Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Courthouse Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architects present two courthouse options; county seeks cost and court-use data before deciding
Summary
NCA Architects presented two competing schemes for the Grant County courthouse on May 6 — a roughly 14,000-square-foot renovation with a 4,000-square-foot addition, or a new courthouse built on the detention-center site — and said independent cost estimates and 50% design drawings will be delivered this summer.
NCA Architects presented two competing schemes for the Grant County courthouse on May 6: a renovation of the historic courthouse with a roughly 4,000-square-foot addition, and a new courthouse situated on the site of the existing detention center.
Architect Bob Calvani described the options and told the board the ‘‘programs are the same, whether it’s in the existing courthouse or the new courthouse’’ — meaning the number and type of courtrooms, public circulation and secure inmate handling would be similar in either scheme. Architect Tom Wilbur said the renovation scheme involves about 14,000 square feet of work inside the building plus a 4,000-square-foot addition for entry and inmate circulation; the new‑construction scheme would allow more flexibility on circulation and security and make it easier to separate public, staff and inmate flows.
The presentation emphasized security design: both schemes aim to maintain strict separation among public, staff and inmate circulation and provide a sally port and dedicated inmate elevator. Wilbur showed a plan that stacks holding cells vertically with secure vertical inmate circulation to limit cross‑traffic, and he described attorney visitation space that allows attorney access from the public side without exposing inmate circulation.
Cost and schedule: The architects said they will deliver design development drawings and outside cost estimates by late summer; Calvani offered a high‑level estimate for new construction of “around $800 a foot” while cautioning final numbers will depend on market conditions and the completed 50% design. The team said design development work will include structural, mechanical and electrical engineering and that the full deliverables are expected in August with a final presentation in October.
Commissioners asked operational questions: Commissioner Stevens asked how jury and civil-trial volumes affect design decisions and whether the sheriff’s transport and detention staff had been consulted about the number and configuration of holding cells. The detention‑center director said he has not yet been fully involved in the designs and asked to be included; he noted typical Monday transports can range from six to as many as 18 inmates and requested the sally port and circulation be sized accordingly.
Historic preservation and reuse: Commissioners and architects discussed the historic value of the existing courthouse and possible reuse options if a new courthouse is built. The architects said preserving the building’s exterior and window pattern guided the renovation design and that if the courts vacate the historic building the county could pursue alternative tenants or county uses that would preserve the building’s appearance.
What was decided: The presentation provided detailed comparative designs and a plan to produce 50% design documents and independent cost estimates; no selection or binding decision was made at the meeting. The project team and county staff said they will return with completed design development drawings and cost estimates this summer to support a formal project decision.
Next steps: Architects will complete the 50% design development package and engage an outside estimator; the team expects to present those materials to the board in August and deliver a final presentation in October.
