Committee members noted that the draft master plan’s facilities and law-enforcement sections mention the jail and crime lab but omit the county courthouse. Several members said the courthouse has been a recurring public issue and that the master plan should at least reference county-owned facilities and the need for maintenance or replacement planning.

Members discussed where such language should go; suggestions included adding a sentence under law enforcement or a separate facilities subsection noting that the county should maintain and plan for county-owned buildings (including the courthouse) and that potential funding sources for facility upgrades (bonds, other county financing tools) be discussed where appropriate. One member observed the county owns courthouse buildings but does not manage judicial functions conducted inside them and that language should distinguish ownership and operational roles where relevant.

The committee asked staff to add brief, factual references to the courthouse in the facilities chapter and to return a suggested paragraph or subsection that summarizes county facility responsibilities and possible maintenance or replacement options.

Ending: Staff to return suggested language referencing the courthouse and county facility-maintenance considerations as part of the committee’s package of recommended revisions.