Facilities committee weighs $2 million chiller upgrade versus smaller replacement as judges press for courtroom split

Champaign County’s Facilities Committee heard competing capital priorities Tuesday as staff and engineers laid out options to replace aging rooftop chillers and a feasibility study to divide an existing courtroom to give a recently added judge a dedicated space.

Jim Gleason of GHR Engineers told the committee the courthouse has two main rooftop chillers that are roughly 25 years old with a typical 20-year service life, and that the units are showing signs of failure. "The chillers that are up there are... They've been there for 25 years. Their service life is 20 years," Gleason said during the presentation.

Gleason described technical constraints: newer chillers are larger due to current efficiency and code requirements and will not fit on the existing curbs without structural work and re‑layout of equipment. He recommended phased work to replace one machine at a time in a shoulder season so the courthouse retains cooling during construction. He also estimated about 10 weeks of on-site work, a ~16-week equipment lead time and the need for a large crane for heavy lifts.

Staff and members discussed cost options. Committee presenters said a longstanding CARF line item for chillers listed $600,000, but that figure is outdated. Replacing the units with similar-capacity chillers while addressing spacing and curb enlargement is now likely closer to $750,000–$1,000,000; upgrading to units sized for a future courthouse expansion would increase the scope to about $2,000,000. One committee member summarized the trade-off: invest now to accommodate potential future expansion or do a smaller, cheaper replacement now and risk additional work if expansion occurs.

Members also reviewed a courtroom feasibility study that proposes dividing Courtroom F on the courthouse’s second floor so a recently added judge could have a separate courtroom. Carla Smalley of Bailey Edward presented the study and pointed to a cost estimate in the packet; the study authors characterized the cost estimate conservatively. A judge who addressed the committee said the current shared-courtroom arrangement is "miserable" and urged the board to move quickly or find creative funding. The judge added that splitting a courtroom could make the courtrooms adequate for another year to 18 months while longer-term expansion is planned.

Committee members were split on priorities: some viewed the courtroom split as the more urgent, emergent need for court operations; others cautioned that advanced investment in chillers could be wasted if a future expansion required removing the new equipment. Members repeatedly raised scheduling, bond costs, and the difficulty of construction in an occupied courthouse.

Rather than decide immediately, the committee asked staff to return next month with options that attempt to accommodate both priorities without substantially increasing CARF budgets for this year and next. Staff said they would model scenarios for a smaller replacement and for an upgrade sized for expansion, and outline which other courthouse CARF projects could be deferred to free funds.

Finally, staff noted that separate ARPA-funded HVAC controls work is already in progress and that facilities ARPA dollars are largely committed; some rebate funds from a green-energy project are being held to help offset demolition costs elsewhere in the facilities program.

Next steps: staff will prepare budget and phasing options for the committee to review at the next meeting.