Coryell County leaders outline five‑phase facilities plan and possible bond to restore courthouse

Coryell County officials outlined a five‑phase facilities plan that would build a new county annex, move many customer‑facing services out of the courthouse, restore the historic courthouse and sell or repurpose several surplus properties.

The plan aims to consolidate many county services in a new 50,000–60,000 square‑foot annex, move functions out of the courthouse while restoration work proceeds, then return selected functions to the restored courthouse. Architects’ most recent estimate for a full courthouse restoration ranged between $12 million and $18 million, and officials said up to $10 million of that could be eligible from the state; the remaining local share would require voter approval of a bond, potentially put to voters in May 2026.

The proposal grew out of a county study and prior work with architect teams; county staff summarized five phases that would begin with modest reconfigurations already completed and progress to construction of a new annex and courthouse restoration. If the sequence were followed, officials said, as many as four county‑owned buildings could be sold or one demolished to create additional parking and reduce ongoing maintenance and operating costs.

County staff told the court the plan assumes a new annex would be sited on county‑owned land near Bridge Street and would free space in the courthouse and other buildings. The county’s current real‑estate inventory and prior RBDR study were cited as bases for the 50–60,000 square foot annex magnitude and the phasing sequence.

Court members discussed funding mechanics, timelines and grant windows. Officials said a submission to the Texas Historical Commission for the courthouse restoration was planned for the summer; if the commission approves the project concept, a planning grant opening could provide money for construction documents. The court discussed presenting a conceptual plan and cost estimates to the public before committing to bond financing.

Court members emphasized the need for unified messaging, public town halls and internal alignment before taking a bond to voters. They also noted that a multi‑phase approach could reduce the total operating costs of maintaining more than a dozen county buildings and put three or more buildings back on the tax roll.

County leaders directed staff to pursue concept drawings and cost estimates so the court could refine a five‑year to 15‑year schedule for budgeting and voter outreach. No formal motion or vote was taken during the workshop; court members said they did not believe a formal action was required to prepare conceptual plans and that drawings could be iterated with stakeholders.

The courthouse restoration and annex plan remains a concept the court intends to refine. Next steps the court discussed included updating cost estimates with architects, pursuing applicable grant opportunities through the Texas Historical Commission, hosting public meetings to explain tradeoffs and preparing material for possible inclusion in a bond package to be considered by voters.