An aerial view of Chenango County government facilities, including courthouse, department of social services, and office building. (Photo from Chenango County government website)

NORWICH – A plan by the Chenango County Board of Supervisors to construct a new $35 million office building has been met with local opposition from a community that questions the project’s necessity and cost in the current economic climate. In spite of officials’ actions moving forward with the project, local leaders are facing a rising tide of public dissent, with many residents demanding a halt to the project and more transparent use of taxpayer money.

Now county officials are trying to address local concerns and clarify information concerning the multi-million dollar proposal, laying out their case to move ahead with the project while opponents continue to push back.

Board of Supervisors Chair Jeffrey Blanchard and County Treasurer Bill Craine shared their rationale in a recent interview, while Norwich resident and proprietor Missy Hayes, a steadfast critic of the new office building proposal, voiced opposition. Hayes has led a charge of online efforts across social media platforms encouraging county residents to question the timing and logic behind the project and demand more transparency from county leaders. 

Background

The county assembled an ad hoc committee in 2024 to explore the feasibility of a new building project. In May 2025, a $1.7 million contract agreement was signed with Hunt Engineers, Architects, and Surveyors of Horseheads, NY; and in June, the county board approved the same amount in bonds to cover costs of planning and specifications of the project. Two weeks ago, the county signed a $1.5 million contract with the construction management and consultation company LeChase Construction of Binghamton.

The Chenango County Board of Supervisors have since undergone fire from their constituency, some who argue that the board is ignoring actual needs of the community while concealing information on the multi-million dollar project proposal.

Rationale and Planning

The discussion over an office building overhaul has been in the works for nearly seven years, although plans of demolishing the county’s current office building and constructing a new facility have only recently been entertained by county legislators. According to county officials, the current 1960-era office building may be structurally sound, but it simply isn’t conducive to modern business and meeting demands of today’s technology. Among their concerns, the building has dated electrical and windows, a waning roof and airflow system, and a partial floor below ground level with limited space which makes it near impossible to install an elevator for easier access to public offices.

More alarming, said County Board Chairman Jeffrey Blanchard, the building contains asbestos in the ceiling which covers duct work and wiring, making it impossible for necessary upgrades without presenting some health risk to county employees. Engineering reports suggest any future large-scale roofing project would likely shake that asbestos loose.

“It’s very important to us that we protect our employees as well as the public coming in,” Blanchard said. “We don’t want a catastrophic failure that causes us to close the building. Our understanding from this engineering firm is that we're on a short time clock as to having to do something major up there (on the roof).”

The County Board of Supervisors initiated a building study back in 2019 from Barton and Loguidice, a multidisciplinary consulting firm that provides planning and engineering to public and private clients. The firm’s study found reasons for extensive renovations in the 1960 wing, including dated electric, windows, and airflow system. Engineers also recommended removal of spray-on asbestos in the ceiling that was originally added for fire protection.

Legislators pondered the idea of an office building overhaul when the 2019 report was first released, estimating at the time that costs to upgrade the existing facility would approach $10 million while a new building would be upwards of $26 million. But talks over modifications came to a halt during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic and weren’t started again until 2024. Escalating expenses, such as the cost of materials and labor, have inflated the price roughly $9 million since then.

When numbers were tallied, the county found the cost of renovating the 1960’s wing of the office building was 70-75 percent the cost of building new, and a proposal was put in motion to raze the 1960’s wing and build a new facility that will connect to the 1991 wing on the north side of the building. The plan is to construct the new building in front of the old one, move departments to the new building when it’s finished, then demolish the old facility. Blanchard said the plan aligns with recommendations offered by engineers.

“All the engineering studies tell us that if you approach that 70 percent mark, it might be better to build new,” said Blanchard.

Even so, the project has been criticized by locals who argue that a new building isn’t a viable use of taxpayer money. The 2019 Barton and Loguidice report highlights existing hazards of the nearly 70 year old building, but engineers found no fault in its structural integrity, supporting the argument that the county should fix what they have in order to “live in their means,” as said by Norwich City Supervisor Robert Jeffrey. Jeffrey has voted against three separate resolutions designed to move the project forward. In fact, the project has consistently received little to no support from Jeffrey or from supervisors representing the towns of New Berlin, Plymouth, Preston, Smyrna, Columbus, and German.

“It really seems like the county is sending mixed messages,” said Missy Hayes, an outspoken Norwich resident who’s leading a charge across social media platforms for more transparency and fiscal responsibility from the county board.

Hayes has taken to social media platforms like Facebook with a letter template for individuals to use when writing to their local county representatives, demanding a public hearing on the building project.

“They raised taxes last year, they're implying they'll do it again this year, they want to build a $35 million building next year despite the need to raise taxes (which will be more like $60 mil with interest and no guarantee on federal funds), they don't take care of their buildings and equipment and allow their employees to work in poor conditions, transportation for county residents isn't a priority, and apparently transparency and fiscal responsibility is also not a priority.”

Financial Impact

Even if the county moved on repairing the existing office space, the cost of doing so would be a hard financial hit. The 2019 Barton and Loguidice report estimates that asbestos removal, roof repairs, and updates to the building’s electrical and windows would range between 70 and 75 percent the cost of building new. Add in the millions needed to invest during renovations for the temporary relocation of county departments, furniture, and tech equipment – plus the added cost of security enhancements at temporary locations – then that figure jumps closer to 85-90 percent the cost of a new facility. And it still wouldn’t fix the issue of having one floor partially below ground level, said Blanchard.

That in mind, the county has a financial game plan as it plugs ahead with the $35 million building proposal, with guaranteed off ramps should the cost of the project exceed projections. Construction is by far the biggest cost, followed by ancillary services such as paving, landscaping, and furnishing the new facility. County officials are currently working with Hunt Engineering to get an adjusted cost of construction materials with today's pricing, and that may inflate the 70 percent figure; but $35 million remains a “hard stop,” says Chenango County Treasurer Bill Craine.

“If in two or three months from now, we get feedback that it’s likely to be a $45 million project, we can leave,” said Craine, noting that the county’s $1.5 million contract with LeChase Construction requires regular billing after each stage of the project. It keeps county officials informed of accumulating costs of materials, he added. Each bill received is another chance for the County Board of Supervisors to walk away. “We won’t spend all $1.7 million and we’ll have to start planning again. Or we can go to bids and find out that that’s too much.”

The project hinges on a federal funding program that reimburses counties for the use of office space to operate federal services. Like most counties across the U.S., Chenango County benefits from a "maintenance in lieu of rent” agreement which shells out money for maintenance of county-owned facilities that are used for federal and state services, such as the DMV and the Department of Social Services. Chenango County already receives maintenance in lieu of rent for the department of social services building on Court Street, and officials tapped into the program nearly 35 years ago to help pay for the 1991 wing of the county office building.

Federal reimbursements would apply whether the county moves forward with a new building, or if they choose to renovate current space and relocate the social services department. The Chenango County Treasurer’s Office anticipates that federal reimbursements on a new facility will pay the roughly $16 million interest on borrowed capital, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the $35 million principal construction costs without incurring additional debt. Craine also pointed to financial trends between 2022 and 2024 that suggest interest rates will fall by the time the county is issued a bond. This means the project could be financed at 3.5 percent instead of the current estimate of 4.5 percent, Crain said. 

But critics say the maintenance in lieu of rent agreement, which has been in place for the last 50 years, isn’t a guarantee in today’s political climate, and that has some supervisors on edge.

“A lot of this project depends on federal reimbursement of $35 million. The only reason we say it’s going to happen is because it’s happened before, which to me is not a good argument,” Smyrna Supervisor Michael Khoury said at the August meeting of the Chenango County Board of Supervisors.

“We have it in our budget to pay about $1.7 million per year without having any effect on the tax cap in the first year we do that,” said Craine, adding that the proposal will have zero effect on the 2026 tax levy. “I’m highly confident that we’ll have a maintenance in lieu of rent program. I’m highly confident that we’ll collect the money as we always have. And I’m confident that we can have $1.7 million a year to make those payments. That’s why $35 million is a hard stop for us.”

The county has yet to borrow any money for the proposed building project – or even make a formal decision to bring it to fruition – but resolutions passed in recent months put the Chenango County Board of Supervisors in a position to move forward should that decision be made in the near future.

In contrast, opponents of the building project have argued that the county could be good financial stewards by leasing space elsewhere. Only some of the county-run departments are lawfully required to stay within the City of Norwich, the county seat. Leasing commercial space would provide necessary room for departments to adequately function while also keeping property on the local tax rolls. But that idea, says Blanchard, comes with its own challenges.

“I really believe that we need a place for our departments to work together. The general public that comes in has to do business with more than one department, and having them all around the city is going to be an issue. Some say it’s not too big an issue, but I think it is much better for the public to come to one spot.”

“Security would be an issue too,” Craine said, noting that it costs the county about $150,000 per year for security at one point of entry. “If we lease five different locations at $150,000 for security at each one over 25 years, it could be nearly 20 million on security alone. I believe there’s a better use for that money.” 

Even so, critics say the building project is a mismanagement of resources for a county where, according to a report from the New York State Comptroller, 31 percent of the population is eligible for Medicaid. Taxpayers, like Hayes, say a tax increase to pay for a new facility is unwarranted, and the county should turn its attention to other matters.

“Supervisors felt they needed to go over the state tax cap last year and are requesting the ability to do it again this year. Supervisors are not properly overseeing/managing buildings, equipment and employees at the highway dept,” Hayes said. “Yet, sales tax is up and the Supervisors seem to think the economic climate in Chenango County is good enough to start planning for a $35 million office building.”

Transparency and Public Process

Perhaps the biggest criticism county officials currently face is on the issue of transparency. Several residents have voiced concerns on social media and in front of the county board that the new building proposal was entertained behind closed doors. Residents like Missy Hayes are now calling on the board to be more explicit.

“Transparency is required and expected from elected officials,” said Hayes, who accused county leaders of being “secretive” during a recent public hearing on the county’s proposal to override the 2026 tax cap. 

“Where is the transparency?” Hayes asked.

Although Blanchard said meeting minutes of his ad hoc building committee haven’t been made available on the county’s website until recently, he cited past meeting minutes from the county’s Ag, Buildings and Grounds Committee, as well as the Board of Supervisors, that allude to the newly formed committee, including who’s on it and when it meets. Those records have been widely available on the county’s website for months.

The county’s now exploring the possibility of a separate website devoted entirely to the building project in an effort to increase transparency, said Blanchard. Unlike the county’s official website, which details information across every county-run department, the new site would be more streamlined and contain only information on the office building project.

“We’re trying to figure out how it would look and how we would do it. What I don’t want is to get into a situation where we’re arguing back and forth on social media. That’s not helpful for anybody,” said Blanchard. “It’s certainly not our desire to hide information.”

A town hall-style meeting is also likely to take place in the future, he said; but he wants to wait until engineers have a more accurate depiction of the scope and cost of the building project. Officials are aiming to have an informational presentation for the community by next spring.

The office building and the county garage

When news broke that county officials are moving ahead with plans to construct a $35 million office building, photos began circulating online of the decrepit Chenango County Department of Public Works (DPW) facility. The pictures show decaying bricks and mortar, broken garage doors, mold on the ceiling tiles caused by a leaking roof, and moldy debris on the floor. In addition to outcries over a new office building, several residents spoke out about conditions at the DPW, arguing that the county should instead invest in repairs to existing facilities.

“That is in the works. We certainly want to do something there,” said Blanchard, noting that many of the concerns generated by those photos have already been addressed. The roof has been repaired and DPW heads will talk with specialists this week about having black mold removed. Still, he said the county has sights on moving the DPW to a new location in the future.

“We can’t keep it where it is because of the river. That isn’t the right place for it today,” Blanchard said. “We have looked at places. We haven’t found anything that is for sale at this point. We have to find someone willing to sell us a piece of property that might work for us. Once we get that piece of property, there’s going to be certainly a lot of site work that we’ll want to do in house with our DPW to keep costs down.”

The count is on the lookout for 10-12 acres of land that could house a new DPW facility. Unlike the office building project, however, county officials plan to mostly pay out of pocket for a new DPW facility.

“One of the reasons we try to keep our surplus number at about $30 million is because we can take $10 million of that and use it on a building like this,” Craine said, adding that a new DPW facility would come with an estimated $20 million price tag without grant money available. “We would have half the money in the bank and if we could accumulate extra between now and then, we would do that.”

If the county finds a suitable place to relocate the DPW, it would raze the current facility and offer the land to the City of Norwich at no cost.