Luzerne County Council approves 10‑year lease for domestic relations office on Market Street amid objections over cost and procurement

Luzerne County Council approved a 10‑year lease for the county’s domestic relations office at a Market Street property owned by JDP Realty, voting to correct an error in the resolution and adopting the agreement after extended public comment and council debate.

Council members said the move will provide dedicated space outside the Burminski Building for domestic relations operations and that many renovation costs are accounted for in the lease. County administration said the state reimbursements that support the county’s child‑support program reduce the net cost to taxpayers.

Why it matters: Domestic relations handles sensitive family court matters and has argued it needs separate, secure space to reduce congestion in the main courthouse. Council members and residents pressed the county on whether the lease price represents fair market value and whether the county followed competitive procurement processes before negotiating the contract.

The county’s administration and the domestic relations director defended the site as well‑suited to program needs. "Based on our examination of the other properties... none of them met the specifications and the needs," County administration said during the meeting, adding the landlord agreed to remove an on‑site ATM and to shorten the initial term from 15 years to 10. Director of Domestic Relations Lisa Parati told council the state reimburses the county “at the rate of 66%,” and that build‑out costs are reflected in the monthly rent.

Opponents — including Council Member Brian Thornton and multiple members of the public — said the monthly cost is excessive and that the county should have issued a request for proposals (RFP) to create competition and protect taxpayers. "The lease price is way way too expensive. It doesn't reflect market values in the area," Thornton said during debate. Several public commenters and at least one council member cited comparable listings and expressed concern the county would pay for build‑out over the lease term and lose that investment if the county did not ultimately purchase the building.

Council also discussed other practical matters: parking availability, security features such as bullet‑resistant glass and locked PFA (protection from abuse) areas, and whether the site would see children as frequent visitors. The county said the property — a former bank — requires less renovation than other options and offers layout features helpful to court and domestic‑relations operations, including ample parking and an existing secure IT room. The administration said monthly utilities would remain the county’s responsibility but that many renovation and operational expenses can be submitted to the state for reimbursement.

The council amended the resolution to correct the spelled‑out monthly payment and adopted the amended resolution. On the final roll call the lease passed with six yes votes, three no votes and one abstention. Council recorded the no votes from Council Members Thornton, Krzhnowski and Liscavage; Council Member Lombardo abstained. The county will move forward with execution of the lease and proceed with state notifications and technical reviews required for reimbursement.

Council members said they expect the move to relieve space pressures in family court and to be coordinated with the state court system’s IT and security requirements. The county manager and domestic relations staff said they will continue to answer follow‑up questions about cost details, reimbursement practices and the scope of build‑out that the landlord will perform.

The vote was procedural approval of the lease agreement; no purchase or additional capital appropriation was approved during the session.