Land price too steep for new Dover-Foxcroft courthouse

loading...
DOVER-FOXCROFT – The price tag on county-owned property being eyed by the state for a new courthouse apparently is too steep. The Judicial Branch has agreed to build a new combined facility for District and Superior courts in Dover-Foxcroft and has been eyeing two lots…
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

DOVER-FOXCROFT – The price tag on county-owned property being eyed by the state for a new courthouse apparently is too steep.

The Judicial Branch has agreed to build a new combined facility for District and Superior courts in Dover-Foxcroft and has been eyeing two lots the county owns on School Street for the development.

With that interest, Piscataquis County commissioners offered to sell the state the two adjacent lots for $87,900, the amount invested in the property.

The purchase price, however, was not favored by State Court Administrator James “Ted” Glessner.

“We are struggling to determine how we will complete this project within our limited budget,” Glessner told the commissioners in a letter reviewed Tuesday. “Having to spend anything for land acquisition will make the task that much more difficult.”

Although the Judicial Branch had requested $9.5 million for the new courthouse, the Legislature reduced the amount to $5 million.

Rather than disrupt the progress made, the commissioners agreed Tuesday to offer the state a 20-year lease on the property at a cost of $4,400 a year, according to Commissioner Tom Lizotte. That way the county could still recoup its investment, he said.

“This entire process has not been easy dealing with the state but we’re determined to remove any barriers that will stand in the way of a new courthouse,” Lizotte said after Tuesday’s meeting.

Glessner noted in his letter that the state court would relinquish the space it now uses for Superior Court in the county’s facility when the new courthouse has been completed. ‘It would seem that this results in space that is of greater value to the county than the lots designated for the courthouse,” Glessner wrote.

Lizotte said he found that comment a bit ironic since the state is giving back space to the county that the county already owns.

Correction: This article appeared on page B3 in the State edition.

Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personalization and ads. Learn more.