Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
King George boards agree to feasibility studies for old courthouse, vocational center and shared storage
Summary
At a joint work session, county and school officials agreed to commission outside feasibility work to evaluate repurposing the vacant old courthouse, renovating the VOTEC (vocational) building and creating a shared storage facility; the boards also signaled intent to vacate the current school board office pending those studies.
King George County officials and the school division agreed at a joint meeting to hire outside architects and consultants to study whether the county can repurpose the vacant old courthouse, renovate the county/school vocational (VOTEC) building, and develop a centralized storage site as a shared resource for county and school operations.
County Administrator Matthew Smolnick said, “we felt this was an important topic to to put in front of both boards,” and outlined several near-term needs, including an upcoming site plan behind the sheriff’s building, temporary uses for the old courthouse and a suite of facility requests coming through the capital improvements program (CIP). Dr. Jesse Boyd, speaking for the school board, said a shared, county–school vision would “help us focus our efforts” and make operations more efficient.
Why it matters: the county and school division face multiple facility pressures at once — a vacant courthouse building across from the administration hub, a passed school referendum for a new school, limited storage distributed across aging properties, and reported hazardous materials and structural concerns in older school buildings. Those pressures affect near‑term CIP decisions, the use of fund balance and the timetable for any future school construction.
What the boards discussed and decided: participants described three principal projects: - Old courthouse: the building is described in discussion as roughly 21,000 square feet and currently vacant; speakers noted prior studies and differing estimates about repair scope and cost. School and supervisor members repeatedly urged an independent feasibility/structural/abatement study to resolve conflicting views on how much work would be required to adapt the courthouse for office use. Several supervisors said prior estimates for bringing the school board office up to acceptable condition totaled about $1.8 million; others said more extensive work (and higher cost) might be required. The boards agreed to commission a feasibility study that will include structural assessment, hazardous‑materials testing and a cost estimate for renovation or add‑on options. - VOTEC (vocational) building: Dr. Boyd said the vocational building (constructed 1968; used intermittently since 2008) must be cleared for hazardous materials before reuse. A hazardous‑materials study was scheduled by staff to be completed on the 12th (date in transcript); Dr. Boyd said three architecture firms had been contacted (Moseley and RRMM among them) and that feasibility reports are expected. If abatement is required, the school side said the project would likely be phased. - Shared storage: the school board has requested $1,500,000 in the CIP for a storage facility. Both county and school officials described an immediate need to move supplies now stored in multiple aging buildings (including the old middle school and Bowtech building) into a climate‑controlled, centralized facility to prevent losses from leaks, mold and unsuitable storage conditions.
Obstacles and differing views: supervisors and school officials voiced contrasting assessments about how much of the courthouse can be saved, how much repair is required and whether the county’s engineering staff can perform the work or whether outside architects are needed. Several supervisors argued existing roof and water problems have been reduced by recent drainage work and that needed repairs could be modest; others described collapsed ceiling tiles and longstanding deferred maintenance that could push costs much higher.
Next steps: the boards agreed to move forward with outside feasibility work. County staff said they would solicit proposals and expected turnaround times of roughly three to four months depending on firm schedules. Staff were directed to include: structural evaluation, hazardous‑materials testing results, realistic cost estimates for renovation and options for adding space to create the “central hub” both bodies described. Dr. Boyd said school program requirements (for example, power and layout needs for different vocational tracks) will be provided to architects to shape design options.
The meeting recorded no formal appropriation; rather, both boards authorized staff to proceed with feasibility procurement and to return findings for decision by the governing bodies.
