A vacant lot stands at N. 6th and Reily streets in Harrisburg. But where, many ask, is our shiny new federal courthouse that’s supposed to be rising there?
The answer comes down to two obstacles, one better known than the other. It’s no secret that the first obstacle to construction is congressional appropriation of the funds, but the project’s fate also rests on the outcome of a lesser-known review underway of all federal courthouse construction projects.
Chastised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) for a clouded decision-making process and bloated construction projects, the federal judiciary is re-examining its five-year (2014 to 2018) plan that prioritized new courthouses for Harrisburg and 11 other cities. The reworked plan will then be handed to Congress, which could use it to guide funding decisions.
First, a recap.Harrisburg’s current federal courthouse stands downtown at N. 3rd and Walnut streets, occupying several floors of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building. In 2004, the federal judiciary put Harrisburg on a list of cities where new construction was a top priority, prompted by the need to beef up security or add more space, or both.
The General Services Administration (GSA) seemed hellbent on tearing down a viable block of 2nd Street downtown to make way for the new, 265,000-square-foot facility. Residents, organizations, city officials and the state’s congressional members put up a fight.
In 2010, the city prevailed, winning a commitment that the building would rise from the vast, L-shaped parcel bounded by N. 6th, N. 7th, Reily, Harris and Boyd streets, affirming hopes for a courthouse as a jewel of a Midtown renaissance.
More than four years later, the five-acre site remains vacant. About half of the $26.7 million appropriated by Congress for site and design work has been spent, according to the GSA, but Congress has yet to approve the remaining $110 million needed to move forward.
It “remains to be seen” if Harrisburg stays on the list of priority construction projects, said U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, a Republican who represents a chunk of Harrisburg and chairs the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
“The Harrisburg Courthouse remains on the Judiciary’s five-year Courthouse Project Plan,” said Barletta. “However, there are six federal courthouse projects scheduled ahead of it, at a combined cost of $700 million—which is currently not funded.”
While many players point to the lack of a congressional allocation as the holdup, Harrisburg also must wait while the judiciary reconsiders its construction projects.
The rethink was prompted by GAO’s April 2013 report that the judiciary’s five-year plan lacked transparency or documented justification for many priority projects. For instance, GAO claimed, the plan cites the need for two or more new courtrooms as a key criterion for a new building—and Harrisburg needs only one.
The judiciary balked at GAO’s recommendation for a moratorium on construction but agreed to review all projects. Harrisburg is part of that review, according to U.S. Courts spokesperson Karen Redmond. She had no timeline for completion of the review, although the GAO report said it could be done by October 2015, plus another 18 to 24 months for a long-range facility plan.
Waiting, Waiting
Harrisburg’s current federal courthouse has “a sufficient number of courtrooms,” but security is a major concern, said Middle District Chief Judge Christopher Conner. The building, finished in 1966, has exceeded its 40-year lifespan and, sitting squarely on the street, doesn’t comply with post-Oklahoma City setback guidelines, he said.
The primary concern is that the current building can’t be retrofitted with “secure corridors for the ingress and egress of prisoners, judges, witnesses, jurors and the like,” said Conner.
“I ride in the same elevators as the prisoners, the witnesses, the attorneys,” he said. “There is no segregation of judicial officers from the other participants. I’ve been in elevators with the family of somebody I’ve just sentenced, and it’s awkward and unsettling, probably for everyone.”
U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, a Republican who represents most of Harrisburg, said that he and his staff have “sought feedback from a wide array of sources,” including city officials, local business leaders, concerned citizens and the GSA. Congress will review the judiciary’s new plan when it’s released, he said.
“I believe that ensuring the proper administration of justice for our citizens is a core function of government,” Perry said. “Yet, with our nation facing a $17 trillion debt, Congress has a duty to ensure that taxpayer money is used efficiently.”
In January, Barletta told Pennlive/Patriot-News that the project could be done under a public-private partnership, in which businesses make a deal with government to shoulder a big share of the load in exchange for a profit. Still, it all goes back to a congressional appropriation, he told TheBurg.
“I do believe that public-private partnerships should more frequently be used for this type of project, but funding is still a big issue,” he said.
Nothing Firm
While federal officials ponder their next moves, the GSA is leading residents and the Papenfuse administration in considering how to make temporary use of the vacant space at 6th and Reily. Ideas that emerged from a meeting in May included dog park, community gardens, park and playing field, fitness area, bandshell/theater and open space.
Working with the GSA and the city, Friends of Midtown and today’s the day Harrisburg solicited opinions on the site’s interim use. Findings were to be shared with the GSA.
Under GSA guidelines, any use would have to be temporary and add little infrastructure, said Friends of Midtown Vice President and Treasurer Don Barnett.
“We’re trying to gauge what the community would like and what the community would use,” said Barnett.
Before his election, Mayor Eric Papenfuse was among the residents who fought for the 6th and Reily site. He remains interested in the talks about its temporary use, said spokesperson Joyce Davis.
“There have been some conversations at recent public meetings in which the mayor indicated he favored being able to let the land be used for community purposes, including some of it possibly being used for a dog park, but there is nothing firm or confirmed about these ideas,” Davis said.
