Regrettably, recent unprovoked partisan attacks on the three of us by or on behalf of commissioners Watson and Melton, commissioner candidates Owens and Pack and commissioner-hopeful Moore require a response.

Those attacks, based on misleading and plainly deficient claims, seek to describe the three of us as fiscally irresponsible in the way in which we have pursued the siting, design and construction of the new human services building at Wolverine Trail. These claims dont withstand scrutiny.

Let us explain why.

The first claim, made by both Mr. Watson and Mr. Hofmann, is that we are already over budget on the proposed building. Thats just plain false. The three of us, joined by Mr. Watson, voted to spend a maximum of $2,000,000 on the human services building construction. If there is a budget at this early date, thats it, and it has hardly been exceeded.

It is true that the bids for grading the site were over the cost estimate made by our architect/construction manager and the county engineer. But thats not a budget. Both of those gentlemen have since said (one in an open meeting in the presence of Mr. Watson and Mr. Melton) that their grading estimate was overly optimistic. The construction market may not be as depressed as it was some months ago. &bsp;

While Mr. Watson and Mr. Hofmann may want to confer unrealistic importance on an overly optimistic grading estimate, governing officials must ultimately deal in realities, in the real world, in what bids actually show. Thats exactly what the majority of your board of commissioners is doing.

Theres no reason, as they and Mr. Melton suggest, to think that re-bidding the grading work, either as part of the entire construction project or by itself, would result in any savings. Given the high amounts of most of the grading bids, new bids could well come in even higher than the one weve trimmed and accepted. Where would we be then?

As a gentleman familiar with engineering has recently explained, construction cost estimates are indeed just that. It is only after construction documents are finalized by the architects and engineers and issued for bids by multiple contractors, and the bids have been returned, that anyone can know with reasonable certainty what construction is going to cost. And, even then, its subject to variation.

Surely Mr. Watson and Mr. Hofmann know this.

One apt example can be found in the pre-bid estimate for the community campus project, which included the new middle school. That project increased from an originally estimated $13,250,000 to a final cost of $15,818,846, an increase of $2,568,846 (or 19.4 percent). This multi-million dollar increase occurred and was approved at a time when Mr. Owens and Mr. Pack were serving on the board of commissioners. Would this cause Mr. Hofmann to make a claim of fiscal irresponsibility about his&bsp; preferred candidates? &bsp;

A second claim involves the former boards last minute decision to purchase the Park Street site. The purchase agreement for that site was quickly and recklessly authorized by that board (the one Mr. Hofmann praises and on which Mr. Watson, Mr. Melton, Mr. Owens and Mr. Pack all sat).

That authorization was given without negotiation of the terms of the contract. These four voted to sign the sellers realtors first proposed contract without change, at the last lame duck commissioners meeting at which Mr. Owens and Mr. Pack were in office. This contract contained numerous terms detrimental to the county and provided no way out.

Did they even read it? Did they understand it? Evidently not. Was that fiscally responsible?

Commissioner Harry Denton, also a member of that board, understood that the Park Street site&bsp; was not suited for a new human services building. He wisely cautioned against the haste and argued that the matter should be more thoughtfully considered and left for the newly elected incoming board to address.

But Mr. Watson, Mr. Melton, Mr. Owens and Mr. Pack would have none of that. They heedlessly rushed ahead. Ready, fire, aim. A model of fiscal responsibility?

And where did this get Polk County? It got it an inadequate site for the human services building and wasted at least $95,000 on a lot currently appraised at $81,480 for tax purposes (appraised at only $22,916 for tax purposes at the time of the purchase). The Park Street site could not accommodate a one story building of the size needed. It would have to have been two stories, entailing useless space for stairwells and elevators, and costing considerably more than necessary because of that. Moreover, there was no room for expansion at all, unlike the site at Wolverine Trail. &bsp;

The extra cost of the stairwells, elevators and other details needed in a two-story building at Park Street to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act would likely have been more than enough to build the offices that will be needed for necessary services and for growth in the Wolverine Trail building, the offices that commissioners Melton and Mr. Watson are fighting so hard against. &bsp;

Penny wise? Not even that. But certainly pound foolish.

Mr. Hofmann implies that, as originally contemplated, the Wolverine Trail site could have housed another building 100% of the size of the proposed human services building. &bsp;

Thats not true, according to the architect/construction manager and the county engineer. Mr. Hofmann says we had to sacrifice that expansion to save money. But thats not true either. With the new grading plan, we will still be able to build two additional separate buildings, flanking the proposed building, that together can be approximately 100 percent of the size of the proposed human services building. &bsp;

Having substantial expansion room at the site was important, especially for commissioner McDermott.&bsp; She carefully questioned the architect/construction supervisor and the county engineer about expansion issues before deciding to vote in favor of the Wolverine Trail site. She did not want to repeat the planning error that was made with the Womack Building, which was already too small to accommodate expanding county space needs when it first opened its doors, and which required the purchase of the nearby bank building and doctors office at considerable cost. &bsp;

What Mr. Watson calls a budget for the Park Street site, $1.7 million, was in reality only another predesign construction cost estimate, a guesstimate as commissioner Walker correctly described it. Not one bid was taken for the Park Street site, and no architectural plans were ever drawn up, so theres no way to test the accuracy of that estimate. But the estimate was made by one of the same people who prepared the initial grading estimate for the Wolverine Trail site. Could it have been overly optimistic too?

Nor was the estimate of $150,000 for required improvements of the Highway 108 intersection&bsp; included in that $1.7 million estimate. And the $150,000 did not include all the necessary paving and purchase of rights-of-way on Park Street. It was just another estimate. &bsp;

Nor did the estimate include the cost of providing a water line and sewer line to the site. More costs again. And then theres the $95,000 that was so hastily committed for the Park Street real estate, without any way of getting out of the contract.

So the real estimated cost of siting the new human services building at the Park Street location was, at a minimum, above $1,945,000. Were hoping, and will work very hard, to bring in the Wolverine Trail project for less than that.

Mr. Watsons next claim is that looking at other sites was an exercise in futility. This is odd because, as Mr. Watson publicly announced when he voted in favor of the Wolverine Trail site, he was pleased with the decision to situate the human services building at that site. Moreover, for the reasons set forth above, it was obviously a superior site and already owned by the county. &bsp;

Indeed, the time in considering sites more suitable than Park Street was well spent, not wasted. The process, spearheaded by Commissioner Gasperson, is serving county taxpayers well.

Next, Mr. Hofmann claims, in a totally unfounded way, that the three of us are fiscally irresponsible. Really? Thats quite a stretch based on only one preliminary, prebid cost estimate. &bsp;

Rather, the board on which three of us sit brought Polk County taxpayers a 3 cent property tax rate decrease and kept it in place for a second year. In 2005, Mr. Owens and Mr. Pack, whom Mr. Hofmann supports, brought Polk County taxpayers a 9.24 cent tax increase, a 15 percent increase.&bsp;&bsp; &bsp;

The board on which the three of us now sit has lowered the debt level of the county to the lowest it has been since 2003. Mr. Owens and Mr. Pack didnt do that. On the contrary, quite a bit was borrowed on their watch. &bsp;

Having all too hastily committed the county to the unwise purchase of the Park Street site, Mr. Watson now insists that were mindlessly sticking to a construction schedule that he and Mr. Melton joined us in unanimously approving.

Contrary to his claim, we do need the new human services building as soon as possible. The ceiling has fallen in at the current human services building. Heavy roof tiles have fallen off and more are in danger of falling off. No one can go up on the roof to try to secure the tiles because its too dangerous; too many tiles are too loose. The air quality in the building is terrible. &bsp;

In addition, now is the best time to do the earth moving work at the site, and get the site stabilized with growing grass this fall, to avoid the terrible erosion problems that occurred at the recreation complex (a continuing expense), a project poorly carried out under the supervision of the former board. Delay will take us past the fall, an important window of opportunity.

Mr. Owens, Mr. Pack, Mr. Watson and Mr. Melton allowed one of the boilers in the current human services building to deteriorate so badly that it could not be repaired. They had to spend $50,000 of taxpayers dollars in late 2008 to put in temporary heat pumps so that people could use the building for even one more winter. Those heat pumps were expected to last for only two years. That time will soon run out. The longer we drag things out on a new human services building, the more likely it is that well have to provide more very expensive patches on the current building. &bsp;

A total waste of taxpayers money.

The decisions we three have made about the siting, design and construction of the human services building are the result of the advice weve received from the county manager (who is knowledgeable about a similar facility in Mitchell County), the human services board and staff, our architects, our architect/construction manager, our county engineer, public comment and a lot of discussion among all five commissioners in open meetings. &bsp;

The proposed building has been approved by the Local Government Commission (thus providing several options in funding its cost) and by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Social Services.&bsp; Our decisions have been carefully and responsibly made.