Cumberland County presents facilities master plan, finds aging buildings and need for 115,000 DGSF by 2043

Cumberland County commissioners heard a presentation on a newly completed facilities master plan that finds the county’s building stock is aging, spread across the region, and insufficient to meet projected service demands through 2043.

The consultants and county staff said the plan projects the county will need about 115,000 departmental gross square feet (DGSF) of additional space by 2043 and lays out a menu of options — from renovations and new construction to targeted leases and divestitures — for the board to consider.

The master plan, developed through interviews with every department head, staff and customer surveys, and a physical assessment of 14 county-owned buildings, produced three principal findings: many county facilities are functionally or structurally obsolete; services and offices are dispersed across multiple sites rather than collocated; and the county will need significantly more space as its population grows.

“We looked at our space needs through 2043,” said Kirk Stoner, a member of the project team, describing the plan’s time horizon and that the study intentionally presents multiple options rather than a single solution. Stoner said the plan relies on government-to-government space standards and departmental personnel projections to build the DGSF estimate.

Brent Durham, Cumberland County’s facilities management director, summarized the physical-condition assessment. “Forty-four percent of our square footage is in good condition, 35 percent is in fair condition, and then 21 percent is listed as poor or worse,” Durham said. Durham added the “fair” ratings mostly reflect aging mechanical systems installed during earlier energy upgrades and approaching the end of typical equipment lifecycles; two buildings scored in the “critical” category and have been under close review.

The planning process included a staff survey that received 374 responses and a customer/resident survey that received 469 responses, the presenters said. The consultant team used those responses, department interviews and benchmarks to create an inventory of existing conditions and to test alternatives for accommodating future needs.

County leaders told commissioners the county is already taking short-term steps to address space pressure while the board considers longer-range capital choices. Facilities staff described a three-phase interim program intended to free capacity for near-term needs: Phase 1 collocates the Office of Aging with the county’s mental health/developmental disabilities (MH/IDD) services at a county property listed in the plan as 1615 Ritenour Highway, creating roughly 7,800 square feet of space; Phase 2 moves adult probation to 1100 Claremont Road to consolidate probation operations; Phase 3 remains under development and will be discussed with specific departments before any public disclosures, staff said.

Durham said one county-owned building classified as critical is scheduled to be vacated in early spring; the county will then determine whether to renovate, sell or repurpose that property. The presenters emphasized that the plan’s long-term options — which the consultant team estimated could span about 17 years to implement and include roughly 20 candidate projects — are conceptual and require additional cost-benefit analysis.

Cost estimates in the plan vary widely. Presenters said project-level costs will depend on scope and timing, and the consultant’s range for individual projects runs from about $200,000 to over $200 million; the team noted their estimates include grossing factors for inflation and contingency. The plan also calls out current lease costs as a near-term budget pressure: staff cited roughly $714,624 for one five-year lease, $156,000 for a separate 3,255-square-foot lease over five years, and approximately $532,000 for another five-year library lease, and estimated about $1.6 million in total five-year lease costs for the specific leased spaces discussed — not including utilities.

Presenters noted constraints on possible sites: county code requires certain offices to remain in Carlisle Borough, so not all county-owned land would be suitable for courthouse- or court-related relocations. The plan’s discussion of siting also flagged parking considerations and downtown shared/structured parking as factors that could change the acreage needed for a new facility.

Commissioners asked about prior studies and the uniqueness of this plan. Staff said an in-house review was done around 2017–2018 but this is the county’s first comprehensive facilities master plan using external consultants and the current, department-level demand projections. The presenters also noted Cumberland County’s continued population growth — staff estimated current population near 275,000 and referenced projections that could take the county population above 300,000 by 2043 — as a driver of long-term facility needs, and identified likely growth areas such as Carlisle East and Southampton Township.

The team said some leased spaces lack ideal accessibility and security features; those concerns, combined with lease-expiration and ownership-change risk, inform whether the county should retain, renew, or consolidate leased offices. Staff reported lease language can protect the county’s occupancy rights if a leased property is sold, and that some current leases include renewal options.

Staff asked the board to treat the plan as the end of the analysis phase; commissioners were reminded that the county has not yet advanced to a formal roadmap or specific capital projects. The presenters committed to ongoing outreach: they will continue departmental discussions, meet with municipal leaders through 2026, and post the redacted plan, the presentation, and related materials on a newly created webpage: cumberlandcountypa.gov/fmp.

Votes at a glance

• Approval of minutes — The board approved the minutes of the Sept. 3 meeting by voice vote; the transcript records a motion, a second, and an affirmative voice vote. No roll-call tally with names was recorded in the meeting transcript.

What happens next

County staff said they will continue short-term moves to buy time (the interim projects), refine cost estimates and site options, continue department-level engagement, and present additional project updates at public meetings as the board defines a multi-year roadmap.