Grant County weighs renovating historic courthouse or building new $35M judicial campus

Grant County officials reviewed two design options on Oct. 9 for the district courthouse: renovating the existing historic courthouse with a west-side addition, or demolishing an existing detention center and building a new judicial campus on the same site.

Architect Tom Wilbur of NCA Architects presented design-development drawings and construction-only estimates. “That total came out to $19,000,923 or $727.34 a square foot” for the renovation and addition, he said. For a new building he gave a construction estimate of about $35,000,000, or $893.58 per square foot.

The renovation option would require the historic courthouse to be fully vacated during construction. Wilbur said the county would likely need 18 months of temporary facilities for courts and affected staff: “the existing building cannot be occupied at all during construction.” He described design constraints in a renovation: historic-preservation limits on changes to the east elevation, meeting Americans with Disabilities Act and modern fire and building codes, and challenges fitting program spaces into irregular, older layouts.

Wilbur described the new-build option as simpler from a code and circulation standpoint: a new facility could fully separate inmate, public and staff traffic and provide modern security and accessibility without retrofits. “In a new building we could totally separate inmate traffic, public traffic and staff traffic 100%,” he said, while noting the higher price.

Chief Judge Jared Hovac, chief judge of the Sixth Judicial District, told the commission the judiciary favors features that reduce risk to judges, courtroom participants and victims in highly contested family-law and civil matters. Hovac said the most serious safety incidents in state courts over the past two decades have typically come from cases where both parties are free and must pass through shared circulation. He urged commissioners to consider circulation and public access carefully.

Commissioners and staff discussed next steps. County staff and the architects agreed to assemble a “master budget” that includes items not in the construction-only estimates (design fees, surveys, permits, furniture, security equipment, testing, contingencies and escalation). County staff committed to present that master budget at the November meeting so the board could consider a funding decision before the upcoming legislative session.

Commissioners debated tradeoffs in public use and historic preservation. Some commissioners said a new building would likely save taxpayers money over the long term by reducing maintenance and operational costs; others emphasized the community value of the historic courthouse and urged that any future reuse include strict rental rules to preserve its character.

No formal vote was taken Oct. 9. The board directed staff to prepare a detailed master budget and to return to the board for consideration. County staff said they would aim to include the item on the November agenda.

Clarifying details reported at the meeting: the renovation estimate included a 4% escalation and a contingency (Wilbur noted contingency is important for unforeseen conditions); the renovation plan listed 9,968 sq. ft. of renovation plus 3,602 sq. ft. of addition on the first level; the new-building scheme listed 18,720 sq. ft. on its first level and 17,495 sq. ft. on the second. Wilbur and others said additional professional fees (architect/engineering), construction management, security systems, furniture, special testing and potential asbestos abatement were not included in the construction-only figures and would be itemized in the master budget.

The presentation included discussion of a potential state funding match. Judge Hovac said the state judiciary has a precedent of offering matching funds to counties (he said the legislature previously authorized $20 million to partner with counties and later added $10 million to that fund) and that the Supreme Court leadership has indicated willingness to assist in pursuing a match; he also cautioned that legislative support typically requires a county commitment to a specific project.

The county manager and architects will prepare the master budget and related materials for the board’s review at an upcoming meeting, with staff indicating the goal of placing the item on the November agenda.