Oldham County hears architects’ plan for new police headquarters at Crestwood

Oldham County officials reviewed schematic designs for a new county police headquarters and training center during a special Fiscal Court meeting, where architects said the plan would renovate part of the existing Crestwood range building and add a single-story 23,188-square-foot addition to consolidate multiple police functions.

Judge Executive David Vogel opened the presentation by saying a new headquarters “will be a significant investment in public safety” and urged a long-lived design: “I believe we need an attractive, well thought out, weather resistant building designed for 50 years or more.”

Architects from JKS Architecture said the proposal responds to crowding, evidence-storage limits and operational needs at the county’s current facilities. JKS representatives Keith Sharp and design architect Josh Vernon described a plan that keeps the range and much of the existing training space while adding a new, essential-facility-compliant wing to house administration, patrol, criminal investigations, evidence processing and secured vehicle storage.

Why it matters: County officials told the architects the department is spread across several locations—headquarters, a separate CID building, an off-site impound/storage area and the firing range—and the proposed project would assemble most functions on one Crestwood campus. Architects said the design aims to improve secure evidence handling, provide interview rooms for victims and children, add a sally port and on-site impound storage, and create a training hub that could generate revenue when other agencies rent range and tactical-training space.

What the plan proposes: JKS showed a site layout oriented to create a public entry from Veterans Memorial Parkway and separate, gated access for patrol vehicles and the impound yard. The existing range building would be used primarily for training; the addition to the north would contain the essential-facility-rated components (administration, patrol, evidence, criminal investigations). Key program elements architects listed: - public lobby and records-processing area designed for secure public access to records and body-camera review; - administration with offices for the chief and majors plus a small conference room; - criminal-investigations wing with six detective offices, child-appropriate interview rooms and a main conference room; - patrol area with an officer work center, six sergeant offices and a flexible training/patrol room with movable partitions; - evidence processing, expanded secure storage (with rolling high-density systems), dedicated firearm and electronics storage, and a larger automobile evidence/bay area; - a range and training division that keeps long- and short-range firing lanes and reserves indoor space for a future tactical “house” or virtual training.

Cost and schedule details: JKS provided a high-level probable-cost estimate and schedule. Keith Sharp summarized market sources and recommended figures: “The probable cost range is between $595 and $685 per square foot. . . . the value that we’re using in our budget analysis is $650 per square foot.” He gave an overall probable project range of roughly $24,000,000–$27,000,000 including soft costs and a 10% contingency, with a construction hard-cost breakdown roughly $15,000,000 for the addition and about $5,000,000 for renovation work. Sharp flagged several unusually large or optional line items: soil remediation/undercut estimated at about $1,200,000, a site drive extension of about $736,000, and $600,000 to replace firing-range mechanical/ventilation systems if the county elected to do that work now rather than later.

Sharp and Vernon said the team is at the end of schematic design, expects to enter design development with engineers next, and anticipates a bid package in July or August with construction lasting roughly 16–18 months if the project proceeds.

Magistrates’ questions and next steps: County attorneys and staff emphasized that the meeting was a presentation and that the court was not scheduled to take votes on the project that evening. Magistrates pressed architects on cost drivers, roof types, whether to build up or out, the condition of the existing range and HVAC systems, options to defer some renovation items, and whether antennas or a secondary dispatch had been accounted for; architects answered where data exists and said some equipment-level decisions remain to be coordinated with engineers and the police department. Several magistrates suggested taking the packet home, compiling questions, and reconvening a public meeting or a follow-up session for more detailed review. The architects agreed to provide electronic copies of the materials presented and to respond to follow-up questions.

What the county said it needs: Speakers repeatedly pointed to the department’s evidence-storage constraints, lack of a sally port, cramped interview and training space, and the operational inefficiency of maintaining five separate facilities. Chief Smith and other county leaders said consolidated space would improve operations and officer training.

What was not decided: The Fiscal Court did not vote on purchasing construction services, authorizing funding, or proceeding to construction at this meeting. Architects and staff said they will update cost and design details as they move into design development and after magistrates provide feedback.

Ending note: Architects told the court that, based on their analysis, adapting the existing Crestwood site and combining it with the new addition would likely be less costly than building an equivalent new facility at a different site, because the bought property already contains training infrastructure and range space. Architects and county staff agreed to provide further documentation and to schedule follow-up briefings for the magistrates.