey, don’t go anywhere,” Florance shouted to Sargent.

“I was going to ask them what a floor cost,” Sargent responded.

Florance then called a recess and Sargent huddled with the Manhattan Construction Co. officials who attended the meeting.

Sargent came back to commissioners and reported that eliminating a floor would knock about $2.3 million off the $37.2 million total.

Commissioners didn’t spend much time discussing the option of eliminating a floor.

Bailey said before the vote that this “is going to be a hard commitment to make.”

“But we’ve got to stop the bleeding on how we got here, with the amount of time it’s taken,” Bailey said. “I wish I knew how much more it would cost to have you redraw this building. I wish I knew how much more it would cost for waiting.”

But he added that the county doesn’t have that “luxury.”

“So, when I go off into this, I’m not taking this lightly, 37 million dollars and all the obligations … whether you like that or want to smirk with it or whatever, that’s my commitment.”

Commissioners also approved a site plan for the project. An issue with the site plan involved the location of a detention pond on the site. Commissioners approved Option B that calls for the detention pond to be located on the lower end of the property, adjacent to S.E. Townsend Drive, instead of the Option A choice near the center of the 26-acre site. Bailey and Grinnan voted against the Option B proposal.