Gonzales County commissioners approve annex renovation plan, authorize fire‑suppression ASR

Gonzales County Commissioners Court on Monday voted to proceed with renovating the county annex rather than building a new structure, after a presentation from John Duke of CPM that compared renovation and new‑build options and outlined costs, redesign expenses and grant timing.

John Duke, project manager with CPM, told the court the renovation scenario has a total estimated cost of about $11,060,000, “which covers construction, professional services, contingencies, and allowances,” and said that renovating the annex would allow the annex to be completed by mid‑2026 so the courthouse renovation could begin in late 2026. Duke said new‑build options — a 25,000‑square‑foot single‑story option estimated at about $14.5 million and a roughly 50,000‑square‑foot two‑story option estimated at about $24.16–24.5 million — would likely push completion into 2027 and risk missing the Texas Historical Commission (THC) biennium grant window.

The discussion centered on balancing project cost, schedule and grant eligibility. Duke said the county has spent approximately $190,000 on design for the renovation scenario and that switching to a new build would add roughly $750,000 in redesign costs for civil, geotechnical and related services. He also recommended adding a fire‑suppression system to reduce constructability complications from required fire‑rated partitions.

Judge Davis and several commissioners asked about the annex foundation, roof condition and parking. Duke said structural review so far indicates the existing foundation is acceptable for the renovation option and that WJE, the structural engineer, has reviewed the tilt‑wall panels. Duke said the renovation budget includes roof repairs and that the roof work completed in 2019 carries a 20‑year warranty; later in the meeting staff estimated that membrane work installed then cost roughly $116,443 (transcript reference). Commissioners pressed for clarity on warranties and the potential cost if a full roof replacement were necessary; CPM said an entire roof replacement would likely be well below $1 million and that manufacturer warranties and certified installers would be used to preserve warranty coverage.

After discussion, Commissioner motioned to “proceed with option 1,” the renovation scenario, move forward with the schedule and procurement steps outlined by CPM (including issuing an RFQP for a construction manager at‑risk and selective demolition bidding once construction documents are finalized), and to gather funding‑option details. The court approved that motion.

The court also considered an additional‑services request (ASR) to incorporate a fire‑suppression (sprinkler) system in the annex design. CPM and staff said the sprinkler system itself was estimated at roughly $50,000, but the exact delta for constructability savings was not quantified in the meeting. The court approved the ASR motion “not to exceed $30,000.”

Commissioners directed staff to continue work so the February schedule milestones (construction documents and issuing the RFQP) could be met if the court proceeds with the renovation path. CPM noted the hazardous‑materials assessment and selective demolition work were underway and that staying on the renovation timeline was the best way to preserve eligibility for THC grant funding and avoid a multi‑year slip.

The court voted unanimously to proceed with the renovation plan and approved the ASR as recorded. Further funding work — including analysis of bond versus loan options and internal funding capacity — was directed to staff and the county auditor for follow up.

The court’s actions keep the county aligned with CPM’s timeline that targets annex completion by mid‑2026 and a courthouse renovation start in late 2026 under the renovation scenario.