Black Hawk County supervisors review options to redevelop Second Floor administrative wing

Design consultants presented preliminary layouts for redevelopment of the Black Hawk County Courthouse Second Floor on Sept. 4, and supervisors directed staff to expand schematic options to include the basement and the county engineer’s area while staff await an inspection report on an off-site property.

The meeting, held as a work session, opened a conversation among supervisors, county staff and the design team about whether to renovate the existing Second Floor offices, relocate the county attorney or other departments, or pursue use of an off-site building (referred to during the meeting as the Longfellow option). The presentation emphasized preliminary “test-fit” layouts, potential phasing (with the IT server move first), and trade-offs tied to mechanical/infrastructure work and budget impacts.

Why it matters: The review addresses workspace shortages for finance and board staff, public-facing customer flow near passport and recorder services, and security and daylighting concerns for employees who spend substantial time in their offices. Supervisors said those priorities — staff access to natural light, secure reception, and preserving confidential access to HR — should guide the design scope and any department moves.

Most of the discussion was exploratory. Consultants said the drawings shown were preliminary test fits, not final designs, and that final scope and fees depend on which options the board wants studied. The design team said IT’s recently completed server room on the west hallway provides an opportunity to reallocate space across the hall if IT relocates there.

Supervisors and staff identified several possible moves and considerations: whether county attorneys could occupy the board wing (which would require taking the current meeting room), whether HR should remain separate from the board office for confidentiality, and whether the recorder’s office could be relocated into the engineer’s current space to reduce passport-area congestion at the elevator. Staff said the engineer’s area is smaller and may not accommodate all uses without additional reconfiguration.

Security and public access were recurring concerns. One supervisor said the reception area should have a counter or barrier rather than an open lobby, and staff emphasized the need to avoid placing HR in a highly visible location so employees can access services privately.

Staff reported a pending inspection of an off-site property that could be a relocation option for the county attorney; the consultants said that inspection report was completed and that written findings would be prepared. Consultants told the board the inspection write-up would be provided and that they would attach preliminary dollar estimates to the findings. Supervisors agreed to reconvene on the project in mid-November after the county has the inspection results and more information about engineer/attorney space availability.

Next steps and direction given at the meeting included: (1) include the basement and engineer-space test fits in the schematic-design phase, (2) perform a quick space program/test fit for the engineer’s building to see whether board/finance can be accommodated there, (3) prepare a draft, as-needed agreement so the county can authorize limited design work before final scope is set, and (4) return with refined options and cost ranges in mid-November. Consultants said IT-first phasing is likely if the board pursues work on the Second Floor.

Votes and formal actions at the start of the session were limited. The agenda was adopted at the start of the meeting; the motion carried on an oral unanimous vote.

Laurie Wormers, the board’s administrative aide, asked the group to consider how passport traffic and elevator noise affect the board office and meeting rooms. “With the proximity of the board office being right by passports, which generates a lot of traffic … maybe that could be a conversation of kind of utilizing sound and traffic, whether it interferes with business that might occur over to the board of supervisors,” Wormers said.

Budget and timing: Consultants and staff said many decisions could come down to dollars tied to mechanical and infrastructure changes. One supervisor noted a potential $6,000,000 line tied to a construction plan for an off-site facility and said financing choices (including property taxes or a local option sales tax) would affect timing. Consultants estimated the larger repositioning and any off-site moves would play out over multiple years; supervisors agreed mid-November is a checkpoint for next steps based on pending inspection results.

The work session did not include final design approvals or ordinance-level actions. Staff and the consultants said they would prepare the requested test fits and a draft as-needed agreement, then return to the board with updated options and cost estimates by the mid-November follow-up.