Martinsville officials weigh four options to upgrade City Hall, architects to return with two detailed cost estimates

Architects presented four schematic options for addressing space and condition problems at Martinsville City Hall at a public workshop, and the City Council and residents pressed for tighter cost estimates and clearer scope before deciding whether to repair and expand the existing building or build a new facility.

Andy Hine, a principal with Art Design, opened the presentation by describing constraints that affect the project, including the building’s location inside the City of Martinsville Historic Downtown District and the city’s preservation ordinance. “It can get to be very, very expensive very quickly,” Hine said, describing the risk that removing finishes will reveal larger mechanical, electrical and structural work.

The architects—Hine, Jen Voigt and Jess Miller—laid out four schematic approaches: 1) a “light-touch” renovation of existing City Hall paired with a new 5,000‑square‑foot (presenters later used 4,000 sq ft in places) municipal building nearby with shell space for future expansion; 2) a new two‑story addition built in place of the firehouse bay while keeping the historic City Hall portion; 3) a deeper structural renovation and addition that preserves the historic façade and connects more fully to a new wing; and 4) a smaller‑footprint addition with a third level option and stabilized firehouse bay. The presenters emphasized that the final plan would likely be a hybrid of the four scenarios.

On costs, the architects said the projected construction contract for their baseline option would be roughly $5.5 million and the total project cost about $6.7 million, which includes approximately $1.2 million in soft costs such as furnishings, technology and state review fees. They also said contingency and escalation assumptions are included in their estimates and that renovation contingency typically runs higher than new‑building contingency because of unknowns.

Residents and local stakeholders spoke during the public comment portion. Rick Durnall, a member of the City Plan Commission speaking as a citizen, quoted the city’s comprehensive plan to stress preservation: “The National Register of Historic Places is the official listing of the nation's historic places worthy of preservation.” Several speakers urged retention of the historic portions of the building and recommended a hybrid approach that preserves key historic features while replacing or rebuilding structurally deficient sections.

Beverly Yard, a longtime preservation advocate, told the council that the building’s woodwork and original materials are part of Martinsville’s character. Rod Stafford, who has family ties to the fire department, said the firehouse end shows more structural movement and favored taking a hybrid approach that preserves the best parts and replaces the worst. Local contractor Joe Hagans said he supports option 2 and suggested local contractors could lower costs versus out‑of‑town firms.

City staff and council members pressed for clearer, comparable numbers. Council members asked the architects to return with two definitional price sets: (A) a new facility built to the same programmatic square footage as the presented options (including cellar/shell and a possible third floor) and (B) a heavy renovation estimate for the existing City Hall that separates “systemic” work (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural) from a second number showing costs for finish‑level reconfiguration of occupied spaces on the first floor. The architects agreed to return with updated figures and clarified scopes within roughly a month.

Speakers repeatedly noted the project’s dependencies: because the building sits inside the historic district, local ordinance requirements apply; if state or federal funding is later added, additional preservation and review requirements would apply and could increase complexity. Presenters also stressed that taking any work beyond cosmetic finishes risks “pulling on the sweater” and uncovering substantial additional scope and cost.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the workshop. Council members directed staff and the architects to refine scope and cost estimates and to meet with department stakeholders (clerk, utilities, police dispatch and others) to define programmatic needs before issuing bids or final design instructions.

The next steps recorded at the end of the meeting: the architects will return with the two requested cost sets (new‑building vs. heavy renovation + reconfiguration), a clarified square‑footage program tied to the council’s preferences, and a recommended procurement approach (design‑bid‑build, design‑build or construction manager) so the council can compare apples‑to‑apples costs.

If the council chooses renovation rather than a new building, presenters warned there is a higher likelihood of unknowns arising during construction and that contingency allowances will need to account for those risks.